Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–15
Experimental study on screw Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
connections in cold-formed steel walls sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433219829808

with cement sheathing journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Metwally Abu-Hamd

Abstract
This article presents an experimental study on the screw connections between cold-formed steel walls and cement-based boards such
as fibercement boards and ferrocement boards. The effect of loading direction, type of sheathing, board thickness, and screw number
and spacing were investigated. Tests were performed under shear which is perpendicular to the free edge and also under shear which
is parallel to the free edge of the board to simulate the actual behavior of sheathed shear walls. In each case, the peak load and displa-
cement, elastic load and displacement, elastic stiffness and ductility were found and compared to other cases. The results of the 20
test reported in the paper showed that connection strength obtained under parallel loading was much higher than those obtained
under perpendicular loading while as the displacements obtained under parallel loading were much larger than those obtained under
perpendicular loading. Consequently, the elastic stiffness values were found to be smaller under parallel loading than under perpendi-
cular loading. The results also showed that fibercement boards had much higher strength than ferrocement board, and that the screw
strength increased nearly linearly with the board thickness.

Keywords
cold-formed steel, ferrocement boards, fibercement boards, screw connections

Introduction Sheathing boards are usually connected to the CFS

Cold-formed steel (CFS) wall systems present an effi-
cient alternative to other conventional construction
systems commonly used as load bearing elements in
low and mid-rise residential and office buildings. Their
advantages include high strength-to-weight ratio, ease
and speed of construction, and ductility. Walls are usu-
ally made of CFS vertical studs sheathed with different
materials to provide architectural finish. Commonly
used sheathing material includes steel sheets, gypsum
boards (GB), and oriented stranded boards (OSB).
Cement-based boards (CB) are composed of cement
and sand with some reinforcing element such as cellu-
lose fibers in the case of fibercement boards (FBB) or
one layer of expanded metal or light wire mesh in the
case of ferrocement boards (FCB). Cement-based
boards presents a strong alternative to other
sheathing material such as GB and OSB in addition
to improved fire resistance. In addition, cement-
based boards are water-resistant and thus can be
used as external cladding without additional water
proofing as opposed to GB and OSB. Also GB and
OSB are susceptible to mold while cement-based
boards are not.
sections using self-drilling screw connections. If the
boards have adequate structural strength and stiffness,
they may be considered to act compositely with the
CFS wall studs. This composite effect is beneficial in
walls under vertical loads and also for the compression
chord of shear walls under lateral loads. In this case,
the boards provide effective bracing to the compres-
sion studs against local, distortional, and global buck-
ling. Furthermore, the current AISI lateral design
standard AISI S213-07/S1-09 (2012) allows the boards
used in shear walls to act as vertical diaphragms in
transmitting the applied lateral loads to the wall sup-
ports replacing the conventional X-bracing members.
The standard contains tables of nominal shear strength
of shear walls for some special cases of commonly used
sheathing material such as steel, GB, OSB, and fiber-
board. Many experimental studies cover the structural
Structural Engineering Department, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Corresponding author:
Metwally Abu-Hamd, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, 12613, Egypt.
Email: abuhamd@eng.cu.edu.eg
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 1. Literature review of screw strength test results.

Reference Thickness Screw Edge Loading Peak load Peak Stiffness

(mm) diameter distance direction (kN) displacement (kN/mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)

GB
Fiorino et al. (2007) 12.5 3.5 20 PR 0.570 3.230 1.875
Fiorino et al. (2017a) 12.5 3.5 15 PR 0.270 1.370 1.460
Vieira and Schafer (2012) 12.5 3.35 152 PR 0.382 8.700 0.426
Chen et al. (2016) 12.5 4.2 15 PR 0.565 0.958 0.857
Chen et al. (2016) 12.5 4.2 20 PR 0.711 1.243 1.004
Ye et al. (2016) 12 4.8 20 PL 0.620 3.440 0.430
Peterman et al. (2014) 12.5 4.2 40 PR 0.590 7.620 0.520
OSB
Fiorino et al. (2007) 9 4.2 20 PR 1.845 5.205 1.089
Vieira and Schafer (2012) 11.1 3.35 152 PR 2.572 15.700 1.241
Ye et al. (2016) 18 4.8 20 PR 1.250 2.800 0.540
Ye et al. (2016) 18 4.8 20 PL 1.660 4.500 0.470
Peterman et al (2014) 11.1 4.8 40 PR 2.160 6.730 1.557
CB
Fiorino et al. (2017a) 12.5 3.5 15 PR 0.460 1.640 1.570
Fiorino et al. (2008) 12.5 4.2 20 PR 1.523 5.468 1.204
CSB
Nithyadharan (2011) 8 3.9 17.5 PR 1.114 4.702 2.251
Nithyadharan and 10 3.9 17.5 PR 1.427 4.656 2.635
Kalyanaraman (2011)
Nithyadharan and 12 3.9 17.5 PR 1.877 5.851 1.682
Kalyanaraman (2011)
Ye et al. (2016) 12 4.8 20 PL 1.680 6.520 0.374
FBB
Shahi et al. (2013) 5 5 20 PR 1.020 1.150 1.210
Shahi et al. (2013) 5 5 50 PL 1.210 2.050 1.440
MGB
Ye et al. (2016) 12 4.8 20 PL 0.660 2.760 0.464

GB: gypsum boards; PR: perpendicular; PL: parallel; OSB: oriented stranded boards; CSB: calcium silicate boards; FBB: fibercement boards MGB:
Bolivian magnesium board; CB: cement boards.

