Dinis - 2015 - LD

Computers and Structures 147 (2015) 181–208
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc
Cold-formed steel columns undergoing local–distortional coupling:

Behaviour and direct strength prediction against interactive failure
P.B. Dinis, D. Camotim ⇑
ICIST, DECivil, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper reports the results of an investigation on the structural behaviour and Direct Strength Method
Accepted 29 September 2014 (DSM) design of cold-formed steel columns affected by local–distortional coupling interaction, aimed at
Available online 28 October 2014 extending findings unveiled earlier for lipped channels to other cross-section shapes, namely, hat, zed
and rack-sections. Following a brief presentation of the most relevant aspects concerning the post-buck-
Keywords: ling behaviour and strength of columns with those cross-section shapes and identical local and distor-
Cold-formed steel columns tional critical buckling stresses, the paper addresses the assembly of a significant column ultimate
Local–distortional interaction
strength data bank, concerning fixed-ended hat, zed and rack-section columns undergoing strong
Lipped channels
Hat, zed and rack-sections
local–distortional interaction and exhibiting several geometries (cross-section dimensions and lengths)
Ultimate strength and yield stresses. Then, these ultimate strength data are used to assess the performance of the existing
Direct Strength Method (DSM) DSM approaches to design columns against local–distortional interactive failures. It is shown that a novel
DSM design approach, recently developed and validated in the context of cold-formed steel fixed-ended
lipped channel columns affected by local–distortional interaction, can also be successfully applied to hat,
zed and rack-section columns under the same circumstances (i.e., exhibiting similar interactive failures).
Ó 2014 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction relevant fruit of this intense research activity was the Direct
Strength Method (DSM), which (i) has its roots in the work of Han-
Cold-formed steel members invariably display slender thin- cock et al. [6], (ii) was originally proposed by Schafer and Peköz [7]
walled open cross-sections, which makes them highly prone to and (iii) has been continuously improved, mostly due to Schafer’s
instability phenomena involving cross-section deformation, efforts (e.g., [8]). The DSM (i) is currently capable of predicting
namely local and distortional buckling – Fig. 1(b)–(e) show buckled the strength of columns and beams failing in local, distortional,
rack-sections corresponding to column local, distortional and glo- global and local–global interactive modes, (ii) does not require
bal (flexural–torsional and flexural) buckling modes. Moreover, any ‘‘effective width’’ calculations and (iii) has already been incor-
several commonly used member geometries (unrestrained length porated in the current versions of the Australian/New Zealand [9]
and cross-section shape/dimensions) are associated with similar and North American [10] cold-formed steel specifications. How-
local and distortional buckling stresses, which automatically ever, as pointed out by Schafer [8], further research is needed
implies that the corresponding post-buckling behaviour (elastic before the DSM approach can be applied to members affected by
or elastic–plastic), ultimate strength and failure mechanism are mode interaction phenomena involving distortional buckling. In
influenced by the coupling effects between these two buckling the particular case of lipped channel columns (either pin-ended
modes. Indeed, this influence has already been well studied, char- or fixed-ended) exhibiting local–distortional interaction, the
acterised and quantified, both numerically and experimentally, for authors have already conducted extensive numerical simulations
lipped channel columns (mostly) and beams [1–5]. (e.g., [1,11,12]) that (i) found that local–distortional interaction
Since the structural behaviour and strength of cold-formed steel effects are relevant when the ratio between the critical local (L)
members is complex and often not yet adequately reflected in and distortional (D) buckling stresses is either (i1) in the close
most current design codes, a considerable amount of research work vicinity of 1.0 (comprised between 0.9 and 1.1), regardless of the
has been devoted to the development of efficient (safe and yield stress value, or (i2) clearly below 1.0, if the yield stress
economic) design rules for such members. Undoubtedly the most exceeds the distortional buckling stress by a ‘‘large enough’’
amount, (ii) showed that local–distortional (L–D) interaction
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 21 8418403; fax: +351 21 8497650. effects are negligible when the above ratio is visibly above 1.0
E-mail address: dcamotim@civil.ist.utl.pt (D. Camotim). (i.e., the critical local buckling stress meaningfully exceeds its
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.09.012
0045-7949/Ó 2014 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
182 P.B. Dinis, D. Camotim / Computers and Structures 147 (2015) 181–208
distortional counterpart), (iii) provided clear evidence that the cur- affected by strong local–distortional interaction (nearly coincident
rent DSM local and distortional design curves cannot capture ade- buckling loads) [17,18,20] – moreover, these results are also com-
quately the ultimate strength erosion stemming from the L–D pared with similar ones reported earlier for fixed-ended lipped
interactive behaviour and also (iv) unveiled key features that must channel (C) columns [3,13].
appear in a novel DSM approach for such members – they were
incorporated into proposals or guidelines for the development of 2.1. Buckling behaviour column geometry selection
a new DSM strength curve [3,4,12,13]. Moreover, the experimental
results obtained from the column tests reported by Yang and Han- Fig. 2(a) show curves providing the variation of Pcr (critical
cock [14], Kwon et al. [15], Yap and Hancock [16] and Young et al. buckling load) with the column length L (in logarithmic scale) for
[4] also confirmed the occurrence of ultimate strength erosion due fixed-ended (i) C, H and Z columns, with the same cross-section
to L–D interaction. dimensions, and (ii) R columns – cross-section dimensions, lengths
The aim of this work is to extend the previous investigations car- and elastic constants given in Fig. 2(a1)–(a2). As for Fig. 2(b), it
ried out by the authors, in the context of fixed-ended cold-formed depicts the (i) C, H and Z LL/D = 90 cm (Fig. 2(b1)), and (ii) the R
steel lipped channel (C) columns (e.g., [2,3,13]), to hat (H), zed (Z) LL/D = 130 cm (Fig. 2(b2)) column ‘‘mixed’’ (L–D) critical buckling
and rack-section (R) columns equally affected by strong L–D inter- mode shapes, yielded by Abaqus SFEA analyses. The observation
action – note that (i) C, H and Z columns with the same dimensions of these buckling results prompts the following remarks:
exhibit practically identical local and distortional buckling behav-
iours and (ii) some results concerning the three additional column (i) The C, H and Z column critical buckling curves only differ for
sets have already been reported [17–19], particularly in a prelimin- lengths equal or higher to the transition between distor-
ary (conference) version of the current paper [20]. The first part of tional and global (flexural–torsional) buckling – such transi-
the paper summarises previous findings concerning the post-buck- tion occurs for LD/FT = 950, 1000 and 1350 cm, respectively
ling behaviour (elastic and elastic–plastic), ultimate strength and for the C, H and Z columns. Taking the C columns as refer-
failure mode of the four column sets, all affected by strong L–D ence, the flexural–torsional buckling loads (i1) considerably
interaction [2,17,18,20]. Next, the paper presents and discusses increase for the Z columns, due to the much higher (almost
the results of an extensive parametric study aimed at obtaining ulti- double) major-axis inertia, (i2) slightly decrease for the H
mate load data concerning (i) 210 pairs of fixed-ended H and Z col- columns, due to the lower (by about 10%) warping constant,
umns, previously selected in the context of fixed-ended lipped which overshadows the marginally higher major-axis
channel columns by Silvestre et al. [3,13], and (ii) 234 fixed-ended inertia.
R columns. The numerical column failure loads are determined by (ii) Fig. 2(b) clearly shows that (ii1) the LL/D = 90 cm C, H and Z
means of Abaqus [21] shell finite element analyses (SFEA), based columns buckling load is Pcr = 37.3 kN (fcr = fcr.D = fcr.L = 63.8
on an existing elastic-perfectly plastic model: (i) columns discre- MPa) and corresponds to buckling modes combining a single
tised into fine meshes of 4-node isoparametric elements (length- distortional half-wave and 5 local half-waves, and (ii2) the
to-width ratio roughly equal to 1), (ii) fixed-ended conditions mod- LL/D = 130 cm R column buckles at Pcr = 108.3 kN (fcr = fcr.D =
elled by attaching rigid plates to the column end sections and (iii) fcr.L = 91.7 MPa) in modes combining a single distortional
steel material behaviour described by Prandtl-Reuss’s model – a half-wave and 7 local half-waves – note that all these col-
detailed account of all modelling issues can be found in [1]. The columns have post-buckling behaviours and ultimate strengths
umns analysed exhibit various geometries (all associated with strongly affected by L–D interaction.
strong L–D interaction) and yield stresses, and contain critical-
mode distortional initial imperfections with small amplitude (10%
2.2. Initial geometrical imperfections
of the wall thickness). Finally, the ultimate strength data gathered
in the above parametric study are used to assess the performance
The initial geometrical imperfection shape always plays a cru-
of a novel DSM-based design approach that (i) specifically aims at
cial role in mode interaction investigations, since its choice may
estimating column ultimate strengths associated with L–D interac-
alter considerably the post-buckling behaviour and strength of
tive failures, stemming from nearly coincident L and D critical buck-
the structural system under consideration. Therefore, it is neces-
ling loads, and (ii) was recently developed and validated in the
sary to study and compare the post-buckling behaviours of other-
context of lipped channel columns [3] – this approach adopts Win-
wise identical members containing various critical-mode initial
ter-type curves and is based on the values of (i) the elastic critical
imperfection shapes, combining differently the two competing L
(local and distortional) buckling stress, (ii) the critical half-wave
and D buckling modes and sharing the same overall amplitude
length ratio LcrD/LcrL and (iii) the cross-section elastic/plastic capac-
[1]. In this study, the H, Z and R column initial imperfection shapes
ity. The goal is to assess the performance of the above novel DSM-
consist of linear combinations of (i) five (H and Z columns) or seven
based design approach when applied to hat, zed and rack-section
(R columns) half-wave local and (ii) a single half-wave distortional
columns under the same circumstances.
buckling modes, both normalised to exhibit amplitudes equal to
10% of the wall thickness t (0.1t = 0.13 mm, for the H and Z col-
2. Local–distortional buckling mode interaction umns, and 0.1 t = 0.20 mm, for the R columns). The combination
coefficients, CL.0 and CD.0, satisfy the condition (CL.0)2 + (CD.0)2 = 1,
This section presents and discusses the main results of recent and each initial imperfection shape is defined by an angle h, such
studies on the buckling, post-buckling (elastic and elastic–plastic) that CL.0 = sin h and CD.0 = cos h, as illustrated in Fig. 3(a) for the H
and strength behaviours of fixed-ended H, Z and R columns columns. Fig. 3(b) displays the pure local (h = 90° or 270° –
bf
bw bl
bs
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Fig. 1. Rack-section (a) geometry and buckled shapes associated with column (b) local, (c) distortional, (d) flexural–torsional and (e) flexural buckling.
P.B. Dinis, D. Camotim / Computers and Structures 147 (2015) 181–208 183
Pcr (kN)
60 Z
Z=C=H C 1.3
40 H 150 (C Columns ) (H Columns )
10
(mm) 140
20
E = 210 GPa (Z Columns )
LL/D=90 cm ν = 0.3
0 L (cm)
(a1) 10 100 1000 (b1)
Pcr (kN) (R Columns)

150 2.0
200 10
100 10
(R Columns)
(mm) 175
50 E = 210 GPa
ν = 0.3
0 LL/D=130cm
L (cm)
10 100 1000 (b 2)
(a2)
Fig. 2. (a) Critical buckling curves and (b) LL/D column buckling modes concerning the (1) C, H, Z and (2) R cross-sections.
H Columns Z Columns
vL.0 vD.0 =0.1t

wL.0 =0.1t wD.0 θ = 0º
CL.0
1
90° 0°
θ θ = 90º
0 CD.0
vD.0 = vL.0
-0.1t
wD.0 wL.0 =-0.1t θ = 180º
(a)
180° 270°
(b) θ = 270º
Fig. 3. (a) Initial imperfection representation in the CD.0–CL.0 plane (H columns) and (b) initial imperfection shapes for h = 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° (H and Z columns).
outward/inward mid-span web bending) and distortional (h = 0° or flange-lip corner vertical displacement,2 and (ii) P/Pcr vs. w/t, where
180° – inward or outward mid-span top flange-lip transverse w is the mid-span mid-web flexural displacement, for the H
motions) imperfections for the H and Z columns. (Fig. 4(a1)–(b1)), Z (Fig. 4(a2)–(b2)) and R (Fig. 4(a3)–(b3)) columns
analysed. As for Fig. 4(c1)–(c3), they show the deformed configura-
tions of ten columns at advanced post-buckling stages, namely (i)
2.3. Elastic post-buckling behaviour h = 0°, 90°, 225° H, (ii) h = 0°, 25°, 90° Z and (iii) h = 0°, 90°, 180°,
225° R columns. The observation of these post-buckling results leads
The main results concerning the elastic post-buckling behaviour to the following conclusions:
of the fixed-ended H, Z and R columns previously identified are
briefly addressed here. In order to assess how the initial geometri- (i) The column deformed configurations associated with all
cal imperfection shape influences the column post-buckling behav- equilibrium paths shown in Fig. 4(a)–(b) combine (i1) pre-
iour under strong L–D interaction, numerical results concerning (i) dominant single half-wave distortional deformations, which
H and R columns with imperfection shapes defined by h = 0°, 45°, are responsible for the whole v values and also part of the w
90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°, and (ii) Z columns with imperfec- values, with (i2) less relevant five (H and Z columns) or seven
tion shapes defined by h = 0°, 45°, 90°1 are presented and discussed (R columns) half-wave local deformations, responsible for
– for clarity purposes, Z columns with h = 5°, 10°, 25°, 30°, 180° ini- the remaining of the w values – Fig. 4(c) displays ten column
tial imperfections have also been analysed and the corresponding deformed configurations exhibiting these combined fea-
post-buckling results are presented. tures. Moreover, note that the emergence (i1) of local defor-
Fig. 4(a)–(b) shows the upper portions (P/Pcr > 0.6) of the elastic mations in the h = 0° and h = 180° columns (CL.0 = 0), and (i2)
equilibrium paths (i) P/Pcr vs. v/t, where v is the mid-span top
1 2
Since the Z column exhibits symmetric local and distortional post-buckling The distinction between the top and bottom flange-lip corner is relevant only for
behaviours, no h > 90° columns have to be analysed (i.e., only the first CD.0–CL.0 plane the Z columns – indeed, both flange-lip corners move identically in the C, H and R
quadrant needs to be considered). columns.
P/Pcr H Columns P/Pcr θ=0

θ θ
1.4 0 1.4 θ
315 180
θ 270 θ=90
135
θ=225 180 270
90
315
1 45
0 θ=225 1
v<0 v>0 w<0 w>0

θ=225
⏐v⏐/t 0.6 0.6 ⏐w⏐/t
10 5 0 5 10 3 1.5 0 1.5 3
(a 1 ) (b1 ) (c1 )
P/Pcr Z Columns P/Pcr θ
180
θ 1.4 90
1.4 0 θ=0
θ 45
5 θ θ 30
25 5 θ
10 0 10 θ=25
25
1 1
v<0 v>0 w<0 w>0

⏐v⏐/t 0.6 0.6 ⏐w⏐/t
θ=90
10 5 0 5 10 3 1.5 0 1.5 3
(a 2 ) (b2 ) (c2 )
P/Pcr R Columns P/Pcr
θ
θ 315
θ
1.4 270 270 1.4
315 θ
θ=180 θ=135 θ
90
45 90 θ=0 θ=90
θ=180
0 45
1 θ =225
1 0
v<0 v>0 w<0 w>0

