Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stability of Light Steel Walls in Compression With Plasterboards On One or Both Sides
Stability of Light Steel Walls in Compression With Plasterboards On One or Both Sides
Stability of Light Steel Walls in Compression With Plasterboards On One or Both Sides
net/publication/330636917
CITATIONS READS
0 52
6 authors, including:
Krishanu Roy
University of Auckland
22 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Krishanu Roy on 12 March 2019.
In light steel framing, the compression resistance of the walls may be improved by the stabilising effect of
plasterboard attached to one or both sides of the wall. This paper presents the results of 28 load tests on 2·4 m high
walls using 75, 100 and 150 mm deep C-sections in 1·2 to 1·6 mm thick steel with various types of board. The results
were compared to the methodology in the standards BS EN 1993-1-3 and BS 5950-5, taking account of restraint to
minor axis buckling. The test results showed that the lateral restraint provided by 12 or 15 mm thick fire-resistant or
moisture-resistant plasterboard fixed to one flange is equivalent to an effective length reduction factor of 0·7 in the
minor axis direction for a 100 mm 1·6 mm C-section in a 2·4 m high wall. A theory is developed based on
distortional buckling of the C-sections, which allows the test results to be extended to other wall heights and section
sizes. The failure loads were predicted by finite-element modelling by considering initial imperfections in the
C-sections and the torsional restraint due to the boards.
α imperfection parameter
Notation
δo initial imperfection
A gross cross-sectional area
θ rotation of section due to bending of boards
Aeff effective cross-sectional area
λzz minor axis slenderness of C-section based on its
b flange width
full length
c depth of edge stiffener
λzz,eff minor axis slenderness of C-section based on its
d board thickness
effective length allowing for end fixity
E elastic modulus of steel
λzz,red reduced slenderness based on the restraining effects
Eb elastic modulus of board
of the boards
Es elastic modulus of steel
λˉ slenderness ratio for direction of buckling
fy yield strength of steel
σ variance of test results from average
h section depth
χ buckling reduction factor
Izz second moment of inertia in the minor axis direction
ϕ factor used in the buckling equation
iyy, izz radii of gyration of the C-section in the major and
minor axes, respectively
kb flexural stiffness of board per unit length of beam 1. Introduction
kf,ten tensile stiffness of fixing into board The use of light steel framing and modular construction has
kw,θ rotational stiffness of C-section due to out-of-plane developed rapidly over the last 15 years and the design of light
bending of web steel structures has become very efficient. The main market for
kθ total rotational stiffness light steel framing is in residential buildings of four to eight
L length of C-section in wall storeys’ height, in which the load-bearing cross-walls are
LE member effective length located at 4 to 6 m spacing, as illustrated in Figure 1.
NRd buckling resistance of C-section
P compression load applied to a C-section The wall panels are pre-fabricated as storey-high units with
Pav average failure load of group of tests C-sections placed at 300 to 600 mm centres, which are fixed into
Pcr,zz buckling load in distortional buckling mode U sections forming a top and bottom ‘track’. The walls are
PE,zz Euler buckling load in minor axis generally X-braced to provide overall stability to the building.
Pk characteristic failure load based on group of tests The C-sections are generally 100 or 150 mm deep and 1·2 to
s transverse spacing between C-sections 2 mm thick depending on the number of floors supported. The
sf longitudinal spacing of fixings steel grade is specified as S280 to S450 to BS EN 10346
t steel thickness (BSI, 2009), where the numerical value is the steel yield strength
v deformation of web in N/mm2.
1
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
One practical way to improve the design of load-bearing 2. Compression resistance to BS EN 1993-1-3
walls in practice is to consider how the buckling resistance of The compression resistance of cold-formed C-sections to
C-sections can be increased by taking into account the stabilis- BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) is based on the rules for hot-
ing effect of higher performing plasterboards or sheathing rolled steel sections given in BS EN 1993-1-1 (BSI, 2005),
2
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
In BS EN 1993-1-1 (BSI, 2005), buckling curve ‘b’ is used for & 100 mm 50 mm 1·5 mm thick C-sections with 15 mm
minor and major axis buckling of C-sections, but curve ‘a’ thick moisture-resistant (Type H) plasterboard on one side,
may be used for major axis buckling of C-sections placed and either no boards, or directly fixed plasterboard, or
back to back. The reduction factor, χ, obtained from buckling plasterboard fixed by way of resilient bars on the other
curve ‘b’ is shown in Figure 3, as a function of λ. ˉ Most side. The C-sections were placed at 400 mm spacing so that
cold-formed C-sections in walls have a minor axis slenderness the wall panel consisted of two internal Cs and two edge
ratio in the range of 0·8–1·2, and so χ is approximately C-sections. The measured yield strength of the steel was
0·5–0·7. 464 N/mm2. In total, eight walls were tested.
& 100 mm 50 mm 1·6 mm thick C-sections with
In design to the former BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998), the equivalent 12·5 mm thick fire-resistant (Type F) plasterboard on one
to buckling curve ‘a’ is used in all cases, which can lead to side and with similar configurations of plasterboard on the
an increase of 5 to 10% in buckling resistance relative to BS other side, as in the above series. The measured yield
EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a), depending on the slenderness of strength of the steel was 428 N/mm2. In total, seven walls
the wall. were tested.