behavior of sheathed CFS walls. Most of these studies
are mainly focused on commonly used sheathing mate-
rial such as GB (Lange and Naujoks, 2006; Pan and
Shan, 2011; Vieira and Schafer, 2012; Ye et al., 2015),
OSB (Baran and Alica, 2012; Buonopane et al., 2015;
Fülöp and Dubina, 2004; Liu et al., 2014), and steel
(DaBreo et al., 2014; Yu and Chen 2011). Fewer stud-
ies cover other not-commonly used sheathing material
such as calcium silicate boards (Lin et al., 2014;
Nithyadharan and Kalyanaraman, 2012) and cement-
based boards (Baldassino et al., 2014; Khaliq and
Moghis, 2017).
These studies have shown that the strength of
sheathed CFS walls is greatly affected by the structural
behavior of screw connections. This behavior is more
complicated than the behavior of bolted connections
in conventional hot rolled steel framing because of the
flexibility of thin plate components of the CFS sections
and of the associated sheathing. Tilting of the screw,
pull-over of the screw, bearing of the steel plates, and/
or the sheathing board material contribute to this
complexity. It is therefore common for CFS design
codes to rely on test results for the governing design
rules. Most of the available experimental studies of
screw connections are mainly focused on commonly
used sheathing material such as GB, OSB, and steel.
Chen et al. (2016), Fiorino et al. (2007, 2008),
Peterman et al. (2014), Vieira and Schafer (2012), Ye
et al. (2016), and Henriques et al. (2017) performed
experimental studies on GB and OSB under different
loading and geometric conditions. Fewer studies cover
other not-commonly used sheathing material.
Nithyadharan and Kalyanaraman (2011) and Ye et al.
(2016) presented experimental studies on screw connec-
tions between CFS and calcium silicate boards (CSB).
Fiorino et al. (2008, 2017a, 2017b), Swensen et al.
(2015), and Shahi et al. (2013) presented experimental
studies on cement-based boards (CB). Ye et al. (2016)
performed an experimental study on screw connections
of Bolivian magnesium board (MGB). Table 1 and
Figures 1 and 2 compare the results extracted from the
cited papers of all these tests. In order to minimize the
Abu-Hamd 3

3.50 with one layer of expanded metal. The main objectives

3.00 are as follows:
2.50
Peak Load (KN)

2.00 1. To evaluate the effect of the applied shear direc-

1.50 tion (shear applied perpendicular to the free edge
1.00 versus shear applied parallel to the free edge).
0.50
2. To evaluate the effect of sheathing type and
0.00
thickness of FBB and FCB.
3. To evaluate the effect of screw spacing and
OSB-Ye 2016
OSB-Ye 2016

CSB-Ye 2016
GB-Ye 2016

MGB-Ye 2016
OSB-Vieira 2012

FBB-Shahi 2013
FBB-Shahi 2013
GB-Vieira 2012
GB-Chen 2016
GB-Chen 2016

CSB-Nithyad. 2011
CSB-Nithyad. 2011
CSB-Nithyad. 2011
CB-Fiorino 2008
OSB-Fiorino 2007
GB-Fiorino 2017a

CB-Fiorino 2017a
GB-Peterman 2014

OSB-Peterman 2014
GB-Fiorino 2007

screw number, for example, single-screw con-

nections versus multiple-screw connections.

To achieve these objectives, an experimental pro-

Sheathing Type
gram composed of 20 tests was conducted at the
Figure 1. Comparison of peak load test results for different Concrete Research Laboratory of the Faculty of
sheathing materials. Engineering at Cairo University. The 20 tests were
grouped as follows:

effect of the differences in geometric and loading con- 1. Group 1: Eight tests conducted on FBB under
ditions, the plotted values have been normalized with shear which is applied parallel to the free edge.
respect to a screw diameter of 4.2 mm and a board The parameters changed in this group were the
thickness of 10 mm. Nevertheless, the results show the board thickness (9 and 12 mm) and the number
great scatter of results even for the same sheathing and spacing of screws (one and three screws
material. More research is therefore needed to fully spaced at 80 mm).
understand the effect of sheathing material on the 2. Group 2: Four tests conducted on 10 mm FCB
structural behavior of screw connection. under shear which is applied parallel to the free
Furthermore, the shear load in most of these tests is edge. The parameter changed in this group was
applied perpendicular to the free edge of the board. In the number of screws (one and three screws
reality, the shear loads in screw connections of spaced at 80 mm).
sheathed CFS shear walls are essentially parallel to the 3. Group 3: Eight tests conducted on FBB under
free edge. The structural behavior of these two types shear which is applied perpendicular to the free
of connections is different and using the results edge. The parameters changed in this group were
obtained under perpendicular loading is very conserva- the board thickness (9 and 12 mm) and the spac-
tive when compared with the results obtained under ing of screws (80 and 130 mm). No tests were
parallel loading. conducted with only one screw under shear which
This article presents an experimental study of the is perpendicular to the free edge due to the very
structural behavior of screw connections used to con- small strength associated with this connection.
nect CFS walls to CB. The experimental study involved
full-scale testing of 20 CFS screw connections under It should be noted that AISI S905-08/S1-11 (2011)
different geometric and loading conditions to investi- standard for connection testing requires a minimum of
gate the effect of different parameters on the structural three specimens to be tested for each variable.
behavior. The studied parameters included the loading Accordingly, the data obtained under this experimen-
direction, type and thickness of sheathing, and screw tal program are not repeatable since only two speci-
spacing. In each case, the peak load and displacement, mens were tested for each variable.
elastic load and displacement, elastic stiffness and duc- The test matrix is shown in Table 2. The specimens
tility were found and compared to other cases. were named according to the following convention:
board type (FBB for Fibercement boards and FCB for
ferrocement boards), test number in group (1 for first
Experimental program test and 2 for second test), board thickness in millimeter,
shear direction (PL for parallel and PR for perpendicu-
Study objectives lar), number of tested screws (1 for single-screw tests and
The objectives of this research are to study the beha- 3 for three-screw tests), and screw spacing (0 for single-
vior of screw connections in CFS walls with cement screw tests). For example, FBB-1-12-PL-1-0 corresponds
board sheathing. Two types of cement boards are cov- to first test of 12 mm fibercement board tested with sin-
ered: FBB using cellulose fibers and FCB reinforced gle screw under parallel shear.
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

