LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF COLD-FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS

A MASTERS THESIS
in
Civil Engineering
Atilim University

by
HSEYN AATAY ALICA
MARCH 2013

LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF COLD-FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
ATILIM UNIVERSITY
BY
HSEYN AATAY ALICA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MARCH 2013

ii

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Atilim University.

_____________________
Prof. Dr. brahim Akman
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master
of Science.

_____________________
Prof. Dr. Ali Gnyakt
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read the thesis Lateral Load Behavior of ColdFormed
Steel Wall Panels submitted by Hseyin aatay Alca and that in our opinion it is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

_____________________

_____________________

(Title and Name)

Assist. Prof. Dr. Eray Baran

Co-Supervisor

Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Assist. Prof. Dr. Eray Baran

_____________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Burcu Gne

_____________________ Assist.

Prof. Dr. Ouz Gne

_____________________

Date: 19/03/2013

I declare and guarantee that all data, knowledge and information in this document has
been obtained, processed and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical
conduct. Based on these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material
and results that are not original to this work.

Hseyin aatay Alca

ii

ABSTRACT
LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF COLD-FORMED STEEL WALL PANELS
Alca, Hseyin aatay
M.S., Civil Engineering Department
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Eray Baran
March 2013, 68 pages
In this thesis, lateral load behavior of cold-formed steel (CFS) wall panels was
investigated. For this purpose full-scale CFS wall panel specimens were tested
experimentally. Measured load capacity of wall panels were also compared with
numerically predicted values.

Experimental part of the study included monotonic lateral load testing of twenty one
CFS wall panels. Wall panels were sheathed with oriented strand board (OSB),
fibercement and betopan panels. Influence of additional parameters, such as sheathing
panel thickness, screw spacing, CFS section size, existence of diagonal struts and
double-sided sheathing was also investigated. Using the information obtained from
load tests, the lateral behavior of the wall panels was studied and the differences and
similarities in the response of these panels were investigated. Response of wall panels
under lateral loading was determined to be directly related with the behavior of the
hold-down attachment used at the base of panels. In most of the specimens tested in

iii

this study, the strength and stiffness of the hold-down attachment prevented the wall
panels to reach the expected strength and stiffness levels. Among the parameters
investigated in this study the one that had the most significant effect on the behavior of
wall panels was the screw spacing used at exterior framing members. Between the cases
of 15 cm and 30 cm screw spacing, the increase in load capacity of wall panels was
between 37% and 85% depending on the type and thickness of sheathing panel.

Keywords: Cold-formed steel, wall panel, load testing

Z
HAFF ELK DUVAR PANELLERNN YATAY YK ALTINDA
DAVRANII
Alca, Hseyin aatay
Yksek Lisans, naat Mhendislii Blm
Tez Yneticisi: Yrd. Do. Dr. Eray Baran
Mart 2013, 68 sayfa
Bu almada hafif elik profillerden hazrlanan duvar panellerinin yatay yk etkisi
altndaki davran incelenmitir. Bu amala hazrlanan duvar paneli numuneleri
zerinde statik ykleme deneyleri yaplmtr. Duvar panellerinin llm olan yk
kapasiteleri saysal olarak tahmin edilen kapasitelerle de karlatrlmtr.
almann deneysel ksmnda 21 adet hafif elik duvar paneli zerinde monotonik
ykleme deneyleri yaplmtr. Hafif elik panellerin kaplamas iin OSB, fibercement
ve betopan paneller kullanlmtr. alma kapsamnda incelenen dier parametreler;
kaplama panelinin kalnl, vida aral, hafif elik profil boyutu, panel ierisinde
aprazlarn bulunup bulunmay ve panellerde ift veya tek tarafl kaplama
bulunmasdr. Ykleme deneylerinden elde edilen bilgilerle, bu parametreler altnda
duvar panellerinin davranndaki benzerlik ve farkllklar incelenmitir. Duvar paneli
numunelerinin davrannn byk lde, ekme ankraj aparatnn davran
tarafndan belirlendii ortaya kmtr. alma kapsamnda test edilen numunelerin
ounluunda ekme ankraj aparatnda oluan hasardan dolay duvar panelleri

iv

ulamalar gereken yk kapasitesi ve rijitlik seviyelerine ulaamamlardr. almada

incelenen parametrelerden, duvar panellerinin davran zerinde en byk etkiye sahip
parametrenin kaplama paneli ile d hafif elik profiller arasnda kullanlan vidalarn
aral olduu belirlenmitir. Vida aralnn 30 cm yerine 15 cm kullanlmas
durumunda, kaplama eidi ve kalnlna bal olarak, duvar panellerinin yk
kapasitesinde %37 ile %85 arasnda art olmutur.
Anahtar kelimeler: Hafif elik yaplar, duvar paneli, ykleme deneyi

To My Parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express sincere appreciation to my supervisor Assist. Prof. Dr. Eray Baran for his
guidance and insight throughout the research. This thesis would not have been possible
without his support.

I would like to thank my professors in Civil Engineering Department at Atilim

University.

Structural Mechanics Laboratory personnel and fellow graduate student Metin

Kurtoglu helped me during the laboratory tests with patience. I would like to thank for
their assistance and friendship.
Thanks also go to my company Bade Celik Yapilar for supporting my Master of
Science study.

Finally I would like to thank my family for their endless love, faith and support.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1

1.1 Historical Background of Cold-Formed Steel Structures ................................. 1
1.2 Construction Procedure of Cold-Formed Steel Structures ............................... 2
1.3 Statement of Problem ..................................................................................... 4
1.4 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Research Methodology ................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 6
2.1 Researches on CFS Shear Wall....................................................................... 6
2.2 Researches on Screw Connection ..................................................................10
2.3 Researches on CFS Studs ..............................................................................10
CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ..........................................................13
3.1 Specimens .....................................................................................................14
3.2 Test Setup .....................................................................................................16
3.3 Deformation Modes.......................................................................................18
3.3.1 Unsheathed CFS Frame Specimens.........................................................18
3.3.2 OSB Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens .....................................................18
3.3.3 Fibercement Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens .........................................20
3.3.4 Betopan Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens ...............................................23
3.4 Load-Deflection Behavior .............................................................................24
3.4.1 Effect of Channel Height ........................................................................25
3.4.2 Effect of OSB Sheathing Thickness ........................................................27
3.4.3 Effect of Screw Spacing .........................................................................29
3.4.4 Effect of Existence of Diagonal Struts ....................................................30
3.4.5 Effect of Double-Side Sheathing .............................................................32
3.4.6 Effect of Sheathing Material ...................................................................33
CHAPTER 4. NUMERICAL STUDY .................................................................36
4.1 Screw Tilting Strength ...................................................................................36
4.2 Bearing Strength of Steel Sheet .....................................................................36
4.4 Bearing Strength of Sheathing Material .........................................................37
4.3 Load Capacity of OSB Sheathed Wall Panels ................................................37
CHAPTER
5.
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
........................41
5.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................41

vii

5.2 Recommendations .........................................................................................43

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................44
APPENDIX. DETAILS OF LOAD TESTS .........................................................47

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Specimen designation ............................................................................14

Figure 3.2. Specimen details ...................................................................................15
Figure 3.3. CFS section dimensions ........................................................................15
Figure 3.4. Setup used in load tests .........................................................................16
Figure 3.5. Details of test setup ...............................................................................17
Figure 3.6. Details of hold-down attachment ...........................................................17
Figure 3.7. Deformation types observed in unsheathed CFS frame specimens .........18
Figure 3.8. Deformation of tension hold-down and bottom track. ............................19
Figure 3.9. Deformation at connection between OSB sheathing and CFS framing ...20
Figure 3.10. Rivet failure between tension stud and bottom track. ...........................20
Figure 3.11. Screw failure .......................................................................................21
Figure 3.12. Deformation at CFS Frames ................................................................22
Figure 3.13. Crushing of fibercement panel ............................................................22
Figure 3.14. Cracking on betopan panel ..................................................................23
Figure 3.15. Deformation near hold-down attachment .............................................23
Figure 3.16. Regions in a typical load-deflection plot ..............................................24
Figure 3.17. Effect of channel height.......................................................................26
Figure 3.18. Effect of OSB sheathing thickness .......................................................28
Figure 3.19. Effect of screw spacing .......................................................................30
Figure 3.20. Effect of existence of diagonal struts ...................................................32
Figure 3.21. Effect of double-side sheathing ...........................................................33
Figure 4.1. Forces on screws between sheathing panel and CFS framing members ..38
Figure 4.2. Relation between measured and predicted load capacities......................39

