This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
EXTERNAL WALLS General description
External walls in light steel framing are required to perform various functions in terms of their structural and building physics performance. These functions are: • • • • • • • • • • Resistance to vertical loads transferred from the floors and roof, depending on their orientation. Resistance to in-plane horizontal loads, and stability of the whole building Resistance to out of plane wind loads Support to cladding elements (depending on the type of cladding) Thermal resistance to direct heat losses. This is dependent on the type and location of the insulation, and the type of cladding Vapour resistance to reduce the risk of condensation This is also linked to the location of the insulation Air-tightness to reduce heat losses due to air leakage Acoustic insulation against external noise (often necessary in urban locations) Allow for installation of windows and doors, including correct detailing around these openings Allow for installation of electrical services and heating pipes
External walls generally comprise C-sections as wall studs at 400 to 600 mm spacing. The size of these sections ranges from 75 to 175 mm, depending on the load applied to them. The slotted stud has been developed in Scandinavia in order to reduce direct heat losses through the steel section. In this way, most of the insulation in the wall can be located between the studs, whilst not allowing excessive heat losses due to thermal bridging. In other countries, ”warm frame” construction is used, in which insulation is placed external to the frame. Various forms of constructions have been developed, in which some of the insulation is placed externally and some between the studs. In this case the correct position of a vapour barrier is important. Structurally, the resistance to vertical loads is assisted by the plasterboard, which stabilises the studs against buckling. This effect has been investigated in this research. More important is the resistance to in-plane loads due to diaphragm action, which is dependent on the rigidity of the board, spacing of the fixings and the dynamic of the load application. Various methods exist worldwide for this diaphragm action in low-rise buildings, and in some cases, bracing can be eliminated. Normally it is the horizontal deflection, which controls the design rather than the shear resistance of the diaphragm. Stabilising systems were also examined in Chapter 7, based on whole building performance. In many countries, brickwork is used as the façade, and the stabilising effect of the brickwork was also investigated by full-scale tests (see Section 7.3). Structural resistance can be improved by development of new composite steel- gypsum wall panels, which were investigated as part of this research. The thermal performance of the wall
panel was calculated by 3D analyses, which also included the effect of thermal bridging through the light steel components. A novel joining system was also developed. Acoustic insulation is also important for external walls, although it is only recently that regulations have been introduced to control passage of noise through external facades. Additional tests were carried out on acoustic insulation of lightweight external walls. This is also related to whole building performance presented in Section 7.4. This research has led to the development of new products based on composite action of light steel studs with other materials, notably gypsum board, and to an understanding of the interaction between these components.
Building physics performance of external walls
Description of the studied external walls
At the external wall structures of the demonstration house, thermal and hygrothermal calculations were carried out as well as acoustic measurements. Furthermore, the wall structure was compared to several alternative construction variants. Structures with standard C-profiles and with slotted C-profiles (Thermoprofiles) as well as combined steel- timber structures were included in this comparison. Figure 4.1 illustrates typical external wall elements used in the demonstration house. The external wall has the following structure: 12.5 mm ca. 0.2 mm 150 mm 12 mm 80 mm 8 mm gypsum plaster board vapour barrier (polyethylene plastic sheet) C-profile (C 150x70x15x1.5), axle distance a = 625 mm cavity insulation of mineral wool, λ = 0.04 W/(m⋅K) concrete chip board (Amroc Panel) external insulation of polystyrene, λ = 0.04 W/(m⋅K) mineral plaster
Figure 4.2 gives a survey of all considered external wall variants. The external wall of the demonstration house corresponds to Variant 2a.
Construction details of typical external wall elements of the demonstration house, Element LW 1.2 with two window openings and Element GWL 1.1 without windows
5 without external insulation Variant 2 C 150x70x15x1.Variants with standard C-profiles Variant 1 C 150x70x15x1. Figure 4. 3c) 140 mm external insul. 2b) 100 mm external insul.2 Schematic illustration of the tested external wall variants 4.314 W/(m² ⋅K). Nevertheless. . Slotting analogous to Rannila-Thermoprofiles Variant 4 Variant 5 Variants with steel-timber studs C 150x70x15x1.5 with 80 mm external insulation Steel-timber-stud with Variant 8 and an additional layer on 4 angels 35x35x15x1.3 shows results of three-dimensional calculations of thermal bridges for the external wall element in the form of room-side surface temperatures. filling of 8a) 150 mm height 4a) 30 mm air gap 8b) 200 mm height 4b) 30 mm insulation 8c) 250 mm height 4c) 60 mm insulation Steel-timber-stud with a Variant 9 C 150/200x70x15x1.5 200x15mm plywood beam with hut profiles and an additional layer on (d = 1. the high number of light steel profiles leads to an increase of thermal transmittance by ca. a = 400 mm) the room side on horizonon both sides tal hut profiles (d=1.5 the room side on horizonand a 15 mm plywood tal hut profiles (d=1. 3b) 120 mm external insul. 2c) 120 mm external insul.5 wit h 2a) 80 mm external insul. The thermal transmittance of the external wall reaches in the cavity a very low level of Ucavity = 0.2.5 without external insulation Variants with slotted studs Variant 6 Thermoprofile C 150x70x15x1. 90 %.5 with 50 mm cavity insulation and 3a) 100 mm external insul. filling of 5b) C 150 + hut 60 mm 9a) 30 mm air gap 5c) C 200 + hut 60 mm 9b) 30 mm insulation 9c) 60 mm insulation Figure 4. The mean U-value results correspond to Um = 0.5 mm.5 mm. 5a) C 150 + hut 30 mm a = 400 mm).2 of the demonstration house were examined by three-dimensional numeric calculations according to EN ISO 10211. Variant 7 Thermoprofile C 150x70x15x1.5 mm. The influence of window constructions or other bordering building elements was not considered.166 W/(m²⋅K).2 Thermal and hygrothermal properties The thermal properties of the external wall element LW 1. beam of a = 400 mm).5 with 80 mm external insulation Variant 3 C 150x70x15x1.
a = 375 mm 16.1 16.max [°C] fRsi= θsi. This also applies to the calculation of the minimum surface temperatures.86 1 2 3 4 exact 3D-calculation for the whole wall element 2D-calculation for a wall segment. Rsi =0.13 W/(m²⋅K).166 0. Stud distance Thermal transmittance for Rsi =0.250 0.109 Um [W/(m²⋅K)] 0.148 0.1 16.g.3 Calculated internal surface temperatures of the external wall element LW 1.1 . An exact determination of the mean U-value of a whole construction part with different distances of profiles and additional peripheral profiles cannot be carried out with simplified twodimensional calculations of wall segments. A comparison of the results of more exact 3D-calculations to simplified 2D-calculations can be seen in Table 4.2 (Variant 2a) on the basis of more exact 3D-calculations and simplified 2D-calculations Surface temperatures for θe=-5. θi = 20 °C. R si = 0. a = 625 mm 2D-calculation for a wall segment. Rse=0.084 0. e.5/19. that the mean value may differ due to different shapes of profiles.275 [-] 0.2/19.5/19. θi =20.It has to be considered. Figure 4.min/θsi.1 16.86 0.166 0.13 m²⋅K/W Comparison of calculated surface temperatures θsi .233 0.067 0.04 W/(m²⋅K) Ucavity [W/(m²⋅K)] 0. temperature factors fRsi. of a segment with 500 mm distance of profiles. a = 500 mm 2D-calculation for a wall segment.25 θsi.2 (Variant 2a) for the boundary conditions θe = -10 °C.5/19. min− θe θi − θe Table 4.1 No Calculation variant. and thermal transmittance U for the external wall element LW1.166 ∆U [W/(m²⋅K)] 0.3.314 0.166 0.85 0.86 0.