3
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
& 150 mm 50 mm 1·2 and 1·6 mm thick C-sections with results of single tests, and to compare with design resistances
12 mm thick fire-resistant (Type F) plasterboard on one calculated to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a).
side and no plasterboard on the other side. The measured
yield strength of the steel was 400 and 385 N/mm2, In all the tests, the plasterboard was fixed using the
respectively, for the two thicknesses. In total, seven walls recommended 3·2 mm dia. fixings at 300 mm centres to all
were tested. C-sections. In all cases, the minimum distance of the fixing
& 75 mm 50 mm 1·6 mm thick C-sections with two from the edge of the board to the outer C-sections was main-
layers of 12·5 mm thick fire-resistant (Type F) plasterboard tained at 15 mm. The boards were fixed a nominal 10 mm
on one side and either no boards or orientated strand short of the ends of the panel so that the boards would not
board (OSB) or cement particle board (CPB) sheathing resist compression directly. The failure of the wall with boards
boards on the other side. The C-sections were placed at on one side was often precipitated by the outer C-sections,
300 mm spacing so that the walls consisted of three which are less highly restrained than the inner C-sections. In
internal Cs and two edge Cs. The measured yield strength practice, walls are generally continuous and so the tests on dis-
of the steel was 400 N/mm2. In total, five walls were tested, crete wall panels represented a lower bound to the failure load.
including two walls with 10 mm and 20 mm eccentricity at
the base. Loading was applied concentrically in pure compression
through jacks, and it was possible to achieve a relatively slow
The dimensions of the C-sections are shown in Figure 4. All rate of loading to failure over 15 to 20 min to allow some
frames were prefabricated with U-shaped top and bottom relaxation in loading due to creep in the boards and slip in the
tracks to which the C-sections were fixed by a 4·8 mm dia. fixings.
screw to each flange. The first three series of tests were carried
out at Oxford Brookes University and the fourth series at the 2.2 Previous research on sheathed light steel walls
Building Research Establishment (BRE). The BRE tests were in compression
aimed at investigating the stiffening effect of sheathing boards Telue and Mahendran (2001) presented results of compression
used in modular construction. tests on eight light steel walls with boards on one side and
eight with plasterboards on both sides, which were compared
The tests with boards directly fixed on one or both sides were with four tests on bare steel panels. The walls were 2·4 m high
common to the series on the two types of plasterboard, so that and the C-sections were at 300 or 600 mm spacing. Two
direct comparison could be made between these test series. un-lipped C-sections of 75 mm depth and 30 mm width and
The modes of failure were: minor axis flexural buckling com- 200 mm depth and 35 mm width in 1·15 mm thick steel were
bined with web bending (known as distortional buckling), tested. Low and high steel grades of S175 and S500 were tested
major axis buckling, or in the most highly restrained cases, for comparison. In all cases, the 10 mm thick plasterboard was
crushing of the cross-section. fixed at 300 mm centres. The test results are presented in
Table 1.
Groups of three and four tests on walls with plasterboard on
one side were carried out in order to obtain the characteristic The failure load was relatively insensitive to the spacing of the
design resistance of the C-sections. The characteristic resistance C-sections and therefore to the rotational stiffness of the plas-
was found to be 85 to 90% of the mean value of the tests in a terboard. In all of the tests, the increase in the failure load of
group. A reduction factor of 0·85 was used in interpreting the the C-section with plasterboard on one side was a factor of at
least 3 times higher than the bare frames with 75 mm deep sec-
tions, which is due to the low compression resistance of the
45 50 50 un-lipped C-sections. This factor was much less for the
200 mm deep C-sections because of the out-of-plane bending
10 11 11
of the web. The steel strength also made a significant difference
75 t to the failure loads, particularly for walls with boards on both
100 t sides.
150 t
Tian, Wang and Lu presented the results of compression tests
on 2·44 m high and 1·25 m wide walls comprising three lipped
C-sections of 90 mm depth with 39/42 mm wide flanges. The
steel thickness was 1·5 mm in S350 grade. Three different types
t = 1·6 mm t = 1·5/1·6 mm t = 1·2/1·5 mm of sheathing board were fixed on one side of the walls: calcium
silicate board (CSB), CPB and OSB. No board thicknesses are
Figure 4. Dimensions of cold-formed sections C used in the
wall tests given in the paper but it is assumed that they are 10 mm thick.
Loads were applied either uniformly to the top of the wall or
4
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
Table 1. Failure loads for 75 mm and 200 mm deep un-lipped C-sections in two steel grades with plasterboards on one or both sides
(Telue and Mahendran, 2001)
75 mm deep C-sections 200 mm deep C-sections
(a) Bare steel C-section fixed to U track, and with: 5·5 7·2 9·5 10·7
(b) Boards on one side – C-sections at 300 mm spacing 16·7 28·3 15·0 18·2
(c) Boards on one side – C-sections at 600 mm spacing 18·5 26·4 14·3 19·4
(d) Boards on both sides – C-sections at 300 mm spacing 19·0 36·6 22·3 38·3
(e) Boards on both sides – C-sections at 600 mm spacing 21·3 35·7 22·0 41·7
Table 2. Failure loads for 90 mm deep 39/42 mm wide C-sections with sheathing boards on one side (Tian et al. 2007)
Boards on one flange of C-section
Wall panel of 2·45 m height
using 90 39/42 mm Cs Bare steel panel: kN OSB board: kN CSB board: kN CPB board: kN
Table 3. Failure loads for 92 mm deep 41 mm wide C-sections with sheathing boards on one and both sides (Vieira and Schafer,
2013)
Wall panel of 2·44 m height using Number Mean of test Coeff. of Characteristic Failure load predicted
92 41 1·72 mm Cs of tests failure loads: kN variation: % failure load: kN by this paper: kN
by a single point load to the centre of the top of the wall. Vieira (2011). The wall tests in compression were carried
Fixings to the C-sections were placed at 300, 400 or 600 mm. out using 92 mm deep 1·73 mm thick C-sections in S345
The test results are presented in Table 2. grade steel (50 ksi) which had a measured yield strength of
413 N/mm2. Plasterboard and OSB sheathing boards were
Tests were also carried out on the bare steel frames and it was fixed on one or both sides of the walls. The results are pre-
found that the increase in failure load due to the effect of the sented in Table 3 in terms of the mean failure loads for the
boards varied from 31 to 108%. The failure loads for the 2·44 m high walls. It was found that OSB on one side
panels with CPB were marginally higher than those with CSB increased the compression resistance of the bare C-sections by
and OSB, but the differences were small (less than 10%). The 55%, and OSB boards on both sides increased the failure load
failure load increased by about 10% for a fixing spacing of by 92%. Use of plasterboards on both sides of the wall
300 mm compared to 600 mm. It was also found that the increased the failure load by 71%. The test results are also
middle C-section in the group resisted up to twice the load expressed in terms of characteristic values and are compared
compared to the outer C-sections, which were less restrained with the later theory in this paper.