3.50
Elastic Stiffness (KN/mm)

3.00 Table 2. Test matrix for screw connections.

2.50
2.00 Wall symbol Sheathing Board Screw
1.50 type thickness spacing
1.00 (mm) (mm)
0.50
0.00
FBB-1-9-PL-1-0 FBB 9 –
FBB-2-9-PL-1-0 FBB 9 –

CSB-Ye 2016
GB-Ye 2016

OSB-Ye 2016
OSB-Ye 2016

MGB-Ye 2016
GB-Vieira 2012
GB-Chen 2016
GB-Chen 2016

OSB-Vieira 2012

FBB-Shahi 2013
FBB-Shahi 2013
OSB-Fiorino 2007

CB-Fiorino 2008

CSB-Nithyad. 2011
CSB-Nithyad. 2011
CSB-Nithyad. 2011
CB-Fiorino 2017a
GB-Fiorino 2017a

GB-Peterman 2014

OSB-Peterman 2014
GB-Fiorino 2007

FBB-1-9-PL-3-80 FBB 9 80
FBB-2-9-PL-3-80 FBB 9 80
FBB-1-12-PL-1-0 FBB 12 –
FBB-2-12-PL-1-0 FBB 12 –
Sheathing Type FBB-1-12-PL-3-80 FBB 12 80
FBB-2-12-PL-3-80 FBB 12 80
Figure 2. Comparison of elastic stiffness test results for FCB-1-10-PL-1-0 FCB 10 –
different sheathing materials. FCB-1-10-PL-1-0 FCB 10 –
FCB-1-10-PL-3-80 FCB 10 80
Tests of connections with shear applied FCB-1-10-PL-3-80 FCB 10 80
FBB-1-9-PR-3-80 FBB 9 80
perpendicular to the free edge FBB-2-9-PR-3-80 FBB 9 80
FBB-1-9-PR-3-130 FBB 9 130
Test setup. The setup for testing screw connections
FBB-2-9-PR-3-130 FBB 9 130
under shear which is applied perpendicular to the FBB-1-12-PR-3-80 FBB 12 80
board’s free edge is shown in Figure 3. It consisted of FBB-2-12-PR-3-80 FBB 12 80
a pair of sheathing board segments connected to FBB-1-12-PR-3-130 FBB 12 130
each side of the flanges of an upper and a lower stud FBB-2-12-PR-3-130 FBB 12 130
assembly each having two CFS lipped channels of FBB: fibercement boards; PL: parallel; PR: perpendicular; FCB:
size 120 3 60 3 15 3 1.2 mm interconnected at ferrocement boards.
their inner flanges using six hexagon head screws size
f6.25 3 25 mm. The lower assembly was clamped to a 200 3 200 3 20 mm loading plate and on the
the lower beam of the test frame to prevent any lateral lower assembly using a load cell of diameter of
movement. The upper assembly was strengthened by 200 mm. The relative displacement between the top
three CFS channels connected transversally to mini- assembly and the sheathing board segments was mea-
mize the effect of bending on the upper assembly. The sured using two linear variable displacement transdu-
sheathing board segments were connected to the upper cers (LVDT) fixed to the sheathing board segments
assembly using three screws on each side (flat counter- and touching the lower surface of the transversal chan-
sunk size f4.2 3 25 mm). The edge distance perpen- nels of the top assembly. The total applied vertical
dicular to the free edge was set at 20 mm for all test load was thus transmitted to the screw connection on
specimens. The screw spacing parallel to the free edge both sides as shear force in the direction perpendicular
was either 80 or 130 mm. In order to force the failure to the free edge of the board. Due to symmetry, the
to occur in the upper part, the sheathing board seg- strength of a single screw is equal to one-sixth of the
ments were connected to the lower stud assembly using applied load. The corresponding relative displacement
six screws on each side. Based on this arrangement, the was obtained as the average of the two LVDT readings
measured relative displacements at the tested screws on both sides of the specimen. The loading was applied
were considered to represent the connection displace- monotonically at 2 kN increments and the load value
ments and used to calculate the elastic stiffness while was kept until no variation of displacement was
the displacements at the oversized end were neglected. recorded and then continued until connection failure
This assumption is used in all tests of similar connec- at peak load. The post-peak branch of the load–
tion (e.g. Fiorino et al., 2007). displacement curve was continued using the recorded
load and displacement values. It should be noted that
Loading and instrumentation. The shear load was applied in this force control loading scheme, the post-peak
to the screw connection using a 90 kN loading jack branch of the load–displacement curve is not as reli-
positioned between the lower surface of the upper able as the pre-peak curve. This however affects only
assembly and the top surface of the lower assembly. the calculations of the ductility ratio which is of minor
The load was distributed on the upper assembly using importance in monotonic tests.
Abu-Hamd
Figure 3. Test setup for screw connection under applied perpendicular load.
Tests of connections with shear applied parallel to
the free edge
Test setup. The setup for testing screw connections
under shear which is applied parallel to the board’s free
edge is shown in Figure 4. It consisted of four sheath-
ing board segments connected to both sides of the
flanges of a vertical assembly which consisted of a pair
of back-to-back CFS lipped channels of size 120 3 60
3 15 3 1.2 interconnected at their inner webs using
six hexagon head screws size f6.25 3 25 mm. The
vertical assembly was connected at top and bottom by
two track sections of size 120 3 60 3 1.2 mm. Each
sheathing board segment was connected to the vertical
assembly using either one screw or three screws at the
lower end and using six screws at the upper end in
order to force the failure to occur in the lower part.
It should be noted that the connection displacement
in the case of connections having three screws at the
tested end is equal to the sum of the displacements of
individual screws. The screws used were self-drilling
5
flat countersunk size f4.2 3 25 mm. The edge dis-
tance perpendicular to the free edge was set at 20 mm
for all test specimens. The screw spacing parallel to the
free edge was set at 80 mm. The end distance of the
tested screws parallel to the applied force was kept suf-
ficiently large (60 mm) to prevent failure due to shear
perpendicular to the board edge. This arrangement
insures that the applied shear is parallel to the free edge
as in sheathed shear walls under in-plane shear.
Loading and instrumentation. The shear load was applied
to the screw connection using a 90 kN loading jack
positioned under the bottom surface of the assembly.
The load was distributed using a 200 3 200 3 20
mm loading plate. A load cell was positioned under
the loading jack for load measurement. The relative
displacement between the assembly and the sheathing
board segments were measured using four LVDT fixed
to the sheathing board segments and touching the top
surface of the loading plate. The total applied vertical
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 4. Test setup for screw connection under applied parallel load.

