Flexural Behaviour and Design of Coldformed Steel Beams With Rectangular Hollow Flanges

Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-
formed Steel Beams with Rectangular

Hollow Flanges
By
Somadasa Wanniarachchi
School of Urban Development
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
December 2005
Acknowledgement
I wish to convey my appreciation and wholehearted sense of gratitude to my principal

supervisor Professor Mahen Mahendran for his enthusiastic and expert guidance,
valuable suggestions, constructive criticism, friendly discussions, and persistent
supervision during my research study. I am indebted to him for his constant
encouragement and meticulous efforts in correcting faults and suggesting improvements.
I also want to express my sincere thanks to associate supervisor Dr. Thishan Jayasinghe
for his valuable suggestions, advice and assistance towards achieving the research
objectives.
I would like to thank the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) for
providing an International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (IPRS) to conduct this
research project, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) for providing financial
support and materials for experiments, QUT structural laboratory and workshop staff for
their assistance with experiments, QUT computing services for the facilities and
assistance with finite element analyses, as well as my fellow post-graduate students for
their positive suggestions and help throughout this research project.
I gratefully acknowledge the provision of study leave by University of Ruhuna in Sri

Lanka to undertake postgraduate studies in overseas.
Finally, I have deeply appreciated the continuing patience and sacrifices of my wife and
daughter whose love and support has been a constant source of encouragement and
guidance to me. Moreover, I gratefully acknowledge my family members in Sri Lanka
for their patience and encouragement during my study.
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges iii
Keywords
Flexural behavior, hollow flange beams, rectangular hollow flange beams, cold-formed
steel beams, distortional buckling, lateral tortional buckling, buckling tests, section
moment capacity, finite element analysis.
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges iv
Abstract
Until recently, the hot-rolled steel members have been recognized as the most
popular and widely used steel group, but in recent times, the use of cold-formed high
strength steel members has rapidly increased. However, the structural behavior of
light gauge high strength cold-formed steel members characterized by various
buckling modes is not yet fully understood. The current cold-formed steel sections
such as C- and Z-sections are commonly used because of their simple forming
procedures and easy connections, but they suffer from certain buckling modes. It is
therefore important that these buckling modes are either delayed or eliminated to
increase the ultimate capacity of these members. This research is therefore aimed at
developing a new cold-formed steel beam with two torsionally rigid rectangular
hollow flanges and a slender web formed using intermittent screw fastening to
enhance the flexural capacity while maintaining a minimum fabrication cost. This
thesis describes a detailed investigation into the structural behavior of this new
Rectangular Hollow Flange Beam (RHFB), subjected to flexural action
The first phase of this research included experimental investigations using thirty full
scale lateral buckling tests and twenty two section moment capacity tests using
specially designed test rigs to simulate the required loading and support conditions.
A detailed description of the experimental methods, RHFB failure modes including
local, lateral distortional and lateral torsional buckling modes, and moment capacity
results is presented. A comparison of experimental results with the predictions from
the current design rules and other design methods is also given.
The second phase of this research involved a methodical and comprehensive

investigation aimed at widening the scope of finite element analysis to investigate the
buckling and ultimate failure behaviours of RHFBs subjected to flexural actions.
Accurate finite element models simulating the physical conditions of both lateral
buckling and section moment capacity tests were developed. Comparison of
experimental and finite element analysis results showed that the buckling and
ultimate failure behaviour of RHFBs can be simulated well using appropriate finite
element models. Finite element models simulating ideal simply supported boundary
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges v
conditions and a uniform moment loading were also developed in order to use in a
detailed parametric study. The parametric study results were used to review the
current design rules and to develop new design formulae for RHFBs subjected to
local, lateral distortional and lateral torsional buckling effects.
Finite element analysis results indicate that the discontinuity due to screw fastening
has a noticeable influence only for members in the intermediate slenderness region.
Investigations into different combinations of thicknesses in the flange and web
indicate that increasing the flange thickness is more effective than web thickness in
enhancing the flexural capacity of RHFBs. The current steel design standards, AS
4100 (1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (1996) are found sufficient to predict the section
moment capacity of RHFBs. However, the results indicate that the AS/NZS 4600 is
more accurate for slender sections whereas AS 4100 is more accurate for compact
sections. The finite element analysis results further indicate that the current design
rules given in AS/NZS 4600 is adequate in predicting the member moment capacity
of RHFBs subject to lateral torsional buckling effects. However, they were
inadequate in predicting the capacities of RHFBs subject to lateral distortional
buckling effects. This thesis has therefore developed a new design formula to predict
the lateral distortional buckling strength of RHFBs.
Overall, this thesis has demonstrated that the innovative RHFB sections can perform
well as economically and structurally efficient flexural members. Structural
engineers and designers should make use of the new design rules and the validated
existing design rules to design the most optimum RHFB sections depending on the
type of applications. Intermittent screw fastening method has also been shown to be
structurally adequate that also minimises the fabrication cost. Product manufacturers
and builders should be able to make use of this in their applications.
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges vi
Publications
Publications in Preparation:
1. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Section Moment Capacities of

Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams.
2. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Experimental Investigation of

Member Buckling Behaviour of Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams
3. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Finite Element Modeling of

Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams
4. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Development of Design Models

for Local Buckling of Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams
5. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Lateral Distortional Buckling

Design of Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams
Target Journals:
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Thin-Walled Structures, Structural

Engineering and Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineers J. of Structural
Engineering
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges vii
! !"
!" #$
! "
# $ %& $ '
' ()* +
' ( ()* +
' ()* +
, $ %- % .
+ % / 0 1
!" % &
%
- )
- %
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges viii
!" % & ' ()
2 ) 3
2 % 4
5 #
# ,
' +
' / 03 2 03 % +
' $ .
' 03 .
'# 1
60 % 0 7
03 % 0 0)*
/ 03
03 +
# 2 0 #
# 2 0 4 # 77 #
# 2 0 4 8&9 #,77 +
# % : 2 0 1
' 5 4 7
' 4
' & 4
' 03 4
' ; #
' ; #
' $ 0 ,
' 5 4 $ +
, 56 ; #
+ 0 / 0 $ #+
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges ix
!" * + " , "
, " &- .
- 2
-
0 #
2 0 +
# $ 0 0 .
2 ,
; ,
# 0 ; 0 .
' $ 0 0
' - 0; < 0
' - 0/ 0 0 ,
' 0 - $ - .
'# %
2 0 $0
# 0 +
!" /+ " .!
&- .
# #
# = #
# 2 #,
## #.
#' 0 #
#' 0 # #
#' / # +
#' - 0 # 1
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges x
!" /+ " .!
&- . ' ()
#, 2 0 # 7
#+ $ 0 0 #
#+ - 0 0 #
#+ $ %5>0 ? ) % 3 #
#+ $ %/ %3 % ? ) # ,
#+ $ %/ %3 % ? ) # 1
#+ - 0/ 0 0 #
#+ $ 0 %2 0 # #
$0
#+ - ) - 4 # 77!11." # +
#+ - ) - 2 % : # #7
!11+" - %
#+ ) - 4 8&9 #,77 ##
!11,"
#+ #- ) - 4 !11." # ##
- %
#+ '- ) - - % %% # #,
- % !77'" - %
#. 0 # #.
!" 0 + ,
&- .
' '
' 5 - '
' 2% - '
' 0 '
' % 5 '1
' # / - % '
' ' - 0 ' #
' , - 2 ' ,
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xi
!" 0 + ,
&- . ' ()
' + $ 0 ' +
' . ; ; ' .
' 1 2 2 2 ' 7
' < 5 - '
' 56 5 - '
' 56 5 - - ) '
' 56 5 - '
-
' < ; 5 - ' '
'# 0 ' .
!" 1 2 " 2
& &- .
, ,
, 2 0 ,
, / 03 % 0 $ ,
, 5 / 03 2 ,#
, 5 / 03 ? ) ,,
, 5 / 03 ? ) ,.
, / 03 % 0 $ ,
, 5 ; ; $ 0 ,
$ -
, 5 $ - , #
, Detailed FEA to Review the Current Design Rules ,
, $ 0 $0 , .
, 4 # 77 - , .
, - , .
, - ) - ,
, 4 8&9 #,77- , '
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xii
!" 1 2 " 2
& &- . ' ()
, - , '
, - ) - , .
, - 2 ) 4 !111" , #7
, # - 2 ) - % %% ,#
- % !77'"
,# - $0 , ##
,# - $0 @ , #'
$
,# < 4 ) & 0 , #.
$
,# 0 $ 0 !" ,'
,' 0 , '#
!" 3 &
+ 0 +
+ 56 ; +
+ 5 4 2 0 +
+ $ +'
+ 00 ? 3 +,
& $
4 6 4 4
4 6
4 6
4 6
4 6#4 #4
4 6# #
4 6'4 '4
4 6,4 ,4
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xiii
! " #$ ! %&' (
( ) *! ! ! !! + , .
- %%
. ) ! ! /+ , '
/ 0
0 , !1 2! %&3 (
( 4! *! (
. 5 6 1 7 *! ! 0 ! *! .
2! ! 8 %&3
' 5 ! +! ! ! 9 ! '
*!! *!: ! %&(
& ; !, 1 ! %%< 3
3 !- ! 5 ! ;! *! ,! <
+! 1 %%<
< - !, 1 ! *! ! !+ 6 ! %
,! 9 %%<
% ) ! = ! %
! / 4 1
, 1 +! 6! * +! 1 %%<
/ ! ! 0! ": +! 1 (
%%<
( , , 1 4 9 /! ) ! ! .
, 1 %'3
. / " ! 0 " 1 = &
0! 5 +! 1 %%<
' - , 1 7 ! , 1 ! ! ! &
+ , ": , - %%
& 9 ! !7 - !, 1 ! <
>
3 - !, 1 ! = %
< ! 9 ! , +! 1 %%3
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beam with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xiv
% ;! ! - !, 1 7 0! !*! %%3 (
- " 5 9 %%< 3
7! ! ? ! ((
- ) *! ! 0 1 @ (.
%%<"
( ) 01@ ! ( ('
. ; ! 9 ! (&
' 7 "! ! > !/ ! *! ! 0 1 @ (3
%%<"
& , / ! - " # " (3
5> ! !0 ! * 6 *
0 - ! ! 7!* ! %%&
3 5 7 + , 9 ! (%
< 5 7 * ! + ,7 " 7 * 8 " .
- = 7 *9 ! 7!* ! %%3
% 0* ! 7 ! ! 5 7 *8 1 ! .
+! 1 %%%
( ;! ! , 1 /+ , ! A*! ! %%' .
( * ! -! ! / ..
7!* ! ! - ! %%%
( * ! -! ! ;! ! , 1 + , .'
7!* ! ! 9 %%&
(( ;! ! , 1 ! A ,! .&
0 ! %%%
( ,! 7 ! * 1 7 ! ((
( ('
(( (3
(. ! ! - (<
)! ! * 1
(' ! ,! 7! ! 0 (
(& ! ! (
(3 /+ , ( (
(< ;!" ( .
(% ! = !! ( .
( 7 ! - ( <
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beam with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xv
( 7 ! ! * ; * ! ! ( <
( 7 !! ( %
( ( - *! (
( . 7 4 !- B 6 (
( ' 7 4 !- C 6 ( (
( & 7 4 !- D 6 ( .
( 3 !7 ; ! ! ) !* ( 3
( < ! ! ( <
( % # 8 "! ! ; " 6 6 ! ( %
( ) !* ! ! ! , *! !/+ , ((
. ! ! /+ , .
. - , 1 7 /+ , ..
.( !" ! / ! !+ 6 ! .<
.. 9 " 0 ! ! *! ! ! /+ , .
.' !) ! /+ , .
.& ;! ! , 1 . (
.3 , 1 . '
.< ;! . <
.% 7 ! ! -!!9 E .
. ! /+ , ! ! .
. - *! .
. 7 - B 6 . (
. ( ! ;! ! - !, 1 ! /+ , . &
. . 7 - C6 . 3
. ' ; !, 1 8 " ! * ;! 0 . %
. & 7 - D 6 .(
. 3 7 ; ! ! . ((
. < ! 5> ! ! 7 6 *9 . . (%
0
. % ! 5> ! ! 7 6 *0 ..
0! !*! $ %%3 *
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beam with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xvi
. ! 5> ! ! 7 6 *9 F?A . .(
.& %%& 0
. ! 5> ! ! 7 6 *0 . .'
9 ! %%% 7 *
. ! 5> ! ! 7 6 *0 . .3
7!*!!! * * ! 7!* ! ' 7 *
' ! 0* !7 ;! ! , 1 '
' " 0* !7 7 !! '(
' ! 5> !! ! 5 7 7 " '.
!!
' " 5> !! ! 5 7 '.
!!
'( = !; !, 1 , *! !" A ''
'. = ! ) "! , 1 , *! !" !> '&
'' 5> !7 ! 7 " !! '3
'& , ! !7 '%
'3 ) !- ./' * 5 '
'< ; ! * 5 6 * /+ , '
'% ;! 7 * 7 " !! ' (
' ;! 7 * !! ' (
' ;! 7 * ! 57 ' .
' ! ! - ' '
' ( / ! - " ! ! ! /+ , ' <
' . 0 " ; !, 1 7 !/+ , '
' ' 7 - ! /+ , ' .
6 *5E ! ! ! 8 " * 1 B 6
' & 7 - ! /+ , ' '
6 * ! * 1 ) ! *! 8 " * 1 > 6
' 3 7 - !/+ , 6 * ! ' &

* 1 ; *! 8 " * 1 < 6
' < 7 ; ! ! ) !* !) ' %

/+ ,
' % - !, 1 ! 7 ! ! /+ , ' %
-
' - !, 1 ! 7 ! ! '(
! /+ , 59
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beam with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xvii
' 7 4 !- /+ , '(
6 *5E ! ! ! 8 " * 1 B 6
' 7 4 !- /+ , '(
6 * ! * 1 ) ! *! ! 8 " * 1
C 6
' ( 7 4 !- /+ , '(
6 * ! * 1 ; *! ! 8 " * 1 D
6
' . 7 ; ! ! ) !* !) ' (.
/+ ,
' ' ; !" 1 ! 7 /+ , ' ('
!!
' & ; !" 1 ! 7 /+ , 9 ! ! ' ('
' 3 ) !* ! ! 59 ! * 6! 5 ! , 1 ' (<
7 !!
& !! ! ! /+ , &(
& Local Buckling of the Hollow Flanges Top Plate Element &.
&( Local Buckling of the Hollow Flange Flanges Web Element &3
&. Local Buckling of RHFBs Web Element &%
&' Graphical Comparison of the Effect of Geometric Imperfection & .
and Residual Stress on Moment Capacities of RHFBs
&& Deformation Shape of RHFB for Different Fastening & '
Arrangements
&3 Stress Contours of RHFB for Different Fastening & &
Arrangements
&< Close-up View at a Screw Location Under Flexural Loading & 3
& %! Comparison of Moment Capacities of Slender RHFBs with &
Different Fastening Arrangement
& %" Comparison of Moment Capacities of Compact RHFBs with &
& ! Moment Capacity Curves for Compact RHFB Sections from & &
FEA
& " Moment Capacity Curves for Slender RHFB Sections from & 3
FEA
& Comparison of Moments Capacities with AS 4100 Predictions & ((
& Comparison of Moment Capacities with Pi and Trahairs & (.
(1997) Predictions
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beam with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xviii
& ( Comparison of Moment capacities with AS/NZS 4600 & (%
Predictions
& . Comparison of Moment Capacities with Avery et al. (2000) &.
Predictions
& ' Comparison of Moment Capacities with Mahaarachchi and & .(
Mahendran (2005) Predictions
& & Comparisons of Moment Capacities Predicted by Equation6.16 & .&
with FEA Results
& 3 Comparison of Moment Capacities Predicted by Equations & .3
6.16 and 6.17 and FEA Results
& < Comparison of Moment Capacities Predicted by Equation 6.17 & .3
and FEA results and other Existing Design Rules
& % Comparison of Predicted Moment Capacities and FEA Results & .%
for G300 and G550 Steel Slender RFHBs
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beam with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xix
! " # $ *
% &' ( )
+ , - * ! & ' (./ +)
0 12 2 3 4 . % .5 $4 6 +
))+
+ ,& &' 7 8 $ , 4 +
+ ! % $! $ , 7 7, +0
++ ! $% & 7' & +9
+0 : +
+ ! $ %& $;&' +
+9 7 4 ' $ ! $ %& + *
+* 7 ++
+ &' 7 ! & ' : ++
0 7 $! , & , 7 < $ 0
0 . 5 ( : 0+
0+ 4 & 0*
00 ! $7 %& $< & ;&' 0
7' &
0 &' .#' & ! & ' : 3 , 0+
4 $ & , % :
&' .#' & $ .5 ! & ! &
'
&' .#' & $ .5 7 ! & ++
'
+ &' . ! & & .5 3 , , +*
3 (
9 Comparison of FEA Results with the Predictions from Current 9
Steel Design Standards for G300 Steel
9 Comparison of FEA Results with the Predictions from Current 9*
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xx
9+ Comparison of FEA Results with the Predictions from Current 9
9+ Comparison of FEA Results with the Predictions from Current 9 )
90 Comparison of Residual Stress Effects on RHFB Moment 9
Capacities
90 Comparison of Initial Geometric Imperfection Effects on RHFB 9 +
Moment Capacities
90 Comparison of Combined Effects of Residual Stress and Initial 9 +
Geometric Imperfection on RHFB Moment Capacities
9 Comparison of Moment Capacity Results of RHFB-080tf-080tw- 9
150hw-G300 (slender) for Different Fastening Arrangements
150hw-G300 (compact) for Different Fastening Arrangements
9 $ Comparison of Moment Capacity Results of RHFB-500tf-500tw- 9
99 Member Moment Capacities of Compact RHFB Sections from 9
FEA
99 Member Moment Capacities of Slender RHFB Sections from 9 0
FEA
9* Comparison of FEA and AS 4100 Section Moment Capacities 9 +)
for Compact RHFB Sections
9* Comparison of FEA and AS 4100 Section Moment Capacities 9+
for Slender RHFB Sections
9 Comparison of FEA and AS/NZS 4600 Section Moment 9 +9
Capacities for Compact RHFB Sections
9 Comparison of FEA and AS/NZS 4600 Section Moment 9 +*
Capacities for Slender RHFB Sections
9 Comparison of Predicted Moment Capacities using New Design 9 )
Formula with FEA Results for G300 Steel Slender RHFBs
9 Comparison of Predicted Moment Capacities using New Design 9
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xxi
Notation
Abbreviations
AISI = American Iron and Steel Institute

AS 4100 = Australian Standard for the Design of Steel Structures
AS/NZS 4600 = Australian Standard for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structures
ASD = allowable stress design
BHP = BlueScope Steel Products
BMT = based metal thickness
BSI = British Standards Institution
C3D8 = eight node linear brick element
CHS = circular hollow section
COV = covariance
CSA = Canadian Standard Association
FEA = finite element analysis
HFB = hollow flange beam
LRFD = load and resistance factor design specification
LSB = light steel beam
MPC = multipoint constraint
PDT = potentiometric displacement transducers
PTM = Palmer Tube Mills
QUAD4 = quadrilateral shell element
RHFB = rectangular hollow flange beam
RHS = rectangular hollow section
S4 = quadrilateral general purpose shell element with four nodes and
six degrees of freedom per node
S4R4 = quadrilateral thin shell element with four nodes, reduced
integration, and five degrees of freedom per node
SHS = square hollow section
SPC = single point constraint
TCT = total coated thickness
TRIA3 = triangular shell element
UC = universal column
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xxii
Symbols
= poisons ratio
= half-wavelength at distortional buckling, or non-dimensional
slenderness
= effective width factor
nom = measured longitudinal stress (tensile coupon tests)
true = true longitudinal stress (modified stress)
= global imperfection
l = local imperfection
o = target reliability index
d = non-dimensional member slenderness for distortional buckling
e = plate element slenderness
m ,cb = moment modification factor
s = section slenderness
s = slenderness reduction factor for lateral tortional buckling
sd = slenderness reduction factor for lateral distortional buckling
sp = section plastic slenderness
sy = section yield slenderness
m = measured longitudinal strain
n = measured longitudinal strain (tensile coupon test)
p(ln) = true longitudinal strain (modified strain)
= capacity reduction factor
A = cross section area
B = element overall width (HFB)
b = element flat width (general)
be = effective width of flat plate
bf = flange width (RHFB)
Cp = correction factor
d = web depth (HFB)
D = overall depth (HFB)
E = youngs modulus of elasticity
fc , c = critical stress
fcr = elastic critical stress for local buckling
Fm = mean of the fabrication factor
fmax = maximum edge stress
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xxiii
fod = distortional buckling stress
fol = local buckling stress
fu = tensile strength
f y , y = material yield stress
*
f = applied stress
G =shear modulus
hf = flange height (RHFB)
hl = lip height (RHFB)
hw = web height (RHFB)
I = second moment of area
Ix = second moment of area about major principal axis
Iy = second moment of area about minor principal axis
Iw = warping constant
Iy = moment of inertia about minor axis
J = polar moment of inertia
Je = effective polar moment of inertia
k = local buckling coefficient
k = rotational spring stiffness
L = member length
Le , le = effective length
Lla = initial lever arm length
m = degree of freedom
M = applied moment
M* = design bending moment
Mb = nominal member moment capacity
Mm = mean of the material factor
Mc = critical moment
Mo =flexural torsional buckling moment resistance
Mod = distortional buckling moment resistance
Ms = nominal section moment capacity
MTH = Thin-wall buckling moment
Mu = ultimate moment capacity
My = yield moment
n = number of tests
P = applied jack load
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xxiv
Pm = mean value of the tested to predicted load ratio
Py = squash load
Ro = corner radius (HFB)
t = steel thickness
tf = thickness (RHFB)
tw = thickness of web (RHFB)
VF = covariance of the fabrication factor
Vm = covariance of the material factor
Vp = Covariance of the tested to predicted load ratio
VQ = covariance of load effect
w = plate width
Z, Zx or Zf = full section modulus about major axis
Ze = effective section modulus
Flexural Behavior and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xxv
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or
diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made.
Signature: ..
Date: ..
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges xxvi
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 General
In steel structures, two primary structural steel member types are used: hot-rolled
steel members and cold-formed steel members. The hot-rolled steel members are
formed at elevated temperatures whereas the cold-formed steel members are formed
at room temperatures. Until recently, the hot-rolled steel members have been
recognised as the most popular and widely used steel group, but since then the use of
cold-formed high strength steel structural members has rapidly increased. However,
the structural behaviour of these light gauge high strength steel members
characterised by various buckling modes such as local buckling, distortional
buckling, and flexural-torsional buckling is not yet fully understood. Open cold-
formed steel sections such as C-, Z-, hat and rack sections are relatively common
because of their simple forming procedures and easy connections, but they suffer
from certain buckling modes due to their mono-symmetric or point symmetric
nature, high plate slenderness, eccentricity of shear centre to centroids and low
torsional rigidity.
It is therefore important that these buckling modes are either delayed or eliminated to
increase the ultimate capacity of cold-formed steel members. This study is aimed at
developing an innovative cold-formed steel beam with two torsionally rigid
rectangular hollow flanges and a slender web formed using intermittent screw
fastening to enhance the flexural capacity at minimum fabrication cost. The new
cold-formed steel beam introduced in this research is referred to as Rectangular
Hollow Flange Beam (RHFB) to differentiate from the conventional hollow flange
beams (HFB) containing triangular flanges. This study therefore involves
investigations into the flexural behaviour of RHFBs comprising various steel grades,
steel thicknesses, section sizes and screw spacings to fully understand the primary
buckling and ultimate failure characteristics, and to derive suitable design rules for
the new RHFB flexural members.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges 1-1
This chapter discusses the significance and importance of this research under the
headings of: conventional cold-formed steel section types, the development of HFBs,
research needs for RHFBs, objectives and scope of the research program, and
method of investigation.
1.2 Conventional Cold-formed Steel Section Types
The use of cold-formed steel structures is increasing rapidly around the world. The
main use of cold-formed steel members is found in the construction of residential and
other low rise buildings such as commercial, industrial and institutional buildings.
Figure 1.1 illustrates some of the commonly used cold-formed steel section types in
the above applications. They include channel (C-) sections, Z-sections, angles (L-),
hat sections, I- sections and tubular sections such as rectangular hollow sections
(RHS) and square hollow sections (SHS).
Figure 1.1: Commonly used cold-formed steel sections (From Yu, 2000)
These sections are commonly in used, but they are more susceptible to structural
instabilities due to their geometrical shapes. The characteristics due to mono-
symmetric or point-symmetric nature of these sections are not normally encountered
in doubly symmetric sections such as I- sections or tubular sections (i.e. RHS, SHS,
CHS). Therefore, combining the advantages of hot-rolled I-sections (better stability)
and conventional cold-formed sections such as C- and Z- sections (high strength to
weight ratio) can produce improved cold-formed steel sections that can be made
using modern technologies available in the cold-formed steel industry. Complex
structural shapes may now be formed in two or more parts and then assembled into a
single shape. This may have the advantage of combining different material qualities
and thicknesses into a single component. However, the use of higher strength steels
is inevitably accompanied by the reduction in thickness of the section and it may
result in more slender sections which could be structurally unstable.
Structural behaviour of the commonly used cold-formed steel sections (see Figure
1.1) has been well researched in the past. However, only limited research has been
undertaken to investigate the structural performance of other cold-formed steel
member types. Therefore, there is an urgent need in cold-formed steel industry to
look beyond the conventional cold-formed steel sections and generate more
structurally efficient cold-formed steel sections in an economical manner. One of the
typical examples for an advanced cold-formed steel section produced by using
modern cold-formed steel technology is the hollow flange beam (HFB), which
includes two closed triangular hollow flanges and a web connected using electric
resistance welding method. The HFB was first developed by Palmer Tube Mills Pty.
Ltd. in the early 1990s. Section 1.3 discusses the development of HFBs in detail.
1.3 Development of Hollow Flange Beams (HFB)
Figure 1.2 Closed-cell Section Types Investigated by OConnor et al. (1965)
The history of HFB can be traced back to 1965 when Oconnor et al. (1965) first
showed that the inclusion of various closed cells to I- section beams (see Figure 1.2)
improved their buckling behaviour significantly. They found that this improvement
of buckling behaviour was mainly due to increase in torsional rigidity. This led the
researchers to focus on cold-formed steel sections with torsionally rigid flanges,
which can delay or eliminate structural instability problems effectively. The so-
called HFB beam is one such cold-formed steel section with torsionally rigid flanges.
During the early 1990s, Palmer Tube Mills Pty. Ltd. mass produced cold-formed,
high strength steel beam sections with two closed triangular hollow flanges (see
Figure 1.3). This is a structurally efficient steel section made from a single strip of
high strength steel using an automated fabrication process of cold-forming and
electric resistance welding. Although the electric resistance welding method used by
Palmer Tube Mills is adequate, it makes the manufacturing process somewhat
complicated and expensive. This was one of the reasons for the discontinuation of
the triangular HFB production in 1997. Further, it was capable of producing only
one group of HFB with 90 mm wide triangular flanges. The use of other flange
shapes (i.e. rectangular or square or other geometry) and widths (60 mm to 250 mm)
could considerably improve the structural efficiency of HFBs while eliminating or
delaying many undesirable buckling modes.
(a) Isometric view (b) Sectional view
Figure1.3 Geometric Shape and Sectional Parameters of HFB (From Dempsey,

1990)
Consequently, Zhao and Mahendran (2001) at Queensland University of Technology

initiated a research program to investigate the structural behaviour and design of
such hollow flange beam sections as compression members. Their study used
rectangular hollow flanges and various manufacturing methods such as spot welding,
self-pierced riveting and screw fastening to form Rectangular Hollow Flange Beam
(RHFB) sections from a single steel strip (see Figure 1.4). Their study has identified
that the type of fastening and spacing does not affect the member compression
capacity significantly. However, the structural behaviour and design of RHFB as
flexural members will be different and therefore further investigations are needed to
identify their failure modes and develop suitable design rules for RHFB as flexural
members. Therefore this research is into the flexural behaviour and design of cold-
formed steel beams with rectangular hollow flanges (RHFB) made of separately
formed flanges and web connected by simple screw fastening. Section 1.4 describes
the necessity of further research on RHFB flexural members.
bf
hf tf
hw tw
hl
hf
(a) Sectional view (b) Isometric view
Figure 1.4: Geometry of a Typical RHFB
1.4 Research Needs of RHFBs
Past research has identified that the flexural capacity of Palmer Tube Mills
triangular hollow flange beams is reduced drastically due to the lateral distortional
buckling failure compared to the conventional hot-rolled I- sections. This is mainly
due to the presence of slender web and torsionally rigid flanges. Due to the unique
fabrication method and their lateral distortional buckling behaviour, the HFB is not
completely compliant with the Australian Standards for the design of hot-rolled (AS
4100, 1998) and cold-formed (AS/NZS 4600, 1996) steel structures. Therefore,
further research is necessary to improve the existing HFB with the elimination or
delay of undesirable lateral-distortional buckling failure and recommend suitable
design rules.
The proposed RHFB in this study considered existing shortcomings in the

conventional HFB and addresses them carefully to give better structural performance
than conventional HFB at a lower production cost. In the proposed RHFB, screw
fastening was introduced as an alternative manufacturing method to minimize the
production cost, whereas an innovative method of joining the web and flanges
separately was considered to give the designers a large range of very efficient RHFB
beams with varying combinations of web and flange thicknesses (see Figure 1.4).
The use of thicker web will considerably increase the lateral distortional buckling
capacity of rectangular HFB flexural members. The section geometry of HFB
considered in this study was confined to rectangular hollow flanges, since they
provide better connection capability than conventional triangular hollow flanges.
Furthermore, manufacturing of the former is also much easier than the latter with the
proposed fabrication methods in this research program.
However, sufficient research data is not available to conclude all the above
presumptions on this new beam type and need to be investigated. The design rules
for RHFB must also be formulated as currently available design rules proved
inappropriate for the similar sections in the past. This research is therefore aimed at
finding appropriate solutions for the following unanswered questions (problem
definition):
1. Is it feasible to produce the innovative RHFB sections shown in Figure 1.4,

which will be structurally efficient and economically sound as flexural
members?
2. What are the effects of intermittent screw fastening method on the flexural
member performance (including buckling and ultimate strength) compared to
the continuous welding method? i.e. which method can be recommended?
Does the increased discontinuity in web-flange connection reduce the flexural
capacity noticeably?
3. Do the various combinations of web and flange thicknesses improve the
flexural capacity of RHFB eliminating or delaying any undesirable buckling
failures?
4. Are the current design rules applicable to the new RHFB or is there a need to
develop new design rules?
1.5 Objectives
1.5.1 Overall Objective
To investigate the fundamental buckling and ultimate strength behaviour of a group

of innovative cold-formed steel beam sections with rectangular hollow flanges
(RHFB) made by assembling two separately formed flanges and a web using screw
fastening method, and to develop appropriate design methods for the said RHFB
flexural members.
1.5.2 Specific Objectives
1. Investigation of flexural behaviour and ultimate section moment capacities of

innovative RHFBs using a series of short span beam tests, and the
comparison of experimental ultimate section moment capacities with the
predictions from the current design rules.
2. Investigation of flexural behaviour and ultimate member moment capacities

of innovative RHFBs using a series of lateral buckling tests, and the
comparison of experimental ultimate member moment capacities with the
predictions from the current design rules.
3. Development of accurate finite element models for the innovative RHFBs

subjected to flexural actions, and validation using experimental results (from
objectives 1 and 2), and use them to investigate the local, lateral distortional
and flexural (lateral) torsional buckling modes of failures.
4. Investigation of the effects of relevant parameters (section geometry, material
properties and fabrication methods) on the local, lateral distortional and
flexural (lateral) torsional buckling capacities of the innovative RHFB
flexural members using a series of parametric studies, and determination of
the applicability of current design rules in AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS
4600 (SA, 1996) or develop alternative design rules.
1.6 Research Methodology
In the first phase of this study, independent reading and literature review as outlined
in Chapter 2 was undertaken to develop the required knowledge in this research field.
Following the literature review, laboratory experiments were carried out to
understand the local, lateral distortional and flexural torsional buckling modes of
failures of RHFBs, and also to develop the required data base for finite element
model validation. The laboratory experiments included a series of full-scale tests of
section and member capacity using this new RHFB sections shown in Figure 1.4.
The tests were conducted on a group of innovative RHFB with the various
combinations of geometric parameters, member lengths and steel grades. Sectional
dimensions and member lengths of all specimens were selected in such a way that
each specimen failed under certain pre-determined buckling modes.
Following the laboratory experiments, analytical investigations on RHFBs were

conducted using finite element models in order to fully understand the local, lateral
distortional and lateral torsional buckling failure modes. Avery et al.s (2000) and
Yuan (2005) finite element models were reviewed, and modified to include the new
features associated with the innovative RHFB sections shown in Figure 1.4. The
latest developments in finite element modelling and the many features of finite
element software ABAQUS were also introduced in the finite element modelling.
Finite element models were developed separately for experimental and ideal
boundary conditions for the purpose of model validation and parametric studies,
respectively. The capability of the developed finite element models to simulate the
local, lateral distortional, and flexural torsional buckling behaviour was validated by
using the test results obtained from the laboratory experiments.
Further analyses were carried out to investigate the effect of relevant parameters (i.e.
geometrical dimensions, material properties, member lengths and manufacturing
methods) on local, lateral distortional and flexural torsional buckling capacities.
Therefore a series of parametric studies were conducted to obtain an extensive
behavioural data base. These results were then used to develop appropriate
behavioural models for the new RHFBs and also determine the applicability of
current design rules within the AS 4100 and AS 4600 provisions or develop
alternative design rules.
1.7 Thesis Layout
The detailed investigations of flexural behaviour of innovative RHFBs using an

extensive series of experimental studies, finite element analyses and development of
improved design rules for the design of new RHFBs for flexural action are presented
in this thesis as seven different chapters. The contents of each chapter are described
briefly next.
Chapter 1: This chapter presents a brief introduction about this research project
including the areas of conventional cold-formed steel section types and their various
buckling failure modes, development of hollow flange beams and their advantages,
research needs and problem definition, overall and specific objectives and the
research methodology adopted in this study.
Chapter 2: A summary of current literature relating to various aspects of cold-

formed steel flexural members, independent reading and critical analyses of previous
findings are presented in this chapter. The broad areas included in this chapter are
special characteristics and design considerations of cold-formed steel members,
common cold-formed steel sections, their applications, advantages, disadvantages
and different buckling failure modes. This chapter also includes details about the
development of new beam types and different design procedures for cold-formed
steel members. Experimental and analytical investigations conducted by previous
researchers are also described evaluating their findings and method of testing.
Chapter 3: This chapter describes the experimental investigations on material
properties and section moment capacities of RHFBs. All the experimental results are
presented, compared with predictions from the current design methods and
appropriate recommendations made for RHFBs.
Chapter 4: This chapter presents the details of laboratory experiments of lateral

buckling tests on RHFBs to investigate the lateral distortional and lateral torsional
buckling behaviour. All the experimental results are presented and the current design
rules are reviewed. Comparisons of experimental results with the current design rules
are also presented.
Chapter 5: This chapter presents the details about the development of finite element
models to simulate laboratory tests described in Chapters 3 and 4. The procedures of
simulating loads, boundary conditions, material properties, initial conditions and
validation of the developed finite element models are presented using experimental
results.
Chapter 6: The detailed finite element analyses to investigate the effect of various
parameters on the flexural behaviour of RHFBs are discussed and a wide range of
data base was obtained to develop suitable design rules for the new RHFBs. The new
design rule was developed and compared with the current design rules to check the
applicability.
Chapter 7: In this chapter, a summary of the most significant findings of this

research is presented with the recommendations for further research.
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review
2.1 General
Due to increasing interest among researchers, a large number of publications dealing

with the cold-formed steel structural members are in existence. However, the so-
called hollow flange beams (HFB), which were developed in early 1990s, are not
well researched until recently and therefore their publications are limited. This
chapter aims to provide a brief review of previous research investigations on the
cold-formed steel beams with special attention to the HFBs.
2.2 Special Characteristics and Design Considerations of Cold-

formed Steel Members
Unlike conventional hot-rolled steel members, there are certain unique characteristics
related to cold-formed steel members, particularly due to their forming process and
the use of thinner material. Some of these special characteristics and design issues
are discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1 Methods of Forming
In general, two manufacturing methods are used to produce various shapes of cold-
formed steel sections (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2), and they are cold roll-forming and
press brake operations.
2.2.1.1 Cold Roll-forming
The cold roll-forming process consists of feeding a continuous steel strip through a
series of opposing rolls (see Figure 2.1a) to deform the steel plastically to form the
desired shapes. The process involved in cold-forming a Z- section is illustrated in
Figure 2.1b. A simple section may be produced by as few as six pairs of rolls but a
complex section may require as many as 15 sets of rolls (Yu, 2000). This method is
usually used to produce cold-formed steel sections where a large quantity of a given
shape is required.
(a) Cold Roll-forming Machines (Yu, 2000) (b) Roll-forming Sequence for a Z-
Section (Hancock, 1998)
Figure 2.1: Cold Roll-Forming Processes
However, a significant limitation of this method is the time taken to change rolls for
different size sections. Consequently, adjustable rolls are often used which allow a
rapid change to a different section width or depth. From a structural point of view,
roll-forming may produce a different set of residual stresses in the section and hence
the section strength may be different in case where buckling and yielding interact.
2.2.1.2 Press Braking
The equipment used in the press brake operation essentially consists of a moving top
beam and a stationary bottom bed that produce one complete fold at a time along the
full length of the section (see Figure 2.2). This method is normally used for low
volume production where a variety of shapes are required and the roll-forming
tooling costs can not be justified. However, this method has a limitation that it is
difficult to produce continuous lengths exceeding approximately 5 metres (Hancock,
1998).
2.2.2 Common Section Profiles and Their Applications
Cold-formed steel shapes can broadly be classified into two groups: individual
structural frame members, and panels and decks. The former includes sections shapes
Figure 2.2 Press Braking (Karren, 1967)
such as I, L, C and Z, which are commonly used in engineering practices of cold-

formed steel construction. However with the improvement of industrial cold-
forming processes, more complex section types are possible (see Figure 2.3) and
offer competitive solutions to achieve structural weight reduction and high strength.
There are wide range of applications for these section types: typical Z or C sections
are used as purlins and bracings in roof and wall systems in residential, commercial
and industrial buildings, C- or tubular sections are normally used as shelf beam and
upright frames in steel racks, and circular, square or rectangular hollow sections are
used for structural members such as chords and webs in plane and space trusses.
The panels and decks are used mostly for roof decks, floor decks, wall panels, sliding
materials and bridge forms (Yu, 2000).
Figure 2.3: Various Shapes of Cold-formed Steel Sections (Yu, 2000)
2.2.3 Effect of Cold-forming
When steel shapes are cold-formed by either press-braking or cold-rolled-forming,

there is a change in mechanical properties of the material due to cold working of the
metal. Because the material properties undoubtedly play an important role in the
performance of structural members, it is important they are included in the design of
cold-formed sections. Macdonald et al. (1997) described that the yield strength, and
to a lesser extent the ultimate strength, are increased and ductility is reduced as a
result of this cold working, particularly in the bends of the section. Consequently,
the material properties of a formed section may be markedly different from those of
the virgin sheet material from which it is formed. The tests conducted by Karren and
Winter (1967) illustrated the variation of mechanical properties from the parent
material at the specific locations in a channel section (see Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4: Effect of Cold-work on Mechanical Properties in a Channel Section

(Karren and Winter, 1967)
Hancock (1998) stated that the research investigations by, Karren (1967) and Chajes
(1963) on the influence of cold working in steel Winter (1968) indicated that the
changes of mechanical properties due to cold work are caused mainly by strain
hardening and strain ageing as illustrated in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Effect of Strain Hardening and Strain Aging on Stress-strain
Characteristics (Chajes et al., 1963)
Current cold-formed steel design standards: AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996), Specification
for the Design of Cold-formed Steel Structural Members (AISI ,1996), BS5950-Part
5 (BSI, 1998) and EC3 (ENV, 1996) make use of this yield strength increase and
give many design recommendations including methods on how to compute the
increase in yield strength gained from cold working and procedures for full-section
test. A comparison of the Specification for the Design of Cold-formed Steel
Structural Members (AISI, 1996) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) equations to
calculate the enhanced yield strength of cold-formed sections shows that they are
almost the same with the exception that Specification for the Design of Cold-formed
Steel Structural Members (AISI, 1996) equations use a weighted average method to
approximate the full cross-section tensile yield strength, while AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
1996) equations allow the calculation of enhanced corner yield strength. In the case
of Euroode 3 and BS 5950-Part 5 equations, they are almost identical with the
exception that for Eurocode 3, the limiting values of increased average yield strength
gained from cold-forming allows for greater cold-formed section yield strength to be
considered in design. Some of the existing cold-formed steel design standards and
their design aspects are discussed in the next section.
2.2.4 Cold-formed Steel Design Standards
Specifications and standards for the design of cold-formed steel structural members
are available in many countries. The design clauses for cold-formed steel structural
members were first introduced with the preparation of the American Iron and Steel
Institute Specifications in 1946, using the research work on cold-formed members of
Professor George Winter at Cornell University (AISI, 1946). The British Steel
Standard, BS 449 (BSI, 1959) was modified in 1961 to include the design of cold-
formed members by the inclusion of Addendum No. 1 (1961) based on the work of
Professor A.H. Chilver (BSI, 1961). In Australia, the Australian Standard for the
design of cold-formed steel structural members, AS 1538 (SAA, 1974) was first
published in 1974. It was based mainly on the 1968 edition of the American
Specifications but with some modifications to the beam and column design curves to
keep them aligned with the Australian Steel Structures Code ASCA1-1968 (SAA,
1968).
In Australia, a significant revision of the 1974 edition of AS1538 was produced

using the 1980 and 1986 editions of the American Iron and Steel Institute
Specification (AISI, 1980 and 1986) in 1988. However, they were all in an
allowable (permissible) stress format (ASD). The American Iron and Steel Institute
produced a limit state version of their 1986 specification in 1991, called the Load and
Resistance Factor Design Specification (LRFD) (AISI, 1991). In 1990, Standards
Australia published the limit state design standard for steel structures called AS 4100
based on the load factor and capacity factor approach similar to that used for LRFD
in the USA. In 1993, Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand commenced
work on a limit states design standard for cold-formed steel structures to suit both
countries (SA, 1996). The new standard called AS/NZS 4600 is based mainly on the
latest AISI specifications (AISI, 1996). In the UK, BS5950, Part5 is the principal
source of guidance for the design of cold-formed structural steel work (BSI, 1998).
Other international standards for cold-formed steel structures which are in a limit
state format include, the Eurocode3 EC3 (ENV, 1996) and the Canadian Standard
CAN/CSA S136-94 (CSA, 1994). The corresponding design approach of steel
structural design standards, AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600, will be discussed later in
this chapter.
2.2.5 Special Design Criteria
A set of unique problems pertaining to cold-formed steel design has evolved mainly
due to the thinner materials and cold-forming process used in the production of cold-
formed sections. Hence, unlike the usually thicker conventional hot-rolled steel
members, the design of cold-formed steel members must be given special
considerations during the design phase of such members. A brief summary of such
considerations is listed next.
2.2.5.1 Local Buckling and Post Buckling Strength
Individual elements forming cold-formed steel members are usually thin with respect
to their width. Therefore, they are likely to buckle at a lower stress than yield point
when they are subjected to compression, bending, shear or bearing forces. However,
unlike one-dimensional structural elements such as columns, stiffened compression
elements will not collapse when the buckling stress is reached, but they often
continue to carry increasing loads by means of redistribution of stresses (Winter,
1970). The ability of these locally buckled elements to carry further load, known as
post buckling strength, is allowed in the design to achieve an economic solution.
Figures 2.6(a) and (b) illustrate two cases of local buckling of thin-walled box and
plate girders. The applied sagging bending moment induces longitudinal compressive
stresses in the top flange plate, causing local buckling in the top flange. Detailed
descriptions of local buckling effects on the behaviour of cold-formed steel members
are presented in Section 2.3.21.
(a) Box Girder (b) Plate Girder
Figure 2.6: Local Buckling of Compression Flanges (SCI, 1998)
2.2.5.2 Torsional Rigidity
Many of the steel shapes produced by cold-forming are monosymmetric open

sections with their shear centre eccentric from their centroid as illustrated in Figure
2.7. The eccentricity of loads from the shear centre axis will generally produce
considerable torsional deformation in the thin-walled beams as a result of flexural-
torsional buckling (see Fig. 2.7). The torsional rigidity of an open section is
proportional to t3 (t, is material thickness) so that the cold-formed steel sections
consisting of thin elements are relatively weak against torsion. Hence torsional
stiffness of cold-formed steel members is an important criterion in the design of cold-
formed steel sections to achieve an economic solution.
Figure 2.7: Torsional Deformations in Eccentrically Loaded Channel Beam

(Hancock, 1998)
2.2.5.3 Distortional Buckling
Thin-walled flexural or compression members composed of high-strength steel

and/or slender elements in the section, which are braced against lateral or flexural-
torsional buckling, may undergo a mode of buckling commonly called distortional
buckling (Hancock, 1997). The previous research studies (Ellifritt et al., 1992,
Kavanagh and Ellifritt, 1993 and 1994) have shown that a discretely braced beam,
not attached to deck and sheeting, may fail either by lateral-torsional buckling
between braces, or by distortional buckling at or near the braced point.
Two modes of distortional buckling are specified in the cold-formed steel design
standard, AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). The first one is flange distortional buckling,
which involves rotation of a flange and lip about the flange/web junction of a C-
section or Z-section and the second one is lateral-distortional buckling, which
involves transverse bending of vertical web (see Figures 2.8 (a) and (b)). Flange
distortional buckling is most likely to occur in the open thin-walled sections such as
C- and Z- sections while lateraldistortional buckling is the most likely in beams,
such as hollow flange beams, where the high torsional rigidity of the tubular
compression flange prevents it from twisting during lateral displacement (Pi and
Trahair, 1997). The distortional buckling concept is first introduced into AS/NZS
4600 in its 1996 version (SA, 1998b). Section 2.3.2.2 of this chapter gives a
comprehensive review of distortional buckling.
(a) Distortional Buckling (b) Lateral Distortional Buckling
Figure 2.8: Buckling of a Channel Section and a Hollow Flange

