ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF LATERAL RESPONSE

OF CFS SHEAR WALLS

Nadia Baldassinoa, Matteo Accortia, Riccardo Zandoninia,

Federica Scavazzab and Colin A. Rogersc
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Italy
b
Cogi s.r.l., Calliano, Trento, Italy
c
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Abstract: This paper focuses on a study of the analytical evaluation of the shear performance
of CFS walls. At this aim, the available analytical methods developed for wooden shear walls
were considered. The first part of the paper is devoted to an overview of such methods, which
are revisited to account for the non-regular pattern of fasteners typical of CFS shear walls. In
the second part of the paper, the comparison between experimental and analytical results al-
lows an appraisal of the reliability of such hand methods as design tools for a preliminary
evaluation of the CFS shear walls performances.

1. Introduction
The use of cold-formed steel profiles and systems in residential buildings of small and medi-
um dimensions has recently become a viable alternative to traditional framing systems.
Lightweight, high structural efficiency, durability, easy transportation, rapidity and simplicity
of installation of the building equipment make it a competitive constructional system.
The University of Trento has recently been involved in a research project focusing on the
development of an innovative industrialised housing system composed of cold-formed steel
profiles. The system makes use of trussed beams and walls panels as principal structural
components. The innovative content of the project is associated with the use of a single sec-
tion for building up all the structural components. The study required hence a preliminary
phase devoted to the identification of the most suitable sectional geometry, which was select-
ed on the basis of both industrial and structural requirements. The response of 2D and 3D
subassemblies was then investigated. In this framework, particular attention was devoted to
the response of shear walls, which carry out the task of transferring to the foundations the ver-
The International Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Timisoara, Romania

tical loads of the flooring systems and the horizontal forces due to wind and earthquake ac-
tions. In the study developed in Trento [1], several walls configurations were tested. The pos-
sible influence of the sheathing to the walls response was also considered. Aiming to provide
a better understanding of the walls response, ancillary tests on the main wall components,
i.e., the sheathings, the sheathing connections and on hold-down devices, were also conduct-
ed. The response of steel walls under lateral loads was extensively investigated in many coun-
tries. Extensive experimental studies allow an in-depth understanding of the complex mecha-
nisms, which govern the walls response, and identification of the key parameters affecting
their behaviour. Various tests were first performed in the field of wooden shear walls allowing
researchers to establish simplified relationships between the sheathing connections and the
overall shear wall response to lateral loads. In the literature, various formulations are available
which mainly focus on the wall's response in the elastic range. The availability of such meth-
ods and their effectiveness in estimating the stiffness and strength of wooden shear walls,
suggested to verify their reliability also for the steel framed shear walls. An attempt to apply
these existing formulations to the cases investigated in Trento was performed.
This paper focuses on the available analytical methods (shortly named hand methods). The
first part of the paper is devoted to an overview of such methods, which are revisited by con-
sidering the non-regular pattern of fasteners, which typically characterise CFS shear walls. In
the second part of the paper, the comparison between experimental and hand method results
allows an appraisal of the reliability of such hand methods as design tools for a preliminary
evaluation of the CFS shear walls performances.

2. Analytical simple-formula methods

Extensive research activities in the field of the wooden shear walls and diaphragms subject to
lateral loads have been carried out since late 1920s. The experimental activities performed in
this field allowed the researchers to observe the deformation pattern and to identify the main
parameters affecting the walls response. Analytical models for hand calculations were also
developed providing simplified computational tools for evaluating stiffness and strength of
walls. In these formulations, parameters such as dimensions and properties of the sheathing,
number and position of the sheathing-wall frame connections, stiffness and resistance of the
bare connection are considered while the contribution of a framed support is disregarded. Ex-
perimental results of the walls tested in Trento [1] clearly showed the substantial influence of
the sheathing on the overall wall response. The contribution of the bare steel skeleton can be
neglected and the wall performance attributed to the sheathing and its connections.
Between the available formulations proposed in the literature, in this study the methods of
Tuomi & McCutcheon [2,3], Easley & al. [4], Kallsner & Girhammar [5] are considered.
They are based on the two following hypothesis:
1. sheathings assumed homogeneous and isotropic and with rigid behaviour;
2. sheathing to steel skeleton fasteners characterised by a linear load-displacement rela-
tionship.
The application of the methods of Tuomi & McCutcheon [2,3], Easley & al. [4], as pro-
posed by the authors, requires that fasteners are positioned with a regular and symmetric pat-
tern. A generalization of these methods to the case of irregular pattern of the fasteners, which
characterized the cases investigated on Trento, was hence performed. Moreover, additional
assumptions were made:
1. the overall resistance of the CFS wall is evaluated as sum of the resistance associated to
the single sheathing panel;
2. the contribution offered to the wall performance by continuous tracks is neglected;
 Nadia Baldassino, Matteo Accorti, Riccardo Zandonini, Federica Scavazza and Colin A. Rogers

