STRUCTURES 2006

Cold-Formed Steel Stud-Plank System for Mid-Rise

Construction

Author:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D., P.E., Director of Engineering & Research, The Steel Network,
Inc., Raleigh, NC, USA 27615, nabil@steelnetwork.com

ABSTRACT
Several types of floor systems can be integrated with cold-formed steel stud walls to form
a suitable hybrid system for mid-rise load bearing construction. Hollow-core concrete
planks offer the advantages of high stiffness-to-weight ratio, rapid field installation, and
the longest design spans. The recent advances in cold-formed steel load bearing walls to
be integrated with the hollow-core plank system include the development of stronger
studs and stiffer lateral bracing members. The development of connection details and
simplified design tools are also key elements to make this sytem integration a successful
process.

INTRODUCTION
The use of cold-formed steel (CFS) framing in commercial construction has increased
significantly in recent years. In a recent report published by the Steel Framing Alliance,
data shows that commercial CFS framing captured 39% of the available applications.
CFS framing was used in 81% of all non load-bearing applications and in 23% of
structural applications. One major reason for the increased attention towards the use of
CFS framing is the development of several design standards and design guides by the
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) that covered the design and use of several
essential framing elements (e.g. Wall Studs, Headers, Trusses, and Shear Walls).
Cold-formed steel Stud-Plank system is a load bearing system that combines two
highly acceptable building methods, hollow-core concrete slabs resting on light steel
framing stud walls. The system is typically ideal for low to mid-rise construction (three
to seven story high structures). This story limit covers a wide range of building usage,
including apartment buildings, office buildings, health care facilities, hotels, schools, and
dormitories. Recent research and development effrots on that system concentrated on the
optimization of the shape and strength of the load bearing stud walls, developing
enhanced bracing systems for the axially loaded studs against lateral-flexural and
torsional buckling, and developing engineering details for the connections between the
stud wall and the hollow-core concrete planks.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

FLOOR SYSTEMS APPROPRIATE FOR CFS MID-RISE CONSTRUCTION

There are several types of floor systems that can be integrated with CFS load bearing
walls. Among these floor systems are the composite steel deck-concrete slabs, CFS joists
or open bar joists with concrete or wood floor diaphragm, wood joists and floor
diaphragm, and the hollow-core concrete planks.
Composite steel deck-concrete slabs (Figure 1) combine the structural advantage of a
flat slab with the time saving advantage of a permanent form. The steel deck furnishes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the total positive reinforcement of the composite slab, while additional negative
reinforcement is required. Due to the composite action between the concrete and the
steel deck, the slab can support greater floor live load than a typical reinforced concrete
slab of the same depth. Depending upon the design loads, slab thickness, and amount of
reinforcing, the composite deck can achieve clear spans up to 25 ft.

FIGURE 1
COMPOSITE CONCRETE SLAB SUPPORTED BY CFS STUD WALL

The CFS joist system with concrete or wood floor diaphragm (Figure 2) is a non-
composite system that is significantly lighter than all other floor systems. The joists are
typically 8 to 14 inch deep and are spaced at 16 or 24 inch on center. Relatively thick
and deep CFS joists (97 mil thick. and 14 inch deep) can accommodate clear spans up to
30 ft. End and intermediate supports of CFS joists require bearing stiffeners to prevent
the crippling of their webs under the effects of heavy support reactions. This can be
achieved using a piece of stud or track attached to the floor joist or using a connection
angle. The open bar joist system (Figure 2) can accommodate longer spans than the CFS
joist system, and the joists are typically spaced at distances larger than that for CFS joists.
However, the open bar joist system is deeper than other floor systems, and therefore not
frequently used in mid-rise construction buildings which normally have limited floor
heights. Both CFS and open bar joist systems need lateral bracing, or blocking, to
prevent the lateral torsional buckling mode of the compression flange of the joists.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CFS Joist with Wood Floor Diaphragm Open Bar Joist System

FIGURE 2
CFS JOIST SYSTEM AND OPEN BAR JOIST SYSTEM

Precast hollow-core concrete slabs (Figure 3) provide the advantages of high

stiffness-to-weight ratio and rapid field installation. The hollow-core planks can be
installed at a rate up to 5,000 square ft. in a single day. The planks are typically produced
in 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 inch depth. The hollow-core floor system provides the longest
design spans amongst all other systems meeting the requirements of CFS mid-rise
construction. However, factors such as concentrated loads and large openings can affect
the span capabilities of the system. As a general rule of thumb, if we assume a uniform
superimposed load of 100 psf, a 6-inch depth hollow-core plank can span up to 22 ft., a
10-inch depth hollow-core plank can span up to 35 ft., and a 16-inch depth hollow-core
plank can span up to 50 ft.

