ANALYTICAL AND EXPETIMENTAL STUDY OF

COLD-FORMED STEEL SHEAR PANELS

BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

by ir. Burak Karabulut - Civil/Structural Engineer (M.Sc.)

International Days – 16/03/2017 1

 Alma Mater
Education:
B.Sc., Civil Engineering, Kocaeli University, 2008 – 2012
 Earthquake performance assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings
M.Sc., Civil / Structural Engineering, Bogazici University, 2013 – 2016
 Analytical and experimental studies of cold-formed steel shear panels
Ph.D., Construction Engineering, KU Leuven, 2016 (current)
 Fatigue behavior of large lean duplex welded details after post-weld treatments

Journal Papers (SCI):

B. Karabulut, S. Soyoz, Experimental and analytical studies on different configurations of cold-
formed steel structures. J. Constr. Steel Res. 133C (2017) 535–546 ,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.02.027.
Conference Proceedings (IC):
Karabulut B., Soyoz S., Altay G., and Caglayan B. O. (2016). Experimental Research on
Different Configurations of Cold-Formed Steel Shear Panels. 12th International Congress on
Advances in Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.

International Days – 16/03/2017 2

 Presentation Outline

• Introduction to Cold-Formed Steel (CFS) as a material

• Experimental study on various CFS shear panels
• Analytical study
 Bare frame
 Shear panel without axial loads
 Shear panel with axial loads
• Seismic performance assessment of a one-story building
• Conclusions

International Days – 16/03/2017 3

 1. INTRODUCTION

• Application of CFS structures throughout the world

increased considerably as a result of discovered
advantageous aspects as follows:
 Lightweight nature of the material
 Easy practical applications on the site
 Dimensional superiority
 Good structural performance (ductility)
 A good potential to be reused as well as being
recycled (environmental issues)

International Days – 16/03/2017 4

 Components of Cold-Formed Steel Shear Panels
• A typical cold-formed steel structure involves shear panels consisting of the
following components:
 Bare CFS frame system
 Sheathing panels composed of wood-based material or gypsum-based
material (OSB, Plywood, GWB and so forth)
 Certain number & spacing of sheathing-to-frame fasteners (screws)

International Days – 16/03/2017 5

 Load Carrying Methodology of CFS Shear Panel

• Overturning moment and shear forces:

 Overturning moment is compensated with a force couple in
the hold-down anchors
 In-plane shear forces are resisted by the sheathing panel and
sheathing to frame fasteners
International Days – 16/03/2017 6
Complete CFS Structure
(www.boardex.com.tr )

(www.madeinvlaamsbrabant.be)

International Days – 16/03/2017 7

 Scope and Objective of the Study

• Expectations from growing construction market  CFS

• However, some downsides of CFS such as:

 Large width-to-thickness ratio  instability problems

 Vulnerability to all buckling types (global, local,

distortional)

 Insulation and isolation problems

kept the researchers erring on the side of caution

conducting further studies

International Days – 16/03/2017 8

 Scope and Objective of the Study
• Various experimental studies  new TEC 2016  design rules of
CFS structures under E.Q. effect
• Developing analytical models by SAP 2000 for:
 2-D shear panel
 3-D one-story typical building

(a) (b) (c)

International Days – 16/03/2017 9
2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON VARIOUS CFS SHEAR PANELS
• Considerable sum of experiments was performed to obtain:
 Shear strength per unit length
 Strength reduction factors (R)

• Displacement – controlled cyclic tests have been accomplished three times

for each system and average of the results for these three experiments have
been used to represent the system (as long as the difference between two
successive experimental results does not exceed 10%)

International Days – 16/03/2017 10

 Dimensions of Sections

(a) (b) (c)

(a) exterior vertical

(b) interior vertical (c) lateral tracks
studs at the
studs in the middle
boundaries

Panel Height Panel Width Sheathing Thickness Screw Type

Common Properties (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
2400 1200 12.5 4.2*16 flat head screws

International Days – 16/03/2017 11

 Type of Sheathings
• There are two sheathing types used on the specimens for the tests:

 Board Type 1: White gypsum based sheathing  interior walls

(partition walls, drywall linings and suspended ceilings)
 Board Type 2: Gypsum based sheathing  exterior walls (reinforced
against humidity with special orange fiberglass mats)

o Felt type fibers  stiffening the sheathing

Type 1 Type 2

International Days – 16/03/2017 12

 Reaction Frame and Hydraulic Actuator

• Dartec brand hydraulic actuators which have 25 tons of capacity

have been used during the experiments

International Days – 16/03/2017 13

 Loading Protocol

• There are three loading protocols proposed by ASTM E2126-11

(Standard Test Methods for Cyclic Reversed Load Test for Shear
Resistance of Vertical Elements of the Lateral Force Resisting Systems
for Buildings), which are also used by AISI S213-07/S1-09(2012)
(North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing-Lateral
Design)
 Test Method A (Sequential-Phased Displacement Procedure)
 Test Method B (ISO 16670 Protocol)
 Test Method C (CUREE Basic Loading Protocol)

International Days – 16/03/2017 14

 Test Method C (CUREE Basic Loading Protocol)

100

80

60

40
Displacement (mm)

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
Cycle No.

