Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Experimental investigation and design of sheathed LSF wall panels under

eccentric axial compression
Mithum Peiris, Mahen Mahendran ∗
Queensland University of Technology, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Sheathing is an important component in cold-formed Light gauge Steel Framed (LSF) walls and floors. LSF wall
Cold-formed steel studs with one- or two-sided sheathing have been shown to have an increased ultimate compression capacity
Gypsum board sheathed LSF wall panels since the sheathing is capable of restraining global buckling modes. Although sheathing’s contribution has
Eccentric loading
been ignored in the past, current design standards include provisions for the consideration of sheathing in the
Combined compression and bending action
design of LSF walls. Australian cold-formed steel standard allows the designers to consider sheathing’s lateral
Design guidelines
and rotational restraints to studs, but it does not quantify the restraint values to be used. A recent report of
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI RP 13-1) provides suitable design guidelines for LSF walls with single
sheathing, non-identical sheathing and different fastener spacings subject to axial compression, however, they
have not been validated for LSF walls under combined compression and bending actions. An experimental
investigation on LSF wall panels subject to combined actions due to eccentric loading was conducted in this
research to understand the effects of loading eccentricity on sheathed LSF wall panels. Fifteen single stud wall
panels of 1.5 m and 3.0 m height made of lipped channel studs were tested under concentric and major axis
eccentric compression loading. Effects of sheathing and loading eccentricity on the failure modes and ultimate
capacities were evaluated, and importantly, the suitability of the sheathing braced design guidelines in AISI
RP 13-1 was investigated. The results showed that the use of the spring-based restraints recommended in AISI
RP 13-1 with the linear interaction equation provides improvements in predicting the capacity of sheathed
walls subject to eccentric compression.

1. Introduction
A light-gauge steel framed (LSF) wall system is an assembly consist-
ing of vertical load bearing components known as studs held in place
using horizontal tracks at the top and bottom. The steel frame is lined
with a sheathing material such as Orient Strand Board (OSB), Cement
Particle Board (CPB) or Gypsum Plasterboard (GP) using self-tapping
screw fasteners [1]. LSF walls can be subjected to a range of actions
including pure compression, pure bending and combined compression
and bending actions. Although extensive research has been carried out
on LSF walls subject to axial compression [2–4] and bending [5–7],
experimental and numerical studies on sheathed LSF walls subject to
combined actions resulting from eccentric loading have been limited.
Combined axial compression and bending actions are induced in LSF
walls from several structural applications due to loading eccentricity
or lateral loading as shown in Fig. 1. Wind pressure/suction loading on
a wall is a common example of lateral loading resulting in a maximum
mid-span moment while loading eccentricity is caused by certain floor
to wall connections, resulting in end moments in addition to axial
compression loads. Loading eccentricity could be either about the major
axis, minor axis, or both. For LSF walls, it is usually about the major
axis.
Although LSF wall studs could be subjected to combined compres-
sion and bending actions, most LSF wall studs are designed assuming
concentric loading on studs. The currently available CFS design guide-
lines do not provide a specific method for the design of sheathed LSF
wall studs subject to combined compression and bending actions. For
unlined studs, however, research that began investigating the effects
of loading eccentricity about the major and minor axes of channel
sections [8] has progressed well as evident from the recent research
[9–11], which has developed new beam–column design methods. The
new design methods predict the capacities with reduced conservative-
ness compared to the linear interaction equation provided in AS/NZS
4600 [12] and AISI S-100 [13]. Eurocode [14,15] provides an inter-
action equation (Eq. (1)) for the prediction of capacities of members
subjected to combined compression and bending, where 𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 is the
minimum of the local, distortional and flexural buckling resistances in
axial compression and 𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑 is the lateral torsional buckling resistance.
( )0.8 ( )0.8
𝑃𝑢 𝑀𝑢
+ ≤ 1.0 (1)
𝑁𝑏,𝑅𝑑 𝑀𝑏,𝑅𝑑

