Disertace Szabo

CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
Doctoral study programme: CIVIL ENGINEERING

Branch of study: BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Ing. Gbor Szab

INTERACTION BETWEEN STEEL COLUMN
AND CASSETTE WALL
Doctoral thesis for obtaining the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

abbreviated to Ph.D.
Supervisor: Doc. Ing. Tom Vran, CSc.
Jun 2009, Prague
Gbor Szab
Interaction between steel column and cassette wall
Abstract
Members with high slenderness are commonly used in steel structures. Those members load carrying
capacities are limited due to global instability. One way to reduce this handicap is through lateral
stabilization. Sheeting, which is commonly part of the structure and is primarily designed for exterior
load only, could be included in the member global stability check. This may lead to a more efficient
design of compression members.
In this thesis the positive effect of cassette wall cladding on the behaviour of structural members is
investigated. This is commonly known as stressed skin design. Experimental investigation and
numerical modelling were used to determine the favourable effect of the cladding made by cassette
profiles. A parametric study was carried out to extend the experimentally obtained results.
The experimental work consisted of two parts. In the first part, the cassette wall torsional stiffness is
determined. Altogether 17 specimens were tested with different sheeting thicknesses, fastener
arrangements and connected flange properties. As a result, an equation was worked out for the
calculation of the rotational stiffness of the cassette profile. This part of the thesis was used as the
input parameter for following work.
Before the second part of the experimental investigation, the numerical model was prepared and the
best arrangement of the model was worked out by ANSYS software package. The second type of
experimental investigation included beam-columns full-scale tests and considered the load-carrying
capacity and failure mode. The beam-columns were stabilized by cassette wall. Overall six specimens
were prepared and tested. The beam-column cross section used was IPE300 in steel grade S355. The
member's system lengths were 5330 mm and 5680 mm depending on the boundary condition. The
loading was applied by end cantilevers which ensured combined bending-compression loading. The
ratio between the bending moment and axial force was 1 m. Specimens were selected to include
different sheeting stiffness, sheeting position and boundary condition. The results demonstrated that
connected sheeting could fully stabilize the member against lateral-torsional buckling in cases when
the sheeting is connected at compressed flange. In other case (connected at tensioned flange) torsional
buckling failure occurred about imposed axis.
The above mentioned numerical model, which was used to predict the most suitable specimens, was
updated, improved and calibrated by results from experiments. A parametric study was carried out to
extend the experimentally obtained results with the help of numerical models. The parametric study
was executed for hot rolled IPE and HEA profiles for different lengths and more cassette walls and
bending moment distribution.
The main results of the thesis are wall stiffnesses which performed full or partial stabilization for
specific member. These stiffnesses depend on wall properties and were calculated according to ECCS
recommendation. Besides, the impact of rotational stiffness of sheeting was followed.
-1-
Gbor Szab
Pro ocelov konstrukce se bn pouvaj pruty s vysokou thlost. nosnost takovch prut je asto
omezena globln ztrtou stability. Jednm ze zpsob omezen tto nevhody je pn podepen.
Pl, kter je soust bn konstrukce a je navren primrn na penos vnjho zaten, me bt
zahrnut do posouzen globln stability prutu. Takov postup umouje zvit efektivitu nvrhu
tlaench a ohbanch thlch prut.
Dizertan prce vyetuje kladn inek kazetov stny, pipojen k ocelovmu prutu. Vyuv se
plov psoben stny. Pro analzu pznivho inku se pouilo experimentln vyetovn a
numerick modelovn. Byla t provedena parametrick studie pro rozen zskanch vsledk.
Experimentln st prce se skldala ze dvou st. V prvn se urovala rotan tuhost ppoje
kazetov stny na sloup. Bylo provedeno 17 zkouek s rznou tloutkou plechu kazety, uspodnm
roub a kou psnice pipojenho sloupu. Na zklad zkouek a numerickho modelovn byly
odvozeny rovnice pro uren rotan tuhosti ppoje kazetovho profilu k psnici sloupu. Zskan
vsledky slouily jako vstupn hodnoty pro dal vyetovn.
Druhou st experimentln prce pedchzelo numerick modelovn programem ANSYS pro zjitn
nejvhodnjho uspodn zkouky. Vyetoval se sloup skuten velikosti namhan ohybem a
tlakem, stabilizovan pipojenou kazetovou stnou. Zjiovala se jeho nosnost a zpsob poruen.
Bylo provedeno est zkouek. Byl pouit profil IPE300 z oceli jakosti S355. Dlka sloup byla 5330
mm a 5680 mm v zvislosti na okrajovch podmnkch. Zaten bylo aplikovno pomoc konzol pro
dosaen kombinovanho namhn tlakem a ohybem. Pomr osov sly k ohybovmu momentu byl 1
m. Vsledky potvrdily, e v ppad, kde je kazetov stna pipojen k tlaen psnici, me pln
stabilizovat prut proti ztrt stability z roviny ohybu. V ppad pipojen k taen psnici dochz
k ztrt stability s vnucenou osou oten.
Numerick model pouit k nvrhu experimentu byl vylepen, zkalibrovn podle vsledk
experiment a nsledn pouit pro parametrickou studii. Parametrick studie byla provedena metodou
GMNIA pro vlcovan profily ady IPE a HEA pro rzn dlky, jakosti oceli, tuhosti kazetov stny a
prbh ohybovho momentu po dlce prutu.
Z parametrick studie byly odvozeny potebn tuhosti kazetov stny pro plnou nebo stenou
stabilizaci prutu v zvislosti na ve uvedench vstupnch parametrech. Dle byly vypracovny
pomcky pro vpoet smykov i rotan tuhosti stny podle doporuen ECCS a vlastnch vsledk.
Byl t uren vliv rotan tuhosti ppoje stny k prutu na jeho nosnost.
-2-
Gbor Szab
Acknowledgements
This project was worked out in Steel and Timber Department at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in the
Czech Technical University in Prague during 2004 2008. I am grateful for all expert help of mine
supervisor Prof. Tomas Vrany.
I would like to acknowledge for the project financial support provided by the Czech Technical
University (internal grant IG VUT CTU0502311 - 2005), the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport of the Czech Republic (grant FRV 1820 - 2006) and the support of the research project of the
Czech Ministry of Education (grant no. 6840770003).
The experimental part of the project was conducted in the Experimental Centre of CTU. I am thankful
to all the technicians who contributed to the work.
I would like to thank Ing. Vitezslav Hapl with whom I carried out the experimental part of the project,
and for his advices during the work. Further thanks should also be given to all members of Steel and
Timber Department for they reconciliation, extremely to colleagues from room D1064.
I am also grateful to Dr. Martin Heywood of The Steel Construction Institute (Ascot, UK) who has
helped me with the language correction.
Finally, I will always be grateful to my wife Rose and my family for their support and encouragement
throughout my study.
-3-
Gbor Szab
-4-
Gbor Szab
Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................3
Notation....................................................................................................................................................7
List of figures .........................................................................................................................................10
List of tables...........................................................................................................................................13
Chapter 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................14
1.1.
Background...........................................................................................................................14
1.2.
Application of cassette wall..................................................................................................14
Chapter 2
2.1.
Literature review ..............................................................................................................17

Stressed skin action...............................................................................................................17
2.1.1.
Research overview ...........................................................................................................17
2.1.2.
Principle of stressed skin action .......................................................................................17
2.1.3.
Existing design procedures for cassette walls ..................................................................18
2.2.
Members in bending and axial compression.........................................................................22
2.3.
Interaction between sheeting and beam-columns .................................................................23
2.3.1.
Interaction.........................................................................................................................23
2.3.2.
Research overview ...........................................................................................................24
2.3.3.
Idealization of stabilization effect ....................................................................................25
2.3.4.
Existing design procedures...............................................................................................26
Chapter 3
Thesis objectives ..............................................................................................................33
Chapter 4
Experimental study...........................................................................................................34
4.1.
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................34
4.2.
Rotational stiffness ...............................................................................................................34
4.2.1.
Experiments overview......................................................................................................35
4.2.2.
Measured values ...............................................................................................................38
4.3.
Full-scale tests of beam-column with cassette wall..............................................................41
4.3.1.
Experiments overview......................................................................................................42
4.3.2.
Imperfection .....................................................................................................................47
4.3.3.
Measured values ...............................................................................................................50
4.3.4.
Results of experiments .....................................................................................................53

-5-
Gbor Szab
4.4.
Additional tests..................................................................................................................... 55
4.4.1.
Material properties ........................................................................................................... 55
4.4.2.
Fasteners stiffness ............................................................................................................ 56
Chapter 5
Numerical modelling ....................................................................................................... 58
5.1.
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 58
5.2.
Pre-modelling of specimens ................................................................................................. 58
5.2.1.
Used elements, materials, boundary conditions and load ................................................ 58
5.2.2.
Conclusions from pre-modelled specimens ..................................................................... 61
5.3.
5.3.1.
5.4.
5.4.1.
Chapter 6
Experimentally tested specimen models .............................................................................. 61

Calibration ....................................................................................................................... 64
Parametric study................................................................................................................... 66
Parametric study assumptions.......................................................................................... 67
Analysis of results
.................................................................................................... 68
6.1.
Rotational stiffness of cassette profile ................................................................................. 68
6.2.
Behaviour of column supported by cassette wall ................................................................. 70
6.2.1.
Experimentally obtained results....................................................................................... 71
6.2.2.
Results from parametric study ......................................................................................... 71
Chapter 7
Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 91
References ............................................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix A Tables of measured data................................................................................................. 96
Appendix B Calculation example..................................................................................................... 103
-6-
Gbor Szab
Notation
stiffness factor derived from tests according to ECCS [kN/mm]
cross section area
b1, b2
distance between screw and cassette profile edge / column flange edge
whole length of the diaphragm B=Bu
Bo
width of the narrow flange of a cassette
Bu
width of the wide flange of a cassette
total shear flexibility of a diaphragm [mm/kN]
ci,j
component shear flexibilities for diaphragm [mm/kN]
cA
rotational stiffness of the fasteners between sheeting and members [kNm/rad]
cM
rotational stiffness of the sheeting profiles [kNm/rad]
cP
rotational stiffness due to the distortion of the member [kNm/rad]
rotational stiffness of a diaphragm [kNm/rad]
Cexp
rotational stiffness of cassette profile determined experimentally
Ccalc
calculated rotational stiffness of cassette profile
Cmy, Cmz
equivalent uniform moment factors
Cyy, Cyz, etc.
Factors
eL
distance between fasteners in edge members
eNy ,eNz
shift of the centroid of the effective area Aeff relative to the centre of gravity of the
gross cross section
es
distance between fasteners in adjacent cassettes
modulus of elasticity
FL
resistance of the fastener between cassette and edge member
Fp
resistance of the fastener between cassette and framework
Fs
resistance of the fastener between adjacent cassettes
fy
steel yield strength
shear modulus
depth of the section

-7-
Gbor Szab
iy, iz, ip
gyration radius
I1
second moment of area of the wide flange of a cassette about the longitudinal axis
of the cross section per metre [mm4/mm] , see Fig.7.
Iy
second moment of area about the y-y axis
Iz
second moment of area about the z-z axis
Iz,G
second moment of area of the wide flange of a cassette about own centroid [mm4]
IT
St. Venant torsional constant
warping constant
factor for considering the type of analysis
Kq
factor for considering the moment distribution and the type of restraint
length of the diaphragm between columns, length of the column
bending moment
Mcr
elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling
Mpl,k
characteristic value of the plastic moment of the beam
My,Ed, Mz,Ed
factored bending moment, y-y axis, z-z axis
MPl,y,, MPl,z
member design plastic moment resistance about axis y-y, z-z
Ncr
elastic critical force for the relevant buckling mode based on the gross cross
sectional properties, critical flexural buckling load
NEd
factored normal force
nf
number of fasteners in the cassette web between cassette and framework
np
number of columns per diaphragm
ns
number of fasteners in the cassette web between adjacent cassettes
nsc
number of fasteners between cassette web and edge member
nsh
number of cassettes per diaphragm
Pmax
shear resistance of diaphragm due to fasteners failure
distance between fasteners cassette framework [mm]
member resistance
Rwithout_rot
member resistance without elastic rotational support
Rwith_rot
member resistance with elastic rotational support
shear stiffness of diaphragm
S1
stiffness of the fasteners between the sheeting and the connected member
S2
stiffness of the cassette profile in own plane
S3
stiffness of the fasteners between the adjacent cassette members
Sact
shear stiffness of diaphragm per unit length [kN/mm]
sp
slip per sheet fastener shear flexibility [mm/kN]

