EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

Geometric imperfection measurements on cold-formed steel

channels
An approach using 3D non-contact laser scanner
Sivaganesh Selvaraja and Mahendrakumar Madhavan*,a
a,
*,a Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Hyderabad, India
a
ce13p1009@iith.ac.in, *,a mkm@iith.ac.in,

ABSTRACT
A 3D non-contact laser scanning method to quantify the deviations in cold-formed steel (CFS) channel
sections (plain and lipped) is presented. The methodologies to segregate the different categories of
imperfections from the deviations in the geometry of CFS member are also presented. A total of 13
different C-sections with varying cross-sectional parameters totaling to 78 specimens were studied. The
nature of imperfections in the CFS members was found to correlate with the geometric properties such
as slenderness ratios, torsional constant and plate slenderness. The bow and camber imperfection (global
out-of-straightness) in the members is presented with respect to the minor and major axis slenderness
ratios. A new combined global and cross-sectional parameter (J/L) was introduced against the deviation
due to twist of the CFS member. To predict the imperfection magnitudes based on their geometrical
properties, a new set of expressions were suggested.

1 INTRODUCTION
Akin to any manmade structures, the Cold-Formed Steel (CFS) members are not exempted from
deviations of shape and form from its ideal geometric profile. Such deviations are called geometric
imperfections whose shape and magnitude is largely a function of the skillset of the technician employing
the manufacturing equipment which typically is the press brake machine. While such imperfections and
manufacturing tolerances are available in AISI S240 (2015) [1], [2-9], they however, do not take into
account the various geometric properties (member slenderness, plate slenderness and torsional constant)
of the CFS sections as shown in Tables 1 and 2. In particular, the collated data from various cross
sections present in AISI S240 (2015) [1] is recommended for all types of CFS sections without regard to
the shape or sectional properties. When incorporated into the numerical analysis, such recommendations
may lead to erroneous results. Various researchers over several decades have studied imperfections in
CFS members. Characterization of geometric imperfection and simplified guidelines for practical
distributions and magnitudes of imperfections for the computational modeling of CFS open sections was
given in [4]. The guidelines developed were based on the data collected from previous researchers [2,
10-15]. Many researchers have studied the effect of geometric imperfections in CFS structural members
by analytical studies based on the existing recommendations. The extensive research revealed the
following information about the available recommendations indicating the need for reformulating the
current guidelines for geometric imperfections. I) The conservative imperfection magnitudes provided
in codes and literature may result in ultraconservative or erroneous strength predictions. In addition, the
use of cumulative imperfection values (use of maximum imperfection magnitudes acting simultaneously)
in the numerical simulation may lead to over conservative results. However, in reality, the randomness in
the imperfection partially compensates each other often resulting in higher experimental test results
[16]. II) The researchers indicated that the conventional FEM with imperfections modeled does not
always lead to acceptable ultimate load values, especially at lengths where failure is predominantly
distortional. It was observed that the failure mode in the experiments did not match the first eigen
buckling mode of imperfection considered in the analysis. In addition, the first buckling mode of
imperfection in the analysis overestimated the strength of the member by 15% [17]. III) The use of the
sinusoidal-shaped local imperfection mode for local buckling does not always represent the appropriate
mode to be introduced for nonlinear buckling analysis [18-19]. Different shapes of local imperfections
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

