Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full length article

Cold-formed ferritic stainless steel closed built-up beams: Flexural behaviour

and numerical parametric study
C. Karthik a , M. Anbarasu b ,∗
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Velalar college of Engineering and Technology, Erode, Tamilnadu, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Salem, Tamilnadu, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The flexural behaviour of cold-formed ferritic stainless steel (CFFSS) closed built-up beam composed of
Built-up beams lipped channel sections orientated face to face was examined numerically, using a finite element (FE)
Cold-formed steel package ABAQUS. The developed FE models were first validated against the experimental data collected
Ferritic stainless steel
from the literature before performing the desired parametric study. Thirteen different sections were analysed,
Local buckling
with varying plate slenderness, using two different material grades (EN 1.4003, EN 1.4509) with three
Numerical analysis
different material properties and wall thicknesses. The simply supported built-up closed beams were analysed
under four-point bending. The moment capacity of the built-up beams dropped with the increase in the
compression flange’s plate slenderness. The pool of numerical strengths was used to assess the current DSM’s
appropriateness, proposed DSM for cold-formed steel closed built-up beams, and proposed DSM for ferritic
stainless steel hollow beams. Based on the above-stated strength comparisons, suitable modifications were
proposed for the current DSM specifications, mainly targetting CFFSS closed built-up beams made of lipped
channel sections (typically failing by local buckling). Lastly, a reliability analysis was performed to check the
reliability of the current and proposed DSM specifications for CFFSS closed built-up beams.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed stainless steel structural members have been widely
adopted in the global construction of buildings and bridges, owing
to their improved structural performance in terms of high strength,
corrosion resistance and ductility. The use of cold-formed steel built-
up sections became more popular and served as a viable alternative
for efficiently resisting high structural loading experienced by mid-
rise residential buildings and large-span portal frames. Fasteners such
as self-tapping screws, bolts, spot-welds and clinches are generally
used to connect the built-up sections. Stainless steel members are
often preferred by design engineers when the environmental conditions
surrounding the steel structures make them vulnerable to severe cor-
rosion. Among the various grades of stainless steel available, ferritic
stainless steel contains less nickel content (minimum of 10.5%), leaving
chromium as the main alloying element. Hence, the initial material
cost of ferritic stainless steels is about three times lower when com-
pared with austenitic stainless steel and boosts its application in the
construction industry [1]. Cold-formed steel lipped channel sections
are commonly used in the field, primarily because of their simple
forming procedures and easy to erect features. This study proposed to
form built-up sections composed of lipped channel sections, which are
arranged in the toe-to-toe orientation to form a box type section for
improved flexural resistance.
Over the last two decades, many attempts have been made to bring
out valuable research on stainless steel for construction purposes. This
subsection discussed the previous studies on stainless steel members.
Fan et al. [2] performed an experimental and numerical investigation
on stainless steel lipped C-section beams subjected to major and minor
axis bending and found that the direct strength method (DSM) were
accurately matched with test results. Li and young [3] focused on
web crippling strengths obtained from experimental and numerical
investigations for cold-formed ferritic stainless steel (EN 1.4003) tubu-
lar structural members subjected to concentrated bearing loads and
compared with the nominal strengths calculated using the current
American, Australian/New Zealand and European specifications. An
experimental investigation performed by Bock et al. [1] on the square
hollow section (SHS) and rectangular hollow section (RHS) of ferritic
stainless steel (EN 1.4003) to assess the slenderness limits (class1 to 4)
and effective width method of the European specifications and other
published results. Afshan and Gardner [4] experimentally investigated
on cold-formed ferritic stainless steel (CFFSS) hollow sections for stub
columns, flexural buckling, tensile and compressive coupon tests to

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gceanbu@gmail.com (M. Anbarasu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107816
Received 30 December 2020; Received in revised form 12 March 2021; Accepted 9 April 2021
Available online xxxx
0263-8231/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Nomenclature 𝜑𝑏 Resistance factor for beams;

𝜀 Material factor;
𝐴 Cross-sectional area;
𝜀u Ultimate tensile strain;
𝐵 Width of built-up beam;
𝜀f Strain at fracture;
𝑐 Individual section flat width of flange;
𝜎0.2 0.2% proof stress;
𝐶𝑦𝑙 Compression strain factor;
𝜎1.0 1.0% proof stress;
𝐶𝑦𝑑 Compression strain factor;
𝜎𝑐𝑟 Elastic critical buckling stress;
𝐷𝑙𝑖𝑝 Overall depth of lip;
𝜎𝑢 Ultimate tensile strength of material;
𝐸 Young’s modulus of elasticity;
𝑓𝑦 Yield stress;
𝐻 Height of built-up beam;
𝐿 Length of member; stainless steel I-beams for both flange and web critical sections, sub-
𝑀𝑐𝑟 Critical elastic buckling moment; jected to three-point and four-point bending and proposed modified
𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑑 Critical elastic distortional buckling mo- DSM equations. Based on the experimental and analytical data, Saliba
ment; and Gardner [6] proposed design recommendations on Euro code and
𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑒 Critical elastic global buckling moment; continuous strength method for LDSS welded I-sections. Thefanous and
𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑙 Critical elastic local buckling moment; Gardner [7] investigated to account the effect of local slenderness, as-
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from pect ratio, moment gradient on load-bearing and deformation capacity
Direct strength method; of LDSS SHS and RHS.
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑅𝑅 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from This subsection discussed the previous studies on cold-formed steel
modified Direct strength method proposed built-up members. Based on the numerical investigation, Anbarasu [8]
by Rossi and Rasmussen; proposed empirical equations for cold-formed steel closed built-up
beams composed of two sigma sections failed by local buckling. Ye
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝐴𝑅𝑅 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from
et al. [9] studied local/distortional buckling behaviour and deflections
modified Direct strength method proposed
of CFS back-to-back channels and reported that both EC3 and DSM
by Arrayago et al.;
provides accurate results for flexural strengths. Dar et al. [10] studied
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑊 &𝑌 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from
the behaviour of partially stiffened simply supported CFS built-up
modified Direct strength method proposed
beams subjected to four-point bending. Li et al. [11] investigated the
by Wang and Young;
in-plane behaviour of built-up box beams with nested C and U section
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑃 𝑅𝑂 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from under pure bending about both axes. Selvaraj and Madhavan [12] used
proposed Direct strength equation; two CFS sigma sections face to face connected by spot welding to make
𝑀𝐸𝑋𝑃 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from a built-up beams and proposed a modification in the direct strength
experiment; method after considering the parameters such as length of the member
𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 Ultimate moment capacity obtained from and spacing between spot welds. The flexural strengths and failure
finite element analysis; modes of specimens obtained from experimental and numerical results,
𝑀𝑛 Nominal flexural strength; Wang et al. [13] reported that the current DSM is conservative for
𝑀𝑛𝑑 Nominal flexural strength for distortional both local and distortional buckling for CFS channels with stiffened
buckling; webs subjected to bending. Laim et al. [14] studied the CFS beams
𝑀𝑛𝑒 Nominal flexural strength for Eulers buck- with C, I, R and 2R shaped cross-sections to obtain the structural be-
ling; haviour based on failure loads and modes. Zhou and Shi [15] evaluated
𝑀𝑛𝑙 Nominal flexural strength for local buck- flexural strengths for CFS Lip-Reinforced built-up I beams. Paczos and
ling; Wasilewicz [16] studied the effect of buckling of lipped, cold-formed
thin-walled beams with I-section. Structural members in CFS structures
𝑀𝑦 Yield moment capacity;
are connected by using various connections such as bolted, welded,
𝑀𝑝 Plastic moment capacity;
screws etc. Still, two types of connections, bolted and welded, mostly
𝑛 Strain hardening component for Ramberg–
used in steel structures. Landolfo et al. [17] investigated laser-welded
Osgood model;
connections for built-up cold-formed steel beams to find the influence
𝑆f Gross section modulus referenced to the of sheet thickness, gap, loading direction, shape of weld and effect
extreme fibre at first yield; of zinc coating and also compared the experimental results with the
𝑡 Thickness of the plate; predicted resistance values according to Euro code 3. Xu et al. [19]
𝑊𝑒𝑙 Elastic section modulus; studied the effect of yield strength, web height-to-thickness ratio, screw
𝑤𝑜 Imperfection factor; spacing and location of applied load on CFS built-up box sections.
𝛽1 Reliability index using the resistance factor The authors could not find any study that reported the performance
0.8; of cold-formed ferritic stainless steel (CFFSS) built-up beams composed
𝛽2 Reliability index using the resistance factor of lipped channel sections. In this paper, a comprehensive numerical
0.9; investigation on cold-formed steel closed built-up beams composed of
𝜆𝑙 Slenderness for local buckling; two lipped channel sections orientated face to face has been carried out,
to provide simplified design rules for researchers and design engineers.
𝜆𝑑 Slenderness for distortional buckling;
To account the inelastic behaviour of the sections, a nonlinear finite
element (FE) model was developed by using FE software ABAQUS
6.13 [20]. The effects of the cross-section geometries, yield stress
values on the behaviour and flexural strength of CFFSS closed built-
assess the applicability of European and North American specifica-
up beams have been investigated through a numerical parametric
tions. Lalthazuala and Singh [5] investigated the flexural behaviour study. To examine structural behaviour of the built-up beams, thirteen
of lean duplex stainless steel (LDSS), hybrid stainless steel and duplex different cross-sections were chosen with two different material grades

