See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266170751

PLASTIC DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED RHS: BENDING AND COMPRESSION

TESTS 0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Article

CITATION READS

1 882

2 authors:

Tim Wilkinson Gregory J. Hancock

The University of Sydney The University of Sydney
70 PUBLICATIONS   496 CITATIONS    317 PUBLICATIONS   8,653 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Behaviour and Design of Stressed-Arch Frames View project

Long span cold-formed steel single C-section portal frames View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tim Wilkinson on 08 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CIDECT PROJECT 2V-2001

PLASTIC DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED RHS:

BENDING AND COMPRESSION TESTS

Draft Final Report

September, 2001

Tim Wilkinson and Greg Hancock

The University of Sydney

Department of Civil Engineering
Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au

CIDECT Member Firm

OneSteel Pipe and Tube Products

http://www.onesteel.com
0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report summarises the findings of CIDECT Projects 2S and 2V.

CIDECT Project 2S assessed the suitability of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections (RHS)
for plastic design under bending only. The project involved an extensive range of tests on cold-
formed Grade C350 and Grade C450 (DuraGal) RHS beams, joints and frames. A large number
of finite element analyses was also carried out on models of RHS beams. The conclusion was
that cold-formed RHS can be used in plastic design, but stricter element slenderness (b/t) limits
and consideration of the connections, are required. A proposal for web slenderness limits
involving flange web interaction was given.

CIDECT Project 2V extended Project 2S to include axial compression, to assess how the Class 1
web slenderness limits should reduce as the level of axial compression increased. Project 2V
involved bending and compression tests and finite element analysis. A limit was proposed in
2000, but this was complex, involving interaction between the flange and web slenderness and
the axial force. Based on the finite element results, and incorporating the test results in both
projects, the following simpler set of Class 1 limits is proposed in different terminologies for
various design standards.

Limit for
Web slenderness limit
Specification fy = 250 MPa
(d/t < ..... )
&n=0
d & 2t fy
AS 4100 Suggestion # 54 1 & 0.5n 54.0
t 250
d & 2re E
AISC LRFD Suggestion # 1.8 1 & 0.5n 51.0
t fy
d & 3t 303 235
Eurocode 3 Suggestion # All α§ 53.5
t 13α & 1 fy
Notes: n = N/Ns, ratio of axial force to axial section capacity.
§: α is the proportion of the web in compression, approximated as α = (n + 1)/2.

Table 0: Proposed Class 1 Web Slenderness Limits

These proposals are simple, and produce some areas where the results maybe slightly
conservative or non-conservative. It is possible that further refinement, which may reintroduce
additional complexity into the equations, may produce better limits.

2
0.1 PREFACE

This is the draft report for the CIDECT Project 2V: “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS:
Bending and Compression”. A presentation of this report will be made at the CIDECT annual
meeting in Austria in September 2001. This report was produced at The University of Sydney
with the cooperation of CIDECT member firm, OneSteel Pipe and Tube Products.

Reference may need to be made to the previous interim reports:

Project 2S: Interim Report No. 1 (Wilkinson and Hancock 1995),
Project 2S: Interim Report No. 2 (Wilkinson and Hancock 1996a), and
Project 2S: Interim Report No. 2: Addendum 1 (Wilkinson and Hancock 1996b),
Project 2S: Interim Report No. 3 (Wilkinson and Hancock 1997a), and
Project 2S: Interim Report No. 3: Addendum 1 (Wilkinson and Hancock 1997b),
Project 2S: Draft Final Report (Wilkinson and Hancock 1998),
Project 2V: Interim Report No. 1 (Dean and Hancock 1999),
Project 2V: Interim Report No. 2 (Dong, Wilkinson and Hancock 2000)

0.2 PUBLICATIONS

Since the publication of Interim Report No 2 of Project 2V in 2000, the following papers related
to the research performed in this project have been published:

Dean M., Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (2001), “Bending and Compression Tests of
Rectangular Hollow Sections”, Tubular Structures IX, Proceedings, 9th International Symposium
and Euroconference on Tubular Structures, Dusseldorf, Germany, April 2001, (Balkema, publ.),
(Puthli and Herion editors), pp 349-358.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (2001), “Finite Element Analysis to Investigate the Effect of
Imperfections on RHS in Bending”, Tubular Structures IX, Proceedings, 9th International
Symposium and Euroconference on Tubular Structures, Dusseldorf, Germany, April 2001,
(Balkema, publ.), (Puthli and Herion editors), pp 359-368.

Many of these papers are available electronically at web site of the Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Sydney - http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au.