9 fRsi= θsi.207 5 13.181 0.08 W/(m²⋅K) Ucavity [W/(m²⋅K)] 0. temperature factors fRsi.6 18.0 17.6/19.9/18.88 0.0 14.213 0. min− θe θi − θe No Variant.1/18.250 0.249 0.5 without external insul.92 0. Figure 4.160 0.91 0.2 17.0 17.033 0.213 0.78 0.199 0.76 0.190 0.2 Calculated surface temperatures θsi .084 0.271 0. 2c) 120 mm external ins.9/19. Variant 4 C 150x70x15x1.243 0.94 2 3 4 17.038 0.614 0.110 0.1 15.121 0.1/19.86 0.424 0.146 0. Type of studs. Rsi =0.1/18.371 0.5/19.25 θsi. and additional layer 4a) 30 mm air gap 4b) 30 mm insulation 4c) 60 mm insulation Variant 5 C 150/200x70x15x1.164 0.92 0.061 0. hut profiles on both sides 5a) C 150 + hut 30 mm 5b) C 150 + hut 60 mm 5c) C 200 + hut 60 mm Variant 6 Thermoprofile C 150x70x15x1.5 with 80 mm external insul. Variant 8 Steel-timber-stud 8a) 150 mm height 8b) 200 mm height 8c) 250 mm height Variant 9 Steel-timber-stud 200 mm height with an additional layer 9a) 30 mm air gap 9b) 30 mm insulation 9c) 60 mm insulation Thermal transmittance for Rsi =0.310 0.2/19.153 0.3/18.228 0.213 [-] 0.229 0.93 0.7/19. 3c) 140 mm external ins.91 0.132 0.037 0.4/18.237 0.89 0.0/18.218 0.5/18.84 0.8/19.038 0.5 17.077 0.94 0. Thickness of external or internal insulation 1 Variant 1 C 150x70x15x1.2 0.2/19.5 demonstrates the dependence between sheet thickness of the C-profiles and the U value for the Variants 1 and 2a.249 0.5 without external insul.92 0.min/θsi.5 17. Rse=0.075 0. The calculations refer to a segment of a building element with 500 mm width (500 mm axle distance).5.040 0.74 0.13 W/(m²⋅K).9/19.9/18.068 0.4 shows that the U-value of external walls predomina ntly depends on the distance or share of profiles.334 0. Variant 3 C 150x70x15x1. 3b) 120 mm external ins.92 0.1 18.2 18.204 0.8 14.204 0.146 0.Table 4.88 0.142 0.057 0.5 with 80 mm external insul.028 0.2 shows a comparison of the thermal characteristics of all tested variants of external walls.190 6 7 8 9 . Variant 2 C 150x70x15x1.93 0.4/19.181 0.364 0.9 17.4/19. 2b) 100 mm external ins. For some selected variants.3 18.359 0. Variant 7 Thermoprofile C 150x70x15x1.166 0.5 with 2a) 80 mm external ins.238 0. θi =20.90 0.max [°C] 11.8 18.073 0.1 17. Table 4.221 0.8 18.219 0. and thermal transmittance coefficients U for the tested external wall variants at a spacing of a = 500 mm Surface temperatures for θe=-5.249 0.1/19.5 with 50 mm cavity insulation 3a) 100 mm external ins.044 0.7 0.89 0.025 0.142 0. Figure 4.238 0.1 16.192 ∆U [W/(m²⋅K)] 0.166 0.021 Um [W/(m²⋅K)] 0.4 16.2/18.64 0.181 0.153 0.
40 Variant 1 Variant 2a Variant 3a Variant 5a Variant 8 Variant 6 Variant 7 Variant 4a Variant 9 0.0.6 0. The results in Table 4.100 56 0. 2a.25 0. Opposite to that.10 0.25 0. The effect of the thermoprofiles is comparable to a ca. 6 and 7).20 0.36 W/m⋅K). there is a clear reduction of the thermal bridge effect (length-related thermal bridge loss coefficient at Variant 2 and 3: χ ≈ 0.15 70 1 2 5 250 375 500 625 750 875 1000 1125 1250 0.50 0.7 14 11.60 0.20 0.2 show that all surface temperatures and temperature factors except in Variant 1 are clearly above the minimum requirements valid in Germany according to DIN 4108-2 of θsi ≥ 12. The low thermal performance of such structures is shown in particular at Variant 6.40 0.8 2.02 .3 8 7 6. An additional external or internal insulation with secondary steel-profiles (e.2 5. At all variants the thermal transmittance depends mainly on the distance of profiles.70 0.0.45 0.2 9. walls with low thermal bridges show less dependence at the usual distance of studs.6 °C and fRsi ≥ 0. 30-35 mm thick external insulation.30 0.35 0.11 W/m² ⋅K). a = 500 mm On the basis of the prevailing examination results. The risk of condensation or mould at the surface of the building element can be rated on the basis of numerical calculations of the surface temperature.65 0.4 Figure 4.g.9 1.55 U m [W/m²K] 0.1 axle distance [mm] sheet thickness [mm] Figure 4.5 1.06 W/m⋅K).5 Dependence between the spacing/shape of profiles and the thermal transmittance Dependence between the sheet thickness of studs and the thermal transmittance (calculated for the Variants 1.15 Variant 1 Variant 2a Variant 6 Variant 7 U m [W/m²K] 0. Very low effects of thermal bridges are shown at steel-timber composite structures (length-rated thermal bridge loss coefficient at Variant 8: χ ≈ 0. Also for the variants with additional external insulation.08 W/m⋅K).35 0.30 0.70 respectively.2 1.50 28 percentage of steel profiles 18. Especially at the Variants 1 and 5 the thermal transmittance raises with decreasing distances of profiles. the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the thermal properties: Standard C-Profiles without additional internal and external insulation increase the thermal transmittance severely (length-related thermal bridge loss coefficient at Variant 1: χ ≈ 0. Thermoprofiles can reduce the heat flow via light steel profiles by about two thirds (length-related thermal bridge loss coefficient at Variant 6: χ ≈ 0. The thermal losses do not only depend on the spacing of profiles. hat profiles) has less effect since every metal element acts as a thermal bridge.45 0. but also on the sheet thickness.03 . Therefore there is no increased risk of condensation and mould at plain .