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Properties of specimens ..........................................................................13

Table 3.2. Effect of channel height on load capacity................................................27

ix

Table 3.3. Effect of OSB sheathing thickness on load capacity ................................29

Table 3.4. Effect of screw spacing on load capacity ................................................30
Table 3.5. Effect of diagonal struts on load capacity................................................32
Table 3.6. Effect of double-side sheathing on load capacity ....................................33
Table 3.7. Effect of sheathing material on load capacity ..........................................34
Table 4.1. Relation between measured and predicted load capacities .......................39

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Historical Background of Cold-Formed Steel Structures

The Cold-Formed Steel Framed (CFSF) buildings have been used for over a century in
North America, Australia and New Zealand. This type of construction has the potential
to be an efficient solution in high seismic risk areas for low-rise and midrise buildings.
In todays construction industry, CFS products are widely used as a framing for
partition walls due to their light weight, high strength and fast erection. As a result of
light weight and shorter construction time, CFSF structures become more efficient
solution in certain cases when compared to their conventional steel or concrete counter
parts.

Main advantages of CFSF structures can be listed as follows:

o Light Weight o High strength
o Ease of prefabrication and mass production
o Fast and easy erection and installation o
Eliminates the need for formwork

Uniform quality o Recyclable

o Economy in transportation and handling

The use of cold-formed steel members in building construction began in the 1850s in
both the United States and Great Britain. In the 1920s and 1930s, acceptance of
coldformed steel as a construction material was still limited because there was a lack
of design standards and there was limited information on material use in building
codes. One of the first documented use of cold-formed steel as a building material is
the Virginia Baptist Hospital, constructed in 1925 in Virginia, USA.

Since 1940s the use and the development of CFSF construction in the United States
have been accelerated by the publication of various editions of the Specification for
the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members of the American Iron and Steel
1

Institute (AISI) [1]. The earlier editions of the specification were based largely on the
research sponsored by AISI at Cornell University under the direction of George Winter
since 1939. It has been revised subsequently to reflect the technical developments and
the results of continuing research.

Before 1980s wood-framed buildings sheathed with wood-based panels were the first
solution for residential and commercial usage. Due to cost of timber and environmental
concerns, cold-formed steel has started to become the choice for this type buildings.
Between 1980 and 1994, CFSF construction in the U.S. grew more than 300 percent
[2].

1.2 Construction Procedure of Cold-Formed Steel Structures

Load-resisting system in a typical CFSF building consists of frames made of
coldformed steel sections and sheathing panels applied on sides of these frames.
Various sheathing materials can be used for having strength but wood based materials
and gypsum boards are widely used in recent years.

CFS frames for wall panels can be either prepared on site or prefabricated in factory.
Computer programs are widely used for design and manufacture of CFSF buildings.
Model of a building produced by such a computer program, together with the
assembled CFS framing is illustrated in Fig 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Typical CFS framing

The most common form of foundation used for CFSF buildings is a raft foundation
similar to the one shown in Fig. 1.2. Following the construction of the foundation, the
assembled wall frames were connected to the foundation slab through tension and
shear connectors. Fig. 1.3 shows a typical tension hold-down connector placed in
position.

Figure 1.2. Construction of a typical foundation

Hold-Down
Figure 1.3. Wall panel to foundation connection

Application of sheathing panels usually starts after all CFS frames were placed in
position. Most of the sheathing panels used in CFSF construction have different shear
stiffness in two orthogonal directions. Therefore, shear resistance of the CFS wall
panels depends on whether the sheathing panels were attached on CFS frames in the
horizontal or vertical orientation. An example of Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
sheathed panels placed in vertical orientation is shown in Fig. 1.4. The exterior and
interior view of a finished CFSF residential building is given in Fig. 1.5.

Figure 1.4. Sheathing application

Figure 1.5. Exterior and interior view of finished building

1.3 Statement of Problem

Extensive damage observed on reinforced concrete buildings after the 1999 Marmara
and 2011 Van earthquakes led to the CFSF buildings being considered as an alternative
choice in the Turkish construction industry. But, it is believed that the CFS
construction industry itself wasnt ready for this rapidly growing demand on CFSF
buildings. Considering that the use of CFS in the Turkish construction industry has a
very short history, the CFSF buildings and the construction details used in these
buildings have not been time-tested. Considering that international scientific studies
on the earthquake behavior of such systems are also scarce, the need for experimental
studying focusing on the lateral load behavior of CFSF building system constructed
using the typical details used in Turkey have become more important. The present
study should be considered as a first attempt to provide useful data on the structural
behavior of CFSF building system. It is hoped that through such studies, the local CFS
construction industry will have a guidance to produce safe and reliable CFSF buildings.

1.4 Objectives
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of CFS wall panels
utilizing primarily the construction details used in Turkey under lateral loading. In
order to investigate the influence of sheathing material on the overall behavior of
panels, three different sheathing panels, namely oriented strand board, fibercement and
betopan were studied.

1.5 Research Methodology

5

The present study consists of two parts. In the first part of the study, behavior of CFS
wall panel specimens sheathed with OSB, fibercement and betopan panels was
investigated experimentally. In the second part of the study, the load resisting capacity
of OSB sheathed wall panels was estimated numerically.

Experimental part of the study included monotonic lateral load testing of twenty one
CFS wall panels. Eleven specimens were sheathed with OSB panels, three specimens
were sheathed with fibercement panels, five specimens were sheathed with betopan
panels and two specimens were tested without any sheathing. Using the information
obtained from load tests, the lateral behavior of the wall panels was studied and the
differences and similarities in the response of these panels were investigated.

In the numerical part of the study, currently available analytical methods were used to
calculate the load capacity of tested wall panel specimens.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, studies available in the literature about the lateral behavior of CFS wall
panels and other components of CFS structures are presented.

2.1 Studies on CFS Shear Walls

Serette, R. [3]
In this study, three types of 2.44 m wide by 2.44 m high CFS wall panels, including
sheathed walls, shear walls with diagonal bracing and a cross-braced wall were tested
under monotonic lateral loading. Additionally, small scale tests were conducted to
characterize the screw connections used in the walls. The test results showed that shear
strength of plywood and OSB panels attached on CFS studs are comparable and that
the strength of gypsum board sheathed wall is relatively low. The smallscale
connection test results also showed that the plywood connection is approximately %23
6

stronger than OSB and a significant portion of strength of the gypsum wallboard panel
is developed at the edge of the panel.

A comparison of the normalized small-scale connection test results with normalized

full-scale wall panel test results showed that the small-scale tests provide a simple
method of evaluating the relative resistance of different full-scale wall assemblies.

Rogers, C. A. [4]
Rogers conducted a study on CFS shear walls through load testing of 106 specimens.
Walls sheathed with OSB and plywood panels were tested under monotonic and cyclic
lateral loading. Wall panels in all specimens were 2.44 m high and the width of the
panels were 0.61 m, 1.22 m or 2.44 m. Tests results indicated that the 1.22 m and 2.44
m wide wall panels performed similarly, 0.61 m wide panels suffered extensive lateral
deformation when the ultimate load capacity was reached.