⏐v⏐/t 0.6 0.6 ⏐w⏐/t
15 10 5 0 5 10 15 4 2 0 2 4 θ=180 θ=225
(a 3 ) (b3 ) (c3 )
Fig. 4. (a) P/Pcr vs. v/t and (b) P/Pcr vs. w/t equilibrium paths, and (c) various deformed configurations at advanced post-buckling stages for the (1) H, (2) Z and (3) R columns.
θ =0 w/t θ =90 w/t θ =225

P/Pcr 2.0 1.0
1.07
H Columns
0.99 1.0 0.0

0.78 P/Pcr P/Pcr
0.0 0.80 -1.0 0.80
1.00 1.00
-1.0 1.10 -2.0 1.10
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

x3 /L x3 /L x3 /L
Fig. 5. Web deformed configuration evolutions (three load values) for the H columns.
of distortional deformations in the h = 90° and h = 270° col- (iii) The equilibrium paths concerning the (iii1) h = 0°, 270°, 315°
umns (CD.0 = 0) provides clear evidence of the occurrence and (iii2) h = 45°, 90°, 135°, 180° H columns merge into com-
of L–D interaction. mon curves. Since the h = 225° column equilibrium path
(ii) It is clear that the P/Pcr vs. w/t equilibrium paths are much remains a single curve, it may be said that the 8 hat-section
more ‘‘irregular’’ than their P/Pcr vs. v/t counterparts, which column equilibrium paths evolve towards one of 3 curves,
is due to the fact that they ‘‘mix’’ distortional and local associated with inward (one of them) or outward (the other
deformations with quite different half-wave numbers. Thus, two) mid-span flange-lip motions.
the H, Z and R column post-buckling behaviours will be (iv) The existence of more then two ‘‘merging curves’’, referred
assessed next exclusively through the analysis of the P/Pcr in the previous item and also observed in the Z (three ‘‘merg-
vs. v/t equilibrium paths – the interpretation of the P/Pcr vs. ing curves’’, two of them very close) and R (four ‘‘merging
w/t equilibrium paths will be addressed further ahead in curves’’) columns, was already reported for the fixed-ended
the paper for a specific column set (see Fig. 5 and the corre- H columns experiencing by L–D interaction analysed by
sponding comments for the H columns). Dinis et al. [17]. However, this feature is not shared by the
fixed-ended lipped channel columns, as all equilibrium 2.4. Elastic–plastic post-buckling behaviour
paths merge into just 2 curves, involving inward or outward
mid-span flange-lip motions [2]. Next, the most relevant results concerning the elastic/perfectly-
(v) For H and R columns, the pure distortional initial imperfec- plastic post-buckling behaviour of fixed-ended C, H, Z and R col-
tions with inward mid-span flange-lip motions (h = 0°) are umns undergoing L–D interaction are reported. The columns (i)
the most detrimental, in the sense that the associated equi- contain ‘‘pure’’ distortional imperfections with (i1) inward or out-
librium path lie below all the others (i.e., exhibit lower ward flange-lip motions (most detrimental initial imperfections
strengths) – the same occurred in the H columns analysed identified previously) and (i2) small amplitudes (10% of the wall
by Dinis et al. [17]. Note that pure distortional initial imper- thickness t), and (ii) exhibiting three yield-to-critical stress ratios:
fections with outward mid-span flange-lip motions are the fy/fcr 1.2, 2.4, 3.9, corresponding to (ii1) fy = 75, 150, 250 MPa (C
most detrimental in fixed-ended C columns [2]. H and Z columns – fcr = fcr.L = fcr.D 63.5 MPa) and (ii2) fy = 110,
(vi) Finally, the pure distortional (h = 0° or h = 180°) initial 220, 360 MPa (R columns – fcr = fcr.L = fcr.D 91.7 MPa) – for
imperfections are again the most detrimental ones in the comparative purposes, some elastic results are also shown, which
fixed-ended Z columns – note that the h = 0° and h = 180° may be viewed as associated with an infinite yield stress
columns share exactly the same post-buckling behaviour, (i.e., fy = fy/fcr = 1).
as they only differ in the role reversal exhibited by the top Fig. 6(a) concerns the C columns and shows the upper portions
and bottom flange-lip assemblies. (P/Pcr > 0.6) of the equilibrium paths P/Pcr vs. v/t (v is the mid-span
flange-lip corner vertical displacement). As for Fig. 6(b), it concerns
In order to explain why the H, Z and R (and C) columns exhibit the C column with fy/fcr 2.4 and displays three plastic strain dia-
more then two ‘‘merging curves’’, Fig. 5 provides, for three different grams, corresponding to the equilibrium state locations shown on
H columns (h = 0°, 90°, 225°), the web deformed configurations its equilibrium path and including the collapse mechanism. On the
(w/t) at three equilibrium states, corresponding to increasing P/Pcr other hand, Fig. 7(a)–(b) and Fig. 8(a)–(b) show similar elastic–
values – the remaining three column sets exhibit evolutions plastic results for (i) H columns with pure outward distortional ini-
qualitatively similar to this one. Note that (i) each web deformed tial imperfections and (ii) Z columns also with pure distortional
configuration concerns a H column whose behaviour is described initial imperfections (the flange-lip motion sense is not relevant
by one of the ‘‘merging curves’’, (ii) positive w correspond to out- and v concerns the top flange-lip corner) – in order to clarify the
ward web bending, and (iii) the horizontal coordinate is normalised Z column plastic strain evolution, two views per equilibrium state
with respect to the column length – x3/L. The analysis of these web are shown. The observation of all these post-buckling results
deformed configurations prompts the following remarks: makes it possible to conclude that:
(i) For P/Pcr < 0.8, the h = 0°, 90° column web deformed configu-
rations are akin to the initial imperfection shape, i.e., exhibit (i) The nature and characteristics of the C, H and Z column elas-
1 (h = 0°) or 5 (h = 90°) half-waves, respectively. For higher tic–plastic post-buckling behaviours and collapse mecha-
P/Pcr values, these configurations change and become a com- nisms clearly depend on the fy/fcr value.
bination of the two above components, thus providing clear (ii) When fy/fcr is close to 1.0 (e.g., fy/fcr 1.2), first yielding
evidence of the occurrence of L–D interaction. occurs when the normal stress distribution is still ‘‘fairly
(ii) In the h = 0° columns, the above web configuration change uniform’’ and, thus, precipitates a rather ‘‘abrupt’’ collapse
leads to a decrease (and subsequent reversal) of the mid- – yielding occurs in a significant portion of the ‘‘most
span w value – in the h = 90° columns, the change causes a deformed cross-section’’, whose location depends on the ini-
mid-span w increase. This reflects the fact that the mid-span tial imperfection shape (mid-span, in the columns shown
w value due to local deformations either opposes (h = 0°) or here).
reinforces (h = 90°) its distortional counterpart. (iii) In the columns with higher fy/fcr values (e.g., fy/fcr = 2.4, 3.9),
(iii) The h = 225° column exhibits an additional behavioural fea- first yielding occurs when the column normal stress distri-
ture in the advanced post-buckling stages (P/Pcr P 1.1): the bution is already ‘‘heavily non-uniform’’ and, thus, does
development of higher ‘‘localised’’ deformations in the not lead to an immediate collapse – instead, collapse occurs
mid-span region (central half-wave), due to a stronger after a mild ‘‘snap-through’’ phenomenon, followed by a
mutual interaction/reinforcement of the distortional and subsequent strength increase up to a limit point, as is illus-
local deformations – in the h = 0° and h = 90° columns such trated in Figs. 6(a), 7(a) and 8(a).
deformation ‘‘localisation’’ occurs in the two half-waves (iv) The C, H and Z column yielding patterns and failure mecha-
adjacent to the central one and involves deformed configu- nisms are quite different: w hile the first two exhibit sym-
ration distortional components with opposite signs. metry (both flange-lip assemblies are involved), the latter
C Columns
Fig. 6. (a) Elastic–plastic P/Pcr vs. v/t equilibrium paths (fy/fcr 1.2, 2.4, 3.9, 1) and (b) plastic strain diagram evolution (fy/fcr 2.4) for C columns with distortional
imperfections.
Fig. 7. (a) Elastic–plastic P/Pcr vs. v/t equilibrium paths (fy/fcr 1.2, 2.4, 3.9, 1) and (b) plastic strain diagram evolution (fy/fcr 2.4) for H columns with distortional
imperfections.
Fig. 8. (a) Elastic–plastic P/Pcr vs. v/t equilibrium paths (fy/fcr 1.2, 2.4, 3.9, 1) and (b) plastic strain diagram evolution (fy/fcr 2.4) for Z columns with distortional
imperfections.
Fig. 9. (a) Elastic–plastic P/Pcr vs. v/t equilibrium paths (fy/fcr 1.2, 2.4, 3.9, 1) and (b) plastic strain diagram evolution (fy/fcr 2.4) for R columns with distortional
imperfections.
does not (mostly the bottom flange-lip assembly, moving along the top lip regions near the supports prior to collapse,
outwards, is involved). which does not occur in the C and H columns, where yielding
(v) In the C and H columns, (v1) yielding begins at the two lip is restricted to the more or less localised central region.
free end mid-span zones (see diagrams I in Figs. 6(b) and (vii) In spite of the quite different yielding patterns and failure
7(b)), and (v2) collapse occurs after the full yielding of mechanisms exhibited by the C, H and Z columns, they have
the web-flange corner central regions. Note, however, that very close ultimate loads – the tables included in Figs. 6(a)–
yielding is more localised in the H columns, where the fail- 8(a) shows the minute differences between the Pu/Pcr values
ure mechanism corresponds to the formation of a well of the three column sets (always below 2%).
defined ‘‘distortional plastic hinge’’ at mid-span (see dia-
gram III in Fig. 7(b)) – in the C columns yielding spreads Finally, Fig. 9(a) concerns the R columns and shows the upper
along the central L/3 segment at failure (see diagram III portions (P/Pcr > 0.6) of the equilibrium paths P/Pcr vs. v/t (v is the
in Fig. 6(b)). mid-span flange-lip corner vertical displacement). As for
(vi) In the Z columns, the onset of yielding and failure mecha- Fig. 9(b), concerning the fy/fcr 2.4 columns, it shows three plastic
nism involve mostly the mid-span bottom lip, flange and strain diagrams, corresponding to the equilibrium states indicated
web-flange corner regions, as shown in diagrams I and III in Fig. 9(a) and including the collapse mechanism. The observation
of Fig. 8(b) – nevertheless, note that yielding also progresses of these results prompts the following remarks:
(i) As before, (i1) first yielding precipitates the collapse for again obtained. Subsequent slight variations of the web, flange, stiff-
fy/fcr close to 1.0 (e.g., fy/fcr 1.2) and (i2) there is some ener or lip widths generated a total of 42 R column geometries col-
elastic–plastic strength reserve for higher fy/fcr values (e.g., umn geometries associated with 0.90 6 fcr.L/fcr.D 6 1.10 – some of
for fy/fcr 2.4, there is a 3% load increase after first yielding). them have already been considered in previous studies [17,19].
(ii) In the fy/fcr 2.4 column, yielding starts at the stiffener cor- In order to cover a wide distortional (and local) slenderness
ners in the regions close to the two external ‘‘quarter-waves’’ k = (fy/fcr.D)0.5 range, 5 yield stresses (fy = 150, 250, 350, 550,
cross-section (see diagram I in Fig. 9(b)). Then, plasticity 750 MPa) are considered for each of the 42 H, Z and R columns –
spreads rapidly into the flange-stiffener corner regions a total of 210 H, Z column pairs and 234 R columns were analysed,5
located around the most ‘‘inwardly distorted’’ cross-section in order to determine the corresponding ultimate loads. The results
(see diagram II) and, finally, collapse is precipitated by the were obtained by means of Abaqus SFEA that neglect the residual
full yielding of the web-flange corners of the mid-span stresses and corner effects (both have been shown to have little
cross-section, where a ‘‘distortional plastic hinge’’ is formed impact on the column failure load). Moreover, regardless of the fcr.L/
(see diagram III). fcr.D value, all columns contained critical-mode distortional initial
(iii) There are relatively minor differences between the equilib- imperfections with amplitude (maximum flange-lip or flange-stiff-
rium paths and Pu/Pcr values of the R and C, H, Z columns ener corner vertical displacement, respectively for the C + H + Z
analysed (at least for the geometries considered) – the com- and R columns) equal to 10% of the wall thickness t. Concerning
parison between Fig. 6(a), Fig. 7(a), Fig. 8(a) and Fig. 9(a) the sense (inward or outward) of the flange-lip/stiffener motions,
reveals that the elastic–plastic strength reserve of the R col- recall (see Section 2.3) that the most detrimental (leading to lower
umns differ from their C, H, Z column counterparts by only ultimate loads) are (i) inward, for the H and R columns, and (ii) out-
small amounts (see the Pu/Pcr values given in the tables ward, for the C columns. Note that the flange-lip/stiffener motion
included in those figures). For instance, for fy/fcr 1.2; 3.9 sense is not relevant in (i) the Z columns (each distortional half-
the ultimate load ratios Pu/Pcr are 0.91 + 1.39 (R columns) wave combines one outward and one inward flange-lip motion)
0.84 + 1.49 (C columns), 0.86 + 1.43 (H columns) and and (ii) the C, H and R columns buckling in distortional modes with
0.85 + 1.47 (Z columns). even half-wave numbers (the same number of half-waves exhibiting
each of them) – for C, H and R columns buckling in distortional
3. Column ultimate strength data modes with odd half-wave numbers, the flange-lip/stiffener motion
sense considered is defined by the larger number of inward or out-
The objective of this section is putting together a failure load ward half-waves.
data bank concerning cold-formed steel (E = 210 GPa, m = 0.3) H, Z All fixed-ended column (i) cross-section dimensions (bw, bf, bs,
and R columns experiencing strong L–D interaction (local and dis- bl, t) and lengths (L), (ii) critical buckling stresses (fcr.L, fcr.D, fcr.G –
tortional critical buckling stresses not more than 10% apart), as evaluated through Generalised Beam Theory buckling analyses)
done earlier for C columns [3]. Note that considerably higher global and (iii) ultimate stresses fU are given in Appendices A (H columns),
critical buckling stresses (fcr.G) must be ensured, in order to pre- B (Z columns) and C (R columns) – to enable a quick comparison
clude/minimise local–distortional–global (flexural–torsional) cou- with the available C column results, they are given in Appendix
pling effects – previous studies on rack-section [22] and lipped D (directly taken from Ref. [3]).
channel [23,24] columns showed that the closeness of the global
critical buckling stress may have quite a (detrimental) effect on 4. Column DSM design against L–D interactive failure
the column post-buckling behaviour and ultimate strength
erosion.3 The current DSM strength curves for the design of cold formed
Taking advantage of the fact, illustrated in Fig. 2(a1), that C, H steel columns are defined by ‘‘Winter-type’’ expressions that (i)
and Z columns sharing the same geometry have identical local were calibrated against fairly large numbers of experimental and/
and distortional (but not global) buckling stresses, the 14 C column or numerical failure loads and (ii) are able to predict efficiently
geometries (cross-section dimensions and lengths) identified in [2] (safely and accurately) the ultimate strengths of columns failing
and associated with fcr.L fcr.D and much higher global critical in local, distortional and global (flexural or flexural–torsional)
buckling stresses (fcr.G/fcr.D P 2.6) were considered in a parametric modes, on the sole basis of elastic buckling and yield stress values
study dealing with H and Z columns [18]. As also done for the C – the DSM expressions providing the column nominal strengths
columns, these H and Z column geometries were used as reference against local (fNL), distortional (fND) and global (fNE) collapses can
and slight variations in the flange (bf), web (bw) or stiffener (bs) be found in Schafer’s state-of-the-art report [8]. Moreover, in order
width generated additional column geometries that exhibit dis- to predict also local–global interactive failures, the current DSM
tinct, but fairly close, fcr.L and fcr.D values (0.90 6 fcr.L/fcr.D 6 1.10). replaces fy by fNE in the fNL expressions, thus providing fNLE esti-
A total of 42 H and Z column geometries were included in the para- mates. On the other hand, two distinct DSM strategies to estimate
metric study – just as it had been done before for the C columns the ultimate strength of columns experiencing L–D interaction
[3]. were also proposed by Hancock et al. [6] and Schafer [26]: replac-
For the R columns, it was necessary to first select the column ing fy either (i) by fND in the fNL equations (NLD approach – fNLD) or
geometries, by means of ‘‘trial-and-error’’ buckling analysis (ii) by fNL in the fND equations (NDL approach – fNDL). Silvestre et al.
sequences – 14 ‘‘reference columns geometries’’, all associated [3] assessed the performance of these two approaches for lipped
with fcr.L fcr.D and larger fcr.G/fcr.D values (fcr.G/fcr.D P 1.2),4 were channel columns and concluded that they provide basically similar
results, even if the quality of the fNDL estimates was found to be
3
It is still worth noting that, in the case of the C, H and R columns (singly marginally higher – this explains why this work adopts the NDL
symmetric cross-sections), the stress redistribution occurring in the local/distortional approach, defined as
post-buckling range may entail an ‘‘effective centroid shift’’, responsible for the
emergence of minor-axis bending deformations [25] – note, however, that such global
deformations are not akin to the global critical buckling mode, which combines
major-axis flexure and torsion.
4
The R column fcr.G/fcr.D values are generally lower than their H and Z column
5
counterparts – this is due to the fact that the R column lengths ensuring fcr.L fcr.D are 12 rack-section columns with fy = 1000, 1200 MPa were also analysed, in order to
larger and, therefore, associated with lower fcr.G values. enable a more adequate covering of the high slenderness range.
Fig. 10. Lipped channel columns: variation with kD of the ratios (a) fU/fND, (b) fU/fNDL, (c) fU/fNL–D and (d) fU/fy + fNL–D/fy.
f NDL ¼ f NL if kDL 6 0:561 The merits of this new DSM design approach can be assessed by
0:6 " 0:6 # looking at Fig. 10(c)–(d), which show the variation, with kD, of (i)
f cr:D f cr:D ð1Þ
f NDL ¼ f NL 1 0:25 if kDL > 0:561; the fU/fNL–D values (Fig. 10(c)) and (ii) both the fU/fy (white dots)
f NL f NL
and fNL–D/fy (grey dots) ratios (Fig. 10(d)) – these figures also
where kDL = (fNL/fcr.D)0.5 is the distortional (and local) slenderness – include the current DSM strength curves providing the fNL/fy, fND/
kD kL kDL. Moreover, these authors also showed that, again for fy and fNDL/fy values (assuming fcr.L = fcr.D). These results clearly
lipped channel columns, the fND values (i) provide accurate esti- show that the novel DSM approach provides quite good estimates
mates of the column ultimate strengths in the low-to-moderate dis- for the whole set of numerical failure loads: the fU/fNL–D values have
tortional slenderness range (kD < 1.5), but (ii) perform much worse (i) average and standard deviation equal to 1.03 and 0.08, and (ii) a
for more slender columns (kD P 1.5). Both these statements are minimum value of 0.84.
clearly illustrated in Fig. 10(a)–(b), showing the variations of fU/ The aim of this work is to investigate whether the above novel
fND and fU/fNDL (fU are the numerical failure stresses) with kD and DSM design approach, developed exclusively in the context of
providing the corresponding averages, standard deviations, maxi- lipped channel columns, is also applicable to cold-formed steel col-
mum and minimum values – the quality of an estimate is measured umns exhibiting other cross-section shapes. Therefore, the next
by its closeness to the unit horizontal line. sub-sections present and discuss the findings concerning the appli-
Silvestre et al. [3] went a step further and proposed a novel DSM cability of this design approach to (i) hat and zed-section columns,
approach for fixed-ended C columns affected by strong L–D inter- and (ii) rack-section columns, all affected by L–D interaction due to
action (NL–D approach – fNL–D). It adopts the current DSM distor- very close local and distortional critical buckling stresses
tional strength curve for kD < 1.5 (fNL–D = fND – no relevant L–D (fcr.L fcr.D < fcr.G). The tables included in Appendices A–D present
interaction) and, for kD P 1.5, prescribes a modified local strength three DSM ultimate strength estimates (fND, fNDL, fNL–D and

