engineer’s T

he design provisions for the shear strength of nominal shear strength of a screw, Pns, as a func-
steel-to-steel screw connections provided by tion of the separation distance, dsep,
Section E4.3 of the North American Specification Pns = Pss (1 – dsep/2d)
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Where, d = the nominal screw diameter and Pss =

NOTEBOOK Members, AISI S100-12, are based on testing.

The test specimens were typically steel sheets in
contact with each other with no other material
nominal shear strength of the screw as reported by
the manufacturer or determined by independent
testing. The research is based on the following
or significant gap between the steel components. parameter limits: 0.21≤ nominal screw diam-
However, screw connections are often fabricated eter (in inches) ≤ 0.26, 0.31≤ sheet thickness (in
such that there is material or a gap within the inches) ≤ 0.79, 36 ≤ yield strength (ksi) ≤ 65, and
connection. For example, where continuity of the dsep ≤ 0.31 inches. Although the researchers sug-
sheathing is desired, attachment of ledger track to gest limiting the Pns equation to the test program
wall studs will have the gypsum wallboard within limits, it is suggested, lacking other data, that
the connection or attachment of the exterior the equation may be used for other applications.
sheeting to the roof or wall structural members
will have insulation material within the connec-
tion. Thus, a connection may have an intended
Tilting-Tearing
® Failure Mode

E
or unintended gap between the steel components. The tilting-tearing failure mode results in the fas-

R
There is minimal test teners tilting (tipping) when subjected to a shear
data for screw con- force, as shown in Figure 1. Also, note that the plies
Screw Connections Having Other
U
nections having other of the connection may separate (Figure 1). Figure 2
ht
igmaterials or intended also illustrates the tilting effect of the screws and

T
y r
Cop

Materials Within the Connection

gaps between the the separation of the steel plies at failure.

C
plies of a steel-to-steel As the length of the screw and distance between
connection. Thus, the connected elements increases, this failure
e
U
the engineer is often mode becomes more critical. A review of the
By Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E. left without clear guidance on how to comply
i n engineering literature provided test data from

R z
with AISI S240 Section C4.1.2.2, which states three experimental programs. The following is a

T a
that, “Screw fasteners shall penetrate individual summary of the three test programs.

g
Roger LaBoube is Curator’s

S
components of connections without causing per- A Virginia Tech study by Lease and Easterling
Distinguished Teaching Professor of
Civil Engineering and Director of a
manent separation between components.” (2006) performed 435 tests on single shear screw
the Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-
Formed Steel Structures at the Missouri
m
The objective of this article is to summarize
available test data and provide design guidance
based on that data.
connections. The focus of the study was to deter-
mine the behavior of a screw connection when
a blanket of compressed fiberglass insulation
University of Science and Technology.
was present within the screw connection. The
Roger is active in the American Iron
researchers suggested that a 0.85 factor could
and Steel Institute’s Committee on Behavior and Limit States be applied to the nominal strength equations of
Framing Standards and the Committee
Screw connections that transfer shear forces may AISI S100 Section E4.3 to achieve a better cor-
on Specifications. He also served
fail by three possible limit states – bearing, tilting- relation of the test data to nominal strength
on STRUCTURE’s Editorial Board.
tearing, or shear of the screw. The presence of a calculation. However, they went on to conclude
([email protected])
gap or separation of the steel sheets would likely that no reduction was needed because the resis-
have little effect on the bearing capacity of a screw tance factors fell within the range of the resistance
connection. However, the presence of a separa- factors of past research on steel-to-steel connec-
The online version of this article tion may impact the tilting-tearing connection tions. A review of the data does indicate that, for
contains references. Please visit capacity and the screw strength. a gap distance between the plies equal to or less
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. than 0.15 inches, no modification factor may
be required.
Screw Strength The International Seismic Application
Research by Bambach and Rasmussen (2007) Technology (2009) analyzed data generated
developed the following design equation for the by a RAM Tech test program that focused on

Figure 1. Screw tilting. Figure 2. Separation of connection components.

