Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Effect of thickness on the behaviour of axially loaded back-to-back cold- T

formed steel built-up channel sections - Experimental and numerical
investigation
Krishanu Roya, , Tina Chui Huon Tingb, Hieng Ho Laub, James B.P. Lima
⁎

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
b
School of Engineering and Science, Curtin University Sarawak, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In cold-formed steel structures, such as trusses, wall frames and portal frames, the use of back-to-back built-up
Cold-formed steel cold-formed steel channel sections are becoming increasingly popular. In such an arrangement, intermediate
Back-to-back sections fasteners are required at discrete points along the length, preventing the channel-sections from buckling in-
Built-up columns dependently. Current guidance in the AISI &AS/NZS for such back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel channel
Finite element modelling buckling
sections requires the use of modified slenderness in order to take into account the spacing of the fasteners.
Fasteners
Limited research has been done on back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel columns to understand the effect of
column thickness and slenderness's on axial capacity. This issue is addressed herein. This paper presents the
results of 60 experimental tests performed on back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel channel sections under
compression. Detailed observations on different failure modes and column strengths were made through varying
thickness, length and cross section of columns. A non-linear finite element model was developed which includes
material non-linearity, geometric imperfections and explicit modelling of web fasteners. The finite element
model was validated against experimental results. A comprehensive parametric study consisting of 204 models
has been carried out covering a wide range of thickness and slenderness for the considered back-to-back built-up
columns. Axial capacities obtained from the numerical study were used to assess the performance of the current
AISI& AS/NZS standards when applied to cold-formed back-to-back built up columns; obtained comparisons
showed that AISI& AS/NZS standards are un-conservative for stub and short columns which were failed by local
buckling whereas standards were over-conservative for the strength of intermediate and slender columns which
were failed mainly by overall member buckling. This paper has therefore proposed improved design rules and
verified their accuracy using finite element analysis and test results of back-to-back built-up cold-formed channel
sections, subjected to axial compression.

1. Introduction
Use of back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel sections (see Fig. 1),
as compression members are increasing because of its superior strength-
to-self weight ratios and economic design. Cold-formed steel (CFS)
structures are easy to construct compared to hot-rolled steel structures;
the CFS industry is thus in search for more structurally efficient cross-
sectional shapes. One of the most effective way to achieve this task is to
connect two or more single members together to form a built-up sec-
tion, e.g. simply connecting two channel sections back to back to form a
built-up I-section. As a result, such a member with built-up sections can
be utilized to carry more load and span more distance. Applications
include struts in steel trusses and space frames, wall studs in wall
frames and columns in portal frames.
The American Iron and Steel Institute, AISI [1] and Australian and
New Zealand Standards, AS/NZS [2] both prescribe the same modified
slenderness approach to determine the axial strength of back-to-back
built-up cold-formed steel columns. It should be noted that this mod-
ified slenderness approach has been adapted from design guidance for
hot-rolled steel. The applicability of the modified slenderness method
for cold-formed steel columns, should be justified.
In the literature, very limited research has been described to de-
termine axial capacities of back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel
channel-sections in the arrangement shown in Fig. 1, and specifically

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental engineering, Building 906, Level 4, Room 413, Newmarket campus, University of Auckland,
Auckland 1023, New Zealand.
E-mail address: kroy405@aucklanduni.ac.nz (K. Roy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.09.009
Received 28 December 2017; Received in revised form 29 July 2018; Accepted 21 September 2018
Available online 29 September 2018
2352-0124/ © 2018 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

Notations FEA Finite element analysis

Fn Critical buckling stress
A′ Overall web length of section (KL/r)ms Modified slenderness
Ae Effective area of the section (KL/r)o Overall Slenderness
B′ Overall flange width of section PAISI Compressive strength obtained from American Iron and
C′ Overall lip width of section Steel Institute
CFS Cold-formed steel PEXP Compressive strength obtained from Experiment
t Thickness of section PFEA Compressive strength obtained from the finite element
COV Coefficient of variation analysis
E Young's modulus of elasticity S Screw spacing
FE Finite element λc Non dimensional slenderness ratio

investigated the effect of thickness on axial strengths and failure modes
i.e. local, distortional and overall buckling and buckling interactions.
Ting et al. [3], investigated the effect of screw spacing on the behaviour
of back-to-back cold-formed steel under compression. Following this,
Roy et al. [4], investigated the beneficial effect of gap on the axial
strength of back-to-back gapped built-up CFS channels. Dabaon et al.
[5] investigated built-up battened columns; and concluded that both
AISI and the Eurocodes were un-conservative for columns failed
through local buckling and conservative when the built-up columns
failed through flexural buckling. Piyawat et al. [6] investigated welded
back-to-back channel-section. Zhang and Young [7] considered an
opening in the back-to-back built-up channel-sections (see Fig. 2).
Whittle et al. [8] investigated the axial strengths of built-up channel-
sections which were welded to-to-toe. Stone and LaBoube [9] con-
sidered stiffened flange and track back-to-back channel-sections. On the
other hand, Roy et al. [10] investigated the effect of screw spacing on
the axial strength of back-to-back built-up CFS un-lipped channel sec-
tions and showed that AISI & AS/NZS can be un-conservative for stub
and short columns. Other works include that of Fratamico et al. [11,12]
who considered wood-sheathed and screw-fastened back-to-back built-
up cold-formed columns and investigated the buckling behaviour of
such columns and Anbarasu et al. [13,14] who investigated the beha-
viour of cold-formed steel web stiffened built-up battened columns. Roy
et al. [15] recently presented an experimental and numerical in-
vestigation on the behaviour of face-to-face built-up CFS channel sec-
tions under axial compression.
This paper presents 60 experimental tests and 204 non-linear finite
element analyses results of back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel
sections under axial compression. Tensile coupon tests were conducted
to determine the material properties of the columns. Geometric im-
perfections were measured for all 60 specimens. Experimental failure
loads, failure modes and deformed shapes were observed and discussed
in detail for different length and cross section of columns. The finite
element model includes modelling of web fasteners, material non-lin-
earity and geometric imperfections. Finite element results compared

(a)BU75

(b) BU90
Fig. 2. Back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel channel sections with an
Fig. 1. Details of back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel channel-sections. opening after Young & Zhang [6].

