materials

Article
Analytical and Experimental Study on Cold-Formed Steel
Built-Up Sections for Bending
R. Sujitha 1 , N. Sunmathi 1 , R. K. Manikandan 1 , J. Arunprasad 2 , S. Rajkumar 3 , Shubham Sharma 4,5, * ,
Kamal Sharma 6 , Changhe Li 4 and Elsayed Mohamed Tag Eldin 7, *

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Engineering College, Perambalur 621212, India
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Engineering College, Perambalur 621212, India
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Manufacturing, Institute of Technology, Hawassa University,
Hawassa P.O. Box 5, Ethiopia
4 School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266520, China
5 Mechanical Engineering Department, University Centre for Research and Development, Chandigarh University,
Mohali 140413, India
6 Institute of Engineering and Technology, GLA University, Mathura 281406, India
7 Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Future University in Egypt, New Cairo 11835, Egypt
* Correspondence: shubham543sharma@gmail.com or shubhamsharmacsirclri@gmail.com (S.S.);
elsayed.tageldin@fue.edu.eg (E.M.T.E.); Tel.: +91-7009239473 (S.S.)

Abstract: In the construction of steel structures, the two most common types of structural members are
hot-formed and cold-formed members. This paper mainly describes the analytical and experimental
research on the strength and characteristics of CFS bolted built-up sigma sections having different
structural arrangements under bending. The cross-sectional dimensions for the parametric study
were selected by the sizes available in the market. In this paper, ANSYS workbench software was
used to perform FE modeling and observe the local, flexural, and interaction of these buckling. Then,
experimental study was performed by varying the arrangement of open section beams between
Citation: Sujitha, R.; Sunmathi, N.; face-to-face and back-to-back, connected using bolts or fasteners different spacings. Further, we
Manikandan, R.K.; Arunprasad, J.;
conducted bending tests on cold-formed steel built-up members having simple edge stiffeners in
Rajkumar, S.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, K.;
the middle. Comparing both analytical and experimental studies, the results indicate that the back-
Li, C.; Tag Eldin, E.M. Analytical and
to-back connected built-up beam section provides a flexural capacity higher than the face-to-face
Experimental Study on Cold-Formed
built-up section. Moreover, increasing the bolt spacing enhanced the load-carrying capacity of back-
Steel Built-Up Sections for Bending.
Materials 2022, 15, 7140. https://
to-back sigma section built-up beams. It has also been discovered that the flexural strength of beams
doi.org/10.3390/ma15207140 is primarily determined by bolt spacing or itsposition.

Academic Editor: Richard Thackray

Keywords: cold-formed steel; ANSYS software; bending test; complex edge stiffener
Received: 14 August 2022
Accepted: 27 September 2022
Published: 13 October 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in Over the last few decades, cold-formed steel sections with thin walls have been
published maps and institutional affil- enhanced in civil constructions for lighter loads. Thanks to their lightweight characteristics,
iations. a high strength/weight ratio gives greater stiffness, recyclability, uniform and smooth
finish, and provides an aesthetic appearance and ease of fabrication. They also reduce the
heavyweight of steel structures while having the strength and designer’s requirements met.
CFS built-up cross-sectional members can be made economically stronger structures and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. more efficient to increase their load-carrying capacity. Generally, CFS with open section
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and thin thickness is largely subjected to deforming and buckling. Under bending, cold-
This article is an open access article formed steel can experience diverse form of instabilities like web buckling, local, flexural,
distributed under the terms and
distortional, and lateral-torsional buckling and interaction. Local and distortional buckling
conditions of the Creative Commons
are the most common mechanisms of beam failure. These failures can be eliminated
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
or deferred by proposing a new section with different shapes and cross-sections andthe
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
formation of two or more open sections connected by bolts. Thus, a new design notion
4.0/).

