PSI - Issue 70

Milena Carolina Derlam et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 3–10

6

components. This approach facilitated accurate constraint definition and improved the overall quality of the model.

2.3. Connectors and Interactions To reproduce the models, two types of connections were implemented for the screws: (1) connections between the steel profiles, present in joints between tracks and studs and between double studs; and (2) connections between the steel profiles and OSB panels. For the steel-to-steel connections, a rigid MPC fastener was adopted, which restricts all translational and rotational degrees of freedom between two nodes, as recommended by Oliveira (2023). This approach offers lower computational cost, minimizing processing time and memory usage. For connections between the Steel-to-OSB, the realistic nonlinear behaviour described by Yilmaz et al. (2023) was implemented, based on empirical equations proposed by Kyprianou et al. (2018) and Kyvelou, Gardner, and Nethercot (2017). Data corresponding to the 9 mm thick OSB, were extracted using PlotDigitizer software (2024) and, detailed in Table 2. The fasteners connecting the OSB to the CFS studs and tracks were modelled using Point-Based Fastener elements of the Cartesian type from the Abaqus library (Simulia, 2024). These elements employ attachment points to create connections between points and surfaces while incorporating the actual inelastic bearing behaviour noted by Papargyriou et al. (2022). A radius of influence equivalent to the screw radius (2.1 mm) was assigned to each fastening point, as recommended by the Abaqus manual (Simulia, 2024).

Table 2. Nonlinear behavior adopted for the Steel-to-OSB fasteners. Elasticity 1600 (N) Plasticity Yield Stress (N) Plastic strain (mm) 823.30 0 1025.24 0.70 1242.72 1.41 1359.22 2.21 1460.19 3.46 1592.23 4.95 1646.60 5.78 1452.43 6.28 1273.79 6.72 900.97 7.60

For the connections involving Parabolts-type anchor bolts on the lower track, nodal points of the track were tied to the rigid beam surface, ensuring equal translational displacements between elements while allowing independent rotations. The surfaces of the Hold-down anchorage devices were rigidly connected to both the web surface of the track and the web surface of the stud, following Yilmaz et al. (2023). Moreover, interaction conditions between materials were established to prevent penetration of elements into one another. A hard contact was applied in the normal direction, while a friction coefficient of 0.2 was assigned in the tangential direction, consistent with Yilmaz et al. (2023). Additionally, two reference points were defined in the model: one positioned at the top of the panel and connected to the upper track profile to control the applied displacement, and another located on the rigid beam to capture the reaction force of the shear wall. 2.4. Boundary and loading conditions In the loading module, the edges of the upper track web were constrained in the out-of-plane direction along its entire length, while a controlled in-plane lateral displacement was applied to these edges until panel failure occurred, enabling the measurement of reactions (load) at the panel base, following the procedure outlined in ASTM E564-06 (2018) and replicating the experimental configuration conducted by Blais and Rogers (2006). Accordingly, the base