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), Coldformed steel structures, Flexural members, Web stiffeners, Transverse web stiffeners.
iii
Keywords
iv
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 hotrolled 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 overconservative 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 _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} ) 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
v
Abstract
coldformed 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 coldformed steel design codes showed that compact and noncompact 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 noncompact 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 noncompact sections. For slender LSB sections, current coldformed 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.
vi
Publications
PUBLICATIONS
Refereed International Conference Papers
1. Seo, J. K., Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2008) “Initial Imperfection Characteristics of MonoSymmetric LiteSteel Beams for Numerical Studies”, proceedings of the 5 ^{t}^{h} International Conference on ThinWalled Structures, Gold Coast, Australia, pp.451460.
2. Anapayan, T. and Mahendran, M. (2009), “Improvements to the Design of LiteSteel Beams Undergoing Lateral Distortional Buckling”, proceedings of the 9 ^{t}^{h} International Conference on Steel Concrete Composite and Hybrid Structures, Leeds, UK, pp. 767774.
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 ^{r}^{d} 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.
vii
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”, Thinwalled Structures.
viii
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 
11 

1.1 ColdFormed Steel Members 
11 

1.2 Hollow Flange Steel Beams 
12 

1.2.1 Hollow Flange Beams 
12 

1.2.2 LiteSteel Beams 
14 

1.3 Manufacturing Process of Hollow Flange Steel Beams 
16 

1.4 Applications of Hollow Flange Steel Beams 
17 

1.5 Research Problem 
19 

1.6 Research Objectives and Specific Tasks 
112 

1.7 Scope and Limitations 
114 

1.8 Thesis Contents 
114 

CHAPTER 2 

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 
21 

2.1 ColdFormed Steel Members 
21 

2.2 ColdFormed Steel Design Standards 
25 

2.3 Buckling Behaviour of ColdFormed Steel Beams 
26 

2.4 Buckling Behaviour of Hollow Flange Steel Beams 
28 

2.4.1 
Local Buckling 
29 
ix
Table of Contents
2.4.2 Lateral Distortional Buckling 
211 

2.4.3 Lateral Torsional Buckling 
213 

2.5 Lateral Buckling Strength of Beams 
213 

2.5.1 PreBuckling Deflections 
215 

2.5.2 PostBuckling Behaviour 
215 

2.5.3 Web Distortion 
216 

2.5.4 Inelastic Behaviour 
217 

2.5.5 Initial Geometric Imperfection and Twist 
218 

2.5.6 Residual Stress 
220 

2.5.7 Moment Distribution 
221 

2.5.8 Load Height 
223 

2.5.9 Warping 
224 

2.6 Design Guidelines for ColdFormed Hollow Flange Steel Beams 
225 

2.6.1 
Moment Capacity Based on AS 4100 (SA, 1998) 
226 
2.6.1.1 Section Moment Capacity 
226 

2.6.1.2 Member Moment Capacity 
227 

2.6.2 
Moment Capacity Based on AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) 
229 
2.6.2.1 Section Moment Capacity 
229 

2.6.2.2 Member Moment Capacity 
231 

2.6.3 
The Direct Strength Method 
237 
2.7 Hollow Flange Steel Beams with Web Stiffeners 
239 

2.7.1 HFBs with Web Stiffeners 
240 

2.7.2 LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
242 

2.7.2.1 Stiffener Type and Configurations 
242 

2.7.2.2 Design Methods 
243 

2.7.2.3 Experimental Results of Kurniawan (2005) 
245 

2.7.2.4 Finite Element Analysis Results of Kurniawan (2005) 
245 

2.8 Finite Element Analysis 
247 

2.8.1 Finite Element Analyses of LSBs 
248 

2.8.2 Finite Element Analyses of HFBs 
254 

2.9 Experimental Investigation 
256 

2.9.1 Tensile Coupon Tests 
256 

2.9.2 Residual Stress Measurement 
258 
x
Table of Contents
2.9.3 Initial Geometric Imperfection Measurement 
259 

2.9.4 Section Capacity Tests 
260 

2.9.5 Lateral Buckling Tests 
260 

2.9.6 Experimental Investigation of HFBs 
264 

2.9.7 Experiments of other ColdFormed Steel Beams 
265 

2.10 
Literature Review Findings 
267 
CHAPTER 3
3.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES, RESIDUAL STRESSES AND GEOMETRIC
IMPERFECTIONS OF LSB SECTIONS 
31 

