Thin–Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experiments and numerical modelling of cold-formed steel beams under

bending and torsion
Hong-Xia Wan a, *, Bin Huang a, Mahen Mahendran b
a
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, 430070, PR China
b
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Cold-formed steel C- and Z-section beams are widely used in light gauge steel building systems as flexural
Cold-formed steel beams members. In their applications as flexural members, mono-symmetric C-sections and point-symmetric Z-sections
Channel section are often subjected to transverse loads eccentric to the shear centre, leading to combined bending and torsion
Zee section
actions. However, research and design methods for cold-formed steel beams subjected to combined bending and
Combined bending and torsion
Experiments
torsion are limited. Hence this research has investigated the structural behaviour, strength and design of cold-
Numerical analyses formed steel C- and Z-section beams under the action of combined bending and torsion. Twenty-four tests
were conducted on simply-supported beams subjected to a mid-span eccentric load. Two C-sections and two Z-
sections were used in the tests with two different spans, each with three loading-eccentricities. A special test set-
up was developed and used to simulate the different loading-eccentricities and to provide accurate boundary
conditions. Numerical models of tested beams were then developed using ANSYS and nonlinear finite element
analyses including the effects of large deformation and material yielding were performed. The numerical results
agreed well with the test results in terms of ultimate strengths, failures modes and load-displacement curves.
Finally the results from tests were compared with predictions from the current design equation for bending and
torsion. This paper presents this investigation of cold-formed steel beams subjected to combined bending and
torsion, and the results.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed steel members are widely used in residential, industrial
and commercial buildings due to their high strength-to-weight ratio,
ease of fabrication, and economy of transportation and handling.
Commonly used cold-formed steel members are C- or Z-sections, known
as channels or zees. The C-section is singly-symmetric with its shear
centre located outside the web while the Z-section is point-symmetric
with its shear centre located at the web centre. In their applications in
building systems, they are often subjected to transverse loads applied
eccentrically to the shear centre, causing combined bending and torsion
actions.
The North American specification for cold-formed steel structural
members [1] states that for torsionally unrestrained flexural members
subject to the combined action of bending and torsion, the flexural
strength calculated as the yield moment shall be multiplied by a
reduction factor R, which is defined as the ratio of the maximum normal
stress due to bending alone divided by the combined stress due to both
bending and warping torsion at the point of maximum combined stress
on the cross section. The Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 design rules for
cold-formed steel structures [2] also state that where loads are applied
eccentrically to the shear centre of the cross-section the effects of torsion
should be taken into account by the rules that the total normal stress and
the total shear stress due to both bending and torsion should be no more
than the tensile yield stress and the shear yield stress, respectively, and
the complex stress of the total normal stress and the total shear stress
should be no more than the tensile yield stress multiplied by 1.1.
However, the North American specification gives the reduction fac­
tor only for the yield moment, and the Eurocode rules are based on
section moment capacity design. No provision is given by these two
codes for the member (buckling) capacity of cold-formed steel beams
subject to bending and torsion. However, the Chinese code for cold-
formed steel structures [3] includes both section and member capacity
design rules for members subject to combined bending and torsion. In
this code, linear interaction equations are adopted. They are M/Ms + B/
By ≤ 1 for section capacity and M/Mb + B/By ≤ 1 for member capacity,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wanhongxia@vip.tom.com (H.-X. Wan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.107424
Received 27 March 2020; Received in revised form 18 November 2020; Accepted 28 December 2020
Available online 9 January 2021
0263-8231/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 1. Cold-formed steel sections used in the tests.
respectively, where, M and B are bending moment and bimoment, Ms
and Mb are section and member capacities for bending, and By is
bimoment capacity for torsion.
Past research on steel members under combined bending and torsion
has concentrated on doubly-symmetric hot-rolled I-shaped beams.
Boulton [4] developed an approximate lower bound solution for full
plasticity of an I-beam in which warping is restricted at the ends of the
beam. Dinno and Merchant [5] proposed a lower bound interaction
equation for I-shaped beams in the case of combined bending and tor­
sion based on plastic analysis. Driver and Kennedy [6] conducted tests
on cantilever I-beams loaded in combined bending and torsion and used
an idealized fully plastic stress distribution to approximate the experi­
mental stress distribution and develop moment-torque interaction dia­
gram. Pi and Trahair [7] developed a finite element procedure to
perform nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis of steel I-beams under com­
bined bending and torsion and proposed lower bound interaction
equations for design purposes. Pi and Trahair [8,9] extended their tor­
sion only analysis techniques to deal with the combined bending and
torsion for I-beams and developed design rules for plastic design and
elastic design, respectively. Estabrooks and Grondin [10] conducted
tests and finite element analyses of simply-supported I-beams subjected
to combined bending and torsion and compared test and finite element
analysis results with predictions from existing combined bending and
torsion design methods.
Kavanagh and Ellifritt [11] investigated the buckling behaviour and
design strength of discretely braced cold-formed channels in bending
and torsion through tests and theoretical analysis. Gotluru et al. [12]
reported numerical analyses and tests on cold-formed channel beams
subjected to bending and torsion in which the influence of support
conditions and other factors, such as local buckling, was investigated.
Put et al. [13,14] conducted tests on simply supported cold-formed steel
channel beams loaded concentrically and eccentrically at mid-span, and
developed interaction equations for use in design through extended
analytical predictions. Wan and Mahendran [15,16] performed in­
vestigations on bending and torsion of new cold-formed steel hollow
flange channel beams and in their investigations, mechanical analysis,
experiments and numerical modelling were conducted to reveal the
characteristics of hollow flange channel beams under bending and tor­
sion. Bian et al. [17] conducted torsion tests of cold-formed steel
channels, developed a shell finite element model to perform a para­
metric study on the ultimate torsional capacity and developed a direct
strength method for cold-formed steel channels dominated by warping
2
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
torsion.
It can be seen that the research on cold-formed steel beams subjected
to combined bending and torsion is limited. Cold-formed steel beams are
different to I-beams in terms of loading, cross section, geometrical im­
perfections and failure modes. Hence the main objective of this research
is to investigate the structural behaviour, strength and design of cold-
formed steel beams under combined bending and torsion, for which a
detailed experimental study of singly-symmetric C-sections and point-
symmetric Z-sections was undertaken. Twenty four tests were con­
ducted on simply-supported C- and Z-section beams subject to a mid-
span eccentric load. Numerical models of tested beams were then
developed using a finite element software, ANSYS, and the numerical
results were compared with the test results in terms of ultimate
strengths, failures modes and load-displacement curves. Finally the
strengths of the tested members were calculated using the design rule for
bending and torsion in the Chinese code for cold-formed steel structures.
This paper presents the details of the experimental and numerical
studies of cold-formed steel C- and Z-section beams subjected to com­
bined bending and torsion, and the results.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Test specimens
In this research, cold-formed steel channel sections and zee sections
(see Fig. 1) were used as test beams. The sections were formed by press
braking of two steel sheets, whose thicknesses were measured as 1.80
and 2.50 mm (with an accuracy of ±0.01 mm). The cold-formed sections
using the thicker steel sheet were C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 and Z180 × 70
× 20 × 2.5 (with nominal dimensions h = 180 mm, b = 70 mm, a = 20
mm, t = 2.5 mm), and the cold-formed sections using the thinner steel
sheet were C185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 and Z185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 (with
nominal dimensions h = 185 mm, b = 70 mm, a = 20 mm, t = 1.8 mm).
External dimensions of these sections were measured using a vernier
caliper (with an accuracy of ±0.5 mm). The radius of the punch used in
the press brake operation was 3 mm, hence the inner radius of the
corners (r) of all channel and zee sections was 3 mm. Based on the
Australian steel structures code AS 4100 [18], C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 and
Z180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 can be classified as compact sections, while C185
× 70 × 20 × 1.8 and Z185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 can be classified as
non-compact sections.
The cold-formed steel beams were simply-supported and subjected to
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 2. Simply-supported beam subjected to a mid-span eccentric load.