Rogers, C. A. and Al-Kharat, M. [5]

The inelastic performance of sixteen 2.44 m 2.44 m cold-formed steel strap braced
walls was evaluated experimentally. The performance was affected by the holddown
detail, which in many cases did not allow the test specimens to reach or maintain a
yield capacity and severely diminished the overall system ductility. Test results
indicated ductility levels that are not adequate to warrant the use of a seismic response
modification coefficient of R = 4.0 in design. It was concluded that the capacity design
of the SFRS elements must account for the overstrength of the strap material.

Rogers, C. A. et al. [6]

Typical weld and screw-connected single-storey strap braced wall configurations were
studied. A total of 44 tension-only X-braced walls ranging in size from 61x244 cm to
244x244 cm (aspect ratios from 4:1 to 1:1) and designed following a capacitybased
approach were tested under lateral loading using monotonic and reversed cyclic
protocols. Test results illustrated the ability of walls with an aspect ratio less than or
equal to 2:1 to reach and maintain their yield resistance in the inelastic range of
7

deformation if capacity design principles were implemented and material requirements

were met, as described in AISI S213. It is, however, recommended that the use of high
aspect ratio strap braced walls, i.e. having aspect ratios greater than 2:1, be avoided
unless the moments associated with flexure of the chord studs are included in the
capacity design procedure for these studs. Inelastic deformations resulted from brace
yielding in the 1:1 and 2:1 aspect ratio walls, whereas the 4:1 walls experienced
combined axial compression and flexure of the chord studs and only minimal brace
yielding. A summary of the test program is provided, including design approach,
failure modes and ductility measures. The scope of the research also included the
determination of test-based seismic force modification factors based on the
measured ductility and overstrength of the test walls for comparison with the R-values
recommended in AISI S213 Specification.

C. Yu and F. A. Chen [7]

This study was an investigation on 1.83 m wide 2.44 m high CFS stud framed shear
walls using steel sheet sheathing. Four wall configurations were studied through
monotonic and cyclic tests. The major failure mode was determined to be buckling of
steel sheathing. The test results indicated that besides the sheet buckling and screw
pull-out, the buckling of interior studs might also occur in CFS walls. To prevent the
failure in the studs, a special detailing was developed in this research, and it was
reported that this detailing could increase both the shear strength and the ductility of
the walls. It was also reported that the nominal shear strength values given in design
specifications can be conservatively used for walls with an aspect ratio of 3:2. Based
on the test results, the nominal seismic shear strength for 1.83 m wide CFS walls was
established for design purposes

Fiorino, L. [8]
Two three-dimensional specimens of 2.7 m long by 2.0 m wide and 2.5 m high were
tested under monotonic and cyclic loading. Wall panels in the specimen were sheathed
with 9 mm thick OSB panels on the exterior face and 12.5 mm thick gypsum board on
the interior face. Floor sheathing was 18 mm thick OSB panels. During the monotonic
and cyclic tests, no appreciable deformation was observed at the connections between

the floor sheathing and framing. No evident failure of shear and tension anchors used
at the base of wall panels was also observed.

Kim, T. W. et al. [9]

Results of shaketable tests of a full-scale two-story one-bay SCF structure are reported
in this study. During the large amplitude tests, the cross-bracing straps are reported to
show a ductile but highly pinched hysteresis behavior. The CFS columns in the test
structure provided limited strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation because of local
buckling of the thin-walled members. Analytical results are also reported to reproduce
the measured behavior relatively well.

Lange, J. and Naujoks, B. [10]

Load tests were conducted on CFS shearwall specimens under vertical and horizontal
loading with the test parameters being the sheathing material and the screw spacing.
The four types of sheathing materials investigated were chipboard, gypsum fiberboard,
cement-bonded fiberboard and trapezoidal steel sheet. A design method was proposed
based on the experimental findings.

Moghimi, H. and Ronagh, H. R. [11]

Lateral load behavior of strap-braced CFS wall panels was investigated under reversed
cyclic loading. Influence of different strap arrangements on the behavior of wall panels
was studied. The wall panels generally exhibited a ductile behavior with no failure in
connections. The type of strap bracing that is currently used in practice was reported
to show an unsatisfactory behavior mainly due to premature bucking of the studs.
Strength, stiffness and ductility characteristics of the wall panels were improved by the
addition of brackets at four corners of wall panels. Strap-braced walls without
gypsumboard sheathing and corner brackets were observed to have pinched hysteresis
loops.

Telue, Y. and Mahendran, M. [12]

Buckling behavior of studs in plasterboard sheathed CFS wall panels was studied
experimentally. Results indicated that the strength of the studs in compression was
increased significantly when they were lined with plasterboard on one or both sides. In
order to fully understand the behavior of both sides lined steel wall frames, a finite
element model was developed and validated using experimental results, and this model
was used in a further parametric study.

Xu, L. and Martinez, J. [13]

In the monotonic load tests conducted by Xu and Martinez, the predominant failure
mode of wall panels was determined to be sheathing panel failure. Failure was
observed to initiate at the sheathing-to-framing connections for OSB, plywood and
gypsum panels. The failure of the sheathing was evident due to rupture of the
sheathing-to-framing connections, and in some cases the sheathing separated
completely from the frame. It was also indicated that for the cases where the thickness
of CFS studs is relatively small (e.g., thickness of 0.84 mm, 33 mils), the failure of
wall panel may be initiated by the buckling of studs even though the studs are braced
by the sheathing. The failure of steel studs can also occur when sheathing is applied on
the both sides of CFS frame. Applying sheathing on both sides of the frame or doubling
the sheathing thickness enhances the panel lateral strength which amplifies the
compressive force in the studs and may result in stud failure in compression prior to
the failure of the sheathing. Behavior of CFS wall panels was also analytically
investigated and a method to predict the lateral strength and the corresponding
displacement of wall panels was proposed.

2.2 Studies on Screw Connections

Fiorino, L. [14]
Fiorino conducted a study on screw connections between CFS members and OSB and
gypsum board panels. Tilting of and pull-out of screws were determined to be the major
failure modes for OSB sheathed specimens. For OSB panels, the perpendicular-tograin loaded connections were reported to have lower stiffness, strength and ductility
compared to those loaded parallel-to-grain, while the absorbed energy was almost the
same for both cases.

10

Casafont, M. et al. [15]

Connections used in straps of X-braced CFS shear walls were investigated through
load tests. Two distinct failure modes of (1) tilting and net section failure and (2) tilting,
bearing and pull out were observed. Connections exhibiting the former failure mode
were reported to be suitable for seismic design as they allow for the yielding of straps.
The influence of various design parameters, including strap thickness, number and
diameter of screws and steel grade on the failure mode of connections was studied, and
a design criteria to induce a desirable failure mode was given.

2.3 Studies on CFS Studs

Telue, Y. and Mahendran, M. [16]
Behavior of CFS wall studs was investigated experimentally using unlined frames built
with unlipped channel sections. Additional finite element analyses were used for
validating the results of the experimental tests. Wall studs end fixity conditions were
discussed for calculating the effective length factor. Results compared with Australian
Specifications for lined frames but this code does not provide guidelines for unlined
frames in evaluating the effective length factor of the stud. Author recommends the
effective length factor of 1.0 for unlined wall frames.

Young, B. [17]
The research focused on CFS columns made of open sections, such as plain and lipped
channels, channels with simple and complex edge stiffeners as well as plain and lipped
angles, and unequal angles. In addition, cold-formed steel built-up closed sections with
intermediate stiffeners were investigated. Both experimental and numerical
investigations into the strength and behavior of cold-formed steel columns were
conducted. The column strengths obtained from these investigations were compared
with the design strengths obtained using various international standards for coldformed steel structures. Furthermore, the behavior and design of cold-formed steel
lipped channel columns at elevated temperatures were also investigated. Author
suggested an effective length factor of 0.5 for fixed-ended CFS columns and indicated

11

that the direct strength method can be used for channel sections at elevated
temperature.