Beam (SA, 1998b)
2.2.5.4 Connection Types
The generally used connection types in the cold-formed steel construction include;
welds, bolts, screws, rivets and other special devices such as clinching, nailing and
structural adhesives (see Figure 2.9).
(a) Clinching (b) Screw Fastener (c) Bolt Fastener
Figure 2.9: Generally Used Cold-formed Steel Fasteners
Due to the comparative low thickness of the material, connection technology plays
an important role in the development of structures using cold-formed steel members.
Although the above mentioned conventional methods of connections are available
and used in cold-formed steel constructions, they are practically less appropriate for
thin-walled member connections in terms of cost, quality and construction efficiency
(Lennon et al., 1999). The self-piercing riveting introduced commercially by
HENROB is a recently discovered connection type with many advantages compared
with other conventional methods used in cold-formed steel connections (Voelkner,
2000, see Figure 2.10). Therefore, the choice of connection type is an important
decision in cold-formed steel manufacturing, because it affects the combinations of
cost, quality and construction efficiency of the whole project.
Figure 2.10: Cross section of a Self-piercing Rivet (Voelkner, 2000)
2.3 Flexural Behaviour of HFBs
The behaviour of flexural members is governed by several parameters including their

geometric shape and section properties, loading pattern, material properties, support
conditions etc. Unlike hot-rolled heavy steel sections, structural behaviour of cold-
formed beam sections such as HFBs is mostly characterised by their high strength
thinner elements composed in the section. In the design of cold-formed steel flexural
members, the moment resisting capacity and stiffness of the beam are the most
important criteria. The moment resisting capacity of flexural members is limited by
various buckling modes including local, lateral distortional and flexural-torsional,
particularly when the section is fabricated from thin material. A brief review of
flexural behaviour and design aspects of cold-formed steel beams, especially the
HFBs, is presented in the following sections.
2.3.1 Buckling Behaviour of HFBs Subjected to Bending
It has been found that the buckling behaviour of triangular HFB sections is different
to that of conventional hot-rolled I sections and the cold-formed open sections such
as C- and Z- sections (PTM, 1990). A series of finite strip analyses for the case of
uniform moment for C-, Z-sections and triangular HFBs revealed that the buckling
stress corresponding to local buckling modes in triangular HFB sections are much
greater than the yield stress (PTM, 1993). However, the yield stress is only slightly
higher than local buckling stress in the case of C- and Z- sections. Thus, the local
buckling is only a minor issue for HFBs in bending, whereas it tends to dominate in
the cold-formed open sections (Heldt and Mahendran, 1992). However, research has
identified that the behaviour of triangular HFBs is significantly influenced by the
lateral-distortional buckling mode of failure (Dempsey, 1990, 1991). Unlike the
commonly observed lateral-torsional buckling (flexural-torsional buckling) of steel
beams, the lateral-distortional buckling of triangular HFBs is characterised by
simultaneous lateral deflection, twist and cross-sectional change due to web
distortion (Avery and Mahendran, 1997).
The graphs in Figure 2.11 represent the buckling stress versus buckle half-
wavelengths for the two sections subjected to pure bending about their major
principle axes so that their top flanges are in compression while their bottom flanges
are in tension as in a conventional beam. The buckling stress is the value of the
stress in the compression flange farthest away from the bending axis when the
section undergoes elastic buckling.
Figure 2.11 clearly demonstrates that at short half-wavelengths (50 mm-500 mm),
the changed buckling mode from local buckling in the unattached flange element in
HBS2 changes to local buckling of the top flange at a higher stress in HBS1. At long
half-wavelengths (2 m 10 m), the increased torsional rigidity of the flanges has
increased the buckling stress in execs of 100 percent for lengths greater than 5 m.
The mode of buckling at a half-wavelength of 5 m for the open sections (HBS2) is a
conventional flexural-torsional buckle. The flexural-torsional buckling mode of the
open HBS2 section involves longitudinal displacements of the cross-section (called
warping displacements) such that the longitudinal displacements at the free edges of-
Figure 2.11: Buckling Stress versus Half-wavelength (Hancock, 1998)
the strips are different from the longitudinal displacements of the web at the points
where the free edges abut the web. The mode of buckling at 5 m for the section with
closed flanges (HBS1) shows a new type of buckling mode not previously described
for sections of this type. It involves lateral bending of the two flanges, one more
than other, with the flanges substantially untwisted as a result of their increased
torsional rigidity. The web is distorted as a result of the relative movement of the
flanges. The mode is called lateral distortional buckling. It has substantially
increased buckling stress value over that of the flexural-torsional buckling of the
open section HBS2. Hence it is not valid to compute the flexural-torsional buckling
capacity of HBS1 using conventional buckling formulae as this would produce
erroneous results as shown by the dashed line in Figure 2.11 (Hancock, 1998).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the lateral distortional buckling mode of failure is
the most significant criterion for the closed triangular HFBs, however, local buckling
is also a possible mode of failure.
2.3.1.1 Local Buckling
The individual plate components forming cold-formed steel sections are normally
thin compared with their width. This may instigate local buckling of plate elements
in cold-formed sections before yield stress is reached. Local buckling in plate
elements involves flexural displacements, with the line junctions between plate
elements remaining straight (see Figure 2.7). The local buckling failure in thin-
walled sections can occur under compression, bending or shear loading. Previous
researchers (Bleich, 1952: Allen and Bulson, 1980 and Troitsky, 1976) have
extensively investigated and summarised the elastic critical stress for local buckling.
The elastic critical stress for local buckling ( f cr ) of a plate element is determined
using Bryans (1891) differential Equation (2.1) based on small deflection theory;
Et 3 4w 4w 4w 2w
+ 2 + = f x t (2.1)
12(1 2 ) x 4 x 2 y 2 y 4 x 2
Bryans differential equation has been developed based on a rectangular plate of

width w, length a and thickness t, with in plane stress fx acting on the plate as shown
in Figure 2.12. The solution of Bryans differential equation for the elastic critical
local buckling stress (fcr) is given by;
2
k 2 E t
f cr = (2.2)
12(1 ) w
2
Figure 2.12: Rectangular Plate Subjected to Compression Stress (Hancock, 1998)
The elastic critical local buckling stress (fcr) is a function of the elastic material
properties (E,), plate slenderness ratio w/t, and the restraint conditions along the
longitudinal boundaries represented by the value k, where k, E and are called as
plate local buckling coefficient, elastic modulus and the Poissons ratio, respectively.
For example, a steel plate with simply supported edges on all four sides and
subjected to uniform compression will buckle at a half-wavelength equal to the plate
width (w) with a plate buckling coefficient (k) of 4.0. A plate element is defined as
slender if the elastic critical local buckling stress (fcr) calculated using Equation 2.2 is
less than the material yield stress (fy). A slender section will buckle locally before
the squash load (Py) or the yield moment (My) is reached. If the elastic critical
buckling stress (fcr) exceeds the yield stress fy, the compression element will buckle
in the inelastic range (Yu, 2000).
Equation 2.2 can be used for the local buckling of plates subjected to bending and
shear (Trahair and Bradford, 1988). The buckling of disjointed flat rectangular
plates under bending with or without longitudinal loads has been investigated by
many researchers; (Yu, 2000). The bending buckling coefficient, k for long plates
was found to be 23.9 for simple supports and 41.8 for fixed supports by Timoshenko
(1959). The relationships between the buckling coefficient, k and the aspect ratio a/h
(where a and h represent length and height of the web, respectively) was presented
by Gerard and Becker (1957) as shown in Figure 2.13. Bulson (1969) also showed
the influence of bending stress ratio fc /ft on buckling coefficient k, when a simply
supported plate is subjected to a compressive bending stress higher than the tensile
bending stress. A summary of local buckling coefficients, k with corresponding half-
wavelengths of the local buckles for a long rectangular plate subjected to different
types of stress (compression, shear, or bending) and boundary conditions (simply
supported, fixed, or free edge) is given in Table 2.1.
Figure 2.13 Bending Buckling Coefficient k Vs Aspect Ratio, a/h (Gerard and
Becker, 1957)
Table 2.1: Local Buckling Coefficient (Hancock, 1998)
Note: L=Plate length, b=Plate width
Although local buckling occurs at a stress level lower than the yield stress of steel, it
does not necessarily represent the collapse of the members. In the case of
considerably low (b/t) ratios, failure is governed by post-buckling strength which is
generally much higher than local buckling strength. For example, a plate subjected
to uniform compressive strain between rigid frictionless platens will deform after
buckling, and will redistribute the longitudinal membrane stresses from uniform
compression to those shown in Figure 2.14. Although the stiffness reduced to 40.8%
of the initial linear elastic value for a square stiffened element and to 44.4% for a
square unstiffened element, the plate element will continue to carry load (Bulson,
1970). The theoretical analysis of post buckling and failure of plates is extremely
difficult, and generally requires a sophisticated computer analysis to achieve an
accurate solution (Hancock, 1998).
Figure 2.14: Redistribution of Stress after Post buckling of Uniformly Compressed
Plate Element (Hancock, 1998)
The buckling behaviour of triangular HFB sections was investigated by Dempsey

(1990) using a finite strip buckling analysis program BFINST6. His buckling
analysis has shown that the buckling coefficients (k) are generally equal to or greater
than 4.0 for flange element and the web element, thus verifying that the flange and
web elements are adequately stiffened. Figure 2.15 shows the buckling stresses over
a wide range of half-wavelengths. Local buckling occurs in the top compression
flange at a half-wavelength of approximately the flat width of the compression
element (Point A). Both of the flange return and the compression portion of the web
do not experience local buckling because the stresses are lower and are not uniform
and their flat width to thickness ratio (b/t) is much smaller.
Figure 2.15: Different Buckling Modes and Buckling Stresses for a Triangular HFB
Subjected to Bending (Dempsey, 1990)
By rearranging Equation 2.2 for elastic critical stress for local buckling of a plate
element in compression, and substituting the buckling stress at point A from the
finite strip buckling analysis, the buckling coefficient can be calculated for the top
flange (Dempsey, 1990). Table 2.2 shows the values of k calculated using Equation
2.3 for a series of triangular HFBs. For all except the thicker 300 mm deep sections,
k 4.0, which more than satisfies the assumed support conditions for the edges of the
flange compression element. For those cases where, k < 4.0, local buckling does not
occur because the flat width to thickness ratio is sufficiently high. The ratio of the
radius to thickness of the flange bends also appears to affect the calculated value of
k. The smaller the ratio (within the range shown), the smaller the buckling
coefficient. This would indicate that for a given material thickness, sharp corners do
not provide as much stiffness to the edge of the flange as wider corners (Dempsey,
1990).
Table 2.2 Local Buckling Coefficients of Flange for Major Axis Bending
(Dempsey, 1990)
Designation B t R b/t fol k

300HFB43 90 4.3 9 16.7 2396 3.72
300HFB38 90 3.8 9 18.9 1980 3.93
300HFB33 90 3.3 9 21.8 1588 4.18
300HFB28 90 2.8 9 25.7 1216 4.45
250HFB28 90 2.8 9 25.7 1219 4.46
250HFB23 90 2.3 9 31.3 868 4.71
200HFB23 90 2.3 9 31.3 868 4.71
200HFB18 90 1.8 9 40.0 552 4.89
Note: B, t, and R - geometric parameters of triangular HFBs (see Figure 1.3)

fol - local buckling stress in MPa and k plate buckling coefficient
2.3.1.2 Distortional Buckling
Distortional buckling is a mode of failure where a section changes its cross-sectional

shape under compressive stress. It may occur in thin sections in compression or
bending at stresses significantly below the yield stress, especially for high strength
steels (Hancock and Rogers, 1998). The wavelength of distortional buckling is
generally intermediate between that of local buckling and global buckling which
places it firmly in the practical range of member lengths (Davies and Jiang, 1998).
Past investigations have revealed two distinctive distortional buckling modes that
commonly observed in cold-formed steel members namely flange distortional
buckling and lateral-distortional buckling (see Section 2.2.5.3). The flange
distortional buckling of cold-formed C- and Z-section steel members has been
extensively investigated: Lau and Hancock (1987) presented distortional buckling
formulae for channel columns, Hancock (1997) provided a design method for
distortional buckling of C-section flexural members, Lau and Hancock (1990)
studied inelastic buckling of channel columns in the distortional mode, Jiang and
Davies (1997) derived design approaches for distortional buckling of channel
sections, Hancock et al. (1994) provided design strength curves for thin-walled C-
sections undergoing distortional buckling, Rogers and Shuster (1997) investigated
the distortional buckling of cold-formed steel C-sections in bending, and Teng et al.
(2003) studied distortional buckling of channel beam-columns.
The formulae to predict the elastic distortional buckling stress (fod) of thin-walled
channel section columns with a range of section geometries were presented by Lau
and Hancock (1987). They were derived based on an approximate model of the
distortional buckling as shown in Figure 2.16a. The distortional buckling formulae
for sections in compression were later modified by Hancock (1997) to allow them to
apply to distortional buckling in flexure based on a revised distortional buckling
model as shown in Figure 2.16b.
(a) Compression (Lau and Hancock, 1987) (b) Flexure (Hancock, 1997)
Figure 2.16: Analytical Models for Distortional Buckling in Compression and

Flexure
The rotational spring stiffness, k is given in Lau and Hancock (1987) as:
2
bw
2
Et 3 1.11 f '
k = 1 od
(2.4)
5.46(bw + 0.06 ) Et 2
bw + 2
2
where E is the modulus of elasticity, t is the thickness, bw is the width of the web and
fod is the compressive stress in the web at distortional buckling, computed assuming
k is zero. In Equation 2.4, is the half-wavelength of the distortional buckling, and
is given by:
2 0.25
I xf b f bw
= 4.8 (2.5)
t3
in which, Ixf and bf are moment of inertia and width of the compression flange,
respectively.
When the web of the C-section is subjected to compression as shown in Figure 2.17a,
it is treated as a simply supported beam in flexure (see Figure 2.18a). The rotational
stiffness at the end would then be 2EI/L as a result of the equal and opposite end
moments. When the web of the C-section is subjected to flexure as shown in Figure
2.17b, it is treated as a beam simply supported at one end and built in at the other
(see Figure 2.18b). The rotational stiffness at the free end would then be 4EI/L.
Hence it can be concluded that the change in restraint to bottom flange from Figure
2.17a to Figure 2.17b will approximately double the torsional restraint stiffness k
(Hancock, 1997).
(a) (b)
Figure 2.17: Buckling of a C- section Under Compression
(a) (b)
Figure 2.18: Symmetric and Asymmetric Restrained Bending (Hancock, 1997)
On this basis, Equations 2.4 and 2.5, which were developed for the compression
members by Lau and Hancock (1987), were later revised by Hancock (1997) for
flexural members as:
bw d
4 2
2 Et 3 1.11 f '
k = 1 od
(2-6)
5.46(bw + 0.06 d ) Et 2
12.56 d + 2.192bw + 13.39 d bw
4 4 2 2
2 0.25
I xf b f bw
d = 4.8 (2-7)
2t 3
Clause 3.3.3.3 of the cold-formed steel design standard, AS/NZS 4600 provides
design methods for flexural members subjected to distortional buckling for two cases
(SA, 1996):
(a) Distortional buckling involving rotation of a flange and lip about the
flange/web junction of a channel or Z-section, and
(b) Distortional buckling involving transverse bending of a vertical web with

lateral displacement of the compression flange.
The elastic distortional buckling stress fod is calculated using equations provided in
Appendix D of the AS/NZS 4600. These formulae are based on Hancocks (1997)
distortional buckling formulae for C-section flexural members, and so that they may
only cover the Part a of Clause 3.3.3.3. AS/NZS 4600 has recommended the
equations given in Appendix D to be used in calculating the distortional buckling
stress (fod) in the case of lateral distortional buckling (Part b of Clause 3.3.3.3) which
is likely to occur in beams, such as HFBs. However, these equations provided in
Appendix D of the AS/NZS 4600 have been primarily developed for open C-sections
by Hancock (1997) and hence the use of the same equations to calculate distortional
buckling stresses for other section geometries subjected to lateral distortional
buckling mode is debatable. This position is supported by the statement from Avery
et. al. (2000), who state that the lateral distortional buckling is not encompassed by
the design formulae contained in either the Australian Steel Structures (AS 4100) or
Cold-formed Steel Structures (AS 1538), which was later revised to the current
version of Cold-formed Steel Structures, AS/NZS 4600.
The elastic lateral distortional buckling of triangular HFBs has been investigated to
some extent by past researchers: Dempsey (1990) analysed the elastic lateral
distortional buckling of simply supported triangular HFBs in uniform bending using
a finite strip method incorporated in the computer program Thin-wall (Hancock and
Papangelis, 1994), Heldt and Mahendran (1992) conducted investigations of lateral
distortional buckling of triangular HFBs using both buckling analysis and
experiments, Mahendran and Doan (1999) carried out lateral distortional buckling
tests of triangular HFBs, Avery and Mahendran (1997) investigated the use of web
stiffeners to eliminate the lateral distortional buckling of triangular HFBs and Pi and
Trahair (1997) have developed a nonlinear inelastic method to analyse the lateral
distortional behaviour of triangular HFBs.
Mahendran and Doan (1999) indicated that research has identified the flexural
capacity of triangular HFB is limited under certain restraint, span and loading
conditions by the lateral distortional buckling mode of failure (see Figure 2.8). They
have also indicated that the cross-sectional distortion causes significant strength
reductions, and is particularly severe in short to medium spans.
Dempsey (1990) demonstrated the change of buckling modes at different half-

wavelengths (see Figure 2.15). At long wavelengths, the buckling curve is similar to,
but lower than the flexural-torsional buckling curve which is shown as a dashed line
in Figure 2.15. The HFB is actually buckling in a distortional mode since the
member cross-section does not maintain its original shape. The distortion occurs as
double curvature of the web as the compression flange displaces laterally while the
tension flange remains in its original position. As the half-wavelength is increased
even further, the tension flange also displaces laterally so that distortion reduces until
the buckling mode is almost totally lateral buckling, and the distortional buckling
curve approaches the flexural-torsional buckling curve.
Several factors influence the reduction of buckling stress due to distortion, and it
appears that a relationship between the reduction in buckling stress and the member
geometry has not yet been established, even though this behaviour has been recorded
for thin-web I-beams (Bradford and Trahair, 1982). Generally the behaviour seems
to be a function of the torsional rigidity of the compression flange, the slenderness of
the web, and the unrestrained length of the beam (Dempsey, 1990). Past research
(Avery and Mahendran, 1997: Bradford and Trahair, 1982) has also demonstrated
that the provision of web stiffeners and batten plates enhance the lateral distortional
buckling strength, as they act to prevent distortion by coupling the rotational degrees
of freedom of the top and bottom flanges.
Pi and Trahair (1997) stated that the survey of research information on triangular
HFBs indicated that there is no simple formulation for predicting the effect of lateral
distortional buckling on the lateral buckling of HFBs. On this basis, they attempted
to find a simple but sufficiently accurate closed form solution for the effects of web
distortion on the elastic lateral buckling of simply supported triangular HFBs in
uniform bending. They also attempted to develop an advanced theoretical method of
predicting the effects of stress-strain curve, residual stresses, and geometrical
imperfections on the strengths of HFBs that fail by lateral-distortional buckling.
The equation for flexural-torsional buckling moment resistance Mo was modified by

Pi and Trahair (1997) by introducing an effective torsional rigidity GJe in place of
the nominal torsional rigidity GJ to calculate the lateral distortional buckling moment
resistance Mod.
The elastic flexural-torsional buckling moment resistance without web distortion is
given as:
2 EI y 2 EI w
Mo = GJ + (2.8)
L2 L2
in which, EIy = minor axis flexural rigidity; EIw = warping rigidity; and L = span
length. This formula is revised to include the effect of web distortion as:
2 EI y 2 EI w
M od = GJ e + (2.9)
L2 L2
The approximate lateral distortional buckling moment resistance, Mod is obtained by

using the approximate effective torsional rigidity GJe given by;
Et 3 L 2
(2 GJ F )
0 . 91 2 d c
GJ e = (2.10)
Et 3 L 2
2 GJ +
0 . 91 2 d c
F
in which, GJF = torsional rigidity of a hollow flange about its own axis; E = Youngs
modulus of elasticity, dc = clear web depth and t = web thickness.
Myz, Myzd Flexural torsional and lateral distortional Buckling Moment, MTW Thin-wall values
Figure 2.19 Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments (Pi and Trahair, 1997)
The elastic lateral distortional buckling moments, predicted by Thin-wall (MTW) and
obtained from Equation 2.9 (Mod) were compared with flexural torsional buckling
moment (Mo) for two triangular HFB sections as shown in Figure 2.19. It can be
seen that the approximate values Mod are in close agreement with the accurate Thin-
wall values MTW, and also these lateral-distortional buckling values are significantly
lower than the flexural-torsional buckling moments Mo.
2.4. Design Procedures for HFBs
Current specifications for the design of flexural steel members are based on semi-
empirical equations, used to estimate the ultimate section and member capacities.
The capacity of a flexural member in a steel structure is determined using the
appropriate specification equations and compared with the member forces
corresponding to the ultimate applied loads, typically obtained from a simple elastic
analysis. Effects of local buckling are accounted for by using the effective section
concept. The current AS4100 and AS4600 specifications for the design of members
subjected to flexural loading with or without full lateral restraint are presented in
Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. However, shear, bearing, flange curling and web crippling
are not considered in this study as they are outside the scope of this research.
2.4.1. Design procedures of AS 4100
The nominal section moment capacity (Ms) is defined in Clause 5.2.1 (SA, 1998) as
follows:
Ms = Zefy (2.11)
The effective section modulus (Ze) shall be either plastic section modulus or reduced
section modulus to allow for flexural local buckling. The effective section modulus is
specified in Clauses 5.2.3, 5.2.4, or 5.2.5 (SA, 1998) as follows:
s sp Z e = Lesser of S or 1.5Z (2.12)
sy s
sp < s sy Ze = Z + (Z c Z ) (2.13)
sy sp
sy
s > sy Ze = Z (2.14)
s
where S and Z are the plastic and elastic section modulii, respectively. Ze is the
effective section modulus as specified in Clause 5.2.3 (SA, 1998), which is either S
or 1.5Z.
The section slenderness ( s) is taken as the value of the plate element slenderness ( e)
for the element of the cross-section which has the greatest value of ( e/ ey). The
plate element slenderness ( e) is defined in Clause 5.2.2 (SA, 1998) as a function of
the element clear width (b), thickness (t), and yield stress (fy):
b fy
e = (2.15)
t E
The section plasticity and yield slenderness limits ( sp, sy) are taken as the values of
the element slenderness limits ( ep, ey) given in Table 5.2.2 (SA, 1998) for the
element of the cross section which has the greatest value of e/ ey. The limiting
slenderness ratios were established from lower bound fits to the experimental local
buckling resistance of plate elements in uniform compression and flexure.
The nominal member moment capacity (Mb) of members with full lateral restraint is
specified in Clause 5.2.1 (SA, 1998) as equal to the nominal section moment
capacity of the critical section. The critical section is defined in Clause 5.3.3 (SA,
1998) as the cross-section which has the largest value of the ratio of the design
bending moment (M*) to the nominal section capacity in bending (Ms).
The nominal member moment capacity (Mb) of a beam without full lateral restraint
has been specified in Clause 5.6.1 (SA, 1998) as:
M b = m s M s M s (2.16)
where the moment modification factor ( m) shall be determined from one of the
methods described in Clause 5.6.1.1 (SA, 1998). For uniform bending moment
distribution m =1.0. The slenderness reduction factor ( s) is defined in Clause
5.6.1.1 (SA, 1998) as:
2
Ms Ms
s = 0 .6 +3 (2.17)
Mo Mo
where, reference buckling moment (Mo) is defined in Clause 5.6.1.1 (SA, 1998) as:
2 EI y 2 EI w
Mo = 2
GJ + 2
(2.18)
Le Le
Therefore, the member capacity of a beam subjected to a uniform bending moment

can be rewritten as:
2
Ms Ms
M b = 0.6 +3 Ms Ms (2.19)
Mo Mo
Avery et al. (2000) pointed out that Equation 2.19 is based on the lower bounds of
the test results for I-section beams, and therefore its suitability in the design of HFB
beams requires further investigations. Bradford (1992) states that the relationship
between distortional buckling strain, yielding and elastic distortional buckling is the
same as that between the lateral buckling strength, yielding and elastic lateral
buckling. This implies that if the reference buckling moment (Mo) in Equation 2.19
is replaced with the elastic distortional buckling moment (Mod), the AS 4100
procedure shall be suitable for the hollow flange beams. This approach was
investigated by Pi and Trahair (1997), in which they used Equations 2.9 and 2.10 to
determine Mod for use with AS 4100 procedure. Their research showed that Equation
2.19 has to be slightly modified to that given by the following equation in order to
improve the accuracy in predicting the flexural member capacity of triangular HFBs.
2
Ms Ms
M b = 0.6 + 2.8 Ms Ms (2.20)
Mo Mo
2.4.2. Design procedures of AS/NZS 4600
The nominal section moment capacity (Ms) is specified in Clause 3.3.2 (SA, 1996) in
a similar fashion to AS 4100 as follows:
M s = Ze f y (2.21)
However, unlike AS 4100, the effective section modulus (Ze) is based on the
initiation of yielding in the extreme compression fibres. Therefore AS 4600 does not
allow for the inelastic reserve capacity of the section. The effects of local buckling
are accounted for by using reduced (effective) width (be) of non-compact elements in
compression for the calculation of the effective section modulus. In the effective
width approach, the non-uniform stress distribution over the entire width of plate
element (b) due to redistribution of stress after buckling is replaced by a uniformly
distributed stress equal to the edge stress (fmax) acting over a fictitious effective width
(be) as shown in Figure 2.20.
Figure 2.20: Stress Distribution in Stiffened Compression Element (SA, 1998b)
The effective width concept was first introduced by von Karman et al. (1932) and
since then extensive investigations on light-gauge, cold-formed steel sections have
been carried out. The following equations to calculate effective width (be) was
developed by Winter (1946) for a stiffened compression element simply supported at
both longitudinal edges.
be = b (2.22)
where, is the effective width factor defined in Clause 2.2.1.2 (SA, 1996) as:
0.22
1

= 1.0 (2.23)

where is the slenderness ratio and is calculated as:
1.052 b f max
= (2.24)
k t E
In Equation 2.24, k is the plate buckling coefficient and depends on edge boundary
conditions and type of stress (see Section 2.3.2.1). For nominal section moment
capacity (Ms) calculations, fmax is assumed equal to yield stress, fy, for the extreme
flange element
The nominal member moment capacity (Mb) is specified in Clause 3.3.3 as the lesser
of the values calculated in accordance with members subjected to lateral buckling or
distortional buckling.
Therefore, unlike AS 4100, AS 4600 does provide equations specifically intended for
the design of members subjected to distortional buckling in Clause 3.3.3.2 (SA,
1996) as follows:
Mc
M b = Ze (2.25)
Zf
For hollow flange beams, it is appropriate to determine the effective section modulus
Ze at a stress level Mc/Zf, where Mc is the critical moment as defined in Equations
2.26 and 2.27.
d 2
For d < 1.44 Mc = M y 1 (2.26)
4
1
For d 1.44 Mc = M y (2.27)
d 2
The non-dimensional member slenderness ( d) is given by:
My
d = (2.28)
M od
Avery et al. (2000) studied the flexural capacity of triangular HFBs and pointed out
that the member capacity predicted by AS 4600 is, on average, more accurate and
precise than the AS 4100 predictions. Their study further indicated that AS 4600
equations overestimate the capacity of hollow flange beam sections for intermediate
spans, and therefore the detrimental effects of web distortion are not accurately
accounted for. Hence, the AS 4600 equations cannot be safely used for the design of
hollow flange beam members subjected to uniform bending.
2.4.3. Trahairs Design Procedures
A modified design procedure for triangular HFB flexural members based on

Trahairs (1997) equations was proposed by Avery et al. (2000) as a more accurate
and reliable alternative to the AS 4600 design methods. Trahair (1997) equations for
flexural member capacity are given next.
ab
Mb = b + Ms Ms ; Mb Mo (2.29)
1 + c d
2n
The non-dimensional member slenderness ( d) is given by;
Ms
d = (2.30)
M od
The coefficients (a, b, c, and n) for a range of hollow flange beam sections were
found by using the least square method with the total error defined as the square of
the difference between the normalized analytical capacity (i.e. Mu/Ms) and the
normalized design capacity (i.e. Mb/Ms). The results indicated an unacceptable
maximum unconservative error of more than 10 percent. Therefore the coefficients
were established by Avery et al. (2000) for separate group of sections with the same
thickness as given in Table 2.3. The member capacity predicted by Avery et al.
(2000) using the modified Trahair equations was found to be significantly more
accurate and precise than the AS 4100 predictions.
Table 2.3: Coefficients for Trahairs (1997) Member Capacity Equation
Coefficient t=3.8 t=3.3 t=2.8 t=2.3 Overall

a 1.006 0.999 0.997 0.997 1.000
b 0.024 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000
c 0.448 0.377 0.321 0.273 0.424
n 1.350 1.407 1.429 1.469 1.196
2.5 Finite Element Analysis
Finite element analysis (FEA) of cold-formed steel structures plays an increasingly

important role in engineering practice, as it is relatively inexpensive and time
efficient compared with physical experiments, especially when a parametric study of
cross-section geometries is involved. Furthermore, it is difficult to investigate the
effects of geometric imperfections and residual stresses of structural members
experimentally. Therefore, FEA is more economical than physical experiments,
provided the finite element model is accurate and the results could be validated with
sufficient experimental results.
The finite element analysis process involves three major phases;
1. Pre-processing The purpose of pre-processing is to develop an appropriate finite

element mesh, assign suitable material properties, and apply boundary conditions
in the form of restraints and loads.
2. Solution While the pre-processing and post-processing phases of the finite

element method are interactive and time-consuming for the analyst, the solution is
usually a batch process, and is demanding of computer resources. The governing
equations are assembled into a matrix form and are solved numerically. The
assembly process depends not only on the type of analysis (e.g. static or dynamic),
but also on the models element types and properties, material properties and
boundary conditions.
3. Post-processing After a finite element model has been prepared and checked,
boundary conditions have been applied, and the model has been solved, it is time
to investigate the results of the analysis. This activity is known as the post-
processing phase of the finite element model. Post-processing begins with a
thorough check for problems that may have occurred during the solution stage.
Most solvers provide a log file, which should be searched for warning or error
messages, and which will also provide a quantitative measure of how well
behaved the numerical procedures were during solution.
Finite element modelling requires care to guarantee good results. Bakker and Pekoz
(2003) gave an overview of possible errors, which might occur during linear and
non-linear finite element analysis. Table 2.4 shows a summary of errors that can
occur during finite element modelling.
Table 2.4 Overview of Possible Errors During FEA (Bakker and Pekoz, 2003)
Reality
Idealization error
Mechanical model PREPROCESSING

Input error
Discretization error: equilibrium approximated
Geometry error: Geometry approximated
Shortcoming in element formulation
Program bugs
Finite element model SOLUTION
Solution error
Convergence error
Program bugs
Nodal displacements
Program bugs
Derive results according to finite element model
Rendering error: Postprocessor inter/extrapolates differently than finite element model:
Integration points nodes contour plots
Program bugs
Results according to postprocessor POSTPROCESSING
Interpretation error: postprocessor shows something else than is expected, for instance
averaged instead of unaveraged stresses
Interpretation of results
2.5.1 Analysis Types
2.5.1.1 Non-linear analysis
The load capacity of steel members of moderately high slenderness is not easy to
determine because of its dependence on a large number of parameters related to
geometric and material properties. The non-linear static analysis is therefore used to
determine the complete load-displacement behaviour of structures. In non-linear
analysis, the load is applied incrementally, with the stiffness calculated at each step.
The non-linear behaviour of structures occurs as a result of these material and
geometric non-linearities.
Material non-linearity
A linear static analysis assumes that the material is within the elastic limit, and that it
follows a simple linear stress-strain curve. The problems where this is not the case
include those exhibiting plasticity and creep of the material. For such problems an
idealised stress-strain curve must be supplied to the finite element program, and is
usually approximated in a bilinear or multilinear way, depending on the particular
material, as illustrated in Figure 2.21.
Geometric non-linearity
A large-displacement analysis is required when the structural displacements become

so large that the original stiffness matrix no longer adequately represents the
structure. In such cases, the structure stiffness matrix needs to be adjusted
accordingly. There are two ways in which this can be achieved. The first
approximate method assumes that the size of the individual element is constant, so
that reorientation of the elemental stiffness matrices due to the elements rotation
and/or translation is all that is required. The second method is more accurate, and
recalculates the stiffness matrices of the elements after adjusting the nodal
coordinates with the calculated displacements. It is quite conceivable that large-
displacement problems can themselves experience stress-stiffening effects, in which
case the geometry stiffness matrix must also be included in the large-displacement
solution.
Figure 2.21: Material Non-linearity
2.5.1.2 Buckling Analysis
The buckling analysis is used to predict the buckling loads and the corresponding
buckling shapes. The buckling load is generally used as a parameter in determining
the post-buckling strength of members. The buckling shape is used for the
description of the geometric imperfections when the maximum amplitude of the
imperfection is known but its distribution is not known. Superimposing of multiple
buckling shapes may be used as the initial geometric imperfection in post-buckling
analysis.
The post-buckling analysis is needed to investigate the load-deflection behaviour.

Pekoz et al. (2003) pointed out that several approaches are possible depending on the
selected algorithm and how the boundary conditions are applied. When the loads can
be applied by means of prescribed displacement, increment method (where
proportional displacements are applied) is used. In other cases, the modified Risk
method (where proportional loads are applied) is used in order to be able to pass limit
points. Both approaches are effective in obtaining non-linear static equilibrium
states during the unstable phase of the response. In both cases initial geometric
imperfections must also be introduced to obtain some response in the buckling mode
before the critical load is reached.
2.5.2 Initial Conditions
2.5.2.1 Geometric Imperfections
Geometrical imperfections refer to the deviation of a member from perfect geometry

(see Figure 2.22). Imperfection of a member includes bending, warping and twisting
as well as local deviations. Local deviations are characterized by dents and regular
undulations in the plate. Schafer and Pekoz (1998b) cited that previous researchers
have measured geometric imperfections of cold-formed steel members such as C-, Z-
and RHS sections. However, existing imperfection data provides only a limited
characterisation of imperfections. For plate thickness less than 3 mm, Schafer and
Pekoz (1998b) provided simple rules for so-called Type 1 imperfections for
width/thickness w/t < 200, and Type 2 imperfections for w/t < 100 (see Figure 2.21).
For Type 1 imperfections an approximate expression d1 0.006w was given as a
simple linear regression based on the plate width. They also gave an alternative rule
based on an exponential curve fit to the thickness.
d1 6te 2t (d1 and t in mm)
For Type 2 imperfections the maximum deviation is approximately equal to the plate
thickness:
d2 t
(a) Type 1 (b) Type 2
Figure 2.22: Definition of Geometric Imperfections (Schafer and Pekoz, 1998b)
When precise data of the distribution of geometric imperfection is not available,
three approaches have been used (Pekoz et al., 2003). One is to use an imperfection
based on superimposing multiple buckling modes and controlling their magnitudes.
The magnitude of imperfection can be controlled by using existing statistical
imperfection data where the maximum values are provided. On the other hand, if
imperfection measurements are conducted, the imperfection spectrum generated from
the imperfection measurements may be used to approximate the imperfection
magnitude corresponding to a particular eigenmode. Another method is to use a
stochastic process to generate signals randomly for the imperfection geometric shape.
However, a large number of measurement data is also required to have a reasonable
stochastic model. An initial geometric imperfection shape introduced by
superimposing the eigenmodes for local and distortional buckling is shown in Figure
2.23.
(a) Local buckling (b) Distortional buckling (c) Imperfection
Figure 2.23: Geometric Imperfection (Pekoz et al., 2003)
Schafer and Pekoz (1998b) suggested that at least two fundamentally different
eigenmode shapes should be summed for the imperfection distribution in a limited
study. Numerical modelling of triangular HFBs by Avery et al. (2000) used nominal
global imperfection magnitude of L/1000 based on the AS 4100 recommendation of
tolerance for compression members. The magnitudes of the local flange and web
imperfections were conservatively taken as the manufactures fabrication tolerance
(PTM, 1993) as shown in Figure 2.24.
Figure 2.24: Local Imperfections (Avery et al., 2000)
2.5.2.2 Residual Stresses
Generally, residual stress includes two types: flexural (or bending) and membrane.
In cold-formed members residual stresses are dominated by a flexural, or through
thickness variation (Schafer and Pekoz, 1998b). This variation of residual stresses
leads to early yielding on the faces of cold-formed steel plates.
Adequate computational modelling of residual stresses is troublesome for analyst,

and the inclusion of residual stresses (at the integration points of the model for
instance) may be complicated. Furthermore, selecting an appropriate magnitude is
made difficult by a lack of data. As a result, residual stresses are often excluded
altogether, or the stress-strain behaviour of the material is modified to approximate
the effect of residual stresses.
Residual stresses are idealized as a summation of flexural and membrane stresses

(see Figure 2.25a). However, Schafer and Pekoz (1998b) state that this idealization
is a pragmatic rather than scientific choice. The average bending residual stresses
for a cold-formed C-section as a percentage of yield stresses are shown in Figure
2.25b.
(a) Definition of Flexural and (b) Average Flexural Residual Stress as % fy
Membrane Residual Stresses
Figure 2.25: Membrane and Flexural Residual Stresses (Schafer and Pekoz, 1998b)
Doan and Mahendran (1996) suggested a residual stress model for triangular HFBs
based on measured residual stresses (see Figure 2.26). The same residual stress
model was used by Avery et. al. (2000), to model geometric imperfections of
triangular HFBs considered in their finite element modelling. However, significant
modifications will be needed if the same model is considered in this research study
involving rectangular HFBs.
Figure 2.26: Bending Residual Stress Distribution for Outside Fibre, Expressed as
a Percentage of the Yield Stress (fy) with Tension Positive (Doan and
Mahendran, 1996)
2.5.3 Finite Element Analysis of HFBs
The structural behaviour and failure mechanism of cold-formed steel beams with
hollow flanges have been studied by past researchers (Avery et al., 2000, Pi and
Trahair, 1997) using finite element analyses. Therefore, it is now apparent that the
structural behaviour of hollow flange beams can be predicted by finite element
analysis. Since analytical studies are considerably less expensive than testing, and as
it opens up the possibility of extensive parametric studies, finite element modelling
plays an important role in the investigation of flexural behaviour, aiming at
developing appropriate design rules for rectangular HFBs. Applications of FEA to
triangular HFBs in investigating their structural behaviour are discussed next.
Flexural capacity of triangular HFBs was investigated recently by Avery et al. (2000)
using finite element analyses. From their investigations, they discovered that the
elastic lateral-distortional buckling moment and the ultimate capacities of triangular
HFBs can be accurately predicted from their finite element analyses and therefore
used them in the development of design curves and suitable design procedures.
The study involved two models, namely experimental model and ideal model. The
experimental model was developed to match the actual test members, and the ideal
model was developed incorporating ideal constraints and nominal imperfections to
generate member capacity curves (see Figures 2.27(a) and (b)). The ABAQUS S4R5
shell elements were employed in the models and the results showed that this element
type provides sufficient degrees of freedom and hence can explicitly model the local
buckling deformations and spread of plasticity effects. The R3D4 rigid body
elements were also used to model the pinned end conditions. The loads and
boundary conditions, as used by Zhao et al. (1995) in the study of lateral-buckling of
cold-formed RHS beams, were used in these models to provide idealized simply
supported boundary conditions and a uniform applied bending moment. The ideal
support boundary conditions used in the models were: vertical and lateral
translational restraint, twist restraint, freedom to rotate about the major and minor
axes, and no warping restraint. The lateral tortional buckling formula used in AS
4100 was also derived based on the same conditions (SA, 1998). However, they have
not been able to eliminate the warping restraints due to the overhang in the
experimental models. The models incorporated all the significant effects that might
influence the ultimate capacity of triangular HFB beams, including material
inelasticity, local buckling, member instability, web distortion, residual stresses and
initial geometric imperfections.
Initial geometric imperfections used in this model were based on the values of
fabrication tolerances specified in AS 4100 (1998) and triangular HFB design
manual (PTM, 1993). Residual stresses were modelled using Doan and Mahendrans
(1996) residual stress model which was based on the measured residual stresses (see
Sections 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2). However, this investigation was limited to triangular
HFBs, fabricated from a single steel strip using electric resistance welding.
Therefore, the results of this study are not applicable to other geometric shapes and
manufacturing methods.
(a) Experimental HFB Model
(b) Ideal HFB Model
Figure 2.27: Finite Element Models of HFBs (Avery et al., 2000)
Avery and Mahendran (1997) studied the lateral-distortional buckling of hollow
flange beams with web stiffeners using finite element analysis. The finite-element
analysis program, MSC/NASTRAN was used for this study, with the aid of MSC/XL
as the pre-processor to generate model and MSC/XL and AVS as postprocessor for the
visualization of results. The quadrilateral shell elements (QUAD4) in the
NASTRAN library are flat, with four nodes and six degrees of freedom per node, and
were used in this finite element modelling. Triangular shell elements (TRIA3) were
used to model the stiffeners, since trapezoidal shape of stiffeners forced unacceptable
distortions of QUAD4 elements. The mesh detail of the model is shown in Figure
2.28.
Figure 2.28: Finite Element Mesh (a) HFB Model (b) Stiffener Mesh (c) Web
Distortion of Unstiffener Mesh (Avery and Mahendran, 1997)
Only half of the beam was modelled by making use of the symmetry of geometry and
loading conditions about the centre plane of the span, so that the size of the model
and hence solution time and computational effort are reduced. The support
conditions used in this model were similar to those used by Avery et al. (2000) as
described earlier. This ideal model was used in the parametric studies using elastic
buckling analysis. In this study, a modified model was also developed to represent
actual experimental set-up, and was referred to as the experimental model, and was
used in the comparison with experimental results. It was found that there is
negligible difference between the ideal and experimental models and so that this
indicates that the warping restraint provided by the cantilever is an insignificant
factor in the experimental model. In the nonlinear ultimate strength analysis of the
experimental model, including geometric imperfection and material nonlinearities, an
initial imperfection was assumed as recommended by Salmi and Talja (1992). It
consists of linear variation in lateral displacement for all the nodes on the cross-
section, varying from zero at the support to a maximum value of two wall
thicknesses at midspan.
Some other studies involving finite element analysis of cold-formed steel beams
included a finite element study by Wilkinson and Hancock (1999) to predict the
rotation capacity of RHS beams. ABAQUS Version 5.7 (HKS, 1998) was used in
this investigation. A quarter of the experimental RHS beam was modelled due to its
geometric symmetry. The S4R5 shell element was used to model the beam while the
C3D8 brick element was used to model the loading plates. The welding joint
between the loading plate and the RHS beam was modelled using C3D6 elements.
The model details are as shown in Figure 2.29.
Three types of material properties for the flanges, web and corners were used and the
nonlinear analyses included bending residual stresses.
Figure 2.29: Physical Model and Typical Finite Element Mesh (Wilkinson and
Hancock, 1999)
2.6 Experimental Investigation
Experimental methods are the base and a necessity for scientific research even
though they are very time-consuming and expensive. The mathematical formulae
can only be used to predict the capacities of idealized structures where a number of
assumptions have been made. Experimental results can be used to verify the
numerical models that can then be used to expand the results to enable a full
understanding of the structural behaviour and the development of design rules. Some
of the experimental investigations of cold-formed steel beams are discussed next.
Zhao et al. (1995) conducted a series of lateral buckling tests of cold-formed RHS
beams to improve existing design rules for RHS beams. The section size used in the
testing program was 75 mm 25 mm 2.5 mm. Spans were varied from 2000 mm
to 7000 mm in order to produce a substantial range of slenderness ratios. The
loading system included a gravity load through the centroid of the section and the
support system was designed to ensure that simple support end conditions were
achieved. The layout of test setup is shown schematically in Figure 2.30a. The
support system used in this study (see Figure 2.30b) was similar to that used by
Trahair (1969) in his elastic lateral buckling tests of aluminium I-beams and later by
Papangelis (1987) in his flexural-torsional buckling tests of arches.
(a) Test arrangement (b) Support system
Figure 2.30: Lateral Buckling Test of RHF Beams (Zhao et al., 1995)
The test beams were simply supported both in-plane and out-of-plane. The in-plane
vertical deflections were prevented by the supporting tracks but the in-plane rotations
were not restrained, ie. the beam was free to rotate about the horizontal axis (x1 x1).
The out-of-plane deflections and twist rotations were prevented by the prismatic
spigots but minor axis rotations were not restrained, ie. the beam was free to rotate
about the vertical axis (y1-y1) (see Figure 2.30). However, warping displacements
were not prevented except by the adjacent cantilever lengths. The restraint to
warping provided by the cantilever lengths can be considered minimal because
significant warping does not occur in tubular sections, compared with I-sections.
Unlike RHS beams, rectangular HFB considered in this research program are open
steel beams and hence they are expected to induce significant amount of warping
displacements compared with RHS beams. Therefore, warping effect needs to be
accounted for if the same test arrangement is used for rectangular HFB testing.
The loading system included gravity loads being applied by suspending lead blocks
on a platform which is supported by hangers. However, the gravity loading system
can be replaced by a power control loading system to ensure identical bending
moments at the ends of the span. Zhao et al. (1995) cited that the loading system
used in their study was similar to those used by Cherry (1960) and Hancock (1975),
where the vertical load applied acted through the centroid of the section and no
restraints were applied against out-of-plane movement at the loading point.
Mahendran and Doan (1999) conducted an investigation into the lateral-distortional

buckling behaviour of hollow flange beams with triangular flanges. A purpose-built
test rig was used in this study to obtain the bending capacity of hollow flange beams
under uniform bending moment. The test rig included a support system and a
loading system, which were attached to an external frame consisting of a main girder
and four columns as shown in the schematic diagram in Figure 2.31. The support
system was designed to ensure that the test beam had simply supported end
conditions, whereas the loading system was designed in such a way that no restraints
were induced as the beam deformed during loading.
Figure 2.31: Schematic Diagram of Test Rig Including Support System (Mahendran
and Doan, 1999)
Two vertical loads were applied at the end of two overhangs to produce a uniform
bending moment within the span of the specimen. The simply supported end
conditions of the span were simulated in a similar way to that of Zhao et al. (1995)
used for the rectangular hollow sections (RHS) but were modified to suit the
triangular HFBs. However, warping restraints induced by overhang of the beam
could not be eliminated in this system. The same support system can also be applied
to the innovative rectangular HFB beams considered in this research program with
minor modifications. However warping restraint effect need to be eliminated to
obtain ideal pinned end conditions. The loading system included two hydraulic jacks
instead of gravity loading system used by Zhao et al. (1995). They were operated
under load control to ensure that the same load was applied and hence identical
bending moments were provided at the ends of the single span. The loading system
was designed such that there was no restraint in lateral and longitudinal directions
from the jacks to the overhang at the loading positions. The load was applied
through the shear centre of the cross section to eliminate the load height effects.
Mahendran and Avery (1996) conducted buckling experiments to investigate the

effects of type, thickness, location and number of web stiffeners on the lateral
buckling behaviour of triangular HFBs. The results of these experiments were also
used to validate the finite element model developed by Avery et al. (2000). The tests
included ten 6 m long triangular HFB specimens, which were loaded to failure under
a constant bending moment within a span of 4.5 m as illustrated in Figure 2.32.
0.55 m 4.5 m 0.55 m
Figure 2.32: Schematic Diagram for Lateral Buckling Tests of HFBs (Mahendran
and Avery, 1996)
The experimental set-up used in this study included specially designed loading
device and a support system. The support system provided restraint to vertical and
lateral translation at the supports, and prevented from twisting about the longitudinal
axis of the member, while being free to rotate about the major and minor axes. The
support system included two mild steel plates placed between the HFB and each
roller support. The plates were separated by a stainless steel sheet attached to the top
plate and a Teflon layer connected to the bottom plate. A steel pin fixed to the top
plate fitted into a hole in the bottom plate. The plate could therefore rotate freely on
the low friction Teflon/stainless steel interface, but prevented relative translation by
the pin. A Rectangular Hollow Section web stiffener was used to prevent twist at the
support, and connected the HFB specimen to the top plate, allowing rotation about
the minor axis without lateral defection. Two load-controlled hydraulic jacks,
located on the overhangs were used to apply the loads the web stiffeners at the
support prevented any local bearing failure of the bottom flange.
Although the support conditions assumed in this experimental program were pinned,
they can be neither fixed nor pinned, but partially restrained due to friction forces
induced between different components within the support system. The bottom plate
of the support was placed and clamped to the roller support which could have
restrained the major axis rotation to some extent. Similarly the minor axis rotation
could have been restrained to some extent by the friction forces due to the top and
bottom plate rotation. Twisting of the beam sections at the supports were prevented
using stiffeners attached to the web at the supports but it might not have been
possible as stiffeners themselves are free to move and rotate. However, the
simplicity of this support system is a big advantage compared with other complicated
support systems used by Mahendran and Doan (1999) and Zhao et al. (1995) as
described earlier.
Some other experimental research on the lateral buckling strength of cold-formed

steel beams included Pi and Trahair (1998a, b) who investigated lateral buckling
capacities of cold-formed lipped Z- and C- section beams to find improvements for
the future design code formulations. Although the support system was designed to
achieve simple support end conditions in these tests, they were different and
complicated than the above mentioned loading and support systems due to different
geometric configurations of these section types (see Figure 2.33). A gravity loading
system was used for beam loading. This system applied the vertical load in the
loading drum. A low friction bearing system was used to maintain vertical line of
action and hence lateral buckling restraint effect was eliminated. The lengths and
load heights were selected so that the tests would supply experimental data in the
intermediate slenderness range, for which inelastic buckling was expected to control
the transition from the section capacity (for low slenderness C- and Z-s) to the elastic
buckling capacity (for high slenderness C- and Z-s). These test arrangements are not
suitable for the buckling tests of rectangular HFBs considered in this research
program since they were not designed for the doubly symmetric sections (only for C-
and Z-).
(a) Test Arrangement for C- and Z- sections (b) Support System for C-section
Figure 2.33: Lateral Buckling Tests of Cold-formed C- and Z- section Beams (Put
et al., 1999)
(c) Support System for Z- section
Figure 2.33: Lateral Buckling Tests of Cold-formed C- and Z- section Beams (Put
et al., 1999)
2.7 Summary of Literature Review Findings
An extensive literature review as described in this chapter has enabled the

accumulation of the required knowledge in the following topics: types of cold-
formed steel sections used for flexural members, effects of cold-forming, special
design criteria for cold-formed steel design, failure modes of cold-formed steel
beams, current cold-formed steel design standards and procedures, finite element
analysis and experimental investigations of cold-formed steel beams. The main focus
of all the above topics was based on the HFBs as flexural members. A summary of
the literature review is presented next.
Typically used cold-formed steel sections for flexural members, such as C-, Z-
and hat sections, are found to be more susceptible to structural instabilities due to
their profile geometry. However, the characteristics due to monosymmetric
nature of the C- sections and the point symmetry nature of Z-sections are not
normally encountered in doubly symmetric sections such as I-sections and tubular
sections (i.e. RHS, CHS, SHS). Therefore, the recently invented cold-formed
steel section known as HFB, comprising two triangular hollow flanges is
considered to be structurally more efficient than conventional sections such as C-
and Z- sections.
Cold working during the formation of cold-formed steel sections affect the
mechanical properties of the formed sections due to strain hardening and strain
ageing. The resulting changes in material properties must be included in the
design of cold-formed steel members to achieve structurally efficient members in
an economical manner. Current cold-formed steel design standards (see Section
2.2.4) allows for this effect by introducing average yield strength (fya) for cold-
formed sections.
Local buckling and post-buckling strength of cold-formed steel members

subjected to compression or flexural actions play an important role in the design
of cold-formed steel structures. The inclusion of these buckling effects in cold-
formed steel design is important to achieve more structurally efficient cold-
formed structures in an economical manner (see Section 2.2.5.1).
Torsional rigidity is also an important criterion in the design of cold-formed steel

members, since torsional rigidity of an open section is proportional to the cubic
power of thickness (t3), resulting in low torsional rigidity. However, hollow
sections such as RHS, CHS and SHS have high torsional rigidity because of their
geometry. The so-called HFBs comprising two triangular hollow flanges
connected by a web also have a high torsional rigidity and therefore their lateral
torsional buckling capacity is expected to be higher.
The distortional buckling is one of the most important buckling failure modes for
the practical cold-formed steel beams (see Sections 2.2.5.3 and 2.3.3.2).
However, accurate design rules are not available in the current cold-formed steel
design standards to deal with distortional buckling. The Australian cold-formed
steel design standard AS/NZS 4600 has included improved design methods for
distortional buckling, however they were based on the C- and Z- sections and
hence their applications for other section types such as HFBs will need significant
modifications.
The design approach proposed by Pi and Trahair (1997) to calculate the elastic
distortional buckling moment capacity of HFBs is only valid for HFBs
comprising triangular hollow flanges and hence the application of the same
equation for other section types such as rectangular HFB may need appropriate
modifications.
Previous researchers have recommended that the application of AS 4100 design

formulae for triangular HFBs needs modifications (see Section 2.4.1). The
member moment capacity equation provided in AS 4100 has been based on
lateral tortional buckling and the lower bound of the test results for I- section
beams. However, it has been indicated that if the reference buckling moment for
lateral tortional buckling (Mo) given in AS 4100 is replaced by elastic lateral
distortional buckling moment (Mod), AS 4100 design procedures shall be suitable
for triangular HFBs. This needs to be investigated for rectangular HFBs.
The member moment capacity of triangular HFBs calculated using the AS/NZS
4600 approach is more accurate than the AS 4100 approach. However, it was
found that the AS/NZS 4600 equations overestimate the capacity of triangular
HFBs for intermediate spans, and therefore, the detrimental effects of web
distortion are not accurately accounted for. Therefore the AS/NZS 4600
equations cannot be safely used in the design of triangular HFB members
subjected to uniform bending.
Previous researchers have used finite element analyses to investigate flexural

behaviour of triangular HFBs. They have shown that the structural behaviour of
HFBs can be predicted by finite element analysis if it is used accurately to model
the beam under investigations with inclusion of appropriate geometric
imperfections, residual stresses, material characteristics, loading and boundary
conditions.
Experimental researches have also been carried out by previous researchers to

investigate the flexural behaviour of triangular HFBs, and sometimes to validate
finite element models. This literature review showed that the uniform bending
moment distribution within a selected span is the common practice for buckling
tests, since these conditions allow comparing experimental and theoretical results
accurately. Two explicit methods have been used by previous researchers to
generate uniform moment conditions over a span of the beam. In the first method,
two equal overhang loads are applied at an equal distance outside the supports to
generate a uniform bending moment between the supports. In the second method,
two equal loads at an equal distance from the supports but within the span are
applied to generate uniform bending moment between the loading positions.
However, it is clear and understandable from the literature that the former method
is more common among researchers than the latter since the former method
allows the simulation of a uniform bending moment within the entire span, and
hence the boundary conditions in analytical models can be set-up easily.
CHAPTER 3 Experimental Studies of
Material Properties and
Section Moment Capacities
of RHFB
3.1 General
This chapter describes the experimental studies of material properties and section
moment capacities of Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams (RHFB) based on a series
of laboratory experiments. Sixteen tensile coupon tests including all the steel grades
and thicknesses were conducted using specimens taken from the same batch of steel
sheets that were used in the section and member capacity tests. The main objective of
the tensile test program was to obtain accurate stress-strain relationships for the three
steels with steel grades G300, G500 and G550 and different thicknesses that were
needed in the section capacity calculations and the numerical modelling of RHFBs.
Twenty two section capacity tests of RHFBs on short and fully laterally restrained
flexural members were conducted under simply supported end conditions, and the
test results were compared with the predictions from the current design rules in the
Australian steel design standards AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996)
to verify their applicability to RHFBs.
3.2 Material Property Tests
3.2.1 Material Description
The sheet metal manufactured by BlueScope Steel Limited in Australia was

purchased from the Smorgon Steel Sheet Metal Suppliers in Victoria, Australia to
fabricate the test specimens for section and member capacity tests of RHFBs.
Therefore tensile coupon tests were also conducted using the same sheet steels to
obtain the relevant material properties. Three steel grades, G300, G500 and G550,
were chosen and their nominal yield strengths (fyn) are 300 MPa, 500 MPa and 550
MPa, respectively, and the nominal tensile strengths (fun) are 340 MPa, 500 MPa and
550 MPa, respectively.
These steel sheets were manufactured to comply with the Australian Standard Steel
Sheet and Strip-Hot-dip zinc-coated or aluminium/zinc-coated AS 1397 (SA, 2001).
The milling process during the production phase of the steel sheets causes the grain
structure of cold reduced steels to elongate in the rolling direction, which results in
an increase in strength and a decrease in ductility (BHP, 1992). The effects of cold
working are cumulative, i.e. grain distortion increases with further cold working,
however, it is possible to change the distorted grain structure and control the steel
properties through heat treatment. BHP (1992) reported that various types of heat
treatment exist and are used for different steel products. G300 sheet steels are fully
recrystallised, i.e. the grain structure is returned to its original state although some
preferred grain orientation remains whereas G500 and G550 sheet steels are stress
relief annealed, i.e. recrystallisation does not occur. The high yield stress and
ultimate strength values of G500 and G550 sheet steels are obtained by means of an
alloying process, i.e. high strength low alloy steels. The typical chemical
compositions of steels from the three steel grades G300, G500 and G550 and
different thicknesses are shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Chemical Composition of Steel Used in the Tests (BHP, 1992)
Nominal Chemical composition (%)