Table 1
Details of test specimens.
Section h(mm) × b(mm) Span L Eccentricity e EXP FEA (without initial imperfection) FEA (with initial imperfection)
× a(mm) × t(mm)
(mm) (mm) Ultimate load (kN) Ultimate load (kN) EXP/FEA Ultimate load (kN) EXP/FEA

C-section 180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 1200 30 24.30 25.58 0.950 23.64 1.028

1200 40 19.59 20.96 0.935 19.59 1.000
1200 50 19.37 17.84 1.086 16.73 1.158
1500 30 20.68 19.48 1.062 18.07 1.144
1500 40 17.84 16.07 1.110 15.07 1.184
1500 50 16.10 13.72 1.173 12.91 1.247
185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 1200 30 14.18 18.82 0.753 16.20 0.875
1200 40 12.19 15.15 0.805 13.16 0.926
1200 50 11.08 12.53 0.884 11.00 1.007
1500 30 11.42 13.85 0.825 11.60 0.984
1500 40 10.16 11.02 0.922 9.39 1.082
1500 50 9.27 9.20 1.008 7.95 1.166

Mean and COV values 0.959, 0.131 1.067, 0.102

Z-section 180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 1200 40 29.64 30.50 0.972 29.89 0.992

1200 50 26.52 25.15 1.054 24.53 1.081
1200 60 22.73 21.35 1.065 20.73 1.096
1500 40 25.67 24.66 1.041 24.00 1.069
1500 50 22.81 20.61 1.107 20.07 1.136
1500 60 18.58 17.52 1.061 17.15 1.083
185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 1200 40 17.45 17.53 0.995 16.76 1.041
1200 50 15.07 14.62 1.031 13.92 1.083
1200 60 12.78 12.52 1.021 11.91 1.073
1500 40 14.34 14.36 0.999 14.15 1.013
1500 50 12.49 11.69 1.068 11.36 1.099
1500 60 10.27 9.89 1.038 9.50 1.081