3. the wall performance is not affected by the distance between the fasteners and the edge
of the sheathing (i.e., the bearing resistance is not critical).
In the following the methods are briefly recalled.

2.1 Tuomi & McCutcheon method

This method [2,3] assumes that:

1. the framing systems distorts as a parallelogram while the sheathing retains its rectangu-
lar shape (Fig. 1);
2. sheathing is applied vertically to the frame and is continuous between the upper and
lower chords;
3. loading is static;
4. distortions and deformations are small.

n spaces
H

m
y
spa
h
ces
x

d H

Fig. 1: Framing and sheathing deformation

Walls strength and stiffness are computed through a balance between the internal energy
associated with the fasteners deformation and the external energy associated with the lateral
force H. In case of non-regular pattern of fasteners, the lateral resistance H is evaluated as:
n 2 is
2
m 2 js
2

H = kd sin + 1 + 2 cos + cos + 1 + 2 sin 2
2
(1)
i =1 b j =1 b
where:
k fasteners stiffeness;
d corner distortion shown in Fig. 1;
s distance between the first and i-th fastener;
m,n number of spaces between fasteners in the vertical and horizontal direction, respective-
ly;
b, panel dimension and angle defined in Fig. 1.
In case of internal fasteners Eqn. (1) has to be implemented more than once: once for the
external framing, and the others for the internal framings.
The International Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Timisoara, Romania

The lateral displacement at the top of the wall is computed as sum of the displacement asso-
ciated to the fasteners deformation ( c ) and the shear deformation of the sheathing ( t ). By
assuming a linear force (f) - displacement (x) relationship for the fasteners
f = kx (2)
the lateral displacement is evaluated as:
4H Hh
= c + t = + (3)
k sin x
2 2
Gtb
where:
x fasteners elongation;
h,b,t height, width and thickness of the sheathing;
G sheathing shear modulus.

2.2 Easley & al. method

This method [4] assumes that:

1. the forces acting of the fasteners at the top and at the bottom of the panel are character-
ised by a component F ex in the x-direction and a component F ey in the y-direction. F ex is
assumed constant while F ey is proportional to the distance of the fastener from the cen-
tre of the connection (Fig. 2);
2. the force on the internal fasteners acts only in vertical direction and it is proportional to
the distance from the centre of the connection (Fig. 2);
3. the maximum force F s in vertical direction acts on the fasteners of the sides of the
sheathing (Fig. 2).
b
xmax
Fyk Feyj
Fex
Fex Feyi
Fs

Fyt

y
h Fyq
x

Fyk
Fs

Fig. 2: Sheathing fasteners forces

Under the above mentioned hypothesis, from the rotational equilibrium the maximum force
F s is evaluated as:
Nbh
Fs = (4)
xmax
where:
 Nadia Baldassino, Matteo Accorti, Riccardo Zandonini, Federica Scavazza and Colin A. Rogers