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.mahendran@qut.edu.au (M. Mahendran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109328
Received 7 February 2022; Received in revised form 25 March 2022; Accepted 11 April 2022
Available online 5 May 2022
0263-8231/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran
Fig. 1. LSF wall stud subject to (a) eccentric compression (b) axial compression and
lateral loading.
Kyprianou et al. [16] conducted an experimental study on sheathed
beam columns where the specimens were subjected to a combination of
axial and lateral loads. The capacity predictions from EN 1993-1-1 [14]
and EN 1993-1-3 [15] were found to be significantly conservative
compared to experimental capacities when the effect of sheathing was
neglected (effective lengths for major, minor and torsional buckling was
taken as the full member length). It was also observed that the capacity
predictions were unsafe when the effective length for torsional buckling
(𝐿𝑧,𝑒𝑓 𝑓 ) was taken as the fastener spacing while capacities were safer
when 𝐿𝑧,𝑒𝑓 𝑓 was taken as twice the connector spacing.
A design method which accounts for the combined actions is an
important consideration for the safe and economical design of LSF wall
studs. The existing design rules in AISI RP 13-1 [17] developed for
the design of sheathed LSF walls under concentric compression loading
have not been validated using experimental results of sheathed LSF
walls subject to combined compression and bending actions. It is not
known whether the existing sheathing braced design guidelines in [17]
can be used safely for LSF walls subject to eccentric axial compression
or combined concentric axial compression and lateral loading.
Peterman and Schafer [18,19] conducted an experimental study
on the effects of combined compression and bending actions on LSF
walls. They observed that the use of sheathing on both sides changed
the torsional failure mode of individual studs to local buckling. They
proposed modified design rules for the design of LSF wall studs subject
to mid-span concentrated loads and uniformly distributed lateral loads,
but their emphasis was on LSF walls subject to axial and lateral loading.
A similar experimental study was conducted by Kyprianou et al. [16]
where sheathed wall panels were subjected to axial compression and
major axis bending induced by lateral loading. The effects of loading
eccentricity, which also induces combined compression and bending ac-
tions on sheathed LSF walls, have not been experimentally investigated
nor any design rules proposed. Selvaraj and Madhavan [6] conducted
four-point bending tests of sheathed CFS studs of different slenderness
to investigate the bracing effect of sheathing material. They observed
a significant increase in flexural strength because the use of sheathing
reduced the likelihood of CFS stud sections failing in lateral torsional
buckling. They also showed that a significant increase in capacity is
obtained by using suitable screw spacing. The capacity predictions
obtained using the Direct Strength Method (DSM) [20] were found
to be overly conservative for unsheathed slender members. A detailed
analytical study was conducted by the same authors [5], who proposed
improvements to the AISI design methods of gypsum sheathed CFS wall
panels subject to out-of-plane bending.
2
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328
Table 1
Nominal dimensions of lipped channel sections.
Section Depth Average flange Lip length Base metal
(mm) width (mm) (mm) thickness (mm)
C9010 90 39 9 1.00
C9012 90 39 9 1.20
C9075 90 39 9 0.75
C7510 75 39 9 1.00
In this research, an experimental investigation was undertaken
where seven wall panels of 1.5 m height and eight wall panels of 3 m
height made of single stud sheathed on both sides with 600 mm wide
gypsum plasterboards of 10 mm and 16 mm thicknesses were loaded
concentrically and eccentrically till failure. The wall panels were made
of high strength steel (G500 and G550) lipped channel studs. The test
setup used by Peiris and Mahendran [21] for unlined CFS studs under
large eccentricities about the major axis was modified to undertake
the compression tests of the sheathed single-stud wall panels under
concentric and major axis eccentric loading. Their load–displacement
curves, failure load and failure modes were obtained and analysed.
Elastic buckling analyses were conducted using CUFSM [22] to obtain
the critical local, distortional and global buckling stresses of each wall
panel by simulating the screw connections as linear and rotational
springs with stiffness values based on Vieira and Schafer [3]. These
critical buckling stresses were then used in determining the ultimate
capacities using the DSM based sheathing braced design guidelines in
AISI RP 13-1 and the linear interaction equation for combined com-
pression and bending in CFS design standards [12,13]. The predicted
ultimate capacity results were then compared with experimental results
and suitable recommendations were made.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Test specimens
Experimental investigation consisted of 15 single stud wall panels
of 1.5 m and 3 m height with gypsum plasterboard sheathing on
both sides. The wall studs were made of four CFS lipped channel
sections with intermediate web-stiffeners as shown in Fig. 2. These
stud sections of unequal flange widths were made of high strength
(G500 and G550) steel sheets with minimum yield strengths of 500 and
550 MPa, respectively. In the Australian CFS construction sector, LSF
wall studs are usually made of high strength steel. Thus, these sections
were selected to investigate the behaviour of wall studs made of high
strength steel. The nominal and average measured dimensions of the
sections are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
For the stud-to-track connections, 10 mm 6-gauge self-tapping screw
fasteners were used while 32 mm 6-gauge self-tapping screw fasteners
were used for the stud-to-sheathing connections based on GA-216 [23].
These screws are shown in Fig. 3. The shear and pull-through responses
of the stud-to-sheathing fastener connections at ambient and elevated
temperatures are reported in [24–26]. The recommended maximum
screw spacing of 300 mm was used as per Section 5.7 of GA-216 [23],
however, the effects on the failure capacity and failure mode for a
smaller screw spacing of 100 mm were also explored. The effects of
two different sheathing thicknesses (10 mm and 16 mm) were also
investigated. The 1.5 m wall panels were tested under loading eccen-
tricities of 0 mm, 25 mm and 50 mm whereas the 3 m wall panels were
tested under loading eccentricities of 0 mm and 25 mm. Table 3 gives
the details of 15 LSF wall panels tested in this study. Fig. 4 shows the
different stages of fabrication of 1.5 m and 3 m wall panels.
The single stud wall panels were made of a single lipped channel
stud screwed to two track sections at the top and bottom as shown
in Fig. 4(a). This frame was then lined with 600 mm wide gypsum
plasterboard sheathing on both sides. Multiple 100 mm long lipped
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Fig. 2. Lipped channel sections (a) C7510 and (b) C9010, C9012 and C9075.

2.2. Test setup, instrumentation and procedure

A schematic representation and the actual test setup are presented

in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The test-setup consisted of two pin
connectors at the top and bottom allowing the rotation of the wall
panel only about the stud’s major axis. The test wall panel was con-
nected to the top and bottom pin connectors using M12 bolts through
the 14 mm holes made in the top and bottom tracks (Fig. 4(a)). As
shown in Fig. 5, the top and bottom tracks were connected to the
pin-connectors using a 20 mm thick and 100 mm wide loading plate,
which was then connected to the top plate of the pin connector using
two 12 mm countersunk bolts. A closer view of the bottom connector
arrangement is shown in Fig. 6. Loading eccentricity about the major
axis was simulated at the top and bottom by moving this 20 mm
loading plate horizontally to the desired eccentricity and bolting it
Fig. 3. Screws used in the stud to track connections (left) and the stud to sheathing appropriately (Fig. 7). The track was aligned with the loading plate
connections (right). such that the centroid of the stud section coincided with the exact
desired eccentricity. This arrangement also ensured that the wall panel
was held in place during eccentric loading and did not collapse upon
Table 2 failure.
Measured average dimensions of lipped channel sections. The load applied through a hydraulic actuator was measured using
Section ℎ ℎ1 ℎ2 ℎ3 ℎ4 ℎ5 𝑅 a 500 kN load cell. The axial deformation was measured by a string-
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) pot connected to the top loading plate while 100 mm, 300 mm and
C75 74.80 9.02 11.28 33.71 12.19 8.60 2.00 600 mm range Omron laser sensors were used to measure the lateral
C90 90.65 9.44 11.54 48.89 11.47 9.31 2.00
deflections at mid-height. To remove the effects of residual stresses and
Section 𝑏1 𝑏2 𝑏3 𝑏4 𝑑1 𝑑2 𝑡 to minimise the effects of temporary imperfections, the test wall panel
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
was preloaded in two cycles to a load of approximately 10%–15% of
C75 40.54 38.05 1.29 1.18 8.66 8.75 1.00 the expected ultimate failure load before loading it to failure. After the
C90 40.79 38.21 2.11 2.12 8.68 9.40 1.00 wall panel was located in the test rig, its verticality was checked in two
1.20
mutually perpendicular directions using a laser level. A displacement-
controlled loading (1 mm/min) was applied until failure, accompanied
by a sudden drop in load. A universal data acquisition system (UDAQ)
channel pieces were screw fastened to the plasterboards along their was used to record the load, axial and lateral deformations of the test
free edges (Fig. 4(c)) to simulate the continuity of the plasterboard wall panel. Test wall panels were labelled using the following method,
in LSF walls. The gap between stud and track shown in Fig. 4(d) was i.e., LSF-C9010-3000-16-300-e25 indicates an LSF wall panel made of
maintained within 1–2 mm in all wall panels to minimise the bending C9010 stud, 3000 mm in length, sheathed with 16 mm thick gypsum
of the screw at the stud-to-track screw connections and avoid any plasterboard with a screw spacing of 300 mm and loaded at 25 mm
premature connection failure. eccentricity.

