ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Flexural strength of cold-formed steel built-up box sections

Lei Xu a,!, Papia Sultana a, Xuhong Zhou b
a
The Canadian Cold-Formed Steel Research Group, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
b
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Langzhou University, Langzhou, China

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Presented in this paper is a study involving finite element analysis to investigate the flexural strength of
Received 19 September 2008 built-up box sections which have been extensively used in residential and commercial construction in
Received in revised form North America. In the North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
20 January 2009
Members [CSA, North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members,
Accepted 24 January 2009
S136, Canadian Standard Association, 2002], there is no guideline or design equation to calculate the
Available online 10 March 2009
flexural strength of this type of section. Both the Lightweight Steel Framing Design Manual
Keywords: [CSA, Supplement 2004 to the North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel
Cold-formed steel structural members, S136, Canadian Standard Association, 2004] and Cold-Formed Steel Framing Design
Built-up box section
Guide [AISI, Cold-formed steel framing design guide", American Iron and Steel Institute, 1st ed., 2002,
Flexural strength
2nd ed., 2007] have recommended that the flexural strength and moment of inertia of the built-up
Moment capacity
Eccentric loading sections to be taken as the sum of the two components based on deflection compatibility of the
Finite element analysis components. However, this design approximation has yet to be justified by experimental or numerical
study especially for the cases of eccentric and concentric loading. In this study, the proposed finite
element model of the built-up box sections was validated with the experimental tests carried out by
Beshara and Lawson [Beshara B, Lawson TJ. Built-up girder screw connection variation flexural tests,
Internal Report, Dietrich Design Group, 2002]. The flexural strengths obtained from the finite element
analysis were then compared with the nominal strength evaluated based on the current design method
in order to assess its suitability. Parametric studies were carried out for more than 30 specimens to
identify factors affecting the flexural strength of cold-formed steel built-up box sections.
A recommendation is made for current design practice of evaluating the flexural strength of the box
section when subjected to eccentric loading.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Built-up box sections made of a C-shape nested with a track
section and fastened with self-drilling screws are commonly used
in cold-formed steel (CFS) construction to resist loads induced in a
structural member when a single section is not sufficient to carry
the applied load. The application of CFS built-up box sections has
been extensively used in low- and mid-rise residential and
commercial building construction in North America. In practice,
the built-up box section may be subjected to either concentric or
eccentric loading. The eccentric loading is normally induced when
the web of one of the sections receives the load and transfers it
through the connection to another section or when there is an
unequal distribution of load in cold-formed steel built-up box
assemblies loaded from one side. For example, the built-up box
girders or headers are used for floor or wall openings as structural
! Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lxu@uwaterloo.ca (L. Xu).
members to support floor joists, which are connected to the web
of one component of the built-up box assembly as shown in Fig. 1.
There may also be an unequal distribution of the load in the built-
up box section, and the section may also be subjected to torsional
moments when loaded from one side. Unequal load distribution
can potentially lead to a reduction in capacity compared to the
sum of the capacities of the individual components that make up
the built-up section. As a result, the resistance contributed by the
component of the built-up section that is not directly connected
with the floor joists is affected by the efficiency of the fasteners in
transferring load and possibly other factors. The North American
Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members and 2004 supplement [6,7] do not provide a design
guideline on this issue. Both the Lightweight Steel Framing Design
Manual [5] and the Cold-Formed Steel Framing Design Guide [1]
suggest that the flexural strength and moment of inertia of built-
up sections can be approximated as the sum of the individual
components, which neglects the effect of eccentric loading.
Addressing these problems presents a challenge for the designer,
and more research is required to understand the flexural

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2009.01.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

