Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel beams subject to lateraltorsional

buckling at elevated temperatures
Nirosha Dolamune Kankanamge, Mahen Mahendran n
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Cold-formed steel beams are increasingly used as oor joists and bearers in buildings and often their
Received 19 January 2012 behaviour and moment capacities are inuenced by lateraltorsional buckling. With increasing usage of
Received in revised form cold-formed steel beams their re safety design has become an important issue. Fire design rules are
15 May 2012
commonly based on past research on hot-rolled steel beams. Hence a detailed parametric study was
Accepted 21 May 2012
Available online 3 August 2012
undertaken using validated nite element models to investigate the lateraltorsional buckling
behaviour of simply supported cold-formed steel lipped channel beams subjected to uniform bending
Keywords: at uniform elevated temperatures. The moment capacity results were compared with the predictions
Cold-formed steel structures from the available ambient temperature and re design rules and suitable recommendations were
Lipped channel beams
made. European re design rules were found to be over-conservative while the ambient temperature
Lateraltorsional buckling
design rules could not be used based on single buckling curve. Hence a new design method was
Finite element analyses
Fire design rules proposed that includes the important non-linear stressstrain characteristics observed for cold-formed
Elevated temperatures steels at elevated temperatures. Comparison with numerical moment capacities demonstrated the
accuracy of the new design method. This paper presents the details of the parametric study,
comparisons with current design rules and the new design rules proposed in this research for
lateraltorsional buckling of cold-formed steel lipped channel beams at elevated temperatures.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The use of cold-formed steel sections as structural members in
buildings has increased in recent times. Providing re safety for
such buildings is a vital part that should commence at the design
phase. However, there are inadequate re design guidelines for
cold-formed steel members. Therefore, there is an urgent need to
investigate the behaviour of cold-formed steel exural members
under re conditions. Lateraltorsional buckling behaviour of
cold-formed steel beams is complicated at elevated temperatures,
and a good understanding and knowledge of this topic is vital.
Although considerable research has been conducted on the
lateraltorsional buckling behaviour of hot-rolled steel members
[110] and stainless steel beams [11] at elevated temperatures,
limited research has been reported on such behaviour of cold-
formed steel beams at elevated temperatures. Hence this research
is focused on the lateraltorsional buckling behaviour of cold-
formed steel beams under simulated re conditions.
In this research, the section and member moment capacities of
cold-formed steel lipped channel beams at uniform elevated
temperatures were investigated using an extensive parametric
study based on nite element analyses. Details of the study on the
section moment capacities at elevated temperatures are reported
in [12] and the results were used in this paper in developing
suitable design rules for the member capacities of cold-formed
steel beams. The applicability of relevant design rules given in
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [13] and the new design rules developed by
Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran [14] based on AS/NZS
4600 [15] for ambient temperature design was investigated for
re situations with appropriately reduced mechanical properties
based on the parametric study results for lateraltorsional buck-
ling. The accuracy of the re design method in Eurocode 3 Part 1.2
[16] and the proposed method of Dharma and Tan [10] for hot-
rolled steel beams was also investigated.
This paper presents the details of this research into the lateral
torsional buckling behaviour and strength of cold-formed steel
lipped channel beams at uniform elevated temperatures, its results
and comparisons with available ambient temperature and re
design rules, and the new design rules developed in this research.
2. Details of nite element models used in the parametric
study

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 61 7 38642543; fax: 61 7 3138 1170. A simply supported cold-formed steel Lipped channel beam
E-mail address: m.mahendran@qut.edu.au (M. Mahendran). (LCB) under a uniform bending moment was used in the parametric

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2012.05.009
214 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

study to investigate its lateraltorsional buckling behaviour and temperatures and therefore a negative geometric imperfection of
member capacities at ambient and elevated temperatures. A short L/1000 was used.
beam model with four-point loading was also used to investigate Flexural type residual stresses present in cold-formed steel
the section moment capacity of LCBs at elevated temperatures and beams were also included in the non-linear analysis although
its details and results are presented in [12]. Due to the presence of they rapidly decrease with increasing temperatures. They were
symmetric conditions in loading, support and geometry of the calculated using an equation developed by Lee et al. [22] and the
beams, only half the span was modelled. Four noded S4R5 shell ambient temperature exural residual stresses. The ambient
elements of 5 mm  10 mm were used in the models. A series of temperature exural residual stresses were assumed to be equal
tensile and compressive forces was applied to the nodes at one end to 0.17fy along the anges and webs and 0.08fy along the lips,
creating a triangular distribution of forces across the section and based on [23] and [24]. They were assumed to vary linearly across
thus a uniform bending moment along the span (Fig. 1). The beam the thickness with compression on the inside surface and tension
was modelled with idealised simply supported boundary conditions on the outside surface of the section.
at the support, which allows major and minor axis rotations and The nite element models were rst created by using MD/
warping displacement while preventing in-plane and out-of-plane PATRAN pre-processing facilities and the analyses were then
translations and twisting. It was achieved by providing 126 undertaken by using ABAQUS. The results were viewed by using
boundary condition to all the nodes at the support (Fig. 1). The MD/PATRAN post-processing facilities. The developed nite ele-
symmetric plane was simulated by applying boundary condition ment models were validated using available numerical and
345 to all the nodes at the other end of the model. experimental results as reported in [12].
The yield strength and elastic modulus of steel decrease with Nine LCB cross-sections made of 1.5 mm and 1.9 mm thick
increasing temperatures, and therefore appropriately reduced G450 steels and 1.55 and 1.95 mm thick G250 steels were
mechanical properties at elevated temperatures were used for selected in the parametric study at seven temperatures ranging
the chosen steel grades (G250 and G450) and thicknesses. from 20 to 700 1C. This selection was made so that their plate
The reduced yield strength and elastic modulus at elevated elements are compact at all the elevated temperatures based on
temperatures were obtained by using the reduction factor AS/NZS 4600 [15] calculations using the mechanical properties at
equations developed by Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran corresponding temperatures. Table 2 shows the selected LCB
[17], and the measured ambient temperature mechanical prop-
erties from tensile coupon tests. Table 1 presents the calculated
values of yield strength and elastic modulus at elevated tem-
Table 1
peratures. The stressstrain graphs were based on the model Ambient and elevated temperature mechanical properties.
proposed by Ranawaka and Mahendran [18] with the recom-
mendations made by Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran Temp. (1C) G250 G450
[17]. The strain hardening material model was used for steels
G250 1.55 G250 1.95 G450 1.50 G450 1.90
with gradual yielding type stressstrain curve except for G250
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
steels at 200 1C, which have a stressstrain curve with a well
dened yield point. In the latter case, an elastic-perfect plastic fy E fy E fy E fy E
material model was used.
20 294.0 204.0 271.0 188.0 537.0 207.0 515.0 206.0
The initial geometric imperfections and residual stresses were
100 282.2 190.4 260.2 175.4 536.7 193.2 514.8 192.2
included in the non-linear analyses. The corresponding lateral 200 267.5 173.3 246.6 159.7 531.8 175.9 510.0 175.0
torsional buckling mode obtained from the elastic buckling 300 193.3 145.9 178.2 134.4 510.2 148.0 489.3 147.3
analyses (Fig. 2(a)) was used to input the initial geometric 400 140.4 118.3 129.4 109.1 372.7 120.0 357.5 119.5
imperfection in the non-linear analysis. Beams with a negative 500 99.2 90.8 91.4 83.7 209.8 92.1 201.2 91.7
600 65.3 63.3 60.2 58.3 59.1 64.2 56.7 63.9
overall geometric imperfection as shown in Fig. 2(b) yield lower 700 36.6 35.7 33.7 32.9 37.6 36.2 36.1 36.1
moment capacities compared to positive imperfections at ambi-
ent temperature [15,1921]. This is also applicable to elevated Note: fy in MPa and E in GPa.

