ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparative study between stressed skin effect of

trapezoidal sheet and sandwich panel roof cladding
Zsolt Nagy, Andrea Kelemen, Gelu Zaharia, Béla Bács

Correspondence Abstract

Zsolt Nagy, PhD. Eng.
Technical University of Cluj-Napoca
Department of Structures
C-tin Daicoviciu street no. 15
400020 Cluj-Napoca
Email: zsolt.nagy@dst.utcluj.ro
Previous research studied the stabilizing effect of sandwich panel roof cladding and trapezoidal
sheet cladding, considering pitched roof portal frame structures. It was observed that these clad-
ding types contribute to the transfer of horizontal loads to the main structural elements, acting in
a similar manner as roof bracings, while also providing significant lateral stability to the steel mem-
bers. Certain methodologies were developed in order to introduce this effect into a 3D numerical
model while taking into account the connections between the cladding and the purlins, as well as
the influence of the fixing method between the purlins and the main structural members. The cur-
rent study presents two procedures in order to achieve this and aims to present a comparison be-
tween these cladding types in terms of sway displacement of the frame structure with semi-rigid
joints and load transfer by applying the developed methodology to a reference building. The com-
parison is based on detailed analytical and numerical calculations, carried out by combining the
design recommendations available for each cladding type and the developed analysis procedures
using a 3D structural analysis software. The analysis results emphasize significant stabilization
effects on the structure in both cladding cases.

Keywords

Stressed skin, sandwich panel, trapezoidal profile, stability, cold-formed steel portal frames