-8-
Gbor Szab
ss
shear flexibility of the fastener in the cassette wall between adjacent cassettes
[mm/kN]
ssc
shear flexibility of the fastener between cassette and edge member [mm/kN]
sheet core thickness excluding metallic and other coatings [mm]
Td
minimal shear force in shear panel
Tv
shear force in the diaphragm caused by the load in the serviceability limit state
TV
shear flow in the ultimate limit state of fasteners
TV,L
shear flow in the ultimate limit state of fasteners between cassette and edge
member of wall
TV,Q
shear flow in the ultimate limit state of fasteners between cassette and framework.
TV,S
shear flow in the ultimate limit state of fasteners between adjacent cassettes
Vbuc
shear resistance of diaphragm due to cassette profile failure
Weff,y,min, Weff,z,min minimum effective section modulus about y-y axis, z-z axis
*
factor for material non-linear behaviour
factor for material non-linear behaviour
fastener number factor between cassette and framework per sheet width
partial safety factor
slenderness of the member
y, z
Factors
Poisson's ratio
reduction factor for the relevant buckling curve
LT
reduction factor for lateral-torsional buckling
y, z
reduction factors due to flexural buckling, y-y axis, z-z axis
rotational deflection [rad]
My, Mz
moments due to the shift of the centroidal y-y, z-z axis
-9-
Gbor Szab
List of figures
Fig.1.
Cassette profile..................................................................................................................... 15
Fig.2.
Possible cassette wall constructions, a) direct connection, b) non-direct connection of the
covering panel........................................................................................................................................ 16
Fig.3.
Longitudinal stiffeners in wide flange.................................................................................. 18
Fig.4.
Cassette profile with geometrical properties ........................................................................ 19
Fig.5.
Secondary structures connected on column A) bracing, B), C) covering systems............... 24
Fig.6.
Idealization of interaction..................................................................................................... 25
Fig.7.
Lindners model of independent stiffnesses......................................................................... 27
Fig.8.
Ratio between stiffnesses S and C........................................................................................ 29
Fig.9.
Assumed deflection of the element to stabilize with the resulting concentrated force at the
supports ..30
Fig.10.
Notation and sign definitions ............................................................................................... 32
Fig.11.
Rotational stiffness about x-x axis. ...................................................................................... 34
Fig.12.
Column flange replacement ................................................................................................. 35
Fig.13.
Screws arrangement ............................................................................................................. 36
Fig.14.
Used steel plates replacing column flange, dimensions, position of fasteners..................... 36
Fig.15.
Used cassette profiles ........................................................................................................... 37
Fig.16.
Draft of the experiments....................................................................................................... 37
Fig.17.
The specimen, side-view, front-view ................................................................................... 38
Fig.18.
Measured values................................................................................................................... 39
Fig.19.
Deformed specimen.............................................................................................................. 39
Fig.20.
Load deflection curves from experimental investigation, marked with respect of Tab. 3. .. 40
Fig.21.
Specimen static scheme........................................................................................................ 42
Fig.22.
Specimen V2 ........................................................................................................................ 42
Fig.23.
Main frame joint; Set V .................................................................................................... 44
Fig.24.
Main frame joint; Set K .................................................................................................... 44
Fig.25.
Boundary conditions, specimens V and K ........................................................................... 45
Fig.26.
Plan view main frame and additional frame...................................................................... 45
Fig.27.
Additional frame (with reference to Fig.26) ........................................................................ 46
Fig.28.
Additional frame, specimen V3 with one sided wall ........................................................... 46

-10-
Gbor Szab
Fig.29.
The loading point with hydraulic jack and the support.........................................................47
Fig.30.
Measured lateral imperfection of specimen V1 ....................................................................48
Fig.31.
Fig.32.
Fig.33.
Measured lateral imperfection of specimen K1 ....................................................................49
Fig.34.
Fig.35.
Fig.36.
Sensors arrangement, set V, top view...................................................................................50
Fig.37.
Sensors arrangement, set V, side view .................................................................................51
Fig.38.
Sensors arrangement, set K, top view...................................................................................52
Fig.39.
Sensors arrangement, set K, side view .................................................................................52
Fig.40.
Failure mode, V1 ..................................................................................................................53
Fig.41.
Failure mode, K1 ..................................................................................................................53
Fig.42.
Failure mode V2, K2 ............................................................................................................54
Fig.43.
Failure mode V3 ...................................................................................................................54
Fig.44.
Failure mode K3 ...................................................................................................................54
Fig.45.
Load-deflection curves for all specimens, measured by gauge U3. .....................................55
Fig.46.
Relative deflection between compressed and tensioned flanges. .........................................55
Fig.47.
Fastener experiments arrangement .......................................................................................56
Fig.48.
Force displacement curves for specimens KK, one screw (both sheet thickness 0,75mm).
..57
Fig.49. Force displacement curves for specimens KS, one screw (sheet thickness 0,75mm, steel
plate thickness 10mm). ..........................................................................................................................57
Fig.50.
Geometry of element SHELL181 .........................................................................................59
Fig.51.
Geometry of element COMBIN39, element force-deflection curve ....................................59
Fig.52.
The model of the wall provided by spring elements.............................................................60
Fig.53.
Specimen with load and boundary condition........................................................................61
Fig.54.
Models boundary conditions K1, V1....................................................................................62
Fig.55.
Beam-column material model (stress in MPa) .....................................................................62
Fig.56.
Cantilever and additional frame material model...................................................................63
Fig.57.
Elements BEAM188 as additional frame .............................................................................63
Fig.58.
Comparison of load-deflection diagrams from model and experiment for specimens V1, K1.
...64
Fig.59.
Comparison of load-deflection diagrams from model and experiment for specimens K2, V2.
...64
Fig.60.
Comparison of load-deflection diagrams from model and experiment for specimens K3, V3.
...65
-11-
Gbor Szab
Fig.61. Relative deflection of compressed and tensioned flange, comparison between model and
experiment, specimens K1, V1.............................................................................................................. 65
Fig.64.
Moment distribution............................................................................................................. 67
Fig.65.
Decisive values, deformed specimen ................................................................................... 69
Fig.66.
Linear approximation of stiffness for screw arrangement 2x2............................................. 69
Fig.67.
Linear approximation of stiffness for screw arrangement 2x3............................................. 69
Fig.68.
in MPa.
Numerical model of the connection loaded by positive bending moment, von Mises stress
..70
Fig.69. Ratio between load carrying capacity for rotationally supported and non-supported
members IPE boundary condition K, supported at tensioned or compressed flange ...................... 71
members IPE boundary condition V, supported at tensioned or compressed flange ...................... 72
members HEA boundary condition K, supported at tensioned or compressed flange.................... 72
members HEA boundary condition V, supported at tensioned or compressed flange.................... 72
members with length 6000 mm, impact of section torsional stiffness................................................... 73
Fig.74. Compressed flange lateral deflection for different wall properties; A three cases: without
support, cassette wall support, full support, B two cases: cassette wall support, full support (same
graph with larger scale) ......................................................................................................................... 74
Fig.75. Compressed flange lateral deflection for different wall stiffness, section IPE300
(tthickness, ns-number of screws, cl-cassette profile length)................................................................... 75
Fig.76. Compressed flange lateral deflection for different steel grade, sections: IPE140, L=4 m;
IPE300, L=8.4 m ................................................................................................................................... 76
Fig.77.
Calculation tool for wall stiffness calculation...................................................................... 90
-12-
Gbor Szab
List of tables
Tab. 1
Factor K for considering the moment distribution and the type of restraint
Tab. 2
Factor K for considering the moment distribution and type of restraint 28

according to [25]
Tab. 3
Specimen overview and the experimentally obtained results
41
Tab. 4
System lengths
43
Tab. 5
List of specimens
43
Tab. 6
Summary of measured imperfections
50
Tab. 7
Steel properties
56
Tab. 8
Comparison table
65
Tab. 9
Required stiffness for V, section IPE supported compressed flange
78
Tab. 10
Required stiffness for V, section IPE supported tensioned flange
79
Tab. 11
Required stiffness for V, section IPE supported compressed and tensioned 80

flange
Tab. 12
Required stiffness for K, section IPE supported compressed flange
81
Tab. 13
Required stiffness for K, section IPE supported tensioned flange
82
Tab. 14
Required stiffness for K, section IPE supported compressed and tensioned 83

flange
Tab. 15
Required stiffness for V, section HEA supported compressed flange
84
Tab. 16
Required stiffness for V, section HEA supported tensioned flange
85
Tab. 17
Required stiffness for V, section HEA supported compressed and tensioned 86

flange
Tab. 18
Required stiffness for K, section HEA supported compressed flange
87
Tab. 19
Required stiffness for K, section HEA supported tensioned flange
88
Tab. 20
Required stiffness for K, section HEA supported compressed and tensioned 89

flange
-13-
28
Gbor Szab
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1.
Background
Cassette walls are commonly used as cladding systems, which belong to the light weight facings.
Nowadays these types are widely used for framed structures. Among the main advantages of this
system is the simple assembly that arises from the low weight of the light gauge wall members. A
wide range and high quality of those members increase the demand for the cassette walls.
Load-bearing frames provide support for cassette walls. Wall members are connected to the outer
flange of the column. Cassette walls, which can provide load into own plane, contribute to the global
stability of the building. The shear stiffness of the whole wall consisting of cassette profiles and
trapezoidal panels depends on many variables. Support of column provided by cassette wall is
generally assumed as a continuous lateral elastic support.
1.2.
Application of cassette wall
One of the progressive cladding systems which are nowadays used for the steel framed structures is
cassette wall. The main advantages of this system are [1]:
quick and simple installation,
simple details,
ensuring bracing without additional members,
stabilization of joined slender elements,
replacement of static function of girt with cassette profile,
high surface quality.
The cassette profile contains one wide, two narrow flanges and two web elements, see Fig.1. Particular
elements of the cassette are commonly stiffened by longitudinal stiffeners because they are made from
light gauge steel. The members have high slenderness ratio and it causes susceptibility to local
buckling of the wall or flange, buckling due to shear forces or distortional buckling.
-14-
Gbor Szab
Fig.1. Cassette profile

The cassette profiles are connected to the steel or concrete column flange face by screws or pins.
Profiles are fitted to each other and the gaps between them are sealed with insulation strip. The
connection between adjacent cassette profiles is ensured by self-tapping screws. The cassettes are
filled with insulation panels due to increasing thermal properties of the wall. The system of insulated
cassettes is closed with trapezoidal panels which are connected with screws. The trapezoidal panels
may be connected directly to the narrow flange of the cassette wall or with help of distance profiles.
These two connection modes of trapezoidal panel are illustrated on Fig.1. In the first type, either
distance screws or insulation tape are used between cassette profile narrow flange and trapezoidal
profile to improve the insulation capability of the wall. The thermal bridge at the cassette web may be
reduced by an additional insulation layer between the cassette flange and trapezoidal panel. In the
second type, (Fig.1 B) the additional profiles are added between the trapezoidal profile and cassette
profile. This layout allows the trapezoidal profile to be fixed horizontally. Insulation material is used
at the place of the contact of the steel members. The trapezoidal profile provides a covering function
against the climate action and restrains the cassette profile section against the distortion.
1.
cassette,
1.
cassette,
2.
trapezoidal panel,
2.
corrugated panel,
3.
thermal insulation,
3.
thermal insulation,
4.
thermal insulation tape,
4.
thermal insulation tape,
5.
sealing tape between cassettes,
5.
sealing tape between insulation,
6.
thread forming screws or pin connectors,
6.
distance profile,
7.
self-tapping screws,
7.
distance profile
8.
thread forming screws with sealing

washers,
8.
thread forming screws or pin connectors,
9.
framework,
9.
self-tapping screws,
10.
thread forming screws.
10.
thread forming screws with sealing

washers,
-15-
Gbor Szab
11.
self tapping screws,
12.
framework,

13.
self adhesive tape.
Fig.2. Possible cassette wall constructions, a) direct connection, b) non-direct connection of

the covering panel.
Beside using as cladding, the cassettes can be used as structural members. First idea of this was
published in the 1960s by Baehre who used cassettes for modulated constructions. Davies has dealt
with this problem and investigated the advantages of cassette wall for the low pitched buildings [1],
[2], [3].
-16-
Gbor Szab
Chapter 2
Literature review
2.1.
Stressed skin action
2.1.1. Research overview

The investigation of the stressed skin action is in progress in Europe since the 1970s. The main
participating countries have been Sweden, Germany and United Kingdom with authors Davies, Bryan,
Baehre, Ladwein and others. The investigation primary has been focused on the diaphragm created by
trapezoidal sheeting. Diaphragm from composite panels and cassettes was investigated additionally
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Baehre's investigation has also included profiles from aluminium [9].
The result of the investigation is ECCS recommendation [11], which contains the state-of-art from the
field of stressed skin action. The guideline includes design draft for diaphragm from trapezoidal
sheeting and cassette walls for practical use. In addition it serves for the verification of stabilized beam
and column by wall members. Basic informations for design with use of stressed skin action are
included in present design codes [11], [12], [13] too.
The problem of stressed skin action was also investigated in Czech Republic. Strnad was concerned
with light weight sheds [14]. In this context the interaction between frame and light gauge sheeting
was investigated. The issue was solved also by epika in his dissertation thesis [15], [16]. Cassette
wall was directly investigated by Rybns dissertation thesis [17]. The existing analytic model for the
determining of the stiffness of cassette wall was improved. Non-linear behaviour of stiffeners was
implemented into the existing linear diaphragm model of Ladwein. The primary model was developed
for the composite members [9]. The similarity between composite panels and cassette wall was the
basic idea for use Ladweins model for cassettes. The model of Rybn included the whole shear
stiffness of the cassette wall into the calculation.
2.1.2. Principle of stressed skin action

Cassette wall consists of members. A diaphragm created in this manner is able to carry load in its own
plane. This ability is called stressed skin action. In addition to cassette members, the diaphragm may
also be created from structural roofing panels, tray members or other cladding members. If the
diaphragm is properly connected to the frame it can increase the global stability resistance of the
building.
-17-
Gbor Szab
The stressed skin design of a cassette wall may be solved in a similar way to a diaphragm composed of
trapezoidal profiles. This idea has been proofed by Baehre and was based on the experimental
investigation. During the experimental investigation the behaviour of empty and with insulation filled
cassette members was established [4].
Similar way was used by Davies in his work [1] which was focused on the characterization of
diaphragm created by cassette profiles. The main differences between the behaviour of cassettes and
trapezoidal profiles used in diaphragm are as follows:
the distortion of the cross section caused by shear forces can be neglected in cassettes in
consideration of the stiffness of the section. Therefore the deformation of the cassette wall is
based on the deformation of the joints,
the load-carrying capacity is principally limited by local buckling of the wide flange against
other modes of failure, common for the trapezoidal sheeting,
the edge members of the wall are often not present (horizontal members at the bottom and the
top of the wall). Therefore the upper and lower cassette profile must be checked for the
additional compression and tension forces.
The most important parts of the cassette wall for the stressed skin action are joints which have critical
effect for the stiffness and for the load-carrying capacity of the wall. The basic possible modes of joint
failure are as follows:
failure between adjacent profiles,
failure between cassette and frameworks (at least three fasteners should be arranged, [11]),
failure between cassette and edge members due to shear forces (if edge members are present).
Another mode of failure is local buckling of the wide flange.

