Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Behaviour of Gypsum Sheathed Point-symmetric Cold-formed Steel T

members: Assessment of AISI Design Method
Sivaganesh Selvaraj, Mahendrakumar Madhavan
⁎

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Kandi, Sangareddy 502 285, Telangana, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents suggestions for the efficient codification of the current American Iron and Steel Institute's
Cold-formed steel wall panels (AISI) design specifications for “Sheathing Braced Design of Wall Studs.” The current design specifications of
Sheathing braced design AISI is neither robust nor accurate, especially for various slendernesses, geometry (singly symmetric, double
AISI symmetric and point symmetric) and corresponding failure modes of the Cold-formed Steel (CFS) studs, since the
Out-of-plane loading
current one was developed based on the limited experimental data. As per the author's knowledge, the current
Effective design
design expressions of AISI were not validated for various geometries of the CFS studs subjected to out-of-plane
loading (perpendicular to the surface of the wall). Therefore, in this paper, 32 out-of-plane bending tests were
carried out to understand the effect of gypsum sheathings in wall panels with “Z shaped” (point symmetric
geometry) CFS structural members. The design parameters such as slendernesses of the CFS stud, sheathing
board thickness and sheathing fastener connection spacing are considered. The experimental moment capacities
and observed failure modes of the sheathed panels are compared with the AISI predictions. The comparison
between experimental moment capacities versus AISI predictions indicates that the design predictions are un-
conservative due to the inability of the AISI design procedure in predicting the accurate failure modes of
sheathed panels similar to experiments. Therefore, a set of modified design procedures in-terms of elastic
buckling analysis model (EBAM) are suggested for predicting the accurate failure modes. However, even with the
modified procedures, the design predictions are either overly conservative or unconservative, and this can be
attributed to the fact that the study specimens are point symmetric whereas the components of sheathing
stiffness values incorporated in the EBAM are based on the “singly symmetric” CFS studs alone. Nevertheless, the
AISI implicitly suggests sheathing stiffness expressions (based on the C shaped CFS stud) for all types of CFS
structural members. In addition, it was also observed that the current design procedures do not account for the
variation in the slenderness of the CFS studs even for the “C shaped” CFS studs while predicting the sheathing
stiffnesses which influences the strength of the members significantly. Hence, suggestions for improvement in
the specific sections of the current AISI design provisions for effective design predictions are made.

1. Introduction
To account for the contribution of sheathing in the CFS wall panels
design subjected to axial compression, various researchers [1–6] over
several decades investigated on various design parameters such as
sheathing materials [plasterboards, light-gage corrugated sheets, ply-
wood, OSB (oriented strand board), gypsum, and fiber bond walls],
sheathing board thickness (tb), fastener spacings (df), and CFS stud di-
mensions. One of the first findings towards the design specification of
sheathed CFS wall panel design is available in [1,2], which suggested
that the minor axis effective length (Lx) of the CFS wall stud shall be
taken as equal to twice the fastener spacing (2df or 2a) “also known as
2a rule” while predicting the compressive strength of the sheathed CFS
wall panel (Fig. 1a–c). The “2a rule” and its limitations are graphically
explained in Fig. 1. The applicability of the “2a rule” is: (i) the
sheathing configuration (thickness, material, and fastener spacing)
should be identical on both the sides (Fig. 1d); (ii) sheathing fastener
connection should not fail due to the movement (lateral movement due
to buckling) of the CFS stud; (iii) if non-identical sheathings are pro-
vided on the wall panel then the design should be based on the weaker
sheathing material for conservativeness (Fig. 1e–f); and (iv) the max-
imum spacing between the sheathing-fastener connection shall not
be > 12 in. (305 mm). The research outcomes of Green et al. [1], and
Winter [2] is still being used in cold-formed steel design specifications

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ce13p1009@iith.ac.in (S. Selvaraj), mkm@iith.ac.in (M. Madhavan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.06.005
Received 15 November 2018; Received in revised form 8 June 2019; Accepted 10 June 2019
Available online 10 August 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

tb
L = Unbraced length
for unsheathed member (pinned ends)
L = Length of the member

λ= kL
for sheathed member ("2a" rule)
L = 2 x fastener spacing (d f )
r

2df or 2a
df shall not exceed 12 inches (Green et. al 1947)
k = effective length coefficient
r = radius of gyration
df or a
tb-1 tb-1
tb-1> tb-2
Same material

δ tb-1 tb-2
(d) Identical sheathing configuration (e) Non identical sheathing
configuration - Thickness variation
L

tb-1 tb-3
tb-1= tb-3
Diff. material
tb-3
(f) Non identical sheathing (g) Single sided sheathing
configuration - Diff. sheathing material configuration

Sheathing type AISI S211 (2012) AISI RP13-1 (2013)

Fig. 1(d) 2a rule - assuming that the

(a) Unsheathed member -
Failed in torsional buckling
sheathing is stiff and strong enough Design is based on the
to resist the CFS stud's lateral or Sheathing stiffnesses
torsional movement (kx , ky and k ) at each
Figs. 1(e and f) 2a rule - only if the weaker of the fastener locations.
two sheathing is stiff and strong Will account for all
enough to the resist the CFS stud's practical sheathing
lateral or torsional movement configurations
(b) Sheathed member (c) Sheathed member - Failed [Figs. 1(d-g)]
Fig. 1(g) Must be designed as an all steel
in minor axis buckling with
assembly or designed conservatively
reduced unbraced length

Fig. 1. Definition of “2a rule”, limitations of “2a rule” and current AISI [13] design specifications.

ky k x - Lateral translational stiffness - The resistance offered by the

sheathing against the shear force developed at each sheathing fastener
connection when the CFS stud in the sheathed panel moves in the
kx lateral direction alone due to the weak axis buckling.
k
k y - Vertical stiffness - The additional stiffness that the sheathing adds
to the Major-axis bending rigidity of the stud.

k - Rotational stiffness - The resistance against the cross sectional twist

or rotation of the flange attached to the sheathing.

Fig. 2. Definition of sheathing stiffnesses.

AISI (S211) [7]. However, the research results in [6,7] indicate that the
failure modes predicted by the “2a rule” in the AISI [7] and [9] design
specifications differ from the failure modes observed in experiments for
axial compression.
Recently, Vieira, Vieira and Schafer and AISI [10–13] proposed a
design procedure for the design of sheathed CFS panels that accounts
for all the practical conditions such as single-sided sheathing, non-
identical sheathing (gypsum -plywood, steel corrugated sheet -
fiberboard, and OSB – plasterboards, and many other combinations)
and various sheathing-fastener connection spacing limits. The design
procedure involves the calculation of sheathing stiffnesses at each
sheathing fastener connections (stiffnesses kx, ky and kϕ as shown in
Fig. 2) followed by incorporating the calculated stiffnesses in the elastic
buckling analysis which is a primary input to the direct strength
method (DSM) design of CFS structural members in AISI [9]. This
sheathing braced design procedure was validated through experiments

77
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

The preliminary investigation by Selvaraj and Madhavan [15–19]

b on gypsum sheathed wall panels with C shaped CFS studs subjected to
Fig. 3. View of point symmetric “Z” shaped CFS structural member.
only for the axial compression loading case with limited sheathing
materials (gypsum and OSB) and sheathing configurations (single sided,
two-sided identical and two-sided non-identical) and limited CFS stud
dimensions (C shaped CFS stud) [11]. In addition, it should be noted
that the expression for calculating sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ)
involved in the design procedure of AISI [13] is developed based on the
C shaped CFS structural members alone [12] and [14]. However, the
above design procedure was suggested for various/all shapes of CFS
structural members subjected to both axial compression and flexural
loadings in the AISI's report [13].
out-of-plane loading indicates the following: (i) effect of sheathing
primarily depends on the slendernesses of the CFS studs; (ii) the design
procedures suggested in AISI [13] is unconservative for specimens that
are prone to fail only in lateral torsional buckling since the AISI method
over estimates the sheathing effect; (iii) the sheathed CFS specimens are
considered as a fully braced beam (lateral torsional buckling mo-
ment = yield moment) by AISI [13] design method with all sheathing
stiffnesses (kx, ky and kϕ), while in reality (experiments) they failed in
LTB mode due to high global slenderness, thereby leading to un-
conservative [Experimental moment capacity (MEXP) < Predicted
moment capacity (MDSM)] design predictions; (iv) the unconservative
design predictions by the AISI [13] may be attributed to the fact that
the sheathing stiffnesses are developed based on the axial compression
loading case, whereas the same CFS member will behave differently
under axial and flexural loading cases.
Although it was suggested that the current design specifications of
AISI [13] require modification to accurately predict the strength and
failure modes of C shaped sheathed CFS panels subjected to out-of-
plane loading, further investigations are very much required in the
following areas for developing a more robust sheathed CFS member
design specification: (i) effect of sheathing on the various geometry of
CFS structural members (singly symmetric, point symmetric and doubly
symmetric); (ii) verifying the suitability of the current design equations
for various geometry and slenderness of the CFS studs and (iii) if the
current design method is not suitable, propose a modification in design

Table 1
Sheathing configurations and results of stiffness calculation at each sheathing-fastener connections.
Specimen ID Dimensions of CFS stud Slendernesses Sheathing configuration Sheathing-fastener connection
stiffnesses

Outer-to- Outer-to- Depth of Thickness (t) Local λl Distortional λd Global λe Sheathing Fastener kx (N/ ky(fc) kϕ (N/
outer outer Breadth lip (dl) (mm) thickness (tb) spacing (df) mm/ (N/mm/ mm/
Depth (h) (b) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) mm) mm) mm/rad)
(mm)

Z01-12.5-150 50 37.5 – 2.5 0.59 – 1.62 12.5 150 2.730 0.015 172.6
Z01-12.5-300 12.5 300 2.198 0.015 172.6
Z01-15.0-150 15.0 150 2.455 0.022 177.8
Z01-15.0-300 15.0 300 1.862 0.022 177.8
Z02-12.5-150 50 35 – 1.5 1.01 – 2.18 12.5 150 1.475 0.015 108.4
Z02-12.5-300 12.5 300 0.930 0.015 108.4
Z02-15.0-150 15.0 150 1.168 0.022 110.4
Z02-15.0-300 15.0 300 0.697 0.022 110.4
Z03-12.5-150 80 50 – 2.5 0.81 – 1.47 12.5 150 2.730 0.032 172.6
Z03-12.5-300 12.5 300 2.198 0.032 172.6
Z03-15.0-150 15.0 150 2.455 0.047 177.8
Z03-15.0-300 15.0 300 1.862 0.047 177.8
Z04-12.5-150 80 30 – 1.5 0.90 – 2.40 12.5 150 1.475 0.032 108.4
Z04-12.5-300 12.5 300 0.928 0.032 108.4
Z04-15.0-150 15.0 150 1.168 0.047 110.4
Z04-15.0-300 15.0 300 0.697 0.047 110.4
ZL01-12.5-150 50 30 22.5 2.5 0.21 0.27 1.28 12.5 150 2.730 0.015 172.6
ZL01-12.5-300 12.5 300 2.198 0.015 172.6
ZL01-15.0-150 15.0 150 2.455 0.022 177.8
ZL01-15.0-300 15.0 300 1.862 0.022 177.8
ZL02-12.5-150 50 28.2 27.5 1.5 0.36 0.39 1.47 12.5 150 1.475 0.015 108.4
ZL02-12.5-300 12.5 300 0.928 0.015 108.4
ZL02-15.0-150 15.0 150 1.168 0.022 110.4
ZL02-15.0-300 15.0 300 0.697 0.022 110.4
ZL03-12.5-150 80 32 22.5 2.5 0.28 0.36 1.41 12.5 150 2.730 0.032 172.6
ZL03-12.5-300 12.5 300 2.198 0.032 172.6
ZL03-15.0-150 15.0 150 2.455 0.047 177.8
ZL03-15.0-300 15.0 300 1.862 0.047 177.8
ZL04-12.5-150 80 25 10 1.5 0.42 0.54 2.33 12.5 150 1.475 0.032 108.4
ZL04-12.5-300 12.5 300 0.928 0.032 108.4
ZL04-15.0-150 15.0 150 1.168 0.047 110.4
ZL04-15.0-300 15.0 300 0.697 0.047 110.4

b = breadth of flange (out-to-out); di = depth of lip; df = fastener spacing; h = depth of web (out-to-out); t = base metal thickness of CFS sections; tb = sheathing
thickness.