load was thus transmitted to the screw connection on the number of tested screws which is 4 for single-screw
both sides as shear force in the direction parallel to the arrangement and 12 for three-screw arrangement. The
free edge of the board. Due to symmetry, the strength corresponding relative displacement was obtained as
of a single screw is equal to the applied load divided by the average of the four LVDT readings on both sides
Abu-Hamd
of the specimens. The loading was applied monotoni-
cally at 2 kN increments and the load value was kept
until no variation of displacement was recorded and
then continued until connection failure at peak load.
The post-peak branch of the load–displacement curve
was continued using the recorded load and displace-
ment values. It should be noted that in this force con-
trol loading scheme, the post-peak branch of the load–
displacement curve is not as reliable as the pre-peak
curve. This however affects only the calculations of the
ductility ratio.
Material properties
Material properties of CFS sections. Two coupon test
samples were cut from the webs of stud sections
and machined to ASTM 370 for tension testing.
Tests were performed by at The Strength of Material
Laboratory at the Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University. Summary of the test results is as
follows: average yield strength = 313.5 MPa, aver-
age tensile strength = 264.5 MPa, and average
elongation = 0.365.
Fibercement Boards. The FBB used were of the type C-
board supplied by the company ASK (www.gulfgyp-
sums.com). Supplier’s data provided for the used
boards are as follows: density is 1650 kg/m3, flexural
strength is 7 MPa, compressive strength is 30 MPa,
and elastic modulus is 7500 MPa.
Figure 5. Screw tilting before failure: (a) under parallel loading and (b) FFB under perpendicular loading.
7
Ferrocement Boards. The FCB used were produced
locally by the company ESDCO (www.esdcoegypt.-
com). The material properties were obtained from
laboratory tests as follows: density is 2400 kg/m3, flex-
ural strength is 5.46 MPa, compressive strength is
26 MPa, and elastic modulus is 225 MPa.
Screws. The self-drilling screws used were supplied by
the company PATTA (www.patta.com). Material
AISI C1022 Case Hardened Steel with the following
properties: yield strength is 350 MPa, tensile strength
is 550 MPa, and elongation is 27%.
Test results and discussions
Observed failure modes
The following failure modes were visually observed
during the experimental program.
Screw tilting. In all tests, the failure was initiated by tilt-
ing of the screws resulting from the relative movement
between the steel section and the sheathing board.
This failure mode was always present for all sheathing
boards and for both parallel shear and perpendicular
shear, as shown in Figure 5.
Bearing failure of the sheathing around the screw
location. For tests performed under parallel shear, the
screw tilting was followed by screw pull through and
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 6. Bearing failure of fibercement sheathing around screw location.

bearing failure of the sheathing material around the

screw location. This is shown in Figure 6 for the FBB
and in Figure 7 for the FCB.
The sheathing material bearing failure was more
pronounced in FCB than in FBB as shown in Figure
7(c) and (d). This can be attributed to the presence of
fibers in the fiberboards which contains the failure.

Tearing of sheathing around the screw location. For tests

performed under perpendicular shear, the screw tilting
was followed by tearing of the sheathing board in the
applied shear direction. In some tests, the tearing fail-
ure was localized around the screw location as shown
in Figure 8(a) while in some other tests the tearing fail-
ure occurred with complete separation of the free edge
as shown in Figure 8(b).

Load–displacement curves
A typical load versus displacement curve for screw con-
nections under shear is shown in Figure 9. The beha-
vior can generally be divided into the following three
regions:
1. Elastic region, where the load–displacement
relation is nearly linear up to the elastic load
value Fe value which is usually taken equal to
40% of the peak load (Fiorino et al., 2007).
The corresponding elastic displacement equals
De and the elastic stiffness is defined as
Ke = Fe/De.
Figure 7. Bearing failure of ferrocement sheathing around
screw location: (a) single screw, (b) three screws, (c) screw
tilting and concrete failure, and (d) screw pull-through and
concrete failure.
2. Nonlinear region up to the peak load Fp with
the corresponding displacement Dp.
3. Post-peak region up to a load value which is
usually taken equals 80% of the peak load
(Fiorino et al., 2007) with the corresponding
Abu-Hamd 9

Figure 8. (a) Tearing of sheathing at screw location and (b) complete tearing of sheathing.

displacement equals Du. The ratio Du/De is a

measure of the connection ductility.