328
 Table 1
Axial strength comparison from laboratory, finite element analyses and design standards.
K. Roy et al.

(a) BU75

Specimen Web Flange Lip Length Thickness Spacing Modified Test results Current AISI& AS/NZS design FEA results Design strengths using Eqs. 8 and 9
slenderness strengths

A′ B′ C′ L t S (KL/r)m PEXP PAISI&AS/NZS PEXP/PAISI PFEA PEXP/PFEA PAISI&AS/NZS (using Eqs. 8 & PFEA/PAISI using Eqs. 8 and
9) 9

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) – (kN) (kN) – (kN) – (kN) –

Stub
BU75-S50-L300-1 73.1 19.8 11.1 273 1.20 50.0 15.63 120.7 126.6 0.95 116.7 1.09 113.3 1.03
BU75-S50-L300-2 73.1 19.8 11.2 280 1.21 50.0 15.93 118.8 126.7 0.94 114.9 1.03 112.6 1.02
BU75-S50-L300-3 72.7 19.5 10.8 270 1.20 50.9 15.92 118.7 124.8 0.95 114.4 1.04 113.3 1.01
BU75-S100-L300-1 73.1 19.8 11.2 267 1.18 99.7 19.48 117.5 125.1 0.94 113.6 1.03 109.2 1.04
BU75-S100-L300-2 73.1 19.9 11.2 273 1.19 100.2 19.41 122.7 125.4 0.98 117.4 1.05 114.0 1.03
BU75-S100-L300-3 73.6 19.7 11.2 273 1.20 99.5 19.56 115.4 124.8 0.92 112.6 1.02 111.5 1.01
BU75-S200-L300-1 73.7 19.8 11.2 266.5 1.21 200.0 30.31 122.5 119.0 1.03 120.8 1.01 118.4 1.02
BU75-S200-L300-2 73.6 19.9 11.2 266 1.20 199.5 30.22 119.1 119.0 1.00 116.4 1.02 114.1 1.02
BU75-S200-L300-3 72.9 20.0 11.2 268 1.20 200.0 29.97 113.1 119.3 0.95 108.4 1.04 105.2 1.03
Mean 0.96 1.04 1.02
COV 0.04 0.02 0.01
Short
BU75-S100-L500-1 73.6 19.8 11.2 655.0 1.20 100.0 69.11 83.0 78.8 1.05 79.5 1.04 76.4 1.04
BU75-S100-L500-3 73.6 19.7 11.2 680.0 1.21 100.5 72.16 74.1 78.3 0.95 78.4 0.95 74.0 1.06
BU75-S200-L500-1 73.5 19.5 11.3 653.0 1.20 195.0 73.36 86.2 79.9 1.08 80.3 1.07 77.2 1.04
BU75-S200-L500-2 73.6 19.6 11.3 678.0 1.18 195.0 75.58 88.9 81.4 1.09 82.7 1.07 80.3 1.03

329
BU75-S200-L500-3 73.4 19.7 11.3 680.0 1.19 200.5 75.61 93.6 86.7 1.08 88.1 1.06 84.7 1.04
BU75-S400-L500-1 73.6 19.7 11.3 678.0 1.20 400.0 88.74 74.8 72.4 1.03 74.6 1.00 72.4 1.03
BU75-S400-L500-2 73.5 19.7 11.3 679.0 1.22 401.0 89.00 80.6 74.3 1.08 76.3 1.06 74.8 1.02
Mean 1.05 1.04 1.04
COV 0.05 0.05 0.01
Intermediate
BU75-S225-L1000-1 75.3 20.2 10.4 1133 1.20 225.3 121.36 47.0 42.3 1.11 45.7 1.03 44.4 1.03
BU75-S225-L1000-2 75.7 19.9 10.4 1131 1.20 225.3 123.71 46.3 41.0 1.13 44.9 1.03 43.2 1.04
BU75-S450-L1000-1 75.8 19.9 10.4 1131 1.21 447.0 133.91 50.4 38.9 1.29 42.4 1.19 42.0 1.01
BU75-S450-L1000-2 75.6 19.9 10.4 1133 1.20 450.0 135.07 45.0 38.1 1.18 40.1 1.12 39.3 1.02
BU75-S450-L1000-3 75.9 19.8 10.3 1182 1.18 450.0 140.52 41.8 34.6 1.21 35.8 1.17 34.1 1.05
BU75-S900-L1000-1 76.0 19.9 10.3 1131 1.19 900.0 171.43 39.9 33.2 1.20 34.2 1.17 33.9 1.01
BU75-S900-L1000-2 76.3 19.8 9.1 1133 1.20 900.0 178.06 33.7 30.2 1.11 31.5 1.07 30.3 1.04
BU75-S900-L1000-3 75.9 19.8 10.3 1183 1.22 901.0 176.55 31.5 28.9 1.09 29.6 1.06 29.0 1.02
Mean 1.17 1.11 1.03
COV 0.07 0.07 0.01
Slender
BU75-S475-L2000-1 73.9 20.3 10.7 2184 1.20 474.5 231.20 10.9 10.2 1.03 10.6 1.03 10.2 1.04
BU75-S475-L2000-2 73.9 20.2 10.8 2183 1.20 462.0 231.61 10.8 10.2 1.03 10.5 1.03 10.0 1.05
BU75-S950-L2000-1 73.9 20.3 10.8 2184 1.18 949.5 255.17 8.8 8.4 1.02 8.6 1.02 8.3 1.03
BU75-S950-L2000-2 73.9 20.2 10.8 2184 1.17 950.0 256.21 8.6 8.4 1.01 8.5 1.01 8.3 1.02
BU75-S1900-L2000- 73.9 20.3 10.9 2183 1.18 1900.0 334.82 7.6 7.3 1.03 7.4 1.03 7.3 1.01
1
BU75-S1900-L2000- 73.9 20.4 10.7 2184 1.19 1901.0 333.86 7.5 7.3 1.01 7.4 1.01 7.2 1.03
2
Mean 1.02 1.02 0.01
COV 0.01 0.01 0.01
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

(continued on next page)

 Table 1 (continued)

(b) BU90
K. Roy et al.

Specimen Web Flange Lip Length Thickness Spacing Modified Test results Current AISI& AS/NZS design FEA results Design strengths using Eqs. 8 and 9
slenderness strengths

A′ B′ C′ L t S (KL/r)m PEXP PAISI&AS/NZS PEXP /PAISI PFEA PEXP/PFEA PAISI & AS/NZS (using Eqs. 8 & PFEA/PAISI using Eqs. 8 and
9) 9

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) – (kN) (kN) – (kN) – (kN) –

Stub
BU90-S50-L300-1 91.3 49.8 14.6 277.0 1.20 50.0 7.95 172.5 179.7 0.96 162.7 1.06 159.5 1.02
BU90-S50-L300-2 91.8 49.7 14.5 272.0 1.19 49.8 7.89 171.6 182.6 0.94 160.4 1.07 154.2 1.04
BU90-S50-L300-3 92.9 49.4 14.5 261.0 1.21 50.0 7.93 170.6 179.6 0.95 160.9 1.06 153.2 1.05
BU90-S100-L300-1 90.8 49.7 14.6 262.0 1.20 99.9 9.45 166.2 178.7 0.93 152.5 1.09 151.0 1.01
BU90-S100-L300-2 90.6 49.5 14.6 268.0 1.18 100.0 9.42 165.8 176.4 0.94 156.4 1.06 153.3 1.02
BU90-S200-L300-1 90.7 49.4 14.6 273.5 1.18 201.0 11.93 163.3 175.6 0.93 157.0 1.04 152.4 1.03
BU90-S200-L300-2 90.7 49.4 14.6 269.5 1.20 199.0 11.83 163.5 173.9 0.94 155.7 1.05 149.7 1.04
BU90-S200-L300-3 89.5 48.3 14.0 280.5 1.20 199.0 11.87 162.9 173.3 0.94 158.2 1.03 155.1 1.02
Mean 0.94 1.06 1.03
COV 0.01 0.02 0.01
Short
BU90-S100-L500-1 90.6 49.5 14.6 656.0 1.21 100.5 35.42 160.4 149.9 1.04 152.8 1.05 148.3 1.03
BU90-S100-L500-2 90.6 49.4 14.6 678.0 1.20 100.5 34.25 158.1 152.0 1.08 153.5 1.03 150.5 1.02
BU90-S200-L500-1 90.4 49.3 14.7 653.0 1.18 199.5 38.52 152.2 140.9 1.09 142.2 1.07 139.4 1.02
BU90-S200-L500-2 90.4 49.3 14.7 678.0 1.19 199.5 39.41 150.9 138.4 1.10 142.4 1.06 138.3 1.03
BU90-S200-L500-3 90.4 49.3 14.6 680.0 1.21 200.5 40.20 149.2 135.6 1.06 143.5 1.04 138.0 1.04
BU90-S400-L500-1 90.6 49.4 14.7 678.0 1.18 400.0 50.20 132.4 124.9 1.06 127.3 1.04 123.6 1.03

