Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 435

Keywords

KEYWORDS

LiteSteel beams, Hollow flange beams, Hollow flange steel beams, Lateral distortional buckling, Lateral buckling tests, Section moment capacity tests, inelastic reserve bending moments, Finite element analyses (FEA), Cold-formed steel structures, Flexural members, Web stiffeners, Transverse web stiffeners.

Keywords

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is a new hollow flange channel section developed by OneSteel Australian Tube Mills using a patented Dual Electric Resistance Welding technique. The LSB has a unique geometry consisting of torsionally rigid rectangular hollow flanges and a relatively slender web. It is commonly used as rafters, floor joists and bearers and roof beams in residential, industrial and commercial buildings. It is on average 40% lighter than traditional hot-rolled steel beams of equivalent performance. The LSB flexural members are subjected to a relatively new Lateral Distortional Buckling mode, which reduces the member moment capacity. Unlike the commonly observed lateral torsional buckling of steel beams, lateral distortional buckling of LSBs is characterised by simultaneous lateral deflection, twist and web distortion.

Current member moment capacity design rules for lateral distortional buckling in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) do not include the effect of section geometry of hollow flange beams although its effect is considered to be important. Therefore detailed experimental and finite element analyses (FEA) were carried out to investigate the lateral distortional buckling behaviour of LSBs including the effect of section geometry. The results showed that the current design rules in AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) are over-conservative in the inelastic lateral buckling region. New improved design rules were therefore developed for LSBs based on both FEA and experimental results. A geometrical parameter (K) defined as the ratio of the flange torsional rigidity to the major axis flexural rigidity of the web (GJ f /EI xweb ) was identified as the critical parameter affecting the lateral distortional buckling of hollow flange beams. The effect of section geometry was then included in the new design rules using the new parameter (K). The new design rule developed by including this parameter was found to be accurate in calculating the member moment capacities of not only LSBs, but also other types of hollow flange steel beams such as Hollow Flange Beams (HFBs), Monosymmetric Hollow Flange Beams (MHFBs) and Rectangular Hollow Flange Beams (RHFBs).

The inelastic reserve bending capacity of LSBs has not been investigated yet although the section moment capacity tests of LSBs in the past revealed that inelastic reserve bending capacity is present in LSBs. However, the Australian and American

Abstract

cold-formed steel design codes limit them to the first yield moment. Therefore both experimental and FEA were carried out to investigate the section moment capacity behaviour of LSBs. A comparison of the section moment capacity results from FEA, experiments and current cold-formed steel design codes showed that compact and non-compact LSB sections classified based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998) have some inelastic reserve capacity while slender LSBs do not have any inelastic reserve capacity beyond their first yield moment. It was found that Shifferaw and Schafer’s (2008) proposed equations and Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 (ECS, 2006) design equations can be used to include the inelastic bending capacities of compact and non-compact LSBs in design. As a simple design approach, the section moment capacity of compact LSB sections can be taken as 1.10 times their first yield moment while it is the first yield moment for non-compact sections. For slender LSB sections, current cold-formed steel codes can be used to predict their section moment capacities.

It was believed that the use of transverse web stiffeners could improve the lateral distortional buckling moment capacities of LSBs. However, currently there are no design equations to predict the elastic lateral distortional buckling and member moment capacities of LSBs with web stiffeners under uniform moment conditions. Therefore, a detailed study was conducted using FEA to simulate both experimental

and

ideal conditions of LSB flexural members. It was shown that the use of 3 to 5

mm

steel plate stiffeners welded or screwed to the inner faces of the top and bottom

flanges of LSBs at third span points and supports provided an optimum web stiffener

arrangement. Suitable design rules were developed to calculate the improved elastic buckling and ultimate moment capacities of LSBs with these optimum web stiffeners. A design rule using the geometrical parameter K was also developed to improve the accuracy of ultimate moment capacity predictions.

This thesis presents the details and results of the experimental and numerical studies of the section and member moment capacities of LSBs conducted in this research. It includes the recommendations made regarding the accuracy of current design rules as well as the new design rules for lateral distortional buckling. The new design rules include the effects of section geometry of hollow flange steel beams. This thesis also developed a method of using web stiffeners to reduce the lateral distortional buckling effects, and associated design rules to calculate the improved moment capacities.

Publications

PUBLICATIONS

Refereed International Conference Papers

1. Seo, J. K., Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2008) “Initial Imperfection Characteristics of Mono-Symmetric LiteSteel Beams for Numerical Studies”, proceedings of the 5 th International Conference on Thin-Walled Structures, Gold Coast, Australia, pp.451-460.

2. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009), “Improvements to the Design of LiteSteel Beams Undergoing Lateral Distortional Buckling”, proceedings of the 9 th International Conference on Steel Concrete Composite and Hybrid Structures, Leeds, UK, pp. 767-774.

QUT Conference Papers

1. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2007) “Lateral Distortional Buckling Behaviour of LiteSteel Beams”, BEE Postgraduate Research Conference on Smart Systems: Technology, Systems and Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

2. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009) “Effect of Section Geometry on the Lateral Distortional Buckling of LiteSteel Beams”, 3 rd BEE Postgraduate Research Conference on Smart Systems: Technology, Systems and Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

QUT Research Reports

1. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009a) “Lateral Buckling Tests of LiteSteel Beams”, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Publications

2. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009b) “Finite Element Models of LiteSteel Beams Subject to Lateral Buckling Effects”, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

3. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009c) “Parametric Studies and Development of Design Rules for LiteSteel Beams Subject to Lateral Buckling”, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

4. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009d) “Section Moment Capacity of LiteSteel Beam”, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

5. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009e) “Effects of Web Stiffeners on the Lateral Distortional Buckling Behaviour and Strength of LiteSteel Beams”, Research Report, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Proposed International Journal Papers

1. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2010a) “Lateral Buckling Tests of a New Hollw Flange Channel Beam”, Journal of Construction Steel Research.

2. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2010b) “Numerical Model of LiteSteel beams Subject to Lateral Buckling”, Engineering Structures.

3. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2010c) “Improved Design Rules for LiteSteel Beams as Flexural Members including the Effects of Section Geometry”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.

4. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2010d) “Section Moment Capacity of LSBs”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.

5. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2010e) “Improvements of Lateral Distortional Buckling Moment Capacity of LSBs by using Web Stiffeners”, Thin-walled Structures.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Keywords ………………………………………………………………………

iii

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………

v

Publications ………………………………………………………………………vii

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………ix

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………xv

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………xxv

Statement of Original Authorship ………………………………………………xxxi

List of Symbols ……………………………………………………………… xxxiii

Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………….xxxv

CHAPTER 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1

1.1 Cold-Formed Steel Members

1-1

1.2 Hollow Flange Steel Beams

1-2

1.2.1 Hollow Flange Beams

1-2

1.2.2 LiteSteel Beams

1-4

1.3 Manufacturing Process of Hollow Flange Steel Beams

1-6

1.4 Applications of Hollow Flange Steel Beams

1-7

1.5 Research Problem

1-9

1.6 Research Objectives and Specific Tasks

1-12

1.7 Scope and Limitations

1-14

1.8 Thesis Contents

1-14

CHAPTER 2

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2-1

2.1 Cold-Formed Steel Members

2-1

2.2 Cold-Formed Steel Design Standards

2-5

2.3 Buckling Behaviour of Cold-Formed Steel Beams

2-6

2.4 Buckling Behaviour of Hollow Flange Steel Beams

2-8

2.4.1

Local Buckling

2-9

Table of Contents

2.4.2 Lateral Distortional Buckling

2-11

2.4.3 Lateral Torsional Buckling

2-13

2.5 Lateral Buckling Strength of Beams

2-13

2.5.1 Pre-Buckling Deflections

2-15

2.5.2 Post-Buckling Behaviour

2-15

2.5.3 Web Distortion

2-16

2.5.4 Inelastic Behaviour

2-17

2.5.5 Initial Geometric Imperfection and Twist

2-18

2.5.6 Residual Stress

2-20

2.5.7 Moment Distribution

2-21

2.5.8 Load Height

2-23

2.5.9 Warping

2-24

2.6 Design Guidelines for Cold-Formed Hollow Flange Steel Beams

2-25

2.6.1

Moment Capacity Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998)

2-26

2.6.1.1 Section Moment Capacity

2-26

2.6.1.2 Member Moment Capacity

2-27

2.6.2

Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)

2-29

2.6.2.1 Section Moment Capacity

2-29

2.6.2.2 Member Moment Capacity

2-31

2.6.3

The Direct Strength Method

2-37

2.7 Hollow Flange Steel Beams with Web Stiffeners

2-39

2.7.1 HFBs with Web Stiffeners

2-40

2.7.2 LSBs with Web Stiffeners

2-42

2.7.2.1 Stiffener Type and Configurations

2-42

2.7.2.2 Design Methods

2-43

2.7.2.3 Experimental Results of Kurniawan (2005)

2-45

2.7.2.4 Finite Element Analysis Results of Kurniawan (2005)

2-45

2.8 Finite Element Analysis

2-47

2.8.1 Finite Element Analyses of LSBs

2-48

2.8.2 Finite Element Analyses of HFBs

2-54

2.9 Experimental Investigation

2-56

2.9.1 Tensile Coupon Tests

2-56

2.9.2 Residual Stress Measurement

2-58

Table of Contents

 

2.9.3 Initial Geometric Imperfection Measurement

2-59

2.9.4 Section Capacity Tests

2-60

2.9.5 Lateral Buckling Tests

2-60

2.9.6 Experimental Investigation of HFBs

2-64

2.9.7 Experiments of other Cold-Formed Steel Beams

2-65

2.10

Literature Review Findings

2-67

CHAPTER 3

3.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES, RESIDUAL STRESSES AND GEOMETRIC

IMPERFECTIONS OF LSB SECTIONS

3-1

3.1 Introduction

3-1

3.2 Tensile Coupon Tests to Determine the Mechanical Properties

3-2

3.3 Residual Stress Measurements for LSB Sections

3-7

3.3.1 Test Procedure

3-7

3.3.2 Results

3-9

3.4 Initial Geometric Imperfection Measurements

3-14

3.5 Conclusions

3-16

CHAPTER 4

4.0 LATERAL BUCKLING TESTS OF LSB SECTIONS

4-1

4.1 Introduction

4-1

4.2 Selection of Test Specimens

4-2

4.3 Test Method

4-4

4.3.1

Support System

4-7

4.3.1.1 Flange Twist Restraints

4-8

4.3.2 Loading System

4-9

4.3.3 Measuring System

4-11

4.3.4 Test Procedure

4-13

4.4 Experimental Results and Discussions

4-15

4.5 Comparisons with Design Methods

4-21

4.6 Conclusions

4-29

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 5

5.0 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF LSBs SUBJECT TO LATERAL BUCKLING EFFECTS

5-1

5.1 Introduction

5-1

5.2 Model Description

5-1

5.2.1 Discretization of the Finite Element Mesh

5-7

5.2.2 Material Model and Properties

5-8

5.2.3 Load and Boundary Conditions

5-9

5.2.3.1 Ideal Finite Element Model

5-9

5.2.3.2 Experimental Finite Element Model

5-12

5.2.4 Initial Geometric Imperfections

5-16

5.2.5 Residual

Stresses

5-18

5.2.6 Analysis

Methods

5-21

5.3 Model Validation

5-22

5.3.1 Typical Buckling Modes of Ideal Finite Element Model

5-23

5.3.2 Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moment Results

5-25

5.3.3 Comparison with Experimental Test Results

5-29

5.4 Conclusions

5-34

CHAPTER 6

6.0 PARAMETRIC STUDIES AND DESIGN RULE DEVELOPMENT

6-1

6.1 Introduction

6-1

6.2 Parametric Study

6-2

6.3 Lateral Distortional Buckling Behaviour and Strength of LSBs

6-4

6.3.1 Effects of Initial Geometric Imperfection Direction

6-4

6.3.2 Effects of Residual Stresses

6-7

6.4 Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs

6-12

6.5 Comparison of Member Moment Capacities of LSBs with AS/NZS 4600 (SA,

2005) Design Rules

6-15

6.6 Proposed Design Rules for Member Moment Capacities of LSBs

6-22

6.6.1 Calculation of Capacity Reduction Factor (Φ)

6-25

6.6.2 Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Beams

6-30

Table of Contents

6.7 Effect of Section Geometry on the Lateral Distortional Buckling Moment

Capacities of LSBs

6-36

6.8 Applicability of the Geometrical Parameter for Other Types of Hollow Flange

Steel Beams

6-55

6.9 Conclusions

6-62

CHAPTER 7

7.0 SECTION MOMENT CAPACITY OF LITESTEEL BEAM

7-1

7.1 Introduction

7-1

7.2 Section Moment Capacity Tests of LSBs

7-2

7.2.1 Test Set-Up and Procedure

7-3

7.2.2 Test Results and Discussion

7-6

7.2.3 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from Tests and Current

Design Rules

7-11

7.3 Finite Element Modelling of LSBs to Determine their Section Moment

Capacities

7-16

7.3.1 Experimental Finite Element Model of LSBs

7-16

7.3.2 Finite Element Analyses of LSBs Subject to Local Buckling Effects7-27

7.4 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Current Design

Rules

7-31

7.5 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Other Proposed

Design Rules

7-38

7.6 Discussion of Maximum Available Moment Capacity of LSBs and Compressive Strain Limits

7-41

7.7 Conclusions

7-49

CHAPTER 8

8.0 EFFECT OF WEB STIFFENERS ON THE LATERAL DISTORTIONAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH OF LITESTEEL BEAMS8-1

