International Journal of Steel Structures 17(4): 1404-1414 (2017)

DOI 10.1007/s13296-017-1211-z
ISSN 1598-2351 (Print)
ISSN 2093-6311 (Online)

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Shear Capacity of Cold-Formed Light-Gauge Steel Framed

Shear-Wall Panels with Fiber Cement Board Sheathing
Wasim Khaliq* and Ahmed Moghis
National University of Sciences and Technology, (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract

Being light in weight, cold-formed steel shear wall panels (SWPs) made with light gauge steel are extensively used in
residential and office buildings (low to mid-rise), particularly in structures under seismic loadings. Many design practices
involve the use of fiber cement board (FCB) as sheathing material both for hollow and infilled walls. FCB is a preferred choice
as cladding material due to many advantages it provides such as water resistance, lower cost, withstand temperature variation,
resistance to humidity and termite attack, better acoustic insulation, and superior fire resistance properties. In the absence of
design guidelines, based on cold-formed light gauge steel shear walls with FCB sheathing, the designers resolve to use the
guideline available for gypsum wall board (GWB) and fiberboard (FB) available in American Iron and Steel Institute Lateral
Design. As a pioneer study, an experimental program was designed to investigate the behavior of cold-formed light gauge steel
shear walls, both hollow and infilled with expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam concrete, with FCB sheathing on both sides under
monotonic loading. The tests were performed according to ASTM E564 standard. Results show that the strength of shear walls
with FCB sheathing is much higher than GWB and FB sheathing, suggesting that substitute design practices are highly
conservative. Test results can help designers choose desired lateral stiffness and load carrying capacity of light gauge steel
SWPs more efficiently, by selecting appropriate framing, infill, and sheathing material.

Keywords: light gauge steel, shear wall panels, fiber cement board, sheathing, infill foam concrete, deflection