The authors’ contact details are:

Tim Wilkinson: T.Wilkinson@civil.usyd.edu.au
Greg Hancock: G.Hancock@civil.usyd.edu.au

3
CONTENTS
0. Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
0.1 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
0.2 Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Plastic Design and Slenderness Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.1 Behaviour of Laterally Restrained Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Brief Summary of Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Current Slenderness Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Previous Research: Project 2S, and Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. The Extension to Bending and Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1 Experimental: Bending and Compression Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1 Web Limits for Bending Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Web Limits for Bending and Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4
1. PLASTIC DESIGN AND SLENDERNESS LIMITS
1.1 BEHAVIOUR OF LATERALLY RESTRAINED BEAMS

The main aim of this project is to assess the suitability of rectangular hollow sections for plastic
design. Plastic design allows for higher ultimate loads for statically indeterminate systems with
associated higher deformations compared to traditional elastic design methods. Plastic design
of steel structures requires that a beam can resist the plastic moment (Mp) and then rotate further,
maintaining Mp for a sufficiently large rotation capacity, to allow for moment redistribution in
a statically indeterminate frame However only certain sections can be considered suitable for
plastic design.

Sections are classified into groups depending on their behaviour under bending (rotation
capacity, R, and maximum moment, Mmax). Figure 1 shows the moment - curvature (M - κ)
response of typical beams. The beams are laterally restrained (lateral or flexural-torsional
buckling cannot occur), but at some stage local buckling of the section may result. Assuming
local buckle(s) develop after the moment increases above Mp , then the moment drops below Mp
at some curvature (κ1), then the rotation capacity is commonly defined as R = κ1 /κp - 1, where
κp = Mp/EI.

1.2

1
Moment (M /M p)

0.8 R = κ1/κp - 1
Compact (Class 1)
Behaviour:
0.6 M max > M p, R > 4
0.4 Non-compact
Slender Non-compact
Class 4 Behaviour: Class 3 Behaviour: Class 2 Behaviour:
0.2
M max < M y M y < M max < M p M max > M p, R < 4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Curvature (κ/κp)

Figure 1: Moment - Curvature Behaviour of Different Beam Types

Some design standards use four classes of sections, while other steel standards use only three
separate classes.
C Class 1 sections can attain the plastic moment and have plastic rotation capacity
sufficient for plastic design. Such sections are sometimes referred to as plastic sections
(BS 5950), or compact sections (AS 4100, AISC LRFD).
C Class 2 sections can develop the plastic moment but have limited rotation capacity and
are considered unsuitable for plastic hinge formation. Class 2 sections may be known as
compact sections (CSA-S16.1) or compact elastic (Galambos 1976) sections. Confusion
may arise with the dual use of the term “compact” for Class 1 in AISC LRFD and
AS 4100, and Class 2 in CSA-S16.1.

5
C Class 3 sections can reach the yield moment, but cannot reach the plastic moment due
to local buckling. Such sections are sometimes called semi-compact (BS 5950), or
non-compact (CSA-S16.1).
C Class 4 sections cannot reach the yield moment due to local buckling. They are also
known as slender sections in all standards.

Some specifications, such as AS 4100 and AISC LRFD, group together Class 2 and Class 3
sections, into one single class, commonly referred to as non-compact. Under the AS 4100 and
AISC LRFD definition, “non-compact” sections have a moment capacity exceeding the yield
moment, and up to and including the plastic moment, but cannot sustain the plastic moment for
suitably large rotations. The moment capacity for such sections varies linearly with slenderness
from the yield moment to the plastic moment

Most steel members can be considered as an assemblage of flat plates. Consider a long plate of
width b and thickness t, with in plane stress fx acting on the plate, as shown in Figure 2. The
plate is simply supported on all four edges, but any type of edge restraint could be considered.
The plate can buckle out-of-plane, with out-of-plane deflections denoted w.
fx

fx

Figure 2: Local Buckling of a Rectangular Plate

The solution for the elastic local buckling stress (fol) is given by:
kπ2E
fol '
12 (1&ν2) (b/t)2

where k is the plate buckling coefficient. The value of k depends on the nature of the stress
distribution across the plate and the support conditions of the plate. Hence it can be seen that the
slenderness, or b/t ratio, of the plate components is a critical factor in local buckling problems.
The slenderness of the plate elements in a section is the dominant factor in classifications of cross
sections as Class 1, 2, 3 or 4.

6
1.2 BRIEF SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH

In each case shown in Figure 1, failure is usually produced by local buckling of either the flange
or web of the specimen. Element slenderness (or b/t) of the plate elements in the section is a
significant factor affecting local buckling, and consequently element slenderness or plate
slenderness or b/t limits are prescribed to distinguish between the different classes of cross-
sectional behaviour. Figure 3 shows the definitions of flange and web slenderness for an RHS
according to Australian Standard AS 4100.

