DISTORTIONAL BUCKLING OF

C AND Z MEMBERS IN BENDING

Progress Report to AISI

Cheng Yu, Benjamin W. Schafer

The Johns Hopkins University

February 2004
 Overview
• Test Summary
• Notable Tests
• Comparison with Local Buckling Tests
• Comparison with Design Specifications
• Finite Element Modeling
• Conclusions
 Notable Tests
1. Test D8C097 – with lower lateral-torsional buckling strength

Local Distortional Lateral-torsional

 Notable Tests - Continued
Continued. Test D8C097 – with lower lateral-torsional buckling strength

Actuator load-displacement D8C097-5E4W-standard D8C097-5E4W-angle added

Actuator load P=10350 lbs Actuator load P=12751 lbs
84% of DSM_d 99% of DSM_d
 Notable Tests - Continued
2. Test D8.5Z059-6E5W – failed outside constant moment region

Purlin buckled Actuator load-displacement

Beam failed at 83% of distortional strength by DSM

 Notable Tests - Continued
3. Test D3.62C054-3E4W – failed by yielding

Observed large deflection

Mtest= 34 kips-in.
My = 33 kips-in.
McrD = 66 kips-in. (first mode)
 Notable Tests - Continued
4. Test D8C033-1E2W – failed in local buckling mode

Mtest= 32.8 kips-in.

My = 40 kips-in.
McrL = 30 kips-in.
McrD = 61 kips-in.
 Direct Comparison with Local Bucking Tests

9 pairs of tests having nominally identical geometry and

material yield stresses
 Direct Comparison with Local Bucking Tests
- Continued
Test 8.5Z092

Local buckling test Distortional buckling test

Test 8.5Z082

Local buckling test Distortional buckling test

 Direct Comparison with Local Bucking Tests
- Continued
Test 8C043

Local buckling test Distortional buckling test

Test 12C068

Local buckling test Distortional buckling test

 Comparison with Design Codes
(consider controlling specimens only)
1.20

1.00
test-to-predicted ratio

0.80

0.60

0.40
Local buckling tests
0.20
Dirtortional buckling tests
0.00
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80

web slenderness = web = (fy/fcr_web)0.5

Compared with North American Spec (NAS 2001) prediction

Local buckling tests average Mtest/MNAS=1.02
Distortional buckling tests average Mtest/MNAS=0.87
 Direct Strength Method vs. tests

Local buckling
tests
Mtest/MDSL=1.03

Distortional
buckling tests
Mtest/MDSD=1.01*

*formulas similar
to AS/NZS Spec.
Finite Element Modeling

loading point

displacement control at loading point.

automatic stabilization technique applied.
 Finite Element Modeling - Continued
Shell element (S4R) Solid element (C3D8)

Pin connection between Load

beam and tube

Tie connection between purlin

and tube
1

Shell element (S4R)

Tie connection between purlin
and panel

2
1

2
 Finite Element Modeling - Continued

Link connection between two

nodes to simulate the angle at
tension flanges

• Material properties of beams use tension

test results.
• Panel is pure elastic. 3
• High elastic modulus is assumed for tubes
and load beam.
2
 Finite Element Modeling – Continued
geometric imperfection
Geometric imperfection is generated by the superposing two eigenmodes which
are calculated by finite strip method. The magnitudes are corresponding to
25% and 75% CDF of maximum imperfection.
1.00
Type 1
Type 2
d 0.80

Probability (X < x)
d 0.60 Type 1 Type 2
P(X < x) d/t d/t
0.25 0.14 0.64
0.40 0.50 0.34 0.94
0.75 0.66 1.55
0.95 1.35 3.44
0.99 3.87 4.47
Type 1 Type 2 0.20
 0.50 1.29
 0.66 1.07
(local) (distortional)
0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
CDF of Maximum
d/t Imperfection
 Finite Element Modeling – Continued
comparison with tests

1.4

1.2

1
FEM-to-test ratio

0.8

0.6

0.4
25% CDF

75% CDF
0.2

0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
web slenderness =  web = (fy/fcr_web)0.5
Finite Element Modeling – Continued
selected results
 Conclusions

• Tests that separate local and distortional buckling are

necessary for understanding bending strength
• Current North American Specifications are adequate only for
local buckling limit states
• The Direct Strength expressions work well for strength in local
and distortional buckling
• Local buckling failure could control the strength of beams with
loose restraint
• Nonlinear finite element analysis with proper imperfections
provides a good simulation
• More work on restraint and influence of moment gradients has
been initialized
 Acknowledgments