by the boards on one side.
Vieira and Schafer also quantified the translational and
Vieira and Schafer (2013) presented the results of compression rotational stiffness of the fixings to plasterboard and OSB from
tests on C-sections for walls of various heights and compared the results of small-scale tests. The measured translational stiff-
the results to earlier work on C-section columns by ness of the fixings were 0·35 and 0·97 kN/mm for plasterboard
5
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
and OSB, respectively, and the rotational stiffness of the fixings 0·85 for bare frames in minor axis flexural buckling. This was
was measured at about 95 kNmm/rad for both materials. observed also by Vieira and Schafer in their tests.
Guidance on methods of testing of the fixings is given in the 3.1 Results for wall tests with plasterboard on
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) report Sheathing one side
Braced Design of Wall Studs (Schafer, 2013). In the AISI The 12 light steel frames with plasterboards on one side failed
‘direct strength’ method, these stiffness properties may be by distortional buckling of the edge C-sections followed at
inserted into a formula for the critical buckling load of the high deformation by pull-out of the fixings to the plasterboard,
C-sections. It was found that the stiffening effect of the boards as shown in Figure 6. Tables 4 and 5 present the results of the
attached on one side of the C-sections was important in deter- tests on 100 50 1·5 mm and 1·6 mm C-sections for the two
mining the buckling load for walls in the height range of types of plasterboard. A typical load–displacement graph for a
2–3·5 m. The authors also commented that significant fixity test with boards on one side is shown in Figure 7. The axial
existed due to the C-section compressed into the U track. displacement at failure was about 7 mm and the out-of-plane
displacement of the web of the outer Cs began to increase
3. Results for bare steel frames in this more rapidly after a load of 80% of the failure load.
test series
In this new test series, the control tests on bare steel frames Groups of three or four tests were carried out for the two board
with 100 50 1·5/1·6 mm C-sections failed by torsional thicknesses, and the range of the failure loads was 59 to 65 kN
flexural buckling combined with flexural buckling, as shown in for the 15 mm thick moisture-resisting board to 59 to 66 kN for
Figure 5. The failure load per C-section was approximately the 12·5 mm thick fire-resisting board. This indicates that the
45 kN. However, it was found by calculation to BS EN 1993- results are insensitive to the board thickness or type. If the seven
1-3 (BSI, 2006a) that the failure load in flexural buckling in tests on the 100 50 C-sections with boards on one side are con-
the minor axis is close to that in torsional flexural buckling sidered to be one group, this leads to a characteristic failure load
when using an effective length factor of 0·7 for the torsional of 89% of the mean – see Section 4.5. The minimum failure load
mode, which results from the torsional restraint provided by was 93% of the mean of the tests in the group. Therefore, for
the U sections at the ends of the wall. single tests, it is considered reasonable to take the notional
characteristic failure load as 0·85 failure load, when comparing
The theoretical failure load for minor axis flexural buckling with the proposed design method in Section 4.1. This is pre-
was 26 kN to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) using an effective sented in the tables for comparative purposes.
length equal to the member length and the measured steel
strength. This increased to 37 and 40 kN for the two steel When the plasterboard was fixed on one side by way of resili-
thicknesses when using an effective length factor of 0·85, which ent bars without boards on the other side, the failure load was
gives a better correlation with the test results. 59 kN. This load was at the lower end of the range of the tests
of boards directly fixed on one side, which shows that resilient
Therefore, it is shown that the effect of compression of the bars on one side offer less restraint than directly fixed boards.