78
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Table 2 As per the author's knowledge, such point symmetric Z shaped members
Geometric imperfections in the tested specimens. were not investigated previously for flexure. In addition, various design
Specimen ID Number of Global Imperfections (mean) Local parameters such as global (λe), local (λl) and distortional slendernesses
specimens imperfections (λd,) of the CFS stud, sheathing board thickness (tb) and sheathing
measured (mean) fastener connection spacing (df) are also included. Based on the ex-
perimental results and design strength calculations, the preliminary
Bow (L/δ) Camber Twist Crown Flare
(L/δ) (degrees/ (b/t) (mm)a
suggestions (appropriate stiffnesses of sheathing combination) were
m) given for modification in the current sheathing braced panel designs by
AISI [13]. Further, research problems that are necessary to make the
Z01 5 175.52 1255.17 0.38 1.82 4.80 current AISI design specifications robust are also suggested.
Z02 5 170.46 1217.34 1.35 2.42 4.55
Z03 5 353.00 1859.34 0.28 2.36 6.08
Z04 5 155.43 1585.15 1.19 3.33 4.04 2. Experimental program and observations
ZL01 5 425.72 1155.12 0.33 1.82 –
ZL02 5 1805.02 524.36 1.10 2.42 – 2.1. Dimensions and mechanical properties of the Z shaped CFS studs
ZL03 5 468.17 1613.06 0.28 2.36 –
ZL04 5 292.39 1543.84 1.19 3.33 –
The objective of this work is to determine the contribution of var-
δ - imperfections magnitude in mm; L - length of the member; b- breadth of the ious sheathing configurations (sheathing board thickness tb and
element; t – thickness of the CFS stud. sheathing fastener connection spacing df) on the strength and failure
a
In general the imperfection type flare is influenced by waved and un- modes of the point-symmetric (Z shaped) CFS structural members
measurable dents hence it is given in terms of millimeters. (Fig. 3). The present experimental work comprises of 32 sheathed wall
panels made of unlipped Z and lipped Z specimens with varying global
(λe), local (λl) and distortional (λd) slendernesses as shown in Table 1.
Table 3 The geometric imperfections of the unsheathed CFS studs were mea-
Material properties of Cold-formed steel profiles obtained from the tensile tests. sured using a three-dimensional non-contact laser scanner, which is
Thickness Es (GPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) εf (%) fu/fy similar to the approach used by Selvaraj and Madhavan [22]. The
various geometric imperfections categories of the CFS studs namely
1.5 210.93 377.36 440.67 17.53 1.17 bow (weak axis bent), camber (strong axis bent), twist (cross-sectional
2.5 215.87 329.90 419.83 18.00 1.27
twist per length), crown (bent in the element), and flare (bent in the
unstiffened element) [22–25] are summarized in Table 2. Although
these geometric imperfections will have an effect on the strength of the
Table 4 member, it cannot be captured as the effect of sheathing will subdue
Material properties of gypsum board (sheathing material) obtained from the this influence of imperfections. The material properties of the Z shaped
tensile tests. (point-symmetric) CFS profiles were obtained through the tensile
Thickness of gypsum board (mm) Tensile Modulus Ultimate strength (N) testing procedure given in ASTM E8 [26] and Huang and Young [27].
Eg (MPa) (mean) The material properties of the CFS profiles such as Young's modulus
(Es), yield stress (fy), ultimate tensile strength (fu) and strain at rupture
12.5 (1/2 in.) 2100 387
15.0 (5/8 in.) 2272.1 420
(εf) are given in Table 3.

2.2. Properties of the gypsum board and specifications of the self-drilling

fasteners
expressions. Therefore, in the present study, the contribution of
sheathing and appropriateness of the current AISI design methods for The CFS wall panels are sheathed with gypsum boards of plain type
the Z shaped CFS sections (point symmetric geometry – Fig. 3) that
(Gypboard-Plain from Gyproc/Saint-Gobain). The material properties
typically fail in biaxial bending [20,21] is investigated experimentally. of the gypsum boards were obtained through the tensile test at a
Stress σ (MPa)

tb
Force

(a) (b)
Strain ε (%)
Fig. 4. Stress-strain curve of gypsum board obtained from the tensile test; (b) view of tensile testing on gypsum boards.

79
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan
through
Fig. 5. Specification of Sheathing fastener connection as per NAHB [30]: (a)
Dimensions of the self-drilling fasteners; (b) drilling procedure.
constant displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min as per American Society for
Testing and Materials standard (ASTM) E72 [28]. The stress-strain
curves and the material properties of the gypsum boards are given in
Fig. 4 and Table 4 respectively. The self-drilling fastener used in this
study is of No.6 with washer type as per ASME [29]. The dimensions of
the self-drilling fastener are shown in Fig. 5a. The self-drilling fastener
have 12 threads per inch, and are screwed such that minimum three
threads are penetrated through the last material that is jointed in the
connection (Fig. 5b) as per the guidelines of National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) and United States Department of housing and
urban development [30].
Loading
Beam
End
rotation
Fig. 6. (a) View of the test specimen; (b) view of out-of-plane loading test setup; (c) rotation free end fixtures.
80
Structures 22 (2019) 76–97
2.3. Experimental setup
All the CFS panels are identically sheathed on both sides (same
thickness on both sides) as shown in Fig. 1d. The sheathed specimens
were grouped based on the global slenderness of unsheathed Z sections
for simplicity, and each group has four specimens (Table 1). The group
of four specimens was sub-grouped based on the gypsum board thick-
nesses (tb) (12.5 mm and 15 mm), in each board thickness and
sheathing fastener connection spacing (df) (150 mm and 300 mm). The
test specimens (two-sided sheathed wall panels) were tested as a single
stud panel as shown in Fig. 6(a–b). The experimental test setup used for
the out-of-plane loading on sheathed CFS panel is shown in Fig. 6. The
unbraced length of all the tested CFS panel is 2250 mm (Fig. 6a) and the
width (wtf) is 300 mm (Fig. 7b). The intermediate distance between the
two loading points is 800 mm, and the distance between the loading
point to the support point is 725 mm as shown in actual test setup
Fig. 8. The test panels were positioned in the test frame such that the
load will pass through the plane of the web of Z section as shown in
Fig. 7(a–b). But it should be noted that the principal axis of the Z sec-
tion lies inclined to the plane of the web (Fig. 3). Therefore the present
loading configuration will create a biaxial bending. However, such a
loading configuration is not intentional, and it is the typical way of
loading the Z shaped cross-sections [20]. The experiments were carried
out using a 250 kN MTS servo controlled hydraulic actuator at a con-
stant displacement rate of 0.01 mm/s. The load was applied on the
specimen through the loading beam and plates which are directly
connected through bolts to the hydraulic actuator.
It should be noted that in practical conditions the CFS walls are
connected to an end track and hold-down connections with fastener
L=
22
50
mm
S
hy ervo
dra co
Di uli ntr
spl c a oll
0.0 acem ctuat ed
1 m en or
m/ t rat -
sec e
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan
Adjustable - to
width of the panel
Adjustable - to
depth of the panel
Fig. 7. (a) End view of the fixtures; (b) 3 dimensional view of end fixtures; (c) view of the actual CFS sheathed wall panel with end-track connections.
connections (Fig. 7c). The use of similar end track connections in the
testing work will lead to pull-out or connection failure at the ends of the
panel especially when the load is applied in the out-of-plane direction.
Although such failure modes can occur in realistic situations, they
should, however, be avoided in the experimental testing that is focused
on the failure modes of the structural member. Therefore, the sheathed
test panels were attached to a unique fixture at both the ends that can
resist the entire test panel from twisting and sliding at the supports
during loading as shown in Fig. 7(a–b). Since the twisting of the whole
panel is resisted by attaching a fixture at both the ends (Fig. 8), the
single stud panel will behave like a wall panel that has two or more CFS
studs in parallel. However, the end fixtures will not apply any con-
centrated force on the wall panel (gypsum sheathings and CFS stud).
The fixtures are designed such that they do not hinder the end rotations
(out-of-plane) as shown in Fig. 6c and lateral torsional buckling (LTB)
mode at the mid-span of the wall panel during the loading.
Loading beam
725 mm
Two-sided sheathed
CFS panel
Fig. 8. Actual view of the test set up for the CFS panels.
Structures 22 (2019) 76–97
Track
Hold-down connection
To study the performance of the sheathed panel and effect of
sheathing, the application of out-of-plane downward displacement was
continued until the occurrence of failure either in the sheathing
(breakage or pull-through) or in the CFS stud (local buckling or LTB).
The vertical deflection of the test specimens was measured using the
Non-Contact Displacement Transducer (NCDT) as shown in Fig. 8.
However due to the biaxial bending of the point-symmetric CFS studs in
many of the sheathed panels, the failure occurred at the sheathing-
fastener connections resulting in separation of sheathing from the CFS
stud. Examples of sheathing-fastener connection failure are shown in
the failure mode of the specimens “Z03-12.5-150” and “ZL03-15.0-
300”. Therefore to avoid any incorrect interpretation of the test results,
the applied displacement (machine displacement at the loading points)
was used in the load versus deflection curves (Figs. 9–10).
Servo controlled
hydraulic actuator
End fixtures
800 mm 725 mm
NCDT
Simple supports with half-round
on top to allow out-of-plane
rotation
81
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

2000 1600

1600
1200

Moment (kN-mm)
Moment (kN-mm)

1200
800
800

400
400

Z01 Z02
0 0
(a) 0 20 40 60 80 (b) 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
4000 2400

3000 1800

Moment (kN-mm)
Moment (kN-mm)

2000 1200

1000 600

Z03 Z04
0 0
(c) 0 20 40 60 80 (d) 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

tbtb= =12.5
12.5
mmmm; df==150
and df 150mm
mm tbtb==12.5
12.5 mm;
mm df ==300
and df 300mm
mm tb==15.0
tb 15.0 and d
mm;
mm = 150
dff = 150mm
mm tb = 15.0 mm; df = 300 mm
My – Yield moment AISI (2013) - EBAM Modified EBAM I Modified EBAM II

Fig. 9. Moment versus Displacement response: (a) Z01 set specimens; (a) Z02 set specimens; (a) Z03 set specimens; (a) Z04 set specimens.

