STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF COLD FORMED STEEL FRAMING

CONSTRUCTION UNDER LATERAL LOAD

Mohammed F. Belal *1, Mohammed H. Serror 2, Sherif A. Mourad 2, Mohammed

M. EL Saadawy 3
*1
Corresponding author: Mohammed F. Belal, Doctoral Student at Faculty of Engineering Cairo University, Civil
Engineering Department, Higher Technological Institute, Tenth of Ramadan City, P.O. Box :228, Egypt,
m1985fb@[Link]
2
Professor of Steel Structures, Department of structural engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University,
Egypt
3
Professor of Steel Structures, Head of structure and steel institute, House and Building National Research Center
(HBRC), Egypt

Abstract
Behavior of cold-formed steel CFS framing evaluated through numerical investigation. Studies
on different structural components of CFS framing performed. The effect of blockings and their
locations investigated by increasing their numbers along the wall height. As for the sheathing
element, different types of sheathing materials and configurations considered including steel
sheathing sheet and Cement-Board. Furthermore, different spacing between screws studied.
The finite element results revealed that using sheathing on both sides can significantly increase
the wall capacity. Meanwhile, using C.B sheathing results in a significant degradation the wall
capacity compared to their counterparts with steel sheathing.
Keywords: Cold-formed steel, Stud wall, Finite Element Modelling, Steel Sheathing, Lateral
Load, Cement-Board.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed steel CFS become a widespread construction material because of its
advantages of lightweight, fast installation time and countless sectional configurations that can
be more economical compared to traditional hot-rolled steel and reinforced concrete structures.
CFS framing, also known as (CFS stud wall), used as a lateral load resisting system and is
consists of framing members (C-Section for tracks and studs), sheathing material, such as
(steel, gypsum board, etc.…) either placed on one or two sides of the wall where it is connected
to stud’s flanges using self-drilling screws.
The moment rotation capacity of CFS beams evaluated through numerical and experimental
investigations; parameters including different values of profile thickness, different cross
section shapes such as broken-section and curved-section considered. In addition, a web-bolted
moment resistant connection adopted with different configurations of the through plate with
and without out of plane stiffeners [1, 2].
Experimental studies conducted to evaluate the performance of the stud wall system with
different configurations under monotonic and cyclic loading protocols, and also to develop a
1
method to calculate the response modification factor (R) as the AISI only lists the strength of
typical wall configurations in tabulated forms [3, 4, 5, 6]
Using bracing in steel structure generally enhances the lateral performance of the system.
Hence, the contribution of different shapes and configurations of bracing to the behavior of
CFS bare steel framing [7, 8] and sheathed wall panels [9] under reversed cyclic and vertical
loads has been tested, also; considered placing the sheathing in the middle between framing
instead of the traditional single side placement of the sheathing [10].
Finite element modelling (FEM) used to study the shear resistance of CFS framing
structures under monotonic loading based on the ANSYS program, modeling both framing and
sheathing with shell element (SHELL181) while modeling fasteners with (coupling) [11, 12].
ABAQUS program used to study the effect of oriented standard board on shear strength of CFS
framing structures. Framing members and sheathing modeled with shell element (4-node S4R),
sheathing-to-frame fasteners modelled with nonlinear spring elements, and hold-downs
modeled as bilinear springs [13].
This paper presents a numerical investigation that underpins the usage of CFS framing as
a Lateral load resisting system. The behavior, together with load capacity are evaluated.
2. Numerical Model
Numerical FE models prepared using ABAQUS [14] and the numerical model basic
parameters are: element type: 4-node shell element (S4R) shell element with reduced
integration. For modeling cement material used in Cement-Boards, the Concrete Damage
Plasticity (CDP) employed [14]. The Hold-down modeled by a combination of rigid body
command and spring element [14]. As shown in Fig. 1. Meanwhile, the self-drilling screws
modeled by the mesh independent fasteners command [14].

Lateral supports

(b)

Rigid Body
screws Constraint
(a)
Framing
members

Sheathing

Reference Point
and Spring
connected to
H.D Bottom DOF ground type
Fig. 1 (a): Finite element model and (b): Hold-down details

2
 Cold-formed steel modeled as a non-linear material with Fy = 290 and 280 MPa (yield
stress), Fu = 365 and 396 MPa (ultimate tensile stress) for 1.5 mm and 1 mm steel, respectively,
Young’s modulus E=2.1*105 MPa, Poisson’s ratio υ= 0.3 and density γ=7.85*10-9 t/mm3.
ABAQUS requires the input of material stress-strain curves in the form of true stress (σtrue)
versus true strain (ϵtrue) which obtained from the engineering stresses (σ) and engineering
strains (ϵ) performed by the authors using the following equations:
σ true = σ (1+ ϵ) (1)
σ𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒
ϵ true = ln (1+ ϵ) - (2)
𝐸

