Thin-Walled Structures 22 (1995) 71 95

~3 1995 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0263-8231/95/$9.50
ELSEVIER 0263-8231 (94)00023-9

Lateral Buckling Strengths of Cold-formed Rectangular

Hollow Sections

Y o n g L i n Pi & N . S. T r a h a i r

School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
(Received 19 August 1993; accepted 20 October 1993)

ABSTRACT

Code rules for designing steel beams against lateral buckling which are
based on data for hot-rolled I-sections are unnecessarily conservative when
used for cold-formed rectangular hollow section beams.
Cold-formed rectangular hollow section beams have different stress
strain curves, residual stresses, and crookedness and twist. The effects of
residual stress on the inelastic buckling of I-section beams are not nearly as
pronounced for hollow sections with two webs, while the strengthening
effects of pre-buckling deflections are greater for hollow sections. Simplis-
tic code rules for top flange loading are very conservative when applied to
hollow sections.
This paper reviews elastic lateral buckling behaviour and the strength
rules used to design steel beams. It develops realistic models for cold-
formed rectangular hollow beams which are analysed to predict the effects
of moment distribution, load height and yield stress on their strengths. The
results of the analyses are used to develop improved design rules which
remove much of the conservatism of present design rules.

NOTATION

A Area of cross-section
B Overall width
E Young's modulus of elasticity
Es Strain-hardening modulus o f elasticity
fy Yield stress

71
72 Yon~ Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

f0.2 0.2% proof stress

F Concentrated load
G Shear modulus of elasticity (=0-4 E)
h Distance between flange centroids
H Overall depth
Iv, I v Second moments of area about x and y axes
Iw Warping section constant
J Torsion section constant
L Length between braces
M Moment
mbx Design code beam strength
M! Inelastic buckling moment
ML Moment at first yield of crooked, twisted beam
Mm Maximum moment
mpx Full plastic moment about x axis
msx Section moment capacity
M× Beam strength
My Nominal first yield moment
myz Elastic buckling resistance to uniform bending
Myzi Value of Myzincreased for pre-buckling deflections
m2, M4 Moments at quarter and three quarter points
M3 Moment at midpoint
II Index in Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain curve
P Constant in Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain curve
Py Column flexural buckling load = n2EIy/L2
R Radius
Plastic section modulus about x axis
T Thickness
bt Lateral deflection
ldo Initial value of u
W Uniformly distributed load
X, y Principal axes of cross-section
YQ Distance below centroid at which load acts
Z Distance along beam
Z~ Z V Elastic section moduli about x and y axes

~m Moment modification factor

~s Slenderness reduction factor
~sa Alternative slenderness reduction factor
6 Central deflection
c~0 Central initial deflection
g Strain
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 73

~s Strain-hardening strain
~y Yield strain
0 Central twist rotation
00 Central initial twist rotation
2 Modified slenderness
(7 Stress
tTcrw Residual stress at web centre
O'p 0.2% proof stress

1 INTRODUCTION

While it is commonly believed that rectangular hollow section (RHS)

beams rarely buckle laterally in a flexural-torsional mode, the rules of
many design standards 1-3 require lateral buckling reductions to be rriade
in the moment capacities of RHS's with comparatively closely spaced
braces. Consequently, many RHS's are over-designed.
This situation has arisen because these design standards do not distinguish
between RHS's and the hot-rolled I-sections for which their design rules were
developed, apart from the use of appropriate values of the minor axis flexural
rigidity Ely and the torsional rigidity GJ which provide the resistance to
elastic lateral buckling. Further, cold-formed RHS's have significantly
different stress-strain relationships and residual stresses to those of hot-
rolled I-sections, and may have significantly different initial crookednesses
and twists as a result of their different methods of manufacture.
There are two additional sources of the conservatism of present design
codes. The first of these is the neglect of the effects of the pre-buckling
deflections, which transform the beam into a negative arch, and increase
its resistance to elastic lateral buckling. The increase depends on the ratios
EIy/Elx and GJ/EIx of the out-of-plane rigidities to the in-plane flexural
rigidity E/x. For I-sections these ratios are small, and so are the pre-
buckling deflections and their effects. However, these ratios are signifi-
cantly higher for RHS's, and for square and circular hollow sections
(SHS's and CHS's) are so high as to prevent elastic lateral buckling of
beams loaded through the shear centre. To neglect their effects in RHS's is
often over-conservative.
The second additional source of conservatism in some of these design
codes is associated with the approximations used to allow for the effects of
loads acting above the shear centre. These approximations were developed
for I-section members, which usually buckle by rotating about points close
to the bottom flange, resulting in substantial destabilising effects for loads
above the shear centre. RHS's buckle about much lower points with
74 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

smaller twist rotations, so that the destabilising effects are greatly reduced.
Thus, the design code rules overestimate the effects of load height on
RHS's.
This paper reviews elastic buckling behaviour and the strength rules
used to design beams against lateral buckling. It then develops realistic
models of RHS's, which are analysed to predict the effects of moment
distribution, load height and yield stress on their strengths. The results of
these analyses are then used to develop improved design rules which
remove much of the conservatism of present design rules.