1. Introduction walls support the horizontal diaphragm (floor/roof) and

Light gauge steel construction is a practical alternative
to lumber and conventional construction mainly due to
higher strength, ductility, and lightweight. Prevalent wood
construction trends are changing all over the world owing
to environment and sustainability considerations. On the
other hand, conventional construction composed of adobe
brick masonry and stone masonry in most parts of the
world are always found prone to extensive damage in the
event of earthquakes. Light gauge steel construction systems
are accepted as most suitable and attractive alternative to
the conventional construction mainly because of increasing
demand for rapid and economical re-construction and
safety against seismic loads. Because of the lightweight
in nature, a special lateral structural system has to be
developed to resist lateral forces. The lateral load resisting
mechanism is typically referred as “shear wall”. Shear
Received February 2, 2015; accepted April 18, 2017;
published online December 31, 2017
© KSSC and Springer 2017
*Corresponding author
Tel: +92 320 5429488, Fax: +92 51 90854502
E-mail: wasimkhaliq@nice.nust.edu.pk
transfer the lateral loads down to the foundations via hold
down (anchors). Shear walls in light gauge steel structure
are made by bracing the walls. Bracing can be done in
two ways either by fixing flat strap x-braces or by fixing
a sheathing material on the wall using fasteners (Al-
Kharat and Rogers 2007).
A number of experimental and analytical investigations
have been carried out for a better understanding of the
behavior and strength of different shear wall panels
against lateral load applications with diverse configurations.
In one of the pioneer studies, Girard and Tarpy Jr (1982)
investigated the response of panels sheathed with gypsum
sheathing board (GSB), gypsum wall board (GWB) and
plywood (PLY). The response of panels using different
corner anchorage details was also investigated. It was
reported by authors that PLY sheathing performed much
better in resisting in-plane shear to that of GWB, moreover,
it was also found that decreasing the stud spacing also
marginally increased the shear resistance of shear wall
panels. However, authors also proposed that a particular
design and construction technique should be followed for
obtaining feasible performance of shear wall panels against
lateral loads. Tissell (1993) conducted tests on wood and
metal framed walls sheathed with oriented strand board
1405 Wasim Khaliq and Ahmed Moghis / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(4), 1404-1414, 2017
(OSB), PLY and GWB. For metal framed walls, the author
used single end-stud, which failed in buckling resulting in
premature failure of the panel before fully utilizing the
shear capacity of the sheathing. It was reported by the
author that although the sheathing fastened to the metal
frame of shear wall panels enhances the shear strength
but it is limited by thickness and strength of metal end
studs. It was also concluded that sheathing used on both
sides of the panels develops twice the shear resistance to
that sheathed on one side also conforming to AISI (AISI
S213-07/S1-09 2012).
Nguyen et al. (1996) conducted monotonic and cyclic
tests on panels sheathed with OSB, PLY, and GWB. The
authors concluded that change in aspect ratio from 0.5 to
1, had no effect on the capacity of panels but a change in
orientation did have an effect. It was also evident from
the study that the walls sheathed with GWB had lower
shear capacity than OSB with one side sheathing only,
whereas OSB and PLY sheathing appeared to perform
without a notable difference. Moreover, there were no
capacity changes eminent with GWB sheathing added to
one side for already applied OSB sheathing on the other.
Serrette and Ogunfunmi (1996) conducted monotonic test
on GSB and GWB sheathed walls in combination with x-
bracing in which GWB was found to have significant
shear strength under static as compared to seismic loading.
A very important conclusion was drawn that the shear
carried by GWB was very limited and additional testing
was recommended for different additional sheathing
materials. Serrette et al. (1997) carried out full scale and
small scale tests on panels with different sheathing materials
and suggested that results of small-scale tests can be used
as predictors of the relative strength of the full-scale wall
panels. In this study, it was again confirmed that the shear
resistance of panels sheathed with PLY and OSB were
comparable, however, the shear strength displayed by
GWB sheathed wall panels was quite low.
Elhajj (2005) conducted a study on the behavior of
fiberboard sheathed walls under monotonic loading. The
researcher investigated the change in response of panels
when the screw spacing is altered. Four cold-formed steel
shear walls were tested having structural fiberboard (FB)
sheathing. The comparison of performance revealed that
the shear walls with closer screw spacing of sheathing
gave higher average peak load capacity. Whereas, comparison
with shear values in author’s study to that with wood
walls in prior studies, showed that the steel studded walls
with similar sheathing material had inferior performance.
The failure in these walls was associated with screws tear
out from sheathing without any appreciable damage to
the steel studs even at the peak loads. Chen et al. (2006)
tested steel stud shear walls with wood structural panels
as sheathing material. The performance of walls was largely
linked to the behavior of sheathing to framing screw
connections and their spacing as the ultimate failure was
attributed to damage at the sheathing connections. The
study recommended that while using such shear wall
panels for lateral loading, the failure of the walls should
be limited to the sheathing to framing connections. The
study also suggested for characterization of wall behavior
with different other types of wood sheathing.
Peck et al. (2012) conducted monotonic and cyclic
testing on walls sheathed with GWB, to investigate the
effects of changes in blockings, fastener spacing, aspect
ratio and loading pattern on the behavior of shear walls.
The study concluded that blocked wall panels had higher
capacity compared to unblocked ones with similar GWB
sheathing. The authors also suggested additional work to
determine the effect of panel orientation to framing for
such gypsum walls. Nithyadharan and Kalyanaraman (2012)
investigated the effect of screw edge distances and
sheathing thickness on the behavior of calcium silicate
board (CSB) sheathed wall panels. The study showed that
ultimate strength of the shear walls increased with
increase in the sheathing board thickness and decrease in
the screw edge distance under static loading. Baran and
Alica (2012) studied the performance of OSB sheathed
shear wall panels and investigated a special diagonal-strut
construction detail used for framing. Authors concluded
that provision of diagonal struts to shear wall panels