Fig. 1. Finite element model of LCB. (a) Support, (b) Half span beam model, (c) Symmetric plane.
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 215

At 300C At 600C

Failure in the negative direction

At 300C At 600C
Fig. 2. Elastic lateraltorsional buckling and ultimate failure modes of LCBs at elevated temperatures. (a) Elastic lateraltorsional buckling, (b) Ultimate failure modes.

Table 2
Selected LCB sections and their dimensions.

No. Beam designation Grade Thickness (mm) Web (mm) Flange (mm) Lip (mm) b/t d/t d/b

B1 G-250-1.55-90-45-15 250 1.55 90 45 15 29.03 58.06 2.00

B2 G-250-1.55-120-45-15 250 1.55 120 45 15 29.03 77.42 2.67
B3 G-250-1.95-100-60-15 250 1.95 100 60 15 30.77 51.28 1.67
B4 G-250-1.95-125-50-15 250 1.95 125 50 15 25.64 64.10 2.50
B5 G-250-1.95-150-40-15 250 1.95 150 40 15 20.51 76.92 3.75
B6 G-250-1.95-150-60-17 250 1.95 150 60 17 30.77 76.92 2.50
B7 G-450-1.5-90-30-14 450 1.5 90 30 14 20.00 60.00 3.00
B8 G-450-1.9-80-40-15 450 1.9 80 40 15 21.05 42.11 2.00
B9 G-450-1.9-115-40-15 450 1.9 115 40 15 21.05 60.53 2.88

sections and their dimensions. The beam span was varied from
1000 to 5000 mm, which represent the range of beam spans
failing by lateraltorsional buckling. Beams undergoing local,
distortional or lateral-distortional buckling were not considered.
3. Member moment capacities of LCBs subject to
lateraltorsional buckling at elevated temperatures
The developed nite element model described in Section 2 was
used to conduct an extensive series of nite element analyses
(FEA) of simply supported cold-formed steel LCBs at elevated
temperatures. In total 1060 elastic buckling and nonlinear ana-
lyses were conducted in this parametric study. The ultimate
failure moments (Mu) and the elastic lateraltorsional buckling
moments (Mo) of LCBs were obtained from FEA at varying
temperatures from 20 to 700 1C. Fig. 2 shows the elastic lateral
torsional buckling and ultimate failure modes of LCBs at elevated
temperatures of 300 and 600 1C.
The ultimate failure moments of LCBs were plotted in a
non-dimensional format of ultimate moment capacity (Mu/My)
versus beam slenderness (My/Mo)0.5 together with the section
moment capacity results, where My is the yield moment capacity
(Fig. 3). Since the selected cross-sections are compact at all the
216 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

1.2

Elastic Buckling G250-20

1.0 G250-200 G250-300
G250-400 G250-500
0.8 G250-600 G250-700
Mu/My or Mb/My G450-20 G450-200
G450-300 G450-400
0.6
G450-500 G450-600
G450-700
0.4

0.2

Plastic Range Inelastic Range Elastic Range

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5
Slenderness regions are marked according
to AS/NZS 4600 [15]

Fig. 3. Finite element analysis results of LCBs at elevated temperatures.

temperatures, the section moment capacity (Ms) is higher 1.2

than My. However, the use of inelastic reserve capacity of cold-
formed steel beams cannot be allowed at elevated temperatures 1.0 Elastic Buckling
20
without a detailed experimental study. Therefore Ms was taken as
Mu/My or Mb/My

200
equal to My at corresponding temperatures and this approach was 0.8 300
400
used in plotting the moment capacity results in a non-dimen- 500
0.6 600
sional format. It can be seen that the moment capacity results 700
are scattered around the intermediate slenderness region, but
0.4
converge with increasing slenderness. The ultimate moment
capacities of beams with intermediate slenderness are reduced 0.2
considerably relative to the elastic buckling moments due to the
inuence of residual stresses and initial imperfections (Fig. 3). With 0.0
increasing beam slenderness the ultimate capacity approaches the 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
elastic buckling moment. (My/Mo)0.5
Fig. 4 shows the ultimate moment capacity results at elevated
temperatures for two sections. In the case of G450 steel beams, 1.2
the results for 20 1C are located above other results while those
Elastic Buckling
for 700 1C provide the lower bound. In contrast, the results for 1.0 20
200
20 1C provide the upper bound while those for 300 1C provide the 300
Mu/My or Mb/My

lower bound for G250 steel beams. This means that the ultimate 0.8 400
500
member moment capacity results are not dependent purely on the 600
700
temperature. The reasons for the variations seen in the intermedi- 0.6
ate slenderness region are due to other reasons discussed in the
following sections. 0.4

3.1. Effect of elevated temperatures 0.2

As the temperature increases the yield strength and elastic 0.0

modulus decrease and hence the lateraltorsional buckling capa- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
city also decreases as shown in Fig. 5 for Grade 250 and 450 steel (My/Mo)0.5
LCB sections. It can be seen that at 300 1C the member moment
capacity of G250 steel beam reduces considerably at lower Fig. 4. Finite element analysis results of two selected LCBs at elevated tempera-
lengths and as the length increases this strength reduction tures. (a) G250-1.55-90-45-15 Section, (b) G450-1.9-115-40-15 Section.

decreases. On the other hand the member moment capacity at

temperatures above 300 1C is considerably high for Grade 450
steel beams and shows different behaviour relative to G250 steel
beams. Beyond 400 1C the member moment capacity of G450
steel beams decreases considerably.
Fig. 6 shows the relative reduction in the ultimate moment
capacities at elevated temperatures for G250 and 450 steel beams
in comparison to the ambient temperature ultimate moment
capacity (Mu,T/Mu,20). At 200 1C both G250 and 450 steel beams
have about 90% of their ambient temperature moment capacity.
The ultimate moment capacity of G250 steel beams at 300 1C has
reduced by almost 50% at lower lengths but is about 70% of the
ambient temperature moment capacity at higher lengths. In
contrast to G250 steel beams at 300 1C, G450 steel beams retain
85% of the ambient temperature moment capacity at lower
lengths while their capacity is about 70% at higher lengths.
The reason for this behaviour will be discussed in the following
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 217

3.0

20
2.5
200
300
2.0 400
500
M u (kNm)

600
1.5
700

1.0

0.5

0.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Span (mm)

5.0

4.5
20
4.0 200
3.5 300
400
3.0
500
Mu (kNm)

2.5 600
700
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Span (mm)

Fig. 5. Effect of elevated temperatures on the ultimate moment capacity. (a) G250-1.55-90-45-15 Section, (b) G450-1.9-80-45-15 Section.

