This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Local–global buckling interaction procedures for the design of cold-formed

columns: Effective width and direct method integrated approach
Eduardo de Miranda Batista 
Civil Engineering Program, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

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

Article history: The present paper is aimed to show recent developments addressed to steel cold-formed column
Received 2 February 2009 members affected by local–global buckling interaction. The formulations examined are not new but
Received in revised form based on known solutions for thin-walled cold-formed columns: the effective width method (EWM),
16 April 2009
the direct strength method (DSM) and the effective area method (EAM). All of them were previously
Accepted 20 April 2009
Available online 17 May 2009
elaborated and calibrated by different authors. The main idea is to allow integrating effective width and
direct methods in the design procedures, in order to make it easier to perform the computation of the
Keywords: resistance of steel cold-formed columns and to offer common prescriptions for both direct and effective
Steel cold-formed columns width methods. Further a simple and easy way to access the column resistance on the basis of direct
Local buckling
strength method avoiding the obligation to access computational programs to find the local buckling
Buckling interaction
compressive load for usual cold-formed sections is proposed. For all of this the original formulations of
Effective width method
Direct strength method EAM and EWM were recalibrated with the help of experimental results previously published and the
Effective area method resistance partial coefficients are checked.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since many decades, practical computation of the strength
of steel cold-formed members have been done, on the basis of
the traditional effective width method (EWM), which proposes
a semi-empirical calibrated formulation to take into account
the local buckling effects for thin-walled sections. Derived from
the original von Karman solution slender plates [1], the so-called
Winter equation [2] introduced an experimentally calibrated
imperfection factor and is the internationally accepted solution
for the compressive strength due to local buckling effects in
steel cold-formed sections that is found in the great majority
(perhaps all) of the codes and specifications addressed to
the structural design of cold-formed steel members. This method
is also indicated in many cases other than cold-formed sections,
as we can observe in codes and specifications for the structural
design of plated structures as bridges [3]—a typical civil
engineering application—as well as stiffened steel panels for
naval and off shore structures [4]. These are only a few examples
of the application of the EWM in structural solutions, in which we
find the application of the Winter equation, which are
 
0:22 b
beff ¼ 1 pb
lp lp
 Tel.: +55 21 2562 8480; fax: +55 21 2562 8484.
E-mail address: batista@coc.ufrj.br
 0:5
fy
lp ¼ (2)
scr‘
where beff is the effective width of the plate element, b is its actual
width, lp is the local buckling slenderness ratio, fy is the steel yield
stress, and scr‘ is the local buckling critical stress of the plate element.
The elastic critical stress of each plate element of the cross-
section, scr‘, which are considered individually as single plates
with its approximated boundary conditions and replacing the
actual folded plate, is represented by its classical theoretical
formula in Eq. (3), where E and n are the longitudinal elastic
modulus and the Poisson coefficient of the material, respectively, t
is the plate thickness and k is the local buckling factor of the plate,
which introduces both the boundary conditions and the loading
case. To be in agreement with the theory of plate buckling,
regarding the elements of the cold-formed cross-section, b is
referred to the plane width of the element in Eq. (3), as can be
observed in Fig. 1:
 2
p2 E t
scr‘ ¼ k (3)
12ð1  n 2Þ b
The generalization and improvement of this method is not the
subject of the present study, but its specific application for the
(1) case of cold-formed steel members as it was originally conceived.
More specifically, we do this for the case of columns, in which
local buckling mode usually interacts with the global bucking
modes, i.e., flexural, tortional and flexural–tortional modes. This
aspect of the behaviour of cold-formed members was extensively