3. Experimental observations 4. Design of sheathed CFS wall panels

The results obtained from the experiments including the maximum
ultimate moment (MEXP) and corresponding failure modes (Figs. 9–15
and Table 6) indicate that the efficacy of sheathing increases with the
increase in the global slenderness of the CFS stud. Most of the sheathed
wall panels failed due to the pull-through failure of sheathing-fastener
connections as shown in Figs. 11(a–b), 12(a–b), 14(a–b) and 15(a–b).
The occurrence of pull-through failure can also be observed from the
sudden drop in the Moment-deflection curves shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
However, the sheathing has significantly increased the strength of the
sheathed CFS panel members compared to the corresponding un-
sheathed CFS stud's design strength prediction as shown in each spe-
cimen's elastic buckling analysis curve. This pull-through failure at the
sheathing-fastener connections may be attributed to the biaxial bending
(frontward twisting) of Z shaped CFS studs. It should be noted that
three specimens in the Z04 wall panel set that did not undergo biaxial
bending and failed due to local buckling in the flange and web as shown
in Fig. 13(a–b). This may be attributed to the sheathing effect that
significantly braced the CFS stud and ensured that the CFS specimen
jumped to the next possible failure mode. More details on the sheathed
panel failure are not presented in this manuscript due to the manuscript
length limitations. However, a comprehensive analysis of the design
specifications of AISI [13] is presented with the experimental compar-
ison and reliability analysis.
The design of sheathed CFS wall panels in AISI [13] is based on the
AISI's [9] Direct Strength Method. The contribution of sheathing to the
CFS stud design is included in the form of stiffness at the sheathing-
fastener connections (Fig. 16) through elastic buckling stresses. In
general, the stiffness offered by the sheathing at each sheathing-fastener
connections resists the rotation and translation of the CFS stud, thereby
increasing its buckling resistance (Fcr increases) and hence an increase
in design strength. As mentioned previously in the introduction section,
the AISI's [13] design procedure of sheathed CFS wall panel design is
twofold: (i) calculation of stiffnesses offered by the sheathing at each
sheathing-fastener connection and incorporate the same in the elastic
buckling analysis; (ii) determining the critical elastic buckling stresses
for global buckling (Fcre), local buckling (Fcrl) and distortional buckling
(Fcrd) from elastic buckling analysis, which is a primary input to the
direct strength method (AISI) [9] predictions.
4.1. Direct strength method (AISI 2016)
The current direct strength method (DSM) expressions for CFS
flexural members in the North American Specification (AISI) [9] are
summarized as below. The nominal flexural strength or unfactored
design strength (MDSM) of CFS structural member as per AISI [9] is a
minimum of the flexural strengths for LTB (Mne), local buckling (Mnl),
and distortional buckling (Mnd), as shown in Eq. (1).

82
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

2000 1500

1500
Moment (kN-mm)

Moment (kN-mm)
1000

1000

500
500

ZL01 ZL02
0 0
(a) 0 20 40 60 80 (b) 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
4000 2400

3000 1800
Moment (kN-mm)

2000 Moment (kN-mm) 1200

1000 600

ZL03 ZL04
0 0
(c) 0 20 40 60 80 (d) 0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
tb = 12.5 mm; df = 150 mm
ZL04-12.5-150 tb = 12.5 mm; df = 300 mm
ZL04-12.5-300 tb = 15.0 mm; df = 150 mm
ZL04-15.0-150 tb= 15.0 mm; df = 300 mm
My – Yield moment AISI (2013) - EBAM Modified EBAM I Modified EBAM II

Fig. 10. Moment versus Displacement response: (a) ZL01 set specimens; (a) ZL02 set specimens; (a) ZL03 set specimens; (a) ZL04 set specimens.

MDSM = min(Mne , Mnl and Mnd ) (1) The inelastic reserve capacities for local buckling and distortional
buckling is also included in the current AISI [9] specification as per
Lateral-torsional buckling strength (Mne)
equation Eq. (6) and Eq. (8) respectively (Fig. 17). However, this in-
Mne = Mcre for Fcre < 0.56 Fy (2) elastic reserve capacities will be effective only if the CFS beams are
braced [lateral torsional buckling strength (Mne) = yield moment (My)]
10 10My
Mne = My 1 for 2.78 Fy Fcre 0.56 Fy and stable enough to allow partial plastification in the cross-section.
9 36Mcre (3) The required material properties of the point-symmetric Z shaped CFS
profiles for calculating the design were obtained through the tensile
Mne = My for Fcre > 2.78 Fy (4)
testing procedure given in ASTM E8 and Huang and Young [27] and
Local buckling strength (Mnl) [28].
Mnl = Mne for l 0.776 (5)
4.2. Sheathing-fastener connection stiffness determination
1
Mnl = My + 1 (Mp My ) for l 0.776 and Mne My As mentioned previously there are three different stiffnesses (kx, ky,
Cyl2 (6)
and kϕ) at each sheathing-fastener connections, and they behave in-
0.4 0.4 dividually (Fig. 2). The calculation of stiffnesses acting at each
Mcrl Mcrl
Mnl = 1 0.15 Mne for l > 0.776 sheathing fastener connection is shown below as per AISI [13].
My My (7)
4.2.1. Lateral-translational stiffness (kx)
Distortional buckling strength (Mnd)
In general, the resistance offered by the sheathing against the minor
1 axis movement of the CFS stud is lateral-translational stiffness (kx). This
Mnd = My + 1 (Mp My ) for 0.673
2
Cyd
d stiffness develops as the screw connection undergoes shear [16]
(8)
(Fig. 18). In lateral-translational stiffness (kx) calculation, there are two
0.5 0.5 subcategories of stiffnesses as per AISI [13], which are local stiffness
Mcd Mcrd
Mnd = 1 0.22 My for d > 0.673 (Eq. (10)) [(kxl) resistance of sheathing against the bearing and tilting of
My My (9) the fastener] and diaphragm stiffness (Eq. (11)) [(kxd) resistance of

83
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Z 02 – 12.5 - 300 Z 02 – 15.0 - 300

(a) Y* + Pull-Through (b) LTB + Pull-Through

15
Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
12.5 - 300 Kx ky
- kyKz
12.5 - 300 Ky kφ
10 - kx kAISI
15.0 - 300 ALL y kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
15.0 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

- kyKz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ

5
Fcre / Fy > 2.78
then Mne = My (d) (e) (f)
(g)
(h)
0
(c) 10 100 1000
Half-wave length (mm)
1.5 2
Unsheathed Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
1.25 12.5 - 300 -Kyky Kz
kφ
- ky Kz
kφ 1.75 - kxKy
12.5 - 300 Kx ky
15.0 - 300 Ky
- kyKz
12.5 - 300 Ky kφ
1 - kx kAISI
15.0 - 300 ALL y kφ (AISI 2013)
Fcr/Fy

1.5 - kxKy
15.0 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

- kyKz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ
0.75
1.25
0.5

1
0.25

0 0.75
(g) 2000 2500 3000 30 50 70 90 110 130
(h)
Half-wave length (mm) Half-wave length (mm)
Fig. 11. Biaxial bending of CFS stud and pull through failure of sheathing fastener connection in (a) Z02 – 12.5 – 300 specimen; (b) Z02 – 15.0– 300 specimen; (c) full
elastic buckling curve of Z02 set specimens with different EBAMs; (d) failure mode of AISI's EBAM; (e) failure mode of modified EBAM I; (f) failure mode of modified
EBAM II; (g) results of Modified EBAM II versus unsheathed CFS stud on global buckling length; (h) effect of sheathing stiffnesses on local buckling; note: LTB –
Lateral-torsional buckling; Y*- LTB failure due to the sheathing damage after yielding.

sheathing against the movement of the CFS stud]. The combined for- an addition (composite action) of flexural rigidity of the sheathing
mation of lateral-translational stiffness is in Eq. (12). board (EI)w to the flexural rigidity CFS studs (EI)stud. There are three
ways of calculating the composite action [full-composite (theoretical),
3 Es d 4t 3
Local stiffness k xl = partial - composite (experimental) and no composite action] between
4tb2 (9 d4 + 16tb t 3) (10)
the CFS studs and gypsum sheathing board while calculating the ver-
Gb tb df wtf tical stiffness (ky). However, the present study considers full-composite
Diaphragm stiffness k xd =
(11) action (Eq. (14)) since it was found to be appropriate/conservative
L2
based on the research work previously carried out by the present au-
kx =
1 thors [15].
1 1
+ (12) 4d
kxl kxd (EI )fc f
ky =
L4 (13)
4.2.2. Vertical stiffness (ky) 2
The stiffness that acts in the direction of the major axis bending of 1 1
(EI )fc = (EI ) w + Ew wtf tb h + tb
sheathed wall panel is vertical stiffness (ky - Eq. (13)). This stiffness is 2 2 (14)

84
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Z 03 – 12.5 - 150 Z 03 – 12.5 - 300

(a) LTB + Pull-through (b) LTB + Pull-through

15
Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 150 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
12.5 - 150 Kx ky
- kyKz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
10 - kx kAISI
12.5 - 300 ALL y kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
12.5 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

- kyKz
12.5 - 300 Ky kφ

5
Fcre / Fy > 2.78
then Mne = My (d) (e) (f)
(h) (g)

0
(c) 10 100 1000
Half-wave length (mm)
1 2.45
Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 150 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
12.5 - 150 Kx kφ
2.2 - kyKz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
0.75 - kx kyAISI
12.5 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
Fcr/Fy

- kxKy
12.5 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

1.95 - kyKz
12.5 - 300 Ky kφ

0.5
1.7
Unsheathed
- ky Kz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
12.5 - 300 Ky
- ky Kz
kφ
0.25 1.45
2000 2500 3000 50 75 100 125 150 175
(g) Half-wave length (mm) (h) Half-wave length (mm)
Fig. 12. Biaxial bending of CFS stud and pull through failure of sheathing fastener connection in (a) Z03 – 12.5 – 300 specimen; (b) Z02 – 12.5 – 300 specimen; (c)
full elastic buckling curve of Z03 set specimens with different EBAMs; (d) failure mode of AISI's EBAM; (e) failure mode of modified EBAM I; (f) failure mode of
modified EBAM II; (g) results of Modified EBAM II versus unsheathed CFS stud on global buckling length; (h) effect of sheathing stiffnesses on local buckling.

12 (EI ) w 1 1
Ew = k = +
wtf tb3 (15) _ k k
_ w _ c (17)

4.2.3. Rotational stiffness (kϕ) 2EIw

k =
The global rotation of the CFS stud, as well as the rotation of the _ w df (18)
flange elements, will be resisted by rotational stiffness (kϕ). The re-
search in [11] indicates that, if sheathing is provided on both the sides k = 0.00035Es t 2 + 75
_ c (19)
of the CFS studs, the global rotation of the CFS stud is mostly resisted by
the lateral-translational stiffness (kx), and the rotational stiffness (kϕ)
will only resist the element rotation of the flange (distortional buck- 4.3. Current AISI provision of sheathing braced design
ling). In other words, it also means that the kx encompasses the effect of
kϕ if both of them are included in the design. The rotational stiffness 4.3.1. Elastic buckling analysis
(kϕ) shall be calculated as shown in Eqs. (16)–(19). The precision of sheathed CFS panel's design strength will depend
k = k df on the accuracy of the predicted sheathing-fastener stiffnesses (kx, ky,
_ (16) and kϕ) and the appropriateness of the elastic buckling analysis model

85
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Z 04 – 12.5 - 150 Z 04 – 15.0 - 300

(a) Local buckling (b) Local buckling
12
Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 150 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
12.5 - 150 Kx ky
- kyKz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
8 - kx kyAISI
15.0 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
15.0 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

- kyKz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ

4 Fcre / Fy > 2.78

then Mne = My

(d) (e) (f)

(g)
(h)
0
(c) 10 100 1000
Half-wave length (mm)
1 2.15
Unsheathed Unsheathed
12.5 - 150 -Kyky Kz
kφ 12.5 - 150 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013)
- ky Kz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ 12.5 - 150 -Kxkx Ky
ky
0.75 1.9 12.5 - 150 -Kyky Kz
kφ
- kx kyAISI
15.0 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kx Ky
15.0 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy
Fcr/Fy

- ky Kz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ
0.5 1.65

0.25 1.4

0 1.15
2000 2500 3000 40 60 80 100 120
(g) Half-wave length (mm) (h) Half-wave length (mm)
Fig. 13. Local buckling of CFS stud in (a) Z04 – 12.5 – 150 specimen; (b) Z04 – 12.5 – 300 specimen; (c) full elastic buckling curve of Z04 set specimens with different
EBAMs; (d) failure mode of AISI's EBAM; (e) failure mode of modified EBAM I; (f) failure mode of modified EBAM II; (g) results of Modified EBAM II versus
unsheathed CFS stud on global buckling length; (h) effect of sheathing stiffnesses on local buckling.