Materials 2022, 15, 7140. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207140 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Materials 2022, 15, 7140 tional buckling are the most common mechanisms of beam failure. These failures can be 2 of 14
eliminated or deferred by proposing a new section with different shapes and
cross-sections andthe formation of two or more open sections connected by bolts. Thus, a
newisdesign notion is
familiarized byfamiliarized
enumerating bytheenumerating
stiffened elementthe stiffened
at theelement
flange/web at theand flange/web
simple edge
and stiffeners
simple edge at the stiffeners
intermediateat the flanges
intermediate
to causea flanges to causea
substantial substantial
change in flexural change
andin other
flexural and other behavior beams.CFS forms in open-section
behavior beams.CFS forms in open-section are channel, sigma, and C and Z sections, among are channel, sigma, and C
and others,
Z sections, with among
varyingothers, with from
thicknesses varying 0.5mmthicknesses
to 3.0mm. fromBolts0.5mm to 3.0mm.
are designed Bolts are
according to the
designed according to the following codes for cold-formed
following codes for cold-formed steel design: EN1993-1-3, EN1993-1-8, and AISI S100 (201). steel design: EN1993-1-3,
EN1993-1-8, and AISI S100
The investigation shows (201). The investigation
the simulated two-runshows flexural thetest
simulated
on CFStwo-run of C andflexural
Z sections
test beams
on CFSof ofunbraced
C and Z sections beams of unbraced members using the
members using the finite element (FE) model. Local and distortional finite element (FE)
model. Local and distortional buckling of specified beams
buckling of specified beams is avoided through the fastened panel and specific fastener. is avoided through the fas-
tened panel and specific fastener. The corrugated panel fixed
The corrugated panel fixed at the compression flange was removed at a singlemoment. In at the compression flange
wasthe removed
end, theatspecimens
a singlemoment.
failed under In the end, the buckling
distortional specimens [1].failed under distortional
An experimental comparison
buckling [1]. Anout
was carried experimental
on a CFS bolted comparison
beam with was twocarried outchannel
different on a CFS boltedthat
sections, beam with
is, outstand
two stiffener
differentand channel
extended sections, that by
stiffener, is, injecting
outstandbolts stiffener
and nutsand extended
on stiffener stiffener,
and web byelement,
in-
jecting bolts and They
respectively. nuts on stiffener the
determined anddeformation
web element, of respectively.
load and flexural Theystrength
determined of thethe beam
deformation of load and flexural strength of the beam specimens
specimens and concluded that the CFS beam with an extended stiffener has the best flexural and concluded that the
CFSstrength
beam with an extended
[2]. The stiffener shows
study on bending has the thebest flexuralcollapse
aftermath strength [2]. The
behavior of study on
the U section
and Ω
bending shows
section theofaftermath
thicknesscollapse
of 0.6mm behavior
and 1.5mm, of therespectively,
U section and andΩsteel section
grades of thick-
S275 and
nessS375,
of 0.6mm and 1.5mm, respectively, and steel grades S275 and S375, respectively.
respectively.
The Thetest test
resultresultsuggeststhe
suggeststhe plastic
plastic hinges
hingesand andmoment
momentrotationrotation m-ⱷ diagram diagramhave havehigh
highdeformation
deformation[3]. [3].Additionally,
Additionally,the theFEMFEMininANSYSANSYSwas wasusedusedininthe thenumerical
numericalsimulation
simu-
analysis.
lation analysis. The The simulation
simulation propagates
propagates thetheforming
forming of hinges
of hinges underunderpure purebending.
bending. It creates
It
moment rotation curves of beams and thorough details
creates moment rotation curves of beams and thorough details about the stress and strain about the stress and strain of beams
duringduring
of beams the entire loading
the entire process.
loading A comparative
process. A comparative study study
on experimental
on experimental and analytical
and
study observed
analytical study observed that thethat FEM theanalysis of U-section
FEM analysis has a deformed
of U-section shape, coinciding
has a deformed shape, co-with
the plastic
inciding with the hinge obtained
plastic experimentally.
hinge obtained Moreover,
experimentally. the numerical
Moreover, simulation
the numerical simu-shows
that
lation the maximum
shows that the maximum moment reachedamoment reachedahigher value higherthanvaluethe experimental
than the experimental test [4]. This
study
test [4]. This works
study onworks
a relative
on asurvey
relativeofsurvey
different types of intermediate