C-section into the top and bottom U sections and the restraint The mode of failure in this test is shown in Figure 8. The test
by the end fixings leads to a notional effective length factor of with plasterboard on one side and only resilient bars on the
Figure 5. Compression failure of bare steel frame using 100 1·6 C Figure 6. Typical failure of wall frame using 100 1·6 C with
by a mode involving flexural and torsional flexural buckling plasterboard on one side
6
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
Table 4. Failure loads for tests on walls using 100 50 1·5 mm C and 15 mm moisture-resisting plasterboard
Restraint by 15 mm moisture-resistant (Type H) plasterboards on Failure load, Ptest Notional characteristic
one or both sides (L = 2·42 m) (per C-section): kN failure load
(a) No boards – plain panel (reference test failing by torsional flexural buckling) 45·2 0·85Ptest = 38·4 kN
(b) Light steel wall panel with: 58·7
Side 1–15 mm moisture-resistant plasterboard directly fixed 57·0 53·3 kN (88% of mean)
Side 2 – No boards 61·2
64·5
Mean 60·3
(c) Light steel wall panel with: 84·2 0·85Ptest = 71·6 kN
Side 1–15 mm moisture-resistant plasterboard directly fixed
Side 2–15 mm plasterboard directly fixed
(d) Light steel panel with: 65·7 0·85Ptest = 55·6 kN
Side 1 – Resilient bars fixed on one side at 400 mm centres
Side 2–15 mm plasterboard directly fixed
(e) Light steel panel with: 100 0·85Ptest = 85 kN
Side 1– 15 mm moisture-resistant plasterboard directly fixed
Side 2–15 mm plasterboard fixed by way of resilient bars placed at 400 mm Cs
Table 5. Failure loads for tests on walls using 100 50 1·6 mm C and 12·5 mm fire-resisting plasterboards
Restraint by 12·5 mm fire-resistant (Type F) plasterboards on Failure load, Ptest Notional characteristic
one or both sides (L = 2·42 m) (per C-section): kN failure load
(a) No boards – plain panel (reference test failing by torsional flexural buckling) 45·3 0·85 Ptest = 38·5 kN
(b) Light steel wall panel with: 58·5
Side 1 – 12·5 mm plasterboard directly fixed 63·5 51·3 kN (82% of mean)
Side 2 – No boards 66·3
Mean 62·8
(c) Light steel wall panel with: 76·0 0·85 Ptest = 64·6 kN
Side 1 – 2 12·5 mm plasterboard directly fixed
Side 2 – No boards
(d) Light steel wall panel with: 85·8 0·85 Ptest = 72·9 kN
Side 1 – 12·5 mm plasterboard directly fixed
Side 2 – 12·5 mm plasterboard directly fixed
(e) Light steel wall panel with: 58·5 0·85 Ptest = 49·7 kN
Side 1 – Resilient bars fixed on one side at 400 mm centres with 12·5 mm board
Side 2 – No boards
(f) Light steel wall panel with: 85·0 0·85 Ptest = 72·2 kN
Sides 1 and 2 – 12·5 mm boards fixed by way of resilient bars placed at 400 mm Cs
other side failed at 65 kN, which was similar to the mean of using this effective length factor, which is 7% less than the
the tests with plasterboard on one side. notional characteristic failure load of 72 kN.
3.2 Results for tests on 100 50 C-sections with For moisture-resistant plasterboard fixed on one side and
boards on both sides plasterboard fixed by way of resilient bars on the other, the
The results for tests with various configurations of plaster- failure load was 100 kN per C-section. For the test with fire-
board and resilient bars on both sides of the C-sections are resisting plasterboards fixed by resilient bars on both sides, the
also presented on Tables 4 and 5. The test with moisture- or failure load was 85 kN. In both cases, the failure mode was by
fire-resisting plasterboards directly fixed on both sides failed at crushing of the C-section rather than buckling in the major axis.
loads of 84 and 86 kN, respectively, which shows that there is Although not conclusive, the tests show that plasterboards
little difference in the performance of these two types of attached by way of resilient bars on both sides of the wall can
boards. The mode of failure was by major axis buckling, increase the stiffness of the wall relative to directly fixed boards.
as shown in Figure 9, but for design, it is proposed that the
flexural buckling resistance is calculated using the larger of the 3.3 Results for wall tests with 150 50 C-sections
major axis slenderness or the minor axis slenderness with an A further test series was performed on walls with 150 50 1·2
effective length factor of 0·5. The design resistance is 67 kN and 1·5 mm C-sections and with 12·5 mm fire-resisting
7
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
70
60
50
Load per C section
40
30
20
Out-of-plane displacement of web
Out-of-plane displacement of wall
10
Axial shortening
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement: mm
Figure 7. Load–displacement graph of test for 100 1·6 C-section with one layer of directly fixed plasterboard on one side. Note that
in-plane displacement is the minor axis displacement of the mid-height of the web of the C-section averaged over the pair of outer
C-sections. Out-of-plane displacement is in the major axis direction of the C-section averaged over the pair of outer C-sections
Figure 8. Minor axis buckling and torsion of 100 1·6 C-sections Figure 9. Major axis buckling of wall frame using 100 1·6 C
attached to plasterboards fixed by way of resilient bars on one side with plasterboard directly attached on both sides
plasterboard fixed on one side. Comparative tests were also Figure 10 shows a load test on a wall with boards on both
made on the C-sections without boards. These tests showed the sides, which failed by major axis buckling. Table 7 presents the
effect of the lower restraint to buckling of the deeper C-sections, results for this series of tests.