Tian, Y. S. and Lu, T. J. [18]

This study focuses on finding the minimum weight and associated optimal geometric
dimensions of an open-channel steel section with given length subjected to a prescribed
axial compressive load. Sections both with and without lips are analyzed. The types of
failure modes considered were the same as regular compact section failure modes with
the addition of local buckling. A theoretical method was developed for prediction of
the load capacity of channel sections. Experimental part of the study included
manufacture and load testing of two new channel sections. The analytical prediction
of the load capacities were validated with the experimental data.

Moen, C. D. and Schafer, B. W. [19]

This study focuses on cold-formed steel columns with holes on web of the section.
Short and intermediate length specimens tested experimentally, and the relationship
between elastic buckling and the tested response of columns was investigated. The
slotted web holes are shown to have a minimal influence on the ultimate strength in
the specimens considered, although post-peak ductility is decreased in some cases.

Tian, Y. S. et al. [20]

Cold-formed steel studs with sheathing applied on a single side and on two sides were
investigated. An analytical model for predicting the axial failure load of wall studs with
sheathing was also considered. In the analytical model, the sheathing was considered
as a continuous elastic support for the stud. The spring stiffness of the elastic support
was calculated by analytical and finite element methods. The predicted results were
compared with measurements from full-scale tests.

12

Wang, J. et al. [21]

This study focuses on the distribution of strains and stresses on sectional portions of
CFS studs. Intermediate studs were investigated experimentally with sheathing
connected at section flanges. At a given cross section of the intermediate stud, strains
and stresses experienced by the section flanges were found to be significantly different
from those on the web.

CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

The experimental part of the study included load testing of twenty one CFS wall panel
specimens with properties given in Table 3.1. The convention used for designation of
specimens is explained in Fig. 3.1. The first group in the specimen designation
indicates the size of the CFS section, the second and third groups indicate, respectively
the type and thickness of sheathing board, the fourth group indicates the spacing of
screws, and the last group indicates whether or not diagonal struts are included in the
CFS framing.

13

Table 3.1. Properties of specimens

Sheathing
CFS
Thickness
section
mm

Screw
spacing
cm

Diagonal
struts?

Specimen

Sheathing
material

C90-O-11-15-T

OSB

11

C90

15

C90-O-11-15-T*

OSB

11

C90

15

C90-O-11-15-E

OSB

11

C90

15

C90-O-11-30-E

OSB

11

C90

30

C140-O-11-15-T

OSB

11

C140

15

C140-O-11-15-E

OSB

11

C140

15

C90-O-18-15-T

OSB

18

C90

15

C90-O-18-15-E

OSB

18

C90

15

C90-O-18-30-E

OSB

18

C90

30

C140-O-18-15-T

OSB

18

C140

15

C140-O-18-15-E

OSB

18

C140

15

C90-F-8-15-T

Fibercement

C90

15

C90-F-8-15-E

Fibercement

C90

15

C90-F-8-30-E

Fibercement

C90

30

C90-B-10-15-T

Betopan

10

C90

15

C90-B-10-15-E

Betopan

10

C90

15

C90-B-10-30-E

Betopan

10

C90

30

C140-B-10-15-T

Betopan

10

C140

15

C140-B-10-15-E

Betopan

10

C140

15

C90-T

C90

C140-T

C140

* double-side sheathed specimen

C90 O 11 15 E
CFS section size
Sheathing material

Screw spacing

Sheathing Thickness
Figure 3.1. Specimen designation

14

Diagonal struts

3.1 Specimens
As indicated in Table 3.1, ten of the specimens had OSB sheathing applied on one side,
while one of the specimens had two-sided OSB sheathing. Three of the specimens had
fiberboard sheathing and five specimens had betopan sheathing applied on one side of
the CFS frame. The remaining two specimens were tested as a bare CFS frame with no
sheathing applied.

The CFS wall panel specimens were manufactured at a local factory and transported to
Atlm University Civil Engineering Department Structural Mechanics Laboratory,
where the load tests were performed. Fig. 3.2 shows the dimensions of wall panels
together with some of the details used. As seen, the specimens are 1.22 m wide and
2.44 m high, corresponding to an aspect ratio of exactly 2.0. The framing for wall
panels include top and bottom tracks connected to two boundary studs and an
intermediate stud using 4.8 mm diameter and 16 mm long blind rivets. The boundary
studs consist of double C-shaped sections connected back-to-back at 600 mm spacing
with 5.5 mm diameter and 25 mm long self-drilling screws, while single C-shaped
sections were used for the rest of the frame members.

The current practice used in the CFS construction in Turkey is to provide diagonal
struts between the vertical studs in some of the wall panels. The function of these
diagonal struts is to maintain the stability of CFS frames during the erection. In order
to reflect the effect of this construction practice on the behavior of CFS wall panels,
the specimens were tested with and without diagonal struts. Other parameters that were
studied in the testing program were the type and thickness of sheathing panels, the
screw spacing at the outer edge of the panel, and the size of C-shaped CFS sections
used for the tracks, studs, and diagonal struts.
As summarized in Table 3.1, two different thickness values (11 and 18 mm) were used
for OSB panels, while the fibercement and betopan panels were tested with a thickness
of 8 and 10 mm, respectively.

The two types of CFS sections used in the test specimens are shown in Fig. 3.3. Both
sections were made of 0.8 mm thick sheet steel with a specified yield strength of 220
MPa. Sheathing panels were attached on the CFS framing members with 4.2 mm
15

diameter and 38 mm long self-drilling screws. Screw spacing of either 15 or 30 cm

was used on the boundary framing members, while on the intermediate stud a single
screw spacing of 30 cm was used.

Figure 3.2. Specimen details

Figure 3.3. CFS section dimensions

3.2 Test Setup
Details of the setup used for load tests are given in Fig. 3.4 and Fig. 3.5. The wall panel
specimens were attached to a support beam through two hold-downs and 16 mm
diameter threaded rods. Hold-downs were made of 4 mm thick grade-37 steel plate and
each hold-down was connected to the boundary studs with fourteen 5.5 mm diameter
and 25 mm long self-drilling screws. Details of the hold downs are given in Fig 3.6.
16

These hold-downs were responsible for resisting the uplift and shear force effects
introduced on the wall panels during the load tests.

Loading was provided with a 30 kN capacity hydraulic cylinder that had a 20 kN

capacity load cell and a swivel head attached at the end. The swivel head at the end of
the hydraulic cylinder was connected to the wall panels through a loading beam that is
attached to the top track with 5.5 mm diameter and 60 mm long self-drilling screws.
Displacement of the loading beam in the transverse direction was restrained by two
lateral support assemblies.

Fig 3.5. Test setup general view

Actuator
Test frame

Lateral restrain
Loading beam

Support beam
Specimen
Figure 3.4. Setup used in load tests

17

Loading
direction

Loading
direction

Top
track
Compression
stud

OSB
Sheathing
panel
sheathing
Diagonal
struts
Intermediate
stud

Bottom
track

Tension
stud

Tension
stud

Support
beam

Figure 3.5. Details of test setup

Figure 3.6. Details of hold-down attachment

The wall panels were tested under gradually increasing lateral load applied at the top
level. The net lateral displacement at the top of wall panels was determined with the
help of displacement transducers positioned at the top and at the base of the panels.
Data from the load cell and displacement transducers were continuously collected and
recorded. The wall panels were also continuously monitored for damage in the CFS
members and sheathing panels during the load tests.

18

3.3 Deformation Modes

3.3.1 Unsheathed CFS Frame Specimens
The typical deformation mode of the CFS frame specimens tested with no sheathing
applied is shown in Fig 3.7. The main lateral load resisting mechanism in these
specimens is the vertical truss structure formed by the diagonal struts, the top and
bottom tracks, the intermediate stud and the tension stud. Under the effect of loading,
separation between the two CFS sections of the tension stud was observed to occur.
Load resisting capability of the specimens diminished following the onset of local
buckling at the base of intermediate stud where one of the diagonal members was
connected.

