ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720– 730

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

‘Hybrid’ light steel panel and modular systems

R.M. Lawson a,, R.G. Ogden b
a
School of Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
b
Department of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0PB, UK

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 18 April 2008 Modern methods of construction (MMC) are defined as those which are highly pre-fabricated and which
Keywords: achieve tangible benefits to the client in terms of speed of construction, higher quality and more
Light steel efficient and adaptable space use. There are many examples of MMC in light steel framing and modular
Modular construction, which are targeted on the residential and mixed-use building sectors. Modular units can
Demonstration building be designed with partially or fully open sides so that two or more modules can be placed side by side to
Testing create larger spaces. An alternative ‘hybrid’ approach is to combine 3D-modules for the highly serviced
and higher value parts, such as kitchens and bathrooms, and to use long span 2D-panels for the floors
and walls in the more open plan areas. The long span floor cassettes typically span up to 6 m between
separating walls or the sides of the modules. The floor cassettes occupy the same depth as the floor
and ceiling of the module and achieve a target depth of 450–500 mm. The paper reviews the design and
construction of a ‘hybrid’ demonstration building addresses the background development work and
testing of the modules and floor cassettes.
& 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Pre-fabrication by off-site manufacture (OSM) leads to faster
construction, improved quality and reduced resources and waste.
Although pre-fabrication is not in itself new, OSM describes a
supply and construction process in which the major parts of a
building are mass-produced in factory conditions rather than on
site. So-called ‘modern methods of construction’ (MMC) are
defined by their improvements in terms of the targets set by the
UK Government’s report [1].
Steel construction is, by its nature, pre-fabricated to some
degree, but the innovative use of this technology has arisen in
response to market demand for higher levels of pre-fabrication. In
the context of this paper, the uses of highly pre-fabricated
construction systems will be reviewed, showing how steel
technology has developed over the last 5 years, and how basic
research information has been established to support these new
developments.
The sector for which MMC is being promoted is in housing and
residential buildings, which also includes single person accom-
modation and affordable housing, particularly in inner cities. Steel
construction has established a ‘track record’ in the commercial
building sector, where the benefits of speed of construction and
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1483 686617.
E-mail addresses: m.Lawson@surrey.ac.uk (R.M. Lawson),
rgogden@brookes.ac.uk (R.G. Ogden).
long spans with service integration are well understood. The
medium-rise residential sector, such as apartments, hotels and
student residences uses similar steel and composite technologies,
although at a more modest scale.
Modular construction is an example of a high level OSM, but
there are also opportunities for ‘hybrid’ planar and volumetric
technologies, which optimise the value–cost balance in housing.
‘Open building’ systems are relatively advanced as they allow for
interchange of components to create more flexible building forms
than is achievable in fully modular construction. This is the area in
which the greatest advances are possible, and a CIB Working Group is
currently exploring open building systems at an international level.
1.1. Case examples
Recent projects in UK have demonstrated the benefits of pre-
fabricated construction technologies, such as the award-winning
Murray Grove project in Hackney, London, completed in 1999,
which used modular construction based on the Yorkon system.
More recently, the Lillie Road project in Fulham, west London,
completed in 2003, used light steel framing, modular bathrooms
and a slim floor primary frame at first floor to optimise both the
construction process and provision of space for this mixed-use
building. In both projects, the client was The Peabody Trust, which
took a strong interest in realising the value-benefits of these
relatively new technologies. These projects are illustrated in
Figs. 1 and 2.

