Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full length article

Design of perforated cold-formed steel hollow stub columns using direct

strength method
Tekcham Gishan Singh a ,∗, Konjengbam Darunkumar Singh b
a
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents a numerical investigation on the performance and design of cold-formed steel square
Cold-formed steel (SHSs) and rectangular hollow sections (RHSs) stub columns having two opposite central circular perforations
Hollow sections located at column mid-height. Finite element (FE) models are initially developed and validated against the
Circular perforation
experimental results on perforated YSt-310 cold-formed steel stub columns reported by the authors. A total of
Finite element analysis
264 experimental and numerical column capacities, collected from previous experimental investigations and
Direct strength method
Elastic buckling stress
current parametric study, has been utilized to compare with the design strengths predicted by available codified
Buckling coefficient and proposed design equations. Based on the analysis, most of the presently available design equations for
perforated stub columns provide overly-conservative and highly scattered design predictions. In particular, the
Direct Strength Method in American Standard provides the maximum overly conservative prediction of about
60% with high scatterings. Hence, a modified DSM design equation has been proposed for various perforation
size ratios (i.e. diameter of perforation to flat element width) considering the previous test results and current
FE column capacities through least square regression analysis. The newly proposed design equation is shown
to offer improved mean (conservative) and reliable predictions, and therefore recommended for inclusion in
future revisions of design codes for perforated cold-formed steel tubular stub columns.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed steel tubular sections (viz. square (SHS), rectangular
(RHS) and circular (CHS) hollow sections) have been a preferred choice
for both architects and structural engineers owing to their inherent
high strength in compression and torsional resistances, in addition
to their appealing aesthetic nature when compared to cold-formed
opened steel sections [11–13]. Perforations (cut-outs/holes/openings)
of different shapes (e.g. circular, rectangular, hexagonal, flat-ovals
etc.,) and sizes are introduced on structural steel member for various
needs such as duct work; connection to other members; aesthetic
appearance; material optimization as well as various services viz.,
inspections, hidden electrical and signal wiring, fresh and waste-water
plumbing etc. [14]. Typical perforations made on structural member
for (a) column–column [15] and (b) beam–column [16] connections
are shown in Fig. 1.
Comprehensive research work in estimating the influence of per-
foration (s) on the performance of structural members had been con-
ducted by various researchers since the late 1950s using experimental
and finite element techniques [1,8–10,17–27]. Marshall and Nurick
[26] conducted an experimental investigation to study the progressive
buckling performance of thin-walled mild steel square tubes having
circular perforations. Based on the test results, a linear reduction trend
in the column capacity with increasing perforation size (or diameter)
was reported. The ultimate capacity and post-buckling response of steel
plates having square and circular perforations was studied numeri-
cally by Shanmugam et al. [9]. The study covered a wide range of
parameters, including cross-sectional slenderness, boundary conditions
of steel plates, opening sizes, and nature of loading. The study reported
that, circular perforated plates have higher capacities as compared to
those with square perforation, and further, a simplified design rule
was proposed. Shanmugam and Dhanalakshmi [8] studied the axial
capacity of perforated cold-formed steel channel stub columns under
axial compression using finite element (FE) models. Design formulae to
estimate the column capacities of short channel columns having various
perforation shapes were then proposed on the basis of plate slenderness
ratio of the web and opening area ratio as input parameters [8].
Local, distortional, and global elastic buckling response due to the
influence of slotted web perforations for short and intermediate C-
section columns were experimentally and numerically studied by Moen
and Schafer [28]. Design rules were developed in line with the direct
strength method (DSM), which were further included in the revised
version of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) [29]. An exper-
imental investigation into the capacity of perforated cold-formed steel

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tekcham@iitj.ac.in (T.G. Singh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108265
Received 4 June 2021; Received in revised form 27 July 2021; Accepted 5 August 2021
Available online 19 August 2021
0263-8231/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh
Fig. 1. Typical perforations made on structural member for (a) column–column [15] and (b) beam–column [16] connections.
stub columns under axial compression was reported by authors [10],
and important outcomes from the experimental investigation are pre-
sented briefly in Section 2 of this paper. Feng et al. [20] studied the
effect of perforation size and number on the structural performance
of pin-ended aluminium alloy SHS and RHS columns having multiple
circular perforations. The applicability of available design rule for
perforated cold-formed steel columns was assessed to design perforated
aluminium alloy columns. Based on the comparison, the effective width
method (EWM) and DSM presented in AISI Standard [29,30] were
reported to be inapplicable to the design of perforated aluminium alloy
compression members. Further, Feng et al. [31] extended the inves-
tigation on the effect of key geometric parameters, viz. cross-section
slenderness; overall column lengths; and perforation size, numbers and
locations on the performance of perforated aluminium alloy columns
through validated FE models. The FE models were validated using
earlier test data [20]. Based on the extensive parametric study, it was
reported that perforation size and number have greater influence on
the performance of perforated column as compared to those of perfo-
ration location. A numerical study on the local buckling performance
of cold-formed and hot-rolled steel short module column having a
single perforation, investigating the effect of location, shape, size and
height of perforation and cross-sectional slenderness, was conducted by
Singh and Chan [32]. Based on the extensive parametric study, it was
reported that perforation location, shape and height have negligible in-
fluence on the buckling capacity of the perforated column. In addition,
the applicability of currently available design equations was assessed
for both cold-formed and hot-rolled steel sections, and further, it was
shown that the design equations which are based on EWM provide
conservative and less scattered predictions, while DSM provides overly
conservative and slightly scattered predictions.
From the brief literature review presented above, it is witnessed
that most of the currently available design formulae have been devel-
oped based on the performance of plates and opened sections (such
as channels and angle sections). Their applicability on the perfor-
mance predictions of SHSs and RHSs, both for cold-formed steel and
aluminium alloy, was found to be inappropriate. In particular, DSM
in AISI standard [4] has provided overly conservative and scattered
design predictions for perforated hollow sections. Hence, the purpose
of this paper is initially to investigate the performance of cold-formed
steel SHSs and RHSs stub columns through extensive parametric study
covering a wide range of cross-sections and perforation sizes using FE
models. The FE modelling protocol has been validated using available
test data reported by authors [10]. Secondly, the applicability of the
2
Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265
current design rules for perforated compression members has been
assessed using the available test and, FE generated column capacities.
Thirdly, a modified design equation based on the current DSM in AISI
Standard [4] has been proposed. Lastly, reliability analysis has been
conducted to evaluate the accurateness of the design equations. A
preliminary investigation was presented in Singh and Singh [33].
2. Summary of available test data
This section presents a brief summary of the experimental work
reported by the authors [10] on the performance of perforated cold-
formed steel tubular stub columns. The test comprised of measuring the
local geometric imperfection of unperforated and perforated columns;
and the ultimate capacities of thirty-one stub columns having two
opposite circular perforations located at mid-height of the columns
under pure compression. The experimental investigations had been
conducted considering five different cross-sections, namely two SHSs
and three RHSs. Two circular perforations of the same diameter ranging
from 0.1 to 0.9 of the flat element width (widest plate element in the
case of RHS) were made on two opposite sides of the cross-section. The
specimens considered in the test programme covered Class 1–3 (stocky)
sections [34], with slenderness, B/t or D/t ranging from ∼17.0 to 31.0,
where B, D and t are the width, depth and thickness of the cross-
sections, as shown in Fig. 2. The test programme was conducted using
seam welded cold-formed steel hollow sections manufactured by Tata
Steel India, commercially available as Tata Structura YSt-310 [35]. The
steel material is conformed to Indian Standard (IS) 4923 [36], having a
nominal yield strength and tensile strength of 310 MPa and 450 MPa,
and minimum ductility of 10% at fracture. The measured geometric
dimensions are presented in Table 1, while the recorded mechanical
properties are shown in Tables 2 and 3 for flat and curve regions,
respectively. Based on the results of the measured local out of straight-
ness from unperforated and perforated columns, a slight increase in
the imperfection amplitude of perforated columns had been reported
compared to those of unperforated compression members. Moreover,
a modified imperfection amplitude model, based on the equations
originally developed by [37], for unperforated and perforated cold-
formed steel SHSs and RHS had been proposed based on the test data.
From the perforated column test, it was observed that most of the test
specimens were generally failed by material yielding, and typical load-
end-shortening curves are provided in Figs. 3–5. The ultimate loads
of all the perforated column specimens are presented in Table 4. The
compression test results have shown a mild non-linear drop in the load
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Notations 𝑃𝑚 Mean value

𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐸𝐶 Column capacity proposed by Miller and
𝐴𝑒 Effective area calculated at stress 𝐹𝑛
Peköz [2] simplified formula detailed in
𝐴0 Total surface area of perforations
European [3], North American [4] and
𝐴𝑔 Gross cross-sectional area Australian [5] standards
𝐴𝑛𝑒𝑡 Cross-sectional area perforated column at 𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐵𝑆 Column capacity proposed by Miller and
the location of perforation Peköz [2] simplified formula detailed in
𝐴𝑠 Total surface area of the member; British standard [6]
b Effective width 𝑃𝑛𝑒 Nominal strength considering yielding and
B Width of cross-section global buckling
𝑏𝐷𝑊 Effective design width 𝑃𝑛𝑙 Nominal axial strength of column undergo-
COV Coefficient of variance ing local buckling
𝐶𝑝 Correction factor 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀 Nominal axial strength for local buckling
d Diameter of perforation/hole/cut- based on DSM [4]
out/opening 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 Nominal axial strength for local buckling
D Depth of cross-section based on DSM [4], considering critical
d/w Perforation size ratio elastic buckling stress [7]
DL Dead load 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐸𝑊 𝑀 Nominal axial strength for local buckling
DSM Direct Strength Method based on EWM [4]
E Young’s modulus of elasticity 𝑃𝑆𝐷 Un-factored design strength Shanmugam
EWM Effective width method and Dhanalakshmi [8]
𝑓𝑐𝑟 Critical elastic buckling stress for unperfo- 𝑃𝑠𝑞 Squash load
rated plate elements 𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 Un-factored design strength by
𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 Minimum elastic buckling stress Shanmugam et al. [9]
𝑓𝑐𝑟-𝑝 Critical elastic buckling stress for perfo- 𝑃𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 Experimental ultimate capacity
rated plate elements 𝑃𝑢-𝑝 Critical buckling load of perforated stub
FE Finite element column
𝐹𝑚 Mean value of fabrication factor 𝑃0.0 Ultimate load of unperforated stub column
𝐹𝑛 Global column stress 𝑃𝑦 Yield load
𝑓𝑢 Ultimate strength 𝑃𝑦𝑛𝑒𝑡 Member yield strength on net cross-section
𝑓0.2 0.2% proof stress RHS Rectangular hollow sections
k Plate buckling coefficient 𝑟𝑖 Inner corner radius
𝐾1 , K 2 and K 3 Sets of coefficient of the proposed DSM SHS Square hollow sections
equations t Section thickness
𝑘ℎ Plate buckling coefficient for perforated 𝑉𝐹 Coefficient of variation of fabrication factor
element 𝑉𝑀 Coefficient of variation of material factor
𝑘1 , k2 and k3 Sets of coefficients 𝑉𝑝 Coefficient of variation
L Overall length of stub column w Flat element width
LL Live load 𝑤ℎ Equivalent unstiffened plate element width
m Plate slenderness ratio 𝛽 Reliability index
𝑀𝑚 Mean value of material factor 𝛿 Deformation in mm
n Strain hardening exponent or number of 𝛿𝑢 Deformation corresponding to ultimate
data load from test
𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑙 Critical elastic buckling load 𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 Deformation corresponding to ultimate
𝑃𝐷𝑆 Un-factored design strength by Dhanalak- load from FE
shmi and Shanmugam [1] 𝜀𝑓 Percentage elongation at fracture
∗
𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑀 Nominal axial strength for local buckling 𝜀𝑝𝑙
ln
Logarithmic plastic strain
based on proposed DSM 𝜀𝑛𝑜𝑚 Engineering strain
𝑃𝐹 𝐸 Numerical ultimate load 𝜆 Slenderness factor
𝜆𝑙 Slenderness factor for local buckling of
column
𝜆𝑝 Cross-sectional slenderness
capacity of perforated stub columns as the diameter of perforations 𝜇 Poisson’s ratio
increases, except for columns the column having perforation diameter 𝜔0 Local geometric imperfection
≤ 10% of flat element width, for which the reduction was reported amplitude [10]
to be negligible. Further, the applicability of the currently available 𝜑 Resistance factor
design equations [2,4,8,9] for perforated compression members had 𝜎𝑛𝑜𝑚 Engineering stress
been assessed using the column capacities generated experimentally 𝜎𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 True stress
and reported that most of the available design equations provide reli-
able but overly conservative and scattered predictions for cold-formed
steel perforated hollow sections.

3
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Fig. 5. Comparison load end-shortening curves generated from experiment and FE for
80 × 40 × 2.6 cross-section.

Table 1
Geometric dimensions of perforated stub columns [10].
Cross-sectionsa B D t L 𝑟𝑖 w d d/w
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Fig. 2. Definitions of symbols of a perforated stub column in (a) plan and (b) three
dimensional views. 50 × 50 × 2.9d/w0.5–1 49.56 49.82 2.89 200.20 2.9 37.98 19.2 0.51
50 × 50 × 2.9d/w0.7–1 49.82 49.88 2.90 199.96 2.9 38.22 26.9 0.70
50 × 50 × 2.9d/w0.9–1 49.62 49.82 2.91 200.36 2.9 38.00 34.6 0.91
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.1–1 60.00 60.10 2.61 200.00 2.6 48.98 5.00 0.10
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.3–1 60.00 60.10 2.61 200.22 2.6 48.98 14.9 0.30
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.3–2 59.90 60.12 2.61 200.10 2.6 48.88 14.9 0.30
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.5–1 60.04 60.08 2.62 199.96 2.6 49.00 24.8 0.51
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.5–2 60.00 60.10 2.62 200.00 2.6 48.96 24.8 0.51
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.7–1 60.00 60.18 2.60 199.94 2.6 49.00 34.7 0.71
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.7–2 59.92 60.12 2.61 200.08 2.6 48.90 34.7 0.71
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.9–1 59.94 60.00 2.59 200.00 2.6 48.96 44.6 0.91
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.9–2 59.94 60.00 2.62 200.00 2.6 48.90 44.6 0.91
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.1–1 60.13 40.13 2.91 160.23 2.9 48.51 4.80 0.10
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.3–1 60.18 40.28 2.91 160.06 2.9 48.56 14.5 0.30
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.5–1 60.14 40.16 2.89 160.10 2.9 48.56 24.2 0.50
60 ×40 × 2.9d/w0.7–1 60.11 40.30 2.90 160.10 2.9 48.51 33.9 0.70
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.7–2 60.16 40.21 2.90 160.22 2.9 48.56 33.9 0.70
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.9–1 60.11 40.22 2.87 159.32 2.9 48.57 43.6 0.90
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.9–2 60.14 40.23 2.88 160.30 2.9 48.56 43.6 0.90
66 × 33 × 2.6d/w0.7–1 66.34 33.38 2.57 132.34 2.6 55.40 38.9 0.70
66 × 33 × 2.6d/w0.9–1 66.44 33.40 2.56 130.40 2.6 55.52 50.0 0.90
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.1–1 80.78 39.32 2.59 160.04 2.6 69.80 7.00 0.10
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.1–2 80.80 39.40 2.59 160.04 2.6 69.82 7.00 0.10
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.3–1 80.80 39.44 2.61 160.06 2.6 69.78 20.9 0.30
Fig. 3. Comparison load versus end-shortening curves generated from experiment and 80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.3–2 80.76 39.52 2.59 160.06 2.6 69.78 20.9 0.30
FE for 60 × 60 × 2.6 cross-section. 80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.5–1 80.82 39.40 2.61 160.00 2.6 69.80 34.8 0.50
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.5–2 80.78 39.42 2.61 160.14 2.6 69.76 34.8 0.50
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.7–1 80.82 39.48 2.61 161.50 2.6 69.80 48.7 0.70
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.7–2 80.78 39.56 2.61 160.10 2.6 69.76 48.7 0.70
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.9–1 80.76 39.34 2.60 161.22 2.6 69.76 62.6 0.90
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.9–2 80.72 39.56 2.60 160.10 2.6 69.72 62.6 0.90
a
Cross-sectional nomenclatures are based on [10].

Table 2
Summary of flat coupon tensile test results [38].
Cross-sectionsa E (N/mm2 ) 𝑓𝑦 (N/mm2 ) 𝑓𝑢 (N/mm2 ) 𝜀𝑓 (%) n
50 × 50 × 2.9 190024 370 446.48 22.56 4.2
60 × 40 × 2.9 201845 408 439.35 18.33 5.7
60 × 60 × 2.6 204082 431 483.24 17.76 4.1
66 × 33 × 2.6 190653 428 483.30 19.29 6.3
80 × 40 × 2.6 200000 520 562.89 11.68 5.1
a
Cross-sectional nomenclatures are based on [38].

