CFSD Report RP18 4
CFSD Report RP18 4
CFSD Report RP18 4
Design – Phase II
August 2018
Committee on Specifications
DISCLAIMER
The material contained herein has been developed by researchers based on their research
findings and 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.
August 9, 2018
i
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... i
1 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1
2 Shear Strength of Clip Angles ...................................................................................... 2
2.1 Test Setup and Test Procedure.................................................................................. 2
2.2 Test Specimens ......................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Test Specimens with a Single Line of Screws on the Cantilevered Leg ........... 3
2.2.2 Test Specimens with a Double Line of Screws on Cantilevered Leg ................ 5
2.3 Test Results ............................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Test Specimens with a Single Line of Screws on Cantilevered Leg ................. 6
2.3.2 Test Specimens with a Double Line of Screws on Cantilevered Leg ................ 8
2.4 Finite Element Analysis ............................................................................................ 9
2.4.1 Finite Element Modeling and Verification ........................................................ 9
2.4.2 Results of Finite Element Analysis .................................................................. 11
2.5 Comparison with Design Methods ......................................................................... 12
2.5.1 Comparison with Phase I Design Method ....................................................... 12
2.5.2 Revised Design Method for Single Screw Line Configuration ....................... 15
2.5.3 Revised Design Method for Clip Angles with either a Single or a Double Line
of Screws ................................................................................................................... 20
2.6 Shear Design Method for CFS Clip Angles with Consideration of Deformation .. 23
3 Compression Strength of Clip Angles ........................................................................ 26
3.1 Test Setup and Test Procedure................................................................................ 26
3.2 Test Specimens ....................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Test Results ............................................................................................................. 30
3.4 Comparison with Phase I Design Method .............................................................. 32
4 Serviceability of Clip Angles in Tension .................................................................... 37
4.1 Test Setup and Test Procedure................................................................................ 37
4.2 Test Specimens ....................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Test Results ............................................................................................................. 39
4.4 Proposed Tensile Strength for CFS Clip Angles at the Deformation Limit of
Serviceability .......................................................................................................... 40
4.4.1 Analytical Model ............................................................................................. 40
4.4.2 Design Equation for Nominal Strength at Deflection Limit ............................ 42
5 CFS Joist Tests ............................................................................................................. 44
5.1 Test Setup and Test Procedure................................................................................ 44
ii
5.2 Test Specimens ....................................................................................................... 46
5.3 Test Results ............................................................................................................. 46
6 Summary of Proposed Design Provisions .................................................................. 52
6.1 Nominal shear strength of the cantilevered leg of clip angle without consideration
of deformation ........................................................................................................ 52
6.2 Nominal shear strength of the cantilevered leg of a clip angle with consideration
of serviceability ...................................................................................................... 53
6.3 Nominal axial compression strength of the cantilevered leg of a clip angle .......... 53
6.4 Nominal pull-over strength of the anchored leg of a clip angle ............................. 54
6.5 Nominal tension strength of a clip angle with consideration of serviceability ....... 55
7 Conclusions and Future Research .............................................................................. 56
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 57
References ........................................................................................................................ 58
iii
1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of this project is to continue the Phase I research to further investigate the behavior
and design methods of load-bearing cold-formed steel (CFS) clip angles with thickness ranging
from 33 mils to 97 mils. The Phase I research conducted experiments to study three limit states of
CFS clip angles: shear, compression, and pull-over of the screw connections. The test results were
compared with existing design methods for members similar to, but not exactly the same as, CFS
clip angles. It was found that none of the existing methods worked well for the tested clip angles,
therefore new design methods were developed in Phase I for each of the three limit states. LRFD
and LSD resistance factors and ASD safety factors were also provided to apply to the proposed
design equations for nominal strength. The Phase I research is documented in Yu et al. (2015,
2017) and Zhang et al. (2018). The Phase II research presented in this report focused on (1) the
fastener pattern effects on the behavior and strength of clip angles; (2) serviceability of clip angles
subjected to tension; (3) design of clip angles subjected to combined shear and bending with
different boundary conditions. Finite element analysis was employed to supplement the
experimental work on relatively thicker clip angles. Based on the research findings, the Phase I
methods were revised to account for the fastener spacing in the shear strength design method. A
new closed-formed design method was also developed to evaluate the serviceability limit of the
clip angle in tension.
1
2 SHEAR STRENGTH OF CLIP ANGLES
The shear test program was aimed at identifying the failure mechanism and determining the shear
strength of the cantilevered leg of CFS clip angles subjected to in-plane transverse shear forces.
An adequate number of screws were installed in each specimen so that fastener failures were
prevented in the test program. Besides the clip angle’s dimensions, the Phase II specimens also
included variations in the screw spacing and the number of screw lines.
Hydraulic
cylinder
½” thick plate
Load cell 2-Stud column
Clip angle
Displacement
sensor
Load plate
CFS Stud
column
Lateral supports
In each shear test, two identical clip angles were used in the specimen assembly. The cantilevered
leg of each clip angle was fastened to a 54 mil or 118 mil 20 in. long CFS stud column (one clip
on each side of the column) using No. 14-14×1 self-drilling self-tapping screws. The other leg of
the clip angle (anchored leg) was fixed to a loading plate by No. 10-24×1 Button Head Socket Cap
(BHSC) screws. The loading plate was made of ½ in. thick structural steel which had pre-drilled
holes to accommodate the BHSC screw connections. The 20 in. long CFS stud column was fixed
to a set of specially designed steel fixtures on both ends by No. 14 screws as shown in Figure 2.1.
The stud column was made of two identical CFS stud members face-to-face welded together by
arc spot welds along the flanges. For 54 mil and thinner clip angles, a 54 mil stud column was
used. For 68 mil and thicker clip angles, a 118 mil stud column was used. The upper end of the
loading plate was attached to a mechanical grip via a pin connection. The other end of the loading
plate was constrained by two lateral supports, as shown in Figure 2.1(b), so that the out-of-plane
movement of the loading plate was prevented.
2
A 50 kip universal compression/tension load cell was installed between the hydraulic rod and the
mechanical grip. A position transducer was used to measure the vertical displacement of the
loading plate. The data acquisition system consisted of a PC with Labview and a National
Instruments unit. The applied force and the clip angle displacement were measured and recorded
instantaneously during the test. An 8 in. stroke hydraulic cylinder was used to apply the shear load
to the clip angle. The cylinder was supported by a hydraulic system with a built-in electrical servo
valve to control the hydraulic flow rate. The shear tests were conducted in a displacement control
mode. In each test, the hydraulic cylinder moved the loading plate upwards at a constant speed of
0.3 in. per minute. The selected loading speed was found satisfactory for achieving the desired
failure mode of test specimens meanwhile allowing accurate readings of displacement and load
measurement devices. The testing speed was slow enough to have no noticeable effect on the test
results.
