Australian Demand For Pre-Fabricated Metal PDF

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the
New Built-up LiteSteel Beams
By
Sivapathasunderam JEYARAGAN
Faculty of Environmental and Engineering

School of Urban Development
Queensland University of Technology
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENTS

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
NOVEMBER 2009
KEYWORDS
LiteSteel beams, Back to back section, Built-up beams, Lateral distortional buckling,
Lateral buckling tests, Finite element analyses (FEA), Contact modeling, Cold-
formed steel structures, Flexural members, Web stiffeners, Transverse web stiffeners.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams ii

ABSTRACT
LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is a new cold-formed steel beam produced by OneSteel

Australian Tube Mills. The new beam is effectively a channel section with two
rectangular hollow flanges and a slender web, and is manufactured using a combined
cold-forming and electric resistance welding process. OneSteel Australian Tube
Mills is promoting the use of LSBs as flexural members in a range of applications,
such as floor bearers. When LSBs are used as back to back built-up sections, they are
likely to improve their moment capacity and thus extend their applications further.
However, the structural behaviour of built-up beams is not well understood. Many
steel design codes include guidelines for connecting two channels to form a built-up
I-section including the required longitudinal spacing of connections. But these rules
were found to be inadequate in some applications. Currently the safe spans of built-
up beams are determined based on twice the moment capacity of a single section.
Research has shown that these guidelines are conservative. Therefore large scale
lateral buckling tests and advanced numerical analyses were undertaken to
investigate the flexural behaviour of back to back LSBs connected by fasteners
(bolts) at various longitudinal spacings under uniform moment conditions.
In this research an experimental investigation was first undertaken to study the

flexural behaviour of back to back LSBs including its buckling characteristics. This
experimental study included tensile coupon tests, initial geometric imperfection
measurements and lateral buckling tests. The initial geometric imperfection
measurements taken on several back to back LSB specimens showed that the back to
back bolting process is not likely to alter the imperfections, and the measured
imperfections are well below the fabrication tolerance limits. Twelve large scale
lateral buckling tests were conducted to investigate the behaviour of back to back
built-up LSBs with various longitudinal fastener spacings under uniform moment
conditions. Tests also included two single LSB specimens. Test results showed that
the back to back LSBs gave higher moment capacities in comparison with single
LSBs, and the fastener spacing influenced the ultimate moment capacities. As the
fastener spacing was reduced the ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSBs
increased.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams iii
Finite element models of back to back LSBs with varying fastener spacings were
then developed to conduct a detailed parametric study on the flexural behaviour of
back to back built-up LSBs. Two finite element models were developed, namely
experimental and ideal finite element models. The models included the complex
contact behaviour between LSB web elements and intermittently fastened bolted
connections along the web elements. They were validated by comparing their results
with experimental results and numerical results obtained from an established
buckling analysis program called THIN-WALL. These comparisons showed that the
developed models could accurately predict both the elastic lateral distortional
buckling moments and the non-linear ultimate moment capacities of back to back
LSBs. Therefore the ideal finite element models incorporating ideal simply supported
boundary conditions and uniform moment conditions were used in a detailed
parametric study on the flexural behaviour of back to back LSB members.
In the detailed parametric study, both elastic buckling and nonlinear analyses of back
to back LSBs were conducted for 13 LSB sections with varying spans and fastener
spacings. Finite element analysis results confirmed that the current design rules in
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) are very conservative while the new design rules
developed by Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a) for single LSB members were also
found to be conservative. Thus new member capacity design rules were developed
for back to back LSB members as a function of non-dimensional member
slenderness. New empirical equations were also developed to aid in the calculation of
elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of intermittently fastened back to back
LSBs. Design guidelines were developed for the maximum fastener spacing of back
to back LSBs in order to optimise the use of fasteners. A closer fastener spacing of
span/6 was recommended for intermediate spans and some long spans where the
influence of fastener spacing was found to be high.
In the last phase of this research, a detailed investigation was conducted to

investigate the potential use of different types of connections and stiffeners in
improving the flexural strength of back to back LSB members. It was found that
using transverse web stiffeners was the most cost-effective and simple strengthening
method. It is recommended that web stiffeners are used at the supports and every
third points within the span, and their thickness is in the range of 3 to 5 mm
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams iv

depending on the size of LSB section. The use of web stiffeners eliminated most of
the lateral distortional buckling effects and hence improved the ultimate moment
capacities. A suitable design equation was developed to calculate the elastic lateral
buckling moments of back to back LSBs with the above recommended web stiffener
configuration while the same design rules developed for unstiffened back to back
LSBs were recommended to calculate the ultimate moment capacities.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams v

PUBLICATIONS
Refereed International Conference Papers
1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009). Flexural Moment Capacity Design

Rules for Built-up LiteSteel Beams, To be presented at the 6th International
Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, Hong Kong, 16-18 Dec.
2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2008a). Experimental Investigation of the

New Built-up LiteSteel Beams, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Thin-Walled Structures, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 433 - 442.
3. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2008b). Flexural Behaviour and Design

of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams, Proc. of 19th International Specialty
Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures, Missouri, USA, pp. 357 - 376.
4. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2008c). Numerical Modeling and Design

of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams, Proc. of the 5th International Conf. on
Coupled Instabilities in Metal Structures, Sydney, Australia, pp. 359 366.
QUT Conference Papers
1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2007). Flexural Behaviour of the New

Built-up LiteSteel Beams, BEE Postgraduate Research Conference on Smart
Systems: Technology, Systems and Innovation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009). Lateral Distortional Buckling

Design Rules for Back to Back LiteSteel Beams, 3rd BEE Postgraduate
Research Conference on Smart Systems: Technology, Systems and
Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
QUT Research Reports
1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009a). Experimental Studies of the

Flexural Behaviour of Back to Back LiteSteel Beams, Research Report,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams vi

2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009b). Development and Validation of
Finite Element Models of Back to Back LiteSteel Beams, Research Report,
3. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009c). Parametric Studies and

Development of Design Rules for Back to Back LiteSteel Beams, Research
Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
4. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009d). Development of Design Rules for

Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB
Members, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
5. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009e). Development of Suitable Strength

Improvement Methods for Back to Back LSB Members, Research Report,
Proposed International Journal Papers (to be submitted by Jan 10)
1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010a). Lateral Buckling Tests of the

New Built-up LiteSteel Beams, Journal of Construction Steel Research.
2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010b). Finite Element Modelling and

Validation of Back to Back LiteSteel beams, Engineering Structures.
3. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010c). New Design Rules for Back to

Back LiteSteel Beams as Flexural Members, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering.
4. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010d). Innovative Strength Improvement

Methods for Back to Back LSB Flexural Members, Thin-walled Structures.
5. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010e). Design Rules for Elastic Lateral

Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB Members Connected by
Intermittent Fasteners, Thin-walled Structures.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Keywords ii
Abstract iii
Publications vi
Table of Contents viii
List of Figures xiv
List of Tables xxv
Statement of Original Authorship xxix
Acknowledgments xxx
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1-1

1.1 General..1-1
1.2 LiteSteel Beam..1-1
1.3 Manufacturing Process..1-2
1.3.1 Roll Forming Process.1-2
1.3.2 Press Braking Process1-3
1.3.3 LSB Manufacturing Process..1-3
1.4 Mechanical and Material Properties..1-4
1.5 Shapes and Dimensions of LSBs...1-5
1.6 Applications of Single LiteSteel Beams................1-6
1.7 Applications of Cold-formed Built-up Steel Beams.1-8
1.8 Research Problem..1-9
1.9 Research Objectives and Scope ..1-12
1.10 Thesis Contents....1-13
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 2-1

2.1 General.. 2-1
2.2 Characteristics of Cold-formed Steel Members ...................2-1
2.2.1 Cold-formed Steel Design Standards.2-2
2.2.2 Special Design Criteria of Flexural Members ...2-3
2.3 Cold-formed Hollow Flange Sections........2-8
2.4 LiteSteel Beams.......2-10
2.4.1 Behaviour of LiteSteel Beams..........2-11
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams viii
2.4.2 Experimental Testing....2-13
2.4.3 Finite Element Analysis.2-19
2.4.4 Design Procedures for LiteSteel Beams2-21
2.5 Past Research on Cold-formed Built-up Beams......2-27
2.6 Past Research on Other Built-up Sections...2-46
2.7 Connection Systems 2-47
2.8 Design Guidelines for Cold-Formed Built-up Beams 2-49
2.8.1 Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) 2-49
2.8.2 British Standard BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998).. 2-51
2.8.3 European Recommendations for the Design of Light Gauge Steel
Members. 2-53
2.9 Literature Review Findings.2-56
CHAPTER 3 Experimental Studies of the Flexural Behaviour of Back to

Back LSB Sections 3-1
3.1 General 3-1
3.2 Section Geometry and Specimens 3-1
3.3 Test Program.3-6
3.4 Test Specimens 3-7
3.5 Initial Geometric Imperfection Tests..3-9
3.5.1 General...3-9
3.5.2 Test Devices and Procedure.. 3-9
3.5.3 Test Results and Discussion.3-10
3.6 Tensile Coupon Tests..3-14
3.6.1 General.3-14
3.6.2 Material Description3-14
3.6.3 Test Specimen Size and Fabrication3-16
3.6.4 Test Set-up and Procedure 3-17
3.6.5 Tensile Test Results and Discussion....3-19
3.7 Experimental Method..3-23
3.8 Test Set-up for Back to Back LSBs 3-24
3.8.1 Support System3-24
3.8.2 Loading System 3-26
3.8.3 Measurement System...3-28
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams ix

3.8.4 Test Procedure.3-29
3.8.5 Calculation of Applied Moment in Tests 3-30
3.9 Test Set-up for Single LSBs3-31
3.10 Results and Discussion for Single LSBs. 3-31
3.11 Results and Discussion for Back to Back LSBs. 3-34
3.11.1 Ultimate Moment Capacities and Deflections.3-34
3.11.2 Failure Mode3-36
3.11.3 Flange Separation 3-42
3.11.4 Moment versus Deflection Curves.. 3-44
3.11.5 Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves3-54
3.11.6 Load Distribution.3-58
3.12 Conclusions.3-59
CHAPTER 4 Finite Element Modelling and Validation of Back to Back LSB

Sections 4-1
4.1 General..4-1
4.2 Development of Finite Element Models.. 4-1
4.3 Experimental Model..4-2
4.3.1 Symmetry and Boundary Conditions.4-3
4.3.2 Loading Method.4-7
4.3.3 Fastener Modelling.4-8
4.3.4 Element Selection...4-8
4.3.5 Element Execution Details...4-18
4.3.6 Contact Simulation...4-19
4.3.7 Material Modelling.. 4-43
4.3.8 Initial Geometrical Imperfections 4-48
4.3.9 Residual Stresses. 4-50
4.3.10 Analysis Types.4-54
4.3.11 Multi-point Constraints4-80
4.3.12 Overconstraint Checks. 4-81
4.4 Experimental Model for Single LSB Sections4-85
4.5 Ideal Model. 4-88
4.5.1 Ideal Model of Back to Back LSB Members.. 4-88
4.5.2 Other Ideal Models.. 4-91
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams x

4.6 Calibration of Finite Element Models.4-93
4.6.1 Validation of Experimental Finite Element Models4-93
4.6.2 Validation of Ideal Finite Element Models4-107
4.7 Conclusion 4-111
CHAPTER 5 Parametric Studies and Development of Design Rules for Back

to Back LSB Sections 5-1
5.1 General..5-1
5.2 Elastic Buckling Analyses and the Results...5-1
5.2.1 Comparison with Corresponding Single LSB Members..5-17
5.3 Nonlinear Analyses and the Results5-25
5.3.1 Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfections on the Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSB Members..5-30
5.3.2 Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of
Back to Back LSB Members5-34
5.3.3 Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of
Back to Back LSB Members5-39
5.3.4 Comparison with Corresponding Single LSB Sections... 5-47
5.3.5 Buckling and Failure Modes of Back to Back LSB Members.5-56
5.3.6 Detrimental Effects of Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure in Back
to Back LSB Members.5-60
5.3.7 Effect of Contact Simulation on Ultimate Moment.5-62
5.3.8 Contact Behaviour between Individual LSBs..5-63
5.3.9 Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Deformed Shape5-65
5.3.10 Effects of Inadequate Fastener Spacings on the Buckling and Failure
Modes...5-71
5.3.11 Effect of Varying Fastener Spacing.5-71
5.4 Development of Design Rules5-80
5.4.1 Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Results...5-80
5.4.2 Review of the Current Design Rules... 5-83
5.4.3 Proposed Design Rules for Back to Back LSB Sections.5-88
5.4.4 Design Guidelines for Fastener Spacing..5-99
5.5 Conclusion 5-105
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xi

CHAPTER 6 Development of Design Rules for Elastic Lateral Distortional
Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB Members 6-1
6.1 General..6-1
6.2 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with
Continuous Connections...6-2
6.2.1 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments Obtained Using THIN-
WALL6-2
6.2.2 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments from Pi and Trahairs
(1997) Equations6-6
6.2.3 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments Based on Those of
Single LSB Members...6-12
6.3 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of Intermittently Fastened
Back to Back LSB Members...6-26
6.4 Conclusion.. 6-45
CHAPTER 7 Development of Suitable Strength Improvement Methods for

Back to Back LSB Members 7-1
7.1 General..7-1
7.2 Upper Limit of Back to Back LSB Configuration7-2
7.3 Strength Improvement Using Different Connection Methods..7-6
7.3.1 Spot Welding on Outside Flanges of Back to Back LSBs.7-7
7.3.2 Use of Brackets Connecting the Flanges. 7-10
7.3.3 Use of Side Plates Bolted to Web Elements of LSBs..7-12
7.4 Strength Improvement Using Web Stiffeners.7-15
7.4.1 Past Research...7-15
7.4.2 The Need for Web Stiffeners at the Support7-21
7.4.3 Optimum Web Stiffener Arrangements for Back to Back LSBs.7-27
7.4.4 Elastic and Nonlinear Analyses and the Results..7-45
7.4.5 Correlation of Elastic Buckling Moments of Stiffened Back to Back
LSBs with Unstiffened Back to Back LSBs7-50
7.5 Comparison with the Upper Limit of Back to Back LSB Configurations
.7-59
7.6 Conclusion.. 7-62
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xii
CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 8-1
8.1 Experimental Study into the Flexural Behaviour and Strength of Back to
Back LSBs.8-3
8.2 Finite Element Model Development and Validation of Back to Back LSBs
...8-4
8.3 Parametric Study and Development of Design Rules for Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSBs. 8-5
8.4 Development of Design Rules for Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling
Moments of Back to Back LSB Members 8-7
8.5 Development of Suitable Strength Improvement Methods for Back to Back
LSB Members... 8-7
8.6 Future Research.8-8
APPENDIX A A-1
APPENDIX B B-1
APPENDIX C C-1
APPENDIX D D-1
APPENDIX E E-1
APPENDIX F F-1
REFERENCES R-1
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Building Composed of Cold-formed Steel Sections......1-1

Figure 1.2: LiteSteel Beam (LST, 2005)...1-2
Figure 1.3: Roll Forming Stages of a Z-Section Purlin (Hancock, 1998).....1-2
Figure 1.4: Press Brake Dies (Hancock, 1998)..... 1-3
Figure 1.5: Manufacturing Process of LiteSteel Beam Sections (LST, 2005) 1-4
Figure 1.6: LiteSteel Beam Applications.. 1-7
Figure 1.7: Built-up Beams... 1-8
Figure 1.8: Back to Back LSB Configuration...1-9
Figure 1.9: Lateral Distortional Buckling of Single LSBs......1-10
Figure 2.1: Local Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections...2-4
Figure 2.2: Distortional Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections.....2-6
Figure 2.3: Lateral Distortional Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections.....2-7
Figure 2.4: Lateral Torsional Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections....2-8
Figure 2.5: Hollow Flange Beam Section (Avery et al., 2000).....2-9
Figure 2.6: Lateral Buckling Modes (Avery et al., 2000).......2-10
Figure 2.7: Local Buckling Mode of LSB Sections2-12
Figure 2.8: Lateral Distortional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections......2-13
Figure 2.9: Lateral Torsional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections.... .2-13
Figure 2.10 Typical Stress-Strain Curves of the Base Steel Used in LSB Sections.
..2-14
Figure 2.11: Residual Stress Model of LSB Sections...2-15
Figure 2.12: Overall View of Test Rig (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c)..2-16
Figure 2.13: Support System (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c).....2-17
Figure 2.14: Loading System (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c)2-18
Figure 2.15: Schematic View of the Section Capacity Test Set-up..2-19
Figure 2.16: Ideal Model (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005b)...2-20
Figure 2.17: Experimental Model (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005b). ....2-20
Figure 2.18: Overall View of Test Rig Used by Scully (2005).2-28
Figure 2.19: Support and Loading Systems Used by Scully (2005)..2-28
Figure 2.20: Web Fastener Arrangement in the Ideal Finite Element Model of Back to
Back LSBs (Perren, 2005b)..2-30
Figure 2.21: CUFSM Finite Strip Models (Perren, 2005b)...2-31
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xiv
Figure 2.22: Modular Light-weight Cold-formed Beams (Di Lorenzo et al., 2006)
. 2-33
Figure 2.23: Test Specimens Used by Di Lorenzo et al. (2006).. 2-33
Figure 2.24: Test Set-up (Di Lorenzo et al., 2006).. 2-34
Figure 2.25: Finite Element Model of the MH MLC Beam (Landolfo et al., 2005)
. 2-35
Figure 2.26: I-Beam Made of Cold-formed Channels (Chen and Fang, 1992) 2-37
Figure 2.27: Battened Back to Back C-Sections Tested By Chen and Fang (1992)
. 2-39
Figure 2.28: Details of a Built-up Header Assembly (Bielat et al., 1997)... 2-40
Figure 2.29: Header Test Apparatus (Bielat et al., 1997) 2-40
Figure 2.30: Hat-shaped Composite Section (LaBoube et al., 1998)... 2-42
Figure 2.31: Arrangement of Connector Spacing (LaBoube et al., 1998)... 2-42
Figure 2.32: Box Beam under Edge Loading and the Test Specimen (Serrette, 2004)
. 2-43
Figure 2.33: Models of Loading System (Landolfo, 2004).. 2-45
Figure 2.34: Fasteners Used in Cold-formed Steel Construction. 2-48
Figure 2.35: Tensile Force Developed in the Top Connector for Back to Back C-
sections 2-50
Figure 3.1: Back to Back Configuration of LSBs.3-2
Figure 3.2: Different Buckling Modes of LSBs3-6
Figure 3.3: Assembling of Back to Back LSB Test Specimens3-8
Figure 3.4: Geometric Imperfection Measuring Equipment...3-10
Figure 3.5: Locations of Initial Imperfection Measurements..3-11
Figure 3.6: Measured Imperfections of Single 200451.6 LSB...3-12
Figure 3.7: Measured Imperfections of Back to Back 200451.6 LSB with Bolts at
Span/3...3-13
Figure 3.8: Tensile Test Specimens3-17
Figure 3.9: Test Set-up3-19
Figure 3.10: Specimen Labelling for Tensile Coupon Tests.3-20
Figure 3.11: Stress Strain Curves for the Web, Inside and Outside Flanges Elements
of LSB Sections3-21
Figure 3.12: Overhang Loading Method...3-23
Figure 3.13: Overall View of Test Rig..3-24
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xv

Figure 3.14: Support System.3-25
Figure 3.15: Loading System3-27
Figure 3.16: Measurement and Data Acquisition System.3-28
Figure 3.17: Deformed Shape of Test Specimen..3-30
Figure 3.18: Support and Loading Systems for Single LSB Section Tests...3-31
Figure 3.19: Deformation at Failure..3-32
Figure 3.20: Moment versus Deflections Curves for Single LSB Sections, 150451.6
LSB and 200451.6 LSB...3-33
Figure 3.21: Specimen Labelling for Lateral Buckling Tests...3-34
Figure 3.22: Web Distortion (WD) and Flange Rotation (FR).3-37
Figure 3.23: Deformations at Failure3-40
Figure 3.24: Deformation at Failure for 150451.6 LSB with CS of Span/1.... 3-40
Figure 3.25: Cross-section Deformation at Mid-span...3-41
Figure 3.26: Flange Separation in LSB Sections..3-43
Figure 3.27: Flange Separation and Sliding..3-44
Figure 3.28: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for different LSB
Sections.3-47
Figure 3.29: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for 125451.6 LSB
Sections.3-49
Sections.3-50
Sections.3-53
Figure 3.32: Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves for LSB Sections.... 3-58
Figure 3.33: Lateral Distortional Buckling Shape 3-59
Figure 4.1: Physical Model of Lateral Buckling Tests..4-2
Figure 4.2: Boundary Conditions at the Support and Mid-span of Experimental
Model..4-3
Figure 4.3: Unsymmetrical Local Buckling Behaviour about Z-axis...4-4
Figure 4.4: Unsymmetrical Global Buckling Behaviour about Y-axis.4-4
Figure 4.5: Load and Boundary Conditions for the Experimental Finite Element
Model..4-6
Figure 4.6: Loading Method Used in Experimental Tests and Corresponding
Simulation in Experimental Model.4-7
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xvi
Figure 4.7: Effect of Using Different Element Types in the Finite Element Modelling
of Back to Back 125452.0 LSB... 4-16
Figure 4.8: Comparison of Moment versus Lateral Displacement Curves for
Different Element Types...4-16
Figure 4.9: S4R5 ABAQUS Shell Element...4-17
Figure 4.10: Naming Convention for S4R5 Shell Element...4-17
Figure 4.11: Integration Point Numbering4-19
Figure 4.12: Example of Proper and Improper Master Surface Orientation
(HKS, 2007)..4-21
Figure 4.13: Surface Orientation of Back to Back LSB Finite Element Model4-21
Figure 4.14: Defined Surfaces Used in Contact Pair of the Experimental Model4-23
Figure 4.15: Surface with T-intersection Used as Master Surface4-23
Figure 4.16: Node-to-Surface Contact Discretization.. 4-24
Figure 4.17: Comparison of Moment versus Displacement Curves for 300753.0
LSB with Fastener Spacing of Span/6..4-28
Figure 4.18: Comparison of Number of Severe Discontinuity Iterations versus Time
Increment for 300753.0 LSB with Fastener Spacing of Span/6. .4-28
Figure 4.19: Establishing Anchor Point and Local Tangent Plane in Small-Sliding,
Node-to-Surface Formulation (HKS, 2007b)...4-29
Figure 4.20: Linear and Nonlinear Pressure-overclosure Relationships with Default
Settings.4-35
Figure 4.21: Moment versus Displacement Curves for Different Contact Constraint
Enforcement Methods...4-36
Figure 4.22: Geometric Imperfection of Web across the Depth...4-38
Figure 4.23: Comparison of Moment Capacity versus Initial Clearance Graphs for
200451.6 LSB Section. 4-39
Figure 4.24: Default Hard Contact Pressure-overclosure Relationship.4-40
Figure 4.25: Modified Hard Contact Pressure-overclosure Relationship..4-41
Figure 4.26: Contact Modelling for the Experimental Finite Element Model..4-43
Figure 4.27: Stress Strain Curves and Finite Element Material Models for
150451.6 LSB..4-47
Figure 4.28: Comparison of Nonlinear Responses for the Simplified Elastic-Perfect
Plastic Model and Stress-Strain Model with Strain Hardening4-48
Figure 4.29: Residual Stress Distribution Model for LSB Sections (Mahaarachchi and
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xvii
Mahendran, 2005b and Seo et al., 2008).. 4-51
Figure 4.30: Typical Residual Stress Distribution for LSB Sections4-53
Figure 4.31: Typical Unstable Static Response 4-58
Figure 4.32: Modified Riks Algorithm.4-59
Figure 4.33: Iterative Algorithm for Modified Riks Method4-60
Figure 4.34: First and Second Iterations in an Increment. 4-61
Figure 4.35: Flow Chart for Automatic Time Incrementation..4-63
Figure 4.36: Flow Chart for Convergence Check.4-67
Figure 4.37: Flow Chart for Convergence Check for Linear Increments in Nonlinear
Analysis 4-68
Figure 4.38: Plots for Discontinuities versus Severe Discontinuity Iterations. 4-71
Figure 4.39: Instability Behaviour in Post-Collapse Region.4-73
Figure 4.40: Nonlinear Moment Displacement Response for the Static Stabilize
Method..4-75
Figure 4.41: Effect of Artificial Damping on the Ultimate Solution4-76
Figure 4.42: Strain Energy (ALLIE, ALLSE and ALLSD) Variation during the
Analyses with Stabilize Method...4-77
Figure 4.43: Initial Contact Status of a Back to Back LSB Model...4-79
Figure 4.44: Contact Output in a Data File...4-80
Figure 4.45: Overconstraint Caused By Tie MPC and Boundary Conditions..4-83
Figure 4.46: Overconstraint Caused By Tie Constraint and Contact Interaction..4-84
Figure 4.47: Overconstraints Involving Normal Contact Interactions and Boundary
Conditions.4-85
Model of Single LSB Section...4-87
Figure 4.49: Load and Boundary Conditions Used in the Ideal Finite Element Model
..4-89
Figure 4.50: Contact Modelling Used in Ideal Model..4-90
Figure 4.51: Load and Boundary Conditions Used in the Doubly Thick Back to Back
Ideal Model...4-92
Figure 4.52: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Back to Back
200451.6 LSB Section with Fastener Spacing of Span/24-95
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xviii
Figure 4.56: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Single 200451.6
LSB Section..4-99
Figure 4.57: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Single 150451.6
LSB Section4-100
Figure 4.58: Comparison of Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves for the
Selected Back to Back LSB Sections. 4-101
Selected Single LSB Sections.4-102
Figure 4.60: Comparison of Deformed Shapes at Failure...4-104
Figure 4.61: Comparison of Flange Separation at Failure......4-106
Figure 4.62: Comparison of Finite Element Analyses (FEA) and THIN-WALL Elastic
Buckling Moment Capacities for Back to Back LSB Sections (BTB)
4-110
Figure 4.63: Comparison of Finite Element Analyses (FEA) and THIN-WALL Elastic
Buckling Moment Capacities for Doubly Thick Back to Back LSB
Sections (DB)..4-111
Figure 5.1: Elastic Buckling Moment Plots for Selected LSB Sections with Varying
Fastener Spacing.5-8
Figure 5.2: Reduction in Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of LSB Members with
Different Fastener Spacings with respect to that of Corresponding LSB
Members with Continuous Fastener Spacings..5-10
Figure 5.3: Reduction in Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of LSB Members with
Fastener Spacing of Span/6 with respect to the Corresponding LSB
Members with Continuous Connection5-12
Figure 5.4: Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of
LSBs with Varying Span Lengths 5-14
Figure 5.5: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Buckling Mode of LSBs... 5-15
Figure 5.6: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of Back to Back
LSB Members with Continuous Connections to that of Corresponding
Single LSB Members5-23
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xix
Figure 5.7: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Moment Ratio for Selected LSB
Sections with Varying Span..5-25
Figure 5.8: Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfection on the Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSB Sections5-33
Figure 5.9: Effects of Imperfection Direction on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of
LSBs (Imperfection = L/1000).5-33
Figure 5.10: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSB Members Obtained
with and without Residual Stresses for Varying Spans and Fastener
Spacing.5-37
Figure 5.11: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back
to Back LSB Sections with Continuous Connections...5-39
Figure 5.12: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Selected Back to Back
LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacings...5-41
Figure 5.13: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSB
Members with Varying Fastener Spacings...5-45
Figure 5.14: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacity Ratios for Back to Back LSBs
with Varying Fastener Spacings with respect to the Case of Span/2... 5-47
Figure 5.15: Variation in Moment Gain as a Function of Span and Fastener Spacing
.. 5-52
Members with that of Corresponding Single LSB Members... 5-54
Figure 5.17: Comparison of Moment Gain Based on the Level of Compactness of
LSB Section..5-55
Figure 5.18: Typical Failure Modes of Back to Back LSBs with an Intermediate Span
of 3 m5-57
Figure 5.19: Typical Failure Modes of Back to Back LSBs with a Long Span of 10 m
..5-58
Figure 5.20: Typical Failure Modes of Back to Back LSBs with a Short Span of 1 m
..5-59
Figure 5.21: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments (Mod and Mo)... 5-61
Figure 5.22: Comparison of the Effect of Lateral Distortional Buckling of Back to
Back and Single LSB Members 5-61
Figure 5.23: Comparison of Finite Element Models with and without Contact
Simulation.5-62
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xx

Figure 5.24: Comparison of Contact Separation Behaviour of LSB Sections with
Varying Fastener Spacings (Experimental Finite Element Model)..5-64
Varying Fastener Spacings (Ideal Finite Element Model)...5-64
Figure 5.26: Contact Separation Distribution across the Web of LSB.5-65
200451.6 LSB Members..5-66
300753.0 LSB Members..5-67
Figure 5.29: Comparison of Moment versus Relative Lateral Deflection Curves for
Back to Back 300753.0 LSB Members5-68
Figure 5.30: Comparison of Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves for Back to
Back 300753.0 LSB Members.5-68
Figure 5.31: Comparison of Moment versus Flange Level Difference Curves for Back
to Back 300753.0 LSB Members.5-69
Figure 5.32: Comparison of Moment versus Contact Separation Curves for Back to
Back 300753.0 LSB Members.5-69
Figure 5.33: Comparison of Stress Distribution at Failure for Back to Back
200451.6 LSB with Varying Fastener Spacings..5-70
Figure 5.34: Standard Fastener Arrangement...5-72
Figure 5.35: Fastener Location across the Web Height5-73
Figure 5.36: A Sample Fastener Configuration 5-74
Figure 5.37: Notation for Fastener Spacing Configuration...5-74
Figure 5.38: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back
300753.0 LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacing
Configurations (T)5-77
250753.0 LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacing
Configurations (C)5-79
Figure 5.40: Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Plot of Back to Back LSB Members
.. 5-81
Figure 5.41: Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Results of Back to Back LSB
Members Based on Fastener Spacing...5-81
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxi
Figure 5.42: Effects of Residual Stresses on Non-dimensional Member Capacity
Results...5-82
Figure 5.43: Non-dimensional Member Capacity Results of Back to Back LSB
Members Based on Section Compactness5-82
Figure 5.44: Comparison of Moment Capacities with AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and Pi and
Trahairs (1997) Predictions.5-85
Figure 5.45: Comparison of Moment Capacities with AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
Predictions5-87
Figure 5.46: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Anapayan and Mahendrans
(2009a) Predictions...5-88
Figure 5.47: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Predictions of Equations 5.8 (a)
to (c)..5-90
Figure 5.48: Comparison of Finite Element Analyses with Moment Capacities
Predicted by Equations 5.9 (a) and (b). 5-91
Figure 5.49: Comparison of Experimental Test and FEA Results with Moment
Capacities Predicted by Equations 5.8 (a) to (c)...5-92
Figure 5.50: Comparison of FEA Results of both Back to Back and Single LSBs and
Their Design Curves.5-93
Figure 5.51: Comparison of FEA Results of the Hollow Flange Beam Sections with
Equations 5.8 (a) to (c). 5-93
Figure 5.52: Scattered FEA Results of Back to Back LSBs.5-96
Figure 5.53: Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and Equations 5.12 (a) and
(b)..5-98
Figure 5.54: Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and Equations 5.13 (a) and
(b)..5-99
Figure 6.1: Back to Back Configuration of LSBs .................................................... 6-7
Figure 6.2: Second Moment of Area about the Minor Axis of Single LSB Section ......
.. 6-15
Figure 6.3: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from Finite Element Analyses,
Finite Strip Analyses and Equation 6.26.............................................. 6-26
Figure 6.4: Effects of Web Depth on the Buckling Moment Ratio........................ 6-32
Figure 6.5: Effects of Flange Rigidity on the Buckling Moment Ratio ................. 6-33
Figure 6.6: Effects of Thickness on the Buckling Moment Ratio .......................... 6-34
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxii
Figure 6.7: Buckling Moment Ratio versus Fastener Spacing Ratio Curves for
Varying Spans of LSB Section, 300753.0 LSB .............................. 6-35
Figure 6.8: Mean Values and Coefficients of Variation for All the LSB Sections 6-43
Figure 6.9: Comparison of Buckling Moment Ratios Obtained From Finite Element
Analyses and Equation 6.30................................................................. 6-44
Figure 7.1: Lateral Buckling Modes of Back to Back LSBs.7-2
Figure 7.2: Back to Back LSB with Double Web Thickness7-3
Figure 7.3: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with
Doubly Thick Web to those of Back to Back LSBs with Continuous
Connection and Fastener Spacing of Span/6..7-4
Figure 7.4: I-Beam Made of Cold-formed Channels (Chen and Fang, 1992).. 7-7
Figure 7.5: Back to Back LSBs Connected Using Spot Welding.7-8
Figure 7.6: Comparison of Buckling Modes of Back to Back 300753.0 LSBs with
Different Connections...7-10
Figure 7.7: Back to Back LSBs Connected Using C- shaped Brackets...7-11
Figure 7.8: Back to Back LSBs with Web Side Plates Connected from Outside
(WPO)...7-13
Figure 7.9: Effects of Web Side Plates on the Elastic Buckling Modes of Back to
Back 300602.0 LSBs 7-14
Figure 7.10: Back to Back LSBs with Web Side Plates between the Web Elements
(WPB)...7-15
Figure 7.11: Stiffener Configurations (Avery and Mahendran, 1997)..7-17
Figure 7.12: Web Stiffeners in Hollow Flange Beams (Mahendran and Avery, 1997)
..7-18
Figure 7.13: Web Stiffener Types (Kurniawan, 2005)..7-19
Figure 7.14: Flange Twist at Support (Kurniawan, 2005) 7-21
Figure 7.15: Schematic Diagrams of Ideal and Experimental FE Models7-22
Figure 7.16: Details of Experimental Finite Element Model of Back to Back LSB with
Web Stiffeners..7-23
Figure 7.17: Details of Different Web Stiffener Configurations in the Experimental
Finite Element Model of Back to Back LSB7-24
Figure 7.18: Effect of Flange Twist Restraint at the Support in an Experimental Finite
Element Model of Back to Back 300753.0 LSB with Span of 3 m
......................................................................................................7-26
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxiii
Figure 7.19: Load and Boundary Conditions of Ideal Finite Element Model of Back to
Back LSB with Web Stiffeners.7-27
Figure 7.20: Plate and Angel Type Stiffeners...7-28
Figure 7.21: Effects of Plates Stiffeners on the Elastic Buckling Modes of Back to
Back 300753.0 LSBs........................................................7-30
Figure 7.22: C Brackets and Box Stiffeners.. 7-31
Figure 7.23: Effects of Box Stiffeners on the Elastic Buckling Mode of Back to Back
300753.0 LSB.. 7-33
Figure 7.24: Transverse Web Stiffener Configuration with Additional Plates Welded
to Flanges (TWSP)... 7-34
Figure 7.25: Different Arrangements with Transverse Web Stiffeners7-36
Figure 7.26: Typical Failure Mode of Back to Back LSBs with and without Web
Stiffeners (Span of 3 m)7-49
Figure 7.27: Modw/Mo6 versus Span for Back to Back LSBs with Web Stiffeners
..7-55
Figure 7.28: Modw/Mo6 versus Member Slenderness for Back to Back LSBs with Web
Stiffeners...7-55
Figure 7.29: Comparison of Modw/Mo6 with Equation 7.3....7-56
Figure 7.30: Comparison of Non-dimensionalised Moment Capacities of Back to
Back LSBs with and without Web Stiffeners...7-56
Back 300753.0 LSBs with and without Web Stiffener7-57
Figure 7.32: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 7.4..7-59
Figure 7.33: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with
Doubly Thick Web and Web Stiffeners at a Spacing of Span/3 with those
of Back to Back LSBs with a Fastener Spacing of Span/6...7-61
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Mechanical Properties (LST, 2005)..1-5

Table 1.2: Material Properties (LST, 2005)....1-5
Table 1.3: LSB Section Dimensions (LST, 2005)..1-6
Table 2.1: Plate Buckling Coefficients (Hancock, 1998)...2-5
Table 3.1: LSB Section Dimensions (LST, 2005). 3-2
Table 3.2: Elastic Buckling Analysis Results 3-4
Table 3.3: Test Program. 3-7
Table 3.4: Average Measured Dimensions of LSB Sections used in Experiments... 3-8
Table 3.5: Measured Initial Geometric Imperfections of Out-of-Straightness and
Twist3-14
Table 3.6: Measured Thicknesses of LSB Sections. 3-16
Table 3.7: Tensile Test Results 3-22
Table 3.8: Experimental Test Results for Single LSBs3-32
Table 3.9: Experimental Test Results for Back to Back LSBs 3-34
Table 3.10: Comparison of Moment Capacities 3-35
Table 3.11: Specified Spacing Limits for Tested Specimens 3-44
Table 4.1: Comparison of Thick and Thin Conventional Shell Elements... 4-10
Table 4.2: Comparison of Finite-strain versus Small-strain Shell Elements... 4-10
Table 4.3: Summary of Selected Shell Elements. 4-13
Table 4.4: Convergence Study for Back to Back 125452.0 LSB 4-14
Table 4.5: Convergence Study for Back to Back 300753.0 LSB.... 4-14
Table 4.6: Summary of Connectivity Restrictions (HKS, 2007b)... 4-22
Table 4.7: Effect of Initial Clearance on the Moment Capacities 4-38
Table 4.8: Membrane Residual Stresses of LSBs (Seo et al., 2008)4-51
Table 4.9: Comparison of Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis and Experimental
Results. 4-94
Table 4.10: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments from Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) and THIN-WALL for Back to Back LSB Sections with
Continuous Connections... 4-108
Table 4.11: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments from Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) and THIN-WALL for Doubly Thick Back to Back LSB
Sections. 4-109
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxv
Table 5.1: Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB Members with Different
Fastener Spacings..5-3
Table 5.2: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Buckling Mode 5-16
Table 5.3: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Elastic Buckling Moment 5-17
Table 5.4: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments (BTBi versus Single LSB)...5-18
Table 5.5: Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSB Members with
Different Fastener Spacings5-26
Table 5.6: Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfection on the Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSB Sections.. 5-31
Table 5.7: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to
Back LSB Members with Continuous Fastener Connection.. 5-35
Table 5.8: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to
Back LSB Members with Fastener Spacing of Span/6...5-36
Table 5.9: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSB
Members with Varying Fastener Spacings (BTB6-3 and BTBC-6)...5-42
Table 5.10: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSB Members with
Varying Fastener Spacings (BTB2-2, BTB3-2, BTB4-2, BTB6-2 and
BTBC-2)....5-43
Table 5.11: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities (BTBi versus Single LSB)
.5-48
Table 5.12: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments (Mod and Mo).. 5-60
Table 5.13: Elastic and Ultimate Moment Capacities for Varying Fastener Location
across the Web Height 5-73
Different Fastener Spacing Configurations (T).. 5-75
Different Fastener Spacing Configurations (C).. 5-78
Table 5.16: Comparison of Experimental Test Results and Moment Capacities
Predicted by Equations 5.8 (a) to (c)...5-92
Table 5.17: Comparison of Maximum Short Spans of Back to Back LSBs Obtained
Based on FEA Results and Predictions by5-103
Table 5.18: Maximum Fastener Spacings for Varying Span Lengths Based on the
Developed Design Guidelines (Equations 5.15 (a) to (c)) 5-104
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxvi
Table 6.1: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from Finite Element Analyses
and THIN-WALL Analyses..6-4
Table 6.2: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments from Finite
Element Analyses and Pi and Trahairs Predictions... 6-10
Table 6.3: Comparison of Factors Obtained From THIN-WALL and Equation 6.24
.6-19
Table 6.4: Comparison of Factors Obtained From THIN-WALL and Equation 6.25
.6-20
Table 6.5: Comparison of Buckling Moment Ratios (fc) Obtained From Finite
Element Analyses and Equation 6.9... 6-22
Table 6.6: Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB Members with Different
Fastener Spacings6-28
Table 6.7: Comparison of Buckling Moment Ratios Obtained From Finite Element
Analyses and Equation 6.306-38
Table 7.1: Comparison of Moment Capacities (DB versus BTBC, BTB6).....7-5
Table 7.2: Effects of Spot Welding on the Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs
(SWC versus SFC)7-9
Table 7.3: Comparison of Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs..7-9
Table 7.4: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs
with Different Connections (BR+SFC versus SFC)... 7-12
Table 7.5: Effects of Using Web Side Plates Outside the Web Elements of Back to
Back LSBs on their Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities. 7-13
Table 7.6: Effects of Using Web Side Plates between the Web Elements of Back to
Back LSBs on their Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities. 7-15
Table 7.7: Effects of Web Stiffener Arrangement on Elastic Buckling Moments...7-25
Table 7.8: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with
Different Plate Stiffeners 7-29
Table 7.9: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with C
Brackets and Box Stiffeners7-32
Table 7.10: Effects of Attaching Plates to Flanges on the Elastic Buckling Moments of
Back to Back LSBs. 7-35
Different Web Stiffener Configurations. 7-37
Table 7.12: Effects of Using Plates Instead of Spot Welding on the Elastic Buckling
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxvii
Moments of Back to Back LSBs.7-39
Table 7.13: Effect of Stiffener Spacing on the Elastic Bucking Moments of Back to
Back LSBs with TWS Configuration..7-41
Table 7.14: Effect of Web Stiffener Thickness on the Elastic Buckling Moments of
Back to Back LSBs. 7-43
Table 7.15: Effect of Web Stiffener Thickness on the Elastic Buckling and Ultimate
Moments of Back to Back LSBs.7-44
Table 7.16: Elastic Buckling and Ultimate Moment Capacity Results of Back to Back
LSBs with Transverse Web Stiffeners at a Spacing of Span/3...7-46
Table 7.17: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with and
without Web Stiffeners... 7-47
Table 7.18: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs with
and without Web Stiffeners.7-48
Table 7.19: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of Back to
Back LSBs with Web Stiffeners and Corresponding Elastic Lateral
Torsional Buckling Moments..7-52
Table 7.20: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments Capacities (DB, TWS3 versus
BTB6)...7-62
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxviii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Sivapathasunderam Jeyaragan
Signed: __________________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________________
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor,

Professor Mahen Mahendran for his invaluable expertise, enthusiastic and patient
guidance, rigorous discussions and continuous support in many ways over the past
three and a half years. This study would not have been success to this level without
such assistance. I would also like to thank Dr. Jung Kwan Seo for his assistance and
experience and friendship during his postdoctoral study at QUT.
I would like to thank QUT and OneSteel Australian Tube Mills (OATM) and
Australian Research Council (ARC) for providing financial support to my research. I
would also like to thank Mr. Ross Dempsey, Manager - Research and Testing,
OneSteel Australian Tube Mills for his technical contributions, and his overall
support to the many different phases of this research project. Thanks also to the
School of Urban Development and the Faculty of Built Environment and
Engineering at QUT for providing the necessary facilities and technical support.
Many thanks to the structural laboratory staff members, particularly Mr. Arthur
Powell, Mr. Brian Pelin and Mr. Terry Beach for their assistance with operating the
equipment, fabrication and preparation of test set-up and specimens. Also many
thanks to staffs of high performance computing (HPC) and research support services
for providing necessary facilities and support with high performance computers and
relevant finite element packages. I would like to particularly thank Mr. Mark Barry
for his great help. He always tried to give me a quick response whenever I had
problems in using the HPC facilities.
I would like to express my appreciation to Prof. Ben Schafer, Dr. Chen Yang, Dr.
Dhamika Mahaarachchi, Prof. Yaip Telue, Dr. Yuan Aaron, Dr. K. S.
Wanniarachchi, Dr. Prasad Gudimetla and Dr. Jurgen Becque for their discussion
and advice. Thanks also to Dr. John Papangelis for his assistance with THIN-WALL
program. As a commencing postgraduate student and new to QUT and Brisbane I
was guided and benefited by senior postgraduate students, Dr. Thanuja Ranawaka,
Dr. Yasintha Bandulaheva and Mr. Win Kurniawan, who have now left QUT. It is
also my pleasure to thank my fellow post-graduate students, Mr. Prakash Kolarkar,
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxx
Ms. Nirosha Dolamune Kankanamge, Mr. Poologanathan Keerthan, Mr.
Tharmarajah Anapayan, Mr. Shanmuganathan Gunalan and Mr. Balachandren
Baleshan for their support and contribution to this research, and other postgraduate
students for their friendship at QUT. Without them QUT and Brisbane would have
been a dull place.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my parents and brothers,

particularly my father, for their blessings, providing endless support and
encouragement and beliefs in my abilities. My apologies to anyone who is not
acknowledged here.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xxxi
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 General
Cold-formed steel has become an increasingly integral part of the construction and
building industries (Figure 1.1) since the middle of the 20th century when design
procedures and codes were established to cater for its use. It has many advantages
over other materials including its light weight, high strength, high quality, protection,
cost-effective fabrication, accurate detailing, resistance, and non-combustibility.
Figure 1.1: Building Composed of Cold-formed Steel Sections

(Image from http://www.smorgonsteel.com.au/lsb [Accessed March 20, 2007])
Cold-formed steel can be split into two loosely-termed categories; sheeting and
decking type elements, and individual structural elements. The structural elements
can be subdivided into many forms and applications, one of which is the recently
introduced LiteSteel Beams (LSB).
1.2 LiteSteel Beam
LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is the new, innovative, cold-formed steel beam produced by
OneSteel Australian Tube Mill (OATM). The LSB has a unique shape and
manufacturing process which provides an extremely efficient strength to weight
ratio. It has a potentially wide range of applications in residential, commercial, and
industrial construction, and is on average 40% lighter than traditional hot-rolled
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams 1-1
structural sections of equivalent bending strength. Figure 1.2 illustrates the LSB
cross section and a typical use in construction.
Hollow
rectangular
flanges
Slender web
Figure 1.2: LiteSteel Beam (LST, 2005)
1.3 Manufacturing Process
Cold-formed steel sections are normally manufactured by either roll forming or press
braking. The process used is largely dependent on the complexity of the section
geometry, and the volume of the particular section required.
1.3.1 Roll Forming Process
The roll forming process consists of feeding a continuous strip of steel through a
series of rollers that progressively shape the section. Each roller plastically deforms
the section by an equal and fixed amount. The roll forming stages for a Z- Section
purlin is illustrated in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3: Roll Forming Stages of a Z-Section Purlin (Hancock, 1998)
In general the degree of complexity of the section dictates the number of rolling
stages required. The roll forming process achieves its economy by being able to
form section shapes in a fully automated process, however its application is limited
by the fact that a given roller configuration is unique to one section only. Hence roll
forming is particularly efficient for producing a large number of commercially
available standard section sizes.
1.3.2 Press Braking Process
The press braking process of manufacturing involves producing one complete fold at
a time along the full length of the section using brake press dies (Figure 1.4). Due to
its very nature, the process is labour intensive in terms of manual handling for
sections requiring multiple folds, and is therefore only economical for producing a
limited numbers of sections.
Figure 1.4: Press Brake Dies (Hancock, 1998)
1.3.3 LSB Manufacturing Process
The LSB is manufactured by roll forming from a single high strength steel strip on a
custom designed and built dual electric resistance welding mill similar to those used
for the manufacture of circular, square, and rectangular hollow sections. The main
difference between the two mills relate to the shape of the LSB and the fundamental
requirement of producing two complete penetration butt welds to close the flanges,
whereas the forming process of complete hollow sections (CHS, SHS, RHS) requires
only one butt weld to close the section.
The manufacturing process begins with the roll of base steel being uncoiled and
trimmed to width before being recoiled ready for roll forming. The trimmed and slit
strip of steel is then fed through a series of rollers which form the strip into the
hollow flange channel. The formed section is then passed on for welding, which is
carried out using the dual electric resistance welding process (DERW), and is then
cooled in a cooling trough. The welds are then assessed by means of non-destructive
testing, and are then sized and shaped to final dimensions by a series of rollers.
The final stages of manufacture involve final sizing and shaping, and the application
of a water-based primer to a thickness of between 18 and 24 microns. It has been
found to give superior protection to primers currently applied in-line to hollow
sections (LST, 2005: Section 2.5).
Figure 1.5: Manufacturing Process of LiteSteel Beam Sections (LST, 2005)
The completed LSB sections are then docked to length by an electronically guided
cut-off saw to standard lengths, and then bundled and stored ready for distribution.
The rolling process is illustrated in Figure 1.5.
1.4 Mechanical and Material Properties
The LSB is manufactured from base steel which has a yield stress (fy) equal to 380
MPa, and a tensile strength (fu) of 490 MPa. The cold-formed process enhances the
yield stress and tensile strength of the flanges of the LSB in the same way it does for
the rectangular hollow sections, producing a formed section which complies with the
requirements given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Mechanical Properties (LST, 2005)
Minimum Elongation
Minimum Yield Minimum Tensile as a proportion of
Location
Strength f y (MPa) Strength f u (MPa) Gauge Length of
5.65 so %
Web 380 490 14

Flanges 450 500 14
These values are monitored by testing in accordance with AS 1391 (SA, 1991) and
used by ATM to calculate the design capacities of the LSB members. In the case of
LSB, which is subject to significant cold-forming in the flange of the beam, an
increase of about 18% in terms of yield strength is achieved, but only a relatively
small gain of about 2% is available in terms of increased tensile strength. The
material strength of the web remain unchanged from the base steel due to little or no
cold working in the web region of the beam. The material properties of the base steel
can be found in Table 1.2 and are similar to those of standard hot-rolled steel
properties.
Table 1.2: Material Properties (LST, 2005)
Property Symbol Value

Elastic Modulus E 200 x 103 MPa
Shear Modulus G 80 x 103 MPa
Density 7850 kg/m3
Poissons Ratio 0.25
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 11.7 x 10-6 oC-1
1.5 Shapes and Dimensions of LSBs
Currently there are 13 variations of the LSB which range from a depth of 125 mm to
300 mm while the width of the hollow flange varies from 45 mm to 75 mm. The
thickness of steel used for the beams ranges from 1.6 mm to 3.0 mm. The LSB is
manufactured in standard lengths of 12 and 14.5 metres. Table 1.3 shows the section
dimensions for the range of commercially available LSB members.
Table 1.3: LSB Section Dimensions (LST, 2005)
Designation Flange
Mass
d x bf x t Depth
mm mm mm kg/m mm
300 x 75 x 3.0 LSB 14.4 25.0
2.5 LSB 12.1 25.0
300 x 60 x 2.0 LSB 8.71 20.0
250 x 75 x 3.0 LSB 13.3 25.0
2.5 LSB 11.2 25.0
250 x 60 x 2.0 LSB 7.93 20.0
200 x 60 x 2.5 LSB 8.81 20.0
2.0 LSB 7.14 20.0
200 x 45 x 1.6 LSB 4.90 15.0
150 x 45 x 2.0 LSB 5.26 15.0
1.6 LSB 4.27 15.0
125 x 45 x 2.0 LSB 4.87 15.0
1.6 LSB 3.95 15.0
1.6 Applications of Single LiteSteel Beams
Applications of LSBs are numerous ranging from residential housing to larger

industrial and commercial buildings. LSBs can be used as floor joists and bearers,
wall studs, and roof purlins and rafters (Figures 1.6 (a) to (e)).
Residential applications for the LSB currently target implementation in flooring

system as floor joists supported on conventional hot-rolled sections acting as floor
bearers, but could easily be extended to numerous applications like header beams
over opening, floor bearers, and various roofing members such as rafters, hanging
beams, or strutting beams.
The light weight of LSB provides it with a greater ease of constructability and on-site
versatility and limits the necessity of cranes and other heavy lifting equipment. The
beam material also ensures an ease of construction for the builder as standard power
tools can be used to cut, drill and install it. Further to this, LSB structural beams are
on average 40% lighter than traditional hot-rolled structural steel beams of equivalent
moment capacity (LST, 2005), a desirable characteristic when considering manual
handling and positioning of the beam. This allows the beam to be positioned
manually, which lead to indirect project savings when the costs of cranes and other
hoisting equipment are considered.
(a) Floor Joists
(b) Roof Rafters (c) Cantilevered Decks
(d) Floor Bearers (e) Outdoor Decks
Figure 1.6: LiteSteel Beam Applications

(Image from http://www.smorgonsteel.com.au [Accessed March 20, 2007])
However, the use of conventional hot-rolled universal sections in conjunction with
timber is often a labour intensive activity. Popular methods include bolting, which is
labour intensive, and high speed nail fastening using powder actuated firing guns,
which can be a dangerous activity when fixing to thin (less than 8mm) steel
elements. The use of LSB in similar applications poses no such problems, as the
beam can easily be cut, nailed, and screwed with conventional power and pneumatic
air tools, and fixed into position with existing screws and brackets, adding to the
versatility of the LSB.
1.7 Applications of Cold-formed Built-up Steel Beams
In cold-formed steel constructions, built-up beams are often fabricated from two
channel sections. Connecting two channels together is a technique which can achieve
a structurally desirable cold-formed steel section. With this technique the structural
bending capacity of the beam is expected to be more than double. Traditional, field-
fabricated, back to back or I-beam headers, consisting of two C sections with the
webs screwed back to back, are the most popular built-up configuration in the
construction industry (Figure 1.7 (a)). Also, box beam headers, assembled by
positioning two C sections with the open side of the webs or C s facing each
other, are often used in the construction (Figure 1.7 (b)).
(a) (b)
Figure 1.7: Built-up Beams

(Image from http://www.dietrichindustries.com [Accessed on February 15,
2007])
1.8 Research Problem
The increasing use of cold-formed steel members in the construction industry is a

direct result of continuing research into the more complicated behaviour of these
sections, and their superior cross section geometry that is facilitated by improved
cold-formed manufacturing processes, high yield strength base steels, and innovative
cross section geometries. Further to this, the introduction of hollow flange cold-
formed sections has added to the growing popularity of cold-formed steel sections
due to their superior torsionally rigid section properties, and efficient manufacturing
processes. It has already been established that cold-formed LSB offers increased
capacity when compared to conventional sections. This was evident as seen by the
large number of applications in Figure 1.6. Following the successful applications of
single LSBs, the LSB manufacturer has proposed the use of built-up LSBs in order to
expand their applications in the building industry. For this purpose, a back to back
LSB configuration shown in Figure 1.8 has been recommended as the most cost-
effective and simple system. However, the flexural behaviour and strength of back to
back LSBs including their buckling characteristics has not been investigated yet.
M10 bolts located

20 mm away from
the inside flanges
Figure 1.8: Back to Back LSB Configuration
Past research (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005a-e) has been limited to single
LSBs, which found the LSBs to be particularly susceptible to lateral distortional
buckling (LDB) due to the presence of two torsionally rigid flanges that are
connected by a comparatively slender web (Figure 1.9). This mode of buckling
significantly reduces the ultimate moment capacity of the LSBs. By using built-up
LSB sections, we can mitigate lateral distortional buckling to some extent by
providing additional rigidity to the weakest element of the section, namely the web.
The use of doubly symmetric back to back LSBs is expected to effectively increase
the moment capacity beyond twice that of single LSBs, thereby offering more
available strength for LSBs when compared to conventional sections. This needs to
be verified using detailed experimental and numerical studies.
Lateral distortional
buckling failure
Figure 1.9: Lateral Distortional Buckling of Single LSBs
There is currently limited guidance in relation to the fastener arrangement required to

ensure full compatibility between the sections with respect to cold-formed built-up
members. The current method of connections used in the industry is to fasten the
webs together at an appropriate longitudinal spacing so that the built-up section
behaves as an integral member. The cold-formed steel structures design standard
AS/NZ 4600 outlines a design procedure in Clause 4.1.1 in relation to connecting
two conventional channels to form an I-section, and the required longitudinal spacing
of such connections. It says that the maximum spacing between connections should
be less than or equal to the lesser of one sixth of the span and the maximum spacing
required to prevent bolt failure at the connection based on the fact that the shear
centre is neither coincident with nor located in the plane of the web. This appears to
be over-conservative to some extent. This design procedure is mainly aimed at
preventing connection failures rather than providing clear design details required for
built-up sections to behave as an integral section and to gain maximum strength.
OneSteel Australian Tube Mills has recently published the Design Capacity Tables
(DCT) for LSB sections, which list the capacities for various sizes of LSBs subject to
bending, shear, axial tension and compression, combined bending and compression,
and connections. However, no guidelines are available in relation to built-up LSB
sections and their joining/connection details.
There is also a need to verify the design procedure in relation to longitudinal spacing
given in Clause 4.1.1 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) as research to date conducted by
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a) has shown that the current design methods in
AS/NZS 4600 with respect to the member moment capacity do not adequately cover
the hollow flange LSBs. They have therefore proposed changes to the design rules
based on full scale testing and finite element modelling.
Other steel design codes do not address the many relevant issues relating to LSBs or
built-up members. For example; ENV 1993-1-3: (CEN, 1996): General rules -
supplementary rules for cold-formed thin gauge members and sheeting does not
provide any guidance for built-up sections. AS 4100 (SA, 1998): Steel Structures
and ANSI/AISC 360-05 (AISC, 2005): Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
give guidance only for hot-rolled built-up compression and tension members
composed of two components back to back. They do not give any guidance for
flexural members. Also, BS 5950 Part 1: (BSI, 2000) and ENV 1993-1-1:1992 do not
have clear guidelines for hot-rolled flexural built-up members.
It appears that there is a lack of knowledge about the flexural behaviour of built-up
members and this situation needs to be improved. Also, research into the innovative
LiteSteel beams has been limited and the fundamental knowledge and understanding
of the complicated behaviour of these new sections is inadequate. Hence it is
important to investigate the structural behaviour of built-up (back to back) LiteSteel
beams to provide clear design guidance. This will be useful in increasing the usage of
LSB members in the construction industry.
1.9 Research Objectives and Scope
Overall objective of this research is to fully investigate the flexural behaviour and
strength of the new back to back built-up LiteSteel Beams (LSB) including their
buckling characteristics, and to provide safe and efficient design guidelines for their
applications in order to maximise their structural efficiency, and increase their range
of applications in the construction industry.
The specific objectives and tasks are to:
Experimental Studies
1) Conduct a series of full scale lateral buckling tests on back to back built-up
LSB members (Figure 1.8) subject to flexural action to validate the finite
element models. These tests will include various combinations of geometric
parameters and fastener spacings and spans.
Numerical Studies
1) Develop accurate finite element models of back to back built-up LSB sections
with different longitudinal fastener spacings subject to uniform moment
actions, and validate them using the experimental test results, and numerical
results obtained from well established buckling analysis programs.
2) Use the developed finite element models to investigate the local, lateral
distortional and lateral torsional buckling modes of failures and the increase
in member moment capacity of back to back built-up LSB section with
respect to mono-symmetric single LSB capacity.
Design Rule Developments

1) Compare the finite element analysis results with predicted moment capacities
calculated using AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) design rules and Anapayan and
Mahendrans (2009a) design rules developed for single LSB sections. Based
on this comparison, modify or develop new and improved design rules for
back to back LSB members to predict their ultimate moment capacities.
2) Develop suitable design rules to predict the elastic lateral distortional
buckling moments of back to back LSB members connected by intermittent
fasteners and continuous connections.
3) Observe the effects of inadequate fastener spacing on the buckling and failure
modes of back to back built-up LSB sections and the contact separation
behaviour between the individual LSB sections using finite element models.
4) Use the developed finite element models to investigate the influence of
fastener location across the web and the effects of varying fastener spacings
along different rows on the ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSBs.
5) Use the developed finite element models to investigate the influence of
longitudinal fastener spacing on the elastic buckling and ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSBs for a large range of spans. This will allow the
determination of optimum maximum longitudinal fastener spacing for the
back to back LSB sections. The results will be compared with the
recommendations given in the current design codes including AS/NZS 4600
(SA, 2005).
Strengthening Methods
1) Determine the effectiveness of different strengthening methods including the
use of different types of connections and web stiffeners which will eliminate
the effects of lateral distortional buckling and improve the flexural strength of
back to back LSBs using the developed finite element models.
2) Recommend a simple and most cost-efficient strengthening method and
develop associated design rules to calculate the elastic lateral buckling and
ultimate moment capacities of strengthened back to back LSBs.
By determining efficient and safe design guidelines specific to the new back to back
built-up LSBs, designers will be able to maximise their applications and improve
their efficiency in service conditions.
1.10 Thesis Contents
The outline of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter 1 presents the introduction of cold-formed steel beam and LiteSteel Beam
(LSB) and describes the manufacturing process, mechanical and material
properties, shapes and standard dimensions and their application in the
construction industry. Finally it presents the objectives of this research
and the research methods used in achieving them.
Chapter 2 presents the literature review findings relevant to this research. It

describes the buckling behaviour of cold-formed steel beams including
single LiteSteel beams. Further, it describes past research conducted on
single LSB sections and built-up cold-formed steel flexural members, and
the current design methods of built-up cold-formed steel flexural
members.
Chapter 3 presents the experimental investigation of the flexural behaviour and

strength of back to back LiteSteel beams. It describes the full scale lateral
buckling tests, the tensile coupon tests and the initial geometric
imperfection measurements conducted. It also assesses the influence and
effects of longitudinal fastener spacings on various parameters including
strength.
Chapter 4 presents the details of the development and validation of two finite
element models, namely experimental and ideal finite element models, of
back to back LSBs with varying fastener spacings under uniform moment
conditions.
Chapter 5 presents the details of a parametric study on the flexural behaviour of

back to back LSB sections, the results and the developed design rules. It
also includes a review of the current design rules
Chapter 6 presents the details of the development of suitable design equations to

predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back
LSBs connected by intermittent fasteners and continuous connections.
Chapter 7 presents the details of the different strengthening methods, the results and
suitable recommendations for the best method that significantly improves
the flexural strength of back to back LSB members.
Chapter 8 presents the significant findings from this research and the
recommendations for further research.
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review
2.1 General
This literature review provides the necessary background to the structural behaviour
on LiteSteel beams (LSB). Firstly, it provides a brief review of special characteristics
and design considerations of cold-formed steel structural members. It then explores
the current knowledge and understanding of LSB sections including the previous
research on LSBs and the appropriateness of currently available design procedures.
Past research on built-up sections is discussed briefly. Furthermore descriptions of
design methods which have been used by engineers and designers are also given.
Finally, the literature review summarises the current state of knowledge and
contributions in this area of research.
2.2 Characteristics of Cold-formed Steel Members
Cold-formed steel structural members can be used very efficiently in many

applications where conventional hot-rolled members prove to be uneconomical.
However, the cold-formed sections are usually thinner than hot-rolled sections and
have different modes of failure and deformation which are not commonly
encountered in normal structural steel design. Therefore specific design
specifications are required to provide guidance for the design of thin-walled
members. In addition, the cold-forming process often produces structural
imperfections and residual stresses that are quite different from those of traditional
hot-rolled and welded members. Therefore design specifications are required
specifically for cold-formed and thin-walled structural members. Brief details of the
manufacturing process of cold-formed steel sections and their applications were
given in Chapter 1.
2.2.1 Cold-formed Steel Design Standards
During the 1930s the acceptance and the development of cold-formed steel
construction in the industry faced difficulties due to the lack of an appropriate design
specification. Building codes made no provision for cold-formed steel construction at
that time. Design clauses for cold-formed steel structural members were first
introduced with the preparation of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
Specification in 1946. For the purpose of studying the performance of cold-formed
steel structural members and of obtaining accurate information for the formulation of
a design specification, the AISI Committee on Building Research and Technology
sponsored a research project at Cornell University. The research work on cold-
formed steel members was mainly carried out by Professor G. Winter. The British
Steel Standard was modified in 1961 to include the design of cold-formed steel
members based on the work done by Professor A.H. Chilver. The Australian
Standard for the design of cold-formed steel members AS 1538 was first published in
1974. Essentially it summarized the 1968 edition of the American Specification.
The Australian code was reproduced using the 1980 and 1986 editions of the
American Iron and Steel Institute Specification in 1988. It was based on the
allowable stress format. In 1991, the American Iron and Steel Institute introduced the
Limit States method in their 1986 specification called the Load and Resistance
Factor Design Specification (LRFD). The limit states design is based on load factors
and resistance factors applied to the loads and design strengths, respectively, such
that the factored design loads should not exceed the factored strength. In 1990,
Standards Australia published the limit states design standard for steel structures AS
4100 based on the load factor and capacity factor approach similar to that used for
LRFD in the AISI Standards. Standards New Zealand produced the limit states
design standard for steel structures NZS 3404 based mainly on the Australian
Standards AS 4100 in 1992. In 1993, Standards Australia and Standards New
Zealand commenced work on a common limit design standard for cold-formed steel
structures. The new standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) was based mainly on the
latest AISI Specification. British Standard BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998) specifies
guidance for the design of cold-formed structural steel works. Eurocode 3 (EC3,
1996) and Canadian Standards are the other international standards providing design
guidance for cold-formed steel structures.
2.2.2 Special Design Criteria of Flexural Members
Beams are used to carry transverse loads and/or applied moments. Cold-formed
sections, such as channels, Z-shapes, angles, T-sections, hat sections, closed sections,
built-up sections and decks and panels can be used as flexural members. In the
design of cold-formed steel flexural members, priority should be given to the
moment-resisting capacity and the stiffness of the member. Second, the webs of
beams should be checked for shear, combined bending and shear, web crippling, and
combined bending and web crippling. The moment-resisting capacity of the member
may be limited by lateral buckling of the beam, especially when the section is
fabricated from thin material and laterally supported at relatively large intervals. This
lateral buckling consists of either lateral torsional buckling or lateral distortional
buckling depending on the geometry of the section and the type of actions and lateral
support given. Because of the thin material used, the cold-formed flexural members
are also more prone to fail by local and distortional buckling in contrast to hot-rolled
sections. Following sections summarise these buckling failure modes in detail.
2.2.2.1 Local Buckling
The width to thickness ratio of the individual plate elements of cold-formed sections
is normally high compared with that of hot-rolled sections. Therefore local buckling
takes place before section yielding when they are subjected to compression, bending
or shear. Two basic types of flat compression elements are defined in AS/NZS 4600.
They are elements supported on both longitudinal edges, which are called Stiffened
Compression Elements, and elements supported on one longitudinal edge, which are
called Unstiffened Compression Elements. Local buckling involves flexural
displacements of the plate elements, with the line junctions between plate elements
remaining straight as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Local Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections
In a flexural member, the top flange is subjected to pure compression, so due to the
nature of thin plate elements, it is prone to buckle locally. At the same time, the
compression portion of the web may buckle due to the compressive stress caused by
bending. Figure 2.1 shows the patterns of local buckling modes of C- and Z-section
purlins when subject to pure bending. The elastic critical stress for local buckling of
a plate element in compression or bending is given by:
k 2 E t
2
f cr = (2.1)
12(1 2 ) b
Where k is called the plate local buckling coefficient and depends upon the support
conditions, b/t is the plate slenderness ratio which is the plate width (b) divided by
the plate thickness (t), and E and v are the elastic modulus and Poissons ratio,
respectively. Depending on the restraint conditions along the longitudinal boundaries
and the type of loading, the plate local buckling coefficient (k) takes different values.
For example, a plate with simply supported edges on all four sides and subjected to
pure bending will buckle at a half-wavelength equal to 0.7 times of the plate width
(b) with a plate buckling coefficient (k) of 23.9. A plate with simply supported edges
on all four sides and subjected to uniformed compression will buckle at a half-
wavelength equal to the plate width (b) with a plate buckling coefficient (k) of 4.0.
For the flexural members, the buckling coefficients (k) are 4.0 or 0.425 for the
stiffened and unstiffened flanges in uniform compression while it is 23.9 for the
webs in uniform bending. A summary of plate local buckling coefficients (k) with the
corresponding half-wavelengths of the local buckles is shown in Table 2.1.
A plate element is defined as slender if the elastic critical local buckling stress (fcr)
calculated using Equation 2.1 is less than the material yield stress (fy). A slender
section will buckle locally before the squash load (Py) or the yield moment (My) is
reached. If the elastic critical buckling stress (fcr) exceeds the yield stress fy, the
compression element will buckle in the inelastic range (Yu, 2000).
Although local buckling occurs at a stress level lower than the yield stress of steel, it
does not necessarily represent the failure of members. The failure is governed by
post-buckling strength which is generally much higher than the local buckling
strength. The theoretical analysis of post-buckling and failure of plates is extremely
difficult, and generally requires a computer analysis to achieve an accurate solution
(Hancock, 1998).
Table 2.1: Plate Buckling Coefficients (Hancock, 1998)
2.2.2.2 Distortional Buckling
Distortional buckling is a mode of failure that can be observed in compression and

flexural members. For example, distortional buckling of flexural members such as C
and Z sections usually involves rotation of compression flange and lip about the
flange-web junction as shown in Figure 2.2. This mode is often called flange
distortional buckling. The web undergoes flexure at the same half-wavelength as the
flange buckle, and the compression flange may translate slightly in a direction
normal to the web, also at the same half-wavelength as the flange and web buckling
deformations. Distortional buckling may occur at stresses significantly below the
yield stress, especially for high strength steels (Hancock and Rogers, 1998). The
wavelength of distortional buckling is generally between that of local buckling and
global buckling.
Figure 2.2: Distortional Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections
Considerable amount of research has been done on the distortional buckling of cold-
formed steel members having different section geometries. These investigations have
revealed two distinctive distortional buckling modes that are commonly observed in
cold-formed steel members, namely flange distortional buckling and lateral
distortional buckling. Hancock (1997) provided a design method for distortional
buckling of C-section flexural members while Jiang and Davies (1997) derived
design approaches for distortional buckling of channel sections. In 1994, Hancock et
al. provided design strength curves for thin-walled C-sections undergoing
distortional buckling. Rogers and Schuster (1997) investigated the distortional
buckling of cold-formed steel C-sections in bending.
Lau and Hancock (1987) presented formulae to predict the elastic distortional
buckling stress (fod) of thin-walled channel section columns with a range of section
geometries based on an approximate model of distortional buckling. The distortional
buckling formulae for sections in compression were modified by Hancock (1997) for
the case of distortional buckling in flexure based on a revised distortional buckling
model.
Clause 3.3.3.3 (a) of the cold-formed steel design standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
provides design methods for flexural members, channels or Z-sections, subject to
distortional buckling.
2.2.2.3 Lateral Distortional Buckling
Distortional buckling, where the web bends transversely and the flanges remain
either un-rotated or rotate to some extent, is often called lateral distortional buckling.
Figure 2.3 shows the lateral distortional buckling modes of C- and Z-sections when
they are subjected to bending and their tension flanges are restrained.
Figure 2.3: Lateral Distortional Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections
Clause 3.3.3.3 (b) of the cold-formed steel design standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
provides design methods for flexural members subject to lateral distortional
buckling.
2.2.2.4 Lateral Torsional Buckling
Cold-formed steel sections are normally thin and open sections and consequently
they have a low torsional stiffness. Many of the sections produced by cold-forming,
such as C-sections, are mono-symmetric with their shear centre located away from
their centroid. The shear centre of a thin-walled beam is the axis through which it
must be loaded to produce flexural deformation without twisting. Any eccentricity of
the load from this axis will generally produce considerable torsional deformations in
a thin-walled beam. Beams usually require torsional restraints either at intervals or
continuously as long span beams exhibit lateral tortsional buckling mode of failure.
The lateral torsional buckling modes of C- and Z-section are shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Lateral Torsional Buckling Modes of C and Z Sections
Clause 3.3.3.2 of the cold-formed steel design standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
provides design methods for flexural members subject to lateral torsional buckling.
2.3 Cold-formed Hollow Flange Sections
In the early 1990s Palmer Tube Mills (PTM), a division of OneSteel Australian Tube
Mills (ATM), developed the first cold-formed Hollow Flange Beam (HFB). The dog
bone section as it was known was manufactured from a single strip of high strength
steel (G450) using conventional roll forming techniques and the now patented dual
electric resistance welding (DERW) process as shown in Figure 2.5. The hollow
sections have high torsional rigidity and thus give greater buckling strengths. The
unique shape of the Hollow Flange Beam brings a high level of flexural torsional
rigidity to the section. The HFB exhibits lateral buckling which is unlike in
conventional hollow sections, namely the Square Hollow Section and Rectangular
Hollow Section, when subject to loading with limited lateral restraints. The HFB has
its triangular hollow flanges positioned away from the neutral axis, which increases
the second moment of area of the section and therefore maximizes the flexural
efficiency of the member. The HFBs combine the stability of hot-rolled steel sections
with the high strength to weight ratio of conventional cold-formed steel sections, and
thus are superior to the conventional sections.
Figure 2.5: Hollow Flange Beam Section (Avery et al., 2000)
The hollow flange dog bone section was discontinued by PTM in the late 1990s due
to a number of shortcomings in the manufacturing process using existing mills. The
existing mill used for conventional tubular products was used for manufacturing the
HFBs and this led to excessive manufacturing costs. Also, the existing mill limited
the HFBs to a single flange width of 90 mm for the available range of depths (200
450 mm) (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c).
The obvious advantages and potential applications of cold-formed hollow flange

beams has recently prompted OneSteel Australian Tube Mills (OATM) to revisit
hollow flange sections and improve its automated roll forming and dual electric
resistance welding process. Subsequent improvements have enabled OATM to
manufacture the new LiteSteel Beam (LSB) in a more efficient manner than the HFB
section, and therefore make it a viable alternative to structural timber and
conventional hot-rolled sections. The improved roll forming process of LSB provides
sections ranging from 125 to 300 mm deep, and in widths of 45, 60, and 75 mm,
whereas previous roll forming methods limited the HFB to a single flange width of
90 mm for the available range of depths.
Past investigations in relation to the moment capacity of the HFB (Dempsey, 1990,
1993, Dunai and Horvath, 1990, Mahendran and Doan, 1999, Avery et al 1999a,b,
2000) have identified that the moment capacity under certain span, loading, and
restraint conditions is restricted by a Lateral Distortional mode of Buckling failure
(LDB). This mode of buckling is characterised by simultaneous lateral flange
displacement, twisting, and web distortion. Traditional hot-rolled sections exhibit
Lateral Torsional Buckling (LTB) when subject to comparable boundary and loading
conditions due to a relatively compact web and solid flat flange elements, which
offer less resistance to torsional actions present in unbraced spans. Figure 2.6
illustrates the difference between the two buckling modes.
(a) Lateral Torsional Buckling (b) Lateral Distortional Buckling
Figure 2.6: Lateral Buckling Modes (Avery et al., 2000)
2.4 LiteSteel Beams
LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is the new, innovative, cold-formed steel beam produced by
OneSteel Australian Tube Mills (OATM). It has a unique shape and manufacturing
process which provides an extremely efficient strength to weight ratio. The details
about LSB and its manufacturing process and applications were briefly discussed in
Chapter 1.
The unique cold-forming and dual electric resistance welding process of LSB
sections introduces considerable differences in the stress-strain curves, residual
stresses and initial geometric imperfections between them and the conventional hot-
rolled and cold-formed steel sections. The structural performance of the new LSB is
governed by a complicated buckling mode which was similar to the mode observed
in Hollow Flange Beams (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c). This was known as
lateral distortional buckling (LDB) mode, and this behaviour was not fully
understood. Also, the Australian Steel Structures Design Standards did not include
the lateral distortional buckling behaviour of the new sections. Furthermore, research
into this innovative LiteSteel beam had been limited and the fundamental knowledge
and understanding of the complicated behaviour of these sections was inadequate
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c). Therefore a comprehensive research on LSB
sections was conducted by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a,b,c,d,e) at the
Queensland University of Technology (QUT). For this purpose, large scale
experiments and advanced finite element modelling were carried out. Details of this
research and the important outcomes are given in the following sections. Analysis
and testing at the University of Sydney focused on developing the design models for
bearing strength of the section including web crushing (Yang and Wilkinson, 2005).
Research conducted by Pokharel and Mahendran (2005a,b,c,d,e) was aimed at
investigating the structural behaviour of LSB flexural members with web holes.
2.4.1 Behaviour of LiteSteel Beams
The LSBs exhibited different modes of failure which varied with the type of loading
and the span length (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c). The following sections
cover these modes of failure in detail.
2.4.1.1 Local Buckling
The LSBs have small width to thickness ratios when compared to many other cold-
formed steel sections, and gain increased rigidity by having no unstiffened elements
(no free edges). This considerably reduces the propensity to local plate buckling.
However in the case of slender LSB sections with intermediate spans, it has been
noted that the sections exhibited a local buckling in web element during load
application, although these buckles were not seen at the ultimate failure
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c). For very short spans, LSB sections exhibited
local buckling failure, and a few of them displayed weld failures which were caused
by large local deformations (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005d). Figure 2.7
illustrates the local web buckling mode of LSB sections.
Figure 2.7: Local Buckling Mode of LSB Sections
2.4.1.2 Lateral Distortional Buckling
This mode of buckling was found to be severe in intermediate spans. Lateral

distortional buckling (LDB) is a direct product of torsionally rigid flanges connected
by a slender web. When loaded with limited lateral restraint to the compression
flange, the member deflects laterally and rotates when the distortional buckling
moment is reached. This is due to the presence of hollow flanges which give high
resistance to twist and cause the slender web to shoulder the twisting action, and thus
result in lateral flange deflection coupled with web distortion. The cross-sectional
distortion causes significant strength reductions, and is particularly severe in
intermediate spans of LSBs (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c). Figure 2.8
illustrates the lateral distortional buckling mode of LSB sections. This mode of
buckling significantly reduces the ultimate moment capacity of LSBs. The use of
back to back LSB is predicted to mitigate this mode of failure to some extent by
providing additional rigidity to the weakest element of the section, the web. This
thesis has been proposed to fully understand the structural behaviour of the new
built-up LiteSteel beams and to recommend the optimum longitudinal connection
spacing which can make the LSBs to behave as an integral member.
Figure 2.8: Lateral Distortional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections
2.4.1.3 Lateral Torsional Buckling
Very long span LSBs exhibited lateral torsional buckling failure which is common to
hot-rolled beams. The torsional stiffness of the flanges is proportional to the laterally
unrestrained length of the beam. As the length of the beam increases, the torsional
stiffness of the flanges decreases, and thus the beam tends to twist more and hence
lateral torsional buckling. Figure 2.9 illustrates the lateral torsional buckling mode of
LSB sections.
Figure 2.9: Lateral Torsional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections
2.4.2 Experimental Testing
The comprehensive research into LSB sections included experimental testing which
was one of the major tasks. Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c,d) conducted a
total of 48 lateral buckling tests of LSB sections with different section geometries
and spans, and a total of 16 section capacity tests in this investigation.
2.4.2.1 Tensile Coupon Tests
Initially to identify the material properties of the LSB sections, Mahaarachchi and
Mahendran (2005e) conducted a series of tensile coupon tests for LSB sections.
Forty two tensile coupons were taken from the web and both inside and outside
flanges of the LSB specimens. The test method was according to the Austrailan
Standard AS 1391 (SA, 1991).
Test results showed that the yield stresses exceeded the nominal flange yield stress of
450 MPa and the web nominal yield stress of 380 MPa due to the heavy cold-
working involved in the making of LSB sections. In the outside and inside flanges,
the yield stresses were high and had the average values of 516 and 464 MPa,
respectively. This was due to higher level of cold-working in the flanges
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005e). The average web yield stress was 408 MPa.
The ultimate tensile stresses in the outside and inside flanges and web were 568, 523
and 510 MPa, respectively. Figure 2.10 shows the typical stress-strain curves of steel
used in LSB sections.
Figure 2.10 Typical Stress-Strain Curves of the Base Steel Used in LSB Sections
2.4.2.2 Geometric Imperfection and Residual Stress Tests
Geometric imperfection and residual stress tests were also undertaken by

Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005e). It was noted that the measured thickness of
flanges was greater than the nominal value whereas the measured thickness of webs
was smaller than the nominal value. Measured values showed that the local plate
imperfections are within the manufacturers fabrication tolerance limits while the
overall member global imperfections are less than the AS 4100 member fabrication
limit of span/1000. Residual stress tests were conducted using the well known
sectioning method. The test results showed that the outside surface of the cross-
section was in tension whereas the inside surface of the section was in compression.
Considerably high membrane stresses were noted in the web due to the welding of
the section whereas flanges were governed by flexural residual stresses
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005e). Figure 2.11 shows the residual stress model
of LSB sections developed by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005e).
(a) Membrane (b) Flexural

Figure 2.11: Residual Stress Model of LSB Sections
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005e)
The residual stress values are given as a ratio of the virgin plate yield stress. The
maximum flexural residual stress was noted in the corner of the outside flange, and it
had the value of 1.07fy, where fy is the virgin plate yield stress of 380 MPa. As
mentioned above, the maximum membrane residual stress recorded in the web was
0.60fy.
2.4.2.3 Lateral Buckling Tests
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) conducted a total of 48 simply supported

lateral buckling tests using a full scale test rig. They selected the test specimens from
the available 13 sections, and chose the beam span from 1200 mm to 4000 mm. The
test rig included a support system which provided the specific simply support end
conditions and a loading system. Figure 2.12 shows the overall view of the test rig
used by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c).
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) designed the support system based on the
support systems used by Zhao et al. (1994), Put et al. (1998) and Mahendran and
Doan (1999), but with modifications to improve it further. The support conditions
provided restraint against in-plane and out-of-plane deflections and longitudinal
twisting, and allowed major and minor axis rotations. One of the support system was
designed as a roller. Figure 2.13 illustrates the support system used.
Figure 2.12: Overall View of Test Rig (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c)
Figure 2.13: Support System (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c)
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) reviewed the loading methods, the over-hang
loading method used by Zhao et al. (1994) and Mahendran and Doan (1999) and the
quarter point loading method used by Put et al. (1998), and proposed these two
methods with improved modifications. In the overhang method, the loads were
applied to the test beam at a distance of 1 m from the support in the upward direction
and this provided a uniform bending moment within the entire span whereas the
quarter point loading method provided a uniform bending moment only between the
points of load applications. Even though the overhang loading method is to be
preferred as it provides a uniform moment within the entire span, the overhang
component of the test beam provides a warping resistance to the test beam.
Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) test results showed that the overhang
loading method gave higher test capacity results by about 12% due to the effect of
warping restraints and hence they used the quarter point loading method in most of
their tests. The loading system was designed to prevent the possible restraints to the
displacement and rotations of the test beam using a special wheel system (Figure
2.14 (a)). Loads were applied through the shear centre of the test beam to avoid any
torsional and load height effects to the test beam (Figure 2.14 (b)).
Loading at
Shear Centre
Smooth Tracks Wheels
(a) Wheel System (b) Loading Arm

Figure 2.14: Loading System (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005c)
The test results showed that the lateral distortional buckling mode was most severe
for intermediate spans. Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) compared the
experimental test values and the predicted member capacities using AS 4100 (SA,
1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). They found that the predictions given by AS
4100 are conservative whereas the AS/NZS 4600 overestimates the member moment
capacity. Hence they proposed modifications to Clause 3.3.3.3(b) of AS/NZS 4600
(SA, 2005) to adequately predict the bending capacity for the full range of LSB
sections.
2.4.2.4 Section Capacity Tests
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005d) carried out a total of 16 section capacity tests
of LSBs. Pairs of laterally restrained LSB sections with short spans were tested using
a four point bending test set-up as shown in Figure 2.15.
Most of the specimens exhibited a flange local buckling failure. Mahaarachchi and
Mahendran (2005d) compared the test results with predicted section capacities using
AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996). They found that all the
experimental results exceeded the section moment capacities predicted by both AS
4100 and AS/NZS 4600. AS 4100 predictions were 13% lower than the experimental
results while AS/NZS 4600 predictions were lower than the tested failure moments
by 18%.
Figure 2.15: Schematic View of the Section Capacity Test Set-up

(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005d)
2.4.3 Finite Element Analysis
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005b) conducted a numerical study of LSB sections

including elastic buckling and non-linear analyses using a finite element program
called ABAQUS. They considered both an experimental model which was used to
validate the finite element models using experimental test results and an ideal model
which was used to develop design curves (Figures 2.16 and 2.17). The cross-section
geometry of experimental models was based on measured dimensions whereas it was
based on nominal dimension for ideal models. They ignored the corners of LSB
sections in the modelling for convenience as they verified that it did not affect the
results significantly. Shell elements (S4R5) were used to model the LiteSteel beams.
R3D4 rigid body elements and stiff beam elements were used to create the ideal
pinned member end restraints and loading for both models. Using a convergence
study, Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005b) selected the element sizes to be 5 mm
in width and 10 mm in length in the longitudinal direction. The support conditions
were simulated to provide the required idealised simply supported conditions.
Figures 2.16 and 2.17 illustrate the load and boundary conditions for both ideal and
experimental models.
Figure 2.16: Ideal Model (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005b)
Figure 2.17: Experimental Model (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005b)
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005b) validated the ideal models by comparing the
results obtained from elastic buckling analyses with the corresponding results
obtained from the well known finite strip analysis program called Thin-Wall. They
validated the experimental models by comparing the nonlinear ultimate strength
results with the corresponding experimental test results.
2.4.4 Design Procedures for LiteSteel Beams
Many design standards including AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 give suitable design
guidelines for steel flexural members.
2.4.4.1 Section Moment Capacity
The section moment capacity of a beam is associated with yielding and/or local
buckling of the plate elements in the cross-section and is used where the compression
flange is fully laterally restrained.
(i) Section Moment Capacity Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)

The section moment capacity (Ms) is defined in Clause 5.2.1 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
as follows:
M s = f y Ze (2.2)
The effective section modulus (Ze) allows for the effects of local buckling if
necessary. The effective section modulus is defined in Clauses 5.2.3 to 5.2.5 (SA,
1998) as follows:
(2.3a)
s sp : Z e = S < 1.5Z
sy s
sp < s sy : Z e = Z + (S Z )

(2.3b)

sy sp

s > sy : Z e = Z sy (2.3c)
s
where
fy = yield stress, S = plastic section modulus, Z = elastic section modulus
Ze = effective section modulus, s = section slenderness
The section slenderness (s) is taken as the value of the plate element slenderness
(e) for the element of the cross-section which has the greatest value of (e/ey). The
plate element slenderness (e) is defined in Clause 5.2.2 (SA, 1998) as a function of
the elements clear width (b), thickness (t), and yield stress (fy).
b fy
e = (2.4)
t 250
The section plasticity and yield slenderness limits (sp, sy) are taken as the values of
the element slenderness limits (ep, ey) given in Table 5.2 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998).
The slenderness limits for cold-formed and lightly welded (CF/LW) elements are
considered to be the most appropriate for LSB sections.
AS 4100 predictions underestimate the LSB section moment capacities by about 13%
on average (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005d), ie. Conservative.
(ii) Section Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)

The section moment capacity (Ms) is defined in Clause 3.3.2 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
2005) as follows:
M s = f y Ze (2.5)
However, unlike AS 4100, the effective section modulus (Ze) is based on the
initiation of yielding in the extreme compression fibre and thus does not allow any
inelastic reserve capacity of the section. The effect of local buckling is accounted for
in the compression elements by using the effective width (be) method to calculate the
effective section modulus as given next. The plate element slenderness () is a
function of the applied stress.
1 0.22
be = bb (2.6)

1.052 b f *
= (2.7)
k t E
where
f* = design stress in the compression element calculated on the basis of the effective
design width, k = plate elastic buckling coefficient, E = Youngs modulus of
elasticity, b = flat plate width and t = plate thickness.
AS/NZS 4600 predictions underestimate the LSB section moment capacities by

about 18% on average (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005d), ie. Conservative.
2.4.4.2 Member Moment Capacity
The member moment capacity of a flexural member is governed by the extent of

lateral restraint provided to the compression flange in order to prevent lateral
buckling. The current design standards AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
2005) provide methods for determining the member moment capacity for a wide
range of flexural members.
Conventional hot-rolled universal and channel sections primarily exhibit Lateral

Torsional Buckling in laterally unrestrained spans. This mode of buckling is
characterised by simultaneous cross-section twist and lateral displacement of the
compression flange. However, as mentioned previously, cold-formed hollow flange
sections primarily fail by lateral distortional buckling, hence the methods presented
in AS 4100 are of little use with respect to the member moment capacity of the LSBs
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005a).
The cold-formed steel structures standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) adequately
covers the member moment capacity of cold-formed flexural members for a number
of buckling modes including lateral torsional and lateral distortional buckling in
Clauses 3.3.3.2 and 3.3.3.3, respectively.
(i) Member Moment Capacity Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)

The nominal member moment capacity (Mb) of a beam without full lateral restraint
has been specified in Clause 5.6.1 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998) as follows:
M b = m s M s M s (2.8)
Where the moment modification factor (m) shall be determined from one of the
methods described in Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998). For uniform bending
moment distribution m =1.0. The slenderness reduction factor (s) is defined in
Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS 4100 as follows:
M 2
M

s = 0 .6 s + 3 s 1 (2.9)
M o M o

Where the reference buckling moment (Mo) is defined in Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS 4100
as follows:
2 EI y
GJ + EI w
2
Mo = L 2

(2.10)
L e
2
e
where
E = Youngs modulus, G = shear modulus, Iw = warping constant
Iy = second moment of area about the minor principal axis
J = torsion constant, Le = effective length
Therefore the member capacity of a beam subjected to a uniform bending moment

can be rewritten as follows:
Ms
2
Ms
M b = 0.6 + 3 Ms Ms (2.11)
Mo Mo

This equation is based on the lower bounds of the test results for hot-rolled I-section
beams. Bradford (1992) suggested that the relationship between distortional buckling
strength, yielding and elastic distortional buckling is the same as that of between the
lateral buckling strength, yielding and elastic lateral buckling. This implies that if the
elastic lateral distortional buckling moment (Mod) is used in Equation 2.9 instead of
elastic lateral torsional buckling moment (Mo), the AS 4100 procedure should be
suitable for the members which exhibit lateral distortional buckling, such as
LiteSteel beam sections.
This modified AS 4100 approach was further investigated by Pi and Trahair (1997)
for hollow flange beams, and they concluded that Equation 2.9 should be slightly
modified in order to ensure that the member capacity of hollow flange beams is
conservatively predicted. The modified form of Equation 2.11 is provided as
follows:
M s 2
M

M b = 0 .6 + 2 .8 s M s M s (2.12)
M od
M od

Where Mod is the elastic lateral distortional buckling moment.
Pi and Trahair (1997) also provided equations to estimate the elastic distortional
buckling moment (Mod) of hollow flange beam using an approximate effective
torsional rigidity (GJe) as follows:
2 EI y 2 EI w
M od = GJ e + (2.13)
L2 L2
Et 3 L2
2GJ F
GJ e = 0.91 2 d (2.14)
Et 3 L2
2GJ F +
0.91 2 d
where
d = web height, L = length, t = thickness
E = Youngs modulus, G = shear modulus of elasticity
Iw = warping constant, Iy = second moment of area about minor axis
Je = effective torsion section constant, JF = torsion constant of hollow flange
AS 4100 (SA, 1998) predictions were found to be conservative for single LSB
sections (Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005a,c).
(ii) Member Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
(a) Lateral Torsional Buckling (LTB)
Clause 3.3.3.2 of the cold-formed steel design standard, AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
provides design methods for flexural members subject to lateral torsional buckling as
follows:
M
M b = Zc c (2.15)
Z
f
Z c = the effective section modulus calculated at a stress fc in the extreme
compression fibre.
Mc
fc =
Zf
Z f = full unreduced section modulus for the extreme compression fibre.
Mc = critical moment
The critical moment can be calculated as follows:
For b 0.60 : Mc = M y (2.16a)
10b 2
For 0.60 < b < 1.336 : M c = 1.11M y 1 (2.16b)
36

1
For b 1.336 : M c = M y 2
(2.16c)
b
where
My
d = non-dimensional slenderness = , Mo = elastic buckling moment
Mo
fc = stress in the extreme compression fibre, fy = yield stress, Mc = critical moment

My = moment causing initial yield at the extreme compression fibre of the full section
= Z f fy
(b) Lateral Distortional Buckling (LDB)

Clause 3.3.3.3 (b) of the cold-formed steel design standard, AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
2005) provides design methods for flexural members subjected to distortional
buckling as follows:
The critical distortional buckling moment ( M c ) is to be calculated as follows and
then used with Equation 2.15.
For d < 0.59 : Mc = M y (2.19a)
0.59
For 0.59 < d 1.70 : M c = M y (2.19b)
d
1
For d 1.70 : M = M y 2

(2.19c)
d
where
My
d = non-dimensional slenderness =
M od
fod = elastic distortional buckling stress, Mc = critical moment

Mod = elastic buckling moment in the distortional mode = Z f f od
Zc is the full section modulus except that when k as given by Equation D3 (2) in
AS/NZS 4600 is negative, then Zc is the effective section modulus calculated at a
stress (fc) in the extreme compression fibre. fod can be calculated using appropriate
equations given in Appendix D for standard cold-formed steel sections or determined
using the well known finite strip analysis programs such as Thin-Wall or CUFSM.
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) predictions are conservative for single LSB sections
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005a).
2.5 Past Research on Cold-formed Built-up Beams
Perren (2005a) and Scully (2005) investigated the increased moment capacity of
LiteSteel beam sections when they were connected back to back using fasteners at
different longitudinal spacings. Eight full-scale tests were conducted to assess the
buckling behaviour and to determine the ultimate moment capacity of back to back
LSBs for a number of longitudinal fastener spacings. A simply supported testing
span of 3 m was adopted in their tests. Two LSB sections, 125451.6 LSB and
200451.6 LSB, were selected to form the back to back sections using two rows of
M10 bolts at different fasteners spacings of 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and 3000 mm. The
two rows of fasteners were located at 20 mm away from the bottom flange plate of
LSBs. They modified Mahaarachchi and Mahendrans (2005c) test rig (Figure 2.12)
slightly for their tests.
Figure 2.18: Overall View of Test Rig Used by Scully (2005)
Figure 2.19: Support and Loading Systems Used by Scully (2005)
The support conditions were the same as used by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran
(2005c) whereas the end support brackets were slightly modified to hold the back to
back LSB sections without any gap between the sections. A quarter point loading
system was used to apply the load to the test beam. Figures 2.18 and 2.19 illustrate
the overall view of the test rig, and its support and loading systems, respectively.
The experimental results showed that the predicted gains in flexural capacity were
at least 3.4 and 2.4 times the single member capacity for the 125451.6 LSB and
200451.6 LSB, respectively, and thus confirm that the back to back LSBs could
provide a higher structural performance than individual LiteSteel beams. Also, the
results showed that the moment capacity did not vary significantly when the
connection spacing was increased from 500 mm to 1000 and 1500 mm, and thus
confirm that span/3 and span/2 connection spacings can also be used to some extent
instead of using span/6 as recommended in the design standards, such as AS/NZS
4600 (SA, 2005). However, they could not fully investigate the effect of longitudinal
spacing as only a few experimental tests were conducted within the limited time
period.
Perren (2005b) conducted numerical studies including elastic buckling analysis using
a finite element program ABAQUS and a finite strip buckling analysis program
called CUFSM to develop appropriate numerical models. Finite element models
were developed based on the models generated by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran
(2005b). Same element type and size, material properties and boundary conditions
were used. The web fasteners were simulated as rigid nodes using MPC tie (Figure
2.20).
Figure 2.20: Web Fastener Arrangement in the Ideal Finite Element Model of
Back to Back LSBs (Perren, 2005b)
Their elastic buckling analysis results showed that the moment gained in built-up
LSB sections varied from about 2.0 to 3.0 times the capacity of corresponding single
LSB sections. Also in short beams, it reached up to a maximum of 6.0 times the
capacity of corresponding single LSB sections. The variation pattern was dependent
on the span length and longitudinal spacing of the sections.
Finite strip buckling analysis was also undertaken by Perren (2005b) using CUFSM
to determine the elastic buckling moments as a function of half wave buckle-length.
They developed five models to predict the buckling failure capacities, and to
establish a suitable model which is most applicable to the configuration of web
fastener arrangement for the back to back LSBs (Figure 2.21).
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Model 4 Model 5
Figure 2.21: CUFSM Finite Strip Models (Perren, 2005b)
Model 1 the two separate sections were modeled back to back with no web
connections.
Model 2 the two separate sections were modeled back to back with master-slave
node constraints at the web-flange junction, which effectively fixes the two sections
at these locations.
Model 3 the two separate sections were modeled back to back with master-slave
node constraints located 20 mm from the web-flange junction.
Model 4 the section was modeled with the web as a single double thickness
element between the web fixings, and as two separate elements outside the web
fixings.
Model 5 assumes that the section is fully connected at the web for the entire depth
of the section and was modeled as having a single web of double thickness.
Perren (2005b) calculated the ultimate moment capacities in accordance with

AS/NZS 4600 by applying the CUFSM elastic buckling moments (Mo). These
capacities were compared with experimental test results and finite element analysis
results, and it was suggested that the CUFSM was accurate in its predictions for
Model 1 and predictions for Model 3 and 5 were close. It must however be noted that
the CUFSM program is not capable of representing bolt connections at particular
spacings along the entire span. It means that the bolt connections were simulated as if
they were on a continuous line, ie zero spacing. This was contradicted as they tried to
compare the results of different simulations. Due to the limited time frame, their
finite element analysis using ABAQUS was restricted to elastic buckling. However,
their research signifies the need for further research into the behaviour of built-up
LSB section and of the necessary modifications to the current design guidelines.
Di Lorenzo et al. (2006) carried out experimental tests on the load carrying capacity
of innovative built-up cold-formed beams known as Modular Light-weight Cold-
formed (MLC) beams. They were obtained by assembling back to back two special
cold-formed C-profiles of 2 mm thickness (Figure 2.22 (a)). The two profiles were
jointed to each other using 6.5 mm and 10 mm blind rivets distributed on the web
and flanges of the beam. Two 6 mm reinforcing plates were placed inside the top and
bottom hollow flanges of the built-up I-section, providing a flange connection system
between the two C-profiles. In addition, such plates allow the performance of the
whole beam to be enhanced by varying their thickness and steel grade as shown in
Figure 2.22 (a). They considered three member classes with different geometries
(Figure 2.22 (b)).
Di Lorenzo et al. (2006) carried out the tests in order to assess the influence on the
strength, stiffness and ultimate deflection of the beams by the following parameters:
circular web beads and their spacing and, connection spacing on the flanges and
reinforcing plates. Unlike in the proposed research on built-up LSBs, this research
attempted to use two rather weak (open) C-sections to form a doubly symmetric,
strong built-up section using thicker reinforcing plates within the flange plates and
closely spaced rivets. The webs were fastened with rivets at about 100 mm spacing
along the length as well as height while the flanges were fastened at 150 and 300 mm
spacings. Five prototypes specimens were designed to perform the testing (Figure
2.23).
Figure 2.22: Modular Light-weight Cold-formed Beams (Di Lorenzo et al.,
2006)
Figure 2.23: Test Specimens Used by Di Lorenzo et al. (2006)
The bending tests were carried out by using a four point bending configuration
(Figure 2.24 (a)). The two load points at 1200 mm apart produced a uniformed
bending moment within a 1200 mm midspan region. Lateral buckling was prevented
by introducing two internal lateral bracings at the load points (Figure 2.24 (b)).
Special web stiffeners were used in order to avoid crushing or web crippling under
the concentrated loads and reactions. The beams were steadily loaded at a rate of 0.1
mm/min until the collapse of test specimens.
Figure 2.24: Test Set-up (Di Lorenzo et al., 2006)
From the test results, it was observed that the spacing of connections significantly
affected the strength and ultimate deflection of the beams. As the spacing of
connections on the flanges was doubled, the ultimate load was reduced by 30%.
Also, the reduction in spacing on flanges significantly increased the inelastic
deformations. Local buckling of flanges between the fasteners was an important
consideration as the flange plates were unstiffened unlike in LSBs. Although this
research revealed that the longitudinal spacing significantly affected the ultimate
moment capacity of the built-up beam, it did not attempt to consider the moment
increment for built-up beams in comparison with single beams as the single beams
are quite weak and can not be used alone.
Landolfo et al. (2005) conducted a numerical investigation into the innovative built-
up cold-formed beam, (MLC), which were experimentally investigated by Di
Lorenzo et al. (2006). For this numerical analysis, they used an advanced finite
element program called ANSYS, to predict both the bearing capacity and the post-
buckling behaviour. As a first step, they simulated MH class of MLC members
without web stiffeners (Figure 2.25). This member had a cross-section whose height
was 300 mm and flange width was equal to 200 mm. The beam was obtained by
assembling back to back two special cold-formed C-profiles of 2 mm thickness, and
these profiles were jointed to each other using 6.5 mm blind rivets distributed on the
web and flange of the beam at intervals of 150 mm. Two reinforced plates of 6 mm
thickness, were also placed inside the hollow flanges.
They used a mixed mesh of rectangular and triangular shell elements (SHELL181)
with an average element size of 25 mm, to simulate the flange and web elements of
the member. The reinforcing plates and bearing stiffeners at the load points and
support were also modelled using shell elements. Elastic-perfectly plastic material
model was used as the material model. To simulate the rivet fasteners, beam
elements (BEAM188), with a circular cross-section equal to the fastener diameter,
were used with elastic-perfectly plastic material model. Also, CONTA174 and
TARGE170 elements were employed for modelling the contact among the two cold-
formed sections and the reinforcing plates with parameters of no sliding effects and a
zero friction coefficient. They used 0.1 mm spacing as the initial gap between the
contact surfaces.
Figure 2.25: Finite Element Model of the MH MLC Beam (Landolfo et al., 2005)
Landolfo et al. (2005) used a special technique to simulate the geometric

imperfections. They considered that the conventional method of including the
imperfections based on the linear superposition of various mode shapes calculated
from the elastic buckling analysis of the members with perfect geometry is not
capable of including any possible non-linear effects. Therefore in their method, a
combination of elastic buckling deformed shape scaled by a factor () and the non-
linear analysis deformed shape scaled by another factor () was used. The and
factors were determined by fixing the amplitude of the initial local and overall
imperfections relevant to the inelastic buckling shape obtained from the perfect
geometry based on the following equations:
.wLoc
In
.wLoc
El
= wLoc (2.20)
.wGlb
In
.wGlb
El
= wGlb (2.21)
where
In
wLoc = displacement of the node corresponding to the maximum amplitude of the
local imperfection obtained from the nonlinear analysis of the perfect geometry
El
wLoc = displacement corresponding to the same node calculated for the elastic limit
state
wLoc = displacement which characterizes the local imperfection to be assigned to the
perfect geometry of the FE model
In
wGlb = displacement of the node corresponding to the maximum amplitude of the
global imperfection obtained from the nonlinear analysis of the perfect geometry
El
wGlb = displacement corresponding to the same node calculated for the elastic limit
state
wGlb = displacement which characterizes the global imperfection to be assigned to
the perfect geometry of the FE model.
The nonlinear analysis was carried out with and without initial local imperfections,
and it was noted that the local imperfection significantly reduced the ultimate load
capacity by 5%. The finite element models were calibrated with previous
experimental results conducted by Di Lorenzo et al. (2006). Many of the details
related to the finite element modelling are very useful to this proposed research.
Specially, the issues in relation to connection and contact modelling and initial
imperfections will be considered.
Chen and Fang (1992) conducted an experimental study to show the stability
increment of built-up I-beams made of two channel sections by introducing arc
welding (AW) method in comparison with resistance spot welding (RSW) method
(Figure 2.26). Twelve beams with a section depth of 160 mm, a flange width of 70
mm and a gauge thickness of 2.5 mm were tested. Test results showed that both the
stability and ultimate strength of beams connected by RSW is lower than that of
beams joined by AW despite the spot welds being located at 100 mm along the beam
length and 80 mm across the beam depth (2 rows).
Figure 2.26: I-Beam Made of Cold-formed Channels (Chen and Fang, 1992)
It was illustrated that the beam jointed by RSW is not enough to develop plasticity in
collapse because the deformation of this beam occurs readily, specially the
outstanding flanges prone to local buckling. But the beam connected by AW is
enough to develop plasticity almost up to forming plastic hinge due to the
strengthened effect of welding seams, which can improve the supporting condition
and increase the stability of compression flange. Besides, the welding seams located
far apart from the neutral axis of cross-section are also beneficial to the load-carrying
capacity of the beam.
Chen and Fang (1992) presented separate torsion constant equations for AW and
RSW cases and used them in a flexural torsional buckling moment equation, and the
critical moments were then compared with experimental values. For arc welding
method, the torsion constant, I K 1 was given as follows:
2bt 3 ho (2t ) 3
I K1 = + (2.22)
3 3
For resistance spot welding method, the torsion constant, I K 2 was given as follows:
2bt 3 2(ho d )t 3 k1 d (2t ) 3