1 Introduction
The study of stressed skin action provided by the cladding systems
of structures has a history going back to the early 1950s, showing
that the cladding system may in some cases act as load transferring,
primary structural member. Analytical calculation procedures for
determining the shear stiffness provided by such trapezoidal sheet
diaphragms were presented by Davies and Bryan [1] in 1982, which
later on, in 1995, stood at the basis of the ECCS – European recom-
mendations for the application of metal sheeting acting as a dia-
phragm – stressed skin design [2]. In 2014 the ECCS recommenda-
tions were extended to stabilization of steel structures by sandwich
panel cladding [3]. This analytical shear stiffness evaluation method
was greatly influenced by the results of a European research project
called EASIE (Ensuring Advancement in Sandwich Construction
through Innovation and Exploitation), which was carried out be-
tween 2008 and 2011 [4]. In current practice, this stabilizing effect
of the cladding system is almost always disregarded, due to difficul-
ties in applying the analytical evaluation methods for moderately
complex structures, or to integrate these methods in a numerical ap-
proach. By doing so, the designer reduces the calculation time and
assumes that the evaluation is on the safe side. However, the ob-
tained structural response is a simplified one, which does not reflect
the reality. In reality, the cladding system will stabilize the structure
and will reduce the horizontal deflection. The structural configura-
tion modelled by most designers would be valid only in the case
when the cladding system is damaged and is no longer able to trans-
fer loads through its planar surface, which would also mean that
they are no longer able to fulfil their primary role as a weathering
barrier against water infiltration.
In 2016 Nagy et al. published an article, which focused on the
stressed skin effect obtained by trapezoidal and deep deck sheeting,
in terms of buckling modes and load multiplication factors [5]. This
was followed in 2018 by an in-depth analysis regarding the extent of
influence gained by the purlin-to-beam connection stiffness [6]. The
stressed skin effect study was further extended by the authors to
stressed skin effect obtained by sandwich panels [7], which included
a methodology to integrate the shear stiffness of sandwich panel di-
aphragms into 3D structural models. The presented methodology
was also validated by comparing the results of a numerical model
with the experimental testing results of a sandwich panel dia-
phragm, which was performed by Kunkel and Lange [8].
The current paper aims to utilise the gathered knowledge up to this
point, to present new methodologies of stress skin integration into
3D numerical models and compare the stabilizing effect of two dif-
ferent cladding types (trapezoidal steel cladding and sandwich panel
cladding) by applying the developed numerical methodologies in the
design of a framed structure, considering typical meteorological
loads (wind and snow loading).
2 Stiffness and load-bearing capacity evaluation methodol-
ogy for stressed skin panels
2.1 Procedure for sandwich panels
In a previously presented methodology [7], the panel stiffness and
the corresponding shear angle for the chosen sandwich panel type
was evaluated, in accordance with the ECCS recommendations [3].
These values were used to calibrate the elastic material definition of
an equivalent plate, having the thickness equal to that of the consid-
ered sandwich panel. The calibrated plate was then introduced into
the 3D numerical model by connecting it to the purlins of the struc-
ture in every screw position by using continuous link elements.
In the current research paper, another methodology is proposed,
which introduces the stressed skin effect of the sandwich panels
into the 3D model by considering each sandwich panel individually
as a stiff steel plate and calibrating the connecting elements be-
tween the plate and the purlins, according to the translational stiff-
ness of the considered fasteners, since the global panel stiffness is
influenced only by these fasteners. In the currently available ECCS
design procedure for stress skin design of sandwich panels [3], the
seam fasteners are completely disregarded in the analytical evalua-
tion, assuming that their influence is insignificant considering the
stress skin effect. Thus, the existence of the seam fasteners was
omitted in the methodology.
Figure 1 presents the mechanical model of a sandwich panel fas-
tener, according to the ECCS recommendations [3], the most influ-
ential parameters being the bending stiffness (EI) of the fastener,
the clamping of the fastener in the supporting structure (C sup), and
the hole elongation of the internal face sheet.
Figure 1 Individual components of a fastening, according to the ECCS recommen-
dations [3]
Steps of the proposed procedure:
- Step 1: Evaluate the translational stiffness (kv) of the con-
sidered sandwich panel fastener, using the design proce-
dure given in the ECCS recommendations [3];
- Step 2: Consider a round steel bar, the length of which
should be equal to the distance between the reference line
of the purlin and the reference line of the sandwich panel.
One end of the bar should be fixed, while on the other end
a force equal to 1 kN should be placed. Calibrate the con-
sidered circular connecting element, by changing the di-
ameter until the deformation of the bar end, with the ap-
plied load, is equal to the evaluated flexibility of the
sandwich panel fastener (1/kv). The steel grade of the con-
necting element is irrelevant in the calibration phase, as
well as in the 3D structural analysis phase. A circular
cross-section is proposed in order to have the same sec-
tional properties in both directions perpendicular to the
element length;
- Step 3: Integrate the stress skin effect of the sandwich
panels into a 3D structural model, by modelling each indi-
vidual sandwich panel as a stiff steel plate and connecting
them to the purlins using the calibrated connecting ele-
ments, placed in each screw location. The width of the
plate elements should be equal with the distance between
the edge fasteners of the sandwich panel and the end con-
necting to the plate member should be pinned. Since the
steel plates representing the sandwich panels and the con-
necting elements are fictitious (dummy) members, serving
to include shear panel behaviour, the self-weight of these
members should be regarded as 0 in the model, in all cases.
The self-weigh of the sandwich panels can be added sepa-
rately as a distributed load on the roof purlin.
It should be noted, that this procedure offers acceptable results only
in the elastic domain, up to the point, when the sandwich panel dia-
phragm reaches the load-bearing capacity limit of the internal face,
governed by the bearing capacity of the fasteners. According to [4],
the load-bearing capacity of the fasteners can be determined by
testing, can be taken from technical approvals or it can be estimated
analytically, using the following formula:
3
𝑉𝑅𝑘 = 4.2 ∙ √𝑡𝐹2 ∙ 𝑑1 ∙ 𝑓𝑢,𝐹2 (1)
where, 𝑡𝐹2 - thickness of internal face sheet;
𝑑1 - minor diameter of the threaded part of the fastener;
𝑓𝑢,𝐹2 - tensile strength of internal face sheet;
If the used screw type and the screw positions are known, then the
maximum admissible γ angle can be determined, and implicitly this
will be the limit for the maximum displacement of the shear panel, in
order to avoid damaging the cladding system. This can be regarded
as a limit concerning elastic limit state design and can be evaluated
using the principles from Figure 2.
Figure 2 Displacement and the forces of fastenings, according to [4]
2.2 Procedure validation for sandwich panels
The procedure, which was presented in 2.1, was validated by evalu-
ating the diaphragm stiffness of two sandwich panel experiments
and comparing the results with the force-displacement curves ob-
tained during the experimental testing [8, 9].
In the experiment carried out by Kunkel & Lange [8], the 60 mm thick
wall sandwich panels, with 0.4 mm thick external sheeting and 0.5
mm thick internal sheeting, were connected to SHS40x4 profile, us-
ing EJOT JT3 D6H 5.5/6.3 screws in every second valley, at a dis-
tance of 175 mm from each other, on the front side. On the longitu-
dinal side, there were placed 29 screws, with a distance of 200 mm
between them. The SHS40x4 profiles were welded on the HEB260
primary beams and the HEB140 secondary beams. The connection
between beams was pinned and one of the primary beams was fixed
to the floor. Force introduction is indicated by the arrow, and the
tested specimen producing a schematic deformation as presented in
Figure 3.
 The maximum admissible deformation of the shear panel in elastic
limit state was estimated as 2.9 mm and was determined analyti-
cally. This coincides with the first deviation from linearity, consider-
ing the experimental results of Kunkel & Lange in Figure 5.

