Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Built-Up Sections

with Intermediate Stiffeners under Bending. II:

Parametric Study and Design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Liping Wang 1 and Ben Young, M.ASCE 2

Abstract: Built-up sections were used in a wide range of constructional steel applications. The investigation aims to develop suitable design
rules for cold-formed steel doubly symmetric built-up open and closed sections with intermediate stiffeners under bending in this study. These
built-up sections have a sufficient number of connections either at the flanges or webs, depending on the sectional configurations. Followed
with the experimental investigation and finite-element validation in the first part of this study, a numerical parametric study including a total
of 113 different built-up section beams was conducted. The key parameters including the sectional shapes and slenderness as well as the
different failure modes and structural behavior were examined. The experimental data, together with the numerical results were compared
with the predicted strengths using the current direct strength method (DSM) in the North American Specification. The determination of elastic
buckling stresses corresponding to different failure modes, mainly the local and distortional buckling, for beam members is a prerequisite for
DSM. Simplified assumptions on the built-up sections were employed in determining the elastic buckling stresses. Furthermore, modified
DSM equations for beams with different built-up sectional configurations were calibrated with the experimental and numerical data obtained
from this study. The design strengths predicted by the recommended design rules exhibited good agreement with ultimate moments of the
built-up open and closed section beams. A reliability analysis was also performed. It is shown that the recommended design rules for cold-
formed steel built-up open and closed sections with intermediate stiffeners under bending is reliable. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0001427. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Beams; Buckling; Built-up sections; Closed sections; Cold-formed steel; Design strength; Direct strength method;
Open sections; Stiffeners; Metal and composite structures.

Introduction cold-formed steel built-up sections with intermediate stiffeners

Cold-formed steel members commonly have thin-walled cross sec-
tions, and local plate buckling and distortional buckling could
cause failure. Longitudinal stiffeners could reduce the slenderness
of plate elements thus improving the sectional capacity. Built-up
sections, with the advantage of flexibility in forming different sec-
tional shapes (usually doubly symmetric shapes) to meet design
requirements, have been used in a wide range of constructional
steel applications. The built-up sections also have huge potential in
terms of improved strength and stiffness when applied in cold-
formed steel members, especially compared to single profiles.
Direct strength method (DSM) has been incorporated in the
North American Specification for cold-formed steel structures.
DSM is able to analyze complicated sections that failed by local
buckling and distortional buckling. However, the current DSM
design equations were calibrated for certain prequalified cross sec-
tions as specified in the specifications (AISI 2012; AS/NZS 2005).
The DSM does not cover the cold-formed steel built-up sections
investigated in this study. Therefore, the suitability of DSM for
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong,
Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong. E-mail: kachywlp@gmail.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong, Pokfulam
Rd., Hong Kong (corresponding author). E-mail: young@hku.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 12, 2015; approved on
August 25, 2015; published online on October 22, 2015. Discussion period
open until March 22, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
under bending needs to be investigated.
The method of modified slenderness ratio for built-up section
columns was prescribed in the North American Specification stan-
dard (AISI 2012). Among the research on the cold-formed steel
built-up section members, Piyawat et al. (2013) developed a design
equation based on regression method for doubly symmetric built-
up open sections. Li et al. (2014) proposed a design method for
built-up box and I-section columns based on individual strength of
two component sections and modification of slenderness of the
built-up members. To extend the DSM to the design of built-up
sections, the connecting screws should be carefully considered in
determining the elastic buckling stresses in the finite-strip analysis.
Previous studies showed that predicting the strength of a built-up
cold-formed steel member as the sum of the strength of the indi-
vidual profiles is not rational on the actual structural behavior of
such members (Georgieva et al. 2012). Zhang and Young (2015)
proposed a method to treat the screw as a continuous solid stiffener
along the longitudinal direction of columns. Effective width
method and strength-reduction method for cold-formed built-up
I-shaped beams were proposed by Zhou and Shi (2011).
Currently, there is no design guideline for cold-formed steel
built-up section beams with intermediate stiffeners. In this study,
a design approach that included elastic buckling analysis of as-
sumed sections for built-up configurations together with the DSM
equations is proposed for cold-formed steel built-up section beams.
First of all, a numerical parametric study including a total of 113
different built-up sectional configurations was performed using the
validated finite-element (FE) models in the first part of this study
(Wang and Young 2015). After that, modified DSM equations for

© ASCE 04015151-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Cross-section assumption in the elastic buckling analysis using finite-strip method: (a) OV section; (b) OI section; (c) CV section; (d) COF
section; (e) COW section