3. Finite element modelling

Fig. 4. Comparison load versus end-shortening curves generated from experiment and 3.1. General
FE for 66 × 33 × 2.6 cross-section.
Non-linear numerical models developed using commercial FE soft-
ware ABAQUS Version 6.9 [39] has been used to simulate the perfo-

4
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Table 3 of the thin-walled nature [40,42], a four-noded doubly curved shell

Summary of corner coupon tensile test results [38].
element with reduced integration S4R having six degrees of freedom
Cross-sectionsa E (N/mm2 ) 𝑓𝑦 (N/mm2 ) 𝑓𝑢 (N/mm2 ) 𝜀𝑓 (%) n for each node [39] is used to discretize the generated FE models.
50 × 50 × 2.9 176191 506 571.53 7.69 2.7
60 × 40 × 2.9 187050 502 569.90 8.80 3.5
3.3. Material modelling and boundary conditions
60 × 60 × 2.6 192308 556 689.31 11.53 2.5
66 × 33 × 2.6 177305 520 633.23 8.22 2.1
80 × 40 × 2.6 180412 570 649.19 7.35 2.3 The measured multi-linear stress–strain curves till ultimate stress,
a
Cross-sectional nomenclatures are based on [38].
which includes an elastic linear part up to the proportionality limit and
a non-linear plastic region, have been incorporated in the FE models.
Table 4
The recorded Young’s modulus reported by authors [38] and Poisson’s
Comparison of ultimate load (𝑃𝐹 𝐸 ) and corresponding displacements (𝛿𝐹 𝐸−𝑢 ) generated ratio (𝜇) of 0.3 have been considered in modelling the elastic part.
FE against the test results [10]. Additionally, the recorded engineering stress–strain (𝜎𝑛𝑜𝑚 -𝜀𝑛𝑜𝑚 ) curve
Cross-sectionsa 𝑃𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 (kN) 𝛿𝑢 (mm) 𝑃𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 /𝑃𝐹 𝐸 𝛿𝑢 /𝛿𝐹 𝐸−𝑢 from [38], has been converted to true stress (𝜎𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 ) and logarithmic
50 × 50 × 2.9d/w0.5–1 207.99 1.416 1.00 1.13 plastic strain (𝜀𝑝𝑙
ln
) using the following Eqs. (1)–(2), and then employed
50 × 50 × 2.9d/w0.7–1 187.16 1.086 1.00 1.22 in the FE models to capture the in-elastic behaviour of perforated stub
50 × 50 × 2.9d/w0.9–1 159.44 1.005 0.99 1.08 columns.
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.1–1 295.65 1.302 1.01 1.05
( )
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.3–1 271.65 1.126 1.00 0.94 𝜎𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 = 𝜎𝑛𝑜𝑚 1 + 𝜀𝑛𝑜𝑚 (1)
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.3–2 274.38 1.130 1.01 0.95
𝑝𝑙 ( ) 𝜎𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.5–1 254.21 1.161 1.05 1.11 𝜀ln = ln 1 + 𝜀𝑛𝑜𝑚 − (2)
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.5–2 253.30 † 1.04 – 𝐸
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.7–1 216.72 0.853 1.02 1.10 where E is the recorded Young’s modulus. Tables 2 and 3 present the
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.7–2 214.89 0.810 1.01 1.05 measured key material parameters [38], where the symbols 𝑓0.2 , 𝑓𝑢 ,
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.9–1 181.20 0.709 1.00 0.86
𝜀𝑓 and n represent the measured 0.2% proof stress, ultimate stress,
60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.9–2 183.95 0.725 1.00 0.89
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.1–1 256.56 1.303 1.02 1.00 elongation at fracture and strain hardening parameter, respectively.
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.3–1 229.63 1.220 1.00 0.70 It may be worth mentioning that, strength enhancement due to cold-
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.5–1 205.75 1.499 1.02 0.97 forming generally observed in the corner regions was reported to
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.7–1 174.43 1.147 1.01 1.09
confine within the vicinity of the corner region [13,38]. Hence the
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.7–2 176.03 1.055 1.02 1.00
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.9–1 143.09 0.878 0.99 1.05 strength enhancement effect of the corner region has not been extended
60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.9–2 145.39 0.765 1.01 0.92 to the flat region. Thus, the material properties listed in Tables 2
66 × 33 × 2.6d/w0.7–1 151.82 1.394 1.00 1.18 and 3 have been respectively employed to the flat and corner regions
66 × 33 × 2.6d/w0.9–1 119.72 1.048 1.00 1.05 of the cross-section. The perforated stub columns [10] were reported
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.1–1 323.49 0.745 0.99 0.79
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.1–2 322.79 † 0.98 –
to compress between fixed ends. Hence, the laboratory fixed-ended
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.3–1 290.18 0.691 1.00 0.75 boundary conditions have been simulated using two reference points:
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.3–2 291.06 † 1.00 – RP-1 and RP-2, and the ends of the perforated stub columns have
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.5–1 256.83 0.955 1.02 0.76 been coupled with the reference points. The degrees of freedom of the
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.5–2 256.33 1.090 1.01 0.87
two reference points have been restrained in all directions, except for
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.7–1 211.93 1.154 1.02 1.00
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.7–2 211.24 † 1.01 – the displacement at the loaded end along the direction of the mem-
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.9–1 159.88 0.822 1.00 0.83 ber length. Besides, the compression test programme was conducted
80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.9–2 160.56 † 1.00 – using both displacement and load control methods; the load control
Mean 1.01 0.97 method has been employed in the numerical study. A concentrated
COV 0.01 0.14 load has been applied incrementally through RP-2 using the modified
† – Displacements corresponding to ultimate load are not shown due to suspected RIKS (static) procedure available in the ABAQUS library [39]. Typi-
technical error. cal loading and boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 6. Geometric
a
Cross-sectional nomenclatures are based on [10].
nonlinearity has been included in the FE model using the NLGEOM
command [39]. The static RIKS method used in the present study
sufficiently provide accurate results for non-linear static analysis in the
rated stub column compression tests presented in the previous section. previous works [43–45].
The measured dimensions, mechanical properties, initial local geo-
metric imperfection, full load vs end-shortening performance curves, 3.4. Local geometric imperfection
deformed shapes etc., of the test specimens [10,13] have been utilized
to validate the current FE modelling parameters. Upon validation, the
The local geometric imperfection of the columns having two circular
modelling parameters are then employed to generate column capacities
perforations was measured using a non-contact three-dimensional laser
for a wide range of cross-sections and columns having various perfora-
scanner. The measured values had been then used to calibrate the
tion sizes, which were not conducted in the experimental programme
predictive model [10] originally proposed by Dawson and Walker [37],
due to limited instrumentation capabilities and test samples. The key
as presented in Eq. (3):
FE modelling parameters, recommended by previous researchers for ( )
analysing thin-walled structural components [38,40,41], are discussed 𝑓0.2
𝜔0 = 0.0303 𝑡, (3)
in detail in the following sections. 𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙
where, 𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 is the critical elastic buckling stress. The 𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 is estimated
3.2. Geometry and types of finite element as the minimum of buckling stress of perforated and unperforated plate
elements of the cross-section, as presented in Eqs. (4)–(6) below:
The FE models are generated using the geometric dimensions of the ( )
𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 = min 𝑓𝑐𝑟 , 𝑓𝑐𝑟-𝑝 (4)
perforated stub columns as presented in Table 1 [10]. In the table, the
symbols L, 𝑟𝑖 , w and d represent the overall length, inner corner radius, in which,
( )2
flat element width and diameter of perforation of the perforated stub 𝜋2𝐸 𝑡
𝑓𝑐𝑟 = 𝑘 ( ) (5)
columns respectively and graphically shown in Fig. 2. Further, because 12 1 − 𝜇 2 𝑤