8.1 Introduction

8-1

8.2 Elastic Buckling Analyses

8-4

Table of Contents

8.2.1 Finite Element Models

8-6

8.2.2 Results

8-13

8.2.3 Determination of Optimum Spacing and Size of Web Stiffeners

8-17

8.3 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSBs with Web Stiffeners

8-23

8.4 Ultimate Member Moment Capacities of LSBs with Web Stiffeners

8-31

8.5 Development of Design Rules

8-37

8.6 Conclusions

8-42

CHAPTER 9

9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

9-1

9.1 Experimental Investigation of LSBs

9-3

9.2 Finite element Modelling of LSBs Subject to Lateral Buckling

9-4

9.3 Parametric Studies and Design Rule Development

9-5

9.4 Section Moment Capacity of LSBs

9-6

9.5 Effect of Web Stiffeners on the Lateral Distortional Buckling Moment Capacity

of LSBs

9-6

9.6 Future Research

9-7

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………….A-1 Appendix B…………………………………………………………………….B-1 Appendix C…………………………………………………………………….C-1 Appendix D…………………………………………………………………….D-1

Appendix E…………………………………………………………………….E-1

References

R-1

List of Figures

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Cold-Formed Steel Structure

1-1

Figure 1.2: Cold-Formed Steel Cross-Sections

1-2

Figure 1.3: The Hollow Flange Beam

1-3

Figure 1.4: Typical LSBs

1-4

Figure 1.5: HFS Manufacturing Process

1-6

Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs

1-7

Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs

1-8

Figure 1.7: Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSB

1-10

Figure 1.8: HFB with Web Stiffener

1-11

2-1

Figure 2.1: Various Shapes of Cold-Formed Steel Sections Figure 2.2: Different Types of Cold-Formed Steel Sections

2-2

Figure 2.3: Roll Forming Sequence for a Z-Section ………………………………2-3 Figure 2.4: Press Brake Dies ………………………………………………………2-3

Figure 2.5: Typical Stress-Strain Curves

2-4

Figure 2.6: Effects on Strain Hardening and Strain Ageing

2-5

Figure 2.7: Different Buckling Modes of Z- Section

2-7

Figure 2.8: Different Buckling Modes of Channel Section

2-7

Figure 2.9: Flange Distortional and Lateral Distortional Buckling

2-8

Figure 2.10: HFB and LSB

2-9

Figure 2.11: Different Buckling Modes and Stresses of HFB Subject to Bending 2-10

Figure 2.12: Local Buckling Mode of LSB Sections

2-11

Figure 2.13: Lateral Distortional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections

2-11

Figure 2.14: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments

2-12

Figure 2.15: Lateral Torsional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections

2-13

Figure 2.16: Lateral Buckling Behaviour of Steel Beams

2-14

Figure 2.17: Positive and Negative Imperfections of LSBs

2-19

Figure 2.18: Membrane and Flexural Residual Stresses

2-20

Figure 2.19: Bending Moment Diagrams of Beams

2-21

Figure 2.20: Effects of Moment Gradient

2-22

List of Figures

Figure 2.21: Warping Restraining Devices

2-25

Figure 2.22: Comparisons of Experimental and AS 4100 (1998) Predictions

2-29

Figure 2.23: Stiffened Elements and Webs with Stress Gradient

2-31

Figure 2.24: Comparisons of Experiments and AS/NZS 4600 (1996) Predictions 2-33

Figure 2.25: Comparison of FEA Results with Avery et al.’s (1999b) Predictions2-34

Figure 2.26: Comparisons of New Design Rules, FEA and Experiments (Φ=0.85)

2-

35

Figure 2.27: Comparisons of New Design Rules, FEA and Experiments (Φ=0.90)

2-

36

Figure 2.28: Stiffener Types

2-40

Figure 2.29: Stiffener Configuration

2-41

Figure 2.30: Special Stiffener Screw Fastened to HFB Flanges

2-42

Figure 2.31: Stiffener Types

2-43

Figure 2.32: Predicted Member Capacities of 250x60x2.0 LSB

2-44

Figure 2.33: FEA Models used by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c)

2-46

Figure 2.34: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions

2-49

Figure 2.35: Ideal Finite Element Model

2-50

Figure 2.36: Experimental Finite Element Model

2-51

Figure 2.37: Idealised Models of Residual Stresses for LSBs

2-52

Figure 2.38: Modified Ideal Finite Element Model (First Version)

2-53

Figure 2.39: Member Capacity Curves

2-53

Figure 2.40: Modified Ideal FE Model (Final Version)

2-54

Figure 2.41: Finite Element Models of HFBs

2-55

Figure 2.42: Typical Stress-Strain Curves of the Base Steel used in LSB Sections

57

2-

Figure 2.43: Sectioning of LSBs

2-59

Figure 2.44: Geometric Imperfection Test Set-up

2-59

Figure 2.45: Section Capacity Test Set-up

2-60

Figure 2.46: Overall View of Test Rig

2-61

Figure 2.47: Support System

2-61

Figure 2.48: Loading System

2-62

Figure 2.49: Stiffener Types

2-63

Figure 2.50: Test Set-up of LSB with Stiffeners

2-63

List of Figures

Figure 2.51: Schematic Diagram for Lateral Buckling Tests of HFBs

2-64

Figure 2.52: Schematic Diagram of Test Rig Including Support System

2-65

Figure 2.53: Lateral Buckling Tsts of RHS Beams

2-66

Figure 2.54: Test Arrangement for C- and Z- Section Beams

2-67

3-3

Figure 3.1: Tensile Test Coupons Figure 3.2: Tensile Test Arrangement

3-4

Figure 3.3: Typical Stress-Strain Curves from Tensile Coupon Tests

3-5

Figure 3.4: Strain Gauge Arrangement

3-7

Figure 3.5: Sectioning Process of LSB

3-8

Figure 3.6: Measured Released Strain along the Web Element

3-9

Figure 3.7: Measured Stresses along the Web Element of a 150x45x1.6 LSB

3-10

Figure 3.8: Membrane Residual Stress Distribution

3-11

Figure 3.9: Flexural Residual Stress Distribution

3-11

Figure 3.10: Membrane Residual Stress Distribution for 150x45x1.6 LSB

3-13

Figure 3.11: Geometric Imperfection Measurements

3-14

Figure 3.12: Measured Imperfections of a 4 m Long 200x45x1.6 LSB Section

3-15

4-2

Figure 4.1: Experimental Results of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a) Figure 4.2: LSB Test Specimens