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2009.04.004
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231
bf
bf
D supposes the access to computational tools to perform elastic
D
bw b bw b must run and find several buckling analysis to solve the problem,
t b
b plated panels and sections, which allows obtaining buckling
Fig. 1. Geometrical dimensions of cold-formed cross-sections.
investigated, mainly during the second half of the last century,
with special attention paid to the combination of the EWM with
strength buckling curves for columns. Experimentally calibrated
methods finally converged to very known solutions that are
nowadays internationally accepted, which basically combines:
(i) the decomposition of the cross-section into individual plate
elements with width b, (ii) the boundary conditions of each
individual plate element—in some cases with the actual condition
and other cases with approximate boundary condition, (iii) the
original Winter equation (Eq. (1)) combined with empirical
features to account for stress distributions other than uniform
compression in the plate elements, (iv) calculation of the
individuals effective widths beff,ipb, (v) computation of the
effective area Aeff and, finally, (vi) the application of the reduced
effective area to compute the member compressive strength.
Even if it is considered an empirical and approximate method,
somehow a kind of ‘‘black box’’ in the codes (a few professionals are
able to really understand what is behind those closed equations and
step-by-step procedures), the EWM can be taken as the most
applied method to manage local plate buckling in structural design
of thin-walled sections and plated structures. As the EWM allows
hand calculation procedures it is still included in all codes and
standards addressed to steel cold-formed members.
The ‘‘other way’’ to perform buckling interaction for design
purposes is the direct strength methodology. In opposition to the
EWM, the DSM takes advantage of computational possibilities to
perform accurate buckling analysis of any kind of folded plate
cross-section and include the actual critical buckling loading
related to the complete cross-section in the design process. The
consequences of the access to actual elastic buckling results are:
(i) a much more understandable process of design, allowing to
visualize the computational results of buckling modes and its
minimum critical loads and/or bending moments, (ii) the
definition of less complex strength equations and strategies
compared to the EWM, and finally (iii) having more accurate
theoretical strength results than the EWM, when compared with
experimental results as will be seen in the following sections.
The ‘‘bad news’’ concerning the application of the DSM is the
obligation to access specialised computational programs to
calculate the critical local buckling compressive loads and
bending moments. The application of these computational tools,
although apparently simple, implies some training and even
recycling effort of designers towards basic knowledge on the
theory of elastic stability of plate and folded plates.
The DSM is nowadays identified with the formulation
introduced in Appendix 1 of the AISI specification [5], where we
can find a simple and elegant solution originally developed and
1219
calibrated by Schafer [6], for both steel cold-formed columns and
beams. The Australian/New Zealand code [7] has also incorpo-
rated the DSM as it is presented in the AISI specification.
As commented above, in order to become applicable the DSM
buckling analysis of the sections. For this, the finite element
method cannot be considered as a practical solution since one
by varying the member length L in order to identify the minimum
critical load or bending moment regarding the local or the
distortional buckling mode. Even if FEM dedicated formulation
would be available, the best computational solutions are those
from numerical methods specially addressed to thin-walled
analysis results as accurate as the FEM with much less computa-
tional effort on the basis of dedicated and simple computational
tools, saving time to find the useful results for practical structural
design. Two main methods were developed to cold-formed
sections and they offer free access computational programs
for buckling analysis. These two methods are the finite strip (FS)
and the generalized beam theory (GBT). The former can be
performed with CUFSM program, developed by Schafer [8], and
the GBT solution is obtained with GBTUL program, developed by
the research group of the IST, Superior Technical Institute from
Lisbon [9].
It is in this context that the Brazilian code for steel cold-formed
structural members [10] is under revision—in correlation with the
new version of the main Brazilian code for the structural design of
steel and composite buildings [11]. The original version of the
Brazilian code for cold-formed members started from 2001 and is
mainly based in the AISI specification valuable at the time; the
most important difference regarding the North American edition
is the column buckling curves, where the multiple European
curves approach was taken, instead of the traditional single
buckling curve found in the American specification. Further the
EWM is the proposed approach for local buckling design and no
reference is made to any direct strength procedure. Considering
the necessity to re-evaluate all the design rules, including both
EW and DS methods, a recalibration effort was performed, in a
first step for column members.
The results of the calibration of different methods of design of
steel cold-formed thin-walled columns are presented in the next
sections. For this, the following aspects were considered:
(a) Only local–global buckling interaction is included.
(b) Experimental results of long columns displaying local–global
buckling modes interaction were considered.
(c) Experimental results of short columns (not stub columns)
were also considered, for which only local buckling was
attained with no interaction with the global buckling mode.
This is the case of stiffened and unstiffened Z-section
columns.
(d) Stub column tests are not investigated. The available formula-
tions for local buckling strength from both EW and DS
methods are accepted as already confirmed by experimental
calibration.
(e) Distortional buckling is not the case of the present investiga-
tion. In fact, the distortional buckling is still considered
in separate computation for design purposes and no buckling
interaction with local plate or global modes are considered.
Winter-type equation is applied for strength design [5,10]
as additional design verification, although recent results
indicate clear evidence of local–distortional buckling interac-
tion [12] and new rules will probably be proposed in near
future.
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1220 E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231
(f) EWM is strictly applied as it is presented in current code
specifications [5,10], on the basis of the Winter equation
(Eq. (1)). The rules for local buckling of cold-formed sections
presented in the European code [13] are also considered and
commented.
(g) Two different sequences of computation of the EWM were
tested, both addressed to allow appropriate consideration of
the buckling modes interaction: ‘‘one-step’’ and ‘‘two-steps’’
strategies, here after called 1S and 2S, respectively, which may
result in quite different final results, safe or unsafe, as will be
shown.
(h) DSM is referred to the original formulation found in the AISI
specification [5].
(i) An alternative direct strength formulation is tested, originally
identified as effective area method (EAM) [14].
(j) The experimental data that support the calibrations of the
theoretical procedures and reliability results are based on
cold-formed channels and Z-section columns and are detailed
in Section 4. Although many experimental data are available
in the literature, it was decided to take into account sets of
experiments that cover the following features: (i) local
slenderness ratio of the cross-sections, lp, varying from low
to very high values, with lp ranging from about 0.5 to 9.0;
(ii) global slenderness ratio, lc, ranging from about 0.5 to 1.5
and (iii) global buckling modes including both flexural and
flexural–tortional.
The local slenderness ratio was already defined in Eq. (2) and
the global slenderness ratio is given by
 0:5
Af y
lc ¼
Ne
where A is the gross cross-section area and Ne is the critical
buckling compressive load of the member.
The obtained results are intended to allow improvements in
regular and practical rules for the computation of the strength of
steel cold-formed members under concentric compression. An
integrated formulation considering both EWM and EAM is
described at the end of the present paper, in order to make the
acceptance and application of a direct strength procedure among
designers, manufacturers and structural practitioners in the field
of steel cold-formed members easy.
2. Strength design of cold-formed thin-walled members in
compression
Many aspects count over the rules for computing the
compressive strength of thin-walled cold-formed members. The
main contributions could be identified in the following relevant
aspects: (i) appropriate formulation for local buckling compressive
strength, which can be approximately represented by Winter-type
formula, supposed to be conveniently calibrated with experimen-
tal data of stub column tests; (ii) appropriate formulation for
global buckling compressive strength, which can be confirmed by
comparing the theoretical strength buckling curves with experi-
mental results of long columns; (iii) the effect of local–global
buckling interaction, a nonlinear aspect to be counted for on the
basis of appropriate combination of local cross-section effects with
the global buckling modes; (iv) the end support conditions of the
member must be adequately considered in order to guarantee
appropriate theoretical results, which means that the restrictions
of the degrees of freedom related to the buckling modes must
agree with the actual condition of the member—bending rotations
and warping conditions, as well as plate out-of-plane bending; (v)
geometrical imperfections and residual stresses effects are
considered by the design equations for local and global member
buckling, respectively the Winter-type equation and the column
buckling curve; and obviously (vi) the material properties must be
conveniently represented.
The main rules and methods for the design of cold-formed
columns that were included in the present investigation are
shortly described and commented in the following sections.
2.1. The compression buckling curves
Two main column buckling curve concepts are applied in codes
and specifications for steel structures: the North American single
curve hereafter referred to as the American buckling curve, and
the multiple European buckling curves. Specifically for the case of
cold-formed channels and Z-sections with no intermediate
stiffeners, the European code [13] indicates the buckling curve b
or c for the case of stiffened or unstiffened sections respectively,
for any global buckling mode: bending about both principal axis
as well as tortional and flexural–tortional modes. As the
calibration process performed in the present investigation was
based on experimental results from stiffened channels and
stiffened or unstiffened Z-sections, comparisons between the
American single curve and the European curves b or c in each
corresponding case were considered. The differences between the
American and the European buckling curves b and c justify these
comparisons for the sake of generalization of the results and to
offer precise information to support decisions about design rules.
For the case of the DSM as included in [5], considering of buckling
curve other than the American one was considered useless.
(4)
2.2. The effective width method: one-step and two-steps approach
The EWM-based solution for columns is taken in the present
investigation as prescribed: (i) in the AISI specification [5]; (ii) in
the Brazilian code [10], and (iii) in the European code [13]. To be
precise, one must consider the following observations about these
procedures, which present differences that are only apparently
without significance.
(a) The basic equation for effective width computation is always
the Winter equation (Eqs. (1) and (2)) with s ¼ wfy replacing
fy. in Eq. (2), where w counts for the reduction coefficient from
the member global bucking strength curve (w ¼ 1 for short
columns and wo1 for long columns).
(b) The effective area Aeff can be directly computed from the
effective widths beff, with the compressive force placed in the
centroid of the gross cross-section. This is the case of both AISI
[5] and Brazilian [10] specifications, as well as in [7].
(c) The EC-3 [13] obliges to compute the member resistance by
transferring the position of the compression force from the
centroid of the gross cross-section to the centroid of the
effective cross-section. The consequence is to take eccentric
compression and to perform the column strength computa-
tion by means of interaction equations addressed to bending
and axial compression combination, typically a beam-column
design.
(d) The compression strength of long columns is to be obtained
from the following basic equation, where w counts for the
reduction coefficient of the member buckling curve:
NcR ¼ wAeff f y (5)
(e) As will be further confirmed by the results of the calibration,
an important difference in distinct rules is the way the global
buckling curve is accessed. Two procedures were tested,
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231 1221

