Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Analysis to determine flexural buckling of cold-formed steel built-up

back-to-back section columns
Tianhua Zhou, Yanchun Li ⁎, Hanheng Wu, Yan Lu, Lujie Ren
School of Civil Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710061, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the current AISI standard, the modified slenderness method (MSM) is proposed for the design of cold-formed
Received 11 August 2019 steel (CFS) built-up columns. According to the available literature, such a method has been extensively adopted
Received in revised form 3 October 2019 in hot-rolled steel research, and usually generates very conservative strength estimates. Nonetheless, there are
Accepted 4 December 2019
few corresponding theoretical studies into CFS built-up columns. In this situation, this paper presents a new an-
Available online 24 December 2019
alytical approach to establish a computing method for the flexural buckling bearing capacity of the CFS built-up
Keywords:
back-to-back section column. To achieve this goal, a new flexural buckling model is proposed to establish the ki-
Cold-formed steel nematic relationship of single profiles. In addition, shear panels are employed at the location of screws to con-
Built-up back-to-back section column sider the discrete shear deformation restraint effect. The shear rigidity of the shear panels is determined using
Flexural buckling the cross-sectional shear stress transfer path. Then, based on the energy method, a computing method is derived.
Finite-element analysis Further, simplifications are made to the formula to allow easier use in practical engineering situations. To verify
Computing method the derived formula, a finite-element model (FEM) is developed and validated using the available test results.
Then, based on the developed FEM, parametric studies are conducted to verify the derived formula. In addition,
the performance of the derived formula is further verified by comparing the corresponding ultimate strength
based on the direct strength method (DSM) expressions using available test results and FEM parametric studies.
The comparison and validation results show the following: (i) the derived formula can predict the critical flexural
buckling load as well as the corresponding buckling strength based on the DSM expression, and (ii) with an in-
crease in screw spacing, the MSM will result in very conservative strength estimates for CFS built-up back-to-
back section columns.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction member as follows:

Advances in technology have promoted the development of cold- Pe

formed steel (CFS) structures, from low-rise to multi-story buildings.
In multi-story buildings, there is an increasing expectation for higher
load-bearing capacity, while built-up section members have been
widely used in CFS construction owing to their ease of fabrication and
superior flexural buckling resistance. However, compared with other
structural members, the shear deformation effect on built-up section
columns is not negligible, and at times may even govern the structural
behavior. For this reason, to consider the shear deformation effect on
built-up section members, most currently available design standards
[1,2] require additional design specifications.
Engesser [3] was the first to recognize the significant and detrimen-
tal influence of shear deformation. He proposed a new formula to incor-
porate the shear deformation in the stability analysis of the column
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liyanchun@chd.edu.cn (Y. Li).
P cr ¼ ð1Þ
nPe
1þ
AG
where the Euler's critical load Pe = π2EI/(kL)2, A is the cross-sectional
area, G is the shear modulus, and n is a coefficient related to the section
shape (see Ref. [4]).
The column member usually has a solid section and relatively high
shear modulus, which makes the practical buckling load Pcr always
tend to agree with Euler's critical load Pe (see Eq. (1)). Therefore, the
same rule (i.e., taking Euler's critical load Pe as the critical buckling
load Pcr) was directly used in the design of built-up section columns
without considering the shear deformation effect. In 1907, the Quebec
Bridge failed due to the buckling of a built-up diagonal. Engineers asso-
ciated the reason for the accident with the significant and detrimental
shear deformation effect on built-up section members. Since then, ex-
tensive studies [4–7] have started to consider the shear deformation ef-
fect on built-up section members. Timoshenko [5], who is one of the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105898
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898
most prominent contributors to such a problem, proposed an analytical
formula to quantify the flexural buckling load of built-up laced columns
and built-up battened columns (see Fig. 1). Based on Timoshenko's re-
search, Zandonini [8] researched built-up stitched struts, which led to
the addition of the slenderness modification equation into the 1986
AISC Specification. In 1991, Aslani and Goel [9] verified AISC's modified
slenderness ratio (analytically and experimentally) for built-up hot-
rolled members.
Subsequently, the current AISI standard [1] specified a similar mod-
ified slenderness method for the design of the CFS built-up columns,
which can be expressed as

 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
2
KL KL a
¼ þ
r m r 0 ri
where (KL/r)o is the overall slenderness ratio of the entire section with
respect to the built-up member axis, a represents the fastener spacing,
and ri is the minimum radius of gyration of the full unreduced cross-
sectional area of an individual shape in a built-up member.
According to the above literature reviews, it can be observed that the
modified slenderness method (Eq. (2)) is extensively adopted into the
research for hot-rolled steel built-up columns. Practically, the configura-
tion of CFS built-up columns (see Fig. 2) is clearly different from that of
the hot-rolled built-up columns (see Fig. 1). In other words, the buckling
mechanism of CFS built-up section members may be significantly differ-
ent from hot-rolled steel built-up members. To verify the modified slen-
derness method, Stone and Laboube [10] conducted an experimental
investigation on the CFS built-up back-to-back section column. The
test results indicated that the modified slenderness method generally
leads to a very conservative strength estimation for the CFS built-up
back-to-back section column, especially for members with a thicker
plate (t N 0.89 mm). Similar results were also observed by Whittle
[11], who conducted an experimental investigation on the CFS built-
up box section column. To explore a more rational design method for
CFS built-up section members, Reyes and Guzman [12] conducted
axial compression tests on 48C-section box sections fabricated by spot
welding, which were pinned and fixed at both ends. The results sug-
gested that when the spacing of weld spots was b600 mm, the influence
of their spacing on the bearing capacity of specimens was small, and the
true slenderness ratio of components could be used to calculate the
bearing capacity. However, when the spacing of self-drilling screws
did not comply with the requirements of the American Specification
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Configuration of built-up column laced and built-up batten column: (a) Built-up
laced column; (b) Built-up batten column.
ð2Þ
Fig. 2. Configuration of cold-formed built-up back-to-back section column.
(AISI-S100-2007) [1], the influence of the instability of the individual
component that constitutes the built-up member cannot be ignored. Li
et al. [13] experimentally and numerically studied the ultimate strength
of the CFS built-up box-section and CFS back-to-back section columns,
and subsequently proposed a feasible way to determine the ultimate
strength of these members. However, the practical built-up section
was considered as the whole section for simplifying the flexural buck-
ling analysis. At present, there is no explicit formula for CFS built-up col-
umns; therefore, the applicability of the current direct strength method
(DSM) was studied by Abbasi et al. [14] to design CFS built-up columns.
Zhang and Young studied the ultimate strength of CFS built-up I-section
columns with edge and web stiffeners by performing experiments [15]
and a numerical analysis [16]. They then evaluated the suitability of the
DSM for built-up open section compressed members. Then, Zhang and
Young [17] carried out finite-element analysis to investigate the struc-
tural behavior of CFS built-up closed sections with web stiffeners, and
they further proposed a design method based on the current DSM.
More recently, an experimental investigation on CFS built-up back-to-
back section columns has been conducted in previous research [18] by
our team, and a novel design method to quantify the buckling strength
of the built-up back-to-back section column was proposed.
At present, considering the above considerations, a new flex-
ural buckling model was presented to establish the shear behavior
of the two single profiles for the built-up back-to-back section col-
umn in this paper. Subsequently, based on the energy method and
the transfer path analysis of the cross-sectional shear stress, an
analytical flexural buckling formula was derived. To verify the de-
rived formula, a finite-element model (FEM) was developed and
validated against the available test results. Based on the devel-
oped FEM, parametric studies were conducted to verify the de-
rived formula. In addition, the performance of the derived
formula was further verified by comparing the corresponding ulti-
mate strength based on DSM expressions with the test results ob-
tained from the literature.
2. Flexural buckling analysis
2.1. Buckling model
Fig. 3 presents an analysis model for the flexural buckling of CFS
built-up back-to-back section columns. It is important that the addi-
tional shear deformation Δ was considered in the presented model, as
shown in Figs. 3(b) and 3(c). However, there are discrete restraint ef-
fects of screws on the shear deformation, and it is convenient to simplify
 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898 3