4-3

Figure 4.3: Different Types of Test Methods

4-5

Figure 4.4: Overall View of Test Rig

4-6

Figure 4.5: Support System

4-7

Figure 4.6: Flange Twist at Failure of a 250x75x2.5 LSB with 3.5 m Span

4-8

Figure 4.7: Flange Twist Restraint Arrangement of LSBs

4-9

Figure 4.8: Loading System

4-10

Figure 4.9: Data Logger and Load Cells

4-12

Figure 4.10: Wire Displacement Transducers (WDTs)

4-12

Figure 4.11: Schematic Diagram of a Typical Test Specimen

4-13

Figure 4.12: Schematic Diagram of Flange Twist Restraints

4-14

Figure 4.13: Typical Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure

4-15

List of Figures

Figure 4.14: A Closer View of Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure

4-16

Figure 4.15: Local Web Buckling after Ultimate Failure

4-16

Figure 4.16: Comparison of Flange Twist Condition at Failure

4-17

Figure 4.17: Shear Buckling Failure of 150x45x1.6 LSB with 1.2 m Span

4-17

Figure 4.18: Moment vs Lateral Deflection Curves

4-18

Figure 4.19: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments with AS/NZS 4600 (SA,

2005) Predictions

Figure 4.20: Typical Elastic Buckling Failure Mode from Finite Element Analysis 4-

28

4-25

Figure 5.1: Schematic Diagrams of Ideal and Experimental FE Models

5-2

Figure 5.2: Actual and Idealised LSBs

5-4

Figure 5.3: Typical Finite Element Mesh for LSB Models

5-8

Figure 5.4: Stress-Strain Relationships

5-9

Figure 5.5: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions

5-10

Figure 5.6: Boundary Conditions of the Ideal Finite Element Model of LSB

5-11

Figure 5.7: Typical Loading Method for the Ideal Finite Element Model of LSB .5-12

Figure 5.8: Loading and Boundary Conditions of the Experimental Finite Element

Model of LSB

5-14

Figure 5.9: Loading Plate Twisting in the Experimental FE Model

5-15

Figure 5.10: Various Plate Elements in Experimental Finite Element Model

5-16

Figure 5.11: Critical Buckling Mode from Elastic Buckling Analysis of Ideal Finite

Element Model

5-17

Figure 5.12: Effect of Imperfection Direction Based on Nonlinear Analysis

5-18

Figure 5.13: Residual Stress Distributions in LSB Sections

5-19

Figure 5.14: Typical Residual Stresses Distribution for LSB Sections

5-20

Figure 5.15: Elastic Buckling Modes of 200x60x2.0 LSB

5-23

Figure 5.15: Elastic Buckling Modes of 200x60x2.0 LSB

5-24

Figure 5.16: Ultimate Failure Modes of 200x60x2.0 LSB

5-25

Figure 5.17: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments

5-28

Figure 5.18: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection at Mid-Span Curves for 150x45x1.6 LSB (3000 mm Span)

5-30

List of Figures

Figure 5.19: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection at Mid-Span Curves for 200x45x1.6 LSB (4000 mm Span)

5-31

Figure 5.20: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection at Mid-Span Curves for 300x60x2.0 LSB (4000 mm Span)

5-31

Figure 5.21: Bending Moment vs Lateral Deflection at Mid-Span Curves for 150x45x1.6 LSB (1800 mm Span)

5-32

Figure 5.22: Bending Moment vs Lateral Deflection at Mid-Span Curves for 200x45x1.6 LSB (4000 mm Span)

5-32

Figure 5.23: Bending Moment vs Lateral Deflection at Mid-Span Curves for 150x45x2.0 LSB (3000 mm Span)

5-33

Figure 6.1: Positive and Negative Imperfections of LSBs

6-5

Figure 6.2: Effects of Initial Geometric Imperfection Direction on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs

6-7

Figure 6.3: Effects of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of 300x75x3.0 LSBs

6-9

Figure 6.4: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 300x75x3.0 LSBs with and without

6-10

Figure 6.5: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 300x60x2.0 LSBs with and without

6-10

Figure 6.6: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 200x60x2.5 LSBs with and without

Residual Stresses

Residual Stresses

Residual Stresses

6-11

Figure 6.7: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 200x45x1.6 LSBs with and without

Residual Stresses

Figure 6.8: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 150x45x1.6 LSBs with and without

6-11

Residual Stresses

6-12

Figure 6.9: Ultimate Moment Capacity Curves of LSBs

6-13

Figure 6.10: Comparison of Moment Capacity Results from FEA with AS/NZS 4600

(SA, 2005) Design Curve

Figure 6.11: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities with the Design Curve based

on Equations 6.7 (a) to (c)

6-17

6-23

List of Figures

Figure 6.12: Comparison of Experimental Moment Capacities with the Design Curve

based on Equations 6.7 (a) to (c)

6-24

Figure 6.13: Comparison of FEA and Experimental Moment Capacities with the Design Curve based on Equations 6.7 (a) to (c)

6-24

Figure 6.14: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities with the Design Curve based

on Equations 6.10 (a) to (c)

Figure 6.15: Comparison of Experimental Moment Capacities with the Design Curve

based on Equations 6.10 (a) to (c)

Figure 6.16: Comparison of Experimental Moment Capacities with the Design Curve

based on Equations 6.11 (a) to (c)

Figure 6.17: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities with the Design Curve based

6-27

6-28

6-29

on Equations 6.11 (a) to (c)

6-30

Figure 6.18: Hollow Flange Beams

6-30

Figure 6.19: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities of HFBs from Avery et al. (1999b) with Equations 6.7 (a) to (c)

6-35

Figure 6.20: Non-Dimensional Member Moment Capacity versus Modified Slenderness λ d for LSBs

6-37

Figure 6.21: Non-Dimensional Member Moment Capacity versus Slenderness λ for

LSBs

6-38

Figure 6.22: Moment Capacity Design Curve for LSBs based on a Modified Slenderness Parameter K 1 λ

6-39

Figure 6.23: Moment Capacity Design Curve for LSBs based on a Modified Slenderness Parameter K 2 λ d

6-40

Figure 6.24: Moment Capacity Design Curve for LSBs based on a Modified Slenderness Parameter Kλ d

6-42

Figure 6.25: Comparison of Experimental Results with Equation 6.18

6-43

Figure 6.26: Moment Capacities of LSBs with Similar Values of GJ f /EI xweb (Set 1).6-

44

Figure 6.27: Moment Capacities of LSBs with Similar Values of GJ f /EI xweb (Set 2) .6-