Opposite AS 4100 slenderness definitions

t

Flange d & 2t fy
Corner Web: λw '
Web t 250

d b & 2t fy
Adjacent 1 Flange: λf '
t 250
Adjacent 2

Weld
AS 4100 Compact (Class 1) Limit
re

Web: λw < 82
b Flange: λf < 30

Figure 3: RHS Notation and AS 4100 Slenderness Limits

In steel design standards, the same slenderness limits apply to the webs of both I-sections and
hollow sections. The bases of these limits were investigations of I-sections such as those
performed at Lehigh University (Haaijer and Thurlimann 1958) and the University of Alberta
(Dawe and Kulak 1984a, 1984b, 1986). It was a reasonable proposition that the same limits
would apply to RHS and I-section webs, since the strain gradient is the same, and each web of
an RHS has similar support conditions to an I-section web (although there are two webs in an
RHS).

Zhao and Hancock (1992) observed inelastic web local buckling in a 102 × 51 × 2.0 C350 RHS.
The local buckling occurred at low rotation values for specimens with flange and web
slenderness values below the limits set in current design standards for plastic design. The results
of Zhao and Hancock provided part of the impetus for the CIDECT Project 2S (Wilkinson and
Hancock 1998).

A more detailed literature review is given in Wilkinson (1999).

7
1.3 CURRENT SLENDERNESS LIMITS

Consider first a rectangular hollow section or an I-section bending about its major principal axis.
Different slenderness limits apply to the webs and flanges due to the varying support conditions
and stress distributions (different k values in the local buckling solution). This project has been
predominantly concerned with the Class 1 web slenderness limit for RHS.

If an I-section or RHS is bent about its major principal axis, and there is net axial compression,
the distribution of stress and strain in the web is changed from the case of pure bending. The
neutral axis shifts and more than half of the web is in compression. Figure 4 illustrates the elastic
and fully plastic stress and strain distributions in webs for the cases of pure bending, and bending
and compression. Since more of the web is in compression, the web is more likely to experience
local buckling compared to the case of pure bending. Hence web slenderness limits become
lower with an increase in compression.

or

Elastic stress Plastic stress

and strain distribution
distribution

Bending only

or

Elastic stress Plastic stress

and strain distribution
distribution

Bending and compression

Figure 4: Stress and Strain Distributions in Webs

It is usual to express the web slenderness limit for a member experiencing bending and
compression as a function of the proportion of axial load to the yield load within the member.
Table 1 and Figure 5 show the current Class 1 web slenderness limits in various standards.

8
 Limit for
Web slenderness limit
Specification fy = 250 MPa
(d/t < ..... )
&n=0
AISC LRFD (1986, 1993, 1994, 1997) 1680 1 & 2.75n / fy n < 0.125
106
“Compact” (Class 1) 500 2.33 & n / fy n > 0.125

AISC LRFD (1993, 1994) “Compact 1365 1 & 1.54n / fy n < 0.125
86.3
Seismic” (“Seismic” Class 1) 500 2.33 & n / fy n > 0.125
Eurocode 3 (Class 1) 6070 / ( 13α & 1 ) fy All α§ 69.8
British Standard BS 5950
1310 / ( 1.2α % 0.4 ) fy All α§ 82.9
“Plastic” (Class 1)
Canadian Standard S16.1 (1989, 1994)
1100 1 & 0.39n / fy All n 69.6
“Plastic” (Class 1)

Australian Standard AS 4100 (1991) 1296 1 & 1.67n / fy n < 0.27

82
“Compact” (Class 1) 826 1 & 0.52n / fy n > 0.27
Notes: n = N/Ny, ratio of axial force to squash load.
§: α is the proportion of the web in compression, approximated as α = (n + 1)/2

Table 1: Summary of Web Slenderness Limits Under Bending and Compression

120

AISC LRFD (1983 (draft), 1986, 1994, 1997)

AISC LRFD Seismic (1993, 1994)
100 CSA S16.1 (1989, 1994)
Web Slenderness d /t √(f y/250)

AS 4100 (1990)
Class 1 Eurocode 3 (1992)
BS 5950 (1985)
80

60

40

20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Axial Load Ratio (N /N y)

Figure 5: Class 1 Slenderness Limits for Webs

9
There are three key points to note from the current range of Class 1 web limits in the range of
design standards:
C The limits were based on tests of I-sections, not RHS, but are applied to both I-sections
and RHS;
C There is considerable variety in the limits for the case of pure bending (zero axial force -
n = 0)
C The change in the limit as n increases is different for each standard (linear, bi-linear or
curved).

CIDECT Projects 2S and 2V have sought to investigate the Class 1 limit for RHS webs.