(EBAM) for the sheathed CFS stud. The guidelines of AISI [13] indicates
that all the three sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) should be in-
corporated in the design through EBAM for both axial compression and
flexural loading case and therefore the present investigation follows the
same for verification. In the present study, the software CUFSM [31] is
used for elastic buckling analysis which has an option to input the
stiffnesses that are acting at the sheathing-fastener connections. The
same software was used for sheathed CFS panel design subjected to
axial compression [11]. The calculated stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) was
converted into a stiffness per unit length while incorporating in the
elastic buckling analysis since the CUFSM is a finite strip software (two-
dimensional modeling). The stiffness magnitudes at the sheathing-fas-
tener connections are divided by the corresponding fastener spacing (df)
to convert it into stiffness per unit length. The calculated stiffnesses per
unit length (kx, ky, and kϕ) are summarized in Table 1. In the EBAM,
these stiffnesses were included at the mid node of both top and bottom
flanges of the CFS stud. Similar to experimental testing (Figs. 6 and 8),
the load in the EBAM is also applied through the plane of the web. The
results of elastic buckling analysis with all three sheathing stiffness (kx,
ky, and kϕ) are shown in Figs. 11 to 15 [curves with a legend “kx, ky kϕ
(AISI 2013)”] in the form of elastic buckling curves.
The values of critical elastic buckling stresses for local (Fcrl), distortional
(Fcrd) and global (Fcre) modes are obtained as follows from the buckling
curves. The first and second minima in the buckling curves of lipped Z
sections (for both unsheathed and sheathed) (Figs. 14f and 15f) indicates the
critical local buckling stress (Fcrl) and critical distortional buckling stress
(Fcrd) respectively. In case of unlipped Z sections (unsheathed), there is only
local buckling minima (first minima in Figs. 11c, 12c, and 13c) since the
unlipped Z sections will not undergo distortional buckling. The global
buckling stress for both the unlipped and lipped Z sections is obtained for
the half wavelength of 2250 mm (unbraced length of the panel with ef-
fective length coefficient K = 1) if no minima for the global buckling mode

86
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

ZL 03 – 12.5 - 150
(a) LTB + Pull-Through

(c) (d) (e)

ZL 03 – 15.0 - 300
(b) LTB + Pull-Through
15 1

0.75
10 (i)
(h)
Fcr/Fy

Fcr/Fy

Unsheathed 0.5
12.5 - 150 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013)
5 12.5 - 150 -Kxkx Ky
ky
12.5 - 150 -Kyky Kz
kφ Fcre / Fy > 2.78
then Mne = My 0.25
15.0 - 300 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013) Unsheathed
- kx Ky
15.0 - 300 Kx ky - kyKz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
(g)
15.0 - 300 Ky
- ky Kz
kφ - kyKz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ
0 0
10 100 1000 2000 2500 3000
(f) (g)
Half-wave length (mm) Half-wave length (mm)
14 9.5
Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 150 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kx Ky
12.5 - 150 Kx ky
13 9 - ky Kz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
- kx kyAISI
15.0 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kxKy
15.0 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

Fcr/Fy

- ky Kz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ
12 Unsheathed 8.5
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 150 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
- kx Ky
12.5 - 150 Kx ky
- ky Kz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
11 - kx kyAISI
15.0 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013) 8
- kxKy
15.0 - 300 Kx ky
- kyKz
15.0 - 300 Ky kφ
10 7.5
20 40 60 80 200 250 300 350
(h) Half-wave length (mm) (i)
Half-wave length (mm)
Fig. 14. Biaxial bending of CFS stud and pull through failure of sheathing fastener connection in (a) ZL 03 – 12.5 – 150 specimen; (b) ZL03 – 15.0 – 300 specimen; (c)
failure mode of AISI's EBAM; (d) failure mode of modified EBAM-I; (e) failure mode of modified EBAM-II; (f) full elastic buckling curve of ZL 03 set specimens with
different EBAMs; (g) results of Modified EBAM II versus unsheathed CFS stud on global buckling length; (h) effect of sheathing stiffnesses on local buckling; (i) effect
of sheathing stiffnesses on distortional buckling.

is found in the buckling curves. The obtained critical elastic buckling stress
values for local (Fcrl), distortional (Fcrd) and global (Fcre) buckling modes
with all three sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) incorporated is sum-
marized in Table 5 in terms of critical buckling stress to the yield stress ratio
(Fcrl/Fy, Fcrd/Fy and Fcre/Fy).
4.3.2. Design strength calculation and reliability check
As shown in Table 5 and Figs. 11c, 12c, 13c, 14f and 15f [curves
with a legend “kx ky kϕ (AISI 2013)”], the global elastic buckling stress
(Fcre) values of the sheathed CFS studs in both unlipped Z and lipped Z
types have increased tremendously compared to the corresponding

87
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

ZL 04 – 12.5 - 150
(a) LTB + Pull-Through

(c) (d) (e)

ZL 04 – 12.5 - 300
(b) LTB + Pull-Through
15 1
Unsheathed Unsheathed
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 150 ALL kφ (AISI 2013) - ky Kz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ
12 - kxKy
12.5 - 150 Kx ky - ky Kz
12.5 - 300 Ky kφ
- kyKz
12.5 - 150 Ky kφ 0.75
- kx kyAISI
12.5 - 300 ALL kφ (AISI 2013)
Fcr/Fy

9 - kxKy
12.5 - 300 Kx ky
Fcr/Fy

- kyKz
12.5 - 300 Ky kφ 0.5
(h)
6
Fcre / Fy > 2.78 (i)
then Mne = My 0.25
3
(g)
0 0
(f) 10 100 1000 (g) 2000 2500 3000
Half-wave length (mm) Half-wave length (mm)
6.5 3.9
Unsheathed Unsheathed
12.5 - 150 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013) 12.5 - 150 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013)
12.5 - 150 -Kxkx Ky
ky 12.5 - 150 -Kx
kx Ky
ky
12.5 - 150 -Kyky Kz
kφ 12.5 - 150 -Ky
ky Kz
kφ
12.5 - 300 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013) 3.69 12.5 - 300 -ALL
kx kyAISI
kφ (AISI 2013)
ky
- kx Ky 12.5 - 300 -Kx
kx Ky
ky
Fcr/Fy

12.5 - 300 Kx
Fcr/Fy

- ky Kz
kφ 12.5 - 300 -Ky
ky Kz
kφ
12.5 - 300 Ky
6

3.47

5.5 3.25
(h) 30 40 50 60 (i) 140 160 180 200 220 240
Half-wave length (mm) Half-wave length (mm)
Fig. 15. Biaxial bending of CFS stud and pull through failure of sheathing fastener connection in (a) ZL 04 – 12.5 – 150 specimen; (b) ZL03 – 12.5 – 300 specimen; (c)
failure mode of AISI's EBAM; (d) failure mode of modified EBAM-I; (e) failure mode of modified EBAM-II; (f) full elastic buckling curve of ZL 03 set specimens with
different EBAMs; (g) results of Modified EBAM II versus unsheathed CFS stud on global buckling length; (h) effect of sheathing stiffnesses on local buckling; (i) effect
of sheathing stiffnesses on distortional buckling.

88
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

ky
kx k bending coefficient (Cb) was conservatively taken as unity (Cb = 1.0) in
AISI (2013) suggested
elastic buckling analysis
model with all sheathing
stiffnesses
(a) (b)
kφ kx
ky
Fig. 16. (a) Cross-sectional view of the sheathing fastener connection; (b)
elastic buckling model suggested by AISI [13].
unsheathed CFS studs due to the effect of sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky,
and kϕ). For example, the ratio of Fcre/Fy for the Z04 set specimen has
increased from 0.17 (Z04-Un) to 21.95 (Z04-12.5-150), resulting in a
significant reduction in global slenderness (λe) of the CFS stud in the
Z04 set from 2.4 (Z04-Un) to 0.21 (Z04-12.5-150) (Table 6). Similarly,
for all the results of sheathed CFS studs, the value of Fcre (critical elastic
lateral-torsional buckling stress) is higher than the value of Fy (member
yield stress) by a minimum of 6.5 times (Table 5) with a corresponding
reduction in the global slenderness (λe) for all the sheathed CFS spe-
cimen sets as shown in Table 6. Since the value of Fcre/Fy is higher than
2.78 in all the sheathed CFS specimens (dotted lines in Figs. 11c, 12c,
13c, 14f and 15f), they were considered as a braced beam as per AISI
[9] and the magnitude of lateral torsional buckling moment (Mne) was
taken as equal to My in the DSM design as per Eq. (4). However, it
should be noted that the effect of sheathing stiffnesses are insignificant
for local and distortional buckling stresses in all the sheathed specimens
as shown in Figs. 11h, 12h, 13h, 14(h–i) and 15(h–i) [curves with a
legend “kx ky kϕ (AISI 2013)”] and Table 5 [compare the values of (Fcrl/
Fy) and (Fcrd/Fy) in column “kx kyf and kϕ” for unsheathed vs sheathed
specimen]. A similar conclusion of the insignificant effect of sheathing
on local and distortional buckling was previously observed previously
[11] and [15].
The design results (MDSM1) obtained from the DSM method [Eqs.
(1)–(9)] for all the sheathed CFS members with the effect of three
sheathing stiffnesses [kx, ky and kϕ] are summarized in Table 6. The
the design calculations based on the approach adopted by Niu et al. and
Selvaraja and Madhavan [32,33]. A comparison of design results
(MDSM1) with the corresponding experimental results (MEXP) indicates
that the design results are unconservative (MEXP/MDSM1 < 1) for 18
specimens out of the 32 specimens investigated (in Figs. 9–10 compare
the maximum ultimate load of each specimen and the curves with le-
gend “AISI (2013) - EBAM”). However, it should be noted that the AISI's
all stiffness method predictions resulted in conservative values for the
specimen sets Z04, ZL02 and few specimens in the sets Z02 (Z02-15.0-
150 and Z02-15.0-300) and ZL04 (ZL04-15.0-150 and ZL04-15.0-300).
This should be attributed to the fact that the experimental and AISI's
predicted failure modes are similar for those specimens (see Table 6).
The unconservative design predictions (MEXP/MDSM1 < 1) in all the
specimens in sets Z01, Z03, ZL01, and ZL03 are due to the over-
prediction of the sheathing effect on the CFS studs (significant reduc-
tion in a global slenderness) which resulted in consideration of
sheathed specimens as a braced beam (Mne = My). The significant re-
duction in the global slenderness (λe) can be observed from Table 6 in
the column titled “Global slenderness”. In addition, the design predic-
tions by the AISI method is also compared with the AISI design curves
in Fig. 17. Fig. 17 shows that the AISI's predictions resulted in a sig-
nificantly reduced magnitude of global slenderness (λe) of the CFS stud.
The low global slenderness of the CFS studs will lead to yield moment
capacity as per Eq. (4). However, the experimental results did not reach
the yield moment capacity (My) which resulted in lesser M/My. The
reliability calculation as per AISI [9], indicates that the calculated re-
liability index value (β = 1.52) for the current AISI design method
calculations does not exceed the target reliability index (β = 2.5) value
suggested for structural members in section K2.1.1c of AISI [9].
Therefore, it can be concluded that the current AISI sheathing braced
CFS panel design method (sheathing stiffness determination and/or
sheathing effect consideration) is not suitable for Z shaped (point-
symmetric) CFS panels especially when subjected to out-of-plane
loading case. Such unreliable design results led to further investigations
on the failure modes and design calculations.