Mean and COV values 1.037, 0.034 1.071, 0.035

section beams e = 30, 40 and 50 mm, for Z-section beams e = 40, 50 and
Table 2 60 mm) were adopted to simulate different levels of combined bending
Calculation results of V/Vv .
and torsion actions. Totally, 24 test specimens, including 12 channel
Section L(mm) My (kNm) V(kN) Vv (kN) V/Vv beams and 12 zee beams, were used, as listed in Table 1. Test beams
C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 1200 16.59 27.65 93.29 0.30 were subjected a maximum bending moment M = PL/4 at mid-span, and
1500 16.59 22.12 93.29 0.24 a uniform torsional moment T = Pe/2 along the length, that is, T/M =
C185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 1200 11.60 19.34 32.14 0.60 2e/L. As the span increases, the ratio of torsional moment to bending
1500 11.60 15.47 32.14 0.48 moment will reduce, which means that the action of torsion is more
Z180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 1200 7.65 12.76 93.29 0.14
1500 7.65 10.21 93.29 0.11
significant for short span beams than for long span beams. In this study
Z185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 1200 5.37 8.95 32.14 0.28 short span beams (L = 1200 mm, 1500 mm) were used to investigate the
1500 5.37 7.16 32.14 0.22 structural behaviour under combined bending and torsion actions.
For simply supported beams subject to a mid-span load, the shear
force V = P/2 = 2M/L. If the yield moment is taken as the section
Table 3 moment capacity, the shear force will be V = 2My /L. The shear capacity
Material properties from tension coupon tests. Vv of a web can be calculated using Eqs. (1a)-(1c) in the cold-formed
Steel sheet fy (MPa) fu (MPa) δ(%)
steel structures standard AS/NZS 4600 [19]. Table 2 shows the calcu­
lation results for test beams, where it can be seen that the ratio V/Vv is
t = 2.5 mm 345.07 476.11 24.58
less than 0.60 for test beams. Past research studies [20,21] have shown
t = 1.8 mm 317.95 425.02 30.48
that reductions in the section moment capacity occur only when the
applied shear force (V) is greater than 60% or 65% of the design shear
a mid-span eccentric load, as shown in Fig. 2. In this figur­ capacity Vv . Therefore, the influence of shear force on the bending
e,“S′′ and“C′′ denote the shear centre and the centroid of a section, moment capacity can be neglected for the test beams used in this study.
respectively (for the Z-section, these two points are coincident),“P′′ is the √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
applied transverse load at mid-span with an eccentricity“e”from the For ≤
d1 EKv
: Vv = 0.64fy d1 tw (1a)
shear centre, which causes combined bending and torsion actions. In the tw fy
tests two spans (L = 1200 and 1500 mm), and three eccentricities (for C-

3
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 3. Schematic drawings of supports. (a) for C-section beam. (b) for Z-section beam.

Fig. 4. Test supports. (a) for C-section beam. (b) for Z-section beam.

Fig. 5. Loading method. (a) for C-section beam. (b) for Z-section beam.

4
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 6. Details of the beam tests.

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
EKv d1 EKv √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ testing [22]. Twelve tensile coupons were taken longitudinally by
For < ≤ 1.415 : Vv = 0.64tw2 EKv fy (1b) laser-cut from the same steel sheets of 1.8 and 2.5 mm thicknesses. The
fy tw fy
tensile coupons were loaded in tension until fracture while taking the
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ measurements of applied load and strain [22]. The obtained average
For
d1
> 1.415
EKv
: Vv =
0.905EKv tw3
(1c) yield stress (fy), ultimate tensile stress (fu), and percentage elongation at
tw fy d1 failure (δ) for each steel sheet are given in Table 3. The average
measured modulus of elasticity (E) of both steel sheets was approxi­
where d1 = depth of the flat portion of the web, tw = thickness of web, Kv mately 200,000 MPa.
= shear buckling coefficient, for unstiffened webs = 5.34.
2.3. Test supports
2.2. Tensile coupon tests
Test supports were carefully designed and fabricated to simulate
To determine the material properties of the test specimens, tensile simple boundary conditions accurately. Fig. 3(a) and (b) are schematic
coupon tests were conducted based on the Chinese standard for tensile drawings of test supports, while Fig. 4(a) and (b) show the test supports