The cassette wall shear flow carrying capability was investigated by Nyberg [18]. His work was
focused on the determination of the stress distribution in cassettes. The analytical model was created.
Based on the experimental investigation Nyberg pointed out that if joints are designed to the shear
forces from tension field in the wall that the resistance of the wall is not limited by the buckling of the
cassettes wide flange. The overcritical region exists in the form of shear-field through the whole
cassette wall. The failing of the cassette wall is characterized by local buckling of the edge profiles,
which are loaded by axial forces.
2.1.3. Existing design procedures for cassette walls

The basic recommendation in Europe which contains detailed procedures for design cassette walls
acting as diaphragm is ECCS [11]. The document allows calculating with cassette walls as a
diaphragm, which can ensure the global stiffness of the building and provide beam-columns
stabilization with cassette walls. The calculation procedures for diaphragm from cassettes in [11] are
mainly based on the Baehre research results, which are summarized in [4]. The results agree with
published results of Davies works [2].
Fig.3. Longitudinal stiffeners in wide flange

ECCS recommendation [11] specifies the next conditions for the cassette design:
-18-
Gbor Szab
the wide flanges must be stiffened by longitudinal stiffeners, see Fig.3,
the distance between fasteners (es) in the adjacent webs is no more than 300 mm,
the distance between fasteners (a1) in narrow flange is no more than 1000 mm,
the fasteners in the webs must be as close as possible to wide flange (eu30 mm),
the other geometrical limits are defined as following: 30BO60 mm; 60H200 mm;
300Bu600 mm; 0.75t1.5 mm, Ia/bu10 mm4/mm, see Fig.4.
Fig.4. Cassette profile with geometrical properties

The shear resistance of a diaphragm created from cassette profiles is the lesser from values Pmax and
Vbuc. Pmax (2.1) is the shear resistance of diaphragm due the fasteners failure and Vbuc (2.2) is the shear
resistance of diaphragm due to cassette profile failure (buckling of the wide flange):
Pmax ns Fs 1 Fp
(2.1)
8.43EL 4 9
I1t
Bu2
(2.2)
Vbuc
The cassette wall shear flexibility is equal to the sum of individual flexibilities of the diaphragm (2.3).
The formula contains these sub flexibilities: shear flexibility of the diaphragm by shear deformation of
the sheet c1,2 (2.4), shear flexibility of the diaphragm by the deformation of the fasteners between
cassette and framework c2,1 (2.5), shear flexibility of the diaphragm by the deformation of the fasteners
between adjacent cassettes c2,2 (2.6) and shear flexibility of the diaphragm by the deformation of the
fasteners between cassettes and edge members c2,3 (2.7).
c c1,2 c2,1 c2,2 c2,3
(2.3)
Equations for determines the individual flexibilities are followings:

c1,2 2 B 1 / EtL
(2.4)
c2,1 2 Bs p p / L2
(2.5)
c2,2 2 ss s p nsh 1 / 2ns s p 1ns ss
(2.6)
c2,3 2 ssc / nsc
(2.7)
-19-
Gbor Szab
Individual shear flexibility for screws should be determined experimentally. The safe values for
screws can be also found in tables [11].
The difference of Baehres approach [4] in comparison with ECCS [11] is only in the formula for the
shear flexibility of the fasteners between adjacent cassettes c2,2. The following published equation by
Baehre could be used to obtain c2,2:
c2,2 ss nsh 1 / ns
(2.8)
The stiffness of the diaphragm according to ECCS [11] may be determined from the following
simplified equation:
(2.9)
L
S act S act
In formula (2.9) Sact is the shear stiffness of the diaphragm which could be determined as a
multiplication of the shear stiffness per unit length (2.10) and the total length of the diaphragm.

Sact
aLBu
es B Bu
(2.10)
The serviceability limit state requirement for diaphragm composed from cassettes is following:
S act
T
V
375 L
(2.11)
Factor 1 in equation c2,2 (2.6) should be obtained from following formulas:
for uncountable value of nf:

2i
1
i nf
(2.12)
for countable value of nf:

2i 1
n f
1
i
(2.13)
where i is from 1 to (nf -1)/2.

The following necessary conditions should be satisfied according to the ECCS [11] for the stressed
skin diaphragms design:
the sheeting should first be designed for its primary purpose in bending according to EN 19931-3 [13] (either by calculation or by testing). It should then be checked that the maximum
shear stress due to diaphragm action does not exceed 25% of the design yield (normal) stress.
it may be assumed in design that transverse load on a panel of sheeting will not affect its
strength or flexibility as a shear diaphragm.
diaphragm forces in the roof or floor planes should be transmitted to the foundations by means
of braced frames, stressed skin diaphragms, or other methods of sway resistance.
structural connections of adequate strength and stiffness should be used to transmit diaphragm
forces to the main steel framework.
-20-
Gbor Szab
diaphragms should be provided with edge members. These members, and their connections,
should be sufficient to carry the flange forces arising from diaphragm action.
Restrictions according the ECCS for the diaphragms are next:
diaphragms should not be used to resist permanent external loads (except for lateral support to
beams and the dead load from light weight construction) but should be predominantly
restricted to resisting
o
loads applied through the cladding, such as wind loads and snow loads, and
seismic forces and other similar (in magnitude and frequency) transient loads,
crane forces,
Note: the force induced in any fastener or group of fasteners by horizontal surge or
braking effects from overhead cranes should not exceed 30% of the capacity of the
fastenings.
stressed skin diaphragms should be treated as structural components and should not be
removed without consideration of the effect on the stability of the building. Such
consideration should not invalidate planned removal of areas of sheeting for maintenance
purposes, provided the remaining areas are adequate as a diaphragm or temporary bracing is
provided during maintenance.
the calculations, drawings and contract documents should draw attention to the fact that the
building incorporates stressed skin diaphragms, subject to National rules.
openings totalling more than 3% of the area in each shear panel should not be permitted.
Openings of less than this amount may be permitted without special calculation provided the
total number of fasteners in each seam with openings is not less than that in a seam without
openings.
stressed skin diaphragms should be designed predominantly for short-term imposed loads,
unless long term phenomena such as creep are taken into account.
stressed skin buildings in which the frames have not been designed to carry the full unfactored
load without collapse should be braced during erection. Buildings which utilize the roof or
floors as stressed skin diaphragms should be erected so that the roof and floors are sheeted
before the walls are cladded.
the structural effects of building modifications on stressed skin buildings should be checked.
Changes in use or occupancy which might affect the original design assumptions should be
noted in the contract documents and notified to the appropriate authority.
The shear stiffness of the diaphragm could be determined in accordance with [19] according to
equation (2.10) if the following condition is valid for the second moment of area of wide flange about
its major axis:
B T
I z ,G 7.75 10 4 u v
t E
(2.14)
where TV = min (TV,Q, TV,L, TV,S):

TV ,Q 0.8 n f 1 Fp / Bu
(2.15)
TV , L FL / eL
(2.16)
-21-
Gbor Szab

1 1
TV , S Fs
es L
(2.17)
The value TV represents shear flow in the ultimate limit state of fasteners. Equations (2.15), (2.16) and
(2.17) represent the individual possible failures of fasteners.
Davies, who is one of the dominant personalities in field of cladding structures, pointed out some
weakness of the design procedures in [3]:
one of the basic assumption for the cassettes is that the wide flange need not be stiffened. In
the context of cassette wall construction with wide flanges exposed externally this is
architecturally undesirable. The design procedure for local shear buckling of the thin wide
flange is equally applicable to both stiffened and unstiffened flanges.
the most worrying aspect is that Eurocode does not require any formal design check in the
capacity of the fasteners.
2.2.
Members in bending and axial compression
Members under axial compression and bending develop specific load-carrying behaviour in the
different ranges of slenderness. At very low slenderness the cross-sectional resistance dominates,
described by the well-known interaction formulae for elastic or plastic limit states:
M y , Ed N Ed eNy M z , Ed N Ed eNz
N Ed
1
Aeff f y / M Weff , y ,min f y / M Weff , z ,min f y / M
(2.18)
With increasing slenderness a second order effect appears, which is significantly influenced by both
geometrical imperfection and residual stresses. In the high slenderness range, member buckling is
dominated by elastic behaviour.
Depending on the emphasis given to the different ranges, different concepts of interaction formulae
were proposed in the past:
the exponential form stressing the plastic cross section behaviour,
linear-additive form derived from linear-elastic buckling response.
The present approach of Eurocode [12] was based on the linear-additive form. In this method the
effect of the axial force and the bending moments are linearly summed and the non-linear effects are
accounted for by specific interaction factors. The preference for this concept results from its userfriendliness, since it allows the evaluation of the individual effects of the axial force and bending
moments.
The code [12] includes two different formats of the interaction formulae called Method 1 [23] and
Method 2 [24]. The main difference between them is the kind of presentation of the different structural
effects, either by specific coefficients in Method 1 or by one compact interaction factor in Method 2.
This makes Method 1 more adaptable to identifying and accounting for the structural effects, while
Method 2 is mainly focused on the direct design of standard cases [25].
-22-
Gbor Szab
Design formula for Method 1
N Ed
y N pl , Rd
k
y LT
LT
N Ed
z N pl , Rd
k
z * LT
LT
Cmy M y , Ed
N
1 Ed
N
cr , y
C yy ,mod M pl , y , Rd
Cmz M z , Ed
N Ed
1 N C yz ,mod M pl , z , Rd
cr , z
Cmy M y , Ed
N
1 Ed
N cr , y
Czy ,mod M pl , y , Rd
Cmz M z , Ed
N Ed
1 N Czz ,mod M pl , z , Rd
cr
,
z
(2.19)
(2.20)
Design formula for Method 2

Buckling mode y-y:
C M
C M
N Ed
k y my y , Ed 0, 6 k z mz z , Ed 1
M pl , z , Rd
y N pl , Rd
LT M pl , y , Rd
(2.21)
M y , Ed
C M
N Ed
k LT
k z mz z , Ed 1
y N pl , Rd
LT M pl , y , Rd
M pl , z , Rd
(2.22)
Buckling mode z-z:
In [12] the unified formulation of above mentioned methods is present (2.23), (2.24). The difference
between both methods is handled by coefficients kyy, kzz, kyz, kzy. After substitution the according to
chosen method the corresponding formula is achieved.
M y , Ed M y , Ed
M
M z , Ed
N Ed
k yy
k yz z , Ed
1
y N Rk
LT M y , Rk
M z , Rk
M1
M1
M1
M y , Ed M y , Ed
M
M z , Ed
N Ed
k zy
k zz z , Ed
1
z N Rk
LT M y , Rk
M z , Rk
M1
2.3.
(2.23)
(2.24)
M1
M1
Interaction between sheeting and beam-columns
2.3.1. Interaction
Members of the secondary structure which are connected to the framework may have a significant
beneficial effect on the behaviour of the primary frame members. In particular, in the right conditions,
secondary members may either partially or fully stabilize the connected primary member against
lateral deflection.
The secondary structure may be of several types:
-23-
Gbor Szab
bracing,
covering systems,
side rails, see Fig.5.
Fig.5. Secondary structures connected on column A) bracing, B), C) covering systems

Connected members could provide either continuous or discrete restraint with dependence on the
connected member properties and the mode of connection. The discrete restraint is provided by
bracings or secondary members with significant stiffness. The continuous restraint is ensured by
covering members, connected directly on the framework. The continuous restraint is a group of
discrete restraints in sufficiently small distances between each point.
The supported member may fail differently, depending on the mode of stabilization. Let us consider a
member with high slenderness. Non-stabilized member under axial compression and bending moment
fails by lateral torsional buckling. If the same member is fully stabilized in lateral direction the load
carrying capacity is increasing and it fails by achieving the plastic resistance of cross section. Between
those cases the case of the partial stabilization could be found, when the stabilization is not full
stabilization but its effect is not negligible. The two extreme cases are included in present design
standards [12].
2.3.2. Research overview

Issue of the member stabilization was and nowadays is still in focus of researchers. The beam under
bending moment may fail by lateral torsional buckling. In case when other members of the structure
are connected at loaded beam-column they may provide lateral and/or rotational restraint.
The problem of the interaction was investigated mainly in Germany by Lindner whose research was
focused on the interaction between beams and trapezoidal decks [22], [26], [27]. The results of his
research have pointed out the magnitude of the interaction and the possible application of results. The
conclusions of this work are included in EN 1993-1-3 [13]. The same results were achieved by others
like Heil [28] or Sochor [29]. The phenomenon of interaction from the point of view of mechanics was
described by Trahair in [30].
-24-
Gbor Szab
The interaction between various covering systems and beams was the theme of several dissertation
thesis. The thesis of Petrusson was focused on the interaction between sandwich panels and steel
column [31], [32]. The thesis was worked out in Lule University of Technology. During the
investigation three types of experiments were carried out:
determination of the rotational stiffness provided with sandwich panels, where the panels
could act against the stabilized member rotational deflection (on Fig.6 labelled as C). The
obtained rotational stiffness for one pair of panels with two screws was 1kNm/rad. The
stiffness was linearly increasing according to the number of screws.
sandwich panel shear stiffness determination in own plane (on Fig.6 labelled as S).
full scale experiments with connected columns and sandwich panels. The experiments were
focused on the determination of sandwich panel stabilization effect.
The used members were HEA120 and IPE200. Two modes of loading were used during the tests: i)
axial compression, ii) compression and bending. The results of the experiments pointed out that
HEA120 was fully stabilized by the panels under both modes of loadings and lateral torsional buckling
was not appeared. The failure was caused by buckling. When IPE200 was tested the failure mode
depended on the type of loading. For axial compression load the member failed by buckling. Under
axial force and bending moment the lateral torsional buckling occurred. The conclusion of the work
was that in common cases for the investigated members the sandwich panels provide sufficient elastic
support and provide full lateral stabilization.
2.3.3. Idealization of stabilization effect

The interacting construction is commonly modelled as two individual springs connected on the place
of fasteners, see Fig.6. The spring labelled as S represents the shear stiffness of the diaphragm in its
own plane. The next one which is labelled as C signifies the rotational stiffness of the diaphragm.
These two parameters are independent and depend on the properties of the diaphragm.
Fig.6. Idealization of interaction