3
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Table 3
Details and experimental ultimate capacities of LSF wall panels tested in this study.
Test # Specimen name Stud section Length (mm) Sheathing thickness (mm) Screw spacing (mm) e (mm) e/D 𝑃𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 (kN)
1 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 C9010 1500 16 300 0 0 58.50
2 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 C9010 1500 16 300 0 0 59.35
3 C9010-3000-16-300-e0 C9010 3000 16 300 0 0 60.59
4 C7510-3000-16-300-e0 C7510 3000 16 300 0 0.33 67.78
5 C9010-1500-16-300-e25 C9010 1500 16 300 25 0.28 42.71
6 C9010-3000-16-300-e25 C9010 3000 16 300 25 0.28 37.69
7 C9010-3000-16-100-e25 C9010 3000 16 100 25 0.28 41.81
8 C9012-1500-16-100-e25 C9012 1500 16 100 25 0.28 60.59
9 C9012-3000-16-300-e25 C9012 3000 16 300 25 0.28 41.14
10 C9012-3000-10-300-e25 C9012 3000 10 300 25 0.28 37.45
11 C9075-3000-16-300-e25 C9075 3000 16 300 25 0.28 24.22
12 C7510-1500-16-300-e25 C7510 1500 16 300 25 0.33 51.41
13 C7510-3000-16-300-e25 C7510 3000 16 300 25 0.33 33.22
14 C9012-1500-16-300-e50 C9012 1500 16 300 50 0.56 29.52
15 C9012-1500-10-300-e50 C9012 1500 10 300 50 0.56 28.57

Fig. 4. Fabrication of 1.5 m and 3 m wall panels.

4
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran
Fig. 5. A schematic representation of the test setup.
3. Experimental results and observations
3.1. Concentrically loaded test specimens
3.1.1. Tests 1 and 2 (C9010-1500-16-300-e0)
The first test was on a concentrically loaded 1.5 m high LSF wall
panel made of a C9010 stud section and lined with 16 mm gypsum
plasterboard layers on both sides with 300 mm screw spacing (C9010-
1500-16-300-e0). The wall panel failed at 58.50 kN (Table 3) and the
failure mode is shown in Fig. 8(a), while associated load versus axial
and lateral deformation plots are shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b). The failure
occurred at the bottom of the stud and the plasterboard sheathing on
one side became detached from the stud just before failure. This could
be due to the free longitudinal edges of the plasterboards. To simulate
the continuity effects of a full-scale wall panel, 100 mm long lipped
channel pieces were screw-connected to the plasterboards along the
free edges as shown in Fig. 4(c) and the test was repeated (Test 2).
The stud in this test (Test 2) failed at a slightly higher load of 59.35
kN (Table 3) through distortional buckling of one flange. No premature
failure of studs was observed at the ends nor did any separation of
plasterboard sheathing from the stud occurred. The failure mode is
shown in Fig. 8(b), while the load versus deformation plots are shown
in Fig. 9(a) and (b).
3.1.2. Test 3 (C9010-3000-16-300-e0)
Test 3 wall panel was similar to those in Tests 1 and 2 except
for the height (increased from 1.5 m to 3 m). The wall panel loaded
5
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328
concentrically reached a peak load of 60.59 kN. No significant global
buckling deformation was observed prior to failure. The failure load
was very close to that of Tests 1 and 2 and the failure mode was the
same as in Test 2 (Fig. 8(c)). The ultimate capacities in Tests 1 to 3
were 58.50 kN, 59.35 kN and 60.59 kN (Table 3). This indicates that
increasing the panel height from 1.5 to 3 m does not have a significant
influence on the ultimate capacity of concentrically loaded wall panels.
The load versus axial and lateral deformation plots are presented in
Fig. 9(a) and (b).
3.1.3. Test 4 (C7510-3000-16-300-e0)
A concentrically loaded test was conducted on a 3 m wall panel
made of a C7510 stud to investigate the effect of stud geometry. This
wall panel failed at a load of 67.78 kN compared to 60.59 kN for the
C9010 stud wall panel (Test 3). The failure was initiated by an inward
buckling of the slender flange in predominantly a distortional mode
closer to the bottom support. The failure mode and load versus defor-
mation curves are shown in Figs. 8(d) and 9(a) and (b), respectively.
A second failure was observed at mid-height several minutes after the
initial failure, which led to noticeable global buckling deformations
(Fig. 10(b)).
3.2. Eccentrically loaded test specimens
3.2.1. Tests 5 and 6 (C9010-1500-16-300-e25 and C9010-3000-16-300-
e25)
Tests 5 and 6 were conducted to investigate the effects of eccen-
tricity on the ultimate capacities of sheathed LSF wall panels made
of C9010 stud section with heights 1.5 m and 3 m. Both panels were
sheathed with 16 mm thick gypsum plasterboards on both sides with
300 mm screw spacing and were loaded to failure with an eccentricity
of 25 mm. Comparison of results with those for the concentrically
loaded wall panels (Tests 1 and 2) showed the effects of loading eccen-
tricity on the failure loads and modes of the wall studs. As expected,
Test 5 stud failed at a lower load of 42.71 kN, i.e., a reduction of about
28% in capacity due to an eccentricity of 25 mm. Test 6 wall panel
(3 m high) failed at an even lower capacity of 37.69 kN than in Test 5,
indicating the effect of slender wall stud. It exhibited noticeable global
deformations in the loading phase as shown in Fig. 10(c). However, the
failure modes of both tests were predominantly a distortional buckling
mode as shown in Fig. 8(e) and (f). The load versus axial and lateral
deformation plots for Tests 5 and 6 are shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b),
respectively, together with the results from Tests 1 to 3 for ease of
comparison.
3.2.2. Test 7 (C9010-3000-16-100-e25)
In this test, the effect of reduced screw spacing (100 mm) was
investigated using a 3 m wall panel loaded with an eccentricity of
25 mm, similar to that used in Test 6. Although the screws were closely
spaced, a distortional buckling failure still occurred between the two
screw locations as shown in Fig. 8(g). However, a slight increase in
capacity (41.81 kN) was observed in this test, compared to 37.69 kN
in Test 6 (about 11% increase in capacity). The load versus axial and
lateral deformation plots are presented in Fig. 12(a) and (b).
3.2.3. Test 8 (C9012-1500-16-100-e25)
Test 8 was conducted on a 1.5 m height wall panel made of the
1.2 mm thick C9012 stud section sheathed with 16 mm thick gypsum
plasterboard and 100 mm screw spacing. This wall panel loaded with
an eccentricity of 25 mm failed at 60.59 kN (Table 3). A concentrically
loaded test was not conducted for C9012 stud section in this study.
However, the capacities of 600 mm unlined studs made of both C9010
and C9012 sections are reported in Peiris and Mahendran [21]. Usually
even with a lower screw spacing of 100 mm, the failure is observed
between the two screw locations. However, in this test, a distortional
buckling failure occurred exactly at a screw location initiated by a
screw pull-through failure as shown in Fig. 8(h). The load versus
deformation plots are shown in Fig. 12(a) and (b).
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Fig. 6. Test setup for 3 m single stud wall panel.