330
BU90-S400-L500-2 90.4 49.4 14.7 678.0 1.20 399.0 49.41 134.5 126.9 1.07 128.1 1.05 123.2 1.04
Mean 1.07 1.05 1.03
COV 0.02 0.01 0.01
Intermediate
BU90-S225-L1000-1 90.8 49.6 14.4 1182 1.21 225.0 60.42 102.6 92.4 1.11 100.6 1.02 96.7 1.04
BU90-S225-L1000-2 90.6 49.6 14.3 1132 1.20 225.0 58.21 102.0 92.7 1.10 99.0 1.03 94.3 1.05
BU90-S450-L1000-1 90.6 49.7 14.4 1130 1.21 450.0 64.21 96.5 86.1 1.12 90.2 1.07 89.3 1.01
BU90-S450-L1000-2 90.4 49.7 14.4 1182 1.18 448.0 66.21 94.4 82.7 1.14 89.1 1.06 89.1 1.00
BU90-S450-L1000-3 90.5 49.8 14.5 1180 1.19 452.0 65.29 93.3 82.5 1.13 87.2 1.07 85.5 1.02
BU90-S900-L1000-1 90.5 49.6 14.4 1131 1.20 897.0 75.21 89.5 82.8 1.08 85.3 1.05 82.0 1.04
BU90-S900-L1000-2 91.0 49.3 14.4 1182 1.21 899.0 77.21 87.5 80.3 1.09 82.6 1.06 80.2 1.03
BU90-S900-L1000-3 90.1 49.2 14.5 1129 1.22 896.0 76.50 87.5 79.5 1.10 84.1 1.04 80.9 1.04
Mean 1.11 1.05 1.03
COV 0.07 0.02 0.02
Slender
BU90-S475-L2000-1 90.6 49.5 14.5 2164 1.20 474.2 92.52 65.4 61.1 1.07 62.9 1.04 62.3 1.01
BU90-S475-L2000-2 90.7 49.4 14.3 2172 1.20 466.6 94.42 66.0 61.6 1.07 62.9 1.05 61.7 1.02
BU90-S950-L2000-1 90.5 49.5 14.6 2169 1.18 960.4 101.17 54.0 50.9 1.06 52.5 1.03 50.5 1.04
BU90-S950-L2000-2 90.4 49.2 14.5 2148 1.17 949.3 103.21 45.6 43.4 1.05 44.7 1.02 43.4 1.03
BU90-S1900-L2000- 90.5 49.3 14.6 2158 1.18 1902.4 115.20 48.0 44.8 1.07 48.5 0.99 47.5 1.02
1
BU90-S1900-L2000- 90.9 49.7 14.2 2152 1.19 1906.7 116.42 43.2 41.1 1.05 43.2 1.00 41.1 1.05
2
Mean 1.06 1.02 1.03
COV 0.02 0.02 0.01
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

Fig. 3. Specimen labelling.

well against experimental results. The test and finite element strengths
are then compared against the design strengths calculated using AISI
Specification and AS/NZS Standard for cold-formed steel structures.
The validated finite element model is then used for a parametric study
comprising 204 models to check the effect of thickness on strength of
such columns. From the parametric study results, it is shown that spe- (a) Stub column tests
cifications are in general conservative for all columns failed by overall
buckling but the standards are un-conservative for columns failed
mainly by local buckling. Therefore, improved design rules are pro-
posed for back-to-back built-up CFS channel sections subjected to axial
compression.

2. Design rules as per AISI specification and AS/NZ standard

The un-factored design strengths calculated in accordance with the

American Iron and Steel Institute specifications and the Australia/New
Zealand standard, basically uses two methods for cold-formed steel
members are: effective width method (EWM) and the direct strength
method (DSM). However DSM does not include built-up sections,
hence, effective width method is only available for cold-formed built-up
members, which specifies the modified slenderness approach to calcu-
late the axial strengths. For built-up sections, the un-factored design
strength of axially loaded compression members calculated in ac-
cordance with AISI & AS/NZ standard are as follows:
PAISI = A e Fn (1)
The critical buckling stress (Fn) can be calculated as follows:

(2)
For, 2 )F
c £ 1.5: Fn = ( 0.658 c y

0.877
For, c > 1.5: Fn = Fy
2
c (3)
The non-dimensional critical slenderness (λc) can be calculated as
follows:
Fy
c =
Fe (4)
All the calculations above were based on the modified slenderness
ratio which is calculated as per the equation below:

2 2
KL KL s s KL (b) Intermediate column tests
= + ; For which 0.5
r ms r o ryc ryc r o (5)
Fig. 4. Photograph of test set-up.

3. Experimental investigation
3.1. Test specimens
Channel-sections C75 and C90, considered in the experimental
program, are shown in Fig. 1. The measured specimen dimensions are
shown in Table 1. The experimental test program comprised 60 speci-
mens, subdivided into four different column heights: 300 mm, 500 mm,
331
1000 mm and 2000 mm. The columns were tested with pin-ended
conditions, apart from the stub column (300 mm). In Table 1, the spe-
cimens have been sub-divided into stub, short and intermediate and
slender columns. In the experimental test program, the following screw
spacing were considered:
• Columns of 300 mm height; screw spacing of 50 mm, 100 mm, and
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

200 mm the British Standard for Testing and Materials [16]. Coupons were
• Columns of 500 mm height; screw spacing of 100 mm, 200 mm, and 12.5 mm wide with a gauge length of 50 mm. The coupons were tested
400 mm in a MTS displacement controlled testing machine using friction grips.
• Columns of 1000 mm height; screw spacing of 225 mm, 450 mm, Two strain gauges and a calibrated extensometer of 50 mm gauge
and 900 mm length were used to measure the longitudinal strain. The average values
• Columns of 2000 mm height; screw spacing of 475 mm, 950 mm, of Young's modulus and yield stress were 207 N/mm2 and 560 N/mm2,
and 1900 mm respectively.

3.2. Material properties 3.3. Labelling

Material properties of the channel sections were determined, taking Specimen labelling was used to represent the type of section, screw
tensile coupons from the center of the web plate in the longitudinal spacing, nominal length of specimen and specimen number. Fig. 3
direction. The tensile coupons were prepared and tested according to shows an example of the labelling used. The channel-sections are

(a) Photograph of imperfection measurement setup (b) LVDT measurement positions

(c) Typical imperfection profile for BU90-S200-L300-1

Fig. 5. Details of imperfection measurements.