Sign of beam-column load has significant effect to the intensity of interaction. When the stabilized
member is under axial compressive load and bending moment, the compressed flange has a tendency
for lateral movement. If the supporting members are connected at compressed flange then may come
different behaviour depend on the value of shear stiffness S:
if shear stiffness S is sufficient for full stabilization of supported member then torsional
deformation does not occur and the rotational stiffness does not activate.
if the shear stiffness is not enough for full stabilization and act only as a partial support then
the torsional deformation appears and the rotational stiffness is activated and contributes on
stabilization.
-25-
Gbor Szab
In this arrangement of elastic supports the stabilization may be full. In the other case when the
supporting members are connected at tensioned flange the lateral-torsional buckling with imposed axis
of rotation in tensioned flange occurs. In this case the stabilization effect is softer.
2.3.4. Existing design procedures

Design procedures for interacting sheeting can be found in Eurocodes [12], [13] in the German
standard [33] and in ECCS recommendation [11]. These procedures were mainly developed by
Lindner. The result of the investigation was published in [22] and [27], and became the parts of
standards.
Lindner in his projects focused on the interaction between hot rolled I sections and trapezoidal panels
but the results could be used for other types of structures. During his investigations the complex model
was developed for trapezoidal panels.
2.3.4.1.
Interaction calculating according to Lindner
The design procedures which were published by Lindner are based on the experimental investigation.
The work was arisen from Fischers work [34] and from Lindners investigation. Sufficient stiffness S
(Fig.6) for full stabilization of beam was published in [26]. Special evaluation was made out for IPE
sections with a depth more than 200 mm.
The limiting shear stiffness for the full stabilization is following:
2
2 70
S EI 2 GIT EI z 2 h 2 .
L
4L
(2.25)
The same equation (2.25) may be found in codes [12] and [33].
Stiffness S for cassette profiles can be found out from experimental investigation, from the earlier
project of Rybn [17] or from ECCS recommendation [11].
Even if the shear stiffness S does not reach the limiting value of (2.25), a remarkable positive effect on
the ultimate lateral torsional buckling load is given in [25]. In such cases this effect can be taken into
account by calculating the elastic lateral torsional buckling moment Mcr under the assumption of the
given value for C (explained below) and S.
The next value which was investigated by Lindner is the rotational stiffness C (Fig.6) provided by
connected sheeting. The rotational stiffness acts against the rotational movement of stabilized beam.
The effect of stabilization is included at torsional stiffness of the member IT. The equation designed by
Lindner is following:
IT * IT
CL2G .
(2.26)
Stiffness C presents the rotational stiffness whereby the sheeting acts on the member. This stiffness is
defined as:
1
1
1
1 .
C c M c A c P
(2.27)
The equation for obtaining the rotational stiffness is based on the idea that each component included is
independent and could be defined separately. The individual stiffnesses are showed on Fig.7 and have
following meanings:
-26-
Gbor Szab
cM is rotational stiffness of the sheeting profiles (2.28),
cA is stiffness of the fasteners between sheeting and members (2.29),
cP is stiffness due to the distortion of the member (2.30).
Fig.7. Lindners model of independent stiffnesses

The rotational stiffness provided by sheeting cM could be obtained from the following equation:
c M k
EI ,
a
(2.28)
where: k is the coefficient including the span of the sheeting. (4 for multi span, 2 for single or
double span),
a is the span of the sheeting.
The value of cA is commonly determined by experimental investigation. Equation (2.29) was
presented in [26] by Lindner for the fasteners between trapezoidal sheeting and hot rolled sections and
may be also found in [13].
b
c A c A
100
(2.29)
For cold formed sections value c A may be obtained according to the equation determined by Vran
[35].
The equation (2.30) may be used for sections I and U [33]. Constant c1 depends on the shape of cross
section (0.5 for I sections for random load; 0.5 for U sections for gravity load; 2 for U sections for
uplift).
c P
E
1
2
h
4 1 c b
1 3
tw3
tf
(2.30)
Alternative equation included in code [12], to check the sufficient torsional stiffness provided by
sheeting is following:
-27-
Gbor Szab
M pl2 , k
EI z
K K
(2.31)
where K is factor for considering the moment distribution, see Tab. 1, and K is equal to 1.00 for
plastic analysis and equal to 0.35 for elastic analysis.
Tab. 1. Factor K for considering the moment distribution and the type of restraint of
compression flange
Tab. 2. Factor K for considering the moment distribution and type of restraint according to
[25]
In [25] another table could be found (Tab. 2), which contains detailed value for K defined for each
buckling curve and also for other moment distribution.
-28-
Gbor Szab
The hot rolled profiles with depth lesser than 200 mm are always sufficient supported against lateral
torsional buckling. For sections with higher depth Lindner presents the limiting ratio for the
trapezoidal panel shear stiffness S and rotational stiffness C whereby should be achieved for full
stabilization of supported members, see Fig.8. The graph is operative for single span beams with end
uniformly distributed loads and end moments.
Fig.8. Ratio between stiffnesses S and C
2.3.4.2.
Interaction calculating according to Heil
The elastic support calculation according to Heil is based on the following idea. The point of
application of the uniformly distributed load is in the same plane as the point of the connected
secondary structure [28]. The stabilized member is sufficiently stabilized if equation (2.32) is valid.
2
2 3 M pl , y
3 2 EI z
S
3 2 2 3 LT2 h 2 3 L2
2
2 2
2
1 1 3 c ,
2
3 h
(2.32)
where rotational stiffness factor c is following:

c2
2 EI GI t L2 .
(2.33)
EI z
In this equation the stiffness C of the sheeting against the rotational movement of connected member
is not considered. The rotational stiffness factor c2 with respect of the sheeting rotational stiffness C
could be obtained from equation (2.34).
c2
2 EI GI t L2 L4C / 2
EI z
-29-
(2.34)
Gbor Szab
We can consider that the member is fully stabilized against lateral torsional buckling if LT 0.4 .
When this limit is substituted into (2.32) the obtained equation is following:
S 10.18
2.3.4.3.
M pl , y
h
4.31
EI z
c2
1
1
1.86
L2
h 2
(2.35)
Stabilization of members according to recommendation ECCS
In ECCS [11] the possibility is given to use shear panels as stability bracing to prevent flexural,
flexural torsional and lateral torsional buckling or combination of these behaviour. In this document
the procedure is given for checking the stabilized state of columns and beams made from doubly
symmetric I sections. The determination of the minimum strength and stiffness of the shear panel
according to the recommendation ECCS was mentioned above, see section (2.1.3).
The formulae in [11] are based on a sinusoidal form of lateral deflection, which leads to a concentrated
reaction force at the support (see Fig.9). The concentrated force can be regarded as an internal force in
the diaphragm provided the fasteners between the sheeting and the element to stabilize can sustain this
concentrated force on length of 1/8 of the span of the element. If these fasteners are unable to sustain
this concentrated force, then that force should be introduced into the edge members via the fasteners
between the diaphragm and the edge members.
Fig.9. Assumed deflection of the element to stabilize with the resulting concentrated force at
the supports
If the unstiffened flange of the beam is in tension the beam is fully stiffened when the shear stiffness
of the diaphragm S fulfils the following requirement:
S act S y
-30-
fy A
2
(2.36)
Gbor Szab
Sact is the shear stiffness of the diaphragm and Sy is the required shear stiffness of a diaphragm for full
stabilization. If the requirement for full stabilization is not fulfilled (Sact < Sy), the critical forces Mcr
and Ncr are calculated from following formulae:
M cr M
(2.37)
N cr N
(2.38)
where is the eigenvalue being the lowest value of 1 and 2. If both eigenvalues are negative, no
stability problem exists for the given stress resultants M and N.
1,2
k1
k1
h
1

WzWw S
2k2
2
2
k
k
ip
2
2
(2.39)
where S is the minimum of Sact or Sy. Coefficients included in (2.39) should be obtained from
following formulae:
Sh
k1 N Wz Ww M 2
i p
k2 N 2 M 2
1
i p2
EI 2
Wz z2 S
L
Ww
1
i p2
2
ECw 2
h
GI
S
T

2
2
L
i p2 i y2 iz2
Cw
1
I z h2
4
(2.40)
(2.41)
(2.42)
(2.43)
(2.44)
(2.45)
Cw is the warping constant for doubly symmetric I section. M is constant bending moment about y
axis, N is constant centric normal force to be introduced with the actual sign, for definition see Fig.10.
-31-
Gbor Szab
Fig.10. Notation and sign definitions

The maximum shear force Td in a shear panel per member to be stabilized follows from next equation:
Td
S o
1 L
(2.46)
where eo is the initial lateral bow imperfection of the stiffened flange according to the Eurocode [12].
The maximum shear force Td shall be smaller than the design resistance of the fasteners Pmax as was
mentioned above (2.1). Furthermore one of the following conditions shall be fulfilled:
the shear force Td shall be smaller than FpL/8p where Fp is the design strength per fastener
between the sheeting and the stabilized element, p is the pitch of the fasteners between the
sheeting and the stabilized element.
the fastenings of the sheeting to the edge elements shall be accounted for Td.
-32-
Gbor Szab
Chapter 3
Thesis objectives
The main objective of the PhD. thesis is to find out the effect of the sheeting from cassette profiles to
the load carrying capacity of the connected slender beam-column.
The thesis was divided into experimental, numerical and theoretical parts.
The objects of the experimental part were focused on:
to determine the rotational stiffness of the cassette profile,
to determine the stabilization effect of the cassette wall to the load carrying capacity of hotrolled beam-column.
The object of the numerical modelling is:
to make a numerical model of experimentally tested member,
to calibrate the numerical model according the experimentally obtained results,
to carry out parametric study so as to extend the results range.
The theoretical analysis is based on results of experimental and numerical work and the objectives are
also the main ones of the thesis:
to derive formulae for determining the rotational stiffness of the cassette profiles,
to describe the behaviour of hot-rolled beam-column with connected cassette wall,
to work out the design tables for minimal cassette wall stiffness for full and partial
stabilization of connected beam-column.
-33-
Gbor Szab
Chapter 4
Experimental study
4.1.
Introduction
Experimental investigation belongs to the main part of the thesis. Experiments give the primary results
data, which is the base of the investigation.
During the thesis altogether three types of experiments were carried out:
tests of rotational stiffness of the cassette profile,
full-scale tests of hot-rolled beam-columns with connected cassette wall,
additional tests (material properties, fasteners stiffness).
4.2.
Rotational stiffness
The aim of these experiments were to determine the rotational stiffness of the connection between
cassette profile and hot-rolled beam-column from I profile about its x-x axis, see Fig.11.
Fig.11. Rotational stiffness about x-x axis.
-34-
Gbor Szab
The experiments were carried out because useful data were not found for cassette profiles. A similar
rotational stiffness value was worked out by Ptrusson for sandwich panels but these results couldnt
be used due to dissimilar behaviour between those two sheeting types [31].
The obtained values served as input parameter for following work. The experiments were focused on
the rotational stiffness influenced by local behaviour of cassette in region of connection. From the
statical points of view the investigated stiffness couldnt be determined by calculation method
available in standards or other literature. The experimental investigation was necessary due to the
complex behaviour of profile in the area of local deformations.
The experiments were not made to derive a general equation for cassette profiles but as input
parameters for following work. This was a reason why only specific specimen with similar properties
was used.
Trapezoidal sheeting was neglected during the experiments because it did not influence the
investigated stiffness.
4.2.1. Experiments overview

The specimen very simply represented the real situation of the connection between the column and
cassette profile. The specimen was comprised of two cassette profile sections and a steel plate
representing the column flange, see Fig.12. This simplified arrangement was chosen to ease the
manipulation of the specimen. Besides, the steel plate fully satisfied the requirements of a flange
because of its high stiffness. The cassette profiles were connected to the steel plate (further as flange)
with screws.
Fig.12. Column flange replacement

As it could be seen in Fig.12 the length of the profiles was chosen as short because the experiment was
focused on the local behaviour of connection area. The specimen was supported in a vertical position
by special support, connected to laboratory column. The specimen was clamped by special steel plates
and timber blocks in the middle of the cassette profile, see Fig.17. This configuration permitted the use
of both ends of each profile for two different tests. Thread-cutting screws were used to connect the
cassettes with flange plate. These screws require predrilling which was made with respect of
manufacturer requirements. The screws with length of 19 mm and diameter 6,3 mm (EJOT/JZ-6.3x19E16) were supplied by rubber chock.
The screw arrangement was one of the altered parameters. Their positions depended on another altered
dimension, the width of the column flange. Used screw arrangements and plate widths were as
follows:
Number of screws in connection, see Fig.13:
2x2,
-35-
Gbor Szab
2x3.
Fig.13. Screws arrangement

Width of the flange (thickness 8 mm), see Fig.14:
300 mm,
250 mm,
150 mm.
Fig.14. Used steel plates replacing column flange, dimensions, position of fasteners
Screw arrangement with respect of the flange centriod, see Fig.14:
symmetrically to the flange axis [a], (for plate width 150 mm),
symmetrically to the flange axis near axis [b], (for plate width 250 mm and 300 mm),
symmetrically to the flange axis near edge [c], (for plate width 250 mm and 300 mm),
un-symmetrically to the flange axis [d], (only for plate width 250 mm and 300 mm, used non
symmetrical fasteners arrangement about flange axis).
The last variable, which had significant effect and was followed in experiments, was the cassette
profile. Two types of cassette profile were used with two different thicknesses; see Fig.15, [37]:
-36-
Gbor Szab
Cassette profiles:
K 120B/600, thickness 0.75 mm,
K 120B/600, thickness 0.88 mm,
K 130F/600, thickness 0.75 mm.
The nominal yield strength of the light gauge steel used for cassettes was 320 MPa.
Fig.15. Used cassette profiles
Fig.16. Draft of the experiments
-37-
Gbor Szab
Altogether 17 specimens were made from combinations of above listed parameters. The list of the
specimens is presented in Tab. 3. (Arrangement of the screws which is in the table labelled by letters is
noted in Screw arrangement capitulation above in squared bracket). The specimens were assembled
by hand. The distance between the cassette profiles was 10 mm. Screws were tightened by torque
wrench. The assembly was carried out horizontally and lifted up onto the laboratory column. The
loading was applied by weights. A cantilever, which was welded to flange, served for the application
of load. A loading platform was hung from the end of the cantilever where the weights were put. The
gauge was clamped on the cassette. The deflection of the cantilever was measured by manual
deflectometer. The measuring equipment precision was 0.05 mm.
Fig.17. The specimen, side-view, front-view
4.2.2. Measured values

