International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology Volume 69 Issue 4, 87-93, April 2021

ISSN: 2231 – 5381 /doi:10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V69I4P213 © 2021 Seventh Sense Research Group®

Monotonic Simulation of Fastener-Based Cold-

Formed Steel Shear Walls
Simran Senapati1*, Keshav K. Sangle2
1
Research Scholar, Department of Structural Engineering, Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, Mumbai, 400019,
India
2
Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, Mumbai, 400019, India

1
sksenapati_p18@ci.vjti.ac.in, 2 kksangle@st.vjti.ac.in

Abstract — Cold-formed steel (CFS) Shear wall has consist of a CFS frame covered with sheathing boards
become popular in the construction industry because of for interior partitioning and exterior cladding. There are
some exceptional benefits like high strength to weight different kinds of sheathing boards like gypsum board,
ratio, low maintenance, and high durability. Still, there is oriental standard board (OSB), Fiber cement board used
a crucial problem, particularly for promoting CFS in the entire wall system with sheathing board to provide
structures in the seismic region, where many design lateral stability to the structure. CFS frame consists of
elements stay open. The aim of this research is to analyze studs made by two-lipped channel sections connected
the lateral load capacities of shear walls used in back-to-back and two tracks which is a single unlipped
residential buildings with CFS frames to overcome this channel. Various components of the CFS wall are shown
problem. Five high-fidelity finite elements (FE) models in Fig. 1. In CFS framework design, the seismic
for simulation of shear wall behavior with different types performance of the wall is affected due to the
of sheathing materials, i.e., Fiber cement board, gypsum relation between the steel elements, sheathing boards,
board as well as FE-CFS shear wall model without and their connections. A lot of research has been
sheathing board, are presented in this paper. Shear walls performed in the past to study the action of CFS
were subjected to monotonic lateral load, and a sheathed walls of steel sheets, OSB, and plywood [1–3].
comparative study of load-carrying capacities are A similar kind of board is also considered by the
presented. It was observed that the addition of sheathing “American Iron and Steel Institute” (AISI S213), where
to the CFS frame improves the shear resistance of the its shear strength is described tabularly and is limited to
wall structure. Further study was carried out by specific configurations [4]. Numerical, computational,
simulating the shear wall models with varying the and experimental investigations of Sheathed CFS shear
thickness of sheathing boards for observing its effect on walls revealed that both local fasteners, as well as global
the lateral load-carrying capacity. The main failure sheathing deformations, are equally critical for wall
modes observed were screw pull-out, which caused strengthening under compression loads [5–6]. A
sheathing material separation from the frame in some numerical study is carried out following FEMA P695 for
locations, and local buckling of studs. The results of this Euro codes, in which the result is idealized by nonlinear
study (like various shear wall failure modes observed models using static pushover as well as incremental
through Abaqus modeling) can be useful for practical dynamic analysis [7]. In order to determine the
considerations. efficiency, different aspects, and accuracy of the
numerical model of CFS shear walls, a comparative
study has been conducted on both macro and micro
Keywords — ABAQUS CAE, FCB board, Sheathing, CFS categories [8]. To understand the seismic behavior, three
Shear Wall, Monotonic Lateral Load distinct numerical models for CFS shear walls with
gypsum sheathing were built and tested monotonically
I. INTRODUCTION and cyclically as part of the ELISSA project [9]. The use
The application of Cold-formed steel (CFS) is of bamboo-based materials in CFS structures promoted
significantly increasing because it is delivering a suitable them as potential eco-friendly and cost-effective
solution to the need for low-cost, high-performance building materials [10]. Advanced numerical modeling
houses. There are numerous advantages of CFS, like the and non-linear analysis of steel frame members using
lightness of the arrangements, high quality of the end linear, shell, and hybrid shell components have been
products, and adaptability provided by the wide variety extensively researched previously [10–12]. Sheathing
of shapes and section dimensions. Furthermore, since modeling with shell elements [13] and membrane
CFS systems are used in dry constructions, they require elements [14] was also studied extensively previously. In
a short execution period. CFS wall is the principal lateral the past, various sheathing boards of CFS walls with
load resisting element used in the seismic area as it is a diverse combinations were tested [15]. It was observed
better option considering the economy in handling and that Plywood considerably improves the shear capacity
transportation, a high strength-to-weight ratio, and low of CFS shear walls compared to the use of gypsum
maintenance for a long period of time. Wall systems boards. The result of reducing the spacing among studs