beams with different built-up sectional configurations were cali- Table 1. Dimensions of Built-Up OV and CV Sections in Parametric Study
brated with the experimental and numerical data obtained from this
study. Furthermore, the design strengths predicted by the modified Flange Web Angle Radius
DSM equations were compared with the ultimate moments ob- bf hw w1 w2 θ ri
tained from the test and finite-element analysis (FEA) results. The Specimens (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (degrees) (mm)
comparison exhibited very good agreement for both the built-up 1-OV/CV 52 83 25 23 45 3
open and closed section beams. Finally, design rules are recom- 2-OV 52 82 16 35 45 3
mended for cold-formed steel built-up open and closed sections 3-CV 52 82 16 29 30 3
with intermediate stiffeners subjected to bending. 4-CV 52 82 33 12 45 3
5-OV 52 150 45 42 45 3
6-CV 52 150 45 35 30 3
Parametric Study 7-OV/CV 52 150 60 21 45 3
9-OV 52 120 36 34 45 3
The verified FE models as presented in the companion paper are 10-OV/CV 52 120 48 17 45 3
used to perform an extensive parametric study using ABAQUS. 12-OV 30 120 36 34 45 3
The aim of the parametric study is to understand the different buck- 13-OV 30 120 48 17 45 3
ling behavior of the cold-formed steel built-up section beams and
also to generate data for the development of design rules. Different
cross-section dimensions and location of connectors based on four
basic built-up section shapes, as shown in Fig. 1 in the companion Table 2. Dimensions of Built-Up COF and COW Sections in Parametric
paper, were considered in the parametric study. The detailed dimen- Study
sions of the parametric study beams are presented in Tables 1–3. A Flange Web Angle Radius
straightforward label system was adopted for the parametric study bf hw w1 w2 w3 θ ri
specimens, in which a serial number is followed by the shape of Specimens (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (degrees) (mm)
cross sections. The thickness of specimens varied from 0.48 to
14-COF/COW 50 66 15 15 40 30 3
3.6 mm. Different geometry of stiffeners and slenderness of plate
15-COF/COW 50 66 13 15 40 0 3
elements (flanges, webs, lips) were studied. The overall web depth 17-COF/COW 50 66 26 15 40 60 3
is up to 150 mm for the built-up sections. The screws are always 19-COF/COW 90 66 15 15 40 30 3
located at the midpoint of the overlapped elements of the sections. 21-COF/COW 50 86 15 15 60 30 3
All of the beam specimens were modeled under four-point bending 22-COF/COW 50 146 15 15 120 30 3
with the pin-to-pin length of 1,310 mm and constant moment span
of 600 mm. The screw spacing along the beam specimens in the
parametric study is identical to the test specimens.
The material stress-strain curves obtained from tensile coupon Table 3. Dimensions of Built-Up OI Sections in Parametric Study
tests (Wang and Young 2014) carried out for Sections OV-1.0/ Lip Flange Web Angle Radius
CV-1.0 were used as the material properties for the built-up OV sec- bl bf hw w1 w2 w3 θ ri
tions and CV sections. The material properties of Section CO-1.0 Specimens (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (degrees) (mm)
were used for the built-up COF sections and COW sections, whereas
the material properties of Section OI-1.2 were used for the built-up 23-OI 12 30 94 26 24 18 60 3.5
24-OI 12 30 94 26 12 30 60 3.5
OI sections in the parametric study. The local geometric imperfec-
25-OI 12 30 94 19 12 44 60 3.5
tions and the residual stresses were ignored in the parametric study, 26-OI 12 30 94 33 12 16 60 3.5
which is consistent with the FE validation in the companion paper. 27-OI 12 30 94 26 14 18 30 3.5
A total of 113 numerical data have been generated including 28-OI 6 30 94 26 24 18 60 3.5
24 OV sections, 38 OI sections, 17 CV sections, 17 COF sections, 29-OI 18 30 94 26 24 18 60 3.5
and 17 COW sections. All of the FE beam models were failed in the 30-OI 12 45 94 26 24 18 60 3.5
moment span. The failure modes included local bucking (L) and 31-OI 12 20 94 26 24 18 60 3.5
distortional buckling (D) as the majority for the specimens, and 32-OI 12 30 150 54 24 18 60 3.5
material yielding (Y) as the minority in this study. The failure 33-OI 12 60 150 54 24 18 60 3.5
modes of the parametric study beams were defined when the ulti- 34-OI 12 30 120 39 24 18 60 3.5
35-OI 12 30 120 39 17 18 45 3.5
mate loads were reached. The newly obtained numerical results

© ASCE 04015151-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

 Table 4. Comparison of Beam Strengths Obtained from Test and FEA Results with DSM Predictions for OV Sections Subjected to Local Buckling
Tests or FEA DSM predictions Comparison
MEXP or Failure M DSM M DSM
MEXP =MDSM or MEXP =MDSM
or
Specimens M FEA (kN mm) mode λl (kN mm) (kN mm) MFEA =MDSM MFEA =MDSM

12-OV-3.6 30,429 YþF 0.440 27,835 28,439 1.09 1.07
12-OV-1.9 13,844 LþF 0.830 12,961 11,446 1.07 1.21
13-OV-1.9 13,183 YþF 0.834 12,797 11,397 1.03 1.16
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12-OV-1.5 11,271 LþDþF 1.050 8,784 10,315 1.28 1.09

13-OV-1.5 10,465 LþF 1.055 8,670 10,189 1.21 1.03
2-OV-1.9 10,290 LþF 1.393 8,364 10,352 1.23 0.99
1-OV-1.9 9,988 LþF 1.406 8,318 10,314 1.20 0.97
9-OV-1.9 16,971 LþF 1.416 13,138 16,313 1.29 1.04
5-OV-1.9 22,756 LþF 1.423 17,544 21,807 1.30 1.04
10-OV-1.9 16,480 LþF 1.427 12,989 16,152 1.27 1.02
12-OV-1.0 7,128 LþDþF 1.571 4,439 5,631 1.61 1.27
13-OV-1.0 5,271 LþF 1.579 4,382 5,565 1.20 0.95
2-OV-1.5 6,985 LþF 1.760 5,596 7,275 1.25 0.96
1-OV-1.5 7,584 LþF 1.778 5,563 7,248 1.36 1.05
5-OV-1.5 16,431 LþF 1.802 11,719 15,314 1.40 1.07
7-OV-1.5 15,346 LþF 1.814 11,580 15,153 1.33 1.01
2-OV-1.0 4,031 LþF 2.633 2,781 3,970 1.45 1.02
9-OV-1.0 6,571 LþF 2.686 4,356 6,249 1.51 1.05
5-OV-1.0 8,549 LþF 2.701 5,814 8,350 1.47 1.02
10-OV-1.0 5,952 LþF 2.703 4,308 6,189 1.38 0.96
7-OV-1.0 7,828 LþDþF 2.718 5,743 8,262 1.36 0.95
9-OV-0.6 2,861 LþF 4.469 1,781 2,909 1.61 0.98
10-OV-0.6 2,639 LþDþF 4.497 1,762 2,883 1.50 0.92
7-OV-0.6 3,614 LþDþF 4.521 2,350 3,851 1.54 0.94
OV-0.48-B4 1,246 LþF 6.162 774 1,378 1.61 0.90
OV-1.0-B4 4,238 LþF 2.740 2,811 4,051 1.51 1.05
Mean (Pm ) — — — — — 1.35 1.03
COV (V P ) — — — — — 0.123 0.083
ϕb ¼ 0.8, reliability — — — — — 3.82 3.02
index (β 1 )
ϕb ¼ 0.8, reliability — — — — — 3.63 2.82
index (β 2 )
Note: D = distortional buckling; F = flexural buckling; L = local buckling; Y = material yielding.