Steel
thickness
Grade C P Mn Si S Ni Cr Mo Cu Al Ti Nb
(mm)
0.55 .050 .015 .210 .005 .017 .024 .014 .002 .006 .032 .003 .001
0.80 .050 .013 .200 .005 .010 .023 .018 .002 .012 .036 .003 .001
G300
1.20 .060 .007 .220 .005 .013 .025 .010 .002 .006 .031 .003 .001
1.95 .150 .015 .750 .015 .010 .005 - - - .048 - -
0.55 .060 .012 .210 .005 .014 .026 .011 .002 .006 .038 .003 .001
G550 0.75 .053 .010 .250 .010 .010 .004 - - - .045 - -
0.95 .055 .012 .210 .005 .014 .029 .017 .002 .008 .040 .003 .001
G500 1.15 .053 .010 .250 .010 .010 .004 - - - .045 - -
Note: Additional data is presented in Appendix 3A
All steels used in this test program were cold reduced to the required thickness, with
an aluminium/zinc alloy (zincalume AZ), or zinc coating (Galvanized Z). Wills
(1982) and Wills and Lake (1988) have reported that the behaviour of coated G300
sheet steels is dependent on the composite action that occurs between the zinc or
aluminium/zinc coating and the base metal. However, specific references which
detail the influence of metallic coating on G550 sheet steels are not available
although it can be assumed that a composite action occurs, as found for G300 sheet
steels. However, it is assumed that the contribution of metallic coating to the
structural strength of RHFBs in terms of section and member capacities is
insignificant and therefore the base metal thickness (BMT) is used in place of total
coated thickness (TCT). The BMT for each steel grade and thickness was determined
using acid itching method. For this purpose, three steel strips, 25 mm 100 mm were
cut from each steel grade and thickness giving a total of 24 specimens. The TCT of
each specimen was measured before they were immersed in the hydrochloric acid to
wash off the metallic coating (see Figure 3.1 (a)). The specimens were taken out
after approximately 30 minutes in the hydrochloric acid and were washed in pure
water before the BMT was measured (see Figure 3.1 (b)). The details of applied
metallic coating types, the measured TCT and BMT and the calculated coating
thicknesses for different steel grades and thicknesses are listed in Table 3.2.
(a) Specimens in hydrochloric acid
Figure 3.1: Base Metal Thickness Measurement
(b) Specimens after coating wash-off
Figure 3.1: Base Metal Thickness Measurement
Table 3.2: Metallic Coating Details and Measured Thicknesses of Steel Sheets
Steel Nominal Measured (mm) Calculated CT

Coating type
Grade BMT (mm) TCT BMT (mm)
0.55 Zincalume (AZ150) 0.603 0.543 0.060
0.80 Zincalume (AZ150) 0.860 0.800 0.060
G300
1.20 Zincalume (AZ150) 1.255 1.192 0.063
1.90 Galvanized (Z275) 1.923 1.882 0.041
0.55 Zincalume (AZ150) 0.617 0.553 0.064
G550 0.75 Galvanized (Z350) 0.800 0.748 0.052
0.95 Zincalume (AZ150) 1.012 0.947 0.065
G500 1.15 Galvanized (Z350) 1.190 1.148 0.042
Note: Coating Thickness, CT = TCT BMT
3.2.2 Test Specimens and Test Set-up
Sixteen tensile test specimens including two specimens from each steel grade and
thickness were taken from the same steel batch that was used in the section and
member capacity tests. This allowed the determination of an accurate stress-strain
relationship for each steel grade and thickness used in the tests that can be used in the
section and member capacity calculations of RHFBs. The material properties of cold
reduced steels have been shown to be anisotropic (Wu et al., 1995, Dhalla and
Winter, 1971). Hence all the tensile test specimens were cut in the longitudinal
direction with respect to the rolling direction of steel sheets, as it was the same
longitudinal direction along which the test beams used for section and member
capacities were made. Specimen size and shape are important variables which can
affect its behaviour. Accurate and consistent fabrication procedures were used for all
specimens included in this test program to ensure that test specimens were of near
identical size and shape. Various standards exist which specify the requirements for
the testing of tensile specimens.
Tensile specimens for this test program were prepared in accordance with the
Australian Standard Methods for Tensile Testing of Metals AS 1391 (SA, 1991). A
typical tensile test specimen used in this test program is shown in Figure 3.2 (a)
whereas Figure 3.2 (b) shows some of the strain gauged tensile test specimens. The
thickness and width of all the test specimens were measured at three different
locations within the constant gauge length. The average cross-sectional dimensions
are presented in Table 3.3.
R20 13 mm
25 mm
40 mm 80 mm 40 mm
200 mm
(a) Nominal Dimensions of a Typical Tensile Test Specimen
(b) Strain Gauged Tensile Test Specimens
Figure 3.2: Tensile Test Specimens
Table 3.3: Measured Dimensions of Tensile Test Specimens
Steel Nominal Measured Thickness (mm) Width

No Thickness
grade TCT BMT B (mm)
(mm)
1 0.55 0.603 0.543 12.83
2 0.55 0.605 0.544 12.71
3 0.80 0.864 0.802 12.77
4 0.80 0.860 0.800 12.76
G300
5 1.20 1.251 1.191 12.79
6 1.20 1.255 1.194 12.77
7 1.90 1.920 1.882 12.76
8 1.90 1.925 1.885 12.76
9 0.55 0.616 0.552 12.73
10 0.55 0.620 0.551 12.76
11 0.75 0.802 0.747 12.74
G550
12 0.75 0.805 0.752 12.77
13 0.95 1.013 0.943 12.73
14 0.95 1.018 0.945 12.78
15 1.15 1.192 1.146 12.75
G500
16 1.15 1.190 1.150 12.76
The tensile test set-up is shown in Figure 3.3. All the tests were carried out using a
300 kN capacity Shimadzu testing machine. All the operations were performed
automatically after the tensile specimen was mounted in the machine. The load was
monitored using the Labtech Realtime Visionpro software, while the test data were
logged using the Labtech Notebook data acquisition software. The specimens were
loaded as specified in AS 1391 (SA, 1991). It specified that the elastic strain rate can
be at any convenient rate up to approximately one half of the force value
corresponding to the expected or specified yield point, and beyond this force, the test
(i.e. plastic strain) shall be carried out within a strain rate range of 2.5 10-4 s-1 to 2.5
10-3 s-1 and aimed at a target value of 8 10-4 s-1. A 2 mm strain gauge installed at
the mid-height of the test specimens (see Figure 3.2(b)) was used to measure the
strains during the tests. The stress and strain measurements were used to derive the
stress-strain relationship and thereby determine the modulus of elasticity (E).
However, the strain gauges alone were not sufficient to capture the entire range of
elongation of the test specimens. Therefore an extensometer was used to obtain the
stress-strain curve until the specimen failed.
Top jig
Specimen mounting
handle
Grip
Specimen jig
50 mm
extensometer
Strain gauge
Bottom jig
Figure 3.3: Tensile Test Set-up
3.2.3 Test Procedure
The top and bottom jigs of Shimudzu test machine were aligned with its vertical axis.
The bottom jig was further adjusted to ensure that the grips of jigs were oriented in
the same direction. One end of the strain gauged tensile specimen was installed
inside the top grip ensuring that the vertical axis of the specimen and the machine
coincided. The top jig was then moved down carefully to install the bottom end of
the specimen in the bottom grips without twisting or bending. Rogers and Hancock
(1996) stated that Yates (1993), and Maladakis and Ayoub (1994) experienced
problems with specimen twisting and bending while the grips were tightened, i.e. the
top end of the specimen rotated with respect to the bottom end. It was necessary to
centre the test specimens in the grips and plumb the coupon with respect to vertical
axis using a small levelling instrument. This eliminated the possibility of load
eccentricity and flexure of the test specimen during testing. All of these procedures
were required to ensure that the applied loading was concentric during testing.
A 50 mm extensometer was attached to the central portion of the constant gauge
length after the tensile specimen was installed and aligned with the vertical axis of
testing machine (see Figure 3.3). The tests were undertaken using a cross-head speed
of about 7.9 10-2 mms-1 that gave a target strain rate of about 8 10-4 s-1. The
applied tension load and extensometer and strain gauge readings were recorded
through a data acquisition system attached to a personal computer, and were used to
plot the stress-strain graphs and hence calculate the basic material properties for each
test specimen as described in the following section.
3.2.4 Tensile Test Results and Discussion
The stress versus strain graphs which describe the general behaviour of eight selected
tensile coupon test specimens from the initial elastic portion of the stress-strain curve
to failure are presented in Figures 3.4 (a) and (b) for the steel grades of G300, and
G500 and G550, respectively. Appendix 3B presents the stress versus strain graphs
for all other tensile tests. All the strain values were calculated using the displacement
readings obtained by the extensometer, divided by the original gauge length of 50
mm. The stress values were calculated using the tensile load data output divided by
the initial cross-sectional area based on BMT.
450
400
350
300
Stress (MPa)
250
200
G300-0.55 mm
150
G300-0.80 mm
100 G300-1.20 mm
50 G300-1.90 mm
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain
(a) Stress-Strain Curves for G300 Steels
Figure 3.4: Typical Tensile Stress versus Strain Curves for Different Steel Grades and
Thicknesses
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
G550_0.55 mm
200 G550_0.75 mm
G550_0.95 mm
100 G500_1.15 mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
% Strain
(b) Stress-Strain Curves for G500 and G550 Steels
Figure 3.4: Typical Tensile Stress versus Strain Curves for Different Steel Grades and
Thicknesses
Table 3.4: Tensile Test Results
Nominal fy (MPa) fu (MPa) E (GPa)

Test
Grade Thickness f u/ f y
No Msd. Ave. Msd. Ave. Msd. Ave.
(mm)
1 0.55 357 409 207 1.15
354 402 207
2 0.55 351 395 207 1.13
3 0.80 336 392 203 1.16
332 389 203
4 0.80 328 386 203 1.17
G300
5 1.20 327 378 201 1.16
320 377 201
6 1.20 313 375 201 1.19
7 1.90 298 374 207 1.25
296 373 207
8 1.90 294 373 207 1.26
9 0.55 647 659 226 1.02
652 668 226
10 0.55 658 677 226 1.03
11 0.75 648 653 224 1.01
G550 650 663 224
12 0.75 653 672 224 1.03
13 0.95 618 656 217 1.06
614 648 217
14 0.95 610 639 217 1.05
15 1.15 590 621 223 1.05
G500 583 611 222
16 1.15 575 601 221 1.05
Note: Msd. Measured Ave Average
450
400 Slope = E =215GPa

350
300 Tensile strength fu =380 MPa

(MPa)
Stress (Mpa)
250 Fracture point

Lower yield point, fy = 320 MPa, e = 0.00149
Stress
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain
(a) 1.2 mm G300 steel
900
Slope = E = 217 GPa
800
Tensile strength, fu =639 MPa
700
600
(Mpa)
Stress(MPa)
500
0.2% offset yield, fy = 610 MPa Fracture point
400
Stress
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
% Strain
(b) 0.95 mm G550 steel
Figure 3.5: Illustration of Basic Material Properties
All G550 sheet steels tested during this tensile test program yielded gradually with
minimum strain hardening (see Figure 3.4 (b)) whereas G300 sheet steels displayed a
sharp yield point, followed by a yield elongation plateau and then a strain hardening
region (see Figure 3.4 (a)). The material properties, i.e. yield stress (fy), ultimate
tensile strength (fu), and Youngs modulus (E), for all types of sheet steels used in
this tensile test program were obtained based on AS 1391 (SA, 1991)
recommendations. Figures 3.5 (a) and (b) illustrate the basic material properties for
grades G300 and G500/G550 steels, respectively. As the yielding was gradual for
G500/G550 sheet steels, their yield stresses were calculated using the 0.2% proof
stress method, whereas the yield stresses of G300 steels were directly read from the
graphs at the sharp yield points. The yield stress and ultimate tensile strength values
calculated using the base metal thickness (BMT) for all the steel types were
significantly above the minimum specified values except for 1.9 mm G300 steel (see
Table 3.4).
The presence of higher yield stresses has been previously documented (Rogers and
Hancock, 1996) and is a result of the sheet steel forming process. The stress-strain
curves were linear only for small strains. The Youngs modulus of elasticity (E) was
calculated based on the average slope of the stress-strain curve over the initial elastic
region. An important parameter in the ductility requirements for plastic behaviour of
a material is the ratio fu/fy, which was also calculated for each test specimen and is
given in Table 3.4. The G500 and G550 steels exhibit a consistent ultimate strength
to yield stress ratio (fu/fy) closer to 1.0 (1.01 to 1.06). This clearly indicates the lack
of strain hardening in these high strength steels.
During the tensile tests it was observed that the G300 steel had greater ductility,
whereas the G500 and G550 steels demonstrated reduced ductility. Failure was also
sudden in the latter. Figures 3.6 (a) and (b) show the typical G300 and G500/550
steel specimens after failure. A more ductile fracture with cross-section necking can
be seen in Figure 3.6 (a) for G300 steel, whereas Figure 3.6 (b) demonstrates sudden
fracture behaviour for G500 and G550 steels.
Fracture point
Fracture point
(a) G300 Steel (b) G500 and G550 Steels
Figure 3.6: Tensile Specimens after Failure
The tensile test results are summarised in Table 3.4. The comparison of these tensile
test results with the results provided by the steel manufacturers (see Appendix 3A)
shows a good agreement. The average yield stress values presented in Table 3.4 are
used in the calculation of section capacities while the Youngs modulus of elasticity
values were used in the stiffness calculation for member capacities of RHFBs using
the current design rules given in the design standards AS/NZS 4600 and AS 4100.
Clause 1.5.1.1 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) recommends that the structural steel
shall comply with one of the following standards: AS 1163 (SA, 1991), AS 1397
(SA, 2001), AS/NZS 1594 (SA, 2002), AS/NZS 1595 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 3678
(SA, 1996), as appropriate.
Previous investigations (CASE, 2002) at the University of Sydney on certain cross-

sections have shown that they do not comply with the above standards due to the
manufacturing process used. For those situations where Clause 1.5.1.1 is not
satisfied, AS/NZS 4600 allows the use of other steels, the properties and suitability
of which are in accordance with Clause 1.5.1.5 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005).
According to Clause 1.5.1.5 (b) of AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005), G550 steels with
thickness less than 0.9 mm, the yield stress (fy) and the tensile strength (fu) used in
design are taken as 90% of the corresponding specified values or 495 MPa,
whichever is the lesser, and for steel less than 0.6 mm in thickness, the tensile yield
stress (fy) and the tensile strength (fu) used in design are taken as 75% of the
corresponding specified values or 410 MPa whichever is the lesser.
3.3 Section Capacity Tests
3.3.1 Test Specimens
Since the flexural behaviour of RHFB sections has not been investigated yet, it is
important that the key parameters are chosen carefully in the design of this test
program. A number of sections with different key parameters (i.e. section geometry,
material thickness and yield stress) were selected in the test program. A schematic
diagram of an RHFB cross-section is shown in Figure 3.7. There was a total of 22
section capacity tests in this investigation.
bf
tf hf
Screw spacing along

the beam s
tw hw
hl
hf
Figure 3.7: RHFB Cross-section
All the test specimens were 1130 mm long and were fabricated by assembling two
separately formed rectangular hollow flanges to a single web plate using Hi Tek self
drilling screws of size 10-1616 mm at 50 mm and 100 mm spacings. The
rectangular hollow flanges of sizes 50 mm 25 mm with 15 mm lips were formed by
using the press-braking method. Three steel grades of G300, G500 and G550 were
used with nominal thicknesses of 0.55, 0.80, 1.20 and 1.90, 1.15, and 0.55, 0.75 and
0.95 mm, respectively. The test specimens were labelled so that the specimens
variable parameters: flange and web thicknesses, web height, specimen length, steel
grade and screw spacing could be identified from the label, as illustrated in Figure
3.8 for a typical RHFB specimen.
Rectangular Hollow Flange Beam Screw spacing = 50 mm
RHFB120tf 055tw150hw G30050s
Flange Thickness = 1.20 mm Steel grade = G300
Web Thickness = 0.55 mm Web Depth = 150 mm
Figure 3.8: Specimen Labelling
The specimen label consists of the beam type (i.e. RHFB) followed by a series of
numbers and scripts. For example, the label RHFB-120tf -055tw -150hw -G300-50s
defines a rectangular hollow flange beam (RHFB) specimen made of 1.2 mm flange
thickness (120tf), 0.55 mm web thickness (055tw), 150 mm web height (150hw),
using grade G300 steel with screws at 50 mm spacing. Flange width and height, lip
height and specimen length were not included in the labelling since they were the
same (50, 25, 15 and 1130 mm) for all the test specimens. With a constant overhang
of 30 mm on each end, the specimen length of 1130 mm gave a span of 1070 mm in
all the tests. Geometric imperfections and overall section dimensions were measured
for each test specimen, from which centreline dimensions of specimen cross-section
were calculated. Table 3.5 presents the values of measured imperfections and
calculated centreline dimensions from the measured values for 22 section moment
capacity test specimens. A typical test specimen is shown in Figure 3.9. Electrical
strain gauges and displacement transducers were installed on the specimens at
appropriate locations before testing.
(a) Overall View (b) Close-up View of Cross-section
Figure 3.9: Typical Specimen Used in Section Capacity Tests
50 mm screw spacing
100 mm screw spacing
(c) Close-up View of Screw Fasteners
Figure 3.9: Typical Specimen Used in Section Capacity Tests
Table 3.5: Measured Cross-section Dimensions and Imperfections
Measured dimensions
Flange Web Maximum
Beam RHFB Designation global
bf hf hl tf hw tw Imperfection
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-50s 52.1 29.2 13.9 1.192 94.5 0.543 1.1
2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-100s 52.3 29.3 13.7 1.192 94.2 0.543 1.2
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 52.6 31.5 14.4 0.800 146.4 0.800 1.2
4 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-100s 52.1 31.1 14.0 0.800 145.3 0.800 1.3
5 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 52.7 30.4 13.8 1.192 146.1 1.192 2.5
6 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-100s 53.1 30.8 14.2 1.192 146.5 1.192 2.3
7 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 51.0 31.2 13.5 0.800 145.4 1.882 1.3
8 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-100s 51.4 31.7 13.9 0.800 145.2 1.882 1.3
9 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s 52.2 31.8 13.7 1.192 147.8 0.543 1.1
10 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-100s 52.4 32.4 14.3 1.192 147.3 0.543 1.3
11 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-50s 51.8 30.3 14.2 0.748 96.3 0.748 2.8
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-100s 52.3 29.5 13.1 0.748 95.5 0.748 2.4
13 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s 52.5 30.2 14.2 0.748 146.7 0.748 1.2
14 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s 51.8 30.3 13.9 0.748 147.2 0.748 1.0
15 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s 52.8 30.5 13.4 1.148 147.3 1.148 1.5
16 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-100s 53.2 30.7 13.5 1.148 147.2 1.148 1.4
17 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s 53.4 29.8 13.4 0.748 147.2 1.148 1.1
18 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-100s 53.2 30.4 14.0 0.748 146.8 1.148 1.4
19 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-50s 53.4 31.2 14.2 1.148 146.5 0.748 1.3
20 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-100s 52.8 30.8 13.5 1.148 147.6 0.748 1.2
21 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s 52.6 31.0 14.2 0.947 146.3 0.553 1.0
22 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-100s 52.8 31.1 14.2 0.947 146.8 0.553 1.3
3.3.2 Section Properties
Section properties of test specimens based on the measured dimensions of RHFBs

were calculated using an Excel spreadsheet program (see Appendix 3C). This
spreadsheet was first used to calculate the basic section properties such as Ixx, Iyy and
Zx and the results were compared with corresponding results from the well known
buckling analysis program Thin-wall (Papangelis, 1994). A close agreement of
results demonstrated the accuracy of the spreadsheet. Thin-wall was used to obtain
other section properties, Iw and J, which were not calculated by this spreadsheet. The
section property results are presented in Table 3.6. The same spreadsheet program
was also used to obtain the effective section properties of RHFBs based on the
effective width concept in accordance with the steel design standards AS 4100 and
AS/NZS 4600 (see Appendix 3C). The effective section properties were used to
calculate the section capacity of RHFBs using the design rules specified in AS 4100
and AS/NZS 4600, and the results are discussed in Section 3.3.5.
3.3.3 Geometric Imperfections
The magnitudes of member imperfections were measured for each test specimen
using a Wild T05 theodolite and a new equipment shown in Figure 3.10, which was
specially designed and fabricated to measure geometric imperfections. The
equipment comprises a level table with guided rails with an accuracy of 0.01 mm, a
laser sensor, and a travelator. The laser sensor was attached to the travelator which
could move in-plane and normal to the plane. The specimen was positioned and
levelled using the adjustable screws of the table and clamped. The laser sensor was
then moved along the specimen while taking the readings at every 100 mm intervals.
The readings were taken along three lines in the longitudinal direction of the
specimen in order to determine the maximum initial crookedness along the web and
flanges for each specimen. The maximum initial crookedness values () for each test
specimen are given in Table 3.5. Although the imperfection magnitudes were
measured along the entire length of the test specimens, only the central L/3 region
was considered to obtain the maximum imperfection, . This is because the central
region was critical and failure occurred in this region. Figure 3.11 illustrates the
variation of imperfection magnitudes for a typical test specimen.
Table 3.6: Section Properties Based on Measured Cross-section Dimensions
M A Ixx Zx J Iw
Beam Specimen Designation
kg/m (mm2) ( 106 mm4) ( 104 mm3) ( 104 mm4) ( 108 mm6)
1 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-50s 4.00 516 1.72 2.25 10.00 4.86
2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-100s 3.98 516 1.72 2.25 10.00 4.86
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 3.45 448 2.69 2.57 6.52 6.23
4 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-100s 3.42 443 2.61 2.52 6.52 6.23
5 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 5.06 660 3.90 3.74 10.03 9.54
6 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-100s 5.03 666 3.97 3.82 10.10 9.61
7 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 4.74 618 3.00 2.88 6.58 6.23
8 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-100s 4.72 621 3.03 2.90 6.59 6.23
9 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s 4.11 557 3.81 3.61 10.00 9.54
10 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-100s 4.08 563 3.86 3.64 10.04 9.54
11 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-50s 3.10 375 1.20 1.53 6.18 3.02
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-100s 3.08 370 1.16 1.50 6.14 3.02
13 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s 3.36 415 2.45 2.37 6.18 5.91
14 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s 3.33 412 2.45 2.36 6.18 5.91
15 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s 5.02 636 3.82 3.66 9.56 9.10
16 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-100s 4.99 639 3.84 3.68 9.58 9.10
17 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s 3.88 481 2.62 2.53 6.19 5.91
18 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-100s 3.85 484 2.64 2.54 6.19 5.91
19 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-50s 4.46 578 3.71 3.55 9.54 9.10
20 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-100s 4.43 571 3.70 3.53 9.51 9.10
21 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s 3.53 462 2.99 2.87 7.77 7.43
22 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-100s 3.51 464 3.02 2.89 7.81 7.43
Note: M Mass per metre length A Gross cross-section area Ixx Second moment of area Zx Section modulus
J Torsion constant Iw Warping constant
Travelator
Specimen
Laser sensor and data
logger
Foot screw level
Figure 3.10: Imperfection Measuring Device
1.50
1.00
Imperfection (mm)
0.50
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
-0.50
-1.00
Maximum, =1.2 mm
-1.50
Distance (mm)
'
Top-Flange' Web-Central Bottom-Flange
Figure 3.11: Measured Imperfection along the Length of a Typical

Test Specimen
3.3.4 Test Set-up and Instrumentation
The section capacities of RHFBs were determined based on the bending tests of short
and fully laterally restrained RHFB sections. The tests were undertaken using a 300
kN capacity Tinious Olsen testing machine in the Structures Laboratory at the
Queensland University of Technology. Relatively short and fully laterally restrained
RHFB specimens were tested to failure using a four point bending test set-up. A
schematic view, load application and overall view of the test set-up are shown in
Figures 3.12 (a) (c), respectively.
Loading Component
Spreader beam
Spherical head
Load transferring device Support box frame
Rollers
Timber planks
Test Specimen Transducer Roller bearings
(a) Schematic View
Steel plate
Compression flange
Loading arm
hw/2
hw/2
Tension flange
(b) Load Application
Figure 3.12: Test Set-up for Section Moment Capacity Tests
Loading
Spherical
head
Spreader
beam
Support box
frame Steel rollers
C clamps
Loading
arm
Timber
planks
(c) Overall View
Figure 3.12: Test Set-up for Section Moment Capacity Tests
The test specimens were supported on half rounds placed on a ball bearing as shown
in Figure 3.12 (c). The bottom surfaces of the half rounds and alloy balls were
machine ground and polished to a high degree of smoothness, and smooth ball
bearing surfaces were lubricated to further facilitate the sliding of the half rounds on
the ball bearing when the beam deflected under load. The ends of the beam were free
to rotate upon the half rounds. Thus it was considered that simply supported
conditions were simulated accurately at the end supports.
The simply supported beam specimens were tested by loading them symmetrically at
two points on the span, through a spreader beam that was loaded centrally by the ram
of the testing machine (see Figure 3.12 (c)). This four point loading arrangement
provided a uniform bending moment and zero shear force within the central region of
the test beam. The tests were conducted with loading points at a distance of span/3
from the supports as shown in Figure 3.13 (span = 1070 mm).
The loads were applied to the neutral axis of the test beam through the steel rollers
and loading arms (see Figure 3.12 (b)) attached to the beams web using three M12
bolts at 30 mm spacings. Timber plates were fixed on both sides of the beam web
between the supports and loading points using a set of C-clamps, whereas two 100
150 10 mm steel plates were fixed on both sides of the beam web at the loading
and support points (see Figure 3.12 (b)) to avoid premature failure due to web
bearing, crippling and shear.
During the tests, the bending strains were measured using two strain gauges located
on the top and bottom flanges of the specimen at midspan whereas the vertical
deflections were measured using three linear displacement transducers located at
midspan and loading points. The EDCAR data acquisition system was used to record
all the strain and deflection data until the specimen was loaded to failure. The cross-
head of the testing machine was moved at a constant rate of 1.0 mm/min until the
specimen failed.
3.3.5 Test Results and Discussion
Since the end spans of the test specimen were reinforced using web stiffeners, the
sections in the mid-span region failed during bending tests. The verticality of the
applied loads was maintained throughout the test and therefore the applied uniform
moment (M) to the test beam between the loading points was calculated using;
M = P Lla (3.1)
where P is the applied load and Lla is the initial lever arm length as shown in Figure
3.13.
Lla = L/3
P P Lla = L/3
R=P R=P
Span, L = 1070 mm
Figure 3.13: Deformed Shape of Test Specimen
The applied loads (P) at the loading points of the test specimen were equal to half of
the load reading from the Tinious Olsen testing machine. The applied uniform
moment (M) between the loading points was therefore calculated from Equation 3.1
using half of the load reading (i.e. P) and the initial lever arm length (i.e. Lla = 357
mm). The applied moment was also calculated using the top and bottom flange strain
gauge readings at the mid-span of test beam. The close agreement between the two
moments verified the accuracy of load readings and the applied uniform moment
values. The following sections will present and discuss the details of section moment
capacity test results.
3.3.5.1 Moment versus In-plane Vertical Deflection Curves
This section presents the experimental curves of applied moment versus in-plane
vertical deflection at the mid-span cross section of the test beam for selected tests.
The moment versus deflection graphs for other tests are presented in Appendix 3D.
14
12
10
(kNm)
Moment(kNm)
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
8
Moment
4 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s
2
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vertical Deflection (mm)
(a) Moment versus Vertical Deflection (G300 Steel)
Figure 3.14: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves (tf = tw)
18
16
14
(kNm)
12
Moment (knm) RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s
10
Moment
6 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s
4
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection (G500 and G550 Steels)
Figure 3.14: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves (tf = tw)
9.0
7.5
RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
6.0
(knm)
Moment(kNm)
4.5 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-50s
Moment
3.0
1.5
0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Figure 3.15: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves (tf > tw)
14
12
10
Moment(kNm)
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-50s
(knm)
8
Moment
4 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection (G500 and G550 Steels)
Figure 3.15: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves (tf > tw)
12
10
8
(knm)
Moment (kNm)
6
Moment
RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s
4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 3.16: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves (tf < tw)
12
10
8
(knm)
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s
6
Moment
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection (G550 Steel)
Figure 3.16: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves (tf < tw)
Figures 3.14 to 3.16 show some of the moment versus vertical deflection graphs from
the section capacity tests. They demonstrate a linear response during the initial stage
of the tests irrespective of the steel grade and the thickness. In theory, nonlinearity
commences with the commencement of yielding, i.e. when the bending moment
reaches the first yield moment. In practice, yielding may be initiated before the ideal
first yield moment because of the residual stresses present in the sections due to the
cold-forming process used during the specimen fabrication (Hasan and Hancock,
1988). However, the extent to which the residual stresses affected the behaviour of
RHFB sections need to be further investigated. Nonlinearity could also commence
early due to initial geometric imperfections in the section. Available results show
that the first yield moment of the RHFBs was in the range of 0.65-0.99 and 0.29-0.69
of theoretical first yield moment My for G300 and G500/G550 steels, respectively.
Following the departure from elastic linearity, the bending moment continued to
increase upon further application of load. This is because of strain hardening and
inelastic reserve capacity of the section. Essentially, similar moment-deflection
behaviour was observed for each of the 10 specimens made of G300 steels and they
exhibited a plateau associated with increasing deflection in the ultimate moment
region whereas the moment-deflection behaviour of G500/G550 steel specimens
appears to display an instant failure for each of the 12 specimens associated with
increasing deflection (see Figures 3.14 to 3.16). Hence it is evident from the test
results that the material behaviour has a significant influence on the flexural
behaviour of RHFB sections for short span beams.
3.3.5.2 Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves
In each test the longitudinal strains were measured in the compression and tension
flanges of the test beam at mid-span to verify the measured load readings from the
Tinious Olsen testing machine. The applied uniform moment (M) was calculated
based on the measured longitudinal strains for the elastic region. The longitudinal
stress in the extreme fibres fc was calculated first.
f c = E m (3.2)
where E is the measured elastic modulus of steel and m is the average measured
longitudinal strains in the extreme fibres at mid-span.
Applied uniform moment: M = f c Z x (3.3)
where Zx is Section modulus as given in Table 3.6.
Based on the measured longitudinal strain readings and using the knowledge of steel
yield stress as given in Table 3.4, the first yield point was determined, i.e. the point
when the measured strain reaches the yield strain (yield stress/E). The first yield
moment was then calculated using Equation 3.3 where fc was taken as the measured
yield stress fy.
Figure 3.17 shows the moment versus longitudinal strain curves for two G300 steel
sections using moments calculated based on the load readings and strain gauge
readings. The moment versus longitudinal strain curves for other sections are
presented in Appendix 3D.
15.0
Moment (kNm) First yield moment (SB) 12.5 First yield moment (SB)
10.0
Moment corresponding Moment corresponding
to yield strain (LB) to yield strain (LB)
7.5
Actual first yield

5.0 moment (LB)
2.5
0.0
-4500 -3000 -1500 0 1500 3000 4500
Strain (microstrain)
S1-LB-T S1-LB-C S2-LB-T S2-LB-C S1-SB_T
S1-SB-C S2-SB-T S2-SB-C
S1 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S2 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s
LB Load based moment SB Strain based moment T Tension C - Compression
Figure 3.17: Typical Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Graphs
The curves presented in Figure 3.17 were plotted using calculated uniform moments
from the load and strain gauge measurements. As shown in these figures, the
moment (based on load and strain gauge measurements) versus longitudinal strain
(measured) curves agree closely in the elastic region, and thus verify the accuracy of
the load measurements from the testing machine. Figure 3.17 further illustrates the
differences between the first yield moments calculated from the load and strain
gauge measurements for the RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s section.
According to Figure 3.17, actual first yield moments based on the load measurements
were less than that calculated from the strain gauge measurements. This difference
between the calculated first yield moments from the load and strain gauge
measurements may be due to the residual stresses present in the test beam that would
have caused premature yielding and hence nonlinearity began earlier as shown in
Figure 3.17.
3.3.5.3 Failure Modes of RHFBs in Section Moment Capacity Tests
All the specimens included in this test program were classified as slender sections
according to AS 4100 specifications, whereas they included at least one slender
element according to AS/NZS 4600 specifications. Hence most of the tested
specimens were expected to experience either flange or web local buckling before
they reached the first yield moment. When the top flange plate buckled, sympathetic
rotation at the flange-web corner led to deformation of the web. The local buckling
formation in the flange and web was observed closer to the midspan than the loading
points of the specimens. Some of the tested RHFB specimens and a typical locally
buckled specimen are shown in Figures 3.18 (a) and (b), respectively. There was no
lateral deformation of test specimens during the tests and no specimen was observed
to fail suddenly.
Local buckling and

yielding of flange
Tested
specimens
(a) Overall view
Local buckling and

yielding of flange
(b) Close-up view of failure region
Figure 3.18: Typical Failures of Test Specimens
The web and flanges were connected intermittently using screws at equal spacings of
50 mm and 100 mm as illustrated in Figure 3.9, and therefore there was a
discontinuity in the web and flange connection between the screws. When the top
flange plate buckled, a gap opened between the unconnected web and flange lips at
the failure region due to sympathetic rotation at the flange and web corner. Figures
3.19 (a) and (b) show this occurrence for the screw spacings of 50 mm and 100 mm,
respectively. As expected, the comparison of Figures 3.19 (a) and (b) indicates that
the web distortion at the failure region is severe for larger screw spacing.
Failure section
50 mm screw
spacing
Gap openings
(a) 50 mm Screw Spacing
Failure section
Gap openings
100 mm screw
spacing
(b) 100 mm Screw Spacing
Figure 3.19: Opening of Web and Flange Lips between Screw Fasteners
14
12 B D
10
C
Moment (kNm)
E
8 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
A
6
0
O
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Figure 3.20: Graphical Illustration of Failure Behaviour of a RHFB
Figure 3.20 gives a graphical illustration of the failure behaviour of a selected RHFB
(i.e. RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s) during the section moment capacity tests.
Figure 3.20 indicates that the beam behaved linearly until the applied moment
reached point A, and then it behaved nonlinearly until point B. The comparison of
Figures 3.17 and 3.20 confirmed the premature nonlinearity at about 7 kNm, possibly
due to the presence of residual stresses. Although there was not any distinctive sign
of local buckling in the beam until the applied moment reached point B, local
buckling might have occured earlier in the compression flange as in the case of
yielding and which might have eventually led to a sudden change in the top plate of
compression flange at point B (see Figure 3.18 (a)). Sympathetic rotation of flange
web corner occurred after top flange plate buckled locally at point B, which led to
expanding the gap between the unconnected web and flange lips within the region
CD. This sudden failure in the compression flange and the opening of gap between
the unconnected web and flange lips resulted in the moment drop from point B to C
as shown in Figure 3.20. However further moment gain was observed until point D
after the top plate of compression flange buckled and yielded and the moment
dropped to point E.
3.3.5.4 Comparison of Section Moment Capacities with Predictions from
the Current Design Rules
AS 4100 (SA, 1998) Design Method
The section moment capacity (Ms) is defined in Clause 5.2.1 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
as follows:
M s = f y Ze (3-4)
where the effective section modulus (Ze) allows for the effects of local buckling and
the calculation of Ze is dependent on the section classification recommended in AS
4100. Table 3.7 presents the details of section classification for test specimens used
in this test program based on both AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600.
Table 3.7: Section Classification
Beam Beam Designation Section Classification

AS 4100 AS/NZS 4600
1 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300 Slender (web) Slender (flange, web)
2 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300 Slender (flange) Slender (flange)
7 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550 Slender (flange) Slender (flange, web)
The effective section modulus is defined in Clauses 5.2.3 to 5.2.5 of AS 4100 (SA,
1998) as follows:
s sp : Z e = S < 1.5Z
sy s
sp < s sy : Z e = Z + (S Z ) (3-5)
sy sp
sy
s > sy : Ze = Z
s
The section slenderness (s) is taken as the value of the plate element slenderness
(e) for the element of the cross-section, which has the greatest value of (e/ey). The
plate element slenderness (e) is defined in Clause 5.2.2 (SA, 1998) as a function of
the element clear width (b), thickness (t), and yield stress (fy):
b y
e = (3-6)
t 250
The section plasticity and yield slenderness limits (sp, sy) are taken as the values of
the element slenderness limits (ep, ey) given in Table 5.2 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
for the element of the cross-section which has the greatest value of e/ey. The cold-
formed (CF) element slenderness limits were considered to be the most appropriate
for RHFB sections (see Appendix 3C). These slenderness limits were established
from lower bound fits to the experimental local buckling resistances of plate
elements in uniform compression and flexure. The section moment capacity values
based on AS 4100 design rules are given in Table 3.8. Appendix 3C shows the
example calculations of section moment capacity of a RHFB based on AS 4100 (SA,
1998) design rules. Measured yield stresses were used in all the calculations for
G300, G500 and G550 steels.
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) Design Method
The section moment capacity (Ms) is defined in Clause 3.3.2 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
1996) in a similar manner to AS 4100 (see Equation 3-4). However, unlike AS 4100,
the effective section modulus (Ze) is based on the initiation of yielding in the extreme
compression fibre and therefore does not allow for the inelastic reserve capacity of
the section. The effects of local buckling in the slender elements in compression are
accounted for by using effective widths (be) in the calculation of their effective
section modulus (see Equation 3-7). Unlike AS 4100, the plate element slenderness
() is a function of the applied stress (f*), as shown in Equation 3-8. This accounts
for the severity of local buckling effects with increasing member slenderness.
0 . 22
1
be = bb (3-7)

1 . 052 b f*
= (3-8)
k t E
where k is the local buckling coefficient, and k = 4 for uniformly compressed

stiffened elements, whereas for the stiffened elements with a stress gradient, k is
determined from the following equation:
k = 4 + 2(1 ) 3 + 2(1 ) (3-9)
*
f2
= *
f1
where f1* is compression (+) and f2* can be either tension (-) or compression.
The section capacities of all the RHFB sections were calculated using the AS/NZS
4600 method described above, with the local buckling coefficient (k) equals to 4 for
the stiffened elements with uniform compression and using Equation 3-9 for the
elements with stress gradient.
Clause 1.5.1.5 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) recommends the use of a reduced yield
stress for G550 steels to allow for the reduced ductility in the steels: 0.90fy for 0.6
mm thickness <0.9 mm and 0.75fy for thickness < 0.6 mm or 495 MPa, whichever
is lesser. Therefore the measured (actual) and modified (reduced) yield stresses were
used in the calculations of plate element slenderness using Equation 3-8, and the
section moment capacities of RHFBs using Equation 3-4 for G300 and G550 steels,
respectively. Measured cross-section dimensions given in Table 3.5 were used in
these calculations. The section moment capacity results based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
1996) are given in Table 3.8. Appendix 3C shows the example calculations of section
moment capacity of a RHFB based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) design rules.
In the design capacity calculations, the plate elements of RHFBs were assumed to be
either stiffened (both longitudinal edges supported) or unstiffened (one longitudinal
edge supported) elements and accordingly the corresponding ey and k values were
used. However, some of the plate elements (mainly the web and bottom flange
elements) were held together through intermittent screw fastening. Hence the above
assumption may not be accurate and could have led to slight overestimation of the
section moment capacities. Finite element analyses reported in Chapter 6 investigate
this effect in detail.
Comparisons
The maximum bending moment (Mu) achieved by each test specimen is listed in
Table 3.8 and is compared with the predictions based on the steel structures standard,
AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and the cold-formed steel structures standard, AS/NZS 4600
(SA, 1996). The comparison of predicted moment capacities based on AS 4100 and
AS/NZS 4600 with experimental moment capacities showed that both design
methods are conservative in general. However, AS/NZS 4600 section capacity
method estimates comparatively more accurately the reduction in section moment
capacity due to local buckling effects in slender RHFB sections than the AS 4100
method. AS/NZS 4600 overestimates the failure moment of G300 and G500/G550
steel specimens by 6% (mean = 0.94) with a COV of 0.16, and 5% (mean = 0.95)
with a COV of 0.24, respectively, while AS 4100 predictions were 9% (mean =0.91)
and 36% (mean = 0.64) higher than the test section moment capacities with COVs of
0.16 and 0.24, respectively (see Mu/Ms ratio in Table 3.8). From this comparison, it
is apparent that both AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 overestimate the section moment
capacities of RHFBs. However, AS/NZS 4600 design rules may be used for both
G300 and G550 steel RHFB sections to predict their section moment capacities as
the overall Mu/Ms ratios are about 0.95. In contrast AS 4100 design rules can only
be used for G300 steel RHFB since they overestimate the section moment capacities
by about 36% for G550 steel RHFB. Appendix 3C shows example calculations of
section moment capacities based on both AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 design rules.
Table 3.8: Comparison of Section Moment Capacities of RHFBs
Z (or Zf) AS/NZS 4600 AS 4100 Ratio Mu/Ms

Exp. Mu My
Beam Section Designation (104) Ze Ms Ze Ms AS/NZS AS
(kNm) (kNm)
mm3 (104 mm3) (kNm) ( 104 mm3) (kNm) 4600 4100
1 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-50s 5.91 2.25 7.20 2.12 6.78 2.17 6.94 0.87 0.85
2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-100s 5.50 2.25 7.20 2.12 6.78 2.16 6.91 0.81 0.80
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 7.01 2.57 8.53 2.17 7.20 2.33 7.74 0.97 0.91
4 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-100s 6.96 2.52 8.37 2.15 7.14 2.28 7.57 0.97 0.92
5 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 11.83 3.74 11.97 3.56 11.39 3.54 11.32 1.03 1.01
6 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-100s 11.81 3.82 12.23 3.64 11.64 3.69 11.81 1.01 1.00
7 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 10.16 2.88 9.56 2.58 8.57 2.69 8.93 1.19 1.14
8 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-100s 9.29 2.90 9.63 2.58 8.57 2.71 9.00 1.08 1.03
9 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s 7.74 3.61 11.55 3.25 10.40 3.45 11.04 0.74 0.70
10 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-100s 7.83 3.64 11.64 3.29 10.52 3.48 11.14 0.74 0.70
Mean 0.94 0.91
G300 Steel
COV 0.16 0.16
11 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-50s 6.44 1.53 7.53 1.03 5.10 1.29 8.39 1.26 0.77
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-100s 6.17 1.50 7.43 1.03 5.10 1.27 8.26 1.21 0.75
13 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s 9.43 2.37 11.73 1.55 7.68 1.99 12.94 1.23 0.73
14 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s 8.30 2.36 11.68 1.55 7.68 1.99 12.94 1.08 0.64
15 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s 15.64 3.66 20.13 3.23 15.99 3.35 19.53 0.98 0.80
16 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-100s 13.93 3.68 20.24 3.24 16.04 3.36 19.59 0.87 0.71
17 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s 9.82 2.53 12.52 1.94 9.60 2.15 13.98 1.02 0.70
18 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-100s 8.76 2.54 12.57 1.94 9.60 2.17 14.11 0.91 0.62
19 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-50s 11.73 3.55 19.53 2.91 14.41 3.22 18.77 0.81 0.62
20 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-100s 10.80 3.53 19.42 2.89 14.31 3.20 18.66 0.75 0.58
21 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s 6.49 2.87 15.79 1.91 9.46 2.52 16.38 0.69 0.40
22 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-100s 5.13 2.89 15.90 1.91 9.46 2.53 16.45 0.54 0.31
Mean 0.95 0.64
G500/G550 Steel
COV 0.24 0.23
The lower experimental failure moments compared with predicted design capacities
could be attributed to several factors including residual stresses and initial geometric
imperfections that were present in the test specimens. The test specimens were
fabricated manually (see Chapter 4) and therefore only limited control on the shape
and size of the specimens could be achieved during the forming process. Thus, the
specimens had considerable amount of irregularities in the shape (i.e. geometric
imperfections, see Figure 3.11) and the size, which could decrease the section
moment capacities of RHFBs. The curvature of flange top plate was not considered
in the moment capacity calculations, ie. Flat plate assumption. The corner radii were
also assumed to be negligible. All these assumptions could also have lead to the
overestimation of moment capacities.
The discontinuity between the web and lower flange lip elements due to intermittent
screw fastening could also reduce the section moment capacities of RHFBs. As
illustrated in Figures 3.19 (a) and (b), the gap between flange lips and web opened up
between screw fasteners when the flange buckled locally. Depending on the b/t ratio
of web and flange lip elements, there is a tendency of local buckling in the web and
flange lips between screw fastener locations. However, this effect could not be
accounted for in either AS 4100 or AS/NZS 4600 when the element slenderness was
calculated. Instead of intermittent screw connections between the web and flange
lips, a continuous connection was assumed when the local buckling coefficient k was
calculated to determine the section moment capacities using AS/NZS 4600 and AS
4100 design rules. This could lead to higher predicted moment capacities than the
tested failure moments as listed in Table 3.8.
Higher predictions from AS 4100 are partly due to the use of measured yield stress,
and not the reduced yield stress as in AS/NZS 4600 (compare the Mu/Ms ratios 0.64
with 0.95 in Table 3.8). This observation justifies the use of reduced yield stress in
AS/NZS 4600 to allow for the reduced ductility in such steels.
3.4 Summary
This chapter has presented the details of an experimental investigation of the material
properties of steels and the section moment capacities of the new cold-formed
rectangular hollow flange beam (RHFB) sections and the results. Four point bending
tests were conducted for a total of 22 RHFB sections made from G300 steel (10) and
G500/G550 steels (12). Test results are presented in the form of bending moment
versus vertical deflection and longitudinal strains for each section. The maximum
bending moment attained by each test specimen was listed and compared with design
capacity predictions from the current steel design standards based on the measured
cross-section dimensions and material properties. The test results indicated that the
predicted section moment capacities from AS/NZS 4600 and AS 4100 design rules
are unconservative, and therefore they may not be safe to use in the section capacity
calculations of RHFB. However, there is significant potential for the use of the very
efficient RHFBs if a well controlled manufacturing method is used and a more
representative design approach is adopted by modifying the current design rules
specified in AS/NZS 4600 and AS 4100.
CHAPTER 4 Experimental Studies on
Flexural Behaviour of
RHFB Members
4.1 General
This research was aimed at investigating the flexural member behaviour of

rectangular hollow flange beams (RHFB) and to verify the adequacy of the existing
design rules based on the behaviour of RHFBs. For this purpose 30 full scale lateral
buckling tests and 22 section moment capacity tests were conducted using typical
RHFBs to failure. This chapter presents the details of the full scale lateral buckling
tests and the results relating to the flexural member behaviour of RHFBs.
4.2 Section Geometry and Specimen Sizes
As discussed in Chapter 2, cold-formed steel beams comprising rectangular hollow

flanges and a slender web (see Figure 4.1) are susceptible to various buckling modes
under flexural action. They are:
1. Local buckling of flanges