2 ELASTIC LATERAL B U C K L I N G

2.1 Simply supported beams in uniform bending

A simply supported beam which is bent in uniform bending in its stiffer

(major) principal plane by equal and opposite end moments M may
suddenly buckle in a flexural-torsional mode by deflecting laterally u,
rotating laterally du/dz,
and twisting 0, as shown in Fig. 1. The moment
resistance Myz to elastic buckling is approximated by 4-m

~rc2EIy (GJ ~2EIw

Myz : V ] . ~ - -[- ~ ) } (1)

L -II- -

II
x_ x
Ii~
II
_.II_
I ]

dz

Y
Fig. 1. I-section at b u c k l i n g .
 Lateral bucklingstrengthsof rectangularhollowsections 75

in which L is the length of the beam, E/v is the minor axis flexural rigidity,
GJ is the uniform torsional rigidity, and EIw is the warping torsional
rigidity.
Equation (1) neglects the effects of the pre-buckling in-plane deflections
which transform the beam into a negative arch. The increased m o m e n t
resistance Myzi is approximated by TM12

Myz (2)
Myzi = v/{( 1 _ Ely/EIx) [1 - (GJ + rcZEIw/LZ)/2EIx]}
The increase m a y be quite substantial for hollow sections, which have
comparatively large values of EIy/EIx and GJ/EL,, and becomes infinitely
large for SHS's and CHS's which have EIy/EI~ = 1-0.

2.2 Effects of bending moment distribution

U n i f o r m bending rarely occurs in real beams, which usually have concen-

trated or distributed loads and varying bending m o m e n t diagrams.
Uniform bending is the most severe case, and increased elastic buckling
m o m e n t capacities can be approximated by using
Mm = @mMyz (3)
for the m a x i m u m m o m e n t at buckling, in which ~m is a m o m e n t modifi-
cation factor.
Values of ~m for specific bending m o m e n t distributions are given in
Ref. 8 and used in Ref. 3, and some of these are shown in Figs 2 and 3.
Alternatively, approximate values of 0~m for beams supported at both ends
m a y be obtained from
1-7 Mm
~m = x/{M 2 + M~ + M 2} (4)

in which M2, M3, and M4 are the moments at the quarter, mid, and three-
quarter points, as shown in Fig. 4.1°

2.3 Effects of load height

In some cases a beam may have gravity loads which act at the top flange,
and which move laterally with the flange during buckling, as shown in
Fig. 5. These loads induce additional torques about the beam axis which
increase the twist rotations q5 and decrease the resistance to elastic buck-
ling. Approximations for the effects of load height on the m a x i m u m
m o m e n t at buckling have been suggested 9 as taking the form of
76 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

P
y
/',j"~M z,-~\ )(
i lull
L L ~1~ L

O~m= 1.00 0~m=1.75 0~m=1.75

Braced at mid-span

1
l_ L _[

~Xm= 1.25

Unbraced at flee end

Fig. 2. Beams and cantilevers with moments or concentrated loads.

&I~- L
,&
_i
m, _ L _1
&
-3 t-- Vl

O~m=l.13 ~,m=l.13
w

~. L .!

Ctm = 2.25
w w

I_ L _1 I_ L _1
Ctm = 2.25 0~m= 2.42
Fig. 3. Beams and cantilevers with distributed loads.

{ [ ( 0 " 4 ~m YQ/2 I 0"4 ~m Yq /

Mm = ~m Myz V/ 1 + k, Myz/Py + Myz/Py (5)

in which yQ is the load height below the shear centre and

Py = ~¢EIv/L 2 (6)
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 77

M In

J
I
I

I--
u4 _1_ ~4 _1_ L/4 _1_ [../4 _1
Fig. 4. M o m e n t distribution.

F~d¢/2
u

]40/2

Fig. 5. Effect of load height.

2.4 Cantilevers

A cantilever which is free at one end may buckle under uniform bending at
a moment approximated by 13"14
Mm = v/{ ~Tr2EIv
-
(Gj +lr2EIw~
~- ]j (7)

However, this is often approximated by using eqn (3) with 0~m = 0 - 2 5 . 3

Uniform bending rarely occurs in real cantilevers which usually have
78 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

concentrated or distributed loads and varying m o m e n t diagrams. Values

o f a m for use in eqn (3) are given in Ref. 3, and some of these are shown in
Figs 2 and 3.
Load height effects m a y be quite pronounced in cantilevers, but are not
as simply approximated as in eqn (5) for simply supported beams.
Approximations are given in Refs 9 and 13.