3.1 Introduction 
31 

3.2 Tensile Coupon Tests to Determine the Mechanical Properties 
32 

3.3 Residual Stress Measurements for LSB Sections 
37 

3.3.1 Test Procedure 
37 

3.3.2 Results 
39 

3.4 Initial Geometric Imperfection Measurements 
314 

3.5 Conclusions 
316 

CHAPTER 4 

4.0 LATERAL BUCKLING TESTS OF LSB SECTIONS 
41 

4.1 Introduction 
41 

4.2 Selection of Test Specimens 
42 

4.3 Test Method 
44 

4.3.1 
Support System 
47 
4.3.1.1 Flange Twist Restraints 
48 

4.3.2 Loading System 
49 

4.3.3 Measuring System 
411 

4.3.4 Test Procedure 
413 

4.4 Experimental Results and Discussions 
415 

4.5 Comparisons with Design Methods 
421 

4.6 Conclusions 
429 
xi
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 5
5.0 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF LSBs SUBJECT TO LATERAL BUCKLING EFFECTS 
51 

5.1 Introduction 
51 

5.2 Model Description 
51 

5.2.1 Discretization of the Finite Element Mesh 
57 

5.2.2 Material Model and Properties 
58 

5.2.3 Load and Boundary Conditions 
59 

5.2.3.1 Ideal Finite Element Model 
59 

5.2.3.2 Experimental Finite Element Model 
512 

5.2.4 Initial Geometric Imperfections 
516 

5.2.5 Residual 
Stresses 
518 
5.2.6 Analysis 
Methods 
521 
5.3 Model Validation 
522 

5.3.1 Typical Buckling Modes of Ideal Finite Element Model 
523 

5.3.2 Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moment Results 
525 

5.3.3 Comparison with Experimental Test Results 
529 

5.4 Conclusions 
534 

CHAPTER 6 

6.0 PARAMETRIC STUDIES AND DESIGN RULE DEVELOPMENT 
61 

6.1 Introduction 
61 

6.2 Parametric Study 
62 

6.3 Lateral Distortional Buckling Behaviour and Strength of LSBs 
64 

6.3.1 Effects of Initial Geometric Imperfection Direction 
64 

6.3.2 Effects of Residual Stresses 
67 

6.4 Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs 
612 
6.5 Comparison of Member Moment Capacities of LSBs with AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
2005) Design Rules 
615 
6.6 Proposed Design Rules for Member Moment Capacities of LSBs 
622 
6.6.1 Calculation of Capacity Reduction Factor (Φ) 
625 
6.6.2 Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Beams 
630 
xii
Table of Contents
6.7 Effect of Section Geometry on the Lateral Distortional Buckling Moment
Capacities of LSBs
636
6.8 Applicability of the Geometrical Parameter for Other Types of Hollow Flange
Steel Beams 
655 
6.9 Conclusions 
662 
CHAPTER 7 

7.0 SECTION MOMENT CAPACITY OF LITESTEEL BEAM 
71 
7.1 Introduction 
71 
7.2 Section Moment Capacity Tests of LSBs 
72 
7.2.1 Test SetUp and Procedure 
73 
7.2.2 Test Results and Discussion 
76 
7.2.3 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from Tests and Current
Design Rules 
711 
7.3 Finite Element Modelling of LSBs to Determine their Section Moment 

Capacities 
716 
7.3.1 Experimental Finite Element Model of LSBs 
716 
7.3.2 Finite Element Analyses of LSBs Subject to Local Buckling Effects727
7.4 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Current Design
Rules
731
7.5 Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Other Proposed
Design Rules 
738 
7.6 Discussion of Maximum Available Moment Capacity of LSBs and Compressive Strain Limits 
741 
7.7 Conclusions 
749 
CHAPTER 8
8.0 EFFECT OF WEB STIFFENERS ON THE LATERAL DISTORTIONAL BUCKLING BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH OF LITESTEEL BEAMS81
8.1 Introduction 
81 
8.2 Elastic Buckling Analyses 
84 
xiii
Table of Contents
8.2.1 Finite Element Models 
86 
8.2.2 Results 
813 
8.2.3 Determination of Optimum Spacing and Size of Web Stiffeners 
817 
8.3 Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
823 
8.4 Ultimate Member Moment Capacities of LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
831 
8.5 Development of Design Rules 
837 
8.6 Conclusions 
842 
CHAPTER 9
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 
91 
9.1 Experimental Investigation of LSBs 
93 
9.2 Finite element Modelling of LSBs Subject to Lateral Buckling 
94 
9.3 Parametric Studies and Design Rule Development 
95 
9.4 Section Moment Capacity of LSBs 
96 
9.5 Effect of Web Stiffeners on the Lateral Distortional Buckling Moment Capacity
of LSBs 
96 
9.6 Future Research 
97 
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………….A1 Appendix B…………………………………………………………………….B1 Appendix C…………………………………………………………………….C1 Appendix D…………………………………………………………………….D1
Appendix E…………………………………………………………………….E1
References
R1
xiv
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: ColdFormed Steel Structure 
11 
Figure 1.2: ColdFormed Steel CrossSections 
12 
Figure 1.3: The Hollow Flange Beam 
13 
Figure 1.4: Typical LSBs 
14 
Figure 1.5: HFS Manufacturing Process 
16 
Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs 
17 
Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs 
18 
Figure 1.7: Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSB 
110 
Figure 1.8: HFB with Web Stiffener 
111 
21 