5
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 7. Typical failure modes of C-section beams.
for C and Z-section beams, respectively. They were not the same as
additional plates were arranged beside the Z-section web to prevent the
web lateral displacements. The ends of the test beam were just held
inside the supports, their vertical displacements, lateral displacements,
and rotations about the longitudinal axis of the test beam were fully
restrained. The ends of the test beam were seated above a roller at the
bottom while they were also held by a top roller, and by using these
rollers, the test beam was allowed to bend freely in the vertical plane,
and also to warp freely in the longitudinal direction. To prevent any
possible overall movement during loading, the test supports were fixed
to the test table through bolts.
6
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
2.4. Test rig and operation
In the tests the mid-span eccentric load was applied outside the test
beam web through a special test rig, which was similar to that presented
in Ref. [16]. In this study it was designed and fabricated to apply a
mid-span transverse load with varying eccentricities on cold-formed
channel and zee beams, as illustrated in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The test rig
included a loading system comprising of a vertical and a horizontal arm.
The load was applied via the vertical arm while the horizontal arm was
used to control the loading eccentricity from the shear centre. By using a
horizontal arm of suitable lengths, different loading eccentricities can be
achieved. The vertical and horizontal arms were pin connected and
therefore the test beam could freely rotate during the application of
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 8. Typical failures modes of Z-section beams.
vertical loading. A 4 mm clamping plate of 50 mm width was used on the
other side of the beam web, and was connected to the end plate of the
horizontal arm through two M16 bolts to enable the load transfer and
application on the test beam at the loading point. Details of the beam
tests are shown in Fig. 6(a-d).
For each test beam three displacement transducers were arranged at
mid-span to measure the vertical and lateral deflections during loading.
Displacement transducer 1 was located near the top flange-web junction
and the Displacement transducer 2 was located near the bottom flange-
web junction in order to measure the lateral displacements of top and
7
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
bottom flanges, respectively. Displacement transducer 3 was located at
the bottom of the test beam to measure the vertical deflection at mid-
span.
A servo-controlled hydraulic testing machine was used to apply the
load to the test beam. In the loading procedure, force control was first
adopted with a speed of 0.6–1.2 kN/min. However, force control was
switched to displacement control with a speed 1 mm/min near the
anticipated failure load. The applied loads and the readings from the
displacement transducers were recorded by a data-acquisition system at
1.0 s intervals during the tests.
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 9. Typical load-lateral displacement curves of tested beams.
2.5. Test results
It was observed that the test beams started to rotate as they were
subjected to the mid-span eccentric load, while also deflecting vertically
at the same time. The applied load started to drop off when a test beam
reached its ultimate strength. The ultimate loads of the 24 test beams are
presented in Table 1. It can be seen that the ultimate loads of Z-section
beams are higher than those of C-section beams.
Fig. 7 shows the typical failure modes of tested C-section beams,
characterized by beam twist rotation and top flange distortional buck­
ling. Fig. 8 shows the typical failure modes of tested Z-section beams, in
which case, beam twist rotation and top flange distortional buckling
were both observed, but in addition, local buckling occurred in the lip of
8
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
the bottom flange.
Fig. 9(a-d) show the typical load-lateral displacement curves for
tested beams as they were subjected to combined bending and torsion. In
the figures the lateral displacements of beam top flange (obtained from
Displacement transducer 1) are illustrated as positive, and the lateral
displacements of beam bottom flange (obtained from Displacement
transducer 2) are illustrated as negative, since they were in the opposite
direction, which indicated section twist during loading. It can be seen
that as the eccentricity increased, the load carrying capacity decreased.
For the C-section beams, the lateral displacements of top flange were
greater than the lateral displacements of bottom flange as the ultimate
strength point was reached (Fig. 9(a) and (b)). However, for the Z-sec­
tion beams, the lateral displacements of bottom flange were greater than
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 9. (continued).

Fig. 10. Simplified stress-strain curves.

9
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 11. Equivalent loading method. (a) Channel section. (b) Zee section.

Fig. 12. Load distributions for the beam sections.

the lateral displacements of top flange as the ultimate strength point was behaviour of cold-formed C- and Z-section beams subjected to combined
reached (Fig. 9(c) and (d).) bending and torsion and to then use a validated model in parametric
analyses. The element named Shell 181 in ANSYS was used for beam
3. Numerical modelling of tested beams meshing. The Shell 181 element is suitable for analyzing thin to
moderately-thick shell structures and is well-suited for linear, large
3.1. Finite element mesh rotation, and/or large strain nonlinear applications. The mid-line di­
mensions of cold-formed C- and Z-sections were used to build the beam
The finite element software ANSYS was used to simulate the model. Element widths equal to or less than 5 mm (for the flats) or 2.5

10
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 13. Constraints to the nodes at the ends.
Fig. 14. X and Z-direction constraints on the centre node of mid-span web.
mm (for the corners) and a length of 10 mm were selected as the suitable
mesh size to provide an accurate representation of cold-formed steel
beams subjected to bending and torsion actions.
11
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
3.2. Material model and properties
The stress-strain curve of steel material can be simplified as shown in
Fig. 10 [23]. The differences between the ultimate load results were very
small when they were used. Hence the ANSYS bilinear kinematic
hardening material model (BKIN) using the von Mises yield criterion
was used in the analysis. In this model the initial slope of the stress-strain
curve is the elastic modulus of the material, and at the specified yield
stress, the curve continues along the second slope defined by the tangent
modulus. In this study, the tangent modulus was taken as zero, that is,
linear elastic/perfect-plastic model was adopted. Based on the measured
results obtained from the tensile coupon tests (Table 3), the yield stress
was taken as 345 MPa for the 2.5 mm thickness beams (C180 × 70 × 20
× 2.5 and Z180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5) and 318 MPa for the 1.8 mm thickness
beams (C185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8 and Z185 × 70 × 20 × 1.8). The elastic
modulus E and Poisson’s ratio were taken as 200,000 MPa and 0.3,
respectively.
3.3. Loads and boundary conditions
In the tests the mid-span eccentric load was applied outside the beam
web, this was simulated through an equivalent loading method, as
shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b). In Fig. 11(a), “S” is the shear centre and “C”
is the centroid of a C-section, and “ds” denotes the distance between the
shear centre and the web midline. In Fig. 11(b), the shear centre “S” and
the centroid “C” of a Z-section are coincident and the distance ds is zero.
The transverse load (P) with eccentricity “e” from the shear centre was
finally replaced by a transverse load (P) applied to the beam web and a
couple formed by equal and opposite lateral loads (Q) applied to the
beam flanges, and the lateral load (Q) is given by Eq. (2). In the finite
element models, the transverse load (P) acting on the web elements was
uniformly distributed to every node along the web height, and the
lateral load (Q) acting on the flange elements was uniformly distributed
to every node along the flange width, as shown in Fig. 12.
Q = P(e + ds)/h (2)
Simply supported boundary conditions were simulated by applying
appropriate constraints to the nodes at the beam ends and the mid-span.
The nodes at both beam ends were fixed against the displacement along
y-axis (in-plane vertical deflection was restrained), the displacement
along x-axis (out-of-plane lateral deflection was restrained), and the
rotation about z-axis (rotation about longitudinal axis was restrained),
as shown in Fig. 13. The mid-span was fixed against the longitudinal
displacement by constraining the node at the centre of the web against
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 15. Buckling modes of C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 with L = 1500 mm and e = 30 mm.