Table 1 with
One-step and two-steps procedures, 1S and 2S, for the computation of the column
 
strength on the basis of the EWM. NcRe 0:5
l‘ ¼ (11)
N‘
One-step procedure, 1S Two-steps procedure, 2S

1. lc ¼ (Afy/Ne)0.5-w-s ¼ wfy 1. The same as 1S

2. For each cross-section element, 2. The same as 1S 2.4. The effective area method
with plane width b:

2.1. scr‘ ¼ k(p2E/12(1n2)(t/b)2 3. The same as 1S An alternative direct method is the effective area method, EAM,
0.5 0.5
as presented and described in its original Ref. [14] and also by
2.2. lp ¼ (wfy/scr‘) 4. Recalculate lc ¼ (Aefffy/Ne) -w
Batista et al. [15]. This is a direct strength-type method that was
2.3. beff ¼ (1(0.22/lp))b/lppb 5. Nc,R ¼ wAefffyfy proposed at the time to cover local–global buckling interaction in
3. Aeff ¼ St  beff+Ac
cold-formed column members. In the present investigation the
European buckling curves b and c and the American one were
4. Nc,R ¼ wAeff  fy tested against experimental results. In its origin the application of
Ac counts for the total area of the cross-section round corners.
the EAM was based in a finite strip computational program
specially developed to the application of the proposed procedure.
Nowadays this method benefits from available free finite strip and
identified hereafter as one-step (1S), and two-steps (2S), as
GBT computational tools, CUFSM and GBTUL. The following are
shown in Table 1. The former is found in the American AISI
the rules of the EAM, combined with the American buckling
specification [5], followed by the Australian/New Zealand
curve:
code [7], and the latter is considered in both Brazilian [10] and
European [13] codes.
 Global buckling:
(f) The more slender the cross-section is, 2S procedure displays
higher values of the column strength if compared with 1S rule.  0:5
Af y
This is so because of the additional reduction of the member lc ¼ (12)
Ne
slenderness lc for the computation of the compressive load
strength NcR in the ‘‘second step’’ (as shown in Table 1), which
is directly affected by the cross-section ratio (Aeff/A)0.5. As an 2
w ¼ ð0:658lc Þ if lc p1:5 (13)
empirical rule, its effect must be confirmed by calibration.
Evaluation of the results of 1S and 2S procedures was one of
the goals of the present investigation. !
0:877
w¼ if lc 41:5 (14)
l2c
2.3. The direct strength method  Local–global buckling interaction:
 
The DSM is the one specified in the AISI Specification Appendix 0:22 1
Aeff ¼ A 1  pA (15)
1 [5] and also adopted in the Australian/New Zealand code [7]. lp lp
The rules for columns are given in the following. Here N‘ is and
the elastic critical local buckling compressive force of the cross-  
section of the column. The column strength will be the mini-
wAf y
lp ¼ (16)
mum value: NcR ¼ min(NcRe,NcR‘). To be clear, remember N‘
that the distortional mode is not considered in the present
investigation and it should also be computed, with the help of  0;5
appropriate resistance buckling curve (usually a Winter-type Aeff f y
lc ¼ !w (17)
equation). Ne
with Eq. (13) or (14)
 Global buckling:
Nc;R ¼ wAeff f y (18)
2
NcRe ¼ ð0:658lc ÞAf y if lc p1:5 (6) The local buckling effect is considered in a direct way, taking
advantage of numerical computation for buckling analysis and
identifying the elastic critical local buckling compressive force N‘,
!
0:877 and calculating the so-called ‘‘effective area’’ Aeff, which means a
N cRe ¼ 2
Af y if lc p1:5 (7) reduced cross-section area due to local buckling effects.
lc
The proposition of the original Winter equation to calculate the
with reduced effective area taking account of the complete cross-
 0;5 section, as shown in Eq. (15), was calibrated with the help of
Af y
lc ¼ (8) experimental results of stub-column tests [14].
Ne As can be observed by comparing Eqs. (6)–(11) with
 Local–global buckling interaction Eqs. (12)–(18), DSM and EAM are strictly the same and the
NcR‘ ¼ N cRe if l‘ p0:776 (9) main difference is in the local buckling formula: the original
Winter equation or a modified Winter-type equation (for sure all
of this was decided on the basis of calibration supported by
! experimental results). Moreover, the EAM is described preserving
0:15 NcRe
NcR‘ ¼ 1 if lc 40:776 (10) the concept of ‘‘effective’’ (or ‘‘reduced’’) geometrical property of
l0:8
‘ l0:8
‘ the cross-section, which will be quite useful to link effective area
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1222 E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231