6).6 Glaser diagram and march of temperature in the cavity area of the external wall Variant 2a 4. If in individua l cases the requirements for external walls are over 50 - . 500 mm. normal climatic conditions in the room and a distance of profiles of ca. Consequently. 80 dB(A). The accuracy of these data is ± 2 dB. This requires as a precondition a construction providing tightness against vapour and air at all joints and gaps. a special installation level is recommended to be planned in front of the vapour barrier for services.3 Sound insulation tests The airborne sound insulation of the external wall for Variant 2a was measured at the demonstration house and in an acoustic laboratory according to EN ISO 140 and rated according to EN ISO 717. Table 4.3. Furthermore. 50 dB or higher are normally sufficient for residential buildings. For all the other variants. The quoted sound insulations are within a range of 47 to 59 dB. this structure is not fit to be used in residential buildings under the given climatic conditions.2) by calculations of vapour diffusion according to DIN 4108-3 (Glaser procedure.3 provides a survey of the sound insulation of the considered variants. Depending on the sound insulation of the windows. the vapour barrier guarantees the air tightness of the structure.external wall areas with this structure at an average outside temperature of -5 °C. The risk of interstitial condensation was checked at the example of Variant 2a (external wall element LW 1. The calculations did not show any risk of condensation provided a vapour barrier (e. PE-sheet) is installed on the room side.2. Values of ca. In order to avoid leakages in the area of openings for cables and pipes. Variant 1 does not satisfy the minimum requirements. Figure 4.g. sound protection requirements to facades can be satisfied up to an external noise level of ca. see Figure 4. The results of the field measurements are shown in Chapter 9. the sound insulation was estimated on the basis of experiences and comparisons with similar measured and studied constructions of light steel type or of wooden type.
5 with 50 mm cavity insulation 3a) 100 mm external insulation 3b) 120 mm external insulation 3c) 140 mm external insulation Variant 4 C 150x70x15x1.5 with 80 mm external insulation and additional layer 4a) 30 mm air gap 4b) 30 mm insulation 4c) 60 mm insulation Variant 5 C 150/200x70x15x1.5 with 80 mm external insulation Variant 8 Steel-timber-stud 8a) 150 mm height 8b) 200 mm height 8c) 250 mm height Variant 9 Steel-timber-stud 200 mm height with an additional layer 9a) 30 mm air gap 9b) 30 mm insulation 9c) 60 mm insulation Less sound insulation than Variant 2 due to missing external insulation Measured at the demonstration house (density of the glass wool cavity insulation ca. 27 kg/m³).5 without external insulation Variant 2 C 150x70x15x1. the sound insulation can be improved by a double layer of boards. insignificant influence of the external insulation to sound reduction Reduction of sound insulation compared to Variant 2 due to reduced cavity insulation 2 3 4 53 54 57 Slight to clear increase of the sound insulation compared to variant 2a by additional lining.5. by an additional lining or other measures.5 with 2a) 80 mm external insulation 2b) 100 mm external insulation 2c) 120 mm external insulation Variant 3 C 150x70x15x1.3 Sound insulation of the individual variants of external walls Weighted sound reduction index Rw [dB] 50 52 (Rw +C50-3150 = 49) 52 53 47 48 48 Hints No Variant. hut profiles on both sides 5a) C 150 + hut 30 mm 5b) C 150 + hut 60 mm 5c) C 200 + hut 60 mm Variant 6 Thermoprofile C 150x70x15x1.55 dB. Sound insulation depends mainly on the distance of the additional lining. Sound insulation mainly depends on the distance of the additional lining 6 7 8 9 . Type of studs. Table 4. Thickness of external or internal insulation 1 Variant 1 C 150x70x15x1.5 without external insulation Variant 7 Thermoprofile C 150x70x15x1. 5 55 57 59 52 54 52 54 55 55 56 59 High sound insulation by big distance of the planking and reduced acoustic coupling (elastic connection) Slight increase of sound insulation compared to Variant 1 by slotted profiles with lower stiffness Slight increase of sound insulation compared to Variant 2 by slotted profiles with lower stiffness Increase of sound insulation by raising distance of sheets Slight to clear increase of sound insulation compared to Variant 8a by the additional lining.
4. considering restraint from gypsum board.1]. 4. • To test different support conditions that may occur in practice. as well as deformation of fastenings. The width of the gypsum boards was 600 mm and the distance between the studs was 400 mm.3 4.1 Structural behaviour of walls with slotted studs Objective Longitudinal slots in light steel members reduce cold bridging through the webs. In this study [4. According to theory.7 Specimen used for compression tests Studs The slotted studs are illustrated.2 Specimen The tests were performed on 2. as shown in Figure 4.8. Figure 4.3.14]. the shear strength of the web strongly increased as local buckling of the small strips of metal between the slots is prevented because the buckling length of the small element is reduced. The distance between the screws was 300 mm.7. there are a number of objectives: • To check calculation methods for studs developed in the Swedish Code for LightGauge Metal Structures [4. as in Figure 4. Figure 4.7 mm steel of S250 strength.8 Slotted studs used in the tests .5 m long specimen with two slotted studs screwed to two end tracks and with both sides cladded with gypsum boards. but some also were made of 0. but also decrease the strength of the member. Most of the studs were made of 1 mm steel of S355 strength. shear deformation and reduced transverse bending stiffness of the slotted web.3. • To test a new pattern of slots developed by Plannja and made in a smaller-scale compared to existing patterns without increasing the cold bridge.
Figure 4. .11. for heat transfer reasons. except 1b.Tracks Tracks were made from 0.9. They also contribute to the load bearing capacity of the wall. NR1 to the left and NR 2 to the right Gypsum boards The gypsum boards are screwed to the flanges of the studs providing lateral support aga inst buckling. Figure 4. Though in reality it should have a slotted web. but this fact is not considered in the design. Two different kinds were used.9 Two types of web stiffeners used in test.7 mm strip steel. The plasterboards were fixed with 4 mm self-drilling screws. The gypsum boards used in the elements were 9 mm Gypsum board – GN-9 Screws The tracks and studs were screwed together with two 4 mm self-drilling screws with a very low square head in both flanges. as it was judged that this had no influence of the load bearing capacity. there was a 15mm gap between gypsum board and support. • In all tests.10 Screwing of studs to tracks Loading conditions and test specimen The different loading and support conditions are shown in Figure 4. as in Figure 4.10. see Figure 4. • In test 1a and 2a the gaps between stud end and track was 10 mm • In test 1b and 2b the gaps between stud end and track was 15 mm • In test 4a and 4b there was a 5mm gap between track and support • In all tests. the one used in this test was without slots. the gypsum board was screwed to the track. except 4a and 4b. End stiffeners End stiffeners were used to prevent local buckling of the slotted webs at the supports when testing with transversal loads.
1. two pieces of stronger gypsum board. Gap between stud and rail. therefore inducing a change in the positioning of that hinge. Figure 4. Transverse and axial load. 3. No gaps between steel sections. 7. as in Figure 4. with an exception for test number 5 which was intended to simulate eccentric load. 6. No gaps between steel sections. were placed between the UPE profile and the test specimens. 2.3. In order to simulate better the load transference from the walls to the floor. .12 Test rig for compression tests. No stiffener. Gap beetwen rail and floor. Gypsum board not screwed to rail. For the majority of the tests. 5. Regular. Gap between stud and rail. Screws in board and rail.13. Gypsum board screwed to rail. Stiffener. Gyproc Robust. No gaps between steel sections. No gaps between steel sections. as in Figure 4. Transverse and axial load. 4. Eccentric load. The deformations were measured in 22 points. Figure 4.11 Loading and support conditions for the compression tests 4.12.3 Testing Procedure The tests were performed in a horizontal test-rig. Gypsum board touches the floor. the hinge was situated in the centre of the UPE profile.
which could be observed by the progressive buckling of the webs of the studs. An explanation could be that the tilting caused eccentricity of the loading at the ends of the wall. Then the test specimen went slightly down causing the upper gypsum board to start to support load. see Figure 4.13 Measuring points for the tests Test 1a When loading. The failure load was 78. as in Figure 4. suggesting that the gap was too big. the gap between the stud and the track began to reduce. Some of the screws were pulled through the upper gypsum board.14 Test 1a Figure 4. much less than the capacity of the studs. The rails were very much deformed.Figure 4. . failed together with the upper gypsum board. as well as the upper part of the studs. The tracks were very much damaged in all the supports. from the loading cell side. The collapse load was higher than calculated for the studs alone. Both gypsum boards broke and all the screws that were connecting the rail to the board tilted. The wall was still able to support load.14. which started to deform side wards. The final collapse occurred when both studs.15 Test 1b Test 1b In this test there were no screws connecting the ends of the gypsum boards to the rails.15. until it finally collapsed due to the tilting of the screws.2kN for this case. The studs transferred the load locally through the flanges of the tracks. The ultimate load was 36 kN. and collapsed at around 17kN. Figure 4.