= ns + 2 xi2 n j + 2 xei2
1 m ne
(5)
x max i =1 i =1
ns number of fasteners at a distance x max from the centre of the fasteners;
xi x- coordinate of the i-th fastener;
x ei x-coordinate of the i-th fastener at the top and at the bottom of the panel;
x max maximum x-coordinate of the fastener;
m number of columns of fasteners with the exclusion of the one at the distance x max ;
nj number of fasteners on the single column;
ne number of fasteners at the top and at the bottom of the panel;
N walls lateral resistance for unit length;
b, h dimensions as in Fig. 2.
If the most stressed fasteners are considered, i.e., the ones at the corners, and their re-
sistance is obtained from tests, Eqn. (4) allows evaluating the wall resistance N per unit
length. Consequently, the wall lateral resistance H is evaluated as
H = Nb (6)
The shear deformation () is calculated by considering the shear deformation due to the
fasteners ( 1 ) and the sheathing shear deformation ( 2 ). By assuming a linear force-
displacement relationship for the fasteners, the lateral top displacement is computed as:
2h 1
= h = ( 1 + 2 )h = Nh + (7)

k xmax Gt
where k identifies the fasteners stiffness and G and t identify the sheathing shear modulus
and the panel thickness, respectively.

2.3 Kllsner & Girhammar method

The fundamental hypotheses of this method [5] are:

1. sheathing are free to rotate;
2. framing joints act as hinges;
3. small displacements if compared to the dimensions of the sheathings.
In the assessment of the wall resistance the framing is assumed to deform along the diago-
nals with an inclination with respect to the vertical direction, while the sheathing rigidly ro-
tates of an angle (Fig. 3). The angles and , determined by considering the minimum of
the potential energy, enable evaluation of the force acting on the i-th fastener (f i ) as a function
of its coordinates:
2 2

x y
f i = Fx2,i + Fy2,i = Hh n i
+ n i
(8)
xi2 yi2
i =1 i =1
where
H lateral force;
h panel height;
k stiffness of the sheathing to framing fastener;
x i ; y i coordinates of the i-th fastener with respect to the centroid of the connections.
The failure of the most stressed fasteners, the resistance of which obtained from tests is f y ,
leads to Eqn. (9) for the wall lateral capacity H:
The International Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Timisoara, Romania

fy
H=

2

2
x y (9)
h n i
+ n i

xi2 yi2
i =1 i =1
max

uframe = h ucorner
H corner

x h

Deformed sheathing
Undeformed sheathing

Rt Rc
b
Fig. 3: Walls deformation

The fasteners deformation ( c ) and the shear sheathing deformation ( s ) allow then to
evaluate the wall lateral displacement ():

Hh 2 1 1 Hh
= c + s = + +
k n x 2 n y 2 Gtb
(10)
1 1
i =1 i =1
where k and G identify the fasteners stiffness and the sheathing shear modulus, respectively
and t and b the thickness and the width of the panel.

3. Experimental vs. hand methods

The study of the response of CFS shear walls performed in Trento [1] comprises tests, under
vertical and lateral loads, of single storey shear walls with dimensions of 2400 mm 3018
mm. The steel framing elements (e.g. chords and studs) were built up using the same C-like
cold-formed section. The steel framing systems consisted of configurations characterized by
different bracing systems. The case of wall with vertical studs without bracing system was
also considered. For most of the walls two different configurations were tested: the first with
sheathing and the second without sheathing. Four different types of cement board and one
gypsum board were considered in the study. Tests were performed both in monotonic and cy-
clic regime.
 Nadia Baldassino, Matteo Accorti, Riccardo Zandonini, Federica Scavazza and Colin A. Rogers

Complementary tests aimed at characterizing the sheathing material and the connection be-
tween the sheathing and the steel skeleton in shear were also carried out.
In order to verify the reliability of the hand methods, the cases of sheathed walls tested in
monotonic regime (Fig. 4) were recalculated according to the methods presented in the previ-
ous sections. Table 1 summarises the results of the tests considered in terms of maximum lat-
eral load (H max ), force (H y,conv ) and displacement ( y,conv ) associated to the conventional yield-
ing point.

G5 100 400 BB-1 G8 100 400 BB-1 / G8 100 400 EF-1 G9 100 400 GH-1

TRUSSED BRACING NO BRACING DIAGONAL BRACING

double outer chords double outer chords double outer chords
hold-downs on outer chords hold-downs on outer chords hold-downs on outer chords
Fig. 4: Walls considered for the comparison

Table 1: Experimental results

Specimen Material Sheathings H max (kN) H y,conv (kN) y,conv (mm)
G5 100 400 BB-1 Fibreboard/ Fibreboard 64.20 54.57 10.44
G8 100 400 BB-1 Fibreboard/ Fibreboard 66.48 56.51 10.96
Cement board /
G8 100 400 EF-1 70.04 59.53 15.80
Wood-fibre cement sheet
Cement-bonded panels /
G9 100 400 GH-1 76.92 65.38 16.56
Gypsum fibreboard

Tables 2-5 compare the lateral resistance (H hand ) and the lateral displacement ( hand ) eval-
uated by the hand methods with the experimental results of Table 1. For the comparison, force
and displacement associated with the experimental conventional yielding point were consid-
ered.