1.8
AISI 2016 - Unbraced

AISI 2016 - Braced

1.5
Design using AISI (2013) EBAM Model

Design using Modified EBAM II (Z Sections)

1.2
Design using Modified EBAM II (C Sections)
M / My

0.9

0.6

0.3

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Global Slenderness λe = (My / Mcre)0.5
Fig. 17. AISI [9] DSM design curve vs. Predicted strength of sheathed CFS studs.

89
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan
Sheathing-fastener
connection
Pulling force - lateral movement for CFS stud -
shear at the sheathing-fastener connections
No twist in the
fastener due to soft
sheathing material
Pulling force
Displacement
(b)
Behaviour of Sheathing-fastener connection when CFS stud undergoes
minor-axis buckling - Determination of lateral-translational stiffness ( k x )
Fig. 18. Lateral translational stiffness (kx): (a) Test set up to determine the kx; (b) soft sheathing material (c) hard sheathing material.
4.3.3. Discussion on current AISI design provisions
As mentioned previously, during testing, most of the CFS studs in
the sheathed specimens failed in torsional buckling (out-of-plane
bending with a significant cross-sectional twist) as shown in
Figs. 11(a–b), 12(a–b), 14(a–b) and 15(a–b) due to an inadequate
number of fastener connections or sheathing stiffness which caused
pull-through failure at the sheathing-fastener connections. However, an
elastic buckling analysis model (Fig. 16b) which included all three
sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky and kϕ) on both the flanges indicates that
the sheathed CFS specimens did not experience any torsional buckling
(no lateral or rotational movement) mode and failed only in flexure
(out-of-plane bending only) as shown in Figs. 11d, 12d, 13d, 14c, and
15c. Therefore, it becomes obvious that the model that is used in the
elastic buckling analysis does not truly represent the realistic behaviour
of the sheathed CFS panel subjected to out-of-plane loading, resulting in
an inaccurate prediction of failure modes and design results (un-
conservative MEXP/MDSM1 < 1 and MDSM = My) (in Figs. 9–10 compare
the maximum ultimate load of each specimen and the curves with le-
gend “AISI (2013) - EBAM”). Such inaccuracy in the elastic buckling
analysis model may be attributed to the inappropriate effect of each
sheathing stiffnesses (restraints) on the CFS stud and/or the method of
calculating each sheathing stiffness magnitudes.
It should be noted that the sheathing stiffnesses per unit length (kx,
ky and kϕ) used in the AISI method are determined from the distinct
experimental analysis [12], and it has been assumed that each one of
the stiffnesses acts independently. Sheathing stiffness kx is provided for
arresting the lateral movement of the CFS stud (Fig. 16b); ky is to in-
clude the contribution of the sheathing on the out-of-plane direction to
the CFS stud and kϕ is to provide resistance against the cross-sectional
twist of the CFS stud (Fig. 18). The definition of each sheathing stiffness
is described in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the test test-up shown in
Fig. 18a to determine the rotational stiffness of the sheathing is a newly
Structures 22 (2019) 76–97
Sheathing board
(a)
Reaction
Twist in the fastener due
to reaction created by the
hard sheathing material
Pulling force
Displacement
(c)
Reaction
developed one [34]. The new test setup by Selvaraj and Madhavan [34]
is devised such that the cross-section of the CFS stud twist as a whole
and induce the pull-through failure which is observed in case of the CFS
studs subjected to out-of-plane loading. Nevertheless, in few cases, if all
the sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) are simultaneously included in
the flanges of the CFS stud in the elastic buckling analysis model, it is
possible that the effect of one stiffness is subsumed by another stiffness
coefficient. For instance, the lateral-translational stiffness (kx) which
resists the movement of the CFS stud in lateral direction on both the
flanges, will make the effect of kϕ (which resists the cross section twist
of the CFS stud) redundant in case of two-sided sheathing if both of
them are simultaneously included in the design [11].
More importantly, the sheathing stiffness kx was derived with the
belief that the CFS stud is moving in the lateral direction (occurrence of
minor axis buckling) under axial loading as shown in Fig. 18(b–c).
Therefore, the test setup for determining the lateral-translational stiff-
ness (kx) was developed by pulling the CFS stud in the lateral direction
thereby creating a shear at the fastener and bearing on the sheathing
material as shown in Fig. 18a. However, in case of out-of-plane loading
condition, the test results demonstrate that the open cross-section CFS
studs undergo failure due to a combination of vertical deflection and
twist (cross-sectional twist), but certainly, there is no minor axis dis-
placement as shown in Figs. 11(a–b), 12(a–b), 14(a–b) and 15(a–b).
When the CFS studs rotate [Fig. 19(b–c)], the sheathing will experience
a concentric force in the diagonal direction leading to the occurrence of
a pull-through failure at the sheathing-fastener connection, due to low
sheathing thickness and material softness. Therefore, the stiffness that
is acting at each sheathing fastener connection in out-of-plane loading
case will be lower than the lateral-translational stiffness (kx). Hence, the
application of both lateral-translational stiffness and rotational stiffness
at each sheathing fastener connection may not be the right approach.
Nevertheless, the current AISI specification suggests the use of all the
90
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Table 5
Elastic buckling analysis results.
Specimen ID AISI's (2013) EBAM Modified EBAM I Modified EBAM II

kx kyf and kϕ kx kyf kyf kϕ

Fcrl/Fy Fcrd/Fy Fcre/Fy Fcrl/Fy Fcrd/Fy Fcre/Fy Fcrl/Fy Fcrd/Fy Fcre/Fy

Z01-Un 2.74 – 0.36 2.74 – 0.36 2.74 – 0.36

Z01-12.5-150 2.75 4.24 9.51 2.74 4.14 8.99 2.75 – 0.90
Z01-12.5-300 2.75 3.89 8.63 2.74 3.78 8.07 2.75 – 0.90
Z01-15.0-150 2.75 4.07 9.54 2.74 3.97 8.96 2.75 – 0.98
Z01-15.0-300 2.75 3.65 8.42 2.74 3.53 7.79 2.75 – 0.98
Z02-Un 0.93 – 0.20 0.93 – 0.20 0.93 – 0.20
Z02-12.5-150 0.94 3.27 9.09 0.93 3.16 8.47 0.94 – 0.79
Z02-12.5-300 0.94 2.73 7.45 0.93 2.61 6.74 0.94 – 0.79
Z02-15.0-150 0.94 3.00 8.84 0.93 2.88 8.12 0.94 – 0.86
Z02-15.0-300 0.94 2.45 7.02 0.93 2.32 6.19 0.94 – 0.86
Z03-Un 1.49 – 0.45 1.49 – 0.45 1.49 – 0.45
Z03-12.5-150 1.49 4.99 12.55 1.49 4.92 12.21 1.49 – 0.77
Z03-12.5-300 1.49 4.59 11.18 1.49 4.52 10.84 1.49 – 0.77
Z03-15.0-150 1.49 4.59 11.19 1.49 4.73 11.88 1.49 – 0.82
Z03-15.0-300 1.49 4.30 10.49 1.49 4.23 10.12 1.49 – 0.82
Z04-Un 1.19 – 0.17 1.19 – 0.17 1.19 – 0.17
Z04-12.5-150 1.21 3.79 21.95 1.19 3.74 21.16 1.2 – 0.49
Z04-12.5-300 1.21 3.06 16.11 1.19 3.01 15.39 1.2 – 0.49
Z04-15.0-150 1.21 3.41 19.62 1.19 3.36 18.85 1.21 – 0.52
Z04-15.0-300 1.21 2.68 13.35 1.19 2.63 12.65 1.21 0.52
ZL01-Un 20.72 12.65 0.58 20.72 12.65 0.58 20.72 12.65 0.58
ZL01-12.5-150 20.72 12.85 9.16 20.72 12.81 8.68 20.72 12.81 1.20
ZL01-12.5-300 20.72 12.82 8.33 20.72 12.78 7.81 20.72 12.81 1.20
ZL01-15.0-150 20.72 12.84 9.21 20.72 12.80 8.67 20.72 12.83 1.28
ZL01-15.0-300 20.72 12.81 8.16 20.72 12.76 7.56 20.72 12.83 1.28
ZL02-Un 7.63 6.51 0.45 7.63 6.51 0.45 7.63 6.51 0.45
ZL02-12.5-150 7.63 6.97 8.29 7.63 6.90 7.73 7.63 6.58 1.17
ZL02-12.5-300 7.63 6.83 6.84 7.63 6.76 6.21 7.63 6.58 1.17
ZL02-15.0-150 7.63 6.89 8.10 7.63 6.82 7.45 7.63 6.58 1.25
ZL02-15.0-300 7.63 6.77 6.50 7.63 6.70 5.76 7.63 6.58 1.25
ZL03-Un 12.32 7.59 0.49 12.32 7.59 0.49 12.32 7.59 0.49
ZL03-12.5-150 12.33 7.78 15.59 12.32 7.74 15.20 12.32 7.6367 0.77
ZL03-12.5-300 12.32 7.76 13.84 12.32 7.71 13.43 12.32 7.6367 0.77
ZL03-15.0-150 12.32 7.74 12.76 12.32 7.70 12.33 12.32 7.6367 0.79
ZL03-15.0-300 12.32 7.74 12.76 12.32 7.70 12.33 12.32 7.6367 0.79
ZL04-Un 5.60 3.43 0.18 5.60 3.43 0.18 5.60 3.43 0.18
ZL04-12.5-150 5.60 3.50 20.23 5.60 3.44 19.50 5.60 3.49 0.46
ZL04-12.5-300 5.60 3.50 15.11 5.60 3.44 14.43 5.60 3.49 0.46
ZL04-15.0-150 5.60 3.50 18.02 5.60 3.44 17.30 5.60 3.49 0.48
ZL04-15.0-300 5.60 3.49 12.51 5.60 3.43 11.84 5.60 3.49 0.48

Un – unsheathed; Fy - yield stress; Fcrl - critical elastic local buckling stress; Fcrd - critical elastic distortional buckling stress; Fcre - critical elastic lateral torsional
buckling stress.

three sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) at each sheathing-fastener
connections irrespective of the loading condition. This could be the
reason for the inhibition of the LTB in the elastic buckling analysis
model suggested by AISI [13].
To achieve the realistic failure mode in the elastic buckling analysis
and also to understand the effect of sheathing stiffnesses separately on the
point-symmetric Z shaped CFS studs, the appropriate stiffness combina-
tions among kx, ky and kϕ to be used in EBAM should be determined
through various trials of elastic buckling analyses until the expected/cor-
rect failure mode similar to the experiments is identified/obtained. Hence,
in the next elastic buckling analysis trial the rotational stiffness term kϕ is
ignored, and only kx and ky are used in the elastic buckling analysis.
4.4. Modified elastic buckling analysis models
4.4.1. Modified elastic buckling analysis model I – using kx and ky sheathing
stiffnesses
As a first trial towards attaining the correct failure mode and ac-
curate design results, a modified elastic buckling analysis employing
sheathing stiffnesses kx, ky alone were used. The elastic buckling ana-
lysis results of modified model I indicates that most of the sheathed CFS
specimen's global failure modes are yielding (Fcre/Fy > 2.78, Mne = My
and MDSM2 = My) (Figs. 11e, 12e, 13e, 14d and 15d) which does not
match with the experimental failure mode as shown in Table 7. This
may be attributed to the effect of lateral-translational stiffness (kx)
which restrained the lateral movement and rotation of the CFS stud on
both the flanges thereby inhibiting the LTB failure of the sheathed
specimen which led the specimens to attain the next possible failure
mode based on the slenderness of the CFS stud [pure bending (yielding
of the cross-section) or local buckling]. As shown in Table 5 the
minimum value of Fcre/Fy among all the specimens is 5.76 (ZL02-15.0-
300) for the modified elastic buckling analysis model I, therefore, all
the sheathed CFS specimens were designed as a braced beam
(Mne = My) as per Eq. (4), which however is incorrect since the tested
specimens failed prior to yielding (MEXP/My < 1). Hence, the design
strength calculations again resulted in unconservative predictions
(MEXP/MDSM2 < 1) for 18 specimens (Table 7), which is similar to the
AISI's design predictions (MDSM1) with all sheathing stiffnesses (in
Figs. 9–10 compare the maximum ultimate load of each specimen, the
lines with legend “AISI (2013) - EBAM” and the lines with legend
“Modified EBAM I”). The reliability index calculation for the modified
approach-I (kx and ky) in Table 7 also indicates that the design pre-
dictions are not reliable [calculated reliability indices (β1 = 1.52 and
β2 = 1.53) < target reliability index (βo = 2.5)]. It should be noted

91
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Table 6
Design results and reliability study for the current AISI (2013) sheathed braced CFS panel design specifications (AISI EBAM).
Specimen Moment (MEXP) (kN mm) Gov. failure mode Slenderness MDSM1 MDSM1/My MEXP/MDSM1

λl Global

λe (Un) λe (kx, ky, kϕ) Gov. failure mode Moment (kN mm)

Z01-12.5-150 907.03 LTB 0.59 1.62 0.32 Y 1696.3 1 0.53

Z01-12.5-300 853.34 LTB 0.33 Y 1696.3 1 0.50
Z01-15.0-150 1520.36 LTB 0.32 Y 1696.3 1 0.90
Z01-15.0-300 1425.32 LTB 0.34 Y 1696.3 1 0.84
Z02-12.5-150 1029.95 Y* 1.01 2.18 0.33 LB 947.3 0.83 1.09
Z02-12.5-300 625.70 LTB 0.36 LB 947.3 0.83 0.66
Z02-15.0-150 1309.62 Y* 0.33 LB 947.3 0.83 1.38
Z02-15.0-300 1220.97 Y* 0.37 LB 947.3 0.83 1.29
Z03-12.5-150 1730.01 LTB 0.81 1.47 0.28 LB 3758 0.97 0.46
Z03-12.5-300 1685.30 LTB 0.29 LB 3758 0.97 0.45
Z03-15.0-150 2288.56 LTB 0.29 LB 3758 0.97 0.61
Z03-15.0-300 2369.31 LTB 0.30 LB 3758 0.97 0.63
Z04-12.5-150 1948.61 LB 0.90 2.40 0.21 LB 1666 0.90 1.17
Z04-12.5-300 1715.92 LB 0.25 LB 1666 0.90 1.03
Z04-15.0-150 2192.14 LB 0.22 LB 1666 0.90 1.32
Z04-15.0-300 2072.28 LB 0.27 LB 1666 0.90 1.24
ZL01-12.5-150 1409.43 LTB 0.21 1.28 0.32 Y 1636.9 1 0.86
ZL01-12.5-300 1080.20 LTB 0.34 Y 1636.9 1 0.66
ZL01-15.0-150 1655.24 LTB 0.32 Y 1636.9 1 1.01
ZL01-15.0-300 1517.48 LTB 0.34 Y 1636.9 1 0.93
ZL02-12.5-150 1134.26 Y* 0.36 1.47 0.34 Y 1121.1 1 1.01
ZL02-12.5-300 1142.41 Y* 0.38 Y 1121.1 1 1.02
ZL02-15.0-150 1399.47 Y* 0.35 Y 1121.1 1 1.25
ZL02-15.0-300 1187.08 Y* 0.39 Y 1121.1 1 1.06
ZL03-12.5-150 1635.07 LTB 0.28 1.41 0.25 Y 3363.9 1 0.49
ZL03-12.5-300 1830.42 LTB 0.26 Y 3363.9 1 0.54
ZL03-15.0-150 2298.66 LTB 0.28 Y 3363.9 1 0.68
ZL03-15.0-300 2800.15 LTB 0.28 Y 3363.9 1 0.83
ZL04-12.5-150 1583.51 LTB 0.42 2.33 0.22 Y 1857.9 1 0.85
ZL04-12.5-300 1184.55 LTB 0.26 Y 1857.9 1 0.64
ZL04-15.0-150 1892.21 Y* 0.23 Y 1857.9 1 1.02
ZL04-15.0-300 2107.88 Y* 0.28 Y 1857.9 1 1.13
Mean (Pm) 0.98
COV (Vp) 0.319
Reliability index (β1) 1.52
Reliability index (β2) 1.53

LTB – lateral torsional buckling; Y – yielding failure; Y⁎ - LTB failure due to the sheathing damage after yielding; LB – local buckling; Gov – governing; λl = (fy/fcrl)0.5;
λe = (fy/fcre)0.5; Un - unsheathed; MDSM1 - predicted design moment with sheathing stiffnesses kx, kyf and kϕ; My – yield moment capacity.

that in both the MDSM1 (AISI EBAM) and MDSM2 (Modified EBAM-I) the
failure modes are yielding (Mne = My) since the specimens were com-
pletely restrained from LTB mode of failure. This again may be attrib-
uted to the fact that the lateral-translational stiffness (kx) is included in
both the elastic buckling analyses (AISI's EBAM and modified EBAM-I)
which could have resisted the lateral and torsional movements of the
CFS stud as shown in Figs. 11(d–e), 12(d–e), 13(d–e), 14(c–d) and
15(c–d).
4.4.2. Modified design approach II – using ky and kϕ sheathing stiffnesses
Following the design results of AISI's EBAM (kx, ky and kϕ – MDSM1)
and modified EBAM I (kx, ky – MDSM2) resulting in unconservative de-
sign results due to the incorrect failure mode predictions, the lateral-
translational stiffness (kx) which restrained the lateral movement of the
CFS stud is ignored. The next trial of elastic buckling analysis in named
as Modified EBAM II, it has only two stiffness components ky and kϕ.
The buckling curves and global failure modes of the point-symmetric
CFS stud in the modified EBAM II are shown in Figs. 11c, 12c, 13c, 14f
and 15f (curve with the legend “ky kϕ”) and Figs. 11f, 12f, 13f, 14e, and
15e respectively. The results indicate that the effect of sheathing im-
proved the value of Fcre considerably compared to the unsheathed
specimen's Fcre value as shown in Figs. 11g, 12g, 13g, 14g and 15g (Fcre-
Sheathed > Fcre-Unsheathed), but not similar to the AISI [13] EBAM
(kx, ky and kϕ) and modified EBAM – I (kx, ky) where the sheathed
specimens Fcre is significantly higher than the unsheathed specimen's
Fcre (Fcre-Sheathed ≫ Fcre-Unsheathed). It should be noted that the
global failure modes of all the specimens in elastic buckling analysis are
LTB (out-of-plane bending with a cross-sectional twist) in the modified
EBAM II as shown in Figs. 11f, 12f, 13f, 14e and 15e and Table 8 which
is similar to the experimental failure modes of many specimens. Al-
though the correct failure modes are achieved with modified EBAM II
for most of the specimens as shown in Table 8, the design predictions
(MDSM3) are conservative (MEXP/MDSM3 > 1) only for 21 specimens and
unconservative (MEXP/MDSM3 < 1) for 11 specimens (in Figs. 9–10
compare the maximum ultimate load of the each specimen and the lines
with legend “Modified EBAM II”). The design results using “Modified
EBAM II” when compared against the AISI design curve shown in
Fig. 17, indicates that the design results are neither accurate nor con-
servative. More specifically, the Modified EBAM II did not reduce the
global slenderness of the member to the yield moment range as can be
observed from Fig. 17. It should be noted that the design predictions for
the sheathed specimens set Z04 (min MEXP/MDSM3 = 1.91) and ZL04
(min MEXP/MDSM3 = 1.39) is overly conservative due to the under-
predicted failure mode in the design prediction using modified EBAM II.
In reality, the Z04 specimen set fails in LB local buckling and ZL04 set
specimens failed in LTB after reaching the yield moment value
(MEXP > My) due to the restraining effect of sheathing-fastener con-
nections. However, the governing failure mode for both of these