slightly increased their lateral load carrying capacity and
stiffness. Also in confirmation of other works, it was
shown that larger lateral load capacity was obtained with
increased OSB thickness whereas by increasing the
spacing of screws at the boundary of panels reduced the
lateral load capacity of shear wall panels.
From the diverse literature presented for structural behavior
cold formed shear wall panels, it can be seen that most
investigations suggest further study to appreciate the
behavior of these walls with different types and thickness
of sheathing, screw spacing, and studs configuration and
orientation. Moreover, as most of these walls are hollow
even after application of sheathing, solid infill of any type
is not considered in any of these studies. The comfortable
feeling of the solid wall has advantages of acoustic noise
reduction as well as damping of vibrations which can be
attained by a suitable infill in these hollow shear walls.
This shows that a huge gap in contemporary knowledge
exists for cold formed shear walls with many of the
parameters mentioned here.
2. Performance Comparison
A comparison of the structural response of different
shear wall panels (SWP) published in few of the afore-
mentioned studies is illustrated in Fig. 1. Although there
is the difference in test parameters owing to different
practices of using SWP in various countries, the comparison
provides a good insight into understanding the behavior
of SWP under lateral loading. The length of test
specimens in previous studies was different, therefore in
order to compare results with earlier studies, the force
 Shear Capacity of Cold-Formed Light-Gauge Steel Framed Shear-Wall Panels with Fiber Cement Board Sheathing
Figure 1. Load-displacement response of different shear
wall panels.
resisted by the panel was divided by length of the panel
to ensure consistency of units thus load units are presented
as kN/m. It can be seen that, load-deflection response on
shear walls by Nithyadharan and Kalyanaraman (2012)
display significantly stiff response as compared to most
studies which can be attributed to high stiffness properties
of CSB cladding and the size of the section used in this
study. Comparison of the behavior of shear wall panels
by Elhajj (2005) and Baran and Alica (2012) shows that
the two types of wall panels sheathed with FB and OSB
give a close structural response which can be attributed to
the wood-based composition of the cladding materials.
Although engineered properties of OSB are higher than
FB, the similar response of FB by Elhajj (2005) can be
attributed to closer spacing of screws. Load-deflection
response by Peck et al. (2012) shows the highly ductile
behavior of GWB wall panel which is due to the soft
nature of the board. This comparison between panels
sheathed with OSB, GWB, FB, and CSB shows that there
is a significant difference in behavior of these wall panels.
The difference in response of shear wall panels under
lateral load can be attributed to type and different
configurations of cold formed steel (CFS) framing, its
anchorages, single or double sided cladding, sheathing
material, and size and spacing of fasteners connecting the
cladding to framing (Al-Kharat and Rogers, 2007; Baran
and Alica, 2012; Elhajj, 2005; Peck et al., 2012). This
difference in behavior of different wall panels explains
that it is not appropriate to use design property/configuration
of one type of shear wall panel for other.
Fiber cement board (FCB) is widely used as a cladding
material in many parts of the world as it offers many
advantages as sheathing materials. It should be noted that
an advantage with one type of sheathing might also be
existing in other types, however, it is the relative advantage
once overall qualities and performances are considered
for which FCB is found much attractive option. FCB is a
non-asbestos board composed of Portland cement, cellulose
1406
fiber, and refined sand. FCB is immune to water damage
being water resistant and can be used as external cladding
without additional waterproofing protection as opposed to
the GWB and OSB. FCB has also better shatter and
abrasion resistance properties than GWB and OSB, which
makes is favorable as external cladding to minimize
breakage and reduce maintenance cost. FCB has also low
shrinkage and it is flexible to some extent, therefore, it
can easily withstand temperature variations. The cement
content in the FCB makes a good bond with the infill
foam concrete by adding a bonding agent. Not only that
FCB sheathing provides weather insulation, once infilled
with EPS foam concrete, the shear wall panels can be
most suitable option to increase damping and acoustic
insulation properties of the structure. OSB is a wood-
based material and susceptible to termite attacks, therefore
special treatment needs to be applied to prevent such attack.
GWB has been reported to leach toxins and considered
linked to indoor air quality issues. Both GWB and OSB
are susceptible to mold and mildew growth on prolonged
contact with humidity, while FCB being moisture and
humidity resistant is immune to such issues. FCB also
provides better fire resistance properties similarly to
GWB. Finally, ease of manufacturing of boards to desired
textures, thickness, patterns, styles, and provision of
recessed joints provides a high degree of applicability in
case of FCB. The state-of-the-art also shows that there is
lack of test and design data on properties of cold formed
steel shear wall panel sheathed with FCB. It is therefore
desired that material and structural response of cold
formed steel shear wall panels sheathed with FCB be
studied to develop design strength and behavior parameters
for such types of shear walls.
In the absence of design guidelines based on the strength
of FCB sheathing, the designers resolve to use the guidelines
available for GWB or FB in American Iron and Steel
Institute Lateral Design (AISI S213-07/S1-09 2012). The
lack of design guidelines and test data on FCB demands
new investigations to help evaluate the design strength
and behavior parameters of such shear wall panels with
such sheathing. Furthermore, in some cases, the local
practice involves infilling SWP with expanded polystyrene
(EPS) to eliminate the hollowness effect of light gauge
steel structure walls due to acoustic/privacy requirements
by the users. This increases the self-weight of the
structure thereby increasing the seismic forces, but on the
other hand, the infilled panels significantly increase the
stiffness and shear resistance of the wall panel. A novel
idea is filling the SWP with low-density EPS foam
concrete that not only significantly reduces the weight of
infill but also helps in reducing the hollow effect in SWP.
This study presents details and results of a diverse
investigation on the in-plane lateral load-displacement
response of SWPs sheathed with FCB on both sides
together with and without EPS foam concrete infill.
1407 Wasim Khaliq and Ahmed Moghis / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(4), 1404-1414, 2017