FIGURE 3
HOLLOW-CORE CONCRETE PLANKS

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

ADVANCES IN CFS LOAD BEARING WALL SYSTEMS

Load Bearing Studs

The current most-used wall stud shape is the standard C-shaped stud with one lip
stiffener, which is available in sizes 2 up to 12 inch [SSMA]. This standard stud shape
is not efficient in load bearing applications since the flat web element of the stud is
typically having a high slenderness ratio and tends to buckle locally at a stress level well
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

below the yield limit of the steel material.

To estimate the axial load capacity requirements for CFS studs in a mid-rise load
bearing construction, let us consider a 5-story building project that uses CFS wall studs
supporting hollow-core plank floor system. If the total gravity load acting on each floor
level is assumed at 120 psf, the load bearing walls are 6 inch wide, 9 ft. high, braced
laterally at mid height, and are located every 24 ft, and the stud spacing in the wall is 16
inch on center, then the estimated axial load acting on each stud at the ground floor level
of the building is about 19,000 lbs. It would not be possible to find a single standard 6
inch C-shaped stud section that can be used to support this axial load. A trained CFS
design engineer may select to double the standard C studs at each stud location to meet
the load capacity requirements. However, this solution adds more material and cost to
the project and requires additional attachment of the two studs together using weld or
screws.
To satisfy the market demand for a stronger stud to be used in CFS load bearing
applications, the main goal for development of new load bearing wall studs has been to
increase the studs axial strength-to-weight ratio. To achieve this goal, several innovative
techniques for new stud cross-sections that are more effective in axial compression than
the standard C-shaped stud have been generated through stud manufacturers. Amongst
these innovative techniques are:
The introduction of additional bends in the web of the studs cross-section.
Additional bends break the width of the thin web into smaller widths, which results in
higher local buckling stress and consequently reduce the tendency of the cross-section
to buckle locally prior to reaching its yield limit.
The introduction of longitudinal ribs in the studs cross-section, which stiffen the stud
section and increase its overall local buckling stress.
Expanding the dimensions of the flanges and lips of the stud and adding additional
stiffening lips. This adds additional effective area to the cross-section which
increases its load capacity.
Using higher strength material (50 ksi to 70 ksi) to fabricate the stud, which increases
its load capacity.
Examples of new developed load bearing studs currently available in the market are
the SigmaStud and the JamStud (Figure 4). The SigmaStud features additional
web bends, extended flange width up to 3 inch, a second return lip, and 50 ksi steel
material. The JamStud features extended flange widths up to 3 inch, a second return
lip, and 50 ksi steel material.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

SigmaStud JamStud
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIGURE 4
NON-STANDARD LOAD BEARING STUDS

Lateral Bracing

The current AISI Wall Stud Design Standard [AISI] requires that CFS load bearing stud
walls are to be braced laterally at intermediate points to restrain the studs against lateral
and torsional buckling under heavy axial compression load. The typical spacing between
bracing rows is 4 or 5 ft. The AISI Standard calls for a design force of the intermediate
bracing of 2% of the design axial compression load in the stud. This bracing design force
is accumulative since each stud contributes the same force to the bracing member;
therefore bracing needs to be periodically anchored to dissipate this force.
The standard lateral bracing method for load bearing stud walls has been by attaching
flat straps at each stud flange. The straps are either welded or screwed to the studs. The
straps act in tension only, therefore shear blocks must be installed between studs at
intervals to resist torsional effects of the studs (Figure 5). Another bracing method is to
provide a compression member, rather than a tension member, to resist the lateral bracing
force. Using solid blocking between studs is an example of a bracing compression
member. One of the solid blocking products available in the market is the
BuckleBridgeTM, which has an elongated tab at one end that locks into a slot at the other
end through the stud punchout for initial installation. The installation is then to be
secured through screw attachment to each stud (Figure 5).