2
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Table 1
Measured dimensions and imperfections of the validated model (Afshan and Gardner [4]).
Specimen ID (As per literature) Axis of bending L H B T ri wo
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
RHS 120x80x3-4PB Major 1500 120.0 79.9 2.84 3.78 0.061
RHS 60x40x3-4PB Major 1500 60.2 39.9 2.86 3.15 0.081
SHS 80x80x3-4PB – 1500 80.4 80.0 2.80 3.95 0.087
SHS 60x60x3-4PB – 1500 60.7 60.7 2.89 2.86 0.061
RHS 120x80x3-3PB Major 1500 119.9 79.9 2.83 3.80 0.061
RHS 60x40x3-3PB Major 1500 60.4 40.8 2.82 3.18 0.081
SHS 80x80x3-3PB – 1500 80.5 80.2 2.81 3.81 0.087
SHS 60x60x3-3PB – 1500 60.6 60.5 2.87 2.88 0.061

Table 2
Measured dimensions of validated model (Wang & Young [18]).
Specimen ID 𝑏1 𝑏f ℎw 𝑤1 𝑤2 𝑤3 𝑡 ri
(As per literature) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
CV-1.0-B4 – 52.1 85.6 27.3 22.7 – 1.008 3.3
CV-0.48-B4 – 53.7 85.7 26.2 24.2 – 0.475 3.5
OI-1.0-B4 16.5 29.2 99.2 26.3 27.1 18.7 0.992 3.4

Table 3
Material properties of validated model [4] and [18].
Specimen ID (As per literature) E 𝜎0.2 𝜎1.0 𝜎u 𝜀f R-O coefficients Test location Type of alloy
(N/mm2 ) (%) n n′0.2,1.0
RHS 120x80x3 216 000 423 – 472 34 10.2 4.9
RHS 60x40x3 219 300 454 – 475 24 7.8 9.2
Tensile flat
SHS 80x80x3 210 000 431 – 447 35 8.7 7.2
SHS 60x60x3 218 300 519 – 534 16 7.8 10.8
RHS 120x80x3 211 150 404 451 – – 5.8 3.1
RHS 60x40x3 217 200 417 475 – – 6.4 3.3 Ferritic stainless steel
Comp. flat
SHS 80x80x3 211 250 404 456 – – 6.3 2.6
SHS 60x60x3 215 130 483 531 – – 6.3 3.1
RHS 120x80x3 226 000 535 – 554 13 6.0 –
RHS 60x40x3 200 000 545 – 597 10 4.7 –
Tensile corner
SHS 80x80x3 220 000 512 – 520 11 7.8 –
SHS 60x60x3 225 000 580 – 665 13 4.3 9.5
CV-1.0 213 000 598 – 599 9.7 – –
– Carbon steel
OI-1.0 216 000 592 – 599 8.6 – –

(EN 1.4003, EN 1.4509) and includes three different material properties
and wall thicknesses. The sectional capacities obtained from FE models
were compared with the design bending resistances calculated using
the DSM design procedure brought out in AISI specification [21] and
modified DSM (Rossi and Rasmussen [22], Arrayago et al. [23], Wang
and Young [18]). A modified DSM design rule was proposed from
the wide pool of data points obtained from this study to predict the
flexural resistance of the CFFSS closed built-up beams with improved
accuracy. Finally, the reliability of the current and proposed DSM
design equations were assessed through reliability analysis.
in the simulation of CFS built-up sections by many researchers (Li
and Young [3]; Anbarasu [8]; Haidarali and Nethercot [24]; Wang
and Young [25]). The CFFSS hollow beams and cold-formed carbon
steel built-up beams used for initial validation was modelled based on
the measured dimensions of tested specimens reported by Afshan and
Gardener [4] and Wang and Young [18] are presented in Tables 1 and
2, respectively. The uniform mesh size of 10 mm × 10 mm (aspect ratio
= 1) were used for the flat portions. At corner regions, finer mesh sizes
with three elements were used to achieve accuracy in the models.

2. Numerical analysis
2.1. General
The commercial FE software ABAQUS of version 6.13 [20] was used
to develop the numerical model of the CFFSS closed built-up beams.
The accuracy of the numerical model was verified by comparing the FE
results with the representative test results of CFFSS hollow beams [4]
followed by cold-formed carbon steel built-up beams [18] reported in
the literature.
2.3. Material modelling
The material properties used for the validation models of the ferritic
SHS/RHS hollow beam sections and built-up beams are presented
in Table 3. The tensile flat and compressive flat material properties
(See Table 3) were assigned to the corresponding flat portions of the
sections. The corner material properties are assigned at all corners and
extended up to two times of thickness [26] into the flat portion on both
sides beyond the corner regions.

2.2. Finite element type and mesh
The four-noded doubly curved shell element S4R with reduced
integration and hourglass control, with six degrees of freedom (three
translational and three rotational) for each node was employed to
mesh the beams. The shell element S4R has been successfully used
To describe the stress–strain material behaviour initially, Ramberg–
Osgood [27] developed a two-stage material model, later modified
by Mirambell–Real [28], Gardner–Asharf [29], Rasmussen [30]. Ras-
mussen material model and corresponding strain hardening exponent
were used ([30] & [31]) in the current study to investigate the be-
haviour of CFFSS built-up closed beam sections, and the same shown

3
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

2.4. Connection and contact modelling

The screw connection between the chords of the built-up sections

of the validation models was simulated by using the mesh independent
fastener option available in ABAQUS library. The CONN3D2 element
type with 2 nodes and 6 degrees of freedom per node was used to
simulate the self-driving screws by assuming the linear elastic be-
haviour elastic stiffness value of 5 kN/mm by following Jeyaragan and
Mahendran [32] with a greater degree of the factor of safety. It is worth
to mention that the screw connection failures were not reported in the
test results of Wang and Young [18]. The influence radius of 5 mm
around the connector point was model to simulate the effect of screw
connection adjacent to the nodes.
In the parametric model, the welded connection between the chords
of the CFFSS built-up closed beams is modelled by using the edge-to-
edge mesh independent fastener (constrained in all degree of freedom)
option from ABAQUS as shown in Fig. 1. Near the weld region, the
residual stress caused by welding is ignored because the weld was pro-
vided for a very small distance between the moment span by following
Anbarasu [8]. Contact modelling, small sliding was assigned to avoid
the penetration of layers during analysis. Surface-to-surface contact was
defined in interaction property with frictionless contact in tangential
behaviour, and hard contact in normal behaviour were adopted by
following Anbarasu [8] and Jeyaragan and Mahendran [32].

2.5. Boundary conditions and loading

The ends of the beams were connected to the reference points (RPs)
that were created at the geometric centroid of the section at both ends.
Kinematic coupling constraints were used to connect the periphery of
Fig. 1. Boundary condition, loading and fastener details of FE model. the beam cross-section to their respective reference point. The simply
supported end conditions in terms of allowing and restricting transla-
tional and rotational constraints were incorporated into these reference
in Eqs. (1) & (2), respectively. points to simulate the actual support conditions. The hinged end was
modelled by restraining all degrees of freedom except the in-plane
rotation (UR4), and the roller end were modelled by releasing both
⎧ ( )𝑛 ⎫ the in-plane rotation (UR4) and axial translation (U3) along the beam
⎪ 𝜎 + 0.002 𝜎
𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜎 ≤ 𝜎0.2 ⎪
⎪𝐸 𝜎0.2 ⎪ length. Two reference points were created at the centroid of the section
𝜀=⎨ 0 ( ) ⎬ (1)
⎪ 𝜎 − 𝜎0.2 + 𝜀 𝜎 − 𝜎0.2 𝑚 exactly below the loading points were coupled to the relevant nodes
+ 𝜀0.2 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜎 > 𝜎0.2 ⎪ with reference points to prevent bearing failure Anbarasu [8] & Wang
⎪ 𝐸0.2 𝑢
𝜎𝑢 − 𝜎0.2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭ and Young [18] of the beams at loading points.
( )
𝜎0.2 In order to mimic the loading plate effects at the loading points,
𝑚 = 1 + 2.8 (2)
𝜎𝑢 two reference points were formed at the centre of the contact surfaces
between the load transfer plates and the specimen. The RPs were
coupled with surface node set at all degrees of freedom, using the
kinematic coupling option available in the ABAQUS software. The
The nonlinear stress–strain relationship is further modified in terms
loading was applied by the displacement control method by specifying
of true stress and log plastic strain for input into ABAQUS model [20]. a vertical displacement (U2) at the two reference points, as shown in

Fig. 2. Comparison of failure mode from the test and FE modelling for CV-1.0-B4.