The procedure for sandwich panel diaphragms was validated con-

sidering the experimental test carried out by Baehre & Ladwein [9]
as well. This experimental test was also used to validate the evalua-
tion method in the EASIE project [4]. The experimental study con-
sisted of a shear panel, having the dimensions of 3 m x 6 m. The sand-
wich panels were 60 mm thick wall panels produced by Haironville,
being fastened to the 20 mm thick substructure by EJOT JZ3 6.3
self-drilling screws. The thickness of the internal metal sheet was
0.67 mm. The schematic configuration of the used wall panel and
Figure 3 Schematic configuration and deformation of shear panel used in the ex-
periment conducted by Kunkel & Lange [8] screw positions can be seen in Figure 6, while the shear panel con-
figuration is presented in Figure 7.
The evaluated fastener stiffness was 2.558 kN/mm, which resulted
The used fasteners had an estimated stiffness of 2.46 kN/mm (cal-
in a 50 mm long connecting element, with a diameter of 10.012 mm,
culated analytically), yielding a rod-type connecting element, with a
using S355 steel grade. The tested frame was modelled in Consteel
diameter of 8.615 mm, for a length of 40 mm.
structural analysis software. In order to connect the centerline of
the SHS40x4 profiles and the 60 mm thick steel plates (which repre-
Figure 8 shows good agreement between the test and calculation re-
sent the sandwich panels), the calibrated connection element was
sults in the elastic domain. The analytically determined fastener
integrated into the model, accounting for the vertical panel eccen-
load-bearing capacity resulted in a maximum allowable elastic dis-
tricity.
placement of 6.98 mm, which coincides with the first deviation from
linear behaviour, being marked with ∆.
Figures 4-5 show the comparison between the results obtained with
the calibrated Consteel model (based on analytical evaluation and
program assisted structural analysis) and the experimental force-
displacement curves of Kunkel & Lange. A good correlation can be
observed between the results, in the linear-elastic domain.

Figure 6 Experimental configuration carried by Baehre & Ladwein [9]: panel fixing

Figure 4 Comparison between the frame model results and the experimental re- Figure 7 Experimental configuration carried by Baehre & Ladwein [9]: tested panel
sults obtained by Kunkel & Lange [8] geometry

Figure 8 Comparison between the results of the developed frame model and the
Figure 5 Comparison between the frame model results and the experimental re- experimental results obtained by Baehre & Ladwein [9]
sults (magnified) obtained by Kunkel & Lange [8]
2.3 Procedure for trapezoidal sheeting 2.4 Procedure validation for trapezoidal sheeting

The methodology to account for the diaphragm action provided by The proposed procedure for including the stress skin action of cor-
the metal sheeting used as cladding, in a 3D structural analysis of a rugated (trapezoidal) sheeting was validated using the experimental
structure consists of the following steps: results obtained by Lendvai & Joó [10].