The load–displacement curves of the test results are

shown in Figure 10 for FBB under parallel loading,
Figure 11 for FCB under parallel loading, and Figure
12 for FBB under perpendicular loading. The single-
screw load was obtained by dividing the load cell load
by the number of tested screws while the correspond-
ing relative displacement was calculated as the average
value of the LVDT readings. Table 3 shows the para-
meters corresponding to the behavior regions for all
tests. Based on these results, the following observations
can be made.

Figure 9. Typical load–displacement curve for screw

connections under shear. Effect of applied load direction. Figure 13 shows a com-
parison between the screw strength results obtained

3 3
FCB-10-PL-1-0
FCB-10-PL-3-80
2.5 2.5

2 2
Screw Load (KN)
Screw Load ( KN )

1.5 1.5

1 FBB-9-PL-1-0 1
FBB-9-PL-3-80
0.5 FBB-12-PL-1-0 0.5
FBB-12-PL-3-80
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Relative Displacement (mm) Relative displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Load–displacement curves for screw connections of fibercement sheathing under loading parallel to free edge: (a)
fibercement sheathing and (b) ferrocement sheathing.
10
3 3
FBB-9-PR-3-80
2.5 FBB-9-PR-3-130
FBB-12-PR-3-80
2 FBB-12-PR-3-130
Screw Load (KN)
1.5
1 1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Relative Displacement (mm)
Figure 11. Load–displacement curves for screw connection of
ferrocement sheathing under loading parallel to free edge.
under loading applied parallel to the free edge versus
the screw strength results obtained under loading
applied perpendicular to the free edge for FBB with
three screws spaced at 80 mm. The following observa-
tions can be made:
Peak load. The ratio of the peak load under parallel
loading to that under perpendicular load is equal to
2.01/1.362 = 1.475 for the 9 mm boards and 2.475/
1.709 = 1.448 for the 12 mm boards. These results
show that screw strength obtained under parallel
loading is higher than those obtained under perpen-
dicular loading. Accordingly, using the screw
strength results obtained under perpendicular load-
ing to represent the diaphragm action in sheathed
shear walls is conservative.
Peak displacements. The ratio of the peak displace-
ment under parallel loading to that under perpendi-
cular load is equal to 4.356/0.921 = 4.73 for the
9 mm boards and 2.54/1.523 = 1.668 for the
12 mm boards. These results show that the peak
displacement under parallel loading is larger than
under perpendicular loading. This increase is attrib-
uted to the fact that the total displacement in paral-
lel loading is equal to the sum of the three-screw
displacements acting in series.
Elastic stiffness. The ratio of the elastic stiffness
under parallel loading to that under perpendicular
load is equal to 0.946/2.012 = 0.470 for the 9 mm
boards and 0.705/2.271 = 0.311 for the 12 mm
boards. These results show that the peak displace-
ment under parallel loading is larger than under
perpendicular loading. This decrease is a direct
result of the larger relative displacements associated
with parallel loading.
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
FBB-9-PL-3-80
FBB-12-PL-3-80
2.5
FBB-9-PR-3-80
FBB-12-PR-3-80
Load ( KN )
2
1.5
Screw
0.5
0
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Relative Displacement (mm)
Figure 12. Load–displacement curves for screw connection of
fibercement sheathing under loading perpendicular to free edge.
Effect of board material. Figure 14 shows a comparison
between the screw strength results of FBB versus the
screw strength results of FCB under parallel loading.
The following observations can be made:
Peak load. For connections with a single screw
(Figure 14(a)), the ratio of the peak displacement
of the 9 mm fibercement board to that of the
10 mm ferrocement board is 2.024/1.236 = 1.638.
Similarly, the ratio of the peak load of the 12 mm
fibercement board to that of the 10 mm ferroce-
ment board is 2.34/1.236 = 1.893. For connec-
tions with three screws spaced at 80 mm (Figure
14(b)), the ratio of the peak load of the 9 mm
fibercement board to that of the 10 mm ferroce-
ment board is 2.01/1.248 = 1.611. Similarly, the
ratio of the peak load of the 12 mm fibercement
board to that of the 10 mm ferrocement board is
2.475/1.248 = 1.983.
Peak displacement. For connections with a single
screw (Figure 14(a)), the ratio of the peak displace-
ment of the 9 mm fibercement board to that of the
10 mm ferrocement board is 5.296/8.559 = 0.619.
Similarly, the ratio of the peak displacement of the
12 mm fibercement board to that of the 10 mm fer-
rocement board is 3.444/8.559 = 0.402. For con-
nections with three screws spaced at 80 mm (Figure
14(b)), the ratio of the peak displacement of the
9 mm fibercement board to that of the 10 mm fer-
rocement board is 4.356/4.3538 = 1.001. Similarly,
the ratio of the peak displacement of the 12 mm
fibercement board to that of the 10 mm ferroce-
ment board is 2.54/4.358 = 0.583.
Abu-Hamd 11

Table 3. Test results.

Wall symbol Fp (kN) Ave Fp (kN) Dp (mm) Du (mm) Fe (kN) De (mm) Ke (kN/mm) Ductility, Du/De

FBB-1-9-PL-1-0 2.204 2.024 5.296 8.160 0.810 1.29 0.628 6.326

FBB-2-9-PL-1-0 1.844
FBB-1-9-PL-3-80 1.909 2.01 4.356 6.893 0.804 1.14 0.705 6.046
FBB-2-9-PL-3-80 2.110
FBB-1-12-PL-1-0 2.464 2.340 6.444 7.996 0.936 0.941 1.113 4.574
FBB-2-12-PL-1-0 2.576
FBB-1-12-PL-3-80 2.372 2.475 5.540 7.413 0.990 1.046 0.946 4.02
FBB-2-12-PL-3-80 2.683
FCB-1-10-PL-1-0 1.293 1.236 8.599 9.663 0.494 1.563 0.316 6.18
FCB-2-10-PL-1-0 1.179
FCB-1-10-PL-3-80 1.161 1.248 4.538 7.855 0.499 0.905 0.551 8.680
FCB-2-10-PL-3-80 1.329
FBB-1-9-PR-3-80 1.440 1.362 0.921 1.200 0.545 0.240 2.271 5.000
FBB-2-9-PR-3-80 1.298
FBB-1-9-PR-3-130 1.248 1.311 0.791 1.200 0.524 0.250 2.096 4.800
FBB-2-9-PR-3-130 1.374
FBB-1-12-PR-3-80 1.664 1.709 1.523 1.800 0.684 0.340 2.012 5.294
FBB-2-12-PR-3-80 1.764
FBB-1-12-PR-3-130 1.907 1.714 1.441 1.800 0.686 0.315 2.177 5.714
FBB-2-12-PR-3-130 1.521