2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH: PROJECT 2S, AND FINITE

ELEMENT ANALYSIS

As part of Project 2S, Wilkinson and Hancock (1998) performed a large number of bending tests
on cold-formed RHS to obtain the relationship between web slenderness, flange slenderness and
rotation capacity. Figure 6 displays the results. Project 2S also included connection tests and
portal frame tests on cold-formed RHS.

16

14

12 d/b=1.0
Rotation capacity , R

d/b=1.66
10
d/b=2.0
Bilinear approximations
8 d/b=3.0

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web Slenderness (AS 4100) λw

Figure 6: Web Slenderness against Rotation Capacity of Wilkinson and Hancock (1998)
incorporating Hasan and Hancock (1988) and Zhao and Hancock (1991)

Consequently a proposal for a new Class 1 limit was given as shown in Figure 7 for Eurocode 3.
Similar proposals were suggested for AS 4100 and AISC LRFD (Wilkinson and Hancock 1998).

10
 50
0 Possible new limit
45 Eurocode 3
R =2 0.8 λw < 72 - 9λf /11
Flange Slenderness (Eurocode 3) λf

1.4 Class 1 Limit

40 2
λf < 33
2.7 1.2 R =0
35 4.2 3.5
1.8
6.5 5.0 4.3
30
8.0 1.5 1.2 0.8 0
9.0 5.6 4.8
25
9.0
8.5 2.6 1.3
6.0
20 7.4
3.8
12
7.1 2.3
15 This Paper Grade C450
13 11 5.7 R =3
10 This Paper Grade C350
14 11
R =6 Zhao & Hancock (1991) Grade C450
5
Hasan & Hancock (1988) Grade C350
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web Slenderness (Eurocode 3) λw

Figure 7: Iso-Rotation Plot and Suggested New Compact Limit for Eurocode 3

To supplement the bending tests, finite element simulation was performed (Wilkinson 1999,
Wilkinson and Hancock 1999a, b) using ABAQUS. The finite element study showed that the
magnitude of the local imperfections included in the numerical model had a considerable effect
on the rotation capacity. A typical set of results is shown in Figure 8

14

12 Experimental d/b=3.0

Imperf 1/250
10
Rotation capacity , R

Imperf 1/500
8 Imperf 1/1000

6 Imperf 1/1500

Imperf 1/2000
4

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Web Slenderness (AS 4100) λw

Figure 8: Effect of Imperfection Size, d/b = 3.0

11
The results of Wilkinson and Hancock (Project 2S) have four important points:

C Current Class 1 web slenderness limits, which were based on tests of I-section beams, are
unconservative for RHS. Some sections which satisfy the current Class 1 slenderness
limits of AS 4100, Eurocode 3 and AISC LRFD did not exhibit the rotation capacity
suitable for plastic design.
C Iso-rotation plots of the test results indicated that the rotation capacity was a function of
both flange and web slenderness. Hence the Class 1 (plastic) slenderness limits for RHS
webs and flanges need to be related to each other. Each proposal included a slenderness
limit that incorporated flange-web interaction. All previous design standards had
prescribed independent flange and web slenderness limits. The proposals include an
extra level of complication or calculation in classifying cross-sections.
C There is significant variability in the results of the bending tests, ie for a given web
slenderness and aspect ratio, there was a significant variation in rotation capacity.
(Eg consider the spread of results in Figure 8 for d/b = 3.0, λw . 50, and λw . 60.)
C Finite element analysis simulating the bending tests showed a significant variation in
rotation capacity for a given web slenderness and aspect ratio when the magnitude of
initial imperfections was varied. This would suggest that the variability of the
experimental results may have been caused by a considerable range of initial
imperfections in the test specimens.

3 THE EXTENSION TO BENDING AND COMPRESSION

(PROJECT 2V)
The results of Project 2S showed that the limits summarised above were non-conservative for
the bending only case (axial force n = 0) for all design standards, and that the flange slenderness
should also be considered. Hence there was the need to extend the series of plastic bending tests
to include bending and compression, to examine how the new limits proposed in Project 2S were
affected by axial compression, and whether the current approach was still valid. A major aim
was to examine how the rotation capacity of an RHS was affected by the amount of axial
compression in the section. This is the objective of Project 2V.

3.1 EXPERIMENTAL: BENDING AND COMPRESSION TESTS

Full details of the experiments were given in the previous Interim Reports for Project 2V (Dong,
Wilkinson and Hancock 2000, Dean and Hancock 1999).

The most important observations from these results are:

a. Generally, the maximum moment achieved does not vary considerably with changing
axial force. The level of axial compression is no more than 16 % of the axial section
capacity in all cases, and for RHS the reduction of plastic moment for this level of axial
force is of the order of 3 %. The slight increase in moment for the 125×75×4.0 C450
with 100 kN compression can be accounted for by experimental variation. However the
large drop in maximum moment for the 150×50×4.0 C350 with 50 kN compression of
approximately 20 % is considerably more than expected, and, at this time, cannot be
accounted for.

