Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Behavior of cold-formed steel built-up I-sections

T.A. Stone a, R.A. LaBoube b,*
b

a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO65409, USA
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO 65409, USA

Received 18 May 2005; received in revised form 25 August 2005; accepted 29 September 2005

Abstract
An experimental investigation was conducted to study the behavior of built-up cold-formed steel
studs and to assess the current design provisions of the North American Specification for the Design
of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. Typical applications include framing for windows,
doorways, shear walls, and multi-story cold-formed steel framed buildings in which the lower floor
utilizes built-up studs to carry the load. The built-up studs in this study consisted of two C-sections
oriented back-to-back forming an I-shaped cross-section. For each specimen, the studs were
connected to each other with two self-drilling screws spaced at a set interval. A cold-formed steel
track section was connected running perpendicular to each end of the built-up stud with a single selfdrilling screw through each flange of the C-sections. The purpose of the track section was to keep the
ends of the studs together and represents a common end attachment. As a result of the investigation,
the current design requirements were found to be conservative in predicting the ultimate capacity of
built-up studs.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cold-formed steel; Columns; Built-up section; Axial compression

1. Introduction
The building construction industry utilizes cold-formed steel members extensively due
to the advantages offered over other construction materials. Common applications of these
members are in door jambs, support for windows, and shear walls where the top and
bottom of the X-bracing is connected (Figs. 13).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C1 573 341 4481; fax: C1 573 341 4729.
E-mail address: laboube@umr.edu (R.A. LaBoube).

0263-8231/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2005.09.001

1806

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

Fig. 1. Typical door framing.

Cold-formed steel design in North America is governed by the [1]North American

Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. The specification
provides for the design of built-up compression members; however, no testing has been
performed to verify these design equation for cold-formed steel members.

2. Literature review
The following summarizes key research and design methodology for the axial capacity
of built-up compression members.
Based upon research conducted on bolted double-angle compression members attached
at each end to a gusset plate, [2] showed that the most important factor in developing the
strength of the built-up member was preventing shear slip in the end connection.
Lue et al. [9] focused on the axial capacity of built-up hot-rolled steel columns
consisting of double channel sections. The tests consisted of two groups of sections in
which one group utilized snug-tight bolted connections while the other group consisted of

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

1807

Fig. 2. Typical window framing.

welded or fully tensioned bolted connections. The results of the study showed that the
column strength based on the modified slenderness defined by the [3], yields conservative
strength estimates.
[1]North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members stipulates design guidance for fassemblies such as built-up compression
members. The specification states for compression members composed of two sections in
contact that the nominal axial strength, Pn, shall be calculated as follows:
Pn Z Ae Fn

(1)

Where Fn is
For inelastic buckling, lc%1.5
2

Fn Z 0:658lc Fy

(2)

1808

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

Fig. 3. Typical shear wall framing.

For elastic buckling, lcO1.5


0:877
Fn Z
Fy
l2c

FeZ

p2 E
KL=r2

(3)

(4)

Where lcZ(Fy/Fe)1/2
If the buckling mode produces shear forces in the connectors between the members,
KL/r should be replaced with (KL/r)m.


KL
r

Where:

s
 2  2 
KL
a
Z
C
r
r
m
o
i

(5)

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

1809

Fig. 4. Typical C-section parameters.

Ae
Fe
E
Fy
K
L
(KL/r)o
a
ri

Effective area at the stress Fn, with consideration given to the web perforation
The least of the elastic flexural, torsional, and torsional-flexural buckling stress
Modulus of Elasticity
Yield strength
Effective length factor
Unbraced length of member
Overall slenderness ratio of entire section about built-up member axis
Intermediate fastener or spot weld spacing
Minimum radius of gyration of full unreduced cross-sectional area of an
individual shape in a built-up member

Eq. (5) was adopted from [3]. However, Eq. (5) was developed based on testing
performed on double-angles by [4] and testing performed by Aslani and Goel ([5]).

3. Experimental investigation
An experimental study was performed at the University of Missouri-Rolla
concentrating on the behavior of built-up compression members, specifically I-sections
([6]). The purpose of the investigation was to assess the behavior of the built-up

Fig. 5. Typical track section parameters.