4
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu
Fig. 3. Comparison of moment vs. rotation curve for RHS120x80x3–3PB.
Fig. 4. Comparison of moment vs. deflection curve for CV-1.0-B3.
Fig. 1, which is identical to the tests of flexural members. The notations
‘‘1, 2, 3’’ and ‘‘4, 5, 6’’ represents translation and rotations in the X, Y
and Z axes, respectively.
2.6. Geometrical imperfections
The geometric imperfections will develop during the production and
fabrication of cold-formed sections. The measured geometric imper-
fection values reported in the respective literature were included in
the validation of FE models. In the parametric FE models, the local
geometric imperfection amplitude calculated from the predictive model
of Dawson and Walker [33] as modified by Gardner and Nethercot [34]
is given by Eq. (3) was used to perturb the built-up beams.
( )
𝜎0.2
𝑤𝑜 = 0.023 𝑡 (3)
𝜎𝑐𝑟
The first buckling mode shape obtained from elastic critical buckling
analysis were scaled to the local imperfection values obtained from
Eq. (3) was adopted for FE analysis to initiate the nonlinear analysis.
2.7. Nonlinear solution procedure
In the FE study of closed built-up beams, significant convergence
problems were encountered because of the consideration of material,
geometric and contact nonlinearities in the FE model. To sort out this
issue, the method proposed by Anbarasu [8], Wang and Young [18]
and Becque [35] were followed by executing two general static steps
during the analysis for CFFSS built-up beam sections. The FE modelling
approach proposed were found that it works well. In the first step, a
small displacement load was applied gradually to develop a contact
relationship between the defined master and slave surfaces. In the
second step, the full displacement load was applied, and an automatic
5
Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816
Fig. 5. Cross section of specimen.
stabilisation algorithm was used, which allows stabilising the unstable
quasi-static problems and convergence issues with the help of artificial
damping by specifying the damping factor value of 0.0002.
3. Validation of FE models
The FE models were initially validated by comparing with experi-
mental test results on simply-supported ferritic stainless steel SHS/RHS
beams [4], followed by cold-formed carbon steel built-up beams [18]
for three-point and four-point bending tests. The measured dimen-
sions, including local imperfections, material properties of the validated
model, are shown in Tables 1–3, respectively. The comparison of the
ultimate moment capacities of the nonlinear static analysis using the
FE model with the experimental test results is shown in Table 4. The
ratio of the experimental (M 𝐸𝑥𝑝 ) to the FE analysis (𝑀FEA ) ultimate
moment capacities of mean is 1.002 with a standard deviation is 0.050.
The comparison of failure mode for specimen CV-1.0-B4 is shown in
Fig. 2. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the comparison of the moment vs.
rotation curve, moment vs. deflection curve between the tests and
FEA predictions for the specimens RHS120x80x3-3PB and CV-1.0-B3,
respectively. From the comparison of results, it can be seen that FEA
results closely predicted the ultimate moment capacity and deflection
of cold-formed ferritic hollow sections as well as built-up beams.
4. Parametric study
An extensive parametric study was performed after the successful
validation of the FE models to generate numerical data of 108 CFFSS
closed built-up beams under four-point bending. The typical cross-
section of the CFFSS beam section considered for this study is shown in
Fig. 5. The dimensions of the cross-sections ranged from 80x60x20 to
300x300x20 which include 13 different sizes of CFFSS closed built-up
beam sections. The three different material properties (M1, M2 and M3)
were considered among that M1, M2 comes under the ferritic grade of
EN 1.4003, and M3 comes under the ferritic grade of EN 1.4509. Each
section has investigated three different thicknesses (1.0 mm, 1.6 mm
and 2.0 mm). The material properties considered for the parametric
study are presented in Table 5.
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Fig. 6. Fastener and loading location of parametric model.

Table 4
Comparison of experimental and FEA ultimate moment capacities.
Specimen ID (As per literature) Moment capacities (kN m) 𝑀EXP ∕𝑀FEA Remarks
𝑀EXP 𝑀FEA
RHS 120x80x3-4PB 20.00 18.10 1.10
RHS 60x40x3-4PB 5.30 5.50 0.96
SHS 80x80x3-4PB 11.30 11.26 1.00
SHS 60x60x3-4PB 7.90 7.99 0.99
Stainless steel ferritic — SHS/RHS sections
RHS 120x80x3-3PB 21.10 20.32 1.04
RHS 60x40x3-3PB 5.90 6.15 0.96
SHS 80x80x3-3PB 11.40 12.23 0.93
SHS 60x60x3-3PB 8.40 8.61 0.98
CV-1.0-B4 4.09 4.01 1.02
CV-1.0-B3 4.22 3.99 1.06 Carbon steel — closed/open built-up sections
OI-1.0-B4 6.09 6.21 0.98
Mean 1.002
Std. Dev. 0.050

Table 5
Material properties of Parametric model [4] M1, M2 - EN 1.4003, M3 - EN 1.4509.
Testing location Material group E (N/mm2 ) 𝜎0.2 (N/mm2 ) 𝜎1.0 (N/mm2 ) 𝜎u (N/mm2 ) 𝜀f (%) R-O coefficients
n n′0.2,1.0
M1 216 000 423 – 472 34 10.2 4.9
Tensile flat M2 219 300 454 – 475 24 7.8 9.2
M3 218 300 519 – 534 16 7.8 10.8
M1 211 150 404 451 – – 5.8 3.1
Comp. flat M2 217 200 417 475 – – 6.4 3.3
M3 215 130 483 531 – – 6.3 3.1
M1 226 000 535 – 554 13 6.0 –
Tensile corner M2 200 000 545 – 597 10 4.7 –
M3 225 000 580 – 665 13 4.3 9.5

The CFFSS closed built-up beams were modelled for a length of
2200 mm with a constant moment span of 1000 mm under four-
point bending. Table 6 summarises the cross-section dimensions and
corresponding elastic buckling moments of the sections. The continuous
connection of fasteners was provided for a length of 75 mm near
each support and at loading points to distribute the load uniformly
without bearing failure. Intermittent fasteners were provided at two
locations for a length of 30 mm, in between the moment span for all
the specimens, which allows local buckling to be the prevailing failure
mode. Fig. 6 shows the typical loading and fastener (weld) length
details of all parametric models.
The closed built-up beams were labelled to identify the details of
specimens. For example, a specimen labelled as 80x60x20-T1.0-M1 is
described as follows: 80: overall height of the built-up beam in mm; 60:
overall breadth of the built-up beam in mm; 20: depth of lip in mm;
T1.0: the thickness of the specimen in mm and M1: indicates material
property comes under the first group.
The comparisons of parametric FE results with those predicted by
the current Direct Strength Method (DSM) detailed in AISI specifi-
cation [21], modified DSM by Rossi and Rasmussen [22], Arrayago
et al. [23], Wang and Young [18] and proposed DSM modified design
rule from this study are presented.
5. Reliability analysis
The reliability analysis was performed by following the method
specified in section 6.2 of the ASCE specifications [36] to evaluate
the accuracy of the current DSM, proposed DSM equations for stain-
less steel and built-up members in the literature [18,22,23] and DSM
equations proposed from the current study. The design rules will be
probabilistically safe and reliable when the target reliability index (𝛽)
value is greater than (or) equal to 2.5 for CFS structural members
according to section F1.1(c) of AISI S100-2016 [21]. The CFFSS built-
up flexural members do not belong to prequalified sections. Therefore
the resistance factor (𝜑𝑏 ) of 0.8 was used in this study according to
section A1.2(c) of the NAS [21], along with regular resistance factor
for flexural member 0.9 was considered for the reliability analysis.
To consider the effect of limited numerical data, the correction factor
specified in ASCE [36] was used. The load combination of 1.2DL +