- Step 1: Evaluate the components of shear flexibility, ac- The test set-up used in the experiment [10] can be seen in Figure 10.
cording to the design method given by the ECCS recom- The upper HEA180 beam was fixed to the reaction wall, while the
mendations [2]; lower HEA180 beam was free to move in the direction of the applied
- Step 2: Sum the shear flexibilities that account for the displacement. The analised diaphragm was 3m x 3.2m, built up of
sheet deformation and the sheet to purlin fastener, then three Z200/1.5 (S350GD+Z steel grade) purlins and cladding with
divide by the number of sheet to purlin fasteners of one Lindab LTP45/0.5 trapezoidal sheeting, connected to the purlins in
individual shear panel; every trough, using LD6T self-drilling screws. The purlins were fixed
- Step 3: Calibrate a connecting rod element by choosing to the main beams by a U100x50x4 cleat, which was welded to the
the diameter in such a way, so the obtained flexibility of HEA180 beams and fastened to the purlins with 4xM12x40. The
the rod matches with the flexibility evaluated for one fas- steel grade of the hot-rolled profiles was S235. No seam fasteners
tener in step 2. In order to account for the vertical eccen- were used between the trapezoidal sheets.
tricity, the length of the rod will be equal to the distance
between the centerlines of the purlin and the trapezoidal
sheeting. The steel grade of the connecting element is ir-
relevant in the calibration phase, as well as in the 3D struc-
tural analysis phase;
- Step 4: In the 3D structural model, define an omega sec-
tion, which has the same geometry and thickness as one
trough of the trapezoidal sheeting. One trapezoidal sheet
will be built up of as many omega profiles as troughs, the
distance between two consecutive bar members should
be equal to the distance between troughs. Thus, for exam-
ple, an LTP45 trapezoidal sheet will be built up of 5 omega
profile connected by continuous links in the positions
Figure 10 Test set-up used in the experimental testing by Lendvai & Joó [10]
where purlins are placed, as presented in Figure 9;
- Step 5: Model the trapezoidal sheets and connect them to
Step 3 of the procedure yielded a connecting rod with a diameter of
the 3D structure, using the calibrated rod connecting ele-
51 mm, with the imposed length of 125 mm. S355 steel grade was
ments. The self-weight of the connecting elements should
used and the self-weight of the connecting elements was disre-
be disregarded in the model;
garded from the analysis.
- Step 6: If there are seam fasteners between the trapezoi-
dal sheets, these can be modelled by connecting the edge
Similarly, a connecting element was calibrated for the purlin-to-
omega profiles, at the position of the seam fasteners with
rafter connection as well. The flexibility of the connection, which
semi-rigid link elements. The link elements should be free
was used for the calibration, was obtained by a numerical Ansys
to rotate, while the stiffness in x and y direction should be
model. In the Ansys model, the unitary load of 1kN was applied on
set as the individual panel rigidity given by the seam fas-
the upper flange of the Z purlin. The displacement obtained from the
teners (1/c.22 – determined as in [2]) divided by the number
unitary load was measured at the load application point. When cali-
of seam fasteners on a shear panel.
brating the purlin-to-rafter connection element, the load must be
applied to the top middle of the purlin, as seen in Figure 11. In the
It should be noted, that the results of this procedure are acceptable
case of the Lendvai & Joó [10] experiment, the flexibility of this con-
only in the elastic domain, up to the point, when the trapezoidal
nection resulted in 1.655 mm/kN, which was calibrated as a 285 mm
sheeting diaphragm reaches the shear load-bearing capacity. The
long ⌀28.566 circular rod.
procedure to determine the load-bearing capacity of the panel is de-
tailed in the ECCS recommendations [2] and is defined by the mini-
mum of the following capacities: seam fastener capacity, shear con-
nector fastener, sheet-to-purlin fastener capacity. However,
according to [2] it should be checked that the capacity in other fail-
ure modes is greater than this value, such as end collapse of the
sheeting profile and edge beam failure.