3 S T R E N G T H S O F H O T - R O L L E D I-SECTIONS

3.1 General

Real beams are not initially straight and untwisted, as is assumed when
calculating their elastic buckling resistances, while residual stresses cause
premature yielding, inelastic buckling and failure. Design codes ~ 3 use
strength formulations for real beams which may be derived from consid-
erations of initial crookedness and twist and residual stresses, and modi-
fied in the light of experimental evidence) These effects are discussed in
the following sub-sections.

3.2 Residual stresses

Residual stresses induced in a beam during its manufacture cause prema-

ture yielding. This premature yielding reduces the effective rigidities (Ely)e,
(GJ)e, and (EIw)e causing premature inelastic buckling in a perfectly
straight beam. 8' 9, 16 The inelastic buckling behaviour is shown in Fig. 6.
The inelastic lateral buckling moments of simply supported beams with
unequal end moments M a n d / 3 M have been approximated 15" 16 by

MI _ 0-7 + 0.3(1 - 0.7 Mpx/~m Myz) (8)

Mex (0.61 - 0 . 3 / / + 0.07 ~2)
in which Mpx is the full plastic m o m e n t
Mp× = jy Sx (9)

in which fy is the yield stress and S~ is the plastic section modulus.

3.3 Initial crookedness and twist

The effects of initial crookedness and twist on the elastic behaviour of

simply supported beams in uniform bending are analysed in Ref. 8. The
m a x i m u m lateral deflection 6 and twist rotation 0 are given by
 Lateral bucklingstrengths of rectangularhollowsections 79

Moment

Elastic buckling
Mr,
/'~'-- Elasticbending
Inelastic ~ and twisting
buckling
M ~ ~ ~ -- ~ Crookedbeams without
( S---. ~" \ residual stresses
. . " ~ " - -..~. \

MI
...... .~-~ ./ Straightbeam with

Lateral deflectionand twist

Fig. 6. Behaviour of real beams.

6 0 M/Myz
60 -- Oo -- 1 - M/Myz (1 O)

when the initial crookedness u0 and twist rotation q50 are given by

Uo/6o = ~0/0o = sin rcz/L (11)

The variations of 6/6o and 0/00 with M/Myz are shown in Fig. 6. The
limiting m o m e n t ML at which first yield occurs is given by

ML- ( l'25+Myz/MY2 -- ~ / { ( 1"25 + Myz/MY) 2 ~yyMyz

/ (12)

when the initial crookedness and twist are related by

60 PY -- Oo = Z,,/Zx My
Myz 1 + (h/2) (Py/Myz) 4My z (13)

in which
My ----fyZx (14)
is the nominal first yield moment, Z~ and Z,' are the elastic section moduli
about the x and y axes, and h is the distance between flange centroids.
80 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

3.4 Experimental results

The results of many experiments on the lateral buckling strengths of real

beams have been gathered together by Ref. 17, and some of these for
beams in uniform or near uniform bending are shown in Fig. 7. The
spread of results shown reflects the variations in the initial crookednesses
and twists, residual stresses and test arrangements and methods.

3.5 Design methods

The beam lateral buckling strengths Mbx used in design codes may be
expressed in the form of

Mbx = 0qn 3~s Msx (15)

in which c~ is a slenderness reduction factor and M~x is the nominal

section moment capacity (either the full plastic moment Mpx, or a reduced
value which allows for local buckling effects).
The variations with a modified slenderness

)t = v / ( M s x / ~ m Myz) (16)

of ~ according to different design codes I 3 are also shown in Fig. 7. The

slenderness reduction factor of Ref. 3 is given by

1.5
I I i L

Full plasticity Mpx

o

1.0 _ ._Z_
-- ",~VXX,<:3____ Elastic
,~ooX; bucktir
6".0.
o
{3- Hot rolled - - ~ ~, Pt tP
o
0.5
.o_ Design rules
e3
g "" -~. ...A "AA
,_E ---- BSI (1990)
.... AISC (1986)
SA (1990)
0 I t I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Modified Slenderness ~/(Mpx/Myz)

Fig. 7. Nominal moment capacities of beams in uniform bending.

 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 81
as = 0.
6
{~/M~
(2V/yz
)2 ] ~//yz)}
sx
-;7-, + 3 -
Msx
T:--, ~< 1.0 (17)

4 MODELLING COLD-FORMED RHS

4.1 General

The strength behaviour described in Section 3 above and used to develop

code rules for designing against lateral buckling is largely related to hot-
rolled I-section beams. Different methods are used to manufacture cold-
formed R H S ' s which lead to different stress strain curves, residual stresses
and initial crookednesses and twists. The methods used in this paper to
model these different characteristics are described in the following sub-
sections.