sections. Beams of both steel grades with longer spans retain
about 45% of their ambient temperature moment capacities at
500 1C, which is considerably high. At 700 1C the moment capa-
cities have reduced considerably and are about 18% on average for
both G250 and G450 steel beams.
3.2. Effect of steel grade
Fig. 7(a) and (b) shows the effects of steel grade, in other
words, the yield strength, elastic modulus and the stressstrain
relationship, using the results of G250 and G450 steel beams. The
results of G250 steel beams appear to be more scattered in the
intermediate slenderness range than those of G450 steel beams.
The moment capacity data points for ambient temperature are
the upper bound for both G250 and G450 steel beams while those
for 300 1C in the case of G250 steel beams and 600 1C and 700 1C
in the case of G450 steel beams form the lower bound.
3.3. Effect of non-linear stressstrain curves
Low grade steel (G250) has a well dened yield point at ambient
temperature and therefore elastic-perfect plastic stressstrain
relationship was used in FEA. It maintains this type of stress
strain relationship up to 200 1C and becomes non-linear thereafter
(curve B in Fig. 8). The stressstrain relationship of high grade steel
is gradual yielding type at ambient temperature but is very close to
an elastic-perfect-plastic model (curve A in Fig. 8). This stress
strain relationship changes with increasing temperatures and
becomes non-linear (curve B). It is possible to assess the level of
non-linearity of stressstrain relationship by comparing the ratio of
the limit of proportionality, fp, to the 0.2% proof stress, fy. The
proportional limit of G250 steels up to 200 1C was assumed to be
equal to their yield strengths although there is a small difference.
For G250 steels above 200 1C and G450 steels at all the tempera-
tures fp,T values were obtained by plotting the stressstrain curve
using Ranawaka and Mahendrans [18] model and the recommen-
dations of Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran [17] with
calculated values of yield strength and elastic modulus at elevated
temperatures. Fig. 9 shows how the fp,T/fy,T ratio changes with
increasing temperatures for different grades of steels while Table 3
gives the values of fp,T/fy,T ratio at various elevated temperatures.
Fig. 9 shows that a different relationship exists between the
fp,T/fy,T ratios of G250 and G450 steels. The fp,T/fy,T ratio of G250
steels is constant at 1.0 up to 200 1C since the stressstrain graph
218 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

1.0

0.9

0.8 200

0.7 300

0.6
Mu,T /M u,20
400

0.5
500

0.4
600
0.3
700
0.2

0.1

0.0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Span (mm)

1.0

0.9 200

0.8
300
0.7
400
0.6
M u,T /M u,20

0.5 500

0.4
600
0.3
700
0.2

0.1

0.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Span (mm)

Fig. 6. Reduction in ultimate moment capacities at elevated temperatures relative to ambient temperature moment capacity. (a) G250-1.55-90-45-15 Section,
(b) G450-1.9-80-45-15 Section.

has a well dened yield point. It suddenly drops to 0.48 on
average at 300 1C, which means the material is linear up to only
half of the measured yield stress. As the temperature increases
beyond 300 1C, the fp,T/fy,T ratio also increases. The lowest fp,T/fy,T
ratio occurs at 300 1C for G250 steels, which is considerably low
relative to others. The fp,T/fy,T ratio of G450 steels does not vary
much as for G250 steels.
The differences in fp,T/fy,T ratio at elevated temperatures are
also reected in the ultimate moment capacities of G250 and
G450 steel beams in Figs. 3 and 4. They could be seen in the
intermediate beam slenderness region. The moment capacity data
points are scattered in the case of G250 steel beams, which have a
larger variation in the fp,T/fy,T ratio compared to G450 steels. As
seen in Fig. 3 the results of non-dimensional moment capacities
are the lowest at 300 1C for G250 steel beams when it has the
lowest fp,T/fy,T ratio. As the fp,T/fy,T ratio increases the moment
capacity data points plot higher in the intermediate slenderness
range. Therefore the effect of fp,T/fy,T ratio on the ultimate moment
capacity is clearly evident.
The inuence of non-linear stressstrain relationship at elevated
temperatures was investigated by conducting nite element ana-
lyses using the strain hardening material model, which represents
the true material behaviour, and the elastic-perfect plastic model
with 0.2% proof stress at 300 1C for both G250 and G450 steel
beams. The ultimate moment capacities based on these two stress
strain relationships are compared in Fig. 10(a) and (b) for G250 and
G450 steel beams. The ultimate moment capacities decreased when
the actual material behaviour was used in the intermediate slender-
ness range in comparison to elastic-perfect-plastic material model
for both G250 and G450 steel beams. A large reduction is seen for
Grade 250 steel beam, which has a very low fp,T/fy,T ratio whereas
the difference is small for G450 steel beam, which has a consider-
ably high fp,T/fy,T ratio. This behaviour could be further explained
using Fig. 11 in which the strain hardening and the elastic-perfect
material models are illustrated.
When the stressstrain curve is non-linear the tangent mod-
ulus is changing considerably with the stress level (Fig. 11).
Beyond the elastic region the change in tangent modulus is
directly affecting the beam stiffness and therefore reduces the
lateraltorsional buckling capacity considerably. If the stress
strain relationship is highly non-linear, the use of elastic-perfect
plastic material model will lead to unsafe strength predictions.
This study was therefore conducted using strain hardening
material models due to the presence of highly nonlinear stress
strain relationship at elevated temperatures.
Recently, Dharma and Tan [10] discussed the effect of tempera-
ture related non-linear stressstrain relationship on the lateral
torsional buckling capacity of hot-rolled steel I-beams. They stated
that the tangent modulus is very important, especially in the
intermediate slenderness range as the ultimate failure may occur
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 219

1.2
1.2 Elastic Buckling
G250-20 1.0
1.0 G250-200
G250-300 0.8
Mu/My or Mb/My

0.8

fp,T / f y,T
G250-400
G250-500 0.6
0.6 G250-600
G250 - 1.55
G250-700 0.4
G250 - 1.95
0.4 G450 - 1.5
0.2 G450 - 1.9
0.2
0.0
0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Temperature, C
(My/Mo)0.5
Fig. 9. Variation of fp,T/fy,T ratio with elevated temperatures.