Figure 2.1: Various Shapes of ColdFormed Steel Sections Figure 2.2: Different Types of ColdFormed Steel Sections 
22 
Figure 2.3: Roll Forming Sequence for a ZSection ………………………………23 Figure 2.4: Press Brake Dies ………………………………………………………23
Figure 2.5: Typical StressStrain Curves 
24 
Figure 2.6: Effects on Strain Hardening and Strain Ageing 
25 
Figure 2.7: Different Buckling Modes of Z Section 
27 
Figure 2.8: Different Buckling Modes of Channel Section 
27 
Figure 2.9: Flange Distortional and Lateral Distortional Buckling 
28 
Figure 2.10: HFB and LSB 
29 
Figure 2.11: Different Buckling Modes and Stresses of HFB Subject to Bending 210
Figure 2.12: Local Buckling Mode of LSB Sections 
211 
Figure 2.13: Lateral Distortional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections 
211 
Figure 2.14: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments 
212 
Figure 2.15: Lateral Torsional Buckling Mode of LSB Sections 
213 
Figure 2.16: Lateral Buckling Behaviour of Steel Beams 
214 
Figure 2.17: Positive and Negative Imperfections of LSBs 
219 
Figure 2.18: Membrane and Flexural Residual Stresses 
220 
Figure 2.19: Bending Moment Diagrams of Beams 
221 
Figure 2.20: Effects of Moment Gradient 
222 
xv
List of Figures
Figure 2.21: Warping Restraining Devices 
225 
Figure 2.22: Comparisons of Experimental and AS 4100 (1998) Predictions 
229 
Figure 2.23: Stiffened Elements and Webs with Stress Gradient 
231 
Figure 2.24: Comparisons of Experiments and AS/NZS 4600 (1996) Predictions 233
Figure 2.25: Comparison of FEA Results with Avery et al.’s (1999b) Predictions234
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 
240 
Figure 2.29: Stiffener Configuration 
241 
Figure 2.30: Special Stiffener Screw Fastened to HFB Flanges 
242 
Figure 2.31: Stiffener Types 
243 
Figure 2.32: Predicted Member Capacities of 250x60x2.0 LSB 
244 
Figure 2.33: FEA Models used by Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005c) 
246 
Figure 2.34: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions 
249 
Figure 2.35: Ideal Finite Element Model 
250 
Figure 2.36: Experimental Finite Element Model 
251 
Figure 2.37: Idealised Models of Residual Stresses for LSBs 
252 
Figure 2.38: Modified Ideal Finite Element Model (First Version) 
253 
Figure 2.39: Member Capacity Curves 
253 
Figure 2.40: Modified Ideal FE Model (Final Version) 
254 
Figure 2.41: Finite Element Models of HFBs 
255 
Figure 2.42: Typical StressStrain Curves of the Base Steel used in LSB Sections
57
2
Figure 2.43: Sectioning of LSBs 
259 
Figure 2.44: Geometric Imperfection Test Setup 
259 
Figure 2.45: Section Capacity Test Setup 
260 
Figure 2.46: Overall View of Test Rig 
261 
Figure 2.47: Support System 
261 
Figure 2.48: Loading System 
262 
Figure 2.49: Stiffener Types 
263 
Figure 2.50: Test Setup of LSB with Stiffeners 
263 
xvi
List of Figures
Figure 2.51: Schematic Diagram for Lateral Buckling Tests of HFBs 
264 
Figure 2.52: Schematic Diagram of Test Rig Including Support System 
265 
Figure 2.53: Lateral Buckling Tsts of RHS Beams 
266 
Figure 2.54: Test Arrangement for C and Z Section Beams 
267 
33 

