research report

Screw Connections Subject

to Tension Pull-Out and
Shear Forces

RESEARCH REPORT RP09-3

December 2009

Committee on Specifications
for the Design of Cold-Formed
Steel Structural Members

American Iron and Steel Institute

 The material contained herein has been developed by researchers based on their research
findings. The material has also been reviewed by the American Iron and Steel Institute
Committee on Specifications for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. The
Committee acknowledges and is grateful for the contributions of such researchers.
The material herein is for general information only. The information in it should not be
used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any given
application. The publication of the information is not intended as a representation or warranty
on the part of the American Iron and Steel Institute, or of any other person named herein, that
the information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of
any patent or patents. Anyone making use of the information assumes all liability arising from
such use.

Copyright 2009 American Iron and Steel Institute

 i

Cold-Formed Steel Series

Final Report

SCREW CONNECTIONS SUBJECT

TO TENSION PULL-OUT AND SHEAR FORCES

by

Ryan M. Francka
Research Assistant

Roger A. LaBoube
Research Director

A Research Project Sponsored by

American Iron and Steel Institute

December 2009

Approved by

Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering

Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Rolla, MO
 i

PREFACE

A design equation to assess the limit state of combined tension and pull-over in

screw connections is available in the 2007 edition of the North American Specification

for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. However, the behavior of

screw connections subject to combined tension pull-out and shear forces is not well

understood. Therefore, an experimental study funded by the American Iron and Steel

Institute was conducted at Missouri University of Science and Technology to better

understand the relationship or interaction between these forces.

The test program evaluated four parameters that have been shown to be the key

parameters that influence the behavior of pure tension and pure shear in screw

connections: the thickness of the sheet not in contact with the screw head, the ultimate

tensile strength of the steel sheet, the ductility of the steel sheet, and the screw diameter.

Based on the behavior observed and analysis of the test data, this work formulated new

design recommendations for use in calculating the design capacity of screw connections

subject to the limit state of combined shear and tension pull-out. Using an interaction

equation, this investigation extends the application of the pure tension pull-out and pure

shear design equations in the 2007 North American Specification for the Design of Cold-

Formed Steel Structural Members produced by the American Iron and Steel Institute.

This report is based on a thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

Missouri University of Science and Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree Masters of Science in Civil Engineering.

This investigation was sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute and

their financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The AISI Subcommittee on

 ii

Connections (P. S. Green, chairperson) is acknowledged for providing valuable technical

guidance. Special thanks is also extended to Dr. Helen Chen, Manager, Construction

Standards Development, of the American Iron and Steel Institute and to Mr. John

Mattingly of CMC Joist and Deck for their assistance and technical guidance throughout

the duration of the research.

The steel deck used for the test specimens was provided by John Mattingly of

CMC Joist and Deck. This generosity is gratefully acknowledged.

Appreciation is also expressed to the technical staff of the Civil Engineering Department

for their assistance in preparation, fabrication, and performance of the test program.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................... i 
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ v 
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vi 
SECTION
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 
1.1. GENERAL.......................................................................................................... 1 
1.2. APPLICATION .................................................................................................. 2 
2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................... 3 
2.1. GENERAL.......................................................................................................... 3 
2.2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ................................................................................... 3 
2.2.1. Pekoz ........................................................................................................ 3 
2.2.1.1. Design for pure shear .................................................................. 3
2.2.1.2. Design for pure tension............................................................... 4 
2.2.2. Ellifritt and Burnette................................................................................. 6 
2.2.3. Zwick and LaBoube ................................................................................. 6 
2.2.4. American Iron and Steel Institute............................................................. 8 
2.2.4.1 Pure shear......................................................................................9 
2.2.4.2 Pure tension pull-out ...................................................................10 
2.2.4.3 Pure tension pull-over .................................................................10 
2.2.4.4 Combined pull-over and shear ....................................................11 
2.2.4.5 Ductility ......................................................................................13 
3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ................................................................... 14 
3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 14 
3.2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 14 
3.2.1. Material Properties ................................................................................. 14 
3.2.2. Test Variables......................................................................................... 15 
3.3. TEST SPECIMEN AND TEST FIXTURE ...................................................... 17 
3.3.1. Test Specimen: Parameters .................................................................... 17 
 iv

3.3.2. Test Specimen: Fabrication .................................................................... 17 

3.3.3. Test Fixture............................................................................................. 19 
3.3.4. Test Setup ............................................................................................... 21 
3.3.5. Test Procedure........................................................................................ 21 
3.4. TEST RESULTS............................................................................................... 25 
3.4.1. Normal-Ductility Specimens .................................................................. 26 
3.4.2. Low-Ductility Specimens....................................................................... 28 
4. DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 29 
4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 29 
4.2. DATA ANALYSIS USING AISI EQUATIONS............................................. 29 
4.2.1. Data for Analysis.................................................................................... 29 
4.2.2. Evaluating Screw Diameter.................................................................... 29 
4.2.3. Shear versus Pull-out.............................................................................. 31 
4.3. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERACTION EQUATION ..................................... 32 
4.3.1. Tri-Linear Interaction Equation.............................................................. 32 
4.3.2. Nonlinear Interaction Equation .............................................................. 34 
5. SUMMARY AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 35 
5.1. SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 35 
5.2. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 35 
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................... 38 
APPENDICES
A. RESULTS OF TEST DATA.............................................................................39
B. ANALYSIS OF TEST DATA ..........................................................................42
C. TRI-LINEAR EQUATION CORRELATION..................................................45
D. NONLINEAR EQUATION CORRELATION ................................................48
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 52 
 v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Screw Connections Potentially Subjected to Pull-out and Shear Forces.................2

3.1 Self-Drilling Screws...............................................................................................16
3.2 Angles of Rotation .................................................................................................16
3.3 Test Specimen Nominal Dimensions.....................................................................17
3.4 Typical Test Specimen...........................................................................................18
3.5 Normal- and Low-Ductility Flat Sheets.................................................................19
3.6 Upper Fixture: Welded T-Sections 15°, 30°, and 60°............................................20
3.7 Lower Fixture: Rotating Arm ................................................................................20
3.8 Modification Plate..................................................................................................21
3.9 MTS 880 Material Test System .............................................................................22
3.10 Flat Sheet with Edge Stiffeners..............................................................................22
3.11 Comparison of Stiffened versus Un-stiffened Failure Modes ...............................24
3.12 Load versus Deflection of 30° Test Specimens .....................................................24
3.13 Example Load versus Deformation Curve.............................................................26
3.14 Typical Normal-Ductility Flat Sheet after Testing ................................................27
3.15 Comparison of Normal- and Low-Ductility Flat Sheets........................................27
3.16 Typical Low-Ductility Flat Sheet after Testing .....................................................28
4.1 Evaluation of Screw Size at 30° – Normal Ductility .............................................30
4.2 Evaluation of Screw Size at 30° – Low Ductility ..................................................31
4.3 Pull-out and Shear Interaction using AISI Equations ............................................32
4.4 Tri-Linear Equation Interaction Relationship........................................................33
4.5 Nonlinear Equation Interaction Relationship.........................................................34
 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Material Properties.................................................................................................15

3.2 Comparison of Stiffened versus Un-stiffened Test Specimens .............................23
3.3 Comparison of all Stiffened versus Un-stiffened Specimens at 15°......................25
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL

In the 1940s, cold-formed steel started becoming popular in the United States for

use in structural members. Compared to other materials such as timber and concrete,

cold-formed steel has many advantages. It is light-weight, recyclable, termite-proof, and

easy to erect and fabricate; it also has a high strength-to-weight ratio (Yu, 2000).

Screws are a practical and economical means to connect cold-formed steel

structural members. They provide a rapid and effective way of connecting members

subject to tension, shear, or combined tension and shear forces. For example, common

construction methods often use cross bracing between joists to carry lateral loads. This

bracing could be subject to simultaneous tension and shear forces.

In 1946, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) began leading the building

industry with the release of its first edition of the Specification for the Design of Light

Gage Steel Structural Members (AISI, 1946). The AISI has since updated its

specification many times to include new and safer design methods. The most recent

edition, the North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural

Members (specification), was released in 2007. Since 2001, the specification has been

approved by the Canadian Standards Association for use in Canada and endorsed by

CANACERO for use in Mexico.