The goal of the experiments was the rotational stiffness determination provided by cassette profiles. In
order to determine the required bending moment and rotational deflection following data was
recorded:
a1, a2,b1, b2 screw positions,
m gauge distance from flange,
n distance of load application point,
p measured displacement, see Fig.18.
-38-
Gbor Szab
Fig.18. Measured values

It should be noted that distances a1, a2 do not influence the behaviour of specimens while b1, b2 are
relevant and thus they are listed in Tab. 3, see Fig.18, Fig.19. Distances b1, b2 act as force arm in
contact between the screw and the compressed point of cassette wall either the cassette profile end or
the steel plate end. During the rotational movement the cassette profile acts against this movement.
The local deformation of the profile shows the acting points where the forces arise. The stiffness
magnitude depends on force arm.
Fig.19. Deformed specimen

The stiffness depends on two values: bending moment and rotation. These demanded values could be
calculated form two measurands:
deflection of the cantilever,
load.
The bending moment was calculated from load and force arm according to Fig.18.
-39-
Gbor Szab

M Fn
(4.1)
and the rotation was determined from the cantilever movement and gauge position
p .
arctan
(4.2)
Following figure shows the values as rotational deflection and applied moment.
Fig.20. Load deflection curves from experimental investigation, marked with respect of Tab. 3.
The rotational stiffness is defined as:
C
M Nm
/ cassette width
rad
where stiffness C is used as secant stiffness for 0.05 rad of rotation.

The obtained stiffnesses C and other data are summarized in the following Tab. 3.
-40-
(4.3)
Gbor Szab
Tab. 3. Specimen overview and the experimentally obtained results
4.3.
Full-scale tests of beam-column with cassette wall
The main goal of the project is to determine the stabilization effect of cassette wall to the load carrying
capacity of the beam column. The effect of the sheeting would have been determined directly from
numerical model but experimental study was necessary to prove the correctness of the model. These
facts lead to provide full scale experiments of beam-column stabilized by cassette wall.
This test arrangement was chosen so that lateral torsional buckling would be governing for the load
capacity. According to the theoretical assumption the connected sheeting should obstructed this failure
mode.
The stabilization effect depends on several parameters. Lets see which these are and how could
influence the results:
Position of the connected sheeting with respect of the member flanges has significant
influence to the stabilization effect. Cassette profile connected to the tensioned flange allows
free lateral movement of compressed flange but partially prevents the cross-section against
torsional deformation. The column resistance is less increased in this arrangement. In the other
case when the wall is connected at the compressed flange the effect of the wall is stronger.
The wall provides lateral restraint of the compressed flange. During the experiments both
cases were tested.
Shear stiffness of the cassette wall in its own plane depends on cassette profile properties and
amount of screws between adjacent cassettes. The stiffness of the wall commonly is not a
weak point of the construction. Defined maximum pitch of 300 mm according to [11] presents
sufficient intensity. The length of used cassette profiles was smaller as in normal case.
Therefore higher density of screws between adjacent cassettes was chosen. The screw density
was constant during the investigation.
Number of connection between the flange and the cassette profile influenced both lateral and
rotational stiffness of the connection. Connection with two fasteners was chosen for all
specimens.
Static scheme and the boundary conditions play an important part in the beam-column
behaviour. These conditions were chosen so that the lateral torsional buckling occurred.
-41-
Gbor Szab
Cantilever was used to achieve combined (M+N) internal forces in the member. Two types of
the beam-column boundary condition were chosen with different out of plane behaviour.
The specimen comprises more members than only beam-column, cantilevers, cassette profiles
and corrugated sheeting. An additional frame was made which supported cassette profiles in
the desired position. These necessary additional members affected the behaviour of whole
specimen and could increase the load carrying capacity of the beam-column. This effect was
taken into account during the numerical modelling and analysing of results.
4.3.1. Experiments overview

The specimens were designed as a frame because combined bending and axial loading was required,
see Fig.21. The ratio between bending moment and axial force equal to 1 m was chosen. This
combined load was necessary to achieve the desirable lateral-torsional failure.
Fig.21. Specimen static scheme
Fig.22. Specimen V2
The parts of the specimen were as follows:
beam-column,
two cantilevers,
cassette profiles covered by trapezoidal panels,

-42-
Gbor Szab
frame supported cassette profiles.
Altogether six specimens were produced, each of them with different properties. The variables were:
boundary conditions. Two types of boundary conditions were used. One was the typical frame
corner joint with partial warping and out-of-plane bending restraint which provided a
significant prevention against beam-column distortional deflection (V), see Fig.23. The
second one was a fork connection allowed free warping of beam-column end sections and free
out-of-plane rotation (K), see Fig.24. The connection consisted from tension contact
represented by pin and from compression contact, which was made by cubes where one of
them was modified to sphere. Rotation about x-x axis was restrained for both types. In plane
static scheme for both types of specimens was the same. For both types of specimen different
cantilevers and beam-column were produced. The system length of the beam-column and
cantilever for each type is noted in Tab. 4.
amount and position of cassette profiles. The cassette profiles were put on the specimen in
three different arrangements:
o
double-sided cassette arrangement on compressed flange of beam-column,
double-sided cassette arrangement on tensioned flange of beam-column,
one side cassette arrangement on compressed flange of beam-column.
The following Tab. 5 contains all specimens with boundary conditions and cassette arrangements.
Tab. 4. System lengths
Tab. 5. List of specimens
The specimens were produced in DT vhybkarna a mostarna, Prostjov - and built up in CTU
Experimental centre. During the experiments the same cantilevers were used for all specimens, only
the tested beam column was replaced. For the beam-column section IPE300 and for the cantilevers
HEA320 were used. Steel grade 355 MPa was used. The joints are shown in Fig.23 and Fig.24. The
specimens were symmetrical about vertical plane.
-43-
Gbor Szab
Fig.23. Main frame joint; Set V
Fig.24. Main frame joint; Set K
-44-
Gbor Szab
Fig.25. Boundary conditions, specimens V and K

The columns and the joints were dimensioned to the expected load. Tensioned flange of the beamcolumn in joint area in set K was strengthened due to the high concentration of stress close to the joint,
see Fig.23, Fig.24 and Fig.25.
The wall had to be kept in plane perpendicular to the main frame. An additional frame was prepared to
serve as a support for cassette profiles and trapezoidal panels. The structure was made from four U160
profiles and twelve L60x6 angles. Two U160 beams ensured the support for the cassette profiles and
the rest members created the whole support structure, see Fig.26, Fig.27. The additional frame was
connected on the cantilevers. The cassette profiles were laid or clamped with U160 beam with respect
of the position of the wall which may be on compressed or on tensioned flange of the beam-column.
The connections between the cassette profiles and U160 beam were made by slotted holes.
Fig.26. Plan view main frame and additional frame

The same additional frame was used for all specimens. The frame was designed so that could be used
for both situations: profiles connected to compressed and to tensioned flange.
-45-
Gbor Szab
Fig.27. Additional frame (with reference to Fig.26)
Fig.28. Additional frame, specimen V3 with one sided wall

The cassette wall was made by following members:
cassette profiles (delivered by Kovove profily s.r.o., type B K145/600, 0.75mm, S320 GD),
trapezoidal panels (delivered by Kovove profily s.r.o., type TR 35/207, 0.75mm, S320 GD),
-46-
Gbor Szab
screws:
o
cassette/beam-column flange thread-cutting screws (EJOT/JZ-6.3x19-E16),
adjacent cassettes self-tapping screws (EJOT/ JT2-3H-5.5 x19-V16),
cassette/trapezoidal panel self-tapping screws (EJOT/ JT2-3H-5.5 x19-V16).
Loading was applied by hydraulic jack. The acting point was on one of the cantilevers in 1 m distance
from centroid of beam-column. The loading was controlled by displacement. As first step 30% load of
theoretical load carrying capacity was carried out due to screws haul before main loading was applied.
The tests were conducted until collapse.
Fig.29. The loading point with hydraulic jack and the support
During the experiments three types of sensors were used:
potentiometer sensor,
inductive sensor,
strain gauge.
The position of the sensors and measured data are included in following chapters.
4.3.2. Imperfection
Global imperfection of beam-column has considerable influence to the buckling behaviour of the
member. This was the reason why the imperfection of the beam-column was examined.
The Czech standard CSN 73 2611 [38] (adequate to EN 1090-2) specifies the maximum allowable
production imperfection. To follow the specimen behaviour the imperfection in minor axis orientation
was important. According to the standard the members are sorted to three classes A, B and C. Each
class has got different limit:
A) 0,0015L, max. 15 mm,
B) 0,002L, max. 20mm,
C) 0,003L, max. 30mm.
-47-
Gbor Szab
The initial imperfection was measured. Measuring was carried out by level instruments for each beamcolumn, see Fig.30 to Fig.35.
Fig.30. Measured lateral imperfection of specimen V1
-48-
Gbor Szab
Fig.33. Measured lateral imperfection of specimen K1

The summary of the measured imperfections is in Tab. 6. The results lead to conclusions that the
members fulfil limits for members initial imperfections.
-49-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 6. Summary of measured imperfections
4.3.3. Measured values

Altogether 21 sensors were used for specimens in set V and 23 for specimens in set K. The monitored
values are shown in figures Fig.36, Fig.37, Fig.38 and Fig.39.
The measured values may be sorted to three groups:
horizontal and vertical absolute deflection (towards the laboratory floor),
relative lateral movement between adjacent cassettes,
strains at midspan of beam-column.
Fig.36. Sensors arrangement, set V, top view
-50-
Gbor Szab
Fig.37. Sensors arrangement, set V, side view

The arrangements of the sensors basically were the same for all specimens. Only the strain gauges
were set in different place. Absolute and relative deflections for both sets (K, V) were measured in the
following location:
U1 lateral deflection of beam-column top flange,
U2 lateral deflection of beam-column bottom flange,
U3 vertical deflection of the beam-column in the midspan,
U4, U5, U6 lateral deformation of first three cassette profiles counted from cantilever,
U7, U8 lateral deflection of cantilevers, measured in the crossing of beam-column and

cantilevers centrelines,
U9 longitudinal deformation of cantilevers in position of hydraulic jack; this value was used
for loading handles,
R1, R2, R3 lateral relative movement between cassettes and beam-column top flange.
-51-
Gbor Szab
Fig.38. Sensors arrangement, set K, top view
Fig.39. Sensors arrangement, set K, side view

The strain gauges were set in different position on the beam-column for each set of specimens.
Strain gauges location for set V:
T1, T2 top flange, both edges, midspan,
T3, T4 bottom flange, both edges, midspan,
T5, T6 top flange, both edges, 370 mm from end plate of beam-column from bearing side,
T7, T8 bottom flange, both edges, 370 mm from end plate of beam-column from bearing
side.
Strain gauges location for set K:
T1, T2 top flange, both edges, midspan,

-52-
Gbor Szab
T3, T4 bottom flange, both edges, midspan,
T5 top flange, 640 mm from cantilever centreline from bearing side,
T6 bottom flange, 640 mm from cantilever centreline from bearing side,
T7, T8, T9, T10 web of the beam-column, midspan, vertically arranged in one line.
4.3.4. Results of experiments

The experimental investigation led towards the following failure modes defined with maximal
achieved load:
V1, K1 lateral torsional buckling about imposed axis, see Fig.40, Fig.41. Cassette wall
connected at tensioned flange could not prevent beam-column torsion. Cassette profiles failed
locally in place of cassette-flange screws.
Fig.40. Failure mode, V1
Fig.41. Failure mode, K1
V2, K2 plastic moment resistance of beam-column reached. Cassette wall fully stabilized
the beam column with in plane stiffness, no relevant lateral movements at collapse, see Fig.42.
-53-
Gbor Szab
Fig.42. Failure mode V2, K2
V3, K3 lateral torsional buckling. One sided cassette wall with decreased plane stiffness
buckled in connection with beam-column lateral movement, see Fig.43, Fig.44. Cassette
profiles failed by two ways, locally and globally.
Fig.43. Failure mode V3
Fig.44. Failure mode K3

-54-
Gbor Szab
Tables including all the measured values are presented in Appendix A. Fig.45 shows the loaddeflection (measured by gauge U3 see Fig.37 and Fig.39) curves for both types of specimens for each
combination of wall arrangements.
Fig.45. Load-deflection curves for all specimens, measured by gauge U3.

