Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430

11th International Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Implast 2016

Effect of Spacers on Ultimate Strength and Behavior of

Cold-Formed Steel Built-up Columns
S. Vijayanand(a)* and M. Anbarasu(b)
a*
Department of Civil Engineering, Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai 638 052, Tamilnadu, India.
Email:atmvijay.anand@gmail.com ph.no:9842710959.
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, salem-636011, Tamilnadu, India.
Email:gceanbu@gmail.com ph.no:9942509440.

Abstract

This work presents the results of a numerical and theoretical study on the cold-formed steel built-up sections under axial
compression, to explore the buckling Behavior and ultimate capacity of built-up sections. The built-up sections have been formed
by two identical lipped channels placed back to back connect by using spacers. The Finite element model is developed by using
the ABAQUS software. The developed numerical model is verified against the experimental results published in the literature.
After validation, the parametric study is conducted by varying the overall slenderness, depth, and number of spacers. The column
strength obtained from numerical analysis are compared with the strength predicted by using the Direct Strength Method (DSM)
and Effective Width Method (EWM) as per North American Specifications (AISI-S100:2007) for cold-formed steel members.
2017
2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
Keywords: Cold-formed steel; Direct Strength Method; Effective Width Method; lipped channel; slenderness ratio.

1. Introduction

The hot roll rolled steel sections subjected to light, and moderate loads become uneconomical and for the shorter
length of structural members such as roof trusses, girts, joists, purlins. The Single column section does not carry heavy
loads because of having thin-walled structures and weak in twisting. The built up columns have unique buckling
behavior for which the current codes do not have code provisions. The built up columns are composed of two-lipped
channels connected back to back with a fixed distance apart. Hence, the necessity for the study is to explore the
Behavior and strength of cold-formed steel built up columns with spacers. Aslani and Goel [1] verified the modified

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +919842710959; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

E-mail address: atmvijay.anand@gmail.com

1877-7058 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.205
1424 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430

slenderness ratio analytically and experimentally for hot-rolled members, thereby verifying the AISC built-up member
design method. Based on the test results, Kwon and Hancock [2] proposed the design curves for distortion buckling
strength, which was incorporated in AS/NZS 4600-2005. Temple and Elmahdy [3] conducted an experimental and
theoretical study on standard channel hot rolled steel sections to investigate the Behavior of battened columns. The
interconnects are provided based on the slenderness ratio of the main members. Salem et al. [4] studied the strength
of cold formed lipped channel with battens numerically. They compared the results of torsional buckling by using an
Effective Width Approach with the numerical results. Stone and Labour [5] verified the modified slenderness approach
by conducting experimental work on back-to-back double-C CFS studs. The self-tapping screws were used to
interconnect the tested short members. They established that the modified slenderness ratio was recommended only
for larger thickness since the provisions of the North American specification were conservative without the modified
slenderness for small thickness. Lue et al. [6] presented a direct experimental verification of the AISC-LFRD
slenderness ratio formulas for hot rolled built-up compression members. Hosseini et al. [7] determined the elastic
critical buckling load of batten columns about a minor axis. They determined the elastic critical load of the specimens
from the data by using south well plots. Anbarasu et al. [8] Studied the Capacity of Cold-formed Steel Built-up
Battened Columns Under Axial Compression. They proposed a design recommendation for DSM to evaluate the
ultimate strength of the lipped channel built-up battened columns. Anbarasu [9] investigated the buckling interaction
on lipped channel columns. Shifferawan and Schafer b [10] studied Cold-formed steel lipped and plain angle columns
with fixed ends. They recommended the new design procedures for strength prediction of cold-formed steel angle
columns with fixed end boundary conditions.
Anbarasu et al. [11] studied Investigation on the behavior and strength of cold-formed steel web-stiffened built-up
battened columns. The strength of column calculated by the finite element analysis was compared to the design column
strengths calculated by the direct strength method (DSM). They proposed a recommendation DSM. Dobson et al [12]
investigated built-up cold-formed steel section battened columns. They compared the measured column strengths
against design strengths calculated using the North American Specification, Australian/New Zealand Standard and
European Code for cold- formed steel columns. The investigation has revealed that the proportions were
unconservative for the built-up battened columns which fail mainly by local buckling, while the proportions were
conservative for columns which fail by elastic flexural buckling. Zhang and Ben Young [13] investigated numerically
and design of cold-formed steel built-up open section columns with longitudinal stiffeners. They have shown that
design strengths predicted by the modified direct strength method are generally in good agreement with the ultimate
loads of the built-up open section columns. Also, the current design rules and the modified direct strength method
were evaluated by reliability analysis. Ting and Lau [14] studied the Cold-formed Steel built-up back to back Channels
Stub Columns experimentally and theoretically. Comparing the test and theoretical results, effective width method
from the North American specifications gives a better prediction than the DSM. Anbarasu [15] studied experimentally
in cold-formed steel web-stiffened lipped channel columns undergoing distortionalglobal interaction. The testing
results were compared with the current design rules in AISI-DSM, and the design procedure of DSM based on
distortionalglobal mode interaction was discussed. To predict the ultimate capacity of the sections, a reliability
analysis was also performed. Stone and Laboube [16] experimented on built-up I-section, studs formed with C-section
interconnected by self-tapping screws to study and compare the modified slenderness approach. They found that the
proportions of the North American specification were conservative for thick members. For smaller thickness, it is
recommended. Whittle and Ramseyer [17] studied in Research on the capacities of axially loaded, cold-formed, built-
up lipped channels and found that for built-up members having larger in length and thickness, the modified slenderness
ratio is used conservatively. In the present study, the slenderness ratio varies from 20 to 120 for the selected two
sections. The finite element analysis strengths and the ultimate design strengths obtained from the direct strength
method as per North American Specification (NAS 2007) for cold-formed steel structures were compared.

