See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325115174

Performance of Cold-Formed Steel Frames In-filled by Polystyrene Light

Weight Concrete Subjected to Lateral Load

Chapter · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-8016-6_28

CITATIONS READS

0 334

3 authors:

Hossein Parastesh Mohammad Rezaeian Pakizeh

University of Science and Culture university of sience and culture
12 PUBLICATIONS   261 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Farzad Hejazi
The University of Sheffield
210 PUBLICATIONS   1,086 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STUDY OF PRECAST FOAMED CONCRETE SANDWICH WALL PANEL BEHAVIOUR UNDER HORIZONTAL DISTRRIBUTION LOAD View project

Bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Rezaeian Pakizeh on 25 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Performance of Cold-formed Steel Frames in-Filled by
2 Polystyrene Light Weight Concrete Subjected to Lateral
3 Load
4
5 Hossein Parastesh1 , Mohammad Rezaeian Pakizeh2*, , and
6 Farzad Hejazi3*
7
1
8 Assoc. Prof, Department of civil engineering, University of Science and
9 Culture, Tehran, Iran
2
10 PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Science and
11 Culture
3
12 Assoc. Prof, Department of civil engineering, University Putra Malaysia
13 E-mail: mp.rezaeian@yahoo.com
14 farzad@fhejazi.com

15
16 Abstract
17
18 Today, it is very important to apply innovative technologies and materials for the
19 purpose of constructing light weight buildings, reducing time built, and improving the
20 performance and earthquake resistance of buildings.
21 In such walls, the empty spaces are normally filled with stone wool and polystyrene
22 blocks. To this end, light weight concrete (LWC) can also be used, which results in an
23 improvement in behavior of these frames; it makes the walls considerably stiffer and
24 reduces the local buckling of sections. This research was carried out for evaluating the
25 performance of cold formed steel frame in-filled by polystyrene light weight concrete
26 using ABAQUS software.
27 In this study, three cold-formed steel frames were introduced with 2.4 m length, 1.4 m
28 height, and 5 cm thickness and analyzed under lateral load. The first specimen was
29 consisted of studs and runners with semi-rigid connections and without bracing. The
30 second specimen consisted of studs and runners with X-shaped bracings. Finally, the
31 third one was similar to the first one except that the cavity between members was filled
32 using Polystyrene lightweight concrete.
33 To achieve the best type of LWC and explore the optimum mix design with efficient
34 concrete consistent with the frame system, testing was done on totally 30 samples of
35 perlite and polystyrene concrete and compared with each other.
36 Based on the results, in comparison with strap bracing, because of high stiffness of in-
37 filled frames, they could act as the main lateral load bearing system, hence attracting
38 more portions of the lateral excitations.
39
40
41
42 Keyword: Cold formed steel; Polystyrene lightweight concrete

1
43 1. Introduction
44 Nonstructural components, e.g., in-fill walls, have a significant effect on the
45 structural seismic response, they also improve the lateral stiffness and reduce
46 drifts and displacements [1].

47 Cold-formed light weight steel frames are increasingly applied to current

48 industrial constructions in seismic zones. Three issues have promoted the use
49 of cold-formed thin steel elements: cost reduction, economical-geographical
50 conditions, and limitations of the resources required to supply the construction
51 materials. In general, in countries such as North America, Europe, Japan,
52 China, and Australia, to build low-rise residential and commercial
53 constructions for load-bearing and enclosure systems, the structures that are
54 framed by means of cold-formed steel (CFS) containing lightweight sheathing
55 and CFS members are employed instead of timber structures. These structures
56 generally come with a number of advantages, including lightweight,
57 workability, dimensional stability, full recyclability, and cost effectiveness.
58 They are normally consisted of steel frames – which include tracks, studs,
59 bracing members, and blocking members – and lightweight sheathing
60 connected to CFS members by means of self-drilling screw connections.
61 Typically, shear walls give support to vertical loads that are transferred from
62 roofs and floors of the building and also to seismic loads and horizontal winds.
63 Under horizontal loads, these structures usually have a complex mechanical
64 behavior.

65 The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISIS213) [2] gives its standards on the
66 basis of results of remarkable cyclic and monotonic tests carried out by Serrette
67 et al. [3-5] on CFS- framed shear walls. Due to light weight of CFS frames and
68 their weakness against lateral forces, e.g., earthquake forces, it is helpful to use
69 light weight concrete in order to fill out CFS frame since they have light
70 weight and appropriate insulation against heat and sound. It results in unit
71 weight decrease of concrete and at the same time, preserving adequate strength
72 [6].

73 Literature shows that replacing the Ordinary Portland Cement with Perlite
74 Powder slightly reduces compressive strength of concrete; though, it
75 considerably enhances the lightness and permeability [7]. Because in these
76 types of structures, the cross sections of wall were filled using thermal and
77 acoustic insulators, all through the exploration, it was associated with negative
78 impacts produced by the hollow walls. Nevertheless, developing these types of
79 structures in high-seismic regions by means of in-filled walls using
80 combinatorial and light materials can effectively optimize the buildings. As a
81 result, these systems can be developed by filling the walls with light materials
82 like perlite concrete or polystyrene foam concrete. For the purpose of

2
 83 simplifying the detailing of frames; enhancing the acoustic, thermal, and fire
84 resistance performance; and improving the load bearing capability and stability
85 of the structures, the present study recommends the application of light-weight
86 concrete to filling out cavities that exist between members. This system
87 outperforms the braced type regarding not only improvement of structural
88 behavior, but also architecture and the use of structures; this leads to improving
89 the structural performance and increasing the buildings' level of safety. In
90 addition, it enjoys an entire and has no problem concerning cavity walls
91 sprayed with lightweight concrete that generally suffer from problems with
92 installation procedures of attached parts.