2.2.1 Test Specimens with a Single Line of Screws on the Cantilevered Leg
A total of 28 test specimens had a single line of screws on the cantilevered leg. Figure 2.2 illustrates
the measured dimensions. Table 2.1 lists the measured dimensions, tested material properties, and
the number of screws used in each clip angle. In Table 2.1, the L measures the flat length of the
cantilevered leg between the center of the first line of screws and the bend line, as illustrated in
Figure 2.2. On the cantilevered leg, the edge distance of the holes were constantly 0.375 inch. The
thickness, t, is the uncoated thickness of materials. The yield stress Fy, and tensile strength, Fu,
were obtained from coupon tests conducted following ASTM A370 Standard Test Method and
Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (2014).
Loading
L direction
Anchored leg
S
B
t
Cantilevered leg
Figure 2.2: Measured dimensions for clip angles with a single line of screws
3
Table 2.1: Properties of clip angles with a single line of screws in the shear test program
# Screws # Bolts
Test Label B (in.) L (in.) t (in.) S (in.) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi)
on C-leg on A-leg
IIS3 #1 5.252 1.391 0.0584 0.750 45.7 50.1 7 7
IIS3 #2 5.220 1.391 0.0584 0.750 45.7 50.1 7 7
IIS6 #1 3.004 2.425 0.0465 0.750 46.4 51.2 4 4
IIS6 #2 3.004 2.425 0.0465 0.750 46.4 51.2 4 4
IIS8 #1 5.244 2.388 0.0465 0.750 46.4 51.2 7 7
IIS8 #2 5.244 2.388 0.0465 0.750 46.4 51.2 7 7
IIS9 #a1 7.540 2.405 0.0349 0.754 49.9 55.8 10 10
IIS9 #a2 7.540 2.405 0.0349 0.754 49.9 55.8 10 10
IIS9 #b1 7.540 2.405 0.0349 1.698 49.9 55.8 5 10
IIS9 #b2 7.540 2.405 0.0349 1.698 49.9 55.8 5 10
IIS10 #a1 7.497 2.403 0.0584 1.687 45.7 50.1 5 10
IIS10 #a2 7.497 2.403 0.0584 1.687 45.7 50.1 5 10
II4.5 #a1 4.501 3.300 0.0583 3.751 46.1 63.7 2 2
II4.5 #a2 4.501 3.300 0.0583 3.751 46.1 63.7 2 2
II4.5 #b1 4.501 3.300 0.0583 1.250 46.1 63.7 4 4
II4.5 #b2 4.501 3.300 0.0583 1.250 46.1 63.7 4 4
II8.5 #1 8.499 2.811 0.0583 1.937 46.1 63.7 5 11
II8.5 #2 8.499 2.811 0.0583 1.937 46.1 63.7 5 11
II10.5 #a1 10.500 2.800 0.0583 0.750 46.1 63.7 14 14
II10.5 #a2 10.500 2.800 0.0583 0.750 46.1 63.7 14 14
II10.5 #b1 10.500 2.800 0.0583 1.393 46.1 63.7 8 14
II10.5 #b2 10.500 2.800 0.0583 1.393 46.1 63.7 8 14
II6.5 #1 6.500 3.407 0.0583 1.438 46.1 63.7 5 5
II6.5 #2 6.500 3.407 0.0583 1.438 46.1 63.7 5 5
II8.5 #b1 8.499 3.407 0.0583 1.937 46.1 63.7 5 5
II8.5 #b2 8.499 3.407 0.0583 1.937 46.1 63.7 5 5
II10.5 #c1 10.500 3.886 0.0583 0.750 46.1 63.7 14 14
II10.5 #c2 10.500 3.886 0.0583 0.750 46.1 63.7 14 14
Note: C-leg: Cantilevered leg; A-leg: Anchored leg.
4
2.2.2 Test Specimens with a Double Line of Screws on Cantilevered Leg
A total of 12 test specimens had a double line of screws on the cantilevered leg. Figure 2.3
illustrates the measured dimensions. Table 2.2 lists the measured dimensions, tested material
properties, and the number of screws used in each clip angle. For all clip angles with a double line
of screws, the center-to-center distance between the two lines of screws was consistently 0.75 in.
3/8''
Screw B
Spacing(S)
3/4'' t
3/8''
Figure 2.3: Measured dimensions for clip angles with a double line of screws
Table 2.2: Properties of clip angles with a double line of screws in the shear test program
# Screws # Bolts
Test Label B (in.) L (in.) t (in.) S (in.) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi)
on C-leg on A-leg
IIS9D #a1 7.540 1.665 0.0349 3.395 49.9 55.8 6 10
IIS9D #a2 7.540 1.665 0.0349 3.395 49.9 55.8 6 10
IIS9D #b1 7.540 1.665 0.0349 1.700 49.9 55.8 10 10
IIS9D #b2 7.540 1.665 0.0349 1.700 49.9 55.8 10 10
II4.5D #1 4.501 2.534 0.0583 3.751 46.1 63.7 4 4
II4.5D #2 4.501 2.534 0.0583 3.751 46.1 63.7 4 4
II8.5D #1 8.499 2.031 0.0583 3.875 46.1 63.7 6 6
II8.5D #2 8.499 2.031 0.0583 3.875 46.1 63.7 6 6
IIS6D #1 3.004 1.675 0.0465 2.254 46.4 51.2 4 4
IIS6D #2 3.004 1.675 0.0465 2.254 46.4 51.2 4 4
II10.5D #1 10.500 2.060 0.0583 1.393 46.1 63.7 8 14
II10.5D #2 10.500 2.060 0.0583 1.393 46.1 63.7 8 14
Note: C-leg: Cantilevered leg; A-leg: Anchored leg.
5
2.3 Test Results
7000
Test II10.5 #b1
6000
Applied shear force per clip (lbs)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Vertical displacement (in)
The test results for clip angles with a single line of screws are provided in Table 2.3 in which Vtest
is the peak load per clip angle and V1/8 is the maximum load per clip angle in the deflection range
between 0 and 1/8 in. The deflection, ∆, is the displacement of the loading plate at the peak load.
∆ can be considered as the average vertical deflection of the two clip angles used in each test.
6
Shear Test Results
1600
Confirmatory Phase II S6
1400
test
1200
Applied shear force per clip (lbs)
600
400
Phase I S6
200
0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Vertical displacement (in)
Phase I S6#1
Figure 2.5: Test results of S6 clip angles
7
2.3.2 Test Specimens with a Double Line of Screws on Cantilevered Leg
When two lines of screws were installed on the cantilevered leg, the unbraced width of the
cantilevered leg, L, was reduced which led to increased shear strength in the clip. The double line
of screws also provided a more rigid boundary condition than that by a single line of screws. Figure
2.6 shows test results on a 54 mil clip angle with two different numbers of screw lines. Table 2.4
provides the test results for the shear tests with a double line of screws.
II4.5 #b2
II4.5D#2
II4.5 #a1
II4.5D#2
II4.5 #b2
II4.5 #a 1
Figure 2.6: Test results of a 54 mil clip angle with different numbers of lines of screws
8
2.4 Finite Element Analysis
In the shear test program, 97 mil clip angles were also tested. However, all the tested 97 mil clip
angles failed by screw failures. A failure in the cantilevered leg of 97 mil clip angles could not be
achieved. Therefore, finite element models were developed in this research to investigate the
strength of 97 mil clip angles.