• Sponsors
– MBMA and AISI
– VP Buildings, Dietrich Design Group and
Clark Steel
• People
– Sam Phillips - undergraduate RA
– Tim Ruth - undergraduate RA
– Jack Spangler – technician
– James Kelley – technician
 Finite Element Modeling - Continued
comparison with tests
Local buckling tests Distortional buckling tests
Test label Ptest(lbs) P25% P25%/Ptest P75%(lbs) P75%/Ptest Test Label Ptest(lbs) P25% P25%/Ptest P75%(lbs) P75%/Ptest
8.5Z120-3E2W 17520 17968 103% 16484 94% D8.5Z120-4E1W 15870 16283 103% 14839 94%
8.5Z105-2E1W 16720 17294 103% 15806 95% D8.5Z115-1E2W 14837 16402 111% 13028 88%
8.5Z092-4E2W 11330 11901 105% 11170 99% D8.5Z092-3E1W 9566 10740 112% 8779 92%
8.5Z082-1E2W 10130 11446 113% 10749 106% D8.5Z082-4E3W 7921 9160 116% 7775 98%
8.5Z073-4E3W 8341 8770 105% 7309 88% D8.5Z065-7E6W 5826 6891 118% 6053 104%
8.5Z065-3E1W 5969 6771 113% 5886 99% D11.5Z092-3E4W 16377 16817 103% 14443 88%
8.5Z059-2E1W 6180 6749 109% 5748 93% D8.5Z065-4e5W 4993 5876 118% 5155 103%
11.5Z073-2E1W 12120 13956 115% 12396 102% D11.5Z082-4E3W 14578 15172 104% 14473 99%
11.5Z082-2E1W 17123 17294 101% 15806 92% D12C068-21 6160 8157 132% 7566 123%
11.5Z092-1E2W 22000 23417 106% 19790 90% D8C043-4E2W 2678 3051 114% 2751 103%
8.5Z059-4E3W 6275 6855 109% 5763 92% D12C068-1110 5912 5497 93% 4930 83%
D8C033-1E2W 1024 1089 106% 950.8 93%
8C097-2E3W 10770 11175 104% 10200 95%
D8C054-7E6W 3032 3363 111% 2919 96%
8C068-4E5W 6476 6762 104% 5614 87%
D10C068-4E3W 3185 3235 102% 2746 86%
8C054-1E8W 3492 3849 110% 3233 93%
D8C097-5E4W 10350 12353 119% 9985 96%
8C043-5E6W 3195 3574 112% 3082 96%
D3.62C054-3E4W 1071 1027 96% 838 78%
6C054-2E1W 2803 2882 103% 2240 80%
mean 110% 95%
4C054-1E2W 1731 1720 99% 1365 79% standard deviation 8% 8%
12C068-9E5W 6505 6697 103% 5968 92%
3.62C054-1E2W 1263 1170 93% 987 78%
12C068-3E4W 8542 9458 111% 8655 101%
10C068-2E1W 4381 4233 97% 3937 90%
8C068-1E2W 6141 6854 112% 5557 90%
8C043-3E1W 2985 3482 117% 3026 101% Ptest: tested actuator load
mean 106% 93%
standard deviation 6% 7% P25%: load of simulation with 25% CDF
P75%: load of simulation with 75% CDF
 Comparison with Design Codes - Continued

Mtest / Mtest / Mtest / Mtest / Mtest / Mtest / Mtest /

MAISI MS136 MNAS MAS/NZS MEN1993 MDSL MDSd
Controlling μ 1.01 1.06 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.24
Local buckling specimens σ 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07
tests Second μ 1.00 1.05 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.24
specimens σ 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07
Controlling μ 0.85 0.91 0.87 1.02 0.96 0.89 1.01
Distortional specimens σ 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.08
buckling tests Second μ 0.83 0.88 0.85 0.99 0.95 0.87 0.99
specimens σ 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09

μ: mean
σ: standard deviation
 Test Summary

Total 19 completed tests were included in the progress report.

9 Z beams 10 C beams
D8.5Z120-4E1W 62ksi D8C097-7E6W 85ksi
D8.5Z115-1E2W 64ksi D8C097-5E4W 84ksi
D8.5Z092-3E1W 58ksi D8C068-6E7W 79ksi
D8.5Z082-4E3W 59ksi D8C054-7E6W 41ksi
D8.5Z065-7E6W 62ksi D8C043-4E2W 45ksi
D8.5Z065-4E5W 60ksi D8C033-1E2W 20ksi
D8.5Z059-6E5W 59ksi D12C068-10E11W 33ksi
D11.5Z092-3E4W 70ksi D12C068-1E2W 56ksi
D11.5Z082-3E4W 72ksi D10C068-4E3W 22ksi
D3.62C054-3E4W 33ksi

Tensile tests are underway for additional performed 5 tests.

D6C063-2E1W D8C045-1E2W D8C085-2E1W
D10C048-1E2W D10C056-3E4W