from the parametric study are presented in Tables 4–8, together
with 13 four-point bending test results as presented in the
companion paper. The thickness of individual beam specimen
was indicated after the shape of the cross sections in the specimen
labels. The label system of the numerical data is identical to the test
specimens, although the symbol -B4 was omitted because all of the
parametric study beam specimens were under four-point bending
as mentioned earlier. A wide range of section slenderness ratios
(λl or λd ) was also studied resulting from the various cross-section
dimensions, as shown in Tables 4–8.
DSM for Cold-Formed Steel Built-Up Section Beams
The complexity of the sectional configurations of the built-up sec-
tion beams makes it quite tedious to use the effective width method
(EWM) to determine the effective area of the cross sections. Mean-
while, the direct strength method could be an alternative design
method for such complex sections, and thus was employed as the
design rules in this study. However, the direct strength method in
the current specifications (AISI 2012; AS/NZS 2005) does not
cover the design of built-up section beams. The structural behavior
of doubly symmetric built-up sections could be quite different from
the singly symmetric open sections based on which the current
DSM equations were developed. Therefore, the appropriateness
of the direct strength method for built-up open and closed section
beams was examined in this study.
Elastic Buckling Analysis
Performing elastic buckling analysis to determine the critical elastic
buckling moments of beams is the first step when the direct strength
method is used for calculation of design strengths. The elastic buck-
ling moments of beams can be determined either by finite-element
analysis or finite-strip analysis. The advantage of the finite-strip
analysis compared to finite-element analysis is that pure local or
distortional buckling mode can be identified by investigating the
buckled shape of a cross section at different half-wavelengths.
Finite-strip analysis programs such as THIN-WALL (Papangelis
and Hancock 1995) or CUFSM (Li and Schafer 2010) are suitable
for uniform sections in the longitudinal direction and cannot be ap-
plied directly to built-up sections with discontinuous connectors
along the members. Therefore, double thickness assumption in the
overlapped elements of built-up section beams is used in the ra-
tional elastic buckling analysis. This assumption for the different
section shapes is shown in Fig. 1. The overlapped elements of the
cross sections were assumed to be one element with double plate
thickness of the sections. This assumption could be unconservative
compared to the real beam with discontinuous screw connections
along its length, especially for the built-up closed sections where the
overlapped elements are in the flanges, as shown in Figs. 1(c and d).
In view of the current situation that no explicit design guideline
is available for cold-formed steel built-up sections using direct
strength method, thus this study aims to provide a simple and
straightforward design rule.

© ASCE 04015151-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

 Table 5. Comparison of Beam Strengths Obtained from Test and FEA Table 6. Comparison of Beam Strengths Obtained from Test and FEA
Results with DSM Predictions for OI Sections Subjected to Local Buckling Results with DSM Predictions for OI Sections Subjected to Distortional
Buckling
Tests or FEA DSM predictions Comparison
DSM
MEXP or M FEA Failure MDSM MEXP =MDSM
Tests or FEA predictions Comparison
Specimens (kN mm) mode λl (kN mm) or MFEA =MDSM
M EXP or Failure M DSM M EXP =M DSM
29-OI-1.2 7,989 DþF 0.738 7,617 1.05
Specimens M FEA (kN mm) mode λd (kN mm) or M FEA =M DSM
24-OI-0.75 4,153 DþF 0.924 3,976 1.04
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