6
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Table 6
Section geometric details.
Specimen ID Specimen dimensions Elastic buckling moment Mcrl (kN m)
H (mm) B (mm) Dlip (mm) t (mm) M1 M2 M3
80x60x20 80 60 20 1.0 7.73 7.84 7.81
1.6 31.05 31.52 31.37
2.0 – 62.88 60.36
80x80x20 80 80 20 1.0 6.89 6.99 6.96
1.6 27.78 28.20 28.08
2.0 53.67 54.50 54.24
100x80x20 100 80 20 1.0 7.63 7.75 7.71
1.6 31.05 31.29 31.15
2.0 59.57 60.51 60.20
100x100x20 100 100 20 1.0 6.74 6.84 6.81
1.6 27.27 27.69 27.56
2.0 – 53.53 53.36
120x80x20 120 80 20 1.0 – 7.32 7.28
1.6 – 50.22 29.45
2.0 – 57.27 56.97
125x100x20 125 100 20 1.0 – 7.54 7.51
1.6 – 30.56 30.43
2.0 – 61.51 58.95
120x120x20 120 120 20 1.0 6.60 6.70 6.67
1.6 26.97 27.13 27.01
2.0 – 52.58 52.34
150x150x20 150 150 20 1.0 7.46 6.50 6.47
1.6 26.27 26.39 26.27
2.0 50.46 51.23 61.20
180x180x20 180 180 20 1.0 6.26 6.36 6.33
1.6 25.67 25.85 25.73
2.0 49.45 50.21 49.98
200x200x20 200 200 20 1.0 5.98 6.27 6.25
1.6 25.32 25.71 25.59
2.0 48.84 49.58 49.36
220x220x20 220 220 20 1.0 6.10 6.19 7.56
1.6 25.00 25.21 25.10
2.0 48.25 49.02 48.79
250x250x20 250 250 20 1.0 6.09 6.19 6.16
1.6 24.93 25.20 25.08
2.0 48.23 48.97 48.75
300x300x20 300 300 20 1.0 6.23 6.33 6.30
1.6 25.55 25.94 25.82
2.0 49.46 59.33 49.99

Fig. 7. Buckling plot for 100x80x20.

1.6LL (DL = dead load, LL = live load) as specified in the design

provisions of ASCE were used in the reliability analysis to calculate
the reliability index. The DL/LL ratio was set as 0.2. The statistical
parameters are obtained from section 6.2 of ASCE [36] specifications
for cold-formed stainless steel members. The results of the reliability
analysis are presented in Table 7 and discussed in the later sections of
this article.
6. Current design rules and assessments
The applicability of the current DSM in design code [21] and
proposed DSM equations by other researchers [18,22,23] for CFFSS
beams are assessed by comparing the results from FE analysis. A total
Fig. 8. DSM design curves and variation of 𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 /M 𝑦 values with the local slenderness.
of 108 FEA generated flexural resistance of the CFFSS closed built-
up beams were compared with the aforementioned design rules, and
the DSM design equations proposed from this current study were also
assessed by reliability analysis. It should be noted that the design of
CFFSS closed built-up beams by DSM eliminates the process of finding
the effective cross-sectional area using the traditional effective width
method (EWM), which are being utilised in the design codes.

7
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Table 7
Comparison of FEA results and DSM ultimate moment estimates.
S. No. Specimen ID 𝜆l Mnl (kN m) MFEA (kN m) MFEA /MDSM MFEA /MDSM-RR MFEA /MDSM-ARR MFEA /MDSM-W&Y MFEA /MDSM-PRO
1 80x60x20-T1.0-M1 0.68 3.63 3.80 1.05 1.21 1.06 1.51 1.07
2 80x60x20-T1.6-M1 0.42 6.01 6.30 1.05 1.13 1.09 1.29 1.06
3 80x80x20-T1.0-M1 0.78 4.18 4.05 0.97 1.16 0.97 1.46 1.09
4 80x80x20-T1.6-M1 0.48 6.97 7.49 1.08 1.15 1.10 1.38 1.08
5 80x80x20-T2.0-M1 0.39 8.75 9.47 1.08 1.16 1.12 1.28 1.09
6 100x80x20-T1.0-M1 0.86 5.30 5.18 0.98 1.15 0.98 1.46 1.12
7 100x80x20-T1.6-M1 0.53 9.35 10.53 1.13 1.23 1.15 1.50 1.14
8 100x80x20-T2.0-M1 0.43 11.79 12.99 1.10 1.18 1.14 1.35 1.11
9 100x100x20-T1.0-M1 0.98 5.59 5.25 0.94 1.10 0.94 1.38 1.11
10 100x100x20-T1.6-M1 0.61 10.50 11.50 1.10 1.22 1.11 1.52 1.11
11 120x120x20-T1.0-M1 1.18 7.02 6.10 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.24 1.06
12 120x120x20-T1.6-M1 0.73 14.63 15.09 1.03 1.21 1.03 1.53 1.11
13 150x150x20-T1.0-M1 1.38 9.72 7.68 0.79 0.90 0.79 1.10 0.98
14 150x150x20-T1.6-M1 0.92 20.07 19.04 0.95 1.11 0.95 1.40 1.10
15 150x150x20-T2.0-M1 0.74 27.90 27.29 0.98 1.16 0.98 1.45 1.06
16 180x180x20-T1.0-M1 1.80 11.47 9.39 0.82 0.91 0.82 1.09 1.05
17 180x180x20-T1.6-M1 1.12 25.25 21.76 0.86 0.99 0.86 1.24 1.04
18 180x180x20-T2.0-M1 0.89 36.17 34.72 0.96 1.13 0.96 1.42 1.11
19 200x200x20-T1.0-M1 2.04 12.85 10.73 0.83 0.93 0.83 1.09 1.09
20 200x200x20-T1.6-M1 1.24 28.77 23.88 0.83 0.95 0.83 1.17 1.02
21 200x200x20-T2.0-M1 1.00 41.39 38.09 0.92 1.07 0.92 1.35 1.09
22 220x220x20-T1.0-M1 2.21 14.55 12.00 0.82 0.91 0.82 1.06 1.09
23 220x220x20-T1.6-M1 1.37 32.35 27.36 0.85 0.96 0.85 1.18 1.05
24 220x220x20-T2.0-M1 1.10 46.67 42.19 0.90 1.04 0.90 1.30 1.09
25 250x250x20-T1.0-M1 2.50 17.01 15.03 0.88 0.97 0.88 1.11 1.18
26 250x250x20-T1.6-M1 1.56 37.99 31.43 0.83 0.93 0.83 1.13 1.05
27 250x250x20-T2.0-M1 1.25 55.04 46.63 0.85 0.97 0.85 1.20 1.04
28 300x300x20-T1.0-M1 2.96 21.43 17.09 0.80 0.87 0.80 0.97 1.08
29 300x300x20-T1.6-M1 1.84 48.17 38.26 0.79 0.88 0.79 1.05 1.03
30 300x300x20-T2.0-M1 1.47 70.08 55.87 0.80 0.90 0.80 1.10 1.00
31 80x60x20-T1.0-M2 0.70 3.88 4.20 1.08 1.26 1.10 1.58 1.13
32 80x60x20-T1.6-M2 0.43 6.44 6.43 1.00 1.09 1.07 1.24 1.07
33 80x60x20-T2.0-M2 0.34 8.09 8.45 1.04 1.16 1.14 1.20 1.14
34 80x80x20-T1.0-M2 0.80 4.41 4.12 0.93 1.11 0.93 1.40 1.06
35 80x80x20-T1.6-M2 0.50 7.46 7.77 1.04 1.12 1.09 1.35 1.09
36 80x80x20-T2.0-M2 0.40 9.37 9.86 1.05 1.14 1.12 1.26 1.12
37 100x80x20-T1.0-M2 0.89 5.59 5.26 0.94 1.11 0.94 1.40 1.08
38 100x80x20-T1.6-M2 0.55 9.99 10.87 1.09 1.19 1.13 1.46 1.13
39 100x80x20-T2.0-M2 0.44 12.62 13.54 1.07 1.16 1.14 1.33 1.14
40 100x100x20-T1.0-M2 1.01 5.89 5.25 0.89 1.04 0.89 1.30 1.06
41 100x100x20-T1.6-M2 0.63 11.23 12.02 1.07 1.20 1.09 1.50 1.10
42 100x100x20-T2.0-M2 0.50 14.20 15.66 1.10 1.18 1.15 1.42 1.15
43 120x80x20-T1.0-M2 1.03 6.48 6.22 0.96 1.11 0.96 1.40 1.14
44 120x80x20-T1.6-M2 0.49 13.02 13.78 1.06 1.14 1.11 1.37 1.12
45 120x80x20-T2.0-M2 0.51 15.98 16.63 1.04 1.13 1.09 1.37 1.09
46 125x100x20-T1.0-M2 1.11 7.40 6.79 0.92 1.06 0.92 1.32 1.10
47 125x100x20-T1.6-M2 0.69 14.92 17.11 1.15 1.33 1.16 1.67 1.19
48 125x100x20-T2.0-M2 0.54 19.01 21.22 1.12 1.22 1.16 1.49 1.16
49 120x120x20-T1.0-M2 1.22 7.39 6.19 0.84 0.96 0.84 1.19 1.02
50 120x120x20-T1.6-M2 0.76 15.63 14.74 0.94 1.12 0.95 1.41 1.04
51 120x120x20-T2.0-M2 0.60 19.87 20.76 1.04 1.16 1.07 1.44 1.07
52 150x150x20-T1.0-M2 1.53 9.70 8.05 0.83 0.93 0.83 1.14 1.05
53 150x150x20-T1.6-M2 0.95 21.08 19.19 0.91 1.07 0.91 1.34 1.07
54 150x150x20-T2.0-M2 0.76 29.83 28.02 0.94 1.12 0.94 1.41 1.04
55 180x180x20-T1.0-M2 1.85 12.07 9.74 0.81 0.90 0.81 1.07 1.04
56 180x180x20-T1.6-M2 1.15 26.52 22.03 0.83 0.95 0.83 1.19 1.00
57 180x180x20-T2.0-M2 0.92 38.14 34.88 0.91 1.07 0.91 1.35 1.06
58 200x200x20-T1.0-M2 2.06 13.68 11.04 0.81 0.89 0.81 1.05 1.06
59 200x200x20-T1.6-M2 1.28 30.30 23.95 0.79 0.90 0.79 1.11 0.97
60 200x200x20-T2.0-M2 1.03 43.61 38.44 0.88 1.02 0.88 1.28 1.05
61 220x220x20-T1.0-M2 2.27 15.31 12.18 0.80 0.88 0.80 1.02 1.05
62 220x220x20-T1.6-M2 1.42 33.97 27.79 0.82 0.93 0.82 1.13 1.02
63 220x220x20-T2.0-M2 1.13 49.18 41.54 0.84 0.97 0.84 1.21 1.02
64 250x250x20-T1.0-M2 2.57 17.89 14.83 0.83 0.91 0.83 1.04 1.11
65 250x250x20-T1.6-M2 1.61 39.91 32.29 0.81 0.91 0.81 1.10 1.03
66 250x250x20-T2.0-M2 1.28 57.95 47.39 0.82 0.93 0.82 1.15 1.01
67 300x300x20-T1.0-M2 3.04 22.53 17.36 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.93 1.05
68 300x300x20-T1.6-M2 1.89 50.67 38.86 0.77 0.85 0.77 1.01 0.99
69 300x300x20-T2.0-M2 1.39 78.19 57.05 0.73 0.83 0.73 1.01 0.91
70 80x60x20-T1.0-M3 0.75 4.38 4.68 1.07 1.27 1.08 1.60 1.17
71 80x60x20-T1.6-M3 0.46 7.30 7.22 0.99 1.07 1.06 1.26 1.05
72 80x60x20-T2.0-M3 0.37 9.18 9.31 1.01 1.12 1.11 1.20 1.10
73 80x80x20-T1.0-M3 0.86 4.83 4.53 0.94 1.11 0.94 1.40 1.08
74 80x80x20-T1.6-M3 0.53 8.46 8.64 1.02 1.11 1.07 1.36 1.07
75 80x80x20-T2.0-M3 0.43 10.65 10.93 1.03 1.11 1.10 1.26 1.09
(continued on next page)