3. Test program
A total of four specimens, with CFS section of 89S41
using 8 mm thick FCB sheathing conforming to (ASTM
C1186-08 2016) were tested in this study. The relevant
material properties and specifications of steel and CFS
section are tabulated in Table 1. The screw spacing was
kept consistent as 150/150 mm at both edge and field
respectively. The two hollow specimens were labeled
with acronym FCB-H-1 and FCB-H-2, whereas two
Figure 2. Typical light gauge steel shear wall stud section
specimens infilled with EPS foam concrete were named (89S41) used in study.
with acronym FCB-I-1 and FCB-I-2. The first three
letters of the specimen indicate the sheathing material,
“FCB” referencing fiber cement board. The next letter 3.1. Test specimens
whether the wall is hollow or infilled. The letter “H” The SWP test panel specimens had overall dimensions
indicates that the specimen is hollow, while an “I” of 1200 by 2400 mm. These specimens were fabricated
indicates that wall is infilled with EPS foam concrete. from 89S41 cold formed steel lipped C-section, made
Finally, the number at the end indicates the specimen from G350 grades sheet material of 1.15 mm thickness
number of that specific configuration. Two specimens and conforming to ASTM A653 (ASTM A653/A653M-
were hollow shear wall panels sheathed on both sides 15e1 2015) as shown in Fig. 2. A complete specimen of
with FCB and the other two were sheathed on both sides SWP test frame assembly and typical anchor joint details
with FCB but also had EPS foam concrete infill. Relevant are shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b). Hex head drill point
physical properties of FCB are tabulated in Table 2. screws, 12 g-18x19 mm were used for assembly of the
frame. The vertical supports also known as vertical studs
were spaced at 400 mm center to center. To prevent local
Table 1. Specifications of steel and cold formed steel section
and flexural buckling cold formed sections of similar C-
Physical parameter Specifications sections were provided as end studs (end supports) and
Cold formed steel section 89S41-1.15 horizontal support also known as horizontal blocking
Grade G350 (nog) at mid-height. A horizontal steel member used
Coating Z275 anywhere between the top and bottom members to provide
horizontal blocking (bracing/support) is called nog in
Yield stress (fy) 350 MPa
light gauge construction as shown in Fig. 3(a). The webs
Ultimate stress (fu) 450 MPa
of the two end studs were attached with two rows of 12 g-
Area 213.88 mm2 14x20 mm hex head drill point screws spaced at 300 mm
Mass 1.679 kg/m center to center.
Second moment of area (Ix) 270484 mm4 The fiber cement board sheets under the brand name
Second moment of area (Iy) 50197 mm4 Shera (Shera Mahaphant), with 8 mm thickness were
Radius of gyration (rx) 35.56 mm attached on both sides of the frame using M 3.9×25 mm
Centroid position x 12.96 mm countersunk ribbed winged drill point screws. The screws
Centroid position y 43.93 mm were spaced at 150 mm center to center at the edges and
Polar radius of gyration (ro) 50.91 mm at the vertical supports (studs). Special hold-downs were
Torsion constant 94.28 mm4 selected to anchor test specimen to the testing frame to
Warping constant (Iw) 89091827 mm6 avoid premature anchorage failure as shown in Fig. 3(b).
For the hold-down purpose, S/HDU6 anchors provided
Section modulus (Zx) 6078 mm3
by Simpson Strong-Tie Company Incorporation (Simpson
Strong-Tie 2015) were used with all specimens.
Table 2. Physical properties of fiber cement board
To resist the tension due to the overturning moment
Physical parameter Specifications produced by the applied test load, hold downs were
Thickness tolerance ±6% attached to the end studs using twelve 12 g-14x20 mm
Density 1300-1350 kg/m3 hex head drill point screws and bolted to the testing frame
with 16 mm diameter anchor bolts. Out of four test
Modulus of elasticity (wet) 5500-6000 MPa
specimens, two were infilled with EPS foam concrete
Water absorption ≤35%
having an average density of 1062 kg/m3. With EPS foam
Moisture movement ±0.4%
concrete infill, the weight of hollow SWP increased from
Moisture content ≤12% 180 kg to 452 kg which corresponds to an increase of 151
pH value 7-8 percent in weight of the panel.
 Shear Capacity of Cold-Formed Light-Gauge Steel Framed Shear-Wall Panels with Fiber Cement Board Sheathing 1408