In addition, to properly model the screw, a load-displacement behavior of a connector

element defined. Linear buckling analysis performed to obtain the dominating Eigenmodes
required for introducing initial imperfection to the model, followed by non-linear static
analysis. Hence, nonlinear inelastic post-buckling analysis performed.
Different configurations adopted in this study, as shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1, with overall
dimensions of 2400 x 1200 mm and expressed as follows: S-S-ts-N-L, where:
• S: for steel sheathing and C.B: for cement board sheathing.
• S: is stud spacing.
• ts: sheathing thickness.
• N: number sheathing sides.
• L: location of blockings H/2

3
 1200.00
600.00 600.00

Track S1

t S2

L
A

Steel Sheathing

t
A
L

Stud

(a) A x B x t x C(b)
Fig. 2(a): Stud/Track dimensions A x B x t and (b): model configuration.
Table 1 Models with variable stud spacing, sheathing properties and blocking
Stud Stud Screw Sheathing
Number of
Track spacing spacing Material Blocking
Model name AxBxtxC sheathing
mm O.C (mm) /Thickness location L
AxBxt sides N
(mm) S S1/S2 (mm) ts

S-600-1-1 (ref.
One side
model)
-----
Steel/1
S-600-1-2 Two sides
100/300
S-600-1-1-H/2 150x50x1.5x20 H/2
600
150x50x1.5 One side
CB-600-12.5-1
C.B/12.5
CB-600-12.5-2 Two sides -----
50/100
S-600-1-1-50/100 Steel/1 One side

4
 3. Results and discussion
[Link] Model Verification
Verification with existing experimental and analytical works by Niari et al. and Hitesh Vora
[15, 16] presented to validate the proposed model.
Table 2 Specimens details from Niari et al. and Hitesh Vora [15,11]
Author Panel Stud Stud Screw Sheathing Number Blocking
Dimension Track spacing spacing Thickness of location
(mm) AxBxtxC (mm) S (mm) (mm) ts sheathing L
mm S1/S2 sides N
AxBxt

100𝑥50𝑥1.2𝑥10
Niari et al. [15] 2500x1250 625 100/300 1.5 ONE H/2
100𝑥50𝑥1.2

88.9x41.275x0.84x12.7
Hitesh Vora [16] 2440*1220 610 100/300 0.84 ONE -----
88.9x38.1x0.84

Hitesh Vora. [16] Experimental tests have been conducted on a wall panel as shown in
Table 2 and Fig. 3a. The CFS sections have been fabricated from the galvanized steel sheets
with nominal yield and ultimate strength of 227.57 MPa and 310 MPa, respectively. Self-
drilling screws of 4 mm diameter and 25.4 mm length have been used to connect the CFS
framing members. A good agreement observed between the FE model results and the
experimental results [16] as shown in Fig. 3b.
15

12.5

10
Load (kN)

7.5

Hitesh Vora [16]

2.5
Numerical Model
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (mm)
Fig. 3 Load against lateral deflection
Niari et al. [15] experimental tests and FE models conducted on CFS framing panels with
dimensions as shown in Table 2. Blockings made of single U channels were attached at one-
third of the height of the panel as shown in Fig. 4. The CFS sections have been fabricated from
galvanized steel sheets with nominal yield and ultimate strength of 310 MPa and 415 MPa,
respectively. Young's modulus E and Poisson’s ratio υ have been considered as 210000 MPa

5
and 0.3, respectively. Self-drilling screws of 4.8 mm diameter and 19 mm length have been
used to connect sheathing to framing members.
60

50

40
Load (kN)

30

20
Niari et al. [15]
10
Numerical Model
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
Distance (mm)

Fig. 4 Load against lateral deflection

From Fig. 4 it is evident that the resulted ultimate load is in good agreement with that of
Niari et al. [15].
[Link] models result
Models with steel sheathing on one side are demonstrating an out of plane buckling in
sheathing with different patterns observed along the path of Tension Field (T.F). Local
buckling observed in stud’s web/flange, particularly in flanges connected to sheathing where
stresses are transferred from the sheathing to the flange through screws and, consequently from
the flange to the web. Furthermore, buckling in web/flange, particularly in flanges connected
to the sheathing, observed in both top and bottom tracks.
Providing sheathing on both sides limits the previously mentioned buckling zone to the top
end of the model near loading location. In addition, chord-studs demonstrated global buckling
and the top track showed excessive distortion in web/flanges.
The model with Cement-Board has no significant buckling in framing members and the
C.B cracking then crushing at screws locations govern the overall behavior of the model. The
failure in C.B initiated first at the edge screws located at both top and bottom tracks then cracks
propagated along the screws located at chord-studs. Finally, the cracks spread in path
perpendicular to the expected T.F direction. Buckling in top and bottom tracks observed at the
end of loading.
Using blockings helps in reducing sheathing buckling compared to the reference model. In
the model with blocking located at H/2, the presence of blockings acts as lateral stiffeners for
sheathings with T.F confined to the areas between blockings and tracks. As the load increases
to reach the ultimate load, buckling in the web of the top track occurred followed by buckling
in the flange connected to sheathing as a consequent of sheath buckling in this area.