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

 Simran Senapati & Keshav K. Sangle / IJETT, 69(4), 87-93, 2021

marginally improves the shear capacity of the CFS shear Cross-sectional details of stud and track are shown in Fig 2,
wall. The least safety factor of 2.0 is suggested for and the elements are assembled together as illustrated in
lightweight sheer panels in the design procedure. The Fig 3. (a)-(b).
impact of various thickness of boards, like gypsum
board, OSB (oriented strand board), steel sheets, and
plywood, was further compared to the effect of these
kinds of sheathing boards on the rigidity of the structure
[16–18]. Plywood sheathing was found to increase the
shear strength by 10% of CFS shear walls as compared
to OSB sheathing. The outcome of the screws which
were connected to the sheathed boards and the steel
frame components were closely monitored, and it was
observed that there was a reduction in stud buckling as
well as twisting deformation, which has improved the
stiffness of the wall [18–20]. It was also observed that
non-structural elements like plasterboard lining
contributed to the lateral strength of the CFS frames
[21].
This research will investigate the overall response of
lateral loads on Fiber Cement Board (FCB) sheathed-
CFS framed shear walls. The aim of the research is to
implement an efficient fastener-based simulation of
FCB-sheathed-CFS shear walls, using FE software of
ABAQUS [22], and also validate the proposed
computational model with previous experimental
analysis. The primary goal of this research is to propose
design guidelines for systems based on an overview of
finite element modeling. This work proposes an Fig. 1. Shear wall Detailing
improvement in CFS building capability as well as
[23]
delivering key performance requirements for the final
application of design codes.

II. MODELLING APPROACHES

Models implemented in this paper are various CFS
shear walls under lateral load capacities. Configuration
adopted herein is a work of Badr et al. [23], as illustrated
in Fig. 1. This research entails the development of an
experimental model using ABAQUS/Standard Version
6.14.1 [16] with the simulated shear wall of CFS studs
tracks, fiber cement board, and gypsum sheathing at the
exterior side of the wall. Table I displays the model
parameters used in this paper. Herein, for all six finite Fig. 2. Cross-section details of a) stud and b) track
element models, geometric limitations, residual stresses [23]
and strains are not involved. Important parameter of an
FCB sheathed CFS shear wall is the CFS-to-FCB TABLE I
connection and how they are modeled using Abaqus General Model Details
Software.

III. TEST SPECIMEN Element of Frame Dimension (mm)

Stud (exterior) Back-to-back Lipped Channel
A. Model Geometry section
Six shear wall models used in this research are made up 2400x100x50x10x1.2
of CFS having 1200 mm width and 2400 mm elevation. Stud (Interior) Single Unlipped Channel
The Wall structure of the model, as shown in Fig. 1, is section
composed of a steel frame sheathed in FCB. Track 2400x100x50x1.2
members in this CFS frame consist of un-lipped channel Track Single Unlipped Channel section
sections with dimensions 102.4 × 50 × 1.2 mm, end studs 1200x102.4x50x1.2
made of double lipped channel section with dimension 100 FCB sheathing Thickness: 8,12,16
× 50 × 10 × 1.2 mm attached back-to-back & mid-width Gypsum Sheathing Thickness: 12,16
intermediate stud made up of a single un-lipped channel.