2.0 Selection of Sections

2.1. Geometric Limitations

As per the North American Specification, the geometric limitations are available for a single section only for the
 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430 1425

design of cold-formed steel structural member-2007. The built-up section is selected based on the single section
properties. The conditions for geometric limitations for a single section are shown in Fig 1.

d/t<472
B1/t<159
4<d1/t<33
0.7<d/bf<5.0
0.05<d1/b1<0.41
= 90o
E/fy>340(fy<593MPa)
Fig. 1. Geometric Limitations

2.2 Sections Considered for Study

Total 22 numbers of cold-formed steel lipped channel columns with two different geometries were analyzed both
theoretically and numerically under axial compression with pin with warping restrained end condition. The slenderness
ratio varies from 20 to 120.

Fig 2. Specimen Details

Table 1. Section Geometric Details

S.No. bw bf bl t S
Section Details Specimen ID
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

1 120-50-15-1.6 (BC1) 120 50 15 1.6 80

2 150-60-15-1.6 (BC2) 150 60 15 1.6 105

2.3 Selection of Spacing

The spacing between the columns was fixed to have Ixx equals Iyy. The spacer spacing along the length of the
columns was investigated by the modified slenderness ratio in clause D1.2 of the AISI specifications (AISI S100-
2007). The conservative spacing requirement is expressed as:
S/ ry 0.5(KL/ ry)o ---- Eq. (1).
Here S is the spacer spacing; ry is the minimum radius of gyration, and (KL/ry)o is the overall member slenderness
ratio of a built-up section. The spacing has been selected for the sections BC1 and BC2 based on various code
provisions (AISI:100-2007, ASCE, and Eurocode).

3.0 Finite element and its Validation

3.1 Finite Element Procedure
x The sections used for the experimental investigation of the literature Rondal and Niazi [18] were modelled in
1426 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430

the abacus for validation.

x The dimensions of the section were given to create a cross section.
x The material properties like youngs modulus, and poissons ratio are assigned as per given in table 2.

Table 2. Material Properties

Yield stress of material

Youngs modulus
(N/mm2) Poissons Ratio
(N/mm2)

2 X 10^5 250 0.3

x Reference points (C-G) of secession were entered in the intension of axial load.
x End support conditions of the section were constrained.
x Generated Meshing for the different sizes of different elements. Mesh size line mesh tool is used to mesh the
individual elements into a different number of elements.
x The coupling was carried out for the coincidence node for joining the spacer to the specimen at the lip, and
all degrees of freedom must be constrained.

3.2 Validation

Table 3. Presents the dimensions and ultimate capacity of tested specimens.

Chord dimension
Ultimate load test
s (mm) Stitches dimension s (mm) Length Number of stitches
(kN)
(mm)

410
467
4
330
C180x70x25x2.97 C120x60x19x2.45 4000
438
3 415
435

Using experimental tests done by Rondal and Niazi (1990, 1992, and 1993) as the reference, a set of numerical
models were calibrated and validated. The numerical model used for simulations is presented.

3.3 Comparison of Failure Modes and Results for the Validation

Table 4. shows the comparison of loads from experimental and finite element analysis.
Specimen PEXP PFEA PEXP/PFEA
410 0.08785
4 stitches 467 466.691 1.0006
330 0.70710

438 0.92916
3 stitches 415 471.392 0.88037
435 0.92279
 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430 1427

Experimental ABAQUS failure Closer view Values of Stress Failure mode

of failure mode mode

Fig. 3. shows the comparison of failure modes of 3 stitches specimen

3.4. Summary

The Figure 3 and Table 4 show that FE models are matched well with the experimental results in terms of ultimate
load and deformed shapes. Therefore, the model can be confidently used for parametric studies.