23-OI-0.75 4,201 LþDþF 0.924 4,008 1.05 29-OI-2.4 17,228 YþF 0.387 16,371 1.05
31-OI-0.6 2,785 LþDþF 0.972 2,513 1.11 28-OI-3.6 23,551 YþF 0.397 21,534 1.09
25-OI-0.6 2,913 LþF 1.112 2,852 1.02 23-OI-2.4 16,702 DþF 0.420 15,411 1.08
26-OI-0.6 2,634 LþF 1.115 2,783 0.95 24-OI-2.4 16,242 DþF 0.435 15,216 1.07
35-OI-0.6 3,378 LþF 1.129 3,859 0.88 31-OI-1.2 6,584 DþF 0.487 6,125 1.07
34-OI-0.6 3,398 LþF 1.129 3,888 0.87 34-OI-1.9 17,580 DþF 0.502 16,508 1.06
31-OI-0.48 1,984 LþDþF 1.130 1,819 1.09 35-OI-1.9 17,149 DþF 0.510 16,342 1.05
32-OI-0.6 5,407 LþDþF 1.141 5,261 1.03 32-OI-1.9 23,932 DþF 0.525 22,356 1.07
25-OI-0.48 2,180 LþF 1.329 2,021 1.08 24-OI-1.2 7,640 DþF 0.630 7,195 1.06
27-OI-0.48 1,897 LþF 1.331 1,970 0.96 25-OI-1.2 7,836 DþF 0.637 7,277 1.08
26-OI-0.48 1,756 LþF 1.332 1,972 0.89 26-OI-1.2 7,493 DþF 0.644 7,105 1.05
30-OI-0.75 3,830 LþDþF 1.378 3,934 0.97 34-OI-1.2 10,522 DþF 0.644 10,006 1.05
29-OI-0.6 2,860 LþF 1.402 2,549 1.12 35-OI-1.2 10,533 DþF 0.653 9,905 1.06
30-OI-0.6 2,815 LþDþF 1.691 2,725 1.03 27-OI-1.2 7,444 DþF 0.657 7,059 1.05
33-OI-0.6 4,512 LþDþF 2.321 4,716 0.96 32-OI-1.2 14,204 DþF 0.675 13,503 1.05
OI-0.48-B4 1,880 LþF 1.513 2,079 0.90 28-OI-1.2 6,649 DþF 0.790 6,052 1.10
Mean (Pm ) — — — — 1.00 27-OI-0.75 4,062 DþF 0.836 3,872 1.05
COV (V P ) — — — — 0.080 30-OI-1.2 8,638 DþF 0.859 7,975 1.08
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — 2.91 33-OI-1.9 30,713 DþF 0.916 26,319 1.17
reliability 28-OI-0.6 2,546 DþF 1.159 2,316 1.10
index (β 1 ) 33-OI-1.2 14,627 LþDþF 1.176 13,852 1.06
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — 2.72 OI-1.0-B4 6,092 DþF 0.673 6,370 0.96
reliability OI-1.2-B4 7,208 DþF 0.626 7,893 0.91
index (β 2 ) Mean (Pm ) — — — — 1.06
COV (V P ) — — — — 0.045
Note: D = distortional buckling; F = flexural buckling; L = local buckling.
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — 3.28
reliability
index (β 1 )
The elastic buckling analysis for built-up open sections were ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — 3.08
performed using the program THIN-WALL (Papangelis and reliability
Hancock 1995), and the elastic buckling analysis of built-up closed index (β 2 )
sections were performed using the program CUFSM (Li and Note: D = distortional buckling; F = flexural buckling; L = local buckling;
Schafer 2010). This is because the CUFSM program cannot be used Y = material yielding.
to generate stress distribution across the section for built-up open
sections with intermediate closed loops, as shown in Figs. 1(a and b).
The signature curves obtained from the elastic buckling analysis to be probabilistically safe. The target reliability index for structural
are plotted in Fig. 2 for built-up open sections and Fig. 3 for built- members in the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is 2.5
up closed sections, where the horizontal axis is the buckling half- according to Section F1.1 (c) of the North American Specification
wavelength and the vertical axis indicates the ratio (Mcr =M y ) of (AISI 2012). The resistance factor (ϕb ) of 0.8 was used in the analy-
critical elastic buckling moment (M cr ) over the yield moment sis as specified in Section A1.2 (c) of the North American Speci-
(My ). The buckling mode corresponding to each of the minimum fication and Section 1.6.3 (c) of the Australian/New Zealand
points on the signature curves was defined based on the buckled Standard (AS/NZS) (AS/NZS 2005). The resistance factor (ϕb ) of
shape of the cross sections. The distortional buckling mode was 0.8 was used instead of 0.9 due to the fact that the built-up sections
defined when the buckled cross sections involve normal displace- do not belong to the prequalified sections for bending in the
ment of the edge or intermediate stiffener elements of the cross sec- AISI S100 Specification (2012) and AS/NZS (2005). The
tions (Hancock et al. 1994; Schafer 2000), as shown in Fig. 2(b) for load combinations of 1.2 DL þ 1.6 LL as specified in the ASCE
Specimen 24-OI-1.2, Fig. 3(a) for Specimen 3-CV-1.5, Fig. 3(b) for Standard (ASCE 2010), and 1.25 DL þ 1.5 LL as specified in the
Specimen 17-COF-1.0, and Fig. 3(c) for Specimen 19-COW-1.0. Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS 2002) were adopted
The test and parametric study specimens did not fail by lateral- in the calculation, where DL is the dead load and LL is the live
torsional buckling. It should be noted that the maximum distor- load. The dead-to-live load ratio of 1/5 was used, which is con-
tional buckling half-wavelength for all sections is 450 mm, which sistent with Eq. (F1.1–2) of the North American Specification
is smaller than the constant moment span of 600 mm. Therefore, (AISI 2012). Other statistical parameters were obtained from
distortional buckling can be formed freely within the moment span. Table F1 of the North American Specification (AISI 2012) for
bending strength of beams, where M m ¼ 1.10, Fm ¼ 1.00,
V M ¼ 0.10, and V F ¼ 0.05 are the mean values and coefficients
Reliability Analysis
of variation of material factor and fabrication factor, respectively.
Reliability analysis can be performed to evaluate the appropriate- The statistical parameters Pm and V P are the mean value and
ness of a design rule. When the calculated reliability index (β) is coefficient of variation of experimental-to-predicted moment
larger than the target reliability index (β 0 ), a design rule is regarded ratio or FEA-to-predicted moment ratio. A correction factor CP

© ASCE 04015151-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

 Table 7. Comparison of Beam Strengths Obtained from Test and FEA Results with DSM Predictions for CV and COF Sections Subjected to Local Buckling
Tests or FEA DSM predictions Comparison
M EXP or Failure M DSM M DSM
M EXP =M DSM MEXP =MDSM
or
Specimens M FEA (kN mm) mode λl (kN mm) (kN mm) or M FEA =M DSM MFEA =MDSM

6-CV-2.4 30,827 LþF 0.376 34,929 29,554 0.88 1.04
1-CV-1.9 9,939 LþF 0.391 12,924 10,784 0.77 0.92
4-CV-1.9 9,840 LþF 0.398 12,649 10,485 0.78 0.94
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

22-COF-2.4 31,949 LþF 0.419 36,259 29,527 0.88 1.08

10-CV-1.9 16,629 LþF 0.458 20,150 15,904 0.83 1.05
14-COF-1.5 6,216 LþF 0.459 7,969 6,284 0.78 0.99
1-CV-1.5 7,145 LþF 0.486 9,975 7,711 0.72 0.93
4-CV-1.5 7,300 LþF 0.495 9,759 7,496 0.75 0.97
6-CV-1.5 15,638 LþF 0.590 20,736 14,994 0.75 1.04
19-COF-1.9 9,992 LþF 0.632 15,630 11,048 0.64 0.90
15-COF-1.0 2,934 LþF 0.641 4,766 3,352 0.62 0.88
21-COF-1.0 5,118 LþF 0.662 7,100 4,940 0.72 1.04
17-COF-1.0 3,582 LþF 0.689 5,685 3,906 0.63 0.92
3-CV-1.0 3,867 LþF 0.709 6,216 4,233 0.62 0.91
7-CV-1.5 15,343 LþF 0.713 20,067 13,640 0.76 1.12
4-CV-1.0 3,805 LþF 0.731 6,138 4,139 0.62 0.92
10-CV-1.0 7,482 LþDþF 0.855 9,222 6,178 0.81 1.21
6-CV-1.0 8,179 LþF 0.873 12,251 8,228 0.67 0.99
22-COF-1.0 9,883 LþF 0.974 11,967 8,156 0.83 1.21
7-CV-1.0 7,609 LþF 1.063 10,748 7,415 0.71 1.03
21-COF-0.6 2,542 LþF 1.083 3,336 2,308 0.76 1.10
19-COF-1.0 3,611 LþF 1.148 6,150 4,291 0.59 0.84
10-CV-0.6 2,872 LþF 1.405 3,968 2,858 0.72 1.01
22-COF-0.6 4,711 LþF 1.628 5,050 3,726 0.93 1.26
7-CV-0.6 3,807 LþF 1.755 4,555 3,403 0.84 1.12
COF-0.48-B4 1,278 LþF 1.521 1,915 1,397 0.67 0.91
COF-1.0-B4 3,749 LþF 0.690 5,523 3,792 0.68 0.99
COF-1.0-B4R 3,884 LþF 0.690 5,523 3,792 0.70 1.02
CV-0.48-B4 1,266 LþF 1.709 2,018 1,501 0.63 0.84
CV-1.0-B4 4,088 LþF 0.778 6,734 4,460 0.61 0.92
Mean (Pm ) — — — — — 0.73 1.00
COV (V P ) — — — — — 0.126 0.108
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — — 1.55 2.82
reliability
index (β 1 )
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — — 1.37 2.62
reliability
index (β 2 )
Note: D = distortional buckling; F = flexural buckling; L = local buckling.