of different stiffeners.stiffeners.
types of intermediate These critical
These critical stresses are analysed by finite strip software CUFSM and the ultimate of
stresses are analysed by finite strip software CUFSM and the ultimate resistance re-CFS
is analysedby the direct strength method. Among
sistance of CFS is analysedby the direct strength method. Among several shapes, such as several shapes, such as rectangular,
V, and arc
rectangular, V, shapes, it is observed
and arc shapes, that a V-shape
it is observed stiffener
that a V-shape on theon
stiffener web thewith
web withan anglean of
100 ◦ is optimum, and it has been found that an increase in height increases the ultimate
angle of 100° is optimum, and it has been found that an increase in height increases the
resistance
ultimate of theof
resistance moment
the moment [5]. This
[5].paper explained
This paper that thethat
explained increase in bending
the increase moment of
in bending
amalgamation of two vertical and two horizontal
moment of amalgamation of two vertical and two horizontal elements back-to-back elements back-to-back of CFS built-up
of
beams increases with the yielding strength and thickness
CFS built-up beams increases with the yielding strength and thickness of the steel. of the steel. Moreover, the stiffener
with a reinforcing
Moreover, the stiffenerweb with is adirectly proportional
reinforcing to moment
web is directly carrying capacity
proportional to moment andcarry-
inversely
ing capacity and inversely proportional to local web buckling [6]. This deals with the of a
proportional to local web buckling [6]. This deals with the simple lipped channel
stiffened
simple lippedand unstiffened
channel element.and
of a stiffened Theunstiffened
flexural strengthelement. andThe aspect of thestrength
flexural beam increase and in
aspect of the beam increase in the stiffened element at the flange/web compared withbecause
the stiffened element at the flange/web compared with in the unstiffened element in
the of higher hindrance
unstiffened element againstbecausetorsional
of higher buckling
hindrance andagainst
greater torsional
hindrancebuckling in a moment and of
inertia [7]. The CFS beam built-up I section of the lipped channel with an intermediate
greater hindrance in a moment of inertia [7]. The CFS beam built-up I section of the
and edge web stiffener leads to higher strength because of the considerably reduced LB
lipped channel with an intermediate and edge web stiffener leads to higher strength be-
and TB compared with the I beam without a web stiffener [8]. Comparing the open and
cause of the considerably reduced LB and TB compared with the I beam without a web
closed C-channel of drop flanges of a CFS built-up beam, it ends with a gradual crash, and
stiffener [8]. Comparing the open and closed C-channel of drop flanges of a CFS built-up
further investigation needs to be carried out for thin walls [9]. The author detailed the
beam, it ends with a gradual crash, and further investigation needs to be carried out for
numerical study ABACUS developed for FE modelling and experimentally tested related
thin walls [9]. The author detailed the numerical study ABACUS developed for FE mod-
to lateral-torsional buckling. They have developed a novel design equation to forecast
elling and experimentally tested related to lateral-torsional buckling. They have devel-
moment capacities precisely. They also suggested a design curve named buckling curve
oped a novel design equation to forecast moment capacities precisely. They also sug-
‘a’ of a CFS beam [10–12]. The study demonstrates that there have been few studies on
gested a design curve named buckling curve ‘a’ of a CFS beam [10–12]. The study
cold-formed steel under bending, and there have been even less studies on lipped channels.
demonstrates that there have been few studies on cold-formed steel under bending, and
Hence, the scope of this study is to inspect the behavior of the CFS built-up sigma section
therestiffened
have been at theeven less studiesand
intermediate on edges
lippedinchannels.
bending.Hence,On thethe scope
whole, of this
three sigma study is to are
sections
inspect the behavior of the CFS built-up sigma section stiffened
taken. They are connected symmetrically using bolts of the varied spacing by labeling at the intermediate andwith
edgesnamesin bending.
B2B100, where On theB2B whole,
refersthree sigma sections
to back-to-back, and 100 are refers
taken.toTheythe bolt arespacings
connected in mm,
as well as face-to-face F2F100 and B2B157, respectively. Analytical studies are carried out
using finite element modeling software ANSYS workbench 16.1. The developed analytical
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 3 of 14