8
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Table 7 (continued).
S. No. Specimen ID 𝜆l Mnl (kN m) MFEA (kN m) MFEA /MDSM MFEA /MDSM-RR MFEA /MDSM-ARR MFEA /MDSM-W&Y MFEA /MDSM-PRO
76 100x80x20-T1.0-M3 0.95 6.11 5.69 0.93 1.09 0.93 1.37 1.09
77 100x80x20-T1.6-M3 0.59 11.32 12.66 1.12 1.25 1.16 1.54 1.16
78 100x80x20-T2.0-M3 0.47 14.32 15.14 1.06 1.13 1.12 1.35 1.12
79 100x100x20-T1.0-M3 1.08 6.43 5.55 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.25 1.03
80 100x100x20-T1.6-M3 0.67 12.73 12.50 0.98 1.13 1.00 1.41 1.00
81 100x100x20-T2.0-M3 0.54 16.12 16.63 1.03 1.12 1.08 1.37 1.07
82 120x80x20-T1.0-M3 1.11 7.08 6.86 0.97 1.12 0.97 1.40 1.17
83 120x80x20-T1.6-M3 0.69 14.22 15.14 1.06 1.23 1.08 1.55 1.10
84 120x80x20-T2.0-M3 0.55 18.12 18.43 1.02 1.12 1.07 1.37 1.06
85 125x100x20-T1.0-M3 1.19 8.07 7.18 0.89 1.02 0.89 1.27 1.08
86 125x100x20-T1.6-M3 0.74 16.88 17.69 1.05 1.24 1.05 1.56 1.14
87 125x100x20-T2.0-M3 0.59 21.50 23.68 1.10 1.22 1.14 1.51 1.14
88 120x120x20-T1.0-M3 1.30 8.06 6.72 0.83 0.95 0.83 1.17 1.03
89 120x120x20-T1.6-M3 0.81 17.31 16.26 0.94 1.12 0.94 1.41 1.06
90 120x120x20-T2.0-M3 0.65 22.53 25.84 1.15 1.30 1.17 1.62 1.17
91 150x150x20-T1.0-M3 1.64 10.56 8.64 0.82 0.92 0.82 1.11 1.04
92 150x150x20-T1.6-M3 1.02 23.03 20.34 0.88 1.03 0.88 1.29 1.05
93 150x150x20-T2.0-M3 0.75 34.21 30.88 0.90 1.07 0.91 1.34 0.99
94 180x180x20-T1.0-M3 1.98 13.13 10.57 0.81 0.89 0.81 1.06 1.05
95 180x180x20-T1.6-M3 1.23 28.93 23.80 0.82 0.94 0.82 1.17 1.01
96 180x180x20-T2.0-M3 0.99 41.67 37.31 0.90 1.04 0.90 1.31 1.05
97 200x200x20-T1.0-M3 2.21 14.87 11.93 0.80 0.89 0.80 1.03 1.06
98 200x200x20-T1.6-M3 1.37 33.02 25.99 0.79 0.89 0.79 1.10 0.98
99 200x200x20-T2.0-M3 1.10 47.61 40.44 0.85 0.98 0.85 1.23 1.02
100 220x220x20-T1.0-M3 2.20 17.93 13.20 0.74 0.81 0.74 0.95 0.97
101 220x220x20-T1.6-M3 1.52 37.00 30.24 0.82 0.92 0.82 1.12 1.03
102 220x220x20-T2.0-M3 1.21 53.64 46.24 0.86 0.99 0.86 1.22 1.05
103 250x250x20-T1.0-M3 2.76 19.43 16.23 0.84 0.91 0.84 1.03 1.13
104 250x250x20-T1.6-M3 1.72 43.44 35.62 0.82 0.92 0.82 1.10 1.05
105 250x250x20-T2.0-M3 1.38 63.16 51.02 0.81 0.92 0.81 1.13 1.00
106 300x300x20-T1.0-M3 3.26 24.46 18.41 0.75 0.82 0.75 0.90 1.03
107 300x300x20-T1.6-M3 2.03 55.10 42.03 0.76 0.85 0.76 1.00 1.00
108 300x300x20-T2.0-M3 1.62 80.30 62.10 0.77 0.87 0.77 1.05 0.98
Mean 0.92 1.05 0.94 1.27 1.07
Standard deviation 0.114 0.128 0.130 0.175 0.053
Reliability index, 𝜷 𝟏 2.43 2.91 2.41 3.56 3.31
Reliability index, 𝜷 𝟐 2.16 2.58 2.15 3.17 2.94

Table 8
Statistical data for low and high slenderness based on 0.776.
𝜆l Description MFEA ∕MDSM MFEA ∕MDSM-RR MFEA ∕MDSM-ARR MFEA ∕MDSM-W&Y MFEA ∕MDSM-PRO
Mean 1.05 1.17 1.09 1.42 1.12
Standard deviation 0.054 0.062 0.062 0.119 0.051
≤0.776
Reliability index, 𝛽1 3.22 3.68 3.35 4.32 3.52
Reliability index, 𝛽2 2.86 3.28 2.98 3.84 3.12
Mean 0.85 0.97 0.85 1.19 1.05
Standard deviation 0.063 0.092 0.063 0.145 0.047
>0.776
Reliability index, 𝛽1 2.27 2.73 2.16 3.64 3.09
Reliability index, 𝛽2 2.02 2.43 1.92 3.23 2.75

6.1. Current DSM – AISI: S100-2016 in which 𝑀𝑛𝑙 and 𝑀𝑛𝑑 are determined by Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively.