5
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh
Fig. 6. Typical loading and boundary conditions of a perforated stub column.
Fig. 7. Typical illustration of an equivalent unstiffened element width.
( )2
𝜋2𝐸 𝑡 mate global mesh size [39] of the models has been varied from 1/10 to
𝑓𝑐𝑟-𝑝 = 𝑘ℎ ( )
12 1 − 𝜇 2 𝑤ℎ
where, 𝑓𝑐𝑟 and 𝑓𝑐𝑟-𝑝 are the critical elastic buckling stress for unper-
forated and perforated plate elements respectively; and k and 𝑘ℎ are
the coefficient of buckling for unperforated and perforated plate ele-
ments respectively, presented in [46]. The equivalent unstiffened plate
element width, 𝑤ℎ of an element having central circular perforation
is estimated as (𝑤∕2 − 𝜋𝑑∕8), as illustrated in Fig. 7. The imperfection
amplitude predicted using Eq. (3) has been employed to generate the
imperfect geometry of the perforated stub columns using a buckle
mode shape. The first, (i.e., lowest) local buckling mode shape (see
Fig. 8) has been extracted initially by carrying out Eigenvalue analysis
through the Lanczos Eigensolver available in the ABAQUS library [39].
The extracted buckling mode has been normalized to 1.0 and further
factored with the local geometric imperfection amplitude calculated
using the predictive model (see Eq. (3)) for the particular cross-section.
Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265
Fig. 8. Typical first buckling mode shape generated from Eigenvalue analysis.
Fig. 9. A typical plot of elastic critical buckling stress against the number of elements
generated for mesh convergence study.
3.5. Mesh convergence study
A comprehensive mesh convergence study has been performed to
decide appropriate global mesh size of the FE models [47]. For the
analysis, unperforated stub columns are considered, and the approxi-
(6)
10 times the cross-sectional thickness. The Eigenvalue generated from
the lowest buckling mode shape, as detailed in Section 3.4, has been
utilized to estimate the elastic critical buckling stress [48]. A typical
plot of elastic critical buckling stresses against the number of elements
generated, for a RHS of size 60 × 40 × 2.9 mm having overall column
length of 160 mm is plotted in Fig. 9. It can be observed from the figure
that, as the global mesh size decreases (i.e., with increasing element
number) from approximately two times the cross-sectional thickness,
the critical buckling stress of the FE models are almost constant. The
decrease in mesh size further from this point will increase the computa-
tional time while generating similar buckling stress. Hence, a mesh size
of approximately two times the cross-sectional thickness maintaining an
aspect ratio (i.e., length by width ratio) of ∼1.0 has been considered
in the present study. In addition, a finer mesh of approximately six
elements and a mesh size of unit times the thickness of cross-section
has been assigned in the corner and perforation regions respectively,
to accurately capture the curve geometry, following similar modelling
procedure in [40].
6
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh
Fig. 10. Comparison of post-ultimate deformed shapes — FE model and tested specimen for 60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.9–1.
Fig. 11. Comparison of post-ultimate deformed shapes — FE model and tested specimen for 60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.9–2.
3.6. Validation of finite element procedure
A total of 31 perforated cold-formed steel hollow stub column tests
reported by Singh and Singh [10] have been considered to assess
the accuracy of the current FE modelling parameters presented in the
previous sections, and thus verify the suitability for performing the
parametric study. The results of the FE models were compared with
the test results [10], particularly the ultimate column capacities and
their corresponding displacements, full load–deformation response, and
deformed mode shapes. In the present study, the naming of perforated
stub columns follows a similar approach as those reported in [10],
e.g., 60 × 60 × 2.6d/w0.7–2 means an SHS of size 60 × 60 × 2.6 having
two opposite central circular perforations of diameter to flat width
7
Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265
ratio d/w of 0.7, and 2 for the repeated specimen. The comparison
of ultimate load and displacements corresponding to ultimate load
generated from the tests and FE models (using the local imperfection
amplitude from Eq. (3) are presented in Table 4. The mean value
of ratio of experimental to numerical column capacities (𝑃𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 ∕𝑃𝐹 𝐸 )
and end-shortening at ultimate load (𝛿𝑢 /𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 ) are 1.01 and 0.97
respectively, with the corresponding coefficient of variation (COV) of
0.01 and 0.14. From Table 4, it can be observed that the ultimate
loads of perforated stub columns are generally well-predicted with the
current FE modelling parameters, although there is a slight deviation
in capturing the displacements corresponding to the ultimate load.
Also, the compressive responses from the FE models are accurately
predicted throughout the complete load–deformation curves, particu-
larly the initial elastic regions, peak load, the end-shortening value
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Fig. 12. Comparison of post-ultimate deformed shapes — FE model and tested specimen for 80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.1–1.

Fig. 13. Typical deformed shapes along with Mises stress contour (N/mm 2 ) for slender cross-section (considering 100 × 100 × 2.0) at: (a) 𝛿 = 𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 and (b) 𝛿 = 2.5𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 ; and
non-slender cross-section (considering 60 × 60 × 2.6) at: (c) 𝛿 = 𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 and (d) 𝛿 = 2.5𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 . (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

8
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh
Fig. 14. Effect of perforation size ratio on the performance of stub columns.
corresponding to peak load and post-ultimate response. The comparison
of the experimental and numerical complete load versus end-shortening
curves using imperfection amplitude predicted by the modified Dawson
and Walker for 60 × 60 × 2.6, 66 × 33 × 2.6 and 80 × 40 × 2.6
respectively are depicted in Figs. 3–5. In addition, the experimental
and FE deformed mode shapes are compared in Figs. 10–12, for 60 ×
60 × 2.6d/w0.9–1, 60 × 40 × 2.9d/w0.9–2 and 80 × 40 × 2.6d/w0.1–
1 respectively. Based on the above comparisons, it can be concluded
that overall excellent agreement between the perforated stub column
test results and those generated from FE models has been achieved,
and hence the current modelling parameters has been considered for
parametric study.
4. Parametric study
Upon validation of the FE model, the modelling protocol has been
further utilized for parametric study. It may be mentioned here that
an attempt has been made to utilize the average experimental material
properties through an existing two-stage stress–strain material model
such as the modified Ramberg–Osgood model for cold-formed steels
developed by Gardner and Yun [49]. However, it has been found that
the material model is only able to represent well the flat material stress–
strain curve as compared to corner stress–strain curve. Therefore, the
material properties adopted in the FE models for parametric study are
based on the experimentally recorded stress–strain curves (both flat
and corner elements) of 60 × 60 × 2.6, as the average yield stress and
ultimate strength of the experimental results are approximately close
to those of 60 × 60 × 2.6 cross-section. The cross-sections considered
for the parametric studies have outer widths ranging from 60 mm
to 300 mm, while the outer depths ranges from 40 mm to 200 mm,
thereby resulting in aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. The FE stub
column length has been set approximately four times the mean of
the outer cross-sectional dimensions [40]. The thickness of the stub
columns has been varied from 1.0 to 45.0 mm to cover a wide range
of cross-sectional slenderness (i.e. w/t ranges from ∼2.7 to 146.0).
In addition, FE models have been developed for stub columns for
perforation size ratios, d/𝑤 = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, which have not been
included in the experimental programme; and analysed to determine
the effect of perforation size on the ultimate capacity of stub columns.
A total of 233 column capacities have been generated through the
validated numerical models.
5. Analysis of results and discussions
In this section, the results from parametric study, particularly the
deformed shapes and the effect of diameter of perforation on the critical
buckling load of perforated stub column, has been discussed.
9
Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265
5.1. Deformed shapes
Fig. 13(a) – (d) show typical deformed shapes of perforated
stub columns, along with superimposed Von-Mises stress at ultimate
(𝛿 = 𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 ) and post-ultimate column capacity (𝛿 = 2.5𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 ). For
the purpose of understating the deformed pattern, two different cross-
sections: (a) a slender cross-section (w/t𝜀 = ∼63 > 42, where 𝜀 =
√ ( )
(235 × 𝐸) ∕ 210000 × 𝑓𝑦 detailed in Eurocode 3 [34]) of size 100 ×
100 × 2.0, and (b) a non-slender cross-section (w/t𝜀 = ∼26 < 42)
of size 100 × 100 × 2.0 having similar perforation size of d/w =
0.6, have been considered. Regions with stress value ≥ yield stress
(i.e., 431 N/mm2 ) are grey-coloured. It can be seen from Fig. 13(a)
and (c), at ultimate load (𝛿 = 𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 ), the Mises stress distribution of
the non-slender section (Fig. 13(a)) has comparatively higher stress
than the slender cross-section (Fig. 13(c)) indicating the former is more
effective in carrying load than the later. Moreover, as the local buckling
initiated, the regions near the perforation of both slender and non-
slender cross-sections are yielded as the effective cross-sectional area
is reduced due to the introduction of perforations. Further, the grey-
coloured regions are found to be expanded as more deformation (𝛿
= 2.5𝛿𝐹 𝐸-𝑢 ) is induced on the column, as depicted in Fig. 13(b) and
(d) for slender and non-slender cross-sections respectively. Overall, as
anticipated, the non-slender cross-section has shown to have higher
stress distribution than the slender cross-section, both at ultimate and
post-ultimate loads.
5.2. Effect of perforation size
In this section, the effect of perforation size on the local buckling
performance of perforated columns has been discussed, considering a
wide range of cross-section slenderness and perforation size ratios. For
the analysis, four different cross-sections, namely 50 × 50 × 2.9, 60 ×
60 × 2.6, 100 × 100 × 2.0 and 300 × 200 × 2.0 having corresponding
cross-sectional slenderness value (w/t𝜀) of ∼17.46, 26.21, 63.19 and
200.57 respectively, have been considered. In addition, the perfor-
mance of perforated stub columns having four different d/w of 0.2,
0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, which are not considered in the test programme, has
also been investigated. Typical plots of normalized column capacities
(𝑃𝑢-𝑝 ∕𝑃0.0 , where 𝑃0.0 is the ultimate capacity of unperforated stub
column) against the perforation size ratio, d/w are shown in Fig. 14.
It can be seen from the figure that, for the non-slender cross-sections
- 50 × 50 × 2.9 and 60 × 60 × 2.6, the reduction trends are found to
be similar. This may be because, the flat regions of both sections are
fully effective, and hence the introduction of perforations will result
in a similar effect in reducing their ultimate capacities. However, the
behaviour is different for slender cross-sections, namely 100 × 100 ×
2.0 and 300 × 200 × 2.0. It can be observed from Fig. 14, the ultimate
capacity of 100 × 100 × 2.0 is retained up to ∼95% with d/w = 0.4,
while 300 × 200 × 2.0 retains its strength up to ∼95% with d/w = 0.7.
This may be related to the larger non-effective width available in 300 ×
200 × 2.0; however, as the perforation size reaches the effective width,
the ultimate capacity of the slender columns starts reducing.
6. Design rules for perforated compression members
In this section, the applicability of available design rules for per-
forated compression members, such as those presented in AISI S100-
16 [4] as well as proposed design formulae recommended by various
researchers [1,2,8,9,50], has been assessed using available test data,
together with the column capacities generated from the present vali-
dated FE models. It may be mentioned that the maximum d/w ratio in
the available design rules set out in the AISI standard and [4] and those
proposed equations [1,4,9] are limited up to a maximum of d/w of 0.7,
their applicability beyond the limiting d/w has also been assessed in
this paper.
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Fig. 18. Relationship between K3 and perforation size ratio, d/w.