Test 2a This test was rather similar to test 1a. which reduced the load capacity.16. The ultimate load was high around 76 kN compared to earlier tests. implying also the breaking of the gypsum boards. the pull off of the screws can be observed. The closing of the gap during testing.0 kN. In further loading. The load at which this happened increased from around 17 kN in test 1b to 22 kN in this test. As in test 1b. induced the direct transference of load through the upper gypsum board till the ultimate failure. but even so the behaviour was similar. through the tilting of the screws. The collapse load was reduced to 68. there was some buckling of the flanges of the tracks at around 25 kN causing side movements that in its turn caused some minor eccentricity. and the deformations were much smaller.17. Figure 4. causing increasing buckling on its web. until the collapse load was reached. the flanges of the tracks also buckled. The test was performed ap twice. Test 3a There was no g between the studs and the bottom of the tracks. On the failure side.16 Test 2a atf failure Figure 4.17 Test 2b at failure Test 2b Screws between the gypsum boards and the track improve the resistance of the wall compared to test 1b. The maximum load in this test was 46.5 kN. The failure was local at the 4 supports. Figure 4. However. The lateral buckling could have given some eccentricity in the ends. as in Figure 4. the gypsum board transferred the loads directly to the supports. as in Figures 4.18 3a Collapse side Figure 4.18 and 4. The load was trans ferred straight to the studs. as in Figure 4. and severe damage in all the tracks. with similar loading conditions.19.19 Test 3a Damaged support .
Tests 4a and b These tests simulate the case with a soft insulatio n under the tracks creating a 5 mm gap nearest to the floor. The ultimate load. Tests 5a and 5b This test was performed with the same kind of wall element as the one used in test 3.20. the gypsum boards remained in good condition. When the gypsum board collapses. This happened at around 40 kN for test 4a with 0.23 Test 5b at failure . Gap closing Figure 4. as illustrated in Figures 4. but where the gypsum board touches the floor. this gap tends to disappear due to the compression force that is supported in the beginning by the gypsum boards alone. Though after testing all the supports were damaged. Figure 4.20 Test 4a. and was severely damaged. but with around 35 mm eccentric loading. As the loading started. Failure mode Failure was in both cases by buckling of the studs near one end. on which the failure did not occur. and the studs start to carry load. see Figure 4. The collapse loads were around 48 kN and 78 kN respectively for these two tests. were in perfect condition once the test was finished.21 Tests 4a and b. The supports.22 Test 5a at failure Figure 4.21.22 and 4. around 52 kN. the gap is closed as in Figure 4. The gypsum board at the buckling ends also collapsed. caused a local failure in one end in both tests.7 mm studs and around 45 kN for test 4b with 1 mm studs. Figure 4.23. The test was performed twice with two different stud thicknesses.
Undamaged supports. but the transverse loads were increased to 1. The axial compression loads at failure were 25.5 kN respectively.23 kN/m. The behaviour and the collapse mode was very similar. this time.26 Test 7a. Transverse load was combined with an axial force thickness. The ultimate transverse load was 0. as in Figure 4. Tests 6c and 6d The behaviour of these test specimens was similar to the above tests. Figure 4. stiffeners were used at the supports to keep the web of the studs straight. see Figure 4.23.25 Test 6a.24 Test 6a Mid-span collapse Figure 4. Test 7a This series of tests was similar to the series of test 6.82 kN/m and the axial load was 57.7 kN. For these tests. when the screws are pulled off through the gypsum boards with the collapse of both studs. behaved similarly to test 6.4 and 24. only with a very slight deformation of the tracks. However. Test 7a.Tests 6a and 6b These tests were performed with the same type of wall element as test 3.26. All the supports remained practically undamaged. The ultimate failure was sudden. Pull out of the screws . as in Figure 4. the global failure of the beam was 58 kN and 62 kN by major axis bending failure in mid span. Figure 4.82 kN/m.25. The failure was global and due to the transverse loading. but with also transverse loads of 0. that is by pull off of the screws without damaging the supports. causing no damage at the end supports.
Tests 7c and 7d These tests are similar to the previous tests. The ultimate failure was global.3. The distributed load at failure was 1.27. major axis bending and distortional buckling of flange lips. when major axis bending is the failure mode. The ultimate axial compressive load was 24.0. and the screws pulled off in the mid-span area.5 for the rest. The utilisation factor for shear failure is very small for the axially loaded specimens and less than 0. global failure in the form of major axis bending. as the values obtained for the utilisation factors – U – is slightly more than 1.9 kN respectively.Test 7b This test was made with 0. Failure at support NR 2 4. is usually very small and on the safe side. when the load was being placed. The gypsum boards buckled. slight yielding occurred on the north side. the tracks at the supports were very slightly deformed.7 and 23. but this time the pull off of the screws was smaller and the gypsum boards did not break. as in Figure 4. It shows that the difference between the values of the ultimate load. The final result was not much different. by the major axis bending. Figure 4.0 kN. the type of stiffeners was changed to type NR2. obtained by theoretical and experimental methods.1].4 summarises the calculations and the comparison with the experimental results assuming the studs resisted the entire applied load.4 Analysis of results The theory used to calculate the ultimate loads of walls with slotted studs is based on the Swedish Code for Light-Gauge Metal Structures [4. U2 and U3 – represent respectively. . In test 7c.27 Test 7d.7 mm studs and gave lower loads. Table 4. considering the shear deformation and the reduced transverse bending stiffness of the web. Failure occurred without any transverse load.23 kN/m and the axial load at failure was 24. but the same behaviour mode with mid span collapse. The utilisation factor presented in the table – U1. the utilisation factors for minor axis bending. In the test 7d.
was test 4a. . Especially low was the collapse load for the case of a 15 mm gap. The end stiffeners might. in which there was a larger deviation from theory on the safe side. as the failure was always global and not at the ends as in the case of pure axial loading. with the exception of test 1a. Also the deformations are much higher as the gaps closed before the studs can support the loads. the conclusion was that in the case of transversal loading it is not necessary to have stiffeners at the end supports.7 mm studs and resisted most of the applied loads. This eccentricity should normally not occur in a real building.The test. Tests 1 and 2 showed normally lower loads than calculated. The reason was lateral buckling locally at the ends that caused eccentric load at the ends. This depends on that the gypsum board was strong in comparison with the strength of the 0. however. Tests 3 and 5 with a direct loading transmission without gap from studs to support reached the calculated loads. Comparing results between tests 6 and 7. even if the failure mode was local failure. be of importance when the transverse load is large and the axial load is small.