have a different effect on members buckling strength. More numerical studies on imperfection
characterization followed by manufacturing tolerance limits are necessary to classify the critical
imperfection modes [20]. V). The research results indicated that the member with pure distortional mode
imperfections failed by the interaction of global and distortional buckling modes. It was suggested that
for practical purposes a pure global imperfection may be taken as a conservative approach [21].
Table.1. Summary of available data on global imperfections
Typ Bow (L/δ) Camber (L/δ) Twist⁰ / m
Contributor e min mean max min mean max min mean max
Mulligan and Pekoz (1983) C 6871 2558 1227 13156 6121 3159 -
ECCS (1987) C 1000a -
Young (1997) C 50020 5859 1107 65820 10504 1153 0.002 0.49 2.32
EN 1090-2:2008 C 750a -
Zeinoddini (2011) C 1357 985 646 2630 1926 1160 0.26 0.89 1.13
Peterman (2012) C 2283 1209 338 5864 1571 701 0.13 0.37 1.02
AISI S240 (2015) C 958 958 2.60b and 12.7c
ASTM C955 (2015) C 953 953
a
- Most commonly used for global buckling, b-Min. twist magnitude per meter in mm, c- Max. twist magnitude for
a specimen in mm
Table.2. Summary of available data on local imperfections
Type Flare (mm) Crown (mm)
Contributor min mean max min mean max
Mulligan and Pekoz (1983) C 2.62 4.32 7.29 0.13 0.51 1.25
Young (1997) C 0.64 1.16 2.1 0.12 0.41 0.99
Schafer and Pekoz (1998) C 1t 0.006w
EN 1993-1-5:2006/AC:2009 C f/50 0.005w
Peterman (2012) C 0.66 0.89 1.76 0.22 0.48 1.05
AISI S240 (2015) C 1.59 1.59
ASTM C955 (2015) C 1.59 1.59
t -Thickness, w- Web depth, f- Flange width

Almost all of the above literature indicates that the numerical research for strength prediction was carried
out using imperfection patterns and magnitudes that may or may not reflect the reality. This may be due
to the fact that the available recommendations for imperfections on CFS structural members are
independent of the shape and geometric properties. To ensure that the strength prediction based on the
numerical analysis of CFS structural members is effective, it is necessary to model them with realistic
imperfection patterns based on their geometric properties instead of having a “one size fits all” approach.
Hence, there is a need to collect geometric profile data of commonly produced CFS sections as obtained
from steel mills to better understand the realistic nature of the imperfection that is generated. This
requires a full-scale imperfection measurement technique for capturing the complete geometric profile
of the CFS structural member the benefits of which will directly impact the cold-formed steel
manufacturers.

2 THE 3D NON-CONTACT LASER SCANNING APPROACH

The geometric imperfections that are generated in CFS can be broadly classified into three categories
[1]; (1) Local (deviations in cross-sectional shape) (2) Global imperfections (global out of straightness)
(3) Dents (localized). The local imperfections can be further classified as crown, flare, and over-bend.
Similarly, the global imperfections can be further classified as Bow (bending in minor axis), Camber
(bending in major axis) and Twist (twisting about the longitudinal axis of the member) [22]. The third
imperfection type Dent can neither be controlled nor quantified in terms of its magnitude due to its
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

aberrant nature of damage (usually impact) that occurs during shipping, storage, and construction. Figure
1a shows the ideal cross-section followed by all the possible imperfection types (Figs. 1b to 1i). In this
present approach, the specimen’s complete geometric profile can be captured by three-dimensional
coordinates as shown in Fig. 2b. The 3D laser scanning machine has a scanning arm with two folds, each
measuring a length of 0.75 meters thereby having a total of 1.5 meters (see photograph in Fig 2a).

Fig.2 3D scanning and data process methodology:

Fig. 1 Types of imperfection in cold-formed steel (a) Photograph of the Faro 3D-laser scanning
structural members. machine; (b) Screen shot from Geomagic - cross
sectional view of the scanned specimen; (c) View of
the compared actual scanned model and ideal
model;