Fig. 15. Assessment of DSM in AISI [4] and DSM with buckling stress by Moen and
Schafer [7] predictions against the test results.

Fig. 19. Relationship between 𝐾4 and perforation size ratio, d/w.

Fig. 16. Assessment of DSM in AISI [4] and DSM with buckling stress by Moen and
Schafer [7] predictions against the test and FE capacities.

Fig. 20. Assessment of unperforated design curve against the ultimate capacities of
cold-formed steel stub columns having perforations with size ratio, d/w up to 0.2.

6.1. Design equations by Shanmugam, Thevendran and Tan

Shanmugam et al. [9] performed a numerical study on the post-

Fig. 17. Relationship between 𝐾1 and 𝐾2 against perforation size ratio, d/w.
buckling and ultimate strength of plates having a centrally located
square or circular perforation. The study covered a wide range of
parameters, such as plate slenderness (20 < w/t < 70), perfora-
tion shapes and sizes (d/w ≤ 0.7), boundary conditions and loading
conditions (uniaxial and biaxial compression). A design formula was

10
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Fig. 21. Assessment of proposed design curve for perforated cold-formed steel stub Fig. 24. Assessment of proposed design curve for perforated cold-formed steel stub
columns having perforations d/w up to 0.3. columns having perforations d/w up to 0.9.

Fig. 22. Assessment of proposed design curve for perforated cold-formed steel stub
Fig. 25. Comparison of test and numerical perforated column capacities with design
columns having perforations d/w up to 0.5.
predictions for non-slender section (𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.776).

Fig. 23. Assessment of proposed design curve for perforated cold-formed steel stub
columns having perforations d/w up to 0.7.

Fig. 26. Comparison of test and numerical perforated column capacities with design
predictions for slender sections (𝜆𝑙 > 0.776).
established based on an extensive parametric study and a best-fit re-
gression analysis, considering perforation to total surface area ratio and
plate slenderness as input parameters. The developed design formulae 𝑘2 = 3𝑚2 − 1.52𝑚 − 0.8674;
to determine the ultimate load-carrying capacity (𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 ) of axially 𝑘3 = −𝑚2 + 0.49𝑚 + 0.9585.
loaded plates having a central perforation is presented in Eq. (7):
[ ] [ ]1∕2 For 0.4 < 𝑑∕𝑤 < 0.7
𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 𝐴0 𝐴0
= 𝑘1 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 𝑘1 = 0;
𝑃𝑠𝑞 𝐴𝑠 𝐴𝑠
For 0 < 𝑑∕𝑤 < 0.4 𝑘2 = −0.96;
2
𝑘1 = −4𝑚 + 1.58𝑚 − 0.1286; (7) 𝑘3 = 0.973;

11
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

was developed considering plate slenderness w/t and perforation area

ratio 𝐴0 ∕𝐴𝑆 as input parameters. The ultimate load (𝑃𝑆𝐷 ) of perforated
channel columns established by [8] is shown by Eq. (9) as follows:
[ ] [ ]1∕2
𝑃𝑆𝐷 𝐴0 𝐴0
= 𝑘1 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3
𝑃𝑠𝑞 𝐴𝑠 𝐴𝑠

in which,

𝐴0 =Total surface area of perforations

𝐴𝑠 =Total surface area of the stub column

(9)
𝑘1 = 1.185𝑚3 − 3.8487𝑚2 + 3.7321𝑚 − 1.2336;

𝑘2 = 0.1111𝑚2 + 0.0932𝑚 − 0.7763;

𝑘3 = 0.11𝑚2 − 0.5681𝑚 + 1.1412;

𝑚 = (𝑤∕𝑡) ∕100;
where 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 and 𝑘3 are different sets of coefficients and 𝑃𝑠𝑞 is the
squash load.

Fig. 27. Assessment of DSM in AISI [4] prediction using critical elastic buckling stress
by Moen and Schafer [7] and proposed modified DSM prediction. 6.4. Design equations in AISI standard

American Iron and Steel Institute, AISI S100-16 [4] provides de-
in which, sign equations to determine the ultimate load capacity of perforated
𝐴0 =Total surface area of perforations; members under axial compression. According to clause E of AISI Stan-
dard [4], the available axial strength for the member in compression
𝐴𝑠 =Total surface area of the member;
shall be the smallest of the axial capacity of a member for yielding and
𝑚 = (𝑤∕𝑡) ∕100; global buckling (𝑃𝑛𝑒 ) and local buckling interacting with yielding and
where 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 and 𝑘3 are different sets of coefficients and 𝑃𝑠𝑞 is the global buckling (𝑃𝑛𝑙 ). It may be noted that distortional buckling does
squash load. not occur in SHSs and RHSs. Further, the nominal axial strength for
local buckling can be estimated using EWM and DSM as presented in
6.2. Design equations by Dhanalakshmi and Shanmugam clause E3 of the AISI Standard [4].

Experimental and numerical investigations on the performance of 6.4.1. Estimation of global buckling
perforated cold-formed steel equal-angle stub columns under concentric The un-factored nominal axial capacity (𝑃𝑛𝑒 ) for yielding, and global
and eccentric loading were conducted by Dhanalakshmi and Shan-
buckling can be calculated using clause E2 of [4], as provided in
mugam [1]. Key geometric parameters, including plate slenderness
Eq. (10):
ratio (20 ≤ w/t ≤ 60), perforation shape, size (d/w ≤ 0.6) and number,
were considered. Based on the results of an extensive parametric study, ⎧( 𝜆2
)
⎪ 0.658 𝑐 𝑃𝑦 for 𝜆𝑐 < 1.5
simplified design formulae to determine the ultimate capacity (𝑃𝐷𝑆 ) ⎪( )
of perforated equal-angle stub columns was proposed, as provided in 𝑃𝑛𝑒 = ⎨ 0.877 (10)
Eq. (8): ⎪ 𝑃𝑦 for 𝜆𝑐 ≥ 1.5
( ) ( )1∕2 ⎪ 𝜆2𝑐
𝑃𝐷𝑆 𝐴𝑜 𝐴𝑜 ⎩
= 𝑘1 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 ;
𝑃𝑠𝑞 𝐴𝑠 𝐴𝑠 where, 𝑃𝑦 is the nominal yield capacity of the member under compres-
in which, sion and 𝜆𝑐 is the non-dimensional slenderness parameter to determine
𝑃𝑛𝑒 .
𝐴0 = Surface area of perforations

𝐴𝑠 =Total surface area of the member 6.4.2. Estimation of local buckling

(8)
2
𝑘1 = −4.5579𝑚 + 4.4862𝑚 − 1.3724; Perforated structural members under compressive shall be assessed
for a possible reduction in the available column capacity (𝑃𝑛𝑙 ) due
𝑘2 = −0.8107𝑚2 + 1.0577𝑚 − 0.3354; to yielding or global buckling interacting with local buckling. The
𝑘3 = 2.5357𝑚2 − 2.8364𝑚 + 1.0908; reduction can be calculated using either the Effective Width Method
or the Direct Strength Method of Section E3.1 and E3.2, respectively of
𝑚 = (𝑤∕𝑡) ∕100; AISI Standard [4].
where 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 and 𝑘3 are different sets of coefficients and 𝑃𝑠𝑞 is the
6.4.2.1. Effective width method. According to Effective Width Method,
squash load.
the nominal axial capacity for local buckling (𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐸𝑊 𝑀 ) is estimated
using Eq. (11) presented as follows:
6.3. Design equations by Shanmugam and Dhanalakshmi
𝑃𝑛𝑙−𝐸𝑊 𝑀 = 𝐴𝑒 𝐹𝑛 ≤ 𝑃𝑛𝑒 (11)
Shanmugam and Dhanalakshmi [8] conducted a finite element
study on the performance of perforated plain and lipped short channel where, 𝐴𝑒 and 𝐹𝑛 are the effective area and global column stress,
columns. Based on the comprehensive parametric study, which covered respectively. In the present study, the curve regions of the cross-section
perforation shapes and number; plate slenderness ratio, 29.3 ≤ w/t are considered as fully effective, while the effective width of flat regions
≤ 133.7; and perforation size ratio, d/w ≤ 0.6, a simplified design is estimated based on the guidelines provided in Appendix 1 of [4].