was also used in the reliability calculation to account for the beams that considered inelastic reserve capacities for local buckling
influence of a limited number of data samples, which is calculated and distortional buckling in the North American Specification are
according to Eq. (F1.1–4) of the North American Specification. summarized as follows:
The reliability index (β 1 ) was calculated using the load combina-
tion of 1.2 DL þ 1.6 LL, while reliability index (β 2 ) was calculated M DSM ¼ minðM nl ; M nd Þ ð1Þ
using the load combination of 1.25 DL þ 1.5 LL, as shown in
Tables 4–8. M y þ ð1 − 1=C2yl ÞðM p − M y Þ for λl ≤ 0.776
M nl ¼ h  0.4 i 0.4 ð2Þ
1 − 0.15 MMcrly Mcrl
My My for λl > 0.776
Predicted Design Strengths Using Current DSM
Equations
My þ ð1 − 1=C2yd ÞðM p − M y Þ for λl ≤ 0.673
In this section, the current DSM equations were used to calculate M nd ¼ h  0.5 i 0.5 ð3Þ
the design strengths of the beam specimens. The elastic buckling 1 − 0.22 MMcrdy Mcrd
My My for λl > 0.673
moments M crl and M crd are obtained from the finite-strip analysis pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
based on the cross-section assumption, as shown in Fig. 1. In this where λl ¼ M y =M crl ; Cyl ¼ 0.776=λl ≤ 3; M y ¼ Sf f y ;
study, the beams could be regarded as fully braced as no lateral- M p ¼ Zf f y ; Sf = gross section modulus referenced to the extreme
torsional buckling occurred to the specimens. Hence, in accordance fiber at first yield; Zf = plastic section modulus; fy = yield stress,
with Appendix 1.2.2.1 of the commentary of North American which is the 0.2% proof stress (σ0.2 ) obtained from tensile coupon
Specification (AISI 2012), the nominal flexural strength (M ne ) tests in this study; M = critical ffi elastic
pcrlffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi local buckling moment
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
for lateral-torsional buckling is taken as the yield moment (M y ) (M crl ¼ Sf σcrl ); λd ¼ M y =M crd ; Cyd ¼ 0.673=λd ≤3; and M crd =
of fully braced beams. The current direct strength method for critical elastic distortional buckling moment (M crd ¼ Sf σcrd ).

© ASCE 04015151-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

 Table 8. Comparison of Beam Strengths Obtained from Test and FEA Results with DSM Predictions for COW Sections Subjected to Local Buckling
Tests or FEA DSM predictions Comparison
MEXP or Failure MDSM M DSM
M EXP =MDSM MEXP =MDSM

Specimens M FEA (kN mm) mode λl (kN mm) (kN mm) or M FEA =M DSM or M FEA =MDSM

19-COW-3.6 40,608 LþF 0.251 31,903 39,752 1.27 1.02
15-COW-2.4 11,635 LþF 0.368 9,242 11,434 1.26 1.02
21-COW-3.6 25,671 YþF 0.370 21,073 26,062 1.22 0.98
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

14-COW-2.4 14,185 LþF 0.372 11,161 13,798 1.27 1.03

17-COW-2.4 19,024 LþF 0.373 15,835 19,568 1.20 0.97
21-COW-3.0 21,323 YþF 0.440 17,271 21,009 1.23 1.01
19-COW-1.9 19,407 LþF 0.467 16,014 19,354 1.21 1.00
21-COW-2.4 16,856 LþF 0.547 13,468 15,950 1.25 1.06
15-COW-1.5 7,002 LþF 0.580 5,491 6,446 1.28 1.09
14-COW-1.5 8,407 LþF 0.586 6,628 7,769 1.27 1.08
17-COW-1.5 11,232 LþF 0.589 9,398 11,007 1.20 1.02
22-COW-3.6 34,778 YþF 0.737 31,122 34,940 1.12 1.00
15-COW-1.0 4,508 LþF 0.863 3,259 3,682 1.38 1.22
19-COW-1.0 7,674 LþF 0.866 7,282 8,229 1.05 0.93
17-COW-1.0 6,745 LþF 0.874 5,543 6,268 1.22 1.08
22-COW-2.4 19,151 LþDþF 1.084 16,554 19,016 1.16 1.01
22-COW-1.5 10,410 LþDþF 1.723 7,501 9,062 1.39 1.15
COW-0.48-B4 1,699 LþF 1.897 1,418 1,735 1.20 0.98
COW-1.0-B4 4,691 LþF 0.882 4,321 4,888 1.09 0.96
COW-1.0-B4R 4,730 LþF 0.882 4,321 4,888 1.09 0.97
Mean (Pm ) — — — — — 1.22 1.03
COV (V P ) — — — — — 0.072 0.067
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — — 3.74 3.08
reliability
index (β 1 )
ϕb ¼ 0.8, — — — — — 3.54 2.88
reliability
index (β 2 )
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Note: D = distortional buckling; F = flexural buckling; L = local buckling; Y = material yielding; λl = slenderness for local buckling (λl ¼ M y =M crl ).