f NL that (i) depends on the critical half-wave length ratio LcrD/LcrL corresponding numerical-to-predicted ratios) and also relevant
(obtained from simply supported column ‘‘signature curves’’6), quantities involved in their calculation, namely the distortional
(ii) leads to fND and fNDL values if LcrD/LcrL 6 4 and LcrD/LcrL P 8, and slenderness kD and the simply supported column local and distor-
(iii) provides column ultimate strength estimates by replacing fNL tional critical half-wave lengths LcrL and LcrD (obtained from GBT

with f NL in (1) – f NL is given by the expressions buckling analyses), for the H (Appendix A), Z (Appendix B), R
(Appendix C) and C (Appendix D) columns – in the last case, most
LcrD of the values presented have been already reported by Silvestre
f NL ¼ f y if 64
L et al. [3].
crL
LcrD LcrD
f NL ¼ f y þ 1 0:25 ðf y f NL Þ if 4 < <8 ð2Þ
LcrL LcrL
4.1. Hat-section and zed-section columns
LcrD
f NL ¼ f NL if P8
LcrL Fig. 11(a)–(c) provide the variation of fU/fND, fU/fNDL and fU/fNL–D
with kD for the H (Fig. 11(a1)–(c1)) and Z (Fig. 11(a2)–(c2)) column
6
sets – these figures also show the associated averages, standard
Since it was found that the LcrD/LcrL ratios for simply supported columns provide
quite reasonable estimates of their fixed-ended column counterparts [3], it was
deviations, maximum and minimum values. As for Fig. 12(a), they
decided to include the former in the proposed design approach – they have the make it possible to compare the variations of fU/fNL–D with kD for
advantage of being much easier to calculate (LcrD and LcrL can be readily identified). the C (Fig. 12(a1)), H (Fig. 12(a2)) and Z (Fig. 12(a3)) columns – note
Fig. 11. Variation of (a) fU/fND, (b) fU/fNDL and (c) fU/fNL–D with the distortional slenderness kD for the (1) H and (2) Z columns.
Fig. 12. Variation of (a) fU/fNL–D with kD for the (1) C columns, (2) H columns and (3) Z columns, and (b) the fU/fy + fNL–D/fy values with kD for the (1) H and (2) Z columns.
Fig. 13. R columns: variation with kD of the ratios (a) fU/fND, (b) fU/fNDL and (c) fU/fNL–D.
that Fig. 12(a1)–(a3) are identical to Fig. 10(c), Fig. 11(c1) and (i) The comparison between the fU/fND, fU/fNDL and fU/fNL–D value
11(c2), respectively. Finally, Fig. 12 (b1)–(b2) show (i) the variations distributions (‘‘clouds’’) shown in Figs. 13(a)–(c) (R columns)
of fU/fy (white dots) and fNL–D/fy (grey dots) with kD, and (ii) the and 10(a)–(c) (C columns) shows that they are qualitatively
DSM ‘‘Winter-type curves’’ providing the fNL/fy, fND/fy and fNDL/fy quite similar, even if there are a few quantitative discrepan-
(assuming fL = fD) values, for the H and Z columns. The observation cies. Indeed, it is immediately noticed that the R column
of the results displayed in all these figures leads to the following fU/fND values concerning kD < 1.5 are visibly below their C
remarks: column counterparts, which is in line with the results
obtained in Section 2.4 – recall that, for fy/fcr 1.2
(i) Given the similar post-buckling and ultimate strength (kD 1.1), the ultimate load ratios were Pu/Pcr = 0.91
behaviours exhibited by the C, H and Z column sets, it was (R column) and Pu/Pcr = 0.84 (C column).
logical to anticipate an equally similar quality of the three (ii) The fU/fND average and standard deviation are equal to 0.98
DSM ultimate strength estimates predictions. Indeed, this and 0.13, with 46 too safe values (fU/fND P 1.10), 60 safe
was found to be the case: the three value distributions and accurate values (1.10 < fU/fND 6 1.00), 71 slightly unsafe
(‘‘clouds’’) are very similar for the H and Z column sets, values (1.00 < fU/fND 6 0.90) and 57 excessively unsafe values
and also similar to those obtained earlier for the C columns (fU/fND 6 0.90). However, Fig. 13(a) shows that the fND values
(see Fig. 10(d)). are (ii1) clearly on the safe side (some of them excessively
(ii) Therefore (and logically), the fNL–D approach proposed for C so) for kD < 1.5, which indicates practically no L–D interac-
columns [3] also provides the most accurate and safe ulti- tion in this slenderness range, and (ii2) mostly unsafe and
mate strength estimates for similar H and Z columns inaccurate for kD P 1.5 – this can be confirmed by looking
affected by strong L–D interaction, as confirmed by the cor- at the averages, standard deviations and minimum values,
responding averages and standard deviations: (ii1) 1.03 and which read: 1.08, 0.07, 0.92 (kD < 1.5) and 0.88, 0.09, 0.68
0.08 (C), (ii2) 1.03 and 0.07 (H), and (ii3) 1.04 and 0.08 (Z). (kD P 1.5). Then the fND values can also be used to predict
Moreover, the fNL–D values exhibit also the following charac- fairly adequately (a bit conservatively) the failure loads of
teristics: out of the 210 estimates, (ii1) 118 are safe and the R columns exhibiting low-to-moderate distortional slen-
accurate (1.10 < fU/fNL–D 6 1.00), 61 a bit unsafe (1.00 < fU/ derness, thus extending the DSM design approach procedure
fNL–D 6 0.90), 25 too safe (fU/fNL–D P 1.10), and just 6 too developed earlier, and already shown to be valid for the C, H
unsafe (minimum fU/fNL–D: 0.87), for the H columns, and and Z columns undergoing L–D interaction.
(ii2) 108 are safe and accurate, 64 a bit unsafe, 38 too safe (iii) The fU/fNDL average and standard deviation are equal to 1.23
and just 4 too unsafe values (minimum fU/fNL–D: 0.88), for and 0.12, with 203 too safe values, 30 safe and accurate val-
the Z columns. ues, and only 1 slightly unsafe value (fU/fNDL 6 0.97).
(iii) The ‘‘quality’’ of the fNL–D predictions can also be assessed by Fig. 13(b) shows that the underestimations occur for both
looking at Fig. 12(b) – the novel DSM approach provides stocky and slender columns, even if the latter exhibit a larger
quite good estimates for the whole set of numerical failure scatter – the standard deviations and maximum values are:
loads. Moreover, note that the fNL–D/fy values (iii1) lie on 0.07, 1.35 (kD < 1.5) and 0.15, 1.62 (kD P 1.5). This was also
the current distortional strength curve for kD < 1.5 (stocky shown to occur for the C, H and Z columns analysed earlier.
columns) and kD P 1.5 (slender columns) and low LcrD/LcrL (iv) The fU/fNL–D average and standard deviation are equal to 1.09
values (no relevant L–D interaction), but (iii2) lie well below and 0.07, with 97 too safe values, 107 safe and accurate val-
that curve for kD P 1.5 and moderate-to-high LcrD/LcrL values ues and 30 slightly unsafe values (fU/fNL–D 6 0.92). This
(relevant L–D interaction). means that the quality of the ultimate strength estimates
(iv) Thus, it is fair to conclude that the fNL–D DSM design provided by the novel DSM approach is higher than those
approach proposed in [3] can be readily applied to H and Z associated with their fND and fNDL counterparts (existing
columns exhibiting L–D interactive failures (fcr.L fcr.D). DSM approaches). This quality can also be felt by looking
at Fig. 14(b), which compares the numerical fU/fy values
4.2. Rack-section columns (white dots) with the corresponding fNL–D/fy DSM estimates
(grey dots). It is clear that the fNL–D values predict the column
Finally, Fig. 13(a)–(c) concern the R columns and plot the vari- failure loads quite satisfactorily, even if they are a bit conser-
ation of the ratios fU/fND, fU/fNDL and fU/fNL–D with kD, show also the vative (especially for kD 1.0).
corresponding averages, standard deviations, maximum and mini- (v) Although the quality of the R column fNL–D estimates is quite
mum values. On the basis of the observation of the results pre- satisfactory, it should be pointed out that it differs slightly
sented in these figures it is possible to conclude that: from the level exhibited by their C, H and Z column
Fig. 14. Variation of the (a) fU/fy and (b) fU/fy + fNL–D/fy values with kD for the R columns.
counterparts. Indeed, the comparison between the fU/fNL–D obtained for the lipped channel columns. The picture changed a lit-
values concerning (v1) the R columns (Fig. 13(c)) and (v2) tle bit in the case of the rack-section columns: although the quality
the C, H, Z columns (Fig. 12(a)) shows that the former are of the estimates remains quite satisfactory, they are slightly more
a little more conservative – the averages and standard devi- conservative than those concerning their lipped channel, hat-sec-
ations read 1.09, 0.07 (R) vs. 1.03, 0.08 (C), 1.03, 0.07 (H) and tion and zed-section column counterparts, particularly in the
1.04, 0.08 (Z columns). In particular, it is worth noting that low-to-intermediate slenderness range (kD < 1.5).
the R column fNL–D values provide (v1) much safer estimates Finally, just a few words to mention again that all the columns
for kD 1.0 and (v2) a larger overall number of excessively considered in this work exhibited very close local and distortional
safe estimates (97 vs. 23, 27, 44). critical buckling stresses (0.90 6 fcr.L/fcr.D 6 1.10) – indeed, it was
this closeness that caused the local-interaction coupling that
5. Concluding remarks was investigated. However, it should be also pointed out that
considerable local–distortional interaction coupling may also be
This paper reported the results of an investigation on the caused by a ‘‘secondary bifurcation phenomenon’’ that occurs in
structural behaviour and DSM (Direct Strength Method) design columns exhibiting a distortional critical buckling stress well
of cold-formed steel fixed-ended columns affected by local–dis- below its local counterpart, provided that the yield stress is ‘‘high
tortional coupling, aimed at extending findings obtained for enough’’ to allow the emergence and development of interaction
lipped channel columns to other cross-section shapes. After effects prior to failure. The authors are currently investigating
briefly presenting the most relevant aspects concerning the this type of column interactive behaviour, which was observed
post-buckling and strength behaviour of fixed-ended lipped chan- in lipped channel [4,15] and rack-section [27] column tests, as
nel, hat-section, zed-section and rack-section columns with cross- well as looking for a DSM-based approach to predict the corre-
section dimensions and lengths leading to virtually identical local sponding failure loads efficiently. Concerning the codification of
and distortional buckling loads (high susceptibility to local–dis- the findings reported in this work, an issue remains open: how
tortional interaction), the paper presented the results of an exten- to ensure that the proposed design approach does not unduly
sive Abaqus shell finite element parametric study, performed to penalise columns not affected by local–distortional interaction?
obtain the numerical ultimate loads of a larger number of initially The authors are currently working towards answering this ques-
imperfect columns experiencing strong local–distortional interaction, by identifying the column geometrical and material charac-
tion, namely (i) 210 pairs of hat and zed-section columns with teristics that lead to ultimate strength erosion due to L–D
various geometries (identical to those exhibited by the lipped interaction.
channel columns analysed previously [3]), and (ii) 234 rack-sec-
tion columns. The ultimate strength data gathered from this para-
metric study were then used to assess the performance of a Appendix A
recently proposed DSM-based approach to estimate efficiently
(safely and accurately) the ultimate strength of cold-formed steel See Tables A1–A4.
fixed-ended lipped channel columns undergoing strong local–dis-
tortional interaction [3], when applied to hat, zed and rack-sec-
tion columns under the same circumstances – this DSM
Appendix B
approach adopts Winter-type curves and is based on the values
of (i) the elastic critical (local and distortional) buckling stress,
See Tables B1–B4.
(ii) the critical half-wave length ratio LcrD/LcrL (calculated for sim-
ply supported columns) and (iii) the cross-section elastic/plastic
capacity.
It was found that the application of the above novel DSM-based Appendix C
design approach to hat, zed and rack columns affected by L–D
interaction yields generally safe and mostly accurate ultimate See Tables C1–C4.
strength predictions. In the case of the hat and zed-section col-
umns, whose local and distortional buckling behaviours are practi-
cally identical to their lipped channel column counterparts (with Appendix D
the same cross-section dimensions and lengths), the quality of
the DSM ultimate strength estimates is virtually identical to that See Tables D1–D4.
Table A1
H columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – I.
GBT SFEA DSM