Figure 3.1: Tensile Test Coupons Figure 3.2: Tensile Test Arrangement 
34 
Figure 3.3: Typical StressStrain Curves from Tensile Coupon Tests 
35 
Figure 3.4: Strain Gauge Arrangement 
37 
Figure 3.5: Sectioning Process of LSB 
38 
Figure 3.6: Measured Released Strain along the Web Element 
39 
Figure 3.7: Measured Stresses along the Web Element of a 150x45x1.6 LSB 
310 
Figure 3.8: Membrane Residual Stress Distribution 
311 
Figure 3.9: Flexural Residual Stress Distribution 
311 
Figure 3.10: Membrane Residual Stress Distribution for 150x45x1.6 LSB 
313 
Figure 3.11: Geometric Imperfection Measurements 
314 
Figure 3.12: Measured Imperfections of a 4 m Long 200x45x1.6 LSB Section 
315 
42 

Figure 4.1: Experimental Results of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a) Figure 4.2: LSB Test Specimens 
43 
Figure 4.3: Different Types of Test Methods 
45 
Figure 4.4: Overall View of Test Rig 
46 
Figure 4.5: Support System 
47 
Figure 4.6: Flange Twist at Failure of a 250x75x2.5 LSB with 3.5 m Span 
48 
Figure 4.7: Flange Twist Restraint Arrangement of LSBs 
49 
Figure 4.8: Loading System 
410 
Figure 4.9: Data Logger and Load Cells 
412 
Figure 4.10: Wire Displacement Transducers (WDTs) 
412 
Figure 4.11: Schematic Diagram of a Typical Test Specimen 
413 
Figure 4.12: Schematic Diagram of Flange Twist Restraints 
414 
Figure 4.13: Typical Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure 
415 
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 4.14: A Closer View of Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure 
416 
Figure 4.15: Local Web Buckling after Ultimate Failure 
416 
Figure 4.16: Comparison of Flange Twist Condition at Failure 
417 
Figure 4.17: Shear Buckling Failure of 150x45x1.6 LSB with 1.2 m Span 
417 
Figure 4.18: Moment vs Lateral Deflection Curves 
418 
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
425
Figure 5.1: Schematic Diagrams of Ideal and Experimental FE Models 
52 
Figure 5.2: Actual and Idealised LSBs 
54 
Figure 5.3: Typical Finite Element Mesh for LSB Models 
58 
Figure 5.4: StressStrain Relationships 
59 
Figure 5.5: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions 
510 
Figure 5.6: Boundary Conditions of the Ideal Finite Element Model of LSB 
511 
Figure 5.7: Typical Loading Method for the Ideal Finite Element Model of LSB .512
Figure 5.8: Loading and Boundary Conditions of the Experimental Finite Element
Model of LSB 
514 
Figure 5.9: Loading Plate Twisting in the Experimental FE Model 
515 
Figure 5.10: Various Plate Elements in Experimental Finite Element Model 
516 
Figure 5.11: Critical Buckling Mode from Elastic Buckling Analysis of Ideal Finite
Element Model 
517 
Figure 5.12: Effect of Imperfection Direction Based on Nonlinear Analysis 
518 
Figure 5.13: Residual Stress Distributions in LSB Sections 
519 
Figure 5.14: Typical Residual Stresses Distribution for LSB Sections 
520 
Figure 5.15: Elastic Buckling Modes of 200x60x2.0 LSB 
523 
Figure 5.15: Elastic Buckling Modes of 200x60x2.0 LSB 
524 
Figure 5.16: Ultimate Failure Modes of 200x60x2.0 LSB 
525 
Figure 5.17: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments 
528 
Figure 5.18: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection at MidSpan Curves for 150x45x1.6 LSB (3000 mm Span) 
530 
xviii
List of Figures
Figure 5.19: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection at MidSpan Curves for 200x45x1.6 LSB (4000 mm Span) 
531 
Figure 5.20: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection at MidSpan Curves for 300x60x2.0 LSB (4000 mm Span) 
531 
Figure 5.21: Bending Moment vs Lateral Deflection at MidSpan Curves for 150x45x1.6 LSB (1800 mm Span) 
532 
Figure 5.22: Bending Moment vs Lateral Deflection at MidSpan Curves for 200x45x1.6 LSB (4000 mm Span) 
532 
Figure 5.23: Bending Moment vs Lateral Deflection at MidSpan Curves for 150x45x2.0 LSB (3000 mm Span) 
533 
Figure 6.1: Positive and Negative Imperfections of LSBs 
65 
Figure 6.2: Effects of Initial Geometric Imperfection Direction on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs 
67 
Figure 6.3: Effects of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of 300x75x3.0 LSBs 
69 
Figure 6.4: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 300x75x3.0 LSBs with and without
610
Figure 6.5: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 300x60x2.0 LSBs with and without
610
Figure 6.6: Comparison of Moment Capacities of 200x60x2.5 LSBs with and without
Residual Stresses
Residual Stresses
Residual Stresses
611
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
611
Residual Stresses 
612 
Figure 6.9: Ultimate Moment Capacity Curves of LSBs 
613 
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)
617
623
xix
List of Figures
Figure 6.12: Comparison of Experimental Moment Capacities with the Design Curve
based on Equations 6.7 (a) to (c) 
624 
Figure 6.13: Comparison of FEA and Experimental Moment Capacities with the Design Curve based on Equations 6.7 (a) to (c) 
624 
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
627
628
629
on Equations 6.11 (a) to (c) 
630 
Figure 6.18: Hollow Flange Beams 
630 
Figure 6.19: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities of HFBs from Avery et al. (1999b) with Equations 6.7 (a) to (c) 
635 
Figure 6.20: NonDimensional Member Moment Capacity versus Modified Slenderness λ _{d} for LSBs 
637 
Figure 6.21: NonDimensional Member Moment Capacity versus Slenderness λ for
LSBs 
638 
Figure 6.22: Moment Capacity Design Curve for LSBs based on a Modified Slenderness Parameter K _{1} λ 
639 
Figure 6.23: Moment Capacity Design Curve for LSBs based on a Modified Slenderness Parameter K _{2} λ _{d} 
640 
Figure 6.24: Moment Capacity Design Curve for LSBs based on a Modified Slenderness Parameter Kλ _{d} 
642 
Figure 6.25: Comparison of Experimental Results with Equation 6.18 
643 
Figure 6.26: Moment Capacities of LSBs with Similar Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} (Set 1).6
44
Figure 6.27: Moment Capacities of LSBs with Similar Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} (Set 2) .6
45
Figure 6.28: Moment Capacities of LSBs with Similar Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} (Set 3).6
46
xx
List of Figures
Figure 6.29: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities of HFBs from Avery et al. (1999b) with Equation 6.18
647
Figure 6.30: Comparison of FEA Moment Capacities of Selected HFBs from Avery
647
Figure 6.31: Moment Capacities of HFBs with Similar Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} (Set 1) 6
49
Figure 6.32: Moment Capacities of HFBs with Similar Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} (Set 2) 6
49
Figure 6.33: Moment Capacities of New LSBs with Different GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} Values .651 Figure 6.34: Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with GJf/EIxweb ≥
653
0.0811
Figure 6.35: Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with the Modified
654
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 
654 
Figure 6.37: MHFB and RHFB Sections 
655 
Figure 6.38: Comparison of Moment Capacities of Hollow Flange Steel Beams with
Similar Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} 
661 
73 