808 L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815

behaviour of CFS built-up box sections subjected to both eccentric
and concentric loading.
A thorough literature review of previous work related to the
flexural behaviour and strength of CFS built-up box sections was
conducted. As a result, very little information was found. Serrette
[9] investigated the flexural performance of CFS built-up box
rafters under eccentric loading. The built-up box sections were
made with two face-to-face C-shapes, with a track section cover at
the top and bottom flanges of the C-shapes, respectively. The tests
revealed that failure of the rafters under the eccentric loading
condition ultimately resulted from twisting. The analytically
computed capacities of the tested box assemblies were compared
with the test values. The cumulative strength of the box members
was computed based on the assumptions that there is no
composite flexural action between the components and that
lateral buckling is restrained. The limited test data suggests that
the eccentric loading and the mechanism of load transfer from the
directly loaded C-shape member to the adjacent C-shape member
induces twist in the box assemblies. The eccentrically loaded box
assemblies were able to resist at most 85–90% of their calculated
fully braced flexural strength.
Beshara and Lawson [3] conducted tests to evaluate the impact
of varying the location of connection screws on the behaviour of
CFS built-up box sections. Two types of built-up box assemblies
were tested. The first type assembly is a nested C-shape with a
standard track section to form a box section, while in the second
assembly, the standard track section is replaced with a proprietary
product, named TradeReadys rim track (TD) featured with
unequal flanges. The assemblies are fastened with self-drawing
screws at the locations of flanges and lips, respectively.
Investigation with the load applied on the C-shape side and
track section side were conducted. It was found that the moment
capacities of the assemblies from the tests were considerably less
than the capacities calculated by adding the individual flexural
strength of the C-shape and track section as suggested by CFS
framing design guides [1,5]. Based on the results of the test series,
Beshara and Lawson [3] recommended that the nominal moment
capacity of the built-up box sections should be considered
equivalent to 75% of the combined nominal capacities of its
components.
2. Mode of finite element analysis
2.1. Modeling of test setup
The FE model was developed to simulate the tests conducted
by Beshara and Lawson [3]. All specimens tested by Beshara and
Lawson were fabricated by nesting a C-shape with either a
standard or a TD track section. The cross-section dimensions and
yield strengths of the specimens are listed in Table 1. The C-shape
has punched out holes spaced at 1219 mm (4 ft), and the
dimensions of the holes are 38 mm (1–1/2 in) by 102 mm (4 in).
The C-shape and track section are fastened with #10–16 HWH T-3
self-drilling screws placed 305 mm (12 in) on center.
The test assembly consisted of two parallel CFS built-up box
specimens with span lengths of 3048 mm (10 ft) as shown in Fig.
2. Two 914 mm (3 ft) long cross-member beams framed into webs
of the specimens through hot-rolled steel angle brackets con-
nected the specimens. A single row of #12 self-drilling screws
connected each angle bracket to the web of the C-shape specimen,
defining the two vertical lines of load application along the depth
of the web. The lines of loading were spaced 813 mm (32 in) apart.
The load was applied at the centre of a load distribution beam,
loading each cross member equally and creating a region of
constant bending moment between the two lines of load

SCREWS
AS REQ' D.

CLIP ANGLE,
1/2" LESS THAN
JOIST DEPTH OR
JOIST HANGER

JOIST
JOIST & TRACK
HEADER AS REQ' D.
BY DESIGN

Fig. 1. Joist to joist-header assembly [4]. Fig. 2. Built-up box section test assembly [3].

Table 1
Component cross-section dimensions and yield strengths [3].

Section Fy (MPa)a Thickness (mm)b Depth (mm) Top flange (mm) Bottom flange (mm) Lip (mm) Nominal moment (kN m)

C-shape 349 1.61 254 76.2 76.2 25.4 15.561

Standard track 307 1.44 254 31.8 31.8 6.142
TD track 417 1.39 254 31.8 63.5 6.678