L LcrL LcrD fcrL fcrD fcrG fy fU kD fND fNDL fNL–D fU/fND fU/fNDL fU/fNL–D
bw = 100; bf = 100; t = 1.9
bs = 17.5 1760 100 745 262.2 262.2 471.7 150 145 0.76 136 136 136 1.06 1.06 1.06
250 213 0.98 191 174 191 1.11 1.22 1.11
350 245 1.16 232 200 232 1.05 1.22 1.05
550 275 1.45 296 237 296 0.93 1.16 0.93
750 303 1.69 346 265 278 0.88 1.14 1.09
bs = 20 1760 100 815 262.9 284.6 457.7 150 147 0.73 139 139 139 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 225 0.94 197 180 197 1.14 1.25 1.14
350 274 1.11 241 207 241 1.14 1.32 1.14
550 298 1.39 308 246 308 0.97 1.21 0.97
750 316 1.62 361 275 275 0.88 1.15 1.15
bs = 16 1760 100 700 261.5 243.4 481.1 150 142 0.79 134 134 134 1.06 1.06 1.06
250 203 1.01 185 170 185 1.09 1.20 1.09
350 228 1.20 225 194 225 1.01 1.17 1.01
550 269 1.50 286 229 245 0.94 1.17 1.10
750 302 1.76 333 255 278 0.91 1.18 1.09
bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.0

bw = 95 2500 85 595 103.9 103.9 223.0 150 91 1.20 96 82 96 0.95 1.11 0.95
250 111 1.55 126 99 106 0.88 1.12 1.04
350 114 1.84 149 111 122 0.77 1.03 0.94
550 148 2.30 184 128 145 0.81 1.15 1.02
750 157 2.69 212 142 163 0.74 1.11 0.96
bw = 88 2500 85 585 114.7 108.2 193.2 150 97 1.18 98 85 98 0.99 1.14 0.99
250 115 1.52 128 103 111 0.90 1.12 1.04
350 127 1.80 152 115 127 0.84 1.10 1.00
550 151 2.25 188 134 151 0.80 1.13 1.00
750 165 2.63 216 147 170 0.76 1.12 0.97
bw = 105 2500 90 605 89.0 93.0 267.4 150 94 1.27 91 76 91 1.03 1.24 1.03
250 103 1.64 119 91 101 0.87 1.13 1.02
350 108 1.94 140 102 116 0.77 1.06 0.93
550 128 2.43 173 118 139 0.74 1.08 0.92
750 152 2.84 199 130 157 0.76 1.17 0.97
bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 2.4

bw = 114 1150 95 500 172.0 172.0 1451.2 150 126 0.93 119 110 119 1.06 1.14 1.06
250 162 1.21 160 136 160 1.01 1.19 1.01
350 190 1.43 191 154 191 0.99 1.23 0.99
550 234 1.79 240 180 223 0.98 1.30 1.05
750 277 2.09 278 200 257 1.00 1.39 1.08
bw = 120 1150 100 505 157.1 167.5 1583.1 150 124 0.95 117 107 117 1.06 1.16 1.06
250 158 1.22 158 132 158 1.00 1.20 1.00
350 186 1.45 189 150 189 0.99 1.24 0.99
550 230 1.81 236 175 222 0.97 1.31 1.03
750 262 2.12 274 194 256 0.96 1.35 1.02
bw = 106 1150 90 495 194.4 180.8 1277.4 150 128 0.91 121 115 121 1.06 1.11 1.06
250 168 1.18 163 142 163 1.03 1.18 1.03
350 196 1.39 196 161 196 1.00 1.22 1.00
550 241 1.74 246 189 227 0.98 1.28 1.06
750 279 2.04 285 210 260 0.98 1.33 1.07
bw = 100; bs = 10; t = 1.4

bs = 55 620 80 310 589.0 590.8 3342.1 150 150 0.50 150 150 150 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 248 0.65 243 243 243 1.02 1.02 1.02
350 341 0.77 315 315 315 1.08 1.08 1.08
550 464 0.96 424 389 424 1.09 1.19 1.09
750 539 1.13 509 442 509 1.06 1.22 1.06
bs = 50 620 80 290 598.1 625.4 3137.1 150 150 0.49 150 150 150 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 248 0.63 246 246 246 1.01 1.01 1.01
350 343 0.75 320 320 320 1.07 1.07 1.07
550 483 0.94 434 398 434 1.11 1.21 1.11
750 560 1.10 522 453 522 1.07 1.24 1.07
bs = 60 620 85 325 581.2 558.9 3513.5 150 149 0.52 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 246 0.67 241 241 241 1.02 1.02 1.02
350 333 0.79 310 310 310 1.07 1.07 1.07
550 443 0.99 415 380 415 1.07 1.17 1.07
750 517 1.16 497 431 497 1.04 1.20 1.04
Table A2
H columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – II.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 180; bs = 10; t = 1.9
bf = 110 1030 150 590 113.1 113.1 4401.6 150 104 1.15 100 86 100 1.04 1.21 1.04
250 133 1.49 131 104 131 1.01 1.27 1.01
350 158 1.76 155 117 155 1.02 1.35 1.02
550 198 2.21 192 136 192 1.03 1.45 1.03
750 233 2.58 222 150 222 1.05 1.55 1.05
bf = 130 1030 160 655 108.8 100.0 4735.7 150 94 1.22 95 81 95 0.99 1.16 0.99
250 120 1.58 123 98 123 0.97 1.23 0.98
350 143 1.87 146 110 145 0.98 1.30 0.99
550 181 2.35 180 127 179 1.01 1.42 1.01
750 213 2.74 207 140 206 1.03 1.52 1.03
bf = 90 1030 145 515 116.4 124.3 3883.1 150 114 1.10 104 90 104 1.10 1.27 1.10
250 147 1.42 137 109 137 1.07 1.34 1.07
350 160 1.68 163 123 163 0.98 1.30 0.98
550 219 2.10 202 143 202 1.08 1.53 1.08
750 254 2.46 233 158 233 1.09 1.60 1.09
bw = 180; bs = 20; t = 4.0

bf = 100 2000 145 620 501.5 510.9 1044.6 150 150 0.54 150 150 150 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 247 0.70 237 237 237 1.04 1.04 1.04
350 329 0.83 301 292 301 1.09 1.13 1.09
550 412 1.04 400 356 400 1.03 1.16 1.03
750 472 1.21 477 403 477 0.99 1.17 0.99
bf = 90 2000 145 580 508.1 554.0 978.0 150 150 0.52 150 150 150 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 248 0.67 241 241 241 1.03 1.03 1.03
350 338 0.79 309 300 309 1.09 1.13 1.09
550 448 1.00 414 368 414 1.08 1.22 1.08
750 512 1.16 495 418 495 1.03 1.23 1.03
bf = 110 2000 150 660 494.4 463.8 1099.3 150 149 0.57 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 244 0.73 231 231 231 1.06 1.06 1.06
350 313 0.87 292 282 292 1.07 1.11 1.07
550 392 1.09 384 342 384 1.02 1.15 1.02
750 429 1.27 457 386 457 0.94 1.11 0.94
bw = 110; bf = 85; t = 2.4

bs = 15 940 95 545 458.8 471.5 1947.2 150 148 0.56 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 240 0.73 232 232 232 1.03 1.03 1.03
350 305 0.86 293 279 293 1.04 1.09 1.04
550 393 1.08 387 339 387 1.02 1.16 1.02
750 447 1.26 460 383 460 0.97 1.17 0.97
bs = 13 940 95 495 456.6 399.8 2005.8 150 148 0.61 149 149 149 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 233 0.79 222 222 222 1.05 1.05 1.05
350 287 0.94 276 263 276 1.04 1.09 1.04
550 374 1.17 360 317 360 1.04 1.18 1.04
750 429 1.37 426 357 426 1.01 1.20 1.01
bs = 17 940 95 595 460.1 500.6 1890.2 150 149 0.55 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 244 0.71 235 235 235 1.04 1.04 1.04
350 322 0.84 299 285 299 1.08 1.13 1.08
550 446 1.05 397 347 397 1.12 1.28 1.12
750 500 1.22 473 393 473 1.06 1.27 1.06
bw = 100; bs = 5; t = 1.0
bf = 50 1400 80 275 104.4 107.2 658.2 150 101 1.18 98 83 98 1.04 1.22 1.04
250 127 1.53 128 100 128 0.99 1.27 0.99
350 152 1.81 151 113 151 1.01 1.35 1.01
550 185 2.27 187 131 187 0.99 1.42 0.99
750 207 2.65 215 144 215 0.96 1.44 0.96
bf = 45 1400 80 250 105.6 121.6 606.4 150 107 1.11 103 87 103 1.04 1.22 1.04
250 129 1.43 136 106 136 0.95 1.21 0.95
350 152 1.70 161 120 161 0.94 1.27 0.94
550 186 2.13 200 139 200 0.93 1.34 0.93
750 206 2.48 231 154 231 0.89 1.34 0.89
bf = 55 1400 85 290 103.1 97.3 701.4 150 97 1.24 93 79 93 1.04 1.22 1.04
250 118 1.60 122 96 122 0.97 1.23 0.97
350 146 1.90 144 107 144 1.02 1.36 1.02
550 187 2.38 177 124 177 1.05 1.51 1.05
750 207 2.78 204 137 204 1.01 1.51 1.01
Table A3
H columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – III.
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.3
bw = 115 2400 95 540 126.8 128.6 342.0 150 110 1.08 106 93 106 1.04 1.19 1.04
250 131 1.39 140 113 140 0.94 1.16 0.94
350 145 1.65 166 127 151 0.88 1.14 0.96
550 169 2.07 206 148 184 0.82 1.14 0.92
750 184 2.41 238 164 211 0.77 1.13 0.87
bw = 100 2400 90 530 137.0 132.0 267.9 150 112 1.07 107 95 107 1.05 1.18 1.05
250 133 1.38 141 116 141 0.94 1.15 0.94
350 152 1.63 168 131 152 0.91 1.16 1.00
550 176 2.04 209 152 185 0.84 1.16 0.95
750 191 2.38 241 168 211 0.79 1.14 0.91
bw = 125 2400 105 545 109.2 123.7 128.5 150 104 1.10 104 89 104 1.00 1.17 1.00
250 125 1.42 137 108 137 0.91 1.16 0.91
350 144 1.68 162 121 152 0.89 1.19 0.95
550 171 2.11 202 141 186 0.85 1.21 0.92
750 187 2.46 233 156 214 0.80 1.20 0.87
bw = 95; bf = 80; t = 0.95

bs = 10 2500 85 610 93.8 94.2 222.6 150 92.6 1.26 92 77 92 1.01 1.20 1.01
250 106 1.63 120 93 99 0.88 1.14 1.07
350 118 1.93 141 104 113 0.84 1.14 1.05
550 145 2.42 174 120 134 0.83 1.21 1.08
750 155 2.82 200 132 150 0.77 1.17 1.03
bs = 9 2500 85 570 93.6 89.0 226.1 150 83.8 1.30 90 75 90 0.94 1.12 0.94
250 101 1.68 116 90 100 0.87 1.12 1.01
350 113 1.98 137 101 114 0.82 1.12 0.99
550 136 2.49 169 117 137 0.80 1.17 1.00
750 144 2.90 194 128 154 0.74 1.12 0.94
bs = 11 2500 85 655 94.0 100.1 219.1 150 101 1.22 95 79 95 1.07 1.28 1.07
250 113 1.58 124 95 98 0.91 1.19 1.16
350 123 1.87 146 107 110 0.84 1.15 1.11
550 142 2.34 180 124 129 0.79 1.15 1.10
750 161 2.74 207 136 143 0.78 1.18 1.12
bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.2

bf = 140 1430 145 835 53.8 53.8 1804.5 150 63 1.67 70 54 64 0.90 1.17 0.99
250 82 2.16 90 64 80 0.92 1.28 1.03
350 99 2.55 105 71 92 0.95 1.39 1.08
550 125 3.20 128 81 111 0.98 1.54 1.13
750 148 3.73 146 89 126 1.01 1.66 1.18
bf = 130 1430 140 795 57.4 59.0 1777.4 150 65 1.59 73 57 67 0.89 1.15 0.97
250 86 2.06 94 68 84 0.92 1.28 1.02
350 104 2.44 110 75 97 0.95 1.38 1.07
550 132 3.05 135 86 118 0.98 1.53 1.12
750 155 3.57 154 95 134 1.00 1.64 1.16
bf = 150 1430 155 870 51.1 48.9 1824.9 150 59 1.75 67 51 61 0.88 1.15 0.96
250 77 2.26 85 60 76 0.91 1.28 1.01
350 92 2.68 99 67 88 0.93 1.38 1.05
550 118 3.35 121 77 106 0.97 1.54 1.11
750 139 3.92 139 84 121 1.00 1.66 1.15
bw = 200; bf = 190; t = 1.5