56 28.827 0.38 q Ntheo Nexp/Ntheo U1 1.930 up 2621 0.12 35.87 12.934 0.920 0.05 0.05 23.105 Nexp/Ntheo U2 1.677 38.05 1.018 bending bending bending bending bending bending bending 2596 0.73 24.69 16.118 1.871 0.82 1.00 24.686 distorsional buckling Type of failure end failure end failure end failure end failure end failure end failure end failure end failure end failure end failure strong axis strong axis strong axis strong axis strong axis strong axis strong axis [kN/stud] [kN/m] U 39.948 up 2621 0.071 6 0.925 0.45 28.60 1.118 0.43 24.95 31.140 1.101 1.16 28.073 1.01 26.930 0.02 52.018 28.127 1.071 1.104 1.127 U3 1.641 1.944 0.441 1.449 1.24 37.393 1.23 1.704 0.4 Test results and comparison with theoretical values Test number 1 2 3 4 5 a b a b a b a b a b a b c d a b c d Gap or loading gap 10 mm gap 15 mm gap 10 mm gap 15 mm no gap no gap load on gips load on gips eccentric load eccentric load transverse load transverse load transverse load transverse load transverse load transverse load transverse load transverse load Position Span Thickness fyk flange b [mm] [mm] up 2616 0.930 342 47.094 1.413 1.110 1.650 0.097 1.60 23.00 68.83 78.137 1.31 57.119 0.668 0.80 23.05 25.82 0.930 mPa 342 342 347 343 348 342 250 342 338 342 342 342 334 342 342 342 342 Nexp Nexp [kN] 78.90 0.920 up 2616 0.90 37.056 1.03 77.23 1.094 0.046 1.923 0.635 1.151 1.151 1.450 1.686 0.017 1.065 1.00 34.91 48.47 26.23 7 23.30 1.930 0.930 0.95 35.041 1.020 1.23 36.10 52.680 1.018 1.567 0.65 35.15 0.522 0.57 1.044 1.100 18.90 62.Table 4.90 57.042 1.072 1.925 0.070 1.105 1.01 26.41 39.133 1.10 50.950 down 2596 0.01 36.066 24.00 49.930 0.48 46.05 1.05 26.126 1.686 0.871 0.125 1.75 28.23 0.85 28.043 37.100 0.930 down up down down up down up down down down down down 2606 2606 2596 2596 2596 2596 2596 2596 2596 2596 2596 0.141 1.760 0.920 0.453 1.75 1.564 34.152 1.924 23.82 1.80 75.132 1.095 1.127 1.514 0.938 down 2596 0.85 48.90 strong axis bending minor major axis axis bending bending .
2]. The three illustrations in Figure 4. Once this aim achieved. The most important point is to achieve a good adherence between plaster and steel [4. the sound reduction index of 140mm thick hollow block masonry wall has been measured before the addition of this cladding.29 Composite steel and gypsum board as a rigid wallboard Rigid wall covering systems can provide good acoustic insulation when used in the internal envelope of residential buildings in urban or industrial environments.4 4.5].28) or a composite steel and gypsum board as a sound insulation wallboard for masonry or concrete existing walls (Figure 4.30 Types of composite steel and gypsum board attached to a masonry wall .4.28 Composite steel and gypsum boards as a structural layer Figure 4.29) can be designed.30 show the different types of wallboards fixed as internal claddings to a traditional masonry walls.4. Figure 4.4]. 4. The acoustic tests in laboratory were carried out according to EN ISO 140-3 [4.4. Wallboards (type I) Wallboards (type II) Wallboards (type IIII) Figure 4.2 Acoustic insulation against airborne transmission Acoustic tests The concept of internal cladding based on easy-to-assemble composite steel and gypsum board (ribbed-profiled steel covered with plaster or plasterboard stack on the flat part of a wide steel profile) has been characterised for its sound insulation properties [4. In order to estimate the improvements that compound wallboards could bring to an existing masonry wall.3]. an external load bearing wall (Figure 4.2 can be used for the design of external walls [4.1 Composite steel and gypsum board for external walls Description The concept of composite steel and gypsum board presented in Section 5.
63mm. The thickness of steel is 0.5mm thick) are chemically stuck together with the steel sheet before erecting the wall.6 W/m2 K.6. . The modification of the cavity thickness corresponds to a modification of the web of the steel profile to increase its structural properties. Very good results are obtained by calculation compared to the measurements [4. Rw = 52 dB(A). the prediction can be compared to the reality. Boundary conditions are: θe = 0 °C. Wallboards (type II) are manufactured as follow : the steel sheet is perfectly flat between the special joining board shapes (Hairplan®) .6]. By using the results of laboratory tests.2 are listed in Table 4. The distance between two metal studs is 60cm for each type of boards. 4. Data used for the FEM analyses were taken from the Belgian norm NBN B62-002 [4. The table contains for 5 different values of the uninsulated wall the minimum inside surface temperatures (θ si min) and the corresponding temperature factors f0.7. The software may then be used to predict the acoustic behaviour of external walls including wallboards with different characteristics (Table 4. liquid plaster is applied on the ribbed surface before erecting the wall. he = 25 W/m2 K. The average thickness of the plaster layer is 15mm. The thickness of steel studs is 0. type II. Parametric analysis Thanks to a software called AcousSTIFF©.3 Heat transfer Heat transfer through composite steel and gypsum boards (type I. it is possible to predict the sound reduction index of multimaterial and multiple skin walls.4. as in Figure 4. using different thermal convectivities for the wall material without the composite board (uninsulated wall). Rw = 54 dB(A). θi = 20 °C. the basic wall needs a U-value lower than 1. Rw = 55 dB(A). The board is insula ted in the cavity using mineral wool. (dry) plasterboards (12.5mm thick) are chemically stuck together with the steel studs before erecting the wall. Wallboards (type III) are manufactured as follow : there is no steel between the special joining board shapes (Hairplan®) .2.140mm thick hollow block masonry wall: Rw = 45 dB (A) Wallboards (type I) are manufactured as follow : the steel sheet is longitudinally ribbed between the special joining board shapes (Hairplan®) .63mm.5).30) for external walls have been performed by means of numerical simulations with the Physibel© program [4. (dry) plasterboards (12. It can be concluded that to fulfil a temperature factor of 0. Simulations were performed for some U-values. These results show the possibility to increase the airborne sound insulation of a masonry wall in combination with the application of the lining material.4]. The data and results for the temperature factor f0. type III.4]. The thickness of steel is 1mm. hi = 5 W/m2 K.