45

Figure 6.28: Moment Capacities of LSBs with Similar Values of GJ f /EI xweb (Set 3).6-

46

List of Figures

Figure 6.29: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities of HFBs from Avery et al. (1999b) with Equation 6.18

6-47

Figure 6.30: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities of Selected HFBs from Avery

6-47

Figure 6.31: Moment Capacities of HFBs with Similar Values of GJ f /EI xweb (Set 1) 6-

49

Figure 6.32: Moment Capacities of HFBs with Similar Values of GJ f /EI xweb (Set 2) 6-

49

Figure 6.33: Moment Capacities of New LSBs with Different GJ f /EI xweb Values .6-51 Figure 6.34: Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with GJf/EIxweb

6-53

0.0811

Figure 6.35: Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with the Modified

6-54

Slenderness Parameter K as Defined in Equation 6.19

Figure 6.36: Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with the Modified

et al. (1999b) with Equation 6.18

Slenderness Parameter K as Defined in Equation 6.20

6-54

Figure 6.37: MHFB and RHFB Sections

6-55

Figure 6.38: Comparison of Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with

Similar Values of GJ f /EI xweb

6-61

7-3

Figure 7.1: Schematic Diagram of the Test Set-Up Figure 7.2: Test Set-Up

7-5

Figure 7.2: Overall View of Test Set-up

7-5

Figure 7.3: Simply Supported Conditions at the End Supports

7-5

Figure 7.4: Load Application and Deflection Measurement

7-6

Figure 7.5: Moment vs Vertical Deflection Curves of 150x45x2.0 LSB

7-7

Figure 7.6: Moment vs Vertical Deflection Curves of 300x75x3.0 LSB

7-7

Figure 7.7: Moment vs Vertical Deflection Curves of 200x45x1.6 LSB

7-8

Figure 7.8: Plan View of Failed Specimen

7-9

Figure 7.9: Flange and Web Local Buckling

7-9

Figure 7.10: Flange Local Buckling

7-10

Figure 7.11: Failure Mode of 300x60x2.0 LSB

7-13

Figure 7.12: Schematic Diagram of Experimental Finite Element Model

7-17

List of Figures

Figure 7.13: Loading and Boundary Conditions of Experimental Finite Element Model

7-18

Figure 7.14: Various Plate Elements in Experimental Finite Element Model

7-19

Figure 7.15: Failure Modes from Finite Element Analyses of 150x45x2.0 LSB

7-20

Figure 7.16: Failure Modes from Finite Element Analyses of 300x60x2.0 LSB

7-21

Figure 7.17: Typical Buckling Mode after Failure from FEA

7-22

Figure 7.18: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection of 150x45x1.6 LSB

7-23

Figure 7.19: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection of 200x45x1.6 LSB

7-23

Figure 7.20: Stress-Strain Curves of 150x45x2.0 LSB

7-26

Figure 7.20: Stress-Strain Curves of 150x45x2.0 LSB

7-27

Figure 7.21: Stress Variation across the Cross-section of LSB from FEA

7-29

Figure 7.21: Stress Variation across the Cross-section of LSB from FEA

7-30

Figure 7.22: Strain Variation across the Cross-section of 150x45x3.0 LSB

7-46

Figure 7.23: Strain along the Top Flange of 150x45x3.0 LSB

7-46

Figure 7.24: Strain Variation across the cross-section of 150x45x3.0 LSB as Fringe

Results

7-47

8-1

Figure 8.1: Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSBs Figure 8.1: Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSBs

8-2

Figure 8.2: Use of Web Stiffeners in HFBs (Mahendran and Avery, 1997)

8-2

Figure 8.3: Twist Restraint at the Supports

8-3

Figure 8.4: Types of Web Stiffeners Used by Avery and Mahendran (1997) and Kurniawan (2005)

8-5

Figure 8.4: Types of Web Stiffeners Used by Avery and Mahendran (1997) and

Kurniawan

(2005)

8-6

Figure 8.5: Schematic Diagrams of Ideal and Experimental FE Models

8-7

Figure 8.6: Experimental Finite Element Model of LSB with Web Stiffeners

8-7

Figure 8.6: Experimental Finite Element Model of LSB with Web Stiffeners

8-8

Figure 8.7: Experimental FE Model with Web Stiffeners and Flange Twist Restraints

8-9

Figure 8.7: Experimental FE Model with Web Stiffeners and Flange Twist Restraints

8-10

List of Figures

Figure 8.8: Ideal Finite Element Model with Full Twist Restraint at the Supports (Including Flanges) and Web Stiffeners

8-10

Figure 8.9: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions

8-11

Figure 8.10: Loading Method of Ideal Finite Element Model

8-12

Figure 8.11: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure Modes of LSBs with Various Stiffener Arrangements

8-15

Figure 8.11: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure Modes of LSBs with Various Stiffener Arrangements

8-16

Figure 8.12: LSBs with Web Stiffeners at Different Spacings

8-18

Figure 8.13: Elastic Lateral Buckling Modes of LSBs

8-19

Figure 8.13: Elastic Lateral Buckling Modes of LSBs

8-20

Figure 8.14: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSB with Web Stiffener

8-24

Figure 8.15: M odw /M o versus Span for LSBs with Web Stiffeners

8-28

Figure 8.16: M odw /M o versus Slenderness for LSBs with Web Stiffeners

8-28

Figure 8.17: Comparison of M odw with Equation 8.2

8-29

Figure 8.18: Comparison of M odw with Equation 8.3

8-30

Figure 8.19: Lateral Buckling Mode of a 2 m Span 150x45x2.0 LSB from Non-linear

FEA

8-32

Figure 8.20: Ultimate Moments of LSBs with Web Stiffeners

8-36

Figure 8.21: Comparison of Ultimate Moments of LSBs with and without Web Stiffeners

8-36

Figure 8.22: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.4

8-37

Figure 8.23: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.5

8-38

Figure 8.24: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.6

8-39

Figure 8.25: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.7

8-40

Figure 8.26: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.8

8-41

List of Figures

List of Tables

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Geometry of HFB Sections

1-3

Table 1.2: Mechanical Properties of LSBs

1-5

Table 1.3: LSB Section Dimensions

1-5

Table 2.1: Avery et al.’s (1999b) Coefficients for Equation 2.32

2-34

Table 2.2: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions

2-49

Table 2.3 Nonlinear Analysis Parameters

2-51

Table 2.4: Tensile Coupon Test Results

2-57

Table 3.1: Tensile Test Results

3-5

Table 3.2: Comparison of Yield and Ultimate Stresses

3-6

Table 3.3: Membrane Residual Stress of LSBs

3-13

Table 4.1: Details of Test Specimens

4-4

Table 4.2: Lateral Buckling Test Results from this Study

4-19

Table 4.3: Details and Results of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s (2005a) Lateral