Fig. 3. Flexure buckling analysis model: (a) analysis model; (b) cross-sectional buckling deformation of the plane between screws; (c) cross-sectional buckling deformation of plane at the
location of screws.

the screw restraint effects as shear panels (marked in gray in Fig. 3(c)) According to the above assumption ① and Fig. 3(b), the axial dis-
at the location of screws. In Fig. 3(c), the shear panels behaved as pure placement at any point of the upper and lower elements with distance
shear elements, i.e., the moment and axial load were not considered, x (global coordinate) from the origin can be expressed as follows:
as proposed by Gjelsvik [19] for laced and built-up batten columns. For the upper element:
The shear rigidity K of the shear panels will be presented in
Section 2.2. It should be noted that the presented member (see ∂ω
ut ¼ ut0 ðx; z1 Þ−ðz1 þ eÞ ð3aÞ
Fig. 3(a)) is a doubly symmetric section; therefore it might also be ∂x
that the columns buckled in the y-axis in practice (see Fig. 3(a)).
Nonetheless, the effect of the corresponding shear deformation in For the lower element:
the y-axis is relatively smaller than that of the buckling in the z-axis
[4,5]. Therefore, such a buckling mode will not be further discussed ∂ω
ub ¼ ub0 ðx; z1 Þ−ðz1 −eÞ ð3bÞ
in this paper. ∂x
Before the derivation, it is convenient to introduce two sepa-
where x and z1 are defined in global and local coordinate systems, re-
rate coordinate systems, as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). A global
spectively; e is the distance from the centroid of the single profile to
coordinate system (x, z, y) was placed at the centroid of the left-
the interface of the built-up section; ω represents the flexural deforma-
most cross-sectional plane of the model (see Fig. 3(a)) with the
tion of the two single profiles of the built-up column.
x-axis parallel to the longitudinal direction, and a local coordinate
Subsequently, the axial strains in the two elements can be obtained
system x1o1z1 was arbitrarily placed at the interface of the built-
using the strain–displacement relation as follows:
up section (see Figs. 3(b) and 3(c)) with the x 1 -axis parallel to
For the upper element:
the interface of the two components. In Fig. 3(b), ut0 and ub0 are
respectively the axial displacements at the centroid of the upper 2
∂ut ∂ ω
and lower elements in the x-axis (global coordinate). The shear εt ¼ −ðz1 þ eÞ 2 ð4aÞ
deformation in the x 1 -axis (local coordinate) is denoted as Δ. ∂x ∂x
The deflection of the upper and lower elements along the z-axis
For the lower element:
(global coordinate) is labeled as ω. To simplify the derivations,
three assumptions about the basic kinematics are proposed in 2
∂ub ∂ ω
the following derivation works, i.e., εb ¼ −ðz1 −eÞ 2 ð4bÞ
① The bending deformations of two single profiles for the built-up ∂x ∂x
column conform to the beam theory [20]. Each single profile behaves
According to Fig. 3(b), the shear deformation Δ can be expressed as
as a simple beam; i.e., the shear deformation within each element is
neglected.   ∂ω
② The flexural deformation ω of the two single profiles of the built- Δ ¼ ut z1 ¼0 −ub z1 ¼0 ¼ ½ut0 −ub0  þ 2e ð5Þ
∂x
up column is the same (see Figs. 3(b) and 3(b)).
③ The constraining effect of the self-drilling screws on built-up col- The total potential energy Π of the built-up column model con-
umns can be simplified as the constraint of the shear plane deformation sists of the strain energy U 1 of the two single profiles due to the
for the built-up columns, as shown in Fig. 3(c), and the shear deforma- axial and transverse displacements, the strain energy U 2 of the
tion only occurred on the shear plane. shear panels, and the potential energy W of the applied axial loaded
4 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898

P, which yields Substituting Eqs. (8a), (8b), and (8c) into Eq. (6), the total potential
energy Π can be rewritten as
Π ¼ U 1 þ U 2 −W ð6Þ
Π ¼ U 1 þ U 2 −W
Z "
2
2 # Z L 2
!2
0 1 EAc L ∂ut0 ∂ub0 ∂ ω
Z Z ¼ þ dx þ EIc dx
EB C 2 0 ∂x ∂x 0 ∂x2
U 1 ¼ @ ε2t dV 1 þ ε2b dV 2 A ð7aÞ n  2
2 KX ∂ω ð9Þ
V1 V2 þ ðut0 −ub0 Þ þ 2e
2 i¼1 ∂x jx¼ ½1þ2ði−1Þe1
Z L "
2 #
2

KX n ut0 þ ub0 1 ∂ω
U2 ¼ Δ2 ð7bÞ −P þ dx
2 i¼1 i 0 2 2 ∂x

Z "
2 # Z "
2 # where Ac is the cross-sectional area and Ic is the moment of inertia of the
σ ∂ut0 ∂ω σ ∂ub0 ∂ω
W¼ þ dV 1 þ þ dV 2 ð7cÞ single profile, (i.e., the C-section member).
2 ∂x ∂x 2 ∂x ∂x
V1 V2 In order to make the solution more concise, the following notations
are introduced:
Substituting Eqs. (4a) and (4b) into Eq. (6), the strain energy U1 can
ut0 þ ub0
be rewritten as: uα ¼ ð10aÞ
2
0 1
Z Z ut0 −ub0
EB C uβ ¼ ð10bÞ
U 1 ¼ @ ε2t dV 1 þ ε2b dV 2 A 2
2
V1 V2
Z L "
2
2 # Z L 2
!2
Substituting Eqs. (10a) and (10b) into Eq. (9), the expression for the
EAc ∂ut0 ∂ub0 ∂ ω
¼ þ dx þ EIc dx total potential energy Π can be simplified as
2 0 ∂x ∂x 0 ∂x2
ZL
 2 Z
" 2
2 #
∂ut0 ∂ub0 ∂ ω EAc L ∂ut0 ∂ub0 Z L "
2
2 # Z L 2
!2
þ EQ z þ dx ¼ þ dx ∂uα ∂uβ ∂ ω
∂x ∂x ∂x2 2 0 ∂x ∂x Π ¼ EAc þ dx þ EIc dx
0 ∂x ∂x 0 ∂x2
0
!2 "
2 #
Z L X n
2 Z L 
2
∂ ω ∂ω uα 1 ∂ω
þ EIc dx ð8aÞ þ 2K uβ þ e −P þ dx ð11Þ
0 ∂x2 i¼1
∂x jx¼ ½1þ2ði−1Þe1 0 2 2 ∂x
2