Table 2: Experimental vs. hand methods results for wall G5 100 400 BB-1
Hand method H hand (kN) H hand /H y,conv hand (mm) hand / y,conv
Tuomi & McCutcheon 54.67 1.00 13.16 1.26
Easley & al. 33.22 0.61 7.97 0.76
Kallsner & Girhammar 44.37 0.81 11.14 1.07

Table 3: Experimental vs. hand methods results for wall G8 100 400 BB-1
Hand method H hand (kN) H hand /H y,conv hand (mm) hand / y,conv
Tuomi & McCutcheon 54.67 0.97 13.16 1.20
Easley & al. 33.22 0.59 7.97 0.73
Kallsner & Girhammar 44.37 0.79 11.14 1.02

The results of Tables 2-5 show that only the Tuomi & McCutcheon approach leads to a re-
liable estimation of the elastic lateral force for the cases G5 100 400 BB-1 and G8 100 400
The International Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Timisoara, Romania

BB-1. On the contrary, the associated lateral displacement is overestimated. In all the remain-
ing cases, hand methods generally underestimate both strength and lateral walls displace-
ment. The simplified assumptions at the base of the different methods appear not able to de-
scribe the complex mechanisms of force transmission between structural components. This is
particularly apparent for wall G9 100 400 GH-1, i.e. the wall with diagonal bracing system
where the contribution of the steel skeleton is significant.

Table 4: Experimental vs. hand methods results for wall G8 100 400 EF-1
Hand method H hand (kN) H hand /H y,conv hand (mm) hand / y,conv
Tuomi & McCutcheon 47.09 0.79 16.82 1.06
Easley & al. 28.61 0.48 10.19 0.64
Kallsner & Girhammar 38.22 0.64 14.27 0.90

Table 5: Experimental vs. hand methods results for wall G9 100 400 GH-1
Hand method H hand (kN) H hand /H y,conv hand (mm) hand / y,conv
Tuomi & McCutcheon 28.26 0.43 8.48 0.51
Easley & al. 17.17 0.26 5.13 0.31
Kallsner & Girhammar 22.93 0.35 7.17 0.43

4. Concluding remarks
This paper summarises the results of a study focusing on the response of CFS shear wall un-
der lateral loads. The reliability of existing hand methods developed for wooden shear wall
and diaphragms as design tools for a preliminary evaluation of CFS shear walls performances
is investigated. The methods are first presented and then used for evaluating the response of
four of the walls tested by the Authors. The comparison between experimental and hand
method results show that the simplified hypotheses at the base of these methods prevent a re-
liable evaluation of both strength and stiffness.

Acknowledgments
This project was funded by Autonomous Province of Trento and Cogi s.r.l.. The Authors
gratefully acknowledge the work by the laboratory technicians Stefano Girardi, Marco Grazi-
adei and Alessandro Banterla.

References
[1] SteelMax: Experimental and numerical analysis of the performance of CFS profiles
and subassemblies under elementary and complex states of stress, Research report,
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, 2014.
[2] Tuomi RL, McCutcheon WJ. Racking Strength of light-frame nailed Walls, Journal
of Structural Division, ASCE 104 (ST7), 1131-1140, 1978.
[3] McCutcheon WJ. Racking deformation in Wood Shear Walls, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 111, 257-269, 1985.
[4] Easley JT, Foomani M, Dodds RH. Formulas for wood shear walls, Journal of Struc-
tural Division, ASCE 108 (ST11), 2460-2478, 1982.
[5] Kallsner B, Girhammar UA. Analysis of fully anchored light-frame timber shear walls-
elastic model, Materials and Structures, 42, 301-320, 2009.