Figure 7.1: Schematic Diagram of the Test SetUp Figure 7.2: Test SetUp 
75 
Figure 7.2: Overall View of Test Setup 
75 
Figure 7.3: Simply Supported Conditions at the End Supports 
75 
Figure 7.4: Load Application and Deflection Measurement 
76 
Figure 7.5: Moment vs Vertical Deflection Curves of 150x45x2.0 LSB 
77 
Figure 7.6: Moment vs Vertical Deflection Curves of 300x75x3.0 LSB 
77 
Figure 7.7: Moment vs Vertical Deflection Curves of 200x45x1.6 LSB 
78 
Figure 7.8: Plan View of Failed Specimen 
79 
Figure 7.9: Flange and Web Local Buckling 
79 
Figure 7.10: Flange Local Buckling 
710 
Figure 7.11: Failure Mode of 300x60x2.0 LSB 
713 
Figure 7.12: Schematic Diagram of Experimental Finite Element Model 
717 
xxi
List of Figures
Figure 7.13: Loading and Boundary Conditions of Experimental Finite Element Model 
718 
Figure 7.14: Various Plate Elements in Experimental Finite Element Model 
719 
Figure 7.15: Failure Modes from Finite Element Analyses of 150x45x2.0 LSB 
720 
Figure 7.16: Failure Modes from Finite Element Analyses of 300x60x2.0 LSB 
721 
Figure 7.17: Typical Buckling Mode after Failure from FEA 
722 
Figure 7.18: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection of 150x45x1.6 LSB 
723 
Figure 7.19: Bending Moment vs Vertical Deflection of 200x45x1.6 LSB 
723 
Figure 7.20: StressStrain Curves of 150x45x2.0 LSB 
726 
Figure 7.20: StressStrain Curves of 150x45x2.0 LSB 
727 
Figure 7.21: Stress Variation across the Crosssection of LSB from FEA 
729 
Figure 7.21: Stress Variation across the Crosssection of LSB from FEA 
730 
Figure 7.22: Strain Variation across the Crosssection of 150x45x3.0 LSB 
746 
Figure 7.23: Strain along the Top Flange of 150x45x3.0 LSB 
746 
Figure 7.24: Strain Variation across the crosssection of 150x45x3.0 LSB as Fringe
Results 
747 