FBB: fibercement boards; PL: parallel; PR: perpendicular; FCB: ferrocement boards.

3 3
FBB-9-PL-1-0
2.5 FBB-12-PL-1-0 2.5
FCB-10-PL-1-0
2 2
Screw Load ( KN )
Screw Load ( KN )

1.5 1.5

1 1
FBB-9-PL-3-80
0.5 0.5 FBB-12-PL-3-80
FCB-10-PL-3-80
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Relative Displacement (mm) Relative Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Comparison of load–displacement curves for fibercement sheathing under loading parallel to free edge versus loading
perpendicular to free edge: (a) single screw connection and (b) three-screw connection.

Elastic stiffness. For connections with a single screw
(Figure 14(a)), the ratio of the elastic stiffness of the
9 mm fibercement board to that of the 10 mm fer-
rocement board is 0.628/0.36 = 1.744. Similarly,
the ratio of the elastic stiffness of the 12 mm fiber-
cement board to that of the 10 mm ferrocement
board is 1.113/0.316 = 3.522. For connections with
three screws spaced at 80 mm (Figure 14(b)), the
ratio of the elastic stiffness of the 9 mm fibercement
board to that of the 10 mm ferrocement board is
0.705/0.551 = 1.279. Similarly, the ratio of the
elastic stiffness of the 12 mm fibercement board to
that of the 10 mm ferrocement board is 0.946/
0.551 = 1.717.
Although the comparison is made among boards of
different thicknesses, it still shows qualitatively that
FBB have higher peak load and elastic stiffness and
smaller peak displacement than FCB. This increase
may be attributed to the fact that connection behavior
12
3 3
2.5
Screw Load (KN)
2 2
1.5
1 1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6
Relative Displacement (mm)
(a)
Figure 14. Comparison of load–displacement curves for fibercement sheathing versus ferrocement sheathing under loading parallel
to free edge.
is highly dependent on the local bearing properties
around the screw locations which is enhanced by the
presence of fibers in FBB.
Effect of board thickness. Figure 10 to 12 show the screw
strength results for the FBB under parallel and perpen-
dicular loading, respectively. The following observa-
tion can be made:
Peak load. Under parallel loading (Figure 10), the
ratio of the peak load of the 12 mm boards to that
of the 9 mm boards is 2.34/2.024 = 1.156 for con-
nections with a single screw and 2.475/
2.01 = 1.231 for connections with three screws.
Similarly, under perpendicular loading (Figure 12),
the ratio of the peak load of the 12 mm boards to
that of the 9 mm boards is 1.709/1.362 = 1.255 for
connections with three screws spaced at 80 mm and
1.714/1.311 = 1.307 for connections with three
screws spaced at 130 mm. Noting that the ratio of
board thickness is 12/9 = 1.333, these results show
that the screw strength—being dependent on the
bearing strength around the screws—increased
nearly in linear proportion with the increase in
board thickness. Similar results are reported by
Nithyadharan and Kalyanaraman (2011) and Tao
and Moen (2017). Based on the results of 222 tests
on steel-to-steel and sheathing-to-steel screw con-
nections, Tao and Moen (2017) concluded that the
bearing strength is a key contributor to the strength
and stiffness of the connection. The bearing
strength Fb is given by Fb = t d Fu, where t is the
sheet thickness, d is the screw diameter, and Fu is
the ultimate tensile strength of sheet material. For
the same screw diameter and board material, the
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
FBB-9-PL-1-0 FBB-9-PL-3-80
FBB-12-PL-1-0
2.5 FBB-12-PL-3-80
FCB-10-PL-1-0
Screw Load (KN)
FCB-10-PL-3-80
1.5
0.5
0
8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Relative Displacement (mm)
(b)
bearing strength is directly proportional to the
board thickness.
Peak displacement. Under parallel loading (Figure
10), the ratio of the peak displacement of the
12 mm boards to that of the 9 mm boards is 6.444/
5.296 = 1.217 for connections with a single screw
and 5.54/4.356 = 1.381 for connections with three
screws. Similarly, under perpendicular loading
(Figure 12), the ratio of the peak displacement of
the 12 mm boards to that of the 9 mm boards is
1.523/0.921 = 1.654 for connections with three
screws spaced at 80 mm and 1.441/0.791 = 1.822 for
connections with three screws spaced at 130 mm.
Elastic stiffness. Under parallel loading (Figure 10),
the ratio of the elastic stiffness of the 12 mm boards
to that of the 9 mm boards is 1.113/0.628 = 1.772
for connections with a single screw and 0.946/
0.705 = 1.342 for connections with three screws.
Similarly, under perpendicular loading (Figure 12),
the ratio of the elastic stiffness of the 12 mm boards
to that of the 9 mm boards is 2.012/2.271 = 0.886
for connections with three screws spaced at 80 mm
and 2.177/2.096 = 1.039 for connections with three
screws spaced at 130 mm.
Effect of number of screws. Figures 10 and 11 show the
screw strength results under parallel loading. The fol-
lowing observations can be made:
Peak load. For FBB (Figure 10), the ratio of screw
strength in three-screw tests spaced at 80 mm to
that obtained from single-screw tests is 2.01/
2.024 = 0.994 for the 9 mm boards and 2.475/
2.34 = 1.058 for the 12 mm boards. For FCB
under parallel loading (Figure 11), the ratio of
screw strength in three-screw tests spaced at 80 mm
Abu-Hamd
to that obtained from single-screw tests is 1.248/
1.236 = 1.01. These results show that the difference
between screw strength obtained from one-screw
tests and that obtained from three-screw tests is
minor. Sokol et al. (1998) found that the strength