Figure 2.7 shows the comparison between the ABAQUS results and the test results on II4.5#a clip
angles. The deviation of the peak load between the finite element results and the tests is 5.8%.
Figure 2.8 shows the comparison of the deformation shape at the peak load.
9
ABAQUS model (b) Experiment
Figure 2.8: Failure mode (II4.5 #a2)
Figures 2.9 and 2.10 provide a comparison between the finite element model and the tests of an
8.5 in. deep clip angle. The difference between the finite element results and the test results is
13.5%.
Figure 2.9: Load-displacement curves (Test 1 - II8.5 #1, Test 2 – II8.5 #2)
10
ABAQUS model (b) Experiment
Figure 2.10: Failure mode (Test II8.5 #1)
11
2.5 Comparison with Design Methods
𝐹𝑦
Where 𝜆 = √𝐹 - Slenderness ratio (2.2)
𝑐𝑟
𝑘𝜋 2 𝐸 𝑡
𝐹𝑐𝑟 = 12(1−𝜇2 ) (𝐵)2 - Critical elastic buckling stress (2.3)
𝐿 −2.202
𝑘 = 2.569 (𝐵) - Buckling coefficient (2.4)
𝑡 - Design thickness
𝐿 - Flat width of clip angle, distance from the center of first line of screws to the bend line
The above equations are valid within the following range of parameters and boundary conditions:
Clip angle nominal thickness: 33 mils to 97 mils
Clip angle nominal yield strength: 33 ksi to 50 ksi
L/B ratio: 0.18 to 1.40
The Phase I and II test results were compared with the Phase I design method and the results are
provided in Table 2.6. Vtest is the tested peak load, Vn is the predicted nominal shear strength using
the Phase I method. Figure 2.11 illustrates the comparison between the shear test results and the
Phase I design method. The Phase I specimens had relatively large screw spacing on the
cantilevered leg, while the Phase II specimens were designed to have various screw patterns and
the screw spacing was generally closer than those of the Phase I specimens. Therefore, the Phase
II specimens yielded higher shear strength than the Phase I specimens, as shown in Figure 2.11.
The yield strength, Vy, in Figure 2.11 is defined as follows:
𝑉𝑦 = 𝐹𝑦 𝐵𝑡 (2.5)
12
The shear design method proposed in Phase I gave conservative predictions for the majority of the
Phase II tests. The screw spacing does have a significant impact on the shear strength of the CFS
clip angle, and the design method will be revised to include the screw spacing in the equations as
shown in Section 2.5.2.
13
Table 2.6: Comparison of test results with Phase I design method (Continued)
Test Label Vtest (lb) Vn (lb) Vtest/Vn
IIS3 #1 4648 3913 1.188
IIS3 #2 5081 3887 1.307
IIS6 #1 1416 878 1.613
IIS6 #2 1460 878 1.663
IIS8 #1 2200 1625 1.354
IIS8 #2 2077 1625 1.278
IIS9 #a1 3190 1490 2.141
IIS9 #a2 3246 1490 2.178
IIS9 #b1 2069 1490 1.388
IIS9 #b2 2173 1490 1.458
IIS10 #a1 4922 3552 1.386
Phase II IIS10 #a2 4850 3552 1.366
(clips II4.5 #a1 1342 1551 0.865
with a II4.5 #a2 1311 1551 0.845
single
line of II4.5 #b1 1664 1551 1.073
screws II4.5 #b2 1821 1551 1.174
only) II8.5 #1 4525 3550 1.275
II8.5 #2 4136 3550 1.165
II10.5 #a1 7426 4477 1.659
II10.5 #a2 7842 4477 1.752
II10.5 #b1 5836 4477 1.304
II10.5 #b2 6178 4477 1.380
II6.5 #1 3451 2243 1.539
II6.5 #2 3197 2243 1.425
II8.5 #b1 4747 2997 1.584
II8.5 #b2 4328 2997 1.444
II10.5 #c1 7403 3354 2.207
II10.5 #c2 7391 3354 2.203
Mean 1.242
St. Dev. 0.345
COV 0.278
14
Figure 2.11: Comparison of test results with Phase I design method
𝛼 = 𝑆/𝐵 (2.6)
Where, S is the screw spacing on the cantilevered leg and B is depth of clip angle. The ratio is
introduced and a modified design equation can be obtained by using nonlinear regression analysis
of the test results from both phases for clip angles with a single line of screws:
Where 𝛾 = 𝛼𝜆 (2.8)
𝐹𝑦
λ = √𝐹 – Slenderness ratio (2.2)
𝑐𝑟
𝑆
𝛼 = 𝐵 − Screw spacing ratio (2.6)
15
𝑘𝜋 2 𝐸 𝑡
𝐹𝑐𝑟 = 12(1−𝜇2 ) (𝐵)2 – Critical elastic buckling stress (2.3)
L - Flat width of clip angle, distance between the centers of first line (or the line closest to
the corner of the clip angle) of screws to the bend line.
The above equations are valid within the following range of parameters and boundary conditions
which are based on the specimens in both phases:
The revised design method is based on the test results of clip angles with a single line of screws.
Figure 2.12 illustrates the comparison between the design method with the test results. The revised
method provides reasonable predictions for clip angles tested in both phases where a single line of
screws was used.
The clip angles with a double line of screws yielded greater strength than the clip angles with a
single line of screws, therefore the number of screw lines shall also be considered in the design.
However, the test program had only a limited number of specimens with more than one line of
screws, and only the configuration of two lines of screws was tested. Therefore, the revised design
method (Eq. 2.7) does not take the number of screw lines into consideration, the revised design
method gives conservative prediction for the clip angles with more than one line of screws on the
cantilevered leg. Figure 2.23 show the comparison between the revised design method with the
test and FEA results of the clip angles. Table 2.7 compares the test results with the revised design
method. Only the results of clip angles with a single line of screws were used to develop the revised
design equation (Eq. 2.7), therefore Table 2.7 lists only those clip angles.