Figure 3. Details of members and joint in light gauge steel shear wall panel specimen.

Figure 4. Laboratory testing of EPS foam concrete specimens.

3.2. Expanded polystyrene foam concrete
Ordinary concrete cannot be used as infill in SWP
because of its high density, problems of uniformity,
workability, and consistency that proves difficult for such
casting. On the other hand, the conventional foam concrete
is highly workable and flows through the gaps between
the steel studs and cladding. Therefore, in this study,
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam concrete was used for
infill purposes as it is postulated that its properties will be
better conforming to SWP. In this concrete, ordinary
portland cement (OPC) type-1, conforming to ASTM
Standards ASTM C150/C150M-16e1 (2016) was used.
Natural sand passing ASTM sieves 600 to 150 µm (No.
30 to 100) were used. Coarse aggregate was replaced by
EPS grains, which were procured locally with size
ranging from 2-6 mm and having an average density of
15.6 kg/m3.
Mix design for EPS foam concrete consisted of ordinary
portland cement (OPC) with cement quantity of 347 kg/
m3, EPS foam was used as 16 kg/m3, and fine aggregate
was used as 436 kg/m3. To make an efficient bond between
sheathing and EPS foam concrete, “Shera Core Additive”,
supplied by the board manufacturer was used. This
bonding material prevents the board from peeling off the
EPS foam concrete and increases its bonding durability.
The quantity of bonding agent was used as 97 g/m3.
Admixture was introduced during the mixing to increase
the surface tension of EPS, thereby making the mixture
1409 Wasim Khaliq and Ahmed Moghis / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(4), 1404-1414, 2017
homogeneous and well dispersed EPS grains. The
quantity of admixture for this purpose was used as 286
ml/m3. For the concrete mix, a water cement (w/c) ratio of
0.45 that resulted in 190 mm slump thus attaining the
desired workability. EPS foam concrete was infilled in
the panels manually from the holes made in the top track.
For EPS foam concrete, the average compressive strength
attained was 3.18 MPa, and density of 1174 kg/m3 was
obtained in the hardened state. Flow test for workability
in fresh state (slump) and compressive strength testing of
EPS foam concrete in the hardened state is shown in Fig.
4(a) and 4(b).
3.3. Test setup and procedure
The walls were tested in a vertical position fixed to a
specially designed reaction frame. Details of the test setup
are shown in Fig. 5. Tests were conducted in accordance
with the test criteria defined by ASTM E564-06 (2012)
standards and a multistep loading history was utilized.
ASTM E564-06 (2012) loading procedure was selected
for the test program because it offers most appropriate
test standard for evaluating the shear capacity of a typical
section of a framed wall, supported on a rigid foundation
and having load applied in the plane of the wall. This
helps determination of the shear stiffness and strength of
structural light-frame panel to be used as a shear-wall.
This standard also allows taking into account different
sheathing variations in an appropriate manner. Hollow
steel sections (HSS) 150×75×6 mm were installed on top
and bottom with the 75 mm wide side connected to the
panel to avoid any interference of sheathing with the
support and allow it to move freely without any undesirable
resistance from test assembly. The lateral load was applied
using a hydraulic actuator using the HSS distribution
beam at the top with a constant rate. Both in-plane
rotation and in-plane lateral displacement of the panels
were allowed being the scope of the study. The panel was
attached to bottom section using four 16 mm diameter
anchor bolts. Two bolts at the ends with hold-down and
two shear anchors with 3 mm thick thrust washers. The
top section was bolted to the frame using three 16 mm
diameter anchor bolts with thrust washer. This frame was
then fixed to the reaction test frame. The out of plane
displacement as well as rotation of the shear walls were
restricted by anchors in the test setup. The wall panels
were tested using constantly increasing the lateral load
Table 3. Test setup channels and LVDTs details for data acquisition
Channel number Parameter measured Measurement range of LVDT
1 Bottom horizontal slip
2 Vertical displacement at heel
4 Vertical displacement at toe
5 Top horizontal displacement
6 Horizontal displacement
7 Horizontal displacement
Figure 5. Shear wall test frame and assembly along with
instrumentation.
applied at the top corner through the HSS beam using a
hydraulic actuator as shown in Fig. 5.
The parameters that were measured during the tests
included, the load exerted by the hydraulic actuator and
displacements at several points on the specimens. The
displacements of interest were horizontal displacement
(in-plane horizontal drift) at top of the wall, vertical
displacement at both bottom ends of the wall and an in-
plane slip of wall at the base.
3.4. Instrumentation
Linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were
used for displacement measurements. All these LVDTs
were connected to a data acquisition system. Figure 5
illustrates the location of LVDTs attached to the test
specimens. Channel 1 was connected to LVDT which
measured the horizontal displacement of the bottom plate.
Any slippage of the bottom plate had to be subtracted
from the top displacement in order to determine the net
horizontal displacement, and the obtained values have
been used in plotting the graphs. Channels 2 and 4
measured the vertical displacement at heel and toe of the
wall respectively, while racking load was applied (Channel
3 was not utilized being nonfunctional during tests).
When the top of the wall was displaced, it caused an
overturning moment at the base causing the wall to lift off
the foundation and produced tension or compression in
the bottom plate, resulting in additional deflection. This
Notes
50 mm
50 mm Vertical uplift measurement
50 mm
100 mm
100 mm Located at 1190 mm from bottom
100 mm Located at 1790 mm from bottom
 Shear Capacity of Cold-Formed Light-Gauge Steel Framed Shear-Wall Panels with Fiber Cement Board Sheathing 1410

measurement was necessary when considering rigid body

motion of the structure. Channel 5, 6 and 7 measured the
top horizontal displacement. Table 3 tabulates maximum
displacement gauge lengths of different LVDTs used for
displacement measurements and the channels of data
acquisition system to collect data. A 600 kN capacity
load cell was used for monitoring the applied load.

4. Test Results and Discussions

4.1. Comparison of hollow to infilled shear walls
Monotonic load was applied progressively to different
wall specimens and load-displacement measurements were
recorded. The values of load versus net displacement for
all panels (FCB-H and FCB-I) are shown in Fig. 6. SWPs
are composed of cold formed members assembled with
connectors and different screws. Additionally, sheathing
is also attached to SWPs with screws. It should be noted
that while under load, SWP deforms by the twisting of
joints, warping of sections, pull out of the screws, tearing
of sheathing, and stretching. These all deteriorations
allow SWP to attain much higher deformations and still
not fail in a classic sense, however, failure of major
connecting elements can be considered as failure of an
SWP. Failure of the hollow walls was initiated with
cracking of FCB sheathing at the heel of the panels and
on the top corner of the compression studs. However, the
ultimate failure was triggered by pull out of screws from
the sheathing on the tension stud, separating the sheathing
by splitting it from the frame as in Fig. 7(a), 7(b), and
7(c). Cracks were not visible in the infilled wall panels,
but the failure of infilled walls was characterized by
excessive deflection of the top of the wall. In the present
test program, the limitations of the LVDTs gauge length
Figure 6. Load-displacement response of hollow and
infilled shear wall panels.
(Table 3), as well as the limitations of loading frame
assembly, allowed to capture the deformations only up to
capacity of test set up, which were still beyond the
allowable deflections prescribed by ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2013)
under service load conditions and any higher deformations
were not captured. The allowable deflection is a deflection
that corresponds to the wind and seismic service loads
based on ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2013) and is given as H/400
and 0.02H respectively, where H is the height of the
structure.
The comparison of load versus net horizontal displacement
up to peak load for all SWPs in Fig. 6 shows minor
difference in the initial response of the panels, suggesting
that initially the load is resisted by the diaphragm action
of the sheathing material, which is 8 mm FCB, while at
later stage the additional resistance is also provided by
infill material. The slope of infilled walls remained constant,