93 In the present study, at first, different mix designs of polystyrene and perlite
94 concrete were examined in order to identify the best type of light weight
95 concrete (LWC) and explore the optimum mix design with capable and
96 effective concrete consistent with the frame system. To this end, totally 30
97 samples (comprising 10 mix designs each of which had 3 samples) were
98 prepared and tested. After that, some experiments were conducted on structural
99 composition of the CFS frame, which was in-filled with lightweight concrete,
100 and the results were compared with those obtained from a case to which strap
101 bracing had been applied. In addition, the failure modes, lateral stiffness,
102 ductility, load-bearing capacity, and strain variation in the CFS frame
103 specimens were completely analyzed.

104

105 2. State of the art

106 The application of CFS members to construction industry was started in the
107 1850s in both the UK and the US [8]; though, these components were not
108 broadly used in buildings until 1946. The publish of a variety of new editions
109 of codes suggested for designing the structural components of CFS structures
110 by American Iron and Steel Institution (AISI) accelerated the development
111 process of steel structures with thin cold formed cross sections. During the
112 early 19th century, these thin steel elements were applied to the bridge
113 constructions; then, with the development of Aircraft industry in the early 20 th
114 century, the industry section also applied them [9].

115 The light steel structures were meanwhile applied to commercial buildings
116 across the world. In the US, statistics indicate that over 60% of light steel
117 frames are nonstructural, and in this type of frames, walls are not generally
118 designed [10]. Two last decades have witnessed the growth of light steel
119 frames application to residential housing in Australia. Considering different
120 advantages of this system, in 2005, the National Association of Steel-Framed

3
121 Housing INC (NASH) prepared a comprehensive standard titled “Light
122 Residential Braced Steel Frames” [11].

123 3. Review of experimental studies

124
125 3.1. Cold-formed steel

126 Adham [12], in 1990, was the pioneer in experimental research on steel frames
127 in which five tests were carried out where cyclic loading was used in CFS
128 walls and studs were fixed together by means of diagonal clamps at the end, in
129 a back to back form. The clamps to frames were designed with overhead gusset
130 plates so that they can inhibit failure in connection. In addition, two gypsum
131 plates with 16 mm in thickness were positioned in each side of the wall [12].
132 Each sample was simultaneously put under cyclic lateral and vertical loads. In
133 the samples that had higher lateral stiffness, local buckling occurred by
134 crippling at the top of braces, and drift and tracks were then observed more
135 than 0.8%. Furthermore, when the area of braces increased, the capacity of
136 panels enhanced, too. In 2004, Fulop and Dubina examined three samples. At
137 each side of the samples, cross braces with the length to width ratio of 1.5 were
138 positioned and the samples were exposed to cyclic and monotonic loadings.
139 Double studs were applied in corners, and connection of the brace to frame
140 occurred according to the yield tension. In spite of a rise in the studs' length on
141 the braces, the results did not demonstrate the ductility capacity of braces
142 completely since the fracture increased at the corner, and lateral deformations
143 took place because of stretches in the braces [13]. In 2006, Kim carried out
144 shaking table experiment in order to examine the operation of CFS in
145 structures with two stories. This test demonstrated the yielding in nonlinear
146 behaviour in clamps of the first story in addition to yielding phenomenon near
147 the track. In the studs, due to local buckling, any flexibility was not shaped
148 [14]. Afterward, in 2007, an experimental research was performed in Germany
149 to test the behaviors of shear walls that were made up of CFS with sheathing
150 on one or both sides under vertical and horizontal loads. According to the
151 obtained results, a design process was provided in such a way that it can allow
152 the design of walls to carry both horizontal and vertical loads. In addition, this
153 research indicated the effects and significance of the presence of sheathing for
154 cold-formed section in the mechanism of failure in shear walls [9].

155 Pan and Shan [15] conducted a number of experiments on structural strength of
156 CFS-framed shear walls sheathed in gypsum boards, calcium silicate boards
157 (CSBs), and OSB panels. While designing the test specimens, two aspect
158 ratios, i.e., 1.0 and 2.0, were considered. Regarding the highest ultimate
159 strength, the CFS walls that had OSB panels ranked the first; the second in the
160 ranking were the walls with CSB panels and the CFS walls that had gypsum
161 boards. For the same aspect ratio, the ultimate strength of the wall specimens

4
162 with one-sided sheathing was around 50% of those specimens that were
163 sheathed on both sides. The design ductility ratios of 6.6, 3.9, and 3.8 were
164 introduced for CFS-framed walls sheathed with gypsum boards, OSB panels,
165 and CSB panels, respectively. A number of tests were performed by
166 Nithyadharan [16] on eight various CFS-framed shear walls that had been
167 sheathed in CSB panels. As shown by findings, the failure process included
168 bearing, titling, and pull-through of the screws; then, entire separation took
169 place following by rigid body rotation of the CSB panels. The increase of the
170 board thickness and distance of the screw edge led to increase of the ultimate
171 strength and energy dissipation. Compared to the walls panels with Type A
172 board arrangement (a single board across which the shear was transferred), the
173 walls panels with Type B board arrangement (two boards with a discontinuity
174 at the intermediate stud) were subjected to a remarkably greater deformation.
175 The reason was excessive relative slippage at the screws in the interior studs of
176 the former.