Currently, the specification includes provisions that assess the design strength of a

screw connection subject to pure tension, pure shear, and combined pull-over and shear

forces. Additional guidance is required to determine the design capacity when screw

connections are subject to both combined pull-out and shear forces.

 2

1.2. APPLICATION

When using screws in cold-formed steel connections subject to combined tension

and shear forces, if the bottom sheet (i.e., the sheet not in contact with the screw head) is

thinner than the top sheet, tension pull-out and shear may occur.

Combined pull-out and shear occurs in many situations, such as connecting

purlins to a spandrel beam using clip connectors or the connection of lateral bracing for

wall studs. Figure 1.1 shows two examples of situations in which this limit state might

occur.

The 2007 edition of the specification does not currently include provisions

permitting consideration of the limit state of combined pull-out and shear. The lack of

these provisions leaves engineers to rely solely on experience and judgment, which may

result in either under-designed (unsafe) or over-designed (uneconomical) screw

connections.

This study provides much-needed data that allows the formulation of a design

methodology that provides engineers with a safe means to design screw connections

subject to this limit state.

Figure 1.1 Screw Connections Potentially Subject to Pull-out and Shear Forces
 3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. GENERAL

Several research studies provide a foundation for this work. These have

investigated pure tension pull-out and pure shear forces individually in screw

connections. They have also reviewed combined pull-over and shear loading, thus

establishing a basis for the interaction relationship of tension and shear in screw

connections. They have not, however, considered the limit state of combined pull-out and

shear forces in screw connections.

2.2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

2.2.1. Pekoz. Working at Cornell University, Pekoz evaluated over 3500 tests

from the United States, Canada, Sweden, Britain, and the Netherlands (Pekoz, 1990).

The equations established by the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork

(ECCS) took into consideration numerous parameters such as screw diameter, yield

stress, and thickness of the connecting sheets. Using these equations as a basis for his

analysis, Pekoz made various modifications.

2.2.1.1. Design for pure shear. Pekoz’s study concluded that the design

equations included among the ECCS recommendations were adequate for the design of

pure shear, but could be modified to use ultimate tensile strength, Fu, instead of yield

stress, Fy. This modification provides better agreement between observed and calculated

results (Pekoz, 1990). Although these equations are based on empirical data, the

modifications also provide uniformity with connection design in the United States.

Tensile strength is typically used for connection design equations. With the
 4

recommended modifications, the design equations for shear strength, Pns, are given by

Equations 2-1 through 2-3:

for t2/t1 ≤ 1.0, the smaller of

Pns = 4.2(t13 d)1/ 2 Fu and (2-1)

Pns  2.7t1dFu (2-2)

for t2/t1 ≥ 2.5

Pns  2.7t1dFu (2-3)

for 1.0 < t2/t1 < 2.5, Pns is determined by linear interpolation

where:

t1 = thickness of the sheet in contact with the screw head

t2 = thickness of the sheet not in contact with the screw head

d = nominal screw diameter

Fu = ultimate tensile strength

Pekoz’s equations for pure shear were accepted by the AISI for the 1996 edition

of the Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual and were retained in the 2007 edition of the

specification.

2.2.1.2. Design for pure tension. As in the case of pure shear, Pekoz checked

many tests against the ECCS recommendations. Although the existing equations

correlated satisfactorily with the data, Pekoz concluded that using ultimate tensile

strength, Fu, enhanced the correlation (Pekoz, 1990). For pull-out failure, he proposed

the following design equation:

 5

Pnot  0.85tc dFu (2-4)

where:

tc = lesser of depth of penetration or thickness, t2

For the case of pull-over, the ECCS recommendations included two equations.

One did not consider washer diameter as a variable (Equation 2-5), while another did

(Equation 2-6). These equations were yet again adjusted to consider ultimate tensile

strength and to use Customary units:

Pnov  0.77tdFu (2-5)

Pnov  1.5td w Fu (2-6)

where:

t = thickness of the material

dw = the larger of the diameter of the washer or the screw head, limited to

½ in.

The AISI selected Equation 2-4 for pull-out and Equation 2-6 for pull-over.

They accepted Pekoz’s equations for pure tension for inclusion in the 1996 edition of the

specification and they were retained in the 2007 edition. For both pure shear and pure

tension, Pekoz also computed a resistance factor,  , for Load and Resistance Factor

Design (LRFD) and a safety factor, Ω, for Allowable Strength Design (ASD). Values of

0.5 and 3.0, respectively, appeared to be reasonable (Pekoz, 1990).

 6

2.2.2. Ellifritt and Burnette. Research conducted by Ellifritt and Burnette

simulated pull-over of screw connections in actual field conditions. When a roof panel is

subject to an uplift force, the panel acts like a continuous beam, inducing forces that are

not the same as a basic pull-over test (Ellifritt, 1990). Fourteen static suction tests were

performed to evaluate pull-over of sheathing subject to suction loads. As a secondary

objective, fifteen dynamic tests were carried out to evaluate fatigue loading similar to

those imposed on older buildings. Thirteen standard pull-over tests were also performed

as a baseline for comparison of the static and dynamic test results.

Ellifritt and Burnette concluded that the configurations of their static test were a

better predictor of actual pull-over strength in a real building application. The results of

the standard pull-over tests were reduced by a factor of approximately 0.4 for the material

and configurations they tested (Ellifritt, 1990). This reduction factor is only valid for the

static test setup Ellifritt and Burnette used. If the test setup was varied using different

material and configurations (e.g. girt spacing, etc.), the results could vary.

Although the results of the dynamic tests were consistent, more tests were needed

to draw firm conclusions. Ellifritt and Burnette showed that actual conditions could

influence and reduce the capacity of screw connections calculated by design equations.

2.2.3. Zwick and LaBoube. Zwick and LaBoube sought to derive a design

equation that considered screw connections when exposed to combined tension and shear

forces, specifically tension pull-over (Zwick, 2006). They reviewed and analyzed the

tests performed by Luttrell (1999) at the University of West Virginia.

Luttrell performed a total of 61 tests. Each test varied the controlling parameters:

screw size, washer size, and sheet thickness. The angle, at which the force was applied,
 7

was varied to induce several combinations of pull-over and shear. The existing AISI

equations provided a basis for the relationship (or interaction) between the pull-over and

shear forces.

Zwick and LaBoube used the nominal strength equations for pure shear

(Equations 2-10 through 2-14) and pure pull-over (Equation 2-16) from the 1996

Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members to normalize the

experimental pull-over and shear strength values by creating T/Tn and Q/Qn ratios. They

then used these ratios to create Equation 2-7 based on a best fit using regression analysis.

Their analysis relied on the actual washer or screw size, dw:

Q / Qn  0.5041(T / Tn ) 0.4389 (2-7)

where:

Q = test shear strength

Qn = 2.7tdFu

Qn = nominal shear strength

T = test tensile strength

Tn = 1.5tdwFu

Tn = nominal tensile strength

Using the existing limitations of the AISI specification, they limited dw to ½ in. or

less. Based on a best-fit regression analysis with this limitation, they derived Equation

2-8 much as they had Equation 2-7:

Q / Qn  0.517(T / Tn ) 0.5317 (2-8)

 8

Following the same AISI limitations on dw, they derived another equation similar

to Equation 2-8 but based on a linear relationship rather than a best-fit regression analysis

(2006). After simplifying and rewriting Equation 2-9 as the equation for calculating the

strength of combined pull-over and shear forces, AISI adopted it for the 2007

specification:

Q / Qn  1.106  0.706(T / Tn ) (2-9)

Finally, based on statistical analysis, safety factors for LRFD, ASD, and Limit

State Design (LSD), were calculated. For Equation 2-9, the following limitations are

applicable:

0.0285 in. ≤ t ≤ 0.0445 in.

No. 12 and No. 14 self-drilling screw with or without washers

dw ≤ 0.75 in.

62 ksi ≤ Fu ≤ 70.7 ksi

2.2.4. American Iron and Steel Institute. AISI periodically updates the

specification. Since 1996, this specification, (referred to as the Specification for the

Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members prior to 2001), has provided design

methods for screw connections for cold-formed steel structural members. The provisions

for pure shear and pure tension forces are based on Pekoz’s work (1990) as reviewed in

Section 2.2.1. The specification also provides provisions for screw connections subject

to combined pull-over and shear forces based on the work of Zwick and LaBoube (2006)

as reviewed in Section 2.2.3. The provisions for pure shear, pure tension, and combined

pull-over and shear forces were clarified by AISI as the organization deemed necessary.
 9

The specification also includes provisions providing requirements for ductility of steel

used for cold-formed applications. The design methods and requirements are outlined in

the following sections.