73 13.5 2 × 15 2 × 18 Steel thickness (mm) 1 0.5 1 × 15 1 × 18 2 × 12.13 1.08 9.24 0.5 2.93 0.0 1.69 0.05 0.5 1 × 12.61 1.63 0.86 0.75 0.67 0.46 wall insulated with wall insulated with board type II board type I θ si min [°C] f 0.17 0.63 0.60 17.75 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.8 1.77 0.63 0.63 0.79 14.52 The data and results for the U.63 0.52 1.79 0.65 0.63 0.2 17.2 0.42 0.7.values are shown in Table 4.93 0.2 1.63 0.00 0.5 2 × 15 2 × 18 1 × 12.59 10.5 1 × 12.78 0.85 0.2 1.5 1 × 12. parametric analysis Plaster thickness (mm) 15 1 × 12.58 11.5 1 × 12.57 0.90 17.31 0.57 0.5 1 × 12.63 0.71 1 3.58 0.65 11.1 0.01 0. Table 4.5 1 × 12.82 0.63 1 3.1 0.13 12.5 1 × 12.09 0.63 1.87 16.5 1 × 15 1 × 18 2 × 12.64 .73 0.13 10.66 13.5 1 × 12.08 1.67 2 4.41 0.63 0.40 0.2 θ si min [°C] f 0.36 0.13 0.77 0.63 0.2 0.83 15.53 2 4.25 0.67 0.63 0.14 0.63 0.41 0.7 U-values as a function of the U-value of the uninsulated wall uninsulated wall wall insulated with wall insulated with wall insulated with (15 cm) board type III board type II board type I λ [ W/mK] U [W/m2K] U [W/m2K] Rsuppl U [W/m2K] Rsuppl U [W/m2K] Rsuppl 0.63 Rw (dB) 45 (45) 55 (55) 54 (54) 55 56 56 55 55 57 58 58 54 55 55 52 (52) 53 54 55 53 55 57 58 58 (Values between brackets are measured values) Type of wall Cavity thickness (mm) 140 mm masonry 140 mm masonry + type I 40 140 mm masonry + type II 40 60 80 100 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 140mm masonry + type III 40 60 80 100 40 40 40 40 40 Table 4.63 0.13 0.59 0.61 0.26 0.09 15.63 0.5 1 × 12.55 1.5 2.88 0.61 0.6 f-values as a function of the U-value of the uninsulated wall uninsulated wall wall insulated with (15 cm) board type III λ [ W/mK] U [W/m2K] θ si min [°C] f 0. The table contains also the supplementary thermal resistance brought by the thermal insulated (Rsuppl).42 0.62 0.Table 4.63 0.5 Acoustic insulation.
The risk of interstitial condensation can be rated by calculations of vapour diffusion. Three-dimensional calculations of thermal bridging are necessary if the studs or other wall structures are inhomogeneous not only transversally but also longitudinally.5. The real additional resistance of the systems is only 60 to 80 % of this value.and three-dimensional calculations according to EN ISO 10211 are appropriate. The average thermal transmittance results from the calculated heat flows. steel studs act as thermal bridges and can lead to increased transmission heat losses and to lower surface temperatures on the room side. An improvement could be the installation of a continuous thermal insulation layer between the studding and the wall. the higher the additional thermal resistance is.5.6 °C for normal climate conditions in the room (θi = 20 °C. there should not be any vapour tight layers.value.2 Hygrothermal functionality In order to avoid interstitial condensation. It means that the thermal bridge effect becomes lower when the systems are applied on walls with a lower U. a two-dimensional calculation is sufficient for a typical section of the wall structure. In order to reduce the effects of thermal bridging.Use of slotted studs (thermo profiles) .5 4. 40 mm recommended) . The influence of metal thermal bridges have to be considered for rating the thermal transmittance of external walls. 4.02 m2 K/W. This could give satisfying results both concerning the surface condensation risk and the thermal transmittance level. e. In residential buildings.Maximising of the stud spacing .1 Design tools and recommendations Design of external walls with steel studs 4. the following measures are appropriate for external walls with steel profiles: .The efficiency of the thermal insulation is poor. PE sheet.Use of composite profiles.5. the minimum surface temperature should be θsi ≥ 12.g. The lower the U value of the basic wall is. ϕi = 50 %).1.or threedimensional numeric calculations of the surface temperature according to EN ISO 10211 or by measurements of the surface temperature. . In most cases. On the outside.1 Reduction of the effect of thermal bridging At external walls.g. a vapour barrier is normally required on the room side of dry composite external walls. e. The risk of condensation and mould growth on the inner surface is rated by two. The resistance of the additional undisturbed insulation is 1. Two.1. of steel and plywood 4.Additional external insulation (min.
connecting material) .7] are influenced. material distance of studs distance and mass of additional external lining. thickness of boards. therefore other building elements or services passing through this sheet should be avoided. insulation Figure 4. 4. On the outside of the external wall.1.31 Factors that influence to sound insulation of metal stud walls The sound insulation of metal stud walls can be improved by different measures: . flow resistance distance of planking boards number of layers type of studs connection.3 Air and wind tightness The vapour barrier on the inside guarantees the air tightness at the same time.possible additional linings on the external side or the room side of the wall Furthermore it has to be considered that the sound insulation of facades is not only determined by the quality of the external wall. type of material. but also in particular by windows and possibly other building elements such as.4. density.1. direct tightening or tightening on laths distance and mass of additional internal lining. the rouleau boxes or ventilation openings.4 Acoustic performance The sound insulation properties of metal stud walls [4. The airtight sheet must not have any leakages or openings. type of planking tightening. a wind tight layer has to be used in order to protect the thermal insulation against the flow of cold air from outside. The resulting sound insulation of the whole system can be calculated by the sound reduction indices of the individual building elements and their areas. properties of insulation mass per unit area thickness. Figure 4.insulation material in the cavity (type of material.wall thickness/distance of boards . by the following factors: . number of boards .stiffness of the connection between both leaves (type and distance of studs. in particular.5.5.material properties of planking.31 shows the most important factors influencing the sound insulation of metal stud walls with gypsum boarding. filling ratio of the insulation material) .
e. among others.g. but on additional resilient elements. For a natural frequency of f0 = 85 Hz. The appropriate materials are the usual boards up to a thickness of ca. of concrete fibre boards d ≤ 10 mm. The mass per unit area must be as high as possible. but resilient. The natural frequency is determined by the span of the layers and the mass of the boarding and should be f0 ≤ 85 Hz (even better f0 ≤ 50 Hz).3. Recommendations: Thickness of gypsum boards/chip boards d ≤ 20 mm. by its natural frequency. the wall boards must not be stiff in the acoustic sense. the value is: m' ⋅ s ≥ 1. Recommendations: Recommended spaces between layers ≥ 125 mm for single-boarded walls ≥ 60 mm for double boarded walls Connection between the boarding The studs where the boarding is fixed act as sound bridges. Sound insulation can be improved by an acoustically soft (resilient) connection. Therefore the use of heavier boards is more appropriate than the use of light boards. At f0 = 50 Hz. on an insulation layer or on spring elements Use of thermoprofiles. chip boards etc. 20 mm. the sound insulation is better than the one of one. sheet steel or glass. gypsum fibre boards. A lower thickness applies to concrete fibreboards.leaf elements is influenced. of sheet steel ≤ 2 mm Double.layer boarding Possibly additional mass of boarding Span of boards The airborne sound insulation of two. the following relation is recommended: m' ⋅ s ≥ 1 where m' = mass per unit area [kg/m²] and s = distance [m].leaf elements of the same weight. Only above its natural frequency. if necessary acoustically optimised profiles (acoustic studs) . Recommendations: Increase the spacing of studs Increase the spacing between the boarding layers No direct fixing of the boarding. gypsum boards.Wall Boarding In order to obtain a good sound insulation.