1810

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

Table 1
C-section geometry
T (mm)

D (mm)

h (mm)

bf (mm)

df (mm)

R (mm)

Fy (Mpa)

Fu (MPa)

% Elongation

1.372
1.155
0.880
0.841

152.40
92.08
92.08
149.23

139.70
90.09
89.69
136.53

41.28
41.28
40.64
39.70

9.53
9.53
9.53
9.53

4.98
3.97
4.76
4.76

388.04
297.06
205.30
266.52

510.98
439.35
297.03
357.47

22.38
27.44
20.47
19.02

cold-formed steel compression members and to determine if the present AISI design
methodology is valid for cold-formed steel members.
The Structural Stability Research Council Technical Memorandum No. 4: Procedure
for testing centrally loaded columns ([7]) provided basic guidance for the development of
the experimental study.
Table 2
Test specimen length and screw spacing
Measured thickness
(mm)

Length (m)

Depth (mm)

Screw spacing, a (mm)

1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.155
1.155
1.155
1.155
1.155
1.155
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.841
0.841
0.841
0.841
0.841
0.841

2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1

152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
92.1
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4
152.4

304.8
609.6
609.6
609.6
762.0
762.0
762.0
914.4
914.4
1016.0
1066.8
1066.8
304.8
304.8
609.6
609.6
914.4
914.4
304.8
304.8
304.8
304.8
609.6
609.6
914.4
914.4
304.8
304.8
609.6
609.6
914.4
914.4

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

1811

3.1. Section parameters

Specimens tested in this investigation were constructed of C-shaped sections oriented
back-to-back with edge stiffened flanges and track sections. Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate typical
C- and track sections used in this study. All column specimens were 178 mm long and the
cross-section parameters of the C-sections used in this study varied as follows:
Thickness, t
0.841.37 mm
Depth, D
92152 mm
Flange, bf
41.3 mm
Edge Stiffener, df
9.53 mm
Screw Spacing, a
305914 mm
Table 1 summarizes the C-section geometries while Table 2 lists the screw spacing for
each test specimen.
3.2. Test setup
The built-up compression members were tested in a universal testing machine as shown
in Fig. 6.
Simulated pin-pin connections were used in an attempt to achieve an effective length
factor of unity (Figs. 7 and 8). The pin connection at the top of the stud was similar to
the bottom connection in that the two plates had the same half-hemisphere. However, the
upper plate in the top connection was connected to a load cell (Fig. 8).
The two C-sections were fastened together with screws through the web starting 50 mm
from one end and 19 mm from the inside of the flange. The screw spacing, a, was varied

Fig. 6. Test setup.

1812

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

Fig. 7. Bottom pin connection.

Fig. 8. Schematic of test setup.

102

50
19

38
a = 305, 610, 914 mm
Fig. 9. Schematic of screw spacing and layout.

50

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

1813

Fig. 10. Representative screw spacing.

for the test specimen, using spacing values of 305, 610, and 914 mm. The screw layout is
illustrated in Figs. 911.
A 305 mm long track section was screw attached to each end of the built-up I-section to
simulate a typical industry application (Fig. 8).

Fig. 11. Typical screw spacing and layout.

1814

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

Table 3
Built-up compression member test results
Measured thickness
(mm)

Depth (mm)

Screw spacing, a (mm)

Ptest (kN)

1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.372
1.155
1.155
1.155
1.155
1.155
1.155
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.841
0.841
0.841
0.841
0.841
0.841

152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
152
152
152
152
152
152

305
610
610
610
762
762
762
914
914
1016
1067
1067
305
305
610
610
914
914
305
305
305
305
610
610
914
914
305
305
610
610
914
914

80.60
82.96
77.00
81.22
74.06
78.38
86.74
73.53
64.32
79.36
79.36
79.80
55.29
66.90
51.24
51.15
47.55
55.96
42.75
37.63
27.40
33.85
36.65
42.48
36.65
41.06
32.69
38.21
43.81
37.05
32.03
35.32

3.3. Test procedure

The load application consisted of centering the stud in the test fixture and applying a
compression load through the center of gravity of the built-up member. The ultimate
failure load for each stud was defined as when the test specimen was no longer capable of
sustaining additional load.