STRUCTURE magazine 8 August 2018

the behavior of screw connections in which Table 1. Comparison of test failure load to AISI S100 Section E4.3 (ASAT, 2009).
gypsum wallboard was attached to a 43-mil Distance Stud Screw Failure Pn Failure/
steel sheet to simulate the attachment to Between Plies Thickness Diameter Load (S100) Pn
a cold-formed steel wall stud. Tests were
(inches) (inches) (inches) (lbs per screw) (lbs)
performed with either one layer of 5⁄8-inch
gypsum or two layers of 5⁄8-inch gypsum to One-Hour 0.625 0.043 0.25 682 927 0.74
assess the impact of the gypsum wallboard. Two-Hour 1.25 0.043 0.25 599 927 0.65
The intent was to simulate a one-hour and
two-hour fire rated wall application. A Table 2. Comparison of test failure load to AISI S100 Section E4.3 (SFA, 2010).
¼-inch-diameter self-drilling screw was used
for all tests. A comparison of the test failure Distance Stud Screw Failure Pn Failure/Pn
load to the AISI S100 Section E4.3 nominal Between Plies Thickness Diameter Load (S100)
strength, Pn, is summarized in Table 1. (inches) (inches) (inches) (lbs per screw) (lbs)
A Steel Framing Alliance (2010) report 1 0.031 0.164 243 447 0.54
summarizes the results of a test program that
studied the screw connection strength when 4 0.054 0.190 558 ® 1426 0.39

E
rigid foam insulation was present within the 2 0.031 0.164 195 447 0.44
screw connection. Distances between the 2 0.054 0.190 964 1426 0.68

R
plies, ranging from one to four inches, were
present in the test specimens. In this case, the

U
Table 3. General recommendations for distances between plies (based on test data).
distance between the plies was the thickness t
righ

T
y
of the rigid foam insulation. A comparison of CaseCop Distance Between Plies Reduction to AISI S100 E4.3
the test failure load to the AISI S100 Section

C
Gap Between Sheets thickness of thinnest ply No strength reduction required
E4.3 nominal strength, Pn, is summarized

ne
U
in Table 2. Fiberglass Insulation ≤ 0.15” No strength reduction required

i
R z
Interpretation and Gypsum Wall Board 5/8” 0.74 (33 mil or thicker)

T a 2 x 5/8”
Recommendation 0.65 (43 mil or thicker)

ag
S
There is a clear trend that, as the distance
between the plies increased, the connection
strength decreased as illustrated in Figure 3
(although the data is limited). The reduc-
tion factor shown in Figure 3 is the ratio of
Failure/Pn.
m
Rigid Foam
Insulation
1”
2”
2”
4”
0.54 (33 mil or thicker)
0.44 (33 mil or thicker)
0.68 (54 mil or thicker)
0.39 (54 mil or thicker)
Figure 3 indicates a trend; however,
because the database is limited, a reduction
factor equation is not being proposed. In
addition, the strength and stiffness of the
material between the plies are also likely an
influencing factor for the potential reduc-
tion in connection strength. There has been
no specific testing for an intended air gap
between the plies in the test specimens,
although in some cases the test specimens
experienced significant deformations
or gaps prior to failure as illustrated in
Figure 2. Thus, a small gap, for example,
equal to the thickness of the thinnest ply,
may be deemed acceptable.
It is suggested that, for design, the engineer
may be guided by the test results as indicated
in Table 3.
Based on available test data, Table 3, along
with AISI S100 design equations, offers
design guidance for common gap conditions.
This article is based on a Cold-Formed Steel
Engineers Institute Tech Note of a similar title
(www.cfsei.org).▪ Figure 3. Ratio of failure to Pn.

STRUCTURE magazine 9 August 2018

 References
Bambach, M.R. and Rasmussen, K.J.R., “Behavior of Self-Drilling Screws in Light-Gauge
Steel Construction,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2007
Siding Attachment to Cold-Formed Steel Walls through Varying Layers of Foam Insulation,
Steel Framing Alliance, April 2010
Lease, A.R. and Easterling, W.S., The Influence of Insulation on the Shear Strength of Screw
Connections, Proceedings of the 18th International Specialty Conference on Cold-
Formed Steel Structures, Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
Rolla, MO, 2006
Sheet Metal Screws for Seismic Applications in Metal Stud and Gypsum Board Wall Assemblies
Analysis and Design, International Seismic Application Technology (ISAT),
La Mirada, CA 2009
AISI S100-12, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
AISI S240-15, North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing, ®
American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.

R E
U
t
righ

T
y
Cop

U C i n e

S T R m
a g a z

STRUCTURE magazine 10 August 2018