It should be noted that ut0 and ub0 are displacements along the x-axis It should be noted that the principle of minimum potential energy
of the global coordinate system of the upper and lower body elements, [21] is as follows: if∂2Π/∂x2 N 0, the equilibrium is stable; if ∂2Π/∂x2 b
respectively, while z1 is the coordinate along the z1-axis (local coordi- 0, the equilibrium is unstable; if ∂2Π/∂x2 = 0, the critical buckling
nate) of the follow-up coordinate system x1o1z1, as shown in Figs. 3 load can also be obtained. It is interesting to note that uα in Eq. (11) is
(b) and 3(c). It can be seen that there is no displacement of the independent of that of uβ and ω, and ∂2Π/∂u2α ≡ 0. These phenomena in-
upper and lower body elements along the z1-axis (local coordinate), dicate that uα in Eq. (11) is not important for determining the critical
R L dut0 dub0 ∂2 ω buckling load Pcr. Therefore, neglecting the effect of uα in Eq. (11), we
that is, z1 = 0. Therefore, EQ z 0ð þ Þ dx ¼ 0, where Q z ¼ z1 can obtain:
dx dx ∂x2
2
∂ ω Z
2 Z L !2
ð1 þ Þ ¼ 0. L
∂uβ
2
∂ ω
∂x2 Π ¼ EAc dx þ EI c dx
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (7b), the strain energy U2 can be rewrit- 0 ∂x 0 ∂x2
ð12Þ
ten as: X n
2 Z
2
∂ω P L ∂ω
þ 2K uβ þ e − dx
∂x jx¼ ½1þ2ði−1Þe1 2 0 ∂x
KX n i¼1 2
U2 ¼ Δ2
2 i¼1 i
n  2 ð8bÞ For a simply supported built-up column, the deflection function uβ
KX ∂ω
¼ ðut0 −ub0 Þ þ 2e and ω [5] can be assumed to be
2 i¼1 ∂x jx¼ ½1þ2ði−1Þe1
2
πx
uβ ¼ B cos ð13aÞ
Simplifying the Eq. (7c) to obtain: L
πx
Z "
2 # Z "
2 # ω ¼ C sin ð13bÞ
σ ∂ut0 ∂ω σ ∂ub0 ∂ω L
W¼ þ dV 1 þ þ dV 2
2 ∂x ∂x 2 ∂x ∂x
Z L "
V1

2 #
V2 ð8cÞ where B and C are two constants.
ut0 þ ub0 1 ∂ω Substituting Eqs. (11a) and (11b) into Eq. (12), the following expres-
¼P þ dx
0 2 2 ∂x sion can be obtained:

where E represents the elastic modulus of materials; V1 and V2 are the L2 B2 Ac þ C 2 π 2 Ic
2
1 Eπ 1 π2 PC 2
volumes of the upper and lower single profiles, respectively; K is the Π¼ −
2 L 3 4 L ð14Þ
shear rigidity of the artificial panels; n is the total number of shear  eπ 2
panels (i.e., the number of screws in the longitudinal direction); σ is þ 2K B þ C γ
L
the normal stress; and P is the compressive load.
 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898 5

P
be

lf=e-t/2
ķ
ĸ
Ĺ ls=t/2
P
Fig. 6. Simplified model for determining the shear rigidity K.

According to Eqs. (16a) and (16b), the critical buckling load Pcr can
Fig. 4. Comparison of the critical buckling load of the considered built-up section obtained
be explicitly expressed as
from Eq. (17) and Eq. (21).


2π2 4KγL EAc e2 þ EIc þ EIc EAc π2
P cr ¼ ð17Þ
L2 ðEAc π2 þ 4KγLÞ
where the function γ represents the shear deformation restraint
effect of the shear panels at the location of screws, and can be expressed Before determining the value of the shear rigidity K, the author first
as examined two special cases. One is Kγ = 0, i.e., no screws were placed at
the interface of the CFS built-up column. In this condition, the critical
X
n πx 2
i buckling load Pcr can be expressed as
γ¼ cos ð15Þ
i¼1
L
2π2 EI c
P cr ¼ ð18Þ
The variation of Eq. (14) with respect to B and C results in the follow- L2
ing equations:
Another is Kγ = ∞, i.e., the discrete screws were considered as con-
∂Π
 tinuous connections with very high shear rigidity. In this condition, the
¼ Ac Eπ2 þ 4KγL B þ 4eKπγC ¼ 0 ð16aÞ
∂B critical buckling load Pcr can be expressed as


∂Π 1 
2π2 EAc e2 þ EIc 2Eπ2 II
¼ 4KeπγL2 B þ π2 8KγLe2 þ 2EI c π 2 −PL2 C ¼ 0 ð16bÞ P cr ¼ ¼ ð19Þ
∂C 2 2
L L2

Physically, Eqs. (18) and (19) represent two different buckling cases.
In the former, the two single profiles deform independently (and they
behave as two separate columns), whereas in the latter, the two single
profiles deform together (and behave as a whole section column). II rep-
resents the moment of a whole section column when the Kγ = ∞ for CFS
z
screw built-up back-to-back section columns.
effective plate Apparently, the form of γ in Eq. (16) is relatively complicated. There-
x
fore, it may be cumbersome to determine the critical buckling load Pcr
y for built-up columns with a large number of screws. In most practical
P
e1

P
(a)
a lw
A
lf
shear stress
screw
e
B C
E D
e2
F

(b)

Fig. 5. Equivalent shear resistance model: (a) Sketch of shear resistance system;
(b) Transfer path of the cross-sectional shear stress. Fig. 7. The developed FEM for the determining shear rigidity K.
6 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898

Table 1
Geometry of the members used for parametric studies/mm.

a b d t e2 ds

100 40 15 1.2 30 3.6

140 60 1.6 50 4.8
80 2.0 70 6
90

Note: 1. a, b and d are the width of the web, flange and lip, respectively; t is the plate thick-
ness; e2 is the screw spacing in the transverse direction (see Fig. 3(a)); ds is the screw
diameter.
2. All the models were assumed to have equal length L = 1.0 m.
3. The elastic modulus of built-up column and screws are assumed to be E =
210,000 N/mm2 and Es = 203,000 N/mm2, respectively.

cases, the screw spacing is equidistant in the longitudinal direction, as

shown in Fig. 3(a). Therefore, a further simplification was made by tem-
porarily assuming the discrete function γ as a continuous function, i.e.,

Z L πx 2
n n
γ¼ cos dx ¼ ð20Þ
L 0 L 2 Fig. 9. Accuracy of the formula (27).

Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (17), and letting n = L/e1, n is the num-
ber of screws (see Fig. 3(a)), and e1 is the screw spacing along the length
of the column; the expression for the critical buckling load Pcr can be
simplified as
 rigidity K represents the shear deformation resistance of the built-
2π2 2KL2 EII =e1 þ EI c EAc π2
P cr ¼  ð21Þ
L2 EAc π2 þ 2KL2 =e1
A comparison of Eqs. (17) and (21) is presented in Fig. 4, where the
length of the column L = 3000 mm, and the elastic modulus E =
200,000 N/mm2. For comparison purposes, three different values of
shear rigidity K were considered. It is apparent that the critical buckling
load Pcr calculated by Eqs. (17) and (21) are very close to the change of
the shear rigidity K and the screw spacing e1, indicating that the calcu-
lation accuracies of Eqs. (17) and (21) are basically the same when
the self-drilling screw was arranged according to Fig. 3(a). Therefore,
it is reasonable to use Eq. (21) to determine the critical flexural buckling
load of CFS built-up back-to-back section columns with even screw
spacing.
2.2. Determination of shear rigidity K
As mentioned previously, using the Eq. (21) to determine the
critical buckling load (Pcr) for the flexural buckling, it is necessary
to determine the value of the shear rigidity K. Physically, the shear
up section, and it can therefore be determined by an equivalent
model subjected to equal and opposite axial force on the neutral
plane of the upper and lower single profile, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 5(a). In other words, if the shear deformation Δ
and the corresponding axial force P are known, the shear rigidity
K can be easily determined by K=P/Δ.
As can be seen from Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), to satisfy the condition of the
static equilibrium in the axial direction, the shear stress on the cross-
section will start from point A to point B through the flange, and it will
then reach point C at the self-drilling screw through the middle of the
web. Subsequently, the force follows screws to point D of the web of
the lower column, and then through the web and the flange. Finally,
the transfer process of the unbalanced force is completed. According
to the relationship between the stress and strain, shear stress also pro-
duces a shear deformation with the unbalanced force transmitting,
which leads to a certain sliding deformation along the axis. Therefore,