as a result of the flexibility of the web. The test results are pre-
sented in Table 6. The tests on bare C-sections failed again by a For the test with OSB board fixed on one side, the failure load
combination of torsional flexural buckling and flexural buckling was 64 kN and so 0·85 failure load is 54 kN. This equates to
and the same observations on the effective length factor hold as a compression resistance in flexural buckling with an effective
for the test on 100 mm deep C-sections. length factor of 0·5 in the minor axis, which shows that the
OSB board offers a higher level of torsional restraint for this
3.4 Results for tests with sheathing boards on one side shallow section.
The tests on 75 45 1·6 mm thick C-sections had sheathing
boards fixed on one side and, in most tests, two layers of For plasterboard on one side and OSB or CPB sheathing
15 mm fire-resistant plasterboard were fixed on the other side. boards on the other side, it was found that there was little
8
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
Table 6. Failure loads for tests on walls using 150 50 C and 12·5 mm fire-resisting plasterboards
Restraint by 12·5 mm fire-resistant (Type F) plasterboards on one or both sides Failure load, Ptest Notional characteristic
(L = 2·42 m) (per C-section): kN failure load
(a) No boards – plain wall 150 1·2 C panel (reference test failing by minor axis buckling) 33·2 0·85 Ptest = 28·2 kN
(b) Light steel wall panel using 150 1·2 C with: 42·3
Side 1 – 12·5 mm plasterboard directly fixed 44·8 0·85 Ptest = 37·0 kN
Side 2 – No boards Mean 43·5
(c) No boards – plain wall 150 1·5 C panel (reference test failing by minor axis buckling) 53·5 0·85 Ptest = 45·4 kN
(d) Light steel wall panel with 150 1·5 C: 58·0
Side 1 – 12·5 mm plasterboard directly fixed 60·8 51·8 kN (85% of mean)
Side 2 – No boards 64·3
Mean 61·0
9
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
Table 7. Failure loads for tests on 75 45 1·6 mm C using OSB or CPB on one side and two layers of 15 mm Type F plasterboard on
the other side
Restraint by OSB or CPB on one side and 2 layers of 15 mm plasterboard on Failure load, Ptest Notional characteristic
the other side (L = 2·45 m) (per C-section): kN failure load
t θ
v v+hθ
b
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Distortional buckling mode for C-section attached to boards on one side: (a) rigid connection to board; (b) flexible connection
to board
is taken as the worst case of a board on one side of the where b is the flange width; sf is the longitudinal spacing of the
C-section, as was the case in the wall tests, and is given by fixings; and kf,ten is the tensile stiffness of a fixing into the
board.
2Eb d 3 =12 Eb d 3
8: kb ¼ ¼ per unit length
s 6s
The tensile stiffness of a fixing depends on the board embedment
and diameter of a screw. For typical data, kf,ten is 1 to 2 kN/mm
where d is the board thickness; s is the transverse spacing in the elastic range, and the pull-out resistance is typically
between the C-sections; and Eb is the elastic modulus of the 0·5 kN for a 3·2 mm dia. fixing into 12·5 mm thick Type F plas-
board, which may be taken as 2 kN/mm2 for Type F and terboard. It is observed from the tests that this stiffness is rela-
Type H plasterboards and 5 kN/mm2 for OSB. kf is the tively high until after buckling has occurred, so this component
rotational stiffness due to the tensile action of a fixing to the is ignored in comparison to kw and kb. However, it is necessary
flange, and is given by to check the pull-out resistance of the screws – see Section 4.4.
kf;ten b 2 Where two boards are fixed on one side of the C-section, the
9: kf ¼ per unit length
sf 2 fixing density is increased by 50% as the fixings to the inner
boards are generally at twice the spacing of the outer boards.
10
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
From Equations 5 and 6, the minor axis slenderness factor due slenderness of the C-section based on its full length, the coeffi-
to distortional buckling is given by cient of 2·2 10−3 becomes 2·2 10−3 0·854 = 1·2 10−3,
and so Equation 13 becomes
" 2 4 #05
λzz;red kw;θ h LE
10: ¼ 1 þ 002 λzz;red
λzz;eff 1 þ kw;θ =kb EIzz h ¼085 1 þ 12 103
1
λzz 1 þ kw;θ =kb
14: 2 4 #05
where λzz,eff is the minor axis slenderness of the C-section h t L
based on its effective length allowing for end fixity. b b h
From Equations 7 and 8, the ratio of the out-of-plane bending where λzz is the minor axis slenderness of the C-section based
stiffness of the web and the board flexural stiffness becomes on its full length, L.
3
kw;θ E t s
11: ¼ 15 For 12·5 mm thick plasterboards connected to
kb Eb d h þ 15b
100 50 1·5 mm thick C-sections at 600 mm spacing,
(1 + kw,θ/kb)−1 = 0·5. Therefore, as a good approximation
for design to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a), the effective
From this point in the derivation, further simplifications are slenderness of the C-section with Type F or H plasterboards
required to obtain a useable design formula that can be corre- or other more rigid boards fixed on one flange becomes
lated with the results of the wall tests. These simplifications are
justified by statistical analysis of the test results and by limited " 2 4 #05
finite-element modelling. However, further work is required to λzz;red 3 h t L
15: ¼ 085 1 þ 06 10 06
identify other parametric variations outside the limits of the λzz b b h
test data.
11
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
as 4 times that of single boards, which allows for some The out-of-plane deformation, v, may be considered to increase
interaction between the boards. In this case, the boards are classically from an initial imperfection, δo, as a function of
relatively stiff in comparison to the web, and so it is reasonable P/Pcr,zz, as follows
to take kw/kb = 0·25 in Equation 14. The coefficient of
0·6 10−3 in Equation 15 may be increased to 1·0 10−3 for δo
18: v¼
two boards attached to one flange. This is shown to be con- 1 P=Pcr;zz
servative relative to the test result for this case, but more
work is needed on the additional stiffening effect of double where δo is the initial imperfection for a C-section using buck-
boards. ling curve ‘b’.