with effective width methods, as will be shown at the end of the
present paper.
2.5. Distortional buckling
As already pointed above, distortional buckling is not the aim
of the present investigation. All the experimental results of thin-
walled cold-formed columns considered for calibration purposes
were identified as flexural or flexural–tortional buckling, com-
bined with local buckling mode. Tests that performed distortional
buckling were not considered.
3. Experimental data
The experimental sets which were considered to perform the
calibration of the theoretical procedures described above are
indicated in Table 2. These are stiffened channel and Z sections
tested under concentric or small eccentricity compressive loading.
Small eccentricities were taken up to 0.1 of the gyration ratio. This
limit was decided in order to include a limited number of tests
from Loughlan [16], disregarding a series of tests with loading
eccentricity up to 0.4 of the gyration ratio, which means
important influence of bending that would oblige beam-column
verification.
Thomasson’s tests [17] include the verification for highly
slender thin-walled sections. Although not frequent, these
sections allow validating the theoretical rules for a large range
of cross-section slenderness.
Mulligan tests [18] include a series of stub columns and long
columns failing by local–global buckling interaction. Only long
columns were taken in the present investigation.
Polyzois and Charnvarnichborikarn results [19] include stif-
fened and unstiffened Z-sections in concentric compression and
allowed improving the generalization of the theoretical rules.
From the original tested columns only those indicating local
buckling mode were considered. All specimens displaying distor-
tional buckling according with the design calculation rules—stif-
fened Z sections with small lip stiffeners—were not considered in
the present investigation. In this condition from the original
complete set of 85 column tests, only 70 were included in the
present investigation, all of them displaying local–global buckling
interaction.
Batista’s experimental results were organized in four sets, Sets
#1, #2, #3 and #4, enhancing the best observation of the results
compared with the original presentation of these results [14,20].
Also, experimental results of Set #3 were discarded due to
excessive deviations for statistical computations.
For the sake of comprehension and appropriate correspon-
dence with each original published data, the tests specimens from
Batista are identified in Table 3, with the main properties that
characterize each group of tested cold-formed columns.
It is considered that all tests were performed respecting the
following rules: (i) the end conditions are free bending, almost in
the minimum bending plane for the case of flexural buckling and
in the maximum bending plane for the case of flexural–tortional
buckling; (ii) the end sections of the specimens touch directly the
template of the test machine, which means fixed warping
condition; (iii) the material was conveniently tested with
standard direct tensile specimens in order to measure the actual
yield stress of the steel fy; (iv) the ultimate compressive load was
conveniently recorded as the maximum load before unloading
path; (v) the position of the compressive resultant at the ends of
the column specimen was conveniently assured by reliable
means—in this case, procedures usually vary depending on the
experience and methods of each laboratory, in order to fit the
actual cross-section centroid with the axis of the test machine;
(vi) the length of the specimen, L, corresponds to the actual
buckling length, which must be achieved by coinciding the centre
of rotation of the templates with its touching surface—standard
test machines usually guarantee this condition, which must be
assured in the case of special tests apparatus; (vii) local and global
geometrical imperfections eventually measured by some of the
authors were all considered respecting the maximum accepted
values of imperfection limitations defined for manufacturing of
cold-formed members and (viii) residual stresses taken as the
membrane stress after manufacturing process of the cold-formed
members, which usually present low values, are also considered
respecting the usual values found for both press braked and cold
rolled profiles.
Although apparently obvious, the above observations are
essential to give consistency and harmonize the present calcula-
tion process based on the experimental data, taken from several
different authors.
4. Calibration and reliability of the design methods
The results of the comparison between theoretical and
experimental compressive strength, Nth and Nexp, of the cold-
formed columns are analysed. These results are based on the

Table 2
Groups of experimental data and the main properties of the stiffened channels and Z-sections cold-formed columns.

Refs. Number of tests lp lc L (mm) fy (MPa) eo/imin Section type

Thomasson [17] 14 3.9–9.1 0.89–1.16 2690 379–475 0 SC

Mulligan [18] 13 1.9–3.0 0.47–1.07 1600–3076 219–244 0 SC
Loughlan [16] 13 1.4–3.4 0.51–1.04 1219–1829 233–242 0–0.09 SC
Batista [14] 33 0.5–2.0 0.98–1.57 1543–4241 376–397 0 SC
Polyzois [19] 70 1.4–3.4 0.31–0.81 457, 610 and 1219 324 and 359 0 SZ and UZ

Table 3
Identification of the groups of experimental data from Batista [14,20].

Experimental set Number of tests lp lc L (mm) fy (MPa) eo/imin Global buckling mode

Set #1 12 0.5–1.5 1.28–2.00 2362–4241 376–397 0 Flex.-tortional

Set #2 12 1.5–2.0 0.99–1.53 1543–2563 376–397 0 Flexural
Set #3 15 0.5–1.0 1.00–1.15 1294–1635 360–397 0 Flexural
Set #4 9 1.5–2.0 0.98–1.48 2114–3553 376–397 0 Flexural
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231 1223

Table 4
Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results, Nexp/Nth, for the EWM.

Experimental data EWM, 1S EWM, 2S

Refs./ type of section Number of tests EC3 buckling curve b AISI buckling curve EC3 buckling curve b AISI buckling curve

M 0.85 1.01 0.59 0.53

SD 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.05
Thomasson [17] SC 14 VP 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10
g 1.12 1.14 1.18 1.18

M 0.95 1.21 0.93 1.08

SD 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.08
Mulligan [18] SC 12
VP 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.08
g 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.15

M 1.21 1.30 1.17 1.40

SD 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.05
Batista, #1 [14] SC 12
VP 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.04
g 1.14 1.18 1.12 1.11

M 1.11 1.38 0.98 1.29

SD 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09
Batista, #2 [14] SC 12 VP 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07
g 1.14 1.12 1.14 1.14

M 1.02 1.30 0.91 1.23

SD 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.11
Batista, #4 [14] SC 9
VP 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.09
g 1.22 1.18 1.19 1.16

M 1.02 1.22 0.92 1.08

SD 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.34
All results SC 59
VP 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.31
g 1.23 1.20 1.43 1.64

M 0.82
SD 0.12
Polyzois [19] UZ and SZ 70 VP 0.15
g 1.22

mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation, respectively,
M, SD and VP, and the resistance global partial factor g computed
according to the Brazilian rules [10]—the same as the AISI
prescriptions [5]. The global partial resistance factor was
calculated based on Eq. (19):
g ¼ 1=1:5X M X F expðb0 ðV 2M þ V 2F þ C P V 2P þ 0:044Þ0:5 Þ
where XM and XF are the mean factors for material and fabrication,
respectively, equal to 1.1 and 1.0, VM and VF are the coefficients of
variation for material and fabrication, respectively, 0.10 and 0.05,
VP is as already defined above and it is taken not less than 6.5% in
computing Eq. (19), CP is the correction factor according with the
number of tests and b0 is the target reliability index, taken equal
to 2.5.
For each experimental set, results of the experimental–theore-
tical ratio Nexp/Nth with deviation larger from 15% from the mean
value were discarded.
4.1. Results for the effective width method
considerable improvement in the final results and (ii) it implies
useless sophistication in the calculation procedure.
Table 4 resumes the calculated results of the strength ratio
Nexp/Nth according to the EWM. Types of cross-sections are
idicated as follows: SC—stiffened channel; SZ—stiffened Z and
UZ—unstiffened Z.
(19) Figs. 2 and 3 present the relation between experimental and
EWM theoretical results, respectively, for 1S and 2S procedures,
and include all experimental tests of stiffened channel columns in
a parametric presentation, Nexp/Ny vs. Nth/Ny, where Ny ¼ Afy is the
theoretical plastic compressive load—squash load. In these figures
we also have the mean value-line M and the mean value affected
by the calculated resistance factor computed by Eq. (19), M/g.
Also, the graphics shows the ‘‘best result’’ line, for which
Nth ¼ Nexp.
In order to check the influence of the local and global buckling
modes in the above results, Figs. 4 and 5 show how the
experimental–theoretical ultimate loads ratio Nexp/Nth varies as a
function of lp and lc, respectively, for the cases of 1S and 2S.
These results indicate that:

As stated before, the EWM was calibrated with the following

variations: (i) European column buckling curve b or c and
American AISI buckling curve; (ii) one-step and two-steps
computation, 1S and 2S, as previously described and presented
in Table 1.
The proposed rule to perform thin-walled section compressive
strength found in EC3 [13] was not achieved in the present
investigation. The reason is that, in our point of view, the
obligation to transfer the compressive load to the centroid of
the effective area is not useful because (i) it does not bring
(a) The higher the local buckling slenderness lp the lower the
ultimate load ratio Nexp/Nth (Figs. 4a and 5a). This tendency
clearly indicates the influence of cross-section slenderness in
the theoretical value of the column strength when EWM is
applied.
(b) Option 1S is not strongly affected by higher values of lp,
even those above 4.0 (see Fig. 4a), where the final results
could be mentioned as safe and acceptable (see also
Thomasson’s tests results in Fig. 2a and b). Equivalent results
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1224 E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231

0.70
Nexp/Ny
0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 EWM, 1S.

Europ. curve b.
M=1.02
0.20 Vp=0.15
γ =1.23
0.10

Nth/Ny
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson
Mulligan Nth=Nexp M M / Resit. factor

0.70
Nexp/Ny

0.60

0.50

0.40

EWM, 1S.
0.30
Amer. curve.
M=1.22
0.20 Vp=0.13
γ =1.20

0.10

Nth/Ny
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson
Mulligan Nth=Nexp M M / Resist. factor

Fig. 2. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of stiffened channel columns, with the EWM in 1S procedure: (a) adopting the European
buckling curve b and (b) adopting the American buckling curve.

from those of Fig. 4a were found for the application of the
American buckling curve instead of the European buckling
curve b.
(c) Option 2S on the other hand promotes excessive degradation
of the strength ratio Nexp/Nth for the case of very slender cross-
sections. This is so because additional calculation of the
column slenderness lc affected by the reduced effective area
Aeff finally gives a very high theoretical ultimate load Nth
compared to experimentally observed values. From the
available results it could be pointed that this effect was
detected for sections with lp above 4.0 in Fig. 5a, for which we
have unsafe results, as can be also confirmed in Fig. 3a and b
for the case of Thomasson’s tests.
(d) The column slenderness lc is not a major factor for the quality
of the theoretical results, as can be confirmed by observing
Figs. 4b and 5b.
(e) Higher loads ratio Nexp/Nth were observed when the American
curve is applied. Although the American version of the
column buckling curve is particularly higher than the
European curve b for slenderness lc ranging from about 0.9
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231 1225

0.7
Nexp/Ny
0.6

0.5

0.4

EWM, 2S.
0.3
Eur. Curve b.
M= 0.92
0.2 Vp= 0.24
γ = 1.43
0.1

Nth/Ny
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson
Mulligan Nth=Nexp M M / Resist factor

0.70
Nexp/Ny

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 EWM, 2S.

Amer. curve.
M= 1.08
0.20 Vp= 0.31
γ = 1.64
0.10

Nth/Ny
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson

Mulligan Nth=Nexp M M / Resist factor

Fig. 3. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of stiffened channel columns, with the EWM in 2S procedure: (a) adopting the European
buckling curve b and (b) adopting the American buckling curve.

to 1.7 (wAISI/wEC341.08), the consequence is the reduction of
the theoretical value of the strength Nth for thin-walled
sections, because of the application of the Winter equation
(Eq. (1)) with higher values of s ¼ wfy in Eq. (2) (where s
replaces fy, as already mentioned).
The following remarks can be made from the above presented
results for the EWM applied to stiffened channel columns:
 Procedure 1S indicated better agreement with experimental
results. All the experimental–theoretical comparisons resulted
safe, including those related to more slender sections, with
lpX4.0.
 Procedure 2S turned out to be unsafe for the case of very
slender sections, i.e. as those with lpX4.0.
 The choice of the European buckling curve b resulted in mean
value M closer to 1.0 than the American option for the EWM
with 1S procedure, according with Fig. 2a and b: mean value of
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1226 E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231

1.60
Nexp/Nth EWM, 1S.
1.40
Europ. curve b.
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
λp = (Ny/Nl)0.5
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson Mulligan

1.60
Nexp/Nth
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80 EWM, 1S.
Europ. curve b.
0.60
0.40
0.20
λc = (Ny/Ne)0.5
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson Mulligan

Fig. 4. Sensitivity of the experimental–theoretical ultimate load ratio of stiffened channel columns related to the EWM with 1S procedure: (a) effect of the local buckling
slenderness lp and (b) effect of the global buckling slenderness lc.

1.60
1.40 EWM, 2S.
1.20 Amer. curve.
1.00
Nexp/Nth
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
λp = (Ny/Nl)0.5
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson Mulligan

1.60
Nexp/Nth
1.40
1.20
1.00 EWM, 2S.
0.80 Amer. curve.
0.60
0.40
0.20
λc = (Ny/Ne)0.5
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4 Thomasson Mulligan

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of the experimental–theoretical ultimate load ratio of stiffened channel columns related to the EWM with 2S procedure: (a) effect of the local buckling
slenderness lp and (b) effect of the global buckling slenderness lc.
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231 1227

1.00 0.7
Nexp/Ny EWM, 1S. Nexp/Ny
Amer.curve.
M=0.82 0.6
0.80 Vp=0.15
γ=1.22 0.5
0.60
0.4

0.40 0.3 DSM.

M= 1.05
Vp= 0.12
0.2
0.20 γ= 1.18

0.1
Nth/Ny
0.00 Nth/Ny
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
SZ L=457 SZ L=610 SZ L=1219
UZ L=457 UZ L=610 UZ L=1219 Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4
Nth = Nexp Mean M / Resist. factor Thomasson Mulligan Loughlan
Nth=Nexp M M / Resist factor
Fig. 6. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of
Z-section columns, with the EWM with 1S procedure, adopting the American Fig. 7. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of
buckling curve (SZ and UZ counts, respectively, for stiffened and unstiffened Z- channel columns, with the DSM from the American AISI code [5].
sections).