12
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

The effective width of a flat element with w/t ≤ 70, having a circular diameter of perforation is lesser than the effective design width, the
perforation, 0 ≤ d/w ≤ 0.5, is calculated based on Eq. (12): effective width of the plate is not affected. However, if the diameter
⎧ of perforation extends into the effective design width, the effective
𝑤−𝑑 when 𝜆 ≤ 0.673
⎪ [ ] width can be calculated by deducting the diameter of perforation from
𝑏 = ⎨𝑤 0.22 (0.8𝑑) (0.085𝑑) (12)
⎪𝜆 1 − − + when 𝜆 > 0.673 the total flat plate element width. The design method proposed by
⎩ 𝜆 𝑤 𝑤𝜆
Miller and Peköz [2] has been adopted in various design standards as
in which, described in the following sections.
√
𝜆 = 𝐹𝑛 ∕𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 ;
( )2
𝜋2𝐸 𝑡 6.5.1. European, American and Australian standards
𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 = 𝑘 ; (13)
12(1 − 𝜇 2 ) 𝑤 European [3], North American [4] and Australian [5] standards
where, k is the plate buckling coefficient. provide expression to estimate the effective design width (𝑏𝐷𝑊 ) for flat
elements as follows:
6.4.2.2. Direct strength method. The AISI S100-16 [4] also provides
a design equation to determine the nominal axial capacity for local ⎧ 𝑤] for 𝜆𝑝 ≤ 0.673;
⎪[
buckling (𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀 ) based on DSM. The formulae is a modified ver- 𝑏𝐷𝑊 = ⎨ 0.22 𝑤 (17)
⎪ 1− 𝜆 ≤𝑤 for 𝜆𝑝 > 0.673;
sion originally proposed by Moen and Schafer [50] for the design of
⎩ 𝑝 𝜆𝑝
perforated cold-formed steel columns, as provided in Eq. (14):
√
⎧ in which, w is the total width of the plate element, and 𝜆𝑝 = 𝑓𝑦 ∕𝑓𝑐𝑟 ,
𝑃𝑛𝑒 ≤ 𝑃𝑦𝑛𝑒𝑡 ] when 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.776;
⎪[( ) ( ) where 𝑓𝑐𝑟 is calculated using Eq. (13). The column capacity predicted
𝑃𝑛𝑙 = ⎨ 𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑙 0.4 𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑙 0.16
⎪ − 0.15 𝑃𝑛𝑒 ≤ 𝑃𝑦𝑛𝑒𝑡 when 𝜆𝑙 > 0.776. using the simplified formulae developed by Miller and Peköz [2],
⎩ 𝑃𝑛𝑒 𝑃𝑛𝑒
considering the effective design width formulae presented in [3–5], is
(14) represented by 𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐸𝐶 .
in which,
√
𝜆𝑙 = 𝑃𝑛𝑒 ∕𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑙 ; 6.5.2. British standard
𝑃𝑦𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐴𝑛𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑦 ; The British standard, [6] provides guidelines to estimate effective
( )
𝐴𝑛𝑒𝑡 =𝐴𝑔 −𝐴𝑝 ; design width, 𝑏𝐷𝑊 as follows:
where,
⎧
⎪ 𝑤 for 𝑓𝑦 ∕𝑓𝑐𝑟 ≤ 0.123;
𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑙 = 𝐴𝑔 𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 , (15) {( }4 −0.2
⎪ ⎡ )1∕2 ⎤
𝐴𝑔 = 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠-𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑏𝐷𝑊 =⎨ 𝑓
𝑤 ⎢1 + 14 𝑦
− 0.35 ⎥ for 𝑓𝑦 ∕𝑓𝑐𝑟 > 0.123;
⎪ ⎢ 𝑓𝑐𝑟 ⎥
𝐴𝑝 = 2 ∗ 𝑑 ∗ 𝑡. ⎪ ⎣ ⎦
⎩
The local buckling stress, 𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑙 for all elements with perforations is (18)
estimated as both for unstiffened elements at the perforation location
and as a separate element where the perforation is not located. For The column capacity generated by simplified formula [2] using the
elements at the perforation location, the buckling stress has been above effective design width equation is represented by 𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐵𝑆 .
calculated by multiplying the ratio of 𝐴𝑛𝑒𝑡 /𝐴𝑔 , to account for the net
cross-sectional area [4].
7. Reliability analysis
6.4.2.3. Elastic buckling stress by Moen and Schafer. Moen and Schafer
[7] developed various closed-form expressions to estimate the critical
elastic buckling stress of perforated stiffened and unstiffened plates Reliability analysis has been performed to assess the design rules for
subjected to bending or compression load. For a thin and uniformly perforated compression members considered in the present study [1,
compressed stiffened perforated plate element, the critical elastic buck- 2,4,8,9,50]. The analysis has been performed following the guidelines
ling stress is considered as the minimum of elastic buckling stress of provided in Section B of commentary in the AISI specification [51]. A
the plate with or without perforation, as presented in Eq. (4). In the target reliability index (𝛽) of 2.5 has been set for the present study,
present study, the value generated from Eq. (4) is further employed in and a design rule is considered reliable and probabilistically safe if the
Eq. (15) to assess the accuracy of the design prediction from DSM. The estimated reliability index is greater than or equal to 2.5. Statistical
un-factored perforated column capacity generated by DSM considering
parameters such as mean (𝑃𝑚 ) and coefficient of variance (𝑉𝑝 ) from the
the critical elastic buckling stress proposed by Moen and Schafer [7] is
comparison of test and design prediction ratios, as presented in Tables 5
represented by 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 .
and 6, has been utilized. In the calculation of 𝛽, a load combination of
1.2DL+1.6LL as prescribed in AISI [51], has been adopted for all design
6.5. Design equation proposed by Miller and Peköz
equations. The DL and LL are the dead load and live load, respectively,
Miller and Peköz [2] proposed a simplified procedure to estimate and the DL/LL was set to 1/5 as specified in AISI [51] for cold-formed
the effective width of carbon steel plates having perforation of any steels. The mean value of material (𝑀𝑚 ) and fabrication factor (𝐹𝑚 ) of
shape. Based on the size of the perforation relative to the ineffective 1.10 and 1.00 and their corresponding coefficient of variance (𝑉𝑀 ) and
portion of the flat plate element, the effective width b can be estimated (𝑉𝐹 ) of 0.10 and 0.05 respectively, has been adopted [51]. Moreover, a
as follows: resistance factor of (𝜙) of 0.85 has been considered for DSM [4] based
{ ( ) on [51], and for the purpose of direct comparison, the same value
𝑏 − 𝑏𝐷𝑊 for 𝑤 − 𝑏𝐷𝑊 ≤ 𝑑
𝑏= ( ) (16) of 𝜙 has been utilized for all design equations suggested by various
𝑤−𝑑 for 𝑤 − 𝑏𝐷𝑊 > 𝑑 researchers [1,2,8,9,50], following [10,52]. Furthermore, a correction
where w is the flat element width of the plate, and 𝑏𝐷𝑊 is the effective factor (𝐶𝑝 ) as specified in AISI [51] has been considered to account for
design width, respectively. The above formulae signify that if the the influence of the number of test and numerical data.

13
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265

Table 5
Summary of comparison of stub column ultimate capacities from test and FE with design prediction for
𝑑∕𝑤 ≤ 0.9.
𝑃𝑢−𝑃
∗
𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 𝑃𝐷𝑆 𝑃𝑆𝐷 𝑃𝑛𝑙−𝐸𝑊 𝑀 𝑃𝑛𝑙−𝐷𝑆𝑀 𝑃𝑛𝑙−𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑀𝑆 𝑃𝑀𝑃 −𝐸𝐶 𝑃𝑀𝑃 −𝐵𝑆 𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑀
Number of data (n) 261 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264
Mean (𝑃𝑚 ) 0.99 1.42 1.02 1.28 1.61 1.22 1.25 1.27 1.02
COV (𝑉𝑝 ) 0.34 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.06
Reliability Index (𝛽) 1.61 2.58 1.98 2.86 3.96 2.44 2.73 2.90 2.87

Table 6 Schafer [7], 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 are found to be lesser than the target reliability
Summary of comparison of stub column ultimate capacities from test and FE with
index and hence not reliable. Additionally, the design predictions by
design prediction for 𝑑∕𝑤 ≤ 0.7.
original DSM in [4], 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀 with those generated from DSM of [4]
𝑃𝑢−𝑃
with critical elastic buckling stress proposed by [7], 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 are
𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 𝑃𝐷𝑆 𝑃𝑆𝐷 𝑃𝑛𝑙−𝐸𝑊 𝑀 compared in Figs. 15 and 16, considering test data only and combined
Perforation size ratio, d/w d/w ≤ 0.7 d/w ≤ 0.6 d/w ≤ 0.6 d/w ≤ 0.5 test and FE capacities, respectively. It can be seen that the 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆
Number of data (n) 196 144 144 121 provide improved mean value of 1.22 as compared to that of 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀
Mean (𝑃𝑚 ) 1.03 1.49 1.04 1.28 for which the mean value is 1.61, although 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 generate a slight
COV (𝑉𝑝 ) 0.32 0.34 0.26 0.21
increase in COV (see Table 5). This may be related to the fact that the
Reliability Index (𝛽) 1.77 2.58 1.98 2.91
plate buckling coefficient in DSM presented in the AISI standard [4]
assumes a conservative lower bound value of 0.43 in calculating of
Table 7 critical buckling stress for unstiffened plate elements irrespective of
Coefficient for design of perforated cold-formed steel tubular sections with circular
perforation size. On the other hand, the critical buckling formulae
perforation.
recommended by Moen and Schafer [7] considered a modified value of
Perforation size ratio, (d/w) Coefficients
plate buckling coefficient, which depends on the perforation size ratio
𝐾1 𝐾2 𝐾3 𝐾4
of the perforated plate element [46]. Based on the analysis results, a
0.2 < d/w ≤ 0.3 0.8506 0.2587 0.8116 −0.0629 modified version of the original DSM in [4] considering the critical
0.3 < d/w ≤ 0.5 0.7643 0.2780 0.8614 −0.1566
buckling stress recommended by [7] is proposed based on the test and
0.5 < d/w ≤ 0.7 0.6386 0.3194 0.8504 −0.2330
0.7 < d/w ≤ 0.9 0.4459 0.4542 0.7091 −0.2456 FE column capacities, and the details are discussed in Section 8.3.