4.2 Cross-section

R H S ' s have very different cross-sections to I-beams, and these lead to very
different section properties. The principal difference is that there are two
webs o f the same thickness as the flanges which are at extreme distances
from the section minor (y) axis compared with the single web of a b o u t
half the flange thickness at the y axis for the I-section. The 75 x 25 x 2-5
R H S considered in this paper has one o f the greatest d e p t h - w i d t h ratios,
B/D, o f commercially available RHS's. It can be expected to be among the
sections least affected by the pre-buckling deformations (see eqn (2)).
R H S ' s also have rounded corners, as shown in Fig. 8a. In this paper the
equal area approximation shown in Fig. 8d is generally used, for which
each rounded corner is replaced by two flats, each having a projection o f
2.78mm, equal to 0.741 times the mid-thickness radius of 3.75mm. The
sharp cornered approximation o f Fig. 8b is also used.

4.3 Material properties

F o r studies of hot-rolled I-sections, a tri-linear stress strain curve is

usually assumed. The tri-linear stress strain curve of Fig. 9a is generally
assumed for the flats of RHS's, as recommended in Key and Hancock, is
but not for the rounded corners. For the rounded corners, the rounded
R a m b e r g - O s g o o d stress-strain curve of Fig. 9b is generally assumed, as
recommended in Key and Hancock. 18 Higher stress-strain curves are also
used, for which fy = 450 M P a (instead o f 350 MPa) and ~.2 = 540 M P a
(instead of 420 MPa).
82 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

~- I ' r = 2~mm

2~mm~
Two-Flats Comer
Rounded Comer
25ram _l 25ram _l 25ram _ i 2.5~nm~ 25mm __i
I- -I I
f: I

i
~ ~.5mm _ 5ram

- J --I

(a) Rounded (b) Sharp (c) Equivalent (d) Two-Hats

Comers Comers I-Section Section
Fig. 8. Beam cross-sections.

oi E = 200,000MPa £ = O/E+(p/IOO)((Y/Op) n
E s -- 6,000MPa p =0.2 , n = 15
G = 80,OOOMPa Gp= f0.2 = 1.2 fy = 420MPa
fy= 350MPa
I~y= 0.00175
= 0.01375

fy
/ ~ s~ fo.2
;
~y Es E 0.002

(a) T/i-linear (Flats) (b) Ramberg-Osgood (Comers)

Fig. 9. Stress strain curves.

 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 83

h/4

~0.50fy

~/ 'x~ ~_0.35fy

h/4

(a) Flange (b) Web

Fig. 10. Hot-rolled residual stresses for equivalentI-section.

4.4 Residual stresses

For studies of hot-rolled I-sections, the longitudinal residual stress distri-

bution of Fig. 10 is often assumed, in which the value of O'crw is such as to
produce axial equilibrium. This distribution has been used in a study 19 of
the effects of initial crookedness and twist on hot-rolled I-beams whose
strengths are given by eqns (15) and (17).
Very different residual stresses have been measured by Key and
Hancock 18 for cold-formed RHS's. They idealised these residual stresses
as shown by the longitudinal stresses of Figs 11 and 12. These idealised
residual stresses have generally been increased by 25% for this paper. This
follows an interpretation of the compression member flexural buckling
results of Key and Hancock ~8 that the neglect of transverse residual
stresses could be compensated for approximately by increasing the long-
itudinal stresses by 25%. The hot-rolled residual stresses of Fig. 10 are
also used.

4.5 Initial crookedness and twist

In their study of hot-rolled I-sections in uniform bending, Bild, Chen and

Trahair 19 found that the strengths given by eqns (15) and (17) were
predicted for the residual stresses of Fig. 10 when the initial crookedness
and twist were approximated by
1000 6oiL = 1000 00 (Myz/Py L) = 4.4 2 - 1.76 while ), > 0-4 (18)
and
84 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

I_ B(or H) _I t- B(or H) -I
42T ~'- -~ 2T~- --'~2T ~-- -~ 2T~-

orn r Flat Comer Comer Flat Comer

(1) Section (1) Section

ii oo

(2) Membrane (2) Membrane

°o~_A I o.8 +
o.. + I o.o
(3) Bending (3) Bending

0.410"8-7 ,r - - [__ 0.8 + [

0.0 l + I o.o
(4) Layering (4) Layering

(a) Longitudinal Residual Stresses (b) Transverse Residual Stresses

Fig. 11. Residual stress factors around section for cold-formed RHS's.

1000 6o/L = 1000 00 (Myz/PyL) = 0.0001 while 2 < 0.4 (19)

For this paper, the initial crookednesses and twists are generally assumed
to be given by
1000 6o/L = 1 (20)
and
00 = 0-04 (21)
Equations (20) and (21) correspond to the fabrication tolerances of SA
(1990). Values of lO006o/L = 0,001, 2 and 00 = 0, 0-1 are also used.