2. Local buckling of web
3. Lateral distortional buckling
4. Lateral torsional buckling
5. Lateral distortional buckling and local buckling of flanges
6. Lateral distortional buckling and local buckling of web
7. Material yielding
Essentially, the above failure modes are governed by the material and geometric
properties of RHFB, and therefore it was important to choose the relevant key
parameters carefully in order to investigate and fully understand all the possible
failure modes of RHFB using a series of full scale lateral buckling tests.
The basic parameters for a typical RHFB section are: flange width (bf), flange height
(hf), web height (hw), flange thickness (tf), web thickness (tw), flange lip height (hl),
support span of the beam (l), steel grade (G), and screw spacing (s) (see Figure 4.1).
bf
tf hf
Screw spacing along

the beam s
tw hw
hl
hf
Figure 4.1: Cross-section of a Typical RHFB
The elements width to thickness ratio (b/t) is an important parameter for cold-
formed steel sections under compression or bending action. Hence the upper limit of
flange width, flange height and web depth were decided based on the maximum b/t
ratio values recommended in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). For this purpose, the
available steel thicknesses from both lower (G300) and higher (G500 and G550)
grade steels were used and their details are given in Table 4.1. In AS/NZS 4600, the
maximum overall flat width-to-thickness ratio for stiffened compression elements
with both longitudinal edges connected to other stiffened elements is given as 500
and the maximum depth-to-thickness ratio for unreinforced webs is given as 200.
Table 4.1: Selected Material Thicknesses from Three Steel Grades
Steel Grade Nominal steel thicknesses (mm)

G300 0.55 0.80 - 1.20 1.90
G500 - - - 1.15 -
G550 0.55 0.75 0.95 - -
Preliminary elastic buckling analyses were conducted using a finite strip program
Thin-wall to decide suitable cross-section sizes of RHFB that would fail by different
buckling modes. Many RHFB sections comprising different flange sizes, material
thicknesses and web heights were analysed. This computer program gives elastic
buckling loads at different buckling half-wavelengths with corresponding buckling
failure modes. The results showed that 50 mm 25 mm flange was the most suitable
one to investigate all the possible failure modes of RHFBs using available steel
thicknesses in the industry. It is also the most suitable flange from a practical
application viewpoint. The elastic buckling analysis results of Thin-wall computer
program for a number of RHFB sections comprising 50 mm 25 mm flanges with
varying material thicknesses, web heights and span lengths are presented in Table 4.2
and Figures 4.2 (a) to (c).
Table 4.2: Elastic Buckling Analysis Results
Flange Web Buckling Stress (MPa)

Grade
Steel
No bf hf tf tw hw = 100 mm hw = 150 mm
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) LBS 2m 3m LBS 2m 3m
1 50 25 0.55 0.55 122f 297 239 117w 205 139
2 50 25 0.55 1.20 122f 402 345 122f 248 198
3 50 25 1.20 1.20 576f 501 427 556w 299 242
4 50 25 1.20 0.55 331w 270 203 128w 205 124
G300
5 50 25 0.80 0.80 257f 377 321 247w 239 180
6 50 25 0.80 1.90 257f 528 441 257f 314 256
7 50 25 1.90 1.90 1432f 678 546 1392w 398 322
8 50 25 1.90 0.80 685w 325 365 271w 226 154
9 50 25 0.55 0.55 122f 297 239 117w 205 139
10 50 25 0.55 0.95 122f 384 329 122f 240 188
11 50 25 0.95 0.95 362f 425 365 349w 261 205
G550
12 50 25 0.95 0.55 317w 281 218 126w 206 130
13 50 25 0.75 0.75 326f 361 306 217w 232 172
14 50 25 0.75 1.15 226f 459 393 226f 277 224
15 50 25 1.15 1.15 530-f 487 416 511w 291 235
G500
16 50 25 1.15 0.75 529f 343 287 233w 229 163
Note: Section parameters are defined in Figure 4.1 LBS Local Buckling Stress
In the buckling analyses, an idealized RHFB with no flange lips and full continuity
between web and flange elements was assumed as shown in Figures 4.2 (a) to (c).
(a) Buckling Plot for RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw Section
(b) Buckling Plot for RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw Section
Figure 4.2: Different Buckling Modes of RHFBs
(c) Buckling Plot for RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw Section
Figure 4.2: Different Buckling Modes of RHFBs
Figures 4.2 (a) to (c) illustrate the change of buckling failure modes at different
buckling half wavelengths for three RHFB sections using the buckling plots obtained
from the Thin-wall buckling analyses. The graphs represent the variation of
maximum stress in the section at buckling with different half-wavelengths.
According to Figure 4.2 (a), local flange buckling changes to local web buckling at a
buckling half wavelength of 90 mm, whereas at a half-wavelength of 350 mm, local
web buckling changes to lateral distortional buckling. Interactive lateral distortional
and local web buckling occurs for half-wavelengths in the range of 350 mm to 1000
mm approximately. Pure lateral distortional buckling occurs when the half-
wavelength exceeds 1000 mm. However, lateral torsional buckling occurs beyond
about 6500 mm. Yield strength of material should be compared with the buckling
stress to check whether yielding occurs before buckling. In Figure 4.2 (b), local web
buckling occurs for buckling half wavelengths up to 400 mm, but changes to lateral
distortional buckling beyond 400 mm. Interactive lateral distortional and local web
buckling occurs for half-wavelengths in the range of about 400 mm to 1600 mm.
Pure lateral distortional buckling occurs when the half-wavelength exceeds 1600
mm. However, lateral torsional buckling occurs beyond 8500 mm. In Figure 4.2 (c),
local flange buckling occurs for buckling half wavelengths up to 300 mm and
changes to lateral distortional buckling beyond 300 mm. Interactive lateral
distortional and local flange buckling occurs for half-wavelengths in the range of
about 300 mm to 2000 mm. Pure lateral distortional buckling occurs when the half-
wavelength exceeds 2000 mm. However, lateral torsional buckling occurs beyond
6000 mm.
The cross-section sizes and the specimen lengths of RHFB to simulate different
buckling failure modes during full scale bending tests were decided based on the
results given in Table 4.2 and buckling plots such as Figures 4.2 (a) to (c). For
instance, section No. 3 of Grade 300 steel with a web height, hw = 150 mm has local
buckling stress of 556 (w) MPa, in which w indicates that the section experiences
local buckling in the web. In this case, the local buckling stress is greater than the
lateral distortional buckling stresses at 2 m and 3 m span lengths. Therefore this
particular section (No. 3 in Table 4.2) is expected to fail by pure distortional
buckling at span lengths of 2 m and 3 m. Similarly, the failure modes of all other
sections were decided based on the results presented in Table 4.2.
Thirty RHFB specimens with different section sizes, lengths and screw spacings
were selected based on the elastic buckling analysis results presented in Table 4.2 to
simulate different failure modes in full scale bending tests. Details of bending tests
are given in the next section.
4.3 Test Program
Table 4.3 shows the lateral buckling test program for RHFBs using G300, G500 and
G550 steels. Expected failure modes of RHFB test specimens comprising 50 mm
25 mm flange size, different combinations of flange and web thicknesses and web
heights are given in Table 4.3 for span lengths of 2 m and 3 m. For example, the
expected failure mode of section RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw is pure lateral distortional
buckling (LD) at 3 m span (see Figure 4.2 (a)). The specimens were chosen only for
the sections highlighted in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Lateral Buckling Test Program
Flange Web Test Specimens and Failure Modes

Steel Grade Thickness Thickness Web Height hw = 100 mm Web Height hw = 150 mm
tf tw
Span 2 m Span 3 m Span 2 m Span 3 m
0.55 0.55 LBF LBF LBF LBF + LD
0.55 1.20 LBF (1) LBF LBF LBF
1.20 1.20 Y (1) Y LD LD (2)

G300 steel
1.20 0.55 LD LD (1) LBW (1) LBW, LD (2)
0.80 0.80 LBF LBF LBF + LD LD (2)
0.80 1.90 LBF LBF LBF LBF, LD (1)
1.90 1.90 Y Y Y Y (1)
1.90 0.80 Y LD LD LD
0.55 0.55 LBF LBF LBF (1) LBF + LD
0.55 0.95 LBF LBF LBF LBF (1)

G550 steel
0.95 0.95 LBF LBF + LD LD (2) LD
0.95 0.55 LD LD LBW (2) LBW, LD (1)
0.75 0.75 LB LBF, LD (2) LBF, LD (1) LD (2)
0.75 1.15 LBF LBF LBF LBF, LD (2)
1.15 1.15 LD LD LD LD (2)

G500
steel
1.15 0.75 LD LD LBW + LD LD (2)
Sub-Total 2 3 7 18
Grand-Total 30
Note: LBF, LBW - Local Buckling of Flange and Web LDB Lateral Distortional Buckling
Y Material yielding (1) 50 mm screw spacing (2) 50 mm and 100 mm screw spacings
The specimens were chosen to maintain an even distribution of test specimens within
each category. For this purpose, 12 specimens were selected from G300 steel while
18 specimens were selected from G500 and G550 steels. Five specimens were from
the sections with a web height of 100 mm while 25 specimens were for a section
with 150 mm web height. Six local buckling failure modes, thirteen lateral
distortional buckling failure modes, nine interactive buckling failure modes and two
material yielding failure modes were selected as the expected failure modes. Twenty
specimens were made with 50 mm screw spacing while ten specimens were made
using 100 mm screw spacing.
4.4 Test Specimens
Test specimens were fabricated by screw fastening two rectangular hollow flanges
and a web plate at equal spacing (50 mm or 100 mm) along the length. The flanges
were cold-formed first using press-braking method, but the required rectangular
shape could not be achieved due to difficulties in fitting the press-braking machine
tools in the fully folded rectangular hollow flanges during the cold-forming process.
Hence the flanges were folded to a certain level first as shown in Figure 4.3 (a), and
were then forced into the required shape using a set of six hydraulic jacks as
illustrated in Figure 4.3 (b). Three jacks were used on each side of the side timber
and I-section supports to force the flange inward while the flange being held in
position firmly by the vertical timber and steel plate supports located above the
flange. Figure 4.3 (c) shows the final shape of the test specimens.
(a) Partially Bent Flange
Figure 4.3 Fabrication of Rectangular Hollow Flanges
Secondary
beam
Vertical
supports
Main
Beam Vertical
actuator
Horizontal
Hydraulic actuators
jacks
Hydraulic
pump
(b) Partially Bent Flange being Forced Inwards
Vertical actuator
Specimen
Horizontal actuators
(c) Final Shape of Flange
Figure 4.3 Fabrication of Rectangular Hollow Flanges
Once all the rectangular hollow flanges were made of the required sizes and
thicknesses, they were first clamped together with the corresponding web plate (see
Figure 4.4 (a)) and then connected together using No. 10-16 16 Hexagon head self-
drilling screw fasteners at equal spacings of 50 mm and 100 mm (see Figure 4.4 (b)).
Figures 4.4 (a) to (d) show the screw fastening process and the final RHFB
specimen.
(a) Flanges and Web Clamped Together (b) Flanges and Web Screwed Together
(c) Built-in RHFB (d) Schematic View of RHFB
Figure 4.4: Assembling Process and Final Shape of a Typical RHFB
The combined press-braking and forced bending process used to make the
rectangular hollow flanges could have generated additional residual stresses and
geometric imperfections in the test specimens. Therefore the initial geometric
imperfections and residual stresses are important parameters and should be
measured. The initial geometric imperfections of built-up RHFB sections were
measured in the laboratory as illustrated the in Figure 4.5 (a), whereas Figure 4.5 (b)
illustrates variation of initial bow-out imperfection along a typical RHFB section.
However, residual stresses could not be measured due to time constraints. The
measured section dimensions were used to calculate the centreline dimensions of the
RHFB cross-sections, and the calculated centreline dimensions and the maximum
measured bow-out imperfections () for each test specimen are given in Table 4.4.
The thickness values, tf and tw, presented in Table 4.4 the are measured based metal
thicknesses for each steel grade and thickness (see Section 3.2.1 in Chapter 3).
Data acquisition system
Laser beam component

Test beam
Levelling device
(a): Measurement of Initial Geometric Imperfections Device
1
Imperfection (mm)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-1
-2
-3
-4
Distance (cm)
'
Top-Flange' Web-Central Bottom-Flange
(b): Variation of Initial Geometric Imperfections along a RHFB Specimen
Figure 4.5: Initial Geometric Imperfections and RHFB Specimens
Table 4.4: Measured Section Dimensions and Geometric Imperfections of Test Specimens
Flange Web
Imperfection
Beam Specimen Designation bf hf hl tf hw tw (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 53.5 30.5 14.5 1.192 145.5 1.192 3.5
2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 52.7 32.2 14.2 1.192 148.8 0.543 2.4
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 52.1 31.1 14.0 0.800 145.3 0.800 1.8
4 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 51.8 31.7 13.9 0.800 145.0 1.882 2.7
5 RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 54.3 33.7 14.6 1.882 146.0 1.882 3.2
6 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-3L-G300-50s 52.2 30.4 14.5 1.192 94.8 0.543 3.4
7 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G300-50s 52.6 29.5 14.0 1.192 146.0 0.543 1.2
8 RHFB-055tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s 52.6 31.6 14.3 0.543 95.2 1.192 1.1
9 RHFB-120tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s 52.7 30.4 14.4 1.192 95.3 1.192 1.1
10 RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 52.4 31.0 13.8 0.553 147.3 0.947 2.8
11 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 52.8 30.3 13.6 0.947 147.0 0.553 1.6
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 52.5 29.8 13.5 0.748 147.3 0.748 2.5
13 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 53.0 29.1 13.7 0.748 147.4 1.148 2.7
14 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s 53.3 30.3 13.8 1.148 147.7 1.148 3.0
15 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s 52.7 31.6 13.5 1.148 146.2 0.748 2.2
16 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-50s 52.5 30.0 13.7 0.748 95.8 0.748 5.7
17 RHFB-055tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 52.4 30.8 13.4 0.553 145 0.553 2.4
18 RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 53.4 30.7 13.6 0.947 146.8 0.947 0.9
19 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 52.6 30.4 13.5 0.947 146.3 0.553 1.3
20 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 52.2 30.3 13.4 0.748 146.6 0.748 4.7
21 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 52.1 31.1 14.0 0.800 145.3 0.800 1.8
22 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 53.5 30.5 14.5 1.192 145.5 1.192 3.5
23 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 52.7 32.2 14.2 1.192 148.8 0.543 2.4
24 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s 52.5 29.8 13.5 0.748 147.3 0.748 2.5
25 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-100s 52.5 30.0 13.7 0.748 95.8 0.748 5.7
26 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s 53.3 30.3 13.8 1.148 147.7 1.148 3.0
27 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s 53.0 29.1 13.7 0.748 147.4 1.148 2.7
28 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s 52.7 31.6 13.5 1.148 146.2 0.748 2.2
29 RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s 53.4 30.7 13.6 0.947 146.8 0.947 0.9
30 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s 52.6 30.4 13.5 0.947 146.3 0.553 1.3
Note: Specimen designation is the same as defined in Chapter 3, but span length is also added (eg. 3L means 3 m length)
4.5 Test Set-up
In order to investigate the elastic buckling and ultimate strength behaviour of the
RHFB sections used as flexural members, a full-scale bending test rig was designed,
fabricated and built in the QUT Structures Laboratory. The test rig required special
support conditions that prevented in-plane and out-of-plane deflections and twisting
rotation without restraining in-plane and out-of-plane rotations and warping
displacements. It also required the load application through the shear centre of the
doubly symmetric RHFB sections with no twisting and lateral restraints to the test
beam.
The test rig used for lateral distortional buckling tests included a support system and
a loading system, which were attached to an external frame consisting of two main
beams (250 UC 89.5) and four columns (250 UC 89.5) located at 5 m 1.8 m grid
points. The main beams were positioned horizontally at 2 m height between each pair
of long columns. The support system included two frames made of 150 UC 37.2 and
50 mm 50 mm 5 mm SHS sections and was set up within the external frame by
fixing the top and bottom of the frames to the main beams and the strong floor. The
support frames were kept in a vertical position and perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of test beam. The loading system including two hydraulic rams and a manually
operated hydraulic pump was suspended from a specially made wheel system that
rested on SHS beams positioned on top of the main beams directly over the loading
points of the test beams. In addition, a measuring system was set up to record the
applied load, and the strain and deflections of the test beam at several locations.
Figures 4.6 (a) and (b) show the schematic and overall views of the test set-up.
L/4 L/4
P P
L
(a) Schematic View
Figure 4.6: Lateral Buckling Test Set-up
Main columns Wheel system Main beams
SHS beam
PDTs
Test beam
Support frames
(b) Overall View
Figure 4.6: Lateral Buckling Test Set-up
4.5.1 Support System
The support system was designed to ensure that the test beam was simply supported
in-plane and out-of-plane at the ends of the test beam. It was similar to that used by
Zhao et al. (1995), Put et al. (1999) and Mahendran and Doan (1999). Based on the
required support conditions described by Zhao et al. (1995), the ends of the span
were fixed against in-plane vertical deflections, out-of-plane deflections and twist
rotations, but they were unrestrained against major and minor axis rotations. In other
words, the ends of the span could rotate freely about its in-plane horizontal axis and
vertical axis, but did not twist. To achieve the support conditions described by Zhao
et al. (1995), the modified support system of Mahendran and Doan (1999) was
further improved to achieve more accurate and convenient support conditions for
RHFB specimens in this test program. Figures 4.7 (a) and (b) show the schematic
and overall view of the new support system used in this lateral buckling test program.
1.80 m
500 mm
S2
B1
1.20 m
S1
0.00 m
(a) Schematic View
Thrust Bearing B2
UC columns
Box-frame S2
Travelator
Steel bar
Bearing B1 Box-frame S1
Bearing B3
(b) Overall View
Figure 4.7: Support System for Buckling Tests
The new support system included two pairs of 150 UC 37.2 columns. Each pair of
columns was connected together by two 50 50 5 SHS members. The important
components of the support system were the box-frames S1 and S2 (see Figure 4.7).
The box-frame S1 had two 40 mm diameter shafts that were welded in alignment to
each other at the middle of its vertical plates. The roller bearings B1 were then
inserted into each shaft and were seated on 90 90 6 angle supports welded to the
inner flanges of the support frame as shown in Figure 4.7. In this way, the box-frame
S1 was supported by two roller bearings B1. The angle supports were kept at the
same level of 1.2 m from the floor in order to avoid any axial forces due to inclined
applied loads. The 1.2 m height to the angle supports was selected to facilitate proper
access to the beam being tested, so that thorough observations could be made during
testing. Two steel strips were welded to the steel angle in the horizontal travel
direction of the roller bearings B1 at one pair of columns to prevent the longitudinal
movement of the beam. This was not applied at the other pair of columns to allow
free longitudinal displacement of the beam. The roller bearing B1 and the steel
angles restrained the box-frames S1 and S2, and test beam against vertical
displacements, but allowed them to rotate freely about the in-plane horizontal axis of
the beam sections. A thrust ball bearing B2 was placed on the top plate of the box-
frame S1, whereas a roller bearing B3 was fixed to its bottom plate at a position
vertically below B2 as shown in Figure 4.7 (b). Two 40 mm diameter shafts were
inserted into the bearings B2 and B3 at one end whereas the other ends of these
shafts were welded to steel plates that were bolted to the top and bottom plates of the
box-frame S2. Thus, the bearings B2 and B3 allowed the test specimens to rotate
freely about the vertical axis of the test beams, but did not allow them to twist.
The box-frame S2 was designed to accommodate all the test specimens having
different section sizes. It was required to make S2 in two symmetric halves in order
to insert test specimen conveniently in the S2 box frame (see Figure (4.7 (b)). Test
specimen was fixed inside the S2 box frame using four bolts located symmetrically
about the neutral axis of test beam as shown in Figure 4.7 (b).
4.5.2 Loading System
A gravity loading system was used by other researchers in the past (Zhao et. al.,
1995, Put et al., 1999) to investigate the lateral buckling of simply supported beams.
However, this method was considered tedious and labour intensive and could not
load the beam specimen continuously. Mahendran and Doan (1999) used an
improved loading system with hydraulic jacks instead of gravity loads. However, this
loading system also had a disadvantage of restraining the lateral movement of test
beam. It did not allow the continuation of loading into the post-buckling range due to
the fact that roller bearings could slip out of position and cause injuries to people and
damage the components. Therefore a new loading system was designed to eliminate
the above mentioned shortcomings. The new loading system included two hydraulic
rams connected to a wheel system, load cell and a series of other components as
illustrated in Figure 4.8. The hydraulic rams were operated under displacement
control to ensure that the same load was applied at each loading position of the test
beam simultaneously. This provided identical bending moments at the two quarter
points of the test beam, and a uniform bending moment between them. The load was
applied vertically upward at the two quarter points of the test beam and therefore the
bottom flange was in compression.
Previous researchers have used both the overhang and quarter point loading methods
to investigate the lateral buckling behaviour of various section types. Zhao et al.
(1995) and Mahendran and Doan (1999) used the overhang loading method, and Put
et al. (1999) used quarter point loading method to investigate the lateral buckling of
simply supported beams. In the overhang loading method, the cantilever loads are
applied to the test beam at a short distance from the supports, which provide a
uniform bending moment within the entire span. On the other hand the quarter point
loading method provides a uniform bending moment only between the points of load
application. Therefore the overhang loading method was preferred as it provides a
uniform moment within the entire span, but it has the possible undesirable effect of
warping restraints due to the overhang component of the test beam. In addition, the
RHFB has the limitation on its length due to fabrication difficulties; hence the
overhang loading method which requires longer test beams to accommodate
cantilever loads was not suitable for the RHFB used in this test program. Therefore
the quarter point loading method was adopted.
Wheels to travel
transversely Wheels to travel
longitudinally
Hydraulic ram
SHS beams
(a) Wheel System
Hydraulic ram
Load cell
Bearing B4
Pivot 1
Pivot 2
Steel plate
Connector
(b) Loading Arm
Figure 4.8: Loading System
The loading system was designed so that there was no restraint on displacements or
rotations in any direction from the loading device to the test beam at the loading
positions. The wheel system ensured that the loading arm moved in plane when the
beam deformed under the loading, whereas two pivots and bearing (i.e. P1, P2 and
B4, see Figure 4.8 (b)) ensured that the load was applied to the test beam without
applying a torque and hence the load acted in vertical plane when the beam deformed
in plane. Therefore all the six degrees of freedom were considered unrestrained at the
loading positions of the test beam. The load was applied through the shear centre of
the cross-section (i.e. centroid) to eliminate load height and torsional effects. The
overall loading system is shown in Figure 4.8 (c).
Wheels to travel
longitudinally Wheels to travel
Hydraulic rams transversely
SHS beams
Load cell
Pivoting bolts
Test beam Loading arm
(c) Overall View
Figure 4.8: Loading System
4.5.3 Measuring System
The loads applied at the quarter points of test beam were measured using two 60 kN
load cells attached to each loading arm and hydraulic ram as shown in Figure 4.9 (a).
The measuring system was also set up to record the longitudinal strain, the in-plane
and out-of-plane deflections of the test beam at midspan, and the vertical deflection
under both loading points of the test beam. The EDCAR unit was used to
automatically record all these measurements. The unit included a HP3497A DATA
acquisition unit, a HP3498A extender and a PC as shown in Figures 4.9 (b) and (c).
Tests were conducted with two electrical strain gauges on the top and bottom flanges
at the mid-span of each test beam. The in-plane and out-of-plane deflections were
measured using five Potentiometric Displacement Transducers (PDTs). The PDTs,
load cells and strain gauges were connected to the computer that used the EDCAR
data acquisition software to record the data continuously during the tests.
Load cells
Strain gauges
PDTs
(a) Overall View of Measuring System
Strain gauge
connectors
PDT and
load cell
connectors
(b) Data Logger (c) Data Acquisition System
Figure 4.9: Measurement and Data Acquisition Systems
4.6 Test Procedure
Table 4.4 lists the test specimens used in this program while Figure 4.4 (c) shows a
typical built-up RHFB specimen. The cross-section dimensions, material thicknesses
and geometric imperfections of each test specimen were measured using a vernier
calliper, micrometer and an especially designed measuring table for the geometric
imperfections. The measured values are presented in Table 4.4.
Test specimens were cut 60 mm longer than their intended span since connection
assembly needed extra 30 mm at each support. Holes were drilled on the web at each
loading and support positions to insert bolts. Strain gauge and deflection measuring
points were marked before the beam was positioned and clamped to the test rig. The
test beam was inserted within the box frame S2 and clamped with the connector in
S2 using two support plate stiffeners on the beam web (see Figure 4.7 (b)). These
stiffeners were used to avoid web crippling and twisting of the section at the
supports. They were not connected to top and bottom flanges so that warping
restraints were not introduced. The loading arms were then bolted to the web at each
quarter points of the test beam. The strain gauges and wire displacement transducers
were mounted at the required positions, and the resistance of each strain gauge was
checked using a multimeter to verify that gauges are accurate. The support frame was
aligned to avoid any initial twisting while the loading jack and arm were aligned in
order to prevent any eccentricities. The jacks were connected in parallel to ensure
that equal vertical loads were applied at the shear centre of test beam. The load cells,
transducers, and strain gauges were connected to the data logger. Each channel was
individually checked to ensure correct operation.
A small load was applied first to allow the loading and support systems to settle on
wheels and bearings evenly. The measuring system was then initialized with zero
values. A trial load of 10% of the expected ultimate capacity was applied and
released in order to remove any slack in the system and to ensure functionality. The
load was then applied gradually while the test data was recorded continuously at
about 0.2 kN load increments. Load and displacement readings were recorded by the
Edcar software at each load increment and the corresponding load-displacement
curves were plotted and displayed on the computer screen continuously until the test
beam failed. The applied load started to drop off when the test beam buckled out-of-
plane. The loading was continued until the test beam failed by out-of-plane buckling,
but was not maintained for too long to prevent damages to the test components and
injuries to people. The buckling behaviour of the test beam was observed throughout
the test and recorded. A typical RHFB specimen after failure is shown in Figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10: Typical RHFB Specimen after Failure
4.7 Results and Discussions
Since the verticality of the applied loads at the quarter points was maintained
throughout the test, the applied uniform moment (M) between the quarter points of
the test beam was calculated using;
M = P Lla (4.1)
where P is the applied jack load and Lla is the initial lever arm length equal to span/4
as illustrated in Figure 4.11.
Lla = span/4 Lla = span/4

P P
P P
Figure 4.11: Deformed Shape of Test Specimen
The mean value of the load cell readings at the two quarter points was used to
calculate the applied uniform moment. The applied moment was also calculated
using the top and bottom flange strain gauge readings. The close agreement between
the two moments thus verified the accuracy of load cell readings and the applied
uniform moment values.
4.7.1 Moment versus Deflection Curves
This section presents the experimental curves of applied moment versus in-plane
deflection and out-of-plane deflection at the mid-span cross section of the test beam
for selected typical tests.
4.7.1.1 RHFBs with Equal Flange and Web Thicknesses (tf = tw)
Five selected test results (Three G300 steel RHFBs and Two G550 steel RHFBs)
were used to plot the moment versus in-plane (vertical) and out-of-plane (horizontal)
deflection graphs as shown in Figures 4.12 (a) (d) for the tf = tw category. The
moment versus deflection graphs for other tests are presented in Appendix 4B.
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
Verticale Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.12: Moment versus Deflection Curves (tf = tw)
14.0
12.0
RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
10.0
Moment (kNm)
8.0
6.0
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
4.0
2.0 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
(b) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection (G300 Steel)
RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-3L-50s
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
(c) Moment versus Vertical Deflection (G550 Steel)
7.0
6.0
RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-3L-50s
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(d) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection (G550 Steel)
Figures 4.12 (a) (d) illustrate the moment versus deflection behaviour of RHFBs
made of same flange and web thicknesses. From these figures, it can be seen that the
moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane deflection curves are non-linear. However,
there was a linear relationship in the moment versus in-plane deflection up to about
80% of the ultimate failure moment for both steel grades. For the moment versus out-
of-plane deflections, there was a linear behaviour in the initial stage, however, it was
minor and not up to the extent of moment versus in-plane deflections. The lateral
buckling test results of cold-formed channel beams presented by Bogdan et al. (1999)
and cold-formed RHS beams presented by Zhao et al. (1995) have shown similar
relationships between the applied moment and deflections.
From Figures 4.12 (a) (d), it can also be observed that the sections with different
slenderness have different in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness. In both steel grades,
the maximum in-plane deflection was achieved with the less slender beam sections
(except RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-50s) whereas the maximum out-of-plane
deflection was achieved with the more slender beam sections (except RHFB-075tf-
075tw-150hw-50s). This trend was understandable as the less slender beams can resist
larger moments than the more slender beams before failing by the lateral distortional
buckling (i.e. out-of-plane buckling). On the other hand, the more slender beams had
large out-of-plane deflections before they failed by lateral distortional buckling.
Figure 4.13 shows the typical lateral distortional buckling failure of a RHFB with the
cross section RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-50s.
Lateral deflection
of compression
flange (bottom)
Figure 4.13: Typical Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure of RHFBs
4.7.1.2 RHFBs with Flange Thickness Larger than Web Thickness (tf > tw)
Three test results (One G300 steel RHFB and Two G550 steel RHFBs) were used to
plot the moment versus in-plane (vertical) and out-of-plane (horizontal) deflection
graphs for the category of tf > tw as shown in Figures 4.14 (a) (d). The moment
versus in-plane and out-of-plane deflection graphs for other tests with tf > tw are
presented in Appendix 4B.
RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.5
3.0 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.14: Moment versus Deflection Curves (tf>tw)
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
6.0
5.0
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
4.0
Moment (kNm)
3.0
RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.14: Moment versus Deflection Curves (tf>tw)
The moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane deflection curves given in Figures 4.14
(a) (d) are also non-linear as described in Section 4.7.1.1. The two test beams
having a web thickness of 0.55 mm failed by interactive lateral distortional and local
web buckling. In these two test beams, web buckling was observed near the loading
points. Figure 4.15 shows the web buckling observed in the test of section RHFB-
095tf-055tw-150hw-3L-50s.
Figure 4.15: Local Buckling of Slender Web near the Loading Points
4.7.1.3 RHFB with Flange Thickness Smaller than Web Thickness (tf < tw)
Three test results (One G300 steel RHFB and Two G550 steel RHFBs) were used to
plot the moment versus in-plane (vertical) and out-of-plane (horizontal) deflection
curves for the section category of tf < tw as shown in Figures 4.16 (a) (d). The
moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane deflection graphs for other tests including tf
< tw are presented in Appendix 4B.
The moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane deflection curves shown in Figures
4.16 (a) (d) are also non-linear as described in Sections 4.7.1.1 and 4.7.1.2. The
test on section RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-3L-50s indicated negative out-of-plane
deflection in the initial stage as shown in Figure 4.16 (b). The reason for this
behaviour could be due to the local imperfection of the web. The local web
imperfection could have been straightened during the loading while the entire beam
deflected laterally towards the positive direction.
RHFB-080tf -190tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
Moment (kNm)
5.0
4.5
4.0
RHFB-080tf -190tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.16: Moment versus Deflection Curves (tf < tw)
RHFB-075tf -115tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-055tf -095tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
4.5
4.0
3.5
RHFB-075tf -115tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0 RHFB-055tf -095tw-150hw-G550-3L-50s
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.16: Moment versus Deflection Curves (tf < tw)
This type of behaviour could result in a moment versus out-of-plane deflection curve
as given in Figure 4.16 (b). Comparison of in-plane deflection shown in Figure 4.16
(c) is complicated. A less slender beam section (i.e. RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-
50s) should have higher in-plane stiffness than a more slender beam section (i.e.
RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-3L-50s). This could be due to certain experimental errors.
By comparing the moment-deflection behaviour of G300 and G500/G550 grade steel
sections, G300 steel RHFB sections clearly demonstrate a peak moment and moment
drop off in their corresponding graphs, but G550 steel RHFB sections do not show
such a distinct peak moment or moment drop off.
4.7.2 Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves
In each test the longitudinal strains were measured in the compression and tension
flanges of the test beam at mid-span to verify the measured load cell readings. The
applied uniform moment was calculated based on the measured longitudinal strains
for the elastic region.
The longitudinal stress in the extreme fibres c was calculated first.
c = E m (4.2)
where E is the elastic modulus of steel assumed to be 200000 MPa, and m is the
average measured longitudinal strain in the extreme fibres at mid-span.
Applied uniform moment, M = c Z f (Zf -full section modulus) (4.3)
Figures 4.17 (a) and (b) show the moment versus longitudinal strain curves for a few
G300 and G500/G550 grade steel sections, respectively, using the moments
calculated based on the load cell and strain gauge measurements. The moment versus
longitudinal strain curves for other sections are presented in Appendix 4B.
18
Based on load cell 16 Based on load cell
Based on strain 14 Based on strain
Moment(kNm)
Moment (kNm) 1 12 1
10
8
Bending
2
Bending
2 6
4
Compression side 3 3 Tension side
2
Strain (Microstrain)
1 RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-3L-50s 2 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-50s 3 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-50s
(a) G300 Steel
Based on load cell 7 Based on load cell
1 Based on strain
(kNm)
Based on strain
6
(kNm)
1
5
Moment
Moment
4
Bending
2 3
2
Bending
2
Compression side Tension side
1
Strain (Microstrain)
1 RHFB-1.15-1.15-150-50s 2 - RHFB-0.75-0.75-150-50s
(b) G500 and G550 Steels
Figure 4.17: Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves
Five test results were chosen for the curves shown in Figures 4.17 (a) and (b). The
curves were plotted using the uniform moments calculated based on the load cell
measurements (see Section 4.7.1) and the strain gauge measurements (see Section
4.7.2). As shown in these figures, the moment versus longitudinal strain curves
based on the load cell and strain gauge readings closely follow each other verifying
the accuracy of the load cell measurements. These curves show that the uniform
moment calculated based on strain gauge measurements are slightly lower than those
calculated from the load cell measurements. Figures 4.17 (a) and (b) further
demonstrate that the moment (i.e. based on the load cell measurements) versus
longitudinal strain (i.e. measured at the compression flange) curves are distinctively
non-linear towards the end of the tests. This non-linear behaviour of the
compression side of test beams was clearly demonstrated in the G550 steel sections.
4.7.3 Comparison of Test Results with Predictions from the Current

Design Rules
The ultimate failure moments (Mu) from 30 lateral buckling tests are given in Table
4.5. Predicted member moment capacities based on the Australian steel structures
design standard AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and the Australia/New Zealand cold-formed
steel structures standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) are also included. The member
moment capacities based on a modified design method by Pi and Trahair (1997) is
also presented in Table 4.5. In AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600, the flexural members are
checked for their section and member moment capacities whereas they are checked
for their member moment capacities in Pi and Trahairs modified design method.
The quarter point loading method was used in this test series to eliminate the warping
restraints produced by the overhang loading method. However, it produces a non-
uniform bending moment distribution within the beam span. Therefore in order to
compare failure moments with code predicted moments for a uniform moment case,
the failure moments Mu from the tests were divided by a moment distribution factor
(m) of 1.09 as recommended by AS 4100. AS/NZS 4600 provides only an
approximate equation to calculate the moment distribution factor (Cb), but it gives
1.0 in this case. Therefore test failure moments were divided by 1.09 even for the
comparison with AS/NZS 4600 predictions.
Table 4.5: Comparison of Experimental Moment Capacities of RHFBs with Predictions from the Current Design Rules
Member Moment Capacities Mb (kNm) Mu/Mb
Experimental
Mu (kNm)
Beam No
Pi and Trahair
AS/NZS 4600
Mahaarachchi
Maharachchi
Mahendran
Mahendran
Avery et al
Avery et al
Pi Trahair
AS 4100
AS 4100
AS 4600
Specimen Designation
(1998)
(1996)
(1997)
(1999)
(2005)
(1998)
(1996)
(1997)
(2000)
(2005)
and
and
1 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 6.30 7.70 7.89 5.72 7.30 6.16 0.75 0.76 1.01 0.79 0.96
2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 3.47 7.49 4.68 3.54 5.04 4.37 0.42 0.75 0.90 0.63 0.76
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 3.00 5.17 4.23 3.18 4.27 3.47 0.53 0.71 0.87 0.64 0.79
4 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 5.20 5.72 5.60 4.22 5.51 4.41 0.83 0.89 1.13 0.87 1.06
5 RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 12.00 12.54 14.11 10.80 13.22 11.06 0.88 0.78 1.02 0.83 0.98
6 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-3L-G300-50s 4.77 5.47 4.95 3.62 4.57 3.89 0.80 0.93 1.21 0.96 1.16
7 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G300-50s 4.55 8.25 6.37 4.50 5.98 5.05 0.51 0.72 0.93 0.70 0.86
8 RHFB-055tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s 3.50 3.17 2.59 2.28 2.75 2.09 1.01 1.35 1.41 1.17 1.36
9 RHFB-120tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s 7.30 6.23 6.32 5.23 5.97 5.73 1.08 1.10 1.28 1.12 1.17
10 RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 2.57 5.11 2.84 2.58 3.86 2.84 0.46 1.05 0.91 0.61 0.72
11 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 2.53 8.19 3.79 3.13 4.81 3.79 0.28 0.90 0.74 0.48 0.60
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 3.00 6.70 3.78 3.23 4.83 3.78 0.41 1.02 0.85 0.57 0.67
13 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 3.82 6.90 4.74 4.02 5.87 4.74 0.51 0.89 0.87 0.60 0.70
14 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s 5.47 10.24 8.34 6.49 9.23 7.80 0.49 0.66 0.77 0.54 0.65
15 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s 5.14 10.02 5.99 4.77 7.11 5.99 0.47 0.95 0.99 0.66 0.78
16 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-50s 3.99 5.41 4.17 3.51 4.71 3.57 0.68 1.06 1.04 0.78 0.95
17 RHFB-055tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 3.00 5.98 2.76 2.54 3.73 2.76 0.46 1.65 1.08 0.74 0.86
Table 4.5: Comparison of Experimental Moment Capacities of RHFBs with Predictions from the Current Design Rules (cont..)
Member Moment Capacities Mb (kNm) Mu/Mb
Experimental
Mu (kNm)
Beam No
AS/NZS 4600
Maharachchi
Maharachchi
Pi & Trahair
Pi & Trahair
Mahendran
Mahendran
Avery et al
Avery et al
AS 4100
AS 4100
Specimen Designation
AS4600
(1998)
(1996)
(1997)
(2000)
(2005)
(1998)
(1996)
(1997)
(2000)
(2005)
and
and
18 RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 6.30 10.52 7.11 5.69 8.00 6.58 0.55 0.94 1.02 0.72 0.87
19 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 4.60 10.11 5.19 4.26 6.27 5.19 0.42 1.16 0.99 0.67 0.78
20 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 4.20 8.34 4.66 3.97 5.72 4.66 0.46 1.12 0.97 0.67 0.80
21 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 3.07 5.17 4.23 3.18 4.27 3.47 0.55 0.73 0.89 0.66 0.81
22 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 6.00 7.70 7.89 5.72 7.30 6.16 0.71 0.73 0.96 0.75 0.92
23 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 3.63 7.49 4.68 3.54 5.04 4.37 0.44 0.79 0.94 0.66 0.79
24 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s 3.14 6.70 3.78 3.23 4.83 3.78 0.43 1.07 0.89 0.60 0.70
25 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-100s 3.68 5.48 4.17 3.55 4.78 3.57 0.62 0.98 0.95 0.71 0.87
26 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s 5.80 10.24 8.34 6.49 9.23 7.80 0.52 0.70 0.82 0.58 0.69
27 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s 3.72 6.90 4.74 4.02 5.87 4.74 0.49 0.87 0.85 0.58 0.68
28 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s 4.61 10.02 5.99 4.77 7.11 5.99 0.42 0.85 0.89 0.59 0.70
29 RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s 6.50 10.52 7.11 5.69 8.00 6.58 0.57 0.97 1.05 0.75 0.90
30 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s 4.70 10.11 5.19 4.26 6.27 5.19 0.43 1.18 1.01 0.69 0.80
Mean 0.57 0.78 0.97 0.71 0.87
COV 0.33 0.17 0.15 0.22 0.22
Note: Experimental Mu values given in the table were divided by m of 1.09 for comparison with Mb values
As explained in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3C some plate elements (mainly the web
and lower flange element) were only intermittently screw-fastened, however, they
were assumed to be continuously connected in the moment capacity calculations.
The curvature of the flange top plate (see Figure 4.4c) was not considered in these
moment capacity calculations, ie. flat plate assumption. The corner radii were also
assumed to be negligible. All of these assumptions could have lead to an
overestimation of moment capacities.
4.7.3.1 Member Moment Capacity Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
The nominal member moment capacity (Mb) of hot-rolled steel beams that fail by
lateral torsional buckling is given in AS 4100 for different restraint conditions (SA,
1998). However, this chapter considers only the restraint conditions which are most
suitable and comparable with the experimental restraint conditions used for the
lateral buckling tests of RHFBs. The nominal member moment capacity of segments
without full lateral restraint was chosen with both ends fully or partially restrained.
For segments of constant cross-section, the nominal member moment capacity (Mb)
is given by:
M b = m s M s M s (4.4)
where
m = a moment modification factor

s = a slenderness reduction factor
Ms = the nominal section moment capacity
The moment modification factor m is defined in AS 4100 for different moment

distribution patterns. For uniform moment distribution m = 1, whereas for the
quarter point loading condition and its corresponding moment distribution pattern, m
= 1.09. The slenderness reduction factor ( s) is defined by:
2
Ms Ms
s = 0.6 +3 (4.5)
Mo Mo
where Mo is the reference buckling moment and is determined by
2 EI y 2 EI w
Mo = 2
GJ + 2
(4.6)
le le
where
E = Elastic modulus
G = Shear modulus
Iy = Second moment of area about minor principal axis
Iw = Warping constant
J = Torsion constant
le = Effective length (SA, 1998 Clause 5.6.3)
The results presented in Table 4.5 for the member moment capacities based on AS
4100 were calculated from Equations 4.4 to 4.6 assuming m = 1 (A sample
calculation is presented in Appendix 4A). The results show that the AS 4100 design
formulae are unconservative for the design of RHFBs that fail by lateral distortional
buckling. The mean of the ratios between experimental moment capacities to the
predicted moment capacities of AS 4100 was 0.57 with a coefficient of variation of
0.33. These results therefore indicate that the design formulae provided in AS 4100
are unsafe for the design of RHFB flexural members.
For the purpose of graphical comparison, all the test beam moment capacities from
30 lateral buckling tests and slenderness results were non-dimensionalised and are
plotted in Figure 4.18. The test beam capacity Mu was plotted as Mu/Ms on the
vertical axis whereas the non-dimensional member slenderness was plotted on the
horizontal axis. The nominal section moment capacity Ms was calculated from the
following equation based on the classification of RHFB test section (i.e. compact,
non-compact or slender). All the RHFB sections considered in this test program were
found to be slender (see Chapter 3).
M s = Ze f y (4.7)
where Ze is the effective section modulus calculated with the extreme compression or
tension fibre at yield stress f y. A sample calculation of Ze is presented in Appendix
3C.
The non-dimensional member slenderness was calculated from Equation 4.8.
Ms
= (4.8)
Mo
1.2
1.0
Mu/Ms , Mb/Ms
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness ()
Test AS4100-curve
Figure 4.18: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments with AS 4100

Predictions
Comparison of results in Figure 4.18 shows that the current AS 4100 design rules for
lateral buckling (i.e. Equations 4.4 to 4.6) is not suitable as it predicts unconservative
member moment capacities. The reason for such a significant overestimation of
member capacities from AS 4100 is due to the incorrect use of reference buckling
moment Mo, which is based on lateral torsional buckling. However, the RHFBs failed
by lateral distortional buckling. Therefore Pi and Trahair (1997) modified the AS
4100 design method to suit beams that fail by lateral distortional buckling based on
their investigation of lateral distortional buckling of triangular hollow flange beams
(HFBs).
4.7.3.2 Member Moment Capacity Based on Pi and Trahairs (1997)
Method
Pi and Trahair (1997) developed a nonlinear inelastic method to analyse lateral

distortional buckling behaviour of electric resistance welded triangular HFBs. From
their analyses they modified the AS 4100 design method for the HFBs and
recommended the following member capacity formula to allow for lateral
distortional buckling.
M bd = m sd M s M s (4.9)
where Ms is the section moment capacity and sd is the modified slenderness

reduction factor given by
2
Ms Ms
sd = 0.6 + 2.8 1.0 (4.10)
M od M od
m is the moment modification factor (m = 1 for uniform moment distribution) and

Mod is the lateral distortional buckling moment calculated by
M od = Zf od (Z full section modulus) (4.11)
where fod is obtained from the elastic buckling analyses (Thin-wall program) and Z is
the full section modulus.
The results presented in Table 4.5 for the member moment capacities based on Pi and
Trahairs (1997) method were calculated using Equations 4.9 to 4.11 assuming m =
1 (see Appendix 4A). The results showed that Pi and Trahairs design method
predicts member moment capacities of RHFBs more accurately than the current AS
4100 design method. The mean of the ratios between experimental moment
capacities to the Pi and Trahairs (1997) design moment capacities was 0.97 with a
coefficient of variation of 0.15. These results therefore show that the design method
developed by Pi and Trahair (1997) to cope with lateral distortional buckling of
triangular HFBs can be used for the design of RHFBs more accurately than the AS
4100 design method.
The graphical comparison of non-dimentionalised beam moment capacities and

slenderness results from 30 lateral buckling tests are given in Figure 4.19. The
nominal section moment capacity Ms was calculated as explained in Section 4.7.3.1
while d was calculated using Equation 4.8, but with Mo replaced by Mod. Figure 4.19
shows that Pi and Trahairs (1997) design curve gives better correlation with the
experimental member capacities than the AS 4100 design curve.
1.2
1.0
0.8
Mu,Mb/Ms
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness (d)
Test Pi & Trahair (1997)-curve
Figure 4.19: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments with Predictions using

Pi and Trahairs (1997) method
4.7.3.3 Member Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996)
The member moment capacity is defined in AS/NZS 4600 for different buckling
modes and beam types (SA, 1996). However, this chapter only presents and
discusses the moment capacities based on the buckling behaviour of RHFBs.
According to the details provided in Chapters 1 and 2, RHFBs comprising two
torsionally rigid hollow flanges and a slender web are susceptible to lateral
distortional buckling effects. Hence Clause 3.3.3.3 (b) of AS/NZS 4600 was used to
determine the member moment capacity of RHFBs subjected to lateral distortional
buckling. Clause 3.3.3.3 (b) defines distortional buckling as that involving transverse
bending of a vertical web with lateral displacement of the compression flange. The
member moment capacity (Mb) is given as:
Mc
M b = Zc (4.12)
Zf
where Zc is the effective section modulus calculated at a stress level of fc=Mc/Zf in

the extreme compression fibres. The critical moment (Mc) is calculated from Clause
3.3.3.3 (b) of AS/NZS 4600 as follows:
d 2
For d < 1.414: Mc = M y 1 (4.13)
4
1
For d 1.414: Mc = M y (4.14)
d 2
where d is the non-dimensional slenderness parameter and is determined from the

next equation.
My
d = (4.15)
M od
where My is the first yield moment and Mod is the elastic distortional buckling
moment and they are given by
M y = Z f fy (4.16)
M od = Z f f od (4.17)
in which, fod is the elastic distortional buckling stress obtained from the Thin-wall
computer program. Ze is the full section modulus.
The results presented in Table 4.5 for the member moment capacities based on
AS/NZS 4600 method were calculated using Equations 4.12 to 4.17. Example
calculations are given in Appendix 4A. The results showed that the AS/NZS 4600
design formula overestimates the member moment capacities of RHFBs, however,
the predictions are more accurate than the AS 4100 design method. The mean value
of the ratios between experimental moment capacities to the AS/NZS 4600 design
moment capacities was 0.78 with a coefficient of variation of 0.17 (see Table 4.5).
These results therefore show that the design formulae in AS/NZS 4600 provide better
estimates of RHFB moment capacity than the AS 4100 design method.
1.0
Experiment
0.8
AS/NZS 4600
Mu/My , Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Slenderness (d)
Figure 4.20: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments with AS/NZS 4600

(1996) Predictions
The graphical comparison of non-dimensionalised beam moment capacities and

slenderness results from 30 lateral buckling tests is given in Figure 4.20. The
modified member slenderness d was calculated as explained in Sections 4.7.3.1 and
4.7.3.2. Since AS/NZS 4600 design rules do not have a single equation for member
capacity, Mb, the design curve (Mb/My) for AS/NZS 4600 cannot be plotted. Instead
the member capacities corresponding to test beam capacities are plotted as discrete
points. As observed in Figure 4.20, predicted member moment capacities of RHFBs
are quite unconservative for all beam slenderness. Therefore the comparison of test
results and the predictions using AS/NZS 4600 design rules for the member moment
capacities of RHFB indicates that the AS/NZS 4600 design rules are not safe to use
in either the lateral torsional buckling design or for the lateral distortional buckling
designs.
4.7.3.4 Member Moment Capacity Based on Avery et al.s (2000) Method
Alternative member moment capacity equations were also proposed by Trahair