of multiple-screw connections is less than the sum
of single-screw strengths in the connection. The
decrease in strength was defined as the ‘‘group
effect.’’ This conclusion was derived from test data
on steel-to-steel connections which had 3d (d being
the nominal screw diameter) screw spacing. This
result indicates using the screw strength obtained
from single-screw tests to represent the screw
strength in multiple-screw connections is not con-
servative. On the other hand, Fairuz and Ho (2013)
and Lau and Tang (2012) found that the ‘‘Group
Effect’’ is negligible for steel-to-steel connections
with high-strength CFS when the screw spacing
exceeds 3d. There are no similar studies on screw
connections with non-steel sheathing to determine
the group effect in such cases.
Peak displacement. For FBB (Figure 10), the ratio
of peak displacement in three-screw tests spaced at
80 mm to that obtained from single-screw tests is
6.893/8.16 = 0.845 for the 9 mm boards and 7.413/
7.996 = 0.927 for the 12 mm boards. For FCB
under parallel loading (Figure 11), the ratio of peak
displacement in three-screw tests spaced at 80 mm
to that obtained from single-screw tests is 4.538/
8.559 = 0.531. These results show that the peak
displacements in three-screw tests are smaller than
in single-screw tests for both FBB and FCB,
although the difference is more pronounced for
FCB.
Elastic stiffness. For FBB (Figure 10), the ratio of
the elastic stiffness in three-screw tests spaced at
80 mm to that obtained from single-screw tests is
0.705/0.628 = 0.834 for the 9 mm boards and
0.946/1.113 = 0.849 for the 12 mm boards. For
FCB under parallel loading (Figure 11), the ratio of
the elastic stiffness in three-screw tests spaced at
80 mm to that obtained from single-screw tests is
0.551/0.316 = 1.744. These results show that the
elastic stiffness in three-screw tests is smaller than
in single-screw tests for fibercement. On the other
hand, the elastic stiffness in three-screw tests is
larger than in single-screw tests for FCB.
Effect of screw spacing. Figure 12 shows load–
displacement curves for FBB under perpendicular
loading using three screws spaced at 80 and 130 mm.
The following observations can be made:
13
Peak load. The ratio of screw strength obtained
from three-screw tests spaced at 130 mm to that
obtained from three-screw tests spaced at 80 mm is
1.311/1.362 = 0.962 for the 9 mm boards and
1.714/1.709 = 1.003 for the 12 mm boards.
Peak displacement. The ratio of peak displacement
obtained from three-screw tests spaced at 130 mm
to that obtained from three-screw tests spaced at
80 mm is 0.791/0.921 = 0.859 for the 9 mm boards
and 1.441/1.523 = 0.946 for the 12 mm boards.
Elastic stiffness. The ratio of elastic stiffness
obtained from three-screw tests spaced at 130 mm
to that obtained from three-screw tests spaced at
80 mm is 2.096/2.271 = 0.923 for the 9 mm boards
and 2.177/2.012 = 1.082 for the 12 mm boards.
These results show that increasing the screw spacing
slightly decreased the peak load, peak displacement,
and elastic stiffness for the 9 mm boards while the
effect was negligible for the 12 mm boards.
Comparison with available test results. Comparing the
results reported in this article as listed in Table 3 with
those listed in Table 1, it can be concluded that the val-
ues of screw strength in FBB and FCB are comparable
to the values corresponding to OSB boards and CSB.
Summary and conclusion
This article presented an experimental study on the
screw connections between CFS walls and cement-
based sheathing such as FBB and FCB. The effect of
loading direction, type of sheathing, board thickness,
and screw number and spacing were investigated. The
main conclusions related to screw strength obtained
from the 20 tests reported in the paper are as follows:
1. Screw strength obtained under parallel loading
is about 45% higher than those obtained under
perpendicular loading. The corresponding dis-
placements in multi-screw connections are
higher under parallel loading than under per-
pendicular loading due to the series action of
the longitudinal screw arrangement.
2. FBB have 60%–100% higher peak loads than
FCB.
3. Screw strength increased nearly in linear pro-
portion with the increase in board thickness.
4. The difference between screw strength obtained
from one-screw tests and that obtained from
three-screw tests is minor.
14
5. Increasing the screw spacing slightly
decreased the peak load for the 9 mm boards
while the effect was negligible for the 12 mm
boards.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The research presented in this article was funded by
the Egyptian Science and Technology Development Fund
(STDF) (Grant No. IG 15040).
ORCID iD
Metwally Abu-Hamd https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9176-
5540
References
AISI S213-07/S1-09 (2012) North American standard for
cold-formed steel framing—lateral design. American Iron
and Steel Institute.
AISI S905-08/S1-11 (2011) AISI S905: test methods for
mechanically fastened cold-formed steel connections.
American Iron and Steel Institute.
Baldassino N, Accorti M, Zandonini R, et al. (2014) Lateral
loading response of CFS framed shear wall with cement
board panels. In: 22nd international specialty conference
on cold-formed steel structures, St. Louis, MO, 5–6
November, pp. 793–807. Rolla, MO: Missouri University
of Science and Technology.
Baran E and Alica C (2012) Behavior of cold-formed steel
wall panels under monotonic horizontal loading. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 79: 1–8.