2.1 Scanning and data process – Methodology

The process of extracting the geometric imperfection data from the CFS specimen is simpler as explained
below. Even though the 3D scanning using Geomagic [23] (a proprietary software provided along with
3D scanner) software provides the complete realistic profile of the CFS specimen as shown in Fig. 2b,
the quantification of various types of imperfections were calculated based on the deviations at the
selected locations of the cross-section at every 1 mm along the length (total of 3000 points per line per
3000 mm long specimen) as shown in Figs. 3a and 3f. The deviation locations to obtain each
imperfection were decided based on two specific thoughts (1) nature of the imperfection profile; (2)
measurement at the fabrication site with the minimal manual effort so that the distorted CFS specimens
that exceed the allowable tolerance can be ignored. The ideal model was imported to Geomagic software
and superimposed with the actual scanned model using the iterative least square method. The deviation
of the actual CFS specimen from the ideal CAD model was measured by importing the necessary
coordinates to perform the imperfection calculations. The actual scanned profile of the CFS specimen,
ideal 3D AutoCad [24] model and the view of the deviated actual model from the ideal model can be
seen in Figs. 2b and 2c. In the present study, the global and local imperfections were calculated based
on the approach shown in Fig. 3.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the present work, a total of 13 different C-sections with varying cross-sectional parameters totaling to
78 specimens were studied. In general, the scanned results indicate that the geometric imperfections that
result due to manufacturing process depend on the geometric property (moment of inertia, torsional
constant etc.) of the CFS structural sections as shown in Tables 3 and 4. It was observed that the previous
recommendations by earlier researchers for imperfection is independent of the cross-sectional geometric
properties and does not reflect the realistic nature of the imperfections as indicated by the data obtained
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

from the current study. The obtained imperfection data has been analyzed with the sectional property of
the CFS member to identify a trend in the imperfection pattern. To accomplish this objective, the
following imperfection parameters were formulated:

Fig. 3 Method of separating the imperfections from deviations: (a) Deviation obtained points; (b) Twist only; (c)
Twist with concave crown; (d) Twist with convex crown in web and concave crown in flare; (e) Flare; (g)
Camber; (h) Bow; (i) Bow with concave crown; (j) Bow with convex crown

1. Slenderness ratio (L/r) of the CFS member was used to formulate the global imperfections bow and
camber.
2. The global imperfection category twist (global distortion) depends on both the cross section and the
length of the member. Hence, a global dimensional constant J/L (ratio of torsional constant to the
length of the specimen) was used to formulate the magnitude of twist in the angular unit (⁰).
3. The local imperfection category crown in the web and flange stiffened with simple lip were analyzed
with its corresponding plate slenderness namely depth to the thickness (d/t) and breadth to thickness
(b/t) ratios. The other local imperfection category flare or overbend in the stiffened flange was also
compared with the flange plate slenderness but the flare in the unstiffened flange was compared with
the flange width directly since the unstiffened flanges have a larger torsional flexibility than the
stiffened one [2].
In addition to the results from the current study (188 specimens), the results from the research work by
various researchers [2, 3, 7 and 8] has also been interpreted with the corresponding sectional properties
to arrive at a robust expression for the global imperfection categories bow, camber and twist. For
interpreting the local imperfections, the existing results may not be suitable as various researchers [2, 3,
7, 8] measured only the plate bend at the edge of the flange. The current method of calculating the
imperfection magnitudes from the obtained deviation is shown in Fig. 3.

3.1 Bow imperfection (δ b & δ b (S) ) – Global type

The deviation of the actual specimen in the weaker axis from the ideal defined geometry is called bow
(see Fig. 1g). The bow imperfection magnitudes for different types of specimens are summarized in
Table.3. The results indicate that the minor axis initial bent (bow) magnitude (δ b ) increases as the
member’s minor axis slenderness (L/r y ) increases from 130 to 355. The plain channel section specimen
with maximum slenderness (C2, L/r y of 355) has a maximum δ b of 21.1 mm per 3 meter span (7.03 mm
per meter span) whereas the stocky member among the scanned specimen (C3, L/r y of 130) has δ b of
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