12
b. The 150×50×4 RHS in both C450 and C350 exhibit a similar change in rotation capacity
with increased axial force. In comparison, the 125×75×4 RHS shows very little change
in rotation capacity with increasing compression. The higher aspect ratio (d/b) 150×50×4
RHS have a greater proportion of their area in the webs, so it is possible that the sections
with higher aspect ratio are more sensitive to increases in compression.

c. The bending tests in Project 2S did show a considerable range of variability, most likely
caused by different initial imperfections in the sections. It is possible the different
behaviour outlined in (b) could be due to different imperfection sizes. Hence it became
important to supplement these test results with a large range of finite element analyses
to examine the influence of imperfections, and to examine if the relationship between
rotation capacity and increasing compression is dependent of the aspect ratio of the
section.

d. The two experimental results for rotation capacity from Project 2S for 150×50×4 C350
RHS (R = 12.9, 10.7) are considerably larger than the bending test on a similar section
in this project (R = 6.2).

With the limited range of experimental results available, the following new compact (Class 1)
limit was proposed in Interim Report No. 1 for Project 2V. The proposal was written in terms
of the web and flange slenderness definitions in AS 4100, but similar formats would be
appropriate using the slightly different slenderness definitions in Eurocode 3 and AISC LRFD.

Initially the approach was to adopt the limit proposed in Project 2S, which is applicable when
there is no compression. The limit is then reduced for axial compression according to the current
method in the Australian Standard AS 4100, as shown in Figure 9 and Table 2.
120
Class 1
AISC LRFD (1997)
100
CSA S16.1 (1989, 1994)
Web Slenderness d /t √(f y/250)

Eurocode 3 (1992)
80 Current limits Dean & Hancock (d/b=3)
(various standards) Dean & Hancock (d/b=2)
Dean & Hancock (d/b=1.67)
60

40

20 Proposed Limits (Dean & Hancock)

Function of Web and Flange
(hence different limits for varying d /b

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Axial Load Ratio (N /N s)

Figure 9: Initial Recommendations for AS 4100 (from Project 2V 1999 & 2000)

13
 Range of web slenderness Proposed Limit Range of axial load
N( λf λ
% % w # 0.511
φNs 164.4 137
N(
or # 0.27
φNs
5 N(
λw # 70 & λf & 137
6 φNs
45 # λw # 70
N( λ λ
% f % w # 1.474
φNs 32.9 27
N(
or > 0.27
φNs
N(
λw # 40 & 0.82λf & 27
φNs

N( λ
% w # 0.329
φNs 137
N(
or # 0.27
φNs
N(
λw # 45 & 137
φNs
λw # 45
N( λ
% w # 0.562
φNs 27.4
N(
or > 0.27
φNs
N(
λw # 15.4 & 27
φNs

d & 2t fy b & 2t fy
where λw ' and λf ' are the web and flange slenderness values
t 250 t 250
respectively in the format of AS 4100.

Table 2: Initial Recommendations for AS 4100 (from Project 2V 1999 & 2000)

The complexity of the above formulation arises from the fact that 3 variables needed to be
considered; the web slenderness (λw), the flange slenderness (λf), and the level of axial
compression (N*/φNs). In addition, different equations apply in different ranges of axial force.
Clearly this recommendation is awkward for simple use. Simpler proposals are given later in this
report.

14
3.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite element analysis was then used to extend the experimental results. Full details of the finite
element analysis were given in the previous Interim Report for this project (Dong, Wilkinson and
Hancock 2000). Some addition material was also published in Dong (2000).

Wilkinson and Hancock (1999a, 1999b) and Wilkinson (1999) performed an extensive finite
element simulation of the bending only tests on cold-formed RHS which were performed as part
of Project 2S. Much of the detail applicable to the current analysis is covered more
comprehensively in the three aforementioned references.

The FEA considered many variables such as flange slenderness, web slenderness, axial force, and
imperfection magnitude. A significant proportion of the analyses focussed on imperfections and
the appropriate magnitude of local imperfections to include in the model to replicate the
experimental results. It was identified that no single imperfection size produced finite element
results that consistently matched experimental data. A possible conclusion is that the test pieces
had different imperfections.

The most important set of results in the finite element analysis was how the rotation capacity
reduced as the level of axial force increased. From these results, it was possible to determine the
level of axial force at which the rotation capacity dropped below 4 for a given set of web and
flange slenderness values. This would help establish a proposal for the Class 1 slenderness limit.
A set of results is shown in Figure 10 below. The thick, bold lines in Figure 10 represent the
limits produced from the FEA, while the thinner lines show some of the current standards.