8.2. For perforation size ratio: 0.1 ≤ d/w ≤ 0.7

8. Comparison of experimental and numerical column capacities
with design predictions
In this section, the applicability of the currently available design
rules for the design of stub columns having two opposite central circu-
lar perforations at column mid-height has been assessed. Based on the
analysis, suitable design equations are recommended and a modified
design formula based on the DSM presented in AISI S100 has been
proposed using the test and FE column capacities.
8.1. For perforation size ratio: 0.1 ≤ d/w ≤ 0.9
The applicability of the presently available design equations for
perforated steel compression members is further assessed using the
available test and generated FE column capacities, (collectively rep-
resented by 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ) for perforation size ratio d/w ≤ 0.9 (see Table 5).
It is to be noted that the design predictions by Shanmugam et al.
(𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 ) [9] for perforation size ratio, d/w ≤ 0.3 and w/t ≥ 129.5
provide negative ultimate column capacities; and therefore, they are
excluded in the comparison. The mean values of the ratios of test and FE
column capacities against the design predictions, 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 , 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝐷𝑆 ,
𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑆𝐷 , 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐸𝑊 𝑀 , 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀 , 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 , 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐸𝐶
and 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐵𝑆 , are found to be 0.99, 1.42, 1.02, 1.28, 1.61, 1.22,
1.25 and 1.27 with their corresponding coefficient of variances (COVs)
of 0.34, 0.32, 0.26, 0.22, 0.17, 0.27, 0.23 and 0.21, respectively. It can
be observed from the comparison that most of the design equations pro-
vide either overly conservative and scattered predictions, except the de-
sign equation by Shanmugam et al. (𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 ) [9] for which the prediction
is non-conservative. The estimated reliability index for the proposed
design equations by Dhanalakshmi and Shanmugam (𝑃𝐷𝑆 ) [1], Miller
and Peköz (𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐸𝐶 and 𝑃𝑀𝑃 -𝐵𝑆 ) [2] and DSM (𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀 ) and EWM
(𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐸𝑊 𝑀 ) in AISI standard [4] are found to be greater than the target
reliability index. However, the design equations proposed by Shan-
mugam et al. (𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 ) [9], Dhanalakshmi and Shanmugam (𝑃𝐷𝑆 ) [1] and
those set out by DSM in [4] using critical buckling stress by Moen and
As mentioned in Section 6, the currently available design equations
for perforated compression member are limited to a maximum perfora-
tion size ratio, d/w of 0.7. Their applicability on the present test and
FE column capacities considering perforation size ratio up to 0.7, has
also been assessed in this section. Table 6 presents the comparison of
design predictions by Shanmugam et al. (𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 ) [9]; Dhanalakshmi and
Shanmugam (𝑃𝐷𝑆 ) [1]; Shanmugam and Dhanalakshmi (𝑃𝑆𝐷 ) [8] and
EWM in AISI S100-16 (𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐸𝑊 𝑀 ) [4] against the combined perforated
column capacities, 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 (both from FE and test capacities). It can be
seen that all four design predictions provide conservative predictions
but high COVs. The design prediction provided by Dhanalakshmi and
Shanmugam (𝑃𝐷𝑆 ) [1] and EWM in (𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐸𝑊 𝑀 ) [4] are able to achieve
the target reliability index of 2.5, while the predictions provided by
Shanmugam et al. (𝑃𝑆𝑇 𝑇 ) [9] and Shanmugam and Dhanalakshmi
(𝑃𝑆𝐷 ) [8] failed to provide reliable column capacities.
8.3. Proposed design equation
As seen in Section 8.1 and 8.2 above, the presently available design
equations for perforated compression members are not applicable for
perforation size ratio, d/w ≤ 0.9. Therefore, in this section, an attempt
has been made to develop an accurate and effective design equation
for design of stub columns having two opposite circular perforations
(of equal diameter) at column mid-height covering d/w up to 0.9. The
proposed design equation, presented in Eq. (19), is based on the current
DSM method detailed in AISI Standard [4] considering the critical
elastic buckling stress recommended by Moen and Schafer [7].
[ ]
⎧ 𝐾1
⎪ 𝑃𝑛𝑒 𝐾
for 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.776;
⎪ [ 𝜆𝑙 2 ]
∗
𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑀 = ⎨ (19)
𝐾3 𝐾
⎪𝑃𝑛𝑒 + 4 for 𝜆𝑙 > 0.776;
⎪ 0.8
𝜆𝑙 1.6
𝜆𝑙
⎩
where 𝐾1 , 𝐾2, 𝐾3 and 𝐾4 are the sets of coefficients of the proposed
DSM design equations developed based on the different d/w. It may be