BuckleBridge

Load
Bearing
Stud
Flat Strap Lateral Bracing Solid Blocking Lateral Bracing

FIGURE 5
LATERAL BRACING SYSTEMS

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

CONNECTION DETAILS OF THE STUD-PLANK SYSTEM

The detailing of the connections between the hollow-core slab and the CFS stud wall
requires special consideration since it involves two different materials. A typical
connection detail is to weld vertical splice plates to the top and bottom tracks of the CFS
stud wall at intervals 32 to 48 inch and run steel bars through holes in these plates
perpendicular to the wall that will also extend between the interfaces of the planks.
Another set of steel bars to be welded to the splice plate and run parallel to the wall along
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the joints of the planks (Figure 6-a). The interfaces and the joints and interfaces of the
hollow-core planks are to be grouted. In addition, the core of the planks at the stud wall
locations needs to be filled with grout in order to ensure that the planks do not crush
under the axial bearing load of the studs (Figures 6-b and 6-c).

FIGURE 6-A
DETAIL OF PLANKS-INTERIOR BEARING WALL INSTALLATION

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Interior wall detail Exterior wall detail

FIGURE 6-B, 6-C

DETAIL OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR BEARING WALL WITH PLANKS

SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF THE STUD-PLANK SYSTEM

A software tool, which is currently under development, is designed to enable the
practicing structural engineer to draw the layout and perform the full design for a mid-
rise building using the Stud-Plank system. The tool allows the user either to draw the
floor plans of the building within its Graphical User Interface (GUI) using the available
architectural tool bar or to import CAD floor plan drawings (Figure 7). Next, the user
should specify superimposed loads on each floor level, select the desired plank direction
and type at each floor level (depth and width of planks), and choose which walls to be
designed as bearing walls, or designed as shear walls, or combined. All the walls
representing the exterior envelope of the building are to be designed as curtain (wind-
bearing) walls only, unless an exterior wall is selected to be a bearing wall or a shear wall
as well.
The software would then analyze each architectural floor plan of the building to
determine the distribution of the floor loads to the walls and the estimation of the vertical
load per linear ft. acting on each bearing wall. This distribution would be based on the
direction of the floor planks within each floor panel and any existing floor openings.
The design of each load bearing wall would follow the load calculation step. Input
data that are needed to complete the wall design step are the wall height, typical stud
spacing, required wall width, locations and dimensions of door and window openings,
and spacing of studs lateral bracing rows. The software would design and select a
typical stud cross-section for the wall in addition to the design of the structural
components of each opening (the jamb, the header, and the sill cross-sections) (Figure 8).

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIGURE 7
IMPORT OF FLOOR PLAN CAD DRAWINGS

FIGURE 8
STRUCTURAL COMPONET DESIGN OF A WINDOW OPENING

By inputting the buildings geometry and site conditions, the software can optionally
calculate the lateral wind or seismic shear force acting on the lateral resisting system of

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006
 STRUCTURES 2006

the building (shear walls) based on the ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads Standard [ASCE
7]. This lateral shear force would then be distributed between individual pre-determined
shear walls assuming a consistent one type of shear walls and a rigid floor diaphragm. A
module for the design of X-brace shear walls is available and can be used to design this
type of lateral resisting system.
The output of the software tool consists of design data and structural floor plans of
the hollow-core plank system at each floor level, summary design reports for the design
of all CFS structural components of the building, and typical library CAD details for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 10/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

connections between the hollow-core floor and the CFS stud wall.

CONCLUSIONS
Several types of floor systems can be integrated with CFS stud walls to form a suitable
hybrid system for mid-rise load bearing construction. These systems include composite
steel deck-concrete slabs, CFS joists or open bar joists with concrete or wood floor
diaphragm, and the hollow-core concrete planks. From these different floor systems, the
hollow-core concrete planks offer the advantages of high stiffness-to-weight ratio, rapid
field installation, and long design spans.
The development efforts for a load bearing stud and a lateral bracing component to be
used in the CFS stud-plank system focused on increasing the studs axial strength-to-
weight ratio and the bracing stiffness. Several innovative stud products are currently
available in the market that can sustain higher loads when compared to standard C-
shaped stud with same width and thickness. Development of connection details and
simple design tools are also important to empower the practicing engineer to make a
better use of this stud-plank system in mid-rise construction.

REFERENCES
[1] Steel Stud Manufacturers Association, SSMA (2001), Product Technical Information, ICBO ER-
4943P, SSMA, Chicago, Illinois.
[2] American Iron and Steel Institute, AISI (2004) Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing Wall Stud
Design, AISI/COFS/WSD.
[3] American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE (2002) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-02.

Copyright ASCE 2006 Structures 2006

Structures Congress 2006