4.0 Design rules

4.1. General

The Direct Strength Method and Effective width method as per North American Specifications (AISI S100-2007)
were carried out in the parametric studies.

4.2 Direct Strength Method (North American Specifications)

An alternative method such as Direct Strength Method (DSM) for the Design of Cold-formed Steel Structural
Members 2007 (AISI S100-07) located in Appendix 1 of the North American Specification. DSM may be used instead
of the Main Specification for determining nominal member capacities. Specific advantages include the absence of
effective width and iterations, while only using known gross-sectional properties. The Direct Strength Method has
been calculated as DSM-1, DSM-2. In DSM-1, the load factor is taken from GBTUL and in DSM-2; the load factor
is taken from an ABAQUS linear analysis to calculate the load carrying capacity of the section. In this method, the
load carrying capacity of the column is the minimum of the nominal member capacity for
1428 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430

x Flexural,gtorsional or flexural-torsional buckling (Pne)

for O c d 1.5
2
Pne = 0.658O c Py (Eq. 1.2.1-1)

for Oc > 1.5
0.877
Pne P (Eq. 1.2.1-2)
O2 y
c
where Oc = Py Pcre (Eq. 1.2.1-3)

x Local buckling (Pnl)
for O" d 0.776
Pn" = Pne (Eq. 1.2.1-5)
for O" > 0.776
0.4 0.4
P P
Pn" = 1  0.15 cr" cr" Pne (Eq. 1.2.1-6)
Pne Pne

where O" = Pne Pcr" (Eq. 1.2.1-7)

5.0 Parametric Study

5.1 Parametric Study

In this analysis, the parametric study has been conducted in two sections of 22 lengths with varying the slenderness
ratio. After validation, the finite element analysis (FEA) for all the sections and loads are calculated.

5.2 Parametric results and discussion

The following table shows the comparison of loads from FEA results (Parametric study) with the loads calculated
from Theoretical methods such as Direct Strength Method (DSM-1, DSM-2) and Effective Width Method (EWM).

Table 5. Comparison of Loads

PDSM1 PDSM2 PEWM PFEM/PDSM1 PFEM/PDSM2 PFEM/PEWM

PFEM (kN)
Specimen ID (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

BC1-20-S4 144.392 150.246 148.340 152.545 0.961 0.973 0.947

BC1-30-S4 143.870 143.524 143.391 146.035 1.002 1.003 0.985
BC1-40-S4 143.420 136.345 136.807 137.503 1.052 1.048 1.043
BC1-50-S5 137.800 128.441 128.891 127.443 1.073 1.069 1.081
BC1-60-S5 130.721 119.512 119.981 116.382 1.094 1.090 1.123
BC1-70-S6 118.477 109.985 110.426 104.833 1.077 1.073 1.130
BC1-80-S6 95.329 100.457 100.556 93.248 0.949 0.948 1.022
BC1-90-S7 75.000 90.630 90.668 82.000 0.828 0.827 0.915
BC1-100-S7 66.895 78.515 78.515 71.365 0.852 0.852 0.937
BC1-110-S8 57.165 66.361 66.361 61.789 0.861 0.861 0.925
 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430 1429

BC1-120-S9 48.679 57.009 57.009 54.197 0.854 0.854 0.898

BC2-20-S4 162. 08 160.320 153.350 166.880 1.010 1.060 0.970
BC2-30-S4 160.399 149.230 148.670 161.980 1.070 1.080 0.990
BC2-40-S4 153.370 142.130 142.350 154.730 1.080 1.080 0.990
BC2-50-S5 152.941 134.370 134.660 143.960 1.140 1.140 1.060
BC2-60-S5 146.009 125.610 125.910 131.990 1.160 1.160 1.110
BC2-70-S6 126.691 116.080 116.400 119.340 1.090 1.090 1.060
BC2-80-S6 100.751 106.200 106.510 106.590 0.950 0.950 0.950
BC2-90-S7 77.056 96.220 96.380 93.960 0.800 0.800 0.820
BC2-100-S7 68.563 86.130 86.340 81.880 0.800 0.790 0.840
BC2-110-S8 60.031 76.540 76.770 70.730 0.780 0.780 0.850

BC2-120-S9 55.249 66.380 66.380 59.500 0.830 0.830 0.930

AVG 0.96 0.96 1.00

SD 0.12 0.12 0.09

The following figure shows the Failure mode taken from ABAQUS software for 120x50x15 section for slenderness
ratio of 30.