results tend to verify the experimental results. These results are useful to conclude on the
mechanical strength properties and other behavior of CFS built-up beams.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Analytical Investigation
A finite element modeling of ANSYS WORKBENCH16.1 software was used for the
numerical study. The finite element was used to convert the physical structure into a
complex system having point group termed nodes, making a grid called a mesh. The
structure’s ability to react to certain loading conditions will be computerized by the mesh,
which contains the material and structural element properties. SHELL181 was preferred
to simulate the buckling behavior as the section thickness is less than one-tenth of the
elemental dimension.

2.2. Selection of Section

The sectional properties of the selected sections were obtained from CUFSM software
4.5, developed by Schafer, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD, USA). As the investi-
gation aims to obtain the best profile, a shorter span of 1200 mm and a sectional area of
840 sq. mm were chosen for all beams. The C/S dimensions were fixed, based on the AISI
specification for cold-formed steel constructions, and covered the feasible range of sigma
section beams already utilized in the industry to minimize local buckling. Even though the
AISI specification for cold-formed steel structures (AISI: S100-2007) does not set limits for
D/b ratios, Kankanamgeand Mahendran (2012) [13] provided guidelines for selecting D/b
ratios of cold-formed steel beams in the range of 2 to 3.3.

2.3. Connection Requirements

The basic fabricated sigma sections are connected using bolt connections in different
B2B and F2F methods. The bolts were designed according to the following codes for cold-
formed steel design: EN1993-1-3, EN1993-1-8, and AISI S100 (2012). The details of the bolts
and specifications used are as follows: diameter of 8 mm, with MS 4.6 grade, yield strength
of 225 Mpa, and tensile strength of 400Mpa. Other connection requirements include edge
distance, bolt spacing, bolt hole diameter, shear strength, and several bolts based on the
code mentioned above.

2.4. Finite Element Modeling Boundary and Loading Conditions

In finite element modeling, selecting the mesh density is very important, as an increase
in mesh density increases the convergence of the obtained results. Various mesh studies
were taken out for the enhanced built-up section and it was found that a suitable mesh size
for the whole section is 5 mm × 5 mm. When creating the model of the beam specimens,
the C/S of the beam is generated in the X-Y plane and the span of the beams is on the Z-axis.
The ends of the beam are supported. Hence, on one end, translations in Ux, Uy, and Uz are
constrained. In the experimental setup, the bearing plate with a width of 50mm is used at
the point of support and loading. Hence, in the FEA model, the boundary conditions are
given to all of the nodes within a 50mm width on either end of the beam, and the loading is
given in terms of displacement on the top compression flange at the points of loading for a
width of 50mm.Finite element analysis transforms the physical structure into a complicated
system of nodes that form a grid known as a mesh. This mesh is designed to include the
material and structural attributes that dictate how the structure will respond to different
loading circumstances. It can perform both linear and nonlinear analyses. Linear models
have basic parameters and are based on the assumption that the material is not plastically
deformed. Non-linear models incorporate material straining beyond its elastic limits.
The FEA process begins with the production of a geometric model of the structure,
which is then subdivided into smaller forms that are joined at certain nodal points. Stress–
strain relationships are more easily approximated in this manner. Finally, each element’s
material behaviour and boundary conditions are included, and the analysis is run. Given
 tion that the material is not plastically deformed. Non-linear models incorporate material
tion that the material is not plastically deformed. Non-linear models incorporate material
straining beyond its elastic limits.
straining beyond its elastic limits.
The FEA process begins with the production of a geometric model of the structure,
The FEA process begins with the production of a geometric model of the structure,
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 which is then subdivided into smaller forms that are joined at certain nodal points. 4 of 14
which is then subdivided into smaller forms that are joined at certain nodal points.
Stress–strain relationships are more easily approximated in this manner. Finally, each
Stress–strain relationships are more easily approximated in this manner. Finally, each
element’s material behaviour and boundary conditions are included, and the analysis is
element’s material behaviour and boundary conditions are included, and the analysis is
run.
the Given
costs thetime
and costsrequired
and timefor
required for the production and testingmodels,
of physical
FEAmodels,
run. Given the costs and time the production
required and
for the testing of
production physical
and provides
testing of physical models,
FEA
aFEA provides a
cost-effectivecost-effective
solution to solution
many to many
engineering engineering
challenges challenges
(Figures 1 (Figures
and 2). 1 and 2).
provides a cost-effective solution to many engineering challenges (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Meshing.
Figure1.1.Meshing.
Figure Meshing.

Figure 2. Physical model of the test setup.