IK2 = + + (2.23)
3 3 3
where
b = flange width of symmetrical I-section
d = distance from welding spot to welding spot along direction of beam depth
ho = depth of beam
IK = torsion constant
k1 = effective factor
t = thickness of compression flange
They showed that such simple modifications to basic buckling equations are able to
predict the critical buckling moments of intermittently fastened back to back C-
sections. For doubly symmetrical I-beams, the critical moment was given as follows:
2 EI y Iw GI (kL) 2
M cr = 1 ( 2 a y + ( 2 a y ) 2 + (1 + k2 )) (2.24)
(kL) 2 Iy EI w
where
1 = coefficient depends on the conditions of loading and support etc.
2 = coefficient depends on the conditions of loading and support etc.
ay = distance from shear centre to point of application of transverse load ( positive
when load is below shear centre, negative otherwise)
E = modulus of elasticity
G = modulus of rigidity
Ik = torsion constant
Iw = torsion warping constant
Ix = second moment of area of beam cross-section about x-axis
Iy = second moment of area of beam cross-section about y-axis
k = coefficient and equal to 1 for simply supported conditions
L = distance between points of support against lateral bending and twisting
Mcr = maximum value of M for a given beam
A similar approach can therefore be used for back to back LSBs. From this research,
it can be noted that the position of connectors along the depth of beam significantly
influences the ultimate moment capacity of built-up beams. They then extended their
theoretical work to back to back RSW C-sections with battens located along the
beam length at various spacings (L/4, L/2). The Rayleigh-Ritz method they used was
able to predict the increased buckling capacity of such sections with battens. The
buckling capacity doubled when battens were used at a spacing of L/4 as the mode of
failure changed from flexural torsional buckling to in-plane collapse. The reason was
not given in the paper, but it might have been due to increased torsional and flexural
rigidities of the beam. Figure 2.27 illustrates the details of battened back to back C
sections.
Figure 2.27: Battened Back to Back C-Sections Tested By Chen and Fang (1992)
Bielat et al. (1997) carried out a test program to investigate the structural capacity
and performance of built-up headers typically used in cold-formed steel framing. The
configuration of the headers tested was limited to double, back to back C-sections
assembled in accordance with the prescriptive method. Currently, allowable spans of
header assemblies are typically determined by doubling the allowable capacity of a
single C-section as calculated in accordance with the specifications for the design of
cold-formed steel structural members. This conservative assumption and simplified
design approach under-estimates the actual performance of the header assembly
resulting in an uneconomical design and unnecessary short header spans, particularly
with thin deep sections.
Figure 2.28: Details of a Built-up Header Assembly (Bielat et al., 1997)
Bielat et al. (1997) constructed and tested a total of 24 back to back header
assemblies. Each header consisted of two C-sections fastened back-to-back with two
No.10 screws spaced at 24 inches (610 mm). The top and bottom tracks were
fastened to the flanges of the C-sections with two No.8 screws spaced at 24 inches
centres as shown in Figure 2.28. A heavy steel I-beam and 1.5-inch-wide steel
bearing plates were used to apply a two-point concentrated load on the header
samples. The ends of the header were supported on 1.5-inch-wide steel plates,
representing a minimum typical bearing width (Figure 2.29). The load was applied at
a load rate of 1/20 inch per minute until the headers failed.
Figure 2.29: Header Test Apparatus (Bielat et al., 1997)
The major failure mode was local buckling of flange elements in all the specimens.
The bending capacities of back to back sections were in all cases more than double
the capacity of single C-sections with the largest increase of more than four times the
single C-section capacity for members with high h/t ratios and shorter spans (design
governed by shear) and the smallest increase of 2.44 times the single C-section
capacity for smaller h/t ratios and larger spans (design governed by bending). These
results were similar to the preliminary studies on LSBs by Perren (2005a,b).
However, it must be noted that the back to back header beams were fastened along
both web and flanges and hence would have led to large increase in moment
capacities.
Following points could be noted in the work done by Bielat et al. (1997):
1) The practice of designing built-up header members by doubling single-
member capacities results in very conservative spans.
2) The largest increases in tested capacity relative to predicted capacity were
realized for the back to back header specimens made from individual
members with high h/t ratios and shorter spans (i.e. the single member
design capacity was controlled by shear).
3) The smallest increases in tested capacity relative to predicted capacity were
realized for the back to back headers with longer spans and smaller h/t ratios
(i.e., the single member design capacity was controlled by bending).
4) The consistent failure mode in all the tests was related to local buckling of
the top compression flange at the concentrated load points. But LSB
sections exhibit lateral distortional buckling failure for intermediate span
lengths.
5) The ends of the header were restrained against weak axis rotation, but in this
proposed research, the support system will allow minor axis rotation.
Although the results are very promising, they suggested that more testing and
analysis of data are needed to investigate a design approach using a true back to back
section model instead of simply doubling the capacity of a single member. Although
the back to back header beams exhibited local buckling failure of flanges unlike in
LSB sections, this research also confirms the increment in moment capacity of built-
up sections and their structural benefits.
LaBoube et al. (1998) conducted a study to determine if the current spacing criteria
outlined in Section D1.2 of the AISI Specification (1996) accurately predicted the
capacity of built-up hat sections with cover plates in compression (Figure 2.30). The
current spacing requirements are provided to make the flat sheet act monolithically
with the cross-section. The spacing allows the member to develop the required shear
strength, and to limit column-like buckling behaviour between fasteners, and
buckling of the unstiffened edge of the cover plate. They conducted a total of 60 full-
scale beam tests. The specimens were divided as follows: h-type material without
edge stiffened cover plate and gsh-type material without edge stiffened cover plate.
All connections were made with inch, No.10, self-drilling screws. A two point
loading system was used. Connector spacing was adjusted such that the bearing plate
and screw connection would not coincide, as shown in Figure 2.31. A similar design
will be used in the experimental testing of this proposed research.
Figure 2.30: Hat-shaped Composite Section (LaBoube et al., 1998)
Figure 2.31: Arrangement of Connector Spacing (LaBoube et al., 1998)
All the test sections continued to carry additional load after the cover plate buckled.
This study showed that criterion No. 2 of the AISI Design Specification (1996)
spacing is restrictive when applied to built-up sections in bending. Also, the tests
showed that as the spacing of connectors increased, the moment capacity of the
section decreased. In this research, the main consideration was the local and global
buckling of cover plate in compression as it was unstiffened between fastener
locations. They observed that the buckling behaviour was column-like for all
sections in which the tested spacing exceeded that required by the AISI Specification
whereas plate-like buckling occurred for spacings less than that required by the AISI
Specifications. Using appropriate spacing, the compression capacity of the flange
cover plate was found to increase and hence the overall beam capacity. They
determined a significant parameter, ratio of actual spacing divided by minimum
spacing required by AISI Specification, which influenced the moment capacity and
thus proposed moment equations based on the parameter. Some of these issues are
unlikely to occur with back to back LSBs. However, their approach will be useful to
this research in the parametric studies phase.
Serrette (2004) conducted a research project to investigate the flexural performance

of box beams under eccentric edge loading using both experimental testing and
numerical studies. The box beam was made of two channels, facing each other,
connected by top and bottom tracks as shown in Figure 2.32.
Figure 2.32: Box Beam under Edge Loading and the Test Specimen (Serrette,
2004)
The top and bottom tracks were not extended to the bearing supports, and thus their
primary function was to tie the joist members together to form a box. Three types of
beams, same in section depth and width and with thicknesses of 1.09, 1.37 and 1.73
mm, were selected for this test program. To connect the tracks and joists together,
No.1015.87 mm pancake head self-drilling screws were used on the web of joists
close to flanges at 304.8 mm spacings. Failure of all the test beams was characterized
by beam twist with varying degrees of elastic local buckling. The test results were
then compared with numerical results developed using a commercial software
program with the assumption that there is no composite flexural action between the
box beam components and that lateral buckling is restrained. This assumption, non-
composite behaviour, contradicts with the proposed research as the purpose of this
research is to investigate the additional increment in flexural capacity when
considering composite actions. Results from the tests suggested that the edge loading
can potentially reduce the capacity of a box beam somewhere in the range of 10-
15%. This research was conducted to investigate the effects of edge loading and load
distribution within the components, but it did not address any behaviour of composite
actions.
Yeners (1984) studies on cellular panels under uniform loading and Luttell and
Balajis (1992) studies on cellular desks with cover plates in compression showed
that the AISI specifications for connection spacing were not accurate. Hence they
suggested modifications in relation to connection spacing limits and effective width
approach to the AISI criteria.
Landolfo (2004) conducted numerical studies to investigate the issues and results
about the modelling of the bending behaviour of thin-walled cold-formed steel lipped
C-sections. Test data of an experimental research conducted by De Martino et al.
(1992) were used to calibrate their finite element models. Four specimens with lipped
slender cross-sections connected back to back were selected for the calibration of the
numerical model. The specimens were 300 mm in depth and had widths of 170 and
200 mm and thicknesses of 2, 2.5, 3 and 4 mm. These beams were simply supported
with a span of 2800 mm and loaded by two point loads applied at a distance of 500
mm from the mid-span. The beams were braced against lateral torsional buckling
both at the support and the loading points. For these numerical studies, they used a
finite element program called ABAQUS. Shell element (S4R) was used for meshing
the beam elements. Their first task was the investigation about the feasibility of using
one of two alternative modelling schemes for the loading system. The first model
included an external node located at the load-actuator position (master joint) and two
nodes placed on the beam (slave joints) which were constrained to move together
with same vertical displacement (Figure 2.33 (a)). In the second model, the loading
system was physically introduced in the numerical model by means of a rigid body in
perfect contact with the beam (Figure 2.33 (b)). Comparison between numerical
curves obtained by using the two models was made, and the first model was found to
be the most accurate. In the first case, the experimental ultimate load was
overestimated by about 6%, while the overestimation was around 11% using the
second type of model.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.33: Models of Loading System (Landolfo, 2004)
The first elastic buckling mode was used to input the geometric imperfections in the
numerical model. To calculate the maximum amplitude (a), they used two different
methodologies which were deterministic empirical approach and imperfection
spectrum approach. Values of the maximum amplitude (a) of the imperfection shape
obtained from both approaches covered the range from 2 to 60% of the thickness (t)
of the beams cross-section. Numerical analyses were carried out considering values
of equal to 0.02t, 0.10t, 0.25t, 0.50t and 0.60t. These numerical load-displacement
curves were compared with a curve obtained without any geometric imperfections.
Comparison showed that the numerical curve obtained without any geometric
imperfection presented an ultimate load and an unstable part of the response that
overestimated the experimental results. They also suggested that the introduction of a
small imperfection produced a change in the collapse mechanism type with respect to
that of the perfect model. By considering the difference between the numerical and
experimental ultimate loads, they found a value equal to 0.45t to be the suitable
maximum amplitude which can give reliable results. This research gives useful
details about numerical analysis but it did not investigate or discuss any composite
actions.
2.6 Past Research on Other Built-up Sections
Past research on built-up sections confirmed that modifications are needed in design
specifications not only for flexural members but also for compression members. A
considerable amount of research on cold-formed and hot-rolled built-up compression
members showed the necessary modifications to design rules. The design
specifications for both built-up compression and flexural members are basically the
same as both designs are concerned about the compression part of the members. It
will be very useful to discuss the issues in built-up compression members at this
stage.
Stone and LaBoube (2005) conducted an experimental investigation to study the

behaviour of built-up cold-formed steel studs and to assess the current design
provisions of the AISI Specifications (2001). The AISI Specification for the design
of cold-formed steel structural members stipulates a modified slenderness for built-
up compression members as given next. This modified slenderness includes a new
parameter, connection spacing (a).
KL KL 2 a 2
= + (2.25)
r m r o ri

where
(KL/r)o = overall slenderness ratio of the entire section about the axis parallel to the
webs
a = intermediate fastener or spot weld spacing, K = effective length factor
L = unbraced length
ri = minimum radius of gyration of full unreduced cross-sectional area of an
individual shape in a built-up member
r = radius of gyration of the complete built-up section about the axis parallel to the
webs based on normal geometric properties.
They conducted test on a total of 32 built-up sections, made of C-shaped sections
back to back with edge stiffened flanges and track sections. The C-shaped sections
had the thicknesses varying from 0.84 to 1.37 mm and depths of 92 and 152 mm. The
connector spacings were 305, 610 and 914 mm and accordingly the spacing to depth
ratio was varied from 2.0 to 10.0. Through the data analysis, they showed that the
modification to slenderness ratio is not necessary for the thicker materials when they
are subject to axial compression. So the effect of thickness will be of concern to LSB
sections as their thicknesses vary from 1.6 to 3.0 mm.
Lue et al. (2006) conducted an experimental test on hot-rolled built-up compression

members to verify the AISC-LRFD slenderness ratio formulae for built-up
compression members. They also compared the slenderness ratios specified in other
design codes, AISC-ASD, AISC-LRFD, AS 4100 and CSA S16-01. For this
experimental test, they used hot-rolled built-up double channel sections with snug-
tight and welded connectors at spacings of 500 and 670 mm while they met the
LRFD requirement that the maximum slenderness of each component element should
not exceed three-fourths of the governing slenderness ratio of the built-up section.
From the results they showed that the modified slenderness ratios are higher than the
unmodified slenderness ratios by 3-12%, and that they reduced the compressive
strength by 2-6%.
Considerable amount of research into built-up compression members showed the

necessary modifications into the specifications given in the design codes (Bleich,
1952, Timoshenko and Gere, 1961, Zahn and Haaijer, 1988, Duan and Chen, 1988,
Aslani and Geol, 1991, 1992, Galambos, 1998, Sherman and Yura, 1998, Duan et al.,
2002).
2.7 Connection Systems
The generally used connection types in the cold-formed steel construction include;
welds, bolts, screws, rivets such as bi and mono component blind rivets and self-
piercing rivet and other special devices such as clinching, nailing and structural
adhesives (Figure 2.34).
a) Bolt Fasteners b) Clinching c) Screw Fasteners
d) Bi-component e) Mono-component f) Self-piercing

Blind Rivet Blind Rivet Rivet
Figure 2.34: Fasteners Used in Cold-formed Steel Construction
The choice of a useful connection technology is generally a key aspect in the design
of cold-formed steel structures. Due to the comparative low thickness of the material,
connection technology plays an important role in the development of structures using
cold-formed steel members. Although the above mentioned conventional methods of
connections are available and used in cold-formed steel constructions, they are
practically less appropriate for thin-walled member connections in terms of cost,
quality and construction efficiency (Lennon et al., 1999). Reliability indices of bolt
type connections designed according to AISI specifications are higher than that for
spot welds connections (Nowak, 1984). Structural behaviour of built-up beams is
strongly influenced by connection systems used (Di Lorenzo and Landolfo, 2002). Di
Lorenzo and Landolfo (2002) performed a study on innovative connection systems
by investigating the mechanical behaviour of four connecting systems that had the
same geometry but based on different technologies, namely mono- and bi-component
blind rivets, circular press-joints and self-piercing rivets. The critical analysis of the
test results emphasized that the response of the asymmetric specimens is strongly
influenced by the existing eccentricity between the flat sheets. Further, the bi-
component blind rivet showed the highest performance both in terms of strength and
ductility, and thus was recommended where ductility restoring connections are
required. On the contrary, it was not restricted to use only the bi-component blind
rivet. The self-piercing riveting introduced commercially by HENROB is a recently
discovered connection type with many advantages compared with other conventional
methods used in cold-formed steel connections (Voelkner, 2000). Fastener failure
will not be concerned in this proposed research as the sections will include relatively
overdesigned connection systems.
2.8 Design Guidelines for Cold-Formed Built-up Beams
2.8.1 Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
AS/NZS 4600 gives limited guidance in relation to the fastener arrangements

required to ensure full compatibility between the sections with respect to cold-
formed members.
Clause 4.1.1 specifies that the maximum longitudinal spacing of welds or other
connectors joining two channels to form an I-section shall be determined as follows:
*
l 2sg N
smax . = (2.26)
6 mq
where
l = span of beam
sg = vertical distance between two rows of connections nearest to the top and
bottom flanges
N* = design tensile force of the connection
q = intensity of the design action on the beam
m = distance from the shear centre of one channel to the mid-plane of its web
The maximum spacing required at preventing fastener failure (smax) is calculated

based on the simple fact that the shear centre is neither coincident with nor located in
the plane of the web as shown in Figure 2.35. When a load Q is applied in the plane
of the web, it produces a twisting moment Qm. The top fastener takes position to
resist the twisting moment. The equilibrium of moments can be written as follows:
Ts g = Qm (2.27)
qs
and Q = , where q and s are the load intensity and the fastener spacing,
2
respectively. The maximum spacing can be easily obtained by substituting the above
value of Q into Equation 2.27 as follows (same as Equation 2.26):
2Ts g
s max = (2.28)
mq
Q
Ts
S.C
g
m
Ts
Figure 2.35: Tensile Force Developed in the Top Connector for

Back to Back C-sections
The intensity of the design load (q) shall be obtained by dividing the magnitude of
the design concentrated actions or reactions by the length of bearing. For beams
designed for a uniformly distributed load, q shall be equal to three times the intensity
of the uniformly distributed design action. If the length of bearing of a concentrated
action or reaction is less than the spacing, the design tensile force of the connections
closest to the load or reaction shall be determined as follows:
mRb*
N* = (2.29)
2sg
Where Rb* is the design concentrated action or reaction.
The maximum spacing of connections (smax.) depends upon the intensity of the action
applied directly at the connection. Therefore if a uniform spacing of connections is
used over the whole length of the beam, it shall be determined at the point of
maximum local load intensity. Where this procedure may result in uneconomically
close spacing, either of the following methods may be adopted:
I. The connection spacing may be varied along the beam in accordance with the
variation of the load intensity.
II. The reinforcing cover plates may be welded to the flanges at points where
concentrated loads occur. The design shear force of the connections joining
these plates to the flanges shall be then used for N*, and sg shall be taken as
the depth of the beam.
The American Cold-formed Steel Specification (AISI, 2001) provides identical or

very similar guidelines for cold-formed built-up beams as for AS/NZS 4600.
2.8.2 British Standard BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998)
BS 5950 Part 5: Code of Practice for the design of cold-formed thin gauge sections
also gives suitable design rules for back to back built-up sections.
Clause 5.6.3d BS 5950 Part 5 specifies effective lengths for compound sections
composed of two channels back to back designed as a single integral member and
connected in accordance with Clause 8.6. The effective slenderness of the compound
beam (LE/ry) should be calculated as follows:
2 2
LE L s s
= E + 1.4 (2.30)
ry r
rI rcy cy
where
LE = the effective length of the compound member
ry = the radius of gyration of the compound section about the axis parallel to the
webs allowing for the two elements acting as a single integral member
rI = the radius of gyration of the compound section about the axis parallel to the
webs based on normal geometric properties
s = the longitudinal spacing between adjacent fasteners or welds connecting the
two sections together
rcy = the minimum radius of gyration of one channel section
s
The local slenderness of an individual channel, , should not exceed 50.
r
cy
Clause 8.6.2b of BS 5950 Part 5 specifies the maximum pitch for the connection of
two channels to form an I-section. For a flexural member, at least two structural
fasteners or welds, should be provided in line across the width of all sections. The
tendency of the individual channels to separate by twisting should be resisted by
limiting the spacing of interconnections, such that:
I. The beam length is divided into at least three parts of approximately

L
equal length, ie. smax
3
II. s 50 rcy
where
s = the longitudinal spacing of interconnections
rcy = the minimum radius of gyration of one channel
III. The tensile capacity, Pt, of the individual interconnections is greater
than the induced transverse shear force, Fs, that is, Pt Fs.
Fe
where Fs = (2.31)
2h
and
e = the distance of the shear centre of the channel from the mid-plane of
the web
h = the vertical distance between the two rows of connections near or at
the top and bottom flanges
F = the local concentrated load or reaction between the points of
interconnection under consideration
or, for distributed load
F = ws (2.32)
and
w = the load intensity on the beam acting on a bearing length of s/2 on
each side of the interconnections under consideration.
The required maximum permissible spacing of connections depends upon the

intensity of the load directly at the connection. Therefore, if uniform spacing of
connections is used over the whole length of the beam, it should be determined at the
point of maximum local load intensity. If, however, this procedure would result in
uneconomically close spacing, then either the spacing may be varied along the beam
according to the variation of the load intensity, or reinforcing cover plates may be
welded to the flanges at the points where concentrated loads occur.
These specifications are similar to that of AS/NZS 4600 to some extent. The
determination of maximum spacing required at preventing fastener failure is the
same as that of AS/NZS 4600. But the load intensity q is slightly different. BS 5950
Part 5 provides a rule based on the effective length concept and fastener spacing,
which is not in AS/NZS 4600.
2.8.3 European Recommendations for the Design of Light Gauge Steel

Members
Clause R 9.3.1.1 gives design rules to design a connection against longitudinal slip.
The connection should have adequate capacity to resist a shear force v per unit length
between the elements of a built-up member. The shear force v is defined as follows:
VS (2.33)
v=
I
where
V = shear force due to the design load
S = first moment of area of the connected element about the neutral axis of the
composite section
I = second moment of area of the composite section
If the section is not fully effective the above calculation is to be based on the
effective cross-section in flexure. Each fastener (e.g. rivet, screw, spot weld) should
be designed to resist a shear force F given by the following expression:
va f
F= (2.34)
n
where
v = shear force according to Equation 2.33
af = pitch of fasteners
n = numbers of parallel rows of fasteners
Furthermore the pitch (af) of fasteners should be small enough to prevent inter-
fastener buckling of the connected elements when they are in compression as given
below:
1
280 2
a f 36t (2.35)
fc
where
fc = compressive stress at design strength
t = thickness of the element
If unstiffened elements in compression are joined to other parts of the cross-section

by intermittent fasteners and are not fully effective according to R.3.3, the pitch af
should satisfy both Equation 2.35 and the following condition.
a f 3c o
where, co = width of the unstiffened element measured between the centre line of the
fasteners and the free edge
Clause R 9.3.3 specifies design guidelines for an I-beam composed of two channels.
The spacing af along the beam of fasteners which join two beams of U or C sections
to form a beam of I section shall be less than af according to the following
expressions.
2a1 F d
af = (2.36)
es q
where
Fd = design value perpendicular to the plane of the sheeting with respect to pull-
through failure or pull-over, or tensile failure of the fastener
a1 = distance perpendicular to the direction of the beam between fastener and tension
flange
es = distance between shear centre and the centre line of the web for a beam of U or
C section
q = load per unit length of beam, determined as follows:
The load intensity q is the ratio of concentrated load to the loaded length or the
reaction to the length of bearing. For a uniformly distributed load, q should be taken
as equal to three times the design value of the uniformly distributed load. If the
loaded length or the length of bearing is less than the distance between fasteners, the
fasteners nearest the load or the reaction R should be designed for a force
perpendicular to the web as follows:
Res
F = (2.37)
2a1
Where the Res is the load or the reaction
The distance af is determined by the intensity of loading in the vicinity of the
fasteners. If the intensity of loading varies along the beam, the fasteners may be
a) spaced uniformly along the beam, the spacing being determined by the
maximum intensity of loading
b) given a variable spacing on the basis of the intensity of loading
c) Spaced uniformly but reinforced by sheeting which connects the flanges
under concentrated loads and at supports. This sheeting should be designed
and attached to the flanges with respect to a tensile force perpendicular to the
web according to Equation 2.37, a1 being equal to the depth of the beams.
The above mentioned design procedures differ somewhat from each other.
Essentially, all of the design procedures take account of fastener failure and
excessive distortion between connectors. The tensile force in the fastener is
calculated based on the fact that the shear centre is neither coincident with nor
located in the plane of the web, and this same approach is adopted in all the above
mentioned design procedures. But they are different to each other when considering
the spacing limit required at preventing the excessive distortion between the
connectors. For example; AS/NZS 4600 specifies span/6 as the maximum spacing
between fasteners to prevent the excessive distortion whereas BS 5950 Part 5 states
that the limit should be less than span/3 or the local slenderness of the individual
s
channel, should not exceed 50. The European Recommendation specifies the
r
cy
1
280 2
spacing limit as 36t where fc and t are the compressive stress at design
f
c
strength and thickness of the member, respectively.
2.9 Literature Review Findings
The increasing use of cold-formed steel members in the construction industry is a

direct result of continuing research into the more complicated behaviour of these
sections, and their superior cross-section geometry that is facilitated by improved
cold-formed manufacturing processes, high yield strength base steels, and innovative
cross-section geometries. Further to this, the introduction of hollow flange cold-
formed sections has added to the growing popularity of cold-formed steel sections
due to their superior torsional strength properties, and efficient manufacturing
processes. LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is the new, innovative, hollow flange beam
produced by OneSteel Australian Tube Mill (ATM). The LSB has a unique shape
and manufacturing process which provides an extremely efficient strength to weight
ratio. It has already been established that LSB offers increased capacity when
compared to conventional sections.
Recent research conducted by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) on the member

moment capacity of single LSB sections found the LSB to be particularly susceptible
to Lateral Distortional Buckling (LDB) due to the torsionally rigid flanges of the
section being connected by a comparatively slender web. This mode of buckling
significantly reduces the ultimate moment capacity of the LSB. The back to back
LSB is predicted to mitigate lateral distortional buckling to some extent by providing
additional rigidity to the weakest element of the section, namely the web. This is
achieved in the form of a double thickness web facilitated by connecting the LSBs
back to back.
Flexural strength increases in strength gains were noted when combining two LSB
sections in a back to back arrangement (Perren, 2005a, Scully, 2005). This can be
illustrated as the back to back arrangement effectively negates the twisting moment
that is present in single beam due to the shear centre being non-coincident with the
web of the beam (Yu, 2000). This is predicted to effectively increase the moment
capacity by more than double, thereby offering even more available strength for the
LSB when compared to conventional sections. This can be achieved by providing
design guidance in relation to fastener spacing for the back to back LSBs, thereby
expanding on the range of applications for the LSBs use in the construction
industry. Past research on built-up channel header members by Bielat et al. (1997)
has also confirmed this.
The current method of connections used in the industry is to fasten the webs together
based on the design method with respect to the longitudinal spacing required for the
combined cold-formed C-sections to behave as an integral member. The cold-formed
steel structures design standard AS/NZ 4600 (SA, 2005) outlines a design procedure
in Clause 4.1.1 in relation to connecting two conventional channels to form an I-
section, and the required longitudinal spacing of such connections. It says that the
maximum spacing between connections should be less than or equal to the lesser of
one sixth of the span and the maximum spacing required to prevent bolt failure at the
connection based on the fact that the shear centre is neither coincident with nor
located in the plane of the web. But Perrens (2005a) and Scullys (2005) test results
confirmed that this spancing requirement is conservative to some extent. Also the
code describes neither unequal spacing requirements nor spacing details for non-
uniform actions. This design procedure is mainly aimed at preventing connection
failures rather than providing clear design details required for built-up sections to
behave as an integral section.
To date, little research has been conducted on built-up beam sections and those
studies failed to provide clear design guidance in relation to the spacing required to
ensure full compatibility between the sections with respect to cold-formed steel
members. In the research conducted previously, a limited amount of experimental
work was carried out, and only suggestions were provided. They recommended that
further research is needed to fully investigate and to develop appropriate design
rules.
Furthermore, research to date conducted by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a)

has found that the current design methods in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 1996) with respect
to the member moment capacity do not adequately cover the hollow flange LSBs,
and thus proposed changes based on full scale testing and finite element modelling.
Hence there is also a need to verify the design procedure in relation to longitudinal
spacing given in Clause 4.1.1 of AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005).
Other steel design codes do not address the many relevant issues relating to LSBs or
built-up members. For example; ENV 1993-1-3: (CEN, 1996): General rules -
supplementary rules for cold-formed thin gauge members and sheeting does not
provide any guidance for built-up sections. AS 4100 (SA, 1998): Steel Structures
and ANSI/AISC 360-05 (AISC, 2005) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
give guidance only for hot-rolled built-up compression and tension members
composed of two components back to back. They do not give any guidance for
flexural members. Also, BS 5950 Part 1: (BSI, 2000) and ENV 1993-1-1:1992 do not
have clear guidelines for hot-rolled flexural built-up members.
Currently, allowable spans of built-up beams are typically determined by doubling

the allowable capacity of a single section as calculated in accordance with the
specifications given in the design codes. This conservative assumption and simplified
design approach under-estimates the actual performance of built-up beams (Bielat et
al., 1997). By conducting this proposed research, the actual performance of built-up
beams will be investigated, and suitable design approach in calculating the actual
member capacity of built-up beams, will be provided.
From this point of view it appears that there is a lack of knowledge about the flexural
behaviour of built-up members and this situation needs to be improved. Also,
research into the innovative LiteSteel beams has been limited and the fundamental
knowledge and understanding of the complicated behaviour of these new sections is
inadequate. Hence it is important to investigate the structural behaviour of built-up
LiteSteel beams to provide clear design guidance. This will be useful in increasing
the usage of LSB members in the construction industry.
CHAPTER 3
Experimental Studies of the
Flexural Behaviour of Back
to Back LSB Sections
3.1 General
This research was aimed at investigating the flexural member behaviour of back to
back LiteSteel beams (LSBs) and to verify the adequacy of the existing design rules
based on their behaviour. For this purpose fourteen full scale lateral buckling tests
and twenty seven tensile coupon tests were conducted. This chapter presents the
details of the full scale lateral buckling tests and the results relating to the flexural
behaviour of back to back LSBs. It also describes the experimental studies of the
mechanical properties of LSBs. Tensile coupon tests were conducted using
specimens taken from the same batches of LSBs, which were used in the lateral
buckling tests. The main objective of the tensile test program was to obtain accurate
mechanical properties and associated stress-strain relationships for the steel used
with different LSB sections and thicknesses that were needed in the design
calculations and the numerical modelling of back to back built-up LSBs.
Furthermore, details of geometrical imperfection tests conducted on the lateral
buckling test specimens are also presented in this chapter.
3.2 Section Geometry and Specimens
Currently there are 13 LSBs whose depths vary from 125 mm to 300 mm while the
width of the hollow flange varies from 45 mm to 75 mm. The thickness of steel used
for the beams ranges from 1.6 mm to 3.0 mm. The LSB is manufactured in standard
lengths of 12 and 14.5 metres. Table 3.1 shows the section dimensions of the range
of commercially available LSB members.
Table 3.1: LSB Section Dimensions (LST, 2005)
d d1 bf df t ro rriw
iw
LSB Sections
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
300753.0 LSB 300 244 75 25.0 3.00 6.00 3.00
300752.5 LSB 300 244 75 25.0 2.50 5.00 3.00
300602.0 LSB 300 254 60 20.0 2.00 4.00 3.00
250753.0 LSB 250 194 75 25.0 3.00 6.00 3.00
250752.5 LSB 250 194 75 25.0 2.50 5.00 3.00
250602.0 LSB 250 204 60 20.0 2.00 4.00 3.00
200602.5 LSB 200 154 60 20.0 2.50 5.00 3.00
200602.0 LSB 200 154 60 20.0 2.00 4.00 3.00
200451.6 LSB 200 164 45 15.0 1.60 3.20 3.00
150452.0 LSB 150 114 45 15.0 2.00 4.00 3.00
150451.6 LSB 150 114 45 15.0 1.60 3.20 3.00
125452.0 LSB 125 89 45 15.0 2.00 4.00 3.00
125451.6 LSB 125 89 45 15.0 1.60 3.20 3.00
Note: d Overall depth, d1 Web flat depth, bf Flange width, df Flange depth,
t Thickness, ro Outside flange radius and riw Inside web radius
Figure 3.1 shows the proposed back to back built-up LSB section. Both beams are
connected back to back using bolts on their web elements. The basic parameters are:
flange width (2bf), flange depth, web flat depth (d1), thickness (t), bolt clearance (c)
and fastener spacing (s).
df
c
Bolt spacing along

the beam s d1
c
df
2bf
Figure 3.1: Back to Back Configuration of LSBs
As discussed in Chapter 2, LiteSteel beams are susceptible to various buckling
modes under flexural action depending on their span lengths. They are:
a. Local buckling
b. Lateral distortional buckling
c. Lateral torsional buckling
d. Interaction (eg: local and lateral distortional buckling)
e. Material yielding
Preliminary elastic buckling analyses of back to back LSB sections were conducted
using a finite strip program THIN-WALL. The LSB member length was varied from
100 mm to 10000 mm to capture all the possible buckling modes. The elastic
buckling moments obtained using THIN-WALL are shown in Figures 3.2 (a) to (c).
In the buckling analyses, an idealized back to back LSBs with continuous connection
was assumed. Also, the compactness of all the available 13 LSB sections was
determined based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998) design rules (see Appendix A3.1 of this
thesis). Using this numerical study, the test specimens were chosen based on all three
levels of compactness. Three different LSB sections, 125452.0 LSB, 150451.6
LSB and 200451.6 LSB, were chosen from the small and medium size LSBs to
include the effect of section geometry into the investigation. Based on AS 4100
guidelines, they are classified as compact, non-compact and slender sections,
respectively (nominal dimensions and mechanical properties were considered for
this). The span length of the specimen was selected as 3.5 m based on the current test
rig capacity and was within the practical range of 12 to 24 times the section depth
(d). For this span the failure mode of back to back LSB sections is governed by
lateral distortional buckling, which satisfies the main requirement of this test
program. Connection spacings selected for the specimens were the minimum spacing
of span/6 as specified in AS/NZS 4600, span/4, span/3, span/2 and span/1, ie. no
connections between the two end supports.
Table 3.2: Elastic Buckling Analysis Results
Span Buckling Buckling Failure

LSB Section
(m) Stress (MPa) Moment (kNm) Mode
1.0 1012 25.06 LDB

2.0 589.8 14.61 LDB
125452.0 LSB 3.0 425.1 10.53 LDB
3.5 371.6 9.21 LDB
4.0 329.7 8.17 LDB
1.0 799.9 20.59 LDB
2.0 434.0 11.17 LDB
150451.6 LSB 3.0 325.6 8.38 LDB
3.5 289.2 7.44 LDB
4.0 259.7 6.68 LDB
1.0 679.1 26.0 LDB
2.0 300.4 11.5 LDB
200451.6 LSB 3.0 220.8 8.45 LDB
3.5 196.7 7.53 LDB
4.0 177.3 6.79 LDB
Note: LDB Lateral distortional buckling
Figures 3.2 (a) to (c) illustrate the changes to elastic buckling modes at different
buckling half wavelengths for three back to back LSB sections connected
continuously based on the buckling plots obtained from the THIN-WALL buckling
analyses. The graphs represent the variation of maximum stress in the section at
buckling as a function of half-wavelength. According to Figure 3.2 (a), local flange
buckling changes to lateral distortional buckling at a buckling half wavelength of 400
mm, which remains up to a wavelength of 5000 mm with reducing distortional effect.
Pure lateral torsional buckling takes place beyond 5000 mm. The yield strength of
material should be compared with the buckling stress to check whether yielding
occurs before buckling.
(a) Buckling Plot for 125452.0 LSB Section
(b) Buckling Plot for 150451.6 LSB Section
Figure 3.2: Different Buckling Modes of LSBs
(c) Buckling Plot for 200451.6 LSB Section
Figure 3.2: Different Buckling Modes of LSBs
Table 3.2 shows that for short spans, yielding takes place first before buckling.
Similar behaviour can be noted in Figure 3.2 (b) in which both local flange and web
buckling occur for buckling half wavelengths up to 200 mm. It then changes to
lateral distortional buckling beyond 400 mm, which was dominant up to a half
wavelength of 1500 mm. Lateral torsional buckling occurs beyond 7000 mm. In
Figure 3.2 (c), local flange and web buckling occur for buckling half wavelengths up
to 400 mm, which changes to lateral distortional buckling beyond 400 mm. Lateral
distortional buckling dominates up to a half wavelength of 3000 mm. Pure lateral
torsional buckling occurs beyond 8000 mm. In all the cases, lateral distortional
buckling takes place for intermediate spans ranging from 1000 mm to 4000 mm.
3.3 Test Program
Table 3.3 shows the lateral buckling test program for back to back LSB sections. It
includes two single LSB tests. All the fourteen specimens had a span length of 3.5 m
(L) and an overhang length of 0.75 m (X). Details of the overhang loading method
and the reason for its selection are given in Section 3.7.
Table 3.3: Test Program

Total
Test LSB Section Span OHL FS
Compactness Length FSR
No d bf t (mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
1 200451.6 LSB Slender 3500 750 5000 3500 Span/1
2 200451.6 LSB Slender 3500 750 5000 1750 Span/2
3 200451.6 LSB Slender 3500 750 5000 1167 Span/3
4 200451.6 LSB Slender 3500 750 5000 875 Span/4
5 200451.6 LSB Slender 3500 750 5000 583 Span/6
6 150451.6 LSB Non-Compact 3500 750 5000 3500 Span/1
11 125452.0 LSB Compact 3500 750 5000 1167 Span/3
12 125452.0 LSB Compact 3500 750 5000 583 Span/6
13 200451.6 LSB* Slender 3500 750 5000 N/A N/A
14 150451.6 LSB* Non-Compact 3500 750 5000 N/A N/A
Note: d Overall depth, bf Flange width, t Thickness, OHL Overhang length,
FS Fastener spacing, FSR Fastener spacing ratio, * - Single LSB sections
3.4 Test Specimens
Test specimens were provided by the manufacturer, OneSteel Australian Tube Mills
(OATM), and were assembled in the QUT Structural Laboratory (Figure 3.3), using
M10 commercial bolts (Snug tight). Two rows of connections were made on the web
at 20 mm away from the inside flanges. Bolt connections were made in the overhang
region also to make sure that there is no flange separation or unwanted failures
caused by inadequate fastener connection. The test beam was connected to the
support and loading devices using M10 (3/8 diameter) high strength bolts. Hence 11
mm holes were inserted in the test specimens to enable the required connections.
Final test specimen dimensions were measured and are given in Table 3.4. The
nominal section properties of LSB sections can be found in the Design Capacity
Tables for LSBs. The measured dimensions were found to be different to the nominal
values; however they were within the manufacturers fabrication tolerance limits
(Appendix A2.2). The measurements of the two flanges in LSB sections showed that
the flange depths are not the same. With one of them slightly higher than the nominal
value while the other slightly lower than the nominal value. Only the minimum
values are given in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Average Measured Dimensions of LSB Sections used in Experiments

Flange Thickness Flange
Depth (d)
LSB Section Width (bf) Flange (tf) Web (tw) Depth (df)
(mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
125452.0 LSB 125.7 45.6 2.14 1.97 14.6

150451.6 LSB 150.5 45.5 1.78 1.62 14.8
200451.6 LSB 200.8 45.7 1.83 1.65 14.8
(a) Ready for Assembling
M10 commercial bolts
(b) Assembled Specimen
Figure 3.3: Assembling of Back to Back LSB Test Specimens
3.5 Initial Geometric Imperfection Tests
3.5.1 General
Geometric imperfections are usually sorted into two categories, maximum local
imperfection in stiffened elements and maximum deviation from straightness for
stiffened or unstiffened flange elements. Cold-forming and welding manufacturing
processes induce initial geometric imperfections in LSB sections that are different
from other cold-formed sections. Initial geometric imperfections in single LSB
sections were measured by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005e) and were within
the manufacturers tolerance limits. Back to back built-up LSB sections are formed
by connecting the web elements of two single LSBs back to back using bolts. This
method of assembling the built-up sections is likely to alter the original
imperfections in single LSBs. Hence in this research the geometric imperfections of
built-up LSBs were measured after the final assembly.
3.5.2 Test Devices and Procedure
From the test specimens made for the lateral buckling tests, suitable specimens were
selected based on the cross-section geometry and the connector spacing type (Table
3.5). In some cases, imperfection measurements of single LSBs were also taken in
order to determine the effect of bolting. The initial geometric imperfections were
measured using an imperfection measuring equipment specially designed and built at
QUT (Figures 3.4 (a) and (b)). The imperfection measuring equipment included a
leveled table with guided rails with an accuracy of 0.01 mm, a laser sensor, a
travelator to move the sensor and a data logger. The laser sensor was attached to the
travelator that could move in-plane and normal to the plane. The specimen was
positioned and levelled using the adjustable screws of the table and clamped. The
laser sensor was then moved along the specimen while taking the readings at every
100 mm intervals across the web and flange elements and along two or three lines in
the longitudinal direction to determine the initial crookedness along the web and both
flanges of each specimen. Figure 3.5 shows the location of initial imperfection
measurements of single and back to back LSBs. The imperfection magnitudes were
measured within the critical span region where the failure was expected to occur.
Specimens
Adjustable
foot screws
(a) Measuring Table
Travelator
(facilitates movements
in both longitudinal
and lateral directions)
Laser sensor and

data logger
(b) Travelator
Figure 3.4: Geometric Imperfection Measuring Equipment
3.5.3 Test Results and Discussion
The maximum initial crookedness values () for each test specimen are given in
Table 3.5. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 illustrate the variation of imperfection magnitudes for
a typical test specimen.
F1 F2 F1 F2 F3 F4
10 25 10 10 25 10 10 25 10
30 30
W3 W5
70 70
W4 W6
70 70
W5 W7
30 30
(a) Single LSB (b) Back to Back LSB
Figure 3.5: Locations of Initial Imperfection Measurements
The overall maximum imperfection values for single LSBs (Tests 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7)
are less than 50% of the recommended limit of span/1000 in AS 4100 (SA, 1998).
This confirms that the manufacturing process of LSB does not lead to geometric
imperfections that exceed the currently accepted fabrication tolerances (see
Appendix A2.2). The measured twist is also well below, (<5%) the fabrication
tolerance (see Appendix A2.2). It was found that the imperfections of back to back
LSBs are slightly different from that of single LSB sections. For example, the out-of-
plane straightness of back to back LSBs (Test 6) was slightly lower than that of
single LSBs (Tests 4 and 5) while the opposite trend was found when test
measurements were compared with Tests 1, 2 and 3. Significant differences can be
noted when the in-plane test measurements were compared with Tests 1, 2 and 3.
This might have been due to the flanges not being in the same level. In other cases,
only slight differences were observed. Twist measurements of back to back LSBs
were also showed noticeable variation from that of single LSBs. This could also be
due to the defect in assembling. However, all the measurements taken show that they
are well below the recommended limits. Hence it can be concluded that the back to
back bolting process is not likely to alter the imperfections. Typical initial
imperfection patterns for web and flanges are as shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7. More
details of initial imperfection patterns can be found in Appendix A2.1
0.8
F-1
0.6 F-2
F - AVG (1+2)
0.4
Imperfection (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
Span Length (mm)
(a) Flange Single LSB
1.5
W-3
W-4
W-5
1.0
W - AVG (3+4+5)
Imperfection (mm)
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
-1.0
Span Length (mm)
(b) Web Single LSB
45
Figure 3.6: Measured Imperfections of Single 200 1.6 LSB
2.5
F-1
F-2
2.0 F-3
F-4
F - AVG (1+2)
1.5 F - AVG (3+4)
Imperfection (mm)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
-1.0
Span Length (mm)
(a) Flange Back to Back LSB

2.5
W-5
W-6
2.0 W-7
W - AVG
1.5
Imperfection (mm)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
Span Length (mm)
(b) Web Back to Back LSB
45
Figure 3.7: Measured Imperfections of Back to Back 200 1.6 LSB with Bolts
at Span/3
Table 3.5: Measured Initial Geometric Imperfections of Out-of-Straightness and
Twist
Out-of- Twist
Test Span Straightness (mm) (mm/m length)
Specimens Type CS
No (mm) Out-of- In-
Flange Web
plane plane
1 200451.6 LSB S N/A 3200 1.21 0.62 0.18 0.01
2 200451.6 LSB S N/A 3200 1.19 0.62 0.11 0.03
3 200451.6 LSB BB Span/6 3200 1.45 2.12 0.28 0.27
4 200451.6 LSB S N/A 3200 1.39 1.59 0.17 0.19
5 200451.6 LSB S N/A 3200 1.45 0.92 0.01 0.01
6 200451.6 LSB BB Span/3 3200 1.35 1.78 1.28 0.25
7 150451.6 LSB S N/A 3200 1.22 1.19 0.07 0.11
8 150451.6 LSB BB Span/2 3200 1.57 0.96 0.14 0.01
9 150451.6 LSB BB Span/6 3200 0.78 0.98 0.10 0.03
10 125452.0 LSB BB Span/3 3200 0.93 0.71 0.23 0.06
Note: S Single LSB, BB Back to back LSB, CS Connector Spacing
3.6 Tensile Coupon Tests
3.6.1 General
The structural behaviour of LiteSteel beams depends on the mechanical properties

(yield stress, ultimate strength and stress-strain behaviour) of the steel used.
Mechanical properties are also required in the finite element analyses of LiteSteel
beams. Therefore tensile tests of steel coupons taken from LiteSteel beams were
conducted to determine the required important mechanical properties based on the
procedure specified in the Australian Standard AS 1391 (SA, 2007).
3.6.2 Material Description
The LiteSteel beams are manufactured from TF360 and TF380 hot-rolled coil steel
strips of thicknesses ranging from 1.6 to 3.0 mm using simultaneous roll-forming and
dual electric resistance welding processes. The TF360 coils have a minimum yield
stress of 360 MPa while TF 380 coils have a minimum yield stress of 380 MPa.
Also, the cold-forming process used in manufacturing LSB sections produces large
deformations of the grain structure which cause an increase in the yield and ultimate
stresses associated with a decrease in ductility. During the cold-forming process of
LSB sections, the web element of the sections receive very little or no cold-working,
and hence there is only a small or insignificant increase in the yield stress of the flat
webs of the finished product compared to the original strip. Onesteel Australian Tube
Mills (OATM) estimates that the cold-working of flange increases its yield stress to
more than 450 MPa in the finished product. Therefore, for design purposes OATM
recommends the yield stresses of flange and web elements of LSB sections to be 450
MPa and 380 MPa, respectively. However, such variations of yield stresses of flange
and web elements have not been investigated in detail. Therefore tensile coupon tests
are required to determine the mechanical properties of steels used in LSB sections
and to confirm the compliance of these steels to appropriate material and design
standards.
Onesteel Australian Tube Mills manufactures the LSB to an in-house specification

from a steel which is the most appropriate for the forming process, welding and
grade requirements. An external coating, AZ+TM, which is applied during the
manufacturing process, provides corrosion protection. AZ+TM is an aluminium and
zinc alloy that provides a superior level of atmospheric corrosion protection than
ordinary zinc coating of the same mass. AZ+ takes corrosion protection against the
formation of red rust to new levels.
All steels used in this test program were cold reduced to the required thickness and
coated with an aluminium/zinc alloy. It is assumed that the contribution of metallic
coating to the structural strength of LSB in terms of section and member capacities is
insignificant and therefore the base metal thickness (BMT) is used instead of the total
coated thickness (TCT). The BMT of each specimen was determined using the acid
itching method. The TCT of each specimen was measured before they were
immersed in the hydrochloric acid to wash off the metallic coating. The specimens
were taken out after approximately 60 minutes in the hydrochloric acid and were
washed in pure water before the BMT was measured. The details of the average
measured TCT and BMT and the calculated coating thicknesses are listed in Table
3.6 for the web element. The measured BMT of each tensile test specimen is given in
Table 3.7.
Table 3.6: Measured Thicknesses of LSB Sections
Nominal Measured (mm)
LSB Section Calculated CT (mm)
BMT (mm) TCT BMT
200451.6 LSB 1.6 1.66 1.61 0.025
150451.6 LSB 1.6 1.62 1.58 0.020
125452.0 LSB 2.0 1.97 1.94 0.015
Note: Coating thickness, CT=(TCT-BMT)/2
3.6.3 Test Specimen Size and Fabrication
Twenty seven coupons were fabricated in the Workshop at the Queensland

University of Technology. They were taken from each LSB section used in the
lateral buckling tests. The coupons were cut in the longitudinal direction from
various locations of the beam, namely the outside flange, inside flange and web. It is
necessary to design the tensile coupons which limit the possibility of an eccentric
connection between the test machine grips and the test coupon. Therefore tensile
coupon dimensions were chosen in accordance with the recommendations of AS
1391 (SA, 2007), and are shown in Figure 3.8 (a). It is considered that the
dimensions selected here do not unduly affect the stress-strain behaviour of tensile
coupons. Accurate and consistent fabrication procedures were used for all the
coupons included in this study to ensure that they were of a near identical size and
shape. Steel strips were guillotined from the various locations in the longitudinal
direction. These strips were then milled to the appropriate shape in a milling
machine. The coupons were noticeably curled when cut from the LSB sections,
indicating the locked-in high residual stresses in LSB sections (see Figure 3.8 (b)).
These coupons were straightened using a roller before testing them.
R20 12 mm
20 mm
50 mm 80 mm 50 mm
200 mm
(a) Nominal Dimensions
(b) Curled Tensile Coupons Due to (c) Strain Gauged Tensile

Residual Stresses Test Specimens
Figure 3.8: Tensile Test Specimens
3.6.4 Test Set-up and Procedure
All the tensile coupons were tested in the Structures Laboratory at the Queensland
University of Technology using the Tinius Olsen testing machine and the standard
procedures recommended by AS 1391 (SA, 2007). Special jaw systems which have
the ability to translate and rotate in in-plane were attached to the test machine cross-
heads. This system of jaws minimised the presence of any end eccentricities due to
any misalignment of the grips and hence eliminated specimen twisting and bending
that usually occurs when the grips are tightened (see Figure 3.9 (b)).
Two strain gauges (KYOWA strain gauges type KFG-5-120-C1-11L1M2R with a

resistance of about 120.0 and a gauge factor of 2.10) and an extensometer (50 mm
gauge length) were used to measure the longitudinal strain. Extensometer was used
in all the tests while strain gauges were used in some specimens only to calibrate the
extensometer. Extensometer has a limited capability of measurements up to 4.5%
strain. The surface of the tensile coupons was first cleaned with fine grade emery
paper and then with an acetone solution. The thickness and width of all the test
specimens were measured at three different locations within the constant gauge
length (50 mm). Strain gauge was attached to the tensile coupons at approximately
mid length using CN Cyanoacrylate adhesive. Figure 3.8 (c) shows some of the strain
gauged tensile test specimens. The specimen was then mounted in the machine. After
the tensile coupon had been aligned and securely gripped in the test machine the 50
mm extensometer was attached to the central portion of the constant gauge length
(Figure 3.9 (d)). The test coupons were then loaded in tension until fracture occurred
within the gauge length based on AS 1391 (SA, 2007) specification (see Figure 3.9
(c)). It specified that the elastic strain rate can be at any convenient rate up to
approximately one half of the force value corresponding to the expected or specified
yield point, and beyond this point, the test (i.e. plastic strain) shall be carried out
within a strain rate range of 2.5 10-4 s-1 to 2.5 10-3 s-1. The tests were undertaken
using a cross-head speed of about 1.33 10-2 mms-1 that gave a target strain rate of
about 2.67 10-4 s-1. The measurements of load, extensometer and strain data were
recorded automatically at a fast rate (every second) using a data acquisition system
attached to a personal computer, and were used to plot the stress-strain graphs and
hence calculate the basic material properties for each test specimen as described in
the following section.
(a) Data Acquisition System (b) Tinius Olsen Testing Machine
(c) Tested Specimens (d) Extensometer
Figure 3.9: Test Set-up
3.6.5 Tensile Test Results and Discussion
Test results derived based on the measured base metal thicknesses are summarised in
Table 3.7 while the typical stress-strain curves for the web and flange elements are
given in Figures 3.11 (a) to (c). The web and flange yield stresses vary with thickness
while similar results were obtained for sections having the same thickness, for
example 200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB. Test results show that the measured
yield stresses exceed the nominal flange yield stress of 450 MPa and the nominal
web yield stress of 380 MPa. As seen in Table 3.7, the average yield stresses of the
outside and inside flanges and the web are 547.0, 492.1 and 450.5 MPa, respectively,
indicating the higher level of cold-working in the flanges. The lack of yield plateau
in the stress-strain curves of flange specimens also demonstrates this (see Figures
3.11 (a) to (c)). The range of fu/fy ratios is 1.07 (outside flange) to 1.198 (web),
which also indicates the effect of cold-working process. Further details of individual
tests including the stress-strain curves are given in Appendix A1.
Batch No - 1 W Web
I Inside flange
B18W-1 O Outside flange
LSB Section Reference Specimen No

- see Table 3.7
Figure 3.10: Specimen Labelling for Tensile Coupon Tests
700
600
500
fyo
Stress (MPa)
400 fyi
fyw
300
Outside flange
Inside flange
200 Web
Young's Modulus
0.2% Proof stress
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
(a) 200451.6 LSB
Figure 3.11: Stress Strain Curves for the Web, Inside and Outside Flange
Elements of LSB Sections
Stress - Strain Curve for Section 150*45*1.6 LSB
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Outside flange
Inside flange
200
Web
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
(b) 150451.6 LSB

Stress - Strain Curve for Section 125*45*2.0 LSB
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Outside flange
Inside flange
200
Web
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
(c) 125452.0 LSB
Figure 3.11: Stress Strain Curves for the Web, Inside and Outside Flanges
Elements of LSB Sections
Table 3.7: Tensile Test Results
Sample b bmt fy fu bmt fy fu
Specimen fu/fy
Label (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
B18W-1 12.01 1.61 441.49 526.11 MEAN 1.61 452.11 534.69 1.183
B18W-2 11.98 1.61 459.00 545.52 STDEV 0.01 9.33 9.90
B18W-3 12.00 1.60 455.84 532.45
B18I-1 11.94 1.66 495.16 540.94 MEAN 1.65 495.31 542.68 1.096
200451.6
LSB B18I-2 11.99 1.66 494.59 550.16 STDEV 0.02 0.80 6.78
B18I-3 12.00 1.63 496.17 536.95
B18O-1 11.99 1.80 538.37 579.35 MEAN 1.79 539.10 586.49 1.088
B18O-2 11.97 1.80 532.75 585.05 STDEV 0.02 6.74 7.96
B18O-3 11.99 1.77 546.18 595.08
B29W-1 11.99 1.58 453.42 536.73 MEAN 1.58 455.15 539.75 1.186
B29W-2 11.97 1.59 458.12 541.47 STDEV 0.01 2.59 2.62
B29W-3 11.93 1.58 453.90 541.05
B29I-1 11.98 1.62 491.15 548.62 MEAN 1.62 487.52 549.17 1.126
150451.6
LSB B29I-2 11.98 1.62 494.93 547.76 STDEV 0.01 9.75 1.75
B29I-3 11.96 1.61 476.48 551.12
B29O-1 11.99 1.75 554.92 599.58 MEAN 1.75 557.81 604.39 1.084
B29O-2 12.01 1.75 554.51 602.47 STDEV 0.01 5.36 6.00
B29O-3 11.95 1.74 564.00 611.12
B15W-1 11.86 1.94 444.72 534.37 MEAN 1.94 444.37 532.34 1.198
B15W-2 11.89 1.94 445.85 531.35 STDEV 0.01 1.68 1.76
B15W-3 11.88 1.93 442.55 531.29
B15I-1 11.89 1.97 497.33 538.34 MEAN 1.97 493.41 539.29 1.093
125452.0
LSB B15I-2 11.89 1.97 492.40 539.52 STDEV 0.00 3.53 0.86
B15I-3 11.91 1.97 490.50 540.02
B15O-1 11.88 2.16 538.96 576.17 MEAN 2.16 544.13 582.20 1.070
B15O-2 11.88 2.15 537.94 575.79 STDEV 0.01 9.85 10.78
B15O-3 11.88 2.16 555.49 594.65

Web 450.54 535.59 0.015
COV of
Average Inside Flange 492.08 543.71 0.013
fy
Outside Flange 547.01 591.03 0.019
3.7 Experimental Method
Idealized simply supported boundary conditions were implemented in the ideal finite
model in which equal end moments were applied at both ends to produce a uniform
moment throughout the entire beam. However, this idealized simply supported beam
with end moments that provide a uniform moment cannot be used in the
experimental study, thus two different methods, namely the quarter point loading and
the overhang loading methods were considered. The quarter point loading method is
commonly used as it does not provide any warping restraint to the test beam.
However, it has some problems with the testing of built-up beams since the bolted
connections used on the web element for the quarter point loading set-up had to be
treated as additional connections to the built-up beams. Therefore it was decided to
use the overhang loading method which eliminated this problem while simulating a
uniform moment throughout the entire span. The level of warping restraint induced
in this method depends on the overhang length, i.e. less warping restraint with
shorter overhang. However, shorter overhangs may induce shear or local buckling
failures at the supports due to higher load requirements. Therefore a suitable
overhang length of 0.75 m was chosen based on a series of preliminary finite element
analysis in order to avoid any unwanted failures in the test beam. The experimental
arrangement of the built-up LSB beams is shown in Figure 3.12.
P P
Overhang Test Beam Overhang
X L X
Bending Moment Distribution
Figure 3.12: Overhang Loading Method
3.8 Test Set-up for Back to Back LSBs
The test rig used by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c), Perren (2005a) and
Scully (2005) (Figures 2.12 to 2.14 and 2.19) was modified and improved for use in
this experimental study. It consists of a support system and a loading system, which
are attached to an external frame structure consisting of two main beams and four
columns. Figure 3.13 shows the overall view of the test rig based on the selected
overhang loading system. Due to the overhang region in the test beam, the maximum
span was restricted to 3.5 m.
Test beam External frame Loading arm Load cell
Overhang part
Support system
WDTs
Figure 3.13: Overall View of Test Rig
3.8.1 Support System
The support systems were designed to ensure that the test beams were simply
supported in-plane and out-of-plane. The support conditions restrain in-plane vertical
deflection, out-of-plane deflections and twisting, and allow major and minor axis
rotations. The in-plane vertical movements and lateral movements were prevented by
the running tracks and side guides. The box-frames with ball bearings were designed
to allow major and minor axis rotations of the test beam. The side ball bearings
allowed major axis rotation while the top and bottom ball bearings allowed minor
axis rotation. The two supports were aligned to ensure that the vertical deflections
remained in the same plane. One of the supports had horizontal stops to prevent the
movement of the side bearing along the running track.
Ball bearing Box frame

(allows minor
axis rotation)
Frame support
Brackets
Clamping plate
Side guide and
running track Test beam
(supports the
ball bearing as
well as allows
rolling)
Ball Bearing
(allows major
axis rotation)
Figure 3.14: Support System
In addition, two brackets were specially designed to be located at the support systems
to hold back to back LSBs without any gap. The test beam was connected to the
support system by using four M10 (3/8 diameter) high strength bolts and two
clamping plates placed on either side of the test beam. These plates were used to
prevent web crippling and twisting of the section at the support. Figure 3.14
illustrates the support system.
3.8.2 Loading System
The overhang loading system consisted of two hydraulic jacks located at the free end
of overhang parts and connected to a wheel system, a load cell, universal joints and
other components as shown in Figure 3.15. It provided a uniform bending moment to
the test beam between the two supports. The loading system was designed to prevent
the possible restraint to the displacement and rotations of the test beam using a
special wheel system (Figure 3.15 (c)). The universal joints ensured that the load was
applied to the test beam without a torque. The loading arms were designed to apply
the loads through the shear centre of the test beam and thus eliminated the load
height effect. Therefore all the six degrees of freedom were considered unrestrained
at the loading positions of the test beam. M10 high strength bolts were used to
connect the loading device to the test beam. The loads were applied vertically
upward using hydraulic tension jacks. They were gradually applied at the end of each
overhang using the displacement control method.
Hydraulic jack
Load cell
Bearing
Pivot 1
(a) Loading Arm Pivot 2
Steel plate
Connector
Overhang part
Wheels allow longitudinal movement

SHS beams
(c) Wheel System

Hydraulic jack
Wheels allow transverse movement
(b) Overall View
Figure 3.15: Loading System
3.8.3 Measurement System
The loads were applied to each test beam until its failure while recording the
measurements of the applied load, beam deformations and strains. Two 60 kN load
cells were attached to each loading arm to measure the applied load (Figure 3.15 (a)).
Strain gauges
WDTs
(a) Overall View of Measuring

System
WDT and load

Strain gauge cell connectors
connectors
(b) Data Logger (c) Data Acquisition System
Figure 3.16: Measurement and Data Acquisition System
The in-plane and out-of-plane deflections of top and bottom flanges at midspan, and
the vertical deflection of the overhang under each loading point were measured using
wire potentiometer type displacement transducers (WDT). The lengths of the
horizontal and vertical wire displacement transducers were set at about 1 to 1.5 m
which was considered long enough to eliminate the need for correcting the values for
the corresponding vertical and horizontal displacements of the specimens.
Longitudinal strains were recorded on the top and bottom flanges and the web at
midspan using 5 mm strain gauges (KFG-5-120-C1-11L1M2R). These
measurements were recorded by using a Data Acquisition Unit and fed into a PC
(Figures 3.16 (b) and (c)). Calibration factors (i.e. unit of voltage per mm) of the load
cell and WDTs were determined and input to the unit before the commencement of
tests. Each strain gauge was calibrated using Multimeter and Decade Resistor.
3.8.4 Test Procedure
The test procedure used is described next:

[1] Required holes were made and the two LSB sections were assembled together to
form the back to back LSB test beam
[2] Initial geometric imperfections and section dimensions were measured prior the
test set-up.
[3] The test rig was setup for the required beam span of 3.5 m.
[4] The test beam was inserted within the two box frames (supports) and bolted to
the clamping plates.
[5] The loading devices were connected at the free end of each overhang. The
loading jacks and arms were set and aligned to prevent any eccentricities.
[6] Locations for the measurements of deflections were marked on the top flange,
bottom flange and web at midspan and at the loading points.
[7] The WDTs were installed at the required locations. The WDTs for lateral
displacements were held by a tripod whilst those for vertical displacements were
held by weights on the ground.
[8] The load cells and WDTs were connected to the data logger. The accuracy of
WDTs was checked by comparing with manual measurements.
[9] A small load was applied first to allow the loading and support system
components to settle evenly.
[10] The measuring system was set to zero values. A trial load of 10% of the
expected ultimate capacity was applied and released to remove any slack in the
system and to ensure functionality. Subsequently, the load was applied gradually
until the test beam failed by lateral buckling.
[11] Measurements were taken until the test beam failed by lateral buckling.
3.8.5 Calculation of Applied Moment in Tests
Since the verticality of the applied loads at the overhang points was maintained
throughout the test (see Figure 3.17), the applied uniform moment (M) between the
two supports of the test beam was calculated using;
M = Applied load (P) x Lever arm (L) (3.1)
Where; L = l a2 2v
la = Initial lever arm length

v = Vertical deflection at the loading position
The test results are given in Table 3.8 and 3.9 for single and back to back LSBs,
respectively.
P P
P P
v v
la = X la = X
Figure 3.17: Deformed Shape of Test Specimen
The mean value of the load cell readings at the two overhang points was used to
calculate the applied uniform moment. The applied moment was also calculated
using the top and bottom flange strain gauge readings. The close agreement between
the two moments verified the accuracy of load cell readings and the applied uniform
moment values, and these details are given in Section 3.11.5.
3.9 Test Set-up for Single LSBs
To compare the results of back to back built-up LSB sections, two single LSB
specimens, 200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB, were also tested. They had
identical test conditions as for back to back LSB sections. The support and loading
systems were slightly modified to suit the single LSB test specimens. Figure 3.18
shows the modified support and loading systems.
Load was applied at the shear Specimen was supported at the shear
centre (other details can be centre (other details can be seen in
seen in Figure 3.15 (a)) Figure 3.14)
Figure 3.18: Support and Loading Systems for Single LSB Section Tests
3.10 Results and Discussion for Single LSBs
The test results are given in Table 3.8. Single LSBs exhibited lateral distortional
buckling failure as revealed by Maaharachchi and Mahendran (2005c). The
detrimental effects of lateral distortional buckling that occurs with single LSB
sections appear to remain with the back to back LSBs, but are reduced. The
deformation at failure can be seen in Figures 3.19 (a) and (b) for single LSB sections.
Figures 3.20 (a) and (b) show the moment versus deflection curves for single LSB
sections. The slender section 200451.6 LSB section revealed a distinct peak
moment while the non-compact 150451.6 LSB section did not show a distinct
peak moment or moment drop off. The moment capacities of single LSBs were
compared with that of corresponding built-up LSBs and the comparisons are listed in
Table 3.10.
Table 3.8: Experimental Test Results for Single LSBs
Test Specimen Span Mu v Failure My
Mu/My
No Designation (mm) (kNm) (mm) Mode (kNm)
1 LSB200451.6S 3500 7.33 13.0 LDB 22.04 0.333
2 LSB150451.6S 3500 6.52 39.3 LDB 15.00 0.435
Note: Mu Ult. moment, My Moment causing initial yield at the extreme
compression fibre of the full section, v Vertical deflection at midspan at ult.
Moment, S notation in specimen labelling means single LSB
Lateral Distortional
Buckling Failure
Post Local
Buckling Effects
(a) Single 150451.6 LSB (b) Single 200451.6 LSB
Figure 3.19: Deformation at Failure
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, VM
3.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM
2.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, OH
1.0
0.0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves at Overhang Loading Point and
Midspan
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, CM
3.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM
2.0
1.0
0.0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Displacement (mm)
(b) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at Midspan
Figure 3.20: Moment versus Deflections Curves for Single LSB Sections,
45
150 1.6 LSB and 200
45
1.6 LSB
Table 3.9: Experimental Test Results for Back to Back LSBs
Test s Mu v Failure My
Specimen Designation Mu/My
No (mm) (kNm) (mm) Mode (kNm)
1 LSB200451.6BTBEL1 3500 17.15 14.2 LDB 44.07 0.389
2 LSB200451.6BTBEL2 1750 17.00 17.6 LDB 44.07 0.386
3 LSB200451.6BTBEL3 1167 20.45 16.81 LDB 44.07 0.464
4 LSB200451.6BTBEL4 875 17.93 15.7 LDB 44.07 0.407
5 LSB200451.6BTBEL6 583 20.64 14.4 LDB 44.07 0.468
6 LSB150451.6BTBEL1 3500 17.43 30.8 LDB 30.00 0.581
7 LSB150451.6BTBEL2 1750 17.28 30.8 LDB 30.00 0.576
8 LSB150451.6BTBEL3 1167 17.71 33.2 LDB 30.00 0.590
9 LSB150451.6BTBEL4 875 17.80 33.74 LDB 30.00 0.593
10 LSB150451.6BTBEL6 583 19.55 35.1 LDB 30.00 0.652
11 LSB125452.0BTBEL3 1167 20.63 55.8 LDB 27.66 0.746
12 LSB125452.0BTBEL6 583 19.84 54.4 LDB 27.66 0.717
Note: s Connector spacing, Mu Ult. moment, My Moment causing initial yield at
the extreme compression fibre of the full section, v Vertical deflection at midspan at
ult. moment
LSB Section Experimental - Lateral Fastener Spacing

1 Span/1
2 Span/2
45
LSB 200 1.6 BTBEL3 3 Span/3
4 Span/4
LSB Configuration - Back to Back 6 Span/6
Figure 3.21: Specimen Labelling for Lateral Buckling Tests
3.11 Results and Discussion for Back to Back LSBs
3.11.1 Ultimate Moment Capacities and Deflections
The test results for back to back LSBs are given in Table 3.9. The moment capacities
of 200451.6 LSBs ranged from 17.00 kNm for a connector spacing of span/2 to
20.64 kNm for a connector spacing of span/6 whereas the moment capacity of
corresponding single LSB was 7.33 kNm (see Table 3.8). Reducing the connector
spacing was expected to increase the moment capacity. However, the test results did
not always show this trend. For example, the 200451.6 LSB with connector
spacing of span/3 had a moment capacity of 20.45 kNm, which was greater than the
capacities of 200451.6 LSB with connector spacing of span/4. For 150451.6
LSB, the moment capacities varied from 17.28 kNm for a connector spacing of
span/2 to 19.55 kNm for a connector spacing of span/6 while the moment capacity of
corresponding single LSB was 6.52 kNm. For these two LSB sections it can be seen
that the moment capacity of LSB section for a connector spacing of span/1 was
slightly higher than that for connector spacing of span/2. One of the reasons for these
results may be the additional undesirable restraints of the loading arms at larger
deformations. The moment capacities of 125452.0 LSB with connector spacings
of span/3 and span/6 were 20.63 and 19.84 kNm, respectively. Hence in general, test
results show that the moment capacity of built-up LSBs is influenced by the
connector spacing and a significant increment can be noted in comparison with the
corresponding single LSBs. The moment capacities of built-up LSBs were compared
with that of corresponding single LSBs and the comparisons are listed in Table 3.10.
The back to back test beams, 200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB, with a
connector spacing of span/6 had ultimate moment capacities of 2.82 and 3.00 times
the capacities of corresponding single LSBs, respectively. Thus the increment in
moment capacity is about 40 50% for the AS/NZS 4600 recommended connector
spacing of span/6, which is not negligible. However, the allowable moment capacity
of back to back beams is usually determined by doubling the allowable capacity of
single sections. This conservative assumption underestimates the true moment
capacity of back to back LSB sections.
Table 3.10: Comparison of Moment Capacities

Moment
Test Mub Mub/Mus
Specimens s (mm) increment
No (kNm) ratio
(%)
1 200451.6 LSB 3500 17.15 2.34 17.0
2 200451.6 LSB 1750 17.00 2.32 16.0
3 200451.6 LSB 1167 20.45 2.79 39.5
4 200451.6 LSB 875 17.93 2.45 22.5
5 200451.6 LSB 583 20.64 2.82 41.0
6 150451.6 LSB 3500 17.43 2.67 33.5
7 150451.6 LSB 1750 17.28 2.65 32.5
8 150451.6 LSB 1167 17.71 2.72 36.0
9 150451.6 LSB 875 17.80 2.73 36.5
10 150451.6 LSB 583 19.55 3.00 50.0
Note: Mub Ult. Moment of back to back LSB, Mus Ult. Moment of
singe LSB
The ultimate vertical deflection at midspan for built-up 200451.6 LSB varied from
14.2 to 17.6 mm. For 150451.6 LSB and 125452.0 LSB, it varied from 30.8 to
35.1 mm and 55.8 and 54.4 mm, respectively. The ultimate vertical deflection at
midspan for single 200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB were 13.0 and 39.3 mm,
respectively, which are very close to the vertical deflection range of corresponding
built-up LSB sections. The moment versus displacement curves at different locations
are provided in the following sections. They confirm that the built-up beams failed in
the elastic region as the moment-displacement curves were linear until the beam
failed. The ultimate moments were less than the moment (My) causing initial yield at
the extreme compression fiber of the full section (see Table 3.9; calculated based on
measured dimensions and mechanical properties).
3.11.2 Failure Mode
The failure mode was governed by lateral distortional buckling for all the specimens.
The effect of cross-section distortion was governed by web slenderness. The slender
section, 200451.6 LSB, exhibited larger web distortion (Figure 3.22 (a)) in
comparison with the other two sections (non-compact and compact sections). Also,
the flange-web junction was distorted slightly (Figure 3.22 (b)). For 150451.6
LSB, the web distortion was not as high as the slender section (Figure 3.22 (c)). But
flange rotation was very noticeable as shown in Figure 3.22 (d). Section 125452.0
LSB exhibited very little web distortion and flange rotation (Figures 3.22 (e) and (f)).
(a) WD of 200451.6 LSB with (b) FR of 200451.6 LSB with
CS of Span/1 CS of Span/1
(c) WD of 150451.6 LSBs with (d) FR of 150451.6 LSBs with

CS of Span/4 CS of Span/4
(e) WD of 125452.0 LSB with CS (f) FR of 125452.0 LSB with CS

of Span/6 of Span/6
Figure 3.22: Web Distortion (WD) and Flange Rotation (FR)
The torsional rigidity of the flanges for 200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB are
the same whereas their clear web depths are different. The slenderness of the web
plate of 200451.6 LSB is higher than that of 150451.6 LSB and 125452.0
LSB. Section 200451.6 LSB has a lower web rigidity, which results in high web
distortion with low flange rotation. In contrast, sections 150451.6 LSB and
125452.0 LSB have a higher web rigidity in comparison with 200451.6 LSB,
which results in less web distortion and induces twisting action of flanges hence
flange rotation. The deformation shapes of some selected specimens at failure are
shown in Figures 3.23 (a) to (f). Although the cross section distortion is likely to be
affected by fastener spacing, it was hard to observe in the experimental testing.
However, it was noted that beams with large fastener spacings, span/1 and span/2,
exhibited slightly high web distortion in comparison with beams having smaller
fastener spacings of span/6 and span/4. Figure 3.24 illustrates the deformation at
failure for 150451.6 LSB with connector spacing of span/1 and confirms the
occurrence of high distortion due to lack of connectors. Some beams exhibited local
buckling near the midspan (see Figures 3.23 (c) and (d)). Some of the specimens
were cut across the depth at midspan to examine the cross-section distortion. It was
noted that the compression flanges were separated from each other at midspan and it
could be due to the stresses locked in the specimens. Also, during the failure stage a
small gap was created between the two webs (Figure 3.25). It can be due to the LSB
sections exhibiting opposite deformation shapes. Both top and bottom flanges were
held in place by the connectors which could cause the webs to deform freely.
Buckling
(a) 200451.6 LSB with CS of (b) 150451.6 LSB with CS of

Span/4 Span/6
Buckling
Local Buckling
Effects
(c) 200451.6 LSB with CS of (d) 150451.6 LSB with CS of

Span/6 Span/4
Figure 3.23: Deformations at Failure
Buckling (less web
distortion)
(e) 125452.0 LSB with CS of (f) 125452.0 LSB with CS of

Span/6 Span/3
Figure 3.23: Deformations at Failure
Plan View
Sliding of Flanges
(Lateral distortional Front View
buckling failure)
45
Figure 3.24: Deformation at Failure for 150 1.6 LSB with CS of Span/1
Two parts of 150451.6
LSB with CS of span/3
(after cutting)
Two parts of 200451.6 LSB with

CS of span/3 (after cutting)
Cross-section of 200451.6 LSB with

CS of span/4 at mid-span; small gap
was observed between the two webs
Figure 3.25: Cross-section Deformation at Mid-span
3.11.3 Flange Separation
The second design rule is aimed at preventing excessive distortion between

connectors by separation along the flange. Tests revealed different levels of
separation between connectors, depending on connector spacing. Beams with
connector spacings of span/4 and span/6 exhibited very little separation ( 1 mm)
between the connectors located close to the supports (Figures 3.26 (c) and (d)).
Beams with connector spacings of span/2 and span/3 also showed smaller separations
( 3-4 mm) between the connectors (Figures 3.26 (a) and (b)). The level of
separation shown in Figures 3.26 (a) to (d) is not significant from a design viewpoint.
Beams with connector spacing ratio of span/1 revealed sliding of webs on each other
with a maximum value of about 5-6 mm, making the flanges unleveled (see Figures
3.27 (a) and (b)). This can also occur in other cases where the beams are not fastened
in the middle (maximum deflection occurs). For example, in the case of span/3
connecter spacing, there are no fasteners at mid-span, and the sliding could happen
when the connector spacing exceeds a limit. From the test results, the limit of span/6
for connector spacing in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) appears to be over-conservative.
In contrast, the limit given by BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998) of span/3 appears to be
reasonable. However, its second limit of not exceeding 50 times the minimum radius
of gyration of the single beam makes the first limit irrelevant. For example, for all
the tested specimens, the minimum radius of gyrations is about 16 mm, so the second
limit is 50 16 = 800 mm, which is less than the connector spacing of span/4 (875
mm). This makes the connector spacing of span/6 as the limit for the tested beams.
The second rule governs the limit when the span length is increased. Hence based on
the test results obtained in this research, using this second limit may also give
overconservative results for intermediate and long span lengths. Thus, more suitable
spacing limits are needed for the built-up back to back LSBs with varying spans
based on improved understanding of their flexural behavior. The connector spacing
limits specified in the design codes for tested specimens with a span range of 2 to 5
m are given in Table 3.11.
Compression
Flange Separation

Span/2 Span/3
Very Little or
No Separation
(c) 200451.6 LSB with CS of (d) 150451.6 LSB with CS of

Span/6 Span/4
Figure 3.26: Flange Separation in LSB Sections
Flange Sliding

Span/1 Span/1
Figure 3.27: Flange Separation and Sliding
Table 3.11: Specified Spacing Limits for Tested Specimens

BS 5950 (BSI, 1998) spacing
ry 50ry
Section limits (mm) for spans (m) of
(mm) (mm)
2 3 4 5
200x45x1.6LSB 15.5 775 667 775 775 775
150x45x1.6LSB 15.8 790 667 790 790 790
125x45x2.0LSB 15.7 785 667 785 785 785
Spacing limit (mm)
333 500 667 833
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
Note: ry The minimum radius of gyration of the single LSB section
3.11.4 Moment versus Deflection Curves
This section presents the experimental curves of applied moment versus in-plane
deflection and out-of-plane deflection at the mid-span cross-section and in-plane
deflection at the overhang part of the test beam for selected tests. These curves were
plotted and discussed under two groups:
[1] Different LSB sections with the same fastener spacings
[2] Same LSB sections with different fastener spacings.
3.11.4.1 LSB Sections with Same Fastener Spacings
Comparison of different LSB sections with the same fastener spacings demonstrates
the effect of LSB geometry on the flexural behaviour of back to back LSB sections.
Six selected test results (three different LSB sections with two different cases of
fastener spacing, span/2 and span/6) were used to plot the moment versus in-plane
and out-of-plane deflection graphs in Figures 3.28 (a) to (d).
Figures 3.28 (a) to (d) show the comparison of moment versus deflection curves for
different LSB sections, 125452.0 LSB, 150451.6 LSB and 200451.6 LSB,
which are classified as compact, non-compact and slender sections, respectively.
Figure 3.28 (a) shows the curves of moment versus vertical deflection at the
overhang loading point for all three different LSB sections with a fastener spacing of
span/6. As explained in the previous section the smaller LSB sections exhibited
larger in-plane deflections before lateral buckling. Section 125452.0 LSB
exhibited gradual lateral buckling failure after it reached its ultimate capacity. The
ultimate moment was close to the moment causing initial yield at the extreme
compression fibre of the full section and the graph confirms this through the presence
of a gradual curve near the peak moment. In contrast the curves for 150451.6 LSB
and 200451.6 LSB sections revealed sharp changes at the peak moment, which
means a sudden elastic lateral buckling failure. Figure 3.28 (b) shows the curves of
moment versus vertical deflection at midspan as well as the theoretical lines for all
three different LSB sections with the same fastener spacing of span/6. These curves
also exhibited similar behaviour as the corresponding curves in Figure 3.28 (a). In
addition the curves followed the corresponding theoretical lines reasonably well.
Figure 3.28 (c) shows the curves of moment versus horizontal deflection of
compression flange at midspan for, 125452.0 LSB and 200451.6 LSB with a
fastener spacing of span/6. The curve for 200451.6 LSB section shows that the
section exhibited only a small out-of-plane deflection before it reached its ultimate
capacity, which was followed by large deformations. During these tests, the out-of-
plane buckling deformation occurred rapidly. Figure 3.28 (d) shows the curves of
moment versus horizontal deflection of tension flange at midspan for all three LSB
sections, with a fastener spacing of span/6, which also confirm similar behaviour as
described above.
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
125*45*2.0 LSB, OH, Span/6
5.0 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Vertical Deflection (mm)
(a) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Overhang Loading Point (OH)

25.0
Elastic liness
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
125*45*2.0 LSB, VM, Span/6
150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6 10.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6
5.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Midspan (VM)
Sections
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
125*45*2.0 LSB, CM, Span/6

10.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/6
5.0
0.0
-10 10 30 50 70 90 110
Horizontal Deflection (mm)
(c) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at Midspan (CM)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
125*45*2.0 LSB, TM, Span/6
10.0 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6
200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6
5.0
0.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(d) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Midspan (TM)
Sections
3.11.4.2 LSB Sections with Different Fastener Spacings
Comparison of the results for LSB sections with different fastener spacings illustrate
the flexural behaviour of back to back built-up LSB sections and the influence of
fastener spacings on the in-plane and out-of-plane buckling behaviour. Typical test
results are shown in this section as moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane
deflection graphs.
45
(i) 125 2.0 LSB with Different Fastener Spacings
Figures 3.29 (a) and (b) show the moment versus deflection curves for 125452.0
LSB with fastener spacings of span/3 and span/6. There is no noticeable difference
in the behaviour of these two specimens. They showed similar out-of-plane
deflection as well as similar vertical deflections at midspan and overhang loading
point.
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
125*45*2.0, CM, Span/3

10.0
125*45*2.0, CM, Span/6
5.0
0.0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
(a) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at midspan (CM)
45
Figure 3.29: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for 125 1.6
LSB Sections
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
125*45*2.0, OH, Span/3

10.0
125*45*2.0, OH, Span/6
5.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Overhang Loading Point (OH)
45
LSB Sections
45
(ii) 150 1.6 LSB with Different Fastener Spacings
25.0
Elastic line
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6

5.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2
150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6
0.0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
(a) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Overhang Loading Point (OH) and
Midspan (VM)
45
LSB Sections
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/2

5.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6
0.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(b) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Midspan (TM)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2

10.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/1

5.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/3
150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/4
0.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(c) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Overhang Loading Point (OH)
45
LSB Sections
Figures 3.30 (a) to (c) show the moment versus deflection curves for 150451.6
LSB with different fastener spacings. Figure 3.30 (a) shows the curves of moment
versus vertical deflections at overhang loading point and midspan. It shows the
higher ultimate moment capacity for smaller fastener spacing. Curves in Figure 3.30
(b) show the out-of-plane deflection of tension flange at midspan for 150451.6
LSB section with fastener spacings of span/2 and span/6. The beam with span/6
spacing revealed smaller out-of-plane deformation before reaching the ultimate
moment. Figure 3.30 (c) shows the in-plane behaviour of the same LSB sections with
different fastener spacings. It shows that the in-plane stiffness is not affected by
fastener spacing.
45
(iii) 200 1.6 LSB with Different Fastener Spacings
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2
200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/4
5.0 200.45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
45
LSB Sections
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2

5.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6
0.0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Overhang Loading Point (OH) and
Midspan (VM)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/4 10.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6
5.0
0.0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
(c) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Midspan (VM)
45
LSB Sections
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/2
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/4 10.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/6
5.0
0.0
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Deflection (mm)
(d) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at Midspan (CM)
45
LSB Sections
Figures 3.31 (a) to (d) show the moment versus deflection curves of 200451.6
LSB with fastener spacings of span/2, span/4 and span/6. The influence of varying
fastener spacing on the deflections and ultimate moments can be seen in these
figures. Figures 3.31 (a) to (c) show the variation in in-plane deflection for beam
with different fastener spacings. Test beams with fastener spacing of span/6
exhibited a distinct peak moment followed by a quick moment drop off. Similarly the
curves in Figure 3.31 (d) also confirm the influence of fastener spacing on out-of-
plane buckling. Beams with a smaller fastener spacing exhibited only a small out-of-
plane deflection before reaching its ultimate capacity. These analyses show that the
ultimate moment capacity of LSBs is influenced by fastener spacings, ie. increases
with decreasing fastener spacing. The moment versus in-plane and out-of-plane
deflection graphs for other tests are presented in Appendix A4.
3.11.5 Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves
In most tests the longitudinal strains were measured in the compression and tension
flanges of the test beams at midspan to verify the measured load cell readings and to
investigate the stress distribution across the flange width. The applied uniform
moment was calculated based on the measured longitudinal strains in the elastic
region.
The longitudinal stress in the extreme fibres (c) was calculated as follows:
c = E m (3.2)
Where E is the elastic modulus of steel assumed to be 200000 MPa, and m is the
average measured longitudinal strain in the extreme fibres at midspan.
Applied uniform moment, M = c Z f (Zf -full section modulus) (3.3)
Figures 3.32 (a) to (d) show the moment versus longitudinal strain curves and
moments calculated based on the load cell and strain gauge measurements for
selected specimens of each LSB section. The moment versus longitudinal strain
curves for other sections are presented in Appendix A5.
Figure 3.32 (a) shows the moment versus longitudinal strain curves for 125452.0
LSB section with a fastener spacing of span/3. Six readings (5, 0, 4, 3, 1 and 2) were
taken on the top flanges in compression and another six readings (8, 7, 9, 10, 6 and
11) were taken on the bottom flanges in tension (see Figure 3.32 (a)). The
compression flanges can be further categorized into two as the out-of-plane buckling
induces unequal stresses in the compression flanges. They can be named as CC (in-
plane compression and out-of-plane compression) and CT (in-plane compression and
out-of-plane tension). Similarly the tension flanges can be categorized into two as TT
(in-plane tension and out-of-plane tension) and TC (in-plane tension and out-of-plane
compression). The strain readings were the same until the beam has carried about
80% or more of its ultimate capacity. Afterwards they changed as per out-of-plane
buckling which induced both tensile and compressive stresses. Strain gauge readings
5, 0, 4 and 3 showed further increases in compressive stress after reaching the
ultimate moment capacity while strain gauge readings 1 and 2 showed decreases in
compressive stress. Similarly, strain gauge readings 11, 6, 10 and 9 showed further
increases in tensile stress after reaching the ultimate moment capacity while strain
gauge readings 8 and 7 showed decrease in tensile stress. From this, it can be noted
that as soon as the beam reached its ultimate capacity its neutral axis moved towards
CC at the top and TT at the bottom. Maximum compressive stresses were noted in
the CC region of compression flanges whilst maximum tensile stresses were noted in
the TT region of tension flanges. The mean value of the load cell readings at the two
overhang points was used to calculate the applied uniform moment. The applied
moment was also calculated using the top and bottom flange strain gauge readings. A
close agreement between the two moments thus verified the accuracy of load cell
readings and the applied uniform moment values (see Figures 3.32 (a) to (d)).
However a slight variation can be noted at the peak moment region, which confirms
that out-of-plane buckling started before the beam reached its ultimate capacity.
Figures 3.32 (b) to (d) show the moment versus longitudinal strain curves for
150451.6 LSB and 200451.6 LSB with different fastener spacings. They also
confirm the similar behaviour as discussed above for 125452.0 LSB . In addition,
the moment versus longitudinal strain curves based on the load cell and strain gauge
readings closely followed each other verifying the accuracy of the load cell
measurements.
Strain Gauges
on Both Flanges Compression Flanges
5 0 4 3 1 2
CT CC
TT TC
8 7 9 10 6 11
Tension Flange
25.0
5 0 4 3 1 2 8 7 9 10 6 11
20.0
Based on Load Cell Based on Load Cell

15.0
Moment (kNm)
Compression Side Tension Side
10.0
LS - 0 LS - 1
LS - 2 LS - 3
LS - 4 LS - 5
5.0
LS - 6 LS - 7
LS - 8 LS - 9
LS - 10 LS - 11
Based on Load Cell Based on Load Cell
0.0
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000
Longitudinal Strain (Microstrain)
(a) 125452.0 LSB Section with a Fastener Spacing of Span/3

Figure 3.32: Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves for LSB Sections
20.0
18.0
16.0
Moment (kNm) 14.0
12.0
Longitudinal Strain CT 10.0
Longitudinal Strain CC
8.0
Longitudinal Strain TT
Longitudinal Strain TC 6.0
Based on Load Cell

4.0
Based on Load Cell
2.0
0.0
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(b) 150451.6 LSB Section with a Fastener Spacing of Span/3
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Longitudinal Strain TT
Longitudinal Strain TC
Based on Load Cell 5.0
Based on Load Cell
0.0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
Longitudinal Strain(Microstrain)
(c) 200451.6 LSB Section with a Fastener Spacing of Span/6
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
10.0
6.0
Longitudinal Strain Cmax
Based on Load Cell 4.0
2.0
0.0
-14000 -12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000
Longitudinal Strain (mm)
(d) 200451.6 LSB Section with a Fastener Spacing of Span/3
3.11.6 Load Distribution
In the back to back symmetric built-up beams, the applied load is shared equally.
This will change near the failure load due to lateral buckling. Some test beams
carried their ultimate moment before exhibiting considerable out-of-plane
deformation in which case both LSB sections carried equal load. In contrast, some
beams reveal significant out-of-plane deflection before reaching their ultimate
capacity where individual LSB sections carried unequal loads. Strain gauge readings
taken on both compression and tension surfaces of both flanges of these specimens
also confirm this. These readings were the same until the beam has carried about
80% or more of its ultimate capacity. Afterwards they changed slightly in the
opposite directions to each other. It means that after the period when the strain values
have started having different values the consistency of stress distribution in each
beam has also started changing (Figures 3.32 (a) to (d)). The compression flange on
the side opposite to the lateral buckling direction took a larger portion of the
compression force. Similarly the tension flange on the same side of lateral buckling
took additional tension force that was released from the second tension flange. In
back to back LSBs, sudden changes in stress distribution can be noted across the
plane of contact, which is unlike in I-beams. When the beam buckled laterally both
LSBs exhibited lateral distortional buckling (LDB), which were identified as two
different shapes and can be named as positive and negative LDB (Figure 3.33).
Positive LDB
(left side LSB)
Negative LDB
(right side LSB)
Figure 3.33: Lateral Distortional Buckling Shape
3.12 Conclusions
This chapter has presented the details and results of a series of lateral distortional
buckling tests of back to back built-up LSB sections. The buckling tests were
conducted in a purpose-built test rig. The support and loading systems were specially
designed to satisfy the idealised boundary conditions required for such lateral
buckling tests. The tests included three different section geometries of LSBs, which
were chosen based on the three levels of compactness. The span length was selected
as 3.5 m based on the current test rig and was within the practical range. In total there
were 14 lateral buckling tests including two single LSB specimens. Test results
showed that the built-up LSB sections are likely to give higher flexural capacities.
The beams with a connector spacing of span/6 increased the flexural capacity by
about 40 to 50% in comparison with the corresponding single LSBs. The typical
buckling mode of built-up LSB sections with intermediate spans was found to be still
lateral distortional buckling. However, there was a slight improvement in lateral
distortional buckling behaviour in comparison with corresponding single LSBs. In
the back to back built-up LSB sections even with larger connector spacings of
span/2, the failure mode was governed by lateral distortional buckling with very little
separation between the connectors. This shows that the current limit of span/6
specified in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) in relation to excessive deformation is over-
conservative. BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998) specifies a conservative connector spacing
of span/3. However, its second limit of 50 times the minimum radius of gyration of
the single beam makes the first limit irrelevant for the tests conducted in this study.
The second rule governs the limit when the span length is increased. Use of this
second limit would also be over-conservative for intermediate and long spans. Thus,
more appropriate spacing limits are needed for back to back LSBs with varying
spans.
Initial geometric imperfection tests were conducted on several specimens to

investigate the effect of assembling. Suitable specimens were selected based on the
cross-section geometry and the connector spacing type. In some cases, imperfection
measurements of single LSBs were also taken in order to determine the effect of
bolting. The initial geometric imperfections were measured using an imperfection
measuring equipment specially designed and built at QUT. From the results, it can be
concluded that the back to back bolting process is not likely to alter the
imperfections.
Tensile coupon tests were conducted for the tested specimens to determine the
required important mechanical properties based on AS 1391 (SA, 2007). The web
and flange yield stresses varied depending on the thickness. Test results show that
the measured yield stresses exceed the nominal flange yield stress of 450 MPa and
the nominal web yield stress of 380 MPa. The lack of yield plateau in the stress-
strain curves of flange elements demonstrates the higher level of cold-working in the
flange which increases the yield stress while reducing the ductility.
The lateral distortional buckling behaviour of back to back built-up LSB section is
further investigated using finite element analyses in Chapter 5 that includes the
effects of intermittent fasteners. All the results would then be used to develop
accurate design rules for back to back built-up LSB sections subjected to flexural
action.
CHAPTER 4
Finite Element Modelling
and Validation of Back to
Back LSB Sections
4.1 General
Chapters 3 presented the details of lateral buckling tests of back to back LSB flexural
members including a series of material property tests. Finite element analysis
provides a relatively inexpensive, and time efficient alternative to physical
experiments. Therefore it can be used to expand the investigation into the lateral
buckling behaviour and ultimate member capacities of back to back LSB members.
For this purpose, the finite element program should include the effects of material
and geometric non-linearities, residual stresses, initial geometric imperfections and
contact behaviour. The ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.7 (HKS, 2007a,b,c) was
considered suitable for the numerical analyses. However, its accuracy is critical for
the development of reliable research outcomes. Considerable amount of time was
spent in developing an appropriate finite element model for back to back LSB
flexural members under various conditions, in particular contact modelling. This
chapter describes the details of the development of finite element model of back to
back LSB members and its calibration using experimental data obtained from the
tests presented in Chapter 3.
4.2 Development of Finite Element Models
This research entails the development of two finite element models, namely ideal and
experimental models using ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.7 (HKS, 2007a,b,c). In this
chapter the name ABAQUS is used instead of ABAQUS/Standard version 6.7. The
input files for ABAQUS were created using a pre-processor called PATRAN with
various versions (2007_r1a, R2.1 and 2008_r1). Experimental models were
generated to validate the finite element models in comparison with experimental
results whereas ideal models were developed to conduct parametric studies and
hence to develop design rules. The development of ideal and experimental finite
element models of back to back LSB flexural members is presented in detail in the
following sections.
4.3 Experimental Model
The physical situation being modelled has to be considered first. The lateral buckling
tests conducted to investigate the member capacities of back to back LSB flexural
members were modelled. Many factors were considered in the experimental finite
element model. They are: back to back LSBs, method of loading and nature of
restraints.
Figure 4.1 is a simple representation of the experimental layout of lateral buckling

tests. Overhang loading system used in the tests simulated a uniform moment within
the entire span unlike the quarter point loading method.
Load Load
P P
Overhang Test Beam Overhang
1 2
X L X
Y Bending Moment Distribution
X
Z
Figure 4.1: Physical Model of Lateral Buckling Tests
Note:
L = 3.5 m and X = 0.75 m
Support 1: free to rotate in-plane and out-of-plane (i.e. about Z-axis and
Y-axis)
Support 2: free to rotate in-plane and out-of-plane (i.e. about Z-axis and Y-
axis) and free to move along longitudinal axis (i.e. X-axis)
4.3.1 Symmetry and Boundary Conditions
The size of a finite element model can be reduced significantly by using symmetry in
the structure being analysed. The symmetry is considered about a particular axis or a
plane of a structure with respect to geometry, boundary conditions and loading
patterns before and after the deformations.
In the test set-up of lateral buckling tests, the beam test and the loading system were
symmetric about a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e. X-axis) of the
beam at its mid-span. The support conditions were symmetric about the mid-plane,
but only one support provides restraint against X-axis translation. However, it does
not violate symmetric condition of the test beam about the mid-plane since the beam
was not subjected to any lateral loading. Therefore it was possible to consider only
half the span of the test beam, and apply the boundary conditions as shown in Figure
4.2 to all the nodes at its mid-span. The X-axis translation was prevented at the mid-
span cross section.
P
u1 = 0
2 = 0
2 (Y) 3 = 0 u2 = 0
u3 = 0
1 = 0
1 (X)
3Z
Figure 4.2: Boundary Conditions at the Support and Mid-span of Experimental

Model
The two principal axes of the back to back LSBs are the axes of symmetry (i.e. Y and
Z) as defined in Figure 4.1. The major principal axis (referred to as the Z-axis) was
the 3-axis in the finite element models, but could not be used as an axis of
symmetry in the finite element analysis despite the geometrical symmetry of the
beam about the 3-axis. The reason was unsymmetrical flexural behaviour of the
beam about the 3-axis, resulting in the top half of cross section in compression and
the bottom half in tension. The compression portion of the section could be subjected
to local buckling as illustrated in Figure 4.3, which violates the symmetry of the
beam about the major axis (Z-axis) in the section and member capacity models.
Y
Y
Z
Z
(a) Flange local buckling (b) Web local buckling