2.2.4.1. Pure shear. The nominal shear strength shall be calculated as follows:
for t2/t1 ≤ 1.0, Pns shall be taken as the smaller of

Pns = 4.2(t 23 d)1/ 2 Fu 2 (2-10)

Pns  2.7t1dFu1 (2-11)

Pns  2.7t 2 dFu 2 (2-12)

for t2/t1 ≥ 2.5, Pns shall be taken as the smaller of

Pns  2.7t1dFu1 (2-13)

Pns  2.7t 2 dFu 2 (2-14)

for 1.0 < t2/t1 < 2.5, Pns shall be calculated by linear interpolation between the

above two cases.

where:

d = nominal screw diameter

Pns = nominal shear strength per screw

t1 = thickness of member in contact with screw head or washer

t2 = thickness of member not in contact with screw head or washer

Fu1 = tensile strength of member in contact with screw head or washer

Fu2 = tensile strength of member not in contact with screw head or washer
 10

2.2.4.2. Pure tension pull-out. The nominal pull-out strength shall be calculated

as follows:

Pnot  0.85t c dFu 2 (2-15)

where:

d = nominal screw diameter

tc = lesser of the depth of penetration and thickness t2

Pnot = nominal pull-out strength per screw

Fu2 = tensile strength of member not in contact with screw head or washer

2.2.4.3. Pure tension pull-over. The nominal pull-over strength shall be

calculated as follows:

Pnov  1.5t1d w ' Fu1 (2-16)

where:

t1 = thickness of member in contact with screw head or washer

Pnov = nominal pull-over strength per screw

Fu1 = tensile strength of member in contact with screw head or washer

dw’ = effective pull-over diameter determined in accordance with (a), (b), or (c) as

follows:

(a) for a round head, a hex head, or hex washer head screw with an independent

and solid steel washer beneath the screw head

dw’ = dh +2tw +t1 ≤ dw

where
 11

dh = screw head diameter or hex washer integral washer diameter

tw = steel washer thickness

dw = steel washer diameter

(b) for a round head, a hex head, or hex washer head screw without an

independent washer beneath the screw head:

dw’ = dh but not larger than ½ in.

(c) for a domed (non-solid and independent) washer beneath the screw head, it is

permissible to use dw’ as calculated in (a), with dh as the washer diameter, tw

as the thickness of the material of the washer, and t1 as previously defined. In

the equation in (a), dw’ cannot exceed 5/8 in. Alternatively, pull-over design

values for domed washers, including the safety factor, Ω, and the resistance

factor,  , shall be permitted to be determined by test in accordance with

Chapter F.

2.2.4.4. Combined pull-over and shear. For screw connections subject to

combined tension and shear the following requirements shall be met.

for ASD Method

Q T 1.10
 0.71  (2-17)
Pns Pnov 

for LRFD and LSD Methods

Q T
 0.71  1.10 (2-18)
Pns Pnov
 12

where:

Q = required allowable shear strength of connection

T = required allowable tension strength of connection

Pns = nominal shear strength per screw

Pns  2.7t1dFu1

Pnov = nominal pull-over strength of connection

Pnov  1.5t1d w Fu1

where dw = larger of screw head diameter or washer diameter

Ω = 2.35

Q = required allowable shear strength of connection

T = required allowable tension strength of connection

Pns = nominal shear strength per screw

Pns  2.7t1dFu1

Q  required shear strength of connection

Q  Vu for LRFD

Q  Vf for LSD

T  required shear strength of connection

T  Vu for LRFD

T  Vf for LSD

  0.65 (LRFD)

  0.55 (LSD)

Equations 2-16 and 2-17 shall be valid for connections that meet the following limits:
 13

(1) 0.0285 in. ≤ t1≤0.0455 in.,

(2) No. 12 and No. 14 self-drilling screws with or without washers,

(3) dw ≤ 0.75 in.,

(4) Fu1 ≤ 70 ksi, and

(5) t2/t1 ≥ 2.5

2.2.4.5. Ductility. The specification requires that all steels used for structural

applications and connections meet the requirements in Section A2.3. For normal ductility

steels Section A2.3.1 applies. The ratio of tensile strength to yield stress, Fu/Fy, shall not

be less than 1.08 and the total elongation shall not be less than 10 percent for a two-inch

gage length (AISI 2007). If these requirements cannot be met other criteria may be

satisfied for restricted use in purlins, girts, and curtain wall studs (AISI 2007).

For low ductility steels Section A2.3.2 applies. Steels that do not meet the

minimum 10 percent elongation requirement may be used for limited applications

conforming to several exceptions provided that the steel meet certain requirements. First,

the yield stress, Fy, used for determining nominal strength is taken as 75 percent of the

specified minimum yield stress or 60 ksi, whichever is less (AISI 2007). Second, the

tensile strength, Fu, used for determining nominal strength in connections is taken as 75

percent of the minimum tensile strength or 62 ksi, whichever is less (AISI 2007).
 14

3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This study included a test program at Missouri S&T to examine the relationship

between combined pull-out and shear loading of screw connections in cold-formed steel.

Once the scope of the study was established based on previous research as reviewed in

Section 2, specimens and a test fixture were designed. The test fixture was modified from

previous research by Stirnemann and LaBoube that evaluated combined tension and shear

forces on arc spot weld connections. Finally, tests were conducted and the data was

analyzed to ascertain design method recommendations. A total of eighty-four tests were

performed.

3.2. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION

A review of the current AISI specification, determined that parameters

influencing sheet steel screw connections may be the thickness of the sheet not in contact

with the screw head or washer, the tensile strength of the material, the ductility of the

material, and the screw diameter. Once testing commenced, the specimens appeared to

be influenced by the stiffness of the specimen’s elements. Nine specimens with edge

stiffeners were fabricated, and specimen stiffness was evaluated before continuing the

investigation.

3.2.1. Material Properties. The mechanical properties of the sheet steel used in

this investigation were determined by performing tension coupon tests. Each coupon test

was carried out in accordance with ASTM A 370 Standard Test Methods and Definitions

for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (ASTM 2007). Two coupon tests were
 15

completed for each steel grade and sheet thickness, and the results of the tests were

averaged.

The mechanical properties obtained were uncoated thickness, yield stress, and

tensile strength. The notations N and L were assigned to normal- and low-ductility steels,

respectively. Table 3.1 summarizes the results of the coupon tests.

Table 3.1 Material Properties

Uncoated Yield Tensile

Elongation
Thickness Stress Strength
Specimen Fu/Fy
t Fy Fu %
(in) (ksi) (ksi)
20N 0.0297 41.41 48.30 1.166 42.58
18N 0.0394 29.25 47.32 1.618 38.38
16N 0.0521 62.21 75.49 1.214 29.69
14N 0.0724 68.39 74.32 1.087 34.38
20L 0.0327 102.75 105.99 1.032 2.34
18L 0.0375 91.18 91.18 1.000 1.17
16L 0.0508 84.25 89.65 1.064 3.91
14L 0.0675 117.00 120.57 1.030 2.73

3.2.2. Test Variables. The variables for the test specimens were the

parameters listed in Section 3.2 above. The self-drilling, self-tapping screws used for the

test program included No. 8 (0.164 in.), No. 10 (0.190 in.), No.12 (0.216 in.), and No. 14

(0.240 in.) sizes; they are pictured in Figure 3.1. Table 3.1 lists the test variable data.
 16

Figure 3.1 Self-Drilling Screws

An additional test variable that was not a test specimen parameter was the angle

of rotation. The load was applied vertically, and the angle of the test specimen was

varied. The majority of the tests used three angles; fifteen degrees, thirty degrees, and

sixty degrees, but a few tests were also completed at seventy-five degrees. The variation

in the angle of rotation induced various combinations of tension and shear forces, thus

providing a better range of data and clarified the interaction of pull-out and shear. Figure

3.2 shows the angles of rotation.

(a) 15° (b) 30° (c) 60° (d) 75°

Figure 3.2 Angles of Rotation
 17

3.3. TEST SPECIMEN AND TEST FIXTURE

3.3.1. Test Specimen: Parameters. Each test specimen was fabricated and

assembled at Missouri S&T. All nominal dimensions are shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Test Specimen Nominal Dimensions

3.3.2. Test Specimen: Fabrication. The test specimen consisted of a

cold-formed steel deck section screwed to a flat sheet (Figures 3.3 and 3.4). For pull-out,

the critical component of the test specimen was the cold-formed steel flat sheet, which

measured 3 in. x 36 in. for the normal-ductility steel and 2 in. x 36 in. for the low-

ductility steel.