Figure 7. Failure pattern showing sheathing splitting and pull out of screws in FCB-H panels.
1411 Wasim Khaliq and Ahmed Moghis / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(4), 1404-1414, 2017
Figure 8. Lateral load capacities of shear wall panels at
48 mm maximum deflection.
while the slope of hollow walls decreased owing to the
fact that the former were stiffer than the later. This was
also evident from the fact that hollow walls had lower
peak strength values and higher deflections as opposed to
the infilled walls. It is therefore evident from Fig. 6, that
maximum strength (shear resistance) of the shear-wall
panels sheathed with FCB and infilled (FCB-I-1 and
FCB-I-2) with EPS foam concrete is 20% higher than
hollow panels (FCB-H-1 and FCB-H-2), resulting in loss
of ductility in these panels through a reduction of 16% in
lateral displacement.
The peak load values occurred at very large deflections.
Such large deflections are usually not desirable in design
and practice. With reference to this particular research,
the allowable deflection corresponding to service wind
and seismic loads based on ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2013) for a
2.4 m high wall corresponds to an allowable deflection of
6 mm (as H/400) and 48 mm (as 0.02H) respectively. For
hollow SWPs, FCB-H-1, and FCB-H-2, the corresponding
load capacities were measured as 2.5 and 3.8 kN against
6 mm and 20 and 19.6 kN against 48 mm deflections
respectively. Conversely, for infilled SWPs, FCB-I-1 and
Figure 10. Crack pattern and screw failures in tested wall panels.
Figure 9. Shear deformation showing crack pattern and
screw failures.
FCB-I-2, the corresponding load capacities were measured
as 4.5 and 3.8 kN against 6 mm and 26 and 25.3 kN
against 48 mm deflections respectively. At 6 mm deflection,
the load values are nearly similar but at 48 mm deflection,
the difference in load resistance is significantly higher.
The lateral load capacities corresponding to maximum 48
mm deflection are shown graphically in Fig. 8. The results
also illustrate that under maximum allowable deflection
for seismic loadings as per ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2013), the
infilled walls have on average 29% higher load capacity
than the hollow walls.
4.2. Behavior under lateral load and failure patterns
Figure 9 illustrates the cumulative cracking pattern and
damage sustained by walls FCB-H-1 and FCB-H-2. The
figure also shows that the damage conforms directly to
 Shear Capacity of Cold-Formed Light-Gauge Steel Framed Shear-Wall Panels with Fiber Cement Board Sheathing
stress distribution in shear wall panels under in-plane
lateral load. Figure 10(a)-10(d) illustrates the cracking
pattern and the type of screw failures in the shear wall
panels tested in this investigation. It can be seen that
cracking and screw failures mostly occurred in FCB-H
walls, whereas it was not observed in FCB-I walls which
can be attributed to additional stiffness provided by
infilling with EPS foam concrete in panels. This behavior
shows that the infilled walls attain added resistance
against lateral loading and therefore are more suitable for
lateral design due to additional strength and resistance
attained through infill material. Comparison of Figs. 9
and 10 show that studs were pulled and cracks mostly
appeared on the tension faces of the sheathing and
twisting/deforming of steel sections.
As one of the major ingredients in the manufacturing of
the FCB is cement, and cement products are inherently
weak in tension and strong in compression, therefore
failure pattern of FCB sheathing is attributed to the
brittleness of FCBs. The cracks and failure pattern of
tested shear walls indicate that the failure was initiated on
edges under tensile stresses and no such damage was
observed on edges under compressive stresses. Therefore,
it is postulated that usual improvement methods such as
decreasing the screw spacing essentially on tension edge
of the panels, increasing the gauge of screws, increasing
the thickness of sheathing material, and the metal studs
will improve the shear resistance of SWPs against lateral
loading.
4.3. Comparison with contemporary results
The average peak lateral strength obtained in shear wall
panels FCB-H and FCB-I was 31 and 34 kN and the
corresponding lateral displacement attained in FCB-H
and FCB-I was 95 and 73 mm respectively. Some of the
prior works on shear wall panels with other configurations
and sheathing material types facilitate a comparison and
behavioral difference with test results obtained in the
present research.
Baran and Alica (2012) monotonically tested 1.22×2.44
m walls fabricated from 90S47-1.20 mm section and
sheathed with 11 mm OSB with fastener spacing of 150
mm on edges and 300 mm at intermediate studs. The
hollow SWP in the present study is similar to the tests by
Baran and Alica (2012) with the exception of framing
members, sheathing material, and screw spacing. The
difference in framing size and thickness is very marginal
and does not significantly affect the behavior of SWP. As
concluded by Peck et al. (2012) the difference in intermediate
fastener spacing has an effect on the capacity of SWP.
However, the change in sheathing material causes the
major difference in behavior of SWP. Figure 11 compares
the response of SWPs with that to Baran and Alica (2012)
in which OSB was used as sheathing material. As per
AISI S213-07/S1-09 (2012), “for walls with similar sheathing
and screw configuration on both faces, the capacity is
1412
Figure 11. Load-displacement response of FCB with OSB
shear wall panels.