a
1 MPa ¼ 0.145 ksi.
b
1.0 mm ¼ 0.0394 in.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815
Applied load at the web
of stud section
lateral brace Ux=0
Screw
lateral brace
Ux=0
End stiffener
Steel angle support
Fig. 3. Finite element model.
application on both specimens. The distance between the
supports of specimens and the line of loading was 1118 mm
(44 in).
Instead of simulating the whole test setup in FE analysis,
initially, a half of the specimen was modeled to take advantage of
symmetry. The analysis results show that the lateral bracing
between the two built-up box specimens can sufficiently
represented by setting the lateral displacement Ux ¼ 0 at the
location of bracing. Therefore, the model is further simplified as a
quarter of the test setup as shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that
by taking advantage of symmetry in the FE model, the local
buckling shape is to be symmetrical across the symmetry plane.
The anti-symmetric buckling response, which is unlikely but
possible, may not be captured in the FE analyses.
The Shell181 element in ANSYS [2] was selected to model the
C-shape and track sections, while the effect of screws has been
accounted for by coupling translational and rotational degrees of
freedom of the global x, y, and z directions. Although such
simplified representation of screws may neglect the effect of
screw failures, no screw failures were reported in the tests carried
out by Beshara and Lawson [3]. For regions around the holes and
supports, refined meshes were created to account for stress
concentrations. The corner inside bend radius of the CFS C-shape
and track section is taken as two times the steel thickness. As CFS
end stiffeners were used at support locations to prevent web
crippling, the stiffeners were modeled by creating Shell181
elements that overlapped the web in the location of the stiffener,
and a bond contact was defined to model the influence of the
stiffener retaining the web deformation of the specimens.
2.2. Material properties, support condition and application of load
The Young’s modulus of the steel is taken as 20,300 MPa
(29,435 ksi), and Poisson’s ratio ¼ 0.3. The yield strengths of the
steel are listed in Table 1. The effects of cold work forming and
residual stress were not accounted for because the ultimate
moment capacities obtained from the FE analysis were compared
with the nominal moment calculated according to CSA-136 [6,7]
without considering the cold work of forming.
In the test carried out by Beshara and Lawson [3], the CFS built-
up box specimens were placed on top of an inverted structural
steel angle at one end and a roller on the other end to create the
809
Symmetrical boundary condition
simply supported condition. There was no bearing plate between
the specimen and the steel angle at the support as observed in
Fig. 2. Such support condition was first investigated in this study
to validate the FE model.
In the FE analysis the loading can be applied in either one of
the two ways: apply the load directly on the model, or impose
displacement on the model. In order to simulate the test results,
loading was applied in both ways, and a comparison was made
between the results in terms of the ultimate moment capacity,
load–deflection behaviour, failure modes, and stress conditions. In
the FE analysis while loading was the applied force, a 2890 N
(650 lb) load was applied vertically downward on each node at the
locations of screws attaching the built-up box assembly and cross
member. The load was applied incrementally by defining the
initial load as 347 N (78 lb), with a maximum and minimum load
increment of 867 N (195 lb) and 2.9 N (0.65 lb), respectively. When
loading was applied as the controlled displacement, a 17.78 mm
(0.7 in) vertical downward displacement was applied incremen-
tally by defining the initial displacement as 0.35 mm (0.014 in),
with a maximum and minimum displacement increment of
1.7 mm (0.07 in) and 0.0003 mm (0.0000145 in), respectively. After
incorporating the initial geometric imperfections, a nonlinear
static analysis was performed considering both material and
geometric nonlinearities. In this study, the Newton–Raphson
method was used.
2.3. Initial geometric imperfection
The flexural behaviour of thin-walled structures is sensitive to
initial geometrical imperfections, especially at the ultimate load
level. No measurement was taken to identify the initial geometric
imperfection of the CFS built-up box specimens tested by Beshara
and Lawson [3]. In this study, first eigenvalue buckling analysis
was performed on the model with no initial imperfections to
establish the probable collapse mode using ANSYS [2]. Initial
imperfection was incorporated in the FE model by scaling the first
eigenvalue buckling mode shape then including it in the FE model
with perfect geometry so that the maximum imperfection does
not exceed the thickness of the section, as proposed by Schafer
and Pekoz [8]. Then, a nonlinear analysis of the structure
containing the imperfection was carried out to determine the
ultimate moment capacity. The impact of initial geometrical
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

810 L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815

imperfections on the flexural strength of cold-formed steel
members can be further investigated by adjusting the magnitude
of the scaling factors of the various buckling modes. In this way,
the imperfection sensitivity of the cold-formed steel members can
be assessed; however, this is beyond the scope of this study.
3. Validation of finite element model
The nonlinear analysis was conducted with the incremental
load/displacement procedure using very small increments of
applied force or controlled displacement. Based on the load–de-
flection curves shown in Fig. 4, and considering that the difference
of the ultimate moments obtained by the FE analysis and the test
are within 4%, the results indicate that the FE model provides a
realistic simulation of the test up to the failure of the specimen.
However, it was observed that the model could not predict the
behaviour after reaching the ultimate load capacity due to
convergence problems even for very small increments of loading
(applied force or controlled displacement). Convergence problems
could not be overcome even through the use of the Riks solution
method and refining the mesh near the support. The same
problem was also encountered in the FE model for the built-up
box section with a C-shape and a standard track section.
Upon investigating the stress and strain conditions of the last
converged solutions, it was found that both the von Mises stresses
and strains in the C-shape at the location of the constant moment
region and the inverted steel angle support had reached their
yield strength and the percentage elongation that was reported in
the material coupon test [3]. This may suggest that the specimen
likely failed simultaneously at both the constant moment region
and the support with different failure modes which may cause the
divergence in the FE analysis, even though the bearing failure at
the support was not reported in the experimental investigation. To
simulate the bearing support condition in practice, the inverted
steel angle was replaced by a 5 mm wide steel bearing plate. The
bearing plate was modeled as a 2D surface and then meshed with
Shell181 elements. Bonded flexible-to-flexible contact was de-
fined between the plate and the track section. As the C-shape
comes in contact with the plate during application of load,
standard flexible-to-flexible contact was also defined between the
C-shape and the bearing plate at the support. The translational