Using a metal cutting wheel on a miter saw, the steel sheets were cut to 6 in. long

(Figure 3.3). The dimensions of each flat sheet varied slightly; however, variations were

negligible and did not affect the bolting pattern to the test fixture. Two holes were then

drilled at a 3 1/4 in. spacing to connect the specimen to the test fixture. This drilling was
 18

performed on a digital readout milling machine to ensure accuracy. Prior to connecting a

flat sheet to the deck, a mark was made 1 7/16 in. from the edge of either hole to ensure

that the screw would be properly installed on center so the test specimen would be

concentrically loaded.

Figure 3.4 Typical Test Specimen

Each test specimen was assigned a unique serial number so it could be cataloged

and matched later with the appropriate photos and data. Using 14L12-30-1 as an

example, the first two digits of the serial number designate the gage (thickness) of the

steel. The letter N or L indicates whether it is a normal- (N) or low- (L) ductility steel.

The following digits indicate the screw size and the angle of rotation, separated by

hyphens. A final digit indicates whether the test specimen is the first or second for a

specific arrangement of variables. Figure 3.5 shows prepared normal- and low-ductility

flat sheets.

Cold-formed steel deck was incorporated in the test specimen as the top sheet for

the connection. The deck was 12 in. x 12 in., and four holes were drilled in it to connect

it to the upper test fixture. Since this study forced pull-out of the bottom sheet, the deck
 19

was used only for the connection, and the thickness was recorded only to determine the

t2/t1 range. The t2/t1 range was 0.325 to 2.454.

Figure 3.5 Normal- and Low-Ductility Flat Sheets

3.3.3. Test Fixture. Stirnemann’s basic test fixture consisted of a welded T-

section and a rotating arm. The welded T-section (Figure 3.6) was made of a flat plate

welded to a stem plate (Stirnemann 2006). Three welded T-sections were fabricated at

30°, 60°, and 75°. The angle was measured from the vertical of the welded T-section.

Once the testing using the 75° T-section was complete, then it was modified to 15°. The

lower fixture was made of two 2-in.-square plates welded to a main base plate. The arm

rotated on a ½ in. diameter bolt running through the 2-in. plates. Figure 3.7 shows the

rotating arm.
 20

Figure 3.6 Upper Fixture: Welded T-Sections 15°, 30°, and 60°

Stirnemann’s fixture was modified for the present study by bolting a specially

fabricated plate to the lower fixture. The plate had two threaded rods that permitted

suspension of the flat sheet. This arrangement allowed the screw to fall freely below the

flat sheet while remaining securely bolted to the lower arm. Figure 3.8 shows a test

specimen bolted to the modified specimen plate and attached to the rotating arm.

Figure 3.7 Lower Fixture: Rotating Arm

 21

3.3.4. Test Setup. For ease of assembly, the flat sheet was first bolted to the

lower test fixture comprised of the rotating arm and the modification plate (Figures 3.7

and 3.8). A pre-drilled hole through the deck accommodated the angle of rotation for a

given test. This hole permitted the concentric alignment of the deck and the flat sheet

with the test fixture and testing machine after the test specimen was mounted. A screw

was then inserted through the pre-drilled hole to connect the flat sheet to the deck. Once

the deck was attached to the flat sheet, the upper piece of the test fixture (Figure 3.6) was

then bolted to the deck, and the entire prepared test setup and fixture was then mounted in

the testing machine. Figure 3.2 shows the test setup.

Figure 3.8 Modification Plate

3.3.5. Test Procedure. Each prepared test specimen was mounted in an MTS

880 Material Test System (Figure 3.9). A computer data acquisition system recorded the

load and displacement during each test. The displacement rate was 1/16 in. per minute.

Load and displacement were recorded for each test at eight intervals per second to ensure

that the maximum load was recorded.

 22

Figure 3.9 MTS 880 Material Test System

During testing, distortion of the flat sheet was observed that indicated the stiffness

of flat sheet in the test specimen (Figure 3.3) should be evaluated. Normal-ductility test

specimens (Figure 3.5) were stiffened using a brake press. Each of the long sides was

bent to form ½ in. edge stiffeners (Figure 3.10). The specimen was setup and tested

using the same methods described in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.

Figure 3.10 Flat Sheet with Edge Stiffeners

 23

Six tests were initially performed to evaluate stiffness and determine whether it

influenced the interaction of combined pull-out and shear loading. The same tests were

performed on the unstiffened counterparts of each specimen. Table 3.2 compares the

results of both tests for the three primary angles of rotation.

Table 3.2 Comparison of Stiffened versus Un-stiffened Specimens

Ultimate Strength (lbf)

Un-stiffened Specimen Average Stiffened Specimen Average
468.8 494.3 481.6 374.3 452.4 413.4
Rotation

15°
Angle of

30° 352.7 353.6 353.2 321.1 365.3 343.2

60° 320.9 337.6 329.3 317.7 323.5 320.6

Tilting of the screw and tearing were the failure modes observed in both

specimens (Figure 3.11). Based on Table 3.2 and a comparison of the load versus

deflection curves (an example of which is given in Figure 3.12), the stiffness of the test

specimens at 30° and 60° did not affect the overall strength of connections subject to

combined pull-out and shear. The test results for the stiffened flat sheet at 15° were

inconclusive therefore more tests were performed.

Three additional tests were performed to confirm that the test angle 15° was not

affected by the stiffness of the specimen. During testing of the three additional tests, it

was observed that the first test resulting in an ultimate strength of 392.5 lbf was loose, or

there was slack, between the connecting members. This could be contributing to the

lower ultimate strength. It was also observed during the second and third tests that there
 24

was no slack between the connecting sheets. These values are more comparable to the

unstiffened flat sheets and the stiffened flat sheet with an ultimate capacity of 452.4 lbf.

After reviewing Table 3.3, it can be concluded that the low test values may not be

representative of a proper screw connection and that the stiffness at 15° did not affect the

test specimen’s results.

Figure 3.11 Comparison of Stiffened versus Un-stiffened Failure Modes

Figure 3.12 Load versus Deflection of 30° Test Specimens

 25

Table 3.3 Comparison of all Stiffened versus Unstiffened Specimens at 15°

Ultimate Strength (lbf)

Un-stiffened
Average Stiffened Specimen Average*
Specimen
468.8 494.3 481.6 374.3 452.4 392.5 445.7 467.1 455.1
*Stiffened Specimen Average is based on values excluding data less than 445.7 lbf.

3.4. TEST RESULTS

A total of eighty-four tests were performed. Thirty-nine were normal-ductility

test specimens, and thirty-six were low-ductility test specimens. Nine additional tests

were performed to evaluate specimen stiffness, as explained in Section 3.3.5.1.

Each test specimen was tested until failure. If the screw failed, the test was

classified as inconclusive for purposes of this study and removed from the results. Screw

failures occurred only in angles introduced to larger shear components, specifically 15°

and 30°.

In most respects, the specimens behaved similarly for all tests. The typical failure

mode observed in all tests was a combination of screw pull-out (tension failure), tilting of

the screw (shear failure), and bearing of the sheet (shear failure). The normal- and low-

ductility specimens did perform differently with respect to deformation and strength.

These results are described in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.

For screw connections, the load versus displacement curve varied with each test.

An example of such a curve is shown in Figure 3.13. The peaks of the curve represent

the points at which the threads of the screw were pulled through the hole. As each layer

of threads caught the sheet, the connection gained strength until it reached the peak
 26

strength of those threads and so on and so forth. The ultimate strength of the connection

depended on the highest load carried during loading, regardless of deformation.

Figure 3.13 Example Load versus Deformation Curve

3.4.1. Normal-Ductility Specimens. All normal-ductility specimens experienced

plastic deformation. Figure 3.14 shows a typical normal-ductility specimen after testing.

Given the same sheet thickness and screw diameter, the normal-ductility steel deformed

more than the low-ductility steel, and tearing of the sheet was more prominent. Figure

3.15 shows a normal-ductility specimen above a low-ductility specimen. The normal-

ductility specimens also had a higher ratio of ultimate strength to nominal strength given

the same setup. The distortion of the sheet was typical of all normal-ductility specimens.