( )
⎧ 1 ( ) ⎫
The DSM has been developed originally for the design of cold- ⎪ 𝑀𝑦 + 1 − 2 𝑀𝑃 − 𝑀𝑦 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.776⎪
⎪ 𝐶 𝑦𝑙 ⎪
formed carbon steel structural members. The DSM is a simple non- 𝑀𝑛𝑙 = ⎨[ ( )0.4 ] ( ) ⎬ (5)
iterative method that is an alternative to the effective width method. ⎪ 𝑀 𝑐𝑟𝑙 𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑙 0.4 ⎪
⎪ 1 − 0.15 𝑀 𝑀𝑦
𝑀𝑦 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 > 0.776⎪
Design equations are provided in American Iron and Steel Institute ⎩ 𝑦 ⎭
(AISI S100-2016) [21] to calculate the flexural capacity of CFS struc- where,
tural members based on DSM. However, the DSM in the current √ √
NAS [21] does not provide a design rule for the design of CFFSS built-up 𝜆𝑙 = 𝑀𝑦 ∕𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑙 ; 𝐶𝑦𝑙 = 0.776∕𝜆𝑙 ≤ 3; 𝑀𝑦 = 𝑆𝑓 𝑓𝑦
flexural members.
The current DSM for beams considered inelastic reserve capacities in 2
( )
⎧𝑀𝑦 + (1 − 1∕𝐶𝑦𝑑 ) 𝑀𝑃 − 𝑀𝑦 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑑 ≤ 0673 ⎫
the AISI S100-2016 [21] specifications are summarised as follows: The ⎪[ ( ) ] ( ) ⎪
𝑀𝑛𝑑 =⎨ 𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑑 0.5 𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑑 0.5 ⎬ (6)
nominal flexural strength (𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀 ) is the minimum of nominal flexural ⎪ 1 − 0.22 𝑀 𝑀𝑦 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑑 > 0.673⎪
strength for local buckling (𝑀𝑛𝑙 ), and nominal flexural strength for ⎩ 𝑦 𝑀𝑦 ⎭
distortional buckling (𝑀𝑛𝑑 ). where,
√ √
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀 = Min. of (𝑀𝑛𝑙 , 𝑀𝑛𝑑 ) (4) 𝜆𝑑 = 𝑀𝑦 ∕𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑑 ; 𝐶𝑦𝑑 = 0.673∕𝜆𝑑 ≤ 3;

9
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu
Fig. 9. Nonlinear FE analysis — Failure modes.
During the numerical analysis, lateral–torsional buckling was not
considered, since the built-up beams are considered fully braced.
Hence, nominal flexural strength (𝑀𝑛𝑒 ) for lateral–torsional buckling
is taken as the yield moment (𝑀𝑦 ) of fully braced beams in accor-
dance with Appendix 1.2.2.1 of the commentary of North American
Specification (AISI 2016) [21].
DSM predicts the flexural member capacity based on its full cross-
section slenderness which is based on the slenderest constituent ele-
ment. DSM estimates rely on the values of elastic local, distortional and
global buckling stresses. The elastic buckling moments of the section
can be determined either by finite element analysis (or) finite strip
analysis using numerical tools such as [20] and [37].
In the present study, the elastic local buckling moment (𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑙 ) was
obtained from the finite strip method based CUFSM software [37]
on the assumption of double thickness in the overlapped elements of
built-up beams as followed by Anbarasu [8] and Wang and Young [25].
It should be noted that the distortional half-wavelength for critical
buckling is found to be greater than discrete fastener spacing in the
constant moment zone. Moreover, as closed sections being concerned,
the distortional buckling capacity is very large and also, the distortional
buckling failure is not observed within the moment span of all the
10
Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816
sections considered in this study. Therefore distortional buckling is
ignored. Fig. 7 shows the typical signature curve with a variation
of critical buckling moment factor (𝑀𝑐𝑟 ∕𝑀𝑦) with half-wavelength
L (logarithmic scale) for the section 100x80x20 of three different
thickness for the first material group obtained from CUFSM software.
The signature curve provides the minima values corresponding to the
buckled shape of the cross-sections.
6.2. Modified DSM proposed by Rossi and Rasmussen [22] for stainless
steel sections
Rossi and Rasmussen [22] proposed a modified DSM approach for
the design of cold-formed stainless steel sections, including the strain
hardening effect of material, considering an increase of the cross-
section resistance beyond A x 𝜎0.2 , particularly in the low slenderness
range. Although this approach was originally proposed for compres-
sion and distortional buckling effects, it can be easily extended to
different loading conditions such as bending by following [23] &[5].
Eq. (7) shows the modified local strength curve proposed by Rossi and
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816

Rasmussen [22].
⎧ ( ) ⎫
( ) 𝜎𝑢
⎪1 + 1 − 2.11𝜆𝑙 −1 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.474⎪
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑅𝑅 ⎪ 𝜎0.2 ⎪
=⎨ ⎬ (7)
𝑀𝑒𝑙 0.95 0.22
⎪ − 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 > 0.474⎪
⎪ 𝜆0.8 𝜆1.6 ⎪
⎩ 𝑙 𝑙 ⎭

6.3. Modified DSM proposed by Arrayago et al. [23] for cold-formed

carbon steel sections

Arrayago et al. [23] proposed a full slenderness range DSM design

curve to cover slender and stocky cross-sections by following a similar
approach of Rossi and Rasmussen [22]. The effect of strain hardening
are taken into account, as is the effect of partial yielding of the cross-
section in bending. Eq. (8) shows the modified design strength curve
proposed by Arrayago et al. [23] for local buckling of carbon steel
Fig. 10. Performance of built-up beams in slenderness parameter (bending).
sections.
⎧ ( ) ⎫
( ) 𝜎𝑢
⎪1 + 1 − 1.29𝜆𝑙 −1 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.776⎪
𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝐴𝑅𝑅 ⎪ 𝜎0.2 ⎪ gradually reduced in the elastic zone and strength deterioration in the
=⎨ ⎬ (8)
𝑀𝑒𝑙 1 0.15 high slenderness zone is less because of post-buckling strength. This
⎪ − 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 > 0.776⎪
⎪ 𝜆𝑙
0.8 𝜆𝑙1.6 ⎪ variation occurs mainly due to the effect of element interaction of the
⎩ ⎭
built-up section. The lip portion at the middle of the compression flange
6.4. Modified DSM proposed by wang and Young [18] for CFS closed in the longitudinal direction curtailed the plate slenderness. It acted
built-up sections like stiffeners which significantly improved the local buckling strength
of the members.
Wang and Young [18] have proposed the modified DSM for the
CFS closed built-up beam with a triangular web stiffener. The inelastic 7.3. Proposed DSM for local buckling of CFFSS closed built-up beams
reserve local buckling strength is not considered in the modified DSM
equations for built-up sections by Wang and Young [18]. Eq. (9) shows In this study, the design formulation proposed by Rossi and Ras-
the modified DSM formulation proposed by Wang and Young [18] for mussen [22], for stainless steel hollow beam is adjusted for the CFFSS
CFS closed built-up beams. built-up closed beams composed of lipped channels sections. The pro-
posed modified local buckling strength curve for CFFSS closed built-up
⎧ 𝑀𝑦 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.320⎫
⎪[ beams is given in Eq. (10), and their estimated strengths are presented
( ) ]( ) ⎪
𝑀𝑛𝑙 = ⎨ 𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑙 0.3 𝑀𝑐𝑟𝑙 0.3 ⎬ (9) in Fig. 8.
⎪ 1 − 0.18 𝑀𝑦 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 > 0.320⎪
⎩ 4𝑀𝑦 4𝑀𝑦 ⎭ ⎧ ( ) ⎫
( ) 𝜎𝑢
⎪1 + 1.72 − 2.5𝜆𝑙 −1 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 ≤ 0.676⎪
7. Results and discussion 𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑃 𝑅𝑂 ⎪ 𝜎0.2 ⎪
=⎨ ⎬ (10)
𝑀𝑒𝑙 0.95 0.23
⎪ − 𝑓 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝑙 > 0.676⎪
7.1. Deformed shapes ⎪ 𝜆0.85 𝜆0.88 ⎪
⎩ 𝑙 𝑙 ⎭