Figure 11 Calibration of the purlin-to-rafter connection, in the case of the panel

configuration tested by Lendvai & Joó [10]

For the considered panel configuration, the minimum flexibility ob-

Figure 9 Example for defining a trapezoidal sheeting (Lindab LTP45) using the Con- tained was 3.26 mm/kN, the maximum 4.85 mm/kN, while the aver-
steel software age was determined as 3.85 mm/kN. The analytical evaluation of the
stressed skin effect, combined with capabilities of a structural anal-
ysis software (Consteel), yielded for the same panel configuration a
flexibility of 4.079 mm/kN, which is reasonably close to the average
value obtained through experimental testing. Figure 12 presents
the comparison between the experimental results and the results
obtained with the presented procedure.
The transverse frame lateral displacements were evaluated in the
case of four different structural models:
• Simple structure: Reference model without any
cladding or flexible roof bracings (Figure 15);
• Braced structure: Reference model without any
cladding and with Ø20 rods used as flexible roof
bracings (Figure 16);

• Structure with sandwich panel as roof cladding:

Reference model with sandwich panel
(TeraSteel ISOAC5MW – mineral wool core and
thickness of 60 mm) as roof cladding, placed on
top of Z150/2 purlins (Figure 17);

• Structure with trapezoidal sheeting as roof clad-

ding: Reference model with trapezoidal sheeting
Figure 12 Comparison between the results of the Consteel frame model and the (Lindab LTP45 – thickness of 0.6 mm), placed on
experimental results obtained by Lendvai & Joó [10] top of Z150/2 purlins (Figure 18);

3 Case Study: application of the developed models

3.1 Structural configuration

The reference model consists of an industrial hall type of building,

composed of thin-walled 2xC250/3 columns and beams, similar to
the case study structure considered in [7]. The structure has a span
of 6 m and three bays of 3 m each, adding up to a total length of 9 m.
The flexible longitudinal wind bracings placed in the end bays of the
structure are Ø20 rods, while the rigid wind bracings at the gable
frames and the ridge/eave rafters are of rectangular hollow steel
sections SHS80x4. The back-to-back C250/3 composed columns
are considered as pinned at the base. To have a more realistic ap-
proach, the eave and the ridge joint semi-rigidity was included in the
analysis, considering a stiffness of 2948 kN m/rad for the ridge joint
and 2062 kN m/rad for the eave joint [11]. The considered joint de-
tails can be seen in Figure 13. The Z150/2 purlins were fixed to the
rafters, using a UPN65 profiles, which were connected to the purlins
by 2xM12 8.8 grade bolts, as seen in Figure 14.
Figure 15 Simple structure: Reference model without any cladding and flexible
roof bracings

Figure 13 Ridge joint (left) and eave joint (right) details

Figure 16 Braced structure: Reference model without any cladding and with Ø20
rods used as flexible roof bracings
Figure 14 Purlin connection detail with a UPN65 profile, at eave (left) and the mid-
dle of the beams (right)