(a) 250 250

t=1.2 ds=3.6
t=2.0 ds=4.8
200 t=3.0 200 ds=6.0

150 150
be(mm)

be(mm)

100 100

50 50
be=40+1.5(lw+lf) be=40+1.5(lw+lf)

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
lw+lf(mm) lw+lf(mm)

Fig. 8. Comparison of transfer length (lw + lf), plate thickness t, screw diameter ds and effective width be: (a) The relationship of t, be and (lw + lf); (b) The relationship of ds, be and (lw + lf);
 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898 7

Fig. 10. The developed FEM for nonlinear static analysis: (a) FEM model; (b) Test set-up.

depending on the transfer path of the shear stress, the flange, web, and
screw may be equivalent to the frame model of the end-to-end, as
shown in Fig. 6. The model (half-length A-B-C-D-E-F represents the
shear stress transfer path) consists of three parts: part ① represents the
transfer path of the shear stress on the flange, part ② represents the trans-
fer path of the shear stress on the web, and part ③ represents the transfer
path of the shear stress on the screw. It should be noted that when deter-
mining the shear deformation of the built-up section, not all plates along
the longitudinal direction were effective (see Fig. 5(a)), as was illustrated
by Vieira [22], who proposed an effective width be = 3ds for determining
the lateral stiffness and the strength of sheathing-braced CFS stud walls.
To simplify the derivation, the web and flange that participated in shear
deformation resistance were assumed to be rectangular plates with a
width of be, as shown in Fig. 6. The value of the effective width be will be
discussed in the later section. According to the analysis model (Fig. 6),
the total shear deformation Δ in the longitudinal direction consisted of
three parts, namely the bending and shear deformation of parts ①(Δf),
②(Δw), and ③(Δs), respectively. Based on the simplified model, the
shear deformation Δ can be approximately expressed as follows:
Δ ¼ Δ f þ Δw þ Δs ð22Þ

3
Pls Pls
Δs ¼ þ ð23aÞ
3Es I s As Gs
Table 2
Comparisons of FEM results and test results.
3
Plw Plw
Specimens Geometrical FEM results Experimental results PFE/ Pexp Δw ¼ þ ð23bÞ
imperfection 3EIw tbe G

δl δo PFE/kN Pexp/kN 3
Pl f Pl
LC3-90-A1 0.341 1.213 43.3 42.6 1.016 Δf ¼ þ f ð23cÞ
LC3-90-A2 0.412 1.504 39.5 39.9 0.990
3EI f tbe G
LC3-90-A3 0.327 1.306 40.9 41.2 0.993
LC3-140-A1 0.429 1.212 46.5 45.2 1.029
LC3-140-A2 0.543 1.323 47.6 46.9 1.015
where E and G are the elastic modulus and shear modulus of the single
LC3-140-A3 0.552 1.227 47.1 45.8 1.028
Mean 1.012 profiles, respectively; the moment of inertia Iw and If is the same (i.e., Iw
SD 0.015 = If = t × b3e/12); Es and Gs are the elastic modulus and shear modulus
Note: 1. PFE is the ultimate strengths obtained by the finite element; Pexp is the ultimate
of the screws, respectively; As is the cross-sectional area of the screw
strengths obtained by test. and the moment of inertia of the screw Is = πd4s /64; ds is the diameter of
2. δl and δo are the maximum initial local and overall geometry imperfections, respectively. the screw; lf = e-t/2; lw = (a-e2)/2; and P is the axial force.
8 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898

Fig. 11. Load versus axial displacement curves for test specimens.

Eqs. (23a)–(23c) are substituted into Eq. (22), and then the total theory based on the computer-aid expression of the effective width will
shear deformation Δ of the analysis model can be expressed as follows: be presented in the following section.
Fig. 7 presents a finite-element model (FEM) developed by the soft-
P ðβ1 E þ β2 Es Þ ware ABAQUS [23]. In the FEM, the built-up column was modeled by the
Δ¼ ð24Þ
3EEs shell element S4R, while screws were modeled by C3D8R. In addition,
the self-drilling screw used in this test was ST4.8, and its size was
 4.8 mm × 12 mm (radius × length), as shown in Fig. 7. In order to obtain
2
8t 3 þ 15:6ds t more accurate simulation results, the mesh sizes of the built-up column
β1 ¼ ð25aÞ
πds
4 and the self-drilling screw were approximately 5 mm × 5 mm and
0.68 mm × 0.68 mm, respectively. In addition, to simulate the boundary
conditions of the articulated, the reference points RP1 and RP2 were all

3 3 2
 constrained by Uy, Uz and URx degrees of freedom, as shown in Fig. 7.
12 lw þ l f þ 7:8be lw þ l f
β2 ¼ ð25bÞ The FEM was subjected to the equal and opposite axial force on the
3
be t reference points RP1 and RP2 (see Fig. 7), respectively. RP1 and RP2
were located on the neutral plane of the left and right single profiles, re-
Subsequently, the shear rigidity K can be solved by spectively. The translation and rotation freedom of the edges at the left
cross-sectional plane of the right and left single profiles were coupled
P 3EEs with RP1 and RP2, respectively, as presented in Fig. 7. The constraint re-
K¼ ¼ ð26Þ
Δ ðβ1 E þ β2 Es Þ lationship between the screw shank and the hole was modeled by the
tie constraint. Linear static analysis was performed to obtain the shear
Until now, the value of the effective width be is still undetermined. It deformation of the developed FEM (i.e., the axial displacement of RP1
appears impractical to derive an explicit solution for the effective width or RP2 in the x-axis).
be with both simplicity and accuracy (see Fig. 6). To perform this task, a