Fig. 9 shows Von-Mises stress distribution of some sample sections
for material types M1, M2 and M3. Due to the effect of strain hardening,
the stress values exceed yield stress near the corner region. It can be
seen from (Fig. 9a) that local buckling deformation was observed at
the compression flange in the moment span. Similar observations can
be seen for the case of sections with low slenderness parameter. Local
buckling deformation was observed at the top flange and also at the
portion of the webs under compression in the moment span for the
sections with medium and high slenderness parameter as shown in
Fig. 9. It is also observed that local buckling half-waves were formed
within the two adjacent intermittent fasteners. In general, the same
trend was observed in the parametric study. Almost all the specimens
have failed in compression flange local buckling.
7.2. Effect of slenderness parameter (c/t𝜀)
The flexural moment capacities have been normalised by the respec-
tive elastic section modulus, and 0.2% proof stress is plotted against
slenderness parameter (c/t𝜀) to assess the effect of slenderness param-
eter as shown in Fig. 10, where ‘𝜀’ is a material factor defined as
√
𝜀 = [(235xf y )/(Ex210000)]. In the low slenderness range, the slope
is very steep up to a slenderness value of ∼40, whereas in mid-range,
the slope is gradually reducing up to a slenderness value of ∼80. At
high slenderness, a gentle slope is observed. Due to strain hardening
of the material, a high slope is observed in the low slenderness zone,
The inelastic reserve in local buckling strength and strain hardening
of stainless steel are considered in the proposed DSM equations by
following Rossi and Rasmussen [22]. The proposed design equations
require only small modifications to the Eq. (7). The coefficients 1.0 and
2.11 in first part of the curve is replaced by 1.72 and 2.50, respectively.
The last part of the modified design equations requires only small
modifications to the Eq. (7), the coefficient of 0.22 and exponent of
0.8, 1.6 have been replaced with 0.23 and 0.85, 0.88 in Eq. (10),
respectively. The non-dimensional slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) has been adjusted
from 0.474 to 0.676 for the smooth transition of the curve.
7.4. Comparison of results
The ultimate flexural moment capacities obtained from the numer-
ical parametric study are presented and compared with the design
moment capacity predicted by current DSM, modified DSM proposed by
Rossi and Rasmussen [22], Arrayago et al. [23], Wang and Young [18]
and proposed DSM from the current study are shown in Table 7 and
Fig. 8.
From Fig. 8, it can be seen that the results predicted by the current
DSM are on the safer side for the stock sections in the low slenderness
range but unconservative for the remaining whole range of slenderness.
The mean value of 𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 /M 𝐷𝑆𝑀 for low slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) ≤ 0.776 and
(𝜆l ) > 0.776 is 1.05 & 0.85, and the corresponding standard deviations
of 0.054 & 0.063. It implies that the current DSM is incapable of