332
K. Roy et al.
200
180
160
140
120
Load (kN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3
Fig. 6. Typical experimental and finite element results.
denoted by their web depth i.e. 90 in the label (see Fig. 3). The inter-
mediate fastener spacing is denoted as s for the spacing. The column
length is stated last in the label as L together with the nominal column
length.
3.4. Test-rig and testing procedure
Fig. 4 shows a photograph of the test set-up for stub and inter-
mediate columns. The external load cell was used at the base and two
LVDTs were positioned at the web, and a third positioned at the top.
LVDT positions are numbered as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Fig. 4(a). Axial
load was applied to the specimens via a 600 kN capacity GOTECH, GT-
7001-LC60 Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The loading rate was
kept below 25 kg/cm2/s for all test specimens.
3.5. Measurement of initial geometric imperfections
Fig. 5(a) shows the geometric imperfection measurement equip-
ment. An LVDT with 0.01 mm accuracy was used. The LVDT was able to
record the readings at every 20 mm along the length of the sections at
the center of the web, flanges, and edge of the lips. Position of LVDTs
are shown in Fig. 5(b). A typical plot of the imperfections versus length
is shown in Fig. 5(c) for BU90-S200-L300-1. The maximum values of
imperfections for the test specimens were 0.2 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.4 mm, and
0.6 mm for the 300 mm, 500 mm, 1000 mm and 2000 mm section
lengths, respectively. These imperfections can be included in finite
element models to accurately predict the axial capacities of the built-up
members.
3.6. Experimental results
The dimensions of the test specimens and the experimental ultimate
loads (PEXP) are shown in Table 1(a) and (b) for BU75 and BU90.
Table 1 also shows the strength of the back-to-back channel-sections in
accordance with the AISI & AS/NZS standards. The non-dimensional
slenderness of the channel-sections are also included in Table 1. As can
be seen, AISI & AS/NZ Standards are un-conservative for the stub
column tests and conservative for the other column tests.
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
Test BU 75-S50-L-300-1
FEA BU 75-S 50-L 300 1
Test BU 90-S50-L-300-1
FEA BU 90-S50-L-300-1
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
Load-axial shortening relationship for BU75-S50-L300-1 is plotted
in Fig. 6. It is shown that the relationship was almost linear up to a load
of 85 kN, which is approximately 70.4% of the ultimate failure load for
BU75-S50-L300-1. After that, non-linear behaviour is continued until
the failure load is reached, which is 120.7 kN.
Different failure modes were observed with varying length of the
columns. Also, screw spacing has significant effect in terms of strength
and failure modes of built-up columns. Almost all stub columns of both
BU75 and BU90 series, failed under local buckling. The failure modes
for both the BU75-S100-L300 and BU90-S100-L300 test specimens are
similar to the BU75-S50-L300 and BU90-S50-L300 test specimens.
However, the individual channels tended to buckle separately between
the intermediate fasteners as shown in Fig. 7(a). However, the in-
dividual channels pry apart at mid-length for both the BU75-S200-L300
and BU90-S200-L300 test specimens due to the lack of fasteners along
the length of the column. It was observed that for the BU75-L500 test
specimens, local buckling waves were formed during the initial phase of
testing but global buckling dominated the final observed deformation
as shown in Fig. 7(b). Flexural-torsional buckling was observed in some
of the BU90-L1000 test specimens during testing, but for the inter-
mediate columns global buckling dominated the final and total de-
formation, as shown in Fig. 7(c). Local and distortional buckling was
not observed during the testing of the slender columns for the BU75-
L2000 test specimens. Global buckling was noticeable immediately
with a large curved deformation at mid-height. After the ultimate load
was reached, localized deformation was visible near the mid-length of
the compression side of the specimens.
4. Numerical investigation
4.1. General
A non-linear elasto-plastic finite element model was developed
using ABAQUS [17]. The modelling techniques described by Ying et al.
[18–21] are applied. The model was based on the center line dimen-
sions of the cross-sections. In the finite element model, the measured
cross-sectional dimensions were used. Specific modelling issues are
described below.
333
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

BU75-S50-L300 BU90-S50-L300 BU75-S100-L300 BU90-S100-L300 BU75-S200-L300 BU90-S200-L300

(a) Stub column

BU75-S100-L500 BU75-S200-L500 BU75-S400-L500

(b) Short column

BU75-S225-L1000 BU90-S225-L1000 BU75-S950-L2000 BU90-S950-L2000

(c) Intermediate column (d) Slender column

Fig. 7. Failure modes observed during experimental tests.
334
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

Fig. 8. Typical finite element mesh at failure (BU75-S100-L500-1)

Fig. 9. Boundary condition applied to the finite element model (BU75-S100-L500-1)