40
12

40 60
2
10

2
10

1
32
120
32
80
80
32

B80-40 B80-60 B120-40

60
60 40
15
15

3
15

2.5
2.5
160
160
120

80
32

80

B120-60 B160-40 B160-60

Fig. 12. Cross-sectional dimension of the designed sections.
 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898
Fig. 13. Elastic buckling result for B120–60 with screw spacing e1 = 400 mm.
As can be seen, the mechanical behaviors of the FEM and theory
model (see Fig. 5) are very similar. Therefore, to some extent, the
shear deformation obtained by the developed FEM can be approxi-
mately considered as the practical shear deformation. In other words,
if the shear rigidity K was obtained by the FEM in advance, we can use
the method of mathematical regression to obtain a computer-aided ex-
pression to determine the effective width be. However, there may be
some differences between the FEM and practical cases. Therefore, the
accuracy of this method will be further verified in Section 4.
Based on the FEM (Fig. 7), parametric studies were conducted to de-
termine the shear rigidity K. The designed geometry parameters are
listed in Table 1. According to Table 1, a total of 216 models were ana-
lyzed. Fig. 8 presents results of parametric studies for these models in
Table 1. From Figs. 8(a) and 8(b), it can be seen that the transfer path
(lw + lf) is the key parameter that affects the effective width be, which
was compared with the thickness t of the plate and the diameter ds of
the screw. Subsequently, taking the length lw + lf as the key parameter,
and based on the principle of minimum variance [24], the effective
width be can be approximately expressed as
be ¼ 40 þ 1:5 lw þ l f
In order to verify the accuracy of Eq. (27), it was substituted for
Eq. (26) to obtain the stiffness comparison between the proposed
method (Ka) and the FEM (KFE), as presented in Fig. 9. The results in
the Fig. 9 indicate that the formula of the fitted curve be = 40 + 1.5
(lw + lf) in this section is reasonable. Therefore, we can explicitly deter-
mine the shear rigidity by substituting Eq. (27) into Eq. (26). Subse-
quently, the critical flexural buckling can also be explicitly obtained by
substituting Eq. (26) into Eq. (21).
3. Development of finite-element model for nonlinear static analysis
In the previous research [18] by our team, an experimental investi-
gation was conducted to research the buckling behavior of the CFS
built-up columns. However, the available test results are still limited
for validating the accuracy of the derived formula in Eq. (21). In this sce-
nario, ABAQUS [23] software was used to develop a reliable FEM. In the
model, the measured cross-sectional dimensions and initial geometrical
imperfections of the experimental specimens in the former research
[18] were adopted. The FEM analysis consists of two steps. Firstly, an ei-
genvalue buckling analysis was performed to obtain the geometric im-
perfection mode shape. Then, a nonlinear static analysis was
conducted to obtain the buckling strength as well as the failure mode.
The accuracy of the FEM will be verified against the test results.
9
3.1. Type of element and finite-element mesh
The mid-surfaces in the column were discretized into the finite ele-
ments S4R [23] with a size of 5 mm × 5 mm at the flat portions and a
finer method at the region near the screws. The corners were not
modeled for the small dimension. The screws were selected as cylinders
with a 4.8 mm diameter and 12 mm length, as shown in Fig. 10(a). To
ensure the accuracy, the cylinders were discretized into the finite ele-
ments C3D8R with a finer size of 0.68 mm × 0.68 mm.
3.2. Material properties
The relationship between the stress-strain tested from the flat ten-
sile coupon test [18] was adopted into the FEM to consider the material
nonlinearity. In addition, the engineering stress (σ) and strain (ε) ob-
tained for flat tensile coupon test should be converted to the true stress
and true strain, as specified in ABAQUS (i.e., σtrue = σ(1 + ε)and εpl
true =
In(1 + ε) − σtrue/E). The self-drilling screws were considered as the
elastic material, where Young's [16] modulus and Poisson's ratio were
203 GPa and 0.3, respectively.
ð27Þ
3.3. Boundary condition, loading method, and interactions
The boundary conditions of simply supported (the same as the test)
were considered in the FEM, where both the ends of the column were
tied to the rigid plates, and the translational degrees of freedoms Uy
and Uz for the reference points (RP1 and RP2) were restrained (see
Fig. 10(a)), except for the translational degree of freedom Ux in the load-
ing direction of the RP1. The rotation degree of freedom URx along the
longitudinal direction was restrained for both RP1 and RP2. In addition,
in the test, the double knives supports were set up at both ends of the
specimen to simulate the hinge joint, as shown in Fig. 10(b). Therefore,
the dimension effect of the end support devices (see Fig. 10(b)) was
considered by offsetting the distance of the RP1 and RP2 along the lon-
gitudinal direction (i.e., S = 110 mm in Fig. 10(b)). The surface-to-
surface contact using the finite-sliding tracking method was used to de-
fine the interactional relationship between the surfaces and the two
open sections. In the test, the phenomenon of shedding and failure of
the screws was not observed, and the relationship of constraints be-
tween the screws and the built-up column was modeled by the tie
constraint.
3.4. Imperfections
Generally, imperfections in the CFS members can be categorized
into two types: material imperfection and geometrical imperfec-
tion. For the material imperfection, it is sufficiently accurate to ig-
nore them and assume nominal properties (E, f y , etc.) for the
10 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898

strength predictions of the CFS members, as illustrated by Moen and
Schafer [25,26]. Therefore, the material imperfection was not con-
sidered in the FEM in this paper. For the geometrical imperfection,
the initial imperfection can be automatically incorporated into
FEM through a linear combination of buckling mode shapes
obtained from a preliminary eigenvalue buckling analysis. More-
over, the linear combination was also guaranteed to be consistent
with the measured values in the experiment, as listed in the former
research [18], and the initial geometric imperfections were also
listed in Table 2.

Fig. 14. Comparison of proposed formula and modified slenderness method for critical flexural buckling load: (a) B80–40; (b) B80–60; (c) B120–40; (d) B120–60; (e) B160–40;
(f)B160–60.
 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898 11

3.5. Solution technique
In the nonlinear analysis, the Newton-Raphson method with dis-
placement control was adopted as the solution technique. The compres-
sion load was applied by specifying the axial displacement to the RP1
(see Fig. 10(a)). It should be noted that the contact and constraint in
the FEM are likely to lead to a convergence problem for some speci-
mens. In order to obtain a convergence and stable solution, artificial
damping was applied at the first increment of the non-linear static anal-
ysis, where a default value of 0.0002 was used for the dissipated energy
fraction, as proposed by Zhang and Young [16]. Meanwhile, to ensure
the accuracy of the calculation, adaptive technology was used to control
the magnitude of artificial damping in the FEM. The equilibrium
adjustment coefficient was 0.005 times the strain energy, according to
Rusmmusen's proposal [27]. In addition, with reference to the recom-
mendation of Schafer [26], to ensure the calculation accuracy, the dis-
placement load was about 1.5 times the ultimate displacement, and
the initial loading step and the maximum loading step were 0.01 and
0.02, respectively.
3.6. Validation of developed FEM
The developed CFS was validated by the experimental results for
the long columns [18], which failed in the flexural buckling mode.
The ultimate strengths (PFE) obtained from the FEM were compared
with the experimental results (Pexp) of LC3-90 and LC3-140 series

Table 3
Comparisons of test results (or FEM results) and proposed formula for flexural buckling strength.