The failure mode could be followed by relative deflection of flanges. Fig.46 shows the relative lateral
movement of flanges (the difference of deflections U1 and U2). The failure of specimens K2 and V2
was caused by reaching the plastic cross-section capacity. In specimens K1, K3, V1 and V3 lateraltorsional buckling occurred.
Fig.46. Relative deflection between compressed and tensioned flanges.
4.4.
Additional tests
In this section two types of tests are noted. The first type was focused on determination of the used
material properties of beam-column. The second one was about the stiffness of the screw connections.
4.4.1. Material properties

The standard tests were focused on the determination of beam-column material properties. Altogether
three tests were carried out from the beam-column material. For the specimen production parts from
tensioned flange and parts of the web close to the tensioned flange were used. The position of used
material with respect of the whole length was at 1/6 of span from the beginning of the member. The
specimens were taken from three members. Following table contains the obtained steel properties.
-55-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 7. Steel properties
4.4.2. Fasteners stiffness

Two types of tests on the fasteners stiffness were made. First of them was the test of fasteners between
the cassette profile and column flange (marked as KS), the second one was the test of fasteners
between the adjacent cassettes (marked as KK), see Fig.47. Altogether six tests were carried out, three
for each type. The obtained stiffnesses were used for numerical model.
The specimens were prepared from the same material and screw types as were used for full-scale tests.
The specimens contained two screws, see Fig.47. The obtained force-deflection graphs, which were
recalculated for one screw, are presented in Fig.48 and Fig.49.
Fig.47. Fastener experiments arrangement
-56-
Gbor Szab
Fig.48. Force displacement curves for specimens KK, one screw (both sheet thickness
0,75mm).
Fig.49. Force displacement curves for specimens KS, one screw (sheet thickness 0,75mm,
steel plate thickness 10mm).
-57-
Gbor Szab
Chapter 5
Numerical modelling
5.1.
Introduction
Numerical modelling comprises two parts. At first during the experiments preparation, the models of
beam-column with cassette wall were developed. The models served to test and tune the specimens.
Secondarily the real specimens were modelled. They confirmed the experimentally obtained results.
The numerical model was used for the parametric study additionally. The numerical modelling was
carried out by ANSYS 11.0 software package.
5.2.
Pre-modelling of specimens
The numerical modelling was first used for predicting the results of experiments and basically
facilitated the experiments design. The goal was to find out the profile of sufficient slenderness to
illustrate the effect of connected sheeting stiffness.
The model contains from following main parts:
beam-column,
cantilevers,
sheeting.
The cantilevers served for the loading and for generation of combined loading on beam-column. The
sheeting was connected at either compressed or tensioned flange of beam-column. The connections
between the cantilevers and the beam-column were made according to mentioned details marked as V
and K.
5.2.1. Used elements, materials, boundary conditions and load

Shell element SHELL181 was used to model the sections (flanges and web). The element is suitable
for analysing thin to moderately-thick shell structures. It is a 4-node element with six degrees of
freedom at each node. SHELL181 is well-suited for linear, large rotation, and/or large strain nonlinear
-58-
Gbor Szab
applications. The element is defined by four nodes (I, J, K, L) in rectangular position. The length to
width ratio may be up to 3. The geometry definition of the element is presented on Fig.50.
Fig.50. Geometry of element SHELL181

The beam-column was modelled with half sinusoidal imperfection. The amplitude of the imperfection
was worked out from EN 1993-1-1 [12]. The imperfection amplitude in direction of minor axis was
L/250.
Furthermore nonlinear spring elements COMBIN39 were used for modelling the connected sheeting.
This element is unidirectional element with nonlinear generalized force-deflection capability. The
element has longitudinal or torsional capability in 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D applications. The longitudinal
option is a tension-compression element with up to three degrees of freedom at each node: translations
in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The torsional option is a purely rotational element with three
degrees of freedom at each node: rotations about the nodal x, y, and z axes. The element is defined by
two nodes (I, J) optimally in the same node. The force-deflection curve is defined by pair values of
force and deflection, see Fig.51.
Fig.51. Geometry of element COMBIN39, element force-deflection curve

During the pre-modelling of specimens the cassette wall was modelled by spring elements. Each part
of the wall, cassette profiles and screws were modelled by springs which were reciprocally connected.
The whole cassette wall with all connectors comprised four types of spring elements which presented
the following parts of the wall:
screws between cassette profile and column flange, S1,
screws between adjacent cassette profiles, S2,
two parts of cassette profiles due to proper wall model, S3, S4; see Fig.52.
-59-
Gbor Szab
Fig.52. The model of the wall provided by spring elements

The stiffnesses of wall and fasteners were worked out from ECCS [11] and from previous project of
Rybn [17].
Nonlinear spring elements were used for defining the rotational capability of sheeting, which was
obtained from rotational stiffness experiments. The springs which presented the rotational stiffness C
were placed continuously along the whole length of beam-column.
The connections between cantilevers and beam-column were made by contact elements. One of the
simplest contact elements available in ANSYS package CONTAC52 was used. This element
represents two surfaces which may maintain or break the physical contact and may slide relative to
each other. The element is capable of supporting only compression in the direction normal to the
surfaces and shear in the tangential direction. The element has three degrees of freedom at each node:
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is defined by two nodes (I, J) placed each
at other part of structure which may be connected. Two stiffnesses (normal stiffness and sticking
stiffness) and initial gap or interference had to be defined.
Loading was applied at cantilevers. Arc-Length nonlinear solver with large displacement was used.
Bilinear (elasto-plastic) material model was used. Different steel grades were used for beam-column
and for cantilevers. For beam-columns material model with yield strength 355 MPa was used and for
cantilevers fy = 235 MPa. These values fulfilled nominal material properties used in experiments.
-60-
Gbor Szab
Fig.53. Specimen with load and boundary condition
5.2.2. Conclusions from pre-modelled specimens

The pre-modelling pointed out the following summary:
The section geometry and the length of the beam-column governed the slenderness of the
member which determined the type of failure. During the numerical modelling such kind of
section was searched which slenderness allows for lateral-torsional failure. The aim was to
prove the sheeting impact to the member failure. Section IPE300 was chosen against HEA
due to higher slenderness about weak axis.
The following ratios between bending moment M and axial force N were checked: 0.5 m, 1 m
and 2 m. For the experimental investigation the ratio 1 m was chosen when the influence of
bending moment was significant.
The boundary condition of the primary examined beam-column was rigid connection V
with cantilevers. This option prevents the distortion of beam-column end cross section. It was
decided to prepare the specimens with fork boundary conditions as well. The specimen type
K was designed based on this idea.
The results suggested that a cassette wall could be sufficient for full stabilization of the beam
column. Therefore, specimens with both side walls and one side wall were designed for
testing.
5.3.
Experimentally tested specimen models
As mentioned in the previous section, the experimental investigation was preceded by numerical
modelling. These numerical models were used as the basis for a modified model that was developed
after the experimental investigation. The main modifications are listed below:
-61-
Gbor Szab
Boundary conditions of beam column. Finally two types of beam column were tested, see
Chapter 4. For both of them the adequate models were created, see Fig.54.
Fig.54. Models boundary conditions K1, V1
The yield strength and the ultimate strength were calculated as a mean value from standard
tests, see 4.4.1, Tab. 7, and used for the modeling. For material properties of other parts
(cantilevers, pin), the nominal values delivered by manufacturer were used. Different material
models were used for beam-columns and for the other structures. For beam-columns
multilinear with kinematic hardening, for cantilevers and other parts bilinear material (elastoplastic) model were used, see Fig.55, Fig.56.
Fig.55. Beam-column material model (stress in MPa)
-62-
Gbor Szab
Fig.56. Cantilever and additional frame material model
The cassette wall was modelled with a system of spring elements, Fig.52. Each segment of the
wall was used separately as a spring, and connected with adjacent elements according to the
mentioned system. The force deflection relations of screws were taken from experiments, see
chapter 4.4.2. The wall stiffness was calculated according to ECCS [11]. The whole system
gives sufficient results as proved by Hapl [36].
An additional structure was used to support the cassette wall on the specimens. A frame
providing the wall support was modelled using beams. Their presence in the model was
necessary because during the experimental investigation their effect on the load carrying
capacity was detected. The numerical model allowed their elimination from final results. The
frame was made from BEAM188 3-D linear finite strain beam, see Fig.57.
Fig.57. Elements BEAM188 as additional frame
-63-
Gbor Szab
The boundary conditions of whole specimens were changed. The additional frame worked as
lateral support in plane of cassette wall. Therefore the lateral supports were removed.
Beam-column imperfection was used e0,y= L/300, e0,z=L/250, according to standard [12].
5.3.1. Calibration
The updated model was calibrated according to the experimentally obtained results. Three main
parameters were followed during the calibration:
load-carrying capacity defined as maximally achieved loading in both cases; experiments and
numerical model,
stiffness,
failure mode.
For comparison of stiffness the force-deflection curves at midspan were used, see Fig.58, Fig.59,
Fig.60.
Fig.58. Comparison of load-deflection diagrams from model and experiment for specimens V1,
K1.
Fig.59. Comparison of load-deflection diagrams from model and experiment for specimens K2,
V2.
-64-
Gbor Szab
Fig.60. Comparison of load-deflection diagrams from model and experiment for specimens K3,
V3.
Following Tab. 8 table contains comparison of load-carrying capacity of models and specimens.
Tab. 8. Comparison table of load carrying capacity obtained from numerical model and
experiments.
The mean value of numerically and experimentally obtained load carrying capacity is 0.956 and the
standard deviation is 0.027.
The lateral movement of the beam-column flanges was followed when the failure mode was studied,
namely if lateral-torsional bending occurred or not. Following graphs show the difference of
deflections between compressed and tensioned flange lateral movement (U2-U1, see Fig.37, Fig.39)
obtained from experiments and from numerical models, see Fig.61, Fig.62, Fig.63.
Fig.61. Relative deflection of compressed and tensioned flange, comparison between model
and experiment, specimens K1, V1.
-65-
Gbor Szab
The graphs show that tested specimens V2, K2 were fully stabilized by cassette profiles. In other cases
the lateral movement of the flanges was significant.
5.4.
Parametric study
During the experimental investigation six specimens were tested. From these results general
conclusions could not be made. Therefore, a parametrical study was executed to expand the result set.
The parametric study was carried out on the calibrated models. The data expansion covered the length
of the specimens, the profile types, numbers of screws between adjacent cassettes, thickness of
cassette profiles and the bending moment distribution. The altered parameters were as follows:
sections: series of IPE and HEA sections (IPE80 - IPE600, HEA140 - HEA700),
length: 6, 8, 12, 15m,
number of screws between adjacent profiles: from 1 up to 30,
cassette thickness: 0.75, 1.5mm,
bending moment distribution: a) constant, b) triangular, c) bi-triangular, see Fig.64.
-66-
Gbor Szab
Fig.64. Moment distribution

The ratio between the maximum bending moment and the axial force was always 1m (M/N=1m).
The stiffness of the cassette wall could be also influenced by the cassette profile length which was not
introduced. It was found that it did not affect the results during the parametric study therefore it was
not used as parameter.
The study embraced the full- and not-supported members load-carrying capacity calculation as well.
Those values were used for definition of the greatness of the stabilization effect.
The parametric study was also used to determine the influence of the rotational restraint stiffness
provided by cassette profile. Therefore specimens were solved with and without rotational stiffness.
Total amount of calculated cases: 8400.
5.4.1. Parametric study assumptions

The parametric study was carried out based on the following assumptions:
Ideal elastic-plastic material models of S235 and S355 were used.
Shear stiffness of the wall was not influenced by global buckling of wide flange of cassette
profile.
Imperfection according to EN 1993-1-1 [12] was used as e0,y= L/300, e0,z=L/250.
-67-
Gbor Szab
Chapter 6
Analysis of results
The project leads to several results that could be sorted into two main parts; the rotational stiffness
provided by cassette profiles and the effect of the sheeting to the load carrying capacity of connected
hot-rolled beam-column member. The first part was based on the experimental investigation followed
by the theoretical analysis (see Chapter 6.1 bellow). The investigation on the sheeting restraint
presented the main part of the work and contained experiments, numerical modeling and parametric
study.
6.1.
Rotational stiffness of cassette profile
This part of the project was focused on the determination of the rotational stiffness provided by
cassette profiles. These results were necessary for the modelling of the main specimens and were
therefore used as input parameters during the work.
Experimentally obtained results which lead to the rotational stiffness C of the connection are
summarised in Tab. 3, see Chapter 4.2.2.
The results were divided into two groups (connection with 2x2 and 2x3 screws, respectively). The
parameters on which the stiffness C depends were the thickness t and the distances b1 and b2. As
illustrated on deformed connection in Fig.65, the stiffness C depends on distances of screws between
columncassette profile compression contacts. Distances b1 and b2 were relevant for given sign of
torsion moment while distances a1 and a2 did not influence the connection behaviour.
-68-
Gbor Szab
Fig.65. Decisive values, deformed specimen

In this case the total rotational stiffness is equal to the summation of individual stiffnesses of cassette
profile on both sides of the column. The relation of stiffness on specified input parameters was
searched in form of equation C / tn, depending on function (kb1 + b2). Therefore two constants (n, k)
were proposed and derived. Suitable approximation was found in linear form as shown in Fig.66,
Fig.67.
Fig.66. Linear approximation of stiffness for screw arrangement 2x2
Fig.67. Linear approximation of stiffness for screw arrangement 2x3

-69-
Gbor Szab
The coefficient k was determined by FE model, see Fig.68. The different behaviour of positive and
negative bending moment of the cassette profile and its effect on the whole stiffness was followed by
the model. The constant n was selected to minimize the scatter of results.
Fig.68. Numerical model of the connection loaded by positive bending moment, von Mises
stress in MPa.
Two equations were derived, one for connection with 2x2 screws (6.2) and the other one for 2x3
screws (6.3).
C / t n kb1 b2
(6.1)
C (0.0554b1 0.0198b2 0.45)t 2.3
(6.2)
C (0.0757b 1 0.0445b2 0.68)t 2.6
(6.3)
The mean value of ratio of experimentally and calculated (according to eq. (6.2) and (6.3)) acquired
torsional stiffness Cexp/ Ccalc is 0.992 for 2x2 screws, the standard deviation is 0.158. For screw
arrangement 2x3 the mean value is 1.004 and the standard deviation is 0.083.
6.2.
Behaviour of column supported by cassette wall
The second part of the project was focused on determination of the effect of the sheeting on the load
carrying capacity of the column and the understanding of the interaction between them. An
experimental investigation and numerical model were used to achieve the results.
-70-
Gbor Szab
6.2.1. Experimentally obtained results