1.2 Elastic Buckling

G450-20
1.0 Table 3
G450-200 fp,T/fy,T ratios of G250 and G450 steels at elevated temperatures.
G450-300
Mu/My or Mb/My

0.8 G450-400 Temp. (1C) fp,T/fy,T Average fp,T/fy,T

G450-500
0.6 G450-600 G250-1.95 G250-1.55 G450-1.9 G450-1.5 G450 G250

G450-700
0.4 20 1.000 1.000 0.913 0.933 0.923 1.000
100 1.000 1.000 0.893 0.904 0.898 1.000
200 1.000 1.000 0.863 0.848 0.856 1.000
0.2 300 0.449 0.517 0.838 0.826 0.832 0.483
400 0.579 0.570 0.783 0.805 0.794 0.575
0.0 500 0.711 0.686 0.795 0.788 0.792 0.698
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 600 0.864 0.766 0.812 0.846 0.829 0.815
700 0.890 0.848 0.777 0.825 0.801 0.869
(My/Mo)0.5

Fig. 7. Effect of steel grade. (a) G250 Steel Beams, (b) G450 Steel Beams.
Elastic Buckling
Stress, 1.2 Elastic Perfect Plastic Material Model
Curve A Strain Hardening Material Model
T=T1=20oC 1.0
fy1
Mu/My or Mb/My

fp1 Curve B 0.8

T=T2
fy2
0.6

0.4
fp2
fp1/fy1 > fp2/fy2
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5
Strain,
Elastic Buckling
1.2
Fig. 8. Non-linearity in stressstrain graphs. Elastic Perfect Plastic Material Model
Strain Hardening Material Model
1.0
beyond the limit of proportionality. They presented a new design
Mu/My or Mb/My

0.8
approach by including the non-linear stressstrain relationship in
terms of fp,T/fy,T ratio at elevated temperatures.
0.6

3.4. Effect of ky,T/kE,T ratio 0.4

As the temperature increases the yield strength reduction rate 0.2

is different from that of elastic modulus reduction rate in relation
to their ambient temperature values. Therefore, the ratio of yield 0.0
strength and elastic modulus reduction factors also varies with 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
increasing temperature. Fig. 12 shows how the ky,T/kE,T ratio varies (My/Mo)0.5
with temperature, where ky,T ( fy,T/fy,20) and kE,T ( ET/E20) are
the yield strength and elastic modulus reduction factors at Fig. 10. Effect of stressstrain relationship. (a) G250 Steel Beam, (b) G450 Steel Beam.
220 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

temperature T. Table 4 presents the ky,T/kE,T ratios together with
ky,T and kE,T at varying temperatures. The ky,T/kE,T ratio of G250
steels increases initially until 200 1C and thereafter reduces while
it increases until 300 1C for G450 steels and thereafter reduces
until 600 1C. It then increases slightly at 700 1C.
Since the non-dimensional member slenderness at elevated
temperatures (re conditions) (lLT, O(My,T/Mo,T)) is a function
of fy,T/ET, the variation of ky,T/kE,T will inuence the beam slender-
ness. In order to study the effect of ky,T/kE,T on lLT, the FEA results
of two G250 and G450 steel beams with different lengths are
plotted against increasing temperature in Fig. 13. It is interesting
to note that lLT, for a given span that directly affects the moment
capacity does not reduce with increasing temperature. Instead
lLT, closely follows the variation of kyT/kET ratio shown in Fig. 12.
For G450 steel beams the lowest lLT, value occurs at 600 1C
when it has the lowest value of kyT/kET ratio. The highest lLT,
value for G250 steel beams occurs at 200 1C, which has the
highest ky,T/kE,T ratio.
Fig. 14(a) and (b) displays the FEA results of G250 and G450
beams at various elevated temperatures as the non-dimensionalised
ultimate member moment capacity ratio (i.e., Mu,T/My,T) versus span
of the beams. The maximum ultimate member moment capacity
ratio is achieved at 600 1C when the kyT/kET ratio is the lowest while
the minimum ultimate member moment capacity ratio is achieved
at 300 1C when the kyT/kET ratio is the highest for G450 steels. At
longer spans, the ultimate member moment capacity ratio is
increasing as the ky,T/kET ratio is decreasing. This order of member
moment capacity curves is seen, especially for very long beams and
the trend changes for beams with intermediate spans. For G250 steel
beams this behaviour can be clearly seen in Fig. 14(b). The trend
changes could be seen for those with non-linear stressstrain
relationships in comparison to the stressstrain relationships with
a well dened yield point at 20 1C and 200 1C. This occurs because
the increasing non-linearity of stressstrain relationship at elevated
temperatures reduces the member moment capacity as discussed in
the previous section. Finally it can therefore be concluded that for a
particular span the member moment capacity achievable relative to
the section moment capacity is dependent on the kyT/kET ratio.
However, this behaviour can be altered if the non-linearity in the
stressstrain relationship becomes important.

Stress, Actual stress-strain relationship

2.5
fy,T
E4 Assumed elastic-perfect plastic stress-strain relationship
2.0 1200 mm
E3 1400 mm
1600 mm
(My,T/Mo,T)0.5

E2 1.5 1800 mm
E1 > E2 > E3 > E4 2000 mm
fp,T 2500 mm
3000 mm
fy,T 0.2% proof stress at elevated temperatures 1.0 3500 mm
4000 mm
fp,T limit of proportionality at elevated temperatures 4500 mm
E1 5000 mm
0.5

Strain, 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Fig. 11. Strain hardening and elastic-perfect plastic material models.
Temperature,C

3.5
1.4
3.0
1.2
2.5 1200 mm
(My,T/Mo,T)0.5

1.0 1400 mm
2.0 1600 mm
ky,T/kE,T

0.8 1800 mm
1.5 2000 mm
0.6 2500 mm
1.0 3000 mm
3500 mm
0.4
G250 0.5
0.2 G450 0.0
0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Temperature, C
Temperature, C
Fig. 13. Variation of non-dimensional member slenderness with temperature.
Fig. 12. Variation of ky,T/kE,T ratio at elevated temperatures. (a) G250-1.55-90-45-15, (b) G450-1.9-115-40-15.

Table 4
Yield strength and elastic modulus reduction factors and their ratios.

Temperature (1C) 20 200 300 400 500 600 700

G250 ky,T fy,T/fy,20 1.000 0.910 0.658 0.478 0.337 0.222 0.124
G450 ky,T fy,T/fy,20 1.000 0.990 0.950 0.694 0.391 0.110 0.070
G250 and G450 kE,T ET/E20 1.000 0.850 0.715 0.580 0.445 0.310 0.175
G250 ky,T/kE,T 1.000 1.071 0.920 0.823 0.758 0.716 0.710
G450 ky,T/kE,T 1.000 1.166 1.328 1.197 0.878 0.355 0.400
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 221

Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'a'

Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'b'
1.2 Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'c'
20 Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'd'
200 1.2
1.0 Elastic Buckling
300 G250-20
400 1.0 G250-200
0.8 500 G250-300

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
600 G250-400
Mu/My

0.8 G250-500
0.6 700
G250-600
0.6 G250-700
0.4

0.2 0.4

0.0 0.2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Span (mm) 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0 (Msx/Mo)0.5
0.9 20
200 Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'a'
0.8 300 Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'b'
400 1.2 Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'c'
0.7 Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'd'
500
0.6 600 1.0
Elastic Buckling
Mu/My

G450-20
0.5 700 G450-200

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
0.4 0.8 G450-300
G450-400
0.3 G450-500
0.2 0.6 G450-600
G450-700
0.1
0.4
0.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0.2
Span (mm)

Fig. 14. Effect of ky,T/kE,T ratio on the non-dimensional member moment capacity.
0.0
(a) G450-1.9-80-40-15, (b) G250-1.55-90-45-15.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(Msx/Mo)0.5

4. Comparison of ultimate member moment capacities with Fig. 15. Comparison of FEA results with different buckling curves of Eurocode
3 Part 1.1 [25]. (a) G250 Steel Beams, (b) G450 Steel Beams.
predictions from the current design rules