Fig. 16. Buckling modes of Z180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 with L = 1500 mm and e = 40 mm.

3.4. Analysis methods

Table 4
Ultimate loads based on different buckling modes. Elastic buckling analysis was first carried out to obtain the eigen­
Section L(mm) e(mm) Pu1 (kN) Pu2 (kN) Pu3(kN) values and eigenvectors of cold-formed steel C- and Z-section beams
under the action of combined bending and torsion. The first buckling
C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 1500 30 18.07 19.97 19.22
Z180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 1500 40 24.00 24.33 24.28 mode obtained from elastic buckling analysis was used to input the
initial geometric imperfection in the subsequent nonlinear analysis, and
an amplification factor of ±L/1000 was adopted. The first order eigen­
the z-axis displacement, as shown in Fig. 14. Since the loading compo­ value was used as reference. Nonlinear static analysis, including the
nent on the top of the vertical arm was fixed against the horizontal effects of large displacement and material yielding, was conducted to
displacement, the vertical arm was unable to move horizontally in the x- obtain the failure modes and ultimate loads. The status of program so­
direction, ie. equivalent to lateral bracing to the web via the horizontal lution control in ANSYS was on, the arc-length method was activated,
arm. This restraint condition was simulated by fixing the node at the and a displacement limit was set as the arc-length method termination
centre of the web against the x-axis displacement, which is also shown in condition. Newton-Raphson method was adopted to solve the non-linear
Fig. 14. equilibrium equations while an appropriate iteration strategy was
automatically chosen by ANSYS and the program’s default nonlinear
convergence values were used.