88
 Simran Senapati & Keshav K. Sangle / IJETT, 69(4), 87-93, 2021

c) stud
Fig. 4 Mesh formation of
a) track, b) sheathing board, and c) stud

C. Material Specifications
In this computational modeling of CFS, Young's modulus
of E=2x105 N/mm2 & Poisson's ratio (υ) of 0.3 is used. As
per this ABAQUS user's manual, such material is suitable
since elastic strains are expected to be small (less than 5
Fig. 3(a)Without Sheathing Fig. 3(b) With percent). Sheathing materials are shown to be isotropic
Sheathing elastic with Young's modulus E= 3000 N/mm2 for FCB
Fig.3. Assembly of Shear Wall Sheathing and Poisson’s ratio (υ) as 0.3 and E as 2100
B. Element and Discretization of Meshes N/mm2 and 2272.1 N/mm2 for gypsum sheathing of
thickness 12mm and 16 mm respectively to minimize
Four noded shell finite elements (S4R) are used as mesh
diaphragm deformations. The detailed specification of the
elements for channels as well as sheathing. Mesh density
Model is as tabulated in Table II.
has an important impact on the performance of CFS
members in FEA, according to previous studies [24]. A
TABLE II
coarse mesh can capture distortional and global buckling
Material Properties for Modeling
modes but cannot replicate local buckling modes
accurately. A medium or fine mesh, on the other hand, will Young's Modulus E
accurately reflect all buckling modes, including local, Material
Unit (N/mm2)
distortional, and global modes. Furthermore, once a
reasonable mesh is used, the response difference between Cold-formed steel Elements 2x105
different types of the element becomes minimal for these
purposes; a relatively fine mesh is used in this modeling FCB Sheathing 3000
attempt, as shown in Fig. 4. For the model, steel members
Gypsum Sheathing 12 mm 2100
with a seed size of 5mm in real length and sheathing board
with a seed size of 20mm were used. Gypsum Sheathing 16 mm 2272.1

D. Fastener connection
An important part of this modeling approach is connection
behavior. There are two types of connection used (i) CFS-
to-CFS connection and (ii) CFS-to-Sheathing board
connection. The modeling of the CFS-to-CFS interaction is
shown in Fig.5(a). Mesh independent fasteners were used
to model the screw connections. The use of mesh-
a) track
independent fasteners is an easy way to establish a point-
to-point relationship between different surfaces. Rivets,
spot welds, screws, bolts, as well as other fastening
devices could be used to make these ties. The fastener’s
position may be independent of the nodes on the surfaces
to be connected. A connector function is used by each
layer to join two fastening points.

CFS-to-CFS connections are modeled by Multi-point

constraints (MPC) pinned from ABAQUS library. It is
b) sheathing board implemented to limit all translational degrees of freedom
between the two nodes, but rotations are unaffected. This
model includes three connector sections: screw for steel-

89
 Simran Senapati & Keshav K. Sangle / IJETT, 69(4), 87-93, 2021

to-steel interaction on the (i) open side (Hex washer) and IV. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND FINITE
on the (ii) cladded side (Pan Head), and (iii) a screw for ELEMENT MODEL
interaction for steel to FCB connector. Sheathing-to-frame A sequence of six shells finite element models with good
connections, i.e., the fasteners connecting the sheathing to accuracy are initiated in ABAQUS to reproduce ten full-
the CFS frame, are modeled as board connectors using scale shear wall tests conducted [23] using the modeling
CONN3D2 connector element from the ABAQUS library, protocol as presented here. The computational outcomes of
as shown in Fig. 5(b). the analyses of these developed models ate compared with
different Sheathing material and thickness. The force-
displacement response, peak load, and lateral deflection at
peak load for each model compared with the experimental
results, which gives an insight into the failure of frame-to-
sheathing connections.
A. Force-Displacement Response
The force-displacement curve is showed in Fig. 9. (a)-(d)
shows the response of the developed computational models.
A summary of computational results, including peak load
and the corresponding lateral displacement, is provided in
Table III.
TABLE III
Computational result