335
K. Roy et al.
(a) Local buckling
Fig. 10. Initial imperfection contours (BU75-S100-L500-1)
4.2. Finite element idealization
The full geometry was modelled for the test specimens. Contact
surfaces were defined between the web surfaces of the channel sections
in the built-up section. In this study, surface-to-surface contact of the
built-up columns is defined between the outside surfaces of the webs of
the two-individual channel-sections. One of the web surfaces is defined
as a master surface while the other as a slave surface. Axial load was
applied through the center of gravity of the specimens. Displacement
control load was used to apply the load. Static RIKS method was used to
apply displacements on each ends of the built-up column. In total, 100
increments were used. Initial arc length increment was 1, whereas the
minimum and maximum arc length increments were 1E-005 and
1E + 036 respectively with an estimated total arc length of 1.
4.3. Geometry and material properties
The full geometry was modelled for the test specimens and para-
metric study. The material non-linearity was incorporated in the finite
element model by specifying ‘true’ values of stresses and strains. The
ABAQUS classical metal plasticity model was adopted for all the ana-
lyses and for validation of the model. This model implements the von
Mises yield surface to define isotropic yielding, associated plastic flow
theory, and isotropic hardening behaviour. For the parametric study, a
336
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
(b) Overall buckling
simplified elastic perfect plastic stress–strain curve obeying Von Mises
yield criterion was used. Yield stress of 560 MPa, ultimate stress of
690 MPa, along with Young's modulus of 207 GPa, and was used in
numerical modelling. As per the ABAQUS manual, the engineering
material curve is converted into a true material curve:
true = (1 + ) (6)
true
= ln (1 + )
true(pl)
E (7)
where E is the Young's Modulus, σ and ε are the engineering stress and
strain respectively in ABAQUS [17].
4.4. Element type and mesh sensitivity
The channel sections were modelled using the linear 4-node quad-
rilateral thick shell element S4R5. An element size of 5 mm by 5 mm
was found to be appropriate, based on the results of a convergence
study. Along the length of the sections, the number of elements was
chosen so that the aspect ratio of the elements was as close to one as
possible. Mesh sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the
number of elements. Fig. 8 shows a typical finite element mesh at
failure.
K. Roy et al.
(i) Experimental (ii) FEA (i) Experimental
(a) Stub column (b) Short column
Fig. 11. Failure modes of built-up sections.
4.5. Boundary conditions and load application
The back-to-back built-up cold-formed steel columns investigated in
this study were pin-ended columns other than the stub column which
was fixed-ended. To define the upper and lower pin-end conditions, the
displacements and rotations were applied to the upper and lower end
plates through reference Points. The load was applied to the reference
points of the upper end plate as shown in Fig. 9. Cartesian basic con-
nector elements available in the ABAQUS library were used to model
the screw connections. Connector elements were assigned a stress of
6210 MPa to validate the experimental results accurately. The load was
applied in increments using the modified RIKS method available in the
ABAQUS library. The RIKS method can predict post buckling behaviour.
4.6. Modelling of local and overall geometric imperfections
Eigenvalue analyses were used to determine the contours for the
global and local imperfections. The imperfections were scaled to the
values determined in the experimental program. In addition, local im-
perfections of magnitude 0.5% of the section thickness were in-
corporated as recommended by Ellobody and Young [22]. Fig. 10 shows
the local and overall buckling modes obtained for a typical stub
column.
4.7. Modelling of residual stresses
Residual stresses can be incorporated into the FE model as initial
state using the ABAQUS (*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE = STRESS)
option. However, previous studies detailed in [5,22–24] have shown
that it has a negligible effect on the column strength, stiffness of the
column, load-axial shortening behaviour and failure modes. Therefore,
337
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
(ii) FEA (i) Experimental (ii) FEA
(c) Intermediate column
residual stresses were not included in the model to avoid the complexity
of the analysis.
4.8. Verification of finite element model
Fig. 6 compares the experimental test results and the finite element
results of stub column for both BU75 and BU90 series. Fig. 11 shows the
modes of failure for the stub, short and intermediate columns. As can be
seen, the finite element results are close the experimental test results.
Thus, the experimental and finite element results show good agreement
for both the ultimate strength and the failure mode.
Table 1(a) and (b) compares the failure load from the experimental
tests with that of the finite element analysis. As can be seen, the mean
value of the ratio PEXP/PFEA is 1.04, with a co-efficient of variation of
0.02 for stub column of BU75.
5. Comparison with design standards
Table 1(a) and (b) compares the experimental strengths with the
design strengths calculated in accordance with AISI and AS/NZS. As can
be seen, for both BU75 and BU90 series, the design strength calculated
using the modified slenderness approach, proposed by AISI & AS/NZS
are lower than experimental strengths by around 12% average for
columns failed mainly by overall buckling. However, AISI & AS/NZS
standard overestimated the strength of back-to-back built-up columns
which were failed mainly by local buckling i.e. stub columns.
The effect of screw spacing was investigated with the length of the
columns for both BU75 and BU90 series. For the case of the stub and
slender columns, increasing the number of screws has negligible effect
on axial strength of the sections but for short and intermediate columns,
the strength of the section was dependent on the number of screws. In
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

(a) BU 75

(b) BU90
Fig. 12. Variation of strength against modified slenderness.

case of the short column, when the spacing of the screws was doubled,
the strength of the section was reduced by around 5% to 10%. When the
screw spacing was doubled, the axial strength was decreased by around
10% to 15% for intermediate columns.
Fig. 12(a) shows the experimental, finite element and design
strengths of the BU75 columns plotted against modified slenderness. As
can be seen, columns having modified slenderness ratio < 32 failed
mainly by local buckling, while columns having a modified slender-
ness > 53 failed through overall member buckling. On the other hand,
Fig. 12(b) shows the plot of experimental, numerical and design
strengths against modified slenderness for BU90 section. It is shown
that, columns having modified slenderness ratio < 29 failed mainly by
local buckling, whereas columns having a modified slenderness > 48
failed through overall member buckling. As can be expected, for the
slender columns, the increase in strength is less. Fig. 13(a) and (b)
compares the FEA strength and design strength calculated in ac-
cordance with AISI& AS/NZS for BU75 and BU90. For both BU75 and
BU90 columns, standards were conservative for columns failed by
overall buckling but for columns failed by local buckling, standards
were un-conservative by around 10%.

338
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

(a) BU75

(b) BU90
Fig. 13. Comparison of FEA strength and design strength (AISI & AS/NZ Standards).

6. Parametric study & AS/NZS Standards.

A parametric study comprising 204 models was conducted using the
verified finite element model. BU75 was considered for the parametric
study, where back-to-back channels had dimension of
75 × 20 × 10 mm. Stub, short and intermediate and slender columns
were investigated for thickness varying from 0.75 mm to 2.5 mm.
Spacing between the screws were kept constant to investigate the effect
of one parameter: thickness. Considered spacing for stub, short, inter-
mediate and slender columns were 50 mm, 100 mm, 225 mm and
475 mm respectively. Table 2(a) to (d) has presented the comparison of
FEA and design strengths when the thickness is varied from 0.75 to
2.5 mm for stub, short, intermediate and slender columns. Fig. 14 shows
the variation of strength against thickness for BU75 column. As can be
seen, channel thickness was varied from 0.75 mm to 2.5 mm at an in-
crement of 0.05 mm. Fig. 14 also shows the strengths predicted by AISI
The effect of thickness was observed for different length of columns
from the parametric study. For the case of the stub columns, when the
thickness was increased from 0.75 mm to 2.5 mm, the difference in
strength predicted from FEA and AISI&AS/NZS remains almost con-
stant, while for the case of the short and intermediate columns, the
strength difference of BU75 predicted from FEA and AISI&AS/NZS re-
mains almost constant up to a thickness of 1.55 mm but above this
thickness, AISI&AS/NZS overestimated the strength by around 32%.
There was no significant difference in strength predicted between FEA
and AISI&AS/NZS for the slender column up to a thickness of 1.15 mm,
above which, standards underestimated the strength of back-to-back
built-up cold formed steel column significantly.
The parametric study was further extended to investigate the axial
strength of welded back-to-back channels with 0 mm spacing and
compared results with screw spacing of 50 mm, 100 mm, 200 mm,

339
 K. Roy et al.

Table 2
Finite element strength and AISI&AS/NZS strength of BU75 with varying thickness.
(a) Stub column

Specimen Web Flange Lip Thickness Length Spacing AISI& AS/NZS design strength FEA strength PAISI & AS/NZS/PFEA

A′ B′ C′ t L S PAISI&AS/NZS PFEA

mm mm mm mm mm mm kN kN –

BU75-S50-L273-0.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.75 273 50.0 67.77 63.5 1.07
BU75-S50-L273-0.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.80 273 50.0 75.17 70.0 1.07
BU75-S50-L273-0.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.85 273 50.0 81.40 75.7 1.08
BU75-S50-L273-0.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.90 273 50.0 88.21 80.6 1.09
BU75-S50-L273-0.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.95 273 50.0 94.16 87.0 1.08
BU75-S50-L273-1.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.00 273 50.0 101.1 94.3 1.07
BU75-S50-L273-1.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.05 273 50.0 107.5 98.7 1.09
BU75-S50-L273-1.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.10 273 50.0 113.8 104.7 1.09
BU75-S50-L273-1.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.15 273 50.0 120.2 110.6 1.09
BU75-S50-L273-1.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.20 273 50.0 126.7 116.7 1.09
BU75-S50-L273-1.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.25 273 50.0 133.2 123.4 1.08
BU75-S50-L273-1.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.30 273 50.0 139.8 129.7 1.08
BU75-S50-L273-1.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.35 273 50.0 146.4 136.3 1.07
BU75-S50-L273-1.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.40 273 50.0 153.1 142.8 1.07
BU75-S50-L273-1.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.45 273 50.0 159.8 150.6 1.06