120
ASIC LRFD (1997)
Class 1 CSA S16.1 (1989, 1994)
AS 4100 (1990)
100 Eurocode 3 (1992)
Web Slenderness d /t √(f y/250)

BS 5950 (1985)
Abaqus-d/b=4
80 Abaqus-d/b=3
Abaqus-d/b=2
Abaqus-d/b=1.67
Dean & Hancock (d/b=3)
60

40

20

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Axial Load Ratio (N /N s)

Figure 10: Change in Class 1 Limit Predicted by Finite Element Analysis

15
Several points can be established from the finite element analysis which produced Figure 10:
C Different levels of axial load, ranging from 0 % to 50 % of the squash load were
considered. Higher values of axial force were not included, as it was believed in most
practical plastic design situations, the levels of axial force would be low.
C Flange web interaction can be seen, since different curves have been produced for
different values of aspect ratio.
C The various design standards have different changes in limit as the axial force changes -
bilinear (AISC LRFD, AS 4100), linear (CSA-S16.1), slightly curved (Eurocode 3,
BS 5950). The change in limit suggested by the finite element analysis is slightly curved,
and hence the approach of CSA-S16.1 or Eurocode 3/BS 5950 could be adopted.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 WEB LIMITS FOR BENDING ONLY

The web limits previously proposed for the case of no axial force incorporated flange-web
interaction. While this approach incorporated the true behaviour of RHS it produced more
complicated design formulae. It was decided to simplify the approach and maintain the current
design philosophy in which the flange and web slenderness limits are assigned independently,
and interaction is not considered. However, the current web slenderness limits must be reduced
for RHS from their current values (which are based on I-section tests). This approach has been
used in the recent March 2000 draft of BS 5950.

Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the current limits, the limits originally proposed in Project 2S that
incorporated interaction, and the new simplified proposal.

50
R =0 0 Possible new limit
45 0.8 λw < 70 - 5λf /6 AS 4100
Compact (Class 1) Limit
Flange Slenderness (AS 4100) λf

40 R =2
1.4 λf < 30
2
2.7 1.2
35 4.2 3.5
1.8 1.5
6.5 5.0 4.3
30
8.0 1.2 0.8 0
9.0 5.6 4.8
25 9.0
8.5 2.6 1.3
6.0
20 7.4 3.8
12
7.1 2.3
15
11 5.7
13
10 14 11 R =4
Final Recommendation
5 R =6 λw < 54
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web Slenderness (AS 4100) λw

Figure 11: Simplified Proposal for Web Limits - Bending Only (AS 4100)

16
 50
0 Possible new limit
45 Eurocode 3
R =2 0.8 λw < 72 - 9λf /11
Flange Slenderness (Eurocode 3) λf

1.4 Class 1 Limit

40 2
λf < 33
2.7 1.2 R =0
35 4.2 3.5
1.8
30 6.5 5.0 4.3
8.0 1.5 1.2 0.8 0
9.0 5.6 4.8
25
9.0
8.5 2.6 1.3
6.0
20 7.4
3.8
12
7.1 2.3
15
13 11 5.7 R =3
10 14 11 Final Recommendation
R =6
5 λw < 55
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web Slenderness (Eurocode 3) λw

Figure 12: Simplified Proposal for Web Limits - Bending Only (Eurocode 3)

1.8
Possible new limit
Flange Slenderness (AISC LRFD) λf

1.6 Limit for flanges 0 AISC LRFD

of box sections 0.8 λw < 2.5 - λf/0.939 Compact (Class 1) Limit
1.4
1.4 (not RHS) λf < 0.939
2.0
1.2 2.7
1.2
4.2 3.5
4.3
1 6.5 5.0 1.8 0.8
8.0 1.5 1.2 0
5.6 9.0 4.8
0.8 9.0
1.3
8.5
12 6.0 7.4 2.6 R =0
0.6
7.1 3.8 2.3
0.4 5.7
14
11
13 11 R =2 Final Recommendation
0.2 R =6 R =3 λw < 1.8
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Web Slenderness (AISC LRFD) λw

Figure 13: Simplified Proposal for Web Limits - Bending Only (AISC LRFD)

17
However, in simplifying the proposal, the new independent web limit has produced zones which
are slightly conservative and unconservative compared to the original recommendation as can
be seen in Figure 14 below.

50
Possible new limit
45 λw < 70 - 5λf /6 Current AS 4100
Flange Slenderness (AS 4100) λf

40 λf < 30 Compact (Class 1) Limit

35 R =4

30
25
20 Zone in which final proposal
may be unconservative
15
10 Zone in which final proposal
may be conservative Final Recommendation
5
λw < 54
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web Slenderness (AS 4100) λw

Figure 14: Conservative and Unconservative Zones in Proposal

4.1 WEB LIMITS FOR BENDING AND COMPRESSION

The finite element analysis indicated that an appropriate interaction equation between the web
limit and increasing axial compression was either a straight line or a slightly concave line. The
bilinear approach of AISC LRFD and AS 4100 was not the most appropriate method.