Figure 3.7. Deformation types observed in unsheathed CFS frame specimens: (a)
overall deformed shape; (b) local buckling at base of intermediate stud; (c) separation
between CFS sections at tension stud.
3.3.2 OSB Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens
Under the effect of applied load, the wall panels were subjected to rocking type of
deformation, which involved lifting of the bottom track from the support beam on the
tension side, and crushing of OSB sheathing against the support beam on the
compression side. With this type of deformation, the overall behavior of wall panels
was mainly governed by deformation of tension hold-down attachment and part of the
bottom track adjacent to the hold-down. Pictures of such deformation mode are given
in Fig 3.8. As evident in the pictures, the bottom plate of the hold-down attachment as
well as the web of the bottom track underwent significant bending deformation. In
Specimen C90-O-11-15-T-2, which had OSB sheathing on both sides of the panel, the
19

nut at the end of the threaded rod used to attach the hold-down to the support beam
punched through the bottom plate of the hold-down attachment and the web of the
bottom track. This is an undesirable mode of deformation, because it reduces the
overall stiffness of the wall panel and results in excessive lateral drifts without utilizing
the entire capacity of the wall panel. The extent of this deformation was observed to
be more pronounced in wall panels with frame members made of C140 CFS section
than those with C90 section. This type of deformation can be reduced by stiffening the
hold-down attachment by: (1) using thicker plates for the attachment or (2) modifying
the geometry of the attachment such that the bending deformation is minimized.

Figure 3.8. Deformation of tension hold-down and bottom track.

Another common deformation mode observed in OSB sheathed wall panels was tilting
of the screws connecting the sheathing panel to the CFS boundary framing members.
Occurrence of the tilting of screws, as shown in Fig 3.9(a), is an indication of relative
slip at the interface between the OSB sheathing and the CFS framing members. Tilting
of screws is also accompanied with separation of OSB sheathing from the CFS framing
members in most of the cases. In addition to tilting, the screws were observed to pull
through the OSB panel in some of the specimens, as shown in Fig 3.9(b).

20

Figure 3.9. Deformation at connection between OSB sheathing and CFS framing
members: (a) tilting of screws; (b) tilting and pull-through of screws.
Damage in CFS framing members, in the form of local buckling adjacent to the
connection regions was also observed. As indicated in Fig. 3.9, this type of damage
occurred either at the bottom track near the connection between the tension stud or at
the intermediate stud near the connection between the diagonal strut.

Rivet failure at the connection between the tension stud and the bottom track occurred
in Specimen C140-O-18-15-E, as shown in Fig. 3.10. As a result of this deformation,
the specimen failed prematurely at a relatively smaller top displacement value
compared to the other specimens.

Figure 3.10. Rivet failure between tension stud and bottom track.

3.3.3 Fibercement Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens

21

Under the effect of applied load, the wall panels were subjected to rocking type of
deformation, similar to the OSB sheathed wall panels. The screw-related deformations
observed in these specimens included screw tilting, screw pull-out and screw pullthrough as indicated in Fig. 3.11. In screw pull-out deformation mode, threads of the
screw pull out of the CFS member, while in the screw pull-through deformation mode
head of the screw pulls through the sheathing panel. Initiation of screw pull-out or
screw pull-through deformations during the load tests caused reductions in the stiffness
and the load resisting ability of the wall panels.

During the load tests, screw pull-out was observed at the corner locations of fiberboard
panel in specimens C90-F-8-15-T and C90-F-8-15-E, while in specimen C90-F-8-30E, which had larger screw spacing along the boundary members, screws along the
entire height of tension stud were observed to pull-out of the member. In these
specimens, limited deformation was observed at the tension hold-down location due to
relatively lower strength of sheathing panels.

tilting; (c) screw pull-out

22

Deformation mode of buckling was observed at bottom track near the tension
holddown location and in the middle stud in specimen C90-F-8-15-T, as evident in Fig.
3.12. Due to screw pull-out failure occurred in this specimen, it showed similar
behavior as the unsheathed CFS frame specimen. Different than other specimens
without diagonal struts, buckling was observed at bottom portion of the intermediate
stud in specimen C90-F-8-15-E. The reason for this behavior was attributed to the
failure of screws between the sheathing panel and the bottom track while those between
the sheathing panel and the intermediate stud remained undamaged. Extensive screw
tilting and pull-out deformations also occurred in specimen C90-F8-30-E. As a result
of such extensive screw deformation, no appreciable frame or hold-down failures were
observed in this specimen.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.12. Deformation at CFS Frames: (a) Deformation at hold-down Connections

(b) Deformation at intermediate stud

23

Figure 3.13. Crushing of fibercement panel

Crushing of sheathing panel, as indicated in Fig. 3.13, was observed in all three
specimens sheathed with fibercement panels. In addition to crushing, cracking was also
observed in the fibercement panels used in these specimens. These cracks were
observed to follow a route from top track and bottom track to tension stud at corners
of wall panel.

3.3.4 Betopan Sheathed Wall Panel Specimens

Among five specimens that were sheathed with petopan panels, screw failure in the
form of tilting and pull-out occurred in specimen C90-B-10-30-E. Screw failure was
localized at the tension stud and at the bottom track near the tension hold-down. This
specimen, in general, was also observed to undergo more damage than other betopan
sheathed specimens.

24

Figure 3.14. Cracking on betopan panel

Figure 3.15. Deformation near hold-down attachment

The common deformation mode among the betopan sheathed specimens was buckling
deformation of bottom track near the tension stud. Vertical studs were not subjected to
extensive deformation. Cracks, similar to those indicated in Fig. 3.14, were also
observed on betopan panels in specimens with no diagonal struts. The relatively higher
strength of betopan panels caused extensive damage in tension holddowns, as shown
in Fig. 3.15.

3.4 Load-Deflection Behavior

Lateral load-deflection response of wall panels was used for the assessment of the
effect of each test parameter on the overall behavior of the panels. The parameters that
are investigated in this section in terms of the load-deflection behavior are (1) CFS
channel height, (2) sheathing type, (3) OSB sheathing thickness, (4) screw spacing, (5)
existence of diagonal struts, and (6) existence of double side sheathing.
25

Typical load-deflection plots of wall panels are shown in Fig. 3.17. The load values
shown on the plots are the lateral load applied by the hydraulic cylinder at the top of
wall panels, while the displacement values are the net lateral displacement at the top
of wall panels. The net top displacement for the specimens was obtained by subtracting
any sliding at the base of wall panels from the total lateral displacement directly
measured at the top of panels.

The experimentally obtained lateral load versus top displacement plots shown in Fig.
3.16 can be divided in three regions as (1) initial (elastic) region, (2) screw tilting
region, and (3) zero-stiffness region. In the initial region, the wall panels behaved
elastically with limited deformation in the CFS frame and sheathing panels. Screw
tilting region started at approximately 30 mm top of displacement. Noises of screw
threads releasing from the holes in CFS boundary members were heard at this region.
Tilting of screws between the sheathing panels and the CFS framing members resulted
in a reduction in the initial stiffness of the wall panels. Pull-out of screws further
decreased the stiffness of wall panels as characterized by region-3 in Fig. 3.16. As a
result of screw pull-out, sheathing panel was separated from the CFS framing members
and substantial damage took place in CFS members, diminishing the load resisting
ability of the wall panel.

3.4.1 Effect of Channel Height

26

The measured lateral load versus top lateral displacement plots of wall panels shown
in Fig 3.17, together with the load capacity values presented in Table 3.2 explain the
effect of CFS channel height on the behavior. As evident in the figure and in the table,
the sheathed wall panels with C90 CFS section had slightly larger load capacity and
stiffness than those with C140 section for all parameters studied.

As evident in the plots in Fig. 3.17, specimen C140-O-18-15-E had relatively smaller
maximum top displacement value compared to the other specimens. The reason for
this was the failure of the rivets between the tension stud and the bottom track, as
mentioned previously. Such a rivet failure caused a premature failure of the wall panel.