177 Several cyclic tests were conducted by Liu [17] on the full-scale CFS walls
178 sheathed by the OSB panels; which demonstrated that the most important
179 mechanism of energy dissipation occurred at the fastener-to-sheathing
180 connections, which involved bearing, tilting, and pull-through. The interior
181 gypsum boards were applied to improve the initial stiffness and make a modest
182 enhancement on the strength, whereas the other behaviors were similar to
183 behaviors seen in cases with ledger track and with no interior gypsum board.
184 Typically, the hysteretic behaviors of the CFS wall panels involved a serious
185 pinching response. Two models, namely Pinching 4 fitted to the tested data and
186 Equivalent energy elastic plastic (EEEP), were suggested to be used for
187 nonlinear history analysis.

188 Zeynalian [18] made use of fiber-cement boards (FCBs) to apply cyclic lateral
189 loading to sheathed CFS-framed shear walls to study their structural behavior.
190 It was revealed that under cyclic loading, the walls showed reasonable lateral
191 resistance to ductility and shear strength; as a result, the design was proved
192 appropriate to be applied to regions with seismic actions. On the other hand,
193 with elimination of the FCB panels from one side, a reduction occurred in both
194 the strength and the ductility of the wall. Such modification could be made
195 effectively for those diagonal stud elements that were applied to corners of the
196 wall. To design CFS-framed shear walls, the US Army Corps of Engineers
197 (USACOE) (the publisher of TI809-07 [19]) made available some guidelines
198 that were more stringent than the AISI Standards [2]. The USACOE standards
199 suggest that to calculate the shear capacity of a CFS wall, the sheathing
200 contribution to both sides should be ignored and just the strength of the CFS
201 frame should be relied on. Zeynalian [20-22] carried out numerical and
202 experimental research on CFS frames with knee elements and reported that the
203 CFS frames demonstrated relatively high maximum drifts; though, their

5
204 strength was lower than the strength of X-shaped bracing systems. As a result,
205 the knee-stud bracing systems can be applied merely to low-seismic-activity
206 regions in which there is a low requirement for lateral resistance capacity. In
207 another research, Moghimi [23] studied the shear behavior of CFS frames with
208 steel-strap X-shaped bracing, and the results showed the incidence of
209 distortional and local buckling of frame members in stable modes; in addition,
210 the strap-braced CFS frames were shown capable of providing a substantial
211 shear capacity level after incidence of the first buckling signs. Attaching
212 brackets to four corners of a CFS frame made a considerable improvement on
213 the lateral performance of the frame assemblies. Through selecting suitable
214 perforated straps, strap alongside the distributed holes could be created so that
215 they could reach yielding, which prevented tear of the strap at the tension unit
216 location or the strap-to-frame connection. A number of experimental and
217 theoretical studies were conducted by Iuorio and Macillo [24, 25] in order to
218 examine the seismic behaviors of CFS-strap-braced stud walls, and it was
219 reported that a reasonable agreement existed between the experimentally-
220 determined and theoretically-predicted behaviors of the walls and the
221 connection systems in terms of the shear capacity. In addition, the necessity for
222 cautiously designing the wall corners was emphasized as their behaviors
223 showed significant effect on the overall wall's response. Furthermore, behavior
224 factor values stated by AISIS213 [1] were confirmed by experiments, with the
225 code values that were corresponded to lower limits of experimental results.
226 Several scholars have introduced new sheathing and connecting techniques to
227 enhance the shear resistance of CFS-framed shear walls. Serrette [26, 27] made
228 use of structural adhesive and steel pins in order to attach structural wood
229 sheathing, and the shear capacity was demonstrated approximately comparable
230 to the shear capacity obtained by self-drilling screws. To further reduce the
231 needed thickness of CFS-framed shear walls, Yu [28,29], DaBreo [30],
232 Shakibanasab [31], and Mohebbi [32] investigated the shear behaviors of such
233 walls by means of plain steel sheathing and reported that they were
234 substantially stiff and strong.

235 Vigh [33] employed low-profile corrugated steel sheets, as a replacement for
236 plain steel sheathing, in order to decrease the out-of-plane deformation of
237 sheathing. The corrugated shear wall was proved to have proper ductility as
238 well as higher shear strength. Moreover, Mowrtage [34] introduced a novel
239 sheathing technique wherein shotcreted ribbed steel sheets were used to
240 enhance load-bearing capacity and stability of the walls. Lateral load-bearing
241 capacity of the walls sheathed by means of the proposed technique was also
242 shown almost two times more than that of the walls sheathed using
243 conventional boards. To satisfy the thermal, acoustic, and fire resistance needs,
244 complex detailing of CFS-framed shear walls should be provided.
245 Traditionally, a thermal insulator in the shape of expanded polystyrene (EPS)
246 boards, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boards, or insulation cotton are placed

6
247 inside cavities or on the external surfaces of the steel frames. Furthermore,
248 breathable papers and waterproof membranes are used in external facades in a
249 way to minimize the energy loss through exchanging vapor between walls and
250 external environment.

251 3.2 Light weight concrete

252 Many studies carried out in recent decades have focused on the utilization of
253 concrete with lightweight aggregate in building construction. More
254 specifically, many reports have been released in regard to application of
255 lightweight concrete to road infrastructures and railways subgrade [35]. In
256 recent years, lightweight concrete has been encouraged primarily because of
257 quick developments occurred in construction of high-rise buildings and
258 concrete structures with large dimension and long spans. Light concrete has
259 shown more improved insulation, higher energy absorption, and lower density
260 compared to conventionally-used concrete. It can decrease both weight and
261 cost of construction; though, its strength level cannot satisfy the minimum
262 level of strength required as a structural member, which has resulted in being
263 rejected as a load-bearing and structural member. Currently, researchers of this
264 field have been focused on making a concrete with low density and acceptable
265 properties so that it can be dependably utilized as a structural member and a
266 load-bearing structure. This type of concrete makes a significant decrease in
267 weight of buildings, hence reducing considerably the effective earthquake
268 force on the buildings that, in turn, reduces damage to the buildings. In order to
269 create a structural lightweight concrete, mineral aggregates and lightweight
270 industrial must be used as replacements for the common aggregates in a way to
271 preserve the compressive strength while the density decreases. A number of
272 tests were done by Li et al. [36] on mechanical properties of lightweight
273 concrete that contained polystyrene aggregates, which resulted in proposing
274 some solutions to existing defects. They also tested the compressive strength,
275 density, and stress-strain behavior of lightweight concrete and introduced the
276 most effective mixture design with polystyrene aggregates. As proved by the
277 obtained results, the volume of polystyrene aggregates had significant effects
278 on the compressive strength and ratio of water to cement in lightweight
279 concrete. It was also revealed that the most important problem of this concrete
280 was the segregation of polystyrene aggregates from the concrete matrix; the
281 segregation could be evaded by molding.