2.98 mm per 3 meter span (~1 mm per meter span) which is the only specimen set whose magnitude
closely matched the AISI S240 (2015) [1] manufacturing tolerance limit of L/958 and recommendations
other researchers [3-9]. Such a trend in the bow imperfection magnitude (δ b (S) ) was also observed in the
C channel specimens with lips.
Table.3. Summary of data on global imperfections extracted using the 3D laser scanning approach
Bow (mm) Camber (mm) Twist (θ⁰)
ID D B t Lip
Min* Mean* Max* Min* Mean* Max* Min* Mean* Max*
(mm)
C01-6 120 63 2.5 - 3.3 7.3 8.9 1.1 1.5 1.9 1.7 2.3 3.2
C02-6 120 30 1.5 - 11 16.8 21.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.5 3.9 6.2
C03-6 75 70 1.5 - 0.6 1.5 2.9 1.7 2.1 2.4 3.4 3.9 4.5
C04-6 50 36 2.5 - 12 14.2 15.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 4.2 5.3 6.7
C05-6 50 45 1.5 - 3.4 5.3 8.6 1.9 2.1 2.5 4.1 5.0 6.8
C06-6 80 50 1.5 - 5.0 6.1 7.2 1.2 2.0 2.7 5.2 7.4 8.8
C07-6 80 50 2.5 - 4.7 5.8 7.7 1.9 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.9 6.4
C08-6 50 65 2.5 - 3.8 4.7 5.5 3.0 3.4 4.1 4.0 5.3 6.2
CL01-6 120 38 2.5 30 1.8 3.3 4.7 1.6 1.8 1.9 0.2 1.1 1.7
CL02-6 67 38 1.5 20 3.9 5.4 7.74 2.4 2.4 2.4 5.5 7.1 8.5
CL03-6 80 28 2.5 28 4.3 5.3 6.60 1.0 2.0 3.2 1.6 3.9 5.5
CL04-6 120 28 1.5 10 6.7 9.0 10.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.1 2.7 3.9
CL05-6 80 43 1.5 10 4.3 4.9 5.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.7 4.6 6.7
C-Plain channel, CL-Channel with lip *Min/mean/max value of the set

The slenderness ratios of the C channel with lip specimens were varied from 190 to 316 and their
corresponding bow magnitude (δ b (S) ) were 4.77 mm and 10.86 mm for 3 m. The δ b (S) magnitudes were
also compared with the existing imperfection recommendations (see Table 1) for plain channels and
channels with lip indicating that the existing recommendations are not based on the cross-sectional
properties. It should be noted that the value of δ b for plain channel section is 7.79 mm for the L/r y of
187 and for the similar L/r y value (190) of channel section with lips has the δ b(S) value of 4.77 mm. This
perhaps could be due to the effect of lateral rigidity provided by the stiffness of the flange due to the lip
at flange edge. This indicates that the bow imperfection trend requires the formulation of separate
imperfection predictor equations for sections (plain channel and channels with lip) based on its sectional
properties. For the bow imperfection category, a simple linear regression based on the member’s minor
axis slenderness ratios (L/r y ) yields approximate expressions (Eqs. 1 and 2) for plain channel section (δ b )
(Fig. 4a) and channel with lips (δ b (S) ) (Fig. 4b) respectively. The Eqs. 1 and 2 may be used to calculate
the approximate magnitude (mm) of the bow imperfection to be modeled in the numerical studies.
𝐿𝐿
𝛿𝛿𝑏𝑏 = 0.0643 �𝑟𝑟 � − 5.286 (Plain channels) (1)
𝑦𝑦
𝐿𝐿
𝛿𝛿𝑏𝑏 (𝑠𝑠) = 0.0303 �𝑟𝑟 � − 1.750 (Channels with lip) (2)
𝑦𝑦