The level of difference in load capacity of wall sheathed panels with C90 and C140
sections is between 5% and 18%, excluding specimen C140-O-18-15-E, which
experienced premature rivet failure. The reason for the wall panels with C90 CFS
framing members to have higher load capacity than those with C140 section is related
with the extent of damage in the bottom track for the two group of specimens.
Deformation of bottom track at the location of tension hold-down was observed to be
larger in C140 section than in C90 section. Therefore, the additional bottom track
deformation near the hold-down location in the C140 sections resulted in a small
reduction in the load capacity of the wall panels.

27

Figure 3.17. Effect of channel height Table 3.2. Effect of

channel height on load capacity

28

Specimen

Load Capacity
kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed
Failure Modes**

C140-O-11-15-T

16.25

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.12

ST,HD,FB

C140-O-11-15-E

14.73

1.00

ST,FB,CR

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.05

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

C140-O-18-15-T

15.53

1.00

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-O-18-15-T

18.39

1.18

SP,HD,FB,CR

C140-O-18-15-E*

12.06

1.00

ST,SP,FB

C90-O-18-15-E

17.24

1.43

ST,SP,FB,CR

C140-B-10-15-T

19.07

1.00

HD,FB

C90-B-10-15-T

21.48

1.13

HD,FB

C140-B-10-15-E

18.11

1.00

HD,FB,SC

C90-B-10-15-E

20.65

1.14

HD,FB,SC

C140-T

4.10

1.00

FB

C90-T

3.45

0.84

FB

* specimen experienced premature rivet failure

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.2 Effect of OSB Sheathing Thickness

The influence that the thickness of OSB sheathing had on the behavior of wall panels
is shown in Fig 3.18 and Table 3.3. Considering that Specimen C140-18-15-E
experienced premature rivet failure, the plots suggest that using 18 mm OSB thickness,
as opposed to 11 mm thickness, resulted in larger lateral load capacity when the
diagonal struts were not used in the CFS frame. The effect is more pronounced for
specimens tested with 30 cm screw spacing than those tested with 15 cm screw spacing.
On the other hand, for specimens that included diagonal struts, no distinct difference
between 11 mm and 18 mm OSB thickness could be detected in the load-deflection
response.

The ratio of load capacities of specimens with 18 mm and 11 mm OSB sheathing panel
thickness was 1.12 and 1.27, when diagonal struts were not included in CFS frames.
For specimens that included diagonal struts the ratio of load capacities with 18 mm
and 11 mm OSB sheathing panel thickness was 1.01 and 0.96.
29

Figure 3.18. Effect of OSB sheathing thickness Table 3.3. Effect of

OSB sheathing thickness on load capacity
Specimen

Load Capacity
kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C90-O-18-15-T

18.39

1.01

SP,HD,FB,CR

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.00

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

30

C90-O-18-15-E

17.24

1.12

ST,SP,FB,CR

C140-O-11-15-E

14.73

1.00

ST,FB,CR

C140-O-18-15-E*

12.06

0.82

ST,SP,FB

C140-O-11-15-T

16.25

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C140-O-18-15-T

15.53

0.96

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-O-11-30-E

9.83

1.00

ST,SP,HD,CR

C90-O-18-30-E

12.50

1.27

ST,SP,FB,CR

* specimen experienced premature rivet failure

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.3 Effect of Screw Spacing

Fig 3.19 shows the variation in the behavior of wall panels when the spacing of screws
connecting the sheathing to the CFS boundary framing members was increased from
15 to 30 cm. For all three sheathing types investigated, 30 cm screw spacing resulted
in a major reduction in the lateral load and deformation capacity, without significantly
affecting the initial stiffness of the wall panel, as compared to a screw spacing of 15
cm. Table 3.4 indicates that for the OSB sheathed specimens, the reduction in load
capacity was 36% for 11 mm OSB thickness and 27% for 18 mm OSB thickness. For
the fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens, the reduction in load capacity was
46% and 41%, respectively.

31

Figure 3.19. Effect of screw spacing

Table 3.4. Effect of screw spacing on load capacity

Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.00

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

C90-O-11-30-E

9.83

0.64

ST,SP,HD,CR

C90-O-18-15-E

17.24

1.00

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-O-18-30-E

12.5

0.73

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-B-10-15-E

20.65

1.00

HD,FB,SC

C90-B-10-30-E

12.25

0.59

ST,HD,FB,SC

C90-F-8-15-E

16.13

1.00

SP,FB

C90-F-8-30-E

8.78

0.54

SP,SC

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.4 Effect of Existence of Diagonal Struts

The difference in the behavior of wall panels with and without diagonal struts is shown
in Fig 3.20. For the OSB sheathed specimens, existence of diagonal struts slightly
increased the load capacity and initial stiffness of the wall panels for all thickness and
CFS section height values studied. Load capacity values shown in Table 3.4 indicate
that for OSB sheathed specimens, the increase in load capacity of wall panels with the
addition of diagonal struts varied between 7% and 29%.

For the case of fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens, there was no appreciable
difference in the behavior when diagonal struts were included inside the wall panels.
For fibercement sheathed specimens the ratio of load capacities with and without
32

diagonal struts was 1.05, while this ratio was 0.95 and 1.04 for betopan sheathed
specimens.

For wall panels including diagonal struts, there are two lateral load resisting
mechanism: (1) through the vertical truss structure formed by diagonal struts, (2)
through the diaphragm action of sheathing. The lateral stiffness and strength provided
by latter of these two mechanisms is more significant. As a result, the behavior of all
panels under lateral load was essentially determined by the diaphragm action of
sheathing, and the effect of the existence of diagonal struts remained minimal. As
mentioned previously, the main function of these diagonal struts in the current CFS
construction practice in Turkey is to maintain the stability of CFS frames during the
erection.

33

Figure 3.20. Effect of existence of diagonal struts

Table 3.5. Effect of diagonal struts on load capacity

34

Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.00

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.18

ST,HD,FB

C140-O-11-15-E

14.73

1.00

ST,FB,CR

C140-O-11-15-T

16.25

1.10

ST,SP,HD,FB

C90-O-18-15-E

17.24

1.00

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-O-18-15-T

18.39

1.07

SP,HD,FB,CR

C140-O-18-15-E*

12.06

1.00

ST,SP,FB

C140-O-18-15-T

15.53

1.29

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-F-8-15-E

16.13

1.00

SP,FB

C90-F-8-15-T

16.96

1.05

ST,SP,FB,CR

C90-B-10-15-E

20.65

1.00

HD,FB,SC

C90-B-10-15-T

21.48

1.04

HD,FB

C140-B-10-15-T

19.07

1.00

HD,FB

C140-B-10-15-E

18.11

0.95

HD,FB,SC

* specimen experienced premature rivet failure

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.5 Effect of Double-Side Sheathing

The common practice in CFS construction is to apply OSB, fibercement or betopan
sheathing panels on the exterior face of walls while the interior face is usually sheathed
with gypsum board. However, there are also cases where double-sided sheathing is
used in order to meet the lateral load demand on the structure. In this case, the lateral
strength and stiffness provided by the diaphragm action of sheathing panel mentioned
above is expected to increase significantly compared to a wall panel with single-sided
sheathing. However, as evident in Fig 3.21, the double-sided wall panel tested in this
study exhibited a slightly higher load capacity and stiffness compared to the
companion single-sided wall. As shown in Table 3.6, double-side sheathing resulted
in only 7% higher load capacity compared to single-side sheathing.

The reason for the specimen with double-sided OSB having significantly smaller load
capacity and stiffness than expected was because extensive deformation of tension
hold-down attachment and part of the bottom track adjacent to the hold-down occurred
35

in this specimen. In other words, during the load tests, the weakest link happened to
be the part of the specimen around the tension hold-down, and the reserve capacity of
the double-sided OSB sheathing could not be utilized.