282 Madandoust et al. [37] made use of some methods like the slump flow, V-
283 shaped funnel test, T50, and L-shaped concrete block to investigate the
284 properties of lightweight self-compacting EPS concrete in the fresh stage.
285 Findings indicated that the mixture design with a high density could generally
286 satisfy the criterion of self-compacting concrete.

7
287 Chen et al. [38] studied the impact of superplasticizers on workability of
288 lightweight EPS concrete. Furthermore, they studied the impact of curing
289 conditions and the ratio of superplasticizers to cement on the bending strength
290 of lightweight EPS concrete. Results showed that the strength of lightweight
291 EPS concrete that contained superplasticizers was meaningfully dependent on
292 curing conditions. Additionally, the superplasticizers could improve the
293 bending strength of lightweight concrete. Babu et al. [39] examined the
294 relationship between the size of polystyrene aggregates, humidity
295 characteristics, and lightweight concrete. It was shown that the of the concrete
296 containing smaller sizes of polystyrene aggregates had higher compressive
297 strength in comparison with that of the concrete with larger sizes of
298 polystyrene aggregates. In addition, the use of EPS aggregates led to beginning
299 of gradual fracturing process under loading despite brittle fracturing of
300 common concrete. Their study showed that if EPS is used, it results in
301 humidity characteristics (e.g., evaporation), and absorption will become more
302 desirable.

303 Miled et al. [40] conducted also a research on the compressive behavior of
304 concrete containing EPS aggregate and the impacts of polystyrene size upon
305 fracture mode of the concrete. As confirmed by the obtained results, the EPS
306 aggregate size had effect on the compressive strength. In addition, it was
307 demonstrated that the concrete that had less porousness was affected much less
308 than that with more porousness. The fracture mode examination was used to
309 propose a new model for prediction of the compressive strength of lightweight
310 EPS concrete with a variety of aggregates sizes. The shrinkage and mechanical
311 properties of lightweight EPS concrete was examined by Tang et al. [41]. It
312 was reported that in lightweight concrete, the polystyrenes possessed adequate
313 ductility; though, due to low strength, it could not be utilized as a structural
314 member. They made use of polystyrene aggregates to form lightweight
315 concrete; then, they tested it with a density ranging from 2247 to 2270 kg/m3.
316 Findings showed high dependency of density and modulus of elasticity on the
317 type and size of the polystyrene aggregates. EPS concrete and perlite concrete
318 were compared by Bagon [35] regarding their application to marine vessels.
319 With a specific density; the modulus of rupture, compressive strength, and
320 modulus of elasticity of EPS concrete were 25%, 50%, and 100%, respectively,
321 higher than those of the perlite concrete. Ray et al. [42] made a test on the
322 mixture design and mechanical properties of concrete with very low density.
323 To make lightweight concrete, polystyrene aggregates were employed. As
324 demonstrated by the obtained results, if smaller sizes of EPS are used, it will
325 result in higher compressive strength. Perry et al. [43] carried out research on
326 behaviors and mixture designs of EPS concrete. They examined a concrete
327 containing polystyrene with volumetric percentages of 40, 50, and 60. The
328 level of density and strength of the samples were measured. In addition, the
329 stress-strain relationship of lightweight EPS concrete was investigated.

8
330 Bischoff et al. [44] investigated the behavior of EPS concrete under tough
331 impact; the impact was made by free-fall of a hammer from a certain height.
332 They also formed three groups of samples and tested them with compressive
333 strengths ranging from 4 to 12 MPa. Finally, a comparison was made between
334 the obtained results and the static penetration tests. The samples commenced
335 destruction from the crushing zone under the impact. This type of concrete was
336 proved to have low crushing resistance while having enough capacity to be
337 appropriately compacted and shaped.

338 A research was carried out by Babu et al. [45] on behavior of lightweight
339 concrete that comprised micro-silica and EPS. They employed EPS as
340 lightweight aggregates and micro-silica as cement supplementary material. The
341 study was primarily focused on the workability, durability, and strength of
342 lightweight concrete containing polystyrene. Findings confirmed that
343 increasing the percentage of micro-silica resulted in enhancing the concrete
344 strength.

345 In the present study, a variety of mix designs of polystyrene and perlite
346 concrete were examined in order to attain the best type of light weight concrete
347 and explore the optimum mix design with effective concrete in consistency
348 with frame system. To this end, totally 30 samples (i.e.,10 mix designs each of
349 which had 3 samples) were taken into account.

350

351 4. Tests program

352 We took into consideration the frame system and their lightness, and to obtain
353 a proper application in these frames, lightweight concrete was utilized in a way
354 to fill out the cavities existed between the members. First, a number of
355 experimental tests were carried out on various light weight concretes to attain
356 an optimum mix design. Such concrete was chosen to have a low level of
357 density and a satisfactory compressive strength (associated with low density).
358 After that, the ABAQUS software was applied to analysis of behaviors of CFS
359 frames in three models under lateral loads and the obtained results were
360 compared to each other (see Fig. 1).