Fig. 7. Bottom connector arrangement.

6
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran
Fig. 8. Stud failure modes of tested LSF wall panels.
3.2.4. Tests 9 and 10 (C9012-3000-16-300-e25 and C9012-3000-10-
300-e25)
Two tests were conducted on 3 m high panels made of C9012
sections to investigate the effect of sheathing thickness on the ultimate
capacities under eccentric loading. Tests 9 and 10 were conducted
on wall panels sheathed with 16 mm and 10 mm thick gypsum plas-
terboards, respectively. Both wall panels tested with an eccentricity
7
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328
of 25 mm failed at 41.14 kN and 37.45 kN, respectively (Table 3),
exhibiting a difference of about 10%. The failure modes are shown in
Fig. 8(i) and (j) and the global deformations are presented in Fig. 10(e)
and (f). The associated load versus deformation plots are shown in
Fig. 13(a) and (b). Several small drops in the load were observed in
these plots due to the adjustment of the top and bottom connectors to
accommodate the bending on the panel and was not due to any visible
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran
Fig. 9. Load versus axial and lateral deformation plots of concentrically loaded wall panels.
failure in the wall panel. These stages of small drops are commonly
observed in load–deformation plots of LSF wall panels subjected to
bending actions [5,6]. Similar observations were also seen in the load
versus axial shortening curves of Test 6. Although the ultimate capac-
ities showed a difference, the loading branch of the axial shortening
curves showed similar stiffness values.
3.2.5. Test 11 (C9075-3000-16-300-e25)
An eccentrically loaded test was conducted on a 3 m wall panel
made of a thinner lipped channel stud C9075 (0.75 mm thickness) to
investigate the effect of the stud thickness. The test wall panel failed
at a lower peak load of 24.22 kN as expected while notable reduction
in the stiffness was also observed in the load versus deformation plots
shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b), respectively. The ultimate capacities of
similar wall panels made of C9010 (1.00 mm thickness) and C9012
(1.20 mm thickness) were 37.69 kN and 41.14 kN, respectively (Ta-
ble 3). Of all studs used in the test wall panels, this C9075 stud section
showed the highest local, distortional and global slenderness values
in pure compression and pure bending. However, the failure mode
(distortional) was similar to the failure modes of other wall panels as
shown in Fig. 8(k).
3.2.6. Tests 12 and 13 (C7510-1500-16-300-e25 and C7510-3000-16-
300-e25)
In Tests 5 and 6, the effect wall panel height was investigated for
eccentrically loaded wall panels of heights 1.5 m and 3 m made of
C9010 studs. Tests 12 and 13 were similar, except for that the stud
sections used were C7510 (75 mm depth). The ultimate capacities were
51.41 kN and 33.22 kN for Test 12 (1.5 m height) and Test 13 (3 m
height) as seen in Table 3, i.e., reductions of about 25% and 50%
of the ultimate capacity of concentrically loaded wall panel made of
C7510 stud (Test 4). The higher capacity reduction in Test 13 could
be explained by the magnification effect of the loading eccentricity
due to the larger deformations (Fig. 10(h)) in the 3 m wall panel. The
failure mode of the C7510 stud was also similar to those observed in
C9010 and C9012 studs. The load versus deformation plots are shown
in Fig. 14(a) and (b).
3.2.7. Tests 14 and 15 (C9012-1500-16-300-e50 and C9012-1500-10-
300-e50)
Tests 14 and 15 were conducted to investigate the effect of a higher
loading eccentricity of 50 mm. Test 14 was conducted on a 1.5 m
high wall panel made of a C9012 stud section lined with 16 mm thick
plasterboards on both sides with 300 mm screw spacing. A pull-through
failure of the bottom screw was followed by a local crushing failure at
the bottom of the stud as shown in Fig. 8(n). The failure load was 29.52
8
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328
kN. Noticeable lateral deformation was observed here due to eccentric
loading compared to other panels of height 1.5 m.
The failure near the support was a concern in Test 14. Hence, a
repeat test (Test 15) was conducted in an attempt to avoid failure near
the supports. In this test, top and bottom tracks with a lower thickness
was used with a sheathing thickness of 10 mm to reduce the stiffness
at the supports while also reducing the strength of screw connections
to initiate a screw pull-through failure. However, a screw pull-through
failure was followed by a localised failure at the bottom of the stud
as was observed in Test 14. These failure modes indicate that wall
studs subject to large loading eccentricities are likely to have localised
failures at supports. The failure modes and load versus deformation
plots for Tests 14 and 15 are shown in Figs. 8(n) and (o) and 15(a)
and (b), respectively.
4. Design strength predictions
Although a considerable evolution of design methods employing
the Direct Strength Method (DSM) is available in the literature for un-
sheathed free-standing columns, suitable design guidelines for sheathed
LSF wall studs are limited. A sheathing braced design method em-
ploying the DSM guidelines developed for wall panels under pure
compression and pure bending actions is given in AISI RP 13-1 and
involves the use of critical buckling stresses for each buckling mode
obtained from a rational elastic buckling analysis. The elastic buckling
analysis is to be conducted in this case by incorporating the stiffness
provided to the stud at the screw connections using elastic springs.
The stiffness provided at each stud-to-sheathing fastener connection is
idealised into three components, namely the lateral in-plane stiffness,
out-of-plane stiffness and rotational stiffness as shown in Fig. 16.
These stiffness values can be determined using the equations pro-
posed by Vieira and Schafer [3]. Although many past studies have
focused only on the lateral in-plane restraints, the capacities of LSF
walls can be improved significantly by the out-of-plane stiffness pro-
vided by sheathing. The lateral in-plane restraints are shown to be able
to prevent the flexural–torsional and minor axis global buckling modes
of slender wall studs. The out-of-plane restraints primarily prevent the
inward and outward buckling of the flanges and could be significant for
studs failing in pure distortional or local-distortional interaction buck-
ling modes or major axis flexural buckling. The rotational restraints also
help prevent the twisting of studs, thus eliminating flexural–torsional
and distortional instabilities.
To investigate the adequacy of the current design guidelines in AISI
RP 13-1 in predicting the load bearing capacities of LSF wall panels
subject to combined compression and bending actions, the following
approach was used. Firstly, the in-plane, out-of-plane and rotational
stiffness values at each stud-to-sheathing fastener connection were
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Fig. 10. Post-failure global deformations of 3 m high wall panels.

9
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Fig. 11. Load versus axial and lateral deformation plots of Tests 1–3, 5 and 6.

Fig. 12. Load versus axial and lateral deformation plots of Tests 6–8.

Fig. 13. Load versus axial and lateral deformation plots of Tests 3, 6, 9–11.