shear
wall Lateral
Thick Peak
2400 x Displacement
Model ness Load
1200 mm (mm) at peak
(mm) (kN)
Sheathing load
Fig.5 (a) Fig.5(b)
Material
Fig.5(a) CFS-to-CFS Connection Detailing Fiber
Fig.5(b) CFS-to-Sheathing Connection Detailing FCBM Cement
8 63 54.82
8 Board
E. Boundary Condition and Loading Fiber
FCBM
The top track's out-of-plane support was modeled as Cement 68.68 61.08
12 12
transverse roller constraints. Two lines of nodes on the top Board
track's web are fixed in the transverse direction at the Fiber
FCBM
precise position of the screws connecting the top of the Cement 16 70.64 52.91
16
shear wall specimen to that of the structural member. The Board
purpose of this constraint is to restrict the shear wall to in- GBM1 Gypsum
12 68.75 70.02
plane movement. 2 Board
GBM1 Gypsum
16 70.41 61.59
In this model, the top of the CFS shear wall is subjected to 6 Board
a lateral monotonic load. As shown in Fig. 6. Using the Without
CFSM - 23.65 58.11
RIGID BODY command in Abaqus, one end cross-section Board
of the top track is connected to a reference node at its
centroid.

Fig. 9.a) With and Without Sheathing Board

Fig.6. Loading Model

90
 Simran Senapati & Keshav K. Sangle / IJETT, 69(4), 87-93, 2021

C. Deformation of CFS Frame Members

One advantage of the developed high fidelity shell FE
models is the ability to capture all the buckling modes of
the CFS frame members and visually represent the
deformed shape and stress allocation in the shear wall. In
particular, Fig. 11 provides the von Mises stress contour
plotted on the distorted shape of the specimen for Model
FCBM16 at peak load. Contour values are represented by a
rainbow color spectrum ranging from red (highest value)
Fig. 9.b) FCB and Gypsum board having thickness to blue (lowest value). Von Mises stress is commonly used
12 mm and 12 mm in determining whether isotropic metal yields when
subjected to a complex loading condition. In this research,
although cold-formed steel members are modeled as elastic,
the plotted contours can suggest where to expect yielding
to happen in the shear wall by setting the maximum limit
for the contour as material's yield stress. The maximum
limit for the contours shown in Fig.11, in particular, was
set to 360 N/mm2, which is the real yield stress of the CFS
used for the test. The plots show a large stress
concentration on the flanges of tracks near the stud-to-
track connection and indicate that these areas should be
expected to yield according to von Mises Yield Criterion.
Fig. 9.c) FCB Sheathing having different
thicknesses

Fig. 9.d) Gypsum Sheathing having different

thicknesses

Fig.9. Load vs. Displacement curve

B. Sheathing to Frame Connection Failure

The developed FE models allow the assessment of the
manner in which shear force in the shear wall is distributed
to the fasteners. In particular, Fig. 10 shows the deformed
shape of Model FCBM16 at the end of the analysis with a
focus on the deformation of the sheathing-to-frame
fasteners. Response of fasteners on top track and chord
studs on the right side is not shown in the figures due to
the symmetry. Force in fasteners on chord studs and tracks
at the corner reaches its peak when the overall shear wall
specimen reaches its peak load at the lateral displacement
of approximately 61.68mm.