Test/FEM Specimens Geometry dimensions/mm Material property Pu PuG1 PuG2 PuG1/Pu PuG2/Pu

a b d t Lc e1 e2 E(GPa) fy/N/mm2

Lu [18] LC3-90-A1 93.2 42.6 14.9 1.2 3253 300 32 216 321.5 42.6 40.8 41.4 0.958 0.972
LC3-90-A2 92.4 41.8 14.9 1.2 3258 300 32 216 321.5 39.9 38.8 39.0 0.972 0.977
LC3-90-A3 92.2 41.3 15.3 1.2 3254 300 32 216 321.5 41.2 38.3 38.9 0.930 0.944
LC3-140-A1 142.2 40.7 15.4 1.5 3254 300 53 205 305.4 45.2 43.0 44.2 0.951 0.978
LC3-140-A2 144.3 41.8 15.0 1.5 3253 300 53 205 305.4 46.9 44.9 46.0 0.957 0.981
LC3-140-A3 141.9 42.6 13.3 1.5 3254 300 53 205 305.4 45.8 45.9 50.7 1.002 1.107
FEM B80-40-1 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 2000 32 216 321.5 15.6 15.7 12.1 1.006 0.776
B80-40-2 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 1333 32 216 321.5 16.3 16.0 14.6 0.982 0.896
B80-40-3 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 1000 32 216 321.5 16.5 16.1 15.7 0.976 0.952
B80-40-4 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 800 32 216 321.5 16.6 16.2 16.3 0.976 0.982
B80-40-5 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 667 32 216 321.5 16.6 16.2 16.7 0.976 1.006
B80-40-6 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 400 32 216 321.5 16.7 16.4 17.2 0.982 1.030
B80-40-7 80.0 40.0 10.0 1.0 4000 100 32 216 321.5 16.8 16.5 17.5 0.982 1.042
B80-60-8 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 2000 32 216 321.5 93.0 86.5 68.1 0.930 0.732
B80-60-9 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 1333 32 216 321.5 94.3 88.5 83.7 0.938 0.888
B80-60-10 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 1000 32 216 321.5 95.1 89.6 91.1 0.942 0.958
B80-60-11 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 800 32 216 321.5 94.9 90.3 94.9 0.952 1.000
B80-60-12 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 667 32 216 321.5 96.6 90.8 97.1 0.940 1.005
B80-60-13 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 400 32 216 321.5 100.0 91.8 100.6 0.918 1.006
B80-60-14 80.0 60.0 10.0 2.0 4000 100 32 216 321.5 101.7 93.0 102.5 0.914 1.008
B120-40-15 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 2000 32 216 321.5 33.3 32.1 27.7 0.964 0.832
B120-40-16 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 1333 32 216 321.5 33.6 32.7 33.1 0.973 0.985
B120-40-17 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 1000 32 216 321.5 33.7 33.1 35.6 0.982 1.056
B120-40-18 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 800 32 216 321.5 34.4 33.3 36.8 0.968 1.070
B120-40-19 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 667 32 216 321.5 34.8 33.4 37.5 0.960 1.078
B120-40-20 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 400 32 216 321.5 35.5 33.8 38.6 0.952 1.087
B120-40-21 120.0 40.0 12.0 2.0 4000 100 32 216 321.5 35.6 34.1 39.2 0.958 1.101
B120-60-22 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 2000 32 216 321.5 130.4 123.2 103.3 0.945 0.792
B120-60-23 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 1333 32 216 321.5 133.3 126.5 125.3 0.949 0.940
B120-60-24 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 1000 32 216 321.5 136.2 128.3 135.4 0.942 0.994
B120-60-25 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 800 32 216 321.5 137.2 129.5 140.7 0.944 1.026
B120-60-26 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 667 32 216 321.5 138.0 130.3 143.7 0.944 1.041
B120-60-27 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 400 32 216 321.5 141.9 132.0 148.3 0.930 1.045
B120-60-28 120.0 60.0 15.0 2.5 4000 100 32 216 321.5 142.8 134.0 150.9 0.938 1.057
B160-40-29 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 2000 80 216 321.5 40.7 44.0 39.9 1.081 0.980
B160-40-30 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 1333 80 216 321.5 41.7 44.9 47.3 1.077 1.134
B160-40-31 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 1000 80 216 321.5 41.8 45.4 50.7 1.086 1.213
B160-40-32 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 800 80 216 321.5 42.7 45.7 52.4 1.070 1.227
B160-40-33 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 667 80 216 321.5 43.2 45.9 53.4 1.063 1.236
B160-40-34 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 400 80 216 321.5 44.1 46.3 54.8 1.050 1.243
B160-40-35 160.0 40.0 15.0 2.5 4000 100 80 216 321.5 44.1 46.9 55.7 1.063 1.263
B160-60-36 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 2000 80 216 321.5 140.0 145.4 128.6 1.039 0.919
B160-60-37 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 1333 80 216 321.5 153.2 149.2 154.1 0.974 1.006
B160-60-38 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 1000 80 216 321.5 155.1 151.4 165.7 0.976 1.068
B160-60-39 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 800 80 216 321.5 155.3 152.7 171.6 0.983 1.105
B160-60-40 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 667 80 216 321.5 154.2 153.7 175.0 0.997 1.135
B160-60-41 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 400 80 216 321.5 155.0 155.7 180.2 1.005 1.163
B160-60-42 160.0 60.0 15.0 3.0 4000 100 80 216 321.5 155.2 158.1 183.1 1.019 1.180
Mean 0.980 1.025
SD 0.045 0.117
Max 1.086 1.263
Min 0.914 0.732