4.6 Basic model

The basic model used in this paper is defined by the 75 × 25 × 2.5 R H S

section with two flat corners of Fig. 8d, with the material properties of
Fig. 9a for the flats and Fig. 9b for the corners, 1-25 times the residual
stresses of Figs 11 and 12, and the initial crookedness and twist of eqns
(20) and (21).
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular holloa, sections 85

outside

.,side|
/~

Stress (MPa)
(1) Panel RemovalResidualStress
.
membrane( ! \ i~

Stress (MPa)
(1) PanelRemovalResidualStress
t
inside

°u~idef

inside I l J d" I I I
~o0.3oo-~.~oo o ~oo~o 3oo~o
1 I : t I
400-300-~0-100 0
I I I
I00 200 ~ 0 400
inside
Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)

(2) LayeringResidualStress (2) LayeringResidualStress

(a) Longitudinal Residual Stress (b) Transverse Residual Stress

Fig. 12. Residual stresses through wall thickness for cold-formed RHS's.

5 STRENGTHS OF COLD-FORMED RHS'S

5.1 M e t h o d o f a n a l y s i s

The beams were analysed using the finite element method developed by Pi
and Trahair, 2°'2~ which includes the effects of the pre-buckling deflec-
tions. TM ~2 Material inelasticity is modelled in this method by using the von
Mises yield criterion, the associated flow rule and the hardening rule in
formulating the elastic-plastic constitutive matrix.
In general, loading was continued for each beam until a m a x i m u m value
o f the applied load or m o m e n t was reached. This m a x i m u m value was
used to determine the m a x i m u m m o m e n t Mx in the beam. In some cases, a
m a x i m u m value o f the applied load was not reached, generally because of
strain-hardening effects, and the analysis was terminated (usually at very
high strains, o f the order of 0.04). In this case the value o f the applied load
at termination was used as the maximum m o m e n t in the beam.
The results o f the analyses are shown in Figs 13-20 as the variations of
the dimensionless m a x i m u m moment Mx/Mpx with the modified slender-
86 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

1.4
i : i
g
1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :

Full plasticity :
1 * I- : ............................... i .......................................

e~ 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 . ~+ Sharp-cornered
s,5.(!.990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RHS
• Equivalent[-sextioni
o Basic model
0 i i i i i i i , i
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
ModifiedSlendernessk
Fig. 13. Comparison of RHS and I-section strengths.

ness 2 = v / ( M p x / a m m y z ) . These results are compared with the theoretical

predictions for full plasticity (Mx -- Mpx) and elastic buckling
(Mx = am Myz, which omits the effects of the pre-buckling deflections).
Also shown in these figures are either the design values of Ref. 3 defined
by as am ( ~ 1"0) and alternative design values defined by asa am ( ~< 1.0) and

V L~z-yz)2 -I - Myz } ~ l-0 (22)

The results of the analyses are discussed in the following sub-sections.

5.2 Effects of cross-section

Changes in cross-section change the m o m e n t resistance ~m Myz to elastic

lateral buckling by changing the values of L, J, and Iw ( s e e eqn (1)). These
effects have been removed from Figs 13 20 by plotting am Myz/Mpx
against 2 = ~¢/(Mpx/a m Myz) , so that all the linear elastic buckling resis-
tances (excluding the effects of the pre-buckling deflections) lie on a single
line.
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 87

1.4

1.2 ............ ~. . . . . . !............................................................. ! M(~ A )• .....

1~ t. 1t
o+ + Full plasticity
1, • i " . ........................... , .................................

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 .BSA.(1990) ............................................................................................

o Basic model
+ Sharp-cornered model
i i
O0 02 0.4 ' 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Modified Slenderness k

Fig. 14. C o m p a r i s o n o f strengths o f sharp-cornered and two-flat RHS's.

However, changes in the cross-sectional shape may affect the maximum

strengths of beams with residual stresses and initial crookedness and twist.
Some of these changes are demonstrated in Fig. 13 by the strengths of
sharp cornered R H S ' s (Fig. 8b) and equivalent I-sections which have the
same area A and second m o m e n t of area Ix (Fig. 8c). These beams have
the hot-rolled stress-strain properties of Fig. 9a, the hot-rolled residual
stresses of Fig. 10 and the initial crookednesses and twists of eqns (18) and
(19).
The strengths of the equivalent I-sections are very close to the S A 3
design curve (eqn (17)), but the strengths of the sharp-cornered R H S ' s are
substantially higher. The lower strengths of the equivalent I-sections are
caused by the residual stresses which cause early yielding at the edges of
the compression flange, which causes substantial decreases in the effective
rigidity (EIy)e and consequent decreases in the inelastic buckling resis-
tance. The corresponding decreases in (E/r) e for the R H S ' s are much
smaller because of the substantial contributions of the webs which
decrease at a much slower rate, so that the inelastic buckling resistances
are not so reduced.
Also shown in Fig. 13 are the strengths obtained for the basic model
88 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

1.4

1.2 ........... ~. . . . . i.................................... ~........... i ~(,a ~ ' ~ ......