Figure 3.21. Effect of double-side sheathing

Table 3.6. Effect of double-side sheathing on load capacity

Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C90-O-11-15-T2

19.44

1.07

HD,CR

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

3.4.6 Effect of Sheathing Material

One of the main objectives of this study was to identify the influence of the sheathing
material on the overall behavior of wall panels. For this purpose, load-deflection plots
of specimens with three different sheathing panel types are compared in Figs.
3.22-3.24, with the corresponding load capacities listed in Table 3.7.
For all parameters investigated, specimens sheathed with betopan panels exhibited
higher load capacity and stiffness than those sheathed with OSB and fibercement
panels. The reason for this behavior is related with the relatively higher strength and
stiffness on betopan panels, which resulted in the screw connection between these
panels and the CFS frame to resist higher load.

36

Table 3.7. Effect of sheathing material on load capacity

Specimen

Load
Capacity kN

Normalized
Capacity

Observed Failure
Modes**

C90-O-11-15-E

15.41

1.00

ST,SP,HD,FB,CR

C90-F-8-15-E

16.13

1.05

SP,FB

C90-B-10-15-E

20.65

1.34

HD,FB,SC

C90-O-11-15-T

18.19

1.00

ST,HD,FB

C90-F-8-15-T

16.96

0.93

ST,SP,CR,FB

C90-B-10-15-T

21.48

1.18

FB,HD

C90-O-11-30-E

9.83

1.00

ST,SP,HD,CR

C90-F-8-30-E

8.78

0.89

SP,SC

C90-B-10-30-E

12.25

1.25

ST,HD,FB,SC

**ST : Screw Tilting, SP : Screw Pull-Out, CR : Sheathing Crush, FR : Frame Buckling, SC : Crack

As evident in Table 3.7, the fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens respectively
had 5% and 34% higher load capacity than the OSB sheathed specimens for the case
of 15 cm screw spacing and no diagonal struts. For the combinations of 15 cm screw
spacing with diagonal struts and 30 cm screw spacing without diagonal struts, use of
fibercement sheathing decreased the load capacity of the specimen compared to OSB
sheathing. For these combinations, the increase in load capacity of betopan sheathed
specimens was 18% and 25% respectively.

Figure 3.22. Effect of sheathing material (15 cm screw spacing panels without
diagonal struts)
37

Figure 3.23. Effect of sheathing material (30 cm screw spacing panels without
diagonal struts)

Figure 3.24. Effect of sheathing material (15 cm screw spacing panels with diagonal
struts)

CHAPTER 4
NUMERICAL STUDY

A numerical approach was used in an attempt to accurately predict the load capacity
of wall panels. The load capacity of a CFS wall panel is governed by the failure modes
of screw tilting, screw shear, bearing of CFS member, and bearing of sheathing panel.
38

Because no incidence of screw shear failure occurred in the load tests conducted in
experimental part of the study, this failure mode was not considered in the numerical
study. Therefore, the load capacities corresponding to the failure modes of screw
tilting, bearing of CFS member, and bearing of sheathing panel were calculated, and
the smallest of these capacities was taken as the load capacity of the wall panel.

Similar to a previous study by Fiorino [6], the load capacity of the connection between
OSB sheathing and CFS framing members corresponding to the failure modes of tilting
of screws and bearing on CFS framing members were calculated following the
procedures outlined in the AISI cold-formed steel design manual [22], while the
procedure suggested by Faherty and Williamson was used for the failure mode of
bearing on OSB panels [23].

4.1 Screw Tilting Strength, Pt

According to AISI specifications screw tilting strength was calculated with Eq. 1.

(1)

Where, tsteel is steel sheet thickness, d is nominal screw diameter, and Fu,steel is ultimate
tensile strength of steel sheet, which was taken as 344 MPa.

4.2 Bearing Strength of Steel Sheet, Pf

Bearing strength of CFS framing members was determined using the following
equation:
(2)
4.4 Bearing Strength of Sheathing Material, Pc
Bearing strength of sheathing material was defined by Faherty and Williamson [23] as
follows:

(3)
39

where, Cd is the duration factor with a value equal to 1.6 for earthquake loading,
tsheathing is the thickness of the sheathing panel, fdowel is the dowel bearing strength of
sheathing panel. The value of the dowel bearing strength of OSB panel was taken as
32 MPa [24].

KD is a diameter coefficient that is calculated as follows:

KD = 2.2 for D < 4.6 mm

= 10D+0.5 for 4.3 mm < D 6.4 mm
= 3.0 for D > 6.4 mm

(4)

where, D is screw diameter.

4.3 Load Capacity of OSB Sheathed Wall Panels, vwall

Design procedure proposed by Easley et al. [25] for wood shear walls and diaphragms
was used to predict the load capacity of test specimens. This method considers the
kinematics of the wall and utilizes the strength of the connection between the sheathing
panel and the CFS framing members to determine the horizontal shear force capacity
of the wall panel, as illustrated in Fig 4.1. This method assumes that the screws at the
top and bottom track impose both vertical and horizontal forces on the OSB sheathing,
while those at the tension and compression studs impose only vertical component of
the force. Because the wall panel specimens tested in this study include a single
intermediate stud located at the centroidal axis of the panel, the screws at the
intermediate stud were assumed to develop no force.

40

Figure 4.1. Forces on screws between sheathing panel and CFS framing members

The shear strength per unit length of wall panel is determined as follows:

(5)
where, v and hi are geometric quantities related with the screws used to attach OSB
sheathing to the vertical and horizontal framing members, respectively.

(6)
(7)

where,

(8)

(9)
41

where, nh is the number of screws between the horizontal framing members and the
OSB sheathing, nv is the number of screws between the vertical framing members and
the OSB sheathing excluding the screws at the ends, xhi, h and a are as shown in Fig
4.1.

The horizontal shear force capacity of wall panels corresponding to the failure modes
of screw tilting, bearing on CFS framing members, and bearing on OSB sheathing
panel determined using the procedure outlined above are summarized in Table 4.1.
Results from the specimens including diagonal struts were not included in this table,
because the influence of these diagonal members is not incorporated in the derivation
of the analytical procedure.

Table 4.1. Relation between measured and predicted load capacities

Predicted capacity
kN
Specimen

Screw
tilting

CFS
bearing

OSB
bearing

C90-O-11-15-E

11

15

15.1

14.9

22.0

18.3

C140-O-11-15-E

11

15

14.5

14.9

22.0

18.3

C90-O-11-30-E

11

30

9.6

8.1

12.0

10.0

C90-O-18-15-E

18

15

16.9

14.9

22.0

29.9

C90-O-18-30-E

18

30

12.3

8.1

12.0

16.4

42

Figure 4.2. Relation between measured and predicted load capacities

The capacities presented in Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.2 indicate that for all combinations of
screw spacing and OSB sheathing thickness, screw tilting is the failure mode producing
the smallest wall capacity. The agreement between the predicted load capacities and
the measured values is acceptable, except for the case of Specimen C90-O-18-30-E.
For this specimen, even though the analytical procedure indicates that the wall capacity
is governed by screw tilting, the capacity corresponding to the failure mode of bearing
on CFS framing members agrees more closely with the measured capacity.

43

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary and Conclusions

Static lateral load tests were conducted on eleven OSB sheathed, three fibercement
sheathed, five betopan sheathed and two unsheathed CFS wall panel specimens.
Influence of additional parameters, such as sheathing panel thickness, screw spacing,
CFS section size, existence of diagonal struts and double-sided sheathing was also
investigated. Panels tested without sheathing suffered from local buckling at the base
of intermediate stud where one of the diagonal members was connected. For the
sheathed walls, extensive damage in the hold-down attachment and in part of the
bottom track adjacent to the hold-down prevented the wall panels to exhibit the
stiffness associated with the main load resisting mechanism, which is the diaphragm
action of sheathing. Tilting of the screws connecting sheathing panel to the CFS
boundary framing members, as well as the separation of sheathing from the framing
members were other commonly observed deformation modes.

In terms of the CFS section size, specimens with 90 mm high section had slightly
higher resistance than those with 140 mm high section. Despite both group of
specimens showed similar behavior in initial stiffness region of load-deflection plots,
the maximum load attained by specimens with 140 mm high CFS section happened to
be slightly larger than the companion specimens with 90 mm high CFS section.