Figure 4.3: Unsymmetrical Local Buckling Behaviour about Z-axis
(a) Lateral Distortional Buckling (b) Lateral Torsional Buckling
Figure 4.4: Unsymmetrical Global Buckling Behaviour about Y-axis
The minor principal axis (Y-axis) was the 2-axis in the finite element model.
Although the test beams geometry and loading were symmetric about the 2-axis,
the deformation patterns of the beam resulting from the lateral distortional or lateral
torsional buckling affect the symmetrical condition about the 2-axis in the
experimental models subjected to their buckling modes. However, short beams are
not subject to lateral distortional or lateral torsional buckling. Therefore the
symmetry about the minor principal axis (Y-axis) could be considered in the short
span models unless local web buckling occurred. Figure 4.4 illustrates the
unsymmetrical nature of typical global buckling failure modes about the minor axis
(Y-axis).
The support boundary conditions as defined in Figure 4.2 were provided by Zhao et
al. (1994) for the ideal simply supported boundary conditions for lateral buckling
tests. The objective of both experimental and ideal finite element models was to
provide these ideal simply supported boundary conditions and thereby use them to
produce the design curves suitable for the new beam type, back to back LSBs. The
boundary conditions used in the lateral buckling tests were able to achieve all of the
above boundary conditions, with one exception. The twist restraint about the
longitudinal axis (i.e. X-axis) at the support was only applied to the beam web, and
the flanges were unrestrained against warping. This boundary condition was required
in the experimental finite element model to simulate accurately the support
conditions in the physical model of lateral buckling tests.
An idealized simply supported beam with a uniform moment is considered the worst
scenario giving a lower bound solution. Following idealized simply supported (SS)
boundary conditions were implemented in the ideal model:
1. SS in-plane: Both ends fixed against in-plane vertical deflection but unrestrained
against in-plane rotation, and one end fixed against longitudinal horizontal
displacement.
2. SS out-of-plane: Both ends fixed against out-of-plane horizontal deflection, and
twist rotation, but unrestrained against minor axis rotation and warping
displacements of flanges.
Simply supported boundary conditions implemented in the experimental models are

slightly different from those in the ideal model and are described as follows:
1. The pin support end was modelled by restraining degrees of freedom 234 for
the node which controls the support plate as shown in Figure 4.5.
2. Due to the symmetry of beam, half span modelling was permitted by restraining
degrees of freedom 156 for all the nodes at mid span (Figure 4.5).
3. Two point loads were applied on either side of the loading arm at the end of
overhang (Figure 4.5).
The degree of freedom notations 1, 2 and 3 correspond to translations in x, y and z

directions while 4, 5 and 6 represent the rotations about x, y and z axes,
respectively.
Support at shear centre Restrained DOF 156
Restrained DOF 234 for the for all the nodes
node at shear centre (SPC) (at mid-span)
Rigid body
Loading on either
side of loading arm
Support at shear Symmetric plane (DOF

centre (SPC 234) 156 restrained)
10 mm thick shell
element to simulate
the clamping plate
Loading
(on either side)
Y
RIGID MPCs to link

the loading node to the
clamping plate Z
Model
Figure 4.5 illustrates the boundary conditions at the support and mid-span sections
used in the experimental finite element model. The test members included rigid
plates on either side of beam web at each support to prevent web crippling and
twisting of the cross-section. These stiffening plates were modelled as rigid body
using R3D4 elements. The motion of the rigid body is controlled by a reference
node. The control node was created at the shear centre, and suitable support
conditions (234) were applied.
4.3.2 Loading Method
Separate loading systems were used in the experimental and ideal models. The
loading system adopted in the experimental finite element models was to simulate
the physical conditions in the experimental test set-up whereas an idealized loading
system was used in the ideal finite element model.
Web
Steel plate
Bolts
(a) Physical Model (b) Experimental

Finite Element Model
Figure 4.6: Loading Method Used in Experimental Tests and Corresponding
Simulation in Experimental Model
Figures 4.6 (a) and (b) illustrate the method of loading in the physical and
experimental finite element models, respectively, for the lateral buckling tests. The
loading method used in the physical model ensured that neither rotation nor
displacement restraints were imposed in any direction in the test beam at the loading
positions, and therefore the loading point in the finite element model was also
unrestrained. It was desired not to simulate the entire loading system as it is
unnecessary and can cause numerical difficulties in achieving convergence. It was
therefore simplified as two point loads acting on the beam in the overhang region.
The two point loads applied at the overhang point of the beam in the physical model
were transferred to the beam web through three bolts located at 30 mm spacing (see
Figure 4.6 (a)), and therefore this physical condition was simulated in the
experimental finite element model with two concentrated forces applied at two nodes
located about 60 mm (based on actual measurements) from the mid-surface of the
beam (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6 (b)) and those nodes were connected to the clamping
plates using Rigid type MPCs. Steel plates (clamping plates) connected to the web
were modelled using thicker shell element (10 mm) with elastic properties. In some
cases it was possible to simulate the concentrated loads at the mid-surface rather than
applying the loads away from the mid-surface. But in this back to back model some
numerical convergence problems in relation to contact modelling arose due to
localized deformation and unstable equilibrium at the loading point.
4.3.3 Fastener Modelling
Fasteners play an important role in the structural response of built-up members. In

this research, fasteners were designed with a greater factor of safety, and therefore it
is assumed that there will be no fastener failure. Beam element, B31, with a diameter
of 10 mm, was used to model the fasteners. The material model for beam elements
was elastic-perfectly plastic, and a yield stress of 240 MPa was assumed. In the case
of ideal model, perfect Tie MPC was simulated, which makes all active degrees of
freedom equal on both sides of the connection.
4.3.4 Element Selection
This section provides brief details about the suitable elements available in the
ABAQUS library. ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.7 provides a range of
stress/displacement elements for use in the modelling of linear or complex nonlinear
mechanical analyses that possibly involve contact, plasticity, and/or large
deformations.
4.3.4.1 Shell Elements
Shell elements categorized into the structural elements (stress/displacement

elements) are used to model structures in which one dimension, the thickness, is
significantly smaller than the other dimensions. Conventional shell element, one type
of shell element, is extensively used to model the above mentioned structures. These
elements discretize a body by defining the geometry at a reference surface and the
thickness is defined through the section property definition (HKS, 2007b).
Conventional shell elements have displacement and rotational degrees of freedom. It
is very important to understand the available conventional shell elements and their
behaviours, especially thick, thin and general-purpose conventional element
behaviour at this stage before moving into the element selection.
General-purpose Conventional Shell Elements

General-purpose, conventional shell elements are valid for thick and thin shell
problems. They use thick shell theory as the shell thickness increases and become
discrete Kirchhoff thin shell elements as the thickness decreases. Also these elements
allow transverse shear deformations. Generally the general-purpose, conventional
shell elements provide robust and accurate solutions to most applications. S4, S4R,
S4RS, S4RSW, SAX1, SAX2, SAX2T, SC6R, and SC8R are some of the notable
general-purpose conventional shell elements
Thick versus Thin Conventional Shell Elements

Although the general-purpose elements provide robust and accurate solutions in most
applications, enhanced performance may be obtained with the thin or thick
conventional shell elements. These elements are used for particular purposes and
they give accurate solutions only when appropriate applications are selected. Table
4.1 shows the comparison of thick and thin conventional shell elements.
Table 4.1: Comparison of Thick and Thin Conventional Shell Elements
Thick Conventional Shell Thin Conventional Shell

Elements Elements
Needed in cases where transverse Needed in cases where transverse
shear flexibility is important and shear flexibility is negligible and
Specific
second-order interpolation is the Kirchhoff constraint must be
desired. satisfied accurately
when the thickness is more than when the thickness is less than
about 1/15 of a characteristic about 1/15 of a characteristic
Limits for
length on the surface of the shell, length on the surface of the shell,
Thick/Thin
such as the distance between such as the distance between
supports supports
Suitable S8R and S8RT (used only in S4R5, STRI65, S8R5, S9R5,
Element thick shell problems) SAXA1n, SAXA2n and STRI3
The thin shell elements are of two types, which are those which solve thin shell
theory analytically and others which converge to thin shell theory as the thickness
decreases. The second type of elements which impose the Kirchhoff constraint
numerically include S4R5, S8R5 and S9R5, and these elements should not be used
when transverse shear deformation is significant. These elements may predict
inaccurate results when they are used for a thick shell problem.
Finite-strain versus Small-strain Shell Elements

The shell elements can also be grouped into finite-strain and small-strain shell
elements, which are compared in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Comparison of Finite-strain versus Small-strain Shell Elements
Finite-strain Shell Elements Small-strain Shell Elements

Account for finite membrane
Account for arbitrarily large
Behaviour strains and arbitrarily large
rotations but only small strains
rotations
Suitable S3/S3R, S4, S4R, SAX1, SAX2, STRI3, S4R5, STRI65, S8R,
Element SAX2T, SAXA1n, and SAXA2n S8RT, S8R5, and S9R5
Thickness Change in thickness is based on Change in thickness with

Change the element nodal displacements deformation is ignored
Change in Shell Thickness
For conventional shell elements a section Poisson's ratio is specified to allow for the
shell thickness in finite-strain elements to change as a function of the membrane
strain. For typical metal applications, the section Poisson's ratio is set as 0.3.
However, the small-strain shell elements in ABAQUS ignore the change in
thickness.
Five Degrees of Freedom Shells versus Six Degrees of Freedom Shells

Conventional shell elements have six degrees of freedom (three displacement
components and three rotation components) at all nodes. But some of the
conventional shell elements are provided to use only five degrees of freedom (three
displacement components and two in-surface rotation components) where possible.
These elements that use five degrees of freedom (S4R5, STRI65, S8R5, and S9R5)
can be more economical. However, they are available only as thin shells and
suitable to model large rotations with small strains accurately. They cannot be used
for thick shell or finite-strain applications.
Although the above mentioned shell elements use only five degrees of freedom, in
some cases all the three global rotation components will be automatically switched at
any node and they are as follows:
kinematic boundary conditions applied to rotational degrees of freedom,

a multi-point constraint that involves rotational degrees of freedom,
sharing with a beam element or a shell element that uses the three global
rotation components at all nodes, or
loaded with moments.
Shell Section Integration

Simpson's rule and Gauss quadrature are provided to calculate the cross-sectional
behaviour of a shell. The number of integration points is defined through the
thickness of each layer. The default integration method is Simpson's rule with five
points for a homogeneous section such as steel. Selection of number of integration
points depends on the complexity of analysis. The three-point Simpson's rule is
precise for linear problems. But for complex nonlinear calculations more integration
points may be required. Normally no more than nine integration points are required
when using Simpson's rule.
Reduced Integration
Some element types use reduced (lower-order) integration to form the element
stiffness which enhance the solution efficiency. These elements still provide accurate
results unless the elements are not distorted or loaded in in-plane bending and
significantly reduce running time. First-order (linear) elements with reduced
integration may require hourglass control. Fine mesh may diminish this problem and
concentrated loads must be distributed over multiple nodes.
Shell Offset Value

The distance from the shell's midsurface to the reference surface containing the
element's nodes is defined as shell offset value and it is measured as a fraction of the
shell's thickness. Positive values of the offset are in the positive normal direction.
The default offset is 0, which indicates that the middle surface of the shell is the
reference surface. The degrees of freedom for the shell are associated with the
reference surface. All kinematic quantities are calculated on the reference surface;
thus use of nonzero offset value will cause both membrane forces and bending
moments when loading is applied in the plane of the reference surface. Although
moving the reference surface to the top surface would minimize the contact
constraint issues it induces additional stresses due to the change in location and can
lead to inaccurate results. In addition, it impedes the modelling of flexural residual
stresses across the thickness, which is crucial in LSB modelling.
4.3.4.2 Suitable Element for LSB Section
The thickness of steel in LSB sections ranges from 1.6 mm to 3.0 mm, which is
comparatively less than the other two dimensions. So thin shell theory (Kirchhoff
theory) is more suitable for LSB sections. The LSBs exhibited different modes of
failure known as local, lateral distortional and lateral torsional buckling failures.
These kinds of failures may exhibit large deformation and rotation and considerable
yielding with small strain. Transverse shear deformation can be ignored. Based on
the literature it was desired to filter some suitable elements from the shell elements
available in ABAQUS; thus shell elements, S4, S4R, S4R5, S8R5 and S9R5 were
selected. Table 4.3 summarizes the features of each shell element selected here.
Table 4.3: Summary of Selected Shell Elements

Shell
S4 S4R S4R5 S8R5 S9R5
Element
Shell Both thick Both thick
Only thin Only thin Only thin
Problems and thin and thin
SP Finite Finite Small Small Small
Not Not Not
TSD Allowed Allowed
allowed allowed allowed
RI No Yes Yes Yes Yes
DOF All six All six Only five Only five Only five
HC Not required Required Required Required Required
SP - Strain Problem, RI - Reduced Integration, TSD Transverse shear
deformation, DOF Degrees of Freedom (five degrees of freedom exclude out-of-
surface rotation), HC Hourglass Control
Contact modelling is described in detail in the following sections. Second-order

elements may provide higher accuracy than first-order elements. However, some
second-order elements can be problematic in contact simulations with the strictly
enforced hard contact relationship because of the distribution of equivalent nodal
forces when a pressure acts on the face of the element (HKS, 2007b) and can lead
ABAQUS to make a wrong decision. To avoid this problem, ABAQUS
automatically converts most three-dimensional second-order elements with no
midface node that form a slave surface into elements with a midface node. Element
type S8R5 is converted to element type S9R5 if a slave surface in a contact pair is
attached to the element. Most parts of the LSB are in contact with each other. Thus,
we can simply ignore the element type S8R5. The remaining four shell elements
were considered in the convergence study. In this convergence study, the results
obtained, time taken for the completion of analysis and the memory used were
considered and are summarized in Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
45
Table 4.4: Convergence Study for Back to Back 125 2.0 LSB
S4R5 S4R S4
Results Time Memory Results Time Memory Results Time Memory
Span A
(kNm) (Min) (MB) (kNm) (Min) (MB) (kNm) (Min) (MB)
E 38.89 10.0 107 39.35 18.9 107 39.74 30 413
2m
N 22.46 86.9 581 22.56 101.8 584 22.62 194 2284
E 27.65 8.4 160 27.88 14.2 161 28.08 27 619
3m
N 21.22 107.2 871 21.27 172.8 876 21.33 429 3430
E 21.42 8.6 213 21.55 20.4 215 21.68 46 825
4m
N 19.31 162.6 1075 19.41 293.1 1075 19.47 360 4219
Note: A Analysis type, E Elastic buckling, N Nonlinear
75
Table 4.5: Convergence Study for Back to Back 300 3.0 LSB
S4R5 S9R5 S4R
Results Time Memory Results Time Memory Results Time Memory
Span A
(kNm) (Min) (MB) (kNm) (Min) (MB) (kNm) (Min) (MB)
E 181.64 32.8 321 181.71 282.4 1270 183.71 43.9 323
3m
N 129.62 170.6 2007 128.74 1088 9103 130.58 149 2028
E 97.56 34.3 641 97.59 356.5 2478 98.16 35.6 646
6m
N 88.09 485.0 5356 N/A N/A N/A 89.53 1265 5396
Note: A Analysis type, E Elastic buckling, N Nonlinear
From the results it can be noted that the ultimate moment capacities are almost the
same although the beam was modelled with different shell elements. However, their
computational expenses are considerably different (see Figures 4.7 (a) to (c)).
Element type S4 is a fully integrated, finite-membrane-strain shell element. The
element has four integration locations per element compared with one integration
location for S4R or S4R5, which makes the element computationally more
expensive. It costs about four times the memory size needed for element type S4R5
whereas analysis time consumption was about 2 to 4 times (see Table 4.4). S4R is a
cost-efficient element type when compared with S4. When comparing S4R and
S4R5, the memory size needed for them seems to be the same while there is a
considerable variation in the analysis time. In most cases S4R element consumed
more time for analysis. S9R5 element is also computationally more expensive (see
Table 4.5). S9R5 element consists 9 nodes which was one of the reasons. It must be
noted here that numerical studies considered the same element size for all types of
elements although the elements have different number of nodes themselves. When
considering the same element size the element type S9R5 consumed enormous
memory and analysis time (see Table 4.5). Also it requires high in core memory.
Based on these studies, shell element, S4R5, was selected as the most suitable
element which can explicitly model the behaviour of built-up back to back LSB
sections.
40.0
Elastic Buckling, 2 m Span

Nonlinear, 2 m Span
35.0
Nonlinear, 3 m Span
Moment (kNm)
30.0 Nonlinear, 4 m Span
25.0
20.0
15.0
S4R5 S4R S4
Element Type
(a) Moment versus Element Type Graph
450
400 Nonlinear, 2 m Span
350 Nonlinear, 3 m Span
300
Nonlinear, 4 m Span
Time (Min)
250
200
150
100
50
0
S4R5 S4R S4
Element Type
(b) Analysis Time versus Element Type Graph
Figure 4.7: Effect of Using Different Element Types in the Finite Element
45
Modelling of Back to Back 125 2.0 LSB
4500

4000
Nonlinear, 2 m Span
3500 Elastic Buckling, 3 m Span

Nonlinear, 3 m Span
3000 Elastic Buckling, 4 m Span
Memory Size (MB)
Nonlinear, 4 m Span
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
S4R5 S4R S4
Element Type
(c) Memory used versus Element Type Graph

Figure 4.7: Effect of Using Different Element Types in the Finite Element
45
Modelling of Back to Back 125 2.0 LSB
140
120
100
Moment (kNm)
80
60
S4R5
S4R
40
S4
S9R5
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.8: Comparison of Moment versus Lateral Displacement Curves for

Different Element Types
Further numerical studies were conducted to investigate the nonlinear behaviour of

back to back LSB sections using the four different element types chosen earlier.
Figure 4.8 shows the comparison of moment versus lateral displacement curves for
these different element types. There is no significant difference in the nonlinear
behaviour (in terms of ultimate strength value, deformation etc.) of the beam with
different element types. A maximum of only 2% variation was noted within any two
ultimate moment capacities.
S4R5 element is a doubly curved thin shell, shear flexible, isometric quadrilateral
shell with four nodes and five degree of freedom per node, utilizing reduced
integration with hourglass control and bilinear interpolation scheme. Figures 4.9 and
4.10 show the general definition of S4R5 shell element and its naming convention,
respectively. The thin shell behaviour is enforced through discrete Kirchoff
constraints. Each layer has nine Simpsons points for the numerical integration (see
Figure 4.9). The integration is performed through the thickness.
Positive face (SPOS)

Surface
normal vector n
9 integration points
4 3 through the thickness
Integration point
1 2
Negative face (SNEG)
Figure 4.9: S4R5 ABAQUS Shell Element
Stress/displacement 5 degrees of freedom

shell (s)
S4R5
Number of nodes Reduced integration
Figure 4.10: Naming Convention for S4R5 Shell Element
A fine mesh density is desirable for greater accuracy, but it may lead to excessive
computation time and resource. Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005b) conducted
convergence studies to select the suitable number and size of S4R5 elements that
provide sufficient accuracy of results for LSBs without excessive use of computer
time. These details are given in Section 4.3.5.1.
4.3.5 Element Execution Details
4.3.5.1 Element Size and Aspect Ratio
It is desirable to use as many elements as possible in the analysis. However, such an

analysis will require excessive computer time. Also, the aspect ratio of an element
(length/width) may have an influence on the solution performance. Previous results
have shown that aspect ratios greater than 5 or less than 1/5 can lead to significant
solution error (Schafer, 1995). Large or very small aspect ratios are a general
indicator of the coarseness of the mesh. A coarse mesh is problematic given the large
amount of deformation that occurs in a typical analysis. Also, coarse meshes lead to
several problems when modelling contact interactions. It is suggested that aspect
ratios are kept in the range of to 2 as much as possible (Schafer, 1997).
Convergence studies have proved that an element width of 5 mm for both the flanges
and web of LSB and a length of 10 mm recommended by Mahaarachchi and
Mahendran (2005b) sufficiently represent the spread of plasticity, residual stress
distributions and local buckling deformations. Element widths ranging from 4.33 to
4.87 mm and a length of 10 mm were selected as the suitable mesh size through the
entire cross-section for built-up LSB sections. The aspect ratio of the element was
about 2 which was in the accepted range.
4.3.5.2 Integration Point Numbering
In order to model the residual stresses accurately the numbering scheme for the
integration points must be considered. For the S4R5 element the numbering scheme
is shown in Figure 4.11. Numbering starts from the bottom surface (SNEG) towards
the top surface (SPOS), which is very important when modelling the distribution
through the thickness. Five integration points are the default (Simpsons rule) for the
through thickness integration points. Experimentation with this value by Huang
(1994) and Schafer (1995) have shown this to be a reasonable number. However, to
model more complicated residual stresses the number of through thickness
integration points should be increased. The unique cold-forming and dual electric
resistance welding process of LSB sections introduces complicated residual stresses.
Nine integration points through the thickness of the element were found to be
sufficient to model the distribution of flexural residual stresses in the LSB sections
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005b).
9 1
1
5
1
Figure 4.11: Integration Point Numbering
4.3.5.3 Hourglassing
Due to the reduced integration employed in the S4R5 element deformation modes
with zero strain attributed to them are possible. This behaviour is restricted through
the introduction of a small stiffness in this mode of deformation. No hourglassing
problems were observed in the analyses conducted in this research.
4.3.6 Contact Simulation
In the back to back LSB sections individual LSB members come into contact during
deformations. Contact modelling was then implemented in order to simulate the
interaction between the two LSB sections connected back to back. Elements in the
main web and the web of the flanges are likely to come into contact. Surface-based
contact simulation was found to be adequate to represent the contact interaction
between them (Figure 4.26). Following sections describe contact modelling and
associated issues in detail.
4.3.6.1 Contact Simulation Capabilities in ABAQUS
ABAQUS offers two methods for modelling contact interactions using surfaces or
contact elements. Surface-based contact modelling was found to be adequate to
simulate the actual contact behaviour of the built-up LSB sections by considering the
geometric nature and mechanical behaviour of the beams and the capabilities of the
surface-based contact simulation. In this contact modelling, master-slave algorithm
is used in which one surface is assigned as master surface while the other surface is
assigned as slave surface. There are three steps in defining a surface-based contact
simulation:
defining the surfaces of the bodies that could possibly be in contact;

specifying which surfaces interact with one another; and
defining the mechanical property models that govern the behaviour of the
surfaces when they are in contact.
4.3.6.2 Selecting / Defining Surfaces
All the surfaces that may be needed in an analysis must be defined at the beginning
of the simulation. ABAQUS has three classifications of contact surfaces: element-
based deformable and rigid surfaces, node-based surfaces and analytical rigid
surfaces. There are some restrictions and considerations for shell surfaces used in
contact definitions as discussed next.
Orientation Considerations
Master contact surfaces must be single-sided in all cases except for small-sliding,
surface-to-surface contact. Proper orientation is required for master surfaces defined
on elements that has positive and negative directions. For surface-to-surface contact
the orientation of single-sided slave surfaces is taken into consideration. When the
orientation of a contact surface is relevant to the contact formulation, the following
aspects must be considered for surfaces on shell elements:
Adjacent surface faces must have consistent normal directions.

Except for initial interference fit problems, the slave surface should be on the
same side of the master surface as the outward normal. If not it may lead
ABAQUS to detect overclosure of the surfaces and may result in convergence
difficulties. Figure 4.12 illustrates the proper and improper specification of a
master surface's outward normal.
Contact will be ignored with surface-to-surface discretization if single-sided
slave and master surfaces have normal directions that are in approximately
the same direction.
Figure 4.12: Example of Proper and Improper Master Surface Orientation
(HKS, 2007)
Surface normal of both

surfaces (towards each other)
Master Surface
Slave Surface
Figure 4.13: Surface Orientation of Back to Back LSB Finite Element Model
Figure 4.13 shows the surface orientation of the experimental model. The normal
directions of individual LSB sections are outward which satisfy the requirements of
proper contact modelling and implementing the residual stress distribution. Each
individual LSB section consists of nine shell surfaces. Three surfaces representing
the web and two web-flange elements of each LSB section involve contact problems.
There are some minor differences in defining the surface for both experimental and
ideal models. In the ideal model the three surfaces involved in contact were selected
together for defining the master surface as well as the slave surface. In the
experimental model possible individual elements had to be selected to define the
master and slave surfaces as some parts of the surfaces contained rigid body elements
and thick shell elements (limited to elastic behaviour). These details are given in the
following section.
Surface Connectivity Restrictions

Further to the orientation restrictions discussed earlier, certain connectivity
restrictions apply to contact surfaces depending on the type of contact formulation.
Surface connectivity restrictions for the various contact formulations are summarized
in Table 4.6. As indicated in Table 4.6, the connectivity restrictions are sometimes
different for master and slave surfaces.
Table 4.6: Summary of Connectivity Restrictions (HKS, 2007b)

Contact formulation Connectivity characteristics
Discontinuous T-intersection
Master: Not allowed Master: Not allowed
Finite-sliding, node-to-surface
Slave: Allowed Slave: Allowed
Master: Allowed Master: Not allowed
Small-sliding, node-to-surface
Master: Allowed Master: Not allowed
Finite-sliding, surface-to-surface
Slave: Allowed Slave: Not allowed
Master: Allowed Master: Allowed
Small-sliding, surface-to-surface
Figure 4.14 shows the defined surfaces used for contact modelling in the
experimental model. This kind of surface is applicable to all contact formulations.
But sharing a common master edge or slave edge in three dimensions is restricted
depending on the type of contact formulations. As shown in Figure 4.15 both master
and slave surfaces have common edges sharing three surfaces. Only small sliding,
surface to surface contact formulation allows both the master and slave surfaces to
have common edges as specified above.
Considered as open for
contact modelling (rigid
elements were applied)
Considered as open for

contact modelling
(thick shell elements
Figure 4.14: Defined Surfaces Used in Contact Pair of the Experimental Model
T-intersection (more
than two surface faces
sharing common master
nodes)
Master surface
Figure 4.15: Surface with T-intersection Used as Master Surface
4.3.6.3 Defining Contact between Surfaces
Appropriate surfaces which may interact with each other during the analysis should
be selected as contact pairs. At least one surface of the pair must be a non-node-
based surface. On the other hand three key factors must be determined when creating
a contact formulation:
the contact discretization;

the tracking approach; and
the assignment of master and slave tasks to the respective surfaces.
These factors are described briefly in the following sections.
(i) Discretization of Contact Pair Surfaces

ABAQUS applies conditional constraints at various locations on each surface to
simulate contact conditions, which depend on the contact discretization used.
ABAQUS offers two contact discretization options namely a node-to-surface
discretization and a surface-to-surface discretization. Following sections describe
these contact discretizations in detail.
Node-to-Surface Contact Discretization

With node-to-surface discretization the contact conditions are established such that
each slave node on one side of a contact interface effectively interacts with a point
of projection on the master surface on the opposite side of the contact interface
(see Figure 4.16). Therefore, each contact condition involves a single slave node and
a group of nearby master nodes from which values are interpolated to the projection
point.
Slave surface C
A B
Master surface
Closest point to A Closest point to B
Figure 4.16: Node-to-Surface Contact Discretization
With the node-to-surface discretization the slave nodes are constrained not to
penetrate into the master surface; however, the nodes of the master surface can
penetrate into the slave surface. The contact direction is based on the normal of the
master surface. The only information needed for the slave surface is the location and
surface area associated with each node.
Surface-to-Surface Contact Discretization

Surface-to-surface discretization considers the shape of both the slave and master
surfaces in the region of contact constraints. With the surface-to-surface
discretization contact conditions are enforced in an average sense over the slave
surface, rather than at discrete points as in the case of node-to-surface discretization.
Surface-to-surface discretization is not applicable if a node-based surface is used in
the contact pair definition.
(ii) Choosing a Contact Discretization

Surface-to-surface discretization generally provides more accurate stress and
pressure results than node-to-surface discretization. Since node-to-surface
discretization simply resists penetrations of slave nodes into the master surface,
forces tend to concentrate at these slave nodes. This concentration leads to spikes and
valleys in the distribution of pressure across the surface. Surface-to-surface
discretization resists penetrations in an average sense over finite regions of the slave
surface, which has a smoothing effect. As the mesh is refined, the inconsistencies
between the discretizations lessen, but for a given mesh refinement the surface-to-
surface approach tends to provide more accurate stresses.
Contact using surface-to-surface discretization is also less sensitive to master and

slave surface designations than node-to-surface contact (some examples in ABAQUS
manual indicate this). Hence surface-to-surface discretization was considered to be
the desirable discretization. Surface-to-surface discretization generally involves more
nodes per constraint and can therefore increase solution cost. But in most
applications the extra cost is fairly small.
(iii) Contact Tracking Approaches
Two tracking approaches are available in ABAQUS to account for the relative
motion of the two surfaces forming a contact pair in mechanical contact simulations.
Choice of a tracking approach will cause a substantial impact on how contact pairs
interact. The two approaches are as follows:
finite sliding, which allows any arbitrary motion of the surfaces (most general
application)
small sliding, which assumes that although two bodies may undergo large
motions, there will be relatively little sliding of one surface along the other.
Finite-sliding Tracking Approach

Finite-sliding contact is the most general tracking approach and allows for arbitrary
relative separation, sliding, and rotation of the contacting surfaces. In this approach
slave node is allowed to be in contact anywhere along the master surface. While in
contact, it is constrained to slide along, irrespective of the orientation and
deformation. In addition the load transfer occurs between the slave node and the
master node which is in contact with the slave node at that time. This approach
represents the actual contact behaviour in practice and is one of the remarkable
features of finite-sliding tracking method. Two tracking algorithms, state-based
tracking algorithm and path-based tracking algorithm, are available for finite-sliding,
surface-to-surface contact. By default, finite-sliding, surface-to-surface contact pairs
use a state-based tracking algorithm.
Small-sliding Tracking Approach

Although the finite-sliding approach is functioning well and having remarkable
features it is considered to be unnecessary for a large class of contact problems
where the relative motion between the contact surfaces is small. Small-sliding
tracking approach may be suitable for such problems which enhances the solution
cost also. For geometrically nonlinear analyses this formulation assumes that the
surfaces may undergo arbitrarily large rotations but that a slave node will interact
with the same local area of the master surface throughout the analysis. It means that
there will be relatively little sliding of one surface along the other and is based on
linearized approximations of the master surface per constraint. The groups of nodes
involved with individual contact constraints are fixed throughout the analysis
although the active/inactive status of these constraints can change during the
analysis. Small-sliding tracking contact can be considered when the approximations
are reasonable, due to computational savings.
Differences between Small-sliding and Finite-sliding Contact

For small-sliding contact problems the contact area is calculated in the input file pre-
processor from the undeformed shape of the model; thus, it does not change
throughout the analysis, and contact pressures for small-sliding contact are calculated
according to this invariant contact area. This behaviour is different from that in
finite-sliding contact problems, where the contact area and contact pressures are
calculated according to the deformed shape of the model.
(iv) Selecting Suitable Tracking Approach

Numerical studies were conducted to investigate the response of the different
tracking approaches. Figures 4.17 (a) and (b) show the comparison of moment versus
displacement graph for 300753.0 LSB, span lengths of 3 and 5 m with fastener
spacing of span/6. No significant changes were observed in the peak value (< 0.75%)
or the nonlinear behaviour.
140
120
100
Moment (kNm)
80
60
Small-sliding
40 Finite-sliding, Tracking - State
Finite-sliding, Tracking - Path
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Displacement (mm)
(a) 3 m Span
Figure 4.17: Comparison of Moment versus Displacement Curves For

75
300 3.0 LSB with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
120
100
80
Moment (kNm)
60
Small-sliding
40 Finite-sliding, Tracking - State
Finite-sliding, Tracking - Path
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
(b) 5 m Span
Figure 4.17: Comparison of Moment versus Displacement Curves For

75
300 3.0 LSB with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
10
7 Small-sliding, SDI
Number of Iterations
Finite-sliding, State, SDI

6
Finite-sliding, Path, SDI
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Increment
Figure 4.18: Comparison of Number of Severe Discontinuity Iterations versus

75
Time Increment for 300 3.0 LSB with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Figure 4.18 shows the number of severe discontinuity iterations (SDI) attempted in
each increment during the analyses. The most common of such severe discontinuities
involve open-close changes in contact. This iteration determines the stability of
convergence. Many discontinuities were involved when finite-sliding tracking
approaches (both) were used. Also compared with small-sliding approach the finite-
sliding tracking approaches are computationally expensive as they involve more
contact constraints for slave nodes.
Sliding of one surface along the other is relatively very small in back to back LSB
sections. Experimental results also confirmed this. Lack of fastener spacing such as
span/1 may exhibit more sliding in which it is preferable to choose finite-sliding
approach. For all other simulations small sliding approach was considered to be
adequate. It is useful to understand how small sliding works in simulating the contact
behaviour of back to back LSB sections.
Figure 4.19: Establishing Anchor Point and Local Tangent Plane in Small-
Sliding, Node-to-Surface Formulation (HKS, 2007b)
As mentioned above for geometrically nonlinear analyses the small sliding

formulation assumes that the surfaces may undergo arbitrarily large rotations but that
a slave node will interact with the same local area of the master surface throughout
the analysis. In this small-sliding tracking approach an approximated planar of the
master surface is associated with each slave node. Contact interactions are
considered between a given slave node and the associated local tangent plane, such
as that shown in Figure 4.19. The slave node is typically constrained not to penetrate
this local tangent plane. Each local tangent plane, which is a line in two dimensions,
is defined by an anchor point, X0, on the master surface and an orientation vector at
the anchor point (see Figure 4.19). The algorithm used to define anchor points is
described below. Since each slave node is associated with a local tangent plane
ABAQUS does not have to monitor slave nodes for possible contact along the entire
master surface. Therefore, small-sliding contact is generally less expensive
computationally than finite-sliding contact.
Establishing Anchor Point

For node-to-surface contact, the anchor point of a slave node's local tangent plane is
chosen such that the vector from the anchor point to the slave node coincides with a
smoothly varying normal vector N(x), where x is any point on the master surface on
the master surface. The anchor point is chosen before the analysis starts using the
initial configuration of the model. Firstly the unit normal vectors at each node of the
master surface are constructed by averaging the normals of the element faces making
up the master surface. Then the normal vector N(x) is constructed using the relevant
nodal unit normals along with the shape function of the relevant elements. The local
tangent plane is only an approximation of the actual mesh geometry. Since small-
sliding contact considers nonlinear geometric effects, the orientation of the local
tangent plane will be updated continuously to account for the rotation and, assuming
that the master surface is deformable. However the position of the anchor point
relative to the surrounding nodes on the master surface facet does not change as the
master surface deforms.
The algorithm to establish the anchor point location for surface-to-surface contact is
more complex. The anchor point is located at the centre of the zone on the master
surface that is closest to the slave surface zone around the slave node. Therefore, it
does not use the smoothed master surface nodal normals. Since the constraints are
based on surface-to-surface discretization there is usually no need to specify specific
normal directions. As in the case of node-to-surface contact, the contact direction
points from the anchor point to the slave node, and the tangent plane is normal to this
direction.
Load Transfer
As mentioned previously in a small-sliding analysis the slave node can transfer load
only to a limited number of nodes on the master surface. These nodes on the master
surface are chosen based on their proximity to the slave node's anchor point. In the
case of surface-to-surface discretization load may be transmitted to additional nearby
master nodes. The magnitude of load transferred to each master surface node is
weighted by its proximity to the slave node when the slave node contacts the local
tangent plane. As a slave node slides along its local tangent plane, ABAQUS updates
the distribution of load transferred by a given slave node to its associated master
surface nodes. However, no additional master surface nodes are ever added to the
original list of nodes associated with a given slave node. The slave node will
continue to transmit load to the original list of master surface nodes, regardless of the
distance slipped by the slave node along its contact plane.
Guidelines in Small-sliding / Suitability to Back to Back LSB Sections

A contact pair in a small-sliding contact simulation should not grossly violate any of
the assumptions or limitations outlined above. Also the model should satisfy the
following guidelines:
Slave nodes should slide less than an element length from their corresponding
anchor point and still be contacting their local tangent plane. If the master
surface is highly curved, the slave nodes should slide only a fraction of an
element length. This problem for the back to back LSB section is described in
the following section.
The local tangent planes formed by ABAQUS should be a good
approximation of the mesh geometry.
The rotation and deformation of the master surface should not cause the local
tangent planes to become a poor representation of the master surface during
the course of the analysis. Occurrence of high deformation and rotation in
LSB section for various spans which causes the local tangent planes to be
problematic is less likely. Also having similar and fine mesh diminish this
problem further.
Choosing the Master and Slave Surfaces

ABAQUS enforces some rules to the assignment of the master and slave roles for
contact surfaces, regardless of what kind of contact formation is used. Generally
rigid surfaces must always be the master surface whereas slave surfaces must be
attached to deformable bodies or deformable bodies defined as rigid. A node-based
surface can act only as a slave surface and always uses node-to-surface contact.
As was mentioned above, when both surfaces in a contact pair are element-based and
attached to either deformable bodies or deformable bodies defined as rigid, we have
to choose the slave and master surfaces. Generally, if a smaller surface contacts a
larger surface, it is recommended to choose the smaller surface as the slave surface.
If that distinction cannot be made, the master surface should be chosen as the surface
of the stiffer body or as the surface with the coarser mesh if the two surfaces are on
structures with comparable stiffnesses. Compared with node-to-surface contact, the
choice of master and slave surfaces for surface-to-surface contact typically has much
less effect on the results. In the case of LSB sections both the master and slave
surfaces have same contact area and stiffness. Both surfaces have similar mesh type
(shell elements). So there is no problem in selecting the slave or master surfaces.
Basic guidelines specify that the slave surface should be the more refined surface.
However, in a small-sliding simulation more consideration must be given when
defining the master surface. With small-sliding contact each slave node views the
master surface as a flat surface, which can be significantly different than the true
shape of the surface, even in the local region near the anchor point. In some cases the
local tangent planes provide a good local approximation to the master surface in the
initial configuration, but deformation and rotation of the master surface can reorient
the local tangent planes such that they become a poor representation of the master
surface. This problem can be minimized to some extent by using a more refined
mesh on the master surface, thus providing more element faces to control the motion
of the tangent planes. In such cases the use of more refined slave surfaces may be
problematic. So it would be advisable to have similar mesh size for both master and
slave surfaces. Even though the use of a very fine mesh predicts more accurate
results it is not recommended for small sliding contact formulation. As mentioned
above slave nodes should slide less than an element length from their corresponding
anchor point and still be contacting their local tangent plane. It means that sliding of
slave nodes is restricted to an element length which should suit the practical case.
Selection of an element width of 5 mm and length of 10 mm was adequate to
represent the actual sliding limits. Also, as discussed above the same element size
was used in both master and slave surfaces.
Accounting for Shell Thickness
All of the contact formulations except the finite-sliding, node-to-surface formulation
account for initial shell and membrane thicknesses for element-based surfaces by
default. But thickness can be avoided if it is not desired. Thickness was accounted in
this model and the reference surface was located at the mid-surface as default.
4.3.6.4 Defining Contact Pairs
To define a contact pair, it is necessary to indicate which pairs of surfaces may

interact with one another. When a contact pair contains two surfaces, the master and
slave surfaces are not allowed to include the same nodes and we must choose the
slave and master surfaces. The contact pairs were defined using ABAQUS
*CONTACT PAIR option with INTERACTION = Interaction property name,
SMALL SLIDING, TYPE = SURFACE TO SURFACE.
A surface interaction definition specifies the constitutive contact properties and the
constraint enforcement methods used by a contact pair. Every contact pair in a model
must refer to a surface interaction definition using *SURFACE INTERACTION
option, even if the contact pair uses the default contact property models.
4.3.6.5 Contact Constraint Enforcement Methods
ABAQUS strictly enforces the contact constraints discussed previously by default.

However, strict enforcement of contact constraints can sometimes lead to
overconstraint issues or convergence difficulty. To address these issues and allow for
decreased solution cost with typically minimal sacrifice to solution accuracy,
ABAQUS also provides penalty-based constraint enforcement methods.
Contact constraint enforcement methods determine how contact constraints imposed

by a contact pair's physical pressure-overclosure relationship are resolved
numerically in an analysis. The methods can either strictly enforce or approximate
the physical pressure-overclosure relationships. There are three contact constraint
enforcement methods namely, direct, penalty and augmented Langrange methods,
available in ABAQUS and they are discussed briefly in this section.
Lagrange Multiplier Degrees of Freedom
Although the use of Lagrange multipliers can add significantly to solution cost, they
protect against numerical errors related to ill-conditioning in the case of a high
contact stiffness. Any Lagrange multipliers associated with contact are present only
for active contact constraints, so the number of equations will change as the contact
status changes. ABAQUS will choose whether or not to use Lagrange multipliers
automatically, based on the contact stiffness.
(i) Direct Method

The direct method strictly enforces a given pressure-overclosure behaviour for each
constraint, without approximation or use of augmentation iterations. The direct
method can be used to strictly enforce a hard pressure-overclosure relationship
using ABAQUS *SURFACE BEHAVIOR, DIRECT option. Lagrange multipliers
are always used in this case. Details of the pressure-overclosure relationship are
given in Section 4.3.6.8.
(ii) Penalty Method

The penalty method approximates hard pressure-overclosure behaviour. Some degree
of penetration will occur in this method as the contact force is proportional to the
penetration distance. Thus it allows numerical softening which can mitigate
overconstraint issues and reduce the number of iterations required in an analysis.
Hence the penalty methods typically do not use Lagrange multipliers which allows
for improved efficiency. However, a variation of the penalty methods that make use
of Lagrange multipliers to avoid ill-conditioning issues for high penalty stiffness is
also provided in ABAQUS.
ABAQUS offers linear and nonlinear variations of the penalty method and they can
be defined by using *SURFACE BEHAVIOR, PENALTY = LINEAR or
NONLINEAR option. With the linear penalty method the penalty stiffness is
constant, so the pressure-overclosure relationship is linear. With the nonlinear
penalty method the penalty stiffness increases linearly between regions of constant
low initial stiffness and constant high final stiffness, resulting in a nonlinear
pressure-overclosure relationship. A comparison of the linear and nonlinear pressure-
overclosure relationships with the default settings is shown in Figure 4.20. In
addition, the default parameters can be modified for both linear and nonlinear options
when necessary.
Kf = 10KL
Contact Nonlinear
pressure
Ki = 0.1KL Linear
KL
C0 = 0 e d Overclosure
Figure 4.20: Linear and Nonlinear Pressure-overclosure Relationships with

Default Settings
(iii) Augmented Lagrange Method

This augmented Lagrange method applies only to hard pressure-overclosure
relationships. The linear penalty method can also be used within an augmentation
iteration scheme that drives down the penetration distance. The augmented Lagrange
method may require additional iterations in some cases; however, this approach can
make the resolution of contact conditions easier and avoid problems with
overconstraints, while keeping penetrations small. The default penetration tolerance
is one-tenth of a percent of the characteristic interface length for small-sliding,
surface-to-surface contact while it is five percent of the characteristic interface length
for finite-sliding, surface-to-surface
Lagrange multipliers are not used for the augmented Lagrange method with the
default penalty stiffness; however they will be switched when the penalty stiffness
exceeds a certain limit. The augmented Lagrange method is implemented using
*SURFACE BEHAVIOR, AUGMENTED LAGRANGE.
(iv) Selecting a Contact Constraint Enforcement Method

Based on the best understanding of the available contact constraint enforcement
methods the following can be summarised. Direct method strictly enforces the hard
pressure-overclosure behaviour per constraint while the penalty methods use stiff
approximations for hard contact. The augmented Lagrange method uses similar
approximation as the penalty method, but also uses augmentation iteration to
improve the accuracy of the approximation. Hard contact is the most common and
recommended contact pressure-overclosure relationship for metal contact and these
details are given in Section 4.3.6.8. Numerical studies were conducted to investigate
the response of different contact constraint enforcement method on the nonlinear
analyses.
140
120
100
Moment (kNm)
80
60
Direct
40
Penalty - Linear
Penalty - Nonlinear
20
Augmented Lagrange
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.21: Moment versus Displacement Curves for Different Contact

Constraint Enforcement Methods
Figure 4.21 shows the nonlinear behaviour of 300753.0 LSB section with a span
length of 3 m for the different contact constraint methods used. Only default
parameters were used in all the constraint methods. The results point out that there
are no significant changes in the nonlinear response of the LSB section although
different types of contact constraints methods were used. It means that the particular
model allows the direct method to strictly enforce the hard pressure-overclosure
relationship. The direct method which represents the actual contact behaviour
(strictly enforce the hard contact) can be successfully used; and hence it was decided
to use that method.
4.3.6.6 Modelling Contact Interference Fits
Interference fits in ABAQUS take place by default to resolve the overclosures

between surfaces in the initial configuration of a model. It causes stresses and strains
in a model as overclosures are resolved. Interferences are resolved in the first
increment or multiple increments of a step depending on how large and critical the
overclosure is. The default contact constraint imposed at each constraint location is
that the current penetration h(t) is 0.
The Automatic Shrink Fit Method

This method is applicable only during the first step of an analysis and requires no
interference value. With this method ABAQUS assigns a different v to each slave
node that is equal to that node's initial penetration (or zero if the point is initially
open) except for the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation, in which case the
same value of v, corresponding to the maximum penetration of the contact pair, is
assigned to all constraints that are initially closed. In the LSB finite element models
this method was used to solve the interference problem.
4.3.6.7 Specifying Initial Clearances
Precise initial clearance or overclosure values and contact directions for the nodes
can be defined on the slave surface when they are very small compared to the
coordinate values. This procedure is performed internally, and does not affect the
coordinates of the slave nodes. If a clearance is defined, ABAQUS will treat the two
surfaces as not being in contact, regardless of their nodal coordinates. A uniform
clearance or overclosure can be specified for a contact pair by identifying the master
and slave surfaces of the contact pair and the desired initial clearance, h0 (positive for
a clearance; negative for an overclosure). Alternatively, spatially varying clearances
or overclosures can be also specified. This method is only applicable to small-sliding
problems.
Defining a Initial Clearance to Back to Back LSB Model

As mentioned above defining the initial surface geometry of a contact pair is very
important in the interpretation of the initial contact conditions. Based on the actual
nature of the surface geometry conditions it is important to define whether the
surfaces should initially be in contact or have a small clearance. Actual geometry of
contact surfaces is not perfect and there are no possibilities that the entire contact
surfaces are in contact at the beginning. Geometric imperfection measurements taken
across the web also confirmed this (see Figure 4.22). As shown in Figure 4.22
geometric imperfection varies in a sinusoidal form and may create irregular gaps.
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Imperfection (mm)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
-0.2 CROSS SECTION - 17
CROSS SECTION - 18
-0.4
CROSS SECTION - 19
-0.6
Web Depth (mm)
Figure 4.22: Geometric Imperfection of Web across the Depth
Table 4.7: Effect of Initial Clearance on the Moment Capacities

Span/2 Span/3 Span/6
Clearance
Mod Mu Inc Mod Mu Inc Mod Mu Inc
(mm)
(kNm) (kNm) (%) (kNm) (kNm) (%) (kNm) (kNm) (%)
NC 20.428 18.214 0.00 21.012 18.712 0.00 21.644 19.309 0.00
0.2 20.428 18.314 0.55 21.012 18.911 1.06 21.644 19.408 0.51
0.1 20.428 18.314 0.55 21.012 18.911 1.06 21.644 19.408 0.51
0.05 20.428 18.314 0.55 21.012 18.911 1.06 21.644 19.408 0.51
0.01 20.428 18.314 0.55 21.012 19.01 1.59 21.644 19.508 1.03
0.007 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21.644 19.508 1.03
0.005 20.428 18.413 1.09 21.012 19.01 1.59 21.644 19.806 2.57
0.003 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21.644 20.304 5.15
0.001 20.428 19.01 4.37 21.012 19.806 5.85 21.644 21.12 9.38
Note: NC No contact, Mod Elastic Buckling, Mu Ultimate Moment Capacity, Inc
Increment for Mu
Although ABAQUS has the option to define spatially varying clearance it needs the
proper geometric imperfection data. However, it was assumed to be inefficient work
when compared with its effect on the ultimate solution. Thus it was decided to
specify uniform clearance through entire surface. Numerical studies were conducted
to investigate the effect of initial clearance on elastic buckling/ultimate strength
solution for 200451.6 LSB with different fastener spacings and span lengths and
the results are listed in Table 4.7.
22
21.5
21
Span/2, E
20.5
Moment (kNm)
Span/2, N
Span/3, E
20
Span/3, N
Span/6, E
19.5
Span/6, N
19
18.5
18
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Initial Clearance (mm)
Figure 4.23: Comparison of Moment Capacity versus Initial Clearance Graphs

45
for 200 1.6 LSB Section
The results show that elastic buckling analyses are not affected by the changes in the
initial clearance whereas the effects were noted in the ultimate moment capacities.
As the initial clearance reduces the ultimate moment capacity increases. The
increment in moment capacity with respect to different initial clearance is listed in
Table 4.7. There were only slight changes up to an initial clearance of 0.005 mm (see
Figure 4.23); significant changes were noted beyond that point which could be
because of the numerical runoff as the global model tolerance is 0.005. It was
decided to assume 0.1 mm as the initial clearance which is a reasonable value and is
within the average range of actual clearance data. The back to back model involves a
large number of contact points which causes many numerical issues in relation to
contact constraint. Maintaining a small gap would minimize the numerical issues
related to contact constraint at the early stage of an analysis. In addition,
implementing residual stresses in the pre-nonlinear analysis causes convergence
problem as within the specified single increment the equilibrium for contact
constraint is not often achieved. Maintaining 0.1 mm initial gap at the beginning
minimizes this problem to some extent. Convergence problems related to residual
stresses are given in Section 4.3.9.
4.3.6.8 Mechanical Contact Properties
The mechanical contact property models include a constitutive model for the contact
pressure-overclosure relationship that governs the motion of the surfaces and a
friction model that defines the force resisting the relative tangential motion of the
surfaces. Suitable mechanical models must be chosen and assigned to the contact
pairs.
(i) Contact Pressure-overclosure Relationships

Pressure-overclosure relationship represents the contact behaviour of the relevant
surfaces normal to the surfaces. ABAQUS offers a range of contact relationship to
account for various material behaviours. They are discussed briefly in the following
sections.
Hard Contact Relationship

The most common contact pressure-overclosure relationship is shown in Figure 4.24,
although the zero-penetration condition may or may not be strictly enforced
depending on the constraint enforcement method. When surfaces are in contact, any
contact pressure can be transmitted between them. The surfaces separate if the
contact pressure reduces to zero. Separated surfaces come into contact when the
clearance between them reduces to zero. This contact relationship is used in the LSB
finite element models.
Contact
Any positive pressure pressure
possible when in contact
Zero pressure when

no contact
Clearance
Figure 4.24: Default Hard Contact Pressure-overclosure Relationship
Modified Hard Contact Relationship
Modified hard contact pressure-overclosure relationship is another type of hard
contact relationship with numerical softening behaviour. This allows to modify the
hard contact relationship up to n points on a surface to overclose by a certain
distance, hmax, before contact pressure is transmitted. If the overclosure exceeds hmax,
the contact state is changed from open to closed, the slave node is moved back to the
master surface, and hard contact is enforced. Also, the surfaces can be allowed to
transmit tensile contact pressures up to a particular value, pmax, before they
separate, as shown in Figure 4.25.
Contact
pressure Possible pressure, up to a
negative pressure of magnitude
pmax, when in contact
No pressure transmitted
when no contact
(up to overclosure of hmax)
Clearance pmax hmax Overclosure
Figure 4.25: Modified Hard Contact Pressure-overclosure Relationship
It can be useful in overcoming numerical problems in difficult contact simulations

and in obtaining solutions without excessive iteration. However transmitting negative
pressure is not suitable and practical for metal contact. Thus not suitable for LSB
finite element models (pmax should be zero).
Softened Contact Relationship

Three types of softened contact relationships are available in ABAQUS and their
contact relationship is prescribed by using a linear law, a tabular piecewise-linear
law, or an exponential law. Not like in hard contact relationship the softened
contact relationships are specified in terms of overclosure (or clearance) versus
contact pressure or contact force depends on whether the contact surface/element is
based on element or node. This soft behaviour is not suitable for stiff sections
(metals) such as LSB sections.
No Separation Relationship
ABAQUS offers one more option called no separation which means the contact
pressure-overclosure relationship that prevents surfaces from separating once they
have come into contact. Using this combination of surface interaction models causes
surfaces to remain fully bonded together once they contact, even if the contact
pressure between them is tensile. This kind of behaviour is unlikely in back to back
built-up LSB sections as separation and small sliding are possible between the two
individual beams at any time.
(ii) Defining a Friction Model

A friction model can be included as part of a surface interaction definition. Various
friction models such as basic Coulomb friction model, anisotropic friction model are
available in ABAQUS. However, in this finite element model friction was not
considered. Geometry of actual contact surface of LSB section is not smooth due to
initial geometrical imperfections caused by manufacturing and assembling process
(geometric imperfection data on web element confirmed this). Also we did not have
geometric imperfection data to predict the actual nature of the contact surface. There
could be little friction during the contact but it was unknown and not uniform and it
could have contributed to only a smaller effect on the ultimate capacity. Also the
bending action was perpendicular to the contact normal direction until the failure or
large deformation took place which did not induce much normal contact force; thus
the traction force should have been very small. Therefore, it was reasonable to
neglect the friction force. Moreover friction models are more complicated, might
lead to many numerical issues and could cause more illness conditions in the
analyses.
4.3.6.9 Contact Modelling for Back to Back LSB Section
The finalized contact modelling for the back to back LSB section is shown in Figure
4.26. Contact conditions were applied using master-slave algorithm, in which
contact surface of one LSB was assigned as master surface while contact surface of
other LSB was assigned as slave-surface. Small-sliding tracking approach, Surface-
to-surface contact discretization, hard contact pressure-overclosure relationship,
zero friction, deformable body conditions and an initial gap of 0.1 mm were used in
the element-based surface contact model.
Contact modelling was not Small-sliding Tracking Approach
applied to rigid body elements Zero Friction, Hard Contact &
and thicker shell elements Initial Gap of 0.1 mm
Overhang
region
Support
region
Figure 4.26: Contact Modelling for the Experimental Finite Element Model
4.3.7 Material Modelling
The material nonlinearity is one of the primary nonlinearity for the ultimate strength
prediction of cold-formed steel members. There will be some permanent deformation
when the load is removed. ABAQUS offer several material models to model both the
linear and nonlinear material behaviours.
4.3.7.1 Linear Elastic Behaviour
A linear elastic material model valid for small elastic strains (normally less than 5%)
is suitable for predicting the elastic behaviour of cold-formed steel such as LSB
sections. The total stress is defined from the total elastic strain as
= D el el (4.1)
Where is the total stress, Del is the fourth-order elasticity tensor, and el is the total
elastic strain. The simplest form of linear elasticity is the isotropic case. The elastic
properties are defined by giving the Young's modulus, E, and the Poisson's ratio, v.
The shear modulus, G, can be expressed in terms of E and v as G = E / 2(1 + v) . The
stability criterion requires that E > 0, G > 0, and -1 < v < 0.5. The elastic modulus E
and Poissons ratio v were taken as 200000 MPa and 0.3, respectively. ABAQUS
*ELASTIC option with TYPE = ISOTROPIC was used to define the elastic
behaviour.
4.3.7.2 Classical Metal Plasticity
ABAQUS provides classical metal plasticity models which use Mises yield surfaces
with associated plastic flow, which allows isotropic yielding. Metal plasticity models
use perfect plasticity or isotropic hardening behaviour and can be used when rate-
dependent effects are important. The Mises yield surfaces assume that yielding of the
metal is independent of the equivalent pressure stress. This observation is confirmed
experimentally for most metals (except voided metals) under positive pressure stress.
(i) Mises Yield Surface and Flow Rule

The Mises yield surface is used to define isotropic yielding. It is defined by giving
the value of the uniaxial yield stress as a function of uniaxial equivalent plastic
strain. ABAQUS uses associated plastic flow. Therefore, as the material yields, the
inelastic deformation rate is in the direction of the normal to the yield surface (the
plastic deformation is volume invariant). This assumption is generally acceptable for
most calculations with metals; the most obvious case where it is not appropriate is
the detailed study of the localization of plastic flow in sheets of metal as the sheet
develops texture and eventually tears apart. As long as the details of such effects are
not of interest, the associated flow models in ABAQUS used with the smooth Mises
yield surfaces generally predict the behaviour accurately.
(ii) Perfect Plasticity / Isotropic Hardening
A perfectly plastic material (with no hardening) or work hardening can be specified
in a model. Perfect plasticity means that the yield stress does not change with plastic
strain. Isotropic hardening means that the yield surface changes size uniformly in all
directions such that the yield stress increases (or decreases) in all stress directions as
plastic straining occurs. In the isotropic hardening model, the yield stress is defined
as a function of plastic strain.
4.3.7.3 Stress-Strain Model
One of the important data for modelling cold-formed steel is what to use for the
stress-strain ( - ) curve. Modelling of - behaviour of cold-formed steel
ultimately involves a number of simplifications. Not enough data exists to form a
general material model which includes different tension and compression yield stress
values (Schafer, 1997). Not explicitly modelling the residual stresses may affect the
stress-strain curve. Currently, an equal tension and compression elastic-plastic with
strain hardening model is a reasonable approximation if residual stresses are also
explicitly considered. Tensile coupon tests were conducted to determine the -
behaviour of LSB steels. True stress-strain relationship is employed in ABAQUS,
thus the engineering stress-strain data obtained from the tensile tests are converted to
the true stress-strain relationship by the following equations.
true = eng (1 + eng ) (4.2a)
true = ln(1 + eng ) (4.2b)
true
true
pl
= ln(1 + eng ) (4.2c)
E
Figures 4.27 (a) to (c) show the engineering (Eng) and true (True) stress-strain
curves for the web, inside and outside flange elements of LSB section 150451.6
LSB, respectively. True stress-strain curves are slightly different in the plastic
region. Now the question is what kind of stress-strain model should be used in the
finite element model. A simplified bi-linear stress-strain curve with no strain
hardening, known as elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) model is generally used in the
finite element model for nonlinear analysis whereas, a stress-strain model with strain
hardening (SH) representing the actual stress-strain curve is also used in some
situations where high accuracy is required.
Figures 4.27 (a) to (c) show simplified elastic-perfect plastic (EPP) models and
stress-strain models with strain hardening (SH) representing the actual curves for the
web, inside and outside flange elements of LSB section 150451.6 LSB,
respectively. To assess the suitability and accuracy of the material models a
numerical study was conducted for LSB sections with varying spans. From the
results it was confirmed that there is no significant effect on the nonlinear analysis
when the simplified elastic-perfect plastic model was used. Figure 4.28 shows the
comparison of moment versus displacement curves for both the simplified elastic-
perfect plastic model and the stress-strain model with strain hardening of LSB
section 150451.6 LSB with varying spans. The nonlinear behaviour and the failure
criteria vary with material type and the failure mode. Generally significant inelastic
behaviour takes place in short beams. As the span length increases the elastic
behaviour dominates. Based on the experimental and numerical studies we can
conclude that for LSBs most lateral buckling failures occur within the elastic and
small portion of plastic region where the strain hardening effect is not sensitive.
Thus, the use of simplified elastic-perfect plastic material model did not affect the
nonlinear behaviour and it was considered sufficient for modelling the LSB sections
subject to a dominant failure mode of lateral buckling as well as local buckling. The
elastic-perfect plastic material model was implemented via ABAQUS *PLASTIC
option.
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
Stress - Strain Curve, Eng, Exp

300
Young's Modulus
200 Stress - Strain Curve, True, Exp
Stress - Strain Curve, FEA - EPP

100
Stress - Strain Curve, FEA - SH
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
(a) Web Element

700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400

300
Young's Modulus

100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
(b) Inside Flange Element

700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400

300
Young's Modulus

100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Strain (%)
(c) Outside Flange Element

Figure 4.27: Stress Strain Curves and Finite Element Material Models for
45
150 1.6 LSB
25
Moment (kNm) 20
15
10 2 m Span, EPP
2 m Span, SH
3 m Span, EPP
5 3 m Span, SH
5 m Span, EPP
5 m Span, SH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.28: Comparison of Nonlinear Responses for the Simplified Elastic-

Perfect Plastic Model and Stress-Strain Model with Strain Hardening
4.3.8 Initial Geometrical Imperfections
Geometric imperfections in cold-formed steel members refer to the deviations of an

actual member from a perfect geometry. These imperfections include warping or
twisting of a member, as well as local imperfections. The strength of a given steel
member is particularly sensitive to imperfection in the shape of its eigenmodes. In
general, two parameters are considered as important in understanding the initial
geometric imperfections. They are the magnitude of the imperfection and the shape
of the imperfection. Proper implementation of these two parameters will represent
the actual geometric imperfection pattern that exists. Thus in the finite element
model, these two parameters were considered as part of the inclusion of initial
geometric imperfections.
ABAQUS offers three ways to define an imperfection shape: as a linear

superposition of buckling eigenmodes, from the displacements of a static analysis, or
by specifying the node number and imperfection values directly. Here only the
translational degrees of freedom are modified. The conventional method, linear
superposition of buckling eigenmodes, was used to implement the imperfection into
the model. The critical imperfection shape was introduced via ABAQUS
*IMPERFECTION option by modifying the nodal coordinates using a vector field
created by scaling the elastic buckling eigenvector obtained from an elastic buckling
analysis, and therefore included lateral displacement, twist rotation, and cross-
sectional distortion. The lowest buckling eigenmodes are usually the critical model;
hence these were used to generate the imperfections.
Applying an appropriate imperfection magnitude is very important as it can affect the

ultimate strength as well as the post-buckling behaviour. Experimental studies were
conducted on back to back LSB section to investigate the initial geometric
imperfections and the details were given in Chapter 3. The measured values of
geometric imperfections were used to define the maximum value of global
imperfections in the experimental finite element models. The measured global
imperfection values were less than the recommended limit of span/1000 in AS 4100
(SA, 1998). Therefore, the recommended limit of span/1000 was used conservatively
in the ideal models. The magnitude of local geometric imperfections for the ideal
finite element models was used as depth/150, which is the fabrication tolerance for
LSB sections (see Appendix A).
The single LSB is a mono-symmetric section and hence, the direction (positive or
negative) of initial global geometric imperfection may affect its out of plane bending
strength. Numerical studies conducted by Kurniawan (2008) confirmed that the
geometric imperfection direction influenced the ultimate strength as well as the
direction of lateral displacement. The beams with negative initial imperfection
displaced laterally in the negative direction and twisted anti-clockwise, while the
opposite happened for the positive initial imperfection. Also the ultimate strengths of
single LSBs with positive initial imperfections were slightly higher than those of the
beams with negative imperfections. Therefore Kurniawan (2008) used a negative
initial imperfection in the non-linear static analysis to obtain a lower bound solution
of single LSBs lateral buckling strength. However, since back to back LSB section
is a doubly symmetric section, both the positive and negative imperfections gave the
same ultimate strength.
4.3.9 Residual Stresses
The residual stress is an important parameter in the flexural strength of steel beams
as it could lead to premature yielding, and reduce the beam strength. Residual
stresses in steel beam sections vary markedly because they occur as a result of
manufacturing and fabrication processes. The dual electric resistance welding and
cold-forming technologies used to make LSBs produce a unique residual stress
distribution in LSBs. Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005e) conducted tests using
the well known sectioning method to determine the residual stresses of LSB sections.
Based on the test results a simplified residual stress model was first developed by
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005b), which was then upgraded by Seo et al.
(2008) as shown in Figure 4.29.
Figure 4.29 shows two types of residual stresses in LSB sections, namely the
membrane residual stresses in the web (mainly) due to the welding process and the
flexural residual stresses in the flanges (mainly) due to the cold-forming process. The
residual stress is expressed as a ratio of the virgin plates yield stress (fy) value of
380 MPa. The maximum flexural residual stress is in the corner of the outside flange
(1.07fy) while the maximum membrane residual stress is in the web (0.50fy). The left
web-flange membrane residual stress value is different for each LSB section so that
the net membrane force in the cross-section is zero. Table 4.8 presents the proposed
membrane residual stress values for all the LSBs. The flexural residual stresses vary
across the section thickness and the variation was assumed to be linear with zero
stress at the centre fibre. Hence the entire outside surface of the cross-section is in
tension while the inside surface of the section is in compression. Both the membrane
and flexural residual stresses shown in Figure 4.29 and Table 4.8 are used as initial
stresses in the experimental and ideal finite element models.
1.07fy
0.24fy
-0.2567fy
0.2
0.24fy 0.41fy 0.03fy
-0.50f
-y
0.03fy
0.11fy
0.38fy 0.8fy
0.50fy
0.24fy
0.8fy
0.38fy
0.11fy
0.03fy
0.24fy -0.50fy
0.41fy
0.03fy
0.24fy -0.2567fy
1.07fy
(a) Flexural (b) Membrane

Figure 4.29: Residual Stress Distribution Model for LSB Sections
(Mahaarachchi and Mahendran, 2005b and Seo et al., 2008)
Table 4.8: Membrane Residual Stresses of LSBs (Seo et al., 2008)

Centreline Dimensions (mm) Membrane Residual Stress as a Ratio of fy
LSB Inside Inside

d d1 bf df t Left Right Web Mid
Flange Flange
Flange Flange Top Web
Left Right
300753.0 297.0 247.0 72.0 22.0 3.0 -0.2591 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
300752.5 297.5 247.5 72.5 22.5 2.5 -0.2556 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
300602.0 298.0 258.0 58.0 18.0 2.0 -0.2556 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
250753.0 247.0 197.0 72.0 22.0 3.0 -0.2591 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
250752.5 247.5 197.5 72.5 22.5 2.5 -0.2556 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
250602.0 248.0 208.0 58.0 18.0 2.0 -0.2556 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
200602.5 197.5 157.5 57.5 17.5 2.5 -0.2600 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
200602.0 198.0 158.0 58.0 18.0 2.0 -0.2567 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
200451.6 198.4 168.4 43.4 13.4 1.6 -0.2567 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
150452.0 148.0 118.0 43.0 13.0 2.0 -0.2615 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
150451.6 148.4 118.4 43.4 13.4 1.6 -0.2567 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
125452.0 123.0 93.0 43.0 13.0 2.0 -0.2615 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
125451.6 123.4 93.4 43.4 13.4 1.6 -0.2567 0.03 -0.50 0.50 0.11 0.03
The initial residual stresses were created using the SIGINI Fortran user subroutine
and executed using ABAQUS *INITIAL CONDITIONS option, with TYPE =
STRESS. This SIGINI user subroutine is generally used when the residual stresses
are complicated. In this subroutine the local components of the initial stress were
defined as a function of the global coordinates. Since the global coordinates were
used to define the local stress components, member imperfections had to be included
in determining the residual stresses. Equations with the member length as a variable
and constant deformation factors obtained from the buckling analysis were used to
represent the imperfection of top and bottom flanges approximately. To vary the
flexural residual stresses through the thickness, they were applied as a function of the
integration point numbers through the thickness. Nine integration points were
defined through the thickness of each element to simulate the accurate distribution of
residual stresses. An example of this subroutine defining the residual stress
distribution is provided in Appendix B. Also Figures 4.30 (a) and (b) show typical
residual stress distributions on the inside and outside surfaces of LSB sections,
respectively.
When initial stresses are given in ABAQUS models, the initial stress state may not
be in an exact equilibrium state for the finite element model. Therefore, the initial
stresses were applied in a separate *STATIC step with no loading and the standard
model boundary conditions to allow equilibration of the initial stress field before
starting the response history. It is recommended to specify the initial time increment
to be equal to the total time specified so that ABAQUS will attempt to find
equilibrium in one increment. By default, ABAQUS ramps down the unbalanced
stress over the first step. This allows ABAQUS to use automatic incrementation if
equilibrium cannot be found in one increment. This ramping is achieved by an
additional set of artificial stresses defined at each material point. These stresses are
equal in magnitude to the initial stresses but are of opposite sign. The sum of the
material point stresses and these artificial stresses creates zero internal forces at the
beginning of the step. The internal artificial stresses are ramped off linearly in time
during the first step. Thus, at the end of the step the artificial stresses have been
removed completely and the remaining stresses in the material will be the stress state
in equilibrium. However, small deformations were noted in this step due to some
unbalanced stresses. These deformations caused convergence problems in relation to
contact constraints in some cases.
(a) Residual stresses on the

inside surface of the section
(1st integration point)
(b) Residual stresses on the

outside surface of the section
(9th integration point)
Figure 4.30: Typical Residual Stress Distribution for LSB Sections
A technique that used an additional force field in the *STATIC step to reverse this
initial deformation as suggested by Yuan (2004) was found to be inappropriate for
this model. This force field was the reaction forces obtained from a preliminary
analysis with all the finite element nodes fixed in the x, y, and z translation degrees
of freedom. But this technique was found to be inappropriate because the force field
remains in the subsequent non-linear analysis step, providing further restraint to the
section as confirmed by Kurniawan (2008). Although this initial deformation effect
was considered small and did not significantly affect the analysis in some analyses a
convergence problem was noted in some analyses. Minor modifications to the web
membrane stresses converged the analysis successfully as they minimized the
unwanted initial overclosures.
4.3.10 Analysis Types
4.3.10.1 Elastic Buckling Solution
Elastic buckling often dominates the member behaviour. Although elastic buckling
does not fully describe the ultimate behaviour it can be an important part of
characterising the element or member behaviour. Calculation of the elastic buckling
stress and modes can be undertaken using finite element analysis, finite strip
analysis, classical Fourier series solutions etc.
Examples of finite strip analysis programs are THIN-WALL (Papangelis and

Hancock, 1994) and CUFSM (Schafer, 2003). THIN-WALL was chosen to validate
the elastic buckling behaviour of ideal finite element models which are subjected to a
uniform bending moment and simply supported end conditions. THIN-WALL
program calculates the section properties, sectorial coordinates, and the longitudinal
and shear stresses for open and closed cross-sections, and also perform an elastic
buckling analysis of thin-walled structures subjected to longitudinal stress. However,
it is limited to prismatic cross-sections and simply supported ends.
The main advantage of finite element method is consideration of unusual geometry

or varying boundary conditions along the length. Moreover, the finite element elastic
buckling solution is a useful tool for generating geometric imperfections. The
solution procedure in ABAQUS was employed in this research for elastic buckling
calculations. The procedure allows the elastic buckling analysis (eigenvalue) to be
the first step in an analysis of an unloaded structure.
ABAQUS offers the Lanczos and the subspace iteration eigenvalue extraction
methods. The Lanczos method is generally faster when a large number of
eigenmodes is required for a system with many degrees of freedom. However,
Lanczos eigensolver cannot be used for models containing contact pairs or contact
elements. The subspace iteration method may be faster when only a few (less than
20) eigenmodes are needed. By default, the subspace iteration eigensolver is
employed. Based on the number of eigenvalues requested, ABAQUS will choose a
suitable number of vectors (around 6 20 in these analyses) for the subspace
iteration procedure. In back to back LSB finite element models, the number of
eigenmodes was selected based on the failure mode of back to back LSB section. A
few eigenmodes (2 to 4) was sufficient to predict global buckling failures while 4 to
10 eigenmodes were needed to predict local buckling or the interaction buckling
failures. Elastic buckling analyses were conducted using *BUCKLE step with
EIGENSOLVER = SUBSPACE (as default).
4.3.10.2 Ultimate Strength Solution
Many solution methods are available to predict the ultimate strength of thin-walled
members. They can be generally categorized into two: the semi-empirical/analytical
design methods and the numerical/analytical methods (Schafer, 1997). The semi-
empirical/analytical design method is currently used where analytical elastic
buckling solutions combined with empirical approximations are used.
Numerical/analytical methods for ultimate strength predictions are based on finite
element solutions and other numerical techniques. The ultimate strength analysis
conducted using ABAQUS falls under this category. ABAQUS was used extensively
in this research for the ultimate strength predictions of the built-up LSB sections.
Performing a general second order inelastic analysis is a complicated task. Selecting
the suitable input data such as the material and geometric nonlinear data is very
challenging and may cause a variety of difficulties including convergence problems.
Contact simulation which causes severe discontinuities in the analysis leads to
convergence difficulties. This section presents the nonlinear solution methods used
and the problems encountered and the convergence control procedures in detail.
(i) Nonlinear Static Analysis - ABAQUS

Nonlinearities can arise from large-displacement effects, material nonlinearity,
and/or boundary nonlinearities such as contact, and must be accounted for. ABAQUS
offers some static analysis methods such as general static method and Riks method
which are capable of predicting the nonlinear behaviour of a structure.
(ii) General Static Analysis

General static analysis is capable of solving nonlinear stable problems. It uses
Newtons method as a numerical technique for solving the nonlinear equilibrium
equations. More details of this method are available in ABAQUS theory manual.
(iii) Unstable Collapse and Post-buckling Analysis

Geometrically nonlinear static problems sometimes involve buckling or collapse
behaviour, where the load-displacement response shows a negative stiffness. Several
approaches are given in ABAQUS for modelling such behaviour. One is to treat the
buckling response dynamically. This approach is easily accomplished by restarting
the terminated static procedure and switching to a dynamic procedure when the static
solution becomes unstable. In some simple cases displacement control can provide a
solution. Another approach is to use dashpots to stabilize the structure during a static
analysis. ABAQUS offers an automated version of this stabilization approach for the
static analysis procedures. These details are given in the later sections. Alternatively,
static equilibrium states during the unstable phase of the response can be found by
using the modified Riks method. This method is used for cases where the loading
is proportional.
(iv) Riks Method

This method allows the inclusion of material and geometrical nonlinearities well as
boundary conditions. It works well in snap-through problems in which the
equilibrium path in load-displacement space is smooth and does not branch. In this
research most of the nonlinear analyses were conducted using this Riks method.
The Riks method uses the load magnitude as an additional unknown and solves
simultaneously for loads and displacements. ABAQUS uses the arc length, l, along
the static equilibrium path in load-displacement space which is used to determine the
progress of the solution. This approach provides solutions regardless of whether the
response is stable or unstable. A load whose magnitude is defined in the Riks step is
referred to as a reference load. The loading during a Riks step is always
proportional. The current load magnitude, Ptotal, is defined by
Ptotal = P0 + (Pref P0) (4.3)
Where P0 is the dead load, Pref is the reference load vector, and is the load
proportionality factor. ABAQUS finds the load proportionality factor as part of the
solution. An initial increment in arc length along the static equilibrium path, lin is
suggested by the user when the step is defined. The initial load proportionality factor,
in, is computed as
l in
in = (4.4)
l period
Where lperiod is also a user-specified total arc length scale factor (typically set equal to
1). This value of in is used during the first iteration of a Riks step. For subsequent
iterations and increments the value of is computed automatically (calculation of
is given in the next section, modified Riks). The value of is part of the solution.
Minimum and maximum arc length increments, lmin and lmax, are used to control
the automatic incrementation. The Riks procedure uses only a 1% extrapolation of
the strain increment.
Although the Riks method is used to solve post-buckling problems, with unstable
post-buckling behaviour, the exact post-buckling problem cannot be analyzed
directly due to the discontinuous response at the point of buckling. Especially this
can be noticeable for doubly symmetric sections. By introducing an initial
imperfection into a perfect geometry this effect can be accomplished. Use of initial
imperfection induces some response in the buckling mode before the critical load is
reached. The Riks analysis is subject to the following restrictions:
The Riks algorithm cannot obtain a solution at a given load or displacement

value since these are treated as unknowns
A Riks step cannot be followed by another step in the same analysis.
For post-buckling problems involving loss of contact, the Riks method will
usually not work.
Some of the options can not be used in Riks method (stabilize method,
reactivating contact pairs, iterative linear equation solver etc.).
(v) Modified Riks Method
The modified Riks method allows effective solution for unstable problems (Figure
4.31). Also the current ABAQUS version uses modified Riks method. The solution is
viewed as the discovery of a single equilibrium path in a space defined by the nodal
variables and the loading parameter. The full Newton-Raphson method is employed
to solve the nonlinear equilibrium equations. In the modified Riks algorithm, the
increment size is limited by moving a given distance along the tangent line to the
current solution point and then searching for equilibrium.
Maximum load Maximum

Load displacement
Minimum
Minimum load
displacement
Displacement
Figure 4.31: Typical Unstable Static Response
The procedure for the modified Riks algorithm is shown in Figure 4.32 and as
follows: The actual load state at any time is PN where PN is the loading pattern, is
the load magnitude parameter and uN is the displacement at that time. The solution
space is scaled to make the dimensions approximately the same magnitude on each
axis. The scaled space is spanned by load = PN and displacements = u~ N and the
solution path is then the continuous set of equilibrium points described by the vector
( u~ N ;) in this scaled space.
A1 A2

(v~1N ;1)
p1
(v~0N ;1) :
Equilibrium
surface
A0
u~ N
Figure 4.32: Modified Riks Algorithm
Assume the solution has been developed to the point A0 = ( u~0N ; 0). The tangent
stiffness, K 0NM , is formed, and solution is found for
K 0NM v0M = P N (4.5)
The increment size (A0 to A1) is chosen from a specified path length, l, in the
solution space, so that
20 (v~0N ;1) : (v~0N ;1) = l 2 , (4.6)
and, hence,
l
0 = 1
(4.7)
(v~0N v~0N + 1) 2
The value l is initially suggested by the user and is adjusted by the ABAQUS
automatic load incrementation algorithm for static problems, based on the
convergence rate (see Figure 4.35). The sign of 0 is determined by the sign of
0 (v~0N ;1) : (u~N1 ; 1 ) > 0 , where (u~N1 ; 1 ) is the solution to the previous
increment. Thus, point A1 (u~0N + 0 v~0N ; 0 + 0 ) is found as shown in Figure 4.32.

The solution is now corrected onto the equilibrium path in the plane passing through
A1 and orthogonal to (v~0N ;1) , by an iterative algorithm as shown in Figure 4.33.
Iteration Initialized as
i = 0 , u~iN = 0 v0N
IN, KNM formation (internal forces) at
point Ai (u 0N + u iN ; 0 + i )
I N
I N = N : dV , and K NM =
v u M
Equilibrium check
R = (0 + i ) P N I N
N If RiN sufficient small
i
Yes
No
Increment has
{ } {
Solving K NM viM ; ciM = P N ; RiN } converged and next
increment starts
{
Scaling the new vector (v~i N ;1) + (c~i N ; i )}
2
where i = RiN P N / P , projection of the
N
scaled residual onto P
Moving from Ai to Ai+1 in the plane

orthogonal to (v~0N ;1) and forming the
equation
{(0; i ) + (ci ; i ) + (v~i N ;1)}: (v~0N ;1) = 0
~ N
c~ N v~ N
and thus = ~ Ni~ N 0
v v +1
i 0
New solution point is located at Ai+1:

(u0N + uiN + ciN + viN ; 0 + i + )
Update for next iteration

uiN+1 = uiN + ciN + viN
i +1 = i +
i = i +1
Return to the iterative algorithm
Figure 4.33: Iterative Algorithm for Modified Riks Method
(vi) Solving Nonlinear Problems
The solution for nonlinear problems is found by specifying the loading as a function
of time and incrementing time to obtain the nonlinear response. Therefore, ABAQUS
breaks the simulation into a number of time increments and finds the approximate
equilibrium configuration at the end of each time increment.
The time history for a simulation consists of one or more steps. Steps generally
consist of an analysis procedure, loading, and output requests. In nonlinear analyses
each step is broken into increments so that the nonlinear solution path can be
followed. The size of the first increment is suggested by user, and ABAQUS
automatically chooses the size of the subsequent increments. At the end of each
increment the structure is in (approximate) equilibrium. An iteration is an attempt at
finding an equilibrium solution in an increment. If the model is not in equilibrium at
the end of the iteration, more iterations will be employed. With every iteration the
solution obtained should be closer to equilibrium; however, sometimes the iteration
process may diverge and subsequent iterations may move away from the equilibrium
state. In that case iteration process will be terminated and ABAQUS may attempt to
find a solution with a smaller increment size.
Load a
P
Ra
Ia
P
K0
u0 ca ua Displacement
Figure 4.34: First and Second Iterations in an Increment
At the end of each increment the structure must be in equilibrium for convergence.
Equilibrium takes place when the external forces, P, and the internal (nodal) forces,
I, acting on a body balance each other. The nonlinear response of a structure to a
small load increment, P, is shown in Figure 4.34. ABAQUS uses the structure's
tangent stiffness, K0, which is based on its configuration at u0, and P to calculate a
displacement correction, ca, for the structure. The structure's configuration is updated
to ua using ca.
ABAQUS then calculates the structure's internal forces, Ia, in the updated
configuration. The difference between the total applied load, P, and Ia can be
calculated as
Ra = P - Ia, (4.8)
Where Ra is the force residual. If Ra is zero at every degree of freedom in the model,
point a in Figure 4.34 would lie on the load-deflection curve and the structure would
be in equilibrium. But in a nonlinear problem Ra will never be exactly zero, so
ABAQUS offers a tolerance value. If Ra is less than this force residual tolerance at
all nodes, ABAQUS accepts the solution as being in equilibrium. By default, this
tolerance value is set to 0.5% of an average force in the structure, averaged over
time. If Ra is less than the current tolerance value, P and Ia are considered to be in
equilibrium and ua is a valid equilibrium configuration for the structure under the
applied load. However, before ABAQUS accepts the solution, it also does last
displacement correction (ca) check and if it is not satisfied another iteration will be
performed. The procedure of convergence check is described in Section 0.
Automatic Incrementation Control

By default, ABAQUS automatically adjusts the size of the time increments to solve
nonlinear problems efficiently. Only the size of the first increment in each step of the
simulation is required, after which ABAQUS automatically adjusts the size of the
increments. The number of iterations needed to find a converged solution for a time
increment will vary depending on the degree of nonlinearity in the system. With the
default incrementation control, the procedure works as shown in Figure 4.35. This
flow chart was drawn based on the default automatic incrementation setting and it
can be changed when the control parameters are modified (these details are described
in Section 0).
If the solution appears The solution has converged
to diverge within 16 iterations
Yes
No
Moving to
Increment is abandoned
next increment
and new increment size is
set to 25% of its previous
If the solution still If the solution

fails to converge has converged
Increment size is If 2 consecutive

reduced further increments require
fewer than 5 iterations
If the increment size is

smaller than the minimum Increment size is
specified or more than 5 increased by 50%
attempts are needed
Analysis is
terminated
Figure 4.35: Flow Chart for Automatic Time Incrementation
(vii) Convergence Criteria and Control Parameters
(a) Equation Solvers

Several equation solvers are employed in ABAQUS to solve both linear and
nonlinear analyses.
Direct Linear Equation Solver

Linear equation solver is used in linear and nonlinear analyses. In nonlinear analysis
ABAQUS uses the Newton method or a variant of it, such as the Riks method, within
which it is necessary to solve a set of linear equations at each iteration. The direct
linear equation solver finds the exact solution to this system of linear equations. The
direct linear equation solver in ABAQUS uses a sparse, direct, Gauss elimination
method.
The Sparse Solver

The direct sparse solver uses a multifront technique that may reduce the
computational time to solve the equations dramatically if the equation system has a
sparse structure. Such a matrix structure typically arises when the physical model is
made from several parts or branches that are connected together. Structures modelled
as shells often have sparse stiffness matrices. Direct sparse solver is used as default
method and it is only supported with Riks method.
Iterative Linear Equation Solver

The iterative linear equation solver is based on the domain decomposition method
and can be used only for linear and nonlinear static analyses with a symmetric
stiffness matrix and a single load case. It is strongly recommended to use only for
very large, well conditioned models as it finds an approximate solution to the linear
system of equations. It requires less disk storage but more in-core memory than the
direct equation solver. However, it cannot be used with automatic stabilization or
Riks method.
(b) Solution Method

Newtons Method
ABAQUS uses Newton's method to solve nonlinear problems whenever possible. In
some cases it uses an exact implementation of Newton's method where the Jacobian
of the system is defined exactly while in some other cases the iterative method is not
an exact Newton method where the Jacobian is approximated.
Field Equations
Field equations can be modelled separately or fully coupled. Some fields in
ABAQUS can only have linear response. Each field is discretized by using basic
nodal variables. The fields relevant to the current analyses were displacement (u),
warping (w) and rotation () and their conjugate fluxes were force (F), Bimoment
(W) and Moment (M), respectively.
Constraint Equations
Constraint equations were involved in the current analyses involving contact
modelling. The constraint variable is normal pressure whereas the constraint is
surface penetration. The other field and constraint equations are given in more detail
in ABAQUS analysis users manual.
(c) Terminology
Each field, , that is active in the problem is tested for convergence of the field
equations. Following measures are used to determine the convergency of an
increment:

rmax - The largest residual in the balance equation for field .

u max - The largest change in a nodal variable of type in the increment.

c max - The largest correction to any nodal variable of type provided by the current
Newton iteration.
ej - The largest error in a constraint of type j.
q (t ) - The instantaneous magnitude of the flux for field at time t, averaged over
the entire model.
q~ (t )
An overall time-averaged value of the typical flux for field so far during a step
including the current increment. q~ (t ) is generally defined as q averaged over all
the increments in the step in which q~ is nonzero. At start of first step q~ =10-2 by
default.
q~ - The time-averaged value of the largest flux corresponding to the field during
max
this step, excluding the current increment.

q max - The largest flux corresponding to the field during the current iteration.
(d) Convergence Criteria Procedure
Residual Check

Residual check is first carried out as rmax Rn q~ where Rn is 0.005 by default. But

the convergence is only accepted if the largest correction to the solution, c max , is also
small compared to the largest incremental change in the corresponding solution

variable, u max as cmax C n u max

, or if the magnitude of the largest correction to the
solution that would occur with one more iteration, estimated as

(rmax )i
(( )

cest = cmax satisfies the same criterion: cest C n u max

where
min rmax
) , (r )
i 1
max
i2
C n is 10-2 by default.

The superscripts i, i 1 and i 2 refer to the iteration number, and rmax ( ) 0
refers to
the largest residual in field at the start of the first iteration of the increment.
Zero Flux
If zero flux, defined as q q~ , is present in the equations of type (anywhere
in the model during some increments) the solution for the particular field is

accepted when the inequality rmax q~ . has a default value of 10-5. Even if this

inequality is not satisfied, the convergence is still accepted when c max satisfies

c max C u max where C is 10-3 by default.
Linear Increments
Linear cases do not require more than one equilibrium iteration per increment. If

rmax Rl q~ for all , the increment is considered to be linear. By default Rl has a
small value equal to 10-8. If this requirement is satisfied at some iteration after the
first, the solution is accepted without any check on the size of the correction to the
solution.
Nonquadratic Convergence
In some cases quadratic convergence of the iterations is not possible because the
Jacobian of the Newton scheme is approximated. If after IP = 9 iterations the

convergence rate is only linear, ABAQUS uses a looser tolerance, rmax R p q~ as
the residual check where R p is 2 10-2 by default. c max

C n u max

should also be
satisfied, but it is ignored in displacement active filed when the maximum

displacement itself is very small as defined by u max < d f , where f is the
characteristic element length. The default value for d is 108. Iteration continues
until both criteria are satisfied for all active fields or the increment is abandoned.
Yes Residual check No

Nonzero flux
REJECT
q rmax Rn q~
Yes
Largest Yes
Zero flux
correction check ACCEPT
q q~
cmax C n u max

No
Modified largest No
Residual check correction check

REJECT
rmax q~
cest C n u max

Yes
No Yes
Largest correction check

c max C u max ACCEPT
Yes
No
REJECT
Figure 4.36: Flow Chart for Convergence Check
Figure 4.36 summarizes the general convergence check while Figure 4.37
summarizes the convergence check for linear increments in nonlinear analysis.
Quadratic convergence Nonquadratic convergence
Residual check No No Residual check

rmax Rl q~ REJECT
rmax R p q~
Yes Yes
Largest
If only few Yes Yes
ACCEPT correction check
iterations require for
c max C n u max

residual check
No
Yes No
Check for largest
correction
REJECT
No
Figure 4.37: Flow Chart for Convergence Check for Linear Increments in
Nonlinear Analysis
(e) Controlling the Accuracy of the Solution

The default solution control parameters defined in ABAQUS are designed to provide
reasonably optimal solutions of complex problems involving combinations of
nonlinearities as well as efficient solution of simpler nonlinear cases. Many solution
control parameters related to the tolerances used for field equations can be reset
using *CONTROLS, PARAMETERS = FIELD, FIELD = field. Less strict
convergence criteria may accept the results as converged when they are not
sufficiently close to the exact solution of the system.
The most significant solution control parameters for field equation tolerances are
Rn , C n , q~0 and q~u . They may have to be modified in cases where the residuals
are large relative to the fluxes or in cases where the incremental solution is
essentially zero and their default values are mentioned above. The controls in effect
for an analysis are listed in the data (.dat) and message (.msg) files.
(f) Controlling Iterations
This section describes the important iterations used in solving nonlinear problems
and changes in their procedure based on the increment progress.
Reattempting an Increment Caused By Element Distortion

If ABAQUS has trouble with the element calculations because of excessive
distortion in large-displacement problems or because of very large plastic strain
increments, the increment will be attempted again with a time increment of DH times
the current time increment. By default, DH is equal 0.25.
Reattempting a Diverging Increment

If the largest residual, rmax , is identified to have failed to decrease over two

(
consecutive iterations as min (rmax ) , (rmax
i
)
i 1
) > (r
max

)
i2
where i is the iteration
counter, the iteration should be abandoned. This check for the residual is made after
I0 iteration where I0 must be at least 3 (by default I0 = 4). With automatic time
stepping the increment is begun again, using a time increment of Df times the
previous attempt, where the default Df is 0.25. This subdivision continues until a
successful time increment is found or the minimum time increment allowed has
failed.
Reattempting an Increment When Too Many Equilibrium Iterations Are

Required

The logarithmic rate of convergence, ln rmax
((
/ rmax ) ( )
i i 1
), is often maintained
throughout the iteration process where quadratic convergence is not possible. If after
IR or more iterations following a solution discontinuity, and the slowest convergence
rate in all fields requires more than IC iterations. Also the increment is begun again
with a time increment of DC times the one abandoned. By default, IR = 8, IC = 16, and
DC = 0.5.
Increasing or Reducing the Size of the Time Increment for Efficiency

If no more than IG iterations are required in two consecutive increments, the time
increment may be increased by a factor of DD. If an increment converges but takes
more than IL iterations, the next time increment is reduced to DB times the current
time increment. By default, IG = 4.0, IL = 10, DD = 1.5, and DB = 0.75.
Extrapolation
At each increment after the first increment of a nonlinear analysis step ABAQUS
estimates the solution to the increment by extrapolating the solution from the
previous increment (or increments). By default, 100% linear extrapolation is used
(1% for the Riks method). Extrapolation is abandoned if ti DEti-1 where ti is the
proposed new time increment, and ti-1 is the last successful time increment. DE is
0.1 by default.
Severe Discontinuities Iterations

The most common of such severe discontinuities involve open-close changes in
contact and stick-slip changes in friction. By default, ABAQUS will continue to
iterate until no severe discontinuities occur and the equilibrium (flux) tolerances are
satisfied. For contact openings with the default approach, a force discontinuity is
generated when the contact force is set to zero, and this force discontinuity leads to
force residuals that are checked against the time average force in the usual way. For
contact closures a severe discontinuity is considered sufficiently small if the
penetration error is smaller than the contact compatibility tolerance times the
incremental displacement. The penetration error is defined as the difference between
the actual penetration and the penetration following from the contact pressure and
pressure-overclosure relation. It is also required to check that the contact force error
should be smaller than the time average force to make sure the sufficient accuracy is
obtained for between hard bodies. The estimated contact force error is obtained by
multiplying the penetration by an effective stiffness. For hard contact this effective
stiffness is equal to the stiffness of the underlying element. Figures 4.38 (a) and (b)
show the plots of contact status changes over the course of successful
attempt/attempts for back to back LSB models. The plots indicate that the changes
were approaching zero.
30
25
Overclosure
Number of Discontinuities
Opening
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Severe Discontinuity Iteration
(a) Plots for 200451.6 LSB, span of 4 m

900
800
700 Overclosure
Number of Discontinuities
Opening
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Severe Discontinuity Iteration
(b) Plots for 300753.0 LSB, span of 6 m

Figure 4.38: Plots for Discontinuities versus Severe Discontinuity Iterations
Controlling the Number of Severe Discontinuity Iterations

ABAQUS applies complicated criteria involving changes in penetration, changes in
the residual force, and the number of severe discontinuities from one iteration to the
next to determine whether iteration should be continued or terminated. This makes it
possible to run contact problems that require large numbers of contact changes
without having to change the control parameters. By default, the maximum number
of severe discontinuity iterations, I Sc , is 50 which in practice should always be more
than the actual number of iterations in an increment. In the previous version of
ABAQUS the limit, I Sc , was 12 (by default) which was too small when large number
of elements were employed with contact constraint. However, the current limit of 50
had to be changed in some cases where many nodes were involved in contact
modelling.
Controlling the Number of Severe Discontinuity Iterations When Severe

Discontinuities Always Force Iterations
In this case a limit, if more than IS iterations are required for severe discontinuities,
the increment is started over with a time increment size of DS times the abandoned
increment size. By default, IS = 12 and DS = 0.25.
(g) Controlling the Time Incrementation Scheme

Solution control parameters can be used to modify the time incrementation scheme.
The time incrementation parameters I0 and IR are the most significant since they have
a direct effect on convergence. They can be modified if convergence is (initially)
nonmonotonic or if convergence is nonquadratic. Nonmonotonic convergence may
occur if various nonlinearities interact whereas nonquadratic convergence will occur
if the Jacobian is approximate or nonsymmetric, which may occur for complex
material models.
In some difficult analysis, to avoid premature cutbacks of the time increment, I0 and
IR can be changed as 8 and 10, respectively. The time incrementation control
parameters can be reset using *CONTROLS, PARAMETERS = TIME
INCREMENTATION.
(viii) Instability Issues in the Post-Collapse Region

Instability behaviour was noted in the post-collapse region when the modified Riks
was used. Discontinuity behaviour caused by the open-close changes in contact could
be one of the reasons for the instability behaviour. Noticeable warning messages
were given in the message file (.msg) when the time history was travelling near the
peak load. Near the peak load severe contact overclosures were noted which caused
the convergence to be unlikely. Excessive distortion and rotation of the normal in
shell elements were notified. In addition to that the material calculations also failed
to converge at some points. Figure 4.39 shows the instability behaviour which arose
in the post-collapse region when the modified Riks method was used. Point 2 is
assumed to be the failure point. Some of the analyses were terminated after reaching
the peak value while some of them were continued with unloading process (see path
3).
It was assumed that in such cases global load control methods such as the modified
Riks method may not work properly. Thus ABAQUS offers the option to stabilize
this class of problems by applying damping throughout the model in such a way that
the viscous forces introduced are sufficiently large to prevent instantaneous buckling
or collapse but small enough not to affect the behaviour significantly while the
problem is stable.
20 1
2
16
3
Moment (kNm)
12
Modified Riks
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.39: Instability Behaviour in Post-Collapse Region
(ix) Automatic Stabilization

ABAQUS provides an automatic mechanism for stabilizing unstable quasi-static
problems through the automatic addition of volume-proportional damping to the
model. The applied damping factors can be maintained as constant over the duration
of a step, or they can vary with time to account for changes over the course of a step.
As mentioned above the modified Riks method does not support this stabilize
method and thus general static analysis was considered.
Automatic Stabilization with a Constant Damping Factor
Automatic stabilization with a constant damping factor is triggered by including
automatic stabilization in any nonlinear quasi-static procedure. Viscous forces of the
form,
Fv = cM* v (4.9)
are added to the global equilibrium equations
P I Fv = 0 (4.10)
Where M* is an artificial mass matrix calculated with unity density, c is a damping

factor, v = u/t is the vector of nodal velocities, and t is the increment of time. For
the case of static stabilization the mass matrix for Timoshenko beams is always
calculated assuming isotropic rotary inertia, regardless of the type of rotary inertia
specified for the beam section definition.
Damping Factor Based On the Dissipated Energy Fraction

The problem was stable at the beginning of the step (we assumed that was stable
until the peak load) and the instabilities may have developed near the peak load. But
we applied the damping factor throughout the entire step. While the model is stable,
viscous forces and, therefore, the viscous energy dissipated are very small (see
Figure 4.42 (b)). Thus, the additional artificial damping has no effect. If a local
region goes unstable, the local velocities increase and, consequently, part of the
strain energy then released is dissipated by the applied damping. ABAQUS can, if
necessary, reduce the time increment to permit the process to occur without the
unstable response causing very large displacements. In most applications the first
increment of the step is stable without the need to apply damping. The damping
factor is then determined in such a way that the dissipated energy for a given
increment with characteristics similar to the first increment is a small fraction of the
extrapolated strain energy. The fraction is called the dissipated energy fraction and
has a default value of 2.0 104. Alternatively, the dissipated energy fraction can be
specified for automatic stabilization directly using *STABILIZE = dissipated energy
fraction option. This method was used to stabilize the current problem. A small value
of 1.0 106 was used as the dissipated energy fraction which was found to be good
enough to stabilise the model while having minimal viscous energy dissipated.
Figure 4.40 shows the stable nonlinear response in the post-collapse region when the
stabilize method was used.
20
16
Moment (kNm)
12
Modified Riks Method

8
Static + Stabilize Method
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.40: Nonlinear Moment Displacement Response for the Static

Stabilize Method
Accuracy of the Solution

As discussed above, the automatic stabilization scheme typically works well to
subside instabilities and to eliminate rigid body modes without having a major effect
on the solution. However, there is no guarantee that the value of the damping factor
or the dissipated energy fraction is optimal or even suitable in some cases. This is
particularly true for thin shell models such as cold-formed members, in which the
damping factor may be too high when a poor estimation of the extrapolated strain
energy is made during the first increment. For such models we may have to increase
the damping factor if the convergence behaviour is problematic or to decrease the
damping factor if it distorts the solution. So it is required to perform post-analysis
comparison of the energy dissipated by viscous damping (ALLSD) to the total strain
energy (ALLIE). Although the recommended dissipated energy fraction is very small
(2.0 104) it can still be a problem in thin shell models. Thus a manual trial and
error process was conducted to obtain an optimal value until a converged solution
was obtained and the dissipated energy was sufficiently small. Figure 4.41 shows the
effect of artificial damping on the ultimate solution. It can be observed that the
default energy dissipated fraction available affects the solution accuracy. The
ultimate solution decreased as the energy dissipated fraction decreased. Moreover the
moment versus displacement curve approached towards the curve for modified Riks
method when the energy dissipated fraction was reduced. The load-displacement
curves for varying energy dissipation fractions (from 2.0 10-4 to 1.0 10-6) are
shown in Figure 4.41.
25
20
Moment (kNm)
15
Stabilize - 0.00005
10 Modified Riks
Stabilize - 0.00001
Stabilize - 0.0001
Stabilize - 0.0002
5
Stabilize - 0.000001
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.41: Effect of Artificial Damping on the Ultimate Solution
The following checks were conducted to make sure that the automatic stabilization
did not affect the solution.
Checking of the damping factor printed to the message (.msg) file at the end
of the first increment to ensure that a reasonable amount of damping was
applied.
Comparison of the viscous forces (VF) with the overall forces in the analysis;
the viscous forces should be relatively small compared with the overall forces
in the model.
Comparison of the viscous damping energy (ALLSD) with the total strain
energy (ALLIE); the ratio should not exceed the dissipated energy fraction or
any reasonable amount.
1.2
1.0
ALLSE/ALLIE Ratio 0.8
0.6 Failure region
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

0.4
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Increment
(a) The Recoverable Strain Energy (ALLSE) to Total Strain Energy

(ALLIE) Ratio Variation during the Analyses
3.5E-05
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

3.0E-05
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
2.5E-05
Energy Dissipated Ratio
2.0E-05
1.5E-05 Failure region
1.0E-05
5.0E-06
0.0E+00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Increment
(b) Energy Dissipation Fraction Variation (ALLSD to ALLIE ratio)

during the Analyses
Figure 4.42: Strain Energy (ALLIE, ALLSE and ALLSD) Variation during the
Analyses with Stabilize Method
The stabilization damping factor calculated at the end first increment was varied with
the size of the model and how critical that model. The maximum damping factor was
found to be 1.0 10-10 which is comparatively a very small value. The strain
energies, total strain energy (ALLIE), recoverable strain energy (ALLSE) and
viscous damping energy (ALLSD) were compared to investigate the effect of viscous
damping. Figure 4.42 (a) shows the recoverable strain energy (ALLSE) to total strain
energy (ALLIE) ratio variation during the analyses conducted for LSB sections
200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB fastened at span/4. The failure region was
noted to be near the 60th increment in both analyses. Until failure, the ratios appeared
to be nearly 1.0; thus it confirms that the failure occurred almost in the elastic region.
Figure 4.42 (b) shows the viscous damping energy to total strain energy ratio defined
as the energy dissipation fraction variation during the analyses conducted for the
same LSB sections mentioned above. During these analyses the energy dissipation
fraction was defined as 1.0 10-6. However during the analyses, the energy
dissipation fraction was automatically increased slightly to stabilise the problem. The
energy dissipation fraction was maintained below 5.0 10-6 until failure and then it
was increased up to a certain value which was still well below the recommended
default value of 2.0 10-4 (see Figure 4.42 (b)). The viscous forces (VF) caused by
the contact damping were very small compared with the overall forces (TF) in the
models.
(x) Some Other Solutions
Adjusting Contact Controls

Changing the default Contact controls in ABAQUS can sometime solve the unstable
problem or provide cost-effective solution. ABAQUS offers some options to control
the instability behaviour through *CONTACT CONTROLS option. However, many
of them cannot be used with the modified Riks method.
Contact Damping
Contact damping allows a viscous pressure and shear stress to be transmitted
between the contact surfaces in ABAQUS to reduce convergence difficulties due to
the sudden violation of contact constraints. This is implemented via *CONTACT
DAMPING option. Damping coefficient () is a function of surface clearance.
Appropriate magnitude for the local contact damping factor, 0, is problem-
dependent. In complex cases such as this model a reasonable value for 0 had to be
determined by trial and error. Although this method is compatible with Riks method,
it did not work well. Hence analyses were continued with static method.
(xi) Verifying Contact Status of an Analysis

Checking the contact conditions in a model during the analysis will help to verify
whether the contact constraints work properly or the implemented contact formations
are taken into. Contact statuses of an analysis are updated in output database, data
(.dat) file and message (.msg) file.
Reviewing Initial Contact Conditions

A data check can be performed to review the initial contact conditions. Once an
analysis is started the data check creates an output database and calculates the
variable COPEN (contact opening) on each slave surface based on the initial
configuration of the model. Figure 4.43 shows a data check of LSB model which
states the variable COPEN of slave nodes as defined (a initial clearance of 0.1 mm
was defined for all LSB finite element models).
Figure 4.43: Initial Contact Status of a Back to Back LSB Model
Output of Master Surface Nodes Associated With Slave Nodes

Detailed output table showing the master nodes associated with each slave node can
be created using print option. The table lists a slave node and the master nodes to
which the slave node transfers load when in contact with the master surface. The
number of nodes in the table indicates whether or not the anchor point for a slave
node lies on an element face or at a node. This table also provides a list of slave
nodes that do not find an intersection with the master surface; thus they can penetrate
the master surface. In the current finite element model none of the slave nodes was
noted with such problem; there were no warning messages related to this.
Contact Output in the Data File

ABAQUS lists the contact status in the data file for every constraint point at each
increment of the analysis. The values of CPRESS, CSHEAR, COPEN, and CSLIP at
each constraint point are also reported by default. This information can also be used
to confirm the accuracy of an analysis. Following conclusions were drawn about
these diagnostics in an analysis conducted for a back to back LSB model (see Figure
4.44).
Figure 4.44: Contact Output in a Data File
As shown in Figure 4.44 the contact status is indicated in the footnote column:
open (OP) and closed (CL). In the output above node 33 is open; consequently, the
contact pressure variable CPRESS is zero. The COPEN variable reports that this
node is 0.1379 mm away from the master surface. Footnote for node 26974 indicates
that it is overclosed the master surface by -2.432 10-10 mm; thus consequently, the
contact pressure variable CPRESS is 0.2538 N. CSLIP1 and CSLIP2 variables
indicate the total accumulated slip at the slave node. Shear stresses are always zero as
friction was assumed as zero (CSHEAR1 and CSHEAR2 are zero).
4.3.11 Multi-point Constraints
Multi-point constraints (MPCs) allow constraints to be imposed between different

degrees of freedom of the model. The most commonly required constraints are
available directly by choosing an MPC type and giving the associated data. Two
MPCs, TIE and RIGID type MPCs were used in this finite element model.
4.3.11.1 TIE Type MPC
MPC type TIE makes the global displacements and rotations as well as all other
active degrees of freedom equal at two nodes. If there are different degrees of
freedom active at the two nodes, only those in common will be constrained. This
type MPC was used to simulate connections.
4.3.11.2 Rigid Type MPC
RIGID type MPC provides a rigid beam between two nodes to constrain the
displacement and rotation at the first node to the displacement and rotation at the
second node, corresponding to the presence of a rigid beam between the two nodes.
This type of MPC was used to make a rigid connection between a group of nodes and
a single node which was defined as the single point constraint (SPC).
4.3.12 Overconstraint Checks
Applying multiple consistent or inconsistent kinematic constraints leads to

overconstraint issues. Overconstraints may result in inaccurate solutions or
nonconvergence. Common examples of situations that may lead to overconstraints
include contact slave nodes that are involved in boundary conditions or multi-point
constraints and boundary conditions applied to nodes already involved in coupling or
rigid body constraints. Overconstraints are categorized as consistent/redundant
constraints (if all the constraints are compatible with each other) or inconsistent/
conflicting constraints (if the constraints are incompatible with each other).
Usually ABAQUS performs checks for overconstraints and it identifies the

constraints that cause overconstraints through detailed messages and solves a limited
set of consistent overconstraints detected during model pre-processing and analysis.
This section summarizes the overoerconstraint issues arose and the solutions to them
during the analysis in this research.
4.3.12.1 Overconstraints Detected in the Model Pre-processor
Simple overconstraints are identified by inspecting the constraints defined at a node.