bs = 12.5 1850 200 1105 46.1 46.1 1931.2 150 58 1.80 65 49 59 0.90 1.20 0.98
250 76 2.33 82 57 74 0.92 1.32 1.02
350 92 2.76 96 64 86 0.96 1.44 1.08
550 117 3.45 117 73 103 1.00 1.60 1.13
750 137 4.03 134 80 118 1.02 1.71 1.17
bs = 14 1850 195 1200 45.6 38.3 1915.2 150 58 1.98 59 44 52 0.98 1.30 1.11
250 76 2.55 75 52 64 1.02 1.45 1.19
350 91 3.02 87 58 73 1.05 1.57 1.25
550 112 3.79 106 66 87 1.06 1.70 1.28
750 131 4.43 121 72 99 1.09 1.82 1.33
bs = 11 1850 205 1010 46.5 52.8 1946.1 150 59 1.69 69 52 66 0.85 1.14 0.90
250 76 2.18 89 62 83 0.86 1.24 0.91
350 90 2.57 103 68 97 0.87 1.31 0.93
550 116 3.23 127 79 118 0.92 1.48 0.98
750 135 3.77 145 86 134 0.93 1.57 1.00
Table A4
H columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – IV.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 235; bf = 160; t = 1.9
bs = 12.5 1950 200 910 64.5 65.3 2206.9 150 76 1.52 77 61 75 0.99 1.25 1.01
250 99 1.96 99 73 96 1.00 1.37 1.03
350 117 2.32 116 81 112 1.01 1.45 1.04
550 144 2.90 142 93 137 1.01 1.55 1.05
750 169 3.39 163 102 157 1.03 1.66 1.08
bs = 14 1950 200 985 64.2 56.3 2191.6 150 73 1.63 72 57 69 1.01 1.28 1.06
250 80 2.11 92 67 87 0.87 1.19 0.92
350 111 2.49 107 75 101 1.04 1.48 1.10
550 142 3.13 131 86 123 1.08 1.65 1.16
750 167 3.65 150 94 140 1.11 1.77 1.19
bs = 11 1950 200 830 64.7 74.9 2220.6 150 78 1.42 83 65 83 0.95 1.21 0.95
250 100 1.83 107 78 106 0.94 1.29 0.95
350 119 2.16 125 87 124 0.95 1.37 0.96
550 150 2.71 154 100 152 0.98 1.50 0.99
750 175 3.16 176 110 175 0.99 1.59 1.00
bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.9

bf = 140 900 150 800 63.6 63.6 4553.5 150 69 1.54 76 60 71 0.91 1.15 0.97
250 89 1.98 98 71 90 0.91 1.25 0.99
350 108 2.35 115 80 105 0.94 1.36 1.03
550 137 2.94 140 92 127 0.98 1.50 1.08
750 161 3.43 161 100 145 1.00 1.60 1.11
bf = 130 900 140 760 67.9 71.6 4484.8 150 73 1.45 81 64 81 0.91 1.14 0.91
250 96 1.87 104 77 95 0.92 1.25 1.00
350 114 2.21 122 85 111 0.93 1.33 1.03
550 144 2.77 150 98 135 0.96 1.46 1.07
750 169 3.24 172 108 153 0.98 1.56 1.10
bf = 150 900 155 835 58.3 58.3 4605.1 150 66 1.60 73 57 68 0.90 1.16 0.97
250 85 2.07 93 67 86 0.91 1.26 0.99
350 96 2.45 109 75 99 0.88 1.28 0.97
550 131 3.07 134 86 120 0.98 1.52 1.09
750 154 3.59 153 94 137 1.01 1.63 1.13
Average 0.97 1.25 1.03
St. Deviation 0.09 0.18 0.07
Maximum 1.14 1.82 1.33
Minimum 0.74 0.99 0.87
Table B1
Z columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – I.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 100; bs = 10; t = 2.4
bf = 55 620 85 305 583.3 563.4 5112.8 150 149 0.52 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 246 0.67 241 241 241 1.02 1.02 1.02
350 336 0.79 311 311 311 1.08 1.08 1.08
550 463 0.99 416 381 416 1.11 1.21 1.11
750 544 1.15 499 433 499 1.09 1.26 1.09
bf = 50 620 80 285 589.5 599.8 4456.4 150 149 0.50 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 247 0.65 244 244 244 1.01 1.01 1.01
350 339 0.76 317 317 317 1.07 1.07 1.07
550 476 0.96 427 391 427 1.12 1.22 1.12
750 562 1.12 512 445 512 1.10 1.26 1.10
bf = 60 620 85 325 578.9 528.9 5751.9 150 149 0.53 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 245 0.69 238 238 238 1.03 1.03 1.03
350 330 0.81 305 304 305 1.08 1.08 1.08
550 450 1.02 406 372 406 1.11 1.21 1.11
750 524 1.19 485 421 485 1.08 1.24 1.08
bw = 180; bs = 10; t = 1.9

bf = 110 1030 150 585 112.9 123.8 6379.8 150 104 1.10 104 89 104 1.00 1.17 1.00
250 132 1.42 137 109 137 0.96 1.22 0.96
350 157 1.68 162 122 162 0.97 1.28 0.97
550 197 2.11 202 142 202 0.98 1.38 0.98
750 231 2.46 233 157 233 0.99 1.47 0.99
(continued on next page)

Table B1 (continued)
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 130 1030 160 655 108.5 98.8 7922.1 150 95 1.23 94 81 94 1.01 1.18 1.01
250 120 1.59 123 97 122 0.98 1.23 0.98
350 143 1.88 145 109 144 0.99 1.31 0.99
550 182 2.36 179 126 178 1.02 1.44 1.02
750 215 2.76 206 139 205 1.04 1.55 1.05
bf = 90 1030 145 510 116.0 147.2 4723.2 150 116 1.01 112 96 112 1.04 1.21 1.04
250 145 1.30 149 118 149 0.97 1.23 0.97
350 178 1.54 177 133 177 1.00 1.34 1.00
550 225 1.93 221 155 221 1.02 1.45 1.02
750 264 2.26 256 172 256 1.03 1.53 1.03
bw = 110; bf = 100; t = 1.9

bs = 17.5 1760 105 755 261.9 264.1 1424.0 150 145 0.75 137 137 137 1.06 1.06 1.06
250 212 0.97 192 175 192 1.11 1.21 1.11
350 246 1.15 233 201 233 1.06 1.23 1.06
550 280 1.44 297 238 297 0.94 1.18 0.94
750 306 1.69 347 266 284 0.88 1.15 1.08
bs = 20 1760 105 825 262.7 307.8 1455.4 150 145 0.70 142 142 142 1.02 1.02 1.02
250 218 0.90 203 185 203 1.07 1.18 1.07
350 264 1.07 249 213 249 1.06 1.24 1.06
550 302 1.34 320 255 320 0.94 1.19 0.94
750 316 1.56 375 285 289 0.84 1.11 1.09
bs = 16 1760 105 710 261.1 240.6 1405.6 150 143 0.79 133 133 133 1.07 1.07 1.07
250 201 1.02 185 169 185 1.09 1.19 1.09
350 239 1.21 224 193 224 1.07 1.24 1.07
550 270 1.51 284 228 247 0.95 1.18 1.09
750 294 1.77 331 254 281 0.89 1.16 1.05
bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.0

bw = 95 2500 85 595 103.8 103.9 468.2 150 97 1.20 96 82 96 1.00 1.18 1.00
250 112 1.55 126 99 106 0.89 1.13 1.05
350 122 1.84 149 111 122 0.82 1.10 1.00
550 157 2.30 184 128 145 0.85 1.22 1.08
750 179 2.69 212 142 163 0.85 1.26 1.10
bw = 88 2500 85 585 114.6 107.2 432.5 150 99 1.18 98 84 98 1.01 1.17 1.01
250 117 1.53 128 102 110 0.92 1.15 1.06
350 126 1.81 151 115 126 0.83 1.10 1.00
550 152 2.27 187 133 151 0.81 1.14 1.01
750 175 2.65 215 146 170 0.81 1.20 1.03
bw = 105 2500 90 600 88.9 99.4 512.9 150 93 1.23 94 78 94 0.98 1.19 0.98
250 109 1.59 123 94 105 0.89 1.16 1.04
350 122 1.88 145 105 121 0.84 1.16 1.01
550 145 2.35 179 122 145 0.81 1.19 1.00
750 167 2.75 207 135 163 0.81 1.24 1.02
Table B2
Z columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – II.
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.5
bw = 114 1150 95 500 171.6 171.0 2584.1 150 129 0.94 118 110 118 1.09 1.17 1.09
250 168 1.21 159 135 159 1.05 1.24 1.05
350 178 1.43 191 154 191 0.93 1.16 0.93
550 229 1.79 239 180 222 0.96 1.27 1.03
750 261 2.09 277 199 256 0.94 1.31 1.02
bw = 120 1150 100 505 156.8 162.9 2675.7 150 128 0.96 116 106 116 1.10 1.21 1.10
250 163 1.24 156 130 156 1.05 1.25 1.05
350 184 1.47 186 148 186 0.99 1.25 0.99
550 222 1.84 233 173 219 0.95 1.29 1.01
750 260 2.15 270 191 252 0.96 1.36 1.03
bw = 106 1150 95 495 194.0 177.4 2443.4 150 131 0.92 120 114 120 1.09 1.15 1.09
250 176 1.19 162 141 162 1.09 1.25 1.09
350 196 1.40 194 160 194 1.01 1.23 1.01
550 233 1.76 244 187 228 0.96 1.24 1.02
750 269 2.06 283 208 263 0.95 1.30 1.02
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 180; bs = 20; t = 4.0
bf = 100 2000 150 615 498.6 483.1 1647.3 150 149 0.56 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 247 0.72 233 233 233 1.06 1.06 1.06
350 342 0.85 296 287 296 1.16 1.19 1.16
550 459 1.07 391 348 391 1.17 1.32 1.17
750 510 1.25 465 394 465 1.10 1.30 1.10
bf = 90 2000 145 570 504.6 530.6 1419.0 150 149 0.53 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 248 0.69 238 238 238 1.04 1.04 1.04
350 344 0.81 305 296 305 1.13 1.16 1.13
550 480 1.02 407 362 407 1.18 1.33 1.18
750 568 1.19 486 410 486 1.17 1.38 1.17
bf = 110 2000 150 655 491.9 439.6 1867.8 150 149 0.58 150 150 150 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 246 0.75 228 228 228 1.08 1.08 1.08
350 332 0.89 286 277 286 1.16 1.20 1.16
550 432 1.12 376 335 376 1.15 1.29 1.15
750 463 1.31 446 377 446 1.04 1.23 1.04
bw = 110; bf = 85; t = 2.4

bs = 15 940 95 540 457.3 457.5 4246.8 150 148 0.57 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 243 0.74 230 230 230 1.06 1.06 1.06
350 325 0.87 290 276 290 1.12 1.18 1.12
550 427 1.10 382 335 382 1.12 1.27 1.12
750 472 1.28 454 378 454 1.04 1.25 1.04
bs = 13 940 100 490 454.7 380.5 4156.3 150 148 0.63 148 148 148 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 241 0.81 218 218 218 1.10 1.10 1.10
350 305 0.96 271 259 271 1.12 1.18 1.12
550 377 1.20 353 310 353 1.07 1.21 1.07
750 403 1.40 416 348 416 0.97 1.16 0.97
bs = 17 940 95 590 458.9 522.9 4337.9 150 148 0.54 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 245 0.69 238 238 238 1.03 1.03 1.03
350 332 0.82 304 288 304 1.09 1.15 1.09
550 461 1.03 404 353 404 1.14 1.31 1.14
750 513 1.20 482 400 482 1.06 1.28 1.06
bw = 100; bs = 5; t = 1.0
bf = 50 1400 80 270 104.1 105.1 777.9 150 101 1.19 97 82 97 1.04 1.23 1.04
250 126 1.54 127 99 127 1.00 1.27 1.00
350 151 1.82 149 112 149 1.01 1.35 1.01
550 185 2.29 185 129 185 1.00 1.43 1.00
750 207 2.67 213 142 213 0.97 1.45 0.97
bf = 45 1400 80 250 105.2 116.3 653.5 150 107 1.14 101 86 101 1.06 1.25 1.06
250 129 1.47 133 104 133 0.97 1.24 0.97
350 151 1.73 157 117 157 0.96 1.29 0.96
550 186 2.17 195 136 195 0.95 1.37 0.95
750 206 2.54 225 150 225 0.92 1.37 0.92
bf = 55 1400 85 290 102.8 95.0 903.2 150 97 1.26 92 79 92 1.05 1.23 1.05
250 123 1.62 120 95 120 1.02 1.30 1.02
350 145 1.92 142 106 142 1.02 1.37 1.02
550 186 2.41 175 123 175 1.06 1.52 1.06
750 208 2.81 201 135 201 1.03 1.54 1.03
Table B3
Z columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – III.
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.3
bw = 115 2400 95 535 126.6 126.5 597.0 150 120 1.09 105 92 105 1.14 1.30 1.14
250 131 1.41 139 112 139 0.95 1.17 0.95
350 150 1.66 164 126 150 0.91 1.19 1.00
550 177 2.09 204 147 184 0.87 1.20 0.96
750 192 2.43 236 162 210 0.81 1.18 0.92
bw = 100 2400 90 530 136.8 129.5 533.4 150 125 1.08 106 94 106 1.18 1.32 1.18
250 133 1.39 140 115 140 0.95 1.16 0.95
350 151 1.64 166 130 150 0.91 1.17 1.00
550 175 2.06 207 151 183 0.85 1.16 0.96
750 189 2.41 239 166 209 0.79 1.14 0.91

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 125 2400 105 545 109.0 120.3 629.9 150 118 1.12 103 88 103 1.15 1.35 1.15
250 130 1.44 135 106 135 0.96 1.22 0.96
350 144 1.71 160 120 150 0.90 1.20 0.96
550 165 2.14 199 139 184 0.83 1.18 0.90
750 195 2.50 229 154 211 0.85 1.27 0.93
bw = 95; bf = 80; t = 0.95

bs = 10 2500 85 610 93.8 98.7 468.2 150 100 1.23 94 78 94 1.06 1.27 1.06
250 107 1.59 123 95 101 0.87 1.13 1.06
350 114 1.88 145 106 115 0.79 1.07 0.99
550 121 2.36 179 123 137 0.68 0.98 0.88
750 163 2.76 206 135 154 0.79 1.20 1.06
bs = 9 2500 85 565 93.5 88.0 502.3 150 89 1.31 89 75 89 1.00 1.20 1.00
250 101 1.69 116 90 99 0.87 1.13 1.02
350 112 1.99 136 100 114 0.82 1.12 0.98
550 126 2.50 168 116 137 0.75 1.09 0.92
750 147 2.92 193 127 154 0.76 1.15 0.95
bs = 11 2500 85 650 94.0 106.3 473.5 150 111 1.19 97 81 97 1.14 1.37 1.14
250 116 1.53 127 98 101 0.91 1.19 1.15
350 124 1.81 150 110 114 0.83 1.13 1.09
550 129 2.27 186 128 134 0.69 1.01 0.96
750 149 2.66 214 141 149 0.70 1.06 1.00
bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.2

bf = 140 1430 145 830 53.7 53.7 3753.8 150 67 1.67 70 54 64 0.96 1.25 1.06
250 77 2.16 89 64 80 0.86 1.20 0.96
350 105 2.55 104 71 92 1.01 1.48 1.14
550 126 3.20 128 81 111 0.99 1.55 1.13
750 148 3.74 146 89 126 1.01 1.66 1.17
bf = 130 1430 140 790 57.4 58.8 3514.6 150 62 1.60 73 57 67 0.84 1.08 0.92
250 86 2.06 94 67 84 0.92 1.28 1.02
350 102 2.44 110 75 98 0.93 1.36 1.05
550 113 3.06 134 86 118 0.84 1.31 0.96
750 131 3.57 154 95 134 0.85 1.38 0.98
bf = 150 1430 155 865 51.0 48.8 3966.8 150 58 1.75 67 51 61 0.87 1.15 0.95
250 81 2.26 85 60 76 0.95 1.34 1.06
350 97 2.68 99 67 88 0.98 1.45 1.10
550 120 3.36 121 77 107 0.99 1.57 1.13
750 145 3.92 139 84 121 1.05 1.73 1.20
bw = 200; bf = 190; t = 1.5