3.2 Camber imperfection (δ c ) – Global category

The initial bent (imperfection) in the major axis also known as “camber” primarily affects the flexural
strength of the CFS member (see Fig. 1h). The magnitude of the camber as per AISI S240 (2015) [1] is
a linear function of the length of the member (1.59 mm for 1.5 m span, 3.18 mm for 3 m span and 6.35
mm for 6 m span). The camber magnitudes (δ c ) obtained from the current study is plotted as a function
of slenderness ratio in the major axis (L/r x ). A simple linear regression based on the member’s major
axis slenderness ratios (L/r x ) yields an approximate expression Eq. (3) for the global imperfection
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

category of camber for both plain channel section and channel section with lip since their trend was same.
Figure 5 shows the camber magnitudes (mm) and Eq. (3).
𝐿𝐿
𝛿𝛿𝑐𝑐 = 0.0198 �𝑟𝑟 � − 0.1715 (3)
𝑥𝑥
It should be noted that AISI S240 (2015) [1] recommends the same tolerance limits to the imperfection
categories of bow and camber, but the results from the present work indicate that the magnitude of bow
and camber are not the same since they are dependent on their relative cross-sectional properties.

Fig. 5 Combined results formulation for

Camber imperfection: δ b vs. L/r x (Eq. (3))

Fig. 4 Combined results formulation for Bow

imperfection: (a) δ b vs. L/r y (Eq. (1)); (b) δ b (s) vs. Fig. 6 Combined results formulation for Twist
L/r y (Eq. (2)) imperfection: δ θ vs. J/L (Eq. (4))

3.3 Twist imperfection (δ θ ) - Global category

The imperfection due to rotation of the cross section along the length of the specimen is referred to as
Twist (See Fig. 1i). The method of measuring the magnitude of twist (δ θ ) is given in Figs 4b and 4c. In
the present study, the magnitude of twist (δ θ ) is given in terms of angle (⁰) which is similar to [3, 6-8]
but different from that provided by AISI S240 (2015) [1]. The recommended imperfection magnitude
for twist per the AISI S240 (2015) [1] is 2.60 mm per meter span of the specimen regardless of the shape
or cross-sectional properties. The results from the present study indicate a definite correlation between
the collected data for twist and the sectional properties in addition to the length of the specimen. For
example, specimen set C6 and C7 have the same depth to breadth ratio of 1.6 (80 mm / 50 mm) but the
upper bound values of twist magnitude are 8.85⁰ and 6⁰ and lower bound values are 2.5⁰ and 5.3⁰. The
only difference between these two set of specimens is the sheet thickness which is 1.5 mm for C6 and
2.5 mm for C7. This change in twist magnitude (δ θ ) due to the change in sheet thickness introduced the
idea of including the torsional constant (J) for formulating the magnitude of a twist. Therefore, for a
meaningful interpretation of the results, a new parameter J/L (ratio of torsional constant to specimen
length) is developed in the present study to capture the behavior of twist imperfection. As expected, the
test results indicate that with the increase in torsional constant (J), there is a reduction in the magnitude
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

of twist (δ θ ). An expression for predicting the twist (δ θ ) deviations based on the global geometric
parameter (J/L) is given in Eq. (4) which is based on the results of both plain channel section and channel
section with lip as shown in Fig.6.
𝐽𝐽 −0.592
𝛿𝛿𝜃𝜃 = 0.4358 �𝐿𝐿� (4)
It should be noted that the above expression also includes the results of [2, 7 and 8] in which the twist
magnitude was not given in terms of combined global and sectional properties.

Table.4. Summary of data on local imperfections extracted using the 3D laser scanning approach
Flare (mm) Crown (mm)
ID D B t Lip
(mm) Min* Mean* Max* Min* Mean* Max*
C01-6 120 63 2.5 - 6.63 7.83 8.89 2.82 3.93 5.10
C02-6 120 30 1.5 - 2.55 3.33 4.05 3.79 5.04 6.51
C03-6 75 70 1.5 - 7.46 7.56 7.65 2.76 2.81 2.86
C04-6 50 36 2.5 - 2.45 4.22 5.84 1.55 2.56 3.19
C05-6 50 45 1.5 - 5.00 5.95 7.53 1.67 2.37 3.21
C06-6 80 50 1.5 - 4.93 6.37 7.26 3.99 4.51 5.38
C07-6 80 50 2.5 - 6.23 7.10 7.60 1.98 2.54 3.16
C08-6 50 65 2.5 - 6.24 6.24 6.24 1.93 2.27 2.97
CL01-6 120 38 2.5 30 1.22 2.69 4.88 2.14 2.68 3.10
CL02-6 67 38 1.5 20 3.64 4.23 4.82 3.18 3.84 4.49
CL03-6 80 28 2.5 28 0.87 2.71 3.98 2.27 2.83 3.40
CL04-6 120 28 1.5 10 2.54 3.04 3.31 3.27 3.61 4.30
CL05-6 80 43 1.5 10 3.38 4.54 5.51 2.14 2.70 3.26
C-Plain channel, CL-Channel with lip *Min/mean/max value of the set