Fig. 4. Failure mode for 120x50x15 section whose slenderness ratio is 30.

The following figure shows the failure mode taken from ABAQUS software for 120x50x15 section for slenderness
ratio of 50 and 60.

Fig. 5 (a) Fig. 5 (b)

Fig. 5. (a) and (b) failure modes for 120x50x15 section whose slenderness ratios are 50 and 60.

Based on the comparative analysis, the following points are discussed.

1430 S. Vijayanand and M. Anbarasu / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1423 1430

x It shows that when the slenderness ratio increases, the corresponding loads got reduced.
x DSM-1, DSM-2 AND EWM is conservatively predicted the ultimate strength of a built-up columns.
x The ultimate load carrying capacity of built-up member, BC2 type is comparatively more than BC1.
x The failure modes show that when the slenderness ratio is low, then the proportions are unconservative for
the built-up battened columns which fail mainly by local buckling and when the slenderness ratio is high, the
proportions are conservative for columns which fail by elastic flexural buckling.

6.0 Conclusions

The numerical analysis and theoretical analysis were presented in this paper. The validation of finite element model
is done with experimental tests done by Rondal and Niazi (1990, 1992, and 1993). For parameter study, the validated
procedure has been applied. Two different geometries were selected for the study as per the North American
Specification. The lengths of the specimens were chosen depends on the slenderness ratio varying from 20 to 120.
Theoretical analysis, such as DSM1, DSM2, and EWM are done as per specifications. A comparison was made
between the column strength calculated by theoretical method and numerical method. It is shown that the both
approaches show unconservative results. Comparing the three methods, the EWM shows better predictions for the
strength of the built-up column with spacers.

References

[1].Aslani F, Goel SC., An analytical criterion for buckling strength of built-up compression members, Eng J 1991:28(4):159168.
[2]. Kwon, Hancock. Strength design curves for thin-walled sections undergoing distortional buckling. Thin wall struct
1994;31:169-186.
[3].Temple MC, Elmahdy G., An examination of the requirements for the design of built-up compression members in the North
American and European standards. Can J Civ Eng 20(6):895909.
[4].Salem AH, El Aghoury M., Post-Buckling Strength of Battened Columns, Built from Cold-Formed Lipped Channels, Emirates
Journal for Engineering Research 2004;9 (2):117125.
[5].Stone TA, La Boube RA., Behavior of cold-formed steel built-up I-sections. Thin-Walled Struct 2005; 43:18051817.
[6].Lue DM, Yen T., Experimental investigation of inelastic buckling of built-up steel columns, J constr steel res 2006;62: 1325-1332.
[7].Hashemi BH, Jafari MA., Experimental evaluation of elastic critical load in batten columns,Constr Steel Res 2009; 65:12531
[8].Anbarasu M, Kumar PB., Study on the capacity of cold-formes steel built-up battened colums under axial compression, Lat am j
solids stru, 2014;11:2271-2283.
[9].Anbarasu M, Sukumar S., Study on the capacity of cold-formes steel built-up battened colums under axial compression,Thin wall
struct ,2014;11:1363-1375
[10].Shifferawa Y, Schafer BW., Thin wall struct 2014;80:142-152.
[11].Anbarasu M, Kanagarasu K.,Investigation on the behaviour and strength of cold-formed steel web stiffened built-up battened
columns ,Mater struct 2015;48:4029-4038.
[12].Dabaon M, Ellobody E., Experimental investigation of built-up cold-formed steel section battened columns,Thin wall struct
2015;92:137-145.
[13].Jia-Hui Zhang, Ben Young., Numerical investigation and design of cold-formed steel built-up open section columns with
longitudinal stiffeners. Thin wall struct 2015;89:178-191.
[14].Ting, Lau, Compression test on cold-formed steel built-up back to back channels stub columns. Advanced material research
2011;201-203:2900-2903.
[15].Anbarasu M, Murugapandian G.,Experimental Study On Cold Formed Steel Web Stiffened Lipped Channel Columns
Undergoing Distortional-Global Interation. Mater struct 2016;49:1433-1442.
[16].Stone and Laboube. The Behavior of cold-formed steel built-up I-sections. Thin wall struct 2005;43(12):1805-1817.
[17].Whittle J,Ramseyer C., Buckling capacities of axially loaded,cold-formed, built-up C-channels.Thin wall struct 2015;47:190-201.
[18].Rondal J, Niazi M., Stability of built-up beams and columns with thin walled members. J constr steel res,1990;16: 329-335.