This distortion pattern was not an effect of eccentricity, but rather of the combination of

the pull-out and shear forces.

 27

The ultimate strength, Pu, was determined from the recorded data. Based on the

angle of the test, the ultimate tension and ultimate shear forces Put and Puv, respectively,

were calculated using basic trigonometry. Table A.1 in Appendix A shows the test

results for the normal-ductility specimens.

Figure 3.14 Typical Normal-Ductility Flat Sheet after Testing

Figure 3.15 Comparison of Normal- and Low-Ductility Flat Sheets

 28

3.4.2. Low-Ductility Specimens. Low-ductility specimens typically experienced

less plastic deformation than the normal-ductility specimens. Figure 3.15 shows a low-

ductility specimen (bottom) and a normal-ductility specimen (top). The low-ductility

specimens had less deformation, and tilting of the screw was more prominent due to the

resistance of the steel to allow tearing to occur (Figure 3.16). The low-ductility

specimens overall had lower ratios of ultimate strength to nominal strength than the

normal-ductility specimens. The same distortion effects observed in the normal-ductility

specimens were apparent in the low-ductility tests, but they were typically less

prominent. Many low-ductility specimens never reached inelasticity, and deformation

was not permanent.

Figure 3.16 Typical Low-Ductility Flat Sheet after Testing

The ultimate strength, Pu, was determined as for normal-ductility specimens (see

Section 3.4.1. above). The tension and shear components were also determined as for

normal-ductility specimens (see Section 3.4.1 above). Table A.2 in Appendix A shows

the test results for low-ductility specimens.

 29

4. DATA ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Test data was evaluated using the pull-out and shear design equations for screw

connections from the 2007 specification (AISI S100, 2007). Based on the relationship or

interaction between the tension and shear forces, specifically pull-out tension forces two

design equations were formulated.

4.2. DATA ANALYSIS USING AISI EQUATIONS

4.2.1. Data for Analysis. Using design Equations 2-10 through 2-15, the nominal

strengths were calculated for pull-out, Pnot, and shear, Pns. The ultimate load applied to

each test specimen was evaluated for its tension and shear components, Put and Puv,

respectively. These ultimate strength components were then normalized using the

nominal strength equations to form the ratios Put/Pnot and Puv/Pns. Tables B.1 and B.2

show the results for the normal- and low-ductility test data, respectively.

4.2.2. Evaluating Screw Diameter. Based on previous research discussed in

Section 2, one parameter thought to influence pull-out and shear interaction was the

diameter of the screw. All tests performed for the 30° angle configuration used the entire

range of screw sizes (No. 8, 10, 12, and 14). Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show a graph of the

normalized shear strength, Puv/Pns, versus the normalized pull-out strength, Put/Pnot, at 30°

only for the normal-ductility and low-ductility specimens, respectively.

 30

Figure 4.1 Evaluation of Screw Size at 30° - Normal Ductility

Based on the distribution of the data for all screw diameters at 30° although screw

diameter affected the overall strength of the connection, it did not influence the

interaction of the combined loading. These conclusions justified a reduction in the

number of tests required for this study. The other test angle configurations were tested

using only one screw size. At 60° No. 10 screws were used. At 15°, however, No. 14

screws were used due to the large shear loads being induced. The few tests performed at

75° degrees used No. 8 and No. 10 screws.

 31

Figure 4.2 Evaluation of Screw Size at 30° – Low Ductility

4.2.3. Shear versus Pull-out. To review the interaction between pull-out and

shear of screw connections, Figure 4.3 shows the ratios of ultimate strength to nominal

strength, Puv/Pns versus Put/Pnot. A relationship is apparent between the interaction of pull-

out and shear. The data approaches 1.0 on both axes where pure shear or pure tension

would occur. For normal-ductility specimens, this interaction seems acceptable, but it is

overestimated for the low-ductility specimens. Due to this overestimation an adjustment

factor, L, was used to develop the interaction equations in Section 4.3.

 32

Figure 4.3 Pull-out and Shear Interaction using AISI Equations

4.3. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERACTION EQUATION

Several nonlinear and linear interaction equations were investigated based on

mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. An adjustment factor, L, was used

for low-ductility steel. The following proposes best-fit cases for a tri-linear and nonlinear

interaction equation.

4.3.1. Tri-Linear Interaction Equation. The proposed tri-linear interaction

equation, Equation 4-1, was derived using the data shown in Figure 4.3. The values can

be found in Tables B.1 and B.2 of Appendix B. The mean value and coefficient of

variation were used to determine the resistance and safety factors (  for LRFD and LSD,

and Ω for ASD). These values can be found in Tables C.1 and C.2 of Appendix C.

Equation 2-10 controlled for nominal shear strength in all but one case. Thus Equation 2-
 33

10 is proposed as a means to calculate the interaction of pull-out and shear. Figure 4.4

shows the results of Equation 4-1, along with the normal- and low-ductility test data.

when: Puv/Pns ≥ 0.15 and Put/Pnot ≥ 0.15

Puv P
 ut  1.15 (4-1)
LPns LPnot

where:

L = 1.0, for Fu/Fy ≥ 1.087,

L = 0.75, for Fu/Fy ≤ 1.064,

Pns = 4.2(t 23 d)1/ 2 Fu 2 (nominal shear strength of connection Equation 2-10)

Pnot  0.85tc dFu 2 (nominal pull-out strength of connection Equation 2-15)

Figure 4.4 Tri-Linear Equation Interaction Relationship

 34

4.3.2. Nonlinear Interaction Equation. The proposed nonlinear interaction

equation is Equation 4-2 and is shown in Figure 4.5. It was derived using the data shown

in Figure 4.3 and from Tables B.1 and B.2 of Appendix B. The mean value and

coefficient of variation were used to determine the resistance and safety factors and can

be found in Tables D.1 and D.2 of Appendix D.

1.15 1.15
 Puv   P 
    ut   1.0 ( 4-2)
 LPns   LPnot 

where:

L = 1.0, for Fu/Fy ≥ 1.087,

L = 0.80, for Fu/Fy ≤ 1.064,

Pns = 4.2(t 23 d)1/ 2 Fu 2 (nominal shear strength of connection Equation 2-10)

Pnot  0.85tc dFu 2 (nominal pull-out strength of connection Equation 2-15)

Figure 4.5 Nonlinear Equation Interaction Relationship

 35

5. SUMMARY AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. SUMMARY

This study assessed the interaction relationship between pull-out and shear forces

in screw connections in cold-formed structural steel. A total of eighty-four tests were

performed. The test data was analyzed using AISI Equations 2-10 through 2-15; and two

equations, 5-1 and 5-2, are proposed for use in designing screw connections subject to

this limit state.

5.2. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

For the design method recommended in this section, the adjustment factor L was

removed because, in accordance with Section A.2.3.2 of the AISI specification a 25%

reduction in tensile strength, Fu, is required for low-ductility steels (AISI 2007). Using

the adjustment factor, therefore would account twice for the adjustment for low-ductility

steel. Section 4 demonstrates that this is accurate for the tri-linear equation where L

equals 0.75, and slightly conservative for the nonlinear equation where L equals 0.80.

Changes to the adjustment factor for the nonlinear equation were made to correlate with

an L equal to 0.75. Table D.3 in Appendix D shows the correlations and statistical

analysis based on this adjustment. While an L of 0.75 did not provide the best results for

a statistical analysis of the nonlinear equation, it does provide acceptable values, and

conservatively shifts the adjustment factor allowing for the removal of the adjustment

factor. The following interaction equations are proposed to calculate the design capacity

of a screw connection subject to combined pull-out and shear forces.