10
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Fig. 14. Load versus axial and lateral deformation plots of Tests 4, 12 and 13.

Fig. 15. Load versus axial and lateral deformation plots of Tests 14 and 15.

where E is the elastic modulus of steel (Table 4), d is the fastener

diameter, t is the stud thickness, 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 is the thickness of gypsum plas-
terboard sheathing. The diaphragm component of the in-plane stiffness
was calculated using the equation;
𝜋 2 𝐺𝑏 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑓 𝑤𝑡𝑓
𝑘𝑥𝑑 = (3)
𝐿2
where the parameter 𝐺𝑏 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 , the shear stiffness of the sheathing mate-
rial, was obtained from Table C4.2.2B of ANSI 2005 [27] (an extract is
shown in Table 5), 𝑑𝑓 is the screw spacing, 𝑤𝑡𝑓 is the tributary width
of the sheathing (600 mm) and 𝐿 is the panel height.
The total lateral in-plane translational stiffness was obtained by
combining the local and diaphragm stiffness values using the equation;

1
𝑘𝑥 = (4)
1 1
𝑘𝑥𝑙
+ 𝑘𝑥𝑑
Fig. 16. In-plane, out-of-plane and rotational stiffness at the screw connection in an The total lateral in-plane translational stiffness was converted to
LSF wall stud.
lateral in-plane stiffness per unit length (𝑘𝑥 ) by dividing by the screw
spacing 𝑑𝑓 .
𝑘𝑥
calculated for each wall panel tested in this study. The local component 𝑘𝑥 = (5)
𝑑𝑓
of the in-plane stiffness was calculated using the equation;
Vieira and Schafer [3] proposes three approaches for numerically
3𝜋𝐸𝑑 4 𝑡3 estimating the out-of-plane stiffness provided by the sheathing to the
𝑘𝑥𝑙 =
2
( ) (2)
4𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 9𝜋𝑑 4 + 16𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑡3 stud at a fastener connection, which are based on the assumption of

11
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Table 4 Table 7
Measured elastic modulus and yield strength of steel. Local fastener foundation stiffness per unit length (AISI RP 13-1 [17]).
( )
Stud Section Elastic Modulus (MPa) Yield strength (MPa) Plate thickness (mm) 𝑘𝜙𝑐 (N mm/mm/rad)
C9075 204,691 668
0.75 367
C9010 216,328 608
1.00 384
C7510 208,352 605
1.20 419
C9012 205,975 566

Table 5
Shear stiffness (𝐺𝑏 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 ) of sheathing material from Table C4.2.2B of ANSI [27]. case it is the wall panel width) can be calculated using the simplified
Sheathing material Minimum nominal panel 𝐺𝑏 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐺𝑏 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 equation;
thickness (in.) (lbf/in.) (N/mm) 4𝐸𝐼𝑤
𝑘𝜙𝑤 = (10)
Plywood siding 5/16 and 2/8 25,000 4378 𝑤𝑡𝑓
Particleboard 3/8, 25,000, 4378
where 𝑤𝑡𝑓 is the width of the wall panel (600 mm).
1∕2 28,000 4904
5/8 28,500 4991 The two rotational stiffness elements are combined using the equa-
tion given next to obtain the full rotational stiffness per unit length.
Fibreboard 1∕2 and 25/32 25,000 4378
Gypsum board 1∕2 (12.7 mm) and 5/8 (16 mm) 40,000 7005
Lumber All 25,000 4378 ( )−1
1 1
𝑘𝜙 = + (11)
𝑘𝜙𝑤 𝑘𝜙𝑐
Table 6
Typical sheathing rigidity (effective stiffness) (𝐸𝐼)𝑤 range for gypsum sheathing from The spring stiffness values for in-plane, out-of-plane and rotational
GA 235-10 [23]. restraints obtained for all the tested wall panels are listed in Table 8.
Board thickness (in.) lb.in2 /in of width kN mm2 /mm of width Example calculations of each spring stiffness are given for Test Wall
1∕2(13 mm) 1500 to 4000 220 to 580a Panel 1 in the supplementary section.
5/8 (16 mm) 3000 to 8000 440 to 1160a These stiffness values were used as linear springs attached to the
a Note: The average values of the given range were used in the design calculations. mid-flange positions of the stud and elastic buckling analyses were
conducted for studs in each wall panel under pure compression and
pure bending using CUFSM. Table 9 presents the critical buckling
stresses obtained from elastic buckling analyses as a ratio of yield
no composite action, partial composite action, or full composite action.
strength.
The determination of partial composite action requires bending tests of
Next the capacities of the wall panels in pure compression and
wall panels [3]. Hence, only full and no composite action were used in
pure bending were obtained using the DSM based design rules given
this study.
in AS/NZS 4600 and AISI S100. The capacities for the eccentrically
The out-of-plane stiffness assuming full composite action is calcu-
loaded wall panels were then obtained by using the linear interaction
lated as
equation, where the design moment was obtained as 𝑀𝑥 = 𝑃 ∗ 𝑒,
(𝐸𝐼)𝑓 𝑐 𝜋 4 𝑑𝑓 where 𝑃 is the axial compression load and 𝑒 is the corresponding load
𝑘𝑦 = (6)
𝐿4 eccentricity about the major axis. Table 10 provides a comparison of
where (𝐸𝐼)𝑓 𝑐 is the stiffness assuming full composite action and is the ultimate failure loads obtained from experiments and the design
calculated from the equation; predictions based on AISI RP 13-1 (𝑃𝑅,𝐷𝑆𝑀 ).
( )2 However, in most cases, to be conservative, LSF walls studs are de-
1 1 signed as free-standing columns with pinned end conditions neglecting
(𝐸𝐼)𝑓 𝑐 = (𝐸𝐼)𝑤 + (𝐸)𝑤 𝑤𝑡𝑓 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 ℎ + 𝑡𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 (7)
2 2 the effect of sheathing. The DSM based capacities for the tested wall
where the parameter (𝐸)𝑤 is the elastic modulus of the sheathing panels had they been designed ignoring the effect of the sheathing
material, ℎ is the stud depth and (𝐸𝐼)𝑤 is the sheathing rigidity. Typical (𝑃𝑈 ,𝐷𝑆𝑀 ) is also presented in Table 10 for comparison. The lower
values for (𝐸𝐼)𝑤 obtained from GA 235-10 is summarised in Table 6. capacities when the sheathing effects are neglected are explained by the
The average value (𝐸)𝑤 can be back calculated using the equation; lower critical global buckling stresses as shown in Table 11. Example
12 (𝐸𝐼)𝑤 calculations for compression and bending capacities for Test Panel 1
(𝐸)𝑤 = (8) (according to AISI RP 13-1) are presented in the supplementary section.
𝑤𝑡𝑓 𝑡3𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑
A design example for the stud used in Test Panel 1, ignoring the effect
To calculate 𝑘𝑦 assuming no composite action, (𝐸𝐼)𝑓 𝑐 is replaced by of the sheathing is also shown in the supplementary section.
(𝐸𝐼)𝑤 in Eq. (6). The total out-of-plane stiffness is converted to out-of-
plane stiffness per unit length (𝑘𝑦 ) by dividing by the screw spacing. 5. Discussion of results