3.4 Flare imperfection (δ f & δ f (S) ) - Local category

The unstiffened elements (flanges in the unlipped channels) are prone to bend either inward (over bend)
or outward (flare) during the fabrication based on the manufacturing method and width of the die used
in the press brake machine. In addition, the flare magnitude of the unstiffened flange will be more than
the stiffened flange (flange with a lip) due to the larger torsional flexibility of unstiffened flange [2] and
hence were studied separately. The AISI S240 (2015) [1] assumes that the flare or overbend magnitude
is same as the camber magnitude and an approximation given in [4] is that the flare magnitude is equal
to the plate thickness of the member which is currently being followed by a number of researchers. The
results from the present 3D scan technique for imperfection quantification indicates that the bent in the
unlipped elements (over bend or flare) and bent in the stiffened elements (crown) (example: the web of
C-section) are different and also vary in their magnitudes. This may be attributed to the local instability
of the lip resulting in maximum slenderness limits for flange (flat-width-to-thickness) up to 60 and web
(depth-to-thickness) to 200 [30]. The flare magnitudes (δ f & δ f (S) ) obtained from this study were
compared with the flange flat-width-to-thickness ratio for plain channel and channel with a lip as shown
in Figs. 7a and 7b. It was observed that for plain channels the flare magnitude showed a trend as a
function of flange width whereas for channels with lip it showed trends with flange slenderness ratio. It
was also observed that the magnitude of flare (δ f & δ f (S) ) from the current study was much higher than
the existing flare magnitude predictions from previous researchers. This may be due to the fact that the
present study is based on the 3D ideal cross sections input, while the existing results are measured only
at the plate bend at the edge of the flange [2, 3, 7, 8]. Based on the results for the flare imperfection
obtained from the scanned specimens, expressions (Eqs. (5) and (6)) are developed for predicting the
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

flare magnitude (mm) for unstiffened flange (plain channel) as a function of “B-width of flange” and
stiffened flange (channel with lip) as a function of “B/t-flange plate slenderness” respectively.
𝛿𝛿𝑓𝑓 = 0.1212 𝐵𝐵 + 0.1607 (Plain channels) (5)
𝐵𝐵
𝛿𝛿𝑓𝑓 (𝑠𝑠) = 0.1147 � 𝑡𝑡 � + 1.1306 (Channels with lip) (6)

Fig. 7 Results formulation for Flare imperfection: (a) δ f vs. B (Eq. (5); (b) δ f (s) vs. B/t (Eq. (6)

3.5 Crown imperfection (δ cr ) - Local category

A local bend or deviation from the straightness of a stiffened plate element is called crown (see Fig. 1b).
A crown is a local imperfection type but influences the strength of the member largely due to the change
in cross-section shape which may lead to a change in geometric properties of the section by 65% [25].
Camber imperfection can be further classified into two categories; concave crown (Fig. 4c) and convex
crown (Fig. 4d). In the present study, it was found that both the types of the crown were present in the
CFS member. The crown imperfection can exist in both the stiffened flange and web of the CFS member
but the magnitude will be dependent on the plate slenderness [2]. The measuring methods for the crown
in web and flange are shown in Figs. 4c and 4d respectively. The crown imperfection results obtained
for plain channel and channel with a lip are plotted in Fig.8 with respect to the plate slenderness (web
depth-to-thickness and flange flat width-to-thickness ratios). The results from the present 3D scan and
existing recommendations [1, 4, 5, 9] are not same and vary in large magnitudes. This large variation
could be due to the technique adopted in the current measurement method (see Figs. 4c and 4d), wherein
the measured profile was compared to the ideal 3D profile created in the AutoCAD software. Based on
the comparison, a simple linear regression equation for estimating the magnitude (mm) of crown
imperfection as a function of plate slenderness has been arrived as shown in Eq. (7).
D or B
δcr = 0.0428 � t � + 1.1683 (7)