(1997). The accuracy of these equations for the design of electric resistance welded,
triangular HFB flexural members was investigated and lateral distortional buckling
design curves were produced by Avery et al. (2000, 1999b). Design curves for HFBs
were derived based on the finite element analysis results of Avery et al. (2000,
1999a), which were verified using the lateral distortional buckling tests of
Mahendran and Doan (1999). A design procedure for HFB members based on a
modified form of Trahairs equations is more accurate and reliable alternative to the
AS 4100 and AS/NZS`4600 design methods.
Trahair (1997) proposed a design curve based on the following equations:
ab
Mb = b + M s M s ; M b M o ; M b M sy (4.18)
1 + c2 n
Ms
d = (4.19)
M od
The suitable coefficients (a, b, c, and n) were established using the least square
method. Values of a = 1.0, b = 0.0, c = 0.424, and n = 1.196 were found to minimise
the total error for Trahairs (1997) design equations (see Table 2.3). However, this
approach resulted in an unacceptable maximum unconservative error of more than 10
percent for HFB sections. Therefore Avery et al. (2000) has derived separate
coefficients for each of the different thickness of the HFB sections. Even though this
approach was more accurate for the HFB section range it is very complicated and
requires different design curves for each thickness of HFB. It also does not follow
the intent of Trahairs formulation, which was to suggest different design curves for
certain groups of beams, eg. hot-rolled I-sections, or cold-formed channels, rather
than to have different design curves within the same family of cross-sections
produced by the same manufacturer (CASE, 2002). Therefore in this study Equations
(4.18) and (4.19) with the coefficients a, b, c and n (1.0, 0.0, 0.424, 1.196)
determined by Avery et al. (2000) were used to predict the moment capacity of
RHFB. Comparison of the predicted moment capacities with the results of 30 lateral
buckling tests of RHFB is shown in Figure 4.21.
1.2
1.0
0.8
Mu, Mb/Ms
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness (d)
Test Avery et. al. (2000)-curve

Avery et al.s (2000) Method
Figure 4.21 shows that the predictions based on Avery et al.s (1999) method is
similar to AS/NZS 4600 predictions for the lateral distortional buckling region and
hence not suitable in the design of RHFB sections. As observed in Figure 4.21 it is
quite conservative for beams of low slenderness while being unconservative for
beams of intermediate slenderness (inelastic buckling region).
The results presented in Table 4.5 for the member moment capacities based on Avery
et al.s (2000) method were calculated using Equations 4.18 and 4.19 (see Appendix
4A). However, the results indicated that the correlation of predicted moment
capacities based on Avery et al.s (1999) method with the experimental results is
poor compared with Pi and Trahairs (1997) method. The mean of the ratios between
experimental moment capacities to Avery et al.s (1999) design moment capacities
was 0.71 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.22.
4.7.3.5 Member Capacity Based on Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans

(2005c) Method
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a and 2005b) investigated the flexural behaviour
of dual electric resistance welded hollow flange channel sections known as LitetSteel
Beams (LSB) experimentally and analytically to produce alternative design formulae
for LSB. Design curves were derived using the finite element analysis results of
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c), which were verified against the lateral
distortional buckling test results of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a). Equations
4.20 (a) (c) have been recommended by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) for
three regions of member slenderness separating yielding/local buckling, inelastic
lateral distortional buckling, and elastic lateral buckling.
For d 0.59 Mc = M y (4.20(a))
0.59
For 0.59 < d < 1.7 Mc = M y (4.20(b))
d
1
For d 1.7 Mc = M y (4.20(c))
d 2
Comparison of the predicted moment capacities using Equations 4.20(a) to (c) with
the results of 30 lateral buckling tests of RHFB is shown in Figure 4.22. The
predicted member moment capacities using Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005)
design method were calculated for all the test specimens as explained in Appendix
4A. As explained in the section 4.7.3.3 on the comparison with AS/NZS 4600
predictions, Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans predictions cannot be plotted as a
design curve. Instead individual test capacities are compared with corresponding
predictions in Figure 4.22. Figure 4.22 shows that the predicted moment capacities
based on Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) method are better correlated with
the experimental moment capacities than those predicted by AS/NZS 4600 and
Avery et al.s (1999) method. As observed in Figure 4.22, it is quite conservative for
beams of low slenderness while being unconservative for beams of intermediate
slenderness (inelastic buckling region).
1.0
Test
0.8
Mahaarachchi & Mahendran
Mu/My , Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness (d)

Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) Method
The results presented in Table 4.5 for the member moment capacities based on
Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) method were calculated using Equations
4.20 (a) (c) (see Appendix 4A). The results indicated that the correlation of
predicted moment capacities based on Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c)
method with the experimental results of RHFBs is better than all other methods
except Pi and Trahairs (1997) method. The mean of the ratios between experimental
moment capacities to Maharachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) design moment
capacities was 0.87 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.22.
4.8 Summary
This chapter has presented the details and results of a series of lateral distortional
buckling tests of an innovative cold-formed steel beam with rectangular hollow
flanges, known as RHFB. The buckling tests of RHFBs were conducted in a
purpose-built test rig. The support and loading systems were specially designed to
satisfy the idealised boundary conditions required for such buckling tests. The tests
included 20 different section geometries of RHFBs, two screw spacings 50 mm and
100 mm, and two spans 2 m and 3 m, giving a total of 30 lateral buckling tests. The
test results showed that the new RHFBs failed by lateral distortional buckling at
intermediate beam slenderness. The nonlinear behaviour of RHFB was discussed
using moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane deflection plots. The effect of
overhang and quarter point loading method including warping effect was also
presented and discussed. The lateral buckling test results were compared with the
predictions of member capacities calculated using the Australian hot-rolled steel
structures design code AS 4100, the Australian/New Zealand cold-formed steel
structures design code AS/NZS 4600, and the desgn methods proposed by Pi and
Trahair (1997), Avery et al. (2000, 1999b) and Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005)
using non-dimensionalised moment and slenderness results.
The member moment capacities predicted by all the design methods for lateral
distortional buckling were generally unconservative for RHFBs with higher
slenderness. The predicted moment capacities of AS 4100 were extremely higher
than the test moment capacities (unconservative) because AS 4100 design rules were
based on lateral torsional buckling failures of hot-rolled I-section beams. In the case
of AS/NZS 4600, predicted moment capacities are also higher than the test moment
capacities. In the member capacity calculations using the design methods mentioned
above, it was assumed that the hollow flanges and web elements were connected
continuously, ignoring the effect of intermittent screw fastening. This assumption
could have partly contributed to the overestimation of member capacities.
The lateral distortional buckling behaviour of RHFB is further investigated using

finite element analyses in Chapter 6 that includes the effects of intermittent screw
fastening. All the results would then be used to develop accurate design rules for
screw fastened RHFB sections subjected to flexural loading.
CHAPTER 5 Finite Element Modelling
and Analysis of RHFB
5.1 General
Chapters 3 and 4 presented the details of section and member capacity tests of
Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams (RHFBs) including a series of material property
tests. Twenty two section capacity tests and thirty member capacity (lateral
distortional buckling) tests were conducted on 20 different section geometries of
RHFBs. The section geometries for this test series were chosen to achieve different
failure modes, and therefore the sections represented a broad range of web and flange
slenderness values, but it is desirable to test a much larger selection of specimens.
However, a more extensive test program would have been expensive and time
consuming.
Numerical or finite element analysis provides a relatively inexpensive, and time

efficient alternative to physical experiments. However, it is vital to have a sound set
of experimental data upon which to calibrate a finite element model. It is then
possible to investigate a wide range of parameters using the model. In order to model
the ultimate section and member capacities of RHFBs, the finite element program
should include the effects of material and geometric non-linearity, residual stresses,
initial geometric imperfections and local buckling. The ABAQUS Version 6.3 (HKS,
2002) provided by High Performance Computing and Research Support section of
the Queensland University of Technology was used in the numerical analysis.
This chapter describes the essential stages in the development of finite element
models to simulate the section and member capacity tests of RHFBs. The models
were calibrated using experimental data obtained from the tests presented in Chapters
3 and 4.
5.2 Development of the Finite Element Models
5.2.1 Physical Models
The physical situation being modelled has to be considered first. The section
capacity and lateral buckling tests to investigate the section and member capacities of
RHFBs outlined in Chapter 3 and 4 were modelled. A number of general factors
were considered in the finite element model. They are: RHFB itself, method of
loading and nature of restraints.
Figure 5.1(a) is a simplified diagrammatic representation of the experimental layout

of the lateral buckling tests. A four point loading system was used in the physical
model to minimize the effect of bending moment distribution on the member
moment capacity. AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) allow for the
moment distribution patterns on the member capacity by introducing moment
modification factors m and Cb, respectively, in the member capacity equations. For
the four point loading system, m =1.09 and Cb = 1.0.
L /4 L /2 L /4
Y P P
Y
1 2
X
Note:
L = 2m and 3m
Support 1: free to rotate in-plane and out-of-plane (i.e. about Z-axis and Y-axis)
Support 2: free to rotate in-plane and out-of-plane (i.e. about Z-axis and Y-axis) and free
to move along longitudinal axis (i.e. X)
Figure 5.1 (a): Physical Model of Lateral Buckling Test
Figure 5.1(b) is a simplified diagrammatic representation of the experimental layout

of section capacity tests. A four point loading method was used in this test series
using an existing test set-up in the QUT structural laboratory. The section capacity
of RHFB is only governed by local buckling (i.e. section properties) and the material
properties, and therefore the support conditions and the loading method are not
significant.
Y P P
1 2
L /3 L /3 L /3
Note:
L = 1070 mm
Supports 1 and 2: free to rotate in-plane (i.e. about Z-axis) and free to move along
longitudinal axis (i.e. along X-axis)
Figure 5.1(b): Physical Model of Section Moment Capacity Test
The cross-section of the beam flanges was not changed (i.e. bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm,
and hl = 15 mm), but the depth of the web (hw), thickness of the flanges (tf), and the
thickness of web (tw) were changed as in the laboratory tests. The axis system for the
beams was as shown in Figures 5.1(a) and (b).
5.2.2 Symmetry and Boundary Conditions
The size of a finite element model can be reduced significantly by using symmetry in
the structure being analysed. The symmetry is considered about a particular axis or a
plane of a structure with respect to geometry, boundary conditions and loading
patterns before and after the deformations.
In the test set-up of lateral buckling tests, the beam itself and the loading system
were symmetric about a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e. X-axis) of
the beam at its mid-span. The support conditions were almost symmetric about the
mid-plane, but only one support provides restraint against X-axis translation.
However, it does not violate symmetric condition of the beam about the mid-plane
since the beam was not subjected to any lateral loadings. Therefore, it was possible
to consider only half the span of the beam, and apply the boundary conditions as
shown in Figure 5.2 (a) to all the nodes at the mid-span of the beam. The X-axis
translation was prevented at the mid-span cross section.
P
u1 = 0 u2 = 0
2 = 0 u3 = 0
3 = 0 Experimental model 1 = 0
2 (Y) M
1 (X)
Ideal model
3Z
(a) Member Capacity Tests
u1 = 0 u2 = 0
P u3 = 0
u3 = 0
1 = 0 1 = 0
2 = 0 2 = 0
3 = 0
Experimental model
2 u1 = 0 M u2 = 0
2 = 0 u3 = 0
3 = 0 1 = 0
1
3 Ideal model
(b) Section Capacity Tests
Figure 5.2: Experimental and Ideal Finite Element Models
Similarly, it was possible to consider only half the span of the beam in the section
capacity finite element models also by considering the symmetry about a plane
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e. X-axis) at mid-span. The boundary
conditions were applied as shown in Figure 5.2 (b) to all nodes at the mid-span of the
beam. The X-axis translation was prevented at the mid-span cross section.
The two principal axes of the RHFBs are the axes of symmetry (i.e. Y and Z) as
defined in Figures 5.1 (a) and (b). The major principal axis (sometimes referred to as
the Z-axis) was the 3-axis in the finite element models, but could not be used as an
axis of symmetry in the finite element analysis despite the geometrical symmetry of
the beam about the 3-axis. The reason was unsymmetrical flexural behaviour of the
beam about the 3-axis, resulting in the top half of cross section in compression and
the bottom half in tension. The compression portion of the section could be
subjected to local buckling as illustrated in Figure 5.3, which violates the symmetry
of the beam about major axis (i.e. Z-axis) in the section and member capacity
models.
Y Y
Z Z
(a) Flange local buckling (b) Web local buckling
Figure 5.3: Unsymmetrical Local Buckling Behaviour about Z-axis
The minor principal axis (i.e. Y-axis) was the 2-axis in the finite element model.
Although the beams geometry and loading were symmetric about the 2-axis, the
deformation patterns of the beam result from the lateral distortional or lateral
torsional buckling distort the symmetrical condition about the 2-axis in the member
capacity models. However, very short beams used in the section capacity models
were not susceptible to the lateral distortional or lateral torsional buckling and
therefore it would be able to consider the symmetry about the minor principal axis
(i.e. Y-axis) in the section capacity models unless local buckling of beams web
occurred. However, symmetry about the minor principal axis was not considered in
the section capacity models to maintain uniformity in both section and member
capacity models. Figure 5.4 illustrates the unsymmetrical nature of typical global
buckling failure modes about the minor axis of the beam (i.e. Y-axis).
Y Y
X X
(a) Lateral distortional buckling (b) Lateral torsional buckling
Figure 5.4: Unsymmetrical Global Buckling Behaviour about Y-axis
The support boundary conditions as defined in Figure 5.2 (a) were provided by Zhao
et al. (1995) for the ideal simply supported boundary conditions for the lateral
buckling tests. The objective of both experimental and ideal finite element models
was to provide these ideal simply supported boundary conditions and thereby use
them to produce the design curves suitable for the new beam type, RHFBs. The
boundary conditions used in the lateral buckling tests were able to achieve all of the
above boundary conditions, with one exception. The twist restraint about the
longitudinal axis (i.e. X-axis) at the support was only applied to the beam web, and
the flanges were set unrestrained to allow for free warping. This boundary condition
was required in the experimental finite element model to simulate accurately the
support conditions in the physical model of lateral buckling tests. Figures 5.5 (a) and
(b) illustrate the boundary conditions at the support and mid-span sections,
respectively, in the experimental finite element model for member capacity. Two
steel plates (thickness of 10 mm each) attached to the web at the support to avoid
web buckling were modelled using S4R5 shell elements and they were connected to
the beam web using MPC rigid beams (centroidal node was considered as
independent and all other nodes on the web and steel plates were considered
dependant) as shown in Figure 5.5 (a). A single point constraint (SPC) which
simulates pinned end boundary conditions was applied to the centroid of the section
at the support (i.e. 2, 3 and 4 restrained) as shown in Figure 5.5 (a). The hollow
flanges top plates were not perfectly flat, instead had a curvature due to the
specimen fabrication method used (see Chapter 4). This effect was simulated in the
experimental finite element model by using a curved finite element surface as the top
flange plate, whereas a flat finite element surface was used in the ideal finite element
model.
Rigid MPC to
connect web and Two steel plates
web stiffening plate attached to the web
SPC (2 3 4)
Contact definition
Between flange lip Rigid MPC
and web to connect
web-flange
(a) Support Boundary Condition
Rigid MPC to
connect web and
flanges
Contact definition Restrained 1 5 6 on

Between flange lip whole section
and web
(b) Mid-Span Boundary Condition
Figure 5.5: Experimental Finite Element Model simulating Member Capacity Tests
The mid-span boundary conditions are the same for both experimental and ideal
finite element models for member capacity. In which, the in-plane rotation about Z-
axis (i.e. referred to as 6) and out-of-plane rotation about Y-axis (i.e. referred to as 5)
and the longitudinal displacement (i.e. referred to as 1) become zero at the mid
section of the beam due to symmetry. Therefore, the boundary conditions (1 5 6)
shown in Figure 5.5 (b) were applied to the middle plane of the beam used in the
experimental finite element model for member capacity.
In the experimental finite element model for section capacity, the same boundary
conditions at the support were used as defined for the member capacity model (see
Figure 5.5 (a)) except the out-of-plane rotation, which was prevented to simulate
experimental conditions of section capacity tests. The support boundary conditions of
experimental finite element model for section capacity therefore remained the same
as for the member capacity model as shown in Figure 5.5 (a) except SPC (2, 3, 4, 5).
The mid-span boundary conditions were assigned in the experimental finite element
model for section capacity as described for the member capacity model shown in
Figure 5.5 (b), providing restraints of 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
The idealised boundary conditions were applied to the ideal finite element models as
illustrated in Figure 5.6 so that it can be used to develop design curves. The rigid
beam type Multiple Point Constraint (MPC) elements were generated by connecting
dummy nodes at 10 mm away from the flange nodes (i.e. Rf, see Figure 5.6). The
dummy node of the intersection points between inner horizontal flange surface and
the web were selected as the common independent nodes, and the dummy nodes of
each flange were selected as dependent nodes to create these MPCs in both top and
bottom flanges as shown in Figure 5.6. These MPCs were used to distribute the load
evenly to each flange node from the intersection point of flange and web. Similarly,
another rigid beam type MPC was created by connecting dummy nodes at 20 mm
away from the web (i.e. Rw, see Figure 5.6). The centre dummy node of the web was
used as independent node and other dummy nodes of the web were used as
dependant nodes. This MPC was used to transfer the applied moment at the centre
dummy node of the web to the flanges nodes through a pin MPC as shown in the
Figure 5.6. The pin type MPCs connecting web and flanges were used to allow
flanges to rotate independently about the minor axis (i.e. warping restraint
eliminated). The explicit type MPC elements were created linking rigid beams to
the corresponding nodes on the edge of the flange and web. For the nodes on the
web, only X and Z translational degrees of freedom are linked whereas for the
flanges, only X translation was linked. This will allow the web or flanges to expand
without distortion at the support, thus eliminating possible warping stress
concentrations. The centroid of the section was connected to the independent node at
the web rigid beam with a Tie type MPC. The Tie MPC was used to maintain the
moment applied about major axis at the centre of web rigid beam uniform within the
entire member. The ideal finite element model was common for both section and
member capacity models and it predicts the moment capacities of RHFBs based on
the beams span.
Explicit type MPC UX

to link flange nodes and
Rigid Beam
SPC (2 3 4) Tie MPC
Rf
Rw
Rigid Beam type MPC
Y
X Explicit type MPC UX
and UZ to link web Pin type MPC
Z nodes and Rigid Beam
Figure 5.6: Support Boundary Conditions of Ideal Model
5.2.3 Choice of Element Type
ABAQUS has several element types suitable for numerical analysis: two or three
dimensional solid elements, membrane and truss elements, beam elements, and shell
elements are some of them. The primary aim of this analysis was to understand the
different buckling failure modes of RHFBs and hence predict the ultimate flexural
capacity. Beam, membrane and truss elements were not appropriate for the buckling
problems (HKS, 2002). A stress-free flat membrane has no stiffness perpendicular to
its plane and out-of-plane loading will cause numerical singularities and convergence
difficulties. Truss elements do not transmit moments since they have only axial
stiffness. Neither local buckling of web and flanges nor distortional buckling of the
members can be modelled by beam elements, and thus the failure behaviour can not
be modelled accurately using beam elements (Bakker and Pekoz, 2003). Therefore
the most appropriate element type to model RHFBs for the flexural capacity is shell
element and they were used in all the finite element models.
The 4-noded shell elements can be used efficiently to model this type of beam
geometries. Three types of 4-noded shell elements are available in ABAQUS
Standard Version 6.3 (S4, S4R, and S4R5). Both S4 and S4R elements are doubly
curved general-purpose, finite membrane strain shell elements, where, R stands for
reduced integration with hourglass control. These two elements are often used for
modelling shell structures with thickness larger than 1/15th of element length for
which transverse shear deformation is important and Kirchoff constraint is satisfied
analytically (Yuan, 2004). This element imposes the Kirchoff constraint numerically.
In comparison, S4 and S4R elements have six degrees of freedom per node and have
multiple integration locations for each element. They will be more accurate than the
S4R5 element for thick shell structures, but is significantly more computationally
expensive. Hence the most appropriate element type for modelling the RHFBs was
found as the S4R5 shell element. The general definition of a S4R5 shell element is
shown in Figure 5.7. ABAQUS has two basic types of shell elements: thick shell
elements and thin shell elements. The S4R5 element is a thin shear flexible,
isoparametric quadrilateral shell with four nodes and five degrees of freedom per
node, utilizing reduced integration and bilinear interpolation schemes.
The characteristic length is the flange width or the web height for modelling the local
buckling of RHFBs as appropriate. In the experimental program, the values of b/t for
the flanges were varied from 8 to 91, whereas for the web, it was varied from 53 to
273. Therefore, only few sections were found to have element thickness greater than
1/15th of the characteristic length limitation. Therefore thin shell elements were
acceptable in this analysis. The thin shell elements had zero thickness, but a
thickness was assigned as a shell element property within ABAQUS. The shell
model followed the mid-thickness line of the real RHFB as illustrated in Figure 5.8.
N (SPOS) Surface normal positive direction
Stress/displacement 5 degrees of freedom

shell (s)
S 4 R 5
Number of nodes Reduced integration
Figure 5.7: General Definition of S4R5 Shell Element
Shell elements follow mid-

thickness line of RHFB
Figure 5.8: Location of Shell Elements within RHFB Cross-Section
In addition to S4R5 shell elements, different types of Multiple Point Constraints

(MPCs) were used to create appropriate boundary conditions and loading system in
both ideal and experimental finite element models. Rigid beam type MPC
elements were used to spread the applied moment at the centroid of the cross-section
evenly through the web the flanges. Pinned type MPCs were used to allow flanges
to rotate independently about the minor axes, so that warping restraint was
eliminated. Explicit type MPCs were used to provide appropriate boundary
conditions (i.e. required degrees of freedom) so that flanges and web can expand
without distortion at support, thus eliminating possible stress concentration.
5.2.4 Loading Method
Separate loading systems were used in the experimental and ideal models. The
loading system adopted in the experimental finite element models was to simulate
the physical conditions in the experimental test set-up whereas an idealized loading
system was used in the ideal finite element model so that it can be used to develop
design curves for the RHFBs.
Figures 5.9 (a) and (b) illustrate the method of loading in the physical and
experimental finite element models, respectively, for the lateral buckling tests. The
loading method used in the physical model ensured neither rotation nor displacement
restraints were put on any direction in the test beam at the loading positions, and
therefore the loading point in the finite element model was unrestrained. The point
load applied at the quarter point of the beam in the physical model was transferred to
the beam web through three bolts located at 30 mm spacing (see Figure 5.9 (a)), and
therefore this physical condition was simulated in the experimental finite element
model with three nodal loads at similar locations as for the test beam (see Figure 5.9
(b)). The bolts were modelled using three rigid type MPCs at each loading position
and thereby the two steel strips in the loading system were connected to the beam
web.
Similarly, Figures 5.10 (a) and (b) illustrate the method of loading in the physical
and experimental finite element model, respectively, for the section capacity tests.
As described in Section 5.2.1, neither support conditions nor loading method are
important for the section capacity of RHFBs; only cross-section properties (i.e. local
buckling) and the material properties govern the section capacity of a typical RHFB.
However, experimental finite element model for the section capacity was developed
to simulate experimental conditions closely. Three point loading system used in the
physical section capacity model was simulated using a single concentrated load at the
middle bolt as shown in Figure 5.10(b), whereas the ideal finite element model (see
Figure 5.11) was common for both section and member capacity tests.
Top-Flange
Web
Steel plate
Rigid MPC
Bolts
Screws
Bottom-Flange
(a) Physical Model (b) Experimental FE Model
Figure 5.9: Loading Method of Member Capacity Tests
Applied load
Support
Mid-span
cross section
Contact modelling
(a) Physical Model (b) Experimental FE Model
Figure 5.10: Loading Method of Section Capacity Tests
The ideal finite lement model was loaded using an end moment applied at the
centroid of the beams end section to ensure uniform moment along the entire beam.
The applied moment at the centroid of the beam was distributed evenly within the
end section using a rigid MPC routine as illustrated in Figure 5.11. A 20 mm wide
elastric strip was applied at the end of the beam to avoid stress concentration at the
loading point. Although two equal and opposite end moments were applied in the
ideal finite element model, only half the beam was considered due to the symmetric
conditions as described in the previous section.
Figure 5.11: Loading Method of Ideal FE Model
5.2.5 Modelling of Contact Surfaces
Since the flange lips and the web were not rigidly connected together, the nodes on
the flange lips and elements in the web were modelled as contact pairs (see Figure
5.12). Since both the top and bottom flange lips and the web could come into contact
with each other during the loading, they were modelled as contact pairs (i.e. C1, C2,
C3 and C4, see Figure 5.12). This allows any interface movements of two surfaces
in contact during the deformation. A smooth surface interaction (i.e. zero friction)
was assumed for the contact surfaces in the model.
Master Surface
C2
Slave Surfaces
C1
Master Surface
C4
Slave Surfaces
C3
Figure 5.12: Contact Surface Definition
In contact problems, one surface (or set of elements normal) must be assigned as the
MASTER, while the second surface (or set of nodes) selected as the SLAVE. The
problem arises when the master penetrates the slave as this does not occur in
practice. One solution for this is to use a very fine mesh so that penetrations can be
minimized or eliminated. However, a very fine mesh would result in a large number
of nodes and elements, and hence the increase of the analysis time.
The mesh size adopted in this analysis was 5 mm 5 mm in flanges and hence 900
S4R5 elements in a flange lip (i.e. slave surface) and 10 mm 5 mm in the web and
hence 450 S4R5 elements on the corresponding web strip (i.e. master surface). This
mesh size was used throughout the entire model, and it was considered adequate to
obtain the desired results. The mesh density may have to be reduced even up to 1
mm 1 mm to eliminate penetration completely. However it was not considered
appropriate as it would increase the analysis time considerably. ABAQUS requires
the slave surface to be of finer mesh than the master surface so that penetration of
slave surface is minimal. In other words ABAQUS allows minimal penetration so
that the accuracy of the solution is acceptable.
5.2.6 Material Properties
Different material properties can be included in the numerical analysis. The

ABAQUS classical metal plasticity model (HKS, 2002) was used in the ideal finite
element model for the nonlinear inelastic analyses. This material model implements
the following criteria:
The von-Mises yield surface to define isotropic yielding.

Associated plastic flow theory. That is, as the material yields the inelastic
deformation rate is in the direction of the normal to the yield surface (the plastic
deformation is volume invariant). This assumption is generally acceptable for
most calculations with metals.
Either perfect plasticity or isotropic hardening behaviour. Perfect plasticity
assumes no strain hardening (i.e. the yield stress does not change with increasing
plastic strain). Isotropic hardening allows strain hardening; with the yield surface
changing size uniformly in all directions such that the yield stress increases in all
stress directions as plastic strain occurs.
The material properties obtained from the standard coupon tests (see Chapter 3) were
input to the experimental finite element models as a set of points on the stress-strain
curves. ABAQUS uses true stress and strain data, and hence the values of
engineering stress and strain from the standard coupon tests were modified before
being input into the model using the following relationships (HKS, 2002):
true = nom(1+ nom) (5.1)
true
p(ln) = ln(1 + nom ) (5.2)
E
In the experimental finite element models, RHFB had three major components; top
hollow flange, bottom hollow flange and web plate. Each beam was made of the
same steel grade with different combinations of flange and web thicknesses.
Therefore the corresponding material properties obtained from the tensile coupon
tests were assigned to each component of the RHFB. However, the ABAQUS
classical elastic perfect plastic model (HKS, 2002) was used in all the components of
the ideal finite element model.
5.2.7 Residual Stresses
During the formation process of cold-formed steel sections, residual stresses are
induced within the cross section. While the net effect of residual stresses must be
zero for equilibrium, the presence of residual stresses can result in premature
yielding of plate elements. Two types of residual stresses are present in the cold-
formed steel structural members and they are:
Membrane residual stresses, which are uniform through the thickness of a

plate element.
Bending residual stresses, which vary linearly through the thickness
Key (1988) investigated the effects of various types of residual stresses using finite
strip analyses of cold-formed square hollow section (SHS) columns and found that
the membrane residual stresses had an insignificant effect, but the bending residual
stresses had the major impact on the behaviour of cold-formed SHS. Schafer et. al.
(1996) reviewed the past research on residual stresses and concluded that for the
cold-formed C-sections the membrane residual stresses can be ignored, but
recommended the inclusion of bending residual stresses (see chapter 2). The present
analysis therefore incorporated the bending residual stresses, and that was deemed to
be sufficient, based on Keys (1988) and Schafer et. al. (1996) findings.
The magnitudes of the residual stresses for this study were based on the residual
stress model recommended by Schafer et al. (1996) for a cold-formed steel channel
section formed by press-braking process. The forming process adopted in the cold-
formed C-section and the flanges of RHFB can be considered similar in terms of the
amount of cold work for each corresponding element in both sections. Hence, the
magnitude and distribution pattern of residual stresses in the flanges of RHFBs can
be modelled as for the cold-formed C-sections as illustrated in Figure 5.13.
The residual stresses of 17% yield strength (fy) in bending were applied to the outer
horizontal plate and the two vertical plates of the flanges (see Figure 5.13) as for the
inner horizontal plate of the flanges since their forming process is similar to the cold-
formed C-section, since their forming process is similar to the web of a C-section.
17 % fy
17 % fy 17 % fy
8 % fy 8 % fy
Figure 5.13: Residual Stress Distributions of a Typical Flange of RHFB
Similarly the residual stresses of 8% yield strength were assigned to the flange of a
C-section. The residual stresses in the two lips were considered negligible since the
free end of lips may help to release the stress build up. It was considered that it is
necessary to incorporate these bending residual stresses in the finite element models
as recommended by Schafer and Pekoz (1998b) to ensure that lower bound ultimate
strengths of the RHFBs are obtained from the finite element analyses. The residual
stress model derived for this study was used for both the ideal and experimental
finite element models.
The residual stresses were applied using the ABAQUS commands: * INITIAL
CONDITIONS option with TYPE = STRESS, USER. The user defined initial
stresses were created using the SIGNI FORTRAN user subroutine, which defines the
local component of the initial stresses as a function of global coordinates. An
example of coding for the subroutine to include residual stresses is given in
Appendix 5A of the thesis.
5.2.8 Initial Geometric Imperfections
Experimental data for geometric imperfections are limited. However, it is known

that imperfections must be included in a finite element model to simulate the true
shape of the specimen and introduce some inherent instability into the model.
In general, two parameters are considered as important in finite element modelling

with the inclusion of initial geometric imperfections. They are:
Magnitude of the imperfection
Shape of the imperfection
These two parameters are considered to have a direct link to the ultimate capacity of
a beam member. However, initial imperfections may vary from member to member
in steel structures. These random imperfections only initiate the buckling
deformations, but the ultimate member capacity is mainly governed by the primary
buckling mode.
The shape of imperfection was introduced into the finite element model by
modifying the nodal coordinates using a field created by scaling the approximate
buckling eigenvectors obtained from an elastic-bifurcation buckling analysis of a
geometrically perfect specimen. The first two buckling modes obtained from the
elastic-bifurcation buckling analysis were applied in the model for non-linear
analysis.
The magnitudes of member imperfections were measured for each test specimen
during the experimental stage (see Chapter 4). The measured values of geometric
imperfections were used to define the maximum value of global imperfections in the
nonlinear analysis using experimental finite element models (i.e. g, see Figure 5.14
(c)). The fabrication tolerance of L/1000 as recommended by AS 4100 for
compression members was used as the magnitude of maximum bow-out (i.e. global)
imperfection in the ideal finite element model. The imperfection shapes were
assigned from either lateral torsional or lateral distortional buckling modes obtained
from the elastic bifurcation buckling analysis. The first two buckling modes obtained
from the bifurcation buckling analysis were used.
The magnitudes of local geometric imperfections for both the ideal and experimental
finite element models were estimated using Equation 5.3 as recommended by
Schafer et al. (1996). Possible local buckling modes of a typical RHFB under
flexural loading are illustrated in Figures 5.14 (a) and (b), where Figure 5.14 (a) is
local buckling in the flange top plate and Figure 5.14 (b) is local buckling in the web
plate. Figure 5.14 (c) shows a possible global buckling mode.
2 t
l = 6te (5.3)
where t is the element thickness and lf, lw are as shown in Figures 5.14 (a) and (b).
lf
lw
(a) Flange Local Buckling (b) Web Local Buckling (c) Lateral Distortional
Figure 5.14: Possible Buckling Modes of a RHFB
Schafer and Pekoz (1998b) recommended that at least the first two eigenmodes
obtained from the elastic-bifurcation buckling analysis should be used in the
nonlinear analysis to simulate imperfection shapes accurately. Therefore, in this
analysis, the worst possible deformation modes were considered as the first two
eigenmodes, and were used in the nonlinear ABAQUS model.
5.2.9 Pre and Post Processing
ABAQUS requires an input file which defines the nodes, elements, material
properties, boundary conditions and loading. The input file for ABAQUS analysis
was developed by using MSC/Patran 2004 Version as a pre-processor. The results
were viewed using MSC/Patran post-processing facilities. The pre-processing and
post-processing stages included the following steps to generate input file and view
the results from ABAQUS analyses.
1. Define geometric surfaces for web and flanges

2. Mesh all the web and flange surfaces
3. Define loads, simply supported and symmetric boundary conditions, elastic
material properties, element properties, contact pairs, bifurcations buckling
analysis parameters
4. Generate input file for bifurcation buckling analysis
5. Run bifurcation buckling analysis using ABAQUS (version 6.3) to obtain the
first two buckling eigenmodes.
6. Define nonlinear material properties and nonlinear static analysis parameters
7. Generate input file for the nonlinear static analysis
8. Enter initial geometric imperfection to the input file (Step 7) using first two
eigenmodes from the bifurcation buckling analysis.
9. Run nonlinear static analysis using input file (Step 8) along with initial stress
input subroutine.
10. Import nonlinear static analysis results into the Patran 2004 database and
view the results using Patran post-processing facilities. The data required for
the load-deflection plot were imported from the Patran to the Excel worksheet
using FTP (File Transfer Protocol)
The finite element analysis generated vast amount of data in the temporary files and
the permanent files during the analysis. A typical 200 mm deep RHFB of 3 m length
(i.e. half length = 1.5 m) required 16285 elements and 19595 nodes in the
experimental finite element model. Each analysis usually consisted of 20 to 40
increments. It was possible for the output to contain full details of deformations,
stresses and strains in each direction for each node during every increment. However,
only a fraction of the available output was required to obtain the load-deflection
relationship for the beam being analysed.
Equilibrium in the vertical (i.e. 2-axis) direction showed that the sum of three nodal
loads at the loading point equalled the vertical reaction at the support for the half-
span beam being analysed. The bending moment in the central region of the beam
(i.e. between the loading point and the symmetric plane at the other end of the
beam) was uniform under this load arrangement and calculated from the support
reaction. The horizontal deflection at the centroid and vertical deflection at the centre
of the compression flange were obtained for the symmetric section similar to
experimental measurements so that experimental and numerical results can be
compared. The ABAQUS output file (.rpt) was generated to extract the required
deflection values for only the above two nodes, and then the .rpt file was imported
to Excel spreadsheet to plot the moment vs vertical deflection and the moment vs
horizontal (lateral) deflection curves for the RHFBs.
5.3 Validation of Finite Element Models
Since the ultimate aim of this research is to develop suitable design curves for the
new RHFB beams type using an extensive parametric study based on the validated
finite element models, the validation process of finite element models for the section
and member capacities is a significant part of this research. Hence it is essential to
ensure the results obtained from the finite element models compares well with those
from the experiments as well as other established analytical methods. Two series of
comparisons were required to validate both ideal and experimental finite element
models developed for the section and member capacities.
The first series of comparison involved the use of experimental test results obtained
from the section and member capacity tests with the nonlinear analysis of the
experimental finite element models in order to simulate the experimental conditions
accurately. Visualization of the deformation shape and stress contours was also used
to assist with model verification. The second series involved comparison of the local
and elastic lateral distortional buckling moments obtained using the ideal finite
element model with the corresponding moment solutions obtained from the
established finite strip analysis program, Thin-wall (Papangelis, 1994).
Two methods of analyses were used, namely, the bifurcation elastic buckling
analysis and the non-linear inelastic analyses. Elastic buckling analyses were used to
obtain the eigenvectors for the geometric imperfections and to obtain the elastic
buckling failure moments. The non-linear inelastic analysis including the material
and geometric nonlinearity effects and the residual stresses were then performed to
obtain the ultimate section and member capacities of the RHFBs. These results were
then used to plot the moment versus deflection curves.
5.3.1 Experimental Finite Element Models
Before using the finite element model to develop the moment capacity curves for
RHFB sections subjected to uniform bending moment, it was necessary to validate
the model for non-linear analyses. This was achieved by comparing the non-linear
analysis results of experimental finite element models with the results obtained from
the experimental tests described in Chapter 3 and 4.
The accuracy of the experimental finite element models was validated by:
1. experimental results from the testing of RHFBs for section capacities and
member capacities. The experimental finite element models were found to give
reasonable agreement with the experimental results.
2. visualisation of the defined geometry and stress contours. An animated

sequence of failure mode was generated using the Patran post-processor and
the results of non-linear analysis. No significant stress discontinuities across
the element boundaries were identified and the deformation behaviour
confirmed to the expected behaviour.
5.3.1.1 Experimental Finite Element Model for Member Capacity
Typical moment versus vertical (in-plane) and horizontal (out-of-plane) deflection

curves for a group of selected beams with equal flange and web thicknesses (i.e. tf =
tw), flange thickness greater than web thickness (i.e. tf > tw) and flange thickness less
than web thickness (i.e. tf < tw) are shown in Figures 5.15 to 5.17 with their
corresponding analytical results obtained from the experimental finite element
models for the member capacity. The vertical deflection curves represent the
deflection at the bottom flange of mid-span whereas the horizontal deflection curves
represent the deflection at the web centre of mid-span. Experiments were conducted
for a range of RHFB sections. The measured cross-section dimensions are shown in
Chapter 4 (refer to Table 4.4). Different combinations of flange and web thicknesses
were chosen for 2 m and 3 m beam spans and this provided a suitable range of
member slenderness.
14.0
12.0 FEA
Expt
10.0
Moment (kNm)
8.0 RHFB-190t f-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s

RHFB-1.9tf-1.9tw-150hw-G300-50s
6.0
RHFB-120t f-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
RHFB-1.2tf-1.2tw-150hw-G300-50s
4.0
2.0 RHFB-080t f-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s

RHFB-0.8tf-0.8tw-150hw-G300-50s
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
(a) Moment versus Vertical Deflection
14.0
12.0
10.0
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-1.9tf-1.9tw-150hw-G300-50s
RHFB-190t f-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
FEA
8.0
Expt
6.0
RHFB-1.2tf-1.2tw-150hw-G300-50s
RHFB-120t f-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
4.0
2.0 RHFB-080t f-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s

RHFB-0.8tf-0.8tw-150hw-G300-50s
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection
Figure 5.15: Moment-Deflection Curves for a group of RHFB Specimens

with Equal Flange and Web Thicknesses (i.e. tf = tw)
5.0
4.5
4.0
RHFB-1.15tf-0.75tw-150hw-G500-50s
RHFB-115t f-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0 RHFB-095t f-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
RHFB-0.95tf-0.55tw-150hw-G550-50s
1.5
FEA
1.0
0.5 Expt
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5 RHFB-1.15tf-0.75tw-150hw-G500-50s
RHFB-115t f-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0 RHFB-0.95tf-0.55tw-150hw-G550-50s
RHFB-095t f-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
FEA
1.5
1.0 Expt
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Figure 5.16 Moment-Deflection Curves for a group of RHFB Specimens with

Flange Thickness Greater than Web Thickness (i.e. tf > tw)
4.0
3.5
3.0
RHFB-0.75tf-1.15tw-150hw-G550-50s
RHFB-075t f-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
FEA
1.5
Expt
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
4.0
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-0.75tf-1.15tw-150hw-G550-50s
RHFB-075t f-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
2.5
2.0
FEA
1.5
Expt
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Figure 5.17 Moment-Deflection Curves for a RHFB Specimen with Flange

Thickness Less than Web Thickness (i.e. tf < tw)
As illustrated in Figures 5.15 to 5.17, loading was not continued well beyond the
maximum moment in the experimental program to avoid excessive out-of-plane
deformations of the test beams and the possible damage to test rig components and
injuries to people. However, the non-linear finite element analysis including the Riks
method allowed the loading to continue well beyond the ultimate moment. The
differences of the lateral displacement between the results from finite element
analyses and experiments could have been due to any possible lateral restraints
imposed by the hydraulic jacks to the test specimens. Even though the loading
system was designed to avoid such lateral restraints, there could have been some
friction in the bearings. This was not measured and no attempt was made to include
the friction effects. However, it is considered that lateral restraint has minimal effect
on the buckling moment. The analytical and experimental curves for the member
capacity of RHFBs presented in Figures 5.15 to 5.17 show that they are in reasonable
agreement.
Table 5.1 contains a summary of the ultimate moment capacity (Mu) results of the
nonlinear analyses using the experimental finite element model and a comparison of
these results with the experimental test results provided in Chapter 4 for the member
capacities of RHFBs. The overall mean of experimental to FEA ultimate member
moment capacity ratio was 1.05 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.07. These
capacity ratios were also calculated for G300, G500 and G550 steels separately and
were found to be 1.05, 1.00 and 1.06 respectively, with COVs of 0.07, 0.09 and 0.05,
respectively.
A typical moment versus longitudinal strain curves for a group of RHFB specimens
tested for the member capacity are shown in Figure 5.18 with the corresponding
analytical curves. The strains were measured on the top and bottom surfaces of the
flanges at the mid-span of the test beams using 2 mm strain gauges. Tension strain
was considered as +ve and compression strain was considered as -ve. Hence the
negative side of Figure 5.18 represents the experimental and analytical moment
versus longitudinal strain curves for the compression flange, and positive side
represents those curves for the tension flange. These curves show that the
experimental and analytical results are in reasonable agreement.
Table 5.1: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Member Moment Capacities
Exp Mu FEA Mu Exp. / FEA

(kNm) (kNm) Mu
1 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 6.30 5.99 1.05

2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 3.47 3.21 1.08
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 3.00 3.20 0.94
4 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 5.20 4.31 1.21
5 RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s 12.00 12.18 0.99
6 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-3L-G300-50s 4.77 4.23 1.13
7 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G300-50s 4.55 4.44 1.02
8 RHFB-055tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s 3.50 3.32 1.05
9 RHFB-120tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s 7.30 7.28 1.00
10 RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 2.57 2.33 1.10
11 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 2.53 2.31 1.09
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 3.00 2.94 1.02
13 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s 3.82 3.85 0.99
14 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s 5.47 6.09 0.90
15 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s 5.14 4.64 1.11
16 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-50s 3.99 3.87 1.03
17 RHFB-055tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 3.00 2.79 1.07
18 RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 6.30 5.76 1.09
19 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 4.60 4.21 1.09
20 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s 4.20 4.23 0.99
21 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 3.07 3.10 0.99
22 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 6.00 5.81 1.03
23 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s 3.63 3.11 1.17
24 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s 3.14 2.85 1.10
25 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-100s 3.68 3.80 0.97
26 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s 5.80 5.91 0.98
27 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s 3.72 3.73 1.00
28 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s 4.61 4.50 1.02
29 RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s 6.50 5.71 1.14
30 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s 4.70 4.17 1.13
Mean 1.05
COV 0.07
14
12
3
3
10
Moment (kNm)
8
2 2
6
4
FEA FEA
1 1
Exp
2 Exp
0
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Strain ( Micro Strain)
1 = RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 2 = RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 3 = RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s
Figure 5.18: Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Graphs for a Group of RHFB
Specimens
Figure 5.19: Distortional Buckling Failure Mode of a Typical RHFB Specimen

During Tests
The most common failure mode of the RHFBs with intermediate beam spans was the
lateral distortional buckling as illustrated in Figures 5.19 (experimental) and 5.20 (a)
and (b) (analytical). Deformation shapes for a typical RHFB with 3 m span from
experiment and FEA compare well as shown in Figures 5.19 and 5.20 (a) and (b).
The stress contours shown in Figure 5.20 (b) illustrate the uniform moment
distribution between the quarter point load locations as expected. Stress
concentration can be seen at the loading points and the flange and web connection
points by MPCs. This was also observed during the lateral buckling tests with some
yielding around the screws used to connect the web and flanges.
(a) Elastic Buckling Mode
(b) Ultimate Failure Mode
Figure 5.20: Elastic and Ultimate Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure Mode and
Stress Contours of a Typical RHFB model from FEA
5.3.1.2 Experimental Finite Element Model for Section Moment Capacity
The moment versus vertical deflection curves for a set of RHFBs with equal flange
and web thicknesses (i.e. tf = tw), flange thickness greater than web thickness (i.e. tf >
tw) and flange thickness less than web thickness (i.e. tf < tw) are shown in Figures
5.21 to 5.23 with their corresponding analytical results from experimental finite
element model for the section capacity. The section capacity tests were performed on
laterally restrained short beams and therefore out-of-plane buckling did not occur.
The vertical deflection curves given in Figures 5.21 to 5.23 represent the deflection
at the bottom flange of the mid-span. These curves show that the experimental and
analytical results are in reasonable agreement.
14
12
10
Moment (kNm)
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
8
6
FEA
4
RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s Expt
2
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Figure 5.21: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves for RHFB Specimens
with Equal Flange and Web Thicknesses (i.e. tf = tw)
18
FEA
15
Expt
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G300-50s
12
Moment (kNm)
6
RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Figure 5.22: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves for RHFB Specimens with
Flange Thickness Greater than Web Thickness (i.e. tf > tw)
12
FEA
10
Expt
8
Moment (kNm)
6
RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 5.23: Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves for RHFB Specimens with
Flange Thickness Less than Web Thickness (i.e. tf < tw)
The analytical and experimental curves for the section moment capacity of RHFBs
presented in Figures 5.21 and 5.23 are in reasonable agreement whereas experimental
and analytical section moment capacity curves presented in Figure 5.22 do not agree
well. Comparison of test and predicted section moment capacities in Table 3.8 also
indicated some significant differences in these test results. The same test results
(marked * in Table 5.2) compared similarly with the FEA section moment
capacities and therefore it could be assumed that these test results were influenced by
some experimental errors. Therefore these test results were omitted in the
calculation of the overall mean and coefficient of variation of the ratio of
experimental and FEA section moment capacities. Table 5.2 contains a summary of
ultimate section moment capacity (Ms) results from the nonlinear analyses using the
experimental finite element model and a comparison of these results with the
experimental test results provided in Chapter 3 for the section capacity of RHFBs.
The overall mean of the ratio of experimental to FEA section moment capacities is
0.86 with a COV of 0.18. These ratios have means of 0.89, 0.79 and 0.85 and COVs
of 0.20, 0.11 and 0.18 for G300, G500 and G550 steels, respectively.
Table 5.2: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Section Moment Capacities
Section Moment Capacity (kNm)

Expt FEA Expt./FEA
1 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-50s 5.91 8.40 0.70
2 RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-100s 5.50 8.28 0.66
3 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 7.01 6.60 1.06
4 RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-100s 6.96 6.53 1.07
5 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 11.83 11.70 1.01
6 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-100s 11.81 11.48 1.03
7 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 10.16 9.96 1.02
8 RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-100s 9.29 9.84 0.94
9 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s 7.74 11.30 0.68
10 RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-100s 7.83 11.21 0.70
11 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-50s 6.44 8.72 0.74
12 RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-100s 6.17 8.68 0.71
13 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s 9.43 8.56 1.10
14 RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s 8.30 8.38 0.99
15 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s 15.64 17.84 0.88
16 RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-100s 13.93 17.73 0.79
17 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50sp 9.82 11.80 0.83
18 RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-100s 8.76 11.71 0.75
19 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-50s 11.73 16.64 0.71
20 RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G500-100s 10.80 16.53 0.65 *
21 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s 6.49 13.30 0.49 *
22 RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-100s 5.13 12.92 0.40 *
Mean 0.86
COV 0.18
Typical moment versus longitudinal strain graphs for a group of specimens tested for
the section capacity are shown in Figure 5.24 with their corresponding analytical
curves from FEA. The strains were measured on the top and bottom surface of the
flanges at the mid-span of the test beams. These curves show that the experimental
and analytical results are in reasonable agreement. The strains were measured using 2
mm strain gauges.
14
12
10
Moment (kNm)
Expt1-c
8 Expt1-t
FEA1-t
6
FEA1-c
Expt2-t
4
Expt2-c
2 FEA2-t
FEA2-c
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1 = RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 2 = RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s
Figure 5.24: Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Graphs for a Group of RHFB
Specimens
The most common failure mode of RHFBs at shorter spans was local buckling of top
flange plate or web depending on the flange and web slenderness. Figures 5.25 and
5.26 illustrate the typical experimental and FEA failure modes of RHFB (RHFB-
075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s), respectively. As shown in Figures 5.25 and 5.26, local
buckling appeared on both the top flange plate element and web in this particular
beam section.
Figure 5.25: Local Buckling Failure Mode of RHFB Tested for Section Capacity
Figure 5.26: Local buckling Failure Mode of RHFB from Analytical results
5.3.2 Validation of Ideal Finite Element Models
The validation process of the experimental finite element models for the section and
member moment capacities were discussed in Section 5.3.1, and it was shown that
the experimental finite element models could predict section and member moment
capacities reasonably well. This section presents the details of ideal finite element
model validation. Before using the ideal finite element model for non-linear analyses
to develop the design curves for RHFBs, it was considered desirable to establish its
accuracy for elastic buckling analyses. This was achieved by conducting a series of
elastic buckling analyses using the ideal finite element model described in the
previous sections to obtain the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments, and
compare them with the solutions obtained from the established finite strip analysis
program, Thin-wall (Papangelis, 1994). This comparison was intended to verify the
accuracy of the finite element type, mesh density, boundary conditions, and the
loading method. However, the main shortcoming here is that the ideal finite element
model is for the intermittently screw fastened RHFBs whereas Thin-wall and Pi and
Trahairs method assumed that the flange and web are connected continuously.
Despite this, this comparison is considered to add to the validation of the ideal finite
element model. Since the experimental finite element model was first validated using
full scale experimental results, such validation also confirms indirectly the accuracy
of similar finite element models such as the ideal finite element model.
Fifteen RHFB sections were considered and their designations are given in Table 5.3.
Each section was analysed for five different spans ranging from 1000 mm to 8000
mm, using the simply supported configurations provided in Figures 5.6 and 5.11.
The results of these analyses and comparisons with the solutions obtained from the
finite strip analysis program, Thin-wall (Papangelis, 1994) are presented in Table
5.3, and graphical comparison for few selected sections is given in Figure 5.27. As
shown in Table 5.3 and Figure 5.27, the ideal finite element model described in the
previous sections accurately predicts the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments
of all RHFB sections for a range of member slenderness. Using the results of Thin-
wall (Papangelis, 1994) as a basis for comparison, the model used in the present
study predicts lateral distortional buckling moments on average by 3.6% less than
Thin-wall. The comparison of the two methods suggests that the model used in the
present study may in fact be more accurate than the finite strip program Thin-wall
due to the fact that the exact configuration of RHFB was not represented in the Thin-
wall model. Thin-wall assumed continuous connection between flanges and web
despite the fact they were screw fastened at 50 mm spacing. The present ideal finite
element model took into account this exact connection configuration and is therefore
expected to provide accurate results. The finite element model is also considered
more accurate due to a substantially finer mesh density and improved boundary
conditions at the support.
These comparisons verify the suitability and accuracy of the element type, mesh
density, geometry, boundary conditions, and the method used to generate the
required uniform moment distribution.
Table 5.3: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from FEA (Ideal Model) with Thin-wall Analysis
Buckling Moment (kNm) at Different Beam Spans (mm)