16
Figure 2.12: Comparison of the revised design method with test and FEA results of clip angles
with a single line of screws
Figure 2.13: Comparison of the revised design method with test and FEA results of all clip angles
17
Table 2.7: Comparison of test results with the revised design method
Test Label γ Vtest (lb) Vn (lb) Vtest/Vn
S1 #4 0.143 2594 2106 1.232
S1 #5 0.143 2767 2102 1.316
S3 #1 0.230 3794 3011 1.260
S3 #2 0.230 3753 3012 1.246
S4 #3 0.411 2581 2243 1.151
S4 #4 0.411 2445 2239 1.092
S5 # 3 0.301 3534 3144 1.124
S5 # 4 0.301 3488 3146 1.109
S6 #1 0.996 1050 779 1.348
S6 #2 0.996 983 777 1.265
S7 #1 0.063 4339 5012 0.866
S7 #3 0.063 4319 4895 0.882
S8 #3 0.529 2054 1756 1.169
S8 #4 0.529 1912 1751 1.092
S8 #5 0.529 2048 1751 1.169
S9 #2 0.740 1787 1779 1.005
Phase I S9 #3 0.740 1670 1780 0.938
S10 #1 0.423 3268 3374 0.969
S10 #2 0.423 3421 3387 1.010
T1a #1 1.101 288 354 0.814
T1a #2 1.101 328 351 0.935
T1b #1 0.913 358 381 0.940
T1b #2 0.913 315 381 0.827
T1b #3 0.913 373 377 0.988
T3 #1 0.380 845 825 1.024
T3 #2 0.380 967 826 1.171
T3 #3 0.380 932 828 1.126
T4 #2 0.573 1028 1001 1.027
T4 #3 0.573 993 1006 0.987
T5a #1 1.110 319 353 0.903
T5a #2 1.110 359 350 1.025
T5b #1 1.032 250 361 0.692
T5b #2 1.032 303 363 0.835
18
Table 2.7: Comparison of test results with the revised design method (Continued)
Test Label γ Vtest (lb) Vn (lb) Vtest/Vn
IIS3 #1 0.077 4648 4695 0.990
IIS3 #2 0.077 5081 4654 1.092
IIS6 #1 0.332 1416 1209 1.171
IIS6 #2 0.332 1460 1209 1.207
IIS8 #1 0.177 2200 2717 0.810
IIS8 #2 0.177 2077 2717 0.765
IIS9 #a1 0.166 3190 3234 0.986
IIS9 #a2 0.166 3246 3234 1.004
IIS9 #b1 0.373 2069 2337 0.885
IIS9 #b2 0.373 2173 2337 0.930
IIS10 #a1 0.213 4922 4455 1.105
Phase II IIS10 #a2 0.213 4850 4455 1.089
(clips II4.5 #a1 1.186 1342 1356 0.990
with II4.5 #a2 1.186 1311 1356 0.967
single
line II4.5 #b1 0.395 1664 2104 0.791
screws II4.5 #b2 0.395 1821 2104 0.865
only) II8.5 #1 0.255 4525 4735 0.956
II8.5 #2 0.255 4136 4735 0.873
II10.5 #a1 0.078 7426 9401 0.790
II10.5 #a2 0.078 7842 9401 0.834
II10.5 #b1 0.145 5836 7339 0.795
II10.5 #b2 0.145 6178 7339 0.842
II6.5 #1 0.314 3451 3331 1.036
II6.5 #2 0.314 3197 3331 0.960
II8.5 #b1 0.315 4747 4351 1.091
II8.5 #b2 0.315 4328 4351 0.995
II10.5 #c1 0.112 7403 8137 0.910
II10.5 #c2 0.112 7391 8137 0.908
Mean 1.003
St. Dev. 0.150
COV 0.149
The LRFD and LSD resistance factors and the ASD safety factors for the revised shear design
method for clip angles with a single line of screws were calculated following the Chapter K of the
North American Specification for the Design of CFS Structural Members (AISI S100, 2016). The
results are listed in Table 2.8.
19
Table 2.8: Resistance factors and safety factors for the revised shear design method
Considered as
Members – Shear
and web Crippling
Quantity 61
Mean 1.003
Std. Dev. 0.150
COV 0.149
Mm 1.10
Vm 0.10
Fm 1.00
Pm 1.003
Vf 0.05
(LRFD) 2.5
(LSD) 3.0
VQ 0.21
(LRFD) 0.83
(LSD) 0.67
(ASD) 1.93
2.5.3 Revised Design Method for Clip Angles with either a Single or a Double Line of Screws
In Phase II of the research project, a relatively limited number of clip angles with a double line of
screws were tested that had the same 3/4 in. distance between the centers of the screw lines.
Therefore, before any comprehensive design method for clip angles with a double line or multiple
lines of screws can be developed it is recommended that additional tests with a range of variations
of the key parameters are needed.
Based on the available experimental results in this project, the increased shear strength of the clip
angle due to the double line of screws, a simple, empirical amplification factor, β, has been
introduced in Eq. 2.7 and shown as Eq. 2.9. Figure 2.13 shows the strength of the tested clip angles
with both a single line of screws plotted with respect to the variable and the limited set of tested
clip angles with a double line of screws overlaid on this same plot. The correlation factor, that
is used is again only based on the slenderness ratio of the clip angle material and the screw spacing
ratio. To account for the increased shear strength due to the double line of screws for the tested
specimens a limited parametric study was carried out. Based on this study an empirical
amplification factor, β, was developed that is comprised of the correlation factor but does not
consider any other possible key parameters. The revised shear design method is presented as
follows:
20
𝛾 = 𝛼𝜆 (2.8)
𝐹𝑦
λ = √𝐹 – Slenderness ratio (2.2)
𝑐𝑟
𝑆
𝛼 = 𝐵 – Screw spacing ratio (2.6)
𝑘𝜋 2 𝐸 𝑡
𝐹𝑐𝑟 = 12(1−𝜇2 ) (𝐵)2 – Critical elastic buckling stress (2.3)
21
Table 2.9: Comparison of the test results and the design strength for Phase II clip angles with a
double line of screws
Test Label γ V test (lb) Vn (lb) Vtest/Vn
IIS9D #a1 0.498 3503 3120 1.123
IIS9D #a2 0.498 3261 3120 1.045
IIS9D #b1 0.249 4470 3431 1.303
IIS9D #b2 0.249 4471 3431 1.303
II4.5D #1 0.887 2706 2874 0.942
II4.5D #2 0.887 2650 2874 0.922
II8.5D #1 0.357 5620 5617 1.001
II8.5D #2 0.357 5272 5617 0.939
IIS6D #1 0.663 1636 1525 1.073
IIS6D #2 0.663 1526 1525 1.001
II10.5D #2 0.103 6999 9268 0.755
II10.5D #3 0.103 7579 9268 0.818
Mean 1.019
St. Dev. 0.167
COV 0.164
Figure 2.14: Comparison of the final shear design method with tests
The LRFD and LSD resistance factors and the ASD safety factors for the final shear design method
for clip angles were calculated following the Chapter K of the North American Specification for
the Design of CFS Structural Members (AISI S100, 2016). The results are listed in Table 2.10.
22
Table 2.10: Resistance factors and safety factors for the final shear design method
Considered as
Members – Shear
and web Crippling
Quantity 73
Mean 1.005
Std. Dev. 0.151
COV 0.151
Mm 1.10
Vm 0.10
Fm 1.00
Pm 1.005
Vf 0.05
(LRFD) 2.5
(LSD) 3.0
VQ 0.21
(LRFD) 0.83
(LSD) 0.67
(ASD) 1.93
2.6 Shear Design Method for CFS Clip Angles with Consideration of Deformation
The shear design method for considering the deformation is essentially an assessment of the
serviceability of the CFS clip angles. An alternative shear design method with consideration of
deformation was developed by using the lower bound of the test results was developed in Phase I.
A 1/8 in. deflection limit was used in the serviceability design. Figure 2.15 shows the comparison
between the test results and the Phase I design method. It shows that the screw spacing has impact
to the stiffness of the clip angle. Therefore a new design method is proposed herein to include the
screw spacing effect in the serviceability check. And the average of the test results was used to
develop the design method for the serviceability check.