340
BU75-S50-L273-1.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.50 273 50.0 166.5 158.1 1.05
BU75-S50-L273-1.55 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.55 273 50.0 173.3 166.6 1.04
BU75-S50-L273-1.60 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.60 273 50.0 180.1 173.6 1.04
BU75-S50-L273-1.65 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.65 273 50.0 187.0 178.9 1.04
BU75-S50-L273-1.70 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.70 273 50.0 193.8 187.1 1.04
BU75-S50-L273-1.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.75 273 50.0 200.7 195.6 1.03
BU75-S50-L273-1.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.80 273 50.0 207.5 201.5 1.03
BU75-S50-L273-1.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.85 273 50.0 214.4 208.9 1.03
BU75-S50-L273-1.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.90 273 50.0 221.2 215.5 1.03
BU75-S50-L273-1.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.95 273 50.0 228.1 222.9 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.0 273 50.0 234.9 229.6 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.05 273 50.0 241.7 236.4 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.10 273 50.0 248.5 243.4 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.15 273 50.0 255.2 248.1 1.03
BU75-S50-L273-2.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.20 273 50.0 261.9 255.5 1.03
BU75-S50-L273-2.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.25 273 50.0 268.5 263.2 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.30 273 50.0 275.1 269.2 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.35 273 50.0 281.7 275.5 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.40 273 50.0 288.1 283.2 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.45 273 50.0 294.5 289.5 1.02
BU75-S50-L273-2.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.50 273 50.0 299.4 295.1 1.01
Mean 1.05
COV 0.03

(continued on next page)

Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
 K. Roy et al.

Table 2 (continued)

(b) Short column

Specimen Web Flange Lip Thickness Length Spacing AISI& AS/NZS design strength FEA strength PAISI & AS/NZS/PFEA

A′ B′ C′ t L S PAISI&AS/NZS PFEA

mm mm mm mm mm mm kN kN –

BU75-S100-L655-0.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.75 655 100.0 45.2 36.5 1.24
BU75-S100-L655-0.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.80 655 100.0 49.8 47.5 1.05
BU75-S100-L655-0.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.85 655 100.0 54.0 51.1 1.06
BU75-S100-L655-0.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.90 655 100.0 57.7 55.0 1.05
BU75-S100-L655-0.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.95 655 100.0 61.5 58.8 1.05
BU75-S100-L655-1.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.00 655 100.0 63.3 62.8 1.04
BU75-S100-L655-1.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.05 655 100.0 69.0 66.8 1.03
BU75-S100-L655-1.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.10 655 100.0 72.8 70.8 1.03
BU75-S100-L655-1.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.15 655 100.0 76.6 75.2 1.02
BU75-S100-L655-1.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.20 655 100.0 80.4 79.5 1.01
BU75-S100-L655-1.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.25 655 100.0 84.2 83.9 1.00
BU75-S100-L655-1.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.30 655 100.0 88.0 88.4 1.00
BU75-S100-L655-1.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.35 655 100.0 91.7 92.8 0.99
BU75-S100-L655-1.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.40 655 100.0 95.4 97.1 0.98
BU75-S100-L655-1.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.45 655 100.0 99.1 101.1 0.98
BU75-S100-L655-1.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.50 655 100.0 102.8 105.5 0.97

341
BU75-S100-L655-1.55 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.55 655 100.0 106.4 109.7 0.97
BU75-S100-L655-1.60 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.60 655 100.0 109.9 113.8 0.97
BU75-S100-L655-1.65 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.65 655 100.0 113.4 117.9 0.96
BU75-S100-L655-1.70 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.70 655 100.0 116.8 122.0 0.96
BU75-S100-L655-1.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.75 655 100.0 120.1 126.1 0.95
BU75-S100-L655-1.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.80 655 100.0 123.3 130.2 0.95
BU75-S100-L655-1.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.85 655 100.0 126.5 134.3 0.94
BU75-S100-L655-1.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.90 655 100.0 129.5 138.3 0.94
BU75-S100-L655-1.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.95 655 100.0 131.7 142.4 0.92
BU75-S100-L655-2.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.0 655 100.0 133.4 146.5 0.91
BU75-S100-L655-2.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.05 655 100.0 135.0 150.5 0.90
BU75-S100-L655-2.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.10 655 100.0 136.5 154.7 0.88
BU75-S100-L655-2.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.15 655 100.0 137.9 157.6 0.87
BU75-S100-L655-2.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.20 655 100.0 139.2 162.9 0.85
BU75-S100-L655-2.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.25 655 100.0 140.4 166.2 0.84
BU75-S100-L655-2.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.30 655 100.0 141.5 170.3 0.83
BU75-S100-L655-2.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.35 655 100.0 142.6 174.4 0.82
BU75-S100-L655-2.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.40 655 100.0 143.5 178.0 0.81
BU75-S100-L655-2.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.45 655 100.0 144.4 182.1 0.79
BU75-S100-L655-2.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.50 655 100.0 145.1 185.7 0.78
Mean 0.95
COV 0.09

(continued on next page)

Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
 K. Roy et al.

Table 2 (continued)

(c) Intermediate column

Specimen Web Flange Lip Thickness Length Spacing AISI& AS/NZS FEA Strength PAISI & AS/NZS/PFEA
Design Strength

A′ B′ C′ t L S PAISI&AS/NZS PFEA

mm mm mm mm mm mm kN kN –

BU75-S225-L1133-0.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.75 1133 225.0 20.3 23.4 0.87
BU75-S225-L1133-0.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.80 1133 225.0 21.9 25.4 0.86
BU75-S225-L1133-0.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.85 1133 225.0 23.5 27.4 0.86
BU75-S225-L1133-0.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.90 1133 225.0 25.0 29.4 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-0.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.95 1133 225.0 26.6 31.3 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-1.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.00 1133 225.0 28.1 33.1 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-1.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.05 1133 225.0 29.6 34.9 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-1.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.10 1133 225.0 31.1 36.7 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-1.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.15 1133 225.0 32.6 38.4 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-1.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.20 1133 225.0 34.0 40.3 0.85
BU75-S225-L1133-1.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.25 1133 225.0 35.3 42.1 0.84
BU75-S225-L1133-1.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.30 1133 225.0 36.3 43.8 0.84
BU75-S225-L1133-1.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.35 1133 225.0 37.1 45.6 0.83
BU75-S225-L1133-1.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.40 1133 225.0 37.9 47.4 0.81
BU75-S225-L1133-1.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.45 1133 225.0 38.6 49.2 0.80