12
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 17. Load versus vertical displacement curve of C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 (L =
1500, e = 50 mm).
Fig. 15 shows the first three buckling modes obtained from the elastic
buckling analyses of C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5, with span L = 1500 mm and
a load eccentricity e = 30 mm, which are characterized by section twist
and top flange distortional buckling. In the first two buckling modes, the
magnitude of section twist is small, while distortional buckling defor­
mation is dominant. Different distortional buckling waves are developed
in the three buckling modes, while the first bucking mode is similar to
the deformation observed in the test. Fig. 16 shows the first three
buckling modes of Z180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5, with span L = 1500 mm and a
load eccentricity e = 40 mm. In the first two buckling modes, top flange
distortional buckling and local or local-distortional buckling of the
bottom flange lip are both seen, while in the third buckling mode, top
flange distortional buckling deformation is small, while local-
distortional buckling deformation of the bottom flange lip is domi­
nant. Also, the first buckling mode is similar to the deformation
observed in the test. The first three buckling modes were used to input
the initial geometric imperfections, and the corresponding ultimate
loads (Pu1, Pu2, and Pu3) obtained are listed in Table 4. It can be seen that
Pu1 is smaller than Pu2 and Pu3. Therefore it is reasonable and conser­
vative to use the first buckling mode in the analyses.
It was found that for the tested C-section beams, the ultimate loads
obtained from FEA with the use of an initial geometric imperfection of
Fig. 18. FEA with clamping plates.
13
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
+L/1000 were lower than those without the use of an initial geometric
imperfection, and the ultimate loads obtained with the use of an initial
geometric imperfection of -L/1000 were greater than those obtained
without the use of an initial geometric imperfection. However, for the
tested Z-section beams, the ultimate loads obtained from FEA with the
use of an initial geometric imperfection of +L/1000 were greater than
those without the use of an initial geometric imperfection, and the ul­
timate loads obtained with the use of an initial geometric imperfection
of -L/1000 were lower than those obtained without the use of an initial
geometric imperfection. Therefore, +L/1000 initial geometric imper­
fection was used for C-section beams while -L/1000 initial geometric
imperfection was used for Z-section beams in the nonlinear analysis.
4. Validation of finite element model
The ultimate loads of cold-formed steel C- and Z-section beams under
combined bending and torsion obtained from finite element analyses
(FEA) and experiments and their comparisons are presented in Table 1.
For the C-section beams, the mean and COV values of the ratio of test to
FEA ultimate loads without initial geometric imperfection are 0.959,
0.131, and the mean and COV values of the ratio of test to FEA ultimate
loads with initial geometric imperfection are 1.067, 0.102. For the Z-
section beams, the mean and COV values of the ratio of test to FEA ul­
timate loads without initial geometric imperfection are 1.037, 0.034,
and the mean and COV values of the ratio of test to FEA ultimate loads
with initial geometric imperfection are 1.071, 0.035. These values show
that the finite element models developed in this study are able to predict
the ultimate loads of cold-formed steel channel beams and zee beams
subjected to combined bending and torsion with reasonably good ac­
curacy. For the C-section beams, the ultimate loads obtained from FEA
with the use of an initial geometric imperfection are obviously lower
than when initial geometric imperfection was not used, and are closer to
test results than when initial geometric imperfection was not used. For
the Z-section beams, the differences between the ultimate loads ob­
tained from FEA with and without the use of an initial geometric
imperfection are small in comparison with the C-section beams.
The ultimate load of C180 × 70 × 20 × 2.5 (L = 1500, e = 50 mm)
from the test was 16.10 kN, compared to that from FEA of 12.91 kN, ie. a
difference of 24.7%. Fig. 17 shows that the load dropped suddenly at
14.16 kN during the test, and then rose again to the maximum load of
16.10 kN. This may be due to some errors in the loading system, and thus
it may be reasonable to use 14.16 kN as the test ultimate load, which
gives only a 9.7% difference. If the value 14.16 kN is used as the ultimate
load, the mean and COV values of the ratio of test to FEA ultimate loads
without or with initial geometric imperfection for the C-section beams
will be revised from 0.959 and 0.131 to 0.947 and 0.117, and from 1.067
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 19. Comparison of load-lateral displacement curves from tests and FEA.
and 0.102 to 1.054 and 0.091, respectively.
Fig. 7 shows a comparison of failure modes from FEA and experi­
ments for C-section beams. It can be seen that both failure modes are
characterized by beam twist rotation and top flange distortional buck­
ling. Similarly, Fig. 8 shows a comparison of failure modes from FEA and
experiments for Z-section beams. In this figure, the Z-section beams
failed with section twist rotation and top flange distortional buckling,
while local buckling also occurred in the lip of the bottom flange, since
the maximum compressive stress (combination of bending normal stress
and warping normal stress) occurs in the lip of the bottom flange. Figs. 7
and 8 demonstrate that the failure modes from FEA are consistent with
experimental failure modes for both cold-formed C- and Z-section beams
14
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
subjected to combined bending and torsion.
In the tests, a 4 mm clamping plate of 50 mm width was used on one
side of the beam web, and was connected to the same size plate on the
other side using two M16 bolts. To evaluate their effect, the plates were
simulated by thick shell elements, that is, the web thickness was
increased by 8 mm in the clamping area, as shown in Fig. 18(a) of a C-
section beam. Fig. 18(b) shows the after-failure deformation of C185 ×
70 × 20 × 1.8 (L = 1500 mm, e = 30 mm), which is characterized by
beam twist rotation and top flange distortional buckling without local
deformation in the web. The ultimate load was 13.97 kN, while it was
13.85 kN (less than 1%) when the clamping plates were not considered.
These results show that effects of clamping plates are negligible.
H.-X. Wan et al.
Fig. 19. (continued).
Analyses of Z-section beams also confirmed this finding.
Typical load-lateral displacement curves from experiments and
nonlinear finite element analyses are compared in Fig. 19(a-c) for C-
section beams and Fig. 19(d)–(f) for Z-section beams. In these figures the
lateral displacements of top flange are plotted as positive and the lateral
displacements of bottom flange are plotted as negative. A good agree­
ment can be seen between the experimental and FEA results. For the C-
section beams the lateral displacement curves of top and bottom flanges
from FEA agree well with test results from the beginning as shown in
Fig. 19(a)–(c). For the Z-section beams, the lateral displacement curves
of top flange from tests deviate from FEA results initially, but otherwise
the lateral displacement curves of top and bottom flanges from tests
agree reasonably well with FEA results as shown by Fig. 19(d)–(f).
During the tests, the beams started to rotate as they were subjected to the
mid-span eccentric load, while also deflecting vertically. Due to the
beams’ rotation and vertical deflection, the contact points of Displace­
ment transducer 1 and Displacement transducer 2 moved up slightly,
15
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
leading to increased lateral displacement measurements of Displace­
ment transducer 1 and reduced lateral displacement measurements of
Displacement transducer 2. Therefore, test curves for top flange have a
smaller initial slope than those from FEA while test curves for bottom
flange have a larger initial slope than the numerical results.
It should be clarified that in the tests the mid-span load applied on
one side of the beam web caused an initial displacement in the direction
corresponding to the +L/1000 initial geometric imperfection which was
unfavorable to the C-section beams but was favorable to the Z-section
beams. Therefore, for the C-section beams, FEA capacity without initial
geometric imperfection is generally higher than test capacity, as illus­
trated by Fig. 19(a)–(c). FEA capacity with initial geometric imperfec­
tion (+L/1000 initial geometric imperfection) is closer to test capacity,
but is generally lower than test capacity (with an average difference of
5.4% for C-section beams). This may due to undesirable restraints of the
tested C-section beam supports. For the Z-section beams, FEA capacities
without and with initial geometric imperfection (-L/1000 initial
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Fig. 19. (continued).