Buckling Tests

Table 4.4: Measured Properties and Capacities of LSBs Used in the Current Lateral

Buckling Tests

Table 4.5: Measured Properties and Capacities of LSBs Used in the Lateral Buckling

4-20

4-23

Tests of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a)

4-24

Table 4.6: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a) with AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) Predictions

4-26

Table 4.7: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments with AS/NZS 4600 (SA,

2005)

Predictions

4-27

Table 4.8: Effect of Flange Twist Restraint from Finite Element Analysis

4-28

Table 5.1: Nominal Properties of Available LSB Sections

5-3

Table 5.2: Elastic Section Modulus of Actual and Idealised LSBs

5-4

List of Tables

Table 5.3: Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments of Actual and Idealised LSB Sections

5-5

Table 5.4: Percentage Differences in Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments of Idealised

and Actual LSBs

5-6

Table 5.5: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions

5-10

Table 5.6: Membrane Residual Stress Distribution of LSB Sections

5-20

Table 5.7: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of LSB from FEA, Thin-Wall

and Pi and Trahair’s (1997) Equation

Table 5.7 (Continued): Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of LSB from FEA,

5-26

Thin-Wall and Pi and Trahair’s (1997) Equation

5-27

Table 5.8: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Ultimate Moment Capacities

5-30

Table 6.1: Nominal Dimensions of LSBs

6-3

Table 6.2: Effects of Initial Geometric Imperfection Direction on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs

6-6

Table 6.3: Effects of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities

6-8

Table 6.4: Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs in kNm Table 6.5: Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and AS/NZS 4600 (SA,

6-14

2005)

6-19

Table 6.5 (continued): Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and AS/NZS

4600 (SA, 2005)

Table 6.5 (continued): Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and AS/NZS

4600 (SA, 2005)

Table 6.5 (continued): Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and AS/NZS

6-20

6-21

4600

(SA,

2005)

6-22

Table 6.6: Capacity Reduction Factors for Eq.6.7

6-26

Table 6.7: Capacity Reduction Factors for Eq.6.10

6-27

Table 6.8: Capacity Reduction Factors for Eq.6.11

6-29

Table 6.9: Geometrical Dimensions of HFB Sections

6-31

Table 6.10: Comparison of Avery et al.’s (1999b) FEA Results with Eq.6.7 Table 6.10 (continued): Comparison of Avery et al.’s (1999b) FEA Results with

6-32

Eq.6.7

 

6-33

List of Tables

Table 6.10 (continued): Comparison of Avery et al.’s (1999b) FEA Results with

Eq.6.7

6-34

Table 6.11: Capacity Reduction factors for Eq.6.18

6-43

Table 6.12: Section Properties of LSBs including K

6-44

Table 6.13: Section Properties of HFBs including K

6-46

Table 6.14: Two New LSBs with Different GJ f /EI xweb and K Values

6-50

Table 6.15: FEA Moment Capacity Results of Two New LSBs

6-50

Table 6.16: Two New LSBs with Higher Values of GJ f /EI xweb

6-52

Table 6.17: FEA Moment Capacity Results of Two New LSBs with Higher Values

of GJ f /EI xweb

6-52

Table 6.18: Dimensions of MHFB and RHFB Sections

6-56

Table 6.19: Section Properties of MHFBs and RHFBs including K

6-56

Table 6.20: FEA Results of MHFB Sections without Residual Stresses

6-57

Table 6.21: FEA Results of RHFB Sections without Residual Stresses

6-58

Table 6.22: FEA Results of LSB Sections without Residual Stresses

6-59

Table 7.1: Section Classification for LSBs

7-1

Table 7.2: Measured Dimensions of LSBs

7-2

Table 7.3: Measured Yield Stresses of LSBs

7-3

Table 7.4: Spans of Test Beams

7-4

Table 7.5: Ultimate Moments of LSBs

7-10

Table 7.6: Section Moment Capacities from Tests and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) 7-13

Table 7.7: Measured Dimensions of LSBs used in Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s

7-14

Table 7.8: Measured Yield Stresses of LSBs used in Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s

7-14

Table 7.9: Section Moment Capacities from Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s (2005b)

7-15

Table 7.10: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Ultimate Moment Capacities.7-22

Tests and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005)

(2005b) Section Moment Capacity Tests

(2005b) Section Moment Capacity Tests

Table 7.11: Comparison of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s (2005b) Experimental

and FEA Ultimate Moment Capacities

7-24

Table 7.12: Ultimate Moments from the Ideal Finite Element Model

7-28

Table 7.13: Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs from FEA

7-31

List of Tables

Table 7.14: Compactness of LSBs Based on AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600

7-33

Table 7.15: Section Moment Capacities of LSBs

7-33

Table 7.16: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Current Design Rules

7-35

Table 7.17: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Eurocode 3

Part 1.3 (ECS, 2006 & 1996)

Table 7.18: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Shifferaw

7-37

and Schafer (2008)

7-40

Table 7.19: The Ratios of M u /M y and Section Compactness

7-41

Table 7.20: Dimensions and Properties of Non-Standard Compact LSBs

7-42

Table 7.21: The Ratios of M u /M y of Some Non-Standard Compact LSBs

7-42

Table 7.22: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Eurocode 3

Part 1.3 (NSAI, 2006) for Non-Standard Compact LSBs

Table 7.23: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Shifferaw

and Schafer (2008) for Non-Standard Compact LSBs

Table 7.24: Average and Maximum Membrane Strains of LSB Sections at Failure

7-44

7-45

…7-48

Table 8.1: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions

8-11

Table 8.2: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of LSBs with Web Stiffeners

8-13

Table 8.3: Effect of Web Stiffener Arrangements on the Results of M od from Experimental Finite Element Models

8-14

Table 8.4: Effect of Web Stiffener Spacing on the Elastic Distorional Buckling Moments of LSBs in kNm

8-18

Table 8.5: Effect of Web Stiffener Sizes on the Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling

Moments of LSBs

Table 8.5 (cont.): Effect of Web Stiffener Sizes on the Elastic Lateral Distortional

Buckling Moments of LSBs

Table 8.5 (cont.): Effect of Web Stiffener Sizes on the Elastic Lateral Distortional

8-21

8-22

Buckling Moments of LSBs

8-23

Table 8.6: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments

8-25

Table 8.6 (continued): Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments

8-26

List of Tables

Table 8.6 (continued): Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments

8-27

Table 8.7: First Yield Moments of LSBs

8-29

Table 8.8: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with and without Web Stiffeners

8-33

Table 8.8 (continued): Comparison of Ultimate Moments with and without Web Stiffeners (WS)

8-34

Table 8.8 (continued): Comparison of Ultimate Moments with and without Web Stiffeners (WS)

8-35

Table 8.9: Section Properties of LSBs Including

8-42

List of Tables

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.