The elastic local buckling stress (σcrl ) and elastic distortional buck-
ling stress (σcrd ) were obtained from the finite-strip analysis.
The moment capacities of the cold-formed steel built-up section
beams subjected to four-point bending obtained from the experi-
mental investigation (M EXP ) and finite-element analysis (M FEA )
were compared with the nominal moment capacities (unfactored
strength) determined using the current direct strength method
(MDSM ) in the North American Specification (AISI 2012) for
cold-formed steel structures, as shown in Tables 4–8. The mean
value of experimental-to-predicted moment ratio (M EXP =M DSM )
and FEA-to-predicted moment ratio (M FEA =MDSM ) is 1.35 with
the corresponding coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.123, and the
calculated reliability index (β 1 ) and reliability index (β 2 ) are 3.82
and 3.63, respectively, for built-up OV sections subjected to local
buckling as shown in Table 4. The comparison of test and FEA
results with predicted strengths by DSM is also plotted in Fig. 4.
It is shown that the current DSM predictions are conservative for
the built-up OV sections especially for the more slender sections.
The mean value of MEXP =M DSM and M FEA =M DSM is 1.00 with
the corresponding COV of 0.080, and the calculated β 1 and β 2 are
2.91 and 2.72, respectively, for built-up OI sections subjected to
local buckling as shown in Table 5. For built-up OI sections sub-
jected to distortional buckling, the mean value of M EXP =MDSM and
M FEA =MDSM is 1.06 with the corresponding COV of 0.045, and the

Fig. 2. Elastic buckling analysis results of built-up open section beams using THIN WALL program: (a) Specimen 9-OV-1.0; (b) Specimen 24-OI-1.2

© ASCE 04015151-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Elastic buckling analysis results of built-up closed section beams using CUFSM: (a) Specimen 3-CV-1.5; (b) Specimen 17-COF-1.0;
(c) Specimen 19-COW-1.0
calculated β 1 and β 2 are 3.28 and 3.08, respectively, as shown in
Table 6. The comparison of test and FEA results with predicted
strengths by DSM is also plotted in Figs. 5(a and b) for local buck-
ling and distortional buckling, respectively. It is shown in Fig. 5 that
the current DSM equations can predict the design strengths of the
built-up OI sections quite well.
The structural behavior of the built-up CV-section beams and
COF-section beams is similar because both sections have the con-
nectors (screws) at the flanges. Therefore, the two sections could be
Fig. 4. Comparison of DSM predicted strengths with test and FEA
results for OV sections
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151
classified as the same section type and were compared together
with the design predictions. The mean value of M EXP =MDSM and
M FEA =MDSM is 0.73 with the corresponding COV of 0.126, and the
calculated β 1 and β 2 are 1.55 and 1.37, respectively, for built-up
CV and COF sections subjected to local buckling as shown in
Table 7. The comparison was also plotted in Fig. 6. It is shown
that the current DSM equations are not suitable for the built-up
CV and COF sections subjected to local buckling. The test and
FEA results are much lower than the predicted strengths using the
current DSM equations for local buckling. This could be due to the
fact that elastic local buckling stress in the finite-strip analysis was
overpredicted. It should be noted that only nine built-up CV-section
and COF-section beams were failed by distortional buckling, and
the predicted distortional strengths of these specimens are also
much greater than the test and FEA results. However, these data
are not shown in this paper due to the limited data.
The mean value of MEXP =M DSM and M FEA =M DSM is 1.22 with
the corresponding COV of 0.072, and the calculated β 1 and β 2 are
3.74 and 3.54, respectively, for built-up COW sections subjected to
local buckling as shown in Table 8. The comparison of test and
FEA results with predicted strengths by DSM is also plotted in
Fig. 7. It is shown that the current DSM predictions are
conservative for the built-up COW sections, especially for the more
compact sections.
Modified DSM Equations for Built-Up Section Beams
It is shown that the current DSM equations in the North American
Specification are capable of predicting the design strengths of
04015151-7 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Comparison of DSM predicted strengths with test and FEA results for OI sections: (a) local buckling; (b) distortional buckling
built-up OI sections for both local and distortional buckling.
However, the DSM equations conservatively predicted the built-
up OV sections and COW sections, while unconservatively pre-
dicting the built-up CV and COF sections investigated in this
study. Therefore, the current direct strength equations are modi-
fied for built-up OV sections, built-up CV and COF sections, and
COW sections.
The local buckling curve of the current DSM for built-up OV
sections was modified and expressed in the following equation:
½1 þ ðη − 1Þð1 − 1=C2yl ÞM y for λl ≤ 0.980
M nl ¼ h  0.25 i 0.25 ð4Þ
1 − 0.01 MMcrly Mcrl
My My for λl > 0.980
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Cyl ¼ 0.980=λl ≤ 3, η is the shape factor that depends on
the shape of the cross section (η ¼ Zf =Sf ). It should be noted that
the value of η for the built-up OV sections investigated in this study
is conservatively taken as 1.2. The first part of Eq. (4) when λl ≤
0.980 and Eq. (2) when λl ≤ 0.776 are identical, except the term
Cyl is slightly different. The coefficient of 0.15 and exponent of 0.4
in the second part of Eq. (2) have been changed to 0.01 and 0.25 in
Eq. (4), respectively. Subsequently, the value of slenderness λl has
been modified from 0.776 to 0.980.
The nominal moment capacities (M DSM
) of the built-up OV
sections were calculated using the modified DSM equations
Fig. 6. Comparison of DSM predicted strengths with test and FEA
results for CV and COF sections
© ASCE 04015151-8
J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151
[Eq. (4)]. The comparison of the experimental and numerical data
with the nominal values predicted by the modified DSM is
presented in Table 4 and Fig. 4. The mean value of experimental-
to-predicted moment ratio (M EXP =M DSM
) and FEA-to-predicted
moment ratio (M FEA =M DSM
) is 1.03 with the corresponding COV
of 0.083, and the reliability index (β 1 ) and reliability index (β 2 )
are 3.02 and 2.82, respectively. The ratios of moment capacities
over the yield moment (M=M y )pwere plotted against the slender-
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ness for local buckling (λl ¼ M y =M crl ), as shown in Fig. 4,
where the moment capacities (M) were obtained from the experi-
mental investigation (M EXP ), finite-element analysis (M FEA ), cur-
rent DSM equations (M DSM ) (AISI 2012) and modified DSM
equations (MDSM
). It is shown that the modified DSM equations
[Eq. (4)] are accurate and reliable with the reliability indices larger
than the target reliability index (β 0 ¼ 2.5) for the built-up OV sec-
tions failed by local buckling when the resistance factor (ϕb ) of 0.8
is used.
The local buckling curve of the current DSM for built-up CV
and COF sections was modified and expressed in the following
equation:
M for λl ≤ 0.320
h y  0.3 i 0.3
M nl ¼ ð5Þ
1 − 0.18 4M
M crl
y
Mcrl
4My My for λl > 0.320
Fig. 7. Comparison of DSM predicted strengths with test and FEA
results for COW sections
J. Struct. Eng.
 The inelastic reserve local buckling strength is not considered in The local buckling curve of the current DSM for built-up
the modified DSM equations for built-up CV and COF sections. COW sections was modified and expressed in the following
The coefficient of 0.15 and exponent of 0.4 in the second part of equation:
Eq. (2) have been changed to 0.18 and 0.3 in Eq. (5), respectively.
Subsequently, the value of slenderness λl has been modified from ½1 þ ðη − 1Þð1 − 1=C2yl ÞMy for λl ≤ 0.949
0.776 to 0.320. The modification of (M crl =M y ) in Eq. (2) to M nl ¼ h  0.3 i 0.3 ð6Þ
1 − 0.03 MMcrly Mcrl
My for λl > 0.949
(Mcrl =4M y ) in Eq. (5) results from the modified slenderness My
(λ
l ¼ 2λl ) used to account for the difference between the assumed pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