𝑘𝑦 Experimental results showed that both the ultimate capacity of

𝑘𝑦 =
𝑑𝑓
The total rotational stiffness per unit length is a combination of
the local fastener foundation stiffness per unit length (𝑘𝜙𝑐 ) and the
sheathing stiffness per unit length (𝑘𝜙𝑤 ). The local fastener foundation
stiffness per unit length is a function of steel plate thickness and was
obtained from Table Z.1–2 of AISI RP 13-1 (extracted values applicable
for this study are presented in Table 7). These values are a function of
stud thickness, and the corresponding values were used for each stud
thickness. ( )
The sheathing stiffness per unit length 𝑘𝜙𝑤 for a wall panel with
identical sheathing on both sides and a constant stud spacing (in this
(9) LSF wall panels and their stiffness in compression decreased with
increasing eccentricity. Unlike in concentrically loaded wall panels,
noticeable global deformations and higher mid-span lateral deflections
were observed in eccentrically loaded wall panels. Localised failures
were observed in the two wall panels loaded with an eccentricity of
50 mm. This may indicate that LSF walls subject to larger eccentricities
might need improved end connections for the safe transfer of moment
at their connections. The effects of stud depth and thickness, sheathing
thickness and screw spacing were also investigated in this study. As
expected, the C9075 stud wall panel had the lowest ultimate capacity
(24.22 kN) while the 1.2 mm thick C9012 stud wall panel had the
highest failure load for an eccentricity of 25 mm (60.59 kN and 37.45

12
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Table 8
Spring stiffness values for in-plane, out-of-plane and rotational stiffness of tested wall panels.
Test # Test specimen 𝑘𝑥 𝑘𝑦(𝑁𝐶) 𝑘𝑦(𝐹 𝐶) 𝑘𝜙
N/mm/mm N/mm/mm N/mm/mm N/mm/mm/rad
1 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 0.2180 0.009236 1.2253 358.21
2 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 0.2180 0.009236 1.2253 358.21
3 C9010-3000-16-300-e0 0.2106 0.000577 0.0766 358.21
4 C7510-3000-16-300-e0 0.2031 0.000577 0.0566 358.21
5 C9010-1500-16-300-e25 0.2180 0.009236 1.2253 358.21
6 C9010-3000-16-300-e25 0.2106 0.000577 0.0766 358.21
7 C9010-3000-16-100-e25 0.5788 0.000577 0.0766 358.21
8 C9012-1500-16-100-e25 0.9875 0.009236 1.2253 388.48
9 C9012-3000-16-300-e25 0.3234 0.000577 0.0766 388.48
10 C9012-3000-10-300-e25 0.7703 0.000289 0.0869 362.10
11 C9075-3000-16-300-e25 0.0895 0.000577 0.0766 343.37
12 C7510-1500-16-300-e25 0.2101 0.009236 0.9055 358.21
13 C7510-3000-16-300-e25 0.2031 0.000577 0.0566 358.21
14 C9012-1500-16-300-e50 0.3414 0.009236 1.2253 388.48
15 C9012-1500-10-300-e50 0.8807 0.004618 1.3900 362.10

𝑘𝑦(𝑁𝐶) — Out-of-plane stiffness assuming no composite action.

𝑘𝑦(𝐹 𝐶) — Out of plane stiffness assuming full composite action.

Table 9
Critical buckling stresses from CUFSM elastic buckling analyses as a ratio of yield strength.
Test Test specimen Compression Bending
Local Distortional Global Local Distortional Global
1 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 0.343 0.524 1.888 1.027 0.913 2.154
2 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 0.343 0.524 1.888 1.027 0.913 2.154
3 C9010-3000-16-300-e0 0.408 0.595 1.060 1.013 0.781 1.744
4 C7510-3000-16-300-e0 0.360 0.564 1.047 0.972 0.815 1.759
5 C9010-1500-16-300-e25 0.343 0.524 1.888 1.027 0.913 2.154
6 C9010-3000-16-300-e25 0.408 0.595 1.060 1.013 0.781 1.744
7 C9010-3000-16-100-e25 0.341 0.471 1.516 1.309 0.787 2.590
8 C9012-1500-16-100-e25 0.455 0.624 3.081 1.479 1.031 3.416
9 C9012-3000-16-300-e25 0.457 0.647 1.341 1.670 1.145 1.997
10 C9012-3000-10-300-e25 0.457 0.642 1.662 1.670 1.130 2.872
11 C9075-3000-16-300-e25 0.203 0.442 2.084 0.520 0.779 2.391
12 C7510-1500-16-300-e25 0.360 0.644 1.170 0.987 0.915 2.334
13 C7510-3000-16-300-e25 0.360 0.564 1.047 0.972 0.815 1.759
14 C9012-1500-16-300-e50 0.455 0.624 3.081 1.479 1.031 3.416
15 C9012-1500-10-300-e50 0.455 0.628 3.445 1.480 1.039 3.355