Tharmarajah Anapayan

Signed:

Date:

List of Symbols

LIST OF SYMBOLS

b = plate width

COV = Coefficient Of Variance

E

= Young’s modulus = elastic critical buckling stress = ultimate tensile strength = inner flange yield stress = outer flange yield stress = web yield stress = shear modulus = Hollow Flange Steel Beam = Hollow Flange Beam = second moment of area about major axis = second moment of area about minor axis = warping constant

f cr

f u

f yif

f yof

f yw

G

HFSB

HFB

I

I

I

J = torsional constant

k = buckling co-efficient

K = geometrical parameter

L = span

λ

λ

x

y

w

= slenderness = modified slenderness = modified slenderness with web stiffeners = Lateral Distortional Buckling = LiteSteel Beam = member moment capacity = critical moment = elatic lateral torsional buckling moment = elatic lateral distortional buckling moment = elatic lateral distortional buckling moment with web stiffeners = plastic moment

d

λ dw

LDB

LSB

M

M

M

M

M

M

MPC = Multiple Point Constraint

b

c

o

od

odw

p

List of Symbols

M

M

υ = Poison’s ratio

Φ = capacity reduction factor

OATM = OneSteel Australian Tube Mills

S = plastic section modulus

SPC = Single Point Constraint

SSTM = Smorgon Steel Tube Mills

t = plate thickness

Z

Z

Z

= section moment capacity = first yield moment

s

y

= full elastic section modulus = critical elastic section modulus = effective elastic section modulus

c

e

Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to his supervisor, Professor Mahen Mahendran for his patient guidance, invaluable expertise, rigorous discussions and continuous support in many ways over the past three years. This study would not have been success to this level without such assistance. The author would also like to thank Dr. Jung Kwan Seo for his assistance and experience and friendship during his postdoctoral study at QUT.

Author would like to thank QUT and OneSteel Australian Tube Mills (OATM) and Australian Research Council (ARC) for providing financial support to this research. The author 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. Special thank is given to Mr. Mark Barry for his great help regarding HPC facilities.

The author wishes to thank Dr. John Papangelis for his assistance with THIN-WALL program. Special thanks are given to senior postgraduate students, Dr. Yasintha Bandulaheva and Mr. Win Kurniawan for their support during this research. It is also important to thank fellow post-graduate students, Mr. Sivapathasunderam Jeyaragan, Ms. Nirosha Dolamune Kankanamge, Mr. Poologanathan Keerthan, Mr. Shanmuganathan Gunalan and Mr. Balachandren Baleshan for their support and

Acknowledgements

contribution to this research, and other postgraduate students for their friendship at QUT.

Finally, the author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his parents and sister, particularly his mother, for their blessings, providing endless support and encouragement and beliefs in his abilities.

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Cold-Formed Steel Members

Cold-formed steel members have been widely used in building applications for over

five decades. Their markets include the secondary cladding and purlin applications as

well as the primary applications as beams and columns of industrial, commercial and

housing systems. The reasons behind the growing popularity of these cold-formed

steel products include their ease of fabrication, high strength to weight ratio and

suitability for a wide range of applications. These advantages can result in more cost-

effective designs compared with hot-rolled steel members, especially in short-span

applications.

steel members, especially in short-span applications. Figure 1.1: Cold-Formed Steel Structure (

Figure 1.1: Cold-Formed Steel Structure (www.structuretech.net)

Cold-formed steel members can be produced in a wide variety of section profiles, the

most commonly used of are the C- (channels) and the Z- sections. The thickness of

steel most frequently used for these structural members ranges from about 0.4 mm to

6.4 mm.

Introduction

Introduction Figure 1.2: Cold-Formed Steel Cross-Sections Although these cold-formed steel members are considered to be

Figure 1.2: Cold-Formed Steel Cross-Sections

Although these cold-formed steel members are considered to be more efficient than hot-rolled steel members, they suffer from many complex buckling modes and their interactions because they are usually slender sections that are either unsymmetric or singly symmetric. Therefore an advanced cold-formed section, called the Hollow Flange Steel Beams (HFSBs), was identified by cold-formed steel researchers, manufacturers and designers as an alternative and improved section to replace the conventional cold-formed C- and Z- sections and smaller hot-rolled I- and channel sections (Dempsey, 1990 and Mahendran and Avery, 1997).

1.2 Hollow Flange Steel Beams

The Hollow Flange Steel beams (HFSB) are a new group of cold-formed steel sections made of two torsionally rigid closed flanges and a slender web. Such innovative sections have a unique geometry and light weight compared to traditional hot-rolled steel members. They are also more efficient structurally than hot-rolled steel members. Recently, two different types of HFSs such as Hollow Flange Beam (HFB) and LiteSteel Beam (LSB) have been developed for use in the building and construction industries. The first HFS manufactured by OneSteel Australian Tube Mills (OATM) formerly known as Smorgon Steel Tube Mills (SSTM) during early 1990s is the HFB, which was also called as “DogBone”.

1.2.1 Hollow Flange Beams

The HFB is a unique cold-formed steel section developed for use as flexural members. It was manufactured from a single strip of high strength steel (G450 steel with a minimum guaranteed yield stress of 450 MPa) using electric resistance

Introduction

welding. The structural efficiency of the HFB due to the torsionally rigid closed triangular flanges combined with economical fabrication process was the basis of HFB development.

(a) Cross-Sectional View (b) Isometric View
(a) Cross-Sectional View
(b) Isometric View

Figure 1.3: The Hollow Flange Beam

Table 1.1: Geometry of HFB Sections

 

Nominal

Depth of

Flange

Nominal

Outside

Flange

Web

Mass

Section

Width

Thick-

Bend

Flat

Depth

Designation

per m

-ness

Radius

Width

D

B

t

R

o

b

d

kg/m

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

45090HFB38

23.0

450

90

3.8

8.0

74.0

370

40090HFB38

21.5

400

90

3.8

8.0

74.0

320

35090HFB38

20.0

350

90

3.8

8.0

74.0

270

30090HFB38

18.5

300

90

3.8

8.0

74.0

220

30090HFB33

16.2

300

90

3.3

8.0

74.0

219

30090HFB28

13.8

300

90

2.8

8.0

74.0

218

25090HFB28

12.7

250

90

2.8

8.0

74.0

168

25090HFB23

10.5

250

90

2.3

8.0

74.0

168

20090HFB28

11.6

200

90

2.8

8.0

74.0

118

20090HFB23

9.6

200

90

2.3

8.0

74.0

118

Introduction

Figures 1.3 (a) and (b) show the typical cross-section and an isometric view of HFB, respectively while Table 1.1 presents the details of such HFBs. This doubly symmetric member has been used as both compression and flexural members.