If a consistent overconstraint is detected, the unnecessary constraints are eliminated
automatically and a warning message is generated. If the overconstraints are
inconsistent, the analysis is stopped and an error message is generated. Following
problems were encountered at the beginning of the analyses of LSB sections.
(i) Overconstraints by MPCs

Using multi-point constraints (MPCs) sometimes lead to overconstaint issues. In
back to back finite element models, Tie MPC was used to simulate the bolts that
connect the two LSBs back to back. Tie or Rigid MPCs were not allowed to connect
the elements in two rigid bodes. An error message was issued.
(ii) Tie Constraints and Boundary Conditions

Use of Tie constraint and boundary conditions together generally leads to
overconstraint. As shown in Figure 4.45 two nodes located at the symmetric plane
were connected using Tie type MPC. The two nodes which were connected by Tie
type MPC were constrained to move together. The symmetry boundary conditions
constrain the specified degree of freedoms (156) of both nodes generating
redundant constraint. The above mentioned Tie connection involves one dependent
node; thus ABAQUS determines which independent nodes are involved in the Tie
constraint and transfer the boundary conditions from the dependent node to the
independent node. So the symmetric boundary conditions were automatically
removed from the particular dependent nodes. Similarly the support boundary
conditions were removed from the dependent nodes constrained using Tie MPC (see
Figure 4.45). However, ignorance of the boundary conditions at the particular nodes
did not affect the solution accuracy (less than 0.5% variation).
Symmetric boundary 234 Boundary
conditions (156) Master surface condition at support
Tie type MPC

independent node
(master node),
dependent node
(slave node)
Midspan Slave surface Support
Figure 4.45: Overconstraint Caused By Tie MPC and Boundary Conditions
(iii) Connector Elements and Rigid Bodies

Connector elements were not allowed to connect the nodes on the rigid body whose
motion is controlled by its reference node. Kinematic constraints enforced by the
connecter elements are redundant since the rigid body definition constrains the
motion of all nodes to the motion of the rigid body's reference node. Thus the
connecter elements were removed automatically from the model.
Also multi-point constraints cannot be used to connect two rigid bodies at nodes
other than the reference nodes since multi-point constraints use degree-of-freedom
elimination and the other nodes on a rigid body do not have independent degrees of
freedom.
4.3.12.2 Overconstraints Detected and Resolved During Analysis
Contact interactions in combination with other constraint types may lead to

overconstraints. Since contact status typically changes during the analysis, it is not
possible to detect redundant constraints associated with contact in the model pre-
processor. Instead, these checks are performed during the analysis. However, due to
the complexities associated with contact interactions, only a limited number of
redundant constraint cases are resolved automatically.
(i) Contact Interactions and Tie Constraints

The nodes connected using Tie type MPC were involved with contact. The
dependent nodes were located on the slave surface whereas the independent nodes
were on the master surface (see Figure 4.46). The motion of the dependent node is
constrained by the independent node located on the master surface. Therefore, any
contact constraint applied at the dependent nodes is redundant. To eliminate these
redundancies ABAQUS will automatically apply a Tie-type constraint between the
Lagrange multipliers associated with the contact constraint. The redundant contact
constraint was eliminated.
Master surface
Independent node
Contact (master node)
direction
Tie MPC
Dependent node
(slave node)
Slave surface
Figure 4.46: Overconstraint Caused By Tie Constraint and Contact Interaction
(ii) Contact Interactions and Prescribed Boundary Conditions

Contact interactions and prescribed boundary conditions may lead to redundant
constraints if normal contact with the default hard contact formulation is invoked.
The master surface is in contact with slave nodes with a fixed boundary condition
specified in the direction normal to the contact surface (see Figure 4.47). This
overconstraint will not be solved and hence a zero pivot message was issued by the
equation solver.
To eliminate this problem contact constraint was removed from the nodes in which
boundary conditions were applied. Small strip of beam located at the support was
inactivated for contact constraint (see Figure 4.47).
Boundary conditions
restrain the motion of
slave nodes normal
to the contact
surfaces (2)
Master surface
Contact direction
Slave surface
Small strip (white colour) at the support
contact modelling switched off
Figure 4.47: Overconstraints Involving Normal Contact Interactions and

Boundary Conditions
Similarly surfaces with rigid elements cannot be defined as a contact pair; thus
contact was eliminated in that region (see Figure 4.26). However, the boundary
conditions applied at the reference node did not allow them to penetrate each other
and thus, it did not affect the contact simulation. Also the master and slave shell
elements directly connected with rigid elements were switched off for contact
modelling to avoid the redundant overconstraint.
4.3.12.3 Overconstraints Detected in the Equation Solver
Some of the overconstraints detected by the equation solver cannot be identified and
resolved during preprocessing or the analysis. By default, equation solver
overconstraint checks are performed continuously during the analysis. However,
ABAQUS does not resolve overconstraints detected by the equation solver. No such
messages were noted during the analyses in this research.
4.4 Experimental Model for Single LSB Sections
To compare the experimental results of back to back built-up LSB sections, two
single LSB specimens, 200451.6 LSB and 150451.6 LSB, were also tested.
They had identical test conditions (simply supported boundary conditions) as for
back to back LSB sections. The support and loading systems were slightly modified
to suit the single LSB test specimens. For validation purposes finite element models
were also developed for these single LSB members.
Simply supported boundary conditions implemented in the single LSB experimental

finite element model are described as follows:
1. The pin support end was modelled by restraining the degrees of freedom
234 for the node which controls the support plate as shown in Figure 4.48.
2. Due to the symmetry of beam, half span modelling was permitted by
restraining the degrees of freedom 156 for all the nodes at mid span (Figure
4.48).
3. Point load was applied at the shear centre of overhang part (Figure 4.48).

respectively.
Figure 4.48 illustrates the boundary conditions at the support and mid-span sections
used in the experimental finite element model of the single LSB sections. The test
members included rigid plates on either side of beam web at each support to prevent
distortion and twisting of the cross-section. These stiffening plates were modelled as
rigid body using R3D4 elements. The motion of the rigid body was controlled by a
reference node. The control node was created at the shear centre and support
conditions (234) were applied. The concentrated load was applied to a node
located at the shear centre and this node was connected to the clamping plate using
Rigid type MPCs. Steel clamping plates connected to the LSB web elements were
modelled using thicker shell elements (10 mm) with elastic properties.
Other finite element model details such as the element type, mesh size, material
properties and the initial geometric imperfection and residual stresses were the same
as for the back to back LSB experimental model.
Support at shear centre Restrained DOF
Rigid body Restrained DOF 234 for the 156 for all the
node at shear centre (SPC) nodes (at mid span)
Loading at the
Symmetric plane
shear centre
(DOF 156 restrained)
Support at shear centre

(SPC 234)
10 mm thick shell
element to simulate
the clamping plate
RIGID MPCs to link

the loading node to the
clamping plate
Loading at
shear centre
Figure 4.48: Load and Boundary Conditions for the Experimental Finite
Element Model of Single LSB Section
4.5 Ideal Model
4.5.1 Ideal Model of Back to Back LSB Members
As mentioned earlier, ideal models were developed to conduct parametric studies and
hence to develop design rules. These ideal models are similar to experimental models
except some minor differences in the loading and boundary conditions.
4.5.1.1 Load and Boundary Conditions
Following idealized simply supported (SS) boundary conditions were implemented

in the ideal model:
1. SS in-plane: Both ends fixed against in-plane vertical deflection but
unrestrained against in-plane rotation, and one end fixed against longitudinal
horizontal displacement.
2. SS out-of-plane: Both ends fixed against out-of-plane horizontal deflection,
and twist rotation, but unrestrained against minor axis rotation & warping
displacements of flanges.
Simply supported boundary conditions were implemented based on the model

developed by Kurniawan (2008) with suitable modifications, and are described as
follows:
1. The pin support end was modelled by restraining degrees of freedom 234
for all the nodes across the section at the support as shown in Figure 4.49.
2. Due to the symmetry of beam, half span modelling was permitted by
restraining degrees of freedom 156 for all the nodes at mid span (Figure
4.49).
3. To simulate a uniform end moment across the section, linear forces were
applied at every node of the beam end, where the upper part of the section
was subject to compressive forces while the lower part was subject to tensile
forces, and hence an end moment about the neutral axis of the cross section
was simulated (Figure 4.49).
respectively.
Restrained DOF
234 for all the Restrained DOF 156
nodes (at support) for all the nodes
(at mid-span)
Linear compressive
forces at every node
(max at top surface)
Linear tensile forces at

An end
every node
moment
(max at bottom surface)
Figure 4.49: Load and Boundary Conditions Used in the Ideal Finite Element
Model
In the experimental back to back LSB model the idealized simply supported
conditions were applied to the web only to represent the practical support connection.
Also as described in Section 4.3.2 two concentrated loads were applied in the
experimental model.
4.5.1.2 Finite Element Mesh and Material Modelling
As for the experimental model, shell element, S4R5, was used. Elements with widths
ranging from 4.33 to 4.87 mm and a length of 10 mm were selected for ideal models
of back to back LSB sections. As shown earlier, a simplified bi-linear stress-strain
curve with no strain hardening, known as elastic-perfectly plastic model, was used in
the ideal model for nonlinear analysis.
4.5.1.3 Contact and Fastener Modelling
Surface-based contact simulation was used to model the contact interaction

behaviour (Figure 4.50). Contact conditions were applied using symmetric master-
slave algorithm, in which contact surface of one LSB was assigned as master
surface while contact surface of other LSB was assigned as slave-surface. Small-
sliding tracking approach, Surface-to-surface contact discretization, hard contact
pressure-overclosure relationship, zero friction, deformable body conditions and an
initial gap of 0.1 mm were used.
Small-sliding Tracking Approach Master Surface

Zero Friction, Hard Contact &
Initial Gap of 0.1 mm Slave Surface
Figure 4.50: Contact Modelling Used in Ideal Model
Fasteners play an important role in the structural response of built-up members. In

this research, fasteners are designed with a greater factor of safety, and therefore it is
assumed that there will be no fastener failure. In the ideal models perfect Tie MPC
was used, which makes all active degrees of freedom equal on both sides of the
connection.
4.5.1.4 Initial Geometric Imperfection and Residual Stresses
A geometric imperfection pattern was introduced using the vector field created by
scaling the lateral buckling eigenvector obtained from an elastic buckling analysis. A
nominal out-of-straightness imperfection of L/1000 recommended by AS 4100 (SA,
1998) was used in the ideal model. The same residual stress model (Figure 4.29) was
used to introduce the initial stresses in the ideal models.
4.5.2 Other Ideal Models
For the purpose of parametric studies other different types of ideal models were used.
One of them is the doubly thick web back to back LSB section. In this model the
entire depth including the web and the web of flange was common for both LSBs and
the thickness was double the thickness of single LSB. This model is treated as a
single member without any contact modelling. Figure 4.51 shows the doubly thick
back to back LSB section including the load and boundary conditions. Other relevant
model details such as element type, mesh size, material properties, initial geometric
imperfection and residual stresses details were the same as for the ideal back to back
LSB model.
Doubly thick single
elements
Restrained DOF 156

Restrained DOF for all the nodes
234 for all the (at mid-span)
nodes (at support)
Linear compressive
forces at every node
(max at top surface)
Linear tensile forces at

every node
An end (max at bottom surface)
moment
Figure 4.51: Load and Boundary Conditions Used in the Doubly Thick Back to
Back Ideal Model
4.6 Calibration of Finite Element Models
The ultimate aim of this research is to develop suitable design rules for the capacity
of back to back LSB flexural members using an extensive parametric study based on
the validated finite element models. Hence the validation of finite element models is
a significant part of this research. Two series of comparisons were used to validate
the ideal and experimental finite element models developed in this research. The first
series of comparison involved the use of experimental test results obtained from the
lateral buckling tests with the nonlinear analysis results of the experimental finite
element models. Visualization of the deformation shape and stress contours and
comparison of the moment versus displacement/strain curves were used in the model
verification.
The second series involved comparison of the elastic lateral distortional buckling
moments obtained using the ideal finite element model with the corresponding elastic
buckling moment solutions obtained from the established finite strip analysis
program, THIN-WALL (Papangelis and Hancock, 1994).
4.6.1 Validation of Experimental Finite Element Models
Validation process of the experimental finite element models included the following:
[1] Comparison of the ultimate moment capacity results of the nonlinear analyses
using the experimental models with the experimental test results.
[2] Comparison of the moment versus displacement/strain curves from the lateral
buckling tests and the nonlinear analyses using the experimental models.
[3] Comparison of the deformed shapes at failure.
Table 4.9 compares the ultimate moment capacity results of the nonlinear analyses
using the experimental model with the experimental test results provided in Chapter
3. The overall mean ratio between experimental (EXP) to finite element analysis
(FEA) ultimate moment capacities was 0.96 with a coefficient of variation (COV) of
0.06 indicating that both experimental and finite element analysis results agree
reasonably well.
Table 4.9: Comparison of Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis and Experimental
Results
s EXP FEA FEA/
Section Type
(mm) results results EXP
200451.6 LSB 1750 B 17.00 18.11 1.07
200451.6 LSB 1167 B 20.45 18.49 0.90
200451.6 LSB 875 B 17.93 18.63 1.04
200451.6 LSB 583 B 20.64 18.81 0.91
150451.6 LSB 1750 B 17.28 16.43 0.95
150451.6 LSB 1167 B 17.71 16.79 0.95
150451.6 LSB 875 B 17.80 16.92 0.95
150451.6 LSB 583 B 19.55 17.07 0.87
125452.0 LSB 1167 B 20.63 19.88 0.96
125452.0 LSB 583 B 19.84 20.18 1.02
200451.6 LSB N/A S 6.52 6.31 0.97
150451.6 LSB N/A S 7.33 7.09 0.97
Note: B Back to back LSB section, Mean 0.96
S Single LSB section
COV 0.06
s Fastener spacing
Typical moment versus vertical (in-plane) and horizontal (out-of-plane) deflection

curves for a group of selected back to back LSB sections as well as single LSB
sections are shown in Figures 4.52 to 4.57 with their corresponding nonlinear results
obtained from the experimental finite element models. Other moment versus
deflection curves are given in Appendix B. Experimental finite element models were
analysed using the stabilize method in order to stable post-collapse effects.
Comparison of those curves from experiments and finite element analyses shows a
good agreement.
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/2

8.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/2
4.0
0.0
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at Mid-span (CM)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2

8.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2
4.0
0.0
-50.0 -45.0 -40.0 -35.0 -30.0 -25.0 -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0
Displacement (mm)
(b) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Mid-span (VM)
45
200 1.6 LSB Section with Fastener Spacing of Span/2
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/4

8.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/4
4.0
0.0
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Displacement (mm)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/4

8.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/4
4.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (mm)
45
20.0
16.0
12.0
Moment (kNm)
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/3

8.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/3
4.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Displacement (mm)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/3

8.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/3
4.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
45
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2

4.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2

4.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/2
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
45
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Single 3.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Single 2.0
1.0
0.0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Mid-span (VM)
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
"EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Single"
2.0 "FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Single"
1.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.56: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Single

45
200 1.6 LSB Section
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Single

2.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Single
1.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Single

2.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Single
1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.57: Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Single

45
150 1.6 LSB Section
There were some minor differences between the experimental (EXP) and FEA
results. It may have been due to possible lateral restraints imposed by the hydraulic
jacks to the test specimens. Although the loading system was designed to avoid such
lateral restraints, there may have been some friction in the bearings. However, no
attempt was made to include the friction effects as it was considered that any lateral
restraint present in the test rig had only minimal effect on the buckling moment. In
addition, the input details to the FE model such as material properties, geometric
imperfections and residual stresses were based on the average estimation of the
collected experimental data. Thus, they also might have contributed to the
differences in the results. Although attempts were made to develop FE models to
exactly simulate the test conditions, it is likely that it was not achieved fully.
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain CT

EXP, Longitudinal Strain CC
8.0
FEA, Longitudinal Strain CT
FEA, Longitudinal Strain CC
4.0
0.0
-4500 -4000 -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
(a) 200451.6 LSB Section with Fastener Spacing of Span/2

20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0

EXP, Longitudinal Strain TT 8.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain TC

FEA, Longitudinal Strain, TT
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, CT 4.0
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, TC
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, CC
0.0
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(b) 150451.6 LSB Section with Fastener Spacing of Span/3
Selected Back to Back LSB Sections
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain, C

2.0
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, C
1.0
0.0
-1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
(a) 200451.6 LSB Single Section
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain, C

3.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain, W
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, C

2.0
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, W
1.0
0.0
-1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200
(b) 150451.6 LSB Single Section
Selected Single LSB Sections
Typical moment versus longitudinal strain curves for a selected group of back to
back and single LSB sections are shown in Figures 4.58 and 4.59. The strains were
measured on the top and bottom surfaces of the beam and thus outside integrated
point (9th) was selected for strain readings in the corresponding finite element
models. The notations relevant to the locations of the longitudinal strain (such as CC,
CT, TT, TC etc.) were given in Chapter 3. These comparisons show that the
experimental and finite element analysis results are in reasonable agreement.
Buckling
(a) EXP - 200451.6 LSB with (b) FEA - 200451.6 LSB with
Fastener Spacing of Span/6 Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Buckling
(c) FEA - 150451.6 LSB with (d) EXP - 150451.6 LSB with
Fastener Spacing of Span/4 Fastener Spacing of Span/4
Figure 4.60: Comparison of Deformed Shapes at Failure
Overhang region Colour Code for Stress
Red: 540 MPa
Support region Dark Blue: 180 MPa
Orange: 450 MPa
Yellow: 420 MPa
Light Green: 200 MPa
Yield Stress of Beam Elements

Outside Flange fy 540 MPa
Inside Flange fy 495 MPa
Web fy 450 MPa
Midspan
Stress distribution near to

the fastener connections
(e) Deformation at Failure and Associated Stress Distribution (von Mises)

for 200451.6 LSB with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Buckling Failure
(f) FEA - Single 150451.6 LSB (g) EXP - Single 200451.6 LSB
Figure 4.60: Comparison of Deformed Shapes at Failure
Figures 4.60 (b) and (c) show the deformation shapes of the back to back LSB
sections at failure based on the finite element analyses, showing good agreement
between the finite element analysis and the actual test. The corresponding
experimental deformation shapes observed at failure are shown in Figures 4.60 (a)
and (d). Figure 4.60 (e) shows the stress distribution at the failure for a back to back
LSB section including the colour code details. Figures 4.60 (f) and (g) show the
deformation shape of a single LSB section based on the finite element analysis and
actual test result, respectively.
Figures 4.61 (a) and (b) show the separation between flanges of the back to back
LSB sections at failure based on the finite element analyses as well as the
experimental tests. Tests of LSB section, 200451.6 LSB with fastener spacing of
span/6 revealed very little separation near the support while the corresponding finite
element analysis confirmed that the maximum separation between the LSBs was only
0.5 mm, and it was also near the support. Similarly, LSB section, 150451.6 LSB
with fastener spacing of span/3 physically exhibited a flange separation of 3 to 4 mm
near the support while the corresponding finite element analysis proved that the
maximum separation between the LSBs about 3 mm, and it was also near the support
as observed during experimental test. Thus, both experimental tests and finite
element analyses show a good agreement in relation to flange separation at failure.
(a) 200451.6 LSB with Maximum separation of 0.5 mm at the edge
Fastener Spacing of Span/6 of outside flanges near the support
Support Mid-span
Support Mid-span
(b) 150451.6 LSB with Maximum separation of about 3 mm at the

Fastener Spacing of Span/3 edge of outside flanges near the support
Figure 4.61: Comparison of Flange Separation at Failure
4.6.2 Validation of Ideal Finite Element Models
This section presents the details of ideal finite element model validation. As
mentioned previously the ideal model is slightly different from the actual
experimental test model. Hence its nonlinear analysis results cannot be compared
with experimental results. However, its elastic buckling analyses can be validated.
This was achieved by conducting a series of elastic buckling analyses using the ideal
finite element models described in the previous sections to obtain the elastic lateral
buckling moments, and comparing them with the solutions obtained from the
established finite strip analysis program, THIN-WALL (Papangelis and Hancock,
1994). This comparison was intended to verify the accuracy of the finite element
type, mesh density, and in particular the loading method and boundary conditions.
However, this validation was restricted to back to back LSBs with continuous
connections. THIN-WALL is not capable of simulating intermittently fastened
members as the cross-section should be uniform along the entire span. Also there
was no other suitable closed form solution for the elastic buckling moment of
intermittently fastened LSB flexural members. Since the experimental finite element
model was first validated using full scale experimental results, such validation also
confirms indirectly the accuracy of similar finite element models such as the ideal
finite element models. Both ideal models, continuously fastened back to back LSB
models and doubly thick back to back LSB models were considered for validation.
Nine different LSB sections were chosen from the small, medium and large size
LSBs. Also they covered compact, non-compact and slender sections based on AS
4100 guidelines (see Appendix A). The span lengths ranging from 1.0 m to 10.0 m
were selected to capture all the possible lateral buckling modes.
Table 4.10: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments from Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) and THIN-WALL for Back to Back LSB Sections with
Continuous Connections
Elastic Lateral Buckling Moment (kNm)
Span 125452.0 LSB 150451.6 LSB 200451.6 LSB
(m) Thin- Dif Thin- Dif Thin- Dif
FEA FEA FEA
Wall (%) Wall (%) Wall (%)
1 83.52 84.04 0.6 71.22 71.47 0.3 68.47 70.10 2.3
2 42.60 42.76 0.4 32.73 32.84 0.3 34.35 34.48 0.4
3 29.89 29.98 0.3 23.33 23.40 0.3 23.23 23.29 0.3
4 23.00 23.06 0.3 18.31 18.36 0.3 18.1 18.15 0.3
5 18.65 18.69 0.2 15.04 15.08 0.3 14.89 14.93 0.3
6 15.66 15.70 0.3 12.74 12.77 0.2 12.64 12.67 0.2
7 13.49 13.52 0.2 11.03 11.05 0.2 10.97 11.00 0.3
8 11.84 11.87 0.3 9.72 9.74 0.2 9.68 9.71 0.3
10 9.51 9.53 0.2 7.84 7.86 0.2 7.83 7.85 0.2
200602.0 LSB 200602.5 LSB 2506020 LSB
Span
FEA FEA FEA
1 137.89 139.5 1.2 267.71 273.50 2.1 129.75 133.80 3.0
2 94.94 95.33 0.4 125.26 125.80 0.4 104.53 105.00 0.4
3 64.77 64.96 0.3 85.11 85.39 0.3 65.75 65.95 0.3
4 51.32 51.45 0.3 66.12 66.30 0.3 50.87 50.99 0.2
5 42.77 42.87 0.2 54.21 54.34 0.2 42.21 42.30 0.2
6 36.64 36.72 0.2 45.90 46.00 0.2 36.19 36.26 0.2
7 32.01 32.07 0.2 39.77 39.85 0.2 31.67 31.73 0.2
8 28.38 28.43 0.2 35.06 35.12 0.2 28.13 28.18 0.2
10 23.08 23.12 0.2 28.30 28.35 0.2 22.95 22.99 0.2
250753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 300753.0 LSB
Span
FEA FEA FEA
1 460.06 472.60 2.7 103.24 106.00 2.6 434.81 447.40 2.8
2 303.00 304.50 0.5 103.08 106.00 2.8 337.10 338.80 0.5
3 194.12 194.80 0.3 68.43 68.64 0.3 201.39 202.10 0.4
4 149.90 150.30 0.3 51.23 51.35 0.2 151.12 151.60 0.3
5 123.60 123.90 0.2 42.05 42.14 0.2 123.48 123.80 0.3
6 105.35 105.60 0.2 35.95 36.02 0.2 105.01 105.20 0.2
7 91.77 91.96 0.2 31.46 31.52 0.2 91.46 91.65 0.2
8 81.24 81.40 0.2 27.97 28.02 0.2 81.00 81.16 0.2
10 65.97 66.08 0.2 22.86 22.90 0.2 65.86 65.97 0.2
Table 4.11: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments from Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) and THIN-WALL for Doubly Thick Back to Back LSB
Sections
Elastic Lateral Buckling Moment (kNm)
Span 125452.0 LSB 150451.6 LSB 200451.6 LSB
FEA FEA FEA
1.5 67.6 68.33 1.1 54.64 55.20 1.0 59.57 60.18 1.0
2.0 50.74 51.18 0.9 40.96 41.29 0.8 42.76 43.11 0.8
2.5 40.74 41.03 0.7 33.04 33.26 0.7 33.85 34.08 0.7
3.0 34.05 34.26 0.6 27.74 27.91 0.6 28.18 28.35 0.6
4.0 25.63 25.76 0.5 21.02 21.12 0.5 21.2 21.30 0.5
5.0 20.55 20.64 0.4 16.92 16.99 0.4 17.02 17.09 0.4
6.0 17.15 17.21 0.3 14.15 14.20 0.4 14.22 14.27 0.4
7.0 14.71 14.76 0.3 12.15 12.19 0.3 12.21 12.25 0.3
8.0 12.88 12.92 0.3 10.65 10.68 0.3 10.69 10.73 0.4
10.0 10.31 10.34 0.3 8.54 8.56 0.2 8.57 8.59 0.3
200602.0 LSB 200602.5 LSB 2506020 LSB
Span
FEA FEA FEA
2.0 120.17 121.30 0.9 154.74 156.30 1.0 127.89 129.10 0.9
2.5 96.22 97.00 0.8 122.59 123.60 0.8 99.57 100.40 0.8
3.0 80.88 81.43 0.7 102.01 102.80 0.8 82.5 83.07 0.7
3.5 69.94 70.37 0.6 87.52 88.07 0.6 70.81 71.25 0.6
4.0 61.66 62.00 0.5 76.68 77.12 0.6 62.18 62.52 0.5
5.0 49.88 50.11 0.5 61.50 61.80 0.5 50.11 50.34 0.5
6.0 41.86 42.03 0.4 51.35 51.57 0.4 41.99 42.16 0.4
7.0 36.04 36.17 0.4 44.07 44.24 0.4 36.14 36.27 0.4
8.0 31.64 31.74 0.3 38.60 38.74 0.4 31.71 31.82 0.3
10.0 25.41 25.48 0.3 30.92 31.01 0.3 25.47 25.54 0.3
250753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 300753.0 LSB
Span
FEA FEA FEA
2.0 370.71 375.10 1.2 138.14 139.50 1.0 400.16 404.80 1.1
2.5 289.09 291.90 1.0 104.51 105.40 0.8 303.7 306.70 1.0
3.0 239.18 241.20 0.8 85.11 85.71 0.7 247.22 249.30 0.8
3.5 204.84 206.40 0.8 72.32 72.77 0.6 209.7 211.20 0.7
4.0 179.46 180.70 0.7 63.12 63.47 0.6 182.63 183.80 0.6
5.0 144.12 144.90 0.5 50.55 50.79 0.5 145.71 146.50 0.5
6.0 120.49 121.10 0.5 42.25 42.42 0.4 121.45 122.00 0.5
7.0 103.52 104.00 0.5 36.31 36.44 0.4 104.17 104.60 0.4
8.0 90.74 91.09 0.4 31.84 31.94 0.3 91.22 91.57 0.4
10.0 72.77 73.00 0.3 25.54 25.62 0.3 73.07 73.30 0.3
The results of these analyses and comparisons with the corresponding elastic
buckling moments obtained from the finite strip analysis program, THIN-WALL
(Papangelis and Hancock, 1994) are presented in Tables 4.10 and 4.11, and are also
compared in Figures 4.62 and 4.63. As shown in Tables 4.10 and 4.11 and Figures
4.62 and 4.63, the ideal finite element models accurately predict the elastic lateral
distortional buckling moments with an average deviation of (-) 0.5%. Generally, the
finite element model is considered more accurate due to a substantially finer mesh
density and improved boundary conditions at the support. These comparisons verify
the suitability and accuracy of the element type, mesh density, geometry, boundary
conditions, and the method used to generate the required uniform moment
distribution.
1000
Elastic Buckling Moment - FEA (kNm)
Equality Line
100 1254520 LSB, BTB - C
1504516 LSB, BTB - C
2004516 LSB, BTB - C
2006020 LSB, BTB - C
2006025 LSB, BTB - C

10
2506020 LSB, BTB - C
2507530 LSB, BTB - C
3006020 LSB, BTB - C
3007530 LSB, BTB - C
1
1 10 100 1000
Elastic Buckling Moment - THIN-WALL (kNm)
Figure 4.62: Comparison of Finite Element Analyses (FEA) and THIN-WALL

Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities for Back to Back LSB Sections (BTB)
1000
Elastic Buckling Moment - FEA (kNm)

Equality Line
1254520 LSB, DB
100
1504516 LSB, DB
2004516 LSB, DB
2006020 LSB, DB
2006025 LSB, DB
10
2506020 LSB, DB
2507530 LSB, DB
3006020 LSB, DB
3007530 LSB, DB
1
1 10 100 1000
Elastic Buckling Moment - THIN-WALL (kNm)
Figure 4.63: Comparison of Finite Element Analyses (FEA) and THIN-WALL

Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities for Doubly Thick Back to Back LSB
Sections (DB)
4.7 Conclusion
This chapter has described the finite element models developed for the investigation
on back to back LSB flexural members. The essential stages in the development of
finite element models were described in detail. Two finite element models, namely
experimental and ideal models, were developed and validated so that finite element
models could be used in detailed parametric studies to develop design rules. The
input files were created using a pre-processor called PATRAN and the
ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.7 was employed to conduct the analyses.
Experimental model was developed to simulate the actual test beam set-up and
associated load and boundary conditions. Shell element, S4R5, was selected as the
suitable element for modelling the behaviour of built-up LSB section. Surface based
contact modelling was used to simulate the contact behaviour between the two
individual LSB sections. Appropriate contact discretization, tracking approach,
contact constraint enforcement method and pressure-overclosure relationship were
choosen based on the best of understanding and the results of numerical studies.
Numerical convergence difficulties caused by the contact constraints were discussed
in detail.
Elastic perfect plastic material model was considered sufficient for modelling the
back to back LSB sections subject to lateral buckling. Initial geometric imperfection
was used based on the eigenvector obtained from the elastic buckling analysis.
Appropriate residual models were developed and applied to the model prior to the
application of loading.
The solution methods used to conduct the analyses in this research including the
modified Riks method and the stabilize method were discussed in detail. Also the
convergence criteria and the control parameters governing the accuracy of the
nonlinear solutions were given. Post-collapse issues related to the modified Riks
method and the solution to the problem using stabilize method were explained in
detail. In addition, overconstraint issues with the developed finite element models
and solutions to them were explained in detail.
Finally, the finite element models were validated by comparing their results with
experimental results and numerical results obtained from an established buckling
analysis program called THIN-WALL. This comparison showed that these models
could accurately predict both the elastic lateral distortional buckling moment and the
non-linear ultimate moment capacities of the back to back LSB flexural members.
Therefore the ideal finite element models incorporating ideal simply support
boundary conditions and uniform moment conditions can be used to conduct an in-
depth parametric study (see Chapter 5) to develop an extended database on the lateral
distortional buckling behaviour of back to back LSB flexural members.
CHAPTER 5
Parametric Studies and
Development of Design Rules
for Back to Back LSB Sections
5.1 General
Chapter 4 described the details of the development of ideal and experimental finite
element models of back to back LSB flexural members and their validation using
numerical results obtained from an established buckling analysis program and
experimental results, respectively. The validated ideal finite element models were
then used to conduct an extensive parametric study to investigate the flexural
behaviour of back to back LSB members. This parametric study included the effects
of various parameters such as residual stresses, geometrical imperfections, section
and member slenderness, fastener spacing and location and contact. In addition, the
elastic buckling and nonlinear analysis results of back to back LSB members were
compared with the corresponding single LSB section to investigate the variation and
gain in the moment capacities of back to back LSB flexural members. Finally,
suitable design rules were developed based on the parametric studies to predict the
member moment capacities of back to back LSBs. This chapter presents the details
of the parametric study, the results and the developed design rules. It also includes a
review of the current design rules.
5.2 Elastic Buckling Analyses and the Results
Elastic buckling analyses were conducted on back to back LSB flexural members to
investigate their elastic buckling behaviour and the effect of fasteners on elastic
buckling moments and to include them into the design rules. For this study 13
different LSB sections were selected. The elastic buckling analyses included varying
spans from 1 m to 10 m while the fastener spacing was varied from span/2 to
continuous connection, and the elastic buckling moment (ME2, ME3, ME4, ME6 and
MEC) results are shown in Table 5.1. These buckling moments correspond to all three
buckling modes, namely, local buckling (short spans), lateral distortional buckling
(intermediate spans) and lateral torsional buckling (long spans). Since the main focus
of this research is on the lateral buckling behaviour of back to back LSBs, only the
elastic buckling and ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSBs subject to
lateral distortional and lateral torsional buckling are considered in the important
evaluations of results. Accordingly Figures 5.1 (a) to (c) show the comparison of
elastic buckling moment capacities of selected LSB sections for varying fastener
spacings and span lengths (excludes local buckling). The comparisons of elastic
buckling moment capacities for other LSB sections are given in Appendix C.
Table 5.1: Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB Members with
Different Fastener Spacings
Span 300753.0 LSB
(m) ME2 ME3 ME4 ME6 MEC RE2 RE3 RE4 RE6 REC
1.0 360.71 360.21 359.85 359.51 358.22 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.000
2.0 269.62 279.99 286.67 294.92 320.77 0.841 0.873 0.894 0.919 1.000
3.0 167.93 173.94 177.52 181.64 192.34 0.873 0.904 0.923 0.944 1.000
4.0 128.57 133.09 135.62 138.42 144.75 0.888 0.919 0.937 0.956 1.000
5.0 109.94 111.97 114.09 118.47 0.928 0.945 0.963 1.000
6.0 94.20 95.86 97.56 100.84 0.934 0.951 0.968 1.000
7.0 N/A 82.49 83.90 85.31 87.88 N/A 0.939 0.955 0.971 1.000
8.0 73.34 74.58 75.77 77.86 0.942 0.958 0.973 1.000
10.0 59.99 60.95 61.86 63.33 0.947 0.962 0.977 1.000
Span 300602.0 LSB
2.0 86.43 86.36 86.30 86.19 85.78 1.008 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.000
3.0 58.45 60.30 61.37 62.59 65.68 0.890 0.918 0.934 0.953 1.000
4.0 44.58 45.95 46.70 47.52 49.32 0.904 0.932 0.947 0.963 1.000
5.0 38.09 38.69 39.31 40.55 0.939 0.954 0.969 1.000
6.0 32.78 33.28 33.77 34.71 0.945 0.959 0.973 1.000
N/A N/A
7.0 28.82 29.24 29.66 30.39 0.948 0.962 0.976 1.000
8.0 25.71 26.08 26.43 27.03 0.951 0.965 0.978 1.000
10.0 21.13 21.41 21.68 22.11 0.956 0.969 0.981 1.000
Span 250753.0 LSB
1.0 437.21 436.64 436.35 435.97 434.42 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.000
2.0 243.62 253.52 259.78 267.35 289.55 0.841 0.876 0.897 0.923 1.000
3.0 161.83 168.17 171.89 176.06 186.19 0.869 0.903 0.923 0.946 1.000
4.0 127.10 132.10 134.83 137.79 144.09 0.882 0.917 0.936 0.956 1.000
5.0 109.99 112.22 114.50 118.95 0.925 0.943 0.963 1.000
N/A
6.0 94.42 96.26 98.10 101.46 0.931 0.949 0.967 1.000
N/A
8.0 73.45 74.83 76.13 78.29 0.938 0.956 0.972 1.000
10.0 59.99 61.07 62.06 63.59 0.943 0.960 0.976 1.000
Note: ME2, ME3, ME4, ME6 and MEC are the elastic buckling moments of LSB members
with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection,
respectively. RE2, RE3, RE4, RE6 and REC are the ratios of elastic buckling moments of
LSB members with different fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and
continuous connection to corresponding elastic buckling moments of LSB members
with continuous connection, respectively.
Span 300752.5 LSB
1.0 211.75 211.46 211.31 211.14 210.50 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 211.47 211.32 211.16 210.94 209.93 1.007 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.000
3.0 134.50 139.40 142.30 145.64 154.43 0.871 0.903 0.921 0.943 1.000
4.0 103.12 106.78 108.83 111.09 116.25 0.887 0.919 0.936 0.956 1.000
5.0 89.13 90.79 92.52 96.11 0.927 0.945 0.963 1.000
6.0 77.21 78.59 79.99 82.70 0.934 0.950 0.967 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 61.12 62.16 63.17 64.92 0.941 0.957 0.973 1.000
10.0 50.50 51.32 52.09 53.34 0.947 0.962 0.977 1.000
Span 250752.5 LSB
1.0 256.92 256.64 256.49 256.32 255.57 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 197.27 205.44 210.59 216.84 235.35 0.838 0.873 0.895 0.921 1.000
3.0 129.11 134.23 137.22 140.59 148.83 0.867 0.902 0.922 0.945 1.000
4.0 102.38 106.43 108.64 111.05 116.19 0.881 0.916 0.935 0.956 1.000
5.0 89.81 91.64 93.51 97.19 0.924 0.943 0.962 1.000
6.0 77.98 79.51 81.04 83.84 0.930 0.948 0.967 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 61.60 62.76 63.86 65.69 0.938 0.955 0.972 1.000
10.0 50.75 51.67 52.51 53.82 0.943 0.960 0.976 1.000
Span 250602.0 LSB
1.0 103.60 103.46 103.39 103.31 103.01 1.006 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 86.25 89.41 91.36 93.69 100.32 0.860 0.891 0.911 0.934 1.000
3.0 56.14 58.09 59.21 60.44 63.35 0.886 0.917 0.935 0.954 1.000
4.0 44.15 45.66 46.47 47.34 49.13 0.898 0.929 0.946 0.963 1.000
5.0 38.22 38.89 39.55 40.83 0.936 0.952 0.969 1.000
6.0 32.98 33.53 34.07 35.03 0.941 0.957 0.973 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 25.84 26.25 26.63 27.25 0.948 0.963 0.977 1.000
10.0 21.18 21.50 21.80 22.24 0.952 0.967 0.980 1.000
Span 200602.5 LSB
1.0 244.29 251.91 251.74 251.54 250.61 0.975 1.005 1.005 1.004 1.000
2.0 103.10 107.13 109.60 112.47 119.78 0.861 0.894 0.915 0.939 1.000
3.0 71.93 74.73 76.30 77.98 81.65 0.881 0.915 0.934 0.955 1.000
4.0 56.59 58.83 59.99 61.19 63.53 0.891 0.926 0.944 0.963 1.000
5.0 48.60 49.55 50.47 52.12 0.932 0.951 0.968 1.000
6.0 41.39 42.17 42.91 44.15 0.937 0.955 0.972 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 31.84 32.41 32.93 33.73 0.944 0.961 0.976 1.000
10.0 25.83 26.27 26.67 27.24 0.948 0.965 0.979 1.000
Span 200602.0 LSB
1.0 131.61 131.50 131.43 131.36 130.99 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.000
2.0 78.54 81.68 83.59 85.80 91.55 0.858 0.892 0.913 0.937 1.000
3.0 55.12 57.29 58.51 59.81 62.67 0.880 0.914 0.934 0.954 1.000
4.0 44.26 46.03 46.94 47.90 49.74 0.890 0.925 0.944 0.963 1.000
5.0 38.66 39.42 40.16 41.49 0.932 0.950 0.968 1.000
6.0 33.32 33.95 34.55 35.56 0.937 0.955 0.971 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 25.98 26.46 26.89 27.55 0.943 0.960 0.976 1.000
10.0 21.24 21.61 21.94 22.41 0.947 0.964 0.979 1.000
Span 200451.6 LSB
1.0 50.95 50.80 50.72 50.63 50.46 1.010 1.007 1.005 1.003 1.000
2.0 29.14 30.11 30.69 31.32 32.95 0.884 0.914 0.931 0.951 1.000
3.0 20.17 20.83 21.19 21.57 22.36 0.902 0.932 0.948 0.965 1.000
4.0 15.90 16.41 16.68 16.95 17.45 0.911 0.940 0.956 0.971 1.000
5.0 13.17 13.60 13.81 14.01 14.37 0.916 0.946 0.961 0.975 1.000
6.0 11.23 11.60 11.77 11.94 12.20 0.920 0.950 0.965 0.978 1.000
7.0 9.78 10.10 10.25 10.38 10.60 0.923 0.953 0.967 0.980 1.000
8.0 8.65 8.93 9.06 9.18 9.35 0.925 0.955 0.969 0.982 1.000
10.0 7.02 7.25 7.35 7.44 7.57 0.929 0.959 0.972 0.984 1.000
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 73.95 77.17 79.08 81.43 88.55 0.835 0.872 0.893 0.920 1.000
2.0 36.07 37.46 38.27 39.15 41.09 0.878 0.912 0.931 0.953 1.000
3.0 25.50 26.50 27.03 27.56 28.59 0.892 0.927 0.945 0.964 1.000
4.0 19.80 20.60 20.98 21.36 22.01 0.900 0.936 0.953 0.970 1.000
5.0 16.81 17.12 17.41 17.88 0.941 0.958 0.974 1.000
6.0 14.20 14.45 14.68 15.03 0.945 0.961 0.977 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 10.81 10.99 11.15 11.38 0.949 0.966 0.980 1.000
10.0 8.72 8.86 8.98 9.15 0.954 0.969 0.982 1.000
Span 150451.6 LSB
1.0 58.00 60.59 62.12 63.98 68.44 0.847 0.885 0.908 0.935 1.000
2.0 27.69 28.76 29.39 30.06 31.60 0.876 0.910 0.930 0.951 1.000
3.0 20.11 20.91 21.32 21.75 22.57 0.891 0.926 0.945 0.963 1.000
4.0 15.93 16.56 16.89 17.19 17.73 0.898 0.934 0.952 0.970 1.000
5.0 13.16 13.69 13.95 14.19 14.57 0.903 0.940 0.957 0.974 1.000
6.0 11.20 11.65 11.86 12.05 12.34 0.907 0.944 0.961 0.976 1.000
7.0 9.73 10.12 10.30 10.46 10.69 0.910 0.947 0.963 0.978 1.000
8.0 8.59 8.94 9.09 9.23 9.42 0.912 0.949 0.965 0.980 1.000
10.0 6.96 7.24 7.36 7.46 7.60 0.916 0.952 0.968 0.982 1.000
Span 125452.0 LSB
1.0 67.03 70.11 71.92 74.10 80.22 0.836 0.874 0.897 0.924 1.000
2.0 35.58 37.09 37.97 38.89 40.91 0.870 0.907 0.928 0.951 1.000
3.0 25.35 26.48 27.06 27.65 28.74 0.882 0.921 0.942 0.962 1.000
4.0 19.68 20.56 21.00 21.42 22.12 0.890 0.929 0.950 0.968 1.000
5.0 16.06 16.78 17.13 17.45 17.94 0.895 0.936 0.955 0.973 1.000
6.0 13.55 14.16 14.44 14.70 15.07 0.899 0.940 0.958 0.975 1.000
7.0 11.71 12.24 12.47 12.68 12.98 0.902 0.943 0.961 0.977 1.000
8.0 10.31 10.76 10.97 11.15 11.40 0.904 0.945 0.963 0.979 1.000
10.0 8.31 8.68 8.84 8.98 9.15 0.908 0.948 0.966 0.981 1.000
Span 125451.6 LSB
1.0 51.84 54.29 55.36 55.36 55.38 0.936 0.980 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.0 27.52 28.71 29.39 30.13 31.68 0.869 0.906 0.928 0.951 1.000
3.0 20.20 21.11 21.58 22.05 22.92 0.882 0.921 0.942 0.962 1.000
4.0 15.96 16.69 17.05 17.39 17.95 0.889 0.930 0.949 0.968 1.000
5.0 13.75 14.04 14.30 14.71 0.935 0.954 0.972 1.000
6.0 11.67 11.90 12.12 12.43 0.939 0.958 0.975 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 8.93 9.10 9.25 9.46 0.944 0.962 0.978 1.000
10.0 7.22 7.36 7.47 7.62 0.948 0.965 0.981 1.000
300
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3

250
Elastic Buckling Moment (kNm) 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

200
250*75*3.0 LSB, Continuous
150
100
50
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) 250753.0 LSB Compact Section
350
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
300 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

Elastic Buckling Moment (kNm)
250 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) 300753.0 LSB Non-compact Section
Figure 5.1: Elastic Buckling Moment Plots for Selected LSB Sections with
Varying Fastener Spacing
70
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
60 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4

50 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(c) 300602.0 LSB Slender Section
Figure 5.1: Elastic Buckling Moment Plots for Selected LSB Sections with
Varying Fastener Spacing
In addition, Table 5.1 compares the elastic buckling moment capacities of LSB
members with different fastener spacings to that of corresponding LSB member with
continuous fastener spacing using ratios RE2 to REC. As shown in Table 5.1 fastener
spacing influences the elastic buckling moment capacities of back to back LSB
members. However, the effect varies with span length and the level of compactness
of LSB section. The reduction in elastic bucking moment capacities of back to back
LSB members with different fastener spacings of span/2 to span/6 varies from 2 to
17%. Table 5.1 gives the comparison for all the LSB sections while Figures 5.2 (a) to
(c) show the graphical comparison for selected LSB sections. However, Figures 5.2
(a) to (c) are restricted to lateral buckling moments (excludes 1 m spans). In addition,
the graphical comparisons for other LSB sections are given Appendix C.
The level of compactness of the LSB section also influences the effect of fastener
spacing on the elastic lateral buckling moments. Slender (S) section exhibited less
effect on the elastic buckling moment capacities when the fastener spacing was
changed. As shown in Figure 5.3 (a) the slender sections, 300602.0 LSB and
250602.0 LSB, exhibited less reduction in elastic buckling moment capacities
with increasing fastener spacing. On average the reduction was only 2 to 5% when
the span length was varied from 3 to 10 m. Compact (C) and non-compact (NC) LSB
sections exhibited similar reductions in elastic buckling moments with respect to
span lengths. As shown in Figure 5.3 (a) for compact and non-compact LSB sections
the reduction was about 8% for 2 m span while it was 2.5% for 10 m span. Similarly,
in Figure 5.3 (b) the slender section, 200451.6 LSB, exhibits less reduction
compared to compact and non-compact LSB sections. The depth of LSB sections
also slightly influences the percentage reduction in elastic buckling moment
capacities. Figures 5.3 (c) and (d) show the variation in reduction factor with depths
of LSB sections for compact and non-compact sections and slender sections,
respectively. The LSB members with depths of 300 and 250 mm revealed similar
trend while those with depths of 200, 150 and 125 mm revealed different trends for
compact and non-compact sections (see Figure 5.3 (c)). Similarly among slender
sections, LSB sections with depths of 300 and 250 mm had the same trend while
those with 200 mm depths were different (Figure 5.3 (d)).
1.02
1.00
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio (BTBi/BTBC)
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/2
0.90
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/3
0.88 200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6
0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
Figure 5.2: Reduction in Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of LSB Members

with Different Fastener Spacings with respect to that of Corresponding LSB
Members with Continuous Fastener Spacings
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.90
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.88 200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.90
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.88 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)

with Different Fastener Spacings with respect to that of Corresponding LSB
Members with Continuous Fastener Spacings
0.99
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio (BTB6/BTBC)

0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, NC
0.94 300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, C

0.93
250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
0.92 250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, NC
300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, S

0.91
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(a) Large Size LSB Sections
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, S

0.94
150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.93 125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C
150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C
0.92
125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.91 200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, NC
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, C
0.90
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(b) Medium and Small Size LSB Sections

with Fastener Spacing of Span/6 with respect to the Corresponding LSB
Members with Continuous Connection
0.99

0.98
0.97
0.96 300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, NC

250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, C
0.95
250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, NC
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, C
0.94
200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, NC
0.93 150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C

150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.92 125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C
125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.91
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(c) LSB Sections Classified as Compact (C) and Non-compact (NC) Sections
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
0.95 250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, S
0.94
0.93
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(d) LSB Sections Classified as Slender (S) Sections

with Fastener Spacing of Span/6 with respect to the Corresponding LSB
Members with Continuous Connection
Also the variation in elastic buckling moment capacities of a particular LSB section
with varying fastener spacing was influenced by span length, level of section
compactness and section depth. Figures 5.4 (a) and (b) show the variation in the
reduction for 3 and 10 m span lengths of large LSB sections, respectively. For
intermediate spans such as 3 m the effect of fastener spacing on the elastic buckling
moment is significant. On average the reduction is around 11 to 13% for members
with fastener spacing of span/2 while it is around 5% for members with fastener
spacing of span/6. In contrast, for long spans such as 10 m the effect is small. It is
about 5% for the case of span/2 and only 2% for the case of span/6. A similar trend
can be observed for medium and small size LSB sections (see Figures 5.4 (c) and
(d))
3m
1.05
1.00
0.95
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, NC

0.90
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, S
0.85 250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, C
250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, NC
250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
0.80
Span/2 Span/3 Span/4 Span/6 Continuous
Fastener Spacing
(a) Large LSB Sections with 3 m Span

10 m
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, NC
0.95
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
0.94 300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, S
0.93 250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB, C

250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, NC
0.92
250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, S
0.91
Span/3 Span/4 Span/6 Continuous
Fastener Spacing
(b) Large LSB Sections with 10 m Span
Figure 5.4: Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Elastic Buckling Moment

Capacities of LSBs with Varying Span Lengths
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio (BTBi/BTBC) 1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, C
200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, NC
0.85 200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, S
150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C
150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.80
125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C
125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.75
Span/2 Span/3 Span/4 Span/6 Continuous
Fastener Spacing
(c) Medium and Small Size LSB Sections with 2 m Span
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, C
0.96
200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB, NC
0.95 200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, S
150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C
0.94 150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.93 125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB, C

125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB, NC
0.92
Span/3 Span/4 Span/6 Continuous
Fastener Spacing
(d) Medium and Small Size LSB Sections with 10 m Span
Figure 5.4: Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Elastic Buckling Moment

Capacities of LSBs with Varying Span Lengths
(a) Span/2 (b) Span/6
200602.5 LSB
(c) Span/2 (d) Continuous

connection
150451.6 LSB
(e) Span/2 (f) Span/4
125451.6 LSB
Figure 5.5: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Buckling Mode of LSBs
For some cases in the short span region the fastener spacing influences the buckling
modes. As the fastener spacing reduces lateral distortional effects, the failure mode
becomes local buckling. Three different cases are listed in Table 5.2 in which the
lateral distortional buckling failure becomes local buckling such as web, flange or
both web and flange local buckling when the fastener spacing reduces to a certain
limit. Figure 5.5 shows the effect of fastener spacing on the buckling mode of LSB.
Fasteners located on the web of LSBs improve the resistance to buckle laterally, and
induces in-plane bending, which causes local buckling failures in web and flange
elements.
Table 5.2: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Buckling Mode

LSB Section FS Span/2 Span/3 Span/4 Span/6 Cont.
Span (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
200602.5 LSB ME (kNm) 244.29 251.91 251.74 251.54 250.61
BM LDB LB-W LB-W LB-W LB-W
Span (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
150451.6 LSB ME (kNm) 58.00 60.59 62.12 63.98 68.44
BM LDB LDB LDB LDB LB-WF
Span (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
125451.6 LSB ME (kNm) 51.84 54.29 55.36 55.36 55.38
BM LDB LDB LB-F LB-F LB-F
Note: FS Fastener spacing, BM Buckling mode, ME Elastic Buckling Moment,
LDB Lateral distortional buckling, LB-W Web local buckling, LB-F Flange local
buckling, LB-WF local buckling in both web and flange, Cont. Continuous
Connection
In short span regions where local buckling occurs the effect of fastener spacing is
insignificant (< 1%). As shown in Table 5.3 the elastic bucking moments are almost
the same for varying fastener spacing. However, for the first mode, the elastic
buckling moment decreases as the fastener spacing is reduced. In contrast, in higher
modes it increases with reducing fastener spacing, which is the same observed in
lateral distortional and lateral torsional buckling failure regions.
Table 5.3: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Elastic Buckling Moment
LSB Section Span (m) ME2 ME3 ME4 ME6 MEC
300753.0 LSB 1.0 360.71 360.21 359.85 359.51 358.22
1.0 86.44 86.32 86.25 86.18 85.93
300602.0 LSB
2.0 86.43 86.36 86.30 86.19 85.78
250753.0 LSB 1.0 437.21 436.64 436.35 435.97 434.42
1.0 211.75 211.46 211.31 211.14 210.50
300752.5 LSB
2.0 211.47 211.32 211.16 210.94 209.93
250752.5 LSB 1.0 256.92 256.64 256.49 256.32 255.57
250602.0 LSB 1.0 103.60 103.46 103.39 103.31 103.01
200602.5 LSB 1.0 244.29 251.91 251.74 251.54 250.61
200602.0 LSB 1.0 131.61 131.50 131.43 131.36 130.99
200602.0 LSB 1.0 50.95 50.80 50.72 50.63 50.46
Note: ME2, ME3, ME4, ME6 and MEC are defined in Table 5.1. Units are in kNm.
5.2.1 Comparison with Corresponding Single LSB Members
It is important to compare the elastic buckling results of back to back LSB members
with the corresponding single LSB members. Therefore the elastic buckling moment
capacities of back to back LSB sections (BTBi) with different fastener spacings were
compared with that of corresponding single LSB members and the results are listed
in Table 5.4. Elastic buckling moments of LSB members with varying fastener
spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connections were
considered in this comparison. Elastic buckling moment results of single LSB
members were obtained from finite element analyses in Anapayan and Mahendran
(2009a).
Table 5.4: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments (BTBi versus Single LSB)
Span 300753.0 LSB
(m) ME2 ME3 ME4 ME6 MEC MES RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RCC
2.0 269.62 279.99 286.67 294.92 320.77 97.87 2.75 2.86 2.93 3.01 3.28
3.0 167.93 173.94 177.52 181.64 192.34 65.69 2.56 2.65 2.70 2.76 2.93
4.0 128.57 133.09 135.62 138.42 144.75 52.37 2.45 2.54 2.59 2.64 2.76
6.0 94.20 95.86 97.56 100.84 38.00 2.48 2.52 2.57 2.65
8.0 N/A 73.34 74.58 75.77 77.86 29.71 N/A 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.62
10.0 59.99 60.95 61.86 63.33 24.29 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.61
Span 300602.0 LSB
2.0 86.43 86.36 86.30 86.19 85.78 35.04 2.47 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.45
3.0 58.45 60.30 61.37 62.59 65.68 22.99 2.54 2.62 2.67 2.72 2.86
4.0 44.58 45.95 46.70 47.52 49.32 18.36 2.43 2.50 2.54 2.59 2.69
6.0 32.78 33.28 33.77 34.71 13.50 2.43 2.47 2.50 2.57
8.0 N/A 25.71 26.08 26.43 27.03 10.65 N/A 2.41 2.45 2.48 2.54
10.0 21.13 21.41 21.68 22.11 8.76 2.41 2.44 2.47 2.52
Span 250753.0 LSB
2.0 243.62 253.52 259.78 267.35 289.55 89.72 2.72 2.83 2.90 2.98 3.23
3.0 161.83 168.17 171.89 176.06 186.19 64.12 2.52 2.62 2.68 2.75 2.90
4.0 127.10 132.10 134.83 137.79 144.09 51.78 2.45 2.55 2.60 2.66 2.78
6.0 94.42 96.26 98.10 101.46 37.46 2.52 2.57 2.62 2.71
8.0 N/A 73.45 74.83 76.13 78.29 29.14 N/A 2.52 2.57 2.61 2.69
10.0 59.99 61.07 62.06 63.59 23.75 2.53 2.57 2.61 2.68
Span 300752.5 LSB
2.0 211.47 211.32 211.16 210.94 209.93 78.39 2.70 2.70 2.69 2.69 2.68
3.0 134.50 139.40 142.30 145.64 154.43 51.62 2.61 2.70 2.76 2.82 2.99
4.0 103.12 106.78 108.83 111.09 116.25 41.59 2.48 2.57 2.62 2.67 2.80
6.0 77.21 78.59 79.99 82.70 31.05 2.49 2.53 2.58 2.66
8.0 N/A 61.12 62.16 63.17 64.92 24.72 N/A 2.47 2.51 2.56 2.63
10.0 50.50 51.32 52.09 53.34 20.43 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.61
Span 250752.5 LSB
2.0 197.27 205.44 210.59 216.84 235.35 70.79 2.79 2.90 2.97 3.06 3.32
3.0 129.11 134.23 137.22 140.59 148.83 50.41 2.56 2.66 2.72 2.79 2.95
4.0 102.38 106.43 108.64 111.05 116.19 41.43 2.47 2.57 2.62 2.68 2.80
6.0 77.98 79.51 81.04 83.84 30.87 2.53 2.58 2.63 2.72
8.0 N/A 61.60 62.76 63.86 65.69 24.40 N/A 2.52 2.57 2.62 2.69
10.0 50.75 51.67 52.51 53.82 20.07 2.53 2.57 2.62 2.68
Span 250602.0 LSB
2.0 86.25 89.41 91.36 93.69 100.32 31.69 2.72 2.82 2.88 2.96 3.17
3.0 56.14 58.09 59.21 60.44 63.35 22.36 2.51 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.83
4.0 44.15 45.66 46.47 47.34 49.13 18.19 2.43 2.51 2.55 2.60 2.70
6.0 32.98 33.53 34.07 35.03 13.37 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.62
8.0 N/A 25.84 26.25 26.63 27.25 10.50 N/A 2.46 2.50 2.54 2.60
10.0 21.18 21.50 21.80 22.24 8.60 2.46 2.50 2.54 2.59
Span 200602.5 LSB
1.0 244.29 251.91 251.74 251.54 250.61 85.99 2.842.93 2.93 2.93 2.91
2.0 103.10 107.13 109.60 112.47 119.78 39.80 2.592.69 2.75 2.83 3.01
3.0 71.93 74.73 76.30 77.98 81.65 29.19 2.462.56 2.61 2.67 2.80
4.0 56.59 58.83 59.99 61.19 63.53 23.26 2.432.53 2.58 2.63 2.73
6.0 41.39 42.17 42.91 44.15 16.42 2.52 2.57 2.61 2.69
8.0 N/A 31.84 32.41 32.93 33.73 12.60 N/A 2.53 2.57 2.61 2.68
10.0 25.83 26.27 26.67 27.24 10.19 2.53 2.58 2.62 2.67
Span 200602.0 LSB
2.0 78.54 81.68 83.59 85.80 91.55 29.57 2.66 2.76 2.83 2.90 3.10
3.0 55.12 57.29 58.51 59.81 62.67 22.16 2.49 2.59 2.64 2.70 2.83
4.0 44.26 46.03 46.94 47.90 49.74 18.13 2.44 2.54 2.59 2.64 2.74
6.0 33.32 33.95 34.55 35.56 13.19 2.53 2.57 2.62 2.70
8.0 N/A 25.98 26.46 26.89 27.55 10.27 N/A 2.53 2.58 2.62 2.68
10.0 21.24 21.61 21.94 22.41 8.37 2.54 2.58 2.62 2.68
Span 200451.6 LSB
2.0 29.14 30.11 30.69 31.32 32.95 11.37 2.56 2.65 2.70 2.75 2.90
3.0 20.17 20.83 21.19 21.57 22.36 8.33 2.42 2.50 2.54 2.59 2.68
4.0 15.90 16.41 16.68 16.95 17.45 6.67 2.38 2.46 2.50 2.54 2.62
6.0 11.23 11.60 11.77 11.94 12.20 4.74 2.37 2.44 2.48 2.52 2.57
8.0 8.65 8.93 9.06 9.18 9.35 3.65 2.37 2.45 2.48 2.51 2.56
10.0 7.02 7.25 7.35 7.44 7.57 2.96 2.37 2.45 2.48 2.51 2.55
Note: ME2, ME3, ME4, ME6 and MEC are defined in Table 5.1, MES Elastic buckling
moment capacity of single LSB member, RC2, RC3, RC4, RC6 and RCC are the ratios of
elastic buckling moments of LSB members with different fastener spacings of span/2,
span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection to the corresponding elastic buckling
moment of single LSB, respectively.
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 73.95 77.17 79.08 81.43 88.55 26.74 2.77 2.89 2.96 3.04 3.31
2.0 36.07 37.46 38.27 39.15 41.09 14.52 2.48 2.58 2.63 2.70 2.83
3.0 25.50 26.50 27.03 27.56 28.59 10.48 2.43 2.53 2.58 2.63 2.73
4.0 19.80 20.60 20.98 21.36 22.01 8.17 2.43 2.52 2.57 2.62 2.70
6.0 14.20 14.45 14.68 15.03 5.62 2.53 2.57 2.61 2.68
8.0 N/A 10.81 10.99 11.15 11.38 4.26 N/A 2.54 2.58 2.62 2.67
10.0 8.72 8.86 8.98 9.15 3.43 2.54 2.58 2.62 2.67
Span 150451.6 LSB
1.0 58.00 60.59 62.12 63.98 68.44 20.38 2.85 2.97 3.05 3.14 3.36
2.0 27.69 28.76 29.39 30.06 31.60 11.02 2.51 2.61 2.67 2.73 2.87
3.0 20.11 20.91 21.32 21.75 22.57 8.24 2.44 2.54 2.59 2.64 2.74
4.0 15.93 16.56 16.89 17.19 17.73 6.56 2.43 2.52 2.57 2.62 2.70
6.0 11.20 11.65 11.86 12.05 12.34 4.60 2.43 2.53 2.58 2.62 2.68
8.0 8.59 8.94 9.09 9.23 9.42 3.52 2.44 2.54 2.58 2.62 2.67
10.0 6.96 7.24 7.36 7.46 7.60 2.84 2.45 2.54 2.59 2.62 2.67
Span 125452.0 LSB
1.0 67.03 70.11 71.92 74.10 80.22 24.72 2.71 2.84 2.91 3.00 3.25
2.0 35.58 37.09 37.97 38.89 40.91 14.35 2.48 2.59 2.65 2.71 2.85
3.0 25.35 26.48 27.06 27.65 28.74 10.31 2.46 2.57 2.62 2.68 2.79
4.0 19.68 20.56 21.00 21.42 22.12 7.99 2.46 2.57 2.63 2.68 2.77
6.0 13.55 14.16 14.44 14.70 15.07 5.47 2.48 2.59 2.64 2.69 2.76
8.0 10.31 10.76 10.97 11.15 11.40 4.14 2.49 2.60 2.65 2.69 2.75
10.0 8.31 8.68 8.84 8.98 9.15 3.33 2.50 2.61 2.66 2.70 2.75
Span 125451.6 LSB
1.0 51.84 54.29 55.36 55.36 55.38 18.53 2.80 2.93 2.99 2.99 2.99
2.0 27.52 28.71 29.39 30.13 31.68 11.01 2.50 2.61 2.67 2.74 2.88
3.0 20.20 21.11 21.58 22.05 22.92 8.20 2.46 2.58 2.63 2.69 2.80
4.0 15.96 16.69 17.05 17.39 17.95 6.47 2.46 2.58 2.63 2.69 2.77
6.0 11.67 11.90 12.12 12.43 4.50 2.59 2.64 2.69 2.76
8.0 N/A 8.93 9.10 9.25 9.46 3.43 N/A 2.60 2.65 2.70 2.76
10.0 7.22 7.36 7.47 7.62 2.77 2.61 2.66 2.70 2.75
Note: ME2, ME3, ME4, ME6 and MEC are defined in Table 5.1, MES Elastic buckling
moment capacity of single LSB member, RC2, RC3, RC4, RC6 and RCC are the ratios of
elastic buckling moments of LSB members with different fastener spacings of span/2,
span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection to the corresponding elastic buckling
moment of single LSB, respectively.
From the results we can summarise that the elastic buckling moment ratio of back to
back LSB to single LSB sections varies from 2.4 to 3.4 depending on the span
length, fastener spacing and cross-section geometry. It is high in the intermediate
span range where lateral distortional buckling failure occurs. As the span length
increases the moment ratio reduces and maintains a constant value. Figure 5.6 (a)
shows the ratio of moment capacities of back to back LSB members with continuous
connection to that of corresponding single LSB members while Figures 5.6 (b) to (d)
show the same results for categorized LSB section based on the level of section
compactness. The moment ratio is comparatively high for compact and non-compact
sections and the minimum average ratio is about 2.7 (in long span region). In
contrast, the ratio for slender sections is about 2.5 to 2.6 in the long span region. Also
in the intermediate span range the moment ratio is comparatively high for compact
and non-compact LSB sections compared with slender LSB sections. Moreover as
mentioned earlier the influence of fastener spacing is high for intermediate spans
while it is small in the long span region. Figures 5.7 (a) to (c) also clearly confirm
these observations.
3.5
300*75*3.0 LSB 300*60*2.0 LSB
250*75*3.0 LSB 300*75*2.5 LSB
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio (BTBC/Single)
3.3
250*75*2.5 LSB 250*60*2.0 LSB
200*60*2.5 LSB 200*60*2.0 LSB
3.1
200*45*1.6 LSB 150*45*2.0 LSB
150*45*1.6 LSB 125*45*2.0 LSB
2.9
125*45*1.6 LSB
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) All the LSB sections

LSB Members with Continuous Connections to that of Corresponding Single
LSB Members
3.5
250*75*3.0 LSB
3.3
200*60*2.5 LSB
150*45*2.0 LSB
3.1
125*45*2.0 LSB
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) Compact LSB Sections
3.5
300*75*3.0 LSB
3.3 250*75*2.5 LSB
200*60*2.0 LSB
3.1
150*45*1.6 LSB
2.9 125*45*1.6 LSB
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(c) Non-compact LSB Sections

LSB Members
3.3
300*60*2.0 LSB

3.1 300*75*2.5 LSB
250*60*2.0 LSB
2.9
200*45*1.6 LSB
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(d) Slender LSB Sections

LSB Members
As shown in Figures 5.6 (a) to (d) the moment ratio plots drawn for some LSB
sections exhibited sudden drops for 1 m or 2 m span. This could be due to the
differences between the elastic buckling modes of back to back and single LSB
members for those spans.
Figures 5.7 (a) to (c) show the influence of fastener spacing on the elastic buckling
moment ratio for selected back to back sections, 250753.0 LSB, 300753.0 LSB
and 300602.0 LSB, which are classified as compact, non-compact and slender
sections based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998), respectively. However, Figures 5.7 (a) to (c)
are restricted to lateral buckling moments (excludes 1 m span). AS 4100 based
section classification was used here as it allowed the evaluation and discussion of
results as a function of section compactness to be undertaken effectively. It must be
noted that AS/NZS 4600 does not include such a section classification. As shown in
Figures 5.7 (a) to (c) the moment ratio reduces as the span is increased, but is a
constant after a limiting span length. In the long span region, the difference between
the moment ratios for varying fastener spacings also decreases and remains
unchanged when the span length increases to a limit. The graphical comparisons of
elastic buckling moment ratio of back to back to single LSBs for other LSB sections
are given in Appendix C.
3.4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio (BTBi/Single)
3.2 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

3.0 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
3.4
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
3.2 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

3.0
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
Figure 5.7: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Moment Ratio for Selected
LSB Sections with Varying Span
3.0
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2

300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
2.8 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4

300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
Figure 5.7: Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Moment Ratio for Selected
LSB Sections with Varying Span
5.3 Nonlinear Analyses and the Results
Nonlinear analyses were conducted to determine the ultimate moment capacities of

back to back LSB members. Thirteen different LSB sections were selected for this
numerical study. These LSB sections included all three types of sections, ie,
compact, non-compact and slender section. The analyses included varying span
lengths from 1 to 10 m in order to capture all the possible buckling modes (local and
lateral buckling modes). The fastener spacing was varied from span/2 to continuous
connection. Also the nonlinear analyses were conducted with and without residual
stresses. Table 5.5 shows the nonlinear analysis results with and without residual
stresses for the thirteen LSB sections with varying span lengths and fastener
spacings. This section describes the effect of residual stresses, initial geometric
imperfections and fastener spacing on the ultimate moment capacities of back to
back LSB members. Also the ultimate moment capacities are compared with that of
corresponding single LSB members.
Span 300753.0 LSB
(m) MN2 MNRS2 MN3 MNRS3 MN4 MNRS4 MN6 MNRS6 MNC MNRSC
1.0 159.86 159.14 160.34 159.14 160.58 159.62 160.58 159.62 160.58 160.10
2.0 145.22 132.74 146.66 136.34 147.38 137.30 147.62 138.02 149.54 140.66
3.0 122.17 110.89 126.01 114.49 127.69 116.41 129.62 118.33 133.22 122.17
4.0 102.49 94.09 107.77 98.89 110.65 100.81 113.77 104.17 117.61 107.77
5.0 92.89 86.65 95.77 89.05 99.37 92.41 104.41 96.25
6.0 81.13 77.05 83.77 79.21 88.33 82.81 93.13 86.65
7.0 N/A N/A 71.05 69.13 74.65 71.53 78.49 72.73 83.77 78.49
8.0 65.05 N/A 67.21 64.57 70.57 67.69 76.09 71.77
10.0 53.77 N/A 56.17 54.73 59.05 56.17 64.33 61.21
Span 300602.0 LSB
1.0 85.34 77.85 85.34 80.35 85.34 80.35 85.55 80.55 85.55 80.55
2.0 84.51 67.44 84.72 70.15 85.13 71.40 85.34 72.85 85.34 76.18
3.0 48.08 42.88 49.33 46.00 51.41 46.21 52.87 47.04 55.16 50.16
4.0 38.09 34.14 39.34 36.01 40.59 37.47 42.25 39.55 44.54 41.42
5.0 32.26 31.85 32.89 32.68 36.01 33.72 38.09 35.80
6.0 28.93 27.89 29.35 28.93 31.22 28.10 33.51 31.64
7.0 N/A N/A 25.81 24.77 25.39 26.02 26.85 25.39 29.97 28.52
8.0 23.10 N/A 24.35 23.31 24.98 23.52 27.27 26.02
10.0 19.59 N/A 19.98 N/A 21.02 19.48 22.90 21.86
Span 250753.0 LSB
1.0 124.73 125.10 124.92 124.92 124.54 124.92 124.73 124.92 125.10 125.10
2.0 117.81 112.20 118.37 113.32 118.37 112.57 118.74 112.76 118.00 115.94
3.0 108.46 99.86 110.89 101.91 112.20 103.60 112.95 105.09 114.26 106.96
4.0 96.49 88.45 100.98 92.38 103.41 94.62 105.09 96.12 107.52 98.74
5.0 90.88 83.03 93.87 84.52 96.68 88.45 99.67 90.88
6.0 80.78 74.24 83.78 77.60 87.89 80.41 91.26 83.59
7.0 N/A N/A 72.18 68.25 74.99 70.69 79.29 73.30 83.40 76.86
8.0 65.08 62.46 67.32 64.33 71.81 67.69 76.30 70.87
10.0 54.04 52.55 55.73 54.79 60.03 54.23 65.08 61.15
Note: MN2, MN3, MN4, MN6 and MNC are the ultimate moment capacities (without residual
stresses) of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4,
span/6 and continuous connection, respectively. Similarly, MNRS2, MNRS3, MNRS4, MNRS6
and MNRSC are the ultimate moment capacities (with residual stresses) of back to back LSB
members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous
connection, respectively.
Span 300752.5 LSB
1.0 132.46 130.31 132.94 130.31 132.94 131.03 132.94 131.03 133.42 131.74
2.0 131.03 122.64 130.07 123.36 130.55 123.84 131.51 124.56 130.55 127.43
3.0 98.69 89.35 102.04 91.26 103.72 92.70 105.16 94.14 108.51 99.17
4.0 82.16 74.97 85.99 78.33 88.87 79.77 91.50 83.36 94.86 86.95
5.0 73.54 69.70 77.13 71.86 80.96 74.26 84.56 78.09
6.0 66.11 61.80 68.27 63.72 71.86 67.31 75.93 70.90
N/A N/A
8.0 53.90 51.74 55.81 54.14 58.69 56.05 63.00 59.64
10.0 44.07 N/A 46.95 45.99 49.58 47.91 53.90 51.26
Span 250752.5 LSB
1.0 102.06 98.89 102.24 102.62 102.24 102.43 102.06 102.24 102.43 102.62
2.0 98.14 92.54 97.95 93.66 98.89 94.03 97.95 93.85 97.77 95.90
3.0 87.88 80.60 90.49 83.03 91.61 84.15 92.54 85.45 94.03 87.32
4.0 77.99 71.46 82.09 75.19 83.96 76.31 85.45 78.55 87.88 80.60
5.0 73.70 66.61 76.50 69.78 78.92 72.02 81.53 74.44
6.0 66.23 61.94 68.66 63.81 72.20 66.42 75.00 68.85
N/A N/A
8.0 53.55 N/A 56.53 53.92 59.70 56.35 63.62 59.14
10.0 45.90 N/A 47.95 46.46 50.56 48.51 54.67 51.49
Span 250602.0 LSB
1.0 71.13 69.83 71.13 69.83 71.29 69.83 71.29 69.83 71.61 69.99
2.0 58.33 52.17 59.62 53.95 60.11 54.60 60.76 55.41 62.05 56.87
3.0 44.88 40.18 47.15 41.15 48.28 43.58 49.41 45.20 51.04 46.66
4.0 36.94 34.51 39.05 35.32 40.50 36.94 41.96 37.59 43.42 40.18
5.0 33.70 31.43 34.83 31.59 36.13 31.92 37.91 35.48
6.0 29.49 28.35 30.62 29.49 32.08 29.65 33.70 31.76
N/A N/A
8.0 23.65 23.01 24.63 23.82 25.76 24.63 27.54 26.25
10.0 19.77 19.44 20.74 19.12 21.71 20.74 23.17 22.36
Span 200602.5 LSB
1.0 66.66 65.34 66.42 66.54 66.54 66.54 65.82 66.54 66.54 66.54
2.0 61.03 56.84 61.63 56.96 61.99 58.40 62.11 58.76 62.47 59.48
3.0 53.97 49.30 56.13 51.34 56.84 52.06 57.56 52.78 58.52 53.97
4.0 46.19 42.48 49.19 45.12 50.74 46.19 51.94 47.15 53.25 48.59
5.0 42.84 39.85 44.52 41.17 46.07 42.48 47.63 43.68
6.0 36.98 35.30 38.89 36.26 40.93 38.06 42.36 39.25
N/A N/A
8.0 29.44 28.24 31.00 29.92 32.55 30.40 34.59 32.55
10.0 24.53 N/A 25.73 25.13 27.17 26.09 28.96 28.12
Span 200602.0 LSB
1.0 52.15 52.39 52.15 52.39 52.27 52.39 52.03 52.39 51.91 52.51
2.0 48.09 44.39 48.81 45.23 48.93 45.47 49.05 45.82 49.17 46.78
3.0 41.65 38.19 43.44 39.26 44.03 40.45 44.87 41.17 45.82 42.01
4.0 35.92 33.29 38.31 35.44 39.62 36.28 40.57 36.99 41.77 38.19
5.0 33.77 31.38 35.08 32.46 36.40 33.65 37.59 34.61
6.0 29.71 27.92 31.03 29.24 32.70 30.43 33.89 31.38
N/A N/A
8.0 23.63 N/A 25.06 24.22 26.37 25.30 28.04 26.37
10.0 19.93 N/A 21.12 20.53 22.08 21.12 24.22 23.75
Span 200451.6 LSB
1.0 34.83 32.97 34.83 32.97 34.83 33.07 34.83 32.97 34.73 32.97
2.0 23.41 21.36 24.19 22.05 24.58 22.34 24.88 22.63 25.66 23.31
3.0 17.36 16.39 18.44 17.17 18.93 17.56 19.41 18.05 20.00 18.53
4.0 13.95 13.46 14.83 14.15 15.41 14.73 15.80 15.02 16.49 15.51
5.0 12.58 13.07 12.19 13.36 12.88 14.05 13.36
6.0 10.93 11.22 10.83 11.71 11.22 12.39 11.80
7.0 N/A N/A 9.55 N/A 10.05 9.51 10.15 9.56 11.02 10.54
8.0 7.54 8.88 8.51 9.02 8.90 9.85 9.59
10.0 6.15 7.46 N/A 7.76 7.66 8.12 8.01
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 29.48 28.20 29.15 28.20 29.41 28.41 28.34 28.41 29.01 28.67
2.0 25.91 23.76 26.39 24.37 26.59 24.64 26.86 24.84 27.13 25.17
3.0 21.34 19.65 22.62 20.60 23.15 21.14 23.56 21.47 23.96 21.88
4.0 17.30 16.42 18.71 17.43 19.45 17.97 19.99 18.38 20.53 18.91
5.0 15.68 15.01 16.15 15.55 17.10 15.68 17.64 16.42
6.0 13.60 13.06 14.14 13.60 14.88 14.07 15.41 14.54
N/A N/A
8.0 10.43 10.43 11.17 10.90 11.78 11.38 12.52 11.78
10.0 8.75 8.14 9.29 8.48 9.69 9.49 10.97 9.89
Note: MN2, MN3, MN4, MN6 and MNC are the ultimate moment capacities (without
residual stresses) of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2,
span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection, respectively. Similarly, MNRS2,
MNRS3, MNRS4, MNRS6 and MNRSC are the ultimate moment capacities (with residual
stresses) of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3,
span/4, span/6 and continuous connection, respectively.
Span 150451.6 LSB
1.0 23.32 22.53 23.32 22.39 22.99 22.66 23.32 22.92 23.32 23.46
2.0 20.20 18.41 20.67 19.00 20.93 19.27 20.93 19.47 21.40 19.73
3.0 16.88 15.48 17.87 16.28 18.27 16.74 18.54 17.01 18.94 17.28
4.0 13.89 13.22 15.02 14.02 15.48 14.49 16.01 14.82 16.41 15.15
5.0 12.76 12.16 13.29 12.56 13.82 12.96 14.29 13.29
6.0 11.10 10.70 11.50 11.03 12.09 11.43 12.56 11.83
7.0 N/A N/A 9.77 N/A 10.23 9.97 10.76 10.03 11.23 10.70
8.0 8.77 N/A 9.24 9.04 9.77 9.37 10.23 9.70
10.0 7.24 N/A 7.77 7.64 8.11 7.24 8.44 8.24
Span 125452.0 LSB
1.0 23.10 22.63 23.15 22.84 23.15 23.05 23.10 23.10 23.15 23.10
2.0 22.20 21.12 22.31 21.38 22.41 21.48 22.46 21.53 22.31 21.69
3.0 20.45 18.59 20.91 19.21 21.07 19.47 21.22 19.62 21.38 19.83
4.0 17.56 16.11 18.64 16.88 19.05 17.35 19.31 17.61 19.57 17.87
5.0 15.96 14.81 16.63 15.28 17.10 15.64 17.52 15.96
6.0 13.82 13.09 14.55 13.56 15.07 13.97 15.54 14.29
7.0 N/A N/A 12.15 11.68 12.83 12.15 13.45 12.57 13.87 12.93
8.0 10.90 10.58 11.47 11.00 12.10 11.42 15.07 N/A
10.0 9.07 8.86 9.49 9.33 9.85 9.18 14.91 N/A
Span 125451.6 LSB
1.0 18.19 18.35 18.50 18.40 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99 16.99
2.0 17.72 16.63 17.62 16.89 17.62 16.99 17.67 17.10 17.67 17.20
3.0 16.11 14.71 16.68 15.28 16.84 15.49 16.89 15.70 17.05 15.85
4.0 13.98 12.89 14.92 13.62 15.33 13.93 15.54 14.19 15.80 14.40
5.0 12.99 12.01 13.56 12.42 13.93 12.73 14.19 12.99
6.0 11.33 10.71 11.85 11.12 12.37 11.38 12.68 11.69
N/A N/A
8.0 8.99 8.73 9.46 9.04 9.98 9.25 10.39 9.72
10.0 7.48 7.33 7.90 7.69 8.11 7.90 8.84 N/A
Note: MN2, MN3, MN4, MN6 and MNC are the ultimate moment capacities (without
residual stresses) of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2,
span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection, respectively. Similarly, MNRS2,
MNRS3, MNRS4, MNRS6 and MNRSC are the ultimate moment capacities (with residual
stresses) of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3,
span/4, span/6 and continuous connection, respectively.
5.3.1 Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfections on the Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSB Members
As mentioned in Chapter 4 the recommended global geometric imperfection limit of

span/1000 (L/1000) was used conservatively in the ideal models. However,
numerical analyses were also conducted with other imperfection values of L/2000
and L/500 and without any imperfection (perfect) for selected LSB sections with
different fastener spacings and span lengths, and their results are given in Table 5.6.
The Riks method struggled to find a solution for perfect geometry LSB models.
Numerical analyses were also conducted with negative imperfections as the direction
of initial global imperfection was found to affect the ultimate strengths of single LSB
members (Kurniawan, 2008). The comparison of the ultimate moment capacities of
back to back LSB members for positive and negative imperfections is also given in
Table 5.6. From these results it can be concluded that the direction of initial global
imperfection does not affect the ultimate strength of flexural members made of
doubly symmetric sections such as the back to back LSBs. Figures 5.8 (a) to (c) show
the effect of initial geometric imperfection on the ultimate moment capacities of
selected LSB sections with varying span lengths and fastener spacings. Figure 5.9
shows the comparison of ultimate moment capacities of LSB members with positive
and negative imperfections.
Table 5.6: Effect of Initial Geometric Imperfection on the Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSB Sections
200451.6 LSB
Span Connector L/2000 L/1000 L/500 L/1000
Pos/Neg
(m) Spacing Pos Pos Pos Neg
Span/3 26.14 24.19 21.66 24.19 1.00
2.0 Span/6 26.83 24.88 22.44 24.88 1.00
Continuous 27.61 25.66 23.12 25.66 1.00
Span/3 19.41 18.44 17.07 18.44 1.00
3.0 Span/6 20.39 19.41 17.56 19.41 1.00
Continuous 20.97 20.00 18.44 20.00 1.00
Span/3 12.49 12.58 11.41 12.58 1.00
5.0 Span/6 13.46 13.36 12.00 13.07 1.02
Continuous 14.44 14.05 13.56 14.05 1.00
125452.0 LSB
Pos/Neg
Span/3 22.67 22.31 21.43 22.20 1.00
2.0 Span/6 22.72 22.46 21.38 22.51 1.00
Continuous 22.72 22.31 21.43 22.31 1.00
Span/3 21.74 20.91 19.52 20.91 1.00
3.0 Span/6 21.89 21.22 19.98 21.22 1.00
Continuous 22.05 21.38 20.19 21.38 1.00
Span/3 16.79 15.96 14.96 15.96 1.00
5.0 Span/6 17.88 17.10 16.11 17.10 1.00
Continuous 18.25 17.52 16.48 17.52 1.00
150451.6 LSB
Pos/Neg
Span/3 21.66 20.66 18.87 20.73 1.00
2.0 Span/6 22.26 20.93 19.40 21.06 0.99
Continuous 22.39 21.40 19.80 21.40 1.00
Span/3 19.07 17.87 16.35 17.87 1.00
3.0 Span/6 19.67 18.54 17.08 18.54 1.00
Continuous 20.07 18.94 17.48 18.94 1.00
Span/3 13.29 12.76 12.09 12.69 1.01
5.0 Span/6 14.35 13.82 13.16 13.89 1.00
Continuous 14.75 14.29 13.55 14.29 1.00
Note: Pos-positive imperfection, Neg-negative imperfection, L Span length
in mm, Ultimate moment units are in kNm.
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
30.00
25.00
Ultimate Moment (kNm)
20.00
15.00
10.00
2 m, Span/3 2 m, Span/6 2 m, Continuous

5.00 3 m, Span/3 3 m, Span/6 3 m, Continuous
0.00
L/2000 L/1000 L/500
Imperfection range
(a) 200451.6 LSB Section
150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB

25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00

5.00
0.00
L/2000 L/1000 L/500
Imperfection range
(b) 150451.6 LSB Section

125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00

5.00
0.00
L/2000 L/1000 L/500
Imperfection range
(c) 125452.0 LSB Section

30.0
25.0
Ult.Moment, Pos Imp (kNm)
20.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB

125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
15.0
150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
Equality line
10.0
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Ult.Moment, Neg Imp (kNm)
Figure 5.9: Effects of Imperfection Direction on the Ultimate Moment

Capacities of LSBs (Imperfection = L/1000)
5.3.2 Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to
Back LSB Members
Percentage reductions in ultimate moment capacities due to the presence of residual

stresses are given in Tables 5.7 and 5.8. Nine LSB section were chosen from the
small, medium and large size LSBs, which covered all three levels of compactness,
compact, non-compact and slender sections based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998) guidelines
(see Appendix A). The span lengths in the range of 1.0 m to 10.0 m were considered.
Also two different fastener spacings of continuous connection and span/6 were
selected, and they represent the results in Tables 5.7 and 5.8, respectively. Also
Figures 5.10 (a) and (b) show the graphical comparison of ultimate moment
capacities with and without residual stresses for selected LSB sections with fastener
spacings of span/6 and continuous connections, respectively.
As shown in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 the effects of residual stresses on the ultimate
moment capacities were influenced by the span length as well as the failure mode. In
short spans where local buckling failure takes place the residual stress effect is small
and is about less than 1%. However, for intermediate spans where lateral distortional
buckling failure occurs, the residual stress effect can be noted significantly, and is
about 5 12%. As the span length increases the effect of residual stresses decreases.
As the effect of lateral distortional buckling decreases the effect of residual stresses
also reduces. In the long span region where lateral torsional buckling failure occurs
the residual stress effect is fairly small. It is about 2 - 5%. The difference between the
effects of residual stresses for a particular span length with different fastener
spacings is fairly small. Figures 5.10 (a) and (b) show the comparison of ultimate
moment capacities of selected LSB members obtained with and without residual
stresses for varying spans and fastener spacings. Furthermore Figures 5.11 (a) to (c)
show the percentage reduction in moment capacities caused by residual stresses for
compact, non-compact and slender sections, respectively. A similar trend can be
observed for LSB sections with the same level of compactness. The residual stress
effects are high in the case of short spans such as 2 m for back to back LSBs with
deeper webs despite the fact they fail by local buckling (Figure 5.11 (c)). Typical
residual stress distributions on the inside surface of some of the selected LSB
members are given in Appendix C.
Table 5.7: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of
Back to Back LSB Members with Continuous Fastener Connection
300753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
Span
(m) Reduction Reduction Reduction
N N+RS N N+RS N N+RS
(%) (%) (%)
2.0 149.54 140.66 5.9 85.34 76.18 10.7 118.00 115.94 1.7
3.0 133.22 122.17 8.3 55.16 50.16 9.1 114.26 106.96 6.4
4.0 117.61 107.77 8.4 44.54 41.42 7.0 107.52 98.74 8.2
5.0 104.41 96.25 7.8 38.09 35.80 6.0 99.67 90.88 8.8
6.0 93.13 86.65 7.0 33.51 31.64 5.6 91.26 83.59 8.4
7.0 83.77 78.49 6.3 29.97 28.52 4.9 83.40 76.86 7.8
8.0 76.09 71.77 5.7 27.27 26.02 4.6 76.30 70.87 7.1
10.0 64.33 61.21 4.9 22.90 21.86 4.5 65.08 61.15 6.0
250602.0 LSB 200602.5 LSB 200602.0 LSB
Span
(%) (%) (%)
2.0 62.05 56.87 8.4 62.47 59.48 4.8 49.17 46.78 4.9
3.0 51.04 46.66 8.6 58.52 53.97 7.8 45.82 42.01 8.3
4.0 43.42 40.18 7.5 53.25 48.59 8.8 41.77 38.19 8.6
5.0 37.91 35.48 6.4 47.63 43.68 8.3 37.59 34.61 7.9
6.0 33.70 31.76 5.8 42.36 39.25 7.3 33.89 31.38 7.4
8.0 27.54 26.25 4.7 34.59 32.55 5.9 28.04 26.37 6.0
10.0 23.17 22.36 3.5 28.96 28.12 2.9 24.22 23.75 2.0
200451.6 LSB 150451.6 LSB 125452.0 LSB
Span
(%) (%) (%)
2.0 25.66 23.31 9.1 21.40 19.73 7.8 22.31 21.69 2.8
3.0 20.00 18.53 7.3 18.94 17.28 8.8 21.38 19.83 7.2
4.0 16.49 15.51 5.9 16.41 15.15 7.7 19.57 17.87 8.7
5.0 14.05 13.36 4.9 14.29 13.29 7.0 17.52 15.96 8.9
6.0 12.39 11.80 4.7 12.56 11.83 5.8 15.54 14.29 8.1
7.0 11.02 10.54 4.4 11.23 10.70 4.7 13.87 12.93 6.8
8.0 9.85 9.59 2.7 10.23 9.70 5.2 N/A N/A N/A
Note: N Ultimate moment capacities without residual stresses, N + RS Ultimate
moment capacities with residual stresses. Ultimate moment capacity units are in kNm.
Table 5.8: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of
Back to Back LSB Members with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
300753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
Span
(%) (%) (%)
2.0 147.62 138.02 6.5 85.34 72.85 14.6 118.74 112.76 5.0
3.0 129.62 118.33 8.7 52.87 47.04 11.0 112.95 105.09 7.0
4.0 113.77 104.17 8.4 42.25 39.55 6.4 105.09 96.12 8.5
5.0 99.37 92.41 7.0 36.01 33.72 6.4 96.68 88.45 8.5
6.0 88.33 82.81 6.2 31.22 28.10 10.0 87.89 80.41 8.5
7.0 78.49 72.73 7.3 26.85 25.39 5.4 79.29 73.30 7.5
8.0 70.57 67.69 4.1 24.98 23.52 5.8 71.81 67.69 5.7
10.0 59.05 56.17 4.9 21.02 19.48 7.3 60.03 54.23 9.7
250602.0 LSB 200602.5 LSB 200602.0 LSB
Span
(%) (%) (%)
2.0 60.76 55.41 8.8 62.11 58.76 5.4 49.05 45.82 6.6
3.0 49.41 45.20 8.5 57.56 52.78 8.3 44.87 41.17 8.2
4.0 41.96 37.59 10.4 51.94 47.15 9.2 40.57 36.99 8.8
5.0 36.13 31.92 11.7 46.07 42.48 7.8 36.40 33.65 7.5
6.0 32.08 29.65 7.6 40.93 38.06 7.0 32.70 30.43 6.9
8.0 25.76 24.63 4.4 32.55 30.40 6.6 26.37 25.30 4.1
10.0 21.71 20.74 4.5 27.17 26.09 4.0 22.08 21.12 4.3
200451.6 LSB 150451.6 LSB 125452.0 LSB
Span
(%) (%) (%)
1.0 34.83 32.97 5.3 23.32 22.92 1.7 23.10 23.10 0.0
2.0 24.88 22.63 9.0 20.93 19.47 7.0 22.46 21.53 4.1
3.0 19.41 18.05 7.0 18.54 17.01 8.2 21.22 19.62 7.5
4.0 15.80 15.02 4.9 16.01 14.82 7.5 19.31 17.61 8.8
5.0 13.36 12.88 3.6 13.82 12.96 6.2 17.10 15.64 8.5
6.0 11.71 11.22 4.2 12.09 11.43 5.5 15.07 13.97 7.3
7.0 10.15 9.56 5.8 10.76 10.03 6.8 13.45 12.57 6.6
8.0 9.02 8.90 1.4 9.77 9.37 4.1 12.10 11.42 5.6
Note: N Ultimate moment capacities without residual stresses, N + RS Ultimate
moment capacities with residual stresses. Ultimate moment capacity units are in kNm.
160.0
300*75*3.0 LSB, N
300*75*3.0 LSB, N+RS
140.0
300*60*2.0 LSB, N
300*60*2.0 LSB, N+RS
120.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, N
Ult. Moment Capacity (kNm)
200*45*1.6 LSB, N+RS

100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(a) Span/6
70.0
200*60*2.0 LSB, N
60.0 200*60*2.0 LSB, N+RS

200*60*2.5 LSB, N
200*60*2.5 LSB, N+RS
50.0 150*45*1.6 LSB, N
Ult. Moment Capacity (kNm)
150*45*1.6 LSB, N+RS
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(b) Continuous Connection
Figure 5.10: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSB Members

Obtained with and without Residual Stresses for Varying Spans and Fastener
Spacing
10.0
Ult. Moment Capacity Reduction (%)
8.0
6.0
4.0

2.0 200*60*2.5 LSB, Continuous
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(a) Compact LSB Sections
10.0
Ult. Moment Capacity Reduction (%)
8.0
6.0
4.0

2.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(b) Non-compact LSB Sections
Figure 5.11: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of

Back to Back LSB Sections with Continuous Connections
12.0
Ult. Moment Capacity Reduction (%) 200*45*1.6 LSB, Continuous
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(c) Slender LSB Sections
Figure 5.11: Effect of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of

Back to Back LSB Sections with Continuous Connections
5.3.3 Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to

Back LSB Members
Two LSB members are connected together using fasteners through their web
elements at equal spacing along the member to produce the back to back LSB
members. However, the effects of fastener spacing on the ultimate moment capacities
of back to back LSBs are not known. As mentioned earlier, fastener spacings of
span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connections were chosen in the
numerical studies. As noted in elastic buckling analyses, fastener spacing
considerably influences the ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB
members. The chosen fastener spacing cases are considered to be the key limits.
Current design codes suggest span/3 or span/6 as the maximum limit for built-up
flexural members while the use of an ideal continuous connection is considered to
be the upper limit. Variations in the ultimate moment capacities along the span
length for various fastener spacings were investigated and were compared in two
ways. The first one was the comparison of ultimate moment capacities of LSB
members with selected fastener spacings of span/3, span/6 and continuous
connections. In this case comparisons were made for fastener spacings of span/6 and
span/3, and continuous connection and span/6 (they are indicated as BTB6-3 and
BTBC-6, respectively), and the results are listed in Table 5.9. In the second case
comparisons were made for fastener spacings of continuous connections, span/6,
span/4 and span/3 with span/2 (they are indicated as BTBC-2. BTB6-2 BTB4-2 and
BTB3-2, respectively). However this comparison was limited to intermediate span
range and the results are shown in Table 5.10. Figures 5.12 (a) to (c) show the
graphical comparison of ultimate moment capacities of selected back to back LSB
sections with varying fastener spacings.
70.0
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, Continuous
60.0 200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/6
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/4

Ultimate Moment Capacity (kNm)
50.0 200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/3
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
Figure 5.12: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Selected Back to

Back LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacings
120.0
250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, Spa/6

100.0
Ultimate Moment Capacity (kNm) 250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/4
250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/3

80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
140.0
120.0 300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/6
300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/4

Ultimate Moment Capacity (kNm)
100.0 300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB, Span/3
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
Figure 5.12: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Selected Back to