342
BU75-S225-L1133-1.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.50 1133 225.0 39.3 51.0 0.79
BU75-S225-L1133-1.55 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.55 1133 225.0 40.0 52.7 0.77
BU75-S225-L1133-1.60 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.60 1133 225.0 40.6 54.5 0.76
BU75-S225-L1133-1.65 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.65 1133 225.0 41.2 56.3 0.75
BU75-S225-L1133-1.70 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.70 1133 225.0 41.8 58.1 0.73
BU75-S225-L1133-1.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.75 1133 225.0 42.3 59.9 0.72
BU75-S225-L1133-1.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.80 1133 225.0 42.8 61.6 0.71
BU75-S225-L1133-1.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.85 1133 225.0 43.3 63.4 0.70
BU75-S225-L1133-1.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.90 1133 225.0 43.7 65.2 0.68
BU75-S225-L1133-1.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.95 1133 225.0 44.2 67.0 0.67
BU75-S225-L1133-2.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.0 1133 225.0 44.5 68.7 0.66
BU75-S225-L1133-2.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.05 1133 225.0 44.9 70.5 0.65
BU75-S225-L1133-2.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.10 1133 225.0 45.2 72.3 0.64
BU75-S225-L1133-2.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.15 1133 225.0 45.5 74.1 0.63
BU75-S225-L1133-2.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.20 1133 225.0 45.8 75.8 0.61
BU75-S225-L1133-2.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.25 1133 225.0 46.0 77.6 0.60
BU75-S225-L1133-2.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.30 1133 225.0 46.2 79.4 0.59
BU75-S225-L1133-2.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.35 1133 225.0 46.4 81.2 0.58
BU75-S225-L1133-2.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.40 1133 225.0 46.6 83.0 0.57
BU75-S225-L1133-2.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.45 1133 225.0 46.7 84.8 0.56
BU75-S225-L1133-2.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.50 1133 225.0 46.8 86.6 0.55
Mean 0.73
COV 0.11

(continued on next page)

Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
 Table 2 (continued)

(d) Slender column

K. Roy et al.

Specimen Web Flange Lip Thickness Length Spacing AISI& AS/NZS design strength FEA strength PAISI & AS/NZS/PFEA

A′ B′ C′ t L S PAISI&AS/NZS PFEA

mm mm mm mm mm mm kN kN –

BU75-S474.5-L2184-0.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.75 2184 474.5 6.7 7.6 0.88
BU75-S474.5-L2184-0.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.80 2184 474.5 6.9 8.2 0.85
BU75-S474.5-L2184-0.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.85 2184 474.5 7.3 8.8 0.83
BU75-S474.5-L2184-0.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.90 2184 474.5 7.6 9.5 0.81
BU75-S474.5-L2184-0.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 0.95 2184 474.5 7.9 10.1 0.79
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.00 2184 474.5 8.2 10.7 0.77
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.05 2184 474.5 8.5 11.3 0.76
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.10 2184 474.5 8.8 11.8 0.74
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.15 2184 474.5 9.1 12.4 0.73
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.20 2184 474.5 9.3 12.9 0.72
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.25 2184 474.5 9.6 13.6 0.70
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.30 2184 474.5 9.8 14.1 0.69
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.35 2184 474.5 10.0 14.7 0.68
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.40 2184 474.5 10.2 15.3 0.67
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.45 2184 474.5 10.42 15.9 0.66
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.50 2184 474.5 10.6 16.4 0.65
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.55 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.55 2184 474.5 10.8 17.0 0.63
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.60 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.60 2184 474.5 10.9 17.6 0.62
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.65 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.65 2184 474.5 11.1 18.2 0.61
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.70 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.70 2184 474.5 11.3 18.7 0.60

343
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.75 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.75 2184 474.5 11.4 19.3 0.59
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.80 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.80 2184 474.5 11.6 19.9 0.58
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.85 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.85 2184 474.5 11.7 20.5 0.57
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.90 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.90 2184 474.5 11.8 21.0 0.56
BU75-S474.5-L2184-1.95 75.0 20.0 10.0 1.95 2184 474.5 11.9 21.6 0.55
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.00 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.0 2184 474.5 12.0 22.2 0.54
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.05 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.05 2184 474.5 12.1 22.8 0.53
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.10 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.10 2184 474.5 12.2 23.3 0.52
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.15 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.15 2184 474.5 12.3 23.9 0.52
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.20 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.20 2184 474.5 12.4 24.5 0.51
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.25 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.25 2184 474.5 12.5 25.0 0.50
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.30 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.30 2184 474.5 12.5 25.6 0.49
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.35 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.35 2184 474.5 12.6 26.2 0.48
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.40 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.40 2184 474.5 12.6 26.8 0.47
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.45 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.45 2184 474.5 12.7 27.4 0.46
BU75-S474.5-L2184-2.50 75.0 20.0 10.0 2.50 2184 474.5 12.7 27.9 0.45
Mean 0.63
COV 0.12
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
K. Roy et al. Structures 16 (2018) 327–346

Fig. 14. Comparison of FEA and AISI& AS/NZ strengths for built up column section BU75 with different thickness.

Fig. 15. Comparison of FEA strength and design strength (AISI & AS/NZ Standards)

400 mm and 900 mm results. It was found that the axial strength of
welded back-to-back channels with 0 mm spacing was 22% higher than
the axial strength of built-up channels with 50 mm screw spacing. For
100 mm screw spacing, axial strength of built-up channels was 28%
lower on average when compared with the axial strength of welded
built-up channels. For 200, 400 and 900 mm fastener spacing, axial
strengths of built-up back-to-back channels were 34%, 41% and 53%
lower than the axial strength of welded back-to-back channels respec-
tively.
7. Proposed design rules
There are mainly two regions in the design curve of AISI & AS/NZS.
The first region is for stub columns (where modified slenderness is less
than or equal to 32 or λ c ≤ 1.5) and the second region is for slender
columns (where modified slenderness is > 53 or λ c > 1.5), which is
defined by Eqs. (2) and (3) in AISI & AS/NZS [1,2]. Table 1(a) and (b)
compares the experimental and FEA results with existing design equa-
tions for back-to-back built-up CFS columns subjected to axial com-
pression. As can be seen from Table 1, AISI & AS/NZS is over con-
servative for intermediate and slender columns which failed through