361 a) Frame with no bracing and with semi-rigid connections (the first
362 specimen). For this specimen laboratorial model was manufactured and
363 verified by Abaqus model.
364 b) Frame with both X-shaped bracing and semi-rigid connections (the
365 second specimen)
366 c) Frame with no brace, but in-filled with light-weight concrete (the third
367 specimen)

9
368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384 Fig. 1. Configuration of CFS frames: (a): CFS frame without bracing, (b): CFS frame with
X-shaped bracings, (c): CFS frame in-filled by light weight concrete
385

386

387 4.1. Light weight concrete

388 The present research tested both polystyrene and perlite concretes in order to
389 identify the best type of concrete and explore the optimum mix design with
390 effective concrete in consistency with the frame system. To the end of this
391 paper, a total of 30 samples (i.e., 10 mix designs each of which had 3 samples)
392 were examined.

393 The present research made use of the weight method taking into consideration
394 other studies previously conducted on this field. Though, since low density is

10
395 the criteria of operation, the method of trial and error was used. For the perlite
396 concrete, rate of water absorption and density of materials were computed prior
397 to mixing; furthermore, the utilized perlite was entirely dried to remove any
398 humidity. Samples in different ages were examined and varied mix design and
399 test results were attained for the perlite concrete (see Table 1).

400 On the other hand, for the polystyrene concrete, to reduce the weight of
401 concrete as far as possible, polystyrene granules were used as granule or filler;
402 they showed much less density compared to that of the perlite concrete. In
403 addition, microsilica contents of the polystyrene concrete was more than that of
404 the conventional concretes. Typically, the volume of microsilica is freed out
405 since the alkali reaction with concrete is 10-15% of the weight of cement and
406 the rest of it plays the role of a filler. This reaction considers the empty spaces
407 between polystyrene particles, and this way, it enhances the compressive
408 strength of the concrete. Table 2 presents the mix design and the results
409 obtained from the tests conducted on different polystyrene concretes.

410
411 Table 1: Properties and Result of Perlite Concrete
Mix Design 1 2 3 4 5
Cement (Kg) 250 250 300 375 475
Perlite (kg) 110 55 100 110 246

Water (kg) 130 130 150 300 190

polystyrene (kg) - 5.5 0 - -
Gravel (kg) - - - - 125
Sand (kg) - - 100 - 38
3
Density (Kg/m ) 1155 561.2 737 1261 1157
Compressive strengths 4.01 0.88 1.32 5.77 2.0
(MPa)
3.87 0.86 1.4 5.69 2.16
4.13 0.89 1.27 5.84 1.87
Average Compressive 4.0 0.88 1.33 5.77 2.01
strengths (MPa)
Age (day) 7 7 7 7 30
412
413
414
415

11
416 Table 2: Properties and Result of polystyrene concrete

Mix Design 1 2 3 4 5
Cement (Kg) 300 200 350 350 375
Polystyrene (kg) 5.4 5 10 10 40

Water (kg) 200 120 180 116 250

Sand (kg) 0 80 0 0 0
polypropylene (kg) - - - - 4.5
Microsilica (kg) - - - - 150
Super plasticizer (kg) - - - - 5
3
Density Kg/m 608.3 736.6 1348 651.5 585
Compressive 0.86 0.64 1.14 1.31 2.04
strengths (MPa)
0.85 0.72 1.18 1.38 1.93
0.92 0.78 1.19 1.28 1.97
Average Compressive 0.88 0.71 1.17 1.33 1.98
strengths (MPa)
Age (day) 7 7 7 7 30
417
418

419 4.1.1. Selection of the optimum mix design

420 Various mix designs made high efficiency and low density. The observations
421 done based on designs are:
422 1. The perlite concrete had higher level of density in comparison with the
423 polystyrene concrete; this property was because of high density of the
424 perlite granules.
425 2. The perlite showed high sensitivity to percussion and with long mixing
426 time, it broke out and its granulating varied, which resulted in increase
427 of cement and water usage, hence leading to having high density.
428 3. It was obvious that the polystyrene dosage and water cement ratio most
429 significantly affected the compressive strength of the light weight
430 concrete [46].
431 4. When microsilica concrete was used with polystyrene granules, it not
432 only enhanced the strength (because of the alkali reaction with
433 concrete), but also acted as a filler due to the existence of empty spaces
434 between polystyrene granules; it positively affected the strength.
435 The proper final mix design to make the light weight concrete for this study is
436 presented in Table 3 and its stress-strain graph is displayed in Fig. 2.

12
437 Table 3: Properties of appropriate final mix design

Cement Polystyrene Water Sand Polypropylene Microsilica Superplasticizer Density Compressive

(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) strength
(kg/m3) (MPa)

375 40 250 4.5 150 5 585 587 2.03

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447
Fig, 2. Stress-Strain curve of appropriate final mix design samples
448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

Fig. 3. Actual model of CFS in Pardis of Tehran

13
457 4.2 Test Specimens of CFS Frames
458 The test specimens were produced on 1/2 scale of the real model designed on
459 the basis of the Iranian CFS code [47] and constructed in Pardis of Tehran, Iran
460 (see Fig. 3). Table 4 presents the material properties of the CFS members. Each
461 test specimen was 2400 mm in width and 1400 mm in height, and the CFS
462 studs were spaced at 300 mm. Configurations of the CFS frames are displayed
463 in Fig. 1. As demonstrated in Fig. 4, each CFS frame comprised runners (0.75
464 mm thickness, 25 mm flange, and 50 mm web), studs (0.75 mm thickness, 25
465 mm flange, 50 mm web, and 8 mm lip), and strap bracing members (0.75 mm
466 thickness, 1500 mm length, and 100 mm width).