Back LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacings
Table 5.9: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSB
Members with Varying Fastener Spacings (BTB6-3 and BTBC-6)
Span 300753.0 LSB 300752.5 LSB
(m) MNRS3 MNRS6 RCN6-3 MNRSC RCNC-6 MNRS3 MNRS6 RCN6-3 MNRSC RCNC-6
1.0 159.14 159.62 1.00 160.10 1.00 130.31 131.03 1.01 131.74 1.01
2.0 136.34 138.02 1.01 140.66 1.02 123.36 124.56 1.01 127.43 1.02
3.0 114.49 118.33 1.03 122.17 1.03 91.26 94.14 1.03 99.17 1.05
4.0 98.89 104.17 1.05 107.77 1.03 78.33 83.36 1.06 86.95 1.04
6.0 77.05 82.81 1.07 86.65 1.05 61.80 67.31 1.09 70.90 1.05
8.0 N/A 67.69 N/A 71.77 1.06 51.74 56.05 1.08 59.64 1.06
10.0 N/A 56.17 N/A 61.21 1.09 N/A 47.91 N/A 51.26 1.07
Span 250753.0 LSB 250602.0 LSB
1.0 124.92 124.92 1.00 125.10 1.00 69.83 69.83 1.00 69.99 1.00
2.0 113.32 112.76 1.00 115.94 1.03 53.95 55.41 1.03 56.87 1.03
3.0 101.91 105.09 1.03 106.96 1.02 41.15 45.20 1.10 46.66 1.03
4.0 92.38 96.12 1.04 98.74 1.03 35.32 37.59 1.06 40.18 1.07
6.0 74.24 80.41 1.08 83.59 1.04 28.35 29.65 1.05 31.76 1.07
8.0 62.46 67.69 1.08 70.87 1.05 23.01 24.63 1.07 26.25 1.07
10.0 52.55 54.23 1.03 61.15 1.13 19.44 20.74 1.07 22.36 1.08
Span 200602.5 LSB 200602.0 LSB
1.0 66.54 66.54 1.00 66.54 1.00 52.39 52.39 1.00 52.51 1.00
2.0 56.96 58.76 1.03 59.48 1.01 45.23 45.82 1.01 46.78 1.02
3.0 51.34 52.78 1.03 53.97 1.02 39.26 41.17 1.05 42.01 1.02
4.0 45.12 47.15 1.05 48.59 1.03 35.44 36.99 1.04 38.19 1.03
6.0 35.30 38.06 1.08 39.25 1.03 27.92 30.43 1.09 31.38 1.03
8.0 28.24 30.40 1.08 32.55 1.07 N/A 25.30 N/A 26.37 1.04
10.0 N/A 26.09 N/A 28.12 1.08 N/A 21.12 N/A 23.75 1.12
Span 200451.6 LSB 150452.0 LSB
1.0 32.97 32.97 1.00 32.97 1.00 28.20 28.41 1.01 28.67 1.01
2.0 22.05 22.63 1.03 23.31 1.03 24.37 24.84 1.02 25.17 1.01
3.0 17.17 18.05 1.05 18.53 1.03 20.60 21.47 1.04 21.88 1.02
4.0 14.15 15.02 1.06 15.51 1.03 17.43 18.38 1.05 18.91 1.03
6.0 N/A 11.22 N/A 11.80 1.05 13.06 14.07 1.08 14.54 1.03
8.0 N/A 8.90 N/A 9.59 1.08 10.43 11.38 1.09 11.78 1.04
10.0 N/A 7.66 N/A 8.01 1.05 8.14 9.49 1.17 9.89 1.04
Note: RCN6-3 and RCNC-6 are the ratios of the ultimate moment capacities of back to back
LSB members with fastener spacings of span/6 and span/3, and continuous connections
and span/6, respectively. Other notations are given in Table 5.5.
Table 5.10: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSB Members with
Varying Fastener Spacings (BTB2-2, BTB3-2, BTB4-2, BTB6-2 and BTBC-2)
Span 300753.0 LSB
(m) MNRS2 MNRS3 MNRS4 MNRS6 MNRSC RCN2-2 RCN3-2 RCN4-2 RCN6-2 RCNC-2
1.0 159.14 159.14 159.62 159.62 160.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01
2.0 132.74 136.34 137.30 138.02 140.66 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.06
3.0 110.89 114.49 116.41 118.33 122.17 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.10
4.0 94.09 98.89 100.81 104.17 107.77 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.11 1.15
Span 250753.0 LSB
1.0 125.10 124.92 124.92 124.92 125.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.0 112.20 113.32 112.57 112.76 115.94 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.03
3.0 99.86 101.91 103.60 105.09 106.96 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.07
4.0 88.45 92.38 94.62 96.12 98.74 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.12
Span 300752.5 LSB
1.0 130.31 130.31 131.03 131.03 131.74 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01
2.0 122.64 123.36 123.84 124.56 127.43 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.04
3.0 89.35 91.26 92.70 94.14 99.17 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.11
4.0 74.97 78.33 79.77 83.36 86.95 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.11 1.16
Span 250752.5 LSB
1.0 98.89 102.62 102.43 102.24 102.62 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.04
2.0 92.54 93.66 94.03 93.85 95.90 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.04
3.0 80.60 83.03 84.15 85.45 87.32 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08
4.0 71.46 75.19 76.31 78.55 80.60 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.13
Span 250602.0 LSB
1.0 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.0 52.17 53.95 54.60 55.41 56.87 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.09
3.0 40.18 41.15 43.58 45.20 46.66 1.00 1.02 1.08 1.12 1.16
4.0 34.51 35.32 36.94 37.59 40.18 1.00 1.02 1.07 1.09 1.16
Span 200602.5 LSB
1.0 65.34 66.54 66.54 66.54 66.54 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02
2.0 56.84 56.96 58.40 58.76 59.48 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.05
3.0 49.30 51.34 52.06 52.78 53.97 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.09
4.0 42.48 45.12 46.19 47.15 48.59 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14
Note: RCN2-2, RCN3-2, RCN4-2, RCN6-2 and RCNC-2 are the ratios between the ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4,
span/6 and continuous connections to those of LSB members with a fastener spacing of
span/2, respectively. Other notations are given in Table 5.5.
Table 5.10: Comparison of Moment Capacities of LSB Members with Varying
Fastener Spacings (BTB2-2 and BTB3-2 BTB4-2 BTB6-2 and BTBC-2)
Span 200602.0 LSB
1.0 52.39 52.39 52.39 52.39 52.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.0 44.39 45.23 45.47 45.82 46.78 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.05
3.0 38.19 39.26 40.45 41.17 42.01 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.10
4.0 33.29 35.44 36.28 36.99 38.19 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.15
Span 200451.6 LSB
1.0 32.97 32.97 33.07 32.97 32.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.0 21.36 22.05 22.34 22.63 23.31 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.09
3.0 16.39 17.17 17.56 18.05 18.53 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.13
4.0 13.46 14.15 14.73 15.02 15.51 1.00 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.15
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 28.20 28.20 28.41 28.41 28.67 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02
2.0 23.76 24.37 24.64 24.84 25.17 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06
3.0 19.65 20.60 21.14 21.47 21.88 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.11
4.0 16.42 17.43 17.97 18.38 18.91 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.15
Note: RCN2-2, RCN3-2, RCN4-2, RCN6-2 and RCNC-2 are the ratios between the ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3,
span/4, span/6 and continuous connections to those of LSB members with a fastener
spacing of span/2, respectively. Other notations are given in Table 5.5.
1.20
Moment Capacity Ratio (BTB6/BTB3 or RCN6-3)
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
0.95
300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
0.90 200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB

200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
0.85 150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
0.80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) Fastener Spacings of Span/6 and Span/3

Members with Varying Fastener Spacings
1.20
Moment Capacity Ratio (BTBC/BTB6 or RCNC-6)

1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00 300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB

250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
0.95 300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB
0.90 200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
0.85 200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
0.80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) Fastener Spacings of Continuous Connections and Span/6
1.15
(BTB6/BTB3, BTBC/BTB6 or RCN6-3, RCNC-6)
1.10
Moment Capacity Ratio
1.05
BTB, C-6
1.00
BTB, 6-3
0.95
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(c) Combination of Results of (a) and (b)

Members with Varying Fastener Spacings
Table 5.9 shows that reducing the fastener spacing from span/3 to span/6
considerably improves the moment capacity in intermediate and long span regions.
On average 5-7% increment in ultimate moment capacities was noted when the
fastener spacing was reduced from span/3 to span/6. This is also evident in Figure
5.13 (a). From this we can conclude that the use of span/6 as fastener spacing will
produce higher ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB members. This
fastener spacing is also recommended by AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005). When the
fastener spacing was reduced from span/6 to continuous connection the ultimate
moment capacities were again increased by about 5-7% (Figure 5.13 (b)) despite the
rapid change to the ideal continuous connection. From this comparison we can
recommend a fastener spacing of span/6 as continuous connection is assumed to be
not practical. Both comparisons discussed above are combined in Figure 5.13 (c).
Moment increment in the first comparison (BTB6-3) is considered to be higher than
the second comparison (BTBC-6). In the case of short spans, although the fastener
spacing was changed, there were no noticeable changes in the ultimate moment
capacities (see Table 5.9). Figures 5.13 (a) and (b) also confirm this. Therefore
fastener spacing does not affect the local buckling behaviour of the back to back
LSBs and hence short spans can be designed with minimum fastener spacing
requirements.
Table 5.10 lists the comparison of ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB
members with varying fastener spacings to that of LSB members with fastener
spacing of span/2. However, this comparison was limited to short and intermediate
span lengths. Fastener spacing of span/2 is considered to be the maximum spacing
limit which brings the individual LSBs together and induces them to buckle together
rather than individually. So this fastener spacing is considered to form the minimum
requirement. Figure 5.14 shows how the ultimate moment capacity ratio (BTBi-2)
varies with fastener spacing as well as with span length. As the span length increases
the effect of fastener spacing on the moment ratio also increases. Although the
fastener spacing of span/2 is considered to form the minimum requirement it has
some confines compared to the fastener spacing of span/3. The moment capacities
were increased by 4-5% when the fastener spacing was reduced from span/2 to
span/3. In the case of fastener spacing of span/2, only one set of fasteners are used at
the mid-span of LSB members. However, it is not advisable to have only one set of
fasteners within the span as their failure may be a concern from overall member
safety. Thus it is recommended to use a fastener spacing of span/3 as the minimum
requirement when the use of closer fastener spacing is not necessary. Comparisons in
Tables 5.9 and 5.10 clearly confirm that the use of closer fastener spacing is not
necessary in the case of short span regions. However, the fastener spacing influence
is higher in the intermediate and long span regions and hence there is a need to
consider closer fastener spacings of span/6.
1.20
4 m Span region BTB, 2-2
1.15 BTB, 3-2
BTB, 4-2
Moment Capacity Ratio (BTBi/BTB2)
1.10 BTB, 6-2

BTB, C-2
1.05
1.00
3 m Span region
0.95 2 m Span region
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
(Fastener spacing/Span length) Ratio
Figure 5.14: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacity Ratios for Back to Back
LSBs with Varying Fastener Spacings with respect to the Case of Span/2
5.3.4 Comparison with Corresponding Single LSB Sections
Ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB members with varying fastener
spacings were compared with those of single LSB members. This comparison is very
useful to verify the use of back to back built-up LSB members instead of single LSB
members, and Table 5.11 lists the comparison for all the 13 LSB sections. Ultimate
moment capacities of single LSB sections were obtained from Anapayan and
Mahendrans (2009a) non-linear finite element analyses.
Table 5.11: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities (BTBi versus Single
LSB)
Span 300753.0 LSB
(m) MNRSS MNRS2 RCN2 MNRS3 RCN3 MNRS4 RCN4 MNRS6 RCN6 MNRSC RCNC
1.0 73.37 159.14 2.17 159.14 2.17 159.62 2.18 159.62 2.18 160.10 2.18
2.0 54.52 132.74 2.43 136.34 2.50 137.30 2.52 138.02 2.53 140.66 2.58
3.0 46.29 110.89 2.40 114.49 2.47 116.41 2.52 118.33 2.56 122.17 2.64
4.0 40.80 94.09 2.31 98.89 2.42 100.81 2.47 104.17 2.55 107.77 2.64
6.0 32.45 77.05 2.37 79.21 2.44 82.81 2.55 86.65 2.67
8.0 26.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A 64.57 2.43 67.69 2.54 71.77 2.70
10.0 22.40 N/A N/A 54.73 2.44 56.17 2.51 61.21 2.73
Span 300752.5 LSB
1.0 61.55 130.31 2.12 130.31 2.12 131.03 2.13 131.03 2.13 131.74 2.14
2.0 44.41 122.64 2.76 123.36 2.78 123.84 2.79 124.56 2.80 127.43 2.87
3.0 36.91 89.35 2.42 91.26 2.47 92.70 2.51 94.14 2.55 99.17 2.69
4.0 32.62 74.97 2.30 78.33 2.40 79.77 2.45 83.36 2.56 86.95 2.67
6.0 26.43 61.80 2.34 63.72 2.41 67.31 2.55 70.90 2.68
8.0 22.02 N/A N/A 51.74 2.35 54.14 2.46 56.05 2.54 59.64 2.71
10.0 18.81 N/A N/A 45.99 2.44 47.91 2.55 51.26 2.73
Span 300602.0 LSB
1.0 39.26 77.85 1.98 80.35 2.05 80.35 2.05 80.55 2.05 80.55 2.05
2.0 23.45 67.44 2.88 70.15 2.99 71.40 3.04 72.85 3.11 76.18 3.25
3.0 17.87 42.88 2.40 46.00 2.57 46.21 2.59 47.04 2.63 50.16 2.81
4.0 15.08 34.14 2.26 36.01 2.39 37.47 2.48 39.55 2.62 41.42 2.75
6.0 11.57 27.89 2.41 28.93 2.50 28.10 2.43 31.64 2.73
8.0 9.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.31 2.47 23.52 2.49 26.02 2.76
10.0 8.13 N/A N/A N/A N/A 19.48 2.40 21.86 2.69
Span 250753.0 LSB
1.0 58.83 125.10 2.13 124.92 2.12 124.92 2.12 124.92 2.12 125.10 2.13
2.0 48.24 112.20 2.33 113.32 2.35 112.57 2.33 112.76 2.34 115.94 2.40
3.0 43.59 99.86 2.29 101.91 2.34 103.60 2.38 105.09 2.41 106.96 2.45
4.0 39.41 88.45 2.24 92.38 2.34 94.62 2.40 96.12 2.44 98.74 2.51
6.0 31.97 74.24 2.32 77.60 2.43 80.41 2.51 83.59 2.61
8.0 26.40 N/A N/A 62.46 2.37 64.33 2.44 67.69 2.56 70.87 2.68
10.0 22.49 52.55 2.34 54.79 2.44 54.23 2.41 61.15 2.72
Note: MNRSS Ultimate moment capacities of single LSB members, RCN2, RCN3, RCN4,
RCN6 and RCNC are the ratios of ultimate moment capacities of LSB members with
different fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection
to the corresponding ultimate moment capacity of single LSB members, respectively.
Other notations are defined in Table 5.5.
LSB)
Span 250752.5 LSB
1.0 49.34 98.89 2.00 102.62 2.08 102.43 2.08 102.24 2.07 102.62 2.08
2.0 38.39 92.54 2.41 93.66 2.44 94.03 2.45 93.85 2.44 95.90 2.50
3.0 34.50 80.60 2.34 83.03 2.41 84.15 2.44 85.45 2.48 87.32 2.53
4.0 31.72 71.46 2.25 75.19 2.37 76.31 2.41 78.55 2.48 80.60 2.54
6.0 26.24 61.94 2.36 63.81 2.43 66.42 2.53 68.85 2.62
8.0 22.07 N/A N/A N/A N/A 53.92 2.44 56.35 2.55 59.14 2.68
10.0 18.92 N/A N/A 46.46 2.46 48.51 2.56 51.49 2.72
Span 250602.0 LSB
1.0 31.04 69.83 2.25 69.83 2.25 69.83 2.25 69.83 2.25 69.99 2.26
2.0 20.91 52.17 2.50 53.95 2.58 54.60 2.61 55.41 2.65 56.87 2.72
3.0 17.29 40.18 2.32 41.15 2.38 43.58 2.52 45.20 2.61 46.66 2.70
4.0 15.04 34.51 2.30 35.32 2.35 36.94 2.46 37.59 2.50 40.18 2.67
6.0 11.82 28.35 2.40 29.49 2.49 29.65 2.51 31.76 2.69
8.0 9.65 N/A N/A 23.01 2.38 23.82 2.47 24.63 2.55 26.25 2.72
10.0 8.28 19.44 2.35 19.12 2.31 20.74 2.50 22.36 2.70
Span 200602.5 LSB
1.0 28.45 65.34 2.30 66.54 2.34 66.54 2.34 66.54 2.34 66.54 2.34
2.0 24.41 56.84 2.33 56.96 2.33 58.40 2.39 58.76 2.41 59.48 2.44
3.0 21.68 49.30 2.27 51.34 2.37 52.06 2.40 52.78 2.43 53.97 2.49
4.0 18.95 42.48 2.24 45.12 2.38 46.19 2.44 47.15 2.49 48.59 2.56
6.0 14.73 35.30 2.40 36.26 2.46 38.06 2.58 39.25 2.66
8.0 11.94 N/A N/A 28.24 2.37 29.92 2.51 30.40 2.55 32.55 2.73
10.0 10.16 N/A N/A 25.13 2.47 26.09 2.57 28.12 2.77
Span 200602.0 LSB
1.0 23.87 52.39 2.19 52.39 2.19 52.39 2.19 52.39 2.19 52.51 2.20
2.0 18.54 44.39 2.39 45.23 2.44 45.47 2.45 45.82 2.47 46.78 2.52
3.0 16.64 38.19 2.29 39.26 2.36 40.45 2.43 41.17 2.47 42.01 2.52
4.0 14.75 33.29 2.26 35.44 2.40 36.28 2.46 36.99 2.51 38.19 2.59
6.0 11.79 27.92 2.37 29.24 2.48 30.43 2.58 31.38 2.66
8.0 9.71 N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.22 2.49 25.30 2.60 26.37 2.72
10.0 8.29 N/A N/A 20.53 2.48 21.12 2.55 23.75 2.86
different fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous connection to
the corresponding ultimate moment capacity of single LSB members, respectively. Other
notations are defined in Table 5.5.
LSB)
Span 200451.6 LSB
1.0 13.30 32.97 2.48 32.97 2.48 33.07 2.49 32.97 2.48 32.97 2.48
2.0 8.43 21.36 2.54 22.05 2.62 22.34 2.65 22.63 2.69 23.31 2.77
3.0 6.85 16.39 2.39 17.17 2.51 17.56 2.56 18.05 2.64 18.53 2.71
4.0 5.76 13.46 2.34 14.15 2.45 14.73 2.56 15.02 2.61 15.51 2.69
6.0 4.33 N/A N/A 10.83 2.50 11.22 2.59 11.80 2.73
8.0 3.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.51 2.37 8.90 2.47 9.59 2.67
10.0 3.37 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.66 2.27 8.01 2.38
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 12.13 28.20 2.33 28.20 2.33 28.41 2.34 28.41 2.34 28.67 2.36
2.0 10.23 23.76 2.32 24.37 2.38 24.64 2.41 24.84 2.43 25.17 2.46
3.0 8.53 19.65 2.30 20.60 2.41 21.14 2.48 21.47 2.52 21.88 2.56
4.0 7.13 16.42 2.30 17.43 2.44 17.97 2.52 18.38 2.58 18.91 2.65
6.0 5.36 13.06 2.43 13.60 2.53 14.07 2.62 14.54 2.71
8.0 4.37 N/A N/A 10.43 2.39 10.90 2.50 11.38 2.61 11.78 2.70
10.0 4.00 8.14 2.04 8.48 2.12 9.49 2.37 9.89 2.47
Span 150451.6 LSB
1.0 9.34 22.53 2.41 22.39 2.40 22.66 2.43 22.92 2.46 23.46 2.51
2.0 7.87 18.41 2.34 19.00 2.41 19.27 2.45 19.47 2.47 19.73 2.51
3.0 6.71 15.48 2.31 16.28 2.43 16.74 2.50 17.01 2.53 17.28 2.57
4.0 5.71 13.22 2.31 14.02 2.45 14.49 2.53 14.82 2.59 15.15 2.65
6.0 4.35 10.70 2.46 11.03 2.53 11.43 2.63 11.83 2.72
8.0 3.55 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.04 2.54 9.37 2.64 9.70 2.73
10.0 3.20 N/A N/A 7.64 2.39 7.24 2.27 8.24 2.58
Span 125452.0 LSB
1.0 10.58 22.63 2.14 22.84 2.16 23.05 2.18 23.10 2.18 23.10 2.18
2.0 9.46 21.12 2.23 21.38 2.26 21.48 2.27 21.53 2.28 21.69 2.29
3.0 8.13 18.59 2.29 19.21 2.36 19.47 2.39 19.62 2.41 19.83 2.44
4.0 6.93 16.11 2.32 16.88 2.44 17.35 2.50 17.61 2.54 17.87 2.58
6.0 5.26 13.09 2.49 13.56 2.58 13.97 2.65 14.29 2.71
8.0 4.27 N/A N/A 10.58 2.48 11.00 2.57 11.42 2.67 N/A N/A
10.0 3.78 8.86 2.35 9.33 2.47 9.18 2.43 N/A N/A
LSB)
Span 125451.6 LSB
1.0 8.21 18.35 2.23 18.40 2.24 16.32 1.99 16.42 2.00 16.27 1.98
2.0 7.38 16.63 2.25 16.89 2.29 16.99 2.30 17.10 2.32 17.20 2.33
3.0 6.47 14.71 2.27 15.28 2.36 15.49 2.39 15.70 2.43 15.85 2.45
4.0 5.61 12.89 2.30 13.62 2.43 13.93 2.48 14.19 2.53 14.40 2.56
6.0 4.31 10.71 2.48 11.12 2.58 11.38 2.64 11.69 2.71
8.0 3.51 N/A N/A 8.73 2.49 9.04 2.58 9.25 2.64 9.72 2.77
10.0 3.07 7.33 2.39 7.69 2.51 7.90 2.58 N/A N/A
Back to back built-up LSB members significantly improve the ultimate moment
capacity of LSB members compared with that of corresponding single LSB
members. However, the improvement in moment capacity varied as a function of
span length, fastener spacing and section geometry. Back to back to single LSB
ultimate moment ratio varies between 2.0 and 3.0 (see Table 5.11). In the case of
very short spans, the moment gain is very small as they fail in in-plane bending. In
this case, the ultimate moment capacity of back to back LSBs is nearly twice the
capacity of corresponding single LSB member depending on the effect of lateral
deflection. In the case of intermediate and long spans, the moment gain is
considerable, and fastener spacing significantly influences the moment gain. Figure
5.15 shows the variation of moment gain along the span length as well as for varying
fastener spacing for all the LSB sections while Figures 5.16 (a) to (c) show the same
for selected LSB sections. In addition, the graphical comparisons for other LSB
sections are given in Appendix C. Moment gain also depends on the LSB cross-
section geometry. Failure modes of both back to back and single LSBs with a
particular span were not always the same. This could significantly influence the
moment gain. For example, most of the slender sections exhibited high moment
gains in the case of 2 m span length which could be due to the difference in the
failure mode (see Figure 5.16 (c)). Back to back LSB members with a span length of
2 m failed in in-plane bending (almost full yielding + local buckling) while the
corresponding single LSB members exhibited lateral distortional buckling failure.
Similarly back to back LSB members with span of 1 m exhibited moment gain ratio
of more than 2.0. Although the back to back LSBs failed by local buckling at 1 m
span their corresponding single LSBs appeared to have interaction with lateral
distortional buckling which could have increased the moment gain ratio. Figures 5.17
(a) to (c) illustrate the moment gain of back to back LSB members based on the level
of compactness of the section. As mentioned above, slender LSB sections exhibited a
high moment gain ratio of 2.6 to 3.1 for a short span of 2 m, and it then decreased to
a value between 2.4 and 2.6. However, for compact and non-compact sections, the
moment gain gradually increased to a value between 2.5 to 2.6 and then maintained
it.
3.5
3.0
Moment Capacity Ratio (BTBi/Single)
2.5
2.0
1.5
BTB, Cont.
1.0 BTB, Span/6
BTB, Span/4
0.5 BTB, Span/3
BTB, Span/2
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
Figure 5.15: Variation in Moment Gain as a Function of Span and Fastener

Spacing
3.00

2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00
Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(a) 250753.0 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
Continuous, N
1.50 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
1.00 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.50
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(b) 300753.0 LSB

Members with that of Corresponding Single LSB Members
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(c) 300752.5 LSB

Members with that of Corresponding Single LSB Members
3.0
Moment Capacity Ratio (BTB6/Single)
2.8
2.6
2.4
250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
2.2 200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB
150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB

2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(a) Compact Sections
Figure 5.17: Comparison of Moment Gain Based on the Level of Compactness

of LSB Section
Span/6
3.0
Moment Capacity Ratio (BTB6/Single) 2.8
2.6
2.4
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
2.2 200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(b) Non-compact Sections
3.2
300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB

Moment Capacity Ratio (BTB6/Single)
3.0
250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
2.8 200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
(c) Slender Sections
Figure 5.17: Comparison of Moment Gain Based on the Level of Compactness

of LSB Section
5.3.5 Buckling and Failure Modes of Back to Back LSB Members
Elastic buckling analyses showed that the typical buckling mode of back to back
LSB members of intermediate span lengths was still affected by lateral distortional
buckling (LDB), mostly web distortion. Depending on the span length and section
geometry, the observed lateral distortional buckling mode appeared to have
interacted with small cross-section distortion involving web distortion. Figures 5.18
(a) to (c) show the typical buckling modes of back to back LSB members,
300753.0 LSB, 250753.0 LSB and 300602.0 LSB, of intermediate span
length of 3 m, respectively.
As seen in these figures, they exhibited lateral distortional buckling failure with little
flange separation and rotation. Depending on the flange and web rigidities the effect
of flange separation and rotation varies. Slender sections such as 300602.0 LSB
exhibited lateral distortional buckling failure with very little or no sign of flange
separation and rotation while compact and non-compact sections, 250753.0 LSB
and 300753.0 LSB, exhibited lateral distortional buckling failure with little flange
separation and rotation (see Figures 5.18 (a) and (b). The LSBs with rigid flanges
compared to web are most likely exhibit lateral distortional buckling with severe web
distortion (see Figure 5.18 (c)). In contrast, the LSB sections with comparatively
equal flange and web rigidities exhibit lateral distortional buckling failure with
noticeable flange rotation and separation (see Figures 5.18 (a) and (b)). Figures 5.19
(a) to (c) show the typical failure modes of selected back to back LSB sections,
300753.0 LSB, 250753.0 LSB and 300602.0 LSB, of long span length of 10
m, respectively. Although the span length of 10 m is considered to be a very long
span for the selected LSB sections they continued to exhibit some web distortion. In
addition, Figures 5.20 (a) to (c) show the typical failure modes of selected LSB
sections of a short span of 1 m. The LSBs with slender webs exhibited considerable
web local buckling while those with compact and non-compact webs exhibited little
web local buckling with flange separation and rotation. The deformed shapes and
stress contours at failure of some LSB members are provided in Appendix C.
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
buckling mode + little
flange separation and
(a) 300753.0 LSB with
rotation
Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
buckling mode + little
(b) 250753.0 LSB with flange separation and
Fastener Spacing of Span/6 rotation
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
(c) 300602.0 LSB with buckling mode
Figure 5.18: Typical Failure Modes of Back to Back LSBs with an Intermediate
Span of 3 m
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
Lateral buckling +
little web distortion
(a) 300753.0 LSB with
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
Lateral buckling +
flange separation
(b) 250753.0 LSB with
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
Lateral buckling +
(c) 300602.0 LSB with Fastener web distortion
Spacing of Span/6
Figure 5.19: Typical Failure Modes of Back to Back LSBs with a Long Span of
10 m
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
Web local buckling +

(a) 300753.0 LSB with
little flange separation
and rotation
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
Web local buckling +

little flange separation
(b) 300602.0 LSB with
Deformed shape
Undeformed shape
Little web local

(c) 250753.0 LSB with buckling + little flange
Fastener Spacing of Span/6 separation and rotation
Figure 5.20: Typical Failure Modes of Back to Back LSBs with a Short Span of
1m
5.3.6 Detrimental Effects of Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure in Back to
Back LSB Members
Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) found that the member moment capacities of
single LSB sections to be particularly susceptible to lateral distortional buckling due
to the presence of two torsionally rigid flanges that are connected by a comparatively
slender web. As expected, back to back LSB sections are likely to mitigate lateral
distortional buckling to some extent by providing additional rigidity to the weakest
element of the section, namely the web. To investigate this effect, three different
LSB sections, 250753.0 LSB, 300753.0 LSB and 300602.0 LSB, were
selected, and based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998) they are classified as compact, non-
compact and slender sections, respectively. As the web distortional effect reduces,
the elastic buckling moment of the LSB member should approach its elastic lateral
torsional buckling moment (Mo). Based on this concept it appears that the back to
back LSB sections are able to slightly mitigate the lateral distortional buckling
effects found in single LSB members.
Table 5.12: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments (Mod and Mo)

Elastic Buckling Moments, Mod and Mo (kNm) - Single LSB Sections
300753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
Span Span Span
Mod Mo Rod-o Mod Mo Rod-o Mod Mo Rod-o
(mm) (mm) (mm)
1500 144.55 219.9 0.66 1750 41.99 65.70 0.64 1500 124.35 198.4 0.63
2000 97.87 150.3 0.65 2000 35.04 55.25 0.63 2000 89.72 138.9 0.65
3000 65.69 92.62 0.71 3000 22.99 33.95 0.68 3000 64.12 87.64 0.73
4000 52.37 67.35 0.78 4000 18.36 24.66 0.74 4000 51.78 64.37 0.80
6000 38.00 43.87 0.87 6000 13.50 16.05 0.84 6000 37.46 42.25 0.89
8000 29.71 32.63 0.91 8000 10.65 11.93 0.89 8000 29.14 31.52 0.92
10000 24.29 26.00 0.93 10000 8.76 9.51 0.92 10000 23.75 25.15 0.94
Elastic Buckling Moments, Mod and Mo (kNm) - Back to Back LSBs with Cont. Connection
300753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
Span Span Span
Mod Mo Rod-o Mod Mo Rod-o Mod Mo Rod-o
(mm) (mm) (mm)
2000 338.80 455.65 0.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2000 304.50 419.353 0.73
3000 202.10 264.11 0.77 3000 68.64 93.11 0.74 3000 194.80 251.61 0.77
4000 151.60 186.55 0.81 4000 51.35 65.69 0.78 4000 150.30 180.80 0.83
5000 123.80 144.78 0.86 5000 42.14 50.95 0.83 5000 123.90 141.61 0.87
6000 105.20 118.58 0.89 6000 36.02 41.71 0.86 6000 105.60 116.62 0.91
7000 91.65 100.55 0.91 7000 31.52 35.36 0.89 7000 91.96 99.23 0.93
8000 81.16 87.36 0.93 8000 28.02 30.72 0.91 8000 81.40 86.41 0.94
10000 65.97 69.30 0.95 10000 22.90 24.36 0.94 10000 66.08 68.74 0.96
Note: Mod and Mo are elastic lateral distortional and lateral torsional buckling moments,
respectively. Rod-o Ratio of Mod to Mo, Cont. Continuous.
500
Mod - 300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
Mo - 300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
Mod - 300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
Elastic Buckling Moments, Mod & Mo (kNm)

400
Mo - 300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
Mod - 250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
Mo - 250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
300
200
100
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Span (mm)
Figure 5.21: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments (Mod and Mo)
1.00
0.90
0.80
Mod/Mo Ratio
0.70
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
300*75*3.0 LSB, Single
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
0.60
250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
0.50
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Span (mm)
Figure 5.22: Comparison of the Effect of Lateral Distortional Buckling of Back

to Back and Single LSB Members
Table 5.12 compares the elastic lateral torsional (Mo) and lateral distortional (Mod)
buckling moments of selected single LSBs and back to back LSBs with continuous
connections while Figure 5.21 shows the graphical comparison for back to back LSB
members only. As shown in Table 5.12 and Figure 5.22, the difference between
elastic lateral distortional buckling moment (Mod) and the elastic lateral torsional
buckling moment (Mo) is smaller in back to back LSB sections compared with that in
single LSB sections. Hence, it appears that the use of back to back LSB sections
slightly improves the lateral buckling behaviour of LSB members. The elastic lateral
torsional buckling moments (Mo) were calculated based on the equation defined in
Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS 4100 (SA, 1998). The elastic lateral distortional buckling
moments (Mod) of back to back LSB members were obtained from THIN-WALL
program while the elastic buckling moments of single LSB members were obtained
from Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a).
5.3.7 Effect of Contact Simulation on Ultimate Moment
The finite element models used in this research included contact modelling to
simulate any possible contact between the individual LSBs and to prevent
unnecessary penetrations. Thus they ensure that the individual LSBs are in contact
whenever possible while there is no penetration (there might be a little tolerance for
numerical convergence). However, the effect of this contact simulation is
insignificant on the ultimate strength solutions.
Compression flanges penetrated into No penetration across the depth

each other
(a) Finite Element Model without (b) Finite Element Model with Contact
Contact Simulation Simulation
Figure 5.23: Comparison of Finite Element Models with and without Contact
Simulation
Comparison of ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB members with and
without contact modelling was undertaken, and the results confirmed that in most
cases, the effect of contact modelling on the ultimate moment capacity is less than
1%. However, the deformed shapes are significantly different, particularly in the
cases of lack of fastener spacing. Figures 5.23 (a) and (b) compare the deformed
shapes obtained for a back to back LSB member with and without contact
simulations, respectively. In the models without contact modelling compression
flanges and the top part of web exhibited severe penetration (see Figure 5.23 (a)).
This is not acceptable. Hence despite the smaller effect on the ultimate moment
capacity it is considered that appropriate contact simulation is essential.
5.3.8 Contact Behaviour between Individual LSBs
Contact behaviour between the two individual LSBs was influenced by fastener
spacing. As the fastener spacing increased, the contact separation also increased.
Figures 5.24 (a) to (d) show the variation in contact separation between the
individual LSBs of experimental finite element model for 200451.6 LSB sections
with fastener spacings of span/2 and span/6. The contact separations were taken at
failure as well as in post-collapse region.
Figure 5.25 compares the contact separation between the individual LSBs of ideal
model for 300753.0 LSBs with fastener spacings of span/2 and span/6. From the
results it can be noted that as the fastener spacing increases the contact separation
also increases and becomes critical in the post-collapse region. Figure 5.26 shows the
moment versus contact separation curves at selected locations across the web at mid-
span for 300753.0 LSB with a fastener spacing of span/3. As shown in Figure 5.26
the contact separation noted at mid-web was high in the post-collapse region
indicating the post-local buckling effect in web. In summary, the fastener spacing
significantly affects the contact behaviour between the individual LSBs in the post-
ultimate region although it is not so significant until the ultimate failure.
Support (a) At Failure, 200451.6 LSB, Span/2 Mid-span
(b) In Post-collapse Region, 200451.6 LSB, Span/2
Support (c) At Failure, 200451.6 LSB, Span/6 Mid-span
(d) In Post-collapse Region, 200451.6 LSB, Span/6

Varying Fastener Spacings (Experimental Finite Element Model)
Support (a) At Failure, 300753.0 LSB, Span/2 Mid-span
(b) At Failure, 300753.0 LSB, Span/6

Varying Fastener Spacings (Ideal Finite Element Model)
100
Moment (kNm) 80
60
40
Top Outside Flange

Top Inside Flange
20 Mid-web
Bottom Inside Flange
Bottom Outside Flange
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Contact Separation (mm)
Figure 5.26: Contact Separation Distribution across the Web of LSB
5.3.9 Effect of Fastener Spacing on the Deformed Shape
As shown earlier the fastener spacing influences the ultimate moment capacities of
back to back LSB members. However, it is also important to examine the effect of
fastener spacing on the deformed shape. Experimental results of back to back LSB
members proved that the fastener spacing slightly influenced the in-plane and out-of-
plane buckling behaviour (see Chapter 3). It was confirmed that the fastener spacing
did not influence the in-plane stiffness of LSB sections (Figures 5.27 (a) and 5.28
(a)). However, as the fastener spacing was reduced the in-plane deflection increased
at ultimate failure. Similarly minor differences were noted in the out-of-plane
buckling of LSB sections with varying fastener spacings. Figures 5.27 (a) and (b)
show the moment versus deflection curves for 200451.6 LSBs with fastener
spacings of span/3 and span/6. These results were obtained using experimental finite
element models of back to back LSBs. Figures 5.28 (a) and (b) show the moment
versus deflection curves for 300753.0 LSBs with fastener spacings of span/3 and
span/6.
20.0
16.0
12.0
Moment (kNm)
8.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6

4.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/3
0.0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/6

4.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/3
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
(b) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at Mid-span (CM)
45
200 1.6 LSB Members
120
100
80
Moment (kNm)
60
40
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, VM

20
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, VM
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Vertical Displacement (mm)
120
100
80
Moment (kNm)
60
40
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, CM

20
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, CM
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Lateral Displacement (mm)
75
300 3.0 LSB Members
120
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3

100
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
80
Moment (kNm)
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Relative Lateral Deformation (mm)
Figure 5.29: Comparison of Moment versus Relative Lateral Deflection Curves

75
for Back to Back 300 3.0 LSB Members
120
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, VMR

300*75*3.0 LSB, Spna/6, VML
100
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, VMR
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, VML
80
Moment (kNm)
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Vertical Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.30: Comparison of Moment versus Vertical Deflection Curves for Back
75
to Back 300 3.0 LSB Members
120
300*75*3.0 LSB, Spna/6

100
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
Moment (kNm) 80
60
40
20
0
-1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Flange Level Difference (mm)
Figure 5.31: Comparison of Moment versus Flange Level Difference Curves for
75
Back to Back 300 3.0 LSB Members
120
100
80
Moment (kNm)
60
40
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, Normal Separation

20
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, Normal Separation
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Normal Contact Separation (mm)
Figure 5.32: Comparison of Moment versus Contact Separation Curves for

75
Back to Back 300 3.0 LSB Members
Some further observations were noted in relation to the fastener spacing effects on
the deformed shape. Fastener spacing slightly influences the relative lateral
deflection, and the results shown in Figure 5.29 confirm this. Relative lateral
deflection means the difference between lateral deflection of top and bottom flanges
of LSB members. The ultimate moment capacity of back to back LSB increased
when the fastener spacing was reduced. Hence as the fastener spacing was reduced
the relative lateral deflection increased which means more cross-section deformation
(see Figure 5.29). Moreover fasteners control the sliding of web on each other. Lack
of fastener spacing causes noticeable web sliding. Figure 5.30 shows the vertical
deflection of top flanges of both individual LSBs (indicated by left and right LSBs)
for 300753.0 LSB of 6 m span with fastener spacings of span/3 and span/6. Figure
5.31 compares the top flange level difference for the same cases plotted in Figure
5.30. It confirms that as the fastener spacing increases the flanges become unlevelled.
Although this problem seems to be insignificant until ultimate failure it becomes
critical in the post-ultimate region. In addition, the fastener spacing influences the
localised contact separations within the web region. Figure 5.32 compares the
moment versus contact separation curves for 300753.0 LSB with fastener spacings
of span/3 and span/6. The variation in contact separation was almost the same until
the ultimate failure, and afterwards it increased rapidly for large fastener spacing.
Mid-span
Support
(a) 200451.6 LSB, Span/6
Mid-span
(b) 200451.6 LSB, Span/2
Figure 5.33: Comparison of Stress Distribution at Failure for Back to Back

45
200 1.6 LSB with Varying Fastener Spacings
Slight changes were noted in the stress distribution along the span length when the
fastener spacing was changed. Figure 5.33 compares the stress distribution at failure
for 200451.6 LSB with fastener spacings of span/6 and span/2.
5.3.10 Effects of Inadequate Fastener Spacings on the Buckling and Failure

Modes
In some cases, inadequate fastener spacing significantly affects the buckling and
failure modes of the back to back LSB sections. As discussed in Section 5.2 the
buckling mode changed from local buckling to lateral distortional buckling when the
fastener spacing was increased to a certain limit. Similar changes were also noted in
the ultimate failure mode. In the lateral buckling failure region inadequate fastener
spacing did not significantly affect until the ultimate failure was reached. However,
post-ultimate behaviour was significantly affected by fastener spacings. As shown in
Figure 5.31, lack of fastener spacing caused noticeable web sliding. The LSB
section, 300753.0 LSB of 6 m span with a fastener spacing of span/3 revealed
considerable web sliding in the post-ultimate region compared with a fastener
spacing of span/6 indicating that fastener spacing of span/3 is inadequate for the
particular span length of 6 m. Similarly Figure 5.32 shows the contact separation for
300753.0 LSB of 6 m span with fastener spacings of span/3 and span/6. In the
post-ultimate region the contact separation was high for LSB with a fastener spacing
of span/3. In summary, lack of fastener spacing changes the buckling mode in short
spans while it significantly affects the post-ultimate behaviour of back to back LSBs
for all the spans.
5.3.11 Effect of Varying Fastener Spacing
5.3.11.1 Nominated Fastener Arrangement
It is very important to discuss and propose a standard fastening preparation. We must

propose the number of rows of fasteners and the fastener location first. Figure 5.34
shows the proposed fastener arrangement for back to back LSBs which has two rows
of connection, and they are located 20 mm away from the inside flanges. Increasing
the distance between the two rows of connections and moving them towards the
inside flange elements are expected to increase the flexural strength of back to back
LSBs. However, in order to allow for hole preparation and fixing of fasteners, a
minimum clearance of 20 mm has to be provided. Along the two rows, the fasteners
are equally spaced (equal fastener spacing). This fastener arrangement was used in
all the experimental and numerical studies and based on which suitable design rules
were developed.
Two rows of fastener Fasteners

connections
(Equal fastener spacings)
M10 bolts located 20

mm away from the
inside flange elements
Figure 5.34: Standard Fastener Arrangement
5.3.11.2 Effect of Variation in the Location of Fasteners
Change of fastener location across the web might affect the flexural strength of back
to back LSB members. Also during the process of drilling holes or nailing fasteners
there are possibilities that the fastener location might shift slightly. Thus it is
necessary to provide tolerances which should not affect the flexural strength of back
to back LSBs. Therefore a parametric study was conducted to investigate this issue.
In this study, varying fastener locations (c + d) of 25, 45 and 70 mm away from

inside flange elements (see Figure 5.35) were considered and the results were
compared with that for the fastener location of 20 mm in Table 5.13. The results
illustrate that changing the fastener location towards the middle of web only slightly
affect the flexural strength of back to back LSBs. As the distance from inside flange
elements increases the flexural strength reduces. However, this effect varies
depending on the fastener location from inside flange elements. However, small
changes of 5 mm does not affect the results much, and Table 5.13 also confirms this.
In most cases, the effect is less than 1%. Therefore it is suggested that 5 mm
tolerance is acceptable which is unlikely to affect the flexural strength of back to
back LSBs.
c
d
Moving fastener Clearance (c) from inside

location towards the flange elements
middle of web (Standard clearance 20 mm)
d
c
Figure 5.35: Fastener Location across the Web Height
Table 5.13: Elastic and Ultimate Moment Capacities for Varying Fastener
Location across the Web Height
300753.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB 300752.5 LSB
Span c+d E N c+d E N c+d E N
(m) (mm) (kNm) (kNm) (mm) (kNm) (kNm) (mm) (kNm) (kNm)
20 138.42 104.17 20 137.79 96.12 20 111.09 83.36
20 + 5 138.31 104.17 20 + 5 137.67 96.30 20 + 5 111.01 83.84
4
20 + 25 137.96 103.45 20 + 25 137.27 96.30 20 + 25 110.72 84.08
20 + 50 137.56 104.41 20 + 50 136.71 96.30 20 + 50 110.40 84.08
20 114.09 92.41 20 114.50 88.45 20 92.52 74.26
20 + 5 114.03 91.93 20 + 5 114.42 87.89 20 + 5 92.47 74.26
5
20 + 25 113.81 91.45 20 + 25 114.17 88.08 20 + 25 92.30 71.86
20 + 50 113.57 N/A 20 + 50 113.79 N/A 20 + 50 92.09 69.23
20 97.56 82.81 20 98.10 80.41 20 79.99 67.31
20 + 5 97.52 N/A 20 + 5 98.05 80.78 20 + 5 79.95 66.35
6
20 + 25 97.38 79.69 20 + 25 97.87 N/A 20 + 25 79.84 65.39
20 + 50 97.21 78.97 20 + 50 97.60 80.22 20 + 50 79.70 64.67
Note: (c + d) Clearance distance/fastener location measured from the inside flange
elements, E and N are elastic buckling and ultimate moment capacities, respectively.
5.3.11.3 Effect of Varying Fastener Spacings in Different Rows
In the standard fastener spacing arrangement, both rows have equally spaced
fasteners. However, the effect of using different fastener spacing in both rows is
unknown. Therefore parametric studies were conducted to investigate these effects.
The back to back LSBs have two rows of connection with one of them located near
the compression flanges while the other row is near the tension flanges. So it is also
essential to consider these effects. In these parametric studies three different LSB
sections, 300753.0 LSB, 300602.0 LSB and 250753.0 LSB and span lengths
of 4, 5 and 6 m were considered.
Increasing the Fastener Spacing on the Tension Side (T)

In this case, the fastener spacing was increased on the tension side compared with the
other side. Fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6 were considered.
Figures 5.36 and 5.37 show a sample fastener configuration and the notation for
fastener configuration, respectively.
Fastener spacing on Fastener Configuration is 64

compression side span/6
Fastener spacing on
tension side span/4
Figure 5.36: A Sample Fastener Configuration
Compression side Tension side fastener

fastener spacing spacing
2 Span/2 62 2 Span/2
3 Span/3 3 Span/3
4 Span/4 4 Span/4
6 Span/6 6 Span/6
Figure 5.37: Notation for Fastener Spacing Configuration
Table 5.14: Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSB Members with Different Fastener Spacing Configurations (T)
Span F.S 300753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
(m) Notation ME MNRS RCCE RCCN ME MNRS RCCE RCCN ME MNRS RCCE RCCN
32 131.46 96.97 0.95 0.93 45.45 36.84 0.96 0.93 130.34 88.64 0.95 0.92
33 133.09 98.89 0.96 0.95 45.95 36.01 0.97 0.91 132.10 92.38 0.96 0.96
42 133.47 98.41 0.96 0.94 46.06 36.43 0.97 0.92 132.46 91.44 0.96 0.95
43 134.61 100.09 0.97 0.96 46.40 37.26 0.98 0.94 133.76 93.31 0.97 0.97
4 44 135.62 100.81 0.98 0.97 46.70 37.47 0.98 0.95 134.83 94.62 0.98 0.98
62 136.12 100.33 0.98 0.96 46.85 37.68 0.99 0.95 135.26 94.06 0.98 0.98
63 136.84 101.77 0.99 0.98 47.06 38.51 0.99 0.97 136.04 94.81 0.99 0.99
64 137.44 102.97 0.99 0.99 47.23 38.30 0.99 0.97 136.73 95.74 0.99 1.00
66 138.42 104.17 1.00 1.00 47.52 39.55 1.00 1.00 137.79 96.12 1.00 1.00
42 110.18 85.45 0.97 0.92 38.15 31.43 0.97 0.93 110.29 82.09 0.96 0.93
43 111.13 88.09 0.97 0.95 38.43 32.06 0.98 0.95 111.35 84.34 0.97 0.95
44 111.97 89.05 0.98 0.96 38.69 32.68 0.98 0.97 112.22 84.52 0.98 0.96
5 62 112.24 87.37 0.98 0.95 38.77 32.68 0.99 0.97 112.50 84.71 0.98 0.96
63 112.80 89.77 0.99 0.97 38.93 32.47 0.99 0.96 113.11 86.21 0.99 0.97
64 113.30 90.97 0.99 0.98 39.07 33.51 0.99 0.99 113.66 86.77 0.99 0.98
66 114.09 92.41 1.00 1.00 39.31 33.72 1.00 1.00 114.50 88.45 1.00 1.00
42 94.36 76.09 0.97 0.92 32.82 27.89 0.97 0.99 94.66 74.24 0.97 0.92
43 95.18 78.49 0.98 0.95 33.07 28.10 0.98 1.00 95.57 76.30 0.97 0.95
44 95.86 79.21 0.98 0.96 33.28 28.93 0.99 1.03 96.26 77.60 0.98 0.97
6 62 96.05 78.49 0.98 0.95 33.33 28.72 0.99 1.02 96.50 77.04 0.98 0.96
63 96.51 80.41 0.99 0.97 33.46 28.72 0.99 1.02 96.98 78.54 0.99 0.98
64 96.91 80.17 0.99 0.97 33.58 28.72 0.99 1.02 97.43 79.47 0.99 0.99
66 97.56 82.81 1.00 1.00 33.77 28.10 1.00 1.00 98.10 80.41 1.00 1.00
Note: F.S Fastener spacing, ME Elastic buckling moment, MNRS Ultimate moment; Units in kNm, RCCE and RCCN are the ratios of
comparison of elastic and ultimate moments of back to back LSBs with varying fastener spacings with that of fastener spacing of 66 case.
Table 5.14 shows the elastic and ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB
members with varying fastener configurations. In all the cases the fastener spacing
on the tension side is equal to or greater than that on the compressions side. Also
Table 5.14 compares the elastic and ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB
members with varying fastener configurations with that of corresponding LSB
sections with 66 fastener configuration. The maximum reduction was found to be
about 7 to 8% for the fastener configuration of 32. The comparison shows that
LSB members give high moment capacities for fastener configuration of 63 than
for 44. Thus it is suggested that fastener configuration of 63 can be used instead
of 44. Furthermore fastener configurations 33 and 42 give nearly equal
moments. Similarly, fastener configurations 44 and 62 give almost the same
results. Figures 5.38 (a) and (b) show the comparison of elastic and ultimate moment
capacities of back to back 300753.0 LSB members with spans of 4 m, 5 m and 6
m. The different fastener spacing configurations are plotted along the x-axis.
1.05
1.00
Comparison of Moment Variation
0.95
0.90
300*75*3.0 LSB, E, 4 m Span

0.85
300*75*3.0 LSB, N, 4 m Span
0.80
32 33 42 43 44 62 63 64 66
Fastener Spacing Configuration
(a) 4 m Span
75
300 3.0 LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacing Configurations (T)
1.05
Comparison of Moment Variation 1.00
0.95
0.90
300*75*3.0 LSB, E, 5 m Span
300*75*3.0 LSB, N, 5 m Span

0.85
300*75*3.0 LSB, E, 6 m Span
300*75*3.0 LSB, N, 6 m Span
0.80
42 43 44 62 63 64 66
(b) 5 m and 6 m Spans

75
300 3.0 LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacing Configurations (T)
Increasing the Fastener Spacing on the Compression Side (C)

The fastener spacing was increased on the compression side compared with the other
side. Fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6 were considered in this
parametric study. Table 5.15 shows the elastic and ultimate moment capacities of
back to back LSB sections with varying fastener spacing configurations. In all the
cases the fastener spacing on the compression side is equal to or greater than that on
the tension side. Also Tables 5.15 compares the elastic and ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSB members with varying fastener spacing
configurations with that of corresponding LSB members with 66 fastener spacing
configuration. The LSB members with fastener spacing configurations 33 and 24
and 44 and 26 gave almost the same results. In addition, fastener spacing
configuration of 36 gave higher results compared with fastener spacing
configuration of 44. Thus it is suggested that fastener spacing configuration of
63 can be used instead of 44. Figures 5.39 (a) and (b) show the comparison of
elastic and ultimate moment capacities of 250753.0 LSB section with different
fastener spacing configurations and spans of 4 m, 5 m and 6 m.
Table 5.15: Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSB Members with Different Fastener Spacing Configurations (C)
300753.0 LSB 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
F.S
Span (m) ME MNRS ME MNRS ME MNRS
Notation RCCE RCCN RCCE RCCN RCCE RCCN
(kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
23 131.14 95.77 0.95 0.92 45.36 34.76 0.95 0.88 130.13 90.69 0.94 0.94
33 133.09 98.89 0.96 0.95 45.95 36.01 0.97 0.91 132.10 92.38 0.96 0.96
24 132.58 97.93 0.96 0.94 45.78 35.80 0.96 0.91 131.83 91.44 0.96 0.95
4 44 135.62 100.81 0.98 0.97 46.70 37.47 0.98 0.95 134.83 94.62 0.98 0.98
26 134.88 101.05 0.97 0.97 46.46 36.01 0.98 0.91 134.44 94.06 0.98 0.98
36 136.00 102.25 0.98 0.98 46.79 38.72 0.98 0.98 135.48 95.37 0.98 0.99
66 138.42 104.17 1.00 1.00 47.52 39.55 1.00 1.00 137.79 96.12 1.00 1.00
24 109.73 85.69 0.96 0.93 38.01 30.81 0.97 0.91 109.97 82.28 0.96 0.93
44 111.97 89.05 0.98 0.96 38.69 32.68 0.98 0.97 112.22 84.52 0.98 0.96
5 26 111.66 87.85 0.98 0.95 38.58 31.22 0.98 0.93 112.12 84.52 0.98 0.96
36 112.39 89.77 0.99 0.97 38.80 32.47 0.99 0.96 112.82 86.21 0.99 0.97
66 114.09 92.41 1.00 1.00 39.31 33.72 1.00 1.00 114.50 88.45 1.00 1.00
24 94.10 76.09 0.96 0.92 32.74 27.48 0.97 0.98 94.48 74.61 0.96 0.93
44 95.86 79.21 0.98 0.96 33.28 28.93 0.99 1.03 96.26 77.60 0.98 0.97
6 26 95.74 79.21 0.98 0.96 33.23 28.10 0.98 1.00 96.30 77.04 0.98 0.96
36 96.28 79.21 0.99 0.96 33.39 28.52 0.99 1.01 96.82 78.35 0.99 0.97
66 97.56 82.81 1.00 1.00 33.77 28.10 1.00 1.00 98.10 80.41 1.00 1.00
Note: Notation details are given in Table 5.14.
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
250*75*3.0 LSB, E, 4 m Span

0.85
250*75*3.0 LSB, N, 4 m Span
0.80
23 33 24 44 26 36 66
(a) 4 m Span
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
250*75*3.0 LSB, E, 5 m Span
250*75*3.0 LSB, N, 5 m Span

0.85
250*75*3.0 LSB, E, 6 m Span
250*75*3.0 LSB, N, 6 m Span
0.80
24 44 26 36 66
(b) 5 m and 6 m Spans

75
250 3.0 LSB Members with Varying Fastener Spacing Configurations (C)
In summary, the ultimate moment capacities of LSB members with fastener spacing
configurations of 33, 24 and 42 were nearly equal. Similarly back to back LSB
members with fastener spacing configurations of 44, 26 and 62 provided equal
moment capacities. In addition, LSB members with fastener spacing configurations
of 63 and 36 provided higher moment capacities compared to the case of
fastener spacing configuration of 44. From these we can conclude that the ultimate
moment capacities of back to back LSBs are about the same when same numbers of
fasteners are used although the fastener spacing configurations are not the same
along different rows.
5.4 Development of Design Rules
In order to undertake a thorough review of the current design rules and to develop
new design rules for back to back LSBs, it is important that a comprehensive
moment capacity data base is available for back to back LSB members with varying
geometry. Experimental member capacity data was limited due to the difficulties in
conducting many large scale experimental tests. Therefore as mentioned earlier
detailed finite element analyses were undertaken for thirteen LSB sections with span
lengths from 1 m to 10 m and five different fastener spacings. Elastic buckling and
nonlinear analysis results are given in Tables 5.1 and 5.5, respectively.
As discussed in the earlier sections, some back to back LSB members with shorter
spans (1 m or 2 m) were also subjected to local buckling effects. However, only the
moment capacities of back to back LSB members subject to lateral distortional and
lateral torsional buckling are considered in this section as the main focus here is to
review the current design rules for lateral buckling. For back to back LSBs with short
spans subject to local buckling effects only, their section moment capacity can be
conservatively taken as twice the section moment capacity of single LSB sections.
The section moment capacity of single LSBs has been investigated by Mahaarachchi
and Mahendran (2005d) and Anapayan and Mahendran (2009b). The relevant
calculations for determining the section moment capacities of back to back LSB
sections are provided in Appendix E.
5.4.1 Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Results
Elastic buckling and ultimate moments (Mod, Mu) from finite element analyses (FEA)
were non-dimensionalised by using the first yield moment (My) in developing the
non-dimensional member moment capacity results for all the thirteen LSB sections,
in Figure 5.40. Elastic lateral distortional buckling curve is also plotted in the same
figure. Non-dimensional results based on varying fastener spacings are shown in
Figure 5.41, which shows the absence of any trend for the effect of fastener spacing.
1.2
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB 300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB 250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB

1.0 250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB 250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB 200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB 150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB

0.8
150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB 125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
Mu/My, Mod/My
125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB Elastic Buckling Curve
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.40: Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Plot of Back to Back LSB

Members
1.2
Contd. Span/6 Span/4 Span/3 Span/2

12C 126 124 123 122
1.0
0.8
Mu/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
d)
Slenderness (
Figure 5.41: Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Results of Back to Back LSB

Members Based on Fastener Spacing
1.2
BTB Nonlinear FEA Plots with RS
Elastic Buckling Curve

1.0
BTB Nonlinear FEA Plots without RS
0.8
Mu/My, Mod/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.42: Effects of Residual Stresses on Non-dimensional Member Capacity

Results
1.2
300*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
300*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
300*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
1.0
250*75*3.0 LSB, BTB
250*75*2.5 LSB, BTB
250*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
0.8
200*60*2.5 LSB, BTB
200*60*2.0 LSB, BTB
200*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
Mu/My
0.6 150*45*2.0 LSB, BTB

150*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
125*45*2.0 LSB, BTB
0.4 125*45*1.6 LSB, BTB
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.43: Non-dimensional Member Capacity Results of Back to Back LSB

Members Based on Section Compactness
Figure 5.42 shows the effect of residual stresses on the non-dimensional member
capacity results. The effect of residual stress on member capacities is significant in
the inelastic buckling region while it is small in other regions. Figure 5.43 shows the
non-dimensional member capacity results based on the level of compactness of LSB
section as defined in AS 4100 (SA, 1998). As shown in Figure 5.43 the results of
slender LSB sections are located below those of compact and non-compact LSB
sections.
5.4.2 Review of the Current Design Rules
It is necessary to verify the suitability of current design rules for the member
capacity of back to back LSB members. In this section, the FEA ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSBs subject to lateral distortional and lateral torsional
buckling and presented in Table 5.5 are compared with the member moment
capacities obtained using the Australian Standards for the design of steel structures,
AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and cold-formed steel structures, AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005).
The predicted moment capacities from the new design rules developed for single
LSB sections by Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a) are also compared with FEA
results. For the sake of completeness, the current design rules for the member
moment capacities are presented here again.
5.4.2.1 Member Moment Capacity Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
The member moment capacity design rules in AS 4100 are for lateral torsional
buckling. Since the back to back LSB flexural members primarily fail by lateral
distortional buckling, AS 4100 design rules may be of little use. In AS 4100, the
nominal member moment capacity (Mb) of a beam without full lateral restraint
subject to a uniform bending moment is defined as follows:
Ms
2
Ms
M b = 0.6 + 3 Ms Ms (5.1)
Mo Mo

where Ms Section moment capacity, Mo Elastic lateral torsional buckling moment
Equation 5.1 was modified by Pi and Trahair (1997) to include the lateral distortional
buckling effects as shown next.
M s 2
M

M b = 0 .6 + 2 .8 s M s M s (5.2)
M od
M od

where Mod Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment.
Pi and Trahair (1997) also provided equations to estimate the elastic lateral
distortional buckling moments (Mod) of hollow flange beams using an approximate
effective torsional rigidity (GJe) as follows:
2 EI y 2 EI w
M od = GJ e + (5.3a)
L2 L2
Et 3 L2
2GJ F
GJ e = 0.91 2 d (5.3b)
Et 3 L2
2GJ F +
0.91 2 d
where, d = Web height, L = length, t = Thickness, E = Youngs modulus

G = Shear modulus of elasticity, Iw = Warping constant
Iy = Second moment of area about minor axis
Je = Effective torsion section constant, JF = Torsion constant of hollow flange
A comparison of the predicted dimensionless moment capacity results (Mb/Ms) with

FEA results of back to back LSB sections is provided in Figure 5.44. The member
moment capacities Mu and Mb from FEA and AS 4100 are plotted as Mu/Ms and
Mb/Ms on the vertical axis whereas the member slenderness d ((Ms/Mod) is plotted
on the horizontal axis. Mod was also taken from elastic buckling finite element
analyses. The section moment capacity (Ms) was taken as the first yield moment (My)
because the section moment capacities of cold-formed steel sections such as the back
to back LSBs are limited to their first yield moment in AS/NZS 4600. The inelastic
reserve capacity beyond My is considered to be small for cold-formed steel sections.
The use of section moment capacities (Ms) of back to back LSBs based on AS 4100
is likely to cause only minor changes to the non-dimensional moment capacity
results.
1.2
FEA
1 Pi and Trahair (1997)
AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
0.8
Mu/Ms, Mb/Ms
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.44: Comparison of Moment Capacities with AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and Pi
and Trahairs (1997) Predictions
Figure 5.44 shows that the moment capacities predicted by AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
(Equation 5.1) and Pi and Trahair (1997) (Equation 5.2) are conservative. The
average conservative error for all the back to back LSB sections is 20% (Mean =
1.199) for the design rule in AS 4100 and 27% (Mean = 1.267) for the Pi and
Trahairs (1997) design rule with a COV of 0.062 and 0.060, respectively. The
comparison of moment capacities given in Figure 5.44 demonstrates that both design
rules in AS 4100 (SA, 1998) and Pi and Trahair (1997) are incapable of predicting
the moment capacities of back to back LSB sections accurately. These design rules
are considered overconservative as the factor obtained for the design rules of AS
4100 (SA, 1998) and Pi and Trahair (1997) are 1.084 and 1.147, respectively. It must
be noted that these design rules were originally developed as a lower bound solution.
Hence their predictions are quiet conservative. However in the long span region their
predictions are reasonable.
5.4.2.2 Member Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 4600) provides design rules for members subject to distortional
buckling which involves transverse bending of a vertical web with lateral
displacement of the compression flange. The member moment capacity (Mb) can be
calculated as follows:
Mb = Zcfc (5.4)
where Zc is the effective section modulus calculated at a stress fc, determined as Mc/Zf
and Zf is the full section modulus.
The critical distortional buckling moment ( M c ) is calculated as follows and then

used in Equation 5.4.
For d 0.59 : Mc = M y (5.5a)
0.59
For 0.59 < d < 1.70 : M c = M y (5.5b)
d
1
For d 1.70 : M c = M y 2

(5.5c)
d
My
where d = Non-dimensional slenderness , My = First yield moment (= Zfy),
M od
Mod = Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment (can be calculated using Equations
5.3 (a) and (b))
The FEA results of back to back LSBs were non-dimensionalised and plotted in
Figure 5.45 with moment capacities Mu/My and Mb/My on the vertical axis and the
non-dimensional member slenderness d on the horizontal axis. The comparison
shown in Figure 5.45 confirms that the current AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) design rule
for lateral distortional buckling is not suitable as it is quite conservative for beams of
intermediate slenderness (inelastic buckling region). However, they are reasonably
accurate in other regions of yielding/local buckling and elastic lateral buckling. The
comparison of FEA results to AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) predictions gave a mean
value of 1.166 and a COV of 0.089. The capacity reduction factor () calculated was
1.032 and confirms that the current AS/NZS 4600 design rule is quite conservative.
1.2
FEA
1.0 AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.45: Comparison of Moment Capacities with AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)
Predictions
5.4.2.3 Moment Capacity Proposed by Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a)
Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a) proposed new design rules within the current
guidelines of AS/NZS 4600 for single LSB sections to predict their moment
capacities accurately in all three regions. Their moment capacity equations for the
three regions of yielding/local buckling, inelastic lateral distortional buckling and
elastic lateral buckling are as follows:
For d 0.54 : Mc = M y (5.6a)
For 0.54 < d < 1.74 : M c = M y (0.28 d 1.20 d + 1.57)

2
(5.6b)
1
For d 1.74 : M c = M y 2

(5.6c)
d
Figure 5.46 compares the non-dimensional member moment capacity predictions

proposed for single LSB sections with FEA moment capacity results of back to back
LSB sections. The comparison demonstrates that the moment capacities predicted by
the proposed design rules of single LSB sections are still conservative. It gave a
mean value of 1.104 and a COV of 0.079 while the capacity reduction factor was
0.986. This confirms that although the new design rules of single LSB sections are
more accurate than the current AS/NZS 4600 design rules, further improvements are
needed for back to back LSB sections.
1.2
FEA
1.0 Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a)
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My,
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.46: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Anapayan and

Mahendrans (2009a) Predictions
5.4.3 Proposed Design Rules for Back to Back LSB Sections
Currently there are no design rules which could accurately predict the member
moment capacities of back to back LSB members as shown in the previous sections.
Hence new design rules are necessary to predict the member moment capacities of
back to back LSB sections accurately. The main aim of this research is to derive and
verify appropriate design rules for back to back LSB flexural members. The FEA
results were compiled and used to derive suitable design equations as for single LSB
sections (Anapayan and Mahendran, 2009a). Finite element analyses revealed the
presence of three different buckling/failure modes, namely, yielding/local, lateral
distortional and lateral torsional.
Elastic buckling becomes critical for long span beams where lateral torsional
buckling occurs. Thus, in the non-dimensionalised format, the lateral torsional
buckling strength predictions given in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) as well as the
prediction proposed for single LSB sections are the same, and they predict the
moment capacities of long span back to back LSB sections accurately. Therefore
only the inelastic buckling region had to be modified based on the mean of all the
results in this region. Also the limits which define the three regions had to be
reviewed based on the non-dimensional moment capacity results. The member
capacity equation for the inelastic buckling region was developed by solving for
minimum total error for all the sections and spans. It was achieved by minimising the
square of the difference between the normalised analytical capacity (Mu/My) and the
normalised design capacity (Mb/My). This design rule is given by Equation 5.7 (b)
while Equations 5.7 (a) and (c) represent the design moment predictions for
yielding/local buckling and elastic lateral buckling regions, respectively.
For d 0.54 : Mc = M y (5.7a)
For 0.54 < d < 1.74 : M c = M y (0.28 d 1.29 d + 1.73)

2
(5.7b)
1
For d 1.74 : M c = M y 2

(5.7c)
d
The new Equation 5.7 (b) gave a mean of 1.008 and a COV of 0.071 for the ratio of
FEA to predicted capacity. A suitable capacity reduction factor was calculated for
Equation 5.7 (b) using the AISI procedure (see Section 5.4.3.1), and it was found to
be 0.905. The member slenderness values that separate the three regions
(yielding/local buckling, inelastic lateral distortional buckling and elastic lateral
buckling) were revised slightly. The new limits representing the three regions are
0.65 and 1.80 (see Equation 5.8). Based on these new limits the mean and COV
values for FEA results to predictions were recalculated, and they are 1.000 and
0.062, respectively. The capacity reduction factor () also slightly changed to 0.903
which is very close to the currently recommended reduction factor of 0.90 indicating
that Equation 5.8 (b) shows a good agreement with FEA results (see Figure 5.47). In
this calculation a COV value 0.065 was considered as it is the minimum value
recommended in the AISI procedure. Figure 5.47 compares the predicted moment
capacities from Equations 5.8 (a) to (c) with FEA results while the detailed
calculations of this comparison can be found in Appendix C. Moreover, the
comparisons of predicted moment capacities from Equations 5.8 (a) to (c) with FEA
results of selected LSB sections are given in Appendix C.
For d 0.65 : Mc = M y (5.8a)
For 0.65 < d < 1.80 : M c = M y (0.28 d 1.29 d + 1.73)

2
(5.8b)
1
For d 1.80 : M c = M y 2

(5.8c)
d
1.2
FEA
1.0
Eq. 5.8
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.47: Comparison of Moment Capacities with Predictions of Equations

5.8 (a) to (c)
The non-dimensional moment capacity results allow the development of a single

design curve capable of predicting the moment capacities for elastic and inelastic
buckling regions. Therefore, the new Equation 5.8 (b) developed for the inelastic
buckling region was extended to the elastic lateral buckling region. Thus Equation
5.8 (b) was applied to all the member slenderness values greater than 0.65. The
comparison of FEA and predicted moment capacities showed a good agreement and
gave a mean value of 0.996 and a COV of 0.064 with a capacity reduction factor of
0.899. However it must be noted here that there were only few results in the elastic
buckling region. Equation 5.8 (b) was therefore slightly modified to improve the
predictions and to ensure that the capacity reduction factor is slightly higher than the
recommended factor of 0.90. The modified Equation 5.9 (b) is given next. The
comparison gave a mean of 1.004 and a COV of 0.062 while the calculated capacity
reduction factor was 0.906 (see Figure 5.48).
For d 0.65 : Mc = M y (5.9a)
For 0.65 < d : M c = M y (0.24 d 1.23 d + 1.72)

2
(5.9b)
1.2
FEA
1.0
Eq. 5.9
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
Figure 5.48: Comparison of Finite Element Analyses with Moment Capacities

Predicted by Equations 5.9 (a) and (b)
Table 5.16 compares the experimental results (EXP) of back to back LSBs with the
predictions from Equation 5.8 (b), which gave a mean value of 1.072 and a COV of
0.081. The capacity reduction factor based on this comparison was found to be 0.947
which is conservative. However, it must be noted here that the comparison was made
with fewer experimental results (12 specimens). Also the experimental test program
was conducted using the overhang loading method, which creates some warping
effects on the test results. Although the results are non-dimensionalised the effect of
warping would not have been removed completely. Figure 5.49 compares the
experimental test results (EXP) with the FEA results and the predictions given by
Equation 5.8 (b).
1.2
FEA
1.0 Eq. 5.8
EXP
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My,
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.49: Comparison of Experimental Test and FEA Results with Moment
Capacities Predicted by Equations 5.8 (a) to (c)
Table 5.16: Comparison of Experimental Test Results and Moment Capacities

Predicted by Equations 5.8 (a) to (c)
LSB Section FS Mu Mod My Mu/My PRED EXP/PRED
Span/3 20.63 22.45 27.66 0.75 1.110 17.79 1.16
125452.0 LSB
Span/6 19.84 22.98 27.66 0.72 1.097 18.03 1.10
Span/1 17.43 16.90 30.00 0.58 1.333 15.25 1.14
Span/2 17.28 17.76 30.00 0.58 1.300 15.79 1.09
150451.6 LSB Span/3 17.71 18.28 30.00 0.59 1.281 16.11 1.10
Span/4 17.80 18.50 30.00 0.59 1.273 16.24 1.10
Span/6 19.55 18.70 30.00 0.65 1.267 16.36 1.20
Span/1 17.15 18.27 44.07 0.39 1.553 17.71 0.97
Span/2 17.00 19.39 44.07 0.39 1.507 18.58 0.91
200451.6 LSB Span/3 20.45 19.84 44.07 0.46 1.490 18.92 1.08
Span/4 17.93 20.01 44.07 0.41 1.484 19.05 0.94
Span/6 20.64 20.20 44.07 0.47 1.477 19.19 1.08
Note: FS Fastener spacing, (Mu, EXP) Tested ultimate moment MEAN 1.072
capacity, PRED Predicted moment capacity, Mod, My, are defined in STDEV 0.087
Section 5.4.2.2. Units kNm (Moment capacity) COV 0.081
LSB Curves
1.2
Design Curve for Single LSB (Anapayan
and Mahendran, 2009
1.0 Single LSB FEA
Proposed Design Curve for BTB LSB (Eq.

5.8)
0.8 BTB LSB FEA
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.50: Comparison of FEA Results of both Back to Back and Single LSBs
and Their Design Curves
LSB, HFB Curves

1.2
BTB FEA
1.0 HFB FEA
Eq. 5.8
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness (d)
Figure 5.51: Comparison of FEA Results of the Hollow Flange Beam Sections
with Equations 5.8 (a) to (c)
It is also useful to compare the FEA results of both back to back and single LSBs to
verify the need to have separate design rules for back to back LSBs. Figure 5.50
shows the non-dimensional moment capacity results of both back to back and single
LSBs and their developed design curves. In addition, the FEA results of hollow
flange beams (HFB) from Avery et al. (2000) were compared with the proposed
design rules (Equation 5.8) developed for back to back LSB sections. It is reasonable
comparing them as both back to back (BTB) LSB and HFB are doubly symmetric
sections, and have torsionally rigid flanges. It also verifies the accuracy of the FEA
results of back to back LSBs indirectly. Figure 5.51 shows the comparison of FEA
results of HFBs with the proposed design Equation 5.8. This comparison gave a
mean value of 1.015 and a COV 0.045 while the calculated member capacity
reduction factor was 0.915. Hence it indicates that the proposed design rule
(Equation 5.8) conservatively predicts the member moment capacities of hollow
flange beams.
)
5.4.3.1 Capacity Reduction Factor (
The proposed design equation (Equation 5.8 (b)) based on FEA accurately predicts
the moment capacities of back to back LSBs. However, the actual moment capacity
of a back to back LSB section used in a real steel structure could be considerably less
than the value predicted by these equations due to expected variations in material,
fabrication and loading effects etc. In general the finite element analysis results are
expected to have less affect to the above mentioned variations. Therefore a capacity
reduction factor, which is commonly used in the design codes, is recommended for
the moment capacity predictions by the proposed design rules.
The North American Cold-formed Steel Specifications (AISI, 2007) recommends a

statistical model to determine the capacity reduction factor. This model accounts for
the variations in material, fabrication and loading effects. The same model is also
used in the Australian Standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005). The capacity reduction
factor is given as follows.
0 V M2 +V F2 + C PV P2 +VQ2
= C M m Fm Pm e (5.10)
where
C = Calibration coefficient = 1.52 (follows Unites States)
Mm = Mean value of the material factor = 1.10
Fm = Mean value of fabrication factor = 1.00
Pm = Mean value of the tested to predicted moment capacity ratio
o = Target reliability index
= 2.5 for cold-formed steel members (follows United States)
VM = Coefficient of variation of material factor = 0.10
VF = Coefficient of variation of fabrication factor = 0.05
1 m
Cp = Correction factor = 1 +
n m 2
n = Number of tests
m = Degree of freedom (m = n 1)
VP = Coefficient of variation of test or finite element analysis results, not less
than 6.5% (0.065)
VQ = Coefficient of variation of load effect = 0.21
Mm, VM, Fm and VF were selected for the type of component, bending strength under
flexural members.
Pm and Vp values are determined from the finite element analysis or experimental
test results. Hence Pm and Vp are the mean and coefficient of variation of the ratio
of finite element analyses results to predicted moment capacity. Correction factor
depends on the number of tests or finite element analysis results. Other values are
considered as default values as specified above. The substitution of the above values
except Pm ,Vp and Cp leads to the following equation.
= 1.672 Pm e 2.5 0.0566 + C PVP2

(5.11)
As mentioned earlier the reduction factor () was calculated for the design formula
(Equation 5.8) as shown next.
The calculated mean value of the finite element analysis results to predicted moment
capacities ratio is 1.000 while the coefficient of variation is 0.062.
Pm = 1.000, VP = 0.065, n = 377, m = n 1 = 376

1 m
CP = 1 + = 1.008
n m 2
= 1.672 1.000e 2.5 0.0566 +1.0080.065 2
= 0.903
This is a satisfactory outcome for the proposed design Equation 5.8 (b).
1.2
FEA
1
Eq. 5.8
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Slederness (d)
Figure 5.52: Scattered FEA Results of Back to Back LSBs
As shown in Figure 5.52, the non-dimensionalised FEA results are scattered, in

particular in the inelastic buckling region. Although the results were non-
dimensionalised they are still scatted, and it could be due to the influence of the
section geometry of LSB sections. In the inelastic region, all the LSB members
exhibit a lateral distortional buckling failure, which is significantly influenced by the
section geometry, in particular the level of section compactness. The LSB sections
with a slender web exhibit higher level of web distortion compared with other
sections. Figure 5.43 compares the FEA results based on the level of compactness of
LSB sections. As shown in Figure 5.43 the results of slender sections are located
below those of compact and non-compact LSB sections. However, there is no
remarkable difference between the results of compact and non-compact LSB
sections. Thus it indicates the necessity for modification to the non-dimensional
method.
In order to eliminate the effect of back to back LSB geometry on the scatter of
moment capacity results, the slenderness parameter (d) was modified using a factor
(K) to include the effect of LSB geometry. For this purpose, a factor, K, was defined
as a function of the ratio of flexural rigidity of the web to the torsional rigidity of the
flanges, i.e. Et3L2/d1GJF based on Trahair (1995). This factor (K) provides a measure
of the relative magnitude of the flexural rigidity of the web in comparison with the
torsional rigidity of the flanges (Trahair, 1995). The function of K and the new
member capacity equations based on the modified slenderness (Kd) were found by
solving for the minimum total error. Equations 5.12 (a) and (b) were obtained for the
two regions. Figure 5.53 shows the comparison of the moment capacity curve
predicted by the new design Equations 5.12 (a) and (b) and FEA results. The
comparison shows a good agreement with a mean value of 1.004 and a COV of 0.051
while the calculated capacity reduction factor was 0.906. The scatter of results has
been reduced as shown in Figure 5.53, and the smaller value of COV also confirms
this. Hence it is considered that the new design equations are able to include the
moment capacity variations caused by the geometry of LSB sections.
For K d 0.70 : Mc = M y (5.12a)
For 0.70 < K d : M c = M y (0.22( K d ) 2 1.23( K d ) + 1.77) (5.12b)
1
where, K = 1
Et 3 L2 12
0.55 + 0.3
GJ f d1
GJf = Torsional rigidity of rectangular hollow flanges, t = Plate thickness,
d1 = Clear web height, L = Span length, E = Youngs modulus
A sample calculation of geometrical parameter (K) defined above is given in

Appendix C.
1.2
FEA
1
Eq. 5.12
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Slederness (kd)
Figure 5.53: Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and

Equations 5.12 (a) and (b)
Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a) also attempted to find the effects of section
geometry on the scatter of moment capacities of single LSBs. They found a
relationship to the section geometry which controls the cross-section distortion,
especially the web distortion, and modified the slenderness parameter (d) to account
for it. For this purpose, they defined a factor, K, which is a function of the ratio of
GJf to EIweb where GJf is the torsional rigidity of the rectangular hollow flange and
EIweb is the flexural rigidity of the web about the axis of bending. By varying the
function of K and by solving for the minimum total error, they found a best fit design
curve for single LSBs. The same K factor also works well for the back to back LSBs.
Based on the modified slenderness (Kd) Equations 5.13 (a) and (b) were developed
to represent the two regions. Figure 5.54 compares the moment capacities predicted
by the new design Equations 5.13 (a) and (b) and the FEA results. The comparison
gave a mean of 0.997 and a COV of 0.037 while the calculated capacity reduction
factor was 0.90. Thus it confirms the good agreement between the predictions by the
new equations and FEA results. As shown in Figure 5.54 the scatter of FEA results
has been significantly reduced. The smaller value of COV (0.037) also confirms this.
For K d 0.62 : Mc = M y (5.13a)
For 0.62 < K d : M c = M y (0.22( K d ) 2 1.12( K d ) + 1.61) (5.13b)
1
where, K =
GJ f
0.85 +
EI web
GJf = Torsional rigidity of rectangular hollow flanges

EIweb = Flexural rigidity of the web about the axis of bending
Appendix C presents the K factors calculated for all the back to back LSB sections.
1.2
FEA
1
Eq. 5.13
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Slederness (kd)
Figure 5.54: Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and Equations 5.13
(a) and (b)
5.4.4 Design Guidelines for Fastener Spacing
As discussed in this chapter fastener spacing significantly influences the flexural

strength of back to back LSB members depending on the section geometry and span
length. As the fastener spacing decreases the flexural strength of back to back LSB
members improves. However, in some span ranges the effect of fastener spacing is
considered to be insignificant. Thus in order to optimise the use of fasteners it is
necessary to develop suitable limits based on the span length. As the first step it is
necessary to review the currently available design rules.
5.4.4.1 Review of Fastener Spacing Limits in the Current Design Rules
The current design procedures take account of fastener failure and excessive
distortion between fasteners. However, it was not the aim of this research to
investigate the fastener failure. In order to prevent excessive distortion between the
fasteners, the current design codes suggest limits, which are slightly different from
each other. The currently available design guidelines for cold-formed built-up beams
are given in Section 2.8 of Chapter 2. However, for the sack of completeness they are
briefly summarised here.
Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)

Clause 4.1.1 specifies that a maximum longitudinal spacing for welds or other
connectors joining two channels to form an I-section shall be determined as follows:
*
l 2sg N
smax . = (5.14)
6 mq
where
l = span of beam, N* = design tensile force of the connection
sg = vertical distance between two rows of connections nearest to the top and bottom
flanges, q = intensity of the design action on the beam
m = distance from the shear centre of one channel to the mid-plane of its web
In summary, AS/NZS4600 suggests a connection spacing of span/6 as the maximum

limit by assuming that there is no fastener failure. Also, the American Cold-formed
Steel Specification (AISI, 2001) provides identical guidelines for cold-formed built-
up beams as for AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005).
British Standard BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998)

Clause 8.6.2 (b) of BS 5950 Part 5 specifies the maximum pitch for the connection of
two channels to form an I-section. In order to prevent the separation of the individual
channels by twisting it suggests two limits for the spacing of interconnections, and
the limits are as follows:
1) The beam length should be divided into at least three parts of approximately
L
equal length, ie. smax
3
2) smax 50 rcy
where, s = the longitudinal spacing of interconnections
rcy = the minimum radius of gyration of one channel
3) The tensile capacity, Pt, of the individual interconnections is greater than the
induced transverse shear force, Fs, that is, Pt Fs. This is not considered here as
the fasteners are conservatively designed.
In summary, BS 5950 Part 5 suggests a limit of span/3 as the maximum fastener
spacing while the local slenderness of the individual channel, (s/rcy), should not
exceed 50.
The back to back LSB members exhibited very little separation except in the case of
fastener spacing of span/1. Both experimental tests and finite element analyses
confirmed this. During lateral buckling the individual members of back to back LSBs
will buckle together without any separation between the fasteners. But back to back
LSBs with a fastener spacing of span/1 revealed sliding of webs on each other.
However, this fastener spacing is not practical. But this can also occur in other cases
where the beams with less fasteners are not fastened in the middle (where maximum
deflection occurs). In contrast, in the case of very short spans, the back to back LSBs
fail independently without much lateral deflections. In this case, the individual
members tend to deform independently and reveal little separation between the
fasteners. However, from a design point of view, there is no or very little concern
about excessive deformation between the fasteners for back to back LSB sections.
As mentioned earlier, the moment capacity increases with decreasing fastener

spacing. However, this effect depends on the span length. Hence to optimise the use
of fasteners it is necessary to design limits depending on the moment gain as well as
the fastener design. In the case of short spans, the effect of fastener spacing is
negligible. Thus, fastener spacing of span/3, recommended by BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI,
1998) is good enough to prevent any unwanted separations between the fasteners.
The short span region was defined as the spans corresponding to slenderness
( M y / M od ) ratios less than or are equal to 0.65. This slenderness limit of 0.65 was
based on the equation developed to predict the moment capacities of back to back
LSB sections (Equation 5.8 (a)). Based on this slenderness limit, the maximum span
in the short span region for each back to back LSB section was calculated (see Table
5.17). Equation 5.15 (a) gives an alternative member slenderness limit based on the
ratio of span length to the minimum radius of gyration of single LSBs (L/rcy). Table
5.17 compares the maximum short spans of back to back LSBs obtained based on the
FEA results and the predictions given by Equation 5.15 (a). A close agreement
between them indicates the accuracy of both member slenderness limits.
For intermediate and long spans the effect of fastener spacing is significant. Based on
the parametric studies the use of a fastener spacing of span/6 gives considerable
improvement to the moment capacity, and they are comparable with those of the
corresponding continuous connections. On average there is only 7% variation in
moment capacities. Thus it is recommended to use a fastener spacing of span/6 as
recommended by AS 4600 (SA, 2005) for intermediate and long spans. However, by
considering the design of fastener failure and the use of same sizes of bolts for the
full range of spans it is suggested to have an upper limit. The maximum fastener
spacing in terms of slenderness factor recommended in BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998)
appears to be suitable. This limit overrules the fastener spacing of span/6 when the
span length is increased. The maximum fastener spacing limit design is summarised
as follows:
0.4
L rcy L
For 180 : s max = (5.15a)
rcy d1 3
0.4
rcy L L
For 180 < < 300 : s max = (5.15b)
d1 rcy 6
L
For 300 : s max = 50 rcy (5.15c)
rcy
where, smax = the longitudinal fastener spacing, L = span length, d1 = Clear web
height, rcy = the minimum radius of gyration of single LSB section
Table 5.17: Comparison of Maximum Short Spans of Back to Back LSBs Obtained Based on FEA Results and Predictions by
Equation 5.15 (a)
MS MS/rcy
LSB Section Iy (mm4) A (mm2) rcy (mm) d1 (mm) (rcy/d1)0.4 MS/rcy PRED
(mm) PRED
300753.0 LSB 1.304E+06 1.887E+03 26.29 250.0 0.406 1900 72.28 73.11 0.99
300752.5 LSB 1.112E+06 1.581E+03 26.52 250.0 0.408 1875 70.70 73.37 0.96
300602.0 LSB 4.881E+05 1.132E+03 20.76 260.0 0.364 1420 68.38 65.50 1.04
250753.0 LSB 1.229E+06 1.737E+03 26.60 200.0 0.446 2080 78.20 80.32 0.97
250752.5 LSB 1.048E+06 1.456E+03 26.83 200.0 0.448 2020 75.29 80.59 0.93
250602.0 LSB 4.615E+05 1.032E+03 21.15 210.0 0.399 1480 69.99 71.86 0.97
200602.5 LSB 5.212E+05 1.156E+03 21.23 160.0 0.446 1675 78.88 80.25 0.98
200602.0 LSB 4.291E+05 9.320E+02 21.46 160.0 0.448 1620 75.50 80.58 0.94
200451.6 LSB 1.577E+05 6.380E+02 15.72 170.0 0.386 1100 69.97 69.45 1.01
150452.0 LSB 1.742E+05 6.920E+02 15.87 120.0 0.445 1260 79.41 80.13 0.99
150451.6 LSB 1.437E+05 5.581E+02 16.05 120.0 0.447 1220 76.03 80.49 0.94
125452.0 LSB 1.638E+05 6.420E+02 15.97 95.0 0.490 1515 94.85 88.21 1.08
125451.6 LSB 1.351E+05 5.181E+02 16.15 95.0 0.492 1420 87.94 88.60 0.99
Note: Iy, A, rcy are the second moment of area about minor axis, cross-section area, minimum radius of Mean 0.985
gyration of single LSB sections, respectively. d1 Clear web height of back to back LSB, MS
Maximum short span of back to back LSBs obtained based on FEA results, PRED Predicted
COV 0.041
maximum short span from Equation 5.15 (a).
Table 5.18: Maximum Fastener Spacings for Varying Span Lengths Based on the Developed Design Guidelines (Equations 5.15 (a) to (c))
rcy 50rcy d1 Span (mm)

LSB Section (rcy/d1)0.4
(mm) (mm) (mm) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 10000
300753.0 LSB 26.29 1314 250 0.406 333 333 500 667 833 1000 1167 1314 1314
300752.5 LSB 26.52 1326 250 0.408 333 333 500 667 833 1000 1167 1326 1326
300602.0 LSB 20.76 1038 260 0.364 333 333 500 667 833 1000 1038 1038 1038
250753.0 LSB 26.60 1330 200 0.446 333 667 500 667 833 1000 1167 1330 1330
250752.5 LSB 26.83 1341 200 0.448 333 667 500 667 833 1000 1167 1333 1341
250602.0 LSB 21.15 1057 210 0.399 333 333 500 667 833 1000 1057 1057 1057
200602.5 LSB 21.23 1062 160 0.446 333 333 500 667 833 1000 1062 1062 1062
200602.0 LSB 21.46 1073 160 0.448 333 333 500 667 833 1000 1073 1073 1073
200451.6 LSB 15.72 786 170 0.386 333 333 500 667 786 786 786 786 786
150452.0 LSB 15.87 793 120 0.445 333 333 500 667 793 793 793 793 793
150451.6 LSB 16.05 802 120 0.447 333 333 500 667 802 802 802 802 802
125452.0 LSB 15.97 799 95 0.490 333 333 500 667 799 799 799 799 799
125451.6 LSB 16.15 807 95 0.492 333 333 500 667 807 807 807 807 807
Note: rcy Minimum radius of gyration of single LSB section (corners of hollow flanges of LSBs were excluded in the
calculations of rcy), d1 Clear web height
Table 5.18 summarises the maximum fastener spacings for all the back to back LSB
sections with varying span lengths. These design guidelines provide safe and
optimum fastener spacing limits to the back to back LSB sections. It must be noted
here again that the fasteners are conservatively designed, and it is considered that
there is no fastener failure.
5.5 Conclusion
This chapter has described a detailed parametric study to investigate the flexural
behaviour of back to back LSB members. For this study, 13 different LSB sections
were selected with varying fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and
continuous connections. Their span length was varied from 1 m to 10 m. Both elastic
buckling and nonlinear analyses were conducted. The fastener spacing was found to
influence the elastic buckling moment capacities of back to back LSB members,
depending on the span length and the level of compactness of LSB sections. Elastic
buckling results of back to back LSB members were compared with that of
Nonlinear analyses were conducted to determine the ultimate moment capacities of

back to back LSB members. A global geometric imperfection limit of span/1000
(L/1000) was conservatively used. Effects of initial geometric imperfections and
residual stresses on the ultimate moment capacities were investigated. Variation in
the ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB members with varying fastener
spacings and spans was investigated in detail. From this study a fastener spacing of
span/6 was recommended as the suitable fastener spacing for intermediate and long
spans. This fastener spacing is also recommended by AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005).
The comparisons of ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSB members with
those of the corresponding single LSB members confirmed that back to back LSB
members significantly improve the ultimate moment capacity. However, the
improvement varied as a function of span length, fastener spacing and cross-section
geometry. The typical buckling modes of back to back LSB members with
intermediate span lengths are still affected by lateral distortional buckling. However,
the effect is small compared with the corresponding single LSB members. Effects of
fastener spacing on the contact separation behaviour between the two individual
LSBs and the deformed shape of back to back LSB sections were examined. Lack of
fastener spacing caused web sliding of individual members. Although these effects
were insignificant until ultimate failure, it became critical in the post-ultimate region.
Furthermore, the effects of varying fastener spacings of different rows were also
investigated in detail.
The applicability of currently available design rules specified in AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) was determined, and the comparisons confirmed that
none of the design rules predicts the member moment capacities of back to back LSB
members accurately. The new design rules developed for single LSB sections by
Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a) also appeared to be conservative. Thus, new
design rules were developed for back to back LSB members. In addition, in order to
eliminate the effect of section geometry on the scatter of non-dimensional moment
capacity results, the slenderness parameter was modified using a factor which
includes the effect of section geometry of LSBs. This modification significantly
reduces the scatter of the non-dimensional moment capacity results. New design
equations were also developed based on the modified slenderness. The modification
factor developed by Anapayan and Mahendran (2009) for single LSB members also
works well for back to back LSBs. Finally, the design guidelines for maximum
fastener spacings of back to back LSB sections were developed to optimise the use of
fasteners.
CHAPTER 6
Development of Design Rules
for Elastic Lateral Distortional
Buckling Moments of Back to
Back LSB Members
6.1 General
Chapter 5 described a detailed parametric study, which included the effects of

residual stresses, geometrical imperfections, section and member slenderness,
fastener spacing and location and contact on the moment capacities of back to back
LSB members, and a comparison with the results of corresponding single LSB
members. It also included new improved design rules to predict the ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSB members. The design rules were based on the elastic
lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB members. However, the
elastic lateral distortional buckling moments were obtained from finite element
analyses. Currently there is no analytical or empirical design method to predict the
elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB members
connected by intermittent fastening. Therefore investigation was undertaken to
develop a suitable method to predict the elastic buckling moments of intermittently
fastened back to back LSB members.
The back to back LSB with continuous connections is considered as the upper limit
to the back to back LSB configuration. It is therefore proposed to develop a suitable
method of predicting the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of
intermittently fastened back to back LSB members based on this upper limit. The
methods available to predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back
to back LSB members with continuous connections were first verified. In addition,
an equation was also developed to predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling
moments of back to back LSB members with continuous connections using the
results of corresponding single LSB members. Using the ratios of elastic buckling
moments of back to back LSB members with varying fastener spacings with those of
corresponding back to back LSBs with continuous fastener connections a suitable
equation was developed to predict these buckling moment ratios for varying LSB
sections, fastener spacings and span lengths. This chapter describes this investigation
in detail.
6.2 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs with
Continuous Connections
The back to back LSB with continuous connections is considered as the upper limit
to the back to back LSB configuration. It is therefore proposed to develop a suitable
method of predicting the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of
intermittently fastened back to back LSB members based on this upper limit of back
to back LSB configuration. Therefore elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of
back to back LSB members with varying fastener spacings need to be compared with
that of corresponding LSB members with continuous connections. Thus as the first
step it is necessary and appropriate to develop suitable equations to predict the elastic
lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB members with continuous
connections. The elastic buckling moment results of these LSB members were
obtained using finite element analyses, and were given in Table 5.1 of Chapter 5.
There are several methods available to predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling
moments of back to back LSB members with continuous connections. A finite strip
analysis program called THIN-WALL and Pi and Trahairs (1997) equations are able
to predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB
members with continuous connections. Moreover, an equation was also developed to
predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB
members with continuous connections using the results of corresponding single LSB
members. These details are given next.
6.2.1 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments Obtained Using THIN-

WALL
THIN-WALL is a finite strip analysis program used to perform elastic buckling

analysis of thin-walled structures with prismatic cross-sections. Elastic buckling
moments obtained from THIN-WALL are compared with the results obtained using
finite element analyses of back to back LSBs with continuous connections in Table
6.1. As shown in Table 6.1 the results agree well with an average deviation of (+)
4.5%. The elastic buckling moments from THIN-WALL are always slightly higher
than those from finite element analyses. The finite element and finite strip models
used are not identical since in the THIN-WALL model, separate elements were used
to simulate the connections whereas in the ABAQUS finite element model, Tie
MPCs were used at 10 mm intervals. This might have caused the observed difference
in the results. Also some of the cross-section properties might have been different,
particularly the warping and torsion constants. However, the deviation of results
appeared to be the same although the span length was changed. The comparison of
THIN-WALL and ABAQUS results gave a mean value of 1.044 and a COV of
0.028. It is reasonable to use a factor with the THIN-WALL results to eliminate the
difference between the results. It was found that a factor of 0.96 is suitable for this
purpose. The factored THIN-WALL results are also compared with the
corresponding finite element analysis results in Table 6.1. This comparison gave a
mean value of 1.002 and a COV of 0.028, indicating good agreement. In this chapter
THIN-WALL predictions are used with a reduction factor of 0.96 as they are always
slightly higher than the corresponding results of finite element analyses.
Table 6.1: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from Finite Element
Analyses and THIN-WALL Analyses
Length 300753.0 LSB 300752.5 LSB
(m) FEA TW TW/FEA RTWFEA FEA TW TW/FEA RTWFEA
2.0 320.77 338.80 1.06 1.01 N/A N/A N/A N/A
3.0 192.34 202.10 1.05 1.01 154.43 161.10 1.04 1.00
4.0 144.75 151.60 1.05 1.01 116.25 120.80 1.04 1.00
5.0 118.47 123.80 1.05 1.00 96.11 99.66 1.04 1.00
6.0 100.84 105.20 1.04 1.00 82.70 85.64 1.04 0.99
7.0 87.88 91.65 1.04 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
8.0 77.86 81.16 1.04 1.00 64.92 67.13 1.03 0.99
10.0 63.33 65.97 1.04 1.00 53.34 55.13 1.03 0.99
Length 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 289.55 304.50 1.05 1.01
3.0 65.68 68.64 1.05 1.00 186.19 194.80 1.05 1.00
4.0 49.32 51.35 1.04 1.00 144.09 150.30 1.04 1.00
5.0 40.55 42.14 1.04 1.00 118.95 123.90 1.04 1.00
6.0 34.71 36.02 1.04 1.00 101.46 105.60 1.04 1.00
7.0 30.39 31.52 1.04 1.00 88.42 91.96 1.04 1.00
8.0 27.03 28.02 1.04 1.00 78.29 81.40 1.04 1.00
10.0 22.11 22.9 1.04 0.99 63.59 66.08 1.04 1.00
Length 250752.5 LSB 250602.0 LSB
2.0 235.35 245.80 1.04 1.00 100.32 105.00 1.05 1.00
3.0 148.83 154.70 1.04 1.00 63.35 65.95 1.04 1.00
4.0 116.19 120.40 1.04 0.99 49.13 50.99 1.04 1.00
5.0 97.19 100.50 1.03 0.99 40.83 42.30 1.04 0.99
6.0 83.84 86.62 1.03 0.99 35.03 36.26 1.04 0.99
8.0 65.69 67.80 1.03 0.99 27.25 28.18 1.03 0.99
10.0 53.82 55.52 1.03 0.99 22.24 22.99 1.03 0.99
Length 200602.5 LSB 200602.0 LSB
2.0 119.78 125.80 1.05 1.01 91.55 95.33 1.04 1.00
3.0 81.65 85.39 1.05 1.00 62.67 64.96 1.04 1.00
4.0 63.53 66.30 1.04 1.00 49.74 51.45 1.03 0.99
5.0 52.12 54.34 1.04 1.00 41.49 42.87 1.03 0.99
6.0 44.15 46.00 1.04 1.00 35.56 36.72 1.03 0.99
8.0 33.73 35.12 1.04 1.00 27.55 28.43 1.03 0.99
10.0 27.24 28.35 1.04 1.00 22.41 23.12 1.03 0.99
Table 6.1: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from Finite Element
Analyses and THIN-WALL Analyses
Length 200451.6 LSB 150452.0 LSB
2.0 32.95 34.48 1.05 1.00 41.09 43.13 1.05 1.01
3.0 22.36 23.29 1.04 1.00 28.59 29.92 1.05 1.00
4.0 17.45 18.15 1.04 1.00 22.01 23.02 1.05 1.00
5.0 14.37 14.93 1.04 1.00 17.88 18.68 1.04 1.00
6.0 12.21 12.67 1.04 1.00 15.03 15.70 1.04 1.00
7.0 10.60 11.00 1.04 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
8.0 9.35 9.71 1.04 1.00 11.38 11.88 1.04 1.00
10.0 7.57 7.85 1.04 1.00 9.15 9.55 1.04 1.00
Length 150451.6 LSB 125452.0 LSB
2.0 31.60 32.84 1.04 1.00 40.91 42.76 1.05 1.00
3.0 22.57 23.40 1.04 1.00 28.74 29.98 1.04 1.00
4.0 17.73 18.36 1.04 0.99 22.12 23.06 1.04 1.00
5.0 14.57 15.08 1.03 0.99 17.94 18.69 1.04 1.00
6.0 12.34 12.77 1.03 0.99 15.07 15.70 1.04 1.00
7.0 10.69 11.05 1.03 0.99 12.98 13.52 1.04 1.00
8.0 9.42 9.74 1.03 0.99 11.40 11.87 1.04 1.00
10.0 7.60 7.86 1.03 0.99 9.15 9.53 1.04 1.00
Length 125451.6 LSB Note: FEA Elastic buckling moments
(m) FEA TW TW/FEA RTWFEA obtained from finite element analyses,
TW Elastic buckling moments
2.0 31.68 32.81 1.04 0.99 obtained from THIN-WALL
3.0 22.92 23.70 1.03 0.99 Units are in kNm.
4.0 17.95 18.55 1.03 0.99 Actual Comparison
Mean 1.044, COV 0.028
5.0 14.71 15.19 1.03 0.99 Comparison based on a reduction factor
6.0 12.43 12.83 1.03 0.99 of 0.96
8.0 9.46 9.77 1.03 0.99 RTWFEA = (0.96 TW)/FEA
10.0 7.62 7.87 1.03 0.99 Mean 1.002, COV 0.028
6.2.2 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments from Pi and Trahairs
(1997) Equations
Pi and Trahair (1997) provided equations to estimate the elastic lateral distortional
buckling moments of hollow flange beams using an approximate effective torsional
rigidity (GJe) as follows.
2 EI yy 2 EI w
M od = GJ e +

(6.1)
L2 L2
Et 3 L2
2GJ F
0.91 2 d 1
GJ e = (6.2)
Et 3 L2
2GJ F +
0.91 2 d1
where
d1 = Clear web height, L = Length, t = Thickness
E = Youngs modulus, G = Shear modulus of elasticity
Iw = Warping constant, Iyy = Second moment of area about minor axis
Je = Effective torsion section constant, JF = Torsion constant of hollow flange
Elastic lateral distortional buckling moments obtained using Pi and Trahairs

equations for single LSB members showed a good agreement with their
corresponding finite element analysis results (Anapayan and Mahendran, 2009c).
Thus it is reasonable to extend the use of Pi and Trahairs equations to back to back
LSB sections. However, Pi and Trahairs equations are limited to prismatic cross-
sections. Hence these equations can not be used for intermittently fastened back to
back LSB members. However, they are still applicable to back to back LSB members
with continuous connections as they are prismatic sections. Therefore Pi and
Trahairs equations were reviewed in order to understand the theory and assumptions
used with a view to modify them for back to back LSB sections.
df
c
Bolts
d1
c
df
2bf + g
Figure 6.1: Back to Back Configuration of LSBs
Figure 6.1 shows the proposed back to back built-up LSB section connected using
bolts on their web elements. The basic parameters are flange width (2bf), flange
depth (df), clear web height (d1), thickness (t), bolt clearance (c) and gap between
back to back LSBs (g).
Trahair (1995) used the energy method to develop a closed form solution for the
elastic lateral distortional buckling moment of hollow flange beams. Although this
closed form solution was derived based on doubly symmetric single members it is
applicable to built-up members when they behave as an integral member. The
assumptions used by Trahair (1995) were considered appropriate to the back to back
LSB members. Some of the important assumptions are discussed here. The
assumption, the flanges do not change shape while the web becomes a cubic curve
is appropriate to back to back LSB members, and the entire web is considered to be
deformable. The entire web means the webs of two individual members being
together, and both webs behave as an integral web except in some local buckling
cases. Trahair (1995) assumed the web rigidity as follows:
{ (
Dw = Et 3 / 12 1 2 )} (6.3)
where
E Youngs modulus, t Web thickness, v - Poissons ratio
This equation is appropriate for sections with a single web, but in the case of double
webs the web rigidity needs to be doubled. This modification makes small changes in
the equation developed for the effective torsion section constant (Equation 6.2) as
shown next.
Et 3 L2

2 GJ F
0 . 91 2
d
GJ e = 3 2
1
(6.4)
Et L
GJ F +
0.91 2 d 1
where the parameters are the same as defined in Equation 6.2.