The recommendations are given in Table 3 and compared in Figure 15.

Limit for
Web slenderness limit
Specification fy = 250 MPa
(d/t < ..... )
&n=0
d & 2t fy
AS 4100 Suggestion # 54 1 & 0.5n 54.0
t 250
d & 2re E
AISC LRFD Suggestion # 1.8 1 & 0.5n 51.0
t fy
d & 3t 303 235
Eurocode 3 Suggestion # All α§ 53.5
t 13α & 1 fy
Notes: n = N/Ns, ratio of axial force to axial section capacity.
§: α is the proportion of the web in compression, approximated as α = (n + 1)/2.

Table 2: Suggested Class 1 Limits for Bending and Compression

18
 120
Class 1

100 AISC LRFD (1997)

CSA S16.1 (1989, 1994)
Eurocode 3 (1992)
Web Slenderness d /t √(f y/250)

Dean & Hancock (d/b=3)

80 Current limits
(various standards) Abaqus-d/b=3
AS 4100 (Suggested)
Eurocode 3 (Suggested)
60 AISC LRFD (Suggested)

40

20

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Axial Load Ratio (N /N s)

Figure 15: Suggested Class 1 Limits for Bending and Compression (AS 4100 definition)

It is difficult to make direct comparisons between the three recommendations as different

standards use slightly different terminologies. Eurocode 3 and ASIC LRFD are based on a
rotation capacity of R = 3, while AS 4100 uses R = 4. Each standard uses a slightly different
method for calculating the plate slenderness for the elements in a rounded corner RHS
(AS 4100:- b - 2t; AISC LRFD: b - 2re; Eurocode 3: b - 3t). It is clear that the new
recommendations are much simpler than the original suggestions.

As was highlighted in the previous section, this simple method produces some areas where the
results may be slightly conservative or non-conservative. It is possible that some further
refinement, which may reintroduce some complexity into the equations, may produce better
limits. As can be seen in Figure 16, two sections with a rotation capacity less than R = 4, lie just
within the Class 1 range. The proposal, which compromises the flange web interaction, lies
between the finite element simulations for high aspect ratio (d/b = 3) and low aspect ratio
(d/b = 1.67).

19
 70
Class 1

Web Slenderness d /t √(f y/250) 60

50 6.2 2.8
4.3 2.3

40 5.8 5.9 4.7

30 Dean & Hancock (d/b=3)

Abaqus-d/b=3
20 Abaqus-d/b=1.67
AS 4100 (Suggested) Experimental Data from Projects 2S & 2V
150 x 50 x 4 C450 (Refer to Table 2 of Project 2V Report 2000)
10 125 x 74 x 4 C450 Number in brackets is rotation capacity
150 x 50 x 4 C350
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Axial Load Ratio (N /N s)

Figure 16: Experimental Results of Project 2V vs Proposed Limits

5. CONCLUSION
This report has summarised the findings of CIDECT Projects 2S and 2V and proposed a set of
simplified Class 1 web slenderness limits for AS 4100, Eurocode 3 and AISC LRFD..

CIDECT Project 2S assessed the suitability of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections (RHS) for
plastic design under bending only. The conclusion was that cold-formed RHS can be used in plastic
design, but stricter element slenderness (b/t) limits and consideration of the connections, are required.
A proposal for web slenderness limits involving flange web interaction was proposed.

CIDECT Project 2V extended Project 2S to include axial compression, to assess how the Class 1 web
slenderness limits should reduce as the level of axial compression increased. Project 2V involved
bending and compression tests and finite element analysis. A limit was proposed in 2000, but this was
very complicated. Based on the finite element results, and incorporating the test results in both projects,
the a simpler set of Class 1 limits is proposed in different terminologies for various design standards.

These proposals are simple, and produce some areas where the results maybe slightly conservative or
non-conservative. It is possible that some further refinement, which may reintroduce some complexity
into the equations, may produce better limits.

20
6. REFERENCES
AISC, (1986), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
(AISC LRFD), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Il, USA.

AISC, (1993), Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
(AISC LRFD), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Il, USA.

AISC, (1994), Metric Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, (AISC LRFD), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Il, USA.

AISC, (1997), Specification for Steel Hollow Structural Sections, (AISC LRFD), American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Il, USA.

British Standards Institution, (1990), British Standard BS 5950 Part 1: Code of Practice for
Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: hot-rolled sections, Structural Use of Steelwork
in Buildings, British Standards Institution, Great Britain.

