Civil

Engineering
at JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Notes on
AISI Design Methods for Sheathing Braced Design
of Wall Studs in Compression

B.W. Schafer
report to AISI-COFS Design Methods Committee
April 2008
 Overview
• Part of the AISI-COFS funded project on the design
of sheathed walls with dis-similar sheathing.
• Presentation developed from a report of the same
name
• Project updates, including full report available at
www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/sheathedwalls
• Report covers
– Design methods via 1962, 1980-2004, 2007 AISI
– Examination of sheathing stiffness ‘k’
– Initial summary of known demands and limit states on a
sheathed wall stud in compression
 AISI Design Methods
2007
1962 AISI 1980 to AISI-COFS
Design 2004 AISI Wall Stud
Manual Spec. Standard
(S211)

Winter’s method Simaan and Peköz “simplified”

discrete spring model shear diaphragm model discrete spring model
 Basic notation
I1, r1, Pcr1: strong-axis buckling perpendicular to the plane of the wall

I2, r2, Pcr2: weak-axis buckling parallel to the plane of the wall

e: initial imperfection
 1962 AISI Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• “The safe load-carrying capacity of a stud may be computed on

the basis that the wall material or sheathing (attached to the stud)
furnishes adequate lateral support to the stud in the plane of the
wall, provided the wall material and its attachments to the stud
comply with the following requirements:”
 1962 AISI Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• “The safe load-carrying capacity of a stud may be computed on

the basis that the wall material or sheathing (attached to the stud)
furnishes adequate lateral support to the stud in the plane of the
wall, provided the wall material and its attachments to the stud
comply with the following requirements:”

fastener spacing, a,
must be less than

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2
A fy

Lr2
a max 2 
2r1
 1962 AISI Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• “The safe load-carrying capacity of a stud may be computed on

the basis that the wall material or sheathing (attached to the stud)
furnishes adequate lateral support to the stud in the plane of the
wall, provided the wall material and its attachments to the stud
comply with the following requirements:”

fastener spacing, a,
must be less than

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2
A fy

Lr2
a max 2 
2r1
 1962 AISI Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• “The safe load-carrying capacity of a stud may be computed on

the basis that the wall material or sheathing (attached to the stud)
furnishes adequate lateral support to the stud in the plane of the
wall, provided the wall material and its attachments to the stud
comply with the following requirements:”

fastener spacing, a, fastener-sheathing stiff-

must be less than ness, k, must be at least:

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2
A fy f y2 aA2
k min 
Lr2 240 ,000 ,000 I 2
a max 2 
2r1
 1962 AISI Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• “The safe load-carrying capacity of a stud may be computed on

the basis that the wall material or sheathing (attached to the stud)
furnishes adequate lateral support to the stud in the plane of the
wall, provided the wall material and its attachments to the stud
comply with the following requirements:”

fastener spacing, a, fastener-sheathing stiff- fasteners must have at

must be less than ness, k, must be at least: least this much strength:

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2
A fy f y2 aA2 keP
k min  Fmin 
Lr2 240 ,000 ,000 I 2 2 EI 2 k / a  P
a max 2 
2r1
 Fastener spacing limit #1
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• Design basis: amax1 requires that weak-axis buckling of the stud,

including contributions from the wall stiffness k, that is
developed from fasteners at spacing a, is greater than or equal to
the squash load of the column. Pcr 2 k @ a ,KL2  L   Af y

fastener spacing, a,
must be less than

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2
A fy

Lr2
amax 2 
2r1
 Fastener spacing limit #1
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• Design basis: amax1 requires that weak-axis buckling of the stud,

including contributions from the wall stiffness k, that is
developed from fasteners at spacing a, is greater than or equal to
the squash load of the column. Pcr 2 k @ a ,KL2  L   Af y

Pcr 2 2  id L2 Winter (1960) solution for

fastener spacing, a,  column on a stiff, continuous,
must be less than PE  PE foundation

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2 convert continuous
A fy foundation stiffness, ,
to discrete springs, k,
and set Pcr2=Afy
Lr2
amax 2 
2r1
solve for Af y 2 2k a L2