Tri-Linear Equation:
 36

For ASD:

when: Puv/Pns > 0.15 and Put/Pnot > 0.15

Q T 1.15
  (5-1)
Pns Pnot 

For LRFD and LSD:

when: Puv/Pns ≥ 0.15 and Put/Pno t≥ 0.15

Q T
  1.15 (5-2)
Pns Pnot

where: Pns = 4.2(t 23 d)1/ 2 Fu 2 (nominal shear strength of connection Equation 2-10)

Pnot  0.85tc dFu 2 (nominal pull-out strength of connection Equation 2-15)

Ω = 2.54 for United States and Mexico

 = 0.60 for United States and Mexico

 = 0.51 for Canada

Non-Linear Equation:

For ASD:

1.15 1.15
 Q   T  1.0
      (Eq. 5-3)
 Pns   Pnot  

For LRFD and LSD:

1.15 1.15
Q   T 
      1.0 (Eq. 5-4)
 Pns   Pnot 
 37

where: Pns = 4.2(t 23 d)1/ 2 Fu 2 (nominal shear strength of connection Equation 2-10)

Pnot  0.85tc dFu 2 (nominal pull-out strength of connection Equation 2-15)

for Fu/Fy ≥ 1.087,

Ω = 2.65 for United States and Mexico

 = 0.58 for United States and Mexico

 = 0.48 for Canada

for Fu/Fy ≤ 1.064,

Ω = 2.51 for United States and Mexico

 = 0.61 for United States and Mexico

 = 0.51 for Canada

Equation Limitations:

0.0297 in. ≤ t2 ≤ 0.0724 in.

Fu2 ≤ 121 ksi

No. 8, 10, 12, or 14 screws, with or without washers

1.0≤Fu/Fy≤1.618

where: All test parameters for both the tri-linear and nonlinear equations are defined in

Section 2.2.4.
 38

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study took into consideration only concentric loading. However, eccentricity

can drastically change the amount of tension or shear applied in screw connections.

More research is required to validate the proposed equations for eccentric loading or to

develop a new design methodology for eccentric connections subject to combined forces,

such as clip angles.

Previous research by Ellifritt and Burnette has also shown that real-world

situations can reduce the capacity of screw connections subject to pull-over. Such

situations should, therefore, be simulated and evaluated for combined pull-out and shear

connections.

Other considerations that could affect the design equations proposed here include

multiple sheet connections, insulation between the sheets or gap tolerances in the

connection, and screw connections outside the limitations of this research.

 APPENDIX A

RESULTS OF TEST DATA

Table A.1 Test Data for Normal-Ductility Specimens

Specimen Specimen Pu Specimen Specimen Pu

No. Angle (lbf) No. Angle (lbf)
20N08-30-1 30 284.2 16N12-30-1 30 858.5
20N08-30-2 30 265.1 16N12-30-2 30 825.0
20N10-30-1 30 297.9 16N14-30-1 30 860.7
20N10-30-2 30 306.6 16N14-30-2 30 986.6
20N12-30-1 30 447.4 16N10-60-1 60 519.7
20N12-30-2 30 389.4 16N10-60-2 60 691.1
20N14-30-1 30 352.7 16N14-15-1 15 1229.9
20N14-30-2 30 353.6 16N14-15-2 15 1314.0
20N10-60-1 60 260.1 14N14-30-1 30 1255.0
20N10-60-2 60 337.6 14N14-30-2 30 1360.8
20N14-15-1 15 468.6 14N10-60-1 60 1081.3
20N14-15-2 15 494.3 14N10-60-2 60 874.6
18N12-30-1 30 500.3 14N14-15-1 15 1622.3
18N12-30-2 30 507.8 14N14-15-2 15 1823.3
18N14-30-1 30 588.5 20N08-75-1 75 199.6
18N14-30-2 30 588.1 20N10-75-1 75 243.3
18N10-60-1 60 394.2 14N08-75-1 75 718.3
18N10-60-2 60 315.7 14N10-75-1 75 914.7
18N14-15-1 15 683.4 14N10-75-2 75 906.4
18N14-15-2 15 710.7

40
Table A.2 Test Data for Low-Ductility Specimens

Specimen Specimen Pu Specimen Specimen Pu

No. Angle (lbf) No. Angle (lbf)
20L08‐30‐1  30  445.5  18L14‐15‐1  15  911.2 
20L08‐30‐2  30  437.1  18L14‐15‐2  15  950.0 
20L10‐30‐1  30  711.3  16L12‐30‐1  30  821.4 
20L10‐30‐2  30  465.5  16L12‐30‐2  30  778.9 
20L12‐30‐1  30  525.6  16L14‐30‐1  30  1004.9 
20L12‐30‐2  30  547.3  16L14‐30‐2  30  919.1 
20L14‐30‐1  30  607.3  16L10‐60‐1  60  663.4 
20L14‐30‐2  30  612.1  16L10‐60‐2  60  640.2 
20L10‐60‐1  60  443.0  16L14‐15‐1  15  1081.5 
20L10‐60‐2  60  438.8  16L14‐15‐2  15  1092.0 
20L14‐15‐1  15  668.7  14L14‐30‐1  30  1597.4 
20L14‐15‐2  15  651.6  14L14‐30‐2  30  1845.0 
18L12‐30‐1  30  714.1  14L10‐60‐1  60  1159.5 
18L12‐30‐2  30  736.7  14L10‐60‐2  60  1278.4 
18L14‐30‐1  30  749.0  14L08-75-1 75  887.8 
18L14‐30‐2  30  771.4  14L08-75-2 75  940.4 
18L10‐60‐1  60  598.2  14L10-75-1 75  878.8 
18L10‐60‐2  60  581.5  14L10-75-2 75  987.4 

41
 APPENDIX B

ANALYSIS OF TEST DATA

Table B.1 Analyzed Test Data for Normal-Ductility Specimens

Specimen Pu Put Puv Pnot Pns Specimen Pu Put Puv Pnot Pns
No. (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) No. (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf)
20N08-30-1 284.2 142.1 246.1 199.9 420.4 0.711 0.585 18N14-15-2 710.7 183.9 686.5 396.1 777.1 0.464 0.883
20N08-30-2 265.1 132.6 229.6 199.9 420.4 0.663 0.546 16N12-30-1 858.5 429.2 743.5 722.1 1752.4 0.594 0.424
20N10-30-1 297.9 149.0 258.0 231.6 452.5 0.643 0.570 16N14-30-1 860.7 430.3 745.3 835.8 1885.2 0.515 0.395
20N10-30-2 306.6 153.3 265.6 231.6 452.5 0.662 0.587 16N14-30-2 986.6 493.3 854.4 835.8 1885.2 0.590 0.453
20N12-30-1 447.4 223.7 387.4 263.3 482.5 0.849 0.803 16N10-60-1 519.7 450.1 259.9 635.2 1643.5 0.709 0.158
20N12-30-2 389.4 194.7 337.2 263.3 482.5 0.739 0.699 16N10-60-2 691.1 598.5 345.5 635.2 1643.5 0.942 0.210
20N14-30-1 352.7 176.4 305.5 304.8 519.1 0.579 0.588 16N14-15-1 1229.9 318.3 1188.0 835.8 1885.2 0.381 0.630
20N14-30-2 353.6 176.8 306.2 304.8 519.1 0.580 0.590 16N14-15-2 1314.0 340.1 1269.2 835.8 1885.2 0.407 0.673
20N10-60-1 260.1 225.3 130.1 231.6 452.5 0.972 0.287 14N14-30-1 1255.0 627.5 1086.9 1143.4 3040.4 0.549 0.357
20N10-60-2 337.6 292.4 168.8 231.6 452.5 1.262 0.373 14N14-30-2 1360.8 680.4 1178.5 1143.4 3040.4 0.595 0.388
20N14-15-1 468.6 121.3 452.6 404.3 793.2 0.300 0.571 14N10-60-1 1081.3 936.4 540.6 869.0 2650.6 1.078 0.204
20N14-15-2 494.3 127.9 477.5 404.3 793.2 0.316 0.602 14N10-60-2 874.6 757.4 437.3 869.0 2650.6 0.872 0.165
18N12-30-1 500.3 250.1 433.2 342.3 722.3 0.731 0.600 14N14-15-1 1622.3 419.9 1567.1 835.8 1885.2 0.502 0.831
18N12-30-2 507.8 253.9 439.8 342.3 722.3 0.742 0.609 14N14-15-2 1823.3 471.9 1761.1 835.8 1885.2 0.565 0.934
18N14-30-1 588.5 294.2 509.6 396.1 777.1 0.743 0.656 20N08-75-1 199.6 192.8 51.7 199.9 420.4 0.964 0.123
18N14-30-2 588.1 294.1 509.3 396.1 777.1 0.742 0.655 20N10-75-1 243.3 235.0 63.0 231.6 452.5 1.014 0.139
18N10-60-1 394.2 341.4 197.1 301.1 677.4 1.134 0.291 14N08-75-1 718.3 693.8 185.9 750.1 2462.5 0.925 0.075
18N10-60-2 315.7 273.4 157.9 301.1 677.4 0.908 0.233 14N10-75-1 914.7 883.6 236.8 869.0 2650.6 1.017 0.089
18N14-15-1 683.4 176.9 660.1 396.1 777.1 0.447 0.849 14N10-75-2 906.4 875.5 234.6 869.0 2650.6 1.008 0.089