81 

Figure 8.1: Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSBs Figure 8.1: Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSBs 
82 

Figure 8.2: Use of Web Stiffeners in HFBs (Mahendran and Avery, 1997) 
82 

Figure 8.3: Twist Restraint at the Supports 
83 

Figure 8.4: Types of Web Stiffeners Used by Avery and Mahendran (1997) and Kurniawan (2005) 
85 

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

Kurniawan 
(2005) 
86 
Figure 8.5: Schematic Diagrams of Ideal and Experimental FE Models 
87 

Figure 8.6: Experimental Finite Element Model of LSB with Web Stiffeners 
87 

Figure 8.6: Experimental Finite Element Model of LSB with Web Stiffeners 
88 
Figure 8.7: Experimental FE Model with Web Stiffeners and Flange Twist Restraints
89
Figure 8.7: Experimental FE Model with Web Stiffeners and Flange Twist Restraints
810
xxii
List of Figures
Figure 8.8: Ideal Finite Element Model with Full Twist Restraint at the Supports (Including Flanges) and Web Stiffeners 
810 
Figure 8.9: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions 
811 
Figure 8.10: Loading Method of Ideal Finite Element Model 
812 
Figure 8.11: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure Modes of LSBs with Various Stiffener Arrangements 
815 
Figure 8.11: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Failure Modes of LSBs with Various Stiffener Arrangements 
816 
Figure 8.12: LSBs with Web Stiffeners at Different Spacings 
818 
Figure 8.13: Elastic Lateral Buckling Modes of LSBs 
819 
Figure 8.13: Elastic Lateral Buckling Modes of LSBs 
820 
Figure 8.14: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling of LSB with Web Stiffener 
824 
Figure 8.15: M _{o}_{d}_{w} /M _{o} versus Span for LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
828 
Figure 8.16: M _{o}_{d}_{w} /M _{o} versus Slenderness for LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
828 
Figure 8.17: Comparison of M _{o}_{d}_{w} with Equation 8.2 
829 
Figure 8.18: Comparison of M _{o}_{d}_{w} with Equation 8.3 
830 
Figure 8.19: Lateral Buckling Mode of a 2 m Span 150x45x2.0 LSB from Nonlinear
FEA 
832 
Figure 8.20: Ultimate Moments of LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
836 
Figure 8.21: Comparison of Ultimate Moments of LSBs with and without Web Stiffeners 
836 
Figure 8.22: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.4 
837 
Figure 8.23: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.5 
838 
Figure 8.24: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.6 
839 
Figure 8.25: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.7 
840 
Figure 8.26: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with Equation 8.8 
841 
xxiii
List of Figures
xxiv
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Geometry of HFB Sections 
13 
Table 1.2: Mechanical Properties of LSBs 
15 
Table 1.3: LSB Section Dimensions 
15 
Table 2.1: Avery et al.’s (1999b) Coefficients for Equation 2.32 
234 
Table 2.2: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions 
249 
Table 2.3 Nonlinear Analysis Parameters 
251 
Table 2.4: Tensile Coupon Test Results 
257 
Table 3.1: Tensile Test Results 
35 
Table 3.2: Comparison of Yield and Ultimate Stresses 
36 
Table 3.3: Membrane Residual Stress of LSBs 
313 
Table 4.1: Details of Test Specimens 
44 
Table 4.2: Lateral Buckling Test Results from this Study 
419 
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
420
423
Tests of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a) 
424 
Table 4.6: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments of Mahaarachchi and Mahendran (2005a) with AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) Predictions 
426 
Table 4.7: Comparison of Experimental Failure Moments with AS/NZS 4600 (SA,
2005) 
Predictions 
427 
Table 4.8: Effect of Flange Twist Restraint from Finite Element Analysis 
428 