Nexp/Nth, respectively, equal to 1.02 and 1.22. The reason for this 1.00
was explained in the above observation e.
Nexp/Ny
 Finally, if we take the EWM 1S procedure the computed
resistance partial factor yields g ¼ 1.23 and 1.20, respectively, 0.80
for the case of the European buckling curve b and the American
curve. These results appear to be more restrictive then those
proposed in various codes and specifications: g ¼ 1.0 in the 0.60
EC3 [13], g ¼ 1.18 (or f ¼ 1/g ¼ 0.85) in the American
DSM
specification [5], g ¼ 1.10 in the Brazilian code [10] and Z-sections
g ¼ 1.18 in the Australian/New Zealand standard [7]. 0.40 M=0.92
Vp=0.12
For the case of Z-section columns only 1S effective width option γ=1.19
0.20
was tested, as can be observed in Table 4. This is so because of the
inaccurate results obtained with the EWM 2S procedure for the
Nth/Ny
stiffened channel-section columns, as presented and commented
0.00
above. Also, in this case only the American buckling curve was 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
tested. Fig. 6 shows the comparison between experimental and
theoretical results for the Z-section columns. SZ L=457 SZ L=610 SZ L=1219
UZ L=457 UZ L=610 UZ L=1219
The results for Z-section columns indicate relatively high but
Nth = Nexp Mean Mean/Resist factor
acceptable dispersion and a computed resistance partial factor
equal to 1.22 which approximately converges to the previously Fig. 8. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of
computed value for the channel-section columns. The same Z-section columns, with the DSM from the American AISI code [5].
comments of the channel column results could be addressed to
these ones of Z-section columns, confirming that the resistance (remember that only local—global buckling interaction,
partial factors of several codes and specifications appear to be distortional buckling excluded). The computed resistance factor
slightly unsafe when EWM is used. gives g ¼ 1.19, converging to the proposed value found in the
American specification.

4.2. Results for the direct strength method

The results obtained by applying the DSM theoretical rules are
shown in Fig. 7, for all the test results of channel columns
previously referred in Table 2. As expected, these results
confirmed good agreement between theoretical and
experimental ultimate compressive loads, since the DSM has
been extensively calibrated [6]. Also, these results confirmed that
the computed resistance factor g ¼ 1.18, which corresponds to the
resistance factor adopted in the AISI specification [5] (f ¼ 0.85),
offers comfortable safety level for the DS design method.
Fig. 8 shows the results of the comparison of the DSM with
experimental results of Z-section columns referred in Table 2
4.3. Results for the effective area method
The application of the EAM was made with two options, for the
channel-section columns: (i) with the American buckling curve
and (ii) with the European bucking curve b. Table 5 shows the
obtained results of the strength ratio Nexp/Nth.
The results of the tests with Z-section columns were compared
only with the theoretical solution based on the American buckling
curve.
Fig. 9 shows the parametric results of the comparison between
theoretical and experimental compressive strengths for all the
tests with channel-section columns. From these results it is clear
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1228 E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231

Table 5 5. Integrated procedure for effective width and direct method

Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results, Nexp/Nth,
for the EAM.
The separate format in which the effective width and the direct
Experimental data Effective area method, EAM strength methods are usually displayed in design codes and
specifications reflects the deep difference of these two methods.
Refs./type of section Number EC3 buckling curve b AISI This difference originates in the basic assumptions: the EWM is
of tests buckling
based on approximate empirical procedures to solve the funda-
curve
mental problem of the elastic buckling folded plates and the DSM
Thomasson [17] SC 14 M 0U90 0.92 is based in the actual folded plate buckling behaviour, which is
SD 0U07 0.07 solved with the help of recent available computational tools, e.g.
VP 0U08 0.07 the free-access programs CUFSM and GBTUL. On the other hand,
g 1U14 1.18
the obligation to access specialised computational tools to solve
Mulligan [18] SC 12 M 1.12 1.12 each local buckling problem for design purposes is not so easily
SD 0.08 0.09
incorporated in daily practice.
VP 0.07 0.08
g 1.14 1.14 In order to improve the applicability of DS method, one may
consider a possible integration of the design rules for compressed
Loughlan [16] SC 13 M 1.07 1.06
SD 0.09 0.08
members, including both EWM and DSM together in the same
VP 0.08 0.08 presentation, offering the choice to follow the EW or the DS, if the
g 1.15 1.15 later is described on the basis of the effective (reduced) area Aeff.
Batista, #1 [14] SC 12 M 1.17 1.06 In this way we could suppose an integrated step-by-step sequence
SD 0.11 0.12 for the calculation of the compressive strength of cold-formed
VP 0.09 0.12 columns, NcR, as described in Table 6, based on the original EW, DS
g 1.16 1.20
and EA methods as presented before in Sections 2.2–2.4. Table 6
Batista, #2 [14] SC 12 M 1.06 0.98 right column shows the complete procedure of the AISI version of
SD 0.07 0.07 the DSM expressed in terms of the effective area, for the case of
VP 0.07 0.07
local–global buckling interaction. In order to contrast both
f 1.14 1.14
methods, the left column of the same table shows how the
Batista, #4 [14] SC 9 M 1.01 0.94
EWM is applied for usual calculation of the column strength.
SD 0.09 0.08
VP 0.09 0.09 In fact, as can be confirmed in Table 6, the option to follow a
g 1.16 1.16 DS-based method or the EWM is simply defined by the choice to
All results SC 72 M 1.05 1.02
compute the effective area Aeff following the effective width
SD 0.12 0.11 formulation or the direct way with the help of computational
VP 0.11 0.10 results for the cross-section local buckling critical load N‘.
g 1.18 1.16 It is important to point out that the inclusion of the
Polyzois [19] UZ and SZ 70 M 1.05 distortional buckling only adds additional computation of its
SD 0.15 associated compressive resistance load, Ncdist, for both EW or DS
VP 0.14 methods and no interaction with local and global buckling modes
g 1.23
is considered (almost until now).
Additionally, in order to avoid obligation to access computa-
tional tools for each column member design, for the case of usual
cold-formed cross-section shapes one may directly access the
that, in the case of the present direct method and contrary to the minimum value of the critical local buckling compressive force N‘
EWM, the application of the American or European buckling with the help of Eqs. (20) and (21), the later defined by polynomial
curves gives rise to no considerable difference, regarding the regression of the computational results obtained with finite strip
statistical parameters, i.e., mean value M, coefficient of variation method [14]. These equations solve the problem of the local
Vp and resistance factor g. Also, the results indicate almost the buckling of the steel cold-formed cross-sections by hand calcula-
same accuracy as obtained with the DSM. tion of N‘, considering the following cold-formed shapes:
Fig. 10 shows the results of the comparison between unstiffened channels and Z’s (UC and UZ), stiffened channels
theoretical and experimental results for the Z-section columns, and Z’s (SC and SZ), rectangular tubular sections closed by
including both stiffened and unstiffened sections and excluding continuing welding (RHS) and racks:
all columns in which the design procedure indicated distortional
 2
buckling as the failure mode (stiffened Z-sections with small edge p2 E t
stiffeners D). N‘ ¼ k‘ A (20)
12ð1  u2 Þ bw
Once again, as for the case of stiffened channels, the results
obtained on the basis of the EAM are in good agreement with In Eq. (20), k‘ is the local buckling coefficient of the cross-
experiments, although relatively high variation resulted in a section, which can be computed by Eq. (21) with the polynomial
resistance partial coefficient g ¼ 1.23. In this case, for Z-section coefficients presented in Table 7 and Z ¼ bf/bw, where bf and bw
columns, and contrary to the case of channel columns, the EAM are, respectively, the cross-section flange and web widths (see
performance did not show important improvement in the Fig. 1), computed based on the cross-section centerline
statistical parameters compared with EWM. The reason for this dimensions. It can be shown by comparing the results of
is the fact that the experimental results present quite large Eq. (21) with finite strip computational results that the grade n
variability. of the polynomial solutions given in Table 7 results in accurate
One may conclude from these results that the EAM, as a direct values for k‘. These polynomial solutions for the k‘ factor are valid
method of design of thin-walled cold-formed compressed mem- for: (i) 0.1pZ ¼ bf/bwp1.0 and (ii) 0.1pD/bwp0.3. It is quite
bers, may be considered safe and accurate option for practical known that 0.1pD/bwp0.3 cover practical cold-formed cross-
design. section geometries. Additionally, for stiffened channels and Z’s, it
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231 1229