92
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan
Pulling force - Creating angular displacement
of the CFS stud - pull-through failure at the
sheathing fastener connections
C/S Twist
No twist in the
fastener due to soft
sheathing material
(b)
Behaviour of Sheathing-fastener connection when CFS stud undergoes torsional
buckling - Determination of rotational stiffnessess (k )
Fig. 19. Rotational stiffness determination (kϕ): (a) Test set up to determine the stiffness of the sheathing against the pull-through failure [34] and [36]; (b) soft
sheathing material; (c) hard sheathing material.
specimen sets is LTB in the DSM design predictions using modified
EBAM II as shown in Table 8. Since the inaccurate failure modes pre-
diction falls on the conservative side, it can be concluded that the
magnitude of the calculated sheathing fastener connection stiffnesses
may be incorrect, but conservative. Moreover, in case of specimens Z01,
Z03 and ZL03, the predicted failure mode by the modified EBAM II are
correct but the predicted moment capacities (MDSM3) are un-
conservative compared to the experimental moment capacities. This
unconservativeness and ultra-conservativeness in the same design
method even after the accurate prediction of the failure modes in many
specimens indicates the inaccurate prediction of the sheathing-fastener
connection stiffnesses (kϕ). The reliability calculation for the modified
approach II also indicates that the design results are unreliable [cal-
culated reliability indices (β1 = 2.01 and β2 = 2.02) < target relia-
bility index (βo = 2.5)]. Hence, it can be deduced from the observations
of design results of AISI [13] approach, modified EBAM I and modified
EBAM II, that the sheathing stiffness calculations that are derived for
the axially loaded member may not be applicable for the out-of-loading
case. In addition, it should also be noted that the current AISI sheathing
stiffness expressions were formalized based on the C shaped structural
members alone, therefore it can also be concluded that the sheathing
stiffness shall be analyzed based on the failure behaviour of the various
shapes of the CFS studs.
4.5. Geometry vs. reliability of sheathing braced design of wall panels
To prove the above hypothesis derived from the experiments that
the sheathing stiffness developed from a single cross section will not be
applicable to other CFS section geometries, the modified EBAM II that
predicts the failure modes correctly and conservatively is incorporated
to the previous experimental results of sheathed CFS panel made of “C
shaped” members subjected to out-of-plane bending, previously carried
out by the present authors [15,16]. The design strength predictions
Structures 22 (2019) 76–97
Sheathing Fastener Sheathing board
connection
(a)
Reaction
C/S Twist
Twist in the fastener due
to reaction created by the
hard sheathing material
(c)
Reaction
using modified EBAM II for the C (singly symmetric) shaped sheathed
studs shown in Table 9 indicates that the design results are conservative
(MEXP/MDSM4 > 1) for all the specimens. The design results of C and Z
shaped sheathed members using the modified design approach II is
graphically compared in Fig. 17 for various slenderness in both C and Z
sections. It can be observed from Fig. 17 that the current sheathing
stiffness calculation expressions are suitable only for C sections (con-
servative for all) and not suitable for the calculation of sheathing effect
on point symmetric cross sections (unconservative for 11 specimens).
Hence, it can be deduced that the modified EBAM II (with ky and kϕ)
design approach is applicable for the sheathed CFS panels that are
subjected to out-of-plane loading provided, the correct magnitude of
sheathing stiffnesses are included in the EBAM.
Although the sheathing braced design predictions for the C shaped
CFS stud is acceptable, it should be noted that the design prediction is
ultra-conservative for some of the specimens as shown in Table 9 (max
MEXP/MDSM4 = 1.67) and Fig. 17. This ultra-conservativeness should be
attributed to the fact that the sheathing stiffnesses that are used in the
design predictions of the various slenderness of CFS member arrive
from only one type of C shaped CFS stud [11] and [14], that is
“362S162-68” [35]. Hence, there is a necessity for carrying out further
research on the sheathed wall panels with the following scopes:
4.6. Suggestions/scope for future research
The effective/efficient design method for sheathed wall panels can
be achieved by carrying out the following research works:
1. Sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) may be re-categorized or ver-
ified for all CFS geometries (single, double and point symmetric
sections)
2. The expressions for sheathing stiffnesses (kx, ky, and kϕ) (Eqs.
93
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Table 7
Design results and reliability study for the modified approach I (EBAM I).
Specimen Moment (MEXP) (kN mm) Gov. failure mode Slenderness MDSM2 MDSM2/My MEXP/MDSM2

λl Global

λe (Un) λe (kx, kyf) Gov. failure mode Moment (kN mm)

Z01-12.5-150 907.03 LTB 0.59 1.62 0.33 Y 1696.3 1 0.53

Z01-12.5-300 853.34 LTB 0.34 Y 1696.3 1 0.50
Z01-15.0-150 1520.36 LTB 0.33 Y 1696.3 1 0.90
Z01-15.0-300 1425.32 LTB 0.35 Y 1696.3 1 0.84
Z02-12.5-150 1029.95 Y* 1.01 2.18 0.34 LB 943.9 0.83 1.09
Z02-12.5-300 625.70 LTB 0.38 LB 943.9 0.83 0.66
Z02-15.0-150 1309.62 Y* 0.35 LB 943.9 0.83 1.39
Z02-15.0-300 1220.97 Y* 0.40 LB 943.9 0.83 1.29
Z03-12.5-150 1730.01 LTB 0.81 1.47 0.28 LB 3758 0.97 0.46
Z03-12.5-300 1685.30 LTB 0.30 LB 3758 0.97 0.45
Z03-15.0-150 2288.56 LTB 0.29 LB 3758 0.97 0.61
Z03-15.0-300 2369.31 LTB 0.31 LB 3758 0.97 0.63
Z04-12.5-150 1948.61 LB 0.90 2.40 0.22 LB 1657 0.90 1.18
Z04-12.5-300 1715.92 LB 0.25 LB 1657 0.90 1.04
Z04-15.0-150 2192.14 LB 0.23 LB 1657 0.90 1.32
Z04-15.0-300 2072.28 LB 0.28 LB 1657 0.90 1.25
ZL01-12.5-150 1409.43 LTB 0.21 1.28 0.33 Y 1636.9 1 0.86
ZL01-12.5-300 1080.20 LTB 0.35 Y 1636.9 1 0.66
ZL01-15.0-150 1655.24 LTB 0.33 Y 1636.9 1 1.01
ZL01-15.0-300 1517.48 LTB 0.36 Y 1636.9 1 0.93
ZL02-12.5-150 1134.26 Y* 0.36 1.47 0.35 Y 1121.1 1 1.01
ZL02-12.5-300 1142.41 Y* 0.40 Y 1121.1 1 1.02
ZL02-15.0-150 1399.47 Y* 0.36 Y 1121.1 1 1.25
ZL02-15.0-300 1187.08 Y* 0.41 Y 1121.1 1 1.06
ZL03-12.5-150 1635.07 LTB 0.28 1.41 0.25 Y 3363.9 1 0.49
ZL03-12.5-300 1830.42 LTB 0.27 Y 3363.9 1 0.54
ZL03-15.0-150 2298.66 LTB 0.28 Y 3363.9 1 0.68
ZL03-15.0-300 2800.15 LTB 0.28 Y 3363.9 1 0.83
ZL04-12.5-150 1583.51 LTB 0.42 2.33 0.22 Y 1857.9 1 0.85
ZL04-12.5-300 1184.55 LTB 0.26 Y 1857.9 1 0.64
ZL04-15.0-150 1892.21 Y* 0.24 Y 1857.9 1 1.02
ZL04-15.0-300 2107.88 Y* 0.29 Y 1857.9 1 1.13
Mean (Pm) 0.98
COV (Vp) 0.320
Reliability index (β1) 1.52
Reliability index (β2) 1.53

LTB – lateral torsional buckling; Y – yielding failure; Y⁎ - LTB failure due to the sheathing damage after yielding; LB – local buckling; Gov – governing; λl = (fy/fcrl)0.5;
λe = (fy/fcre)0.5; Un - unsheathed; MDSM1 - predicted design moment with sheathing stiffnesses kx, kyf and kϕ; My – yield moment capacity.

(10)–(19)) should be made robust such that it is applicable for all
CFS geometries with various slendernesses. The stiffness of the
sheathing board against the pull-through failure can be formalized
against the geometry of the CFS stud [36].
3. The applicability of the elastic buckling model proposed in AISI [13]
for panels subjected to flexure with all sheathing stiffness should be
verified for a large number of CFS geometries through experimental
investigation and reliability analysis.
5. Conclusions
The bracing effect of sheathing on point symmetric Z cross sections
that typically fail in biaxial bending is investigated under out-of-plane
loading. The experimental results indicated that most of the sheathed
CFS wall panel failed in LTB due to the inadequate sheathing-fastener
connections. The experimental results (MEXP) together with the failure
modes were compared with the predicted strengths (MDSM1) using the
current AISI specifications “Sheathing braced design of wall studs”
[13]. The comparison (MEXP vs. MDSM1) shows that the current AISI
specifications inaccurately predict the failure modes of the sheathed
panels subjected to out-of-plane loading resulting in unconservative
design predictions (MEXP/MDSM1 < 1). Therefore, an investigation was
carried out to study the effect of individual sheathing stiffnesses on the
elastic buckling analysis model in order to achieve accurate design
prediction and failure modes. The results indicate that the failure modes
similar to the experiments can be achieved for out-of-plane loading case
if the lateral translational stiffness (kx) is removed from the EBAM
model (Modified EBAM II). Although the realistic failure modes are
achieved using the newly suggested EBAM model-II, the design pre-
dictions (MEXP/MDSM3 < 1 or ≫1) are either overly conservative or
unconservative. Such unreliable design results are due to the fact that
the expression for predicting the sheathing stiffnesses (kϕ) by AISI was
derived only from the C shaped CFS studs. Therefore, to make the
current AISI design guidelines suitable for all geometry of CFS studs and
all slenderness, further research work that needs to be carried out is
suggested. Hence, until reliable experimental data is available to de-
velop robust design guidelines, the designer should adopt a more con-
servative approach for the design of sheathed CFS wall panels subjected
to out-of-plane loading.

94
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Table 8
Design results and reliability study for the modified approach II (EBAM II).
Specimen Moment (MEXP) (kN mm) Gov. failure mode Slenderness MDSM3 MDSM3/My MEXP/MDSM3

λl Global

λe (Un) λe (ky, kϕ) Gov. failure mode Moment (kN mm)

Z01-12.5-150 907.03 LTB 0.59 1.62 1.03 LTB 1302.8 0.77 0.70
Z01-12.5-300 853.34 LTB 1.03 LTB 1302.8 0.77 0.65
Z01-15.0-150 1520.36 LTB 0.99 LTB 1348.1 0.79 1.13
Z01-15.0-300 1425.32 LTB 0.99 LTB 1348.1 0.79 1.06
Z02-12.5-150 1029.95 Y* 1.01 2.18 1.11 LB 758.0 0.67 1.36
Z02-12.5-300 625.70 LTB 1.11 LB 758.0 0.67 0.83
Z02-15.0-150 1309.62 Y* 1.06 LB 781.0 0.69 1.68
Z02-15.0-300 1220.97 Y* 1.06 LB 781.0 0.69 1.56
Z03-12.5-150 1730.01 LTB 0.81 1.47 1.12 LTB 2768.6 0.71 0.62
Z03-12.5-300 1685.30 LTB 1.12 LTB 2768.6 0.71 0.61
Z03-15.0-150 2288.56 LTB 1.09 LTB 2865.1 0.74 0.80
Z03-15.0-300 2369.31 LTB 1.09 LTB 2865.1 0.74 0.83
Z04-12.5-150 1948.61 LB 0.90 2.40 1.42 LTB 896.1 0.49 2.17
Z04-12.5-300 1715.92 LB 1.42 LTB 896.1 0.49 1.91
Z04-15.0-150 2192.14 LB 1.38 LTB 950.7 0.52 2.31
Z04-15.0-300 2072.28 LB 1.38 LTB 950.7 0.52 2.18
ZL01-12.5-150 1409.43 LTB 0.21 1.28 0.89 LTB 1397.6 0.85 1.01
ZL01-12.5-300 1080.20 LTB 0.89 LTB 1397.6 0.85 0.77
ZL01-15.0-150 1655.24 LTB 0.86 LTB 1424.8 0.87 1.16
ZL01-15.0-300 1517.48 LTB 0.86 LTB 1424.8 0.87 1.07
ZL02-12.5-150 1134.26 Y* 0.36 1.47 0.91 LTB 948.7 0.85 1.20
ZL02-12.5-300 1142.41 Y* 0.91 LTB 948.7 0.85 1.20
ZL02-15.0-150 1399.47 Y* 0.88 LTB 968.2 0.86 1.45
ZL02-15.0-300 1187.08 Y* 0.88 LTB 968.21 0.86 1.23
ZL03-12.5-150 1635.07 LTB 0.28 1.41 1.12 LTB 2384.3 0.71 0.69
ZL03-12.5-300 1830.42 LTB 1.12 LTB 2384.3 0.71 0.77
ZL03-15.0-150 2298.66 LTB 1.11 LTB 2428.6 0.72 0.95
ZL03-15.0-300 2800.15 LTB 1.11 LTB 2428.6 0.72 1.15
ZL04-12.5-150 1583.51 LTB 0.42 2.33 1.47 LTB 850.3 0.46 1.86
ZL04-12.5-300 1184.55 LTB 1.47 LTB 850.3 0.46 1.39
ZL04-15.0-150 1892.21 Y* 1.44 LTB 886.4 0.48 2.13
ZL04-15.0-300 2107.88 Y* 1.44 LTB 886.4 0.48 2.38
Mean (Pm) 1.42
COV (Vp) 0.425
Reliability index (β1) 2.01
Reliability index (β2) 2.02

LTB – lateral torsional buckling; Y – yielding failure; Y⁎- LTB failure due to the sheathing damage after yielding; LB – local buckling; Gov – governing; λl = (fy/fcrl)0.5;
λe = (fy/fcre)0.5; Un - unsheathed; MDSM1 - predicted design moment with sheathing stiffnesses kx, kyf and kϕ; My – yield moment capacity.