International Days – 16/03/2017 15

 Damage Formation
• Damages include 3 different stages representing top displacement levels for which
 (a) the panel reaches ultimate load bearing capacity
 (b) the panel experiences failure
 (c) ultimate lateral displacement capacity of the hydraulic actuator is exceeded
Specimens Damage level a Damage level b Damage level c

Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

International Days – 16/03/2017 16

 Experimental Results
Results of Type 1 Shear Panels

• Raw results of Type 1 shear panels:

International Days – 16/03/2017 17

 Experimental Results
Results of Type 1 Shear Panels
• Bilinear relationship of Type 1 shear panels: ASTM E2126 – 11

2𝐴
• 𝑃𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = (Du - Du2 − )Ke
𝐾𝑒 • 𝑅𝜇 = 2𝜇 − 1
R =𝑅𝜇 ∗ 𝑅𝛺
D •
𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘
• μ = Du 𝑅𝛺 =
𝑃𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
y

International Days – 16/03/2017 18

Experimental Results
Results of Type 1 Experiments

International Days – 16/03/2017 19

 Observations on the Experiments
Average Results of the Experiments

• Good level of ductility  Energy absorption

• Screws opening a path alongside the board  Ductile behavior
• Board type 2  Stiffer behavior  Larger shear strength
• Increase in steel thickness  Positive impact upon structural
performance

International Days – 16/03/2017 20

Strain Measurements

Three strain gauges are located at the middle

height region (one in each surface)
Three strain gauges are located at the bottom
region (one in each surface)

International Days – 16/03/2017 21

 A Conclusion Relevant to the Strain Measurement

𝜎
• Hooke’s Law: ε =
𝐸

• St 37 (S220): ε𝑦 = 1100 microstrain

• eu < ey 
International Days – 16/03/2017 22
 3. ANALYTICAL STUDY
BARE FRAME SHEAR PANEL
Assigning frame releases to frame sections Adding up Board Type 1 to the bare
preventing contribution to lateral stiffness frame via sheathing to frame fasteners
(pin connections) modeled by nonlinear links
(Richard & Abbott model as a reference)

Nonlinear links representing the

nonlinearity arising from screws

Trial and error till matching

between analysis and experiments
Trial and error till matching between analysis (lack of experimental data for
and experiments (lack of experimental data screw connections)
for screw connections)

ONE-STORY BUILDING
Model of a one-story building built by the analytical model of the shear panel

International Days – 16/03/2017 23

Experimental Study of the Bare Frame
Damage Photos

Top Displacement: 100mm

International Days – 16/03/2017 24

Experimental Study of the Bare Frame
Damage Photos

Top Displacement: 200mm

International Days – 16/03/2017 25

Experimental Study of the Bare Frame
Result

International Days – 16/03/2017 26

Analytical Study of the Bare Frame
Moment Releases + Nonlinear Links

International Days – 16/03/2017 27

 Analytical Study of the Bare Frame
Comparison Between Analytical and Experimental Bare Frame Results

International Days – 16/03/2017 28

Analytical Study of the CFS Shear Panel (Without Axial Loads)
Modulus of Elasticity, E Weight per unit Volume
Properties Poisson’s Ratio
(MPa) (kg/m3)
3053 in short direction
Board Type 1 640 0.167
2404 in long direction
CFS 203395 7849 0.3

International Days – 16/03/2017 29

Analytical Study of the CFS Shear Panel (Without Axial Loads)
Richard and Abbott (RA) Model

(Fiorino et al. 2007)

International Days – 16/03/2017 30

Analytical Study of the CFS Shear Panel (Without Axial Loads)
RA Model vs. Analytical

Test Specimens Test Specimens

Comparison
(Richard & Abbott) (Analytical)
Steel S350 (St 52) S220 (St 37)
Yield Strength (MPa) 350 227.5
Tensile Strength (MPa) 420 310
OSB (9 mm)
Sheathing GWB (12.5 mm)
GWB (12.5 mm)
Screws (self – drilling 4.2 ∗ 25 mm for OSB
4.2 ∗ 16 mm for GWB
flat head) 3.5 ∗ 25 mm for GWB