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.tws.2008.01.042
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730
Fig. 1. Installation of modular units at Murray Grove, Hackney, London.
Fig. 2. Completed mixed panel and modular project at Lillie Road, Fulham, London.
The world’s largest modular buildings are located in Manche-
ster and use a similar technology based on the Ayrframe system,
an innovative form of ‘stressed skin’ construction. The Royal
Northern College of Music student residence consists of 900
modules in a 6–9-storey configuration (see Fig. 3), and a mixed
communal-retail development consists of 1400 modules sup-
ported on a 2-storey podium in composite construction (see
Fig. 4).
Unite Modular Solutions, a major ‘design build finance operate’
provider in the student residence and key worker sector, has
completed many projects using fully modular construction, and
has commissioned a new factory to produce bedroom modules at
a target rate of up to 20 per day. Other initiatives are underway in
UK, involving a variety of modular and panel systems, notably by
Advance Housing, involving collaboration of Terrapin and a major
house builder, and by Kingspan Off-site.
1.2. Economics and production of offsite manufacture
The underlying economics of off-site manufacturing (OSM),
and modular construction in particular, is quite complex and
requires a significant production rate of repeatable components in
721
Fig. 3. Royal Northern College of Music, Manchester, consisting of 900 modules
and braced steel cores.
Fig. 4. Mixed commercial–residential development at Wilmslow Road, Manche-
ster, using 1400 modules on a steel-composite podium structure.
order to be fully economic. OSM requires capital investment in the
infrastructure of factory production, design development, product
testing and certification, and overheads of a fixed facility and
factory space. Cellular-type buildings, such as hotels and student
residences have multiple similar units, and are the types of
projects where OSM has proved to be successful. The break-
through of OSM into the wider residential sector is still in its
infancy.
Modern highly automated factories for modular production
cost of the order of h15 million to set up. Although much less than
the h1000 million required to set up a new automotive production
line, these costs are distributed over a yearly output of 1000–2000
units in a changeable building market, in comparison to a typical
annual production of 50,000 of a successful car model over a
7-year cycle. Balanced against these fixed capital costs are savings
due to more efficient production technologies, reduced site
construction costs, higher quality levels and time-related savings
due to speed of construction. Although it is recognised that time
savings of 30–50% in total construction time can be realised by
modern OSM, the economic value of this early completion
depends on the business operation or early sales revenue. This
can be quantified for a hotel chain or a time-constrained
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

722 R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730

Fig. 5. Assembly of light steel panels in production.

Fig. 6. Light steel framing for housing.

operation, such as a university, but is less apparent for a house

builder in a speculative market.
Essentially, the additional costs of a permanent factory have to
be balanced against savings in inefficient and wasteful site
operations. Most OSM projects involve a proportion of site work
(20–40% being typical), which are reflected in the broad costs in
this figure. Although OSM leads to efficiencies in materials use
and reduced wastage, many pre-finished components are bought
in, which increases their cost. Small OSM projects may not result
in significant economies, unless the same form of construction is
repeated in a number of similar projects. However, large OSM
projects can lead to cost savings of 10–20% in addition to time
savings by reducing site infrastructure costs and increasing
productivity and reliability.
The rationale behind the expansion of OSM depends on
investment in numerically controlled machinery and integrated
CAD/CAM software. In Europe, parallel technology was first
developed in the timber frame industry, whereas in Japan,
companies such as Sekisui and Toyota Homes are advanced in Fig. 7. Continuously supported module in light steel framing (by Terrapin).
implementation of steel-based technologies in modular construc-
tion. Light steel sections may now be produced by small-scale paths through the walls by supporting the floors, for example, on a
roll-forming machines, and panels are assembled accurately on Z trimmer attached to the top of a wall panel. This technology is
tables and boards are fixed rapidly, for example, using ballistic described by Gorgolewski et al. [2].
nailing. A typical factory assembly process is shown in Fig. 5. Up to
30 stages are required in a continuous modular production
facility. Completed modules are sent directly to site for ‘just in 2.2. Modular construction
time’ delivery.
Volumetric or modular construction systems are manufactured
from 2D wall panels and floor cassettes in light steel framing, but
2. Generic forms of light steel and modular construction are assembled into load-bearing ‘boxes’ which are fitted out and
transported to the construction site. The primary limitations are
Historically, steel has been used in housing for 70 years, and those of production and transport as factory manufacture requires
there are many good examples of its use worldwide. The modern multiple similar units, and transport necessitates a unit width of
forms of steel and mixed construction systems that are widely less than 4.1 m. This technology is described by Lawson et al. [3].
used in the housing and residential sector are described in simple Two generic forms of modular construction exist:
terms as follows:
 Continuously supported or 4-sided modules where vertical
2.1. Light steel framing: elemental and panel systems loads are transmitted through the walls (Fig. 7).
 Open-sided or point-supported modules where vertical loads
Light steel framing consists of galvanised steel C-sections of are transmitted through corner and intermediate posts (see
typically 65–200 mm depth and in steel thicknesses of Fig. 8).
1.2–2.4 mm. Walls are generally pre-fabricated as 2D-panels, as
in Fig. 6, whereas floors can be installed in elemental form as Point-supported systems require deeper edge beams than con-
joists or in 2D-cassette form. For 2-storey buildings, platform tinuously supported modules. In both systems, resistance to
construction may be used (i.e. floors sit directly on walls) but for horizontal loads can be provided by bracing or diaphragm action
medium-rise design, it is necessary to achieve continuity in load in the walls, but for buildings more than 6-storey high, a separate
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730 723

Fig. 8. Corner-supported module (by Kingspan). Fig. 9. Demonstration building using mixed panel and modular construction.

bracing system is required, which is often provided around the

access core. Forces are transferred by the module–module
connections in the form of plates and bolts, assisted by horizontal
bracing in the corridors.