An additional lining on the room side of the external wall is also benefical. and a transverse load. Several types of failure modes have been observed in tests (see Figure 4. Failure under concentrated force. the cavity is filled with sound absorbent material.2 Design of external walls with slotted studs Failure modes The slotted stud (see Figure 4. For renewed facade external insulation of polystyrene or mineral wool. 3.32b)). 60 mm. filling of the additional cavity with absorbent insulation material 4. which is either uniformly distributed or may be concentrated at several points (see Figure 4.5. Recommendation: Use of fibrous insulation material with a high flow resistance or high density Additional lining on the external and the internal side An additional external insulation.Cavity insulation In order to improve sound insulation. In all modes. Failure due to support reaction. Here the sound insulation is directly dependent on the flow resistance of the insulation material or its density. .32d)): 1. 2. a curtain wall or an external brick wall can influence the sound insulation of external walls. 5. The best improvement is achieved by heavy facade walls and a sound absorbent insulation in the cavity of the wall. shear deformation of the slotted web and reduced transverse bending stiffness of the web influence the resistance of the stud. Recommendation: Heavy curtain wall on the external side. 7. Flexural buckling in the plane of the web. which might again lead to a reduced sound insulation. Distortional buckling of the flange lips. elastified insulation systems are recommended. 6. normally fibrous insulation material.32a) and c)). An insulation of the whole space of the cavity is not advantageous since the insulation material can lead to the connection of the two planking layers. is subject to an axial load which may be applied eccentrically. such as mineral wool or glass wool. Lateral buckling of flanges in compression. Failure at the supports due to axial force. Shear failure of the slotted web. filling of the cavity with absorbent insulation material External insulation (composite systems for thermal insulation) of elastified insulation material Additional internal layer with distance of ca. 4.
Later on.fslot dslot gslot a) eslot /2 lslot fmM M Figure 4. Design Methods Due to the slots. Model for determination of shear deformation of the slotted web. Shear deformations of the web Shear deformations of the slotted web give rise to longitudinal displacement of the flanges. b) loading. design was mainly based on tests. as in Figure 4. c) slots.34. which can be deformed in shear (the slotted part of the web). analytical models. were developed. d) failure modes.bo N co so to b) L bslot htot q N tu su cu bu c) 5 d) 4 2 6 7 3 1 Figure 4. At first.34. [4. This causes bending of the C sections comprising the flanges and the nonslotted parts of the web. which are in good agreement with tests so far performed. a) cross section. as other types of failure must be considered in design.33).33. Conventional design methods are not applicable.8].9]. Local buckling is allowed for by the effective thickness concept. the stiffness and resistance of the web are considerably reduced. They are based on the theory of beams composed of two parts (the flanges and the adjacent non-slotted part of the web) connected by an element.32 Slotted stud. cslot hslot cslot /2 . This model is confirmed by tests [4. as shown in Figure 4. with increased stress at the extreme fibres and reduced stress in the web where it joins the slotted part. A model for determination of the shear modulus of the slotted web is developed [4. eslot .8]. where the slotted part of the web is considered as a frame system (see Figure 4.
additional bending stresses are introduced in the flanges of a stud in bending (see Figure 4. the stresses in the flanges are used (Point 1 and 4 in Figure 4. In the case of punched slots. Due to the shear deformations.35 Forces acting upon the sheeting strips (crosshatched) between the slots. (See also Figure 4. 4 3 2 1 a b c Figure 4. shear failure m occur due to flexural buckling or lateral ay torsional buckling of the strips of sheeting between the slots.10]).36(a)). which can be deformed in shear.9].f slot 2 h slot d slot g slot fslot M fm M lc Figure 4. The formulae used are the same as used for e. When checking the resistance for different failure modes. and every other by a tensile force and bending moment.Influence of shear deformation of the slotted web Due to shear deformation of the slotted web.g.34). After buckling. sandwich panels and composite timber beams (see [4. Influence of web shear deformation on bending stress in flanges Shear strength of slotted web The shear strength of the slotted parts is determined by calculation or by testing. Alternate strips are subject to a compressive force and bending moment. b) the slotted part of the web and c) the bottom flange and adjacent non-slotted part of the web. This system is assumed to act as a beam comprising of two parts connected by elements. The slotted stud is divided into three parts: a) upper flange and adjacent non-slotted part of the web forming a channel section.35. c slot c slot . crosshatched in Figure 4. To the right. tensile e slot . the shear force in the slotted web is almost always smaller than the transverse force.34. The C sections comprising the flanges and the non-slotted parts of the web carry the difference in shear force.34). cross-section with cut slots. A testing procedure is presented in [4.
But the influence of the gypsum board depends on the pullout resistance of the screw connections. In the case of punched slots these end stiffeners can tightly surround the web end. [4. the sheets make some contribution to the shear force resistance. which has smaller moment resistance and axial force resistance than the channel section. Tensile failure can also occur at stress concentrations when slots are not punched. the cross section of the sheeting strips between the slots are C shaped. due to the fact that bending stiffness. especially across the web. The contribution due to the gypsum board is not taken into consideration.36(b)). To a very l cal extent. at the ends of the slots the channel shaped section gradually changes into an angle shaped section. (a) large slots and (b) small slots. resistance is governed by yielding. which is dependent on workmanship.36 Deformation of webs in shear.35).9]. shear failure occurs after extensive global shear buckling of the web (see Figure 4. . However. The stiffness of these strips is so large that flexural or lateral-torsional buckling does not occur. When there are small punched slots and there are no longitudinal web stiffeners. In the case of cut slots. buckling at the ends of the slots may even give rise to redistribution of o stresses and accelerate yielding. The slots considerably reduce buckling stress. (a) (b) Figure 4. Here. The shape of the end stiffeners at the supports is significant for the lateral force resistance at the supports. Since the elastic shear buckling stress is low. In finished walls with sheets of gypsum board on both sides. is steeply reduced. the post-buckling range is large. Local lateral buckling of free sheeting strips between slots is prevented. except at the ends (see to the right in Figure 4.failure may occur in the second strip. The ends of the slots may have a sharp corner which initiate yield.
they are checked individually. 4 c 3 2 c Figure 4. the sheets will be axially loaded. where the modulus of elastic foundation is represented by springs corresponding to the fasteners (see Figure 4. Concentrated force A concentrated force in the span can result in local failure. which has little ability to resist transverse force in the plane of the web.38 and increases compressive stresses in the loaded flange below the concentrated load. This inward deflection results in a positive curvature at point 1 in Figure 4. but it also results in negative curvature at point 2 some distance from the point of application of the load. The lateral buckling load is then in most cases dependent on the shear stiffness of the fasteners. .11].Lateral buckling The flanges are usually braced laterally as in Figure 4. 1 Model for lateral buckling of slotted stud supported by gypsum boards. Resistance is governed by the combination of the concentrated load and the compressive force in the gypsum board. the flange loses its lateral support with immediate failure as the result. Frederiksen and Spange (1992) [4. The minimum buckling load for a bar on an elastic foundation is: N cr = 2 cEI where buckling take place in several waves.37 by sheets of gypsum board. As the width of the flanges are not necessarily the same. as shown in Figure 4. and the negative curvature near the concentrated load may therefore give rise to tensile failure in the screw attachments. unless transverse stiffeners are used. Compressive forces in the sheets of gypsum board may cause loss of attachment between the sheets and the stud. The shear modulus of the fastener is about 500 – 1000 N/mm for ordinary gypsum boards and is determined by tests. The design model is based on the theory of a bar on an elastic foundation c. The moment resistance is reduced when a concentrated load is applied.37).37. Even if no consideration is given to the fact that the sheets of gypsum board can resist some compressive and tensile force. The loaded flange deflects inwards towards the slotted part of the web.36. why c corresponds to the elastic foundation from the row of fastener in one gypsum board.