I- L ,,
iFult plasticity

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 .~s6.0.9~) ................. i................~............. i .............................. :............................................

o fy =I350MPa i
+ fy =I450MPa
• Tri~iinear s~ress-strain relationship
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Modified Slenderness k

Fig. 15. Effects o f m a t e r i a l properties.

R H S ' s (Section 4.6). These are a little higher than those for the sharp
cornered RHS's, due to a combination of the effects of their different
corners, residual stresses and initial crookedness and twist.
The effects of modelling R H S ' s as sharp-cornered are shown in Fig. 14
by the comparison between sharp-cornered and two-flat R H S ' s (Fig. 8b
and d) which have the cold-formed stress-strain properties of Figs 9a and
9b, cold-formed residual stresses equal to 1.25 times those of Figs 11 and
12, and initial crookedness and twist given by eqns (20) and (21). The two-
flat section has the same values of A and J as the round-cornered section
and almost the same values o f / v and Ix. The sharp-cornered section has
higher values of all section properties than the round-cornered section.
The strengths shown in Fig. 14 are a little lower for the two-flat R H S ' s
than for the sharp-cornered RHS's.
The R H S strengths shown in Figs 13 and 14 are higher than the full
plastic m o m e n t M p x at low modified slendernesses 2 as a result of strain-
hardening effects. At high modified slendernesses, the R H S strengths are
higher than the linear elastic buckling moments Myz of eqn (1), which
neglects the effects of the pre-buckling deflections (eqn (2)). F o r these
RHS's, this effect is approximately 16%.
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 89

1.4

........................................................ : ~,¢,,~ a y" .....

L2 .......

J- -a

Q
Full plasticity:
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
, Basic model
+ With hot-roiled residual stresses !
. Without residual stresses
0 i i I i I i ~ i

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Modified Slenderness k

Fig. 16. Effects o f residual stresses.

5.3 Effects of material properties

The effects of the stress-strain relationship are demonstrated in Fig. 15.

The results for the basic model with the rounded stress-strain curve
(Fig. 9b) for the corners are slightly higher than those with the tri-linear
stress-strain curve (Fig. 9a) throughout.
The effects o f the yield stress are also demonstrated in Fig. 15, by the
comparison o f the results for the basic model with those using a yield
stress fy increased from 3 5 0 M P a to 4 5 0 M P a and fo.2 increased from
420 MPa to 540 MPa. The results are virtually identical because the effects
o f yield stress are largely eliminated by the use of Me× in the non-dimen-
sionalised values of Mx/Mp~ and 2 = v/(Mpx/0~m m y x ) plotted.

5.4 Effects of residual stresses

The effects of residual stresses are demonstrated in Fig. 16. The strengths
o f RHS's without residual stresses are higher than those of the basic
model of Section 4.2. The strengths o f RHS's with the hot-rolled residual
90 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

1.4

!
1.2 ........... : Md Vaa ~}'~ ......
!, t, _+
! : , Full plasticity
1
:
*

i
0 1[

. o t
\ :
i

i ~ ' o, ~LuIP.a.lrelg~,c buckllng

0.8

0.6 .............. !................ !................ !................ !............................ ;.............. !............... !............ !...............

i i i } i /, i i

0.4

0.2 '~ 80 = 2LJ1000, 0o = 0 .............................................................

, & = 0. 0o= 0.1
. &,= o. o 0 = 0
0
0 0.2
' 0.4
' 0.6
' 0 .'8 1.2 1.4
' 1.6
' 1.8
' 2
Modified Slenderness ~.

Fig. 17. Effects of initial crookedness and twist.

stresses o f Fig. 10 are l o w e r t h a n t h o s e o f the b a s i c m o d e l at l o w s l e n d e r -

nesses, a n d slightly h i g h e r at h i g h s l e n d e r n e s s e s .

5.5 E f f e c t s o f initial c r o o k e d n e s s e s and t w i s t

T h e s i g n i f i c a n t effects o f initial c r o o k e d n e s s a n d twist are d e m o n s t r a t e d in

Fig. 17 b y the c o m p a r i s o n o f the s t r e n g t h s o f the s t r a i g h t b e a m s w i t h
t h o s e o f the b a s i c m o d e l o f S e c t i o n 4.2, f o r w h i c h 6 o / L = 0-001 a n d
0 0 - 0.04. T h e s t r e n g t h s f o r b e a m s w i t h initial twist o n l y ( 0 0 - 0.1) are
s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r t h a n t h o s e f o r initial c r o o k e d n e s s o n l y (6o/L - 0.002).