467 For the laboratorial model of the first specimen (Fig. 6a), three self-drilling
468 screws were provided for the semi-rigid connection between runners and studs
469 in each direction (see Fig. 5a). Seven base plates were applied to connecting
470 the bottom runner to the foundation. In each base plate, two NO, #20 bolts with
471 550 mm length were installed (with 100 mm distance). In case of the CFS
472 frame with X-shaped bracings (Fig. 6b), gusset plates (0.75 thickness, 150 mm
473 length, and 100 mm width) were applied to strengthening the connection with
474 the help of X-shaped bracings (see Fig. 5b). The CFS-framed shear wall
475 specimen (Fig. 6c) comprised studs and runners with properties of the first and
476 the second specimens, with no bracing. Cavities between members in this type
477 of specimen (Fig. 6c) were entirely filled using proper light weight concrete
478 (Table 3).

479
Table 4: Properties of Cold Formed Steel.
480
Nominal Yield stress Ultimate stress Elongation
481 thickness (Fy) (Fu) (%)
(mm)
482 (MPa) (MPa)
0.75 270 326 36
483
1 280 338 39
484

485

486

487

488

489

Fig. 4. Cross-sectional dimension of CFS frame; (a): stud, (b); runner

14
490
a b
491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499
Fig. 5. Details of connections: (a) connection of stud to runner in laboratorial model of
500
first specimen (b) connection of X-shaped bracings to gusset plate and end studs of
second specimen in Abaqus software
501

502
a
503

504

505

506

507

508

509
b c

510

511
(c
512 )
513 4.2. Loading Protocols

Fig.6. (a), laboratorial and FE models of first specimen: Frame without bracing but with semi rigid connections
(b), Second specimen: Frame with X-shaped bracing and with semi rigid connections and (c), Third specimen:
Frame without brace but in-filled with light-weight concrete

15
514 The displacement control method (which was based on the Method B of the
515 ASTM Standard [48]) was applied to the horizontal cyclic loading protocol for
516 the laboratorial specimen. The reason of choosing this method was relatively
517 low lateral stiffness and shear capacity of the specimen. A hydraulic jack with
518 10 tons of weight was utilized in this experiment to apply the pushover load.
519 Loading of the frame was done in a unidirectional form, and as shown in Fig.7,
520 the hydraulic jack was positioned at the top of the frame designed previously
521 for the purpose of this test. Three linear variable differential transformers
522 (LVDTs) (G1, G2, and G3) were applied to the tests as displayed in Fig. 7.
523 Two LVDTs (i.e., G1, G2) measured the horizontal displacement at the height
524 of 0.7 and 1.25 m, respectively, and one LVDT (i.e., G3) measured the vertical
525 displacement.

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535 Fig, 7. Frame of Loading

536

537

538 5. Results and discussion

539 Several tests were carried out on the forces-displacement curves, deformation
540 in height of wall, lateral resistance, and their failure mechanism, and the
541 obtained results were compared to each other. The following subsections
542 explain the advantages of light weight concrete in lateral performance of the
543 walls compared to strap bracing.

544

16
545 5.1. Initial hardness of specimens

546 According to the results obtained after the specimens’ displacement, the
547 gradient of load-displacement curve was taken into consideration as an initial
548 hardness in the specimen and displayed in Fig. 8. The hardness level of the
549 third specimen made up of light weight concrete was clearly four times higher
550 than that of the second specimen that had utilized strap brace.

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561
Fig, 8. Force-Displacement curve of specimens
562

563

564 5.2 Failure mechanism

565
566 5.2.1 First specimen

567 Since this frame did not have strong connections, the frame showed
568 insufficient tolerance, and while the force was reaching 200 N, in connection
569 of upper runner and stud No.2, a case of local buckling occurred (Fig. 9), and
570 even with constancy of the force, the displacement augmented. After
571 unloading, the frame moved 1 cm towards its first position and 9 cm permanent
572 deformation occurred (see Fig. 10).

573

17
574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583 Fig.9. Local Buckling of connection in first specimen

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

Fig.10. Permanent deformation in first specimen

18
598 5.2.2 Second specimen

599 At this specimen, after influencing the lateral forces in the, the frame
600 deformation began and the first and last span (braced) turned clockwise in
601 connection of the lower runner with stud numbers 1 and 7.

602 As Fig.11 displays, with around 3100 N force, buckling happened in the
603 compression brace. In addition the upper runner shape changed in the sinus
604 formation.

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614
Fig. 11. Buckling of braces and sinus shape of deformation in second specimen
615

616 At the time when force was reaching close to 3000 N, in connection of upper
617 and lower runner with stud number 7, not only buckling, but also crippling
618 took place, and a decrease was observed in the load bearing of the frame (see
619 Fig. 12). At this stage, the ultimate displacement of G1, G2, and G3, was 70,
620 39, and 10.7 mm, respectively.

621

622

623

624

625

Fig. 12. Buckling and crippling in connection of bottom runner in second

specimen
19
626 5.2.3 Third Frame specimen

627 For the third frame filled with polystyrene light weight concrete, when the
628 concrete was loaded, its age was 30 days, and the mix design was selected
629 based on the chosen mix design and the production procedure presented in
630 Table 3. Following the application of lateral load, due to high stiffness of the
631 in-filled frame, the frame rotation was rigid, but lateral buckling took place and
632 the final frame deformation was similar to sinus; though, it was much slighter
633 than a braced frame. When loading ended, the concrete was not damaged, the
634 frame was safe, and the problem was related to failure of CFS frame (see Fig.
635 13 and Fig. 14).