2.3. ‘Hybrid’ modular and panel systems

‘Hybrid’ or mixed modular and panel systems optimise the use

of the 3D and 2D components in terms of space provision and
manufacturing costs. Modular units are used for the higher value
Fig. 10. Hybrid panel and modular construction (by courtesy of Corus).
of more highly serviced areas, such as bathrooms, wall panels and
floor cassettes for the more flexible open space. Two generic forms
of ‘hybrid’ construction may be considered:

 Load-bearing modules with floors supported by the modules.

 Non-load bearing modules (or pods) supported by floors.

The first system was used in a demonstration building for Corus,

shown in Figs. 9 and 10, in which the central service core and
stairs were manufactured as modules and the open plan space
was provided by pre-fabricated panels and floor cassettes spanned
up to 5.7 m. In this way, the internal space could be partitioned to
suit the user’s requirements. The building form is presented
by Lawson et al. [4]. The construction of the Lillie Road project
(in Fig. 2) comprises X-braced wall panels, floor cassettes and
stacked bathroom modules, as shown in Fig. 11.

2.4. ‘Hybrid’ modular, panel and primary steel frame

Modular construction has so far only been used for medium-
rise cellular buildings. Greater flexibility in building height and
internal planning can be achieved by the mixed use with a
primary steel structure. Various generic forms of construction
may be employed by creating:
 A ‘podium’ structure of typically one or two storeys height in
which the column spacings are located at multiples (two or
three times) the module width.
 A skeletal structure, which provides the open plan areas and
the stacked modules provide the highly serviced areas or cores.
 A skeletal structure, in which non-load bearing modules and
wall panels are supported on the floor.
Fig. 11. Load-bearing braced walls and stacked bathroom modules in the project
shown in Fig. 2.
A podium structure is often used where retail outlets or
communal space are provided at ground floor and car parking in
the basement, as in the project shown in Fig. 4. Composite
construction may be used in which the podium level is designed
to support the load from the modules above (typically 6 storeys).
A skeletal structure may be designed in the form of slim floor
beams using HE or RHS sections in which the modular, and
floor cassettes are supported on the extended bottom flange so
that the beams occupy the same depth as the floor. A pair of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

724 R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730

7.2 m

3.6 m Floor span

Internal angle
Open side
0.3 m Corne
Site infill
angle

Open side
≤ 3.0 m Site infill

Floor span Floor span

Fig. 12. Recessed modules supported by primary steel frame.
Internal angle

modules would be located within the column grid, and the

corners of the modules are recessed in order that they fit around 3.6 m Internal wall
SHS or narrow columns in order to minimise wall widths, as
shown in Fig. 12.

2.5. Open-building systems ≤ 3.0 m 0.3 m ≤ 3.9 m

‘Open-building’ technology is a general term used to describe Fig. 13. Creation of flexible space using modules.
systems, which provide flexibility in space planning and in
interchange of components. Many of the hybrid systems described
above achieve some of the principles of ‘open technology’, but to
be more widely applicable and to achieve economy in manufac-
ture, geometrical standards and common interface standards are
required for the cladding, services, lift and stairs and other key
components. Geometric standards that may be used for concept
design which are based broadly on the following dimensions:

 Wall width of 300 mm for internal separating walls and

external walls.
 Floor depth of 450 mm for the combined floor and ceiling
depth in modular and ‘hybrid’ construction systems.
 Floor depth of 600 mm when a supporting primary steel
structure is used.
 Internal planning dimensions based on 600 mm on plan
(therefore 3 or 3.6 m are preferred internal modular widths.
 Floor-ceiling heights based on 2.4 m for residential buildings
and 2.7 m for commercial, health or educational buildings.