 EI 2 L   2 EI 2 L2
a, you get 2 2
 Fastener spacing limit #2
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• Design basis: amax2 requires that weak-axis buckling of the stud

over a length of 2a (twice the fastener spacing) must be greater
than the strong-axis buckling over the entire length.
Pcr 2 k  0,KL2  2a   Pcr1 KL1  L 

fastener spacing, a,
must be less than

8EI 2 k
amax1  2 2
A fy
Lr2
amax 2 
2r1
 Fastener spacing limit #2
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• Design basis: amax2 requires that weak-axis buckling of the stud

over a length of 2a (twice the fastener spacing) must be greater
than the strong-axis buckling over the entire length.
Pcr 2 k  0,KL2  2a   Pcr1 KL1  L 

Equating Pcr1 and Pcr2 implies

fastener spacing, a,
must be less than
KL1  KL2
8EI 2 k r1 r2
amax1  2 2
A fy Insure weak-axis buckling over 2a does not control

L 2a
amax 2 
Lr2 
2r1 solve for r1 r2
a, you get
 minimum stiffness k
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• Design basis: kmin is the same as the amax1 design check.

Pcr 2 2  id L2 Af y 2 2k a L2
 
PE  PE  EI 2 L
2 2
  2 EI 2 L2
(from Winter 1960)

fastener-sheathing stiff-
ness, k, must be at least:
sub in for E and
, solve for k
f y2 aA2
k min 
240 ,000 ,000 I 2

Pcr 2 k @ a ,KL2  L   Af y
 fastener strength
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• Design basis: forces developed in an imperfect, but stiff

continuous foundation under the design load P, should be
carried by the fasteners, plus Winter adds some interesting
empirical corrections.
Winter (1960) defines forces developed in a stiff con-
tinuous foundation supporting an imperfect column
fasteners must have at
 id
sreq  d o least this much strength:
1   id  act

Fmin  sreq a 2 keP

Fmin 
  2k a 2 EI 2 k / a  P
kid
Fmin  e
1  kid k act
 fastener strength (continued)
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

kid
Fmin  e
1  kid k act
again, Winter uses the solution for buckling of a column on a stiff continuous foundation,
this time to find the ideal stiffness id (kid):
 id  2kid a
Pcr 2 2  id L 2
 and PE   2 EI 2 / L2 fasteners must have at
PE  PE least this much strength:
Pcr 2  P

which results in 
kid  P 2 2EI 2 a 2

Fmin 
keP
2 EI 2 k / a  P
after substitution and rearranging, we find
ek act P
Fmin 
2 2 EI 2 a k act k id  P
this ends, rational derivation and Winter introduces empiricism
 fastener strength (continued)
ek act P
Fmin 
2 2 EI 2 a k act k id  P
1. assume kact=kid only under first denominator term
results in
2. remove 2 under the radical in first term as well
3. remaining kact = k

fasteners must have at

least this much strength:

Brace forces resulting from

keP
Example 11 of 1962 design manual Fmin 
note kact=80kid 2 EI 2 k / a  P
 fastener strength (continued)
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

ek act P
Fmin 
2 2 EI 2 a k act k id  P
1. assume kact=kid only under first denominator term
results in
2. remove 2 under the radical in first term as well
3. remaining kact = k

0.02 2% “rule”
fasteners must have at
least this much strength:
0.015
Fmin( P)

P
Brace forces resulting from
0.01 keP
Fmin2( P) Example 11 of 1962 design manual Fmin 
P
note kact=80kid 2 EI 2 k / a  P
0.005

0
1 10
4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
P
 Summary of 1962 Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• The fastener-sheathing stiffness must insure the

following condition is met
Pcr 2 k @ a ,KL 2  L   Af y
• The fastener-sheathing strength must insure the
following condition is met
k
Fmin e where kid  P 2 a 8EI 2
k 2 k id  1
• In addition to insure adequate performance in the face
of potential defects
Pcr 2 k  0,KL2  2a   Pcr1 KL1  L 

• If the above conditions are met Pcr=Pcr1 (strong-axis).

 Critique of 1962 Specification
1962 AISI
Design
Manual

• The fastener-sheathing stiffness must insure the

following condition is met
Pcr 2 k @ a ,KL 2  L   Af y
useful, but arbitrary, does not even
insure that strong axis controls

• The fastener-sheathing strength must insure the

following condition is met
k couched in something theoretical, but in
Fmin e the end empirical, not wholly consistent
k 2 k id  1 with current approaches
• In addition to insure adequate performance in the face
of potential defects
Pcr 2 k  0,KL2  2a   Pcr1 KL1  L  arbitrary, realistic?

• If the above conditions are met Pcr=Pcr1 (strong-axis).