The new design method for the nominal shear strength (lb, N) of CFS clip angles considering a
1/8 in. deformation limit is as follows:
𝐵𝑡 0.823
𝑉′𝑛 = 4865 𝜀 [𝐿𝛼0.7 ] ≤ 𝑉𝑛 (2.11)
Where
𝜀 = 1 lb/in. for US customary units
= 0.175 N/mm for SI units
𝑆
𝛼 = 𝐵 – Screw spacing ratio
23
𝐿 – Flat length of clip angle, distance from the center of the first line of screws to the bend
line, in. [mm]
𝑉𝑛 – Nominal shear strength without considering deformation, lb [N], Eq. 2.9
The same parametric ranges listed in Section 2.5.3 apply to the above equations.
The comparison between the test results and the calculated nominal strength by the new design
method is shown in Figure 2.16. The new design was developed using the lower bound of the test
results from both phases. It was suggested that the serviceability of CFS clip angle in shear could
be evaluated by the new design method without using a resistance factor or a safety factor.
Figure 2.15: Comparison of shear test results with Phase I design method considering
deformation limit
24
8000
Phase I Tests
7000 Phase II Tests
Proposed Design Eq. 2.11
6000
5000
(lb)
4000
1/8
V
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Bt/L/( )
(0.7)
(in.)
Figure 2.16: Comparison of shear test results with new design method considering deformation
limit
25
3 COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF CLIP ANGLES
The compression test program in the Phase II project was to investigate the compression capacity
and behavior of the clip angles with various screw patterns subjected to an axial load. The
compression strength design method developed in Phase I was analyzed using the Phase II tests.
Position transducer
Supporting member
Lateral support
Lateral support
Base fixture
Clip angle
specimen
Figure 3.1: Test setup for compression tests
26
Loading direction
Figure 3.2: Loading direction and measured dimensions for compression tests
The data acquisition system and the hydraulic loading system were the same as used in the shear
tests. The compression tests were conducted in a displacement control mode. In each test, the
hydraulic cylinder moved the loading plate downwards at a constant speed of 0.3 in. per minute
which was the same as the load rate adopted in the Phase I tests.
27
Table 3.1: Properties of clip angles with a single line of screws in the compression test program
Test label B (in.) L (in.) t (in.) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) S (in.)
28
Table 3.2: Properties of clip angles with a double line of screws in the compression test program
Test label B (in.) L (in.) t (in.) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) S (in.)
29
3.3 Test Results
For each specimen configuration, a minimum of two tests were conducted. If the difference in the
peak load between the first two tests was greater than 10% of the average result, a third test was
performed. The test program showed that global buckling was the primary failure mode for the
tested clip angles under compression. Figure 3.3 shows a comparison of a 54 mil clip angle with
two different screw patterns. The two tests gave similar results. The test results are provided in
Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Figure 3.3: Comparison of two 54 mil clip angles with different screw patterns
30
Table 3.3: Results of compression tests of clip angles with a single line of screws
Test Label Ptest (lb) ∆ (in.)
IIS3 #a1 2355 0.136
IIS3 #a2 3216 0.187
IIS3 #a3 2964 0.194
IIS9 #a1 1238 0.196
IIS9 #a2 1118 0.099
IIS9 #b1 1388 0.054
IIS9 #b2 1549 0.084
II4.5 #a1 1970 0.160
II4.5 #a2 1682 0.112
II4.5 #a3 2142 0.099
II4.5 #b1 1956 0.120
II4.5 #b2 1665 0.083
II4.5 #b3 2300 0.095
II4.5 #b4 2322 0.071
II8.5 #a1 3819 0.161
II8.5 #a2 3114 0.123
II8.5 #a3 3886 0.156
II8.5 #b1 3758 0.088
II8.5 #b2 3070 0.077
II8.5 #b3 4141 0.102
II8.5 #c1 4197 0.080
II8.5 #c2 3576 0.084
II8.5 #c3 3996 0.089
II10.5 #a1 4337 0.172
II10.5 #a2 3856 0.131
II10.5 #a3 4169 0.079
II10.5 #b1 4737 0.142
II10.5 #b2 4392 0.182
II10.5 #c1 4106 0.024
II10.5 #c2 4001 0.087
IIT6 #1 4115 0.135
IIT6 #2 4144 0.125
31
Table 3.4: Results of compression tests of clip angles with a double line of screws
Test Label Ptest (lb) ∆ (in.)
II4.5D #a1 7056 0.136
II4.5D #a2 7390 0.154
II4.5D #b1 2015 0.118
II4.5D #b2 1615 0.239
II4.5D #b3 1988 0.091
II8.5D #a1 3902 0.117
II8.5D #a2 3948 0.138
II8.5D #b1 3574 0.110
II8.5D #b2 3323 0.147
II10.5D #a1 5260 0.148
II10.5D #a2 4243 0.183
II10.5D #a3 5586 0.191
II10.5D #b1 3993 0.044
II10.5D #b2 4158 0.117
IIS9D #a1 1475 0.113
IIS9D #a2 1418 0.075
IIT3D #1 1136 0.046
IIT3D #2 1167 0.068
32
= 0.90 as a conservative value
𝑡 - Design thickness of clip angle
𝐵′ - Lesser of the actual clip angle width or the Whitmore section width (Figure 3.4) if
applicable
𝐿 - Flat width of clip angle, distance between the bend to the closest line of screws to the
bend
The above equations are valid within the following range of established test parameters:
Clip angle nominal thickness: 33 mils to 118 mils
Clip angle nominal yield strength: 33 ksi to 50 ksi
L/B ratio: 0.18 to 1.40
Whitmore section
30°
Figure 3.6 shows the comparison between the test results of both phases and the Phase I design
method for compression. The Phase II test results have a good agreement with the Phase I design
method and the screw patterns (spacing and number of lines) have limited impact to the
compression strength of the clip angle. The Phase I design method can be applied to the screw
33
patterns investigated in this phase of the project. Tables 3.6 and 3.7 list the calculation results for
Figure 3.5.