Modular construction achieves the benefits of OSM, but it requires

a new discipline in construction technology based on building
‘blocks’ rather than skeletal or planar components with which
designers are familiar. An optimised modular system must allow
for greater flexibility in internal planning, but must retain the
primary benefits of speed of installation and improved quality.
The inter-relationship between modules and efficient provision of
space can be improved by strategically placed internal posts,
which allow for both open-sided design and for re-orientation of
modules. A typical plan of such a group of modules is illustrated in
Fig. 13. Openings of up to 3 m width can be created, and a cluster
of posts form a column which can support loads of up to 8 storeys.
OpenHouse AB is a Swedish system in which recessed modules
are supported on a grid of 3.9 m by SHS columns, as illustrated in Fig. 14. Installation of modules with recessed corners around SHS columns
Fig. 13. OpenHouse is described by Lessing [5] (Fig. 14). (courtesy of OpenHouse AB).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730 725

2.6. ‘Hybrid’ demonstration building
A demonstration building using mixed modular and panel
construction was designed and built in 2003 as a way of investi-
gating the application of this new technology. In this approach,
the load-bearing elements are the modules and separating
walls, which minimises the foundations, and the modules are
braced for stability up to 5 storeys high. The space can be
partitioned to suit the desired room sizes. The demonstration
building is illustrated in plan form in Fig. 15. It is 14 m wide and
10 m long and is part of an ‘urban terrace’. Although the
demonstration building is only 2-storey high, it is extendable to
taller buildings.
A range of acoustic, thermal insulation and floor vibration tests
was performed on the demonstration building on its completion.
The completed demonstration building is illustrated in Fig. 9.
Its cladding is in the form of an insulated render or cement
particle board, or a brick slip system on a metallic ribbed backing
sheet. The building was constructed in only 4 weeks. An
interesting technology that was explored was the use of long
span floor cassettes using timber-steel composites, as shown in
Fig. 16. These floor joists were subject to extensive testing, and
this work has been continued with further tests at the University
of Surrey. The flanges comprise 56  1.6 C sections and the webs
are in the form of 12 mm plywood that is ballistically nailed to the
flanges. The flanges resist tension and compression and the nailed
web resists shear to a resistance of approximately 10 kN/m, which
is suitable for residential applications.
All separating floors had 18 mm chipboard over 40 mm Rock-
floor with 19 mm plasterboard or 18 mm chipboard attached to the
joists, with the layers on 12.5 mm fire-resistant plasterboard with
100 mm mineral wool insulation placed between the joists.
Thermal analyses were carried out for the two wall types in the
demonstration building: an insulated render, and a brick-tile
system (Corium). The computed thermal transmissions (U-values)
for various thicknesses of insulation are presented in Table 1.

D 3 (Floor)
D 137
1075
1075 237 1075 300 100
D 3
2469 2876

2717 F F
3861
A A
2 2
2 2 Floor
(Floor)
100 4983

126
100

10293 External
10019 Internal

600 100

2403 152

E E C C
2049

4234
152

300 4936

2429 100

B B 2695 1 1 (Floor)

137 137 3 (Floor)

3
7051

Fig. 15. Plan form of demonstration building.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

726 R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730

ceiling, the long span floor joists can be approximately 320 mm

deep and have span capabilities up to 5.7 m.
The modular floor with its perimeter C section supports the
long span floor, but the bending resistance of the floor cassette is
provided by a 320 mm deep  3 mm thick C section included its
manufacture. The floor cassette may be up to 3 m wide depending
on transportation and installation requirements.
The long span floor cassette is supported by a continuous steel
angle or Z section attached to the lower module or separating
wall, as illustrated in Fig. 19. In this way, the walls of the modules
provide a direct load path.
This concept may be adapted to other building forms, where
the kitchen/bathroom modules are arranged transversely within
the plan form, and the open space is provided next to the fac- ades
for improved daylight. Service risers may be combined in the
adjacent modules.

3. Background testing

As a background to this demonstration project, two series of

tests on light steel wall panels, acting in shear, were carried out to
investigate composite actions with:

 Different sheathing boards

 Brickwork cladding.