AS/NZS 4600 [15], direct strength method (DSM), BS 5950 Part
5 [26] and Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [13] are the design codes of cold-
formed steel structural members at ambient temperature. They
may be used for elevated temperature design by replacing the
ambient temperature mechanical properties with those at ele-
vated temperatures. However, the accuracy of this approach must
be veried. AS/NZS 4600, DSM and BS5950 Part 5 gave unsafe
predictions of the member capacity of cold-formed LCBs subject
to lateraltorsional buckling at ambient temperature [14], and
therefore they were not considered for elevated temperature
conditions. However, Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [13] predictions at
ambient temperature based on the buckling curve b of Eurocode
3 Part 1.1 [25] were overconservative in the intermediate slender-
ness region while giving accurate results in the higher slenderness
region. Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran [14] therefore
recommended buckling curve a for the design of cold-formed steel
lipped channel beams (LCB) subject to lateraltorsional buckling at
ambient temperature. They also proposed a new ambient tempera-
ture design method with three options within the provisions of
AS/NZS 4600, and their details are given in [14]. Eurocode 3 Part 1.2
[16] is the only design code that provides suitable re design rules
for cold-formed steel members although they were based on the
studies of hot-rolled steel members [14].
In this section, the accuracy of the design methods given in
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3/Part 1.1 and Part 1.2, and the new ambient
temperature design equations of Dolamune Kankanamge and
Mahendran [14] was assessed by comparing their predicted
member moment capacities with the FEA results obtained at
different elevated temperatures. Dharma and Tan [10] proposed a
design method for hot-rolled beams under re conditions and its
accuracy was also assessed for cold-formed steel beams. When
the ambient temperature design rules were used to predict the
ultimate member moment capacities at elevated temperature
conditions, the reduced mechanical properties in Table 1 were
used in all the calculations.
4.1. Eurocode 3 Part 1.3/ Eurocode 3 Part 1.1
The ambient temperature design code for cold-formed steel
members, Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [13], refers to the design equations
given in the design code for hot-rolled steel members, Eurocode
3 Part 1.1 [25], to determine the lateraltorsional buckling capacity
(Mb,Rd) using buckling curve b. The relevant design equations are
given next.
Mb,Rd wLT W y f y 1
where
wLT 1=fLT f2LT l2LT 0:5 2
2
fLT 0:51 aLT lLT 0:2 lLT  3
lLT W y f y =Mo 0:5 4
where Wy is the appropriate section modulus of the compression
ange depending on the class of cross section (plastic, elastic or
222 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

effective section modulus), fy is the yield stress of steel, Mo is the

Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'a'
elastic lateraltorsional buckling moment and the imperfection 1.2
Elastic Buckling
factor aLT for buckling curve b is 0.34. The product Wyfy is the
1.0 G450-20
section moment capacity (Ms), which was used in plotting the non-
G450-200

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
dimensional moment capacity curves. Since the LCB sections
0.8 G450-300
considered here included compact plate elements, Eurocode 3 Part
1.3 design rules give section moment capacities that are higher than 0.6
their rst yield moments. In all the design methods used in Section
4, the standard lateraltorsional buckling equation was used to 0.4
calculate Mo at ambient and elevated temperatures using the
appropriately reduced mechanical properties in Table 1. 0.2
Fig. 15(a) and (b) compare the FEA results of G250 and G450
cold-formed steel beams at elevated temperatures with the 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
moment capacity curves obtained based on the four buckling
curves in Eurocode 3 Part 1.1 [25] (Table 5). It can be seen that the (Msx/Mo)0.5
use of single buckling curve (a or b) is inaccurate for some
temperatures for G450 steel beams. For G250 steel beams the 1.2
moment capacity data points are scattered in the intermediate Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'b'
slenderness range and thus the use of any of these curves will give 1.0 Elastic Buckling
both unsafe and overconservative predictions at some tempera-

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
G450-400
tures. For example, the data points for 300 1C and 400 1C are 0.8
G450-500
plotted below even the buckling curve b, i.e. the predictions of
0.6
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [13] using buckling curve b are unsafe.
Therefore suitable buckling curves were proposed for different 0.4
temperature ranges and G250 and G450 steel beams as shown in
Table 6(a) and (b). 0.2
Fig. 16(a)(c) shows the comparison of ultimate member
moment capacities of G450 steel beams from FEA with the 0.0
proposed buckling curves in Table 6 for the three different 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
temperature ranges while Fig. 17(a)(c) shows the comparison (Msx/Mo)0.5
for G250 steel beams. These gures show that the chosen
1.2
buckling curves give reasonably accurate predictions, but further
improvements are needed for some temperatures. Table 7 shows Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'c'
1.0
the mean and COV of the FEA to predicted member moment Elastic Buckling
Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx

capacities using the new proposal based on different buckling G450-600

0.8
curves. On average the proposal has a mean of 1.046 with a COV G450-700
of 0.103. It also includes the corresponding capacity reduction
0.6
factors calculated using the North American Specication [27]
procedure to provide the recommended target reliability index of 0.4
2.5 for cold-formed steel beams. This procedure is based on a
statistical model to account for the variations in material, fabrica- 0.2
tion and loading effects. In these calculations suitable values of
mean and COV of the material, fabrication and loading factors 0.0
were used as recommended in [27]. The overall capacity reduc- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
tion factor is 0.915. (Msx/Mo)0.5
This proposal does not include the effect of the non-linear
stressstrain characteristics at elevated temperatures that signif- Fig. 16. Comparison of ultimate member moment capacities with predictions
icantly inuences the ultimate moment capacities of cold-formed based on the proposed buckling curves for different temperature rangesG450
steel beams. (a) 20r T r 3001 C, (b) 300o T r 5001 C, (c) 500 o T r7001 C.

Table 5
Imperfection factors for lateraltorsional buckling curves [25]. steel beams. Therefore, a new design method is required that
includes this effect. It should allow the same design method to be
Buckling curve a b c d used for beams made of any type of steel.
Imperfection factor (aLT ) 0.21 0.34 0.49 0.76

4.2. New ambient temperature design method proposed by

Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran [14]

Table 6
In this method, the nominal member moment capacity (Mb) of
Proposed buckling curves based on Eurocode 3 Part 1.1 [25].
laterally unbraced beams subjected to lateral buckling is given by,
(a) Low grade steels (G250)
Mc
Temperature ( 1C) 20 rT o300 300r Tr 400 400o Tr 700 Mb Z c 5
Buckling Curve a d C Zf
(b) High grade steels (G450) where Zc is the effective section modulus calculated at a stress
Temperature ( 1C) 20 rT r300 300o Tr 500 500o Tr 700
Buckling Curve b B c
level (Mc/Zf) and Zf is the full unreduced section modulus. Since
the selected LCBs are compact, Zc is equal to Zf.
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 223

where
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'a'
1.2 Elastic Buckling M y 0:5
G250-20 lb
Mo
1.0 G250-200
The ultimate moment capacities obtained from FEA at elevated
Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx.