Buonopane SG, Bian G, Tun TH, et al. (2015) Computation-
ally efficient fastener-based models of cold-formed steel
shear walls with wood sheathing. Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research 110: 137–148.
Chen W, Ye J and Chen T (2016) Design of cold-formed steel
screw connections with gypsum sheathing at ambient and
elevated temperatures. MDPI, Applied Science 6: 248.
DaBreo J, Balh N, Ong-Tone C, et al. (2014) Steel sheathed
cold-formed steel framed shear walls subjected to lateral
and gravity loads. Thin-Walled Structures 74: 232–245.
Fairuz SS and Ho LH (2013) Influence of screw spacing on
the strength of self-drilling screw connection for the high
strength cold-formed steel. Advanced Material Research
712–715: 1054–1057.
Fiorino L, Della Corte G and Landolfo R (2007) Experimen-
tal tests on typical screw connections for cold-formed steel
housing. Engineering Structures 29: 1761–1773.
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Fiorino L, Iuorio O and Landolfo R (2008) Experimental
response of connections between cold-formed steel profile
and cement-based panel. In: 19th international specialty
conference on cold-formed steel structures, St. Louis, MO,
14–15 October, pp. 639–653. Rolla, MO: Missouri Uni-
versity of Science and Technology.
Fiorino L, Macillo V and Landolfo R (2017a) Experimental
characterization of quick mechanical connecting systems
for cold-formed steel structures. Advances in Structural
Engineering, Multi-science 20(7): 1098–1110.
Fiorino L, Tatiana Pali T, Bucciero B, et al. (2017b) Experi-
mental study on screwed connections for sheathed CFS
structures with gypsum or cement based panel. Thin-
Walled Structures 116: 234–249.
Fülöp LA and Dubina D (2004) Performance of wall-stud
cold-formed shear panels under monotonic and cyclic
loading: Part I: experimental research. Thin-Walled Struc-
tures 42(2): 321–338.
Henriques J, Rosa N, Gervasio H, et al. (2017) Structural
performance of light steel framing panels using screw con-
nections subjected to lateral loading. Thin-Walled Struc-
tures 121: 67–88.
Khaliq W and Moghis A (2017) Shear capacity of cold-
formed light-gauge steel framed shear-wall panels with
fiber cement board sheathing. International Journal of
Steel Structures 17(4): 1404–1414.
Lange J and Naujoks B (2006) Behavior of cold-formed steel
shear walls under horizontal and vertical loads. Thin-
Walled Structures 44: 1214–1222.
Lau HH and Tang SY (2012) Group effects of multiple self-
drilling screws on the connection shear strength cold
formed steel. In: Proceeding of the 11th international con-
ference on steel, space & composite structures. Qingdao,
China, 12–14 December, pp. 249–258. Qingdao, China:
Shandong University of Science & Technology.
Lin SH, Pan CL and Hsu WT (2014) Monotonic and cyclic
loading tests for cold-formed steel wall frames sheathed
with calcium silicate board. Thin-Walled Structures 74:
49–58.
Liu P, Peterman KD and Schafer BW (2014) Impact of con-
struction details on OSB-sheathed cold-formed steel
framed shear walls. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 101: 114–123.
Nithyadharan M and Kalyanaraman V (2011) Experimental
study of screw connections in CFS-calcium silicate board
wall panels. Thin-Walled Structures 49: 724–731.
Nithyadharan M and Kalyanaraman V (2012) Behavior of
cold-formed steel shear wall panels under monotonic and
reversed cyclic loading. Thin-Walled Structures 60: 12–23.
Pan CL and Shan MY (2011) Monotonic shear tests of cold-
formed steel wall frames with sheathing. Thin-Walled
Structures 49: 363–370.
Peterman KD, Nakata N and Schafer BW (2014) Hysteretic
characterization of cold-formed steel stud-to-sheathing
connections. Journal of Constructional Steel research 101:
254–264.
Shahi R, Lam N, Saifullah I, et al. (2013) Realistic modelling
of cold-formed steel in domestic construction for
Abu-Hamd
performance based design. In: Proceedings of the 2013
Australian earthquake engineering society conference,
Hobart, TAS, Australia, 15–17 November. Melbourne,
VIC, Australia: Australian Earthquake Engineering Soci-
ety, pp. 1–10.
Sokol MA, LaBoube RA and Yu WW (1998) Determination
of the tensile and shear strengths of screws and the effect
of screw patterns on cold-formed steel connections. Cen-
ter for Cold-Formed Steel Structures Library. Available
at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/ccfss-library/146/
Swensen S, Deierlein GG and Miranda E (2015) Behavior of
screw and adhesive connections to gypsum wallboard in
wood and cold-formed steel-framed wallettes. Journal of
Structural Engineering 142: E4015002.
Tao F and Moen C (2017) Monotonic and cyclic response of
single shear cold-formed steel-to-steel and sheathing-to-steel
15
connections. Report no. CE/VPI-ST-16-01. Blacksburg,
VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Vieira LCM Jr and Schafer BW (2012) Lateral stiffness and
strength of sheathing braced cold-formed steel stud walls.
Engineering Structures 37: 205–213.
Ye J, Wang X and Zhao M (2016) Experimental study on
shear behavior of screw connections in CFS sheathing.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121: 1–12.
Ye J, Wang X, Jia H, et al. (2015) Cyclic performance of
cold-formed steel shear walls sheathed with double-layer
wallboards on both sides. Thin-Walled Structure 92:
146–159
Yu C and Chen Y (2011) Detailing recommendations for
1.83-m wide cold-formed steel shear walls with steel
sheathing. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67:
93–101.