Fig.10 Sheathing to Frame Connection Failure

91
 Simran Senapati & Keshav K. Sangle / IJETT, 69(4), 87-93, 2021

Gypsum and FCB board, respectively. The lateral load-

carrying capacity of both the material is approximately
equal, but maximum deflection in the FCB board is 0.12%
less than the Gypsum board. So, the use of an FCB board
for sheathing with 12mm thickness is recommended.
Comparison between Shear wall sheathed with FCB
board having thicknesses as 8mm, 12mm and 16mm, it
was observed that the lateral load-carrying capacity of the
board with 16mm thickness is highest which is 70.64 kN
and for 12 mm thickness and 8 mm thickness it is 68.82
kN and 63 kN respectively. The capacity for a load of
16mm board is more than 2 % that of 12mm board and
11% that of 8mm FCB board. Maximum deflection is
shown by 12mm thick board as 61.68mm, and by 8mm
and 16mm, the board is 54.82mm and 52.91 mm,
respectively. The least deflection is shown by 16mm board
which is 14%less and 3.5% less than 12mm and 8mm thick
FCB board. So, it can be concluded that the more thickness,
the more the capacity.
Fig.11. Von Mises stress contour plotted on the Comparison between the shear wall sheathed with
deformed shape of FCBM16 Gypsum board having thicknesses 12 mm and 16mm; it is
seen that the load-carrying capacity by 12 mm board is
V. CONCLUSIONS 68.75 kN and by 16mm board is 70.64 kN which is 2.7%
There is a development of high-fidelity computational more than that of 12 mm board. Also, maximum deflection
modeling of FCB and gypsum sheathed CFS framed shear by 16mm board is 61.59 mm and by 12 mm board is
wall, which was initiated in Abaqus. The developed 70mm, which is more than 14% than 16mm board. So,
modeling protocol was demonstrated to be able to capture from this observation, it can be concluded that higher
lateral load-carrying capacity with reasonable accuracy. thickness has higher capacity and comparatively less
Load vs. deflection graphs are plotted for shear walls deflection.
without sheathing and with sheathing by different
The failure mechanism of sheathing-to-frame
materials and thickness. It was found that the ultimate
connections as well as deformation of CFS frame members
load-carrying capacity of shear wall with FCB having a
was presented. A large stress concentration was found at
thickness of 8mm was 63 kN which is more than 166.4 %
the flanges of tracks near the stud-to-track connection. So
as compared to the Shear wall without sheathing, i.e.,
Additional bracing members can be used for future work.
23.65 kN. Also, displacement due to frame with FCB is
54.82 mm that is 5.6% less than that of only frame ACKNOWLEDGMENT
displacement of 58.11 mm. From this, it can be concluded
This research work has not received any funding from
that sheathing improves the lateral load-carrying capacity.
any agencies/boards. The authors are grateful to the
The comparison of shear wall sheathed with Gypsum
Veermata Jijabai Technical Institute and the AICTE for
having 12 mm thickness and sheathed with FCB panel
having 12mm thickness, shows the load-carrying capacity their ongoing support and encouragement in order for the
of Gypsum board and FCB board with given thickness is research work to proceed smoothly.
68.75 kN and 68.82 kN respectively. Also, the maximum
deflection was found to be 70.02mm and 61.68mm for

REFERENCES
[6] P. S. Ajay, A. P. J. Samuel, P. S. Joanna, eta P. E. Sakaria,
[1] S. Esmaeili Niari, B. Rafezy, eta K. Abedi, Seismic behavior of
Flexural behavior of cold-formed steel beams with Diagonal
steel sheathed cold-formed steel shear wall: Experimental
stiffener, libk. 17, zenb. 8, or. 406–410.
investigation and numerical modeling, Thin-Walled Struct., libk.
[7] S. Shakeel, R. Landolfo, eta L. Fiorino, Behaviour factor
96, or. 337–347, (2015).
evaluation of CFS shear walls with gypsum board sheathing
[2] C. L. Pan eta M. Y. Shan, Monotonic shear tests of cold-formed
according to FEMA P695 for Eurocodes, Thin-Walled Struct., libk.
steel wall frames with sheathing, Thin-Walled Struct., libk. 49,
141, or. 194–207, abz. (2019).
zenb. 2, or. 363–370, (2011).
[8] N. Usefi, P. Sharafi, eta H. Ronagh, Numerical models for lateral
[3] P. Liu, K. D. Peterman, eta B. W. Schafer, Impact of construction
behavior analysis of cold-formed steel framed walls: State of the
details on OSB-sheathed cold-formed steel framed shear walls, J.
art, evaluation, and challenges, Thin-Walled Structures, libk. 138.
Constr. Steel Res., libk. 101, or. 114–123, (2014).
Elsevier Ltd, or. 252–285, mai. 01, (2019).
[4] AISI, ,S213-07/S1-09. North American Standard for Cold-Formed
[9] L. Fiorino, S. Shakeel, V. Macillo, eta R. Landolfo, Seismic
Steel Framing - Lateral Design, 2007 Edition with Supplement
response of CFS shear walls sheathed with nailed gypsum panels:
No.1, Am. Iron Steel Inst., libk. 09, zenb. 1, or. 72, (2012).
Numerical modeling, Thin-Walled Struct., libk. 122, or. 359–370,
[5] L. C. M. Vieira eta B. W. Schafer, Lateral stiffness and strength of
urt. (2018).
sheathing braced cold-formed steel stud walls, Eng. Struct., libk.
[10] W. C. Gao eta Y. Xiao, Seismic behavior of cold-formed steel
37, or. 205–213, (2012).
frame shear walls sheathed with ply-bamboo panels, J. Constr.