5.6 Effects of moment distribution

T h e s i g n i f i c a n t effects o f the m o m e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n in s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d
b e a m s ( F i g s 2 a n d 3) are s h o w n in Fig. 18. T h e s t r e n g t h s i n c r e a s e w i t h the
m o m e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n f a c t o r 0{m t o w a r d s the l i n e a r elastic b u c k l i n g c u r v e
(am Myz), a n d b e y o n d it f o r the case o f b e a m s w i t h u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d
l o a d w a n d e q u a l e n d m o m e n t s wL2/12 (for w h i c h 0~ m = 2.42). T h e l o w e s t
 Lateral buckling strengths q[ rectangular hollow sections 91

] . 4 , , , , , , , •

i . o . rrrrrrm r r m r m
• .~ /.A
1/Full pl~sUcilv
..=~,. .~" . .: . ,. . :
•
i: L ::
............................... 1' ....L...... -l .............

o..o

0.4 ---SA(1990) ( ~ = 1.00) " " " ~

.,,..o. 22 __.
o Umform bending m o m e n t ( a m - 1.00) " " ~
0.2 -- ~ Un!.f°rmiy.d-!s.mbutecl load ( ~ = !. !.3.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
÷ Braced central load ((7.== 1.'/5)
o Uniformly distnbuterl load and o n e end m o m e n t (am = 2.23)
x Uniformly distributed load and both e n d m o m e n t a (o~:= 2.42)
I i i i I t i i

00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1,2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Modified Slenderness ~.

Fig. 18. Effects of moment distribution in simply supported beams.

strengths are for uniform bending (0~m = 1.0), but these are substantially
higher than those predicted by eqn (17) 3 for hot-rolled I-sections. Much
better predictions are demonstrated in Fig. 18 for eqn (22), which is very
accurate n e a r Mx/Mpx = 1-0, and conservative elsewhere, not only for the
case of uniform bending, but also for all other cases shown, except for the
extreme cases of a m = 2.25 and 2.42, for which eqn. (22) is conservative
everywhere.
The effects of m o m e n t distribution in cantilevers (Figs 2 and 3) are
shown in Fig. 18. Again, the predictions of eqn. (22) are conservative.

5.7 Effects of load height

The effects of top flange loading on the strengths of simply supported

beams in uniform bending are shown in Fig. 20. There are virtually no
changes to the relationship between mx/Mpx and 2. This is because the
effects of top flange loading on elastic buckling are much less for R H S ' s
than for I-section beams. These effects can be estimated using eqn. (5).
F o r the R H S ' s considered here, the value of 0 " 4 ~ m y Q Py/Myz for top
flange loading varies from 0.0375, for L - - 1 0 0 0 m m , to 0.00375, for
92 Yong Lin Pi, N. S. Trahair

1.4

÷ • I P

1.2 :i ........................... i ........... t t. '~ t.

o÷
o !
Full ~lasticity ~ . i
I

0,, 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
o Cantilever with concentrated en. d load ( ~ = 1 ; 2 5 ) : ]
+ Cantilever with uniformly dis~ibuted~l~d ( ~ = 2.25)~ , [
0 i
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Modified Slenderness I

Fig. 19. Effects of m o m e n t distribution in cantilevers.

L = l0 000 mm, with corresponding decreases in Mm varying from 3.7%

to 0.37%.
The value of m m calculated from eqn. 5 can be used in the method of
design by buckling analysis 3 by substituting m m / o C m for M y z in eqn. (22).

6 CONCLUSIONS

This paper has investigated theoretically the lateral buckling strengths of

cold-formed rectangular hollow sections. A basic model was developed
which used realistic stress-strain curves, residual stresses and initial
crookedness and twist. The analyses made of this model included the
effects of the pre-buckling in-plane deflections and material inelasticity.
The cross-section shape was found to have a significant effect on the
lateral buckling strength, even after allowances were made for changes in
the values of the section constants !, and J. The superior performance of
RHS's over equivalent hot-rolled I-sections was attributed to the
substantial contributions made by the webs to the effective rigidity (EIr)e,
even after early yielding of the flanges caused by residual stresses.
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular holloa' sections 93

1.4 , ! , , !

~ tttt~t~t~
1.2

q" Full plasticity

• qL ~ i
0.8:
........................ ~.~. r .e!.~t~c.l? .u.s~ing .....i .......

0.6

0.4

0.2 r o S A ( 1 9 9 0 ) (otto= 1.13)

o Top flange uniformly distributed loads (~xm=L13)
+ Centroid uniformly dislxibuted loads (O.aa=l~13)
0 i I I

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Modified Slenderness ~.