4.3 Influence of pull-out of the board fixings The initial imperfection is given approximately by δo = L/450
In the tests with boards on one side, pull-out of the fixings to for equivalence with buckling curve ‘b’ representing minor axis
the plasterboard occurred after distortional buckling had buckling of a C-section.
resulted in high deformation of the web. In the test panels,
there were nine fixings to each C-section at 300 mm longitudi- The ratio of the applied load to the critical buckling load is
nal spacing and the measured distance of the outer line of obtained from
fixings from the edge of the plasterboard was in the range of
P=Pcr;zz ¼ χˉλ
15–19 mm. In practice, the outer C-sections in a wall would be 2
19:
restrained by attachments to other walls and so failure of these
C-sections would occur at a higher failure load than in the
where: λˉ = λzz,red/λ1. λ1 is defined in Equation 3, in which Aeff/A
tests. Nevertheless, the test results give a lower bound to the
is taken conservatively as 0·75 for a 100 50 1·6 mm
load-bearing capacity. The following theory may be used to
C-section. χ is the reduction factor due to buckling at a slen-
predict when pull-out failure may occur in the distortional
derness ratio, λ,ˉ obtained from Figure 2.
buckling mode.
sf h 1 λzz;red =λzz 2
the plasterboard on one flange given by Equation 5.
12
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
The tests on 100 mm C-sections and the tests on 150 mm 22: λzz;red ¼ 06ðt=16Þλzz but 085λzz
C-sections were treated as two separate groups. The seven tests
in the 100 mm C-sections with plasterboard attached had a where t is the steel thickness in mm (for t > 1·6 mm).
variance of 5·6% from the mean and the ratio of the character-
istic failure load to the theoretical value is 0·89 for this test This implies that the maximum steel thickness is t ≤ 2·2 mm to
configuration. There are six tests in the family of 150 mm be able to consider the stabilising effect of plasterboard on one
C-sections with plasterboard attached with a variance of 6·2% flange. For t > 2·2 mm, the effective length reduction factor is
and the ratio of the characteristic failure load to the theoretical limited to 0·85 for single boards on one side.
value is 0·88 for this test configuration.
For double boards fixed on one side, the fixing density is
The statistical analysis of the tests in comparison with the increased by 50% and so the pull-out resistance is higher.
theory is presented in Table 8. For the 100 50 1·5/1·6 mm Using Equation 21, it can be shown that the steel thickness
Cs with boards on one side, the mean ratio of test failure may be increased when limited by pull-out of the fixings.
load/theoretical value is 1·19. The theory gives a design resist- Therefore it is proposed that the minimum slenderness in
ance that is 8% higher than the characteristic failure load when Equations 14, 15 and Table 9 for double boards on one side is
combining the two groups of tests. For the 150 50 1·2 and modified according to
1·5 mm Cs, the mean ratio of test failure load/theoretical value
is 1·42. The theory gives a design resistance that is 29% higher 23: λzz;red ¼ 06ðt=20Þλzz but 085λzz
than the characteristic failure load. This shows that the theory
13
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
Table 8. Comparison of test results with the theoretical buckling resistance to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) and the effective length
factor obtained from the theory
Test Effective Design
Test failure length load by Test/ Statistical results
configuration Section size load: kN factor theory: kN theory for test/theory
Note: Var. = variance of test failure load/theory; Char. = characteristic value of test failure load/theory depending on number of tests in a series. For the bare frame tests,
the theory is based on an effective length factor of 0·85 for flexural buckling using buckling curve ‘b’ to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a).
Table 9. Effective length factors for C-sections with a single or 5. Comparison with finite-element models
double layer of Type F or H plasterboards on one side for design As a check on the accuracy of the developed theory, a com-
to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) parison of tests using 100 50 C-sections was made with a non-
Effective length factor for minor linear elasto-plastic finite-element model using Abaqus (version
axis with boards on flange 6.14-2). The finite-element model was based on the measured
centre-line dimensions of the cross-sections. The cases con-
C-section Wall Single layer of Double layer of sidered were 100 50 1·6 mm C-sections ( fy = 428 N/mm2)
size thickness height: mm plasterboard plasterboard
with 12·5 mm Type F plasterboard and 100 50 1·5 mm
100 50 1·2 2400 0·75 0·72 C-sections ( fy = 464 N/mm2) with 15 mm thick Type H plaster-
2700 0·70 0·67 board. The finite-element model was used to predict the ulti-
100 50 1·6 2400 0·72 0·67 mate load, axial shortening and failure modes of the C-sections
2700 0·65 0·60
3000 0·61 0·60 min
fixed to plasterboard on one side. Details of the finite-element
100 45 1·6 2400 0·69 0·63 idealisation are shown in Figure 12.
2700 0·63 0·60 min
150 50 1·2 2400 0·81 0·80 Screws between the flange of the C-sections and the plaster-
3000 0·76 0·75 board were idealised by connector elements. The translational
150 50 1·6 2400 0·80 0·78
3000 0·74 0·70
stiffness of the connector was taken as 0·35 kN/mm and the
rotational stiffness as 0·95 kNm/rad based on previous tests
Note: Data for 12·5 mm or 15 mm Type F or Type H plasterboard fixed at not (Vieira and Schafer, 2013).
more than 300 mm spacing.