Altogether six specimens were experimentally tested. These specimens gave results which may be
used directly. Section IPE300 (S355 and lower), length from 5680 mm, boundary condition either V
or K, with connected both sided cassette wall thickness of 0.75mm and length 1200mm, at least two
screws between each profile and column flange and two screws between adjacent cassettes, loaded by
constant bending moment and axial force in ratio M/N=1m is fully supported in case that the cassette
is connected to compressed flange. The sheeting connected to tensioned flange leads to lateraltorsional buckling failure with imposed axis of rotation.
6.2.2. Results from parametric study

Results from parametric study are sorted to three units:
impact of rotational stiffness to stabilization effect,
connected beam-columns flange behaviour,
lateral support stabilization effect on the load carrying capacity of the supported members.
6.2.2.1.
Impact of rotational support
The cassette wall provides two independent supports to the connected member: lateral restraint and
rotational restraint. The effect of the support was investigated. Two cases were compared: wall
connected to the compression flange and wall connected to the tension flange. The effect of the
rotational stiffness is significant only when the wall is connected to the tension flange. In the other
case, when the compression flange is laterally restrained, rotational movement about the longitudinal
axis did not occur and the rotational stiffness was not activated. This example is valid for most cases
when the cassette wall connected at the compression flange is able to restrain the member against
rotational movement.
The following figures show the effect of the rotational stiffness to the stabilization effect. Load
carrying capacity was determined with and without rotational restraint (lateral restraint was always
applied). The study was conducted for IPE and HEA sections with S235 and S355 materials. Two
types of wall were used, one by sheeting thickness 0.75mm and the other for 1.5mm. Constant
moment distribution with length from 2010 mm up to 15000 mm was used. The boundary conditions
are K or V.
members IPE boundary condition K, supported at tensioned or compressed flange
-71-
Gbor Szab
members IPE boundary condition V, supported at tensioned or compressed flange
members HEA boundary condition K, supported at tensioned or compressed flange
members HEA boundary condition V, supported at tensioned or compressed flange
Figures Fig.69 - Fig.72 present value between load carrying capacity of members with and without
rotational support according to following equation:
Rwith _ rot
Rwithout _ rot
(6.4)
The rotational stiffness influence for supported compressed flange is neglectible, especially for
boundary conditions V. When the cassette wall is connected at tensioned flange the rotational
-72-
Gbor Szab
stiffness may grant by 133% - K and 77% - V members load carrying capacity for section IPE and
71% - K and 38% - Vfor section type HEA.
The impact of the rotational stiffness depends on the section properties as it is shown on Fig.73.
Sections with greater torsional stiffness are able to act against rotation easier. This behaviour is
reflected on the rotational stiffness impact.
members with length 6000 mm, impact of section torsional stiffness
6.2.2.2.
Connected beam-columns flange behaviour
Distribution of deformation and internal forces along the member length is influenced by connected
cassette wall. The cassette wall presented the diaphragm with complex behaviour. The wall includes
relatively weak and stiff elements as the fasteners between adjacent cassette profiles and the cassette
profiles respectively. This feature of cassette wall leads to additional local bending of the connected
members about their weak axis and is studied in this section.
The following graph shows the different behaviour of the compressed flange for three types of lateral
support, see Fig.74:
Wall: elastic lateral restraint is presented by cassette wall (thickness 0.75 mm, 6
screws/adjacent cassettes, 2 screws between cassette and flange, cassette length 3000 mm),
Full: lateral support provides full restraint,
Without: member without lateral restraint.
The investigated member properties IPE300, boundary conditions V, constant bending moment
distribution, L=9000 mm, cassette wall connected at compressed flange. Fig.74 A shows compressed
flange behaviour for all three cases Full, Wall, Without. Flange lateral deflection without any
restraint is smooth with maximum amplitude 138 mm. Fully supported flange graph shows that points
in place of support do not move laterally. In case three, cassette Wall provides (1.42 mm) nearly
same support as Full (from amplitude) which leads to the fact that the wall support must be
significant, see Fig.74 B. The lateral deflection comparison of all cases shows that Wall stabilize up
to 99% against lateral movement if boundary values Full is equal to 100% and Without is
assigned to 0%.
-73-
Gbor Szab
Fig.74. Compressed flange lateral deflection for different wall properties; A three cases:
without support, cassette wall support, full support, B two cases: cassette wall support,
full support (same graph with larger scale)
The cassette wall stiffness has a significant impact on the global deformation of the loaded member.
The local lateral deformation amplitude (the difference of minimum and maximum deformation within
the width of one cassette) is not influenced by cassette stiffness as shown in Fig.75. This result leads to
the conclusion that the additional local bending from the sheeting connection does not depend on cross
section properties and cassette wall stiffness.
-74-
Gbor Szab
Fig.75. Compressed flange lateral deflection for different wall stiffness, section IPE300
(t-thickness, ns-number of screws, cl-cassette profile length)
Fig.76 compares two identical members with same sheeting but different steel grade. The graphs prove
that lateral movement of compressed flange is mainly influenced by cross-section properties and the
steel grade not by the sheeting stiffness.
-75-
Gbor Szab
Fig.76. Compressed flange lateral deflection for different steel grade, sections: IPE140, L=4 m;
IPE300, L=8.4 m
6.2.2.3.
Lateral support-stabilization effect
The last presented results are wall stiffnesses required for full (98% of load carrying capacity of
laterally restrained member) or partial (80%) member stabilization by connected cassette wall. The
results were worked out from parametric study.
Definition of full stabilization: supported column flange is restrained against lateral movement. The
expression stabilized does not mean the same for the two investigated cases; sheeting connected at
compressed flange and sheeting connected at tensioned flange. In the case when the compressed
flange is restrained, stabilized really means that the member is globally stabilized against out-ofplane buckling. In the other case, stabilization means lateral-torsional buckling about imposed axis.
Above mentioned cases could be presented with following formulae:
Fully stabilized beam-column resistance is equal to member loading capacity under combined
load (M+N) with ratio 1m and lower:
M y , Ed
N Ed
k yy
0.98 1.0
y fy A
LTWpl , y f y
M y , Ed
N Ed
k zy
0.98 1.0
z f y A
LT Wpl , y f y
(6.5)
-76-
(6.6)
Gbor Szab
when LT, z = 1; for cassette wall connected at compressed flange. For cassette wall connected at
tensioned flange the lateral-torsional buckling about imposed axis should be considered.
Partially stabilized beam-column resistance is equal to 0.8x member loading capacity under
combined load (M+N) with ratio 1m and lower. The definition of reduction factors are same
as for full stabilization:
M y , Ed
N Ed
k yy
0.8
y fy A
LTWpl , y f y
M y , Ed
N Ed
k zy
0.8
z f y A
LTWpl , y f y
Result tables are divided into six parts per section

column moment distribution. In each table are
tensioned flange. The required wall stiffnesses
stabilization as defined at the beginning of this
included in the results.
(6.7)
(6.8)
type according to boundary conditions and beamresults for stabilized compressed and stabilized
are presented for full and for partial member
paragraph. Steel grade S235 and S355 are also
Values of wall stiffnesses for each wall arrangement were worked out by ECCS recommendation [25],
see eq. (2.3). The considered minimum wall stiffness was defined as follows:
cassette profile sheeting thickness 0.75 mm
two screws per cassette-column flange contact
screws number between adjacent cassette: IPE, HEA140-180: 3 pcs.; 200-300: 5 pcs.; 330600: 6 pcs.
The cassette profile length was also different, but as this does not influence the result, it was not
presented. The screws at the flange were placed at the quarter of flange width from both sides. The
maximum considered web stiffness was calculated with a cassette sheeting thickness of 1.5 mm. In the
following result tables one stiffness value is given for several types of profiles because the minimum
considered wall stiffness was sufficient for several members.
The numerical models were calculated according to GMNIA (Geometrically and Materially Nonlinear
Analysis of the Imperfect Structure) analysis. The rotational stiffness of the connection between
cassette profiles and column flange was applied during calculation. For members without values given
in the following tables, the wall stiffness from used range did not satisfy the stabilization condition.
For the stabilization higher wall stiffness is required, which could be achieved for example with higher
number of screws between adjacent cassettes.
-77-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 9. Required stiffness for V, section IPE supported compressed flange
-78-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 10. Required stiffness for V, section IPE supported tensioned flange
-79-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 11. Required stiffness for V, section IPE supported compressed and tensioned flange
-80-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 12. Required stiffness for K, section IPE supported compressed flange
-81-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 13. Required stiffness for K, section IPE supported tensioned flange
-82-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 14. Required stiffness for K, section IPE supported compressed and tensioned flange
-83-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 15. Required stiffness for V, section HEA supported compressed flange
-84-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 16. Required stiffness for V, section HEA supported tensioned flange
-85-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 17. Required stiffness for V, section HEA supported compressed and tensioned flange
-86-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 18. Required stiffness for K, section HEA supported compressed flange
-87-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 19. Required stiffness for K, section HEA supported tensioned flange
-88-
Gbor Szab
Tab. 20. Required stiffness for K, section HEA supported compressed and tensioned flange
The tables pointed out following conclusions:
Boundary condition V prevents higher resistance against section deplanation as K, which

leads to member stabilization with lower cassette wall stiffness S.
Member with lower steel grade (S235 in this case) needs equal or lower wall stiffness for
stabilization. This behaviour could be explain:
LT
Wy f y
(6.9)
M cr
M crS 235 M crS 355
(6.10)
S 235
S 355
S 235
S 355
LT
LT
LT
LT
(6.11)
Rwall
LT
R full
(6.12)
The tables could be used for design. The sheeting is primarily designed for bending due to the exterior
loads. When the stabilization effect is also considered the sheeting is subjected to combined actions.
The project did not focus on this interaction but it is known that such combination is not usually
governing for the steel cold-formed sheeting.
-89-
Gbor Szab
Fig.77. Calculation tool for wall stiffness calculation

During the project a calculation tool was developed (Fig.77) to determine the wall stiffness according
to ECCS recommendation [11]. The tool is available on website of Department of Steel and Timber
Structures: http://www.ocel-drevo.fsv.cvut.cz.
-90-
Gbor Szab
Chapter 7
Conclusions
The rotational stiffness of the connection between cassette profile and hot-rolled beam-column
was determined according to experimental study (Chapter 4.2). Altogether 17 specimens were
tested (Tab. 3). Different cassette profile thickness, connected column flange width and screw
arrangement was investigated. Obtained results were used as input data for main experiments
(Chapter 4.3). Formulae were derived for rotational stiffness calculation of connection for
different screw arrangements, (Eq. (6.1).
A numerical model was developed and was used to prepare full scale experiments of beamcolumn connected with cassette wall (Chapter 5.2). The software package ANSYS was used.
The modelling was focused to find the most suitable hot-rolled section for experimental
investigation. The connected cassette walls were modelled by spring elements, beam-column
by shells. The stiffness of the cassette wall was calculated according to ECCS [11]. During the
numerical modelling the effect of the cassette wall position and their stiffness were followed.
The full scale experiments were prepared with respect of obtained results.
Full scale tests were carried out to determine the effect of the cassette wall to beam-column
load-carrying capacity (Chapter 4.3). Profile IPE300 with steel grade S355 was used. Two
types of specimens were used with different boundary conditions; rigid frame support, fork
support. Altogether 6 specimens were made; 3 for both boundary condition arrangements. The
system lengths of the specimens were 5330 mm and 5680 mm according to boundary
conditions. Three types of cassette wall arrangements were analysed: connected at compressed
flange, connected at tensioned flange and half sided wall at compressed flange. To achieve
combined load in member cantilevers were used for the load application. The ratio between
bending moment and axial force was 1m. The load was applied until specimen failure. Tests
pointed out that cassette wall could fully stabilize the connected beam-column (Chapter 4.3.4).
The numerical model was calibrated (Chapter 5.3.1) according to experimentally obtained
results. Necessary changes were made to adjust the model according to specimens. A
parametric study was carried out (Chapter 5.4) for sections IPE and HEA with following
altered parameters: section type, beam-column length, number of screws between adjacent
profiles, cassette thickness, bending moment distribution. Load carrying capacity and failure
mode were observed. Altogether 8400 models for section type IPE and HEA were calculated.
The parametric study pointed out the following conclusions:

o
The effect of rotational connection between cassette wall and flange was examined.
The rotational stiffness influence for supported compressed flange is negligible,
-91-
Gbor Szab