Figure 17 Structure with sandwich panel as roof cladding: Reference model with
sandwich panel (TeraSteel ISOAC5MW – mineral wool core and thickness of 60
mm) as roof cladding, placed on top of Z150/2 purlins
Figure 18 Structure with trapezoidal sheeting as roof cladding: Reference model
with trapezoidal sheeting (Lindab LTP45 – thickness of 0.6 mm) as roof cladding,
placed on top of Z150/2 purlins
The considered cladding types are common to be used for this type
of industrial buildings. The 60 mm thick TeraSteel ISOAC5MW
sandwich panels were assumed to be fastened to the Z150/2 purlins
by using EJOT JT3 D6H 5.5/6.3 type screws. The steel sheeting
thickness is 0.55 mm for the external face and 0.56 mm for the inter-
nal. The screw positions along the sandwich panel cross-section are
presented in Figure 19. The seam fasteners between the panels
were omitted in the current research since it is assumed that these
fasteners influence is insignificant.
Figure 19 Schematic configuration of TeraSteel IsoAc5MW sandwich panel and
screw positions
The Lindab LTP 45*0.6 mm trapezoidal sheeting was assumed to be
fastened to the purlins through every narrow trough, using LD6T
self-drilling screws (6.3 diameter) as presented in Figure 20. The
seam fasteners between the metal sheeting were considered to be
self-drilling screws, with a diameter of 4.1 mm, and were placed in
every 30 cm.
Figure 20 Schematic configuration of Lindab LTP45 trapezoidal sheeting and
screw positions
3.2 Connection calibrations
The calibration of the connecting elements was carried out follow-
ing the presented methodologies, using the analytically determined
flexibilities of diaphragm components, following the available for-
mulas in ECCS recommendations [2].
In the case of the purlin-to-rafter connection, a finite element model
was constructed, in order to determine the connection flexibility.
The unit load was applied to the middle of the top flange of the pur-
lin, as presented in Figure 21. The resulted displacement was meas-
ured at the load application point. The finite element model yielded
a connection flexibility of 2.027 mm/kN. Thereafter, an equivalent
circular connector was determined, which was able to reproduce the
same flexibility at a length of 200 mm, representing the distance be-
tween the centerlines of the rafter and the purlin. Figure 22, on the
left-hand side, shows the calibration in Consteel. It can be observed,
that the unit load was placed on the top flange of the purlin. The cal-
ibration resulted in a circular bar, having a diameter of 20.937 mm.
The translational stiffness of the fasteners connecting the sandwich
panels to the purlins (kv) was evaluated as 2.688 kN/mm, which re-
sults in a flexibility (1/kv) of 0.372 mm/kN. The Consteel calibration
is presented in Figure 22 (middle) and the obtained cross-section
was ⌀17.68 circular rod, with a length of 105 mm.
Figure 21 Numerical Ansys model of the purlin-to-rafter connection, for the deter-
mination of the connection flexibility
Figure 22 Calibration of the connecting elements: purlin-to-rafter (left), sandwich
panels to purlin (middle), trapezoidal sheeting to purlin (right)
The following components of shear flexibility of the trapezoidal
sheeting diaphragm were determined in accordance with the design
method of the ECCS recommendations [2]:
- Sheet deformation, profile distortion (c1.1): 0.25 mm/kN;
- Sheet deformation, shear strain (c1.2): 0.032 mm/kN;
- Fastener deformation, sheet to purlin (c2.1): 0.046 mm/kN;
- Fastener deformation, seam fastener (c2.2): 0.052 mm/kN;
The first three flexibility values (c1.1, c1.2, c2.1) were used in the cali-
bration procedure, these being summed and afterward divided by
the number of fasteners on one diaphragm panel (50 fasteners). The
resulting flexibility of one connecting element was 0.007 mm/kN.
This flexibility was reproduced by a 98 mm long circular rod, with a
diameter of 46 mm (Figure 22- right-hand side).
3.3 Structural modelling details
All four structural configurations were modelled using only bar ele-
ments, the only exception being the steel plates, representing the
sandwich panels. The bracings and the longitudinal rafters were all
pinned in yy and zz. The purlins were modelled as continuous. How-
ever, the connecting elements of the purlins were pinned (zz) at the
connection point with the purlins. The back-to-back C250/3 profiles
were modelled as two individual members, which were connected
by a dummy CHS profile (with 0 weight), at the positions where
these would be bolted together. The modelling detail for the purlin
and roof beam is presented in Figure 23. The connecting elements of
the claddings were pinned in yy and zz. The modelled roof cladding