Underlying theory not directly applicable, no torsional-flexural buckling
check, to my knowledge none of us have ever even done a k test!?
 1980 to 2004 AISI Specification
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

• Also known as the Simaan and Peköz method,

or the shear diaphragm model, or the “D4
method”. Existed from 1980 to 2004 in Spec.
Section D4. Abandoned in favor of a return to
Winter’s method, more or less.

• Why was the method

abandoned?
• What can we learn
from the “mistakes”?
 Practical limitations of D4 method
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

• “The design expressions are complex. The design expressions do

not give credit to the presence of supplementary steel bridging
which is typically installed in order to align members and to
provide necessary structural integrity during erection and in the
completed structure. Provided there is adequate steel bridging,
the imperfect sheathing approach in Section D4 (a) can produce
a lower capacity than an all steel approach. The most popular
sheathing, gypsum wallboard, is seen by some as too moisture
and load cycle sensitive to act as a reliable structural brace for the
service life of a structure. Other restrictions in Section D4 (a) are
for the most part impractical for typical use.” (Trestain 2002).
 Theoretical limitation of the D4 Method
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

• For the most part Winter’s method may

conceptually be understood as a column
supported by discrete springs:

• The D4 method has never been presented with

an equivalent mechanical model, instead it is
always described as a summation of energies
(column bending + shear distortion of
diaphragm), what is underneath the hood?
 Consider the shear energy term
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

Q z  dz
L
Ds  
1 2
shear energy 2 0

du z 
“shear” angle  z     y z 
dz
 Consider the shear energy term
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

Q z  dz
L
Ds  
1 2
shear energy 2 0

du z 
“shear” angle  z     y z 
dz
equivalence with rotational spring foundation:
L L
Ds   Q y dz  D    y 2 dz
1 2 1
2 0 2 0
 Consider the shear energy term
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

mechanically
equivalent
model to shear
diaphragm

Q z  dz
L
Ds  
1 2
shear energy 2 0

du z  considering
“shear” angle  z     y z  discrete
dz fasteners

equivalence with rotational spring foundation:

L L
Ds   Q y dz  D    y 2 dz
1 2 1
2 0 2 0
 D4 method summary
1980 to
2004
AISI
Spec.

• The method was abandoned for numerous

practical reasons, and now can be seen to have a
serious theoretical limitation
• However, lots of great and complicated
mechanics in the D4 method. Torsional-flexural
buckling is treated thoroughly (even for dis-
similar and one-sided sheathing).
• The role of shear in deforming the sheathing is
real, but have to be careful with how that
actually braces the stud
 2007 AISI-S211 Wall Stud Standard
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• “Wall stud assemblies using a sheathing braced design shall be

designed assuming that identical sheathing is attached to both
sides of the wall stud and connected to the bottom and top
horizontal members of the wall to provide lateral and torsional
support to the wall stud in the plane of the wall.”
• “Both ends of the stud shall be connected to restrain rotation
about the longitudinal stud axis and horizontal displacement
perpendicular to the stud axis.” Further, in B1.2(b) it is
prescribed that the global buckling load of a stud, with fasteners
spaced distance “a” apart shall be determined ignoring any
sheathing contribution (i.e. k = 0) over a distance of 2a, i.e.:

Pcr k  0,KL x  L ,KL y  2a ,KL t  2a 

 Pcr by AISI-S211-07
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• It is assumed that the sheathing provides enough stiffness that Pcr

ignoring the sheathing over a length equal to twice the fastener
spacing, a, is always less than Pcr considering the sheathing:

 2a  across a
 0,KLy buckling assumed
Pcryofkthe@stud
minbuckling a ,KL y  L 
defective fastener  engaging all fasteners
 0,KLx  L ,KLt  2a  PcrTF k  0,KLx  L; k
 Pcr by AISI-S211-07
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• It is assumed that the sheathing provides enough stiffness that Pcr

ignoring the sheathing over a length equal to twice the fastener
spacing, a, is always less than Pcr considering the sheathing:

 2a  across a
 0,KLy buckling assumed
Pcryofkthe@stud
minbuckling a ,KL y  L 
defective fastener  engaging all fasteners
 0,KLx  L ,KLt  2a  PcrTF k  0,KLx  L; k
min P k  0,KL  2a  assumed min Pcry k @ a ,KL  L 
cry y
 y

PcrTF k  0,KLx  L ,KLt  2a  PcrTF k  0,KLx  L; k @ a ,KLt  L 

 Pcr by AISI-S211-07
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• It is assumed that the sheathing provides enough stiffness that Pcr

ignoring the sheathing over a length equal to twice the fastener
spacing, a, is always less than Pcr considering the sheathing:

 2a  across a
 0,KLy buckling assumed
Pcryofkthe@stud
minbuckling a ,KL y  L 
defective fastener  engaging all fasteners
 0,KLx  L ,KLt  2a  PcrTF k  0,KLx  L; k
min P k  0,KL  2a  assumed min Pcry k @ a ,KL  L 
cry y
 y

PcrTF k  0,KLx  L ,KLt  2a  PcrTF k  0,KLx  L; k @ a ,KLt  L 

validity of assumption
depends on the stiffness
k, as k0 definitely not
a valid assumption
 AISI-S211-07 Commentary
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• Wall Stud Standard provides only minor

guidance, primarily wall stud design is left to
rational analysis.
• However, the commentary provides one such
rational analysis method, relying primarily on the
2% rule for fastener demands.
• Let us revisit the classic derivation to better
understand the implications of the 2% rule.
 2% rule in AISI-S211-07 Commentary
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• Consider the basic derivation (supplementing the commentary)

 2% rule in AISI-S211-07 Commentary
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

• Consider the basic derivation (supplementing the commentary)

Finally solving for the bracing force:

note, 1%P, not 2%P, but brace force is

a function of k and do can be higher or lower
 Comparison of 1962 and 2007 methods
2007
AISI-COFS
Wall Stud
Standard
(S211)

1962 AISI
Design
Manual

Analyze any design Prescribed failure mode

AISI 2007 (S211-07) AISI 1962

Pcr  minPcry , PcrTF 
where
Pcry k  0,KLy  2a 
PcrTF k  0,KLx  L ,KLt  2a 
and
2%P for fasteners
Pcr  Pcrx KLx  L  *
subject to
Pcry k  0,KL y  2a   Pcrx KL x  L 
Pcry k @ a ,KL y  L   Af y
and
~2%P for fasteners
* It is important to note that AISI 1962 did not
include torsional-flexural buckling and PcrTF<Pcrx
though as torsional resistance is increased PcrTF
will asymptote to Pcrx.
Looking towards new methods..
 Limit states (abridged)
• Stud
– Global buckling (F, T, FT – including sheathing)
• should the stud be checked assuming defective fastener?
– Local buckling (probably ignore sheathing)
– Distortional buckling (probably including sheathing)
• should the stud be checked assuming a defective fastener?
• Connections
– Stud-fastener-sheathing connection
– Track-fastener-sheathing connection
– Stud-to-track connection
• Sheathing
• Construction loads (requires all-steel check)
 Limit states (abridged)
state of development...
• Stud
– Global buckling (F, T, FT – including sheathing)
• should the stud be checked assuming defective fastener?
– Local buckling (probably ignore sheathing)
– Distortional buckling (probably including sheathing)
• should the stud be checked assuming a defective fastener?
• Connections
– Stud-fastener-sheathing connection
– Track-fastener-sheathing connection
– Stud-to-track connection
• Sheathing
• Construction loads (requires all-steel check)
Up to date work on bracing a stud
 Sheathing k
y

 ( y )  G ( y ) x( y )  sin(
y
)
L

d x( y )  y
 ( y)    cos( )
dy L L

G  y
 ( y)   cos( )
L L
w x
 Sheathing k
y

F( y )  ( 2 1 )  wt / n

 ( y )  G ( y )
F ( y)
k
x( y )

w x

Gwt  a 
k  2π sin  
Ln  2L 
 When sheathing k matters?
• If ksheathing<10kfastener... probably matters
ktotal    
1
1 1

kfastener ksheathing  

kfastener

0.8

fastener
0.6
ktotal (  )
sheathing
kfastener
0.4

0.2

0
0.1 1 10 100
ksheathing (  )
kfastener
 Getting past flexure...
• Support of the stud exists for other DOF as well, and in some
cases preliminary characterization has been done
 Overview
• Part of the AISI-COFS funded project on the design
of sheathed walls with dis-similar sheathing.
• Presentation developed from a report of the same
name
• Project updates, including full report available at
www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/sheathedwalls
• Report covers
– Design methods via 1962, 1980-2004, 2007 AISI
– Examination of sheathing stiffness ‘k’
– Initial summary of known demands and limit states on a
sheathed wall stud in compression
All for now, Thank you...
Current Modeling
Stress distribution at Peak Load (Gray color represents yielding - connections)
Lab – General View 1
Lab – CFS specimens for scale