4. Test results
The failure load, Ptest, was the largest load that each built-up member sustained during a
test. Table 3 summarizes the failure loads. Although each test specimen was loaded until

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

1815

Fig. 12. Typical failure mode.

failure, the specimens experienced local buckling between the connections and also on
each end, but continued to carry load until the stud formed a smooth curvature with the
flanges buckling near mid-span and eventually failed as shown in Fig. 12.
5. Data analysis
The recorded failure load, Ptest, for the 32 tests was first compared to the
unmodified predicted failure load, Pn, as determined by Section C4 of the AISI
specification without using the (KL/r) modification (Eq. (5)). Fig. 13 illustrates the
comparison of Ptest/Pn.
Fig. 13 indicates that for the thicker materials the existing AISI design equations
without using the modified slenderness ratio (Eq. (5)) are conservative by an average of
Ptest/Pn

1.8
1.6
Ptest/Pn

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.8

0.9

1
1.1
1.2
Material Thickness (mm)

1.3

Fig. 13. Test versus computed strength using the unmodifed KL/r.

1.4

1816

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

Ptest/Pnm

Ptest/Pnm
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.8

0.9

1
1.1
1.2
Material Thickness (mm)

1.3

1.4

Fig. 14. Test versus computed strength using the modifed KL/r.

43%. This suggests that the modification is not necessary for the thicker materials. The
capacity of the thinner material (0.89 mm) was slightly overestimated by an average of
1%, with five of the 14 values being less than unity.
The recorded failure load, Ptest, for the 32 tests was also compared against the modified
predicted failure load, Pnm, as determined by Section C4 of the AISI specification, using
the (KL/r) modification (Eq. (5)). Fig. 14 illustrates the comparison of Ptest/Pnm.
Fig. 14 indicates that for the thicker materials the existing AISI design equations
including the modified slenderness ratio (Eq. (5)) are conservative by an average of 65%.
This suggests that the modification is not necessary for the thicker materials. The capacity
of the thinner material (0.89 mm) was overestimated by an average of 16%; with only two
of the Ptest/Pnm values less than unity.

6. Conclusions
A total of 32 specimens were tested for this study. An analysis of the data determined
that for thicker materials the modified slenderness ratio is not necessary when computing
axial capacity, and therefore the designer can use the actual slenderness ratio of the builtup member. Analysis of the data also determined that the existing design specifications
pertaining to the modified slenderness ratio may be on the average conservative when
designing thinner members (0.89 mm).

References
[1] American Iron and Steel Institute, AISI. North american specification for the design of cold-formed steel
structural members. Washington, DC: American Iron and Steel Institute; 2001.
[2] Sherman DR, Yura JA. Bolted double angle compression members. J Construct Steel Res 1998;46:13 [Paper
No. 197].
[3] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., AISC. Manual of steel construction, load and resistance factor
design. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., AISC; 2001.

T.A. Stone, R.A. LaBoube / Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 18051817

1817

[4] Zandonini, R., Stability of compact built-up struts: experimental investigation and numerical simulation,
construzioni metalliche, No. 4; 1985.
[5] Aslani Farhang, Goel Subhash C. An analytical criterion for buckling strength of built-up compression
members. Eng J 1991;28(4) (American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL).
[6] Stone, T.A. Behavior of built-up cold-formed steel I-section wall studs. Thesis presented to the faculty of the
University of Missouri-Rolla in partial fulfillment of the degree Master of Science; 2004.
[7] Galambos Theodore V, editor. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 5th ed. New York, NY:
Wiley; 1998.
[8] Lue Dung-Myau, Yen Tsong, Liu Jui-Ling, Hsu Yao T. Experimental investigation for buckling strength of
double-channel columns Structural stability research council (2004). Proceedings of the annual stability
conference, Long Beach, CA; 2004.