34
Table 3.6: Results for clip angles with a single line of screws
Test Label L/t Fcr (ksi) Fn (ksi) Ptest / Pn
IIS3 #a1 23.15 48.868 12.623 0.608
IIS3 #a2 23.12 49.014 12.634 0.830
IIS3 #a3 23.12 49.014 12.634 0.765
IIS9 #a1 67.08 5.810 6.944 0.681
IIS9 #a2 67.56 5.726 6.915 0.618
IIS9 #b1 67.08 5.810 6.944 0.764
IIS9 #b2 67.56 5.726 6.915 0.856
II4.5 #a1 56.60 8.037 7.523 0.998
II4.5 #a2 56.60 8.037 7.523 0.852
II4.5 #a3 56.60 8.037 7.523 1.085
II4.5 #b1 56.60 8.037 7.523 0.991
II4.5 #b2 56.60 8.037 7.523 0.843
II4.5 #b3 56.60 8.037 7.523 1.165
II4.5 #b4 56.60 8.037 7.523 1.176
II8.5 #a1 48.22 11.237 8.348 0.923
II8.5 #a2 48.22 11.237 8.348 0.753
II8.5 #a3 48.22 11.237 8.348 0.939
II8.5 #b1 48.22 11.237 8.348 0.908
II8.5 #b2 48.22 11.237 8.348 0.742
II8.5 #b3 48.22 11.237 8.348 1.001
II8.5 #c1 60.55 7.104 7.327 1.156
II8.5 #c2 60.55 7.104 7.327 0.985
II8.5 #c3 60.55 7.104 7.327 1.101
II10.5 #a1 48.03 11.351 8.386 0.845
II10.5 #a2 48.03 11.351 8.386 0.751
II10.5 #a3 48.03 11.351 8.386 0.812
II10.5 #b1 48.03 11.351 8.386 0.923
II10.5 #b2 48.03 11.351 8.386 0.856
II10.5 #c1 36.71 19.475 9.770 0.687
II10.5 #c2 36.71 19.475 9.770 0.669
IIT6 #1 17.28 84.392 14.304 1.217
IIT6 #2 17.28 84.392 14.304 1.226
35
Table 3.7: Results for clip angles with a double line of screws
Test Label L/t Fcr (ksi) Fn (ksi) Ptest / Pn
II4.5D #a1 16.41 96.901 15.250 1.039
II4.5D #a2 16.41 96.901 15.250 1.089
II4.5D #b1 43.46 13.714 8.775 0.875
II4.5D #b2 43.46 13.714 8.775 0.701
II4.5D #b3 43.46 13.714 8.775 0.863
II8.5D #a1 35.52 20.766 9.937 0.793
II8.5D #a2 35.52 20.766 9.937 0.802
II8.5D #b1 47.86 11.408 8.384 0.860
II8.5D #b2 47.86 11.408 8.384 0.800
II10.5D #a1 34.99 21.439 10.038 0.856
II10.5D #a2 34.99 21.439 10.038 0.690
II10.5D #a3 34.99 21.439 10.038 0.909
II10.5D #b1 23.67 46.953 12.522 0.521
II10.5D #b2 23.67 46.953 12.522 0.542
IIS9D #a1 10.27 249.384 19.960 0.241
IIS9D #a2 10.27 249.384 19.960 0.232
IIT3D #1 12.93 155.631 17.382 0.639
IIT3D #2 12.93 155.631 17.382 0.657
By using the test results from both phases, the LRFD and LSD resistance factors and the ASD
safety factors for the proposed compression design method can be recalculated following Chapter
K of the AISI S100 (2016). The results are listed in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8: Resistance factors and safety factors for the compression design method of Phase I
Considered as
Members -
Compression
Quantity 86
Mean 0.922
Std. Dev. 0.242
COV 0.262
Mm 1.10
Vm 0.10
Fm 1.00
Pm 0.922
Vf 0.05
(LRFD) 2.5
(LSD) 3.0
VQ 0.21
(LRFD) 0.63
(LSD) 0.49
(ASD) 2.54
36
4 SERVICEABILITY OF CLIP ANGLES IN TENSION
The tension test program in Phase II focused on the serviceability of CFS clip angles when the
cantilevered leg was in tension. The tests investigated the tension strength of the clip angles when
the deflection limit of 1/8 in. was reached. The service deflection limit of 1/8 in. was selected
according to the Acceptance Criteria For Connectors Used With Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members ICC-ES AC261 (2011).
Position transducer
Supporting member
Lateral support
Base fixture
37
The nominal thickness of the test specimens ranged from 33 mils to 118 mils. Table 4.1 lists the
measured dimensions, screw configurations, and tested material properties for the Phase II tests.
As illustrated in Figure 4.2, L measures the flat length of the anchored leg between the center of
the first line of screws and the bend line; B is the width of the clip angle; and t is the uncoated steel
thickness. The d'w is the measured hex washer head integral washer diameter. The yield stress, Fy,
and tensile strength, Fu, were obtained from coupon tests conducted according to ASTM A370
Standard Test Method and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (2014). The clips
had pre-punched holes for all screws. The diameter of the pre-punched holes were 0.218 in. for
“S”, “4.5A”, “4.5D” clip angles and 0.190 in. for “T” clip angles. The edge distance from the
center of the hole to its nearest edge was 0.375 in. for all specimens.
Loading direction
Cantilevered leg
t
S
Anchored leg L
Figure 4.2: Loading direction and measured dimensions
38
4.3 Test Results
For each specimen configuration, a minimum of two tests were performed. If the difference in the
peak load between the first two tests was greater than 10% of the average result, a third test was
conducted. Since Phase II’s research was focused on the tensile strength of the clip angle at the
service deflection limit, the tests were not performed to achieve the ultimate strength of the clip
angle in tension. Figure 4.3 shows the deflection of a 97 mil clip angle with No. 12 self-drilling
screws at the service deflection limit of 1/8 in. The initial stiffness was relatively small and the
tension resistance was provided mainly by the bending of the angle. The results of the Phase II
tests are listed in Table 4.2.
Disp @ 1/8”
39
Table 4.2: Results of tension tests of Phase II
Test Label P1/8 (lb)
T3_1 133
S5_1 480
S5_2 515
4.5D_D1a_1 361
4.5D_D1a_2 342
4.5D_D1b_1 413
4.5D_D1b_2 454
4.5D_D0.75a_1 482
4.5D_D0.75a_2 513
4.5D_D0.75b_1 648
4.5D_D0.75b_2 614
4.5D_D1.5_1 228
4.5D_D1.5_2 225
4.5A_D1a_1 1214
4.5A_D1a_2 1233
4.5A_D1b_1 1709
4.5A_D1b_2 1643
4.5A_D0.75a_1 1185
4.5A_D0.75a_2 1767
4.5A_D0.75a_3 1677
4.5A_D0.75b_1 2380
4.5A_D0.75b_2 2602
4.5A_D1.5_1 915
4.5A_D1.5_2 684
4.5A_D1.5_3 769
4.4 Proposed Tensile Strength for CFS Clip Angles at the Deformation Limit of
Serviceability
4.4.1 Analytical Model
Since the cantilevered leg of clip angle moved as a rigid body during the test and most of the
deflection came from the deformation of the anchored leg, the mechanical model of the clip angle
can be viewed as a beam element as shown in Figure 4.4.
R
E
K
R E
K EI
EI P P
EI P
L L L
40
Therefore, the deflection of the clip angle can be obtained as the sum of the deflections of a
cantilevered beam and a beam with one spring-hinged end:
PL3 PL2
E R (4.1)
3EI K
3EIK 3K EI
P 3 2
3 (4.2)
KL 3EIL ( K 3EI / L) L
3K
Let ,
( K 3EI / L)
EI
P (4.3)
L3
The α factor is then derived:
PL3
(4.4)
EI
Where,
L - The flat length of the anchored leg between the center of the first line of screws and the
bend line
K - Spring constant
41
4.4.2 Design Equation for Nominal Strength at Deflection Limit
The α factor is a non-dimensional empirical coefficient which reflects the constraint condition
provided by the screws. For each clip angle specimen, the α factor could be obtained using Eq. 4.4.