geometric imperfection) are both generally lower than test capacity, as

Table 5 illustrated by Fig. 19(d)–(f), since in the tests the mid-span load applied
FEA with +L/1000 initial imperfection for Z-section beams. on one side of the beam web caused an initial displacement in the di­
Z-section Beam EXP FEA (with +L/1000 initial imperfection) rection corresponding to the +L/1000 initial geometric imperfection
Ultimate load (kN) Ultimate load (kN) EXP/FEA which was favorable to the Z-section beams. Table 5 gives the ultimate
loads obtained from FEA with +L/1000 initial geometric imperfection,
Z180L1200e40 29.64 31.25 0.948
Z180L1200e50 26.52 25.93 1.023
and the mean and COV values of the ratio of test to FEA capacities are
Z180L1200e60 22.73 22.14 1.027 1.002 and 0.040. For the tested Z-section beams, FEA capacities with
Z180L1500e40 25.67 25.30 1.015 +L/1000 initial geometric imperfection will be mostly close to test re­
Z180L1500e50 22.81 21.09 1.081 sults, while FEA capacities without or with -L/1000 initial geometric
Z180L1500e60 18.58 17.73 1.048
imperfection are comparatively conservative.
Z185L1200e40 17.45 18.49 0.944
Z185L1200e50 15.07 15.48 0.973 Overall, the results from tests and finite element analysis results
Z185L1200e60 12.78 13.36 0.956 agreed well in terms of ultimate load, failure mode and load-
Z185L1500e40 14.34 14.55 0.985 displacement curves. Such good agreement confirms the accuracy of
Z185L1500e50 12.49 12.18 1.025 the developed finite element models of C- and Z-section beams under
Z185L1500e60 10.27 10.35 0.992
bending and torsion actions.
Mean and COV values 1.002, 0.040

16
H.-X. Wan et al. Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424

Table 6
Calculation results for the tested beams.
Tested Beam Mu Mb Mu/Mb Bu By Bu/By Sum
2 2
(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m ) (kN.m )

C180L1200e30 7.290 17.385 0.419 0.214 0.247 0.866 1.285

C180L1200e40 5.877 17.385 0.338 0.230 0.247 0.931 1.269
C180L1200e50 5.811 17.385 0.334 0.284 0.247 1.151 1.485
C180L1500e30 7.755 17.644 0.439 0.225 0.247 0.910 1.349
C180L1500e40 6.690 17.644 0.379 0.258 0.247 1.047 1.426
C180L1500e50 6.037 17.644 0.342 0.292 0.247 1.181 1.523
C185L1200e30 4.254 11.346 0.375 0.126 0.175 0.720 1.095
C185L1200e40 3.657 11.346 0.322 0.145 0.175 0.825 1.147
C185L1200e50 3.324 11.346 0.293 0.164 0.175 0.938 1.231
C185L1500e30 4.282 11.691 0.366 0.126 0.175 0.721 1.087
C185L1500e40 3.810 11.691 0.326 0.150 0.175 0.855 1.181
C185L1500e50 3.476 11.691 0.297 0.171 0.175 0.975 1.272

Mean value 1.279

Z180L1200e40 8.892 11.350 0.783 0.350 0.313 1.117 1.900

Z180L1200e50 7.956 11.350 0.701 0.391 0.313 1.250 1.951
Z180L1200e60 6.819 11.350 0.601 0.402 0.313 1.285 1.886
Z180L1500e40 9.626 11.744 0.820 0.375 0.313 1.199 2.019
Z180L1500e50 8.553 11.744 0.728 0.417 0.313 1.331 2.059
Z180L1500e60 6.967 11.744 0.593 0.407 0.313 1.301 1.894
Z185L1200e40 5.235 7.054 0.742 0.208 0.222 0.937 1.679
Z185L1200e50 4.521 7.054 0.641 0.224 0.222 1.011 1.652
Z185L1200e60 3.834 7.054 0.543 0.228 0.222 1.029 1.572
Z185L1500e40 5.377 7.336 0.733 0.212 0.222 0.958 1.691
Z185L1500e50 4.684 7.336 0.638 0.231 0.222 1.043 1.681
Z185L1500e60 3.851 7.336 0.525 0.228 0.222 1.029 1.554

Mean value 1.795

for torsion alone (By ) was calculated using Eq. (4), where Wω is the
warping modulus of cross section, with reference to the first yield point
in warping torsion. Table 6 lists the calculation results for the tested
beams, which are plotted in Fig. 20. The mean values of the results of
Mu /Mb + Bu /By are 1.279 and 1.795 for the tested C-section and Z-sec­
tion beams respectively. The predictions of the linear interaction design
equation are considered safe for the tested C-section and Z-section
beams, but are very conservative for Z-section beams.
Pu e kL
Bu = tanh (3)
2k 2

By = Wω fy (4)