Table 5.1: Nominal Properties of Available LSB Sections 
53 

Table 5.2: Elastic Section Modulus of Actual and Idealised LSBs 
54 
xxv
List of Tables
Table 5.3: Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments of Actual and Idealised LSB Sections
55
Table 5.4: Percentage Differences in Elastic Lateral Buckling Moments of Idealised
and Actual LSBs 
56 
Table 5.5: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions 
510 
Table 5.6: Membrane Residual Stress Distribution of LSB Sections 
520 
Table 5.7: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of LSB from FEA, ThinWall
and Pi and Trahair’s (1997) Equation
Table 5.7 (Continued): Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments of LSB from FEA,
526
ThinWall and Pi and Trahair’s (1997) Equation 
527 
Table 5.8: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Ultimate Moment Capacities 
530 
Table 6.1: Nominal Dimensions of LSBs 
63 
Table 6.2: Effects of Initial Geometric Imperfection Direction on the Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs 
66 
Table 6.3: Effects of Residual Stresses on the Ultimate Moment Capacities 
68 
Table 6.4: Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs in kNm Table 6.5: Comparison of Moment Capacities from FEA and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 
614 
2005) 
619 
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
620
621
4600 
(SA, 
2005) 
622 
Table 6.6: Capacity Reduction Factors for Eq.6.7 
626 