43
Table B.2 Analyzed Test Data for Low-Ductility Specimens

Specimen Pu Put Puv Pnot Pns Specimen Pu Put Puv Pnot Pns
No. (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) No. (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf) (lbf)
20L08-30-1 445.5 222.8 385.8 483.2 1066.1 0.461 0.362 18L14-15-1 911.2 235.8 880.2 726.6 1390.4 0.325 0.633
20L08-30-2 437.1 218.5 378.5 483.2 1066.1 0.452 0.355 18L14-15-2 950.0 245.9 917.6 726.6 1390.4 0.338 0.660
20L10-30-1 711.3 355.7 616.0 559.8 1147.5 0.635 0.537 16L12-30-1 821.4 410.7 711.3 836.1 2003.5 0.491 0.355
20L10-30-2 465.5 232.8 403.1 559.8 1147.5 0.416 0.351 16L12-30-2 778.9 389.4 674.5 836.1 2003.5 0.466 0.337
20L12-30-1 525.6 262.8 455.2 636.4 1223.5 0.413 0.372 16L14-30-1 1004.9 502.4 870.3 967.7 2155.5 0.519 0.404
20L12-30-2 547.3 273.7 474.0 636.4 1223.5 0.430 0.387 16L14-30-2 919.1 459.6 796.0 967.7 2155.5 0.475 0.369
20L14-30-1 607.3 303.6 525.9 736.6 1316.3 0.412 0.400 16L10-60-1 663.4 574.5 331.7 735.5 1879.1 0.781 0.177
20L14-30-2 612.1 306.0 530.1 736.6 1316.3 0.415 0.403 16L10-60-2 640.2 554.5 320.1 735.5 1879.1 0.754 0.170
20L10-60-1 443.0 383.6 221.5 559.8 1147.5 0.685 0.193 16L14-15-1 1081.5 279.9 1044.6 967.7 2155.5 0.289 0.485
20L10-60-2 438.8 380.0 219.4 559.8 1147.5 0.679 0.191 16L14-15-2 1092.0 282.6 1054.8 967.7 2155.5 0.292 0.489
20L14-15-1 668.7 173.1 645.9 844.7 1616.5 0.205 0.400 14L14-30-1 1597.4 798.7 1383.4 1729.4 4440.1 0.462 0.312
20L14-15-2 651.6 168.7 629.4 844.7 1616.5 0.200 0.389 14L14-30-2 1845.0 922.5 1597.8 1729.4 4440.1 0.533 0.360
18L12-30-1 714.1 357.1 618.5 627.7 1292.4 0.569 0.479 14L10-60-1 1159.5 1004.1 579.7 1314.3 3870.8 0.764 0.150
18L12-30-2 736.7 368.4 638.0 627.7 1292.4 0.587 0.494 14L10-60-2 1278.4 1107.1 639.2 1314.3 3870.8 0.842 0.165
18L14-30-1 749.0 374.5 648.7 726.6 1390.4 0.515 0.467 14L08-75-1 887.8 857.6 229.8 1134.5 3596.2 0.756 0.064
18L14-30-2 771.4 385.7 668.0 726.6 1390.4 0.531 0.480 14L08-75-2 940.4 908.3 243.4 1134.5 3596.2 0.801 0.068
18L10-60-1 598.2 518.1 299.1 552.2 1212.1 0.938 0.247 14L10-75-1 878.8 848.8 227.4 1314.3 3870.8 0.646 0.059
18L10-60-2 581.5 503.6 290.8 552.2 1212.1 0.912 0.240 14L10-75-2 987.4 953.7 255.6 1314.3 3870.8 0.726 0.066

44
 APPENDIX C

TRI-LINEAR EQUATION CORRELATION

C.1 Normal-Ductility Tri-Linear Correlation (L = 1.0)

Specimen Put Puv Put P Specimen Put Puv Put P

 uv  1.15  uv  1.15
No. LPnot LPns LPnot LPns No. LPnot LPns LPnot LPns
20N14-15-1 0.261 0.496 0.757 16N12-30-1 0.517 0.369 0.886
20N14-15-2 0.275 0.523 0.799 16N12-30-2 0.497 0.355 0.851
18N14-15-1 0.388 0.739 1.127 16N14-30-1 0.448 0.344 0.792
18N14-15-2 0.404 0.768 1.172 16N14-30-2 0.513 0.394 0.907
16N14-15-1 0.331 0.548 0.879 20N10-60-1 0.846 0.250 1.095
16N14-15-2 0.354 0.585 0.939 20N10-60-2 1.098 0.324 1.422
14N14-30-1 0.477 0.311 0.788 18N10-60-1 0.986 0.253 1.239
14N14-30-2 0.517 0.337 0.855 18N10-60-2 0.790 0.203 0.992
14N14-15-1 0.437 0.723 1.160 16N10-60-1 0.616 0.137 0.754
14N14-15-2 0.491 0.812 1.303 16N10-60-2 0.819 0.183 1.002
20N08-30-1 0.618 0.509 1.127 14N10-60-1 0.937 0.177 1.114
20N08-30-2 0.577 0.475 1.051 14N10-60-2 0.758 0.143 0.901
20N10-30-1 0.559 0.496 1.055 20N08-75-1 0.838 0.107 0.964
20N10-30-2 0.576 0.510 1.086 20N10-75-1 0.882 0.121 1.014
20N12-30-1 0.739 0.698 1.437 14N08-75-1 0.804 0.066 0.925
20N12-30-2 0.643 0.608 1.250 14N10-75-1 0.884 0.078 1.017
20N14-30-1 0.503 0.512 1.015 14N10-75-2 0.876 0.077 1.008
20N14-30-2 0.504 0.513 1.017
18N12-30-1 0.635 0.522 1.157
Mean Value = 1.038
18N12-30-2 0.645 0.529 1.175
18N14-30-1 0.646 0.570 1.216 Standard Deviation = 0.174
18N14-30-2 0.645 0.570 1.215 Coefficient of Variation = 0.167

46
C.2 Low-Ductility Tri-Linear Correlation (L = 0.75)
Specimen Put Puv Put P
 uv  1.15
Specimen Put Puv Put P
 uv  1.15 No. LPnot LPns LPnot LPns
No. LPnot LPns LPnot LPns 14L14-30-1 0.543 0.367 0.910
20L14-15-1 0.241 0.470 0.954 14L14-30-2 0.628 0.423 0.979
20L14-15-2 0.235 0.458 0.936 20L10-60-1 0.806 0.227 1.110
18L14-15-1 0.382 0.745 1.359 20L10-60-2 0.799 0.225 1.072
18L14-15-2 0.398 0.776 0.889 18L10-60-1 1.104 0.290 0.897
16L14-15-1 0.340 0.570 0.910 18L10-60-2 1.073 0.282 0.906
16L14-15-2 0.344 0.576 0.948 16L10-60-1 0.919 0.208 0.897
20L08-30-1 0.542 0.426 0.941 16L10-60-2 0.887 0.200 1.036
20L08-30-2 0.532 0.418 0.949 14L10-60-1 0.899 0.176 1.019
20L10-30-1 0.747 0.632 1.018 14L10-60-2 0.991 0.194 1.168
20L10-30-2 0.489 0.413 1.009 14L08-75-1 0.829 0.070 0.940
20L12-30-1 0.486 0.438 0.701 14L08-75-2 0.878 0.074 0.995
20L12-30-2 0.506 0.456 0.683 14L10-75-1 0.708 0.062 0.803
20L14-30-1 0.485 0.470 1.214 14L10-75-2 0.796 0.070 0.902
20L14-30-2 0.489 0.474 1.253
18L12-30-1 0.669 0.563 1.139
18L12-30-2 0.690 0.581 1.172 Mean Value = 1.021
18L14-30-1 0.606 0.549 1.374
18L14-30-2 0.625 0.565 1.336 Standard Deviation = 0.163
16L12-30-1 0.578 0.418 1.110 Coefficient of Variation = 0.159
16L12-30-2 0.548 0.396 1.158
16L14-30-1 0.611 0.475 0.981
16L14-30-2 0.559 0.434 0.930