Load versus Deflection

70000

60000

50000

40000
Load(N)

30000

20000

10000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection (mm)
Test(C-shape+TD) FEM(C-shape+TD _controlled displacement) FEM(C-shape+TD _applied load)

Fig. 4. Load–deflection curves of built-up section with inverted angle support.

Load versus deflection curve

90000
FE model with bearing
80000
plate support
70000

60000
Load (N)

50000

40000
Test with
30000
angle support
20000

10000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deflection (mm)
Test FEM(Displacement) FEM(Load)

Fig. 5. Load–deflection curves of built-up sections with different supports.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815 811

Fig. 6. Local buckling of compressive flange of track section in FE analysis.

degree of freedom of all the nodes of the bearing plate at the

support was restrained in the vertical direction.
Fig. 5 shows the load–deflection relationship of the built-up
box section with a C-shape and TD track section supported by a
bearing plate at one end. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the
ultimate load capacity predicted by the FE analysis with
the bearing plate support is higher than that of the test with the
inverted steel angle support. This is due to the local failure of the
C-shape at the angle support not occurring prior to the section
reaching its ultimate load capacity in the case with the bearing
plate support. Also found in Fig. 5 is that when the applied load is
the controlled displacement, the FE analysis is able to simulate the
post-ultimate load behaviour of the specimen. Similar observa-
tions have also been perceived in the built-up box specimen
formed with a C-shape and a standard track section.
The results from the FE analysis were compared with the
failure modes, load–deflection curve, and ultimate moment
capacity obtained from the tests [3]. The failure modes shown in
the FE analysis are consistent with that of the test. The local
Fig. 7. Local buckling of compressive flange of track section in test [3].
buckling of the track section was first observed prior to the flange
failure as shown in Fig. 6, which was similar to that described in
the test as shown in Fig. 7. The buckling length coincided with the
locations of the fasteners. The load–deflection relationship corresponding C-shape and track sections as suggested by CFS
obtained from the FE analysis is in good agreement as demon- framing design guides [1,5]. The nominal moment capacities of
strated in Figs. 4 and 5. The ultimate load capacity of the built-up the C-shape and track sections are calculated in accordance with
section is reached when buckling occurs at the top flanges of the the North American Specification for Design of CFS Structural
C-shape and track section in the constant moment region. Members [6] and 2004 Supplement [7]. The ratios Mtest /Mn and
The distortion of the built-up box section due to the eccentric MFEM /Mn are also presented in Table 2. It is clear that no matter
loading applied to the web of the C-shape was observed in both which support condition is applied, the ultimate moment
the test and the FE analysis, as shown in Fig. 8. capacities obtained from either of the tests or FE analysis are
For each type of built-up box section, the nonlinear FE analysis lower than the nominal moment capacities calculated based on
was pursued with the incremental applied force and controlled CFS framing design guides. Therefore, the procedure of evaluating
displacement procedures. The ultimate moment capacities ob- the flexural moment capacity of the built-up box section
tained from the FE analysis (MFEM) of both procedures are shown recommended by current CFS framing design guides [1,5] may
to be in good agreement with each other and with that of the tests not be conservative.
(Mtest), as illustrated in Table 2. Also presented in Table 2 are the
FE analysis results of the built-up box sections supported by the
bearing plate at one end of the specimens. It was found that 4. Parametric study
the ultimate moment capacities of the built-up sections with the
bearing plate support are 21% and 11% higher than that of the The ultimate moment capacities of CFS flexural members are
built-up sections supported by the angle support, made with TD highly influenced by the yield strength of the material and the
and standard track sections, respectively. The nominal moment width-to-thickness ratio of the flat elements in compression,
capacities of the built-up box sections (Mn) listed in Table 2 are assuming the members are laterally restrained properly. For CFS
the summation of the nominal moment capacities of the built-up box sections, the capacities are affected by the effective-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

812 L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815

Fig. 8. Distortion of built-up box sections. (a) C-shape + TD track, (b) C-shape + standard track, (c) Test: C-shape + standard track.