t Thickness of single web element (thicknesses should not be added).
JF Torsional rigidity of flanges of back to back LSB section
d1 Clear web height.
However, another option is also available which is to use the same Pi and Trahairs
equation (Equation 6.2) with an equivalent thickness (te). Although the webs of back
to back LSB members behave as an integral web it can not be taken as a single web.
Thus thicknesses should not be added whilst an equivalent thickness (te) can be
defined, which is determined as follows:
t e = 3 2 (t ) (6.5)
where
t Thickness of single web element
This equivalent thickness gives the same GJe value obtained from Equation 6.4.
Thus, this equivalent thickness was used in Pi and Trahairs equation (Equation 6.2)
to obtain the GJe values of back to back LSB sections. Cross-section properties Iyy
and Iw of back to back LSBs can be obtained from THIN-WALL or be calculated
manually (see Appendix D). Based on these modifications Pi and Trahairs equations
were used to predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments. Firstly the
predictions of Pi and Trahairs equations were compared with the corresponding
THIN-WALL results as the relevant section property details required for Pi and
Trahairs equations were obtained from THIN-WALL. This comparison showed a
good agreement with a mean value of 0.997 and a COV of 0.021. Hence Pi and
Trahairs equations are considered to accurately predict the elastic lateral distortional
buckling moments of back to back LSBs with continuous connections. Pi and
Trahairs predictions were then compared with the corresponding finite element
analysis results in Table 6.2. The results agree well with an average deviation of (+)
4.1%, which is the same as observed earlier (see Table 6.1). The section property
details were obtained from THIN-WALL which might have caused the observed
difference. As explained earlier the FEA and THIN-WALL models are slightly
different. The deviation in results appeared to be constant although the span was
varied. The actual comparison gave a mean value of 1.041 and a COV of 0.051. To
eliminate the difference in the results it is appropriate to use the same reduction
factor of 0.96 to the predictions of Pi and Trahairs equations. The modified
predictions showed a good agreement with the finite element analysis results (see
Table 6.2). The comparison gave a mean value of 0.999 and a COV of 0.051,
indicating a good agreement. Thus it is recommended to use a reduction factor of
0.96 with the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB
members predicted by Pi and Trahairs equations.
Table 6.2: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments from
Finite Element Analyses and Pi and Trahairs Predictions
Length 300753.0 LSB 300752.5 LSB
(m) FEA PT PT/FEA RPTFEA FEA PT PT/FEA RPTFEA
2.0 320.77 350.33 1.09 1.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A
3.0 192.34 203.35 1.06 1.01 154.43 162.90 1.05 1.01
4.0 144.75 151.04 1.04 1.00 116.25 121.08 1.04 1.00
5.0 118.47 122.79 1.04 1.00 96.11 99.46 1.03 0.99
6.0 100.84 104.10 1.03 0.99 82.70 85.25 1.03 0.99
7.0 87.88 90.49 1.03 0.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A
8.0 77.86 80.03 1.03 0.99 64.92 66.63 1.03 0.99
10.0 63.33 64.96 1.03 0.98 53.34 54.63 1.02 0.98
Length 300602.0 LSB 250753.0 LSB
2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 289.55 311.38 1.08 1.03
3.0 65.68 69.51 1.06 1.02 186.19 194.91 1.05 1.00
4.0 49.32 51.52 1.04 1.00 144.09 149.38 1.04 1.00
5.0 40.55 42.06 1.04 1.00 118.95 122.74 1.03 0.99
6.0 34.71 35.84 1.03 0.99 101.46 104.41 1.03 0.99
7.0 30.39 31.29 1.03 0.99 88.42 90.83 1.03 0.99
8.0 27.03 27.77 1.03 0.99 78.29 80.34 1.03 0.99
10.0 22.11 22.65 1.02 0.98 63.59 65.16 1.02 0.98
Length 250752.5 LSB 250602.0 LSB
2.0 235.35 252.09 1.07 1.03 100.32 107.59 1.07 1.03
3.0 148.83 155.21 1.04 1.00 63.35 66.32 1.05 1.00
4.0 116.19 120.06 1.03 0.99 49.13 50.94 1.04 1.00
5.0 97.19 100.00 1.03 0.99 40.83 42.12 1.03 0.99
6.0 83.84 86.05 1.03 0.99 35.03 36.03 1.03 0.99
8.0 65.69 67.24 1.02 0.98 27.25 27.93 1.02 0.98
10.0 53.82 55.02 1.02 0.98 22.24 22.76 1.02 0.98
Length 200602.5 LSB 200602.0 LSB
2.0 119.78 126.84 1.06 1.02 91.55 96.46 1.05 1.01
3.0 81.65 84.90 1.04 1.00 62.67 64.88 1.04 0.99
4.0 63.53 65.62 1.03 0.99 49.74 51.19 1.03 0.99
5.0 52.12 53.67 1.03 0.99 41.49 42.57 1.03 0.99
6.0 44.15 45.38 1.03 0.99 35.56 36.43 1.02 0.98
8.0 33.73 34.60 1.03 0.98 27.55 28.17 1.02 0.98
10.0 27.24 27.91 1.02 0.98 22.41 22.90 1.02 0.98
Table 6.2: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments from
Finite Element Analyses and Pi and Trahairs Predictions
Length 200451.6 LSB 150452.0 LSB
2.0 32.95 34.90 1.06 1.02 41.09 42.98 1.05 1.00
3.0 22.36 23.26 1.04 1.00 28.59 29.58 1.03 0.99
4.0 17.45 18.03 1.03 0.99 22.01 22.68 1.03 0.99
5.0 14.37 14.79 1.03 0.99 17.88 18.38 1.03 0.99
6.0 12.21 12.54 1.03 0.99 15.03 15.44 1.03 0.99
7.0 10.60 10.87 1.03 0.98 N/A N/A N/A N/A
8.0 9.35 9.58 1.02 0.98 11.38 11.68 1.03 0.98
10.0 7.57 7.74 1.02 0.98 9.15 9.38 1.03 0.98
Length 150451.6 LSB 125452.0 LSB
2.0 31.60 32.91 1.04 1.00 40.91 42.56 1.04 1.00
3.0 22.57 23.28 1.03 0.99 28.74 29.66 1.03 0.99
4.0 17.73 18.22 1.03 0.99 22.12 22.76 1.03 0.99
5.0 14.57 14.94 1.03 0.98 17.94 18.43 1.03 0.99
6.0 12.34 12.64 1.02 0.98 15.07 15.47 1.03 0.99
7.0 10.69 10.94 1.02 0.98 12.98 13.32 1.03 0.99
8.0 9.42 9.64 1.02 0.98 11.40 11.69 1.03 0.98
10.0 7.60 7.77 1.02 0.98 9.15 9.39 1.03 0.98
Length 125451.6 LSB Note: FEA Elastic buckling moments
(m) FEA PT PT/FEA RPTFEA obtained from finite element analyses,
PT Elastic lateral distortional buckling
2.0 31.68 32.74 1.03 0.99 moments obtained using Pi and Trahairs
3.0 22.92 23.54 1.03 0.99 equations
4.0 17.95 18.40 1.02 0.98 Units are in kNm.
5.0 14.71 15.06 1.02 0.98
Actual Comparison
6.0 12.43 12.72 1.02 0.98 Mean 1.041, COV 0.051
7.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Comparison based on a reduction factor
8.0 9.46 9.67 1.02 0.98 of 0.96
RPTFEA = (0.96 PT)/FEA
10.0 7.62 7.79 1.02 0.98 Mean 0.999, COV 0.051
6.2.3 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments Based on Those of Single
LSB Members
It is useful if the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSBs
with continuous connections can be predicted using the results of corresponding
single LSB members. In this case, Pi and Trahairs equations were used to find a
relationship between the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back
and single LSB members. This can be written using Pi and Trahairs equations as
follows:
2 Ek I I yy , S 2 Ek I I w, S
yy
GJ e , BTBC + w
L2 L2
M od , BTBC
= (6.6)
M od , S EI yy , S
2
2 EI w, S
GJ e , S +
L2 L2

where
L = Length, E = Youngs modulus, G = Shear modulus of elasticity
Iw, S = Warping constant of single LSB
Iyy, S = Second moment of area about minor axis of single LSB member
Je, S = Effective torsion section constant of single LSB member
Je, BTBC = Effective torsion section constant of back to back LSB member
k I yy = Ratio between the second moments of area about the minor axis of back to
back and single LSB sections

k I w = Ratio between the warping constants of back to back and single LSB sections
Mod, BTBC = Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment of back to back LSB member
with continuous connection
Mod, S = Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment of corresponding single LSB
member
The effective torsional rigidity (GJe, BTBC) of back to back LSB sections can be
expressed as follows:
Et BTBC
3
L2

2GJ F , BTBC
0 . 91 2
d 1
GJ e , BTBC = (6.7)
Et BTBC
3
L2
2GJ F , BTBC +
0 . 91 2
d 1
E 2t 3 L2 Et 3 L2
2G 2 J F , S 2 2GJ F , S
0.91 2 d 0.91 2 d
= 1 = 1 = 2GJ
e, S
E 2t L
3 2
Et L
3 2
2G 2 J F , S + 2GJ F , S +
0.91 2 d 0.91 2 d
1 1
where t is thickness of single LSB section
Now Equation 6.6 can be expressed as follows:
2 Ek I I w, S
M od , BTBC 2GJ e , S + 2
w
= k I yy L (6.8)
M od , S 2 EI w, S
GJ e , S +
L2
2 EI w, S
Substituting the effective torsional rigidity (GJe,S) and warping rigidity of
L2

single LSB sections by a and b, respectively.
Et 3 L2
2GJ F
0.91 2 d1 2 EI w, S
i.e. a = GJ e ,S = , b=
Et 3 L2 L2
2GJ F +
0.91 2 d1
Equation 6.8 can be written as follows where fc is the ratio of elastic buckling
moments of back to back and single LSBs.
M od , BTBC 2a + bk I w (2a + 2b ) + bk I 2b
fc = = k I yy = k I yy w
M od , S a+b (a + b )
= k I yy 2 +
(
b k Iw 2 ) = k I yy 2 +
k Iw 2
(a + b ) 1+
a
b
k Iw 2 a
f c = k I yy 2 + where k l = 1 + (6.9)
kl b
Three factors, kl, k I yy and k I w have to be calculated to determine the buckling
moment ratio fc.
kl factor can be calculated in two ways as follows:
2 EI w, S
1) By obtaining torsional rigidity (a = GJe,S) and warping rigidity (b = )
L2
of single LSBs from single LSB section property data or
2) Deriving an equation (Equation 6.20) using the basic parameters as given
next.
Torsional rigidity of flanges of single LSB section is given by the following

equation:
2b 2f d 2f t 2
JF = (6.10)
t (b f + d f )
where
bf Width of the flange, df Depth of the flange, t Thickness of the flange
(uniform thickness)
Note: centreline dimensions are used here.
Effective torsional rigidity GJe,S (a) can be defined using the basic parameters of
LSB sections as follows:
Et 3 L2 E 2b 2f d 2f t 2 Et 3 L2
2GJ F 2
0.91 2 d1 2(1 + v) t (b f + d f ) 0.91 2 d1
a = GJ e ,S = =
Et 3 L2 E 2b 2f d 2f t 2 Et 3 L2
2GJ F + 2 +
0.91 2 d1 2(1 + v) t (b f + d f ) 0.91 2 d1
E
where shear modulus of elasticity is expressed as , and Poissons ratio (v) is
2 (1 + v )
0.3.
2b 2f d 2f t Et 3 L2 2b 2f d 2f Et 3 L2

(b f + d f )(1 + v) 0.91 2 d1 (b f + d f )(1 + 0.3) 0.91 2 d1
a= =
2b 2f d 2f t t 3 L2 2b 2f d 2f t 2 L2
+ +
(b f + d f )(1 + v) 0.91 2 d1 (b f + d f )(1 + 0.3) 0.91 2 d1
2b 2f d 2f Et 3 L2
=
0.91 2 d1 2b 2f d 2f + (1 + 0.3)(b f + d f )t 2 L2
2b 2f d 2f Et 3 L2
a= (6.11)
9d 1 2b 2f d 2f + 1.3t 2 L2 (b f + d f )
Since the ratio of flange width (bf) to flange depth (df) is the same for all the LSB
4
sections, and is equal to .
13
2b 3f k 2 Et 3 L2 df
a= where k = (6.12)
18d1b 3f k 2 + 1.3 t 2 L2 (1 + k ) bf
2
4
2b 3f Et 3 L2
= 13 where k =
4
2
3 4 4 13
18db f + 1.3t 2 L2 (1 + )
13 13
0.19b 3f Et 3 L2
a= (6.13)
(
1.7 db + t L3
f
2 2
)
I yy h 2
Warping constant (Iw) of LSB section is approximately equal to
4
where Iyy Second moment of area about the minor axis of LSB section
h Depth of the beam
Iyy, S of single LSB section can be expressed using the basic parameters as follows:
Y bf
Y
2b 3f
I yy , S = 2t + b 2f d f (6.14a)
df 3

2tb 2f

I y ,S = 2 td f b f + = 2b f t (d f + b f )
2

(6.14b)
[
AS = t 4(d f + b f ) + d1 ] (6.14c)
I yy ,S , I y ,S are the second and first moments
of area of single LSB about the axis, Y ,

t
respectively.
Y AS Cross-section area of single LSB section
Y
Figure 6.2: Second Moment of Area about the Minor Axis of Single LSB Section
Thus, second moment of area about axis Y (minor axis) can be expressed as follows:
I yy ,S = I yy ,S
2b 3f
I y2,S
= 2t + b 2f d f

[
2b f t (d f + b f )
2
] (6.15)

AS 3 [
t 4 (d f + b f ) + d1 ]
I y2, S
=
{2b t (d + b )} = 4b t (d + b )
f f f
2 2
f f f
2
AS t {4 (d + b ) + d } [4 (d + b ) + d ]
f f 1 f f 1
2b 3f 4b 2f t (d f + b f )2
I yy ,S = 2t + b 2f d f
3
4 (d f + b f ) + d1
2b 3f 4b 2f t (kb f + b f )2
= 2t + b 2f kb f where df = kbf
3
4 (kb f + b f ) + d1
2
[
2tb 3f + k 4b f (1 + k ) + d1 4b 4f t (1 + k )
2
]
I yy ,S = 3
[
4b f (1 + k ) + d1 ]
2 4 4 4
2

tb 3f 2 + 4b f (1 + ) + d1 4b f 1 +
3 13 13 13 4
= where k =
4 13
4b f (1 + 13 ) + d1
I yy ,S =
[
tb 3f 3.35b f + 1.95d1 ] (6.16)
[5.23b f + d1 ]
Thus warping rigidity Iw,S (b) can be rewritten as follows:
2 EI w,S 2 E I yy ,S h
2
I yy , S h 2
b= = where I w, S
L2 L2 4
4
2 E h 2 tb f [3.35b f + 1.95d1 ]
3
b= (6.17)
L2 4 [5.23b + d1 ]
f
a
Function can be expressed as follows:
b
0.19b 3f Et 3 L2 0.19t 2 L4
a
=
(
1.7 d1b 3f + t 2 L2 ) =
( )
1.7 d1b 3f + t 2 L2
2 E h 2 tb f [3.35b f + 1.95d1 ] [3.35b + 1.95d ]

b
2h2
3
f 1
L2 4 [5.23b + d1 ] 4 [5.23b + d ]
f f 1
a
=
[
0.19t 2 L4 5.23b f + d1 ] (6.18)
h
( )[ ]
2 2
b
1.7 d1b 3f + t 2 L2 3.35b f + 1.95d1
4
Beam height (h) can be approximated to clear web height (d1), and Equation 6.18 is
approximated as follows:
a
=
[
t 2 L4 5.23b f + d1 ] where h d1 (6.19)
b
22.2d d b + t L
1
2
( 3
1 f
2 2
) [3.35b f + 1.95d1 ]
a
Now factor, k l = 1 + , can be expressed as follows:
b
kl = 1 +
[
t 2 L4 5.23b f + d1 ] (6.20)
22.2d d b + t L1
2
( 3
1 f
2 2
) [3.35b f + 1.95d1 ]
To determine the buckling moment ratio (fc) from Equation 6.9, two more factors,
k I yy and k I yy are needed. They can be obtained by calculating the ratios of the
corresponding cross-section properties of back to back LSBs with continuous

connections to single LSBs from THIN-WALL. Alternatively they can be calculated
from Equations 6.24 and 6.25, which are given next.
Deriving an Equation for k I yy Factor
Second moment of area about the minor axis of back to back LSB sections can be
expressed as follows using the cross-section properties of single LSB section.
[
I yy , BTBC = 2 I yy , S + AS hc2 ] (6.21)
I y , S t + g
where hc = + is the distance between centroids of back to back and
AS 2
single LSB sections.
t Thickness of LSB section, g gap between the individual LSB sections
AS Cross-section area of single LSB section
Iyy,S Second moment of area about the minor axis (Y) of single LSB section
I y , S First moment of area about axis Y (see Figure 6.2) of single LSB section
First moment of area about axis, Y can be expressed as follows:
[
I y ,S = 2 td f b f + tb 2f ] (6.22)
df
= 2tb 2f (1 + k ) where k =
bf
4
= 2.62b 2f t where k =
13
Cross-section area (AS) can be approximately expressed as AS = t 5.23b f + d1 [ ]

I y ,S 2.62b 2f t 2.62b 2f
= =
AS [
t 5.23b f + d1 ] [5.23b f + d1 ]
Thus k I yy can be expressed as follows:
k I yy =
I yy , BTBC
=
(
2 I yy , S + AS hc2 ) (6.23)
I yy , S I yy , S
I +
2
2

2 I yy , S + AS
y , S
+
t g
I t + g
+
y , S
AS 2 AS
A 2
= = 2 1+

S

I yy , S I yy ,S

2
2.62b 2f t + g
(5.23b f + d 1 ) t +
(5.23b f + d1 ) 2
k I yy = 2 1 +
[
tb 3f 3.35b f + 1.95d 1 ]

[
5.23b f + d1 ]
2.62b 2f +
2
(5.23b f + d1 )
2
+
t g

(5.23b f + d1 ) 2
= 2 1 + (6.24)

[
b 3f 3.35b f + 1.95d1 ]

Table 6.3: Comparison of k I yy Factors Obtained From THIN-WALL and
Equation 6.24
THIN- Equation
LSB Section bf d1 t g TW/Eq.
WALL* 6.24
300753.0 LSB 72.0 250.0 3.0 0.1 3.54 3.56 1.00
300752.5 LSB 72.5 250.0 2.5 0.1 3.52 3.53 1.00
300602.0 LSB 58.0 260.0 2.0 0.1 3.28 3.29 1.00
250753.0 LSB 72.0 200.0 3.0 0.1 3.76 3.78 1.01
250752.5 LSB 72.5 200.0 2.5 0.1 3.73 3.75 1.01
250602.0 LSB 58.0 210.0 2.0 0.1 3.47 3.48 1.00
200602.5 LSB 57.5 160.0 2.5 0.1 3.77 3.79 1.01
200602.0 LSB 58.0 160.0 2.0 0.1 3.73 3.75 1.01
200451.6 LSB 43.4 170.0 1.6 0.1 3.41 3.43 1.00
150452.0 LSB 43.0 120.0 2.0 0.1 3.78 3.80 1.01
150451.6 LSB 43.4 120.0 1.6 0.1 3.74 3.76 1.01
125452.0 LSB 43.0 95.0 2.0 0.1 4.02 4.05 1.01
125451.6 LSB 43.4 95.0 1.6 0.1 3.98 4.01 1.01
Note: Note: bf Width of the flange element of single LSB section, d1 Clear web height,
t Thickness of the LSB section, g Gap between two individual LSB sections, TW/Eq.
Comparison of k I yy factors, THIN-WALL to Equation 6.24. * These values are from
Table D2.1 in Appendix D.
The k I yy factors obtained using Equation 6.24 and THIN-WALL are compared in
Table 6.3. The comparison gave a mean value of 1.005 and a COV of 0.001, thus
showing a good agreement between the results of Equation 6.24 and THIN-WALL.
Deriving an Equation for k I w Factor
The warping constant of LSB sections can also be expressed using the basic
parameters. However, it is fairly complex. Thus a simple and approximate equation
was derived to express k I w using the basic parameters, and is as follows:
2n
bf n
k Iw = 4 + 0.85 t , and n = 0.38 (6.25)
d1
bf Width of the flange element of single LSB, d1 Clear web height, t Thickness
of LSB section, n a constant value of 0.38.
Table 6.4: Comparison of k I w Factors Obtained From THIN-WALL and
Equation 6.25
THIN- Equation
LSB Section bf d1 t TW/Eq.
WALL* 6.25
300753.0 LSB 72.0 250.0 3.0 4.48 4.50 1.00
300752.5 LSB 72.5 250.0 2.5 4.45 4.47 1.00
300602.0 LSB 58.0 260.0 2.0 4.27 4.35 1.02
250753.0 LSB 72.0 200.0 3.0 4.56 4.59 1.01
250752.5 LSB 72.5 200.0 2.5 4.54 4.56 1.00
250602.0 LSB 58.0 210.0 2.0 4.41 4.42 1.00
200602.5 LSB 57.5 160.0 2.5 4.55 4.55 1.00
200602.0 LSB 58.0 160.0 2.0 4.52 4.51 1.00
200451.6 LSB 43.4 170.0 1.6 4.34 4.36 1.00
150452.0 LSB 43.0 120.0 2.0 4.52 4.51 1.00
150451.6 LSB 43.4 120.0 1.6 4.49 4.47 1.00
125452.0 LSB 43.0 95.0 2.0 4.51 4.61 1.02
125451.6 LSB 43.4 95.0 1.6 4.49 4.56 1.02
Note: Note: bf Width of the flange of single LSB, d1 Clear web height, t
Thickness of the LSB section, TW/Eq. Comparison of k I w factors, THIN-WALL
to Equation 6.25. * These values are from Table D2.1 in Appendix D.
The k I w factors obtained from both Equation 6.25 and THIN-WALL are compared in
Table 6.4. The comparison gave a mean value of 1.006 and a COV of 0.008. Thus
the developed simple Equation 6.25 accurately predicts the k I w factors for all LSB
sections. However, this equation was limited to the currently available LSBs with a
df 4
flange depth to width ratio of . Alternatively, the warping constants (Iw)
b 13
f
of both back to back LSB and single LSB members can also be manually calculated.
Appendix D provides the method for calculating the warping constant of both single
LSB sections and back to back LSB sections with continuous connections. The
warping constant calculations are based on Murray (1984). The cross-section
properties calculated based on Murray (1984) and those obtained from THIN-WALL
are compared in Appendix D. The comparison shows a very good agreement,
indicating the accuracy of the calculations. However, as shown in Appendix D the
detailed calculations of warping constants of back to back LSBs and single LSBs are
lengthy and are prone to have errors. Hence, Equation 6.25 is recommended for the
calculation of k I w factor.
Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment capacities of back to back LSB members
with continuous connections can be obtained by multiplying the elastic lateral
distortional buckling moments of corresponding single LSBs with buckling moment
ratio fc from Equation 6.9. However, it is also necessary to use a reduction factor of
0.96. Thus the final equation can be expressed as follows:
M od , BTBC = 0.96 f c M od , S = 0.96 k I yy 2 +

(k Iw 2 ) M od , S (6.26)
kl
Table 6.5 shows the comparison of buckling moment ratios (fc) obtained from
Equation 6.9 and finite element analysis results. The elastic lateral buckling moments
of single LSB members were obtained from Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a). As
recommended earlier the buckling moment ratio, fc, obtained from Equation 6.9 was
multiplied by the reduction factor of 0.96. The comparison gave a mean value of
0.995 and a COV of 0.012 indicating a good agreement between them. Figures 6.3
(a) to (c) compare the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments obtained from
finite element analyses (ABAQUS), finite strip analyses (THIN-WALL) and
Equation 6.26 for selected back to back LSB members.
Element Analyses and Equation 6.9
300753.0 LSB
Span (m)
MEC MES RCC fc RECES Eq./FEA
2.0 320.77 97.87 3.28 3.50 3.36 1.03
3.0 192.34 65.69 2.93 3.09 2.96 1.01
4.0 144.75 52.37 2.76 2.89 2.77 1.00
6.0 100.84 38.00 2.65 2.75 2.64 0.99
8.0 77.86 29.71 2.62 2.71 2.60 0.99
10.0 63.33 24.29 2.61 2.69 2.58 0.99
300602.0 LSB
Span (m)
3.0 65.68 22.99 2.86 3.01 2.89 1.01
4.0 49.32 18.36 2.69 2.80 2.69 1.00
6.0 34.71 13.50 2.57 2.65 2.55 0.99
8.0 27.03 10.65 2.54 2.61 2.51 0.99
10.0 22.11 8.76 2.52 2.59 2.49 0.99
250753.0 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 289.55 89.72 3.23 3.41 3.27 1.01
3.0 186.19 64.12 2.90 3.03 2.91 1.00
4.0 144.09 51.78 2.78 2.89 2.77 1.00
6.0 101.46 37.46 2.71 2.80 2.69 0.99
8.0 78.29 29.14 2.69 2.77 2.66 0.99
10.0 63.59 23.75 2.68 2.76 2.65 0.99
300752.5 LSB
Span (m)
3.0 154.43 51.62 2.99 3.14 3.01 1.01
4.0 116.25 41.59 2.80 2.91 2.79 1.00
6.0 82.70 31.05 2.66 2.75 2.64 0.99
8.0 64.92 24.72 2.63 2.70 2.59 0.99
10.0 53.34 20.43 2.61 2.68 2.58 0.99
250752.5 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 235.35 70.79 3.32 3.49 3.35 1.01
3.0 148.83 50.41 2.95 3.06 2.94 1.00
4.0 116.19 41.43 2.80 2.89 2.78 0.99
6.0 83.84 30.87 2.72 2.79 2.68 0.99
8.0 65.69 24.40 2.69 2.76 2.65 0.99
10.0 53.82 20.07 2.68 2.75 2.64 0.98
250602.0 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 100.32 31.69 3.17 3.34 3.21 1.01
3.0 63.35 22.36 2.83 2.96 2.84 1.00
4.0 49.13 18.19 2.70 2.80 2.69 0.99
6.0 35.03 13.37 2.62 2.70 2.59 0.99
8.0 27.25 10.50 2.60 2.67 2.56 0.99
10.0 22.24 8.60 2.59 2.65 2.55 0.98
200602.5 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 119.78 39.80 3.01 3.16 3.04 1.01
3.0 81.65 29.19 2.80 2.91 2.79 1.00
4.0 63.53 23.26 2.73 2.83 2.72 0.99
6.0 44.15 16.42 2.69 2.78 2.67 0.99
8.0 33.73 12.60 2.68 2.76 2.65 0.99
10.0 27.24 10.19 2.67 2.76 2.65 0.99
200602.0 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 91.55 29.57 3.10 3.23 3.10 1.00
3.0 62.67 22.16 2.83 2.92 2.80 0.99
4.0 49.74 18.13 2.74 2.82 2.71 0.99
6.0 35.56 13.19 2.70 2.77 2.66 0.99
8.0 27.55 10.27 2.68 2.75 2.64 0.98
10.0 22.41 8.37 2.68 2.74 2.63 0.98
200451.6 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 32.95 11.37 2.90 3.05 2.93 1.01
3.0 22.36 8.33 2.68 2.79 2.68 1.00
4.0 17.45 6.67 2.62 2.70 2.59 0.99
6.0 12.20 4.74 2.57 2.65 2.54 0.99
8.0 9.35 3.65 2.56 2.63 2.53 0.99
10.0 7.57 2.96 2.55 2.62 2.52 0.99
Note: MEC, MES Elastic lateral distortional buckling moments obtained from
finite element analyses for back to back LSB members with continuous
connection and single LSB members, respectively, RCC MEC to MES buckling
moment ratio, fc Buckling moment ratio obtained using Equation 6.9, RECES =
0.96fc, Eq./FEA Comparison of buckling moment ratios (Equation 6.9 to RCC).
150452.0 LSB
Span (m)
1.0 88.55 26.74 3.31 3.57 3.42 1.03
2.0 41.09 14.52 2.83 2.95 2.84 1.00
3.0 28.59 10.48 2.73 2.83 2.72 1.00
4.0 22.01 8.17 2.70 2.79 2.68 0.99
6.0 15.03 5.62 2.68 2.77 2.66 0.99
8.0 11.38 4.26 2.67 2.76 2.65 0.99
10.0 9.15 3.43 2.67 2.76 2.65 0.99
150451.6 LSB
Span (m)
1.0 68.44 20.38 3.36 3.65 3.50 1.04
2.0 31.60 11.02 2.87 2.97 2.85 1.00
3.0 22.57 8.24 2.74 2.82 2.71 0.99
4.0 17.73 6.56 2.70 2.78 2.67 0.99
6.0 12.34 4.60 2.68 2.75 2.64 0.99
8.0 9.42 3.52 2.67 2.74 2.63 0.99
10.0 7.60 2.84 2.67 2.74 2.63 0.98
125452.0 LSB
Span (m)
1.0 80.22 24.72 3.25 3.44 3.30 1.02
2.0 40.91 14.35 2.85 2.96 2.84 1.00
3.0 28.74 10.31 2.79 2.88 2.77 0.99
4.0 22.12 7.99 2.77 2.86 2.75 0.99
6.0 15.07 5.47 2.76 2.85 2.73 0.99
8.0 11.40 4.14 2.75 2.84 2.73 0.99
10.0 9.15 3.33 2.75 2.84 2.73 0.99
125451.6 LSB
Span (m)
2.0 31.68 11.01 2.88 2.96 2.84 0.99
3.0 22.92 8.20 2.80 2.87 2.76 0.99
4.0 17.95 6.47 2.77 2.85 2.73 0.99
6.0 12.43 4.50 2.76 2.83 2.72 0.99
8.0 9.46 3.43 2.76 2.83 2.71 0.98
10.0 7.62 2.77 2.75 2.83 2.71 0.98
Note: MEC, MES Elastic lateral distortional buckling moments obtained from
finite element analyses for back to back LSB members with continuous
connection and single LSB members, respectively, RCC MEC to MES buckling
moment ratio, fc Buckling moment ratio obtained using Equation 6.9, RECES =
0.96fc, Eq./FEA Comparison of buckling moment ratios (Equation 6.9 to RCC).
600
FSA (THIN-WALL)
FEA (ABAQUS)
500
Equation 6.26
Elastic Buckling Moment, Mod (kNm)
400
300
200
100
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) 300753.0 LSB
200
FSA (THIN-WALL)
FEA (ABAQUS)
160
Equation 6.26
120
80
40
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) 300602.0 LSB
Figure 6.3: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from Finite Element

Analyses, Finite Strip Analyses and Equation 6.26
450
FSA (THIN-WALL)
FEA (ABAQUS)
360
Equation 6.26
270
180
90
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(c) 250753.0 LSB
Figure 6.3: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments from Finite Element

Analyses, Finite Strip Analyses and Equation 6.26
6.3 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of Intermittently Fastened

Back to Back LSB Members
Currently there are no design equations available except the design rule specified in
British Standard BS 5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998) to calculate the elastic buckling
moments of intermittently fastened back to back LSB members. British Standard BS
5950 Part 5 (BSI, 1998) specifies appropriate effective lengths for compound
sections composed of two channels back to back designed as a single integral
member. The effective length includes the effects of fastener connections into the
design. However, this design rule is not suitable for back to back LSB members.
Thus it is necessary to develop a suitable design rule to predict the elastic lateral
distortional buckling moments of intermittently fastened back to back LSB members.
Continuous connections provide the upper bound for back to back LSB members
from a strength viewpoint. As discussed earlier several methods are available to
predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB
members with continuous connections including an equation which is to use the
results of corresponding single LSB members. Elastic lateral distortional buckling
moments of intermittently fastened back to back LSB members are always less than
those of back to back LSBs with continuous connections except in some local
buckling cases. Thus it is appropriate to develop a design equation to predict the
effect of fastener spacings based on the upper limit of the elastic lateral distortional
buckling moments of continuously connected back to back LSBs. As shown in Table
6.6 the effects of fastener spacings on the elastic buckling moments vary with
fastener spacing ratio. Table 6.6 compares the elastic buckling moments of back to
back LSB members with varying fastener spacings with those of corresponding back
to back LSBs with continuous connections. The buckling moment ratio is always less
than 1.0 except in some local buckling cases. As shown in Table 6.6 the buckling
moment ratios vary depending on the section geometry. By eliminating the effects of
section geometry a suitable equation can be developed to predict the buckling
moment ratios of all the back to back LSBs with varying fastener spacings and span
lengths. These details are discussed next.
Span 300753.0 LSB
1.0 360.71 360.21 359.85 359.51 358.22 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.000
2.0 269.62 279.99 286.67 294.92 320.77 0.841 0.873 0.894 0.919 1.000
3.0 167.93 173.94 177.52 181.64 192.34 0.873 0.904 0.923 0.944 1.000
4.0 128.57 133.09 135.62 138.42 144.75 0.888 0.919 0.937 0.956 1.000
5.0 109.94 111.97 114.09 118.47 0.928 0.945 0.963 1.000
6.0 94.20 95.86 97.56 100.84 0.934 0.951 0.968 1.000
7.0 N/A 82.49 83.90 85.31 87.88 N/A 0.939 0.955 0.971 1.000
8.0 73.34 74.58 75.77 77.86 0.942 0.958 0.973 1.000
10.0 59.99 60.95 61.86 63.33 0.947 0.962 0.977 1.000
Span 300602.0 LSB
1.0 86.44 86.32 86.25 86.18 85.93 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 86.43 86.36 86.30 86.19 85.78 1.008 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.000
3.0 58.45 60.30 61.37 62.59 65.68 0.890 0.918 0.934 0.953 1.000
4.0 44.58 45.95 46.70 47.52 49.32 0.904 0.932 0.947 0.963 1.000
5.0 38.09 38.69 39.31 40.55 0.939 0.954 0.969 1.000
6.0 32.78 33.28 33.77 34.71 0.945 0.959 0.973 1.000
N/A N/A
7.0 28.82 29.24 29.66 30.39 0.948 0.962 0.976 1.000
8.0 25.71 26.08 26.43 27.03 0.951 0.965 0.978 1.000
10.0 21.13 21.41 21.68 22.11 0.956 0.969 0.981 1.000
Span 250753.0 LSB
1.0 437.21 436.64 436.35 435.97 434.42 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.000
2.0 243.62 253.52 259.78 267.35 289.55 0.841 0.876 0.897 0.923 1.000
3.0 161.83 168.17 171.89 176.06 186.19 0.869 0.903 0.923 0.946 1.000
4.0 127.10 132.10 134.83 137.79 144.09 0.882 0.917 0.936 0.956 1.000
5.0 109.99 112.22 114.50 118.95 0.925 0.943 0.963 1.000
6.0 94.42 96.26 98.10 101.46 0.931 0.949 0.967 1.000
N/A N/A
7.0 82.68 84.24 85.77 88.42 0.935 0.953 0.970 1.000
8.0 73.45 74.83 76.13 78.29 0.938 0.956 0.972 1.000
10.0 59.99 61.07 62.06 63.59 0.943 0.960 0.976 1.000
Note: ME2, ME3, ME4, ME6 and MEC are the elastic buckling moments of back to back
LSB members with fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4, span/6 and continuous
connection, respectively. RE2, RE3, RE4, RE6 and REC are the ratios of elastic buckling
moments of LSB members with different fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4,
span/6 and continuous connection to the corresponding elastic buckling moments of
LSB members with continuous connection, respectively.
Span 300752.5 LSB
1.0 211.75 211.46 211.31 211.14 210.50 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 211.47 211.32 211.16 210.94 209.93 1.007 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.000
3.0 134.50 139.40 142.30 145.64 154.43 0.871 0.903 0.921 0.943 1.000
4.0 103.12 106.78 108.83 111.09 116.25 0.887 0.919 0.936 0.956 1.000
5.0 89.13 90.79 92.52 96.11 0.927 0.945 0.963 1.000
6.0 77.21 78.59 79.99 82.70 0.934 0.950 0.967 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 61.12 62.16 63.17 64.92 0.941 0.957 0.973 1.000
10.0 50.50 51.32 52.09 53.34 0.947 0.962 0.977 1.000
Span 250752.5 LSB
1.0 256.92 256.64 256.49 256.32 255.57 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 197.27 205.44 210.59 216.84 235.35 0.838 0.873 0.895 0.921 1.000
3.0 129.11 134.23 137.22 140.59 148.83 0.867 0.902 0.922 0.945 1.000
4.0 102.38 106.43 108.64 111.05 116.19 0.881 0.916 0.935 0.956 1.000
5.0 89.81 91.64 93.51 97.19 0.924 0.943 0.962 1.000
6.0 77.98 79.51 81.04 83.84 0.930 0.948 0.967 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 61.60 62.76 63.86 65.69 0.938 0.955 0.972 1.000
10.0 50.75 51.67 52.51 53.82 0.943 0.960 0.976 1.000
Span 250602.0 LSB
1.0 103.60 103.46 103.39 103.31 103.01 1.006 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.000
2.0 86.25 89.41 91.36 93.69 100.32 0.860 0.891 0.911 0.934 1.000
3.0 56.14 58.09 59.21 60.44 63.35 0.886 0.917 0.935 0.954 1.000
4.0 44.15 45.66 46.47 47.34 49.13 0.898 0.929 0.946 0.963 1.000
5.0 38.22 38.89 39.55 40.83 0.936 0.952 0.969 1.000
6.0 32.98 33.53 34.07 35.03 0.941 0.957 0.973 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 25.84 26.25 26.63 27.25 0.948 0.963 0.977 1.000
10.0 21.18 21.50 21.80 22.24 0.952 0.967 0.980 1.000
Span 200602.5 LSB
1.0 244.29 251.91 251.74 251.54 250.61 0.975 1.005 1.005 1.004 1.000
2.0 103.10 107.13 109.60 112.47 119.78 0.861 0.894 0.915 0.939 1.000
3.0 71.93 74.73 76.30 77.98 81.65 0.881 0.915 0.934 0.955 1.000
4.0 56.59 58.83 59.99 61.19 63.53 0.891 0.926 0.944 0.963 1.000
5.0 48.60 49.55 50.47 52.12 0.932 0.951 0.968 1.000
6.0 41.39 42.17 42.91 44.15 0.937 0.955 0.972 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 31.84 32.41 32.93 33.73 0.944 0.961 0.976 1.000
10.0 25.83 26.27 26.67 27.24 0.948 0.965 0.979 1.000
Span 200602.0 LSB
1.0 131.61 131.50 131.43 131.36 130.99 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.000
2.0 78.54 81.68 83.59 85.80 91.55 0.858 0.892 0.913 0.937 1.000
3.0 55.12 57.29 58.51 59.81 62.67 0.880 0.914 0.934 0.954 1.000
4.0 44.26 46.03 46.94 47.90 49.74 0.890 0.925 0.944 0.963 1.000
5.0 38.66 39.42 40.16 41.49 0.932 0.950 0.968 1.000
6.0 33.32 33.95 34.55 35.56 0.937 0.955 0.971 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 25.98 26.46 26.89 27.55 0.943 0.960 0.976 1.000
10.0 21.24 21.61 21.94 22.41 0.947 0.964 0.979 1.000
Span 200451.6 LSB
1.0 50.95 50.80 50.72 50.63 50.46 1.010 1.007 1.005 1.003 1.000
2.0 29.14 30.11 30.69 31.32 32.95 0.884 0.914 0.931 0.951 1.000
3.0 20.17 20.83 21.19 21.57 22.36 0.902 0.932 0.948 0.965 1.000
4.0 15.90 16.41 16.68 16.95 17.45 0.911 0.940 0.956 0.971 1.000
5.0 13.17 13.60 13.81 14.01 14.37 0.916 0.946 0.961 0.975 1.000
6.0 11.23 11.60 11.77 11.94 12.20 0.920 0.950 0.965 0.978 1.000
7.0 9.78 10.10 10.25 10.38 10.60 0.923 0.953 0.967 0.980 1.000
8.0 8.65 8.93 9.06 9.18 9.35 0.925 0.955 0.969 0.982 1.000
10.0 7.02 7.25 7.35 7.44 7.57 0.929 0.959 0.972 0.984 1.000
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 73.95 77.17 79.08 81.43 88.55 0.835 0.872 0.893 0.920 1.000
2.0 36.07 37.46 38.27 39.15 41.09 0.878 0.912 0.931 0.953 1.000
3.0 25.50 26.50 27.03 27.56 28.59 0.892 0.927 0.945 0.964 1.000
4.0 19.80 20.60 20.98 21.36 22.01 0.900 0.936 0.953 0.970 1.000
5.0 16.81 17.12 17.41 17.88 0.941 0.958 0.974 1.000
6.0 14.20 14.45 14.68 15.03 0.945 0.961 0.977 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 10.81 10.99 11.15 11.38 0.949 0.966 0.980 1.000
10.0 8.72 8.86 8.98 9.15 0.954 0.969 0.982 1.000
Span 150451.6 LSB
1.0 58.00 60.59 62.12 63.98 68.44 0.847 0.885 0.908 0.935 1.000
2.0 27.69 28.76 29.39 30.06 31.60 0.876 0.910 0.930 0.951 1.000
3.0 20.11 20.91 21.32 21.75 22.57 0.891 0.926 0.945 0.963 1.000
4.0 15.93 16.56 16.89 17.19 17.73 0.898 0.934 0.952 0.970 1.000
5.0 13.16 13.69 13.95 14.19 14.57 0.903 0.940 0.957 0.974 1.000
6.0 11.20 11.65 11.86 12.05 12.34 0.907 0.944 0.961 0.976 1.000
7.0 9.73 10.12 10.30 10.46 10.69 0.910 0.947 0.963 0.978 1.000
8.0 8.59 8.94 9.09 9.23 9.42 0.912 0.949 0.965 0.980 1.000
10.0 6.96 7.24 7.36 7.46 7.60 0.916 0.952 0.968 0.982 1.000
Span 125452.0 LSB
1.0 67.03 70.11 71.92 74.10 80.22 0.836 0.874 0.897 0.924 1.000
2.0 35.58 37.09 37.97 38.89 40.91 0.870 0.907 0.928 0.951 1.000
3.0 25.35 26.48 27.06 27.65 28.74 0.882 0.921 0.942 0.962 1.000
4.0 19.68 20.56 21.00 21.42 22.12 0.890 0.929 0.950 0.968 1.000
5.0 16.06 16.78 17.13 17.45 17.94 0.895 0.936 0.955 0.973 1.000
6.0 13.55 14.16 14.44 14.70 15.07 0.899 0.940 0.958 0.975 1.000
7.0 11.71 12.24 12.47 12.68 12.98 0.902 0.943 0.961 0.977 1.000
8.0 10.31 10.76 10.97 11.15 11.40 0.904 0.945 0.963 0.979 1.000
10.0 8.31 8.68 8.84 8.98 9.15 0.908 0.948 0.966 0.981 1.000
Span 125451.6 LSB
1.0 51.84 54.29 55.36 55.36 55.38 0.936 0.980 1.000 1.000 1.000
2.0 27.52 28.71 29.39 30.13 31.68 0.869 0.906 0.928 0.951 1.000
3.0 20.20 21.11 21.58 22.05 22.92 0.882 0.921 0.942 0.962 1.000
4.0 15.96 16.69 17.05 17.39 17.95 0.889 0.930 0.949 0.968 1.000
5.0 13.75 14.04 14.30 14.71 0.935 0.954 0.972 1.000
6.0 11.67 11.90 12.12 12.43 0.939 0.958 0.975 1.000
N/A N/A
8.0 8.93 9.10 9.25 9.46 0.944 0.962 0.978 1.000
10.0 7.22 7.36 7.47 7.62 0.948 0.965 0.981 1.000
(a) LSB Sections with the Same Cross-section Geometry except the Web Depth
1.05
1.00
Buckling Moment Ratio (BTBi/BTBC)
0.95
300*75*3.0 LSB, Cont.

0.90
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
0.85 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
250*75*3.0 LSB, Cont.
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
0.80 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
0.75
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) Comparison of LSB Sections, 300753.0 LSB and 250753.0 LSB
1.05
1.00
0.95
300*60*2.0 LSB, Cont.

0.90 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.85 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
200*60*2.0 LSB, Cont.
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
0.80 200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.75
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) Comparison of LSB Sections, 300602.0 LSB and 200602.0 LSB
Figure 6.4: Effects of Web Depth on the Buckling Moment Ratio
(b) LSB Sections with the Same Web Depth except the Flange Rigidity
1.05
1.00
0.95
300*60*2.0 LSB, Cont.

0.90 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.85 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
300*75*3.0 LSB, Cont.
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
0.80 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
0.75
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
1.05
1.00
0.95
200*60*2.5 LSB, Cont.

0.90
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4
200*60*25 LSB, Span/3
0.85
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
200*45*1.6 LSB, Cont.
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
0.80 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
0.75
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
Figure 6.5: Effects of Flange Rigidity on the Buckling Moment Ratio
(c) LSB Sections with the Same Cross-section Geometry except the Thickness
1.05
1.00
Buckling Moment Ratio (BTBI/BTBC)
0.95
250*75*3.0 LSB, Cont.

0.90 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
0.85 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
250*75*2.5 LSB, Cont.
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6
0.80 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2
0.75
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90 150*45*2.0 LSB, Cont.

150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4
0.85 150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
150*45*1.6 LSB, Cont.
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
0.80
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
0.75
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
Figure 6.6: Effects of Thickness on the Buckling Moment Ratio
Figures 6.4 (a) and (b) compare the effects of web depth on the buckling moment
ratio for selected LSB sections. Cross-section geometry is the same except the web
depth for the selected LSB sections. As shown in Figures 6.4 (a) and (b) the effects
of web depth increased when the fastener spacing was increased. Figures 6.5 (a) and
(b) compare the effects of flange rigidity on the buckling moment ratio for selected
LSB sections. The comparison was made on LSB sections having the same depths
with varying flange rigidity. The comparison shows that the flange rigidity
significantly affects the buckling moment ratio. Similarly Figures 6.6 (a) and (b)
compare the LSB sections with the same cross-section geometry except the
thickness. However, in this case, only minor changes were noted on the buckling
moment ratio near short span region. In summary, cross-section geometry,
particularly the torsional rigidity of flanges, significantly influences the buckling
moment ratios. Thus, by eliminating the effects of cross-section geometry an
appropriate design rule can be developed to predict the buckling moment ratios for
varying fasteners as well as for different spans. The parameter Et3L2/d1GJF provides
a measure of the relative magnitude of the flexural rigidity of the web in comparison
with the torsional rigidity of the flanges (Trahair, 1995). This parameter is capable of
eliminating the effects of section geometry of LSB (see Section 5.4.3 of Chapter 5).
1.05
2 m Span
3 m Span
Buckling Moment Ratio, fs (BTBi/BTBC)
1.00 5 m Span
6 m Span
7 m Span
0.95
8 m Span
10 m Span
0.90
0.85
0.80
y = mx 2 nx + 1
0.75
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fastener Spacing Ratio (s/L)
Figure 6.7: Buckling Moment Ratio versus Fastener Spacing Ratio Curves for
Varying Spans of LSB Section, 300753.0 LSB
Figure 6.7 shows the curves of the ratio of elastic buckling moments of intermittently
fastened and continuous back to back LSBs versus fastener spacing ratio for varying
span lengths of LSB section, 300753.0 LSB. Based on the trendline a second order
polynomial equation can be developed to predict the plotted curves (see Figure 6.7).
The values of m and n vary with different span lengths and fastener spacings.
The values of m and n were obtained for different span lengths and fastener
spacings and LSB sections. From the results an approximate relationship was found
between m and n. The developed second order polynomial equation is as
follows:
2
s s
f s = m n + 1 1, (6.27)
L L
where m and n are constants and n = 0.75m + 0.2

fs = Ratio of elastic buckling moments of LSBs with intermittently fastened and
continuous connections, s Fastener spacing, L Span length
An attempt was made to obtain a relationship between the calculated m values and
the measure of the relative magnitude of the flexural rigidity of the web in
comparison with the torsional rigidity of the flanges, i.e. Et3L2/d1GJF. Based on the
best fit curve an approximate relationship was found as follows:
Et 3 L2
m = 0.18 ln + 0.73 (6.28)
GJ F d1
However the relationship Et3L2/d1GJF can be approximated as follows for LSBs
Et 3 L2 Et 3 L2 1.3t 2 L2 (1 + k ) 18t 2 L2
= = 3 (6.29)
GJ F d 1 2 2 2 b 3f k 2 d 1 b f d1
E 2b f d f t

2(1 + v) ( )
fb + d f td 1
df 4
where Poissons ratio (v) is 0.3, k = =
b f 13
Thus, the buckling moment ratio (fs) is expressed as follows:
2
s s
fs = m n +1 1 (6.30)
L L
18t 2 L2
where n = 0.75m + 0.2 and m = 0.18 ln 3 + 0.73
b d
f 1
s Fastener spacing, L Span length
bf Width of the flange of single LSB, d1 Clear web height, t Thickness of the
flange
The buckling moment ratio obtained from Equation 6.30 and finite element analyses
are compared in Table 6.7. The comparison shows a good agreement between them.
The mean values and associated coefficients of variation (COV) were also calculated
for each LSB section and the results are listed in Table 6.7. Figures 6.8 (a) and (b)
plot the mean and COV values of all the LSB sections. From the results shown in
Figures 6.8 (a) and (b) we can conclude that large and medium size LSB members
gave very good mean values and small coefficients of variation, indicating the
accuracy of the developed design equation. In contrast, small size LSB members
show a small deviation. However, the maximum mean value was found to be 1.030,
and the maximum coefficient of variation was only 0.014. In summary, the
developed design Equation 6.30 is considered to be suitable and is able to predict the
elastic buckling moment ratios (fs) accurately. From Equation 6.30, it is confirmed
that the parameter Et3L2/d1GJF developed by Trahair (1995) is able to predict the
buckling moment ratios along the different span lengths accurately.
Table 6.7: Comparison of Buckling Moment Ratios Obtained From Finite
Span 300753.0 LSB
(m) RE2 RE3 RE4 RE6 fs2 fs3 fs4 fs6 Cf2 Cf3 Cf4 Cf6
2.0 0.841 0.873 0.894 0.919 0.852 0.880 0.902 0.930 1.011.01 1.01 1.01
3.0 0.873 0.904 0.923 0.944 0.871 0.901 0.921 0.944 1.001.00 1.00 1.00
4.0 0.888 0.919 0.937 0.956 0.884 0.915 0.934 0.954 0.991.00 1.00 1.00
5.0 0.928 0.945 0.963 0.894 0.926 0.944 0.962 1.00 1.00 1.00
6.0 0.934 0.951 0.968 0.902 0.935 0.952 0.968 1.00 1.00 1.00
N/A N/A
7.0 0.939 0.955 0.971 0.909 0.943 0.959 0.973 1.00 1.00 1.00
8.0 0.942 0.958 0.973 0.915 0.950 0.965 0.978 1.01 1.01 1.01
10.0 0.947 0.962 0.977 0.925 0.961 0.975 0.986 1.01 1.01 1.01
Mean = 1.003, COV = 0.006
Span 300602.0 LSB
3.0 0.890 0.918 0.934 0.953 0.866 0.896 0.916 0.940 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99
4.0 0.904 0.932 0.947 0.963 0.879 0.910 0.929 0.950 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99
5.0 0.939 0.954 0.969 0.889 0.921 0.939 0.958 0.98 0.98 0.99
6.0 0.945 0.959 0.973 0.897 0.930 0.947 0.965 0.98 0.99 0.99
7.0 N/A 0.948 0.962 0.976 0.904 0.938 0.954 0.970 N/A 0.99 0.99 0.99
8.0 0.951 0.965 0.978 0.910 0.945 0.960 0.975 0.99 1.00 1.00
10.0 0.956 0.969 0.981 0.920 0.956 0.970 0.982 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mean = 0.988, COV = 0.009
Span 250753.0 LSB
2.0 0.841 0.876 0.897 0.923 0.857 0.886 0.907 0.934 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01
3.0 0.869 0.903 0.923 0.946 0.876 0.906 0.926 0.948 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00
4.0 0.882 0.917 0.936 0.956 0.889 0.921 0.939 0.958 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00
5.0 0.925 0.943 0.963 0.899 0.932 0.949 0.966 1.01 1.01 1.00
6.0 0.931 0.949 0.967 0.907 0.941 0.957 0.972 1.01 1.01 1.01
7.0 N/A 0.935 0.953 0.970 0.914 0.949 0.964 0.977 N/A 1.01 1.01 1.01
8.0 0.938 0.956 0.972 0.920 0.955 0.970 0.982 1.02 1.01 1.01
10.0 0.943 0.960 0.976 0.930 0.966 0.980 0.990 1.02 1.02 1.01
Mean = 1.010, COV = 0.006
Note: RE2, RE3, RE4, and RE6 are the buckling moment ratios obtained from finite element
analyses for fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6, respectively. fs2, fs3, fs4 and
fs6 are the buckling moment ratios obtained from Equation 6.30 for fastener spacings of
span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6, respectively. Cf2, Cf3, Cf4 and Cf6 are the comparison of
buckling moment ratios obtained from finite element analyses and Equation 6.30 for fastener
spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6, respectively.
Span 300752.5 LSB
3.0 0.871 0.903 0.921 0.943 0.862 0.891 0.912 0.937 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
4.0 0.887 0.919 0.936 0.956 0.875 0.905 0.925 0.947 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
5.0 0.927 0.945 0.963 0.885 0.917 0.935 0.955 0.99 0.99 0.99
6.0 0.934 0.950 0.967 0.893 0.926 0.943 0.961 0.99 0.99 0.99
N/A N/A
8.0 0.941 0.957 0.973 0.906 0.940 0.956 0.971 1.00 1.00 1.00
10.0 0.947 0.962 0.977 0.916 0.951 0.966 0.979 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mean = 0.994, COV = 0.006
Span 250752.5 LSB
2.0 0.838 0.873 0.895 0.921 0.849 0.876 0.899 0.927 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01
3.0 0.867 0.902 0.922 0.945 0.867 0.897 0.917 0.941 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00
4.0 0.881 0.916 0.935 0.956 0.880 0.911 0.930 0.951 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00
5.0 0.924 0.943 0.962 0.890 0.922 0.940 0.959 1.00 1.00 1.00
6.0 0.930 0.948 0.967 0.898 0.931 0.948 0.965 1.00 1.00 1.00
N/A N/A
8.0 0.938 0.955 0.972 0.911 0.946 0.961 0.975 1.01 1.01 1.00
10.0 0.943 0.960 0.976 0.921 0.957 0.971 0.983 1.01 1.01 1.01
Mean = 1.002, COV = 0.006
Span 250602.0 LSB
2.0 0.860 0.891 0.911 0.934 0.853 0.881 0.903 0.930 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00
3.0 0.886 0.917 0.935 0.954 0.871 0.901 0.921 0.944 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99
4.0 0.898 0.929 0.946 0.963 0.884 0.915 0.934 0.954 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99
5.0 0.936 0.952 0.969 0.894 0.927 0.944 0.962 0.99 0.99 0.99
6.0 0.941 0.957 0.973 0.902 0.936 0.952 0.968 0.99 0.99 1.00
N/A N/A
8.0 0.948 0.963 0.977 0.915 0.950 0.965 0.978 1.00 1.00 1.00
10.0 0.952 0.967 0.980 0.925 0.961 0.975 0.986 1.01 1.01 1.01
Mean = 0.994, COV = 0.008
analyses for fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6, respectively. fs2, fs3, fs4
and fs6 are the buckling moment ratios obtained from Equation 6.30 for fastener spacings of
Span 200602.5 LSB
2.0 0.861 0.894 0.915 0.939 0.869 0.899 0.919 0.943 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00
3.0 0.881 0.915 0.934 0.955 0.888 0.920 0.938 0.957 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00
4.0 0.891 0.926 0.944 0.963 0.901 0.934 0.951 0.967 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00
5.0 0.932 0.951 0.968 0.911 0.945 0.961 0.975 1.01 1.01 1.01
6.0 0.937 0.955 0.972 0.919 0.954 0.969 0.981 1.02 1.01 1.01
N/A N/A
8.0 0.944 0.961 0.976 0.932 0.969 0.982 0.991 1.03 1.02 1.02
10.0 0.948 0.965 0.979 0.942 0.980 0.992 0.999 1.03 1.03 1.02
Mean = 1.012, COV = 0.009
Span 200602.0 LSB
2.0 0.858 0.892 0.913 0.937 0.859 0.887 0.909 0.935 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
3.0 0.880 0.914 0.934 0.954 0.877 0.908 0.927 0.949 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
4.0 0.890 0.925 0.944 0.963 0.890 0.922 0.940 0.959 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5.0 0.932 0.950 0.968 0.900 0.933 0.950 0.967 1.00 1.00 1.00
6.0 0.937 0.955 0.971 0.908 0.942 0.958 0.973 1.01 1.00 1.00
N/A N/A
8.0 0.943 0.960 0.976 0.921 0.957 0.971 0.983 1.01 1.01 1.01
10.0 0.947 0.964 0.979 0.931 0.968 0.981 0.991 1.02 1.02 1.01
Mean = 1.002, COV = 0.008
Span 200451.6 LSB
2.0 0.884 0.914 0.931 0.951 0.867 0.897 0.917 0.941 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99
3.0 0.902 0.932 0.948 0.965 0.885 0.917 0.935 0.955 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99
4.0 0.911 0.940 0.956 0.971 0.898 0.931 0.948 0.965 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
5.0 0.916 0.946 0.961 0.975 0.908 0.942 0.958 0.973 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
6.0 0.920 0.950 0.965 0.978 0.916 0.952 0.966 0.979 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7.0 0.923 0.953 0.967 0.980 0.923 0.959 0.973 0.985 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00
8.0 0.925 0.955 0.969 0.982 0.929 0.966 0.979 0.989 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01
10.0 0.929 0.959 0.972 0.984 0.939 0.977 0.989 0.997 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.01
Mean = 0.998, COV = 0.011
analyses for fastener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4 and span/6, respectively. fs2, fs3, fs4 and
fs6 are the buckling moment ratios obtained from Equation 6.30 for fastener spacings of
Span 150452.0 LSB
1.0 0.835 0.872 0.893 0.920 0.852 0.880 0.902 0.929 1.021.01 1.01 1.01
2.0 0.878 0.912 0.931 0.953 0.885 0.917 0.935 0.955 1.011.01 1.00 1.00
3.0 0.892 0.927 0.945 0.964 0.904 0.937 0.954 0.970 1.011.01 1.01 1.01
4.0 0.900 0.936 0.953 0.970 0.917 0.952 0.967 0.980 1.021.02 1.01 1.01
5.0 0.941 0.958 0.974 0.927 0.963 0.977 0.987 1.02 1.02 1.01
6.0 0.945 0.961 0.977 0.935 0.972 0.985 0.994 1.03 1.02 1.02
N/A N/A
8.0 0.949 0.966 0.980 0.948 0.986 0.998 1.000 1.04 1.03 1.02
10.0 0.954 0.969 0.982 0.958 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.05 1.03 1.02
Mean = 1.017, COV = 0.011
Span 150451.6 LSB
1.0 0.847 0.885 0.908 0.935 0.844 0.871 0.894 0.923 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.99
2.0 0.876 0.910 0.930 0.951 0.875 0.905 0.925 0.947 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00
3.0 0.891 0.926 0.945 0.963 0.893 0.926 0.943 0.961 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4.0 0.898 0.934 0.952 0.970 0.906 0.940 0.956 0.971 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00
5.0 0.903 0.940 0.957 0.974 0.916 0.951 0.966 0.979 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
6.0 0.907 0.944 0.961 0.976 0.924 0.960 0.974 0.985 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01
7.0 0.910 0.947 0.963 0.978 0.931 0.968 0.981 0.991 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01
8.0 0.912 0.949 0.965 0.980 0.937 0.975 0.987 0.996 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02
10.0 0.916 0.952 0.968 0.982 0.947 0.986 0.997 1.000 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.02
Mean = 1.007, COV = 0.013
Span 125452.0 LSB
1.0 0.836 0.874 0.897 0.924 0.859 0.888 0.909 0.935 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.01
2.0 0.870 0.907 0.928 0.951 0.891 0.923 0.941 0.959 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01
3.0 0.882 0.921 0.942 0.962 0.909 0.943 0.959 0.974 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.01
4.0 0.890 0.929 0.950 0.968 0.922 0.958 0.972 0.984 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.02
5.0 0.895 0.936 0.955 0.973 0.932 0.969 0.982 0.991 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.02
6.0 0.899 0.940 0.958 0.975 0.940 0.978 0.990 0.998 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02
7.0 0.902 0.943 0.961 0.977 0.947 0.986 0.997 1.000 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.02
8.0 0.904 0.945 0.963 0.979 0.953 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.02
10.0 0.908 0.948 0.966 0.981 0.963 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.02
Mean = 1.030, COV = 0.013
Span 125451.6 LSB
(m) RE3 RE2
RE4 RE6 fs2 fs3 fs4 fs6 Cf2 Cf3 Cf4 Cf6
2.0 0.869
0.906 0.928 0.951 0.880 0.911 0.930 0.951 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00
3.0 0.882
0.921 0.942 0.962 0.898 0.931 0.948 0.965 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.00
4.0 0.889
0.930 0.949 0.968 0.911 0.946 0.961 0.975 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.01
5.0 0.935 0.954 0.972 0.921 0.957 0.971 0.983 1.02 1.02 1.01
6.0 0.939 0.958 0.975 0.929 0.966 0.979 0.990 1.03 1.02 1.01
N/A N/A
8.0 0.944 0.962 0.978 0.942 0.980 0.992 1.000 1.04 1.03 1.02
10.0 0.948 0.965 0.981 0.952 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.05 1.04 1.02
Mean = 1.018, COV = 0.012
1.040
1.030
300*75*3.0 LSB
1.020 300*75*2.5 LSB
300*60*2.0 LSB
250*75*3.0 LSB
1.010
Mean Value
250*75*2.5 LSB
250*60*2.0 LSB
1.000 200*60*2.5 LSB
200*60*2.0 LSB
200*45*1.6 LSB
0.990 150*45*2.0 LSB
150*45*1.6 LSB
125*45*2.0 LSB
0.980
125*45*1.6 LSB
0.970
0.960
LSB Sections
(a) Mean Values
Figure 6.8: Mean Values and Coefficients of Variation for All the LSB Sections
0.015
0.012 300*75*3.0 LSB

300*75*2.5 LSB
Coefficient of Variation
300*60*2.0 LSB
250*75*3.0 LSB
0.009 250*75*2.5 LSB
250*60*2.0 LSB
200*60*2.5 LSB
200*60*2.0 LSB
0.006 200*45*1.6 LSB
150*45*2.0 LSB
150*45*1.6 LSB
125*45*2.0 LSB
125*45*1.6 LSB
0.003
0.000
LSB Sections
(b) Coefficients of Variation
Figure 6.8: Mean Values and Coefficients of Variation for All the LSB Sections
1.00
0.90
0.80 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, FEA
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, FEA
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, FEA

0.70
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, FEA
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, Eqn 6.30
0.60 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, Eqn 6.30
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, Eqn 6.30
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, Eqn 6.30

0.50
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) 300753.0 LSB
Figure 6.9: Comparison of Buckling Moment Ratios Obtained From Finite

1.00
0.90
0.80 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, FEA
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, FEA
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, FEA

0.70
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, FEA
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, Eqn 6.30
0.60 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, Eqn 6.30
250*75*3.0 LSB, Sapn/3, Eqn 6.30
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, Eqn 6.30

0.50
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) 250753.0 LSB
1.00
0.90
0.80 300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6, FEA
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4, FEA
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3, FEA

0.70
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2, FEA
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6, Eqn 6.30
0.60 300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4, Eqn 6.30
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3, Eqn 6.30
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2, Eqn 6.30

0.50
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(c) 300752.5 LSB
Figure 6.9: Comparison of Buckling Moment Ratios Obtained From Finite

Figures 6.9 (a) to (c) compare the elastic buckling moment ratios obtained from both
finite element analyses and Equation 6.30 for selected back to back LSB members.
As shown in Figures 6.9 (a) to (c) both results agree well, particularly in the
intermediate span range.
6.4 Conclusion
This chapter has described the development of suitable equations to predict the
elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB members with
intermittent and continuous connections. Back to back LSB members with
continuous connection are considered as the upper limit to the back to back LSB
configuration. It was therefore proposed to develop a suitable method of predicting
the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of intermittently fastened back to
back LSB members based on this upper limit. The elastic lateral distortional buckling
moments of back to back LSB members with continuous connections can be
obtained from finite strip analysis program called THIN-WALL and Pi and Trahairs
equations with the use of a reduction factor of 0.96. This reduction factor of 0.96 is
included to eliminate the effects caused by the difference in the finite element and
finite strip (THIN-WALL) models. Also, an equation was developed based on Pi and
Trahairs equations, which is capable of predicting the elastic lateral distortional
buckling moments of back to back LSB members with continuous connection using
the results of corresponding single LSB members. The developed design equation
agrees well with the results obtained from finite element analyses.
The elastic buckling moments of back to back LSB members with varying fastener
spacings were compared with those of corresponding back to back LSBs with
continuous fastener connections. The buckling moment ratio obtained is always less
than 1.0 except in some local buckling cases. Moreover, the buckling moment ratios
are influenced by section geometry. An equation was then developed to predict the
buckling moment ratios of back to back LSBs using an appropriate factor which
eliminates the effects of section geometry. The buckling moment ratios obtained
using the developed equation for varying fastener spacings and the corresponding
elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB members with
continuous connections were then used to obtain the elastic buckling moment results
of intermittently fastened back to back LSBs. The results obtained from the
developed equation and finite element analyses agree well, indicating the accuracy of
the developed equation.
CHAPTER 7 Development of Suitable
Strength Improvement Methods
for Back to Back LSB Members
7.1 General
Chapter 5 described an extensive parametric study on the moment capacities of back

to back LSBs, and developed suitable design rules to predict their ultimate moment
capacities. Chapter 6 described the development of design equations to predict the
connected by intermittent fasteners and continuous connection. The detrimental
effects of lateral distortional buckling that occur with single LSB members appear to
still remain with back to back built-up LSB members. The ultimate moment capacity
of back to back LSB member is still affected by lateral distortional buckling failure.
Hence it is desirable to eliminate the effects of lateral distortional buckling. Thus an
investigation was conducted with an aim to develop suitable strength improvement
methods, which are likely to mitigate lateral distortional buckling effects and hence
improve the flexural strength of back to back LSB members. This chapter presents
the details of this investigation, the results and recommendations for the most
suitable and cost-effective method which significantly improves the flexural strength
(moment capacity) of back to back LSB members.
The back to back LSB members exhibit two different types of lateral buckling modes
namely, lateral distortional buckling and lateral torsional buckling (Figure 7.1).
During lateral distortional buckling failure, the web elements of back to back LSBs
distort while the top and bottom flanges rotate as seen in Figure 7.1 (a). Effective
strength improvement methods are expected to eliminate web distortion and hence
their critical buckling mode will become lateral torsional buckling mode as shown in
Figure 7.1 (b). Several methods that could eliminate the lateral distortional buckling
failure of back to back LSBs and improve their strength were considered here. Past
research has shown that the use of some connection methods and stiffeners
significantly improved the flexural strength of hollow flange beams (Mahendran and
Avery, 1997 and Kurniawan, 2005). In this chapter the use of many potential
connection methods and stiffeners was investigated to determine whether they are
capable of significantly improving the flexural strength of back to back LSBs.
Lateral distortional buckling

failure
Lateral torsional buckling

failure
(a) Lateral Distortional Buckling (b) Lateral Torsional Buckling

Figure 7.1: Lateral Buckling Modes of Back to Back LSBs
7.2 Upper Limit of Back to Back LSB Configuration
Back to back LSB sections with double web thickness are considered to be the upper
limit to the back to back LSB configuration from a strength view point. However,
this is assumed to be an imaginary model in which the entire depth including the web
and the web element of hollow flanges was common to both LSBs and the web
thickness was double the thickness of single LSB (see Figure 7.2). This model is
treated as a single member and the relevant finite element model details were given
in Section 4.5.2 of Chapter 4. Using this model as the reference, various moment
capacity improvement methods can be considered in finding the best method. Six
LSB sections were chosen for the numerical studies based on this model with varying
spans from 2 m to 10 m. The finite element analysis results obtained for back to back
LSBs with doubly thick web are compared with those of the corresponding back to
back LSB members with continuous connection and a fastener spacing of span/6 in
Table 7.1. Figures 7.3 (a) to (c) show the variation of elastic buckling moment ratios
for three LSBs with these connections. These comparisons show the presence of
higher moment capacities with doubly thick web back to back LSBs. The comparison
of section properties of back to back LSBs with doubly thick web and continuous
connections is given in Table D2.2 of Appendix D.
Firmly connected
flanges
Doubly thick
single elements
Figure 7.2: Back to Back LSB with Double Web Thickness
1.50
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio (DB/BTBC, DB/BTB6)
300*75*3.0 LSB, DB/BTBC
300*75*3.0 LSB, DB/BTB6

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) 300753.0 LSB Section
Figure 7.3: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs

with Doubly Thick Web to those of Back to Back LSBs with Continuous
Connection and Fastener Spacing of Span/6
1.50
300*60*2.0 LSB, DB/BTBC
300*60*2.0 LSB, DB/BTB6

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) 300602.0 LSB Section
1.50
250*75*3.0 LSB, DB/BTBC
250*75*3.0 LSB, DB/BTB6

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(c) 250753.0 LSB Section

with Doubly Thick Web to those of Back to Back LSBs with Continuous
Connection and Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Table 7.1: Comparison of Moment Capacities (DB versus BTBC, BTB6)
300753.0 LSB
Span DB BTB C BTB6 RD-C RD-6
(m) E N+RS E N+RS E N+RS E N+RS E N+RS
2.0 400.16 143.51 320.77 140.66 294.92 138.02 1.25 1.02 1.36 1.04
3.0 247.22 138.34 192.34 122.17 181.64 118.33 1.29 1.13 1.36 1.17
4.0 182.63 125.08 144.75 107.77 138.42 104.17 1.26 1.16 1.32 1.20
5.0 145.71 112.04 118.47 96.25 114.09 92.41 1.23 1.16 1.28 1.21
6.0 121.45 100.65 100.84 86.65 97.56 82.81 1.20 1.16 1.24 1.22
8.0 91.22 82.63 77.86 71.77 75.77 67.69 1.17 1.15 1.20 1.22
10.0 73.07 70.00 63.33 61.21 61.86 56.17 1.15 1.14 1.18 1.25
300602.0 LSB
Span DB BTBC BTB6 RD-C RD-6
2.0 138.14 75.24 85.78 76.18 86.19 72.85 1.61 0.99 1.60 1.03
3.0 85.11 61.73 65.68 50.16 62.59 47.04 1.30 1.23 1.36 1.31
4.0 63.12 51.56 49.32 41.42 47.52 39.55 1.28 1.24 1.33 1.30
5.0 50.55 44.02 40.55 35.80 39.31 33.72 1.25 1.23 1.29 1.31
6.0 42.25 38.41 34.71 31.64 33.77 28.10 1.22 1.21 1.25 1.37
8.0 31.84 30.52 27.03 26.02 26.43 23.52 1.18 1.17 1.20 1.30
10.0 25.54 25.78 22.11 21.86 21.68 19.48 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.32
250753.0 LSB
2.0 370.71 114.16 289.55 115.94 267.35 112.76 1.28 0.98 1.39 1.01
3.0 239.18 113.01 186.19 106.96 176.06 105.09 1.28 1.06 1.36 1.08
4.0 179.46 109.74 144.09 98.74 137.79 96.12 1.25 1.11 1.30 1.14
5.0 144.12 101.88 118.95 90.88 114.50 88.45 1.21 1.12 1.26 1.15
6.0 120.49 93.85 101.46 83.59 98.10 80.41 1.19 1.12 1.23 1.17
8.0 90.74 79.93 78.29 70.87 76.13 67.69 1.16 1.13 1.19 1.18
10.0 72.77 68.96 63.59 61.15 62.06 54.23 1.14 1.13 1.17 1.27
Note: N+RS Ultimate moment capacities with residual stresses, E Elastic buckling
moments, DB Back to back LSB with doubly thick web, BTBC Back to back LSBs
with continuous connection, BTB6 Back to back LSBs with a fastener spacing of span/6,
RD-C Ratio of moment capacities of back to back LSBs with doubly thick web and
continuous connection, RD-6 Ratio of moment capacities of back to back LSBs with
doubly thick web and a fastener spacing of span/6.
Table 7.1: Comparison of Moment Capacities (DB versus BTBC, BTB6) (Contd.)
250602.0 LSB
2.0 127.89 63.63 100.32 56.87 93.69 55.41 1.27 1.12 1.36 1.15
3.0 82.50 55.85 63.35 46.66 60.44 45.20 1.30 1.20 1.37 1.24
4.0 62.18 48.62 49.13 40.18 47.34 37.59 1.27 1.21 1.31 1.29
5.0 50.11 42.51 40.83 35.48 39.55 31.92 1.23 1.20 1.27 1.33
6.0 41.99 37.51 35.03 31.76 34.07 29.65 1.20 1.18 1.23 1.27
8.0 31.71 30.42 27.25 26.25 26.63 24.63 1.16 1.16 1.19 1.24
10.0 25.47 25.70 22.24 22.36 21.80 20.74 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.24
200602.5 LSB
2.0 154.7 60.7 119.8 59.5 112.5 58.8 1.29 1.02 1.38 1.03
3.0 102.0 59.3 81.6 54.0 78.0 52.8 1.25 1.10 1.31 1.12
4.0 76.7 54.3 63.5 48.6 61.2 47.2 1.21 1.12 1.25 1.15
5.0 61.5 49.0 52.1 43.7 50.5 42.5 1.18 1.12 1.22 1.15
6.0 51.3 44.2 44.2 39.3 42.9 38.1 1.16 1.13 1.20 1.16
8.0 38.6 36.7 33.7 32.6 32.9 30.4 1.14 1.13 1.17 1.21
10.0 30.9 31.2 27.2 28.1 26.7 26.1 1.14 1.11 1.16 1.20
200602.0 LSB
2.0 120.17 48.48 91.55 46.78 85.80 45.82 1.31 1.04 1.40 1.06
3.0 80.88 47.33 62.67 42.01 59.81 41.17 1.29 1.13 1.35 1.15
4.0 61.66 43.58 49.74 38.19 47.90 36.99 1.24 1.14 1.29 1.18
5.0 49.88 39.61 41.49 34.61 40.16 33.65 1.20 1.14 1.24 1.18
6.0 41.86 35.86 35.56 31.38 34.55 30.43 1.18 1.14 1.21 1.18
8.0 31.64 29.92 27.55 26.37 26.89 25.30 1.15 1.13 1.18 1.18
10.0 25.41 25.54 22.41 23.75 21.94 21.12 1.13 1.08 1.16 1.21
Note: N+RS Ultimate moment capacities with residual stresses, E Elastic buckling
moments, DB Back to back LSB with doubly thick web, BTBC Back to back LSBs
with continuous connection, BTB6 Back to back LSBs with a fastener spacing of span/6,
RD-C Ratio of moment capacities of back to back LSBs with doubly thick web and
continuous connection, RD-6 Ratio of moment capacities of back to back LSBs with
doubly thick web and a fastener spacing of span/6.
7.3 Strength Improvement Using Different Connection Methods
The following sections investigate the strengthening effects of different connection

methods for back to back LSBs. Ideal finite element models with idealised simply
supported conditions subject to a uniform moment were used in this study, and their
details are given in Section 7.4.2 of this chapter and in Section 4.5 of Chapter 4.
Section 7.4.2 of this chapter also describes the difference in the ideal and
experimental finite element models and the need for web stiffeners at the support in
the experimental finite element models to eliminate this difference.
7.3.1 Spot Welding on Outside Flanges of Back to Back LSBs
The nominal fastener connection is located on the web elements of back to back
LSBs near the inside flanges. Finding the best location for connection (bolting or
welding) would give better results as shown by past studies conducted on back to
back C-sections. Chen and Fang (1992) conducted an experimental study to show the
strength improvement of built-up I-beams made of two channel sections by
introducing arc welding (AW) method in comparison with resistance spot welding
(RSW) method (Figure 7.4) (see Chapter 2). Their test results showed that both the
stability and ultimate strength of beams connected by RSW are lower than that of
beams joined by AW. It was shown that the beam joined by RSW was not able to
develop plasticity collapse because the deformation of this beam occurs readily,
especially the flanges prone to local buckling. But the beam connected by AW
developed plasticity almost up to the point of forming plastic hinge due to the
strengthening effect of welding seams. The welding seams located further away from
the neutral axis also helped in increasing the load-carrying capacity of the beam.
(a) Resistance Spot

(b) Arc Welding (AW)
Welding (RSW)
Figure 7.4: I-Beam Made of Cold-formed Channels (Chen and Fang, 1992)
A similar approach was attempted for back to back LSB members although they are
different from back to back C-sections. Back to back LSB members were spot
welded on the outside flanges instead of fastener connections on the webs (see Figure
7.5). For this investigation six LSB sections with varying span lengths were selected.
A fastener spacing of span/6 was chosen as it is the recommended fastener spacing
for the selected span lengths. Spot welding is considered as a fixed connection. Tie
Type MPC was used to simulate the spot welding. Tie type MPC makes the global
displacements and rotations as well as all other active degrees of freedom equal at
two nodes. Both elastic and nonlinear analyses were conducted and the results are
given in Table 7.2. The ultimate moment capacities obtained for back to back LSB
members with spot welding connections (SWC) located on the outside flanges and
the standard (bolted) fastener connection (SFC) on the webs are compared in Table
7.2. The results show that the use of spot welding did not improve the ultimate
moment capacities (ratios 1.0).
Spot welding at a spacing

of span/6
Figure 7.5: Back to Back LSBs Connected Using Spot Welding
Numerical analyses were also conducted for back to back LSBs connected by both
standard fastener and spot welding connections (SFC + SWC). The results are
compared with those of back to back LSBs with standard fastener spacings (SFC) in
Table 7.3. A small strength improvement was noted when both connections were
used (< 5%).
Table 7.2: Effects of Spot Welding on the Moment Capacities of Back to Back
LSBs (SWC versus SFC)
Standard Fastener Spot Welding
Span Connection (SFC) Connection (SWC)
LSB Section FS SWC/SFC
(m) ME MU ME MU
(kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
3.0 181.64 118.33 181.75 116.17 0.98
300753.0
4.0 Span/6 138.42 104.17 138.27 101.05 0.97
LSB
6.0 97.56 82.81 97.38 N/A N/A
3.0 62.59 47.04 62.57 46.63 0.99
300602.0
4.0 Span/6 47.52 39.55 47.45 37.88 0.96
LSB
6.0 33.77 28.10 33.71 29.56 1.05
3.0 176.06 105.09 176.19 103.41 0.98
250753.0
4.0 Span/6 137.79 96.12 137.66 93.87 0.98
LSB
6.0 98.10 80.41 97.92 80.41 1.00
2.0 30.06 19.47 30.18 19.14 0.98
150451.6
3.0 Span/6 21.75 17.01 21.76 16.88 0.99
LSB
4.0 17.19 14.82 17.19 14.75 1.00
2.0 39.15 24.84 39.28 24.70 0.99
150452.0
3.0 Span/6 27.56 21.47 27.57 21.34 0.99
LSB
4.0 21.36 18.38 21.35 18.38 1.00
2.0 31.32 22.63 31.43 22.53 1.00
200451.6
3.0 Span/6 21.57 18.05 21.56 18.05 1.00
LSB
4.0 16.95 15.02 16.94 14.93 0.99
Note: FS Fastener spacing, ME - Elastic buckling moments (kNm), MU Ultimate
moment capacities (kNm).
Table 7.3: Comparison of Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs

(SWC+SFC versus SFC)
Combined
Standard Fastener
Connection
Span Connection (SFC) Inc.
LSB Section FS (SFC + SWC)
(m) (%)
ME MU ME MU
(kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
3.0 181.64 118.33 186.71 120.01 1.4
300753.0 LSB 4.0 Span/6 138.42 104.17 141.32 105.85 1.6
6.0 97.56 82.81 98.96 83.29 0.6
3.0 62.59 47.04 63.86 49.33 4.9
300602.0 LSB 4.0 Span/6 47.52 39.55 48.24 40.17 1.6
6.0 33.77 N/A 34.12 30.81 N/A
3.0 176.06 105.09 181.04 105.47 0.4
250753.0 LSB 4.0 Span/6 137.79 96.12 140.74 97.43 1.4
6.0 98.10 80.41 99.53 81.91 1.9
Note: FS Fastener spacing, ME - Elastic buckling moments (kNm), MU Ultimate
moment capacities (kNm), SFC Standard fastener connection, SWC Spot welding
connection, Inc. Increment in ultimate moment capacities (SFC+SWC to SFC).
(a) SFC (b) SWC (c) SWC + TFC
Figure 7.6: Comparison of Buckling Modes of Back to Back 300753.0 LSBs

with Different Connections
It is useful to compare the buckling modes to illustrate why the use of spot welding
did not improve the moment capacities of back to back LSBs. Figure 7.6 compares
the elastic buckling modes of back to back LSBs at mid-span when different
connection methods are used. As shown in Figure 7.6 the elastic buckling modes are
almost the same, indicating that the effects of cross-section (web) distortion still
remain the same. Spot welding may improve the rigidity of flanges but not the entire
cross-section. It appears that any attempt to use a connection to keep the hollow
flanges together is not likely to provide any strength improvement. This may be
because the flanges do not seem to separate even without such connections.
7.3.2 Use of Brackets Connecting the Flanges
In this strengthening method, C shaped brackets were used to connect the hollow
flanges together as shown in Figure 7.7. The brackets are screwed to the hollow
flanges on the sides. The rigidity of the connection depends on how tightly the
brackets were connected to the flanges. The screw connections were considered as
pin connections in the analysis. They were simulated using Tie type MPC as there
was no pre-tension force in the screws.
Elastic buckling analyses were conducted to investigate the behaviour of back to

back LSBs with C brackets and to determine the possible improvement to the
moment capacity of back to back LSB. In this study 300753.0 LSB sections with
spans of 3 m and 6 m were chosen. The thickness of C brackets was varied from 2
mm to 5 mm. Elastic buckling moments obtained for back to back LSBs connected
using C brackets (BR) and standard fastener connections (SFC) are compared in
Table 7.4. The results show that using C brackets alone is very weak compared to
the standard fastener connection and that it is essential to connect the webs together.
As the thickness of the C brackets was reduced the elastic buckling moment
capacity of back to back LSB was reduced. Table 7.4 also gives the elastic buckling
moment results of back to back LSB sections connected using both C brackets and
standard fastener connection. It shows that the use of C brackets did not provide
much improvement to the moment capacity of back to back LSBs even when it was
used together with standard fastener connection (< 2%). This result also confirms
that any attempt to use a connection to keep the hollow flanges together (spot-
welding or C-brackets) is unlikely to provide any strength improvement for back to
back LSBs.
C brackets on
flanges
Screws connecting the

brackets and flanges
Figure 7.7: Back to Back LSBs Connected Using C- shaped Brackets
Table 7.4: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities of Back to Back
LSBs with Different Connections (BR+SFC versus SFC)
Elastic Buckling
Bracket BR BR + SFC
LSB Span Moments (kNm)
FS Thickness
Section (m) BR + SFC SFC
(mm) BR SFC
SFC
2.0 146.52 183.28 181.64 0.81 1.01
300753.0 3.0 150.93 183.89 181.64 0.83 1.01
3 Span/6
LSB 4.0 154.29 184.41 181.64 0.85 1.02
5.0 156.91 184.86 181.64 0.86 1.02
2.0 85.04 98.15 97.56 0.87 1.01
300753.0 3.0 87.13 98.37 97.56 0.89 1.01
6 Span/6
LSB 4.0 88.58 98.56 97.56 0.91 1.01
5.0 89.64 98.72 97.56 0.92 1.01
Note: FS Fastener spacings (BR and SFC), BR Bracket connection, SFC Standard
fastener connection.
7.3.3 Use of Side Plates Bolted to Web Elements of LSBs
In this method, it is proposed that using side plates with the standard fastener
connection is likely to improve the moment capacity of back to back LSBs. In this
method, 5 mm side plates were firmly connected to the LSB web elements in two
different ways. Additional fasteners (bolts) are not required as the side plates are
provided as part of the standard fastener connections.
7.3.3.1 Side Plates Connected to the Web Elements from Outside
Side plates were connected to the web elements of back to back LSBs from outside
(WPO) using fasteners as shown in Figure 7.8. The web side plates were modelled
using shell elements (S4R5) and were connected to the webs of back to back LSBs
using Tie type MPC. Also the short edges of plates were firmly connected to the
webs to simulate the plates being firmly attached to the web elements. Elastic
buckling analyses were conducted on four LSB sections with 3 m and 6 m spans and
the standard fastener spacing of span/6. Table 7.5 shows the effects of using web side
plates on the elastic buckling moments of back to back LSB sections. The results
show that the use of web side plates noticeably improved the flexural strength of
back to back LSBs for the intermediate span of 3 m. The strength improvement is
about 5-10% depending on the cross-section geometry, and was the maximum in the
case of slender LSB sections (10%). Figures 7.9 (a) and (b) show the effects of web
side plates on the elastic lateral buckling mode of back to back 300602.0 LSB
section. They show that web distortion was slightly eliminated when web side plates
were used.
Bolts used to connect the

webs of back to back LSBs
5 mm plates connected to webs

from outside (WPO) using bolts
Figure 7.8: Back to Back LSBs with Web Side Plates Connected from Outside
(WPO)
Table 7.5: Effects of Using Web Side Plates Outside the Web Elements of Back
to Back LSBs on their Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities
ME (kNm)
Span Inc.
LSB Section FS WPO +
(m) SFC (%)
SFC
3 181.64 190.45 4.9
300753.0 LSB Span/6
6 97.56 99.23 1.7
3 62.59 69.05 10.3
300602.0 LSB Span/6
6 33.77 35.21 4.2
3 176.06 184.33 4.7
250753.0 LSB Span/6
6 98.10 99.46 1.4
3 60.44 66.52 10.1
250602.0 LSB Span/6
6 34.07 35.25 3.5
Note: FS Fastener spacing, SFC Standard fastener connection, WPO
Plates connected to the web elements from outside, Inc. Increment in
elastic buckling moments (ME) (WPO + SFC to SFC).
Web distortion was
slightly eliminated
(a) SFC (b) WPO + SPC

Figure 7.9: Effects of Web Side Plates on the Elastic Buckling Modes of Back to
Back 300602.0 LSBs
7.3.3.2 Plates Connected between the Web Elements of Back to Back LSBs
Plates with a total thickness of 10 mm were used between the web elements of back
to back LSBs (WPB) with the standard fastener connection as shown in Figure 7.10.
As mentioned above shell elements (S4R5) were used to model the web plates, and
the fastener connections were simulated using Tie type MPC. Two 5 mm plates were
modelled and attached to the web elements for reasons of simpler modelling. Elastic
buckling analyses were conducted for three LSB sections with spans of 3 m and 6 m
and the results are given in Table 7.6. The use of web side plates between the
individual LSBs noticeably improved the web rigidity of back to back LSBs, and the
results in Table 7.6 also confirm this. In particular, slender LSB section, 300602.0
LSB, shows noticeable improvement (13.7%) for the intermediate span of 3 m.
In summary, the use of web side plates between the two LSBs provided the highest
strength improvement among the various connection methods considered in this
section. However, it is considered inadequate as the improvement to elastic buckling
moments was still less than 15%.
Table 7.6: Effects of Using Web Side Plates between the Web Elements of Back
to Back LSBs on their Elastic Buckling Moment Capacities
Span ME (kNm) Inc.

LSB Section FS
(m) SFC WPB + SFC (%)
3 181.64 191.29 5.3
300753.0 LSB Span/6
6 97.56 99.18 1.7
3 62.59 71.14 13.7
300602.0 LSB Span/6
6 33.77 36.10 6.9
3 176.06 185.29 5.2
250753.0 LSB Span/6
6 98.10 99.41 1.3
Note: FS Fastener spacing, SFC Standard fastener connection, WPB
Web side plate connected between the web elements, Inc. Increment in
elastic buckling moments (ME) (WPB+SFC to SFC).
Web plates firmly connected

between the webs of back to
back LSBs
10 mm gap between
the LSB sections
Fastener Connections
Figure 7.10: Back to Back LSBs with Web Side Plates between the Web
Elements (WPB)
7.4 Strength Improvement Using Web Stiffeners
7.4.1 Past Research
Past research (Mahendran and Avery, 1997 and Kurniawan, 2005) has shown that
use of web stiffeners improves the lateral distortional buckling behaviour of flexural
members. These web stiffeners increase the torsional bending stiffness at the
stiffened cross-sections and hence leads to strength improvements (Avery and
Mahendran, 1997). Their presence prevents distortion by coupling the rotational
degrees of freedom of the top and bottom flanges (Akay et al., 1977). Studies by
Szewczak et al. (1983) and Takabatake (1988), while not directly relevant to back to
back LSBs, showed that stiffened beams have a higher critical buckling load
compared to unstiffened beams and those members with high relative torsional
stiffness benefit most from the use of stiffeners. Avery and Mahendran (1997) and
Mahendran and Avery (1997) investigated the strengthening effects of stiffeners on
the lateral distortional buckling behaviour of Hollow Flange Beams (HFB) using
both finite element analyses and large scale experimental studies. Kurniawan (2005)
investigated the use of various stiffener types to eliminate the lateral distortional
buckling effects for single LSBs using both experimental and numerical studies.
Brief details of studies conducted by Avery and Mahendran (1997), Mahendran and
Avery (1997) and Kurniawan (2005) are given next.
Avery and Mahendran (1997) conducted elastic buckling finite element analyses to
investigate the effects of web stiffeners on the lateral distortional buckling behaviour
of the Hollow Flange Beam (HFB). In this study they chose a number of parameters
such as stiffener type, stiffener thickness and location, number of stiffeners, stiffener
welding and span. Different types of stiffeners such as transverse web stiffeners
(rectangular hollow section or plate), longitudinal box or cross stiffeners, located on
one or both sides of the members were considered (see Figure 7.11) while the
thickness of stiffener was varied from 5 to 20 mm. Effects of stiffener welding
locations such as welded to flange only, welded to web only, or welded to both
flange and web, and stiffener spacing were also investigated.
Their findings are as follows: The rectangular hollow section (RHS) stiffener (Type
B) does not provide a significantly higher strength increment than the simple
transverse web plate stiffener (Type A). The single-sided, fully welded stiffener
(Type C) provided a similar, but slightly less, strength increment compared to the
double-sided, fully welded stiffener (Type A). Transverse web stiffener welded to the
flanges only (Type D) is as effective as a fully welded transverse web stiffener (Type
A), while a transverse web stiffener welded to the web only (Type E) has virtually no
effect. They explained that this is because the majority of the strength increment is
provided by tying together the rotational degrees of freedom of the flanges, forcing
the section to remain undistorted. This constraint is more effective than welding the
stiffener to the web only. Their study confirmed that there was only little variation in
the strength increment due to increasing stiffener thickness. Therefore they
recommended that a plate with a 5 mm (or larger) thickness can be used as a web
stiffener. They also found that the use of three or more stiffeners did not provide
greater strength than the strength obtained from two stiffeners. From this they
recommended the use of stiffeners at third points of the span as an optimum solution.
For this optimum stiffener configuration, they were able to achieve a design flexural
strength equal to the design strength based on 95% of the elastic lateral torsional
buckling moment for members spanning more than 3 m and subject to constant
bending moment.
Figure 7.11: Stiffener Configurations (Avery and Mahendran, 1997)
Mahendran and Avery (1997) conducted an experimental study on unstiffened and
stiffened Hollow Flange Beams (HFB) to validate the finite element analyses and to
confirm their findings obtained from finite element analyses. They considered only
the use of web plate stiffeners (see Figure 7.12) but varied their number, connection
method and location. Their results showed that the stiffeners connected on both sides
of web at third points of the span improved the lateral buckling capacity of HFB by
approximately 20% compared to unstiffened HFB. Experimental test confirmed that
the use of stiffeners eliminated the distortion of HFB section during its lateral
buckling failure. Their test results showed that the results in the case of stiffeners on
alternate sides of web and on the same side are not the same as welding caused
global imperfections were different. Their experimental study also confirmed that
stiffeners welded to flanges only showed equal strength improvements as those
welded to both flanges and webs. They also found that the stiffeners connected to the
beam using screw fasteners (Figure 7.12 (b)) provided similar strength as for welded
stiffeners (Figure 7.12 (a)). Finally they suggested that 5 mm web plate stiffeners
welded to flanges on both sides of the web at third points of the span would be
adequate to eliminate the effects caused by lateral distortional buckling failure and to
provide improvement to the flexural capacity of HFBs.
(a) Welded Web Stiffeners (b) Screw-fixed Web Stiffeners

Figure 7.12: Web Stiffeners in Hollow Flange Beams (Mahendran and Avery,
1997)
Kurniawan (2005) conducted experimental and finite element analyses to evaluate

the use of different stiffener types in eliminating lateral distortional buckling effects
for single LSB members. In the experimental study, he chose a slender LSB section,
250602.0 LSB and a span of 3500 mm and six different stiffeners at third span
points of the test beam (see Figure 7.13). Stiffener Type A is a 5 mm transverse plate
stiffener screw fastened to the flanges (see Figure 7.13 (a). Stiffener Type B is an
equal angle (65655 EA) that was screw fastened to the flanges, and this type of
stiffener is similar to longitudinal batten plate stiffener (see Figure 7.13 (b)).
Stiffener Type C is similar to Type B, but a short piece of LSB section, 125452.0
LSB, was used as the stiffener (Figure 7.13 (c)). In the case of stiffener Type D,
125452.0 LSB was screw fastened to the flanges on the side of the web as shown
in Figure 7.13 (d). Box stiffener made of 50502.5 SHS was screw fastened to the
flanges (Type E in Figure 7.13 (e)). M16 threaded rods fastened with nuts to the
inside flanges were considered as another stiffener, Type F (see Figure 7.13 (f)).
(a) Type A (b) Type B (c) Type C
(d) Type D (e) Type E (f) Type F
Figure 7.13: Web Stiffener Types (Kurniawan, 2005)
From the experimental results, Kurniawan (2005) found that the use of stiffeners
improved the member moment capacity of single LSBs only slightly. The maximum
capacity improvement was found to be only 11% for stiffener Types A and F.
Stiffener Types B and D improved the moment capacity by 9% and 5%, respectively
while stiffener Types C and E exhibited insignificant improvement to the moment
capacity. The stiffeners did not efficiently work as he expected.
Kurniawan (2005) also conducted finite element analyses to verify the experimental
investigation and to further observe the behaviour of stiffened LSBs. He used both
experimental and idea finite element models. The experimental model was to
simulate the actual test while the ideal model incorporated ideal simply supported
conditions and a uniform bending moment within the span. He considered only
stiffener Type A. From the results obtained from experimental finite element model
he found that the use of web stiffeners only has a small improvement to the elastic
buckling moment, and it is about 7.5%. In contrast, the results obtained from the
ideal finite element models showed a high improvement of 24% to the elastic
buckling moments when stiffeners were used at third span points of the beams.
However, he was not able to explain why the results are different in experimental and
ideal models. Hence the use of web stiffeners was not recommended as an effective
strengthening method for LSBs in contrast to the finding of Avery and Mahendran
(19997) for HFBs.
The difference in results is possibly due to the observed local flange twist restraint at
the supports in Kurniawans lateral buckling experiments (Figure 7.14) and his
experimental finite element model. The use of web side plates alone at the supports
was unable to provide the flange twist restraint (FTR) present in the ideal finite
element model. This led to local flange twists at the supports as shown in Figure
7.14. Hence this issue has to be resolved by restraining the flange twist at the
support. The use of web stiffeners at the supports can restrain twisting of flanges and
thus improve the effectiveness of web stiffeners.
In the ideal finite element models used by Kurniawan (2005) and Avery and
Mahendran (1997) ideal support conditions including a full twist restraint (including
flange) was present and hence there were improvements to the moment capacities
when web stiffeners were used. Mahendran and Averys (1997) experiments
included full twist restraint at the supports by providing web stiffeners and thus
achieved higher moment capacities. These observations clearly show that for web
stiffeners to be effective, they should also be provided at the supports to eliminate
local flange twists. However, this was not investigated for back to back LSBs as well
as the conflicting results from Kurniawan (2005). The next section presents the study
on the need for web stiffeners at the supports for back to back LSBs.
Flange twist Web plate
Figure 7.14: Flange Twist at Support (Kurniawan, 2005)
7.4.2 The Need for Web Stiffeners at the Support
This research entails the development of two finite element models, namely ideal and
experimental models. Ideal models of back to back LSBs were based on ideal simply
supported conditions and a uniform moment which give a lower bound solution.
Ideal simply supported conditions were implemented by fixing the in-plane and out-
of-plane deflections and restraining the twist rotation at the supports. Experimental
finite element models were used to simulate the actual experimental test conditions.
Chapter 4 provides the details of these models of back to back LSBs without web
stiffeners that have been validated by comparing their results with experimental
results and numerical results obtained from an established buckling analysis program
called THIN-WALL. These validated models were modified by including the
required web stiffeners in this research.
Six LSB sections which covered all levels of compactness were used in the analyses.
Five mm thick web stiffeners were generally used while a yield stress of 250 MPa
and no residual stresses were considered. Figure 7.15 shows the schematic diagrams
of ideal and experimental finite element models. Experimental tests were based on
the overhang loading method (see Section 4.3 of Chapter 4). However, in this study
the experimental finite element model was based on the quarter point loading. Figure
7.16 (a) shows the cross-sectional view of back to back LSB with web stiffeners,
which includes the boundary conditions used at the supports and mid-span and the
applied loads. Due to the symmetry of beam, only half the span was modelled and
symmetric boundary conditions were applied at mid-span. Shell elements (S4R5)
with an optimum size of 5 mm 10 mm were used. A simplified bi-linear stress-
strain curve with no strain hardening, known as elastic-perfectly plastic model, was
used (further details of finite element models can be found in Chapter 4). Figure 7.16
(b) shows the various plates used in the experimental finite element model with web
stiffeners at supports and third span points. In the finite element models of stiffened
back to back LSBs, the web stiffeners were firmly connected to the inner flange
surface so that the web stiffener plate and the flange can act as an integral member.
The welding process was not modelled as it was decided to recommend a tack
weld and the effects of this welding on the residual stresses were considered to be
negligible. A 10 mm gap was provided between the stiffeners and the web element as
it is not practical to locate stiffeners next to the web due to the corners present in
LSBs.
Span/2
(a) Ideal Model

Support Symmetric Plane
P
Span/4
Span/2
(b) Experimental Model
Figure 7.15: Schematic Diagrams of Ideal and Experimental FE Models
Restrained DOF
10 mm Gap 156 for all the
nodes
Loading (at mid-span)
(on either side)
Support at shear centre RIGID MPCs to link

Restrained DOF 234 for the loading node to
the node at shear centre the clamping plate
(SPC)
Web stiffeners
Web side plate (a) Boundary conditions and loading
Loading plate
Web stiffener
Web stiffener providing

flange twist restraint
(b) Web side plate, loading plate and web stiffeners
Figure 7.16: Details of Experimental Finite Element Model of Back to Back LSB
with Web Stiffeners
(a) No web stiffeners
Mid-span
Web stiffener
Support
(b) Web stiffeners at the supports

providing flange twist restraint
(c) Web stiffener at third span points

only (no web stiffeners at supports)
Mid-span
Web stiffener
Support
(d) Web stiffeners at the supports

and third span points
Figure 7.17: Details of Different Web Stiffener Configurations in the
Experimental Finite Element Model of Back to Back LSB
Table 7.7: Effects of Web Stiffener Arrangement on Elastic Buckling Moments
Mod (kNm), Ideal
Span Mod (kNm), Experimental Model
LSB Section Model
(m)
TWSN TWS3 TWSN TWSS TWS3 TWSS3
300753.0 3.0 181.64 217.30 174.89 204.18 177.30 219.93
LSB 6.0 97.56 103.90 80.50 103.39 83.87 109.41
3.0 1.00 1.20 0.96 1.12 0.98 1.21
TWSX/TWSNI
6.0 1.00 1.06 0.83 1.06 0.86 1.12
Note: Mod Elastic lateral buckling moments, TWSN No transverse web stiffener at
either support or third span points, TWS3 Transverse web stiffener at third span points.
TWSS Transverse web stiffeners at supports, TWSS3 Transverse web stiffeners at
supports and third span points, TWSX Transverse web stiffeners with different
arrangements (X = N, S, 3 and S3), TWSNI Ideal model with no transverse web stiffener.
Elastic buckling analyses were undertaken with varying arrangements of web

stiffeners to investigate the effect and need for web stiffener at the supports. Figures
7.17 (a) to (d) provide their details. Table 7.7 compares the effects of web stiffener
arrangement on the elastic buckling moments of an experimental model of
300753.0 LSB with span lengths of 3 m and 6 m. The elastic lateral distortional
buckling moment was increased by 20% in the ideal model with a span of 3 m when
web stiffeners were used at third span points. However, for the same case in the
experimental model, there was only 2% increment noted in the elastic buckling
moment. But, it was increased by 21% in the experimental model when web
stiffeners were used at third span points and supports. Hence the elastic buckling
moments obtained from both the ideal model with web stiffeners at third span points
and the experimental model with web stiffeners at the supports and third span points
are almost the same. This indicates that the use of web stiffeners at the supports
restrains the local flange twist and gives similar support conditions as for ideal
model.
Figures 7.18 (a) and (b) show the effects of flange twist at the support in an
experimental model of 300753.0 LSB with a span of 3 m. Figure 7.18 (a) shows
the severe flange twist noted at the support while it was prevented by the use of web
stiffeners at the supports as shown in Figure 7.18 (b). Local flange twist at the
supports did not allow the web stiffeners used within the span to work effectively.
Hence it is recommended that web stiffeners are also used at the supports. These
results also explain why Kurniawans (2005) experimental and numerical analyses
gave conflicting outcomes in relation to the buckling capacity improvements due to
web stiffeners. Anapayan and Mahendrans (2009d,e) research on single LSB
sections has also confirmed the need for web stiffeners at the supports. From here
onwards the studies on the effects of different web stiffeners on the lateral buckling
behaviour of back to back LSBs will be based on ideal finite element models instead
of experimental finite element models as the former does not allow local flange twist
at the supports.
(a) Flanges not restrained at supports,

and web stiffeners at span/3
Web stiffeners at
span/3
Flange twist at support did not

allow the web stiffeners to
work effectively in this region
Severe flange twist
Web stiffeners at span/3
Flange twist was controlled

by web stiffeners at supports
Web stiffeners work

effectively in the entire
span region
(b) Flange restrained at supports, and

web stiffeners are at span/3
Figure 7.18: Effect of Flange Twist Restraint at the Support in an Experimental

Finite Element Model of Back to Back 300753.0 LSB with Span of 3 m
Figure 7.19 shows the typical ideal finite element model of LSBs with web stiffeners.
Idealised simply supported boundary conditions were applied at the support while
symmetric boundary conditions were applied at mid-span. Using longitudinal
compression and tension nodal forces a uniform moment was created about the major
axis at the support. Full details of the ideal finite element model were given in
Section 4.5 of Chapter 4. Web stiffeners were modelled using S4R5 shell elements.
Five mm thick web stiffeners were generally used with a yield stress of 250 MPa. An
initial geometric imperfection of L/1000 was considered in the nonlinear analyses,
however, residual stresses were not considered. As used in the experimental finite
element models, the web stiffeners were firmly connected to the inside flanges to
simulate the welding connection. The effects of welding including the residual
stresses were not modelled as it was decided to recommend a tack weld and the
effects of this welding on the residual stresses were considered to be negligible.
Restrained DOF
Linear forces were 234 for all the
applied at every nodes (at support)
node (at support)
Linear compressive
forces
Restrained DOF 156

for all the nodes
Web stiffener (at mid-span)
Linear tensile forces
Figure 7.19: Load and Boundary Conditions of Ideal Finite Element Model of
Back to Back LSB with Web Stiffeners
7.4.3 Optimum Web Stiffener Arrangements for Back to Back LSBs
Based on the literature review and the preliminary study it was considered that the
use of web stiffeners is likely to improve the moment capacity of back to back LSBs.
Thus a detailed study was conducted using different web stiffeners to determine the
optimum web stiffener configuration for back to back LSBs. These details are given
next. As mentioned earlier ideal finite element models were used in this study.
7.4.3.1 Different Stiffener Types
In order to recommend the optimum stiffener configuration, different stiffener types

were investigated based on Mahendran and Avery (1997).
(a) Simple Plate Type Stiffener

A simple rigid plate can be used as a stiffener. The plate stiffener can be fixed to the
back to back LSBs in different ways by varying the location and direction of the
stiffener as shown in Figures 7.20 (a) and (b). It can be fixed to the flanges of back to
back LSBs in either transverse or longitudinal direction (see Figures 7.20 (a) and
(b)). Longitudinal stiffeners (Figure 7.20 (b)) bend about their weak (minor) axis and
are not suitable. Use of angle sections can eliminate this problem to some extent (see
Figure 7.20 (c)). Elastic buckling analyses were conducted on two LSB sections,
300753.0 LSB and 300602.0 LSB, with span lengths of 3 m and 6 m and a
stiffener spacings of span/3 and span/6. Table 7.8 compares the effects of different
stiffeners on the elastic buckling moments of back to back LSBs. The comparison
was based on back to back LSB members connected using fasteners at a spacing of
span/6 without web stiffeners.
Angles, both sides.