3.1. Shear tests on wall panels

Shear (racking) tests were carried out at the University of

Fig. 16. Timber–steel composite joists used in demonstration building.
Table 1
Thermal insulation for different wall constructions
Description
Render: 80 mm EPS, Rockwool in frame cavity
Render: 100 mm EPS, Rockwool in frame cavity
Corium: 50 mm EPS, Rockwool in frame cavity
Corium: 80 mm EPS, Rockwool in frame cavity
Corium: 100 mm EPS, Rockwool in frame cavity
Surrey and Corus RD&T to investigate the performance of different
sheathing materials on a plain light steel wall panel and a panel
with a 1.2 m square window. The chosen sheathing materials for
the tests were:
 Plasterboard (internally)—12.5 mm wall board.
2
U-value (W/m K)  Plywood (externally) and plasterboard (internally)—12 mm
plywood and 12.5 mm wall board.
0.236  Cement particleboard (externally) and plasterboard (intern-
0.206 ally)—10 mm cement particle board.
0.300
0.235
 Steel sheeting (externally) and plasterboard (internally)—the
0.205 steel sheeting was 19 mm deep, 0.55 mm thick with an 84 mm
pitch and spanned horizontally between the wall studs.

Mineral wool (Rockwool) placed between the wall studs reduces
the U-values considerably.
The thermal performance of the rendered cladding system
with mineral wool between the wall studs is shown in Fig. 17.
The isothermal lines show the local ‘hot spots’ on the steel studs.
The maximum temperature difference is 2 1C across the wall
(for a 20 1C overall temperature between inside and outside). The
use of brick tiling shows a similar performance, increasing the
amount of external insulation reduces the local ‘hot spots’ to less
than 1 1C.
The ‘hybrid’ modular-panel concept uses highly serviced
modules for the kitchen, bathrooms, stairs and lift as a ‘core’ of
the building and long spanning floor cassettes supported by the
modules and separating walls. In this way, flexible space is created
which can be fitted out to suit the user’s requirements. This
‘hybrid’ concept is illustrated in Fig. 18.
The combined depth of the floor and ceiling of the module is
approximately 400 mm, and so the floor cassette can be of the
same depth. Allowing for acoustic build-up and the plasterboard
The wall shear tests were carried out 2.4 m square wall frames
with a riveted light steel frame using C sections of 75 mm depth
and 1.6 mm thickness in S350 steel. These light steel frames are
typical of general applications in housing. Vertical wall studs were
located at 600 mm centres and plain C horizontal rails were fixed
across the top and bottom of the panels. A minimum of four self-
piercing rivets was used at the end of each stud, two per flange
connection.
The plasterboard was fixed using standard screws at 300 mm
centres. For the initial series of serviceability tests, sheathing
boards were also fixed with screws at 300 mm centres, but for the
later tests, additional fixings were introduced to reduce the
spacing to 150 mm for the ultimate load tests. All holding down
arrangements had standard bolted brackets at the corners and
base of the panel.
The panels were all tested subject to in-plane loads and the
test procedure outlined in BS 5268 Section 6.1 was used
throughout the tests. The stiffness test applies an increasing
lateral load to the head of the frame until a net horizontal
deflection of 4.8 mm is measured at the top corner of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730 727

Fig. 17. Thermal profile—Render, 60 mm EPS, 100 mm Rockwool between C sections.

2.4 2.4

Balcony 1.2 Bynocla

Kitchen/ Kitchen/
bathroom bathroom 3.8
module module

Separating wall Flexible 10.8 m

Stair space
4.2
module (50 m2 approx)

Lift/ 2.8
lobby
module

0.6
4.9 3.2
6.5 m Frontage

Fig. 18. Plan form of ‘hybrid’ building for adjacent apartments.

frame, which corresponds to a serviceability deflection limit of stiffening effects of vertical load are relatively small, unlike in
height/500. timber framing where tensile action at the base of the wall studs
All tests were carried out without applied vertical loads for dominates. The horizontal load was then increased until failure,
both stiffness and strength tests. In light steel framing, the and generally, the failure load was at least twice the serviceability
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

728 R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730

load. Therefore, it is the stiffness criterion, which controls the
design of the panel.
Table 2 summarises the results of the tests for the light steel
wall panels with and without windows. The cement particleboard
provides the greatest increase in shear resistance of the panel.
When compared to the results for the plasterboard-clad panel, the
increase in design load was 95% for plywood, 57% for the steel
sheeting and 143% for cement particle board. When the fixing
spacings were reduced from 300 to 150 mm, the failure load
increased by an additional 11%, 30% and 21%, respectively, for the
three board materials. The increase in stiffness of the steel
sheeting is due to the reduced deformation of the sheet profile for
closer spaced fixings.
The influence of vertical load is apparent from Table 3, which
included tests on plain panels, and panels with window openings
using plasterboard or Fermacell board. A vertical load of 5 kN/m
corresponds to factored loading from a single floor, and a modest
load of half this value is sufficient to increase the shear stiffness
of the wall panel by 10–15%. Cross-flat bracing is shown to be the
most efficient, but this is not a practical solution for panels with
windows.
Design (unfactored) shear loads are taken as either the average
value determined from the serviceability tests, or the minimum
test load divided by a factor of safety of 1.6. It should be noted that
BS 5268 Section 6.1 requires a reduction factor of 0.8 for single
tests, but allows a multiplication factor of 1.25 to represent a