cumulative”, same has been confirmed by investigations
by Tissell (1993). Therefore, an effect of the cumulative
curve is drawn for comparison purpose in Fig. 11. The
figure shows that currently tested SWPs with FCB
sheathing exhibited significantly high peak strengths with
slightly lower deformations from the published data, but
are comparable with the cumulative curve. The difference
in performance of SWPs with FCB to that from prior
studies can be attributed primarily to the differences in
sheathing material and application on single or both sides.
The research work by Peck et al. (2012) included
monotonic testing of 12.7 mm gypsum 2.44×1.22 m shear
walls with fastener spacing of 152 mm center to center at
edges and at intermediate studs. Authors in this study
conducted tests on walls with different screw spacing, but
results were compared with walls having similar screw
spacing to present study. Therefore, with the difference in
sheathing material, the present comparison shows the
difference in behavior is mostly attributed to change in
the type of sheathing material. Figure 12 shows a comparison
of the response of SWPs from both studies and an additional
curve for the cumulative values of the published results
(Peck et al., 2012). The recently tested SWPs with FCB
sheathing exhibited significantly higher peak strength but
similar total deformation. The peak strength in present
research is 280% higher than the peak values of cumulative
results as of earlier published studies. The higher shear
resistance in SWPs with FCB sheathing is largely attributed
to shear capacity of the sheathing material.
The present study is also compared to work of Rogers
et al. (2004) for shear wall panels as shown in Fig. 13.
The study included monotonic testing of 2438×1219 mm
panels fabricated from 92S41-1.12 mm and sheathed with
11 mm OSB, 12.5 mm Douglas fir plywood (DFP) and
12.5 mm Canadian softwood plywood (CSP). The sheathing
was attached on single side with screws spaced at 305
mm in the field and 152 mm edge spacing was used. On
the provisions of AISI S213-07/S1-09 (2012), for consistency
in comparison, the results for single-sided sheathing are
1413 Wasim Khaliq and Ahmed Moghis / International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(4), 1404-1414, 2017
Figure 12. Load-displacement response of FCB with
GWB shear wall panels.
Figure 13. Comparison of strength results with OSB,
DFP, and CSP.
doubled to represent both side sheathing. The comparison
chart for the cumulative lateral strengths of shear wall
panels tested by Rogers et al. (2004) and for walls tested
in this study are shown in Fig. 13. The comparison
depicts that the strength of hollow wall panel sheathed
with 8 mm FCB is closely comparable to walls sheathed
with 11 mm OSB and 12.5 mm CSP.
Figure 14 illustrates results of OSB, GWB and fiberboard
(FB) sheathed walls published in the standard for cold-
formed steel framing lateral design by AISI S213-07/S1-
09 (2012). The size of specimens was 1219×2438 mm
and the steel studs used were 89S41-1.092 mm. Sheathing
was attached to one side only using screws with different
spacing. For comparison of the shear strength values of
OSB, GWB and FB were also doubled to represent both
side sheathing as substantiated by Tissell (1993). Figure
14 also confirms the agreement of results with previous
studies. This also shows that the strength of hollow wall
sheathed with 8 mm FCB is significantly higher than the
strength values of both 12.5 mm GWB and 12.5 mm FB.
From these comparisons, it is evident that the shear
strength values of SWPs sheathed with 8 mm FCB are
nearly equal to that of 12.5 mm CSP as well as that of 11
Figure 14. Comparison of strength results with OSB,
GWB, and FB.
mm OSB. Moreover, FCB is about 183% stronger than
GWB and 90% than FB sheathing types. Hence the
design practice of using the shear strength values of
GWB or FB for FCB sheathing is quite conservative. So
for design purposes, it will be logical to assume the shear
strength of SWPs 8 mm FCB equal to 11 mm OSB sheathing.
The results presented here provide an understanding of
behavior and effectiveness of FCB sheathed shear wall
panels. This study will help designers use cold formed
light gauge steel shear wall panels with FCB sheathing,
both hollow and infilled with EPS foam concrete to suit
the desired design efficiency.
5. Conclusions
Shear behavior of cold formed shear wall panels (SWPs)
with fiber cement board (FCB) as sheathing material in
the design of light gauge structures are being practiced in
construction without appropriate design guidelines for
FCB sheathing, whereas design guidelines are available
for many other types of sheathing materials. The objective
of this study was to experimentally establish the shear
behavior of cold form SWPs with FCB and its response
compared to other types of conventional sheathing
materials. This is the first study, that will provide an
insight to the shear response of light gauge SWPs with
FCB sheathing along with EPS foam infill and its
behavior comparison to other types of sheathing materials
and thus provides guidelines to use FCB sheathing in
practice. Based on the information presented in this study,
following key conclusions are obtained:
(1) Hollow shear wall panels sheathed with 8 mm fiber
cement board (FCB) on both sides exhibit significant
ductility against failure with strength capacity of about 30
kN/m and maximum displacement of 95 mm.
(2) Shear wall panels (SWPs) infilled with expanded
polystyrene (EPS) foam concrete exhibit slightly improved
stiffness of shear walls with shear strength enhanced up