0.7
Nexp/Ny
0.6

0.5

0.4

EAM
0.3
Europ. curve b.
M= 1.05
0.2 Vp= 0.11
γ= 1.18

0.1

Nth/Ny
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4
Thomasson Mulligan Loughlan
Nth=Nexp M M / Resist factor

0.7

Nexp/Ny
0.6

0.5

0.4

EAM
0.3
Amer. curve.
M= 1.02
0.2 Vp= 0.10
γ= 1.16

0.1

Nth/Ny
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
Batista #1 Batista #2 Batista #4
Thomasson Mulligan Loughlan
Nth=Nexp M M / Resist factor

Fig. 9. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of stiffened channel columns, with the EAM for the case of application of: (a) the European
buckling curve b and (b) the American buckling curve.

can be proved that D/bwo0.1 usually gives distortional buckling Instead of computing the local buckling coefficient k‘ with
and D/bw40.3 results in unfavorable cross-section geometry with Eq. (21) one may also directly access its value with the help of
local buckling strongly affected by the edge stiffeners, resulting in Table 8. In this case, for the sake of simplicity, it is reasonable to
important reduction of the local buckling critical load N‘: admit linear interpolation to obtain quite accurate values for k‘.
Tabular solution can be considered a quite useful and comfortable
X
n
k‘ ¼ cj Zj (21) option to be included in code prescriptions. Cold-formed sections
0 other than those here presented can be easily included in both
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1230 E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231

1.00 Table 8
Local buckling coefficient k‘ for direct application.
Nexp/Ny

0.80 Section type

bf/bw UC and UZ SC and SZ RHS Rack

0.60 0.10 4.44 5.59 6.06 6.26

0.20 4.62 5.24 5.70 6.04
0.30 4.36 5.01 5.45 5.85
EAM
0.40 3.73 4.85 5.26 5.69
0.40 Z-sections
0.50 2.92 4.73 5.11 5.54
M=1.05
0.60 2.16 4.62 4.96 5.41
Vp=0.14
0.70 1.55 4.47 4.78 5.27
γ=1.23
0.20 0.80 1.12 4.26 4.54 5.11
0.90 0.77 3.94 4.20 4.94
Nth/Ny 1.00 0.38 3.48 3.72 4.73