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645 Fig. 13. Deformation of CFS frame in third specimen

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

Fig. 14. Deformation of concrete in third specimen

20
654 6. Conclusions

655 This research tested one specimen and analyzed three ½ scale specimens,
656 comprising one CFS-frame in-filled by light weight concrete, one bare CFS
657 frames, and one CFS-frame with x-shaped bracing using ABAQUS software.
658 The conclusions drawn through the tests were as follow:

659 1) As one of the most important parameters was the thinness of the CFS
660 members (that may cause tearing), increasing the number of self-drilling
661 screws did not lead to increase of the connection rigidity, and the connection
662 performance was comparable to that of the pin.

663 2) The initial hardness of materials was another parameter studied here. As
664 revealed by findings, if light weight concrete is used, the lateral stiffness of
665 CFS frame increases significantly.

666 3) Utilization of light weight concrete as a replacement for strap brace led to an
667 enhancement in the lateral load bearing of the frame up to 84.6%.

668 4) The rate of energy absorption of CFS frame with the use of light weight
669 concrete was shown 68% higher than the braced frame.

670 5) CFS frame filled by polystyrene concrete in comparison with strap bracing,
671 because of high stiffness of in-filled frames, they could act as the main lateral
672 load bearing system.

673

674 6 References
675
676 1. Rezaeian,P ; A Marsono. “Structural system of safe house against tornado and
677 earthquake”. Key Engineering Materials Vols. 594-595 (2014).
678 2. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI),North American Standard for Cold-
679 formed Steel Framing Lateral Design, AISIS213, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
680 3. R.L. Serrette, H. Nguyen, G. Hall, Shear Wall Values for Light Weight Steel
681 Framing, Report No.LGSRG-3-96,Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara
682 UniversitySantaClara,CA,USA,1996.
683 4. R.L. Serrette, Additional Shear Wall Values for Light Weight Steel Framing,
684 ReportNo.LGSRG-1-97,Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University
685 Santa Clara,CA,USA,1997.
686 5. R.L.Serrette, Performance of Cold-Formed Steel-framed Shear Walls: Alter-
687 native Configurations, Report No. LGSRG-06-02, Department of Civil
688 Engineering, Santa Clara University Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2002.
689 6. Farghal Maree, K. Hilal Riad “Analytical and experimental investigation for bond
690 behavior of newly developed polystyrene foam particles’ lightweight concrete”
691 Eng Struct. 58 (2014): 1-11

21
692 7. A.A. Ramezanianpour and atc “Effects of calcined perlite powder as a SCM on the
693 strength and permeability of concrete”. Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (2014):222-228
694 8. CFSEI: cold formed steel engineering institute
695 9. Jorg Lange, Bernd Naujoks “Behaviour of Cold – formed Steel Shear Walls Under
696 horizontal and vertical loads”. Thin wall structures. 44,(12)(2007): 1214-1222.
697 10. Jose l. Restrepo, Andrew M. Bersofsky “Performance characteristics of Light gage
698 Steel Stud Partition walls Thin-Walled Structures.49(2)(2011)317.
699 11. Hassan Moghimi, Hamid R. Ronagh “Performance of Light – gauge Cold –
700 formed Steel Strap – braced Stud Walls Subjected to Cyclic Loading “. Eng Struct.
701 31(1)(2009): 69-83
702 12. Adham SA, Avanessian V, Hart GC, Anderson RW, Elmlinger J, Gregory J. 1990.
703 Shear wall resistance of lightgage steel stud wall systems. Earthquake Spectra.
704 6(1). 1-14
705 13. L.A.Fulop, D. Dubina “Performance of wall-stud Cold – formed Shear panels
706 under monotonic and cyclic loading”. Thin Walled structures. 42(2) (2004): 321-
707 338
708 14. Kim TW, Wilcoski J, Foutch DA, Lee MS. “Shake Table Test of Cold -Formed
709 Steel Shear Panel. Eng Struct.28(10)(2006):1462-1470.
710 15. C.L. Pan, M. Y. Shan, Monotonic shear tests of cold-formed steel wall frames with
711 sheathing, Thin-Walled Struct.49(2)(2011)363–370.
712 16. M. Nithyadharan, V. Kalyanaraman, Behavior of cold-formed steel shear wall
713 panels under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading, Thin-Walled Struct.60
714 (11)(2012)12–23.
715 17. P.Liu, K.D.Peterman, B.W.Schafer, Impact of construction details on OSB-
716 sheathed cold-formed steel framed shear walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 101(2014)
717 114–123.
718 18. M.Zeynalian, H.R.Ronagh, Seismic performance of cold formed steel walls
719 sheathed by fibre-cement board panels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 107(2015)1–11.
720 19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Construction Division,
721 Directorate of Military Program, Technical Instructions: Design of Cold-formed
722 Load Bearing Steel Systems and Masonry Veneer/steel Stud Walls, TI809-07,Wa-
723 shington,DC,USA,2006.
724 20. M.Zeynalian, H.R.Ronagh, A numerical study on seismic characteristics of knee-
725 braced cold formed steel shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct.49(12)(2011) 1517–
726 1525.
727 21. M.Zeynalian, H.R.Ronagh, S.Hatami, Seismic characteristics of K-braced cold-
728 formed steel shear walls, J.Constr.SteelRes.77(10)(2012)23–31.
729 22. M.Zeynalian, H.R.Ronagh, An experimental investigation on the lateral behavior
730 of knee-braced cold-formed steel shear walls, Thin-Walled Struct.51 (2)
731 (2012)64–75.
732 23. H.Moghimi, H.R.Ronagh, Better connection details for strap-braced CFS stud
733 walls in seismic regions, Thin-Walled Struct.47(2009)122–135.
734 24. O.Iuorio, V.Macillo, M.T.Terracciano, T.Pali, L.Fiorino, R.Landolfo, Seismic
735 response of CFS strap-braced stud walls: experimental investigation, Thin-Walled
736 Struct.85(2014)466–480.
737 25. V. Macillo, O.Iuorio, M.T.Terracciano, L.Fiorino, R.Landolfo, Seismic response
738 of CFS strap-braced stud walls: theoretical study, Thin-Walled Struct.85
739 (2014)301–312.