11
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu
Fig. 11. Comparison of FEA and DSM results with local slenderness.
predicting the flexural strength of the CFFSS closed built-up beams,
particularly in medium and high local slenderness. The overall mean
value of 𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 /M 𝐷𝑆𝑀 is 0.92, and the corresponding standard devia-
tion is 0.114. The calculated reliability indices (𝛽1 and 𝛽2 ) are 2.43 and
2.16 are failed to meet the target value of 2.50, which clearly shows
the inadequacy of the current DSM design equations in predicting the
flexural strength of the CFFSS closed built-up beams. Similar observa-
tions were also noticed for the DSM formulations proposed by Rossi
and Rasmussen [22], with the overall mean value of 𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 /M 𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑅𝑅
is 1.05, and the corresponding standard deviation is 0.128. However,
Rossi and Rasmussen [22] DSM formulations is conservative for local
slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) value less than ∼1.20 and unconservative for local
slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) value greater than ∼1.20 since it accounts for the strain
hardening of material and inelastic reserve strength of local buckling.
It is shown that the modified DSM formulations proposed by Ar-
rayago et al. [23] is unconservative, and Wang and Young [18] pre-
diction is conservative. As an overall mean value of 𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 /M 𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝐴𝑅𝑅
and 𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 /M 𝐷𝑆𝑀−𝑊 &𝑌 is 0.94 & 1.27, and the corresponding standard
deviation is 0.130 and 0.175. The predictions provided by the Arrayago
et al. [23] DSM equation (Eq. (8)), is conservative for local slenderness
(𝜆𝑙 ) value less than ∼0.776 and unconservative for local slenderness
(𝜆𝑙 ) value greater than ∼0.776. It is observed from Fig. 8 that the
modified DSM proposed by Wang and Young [18] produces signifi-
cantly conservative predictions for local slenderness values less than
∼2.0 in the plastic and inelastic range and unconservative in the elastic
region. Among the aforementioned three DSM formulations, Rossi and
Rasmussen [22] proposal is less conservative and reliable, particularly
in the low slenderness range. But as overall, the Wang and Young [18]
modified DSM equations shows more conservative predictions than all.
The nominal moment capacities (𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑃 𝑅𝑂 ) of the CFFSS closed
built-up beams were calculated using the proposed DSM equations [Eq.
(10)]. The comparison of numerical parametric study results with the
results predicted by the proposed DSM is shown in Table 7 and Fig. 8.
The mean value of the FEA-to-predicted ultimate moment capacity ratio
(𝑀𝐹 𝐸𝐴 / 𝑀𝐷𝑆𝑀-𝑃 𝑅𝑂 ) is 1.07 with the corresponding standard deviation
of 0.053, and the reliability index (𝛽1 ) and reliability index (𝛽2 ) are 3.31
and 2.94 for the capacity reduction factors 0.8 and 0.9 respectively.
Therefore, the proposed DSM equations [Eq. (10)] are proved to be
accurate and reliable with the reliability indices larger than the target
reliability index (𝛽0 = 2.5) for the CFFSS closed built-up beams mainly
failed in local buckling. The comparison between the ultimate moments
obtained from the parametric study and corresponding moment capac-
ities predicted by existing and proposed DSM are shown in Fig. 11.
The existing DSM formulations in the literature’s predictions show more
scattered results, but the proposed DSM from this study provides less
scattered predictions on the safe side (see Table 8).
12
Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816
8. Conclusion
Nonlinear finite element (FE) models were developed for cold-
formed ferritic stainless steel (CFFSS) closed built-up beams likely to
fail by local buckling. The simply supported CFFSS closed built-up
beams were loaded under four-point bending. The details pertaining
to the modelling of geometric nonlinearity, contact nonlinearity, mod-
elling of the fastener, initial geometric imperfections, and convergences
were discussed. The accuracy of the FE models were assessed in terms
of the predicted ultimate flexural strengths, deformed shapes, moment
deflection curve and moment rotation curves against the experimental
test results reported in the literature.
An extensive parametric study comprising 108 CFFSS analyses un-
der four-point bending was performed by using the verified FE models.
Compression flange plate slenderness, cross-section geometries, as well
as material properties of the closed built-up beam sections were the
key parameters considered in this work. Using the finite strip based on
CUFSM software with the double thickness assumption, elastic buckling
analysis was performed on the overlapping elements of the closed built-
up beam sections to determine the critical elastic buckling moments
required in the DSM equations. The numerical parametric results were
used to assess the accuracy and reliability of the current DSM equations
in the North American Specification, as well as those proposed by other
researchers in the literature.
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the findings
provided in this paper:
• The design strengths predicted by the current DSM and DSM
formulations proposed by Arrayago et al. were conservative for
low local slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) less than ∼0.776 since both design
rules considered the inelastic reserve in local buckling. But it
provided unsafe predictions mostly for medium and high local
slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) greater than ∼0.776. A overall, the predictions
are unconservative, with the mean for predictions being 0.92
and 0.94, respectively. Both the design rules failed to reach the
target reliability index of 2.50. It confirms the current DSM and
DSM formulations proposed by Arrayago et al. are inadequate
in predicting the flexural strength of the CFFSS closed built-up
beams composed of lipped channel sections.
• The design equation recommended by Rossi and Rasmussen sig-
nificantly underestimated the flexural capacity of the specimens
for local slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) value less than ∼1.2 and provided
unconservative predictions for local slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) value greater
than ∼1.2, it reflected the inadequacy of the Rossi and Ras-
mussen DSM formulations in predicting the flexural strength of
the CFFSS built-up closed beams composed of lipped channels,
despite having satisfied the reliability condition (𝛽 > 2.5).
• The recent DSM equation proposed by Wang and Young for CFS
closed built-up beams exhibits significantly conservative predic-
tions for specimens with local slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) value up to ∼2.0,
but reasonably predicted the flexural strength for the specimens
with local slenderness (𝜆𝑙 ) value more than ∼2.0. A overall, it
conservatively predicted the strength with a mean of 1.27 and
reliability index much greater than 2.5. However, it appeared to
be incapable of reasonably predicting the flexural strength CFFSS
closed built-up beams and may be due to the non-consideration
of the inelastic reserve strength of local buckling in the equations.
• The DSM formulations proposed from this study accounted for
both the inelastic reserve and the strain hardening of material
in which resulted in a very good agreement with the numerical
results, producing a mean of 1.07, with a reliability index greater
than 2.50. Besides, the proposed DSM design equation exhibited
a reliable, safe and less scattered prediction, except for some little
over conservative predictions.
C. Karthik and M. Anbarasu
• The obtained results indicated that the normalised flexural
strength of the CFFSS built-up beams dropped with the increase
in the slenderness parameter of the sections. The lip portion
at the middle of the compression flange in the longitudinal
direction curtailed the plate slenderness and acted like stiffeners
which significantly improved the local buckling strength of the
members.
The improvement in the proposed equation can be achieved by
further calibration to tests in the CFFSS closed built-up beam
section composed of lipped channels.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] M. Bock, I. Arrayago, E. Real, Experiments on cold-formed ferritic stainless steel
slender sections, JCSR 109 (2015) 13–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.
02.005.
[2] S. Fan, M. Chen, S. Li, Z. Ding, G. Shu, B. Zheng, Stainless steel lipped C-section
beams: Numerical modelling and development of design rules, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 152 (2019) 29–41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.05.036.
[3] H.T. Li, B. Young, Cold-formed ferritic stainless steel tubular structural members
subjected to concentrated bearing loads, Eng. Struct. 145 (2017) 392–405,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.022.
[4] S. Afshan, L. Gardner, Experimental study of cold-formed ferritic stainless steel
hollow sections, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 139 (2013) 717–728, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000580.
[5] R. Lalthazuala, K.D. Singh, Thin-walled structures investigations on structural
performance of hybrid stainless steel I-beams based on slenderness, Thin Walled
Struct. 137 (2019) 197–212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.01.006.
[6] N. Saliba, L. Gardner, Cross-section stability of lean duplex stainless steel welded
I-sections, JCSR 80 (2013) 1–14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.09.007.
[7] M. Theofanous, L. Gardner, Experimental and numerical studies of lean duplex
stainless steel beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2010) 816–825, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.01.012.
[8] M. Anbarasu, Simulation of flexural behaviour and design of cold-formed steel
closed built-up beams composed of two sigma sections for local buckling, Eng.
Struct. 191 (2019) 549–562, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.093.
[9] J. Ye, S. Mohammad, I. Hajirasouliha, P. Shepherd, Strength and delection
behaviour of cold-formed steel back-to-back channels, Eng. Struct. 177 (2018)
641–654, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.064.
[10] M.A. Dar, N. Subramanian, A.R. Dar, M. Anbarasu, J.B.P. Lim, M. Atif, Behaviour
of partly stiffened cold-formed steel built-up beams: Experimental investigation
and numerical validation, Adv. Struct. Eng. 22 (2019) 172–186, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1369433218782767.
[11] Y.L. Li, Y.Q. Li, Z.Y. Shen, Investigation on flexural strength of cold-formed thin-
walled steel beams with built-up box section, Thin-Walled Struct. 107 (2016)
66–79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.05.026.
[12] S. Selvaraj, M. Madhavan, Structural design of cold-formed steel face-to-face
connected built-up beams using direct strength method, J. Constr. Steel Res.
160 (2019) 613–628, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.05.053.
[13] L. Wang, B. Young, Design of cold-formed steel channels with stiffened webs
subjected to bending, Thin-Walled Struct. 85 (2014) 81–92, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tws.2014.08.002.
[14] L. Laím, J.P.C. Rodrigues, L.S. Da Silva, Experimental and numerical analysis
on the structural behaviour of cold-formed steel beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 72
(2013) 1–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.06.008.
13
Thin-Walled Structures 164 (2021) 107816
[15] X.H. Zhou, Y. Shi, Flexural strength evaluation for cold-formed steel lip-
reinforced built-up I-beams, Adv. Struct. Eng. 14 (2011) 597–612, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.14.4.597.
[16] P. Paczos, P. Wasilewicz, Experimental investigations of buckling of lipped,
cold-formed thin-walled beams with I-section, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009)
1354–1362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2009.03.009.
[17] R. Landolfo, O. Mammana, F. Portioli, G. Di Lorenzo, M.R. Guerrieri, Experi-
mental investigation on laser welded connections for built-up cold-formed steel
beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (2009) 196–208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.
2008.03.015.
[18] L. Wang, B. Young, Behavior of cold-formed steel built-up sections with inter-
mediate stiffeners under bending. II: Parametric study and design, J. Struct. Eng.
142 (2016) 4015151, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001427.
[19] L. Xu, P. Sultana, X. Zhou, Flexural strength of cold-formed steel built-up box
sections, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 807–815, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2009.01.005.
[20] Karlsson Hibbitt, Inc Sorensen, Abaqus, ABAQUS/StandArd User’S Manual
Volumes I-III and ABAQUS CAE Manual, Version 6.12, Pawtucket, USA, 2010.
[21] AISI, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members, Am. Iron Steel Inst. (AISI), Washington, DC, 2016, pp. S100–S116.
[22] B. Rossi, K.J.R. Rasmussen, M. Asce, Carrying capacity of stainless steel columns
in the low slenderness range, 2013, pp. 1088–1092, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000666.
[23] I. Arrayago, K.J.R. Rasmussen, E. Real, Full slenderness range DSM approach for
stainless steel hollow cross-sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 133 (2017) 156–166,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.02.002.
[24] M.R. Haidarali, D. Nethercot, Finite element modelling of cold-formed steel
beams under local buckling or combined local/distortional buckling, Thin-Walled
Struct. 49 (2011) 1554–1562.
[25] L. Wang, B. Young, Behavior of cold-formed steel built-up sections with interme-
diate stiffeners under bending. i: Tests and numerical validation, J. Struct. Eng.
142 (2016) 4015150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001428.
[26] M. Ashraf, L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Finite element modeling of structural
stainless steel cross-sections finite element modelling of structural stainless steel
cross-sections, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2006.10.010.
[27] W. Ramberg, W.R. Osgood, Description of Stress–Strain Curves By Three Pa-
rameters, Technical Note (902), National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Washington, DC, 1943.
[28] E. Mirambell, E. Real, On the calculation of deflections in structural stainless
steel beams: an experimental and numerical investigation, J. Constr. Steel Res.
54 (2000) 109–133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(99)00051-6.
[29] L. Gardner, M. Ashraf, Structural design for nonlinear metallic materials, Eng.
Struct. 28 (6) (2006) 926–934, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.11.
001.
[30] Z. Tao, M. Asce, K.J.R. Rasmussen, M. Asce, Stress-Strain Model for Ferritic
Stainless Steels, 4 (2016) 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.
0001393.
[31] N.R. Baddoo, Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel, fourth ed., 2017,
www.steel-sci.org/.
[32] S. Jeyaragan, M. Mahendran, Development and Validation of Finite Element
Models of Back to Back Lite Steel Beams, Research Report, Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2009.
[33] R. Dawson, A.C. Walker, Post-buckling of geometrically imperfect plates, J.
Struct. Div. 98 (1972) 75–94.
[34] L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Numerical modeling of stainless steel structural
components - a consistent approach, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (2004) 1586–1601,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130.
[35] J. Becque, The interaction of local and overall buckling of cold-formed stainless
steel columns, 2008.
[36] ASCE, Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Struc-
tural Members, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2002,
SEI/ASCE-8-02.
[37] BW. Schafer, CUFSM 4.05-Finite Strip Buckling Analysis of Thin-Walled Mem-
bers, Department of Civil Engineering, johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
U.S.A, 2012, (http://www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/cufsm/).