bs = 12.5 1850 200 1105 46.0 46.0 4031.1 150 58 1.81 65 49 59 0.90 1.20 0.98
250 72 2.33 82 57 74 0.88 1.26 0.97
350 84 2.76 96 64 86 0.88 1.32 0.98
550 117 3.46 117 73 103 1.00 1.60 1.13
750 137 4.04 134 80 117 1.02 1.72 1.17
bs = 14 1850 195 1195 45.6 38.1 4058.6 150 58 1.98 59 44 52 0.98 1.30 1.11
250 76 2.56 74 52 64 1.02 1.45 1.19
350 91 3.03 86 58 73 1.05 1.58 1.24
550 112 3.80 105 66 87 1.06 1.70 1.28
750 133 4.44 120 72 99 1.11 1.85 1.35
bs = 11 1850 205 1010 46.5 52.5 4003.5 150 59 1.69 69 52 66 0.85 1.14 0.90
250 76 2.18 88 61 83 0.86 1.24 0.92
350 91 2.58 103 68 97 0.89 1.34 0.95
550 116 3.24 126 78 117 0.92 1.48 0.99
750 135 3.78 144 86 134 0.93 1.57 1.01
Table B4
Z columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – IV.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 235; bf = 160; t = 1.9
bs = 12.5 1950 200 905 64.3 64.3 3489.5 150 73 1.53 77 60 75 0.95 1.20 0.97
250 99 1.97 98 72 95 1.00 1.37 1.03
350 117 2.33 115 80 111 1.02 1.46 1.05
550 144 2.92 141 92 136 1.02 1.56 1.06
750 169 3.42 162 101 156 1.04 1.67 1.08
GBT SFEA DSM

bs = 14 1950 200 980 64.1 55.7 3526.5 150 72 1.64 71 57 68 1.01 1.27 1.05
250 82 2.12 91 67 87 0.89 1.22 0.94
350 111 2.51 107 75 101 1.04 1.49 1.10
550 145 3.14 130 86 122 1.11 1.70 1.19
750 170 3.67 149 94 139 1.14 1.81 1.22
bs = 11 1950 205 830 64.6 73.9 3452.1 150 84 1.42 82 64 82 1.02 1.30 1.02
250 100 1.84 106 77 106 0.94 1.30 0.95
350 115 2.18 124 86 124 0.93 1.34 0.93
550 155 2.73 153 99 152 1.02 1.56 1.02
750 185 3.19 175 109 174 1.06 1.70 1.06
bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.9

bf = 140 900 150 800 63.5 63.5 9476.9 150 69 1.54 76 60 71 0.91 1.16 0.97
250 91 1.98 98 71 90 0.93 1.27 1.01
350 108 2.35 114 80 104 0.94 1.36 1.03
550 137 2.94 140 91 127 0.98 1.50 1.08
750 161 3.44 161 100 144 1.00 1.61 1.11
bf = 130 900 140 755 67.8 74.7 8872.9 150 76 1.42 82 65 82 0.92 1.16 0.92
250 98 1.83 106 78 98 0.92 1.25 1.00
350 131 2.16 125 87 114 1.05 1.50 1.15
550 166 2.71 153 101 138 1.08 1.65 1.20
750 192 3.17 176 111 158 1.09 1.74 1.22
bf = 150 900 155 835 58.2 58.2 10014.6 150 70 1.61 73 57 68 0.96 1.23 1.03
250 91 2.07 93 67 86 0.98 1.36 1.07
350 110 2.45 109 75 99 1.01 1.47 1.11
550 140 3.07 134 86 120 1.05 1.63 1.17
750 165 3.59 153 94 137 1.08 1.75 1.21
Average 0.98 1.27 1.04
St. Deviation 0.10 0.18 0.08
Maximum 1.18 1.85 1.35
Minimum 0.68 0.98 0.88
Table C1
R columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – I.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 80; bf = 50; bl = 25; t = 1.0
bs = 15 3200 64 675 165.0 165.0 444.8 150 141 0.95 117 108 117 1.21 1.31 1.21
250 169 1.23 157 132 157 1.08 1.28 1.08
350 178 1.46 187 150 187 0.95 1.19 0.95
550 184 1.83 235 175 175 0.78 1.05 1.05
750 198 2.13 272 194 194 0.73 1.02 1.02
bs = 13 3200 64 625 165.0 144.0 417.8 150 131 1.02 111 102 111 1.18 1.28 1.18
250 154 1.32 147 125 147 1.05 1.23 1.05
350 165 1.56 175 141 141 0.94 1.17 1.17
550 179 1.95 219 164 164 0.82 1.09 1.09
750 186 2.28 253 182 182 0.74 1.02 1.02
bs = 17 3200 64 725 165.0 171.0 473.1 150 144 0.94 118 109 118 1.22 1.32 1.22
250 180 1.21 159 134 159 1.13 1.34 1.13
350 189 1.43 191 152 191 0.99 1.24 0.99
550 190 1.79 239 178 178 0.79 1.06 1.06
750 191 2.09 277 198 198 0.69 0.97 0.97
bw = 67; bf = 35; bs = 10; t = 0.8

bl = 21 1740 50 450 159.0 159.0 361.1 150 135 0.97 115 105 115 1.17 1.28 1.17
250 163 1.25 154 129 154 1.06 1.26 1.06
350 181 1.48 184 146 184 0.98 1.24 0.98
550 209 1.86 230 171 171 0.91 1.22 1.22
750 227 2.17 267 190 190 0.85 1.20 1.20
bl = 18 1740 50 450 160.0 179.0 358.9 150 139 0.92 120 110 120 1.15 1.26 1.15
250 174 1.18 163 136 163 1.07 1.28 1.07
350 189 1.40 195 154 195 0.97 1.22 0.97
550 202 1.75 245 181 181 0.83 1.11 1.11
750 230 2.05 284 201 201 0.81 1.14 1.14
bl = 23 1740 50 450 159.0 156.0 361.6 150 132 0.98 114 105 114 1.16 1.26 1.16
250 158 1.27 153 128 153 1.03 1.23 1.03

Table C1 (continued)
GBT SFEA DSM

350 168 1.50 182 145 182 0.92 1.16 0.92
550 206 1.88 228 170 170 0.90 1.21 1.21
750 220 2.19 264 188 188 0.83 1.17 1.17
bf = 40; bs = 15; bl = 20; t = 1.0

bw = 60 1300 50 540 289.6 285.8 700.5 150 147 0.72 140 140 140 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 230 0.94 198 184 198 1.16 1.25 1.16
350 270 1.11 241 211 241 1.12 1.28 1.12
550 308 1.39 309 251 309 1.00 1.23 1.00
750 343 1.62 361 281 281 0.95 1.22 1.22
bw = 65 1300 50 550 245.0 280.0 770.3 150 147 0.73 139 138 139 1.06 1.06 1.06
250 228 0.94 196 176 196 1.16 1.30 1.16
350 262 1.12 239 203 239 1.10 1.29 1.10
550 288 1.40 306 241 306 0.94 1.19 0.94
750 330 1.64 358 269 269 0.92 1.23 1.23
bw = 58 1300 45 540 324.0 294.0 673.2 150 147 0.71 141 141 141 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 231 0.92 200 190 200 1.16 1.22 1.16
350 272 1.09 244 219 244 1.11 1.24 1.11
550 315 1.37 313 260 313 1.01 1.21 1.01
750 318 1.60 367 291 291 0.87 1.09 1.09
bw = 65; bf = 50; bl = 20; t = 1.0

bs = 15 1800 55 650 235.4 241.1 418.9 150 146 0.79 133 131 133 1.10 1.11 1.10
250 216 1.02 185 165 185 1.17 1.31 1.17
350 237 1.20 224 189 224 1.06 1.25 1.06
550 258 1.51 284 224 224 0.91 1.15 1.15
750 260 1.76 332 249 249 0.78 1.04 1.04
bs = 12 1800 55 570 235.9 201.5 373.2 150 143 0.86 126 124 126 1.14 1.15 1.14
250 190 1.11 171 154 171 1.11 1.23 1.11
350 211 1.32 206 175 206 1.02 1.20 1.02
550 246 1.65 260 206 206 0.95 1.19 1.19
750 261 1.93 302 229 229 0.86 1.14 1.14
bs = 17 1800 55 690 235.0 257.0 451.5 150 146 0.76 136 134 136 1.08 1.09 1.08
250 227 0.99 190 169 190 1.20 1.34 1.20
350 250 1.17 230 194 230 1.09 1.29 1.09
550 271 1.46 293 230 293 0.92 1.18 0.92
750 288 1.71 343 257 257 0.84 1.12 1.12
Table C2
R columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – II.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 70; bs = 15; bl = 20; t = 1.0
bf = 55 2100 60 700 202.6 214.6 342.4 150 145 0.84 128 123 128 1.13 1.18 1.13
250 200 1.08 176 153 176 1.14 1.30 1.14
350 212 1.28 212 175 212 1.00 1.21 1.00
550 236 1.60 268 206 206 0.88 1.14 1.14
750 242 1.87 312 229 229 0.78 1.06 1.06
bf = 50 2100 55 660 207.5 220.6 338.3 150 145 0.82 129 125 129 1.12 1.16 1.12
250 209 1.06 178 156 178 1.17 1.34 1.17
350 221 1.26 215 178 215 1.03 1.24 1.03
550 238 1.58 272 210 210 0.88 1.13 1.13
750 252 1.84 317 233 233 0.80 1.08 1.08
bf = 70 2100 65 850 178.1 188.3 348.5 150 144 0.89 123 114 123 1.17 1.26 1.17
250 183 1.15 166 142 166 1.10 1.29 1.10
350 192 1.36 200 161 200 0.96 1.19 0.96
550 209 1.71 251 189 189 0.83 1.10 1.10
750 227 2.00 292 210 210 0.78 1.08 1.08
bw = 75; bf = 60; bs = 15; t = 1.0

bl = 20 2500 65 760 174.8 190.6 267.2 150 143 0.89 123 114 123 1.16 1.25 1.16
250 184 1.15 167 142 167 1.10 1.30 1.10
350 197 1.36 201 162 201 0.98 1.22 0.98
550 211 1.70 253 190 190 0.84 1.11 1.11
750 241 1.98 293 211 211 0.82 1.14 1.14
bl = 15 2500 65 760 178.0 221.0 261.2 150 146 0.82 130 120 130 1.13 1.21 1.13
GBT SFEA DSM

250 204 1.06 178 151 178 1.14 1.35 1.14
350 221 1.26 215 173 215 1.03 1.28 1.03
550 218 1.58 272 204 204 0.80 1.07 1.07
750 239 1.84 317 227 227 0.75 1.05 1.05
bl = 25 2500 65 760 175.0 164.9 269.8 150 138 0.95 117 109 117 1.18 1.27 1.18
250 164 1.23 157 134 157 1.05 1.23 1.05
350 182 1.46 187 152 187 0.97 1.20 0.97
550 202 1.83 235 177 177 0.86 1.14 1.14
750 208 2.13 272 196 196 0.77 1.06 1.06
bf = 55; bs = 15; bl = 20; t = 1.2

bw = 70 1400 60 640 291.7 290.9 768.1 150 147 0.72 140 140 140 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 229 0.93 199 185 199 1.15 1.24 1.15
350 267 1.10 243 213 243 1.10 1.25 1.10
550 303 1.38 311 254 311 0.97 1.19 0.97
750 336 1.61 365 283 283 0.92 1.19 1.19
bw = 65 1400 55 630 329.9 290.9 699.6 150 147 0.72 140 140 140 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 230 0.93 199 190 199 1.16 1.21 1.16
350 271 1.10 243 219 243 1.11 1.24 1.11
550 321 1.38 311 260 311 1.03 1.24 1.03
750 347 1.61 365 290 290 0.95 1.20 1.20
bw = 75 1400 60 650 257.6 280.9 838.9 150 146 0.73 139 139 139 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 228 0.94 196 178 196 1.16 1.28 1.16
350 262 1.12 240 205 240 1.09 1.28 1.09
550 296 1.40 306 244 306 0.97 1.21 0.97
750 330 1.63 358 272 272 0.92 1.21 1.21
bw = 75; bf = 60; bl = 20; t = 1.2

bs = 15 1600 65 700 252.1 256.8 649.7 150 146 0.76 136 136 136 1.08 1.08 1.08
250 222 0.99 190 172 190 1.17 1.29 1.17
350 248 1.17 230 197 230 1.08 1.26 1.08
550 284 1.46 293 233 293 0.97 1.22 0.97
750 303 1.71 342 260 260 0.88 1.16 1.16
bs = 12 1600 65 620 252.5 217.9 586.2 150 144 0.83 129 129 129 1.12 1.12 1.12
250 201 1.07 177 161 177 1.13 1.25 1.13
350 227 1.27 214 184 214 1.06 1.23 1.06
550 273 1.59 270 217 217 1.01 1.26 1.26
750 288 1.86 315 241 241 0.92 1.20 1.20
bs = 17 1600 65 750 251.8 282.2 694.8 150 147 0.73 139 139 139 1.06 1.06 1.06
250 230 0.94 197 178 197 1.17 1.30 1.17
350 264 1.11 240 204 240 1.10 1.29 1.10
550 296 1.40 307 243 307 0.96 1.22 0.96
750 316 1.63 359 272 272 0.88 1.16 1.16
Table C3
R columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – III.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 80; bs = 15; bl = 20; t = 1.2
bf = 70 1900 70 790 215.9 218.7 509.2 150 145 0.83 129 125 129 1.12 1.16 1.12
250 205 1.07 177 157 177 1.16 1.31 1.16
350 223 1.27 214 179 214 1.04 1.25 1.04
550 247 1.59 271 211 211 0.91 1.17 1.17
750 264 1.85 315 234 234 0.84 1.13 1.13
bf = 75 1900 70 840 207.5 212.9 510.9 150 145 0.84 128 123 128 1.13 1.18 1.13
250 199 1.08 175 154 175 1.13 1.30 1.13
350 215 1.28 212 175 212 1.02 1.23 1.02
550 234 1.61 267 206 206 0.88 1.13 1.13
750 255 1.88 311 230 230 0.82 1.11 1.11
bf = 65 1900 65 750 221.5 231.0 506.5 150 146 0.81 131 128 131 1.11 1.14 1.11
250 211 1.04 182 161 182 1.16 1.31 1.16
350 230 1.23 220 184 220 1.05 1.25 1.05
550 262 1.54 278 217 217 0.94 1.21 1.21
750 274 1.80 324 242 242 0.84 1.13 1.13
bw = 85; bf = 75; bs = 15; t = 1.2