Table 2
Comparison of flexural strengths of CFS built-up box sections.

Built-up box section Support condition Mtest (kN m)a Mn (kN m) Mtest/Mn Controlled displacement Applied Force

MFEM (kN m) MFEM/Mn MFEM (kN m) MFEM/Mn

C-shape and TD tack Steel angle 17.351 22.239 0.780 17.438 0.784 17.779 0.799
C-shape and standard track Steel angle 17.458 21.703 0.804 17.984 0.829 17.194 0.792
C-shape and TD tack Steel bearing plate 22.239 21.103 0.949 21.557 0.969
C-shape and standard track Steel bearing plate 21.703 19.888 0.916 19.466 0.897

a
1 kN m ¼ 0.738 kip ft.

ness of the fasteners that connect the individual components to Case Y2 Case Y1
0.970
form the sections and the location of applied load. Parametric h/t = 138 h/t = 174 h/t = 209
studies were carried out in this study to investigate the effects of 0.965
variations of steel yield strength, section depth, screw spacing, 0.960
and location of applied load on the ultimate moment capacity of 0.955
MFEM / Mn

the CFS built-up box sections. 0.950

An example of the labelling scheme used in this study for
0.945
identifying CFS built-up box specimens is ‘‘254-CS-1.44-S300-Y1’’,
where ‘‘254’’ represents the section depth of 254 mm (10 in); ‘‘CS’’ 0.940
indicates a C-shape+standard track section; ‘‘1.44’’ is the thickness 0.935
in mm. for both C-shape and track sections; ‘‘S300’’ represents the 0.930
flange screw spacing of 300 mm (12 in); and ‘‘Y1’’ indicates that 0.925
the yield stresses of C-shape, track and rim-track sections are 203.000 254.000 305.000
349 MPa (50.6 ksi), 307 MPa (44.5 ksi), and 417 MPa (60.5 ksi), Section depth (mm)
respectively (alternatively, ‘‘Y2’’ indicates that the yield strength
of C-shape and track sections is 228 MPa (33 ksi)). The flange Fig. 9. MFEM /Mn ratio associated with variation of steel yield strength.

length of the standard track is 32 mm (1–1/4 in) while the

dimensions of the flange and lip of the C-shape are 76.2 mm
(3 in) and 25.4 (1.0 in), respectively.
The model of the FE analysis is the same as that previously
described, and the support condition for the specimens is the one
with steel bearing plate. Initial geometric imperfections, material
nonlinearity, and geometric nonlinearity were considered in the
same way as stated previously. In order to predict the post-
ultimate load behaviour, the loading was applied as controlled
displacement in the parametric study.
4.1. Effect of steel yield strength and web height-to-thickness ratio
Two cases (Y1 and Y2) were investigated in the FE analysis
on the effect of yield strength of material on the MFEM/Mn ratio.
The results for the three section depths for which the
section thickness t ¼ 1.44 mm (0.057 in) are presented in Fig. 9,
and it can be seen from the figure that the results appear to be
inconclusive.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815 813

The effect of section depth on the MFEM/Mn ratio is illustrated in
Fig. 10 for three section depths (203, 254 and 305 mm) and three
section thicknesses (1.14, 1.44 and 1.81 mm). It can be seen from
the figure that for a specific section depth, the MFEM/Mn ratio
decreases as the thickness increases, which indicates that the
current practice provides better approximation of the flexural
strength for the built-up sections with higher h/t ratios.
4.2. Effect of screw spacing
It is noted that the effect of screw spacing is not accounted for
in the procedure of evaluation of the flexural strength of the CFS
built-up box sections suggested by the CFS framing design guides
[1,7]. The influence of screw spacing on the moment capacity of
the built-up box sections was investigated for screw spacings
of 150 mm (6 in), 300 mm (12 in) and 600 mm (24 in). The results
of the FE analysis show that the moment capacity of the CFS built-
up box sections is influenced by the screw spacing to some extent.
As the screw spacing decreases, the predicted moment capacity of
the built-up section increases, which may be contributed by the
reduction of buckling length of the track section and enhance-
ment of load sharing between the C-shape and track sections.
The increase of the ultimate moment capacity is generally less
than 6% when the screw spacing is reduced to 300 mm
(12 in) from 600 mm (24 in) or reduced to 150 mm (6 in) from
300 mm (12 in). The MFEM /Mn ratios are affected by the variation
in screw spacing as that indicated in Fig. 11. It appears that the
procedure recommended by the CFS framing design guides
provide better estimation of the flexural strength for the built-
up sections with smaller screw spacing.
4.3. Effect of location of applied load
The flexural strengths of the CFS built-up box sections
determined from the foregoing FE analyses were based on
eccentric loading in which the load was applied to the web of