0.8 temperatures are then compared in Fig. 18(a) and (b) with the
new design method developed for ambient temperature design
0.6 [14]. This comparison shows that the new design method is
accurate for some temperatures, but gives unsafe predictions at
0.4 300 1C, 400 1C and 600 1C for G250 steel beams and 600 1C and
700 1C for G450 steel beams. The scattered nature of the results in
0.2 the intermediate slenderness region does not allow the use of a
single beam design curve for all the temperatures. Therefore
0.0 separate beam design curves are required to accurately represent
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 the behaviour at elevated temperatures.
0.5
(Msx/Mo)

1.2 4.3. Eurocode 3 Part 1.2

Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'd'
1.0 The design lateraltorsional buckling resistance moment of a
Elastic Buckling
laterally unrestrained beam at elevated temperatures (T) is given by,
G250-300
Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx

0.8 G250-400 Mb,fi,tRd wLT,fi W y ky,T f y 7

0.6 where Wy and fy are as dened in Eurocode Part 1.3 (i.e. at ambient
temperature), and ky,T has also been dened previously.
0.4
wLT,fi 1=fLT,T f2LT,T l2LT,T 0:5 8
0.2

New Proposal for ambient temperature

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Elastic Buckling

0.5 1.2 G250-20

(Msx/Mo)
G250-200

1.0 G250-300
1.2 G250-400
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 - Buckling Curve 'c'
Mu/My or Mb/My

Elastic Buckling 0.8 G250-500

1.0 G250-500 G250-600
G250-600
Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx

G250-700
0.8 G250-700
0.6

0.6 0.4

0.4 0.2

0.2 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 (My/Mo)0.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(Msx/Mo)0.5
New Proposal for ambient temperature
Elastic Buckling
Fig. 17. Comparison of ultimate member moment capacities with predictions 1.2
based on the proposed buckling curves for different temperature rangesG250 G450-20
steel beams. (a) 20 r T r3001 C, (b) 300 oT r 4001 C, (c) 400 oT r 7001 C. G450-200
1.0
G450-300
G450-400
Mu/My or Mb/My

Table 7 0.8
G450-500
Mean, COV and capacity reduction factors of the ratio of FEA to predicted member
moment capacities using the proposed buckling curves. G450-600
0.6
G450-700
Temp. ( 1C) 20 200 300 400 500 600 700 Overall
0.4
Mean 0.995 0.991 0.909 1.111 1.109 1.040 1.046 1.046
COV 0.061 0.072 0.117 0.097 0.148 0.096 0.107 0.103 0.2
F 0.899 0.889 0.781 0.976 0.917 0.914 0.909 0.915
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
The critical moment (Mc) in Eq. (5) is calculated as follows:
(My/Mo)0.5
For lb r 0:6 Mc My 6a
Fig. 18. Comparison of FEA results with the new design method proposed by
q
4 2 Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran [14]. (a) G250 Steel Beams, (b) G450 steel
For lb 4 0:6 M c 0:9 lb 2:05lb M y 6b beams.
224 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

With Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 - G250

1 2 Elastic Buckling
fLT,T 21 alLT,T lLT,T  9 1.2 G250-20
The imperfection factor a is given by, G250-200
q 1.0 G250-300
a 0:65 235=f y 10 G250-400

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
0.8 G250-500
The non-dimensional slenderness lLT,T is given by, G250-600
0.6 G250-700
lLT,T lLT ky,T =kE,T 0:5 11

lLT W y f y =Mo 0:5 is the beam slenderness at ambient tempera- 0.4

ture as in Eurocode 3 Part 1.3.
The lateraltorsional buckling capacity of beams at elevated 0.2
temperatures is affected by residual stresses, initial crookedness
and twist, material reduction factors and nonlinear stressstrain
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
relationship. Most of these factors are different in cold-formed steel
(Msx/Mo)0.5
sections in comparison to hot-rolled steel sections and therefore
considerable differences are possible between the behaviour of Eurocode 3 - Part 1.2 - G450
these two types of steel beams. Therefore the applicability of hot- Elastic Buckling
rolled steel based re design method must be veried for cold- 1.2 G450-20
formed steel members. G450-200
The section moment capacity Ms used in the calculations of 1.0 G450-300

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx.
this method is Wyky,Tfy at varying temperatures. Fig. 19(a) and (b) G450-400
shows the comparison of FEA results obtained for different 0.8 G450-500
elevated temperatures with the beam design curve obtained from G450-600
0.6 G450-700
the re design code, Eurocode 3 Part 1.2. Most of the results are
above the design curves for G250 and G450 steel beams. For some
0.4
temperatures the capacity predictions are over-conservative. This
strongly raises the need for multiple design curves for steel beams
0.2
subject to lateraltorsional buckling as a function of elevated
temperatures. Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [16] predicts the moment 0.0
capacities reasonably well for beams with higher slenderness 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(i.e. (Ms/Mo)0.5 Z2.0) for both G250 and G450 steel beams. There- (Msx/Mo)0.5
fore it can be concluded that for intermediate slenderness values,
(Ms/Mo)0.5 o2.0, Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 predictions are over-con- Fig. 19. Comparison of FEA results with Eurocode 3 Part 1.2. (a) G250 Steel beams,
servative with a maximum difference of approximately 30% at (b) G450 Steel beams.
200 1C for G250 steel beams. Dharma and Tan [10] observed that
this design method is too conservative, especially for tempera- Approach provides safe and more accurate capacity predictions
tures less than 500 1C for hot-rolled steel I-section beams. Same for lateraltorsional buckling compared to the second design
observation can be made from this research for cold-formed steel method called the Rankine Approach. Hence this study con-
members based on the results of G450 steel beams. Dharma and siders the Alternative Approach, and the ultimate moment capa-
Tan [10] identied the reason for this conservatism in the case of city (Mb,) at elevated temperatures is given next.
temperatures less than 500 1C as that due to some very low
Mb,fi f b,fi Sx 12
experimental results at 500 1C and 600 1C obtained by Vila Real
et al. [4] based on which these design rules were developed. The where, Sx is the plastic section modulus about the major axis.
reason for the over-conservative results in this research can also
T
be attributed to the different residual stresses and stressstrain ky,T f y f E
f b,fi q
13
relationship at elevated temperatures and the use of negative
fLT,T f2LT,T ky,T f y f TE
geometric imperfections in the case of cold-formed steel mono-
symmetric beams compared to hot-rolled steel I-beams based on in which,
which Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 design rules have been developed. In T
addition to being over-conservative for intermediate slenderness ky,T f y ZLT,T 1f E
fLT,T and 14
values, it can also be seen that design curve in the low slender- 2
ness region is steep, which gives uneconomical capacity predic-
tions for all the selected beams. However, this method could be T p2 kE,T E
fE 15
safely used as a conservative re design method in all the l2LT
member slenderness regions. ss
p2 E Msx
lLT 16
fy ME
4.4. Design method proposed by Dharma and Tan [10]
In Eq. 16, Msx is the in-plane bending moment capacity. M E is
Dharma and Tan [10] proposed two design methods for the elastic buckling moment capacity considering major axis (x)
lateraltorsional buckling at elevated temperatures based on curvature given by Kirby and Nethercot [28] as,
FEA results of simply supported hot-rolled steel universal I-beams
of Grade S275 and S355 steels and experimental results of Vila Mo
ME p 17
Real et al. [4]. The rst design method called the Alternative 1EIy =EIx
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 225