systems included the vertical eccentricities in the model, this can be
observed in Figure 24.
In the case of the sandwich panel cladding, the individual steel
plates, representing the panels were not connected to one another,
since the presence of seam fasteners was disregarded. The width of
the steel plates was considered as the distance between the outer-
most screws.
Figure 23 Roof beam and purlin connection modelling detail
Figure 24 Roof cladding modelling detail, for sandwich panel cladding (upper) and
trapezoidal sheeting (lower)
The trapezoidal sheeting was modelled by equivalent omega pro-
files. The omega profiles composing one trapezoidal sheet were con-
nected via continuous links. Where two trapezoidal sheets meet, the
edge omega profiles were connected with semi-rigid links, as de-
scribed in step 6 of the procedure. The rigidity of the shear panel
given by seam fasteners (1/ c2.2) was determined as 19.246 kN/mm,
which was divided by 27 (the number of seam fasteners in one shear
panel). Thus, the link, representing the seam fasteners, had a stiff-
ness of 0.713 kN/mm in x and y direction and were free to rotate.
The self-weight of the elements representing the cladding and their
connections were regarded as 0 kg.
3.4 Frame loading
The same loading was applied on all four structures, consisting of
regular building loads (permanent loading of self-weight, snow load,
and wind load), which were multiplied by the typical safety factors,
recommended by the Eurocode 0. No wind loading was applied on
the roof. The load cases are as follows:
• (P) Self-weight of cladding: 0.25 kN/m2
• (S) Characteristic snow load: 1.5 kN/m2
• (W) Reference wind pressure: 0.4 kN/m2
For simplicity, only one critical load combination was generated and
used for comparison: 1.35P+1.05S+1.5W.
3.5 Calculation results
Table 1 present the results of the performed second order analysis
on the four structural models, in terms of maximum lateral displace-
ment, considering the load combination above. The deformed struc-
tures are presented in Figures 25-28.
It can be observed that the highest lateral stiffness is obtained by
the Braced structure, having flexible Ø20 roof bracings. However, a
similar tendency is provided by the two cladding types as well, which
reduce lateral displacement significantly compared to the Simple
structure, proving that the effect provided by the cladding systems
behave as the roof bracings.
In case of sandwich panel cladding, the load-bearing capacity of the
fastener between the purlins and the sandwich panels was deter-
mined by applying Equation (1), resulting in 1.18 kN. The maximum
admissible shear angle, depicted in Figure 2, was determined as
0.00117 rad, consequently the maximum admissible relative defor-
mation between the gable frame and the intermediate frame re-
sulted 3.5 mm. This deformation limit marks the point at which the
sandwich panel diaphragm stops behaving linearly. To make sure
that the provided initial stiffness of the cladding system is not re-
duced during use, this evaluated displacement limit should not be
exceeded. Comparing this value to the relative deformation be-
tween the gable and intermediate frames, obtained by elastic sec-
ond order analysis, it can be observed that under the considered de-
sign load combination this limit was exceeded (4.2 mm instead of 3.5
mm). Thus, it can be assumed that internal face failure of the sand-
wich panel will occur at the limit of 3.5 mm relative deformation and
the structural deformations should increase more rapidly due to
stiffness degradation of the sandwich panel diaphragm. To catch the
stiffness degradation of the sandwich panel diaphragm, elastic-per-
fect plastic model for the stiffness should be used for structural cal-
culations.
Figure 26 Magnified displacement results, under the applied load combination, for
Figure 29 presents a shear panel assembly for trapezoidal sheeting the Braced structure
and defines the relationship between the ultimate shear strength of
the panel (Vult) and the ultimate applied shear load on the interme-
diate frames (Pult). The shear strength of the diaphragm was deter-
mined as prescribed in the ECCS recommendations [2], resulting in
a shear strength of 7.171 kN. In our case, this value coincides with
the ultimate applied load on the intermediate frames (Pult). Figure 30
presents the shear force at the top of the column, considering the
defined load combination, and second order analysis. The maximum
shear force at intermediate frames is 4.95 kN, which is significantly
smaller than the determined Pult of 7.171 kN, meaning that the shear
transfer capabilities of the trapezoidal sheeting diaphragm, under
the considered loading, are still in the elastic domain.