1.060 h/t=263.08

1.040
1.020 h/t=174.38 h/t=218.7
h/t=209
1.000 h/t=138.34
0.980 h/t=109.2 h/t=173.68
MFEM / Mn

0.960 h/t=137.25
h/t=165.3
0.940
0.920
0.900
0.880
0.860
0.840
203.000 254.000 305.000
Section Depth (mm)
t =1.14mm t =1.44mm t =1.81mm

Fig. 10. MFEM/Mn ratio associated with variation of h/t ratio (case: Y1).

Effect of screw spacing variation

1.040
1.020
1.000
h/t =173.68
0.980
h/t =138.34 h/t =209.01
0.960
MFEM/Mn

0.940
0.920
0.900
0.880
0.860
0.840
0.820
203.000 254.000 305.000
Section depth (mm)
screw spacing 600 mm screw spacing 300 mm screw spacing 150 mm

Fig. 11. MFEM /Mn ratio associated with variation of screw spacing (case: Y2).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

814 L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815

Table 3
Effect of location of applied loading.

Built-up box section Nominal flexural strengtha (kN m) Eccentric loadingb Concentric loadingc

Mn-C-shape Mn-track Mn MFEM-1 (kN m) MFEM-1/Mn MFEM-2 (kN m) MFEM-2/Mn

203-CS-1.14-S300-Y2 5.202 2.359 7.561 7.203 0.953 7.706 1.068

203-CS-1.44-S300-Y2 7.535 3.462 10.997 10.455 0.951 11.340 1.079
203-CS-1.81-S300-Y2 10.05 4.976 15.026 14.237 0.947 15.033 1.010
254-CS-1.14-S300-Y2 6.535 3.024 9.559 9.078 0.950 9.983 1.084
254-CS-1.44-S300-Y2 11.168 4.503 15.671 15.061 0.961 15.436 1.011
254-CS-1.81-S300-Y2 13.589 6.556 20.145 18.468 0.917 18.764 0.967
305-CS-1.14-S300-Y2 7.816 3.687 11.503 11.359 0.987 12.447 1.111
305-CS-1.44-S300-Y2 11.834 5.516 17.350 16.488 0.95 17.491 1.057
305-CS-1.81-S300-Y2 17.489 8.142 25.631 22.466 0.876 22.576 0.944

Mean 0.944 0.998

St_dev 0.031 0.06
COV 0.033 0.061

a
Evaluated based on [6,7].
b
Load applied to the web of C-shape section.
c
Load applied to webs of both C-shape and track sections.