Flange
Specimen Designation 1000 2000 3000 5000 8000
Size
FEA TW % Diff FEA TW % Diff FEA TW % Diff FEA TW % Diff FEA TW % Diff
RHFB-200tf-200tw-150hw-G300-50s 41.1 43.3 5.4 23.2 24.4 5.2 18.3 19.2 4.9 13.0 13.4 3.1 8.7 8.9 2.3
RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300-50s 73.0 76.8 5.2 43.2 45.0 4.2 32.3 33.3 3.1 21.1 21.6 2.4 13.8 13.9 0.7
RHFB-400tf-400tw-150hw-G300-50s 112.0 117.0 4.5 64.8 67.1 3.5 46.7 48.0 2.8 29.6 30.1 1.7 19.0 19.2 1.1
RHFB-500tf-500tw-150hw-G300-50s 155.6 162.0 4.1 87.5 90.1 3.0 61.8 63.2 2.3 38.6 39.0 1.0 24.5 24.6 0.4
5025
RHFB-200tf-200tw-100hw-G300-50s 40.6 43.2 6.4 26.8 28.1 4.9 20.6 21.4 3.9 13.4 14.1 5.2 8.7 9.1 4.6
RHFB-300tf-300tw-100hw-G300-50s 76.3 80.6 5.6 47.1 49.2 4.5 34.2 35.3 3.2 21.6 22.2 2.8 13.9 14.1 1.4
RHFB-400tf-400tw-100hw-G300-50s 117.4 123.7 5.4 68.1 71.2 4.6 48.0 49.5 3.1 29.4 30.5 3.7 18.6 19.2 3.2
RHFB-500tf-500tw-100hw-G300-50s 132.1 136.4 3.3 73.4 75.2 2.5 50.3 51.5 2.4 31.2 31.4 0.6 19.6 19.7 0.5
RHFB-300tf-300tw-160hw-G300-50s 371.6 382.0 2.8 169.4 174.0 2.7 136.4 138.0 1.2 102.8 104.0 1.2 72.1 73.3 1.7
9045 RHFB-400tf-400tw-160hw-G300-50s 523.4 542.0 3.6 267.6 274.0 2.4 210.3 215.0 2.2 148.6 152.0 2.3 101.3 103.0 1.7
RHFB-500tf-500tw-160hw-G300-50s 701.3 722.0 3.0 376.4 386.0 2.6 290.0 295.0 1.7 194.6 200.0 2.8 129.6 132.0 1.9
RHFB-200tf-200tw-120hw-G300-50s 11.5 12.3 7.0 6.9 7.3 5.8 5.0 5.2 4.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.1 2.1 0
RHFB-300tf-300tw-120hw-G300-50s 20.6 22.3 8.3 11.6 12.3 6.0 7.9 8.4 6.3 5.0 5.1 2.0 3.1 3.2 3.2
3015
RHFB-400tf-400tw-120hw-G300-50s 31.3 33.6 7.3 16.4 17.7 7.9 11.3 12.0 6.2 6.9 7.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 2.3
RHFB-500tf-500tw-120hw-G300-50s 43.0 46.3 7.7 22.5 23.9 6.2 15.3 16.1 5.2 9.2 9.7 5.4 5.8 6.1 5.2
Note: FEA = Finite element analyses TW = Thin-wall
As shown in Table 5.3, the present ideal finite element model predicts lesser elastic
buckling moment capacities than Thin-wall buckling formula at shorter beam spans,
and at the longer beam spans it predicts approximately the same moment capacities.
The reduction in moment capacities predicted by the ideal finite element model is
due to the fact that the existing discontinuities between the web and flange
connections as it may reduce the bending stiffness against lateral distortional
buckling at shorter beam spans. This type of structural behaviour could be expected
because out-of-plane bending stiffness is decreased with the increased beam span and
consequently the effect of discontinuity in the web and flange connection becomes
insignificant at longer beam spans. Elastic buckling moment comparison given in
Figure 5.27 for selected RHFB sections also indicates that the effect of discontinuity
in the web-flange connection is more significant at shorter beam spans than the
longer span beams.
80 S1-FEA
70
S1-TW
60
Buckling oment (kNm)
S2-FEA
50
S2-TW
40
S3-FEA
30
S3-TW
20
10 S4-FEA
0 S4-TW
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Span (mm)
Figure 5.27: Comparison of FEA and Thin-wall Elastic Buckling Moment

Capacities
5.4 Summary
This chapter has described the finite element models developed for the investigation
of RHFB flexural behaviour. Two experimental finite element models were
developed separately (see Section 5.2) to simulate the experimental tests for the
section and member moment capacities of RHFBs, and they were validated (see
Section 5.3) using experimental results presented in Chapters 3 and 4. An ideal finite
element model was developed incorporating idealized boundary conditions and a
uniform moment loading (see Section 5.2) to suit both section and member moment
capacities of RHFBs, and was validated from the results obtained from an established
finite strip analysis program Thin-wall. The models account for all significant
behavioural effects, including material inelasticity, local buckling and lateral
distortional buckling deformations, member instability, web distortion, residual
stresses, and geometric imperfections.
The comparison of finite element analysis results with both experimental and other
analytical results obtain from an established buckling analysis program (Thin-wall)
indicated that these models could accurately predict both elastic lateral distortional
buckling moment and non-linear ultimate moment capacities of RHFBs subjected to
pure bending. Therefore the ideal finite element model incorporating ideal simply
support boundary conditions and uniform moment conditions will be used to conduct
an in-depth parametric study (see Chapter 6) to develop a large data base on the
flexural characteristics of RHFBs.
CHAPTER 6 Parametric Studies and
Development of Design
Rules for RHFB
6.1 General
Chapter 5 described the finite element analyses which simulated a series of bending
tests of RHFBs for the section and member moment capacities. However, Chapter 5
only considered the stages of finite element model development and validation to
simulate experiments. However, also of interest are the results of the numerical
simulation which examined the effects of various parameters including material
properties, residual stresses, geometric imperfections and section and member
slenderness. Earlier chapters based on experimental analyses have not been able to
develop accurate design rules for the new RHFBs. This chapter therefore presents the
details of a parametric study conducted to understand the effects of various
parameters on the section and member moment capacities of RHFBs and to develop
new design rules to predict section and member moment capacities of RHFBs.
6.2 Parametric Study
The results presented in Chapter 5 have shown that the experimental finite element
models for section and member moment capacities could simulate the observed
experimental behaviour of RHFB in the bending tests, whereas the ideal finite
element model gave RHFB buckling results that compared well with those from the
well known finite strip buckling analysis. The ideal finite element models were
particularly developed to simulate ideal simply supported boundary conditions and a
uniform moment and hence were used in the parametric study. Ideal RHFB section
shape was modelled and the analyses were conducted using nominal values of the
material properties. The ideal finite element models also included the following
common features:
Half of the beam span with ideal pinned end boundary conditions
Elastic and perfect plasticity material behaviour
Initial geometric imperfections
Residual stresses
Contact surfaces
Applied end moment to create uniform moment within the span
To fully understand the structural behaviour of cold-formed steel beams with

rectangular hollow flanges, affected by a range of parameters including section
geometry, material properties and initial conditions, a large number of finite element
analyses were required. A significant amount of time was required to obtain the
results of each model in the pre-processing phase (i.e. the definition of geometry,
mesh, loads, and boundary conditions). Therefore PATRAN database journal file,
containing instructions for the pre-processor, was used to automatically generate a
model. Variables such as geometry (section, span etc.), finite element mesh, loads,
boundary conditions, material properties, and analysis input parameters could then be
automatically created by rebuilding the journal file. It was therefore possible to
generate a large number of models with no user input other than the preliminary
creation of the journal file.
This process was used to create a large number of ABAQUS input files, which were
analysed using the bifurcation buckling solution sequence to obtain the elastic
buckling eigenvectors. The local and global geometric imperfections were then
incorporated into the nonlinear analysis model and the analysis continued using the
nonlinear static solution sequence. Appropriate models were chosen to investigate
the various buckling failure modes and parameters of RHFBs and the results are
presented in the following sections.
6.2.1 Local Buckling Behaviour of RHFB
The flexural behaviour of cold-formed steel beams comprising torsionally rigid

rectangular hollow flanges and a slender web that was made of thin, high strength
steel is complex and very much depend on a range of parameters including the
section geometry, steel thicknesses and yield stress. Local buckling of compression
elements is one of the failure modes of RHFB and which depends on the plate
element slenderness (). The local buckling behaviour of cold-formed steel structural
members comprising different shapes and sizes of compression elements has been
investigated by many researchers in the past, and design rules have been established.
However, the applicability of these design rules to the new beam type, RHFB, is not
known and need to be justified. A comprehensive parametric study was therefore
undertaken for the section moment capacity of RHFB. Well known design method
adopted to account for the local buckling of thin-walled steel elements is the
effective width approach. Australian steel design standards, AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996), have adopted this effective width approach to determine
the reduced section moment capacities. According to both design standards, the
effective width (be) of slender elements depends on the elements slenderness ().
The element slenderness () is a function of width to thickness ratio (b/t), yield stress
(fy) and elastic modulus (E) of steel, and plate buckling coefficient (k).
The geometric parameters (see Figure 6.1) and the material property fy were
considered as the important parameters for the local buckling behaviour of RHFB
and therefore they were varied in this study to investigate their effects on the section
moment capacities of RHFB. A constant beam length of 200 mm was assumed to be
sufficient to give the section moment capacities of RHFBs from the FEA.
bf
tf hf
tw hw
hl
hf
Figure 6.1: Cross-section parameters of a Typical RHFB
Width to thickness ratio (b/t) was only varied for the critical compression elements:
i.e. flanges top plate, flange web, and the beam web. In the cases of yield stress fy,
variations were made even beyond the actual values (i.e. from 300 MPa to 800 MPa)
for the sake of completeness and gaining more data from the parametric study. The
results are summarised and discussed in the following sections.
6.2.1.1 Effect of Local Buckling in the Hollow Flanges Top Plate Element
The effect of local buckling in the hollow flanges top plate element (see Figure 6.2)
on the section moment capacities of RHFB was investigated by choosing different
width to thickness ratios (b/t) for the flange top plate. All the other elements in the
RHFB section were chosen to be compact (non-slender) according to AS 4100 (SA,
1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). Tables 6.1 (a) and (b) show the section moment
capacities (Ms) obtained from the finite element analyses for different b/t ratios of the
top plate element ranging from 25 to 100 and the predicted section moment
capacities from the current steel design standards AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS
4600 (SA, 1996) The calculation procedure of section moment capacity (Ms) using
AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 is shown in Appendix 3C. It must be noted that all other
geometric dimensions were unchanged, and are given in the same table. The
comparison of results indicates that both steel design standards underestimate the
section moment capacities of RHFBs when the hollow flanges top plate element
experiences local buckling.
Local buckling in
Flange top plate
Figure 6.2: Local Buckling of the Hollow Flanges Top Plate Element
Table 6.1 (a): Comparison of FEA Results with the Predictions from Current
Element Section Moment Capacity Ms

Ms Ratio
tp Compactness (kNm)
b/t
(mm) AS AS/NZS AS 4100 AS/NZS AS 4100 /FEA AS4600/
FEA
4100 4600 Actual Modified 4600 Actual Modified FEA
0.5 100 S S 5.66 13.56 13.74 19.70 0.29 0.69 0.70

0.7 71 S S 8.14 13.97 14.18 20.10 0.40 0.70 0.71
1.0 50 S S 11.87 14.84 15.01 20.70 0.57 0.72 0.73
1.4 36 NC S 17.36 17.36 16.33 21.30 0.82 0.82 0.77
1.6 31 NC S 19.83 19.83 16.92 21.30 0.93 0.93 0.79
2.0 25 C NS 22.17 22.17 17.83 22.20 1.00 1.00 0.80
bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm, hw = 150 mm, t = 2mm thickness of all the elements except top flange
plate, which is tp and it is varied as shown in Column 1, fy = 300 MPa
Table 6.1 (b): Comparison of FEA Results with the Predictions from Current

Ms Ratio
b/t
(mm) AS
AS/NZS AS 4100 AS/NZS AS 4100 /FEA AS4600/
4100 FEA
4600 Actual Modified 4600 Actual Modified FEA
0.5 100 S S 7.71 24.65 24.97 35.70 0.22 0.69 0.70

0.7 71 S S 11.00 25.20 25.59 36.30 0.30 0.69 0.70
1.0 50 S S 16.17 26.39 26.82 37.20 0.43 0.71 0.72
1.4 36 S S 23.41 28.63 28.91 38.30 0.61 0.75 0.75
1.6 31 S S 27.45 30.02 30.09 38.90 0.71 0.77 0.77
2.0 25 NC NS 35.06 35.06 32.60 39.80 0.88 0.88 0.82
bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm, hw = 150 mm, t = 2mm for all the elements except top flange plate, which
is tp and it was varied as shown in Column 1, fy = 550 MPa
AS 4100 design rules were modified for slender RHFB sections to limit the local
buckling effects to slender elements in the calculation of effective section modulus
(see Appendix 3C). However existing design rules given in AS 4100 estimates the
effective section modulus of slender sections by assuming all the elements to be
slender as for the most slender element of the section and therefore it is rather
conservative (see actual AS 4100 Ms in Table 6.1). The comparison of predicted
section moment capacities and FEA results given in Tables 6.1 (a) and (b)
demonstrate that both AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 section moment
capacity rules conservatively estimate the reduction in capacity due to local buckling
in flanges top plate. The comparison of results further demonstrates that AS/NZS
4600 design rules predicts section moment capacities of RHFB consisting a slender
top flange plate more accurately than AS 4100 design rules, whereas AS 4100 design
predictions are more accurate when the flange top plate is either non-compact or
compact. This is due to the fact that AS/NZS 4600 only considered first yield of
extreme compression fibres in the section capacity calculation. However, the
predicted moment capacities by AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 design rules are always
conservative, and therefore it is safe to use them in the section moment capacity
checks of RHFB subjected to pure bending with local buckling in the top flange
plate. The conservative predictions of section moment capacities of RHFBs could be
due to several reasons when only the flanges top plate element was slender. One
reason could be due to the presence of a number of other compact elements in the
RHFB section. The finite element analyses allow elasticplastic material behaviour
and are therefore it likely to give higher moment capacity due to the possible
inelastic reserve capacity of other compact elements in the section. Also the
conservative assumption of using local buckling coefficient k as 4.0 could be
another reason. It must be noted that the FEA gave a k value of 7.
6.2.1.2 Effect of Local Buckling in the Hollow Flanges Web Element
The effect of local buckling in the hollow flanges web element (see Figure 6.3) on
the section moment capacities of RHFB was investigated by choosing different width
to thickness ratios (b/t) for this element. All the other elements within the RHFB
section were chosen to be compact (non-slender) according to AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). Tables 6.2 (a) and (b) show the section moment
capacities (Ms) obtained from the finite element analyses for different b/t ratios of
flanges web element ranging from 12.5 to 50 and the predicted section moment
capacities from the current steel design standards AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS
4600 (SA, 1996). The calculation procedure of section moment capacity (Ms) using
AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 is presented in Appendix 3C. It must be noted that all
other geometric dimensions were unchanged, and are given in the same table. The
comparison of results indicates that both steel design standards underestimate the
section moment capacities of RHFB when the hollow flanges web plate element
experiences local buckling.
Local buckling in
Flange web
Figure 6.3: Local Buckling of the Hollow Flanges Web Element

Ms Ratio
b/t
(mm) AS
AS/NZS AS4100 AS/NZS AS 4100 / FEA AS4600
4100 FEA
4600 Actual Modified 4600 Actual Modified /FEA
0.5 50.0 S S 11.76 15.02 15.06 20.00 0.59 0.75 0.75

0.7 35.7 NC S 16.33 16.33 15.34 20.30 0.80 0.80 0.76
1.0 25.0 C NS 20.84 20.84 16.68 20.90 1.00 1.00 0.80
1.4 17.9 C NS 21.37 21.37 17.14 21.40 1.00 1.00 0.80
1.6 15.6 C NS 21.63 21.63 17.37 21.70 1.00 1.00 0.80
2.0 12.5 C NS 22.16 22.16 17.83 22.20 1.00 1.00 0.80
bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm, hw = 150 mm, t = 2mm for all the elements except hollow flanges web
element, which is tp and it was varied as shown in Column 1, fy = 3000 MPa
The comparison of predicted section moment capacities and FEA results given in
Table 6.2 (a) and (b) demonstrates that both AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600
section moment capacity rules conservatively estimate the reduction in capacity due
to local buckling in the hollow flanges web element. The comparison of results
further demonstrates that AS/NZS 4600 design rules predict the section moment
capacities of RHFB including slender flange webs more accurately than AS 4100
design rules. However, AS 4100 design rules predict the section moment capacities
more accurately when the flanges web elements are either non-compact or compact.

Ratio
b/t
(mm) AS
AS/NZS AS4100 AS/NZS AS 4100 / FEA AS4600/
4100 FEA
4600 Actual Modified 4600 Actual Modified FEA
0.5 50.0 S S 15.92 27.69 27.72 36.20 0.44 0.76 0.77

0.7 35.7 S S 22.61 28.07 28.08 36.80 0.61 0.76 0.76
1.0 25.0 NC NS 32.87 32.87 30.58 37.50 0.88 0.88 0.82
1.4 17.9 C NS 39.17 39.17 31.32 38.50 1.02 1.02 0.81
1.6 15.6 C NS 39.66 39.66 31.85 39.00 1.02 1.02 0.82
2.0 12.5 C NS 40.62 40.62 32.70 39.80 1.02 1.02 0.82
bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm, hw = 150 mm, t = 2mm for all the elements except hollow flanges web
element, which is tp and it was varied as shown in Column 1, fy = 550 MPa
As described before, this is due to the fact that AS/NZS 4600 limits the moment
capacity to first yield of extreme compression fibres. However, the predicted
moment capacities based on AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 design rules are always
conservative, except for a few cases where the maximum unconservative error was
only 2%, and therefore it is safe to use them in the section moment capacity checks
of RHFB subjected to pure bending with local buckling in its hollow flanges web
element. As described for the flanges top plate element, the reason for such
conservative predictions of section moment capacities of RHFB with slender web
element could be due to several reasons. One reason could again be due to the
presence of a number of other compact elements in the RHFB section. Since the
finite element analyses allow elasticplastic material behaviour, they could give a
higher moment capacity due to the possible inelastic reserve capacity of other
compact elements in the section. A conservative assumption of using k as 4.53
local buckling coefficient k could also be another reason. It must be noted that the
FEA gave a k value of 8.7.
6.2.1.3 Effect of Local Buckling in the RHFBs Web Element
The effect of local buckling in the RHFBs web element (see Figure 6.4) on the
section moment capacities of RHFB was investigated by choosing different width to
thickness ratios (b/t) of the web element. All the other elements in the RHFB section
were chosen to be compact (non-slender) according to AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). Tables 6.3 (a) and (b) show the section moment capacities
(Ms) obtained from the finite element analyses for different b/t ratios of web element
ranging from 60 to 240 and the predicted section moment capacities from the current
steel design standards AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). The
calculation procedure of section moment capacity (Ms) using AS 4100 and AS/NZS
4600 is presented in Appendix 3C. It must be noted that all other geometric
dimensions were unchanged, and are given in the same table. The comparison of
results indicates that both steel design standards underestimate the section moment
capacities of RHFB when the RHFBs web element experiences local buckling.
Local buckling in
beam web
Figure 6.4: Local Buckling of RHFBs Web Element

Ms Ratio
b/t
(mm) AS AS/NZS AS4100 AS/NZS AS 4100 / FEA AS4600/
FEA
4100 4600 Actual Modified 4600 Actual Modified FEA
0.5 240 S S 7.52 13.22 15.63 19.00 0.40 0.70 0.82

0.7 171 S NS 10.58 14.49 17.27 19.40 0.55 0.75 0.89
1.0 120 S NS 15.22 16.48 17.40 20.10 0.76 0.82 0.87
1.4 86 NC NS 20.88 20.88 17.57 20.90 1.00 1.00 0.84
1.6 75 C NS 21.94 21.94 17.66 21.30 1.03 1.03 0.83
2.0 60 C NS 22.16 22.16 17.83 22.20 1.00 1.00 0.80
bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm, hw = 150 mm, t = 2mm for all the elements except web element, which is
tp and it was varied as shown in Column 1, fy = 300 MPa

Ms Ratio
b/t
(mm) AS AS/NZS AS4100 AS/NZS AS 4100 / FEA AS4600
FEA
4100 4600 Actual Modified 4600 Actual Modified /FEA
0.5 240 S S 10.18 22.79 26.25 34.50 0.30 0.66 0.76

0.7 171 S S 14.32 24.50 29.07 35.20 0.41 0.70 0.83
1.0 120 S NS 20.61 27.15 31.90 36.30 0.57 0.75 0.88
1.4 86 S NS 29.15 30.89 32.22 37.70 0.77 0.82 0.85
1.6 75 NC NS 33.55 33.55 32.38 38.40 0.87 0.87 0.84
2.0 60 C NS 40.62 40.62 32.70 39.80 1.02 1.02 0.82
bf = 50 mm, hf = 25 mm, hw = 150 mm, t = 2mm for all the elements except web element, which is
tp and it was varied as shown in Column 1, fy = 550 MPa
The comparison of predicted section moment capacities and FEA results given in
Tables 6.3 (a) and (b) also demonstrate that both AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS
4600 section moment capacity rules conservatively estimate the reduction in capacity
due to local web buckling. The comparison of results also demonstrates that AS/NZS
4600 design rules predict the section moment capacities of RHFB with slender beam
web more accurately than AS 4100 design rules. However, AS 4100 design rules
predict the section moment capacities more accurately when the beam web is either
non-compact or compact. The predicted moment capacities by AS 4100 and AS/NZS
4600 design rules are always conservative, except in a few cases where the
maximum unconservative error was only 3%, and therefore it is safe to use them in
the section moment capacity checks for RHFBs subjected to pure bending with local
buckling of web element. As described for the hollow flanges top plate and web
elements, the reason for such conservative predictions of section moment capacities
of RHFBs with slender RHFB web element could also be due to the number of other
compact elements in the RHFB section. A conservative assumption of using local
buckling coefficient k as 24 could also be another reason. It must be noted that the
FEA gave a k value of 52.
This investigation shows that the AS/NZS 4600 design rules are conservative for all
the possible local buckling cases of RHFB sections and therefore they can be used in
the design of RHFBs for section moment capacity.
6.2.2 Local and Lateral Distortional Buckling Behaviour of RHFB
As described in Section 6.2.1, the flexural behaviour of RHFBs is complex and very
much depend on a range of parameters including section geometry, steel thickness
and yield stress. Lateral distortional buckling is a major failure mode in RHFB due to
the presence of torsionally stiff flanges and a slender web. However, research into
the lateral distortional buckling behaviour of innovative steel sections has been
limited and therefore the current Australian Steel Structures Design Standards AS
4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) do not include appropriate design
formulae for the lateral distortional buckling in RHFBs. Design formulae are
provided in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) for distortional buckling, but their
applicability to various structural sections was proven unsafe by other researchers
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c) .
Pi and Trahair (1997) investigated the behaviour of HFBs with triangular flanges
using a nonlinear inelastic method to analyse the lateral distortional buckling
behaviour and suggested alternative design formulae for them. Avery et al. (2000)
further investigated the behaviour of such HFBs using finite element analyses and
developed new design rules. Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a, b, c) investigated
the flexural behaviour of hollow flange channel sections experimentally as well as
analytically and developed new design rules by modifying the AS/ NZS 4600 (SA,
1996) design formulae. However, the alternative design formulae developed by
previous researchers were specifically developed for certain section types and sizes,
and therefore their applicability to the new RHFBs is not known.
The inelastic buckling and strength of the new RHFB sections has not been
investigated and no research has been conducted to investigate the effect of web
distortion, initial geometric imperfections, residual stresses, stress-strain
characteristics and moment distribution on the inelastic behaviour and buckling
strength of RHFB sections. Therefore a detailed parametric study into the flexural
behaviour of RHFB sections was undertaken using validated finite element models
presented in Chapter 5 to ensure the relevance of available design methods
developed for the HFB flexural members, and if necessary, to propose suitable
modifications to account for the effects of lateral distortional buckling.
Effects of geometric imperfection and residual stresses, and also the lack of
continuity of web-flange connections on the moment capacities of RHFBs were
investigated and their results are presented in the following sections. Analyses
included very short (200 mm) to very long lengths (8000 mm) of RHFBs and thus
both local and lateral buckling effects.
6.2.2.1 Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfections and Residual Stresses on

RHFB Moment capacities
Effects of residual stresses and initial geometric imperfections on moment capacities

of RHFBs were investigated using selected slender and compact RHFB sections.
Tables 6.4 (a) (c) show the comparison of analytical results for two beam sections
without residual stresses and geometric imperfections (perfect), with residual stresses
only, with geometric imperfections only, and with both residual stresses and
geometric imperfections whereas Figure 6.5 illustrates the graphical comparison of
analytical results. The moment capacities were compared for various beam spans.
Percentage reduction in moment capacities due to the presence of residual stresses,
geometric imperfections and their combinations were calculated and presented in
Tables 6.4 (a) to (c).
Table 6.4a: Effect of Residual Stresses on RHFB Moment Capacities
S1 Slender section S2 Compact section

Span (mm) % %
Perfect RS Perfect RS
Reduction Reduction
200 14.50 12.80 11.7 39.84 34.5 13.4
500 13.20 11.90 9.8 37.49 32.8 12.5
1000 12.00 11.20 6.7 32.02 29.5 7.9
2000 7.76 7.40 4.6 27.82 26.3 5.5
3000 6.38 6.20 2.9 24.19 23.5 2.9
5000 5.09 5.00 1.8 17.30 16.9 2.3
8000 4.06 4.00 1.5 12.10 12.0 0.8
Note: S1 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S2 - RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300-50s

RS Including residual stresses
Table 6.4b: Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfections on RHFB Moment
Capacities

Span mm % %
Perfect GI Perfect GI
Reduction Reduction
200 14.50 14.20 2.1 39.84 38.50 3.4
500 13.20 13.00 1.5 37.49 35.30 5.8
1000 12.00 11.60 3.3 32.02 31.10 2.9
2000 7.76 7.50 3.4 27.82 25.80 7.2
3000 6.38 5.90 7.6 24.19 22.80 5.8
5000 5.09 4.80 5.8 17.30 16.30 5.8
8000 4.06 3.72 8.4 12.10 11.20 7.4
Note: S1 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S2 - RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300-50s

GI Including geometric imperfection
Table 6.4c: Combined Effects of Residual Stresses and Initial Geometric

Imperfections on RHFB Moment Capacities

Span mm % %
Perfect RS + GI Perfect RS + GI
Reduction Reduction
200 14.50 12.20 15.9 39.84 33.2 16.7
500 13.20 11.30 14.4 37.49 31.5 16.0
1000 12.00 10.50 12.5 32.02 27.6 13.8
2000 7.76 6.93 10.7 27.82 24.4 12.3
3000 6.38 5.70 8.1 24.19 21.6 10.7
5000 5.09 4.63 9.1 17.30 15.9 8.1
8000 4.06 3.69 9.1 12.10 11.2 7.4
Note: S1 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S2 - RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300-50s

RS + GI Including residual stresses and geometric imperfection
Tables 6.4 (a) to (c) and Figure 6.5 show that the effect of residual stresses on
moment capacities of RHFBs is higher for slender and compact beam sections with
short spans whereas it is small for longer spans. The initial geometric imperfection
effect on moment capacities of RHFBs is high for longer span slender and compact
beam sections whereas it is small for shorter spans. As shown in Table 6.4 (a), the
maximum percentage reductions in moment capacities due to the presence of residual
stress are 11.7% and 13.4% for the slender and compact sections, respectively.
45
S1-perfect
40
S1-RS
35
S1-GI
30
Moment (kNm)
S2 RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300
25 S1-RS+GI
20 S2-Perfect
15
S2-RS
10
S2-GI
5
S2-RS+GI
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Span (mm)
Figure 6.5: Graphical Comparison of the Effect of Geometric Imperfections and

Residual Stresses on Moment Capacities of RHFBs
Table 6.4 (b) shows that the maximum reductions in moment capacities due to initial
geometric imperfections are 8.4% and 7.4% for the slender and compact sections,
respectively. These results implied that the effect of residual stresses on moment
capacities of RHFB is greater than that of initial geometric imperfections. Table 6.4
(c) indicates that the maximum reduction of moment capacities due to the combined
effect of residual stresses and the initial geometric imperfections are 15.9% and
16.7% for the slender and compact sections, respectively.
6.2.2.2 Effects of Screw Fastening on RHFB Moment Capacities
Two separately formed rectangular hollow flanges are connected to a single web
using screws at equal spacing along the member to produce RHFBs. The effects of
screw fastening on moment capacities of RHFBs are not known and need to be
investigated. Zhao (2005) investigated the compression behaviour of similar cold-
formed steel sections with rectangular hollow flanges connected by intermittent
fastening using screws and spot welds. His findings showed that the compression
member capacity of RHFBs is reduced significantly due to increased screw spacing
beyond a certain value. However, it is not known whether the same is true for the
flexural members. Therefore both slender and compact RHFB sections for various
spans were analysed using different fastening conditions including continuous
fastening and screw fastening at 50 mm and 100 mm equal spacings. The screws
were modelled by using Rigid Fixed MPC type assuming that sufficient screw
diameters are selected to resist induced tensile and shear stresses in the fasteners.
(c) Continuous Fastening
Figure 6.6: Effect of Fastening Arrangement on the Deformation Shape of RHFB
Figures 6.6 (a) to (c) show the FEA deformation shapes of RHFB-080tf-080tw-
150hw-3L-G300 for different fastening arrangements. The comparison of Figures 6.7
(a) to (c) indicates that the end of the web at compression side of the beam has
undergone some deformations due to the discontinuity of flange and web connection
due to screw fastening. However, such deformation is not observed in the
continuously fastened RHFB. It further shows that the large deformation for higher
screw spacing.
Figures 6.7 (a) to (c) show the stress contours from the finite element analyses of
RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300 using the ideal simply supported and uniform
moment conditions for different fastening arrangements including 50 mm and 100
mm screw spacing and continuous fastening.
Figure 6.7: Stress Contours of RHFB for Different Fastening Arrangements
(c) Continuous Fastening
Figure 6.7: Stress Contours of RHFB for Different Fastening Arrangements
Figures 6.8 (a) and (b) shows a close-up view at a screw location at failure. It shows
large stress concentrations in Figure 6.8 (a) whereas Figure 6.8 (b) indicates some
deformations around the screw fasteners due to these stresses.
(a) Stress Distribution (b) Deformation
Figure 6.8: Close-up View at a Screw Location
Tables 6.5 (a) to (d) compare the analytical results of four RHFB sections (2 slender
and 2 compact sections) with different fastening arrangements. The percentage
reductions in moment capacities due to screw fastening were also calculated and
presented in Tables 6.5 (a) to (d). Figures 6.9 (a) and (b) present a graphical
comparison of moment capacity reduction due to screw fastening.
Table 6.5 (a): Comparison of Moment Capacity Results of RHFB-080tf-080tw-
% Reduction compared to
Span Continuous Screw spacing
continuous connection
(mm) (Mu, kNm)
50 mm 100 mm 50 mm 100 mm
200 8.50 8.10 7.86 4.7 7.6
500 8.40 8.00 7.60 4.8 9.5
1000 7.40 6.50 6.18 12.2 16.6
2000 4.80 3.96 3.60 17.5 24.9
3000 3.45 3.05 2.90 11.6 16.0
5000 2.55 2.41 2.34 5.5 8.3
8000 2.10 2.02 1.98 3.8 5.7
Table 6.5 (b): Comparison of Moment Capacity Results of RHFB-120tf-120tw-

(mm) (Mu, kNm)
50 mm 100 mm 50 mm 100 mm
200 12.50 12.20 12 2.4 4.0
500 11.80 11.30 11 4.2 6.8
1000 11.00 10.50 10.2 4.5 7.3
2000 8.00 6.93 6.5 13.4 18.8
3000 6.40 5.70 5.4 10.9 15.6
5000 5.00 4.63 4.5 7.4 10.0
8000 3.80 3.69 3.6 2.9 5.3
Table 6.5 (c): Comparison of Moment Capacity Results of RHFB-300tf-300tw-

(mm) (Mu, kNm)
50 mm 100 mm 50 mm 100 mm
200 34.6 33.3 32.2 3.8 6.9
500 32.8 31.5 30.6 4.0 6.7
1000 29.8 27.6 26.2 7.4 12.1
2000 27.3 24.6 23.1 9.9 15.4
3000 23.8 21.6 20.3 9.2 14.7
5000 16.8 15.9 15.2 5.4 9.5
8000 11.7 11.2 10.9 4.3 6.8
Table 6.5 (d): Comparison of Moment Capacity Results of RHFB-500tf-500tw-
(mm) (Mu, kNm)
50 mm 100 mm 50 mm 100 mm
200 55.9 54.5 53.1 2.5 5.0
500 53.8 52.1 51 3.2 5.2
1000 50.5 48.3 46.2 4.4 8.5
2000 47.2 44.1 42.2 6.6 10.6
3000 42.8 39.3 37.8 8.2 11.7
5000 30.5 28.5 27.5 6.6 9.8
8000 20.8 19.6 19 5.8 8.7
Tables 6.5 (a) to (d) and Figures 6.9 (a) to (b) indicate that the moment capacities of
RHFB with continuous connection of web and flanges are slightly higher than those
of RHFBs connected by screw fasteners at 50 mm and 100 mm spacing along the
beam. The percentage reduction in moment capacities due to screw fastening at 50
mm and 100 mm spacings were also calculated and presented in Tables 6.5 (a) to (d).
The highest percentage reductions in moment capacities in the slender RHFB
sections were 17.5% and 24.9% for the 50 mm and 100 mm screw spacing,
respectively, whereas for the compact sections, they were 9.9% and 15.4%,
respectively. The comparisons of analytical results also demonstrate that the
influence of screw fastening for the intermediate beam spans is larger than those for
the shorter and longer beam spans. Therefore it shows that the discontinuity between
web and flanges is more sensitive in the lateral distortional buckling region than local
and lateral torsional buckling regions.
14
S1-Cont'
12
S1-50 mm
10
Moment (kNm)
8 S1-100 mm
6 S2-Cont'
4
S2-50 mm
2
S2-100 mm
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
S pan (mm)
Figure 6.9 (a): Comparison of Moment Capacities of Slender RHFBs with Different
Fastening Arrangement
60
S3-Cont'
50
S4 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300 S3-50 mm
40
Moment (kNm)
S3-100 mm
30
S4-Cont'
20
S3 RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300 S4-50 mm
10
S4-100 mm
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
S pan (mm)
Figure 6.9 (b): Comparison of Moment Capacities of Compact RHFBs with

The results in Tables 6.5 (a) to (c) were obtained from the finite element analyses
using the same residual stress model developed to simulate the initial stress
conditions of a press-braked RHFB section. However, in practice, a continuous web
to flange connection means welding, which would have induced very high residual
stresses in the RHFB member. Hence the moment capacities of continuously welded
RHFB could be even below that of the screw fastened RHFB if an accurate residual
stress model was used to simulate welding effects. Pi and Trahair (1997) reported
that the strengths of triangular HFBs (i.e. made of using electric resistance welding
method) without residual stresses are higher than those of HFRBs with residual
stresses, except at high and low slenderness. In this research, two continuously
welded RHFB sections (one compact and the other slender) were analysed using a
higher residual stress model developed for elastic resistance welded LSB sections. A
span of 2000 mm was chosen to simulate lateral distortional buckling. The results
indicated that the reduction in moment capacity of 9.2 and 8.1% for compact and
slender RHFB sections, respectively. When compared with the moment capacity
results of press-braked RHFBs with lower residual stresses (4.6% and 5.5% in Table
4.6a) it is clear that RHFB moment capacities will be further reduced for
continuously welded RHFBs. Therefore screw fastening at a closer spacing along the
RHFB member is likely to achieve the moment capacity (or even higher) of the
continuously welded RHFB. This study therefore considered only 50 mm screw
spacing in the analyses to obtain the ultimate moment capacities in the development
of suitable design rules for RHFBs.
6.2.3 Detailed FEA to Review the Current Design Rules
In order to undertake a thorough review of the current design rules and to develop
new design rules for RHFBs, it is important that a comprehensive moment capacity
data base is available for RHFBs with varying geometry, slenderness and steel
grades. Member capacity data from experimental analyses was limited and in some
cases were inaccurate due to the difficulties in manufacturing the RHFB specimens.
Therefore detailed finite element analyses using the validated ideal finite element
model were undertaken for 64 RHFB sections with spans from 200 mm to 8000 mm
and two steel grades (yield stresses of 300 MPa and 550 MPa). The RHFB sections
were chosen so that all the possible buckling failure modes could be achieved.
Primarily, the specimens were categorized into two groups; slender and compact (or
non-slender) RHFBs based on the AS/NZS 4600 design provisions. The moment
capacity data obtained from the compact sections were used in the development of
design curves to avoid multiple buckling modes in the same analysis. Tables 6.6 (a)
and (b) present the member moment capacity results from FEA whereas Figures 6.10
(a) and (b) present the member moment capacity curves in terms of moment capacity
versus beam spans.
Table 6.6 (a): Member Moment Capacities of Compact RHFB Sections from FEA
Analytical Moment Capacities Mu (kNm) at Various Span Lengths L (mm)
No Flange Size Beam Designation
200 500 1000 2000 3000 5000 8000
S1 RHFB-200tf -200tw -150hw -G300-50s 21.6 20.9 17.8 14.3 12.30 9.59 6.99
S2 RHFB-300tf -300tw -150hw -G300-50s 33.2 31.5 27.6 24.4 21.60 15.90 11.20
S3 RHFB-400tf -400tw -150hw -G300-50s 44.4 42.5 37.9 34.4 30.50 22.20 15.40
S4 RHFB-500tf -500tw -150hw -G300-50s 54.5 52.1 48.3 44.1 39.30 28.50 19.60
50 25
S5 RHFB-200tf -200tw -100hw -G300-50s 14.7 14.1 12.6 11.8 10.30 8.80 7.20
S6 RHFB-300tf -300tw -100hw -G300-50s 22.0 21.6 19.7 18.7 16.30 12.80 10.30
S7 RHFB-400tf -400tw -100hw -G300-50s 29.4 28.8 26.9 25.6 22.60 18.50 14.30
S8 RHFB-500tf -500tw -100hw -G300-50s 36.7 35.9 34.0 32.4 28.80 22.20 15.80
S9 RHFB-300tf -300tw -160hw G300-50s 60.0 59.8 58.9 53.8 51.90 49.90 46.50
S10 90 45 RHFB-400tf -400tw -160hw G300-50s 80.6 79.2 76.5 73.4 71.50 68.80 63.50
S11 RHFB-500tf -500tw -160hw G300-50s 101.0 101.0 101.0 96.5 91.40 87.30 80.20
S12 RHFB-200tf -200tw -120hw -G300-50s 11.30 10.10 7.47 4.99 3.65 2.33 1.52
S13 30 15 RHFB-300tf -300tw -120hw -G300-50s 17.00 15.30 12.20 8.32 5.96 3.73 2.43
S14 RHFB-400tf -400tw -120hw -G300-50s 22.70 20.60 17.00 11.80 8.36 5.22 3.34
S15 RHFB-200tf -200tw -150hw G550-50s 38.2 35.4 27.9 16.7 14.20 10.10 7.24
S16 RHFB-300tf -300tw -150hw G550-50s 59.9 55.0 43.8 30.6 24.30 16.70 11.50
S17 RHFB-400tf -400tw -150hw G550-50s 80.7 73.2 61.2 45.5 35.10 25.30 15.90
S18 50 25 RHFB-500tf -500tw -150hw G550-50s 95.4 88.6 76.6 60.6 46.00 30.00 20.20
S19 RHFB-200tf -200tw -100hw G550-50s 26.4 24.2 20.5 16.6 13.30 10.10 7.40
S20 RHFB-300tf -300tw -100hw G550-50s 40.1 37.2 32.6 28.7 21.70 16.30 12.30
S21 RHFB-400tf -400tw -100hw G550-50s 53.5 50.4 45.1 40.6 30.40 21.40 16.50
S22 RHFB-500tf -500tw -100hw G550-50s 66.9 62.5 57.8 52.2 39.40 26.80 17.60
Table 6.6 (a): Member Moment Capacities of Compact RHFB Sections from FEAcont
No Flange Size Beam Designation
200 500 1000 2000 3000 5000 8000
S23 RHFB-300tf -300tw -160hw G550-50s 108.0 107.0 105.0 89.0 79.2 69.6 55.6
S24 90 45 RHFB-400tf -400tw -160hw G550-50s 146.0 144.0 140.3 121.4 114.0 99.8 75.9
S25 RHFB-500tf -500tw -160hw G550-50s 183.0 182.0 179.0 158.0 148.0 123.0 93.5
S26 RHFB-200tf -200tw -120hw G550-50s 20.60 16.00 9.05 5.31 3.83 2.49 1.63
S27 RHFB-300tf -300tw -120hw G550-50s 30.90 24.30 15.50 8.90 6.24 3.95 2.53
S28 30 15 RHFB-400tf -400tw -120hw G550-50s 41.30 32.90 22.50 12.70 8.77 5.51 3.54
S29 RHFB-500tf -500tw -120hw G300-50s 28.30 26.10 21.90 15.40 11.00 6.83 4.37
S30 RHFB-500tf -500tw -120hw G550-50s 51.60 45.20 29.60 16.60 11.50 7.20 4.67
Table 6.6 (b): Member Moment Capacities of Slender RHFB Sections from FEA
No Beam Designation
200 500 1000 2000 2500 3000 4000 5000 6000 8000
S1 RHFB-080tf -080tw -150hw -G300-50s 8.10 8.00 6.50 3.96 3.35 3.05 2.65 2.41 2.22 2.02
S2 RHFB-100tf -100tw -150hw -G300-50s 9.84 9.10 8.50 5.40 4.65 4.30 3.82 3.48 3.20 2.82
S3 RHFB-120tf -120tw -150hw -G300-50s 12.20 11.30 10.50 6.93 6.15 5.70 5.13 4.63 4.25 3.69
S4 RHFB-190tf -190tw -150hw -G300-50s 20.50 20.00 16.90 13.30 12.40 11.60 10.20 8.94 8.11 6.57
S5 RHFB-080tf -100tw -150hw -G300-50s 8.06 7.82 7.33 4.37 3.75 3.43 3.01 2.73 2.54 2.22
S6 RHFB-080tf -120tw -150hw -G300-50s 8.42 8.05 7.69 4.63 4.06 3.68 3.25 2.94 2.75 2.33
S7 RHFB-080tf -190tw -150hw -G300-50s 9.61 9.10 8.43 5.19 4.63 4.10 3.61 3.26 3.10 2.60
S8 RHFB-100tf -120tw -150hw -G300-50s 10.40 9.85 9.19 5.84 5.16 4.80 4.23 3.82 3.52 2.98
S9 RHFB-100tf -190tw -150hw -G300-50s 11.70 11.32 9.50 6.83 6.20 5.57 4.92 4.38 4.06 3.34
S10 RHFB-120tf -190tw -150hw -G300-50s 13.60 12.87 10.80 8.41 7.70 7.03 6.19 5.47 5.01 4.08
S11 RHFB-100tf -080tw -150hw -G300-50s 9.33 9.11 8.86 4.92 4.06 3.72 3.23 2.96 2.69 2.41
S12 RHFB-120tf -080tw -150hw -G300-50s 11.80 11.48 9.50 5.77 4.70 4.28 3.70 3.43 3.11 2.82
S13 RHFB-190tf -080tw -150hw -G300-50s 18.10 17.70 13.00 8.54 6.75 5.87 5.03 4.70 4.25 4.02
S14 RHFB-120tf -100tw -150hw -G300-50s 12.30 12.15 10.50 6.34 5.45 5.10 4.50 4.13 3.80 3.29
S15 RHFB-190tf -100tw -150hw -G300-50s 18.70 17.40 15.00 9.36 7.82 7.14 6.35 5.92 5.38 4.87
S16 RHFB-190tf -120tw -150hw -G300-50s 19.20 17.85 15.10 10.30 8.99 8.50 7.57 6.96 6.31 5.53
S17 RHFB-055tf -055tw -150hw G550-50s 6.80 6.70 6.62 3.00 1.94 1.70 1.35 1.26 1.11 0.99
S18 RHFB-075tf -075tw -150hw G550-50s 11.00 10.70 9.45 3.63 3.34 2.80 2.40 2.19 2.23 1.78
S19 RHFB-095tf -095tw -150hw G550-50s 14.80 13.40 12.10 5.62 4.73 4.15 3.92 3.29 3.02 2.65
Not Not 7.34 6.28
S20 RHFB-115tf -115tw -150hw G550-50s 20.30 available available 5.80 5.01 4.50 4.11 3.50
Table 6.6 (b): Member Moment Capacities of Slender RHFB Sections from FEAcont
No Beam Designation
200 500 1000 2000 2500 3000 4000 5000 6000 8000
S21 RHFB-055tf -075tw -150hw G550-50s 6.90 6.70 6.30 3.75 2.32 1.98 1.78 1.60 1.43 1.27
S22 RHFB-055tf -095tw -150hw G550-50s 7.75 7.67 7.43 3.50 2.52 2.22 1.94 1.67 1.62 1.42
S23 RHFB-055tf -115tw -150hw G550-50s 8.87 8.73 8.50 3.61 2.64 2.27 2.01 1.86 1.72 1.51
S24 RHFB-075tf -095tw -150hw G550-50s 10.20 Not Not 4.45 3.76 3.41 3.01 2.56 2.35 2.07
available available
S25 RHFB-075tf -115tw -150hw G550-50s 12.30 11.40 9.12 4.73 4.06 3.67 3.14 2.90 2.65 2.24
S26 RHFB-095tf -115tw -150hw G550-50s 15.80 13.85 11.32 6.11 5.23 4.86 4.31 3.70 3.38 2.91
S27 RHFB-075tf -055tw -150hw G550-50s 8.68 8.68 8.69 3.86 3.13 2.03 1.63 2.01 1.45 1.40
S28 RHFB-095tf -055tw -150hw G550-50s 12.00 11.87 11.32 4.75 3.60 2.78 2.23 1.86 1.78 1.75
S29 RHFB-115tf -055tw -150hw G550-50s 15.00 13.46 10.79 4.81 3.42 3.35 2.80 2.39 2.24 2.21
S30 RHFB-095tf -075tw -150hw G550-50s 14.50 14.20 12.20 4.90 3.94 3.50 3.01 2.65 2.50 2.25
S31 RHFB-115tf -075tw -150hw G550-50s 17.90 17.30 14.10 5.76 4.76 4.42 3.51 3.24 2.94 2.65
S32 RHFB-115tf -095tw -150hw G550-50s 18.50 17.92 14.70 6.66 5.61 5.04 4.67 3.98 3.68 3.18
200 S1 S2
S3 S4
180
S5 S6
160 S7 S8
140 S9 S10
S11 S12
120
Mu (kNm)
S13 S14
100 S15 S16
S17 S18
80
S19 S20
60 S21 S22
S23 S24
40
S25 S26
20 S27 S28
0 S29 S30
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Span (mm)
Figure 6.10 (a): Moment Capacity Curves for Compact RHFB Sections from FEA
25.0
S1 S2
S3 S4
S5 S6
20.0
S7 S8
S9 S10
S11 S12
15.0
Mu (kNm)
S13 S14
S15 S16
S17 S18
10.0 S19 S20
S21 S22
S23 S24
5.0 S25 S26
S27 S28
S29 S30
0.0 S31 S32
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Span (mm)
Figure 6.10 (b): Moment Capacity Curves for Slender RHFB Sections from FEA
6.3 Review of Current Design Rules
In this section, the FEA moment capacities presented in Section 6.2 are compared
with the section and member design moment capacities obtained using the Australian
Standards for the design of steel structures, AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and cold-formed
steel structures, AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). Predicted moment capacities from other
alternative design procedures are also compared with the FEA moment capacities.
For the sake of completeness, the current design rules for section and member
moment capacities are presented again.
6.3.1 AS 4100 Moment Capacity
6.3.1.1 Section Moment Capacity
The section moment capacity (Ms) is defined as follows:
M s = Ze f y (6.1)
The effective section modulus (Ze) is defined as follows:
s sp : Z e = S
sy s
sp < s sy : Z e = Z + (S Z )
sy sp (6.2)
sy
s > sy : Z e = Z
s
The section slenderness (s) is taken as the value of the plate element slenderness
(e) for the element of the cross-section which has the greatest value of (e/ey). The
plate element slenderness (e) is defined as a function of the element clear width (b),
thickness (t), and yield stress (fy).
b fy
e = (6.3)
t 250
In the moment capacity calculations, nominal section dimensions and yield stresses
were used. The yield stress was taken as 300 MPa and 550 MPa for the steel grades
G300 and G550, respectively, as used in the finite element parametric studies.
The section plasticity and yield slenderness limits (sp, sy) are taken as the values of
the element slenderness limits (ep, ey) given in Table 5.2 (SA, 1998) for the
element of the cross-section which has the greatest value of e/ey and for the cold-
formed case.
The section moment capacities of 30 compact RHFB sections were calculated using
AS 4100 design equations described above. However, a modified AS 4100 design
method was used to calculate the section moment capacities of 29 slender RHFB
sections as described in Section 6.2 and Appendix 3C. A comparison of the FEA and
AS 4100 design section moment capacities is provided in Tables 6.7 (a) and (b) for
compact and slender RHFB sections, respectively.
As shown in Table 6.7 (a), the section moment capacities of the compact sections are
predicted accurately with a mean of 1.00 and a COV of 0.02. However, AS 4100
section moment capacity rules conservatively estimate the reduction in capacity due
to local buckling in slender RHFB sections. The results in Table 6.7 (b) show that AS
4100 design rules (modified) predict the section moment capacities of slender RHFB
sections conservatively with a mean of 0.75 and a COV of 0.08. The maximum
unconservative error for compact RHFB sections is an acceptable 5%, and therefore
it is safe to use the AS 4100 specifications for section capacity design checks of
RHFB beam sections subject to pure bending moment.
Table 6.7 (a) Comparison of FEA and AS 4100 Section Moment Capacities for
Compact RHFB Sections
compactness
AS 4100 Ms
Hollow
AS 4100 /
FEA Ms
Section
(kNm)
(kNm)
Flange
FEA
Section Designation
Size
(mmmm)
RHFB-200tf-200tw-150hw-G300-50s C 21.60 22.16 1.03

RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300-50s C 33.20 32.96 0.99
RHFB-400tf-400tw-150hw-G300-50s C 44.40 43.59 0.98
RHFB-500tf-500tw-150hw-G300-50s C 54.50 54.04 0.99
5025
RHFB-200tf-200tw-100hw-G300-50s C 14.70 14.70 1.00
RHFB-300tf-300tw-100hw-G300-50s C 22.00 21.87 0.99
RHFB-400tf-400tw-100hw-G300-50s C 29.40 28.92 0.98
RHFB-500tf-500tw-100hw-G300-50s C 36.70 35.85 0.98
RHFB-300tf-300tw-160hw-G300-50s C 60.00 61.28 1.02
9045 RHFB-400tf-400tw-160hw-G300-50s C 80.60 81.32 1.01
RHFB-500tf-500tw-160hw-G300-50s C 101.00 101.18 1.00
RHFB-200tf-200tw-120hw-G300-50s C 11.30 11.26 1.00
RHFB-300tf-300tw-120hw-G300-50s C 17.00 16.68 0.98
3015
RHFB-400tf-400tw-120hw-G300-50s C 22.70 21.95 0.97
RHFB-500tf-500tw-120hw-G300-50s C 28.30 27.08 0.97
RHFB-200tf-200tw-150hw-G550-50s C 38.20 40.62 1.05
RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G550-50s C 59.90 60.43 1.01
RHFB-400tf-400tw-150hw-G550-50s C 80.70 79.92 0.99
RHFB-500tf-500tw-150hw-G550-50s C 99.2 99.07 1.00
5025
RHFB-200tf-200tw-100hw-G550-50s C 26.40 26.95 1.02
RHFB-300tf-300tw-100hw-G550-50s C 40.10 40.10 1.00
RHFB-400tf-400tw-100hw-G550-50s C 53.50 53.02 0.99
RHFB-500tf-500tw-100hw-G550-50s C 66.90 65.73 0.98
RHFB-300tf-300tw-160hw-G550-50s C 108.00 112.4 1.04
9045 RHFB-400tf-400tw-160hw-G550-50s C 146.00 149.10 1.02
RHFB-500tf-500tw-160hw-G550-50s C 183.00 185.5 1.01
RHFB-200tf-200tw-120hw-G550-50s C 20.60 20.65 1.00
RHFB-300tf-300tw-120hw-G550-50s C 30.90 30.57 0.99
3015
RHFB-400tf-400tw-120hw-G550-50s C 41.30 40.24 0.97
RHFB-500tf-500tw-120hw-G550-50s C 51.60 49.64 0.96
Mean 1.00
COV 0.02
Table 6.7 (b) Comparison of FEA and AS 4100 Section Moment Capacities for
Slender RHFB Sections
compactness
AS 4100 Ms
Hollow
AS 4100 /
FEA Ms
Section
(kNm)
(kNm)
Flange
FEA
Section Designation
Size
(mmmm)
RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F, W) 8.10 5.54 0.68

RHFB-080tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 8.42 6.92 0.82
RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 9.61 7.79 0.81
RHFB-100tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 10.40 8.60 0.83
RHFB-100tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 11.70 9.45 0.81
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 12.20 10.42 0.85
RHFB-120tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 13.60 11.26 0.83
RHFB-190tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s S (W) 18.10 13.73 0.76
RHFB-190tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s S (W) 18.70 15.07 0.81
5025
RHFB-055tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 8.87 6.48 0.73
RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 12.30 9.10 0.74
RHFB-095tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 15.80 12.31 0.78
RHFB-115tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s S (W) 15.00 11.34 0.76
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s S (W) 17.90 12.52 0.70
RHFB-115tf-095tw-150hw-G550-50s S (W) 18.50 13.74 0.74
Mean 0.75
COV 0.08
Note: F Slender flange (i.e. Flange top plate element) W Slender web element
6.3.1.2 Member Moment Capacity
The member capacity of a beam subject to a uniform bending moment is defined as

follows:
2
Ms Ms
M b = 0.6 +3 Ms Ms (6.4)
Mo Mo
Equation 6.4 was modified by Pi and Trahair (1997) to include the lateral distortional
buckling effects.
2
Ms Ms
M bd = 0.6 + 2.8 Ms Ms (6.5)
M od M od
Ms
where, d =
M od
Pi and Trahair (1997) also provided equations to estimate the elastic distortional
buckling moment (Mod) using an approximate effective torsional rigidity (GJe).
2 EI y 2 EI w
M od = GJ e + (6.6)
L2 L2
Et 3 L 2
2 GJF
GJ = 0 . 91 2 d (6.7)
e
Et 3 L 2
2 GJ F +
0 . 91 2 d
For compact RHFB sections, the Mod values from Thin-wall program were on
average 4% more than the accurate Mod values obtained from FEA (see Table 5.3
which shows a maximum difference of 8.3% only in some cases). This difference
was expected as Thin-wall program assumes continuous connection between web
and flange lips. Due to this small difference in Mod values and hence even smaller
differences in the resulting Mb values, the simpler method of using Thin-wall was
adopted here. However, for slender RHFB sections, FEA Mod values were used.
A comparison of the predicted dimensionless moment capacity results (Mb/Ms) with
finite element analyses results is provided in Figures 6.11 (a) and (b) and 6.12 (a) and
(b). The member capacity Mu (from FEA) and Mb (from AS 4100) is plotted as
Mb/Ms on the vertical axis whereas the member slenderness d on the horizontal axis.
1.2 AS4600 S1
AS 4100
S2 S3
S4 S5
1.0
S6 S7
S8 S9
0.8 S10 S11
S12 S13
Mu/My
S14 S15
s s
b/M
0.6
b/M
S16 S17
MM
S18 S19
0.4 S20 S21
S22 S23
S24 S25
0.2
S26 S27
S28 S29
0.0 S30
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness
Slenderness d) (() )
(
d
(a) Compact RHFB Sections
1.8
AS4100 Sec1
1.6 Sec2 Sec3

Sec4 Sec5
1.4 Sec6 Sec7
Sec8 Sec9
1.2
Sec10 Sec11
Sec12 Sec13
Mb/Ms
1.0
M b/Ms
Sec14 Sec15
0.8 Sec16 Sec18
Sec19 Sec20
0.6
Sec21 Sec22
Sec23 Sec24
0.4
Sec25 Sec26
0.2 Sec27 Sec28

Sec29 Sec30
0.0 Sec31 Sec32
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Slenderness (d)
Slenderness ( d)
(b) Slender RHFB Sections
Figure 6.11: Comparison of Moments Capacities with AS 4100 Predictions
1.2 P&T S1
S2 S3
S4 S5
1.0
S6 S7
S8 S9
0.8 S10 S11
S12 S13
/Msys
b/M
S14 S15
Mbu/M
0.6
S16 S17
M
M
S18 S19
0.4 S20 S21

S22 S23
S24 S25
0.2
S26 S27
S28 S29
0.0 S30
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness d) ((d) )
Slenderness
(
Slenderness
(a) Compact Sections
1.8
P&T Sec1
1.6 Sec2 Sec3

Sec4 Sec5
1.4 Sec6 Sec7
Sec8 Sec9
1.2
Sec10 Sec11
Sec12 Sec13
b/M s
1.0
bb/M
/M ss
Sec14 Sec15
MM
M
0.8 Sec16 Sec18

Sec19 Sec20
0.6
Sec21 Sec22
Sec23 Sec24
0.4
Sec25 Sec26
0.2 Sec27 Sec28

Sec29 Sec30
0.0 Sec31 Sec32
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Slenderness (d)
Slenderness
Slenderness d) ()
(
(b) Slender Sections
Figure 6.12: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Pi and Trahairs (1997)

Predictions
The comparisons provided in Figures 6.11 (a) and (b) and 6.12 (a) and (b)
demonstrate that the moment capacity predicted by AS 4100 (Equation 6.4) and Pi
and Trahair (1997) (Equation 6.5) are conservative in general. The average
conservative error for all RHFB slender sections is 15% (Mean = 0.85) for AS 4100
method and 17% (Mean = 0.83) for the Pi and Trahair (1997) method with a COV of
0.12 and 0.11 for the two methods, respectively, whereas for all RHFB compact
sections, the average conservative error is 4% (Mean = 0.96) for the AS 4100 method
and 8% (Mean = 0.92) for the Pi and Trahair (1997) method with COV of 0.07 for
both cases. The comparison of moment capacities given in Figures 6.11 (a) and 6.12
(a) further demonstrate that both AS 4100 and Pi and Trahair (1997) methods are
incapable of predicting the moment capacities of slender RHFBs accurately in the
low slenderness region whereas they could predict the moment capacities of compact
RHFBs in the low slenderness region quiet accurately. This is due to a combination
of the conservative section capacity prediction and the conservative slenderness
reduction function (s) based on the lower bound fit of experimental results for
compact, hot-rolled I-sections. However, the maximum unconservative error for
slender RHFB sections was 4% for AS 4100 while it was 14% and 7% for AS 4100
and Pi and Trahair (1997) methods, respectively for compact RHFB sections.
6.3.2 AS/NZS 4600 Moment Capacity
6.3.2.1 Section Moment Capacity
The section moment capacity (Ms) is defined in AS/NZS 4600 in a similar fashion to
AS 4100 (see Equation 6.1). However, unlike AS 4100, the effective section
modulus (Ze) is based on the initiation of yielding in the extreme compression fibre.
Unlike AS 4100, the plate element slenderness is a function of the applied stress (f*),
as shown in Equation 6.9.
1 0.22
be = bb (6.8)

1.052 b f*
= (6.9)
k t E
Table 6.8 (a) Comparison of FEA and AS/NZS 4600 Section Moment Capacities
for Compact RHFB Sections
compactness
AS 4600 Ms
Hollow
AS 4600 /
FEA Ms
Section
(kNm)
(kNm)
Flange
FEA
Section Designation
Size
(mmmm)
RHFB-200tf-200tw-150hw-G300-50s C 21.60 17.83 0.83

RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G300-50s C 33.20 26.55 0.80
RHFB-400tf-400tw-150hw-G300-50s C 44.40 35.13 0.79
RHFB-500tf-500tw-150hw-G300-50s C 54.50 43.58 0.80
5025
RHFB-200tf-200tw-100hw-G300-50s C 14.70 11.54 0.79
RHFB-300tf-300tw-100hw-G300-50s C 22.00 17.18 0.78
RHFB-400tf-400tw-100hw-G300-50s C 29.40 22.75 0.77
RHFB-500tf-500tw-100hw-G300-50s C 36.70 28.25 0.77
RHFB-300tf-300tw-160hw-G300-50s C 60.00 48.17 0.80
9045 RHFB-400tf-400tw-160hw-G300-50s C 80.60 63.99 0.79
RHFB-500tf-500tw-160hw-G300-50s C 101.00 79.68 0.79
RHFB-200tf-200tw-120hw-G300-50s C 11.30 9.19 0.81
RHFB-300tf-300tw-120hw-G300-50s C 17.00 13.62 0.80
3015
RHFB-400tf-400tw-120hw-G300-50s C 22.70 17.93 0.79
RHFB-500tf-500tw-120hw-G300-50s C 28.30 22.12 0.78
RHFB-200tf-200tw-150hw-G550-50s C 38.20 32.70 0.86
RHFB-300tf-300tw-150hw-G550-50s C 59.90 48.67 0.81
RHFB-400tf-400tw-150hw-G550-50s C 80.70 64.40 0.80
RHFB-500tf-500tw-150hw-G550-50s C 99.2 79.89 0.81
5025
RHFB-200tf-200tw-100hw-G550-50s C 26.40 21.15 0.80
RHFB-300tf-300tw-100hw-G550-50s C 40.10 31.51 0.79
RHFB-400tf-400tw-100hw-G550-50s C 53.50 41.72 0.78
RHFB-500tf-500tw-100hw-G550-50s C 66.90 51.78 0.77
RHFB-300tf-300tw-160hw-G550-50s C 108.00 88.32 0.82
9045 RHFB-400tf-400tw-160hw-G550-50s C 146.00 117.31 0.80
RHFB-500tf-500tw-160hw-G550-50s C 183.00 146.08 0.80
RHFB-200tf-200tw-120hw-G550-50s C 20.60 16.85 0.82
RHFB-300tf-300tw-120hw-G550-50s C 30.90 24.97 0.81
3015
RHFB-400tf-400tw-120hw-G550-50s C 41.30 32.87 0.80
RHFB-500tf-500tw-120hw-G550-50s C 51.60 40.56 0.79
Mean 0.80
COV 0.02
Table 6.8 (b) Comparison of FEA and AS/NZS 4600 Section Moment Capacities
for Slender RHFB Sections
compactness
AS 4600 Ms
Hollow
AS 4600 /
FEA Ms
Section
(kNm)
(kNm)
Flange
FEA
Section Designation
Size
(mmmm)
RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 8.10 6.30 0.78

RHFB-080tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 8.06 6.57 0.82
RHFB-080tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 8.42 6.81 0.81
RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 9.61 7.71 0.80
RHFB-100tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 9.33 8.07 0.86
RHFB-100tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 9.84 8.31 0.84
RHFB-100tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 10.40 8.58 0.83
RHFB-100tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 11.70 9.42 0.81
RHFB-120tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 11.80 9.87 0.84
RHFB-120tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 12.30 10.11 0.82
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 12.20 10.35 0.85
RHFB-120tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s S (F) 13.60 11.22 0.83
5025
RHFB-055tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 6.90 6.40 0.93
RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 7.75 7.35 0.95
RHFB-055tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 8.87 7.92 0.89
RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 11.00 9.15 0.83
RHFB-075tf-095tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 10.20 10.16 1.00
RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 12.30 10.69 0.87
RHFB-095tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 14.50 12.19 0.84
RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 14.80 13.28 0.90
RHFB-095tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 15.80 13.77 0.87
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 17.90 15.17 0.85
RHFB-115tf-095tw-150hw-G550-50s S (F) 18.50 16.35 0.88
Mean 0.86
COV 0.06
Note: F Slender flange (i.e. Flange top plate) W Slender web
The section moment capacities of all the RHFB sections were calculated using the
AS/NZS 4600 design equations given above with the local buckling coefficients (k)
equal to 4 for the uniformly compressed stiffened elements and
k = 4 + 2(1 ) 3 + 2(1 ) for the stiffened elements with a stress gradient (where,
= f2*/f1*, f1* is compression and f2* is either tension or lower compression stress) .
A comparison of section moment capacities from FEA and AS/NZS 4600 is provided
in Tables 6.8 (a) and (b).
The AS/NZS 4600 section capacity method more accurately estimates the reduction
in section moment capacity due to local buckling in slender sections, compared with
the AS 4100 method. However, it does not permit the use of inelastic reserve
capacity and hence the section moment capacities of compact RHFB sections are
about 1.25 times the yield moment capacity. The AS/NZS 4600 prediction is always
conservative, therefore it is safe to use the AS/NZS 4600 specifications for section
moment capacity design checks of RHFB members subject to pure bending moment.
6.3.2.2 Member Moment Capacity
Unlike AS 4100, AS/NZS 4600 provides equations specifically intended for the
design of members subject to distortional buckling that involves transverse bending
of a vertical web with lateral displacement of the compression flange. The member
capacity of a beam subject to this type of distortional buckling is defined as follows:
Mc
M b = Zc (6.10)
Z
For RHFBs, it is appropriate to determine the effective section modulus (Zc) at a

stress corresponding to Mc/Z, where Mc is the critical moment as defined bellow.
2d
For d < 1.414 : M c = M y 1
4
(6.11)
1
For d 1.414 : M c = M y
2d
The non-dimensional member slenderness (d) is given by:
My
d = (6.12)
M od
The elastic lateral distortional buckling moment (Mod) were determined using
Equations 6.6 and 6.7 or a buckling analysis program such as Thin-wall for compact
RHFBs (see section 6.3.1.2 for reasons). For slender RHFBs, FEA Mod values were
used. This approach was also used when comparing with other design methods.
A comparison of member moment capacities from FEA and AS/NZS 4600 for RHFB
compact and slender sections is given in Figures 6.13 (a) and (b), respectively. In
these Figures, Mu values from FEA are compared with the Mc curve from AS/NZS
4600 (not Mb). For compact sections of any span, Mb is equal to Mc. However, for
slender sections with short spans, Mb will be less than Mc due to local buckling
effects. Therefore AS/NZS 4600 design curve presented in Figure 6.13 (b) cannot be
compared with some of the FEA points with local buckling effects. However, many
FEA points of slender sections may not have local buckling effects at longer or even
intermediate beam spans. Therefore a graphical comparison was also provided for
slender sections for the sake of completeness.
1.4 AS4600 S1
S2 S3
1.2 S4 S5
S6 S7
1.0 S8 S9
S10 S11
Mc/My
S12 S13
0.8
Mu/My
S14 S15
S16 S17
0.6
S18 S19
S20 S21
0.4 S22 S23
S24 S25
0.2 S26 S27
S28 S29
0.0 S30
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness d)(d)
(
Figure 6.13: Comparison of Moment capacities with AS/NZS 4600 Predictions
1.4 AS4600 Sec1
Sec2 Sec3
1.2 Sec4 Sec5

Sec6 Sec7
Sec8 Sec9
1.0
Sec10 Sec11
Sec12 Sec13
/Myy
0.8
Mcc/M
Sec14 Sec15
Sec16 Sec17
M
0.6 Sec18 Sec19

Sec20 Sec21
Sec22 Sec23
0.4
Sec24 Sec25
Sec26 Sec27
0.2 Sec28 Sec29
Sec30 Sec31
0.0 Sec32
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness (d
Slenderness ( ) d)
Figure 6.13: Comparison of Moment capacities with AS/NZS 4600 Predictions
Figures 6.13 (a) and (b) show that the current AS/NZS 4600 design rule for lateral
distortional buckling (Equation 6.11) is not suitable as it is quite conservative for
beams of low slenderness while being unconservative for beams of intermediate
slenderness (inelastic buckling region). Comparison based on the flexural torsional
slenderness show that the strengths Mu/Ms of beams with web distortion are
significantly lower than those without web distortion. This suggests that the
detrimental effects of web distortion are not accurately accounted for. It is adequate
for elastic lateral torsional buckling region as expected for long spans.
6.3.3 Member Moment Capacity Proposed by Avery et al. (2000)
Alternative member moment capacity equations proposed by Trahair (1997) were

used by Avery et al. (2000) to develop design equations for triangular hollow flange
beam (HFB) flexural members. They are:
ab
Mb = b + M s M s ; M b M o ; M b M sy (6.13)
1 + c2 n
Ms
d = (6.14)
M od
Values of a = 1.0, b = 0.0, c = 0.424, and n = 1.196 were found to minimise the total
error for the Trahair (1997) design equations. However, this approach resulted in an
unacceptable maximum unconservative error of more than 10% for HFB sections and
Avery et al. (2000) developed separate design curves by varying a, b, c and
depending on the HFB groups. Equations (6.13) and (6.14) with the coefficients a, b,
c and n determined for the entire HFB groups were used to predict the moment
capacities of RHFBs and the comparison of the predicted moment capacities with the
FEA results for compact and slender sections is shown in Figures 6.14 (a) and (b).
As observed in Figures 6.14 (a) and (b), the predictions based on Avery et al.s
(2000) method for both compact and slender RHFB sections are similar to AS 4100
and Pi and Trahair (1997) predictions for lower slenderness, but for intermediate and
higher slenderness, they are quiet similar to AS/NZS 4600 predictions. Therefore,
Avery et al.s (2000) method is also quite conservative for beams with low
slenderness while being unconservative for beams with intermediate slenderness
(inelastic buckling region).
1.2 Avery et al S1
S2 S3
S4 S5
1.0
S6 S7
S8 S9
0.8 S10 S11
S12 S13
s
M /M
Mu/Ms
S14 S15
0.6
b
S16 S17
S18 S19
0.4 S20 S21

S22 S23
S24 S25
0.2
S26 S27
S28 S29
0.0 S30
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness d) (d)
(
Figure 6.14: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Avery et al. (2000) Predictions
1.8 Avery et al Sec1
Sec2 Sec3
1.6
Sec4 Sec5
1.4 Sec6 Sec7

Sec8 Sec9
1.2 Sec10 Sec11
Sec12 Sec13
b/Ms
1.0
Mu/Ms
Sec14 Sec15
M
Sec16 Sec18
0.8
Sec19 Sec20
0.6 Sec21 Sec22
Sec23 Sec24
0.4 Sec25 Sec26
Sec27 Sec28
0.2
Sec29 Sec30
0.0 Sec31 Sec32

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Slenderness (d)
)
Slenderness (
Figure 6.14: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Avery et al.s (2000) Predictions
6.3.4 Moment Capacity Proposed by Maharachchi and Mahendran (2005)
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) produced alternative design formulae for the
new hollow flange channel sections known as LiteSteel Beams (LSB). Equations
6.15 (a) to (c) were recommended for the three regions of member slenderness
separating yielding/local buckling, inelastic lateral distortional buckling, and elastic
lateral buckling.
For d 0.59 Mc = M y (6.15(a))
0.59
For 0.59 < d < 1.7 Mc = M y (6.15(b))
d
1
For d 1.7 Mc = M y (6.15(c))
d 2
Comparison of the predicted moment capacities using Equations 6.15(a) to (c) with
FEA results of compact and slender RHFB sections are shown in Figures 6.15 (a)
and (b). As described earlier in Section 6.3.2 in the case of AS/NZS 4600 method,
the FEA results cannot be compared directly with AS/NZS 4600 predictions in a
graphical form due to the presence of local buckling effects.
Therefore Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005) design curve presented in Figure
6.15 (b) can only be compared with FEA points of RHFBs that do not have local
buckling effects. Even for the slender RHFBs, local buckling effects are not present
for longer or even intermediate beam spans. Therefore a graphical comparison was
also provided for slender sections for the sake of completeness.
1.4 M&M S1
S2 S3
1.2 S4 S5
S6 S7
S8 S9
1.0
S10 S11
S12 S13
Mc/My
0.8
Mu/My
S14 S15
S16 S17
0.6
S18 S19
S20 S21
0.4 S22 S23
S24 S25
0.2 S26 S27
S28 S29
0.0 S30
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness d)(d)
(
1.4 M&M Sec1

Sec2 Sec3
1.2 Sec4 Sec5

Sec6 Sec7
Sec8 Sec9
1.0
Sec10 Sec11
Sec12 Sec13
c/My
0.8
y
Sec14 Sec15
M c/M
Sec16 Sec17
M
0.6 Sec18 Sec19

Sec20 Sec21
Sec22 Sec23
0.4
Sec24 Sec25
Sec26 Sec27
0.2 Sec28 Sec29
Sec30 Sec31
0.0 Sec32
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness dd))
Slenderness((

Figure 6.15: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Mahaarachchi and
Mahendrans (2005) Predictions
Figures 6.15 (a) and (b) show that the predictions from Mahaarachchi and
Mahendrans (2005c) method are generally conservative for both compact and
slender RHFB sections in the lower part of the intermediate slenderness region (i.e.
local and distortional buckling region), whereas in the higher slenderness region (i.e.
lateral torsional buckling region), their predictions closely agreed for both compact
and slender RHFB sections. However, in the upper part of the intermediate
slenderness region (i.e. lateral distortional buckling region) their predictions are quiet
unconservative. This could be due to the fact that the design curves developed by
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) were based on experimental and analytical
results of continuously welded, singly symmetric LSB sections. However, the RHFB
sections are intermittently screw fastened and therefore their lateral distortional
buckling resistance could be reduced due to the lack of continuity between the flange
and the web. This effect is particularly higher in the lateral distortional buckling
region (see Section 6.2.2.2).
6.4 Development of Moment Capacity Rules for RHFBs

As shown in Section 6.3, no design methods provide accurate prediction of the
moment capacity of RHFB sections. Further no provisions are given for lateral
distortional buckling except AS/NZS 4600 which has been found to be
unconservative. The comparison of design methods implies that in some situations
competing methods may exist. However, the fact that one method may be used to
determine the strength prediction in a given situation does not imply an increased
accuracy and resistance factors are needed to be within their target reliability.
An objective of this research was to derive and verify appropriate design formulae
for RHFB sections. The finite element analysis results were used to derive suitable
design equations. Thin-walled nature and intermittent screw fastening of RHFB
sections complicates their behaviour and design. Experimental and finite element
analyses reveal the presence of at least three buckling modes, namely, local, lateral
distortional and lateral torsional. Most of the design recommendations have only
addressed local and lateral torsional buckling modes and therefore new design rules
for lateral distortional buckling are required to design the new RHFBs accurately.
Following sections will describe the procedures for the development of new design
rules and their applicability.
6.4.1 Development of Moment Capacity Rules for Compact RHFB
Sections
The moment capacities of fully effective or compact sections are generally well
predicted by the current design methods. The lateral torsional buckling strength of
compact sections follows the same trend predicted by AS/NZS 4600. A new design
rule was therefore developed for the inelastic buckling region that is based on the
mean of all the compact section results. The equation was established by solving for
minimum total error for 32 compact sections and 7 beam spans ranging from 200 mm
to 8000 mm. This was achieved by minimising the square of the difference between
the normalised analytical capacity (i.e. Mu/Ms) and the normalised design capacity
(Mb/Ms). The established design rule is given by Equation 6.16, and Figure 6.16
shows the comparison of the design curve based on this equation with FEA results.
The FEA results were spread around the developed design curve with a mean test to
predicted ratio of 1.00 and a COV of 0.08. A suitable capacity reduction factor was
calculated for this equation using the AISI procedure (see Section 6.4.3) and it was
found to be 0.82. Meanwhile Equation 6.16(c) represents the elastic buckling curve
as for the AS/NZS 4600 design rule using a revised member slenderness limit as
shown in Figure 6.16, and it is adequate.
d 0.71 Mc = M y (6.16(a))
1.5 + 5 d
0.71 < d < 1.70 Mc = M y (6.16(b))
10 d
2
1
d 1.70 Mc = M y (6.16(c))
d 2
where
My
d =
M od
M y = Z f fy Z f and f y are full section modulus and yield stress
M od = Z f f od f od is obtained from Thin-wall program
1.4 S1 S2
S3 S4
1.2 S5 S6
S7 S8
S9 S10
1.0
S11 S12
S13 S14
0.8
/Myy
S15 S16
Mcu/M
S17 S18
M
0.6
S19 S20
S21 S22
0.4 S23 S24
S25 S26
0.2 S27 S28
S29 S30
0.0 Wanni-I
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness d)(d)
(
Figure 6.16: Comparisons of Moment Capacities Predicted by Equation 6.16 with

FEA Results
The member slenderness values that separate the three regions (yielding/local
buckling and inelastic lateral distortional buckling, and elastic lateral torsional
buckling) were determined from the equations representing the three regions, and
they are 0.71 and 1.70. Since the capacity reduction factor for the design rule based
on Equation 6.16 is 0.82, attempts were made to develop a design equation that gives
the currently used capacity reduction factor of 0.9, and it is given in Equation 6.17.
For this equation, the mean test to predicted ratio was 1.09 with a COV of 0.08.
Figure 6.17 compares the predicted moment capacities from Equations 6.16 and 6.17
and FEA results.
d 0.65 Mc = M y (6.17(a))
1 + 5 d
0.65 < d < 1.80 Mc = M y (6.17(b))
10 d
2
1
d 1.80 Mc = M y (6.17(c))
d 2
1.4 Eq.6.17 S1
S2 S3
1.2 S4 S5
S6 S7
S8 S9
1.0
S10 S11
S12 S13
Mc/My
0.8
Mu/My
S14 S15
S16 S17
0.6
S18 S19
S20 S21
0.4 S22 S23
S24 S25
0.2 S26 S27
S28 S29
0.0 S30 Eq.6.16

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness d) (d)
(
Figure 6.17: Comparison of Moment Capacities Predicted by Equations 6.16 and

6.17 and FEA Results
The comparison of moment capacities predicted by Equation 6.17 with Equation

6.15 of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005), Equation 6.11 of AS/NZS 4600
(1996) and FEA results are provided in Figure 6.18.
1.4 Eq.6.17 S1
S2 S3
1.2 S4 S5
S6 S7
S8 S9
1.0
S10 S11
S12 S13
0.8 S14 S15
c / My
MMc/M y
S16 S17
0.6 S18 S19
S20 S21
S22 S23
0.4
S24 S25
S26 S27
0.2
S28 S29
S30 M&M
0.0 AS 4600
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Slenderness
Slenderness d) (
(
d)
Figure 6.18: Comparison of Moment Capacities Predicted by Equation 6.17 and

other Existing Design Rules and FEA Results
The comparisons provided in Figure 6.18 demonstrate that the member capacity
predicted by the new design formula (i.e. Equation 6.17) is more accurate than the
available design recommendations. However, the design rules presented by
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005) (i.e. Equation 6.15) could also predict moment
capacities of RHFBs quite accurately. The mean test to predicted ratio using their
design formula was 1.12 with COV of 0.11. Therefore, the predicted capacity by
Equation 6.17 and Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005) can be used with the
AS/NZS 4600 (1996) capacity reduction factor of 0.9 to produce adequate safety for
design. Therefore Equations 6.17 and 6.15 (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005) are
recommended for the design of RHFB members subject to uniform bending.
6.4.2 Verification of the New Design Formula for Slender RHFB Sections
The new design formulae were developed for RHFBs using the finite element
analysis results of compact sections and are given by Equations 6.17 (a) to (c).
Therefore their applicability to slender RHFBs needs to be confirmed. The FEA
results of slender RHFB sections allow for capacity reduction due to local buckling
effects. Hence the new design formula (Equation 6.17 (b)) was used for a number of
slender RHFB sections to calculate member moment capacity (Mb), and those
calculated (i.e. predicted) values were compared with the FEA results as shown in
Tables 6.9(a) and (b) for G300 and G550 steels, respectively. The beam spans
provided in Tables 6.9 (a) and (b) are corresponding to the lateral distortional
buckling region defined for the new design formula. Figure 6.19 gives a graphical
comparison of predicted moment capacities (Note that Mb allows for local buckling
effects) and FEA results for both G300 and G550 steels. A sample calculation of
member moment capacity using the new design formula is given in Appendix 6A. As
noted in earlier sections, the Mod values required for d calculations were based on
accurate FEA models for slender sections.
0.90
0.80
0.70
Pred-G300
0.60
FEA-G300
Mb,Mu/My
0.50
Pred-G550
0.40
FEA-G550
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
d)
Slenderness (
Figure 6.19: Comparison of Predicted Moment Capacities and FEA Results for
G300 and G550 Steel Slender RFHBs
The graphical comparison of predicted moment capacities with FEA results for
slender RHFBs indicates that the predictions from this new design formula for
slender RHFB are more conservative in the lower end of the intermediate slenderness
region while in the upper end, it agrees well . This could be due to the fact that this
new design formula was developed using compact RHFB sections for which the
local buckling was not a consideration. However, in terms of slender RHFB sections,
local buckling could be a prominent criterion in the lower end of the intermediate
slenderness region, whereas in the upper end, local buckling has less effects. Figure
6.19 further demonstrates that the predicted moment capacities are more conservative
for higher grade steels than lower grade steels in the lower end of intermediate
slenderness region.
The comparisons given in Tables 6.9 (a) and (b), and Figure 6.19 indicate that the
developed design formula for lateral distortional buckling can also be safely used to
design the slender RHFBs as well. The mean ratio between the FEA to predicted
moment capacity for G300 steel is 1.06 with a COV of 0.08, whereas for G550
steels, they are 1.18 and 0.19, respectively. Therefore this comparison indicates that
this new design formula can be used more consistently although more safely for
lower grade steel than the higher grade steel slender RHFBs.
Table 6.9(a): Comparison of Predicted Moment Capacities using New Design
Beam Span d Mb Mu Mb/Mu

2000 1.13 3.56 3.96 1.11
RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.33 3.02 3.05 1.01
5000 1.63 2.45 2.41 0.98
2000 1.09 4.83 5.40 1.12
RHFB-100tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.24 4.20 4.30 1.02
5000 1.47 3.47 3.48 1.00
2000 1.04 6.17 6.93 1.12
3000 1.18 5.33 5.70 1.07
RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
5000 1.41 4.36 4.63 1.06
8000 1.65 3.66 3.69 1.01
2000 0.93 11.07 13.30 1.20
3000 1.05 9.61 11.60 1.21
RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s
5000 1.29 7.59 8.94 1.18
8000 1.56 6.13 6.57 1.07
2000 1.11 3.76 4.37 1.16
RHFB-080tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.28 3.26 3.43 1.05
5000 1.51 2.73 2.73 1.00
2000 1.09 3.96 4.63 1.17
RHFB-080tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.25 3.46 3.68 1.06
5000 1.50 2.84 2.94 1.03
2000 1.09 4.44 5.19 1.17
RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.25 3.83 4.10 1.07
5000 1.48 3.20 3.26 1.02
2000 1.06 5.07 5.84 1.15
RHFB-100tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.21 4.40 4.80 1.09
5000 1.43 3.67 3.82 1.04
2000 1.03 5.72 6.83 1.20
RHFB-100tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.17 4.98 5.57 1.12
5000 1.41 4.07 4.38 1.08
2000 0.99 7.04 8.41 1.19
RHFB-120tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.12 6.10 7.03 1.15
5000 1.37 4.85 5.47 1.13
2000 1.13 4.51 4.92 1.09
RHFB-100tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.34 3.75 3.72 0.99
5000 1.64 2.99 2.96 0.99
2000 1.13 5.36 5.77 1.08
RHFB-120tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.34 4.41 4.28 0.97
5000 1.58 3.67 3.43 0.93
2000 1.14 8.08 8.54 1.06
RHFB-190tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s 3000 1.47 6.06 5.87 0.97
5000 1.70 5.15 4.70 0.91
2000 1.08 5.78 6.34 1.10
3000 1.23 4.98 5.10 1.02
RHFB-120tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s
5000 1.44 4.16 4.13 0.99
8000 1.68 3.51 3.29 0.94
2000 1.08 8.73 9.36 1.07
3000 1.24 7.45 7.14 0.96
RHFB-190tf-100tw-150hw-G300-50s
5000 1.42 6.39 5.92 0.93
8000 1.69 5.26 4.87 0.93
2000 1.03 9.36 10.30 1.10
3000 1.16 8.16 8.50 1.04
RHFB-190tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
5000 1.36 6.81 6.96 1.02
8000 1.59 5.71 5.53 0.97
Mean 1.06
COV 0.08
Table 6.9(b): Comparison of Predicted Moment Capacities using New Design
Beam Span d Mb Mu Mb/Mu

1000 0.98 3.91 6.62 1.69
RHFB-055tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.70 2.54 3.00 1.18
1000 0.97 6.54 9.45 1.44
RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.70 3.74 3.63 0.97
1000 0.95 8.97 12.10 1.35
RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.49 5.72 5.62 0.98
1000 1.43 7.39 7.34 0.99
RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.68 6.30 5.80 0.92
1000 1.00 4.46 6.30 1.41
RHFB-055tf-075tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.63 2.82 3.75 1.33
1000 1.01 4.74 7.43 1.57
RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.60 3.02 3.50 1.16
1000 0.88 5.81 8.50 1.46
RHFB-055tf-115tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.59 3.21 3.61 1.12
1000 1.52 4.34 4.45 1.02
RHFB-075tf-095tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.80 3.68 3.41 0.93
1000 0.98 7.09 9.12 1.29
RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G300-50s 2000 1.50 4.56 4.73 1.04
3000 1.77 3.88 3.67 0.95
1000 0.96 9.11 11.32 1.24
RHFB-095tf-115tw-150hw-G300-50s 2000 1.45 6.00 6.11 1.02
3000 1.66 5.27 4.86 0.92
1000 0.97 5.79 8.69 1.50
RHFB-075tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.68 3.66 3.86 1.06
1000 0.95 7.72 11.32 1.47
RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.69 4.74 4.75 1.00
1000 0.95 8.62 12.20 1.41
RHFB-095tf-075tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.58 5.21 4.90 0.94
1000 0.95 10.70 14.10 1.32
RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.60 6.28 5.76 0.92
1000 0.94 11.21 14.70 1.31
RHFB-115tf-095tw-150hw-G300-50s
2000 1.48 7.02 6.66 0.95
Mean 1.18
COV 0.19
In the above calculations for slender RHFB sections, Mod was obtained from the
elastic buckling finite element analyses to improve the accuracy of comparison.
However, in practice other simple methods such as Thin-wall buckling analysis
program or Pi and Trahairs equations (Equations 6.6 and 6.7) may used to obtain the
elastic buckling moment. For compact RHFB sections, it has been shown that the
difference in Mod and the resulting Mb values is negligible for design purposes. To
investigate the effect of using Mod values from Thin-wall or Pi and Trahairs
equations on the member moment capacity Mb, two critical slender RHFB sections
were selected (one from G300 and other from G550) that have the highest difference
in FEA and Thin-wall buckling moments (Mod). The results show that for the G300
steel section (ie. RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s) the Mb prediction was
5.6% unconservative whereas for the G550 steel section (i.e. RHFB-055tf-055tw-
150hw-G550-3L-50s) it was 6%. It is likely that the average difference between Mb
values will be less than 5%. Therefore Thin-wall buckling program or Pi and
Trahairs equations could be used to obtain the elastic distortional buckling moment
Mod for member moment capacity calculations.
)
6.4.3 Calculation of Capacity Reduction Factor (
The proposed design equation in Section 6.4.1 of this chapter could predict the
moment capacities of RHFBs, however, it was derived based on limited FEA data.
Therefore the actual moment capacity of a RHFB used in a real steel structure could
be considerably less than the value predicted by these equations due to expected
variations in material, fabrication, and loading effects. Therefore a capacity reduction
factor, which is commonly used in the current design codes, is recommended for the
strength predicted by the proposed design formula.
The American cold-formed steel structures code (AISI, 1996) recommends a

statistical model for the determination of capacity reduction factors. This model
accounts for the variations in material, fabrication and load effects. This model is
used in the Australian cold-formed steel structures code AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996)
and this reduction factor accounts for the uncertainties and variabilities associated
with loads, analysis, the limit state model, material properties, geometry and
fabrication. Based on this model, the capacity reduction factor is given by the
following equation.
V 2 M +V 2 F + C pV 2 P +V 2 Q
= 1.5( M m Fm Pm )e (6.18)
where
Mm, Vm = Mean and coefficient of variation of the material factor

= 1.0, 1.0 (this is the ratio of actual material property to that specified)
Fm, Vf = Mean and coefficient of variation of the fabrication factor
= 1.0, 1.0 (this is the ratio of actual geometric property, e.g. thickness,
to that specified)
Vq = Coefficient of variation of load effect
o = Target reliability index = 2.5 for lateral buckling in flexure
Cp = Correction factor depending on the number of tests = (1+1/n)(m/(m-
2)
Pm = Mean value of the tested to predicted moment capacity ratio
Vp = Covariance of the tested to predicted moment capacity ratio
n = Number of tests
m = Degree of freedom = n-1
The values for Pm and Vp have to be determined from experiments or analyses. In

this study, Pm and Vp are the mean values and coefficient of variation of the ratio of
FEA moment capacity, to that predicted by the design equation. Other values are
taken from the American cold-formed steel structures code (AISI, 1996) and are
considered to be conservative for most flexural members subjected to lateral
buckling. Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) used the same values in their
investigation. The substitution of these assumed values leads to the following
equation.
2 .5 0 . 0502 + C p V p 2
= 1 . 5 Pm e (6.19a)
1
(1 + )m
Cp = n (6.19b)
(m 2)
Equations 6.19 (a) and (b) were used to calculate the reduction factor for the design
formula (Equation 6.16 and 6.17) derived in Section 6.4.1. The capacity reduction
factor for Equation 6.17 was determined using the values for Pm and Vp
corresponding to the minimum of the square difference between the normalised
analytical moment capacities (i.e. Mu/Ms) and the normalised design moment
capacities (Mb/Ms). The calculated factor for Equation 6.16 was 0.82,
corresponding to the Pm and Vp values of 1.0 and 0.08, respectively. The capacity
reduction factor = 0.9 is used in other existing steel design standards and therefore
attempts were made to raise the factor to 0.9 by modifying Equation 6.16 to 6.17.
The Pm and Vp values corresponding to Equation 6.17 are 1.09 and 0.08. It is shown
in Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 that the proposed design Equation 6.17 can be reliably
used to predict the moment capacity of RHFB, with a reduction factor of 0.9. It
should be noted that the Australian cold-formed steel structures code also
recommends a capacity reduction factor of 0.9 for flexural members. Therefore, the
recommended reduction factor is acceptable within the current design provisions.
6.5 Summary
This chapter has presented the details of an extensive parametric study into the
structural behaviour of RHFBs subjected to bending actions, and the procedures of
development of new design rules for RHFBs. For this purpose, finite element
analyses were used based on the validated ideal finite element model developed in
Chapter 5. The results show that the current design recommendations are not suitable
for RHFBs except for the method proposed by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran
(2005c). The proposed design formula in this research more accurately predicts the
moment capacities of RHFB subjected to lateral distortional buckling than those in
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996), AS 4100 (1998), Pi and Trhair (1997) and Avery et al.
(2000). Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) design method could also predict
the moment capacities of RHFBs reasonably well, however it shows that the
proposed design formula is the most accurate for the RHFBs. In this study, the
current design rules given in AS/NZS 4600 to predict the section moment capacity
and the lateral torsional buckling moment capacity were found to be sufficient.
Therefore a new design rule was developed only for the inelastic lateral distortional
buckling region. The AS/NZS 4600 capacity reduction factor of 0.9 can be used with
the proposed new design formula. The new design formula is therefore
recommended to use in the design of RHFBs subjected to lateral distortional
buckling.
CHAPTER 7 Conclusions
and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
7.1.1 General
This thesis has described a detailed investigation into the structural behaviour of
Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams (RHFB), subjected to flexural action. Buckling
and ultimate failure behaviour of the new RHFBs was investigated using both
experimental and finite element analyses to gain a thorough understanding of the
structural behaviour of this new beam with torsionally rigid rectangular hollow
flanges.
In the first phase of this research, experimental investigation of RHFBs using thirty
full scale lateral buckling tests and twenty two section moment capacity tests were
conducted in two separate and specially made test rigs to simulate the required
loading and support conditions. In addition to these full scale member capacity
(lateral buckling) and section capacity tests, a series of tensile coupon tests was also
conducted to obtain the material properties of steels that were used to make the
RHFB test specimens.
The second phase of this research involved a methodical and comprehensive

investigation aimed at widening the scope of finite element analysis to investigate the
buckling and ultimate failure behaviours of RHFBs subjected to flexural actions.
Accurate finite element models simulating the physical conditions of both lateral
buckling and section moment capacity tests were developed and validated by
comparing the failure loads, the moment-deflection curves and the failure modes
with corresponding results from the full scale tests. Apart from these experimental
finite element models, ideal finite element models simulating ideal simply supported
boundary conditions and a uniform moment loading were also developed for use in a
detailed parametric study. Both finite element models included all significant effects
that may influence the ultimate moment capacity of RHFBs, including material
inelasticity, local buckling, lataeral distortional buckling and lateral torsional
buckling deformations, member instability, intermittent screw fastening and
associated discontinuity along the beam, residual stresses and initial imperfections.
The parametric study results were used to review the current design formulae and to
develop new design formulae for RHFBs subjected to local, lateral distortional and
lateral torsional buckling effects.
Following important conclusions and recommendations have been drawn, based on

the research presented in this thesis.
7.1.2 Experimental Investigation
Section moment capacity tests reported in Chapter 3 showed that the slender RHFB
sections experienced local buckling effects in either flange or web, or both depending
on the their element slenderness. When the flange or web buckled locally, the gap
between flange lips and web opened up between the intermittent screw fasteners,
mainly after the ultimate moment was reached.
The tests results showed that the predicted section moment capacities based on AS
4100 (1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (1996) are unconservative when compared with the
experimental section moment capacities in some cases. However, AS/NZS 4600
section capacity method estimates comparatively more accurately the reduction in
section moment capacity due to local buckling effects in slender RHFB sections than
the AS 4100 method. Therefore AS/NZS 4600 design rules may be used for both
G300 and G550 steel RHFB sections to predict their section moment capacities as
the overall experiment to predicted (i.e. Mu/Ms) section moment capacity ratios is
about 0.95, but the coefficient of variation is as high as 0.24 due to lack of adequate
quality control in test specimen fabrication.
The section capacity behaviour of such RHFB sections fabricated by using

intermittent screw fastening was not observed or investigated by previous researchers
for flexural actions, and therefore these observations and findings are important and
useful to the researchers, manufactures and designers expecting to use RHFBs in
steel buildings and structures.
The lateral buckling test results reported in Chapter 4 showed that the new RHFBs
failed by lateral distortional buckling at intermediate beam slenderness. The use of
different combinations of thicknesses of flanges and web indicated that increasing
the flange thickness is more effective in enhancing the RHFB flexural capacity than
web thickness.
The comparison of lateral buckling test results with the predictions of member
capacities calculated using the current steel design codes AS 4100 and AS/NZS
4600, and the design methods proposed by Pi and Trahair (1997), Avery et al (1999)
and Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) using non-dimensionalised moment and
slenderness results showed that the member moment capacities predicted by all the
design methods for lateral distortional buckling were generally unconservative. The
predicted moment capacities of AS 4100 (1998) were extremely higher than those of
test moment capacities whereas AS/NZS 4600 (1996) also predicted moment
capacities that were higher than test moment capacities. In contrast, the predicted
moment capacities of Pi and Trahairs (1997) and Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans
(2005) design methods were more close to the test moment capacities.
7.1.3 Finite Element Analyses and Parametric studies
Comparison of experimental and finite element analysis results presented in Chapter