to 20% and lateral displacement reduced by 16%.
(3) At serviceability criteria (48 mm top deflection),
 Shear Capacity of Cold-Formed Light-Gauge Steel Framed Shear-Wall Panels with Fiber Cement Board Sheathing
the shear strength of infilled shear walls is 42% higher as
compared to hollow shear walls.
(4) The shear strength values of SWPs with 8 mm
FCB sheathing is 183% higher than gypsum wall board
(GWB) sheathing and 90% higher than fiberboard (FB)
sheathing, which shows that design practices used as
substitute guidelines are highly conservative.
(5) The shear strength values of hollow walls with 8
mm FCB sheathing is most nearly corresponding to 11
mm oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing with similar
frame configuration.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was sponsored by
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad,
Pakistan. All the materials for the experimental study
were donated by PEB Industries (Pvt) Ltd, Pakistan and
Fischer group, Germany which is greatly appreciated.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions in this paper are
those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of sponsors/material providers.
References
AISI S213-07/S1-09 (2012). “North American Standard for
Cold-Formed Steel Framing-Lateral Design 2007 Edition
with Supplement No. 1.” Washington DC, USA, pp. 72.
Al-Kharat, M., and Rogers, C. (2007). “Inelastic performance
of cold-formed steel strap braced walls.” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 63(4), pp. 460-474. http:/
/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.06.040.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2013). “Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures.” American Society of
Civil Engineers. www.pubs.asce.org, 1801 Alexander
Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191, pp. 650. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412916.
ASTM A653/A653M-15e1 (2015). “Standard Specification
for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron
Alloy-Coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip Process.”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.
astm.org, pp. 13. DOI: 10.1520/A0653_A0653M-15E01.
ASTM C150/C150M-16e1 (2016). “Standard Specification
for Portland Cement.” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org, pp. 10. doi: 10.1520/
C0150_C0150M-16E01.
ASTM C1186-08 (2016). “Standard Specification for Flat
Fiber-Cement Sheets.” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org, pp. doi:
10.1520/C1186-08R16.
ASTM E564-06 (2012). “Standard Practice for Static Load
Test for Shear Resistance of Framed Walls for Buildings.”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.
1414
astm.org, pp. 5. doi: 10.1520/E0564-06R12.
Baran, E., and Alica, C. (2012). “Behavior of cold-formed
steel wall panels under monotonic horizontal loading.”
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 79, pp. 1-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.020.
Chen, C., Boudreault, F., Branston, A., and Rogers, C.
(2006). “Behaviour of light-gauge steel-frame-wood
structural panel shear walls.” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 33(5), pp. 573-587. doi:10.1139/l06-015.
Elhajj, N. (2005). “Cold formed steel walls with fiberboard
sheathing - shear wall testing.” N. Elhajj, ed., NAHB
Research Center, American Iron and Steel Institute/Steel
Framing Alliance, Prince George’s Boulevard, Upper
Marlboro, MD, pp. 1-19.
Girard, J. D., and Tarpy Jr, T. S. (1982). “Shear resistance of
steel-stud wall panels.” Sixth international specialty
conference on cold-formed steel structures, pp. 449-465.
Nguyen, H., Georgi, H., and Serrette, R. (1996). “Shear wall
values for lightweight steel framing. AISI-Specifications
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members.
Paper 46.”, Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara
University, Missouri University of Science and
Technology, pp. 1-56.
Nithyadharan, M., and Kalyanaraman, V. (2012).
“Behaviour of cold-formed steel shear wall panels under
monotonic and reversed cyclic loading.” Thin-Walled
Structures, 60, pp. 12-23. doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2012.05.017.
Peck, Q., Rogers, N., and Serrette, R. (2012). “Cold-formed
steel framed gypsum shear walls: In-plane response.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 138(7), pp. 932-941.
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000521.
Rogers, C., Branston, A., Boudreault, F., and Chen, C. “Steel
Frame/Wood panel shear walls: preliminary design
information for use with the 2005 NBCC.” Proc.,
Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering, pp. 1-15.
Serrette, R., and Ogunfunmi, K. (1996). “Shear resistance of
gypsum-sheathed light-gauge steel stud walls.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, 122(4), pp. 383-389. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:4(383).
Serrette, R. L., Encalada, J., Juadines, M., and Nguyen, H.
(1997). “Static racking behavior of plywood, OSB,
gypsum, and fiberbond walls with metal framing.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(8), pp. 1079-
1086. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:8(1079).
Shera Mahaphant “http://www.sheraeu.com/.”
Simpson Strong-Tie (2015). “CONNECTORS for Cold-
formed steel construction, C-CFS-15.” Simpson Strong-
Tie Company Inc. Pleasanton, CA. www.strongtie.com,
pp. 172.
Tissell, J. R. (1993). “Wood structural panel shear walls.”
American Plywood Association (APA)-The Engineered
Wood Association, Tacoma, Wash. Report, 154, pp. 1-20.