6
 Load against lateral deflection are shown in Fig. 5a and 6b. Compared to the reference
Model (S-600-1-1), using sheathing on both sides increases the ultimate load by 104.29%.
while, using single side 12.5 mm C.B as a sheathing result in a significant reduction in the
ultimate load by 57.20%. While, using C.B sheathing on both sides improved the behavior as
it only results in 7.48% strength reduction compared to reference model. However, the reported
corresponding lateral deflection is much higher as shown in Table 3. Screw spacing being the
only variable, the overall behavior of this model observed to be similar to the reference model
with increased ultimate load by approximate 15.50%. Using blocking in model increases the
ultimate load up to 61.21% compared to the reference model
90 S-600-1-1 90
(a) S-600-1-1-H/2 (b)
S-600-1-2
80 80 CB-600-12.5-1
S-600-1-1-50/100
70 70 CB-600-12.5-2
60 60
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Lateral Deflection (mm) Lateral Deflection (mm)

Fig. 5 Load against Lateral deflection for models.

Table 3 Ultimate and failure loads

Ultimate stage
Name % Pu
Pu (kN) ∆u (mm)

S-600-1-1(ref. model) 40.74 65.94 ------

S-600-1-2 83.23 93.94 104.29

CB-600-12.5-1 17.44 47.89 -57.20

Pu− Pu ref
% Pu = x
CB-600-12.5-2 37.70 114.96 -7.48 Pu ref
100, (-) sign indicate
reduction in S-600-1-1-H/2 65.68 97.74 61.21 value.
4. Summary S-600-1-1-50/100 53.30 104.00 30.82 and
conclusions
A numerical investigation performed to study the behavior of CFS stud walls. Three-
dimensional nonlinear FE models established with different configurations subject to
monotonic loading. Parameters including sheathing sides, sheathing material, blocking location
and screws spacing investigated. The main conclusions, within the range of the studied models
summarized as follows:
1. using sheathing on both sides studs significantly increases the ultimate load capacity.
7
2. Blocking generally improves the model behavior.
3. It’s evident that screws failure governs the behavior for models CB-600-12.5-1.
4. Using C.B results in significant strength reduction compared to reference model. However,
using C.B sheathing on both sides improved the performance
References

[1] M. H. Serror, E. M. Hassan and S. A. Mourad, "Experimental study on the rotation

capacity of cold-formed steel beams," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol.
121, p. 216–228, 5 February 2016.

[2] E. M. Hassan, M. H. Serror and S. A. Mourad, "Numerical prediction of available

rotation capacity of cold-formed," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 128,
pp. 84-98, August 2016.

[3] D. Dubina, "Behavior and Performance of Cold-Formed Steel-Framed Houses Under

Seismic Action," Journal of Constructional Steel Research , vol. 64, p. 896–913, 2008.

[4] J. Dabreo, N. Balh, C. Ong-Tone and C. Rogers, "Steel Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel
Framed Shear Walls Subjected To Lateral And Gravity Loading," Thin-Walled
Structures, vol. 74, p. 232–245 ., Jnuary 2014.

[5] N. Balh, J. dabreo, C. Ong-Tone, K. El-Saloussy and C. Rogers, "Design Of Steel

Sheathed Cold-Formed Steel Framed Shear Walls," Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 75, p.
76–86., February 2014.

[6] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), North American Standard for Cold- formed
Steel Framing-Lateral Design, AISI S213, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

[7] O. Iuorio, V. Macillo and M. T. Ter, "Seismic response of CFS strap-braced stud walls:
Experimental investigation," Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 85, p. 466–480, 2014.

[8] L. Fiorino, M. T. Terracciano and Raffaele , "Experimental investigation of seismic

behaviour of low dissipative CFS strap-braced stud walls," Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, vol. 127, p. 92–107, 2016.

[9] M. Accorti, N. Baldassino and R. Zandonin, "Response of CFS Sheathed Shear Walls,"
Structures, vol. 7, p. 100–112, 2016.

[10] V. Brière, V. Santos and C. A. Rogers, "Cold-formed steel centre-sheathed (mid-ply)

shear walls," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 114, pp. 253-266, 2018.

[11] H. Vora, "SHEAR WALL TESTS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF COLD‐
FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS," Thesis Prepared for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS., NORTH TEXAS.,
2008.

8
[12] X. Zhou, Y. He, Y. Shi , T. Zhou and Y. Liu, "EXPERIMENT and FE ANALYSIS on
SHEAR RESISTANCE of COLD-FORMED STEEL STUD ASSEMBLED WALL in
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE," Advanced Steel Construction, vol. 6, pp. 914-925.,
2010.

[13] H. H. Ngo, "NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES of WOOD

SHEATHED COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAMED SHEAR WALLS," A thesis
submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Engineering, Baltimore, 2014.

[14] ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual V6.14., Dassault Système, 2014.

[15] S. E. Niari, B. Rafezy and K. Abedi, "Seismic behavior of steel sheathed cold-formed
steel shear wall: Experimental investigation and numerical modeling”,," Thin-Walled
Structures, vol. 96, p. 337–347, 2015.

[16] H. Vora, "SHEAR WALL TESTS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF COLD‐
FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS," NORTH TEXAS., 2008.