Fig. 20. Effects o f l o a d height.

The effects (on strength) of using a rounded stress strain curve instead
of a tri-linear curve for the corners of RHS's were found to be small at
high slenderness and moderate at low slendernesses. The effects of initial
twist were found to be very important for RHS's, but the effects of initial
crookedness were less important than for hot-rolled I-sections. The effects
of the bending m o m e n t distribution were found to be even more impor-
tant for RHS's than for hot-rolled I-sections, but effects of load height
were found to be much smaller for RHS's.
A different design equation to that used for hot-rolled I-sections was
developed to account for the superior performance of RHS's. This was
tested for a wide range of m o m e n t distributions in simply supported
beams and cantilevers and was found to provide much more economic,
but still conservative, solutions for the lateral buckling strengths of cold-
formed RHS's.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The support of Tubemakers of Australia Limited, Structural Products

Division for the work described in this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
94 Yong Lill Pi, N. S. Trahair

REFERENCES

1. AISC, (1986), Load and Resistance Factor Design Spee(/ieation /'or Structural
Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
2. BSI, (1990), BS 5950, Structural Use ~/ Steel in Building, Part 1. Code ~?/
Practice ./'or Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: Hot Rolh, d
Sections, British Standards Institution, London.
3. SA, (1990), A S 4100, Steel Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney.
4. Timoshenko, S. P. & Gere, J. M., Theo O' 0/' Elastic Stability, 2nd edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961.
5. Vlasov, V. Z., Thin-Walled Elastic' Beams, 2nd ed., Israel Program for Scien-
tific Translation, Jerusalem, 1961.
6. Bleich, F., Buckling Strength 0/" Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1952.
7. Galambos, T. V. (ed), Guide to Design Criteria .~'or Metal Compression
Members, 4th edition, John Wiley, New York, (1988).
8. Trahair, N. S. & Bradford, M. A., The Behaviour and Design ()/'Steel Struc-
tures, Revised 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, London, 1991.
9. Trahair, N. S., FlexuraUTorsional Buckling o/ Structures, E. & F. N. Sport,
London, 1993a.
10. Trahair, N. S., Hogan, T. J. & Syam, A., Design of unbraced beams. Steel
Construetion, 27(1) (1993) 2 26.
11. Pi, Y. L. & Trahair, N. S., Prebuckling deflections and lateral buckling
theory. Journal q/" Structural Engineering, A SCE, 118(11) (1992a) 2949 66.
12. Pi, Y. L. & Trahair, N. S., Prebuckling deflections and lateral buckling
applications. Journal 0/' Structural Engineering, A SC E, 118(11) (1992b) 2967
85.
13. Trahair, N. S., Lateral buckling of overhanging beams. In Proceedings, M. R.
Horne Con/~renee on the bTstability and Plastic Collapse ~)['Steel Structures,
Manchester, September, Granada, London, 1983a, pp. 503 18.
14. Trahair, N. S., Design of unbraced cantilevers. Steel Construction. 27(3)
(1993b).
15. Trahair, N. S., Inelastic lateral buckling of beams. In Developments in the
Stability and Strength ~/ Structures, Vol. 2. Beams and Beam-Columns,
Applied Science Publishers, 1983/9, pp. 35 69.
16. Nethercot, D. A. & Trahair, N. S., Inelastic lateral buckling of determi-
nate beams. Journal ~)[ the Structural Division, ASCE. 102(ST4) (1976)
701 17.
17. Fukumoto, Y. & Kubo, M., A Survey of Tests on Lateral Buckling Strength
of Beams, Preliminary Report, 2nd International Colloquium on Stability of
Steel Structures, ECCS-IABSE, Liege, pp 233 40.
18. Key, P. W. & Hancock, G. J., A theoretical investigation of the column
behaviour of cold-formed square hollow sections, Thin- Walled Structures, 16
(1993) 31 64.
19. Bild, S., Chen, G. & Trahair, N. S., Out-of-plane strengths of steel beams.
Journal ~?/ Structural Engineering, A SCE, I 18(8) (1992) 1987 2003.
20. Pi, Y. L. & Trahair, N. S., Nonlinear inelastic analysis of steel beam-columns
theory. Research Report R670, School of Civil and Mining Engineering,
University of Sydney, February, 1993a.
 Lateral buckling strengths of rectangular hollow sections 95

21. Pi, Y. L. & Trahair, N. S., Nonlinear analysis of steel beam-columns

Applications, Research Report R671, School of Civil and Mining Engineer-
ing, University of Sydney, February, 1993b.
22. Billinghurst, A., Williams, J. R. L., Chen, G. & Trahair, N. S., Inelastic
uniform torsion of steel members. Computers and Structures, 42(6) (1992)
887 94.