Fig. 8 Results formulation for Crown imperfection: δ cr vs. B (D or B)/t (Eq. (7)

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

4 CONCLUSIONS
The geometric imperfection analysis in CFS structural members using a 3D laser non-contact scanning
approach was carried out for a total 78 specimens with 13 different CFS member cross sections. The
deviations in shape and magnitude of different types of imperfections were assessed by superimposing
the ideal 3D model from AutoCAD on the actual scanned specimen models. The results indicate that the
geometric imperfections present in the CFS member are proportional to their sectional properties. The
data used for developing the expressions also includes the imperfection measurement works by other
researchers, totaling to 33 different types CFS member cross sections and 361 specimens.
Based on the current study, following conclusions were drawn:
1. The global imperfection category bow (weak axis bent) based on their slenderness ratio (L/r y )
ranges from 1.00 mm per meter to 7.04 mm per meter for plain channel section and 1.55 mm per
meter to 3.62 mm per meter for channels with a lip. Equations (1) (δ b vs (L/r y )) and (2) (δ b (s) vs
(L/r y )) were developed to calculate the bow imperfection magnitude.
2. The global imperfection category camber (strong axis bent) which is a function of strong axis
slenderness ratio (L/r x ) ranges from 1.81 mm per meter to 2.93 mm per meter. An approximate
expression [Eq. (3), (δ c vs (L/r x ))] is developed for predicting the camber magnitudes for
numerical analysis.
3. A new global dimensional parameter (J/L) that combines the sectional properties along with the
length of the member was introduced to quantify the magnitude of twist (δ θ ) in a rational way.
The collected data results indicate that the twist deviation (δ θ ) shows a meaningful correlation
with parameter J/L. i.e when J/L increases the twist decreases and vice versa. An expression
(Eq. (4)) was arrived to calculate the angle of twist (δ θ ) for CFS members.
4. The local imperfection type flare (δ f and δ f (s) ) (distortion in the stiffened and unstiffened flange)
magnitudes were found to be different for plain channel sections and channels with lip due to the
stiffened and unstiffened effect on the flanges. For plain channels, the flare imperfection
magnitude was a function of flange flat width and for channels with lip, it was a function of flange
plate slenderness as indicated in Eqs. (5) and (6).
5. The results from local imperfection crown (δ cr ) (bend deviation in the flat stiffened element)
indicated a correlation with the plate slenderness (D/t for web and B/t for stiffened flange) for
both plain channel section and channels with a lip. A linear expression Eq. (7) was arrived to
predict the crown magnitude.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The investigation reported in this paper was funded by Science Engineering and Research Board (SERB)
Research Grant (SB/S3/CEE/046/2014) from the Department of Science and Technology (DST),
Government of India.