The load was applied to the reference point, which is the
This implies that the maximum steel thickness is t ≤ 2·8 mm to centre of one end plate, as shown in Figure 12. The end plates
be able to consider the stabilising effect of two layers of plas- were modelled so that they are effectively rigid when applying
terboard on one flange of the C-section. the load to all the C-sections in displacement control. The
14
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
z x
Figure 12. Details of finite-element model for C-sections with plasterboard on one side
C-sections were loaded using the RIKS algorithm available in The test and finite-element results were compared for the bare
the Abaqus library, through the reference point of the bottom steel frame and for the frame with plasterboard on one side
base plate. The RIKS method can predict unstable and non- that was attached by way of ‘spring’ connectors, using a range
linear collapse of a structure, such as post-buckling behaviour. of stiffness. For the bare frame, the finite-element model gave a
failure load of 44·5 kN, which is in good agreement with the
‘Surface to surface’ contact was used for modelling the inter- test result of 45·3 kN. Figure 13 shows the output stresses and
action between the bottom flange of each C-section and deflected shape obtained from the finite-element analysis of a
the plasterboard. The bottom flange of each C-section was C-section with boards on one side, which shows the effect of
modelled as a slave surface, while the top of the plasterboard end fixity and distortional buckling of the outer C-sections.
was considered as a master surface and there was no pen- The failure load from the finite-element model was 59·6 kN
etration between the two contact surfaces. per C-section when using the Vieira and Schafer connector
stiffness in comparison to the average test failure load of
The classical metal plasticity model available in Abaqus 62·8 kN.
library was used, which implements the von Mises yield
surface to define isotropic yielding, associated plastic flow The effect of the stiffness of the ‘spring’ connectors between
theory and isotropic hardening behaviour. The mean mechan- the C-section and the plasterboard was also investigated.
ical properties obtained from the tensile tests were used for the The failure loads from the finite-element analysis using the
engineering stress–strain curve. The plasterboard elastic connector stiffness taken from Vieira and Schafer (2013) were
modulus was taken as 2 kN/mm2 for short-term loading. compared with a fully rigid connector (upper bound) and also
a connector with half the stiffness value (lower bound). The
The C-sections and plasterboard were modelled using the influence of the three connector stiffnesses in the finite-element
linear four-noded quadrilateral thick shell element S4R, which models are compared to the test result in Figure 14 in terms
has six degrees of freedom per node (three translation and of the lateral displacement of the web (described as in-plane
three rotational degrees of freedom at each node). The element displacement of the wall). It is seen that the C-sections with
accounts for finite membrane strains and arbitrarily large rigid connectors fail at 10% higher load than that with the
rotations. The upper and lower end plates were modelled using realistic connector stiffness, but the finite-element result for
rigid quadrilateral shell elements (R3D4). An element size of half of the realistic connector stiffness failed at only 3% lower
5 mm square was found to be appropriate for C-sections, load.
based on the results of a convergence study. For the plaster-
board and end plates, a mesh size of 20 mm by 20 mm A similar study was carried out on the influence of the plaster-
was used. The number of elements along the length of the board thickness and the results are presented in Figure 15 for
C-sections was chosen such that the aspect ratio of the 12·5 and 15 mm thick plasterboards. The difference in the
elements was close to one. The MPC beam connector element failure load when using the thicker board with the same fixing
was used to model the screws. stiffness was negligible.
15
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
S, Mises
SNEG, (fraction = –1·0)
(Avg: 75%)
+4·400 × 102
+4·034 × 102
+3·667 × 102
+3·301 × 102
+2·934 × 102
+2·568 × 102
+2·201 × 102
+1·835 × 102
+1·468 × 102
+1·102 × 102
+7·351 × 101
+3·686 × 101
+2·129 × 10–1
Figure 13. Stresses and deflection of 100 1·6 mm C-sections at the failure load in the test from the finite-element model with 12·5 mm
thick plasterboard on one side. A full-colour version of this figure can be found on the ICE Virtual Library (www.icevirtuallibrary.com)
16
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
The statistical analysis of the tests is presented in Table 10 1998). For the 100 50 1·5/1·6 mm Cs as bare frames,
based on the use of Equation 24 with section properties the correlation is similar to using an effective length factor
and buckling resistance obtained to BS 5950-5 (BSI, of 0·85 to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a). For the
100 50 1·5/1·6 mm Cs with boards on one side, the mean
ratio of test failure load/theoretical value is 1·18 and for the
100
Finite-element – in plane (12·5 mm plasterboard) 150 50 1·2/1·5 mm Cs, the mean ratio of test failure
90 Test – in plane load/theoretical value is 1·41, both of which are similar to
Finite-element – out of plane (12·5 mm plasterboard)
80
BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a).
Test – out of plane
Load per C-section: kN
Table 10. Comparison of test results with the theoretical buckling resistance to BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998) and the effective length factor
obtained from the theory
Test Effective
Test failure length Max. load by Test/ Statistical
configuration Section size load: kN factor theory: kN theory results
Note: Pk, characteristic failure load based on the group of tests; Pav, average failure load of the group of tests; σ, variance of test results from average. For the bare
frame tests, the theory is based on flexural buckling with an effective length factor of 0·95 using the buckling curve to BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998)
17
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
Table 11. Design to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) for the slenderness of a single C-section in its minor axis
Case Board configuration A B C
Single C Single boards on one side 0·85 0·6 0·6 ≤ C ≤ 0·85 and ≤0·6 (t/1·6)
Double boards on one side 1·0 0·6 ≤ C ≤ 0·85 and ≤0·6 (t/2·0)
Pairs of C Single boards on one side 0·7 0·4 0·5 ≤ C ≤ 0·7 and 0·5 (t/1·6)
Double boards on one side 0·8
No method exists in BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) to take slenderness reduction comes from the combined stiffness of the
account of the reduced slenderness of back-to-back C-sections. pair of C-sections.
However, BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998) clause 6.25 presents a formula
for the effective slenderness of compound sections, that is The minimum slenderness reduction for boards on one side
given by " may be taken as 0·5 (t/1·6) because of the greater contribution
2 #05
LE LE 2 Sx of the transverse bending stiffness of the web, but this should
25: ¼ þ
izz;comp izz;2c izz be the subject of further research. The maximum steel thick-
ness is again 2·2 mm for use of this method.
where LE is the effective length of the C-section; izz,2c is the The slenderness reduction factors for pairs of C-sections are
radius of gyration of a pair of C-sections acting as one section presented in Table 11, based on the slenderness of a single
in the minor axis; izz,comp is the radius of gyration of the com- C-section. However, if the slenderness is based on the radius of
pound pair of C-sections in the minor axis; and Sx is the longi- gyration of a pair of Cs, then the coefficient of 0·7 reverts to
tudinal spacing of the screws between the Cs, typically at 0·85 in Equation 26. For design to BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998),
600 mm. the coefficient of 0·7 is replaced by 0·95/1·2 ≈ 0·8, and the
minimum slenderness reduction factor is 0·65 (t/1·6).
It is generally found that izz,comp ≈ 1·2izz, which leads to a 17%
reduction in slenderness independent of the stabilising effect of
the boards. The relative bending stiffness of the two webs and 7. Conclusions
the board may be taken into account in Equation 11. The tests on 2·4 m high light steel walls with C-sections in
Including the combined action of the two Cs and partial end compression and with fire- and moisture-resisting plasterboards
fixity, the effective length factor is 0·85/1·2 = 0·7 when the slen- (Type F and H to EN 520) of 12·5 or 15 mm thickness
derness is based on a single C-section. It may be shown that, attached by 3·2 mm dia. screws at 300 mm spacing to one or
for pairs of C-sections, Equation 14 becomes both flanges of the C-sections have shown the following points.
18
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Structures and Buildings Stability of light steel walls in
compression with plasterboards
on one or both sides
Lawson, Way, Heywood et al.
The coefficients in this equation depend on the board Ltd, Kingspan Panels and Profiles, Siniat Ltd, Metek Building
and C-section configuration and are presented in Table 8. Systems and Tata Steel. The test work at the Building
For a single layer of plasterboard, the maximum steel Research Establishment was commissioned by Unite Modular
thickness used in Equation 28 is 2·2 mm and the Solutions Ltd.
maximum section height is 150 mm based on the
test data in this paper. Also it is proposed that
the maximum wall length is taken as 3 m in using this REFERENCES
equation. AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute) (2012) AISI S100-12: North
& For design to BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998), the coefficient A is American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural
increased to 0·95 for single boards and 0·8 for double members, 2012 edition. AISI, Washington, DC, USA.
BSI (1998) BS 5950-5: Structural use of steelwork in building. Code
boards, as a result of the different buckling curve
of practice for design of cold formed thin gauge sections.
compared to BS EN 1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a). The BSI, London, UK.
coefficient, C, is also increased from 0·6 to 0·65 and BSI (2004) BS EN 520: Gypsum plasterboards. definitions, requirements
from 0·5 to 0·55. and test methods. BSI, London, UK.
& For walls with directly fixed plasterboards on both sides, BSI (2005) BS EN 1993-1-1: Design of steel structures – general rules
the effective length reduction factor on minor axis and rules for buildings, Part 1.1 General rules for the structural
design of buildings and civil engineering works in steel.
buckling may be taken as 0·5 for design to BS EN BSI, London, UK.
1993-1-3 (BSI, 2006a) and 0·6 to BS 5950-5 (BSI, 1998), BSI (2006a) BS EN 1993-1-3: Eurocode 3, Part 1-3, General – cold
but the slenderness should not be less than for major axis formed thin gauge members and sheeting. BSI, London, UK.
buckling. BSI (2006b) BS EN 1993-1-5: Eurocode 3. Part 1.5, Design of steel
structures. Plated structural elements. BSI, London, UK.
& The sheathing boards that were tested provided more
BSI (2009) BS EN 10346: Continuously hot-dip coated steel flat
restraint than plasterboard, but more work is required to products. Technical delivery conditions. BSI, London, UK.
determine the stabilising effect of other types of board. Schafer BW (2013) Sheathing Braced Design of Wall Studs. American
& This guidance should not be applied to walls subject to Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, USA, Final Report.
repeated or dynamic loads. However, the practical use of Telue Y and Mahendran M (2001) Behaviour of cold formed steel wall
frames lined with plasterboard. Journal of Constructional Steel
this guidance is in residential and similar buildings
Research 57(4): 435–452.
subject to monotonic loads. Tian YS, Wang J and Lu TJ (2007) Axial load capacity of cold formed
wall studs and sheathing. Thin-Walled Structures 45(5): 539–551.
Acknowledgements Vieira LCM (2011) Lateral stiffness and strength of sheathed braced
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Ray cold formed studs in compression. Journal Constructional Steel
Ogden of Oxford Brookes University who sadly died in August Research 167(10): 1554–1566.
Vieira LCM and Schafer BW (2013) Behavior and design of sheathed
2017 and was the inspiration behind the development of cold-formed steel stud walls under compression. American Society
light steel framing over the last 20 years. The tests on behalf of Civil Engineers – Journal of Structural Engineering 139(5):
of the Light Steel Forum were supported by Ayrshire Metal 772–786
19
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF SURREY] on [03/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
View publication stats