Figure 2.Physical model of the test setup.
2.5. Results
Figure of Analytical
2.Physical model ofStudy
the test setup.
The six
2.5. Results CFS built-up
of Analytical beam sections are checked under FEM, the loading is applied as
Study
2.5. Results of Analytical
displacement, Study of load used is taken as total force reaction at the displace-
and the amount
The six CFS built-up beam sections are checked under FEM, the loading is applied as
ment The six CFS
location. Thebuilt-up beamconsidered
parameters sections arefor
checked understudy
the present FEM,are
the(1)
loading is applied
buckling mode ofas
displacement, and the amount of load used is taken as total force reaction at the dis-
displacement,
the and the
section, (2) stress amount of
distribution loadsection,
of the used is(3)taken as total
ultimate load force reaction
carrying at the
capacity, anddis-
(4)
placement location. The parameters considered for the present study are (1) buckling
load–deflection behavior.
placement location. The parameters considered for the present study are (1) buckling
mode of the section, (2) stress distribution of the section, (3) ultimate load carrying ca-
mode of the section, (2) stress distribution of the section, (3) ultimate load carrying ca-
pacity,
2.6. and (4)Mode
Buckling load–deflection behavior. of the Specimen
and Stress Distribution
pacity, and (4) load–deflection behavior.
The buckling shape and stress distribution for all three specimens are shown in the
2.6. Buckling Mode and Stress Distribution of the Specimen
following figures:
2.6. Buckling Mode(a) modeling
and of the specimen,
Stress Distribution (b) buckling mode of the specimen, and (c)
of the Specimen
The
stressThe buckling
distributionshape and stress distribution for all three specimens are shown in the
bucklingof the section.
shape and stress distribution for all three specimens are shown in the
following figures: (a) modeling of the specimen, (b) buckling mode of the specimen, and
following figures: (a) modeling of the specimen, (b) buckling mode of the specimen, and
(c)2.6.1. Specimen
stress B2B100
distribution of the section.
(c) stress distribution of the section.
Figure 3 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of B2B100 Specimen.
2.6.1. Specimen B2B100
2.6.1. Specimen B2B100
2.6.2. Specimen
Figure F2F100
3 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of B2B100 Specimen.
Figure 3 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of B2B100 Specimen.
Figure 4 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of F2F100 Specimen.

2.6.3. Specimen B2B157

Figure 5 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of B2B157 Specimen.
 Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

Materials 2022, 15, 7140 5 of 14

Figure 3. Buckling and stress distribution of B2B100.

2.6.2. Specimen F2F100

FigureFigure 4 shows
Figure 3. Buckling and the Buckling
stress andof
distribution ofstress distribution of F2F100 Specimen.
B2B100.
3. Buckling and stress distribution B2B100.

2.6.2. Specimen F2F100

Figure 4 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of F2F100 Specimen.

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Figure4.4. Buckling
Figure Buckling and
andstress
stressdistribution
distributionof
ofF2F100.
F2F100.

2.6.3. Specimen B2B157

Figure 5 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of B2B157 Specimen.
Figure 4. Buckling and stress distribution of F2F100.

2.6.3. Specimen B2B157

Figure 5 shows the Buckling and stress distribution of B2B157 Specimen.

Figure 5. Buckling
Figure 5. Buckling and
and stress
stress distribution
distribution of
of B2B157.
B2B157.

2.7. Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity

The three specimens were modelled and analysed using the ANSYS 16.1. From the
analytical result, the ultimate load-carrying capacity of each specimen was obtained. The
ultimate load of the built-up sections is presented in Table 1.
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 6 of 14

Figure 5. Buckling and stress distribution of B2B157.

2.7. Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity
2.7. Ultimate
The threeLoad Carryingwere
specimens Capacity
modelled and analysed using the ANSYS 16.1. From the
The three specimens were modelled and
analytical result, the ultimate load-carrying analysed
capacity using
of each the ANSYS
specimen was 16.1. FromThe
obtained. the
analyticalload
ultimate result, thebuilt-up
of the ultimatesections
load-carrying capacity
is presented of each
in Table 1. specimen was obtained. The
ultimate load of the built-up sections is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. The ultimate load of built-up sections.
Table 1. The ultimate load of built-up sections.
Load Corresponding to Maximum % Variation in Strength
Specimen Load Corresponding to Maximum
Deflection (kN) % Variation in Strength
PAnsys
Specimen With Respect to B2B100
Deflection(kN) Considering
With Respect C/S Area for
to Considering C/SF2F100
Area
B2B100 73.44 PAnsys - B2B100 for
- F2F100
F2F100 B2B100
56.77 73.44 −22.6% - −52.5% -
F2F100 56.77 −22.6% −52.5%
B2B157 87.05 18.6% -
B2B157 87.05 18.6% -

From
From the
the table,
table, itit is
is found
found that
that the
the B2B100
B2B100 standard
standard section
section has
has aa critical
critical load
load of of
70
70kN. The most effective section is B2B157, having a critical load of 85kN, which is
kN. The most effective section is B2B157, having a critical load of 85 kN, which is aa
21.4%
21.4% increase
increase inin aa load-carrying
load-carrying capacity
capacity relative
relative to
to the
the standard
standard section
sectionB2B100.
B2B100. The The
failure
failuremodes
modesofofthethesuggested
suggestedCFS CFSsections areare
sections determined
determined to be local
to be buckling
local andand
buckling lateral-
lat-
torsional buckling. The specimens’ maximum load-carrying capacity
eral-torsional buckling. The specimens’ maximum load-carrying capacity is compared is compared and
shown in theinFigure
and shown 6. 6.
the Figure

Figure 6.
Figure 6.The
The ultimate
ultimate load
load capacity
capacity of
of the
the built-up
built-up section.
section.