closed sections (Fig. 1) and the real built-up sections.
The nominal moment capacities (M DSM
) of the built-up CV and
COF sections were calculated using the modified DSM equations
[Eq. (5)]. The comparison of the experimental and numerical data
with the nominal values predicted by the modified DSM is shown
in Table 7 and Fig. 6. The mean value of experimental-to-predicted
moment ratio (M EXP =M DSM
) and FEA-to-predicted moment ratio
(MFEA =M DSM
) is 1.00 with the corresponding COV of 0.108,
and the reliability index (β 1 ) and reliability index (β 2 ) are 2.82
and 2.62, respectively. Therefore, the modified DSM equations
[Eq. (5)] are proved to be accurate and reliable with the reliability
indices larger than the target reliability index (β 0 ¼ 2.5) for the
built-up CV and COF sections failed by local buckling when the
resistance factor (ϕb ) of 0.8 is used.
where Cyl ¼ 0.949=λl ≤ 3, the value of shape factor (η) for the
built-up COW sections investigated in this study is taken as 1.6
herein. The first part of Eq. (6) and Eq. (2) are identical, except
the term Cyl is slightly different. The coefficient of 0.15 and expo-
nent of 0.4 in the second part of Eq. (2) have been changed to 0.03
and 0.3 in Eq. (6), respectively. Subsequently, the value of slender-
ness λl has been modified from 0.776 to 0.949.
The nominal moment capacities (M DSM
) of the built-up
COW sections were calculated using the modified DSM equa-
tions [Eq. (6)]. The comparison of the experimental and numeri-
cal data with the nominal values predicted by the modified
DSM is shown in Table 8 and Fig. 7. The mean value of
M EXP =MDSM
and MFEA =M DSM
is 1.03 with the corresponding
COV of 0.067, and the calculated β 1 and β 2 are 3.08 and 2.88,