20
30
20 20

410 320

12
30

310 x 100 x 3 C

150 x 100 x 10 L
150

330 ext.
150

30

Fig. 19. Attachment of floor cassette to modules in ‘hybrid’ construction: (a) cross-section through floor and module and (b) detail of edge beam to floor cassette.

Table 2
Tests on wall panels with various forms of diaphragm action

Configuration of 2.4 m square wall panel Service load (kN) based on stiffness Failure load (kN) Design load (kN/m) zero vertical load

Spacing of fixings at perimeter of boards (mm) 300 150 150 300 150

No openings
Plasterboard (Pb) 3.7 – – 1.5 –
Plywood and Pb 7.2 8.0 26.8 3.0 3.3
Cement particleboard and Pb 9.0 11.0 34.6 3.7 4.6
Steel sheeting (19 mm) and Pb 5.8 7.5 23.8 2.4 3.1

With window opening

Plasterboard (Pb) 3.0 – 13.5 1.2 –
Plywood and Pb 6.0 8.6 2.5 3.6
Steel sheeting (19 mm) and Pb 4.0 4.4 18.9 1.6 1.8

Note: design load is the unfactored wind load resisted in shear.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730 729

Table 3
Shear load (in kN) for wall panels showing the influence of vertical load

Configuration of 2.4 m square wall panel Horizontal service load based on stiffness for: vertical Failure load (kN) Design load (kN/m)
loading on wall (kN/m)

0 2.5 5 Zero vertical load Zero vertical load

Plain panel: single integral bracing 4.9/5.0 5.5/5.6 5.5/5.7 13.3 2.0
Plain panel: cross flat bracing 8.7/8.8 9.6/9.7 10.2/10.3 25.4 3.6
Window panel: double integral bracing 3.8/4.0 4.4/4.5 4.3/4.4 12.2 1.6
Window panel: no bracing. Fermacell board 5.9/6.0 6.5/6.7 7.0/7.2 13.7 2.4

stiffness enhancement corresponding to a shear deflection of Table 4

0.003  height for timber framing. The multiple of these two Shear load (in kN) for 2.4 m square brick-clad panels at a deflection limit of
height/500
factors is clearly unity in this case.
Frame type Without With brickwork and plasterboard
3.2. Wall panel tests attached to brickwork brickwork
Frame with 35 mm thick 70 mm thick
plasterboard insulation insulation
Tests were conducted at and reported by Ceram Research [6]
on 2.4 m square light steel wall panels attached to brickwork to 1. Plain panel—no 3.7 10.8 (7.3) 8.1
evaluate their enhanced shear stiffness. Four different types of bracing
2. Plain panel—single 5.1 9.4 (8.9) 7.9
light steel frame were used in the tests: bracing
3. Plain panel—double 5.5 11.3 10.6
1. Plain panel—no in-plane bracing bracing
4. Window 2.7 11.4 7.4
2. Plain panel—single bracing line integrated between the studs
panel—double
3. Plain panel—double bracing lines bracing
4. Window panel—double bracing lines.
Notes: value in brackets indicates a test on a brickwork panel without plasterboard.