The HFBs when used as flexural members are subjected to a relatively new Lateral Distortional Buckling (LDB) mode which reduces their moment capacity. This caused the researchers to focus on this detrimental effect in the 1990s. It can be seen in Table 1.1 that the flange width was 90 mm for all the HFBs and other flange widths could not be manufactured using the existing equipment. The electric welding process was also found to be somewhat expensive for the manufacturers. Therefore the HFB production was discontinued in 1997.

1.2.2 LiteSteel Beams

The LiteSteel Beam (LSB) is the recently invented hollow flange steel beam developed by OATM using a patented Dual Electric Resistance Welding (DERW) technique. The LSB has a unique shape and manufacturing process which provides an extremely efficient strength to weight ratio. It has potentially wide range of applications in residential, commercial, and industrial construction, and is on average 40% lighter than traditional hot-rolled structural sections of equivalent bending strength.

lighter than traditional hot-rolled stru ctural sections of equivalent bending strength. Figure 1.4: Typical LSBs 1-4
lighter than traditional hot-rolled stru ctural sections of equivalent bending strength. Figure 1.4: Typical LSBs 1-4

Figure 1.4: Typical LSBs

Introduction

Figure 1.4 shows the typical section of LSBs. The high strength steel material used

for LSBs is DuoSteel grade with a web yield stress of 380 MPa and a flange yield

stress of 450 MPa. Initially it is from a base steel with a yield stress f y of 380 MPa

and a tensile strength f u of 490 MPa. However, the cold-forming process improves

the yield stress and tensile strength of the LSB flanges to 450 MPa and 500 MPa,

respectively (not for web). The mechanical properties of steel used in the design of

LSBs are given in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Mechanical Properties of LSBs

Location

Minimum Yield Stress, f y (MPa)

Minimum Tensile Strength, f u (MPa)

Minimum Elongation as a Proportion of Gauge Length

of

So (%)

So (%)

Web

380

490

 

14

Flange

450

500

 

14

Currently there are 13 variations of the LSBs 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

Designation

Designation

 

Flange

Flange

d

d

x

x

b

b f

f

x

x

t

t

Mass

Mass

Depth

Depth

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

kg/m

kg/m

mm

mm

300

300

x 75

x 75

x

x

3.0 LSB

3.0 LSB

14.4

14.4

25.0

25.0

2.5

2.5

LSB

LSB

12.1

12.1

25.0

25.0

300

300

x 60

x 60

x

x

2.0 LSB

2.0 LSB

8.71

8.71

20.0

20.0

250

250

x 75

x 75

x

x

3.0 LSB

3.0 LSB

13.3

13.3

25.0

25.0

2.5

2.5

LSB

LSB

11.2

11.2

25.0

25.0

250

250

x 60

x 60

x

x

2.0 LSB

2.0 LSB

7.93

7.93

20.0

20.0

200

200

x 60

x 60

x

x

2.5 LSB

2.5 LSB

8.81

8.81

20.0

20.0

2.0

2.0

LSB

LSB

7.14

7.14

20.0

20.0

200

200

x 45

x 45

x

x

1.6 LSB

1.6 LSB

4.90

4.90

15.0

15.0

150

150

x 45

x 45

x

x

2.0 LSB

2.0 LSB

5.26

5.26

15.0

15.0

1.6

1.6

LSB

LSB

4.27

4.27

15.0

15.0

125

125

x 45

x 45

x

x

2.0 LSB

2.0 LSB

4.87

4.87

15.0

15.0

1.6

1.6

LSB

LSB

3.95

3.95

15.0

15.0

x 45 x x 2.0 LSB 2.0 LSB 4.87 4.87 15.0 15.0 1.6 1.6 LSB LSB

Introduction

1.3 Manufacturing Process of Hollow Flange Steel Beams

Cold-formed members are usually manufactured by either roll forming or brake pressing process. The HFSs are 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 manufacturing of circular, square, and rectangular hollow sections. The process begins by feeding a large roll of sheet through a series of flattening rollers. The steel is trimmed to appropriate width and the edges are coiled over in a cold-formed process. This is followed by a complete penetration butt weld along the length of the steel via a Dual Electric Resistance Welding (DERW) process. This section is passed through another set of rollers which shape and size the section and flanges to its final dimensions.

The HFS manufacturing process is illustrated in Figure 1.5. Cleaning and painting is then performed prior to bundling and stacking. LSB is coated with the AZ+ alloy coating system while HFB is coated with general water based paint. It provides a coating thickness of 18-24 microns and protects up to twice the level provided by a traditional steel tube primer and has resistance to scratching.

steel tube primer and has resistance to scratching. Figure 1.5: HFS Manufacturing Process (

Figure 1.5: HFS Manufacturing Process (http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au)

Introduction

1.4 Applications of Hollow Flange Steel Beams

Hollow flange steel beams are light weight and most economical cold-formed steel sections. Even though different types of hollow flange steel beams have been investigated by researchers in the past, the only such section that is currently available is the LSB. It has found increasing popularity in residential, industrial and commercial buildings not only due to their light weight and cost effectiveness, but also due to their beneficial characteristics of including torsionally rigid flanges combined with economical fabrication processes. The LSB sections can be used as flexural members, truss members and studs in a range of building systems. They have been used in both residential and commercial buildings. Some of the applications of LSBs are illustrated in Figures 1.6 (a) to (e).

of LSBs are illustra ted in Figures 1.6 (a) to (e). (a) Residential Rafters (c) Roof

(a) Residential Rafters

ted in Figures 1.6 (a) to (e). (a) Residential Rafters (c) Roof Beams ( b )

(c) Roof Beams

1.6 (a) to (e). (a) Residential Rafters (c) Roof Beams ( b ) F l o

(b) Floor Joists

(c) Roof Beams ( b ) F l o o r J o i s t

(d) Floor Bearers

Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs (http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au)

Introduction

Introduction (e) Purlins Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs ( http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au ) The LSB is on average
Introduction (e) Purlins Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs ( http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au ) The LSB is on average

(e) Purlins Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs

(http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au)

The LSB is on average 40% lighter than traditional hot-rolled steel beams of

equivalent performance. This is because of the improved structural performance in

terms of load carrying capacity. The LSB can be lifted and carried like a timber beam

and can be easily worked to run services through or fix other materials to it.

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. The connection attributes of LSB allowed

the builder to connect the floor bearers directly to the RHS posts and then fix the

floor joists to the bearers using Tek-screws and therefore off-site fabrication is not

required. The LSB is easy to weld like other structural steel beams if required. One

of the key benefits of LSB is its unique profile, with a thin flat web and two hollow