92
 Simran Senapati & Keshav K. Sangle / IJETT, 69(4), 87-93, 2021

Steel Res., libk. 132, or. 217–229, mai. (2017). Gauge Steel Framed Shear Walls, (1996).
[11] S. Sreenath, U. Saravanan, eta V. Kalyanaraman, Beam and shell [19] V. S. Singh eta K. K. Sangle, Repercussion on plastic zones
element model for advanced analysis of structural steel members, formed in the vertically oriented planar wall, SSRG Int. J. Eng.
JCSR, libk. 67, zenb. 12, or. 1789–1796, (2011). Trends Technol., libk. 69, zenb. 2, or. 19–24, (2021).
[12] P. Avery eta M. Mahendran, Distributed plasticity analysis of steel [20] R. Serrette eta K. Ogunfunmi, Shear Resistance of Gypsum-
frame structures comprising non-compact sections, Eng. Struct., Sheathed Light-Gauge Steel Stud Walls, J. Struct. Eng., libk. 122,
libk. 22, zenb. 8, or. 901–919, (2000). zenb. 4, or. 383–389, (1996).
[13] D. A. Padilla-llano, A Framework for Cyclic Simulation of Thin- [21] E. F. Gad, C. F. Duffield, G. L. Hutchinson, D. S. Mansell, eta G.
Walled Cold-Formed Steel Members in Structural Systems, (2015). Stark, Lateral performance of cold-formed steel-framed domestic
[14] J. P. Judd eta F. S. Fonseca, Analytical Model for Sheathing-to- structures, Eng. Struct., libk. 21, zenb. 1, or. 83–95, (1999).
Framing Connections in Wood Shear Walls and Diaphragms, J. [22] D. Systèmes, ,Volume IV: Elements, ABAQUS 6.14 Anal. User’s
Struct. Eng., libk. 131, zenb. 2, or. 345–352, (2005). Guid., libk. IV, (2014).
[15] T. S. Tarpy, Shear Resistance of Steel-Stud Wall Panels., Oil [23] A. R. Badr, H. H. Elanwar, eta S. A. Mourad, Numerical and
Shale Symp. Proc., or. 331–348, (1980). experimental investigation on cold-formed walls sheathed by fiber
[16] S. P. Hibbitt D, Karlsson B, ABAQUS / CAE User’s Manual, cement board, J. Constr. Steel Res., libk. 158, or. 366–380, uzt.
ABAQUS/CAE User’s Man., libk. 1 and 2, or. 1–847, (2001). (2019).
[17] H. G. and N. H. Serrette R., Shear wall values for lightweight steel [24] B. W. Schafer, Z. Li, eta C. D. Moen, Computational modeling of
framing, Final report, Am. Iron Steel Institute, Washington, libk. cold-formed steel, Thin-Walled Struct., libk. 48, zenb. 10–11, or.
1996, (1996). 752–762, (2010).
[18] R. Serrette, Scholars ’ Mine Dynamic Performance of Light

93