The initial curvature and twist term ZLT,T in Eq. (14) at elevated Elastic Buckling
20
temperature is given by 1.2 200
300
400
s v
u

s 500
p p2 E u M kE,T 1.0 600
t
cx 700
ZLT,T 0:007 B 0:4B1:5 Z0 18 Dharma and Tan (2007) - 20oC

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
fy ME ky,T Dharma and Tan (2007) - 200oC
0.8 Dharma and Tan (2007) - 300oC
Dharma and Tan (2007) - 400oC
Dharma and Tan (2007) - 500oC
They used a non-linearity factor (z) to account for the non- Dharma and Tan (2007) - 600oC
0.6 Dharma and Tan (2007) - 700oC
linear stressstrain relationship at elevated temperatures as
discussed in Section 3.3. 0.4
f
B p,T 19 0.2
f y,T
0.0
The FEA results are compared in Fig. 20 for one LCB section for
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
several temperatures using Dharma and Tans alternative
0.5
approach. It can be seen that the capacity predictions using this (Msx/Mo)
method are unsafe at some temperatures, especially at 600 1C for Elastic Buckling
G450 steel beams and 300 1C for G250 steel beams. Dharma and 1.2 20
200
Tan [10] developed their rules based on doubly symmetric hot- 300
400
rolled steel beams whose stressstrain relationships at elevated 1.0 500

Mu/Msx or Mb/Msx
600
temperatures are very different to those of cold-formed steel 700
beams. This is the possible reason for the disagreement in the 0.8 Dharma and Tan (2007) - 20oC
Dharma and Tan (2007) - 200oC
results. Dharma and Tan (2007) - 300oC
0.6 Dharma and Tan (2007) - 400oC
Dharma and Tan (2007) - 500oC
Dharma and Tan (2007) - 600oC
Dharma and Tan (2007) - 700oC
0.4

5. New proposal 0.2

Previous sections showed the need for a new design method 0.0
for the re design of cold-formed steel beams subject to lateral 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
torsional buckling. The current design method given in the re (Msx/Mo)0.5
design code, Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [16], was found to be over-
conservative while it was found that separate buckling curves are Fig. 20. Comparison of FEA results at elevated temperatures with the alternative
needed for different elevated temperature ranges when using approach proposed by Dharma and Tan [10]. (a) G450-1.9-80-40-15 Section,
(b) G250-1.55-120-45-15 Section.
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3. The FEA ultimate moment capacities were
found to be dependent on the level of non-linearity in the stress
strain curve, particularly in the intermediate slenderness region. where, f p,T =f y,T is the ratio of proportional limit and yield
It was found that the effect of non-linearity can be accounted for strength at temperature T.
by using the fp,T/fy,T factor and therefore new design equations My,T 0:5
were proposed by including this factor in the ambient tempera- lb,T 22
M o,T
ture design equations proposed by Dolamune Kankanamge and
Mahendran [14]. My,T in Eqs. (21b) and (22) is the yield moment capacity at
The nominal member moment capacity (M b,T ) of the laterally temperature T given by,
unbraced cold-formed steel beams subject to lateraltorsional My,T Z f ,T f y,T 23
buckling at elevated temperatures (T) is given by,
Elastic lateraltorsional buckling moment at temperature T is
M c,T given by,
M b,T Z c,T 20
Z f ,T s
p2 ET Iy p2 ET Iw
where Zc,T and Zf,T are the section properties at elevated tempera- Mo,T 2
GT J 24
L L2
tures and Mc,T is given by,
ET and GT are the elastic modulus and the shear modulus at
For lb,T r 0:6 Mc,T My,T 21a temperature T, Iy, Iw and J are the section properties, and L is

21b
226 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228

the span. As dened in Section 3.4. elastic modulus and yield strength
at temperature T are given by ET kE,T E20 and f y,T ky,T f y,20 .
In this method developed within the provisions of AS/NZS
4600 [15], the section moment capacity of the selected LCB
sections is limited to their yield moment capacity although they
are compact (see Eq. (21a)). The ultimate moment capacities at
elevated temperatures from FEA were compared with the pre-
dicted moment capacities with appropriately reduced mechanical
properties for each temperature using the proposed new design
equations. The results are plotted in the non-dimensionalised
format for different temperatures in Figs. 21 and 22 for Grade 250
and Grade 450 steel beams, respectively. Suitability of the
proposed design method was investigated for each temperature
and it could be seen that the new proposal with reduced
mechanical properties is able to predict the ultimate member
moment capacities accurately.
Table 8 presents the mean and COV of the ratio of FEA to
predicted moment capacities using the developed design equa-
tions for varying elevated temperatures. The overall mean and
COV are 0.983 and 0.068 while the associated capacity reduc-
tion factor is 0.886. Therefore it is recommended that the
proposed design method can be used for cold-formed steel
lipped channel beams subject to lateraltorsional buckling at
elevated temperatures.
The new design method has many advantages in comparison
to other design methods, especially the re design method in
Eurocode 3 Part 1.2. The new proposed equation is a modication
of ambient temperature design method and is the same if used for
ambient temperature design because at ambient temperature the
material non-linearity factor is almost 1.0. Another advantage is
that the proposed equation can be modied by changing the
values of a and b as shown in Eq. (21b) to have different buckling
curves and provides a unique way of developing design methods
for other types of cross-sections. This design method provides a
much simpler way of calculating the lateraltorsional buckling
capacities at elevated temperatures than other methods.
6. Conclusions
This paper has described a detailed parametric study on the
behaviour of cold-formed steel lipped channel beams (LCB)

1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
Mu/My or Mb/My

Elastic Buckling
Mu/My or Mb/My

Elastic Buckling
0.8 G250 0.8 G250
New Proposal New Proposal
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5 (My/Mo)0.5

1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
Mu/My or Mb/My

Mu/My or Mb/My

Elastic Buckling Elastic Buckling

0.8 G250 0.8 G250
New Proposal New Proposal
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5 (My/Mo)0.5

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
Mu/My or Mb/My
Mu/My or Mb/My

Elastic Buckling Elastic Buckling

0.8 G250 0.8 G250
New Proposal New Proposal
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo )0.5 (My/Mo )0.5

Fig. 21. Comparison of the new proposal with FEA results. G250 steel beams. (a) 2001 C, (b) 3001 C, (c) 4001 C, (d) 5001 C, (e) 6001 C, (f) 7001 C.
 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228 227

1.2 1.2

Mu/My or Mb/My 1.0 1.0

Mu/My or Mb/My
Elastic Buckling Elastic Buckling
0.8 G450 0.8 G450
New Proposal New Proposal
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5 (My/Mo)0.5

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0

Mu/My or Mb/My
Elastic Buckling
Mu/My or Mb/My

0.8 0.8 Elastic Buckling

G450
New Proposal G450
0.6 0.6 New Proposal
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5 (My/Mo)0.5

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
Mu/My or Mb/My
Mu/My or Mb/My

Elastic Buckling 0.8 Elastic Buckling

0.8
G450 G450
0.6 New Proposal 0.6 New Proposal

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(My/Mo)0.5 (My/Mo)0.5

Fig. 22. Comparison of the new proposal with FEA results. G450 steel beams. (a) 2001 C, (b) 3001 C, (c) 4001 C, (d) 5001 C, (e) 6001 C, (f) 7001 C.