Plates, both sides. Welded to flanges
Welded to flanges
(a) Transverse web (b) Web stiffener connected (c) Web stiffener connected
stiffener (TWS) longitudinally (WSL) longitudinally (WSLA)
(Simple plate) (Angle section)
Figure 7.20: Plate and Angel Type Stiffeners
Different Plate Stiffeners
Span Spacing ME
LSB Section Inc. (%)
(m) FS WS Type SWS (kNm)
- - 181.64 0.0
TWS Span/3 217.30 19.6
WSL Span/3 190.10 4.7
300753.0 LSB 3 Span/6
WSLA Span/3 193.52 6.5
TWS Span/6 227.30 25.1
WSL Span/6 203.05 11.8
- - 97.56 0.0
TWS Span/3 103.89 6.5
WSL Span/3 99.55 2.0
300753.0 LSB 6 Span/6
WSLA Span/3 100.16 2.7
TWS Span/6 106.97 9.6
WSL Span/6 103.36 5.9
- - 62.59 0.0
TWS Span/3 76.76 22.6
300602.0 LSB 3 Span/6
WSL Span/3 67.58 8.0
WSLA Span/3 68.75 9.8
- - 33.77 0.0
TWS Span/3 36.59 8.4
300602.0 LSB 6 Span/6
WSL Span/3 34.92 3.4
WSLA Span/3 35.15 4.1
Note: FS Fastener spacing, WS Web stiffener, SWS Web stiffener spacing,
TWS Transverse web stiffener, WSL Web stiffener connected longitudinally,
WSLA Web stiffener connected longitudinally using angle section, ME Elastic
buckling moments, Inc. Increment in elastic buckling moments compared to
that of corresponding unstiffened back to back LSBs fastened at span/6.
The results confirmed that the use of transverse web stiffeners (TWS) considerably
improves the elastic buckling moment capacities of back to back LSB members. The
increment in the elastic buckling moments is about 20-23% for the intermediate span
of 3 m. However, longitudinal web stiffeners (WSL) did not work effectively, and
the increment in the elastic buckling moments is about 5-8% even for the
intermediate span of 3 m. Use of angle sections (WSLA) instead of longitudinal plate
stiffeners further improved the elastic buckling moments by 1-2% only. From this
comparison we can conclude that transverse stiffeners significantly improve the
lateral distortional buckling behaviour. Hence, it was recommended to continue
further studies on back to back LSB members with transverse web stiffeners. Figure
7.21 shows the elastic buckling modes at mid-span for back to back LSBs with
different stiffeners. As shown in Figure 7.21 (b) cross-section (web) distortion was
significantly reduced when transverse web stiffeners were used. However, the use of
longitudinal web stiffeners only reduced the cross-section distortion slightly.
Cross-section distortion
is significantly reduced
Only little
improvement in cross-
Cross-section section distortion
distortion
(a) SFC (b) TWS (c) WSL
Figure 7.21: Effects of Plates Stiffeners on the Elastic Buckling Modes of Back
to Back 300753.0 LSBs
(b) C Brackets and Box Stiffeners

An attempt was made to verify the use of C brackets and box stiffeners to improve
the elastic lateral distortional buckling capacities of back to back LSBs. Figure 7.22
shows the C brackets and box stiffeners (an extension of C brackets) attached to
the back to back LSB members. They should be firmly connected to the web and
flange elements of back to back LSB members using fasteners. However, in the finite
element models the stiffeners were firmly bonded to the back to back LSB members
and hence they may give slightly higher results. Elastic buckling analyses were
conducted on three LSB sections, 300753.0 LSB, 300602.0 LSB and
250753.0 LSB, of 3 m and 6 m spans with the C brackets and box stiffeners at
different spacings of span/3 and span/6 as shown in Table 7.9. Table 7.9 compares
the use of C brackets and box stiffeners on the elastic buckling moments of back to
back LSB members. The comparison was based on back to back LSB members
connected using fasteners alone at a fastener spacing of span/6 while the
corresponding results for transverse web stiffeners are also given in Table 7.9. The
comparison shows that both C brackets and box stiffeners slightly improve the
lateral buckling behaviour of back to back LSB members, in particular for the
slender section of 300602.0 LSB. Box stiffeners give slightly higher results
compared to that of C brackets. However, both stiffeners are less effective
compared to transverse web stiffeners. Use of box stiffeners in the transverse
direction with its vertical plates in the transverse direction is likely to give similar or
higher results compared to that of corresponding simple transverse web stiffeners.
Also, the use of smaller RHS as transverse stiffeners (Type E in Figure 7.13) is likely
to improve the moment capacities. However, they were not considered in this study
as the use of transverse plate web stiffeners is more cost-effective.
C Stiffener,
both sides.
Box Stiffener,
both sides.
(a) C Brackets (b) Box Stiffener

(CBWS) (BOWS)
Figure 7.22: C Brackets and Box Stiffeners
C Brackets and Box Stiffeners
Span Spacing ME
LSB Section Inc (%)
- - 181.64 0.0
TWS Span/3 217.30 19.6
CBWS Span/3 187.99 3.5
300753.0 LSB 3 Span/6
BOWS Span/3 196.55 8.2
TWS Span/6 227.30 25.1
CBWS Span/6 195.00 7.4
- - 97.56 0.0
TWS Span/3 103.89 6.5
CBWS Span/3 98.83 1.3
300753.0 LSB 6 Span/6
BOWS Span/3 100.80 3.3
TWS Span/6 106.97 9.6
CBWS Span/6 100.46 3.0
- - 62.59 0.0
TWS Span/3 76.76 22.6
CBWS Span/3 68.82 10.0
300602.0 LSB 3 Span/6
BOWS Span/3 73.68 17.7
TWS Span/6 80.84 29.2
CBWS Span/6 74.09 18.4
- - 33.77 0.0
TWS Span/3 36.59 8.4
CBWS Span/3 35.07 3.8
300602.0 LSB 6 Span/6
BOWS Span/3 36.15 7.0
TWS Span/6 37.88 12.2
CBWS Span/6 36.35 7.6
- - 176.06 0.0
TWS Span/3 208.00 18.1
CBWS Span/3 182.23 3.5
250753.0 LSB 3 Span/6
BOWS Span/3 191.11 8.5
TWS Span/6 217.61 23.6
CBWS Span/6 189.06 7.4
- - 98.10 0.0
TWS Span/3 102.87 4.9
CBWS Span/3 99.22 1.1
250753.0 LSB 6 Span/6
BOWS Span/3 101.06 3.0
TWS Span/6 105.60 7.6
CBWS Span/6 100.73 2.7
Note: FS Fastener spacings, WS Web stiffener, TWS Transverse web stiffener,
SWS Web stiffener spacing, CBWS C bracket web stiffener, BOWS Box web
stiffener, ME Elastic buckling moment, Inc. Increment in elastic buckling
moments compared to that for unstiffened back to back LSBs fastened at span/6.
Figure 7.23 (b) shows the buckling modes of back to back 300753.0 LSB section
with box stiffeners and confirms that box stiffeners did not effectively work in
comparison to transverse web stiffeners (see Figure 7.21 (b)). However, slender
section 300602.0 LSB exhibited reasonable improvement with the use of box
stiffeners (see Table 7.9).
Little improvement in
cross-section distortion
(a) SFC (b) WSBO

Figure 7.23: Effects of Box Stiffeners on the Elastic Buckling Mode of Back to
Back 300753.0 LSB
(c) Further Studies on the Use of Transverse Web Stiffeners

As mentioned earlier the use of transverse web stiffeners is the most efficient
strengthening method. Numerical studies were undertaken to further improve the
efficiency of using transverse web stiffeners. For this, the effects of additional plates
connecting the flanges were investigated. The stiffeners were also used on either one
side only or alternate sides, and the efficiency of these configurations was
investigated. Although the use of transverse web stiffeners improves the lateral
distortional buckling behaviour it appears that such improvements are limited to
individual LSB members. Individual LSB members are connected together using
fasteners on the webs of LSBs which do not firmly connect the flanges. Hence the
use of plates on the flanges can improve this situation. Thin plates were used to
connect the flanges together using spot welding as shown in Figure 7.24. In the finite
element models the short edges of the plates were firmly fixed to flanges while
additional spot welding along the longitudinal edges were simulated using Tie type
MPCs.
Three LSB sections were chosen to investigate this problem using elastic buckling
analyses with span lengths of 3 m and 6 m and a stiffener spacing of span/3.
Different plate thicknesses of 1 mm to 5 mm were also considered (see Table 7.10).
Elastic buckling moment results obtained for different plate thicknesses are
compared in Table 7.10. Noticeable improvements were observed when plates were
attached to the flanges. However, this improvement varies depending on the
geometry of LSB section and span length. It is surprising to note that the use of
plates effectively works for the long span of 6 m compared to the intermediate span
of 3 m (see Table 7.10). However, 300602.0 LSB section did not exhibit any
significant improvement as its relative torsional rigidity of flange is less in
comparison to other LSB sections. Back to back 300753.0 LSB and 250753.0
LSB sections showed noticeable improvements, and the increment in elastic buckling
moment results is about 5% and 7.5% for intermediate and long spans, respectively.
Plate thickness slightly influenced the elastic buckling moment results (see Table
7.10). As the plate thickness was increased from 2 mm to 5 mm the increment in
elastic buckling moments was raised by 1-3%. However, the use of smaller
thicknesses (less than 2 mm) caused local buckling on these attached plates, and
hence they are not recommended.
In summary the use of 3 mm plates by welding them to flanges as shown in Figure

7.24 or screw fixing C-shaped brackets as shown in Figure 7.7 together with
transverse web stiffeners controls the twist and separation of flanges and hence it
increases the elastic buckling moment capacities of back to back LSBs further
(another 3 to 6%). However, their practical usage is not simple nor cost-effective.
Spot welding
Plates welded
to flanges
Transverse web
stiffeners
Figure 7.24: Transverse Web Stiffener Configuration with Additional Plates

Welded to Flanges (TWSP)
Table 7.10: Effects of Attaching Plates to Flanges on the Elastic Buckling
Moments of Back to Back LSBs
Spacing
LSB Span PT ME Inc.
Section (m) WS (mm) (kNm) (%)
FS SWS
Type
- - - 181.64 0.0
TWS Span/3 - 217.30 19.6
TWSP Span/3 1 196.38 8.1
300753.0
3 Span/6 TWSP Span/3 2 222.03 22.2
LSB
TWSP Span/3 3 223.39 23.0
TWSP Span/3 4 224.71 23.7
TWSP Span/3 5 225.88 24.4
- - - 97.56 0.0
TWS Span/3 - 103.89 6.5
TWSP Span/3 1 107.41 10.1
300753.0
6 Span/6 TWSP Span/3 2 108.49 11.2
LSB
TWSP Span/3 3 109.48 12.2
TWSP Span/3 4 110.46 13.2
TWSP Span/3 5 111.34 14.1
- - - 62.59 0.0
TWS Span/3 - 76.76 22.6
TWSP Span/3 1 77.96 24.6
300602.0
3 Span/6 TWSP Span/3 2 78.18 24.9
LSB
TWSP Span/3 3 78.43 25.3
TWSP Span/3 4 78.65 25.7
TWSP Span/3 5 78.82 25.9
- - - 33.77 0.0
TWS Span/3 - 36.59 8.4
TWSP Span/3 1 36.67 8.6
300602.0
6 Span/6 TWSP Span/3 2 36.72 8.7
LSB
TWSP Span/3 3 36.75 8.8
TWSP Span/3 4 36.78 8.9
TWSP Span/3 5 36.80 9.0
- - - 176.06 0.0
TWS Span/3 - 208.00 18.1
TWSP Span/3 1 152.77 N/A
250753.0
3 Span/6 TWSP Span/3 2 212.99 21.0
LSB
TWSP Span/3 3 214.36 21.7
TWSP Span/3 4 215.70 22.5
TWSP Span/3 5 216.88 23.2
- - - 98.10 0.0
TWS Span/3 - 102.87 4.9
TWSP Span/3 1 106.46 8.5
250753.0
6 Span/6 TWSP Span/3 2 107.54 9.6
LSB
TWSP Span/3 3 108.52 10.6
TWSP Span/3 4 109.48 11.6
TWSP Span/3 5 110.35 12.5
Note: FS Fastener spacing, TWS Transverse web stiffener, TWSP Transverse web
stiffener with plates attached to flanges, SWS Web stiffener spacing, PT Plate
thickness, ME Elastic buckling moments, Inc. Increment in elastic buckling moments
of stiffened back to back LSBs compared to unstiffened back to back LSBs.
Stiffeners on Spot welding
one side
Stiffeners on
one side
(a) WSOS (b) WSOSW
Stiffeners on
Stiffeners on
alternate sides
alternate sides
Spot welding
(c) WSAS (d) WSASW
Plates welded Plates welded

to the flanges to the flanges
Stiffeners
Stiffeners on on one side
alternate sides
(e) WSAST (f) WSOST
Figure 7.25: Different Arrangements with Transverse Web Stiffeners
Table 7.11: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs
with Different Web Stiffener Configurations
Span Spacing ME
- - 181.64 0.0
TWS Span/4 222.47 22.5
300753.0 WSAS Span/4 210.24 15.7
3 Span/6
LSB WSASW Span/4 214.95 18.3
WSOS Span/4 204.15 12.4
WSOSW Span/4 210.31 15.8
- - 97.56 0.0
TWS Span/4 105.36 8.0
300753.0 WSAS Span/4 102.37 4.9
6 Span/6
WSOS Span/4 101.63 4.2
WSOSW Span/4 103.03 5.6
- - 62.59 0.0
TWS Span/4 78.79 25.9
300602.0 WSAS Span/4 73.88 18.0
3 Span/6
WSOS Span/4 71.46 14.2
WSOSW Span/4 73.40 17.3
- - 33.77 0.0
TWS Span/4 37.21 10.2
300602.0 WSAS Span/4 35.92 6.4
6 Span/6
WSOS Span/4 35.57 5.3
WSOSW Span/4 36.03 6.7
- - 176.06 0.0
TWS Span/4 212.90 20.9
250753.0 WSAS Span/4 201.21 14.3
3 Span/6
WSOS Span/4 196.29 11.5
WSOSW Span/4 201.75 14.6
- - 98.10 0.0
TWS Span/4 104.11 6.1
250753.0 WSAS Span/4 101.66 3.6
6 Span/6
WSOS Span/4 101.21 3.2
WSOSW Span/4 102.50 4.5
Note: TWS Transverse web stiffeners (on both sides), WSAS Web stiffeners
(TWS) placed on alternate sides, WSASW WSAS web stiffener + spot
welding on flanges, WSOS Web stiffeners placed on one side, WSOSW
WSOS web stiffener + spot welding on flanges, SWS Spacing of web stiffener,
ME Elastic buckling moment, Inc. Increment in elastic buckling moment of
stiffened back to back LSBs compared to unstiffened back to back LSBs.
Elastic buckling analyses were also conducted to investigate the effect of using
transverse web stiffeners on one side only or alternate sides. Figures 7.25 (a) and (b)
show the configurations of back to back LSBs with transverse web stiffeners used on
one side only (notated as WSOS and WSOSW, respectively). In the second
configuration (Figure 7.25 (b)) spot welding was used to connect the flanges together
(WSOSW). Figures 7.25 (c) and (d) show the configurations of back to back LSBs
with transverse web stiffeners used on alternate sides (notated as WSAS and
WSASW, respectively). Spot welding was used to connect the flanges in back to
back configuration notated as WSASW (Figure 7.25 (d)). In the back to back
configurations (WSOSW and WSASW), the spot welding used to connect the
flanges was replaced by plates and are notated as WSOST and WSAST, respectively
(see Figures 7.25 (e) and (f)).
Three LSB sections, 300753.0 LSB, 300602.0 LSB and 250753.0 LSB, were
selected to conduct elastic buckling analyses on these six web stiffener
configurations for span lengths of 3 m and 6 m and a fastener spacing of span/4, and
the results are presented in Tables 7.11 and 7.12. Table 7.11 compares the effects of
using web stiffeners on one side only or alternate sides with and without spot
welding on flanges. Use of web stiffeners on alternate sides gave higher elastic
buckling moments compared to that of stiffeners used on one side when spot welds
are not used. Both configurations gave higher elastic buckling moments when spot
welding was used to connect both flanges. However, in this case also the use of web
stiffeners on alternate sides gave higher elastic buckling moments. Table 7.12
compares the effect of using plate stiffeners instead of spot welding. The results
confirm that using plates gives higher elastic buckling moment results than spot
welding. The back to back LSBs with web stiffeners on one side only or alternate
sides give nearly equal or higher results compared to the standard TWS
configuration (stiffeners on both sides) when plates are used to connect the flanges.
In summary, back to back LSBs with web stiffeners on one side only or alternate
sides can be used instead of web stiffeners on both sides when plates are used to
connect the flanges.
Table 7.12: Effects of Using Plates Instead of Spot Welding on the Elastic
Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs
Span Spacing ME Inc.
LSB Section
(m) FS WS Type SWS (kNm) (%)
- - 181.64 0.0
TWS Span/4 222.47 22.5
300753.0 WSAST Span/4 221.81 22.1
3 Span/6
WSOST Span/4 218.23 20.1
WSOSW Span/4 210.31 15.8
- - 97.56 0.0
TWS Span/4 105.36 8.0
300753.0 WSAST Span/4 111.32 14.1
6 Span/6
WSOST Span/4 110.64 13.4
WSOSW Span/4 103.03 5.6
- - 62.59 0.0
TWS Span/4 78.79 25.9
300602.0 WSAST Span/4 77.74 24.2
3 Span/6
WSOST Span/4 76.57 22.3
WSOSW Span/4 73.40 17.3
- - 33.77 0.0
TWS Span/4 37.21 10.2
300602.0 WSAST Span/4 37.82 12.0
6 Span/6
WSOST Span/4 37.66 11.5
WSOSW Span/4 36.03 6.7
- - 176.06 0.0
TWS Span/4 212.90 20.9
250753.0 WSAST Span/4 208.49 18.4
3 Span/6
WSOST Span/4 210.00 19.3
WSOSW Span/4 201.75 14.6
- - 98.10 0.0
TWS Span/4 104.11 6.1
250753.0 WSAST Span/4 110.51 12.6
6 Span/6
WSOST Span/4 109.99 12.1
WSOSW Span/4 102.50 4.5
Note: TWS Transverse web stiffener, WSAST WSAS web stiffener + plate on
flanges, WSASW WSAS web stiffener + spot welding on flanges, WSOST
Web stiffeners placed on one side + plate on flanges, WSOSW WSOS web
stiffener + spot welding on flanges, SWS Spacing of web stiffener, ME Elastic
buckling moment, Inc. Increment in elastic buckling moment of stiffened back to
back LSBs compared to unstiffened back to back LSBs. 5 mm thick plates are used.
7.4.3.2 Nominated Web Stiffener
As mentioned earlier the use of transverse web stiffener (TWS) is the most suitable,
simple and cost-efficient strengthening method. Although the use of plates on the
flanges improves the results further they would not be considered as they lead to
additional fabrication costs. Also there would be concerns about the level of flanges
as the use of plates on the top of flanges does not provide a flat top surface. Hence
further studies were undertaken on back to back LSBs with transverse web stiffeners
on both sides. Details of suitable web stiffener spacing and thicknesses are discussed
next.
7.4.3.3 Web Stiffener Spacing
It is important to determine the optimum number of stiffeners within a span (i.e.

stiffener spacing). Elastic buckling analyses were conducted on six LSB sections
with 3 m, 4 m and 6 m spans and web stiffener spacings of span/2, span/3, span/4
and span/6. The stiffener spacing of span/2 is considered as the minimum stiffener
spacing while span/6 is the recommended fastener spacing for back to back LSB
sections. Effects of stiffener spacing on the elastic buckling moments are compared
in Table 7.13. Table 7.13 demonstrates that a significant increase was noted in the
elastic buckling moments by the inclusion of web stiffeners at mid-span. However,
inclusion of extra web stiffeners exhibits only a small improvement compared to the
first. The use of web stiffeners at a spacing of span/6 is obviously uneconomical.
Similarly, there was only a small improvement when stiffener spacing was changed
from span/3 to span/4. However, increment in elastic buckling moment results is
considerable when web stiffeners are used at a spacing of span/3 instead of span/2.
Hence a stiffener spacing of span/3 is recommended which will effectively improve
the lateral buckling moment capacities of back to back LSBs while giving a cost
effective solution.
Table 7.13: Effect of Stiffener Spacing on the Elastic Bucking Moments of Back
to Back LSBs with TWS Configuration
Span Spacing ME Inc.
LSB Section
(m) FS SWS (kNm) (%)
- 181.64 0.0
Span/2 209.87 15.5
300753.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 217.30 19.6
LSB
Span/4 222.47 22.5
Span/6 227.30 25.1
- 138.42 0.0
Span/2 153.00 10.5
300753.0
4 Span/6 Span/3 157.82 14.0
LSB
Span/4 161.13 16.4
Span/6 164.29 18.7
- 97.56 0.0
Span/2 101.88 4.4
300753.0
6 Span/6 Span/3 103.89 6.5
LSB
Span/4 105.36 8.0
Span/6 106.97 9.6
- 62.59 0.0
Span/2 73.77 17.9
300602.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 76.76 22.6
LSB
Span/4 78.79 25.9
Span/6 80.84 29.2
- 47.52 0.0
Span/2 53.63 12.9
300602.0
4 Span/6 Span/3 55.63 17.1
LSB
Span/4 56.95 19.9
Span/6 58.28 22.7
- 33.77 0.0
Span/2 35.70 5.7
300602.0
6 Span/6 Span/3 36.59 8.4
LSB
Span/4 37.21 10.2
Span/6 37.88 12.2
Note: TWS Transverse web stiffener, FS Fastener spacing,
SWS Spacing of web stiffener, ME Elastic buckling moments,
Inc. Increment in elastic buckling moments of stiffened back to
back LSBs compared to unstiffened back to back LSBs.
Table 7.13: Effect of Stiffener Spacing on the Elastic Bucking Moments of Back
to Back LSBs with TWS Configuration (Contd.)
Span Spacing ME
(m) FS SWS (kNm)
- 176.06 0.0
Span/2 200.67 14.0
250753.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 208.00 18.1
LSB
Span/4 212.90 20.9
Span/6 217.61 23.6
- 137.79 0.0
Span/2 149.41 8.4
250753.0
4 Span/6 Span/3 153.88 11.7
LSB
Span/4 156.90 13.9
Span/6 159.91 16.1
- 98.10 0.0
Span/2 101.25 3.2
250753.0
6 Span/6 Span/3 102.87 4.9
LSB
Span/4 104.11 6.1
Span/6 105.60 7.6
Note: TWS Transverse web stiffener, FS Fastener spacing, SWS
Spacing of web stiffener, ME Elastic buckling moments, Inc.
Increment in elastic buckling moments of stiffened back to back
LSBs compared to unstiffened back to back LSBs.
7.4.3.4 Thickness of Web Stiffener
Elastic buckling and nonlinear analyses were conducted to investigate the effect of
stiffener thickness in the range of 3 mm to 30 mm. Table 7.14 shows the effects of
stiffener thicknesses on the elastic buckling moments of back to back LSBs. The
results confirm that the thickness of a transverse web stiffener has only a small effect
on the buckling strength. The maximum difference in the elastic buckling moments
between 5 and 30 mm stiffeners was less than 5% for the spans considered here. This
confirms that there is no considerable advantage in using stiffeners with thicknesses
larger than 5 mm. However, there is a need to determine whether it can be reduced
further. Further studies were therefore undertaken to determine the minimum
required stiffener thickness. In this case both elastic and nonlinear analyses were
conducted on stiffener thicknesses of 3, 4 and 5 mm, and Table 7.15 compares the
elastic buckling and nonlinear ultimate moment results.
Table 7.14: Effect of Web Stiffener Thickness on the Elastic Buckling Moments
of Back to Back LSBs
Spacing TWS
Span ME Inc.
LSB Section Thickness
(m) FS SWS (kNm) (%)
(mm)
5 217.30 0.0
6 217.70 0.2
10 218.91 0.7
300753.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 15 220.45 1.4
LSB
20 222.35 2.3
25 224.50 3.3
30 226.67 4.3
5 103.89 0.0
10 104.24 0.3
300753.0 15 104.63 0.7
6 Span/6 Span/3
LSB 20 105.13 1.2
25 105.67 1.7
30 106.20 2.2
5 76.76 0.0
10 77.45 0.9
300602.0 15 78.31 2.0
3 Span/6 Span/3
LSB 20 79.35 3.4
25 80.39 4.7
30 81.31 5.9
5 36.59 0.0
10 36.76 0.5
300602.0 15 36.99 1.1
6 Span/6 Span/3
LSB 20 37.25 1.8
25 37.49 2.5
30 37.70 3.0
5 208.00 0.0
10 209.40 0.7
250753.0 15 210.73 1.3
3 Span/6 Span/3
LSB 20 212.34 2.1
25 214.08 2.9
30 215.78 3.7
5 102.87 0.0
10 103.15 0.3
250753.0 15 103.47 0.6
6 Span/6 Span/3
LSB 20 103.87 1.0
25 104.29 1.4
30 104.69 1.8
Note: Note: FS Fastener spacing, SWS Spacing of web stiffener, ME
Elastic buckling moments, TWS Transverse web stiffener, Inc. Increment
in elastic buckling moments of stiffened back to back LSBs compared to that
of unstiffened back to back LSBs.
Table 7.15: Effect of Web Stiffener Thickness on the Elastic Buckling and
Ultimate Moments of Back to Back LSBs
Spacing TWS
Span ME MU
LSB Section Thickness
(m) FS SWS (kNm) (kNm)
(mm)
3 216.06 130.34
300753.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 4 216.79 131.30
LSB
5 217.30 131.54
3 157.15 113.77
300753.0
4 Span/6 Span/3 4 157.54 114.49
LSB
5 157.82 114.49
3 103.66 86.89
300753.0
6 Span/6 Span/3 4 103.80 87.61
LSB
5 103.89 86.89
3 76.36 57.24
300602.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 4 76.59 57.45
LSB
5 76.76 57.66
3 55.40 46.00
300602.0
4 Span/6 Span/3 4 55.53 46.00
LSB
5 55.63 46.00
3 36.51 32.06
300602.0
6 Span/6 Span/3 4 36.56 32.68
LSB
5 36.59 32.68
3 206.95 111.83
250753.0
3 Span/6 Span/3 4 207.57 111.83
LSB
5 208.00 111.64
3 153.33 100.23
250753.0
4 Span/6 Span/3 4 153.65 102.10
LSB
5 153.88 102.10
3 174.67 93.29
250752.5
3 Span/6 Span/3 4 175.22 93.66
LSB
5 175.61 94.41
3 129.73 85.82
250752.5
4 Span/6 Span/3 4 130.03 85.08
LSB
5 130.24 86.01
3 37.54 25.85
200451.6
3 Span/6 Span/3 4 37.65 26.05
LSB
5 37.74 26.05
3 24.23 20.00
200451.6
4 Span/6 Span/3 4 24.28 20.10
LSB
5 24.32 20.10
Note: FS Fastener spacing, SWS Spacing of web stiffener, ME Elastic
buckling moments, MU Ultimate moment capacities, TWS Transverse
web stiffener.
Both elastic buckling and ultimate moment results confirm that there is no noticeable
difference between the results for stiffener thicknesses of 3, 4 and 5 mm. However,
stiffener thicknesses below 3 mm exhibited deformations in web stiffeners and
insignificant improvement in results. Hence it is concluded that stiffener thickness in
the range of 3 to 5 mm can be used without much difference in the ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSBs. It is recommended that 5 mm thick web stiffeners
are used, however, thinner web stiffeners of 3 mm or 4 mm can be considered for
smaller LSBs such as 125452.0 LSB, 125451.6 LSB, 150452.0 LSB and
150451.6 LSB. In the detailed parametric study reported in the following sections,
5 mm stiffeners are used as the difference in moment capacities is small.
Mahendran and Avery (1997) showed that screw-fixed or welded web stiffeners
(Figure 7.12) are equally effective in providing the numerically predicted
improvements to the lateral distortional buckling capacities of HFBs. Kurniawans
(2005) experiments of LSBs with screw-fixed web stiffeners (Figure 7.13) showed
that screw-fixed web stiffeners can be effectively used instead of welded stiffeners
despite the reduced capacity improvements in his experiments due to the lack of
flange twist restraint at the supports. Therefore it is concluded that web stiffeners can
also be screw-fixed as shown in Figure 7.13 (a) to the inner faces of top and bottom
flanges of LSBs as both screw-fixing and welding methods are considered to be
capable of providing the same moment capacity improvements for LSBs.
7.4.4 Elastic Buckling and Nonlinear Analyses and the Results
A detailed numerical study was conducted on six back to back LSBs with the
recommended transverse web stiffener configuration. The LSB sections chosen in
this study included all three types of sections, ie, compact, non-compact and slender
section. Three slender sections were included as they exhibit lateral distortional
buckling failures with larger web distortion. The analyses included varying span
lengths from 1.0 m to 10.0 m in order to capture all the possible buckling modes
(local and lateral buckling modes). The fasteners used to connect back to back LSB
sections were located at a spacing of span/6 while the stiffeners were placed at a
spacing of span/3 on both sides. Five mm thick transverse web stiffeners were used.
In the nonlinear analyses both initial imperfections and residual stresses were
considered. Both elastic and nonlinear analysis results are given in Table 7.16.
Table 7.16: Elastic Buckling and Ultimate Moment Capacity Results of Back to
Back LSBs with Transverse Web Stiffeners at a Spacing of Span/3
LSB Span ME MU LSB Span ME MU
Section (m) (kNm) (kNm) Section (m) (kNm) (kNm)
1.0 360.0 160.3 1.0 256.5 102.8
2.0 357.4 148.3 2.0 256.5 102.2
3.0 217.3 131.5 3.0 175.6 94.4
300753.0 4.0 157.8 114.5 250752.5 4.0 130.2 86.0
LSB 5.0 125.0 100.1 LSB 5.0 104.3 77.4
6.0 103.9 86.9 6.0 87.4 70.3
8.0 78.2 68.2 8.0 66.3 58.4
10.0 62.9 58.3 10.0 53.6 49.6
1.0 86.3 74.3 1.0 103.3 70.3
2.0 86.2 79.1 2.0 103.5 68.5
3.0 76.8 57.7 3.0 73.4 52.3
300602.0 4.0 55.6 46.0 250602.0 4.0 54.2 43.6
LSB 5.0 44.0 38.5 LSB 5.0 43.4 37.1
6.0 36.6 32.7 6.0 36.2 32.2
8.0 27.6 25.2 8.0 27.5 25.1
10.0 22.2 20.3 10.0 22.2 21.2
1.0 436.2 125.5 1.0 50.8 33.6
2.0 330.3 119.5 2.0 37.7 26.0
3.0 208.0 111.6 3.0 24.3 20.1
250753.0 4.0 153.9 102.1 200451.6 4.0 18.2 16.2
LSB 5.0 123.0 91.8 LSB 5.0 14.6 13.5
6.0 102.9 83.6 6.0 12.3 11.6
8.0 77.9 69.0 8.0 9.3 9.3
10.0 62.8 58.5 10.0 7.5 7.7
Note: MU Ultimate moment capacity, ME Elastic buckling moment,
Table 7.17 compares the elastic buckling moments of back to back LSBs with and
without web stiffeners. As shown in Table 7.17, the increment in elastic buckling
moments is not the same, and varies with span lengths and cross-section geometry.
For short spans where local buckling occurs the effect of web stiffeners is almost
non-existent. Similarly, as the span length increases the strengthening effect of web
stiffeners reduces. As the span length increases the effect of lateral distortional
buckling reduces and thus the strengthening effect of web stiffeners is small for long
spans as lateral torsional buckling governs the failure. However, the strengthening
effect of web stiffeners is maximum for intermediate spans where lateral distortional
buckling occurs. A similar trend is observed with ultimate moment capacity results
as shown in Table 7.18. Back to back LSBs with web stiffeners exhibited
considerable increase in ultimate moment capacities for intermediate spans where the
lateral distortional buckling failure is critical (Table 7.18). Figures 7.26 (a) and (b)
show the typical deformation shapes of stiffened and unstiffened back to back LSBs
at failure.
Table 7.17: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSBs

with and without Web Stiffeners
LSB Span ME (kNm) Inc. LSB Span ME (kNm) Inc.
Section (m) SFC TWS3 (%) Section (m) SFC TWS3 (%)
1.0 359.51* 359.97* 0.1 1.0 256.32* 256.49* 0.1
2.0 294.92 357.35 21.2 2.0 216.84 256.54* 18.3
3.0 181.64 217.30 19.6 3.0 140.59 175.61 24.9
300753.0 4.0 138.42 157.82 14.0 250752.5 4.0 111.05 130.24 17.3
LSB 5.0 114.09 124.97 9.5 LSB 5.0 93.51 104.35 11.6
6.0 97.56 103.89 6.5 6.0 81.04 87.36 7.8
8.0 75.77 78.21 3.2 8.0 63.86 66.29 3.8
10.0 61.86 62.94 1.7 10.0 52.51 53.59 2.0
1.0 86.18* 86.28* 0.1 1.0 103.31* 103.34* 0.0
2.0 86.19* 86.19* 0.0 2.0 93.69 103.54* 10.5
3.0 62.59 76.76 22.6 3.0 60.44 73.43 21.5
300602.0 4.0 47.52 55.63 17.1 250602.0 4.0 47.34 54.23 14.6
LSB 5.0 39.31 44.02 12.0 LSB 5.0 39.55 43.35 9.6
6.0 33.77 36.59 8.4 6.0 34.07 36.25 6.4
8.0 26.43 27.56 4.3 8.0 26.63 27.46 3.1
10.0 21.68 22.19 2.4 10.0 21.80 22.16 1.7
1.0 435.97* 436.23* 0.1 1.0 50.63* 50.76* 0.3
2.0 267.35 330.30 23.5 2.0 31.32 37.74 20.5
3.0 176.06 208.00 18.1 3.0 21.57 24.32 12.8
250753.0 4.0 137.79 153.88 11.7 200451.6 4.0 16.95 18.20 7.4
LSB 5.0 114.50 123.05 7.5 LSB 5.0 14.01 14.63 4.4
6.0 98.10 102.87 4.9 6.0 11.94 12.27 2.8
8.0 76.13 77.88 2.3 8.0 9.18 9.30 1.3
10.0 62.06 62.81 1.2 10.0 7.44 7.49 0.7
Note: ME Elastic buckling moment, SFC Unstiffened back to back LSBs with a fastener
spacing of span/6, TWS3 Transverse web stiffener at a spacing of span/3, Inc. Increment in
elastic buckling moments of stiffened back to back LSBs compared to that of unstiffened back
to back LSBs (TWS3 to SFC). * - Local buckling occurs.
Table 7.18: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs
with and without Web Stiffeners
LSB Span MU (kNm) Inc. LSB Span MU (kNm) Inc.
Section (m) SFC TWS3 (%) Section (m) SFC TWS3 (%)
1.0 159.62* 160.34* 0.5 1.0 102.24* 102.80* 0.5
2.0 138.02 148.34 7.5 2.0 93.85 102.24 8.9
3.0 118.33 131.54 11.2 3.0 85.45 94.41 10.5
300753.0 4.0 104.17 114.49 9.9 250752.5 4.0 78.55 86.01 9.5
LSB 5.0 92.41 100.09 8.3 LSB 5.0 72.02 77.43 7.5
6.0 82.81 86.89 4.9 6.0 66.42 70.34 5.9
8.0 67.69 68.17 0.7 8.0 56.35 58.40 3.6
10.0 56.17 58.33 3.8 10.0 48.51 49.63 2.3
1.0 80.55* N/A N/A 1.0 69.83* 70.31* 0.7
2.0 72.85* 79.10* 8.6 2.0 55.41 68.53* 23.7
3.0 47.04 57.66 22.6 3.0 45.20 52.33 15.8
300602.0 4.0 39.55 46.00 16.3 250602.0 4.0 37.59 43.58 15.9
LSB 5.0 33.72 38.51 14.2 LSB 5.0 31.92 37.10 16.2
6.0 28.10 32.68 16.3 6.0 29.65 32.24 8.7
8.0 23.52 25.19 7.1 8.0 24.63 25.11 2.0
10.0 19.48 20.29 4.2 10.0 20.74 21.22 2.3
1.0 124.92* 125.48* 0.4 1.0 32.97* 33.56* 1.8
2.0 112.76 119.49 6.0 2.0 22.63 26.05 15.1
3.0 105.09 111.64 6.2 3.0 18.05 20.10 11.4
250753.0 4.0 96.12 102.10 6.2 200451.6 4.0 15.02 16.19 7.8
LSB 5.0 88.45 91.82 3.8 LSB 5.0 12.88 13.46 4.5
6.0 80.41 83.59 4.0 6.0 11.22 11.61 3.5
8.0 67.69 69.00 1.9 8.0 8.90 9.31 4.6
10.0 54.23 58.53 7.9 10.0 7.66 7.72 0.8
Note: MU Ultimate moment capacities, SFC Unstiffened back to back LSBs with a fastener
spacing of span/6, TWS3 Transverse web stiffener at spacing of span/3, Inc. Increment in
ultimate moment capacities of stiffened back to back LSBs compared to that of unstiffened back
to back LSBs (TWS3 to SFC). * - Local buckling occurs.
buckling mode
(a) Back to Back 300602.0 LSB

without web stiffeners
Web
stiffener
buckling effects are reduced
by web stiffeners
(b) Back to Back 300602.0 LSB with

web stiffeners at span/3
Figure 7.26: Typical Failure Mode of Back to Back LSBs with and without Web
Stiffeners (Span of 3 m)
7.4.5 Correlation of Elastic Buckling Moments of Stiffened Back to Back LSBs
with Unstiffened Back to Back LSBs
There are no suitable analytical or empirical design equations to predict the elastic
buckling moments of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners. Hence it is necessary to
find a relationship between the elastic lateral buckling moments of back to back LSB
sections with and without web stiffeners.
Elastic lateral buckling moments of stiffened back to back LSBs have to be

compared with the elastic lateral torsional buckling moments of unstiffened back to
back LSBs to determine the effectiveness of web stiffeners in eliminating the effects
of web distortion. If they have been able to eliminate web distortion completely, their
elastic buckling moments can be taken as equal to the elastic lateral torsional
buckling moments of unstiffened back to back LSBs. However, previous sections
showed that the use of web stiffeners considerably eliminated the effects of web
distortion, but not entirely. Hence their elastic buckling moments are likely to be in
the range of 85 to 95% of their elastic lateral torsional buckling moments.
Elastic lateral torsional buckling moments of steel beams can be calculated using
Equation 7.1. However, this equation cannot be used for intermittently fastened back
to back LSB members. But it can be used for back to back LSB members with
continuous connections.
2 EI yy
GJ + EI w
2

Mo = (7.1)
L L2

where, L = Length, E = Youngs modulus, G = Shear modulus of elasticity

Iw = Warping constant, Iyy = Second moment of area about minor axis
J = Torsion section constant,
The elastic buckling moments of back to back LSBs with continuous connections for
long spans obtained from THIN-WALL agree well with the corresponding
predictions of Equation 7.1, indicating the accuracy of Equation 7.1. Back to back
LSB members exhibit elastic lateral torsional behaviour in the long span region.
However, the elastic buckling moment results obtained from finite element analyses
for long spans deviate with the corresponding predictions of Equation 7.1 by 4%,
which is the same as observed earlier (see Chapter 6). The section property details
were obtained from THIN-WALL which might have caused the observed difference.
As explained in Chapter 6 the FEA and THIN-WALL models are slightly different.
To eliminate the difference in the results it is appropriate to use the same reduction
factor of 0.96 to the predictions of Equation 7.1. Hence Equation.7.1 can be used to
predict the elastic lateral torsional buckling moments of back to back LSBs with
continuous connections but without web stiffeners.
In Chapter 6, Equation 6.30 was developed that gives the ratio between the elastic
lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSBs with intermittent
fastening at span/6 and continuous connections (see Table 6.7 of Chapter 6). This
equation is reproduced here for the sake of completeness as Equation 7.2. We can
assume the same relationship to be valid for elastic lateral torsional buckling
moments. Hence once the elastic lateral torsional buckling moments (Mo) of
unstiffened back to back LSBs with continuous connections are calculated using
Equation 7.1, the corresponding elastic lateral torsional buckling moments of back to
back LSBs with a fastener spacing of span/6 can be found using Equation 7.2.
2
s s
fs = m n +1 1 (7.2)
L L
18t 2 L2
where, n = 0.75m + 0.2 and m = 0.18 ln 3 + 0.73
b d
f 1
s Fastener spacing, L Span length
bf Width of the flange of single LSB, d1 Clear web height, t Thickness of the
flange
Table 7.19: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of
Back to Back LSBs with Web Stiffeners and Corresponding Elastic Lateral
Torsional Buckling Moments
300753.0 LSB
Span (m) Mo 0.96Mo RE6 Mo6 Modw Modw/Mo6
2.0 455.65 437.42 0.919 401.99 357.35 0.89
3.0 264.11 253.54 0.944 239.35 217.30 0.91
4.0 186.55 179.09 0.956 171.21 157.82 0.92
5.0 144.78 138.99 0.963 133.84 124.97 0.93
6.0 118.58 113.83 0.968 110.19 103.89 0.94
8.0 87.36 83.87 0.973 81.60 78.21 0.96
10.0 69.30 66.53 0.977 65.00 62.94 0.97
300602.0 LSB
3.0 93.11 89.39 0.953 85.19 76.76 0.90
4.0 65.69 63.07 0.963 60.73 55.63 0.92
5.0 50.95 48.91 0.969 47.39 44.02 0.93
6.0 41.71 40.04 0.973 38.96 36.59 0.94
8.0 30.72 29.49 0.978 28.84 27.56 0.96
10.0 24.36 23.39 0.981 22.94 22.19 0.97
250753.0 LSB
2.0 419.35 402.58 0.923 371.58 330.30 0.89
3.0 251.61 241.55 0.946 228.51 208.00 0.91
4.0 180.80 173.57 0.956 165.93 153.88 0.93
5.0 141.61 135.95 0.963 130.92 123.05 0.94
6.0 116.62 111.95 0.967 108.26 102.87 0.95
8.0 86.41 82.96 0.972 80.63 77.88 0.97
10.0 68.74 65.99 0.976 64.40 62.81 0.98
250602.0 LSB
2.0 148.36 142.42 0.934 133.02 103.54 0.78
3.0 88.77 85.22 0.954 81.30 73.43 0.90
4.0 63.71 61.16 0.963 58.90 54.23 0.92
5.0 49.87 47.87 0.969 46.39 43.35 0.93
6.0 41.05 39.41 0.973 38.34 36.25 0.95
8.0 30.40 29.19 0.977 28.52 27.46 0.96
10.0 24.18 23.21 0.980 22.75 22.16 0.97
Table 7.19: Comparison of Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of
Back to Back LSBs with Web Stiffeners and Corresponding Elastic Lateral
Torsional Buckling Moments (Contd.)
250752.5 LSB
3.0 215.05 206.45 0.945 195.09 175.61 0.90
4.0 154.63 148.44 0.956 141.91 130.24 0.92
5.0 121.16 116.31 0.962 111.89 104.35 0.93
6.0 99.80 95.80 0.967 92.64 87.36 0.94
8.0 73.96 71.00 0.972 69.02 66.29 0.96
10.0 58.84 56.49 0.976 55.13 53.59 0.97
200451.6 LSB
2.0 46.51 44.65 0.951 42.46 37.74 0.89
3.0 28.69 27.54 0.965 26.58 24.32 0.91
4.0 20.88 20.04 0.971 19.46 18.20 0.94
5.0 16.46 15.80 0.975 15.41 14.63 0.95
6.0 13.60 13.06 0.978 12.77 12.27 0.96
8.0 10.12 9.71 0.982 9.54 9.30 0.97
10.0 8.06 7.74 0.984 7.62 7.49 0.98
Note: Mo, Mo6 Elastic lateral torsional buckling moments of back to
back LSBs with continuous connection and a fastener spacing of span/6,
respectively, 0.96Mo Corrected Mo, RE6 Elastic lateral distortional
buckling moment ratios of back to back LSBs with a fastener spacing of
span/6 to continuous connection (FEA results), Modw Elastic lateral
buckling moments of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners (TWS) at a
spacing of span/3. Elastic buckling moment units are in kNm.
Table 7.19 shows the corrected elastic lateral torsional buckling moments (0.96Mo)
of back to back LSBs with continuous connection and the approximate elastic lateral
torsional buckling moments (Mo6) of back to back LSBs with a fastener spacing of
span/6 calculated using the buckling moment ratios (RE6) obtained from FEA results.
However, Equation 7.2 can also be used to calculate Mo6 using the buckling moment
ratios (fs6). Table 7.19 also compares the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments
of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners obtained from FEA and the corresponding
elastic lateral torsional buckling moments (Mo6). The buckling moment ratio
(Modw/Mo6) is plotted against span length in Figure 7.27 while it is plotted against the
lateral torsional member slenderness in Figure 7.28. As the span length increases the
buckling moment ratio (Modw/Mo6) increases (see Figure 7.27). Similarly, as the
lateral torsional member slenderness () increases the buckling moment ratio
(Modw/Mo6) increases. A linear equation was developed to predict the Modw/Mo6 ratios
using the corresponding lateral torsional member slenderness values, and the
developed equation is shown next.
M odw
= 0.058 + 0.86 (7.3a)
M o6
M o 6 = 0.96M o f s 6 (7.3b)
My
where, = Non-dimensional lateral torsional slenderness , My = First yield
M o6
moment (= Zfy), Modw = Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment of back to back
LSBs with web stiffeners, Mo and Mo6 Elastic lateral torsional buckling moments of
back to back LSB with continuous connection and a fastener spacing of span/6,
respectively, fs6 Ratio of elastic buckling moments of LSBs with a fastener spacing
of span/6 and continuous connections, Mo and fs6 can be calculated using Equations
7.1 and 7.2, respectively.
The elastic lateral buckling moment results obtained from finite element analyses
(FEA) and the predictions of Equation 7.3 are compared in Figure 7.29. The
comparison gave a mean value of 1.007 and a COV of 0.016, indicating that
Equation 7.3 accurately predicts the elastic lateral buckling moments of back to back
LSBs with web stiffeners. The relevant calculations for this comparison can be found
in Appendix F.
1.200
1.000
0.800
Modw/Mo6
300*75*3.0 LSB
0.600
300*60*2.0 LSB
0.400 250*75*3.0 LSB
250*60*2.0 LSB
0.200 250*75*2.5 LSB
200*45*1.6 LSB
0.000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
Figure 7.27: Modw/Mo6 versus Span for Back to Back LSBs with Web Stiffeners
1.2
1.0
0.8
Modw/Mo6
300*75*3.0 LSB
0.6
300*60*2.0 LSB
250*75*3.0 LSB
0.4
250*60*2.0 LSB
250*75*2.5 LSB
0.2
200*45*1.6 LSB
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
)
Slenderness (
Figure 7.28: Modw/Mo6 versus Lateral Torsional Member Slenderness for Back
to Back LSBs with Web Stiffeners
1.2
1.0
0.8
Modw/Mo6
0.6
0.4
FEA
0.2
Eq. 7.3
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Slenderness ()
()
Figure 7.29: Comparison of Modw/Mo6 with Equation 7.3
1.2
FEA without Web Stiffener
FEA with Web Stiffener
1.0 Eq. 7.4
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw )
Slenderness (

Back LSBs with and without Web Stiffeners
1.2
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB
1.0 Design Curve (Eq. 7.4)
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB + TWS3

0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw)
Slenderness (

Back 300753.0 LSBs with and without Web Stiffener
It is also necessary to develop suitable design rules to predict the ultimate moment
capacities of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners. Figure 7.30 shows the non-
dimensionalised moment capacities of back to back LSBs with and without web
stiffeners. The data points of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners are within the
scatter of the non-dimensionalised moment capacity data of back to back LSBs
without web stiffeners. The non-dimensionalised moment capacity data of back to
back 300753.0 LSB with and without web stiffener shown in Figure 7.31 indicates
clearly that although the points of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners are
different from the unstiffened back to back LSBs, they follow the same trend (similar
curves obtained for some other LSB sections can be found in Appendix F). Hence it
is appropriate to review the suitability of the design rules (Equation 5.8 of Chapter 5
is given here as Equation 7.4) developed to predict the ultimate moment capacities of
back to back LSBs without web stiffener first.
For d 0.65 : Mc = M y (7.4a)
For 0.65 < d < 1.80 : M c = M y (0.28 d 1.29 d + 1.73)

2
(7.4b)
1
For d 1.80 : M c = M y 2

(7.4c)
d
My
where d = Non-dimensional slenderness , My = First yield moment (= Zfy),
M od
Mod = Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment.
When Equations 7.4 (a) to (c) are used for back to back LSBs with web stiffeners, it
is proposed that the member slenderness d is replaced with dw where the elastic
lateral distortional buckling moments (Modw) of back to back LSBs with web
stiffeners are used.
The ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners obtained
from FEA were non-dimensionalised and compared with the developed design curve
for the back to back LSBs without web stiffeners. These non-dimensionalised
moment capacities and the predicted moment capacities using Equation 7.4 are
compared in Figure 7.32. This comparison gave a mean value of 0.994 and a COV of
0.041 while the calculated capacity reduction factor was nearly 0.90, indicating that
the same equations can be used to predict the ultimate moment capacities of back to
back LSBs with web stiffeners. The relevant calculations for this comparison can be
found in Appendix F. The moment capacity data was obtained for six different LSB
sections, among them three were slender sections. As shown in Figure 7.32 the plots
of slender sections are located slightly below the design curve compared to those for
compact and non-compact sections. Hence the calculated capacity reduction factor
would have been slightly high if all 13 LSB sections were considered in this
comparison.
1.2
Eq. 7.4
1.0 300*75*3.0 LSB
300*60*2.0 LSB
0.8 250*75*3.0 LSB

Mu/My, Mb/My
250*75*2.5 LSB
0.6 250*60*2.0 LSB
200*45*1.6 LSB
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw)
Slenderness (
Figure 7.32: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 7.4
Equation 7.4 is presented in a form suitable for back to back LSBs with web
stiffeners as follows:
For dw 0.65 : Mc = M y (7.5a)
For 0.65 < dw < 1.80 : M c = M y (0.28 dw 1.29 dw + 1.73)

2
(7.5b)
1
For dw 1.80 : M c = M y

(7.5c)
dw
2

My
where dw = Non-dimensional slenderness , My = First yield moment (= Zfy),
M odw
Modw = Elastic lateral buckling moments of back to back LSBs with web stiffeners.
7.5 Comparison with the Upper Limit of Back to Back LSB Configurations
The elastic buckling moments of back to back LSBs with the recommended web
stiffeners are compared with those of back to back LSB sections with a doubly thick
web configuration in Table 7.20. Although the use of web stiffeners at span/3
improves the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back LSB
sections, they are still well below those of back to back LSBs with a doubly thick
web. Figures 7.33 (a) to (c) show this comparison for selected LSB sections.
Increasing the number of web stiffeners or using plates to connect the flanges can
improve the lateral buckling behaviour of back to back LSBs further, but they are
considered as uneconomical due to the additional fabrication cost.
1.50
300*75*3.0 LSB, DB/BTB6
300*75*3.0 LSB, TWS3/BTB6

1.40
Elastic Buckling Moment Ratio
(DB/BTB6, TWS3/BTB6)
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(a) 300753.0 LSB

with Doubly Thick Web and Web Stiffeners at a Spacing of Span/3 with those of
Back to Back LSBs with a Fastener Spacing of Span/6
1.50
300*60*2.0 LSB, DB/BTB6
300*60*2.0 LSB, TWS3/BTB6

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(b) 300602.0 LSB
1.50
250*75*3.0 LSB, DB/BTB6
250*75*3.0 LSB, TWS3/BTB6

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
(c) 250753.0 LSB

with Doubly Thick Web and Web Stiffeners at a Spacing of Span/3 with those of
Back to Back LSBs with a Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Table 7.20: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments Capacities (DB, TWS3
versus BTB6)
300753.0 LSB
Span (m) DB TWS BTB6 DB/BTB6 TWS3/BTB6
2.0 400.16 357.35 294.92 1.36 1.21
3.0 247.22 217.30 181.64 1.36 1.20
4.0 182.63 157.82 138.42 1.32 1.14
5.0 145.71 124.97 114.09 1.28 1.10
6.0 121.45 103.89 97.56 1.24 1.06
8.0 91.22 78.21 75.77 1.20 1.03
10.0 73.07 62.94 61.86 1.18 1.02
300602.0 LSB
2.0 138.14 86.19 86.19 1.60 1.00
3.0 85.11 76.76 62.59 1.36 1.23
4.0 63.12 55.63 47.52 1.33 1.17
5.0 50.55 44.02 39.31 1.29 1.12
6.0 42.25 36.59 33.77 1.25 1.08
8.0 31.84 27.56 26.43 1.20 1.04
10.0 25.54 22.19 21.68 1.18 1.02
250753.0 LSB
2.0 370.71 330.30 267.35 1.39 1.24
3.0 239.18 208.00 176.06 1.36 1.18
4.0 179.46 153.88 137.79 1.30 1.12
5.0 144.12 123.05 114.50 1.26 1.07
6.0 120.49 102.87 98.10 1.23 1.05
8.0 90.74 77.88 76.13 1.19 1.02
10.0 72.77 62.81 62.06 1.17 1.01
Note: DB Back to back LSBs with doubly thick web, BTB6
Back to back LSBs with a fastener spacing of span/6, TWS3
Transverse web stiffeners at a spacing of span/3.
7.6 Conclusion
This chapter has described an investigation to find the best methods to improve the
lateral buckling behaviour of back to back LSBs. For this study based on elastic
buckling and nonlinear analyses using validated ideal finite element models, six LSB
sections were selected which covered all levels of compactness. Effects of different
connection methods including spot welding of outside flanges, use of C brackets
connecting the flanges and use of web side plates attached to the web elements were
first considered in this study. However, these connection methods did not show any
positive improvement to the lateral distortional buckling capacities of back to back
LSBs. Different types of web stiffeners including transverse web stiffener,
longitudinal web stiffener, C brackets and box stiffeners were considered next in
this study. The use of transverse web stiffener was found to be the most effective and
simple strengthening method. The use of plates attached to the flanges was found to
improve the strength of back to back LSBs with transverse web stiffeners further,
particularly in the long span region, but it was considered as uneconomical. The
stiffener configuration, transverse web stiffeners at third span points and supports,
was finally recommended which will effectively improve the lateral buckling
behaviour of back to back LSBs with minimum cost. It was also recommended to use
3 to 5 mm thick stiffeners depending on the size of LSB sections. Design equation
was developed to calculate the elastic lateral buckling moments of back to back
LSBs with the above recommended web stiffener configuration while the same
design rules developed for unstiffened back to back LSBs were recommended to
calculate the ultimate moment capacities.
CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and
Recommendations
This thesis has described a detailed investigation into the flexural behaviour, strength
and design of back to back built-up beam made of a recently developed, cold-formed
steel beam known as LiteSteel Beam (LSB). Both experimental and finite element
analyses (FEA) were conducted to improve the knowledge and understanding of the
flexural behaviour and strength of back to back built-up LSBs, and hence this has led
to accurate and safer design methods for back to back built-up LSBs.
In the first phase of this research, an investigation into the flexural behaviour and
design of back to back built-up LSBs was undertaken. It included large scale lateral
buckling tests, finite element simulations of tested back to back built-up LSBs and a
detailed parametric study to develop suitable design rules based on the validated
finite element models. In the second phase of this research, suitable strength
improvement methods were investigated for back to back built-up LSBs subject to
lateral distortional buckling. It included finite element analyses and detailed
analyses, which led to a simple and cost-effective strengthening method and
associated design rules for the elastic buckling and ultimate moment capacities of
improved back to back built-up LSBs.
Numerical studies of this research entail the development of two finite element
models, namely ideal and experimental models for the investigations into the flexural
behaviour and strength of back to back built-up LSBs. For this purpose, a general
purpose finite element program called ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.7 (HKS, 2007c)
was used. Experimental finite element models were generated to validate the finite
element models in comparison with experimental results whereas ideal models were
developed to conduct parametric studies and hence to developed design rules.
Chapter 3 of this thesis presented the details of the experimental investigation into
the flexural behaviour of back to back LSBs including its buckling characteristics.
For this purpose fourteen full scale lateral buckling tests and many tensile coupon
tests and geometric imperfection measurement tests were conducted for the currently
available LSB sections. Chapter 4 presented the details of the development and
validation of finite element models of back to back LSB members and the results. A
description of the detailed parametric study conducted on the flexural behaviour and
strength of back to back LSBs including their buckling characteristics using the
validated finite element models was presented in Chapter 5. It also included the
development of new design rules to predict the moment capacities of back to back
LSBs and a review of current design rules. Chapter 6 presented the development of
design rules to predict the elastic lateral buckling moments of back to back LSBs
with continuous connection and intermittent fastener spacings. A description of a
detailed study on strengthening methods for back to back LSBs using different types
of connections and stiffeners was presented in Chapter 7. It also recommended the
best web stiffener configuration which considerably improved the lateral buckling
behaviour of back to back LSBs and included the design rules developed to predict
the elastic lateral buckling moments and ultimate moment capacities of back to back
LSBs with the recommended web stiffener configuration.
The most important outcomes obtained from this research are as follows:
This research has produced good understanding and knowledge of the

flexural behaviour and strength of back to back built-up LSBs. It included
their local buckling/yielding, inelastic and elastic lateral buckling
characteristics. Although this research focused on back to back LSBs
fastened with bolts, the results reported in this thesis are considered to be
equally applicable to other types of connections such as screwed and riveted
connections provided local failures of connections do not occur.
The improvement in elastic buckling and ultimate moment capacities and
lateral buckling behaviour of back to back built-up LSBs compared to the
corresponding single LSBs has been explored in detail.
New and improved design rules have been proposed for back to back built-
up LSBs to predict their ultimate moment capacities based on the results
from finite element analyses and experimental tests.
Appropriate design equations have also been developed to predict the elastic
lateral distortional buckling moments of back to back built-up LSBs with
intermittent fastener spacings and continuous connection based on finite
element analysis results.
Effectiveness of a number of strengthening methods including the use of
different type of connections and web stiffeners was investigated to improve
the lateral buckling behaviour of back to back built-up LSBs.
The use of transverse web stiffeners (welded or screwed) at third span points
and supports was recommended as the most cost-effective and simple
strengthening method for back to back LSBs as it considerably improved
their elastic lateral buckling moments and ultimate moment capacities.
Design rules have been proposed to predict both elastic buckling and
ultimate moment capacities of strengthened back to back built-up LSBs with
the recommended web stiffener configuration.
Nonlinear experimental finite element models developed in this research
were able to predict the ultimate moment capacities of back to back built-up
LSBs with varying fastener spacing including their moment-deflection and
moment-strain curves. It was also able to accurately predict the complex
contact behaviour between the individual members of back to back built-up
LSBs.
8.1 Experimental Study into the Flexural Behaviour and Strength of Back to
Back LSBs
Lateral buckling test results showed that the back to back built-up LSB
members are likely to give higher moment capacities. The beams with a
fastener spacing of span/6 increased the moment capacity by about 40 to 50%
in comparison with the corresponding single LSBs.
The typical buckling mode of back to back built-up LSB members for the
intermediate spans was found to be still lateral distortional buckling. However,
there was a slight improvement in lateral distortional buckling behaviour in
comparison with that of corresponding single LSBs.
The failure mode was governed by lateral distortional buckling with very little
separation between the connections even for back to back built-up LSBs with
larger fastener spacings of span/2. Hence the limit of span/6 specified in
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) in relation to excessive deformation is
overconservative. However, the use of such limit increases the ultimate
moment capacities of back to back built-up LSBs.
The measured initial geometric imperfections were well below the fabrication
tolerance for flexural members. The back to back bolting process is not likely
to alter the level of imperfections in the built-up LSB members.
Tensile coupon tests were conducted for the tested LSB specimens to determine
the required important mechanical properties based on AS 1391 (SA, 2007),
and the results showed that the measured yield stresses exceed the nominal
flange and web yield stresses.
8.2 Finite Element Model Development and Validation of Back to Back LSBs
Valuable experiences were gained through a detailed study into the

development of finite element models which included the selection of
appropriate elements, load and boundary conditions, residual stresses, initial
geometric imperfection, material model, contact modelling, analysis methods
and the issues related to various over-constraints and numerical ill conditions.
Experimental finite element models were able to simulate the actual test beam
set-up and its associated load and boundary conditions. Nonlinear experimental
finite element models developed in this research were able to predict the
ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSBs with varying fastener spacing
including their moment-deflection and moment-strain curves. They were also
able to accurately predict the contact behaviour between the individual LSB
sections.
Ideal finite element models developed in this research were able to predict the
elastic lateral buckling moments of back to back LSBs with continuous
connection from an established buckling analysis program called THIN-WALL
with an average deviation of only (-) 0.5%.
8.3 Parametric Study and Development of Design Rules for Ultimate Moment
Capacities of Back to Back LSBs
New and improved design rules were proposed for back to back LSBs to
predict the ultimate moment capacities based on the result from finite element
analyses and experiments. It was recommended to use a factor of 0.90 with
the proposed design rules.
Comparisons with the currently available design rules specified in AS 4100
(SA, 1998) and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) confirmed that these design rules
overconservatively predict the moment capacities of back to back LSBs. The
new design rules developed for single LSB sections by Anapayan and
Mahendran (2009a) were also found to be overconservative.
The ratio of elastic buckling moments of back to back LSB and single LSB
members varies from 2.4 to 3.4 depending on the span length, fastener spacing
and cross-section geometry. It is high in the intermediate span range where
lateral distortional buckling failure occurs.
The fastener spacing was found to influence both elastic buckling and ultimate
moment capacities of back to back LSB members depending on the span length
and the level of compactness of LSB sections. Effect of fastener spacing is
insignificant in the short span region where local buckling occurs. Also in the
short span region the fastener spacing influences the buckling modes. As the
fastener spacing reduces lateral distortional effects, the failure mode becomes
local buckling.
Effects of residual stresses on the ultimate moment capacities of back to back
LSBs were influenced by their span length as well as the failure mode. It is
significant in the intermediate span region where lateral distortional buckling
occurs (about 5-12%) while it not significant in the short and long span regions.
The influence of fastener spacing on the ultimate moment capacities of back to
back LSBs is high in the intermediate and long span regions while it is
negligible in the short span region. On average 5-7% increment in ultimate
moment capacities was noted when the fastener spacing was reduced from
span/3 to span/6 while the ultimate moment capacities were again increased by
about 5-7% when the fastener spacing was reduced from span/6 to continuous
connection.
The ratio of ultimate moment capacities of back to back and single LSBs varies
between 2.0 to 3.0, indicating the benefits of using back to back LSB sections.
However, this effectiveness is only in the intermediate and long span regions,
which depends on the span length and level of compactness of LSB section.
Design guidelines for the maximum fastener spacing of back to back LSB
sections were developed to optimise the use of fasteners. In the short span
region, the fastener spacing was designed with minimum fastener spacing
requirements as the fastener spacing does not improve the ultimate moment
capacities in that region while a fastener spacing of span/6 was recommended
in the intermediate and long span region where the influence of fastener
spacing is high. However, by considering the design of fastener failure and the
use of same size bolts for the full range of spans it was suggested to have an
upper limit of 50rcy which overrules the fastener spacing of span/6 with
increasing span length.
The typical buckling mode of back to back LSB members of intermediate span
lengths was still affected by lateral distortional buckling (LDB), mostly web
distortion. However, this effect is slightly less compared to that found in single
LSB members.
Lack of fastener spacing causes web sliding of individual LSBs and the contact
separation behaviour between the individual LSB members. However, the
effect is critical only in the post-ultimate region.
Small change of fastener location across the web does not affect the flexural
strength of back to back LSB members. Hence, it was suggested that 5 mm
tolerance is acceptable.
Ultimate moment capacities of back to back LSBs are about the same when the
same numbers of fasteners are used although the fastener spacing
configurations are not the same along different rows.
A factor was developed to modify the member slenderness which eliminates
the effect of section geometry on the scatter of non-dimensional moment
capacity results, and based on this new member slenderness parameter, new
design rules were developed. A similar modification factor developed by
Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a) for single LSB members also works well for
back to back LSBs.
It was recommended to use web stiffeners at the supports to restrain the flange
twist as in practice the flanges are allowed to twist which deviates from the
idealised simply support conditions.
8.4 Development of Design Rules for Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling
Moments of Back to Back LSB Members
It was recommended to use the finite strip program called THIN-WALL or Pi

and Trahairs (1997) equations with a reduction factor of 0.96 to obtain the
with continuous connections.
An equation was also developed based on Pi and Trahairs (1997) equations
which is capable of predicting the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments
of back to back LSB members with continuous connection using the results of
A design equation was developed to predict the ratios of elastic buckling
moments of back LSBs with varying fastener spacings using an appropriate
factor which eliminates the effects of section geometry. The elastic lateral
buckling moments of intermittently fastened back to back LSBs can be
calculated using the buckling moment ratios obtained based on the developed
equation and the elastic lateral distortional buckling moments of corresponding
back to back LSB members with continuous connections.
8.5 Development of Suitable Strength Improvement Methods for Back to

Back LSB Members
Possible strengthening methods including the use of different types of

connections and web stiffeners were investigated in detail to improve the lateral
buckling behaviour and strength of back to back LSBs
It was found that using transverse web stiffener was the most cost-effective and
simple strengthening method. It is recommended to use transverse web
stiffeners at third span points and supports, and their thickness can be in a range
of 3 to 5 mm depending on the size of LSB section.
Design equation was developed to calculate the elastic lateral buckling
moments of back to back LSBs with the above recommended web stiffener
configuration while the same design rules developed for unstiffened back to
back LSBs are recommended to calculate the ultimate moment capacities.
8.6 Future Research
It is recommended that the following research projects are undertaken in the future to
extend the knowledge base in this field.
In the experimental tests bolts were used to connect back to back LSBs while
the finite element models used Tie MPC and beam elements which are equally
applicable to bolts, screws and rivet connections. This research concentrated on
bolted connections. However, screw connections may be preferred by the
construction industry as the use of self-drilling screw fasteners will lead to
faster construction. Hence it is recommended that lateral buckling tests are
undertaken on back to back LSBs using screwed connections.
Effects of non-uniform moment distributions on the flexural behaviour and
strength of back to back LSBs
Influence of fastener spacing on the ultimate moment capacities of back to back
LSBs subject to non-uniform moment distributions.
Optimum design of fastener spacings for back to back LSBs subject to non-
uniform moment distributions.
Effects of support conditions on the flexural behaviour and strength of back to
back LSBs.
Flexural behaviour and strength of back to back LSBs subject to point loads.
Effects of web openings on the flexural behaviour and strength of back to back
LSBs
Studies on the flexural behaviour and strength of LSBs with other built-up
configurations such as box-shaped and nested box-shaped configurations.
APPENDIX A
A1 Tensile Coupon Test Results
i) Stress Strain Curves for the Inside Flange of 200451.6 LSB Section
Stress - Strain Curve for B18I-1
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Strain (%)
Stress- Strain Curve for B18I-3
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams A-1
ii) Stress Strain Curves for the Outside Flange of 200451.6 LSB Section
Stress - Strain Curve for B18O-1
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Strain (%)
iii) Stress Strain Curves for the Web of 200451.6 LSB Section
Stress - Strain Curve for B18W-1
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Strain Gauge
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
iv) Stress Strain Curves for the Inside Flange of 150451.6 LSB Section
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
v) Stress Strain Curves for the Outside Flange of 150451.6 LSB Section
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Strain (%)
vi) Stress Strain Curves for the Web of 150451.6 LSB Section
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
vii) Stress Strain Curves for the Inside Flange of 125452.0 LSB Section
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensio Meter
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
viii) Stress Strain Curves for the Outside Flange of 125452.0 LSB Section
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
ix) Stress Strain Curves for the Web of 125452.0 LSB Section
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200 Strain Gauge
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
700
600
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Extensiometer
200
Young's Modulus
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Strain (%)
A2 Initial Geometric Imperfection Test Results
A2.1 Initial Geometric Imperfection along the Length of Specimens
i) LBS200451.6S16IMP
0.8
FLANGE 1-6
FLANGE 3-4
0.6
FLANGE 2-5
FLANGE AVERAGE (1-6, 3-4 & 2-5)
0.4
Imperfection (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Span Length (mm)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
Imperfection (mm)
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
WEB 7-8
-1.0 WEB 9-10

WEB 11-12
WEB 13-14
-1.2 WEB 15-16
WEB AVERAGE
-1.4
-1.6
Span Length (mm)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Imperfection (mm)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
-0.2
CROSS SECTION - 17
-0.4 CROSS SECTION - 18
CROSS SECTION - 19
-0.6
Web Depth (mm)
ii) LBS200451.6S26IMP
0.6
FLANGE 1-4
FLANGE 2-5
0.4
FLANGE 3-6
FLANGE AVERAGE
0.2
Imperfection (mm)
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Span Length (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
Imperfection (mm)
-0.6
-0.8
WEB 7-9
WEB 8-10
-1.0
WEB 11-12
WEB AVERAGE
-1.2
-1.4
Span Length (mm)
iii) LSB200451.6BTBE6IMP
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Imperfection (mm)
-0.5
-1.0
FLANGE 1-5
FLANGE 2-6
-1.5
FLANGE 3-7
FLANGE 4-8
-2.0
FLANGE 2 AVERAGE (1-5 & 2-6)
FLANGE 1 AVERAGE (3-7 & 4-8)
-2.5
Span Length (mm)
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Imperfection (mm)
-0.5
-1.0
WEB 9-12
WEB 10-13
-1.5
WEB 11-14
WEB AVERAGE (9-12, 10-13 & 11-14)
-2.0
Span Length (mm)
iv) LBS200451.6S13IMP
2.0
FLANGE - 1
FLANGE - 2
FLANGE - AVERAGE (1+2)
1.5
Imperfection (mm)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
Span Length (mm)
1.5
1.0
Imperfection (mm)
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
WEB - 3
WEB - 4
-0.5
WEB - 5
WEB AVERAGE (3+4+5)
-1.0
Span Length (mm)
v) LBS200451.6S23IMP
0.8
F-1
0.6 F-2
F - AVG (1+2)
0.4
Imperfection (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
Span Length (mm)
1.5
W-3
W-4
1.0 W-5
W - AVG (3+4+5)
Imperfection (mm)
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
-1.0
Span Length (mm)
vi) LSB200451.6BTBE3IMP
2.5
F-1
F-2
2.0 F-3
F-4
F - AVG (1+2)
1.5 F - AVG (3+4)
Imperfection (mm)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
-1.0
Span Length (mm)
2.5
W-5
W-6
2.0 W-7
W - AVG
1.5
Imperfection (mm)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
Span Length (mm)
vii) LSB150451.6BTBE2IMP
1.4
FLANGE 1
1.2 FLANGE 2
FLANGE AVERAGE
1.0
0.8
Imperfection (mm)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
Span Length (mm)
2.0
1.5
Imperfection (mm)
1.0
WEB - 5
WEB - 6
0.5
WEB - 7
WEB AVERAGE
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.5
Span Length (mm)
viii) LSB150451.6BTBE6IMP
1.0
FLANGE 1
FLANGE 2
FLANGE AVERAGE (1 + 2)
0.8
FLANGE 3
FLANGE 4
FLANGE AVERAGE (3 + 4)
0.6
Imperfection (mm) 0.4
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
Span Length (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
Imperfection (mm)
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
WEB 5
WEB 6
-1.0
WEB 7
WEB AVERAGE (5 + 6 + 7 )
-1.2
Span Length (mm)
ix) LSB150451.6S16IMP
1.6
FLANGE - 1
1.4 FLANGE - 2
FLANGE AVERAGE
1.2
1.0
Imperfection (mm)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
Span Length (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
Imperfection (mm)
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4 WEB - 3
WEB - 4
WEB - 5
-1.6
WEB AVERAGE
-1.8
Span Length (mm)
x) LSB125452.0BTBEIMP
0.8
0.6
0.4
Imperfection (mm)
0.2
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
FLANGE 1
-0.4 FLANGE 2
FLANGE AVERAGE
-0.6
Span Length (mm)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Imperfection (mm)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.2
-0.4
WEB - 5
WEB - 6
-0.6
WEB - 7
WEB AVERAGE
-0.8
-1.0
Span Length (mm)
A2.2 Fabrication Tolerance for LSB Sections (SSTM, 2005)
A3 Compactness of LSB Sections Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)
d df bf t ro ri d1 f1
Section f w Flange Web Section
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
300x75x3.0LSB 300 25 75 3.0 6.00 3.00 244 63.00 28.17 100.27 Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact
300x75x2.5LSB 300 25 75 2.5 5.00 3.00 244 64.50 34.61 120.33 Non-Compact Slender Slender
250x75x3.0LSB 250 25 75 3.0 6.00 3.00 194 63.00 28.17 79.73 Compact Compact Compact
250x75x2.5LSB 250 25 75 2.5 5.00 3.00 194 64.50 34.61 95.67 Non-Compact Non-Compact Non-Compact
125x45x1.6LSB 125 15 45 1.6 3.20 3.00 89 37.20 31.19 68.58 Non-Compact Compact Non-Compact
Note: d Overall depth, df Flange depth, bf Flange width, t Thickness, ro - Flange outside radius, ri Inside web radius, d1 Clear web depth, f1 Clear flange width (inside flange width
was considered as it is critical), w Slenderness of web element, f slenderness of flange element. Calculations were based on nominal dimensions and yield stresses; there can be slight
changes when actual measurements are considered. When the corners are not considered as assumed in the finite element models the classifications remain the same except for 250753.0
LSB, which becomes non-compact. However, its behaviour based on FEA is similar to that of a compact section (see Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of Chapter 5).
A4 Moment versus Displacement Curves for Lateral Buckling Tests
1) LSB125452.0BTBEL3
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3 125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3
25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0 Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 10.0

Compression Flange at Midspan
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 5.0 5.0
0.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3 125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3

25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
10.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of

Tension Flange at Midspan
Moment vs Vertical Deflection at
5.0 Overhang Loading Point
5.0
0.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6 125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0 Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of

10.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan
5.0
5.0
0.0 0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6 125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0

10.0 10.0
5.0 Moment vs Vertical Deflection at 5.0

Overhang Loading Point
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1

20.0
20.0
16.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
12.0
10.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Tension

8.0
Flange at Midspan

4.0
0.0
0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
0 20 40 60 80 100
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1

20.0 20.0
16.0
16.0
Moment (kNm) 12.0

Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment vs Vertical Deflection at Midspan 8.0

8.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at

4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2

20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at 8.0

4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 8.0
4.0
0.0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3

20.0
20.0
16.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of

8.0 Compression Flange at Midspan
4.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3

20.0
20.0
16.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0

8.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 8.0
4.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
12.0 12.0

4.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
12.0 12.0

8.0 8.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at
4.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0 10.0

Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 5.0
5.0
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan
5.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1
20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 8.0

8.0 Overhang Loading Point Compression Flange at Midspan
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/1
20.0
20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 8.0

8.0
0.0 0.0
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2

20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
12.0 12.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 8.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 8.0

4.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 -30.0 -25.0 -20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
12.0 12.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 8.0 8.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at

Compression Flange Overhang Loading Point
4.0 4.0
0.0 0.0
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
10) LSB200451.6BTBEL3
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
15.0 15.0
10.0 Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of 10.0 Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of

Tension Flange at Midspan Compression Flange at Midspan
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3

25.0 25.0
20.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
10.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 5.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at

5.0
0.0
0.0
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
11) LSB200451.6BTBEL4
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
4.0 Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Tension Flange at Midspan 4.0
0.0 0.0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

20.0 20.0
16.0 16.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
12.0 12.0
8.0 8.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Compression Flange at Midspan
4.0 4.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Overhang Loading Point
0.0 0.0
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
12) LSB200451.6BTBEL6
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
15.0 15.0

Tension Flange at Midspan Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 10.0
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Moment vs Vertical Displacement at

10.0 10.0 Overhang Loading Point
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
13) LSB200451.6S
200*45*1.6 LSB, Single 200*45*1.6 LSB, Single

8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
4.0 4.0
Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of

3.0 3.0
Tension Flange at Midspan Compression Flange at Midspan
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Displacement (kNm) Displacement (mm)
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
4.0 4.0

2.0 Overhang Loading Point 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
14) LSB150451.6S

7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
5.0 5.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Midspan 2.0

2.0 Moment vs Vertical Displacement at Overhang Loading Point
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

7.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0 Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Tension Flange at Midspan 2.0

Moment vs Horizontal Displacement of Compression Flange at Midspan
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
-160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
A5 Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves for Lateral Buckling Tests
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
Longitudinal Strain on Web

Longitudinal Strain CC 10.0
Longitudinal Strain CT
5.0
0.0
-7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2

20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
Longitudinal Strain CT
8.0
4.0
0.0
-3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
3) LSB150451.6S

7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
Longitudinal Strain at Compression Flange

2.0
Longitudinal Strain at Midweb
1.0
0.0
-1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200
4) LSB200451.6S
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
Longitudinal Strain at Compression Flange 2.0
1.0
0.0
-800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0
APPENDIX B
B1 Typical Residual Stress Subroutine
SUBROUTINE SIGINI(SIGMA,COORDS,NTENS,NCRDS,NOEL,NPT,LAYER,KSPT)
C
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
C
REAL X,Y,Z,nipt,ipt,Fy,C1,
C2,IMPBUFR,IMPBLFR,IMPTLFR,IMPTUFR,IMPBUFL,IMPBLFL,IMPTLFL,IMPTUFL,FLEX,MEM
B
DIMENSION SIGMA(NTENS), COORDS(NCRDS)
C
X=COORDS(1)
Y=COORDS(2)
Z=COORDS(3)
midspan=3000.
IMP=6.0
TUF=1.0
TLF=0.970
BUF=0.521
BLF=0.492
BF=72.0
C1=1.
C2=-2.1
nipt=9.
Fy=380.
C
IF(KSPT.EQ.1.) THEN
ipt=1.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.2.) THEN
ipt=2.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.3.) THEN
ipt=3.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.4.) THEN
ipt=4.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.5.) THEN
ipt=5.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.6.) THEN
ipt=6.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams B-1
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.7.) THEN
ipt=7.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.8.) THEN
ipt=8.
ENDIF
IF(KSPT.EQ.9.) THEN
ipt=9.
ENDIF
C
IMPTUFR=Z-C1-(IMP*TUF)*X/midspan
IMPTLFR=Z-C1-(IMP*TLF)*X/midspan
IMPBUFR=Z-C1-(IMP*BUF)*X/midspan
IMPBLFR=Z-C1-(IMP*BLF)*X/midspan
IMPTUFL=Z-C2-(IMP*TUF)*X/midspan
IMPTLFL=Z-C2-(IMP*TLF)*X/midspan
IMPBUFL=Z-C2-(IMP*BUF)*X/midspan
IMPBLFL=Z-C2-(IMP*BLF)*X/midspan
C
C **** FLEXURAL RESIDUAL STRESS ****
C *** RIGHT-HAND SIDE BEAM
IF((NOEL.GE.29435.).AND.(NOEL.LE.33904.)) THEN
FLEX=(0.24*Fy+0.83*Fy*IMPTUFR/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
ELSEIF((NOEL.GE.6489.).AND.(NOEL.LE.10958.)) THEN
FLEX=(0.24*Fy+0.83*Fy*IMPBLFR/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
FLEX=(0.38*Fy+0.42*Fy*IMPTLFR/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
FLEX=(0.38*Fy+0.42*Fy*IMPBUFR/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
ELSEIF(((NOEL.GE.4999.).AND.(NOEL.LE.6488.)).OR.
& ((NOEL.GE.33905.).AND.(NOEL.LE.35394.))) THEN
FLEX=(0.41*Fy)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
END IF
C *** LEFT-HAND SIDE BEAM
FLEX=(0.24*Fy-0.83*Fy*IMPTUFL/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
FLEX=(0.24*Fy-0.83*Fy*IMPBLFL/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
FLEX=(0.38*Fy-0.42*Fy*IMPTLFL/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
FLEX=(0.38*Fy-0.42*Fy*IMPBUFL/BF)*(1.-2.*(nipt-ipt)/(nipt-1.))
ENDIF
C
C **** MEMBRANE RESIDUAL STRESS ****
C *** RIGHT-HAND SIDE BEAM
IF((Y.GE.23.0).AND.(Y.LE.149.50)) THEN
MEMB=(0.00791*Y-0.68182)*Fy
ELSEIF((Y.GE.149.50).AND.(Y.LE.276.0)) THEN
MEMB=(-0.00791*Y+1.68182)*Fy
ENDIF
MEMB=0.11*Fy-0.08*Fy*IMPTLFR/BF
MEMB=0.11*Fy-0.08*Fy*IMPBUFR/BF
MEMB=0.03*Fy
MEMB=-0.2591*Fy
ENDIF
C *** LEFT-HAND SIDE BEAM
IF((Y.GE.23.0).AND.(Y.LE.149.50)) THEN
MEMB=(0.00791*Y-0.68182)*Fy
ELSEIF((Y.GE.149.50).AND.(Y.LE.276.0)) THEN
MEMB=(-0.00791*Y+1.68182)*Fy
ENDIF
MEMB=0.11*Fy+0.08*Fy*IMPTLFL/BF
MEMB=0.11*Fy+0.08*Fy*IMPBUFL/BF
MEMB=0.03*Fy
MEMB=-0.2591*Fy
ENDIF
C
SIGMA(1)=FLEX+MEMB
C
SIGMA(2)=0
SIGMA(3)=0
C
RETURN
END
B2 Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 150*45*2.0 LSB, TM, Span/2

4.0
FEA, 150*45*2.0 LSB, TM, Span/2
0.0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
Figure B2.1 Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Back to Back
45
20.0
16.0
12.0
Moment (kNm)
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/3

8.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/3
4.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
45
20.0
16.0
12.0
Moment (kNm)
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/3

8.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/3
4.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
45
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/4

8.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/4
4.0
0.0
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Displacement (mm)
45
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/4

4.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/4
0.0
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/4

4.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/4
0.0
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Displacement (mm)
(c) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
45
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/4

4.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/4
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Displacement (mm)
(d) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Overhang Loading Point (OH)
45
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
45
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
(b) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
(c) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Mid-span (VM)
45
20.0
16.0
12.0
Moment (kNm)
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2

8.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/2
4.0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
20.0
16.0
12.0
Moment (kNm)
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/2

8.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/2
4.0
0.0
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
45
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/3

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/3
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/3

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/3
0.0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
45
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/3

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/3
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Displacement (mm)
(c) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Compression Flange at Mid-span (CM)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/3

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/3
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
(d) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
45
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, OH, Span/6
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement (mm)
25.0
20.0
15.0
Moment (kNm)
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Span/6
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Displacement (mm)
45
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/6
0.0
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Displacement (mm)
(c) Moment versus Vertical Deflection at Mid-span (VM)
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
10.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6

5.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/6
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
(d) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
45
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/4

4.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Span/4
0.0
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
20.0
16.0
Moment (kNm)
12.0
8.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/4

4.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, VM, Span/4
0.0
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Displacement (mm)
45
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Single

2.0
FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Single
1.0
0.0
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Displacement (mm)
(a) Moment versus Horizontal Deflection of Tension Flange at Mid-span (TM)
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
EXP, 150*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Single 2.0

FEA, 150*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Single
1.0
0.0
-160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure B2.9 Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Single

45
150 1.6 LSB Section
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Single

3.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, CM, Single
2.0
1.0
0.0
-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Displacement (mm)
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Moment (kNm)
4.0
3.0
EXP, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Single

2.0
FEA, 200*45*1.6 LSB, TM, Single
1.0
0.0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Displacement (kNm)
Figure B2.10 Comparison of Moment versus Deflection Curves for Single

45
200 1.6 LSB Section
Note: In Figures B2.9 and B2.10, negative deflection was noted in the initial stages
of analyses and was considered to be due to the residual stresses which caused the
beam member to deform towards the negative side. However, as the load was
increased the beam gradually moved to the positive side. The direction of failure
should be as observed in the experimental test (we considered as positive direction).
However this problem was noted in single LSB members only.
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0

10.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain TT
EXP, Longitudinal Strain TC
FEA, Longitudinal Strain CC
FEA, Longitudinal Strain CT 5.0
FEA, Longitudinal Strain TC

FEA, Longitudinal Strain TT
0.0
-6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
(a) 200451.6 LSB Section with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
25.0
20.0
Moment (kNm)
15.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain, WEB

10.0
EXP, Longitudinal Strain, CC
EXP, Longitudinal Strain, CT
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, CC
5.0
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, CT
FEA, Longitudinal Strain, WEB
0.0
-7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0
(b) 150451.6 LSB Section with Fastener Spacing of Span/6
Figure B2.11 Comparison of Moment versus Longitudinal Strain Curves for the
Selected Back to Back LSB Sections
APPENDIX C
C1 Elastic Buckling Analysis Results
The buckling moment plots shown in this section show only the elastic buckling
moments of back to back LSBs subject to lateral distortional and lateral torsional
buckling.
C1.1 Elastic Buckling Moment Plots of Back to Back LSB Members with
Varying Fastener Spacings
350
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
300 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

250 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

200
150
100
50
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
1) 300753.0 LSB
200
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3

160 300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6

120
80
40
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
2) 300752.5 LSB
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams C-1
70
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
60 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4

Elastic Buckling Moment (kNm) 50 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
3) 300602.0 LSB
300
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3

250
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

200
150
100
50
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
4) 250753.0 LSB
250
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3
200 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6

150
100
50
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
5) 250752.5 LSB
120
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
250*60*20 LSB, Span/3

100
250*60*20 LSB, Span/4

250*60*20 LSB, Span/6
80
250*60*20 LSB, Continuous
60
40
20
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
6) 250602.0 LSB
140
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/2
120 200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/3
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4

100 200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6

80
60
40
20
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
7) 200602.5 LSB
100
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3

80 200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

60
40
20
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
8) 200602.0 LSB
40
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
Elastic Buckling Moment (kNm) 30
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
9) 200451.6 LSB
100
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3

80 150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6

60
40
20
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
10) 150452.0 LSB
80
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

60
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
40
20
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
11) 150451.6 LSB
100
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3

80 125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4

125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6

60
40
20
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
12) 125452.0 LSB
60
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

45
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
30
15
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
13) 125451.6 LSB
C1.2 Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back LSB Members
(BTBi to BTBC)
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
0.88 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
0.86 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6
0.84
0.82
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
1) 300753.0 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92 300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3

0.90
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4
0.88 300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6

0.86
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
2) 300752.5 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.92 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
0.90 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
0.88
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
3) 300602.0 LSB
1.02
1.00

0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
0.88 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
0.86 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

0.84
0.82
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
4) 250753.0 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2
0.88 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4

0.86
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6
0.84
0.82
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
5) 250752.5 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.90
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.88 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
6) 250602.0 LSB
1.02
1.00

0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/2

0.90
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/3
0.88 200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6
0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
7) 200602.5 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.90
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.88 200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
8) 200602.0 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2

0.90
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
0.88 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
9) 200451.6 LSB
1.02
1.00

0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.88 150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.86 150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6

0.84
0.82
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
10) 150452.0 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
0.88 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
0.86 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

0.84
0.82
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
11) 150451.6 LSB
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
0.88
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3
0.86
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4
0.84
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6
0.82
0.80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
12) 125452.0 LSB
1.02
1.00

0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
0.90
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
0.88 125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

0.86
0.84
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
13) 125451.6 LSB
C1.3 Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of Back to Back and Single LSB
Members (BTBi to Single)
3.4
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
3.2 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

3.0
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
1) 300753.0 LSB
3.2
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2

300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3
3.0
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4
300*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
2) 300752.5 LSB
3.0
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
2.8 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4

300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
3) 300602.0 LSB
3.4
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2
3.2 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4

3.0 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
4) 250753.0 LSB
3.4
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/2

3.2 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/3
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/4

3.0 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
5) 250752.5 LSB
3.4
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2
3.2 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4

3.0 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
6) 250602.0 LSB
3.2
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/2
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/3

3.0
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
7) 200602.5 LSB
3.2
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2

200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3
3.0
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
8) 200602.0 LSB
3.0
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2
2.9
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3

2.8 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
9) 200451.6 LSB
3.4
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
3.2 150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3
150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4

3.0 150*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
10) 150452.0 LSB
3.6
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2

3.4
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

3.2
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
11) 150451.6 LSB
3.4
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2
3.2 125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3

125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4
3.0 125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
12) 125452.0 LSB
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2

2.4 125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3
125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4

2.2 125*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6

2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Span (m)
13) 125451.6 LSB
C2 Nonlinear Analysis Results
Comparison of Moment Capacities of Back to Back and Single LSB Members

(BTBi to Single)
3.00
2.50
2.00
Continuous, N
1.50 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
1.00 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.50
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
1) 300753.0 LSB
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
2) 300752.5 LSB
3.50

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
3) 300602.0 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00
Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
4) 250753.0 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00
Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
5) 250752.5 LSB
3.00

2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
6) 250602.0 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
7) 200602.5 LSB
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
8) 200602.0 LSB
3.00

2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00
Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
9) 200451.6 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00
Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50
Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
10) 150452.0 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
11) 150451.6 LSB
3.00