bl = 20 2500 75 850 192.9 198.9 327.4 150 144 0.87 125 119 125 1.15 1.21 1.15

GBT SFEA DSM

250 191 1.12 170 147 170 1.12 1.30 1.12
350 203 1.33 205 168 205 0.99 1.21 0.99
550 215 1.66 258 197 197 0.83 1.09 1.09
750 224 1.94 300 219 219 0.75 1.02 1.02
bl = 15 2500 75 840 189.7 220.7 313.5 150 145 0.82 130 122 130 1.12 1.19 1.12
250 203 1.06 178 153 178 1.14 1.33 1.14
350 219 1.26 215 175 215 1.02 1.25 1.02
550 226 1.58 272 206 206 0.83 1.10 1.10
750 253 1.84 317 230 230 0.80 1.10 1.10
bl = 25 2500 75 850 189.7 171.6 327.1 150 139 0.93 119 112 119 1.17 1.24 1.17
250 169 1.21 160 138 160 1.06 1.22 1.06
350 190 1.43 191 157 191 0.99 1.21 0.99
550 204 1.79 239 184 184 0.85 1.11 1.11
750 216 2.09 278 203 203 0.78 1.06 1.06
bf = 120; bs = 10; bl = 10; t = 2.0
bw = 175 1850 145 800 130.6 130.6 1591.0 150 115 1.07 106 94 106 1.08 1.22 1.08
250 148 1.38 141 114 141 1.05 1.29 1.05
350 170 1.64 167 129 154 1.02 1.32 1.10
550 193 2.05 208 150 188 0.93 1.29 1.02
750 219 2.40 240 166 216 0.91 1.32 1.02
1000 255 2.77 273 181 244 0.93 1.41 1.05
1200 282 3.03 296 191 263 0.95 1.47 1.07
bw = 160 1850 135 790 153.1 137.5 1380.0 150 118 1.04 109 99 109 1.09 1.19 1.09
250 155 1.35 144 121 144 1.08 1.29 1.08
350 162 1.60 171 136 156 0.95 1.19 1.04
550 200 2.00 213 158 191 0.94 1.26 1.05
750 229 2.34 247 175 217 0.93 1.31 1.05
1000 262 2.70 281 191 245 0.93 1.37 1.07
1200 288 2.95 305 202 264 0.94 1.42 1.09
bw = 190 1850 155 810 112.4 125.3 1804.0 150 110 1.09 104 90 104 1.05 1.23 1.05
250 143 1.41 138 109 138 1.04 1.31 1.04
350 166 1.67 163 123 152 1.02 1.35 1.09
550 192 2.10 203 143 187 0.95 1.34 1.02
750 221 2.45 234 158 215 0.94 1.40 1.03
1000 254 2.83 267 173 243 0.95 1.47 1.04
1200 277 3.09 289 182 263 0.96 1.52 1.05
Table C4
R columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – IV.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 200; bs = 10; bl = 10; t = 2.2
bf = 125 2250 165 800 122.3 122.3 1337.0 150 114 1.11 103 90 103 1.10 1.26 1.10
250 144 1.43 136 110 136 1.06 1.31 1.06
350 165 1.69 161 123 154 1.02 1.34 1.07
550 192 2.12 201 144 190 0.96 1.34 1.01
750 228 2.48 231 158 219 0.99 1.44 1.04
1000 260 2.86 263 173 248 0.99 1.50 1.05
1200 269 3.13 286 183 268 0.94 1.47 1.00
bf = 140 2250 170 865 119.7 108.5 1383.0 150 101 1.18 98 86 98 1.03 1.18 1.03
250 121 1.52 129 104 122 0.94 1.17 0.99
350 163 1.80 152 116 143 1.07 1.40 1.14
550 180 2.25 188 135 176 0.96 1.34 1.02
750 222 2.63 217 148 201 1.02 1.50 1.10
1000 256 3.04 246 162 228 1.04 1.58 1.12
1200 277 3.33 267 171 246 1.04 1.62 1.13
bf = 115 2250 160 760 123.9 134.0 1296.1 150 113 1.06 107 94 107 1.05 1.20 1.05
250 151 1.37 142 114 142 1.06 1.32 1.06
350 177 1.62 169 129 163 1.05 1.37 1.09
550 204 2.03 210 150 201 0.97 1.36 1.02
750 228 2.37 243 166 231 0.94 1.37 0.99
1000 252 2.73 277 182 263 0.91 1.39 0.96
1200 267 2.99 300 192 284 0.89 1.39 0.94
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 175; bs = 10; bl = 10; t = 2.0
bw = 200 1300 185 1050 91.7 91.7 4310.0 150 96.5 1.28 91 76 91 1.06 1.27 1.06
250 109 1.65 118 91 108 0.92 1.20 1.01
350 115 1.95 139 102 125 0.83 1.13 0.92
550 155 2.45 172 118 152 0.90 1.31 1.02
750 182 2.86 197 130 174 0.92 1.40 1.05
1000 209 3.30 224 141 195 0.93 1.48 1.07
1200 227 3.62 243 149 211 0.93 1.52 1.08
bw = 175 1300 180 1030 106.3 96.5 3396.0 150 98.9 1.25 93 80 93 1.06 1.24 1.06
250 109 1.61 121 96 111 0.90 1.14 0.98
350 126 1.90 143 107 129 0.88 1.17 0.98
550 160 2.39 177 124 157 0.91 1.29 1.02
750 188 2.79 203 137 179 0.93 1.37 1.05
1000 217 3.22 231 149 201 0.94 1.45 1.08
1200 236 3.53 250 157 217 0.94 1.50 1.09
bw = 225 1300 195 1070 76.8 81.3 5277.0 150 86.8 1.36 86 69 86 1.01 1.25 1.01
250 99.3 1.75 111 83 102 0.89 1.19 0.97
350 118 2.07 131 93 118 0.90 1.27 1.00
550 149 2.60 161 107 144 0.93 1.39 1.03
750 175 3.04 185 118 164 0.95 1.48 1.07
1000 201 3.51 210 129 185 0.96 1.56 1.09
1200 219 3.84 227 136 200 0.97 1.61 1.10
bw = 190; bf = 190; bl = 20; t = 2.2

bs = 20 5000 175 1650 116.8 115.9 311.7 150 111 1.14 101 88 101 1.10 1.27 1.10
250 126 1.47 133 106 133 0.95 1.19 0.95
350 137 1.74 157 119 119 0.87 1.15 1.15
550 158 2.18 195 139 139 0.81 1.14 1.14
750 174 2.54 225 153 153 0.77 1.14 1.14
1000 180 2.94 256 167 167 0.70 1.08 1.08
1200 197 3.22 277 176 176 0.71 1.12 1.12
bs = 18 5000 175 1550 116.5 104.4 304.4 150 105 1.20 96 84 96 1.09 1.25 1.09
250 122 1.55 126 101 101 0.97 1.21 1.21
350 134 1.83 149 114 114 0.90 1.18 1.18
550 155 2.30 184 132 132 0.84 1.18 1.18
750 171 2.68 212 145 145 0.81 1.18 1.18
1000 185 3.09 241 158 158 0.77 1.17 1.17
1200 194 3.39 261 167 167 0.74 1.16 1.16
bs = 22 5000 175 1750 116.9 128.2 319.3 150 120 1.08 105 91 105 1.14 1.32 1.14
250 132 1.40 139 111 139 0.95 1.19 0.95
350 144 1.65 165 125 125 0.87 1.15 1.15
550 163 2.07 206 146 146 0.79 1.12 1.12
750 176 2.42 237 161 161 0.74 1.09 1.09
1000 190 2.79 270 176 176 0.70 1.08 1.08
1200 198 3.06 293 186 186 0.68 1.07 1.07
Average 0.98 1.23 1.09
St. deviation 0.13 0.12 0.07
Maximum 1.22 1.62 1.26
Minimum 0.68 0.97 0.92
Table D1
C columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – I.
GBT SFEA DSM

L LcrL LcrD fcr.L fcr.D fcr.G fy fU kD fND fNDL fNL–D fU/fND fU/fNDL fU/fNL–D
bw = 100; bs = 10; t = 2.4
bf = 55 620 85 310 583.6 564.2 4305.6 150 149 0.52 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 245 0.67 241 241 241 1.01 1.01 1.01
350 335 0.79 311 311 311 1.08 1.08 1.08
550 456 0.99 417 382 417 1.09 1.20 1.09
750 538 1.15 499 433 499 1.08 1.24 1.08
bf = 50 620 80 290 591.0 589.9 4110.1 150 149 0.50 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 246 0.65 243 243 243 1.01 1.01 1.01
350 338 0.77 315 315 315 1.07 1.07 1.07
550 473 0.97 424 389 424 1.12 1.22 1.12
750 553 1.13 509 442 509 1.09 1.25 1.09
bf = 60 620 85 325 579.2 529.3 4460.7 150 149 0.53 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 244 0.69 238 238 238 1.02 1.02 1.02

Table D1 (continued)
GBT SFEA DSM

L LcrL LcrD fcr.L fcr.D fcr.G fy fU kD fND fNDL fNL–D fU/fND fU/fNDL fU/fNL–D
350 329 0.81 305 305 305 1.08 1.08 1.08
550 440 1.02 406 372 406 1.08 1.18 1.08
750 520 1.19 485 421 485 1.07 1.23 1.07
bw = 180; bs = 10; t = 1.9

bf = 110 1030 150 590 112.7 112.7 4808.0 150 104 1.15 100 86 100 1.04 1.21 1.04
250 132 1.49 131 104 131 1.01 1.27 1.01
350 156 1.76 155 117 155 1.01 1.33 1.01
550 195 2.21 192 136 192 1.02 1.44 1.02
750 230 2.58 221 150 221 1.04 1.54 1.04
bf = 130 1030 160 650 108.5 98.8 5116.1 150 97 1.23 94 81 94 1.03 1.20 1.03
250 122 1.59 123 97 122 0.99 1.25 1.00
350 145 1.88 145 109 144 1.00 1.33 1.01
550 184 2.36 179 126 178 1.03 1.46 1.03
750 218 2.76 206 139 205 1.06 1.57 1.06
bf = 90 1030 145 515 116.0 131.6 4306.6 150 116 1.07 107 92 107 1.09 1.26 1.09
250 147 1.38 141 112 141 1.04 1.31 1.04
350 175 1.63 168 126 168 1.04 1.38 1.04
550 223 2.04 208 147 208 1.07 1.51 1.07
750 261 2.39 241 163 241 1.08 1.60 1.08
bw = 110; bf = 100; t = 1.9

bs = 17.5 1760 105 755 261.5 261.5 823.2 150 145 0.76 136 136 136 1.06 1.06 1.06
250 198 0.98 191 174 191 1.04 1.14 1.04
350 239 1.16 232 200 232 1.03 1.20 1.03
550 283 1.45 296 237 296 0.96 1.19 0.96
750 307 1.69 346 264 283 0.89 1.16 1.08
bs = 20 1760 105 830 262.7 284.2 863.5 150 147 0.73 139 139 139 1.05 1.05 1.05
250 229 0.94 197 180 197 1.16 1.28 1.16
350 290 1.11 241 207 241 1.20 1.40 1.20
550 323 1.39 308 246 308 1.05 1.31 1.05
750 343 1.62 360 275 277 0.95 1.25 1.24
bs = 16 1760 105 710 261.1 238.6 801.0 150 143 0.79 133 133 133 1.08 1.08 1.08
250 190 1.02 184 168 184 1.03 1.13 1.03
350 232 1.21 223 192 223 1.04 1.21 1.04
550 271 1.52 283 227 246 0.96 1.19 1.10
750 289 1.77 330 253 280 0.88 1.14 1.03
bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.0

bw = 95 2500 85 595 103.8 103.6 273.3 150 95 1.20 96 82 96 0.99 1.16 0.99
250 112 1.55 126 99 106 0.89 1.14 1.05
350 125 1.84 148 111 122 0.84 1.13 1.03
550 138 2.30 183 128 145 0.75 1.08 0.95
750 155 2.69 211 141 163 0.73 1.10 0.95
bw = 88 2500 85 590 114.6 106.7 240.4 150 95 1.19 97 84 97 0.98 1.13 0.98
250 116 1.53 127 102 109 0.91 1.14 1.06
350 125 1.81 151 114 125 0.83 1.09 1.00
550 135 2.27 186 133 149 0.72 1.02 0.90
750 152 2.65 215 146 168 0.71 1.04 0.90
bw = 105 2500 90 605 88.9 93.4 321.9 150 93 1.27 92 76 92 1.01 1.22 1.01
250 100 1.64 119 91 101 0.84 1.10 0.99
350 118 1.94 141 102 116 0.84 1.15 1.01
550 136 2.43 173 118 139 0.78 1.15 0.98
750 150 2.83 200 130 157 0.75 1.15 0.96
Table D2
C columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – II.
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.5
bw = 114 1150 100 500 171.6 170.8 1725.3 150 126 0.94 118 110 118 1.06 1.15 1.06
250 166 1.21 159 135 159 1.04 1.23 1.04
350 189 1.43 191 153 191 0.99 1.23 0.99
550 221 1.79 239 180 226 0.93 1.23 0.98
750 254 2.10 277 199 260 0.92 1.28 0.98
Table D2 (continued)
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 120 1150 100 505 156.8 165.9 1867.1 150 125 0.95 117 107 117 1.07 1.17 1.07
250 162 1.23 157 131 157 1.03 1.23 1.03
350 183 1.45 188 149 188 0.97 1.23 0.97
550 221 1.82 235 174 221 0.94 1.27 1.00
750 255 2.13 273 193 255 0.94 1.32 1.00
bw = 106 1150 90 495 194.0 177.0 1537.3 150 128 0.92 120 114 120 1.07 1.12 1.07
250 172 1.19 162 141 162 1.06 1.22 1.06
350 198 1.41 194 160 194 1.02 1.24 1.02
550 207 1.76 243 187 224 0.85 1.11 0.92
750 260 2.06 282 207 257 0.92 1.25 1.01
bw = 180; bs = 20; t = 4.0

bf = 100 2000 150 620 498.8 482.2 1398.2 150 149 0.56 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 239 0.72 233 233 233 1.02 1.02 1.02
350 283 0.85 296 286 296 0.96 0.99 0.96
550 361 1.07 391 348 391 0.92 1.04 0.92
750 430 1.25 465 393 465 0.92 1.09 0.92
bf = 90 2000 145 580 504.8 526.3 1335.3 150 149 0.53 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 245 0.69 238 238 238 1.03 1.03 1.03
350 305 0.82 304 295 304 1.00 1.03 1.00
550 377 1.02 405 361 405 0.93 1.04 0.93
750 442 1.19 484 409 484 0.91 1.08 0.91
bf = 110 2000 150 660 492.0 438.8 1446.4 150 149 0.58 150 150 150 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 225 0.75 228 228 228 0.99 0.99 0.99
350 266 0.89 286 277 286 0.93 0.96 0.93
550 349 1.12 375 334 375 0.93 1.04 0.93
750 418 1.31 445 377 445 0.94 1.11 0.94
bw = 110; bf = 85; t = 2.4
bs = 15 940 95 545 457.4 457.5 2702.1 150 148 0.57 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 239 0.74 230 230 230 1.04 1.04 1.04
350 304 0.87 290 276 290 1.05 1.10 1.05
550 398 1.10 382 335 382 1.04 1.19 1.04
750 459 1.28 454 378 454 1.01 1.21 1.01
bs = 13 940 100 495 454.7 379.7 2606.7 150 148 0.63 148 148 148 1.00 1.00 1.00
250 232 0.81 218 218 218 1.06 1.06 1.06
350 287 0.96 271 258 271 1.06 1.11 1.06
550 380 1.20 352 310 352 1.08 1.23 1.08
750 434 1.41 416 348 416 1.04 1.25 1.04
bs = 17 940 95 595 459.0 498.2 2806.7 150 148 0.55 150 150 150 0.99 0.99 0.99
250 243 0.71 235 235 235 1.03 1.03 1.03
350 320 0.84 299 284 299 1.07 1.13 1.07
550 434 1.05 396 346 396 1.10 1.25 1.10
750 491 1.23 472 392 472 1.04 1.25 1.04
bw = 100; bs = 5; t = 1.0
bf = 50 1400 80 270 104.1 105.2 716.9 150 103 1.19 97 82 97 1.06 1.25 1.06
250 133 1.54 127 99 127 1.05 1.34 1.05
350 159 1.82 149 112 149 1.06 1.42 1.06
550 191 2.29 185 129 185 1.03 1.48 1.03
750 197 2.67 213 143 213 0.92 1.38 0.92
bf = 45 1400 80 250 105.2 116.6 665.2 150 108 1.13 101 86 101 1.07 1.26 1.07
250 137 1.46 133 104 133 1.03 1.31 1.03
350 168 1.73 158 117 158 1.07 1.43 1.07
550 205 2.17 195 136 195 1.05 1.50 1.05
750 223 2.54 225 150 225 0.99 1.48 0.99
bf = 55 1400 85 290 102.8 95.0 759.2 150 99 1.26 92 79 92 1.07 1.26 1.07
250 116 1.62 120 95 120 0.96 1.23 0.96
350 155 1.92 142 106 142 1.09 1.46 1.09
550 189 2.41 175 123 175 1.08 1.54 1.08
750 207 2.81 201 135 201 1.03 1.53 1.03
Table D3
C columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – III.
GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.3
bw = 115 2400 95 540 126.6 126.2 405.2 150 108 1.09 105 92 105 1.03 1.17 1.03
250 134 1.41 138 112 138 0.97 1.20 0.97
350 145 1.67 164 126 150 0.88 1.15 0.97
550 161 2.09 204 147 183 0.79 1.10 0.88
750 176 2.44 235 162 209 0.75 1.09 0.84
bw = 100 2400 90 530 136.8 129.1 324.7 150 109 1.08 106 94 106 1.03 1.16 1.03
250 138 1.39 140 115 140 0.99 1.20 0.99
350 150 1.65 166 129 150 0.90 1.16 1.00
550 165 2.06 206 151 183 0.80 1.10 0.90
750 179 2.41 238 166 208 0.75 1.08 0.86
bw = 125 2400 105 545 109.0 119.9 459.4 150 105 1.12 102 87 102 1.02 1.20 1.02
250 128 1.44 135 106 135 0.95 1.20 0.95
350 140 1.71 160 120 149 0.88 1.17 0.94
550 160 2.14 198 139 183 0.81 1.15 0.87
750 176 2.50 229 154 210 0.77 1.15 0.84
bw = 95; bf = 80; t = 0.95