British Standards Institution, (2000), British Standard Draft BS 5950: Structural Use of
Steelwork in Buildings, Part 1: Code of Practice for design: rolled and welded sections, British
Standards Institution, Great Britain.

British Standards Institution, (2000), British Standard Draft BS 5950 Part 1: Code of Practice
for Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: hot-rolled sections, Structural Use of
Steelwork in Buildings, British Standards Institution, Great Britain.

Canadian Standards Association, (1989), CAN/CSA-S16.1: Limits States Design of Steel

Structures, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada.

Canadian Standards Association, (1994), CAN/CSA-S16.1: Limits States Design of Steel

Structures, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada.

Dawe, J. L., and Kulak, G. L., (1984a), “Plate Instability of W Shapes”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 110, No 6, June 1984, pp 1278-1291.

Dawe, J. L., and Kulak, G. L., (1984b), “Local Buckling of W Shape Columns and Beams”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 110, No 6, June
1984, pp 1292-134.

Dawe, J. L., and Kulak, G. L., (1986), “Local Buckling Behaviour of Beam-Columns”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 112, No 11, November
1986, pp 2447-2461.

Dean M. and Hancock G. J., (1999), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS: Bending and
Compression Tests”, CIDECT Project 2V, Interim Report No 1, Centre for Advanced Structural
Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

European Committee for Standardisation, (1992), Design of Steel Structures: Part 1.1 - General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, (known as “Eurocode 3”), DD ENV. 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3
Editorial Group.

21
Haaijer, G. and Thurlimann, B., (1958), “On Inelastic Buckling in Steel”, Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol 84. No EM 2, April 1958, Proceedings Paper No 1581.

Hasan, S. W., and Hancock, G. J., (1988), “Plastic Bending Tests of Cold-Formed Rectangular
Hollow Sections”, Research Report, No R586, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. (also published in Steel Construction, Journal of the
Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Vol 23, No 4, November 1989, pp 2-19.)

Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, (1995), “ABAQUS”, Users Manual, Pawtucket, RI, USA.

Standards Australia, (1998), Australian Standard AS 4100 Steel Structures, Standards Australia,
Sydney.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1995), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS”, CIDECT
Project 2S, Interim Report No. 1, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, School of Civil
and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1996a), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS”, CIDECT
Project 2S, Interim Report No. 2, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, School of Civil
and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1996b), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS”, CIDECT
Project 2S, Interim Report No. 2: Addendum 1: Joint Tests, Centre for Advanced Structural
Engineering, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1997a), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS”, CIDECT
Project 2S, Interim Report No. 3, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1997b), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS”, CIDECT
Project 2S, Interim Report No. 3: Addendum 1: Frame Tests, Centre for Advanced Structural
Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1998a), “Plastic Design of Cold-Formed RHS”, CIDECT
Project 2S, Draft Final Report, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1998b), "Tests to examine the compact web slenderness of
cold-formed RHS", Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol
124, No 10, October 1998, pp 1166-1174.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1999a), “Finite Element Analysis of Plastic Bending of
Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Section Beams”, Research Report, No R792, Department of
Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1999b), “Predictions of Rotation Capacity of RHS Beams
Using Finite Element Analysis”, Advances in Steel Structures, Proceedings, 2nd International
Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, (ICASS'99), Hong Kong, China, December 1999,
(Elsevier, publ.), (Chan and Teng editors), pp 261 - 268.

22
 Wilkinson T., (1999), “Plastic Behaviour of Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Sections”, PhD
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Zhao X.L. & Hancock G. J. (1991), “Tests to Determine Plate Slenderness Limits for Cold-
Formed Rectangular Hollow Sections of Grade C450”, Steel Construction, Journal of Australian
Institute of Steel Construction, 25 (4), Nov 1991, pp 2-16.

Zhao, X. L. and Hancock, G. J., (1992) “Square and Rectangular Hollow Sections Subject to
Combined Actions”, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol 118, No 3, March 1992, pp 648 - 668.

7. NOTATION
b Width of RHS
d Depth of RHS
E Young’s modulus of elasticity
fol Local buckling stress
fx Stress on a plate
fy Yield stress
fyn Nominal yield stress
I Second moment of area
k Plate local buckling coefficient
M Bending moment
Mmax Maximum bending moment
Mp Plastic bending moment
Mpn Nominal plastic bending moment
My Bending moment at first yield
Nmax Maximum load in stub column test
Ns Axial section capacity in compression
Ny Yield load in axial compression (=Ag fy )
n Axial load ratio
R Rotation capacity
t Thickness of RHS, or thickness of plate
α Proportion of web in compression
κ Curvature
κ1 Curvature at which moment falls below Mp
κ1 Plastic curvature
λf Flange slenderness
λw Web slenderness
ν Poisson’s ratio

23

View publication stats