Table 6.7: Capacity Reduction Factors for Eq.6.10 
627 

Table 6.8: Capacity Reduction Factors for Eq.6.11 
629 

Table 6.9: Geometrical Dimensions of HFB Sections 
631 

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 
632 

Eq.6.7 
633 
xxvi
List of Tables
Table 6.10 (continued): Comparison of Avery et al.’s (1999b) FEA Results with
Eq.6.7 
634 
Table 6.11: Capacity Reduction factors for Eq.6.18 
643 
Table 6.12: Section Properties of LSBs including K 
644 
Table 6.13: Section Properties of HFBs including K 
646 
Table 6.14: Two New LSBs with Different GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} and K Values 
650 
Table 6.15: FEA Moment Capacity Results of Two New LSBs 
650 
Table 6.16: Two New LSBs with Higher Values of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} 
652 
Table 6.17: FEA Moment Capacity Results of Two New LSBs with Higher Values
of GJ _{f} /EI _{x}_{w}_{e}_{b} 
652 
Table 6.18: Dimensions of MHFB and RHFB Sections 
656 
Table 6.19: Section Properties of MHFBs and RHFBs including K 
656 
Table 6.20: FEA Results of MHFB Sections without Residual Stresses 
657 
Table 6.21: FEA Results of RHFB Sections without Residual Stresses 
658 
Table 6.22: FEA Results of LSB Sections without Residual Stresses 
659 
Table 7.1: Section Classification for LSBs 
71 
Table 7.2: Measured Dimensions of LSBs 
72 
Table 7.3: Measured Yield Stresses of LSBs 
73 
Table 7.4: Spans of Test Beams 
74 
Table 7.5: Ultimate Moments of LSBs 
710 
Table 7.6: Section Moment Capacities from Tests and AS/NZS 4600 (SA, 2005) 713
Table 7.7: Measured Dimensions of LSBs used in Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s
714
Table 7.8: Measured Yield Stresses of LSBs used in Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s
714
Table 7.9: Section Moment Capacities from Mahaarachchi and Mahendran’s (2005b)
715
Table 7.10: Comparison of Experimental and FEA Ultimate Moment Capacities.722
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 
724 
Table 7.12: Ultimate Moments from the Ideal Finite Element Model 
728 
Table 7.13: Ultimate Moment Capacities of LSBs from FEA 
731 
xxvii
List of Tables
Table 7.14: Compactness of LSBs Based on AS 4100 and AS/NZS 4600 
733 
Table 7.15: Section Moment Capacities of LSBs 
733 
Table 7.16: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Current Design Rules 
735 
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
737
and Schafer (2008) 
740 
Table 7.19: The Ratios of M _{u} /M _{y} and Section Compactness 
741 
Table 7.20: Dimensions and Properties of NonStandard Compact LSBs 
742 
Table 7.21: The Ratios of M _{u} /M _{y} of Some NonStandard Compact LSBs 
742 
Table 7.22: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Eurocode 3
Part 1.3 (NSAI, 2006) for NonStandard Compact LSBs
Table 7.23: Comparison of Ultimate Moment Capacities from FEA and Shifferaw
and Schafer (2008) for NonStandard Compact LSBs
Table 7.24: Average and Maximum Membrane Strains of LSB Sections at Failure
744
745
…748
Table 8.1: Idealised Simply Supported Boundary Conditions 
811 
Table 8.2: Elastic Lateral Distortional Buckling Moments of LSBs with Web Stiffeners 
813 
Table 8.3: Effect of Web Stiffener Arrangements on the Results of M _{o}_{d} from Experimental Finite Element Models 
814 
Table 8.4: Effect of Web Stiffener Spacing on the Elastic Distorional Buckling Moments of LSBs in kNm 
818 
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
821
822
Buckling Moments of LSBs 
823 
Table 8.6: Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments 
825 
Table 8.6 (continued): Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments 
826 
xxviii
List of Tables
Table 8.6 (continued): Comparison of Elastic Buckling Moments 
827 
Table 8.7: First Yield Moments of LSBs 
829 
Table 8.8: Comparison of Ultimate Moments with and without Web Stiffeners 
833 
Table 8.8 (continued): Comparison of Ultimate Moments with and without Web Stiffeners (WS) 
834 
Table 8.8 (continued): Comparison of Ultimate Moments with and without Web Stiffeners (WS) 
835 
Table 8.9: Section Properties of LSBs Including 
842 
xxix
List of Tables
xxx
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:
xxxi
xxxii
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 _{c}_{r}
f _{u}
f _{y}_{i}_{f}
f _{y}_{o}_{f}
f _{y}_{w}
G
HFSB
HFB
I
I
I
J = torsional constant
k = buckling coefficient
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 _{d}_{w}
LDB
LSB
M
M
M
M
M
M
MPC = Multiple Point Constraint
_{b}
_{c}
_{o}
_{o}_{d}
_{o}_{d}_{w}
_{p}
xxxiii
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}
xxxiv
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 setup 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 THINWALL 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 postgraduate students, Mr. Sivapathasunderam Jeyaragan, Ms. Nirosha Dolamune Kankanamge, Mr. Poologanathan Keerthan, Mr. Shanmuganathan Gunalan and Mr. Balachandren Baleshan for their support and
xxxv
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.
xxxvi
Introduction
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ColdFormed Steel Members
Coldformed 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 coldformed
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 hotrolled steel members, especially in shortspan
applications.
Figure 1.1: ColdFormed Steel Structure (www.structuretech.net)
Coldformed 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.
11
Introduction
Figure 1.2: ColdFormed Steel CrossSections
Although these coldformed steel members are considered to be more efficient than hotrolled 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 coldformed section, called the Hollow Flange Steel Beams (HFSBs), was identified by coldformed steel researchers, manufacturers and designers as an alternative and improved section to replace the conventional coldformed C and Z sections and smaller hotrolled 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 coldformed 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 hotrolled steel members. They are also more efficient structurally than hotrolled 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 coldformed 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
12
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.
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 
13
Introduction
Figures 1.3 (a) and (b) show the typical crosssection 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 hotrolled structural sections of equivalent bending strength.
Figure 1.4: Typical LSBs
14
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 coldforming 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 (%) 

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 
15
Introduction
1.3 Manufacturing Process of Hollow Flange Steel Beams
Coldformed 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 coldformed 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 1824 microns and protects up to twice the level provided by a traditional steel tube primer and has resistance to scratching.
Figure 1.5: HFS Manufacturing Process (http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au)
16
Introduction
1.4 Applications of Hollow Flange Steel Beams
Hollow flange steel beams are light weight and most economical coldformed 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).
(a) Residential Rafters
(c) Roof Beams
_{(}_{b}_{)} _{F}_{l}_{o}_{o}_{r} _{J}_{o}_{i}_{s}_{t}_{s}
(d) Floor Bearers
Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs (http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au)
17
Introduction
(e) Purlins Figure 1.6: Applications of LSBs
(http://www.litesteelbeam.com.au)
The LSB is on average 40% lighter than traditional hotrolled 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 onsite
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 Tekscrews and therefore offsite 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
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.