especially for boundary conditions V. When the cassette wall is connected at
tensioned flange the rotational stiffness may grant by 133 - K and 77% - V
members load carrying capacity for section IPE and 71% - K and 38% - Vfor
section type HEA (Chapter 6.2.2.1).
The supported flange behaviour observation pointed out that the lateral deflection
amplitude between full supported and supported by cassette wall was 1%. Cassette
wall stiffness has a significant impact on the global deformation of the loaded
member. The local lateral deformation amplitude (the difference of minimum and
maximum deformation within the width of one cassette) is not influenced by cassette
stiffness (Chapter 6.2.2.2).
Design tables with required wall stiffness to ensure the full stabilization of beamcolumn were made for different cassette wall stiffnesses, compressed and tensioned
flange connection, bending moment distribution, sections and lengths (Chapter
6.2.2.3). Two types of sections were studied: IPE and HEA. Calculation tool was
made for cassette wall stiffness calculation, Fig.77. With help of the tables the
positive effect of cassette wall could be used for design.
-92-
Gbor Szab
References
[1]
Davies J.M.: Light gauge steel cassette wall construction, Nordic steel construction conference
98, p. 427-440, 1998.
[2]
Davies J.M., Fragos A.S.: The local shear buckling of thin-walled cassette infilled by rigid
insulation 1.Tests, 2. Finite element analysis, Eurosteel Coimbra 2002, p. 669-688,
Akadmiai kiad, Budapest, 2002.
[3]
Davies J.M.: Light gauge steel cassette wall construction theory and practice, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 62, p. 1077 1086, 2006.
[4]
Baehre R.: Zur Schubfeldwirk und -bemessung von Kassettenkonstruktionen, Stahlbau 56, Heft
7, p. 197-202, 1987.
[5]
Baehre R., Ladwein T.: Diaphragm action of sandwich panels, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 31, p. 305-316, Elsevier Science Limited, 1994.
[6]
Baehre R., Holz R., Vo R.P.: Befestung von Trapezprofiltalfeln auf StahlkassettenprofilStahlbau 57, Heft 10, s. 309-311, 1988.
[7]
Kisin S.: The realistic effect of stressed skin design of typical industrial hall structure,
Proceedings of the Conference Eurosteel 99, VUT v Praze, p. 243-246, 1999.
[8]
Davies J.M., Omadibi I.A.: An ultimate limit state theory for stressed skin design, Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation,
s. 87-92, Cape Town, South Africa, 2007
[9]
Ladwein T.: Zur Schubfeldwirkung von Sandwichelementen, Stahlbau 62, Heft 11, p. 342-346,
Heft 12, s. 361-363, 1993.
[10] Baehre R.: Zur Schubfeldwirkung von Aluminiumtrapezprofilen, Stahlbau 62, Heft 3, p. 81-87,
1993.
[11] European convention for construction steelwork: European recommendations for the application
of metal sheeting acting as a diaphragm. ECCS Technical Committee 7, Technical working
group 7.5, Publication 88, 1995.
[12] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
[13] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-3: General rules -Supplementary rules for coldformed members and sheeting, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
[14] Strnad M.: Spolupsoben pl u lehkch ocelovch hal, Stavebn informan stedisko,
Praha, 1975.
[15] epika D.: Smykov spolupsoben pl z tenkostnnch profil, dizertan prce, FSv,
VUT v Praze, 2003.
[16] epika D., Machek J., May I.M.: Shear diaphragms in purlin roofs, Eurosteel Coimbra 2002,
p. 235-242, Akadmiai kiad, Budapest, 2002.
-93-
Gbor Szab
[17] Rybn J.: Plov psoben tenkostnnch kazet, dizertan prce, FSv, VUT v Praze, 2001.
[18] Nyberg G.: Diaphragm action of assembled C-shaped panles, Swedish council for buildings
research, Document D9, 1976.
[19] DASt-Richtlinie 016: Bemessung und konstruktive Gestaltung von Tragwerken aus
dnnwandigen kaltgeformten Bauteilen, 2. berarbeitet Auflage, Stahlbau-Verlagssgesellschaft,
1992.
[20] The Steel Construction Institute: Steel designers' manual, Sixth Edition, Blackwell Science,
2003.
[21] The Steel Construction Institute: Design of Single-Span Steel Portal Frames to BS 59501:2000, The Steel Construction Institute, 2004.
[22] Lindner J., Gregull T.: Torsional restraint coefficients of profiled sheeting, IABSE colloquium,
p. 161-168, Stockholm, 1986.
[23] Boissonnade N., Jaspart J.P., Muzzeau J.P., Villette M.: New interaction formulae for beamcolumns in Eurocode 3: The French Belgian approach, Journal of Constructional Steel Research
60, p. 421-431, 2004.
[24] Greiner R., Lindner J.: Interaction formulae for members subjected to bending and axial
compression in EUROCODE 3 the Method 2 approach, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 62, p. 757-770, 2006.
[25] European convention for construction steelwork: Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1,
Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS Technical Committee 8 Stability,
Publication 119, 2006.
[26] Lindner J.: Stabilisierung von Trgern durch Trapezbleche, Stahlbau 56, Heft 1, s. 9-15, 1987.
[27] Lindner J.: Stabilisierung von Biegetrgern durch Drehbettung eine Klarstellung, Stahlbau 56,
Heft 12, s. 365-373, 1987.
[28] Heil W.: Stabilisierung von biegedrillknickgefhrdeten Trgern durch Trapezblechscheiben,

Stahlbau 63, Heft 6, s. 169-178, 1994.
[29] Sochor R.: nosnost vaznc a padk stabilizovanch proti klopen inkem pl, Pozemn
stavby 3, s. 124-131, Praha, 1976.
[30] Trahair N.S.: Flexural torsional buckling of structures, E&FN Spon, London, 1993.
[31] Ptursson E.H.: Column buckling with restraint from wall elements, Nordic steel construction
conference 98, Volume 1, p. 157-166, Bergen,1998.
[32] Ptrusson E.H: Column buckling with restraint from sandwich wall elements, 9th Nordic steel
construction conference, p. 291-298, Helsinki, 2001
[33] DIN 18 800:1990 Stahlbauten, Teil 1-4.

[34] Fischer M.: Zum Kipp-Problem von kontinuierlich seitlich gesttzten I-Trgern, Stahlbau
45, Heft 4, p. 120-124, 1976.
[35] Vran T.: Rotan podepen tenkostnn ocelov vaznice krytinou, Inaugural dissertation,
CTU Prague, 2002.
[36] Hapl V., Vran T.: Vliv spolupsobc konstrukce a konstruknho detailu na nosnost
ohbanho prvku, Teoretick a kontrukn problmy oceovch a drevench kontrukci ahk oceov kontrukcie, s. 111-116, Mojmrovce, 2005.
[37] www.kovprof.cz
-94-
Gbor Szab
[38] SN 73 2611:1978 Dimension and shape deviations of steel structures

[39] Release 10.0 documentation for ANSYS, ANSYS Inc., 2005
-95-
Gbor Szab
Appendix A Tables of measured data

Data from experimentally measured data:
V1, V2, V3, K1, K2, K3
-96-
Gbor Szab

Specimen V1
-97-
Gbor Szab

Specimen V2
-98-
Gbor Szab

Specimen V3
-99-
Gbor Szab

Specimen K1
-100-
Gbor Szab

Specimen K2
-101-
Gbor Szab

Specimen K3
-102-
Gbor Szab
Appendix B Calculation example
Following example show how to use the tables for design.

Check following member. IPE 450 with length 9 m, S355. Connected cassette profiles at compressed
flange, width 600 mm, S320, length 3 m, thickness 0,75 mm, fasteners between adjacent cassettes at
step 600 mm. Fasteners flexibility: for adjacent cassettes 0.3 mm/kN, for connection between cassette
and column flange 0.35 mm/kN. Distances between screws at column flange 500 mm. Edge members
are not present at wall. Member is under combined axial and bending load with ratio 1 m, triangular
moment distribution. The member boundary conditions are K.
Wall stiffness calculation according to ECCS recommendation:
nsh = 9000/600 = 15,
(number of cassette profiles in wall)
Bu =600 mm,
(width of cassette profile)
t = 0.75 mm,
(cassette profile thickness)
L = 3000 mm,
(cassette profile length)
sp = 0.35 mm/kN,
(fasteners flexibility for screws between cassette profile and column flange)
ss = 0.3 mm/kN,
(fasteners flexibility for screws between adjacent cassette profiles)
p = 500 mm,
(distance between screws at column flange)
ns = 10,
(number of screws between adjacent cassette profiles)
The wall flexibility calculation according to (2.3)
c c1,2 c2,1 c2,2

c1,2 2 B 1 / EtL
c2,1 2 Bs p p / L2
c2,2 ss nsh 1 / ns
After substitution:
c1,2 2 600 15 1 0.3 /(210 0.75 3000) 0.0495 mm / kN

c2,1 2 600 15 0.35 500 / 30002 0.35 mm / kN
c2,2 0.3 15 1 /10 0.42 mm / kN
c 0.0495 0.35 0.42 0.82 mm / kN

Stiffness is the reverse value of flexibility:
-103-
Gbor Szab
S 1/ 0.82 1.22 kN / mm
This value can also be obtained with help of the calculation tool shown in Fig.77.
According to design tables the required wall stiffness for boundary conditions K, wall connected at
compressed flange, triangular bending moment distribution, member length 9000 mm, S355, for full
stabilization: 0.52 kN/mm, see Tab. 12.
Sreq 0.52 kN / mm S Sreq

The cassette wall provides full stabilization against lateral torsional buckling for member.
Member check under combined axial force and bending moment, full stabilized, cassette wall
connected at compressed flange:
Check the member resistance under combined axial force and bending moment, supported compressed
flange, full stabilization (IPE450, S355, L=9m):
Sreq 0.52 kN / mm , see Tab. 12
bending moment distribution
S 1.22 kN / mm - wall properties see above calculated example

S Sreq - cassette wall stiffness condition for full stabilization passed
MEd = 450 kNm
NEd = 450 kN
iy = 184.8mm
Lcr,y = 9000 mm
Wpl,y=1702.103 mm3
9000 1
0.64
184.8 76.06
y 0.874 (buckling curve a)

f y A 355 9882 3508 kN
Cmy 1.00 for 1.00
N Ed
450.103
1.07
1.00
1
0.64
0.2
k yy Cmy 1 y 0.2
/
0.874
3508.10
/1
N
y
Rk
M
1
N Ed
450.103
k yy Cmy 1 0.8
1.00 1 0.8
1.12
3
0.874 3508.10 /1
y N Rk / M 1
k yy 1.07
M y , Ed
N Ed
k yy
1
y fy A
LT Wpl , y f y
-104-
Gbor Szab
Due to full stabilization the reduction factor LT 1.0
450.103
450.106
0.94
1.07
0.874 3508.103 /1
1.0 1702.103 355 /1
0.94 1
Satisfactory
Member check under combined axial force and bending moment, full stabilized, cassette wall
connected at tensioned flange:
Check the member under combined axial force and bending moment, supported tensioned flange, full
stabilization (IPE450, S355, L=9m).
Sreq 0.52 kN / mm , see Tab. 13
S 1.22 kN / mm - wall properties see above calculated example
bending moment distribution
S S req - cassette wall stiffness condition for full stabilization passed

C = 1.98 kNm/m/rad - connection rotational stiffness calculated by calculation tool Fig.77
MEd = 200 kNm
NEd = 200 kN
iy = 184.8mm
iz = 41.2mm
Lcr,y = 9000 mm
A = 9882 mm2
Wpl,y=1702.103 mm3
Iw = 791.109 mm6
It = 668.7.103 mm4
9000 1
0.64
184.8 76.06
y 0.874 (buckling curve a)

For critical elastic moment calculation LTBeam software was used with following
boundary conditions: continuous lateral restraint at tensioned flange fixed,
contionuous rotational restraint C = 1.98 kNm/m/rad, see draft.
Mcr = 214 kNm
LT
Wy f y
M cr
1702000 355
1.68
214.106
LT 0.284 (buckling curve b)

-105-
Gbor Szab
f y A 355.9882 3508 kN
Cmy 1.00 for 1.00
N Ed
450.103
1.00
1
0.64
0.2
k yy Cmy 1 y 0.2
1.07
3
/
0.874
3508.10
/1
y Rk
M1
N Ed
450.103
k yy Cmy 1 0.8
1.00 1 0.8
1.12
3
y N Rk / M 1
0.874 3508.10 /1
k yy 1.07
M y , Ed
N Ed
k yy
1
y fy A
LT Wpl , y f y
200.103
200.106
1.07
1.31
0.874 3508.103 /1
0.284 1702.103 355 /1
Not satisfactory.
N cr ,T
EI
1
GI t 2 w
2
io
lT
io 2 i y2 iz2 yo2 zo2 184.82 41.22 2252 02 86473.48 mm 2
io 294.1 mm
N cr ,T
1
210.106 791.109
6
81.10
668700
700.7 kN
294.12
90002
Af y
N cr ,T
9882 355
2.24
700700
T 0.176 (buckling curve b)

k zy 0.6k yy 0.6 1.07 0.64
f y A 355 9882 3508 kN
M y , Ed
N Ed
k zy
1
T f y A
LT W pl , y f y
200.103
200.106
0.64
1.07
0.176 3508.103 /1
0.284 1702.103 355 /1
Not satisfactory.
-106-

Disertace Szabo

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Disertace Szabo

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Doctoral study programme: CIVIL ENGINEERING

Ing. Gbor Szab

Doctoral thesis for obtaining the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

Supervisor: Doc. Ing. Tom Vran, CSc.

Jun 2009, Prague

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

Application of cassette wall..................................................................................................14

Literature review ..............................................................................................................17

Research overview ...........................................................................................................17

Principle of stressed skin action .......................................................................................17

Existing design procedures for cassette walls ..................................................................18

Members in bending and axial compression.........................................................................22

Interaction between sheeting and beam-columns .................................................................23

Research overview ...........................................................................................................24

Idealization of stabilization effect ....................................................................................25

Existing design procedures...............................................................................................26

Thesis objectives ..............................................................................................................33

Rotational stiffness ...............................................................................................................34

Measured values ...............................................................................................................38

Full-scale tests of beam-column with cassette wall..............................................................41

Measured values ...............................................................................................................50

Results of experiments .....................................................................................................53

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

Material properties ........................................................................................................... 55

Fasteners stiffness ............................................................................................................ 56

Numerical modelling ....................................................................................................... 58

Pre-modelling of specimens ................................................................................................. 58

Used elements, materials, boundary conditions and load ................................................ 58

Conclusions from pre-modelled specimens ..................................................................... 61

Experimentally tested specimen models .............................................................................. 61

Rotational stiffness of cassette profile ................................................................................. 68

Behaviour of column supported by cassette wall ................................................................. 70

Experimentally obtained results....................................................................................... 71

Results from parametric study ......................................................................................... 71

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall

stiffness factor derived from tests according to ECCS [kN/mm]

cross section area

whole length of the diaphragm B=Bu

width of the narrow flange of a cassette

width of the wide flange of a cassette

total shear flexibility of a diaphragm [mm/kN]

component shear flexibilities for diaphragm [mm/kN]

rotational stiffness of the fasteners between sheeting and members [kNm/rad]

rotational stiffness of the sheeting profiles [kNm/rad]

rotational stiffness due to the distortion of the member [kNm/rad]

rotational stiffness of a diaphragm [kNm/rad]

rotational stiffness of cassette profile determined experimentally

calculated rotational stiffness of cassette profile

equivalent uniform moment factors

Cyy, Cyz, etc.

distance between fasteners in edge members

distance between fasteners in adjacent cassettes

resistance of the fastener between cassette and edge member

resistance of the fastener between cassette and framework

resistance of the fastener between adjacent cassettes

steel yield strength

depth of the section

Interaction between steel column and cassette wall