22
740 26. R.Serrette, I.Lam, H.Qi, H.Hernandez, A.Toback, Cold-formed steel frame shear
741 walls utilizing structural adhesives, J.Struct.Eng.ASCE132 (4) (2006) 591–599.
742 27. R.Serrette, D.P.Nolan, Reversed cyclic performance of shear walls with wood
743 panels attached to cold-formed steel with pins, J. Struct.Eng.ASCE135(8)
744 (2009)959–967.
745 28. C.Yu, Shear resistance of cold-formed steel framed shear walls with
746 0.686mm,0.762mm,and 0.838mm steel sheet sheathing, Eng.Struct.32(6)
747 (2010)1522–1529.
748 29. C.Yu, Y.Chen, Detailing recommendations for 1.83 m wide cold-formed steel
749 shear walls with steel sheathing, J.Constr.SteelRes.67(1)(2011)93–101.
750 30. J.DaBreo, N.Balh, C.Ong-Tone, C.A.Rogers, Steel sheathed cold-formed steel
751 framed shear walls subjected to lateral and gravity loading, Thin-Walled
752 Struct.74(2014)232–245.
753 31. A.Shakibanasab, N.K.A.Attari, M.Salari, Astatistical and experimental
754 investigation in to the accuracy of capacity reduction factor for cold-formed steel
755 shear walls with steel sheathing, Thin-Walled Struct. 77(4) (2014)56–66.
756 32. S.Mohebbi, R.Mirghaderi, F.Farahbod, A.B.Sabbagh, Experimental work on
757 single and double sided steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear walls for seismic
758 actions, Thin Walled Struct.91(2015)50–62.
759 33. L.G. Vigh, A.B.Liel, G.G.Deierlein, E.Miranda, S.Tipping, Component model
760 calibration for cyclic behavior of a corrugated shear wall, Thin-Walled Struct. 75
761 (2)(2014)53–62.
762 34. W.Mowrtage,N.Hasan,B.Pekmezci,H.N.Atahan,Loadingcarryingcapacity
763 enhancement of cold-formed steel walls using shotcreted steel sheets, Thin-
764 WalledStruct.60(11)(2012)145–153.
765 35. C.Bagon, S. Frondistou, Yannas, Marine, “floating concrete made with
766 polystyrene expanded Beads” 319 Mag. Concr. Res.28(1976)225-229. 320
767 36. Yi Xu, Linhua Jiang, Jinxia Xu, Yang Li, “Mechanical properties of expanded
768 polystyrene lightweight 321 aggregate concrete and brick”Construction and
769 building Materials 2012;27(1):32-38. 322
770 37. Rahmat Madandoust, Malek Muhammad Ranjbar, S. Yasin Mousavi, “An
771 investigation on the fresh 323 properties of self-compacted lightweight concrete
772 containing expanded polystyrene”, Construction and 324 Building Materials,
773 Volume 25, Issue 9, September 2011, Pages 3721–3731. 325
774 38. Chen B.,Liu J., “Mechanical properties of polymer-modified concretes containing
775 expanded 326 polystyrene beads” construct Build Mater 2007;21(1):7-11. 327
776 39. Daneti Saradhi Babu.,K.Ganesh Babu.,Wee Tiong Huan, “Effect of polystyrene
777 aggregate size on 328 strength and moisture migration characteristics of
778 lightweight concrete”Cement & Concrete 329 Composites 2006;28(6):520-527.
779 330
780 40. Miled K.,Sab K.,Roy RL., “Particle size effect on EPS lightweight concrete
781 compressive 331 strength: experimental investigation and modeling” Mech
782 Mater2007;39(3):222-40. 332
783 41. W.C. tang, Y. LO., A. Nadeem, “Mechanical and drying shrinkage properties of
784 structural graded 333 polystyrene concrete Cement & concrete Composites
785 2008;30:403-409. 334
786 42. Roy RL.,Parant E.,Boulay C., “Taking account the inclusions size in lightweight
787 concrete compressive 335 strength prediction”Cem Concr res 2005;35(4):770-5

23
 788 43. Perry SH., Bischaff PH., Yamura K”Mix details and material behaviour of
789 polystyrene aggregate 337 concrete”Mag concr Res 1991;43:71-6. 338
790 44. Bischoff PH.,Yamura K.,Perry SH”Polystyrene aggregate concrete subjected to
791 hard impact”proc Inst 339 Civil Eng 1990;89(2):225-39. 340
792 45. K. Ganesh Babu, D. Saradhi Babu, “Behaviour of lightweight expanded
793 polystyrene concrete 341 containing silica fume”Cement and concrete Research
794 2003;33(5):755-762.
795 46. Yi Xu, Linhua Jiang, Jinxia Xu and Yang Li “Mechanical properties of expanded
796 polystyrene lightweight aggregate concrete an brick” Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (1)
797 (2012):32-38
798 47. The building and housing research center of Iran, cold formed steel design code,
799 first edition, 2001.
800 48. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Test Methods for
801 Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for Buildings, ASTM
802 E2126-07, West Conshohocken, USA, 2007.

24

View publication stats