Table 1 Maximum lateral deflection at the corner of internal frames

Structural model Maximum lateral

displacement [mm]

Only structure 10.2 mm

Braced structure 2.1 mm

Structure with sandwich panels 4.3 mm Figure 27 Magnified displacement results, under the applied load combination, for
the Structure with sandwich panel as roof cladding
Structure with trapezoidal sheets 4 mm

Figure 28 Magnified displacement results, under the applied load combination, for
the Structure with trapezoidal sheeting as roof cladding
Figure 25 Magnified displacement results, under the applied load combination, for
the Simple structure

Figure 29 Shear panel assembly: trapezoidal sheeting spanning perpendicular to
the length of the diaphragm, according to ECCS recommendations [2]
Figure 30 Shear force at the top of the column, considering the defined load com-
bination, and second order analysis, for the Structure with trapezoidal sheeting as
roof cladding
4 Discussion and conclusion
Two methodologies were presented for the inclusion of the dia-
phragm action of roof claddings into a 3D structural analysis of a
building, one for sandwich panels and one for trapezoidal sheeting.
Both procedures were validated by comparing the results obtained
through the proposed combined analytical and numerical proce-
dures, with the results of experimental testing, described in the rel-
evant literature. The comparisons showed that the obtained results
are reasonable and that the proposed methodologies are able to in-
tegrate the desired phenomenon in an easy and fast way.
The conducted case study focused on only one configuration of each
type of considered cladding, namely TeraSteel ISOAC5MW/60 mm
thick sandwich panel and Lindab LTP45/0.6 trapezoidal sheeting.
These cladding types being considered as commonly used. The 0.6
mm thickness was chosen for the trapezoidal sheeting to be similar
to the thickness of the internal sheeting of the sandwich panel
(0.56mm). The analysis showed that, between the two chosen dia-
phragm types and configurations, the diaphragm composed of trap-
ezoidal sheeting offers a higher stabilizing effect and a higher shear
capacity, than that of the sandwich panel diaphragm. It should be
noted, that under the considered loads, the sandwich panel dia-
phragm exceeded the evaluated shear capacity, meaning that the
sandwich panel stiffness may decrease under the effect of design
loads. Furthermore, the behavior of the sandwich panel after that
point should not be regarded as linear and internal face failure
around the fixing screws could occur. Under the effect of design
loads, the behavior of such a sandwich panel diaphragms will not be
linear. Assuming a linear elastic analysis, if the deformation limit is
exceeded, such a model can underestimate the real structural defor-
mation, using a constant diaphragm stiffness. For a correct calcula-
tion, bilinear behavior should be included in the model with sand-
wich panel roof claddings.
The results of the two structural models should not be generalized,
since these values may vary if the number of utilized fasteners are
increased or if the type of used fasteners is changed. For in-depth
understanding of the two shear diaphragms, research will continue
with laboratory testing and parametric study.
This work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of
Hungary.
References
[1] Davies, J. M.; Bryan, E. R. (1982) Manual of Stressed Skin Dia-
phragm Design. London: Granada.
[2] ECCS Technical Working Group 7.5. (1995) European Recom-
mendations for the Application of Metal Sheeting acting as a Dia-
phragm – Stressed Skin Design. European Convention for Con-
structional Steelwork.
[3] ECCS Technical Working Group TWG 7.9 & CIB Working Com-
mission W056 (2014) European Recommendations on the Stabili-
zation of Steel Structures by Sandwich Panels. International Coun-
cil for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction &
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork.
[4] Käpplein, S.; Misiek, T. (2011) EASIE project - Report no. D3.3 –
part 2: In-plane shear resistance of sandwich Panels. Karlsruhe:
Ensuring Advancement in Sandwich Construction Through In-
novation and Exploitation.
[5] Nagy, Zs.; Pop, A.; Moiș, I.; Ballok, R. (2016) Stressed Skin Effect
on the Elastic Buckling of Pitched Roof Portal Frames. Structures
8, S. 227-244.
[6] Nagy, Zs.; Mois, I.; Pop, A.; Dezo, A. (2018) The influence of pur-
lin-to-beam connection stiffness in stress skin action on portal
frames. ICTWS 2018; Lisbon, Portugal, 24 – 27 July 2018.
[7] Nagy, Zs.; Nedelcu, M.; Dezo, A. (2019) Stabilization effect on
portal frames given by stressed skin action of sandwich panels. Ad-
vances in Engineering Materials, Structures and Systems: Inno-
vations, Mechanics and Applications: Proceedings of the 7th In-
ternational Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics
and Computation (SEMC 2019), S. 854-859. London: Taylor &
Francis Group.
[8] Kunkel, C..; Lange, J. (2015) Experimental analysis on the bearing
capacity of sandwich panel joints. 20th International Conference
on Composite Materials; Copenhagen, Denmark, 19 – 24 July
2015.
[9] Baehre, R.; Ladwein, T. (1994) Diaphragm action of sandwich
panels. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 31 (1994), S.
305–316.
[10] Lendvai, A.; Joó, A. L. (2020) Improvement of stressed skin design
procedure based on experimental and numerical simulations. Jour-
nal of Constructional Steel Research 168 (2020), 105874.
[11] Nagy, Zs.; Muresan, A.; Fodor, R. (2019) Experimental investiga-
tions for joints made by cold-formed sigma profiles. 18th Interna-
tional Conference Modern Technologies for the Third Millen-
nium, ISBN 978-88-87729-61-0, S. 247–252.
[12] Info about used materials: www.lindab.ro / www.terrasteel.ro