Regression analysis was then performed and the result is shown in Figure 4.5, in which S is the
screw spacing in the anchored leg of the clip angle. The constraint force is getting smaller with the
increase of S/t, which leads to a smaller α factor. While larger L/t indicates a more flexible clip
angle and therefore a stronger screw constraint, which results in a larger α factor. Therefore, the
√𝑆𝑡
horizontal axis in the regression analysis is selected to be 𝐿 . Since the proposed method is
essentially a deflection/serviceability check, it is recommended that no LRFD, LSD resistance
factor or an ASD factor of safety is used since this is a serviceability check.
5 Phase I #8 screws
Phase I #14 screws
Phase II #8 screws
4 Phase II #12 screws
Design Curve
3 −11
𝑆𝑡St
= 0.4
0.4
factor
factor
𝐿 L
2
42
−1
√𝑆𝑡
Based on a regression analysis, the equation for α can be developed as = 0.4 ( 𝐿 ) , which
corresponds to the centerline of the test data. Therefore, the nominal tensile strength of CFS clip
angles with consideration of the service deformation limit of 1/8 in. is:
𝐸𝐼
𝑃= 𝛿 (4.5)
𝐿3
Where,
−1
√𝑆𝑡
= 0.4 ( )
𝐿
L - The flat length of the anchored leg between the center of the first line of screws and the
bend line
δ = 1/8 in.
43
5 CFS JOIST TESTS
The CFS joist tests in Phase II investigated the shear strength of clip angles subjected to loading
and boundary conditions that would exist in actual CFS framing. The joist test results were directly
compared with the shear test results. It was found that the cross-sectional strength of the CFS joist
had significant impact to the shear strength of the clip angle connector. The actual boundary
conditions of a clip angle should be considered in its strength assessment.
Joist length
Joist length/2
H H
Load
Gap Gap
Clip angle
Supporting
Supporting
member
member
Joist
Displacement gage
Test bed
Figure 5.1: Joist test setup
44
Figure 5.2: Typical joist test setup
Steel tube
Figure 5.3: Connection details of the two joists (photo taken after test)
45
5.2 Test Specimens
A total of 14 joist tests were conducted. The clip angle label was used as the joist test label. For
all clip angles in this test program, a single line of No. 14-14×1 self-drilling self-tapping screws
were used to attach the cantilevered leg of the clip angle to web of the joist. The anchored leg of
the clip angle was attached to the supporting members by a single line of No. 10-24×1 BHSC bolts.
All the clip angles were 54 mils. All the joists were 28 in. long, and the thickness was either 54
mils or 97 mils.
Table 5.1: Properties of clip angles in the joist tests
# Screws
Test Label B (in.) L (in.) t (in.) Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi) S (in.) Joist Spec.
on C-leg
4.5D T#1 4.492 3.157 0.0583 46.1 63.7 4 1.25 600S250-97
4.5F T#1 4.501 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 4 1.25 600S250-54
4.5F T#2 4.501 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 4 1.25 600S250-54
6.5A T#1 6.500 3.094 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.44 800S250-54
6.5A T#2 6.500 3.094 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.44 800S250-54
6.5B T #1 6.500 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.44 800S250-54
6.5B T #2 6.500 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.44 800S250-54
8.5B T #1 8.499 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.94 1000S165-54
8.5B T #2 8.499 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.94 1000S165-54
8.5B T #3 8.499 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.94 1000S250-97
8.5B T #4 8.499 3.407 0.0583 46.1 63.7 5 1.94 1000S250-97
10.5B T#1 10.500 3.886 0.0583 46.1 63.7 14 0.75 1200S165-54
10.5B T#2 10.500 3.886 0.0583 46.1 63.7 14 0.75 1200S165-54
10.5B T#3 10.500 3.886 0.0583 46.1 63.7 14 0.75 1200S250-97
10.5B T#4 10.500 3.886 0.0583 46.1 63.7 14 0.75 1200S250-97
46
Direct comparison can be made for the 4.5D clip angles which were tested in both the joist tests
and the shear tests with the same screw pattern. Figure 5.4 shows the comparison of the test curves.
Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the failure mode for the 54 mil 4.5 in. clip angles in the joist and the
shear test respectively. It can be seen that the 54 mil clip angle had similar peak load, deflection,
and failure mode in the two test programs.
Figure 5.4: Comparison of 54 mil 4.5 in. clip angles in two test programs
47
Figure 5.6: Failure mode of shear test II4.5 #b2
Direct comparison can also be made on 54 mil 6.5 in. deep clip angles with 5 screws. The test
curves are shown in Figure 5.7 and the failure mode is shown in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. The clip
angles in both test programs showed a similar failure mode. However the joist tests gave lower
peak loads than those in the shear tests. In the joist tests, the controlling clip angle had significant
deformation while the other three clip angles showed no observable deformation. It was believed
that the load redistribution took place during the test and it lowered the ultimate load that the joist
assembly could provide.
Figure 5.7: Comparison of 54 mil 6.5 in. clip angles in two test programs
48
Figure 5.8: Failure mode of joist 6.5B T#1
The joist test program discovered that for the deeper clip angles (8.5 in. and 10.5 in.) that were
attached to 54 mil joists, significant deformation in the joist web occurred when the clip angle
reached its capacity. Figures 5.10 and 5.11 respectively show the failure mode of 8.5B T#1 and
10.5B T#1 clip angles where 54 mil joists were used. Shear buckling occurred in the web of CFS
joists. The clip angles in those two tests yielded lower strength than the predicted values mainly
due to a weaker boundary condition that the joist’s web provided to the cantilevered leg of clip
angles. Particularly for the 10.5 in. deep clip angles, the clip angles only reached 63% of their
predicted shear strength by the new design method, Eq. 2.7.
49
Figure 5.10: Failure mode of Test 8.5BT #1
The 8.5 in. and 10.5 in. clip angles were re-tested using 97 mil joists in order to avoid buckling in
the web of the joist. Figures 5.12 and 5.13 show the failures of the joist tests 8.5B T#3 and 10.5B
T#3 respectively. No failure was observed in the web of the joist. The peak load was comparable
with the predicted results. The joist tests discovered that the boundary conditions could have
significant effect on the shear strength of the cantilevered leg of the clip angle. The new shear
design method (Eq. 2.7) assumes a solid support to the cantilevered leg and the anchored leg. The
CFS clip angle may not be able to provide full shear strength if the supporting members (e.g. CFS
framing members) do not provide a solid support or yield significant deformation.
50
Figure 5.12: Failure mode of 8.5B T#3
51
6 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DESIGN PROVISIONS
6.1 Nominal shear strength of the cantilevered leg of clip angle without consideration of
deformation
𝑉𝑛 = 𝛽(𝛾)−0.4 𝐹𝑦 𝐵𝑡 ≤ 0.35𝐹𝑦 𝐵𝑡
𝛾 = 𝛼𝜆
𝐹𝑦
λ = √𝐹 – Slenderness ratio
𝑐𝑟
𝑆
𝛼 = 𝐵 – Screw spacing ratio
𝑘𝜋 2 𝐸 𝑡
𝐹𝑐𝑟 = 12(1−𝜇2 ) (𝐵)2 – Critical elastic buckling stress
L - Flat width of clip angle, distance between the centers of first line (or the line closest to
the corner of the clip angle) of screws to the bend line.