The panels had 12.5 mm thick plasterboard fixed by screws at

300 mm centres. On the opposite face, the brickwork was
connected to the frames by flat wall ties, which had a minimum
vertical spacing of 375 mm, reducing to 225 mm next to
openings. The wall ties fitted into vertical steel channels,
which were attached to each stud (located at 600 mm centres).
The wall tie density was approximately 4.4/m2. As this type of
panel is used in a ‘warm frame’, the channels were fixed
by long screws through the external insulation, which affects
the stiffness of the wall tie system. The wall ties were flat
stainless steel ties of 42 mm width and 1.6 mm thickness. When
bonded into the brickwork, the ties are relatively stiff in the
horizontal direction, but are flexible in the vertical direction.
The distribution of the ties is important because of their effect
in transferring horizontal forces between the panel and the
brickwork.
The panels were constructed within a rigid steel frame,
which held the brickwork in position during the test, while the
light steel frames were free to displace when subject to
an in-plane point load. The wall was constructed using solid clay
bricks and mortar to designation (iii) to BS 5268. The test
programme covered tests with single (35 mm) and double
(70 mm) layers of closed-cell polyurethane insulation. The cavity
space between the insulation and the brickwork was 50 mm in
all cases.
The results of these wall panel tests are presented in Table 4. In
all cases, serviceability (stiffness) is the controlling design
condition (see previous explanation). The attachment of
brickwork with a single layer of 35 mm thick insulation doubles
the shear resistance compared to a frame with only plasterboard.
The test results are relatively independent of the panel type,
indicating that the stiffening effect of the brickwork is dominant,
but the stiffening effect of the brickwork was 10–30% less
when two layers of insulation were used. Nevertheless, the
shear load that can be resisted by the brick-clad panel was
increased by a factor of over 2.5 relative to a braced wall panel
with a window.
4. FE model of wind forces on K-braced frame
In principle, K-braced panels act as vertical cantilevers and
react against the foundations by developing tension–compression
forces. However, the braced fac- ade can act beneficially as a
whole by local bending in the wall studs and in the lintels,
so that forces in the bracing members and wall studs are
less than given by the above simple analysis on a single K-braced
panel.
A finite element (FE) model of a typical fac- ade with four
K-braced panels was carried out, subject to horizontal forces of
10 kN at each floor level (or a base shear of normally 5 kN per
K-braced panel). The applied over-turning moment on the wall is
therefore 78 kN/m for a storey height of 2.6 m. Dividing by four
K-braced panels and a distance of 0.6 m between the wall studs
leads to a tension-compression force of 32.5 kN less than the self-
weight of the fac- ade (taken as a nominal 2 kN/m).
The FE model leads to the member forces illustrated in Fig. 20.
The maximum forces experienced in the lower part of the wall
stud have a maximum value of 21.8 kN, which is equivalent to 67%
of the simplified cantilever method based on the over-turning
moment applied to the four K-braced panels. This suggests
that structural action of a group of K-braced panels reduces the
compression forces by approximately 33%. Furthermore, the
tension forces in the wall studs are considerably less and
the maximum value is 14.7 kN (or only 45% of the simplified
cantilever method). It follows that the simplified over-turning
model is very conservative for an integrally K-braced fac-ade.
5. Conclusions
This paper reviews modern methods of light steel construction
that are used in the residential sector, and identifies mixed
‘hybrid’ forms of planar and volumetric construction that are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
730 R.M. Lawson, R.G. Ogden / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 720–730
Fig. 20. Finite element analysis of forces in bracing and wall studs for 10 kN shear forces applied at each floor in a 2-storey house.
economic in the medium-rise sector. Tests on wall panels in shear
are summarised without and with brickwork cladding. The
structural behaviour of light frames demonstrates considerable
reserve in overall stability.
Acknowledgements
The research was carried out by the Steel Construction
Institute and Corus under various European funded research
projects. Photographic material and additional information were
provided by Feilden Clegg Bradley, Michael Barclay Partnership,
Kingspan Off-site, Corus Living Solutions, Terrapin, Yorkon and the
Swedish Institute of Steel Construction.
References
[1] Re-thinking construction. The report of the Construction Task Force (The Egan
Report) published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, UK; 1998.
[2] Gorgolewski MT, Grubb PJ, Lawson RM. Building design using cold formed steel
sections: light steel framing in residential buildings. The Steel Construction
Institute, P301, Ascot, UK; 2001.
[3] Lawson RM, Grubb PJ, Prewer J, Trebilcock PJ. Modular construction using light
steel framing: an architect’s guide. The Steel Construction Institute, P-271,
Ascot, UK; 1999.
[4] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, et al. Steel in residential buildings for sustainable and
adaptable construction. Final report to ECSC project 7215-PP-058, European
Commission; 2004.
[5] Lessing J. Industrial production of apartments with steel frames. A study of the
OpenHouse system. The Swedish Institute of Steel Construction Report 229-4,
Stockholm; 2004.
[6] Testing of brickwork panels attached to light steel frames. Ceram research
report SW181.98, Stoke on trent, UK; 1998.