Note: 1.a, b and d are the width of web, flange and lip, respectively, Lc is the effective calculation length, e1 and e2 are the screw spacing along longitudinal direction and transverse direction,
respectively
2. Pu is the test results or FEM results, PuG1 and PuG2 are the flexural buckling strength obtained by the proposed method (Eq. (30)) and the modified slenderness method based on effective
width method [1].
12 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898
Fig. 15. Comparison of proposed formula and modified slenderness method for flexural
buckling strength.
members, as shown in Table 2. As can be seen in Table 2, the FEM re-
sults agree well with the experimental results, where the mean
value and standard deviation (SD) of P FE/Pexp are 1.012 and 0.015,
respectively. The results indicate that the FEM is reliable for
predicting the flexural buckling strength of the CFS built-up back-
to-back section columns. In addition, the load vs. axial displacement
curve obtained by the FEM was also compared with that of the ex-
perimental results, as shown in Fig. 11. It is shown that the FEM
curves agree well with the test curves, except for the LC3-90-A3
specimens. One possible reason is the adjustments in the end-
support devices, because a small curvature of the load vs. axial dis-
placement curve was observed during the loading stage. Finally,
based on those results in Table 2 and Fig. 11, it can be concluded
that the developed FEM can be used to successfully predict the flex-
ural buckling of the CFS built-up back-to-back section columns.
4. Comparison and validation
4.1. Validation for critical flexural buckling load
Parametric studies were performed to validate the accuracy of the
derived formula (Eq. (21)). In total, six types of cross-sectional geome-
tries were designed, as shown in Fig. 12. In the parametric studies, it is
convenient to assume all the designed columns to be simply supported
and having equal length L = 4.0 m. In addition, the longitudinal screw
spacing e1 was varied for the designed section columns (Fig. 12) in
order to investigate their influence on the flexural buckling load. The
validation of the proposed formula of the flexural buckling can be veri-
fied by comparing the results obtained from the FEM, the analytical for-
mula (see Eq. (21)) in addition to the modified slenderness method
(Pcrm in Eq. (28)).
π 2 EAg
P crm ¼
λ2m
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
2
kL e1
λm ¼ þ ð29Þ
r 0 ri
where Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the built-up section, k = 1.0
for the columns with simply supported, r and ri are the minimum radius
of gyration of the full unreduced cross-sectional area of the built-up sec-
tion and single profiles, respectively, and e1 is the screw spacing along
the longitudinal direction.
It should be noted that during the eigenvalue buckling analysis in
ABAQUS, the interactions between the overlapped plates of the built-
up sections cannot be fully simulated even though the surface-to-
surface contacts were adopted. Nonetheless, the analytical model in
this paper (see Fig. 3) assumed that the transverse displacement ω of
both the single profiles were the same, which can be observed in the ei-
genvalue buckling analysis, as shown in Fig. 13. Consequently, the devel-
oped FEM was used as validation tools for the critical flexural buckling
load, as used by Li [13]. In addition, the analytical formula will be more
rigorously verified in Section 4.1 for predicting the corresponding ulti-
mate strength based on Schafer's DSM method with experimental results
and FEM nonlinear analysis (The nonlinear analysis can be used success-
fully to model the contact effect between the overlapped plates). In the
parametric study, considering the effect of the end plate and the size of
the knife-hinge, the actual calculation length of the test specimens is l0
= l + 220 mm (the total thickness of the upper and lower end plates is
30 mm, and the height of the upper and lower knife-hinges is 190 mm).
Therefore, the distance S in Fig. 10(a) was assumed to be 110 mm so as
to make the effective calculation length more clear, and to better com-
pare the proposed formula with the results obtained by the FEM analysis.
Figs. 14(a)–14(f) present a comparison of the critical flexural buck-
ling load Pcr obtained from Eq. (21), Pcrm obtained from Eq. (28), and
PcrF obtained from the FEM analysis for the investigated columns. As
shown in Figs. 14(a)–14(f), the Pcr obtained from Eq. (21) agreed well
with PcrF obtained from the FEM analysis, whereas the Pcrm obtained
from Eq. (28) always generated systematic errors as the screw spacing
e1 increased. The situation indicates that the proposed flexural buckling
model (see Fig. 3) is more rational than that of the modified slenderness
method (MSM). In the authors' opinion, the reason for such a phenom-
enon can be attributed to the fact that the MSM is heavily adopted by
studies of hot-rolled steel built-up columns. Therefore, it is more ratio-
nal to predict the flexural buckling load using the proposed formula
(Eq. (21)) for CFS built-up back-to-back section columns.
4.2. Validation for flexural buckling strength
The ultimate goal of this paper is to propose a more rational method
for quantifying the ultimate strength PuG of CFS built-up back-to-back
section columns that fail in the flexural buckling mode. According to
Schafer's research, the flexural buckling strength can be obtained by in-
corporating the proposed formula (Eq. (30)) into the DSM expressions
[28], which yields
8
> λ2c
>
< 0:658 ! P y λc ≤1:5
P uG ¼ ð30Þ
> 0:877 P y
> λc N1:5
:
λ2c
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
wherePy = AgfyPy = Agfy; λc ¼ P y =P cr λc ¼ Py =Pcr ; Ag is the gross
cross-sectional area; and Pcr is the critical flexural buckling load ob-
tained by the proposed formula (Eq. (21)).
The performance of the proposed method (Eq. (30)) was investigated
based on a total of six available test specimens according to the literature
[18], as shown in Table 3. Meanwhile, a total of 42 additional FEMs were
analyzed to acquire adequate data for validation tasks. In addition, the
ð28Þ
initial overall imperfection is determined by the relative initial bending
(ε0), and the specific method was introduced in the China standard for
cold-formed steel structures (GB50018–2002) [29] as follows:
8
< 0:25λ λ ≤0:5
ε0 ¼ 0:05 þ 0:15λ 0:5bλ ≤1:0 ð31Þ
: 2
0:05 þ 0:15λ λN1:0
υ0
whereε0 ¼ , ε0 is the relative initial bending; ν0 is the vector height of
W=A
initial bending; W is the section modulus; and A is the cross-sectional area.
 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898
In addition, to clarify the relationship of the flexural buckling
strength and the screw spacing, the PuG1/Pu vs. e1/Lc and PuG2/Pu vs. e1/
Lc curves are further plotted in Fig. 15. It should be noted that test results
Pu of the repeated specimens are still relatively scattered (see Pu of LC3–
140-A2 and LC3–140-A3 specimens in Table 3), although they have sim-
ilar geometric and material properties. Therefore, for a better compari-
son, the mean values of PuG1/Pu vs. e1/Lc and PuG2/Pu vs. e1/Lc for these
repeated specimens are adopted in Fig. 15. Based on Table 3 and
Fig. 15, the following observations can be made.
1) As shown in Table 3, the mean value (Mean), standard deviation
(SD), max deviation (Max), and min deviation (Min) of PuG1/Pu
were 0.980, 0.045, 1.086, and 0.914, respectively, whereas for PuG2/
Pu, they were 1.025, 0.117, 1.263, and 0.732, respectively. Obviously,
this proposed method is more accurate than the modified slender-
ness ratio method in both Mean and SD, and it avoids the conserva-
tive phenomenon of the modified slenderness ratio method, which
shows that the proposed method of determining the bearing capac-
ity in this paper is more reasonable.
2) Taking the B160–60 specimens as an example, it can be found that the
Pu of specimens with the screw spacing e1 = 2000 mm is 140 kN,
whereas it is 155.2 kN for specimens with the screw spacing e1 =
100 mm. Clearly, the strength of the latter one is approximately 11%
higher than that of the former one. These results indicate that the
bearing capacity of built-up members with large screw spacing is
smaller than that with a dense distribution of screws. Indeed, the
composite effect of the built-up section mainly depends on the
shear performance of screwed built-up plates. Obviously, the shear
deformation of the built-up section column with large screw spacing
is greater and unavoidable, and its bearing capacity is relatively lower.
3) As shown in Fig. 15, the PuG2/Pu ratio for both the test results and
FEM results decreases as e1/Lc increases, whereas PuG1/Pu basically
remains a constant value. Such a result again proves that the pro-
posed method (Eq. (30)) is more rational for the CFS than the mod-
ified slenderness method.
4) It can be found from the Fig. 15 that for the built-up column with e1/Lc
b 0.33, on the one hand, the modified slenderness method tends to be
unsafe；on the other hand, the modified slenderness method will re-
sult in conservative flexural buckling estimates for the built-up col-
umns with e1/Lc N 0.33, especially for specimens with large screw
spacing. Therefore, the proposed method in this paper can more ac-
curately predict the ultimate strength of CFS built-up back-to-back
columns, whether small or large screw spacing.
5. Conclusion
In this study, the author performed an analysis for the flexural buck-
ling of CFS built-up back-to-back section columns. A computing method