344
K. Roy et al.
flexural buckling. However, for stub columns, which failed though local
buckling, AISI & AS/NZS are un-conservative by around 12%, which
emphasize the need for improved design rules. Therefore this paper
proposes a new set of equations as below:
(8)
Fn = ( 0.61 2) Fy for, 1.5
c c
0.84
Fn = Fy for, c > 1.5
1.5
c (9)
Fig. 15 shows a close agreement of test and FEA results with the
proposed equations. Also shown in Table 1(a) and (b), the comparison
of axial strength from FEA and design strengths calculated using Eqs.
(8) and (9) for BU75 and BU90 respectively. As can be seen from
Table 1 and Fig. 15, design strengths are very close to FE strengths,
when Eqs. (8) and (9) were used.
8. Capacity reduction factor
The American cold-formed steel structures code [1] recommends a
statistical model to determine the capacity reduction factors. This
model accounts for the variations in material, fabrication and the
loading effects. The capacity reduction factor ϕ is given by the fol-
lowing equation:
2 2 2 2
= 1.52Mm Fm Pm e 0 Vm + V f + Cp Vp + Vq
(10)
where, Mm and Vm are the mean and coefficient of variation of the
material factor 1.1, 0.1; Fm, Vf are the mean and coefficient of variation
of the fabrication factor 1, 0.05; Vq is the coefficient of variation of load
effect 0.21; β0 is the target reliability index 2.5; Cp is the correction
factor depending on the number of tests; Pm is the mean value of the
tested to predicted load ratio; Vp is the coefficient of variation of the
tested to predicted load ratio.
Vp and Pm values have to be determined from experiments or ana-
lyses. In this investigation ultimate loads obtained from FEA were
considered. Hence Vp and Pm are the mean and coefficient of variation
of the ratio of ultimate loads from FEA and design standards.
The substitution of all the above values leads to the following
equation.
2.5 0.0566 + Cp Vp2
= 1.615Pm e (11)
Eq. 11 was used to determine the capacity reduction factors for the
values obtained from the current AISI & AS/NZS [1,2] and the proposed
design rules. AS/NZS [2] recommends a capacity reduction factor of
0.85 for compression members. Table 1 compares the tests and FEA
results with design strengths calculated from the existing design equa-
tions and proposed design equations for back-to-back built-up CFS
columns subjected to axial compression. The capacity reduction factors
according to the current AISI & AS/NZS [1,2], using Eqs. (2) and (3) are
0.80 and 0.92, for stub and slender columns respectively, which em-
phasize the need for improved design rules. The capacity reduction
factor according to the proposed Eqs. (8) and (9) is 0.87. Therefore, Eqs.
(8) and (9) are recommended for designing back-to-back built-up CFS
columns under axial compression.
9. Conclusion and future work
This paper has presented the results of 60 experimental tests and
204 non-linear finite element analyses on back-to-back built-up cold-
formed steel channels, subject to axial compression. Material properties
and geometric imperfections were measured for all specimens. The
buckling modes and deformed shapes at failure have been discussed in
detail with varying thickness, length and cross section of columns. The
non-linear finite element model includes explicit modelling of web
fasteners, material non-linearity and geometric imperfections. Finite
element results are compared against the experimental test results
345
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
which showed good agreement.
The validated finite element models were then used to perform a
parametric study to investigate the effect of thickness and slenderness
on behaviour of back-to-back cold-formed steel built-up columns under
compression. The column strengths predicted from the experimental
tests and finite element analyses were compared against the design
strengths calculated in accordance with AISI and the AS/NZS
Standards. From the comparison, it is shown that standards are is in
general conservative for all columns failed by overall buckling but are
un-conservative for columns failed mainly by local buckling by around
12%. Hence improved design rules were proposed for back-to-back
built-up CFS channel sections subjected to axial compression.
Authors are currently investigating the effect of different cross
section and arrangement of screws for cold-formed steel built-up col-
umns under axial and eccentric load to develop a new Direct Strength
Method (DSM) for such built-up columns that will incorporate more
accurate estimations of axial strength of column cross sections and
screw spacing for different end conditions.
Declaration of interest
There is no conflict of interest between the authors or any third
party regarding the publication of this article.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). North American Specification for the
Design of Cold-formed Steel Structural Members. AISI; 2007. p. S100–7.
[2] Australia/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS). Cold-formed Steel Structures, AS/NZS
4600:2005. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand; 2005.
[3] Ting TCH, Roy K, Lau HH, Lim JBP. Effect of screw spacing on behavior of axialy
loaded back-to-back cold-formed steel built-up channel sections. Adv Struct Eng
2018;21(3):474–87.
[4] Roy K, Ting TCH, Lau HH, Lim JBP. Nonlinear behaviour of back-to-back gapped
built-up cold-formed steel channel sections under compression. J Constr Steel Res
2018;147:257–76.
[5] Dabaon M, Ellobody E, Ramzy K. Nonlinear behavior of built-up cold-formed steel
section battened columns. J Constr Steel Res 2015;110:16–28.
[6] Piyawat K, Ramseyer C, Kang THK. Development of an axial load capacity equation
for doubly symmetric built-up cold-formed sections. J Struct Eng ASCE
2013;139(12):04013008–13.
[7] Zhang JH, Young B. Compression tests of cold-formed steel I-shaped open sections
with edge and web stiffeners. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;52:1–11.
[8] Whittle J, Ramseyer C. Buckling capacities of axially loaded, cold-formed, built-up
channels. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:190–201.
[9] Stone TA, LaBoube RA. Behaviour of cold-formed steel built-up I-sections. Thin-
Walled Struct 2015;43:1805–17.
[10] Roy K, Ting TCH, Lau HH, Lim JBP. Nonlinear behavior of axially loaded back-to-
back built-up cold-formed steel un-lipped channel sections. Steel Compos Struct
2018;28(2):233–50.
[11] Fratamico DC, Schafer B. Numerical studies on the composite action and buckling
behavior of built-up cold-formed steel columns. Proc. of 22nd International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St. Louis, Missouri, USA,
November 5–6. 2014.
[12] Fratamico DC, Torabian S, Rasmussen KJR, Schafer B. Experimental studies on the
compositeaction in wood-sheathed and screw-fastened built-up cold-formed steel
columns. Proc. of the Annual Stability Conf., Structural Stability Res. Co., Orlando,
FL. 2016.
[13] Anbarasu M, Kanagarasu K, Sukumar S. Investigation on the behaviour and strength
of cold-formed steel web stiffened built-up battened. Mater Struct
2015;48(12):4029–38.
[14] Anbarasu M, Kumar PB, Sukumar S. Study on the capacity of cold-formed steel
built-up batten columns under axial compression. Lat Am J Solids Struct
2014;11:2271–83.
[15] Roy K, Mohammadjani C, Lim JBP. Experimental and numerical investigation into
the behaviour of face-to-face built-up cold-formed steel channel sections under
compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2019;134:291–309.
[16] BS EN. Tensile Testing of Metallic Materials Method of Test at Ambient
Temperature. British Standards Institution; 2001.
[17] ABAQUS. Analysis User's Manual-Version 6.14-2. USA: ABAQUS Inc.; 2014.
[18] Lian Y, Uzzaman A, Lim JBP, Abdelal G, Nash D, Young B. Web crippling behaviour
K. Roy et al.
of cold-formed steel channel sections with web holes subjected to interior-one-
flange loading condition-part I: experimental and numerical investigation. Thin-
Walled Struct 2017;111:103–12.
[19] Lian Y, Uzzaman A, Lim JBP, Abdelal G, Nash D, Young B. Web crippling behaviour
of cold-formed steel channel sections with web holes subjected to interior-one-
flange loading condition – part II: parametric study and proposed design equations.
Thin-Walled Struct 2017;114:92–106.
[20] Lian Y, Uzzaman A, Lim JBP, Abdelal G, Nash D, Young B. Effect of web holes on
web crippling strength of cold-formed steel channel sections under end-one-flange
loading condition – part I: tests and finite element analysis. Thin-Walled Struct
2016;107:443–52.
346
Structures 16 (2018) 327–346
[21] Lian Y, Uzzaman A, Lim JBP, Abdelal G, Nash D, Young B. Effect of web holes on
web crippling strength of cold-formed steel channel sections under end-one-flange
loading condition - part II: parametric study and proposed design equations. Thin-
Walled Struct 2016;107:489–501.
[22] Ellobody E, Young B. Behavior of cold-formed steel plain angle columns. J Struct
Eng ASCE 2005;131(3):457–66.
[23] Young B, Ellobody E. Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel lipped angle columns. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2005;131(10):1570–9.
[24] Young B, Ellobody E. Design of cold-formed steel unequal angle compression
members. Thin-Walled Struct 2007;45(3):330–8.