2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
12) 125452.0 LSB
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
Continuous, N
1.00 Span/6, N
Span/4, N
0.50 Span/3, N
Span/2, N
0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Span (m)
13) 125451.6 LSB
C3 Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and Equation 5.8
Span
LSB Section F.S Ymod Yrn X My FEA PRED FEA/PRED
(m)
2.0 2.08 0.91 0.69 154.49 140.66 149.79 0.94
3.0 1.25 0.79 0.90 154.49 122.17 123.40 0.99
4.0 0.94 0.70 1.03 154.49 107.77 107.54 1.00
5.0 0.77 0.62 1.14 154.49 96.25 96.09 1.00
Cont.
6.0 0.65 0.56 1.24 154.49 86.65 86.86 1.00
7.0 0.57 0.51 1.33 154.49 78.49 79.07 0.99
8.0 0.50 0.46 1.41 154.49 71.77 72.37 0.99
10.0 0.41 0.40 1.56 154.49 61.21 61.53 0.99
2.0 1.91 0.89 0.72 154.49 138.02 145.68 0.95
3.0 1.18 0.77 0.92 154.49 118.33 120.26 0.98
4.0 0.90 0.67 1.06 154.49 104.17 105.00 0.99
5.0 0.74 0.60 1.16 154.49 92.41 93.93 0.98
Span/6
6.0 0.63 0.54 1.26 154.49 82.81 84.98 0.97
7.0 0.55 0.47 1.35 154.49 72.73 77.41 0.94
8.0 0.49 0.44 1.43 154.49 67.69 70.90 0.95
10.0 0.40 0.36 1.58 154.49 56.17 60.35 0.93
300753.0 LSB 2.0 1.86 0.89 0.73 154.49 137.30 144.27 0.95
3.0 1.15 0.75 0.93 154.49 116.41 119.00 0.98
4.0 0.88 0.65 1.07 154.49 100.81 103.84 0.97
5.0 0.72 0.58 1.17 154.49 89.05 92.86 0.96
Span/4
6.0 0.62 0.51 1.27 154.49 79.21 83.98 0.94
7.0 0.54 0.46 1.36 154.49 71.53 76.49 0.94
8.0 0.48 0.42 1.44 154.49 64.57 70.04 0.92
10.0 0.39 0.35 1.59 154.49 54.73 59.63 0.92
2.0 1.81 0.88 0.74 154.49 136.34 143.10 0.95
3.0 1.13 0.74 0.94 154.49 114.49 117.87 0.97
4.0 0.86 0.64 1.08 154.49 98.89 102.76 0.96
Span/3
5.0 0.71 0.56 1.19 154.49 86.65 91.81 0.94
6.0 0.61 0.50 1.28 154.49 77.05 82.99 0.93
7.0 0.53 0.45 1.37 154.49 69.13 75.54 0.92
2.0 1.75 0.86 0.76 154.49 132.74 141.19 0.94
Span/2 3.0 1.09 0.72 0.96 154.49 110.89 115.91 0.96
4.0 0.83 0.61 1.10 154.49 94.09 100.78 0.93
3.0 1.19 0.77 0.92 129.60 99.17 101.51 0.98
4.0 0.90 0.67 1.06 129.60 86.95 88.14 0.99
5.0 0.74 0.60 1.16 129.60 78.09 79.00 0.99
Cont.
6.0 0.64 0.55 1.25 129.60 70.90 71.79 0.99
300752.5 LSB 8.0 0.50 0.46 1.41 129.60 59.64 60.43 0.99
10.0 0.41 0.40 1.56 129.60 51.26 51.78 0.99
3.0 1.12 0.73 0.94 129.60 94.14 98.79 0.95
4.0 0.86 0.64 1.08 129.60 83.36 85.97 0.97
Span/6
5.0 0.71 0.57 1.18 129.60 74.26 77.17 0.96
6.0 0.62 0.52 1.27 129.60 67.31 70.20 0.96
Span
(m)
300752.5 LSB Span/6 8.0 0.49 0.43 1.43 129.60 56.05 59.19 0.95
10.0 0.40 0.37 1.58 129.60 47.91 50.79 0.94
3.0 1.10 0.72 0.95 129.60 92.70 97.71 0.95
4.0 0.84 0.62 1.09 129.60 79.77 84.98 0.94
5.0 0.70 0.55 1.19 129.60 71.86 76.26 0.94
Span/4
6.0 0.61 0.49 1.28 129.60 63.72 69.36 0.92
8.0 0.48 0.42 1.44 129.60 54.14 58.46 0.93
10.0 0.40 0.35 1.59 129.60 45.99 50.17 0.92
3.0 1.08 0.70 0.96 129.60 91.26 96.74 0.94
4.0 0.82 0.60 1.10 129.60 78.33 84.07 0.93
Span/3 5.0 0.69 0.54 1.21 129.60 69.70 75.37 0.92
6.0 0.60 0.48 1.30 129.60 61.80 68.52 0.90
8.0 0.47 0.40 1.46 129.60 51.74 57.71 0.90
3.0 1.04 0.69 0.98 129.60 89.35 95.07 0.94
Span/2
4.0 0.80 0.58 1.12 129.60 74.97 82.39 0.91
3.0 0.73 0.56 1.17 90.36 50.16 54.41 0.92
4.0 0.55 0.46 1.35 90.36 41.42 44.90 0.92
Cont. 5.0 0.45 0.40 1.49 90.36 35.80 38.70 0.93
6.0 0.38 0.35 1.61 90.36 31.64 34.11 0.93
7.0 0.34 0.32 1.72 90.36 28.52 30.56 0.93
3.0 0.69 0.52 1.20 90.36 47.04 52.79 0.89
4.0 0.53 0.44 1.38 90.36 39.55 43.69 0.91
Span/6 5.0 0.44 0.37 1.52 90.36 33.72 37.75 0.89
6.0 0.37 0.31 1.64 90.36 28.10 33.35 0.84
7.0 0.33 0.28 1.75 90.36 25.39 29.94 0.85
3.0 0.68 0.51 1.21 90.36 46.21 52.14 0.89
300602.0 LSB
4.0 0.52 0.41 1.39 90.36 37.47 43.13 0.87
Span/4 5.0 0.43 0.36 1.53 90.36 32.68 37.27 0.88
6.0 0.37 0.32 1.65 90.36 28.93 32.94 0.88
7.0 0.32 0.29 1.76 90.36 26.02 29.60 0.88
3.0 0.67 0.51 1.22 90.36 46.00 51.55 0.89
4.0 0.51 0.40 1.40 90.36 36.01 42.62 0.84
Span/3 5.0 0.42 0.35 1.54 90.36 31.85 36.80 0.87
6.0 0.36 0.31 1.66 90.36 27.89 32.54 0.86
7.0 0.32 0.27 1.77 90.36 24.77 29.25 0.85
3.0 0.65 0.47 1.24 90.36 42.88 50.51 0.85
Span/2
4.0 0.49 0.38 1.42 90.36 34.14 41.66 0.82
3.0 1.55 0.89 0.80 120.11 106.96 105.04 1.02
4.0 1.20 0.82 0.91 120.11 98.74 94.36 1.05
5.0 0.99 0.76 1.00 120.11 90.88 86.05 1.06
250753.0 LSB Cont. 6.0 0.84 0.70 1.09 120.11 83.59 79.02 1.06
7.0 0.74 0.64 1.17 120.11 76.86 72.89 1.05
8.0 0.65 0.59 1.24 120.11 70.87 67.47 1.05
10.0 0.53 0.51 1.37 120.11 61.15 58.37 1.05
Span
(m)
250753.0 LSB 2.0 2.23 0.94 0.67 120.11 112.76 119.04 0.95
3.0 1.47 0.88 0.83 120.11 105.09 102.76 1.02
4.0 1.15 0.80 0.93 120.11 96.12 92.44 1.04
5.0 0.95 0.74 1.02 120.11 88.45 84.37 1.05
Span/6
6.0 0.82 0.67 1.11 120.11 80.41 77.52 1.04
7.0 0.71 0.61 1.18 120.11 73.30 71.53 1.02
8.0 0.63 0.56 1.26 120.11 67.69 66.23 1.02
10.0 0.52 0.45 1.39 120.11 54.23 57.33 0.95
2.0 2.16 0.94 0.68 120.11 112.57 117.98 0.95
3.0 1.43 0.86 0.84 120.11 103.60 101.77 1.02
4.0 1.12 0.79 0.94 120.11 94.62 91.51 1.03
5.0 0.93 0.70 1.03 120.11 84.52 83.49 1.01
Span/4
6.0 0.80 0.65 1.12 120.11 77.60 76.68 1.01
7.0 0.70 0.59 1.19 120.11 70.69 70.73 1.00
8.0 0.62 0.54 1.27 120.11 64.33 65.47 0.98
10.0 0.51 0.46 1.40 120.11 54.79 56.64 0.97
2.0 2.11 0.94 0.69 120.11 113.32 117.07 0.97
3.0 1.40 0.85 0.85 120.11 101.91 100.87 1.01
4.0 1.10 0.77 0.95 120.11 92.38 90.62 1.02
5.0 0.92 0.69 1.04 120.11 83.03 82.60 1.01
Span/3
6.0 0.79 0.62 1.13 120.11 74.24 75.82 0.98
7.0 0.69 0.57 1.21 120.11 68.25 69.89 0.98
8.0 0.61 0.52 1.28 120.11 62.46 64.65 0.97
10.0 0.50 0.44 1.41 120.11 52.55 55.88 0.94
2.0 2.03 0.93 0.70 120.11 112.20 115.58 0.97
Span/2 3.0 1.35 0.83 0.86 120.11 99.86 99.26 1.01
4.0 1.06 0.74 0.97 120.11 88.45 88.95 0.99
2.0 2.34 0.95 0.65 100.76 95.90 101.34 0.95
3.0 1.48 0.87 0.82 100.76 87.32 86.46 1.01
4.0 1.15 0.80 0.93 100.76 80.60 77.74 1.04
Cont. 5.0 0.96 0.74 1.02 100.76 74.44 71.22 1.05
6.0 0.83 0.68 1.10 100.76 68.85 65.73 1.05
8.0 0.65 0.59 1.24 100.76 59.14 56.61 1.04
10.0 0.53 0.51 1.37 100.76 51.49 49.28 1.04
2.0 2.15 0.93 0.68 100.76 93.85 98.82 0.95
250752.5 LSB
3.0 1.40 0.85 0.85 100.76 85.45 84.49 1.01
4.0 1.10 0.78 0.95 100.76 78.55 76.10 1.03
Span/6 5.0 0.93 0.71 1.04 100.76 72.02 69.79 1.03
6.0 0.80 0.66 1.12 100.76 66.42 64.45 1.03
8.0 0.63 0.56 1.26 100.76 56.35 55.56 1.01
10.0 0.52 0.48 1.39 100.76 48.51 48.40 1.00
2.0 2.09 0.93 0.69 100.76 94.03 97.90 0.96
Span/4 3.0 1.36 0.84 0.86 100.76 84.15 83.65 1.01
4.0 1.08 0.76 0.96 100.76 76.31 75.30 1.01
Span
(m)
250752.5 LSB Span/4 5.0 0.91 0.69 1.05 100.76 69.78 69.04 1.01
6.0 0.79 0.63 1.13 100.76 63.81 63.74 1.00
8.0 0.62 0.54 1.27 100.76 53.92 54.91 0.98
10.0 0.51 0.46 1.40 100.76 46.46 47.82 0.97
2.0 2.04 0.93 0.70 100.76 93.66 97.12 0.96
3.0 1.33 0.82 0.87 100.76 83.03 82.87 1.00
Span/3 4.0 1.06 0.75 0.97 100.76 75.19 74.55 1.01
5.0 0.89 0.66 1.06 100.76 66.61 68.29 0.98
6.0 0.77 0.61 1.14 100.76 61.94 63.02 0.98
2.0 1.96 0.92 0.71 100.76 92.54 95.83 0.97
Span/2 3.0 1.28 0.80 0.88 100.76 80.60 81.50 0.99
4.0 1.02 0.71 0.99 100.76 71.46 73.13 0.98
2.0 1.43 0.81 0.84 70.20 56.87 59.45 0.96
3.0 0.90 0.66 1.05 70.20 46.66 47.90 0.97
4.0 0.70 0.57 1.20 70.20 40.18 41.29 0.97
Cont. 5.0 0.58 0.51 1.31 70.20 35.48 36.50 0.97
6.0 0.50 0.45 1.42 70.20 31.76 32.64 0.97
8.0 0.39 0.37 1.60 70.20 26.25 26.74 0.98
10.0 0.32 0.32 1.78 70.20 22.36 22.60 0.99
2.0 1.33 0.79 0.87 70.20 55.41 57.79 0.96
3.0 0.86 0.64 1.08 70.20 45.20 46.68 0.97
4.0 0.67 0.54 1.22 70.20 37.59 40.32 0.93
Span/6 5.0 0.56 0.45 1.33 70.20 31.92 35.69 0.89
6.0 0.49 0.42 1.44 70.20 29.65 31.95 0.93
8.0 0.38 0.35 1.62 70.20 24.63 26.23 0.94
10.0 0.31 0.30 1.79 70.20 20.74 22.24 0.93
250602.0 LSB 2.0 1.30 0.78 0.88 70.20 54.60 57.17 0.96
3.0 0.84 0.62 1.09 70.20 43.58 46.14 0.94
4.0 0.66 0.53 1.23 70.20 36.94 39.84 0.93
Span/4
5.0 0.55 0.45 1.34 70.20 31.59 35.26 0.90
6.0 0.48 0.42 1.45 70.20 29.49 31.56 0.93
8.0 0.37 0.34 1.64 70.20 23.82 25.92 0.92
2.0 1.27 0.77 0.89 70.20 53.95 56.64 0.95
3.0 0.83 0.59 1.10 70.20 41.15 45.65 0.90
4.0 0.65 0.50 1.24 70.20 35.32 39.38 0.90
Span/3
5.0 0.54 0.45 1.36 70.20 31.43 34.82 0.90
6.0 0.47 0.40 1.46 70.20 28.35 31.16 0.91
8.0 0.37 0.33 1.65 70.20 23.01 25.58 0.90
2.0 1.23 0.74 0.90 70.20 52.17 55.75 0.94
Span/2 3.0 0.80 0.57 1.12 70.20 40.18 44.76 0.90
4.0 0.63 0.49 1.26 70.20 34.51 38.51 0.90
2.0 1.87 0.93 0.73 63.95 59.48 59.91 0.99
200602.5 LSB Cont. 3.0 1.28 0.84 0.88 63.95 53.97 51.65 1.05
4.0 0.99 0.76 1.00 63.95 48.59 45.89 1.06
Span
(m)
200602.5 LSB 5.0 0.82 0.68 1.11 63.95 43.68 41.22 1.06
Cont. 6.0 0.69 0.61 1.20 63.95 39.25 37.29 1.05
8.0 0.53 0.51 1.38 63.95 32.55 30.99 1.05
10.0 0.43 0.44 1.53 63.95 28.12 26.27 1.07
2.0 1.76 0.92 0.75 63.95 58.76 58.61 1.00
3.0 1.22 0.83 0.91 63.95 52.78 50.61 1.04
4.0 0.96 0.74 1.02 63.95 47.15 45.01 1.05
Span/6 5.0 0.79 0.66 1.13 63.95 42.48 40.46 1.05
6.0 0.67 0.60 1.22 63.95 38.06 36.61 1.04
8.0 0.52 0.48 1.39 63.95 30.40 30.45 1.00
10.0 0.42 0.41 1.55 63.95 26.09 25.83 1.01
2.0 1.71 0.91 0.76 63.95 58.40 58.06 1.01
3.0 1.19 0.81 0.92 63.95 52.06 50.11 1.04
4.0 0.94 0.72 1.03 63.95 46.19 44.54 1.04
Span/4 5.0 0.77 0.64 1.14 63.95 41.17 40.02 1.03
6.0 0.66 0.57 1.23 63.95 36.26 36.20 1.00
8.0 0.51 0.47 1.40 63.95 29.92 30.08 0.99
10.0 0.41 0.39 1.56 63.95 25.13 25.51 0.99
2.0 1.68 0.89 0.77 63.95 56.96 57.58 0.99
3.0 1.17 0.80 0.93 63.95 51.34 49.64 1.03
4.0 0.92 0.71 1.04 63.95 45.12 44.09 1.02
Span/3
5.0 0.76 0.62 1.15 63.95 39.85 39.56 1.01
6.0 0.65 0.55 1.24 63.95 35.30 35.76 0.99
8.0 0.50 0.44 1.42 63.95 28.24 29.68 0.95
2.0 1.61 0.89 0.79 63.95 56.84 56.77 1.00
Span/2 3.0 1.12 0.77 0.94 63.95 49.30 48.76 1.01
4.0 0.88 0.66 1.06 63.95 42.48 43.17 0.98
2.0 1.77 0.91 0.75 51.62 46.78 47.45 0.99
3.0 1.21 0.81 0.91 51.62 42.01 40.77 1.03
4.0 0.96 0.74 1.02 51.62 38.19 36.47 1.05
Cont. 5.0 0.80 0.67 1.12 51.62 34.61 33.01 1.05
6.0 0.69 0.61 1.20 51.62 31.38 30.05 1.04
8.0 0.53 0.51 1.37 51.62 26.37 25.23 1.05
10.0 0.43 0.46 1.52 51.62 23.75 21.53 1.10
2.0 1.66 0.89 0.78 51.62 45.82 46.35 0.99
3.0 1.16 0.80 0.93 51.62 41.17 39.91 1.03
200602.0 LSB
4.0 0.93 0.72 1.04 51.62 36.99 35.75 1.03
Span/6 5.0 0.78 0.65 1.13 51.62 33.65 32.38 1.04
6.0 0.67 0.59 1.22 51.62 30.43 29.50 1.03
8.0 0.52 0.49 1.39 51.62 25.30 24.79 1.02
10.0 0.43 0.41 1.53 51.62 21.12 21.17 1.00
2.0 1.62 0.88 0.79 51.62 45.47 45.90 0.99
Span/4 3.0 1.13 0.78 0.94 51.62 40.45 39.50 1.02
4.0 0.91 0.70 1.05 51.62 36.28 35.37 1.03
Span
(m)
200602.0 LSB Span/4 5.0 0.76 0.63 1.14 51.62 32.46 32.03 1.01
6.0 0.66 0.57 1.23 51.62 29.24 29.17 1.00
8.0 0.51 0.47 1.40 51.62 24.22 24.49 0.99
10.0 0.42 0.40 1.55 51.62 20.53 20.91 0.98
2.0 1.58 0.88 0.79 51.62 45.23 45.50 0.99
3.0 1.11 0.76 0.95 51.62 39.26 39.12 1.00
Span/3 4.0 0.89 0.69 1.06 51.62 35.44 34.99 1.01
5.0 0.75 0.61 1.16 51.62 31.38 31.66 0.99
6.0 0.65 0.54 1.24 51.62 27.92 28.81 0.97
2.0 1.52 0.86 0.81 51.62 44.39 44.81 0.99
Span/2 3.0 1.07 0.74 0.97 51.62 38.19 38.40 0.99
4.0 0.86 0.65 1.08 51.62 33.29 34.25 0.97
2.0 0.96 0.68 1.02 34.46 23.31 24.25 0.96
3.0 0.65 0.54 1.24 34.46 18.53 19.30 0.96
Cont. 4.0 0.51 0.45 1.41 34.46 15.51 16.20 0.96
5.0 0.42 0.39 1.55 34.46 13.36 13.91 0.96
6.0 0.35 0.34 1.68 34.46 11.80 12.16 0.97
2.0 0.91 0.66 1.05 34.46 22.63 23.60 0.96
3.0 0.63 0.52 1.26 34.46 18.05 18.84 0.96
Span/6 4.0 0.49 0.44 1.43 34.46 15.02 15.85 0.95
5.0 0.41 0.37 1.57 34.46 12.88 13.63 0.94
6.0 0.35 0.33 1.70 34.46 11.22 11.94 0.94
200451.6 LSB 2.0 0.89 0.65 1.06 34.46 22.34 23.34 0.96
3.0 0.61 0.51 1.28 34.46 17.56 18.62 0.94
Span/4 4.0 0.48 0.43 1.44 34.46 14.73 15.66 0.94
5.0 0.40 0.35 1.58 34.46 12.19 13.47 0.91
6.0 0.34 0.31 1.71 34.46 10.83 11.80 0.92
2.0 0.87 0.64 1.07 34.46 22.05 23.10 0.95
Span/3 3.0 0.60 0.50 1.29 34.46 17.17 18.40 0.93
4.0 0.48 0.41 1.45 34.46 14.15 15.46 0.91
2.0 0.85 0.62 1.09 34.46 21.36 22.68 0.94
Span/2 3.0 0.59 0.48 1.31 34.46 16.39 18.00 0.91
4.0 0.46 0.39 1.47 34.46 13.46 15.08 0.89
2.0 1.43 0.88 0.84 28.70 25.17 24.32 1.04
3.0 1.00 0.76 1.00 28.70 21.88 20.62 1.06
4.0 0.77 0.66 1.14 28.70 18.91 17.86 1.06
Cont. 5.0 0.62 0.57 1.27 28.70 16.42 15.64 1.05
6.0 0.52 0.51 1.38 28.70 14.54 13.84 1.05
150452.0 LSB 8.0 0.40 0.41 1.59 28.70 11.78 11.12 1.06
10.0 0.32 0.34 1.77 28.70 9.89 9.28 1.07
2.0 1.36 0.87 0.86 28.70 24.84 23.84 1.04
3.0 0.96 0.75 1.02 28.70 21.47 20.24 1.06
Span/6
4.0 0.74 0.64 1.16 28.70 18.38 17.53 1.05
5.0 0.61 0.55 1.28 28.70 15.68 15.37 1.02
Span
(m)
150452.0 LSB Span/6 6.0 0.51 0.49 1.40 28.70 14.07 13.60 1.03
8.0 0.39 0.40 1.60 28.70 11.38 10.94 1.04
10.0 0.31 0.33 1.79 28.70 9.49 9.15 1.04
2.0 1.33 0.86 0.87 28.70 24.64 23.62 1.04
3.0 0.94 0.74 1.03 28.70 21.14 20.03 1.06
4.0 0.73 0.63 1.17 28.70 17.97 17.34 1.04
Span/4 5.0 0.60 0.54 1.29 28.70 15.55 15.19 1.02
6.0 0.50 0.47 1.41 28.70 13.60 13.43 1.01
8.0 0.38 0.38 1.62 28.70 10.90 10.81 1.01
10.0 0.31 0.30 1.80 28.70 8.48 9.05 0.94
2.0 1.31 0.85 0.88 28.70 24.37 23.40 1.04
3.0 0.92 0.72 1.04 28.70 20.60 19.83 1.04
4.0 0.72 0.61 1.18 28.70 17.43 17.15 1.02
Span/3
5.0 0.59 0.52 1.31 28.70 15.01 15.00 1.00
6.0 0.49 0.45 1.42 28.70 13.06 13.26 0.99
8.0 0.38 0.36 1.63 28.70 10.43 10.66 0.98
2.0 1.26 0.83 0.89 28.70 23.76 23.02 1.03
Span/2 3.0 0.89 0.68 1.06 28.70 19.65 19.42 1.01
4.0 0.69 0.57 1.20 28.70 16.42 16.73 0.98
2.0 1.36 0.85 0.86 23.17 19.73 19.24 1.03
3.0 0.97 0.75 1.01 23.17 17.28 16.46 1.05
4.0 0.77 0.65 1.14 23.17 15.15 14.39 1.05
5.0 0.63 0.57 1.26 23.17 13.29 12.71 1.05
Cont.
6.0 0.53 0.51 1.37 23.17 11.83 11.31 1.05
7.0 0.46 0.46 1.47 23.17 10.70 10.14 1.05
8.0 0.41 0.42 1.57 23.17 9.70 9.16 1.06
10.0 0.33 0.36 1.75 23.17 8.24 7.68 1.07
2.0 1.30 0.84 0.88 23.17 19.47 18.84 1.03
3.0 0.94 0.73 1.03 23.17 17.01 16.14 1.05
4.0 0.74 0.64 1.16 23.17 14.82 14.13 1.05
5.0 0.61 0.56 1.28 23.17 12.96 12.48 1.04
150451.6 LSB Span/6 6.0 0.52 0.49 1.39 23.17 11.43 11.11 1.03
7.0 0.45 0.43 1.49 23.17 10.03 9.97 1.01
8.0 0.40 0.40 1.58 23.17 9.37 9.01 1.04
10.0 0.32 0.31 1.76 23.17 7.24 7.56 0.96
2.0 1.27 0.83 0.89 23.17 19.27 18.66 1.03
3.0 0.92 0.72 1.04 23.17 16.74 15.98 1.05
4.0 0.73 0.63 1.17 23.17 14.49 13.97 1.04
5.0 0.60 0.54 1.29 23.17 12.56 12.34 1.02
Span/4
6.0 0.51 0.48 1.40 23.17 11.03 10.98 1.00
7.0 0.44 0.43 1.50 23.17 9.97 9.85 1.01
8.0 0.39 0.39 1.60 23.17 9.04 8.90 1.01
10.0 0.32 0.33 1.77 23.17 7.64 7.47 1.02
Span/3 2.0 1.24 0.82 0.90 23.17 19.00 18.48 1.03
Span
(m)
150451.6 LSB Span/3 3.0 0.90 0.70 1.05 23.17 16.28 15.81 1.03
4.0 0.71 0.61 1.18 23.17 14.02 13.81 1.02
5.0 0.59 0.52 1.30 23.17 12.16 12.18 1.00
6.0 0.50 0.46 1.41 23.17 10.70 10.83 0.99
2.0 1.20 0.79 0.91 23.17 18.41 18.17 1.01
Span/2 3.0 0.87 0.67 1.07 23.17 15.48 15.47 1.00
4.0 0.69 0.57 1.21 23.17 13.22 13.47 0.98
2.0 1.83 0.97 0.74 22.29 21.69 20.74 1.05
3.0 1.29 0.89 0.88 22.29 19.83 18.08 1.10
4.0 0.99 0.80 1.00 22.29 17.87 15.99 1.12
Cont.
5.0 0.80 0.72 1.11 22.29 15.96 14.27 1.12
6.0 0.68 0.64 1.22 22.29 14.29 12.82 1.11
7.0 0.58 0.58 1.31 22.29 12.93 11.60 1.11
2.0 1.74 0.97 0.76 22.29 21.53 20.37 1.06
3.0 1.24 0.88 0.90 22.29 19.62 17.78 1.10
4.0 0.96 0.79 1.02 22.29 17.61 15.72 1.12
5.0 0.78 0.70 1.13 22.29 15.64 14.04 1.11
Span/6
6.0 0.66 0.63 1.23 22.29 13.97 12.62 1.11
7.0 0.57 0.56 1.33 22.29 12.57 11.41 1.10
8.0 0.50 0.51 1.41 22.29 11.42 10.38 1.10
10.0 0.40 0.41 1.58 22.29 9.18 8.75 1.05
2.0 1.70 0.96 0.77 22.29 21.48 20.20 1.06
3.0 1.21 0.87 0.91 22.29 19.47 17.61 1.11
125452.0 LSB 4.0 0.94 0.78 1.03 22.29 17.35 15.56 1.11
5.0 0.77 0.69 1.14 22.29 15.28 13.88 1.10
Span/4
6.0 0.65 0.61 1.24 22.29 13.56 12.47 1.09
7.0 0.56 0.54 1.34 22.29 12.15 11.28 1.08
8.0 0.49 0.49 1.43 22.29 11.00 10.26 1.07
10.0 0.40 0.42 1.59 22.29 9.33 8.64 1.08
2.0 1.66 0.96 0.78 22.29 21.38 20.02 1.07
3.0 1.19 0.86 0.92 22.29 19.21 17.44 1.10
4.0 0.92 0.76 1.04 22.29 16.88 15.39 1.10
5.0 0.75 0.66 1.15 22.29 14.81 13.71 1.08
Span/3
6.0 0.64 0.59 1.25 22.29 13.09 12.31 1.06
7.0 0.55 0.52 1.35 22.29 11.68 11.12 1.05
8.0 0.48 0.47 1.44 22.29 10.58 10.11 1.05
10.0 0.39 0.40 1.60 22.29 8.86 8.51 1.04
2.0 1.60 0.95 0.79 22.29 21.12 19.71 1.07
Span/2 3.0 1.14 0.83 0.94 22.29 18.59 17.09 1.09
4.0 0.88 0.72 1.06 22.29 16.11 15.03 1.07
2.0 1.76 0.96 0.75 18.00 17.20 16.50 1.04
3.0 1.27 0.88 0.89 18.00 15.85 14.52 1.09
125451.6 LSB Cont.
4.0 1.00 0.80 1.00 18.00 14.40 12.94 1.11
5.0 0.82 0.72 1.11 18.00 12.99 11.62 1.12
Span
(m)
125451.6 LSB Cont. 6.0 0.69 0.65 1.20 18.00 11.69 10.49 1.11
8.0 0.53 0.54 1.38 18.00 9.72 8.70 1.12
2.0 1.67 0.95 0.77 18.00 17.10 16.20 1.06
3.0 1.23 0.87 0.90 18.00 15.70 14.27 1.10
4.0 0.97 0.79 1.02 18.00 14.19 12.73 1.11
Span/6 5.0 0.79 0.71 1.12 18.00 12.73 11.43 1.11
6.0 0.67 0.63 1.22 18.00 11.38 10.33 1.10
8.0 0.51 0.51 1.39 18.00 9.25 8.56 1.08
10.0 0.42 0.44 1.55 18.00 7.90 7.24 1.09
2.0 1.63 0.94 0.78 18.00 16.99 16.05 1.06
3.0 1.20 0.86 0.91 18.00 15.49 14.14 1.10
4.0 0.95 0.77 1.03 18.00 13.93 12.60 1.11
Span/4 5.0 0.78 0.69 1.13 18.00 12.42 11.31 1.10
6.0 0.66 0.62 1.23 18.00 11.12 10.21 1.09
8.0 0.51 0.50 1.41 18.00 9.04 8.45 1.07
10.0 0.41 0.43 1.56 18.00 7.69 7.15 1.08
2.0 1.60 0.94 0.79 18.00 16.89 15.91 1.06
3.0 1.17 0.85 0.92 18.00 15.28 14.00 1.09
4.0 0.93 0.76 1.04 18.00 13.62 12.46 1.09
Span/3 5.0 0.76 0.67 1.14 18.00 12.01 11.17 1.07
6.0 0.65 0.59 1.24 18.00 10.71 10.07 1.06
8.0 0.50 0.49 1.42 18.00 8.73 8.33 1.05
10.0 0.40 0.41 1.58 18.00 7.33 7.04 1.04
2.0 1.53 0.92 0.81 18.00 16.63 15.66 1.06
Span/2 3.0 1.12 0.82 0.94 18.00 14.71 13.71 1.07
4.0 0.89 0.72 1.06 18.00 12.89 12.16 1.06
Note: F.S Fastener spacing, Ymod Mod/My, Yrn Mu/My, Mean 1.000
X () Slenderness ((My/Mod), My First yield moment (kNm), STDEV 0.062
Mod Elastic lateral distortional buckling moment (kNm), Mu
COV 0.062
Ultimate moment (kNm), FEA Ultimate moment capacities
obtained from finite element analyses (Mu), PRED Moment n 377
capacity predictions by Equation 5.8, FEA/PRED FEA to PRED CP 1.008
ratio VP 0.065
Notations, n, CP, VP and are defined in Section 5.4.3.1.
0.903
C4 Comparison of Non-Dimensional Moment Capacity Results of Back to Back
LSBs with Equations 5.8 (a) to (c)
1.2
125*45*2.0 LSB, Contd, N
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6, N
1.0 125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4, N
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3, N
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2, N
125*45*2.0 LSB, Contd, E
0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My, Mod/My
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/6, E

125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/4, E
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/3, E
0.6
125*45*2.0 LSB, Span/2, E
Design Curve (Eqn 5.8)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(1) 125452.0 LSB
1.2
150*45*1.6 LSB, Contd, N
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6, N
1.0 150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4, N
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3, N
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2, N
0.8
150*45*1.6 LSB, Contd, E

150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6, E
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3, E
150*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2, E
0.4 Design Curve (Eqn 5.8)
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(2) 150451.6 LSB
Notation: E Elastic Buckling Moment, N Nonlinear Ultimate Moment
1.2
200*45*1.6 LSB, Contd, N
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6, N
1.0 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4, N
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3, N
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2, N
0.8 200*45*1.6 LSB, Contd, E
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/6, E

200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6 200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/3, E
200*45*1.6 LSB, Span/2, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(3) 200451.6 LSB
1.2
200*60*2.0 LSB, Contd, N
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, N
1.0 200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4, N
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3, N
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2, N
0.8 200*60*2.0 LSB, Contd, E
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, E

200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6 200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3, E
200*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(4) 200602.0 LSB
1.2
200*60*2.5 LSB, Contd, N
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6, N
1.0 200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4, N
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/3, N
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/2, N
0.8 200*60*2.5 LSB, Contd, E
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/6, E

200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6 200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/3, E
200*60*2.5 LSB, Span/2, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(5) 200602.5 LSB
1.2
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2, N
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3, N
1.0 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4, N
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, N
250*60*2.0 LSB, Contd, N
0.8 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2, E
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3, E

250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6 250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, E

250*60*2.0 LSB, Contd, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(6) 250602.0 LSB
1.2
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, N
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, N
1.0 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, N
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, N
250*75*3.0 LSB, Contd, N
0.8 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, E
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, E

250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6 250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, E
250*75*3.0 LSB, Contd, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(7) 250753.0 LSB
1.2
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2, N
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3, N
1.0 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4, N
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, N
300*60*2.0 LSB, Contd
0.8 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/2, E

300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/3, E

300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/4, E
0.6 300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, E

300*60*2.0 LSB, Contd, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(8) 300602.0 LSB
1.2
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, N
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, N
1.0 300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, N
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, N
300*75*3.0 LSB, Contd, N
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/2, E
0.8
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/3, E

300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/4, E
300*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, E
0.6
300*75*3.0 LSB, Contd, E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d)
Slenderness (
(9) 300753.0 LSB
C5 Residual Stress Distribution for Selected Back to Back LSB Members
(1) 300753.0 LSB 6 m Span Member with a Fastener Spacing of Span/6
(4) 300602.0 LSB 1 m Span Member with a Continuous Connection
C6 Deformed Shape and Stress Distribution at Failure for Selected Back to
Back LSB Members
Flange Yielding
Lateral Distortional Buckling

Failure
Flange Yielding
Local Buckling Web Yielding

Failure
Buckling Failure
Flange Yielding
Reduced Lateral
Distortional Buckling
C7 Sample Calculations of Section Geometrical Parameter, K
C7.1 Section Geometrical Parameter (K) based on Trahair (1995)
The geometrical parameter (K) based on Trahair (1995) can be defined for any beam
as follows:
1
K= 1
Et 3 L2 12
0.55 + 0.3
GJ f d1
where, GJf = Torsional rigidity of rectangular hollow flanges, t = Plate thickness,

d1 = Clear web height, L = Span length, E = Youngs modulus
Section Geometrical Parameter for Back to Back LSB Section
Consider back to back 300753.0 LSB section with a span of 3 m (corners of

hollow flanges are ignored). It is adequate to consider only single LSB section
properties to determine the relative magnitude of the flexural rigidity of the web to
the torsional rigidity of the flanges as the ratio will be the same as for back to back
LSBs.
Torsional constant of flange can be calculated as follows:
b
A = bh
t2 ds h b
t
= 2 +
t1 t 2

h
2b 2 h 2 t1t 2
t1 J=
bt1 + ht 2
t1 = t 2
2b 2 h 2 t
For uniform plate thickness J is simplified as
b + h
Substituting bf = 72 mm (width of flange), df = 22 mm (depth of flange), t = 3 mm
(thickness),
4 A 2 2b 2 h 2 t 2 (72 22 ) 3
2
Jf = = = = 160,152.5 mm 4
ds b + h (72 + 22)
t
Youngs modulus and shear modulus were taken as 200000 MPa and 76925 MPa,
respectively. Other parameters are span length (L) = 3000 mm and clear web height
(d1) = 250 mm.
1
Thus, K = 1
= 1.0781
200000 3 3000
3 2 12
0.55 + 0.3
76925 160152.5 250
C7.2 Section Geometrical Parameter (K) based on Anapayan and Mahendran (2009a)
bf df d1 t EIxweb
LSB Section Ixweb (mm4) Jf (mm4) GJf (Nmm2) GJf/EIxweb K
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Nmm2)
300753.0 LSB 72.00 22.00 250.00 3.00 3.906E+06 1.602E+05 7.813E+11 1.232E+10 0.016 1.025
300752.5 LSB 72.50 22.50 250.00 2.50 3.255E+06 1.401E+05 6.510E+11 1.077E+10 0.017 1.022
300602.0 LSB 58.00 18.00 260.00 2.00 2.929E+06 5.737E+04 5.859E+11 4.413E+09 0.008 1.067
250753.0 LSB 72.00 22.00 200.00 3.00 2.000E+06 1.602E+05 4.000E+11 1.232E+10 0.031 0.975
250752.5 LSB 72.50 22.50 200.00 2.50 1.667E+06 1.401E+05 3.333E+11 1.077E+10 0.032 0.971
250602.0 LSB 58.00 18.00 210.00 2.00 1.544E+06 5.737E+04 3.087E+11 4.413E+09 0.014 1.031
200602.5 LSB 57.50 17.50 160.00 2.50 8.533E+05 6.750E+04 1.707E+11 5.193E+09 0.030 0.976
200602.0 LSB 58.00 18.00 160.00 2.00 6.827E+05 5.737E+04 1.365E+11 4.413E+09 0.032 0.971
200451.6 LSB 43.40 13.40 170.00 1.60 6.551E+05 1.905E+04 1.310E+11 1.466E+09 0.011 1.046
150452.0 LSB 43.00 13.00 120.00 2.00 2.880E+05 2.232E+04 5.760E+10 1.717E+09 0.030 0.978
150451.6 LSB 43.40 13.40 120.00 1.60 2.304E+05 1.905E+04 4.608E+10 1.466E+09 0.032 0.972
125452.0 LSB 43.00 13.00 95.00 2.00 1.429E+05 2.232E+04 2.858E+10 1.717E+09 0.060 0.913
125451.6 LSB 43.40 13.40 95.00 1.60 1.143E+05 1.905E+04 2.286E+10 1.466E+09 0.064 0.906
Note: bf Width of flange, df Depth of flange, d1 Clear web height, t Thickness, Ixweb Flexural rigidity of the web about major axis, Jf
Torsion constant, E Youngs modulus (200000 MPa), G Shear modulus (76925 MPa). Section properties were calculated for only
single LSB as the relative magnitude between the rigidities of web and flanges are the same for both back to back LSBs and single LSBs.
APPENDIX D
D1 Sample Calculations of Section Properties Based on Murray (1984)
The symbols and notations used in this section are based on Murray (1984)
(i) Torsion Constant Calculations (Jt)

45
(a) Back to Back 125 2.0 LSB Section with Continuous Connections based
on nominal dimensions excluding corners
43
2
Note: Centre line dimensions
13
are used in calculations
Jw1 19.4
Jf, Jw1 and Jw2 Torsion

123 B 58.2
Jw2 Jf Constants of profiles A, B
and C respectively.
C 19.4
A
2.1
45
Figure D1.1: Back to Back 125 2.0 LSB Section with Continuous
Connection
Torsion constant of closed profile (profiles A and B) with one cell is calculated using
the following Equation D.1.
4 A2
Jp = (D.1)
ds
t
Where A area enclosed by the profile of hollow tube, t thickness of plate and ds
integrated element width
Figure D1.2 shows the various parameters needed in calculating the torsion constant
of a closed section (hollow flange of LSB section).
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams D-1
b
A = bh
t2 ds h b
t
= 2 +
t1 t 2
h
2b 2 h 2 t1t 2
J=
t1 bt1 + ht 2
t1 = t 2
Figure D1.2: Hollow Flange of LSB Section
2b 2 h 2 t
For uniform plate thickness J is simplified as
b+h
4 A 2 2b 2 h 2 t 2 43 2 13 2 2
Jf = = = = 22,320.07 mm 4
ds b + h (43 + 13)
t
2b 2 h 2 t 2 2.12 58.2 2 2.0
J w1 = = = 990.89 mm 4
b+h 2.1 + 58.2
Torsion constant for open cross-sections is calculated using the following Equation
D.2 with k = 1
1
J p = k a n t n3 (D.2)
3
Where k is a factor which makes allowance for small fillets, a - plate width and t -
plate thickness
bt 3 19.4 2 3
J w2 = = = 51.733 mm 4
3 3
Total Torsion Constant J t = 4 J f + 4 J w 2 + J w1

= 4 22320.07 + 4 51.73 + 990.89 = 90,478.1 mm 4
Torsion constant from THIN-WALL program is 9.199 104 mm4
Difference is 1.64 %
(b) Doubly Thick Web Back to Back LSB Section - based on nominal dimensions
excluding corners
44 44
13 Note: Centre line dimensions

4
are used in calculations
Jw
97 Jf and Jw Torsion Constants

123 B
Jf of profiles A and B
respectively.
2
45
Figure D1.3: Doubly Thick Web Back to Back 125 2.0 LSB Section
Torsion constant for multi-celled profiles is calculated in differently. Twisting

moment for the ith cell can be written as follows from Equation 1.4.13 given in
Murray (1984).
Mi = 2AiTi
Where Mi, Ai and Ti are twisting moment, enclosed area and shear flow around the ith
cell.
Hence, for the whole cross-section
M = 2AiTi (D.3)
The angle of twist for the ith cell is obtained from Equation 1.4.14 given in Murray
(1984).
d 1 ds
B D
1 Tds ds ds
= = Ti 1 + Ti Ti +1
dz 2GAi t i 2GAi A
t t C
t
(D.4)
d
is the same for the all cells. Thus, a set of simultaneous equations can be
dz
established and solved for the following unknowns.
T
i = (D.5)
d
G
dz
On substituting these values into Equation D.3 the following relationship is
obtained.
d
M =G
dz
2 i Ai (D.6)
Finally the torsion constant of a multi-celled profile is
J p = 2 i Ai (D.7)
Therefore this method is applied to the doubly thick web back to back LSB section
which consists of two hollow flanges and webs jointed together (Figure D1.4).
t=4
t=2 1 2 t=2 13
44 44
45
Figure D1.4: Multi-cell Hollow Flange and Doubly Thick Web 125 2.0 LSB
Section
From Equations D.4 and D.5
Cell 1:
1 44 13 44 13 13
1= 1 + + + 2 (D.8)
(2 44 13) 2 4 2 2 4
Cell 2:
1 13 44 13 44 13
1= 1 + 2 + + + (D.9)
(2 44 13) 4 2 4 2 2
1=
1
[ 1 (53.75) 2 (3.25)] & 1 = 1 [ 1 (3.25) + 2 (53.75)]
1144 1144
53.75 1 3.25 2 = 1144 --------- (1)
3.25 1 + 53.75 2 = 1144 --------- (2)
3.25 1144 53.75 1144
1 2 = , & 1 + 2 =
53.75 53.75 3.25 3.25
53.75 3.25 1144 1144

2 + = +
3.25 53.75 53.75 3.25
2 (16.478) = 373.284
The solution of these two equations gives 2 = 22.653 & 1 = 22.653

From Equation D.7
J f = 2 [22.653 44 13 2] = 51830.06 mm 4
Torsion constant of the doubly thick web of the section is calculated from Equation
D.2 with k = 1
bt 3 97 4 3
J w = = = 2069.3 mm 4
3 3
Hence total torsion constant is
J t = 2 J f + J w = 105,729.5 mm 4
Torsion constant from THIN-WALL program is 1.074 105 mm4
Difference is 1.56 %
(ii) Warping Constant Calculations (Iw)
45
(a) Single 125 2.0 LSB Section based on nominal dimensions excluding
corners
(V, B) 48.5 13
2 1 x
0 1 2
43
43
y
3 4 4 3
(a) Single 125452.0 LSB Section

-61.5 61.5
(-) (+) x=~
x=x
2
-61.5 (-) (-) -48.5 48.5 (+) (+) 61.5
(-) (+)
-61.5 -48.5 48.5 61.5
(b) Original x Co-ordinate System
(+) (+) (+) (+)

43 (+) 43 43 (+) 43
43 43
(c) Original y Co-ordinate System
Figure D1.5: Dimensions and Original Co-ordinate System of the Single

45
125 2.0 LSB Section
Warping function for open and closed profiles is calculated from Equations D.10 and
D.11, respectively.
s
B ( s) = p B ( s ) ds (D.10)
0
0
Cos ( s ) 1
s
x ( s)
[w] = Sin (s) ds = (D.11)
0
y ( s )
i (z)
p B ( s) B ( s )
t ( s )
From Equation D.12 the torsion factor of the hollow flange (single cell profile) of the
LSB can be determined as shown next.
T 2A
= = (D.12)
G '
ds
t
2 (43 13)
= = 19.96
2 (43 + 13)
2
Mid-point of the web is considered as the pole (B) and the starting point (V).
At V = 0 and for plate 0 to 1 pB = 0

48.5
Integrating from V to 1, 1 = 0 ds = 0
0
13
19.96
From 1 to 2, 2 = 0 + (0 ) ds = 129.74
0
2
43
19.96
From 2 to 3, 3 = 129.74 + (61.5 ) ds = 129.74 + 2215.36 = 2085.62
0
2
13
19.96
From 3 to 4, 4 = 2085.62 + (43 ) ds = 2514.82
0
2
43
19.96
From 4 to 1, 1 = 2514.82 + (48.5 ) ds =2514.82 2514.82 = 0
0
2
129.74 -129.74
129.74 (+) (-)
-129.74
(+) (-)
(-) (-) (+) (+)

-2085.62 -2514.88 2514.88 2085.62
(-) (+)
-2085.62 -2514.88 2514.88 2085.62
Figure D1.6: Warping Function with Pole B in the Original Co-ordinate System
(x, y)
The diagram is antisymmetric about the vertical centreline.
F = Cross-section area = (43 + 13) 2 4 + (111 14) 2 = 642 mm2
Fx = 1.x ( s ) dF = First moment of area about y axis

F
Fx = 0 mm 3 (Symmetry about y axis)
Fy = 1. y ( s ) dF = First moment of area about x axis

F
2 2 43 43
= 2 2 13 43 + = 2 [1118 + 3698] = 9,632 mm 3
2
F = B ( s ) dF = First moment s ectorial area about pole B = 0 mm 4

F
Fxx = x 2 ( s ) dF = Second moment of area of profile about y axis

F
61.5 3
+ 43 48.5 2 + 43 61.5 2
Fx x = 2 2 3
13
+ 6 {48.5 (2 48.5 + 61.5) + 61.5 (48.5 + 61.5 2)}
= 4 [77536.125 + 101146.75 + 162636.75 + 39508.08]
= 4 380827.708 = 1.5233 10 6 mm 4
Fyy = y 2 ( s ) dF = Second moment of area of profile about x axis

F
2 43 43 2
= 2 2 + 13 43 2 = 4 [53004.66 + 24037] = 308,166.7 mm 4
3
F = B ( s ) dF = Warping constant with pole B

2
13 129.74 2 43 2514.88 2
+
3 3
13
= 2 2 + {2514.88 (2 2514.88 + 2085.62 ) + 2085.62 (2514.88 + 2 2085.62 )}
6

+ 43 {2085.62 (2 2085.62 129.74 ) 129.74 (2085.62 2 129.74 )}
6
= 4 [72940.69 + 90652906.9 + 68984570.3 + 58710120.45]
= 873,682,153.4 mm 6
Fx = x ( s ) B ( s ) dF = Sectorial product of area

F
48.5 + 2 48.5
43 2514.88
6
13
+ 6 {48.5 (2 2514.88 + 2085.62 ) + 61.5 (2514.88 + 2 2085.62 )}
= 2 2
+ 43 {61.5 (2 2085.62 129.74 ) + 61.5 (2085.62 129.74 2 )}
6

+ 13 ( 129.74 )(48.5 + 2 61.5)
6
= 4 [2622391.12 + 1638633.34 + 2586162.33 48209.22]
= 27,195,910.28 mm 5
Fxy = x ( s ) y ( s ) dF = Product moment of area of profile in x , y , z coordinate system

F
= 0 (Symmetry about one axis)
Fy = y ( s ) B ( s ) dF = Sectorial product of area
F
= 0 (Symmetry about x-axis)
Coordinates ( x s , y s ) of the centroid can be found from Equations D.13 and D.14.
x dF Fx y dF Fy
xs = = and y s = = (D.13 & D.14)
F
F F F
F F
0 9632
xs = = 0 and ys = = 15.003 mm
F 642
F 0
Also 0 = = =0
F F
After the first step of orthogonalization x ~
x, y~
y
-61.5 61.5
(-) (+) x=~
x=x
2
-61.5 (-) (-) -48.5 48.5 (+) (+) 61.5
(-) (+)
-61.5 -48.5 48.5 61.5
(a) Second x Co-ordinate System
-15
(-)
-15 (-) (-)
-15
(-) (-)
-15 ~
y
-15
(+) (+) (+) (+)

28 (+) 28 28 (+) 28
28 28
(b) Second y Co-ordinate System
Figure D1.7: Second Co-ordinate System after the First Step of

Orthogonalization ( ~
x, ~
y)
Fx Fy 0
F~x~y = ( x x s )( y y s ) dF = Fx y =0 = 0 mm 4
F
F F
Fx F
F~x ~ = Fx = Fx 0 = 27,195,910.28 mm 5
F
2
Fx
F~x ~x = Fxx = Fxx 0 = 1,523,300 mm 4
F
2
Fy 9632 2
F~y~y = F yy = 308166 .7 = 163,656.69 mm 4
F 642
Fy F
F~y ~ = Fy = 0 0 = 0 mm 5
F
2
F
F~~ = F = F 0 = 873,682,153.4 mm 6
F
Coordinates of the shear centre were found using Equations D.15 and D.16.
~ F~~y F~x ~x F~~x F~x~y

xs = ~
xM ~
xB = (D.15)
F~x ~x F~y~y F~x~y
2
F~~ F~~ F~~x F~y~y

~
ys = ~ y B = y x y
yM ~ (D.16)
F~x ~x F~y~y F~x ~y
2
~ ~ 0 F~~x F~y~y 27195910.28

x s = 0 and ys = = = 17.8533 mm
F~x ~x F~y~y 0 1523300
Warping function ~B (= B ) is transferred to M by using Equation D.17.
M ( s) = ~B ( s) + (17.8533) ~x (D.17)
and is plotted in Figure D1.8.
At point 1 M 1 ( s ) = 0 + (17.85 48.5) = 865.725

At point 2 M 2 ( s ) = 129.74 + (17.85) 61.5 = 1227.515
At point 3 M 3 ( s ) = 2085.62 + (17.85) 61.5 = 987.845
At point 4 M 4 ( s ) = 2514.88 + (17.85) 48.5 = 1649.155
1227.515 865.725 -865.725 -1227.515
(+) (-)
1227.515 -1227.515
4 (+) 1 0 1 (-) 2
(-) 3 2 (-) (+) 4 3 (+)

987.845
-987.845 -1649.155 1649.155
(-) (+)
-987.845 -1649.155 1649.155 987.845
Figure D1.8: Warping Function with Pole at Shear Centre M in the Principal
Co-ordinate System
[
(F~x~x + F~y~y ) 1 (F~x~x F~y~y )2 + 4F~x~y 2 ]
2
F~ 1
Fxx = F~x ~x x or
F 2 2
= (F~x ~x + F~y~y ) (F~x ~x F~y~y ) = F~x ~x = 1.5233 10 6 mm 4
1 1
2 2
Fyy =
1
2 2
[ ]
(F~x~x + F~y~y ) m 1 (F~x~x F~y~y )2 + 4 F~x~y 2 = F~y~y = 1.636 10 5 mm 4
F = F~~ + ( ~
yM ~ y B ) F~~x ( ~
xM ~
x B ) F~~y = F~~ + ( ~
yM ~
y B ) F~~x (0) F~~y
= 873682153.4 + (17.85) (27195910.28) = 388,145,408.4 mm 6
Table D1.1: Comparison of Cross-section Properties from Theoretical

Calculations and THIN-WALL
Section Theoretical Difference

THIN-WALL
Properties Calculation (%)
A 642 mm2 642 mm2 0.00
Fxx (Iyy) 1.523106 mm4 1.523106 mm4 0.00
Fyy (Ixx) 1.637105 mm4 1.638105 mm4 0.06
Fww (Iw) 3.881108 mm6 3.881108 mm6 0.00
J 4.49104 mm4 4.55104 mm4 1.30
YC 15.00 15.00 0.00
XC 0.0 0.0 0.00
YS -17.85 -17.85 0.00
XS 0.0 0.0 0.00
Table D1.2: Comparison of Sectorial Co-ordinates
Theoretical
Node THIN-WALL Difference (%)
Calculation
0 0 0 0.00
1 -865.73 -865.7 0.00
2 -1227.52 -1228 0.00
3 -987.85 -987.8 0.00
4 1649.16 1649 0.00
(b) Back to Back 125452.0 LSB Section with Continuous Connections based
on nominal dimensions excluding the corners
61.5
48.5
10 9
44.05 29.1
B
11 6 7 8 x
1.05
12 0 1 2 3
V
43 Cell No - 1
5 4
13
y Cell No - 2
(a) Back to Back 125452.0 LSB Section with Continuous Connection
Figure D1.9: Dimensions and Co-ordinate System of the Back to Back

45
125 2.0 LSB Section
Axis of symmetry
-61.5 61.5
(-) (+)
2 x
-61.5 (-) (-) -48.5 48.5 (+) (+) 61.5
(-) (+)
-61.5 -48.5 48.5 61.5
(b) Principal x Co-ordinate system
-44.05 -44.05
-44.05 (-) -44.05 -44.05 (-) -44.05
(-) (-) (-) (-)
-1.05 -1.05 -1.05

(-)
(+)
1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 y
(+) (+) (+)

(+)
44.05 (+) 44.05 44.05 (+) 44.05
44.05 44.05
(c) Principal y Co-ordinate System
Figure D1.9: Dimensions and Principal Co-ordinate System of the Back to Back
45
125 2.0 LSB Section
Obviously the shear centre and the centroid of the back to back LSB section are at
the middle of the cross-section (point B).
From Equation D.12 for the closed profile (Cell No 1) of the back to back LSB
section
T 2 A 2 (58.2 2.1)
= = = = 4.0537
G ds 58.2
t 2 2 + 2.1
At V = 0
29.1
4.0537
Integrating from V , 0 12, 12 = 0 + 1.05 d s = 28.426
0 2
2.1
4.0537
From 12 11, 11 = 28.426 + 29.1 d s = +28.427
0
2
58.2
4.0537
From 11 6, 6 = 28.427 + 1.05 d s = 28.425
0
2
2.1
4.0537
From 6 1, 1 = 28.425 + 29.1 d s = +28.428
0 2
29.1
4.0537
From 1 0, 0 = 28.428 + 1.05 ds = 0
0
2
From Equation D.12 for the hollow flange profile (Cell No 2) of the back to back
LSB section
2 A 2 (43 13)
= = = 19.964
ds 43 + 13
t 2 2
19.4
Integrating from 1 2, 2 = 28.428 + ( 1.05)ds = 28.428 20.37 = 8.058
0
13
19.964
From 2 3, 3 = 8.058 + 1.05 ds = 8.058 + (143.416) = 135.358
0 2
43
19.964
From 3 4, 4 = 135.358 + 61.5 ds = 2079.916
0 2
13
19.964
From 4 5, 5 = 2079.916 + 44.05 ds = 2079.916 + 442.884 = 2522.8
0
2
43
19.964
From 5 2, 2 = 2522.8 + 48.5 ds = 2522.8 + (2514.726) = 8.074
0
2
19.4
From 6 7, 7 = 28.425 + (1.05)ds = 8.055
0
From
43
19.964
7 10, 10 = 8.055 + 48.5 ds = 8.055 + (2514.726) = 2522.781
0 2
From
13
19.964
10 9, 9 = 2522.781 + 44.05 ds = 2522.781 + 442.884 = 2079.897
0
2
From
43
19.964
9 8, 8 = 2079.897 + 61.5 ds = 2079.897 + 2215.274 = 135.377
0 2
13
19.964
From 8 7, 7 = 135.377 + 1.05 ds = 135.377 143.416 = 8.039
0
2
2079.9 (+) 2522.8 -2522.8 (-) -2079.9

(+) (-) (-)
(+)
8.06 -8.06
(-) 28.4 -28.4 (-) (+)
-135.4 (+) (+) (-) 135.4
x
135.4 (-) (+) (+) -135.4

(+) (-) 28.4 (-)
-28.4 8.06
-8.06
(-) (-) (+) (+)
-2079.9 (-) -2522.8 2522.8 (+) 2079.9

y
Figure D1.10: Warping Function with Pole B at Shear Centre in the Principal
Co-ordinate System
F = 642 2 + (2.1 2 ) = 1288.2 mm 2
Fx = 0, Fy = 0, Fw = 0
61.5 3
2 + 43 48.5 2 + 43 61.5 2
Fxx = 2 2 3 + 2

2 2 . 1 29 . 1
13
+ 6 {48.5 (2 48.5 + 61.5) + 61.5 (48.5 + 61.5 2 )}

= 4(380827.708 2 + 1778.301) = 3053734.868 mm 4
1 2.13 2.1 2
+ 61.5 + 44.05 13
2

3 2 2
Fyy = 2 2 2
2 43
+ {1.05 (2 1.05 + 44.05) + 44.05 (1.05 + 2 44.05)}
6

= 8 0.38588 + 67.8038 + 25225.232 + {48.4575 + 3927.0575}
86
6
= 658206.427 mm 4
28.428 2
29.1
3
19.4
+ 6 {8.058 (2 8.058 + 28.428) + 28.428 (2 28.428 + 8.058)}

+ 13 {8.058 (2 8.058 135.358) 135.358 (8.058 2 135.358)}
6
= 2 2 2
+ 43 135.358 (2 135.358 + 2079.916 )
Fww

6 + 2079.916 (2079.916 2 135.358)

+ 43 {8.058 (2 8.058 + 2522.8) + 2522.8 (2 2522.8 + 8.058)}
6

+ 13 2079.916 (2079.916 2 + 2522.8)
6 + 2522.8 (2522.8 2 + 2079.916 )

7839.066 + 6 {358.936 + 1845.375} + 6 { 960.852 + 35552.862}
19.4 13

= 8 + { 244889.694 + 8370567.864} + {20458.585 + 12749368.4}
43 43
6 6

+ 13 {13899313.22 + 17976251.76}
6
7839.066 + 7127.272 + 74949.355 + 58234026.89
= 8
+ 91517093.39 + 69063724.12
(
= 8 (218904760.1) = 1751238081 mm 6 1.751 10 9 mm 6 )
Table D1.3: Comparison of Section Properties from Theoretical Calculations

and THIN-WALL
Section Theoretical
THIN-WALL Difference (%)
Properties Calculation
Fxx (Iyy) 3.054106 mm4 3.054106 mm4 0.00
Fyy (Ixx) 6.582105 mm4 6.584105 mm4 0.03
F (Iw) 1.751109 mm6 1.751109 mm6 0.00
Table D1.4: Comparison of Sectorial Co-ordinates from Theoretical

Calculations and THIN-WALL
Theoretical THIN- Difference
Node
Calculation WALL (%)
0 0.0 0.0 0.00
1 28.43 28.43 0.00
2 8.058 8.057 0.01
3 -135.4 -135.4 0.00
4 2079.9 2080 0.00
5 2522.8 2523 0.01
D2 Comparison of Cross-section Properties of LSB Sections
Table D2.1: Comparisons of Cross-section Properties of Back to Back and Single LSB Sections
BTB Single Ratio

Section
4 4 4 6 4 4 4 6
Ix (mm ) Iy (mm ) J (mm ) Iw (mm ) Ix (mm ) Iy (mm ) J (mm ) Iw (mm ) Ix Iy J Iw
300753.0 LSB 5.119E+07 4.617E+06 6.642E+05 8.112E+10 2.549E+07 1.304E+06 3.260E+05 1.811E+10 2.01 3.54 2.04 4.48
300752.5 LSB 4.298E+07 3.909E+06 5.740E+05 6.889E+10 2.142E+07 1.112E+06 2.834E+05 1.547E+10 2.01 3.52 2.03 4.45
300602.0 LSB 3.002E+07 1.602E+06 2.364E+05 2.960E+10 1.496E+07 4.881E+05 1.162E+05 6.930E+09 2.01 3.28 2.03 4.27
250753.0 LSB 3.309E+07 4.616E+06 6.604E+05 5.350E+10 1.648E+07 1.229E+06 3.255E+05 1.172E+10 2.01 3.76 2.03 4.56
250752.5 LSB 2.780E+07 3.908E+06 5.718E+05 4.546E+10 1.386E+07 1.048E+06 2.831E+05 1.002E+10 2.01 3.73 2.02 4.54
250602.0 LSB 1.940E+07 1.602E+06 2.353E+05 1.974E+10 9.670E+06 4.615E+05 1.161E+05 4.473E+09 2.01 3.47 2.03 4.41
200602.5 LSB 1.409E+07 1.963E+06 2.790E+05 1.447E+10 7.018E+06 5.212E+05 1.374E+05 3.180E+09 2.01 3.77 2.03 4.55
200602.0 LSB 1.138E+07 1.601E+06 2.341E+05 1.187E+10 5.675E+06 4.291E+05 1.160E+05 2.628E+09 2.01 3.73 2.02 4.52
200451.6 LSB 7.618E+06 5.382E+05 7.849E+04 4.269E+09 3.798E+06 1.577E+05 3.865E+04 9.833E+08 2.01 3.41 2.03 4.34
150452.0 LSB 4.735E+06 6.586E+05 9.259E+04 2.701E+09 2.360E+06 1.742E+05 4.556E+04 5.972E+08 2.01 3.78 2.03 4.52
150451.6 LSB 3.829E+06 5.381E+05 7.791E+04 2.219E+09 1.910E+06 1.437E+05 3.859E+04 4.945E+08 2.00 3.74 2.02 4.49
125452.0 LSB 3.054E+06 6.584E+05 9.199E+04 1.751E+09 1.523E+06 1.638E+05 4.550E+04 3.881E+08 2.01 4.02 2.02 4.51
125451.6 LSB 2.472E+06 5.380E+05 7.763E+04 1.445E+09 1.234E+06 1.351E+05 3.855E+04 3.220E+08 2.00 3.98 2.01 4.49
Note: BTB Back to back LSB sections with continuous connections, Single - Single LSB sections, Ix Second moment of area about major
axis, Iy Second moment of area about minor axis, J Torsion constant, Iw Warping constant. Ratio Ratio between the cross-section
properties (Ix, Iy, J and Iw) of back to back and single LSB sections.
Table D2.2: Comparison of Cross-section Properties of Back to Back and Doubly Thick Back to Back LSB Sections
BTB DB Ratio
Section 4 4
Ix (mm ) Iy (mm ) J (mm4) 6
Iw (mm ) 4
Ix (mm ) 4
Iy (mm ) 4
J (mm ) 6
Iw (mm ) Ix Iy J Iw
300753.0 LSB 5.119E+07 4.617E+06 6.642E+05 8.112E+10 5.167E+07 4.608E+06 7.701E+05 8.726E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.08
300752.5 LSB 4.298E+07 3.909E+06 5.740E+05 6.889E+10 4.331E+07 3.901E+06 6.638E+05 7.391E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.07
300602.0 LSB 3.002E+07 1.602E+06 2.364E+05 2.960E+10 3.023E+07 1.598E+06 2.732E+05 3.135E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.06
250753.0 LSB 3.309E+07 4.616E+06 6.604E+05 5.350E+10 3.343E+07 4.607E+06 7.665E+05 5.850E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.09
250752.5 LSB 2.780E+07 3.908E+06 5.718E+05 4.546E+10 2.803E+07 3.901E+06 6.617E+05 4.955E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.09
250602.0 LSB 1.940E+07 1.602E+06 2.353E+05 1.974E+10 1.955E+07 1.598E+06 2.721E+05 2.117E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.07
200602.5 LSB 1.409E+07 1.963E+06 2.790E+05 1.447E+10 1.424E+07 1.958E+06 3.242E+05 1.591E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.10
200602.0 LSB 1.138E+07 1.601E+06 2.341E+05 1.187E+10 1.148E+07 1.598E+06 2.711E+05 1.299E+10 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.09
200451.6 LSB 7.618E+06 5.382E+05 7.849E+04 4.269E+09 7.684E+06 5.365E+05 9.094E+04 4.596E+09 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.08
150452.0 LSB 4.735E+06 6.586E+05 9.259E+04 2.701E+09 4.794E+06 6.565E+05 1.079E+05 3.000E+09 1.01 1.00 1.17 1.11
150451.6 LSB 3.829E+06 5.381E+05 7.791E+04 2.219E+09 3.867E+06 5.364E+05 9.039E+04 2.452E+09 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.11
125452.0 LSB 3.054E+06 6.584E+05 9.199E+04 1.751E+09 3.096E+06 6.564E+05 1.074E+05 1.996E+09 1.01 1.00 1.17 1.14
125451.6 LSB 2.472E+06 5.380E+05 7.763E+04 1.445E+09 2.499E+06 5.363E+05 9.012E+04 1.632E+09 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.13
Note: BTB Back to back LSB sections with continuous connections, DB Doubly thick back to back LSB sections, Ix Second moment
of area about major axis, Iy Second moment of area about minor axis, J Torsion constant, Iw Warping constant. Ratio Ratio
between the cross-section properties (Ix, Iy, J and Iw) of Doubly thick back to back and back to back LSB sections.
APPENDIX E
For back to back LSBs with short spans subject to local buckling effects only, their
section moment capacities can be conservatively taken as twice the section moment
capacities of corresponding single LSB sections. Section moment capacities of single
LSB sections were calculated based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) by Anapayan and
Mahendran (2009b). These calculations are summarised here, and based on these
calculations the section moment capacities of back to back LSBs were determined.
E1 Sample Calculations of Section Moment Capacities of Single LSBs

(Anapayan and Mahendran, 2009b)
Sample Calculations Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) Design Rules

300753.0 LSB section based on nominal dimensions and yield stresses without
corners. Centreline dimensions are used.
Section Moment Capacity
t = 3 mm
d = 300 mm
d1 = 250 mm
d1 df = 25 mm
d
bf = 75 mm
fyf = 450 MPa
df fyw = 380 MPa
bf
Nominal section capacity (Ms) based on initiation of yield Clause 3.3.2
Ms = Ze fy
Assume f* = fy in the top fibre of the section
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams E-1
Assuming full depth to be effective
Web
tw = 3 mm
d1 = 250 + 3 = 253 mm
d1 / tw = 253/3 = 84.33 < 200 Clause 2.1.3.4a
Horizontal Flange Element

Both longitudinal edges connected to other stiffened elements
b = 75-3 = 72
t=3
b / t = 72/3 = 24 < 500 Clause 2.1.3.1b
Vertical Flange Element

b = 25-3 = 22
t=3
b / t = 22/3 = 7.33 < 500 Clause 2.1.3.1b
Effective widths of elements

Horizontal Flange Element
K = 4 b = 72 t=3 f* = 450 MPa
1.052 b f*

= Clause 2.2.1.2 (4)
k t E

1.052 72 450
=
4 3 200000
= 0.599 < 0.673

be = b = 72 mm, fully effective
Vertical Flange Element
450 f2 / (148.5-22) = 450/148.5
22 f2 = 383.33 MPa
f2
f1 = 450 MPa
*
148.5 f2
= *
Clause 2.2.3.2 (5)
f1
383.33
= = 0.852
450
k = 4 + 2(1-)3 + 2(1 ) Clause 2.2.3.2 (4)
k = 4.30
1.052 b f*

=
k t E

1.052 22 450
=
4.30 3 200000
= 0.176 < 0.673

> - 0.236
be1 = be / (3- ) Clause 2.2.3.2 (1)
be1 = 22 / (3-0.852) = 10.24 mm
be2 = be be1 = 22 10.24 = 11.76 mm Clause 2.2.3.2 (3)
Fully effective
Web
f2* = -383.33 MPa
f1* = 383.33 MPa
*
f2
= *
f1
383.33
= = -1
383.33
k = 4 + 2(1-)3 + 2(1 ) Clause 2.2.3.2 (4)
k = 24
1.052 b f*

=
k t E

1.052 253 383.33
=
24 3 200000
= 0.793 > 0.673

b e = b
0.22
1
=

0.22
1
= 0.793
0.793
= 0.911
be = 253 0.911 = 230.5
be1 = be / (3- ) Clause 2.2.3.2 (1)
be1 = 230.5 / (3+1) = 57.62 mm
Since < -0.236 be2 = be/2 = 230.5/2 = 115.25
be1 + be2 > compression portion of the web
Web is fully effective
My = Zfy
where Z is the full section modulus
Z = 171.7103 mm3 (from THIN-WALL)
3 -6
My = 171.710 45010 = 77.27 kNm
Since 300753.0 LSB is fully effective, its effective section modulus Ze is equal to
its full section modulus Z. Therefore the section moment capacity Ms is equal to the
first yield moment My of this LSB. However, some other LSBs are not fully
effective as their flanges are not fully effective when the corners are not considered
in the calculations. Tables E.1 and E.2 give the details of calculations leading to their
effective widths.
Table E.1: Width to Thickness Ratio of LSBs
Width to Thickness Ratio (b/t)
d d1 bf df t Vertical Horizontal
LSB Sections
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Web Flange Flange
Element Element
300753.0 LSB 300 250 75 25 3.0 84.33 24.00 7.33
300752.5 LSB 300 250 75 25 2.5 101.00 29.00 9.00
300602.0 LSB 300 260 60 20 2.0 131.00 29.00 9.00
250753.0 LSB 250 200 75 25 3.0 67.67 24.00 7.33
250752.5 LSB 250 200 75 25 2.5 81.00 29.00 9.00
250602.0 LSB 250 210 60 20 2.0 106.00 29.00 9.00
200602.5 LSB 200 160 60 20 2.5 65.00 23.00 7.00
200602.0 LSB 200 160 60 20 2.0 81.00 29.00 9.00
200451.6 LSB 200 170 45 15 1.6 107.25 27.13 8.38
150452.0 LSB 150 120 45 15 2.0 61.00 21.50 6.50
150451.6 LSB 150 120 45 15 1.6 76.00 27.13 8.38
125452.0 LSB 125 95 45 15 2.0 48.50 21.50 6.50
125451.6 LSB 125 95 45 15 1.6 60.38 27.13 8.38
Table E.2: Effective Width of Horizontal Flange Element in LSBs

Horizontal Flange Element Is
LSB Sections Comments
K B be > 0.673?
300753.0 LSB 4 72.0 0.5988 72.00 No Compact
300752.5 LSB 4 72.5 0.7236 69.73 Yes Slender
300602.0 LSB 4 58.0 0.7236 55.79 Yes Slender
250753.0 LSB 4 72.0 0.5988 72.00 No Compact
250752.5 LSB 4 72.5 0.7236 69.73 Yes Slender
250602.0 LSB 4 58.0 0.7236 55.79 Yes Slender
200602.5 LSB 4 57.5 0.5739 57.50 No Compact
200602.0 LSB 4 58.0 0.7236 55.79 Yes Slender
200451.6 LSB 4 43.4 0.6768 43.28 Yes Slender
150452.0 LSB 4 43.0 0.5364 43.00 No Compact
150451.6 LSB 4 43.4 0.6768 43.28 Yes Slender
125452.0 LSB 4 43.0 0.5364 43.00 No Compact
125451.6 LSB 4 43.4 0.6768 43.28 Yes Slender
As shown in Table E.2, the flange slenderness values () of eight LSB sections are
greater than 0.673 and hence these sections are considered to be slender according to
AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005). However, the flange slenderness values of three LSBs
(200451.6 LSB, 150451.6 LSB and 125451.6 LSB) are closer to the limiting
value of 0.673. Hence only five LSBs marked by bold italic letters in the table
should be considered as slender. The effective width be was calculated using the
procedure mentioned above (be = b).
Table E.3: Effective Width of Vertical Flange Element in LSBs

Compression Flange Element (Vertical)
LSB Sections
f1 f2 K b be be1 be2 be1+be2
300753.0 LSB 450 383.33 0.852 4.303 22.0 0.176 22.0 10.24 11.76 22.0
300752.5 LSB 450 381.93 0.849 4.309 22.5 0.216 22.5 10.46 12.04 22.5
300602.0 LSB 450 395.64 0.879 4.245 18.0 0.218 18.0 8.49 9.51 18.0
250753.0 LSB 450 369.84 0.822 4.368 22.0 0.175 22.0 10.10 11.90 22.0
250752.5 LSB 450 368.18 0.818 4.376 22.5 0.215 22.5 10.31 12.19 22.5
250602.0 LSB 450 384.68 0.855 4.296 18.0 0.217 18.0 8.39 9.61 18.0
200602.5 LSB 450 370.25 0.823 4.366 17.5 0.167 17.5 8.04 9.46 17.5
200602.0 LSB 450 368.18 0.818 4.376 18.0 0.215 18.0 8.25 9.75 18.0
200451.6 LSB 450 389.21 0.865 4.275 13.4 0.202 13.4 6.28 7.12 13.4
150452.0 LSB 450 370.95 0.824 4.362 13.0 0.155 13.0 5.98 7.02 13.0
150451.6 LSB 450 368.73 0.819 4.373 13.4 0.200 13.4 6.15 7.25 13.4
125452.0 LSB 450 354.88 0.789 4.442 13.0 0.154 13.0 5.88 7.12 13.0
125451.6 LSB 450 352.27 0.783 4.455 13.4 0.198 13.4 6.04 7.36 13.4
As shown in Table E.3, be1+be2 = be for all 13 LSBs. Therefore, the vertical flange
elements are all fully effective.
Table E.4: Effective Width of Web Element in LSBs

Web Element
LSB Sections
f1 f2 K b be be1 be2 be1+be2 be/2
300753.0 LSB 383.33 -383.33 -1 24 253.0 0.793 230.6 57.64 115.28 172.9 115.3
300752.5 LSB 381.93 -381.93 -1 24 252.5 0.948 204.6 51.14 102.29 153.4 102.3
300602.0 LSB 395.64 -395.64 -1 24 262.0 1.251 172.6 43.15 86.29 129.4 86.3
250753.0 LSB 369.84 -369.84 -1 24 203.0 0.625 203.0 50.75 101.50 152.3 101.5
250752.5 LSB 368.18 -368.18 -1 24 202.5 0.746 191.4 47.84 95.68 143.5 95.7
250602.0 LSB 384.68 -384.68 -1 24 212.0 0.998 165.6 41.39 82.78 124.2 82.8
200602.5 LSB 370.25 -370.25 -1 24 162.5 0.601 162.5 40.63 81.25 121.9 81.3
200602.0 LSB 368.18 -368.18 -1 24 162.0 0.746 153.1 38.27 76.54 114.8 76.5
200451.6 LSB 389.21 -389.21 -1 24 171.6 1.016 132.3 33.08 66.16 99.2 66.2
150452.0 LSB 370.95 -370.95 -1 24 122.0 0.564 122.0 30.50 61.00 91.5 61.0
150451.6 LSB 368.73 -368.73 -1 24 121.6 0.701 119.0 29.76 59.52 89.3 59.5
125452.0 LSB 354.88 -354.88 -1 24 97.0 0.439 97.0 24.25 48.50 72.8 48.5
125451.6 LSB 352.27 -352.27 -1 24 96.6 0.544 96.6 24.15 48.30 72.5 48.3
As shown in Table E.4, be1+be2 > be/2 (compression portion of web) for all 13 LSBs.
Therefore, the web elements are all fully effective.
In summary, when the LSBs are considered without corners (as used in finite
element modelling), their horizontal flange elements are not fully effective for five
LSBs as shown in Table E.2. Therefore the effective section moduli of these five
LSBs are less than their full section moduli. However, it must be noted that the
flange elements of LSBs are fully effective if their corners are included as shown in
the LSB manufacturers manuals (OATM, 2007). The procedure to calculate the
effective section moduli of these LSBs is given next.
Calculation of Elastic Section Moduli of LSBs
The elastic section moduli of all the available 13 LSBs are calculated by using the
basic principles. The effective widths of the horizontal compression flange elements
calculated in Table E.2 are used here. Tables E.5 and E.6 provide the details of the
effective second moment of area calculations for 300753.0 LSB and 300752.5
LSB.
3 5
1
d d1
2 df 4 y=0
bf
7
Table E.5: Calculation of Effective Second Moment of Area of 300753.0 LSB
Element b t A y Ay (y-y1)2 A(y-y1)2 I
No (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm3) (mm2) (mm4) (mm2)
1 253.0 3 759 148.50 112711.5 0.00 0.00 4048569.25
2 22.0 3 66 11.00 726.0 18906.25 1247812.50 2662.00
3 22.0 3 66 286.00 18876.0 18906.25 1247812.50 2662.00
4 22.0 3 66 11.00 726.0 18906.25 1247812.50 2662.00
5 22.0 3 66 286.00 18876.0 18906.25 1247812.50 2662.00
6 72.0 3 216 22.00 4752.0 16002.25 3456486.00 162.00
7 72.0 3 216 0.00 0.0 22052.25 4763286.00 162.00
8 72.0 3 216 275.00 59400.0 16002.25 3456486.00 162.00
9 72.0 3 216 297.00 64152.0 22052.25 4763286.00 162.00
Total 1887 280219.5 21430794.00 4059865.25
Centroid, y1 = Ay / A = 280219.5 / 1887 = 148.50 mm
Effective second moment of area about the major axis, Ie = 21.43106 + 4.060106
= 25.49106 mm4
Effective elastic section modulus, Ze = Ie / y = 25.49106 / (297-148.50)
= 171.65103 mm3
This is very close to the value obtained from Thin-wall (171.7103 mm3). This
confirms the accuracy of calculations used here.
Here, y is the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fibre of compression
flange (top flange).
For 300753.0 LSB, My = Ms = Zfy = Zefy = 171.6510345010-6 = 77.24 kNm
Since 300752.5 LSB section is not fully effective, Ze is not equal to Z.
Table E.6: Calculation of Second Moment of Area of 300752.5 LSB

Element b t A y Ay (y-y1)2 A(y-y1)2 I
No (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm3) (mm2) (mm4) (mm2)
1 252.50 2.5 631 148.75 93898.44 1.47 929.65 3353844.4
2 22.50 2.5 56 11.25 632.81 18574.00 1044787.24 2373.05
3 22.50 2.5 56 286.25 16101.56 19241.45 1082331.56 2373.05
4 22.50 2.5 56 11.25 632.81 18574.00 1044787.24 2373.05
5 22.50 2.5 56 286.25 16101.56 19241.45 1082331.56 2373.05
6 72.50 2.5 181 22.50 4078.13 15634.11 2833682.96 94.40
7 72.50 2.5 181 0.00 0.00 21767.00 3945269.29 94.40
8 69.73 2.5 174 275.00 47941.61 16246.96 2832382.69 90.80
9 69.73 2.5 174 297.50 51864.10 22489.07 3920589.14 90.80
Total 1567.4 231251.0 17787091.34 3363706.99
Centroid, y1 = 147.54 mm
Effective second moment of area about major axis, Ie = 21.151106 mm4
Effective elastic section modulus, Ze = 21.151106 / (297.50-147.54)
= 141.04103 mm3
Full section modulus Z can be calculated by replacing the compression flange

elements (elements 8 and 9) by the actual widths (equal to 72.5 mm) or by using
Thin-Wall. Z for 300752.5 was calculated to be 144.0103 mm3.
For 300752.5 LSB,

Ms = Zefy = 141.0410345010-6 = 63.47 kNm
My = Zfy = 144.0010345010-6 = 64.80 kNm
Based on this, Ze = 0.98Z
This means, there is only 2% reduction due to the ineffective plate element widths.
Table E.7 provides the comparison of Ze and Z for all 13 LSBs.
Table E.7: Comparison of Z and Ze for Single LSBs

Z Ze % Reduction Ms My
LSB Sections
(103 mm3) (103 mm3) (1-(Ze/Z))*100 (kNm) (kNm)
300753.0 LSB 171.65 171.65 0.00 77.24 77.24
300752.5 LSB 143.98 141.04 2.04 63.47 64.79
300602.0 LSB 100.38 98.47 1.91 44.31 45.17
250753.0 LSB 133.47 133.47 0.00 60.06 60.06
250752.5 LSB 111.96 109.56 2.14 49.30 50.38
250602.0 LSB 78.00 76.41 2.03 34.39 35.10
200602.5 LSB 71.07 71.07 0.00 31.98 31.98
200602.0 LSB 57.32 56.10 2.14 25.24 25.79
200451.6 LSB 38.29 38.23 0.15 17.20 17.23
150452.0 LSB 31.89 31.89 0.00 14.35 14.35
150451.6 LSB 25.74 25.70 0.16 11.56 11.58
125452.0 LSB 24.77 24.77 0.00 11.15 11.15
125451.6 LSB 19.99 19.96 0.14 8.98 9.00
E2 Section Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs
Section moment capacities of back to back LSB sections were taken as twice the
section moment capacities of corresponding single LSB sections. Table E.8 provides
the section moment capacities (Ms) and the first yield moments (My) of back to back
LSB sections. Anapayan and Mahendran (2009b) found that compact and non-
compact single LSB sections have some inelastic reserve capacity beyond their first
yield point. The inelastic moment capacities of back to back LSB sections can be
calculated as twice their corresponding inelastic moment capacities of single LSB
sections. Details of inelastic reserve moment capacities of single LSB sections are
given in Anapayan and Mahendran (2009b).
Table E.8: Section Moment Capacities of Back to Back LSBs
Ms My
LSB Sections
(kNm) (kNm)
300753.0 LSB 154.48 154.48
300752.5 LSB 126.94 129.58
300602.0 LSB 88.62 90.34
250753.0 LSB 120.12 120.12
250752.5 LSB 98.60 100.76
250602.0 LSB 68.78 70.20
200602.5 LSB 63.96 63.96
200602.0 LSB 50.48 51.58
200451.6 LSB 34.40 34.46
150452.0 LSB 28.70 28.70
150451.6 LSB 23.12 23.16
125452.0 LSB 22.30 22.30
125451.6 LSB 17.96 18.00
APPENDIX F
F1 Comparison of Elastic Lateral Buckling Moment Capacities from FEA and

Equation 7.3
LSB Span Modw Mo6 My
(My/Mo6) Modw/ Mo6 PRED FEA/PRED
Sections (m) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm)
2.0 357.4 402.0 154.485 0.620 0.889 0.896 0.992
3.0 217.3 239.3 154.485 0.803 0.908 0.907 1.001
4.0 157.8 171.2 154.485 0.950 0.922 0.915 1.007
300x75x3.0
5.0 125.0 133.8 154.485 1.074 0.934 0.922 1.012
LSB
6.0 103.9 110.2 154.485 1.184 0.943 0.929 1.015
8.0 78.2 81.6 154.485 1.376 0.958 0.940 1.020
10.0 62.9 65.0 154.485 1.542 0.968 0.949 1.020
3.0 76.8 85.2 90.360 1.030 0.901 0.920 0.980
4.0 55.6 60.7 90.360 1.220 0.916 0.931 0.984
300x60x2.0 5.0 44.0 47.4 90.360 1.381 0.929 0.940 0.988
LSB 6.0 36.6 39.0 90.360 1.523 0.939 0.948 0.990
8.0 27.6 28.8 90.360 1.770 0.956 0.963 0.993
10.0 22.2 22.9 90.360 1.985 0.967 0.975 0.992
2.0 330.3 371.6 120.105 0.569 0.889 0.893 0.995
3.0 208.0 228.5 120.105 0.725 0.910 0.902 1.009
4.0 153.9 165.9 120.105 0.851 0.927 0.909 1.020
250x75x3.0
5.0 123.0 130.9 120.105 0.958 0.940 0.916 1.027
LSB
6.0 102.9 108.3 120.105 1.053 0.950 0.921 1.032
8.0 77.9 80.6 120.105 1.220 0.966 0.931 1.038
10.0 62.8 64.4 120.105 1.366 0.975 0.939 1.038
3.0 175.6 195.1 100.755 0.719 0.900 0.902 0.998
4.0 130.2 141.9 100.755 0.843 0.918 0.909 1.010
250x75x2.5 5.0 104.3 111.9 100.755 0.949 0.933 0.915 1.019
LSB 6.0 87.4 92.6 100.755 1.043 0.943 0.920 1.024
8.0 66.3 69.0 100.755 1.208 0.961 0.930 1.033
10.0 53.6 55.1 100.755 1.352 0.972 0.938 1.036
3.0 73.4 81.3 70.200 0.929 0.903 0.914 0.988
4.0 54.2 58.9 70.200 1.092 0.921 0.923 0.997
250x60x2.0 5.0 43.4 46.4 70.200 1.230 0.935 0.931 1.003
LSB 6.0 36.2 38.3 70.200 1.353 0.945 0.938 1.007
8.0 27.5 28.5 70.200 1.569 0.963 0.951 1.012
10.0 22.2 22.7 70.200 1.757 0.974 0.962 1.013
2.0 37.7 42.5 34.457 0.901 0.889 0.912 0.974
3.0 24.3 26.6 34.457 1.139 0.915 0.926 0.988
4.0 18.2 19.5 34.457 1.331 0.935 0.937 0.998
200x45x1.6
5.0 14.6 15.4 34.457 1.496 0.950 0.947 1.003
LSB
6.0 12.3 12.8 34.457 1.642 0.960 0.955 1.005
8.0 9.3 9.5 34.457 1.900 0.974 0.970 1.004
10.0 7.5 7.6 34.457 2.127 0.983 0.983 1.000
Note: Modw Elastic lateral distortional buckling moments (kNm) of stiffened Mean 1.007
back to back LSBs, My First yield moment (kNm), Mo6 Elastic lateral torsonal
buckling moments of unstiffened back to back LSBs with a fastener spacing of STDEV 0.017
span/6, PRED Predictions by Equation 7.3, FEA/PRED. FEA (Modw/Mo6) to
PRED ratio. COV 0.016
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams F-1
F2 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Equation 7.4
LSB Span
Mu Modw My Mu/My dw PRED FEA/PRED
Section (m)
2.0 148.3 357.4 154.485 0.960 0.657 154.929 0.957
3.0 131.5 217.3 154.485 0.851 0.843 129.980 1.012
4.0 114.5 157.8 154.485 0.741 0.989 112.432 1.018
300x75x3.0
5.0 100.1 125.0 154.485 0.648 1.112 99.158 1.009
LSB
6.0 86.9 103.9 154.485 0.562 1.219 88.567 0.981
8.0 68.2 78.2 154.485 0.441 1.405 72.617 0.939
10.0 58.3 62.9 154.485 0.378 1.567 61.213 0.953
3.0 57.7 76.8 90.360 0.638 1.085 59.636 0.967
300x60x2.0 4.0 46.0 55.6 90.360 0.509 1.275 48.858 0.942
LSB 5.0 38.5 44.0 90.360 0.426 1.433 41.256 0.933
6.0 32.7 36.6 90.360 0.362 1.571 35.630 0.917
3.0 111.6 208.0 120.105 0.930 0.760 109.467 1.020
4.0 102.1 153.9 120.105 0.850 0.883 97.149 1.051
5.0 91.8 123.0 120.105 0.764 0.988 87.536 1.049
250x75x3.0
6.0 83.6 102.9 120.105 0.696 1.081 79.635 1.050
LSB
7.0 75.5 88.8 120.105 0.629 1.163 73.076 1.034
8.0 69.0 77.9 120.105 0.575 1.242 67.236 1.026
10.0 58.5 62.8 120.105 0.487 1.383 57.842 1.012
3.0 94.4 175.6 100.755 0.937 0.757 92.043 1.026
4.0 86.0 130.2 100.755 0.854 0.880 81.812 1.051
5.0 77.4 104.3 100.755 0.768 0.983 73.829 1.049
250x75x2.5
6.0 70.3 87.4 100.755 0.698 1.074 67.259 1.046
LSB
7.0 64.2 75.6 100.755 0.637 1.154 61.871 1.037
8.0 58.4 66.3 100.755 0.580 1.233 56.948 1.025
10.0 49.6 53.6 100.755 0.493 1.371 49.128 1.010
3.0 52.3 73.4 70.200 0.745 0.978 51.692 1.012
4.0 43.6 54.2 70.200 0.621 1.138 43.858 0.994
250x60x2.0 5.0 37.1 43.4 70.200 0.529 1.272 38.039 0.975
LSB 6.0 32.2 36.2 70.200 0.459 1.392 33.490 0.963
8.0 25.1 27.5 70.200 0.358 1.599 26.899 0.934
10.0 21.2 22.2 70.200 0.302 1.780 22.534 0.942
2.0 26.0 37.7 34.457 0.756 0.956 25.947 1.004
3.0 20.1 24.3 34.457 0.583 1.190 20.371 0.986
200x45x1.6
4.0 16.2 18.2 34.457 0.470 1.376 16.719 0.969
LSB
5.0 13.5 14.6 34.457 0.391 1.535 14.119 0.953
6.0 11.6 12.3 34.457 0.337 1.676 12.213 0.950
Note: Mu, Modw Ultimate moment capacities and elastic buckling Mean 0.994
moments (kNm) of stiffened back to back LSBs, respectively. My STDEV 0.041
First yield moment (kNm), dw Member slenderness (My/Modw), COV 0.041
PRED Moment capacity predictions by Equation 7.4, FEA/PRED Cp 1.090
FEA (Mu) to PRED ratio. Notations, Cp, Vp and are defined in Vp 0.065
Section 5.4.3.1. 0.90
F3 Comparison of Non-dimensional Moment Capacity Results of Stiffened and
Unstiffened Back to Back LSBs with Equations 7.4 (a) to (c)
1.2
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB
300*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB + TWS3

0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw)
Slenderness (
(a) 300602.0 LSB
1.2
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB
250*75*3.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB + TWS3

0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw)
Slenderness (
(b) 250753.0 LSB
Note: BTB Ultimate moment capacities of unstiffened back to back LSBs,

BTB + TWS3 Ultimate moment capacities of stiffened back to back LSBs
1.2
250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6, BTB
1.0 250*75*2.5 LSB, Span/6, BTB + TWS3
Design Curve (Eq. 7.4)

0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw)
Slenderness (
(c) 250752.5 LSB
1.2
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB
250*60*2.0 LSB, Span/6, BTB + TWS3

0.8
Mu/My, Mb/My
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
d, dw)
Slenderness (
(d) 250602.0 LSB
REFERENCES
Akay, H. V., Johnson, C. P., and Will, K. M. (1977), Lateral and Local Buckling of
Beam and Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 9, pp.
1821-1832.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (2005), American National

Standard Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05, Chicago,
USA.
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) (2001), Specifications for the cold-formed
steel structural members, Cold-formed Steel Design Manual, Washington, USA.
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) (2007), Specifications for the cold-formed
steel structural members, Cold-formed Steel Design Manual, Washington, USA.
Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009a), Parametric Studies and Development of

Design Rules for LSBs Subject to Lateral Buckling, Research Report, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009b), Section Moment Capacity of LiteSteel

Beams, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009c), Finite Element Models of LiteSteel

Beams Subject to Lateral Buckling Effects, Research Report, Queensland University
of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009d), Lateral Buckling Tests of LiteSteel

Beams, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009e), Effects of Web Stiffeners on the Lateral

Distortional Buckling Behaviour and Strength of LiteSteel Beams, Research Report,
Aslani, F. and Goel, S.C. (1991), An analytical criteria for buckling strength of built-
up compression members. Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 28, No 4, pp.159-168.
Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams R-1
Aslani, F. and Goel, S.C. (1992), Analytical criteria for stitch strength of built-up
compression members. Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 29, No 3. pp. 102110.
Avery, P. and Mahendran, M. (1997), Finite Element Analysis of Hollow Flange

Beams with Web Stiffeners, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.
9, pp. 1123-1129.
Mahendran, M. and Avery, P. (1997), Buckling Experiments on Hollow Flange

Beams with Web Stiffeners, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.123, No.
9, pp. 1130-1134.
Avery, P., Mahendran, M. and Nasir, A. (1999a), Flexural Capacity of Hollow

Flange Beams I: Description and Verification of Finite Element Model, Research
Monograph 99-1, Physical Infrastructure Centre, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Avery, P., Mahendran, M. and Nasir, A. (1999b), Flexural Capacity of Hollow

Flange Beams II: Design Curves, Research Monograph 99-2, Physical Infrastructure
Centre, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Avery, P., Mahendran, M. and Nasir, A. (2000), Flexural Capacity of Hollow Flange
Beams, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 53, pp. 201-223.
Bielat et al. (NAHB Research Center, 1997), Cold-formed Steel Back to Back
Header Assembly, Final Report, Upper Marlboro, MD, USA.
Bleich, F. (1952), Buckling strength of metal structures, New York: McGraw-Hill;

pp. 167-192.
Bradford, M. A. (1992), Lateral Distortional Buckling of Steel I-Section Members,

Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 23, pp. 97-116.
British Standards Institution (BSI) (1998), Structural Use of Steelwork in Building,

BS 5950, Part 5 Code of Practice for Design of Cold-formed Thin Gauge Sections,
London, UK.
British Standards Institution (BSI) (2000), Structural Use of Steelwork in Building,

BS 5950, Part 1 Code of Practice for Design Rolled and Welded Sections, London,
UK.
Chen, S.J. and Fang, S.F. (1992), Experimental Investigations of I-Beams,
Proceeding of the 11th International Special Conference on Cold-formed Steel
Structures, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A, pp. 145-153.
De Martino, A.., Ghersi, A.., Landolfo, R. and Mazzolani, F. M. (1992), Calibration

of a Bending Model for Cold-formed Sections, Proceedings of the 11th International
Specialty Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-
Rolla, Rolla, Missouri.
Dempsey, R.I. (1990), Structural Behaviour and Design of Hollow Flange Beams,
Proc. of the Second National Structural Engineering Conference, Institution of
Engineers, Australia, Adelaide, pp. 327-335.
Dempsey, R.I. (1993), Hollow Flange Beam Member Design Manual, Palmer Tube
Mills Pty. Ltd., Brisbane, Australia.
Di Lorenzo, G. and Landolfo R. (2002), Study of Innovative Built-up Cold-formed

Beams, Proceeding of the 16th International Special Conference on Cold-formed
Steel Structures, Orlando, Florida, United States, pp. 161-172.
Di Lorenzo, G., Portioli, F. and Landolfo R. (2006), Experimental Investigation on

the Load Bearing Capacity of Built-up Cold-Formed Steel Beams, Proceeding of the
International Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Dietrich Metal Framing, Dietrich Metal Framing, Dietrich Design Group and Vinyl
Corp, viewed 15 February, 2007, <http://www.dietrichindustries.com>.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1988), Design rules of built-up members in load and
resistance factor design, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No 11,
pp. 25442554.
Duan, L., Reon, M. and Uang, C.M. (2002), Effect of compound buckling on
compression strength of built-up members, Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol 39, No
1, pp. 30-37.
Dunai, I. and Horvath, L. (1990), Ultimate Load Analysis of Beams with Hollow
Flanges, Proceeding of International Conference on Stability of Steel Structures,
Budapest, Hungary, pp. 387-392.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Eurocode 3 (1992) ENV 1993-1-1,

Design of Steel Structures, General Rules and Rules for Building, London, UK.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Eurocode 3 (1996) ENV 1993-1-3,

Design of Steel Structures, General Rules- Supplementary Rules for Cold-formed
Thin Gauge Members and Sheeting, London, UK.
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork Committee (ECCS) (1987),

European Recommendations for the Design of Light Gauge Steel Members, ECCS-
Committee TC7, Belgium.
Galambos, T.V. (1998), Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures, 5th
edition, New York: Structural Stability Research Council, John Wiley & Sons, pp.
87104, 822836.
Hancock, G.J. (1998) AISC: Design of Cold-formed Steel Structures, Sydney,

Australia.
Hancock, G.J., (1997), Design for Distortional Buckling of Flexural Members, Thin-
Walled Structures, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Hancock, G.J., Kwon, Y.B. and Bernard, E.S., (1994), Strength Design Curves For
Thin-Walled Sections Undergoing Distortional Buckling, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, Vol. 31, pp. 169-186.
Hancock, G.J., Rogers, C. (1998), Design of cold-formed steel structures of high

strength steel, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, No. 1-3, pp. 167-
168, (on CD-ROM).
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (HKS) (2007a). ABAQUS Theory Manual,
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Rhode Island, USA.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (HKS) (2007b). ABAQUS Users Manual,
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Rhode Island, USA.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (HKS) (2007c). ABAQUS Version 6.7, Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Rhode Island, USA.
Huang, P.C. (1994), Finite Element Analysis of Inelastic Behaviour of Structural

Steel Beams and Bridge Girders, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York, USA
Jiang, C. and Davies, J.M., (1997), Design of Thin-Walled Purlins for Distortional
Buckling, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 29, No. 1-4, pp. 189-202.
Kurniawan (2005), Lateral Buckling Experiments of LiteSteel Beams with

Stiffeners, BE, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Kurniawan C. W. (2008), Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New LiteSteel

Beams, ME Thesis, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, QUT, Brisbane,
Australia.
LaBoube, R.A., Yu, W.W. and Jones, M.L. (1998), Spacing of Connections in
Compression Flanges of Built-up Cold-formed Steel Beams, Proceeding of the 14th
International Special Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures, St. Louis,
Missouri, U.S.A, pp. 563-578.
Landolfo R. (2004), Advanced In Italian Cold-Formed Steel Structures Research,

International Workshop on Thin-Walled Structures, Loughborough, England.
Landolfo R., Di Lorenzo, G., Portioli, F. (2005), Finite Element Modelling

Procedures for Innovative Built-up Cold-formed Beams, Proceeding of International
Conference on Steel Structures, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Landolfo R., Portioli, F. and Di Lorenzo, G. (2005), Finite Element Modelling

Procedures for Innovative Built-up Cold-formed Beams, Proceeding of the 4th
International Conference on Steel Structures (Eurosteel 2005), Maastricht.
Lau, S.C.W. and Hancock, G.J., (1987), Distortional Buckling Formulas for Channel
Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 5, pp. 1063-1077.
LiteSteel Technologies, Onesteel Australian Tube Mill (OATM), Queensland,

viewed 5 March, 2007, <http://www.smorgonsteel.com.au/lsb>.
Lue, D. M., Yen, T. and Liu, J. (2006), Experimental Investigation on Built-up
Columns, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 62, pp. 1325-1332.
Luttrell, L. D. and Balaji, K. (1992), Properties for Cellular Decks in Negative

Bending, Proceedings of the 11th International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed
Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO, USA.
Mahaarachchi, D and Mahendran, M. (2005a). Moment Capacity and Design of

LiteSteel Beam Sections, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005b). Finite Element Analysis of LiteSteel

Beam Sections, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005c). Lateral Buckling Tests of LiteSteel

Australia.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005d). Section Capacity Tests of LiteSteel

Australia.
Mahaarachchi, D. and Mahendran, M. (2005e). Material Properties, Residual

Stresses and Geometric Imperfections of LiteSteel Beam Sections, Research Report,
Mahendran, M. and Doan, V. (1999), Lateral Distortional Buckling Tests of Hollow

Flange Beams, Research Monograph, No.99/3, Physical Infrastructure Centre,
School of Civil Engineering, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
MD. Patran (2008). Patran Version R2.1, MSC.Software Corporation, California,

USA.
MSC. Patran (2007). Patran Version 2007 r1a, MSC.Software Corporation,

California, USA.
MSC. Patran (2008). Patran Version 2008 r1, MSC.Software Corporation,
California, USA.
Murray, N. W. (1984). Introduction to the Theory of Thin-walled Structures, Oxford

University Press, New York, USA.
Narayan, P. and Mahendran, M. (2006a), Preliminary Investigation into the

Structural Behaviour of LSB Floor Joists Containing Web Openings, Research
Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Narayan, P. and Mahendran, M. (2006b), Experimental Study of the Member

Capacity of LSB Floor Joists Containing Web Openings, Research Report,
Narayan, P. and Mahendran, M. (2006c), Experimental Study of the Section

Capacity of LSB Floor Joists Containing Web Openings, Research Report,
Narayan, P. and Mahendran, M. (2006d), Finite Element Analysis of LSB Floor

Joists Containing Web Openings, Research Report, Queensland University of
Narayan, P. and Mahendran, M. (2006e), Member Moment Capacities of LSB Floor

Joists Containing Web Openings, Research Report, Queensland University of
Nowak, A. S., ASCE, A. M. and Regupathy, P. V. (1984), Reliability of Spot Welds

in Cold-Formed Channels, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 110, pp. 1265-
1277.
Papangelis, J.P. and Hancock, G.J. (1994). THIN-WALL: Cross-Section Analysis

and Finite Element Strip Analysis of Thin-walled Structures, THIN-WALL Version
2.1, Centre for Advance Structural Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia.
Perren, D. (2005a), Moment Capacity of Back to Back LiteSteel Beam Sections, BE,
QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Perren, D. (2005b), Finite Element Analysis of Built-up LiteSteel Beam Sections,
BE, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Pi, Y.L. and Trahair, N.S. (1997), Lateral Distortional Buckling of Hollow Flange
Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 6, pp.695-702.
Put, B.M., Pi, Y.L. and Trahair, N.S. (1998), Lateral Buckling Tests on Cold-formed
Channel Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 5, pp. 532-
539.
Rogers, C. A. and Schuster, R. M., (1997), Flange/Web Distortional Buckling of

Cold-formed Steel Sections In Bending, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.
13-29.
Schafer B.W. (2003). CUFSM; Finite Element Strip Analysis, CUFSM Version 2.6,
Thin-walled Structures, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA,
www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer, visited on 1 March 2007.
Schafer, B.W. (1995). Behaviour and Design of Cold-formed Steel Members with
Intermediate Stiffeners, M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Schafer, B.W. (1997). Cold-formed Steel Behavior and Design: Analytical and
Numerical Modeling of Elements and Members with Longitudinal Stiffeners, Ph.D.
Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Scully, M.P. (2005), Moment Capacity of Built-up LiteSteel Beam Sections, BE,
QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
Seo, J.K., Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2008), Imperfection Characteristics of

Mono-Symmetric LiteSteel Beams for Numerical Studies, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Thin-Walled Structures, Brisbane, Australia Vol. 1, pp.
451-460.
Serrette, R. L. (2004), Performance of Edge-Loaded Cold-formed Steel Built-up Box

Beams, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 9, pp. 170-
174.
Sherman, D.R. and Yura, J.A. (1998), Bolted double angle compression members,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 46, No 13, pp. 1-470.
Smorgon Steel LiteSteel Technologies (LST) (2005). Design Capacity Tables for
LiteSteel Beams, Smorgon Steel LiteSteel Technologies, Brisbane, Australia.
Standard Australia (SA) (1991), Methods for Tensile Testing of Metals, AS 1391,
Sydney, Australia.
Standard Australia (SA) (2007), Methods for Tensile Testing of Metals, AS 1391,
Sydney, Australia.
Standards Australia (SA) (1996), Cold-formed Steel Structures, AS/NZS 4600,

Sydney, Australia.
Standards Australia (SA) (1998), Steel Structures, AS 4100, Sydney, Australia.
Standards Australia (SA) (2005), Cold-formed Steel Structures, AS/NZS 4600,

Sydney, Australia.
Stone, T. A. and LaBoube, R. A. (2005), Behaviour of Cold-formed Steel Built-up I-

Sections, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 43, pp. 1805-1817.
Szewczak, R. M., Smith, E. A., and DeWolf, J. T. (1983). Beams with Torsional
Stiffeners, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 7, pp. 1635-1646.
Takabatake, H. (1988). Lateral Buckling of I-beams with Web Stiffeners and Batten
Plates, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 24, No. 10, pp. 1003-
1019.
Timoshenko, S. and Gere, J.M. (1961), Theory of elasticity stability, 2nd edition,
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 206211.
Trahair, N.S. (1995), Elastic Lateral-distortional Buckling of Hollow Flange Beams,

Investigation Report S1009, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Voelkner, W., (2000), Present And Future Developments ff Metal Forming: Selected
Examples, Journal of Material Processing Technology, Vol. 106, No. 1-3, pp. 236-
242.
Yang, D. and Wilkinson, T. (2005), LiteSteel Beams (LSB) Under Interior and End
Bearing Forces, Research Report No R849, The University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia.
Yener, M. (1984), Criteria for Connection in Cold-formed Steel, Journal of

Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, pp. 2178-2195.
Yu, W.W. (2000), Cold-formed Steel Design 3rd Edition, John Willey and Sons, Inc,
New York, USA.
Yuan, Z. (2004). Advanced Analysis of Steel Frame Structures Subjected to Lateral

Torsional Buckling Effects. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Built Environment and
Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Zahn, C.J. and Haaijer G. (1988), Effect of connector spacing and flexural-torsional
buckling on double-angle compressive strength. Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 25,
No 3, pp. 109-118.
Zhao, X.L., Hancock, G.J. and Trahair, N.S. (1994), Lateral Buckling Test of Cold-
formed RHS Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp.
1565-1573.
Lennon, R., Pedreschi, R. and Sinha, B.P. (1999). Comparative Study of Some
Mechanical Connections in Cold-formed Steel, Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 109-116.

Australian Demand For Pre-Fabricated Metal PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Australian Demand For Pre-Fabricated Metal PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the

New Built-up LiteSteel Beams

Faculty of Environmental and Engineering

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENTS

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams ii

LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is a new cold-formed steel beam produced by OneSteel

In this research an experimental investigation was first undertaken to study the

In the last phase of this research, a detailed investigation was conducted to

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams iv

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams v

Refereed International Conference Papers

1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009). Flexural Moment Capacity Design

2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2008a). Experimental Investigation of the

3. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2008b). Flexural Behaviour and Design

4. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2008c). Numerical Modeling and Design

QUT Conference Papers

1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2007). Flexural Behaviour of the New

2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009). Lateral Distortional Buckling

QUT Research Reports

1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009a). Experimental Studies of the

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams vi

3. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009c). Parametric Studies and

4. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009d). Development of Design Rules for

5. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2009e). Development of Suitable Strength

Proposed International Journal Papers (to be submitted by Jan 10)

1. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010a). Lateral Buckling Tests of the

2. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010b). Finite Element Modelling and

3. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010c). New Design Rules for Back to

4. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010d). Innovative Strength Improvement

5. Jeyaragan, S. and Mahendran, M. (2010e). Design Rules for Elastic Lateral

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1-1

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 2-1

CHAPTER 3 Experimental Studies of the Flexural Behaviour of Back to

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams ix

CHAPTER 4 Finite Element Modelling and Validation of Back to Back LSB

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams x

CHAPTER 5 Parametric Studies and Development of Design Rules for Back

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xi

CHAPTER 7 Development of Suitable Strength Improvement Methods for

Figure 1.1: Building Composed of Cold-formed Steel Sections......1-1

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xv

Flexural Behaviour and Design of the New Built-up LiteSteel Beams xx

Table 1.1: Mechanical Properties (LST, 2005)..1-5

First and foremost I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor,

Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my parents and brothers,

Figure 1.1: Building Composed of Cold-formed Steel Sections

1.2 LiteSteel Beam

Figure 1.2: LiteSteel Beam (LST, 2005)

1.3 Manufacturing Process

1.3.1 Roll Forming Process

Figure 1.3: Roll Forming Stages of a Z-Section Purlin (Hancock, 1998)

1.3.2 Press Braking Process

Figure 1.4: Press Brake Dies (Hancock, 1998)

1.3.3 LSB Manufacturing Process

Figure 1.5: Manufacturing Process of LiteSteel Beam Sections (LST, 2005)

1.4 Mechanical and Material Properties

Web 380 490 14

Table 1.2: Material Properties (LST, 2005)

Property Symbol Value

1.5 Shapes and Dimensions of LSBs

1.6 Applications of Single LiteSteel Beams

Applications of LSBs are numerous ranging from residential housing to larger

Residential applications for the LSB currently target implementation in flooring