Positive curvature at 1 and negative curvature at 2. Distortional buckling of flange edge stiffener The slotted web has very small transverse flexural stiffness. were completely rigid the effective length of the flange stiffener would be half the distance between the screws.A calculation model. I u and I o correspond to the two flange parts. Flexural buckling in the plane of the web Consideration to the shear deformation in the slotted web is taken through the expression: N cr = 1 1 1 + N E GA where: NE = π 2 EI x L2 GA = Gck ht t Gck is the reduced shear modulus for the slotted web. and also the sheets of gypsum board. N cr is not smaller than: N cr = π 2 ( EI u + EIo ) L2 I x corresponds to the entire section except the slotted part of the web. when the flange undergoes torsion. Due to flexibility. is therefore negligible. is used which estimates the additional stresses due to local bending under point 1 in Figure 4. If the screw attachments. F 2 1 Figure 4. The screws in the gypsum board therefore mainly prevent buckling of the flange stiffener. Even in this . based on the theory for a beam on an elastic foundation. compare Figure 4.38 Bending of the flange (thick line) and the gypsum board (two lines) due to a concentrated load. The restraint provided by the web. mainly slip in the screw attachments. However.38. the effective cross section and the reduction factor according to curve (a) for flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 is used.32a. In calculating the resistance. the effective length is greater.
the rigidity of the flange-to-track connection is small. failure often occurs at the supports. . [4.32a). [4.13] the effective length was determined to be lc = 0.12]. This load resistance can be reached even if there is a small gap between the stud and the rail (see Section 4. This rigidity is found by testing.85cscrew for buckling at the supports.40). do not seem to be necessary for axial loading. where cscrew is the spacing of screws. Based on tests. When the flange is checked for buckling. (See Figure 4.ef lc t k.40.ef cscrew Figure 4. as shown in Figure 4. Support strength The slotted stud is fixed to tracks at the ends. in this case the modulus of elastic foundation depends on the pullout rigidity of the fasteners.39 is used in calculating the cross section area. tf. For axial loading.39 bo / 2 Effective length and effective cross section of flange edge stiffener. corresponding to (co + bo /2)t in Figure 4.72cscrew for buckling in the span. and there is more or less a simple support of the flange. is used to calculate the flexural stiffness.case the model of a bar on an elastic foundation is used. However. The resistance to distorsional buckling at the ends calculated with the method given above seems to give reasonable results compared to tests.40 Examples of stud and rail connections. Figure 4.37). However. The buckling length is therefore found to be about lc = 0. usually with two or four screws in both flanges (see Figure 4. One condition is that the gypsum boards are also fixed to the track.3). Stiffeners. but the gross cross section. the effective cross section according to Figure 4.
In this case. [4. [4. Research and Development of Cockerill-Sambre. [4. Liège. [4.2] Pre-study report. Research and Development of Cockerill-Sambre. D Figure 4. 40mm for the cavity D. [4. Calculation of the heat transmission coefficients of walls.6] Belgian Code.5. In Section 4.6 – 0. Swedish Code for Light Gauge Metal Structures 79. 12. Mechanical adhesion of plaster on steel profiles and structural tests on composite steel and gypsum boards.6 W/m2 K is required for the basic wall to reach a minimum value of 0.2.7 for the temperature factor f0. .Part 3: Laboratory measurement of airborne sound insulation of building elements. nor if there were any stiffeners at all. The additional thermal resistance is in the range 0.41 plaster Composite steel and gypsum board as a rigid wallboard For instance. Research and Development of Cockerill-Sambre. Liège. no stiffeners seem to be needed.Measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements .g. References to Chapter 4 [4. e. (1979).8 m2 K/W depending on the thermal conductivity of the external wall. Concerning heat and mass transfer.5] ISO 140-3. 4. Concept of composite steel and gypsum boards.4] Study report.63mm for steel thickness.3] Study report.5mm for the plaster thickness. 2001. Acoustics . Composite steel and gypsum boards for external walls. stiffeners might be of importance whe n the transverse loading is large and the axial load is small or none. The basic parameters to consider are 0. So in a wall.4 it was observed that there were no failure at the ends and there were no difference in failure load with different type of stiffeners. Liège. However.For a stud object to transverse loading. 1998.1] StBK-N5.40) is needed to avoid a web crippling type of failure.3. [4. a maximum U-value of 1. stiffeners seem to be necessary if the loading may result in shear failure. an increase of about 10 dB for Rw can be obtained on a hollow block wall presenting an initial Rw of 45 dB. In a wall. NBN B62-002.13]. when the stud is used as a roof purlin.3 Composite steel and gypsum board for external walls The composite steel and gypsum board can be added on external wall in order to improve acoustic insulation in certain environments. 2001. 2001. the transverse loading (wind load) usually have small influence compared to the influence of the axial loading. a stiffening plate wrapped around the web end (see the design to the right in Figure 3.
(1995). J. [4. Design of slotted light gauge studs. Stockholm. Compendium in Lightweight Construction.13] Borglund. Höglund. (1996). Bundesarbeitskreis Trockenbau. [4. SVE . Department of Steel Structures Structural Engineering. [4. (In German).7] BAKT-Report SS5 (2001). Royal Institute of Technology. and Jonsson. [4. and Spange. Royal Institute of Technology. Report 54. (1998). (In Danish). Stockholm. Strength of Slotted Steel Studs. Department of Structural Engineering. [4. Department of Structural Engineering.[4.10] Norlin. J. Hørsholm. (In Swedish). Danogips steel construction system. T. Stockholm. Sound insulation of metal stud walls with gypsum boards. [4. Master Thesis 127. J. Berlin.9] Thöyrä.12] Kesti. Department of Structural Engineering. B. Royal Institute of Technology.14] da Costa. . Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory of Steel Structures.T. T. Investigation of resistance of lightweight external walls. (In Swedish). . H. (1997).8] Höglund.11] Frederiksen. Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm [4. Department of Structural Engineering. Bulletin 65. (2001). Royal Institute of Technology. Espoo. Resistance of slotted steel studs. Royal Institute of Technology. Marta Marques (1999) Support Strength of walls with slotted studs. Stockholm. O. Department of Structural Engineering. Local and Distorsional Buckling of Perforated Steel Wall Studs.A computer program for the analysis of beams of two parts and an elastic shear medium. I. Publication 19. Incomplete interaction in laminated timber beams. (2000).(1992). MSc thesis 84. Institute of Building Technology.
UK Rautarukki OY. Tarmo Mononen.ECSC STEEL RTD PROGRAMME project carried out with a financial grant of the European Coal and Steel Community Development of Dry Composite Construction Systems Based on Steel in Residential Applications FINAL REPORT Executive Committee Contract Number Contractors F6 7210-PR-115 Plannja AB. Belgium VTT. Finland and others 1 July 1998 1 July 2001 Sub Contractors Co-ordinator Authors Commencement Date Completion Date . Finland Ekostahl GmBH. SCI. UK Mr Richard Kergen. UK 3L – Plan. Cockeril Sambre. Luleå Technical University. Sweden Mr Jan Strömberg. Sweden Ceram Research. Rautarukki. Plannja AB. Finland Prof Bernt Johansson. Germany Technical University of Lulea.-Ing Jyri Nieminen.-Ing. UK University of Liege. Sweden(Co-ordinator) Steel Construction Institute. Belgium University of Cottbus. Germany Cockerill Sambre. Germany Jan Strömberg. Belgium Dr Alkistis Moutafidou. Plannja AB. UK Corus R. VTT. Sweden Dr Mark La wson. Finland University of Edinburgh. EKO Stahl GmBH Dipl. D & T. Sweden Dipl.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.