The above equations are valid within the following range of parameters and boundary conditions:
For the clip angles with a double line of screws, the spacing between the two screw lines
on the cantilevered leg is ¾ in.
52
(LRFD) = 0.85
(LSD) = 0.65
(ASD) = 1.95
6.2 Nominal shear strength of the cantilevered leg of a clip angle with consideration of
serviceability
The new design method for the nominal shear strength of CFS clip angles considering a 1/8 in.
deformation limit is as follows:
𝐵𝑡 0.823
𝑉′𝑛 = 4865 𝜀 [𝐿𝛼0.7 ] ≤ 𝑉𝑛
Where
𝜀 = 1 lb/in. for US customary units
= 0.175 N/mm for SI units
𝑆
𝛼 = 𝐵 – Screw spacing ratio
𝐿 – Flat length of clip angle, distance from the center of the first line of screws to the bend
line, in. [mm]
𝑉𝑛 – Nominal shear strength without considering deformation, lb [N]
The above equations are valid within the following range of parameters and boundary conditions:
6.3 Nominal axial compression strength of the cantilevered leg of a clip angle
The nominal compression strength
𝑃𝑛 = 𝐴𝑔 𝐹𝑛
Where
𝐴𝑔 = 𝐵′𝑡
𝐹𝑛 = 0.0028𝜆1.44 𝐹𝑐𝑟 ≤ 0.4𝐹𝑦
𝐿
𝜆= 𝑡
53
𝑘𝜋 2 𝐸 𝑡
𝐹𝑐𝑟 = 12(1−𝜇2 ) (𝐿)2 - critical elastic buckling stress
(LRFD) = 0.65
(LSD) = 0.50
(ASD) = 2.55
where
′
𝑑𝑤 = effective pull-over diameter
𝑡1 = design thickness of member in contact with screw head or washer
𝐹𝑢1 = tensile strength of member in contact with screw head or washer
The parameter range of the tested specimens are:
Clip angle design thickness: 33 mils to 54 mils
Clip angle design yield strength: 33 ksi to 50 ksi
Screw size: No. 8 or No. 14
54
(LRFD) = 0.50
(LSD) = 0.40
(ASD) = 3.00
Where,
−1
√𝑆𝑡
= 0.4 ( )
𝐿
L - The flat length of the anchored leg between the center of the first line of screws and the
bend line
δ = 1/8 in.
55
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Three series of tests on CFS clip angles were conducted in the Phase II project to investigate the
behavior, strength, and deflection for three limit states on the cantilevered leg: shear failure,
compression failure, and tension at service deflection limit. The research goals were to (1)
determine the effect of screw pattern to the shear and compression strength of the clip angle; (2)
investigate the strength of clip angles in actual framing conditions; (3) develop a design method
for checking the serviceability of clip angles in tension.
To investigate the shear strength of clip angles with various screw patterns, both tests and finite
element analysis were performed. The research found that the screw pattern including the screw
spacing and the number of lines of screws could have significant impact to the shear strength of
the cantilevered leg of a CFS clip angle. Based on the Phase I design methods, two new design
methods were proposed to include the screw pattern’s effects in the nominal shear strength
calculations for both the nominal strength and the strength at the service deflection limit of 1/8 in.
The LRFD resistance factors and ASD factors of safety were also calculated for the new nominal
shear strength methods. The shear design method for serviceability was developed using the lower
bond of the test results. Therefore, a LRFD resistance factor or an ASD factor of safety are not
needed for the serviceability check using the developed design equation.
For the compression strength of the cantilevered leg of a clip angle, the Phase II tests found that
the screw pattern has limited impact to the nominal strength and the Phase I design method worked
well for the Phase II clip angles.
Based on the tension test results from both Phase I and Phase II, an analytical model was developed
to determine the nominal tension strength of a clip angle when the deflection reached the service
deflection limit of 1/8 in. The design equation was calibrated using the lower bond of the test data,
therefore the LRFD resistance factor and ASD factor of safety are not needed when the
serviceability is evaluated using the developed design method for tension.
The CFS joist tests were conducted in the Phase II project to investigate the shear strength of the
clip angles in actual CFS framing. The test results found that the web stability could have
significant impact to the shear strength of the clip angle. When the joist web could not provide
adequate shear resistance, it could buckle at the locations where the clip angles were installed. In
order to achieve the full shear strength of a clip angle, the connecting members shall be able to
provide adequate support to clip angle.
The number of screw lines and the spacing effects on the clip angles
The research found that the number of screw lines and the spacing between the lines could
have significant impact to the shear strength of clip angles. However there were limited
number of clip angles in both Phase I and Phase II tests that had more than one screw lines.
In fact, only two lines of screws were included in the test program, and the spacing between
the two screw lines was constantly 0.75 in. More comprehensive research is needed to
investigate the effects of the number of screws lines and screw line spacing to the shear
56
strength of the cantilevered leg of clip angles. The future research shall be able to reliably
determine the shear strength of a clip angle configuration as shown in Figure 6.1.
Loading
L direction
Anchored leg
S
B
t
Cantilevered leg
Figure 6.1: A clip angle configuration for future research
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The sponsorship of American Iron and Steel Institute and the test materials donation by Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Hilti, Inc. are gratefully acknowledged. The technical advising
provided by the AISI Project Monitoring Task Group is highly appreciated. The authors would
also like to thank UNT graduate and undergraduate students, Nathan Derrick, Nick O’Connor,
Jeremy Artman, Dawson Guerrettaz, and Rasna Baweja for their assistances in this project.
57
REFERENCES
ABAQUS (2013). ABAQUS 6.13, Dassault Systemes. www.abaqus.com.
AISI S100 (2016). “North American Specification for the Design of CFS Structural Members,
2016 Edition,” American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
AISI S914 (2015). “Test Standard for Joist Connectors Attached to Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Framing, 2015 Edition,” American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
ASTM A370 (2014). “A370-14 Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of
Steel Products,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
ICC-ES AC261 (2011). “AC261 Acceptance Criteria for Connectors Used with CFS Structural
Members, Approved October 2011,” International Code Council Evaluation Service, Brea, CA.
Houbolt, J. C., Stowell, E. Z. (1950). “Critical Stress of Plate Columns” Technical Note 2163,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washing, DC, August 1950.
Yu, C., Yousof, M., Mahdavian, M. (2015). “Load Bearing Clip Angle Design.” Research Report
RP15-2 submitted to American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
Yu, C., Yousof, M., Mahdavian, M., Zhang, W. (2017). “Design of CFS Clip Angles in
Compression.” ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 143, Issue 6, June 2017.
Zhang, W., Mahdavian, M., Yousof, M., Yu, C., (2018). “Testing and Design of CFS Clip Angles
in Tension: Pull-Over and Serviceability.” Elsevier, Thin-Walled Structures. 124 (2018) 13-19.
58
American Iron and Steel Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001
www.steel.org
Re se ar ch R epor t R P- 18 - 4