6. Conclusions

This paper has presented the details of an investigation based on

Fig. 20. Strength predictions of tested beams.
5. Comparison with currently available design equation
The Chinese code for cold-formed steel structures [3] uses a linear
interaction equation, M/Mb + B/By ≤ 1, as member capacity design
equation for members subject to combined bending and torsion. The test
results were compared with the predictions of this design equation. For
simply supported beams subject to a mid-span eccentric load, the
bending moment and the bimoment are both maximum at mid-span. For
the tested beams, the ultimate bending moment Mu = Pu L/ 4, where Pu
is the ultimate load obtained from test, and the ultimate bimoment Bu
was calculated using Eq. (3) [3], where k is the flexural-torsional char­
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
acteristic coefficient, defined as k = GJ/EIω , in which G is the shear
modulus, E is the elastic modulus, J is the torsion constant of cross
section, and Iω is the warping constant of cross section. The member
capacity for bending alone (Mb ) was obtained using the validated finite
element model by assuming zero eccentricity. The bimoment capacity
experimental and numerical studies of cold-formed steel beams sub­
jected to combined bending and torsion actions. The commonly used C-
and Z-section beams were first tested to failure under varying levels of
combined bending and torsion actions, and their behaviour including
the ultimate load, failure mode and load-displacement response was
then simulated using the finite element models developed using ANSYS
software. Test and finite element analysis results agreed well in terms of
ultimate load, failure mode and load-displacement curve. They both
showed that the load capacity of cold-formed steel beams decreased
with increasing eccentricity. The C-section beams failed with section
twist rotation and top flange distortional buckling while the Z-section
beams failed with section twist rotation, top flange distortional buck­
ling, and local buckling in the bottom flange lip. Finally the ultimate
load results from the tests were compared with the predictions of the
currently available design equation for combined bending and torsion
action, which showed that the design predictions are safe in all cases, but
are very conservative for Z-section beams. The finite element models
developed in this research for C- and Z-section beams can be used in a
numerical parametric study to develop more suitable design equations
for combined bending and torsion actions. Further testing and numerical

17
H.-X. Wan et al.
modelling studies are also needed for cold-formed steel beams under
bending and torsion.
Author statement
Hong-Xia Wan: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - Original
Draft.Bin Huang: Investigation, Formal analysis. Mahen Mahendran:
Writing - Review & Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Civil Engineering and Archi­
tecture School, Wuhan University of Technology for providing the
research facilities and support to conduct this research project. The first
author would also like to thank China Scholarship Council for funding
her overseas study at QUT during 2014-15.
References
[1] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), North American Specification for the
Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members AISI S100-16, 2016. Washington,
D.C., USA.
[2] Eurocode3 EN1993-1-3, Design of Steel Structures, General Rules—Supplementary
Rules for Cold-Formed Members and Sheeting, 2006. Brussels, Belgium.
[3] Standards PR China, GB50018-2002, Technical Code of Cold-Formed Thin-Wall
Steel Structures, 2002. Beijing, China.
[4] N.S. Boulton, Plastic twisting and bending of an I-beam in which the warp is
restricted, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 4 (1962) 491–502.
18
Thin-Walled Structures 161 (2021) 107424
[5] K.S. Dinno, W. Merchant, A procedure for calculating the plastic collapse of I-
sections under bending and torsion, Struct. Eng. 43 (7) (1965) 219–221.
[6] R.G. Driver, D.J.L. Kennedy, Combined flexure and torsion of I-shaped steel beams,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (2) (1989) 124–139.
[7] Y.L. Pi, N.S. Trahair, Inelastic bending and torsion of steel I-beams, J. Struct. Eng.
120 (1994) 3397–3417.
[8] Y.L. Pi, N.S. Trahair, Steel member design for combined torsion and bending, Aust.
Civ. Eng. Trans. CE36 (4) (1994) 325–330.
[9] N.S. Trahair, Y.L. Pi, Torsion, bending and buckling of steel beams, Eng. Struct. 19
(1997) 372–377.
[10] B.G. Estabrooks, G.Y. Grondin, Combined Bending and Torsion of Steel I-Shaped
Beams, vol. 276, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Structural Engineering Report, 2008.
[11] K.T. Kavanagh, D.S. Ellifritt, Design strengths of cold-formed channels in bending
and torsion, J. Struct. Eng. 120 (1994) 1599–1607.
[12] B.P. Gotluru, B.W. Schafer, T. Pekoz, Torsion in thin-walled cold-formed steel
beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 37 (2000) 127–145.
[13] B.M. Put, Y.L. Pi, N.S. Trahair, Lateral buckling tests on cold-formed channel
beams, J. Struct. Eng. 125 (1999) 532–539.
[14] B.M. Put, Y.L. Pi, N.S. Trahair, Bending and torsion of cold-formed channel beams,
J. Struct. Eng. 125 (1999) 540–546.
[15] H.X. Wan, M. Mahendran, Behaviour and strength of hollow flange channel
sections under torsion and bending, Thin-Walled Struct. 94 (2015) 612–623.
[16] H.X. Wan, M. Mahendran, Bending and torsion of hollow flange channel beams,
Eng. Struct. 84 (2015) 300–312.
[17] G. Bian, K.D. Petermana, S. Torabian, B.W. Schafer, Torsion of cold-formed steel
lipped channels dominated by warping response, Thin-Walled Struct. 98 (2016)
565–577.
[18] Standards Australia, AS 4100. Steel Structures, 1998. Sydney, Australia.
[19] Standards Australia, AS/NZS 4600. Cold-Formed Steel Structures, 2005. Sydney,
Australia.
[20] R.A. LaBoube, W.W. Yu, Cold-formed steel web elements under combined bending
and shear, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, St Louis, Missouri, U.S.
A., 1978.
[21] P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, D. Hughes, Numerical studies and design of hollow
flange channel beams subject to combined bending and shear actions, Eng. Struct.
75 (2014) 197–212.
[22] Standards PR China, GB/T 228.1-2010, Metallic Materials-Tensile Testing-Part 1:
Method of Test at Room Temperature, 2010. Beijing, China.
[23] J. Chen, Stability of Steel Structures Theory and Design, sixth ed., Science Press,
Beijing, China, 2014.