Table 10 The application of AISI design method for the design of sheathed
Ultimate capacities of tested wall panels from experiments and design predictions. LSF wall panels was also investigated using the results of tested LSF
Test Test specimen 𝑃𝑇 𝑃𝑅,𝐷𝑆𝑀 𝑃𝑈 ,𝐷𝑆𝑀 𝑃𝑇 ∕𝑃𝑅,𝐷𝑆𝑀 𝑃𝑇 ∕𝑃𝑈 ,𝐷𝑆𝑀 wall panels, firstly for concentrically loaded wall panels and then for
1 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 58.50 57.63 22.97 1.02 2.55 wall panels subjected to combined compression and bending actions.
2 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 59.35 57.63 22.97 1.03 2.58 Comparison of experimental capacities and design predictions based on
3 C9010-3000-16-300-e0 60.59 54.66 7.02 1.11 8.63
4 C7510-3000-16-300-e0 67.78 46.79 5.20 1.45 13.03
AISI RP 13-1 gave an overall mean of 1.12 and a coefficient of variation
5 C9010-1500-16-300-e25 42.71 36.63 16.96 1.17 2.52 (CoV) of 0.22. The corresponding values are 1.04 and 0.14, when the
6 C9010-3000-16-300-e25 37.69 34.68 5.08 1.09 7.42 two C7510 stud wall panels were excluded (most conservative). The
7 C9010-3000-16-100-e25 41.81 35.04 5.08 1.19 8.23 design predictions based on the linear interaction equation for Tests
8 C9012-1500-16-100-e25 60.59 45.81 19.98 1.32 3.03
9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are unconservative (15% difference). Tests 14
9 C9012-3000-16-300-e25 41.14 43.25 6.29 0.95 6.54
10 C9012-3000-10-300-e25 37.45 44.29 6.29 0.85 5.95
and 15 were conducted with a load eccentricity of 50 mm and the
11 C9075-3000-16-300-e25 24.22 25.90 3.28 0.94 7.38 lower capacities obtained in these tests may be due to the failure at
12 C7510-1500-16-300-e25 51.41 29.35 12.06 1.75 4.26 the supports. Also, the unconservative prediction in the ultimate ca-
13 C7510-3000-16-300-e25 33.22 28.38 3.79 1.17 8.77 pacity of Test 10 wall panel shows that the AISI method overestimates
14 C9012-1500-16-300-e50 29.52 32.95 15.82 0.90 1.87
the sheathing effect and does not fully capture the effect of varying
15 C9012-1500-10-300-e50 28.57 33.13 15.82 0.86 1.81
lateral stiffness provided by thinner 10 mm plasterboard compared
Mean 1.04(a) ∕1.12 5.18(a) ∕5.64
with 16 mm plasterboard. The composite action is a function of both
Std. Dev. 0.15(a) ∕0.24 2.80(a) ∕3.31
COV 0.14(a) ∕0.22 0.54(a) ∕0.59 the plasterboard thickness and the stud depth. The DSM capacities
in Table 10 are based on the assumption of full composite action
𝑃𝑅,𝐷𝑆𝑀 — capacity predictions based on RP-13, 𝑃𝑈 ,𝐷𝑆𝑀 — capacity predictions when
designed as unlined studs, 𝑃𝑇 — experimental ultimate capacity; (a) Values excluding
between the stud and the sheathing material. The assumption of partial
test specimens 4 and 12. composite action could yield closer results but experimental results
from panel bending tests are needed in this case.
For the concentric loading cases of the 1.5 m high wall panels, the
predicted capacities were very close (within 3%) to the experimental
kN for the specimen heights 1.5 m and 3 m, respectively). Smaller screw
ultimate capacities. The results for wall panels loaded with an eccen-
spacing (100 mm compared to 300 mm) increased the capacity by 11%
tricity of 25 mm also showed reasonably good agreement while they
(from 37.69 kN to 41.81 kN) while the capacity reduced by 9% (41.14 were unconservative for the wall panels with an eccentricity of 50 mm.
kN to 37.45 kN) when 10 mm thick plasterboards were used instead of It is interesting to note that the DSM predictions for the C7510 stud
16 mm thick plasterboards. wall panels are significantly conservative, i.e. differences of 45% and

13
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328

Table 11
Critical buckling stresses from CUFSM elastic buckling analyses without including the sheathing effect (as
a ratio of yield strength).
Test Test specimen Compression Bending
Local Distortional Global Local Distortional Global
1 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 0.341 0.391 0.232 1.012 0.615 0.487
2 C9010-1500-16-300-e0 0.341 0.391 0.232 1.012 0.615 0.487
3 C9010-3000-16-300-e0 0.341 0.391 0.071 1.012 0.615 0.138
4 C7510-3000-16-300-e0 0.358 0.439 0.058 0.972 0.651 0.140
5 C9010-1500-16-300-e25 0.341 0.391 0.232 1.012 0.615 0.487
6 C9010-3000-16-300-e25 0.341 0.391 0.071 1.012 0.615 0.138
7 C9010-3000-16-100-e25 0.341 0.391 0.071 1.012 0.615 0.138
8 C9012-1500-16-100-e25 0.452 0.472 0.245 1.465 0.776 0.510
9 C9012-3000-16-300-e25 0.452 0.472 0.079 1.465 0.776 0.149
10 C9012-3000-10-300-e25 0.452 0.472 0.079 1.465 0.776 0.149
11 C9075-3000-16-300-e25 0.200 0.229 0.055 0.502 0.384 0.113
12 C7510-1500-16-300-e25 0.352 0.433 0.182 0.977 0.654 0.475
13 C7510-3000-16-300-e25 0.358 0.439 0.058 0.972 0.651 0.140
14 C9012-1500-16-300-e50 0.452 0.472 0.245 1.465 0.776 0.510
15 C9012-1500-10-300-e50 0.452 0.472 0.245 1.465 0.776 0.510

75% for Test wall panels 4 and 12, respectively. It was noted that the
capacities of concentrically loaded C7510 stud wall panels were higher
than those of C9010 stud wall panels. Other researchers have also
observed this in their tests for lipped channel studs with web depths
of 90 mm and 70 mm [28] where the higher capacity was attributed
to the lower slenderness of the 70 mm studs. Furthermore, the stud
geometry of the C7510 section usually does not produce clear distinct
local and distortional buckling modes and hence might result in lower
predicted capacities from the DSM equations for local and distortional
buckling equations which inherently assumes input buckling stresses
to be from pure local or distortional buckling modes. Further, in a
study of LSF wall panels subject to pure bending, Selvaraj and Madha-
van [29] concluded that the AISI predictions could be unconservative
for sections that have higher global slenderness and a lower local slen-
derness while the capacities could be significantly conservative when
local and global slenderness values are close to each other. Therefore,
for sections with complex buckling modes including interactions of
different buckling modes, such as local and global and/or local or dis-
tortional, the DSM predictions could be conservative or unconservative.
Although modified DSM design methods exist catering for each of these
states, employing too many modifications might result in a complicated
sheathing braced design method.
However, the primary emphasis of this study is to demonstrate
the benefit of using a sheathing braced design method for sheathed
LSF walls instead of ignoring the sheathing effect. From the results in
Table 10, it could be seen that not only the predicted capacities are at
least 2.5- and 7-times conservative for wall panels of heights 1500 mm
and 3000 mm when the sheathing effect was ignored, they also lead
to a high COV (0.59). This could prove to be very uneconomical from
a design viewpoint and hence the adoption of AISI design methods for
LSF walls will enable economic and safe designs for sheathed LSF walls
under concentric and eccentric axial compression actions.
capacities of wall panels subject to pure compression and combined
compression and bending actions.
This study also investigated the use of the AISI sheathing braced
design method (AISI RP 13-1) in predicting the capacities of both con-
centrically and eccentrically loaded LSF wall studs through a detailed
comparison with experimental capacities. It also investigated the use of
the simplified design method neglecting the bracing effect of sheathing.
Comparison of results showed the improved accuracy of using the AISI
sheathed bracing design method. The linear interaction equation used
in the case of combined compression and bending actions was able to
provide reasonable capacity predictions for sheathed LSF walls.
Overall, this study has shown that the AISI sheathing braced design
method can be used to obtain accurate design capacity predictions
for LSF wall panels with varying stud sections, local, distortional and
global slendernesses, screw spacing, type of sheathing material and
loading eccentricity. The current practice of neglecting the effect of
sheathing can result in over-sized members and thus uneconomical CFS
building designs. This study encourages the use of sheathing braced
design guidelines to obtain improved and safe capacities for sheathed
LSF wall studs.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mithum Peiris: Writing – original draft, Data curation, Formal anal-
ysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization. Mahen Ma-
hendran: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Project
administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