47
 APPENDIX D

NONLINEAR EQUATION CORRELATION

D.1 Normal-Ductility Nonlinear Correlation (L = 1.0)

1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Specimen Put Puv  Put   P  Specimen Put Puv  Put   P 
    uv   1 .0     uv   1 .0
No. LPnot LPns  LPnot   LPns  No. LPnot LPns  LPnot   LPns 
20N14-15-1 0.300 0.571 0.775 16N12-30-2 0.571 0.408 0.882
20N14-15-2 0.316 0.602 0.824 16N14-30-1 0.515 0.395 0.810
18N14-15-1 0.447 0.849 1.225 16N14-30-2 0.590 0.453 0.948
18N14-15-2 0.464 0.883 1.281 20N10-60-1 0.972 0.287 1.207
16N14-15-1 0.381 0.630 0.918 20N10-60-2 1.262 0.373 1.629
16N14-15-2 0.407 0.673 0.990 18N10-60-1 1.134 0.291 1.397
14N14-30-1 0.549 0.357 0.808 18N10-60-2 0.908 0.233 1.083
14N14-30-2 0.595 0.388 0.887 16N10-60-1 0.709 0.158 0.793
14N14-15-1 0.502 0.831 1.262 16N10-60-2 0.942 0.210 1.100
14N14-15-2 0.565 0.934 1.443 14N10-60-1 1.078 0.204 1.250
20N08-30-1 0.711 0.585 1.215 14N10-60-2 0.872 0.165 0.980
20N08-30-2 0.663 0.546 1.122 20N08-75-1 0.964 0.123 1.049
20N10-30-1 0.643 0.570 1.126 20N10-75-1 1.014 0.139 1.120
20N10-30-2 0.662 0.587 1.164 14N08-75-1 0.925 0.075 0.965
20N12-30-1 0.849 0.803 1.606 14N10-75-1 1.017 0.089 1.081
20N12-30-2 0.739 0.699 1.369 14N10-75-2 1.008 0.089 1.070
20N14-30-1 0.579 0.588 1.077
20N14-30-2 0.580 0.590 1.080
18N12-30-1 0.731 0.600 1.253 Mean Value = 1.119
18N12-30-2 0.742 0.609 1.275
Standard Deviation = 0.215
18N14-30-1 0.743 0.656 1.326
18N14-30-2 0.742 0.655 1.325 Coefficient of Variation = 0.192

49
D.2 Low-Ductility Nonlinear Correlation (L = 0.8)

1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Specimen Put Puv  Put   P  Specimen Put Puv  Put   P 
    uv   1 .0     uv   1 .0
No. LPnot LPns  LPnot   LPns  No. LPnot LPns  LPnot   LPns 
20L14-15-1 0.256 0.499 0.659 14L14-30-1 0.577 0.389 0.870
20L14-15-2 0.250 0.487 0.640 14L14-30-2 0.667 0.450 1.026
18L14-15-1 0.406 0.791 1.118 20L10-60-1 0.857 0.241 1.032
18L14-15-2 0.423 0.825 1.173 20L10-60-2 0.849 0.239 1.021
16L14-15-1 0.362 0.606 0.872 18L10-60-1 1.173 0.308 1.460
16L14-15-2 0.365 0.612 0.882 18L10-60-2 1.140 0.300 1.413
20L08-30-1 0.576 0.452 0.932 16L10-60-1 0.976 0.221 1.149
20L08-30-2 0.565 0.444 0.912 16L10-60-2 0.942 0.213 1.103
20L10-30-1 0.794 0.671 1.399 14L10-60-1 0.955 0.187 1.094
20L10-30-2 0.520 0.439 0.859 14L10-60-2 1.053 0.206 1.224
20L12-30-1 0.516 0.465 0.882 14L08-75-1 0.881 0.074 0.915
20L12-30-2 0.538 0.484 0.924 14L08-75-2 0.933 0.079 0.977
20L14-30-1 0.515 0.499 0.917 14L10-75-1 0.753 0.066 0.765
20L14-30-2 0.519 0.503 0.925 14L10-75-2 0.846 0.074 0.875
18L12-30-1 0.711 0.598 1.229
18L12-30-2 0.734 0.617 1.274
Mean Value = 1.020
18L14-30-1 0.644 0.583 1.141
18L14-30-2 0.664 0.601 1.180 Standard Deviation = 0.192
16L12-30-1 0.614 0.444 0.964 Coefficient of Variation = 0.189
16L12-30-2 0.582 0.421 0.906
16L14-30-1 0.649 0.505 1.064
16L14-30-2 0.594 0.462 0.960

50
D.3 Low-Ductility Nonlinear Correlation based on Chapter 5
Recommendations (L = 0.75)

1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Specimen Put Puv  Put   P  Specimen Put Puv  Put   P 
    uv   1 .0     uv   1 .0
No. LPnot LPns  LPnot   LPns  No. LPnot LPns  LPnot   LPns 
20L14-15-1 0.273 0.533 0.710 14L14-30-1 0.616 0.415 0.937
20L14-15-2 0.266 0.519 0.689 14L14-30-2 0.711 0.480 1.106
18L14-15-1 0.433 0.844 1.205 20L10-60-1 0.914 0.257 1.111
18L14-15-2 0.451 0.880 1.264 20L10-60-2 0.905 0.255 1.099
16L14-15-1 0.386 0.646 0.940 18L10-60-1 1.251 0.329 1.572
16L14-15-2 0.389 0.652 0.950 18L10-60-2 1.216 0.320 1.522
20L08-30-1 0.615 0.483 1.004 16L10-60-1 1.042 0.235 1.237
20L08-30-2 0.603 0.473 0.982 16L10-60-2 1.005 0.227 1.188
20L10-30-1 0.847 0.716 1.507 14L10-60-1 1.019 0.200 1.178
20L10-30-2 0.554 0.468 0.925 14L10-60-2 1.123 0.220 1.318
20L12-30-1 0.551 0.496 0.950 14L08-75-1 0.940 0.079 0.985
20L12-30-2 0.573 0.517 0.995 14L08-75-2 0.995 0.084 1.053
20L14-30-1 0.550 0.533 0.987 14L10-75-1 0.803 0.071 0.824
20L14-30-2 0.554 0.537 0.996 14L10-75-2 0.902 0.079 0.942
18L12-30-1 0.758 0.638 1.324
18L12-30-2 0.782 0.658 1.372
18L14-30-1 0.687 0.622 1.229 Mean Value = 1.099
18L14-30-2 0.708 0.641 1.271 Standard Deviation = 0.207
16L12-30-1 0.655 0.473 1.038 Coefficient of Variation = 0.189
16L12-30-2 0.621 0.449 0.976
16L14-30-1 0.692 0.538 1.146
16L14-30-2 0.633 0.492 1.034

51
 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Iron and Steel Institute. (1996). Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (1996 ed.).
Washington D.C.: AISI.

American Iron and Steel Institute. (2007). Commentary on North American Specification
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (2007 ed.). Washington D.C.:
AISI.

American Iron and Steel Institute. (2007). North American Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. AISI S100-2007, Washington D.C.: AISI.

American Iron and Steel Institute. (1946). Specification for the Design of Light Gage
Steel Structural Members (1946 ed.). New York, NY: AISI.

ASTM International. (2007). Designation: A370-071 Standard Test Methods and

Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (2007 ed.). West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.

Ellifritt, D. S., & Burnette, R. (1990). Pull-Over Strength of Screws in Simulated

Building Tests. Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures (pp. 589-603). St. Louis: Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel
Structures.

Luttrell, L. (1999). Metal Construction Association Diaphragm Test Program. West

Virginia University .

Pekoz, T. (1990). Design of Cold-Formed Steel Screw Connections. Tenth International

Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures (pp. 575-587). St. Louis: Wei-
Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures.

Stirnemann, L.K. (2006), "Behavior of Arc Spot Weld Connections Subjected to

Combined Shear and Tension Forces," Thesis submitted to the Missouri University of
Science & Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science,
Rolla, MO.

Yu, W.-W. (2000). Cold-Formed Steel Design (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and
Sons Inc.

Zwick, K., & LaBoube, R. A. (2006). Self-Drilling Screw Connections Subjected to

Combined Shear and Tension. Final Report, Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel
Structures. Rolla, MO.
53
American 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Iron and Steel Suite 705
Institute Washington, DC 20036
www.steel.org
Research Report RP-09-3