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
SZ L=457 SZ L=610 SZ L=1219 columns, by including the two usual methods, effective width and
UZ L=457 UZ L=610 UZ L=1219 direct strength, in a single and unified presentation. This was
Nth = Nexp Mean Mean/Resist factor accomplished by combining the direct strength and the effective
area methods as originally proposed. The idea was to offer simple
Fig. 10. Results of the comparison between theoretical and experimental results of
Z-section columns, with the EAM combined with the American buckling curve. procedure to allow direct hand calculation for practical design,
almost avoiding for usual cold-formed shapes, manipulation of
computational programs for buckling analysis for usual sections and
Table 6 making it easy to bring direct strength principles to daily practice of
Step-by-step procedure for the design of cold-formed steel columns on the basis design. For sure this is applicable in the range of local–global
of: (i) the effective width or (ii) the direct strength method here expressed in terms
buckling interaction, without including distortional mode.
of the effective area concept.
Two different formulations were presented for DS-based
EWM, 1S [5] DSM [5], expressed in terms computation: (i) the DSM as it is included in Appendix 1 of the
of the EA concept AISI standard [5] and (ii) the EAM as originally proposed [14]. The
AISI formulation is based in modified Winter-type equations and
1. Compute Ne 1. Compute Ne and N‘
the EAM is based in the original Winter equation, both applied to
2. lc ¼ (Afy/Ne)0.5 2. lc ¼ (Afy/Ne)0.5 the complete cross-section. The comparison between theoretical
l2c 2 and experimental results for channel and Z-section columns
3. w ¼ ð0:658 Þ if lc p1:5 3. w ¼ ð0:658lc Þ if lc p1:5
indicated that both procedures, DSM and EAM, showed good
w ¼ (0.877/lc2) if lc41.5 w ¼ (0.877/lc2) if lc41.5
agreement with experiments, with computed resistance factor g
4. lp,i ¼ (wfy/scr‘) 4. lp ¼ (Afy/N‘) quite close and converging to the value proposed in the AISI
5. beff,i ¼ (1(0.22/lp,I))(1/lp,I)bi 5. Aeff ¼ A(1(0.15/lp0.8))1/lp0.8pA specification (g ¼ 1.18 or fc ¼ 1/g ¼ 0.85).
P A second very important goal was to verify the EWM as
6. Aeff ¼ itbeff,i+Ac 6. NcR ¼ wAefffy
included in usual codes and standards. The comparison of
7. NcR ¼ wAefffy theoretical and experimental results confirmed that effective
width method finally results in too much larger variation if
i plate elements of the cross-section.
compared with direct strength-based methods. This conclusion is
in agreement with those presented by Schafer [21].
Table 7 Another important issue of the present investigation was the fact
The polynomial coefficients ci of Eq. (21) for different shapes of cold-formed that the application of a two-steps EWM procedure, 2S, as described
columns. in Table 1, leads to unsafe results if the cross-section is more slender.
Because of this, the 2S procedure as found in the Brazilian code [10]
Section type c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6
and in the European EN1993 Part 1-3 [13], the later in combination
Unstiffened channel and Z 4.0 3.4 21.8 174.3 319.9 237.6 63.6 with EN1993 Part 1-1 [22] and regarding the columns classified as
Stiffened channel and Z 6.8 5.8 9.2 6.0 – – – class 4 (thin-walled section), should be modified to 1S rule, which
Rack 6.5 3.0 2.8 1.6 – – – showed appropriate results when compared to the experiments,
RHS 6.6 5.8 8.6 5.4 – – –
including those of very slender thin-walled sections. This conclusion
is unlike the usual and intuitive, perhaps naı̈ve-idea that the
equation and tabular solutions for k‘ after solving local buckling nonlinear effects produced by local–global buckling interaction of
with FS or GBT computational programs. compressed members could be captured by simply aggregating
Following the above-mentioned sequence of calculus one may additional steps of calculation by modifying the structural slender-
benefit from the accurate direct strength principles to define the ness. It is true that EWM is seen unsafe compared to the
column strength of usual cold-formed shapes by hand calculation experiments where the cross-section is more slender, as found in
addressed to local–global buckling interaction. Figs. 4a and 5a, and this is valid for both procedures 1S and 2S.
Nevertheless, what we observed in the results of Figs. 3a, b and 5a is
that the 2S procedure leads to unacceptable results for very slender
6. Final remarks cross-sections cases, because it is unsafe.
It is also clear from the presented results that the global partial
The main goal of the present investigation was to propose resistance factor proposed by different codes and standards in the
integrated procedure for the resistance of steel cold-formed case of the EWM does not strictly accomplish expected safety
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.M. Batista / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1218–1231
condition in the present case of local–global buckling interaction
of cold-formed columns. In fact, it appears that the global partial
resistance factor g should not be the same when applying direct
strength or effective width methods. Anyway, this must be taken
as a partial conclusion since we should have to incorporate results
of columns failing by distortional buckling in the analysis, in order
to verify the general value of the partial resistance factor.
Regarding the EWM specifications for local–global buckling
interaction found in the European code [13] it should be pointed
that the safety level is not the same as those found in other
standards [5,7,10], since the global partial resistance factor is
indicated as gM0 and gM1 ¼ 1.0 (gM0 for cross-section failure by local
or distortional buckling, gM1 for member global buckling,), which
was not confirmed by the present comparisons with experiments. In
our point of view, the main difference of the procedures found in the
European specification compared with the above-cited standards
would not justify this resistance factor: obligation to transfer the
cross-section centroid due to local buckling effects and, as a
consequence, to perform beam-column member design.
The direct hand calculation facilities proposed to make it easier
to apply the DS-based formulation can be addressed for any kind
of cold-formed section, since the local buckling mode can be
analysed before, with the help of computational programs, in
order to obtain the actual value of the local buckling coefficient k‘,
which can be represented in parametric format by means of a
simple equation or, more directly, by a table. After that the DSM
can be formulated based on the EAM scheme and included in an
integrated format with the traditional EWM. This proposition
would bring the direct strength method to the main part of the
code together with the usual EWM. This is the option adopted in
the draft version of the revision of the Brazilian code [23] and, we
hope, it will help designers to move to modern and accurate
design procedures such as the DSM. Finally, it should be pointed
that the same formulation proposed for columns was already
developed for cold-formed beams and included in the draft
version of the Brazilian code revision.
References
[1] von Kármán T, Sechler EE, Donnel LH. The strength of thin plates in
compression. Trans ASME 1932;54(APM 54–5):53.
1231
[2] Winter G. Strength of thin-walled compression flanges. Trans ASME 1947;112.
[3] EN 1993-1-5, Eurocode 3-Design of steel structures-Part 1-5: Plated structural
elements, 2005.
[4] DNV-RP-C201. Buckling strength of plated structures, Recommended practice.
Det Norske Veritas, 2002.
[5] AISI S100-2007. North American specification for the design of cold-formed
steel members. American Iron and Steel Institute, 2007.
[6] Schafer B, Pekoz T. Direct strength prediction of steel cold-formed members
using numerical elastic buckling solutions. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth
international specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures. Rolla, MO:
University of Missouri; 1988.
[7] AS/NZS 4600:2005. Cold formed steel structures. Australian/New Zealand
Standard, 2005.
[8] Schafer BW, Ádány S. Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members using
CUFSM: conventional and constrained finite strip methods. In: Eighteenth
international specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures, Orlando,
FL, October 2006.
[9] Bebiano R, Pina P, Silvestre N, Camotim D. GBTUL 1.0b—Buckling and
vibration analysis of thin-walled members, DECivil/IST, Technical University
of Lisbon, 2008. /http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/gbtS.
[10] ABNT NBR 14762. Dimensionamento de estruturas de ac- o constituı́das por
perfis formados a frio. Associac- ão Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, 2001.
[11] ABNT NBR 8800. Projeto de estruturas de ac- o e de estruturas mistas de ac- o
e concreto de edifı́cios. Associac- ão Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, 2008.
[12] Silvestre N, Dinis PB, Camotim D. DSM design against local/distortional
interactive buckling. In: 5th European conference on steel and composite
structures. Graz, 2008. p. 1569–74.
[13] EN 1993-1-3, Eurocode 3-Design of steel structures-Part 1-3: General rules-
Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting, 2006.
[14] Batista EM. Étude de la stabilité des profils à parois minces et section ouverte
de types U et C. Collection des publications de la Faculté des Sciences
Appliquées no. 119, University of Liege, 1989.
[15] Batista EM, Rondal J, Maquoi R. Column stability of cold-formed U and C
sections. In: Narayana R, editor. Steel structures, advances, design and
construction, 1987.
[16] Loughlan J, Rhodes J. The intective buckling of lipped channel columns under
concentric or eccentric loading. In: International conference on thin-walled
structures. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde; 1979.
[17] Thomasson P-O. Thin-walled C-shaped panels in axial compression. Swedish
Council for Building Research, Document D1, 1978.
[18] Mulligan GP. The influence of local buckling on the structural behavior of
singly-symmetric cold-formed steel columns. Department of Structural
Engineering, Cornell University, Report no. 83-1, 1983.
[19] Polyzois D, Charnvarnichborikarn P. Web-flange interaction in cold-formed
steel Z-section columns. J Struct Eng 1993;119(9):2607–28.
[20] Batista EM. Essais de profiles C et U en acier pliés à froid. Laboratoire de
Stabilité des Constructions, University of Liege, Rapport no. 157, 1987.
[21] Schafer BW. Review: the direct strength method of cold-formed steel
members design. J Construct Steel Res 2008;64:766–78.
[22] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3-Design of steel structures-Part 1-3: General rules
and rules for buildings, 2005.
[23] ABNT NBR 14762. Dimensionamento de estruturas de ac-o constituı́das por
perfis formados a frio. Revision draft version no.4, January 2009.