5 showed that the buckling and ultimate failure behaviour of RHFBs can be
simulated well using appropriate finite element models. This confirms that finite
element analysis is an excellent tool for use in the investigations of flexural
behaviour of complex beam types such as RHFBs, and it can be successfully used to
contribute towards the development of design models and rules when existing design
methods are found to be inadequate. This will reduce the reliance on time consuming
and expensive experimental testing while allowing the incorporation a wide range of
possible influential parameters and enhancing the overall reliability of final results.
Finite element analysis into the effect of intermittent screw fastening on flexural
capacity of RHFBs indicates that the discontinuity due to screw fastening has a
significant influence within the intermediate beam spans (i.e. lateral distortional
buckling region). However, this effect is minimal at short and longer beam spans.
Parametric study into the effect of residual stresses on the moment capacities of
RHFBs indicated that the residual stress effect is only significant at very short beam
spans (about 13%), but they are only marginal at longer span beams (about 2%).
Similarly, the initial geometric imperfection has little influence (about 5%) on the
moment capacities of RHFBs at shorter spans while its influence at longer span is
little higher (about 9%).
Comparison of finite element analysis results with the predictions from the current
design rules AS 4100 (1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (1996) indicates that the design rules
given for section moment capacity design within the current steel design standards
are sufficient. However, the results further indicate that the section moment capacity
prediction for slender RHFB sections is more accurate using AS/NZS 4600 than AS
4100, whereas for compact RHFB sections, AS 4100 is more accurate as it allows for
the non-elastic reserve capacity .
Finite element analysis investigations into the lateral distortional buckling of RHFBs
indicate that lateral distortional buckling dominates the failure in the intermediate
member slenderness region (intermediate beam spans). This failure mode of RHFBs
is affected by intermittent screw spaning and therefore a minimum of 50 mm screw
spacing was adopted in this study to minimize the moment capacity reduction due to
larger screw spacing. The comparison of finite element analysis results with the
predictions from the current design rules indicates that the current design rules in AS
4100 (1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (1996) are not suitable for the lateral distortional
buckling design of RHFBs. The comparison of finite element analysis results with
other design methods indicates that Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) design
method could closely predict the lateral distortional buckling moment capacity of
RHFBs.
However this thesis developed a new design rule to predict the lateral distortional
buckling of RHFBs more accurately. An extensive series of finite element analyses
was conducted incorporating all significant parameters such as residual stresses,
geometric imperfections, contact surfaces and nonlinear material behaviour. The
developed design formula is most suitable for use in the design of RHFBs. This new
design formula was first developed using finite element analyses results obtained
from the compact RHFB sections, however its validity for slender sections was also
verified. Finite element analysis results demonstrated that the current design formula
for lateral torsional buckling is adequate. However, the non-dimensionalised
slenderness limit suggested by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran for lateral torsional
buckling was slightly varied in the new design formula. Therefore the same design
formula can be used in the design of RHFBs for lateral torsional buckling within the
limit defined in this thesis.
7.2 Recommendations
In the design of RHFBs subjected to flexural action, it is recommended that the

current design rules given in AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 are used to calculate the
section moment capacities of RHFBs depending on the section slenderness. AS/NZS
4600 design method was found to be more suitable for slender sections while AS
4100 design methods was more suitable for compact sections. However, since RHFB
is a light gauge (thickness < 3 mm), high strength (yield stress > 450 MPa) and cold-
formed steel section, it is recommended that AS/NZs 4600 design rules are used for
RHFBs.
In the design of RHFBs for lateral distortional buckling, it is recommended that the
new design formula developed in this thesis is used to more accurately design
RHFBs subjected to lateral distortional buckling. However, Mahaarachchi and
Mahendrans (2005c) design formula for lateral distortional buckling can also be
used for this purpose.
In the design of RHFBs for lateral torsional buckling, it is recommended that the
existing design rules provided in AS/NZS 4600 (1996) can be used with the new
non-dimensionalized slenderness limit given as part of the new design formula
developed in this thesis.
It is recommended that the test set-up used in the lateral buckling test program can be
accurately used to simulate the ideal simply support conditions in any future research
project on the flexural behaviour of steel beams. The finite element model developed
in this thesis to investigate the flexural behaviour of RHFB is also recommended for
any future research project aimed at investigating the buckling and ultimate strength
behaviour of similar hollow flange beams.
The research undertaken in this thesis has demonstrated that the innovative RHFB
sections can perform well as economically sound and structurally efficient flexural
members. It has shown the effects of various combinations of web and flange
thicknesses on the RHFB flexural capacity. Structural engineers and designers should
make use of the new design rules and the validated existing design rules to design the
most optimum RHFB sections depending on the type of applications. Intermittent
screw fastening method has also been shown to be structurally adequate that also
minimises the fabrication cost. Product manufacturers and builders should be able to
make use of this in their applications.
7.3 Future Work
Although other hollow flange beam types such as triangular hollow flange beams and
rectangular hollow flange channel sections are used as mainstream structural
components in buildings and other steel structures in Australia, the new RHFB has
not yet been introduced into the industry. Therefore further research should be
undertaken to enhance the understanding of the other behavioural aspects of RHFBs
(for example, shear buckling, web bearing and connections) under specific
Australian conditions.
In this research project intermittent screw spacing was selected (50 mm) to minimise
the moment capacity reduction due to discontinuity at flange-web connection.
However, there is a possibility to find an optimum screw spacing if a comprehensive
research study is carried out incorporating the possible influential parameters such as
steel thickness, steel grade, section and beam slenderness.
The interactive buckling behaviour of RHFBs under flexural action was not
specifically investigated in this study; however the interactive buckling effects may
have an influence on the overall performance of RHFBs. Therefore a thorough
understanding is required to make conclusions on this effect.
Only rectangular hollow flanges and screw fastening method were considered in this
study. However research can be extended to other hollow flange shapes with
different connection methods to optimize the performance of hollow flange beams.
In this research, the web was extended only 10 mm from the flange-web junction into
the hollow flanges to minimize the self-weight of RHFB. However, it can be
extended to reach the top flange plate. This is likely to enhance the bearing strength
of the RHFB sections (at the supports and under concentrated loads) while also
facilitating easier fabrication.
References
Allen, H.G. and Bulson, P., (1980), Background to Buckling, McGraw-Hill Book
Co. Inc., New York.
American Iron and Steel Institute, (1946) Specification for the design of light-gauge
steel structural members, New York.
American Iron and Steel Institute, (1980) Specification for the design of cold-
formed steel structural members, New York.
American Iron and Steel Institute, (1986) Cold-formed steel design manual,
Washington.
American Iron and Steel Institute, (1991) Load and resistance factor design
specification for cold-formed steel structural members, Washington.
American Iron and Steel Institute, (1996) Specification for the design of cold-
formed steel structural members, Washington.
Avery, P. and Mahendran, M., (1997) Finite element analysis of hollow flange
beam with web stiffeners, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 9,
pp. 123-129.
Avery, P., Mahendran, M. and Nasir, A. (1999a), Flexural Capacity of Hollow Flange
Beams I: Description and Verification of Finite Element Model, Research
Monograph 99-1, Physical Infrastructure Centre, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Avery, P., Mahendran, M. and Nasir, A. (1999b), Flexural Capacity of Hollow Flange
Beams II: Design Curves, Research Monograph 99-2, Physical Infrastructure
Centre, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Avery , P., Mahendran, M. and Nasir, A., (2000) Flexural capacity of hollow flange
beams, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 53, No.x, pp. 201-223.
Bakker, M.C.M and Pekoz, T., (2003), The finite element method for thin-walled
members basic priciples, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 41, No. 2-3, pp. 179-
189.
BHP, (1992) The Making of Iron and Steel, BHP Steel Group, Melbourne,
Australia.
Bleich, F., (1952) Buckling strength of metal structures, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Inc., New York.
Bradford, M.A. and Trahair, N.S., (1982), Distortional buckling of thin-web beam-
columns, Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 4, pp. 2-9.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges R-1
Bradford, M.A., (1992), Lateral-Distortional buckling of steel I-Section
members, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 23, Issues 1-3,
1992, Pages 97-116.
British Standards Institution, (1961), Specification for the use of cold-formed steel
sections in building, PD 4064, Addendum No. 1 to BS449, 1959 The use of
structural steel in building.
British Standards Institution, (1998) Structural use of steel work in building, BS

5950, Part 5, Code of Practice for the Design of Cold-Formed Sections,
London.
Bryan, G.H., (1891) On the stability of flat plates under thrust in its own plane with
applications to the buckling of the sides of a ship, Proceedings of the
London Mathematics Society, Vol. 22.
Bulson, P.S., (1969), The stability of flat plates, American Elsevier Publishing
Company, New york.
Bulson, P.S., (1970) The Stability of flat plates, Chatto and Windus, London.
Canadian Standards Association, (1994), Cold-formed steel structural members,

CAN/CSA S136-94, Rexdale, Ontario.
CASE, (2002) Further Advise on Project Genesis Sections, Investigation Report

S1346, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, University of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia.
Chajes, A., Britvec, S. J. and Winter, G., (1963) Effect of cold-straining on

structural sheet steels Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE proceeding,
Vol. 89, Apr.
Cherry, S., (1960), The stability of beams with buckled compression flanges, The
Structural Engineer, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp. 277-285.
Davies, J. M. and Jiang, C., (1998), Design for distortional buckling, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, Nos. 1-3, pp. 174-175.
Dempsey, R.I., (1990), Structural behaviour and design of hollow flange beams,
proceedings of the Second National Structural Engineering Conference,
Institution of Engineers, Australia, Adelaide, pp. 327-335.
Dempsey, R.I., (1991) Hollow flange beams: The new alternative, Technical
Presentation, AISC, June.
Dempsey, R.I., (1993) Hollow flange beams member design manual, Palmer Tube
Mills Pty. Ltd., Australia.
Dhalla, A.K., Winter, G., (1971) Ductility Criteria and Performance of Low
Ductility Steels for Cold-Formed Members, Proceedings of the First
International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, pp. 22-30.
Doan, V. and Mahendran, M., (1996), A Residual stress model for hollow flange
beams Research Report 96-39, Physical Infrastructure Centre, Queensland
University of Technology, School of Civil Engineering.
Ellifritt, D.S., Sputo, T. and Haynes, J., (1992), Flexural capacity of discretely
braced Cs and Zs, Proccedings Eleventh International Specialty Conference
on Cold-formed Steel Structures, St. Louis.
Eurocode3, (1996), Design of steel structures, part 1.3, general supplementary rules
for cold-formed thin-gauge members and sheeting, ENV 1993-1-3:1996/AC.
Hancock, G.J., (1975), The behavior of structures composed of thin-walled

members, Ph.D. Thesis, university of Sydney, Sydney. Australia.
Hancock, G.J., Kwon, Y.B. and Bernard, E.S., (1994), Strength design curves for
thin-walled sections undergoing distortional buckling, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 31, No. 2/3, pp. 169-186.
Hancock, G.J. and Papangelis, J.P., (1994), Thin-wall users manual Centre for
Advanced Structural Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Hancock, G.J., (1997), Design for distortional buckling of flexural members, Thin-
Walled Structures, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Hancock, G. J. and Rogers, C. A., (1998), Design of cold-formed steel structures of

high strength steel, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, Nos. 1-
3, pp. 167-168.
Hancock, G.J., (1998), Design of cold-formed steel structures (To AS/NZS

4600:1996), 3rd edition. University of Sydney.
Hasan, S.W., Hancock, G,J., (1988) Plastic Bending Test of Cold-formed

Rectangular Hollow Sections Research report, The University of Sydney,
Sydney, Australia.
Heldt, T.J. and Mahendran, M., 1992, Distortional buckling analysis of hollow
flange beams Research Report, No. 92-8, Physical Infrastructure Centre,
School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia.
HKS, (1998), ABAQUS/Standards User Manual (Version 5.7), Volume 1, 2 and 3,

USA.
HKS, (2002), ABQUS/Standard Users Manual (Version 6.3), Volume1, 2, and 3,

USA.
Jiang, C. and Davies, J.M., (1997), Design of Thin-walled purlins for distortional
buckling, Thin-walled structures, Vol. 29, No. 1-4, pp. 189-202.
Karren, K. W., (1967), Corner properties of cold-formed steel shapes, Journal of

Structural Division ASCE proceedings, Vol. 93, (ST1).
Karren, K. W., and Winter, G., (1967), Effects of cold-forming on light-gauge steel
members, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE proceedings, Vol. 93, (ST1).
Kavanagh, K.T. and Ellifritt, D.S., (1993), Bracing of cold-formed channels not
attached to deck or sheeting, is your building braced?, Structural Stability
Research Council.
Kavanagh, K.T. and Ellifritt, D.S., (1994), Design strength of cold-formed channels
in bending and torsion, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120,
No. 5.
Lau, S.C.W. and Hancock, G.J., (1987), Distortional buckling formulas for channel
columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 5, pp. 1063-1077.
Lau, S.C.W. and Hancock, G.J., (1990), Inelastic buckling of channel columns in
the distortional mode, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 59-84.
Lennon, R., Pedreschi, R. and Sinha, B.P., (1999), Comparative study of some
mechanical connections in cold-formed steel, Journal of Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 109-116.
Macdonald, M., Taylor, G. T. and Rhodes, J., (1997), The effect of cold-forming on
the yield strength of thin gauge steel-hardness test approach, Thin-walled
Structures, Vol. 29, No. 1-4, pp. 243-256.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005a), Lateral Buckling Tests of LiteSteel

Beam Sections, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005b), Finite Element Analysis of LiteSteel

Beam Sections, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005c), Moment capacity and design of

LiteSteel Beam Sections, Research Report, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Mahendran, M. and Avery, P., (1996), Buckling experiments on hollow flange

beams with web stiffeners, Research Report, No. 96-15, Physical
Infrastructure Centre, Queensland University of Technology, School of Civil
Engineering, Brisbane, Australia.
Mahendran, M. and Doan, V., (1999), Lateral distortional buckling tests of hollow
flange beams, Research Monograph, No. 99/3, Physical Infrastructure Centre,
School of Civil Engineering, QUT, Brisbane , Australia.
Maladakis, K., and Ayoub, G., (1994), Investigation of ductility requirements of
high strength steels with perforations, Bachelor of Engineering Honors thesis,
School of civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia.
Oconnor, C., Goldsmith, P.R., and Ryall, T.J., (1965), The reinforcement of steel
beams to improve beam buckling strength, Civil Engineering Transaction,
Institute of Engineers, Australia.
Palmer Tube Mills Pty. Ltd. (Australia), 1990, Hollow flange beam design manual
Palmer Tube Mills Pty. Ltd. (Australia), 1993, Hollow flange beam design manual
Papangelis, J.P., (1987), Flexural-torsional buckling of arches, PhD thesis,

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Papanglis, J.P., (1994), Thin-wall, cross section analyses and finite strip buckling
analyses of thin-wall structures, Users manual, Centre for Advanced
Structural Engineering, University of Sydney.
Pekoz, T., Sarawit, A.T. and Bakker, M.C.M., (2003), The finite element method
for thin-walled members-applications, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 41, No.
2-3, pp. 191-206.
Pi, Y.L. and Trahair, N.S., (1997), Lateral distortional buckling of hollow flange
beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, 1997.
Pi, Y.L. and Trahair, N.S., (1998a), Lateral buckling test on cold-formed channel
beams, Research Report No. R767, Dept. of Civil Eng., university of Sydney,
Australia.
Pi, Y.L. and Trahair, N.S., (1998b), Lateral buckling test on cold-formed Z-beams,
Research Report No. R775, Dept. of Civil Eng., university of Sydney,
Australia.
Put, B.M., Pi, Y.L. and Trahair, N.S., (1999), Lateral Buckling Tests on Cold-
formed Channel Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, no. 5,
pp. 532-539.
Rogers, C.A., and Hancock, G. J., (1996) Ductility of G550 Sheet Steels in Tension-
Elongation Measurements and Perforated Tests, Research report No. R735,
The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rogers, C. A. and Schuster, R. M., (1997), Flange/web distortional buckling of

cold-formed steel sections in bending, Thin-walled Structures, Vol. 27, No. 1,
pp. 13-29.
Salmi, P. and Talja, A., (1992), Bending strength of beams with non-linear
analysis Proc., 12th Int. Spec. Conf. on Cold-formed Steel Struct., pp. 45-63.
Schafer, B. W., Grigoriu, M. and Pekoz, T., (1996), Probabilistic examination of the
ultimate strength of cold-formed steel elements, Proceedings of the thirteenth
International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures, St. Louis,
Missouri, USA.
Schafer, B. W. and Pekoz, T., (1998a), Geometric Imperfections and Residual

Stresses for use in the Analytical Modelling of Cold-formed Steel Members,
Schafer, B. W. and Pekoz, T., (1998b), Computational modelling of cold-formed

steel: characterising geometric imperfection and residual stresses, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 193-210.
Standard Association of Australia, (1968) SAA steel structures code, ASCA1-

1968.
Standard Association of Australia, (1974) SAA cold-formed steel structures code,

AS 1538-1974.
Standards of Australia, (1991) Structural Steel Hollow Sections AS 1163,

Australia.
Standards of Australia, (1991), Methods for Tensile Testing of Metals, AS 1391.
Standards of Australia, (1996) Structural Steel Hot-rolled Plates, Floorplates, and

Slabs AS/NZS 3678, Australia.
Standards of Australia, (1996), Cold-formed steel structures, AS/NZS 4600.
Standards of Australia, (1998) Cold-rolled, Unalloyed, Steel Sheet and Strip

AS/NZS 1595, Australia.
Standards of Australia, (1998), Steel Structures, AS 4100.
Standards of Australia, (1998b), Cold-formed steel structures commentary,

AS/NZS 4600, Supplement 1:1998.
Standards of Australia, (2001), Steel Sheet and Strip-Hot-dip zinc-coated or

aluminium/zinc-coated, AS 1397.
Standards of Australia, (2002) Hot-rolled Steel Flat Products AS/NZS 1594,

Australia.
Standards of Australia, (2005), Draft for Cold-formed steel structures, AS/NZS

4600.
Steel Construction Institute, (1998), Structural steel design, Cambridge, London,

UK.
Teng, J. G., Yao, J. and Zhao, Y., (2003), Distortional buckling of channel beam-
columns, Thin-Wall Structures, (Article in press).
Timoshenko, S.P., (1959), Theory of elastic stability, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.,
New York.
Trahair, N.S., (1969), Elastic stability of continuous beams, Journal of Structural

Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. 6, pp. 1295-1312.
Trahair, N. S. and Bradford, M. A., (1988), The behaviour and design of steel
structures, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Trahair, N. S. (1997), Multiple Design Curves for Beam Lateral Buckling,

Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of
Steel Structures, Nagoya, Japan, pp 33-44.
Troitsky, M. S., (1976) Stiffened plates bending, stability and vibrations, Elsevier,
New York.
Voelkner, W., (2000), Present and future developments of metal forming: selected
examples, Journal of Material Processing Technology, Vol. 106, No. 1-3, pp.
236-242.
Von Karman, T., Sechler, E.E. and Donnell, L.H., (1932), The strength of thin
plates in compression, Transactions, ASME, Vol. 54.
Wilkinson, T. and Hancock, G.J., (1999), Finite element analysis of plastic bending
of cold-formed rectangular hollow section beams, Research Report,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Winter, G., (1946), Crushing strength of thin steel webs, Cornell Bulletin 35, pt. 1.
Winter, G., (1968), Effect of cold-work on cold-formed steel members, Thin-wall

Steel Structures-Their Design and use in Buildings, Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, UK.
Winter, G., (1970), Commentary on the 1968 Edition of the specification for the
design of cold-formed steel structural members, American Iron and Steel
Institute, New York.
Wu, S., Yu, W.W., LaBoube, R.A., (1995) Strength of Flexural Members Using
Structural Grade 80 of A653 and Grade E of A611 Steels, First progress
report, Civil engineering study 95-5, University of Missoui-Rolla, Rolla,
Missouri.
Yates, R. M., (1993), The effect on ductility of perforations in thin high strength
steels Bachelor of Engineering Honors thesis, School of civil and Mining
Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia.
Yu, W. W., (2000) Cold-formed steel design, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, USA.
Yuan, Z., (2004), Advanced analyses of steel frame structures subject to lateral
tortional buckling effects, PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, , Brisbane, Australia.
Zhao, X.L., Hancock, G.J. and Trahair, N.S., (1995) Lateral buckling tests of cold-
formed RHS beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No.
11, pp. 1565-73.
Zhao, W., (2005), Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel hollow flange sections
under axial compression, PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering,
Queensland University of Technology, , Brisbane, Australia.
Appendix 3A: Steel Properties and Chemical Compositions Provided by Steel Supplier (BHPSTEEL)
PRODUCT: ZNCALUME G300 AZ150 SPECIFICATION: AS 1397
CHEMICAL ANALYSS (Basic Oxygen Steelmaking Process)
Dimension Chemical Composition (%)

C P Mn Si S Ni Cr Mo Cu Al Ti Nb
0.55 1200
0.05 0.015 0.21 <0.005 0.017 0.024 0.014 0.002 0.006 0.032 <0.003 0.001
MECHANICAL TESTING
Tensile AS 1391
Thickness Hardness
Yield Strength Tensile Strength Elongation
(mm) HR30T
(MPa) (MPa) L0 (mm) %
0.55 349 408 80 26 56
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges 3A-1

0.80 1200
0.05 0.013 0.20 <0.005 0.010 0.023 0.018 0.002 0.012 0.036 <0.003 0.001
MECHANICAL TESTING
Tensile AS 1391
Thickness Hardness
(mm) HR30T
0.80 351 409 80 29 59

1.20 1200
0.06 0.007 0.22 0.005 0.013 0.025 0.010 0.002 0.006 0.031 <0.003 0.001
MECHANICAL TESTING
Tensile AS 1391
Thickness Hardness
(mm) HR30T
1.20 332 389 80 30 66

0.55 1130
0.06 0.012 0.21 0.005 0.014 0.026 0.011 0.002 0.006 0.038 <0.003 0.001
MECHANICAL TESTING
Tensile AS 1391
Thickness Hardness
(mm) HR30T
0.55 698 698 80 2 80

0.95 1200
0.055 0.012 0.21 0.005 0.014 0.029 0.017 0.002 0.008 0.040 <0.003 0.001
MECHANICAL TESTING
Tensile AS 1391
Thickness Hardness
(mm) HR30T
0.95 643 645 80 10 79
Appendix 3B: Stress versus Strain Graphs from Tensile Tests
0.55 mm G300 steel (Specimen 1)
450
400
350
Stress (MPa) 300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain
450
400
350
300
Stress (MPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain
450
400
350
300
Stress (MPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% Strain
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges 3B-1
450
400
350
300
Stress (MPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
% Strain

400
350
300
250
Stress (MPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain
400
350
300
250
Stress (MPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain
400
350
300
250
Stress (MPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% Strain
400
350
300
250
Stress (MPa)
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strain

700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% Strain
700
600
Stress (MPa) 500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4
% Strain

800
700
600
Stress (MPa)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% Strain
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
% Strain
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
% Strain

700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
% Strain

700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
% Strain
700
600
Stress (MPa) 500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
% Strain
APPENDIX 3C: Calculation of Section Properties and Section Moment
Capacities Based on the Current Design Rules
I. AS 4100 Design Method
Section moment capacity Ms is defined in AS 4100 (SA, 1998) as:
Ms = Ze fy (3C-1)
where Ze is the effective section modulus and fy is the yield stress.
Unlike hot-rolled steel sections, cold-formed steel sections such as RHFB may
include many slender elements. Therefore, the effective section modulus (Ze) defined
in AS 4100 (1998) for slender sections is not quiet suitable. Following procedure was
therefore used to calculate the effective section modulus (Ze) for RHFB sections.
Calculation of effective section modulus Ze based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)

1
3 5 3
2 2
4 4
13
11 11
9 9
10 10
12
8
Figure 3C-1: Element Definition
Elements of a typical RHFB section were defined as shown in Figure 3C-1.
For example 1, consider RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s section:
Centreline dimensions, yield stress and steel thicknesses of the above cross-section
are:
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges 3C-1
Element No. 1,8 2,9 3,10 4,6,11,13 5,12 7
Dimensions (mm) 52.7 25.2 30.4 13.8 10.0 118.5
Note: element 7 dimension is the clear distance, allowing for elements 4 and 11.
fy = 320 MPa, flange thickness tf = 1.192 mm, and web thickness tw = 1.192 mm
Effective widths of the elements were determined as follows.
b fy
e = (3C-2)
t 250
For example 1, consider element 1;
52.7 320
e = =50
1.192 250
ey 40
be = b= 53.5 = 42.2 mm
e 50
Similarly, the effective widths of other elements were calculated and tabulated in
Table 3C-1. In these calculations the use of ey for both longitudinal edges supported
element case might have caused some inaccuracies for elements 2 and 7 as those
elements are only intermittently screw-fastened. This could have led to a slight
overestimation of Ms.
Table 3C-1: Element slenderness and effective width

Element e ey be
1 50 40 42.2
2 24 40 25.2
3 29 40 to 115 30.4
4 13 22 13.8
5 9 22 10.0
6 13 - 13.8
7 112 115 118.5
All other elements are in tension and hence they are not subjected to local buckling.
Calculation of centroid distance, y from top fibre of compression flange
y = [225.21.19230.4 + 230.41.19215.2 + 213.81.192(30.4+6.9) + 101.192
(30.4-5) + 13.81.192(30.4+6.9) + 118.51.192(30.4+13.8+59.25) +52.71.192
(230.4+213.8+118.5) + 225.21.192(30.4+13.8+118.5+13.8) + 230.41.192
(30.4.+213.8+118.5+15.2) + 213.81.192(30.4+13.8+118.5+6.9) + 101.192
(30.4213.8+118.5+5) + 13.81.192(30.4+13.8+118.5+6.9)]/643 (A=643 mm2)
y =105.2 mm
Calculation of second moment of area, Ix based on the effective section
Ix = 1/1242.21.1923 + 42.21.1921052 + 21/1225.21.1923 + 225.21.192(105-

30.4)2 + 21/121.19230.43 + 230.41.192(105-15.2)2 + 21/121.19213.83 +
21.19213.8(105-30.4-6.9)2 + 1/121.192103 + 1.19210(105-30.4+5)2 + 1/12
1.19213.83 + 1.192 13.8(105-30.4-7.2)2 + 1/121.19259.253 + 1.19259.25
(105-30.4-13.8-59.25)2 + 1/121.19259.253 + 1.19259.25(101-30.4-13.8-59.25)2
1/1252.71.1923 + 52.71.1921012 + 21/1225.21.1923 + 225.21.192
(101-30.4)2 + 21/121.19230.43 + 21.19230.4(101-15.2)2 + 21/121.192
13.83 + 2 1.19213.8(101-30.4-6.9)2 + 1/121.192103 +1.19210(101-30.4+5)2
+ 1/121.19213.83 + 1.19213.8(101-30.4-6.9)2
= 3819894 mm4
Ze = 3731647/105 = 3.54104 mm3
Ms = Zefy = 3.54104 320 = 11.32 kNm
For example 2, consider RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s section:
Centreline dimensions, yield stress and steel thicknesses of the above cross-section
are:
Element No. 1,8 2,9 3,10 4,6,11,13 5,12 7
Dimensions (mm) 52.5 25.1 30.2 14.2 10.0 118.5
Effective widths of the elements were determined as follows.
b fy
e = (3C-2)
t 250
consider element 1;
52.5 650
e = =113
0.748 250
ey 40
be = b= 52.5 = 19 mm
e 113
Calculation procedures for other elements are similar to element 1. Centroid distance
(y) and effective section modulus (Ze) were calculated as for example 1. The
calculated values are;
y = 94.6 mm , Ix = 1879705 mm4 , Ze = 1879705/94.6 = 1.99104 mm3
Ms = Zefy = 1.99104 650 = 12.94 kNm
II. AS/NZS 4600 Design Method
1
320
3
tf 5 3
257
2 2
226
4 4 183
6
7c
tw
7t
13
11 11
9 9
10 10
12
8
Figure 3C-2: Element Definition and Stress Distribution
Centreline dimensions of RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s beam section
Element No. 1,8 2,9 3,10 4,6,11,13 5,12 7
Dimensions (mm) 52.7 25.2 30.4 13.8 10.0 118.5
First yield moment, My
M y = Z f fy (3C-3)
Distance to neutral axis in the full section = 206.9/2 = 103.5 mm
Element Ixi (mm4)

1
1 52 . 7 1 . 192 3
+ 52 . 7 1 . 192 103 . 5 2 672284
12
1
2 2 [ 25 .2 1 .192 3 + 25 .2 1 .192 73 .1 2 ] 320061
12
1
3 2 [ 1 .192 30 .4 3 + 30 .4 1 .192 (103 .5 15 .2 ) 2 ] 570122
12
1
4 2 [ 1 .192 13 .8 3 + 13 .8 1 .192 (103 .5 37 .3) 2 ] 144494
12
1
5 1 .192 10 3 + 10 1 .192 (103 .5 30 .4 + 5 ) 2 72713
12
1
6 1 .192 13 .8 3 + 13 .8 1 .192 (103 .5 37 .3) 2 72241
12
1
7c 1 . 192 59 . 3 3 + 59 . 3 1 . 192 (103 . 5 44 . 2 29 . 7 ) 2 82563
12
Ixi 1934477
I fx = 2 I fxi =2 1934477 = 3868954
3868954
Zf = = 3.74 10 4 mm 3
103.5
My = Zf fy = 3.74 104 320 = 11.97 kNm
Section Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996)
M s = Ze f y (3C-3)
where Ze is the effective section modulus and fy is the yield stress.
Calculation of effective section modulus Ze based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996),

Effective widths of elements be; be = b (3C-4)
0.22
1
= (3C-5)

1.052 b f*
and = (3C-6)
k t E
*
where f is the measured and modified yield stress at extreme compression fibbers
for G300 and G550 steels, respectively (see Section 3.3.5.4). Assume web is fully
effective.
Element 1
1.052 b f* 1.052 52.7 320

= == = 0.93
k t E 4 1.192 201000
k=4 for stiffened uniform compression element
> 0.673 be = b
0.22 0.22
1 1
= = 0.93 =0.82
0.93
be = 0.82 52.7 = 43.3 mm
Element 2
1.052 25.2 226

= = 0.38 < 0.673
4 1.192 201000
be = b = 25.2 mm
Element 3
*
f2 226
= *
= = 0.70
f1 320
k = 4 + 2(1 ) 3 + 2(1 ) = 4 + 2(1-0.7)3 + 2(1-0.7) = 4.65
1.052 30.4 320

= = 0.50 < 0.673
4.65 1.192 201000
be = b = 30.4 mm
b 30.4
be1 = e = =13.2 mm
3 3 0.7
> -0.236 be 2 = be be1 = 17.2 mm, be1 + be2 = 30.4 mm
Element 4
*
f2 183
= *
= = 0.81
f1 226
k = 0.43 unstiffened element in bending
1.052 13.8 226

= = 0.64 < 0.673
0.43 1.192 201000
be = b = 13.8 mm
be 13.8
be1 = = = 6.3 mm
3 3 0.81
> -0.236 be 2 = be be1 = 7.5 mm
be1 + be2 = 13.8 mm
Element 5
*
f2 226
= *
= = 0.88
f1 257
1.052 10 257
= = 0.48 < 0.673
0.43 1.192 201000
be = b = 10 mm
b 10
be1 = e = = 4.7 mm
3 3 0.88
> -0.236 be 2 = be be1 = 5.3 mm
be1 + be2 = 10 mm
Element 6: Element 6 is fully effective
Check web Element 7
*
f2 183
= *
= = -1
f1 183
k = 4 + 2(1 ) 3 + 2(1 ) = 4 + 2(1+1)3 + 2(1+1) = 24
1.052 118.5 183
= = 0.64 < 0.673
24 1.192 201000
be = b = 118.5 mm
be 118.5
be1 = = = 29.6 mm
3 3 +1
be
< -0.236 be 2 = = 59.3 mm
2
be1 + be2 = 88.9 mm > b/2 be = 59.3 mm
Therefore web is fully effective. No iteration required.
In the above calculations, k values of stiffened elements were used for 2 and 7, which
were only intermittently screw-fastened and hence could have caused some
inaccuracies, ie. overestimated Ms slightly.
Element 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
All are in tension and therefore fully effective
Distance to the neutral axis in effective section
Distance to
Effective Thickness Effective area
Element centroid fro AiYi (mm3)
width be (mm) (mm) Ai (mm2)
top Yi (mm)
1 43.3 1.192 51.6 0 0
2 25.2 1.192 60.0 30.4 1823
3 30.4 1.192 72.5 15.2 1115
4 13.8 1.192 32.9 37.3 1102
5 10.0 1.192 11.9 25.4 303
6 13.8 1.192 16.4 37.3 614
7c 59.3 1.192 70.6 73.8 5214
7t 59.3 1.192 70.6 133.1 9399
8 52.7 1.192 62.8 206.9 12997
9 25.2 1.192 60.0 176.5 10586
10 30.4 1.192 72.5 191.7 13893
11 13.8 1.192 32.9 169.6 5580
12 10.0 1.192 11.9 181.5 2163
13 13.8 1.192 16.4 169.6 2790
643 67690
Distance to neutral axis from top fibre 67690/643 = 105.2mm
Distance to neutral axis from bottom fibre 206.9 105.2 = 101.7 mm
Second moment of area Ix for effective section
Element Ixi (mm4)

1
1 43 . 2 1 . 192 3 + 43 . 2 1 . 192 105 . 2 2 572111
12
1
2 2 [ 25 .2 1 .192 3 + 25 .2 1 .192 74 .8 2 ] 335998
12
1
3 2 [ 1 .192 30 .4 3 + 30 .4 1 .192 (105 .2 15 .2 ) 2 ] 593338
12
1
4 2 [ 1 .192 13 .8 3 + 13 .8 1 .192 (105 .2 37 .3) 2 ] 152420
12
1
5 1 .192 10 3 + 10 1 .192 (105 .2 30 .4 + 5 ) 2 76095
12
1
6 1 .192 13 .8 3 + 13 .8 1 .192 (105 .2 37 .3) 2 76204
12
1
7c 1 . 192 59 . 3 3 + 59 . 3 1 . 192 (105 .2 44 . 2 29 . 7 ) 2 90309
12
1
7t 1 . 192 59 . 3 3 + 59 . 3 1 . 192 (101 . 7 44 . 2 29 . 7 ) 2 75273
12
1
8 52 .7 1 .192 3 + 52 .7 1 .192 101 .7 2 649136
12
1
9 2 [ 25 .2 1 .192 3 + 25 .2 1 .192 (101 .7 30 .4 ) 2 ] 304511
12
1
10 2 [ 1 .192 30 .4 3 + 30 .4 1 .192 (101 .7 15 .2 ) 2 ] 547374
12
1
11 2 [ 1 .192 13 .8 3 + 13 .8 1 .192 (101 .7 37 .3) 2 ] 136780
12
1
12 1 .192 10 3 + 10 1 .192 (101 .7 30 .4 + 5 ) 2 69409
12
1
13 1 .192 13 .8 3 + 13 .8 1 .192 (101 .7 37 .3) 2 68384
12
4
Ix 3747340 mm
3747340
Z ex = = 3.56 104 mm3
105.2
Ms = Ze fy = 3.56 104 320 = 11.39 kNm
For example 2,
1
495
3
tf 5 3
398
2 2
351
4 4 283
6
7c
tw
7t
13
11 11
9 9
10 10
12
8
Figure 3C-3: Element Definition and Stress Distribution
Full section modulus Zf was calculated similar to example 1,
fy = 495 MPa (lesser of 0.9fy = 585 MPa or 495 MPa)
Distance to neutral axis in the full section = 207.1/2 = 103.6 mm
Ixf = 2454490 mm4
Zf = 2454490/103.6 =23692 mm3
My = Zf fy = 2.37 104 495 = 11.73 kNm
Effective section modulus Ze assuming web is fully effective.
Effective widths of all the elements were calculated as for example 1.
Check web: Element 7
*
f2 283
= *
= = -1
f1 283
k = 4 + 2(1 ) 3 + 2(1 ) = 4 + 2(1+1)3 + 2(1+1) = 24
1.052 118.3 283
= = 0.68 > 0.673
24 0.748 224000
be = b = 0.68 118.3 = 80.4 mm
be 80.4
be1 = = = 20.1 mm
3 3 + 1
b
< -0.236 be 2 = e = 40.2 mm
2
be1 + be2 = 60.3 mm > b/2 be = 59.3 mm
Therefore web is fully effective. No iteration required.
Calculation of centroid distance and effective section modulus is similar to example

1. The corresponding values are;
The distance to the neutral axis from top fibres, ycg = 104.2 mm
Second moment of area, Ix = 1615112 mm4
1615112
Z ex = = 1.55 104 mm3
104.2
Ms = Ze fy = 1.55 104 495 = 7.68 kNm
Appendix 3D: Moment versus Deflection and Strain Graphs
Moment versus Deflection Graphs
1 - RHFB-120tf-0550tw-100hw-G300-50s
7
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-G300-100s
6
5
Moment (kNm)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
3 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s
8
7
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Beams with Rectangular Hollow Flanges 3D-1
4 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-100s
8
Moment (kNm) 6
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
5 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
6 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-100s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
7 - RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
8
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
8 - RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-100s
10
8
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
9 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
9
7
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
10 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-100s
9
Moment (kNm) 7
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
11 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-50s
7
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
12 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-100s
7
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
13 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s
10
Moment (kNm)
7
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
14 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s
9
7
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
15 - RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s
18
16
14
Moment (kNm)
12
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
16 - RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-100s
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
17 - RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
18 - RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-100s
10
8
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
19 - RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
20- RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
21- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s
7
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
22- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-100s
6
Moment (kNm)
4
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Moment versus Strain Graphs
1 - RHFB-120tf-0550tw-100hw-G300-50s
7
6
Moment (kNm)
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
2 - RHFB-120tf-0550tw-100hw-G300-100s
6
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
3 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-50s
8
Moment (kNm)
5
0
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
4 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-G300-100s
8
6
Moment (kNm)
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
5 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-50s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
6 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-100s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
7 - RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-50s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
8 - RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-G300-100s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
9 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-50s
9
8
7
Moment (kNm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
10 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-G300-100s
9
8
7
Moment (kNm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
11 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-50s
7
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
12 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-G550-100s
7
5
Moment (kNm)
4
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
13 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s
10
9
8
Moment (kNm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
14 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s
9
8
7
Moment (kNm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
15 - RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-50s
18
16
14
Moment (kNm)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
16 - RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-G500-100s
16
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
17 - RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-50s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
18 - RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-G550-100s
10
9
8
Moment (kNm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
19 - RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-50s
14
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
20 - RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-G550-100s
12
10
Moment (kNm)
0
-4500 -3500 -2500 -1500 -500 500 1500 2500 3500
21- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-50s
7
Moment (kNm)
4
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
22- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-G550-100s
6
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
APPENDIX 4A: Calculation of Member Moment Capacities Based on
the Current Design Rules
In the calculations here, it is assumed that the hollow flange and web element are
continuously connected, ignoring the effect of intermittent screw fastening.
I. AS 4100 Design Method
Member moment capacity (Mb) is calculated from Equation 4A-1.
Mb = m s M s (4A-1)
where m = 1 (standardised for uniform moment distribution), s and Ms were calculated

according to AS 4100 design provisions.
2
Ms Ms
s = 0.6 +3 (4A-2)
Mo Mo
Ms = Ze fy (4A-3)
Calculation procedures of effective section modulus (Ze) using AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
design rules are explained in Appendix 3C. The calculated effective section modulus
(Ze) for the section RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3m-G300-50s is 3.67104 mm3.
Ms = Zefy = 3.67104 320 Nmm = 11.74 kNm
2 EI y 2 EI w
Mo = 2
GJ + 2
(4A-4)
le le
where
E =201 GPa (Measured)
Iy = 1.24105 mm4 (From Thin-wall program using measured dimensions)
J = 1 105 mm3 (From Thin-wall program using measured dimensions)
Iw = 9.52108 mm4 (From Thin-wall program using measured dimensions)
le = 3000 mm
G = 80 GPa
Mo =15 kNm
s = 0.67 (From Equation 4A-2)
Mb = m s Ms = 10.6711.74 = 7.87 kNm
II. AS/NZS 4600 Design Method
According to AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) specifications, member moment capacity of

cold-formed steel beams, subjected to lateral distortional buckling, is calculated using;
Mc
M b = Zc (4A-5)
Zf
when distortional buckling involves transverse bending of a vertical web with lateral
displacement of the compression flange
d 2
d < 1.414: M c = 1 My (4A-6)
4
1
d 1.414: M c = My (4A-7)
d 2
where
My
d= (4A-8)
M od
M od = Z f f od (4A-9)
Zf Excel program, same calculation procedure as in Appendix 3C with new beam

dimensions corresponding to this beam
Zf = 3.77 104 mm3
fod = 240 MPa (Elastic buckling analyses using Thin-wall)
Mod = 3.77 104 240 = 9.05 kNm (From Equation 4A-9)
My = Zf fy = 3.77 104 320 = 12.06 kNm
My
d = =1.15 < 1.414
M od
d 2
Mc = 1 M y = 8.04 kNm
4
M c 8.04 10 6
fc = = = 213 MPa
Zf 3.77 10 4
Zc Excel program, same procedures as in Appendix 3C to determine Ze, but fy was

replaced with fc = 213 MPa
Zc = 3.70 104 mm3
Mc
M b = Zc = 7.88 kNm
Zf
III. Pi and Trahairs (1997) Design Method
M bd = m s M s (4A-10)
m =1 (for uniform moment distribution)
2
Ms Ms
sd = 0.6 + 2.8 (4A-11)
M od M od
M s = Z e f y =3.67 104 320 = 11.74 kNm
2 EI y 2 EI w
M od = 2
GJ e + 2
= fod Zf fod from Thin-wall program
le le
fod = 240 MPa (Elastic buckling analyses, Thin-wall)
Zf = 3.77 104 mm3
Mod = 9.05 kNm
sd = 0.49
Mbd = 1 0.49 11.74 = 5.8 kNm (From Equation 4A-10)
IV. Avery et al.s (2000) Design Method
ab
Mb = b + Ms (4A-12)
1 + c d
2n
Coefficients a, b, c and n are suggested by Avery et al. (2000) as follows
a = 1.0, b = 0, c = 0.424 and n = 1.196
1
Mb = Ms
1 + 0.424 d
2.392
Ms
d = Ms = 11.74 kNm and Mod = 9.05 kNm
M od
d = 1.14
Mb = 0.63 11.74 = 7.44 kNm (From Equation 4A-12)
V. Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) Design Method
Mc
M b = Zc (4A-13)
Zf
d 0.59 Mc = M y
0.59
0.59 < d 1.7 Mc = M y (4A-14)
d
1
d 1.7 Mc = M y
d 2
My
d = = 1.15 (see AS/NZS 4600 design method)
M od
0.59
0.59 < d < 1.7 Mc = M y = 6.17 kNm (From Equation 4A-14)
d
Mc
fc = = 164 MPa Zc = Zf = 3.77 104 mm3 (from Excel program)
Zf
Mc
M b = Zc = 6.17 kNm (From Equation 4A-13)
Zf
Appendix 4B: Moment versus Deflection and Strain Graphs from
Lateral Buckling Tests
Moment versus Deflection Graphs
1 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7.5
6.0
Moment (kNm)
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
2 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
4.0
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15
4.0
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Horizontal Deflection
(mm)
3 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
3 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Horizontal Deflection(mm)
4 - RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
(mm)
5 - RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25
6 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-3L-G300-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
6 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-3L-G300-50s
Moment (kNm) 4
0
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25
7 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G300-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(mm)
8 - RHFB-055tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9- RHFB-120tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25
9- RHFB-120tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s
6
Moment (kNm)
5
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
10- RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
(mm)
11- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
12- RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
12- RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Horizontal
(mm)
13- RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
4.5
4.0
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4.5
4.0
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Horizontal
VerticalDeflection
Deflection(mm)
(mm)
14- RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
(mm)
15- RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
15- RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s
Moment (kNm) 4
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
16- RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G500-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Horizontal
Deflection (mm)
17- RHFB-055tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Horizontal
Vertical Deflection
Deflection (mm) (mm)
18- RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
18- RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
Moment (kNm) 5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(mm)
19- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
(mm)
20- RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
21- RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
21- RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
22- RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
23- RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
24- RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
24- RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
25- RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
26- RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
6
Moment (kNm)
0
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
27- RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
27- RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
28- RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
29- RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
6
Moment (kNm)
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
30- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
30- RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Moment versus Strain Graphs
1 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
-1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500
2 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
4.0
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-750 -450 -150 150 450 750
3 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
3.5
3.0
Moment (kNm)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
4 - RHFB-080tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
5 - RHFB-190tf-190tw-150hw-3L-G300-50s
14
12
Moment (kNm)
10
0
-1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
6 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-100hw-3L-G300-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
7 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G300-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
8 - RHFB-055tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-2000 -1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
9 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-100hw-2L-G300-50s
6
Moment (kNm)
0
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
10 - RHFB-055tf-095tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
11 - RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm) 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
12 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
3.5
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
13 - RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-50s
4.5
4.0
3.5
Moment (kNm)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
14 - RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
15 - RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
16 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G500-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
-1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
17 - RHFB-055tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
3.5
3.0
2.5
Moment (kNm)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
18 - RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
19 - RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
-1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
20 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-2L-G550-50s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
-1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
21 - RHFB-080tf-080tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
22 - RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250
23 - RHFB-120tf-055tw-150hw-3L-G300-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
24 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
25 - RHFB-075tf-075tw-100hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
26 - RHFB-115tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s
5
Moment (kNm)
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
27 - RHFB-075tf-115tw-150hw-3L-G550-100s
3
Moment (kNm)
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
28 - RHFB-115tf-075tw-150hw-3L-G500-100s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
29 - RHFB-095tf-095tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s
Moment (kNm) 5
0
-1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
30 - RHFB-095tf-055tw-150hw-2L-G550-100s
4
Moment (kNm)
0
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
APPENDIX 5A: ABAQUS Subroutine Used to Include Residual
Stresses in RHFBs
SUBROUTINE SIGINI(SIGMA,COORDS,NTENS,NCRDS,NOEL,NPT,LAYER,KSPT)
C
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
C
REAL X,Y,Z,nipt,ipt,sigmaout,Fy
DIMENSION SIGMA(NTENS), COORDS(NCRDS)
C
X=COORDS(1)
Y=COORDS(2)
Z=COORDS(3)
SIGMA(2)=0.
SIGMA(3)=0.
nipt=5.
Fy=800.
C
IF(KSPT.EQ.1.) THEN
ipt=1.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.2.) THEN
ipt=2.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.3.) THEN
ipt=3.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.4.) THEN
ipt=4.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.5.) THEN
ipt=5.
ENDIF
C
C RESIDUAL STRESS
IF((NOEL.LE.200.).AND.(NOEL.GE.1.)) THEN
sigmaout=0.17*Fy
ELSEIF((NOEL.LE.1200.).AND.(NOEL.GE.601.))THEN
sigmaout=0.17*Fy
ELSEIF((NOEL.LE.600.).AND.(NOEL.GE.201.))THEN
sigmaout=0.08*Fy
C
C ENDIF
C
C ALONG THE THICKNESS VARIATION
IF(sigmaout.NE.0.) THEN
SIGMA(1)=sigmaout*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
ELSE
SIGMA(1)=0.
ENDIF
C
RETURN
END
Note: Same residual stress model was used in all the analyses with the change of
element numbers
APPENDIX 6A: Calculation of Member Moment Capacities Based
on New Design Formula
As defined in the new design formula, member moment capacity of cold-formed

steel beams, subjected to lateral distortional buckling, is calculated using;
Mc
M b = Zc (6A-1)
Zf
when distortional buckling involves transverse bending of a vertical web with lateral
displacement of the compression flange
d 0.65: Mc = M y
1 + 5 d
0.65 d 1.80: Mc = My (6A-2)
10 d
2
1
d 1.80: Mc = My
d 2
where
My
d= (6A-3)
M od
M od = Z f f od (6A-4)
Zf Excel program, same calculation procedure as in Appendix 3C with new beam

dimensions corresponding to ideal RHFB-120tf-120tw-150hw-G300-3L-50s
Zf = 3.59 104 mm3
fod = 214 MPa (Elastic buckling analyses using Thin-wall)
Mod = 3.59 104 214 = 7.7 kNm (From equation 6A-4)
My = Zf fy = 3.59 104 300 = 10.77 kNm
My
d = =1.18 < 1.80
M od
1 + 5 d
Mc = M y = 5.33 kNm
10 d
2
M c 5.33 10 6
fc = = = 148 MPa
Zf 3.59 10 4
Zc Excel program, same procedures as in Appendix 3C to determine Ze, but fy was

replaced with fc = 148 MPa
Zc = 3.59 104 mm3
Mc
M b = Zc =5.33 kNm
Zf

Flexural Behaviour and Design of Coldformed Steel Beams With Rectangular Hollow Flanges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexural Behaviour and Design of Coldformed Steel Beams With Rectangular Hollow Flanges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexural Behaviour and Design of Cold-

formed Steel Beams with Rectangular

School of Urban Development

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

I wish to convey my appreciation and wholehearted sense of gratitude to my principal

I gratefully acknowledge the provision of study leave by University of Ruhuna in Sri

The second phase of this research involved a methodical and comprehensive

1. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Section Moment Capacities of

2. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Experimental Investigation of

3. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Finite Element Modeling of

4. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Development of Design Models

5. Wanniarachchi, KS. and Mahendran, M. (2005) Lateral Distortional Buckling

Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Thin-Walled Structures, Structural

, Detailed FEA to Review the Current Design Rules ,

' 3 7 - !/+ , 6 * ! ' &

' < 7 ; ! ! ) !* !) ' %

AISI = American Iron and Steel Institute

1.2 Conventional Cold-formed Steel Section Types

1.3 Development of Hollow Flange Beams (HFB)

Figure 1.2 Closed-cell Section Types Investigated by OConnor et al. (1965)

(a) Isometric view (b) Sectional view

Figure1.3 Geometric Shape and Sectional Parameters of HFB (From Dempsey,

Consequently, Zhao and Mahendran (2001) at Queensland University of Technology

(a) Sectional view (b) Isometric view

Figure 1.4: Geometry of a Typical RHFB

1.4 Research Needs of RHFBs

The proposed RHFB in this study considered existing shortcomings in the

1. Is it feasible to produce the innovative RHFB sections shown in Figure 1.4,

1.5.1 Overall Objective

To investigate the fundamental buckling and ultimate strength behaviour of a group

1.5.2 Specific Objectives

1. Investigation of flexural behaviour and ultimate section moment capacities of

2. Investigation of flexural behaviour and ultimate member moment capacities

3. Development of accurate finite element models for the innovative RHFBs

1.6 Research Methodology

Following the laboratory experiments, analytical investigations on RHFBs were

1.7 Thesis Layout

The detailed investigations of flexural behaviour of innovative RHFBs using an

Chapter 2: A summary of current literature relating to various aspects of cold-

Chapter 4: This chapter presents the details of laboratory experiments of lateral

Chapter 7: In this chapter, a summary of the most significant findings of this

Due to increasing interest among researchers, a large number of publications dealing

2.2 Special Characteristics and Design Considerations of Cold-

2.2.1 Methods of Forming

2.2.1.1 Cold Roll-forming

Figure 2.1: Cold Roll-Forming Processes

2.2.1.2 Press Braking

2.2.2 Common Section Profiles and Their Applications

such as I, L, C and Z, which are commonly used in engineering practices of cold-

Figure 2.3: Various Shapes of Cold-formed Steel Sections (Yu, 2000)

When steel shapes are cold-formed by either press-braking or cold-rolled-forming,

Figure 2.4: Effect of Cold-work on Mechanical Properties in a Channel Section

In Australia, a significant revision of the 1974 edition of AS1538 was produced

2.2.5.1 Local Buckling and Post Buckling Strength

(a) Box Girder (b) Plate Girder

Figure 2.6: Local Buckling of Compression Flanges (SCI, 1998)

Many of the steel shapes produced by cold-forming are monosymmetric open

Figure 2.7: Torsional Deformations in Eccentrically Loaded Channel Beam

2.2.5.3 Distortional Buckling

Thin-walled flexural or compression members composed of high-strength steel

(a) Distortional Buckling (b) Lateral Distortional Buckling

Figure 2.8: Buckling of a Channel Section and a Hollow Flange

2.2.5.4 Connection Types

(a) Clinching (b) Screw Fastener (c) Bolt Fastener