REFERENCES
[1] AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). “North American standard for cold-formed steel
structural farming AISI S240-2015”. Washington DC.
[2] Mulligan, G. P. and Peköz, T. “The influence of local buckling on the structural behavior of
singly-symmetric cold-formed steel columns”. Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures Library
1983; Paper 117.
[3] Young, B. “The behaviour and design of the cold formed channel columns”. Ph.D. thesis, 1998;
Univ. of Sydney, Australia.
[4] Schafer, B. W., and Peköz, T. “Computational modeling of cold formed steel: characterizing
geometrical imperfections and residual stresses”. J. Const. Steel res., 1998; 47 (3), 193–210.
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

[5] European Standard EN 1993-1-5:2006/AC:2009. Eurocode 3 – design of steel structures – Part 1

– 5: Plated structural elements. Brussels. European Committee for standardization. 2009.
[6] Shifferaw, Y., Viera Jr., L.C.M., and Schafer, B.W. “Compression testing of cold-formed steel
columns with different sheathing configurations”. Structural Stability Research Council,
Proceedings of Annual Stability Conference, p 593-612, 2010.
[7] Peterman, K. D. “Experiments on the stability of sheathed cold-formed steel studs under axial
load and bending”. M.S. thesis, 2012; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
[8] Zeinoddini, V. M. “Geometric imperfections in cold-formed steel members”. Ph.D. thesis, 2011;
Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore.
[9] Zeinoddini, V. M., and B. W. Schafer. “Simulation of geometric imperfections in cold-formed
steel members using spectral representation approach”. Thin-Walled Struct., 2012; 60: 105-117.
[10] Lau, S.C.W. “Distortional buckling of thin-walled columns”. Ph.D dissertation, 1988; University
of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
[11] Bernard, E.S. “Flexural behaviour of cold-formed profiles steel decking”. Ph.D. dissertation,
1993; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
[12] Dat, D. T., and Peköz, T. “The strength of cold-formed steel columns”. Center for Cold-Formed
Steel Structures Library. 1980; Paper 110.
[13] Ingvarsson, L. “Cold-forming Residual Stresses Effect on Buckling”. International Specialty
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. 1975; Paper 4.
[14] Kwon, Y.B. “Post-buckling behaviour of thin-walled channel sections”. Ph.D. dissertation, 1992;
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
[15] Thomasson, P. “Thin-walled C-shaped panels in axial compression”. Swedish council for
Building research. 1978; D1:1978.
[16] Crisan, A., Ungureanu, V., and Dubina, D. “Behaviour of cold-formed steel perforated sections
in compression: Part 2-numerical investigations and design considerations”. Thin-Walled
Struct., 2012; 61, 97-105.
[17] Bonada, J., Casafont, M., Roure, F., and Pastor, M. M. “Selection of the initial geometrical
imperfection in nonlinear FE analysis of cold-formed steel rack columns”. Thin-Walled Struct.,
2012; 51, 99-111.
[18] Pastor, M. M., Bonada, J., Roure, F., and Casafont, M. “Residual stresses and initial imperfections
in non-linear analysis”. Eng Struct., 2013; 46, 493-507.
[19] Pastor, M. M., M. Casafont, J. Bonada, and F. Roure. “Imperfection amplitudes for nonlinear
analysis of open thin-walled steel cross-sections used in rack column uprights”. Thin-Walled
Struct., 2014; 76: 28-41.
[20] Dubina, D., and Ungureanu, V. “Effect of imperfections on numerical simulation of instability
behaviour of cold-formed steel members”. Thin-Walled Struct., 2002; 40(3), 239-262.
[21] Denis, P. B., and Camotim, D. “Post-buckling behaviour and strength of cold-formed steel lipped
channel columns experiencing distortional/global interaction”. Comp. Struct., 2011; 89 (3),
422-434.
[22] Zhao, X., M. Tootkaboni, and B. W. Schafer. “Development of a Laser-Based Geometric
Imperfection Measurement Platform with Application to Cold-Formed Steel Construction”.
Exper. Mech. 2015; 55,9: 1779-1790.
[23] Geomagic qualify user interface, Geomagic 2013. USA: 3D systems.
[24] AutoCAD 2010 User's Guide, AutoCAD 2010. USA: Autodesk Inc; 2010.
[25] Selvaraj, S., and Madhavan, M. “Study on partially closed built-up sections using cold formed
steel with geometric imperfection combinations under axial compression”. Proceedings of 7th
International Conference on Thin-Walled Structures, Busan Korea, 2014.

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)