Response of wall panels under lateral loading was determined to be directly related
with the behavior of the hold-down attachment used at the base of panels. In most of
the specimens tested in this study, the strength and stiffness of the hold-down
attachment prevented the wall panels to reach the expected strength and stiffness
levels. Bottom plate of hold-down attachment used in the test specimens suffered from
substantial bending deformation under the effect of tensile loads. As a result of this
deformation, lateral stiffness of wall panels reduced significantly. A new holddown
geometry can be designed as a future work that can prevent the significant
44

deformations under tensile loads. This new design can help to increase the lateral
strength and stiffness of CFS wall panels.

Test results indicated that the beneficial effect of increasing the OSB sheathing panel
thickness from 11 mm to 18 mm remained very limited in terms of the load capacity
of wall panels. Therefore, it can be concluded that 18 mm thick OSB plates are not a
practical way to make a shear wall with CFS section wall panels.

Among the parameters investigated in this study the one that had the most significant
effect on the behavior of wall panels was the screw spacing used at exterior framing
members. Between the cases of 15 cm and 30 cm screw spacing, the increase in load
capacity of wall panels was between 37% and 85% depending on the type and thickness
of sheathing panel.

Sheathing materials with a higher dowel bearing strength can be useful when selecting
the sheathing panels. In this study, walls sheathed with betopan panels had 18% to 25%
higher load capacity than those sheathed with OSB panels. Difference in the load
capacity of walls sheathed with fibercement and OSB panels were closer. Shear
resistance of wall panel will increase when sheathing material with higher dowel
bearing strength is used, but other parameters should also be checked while designing.

The current practice used in the CFS construction in Turkey is to provide diagonal
struts between the vertical studs in some of the wall panels. Even though the function
of these diagonal struts is to maintain the stability of CFS frames during the erection,
their effect of the lateral load behavior of wall panels was also investigated. For the
OSB sheathed specimens, existence of diagonal struts slightly increased the load
capacity and initial stiffness of the wall panels for all thickness and CFS section height
values studied. For the case of fibercement and betopan sheathed specimens, there was
no appreciable difference in the behavior when diagonal struts were included inside
the wall panels.

45

5.2 Recommendations
The weakest link in the sheathed CFS wall panel specimens tested in this study was
appeared to be the hold-down attachments used to transfer the tensile and shear forces
from studs to the foundation. Extensive damage in the hold-down attachment
connected to the tension stud significantly reduced the stiffness and strength of the wall
panels by preventing the wall panels to exhibit the stiffness associated with the main
load resisting mechanism, which is the diaphragm action of sheathing. Using holddown attachments with a modified geometry could improve the performance of
sheathed CFS wall panels under lateral loading. Following modifications for the holddown geometry are recommended:
-

Stiffener plates at the sides of the hold-down should reach to top of the screw
connection area to avoid extensive bending deformation at screw connection
plate.

Thickness of the bottom plate of the hold-down should be increased if flat shape
is to be used. Another alternative is to use a curved plate in order to minimize
the bending deformation at bottom plate of the hold-down.

If the hold-down attachment is connected to a stud made of double CFS

sections, screws of hold-down must be connected to both studs of the double
stud for prevent the premature rivet failure.

Dowel bearing strength of the sheathing material has a significant effect on the
resistance of screw connection between sheathing panel and CFS section. For this
reason, using a sheathing material with high dowel bearing strength would be expected
to increase the lateral load capacity of the CFS wall panel.

Diagonal struts are primarily used to provide the lateral stability of CFS frames during
assembly. Test results indicated that the existence of diagonal struts inside the sheathed
wall panels had a very limited influence on the lateral load response of the wall panels.
For this reason, additional strength and stiffness increase expected due to the existence
of these diagonal struts is recommended to be ignored, and only the resistance
associated with the sheathing panels should be considered.

46

REFERENCES

1. AISI (2007), American Standards for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel

Structural Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington DC,
USA.
2. Yu, W. W., LaBoube, R. A. (2010), Cold-Formed Steel Design, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
3. Serette, R. (1997), Static Racking Behavior of Plywood, OSB, Gypsum and
Fiberbond Walls With Metal Framing, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, 123(8), 1079-1086.
4. Rogers, C. A. (2004), Steel Frame / Wood Panel Shear Walls : Preliminary
Design Information For Use With The 2005 NBCC, 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
5. Rogers, C. A., Al-Kharat, M. (2007), Inelastic performance of cold-formed
steel strap braced walls, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63, 460
474.
6. Rogers, C. A., Velchev, K., Comeau, G., Balh, N. (2010), Evaluation of the
AISI S213 seismic design procedures through testing of strap braced
coldformed steel walls, Thin-Walled Structures, 48, 846856.
7. Yu, C., Chen, F. A. (2010), Shear Resistance of Cold-Formed Steel Framed
Shear Walls With 0,686 mm, 0,762 mm and 0,838 mm Steel Sheet Sheathing,
Engineering Structures, 32, 1522-1529.
8. Fiorino, L. (2006), Experimental Tests on Typical Screw Connections for
Cold-Formed Steel Housing, Engineering Structures, 29, 1761-1773.
9. Kim, T. W., Wilcoski J., Foutch, D. A., Lee, A. (2006), Shaketable tests of a
cold-formed steel shear panel, Engineering Structures, 28, 14621470.

47

10. Lange, J., Naujoks, B. (2006), Behaviour of cold-formed steel shear walls
under horizontal and vertical loads, Thin-Walled Structures, 44, 1214
1222.
11. Moghimi, H., Ronagh, H. R. (2009), Performance of light-gauge
coldformed steel strap-braced stud walls subjected to cyclic loading,
Engineering Structures, 31, 69-83.
12. Telue, Y., Mahendran, M. (2004), Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel
wall frames lined with plasterboardon both sides., Engineering Structures,
26, 567579.
13. Xu, L., Martinez, J. (2006), Strength and Stiffness Determination of Shear
Wall Panels in Cold-Formed Steel Framing, Thin-Walled Structures, 44,
1084-1095.
14. Fiorino, L. (2003), Seismic Behavior of Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Stud
Shear Walls, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
15. Casafont, M., Arnedo, R., Roure, F., Rodriguez, A. (2006), Experimental
testing of joints for seismic design of lightweight structures, Part 1. Screwed
joints in straps, Thin-Walled Structures, 44, 197210.
16. Telue, Y., Mahendran, M. (2004), Numerical modelling and design of
unlined cold-formed steel wall frames, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 60, 12411256.
17. Young, B. (2008), Research on cold-formed steel columns, Thin-Walled
Structures, 46, 731740.
18. Tian, Y. S., Lu, T. J. (2004), Minimum weight of cold-formed steel sections
under compression, Thin-Walled Structures, 42, 515532.
19. Moen, C. D., Schafer, B. W. (2008), Experiments on cold-formed steel
columns with holes, Thin-Walled Structures, 46, 11641182.
20. Tian, Y. S., Wang, J., Lu, T. J. (2007), Axial load capacity of cold-formed
steel wall stud with sheathing, Thin-Walled Structures, 45, 537551.

48

21. Wang, J., Tian, Y.S., Lu, T.J. (2005), The role of frame members and
sheathing in partition wall panels subjected to compression, Thin-Walled
Structures, 43, 9831002.
22. AISI (1996), Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington DC, USA.
23. Faherty, K., F., Willams, T. (1999), Wood Engineering and Construction
Handbook., McGraw Hill, New York.
24. Cates, P. J. (2002), Dowel Bearing Strength and Bolted Connection Behavior
of Oriented Strand Board Lumber, Msc. Thesis, Washington State
University, Washington DC, USA.
25. Easley, J. T., Foomani, M., Dodds, R. H. (1982), Formulas for Wood Shear
Walls, ASCE Journal of Structural Division, 108(11), 2460-2478.

49

APPENDIX
DETAILS OF LOAD TESTS

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71