the C-shape section. Numerical investigations were also carried 5. Conclusions

out for the case of concentric loading, in which the loads were
applied equally to webs of C-shape and track sections. The results
of the FE analyses subjected to concentric loading and the
comparison of the results of both loading cases with the nominal
moment capacity calculated according to the current design
practice are presented in Table 3; where Mn-C-shape, Mn-track
and Mn are the nominal moment capacity of CFS C-shape,
track and built-up box section evaluated according to the
Specification [6,7] and the CFS framing guides [1,5], respectively.
It is evident that the flexural strengths of the CFS built-up
box sections subjected to the concentric loading are higher
that of the eccentric loading. In addition, the ratios of predicted-
to-nominal strengths for the concentric loading (MFEM-2/Mn) are
all greater than unity except for one case. Therefore, it may
suggest that the current practice based on the CFS framing guides
[1,5] is appropriate for the case of concentric loading, and
the flexural strength of CFS built-up box sections can be
considered as the summation of nominal strengths of the
individual components.
4.4. Flexural strength modification of CFS built-up sections under
eccentric loading
For the case of eccentric loading, all 30 specimens which have
web height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio ranging from 109 to 264 were
investigated by FE analysis considering all of the previously
discussed parameters. The average predicted-to-nominal
(MFEM/Mn) ratio equals 0.938 with a standard deviation ¼ 0.04,
and the coefficient of variation ¼ 0.043. As h/t ratio is limited to
200 in the North American Specification for Design of CFS
Structural Members [6] and 2004 Supplement [7], a regression
analysis was conducted for the results associated with the
specimens with h/t ratio p200. It is found that the relationship
between the ultimate moment capacity predicted by FE analysis
(MFEM) and the nominal flexural strength evaluated in accordance
with the current CFS framing design guides (Mn) is almost linear
as MFEM ¼ 0.9233Mn with R2 ¼ 0.986. On this basis, it is proposed
that a modification factor of 0.9 is to be applied to the flexural
strength of CFS built-up box sections calculated as the sum of the
nominal strength of C-shape and track section for the case of
eccentric loading.
Numerical analysis was carried out with the aims of investi-
gating the flexural strengths of CFS built-up box sections
subjected to eccentric loading and of evaluating the appropriate-
ness of the current design practice recommended by the current
CFS framing design guides [1,5]. A FE model was established to
investigate the flexural strength of CFS built-up box sections and
validated with test results reported by Beshara and Lawson [3].
Initial geometric imperfections, material nonlinearity, and geo-
metric nonlinearity were considered in the FE analysis and
compared with the results obtained from the tests [3]. It was
shown that the FE model could reliably predict the flexural
strength as well as the prior and post-ultimate load behaviour of
CFS built-up box sections. The FE analysis showed that by
introducing a bearing plate at the support location, the local
failure at that region can be minimized; consequently, the flexural
strength of the built-up box sections can be increased consider-
ably compared to that with the inversed steel angle support tested
by Beshara and Lawson [3].
A parametric study was carried out to investigate the
influences of steel yield strength, web height-to-thickness ratio,
screw spacing, and location of applied load (eccentric loading vs.
concentric loading) on the flexural strength of CFS built-up box
sections. For the case of concentric loading, the results of FE
analysis suggest that the current practice [1,5] is appropriate and
that the flexural strength of CFS built-up box section can
considered as the summation of nominal strengths of the
individual components. However, for the case of eccentric loading,
it was found that it is inappropriate to assume that the flexural
strength of CFS built-up box sections is the summation of the
moment capacities of the individual components. In fact, for all
30 specimens investigated in eccentric loading case, the ratio
MFEM/Mn was generally found to be less than one. Therefore, it is
concluded that the current design practice may overestimate the
flexural strengths of CFS built-up box sections in the case of
eccentric loading, and therefore, may not be conservative.
Consequently, for the case of eccentric loading, a modification
factor of 0.9 is recommended to be applied to the flexural strength
of CFS built-up box sections calculated as the sum of the nominal
strength of C-shape and track section. Further experimental
investigations to validate the finding and recommendation
presented herein are greatly encouraged. In addition, more
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

L. Xu et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 807–815 815

realistic representation of screws in the FE model and considera-
tion of effect of distortional buckling should be further
investigated.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Dietrich Design Group
of Dietrich Metal Framing Inc. for providing the test report by
Beshara and Lawson.
References
[1] AISI, Cold-formed steel framing design guide, American Iron and Steel
Institute. 1st ed., 2002, 2nd ed., 2007.
[2] ANSYS version 10.0, Finite element analysis software, ANSYS, Inc.,
2006.
[3] Beshara B, Lawson TJ. Built-up girder screw connection variation flexural tests.
Internal Report, Dietrich Design Group, 2002.
[4] CSSBI, Low-rise residential construction details, Canadian Sheet Steel Building
Institute, 1994.
[5] CSSBI. Lightweight steel framing design manual, Canadian Sheet Steel Building
Institute, 2nd., 2006.
[6] CSA, North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel
structural members, S136, Canadian Standard Association, 2002.
[7] CSA, Supplement 2004 to the North American specification for the design of
cold-formed steel structural members, S136, Canadian Standard Association,
2004.
[8] Schafer BW, Pekoz T. Computational modelling of cold-formed steel:
characterizing geometric imperfections and residual stresses. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1998;47:193–210.
[9] Serrette RL. Performance of edge-loaded cold-formed steel built-up box beams.
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE 2004;9(3):
170–4.