was derived to determine the flexural buckling based on the energy
method. Simplifications to the rigorous formulae were subsequently
made to allow them to be easily used by engineers. The accuracy of
the proposed formula (Eq. (21)) was assessed by performing extensive
parametric studies, which resulted in the following main conclusions:
1) The proposed formula (Eq. (30)) provides more accurate estimates for
the critical flexural buckling load as well as the corresponding buckling
strength compared with those of the modified slenderness method.
2) The modified slenderness method (Eq. (2)) results in unsafe ulti-
mate strength estimates for built-up back-to-back columns with
small screw spacing, which is also commonly used in practical engi-
neering for the screw spacing of CFS built-up columns.
3) The modified slenderness method (Eq. (2)) leads to conservative
flexural buckling estimates, and eventually generates very conser-
vative estimates as the longitudinal screw spacing e1 increased, es-
pecially for built-up columns with large screw spacing. Therefore,
the proposed method can accurately predict the ultimate strength
for the CFS built-up back-to-back columns with different screw
13
spacing, and it also provides a certain reference value for practical
engineering.
6. Discussion
Although the new method proposed in this paper can be used to pre-
dict the ultimate strength of the cold-formed built-up back-to-back col-
umns, it should be noted that the Eq. (27) is only validated for the range
1.25 b a/b b 3.5, 0.2 b e2/a b 0.9 and 1.2 mm b t b 2.0 mm. The main rea-
son is that the derivation formula of shear stiffness K is lack of verifica-
tion by experiments. Therefore, beyond the range of 1.25 b a/b b 3.5, 0.2
b e2/a b 0.9 and 1.2 mm b t b 2.0 mm in this paper, further experimental
and theoretical studies are still required to validate the proposed
method.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships
with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence
our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any na-
ture or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be con-
strued as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the
manuscript entitled.
Acknowledgment
The authors are sincerely appreciated to the financial support by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51878055) and by
the Research Fund for Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China
(No. 20110205110006).
References
[1] AISI, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members, Washington, DC 2007.
[2] AS/NZS, Cold-formed steel structures, Sydney-Wellington: Standards of Australia
and Standards of New Zealand, 2005.
[3] F. Engesser, Die Knickfestigkeit gerader Stabe, Zentralbl. Bauverwaltung. 11 (1891)
483–486.
[4] F. Bleich, Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1952.
[5] S.P. Timoshenko, J.M. Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd ed. Mcgraw-Hill, New
York, 1961.
[6] A. Gjelsvik, Stability of built-up columns, J. Eng. Mech. 117 (6) (1991) 1331–1345.
[7] M. Paul, Theoretical and experimental study on buckling of built-up columns, J. Eng.
Mech. 121 (10) (1995) 1098–1105.
[8] R. Zandonini, Stability of compact built-up struts: experimental investigation and
numerical simulation, Construzioni metalliche. No.4, 1985.
[9] F. Aslani, S.C. Goel, An analytical criterion for buckling strength of built-up compres-
sion members, Engineering Journal (American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL). 28 (4) (1991) 159–168.
[10] T.A. Stone, R.A. Laboube, Behavior of cold-formed steel built-up I-sections, Thin-
Walled Struct. 43 (12) (2005) 1805–1817.
[11] J. Whittle, C. Ramseyer, Buckling capacities of axially loaded cold-formed built-up C-
channels, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009) 190–201.
[12] W. Reyes, A. Guzmán, Evaluation of the slenderness ratio in built-up cold-formed
box sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2011) 929–935.
[13] Y. Li, Y. Li, S. Wang, Z. Shen, Ultimate load-carrying capacity of cold-formed thin-
walled columns with built-up box and I section under axial compression, Thin-
Walled Struct. 79 (2014) 202–217.
[14] Mandana Abbasi, Mani Khezri, J.R. Kim, Rasmussen, On extending the direct
strength method to the design of cold-formed steel built-up columns, EUROSTEEL
(2017) 13–15.
[15] J. Zhang, B. Young, Compression tests of cold-formed steel I-shaped open sections
with edge and web stiffeners, Thin-Walled Struct. 52 (2012) 1–11.
[16] J. Zhang, B. Young, Numerical investigation and design of cold-formed steel built-up
open section columns with longitudinal stiffeners, Thin-Walled Struct. 89 (2015)
178–191.
[17] J. Zhang, B. Young, Finite element analysis and design of cold-formed steel built-up
closed section columns with web stiffeners, Thin-Walled Struct. 131 (2018)
223–237.
[18] Y. Lu, T. Zhou, W. Li, H. Wu, Experimental investigation and a novel direct strength
method for cold-formed built-up I-section columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 112 (2017)
125–139.
[19] A. Gjelsvik, Buckling of built-up columns with or without stay plates, J. Eng. Mech.
116 (5) (1990) 1142–1159.
[20] Material Mechanics: Advanced Theory and Problems, Science Press, 1964.
14 T. Zhou et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 166 (2020) 105898
[21] J. Chen, Stability of steel structures theory and design, Science Press, 2014 (in
Chinese).
[22] Luiz C.M. Veira Jr, B.W. Schafer, Lateral stiffness and strength of sheathing braced
cold-formed steel stud walls, Eng. Struct. 37 (2012) 205–213.
[23] ABAQUS, Abaqus Analysis user's Manual, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, Provi-
dence, RI, USA, 2011.
[24] S. W, Error Theory and Measurement Adjustment, The University Press of Tongji,
2010 (in Chinese).
[25] C.D. Moen, T. Igusa, B.W. Schafer, Prediction of residual stresses and strains in cold-
formed steel members, Thin-Walled Struct. 46 (11) (2008) 1274–1289.
[26] B.W. Schafer, Z. Li, C.D. Moen, Computational modeling of cold-formed steel, Thin-
Walled Struct. 48 (10) (2011) 752–762.
[27] Z.Y. Yao, K.J. Rasmussen, Finite Element Modeling and Parametric Studies of Perfo-
rated Thin-Walled Steel Columns, The University of Sydney, Sydney, 2014.
[28] B.W. Schafer, Review: the direct strength method of cold-formed steel member de-
sign, Journal of Constructional of Steel Research. 64 (2008) 766–778.
[29] GB50018-2002, Technical Code of Cold-Formed Thin-Walled Steel Structures, Bei-
jing, China 2002 (in Chinese).
Nomenclature
Ac: gross cross-sectional area of single profile
As: cross-sectional area of screw
Ag: the gross cross-sectional area of the built-up section
a: width of the web
b: width of the flange
be: the effective width of web and flange participating in shear deformation
d: width of the lip
ds: the diameter of the screw
E: Young's modulus of plate
Es: Young's modulus of screw
G: the shear modulus
Gs: the shear modulus of the screw
U1: the sum of the strain energy for the two single profiles
U2: the sum of the potential energy for the two single profiles
W: the sum of potential energy for the two single profiles
e: distance between the center line of the single profile to the connection interface of the
built-up section
e1: the screw spacing along the longitudinal direction
e2: the screw spacing along the transverse direction
n: the number of the screw
Ic: the second moments of area for single profile
II: the moment of a whole section column when the Kγ = ∞ for CFS built-up back-to-back
section columns
K: the shear rigidity of the shear panels
Ka: the shear rigidity obtain by the proposed method
KFE: the shear rigidity obtain by the FEM
ε0: the relative initial bending
Lc: the length of the column
ls: the effective length of the shear stress transfer path in screw ls = t/2
lf: the effective length of the shear stress transfer path in flange lf = e-t/2
lw: the effective length of the shear stress transfer path in web = (a-e2)/2
Is: the moment of inertia of the screw Is = πd4s /64
Iw: the moment of inertia of the web Iw = t × b3e/12
If: the moment of inertia of the flange If = t × b3e/12
t: the thickness of the plate
ut: the axial displacement at any point of the upper element
ub: the axial displacement at any point of the lower element
γ: the shear deformation restraint effect of the shear panels at the location of screws
ω: the flexural deformation of the two single profiles for the CFS built-up back-to-back sec-
tion column
S: the offset distance between the reference points (RP1 and RP2) at the ends and the cen-
troid of the rigid body
P: the compressive load
Pe: the Euler's critical load
Pcr: the critical flexural buckling load obtained by the proposed formula(Eq.(21))
PuG: the ultimate strength of CFS built-up back-to-back section columns
PcrF: the critical flexural buckling load obtained by the developed FEM
Pcrm: the critical flexural buckling load obtained by the modified slenderness method
Pu: the test results or FEM results
PuG1: the flexural buckling strength obtained by adopting the proposed formula into
Schafer's DSM expression (Eq.(30))
PuG2: the flexural buckling strength obtained by the modified slenderness method specify-
ing in effective width method [1].
Puc: the flexural buckling strength obtained by adopting the proposed formula into
Schafer's DSM expression (PuG1) or the flexural buckling strength obtained by the modi-
fied slenderness method specifying in effective width method (PuG2)
PFE: the ultimate strengths obtained by the finite element
Pexp: the ultimate strengths obtained by experiment