Fig. 8. Recommended design rules and DSM equations for built-up section beams

© ASCE 04015151-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151

 respectively. It is shown that the modified DSM equations are
accurate and reliable with the reliability indices larger than the
target reliability index (β 0 ¼ 2.5) for the built-up COW sections
failed by local buckling when the resistance factor (ϕb ) of 0.8
is used.
Recommended Design Rules for Built-Up Section
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Beams
There is no design rule for cold-formed steel built-up sections
with intermediate stiffeners in current specifications. In this study,
the direct strength method was used to predict the design strengths
of the cold-formed steel built-up section beams. It is shown that
the DSM is accurate and reliable for the design of built-up sec-
tions with stiffeners when the coefficients in the DSM equations
were carefully calibrated with the test and FEA results, together
with the elastic buckling analysis of the assumed cross sections.
The recommended design rules and the calculation procedures for
different built-up sectional configurations are summarized below.
It should be mentioned that the recommended design rules are
only suitable for: (1) cold-formed steel built-up section beams
have sufficient connections along the longitudinal direction ac-
cording to the current specifications (AISI 2012; AS/NZS 2005)
and the connectors (screws) would not fail prior to the beams
failure; (2) the beams are fully braced and would not fail by
lateral-torsional buckling; and (3) the resistance factor (ϕb ) of
0.8 is used.
The modified DSM design procedures for predicting the design
strengths of cold-formed steel built-up section beams are summa-
rized as follows. The recommended design rules are also tabulated
in Fig. 8 for quick reference:
1. Assume the built-up section connected by screws as one inte-
grated section by taking the two overlapped elements of the
two single cross sections as one element with double thickness
of the section, as shown in Fig. 1.
2. Perform a finite-strip analysis using THIN-WALL program
(Papangelis and Hancock 1995) or CUFSM program (Li and
Schafer 2010) on the assumed sections in Step 1 to determine
the elastic local buckling moment (M crl ) and/or elastic distor-
tional buckling moment (Mcrd ).
3. Calculate the design strengths of built-up section beams using
Eqs. (1)–(3) for built-up OI sections, Eq. (4) for built-up OV
sections, Eq. (5) for built-up CV and COF sections as well
as Eq. (6) for built-up COW sections.
Conclusions
A numerical parametric study including a total of 113 different
cold-formed steel built-up section beams was performed. Different
sectional shapes and slenderness as well as the resulting dif-
ferent failure modes and structural behavior were examined from
experimental and numerical investigation. Rational elastic buckling
analysis was performed using the assumed built-up sections to de-
termine the elastic buckling moments required in the direct strength
method equations. The experimental data together with the numeri-
cal results were used to compare with the predicted strengths using
the current DSM equations in the North American Specification
(AISI 2012). It is shown that the current DSM equations are
capable of predicting the design strengths of built-up OI sections
for both local and distortional buckling. However, the design pre-
dictions by the current DSM equations are conservative for the
built-up OV sections and COW sections, but unconservative for
the built-up CV sections and COF sections investigated in this
© ASCE 04015151-10
J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151
study. Therefore, modified DSM equations for beams with different
built-up sectional configurations were calibrated against the test
and numerical results obtained from this study. The design
strengths predicted by the modified DSM equations were compared
with the experimental and numerical data and exhibited very good
agreement for the cold-formed steel built-up open and closed sec-
tion beams. The modified DSM equations are recommended for
cold-formed steel built-up open and closed sections with intermedi-
ate stiffeners under bending.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to BlueScope Lysaght (Singapore) Pte.
Ltd. for providing the test specimens. The research work described
in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants
Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
(Project No. HKU719711E).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
bf = width of flange;
bl = depth of lip;
Cp = correction factor in reliability analysis;
Fm = mean value of fabrication factor;
fy = yield stress;
hw = overall depth of web;
M cr = critical elastic buckling moment;
M crd = critical elastic distortional buckling moment;
M crl = critical elastic local buckling moment;
MDSM = nominal flexural strength predicted by current DSM;
M DSM
= nominal flexural strength predicted by modified
DSM;
M EXP = moment capacities obtained from experimental
investigation;
M FEA = moment capacities obtained from finite-element
analysis;
M m = mean value of material factor;
Mnd = nominal flexural strength for distortional buckling;
M ne = nominal flexural strength for lateral-torsional
buckling;
M nl = nominal flexural strength for local buckling;
Mp = member plastic moment;
M y = member yield moment;
Pm = mean value of experimental/FEA-to-predicted
moment ratio;
ri = inner radius of the round corner of sections;
Sf = gross section modulus referenced to the extreme
fiber at first yield;
t = thickness of steel plate with coating;
V F = coefficient of variation of fabrication factor;
V M = coefficient of variation of material factor;
V P = coefficient of variation of experimental/FEA-to-
predicted moment ratio;
w1 , w2 , w3 = width of plate elements of stiffened channel sections;
Zf = plastic section modulus;
β 0 = target reliability index;
β 1 = reliability index using combination of 1.2 dead load
þ1.6 live load;
β 2 = reliability index using combination of 1.25 dead load
þ1.5 live load;
η = shape factor;
θ = angle of inclined web element from the vertical axis;
J. Struct. Eng.
 λd = slenderness for distortional buckling; Hancock, G. J., Kwon, Y. B., and Bernard, S. (1994). “Strength design
λl = slenderness for local buckling; curves for thin-walled sections undergoing distortional buckling.”
λ
l = modified slenderness for local buckling; J. Constr. Steel Res., 31(2–3), 169–186.
σ0.2 = 0.2% proof stress (yield stress); Li, Y., Li, Y., Wang, S., and Shen, Z. (2014). “Ultimate load-carrying
capacity of cold-formed thin-walled columns with built-up box and
σcrd = elastic distortional buckling stress;
I section under axial compression.” Thin Walled Struct., 79, 202–217.
σcrl = elastic local buckling stress; and Li, Z., and Schafer, B. W. (2010). “Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel
ϕb = resistance factor for beams. members with general boundary conditions using CUFSM: Conventional
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Kolhapur Institute Of Technology College Of Engineering (KIT on 03/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

References
ABAQUS version 6.12-1 [Computer software]. Hibbit, Karlsson &
Sorensen, Pawtucket, RI.
AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). (2012). “North American speci-
fication for the design of cold-formed steel structural members.”
AISI-S100-12, Washington, DC.
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.”
ASCE/SEI 7-10, ASCE, Reston, VA.
AS/NZS (Australian/New Zealand standard). (2002). “Structural design
actions. Part 0: General principles.” AS/NZS 1170.0:2002, Standards
Association of Australia, Sydney, Australia.
AS/NZS (Australian/New Zealand standard). (2005). “Cold-formed
steel structures.” AS/NZS 4600:2005, Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.
Georgieva, I., Schueremans, L., Vandewalle, L., and Pyl, L. (2012).
“Design of built-up cold-formed steel columns according to the direct
strength method.” Procedia Eng., 40, 119–124.
and constrained finite strip methods.” Proc., 20th Int. Specialty Conf. on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.
Papangelis, J. P., and Hancock, G. J. (1995). “Computer analysis of thin-
walled structural members.” Compos. Struct., 56(1), 157–176.
Piyawat, K., Ramseyer, C., and Kang, T. (2013). “Development of an axial load
capacity equation for doubly symmetric built-up cold-formed sections.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000780, 04013008.
Schafer, B. W. (2000). “Distortional buckling of cold-formed steel columns.”
Final Rep., American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
Wang, L., and Young, B. (2014). “Design of cold-formed steel channels
with stiffened webs subjected to bending.” Thin Walled Struct., 85, 81–92.
Wang, L., and Young, B. (2015). “Behaviour of cold-formed steel built-up
sections with intermediate stiffeners under bending. I: Tests and numeri-
cal validation.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001428,
04015150.
Zhang, J. H., and Young, B. (2015). “Numerical investigation and design
of cold-formed steel built-up open section columns with longitudinal
stiffeners.” Thin Walled Struct., 89, 178–191.
Zhou, X., and Shi, Y. (2011). “Flexural strength evaluation for cold-formed
steel lip-reinforced built-up I-beams.” Adv. Struct. Eng., 14(4), 597–612.

© ASCE 04015151-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2016, 142(3): 04015151