6. Conclusions Acknowledgements

This research study investigated the effect of loading eccentricity
on the ultimate capacities of LSF wall studs braced with gypsum
plasterboard sheathing using tests conducted on LSF wall panels of
height 1.5 m and 3 m under concentric and eccentric compression
loading. Although significant capacity enhancements were obtained by
bracing studs with sheathing, loading eccentricities in the range 0 –
50 mm resulted in significant capacity losses by up to 50%. Minor
capacity improvements were observed by reducing the screw spacing
from 300 mm to 100 mm. Large eccentricities could result in premature
local failures at supports indicating the need for carefully designed end
connections in LSF walls subject to larger eccentricities. This paper
has presented these results including a comparison of the ultimate
The authors wish to thank Australian Research Council, National
Association of Steel framed Housing (NASH), Australia for provid-
ing financial support including a PhD scholarship to conduct this
research and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). They also
extend their sincere appreciation to the technical staff at Banyo Pi-
lot Plant Precinct (QUT) for the technical support provided to con-
duct this research successfully. They appreciate the valuable techni-
cal guidance and support provided by NASH Executive Director Ken
Watson, and NASH Standards Committee members to this research
study. Finally, the authors acknowledge the generous contribution from
ENDUROFRAME® in the supply of cold-formed steel studs from which
the test wall panels used in this study were prepared.

14
M. Peiris and M. Mahendran
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found online
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109328.
References
[1] W.W. Yu, Cold-Formed Steel Design, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
[2] Y. Telue, M. Mahendran, Behaviour of cold-formed steel wall frames lined with
plasterboard, J. Constr. Steel Res. 57 (4) (2001) 435–452.
[3] L.C.M. Vieira Jr., B.W. Schafer, Behaviour and design of sheathed cold-formed
steel stud walls under compression, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (5) (2012) 772–786.
[4] Y.S. Tian, J. Wang, T.J. Lu, C.Y. Barlow, An experimental study on the axial
behaviour of cold-formed steel wall studs and panels, Thin-Walled Struct. 42 (4)
(2014) 557–573.
[5] S. Selvaraj, M. Madhavan, Improvements in AISI design methods for gypsum-
sheathed cold-formed steel wall panels subjected to bending, J. Struct. Eng. 145
(2) (2019) 04018243.
[6] S. Selvaraj, M. Madhavan, Investigation on sheathing effect and failure modes of
gypsum sheathed cold-formed steel wall panels subjected to bending, Structures
17 (2019) 87–101.
[7] P. Kyvelou, L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Testing and analysis of composite cold-
formed steel and wood-based flooring systems, J. Struct. Eng. 143 (11) (2017)
04017146.
[8] T.H. Miller, T. Peköz, Load-eccentricity effects on cold-formed steel lipped-
channel columns, J. Struct. Eng. 120 (3) (1994) 805–823.
[9] S. Torabian, B. Zheng, B.W. Schafer, Experimental response of cold-formed steel
lipped channel beam–columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 89 (2015) 152–168.
[10] S. Torabian, B. Zheng, Y. Shifferaw, B.W. Schafer, Direct Strength Prediction of
Cold-Formed Steel Beam–Columns, Res. Rep. RP16-3, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2016.
[11] S. Torabian, B.W. Schafer, Development and experimental validation of the direct
strength method for cold-formed steel beam-columns, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (10)
(2018) 04018175.
[12] Standards Australia (SA), Cold-Formed Steel Structures, AS/NZS 4600,
Sydney,Australia, 2018.
[13] S100 AISI, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C, 2016.
[14] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures — Part 1-1: General Rules
and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium, 2005.
15
Thin-Walled Structures 176 (2022) 109328
[15] EN 1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures — Part 1-3: General
Rules – Supplementary Rules for Cold-Formed Members and Sheeting, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
[16] C. Kyprianou, P. Kyvelou, L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Experimental study
of sheathed cold-formed steel beam–columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 166 (2021)
108044.
[17] RP 13-1 AISI, Sheathing Braced Design of Wall Studs, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2013.
[18] K.D. Peterman, B.W. Schafer, Sheathed cold-formed steel studs under axial and
lateral load, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (10) (2014) 04014074.
[19] K.D. Peterman, B.W. Schafer, Stability of sheathed cold-formed steel studs under
axial load and bending, in: Proceedings of Structural Stability Research Council
Annual Stability Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, 2012.
[20] B.W. Schafer, Advances in the direct strength method of cold-formed steel design,
Thin-Walled Struct. 140 (2019) 533–541.
[21] M. Peiris, M. Mahendran, Behaviour of cold-formed steel lipped channel sec-
tions subject to eccentric axial compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 184 (2021)
106808.
[22] B.W. Schafer, S. Ádány, Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members using
CUFSM: conventional and constrained finite strip methods, in: 18th Intl. Spec.
Conf. on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Orlando, USA, 2006.
[23] GA (Gypsum Association), Application and Finishing of Gypsum Panel Products,
GA 216-2007, Hyattsville, MD, 2007.
[24] T. Abeysiriwardena, M. Peiris, M. Mahendran, Local in-plane strength and
stiffness of stud-to-sheathing fastener connections in LSF wall panels, Thin-Walled
Struct. 160 (2021) 107383.
[25] T. Abeysiriwardena, M. Peiris, M. Mahendran, Behaviour of stud-to-sheathing
fastener connections in LSF walls at elevated temperatures, Eng. Struct. 238
(2021) 112224.
[26] M. Peiris, M. Mahendran, Advanced numerical modelling of light-gauge steel
framed walls subject to eccentric compression, Eng. Struct. 256 (2022)
114063.
[27] ANSI (American National Standards Institute), ASD/LRFD Special Design Pro-
visions for Wind and Seismic with Commentary, ANSI/AF & PA SDPWS-2005,
Washington, DC, 2005.
[28] H. Magarabooshanam, A. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran, Fire resistance of non-
load bearing LSF walls with varying cavity depth, Thin-Walled Struct. 150 (2020)
106675.
[29] S. Selvaraj, M. Madhavan, Studies on cold-formed steel stud panels with Gypsum
sheathing subject to out-of-plane bending, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (9) (2018)
04018136.