Table 8 Mahendran [14], the re design code, Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 and
Mean, COV and capacity reduction factors of FEA to predicted moment capacities Dharma and Tans [10] design method. These comparisons
using the new design method.
showed that using a single buckling curve is inadequate to
Temp. ( 1C) 20 200 300 400 500 600 700 Overall obtain the ultimate moment capacities of cold-formed steel
beams at varying elevated temperatures. Hence Eurocode 3 Part
Mean 0.984 0.983 1.013 0.995 0.981 0.964 0.957 0.983 1.3 design method with buckling curve b and the method
COV 0.056 0.062 0.071 0.122 0.059 0.067 0.061 0.068 proposed by Dolamune Kankanamge and Mahendran [14]
F 0.892 0.888 0.910 0.850 0.888 0.868 0.865 0.886
are unsafe or overconservative for some temperatures, espe-
cially in the intermediate slenderness region. Therefore other
subject to lateraltorsional buckling at elevated temperatures. buckling curves in Eurcode 3 Part 1.1 were proposed for
The parametric study was undertaken for nine LCB sections different temperature ranges for the re design of cold-formed
using validated nite element models. It was shown that the steel LCBs.
lateraltorsional buckling capacity is strongly inuenced by the Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 predictions were found to be over-
level of non-linearity of the stressstrain curves at elevated conservative for all the temperatures except for beams with
temperatures and that the level of non-linearity can be repre- very high slenderness. The design method proposed by Dharma
sented by the ratio of the limit of proportionality to the yield and Tan [10] provided reasonably accurate capacity predictions
strength of steel. for some temperatures. Finally, a new design method was
The ultimate member moment capacities from the para- developed for the design of cold-formed steel LCBs subject to
metric study were compared with those predicted by the lateraltorsional buckling at elevated temperatures. This
ambient temperature design code, Eurocode 3 Part 1.3, the design proposal enables safe structural designs of cold-formed
new design method developed by Dolamune Kankanamge and steel beams in re situations.
228 N. Dolamune Kankanamge, M. Mahendran / Thin-Walled Structures 61 (2012) 213228
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Australian Research Council
for their nancial support and the Queensland University of
Technology for providing the necessary research facilities and
support to conduct this research project.
References
[1] Vila Real PMM, Franssen JM. Lateral buckling of steel I beams under re
conditionscomparison between the Eurocode 3 and the SAFIR code.
Relatorio Interno 1999.
[2] Vila Real PMM and Franssen JM. Lateral torsional buckling of steel i-beams in
case of renumerical modeling. In: Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Structures in Fire; 2000. p. 7193.
[3] Vila Real PMM, Franssen JM. Numerical modelling of lateral buckling of steel I
beams under re conditionscomparison with Eurocode 3. Journal of Fire
Protection Engineering, USA 2001;11(2):11228.
[4] Vila Real PMM, Piloto PAG, Franssen JM. A new proposal of a simple model for
the lateral torsional buckling of unrestrained steel I-beams in case of re:
experimental and numerical validation. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2003;59(2):17999.
[5] Vila Real PMM, Cazeli R, Simoes da Silva L, Santiago A, Piloto P. The effect of
residual stresses in the lateraltorsional buckling of steel I-beams at elevated
temperature. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(35):78393.
[6] Vila Real PMM, Lopes N, Simoes da Silva L, Franssen JM. Lateraltorsional
buckling of unrestrained steel beams under re conditions: improvement of
EC3 proposal. Computers and Structures 2004;82(2021):173744.
[7] Vila Real PMM, Lopes N, Simoes da Silva L, Franssen JM. Numerical validation
of an improved proposal to the Eurocode 3 for the lateraltorsional buckling
of steel beams subjected to re. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Workshop on Structures in Fire, Aveiro, Portugal; 2006. p. 15160.
[8] Bailey CG, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. The lateral torsional buckling of unrestrained
steel beams in re. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1996;36(2):
10119.
[9] Yin YZ, Wang YC. Numerical simulations of the effects of non-uniform
temperature distributions on lateral torsional buckling resistance of steel
i-beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2003;59(8):100933.
[10] Dharma RB, Tane K-H. Proposed design methods for lateral torsional buckling
of unrestrained steel beams in re. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2007;63(8):106676.
[11] Lopes N, Vila Real PMM, Simoes da Silva L, Franssen J and Mirambell E.
Proposal to the Eurocode 3 for the lateraltorsional buckling of stainless steel
I-beams in case of re. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop
on Structures in Fire, Aveiro, Portugal; 2006. p. 12737.
[12] Dolamune Kankanamge NSS. Structural behaviour and design of cold-formed
steel beams at elevated temperatures. Ph.D. thesis. Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2010.
[13] European Committee for Standardization (ECS): Eurocode 3. Design of steel
structures Part 1.3, General rules Supplementary Rules for Cold-formed
Thin Gauge Members and Sheathing. Brussels, 2006.
[14] Dolamune Kankanamge N, Mahendran M. Behaviour and design of cold-
formed steel beams subject to lateraltorsional buckling. Thin-Walled
Structures 2012;51:258.
[15] Standards Australia/New Zealand, AS/NZS 4600, Cold-Formed Steel Struc-
tures, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
[16] European Committee for Standardization (ECS): Eurocode 3: Design of Steel
StructuresPart 1.2: General RulesStructural Fire Design, Brussels, 2005.
[17] Dolamune Kankanamge NSS, Mahendran M. Mechanical properties of cold-
formed steels at elevated temperatures. Thin-Walled Structures 2010;49(1):
2644.
[18] Ranawaka T, Mahendran M. Experimental study of the mechanical properties
of light gauge cold-formed steels at elevated temperatures. Fire Safety
Journal 2009;44:21929.
[19] Pi YL, Put B.M., Trahair NS . Lateral buckling strengths of cold-formed channel
section beams. Research Report No. R748. The University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia, 1997.
[20] Pi Y L, Put B, Trahair N. Lateral buckling strengths of cold-formed channel
section beams. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998;124(10):118291.
[21] Kurniawan CW, Mahendran M. Lateral buckling strength of simply supported
liteSteel beams subject to moment gradient effects. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2009;135(9):105867.
[22] Lee J, Mahendran M, Makelainen P. Prediction of mechanical properties of
light gauge steels at elevated temperatures. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2003:151732.
[23] Schafer B, Pekoz T. Computational modelling of cold-formed steel: character-
izing geometrical imperfections and residual stresses. Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research 1998;47:193210.
[24] Ranawaka T. Distortional buckling behaviour of cold-formed steel compres-
sion members at elevated temperatures. Ph.D. thesis. Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Australia; 2006.
[25] European Committee for Standardization (ECS): Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structuresPart 1.1, General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels; 2005.
[26] British Standard Institution (BSI). BS5950. Structural use of steel work in
buildingPart 5: Code of practice for design of cold-formed thin gauge
sections, London, UK; 1998.
[27] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). North American specication for the
design of cold-formed steel structural members. Washington DC, USA:
American Iron and Steel Institute; 2007.
[28] Kirby PA, Nethercot DA. Design for structural stability. Constrado mono-
graphs. Suffolk, UK: Granada Publishing; 1979.