Table 9
Design results for C shaped sections with modified approach II (EBAM II).
Sheathing configuration Slendernesses of the C shaped Experimental moment capacity Slenderness after Design results using MEXP/
unsheathed CFS stud with gypsum sheathing sheathing effect modified design MDSM4
approach - II

Sheathing thickness Fastener spacing λl λe (Un) MEXP (kN mm) λl λe (ky, kϕ) MDSM4 (kN mm)
(tb) (mm) (df) (mm)

12.5 150 0.32 1.21 2874.7 0.32 1.00 2472.6 1.16

0.57 1.30 1598.8 0.57 0.89 1406.1 1.14
1.31 1.52 1221.9 1.31 0.93 901.4 1.36
0.81 1.25 3415.6 0.81 0.96 3183.3 1.07
12.5 300 0.32 1.21 2596.9 0.32 1.00 2472.6 1.05
0.57 1.30 1559.4 0.57 0.89 1406.1 1.11
1.31 1.52 1247.0 1.31 0.93 901.4 1.38
0.81 1.25 3452.5 0.81 0.96 3183.3 1.08
15.0 150 0.32 1.21 3614.0 0.32 0.99 2492 1.45
0.57 1.30 2225.1 0.57 0.88 1413.9 1.57
1.31 1.52 1510.2 1.31 0.92 906.3 1.67
0.81 1.25 3521.0 0.81 0.95 3222.7 1.09
12.5 300 0.32 1.21 3046.7 0.32 0.99 2492 1.22
0.57 1.30 1838.9 0.57 0.88 1413.9 1.3
1.31 1.52 1249.3 1.31 0.92 906.3 1.38
0.81 1.25 3308.1 0.81 0.95 3222.7 1.03

95
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan Structures 22 (2019) 76–97

Acknowledgments results
MDSM nominal flexural design strength predicted from DSM
The investigation reported in this paper was funded by Science MDSM1 DSM design strength using AISI’s (2013) EBAM (kx, ky and kϕ)
Engineering and Research Board (SERB) Research Grant (SB/S3/CEE/ (for Z sections)
046/2014) from the Department of Science and Technology (DST), MDSM2 DSM design strength using Modified EBAM - I (kx, and ky) (for
Government of India. The first author would like to acknowledge the Z sections)
financial assistance received from this project. The authors would like MDSM3 DSM design strength using Modified EBAM - II (ky and kϕ)
to gratefully acknowledge Pennar Engineered Building Systems Ltd., (for Z sections)
Hyderabad for their help in fabricating the test specimens required for MDSM4 DSM design strength using Modified EBAM - II (ky and kϕ)
experimental investigation. (for C sections)
Mne nominal flexural strength for lateral torsional buckling
Notations Mnd nominal flexural strength for distortional buckling
Mnl nominal flexural strength for local buckling
a fastener spacing in “2a rule” My member yield moment (Sf. fy)
b breadth of flange (out-to-out) Mp member plastic moment (Zf. fy)
cb bending coefficient Sf gross elastic section modulus
d diameter of the fastener used in the sheathing fastener con- Zf plastic section modulus
nection t base metal thickness of CFS sections
DL dead load tb sheathing thickness
dl depth of the lip in the lipped Z section wtf fastener tributary width
df fastener spacing λ slenderness
e eccentricity λe section slenderness for global buckling (fy/fcre)0.5
Es Young’s modulus of steel (from coupon testing) λl section slenderness for local buckling (fy/fcrl)0.5
Ew bending modulus of gypsum boards (back calculated from λd section slenderness for distortional buckling (fy/fcrd)0.5
(EI)w Eq. (15)) ϕb resistance factor
(EI)w effective sheathing stiffness of gypsum boards (obtained from βo target reliability index
GA-235-10 (2010) β1 calculated reliability indexes based on ASCE (2010) (1.2 DL
(EI)fc bending stiffness of gypsum boards for full composite action +1.6 LL)
(EI)stud flexural stiffness of the CFS stud β2 calculated reliability indexes based on AS/NZS (2002) (1.2
fy yield stress of the CFS sections obtained from tensile test DL + 1.5 LL)
fcre elastic critical lateral torsional buckling stress (obtained from
CUFSM) References
fcrl elastic critical local buckling stress (obtained from CUFSM)
fcrd elastic critical distortional buckling stress (obtained from [1] Green GG, Winter G, Cuykendall TR. Light gage steel columns in wall-braced panels.
CUFSM) Bulletin 35/2, Engineering Experiment Station, Cornell University. Ithaca: NY;
1947.
Gb shear modulus of the sheathing obtained from Table C4.2.2B [2] Winter G. Lateral bracing of beams and columns. J Struct Div 1960;125:809–25.
of ANSI (2005) [3] Winter G, Celebi N, Peköz T. Diaphragm braced channel and Z-section beams.
h depth of web (out-to-out) Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures Library, Paper 1972:122.
[4] Simaan A, Pekoz T. Diaphragm-braced members and design of wall studs. Journal of
kx local lateral translational stiffness (Eq. (10)) Structural Division, ASCE 1976;102. (STI, January 1976).
kx lateral translational foundation stiffness [5] Miller TH, Peköz TM. Behavior of gypsum-sheathed cold-formed steel wall studs. J
kxl local stiffness (rotational) (Eq. (11)) Struct Eng 1994;120(5):1644–50. 1994.
[6] Telue Y, Mahendran M. Behaviour of cold-formed steel wall frames lined with
kxd diaphragm stiffness (rotational) (Eq. (12)) plasterboard. J Const Steel Res 2001;57(4):435–52.
ky out of plane (vertical) translational stiffness (Eq. (13)) [7] AISI. (American Iron and Steel Institute). North American standard for cold-formed
ky out of plane (vertical) translational foundation stiffness steel Framing-Wall stud design. AISI S211-07, 2007 edition (reaffirmed 2012).
2012.
kϕ local rotational stiffness (Eq. (16))
[9] AISI. (American Iron and Steel Institute). North American cold-formed steel speci-
kϕ rotational foundation stiffness (Eq. (17)) fication for the design of cold-formed steel structural members. 2016. (AISI-S100-
kϕc connection rotational stiffness (Eq. (19)) 16, Washington, DC).
kϕw sheathing rotational restraint (Eq. (19)) [10] Vieira Jr. LCM. Behavior and design of cold-formed steel stud walls under axial
compression Department of Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Dissertation Baltimore: Johns
L center to center length of the CFS stud (unbraced length) Hopkins University; 2011.
LB Local buckling [11] Vieira Jr. LCM, Schafer BW. Behavior and design of sheathed cold-formed steel stud
LL live load walls under compression. J Struct Eng 2012;139(5):772–86.
[12] Vieira Jr. LCM, Schafer BW. Lateral stiffness and strength of sheathing braced cold-
LTB Lateral torsional buckling formed steel stud walls. Eng Struct 2012;37:205–13https://www.sciencedirect.
Mcrd critical elastic distortional buckling moment (Sf. fcre) com/science/article/pii/S0141029611005128.
Mcre critical elastic lateral torsional buckling moment (Sf. fcre) [13] AISI. (American Iron and Steel Institute). Sheathing braced design of wall studs.
2013. p. RP13-1.
Mcrl critical elastic local buckling moment (Sf. fcrl) [14] AISI. (American Iron and Steel Institute). Experiments on rotational restraint of
MEXP ultimate moment capacities obtained from experimental

96
S. Selvaraj and M. Madhavan
sheathing. RP07–2. 2007.
[15] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Studies on cold-formed steel stud panels with gypsum
sheathing subjected to out-of-plane bending. J Struct Eng
2018;144(9):04018136https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002069.
[16] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Improvements in AISI design methods for gypsum
sheathed cold-formed Steel Wall panels subjected to bending. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 2018;145(2):04018243https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.
1943-541X.0002223.
[17] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Investigation on sheathing effect and failure modes of
gypsum sheathed cold-formed Steel Wall panels subjected to bending. Structures
2018;17:87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.09.013.
[18] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Bracing effect of sheathing in point symmetric cold-
formed steel flexural members. J Constr Steel Res 2019;157:450–62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.037.
[19] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Sheathing bracing requirements for cold-formed steel wall
panels: experimental investigation. Structures vol. 19. Elsevier Publication; 2019. p.
258–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.01.005.
[20] Pi YL, Put BM, Trahair NS. Lateral buckling strengths of cold-formed Z-section
beams. Thin-walled Struct 1999;34(1):65–93.
[21] AISI. (American Iron and Steel Institute). Commentary on North American cold-
formed steel specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members.
AISI-S100-12-Commentary. 2012. (Washington, DC).
[22] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Geometric imperfection measurements and validations on
cold-formed steel channels using 3D non-contact laser scanner. J Struct Eng, (ASCE)
2018;144(3):04018010https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001993.
[23] Young B. “The behaviour and design of the cold formed channel columns.” Ph.D.
thesis. Australia: Univ. of Sydney; 1997.
[24] Niu S, Rasmussen KJR. Experimental investigation of the local-global interaction
buckling of stainless steel I-section beams. Research rep. no. R944. Sydney,
Australia: School of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sydney; 2013.
[25] AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). North American standard for cold-formed
97
Structures 22 (2019) 76–97
steel structural farming. Washington, DC: AISI S240-2015; 2015.
[26] ASTM. (American Society for Testing and Materials). Standard test methods for
tension testing of metallic materials. E8/E8M-13a, ASTM international. 2013. (West
Conshohocken, USA).
[27] Huang Y, Young B. The art of coupon tests. J Const. Steel Res 2014;96:159–75.
[28] ASTM. (American Society for Testing and Materials). “Standard test methods of
conducting strength tests of panels for building construction”, E72-15. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2015.
[29] ASME. (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). Unified inch screw threads,
(UN and UNR thread form), B1.1 – 2003. 20180791828336.
[30] NAHB (National Association of Home Builders). Research commentary on the
prescriptive method for residential cold-formed steel framing. Prepared for the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development and American Iron and Steel
Institute by NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD. 1997.
[31] Li Z, Schafer BW. Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members with general
boundary conditions using CUFSM: conventional and constrained finite strip
methods. Pro. Intl. Spec. Conf. on Cold-Formed St. Struct., St. Louis, MO. November
2010. 2010.
[32] Niu, S., R. Rasmussen, K. J., and Fan, F. (2014). “Local–global interaction buckling
of stainless steel I-beams. II: numerical study and design.” J Struct Eng, 141(8)
04014195.
[33] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Structural design of cold-formed steel face-to-face con-
nected built up beams using direct strength method. J Constr Steel Res 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.05.053.
[34] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Investigation on sheathing fastener connection failures in
cold formed steel wall panels. Structures 2019;20:176–88. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.istruc.2019.03.007.
[35] SSMA. Product technical information, ICBO ER-4943P. S.S.M. Association; 2001.
[36] Selvaraj S, Madhavan M. Sheathing braced design of cold-formed steel structural
members subjected to torsional buckling. Structures 2019. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.istruc.2019.04.015.