International Days – 16/03/2017 31

Analytical Study of the CFS Shear Panel (Without Axial Loads)

International Days – 16/03/2017 32

Effect of Axial Load on Panel Behavior

Application of axial point load distributed

along the top track of the shear panel can be
seen in this figure

International Days – 16/03/2017 33

Analytical Study of the CFS Shear Panel (Without Axial Loads)

International Days – 16/03/2017 34

4.SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF A ONE-STORY BUILDING
Properties of the One-Story Building

Dead Load (1.4G+1.6Q)

International Days – 16/03/2017 35

Model of the Building

International Days – 16/03/2017 36

Pushover Analysis of the One-Story CFS Building
Pushover curve of the structure has been obtained
here.

International Days – 16/03/2017 37

 Period Calculation with Modal Analysis
TABLE: Base Reactions
OutputCase CaseType GlobalFX GlobalFY GlobalFZ GlobalMX GlobalMY GlobalMZ 𝑚
T = 2π
Text Text KN KN KN KN-mm KN-mm KN-mm 𝑘
DEAD LinStatic 2.33E-13 -1.72E-13 331.154 1385860.55 -1506037.18 -32.15

Initial Stiffness 0.6

𝑘= = 0.4 𝑘N/mm
1.5
of Nonlinear Links

F-d
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
1.5; 0.6
F (kN)

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

-0.2

-0.4
Screw Model for Lateral
and Vertical Loading
-0.6

-0.8
d (mm)

International Days – 16/03/2017 38

 Period Calculation with Modal Analysis
TABLE: Modal Participating Mass Ratios
OutputCase StepType StepNum Period UX UY UZ
Text Text Unitless Sec Unitless Unitless Unitless
MODAL Mode 1 0.226743 0.85 0.47 8.607E-09
MODAL Mode 2 0.16958 0.07942 4.802E-06 3.574E-10
MODAL Mode 3 0.142078 0.01723 0.14 3.179E-08
MODAL Mode 4 0.140102 0.005519 0.04121 1.209E-07
MODAL Mode 5 0.129808 1.255E-09 0.1 0.000006719
MODAL Mode 6 0.114655 2.444E-08 0.00205 3.752E-07
MODAL Mode 7 0.095008 0.0003556 0.02506 2.656E-08
MODAL Mode 8 0.090808 0.02356 0.06083 9.414E-09
MODAL Mode 9 0.078107 2.175E-08 0.002191 0.0001517
MODAL Mode 10 0.077319 0.0000451 0.02456 0.000001027
MODAL Mode 11 0.071879 0.000001334 2.001E-07 0.000001394
MODAL Mode 12 0.07183 4.868E-07 4.332E-08 0.0001921

International Days – 16/03/2017 39

Force Based Performance Assessment of the CFS Structure

International Days – 16/03/2017 40

 Force Based Performance Assessment of the CFS Structure
• First seismic zone Ao = 0.4

• Z3 soil class TA = 0.15, TB = 0.6

• Building importance factor, I0=1

• Ra(T1) = 1, since performance assessment is of concern

• A T = A0 I S T

WA(T1 ) 331.154∗0.4∗1∗2.5
Vt = = = 331.154 kN
Ra (T1 ) 1

331 kN < 550 kN

Newton’s 2nd law of Demand < Capacity
motion

International Days – 16/03/2017 41

Displacement Based Performance Assessment of the CFS Structure

Amplitude of the First Mode Shape in x-direction

International Days – 16/03/2017 42

Displacement Based Performance Assessment of the CFS Structure

𝑆𝑑𝑖1 = 𝐶𝑅1 ∗ 𝑆𝑑𝑒1

1+ 𝑅𝑦1 −1 ∗𝑇𝐵 /𝑇1

𝐶𝑅1 for 𝑇1 < 𝑇𝐵
= 𝑅𝑦1

Top Displacement: 15 mm

International Days – 16/03/2017 43

 CONCLUSIONS
Lists of Conclusions

• Experiments  No Brittle Failure  Good structural performance

particularly in terms of ductility (Effective tool for rapidly growing
construction demand)
• Positive impact of stiffer sheathing board material and steel
thickness on performance parameters
• No critical levels of strain on bare frame
• Analytical model representing a good convergence between
analyses results and test results
• Performance assessment of building  Reliability in earthquake
prone regions
International Days – 16/03/2017 44
 APPRECIATION

•Thank you very much for your

attendance and attention!
•Any questions?

International Days – 16/03/2017 45