bs = 10 2500 85 610 93.8 94.1 273.0 150 91 1.26 92 77 92 0.99 1.18 0.99
250 106 1.63 120 93 99 0.89 1.15 1.07
350 111 1.93 141 104 113 0.79 1.07 0.98
550 130 2.42 174 120 134 0.75 1.08 0.97
750 145 2.82 200 132 150 0.72 1.10 0.97
bs = 9 2500 85 570 93.5 87.8 268.3 150 88 1.31 89 75 89 0.98 1.18 0.98
250 100 1.69 116 90 99 0.86 1.11 1.01
350 106 2.00 136 100 113 0.78 1.06 0.93
550 130 2.50 168 116 136 0.78 1.12 0.96
750 146 2.92 193 127 153 0.76 1.15 0.96
bs = 11 2500 85 655 94.0 100.0 278.1 150 101 1.22 95 79 95 1.07 1.28 1.07
250 111 1.58 123 95 98 0.90 1.17 1.14
350 131 1.87 146 107 110 0.90 1.23 1.19
550 144 2.35 180 124 129 0.80 1.16 1.12
750 152 2.74 207 136 143 0.73 1.12 1.06
bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.2
bf = 140 1430 145 835 53.7 54.1 1969.7 150 61 1.67 70 54 64 0.86 1.12 0.95
250 80 2.15 90 64 80 0.89 1.25 1.00
350 97 2.54 105 71 92 0.93 1.36 1.05
550 123 3.19 128 82 111 0.96 1.51 1.11
750 145 3.72 147 89 126 0.99 1.62 1.15
bf = 130 1430 140 795 57.4 59.8 1949.9 150 64 1.58 74 57 68 0.86 1.11 0.94
250 83 2.04 95 68 85 0.88 1.22 0.98
350 100 2.42 111 76 98 0.90 1.31 1.02
550 127 3.03 136 87 119 0.94 1.46 1.07
750 149 3.54 155 95 135 0.96 1.56 1.11
bf = 150 1430 155 870 58.7 48.7 1983.0 150 61 1.76 67 52 61 0.91 1.16 0.99
250 78 2.27 85 62 77 0.92 1.27 1.02
350 94 2.68 99 69 88 0.94 1.36 1.06
550 119 3.36 121 78 107 0.98 1.52 1.12
750 139 3.92 138 86 121 1.00 1.62 1.15
bw = 200; bf = 190; t = 1.5

bs = 12.5 1850 200 1105 46.1 46.1 2304.3 150 58 1.80 65 49 59 0.89 1.18 0.97
250 76 2.33 82 57 74 0.92 1.31 1.02
350 89 2.76 96 64 86 0.93 1.40 1.04
550 114 3.45 117 73 103 0.97 1.56 1.10
750 133 4.03 134 80 118 0.99 1.66 1.13
bs = 14 1850 195 1200 45.6 38.1 2104.5 150 55 1.98 59 44 52 0.94 1.25 1.07
250 74 2.56 74 52 64 1.00 1.42 1.16
350 88 3.03 86 58 73 1.02 1.53 1.21
550 112 3.80 105 66 87 1.06 1.70 1.28
750 132 4.44 120 72 98 1.10 1.83 1.34
bs = 11 1850 205 1010 46.5 52.5 2068.7 150 59 1.69 69 52 66 0.85 1.14 0.90
250 77 2.18 88 61 83 0.87 1.25 0.92
350 91 2.58 103 68 97 0.89 1.34 0.95
550 115 3.24 126 78 117 0.91 1.47 0.98
750 134 3.78 144 86 134 0.93 1.56 1.00
Table D4
C columns – SFEA ultimate strengths and DSM estimates (dimensions in mm, stresses in MPa) – IV.
GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 235; bf = 160; t = 1.9
bs = 12.5 1950 200 910 64.4 64.4 2378.7 150 74 1.53 77 61 75 0.96 1.22 0.99
250 94 1.97 99 72 95 0.96 1.31 0.99
350 112 2.33 115 80 111 0.97 1.39 1.01
550 144 2.92 141 92 136 1.02 1.56 1.06
750 169 3.41 162 101 156 1.04 1.67 1.09
bs = 14 1950 200 985 64.1 55.7 2401.8 150 73 1.64 71 57 68 1.02 1.29 1.07
250 92 2.12 91 67 86 1.00 1.37 1.06
350 110 2.51 107 75 100 1.03 1.48 1.10
550 142 3.14 130 86 122 1.09 1.66 1.16
750 168 3.67 149 94 139 1.13 1.79 1.21
bs = 11 1950 205 830 64.6 74.0 2357.0 150 77 1.42 82 64 82 0.94 1.19 0.94
250 97 1.84 106 77 106 0.92 1.26 0.92
350 113 2.17 124 86 124 0.91 1.31 0.91
550 143 2.73 153 99 152 0.94 1.44 0.94
750 167 3.18 175 109 175 0.95 1.53 0.96
bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.9

bf = 140 900 150 800 63.5 63.5 4970.4 150 71 1.54 76 60 71 0.93 1.18 0.99
250 94 1.98 98 71 90 0.97 1.32 1.05
350 113 2.35 114 80 104 0.99 1.42 1.08
550 145 2.94 140 91 127 1.03 1.59 1.14
750 170 3.44 161 100 144 1.06 1.69 1.18
bf = 130 900 140 760 67.8 71.4 4920.3 150 75 1.45 81 64 81 0.93 1.17 0.93
250 100 1.87 104 76 95 0.96 1.30 1.04
350 119 2.21 122 85 111 0.98 1.39 1.08
550 152 2.78 150 98 134 1.02 1.55 1.13
750 178 3.24 172 108 153 1.04 1.65 1.16
bf = 150 900 155 835 58.2 58.2 5004.5 150 67 1.61 73 57 68 0.92 1.19 0.99
250 88 2.07 93 67 86 0.94 1.30 1.02
350 108 2.45 109 75 99 0.99 1.44 1.09
550 138 3.07 134 86 120 1.03 1.60 1.15
750 163 3.59 153 94 137 1.06 1.73 1.19
Average 0.97 1.25 1.03
St. Deviation 0.10 0.19 0.08
Maximum 1.20 1.83 1.34
Minimum 0.71 0.96 0.84
References Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on civil, structural and

environmental engineering computing. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press;
2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.4203/ccp.91.22[Paper 22].
[1] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Silvestre N. FEM-based analysis of the local-plate/
[12] Camotim D, Dinis PB, Silvestre N. Local/distortional mode interaction in lipped
distortional mode interaction in cold-formed steel lipped channel columns.
channel steel columns: post-buckling behaviour, strength and DSM design. In:
Comput Struct 2007;85(19–20):1461–74.
Proceedings of fifth international conference on thin-walled structures
[2] Dinis PB, Young B, Camotim D. On the effect of local/distortional mode
recent innovations and developments (Ictws 2008 Brisbane, 18–20/6); 2008.
interaction on the post-buckling behaviour and ultimate strength of fixed-
p. 281–8.
ended lipped channel columns. In: Rasheed H, editor. Proceedings of IJSSD
[13] Silvestre N, Camotim D, Dinis PB. Direct strength prediction of lipped channel
symposium on progress in structural stability and dynamics (Hong Kong, 16–
columns experiencing local-plate/distortional interaction. Adv Steel Construct
18/12), Hong Kong Institute of Steel Construction; 2009. p. 191–8.
2009;5(1):45–67.
[3] Silvestre N, Camotim D, Dinis PB. Post-buckling behaviour and direct strength
[14] Yang D, Hancock GJ. Compression tests of high strength steel columns with
design of lipped channel columns experiencing local/distortional interaction. J
interaction between local and distortional buckling. J Struct Eng (ASCE)
Constr Steel Res 2012;73(June):12–30.
2004;130(12):1954–63.
[4] Young B, Silvestre N, Camotim D. Cold-formed steel lipped channel columns
[15] Kwon YB, Kim BS, Hancock GJ. Compression tests of high strength cold-formed
influenced by local–distortional interaction: strength and DSM design. J Struct
steel channels with buckling interaction. J Constr Steel Res
Eng (ASCE) 2013;139(6):1059–74.
2009;65(2):278–89.
[5] Dinis PB, Camotim D. Local/distortional mode interaction in cold-formed steel
[16] Yap DCY, Hancock GJ. Experimental study of high strength cold-formed
lipped channel beams. Thin-Walled Struct 2010;48(10–11):771–85.
stiffened web steel sections. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2011;137(2):162–72.
[6] Hancock GJ, Kwon YB, Bernard ES. Strength design curves for thin-walled
[17] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Fena R. Local/distortional mode interaction in hat-
sections undergoing distortional buckling. J Constr Steel Res 1994;31(2–
section columns: post-buckling behaviour, strength and DSM design. In:
3):169–86.
Proceedings of sixth European conference on steel and composite structures
[7] Schafer BW, Pekoz T. Direct strength prediction of cold-formed steel members
(Eurosteel 2011 Budapest, 31/8-2/9); 2011. p. 69–74.
using numerical elastic buckling solutions. In: Shanmugam N, Liew JYR,
[18] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Fena R. Post-buckling, strength and design of cold-
Thevendran V, editors. Thin-walled structures – research and development
formed steel lipped channel, zed-section and hat-section columns affected by
(Ictws’98 Singapore, 2–4/12). Elsevier; 1998. p. 137–44.
local–distortional interaction. In: USB key drive proceedings of SSRC annual
[8] Schafer BW. Review: the direct strength method of cold-formed steel member
stability conference (Grapevine, 18–21/4); 2012.
design. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(7–8):766–78.
[19] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Fena R. On the DSM design of cold-formed steel columns
[9] Standards of Australia and Standards of New Zealand (AS/NZS). Cold-Formed
against local–distortional interactive failure. In: Liew JR, Lee SC, editors.
Steel Structures (AS/NZS 4600), Sydney–Wellington; 2005.
Proceedings of tenth international conference on steel concrete composite and
[10] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), North American Specification (NAS)
hybrid structures (Asccs 2012 – Singapore, 2–4/7). Research Publishing
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (AISI-S100-07),
(Singapore); 2012. p. 76–84.
Washington DC; 2007.
[20] Dinis PB, Camotim D. Direct strength method to predict the resistance of cold-
[11] Dinis PB, Silvestre N, Camotim D. On the relevance of local/distortional
formed steel columns against local–distortional interactive failure. In: Topping
interaction in the post-buckling behaviour and strength of cold-formed steel
BHV, editor. Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on
lipped channel columns. In: Topping BHV, Costa Neves LF, Barros RC, editors.
computational structures technology. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press. simulations and design considerations. Thin-Walled Struct
http://dx.doi.org/10.4203/ccp.99.25 [Paper 25]. 2012;61(December):2–13.
[21] Simulia Inc., Abaqus Standard (vrs. 6.7-5); 2008. [25] Young B, Rasmussen KJR. Shift of effective centroid of channel columns. J
[22] Dinis PB, Camotim D. Local/distortional/global buckling mode interaction in Struct Eng (ASCE) 1999;125(5):524–31.
cold-formed steel rack-section columns. In: Proceedings of SSRC annual [26] Schafer BW. Local, distortional and Euler buckling in thin-walled columns. J
stability conference (Orlando, 11–15/5); 2010. p. 481–504. Struct Eng (ASCE) 2002;128(3):289–99.
[23] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Batista EM, Santos ES. Local/distortional/global mode [27] Dinis PB, Young B, Camotim D. Local–distortional interaction in cold-formed
coupling in fixed lipped channel columns: behaviour and strength. Adv Steel steel rack-section columns. In: Loughlan J, Nash D, Rhodes J, editors.
Construct 2011;7(4):113–30. Proceedings of sixth international conference on coupled instabilities in
[24] Dinis PB, Batista EM, Camotim D, Santos ES. Local–distortional–global metal structures (Cims 2012 Glasgow, 3–5/12); 2012. p. 523–530.
interaction in lipped channel columns: experimental results, numerical

Dinis - 2015 - LD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dinis - 2015 - LD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dinis - 2015 - LD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers and Structures 147 (2015) 181–208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

Cold-formed steel columns undergoing local–distortional coupling:

Pcr (kN) (R Columns)

vL.0 vD.0 =0.1t

P/Pcr H Columns P/Pcr θ=0

v<0 v>0 w<0 w>0

v<0 v>0 w<0 w>0

v<0 v>0 w<0 w>0

θ =0 w/t θ =90 w/t θ =225

0.99 1.0 0.0

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.0

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 2.4

bw = 100; bs = 10; t = 1.4

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 180; bs = 20; t = 4.0

bw = 110; bf = 85; t = 2.4

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 95; bf = 80; t = 0.95

bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.2

bw = 200; bf = 190; t = 1.5

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.9

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 180; bs = 10; t = 1.9

(continued on next page)

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 110; bf = 100; t = 1.9

bf = 80; bs = 10; t = 1.0

GBT SFEA DSM

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 110; bf = 85; t = 2.4

GBT SFEA DSM

(continued on next page)

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 95; bf = 80; t = 0.95

bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.2

bw = 200; bf = 190; t = 1.5

GBT SFEA DSM

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 150; bs = 10; t = 1.9

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 67; bf = 35; bs = 10; t = 0.8

(continued on next page)

GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 40; bs = 15; bl = 20; t = 1.0

bw = 65; bf = 50; bl = 20; t = 1.0

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 75; bf = 60; bs = 15; t = 1.0

GBT SFEA DSM

bf = 55; bs = 15; bl = 20; t = 1.2

bw = 75; bf = 60; bl = 20; t = 1.2

GBT SFEA DSM

bw = 85; bf = 75; bs = 15; t = 1.2

(continued on next page)

GBT SFEA DSM