14
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh
mentioned that the proposed design equations and modification to the
existing design equation are based on the ultimate column capacities
generated from the test and current FE analyses; and a new set of
coefficients are generated considering best-fit regression analysis. It
may also be noted that to account for the effect of strain hardening
in low slenderness range, the classical horizontal yield limit has been
replaced by a non-linear curve. For different perforation size ratios,
the values of coefficients presented in Table 7 can be used to generate
the design predictive capacity of perforated stub columns having the
same d/w values. The relationships between the coefficients against the
perforation size ratio d/w are shown in Figs. 17–19. The comparison of
the test and FE column capacities and recommended design prediction
curves for different perforation size ratios d/w are also shown in
Figs. 20–24. It may be worth mentioning that the reduction in column
capacity for d/w < 0.2 was observed to be negligible, and hence the
modified DSM equation of the unperforated stub column proposed by
Singh and Singh [38] has been recommended as shown in Fig. 20.
The test and FE generated column capacities for both non-slender
and slender cross-sections are also compared with proposed design
predictions as shown in Figs. 25–26, respectively. Additionally, Fig. 27
presented the comparison of DSM [4] prediction using critical elastic
buckling stress suggested by Moen and Schafer (2009), 𝑃𝑛𝑙-𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑀𝑆 and
proposed modified DSM, (𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑀 ∗ ) prediction against the test and FE
results. The comparison results of experimental and numerical column
∗
strengths (𝑃𝑢-𝑝 ) over design strength (𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑀 ) are shown in Table 5. It
can be seen that the modified proposed design equations provide more
accurate and less scattered predictions for stub columns having circular
perforations opposite to each other located at column mid-height. The
∗ with circular perforations subjected to torsion, J. Constr. Steel Res. 162 (2019)
mean value and COV of 𝑃𝑢-𝑃 ∕𝑃𝐷𝑆𝑀 are 1.02 and 0.06 respectively,
and the calculated reliability index value is 2.87 (> 2.5). Hence, the
proposed revised DSM equation is considered to be reliable.
The present work investigates the performance of short compression
members essentially failed by local buckling and material yielding.
However, a typical perforated column may also fail by global buckling,
which is not covered in the present study. The work is underway at the
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, IIT Jodhpur, India.
9. Conclusions
An investigation on the design of perforated cold-formed steel stub
column using the direct strength method has been presented in this pa-
per. Finite element models have initially been developed and validated
against the available test results reported by Singh and Singh [10].
Good agreement between the test and finite element results have been
observed. Upon validation, a parametric study considering a wide
range of cross-sectional slenderness and perforation size has been per-
formed, generating a total of 264 perforated stub column capacities.
Further, the applicability of currently available design equations in
AISI Standard [4] and proposed formulae in the literature [1,2,8,9,50]
for perforated compression members have been assessed using the
available test, and FE generated column capacities.
It has been observed that most of the presently available design
equations provide conservative and reliable but scattered predictions
for the design of cold-formed steel SHS/RHS stub columns with cen-
tral circular perforation size ratio, d/w up to 0.9. The DSM design
equation set out in AISI Standard [4] provide overly conservative
predictions of about 60%. Hence, a modified direct strength method
has been proposed in this paper to facilitate the design of perforated
stub columns having two opposite central circular perforations with the
diameter of perforation ranges from 0.3 to 0.9 of the flat element width.
The proposed DSM design equation is shown to provide accurate and
reliable predictions for both slender and non-slender sections.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tekcham Gishan Singh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Validation, Investigation, Codal comparisons, Design Proposal,
Writing – original draft. Konjengbam Darunkumar Singh: Conceptu-
alization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
15
Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M. Dhanalakshmi, N.E. Shanmugam, Design for openings in equal-angle
cold-formed steel stub columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 39 (2001) 167–187.
[2] T.H. Miller, T. Peköz, Unstiffened strip approach for perforated wall studs, J.
Struct. Eng. 120 (1994) 410–421.
[3] EC3-1-5, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures–Part 1-5: Plated Structural
Elements, Eur. Comm. Stand. (CEN), Brussels, 2006.
[4] AISI S100-16, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members, Am. Iron Steel Inst. (AISI), Washington, DC, 2016.
[5] AS/NZS 4600, Cold-formed steel structures, Australian/New Zealand Standards,
New Zealand, 2005.
[6] BS 5950-5, Structural use of steelwork in building - Part 5: Code of practice for
design of cold formed thin gauge sections, Br. Stand. Inst., 1998.
[7] Moen B.W. Schafer, Elastic buckling of thin plates with holes in compression or
bending, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 1597–1607.
[8] N.E. Shanmugam, M. Dhanalakshmi, Design for openings in cold-formed steel
channel stub columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 39 (2001) 961–981.
[9] N.E. Shanmugam, V. Thevendran, Y.H. Tan, Design formula for axially
compressed perforated plates, Thin-Walled Struct. 34 (1999) 1–20.
[10] T.G. Singh, K.D. Singh, Experimental investigation on performance of perforated
cold-formed steel tubular stub columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 131 (2018) 107–121.
[11] L. Gardner, N. Saari, F. Wang, Comparative experimental study of hot-rolled and
cold-formed rectangular hollow sections, Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (2010) 495–507.
[12] S.V. Devi, T.G. Singh, K.D. Singh, Cold-formed steel square hollow members
105730.
[13] T.G. Singh, Structural performance of YSt-310 cold-formed steel tubular columns,
Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (India), 2019.
[14] Z. Yao, K.J.R. Rasmussen, Inelastic local buckling behaviour of perforated plates
and sections under compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 61 (2012) 49–70.
[15] X.-H.-C. He, T.-M. Chan, K.-F. Chung, Effect of inter-module connections on
progressive collapse behaviour of MiC structures, J. Constr. Steel Res. 185 (2021)
106823.
[16] M. Liu, X. Zhu, P. Wang, W. Tuoya, S. Hu, Tension strength and design method
for thread-fixed one-side bolted T-stub, Eng. Struct. 150 (2017) 918–933.
[17] A.L. Schlack, Elastic stability of pierced square plates, Exp. Mech. 4 (1964)
167–172.
[18] D. Ritchie, J. Rhodes, Buckling and post-buckling behaviour of plates with holes,
Aeronaut. Q. 26 (1975) 281–296.
[19] R. Feng, B. Young, Experimental investigation of aluminum alloy stub columns
with circular openings, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (2015) 4015031.
[20] R. Feng, W. Zhu, H. Wan, A. Chen, Y. Chen, Tests of perforated aluminium
alloy SHSs and RHSs under axial compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 130 (2018)
194–212.
[21] R. Feng, X. Mou, Z. Chen, K. Roy, B. Chen, J.B.P. Lim, Finite-element modelling
and design guidelines for axial compressive capacity of aluminium alloy circular
hollow sections with holes, Thin-Walled Struct. 157 (2020) 107027.
[22] B. Chen, K. Roy, A. Uzzaman, G.M. Raftery, D. Nash, G.C. Clifton, P. Pouladi,
J.B.P. Lim, Effects of edge-stiffened web openings on the behaviour of cold-
formed steel channel sections under compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 144 (2019)
106307.
[23] P.-L. Larsson, On buckling of orthotropic compressed plates with circular holes,
Compos. Struct. 7 (1987) 103–121.
[24] B. Cheng, J. Wang, C. Li, Compression behavior of perforated plates in steel
tower anchorage zones of cable-stayed bridges, J. Constr. Steel Res. 90 (2013)
72–84.
[25] S. Saad-Eldeen, Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, Experimental strength assessment
of thin steel plates with a central elongated circular opening, J. Constr. Steel Res.
118 (2016) 135–144.
[26] N.S. Marshall, G.N. Nurick, The effect of induced imperfections on the formation
of the first lobe of symmetric progressive buckling of thin-walled square tubes,
WIT Trans. Built Environ. 35 (1970) 0–14.
[27] Y. Pu, M.H.R. Godley, R.G. Beale, H.H. Lau, Prediction of ultimate capacity of
perforated lipped channels, J. Struct. Eng. 125 (1999) 510–514.
[28] C.D. Moen, B.W. Schafer, Experiments on cold-formed steel columns with holes,
Thin-Walled Struct. 46 (2008) 1164–1182.
[29] AISI S100-07, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members, Am. Iron Steel Inst. (AISI), Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
[30] AISI S100-12, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members, 2012.
[31] R. Feng, J. Liu, Numerical investigation and design of perforated aluminium alloy
SHS and RHS columns, Eng. Struct. 199 (2019) 109591.
T.G. Singh and K.D. Singh
[32] T.G. Singh, T.M. Chan, Effect of access openings on the buckling performance
of square hollow section module stub columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 177 (2021)
106438.
[33] T.G. Singh, K.D. Singh, Design of perforated cold-formed steel tubular stub
columns – DSM approach, in: 17th Int. Symp. Tubul. Struct, Research Publishing
Services, Singapore, 2019, pp. 456–463.
[34] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures–Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, Eur. Stand. Eur. Comm. Stand. (CEN), Brussels, 2005.
[35] Tata Steel, Tata Steel Production Manual for YSt 310 Rectangular, Square and
Circular Steel Hollow Section, Tata Steel Limited, Kolkata, 2013.
[36] IS 4923, Hollow Steel Sections for Structural Use – Specification, Indian Stand.
Bur. Indian Stand., New Delhi, 1997.
[37] R.G. Dawson, A.C. Walker, Post-buckling of geometrically imperfect plates, J.
Struct. Div. 98 (1972) 75–94.
[38] T.G. Singh, K.D. Singh, Structural performance of YSt–310 cold–formed tubular
steel stub columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 121 (2017) 25–40.
[39] Abaqus, Abaqus/Standard User’s Manual Volumes I-III and ABAQUS CAE Manual,
Version 6.9, 2010.
[40] M. Theofanous, L. Gardner, Testing and numerical modelling of lean duplex
stainless steel hollow section columns, Eng. Struct. 31 (2009) 3047–3058.
[41] H. Fang, T.-M. Chan, B. Young, Behavior of octagonal high-strength steel tubular
stub columns, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (2019) 4019150.
[42] T.M. Chan, L. Gardner, Compressive resistance of hot-rolled elliptical hollow
sections, Eng. Struct. 30 (2008) 522–532.
16
Thin-Walled Structures 168 (2021) 108265
[43] M. Theofanous, L. Gardner, Experimental and numerical studies of lean duplex
stainless steel beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2010) 816–825.
[44] K. Sachidananda, K.D. Singh, Numerical study of fixed ended lean duplex
stainless steel (LDSS) flat oval hollow stub column under pure axial compression,
Thin-Walled Struct. 96 (2015) 105–119.
[45] Y. Huang, B. Young, Design of cold-formed stainless steel circular hollow section
columns using direct strength method, Eng. Struct. 163 (2018) 177–183.
[46] C. Yu, B.W. Schafer, Effect of longitudinal stress gradient on the ultimate strength
of thin plates, Thin-Walled Struct. 44 (2006) 787–799.
[47] R. Rahnavard, H.D. Craveiro, L. Laím, R.A. Simões, R. Napolitano, Numerical
investigation on the composite action of cold-formed steel built-up battened
columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 162 (2021) 107553.
[48] M.L. Patton, K.D. Singh, Numerical modeling of lean duplex stainless steel
hollow columns of square, L-, T-, and+-shaped cross sections under pure axial
compression, Thin-Walled Struct. 53 (2012) 1–8.
[49] L. Gardner, X. Yun, Description of stress–strain curves for cold-formed steels,
Constr. Build. Mater. 189 (2018) 527–538.
[50] C.D. Moen, B.W. Schafer, Direct strength method for design of cold-formed steel
columns with holes, J. Struct. Eng. 137 (2011) 559–570.
[51] AISI S100-16C, Commentary on North American Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, Am. Iron Steel Inst. (AISI), Washington,
DC, 2016.
[52] Y. Huang, B. Young, Structural performance of cold-formed lean duplex stainless
steel columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 83 (2014) 59–69.