2.8. Load-Deflection Behavior

In this study, load versus deflection curves were plotted to study the critical flexural
strength of the beams. The load and deflection values obtained from the Ansys workbench
16.1 are presented as follows: the B2B100 section has an ultimate load of 73.44 kN and
the F2F100 section has a maximum load of 56.77 kN, which is a 22.6% decrease in the
load-carrying capacity compared with the standard section B2B100 and, finally, B2B157 has
an ultimate load of 87.05 kN which is a 15.6% increase in the load-carrying capacity com-
pared with the standard section B2B100. The load versus deflection behavior is presented
(Figure 7).
 bench 16.1 are presented as follows: the B2B100 section has an ultimate load of 73.44 kN
and the F2F100 section has a maximum load of 56.77 kN, which is a 22.6% decrease in the
load-carrying capacity compared with the standard section B2B100 and, finally, B2B157
has an ultimate load of 87.05 kN which is a 15.6% increase in the load-carrying capacity
compared with the standard section B2B100. The load versus deflection behavior is pre-
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 7 of 14
sented (Figure 7).

Figure
Figure7.7.Load
Loadvs.
vs.deflection
deflectionbehavior.
behavior.

3.3.Experimental
ExperimentalSetup
Setup
The beam
The beam specimens are are placed
placed ininaaloading
loadingframe
frameofof500
500kN kNin in
two-point
two-point loading for
loading
testing.
for OneOne
testing. endend
of the
of support is hinged,
the support whilewhile
is hinged, the other end is end
the other a roller.
is a The specimens
roller. The speci-are
similarly
mens are regularised to apply the
similarly regularised to load
applyvertically.
the loadThe beam isThe
vertically. laterally
beamconstrained
is laterally at the
con-
support to prevent lateral movement. The overall stability of the experimental
strained at the support to prevent lateral movement. The overall stability of the experi- equipment
is verified,
mental and a small
equipment amount of
is verified, andpreload is applied
a small amount to of
seatpreload
the specimen in position
is applied to seatbefore
the
it is released.
specimen All of the
in position instruments
before are inAll
it is released. place andinstruments
of the the load is applied using
are in place a hydraulic
and the load
isjack with using
applied a capacity of 200kN.
a hydraulic jackAll relevant
with data of
a capacity are200kN.
recorded, including
All relevant theare
data applied force
recorded,
and the specimen’s
including the applied deformation.
force and the All of the tests are
specimen’s completed to
deformation. Alltheofpoint of failure.
the tests Dial
are com-
gauges of least a count of 0.01 mm with a maximum travel of 50 mm
pleted to the point of failure. Dial gauges of least a count of 0.01 mm with a maximum were kept to measure
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
deflection 8 of 15
travel of 50atmm
the mid-point.
were kept Atoproving
measure ring of 100kNwas
deflection at theused to measure
mid-point. the load ring
A proving applied
of
in the section (Figure 8).
100kNwas used to measure the load applied in the section (Figure 8).

Figure8.8.CFS
Figure CFS beam
beam specimens
specimens before testing cold-formed
before testing cold-formed built-up
built-up sections.
sections.

3.1.
3.1. Experimental
Experimental Results
Results
The
The experimental investigation
experimental investigation was
was carried
carried out
out for
for specimens
specimens B2B100,
B2B100, F2F100,
F2F100, and
and
B2B157. Loading was applied as shown in the figure and the amount
B2B157. Loading was applied as shown in the figure and the amount of load applied of load applied
was
was obtained
obtained fromfrom the proving
the proving ring.ring.
The The deflection
deflection value value
was was taken
taken fromfrom the dial
the dial gauge.
gauge. The
The parameters
parameters considered
considered forpresent
for the the present
studystudy
are (a)are (a) buckling
buckling mode mode
of the of the section,
section, (b) ul-
(b) ultimate
timate load load carrying
carrying capacity,(c)
capacity,and and (c) load–deflection
load–deflection behavior.
behavior.

3.2. Buckling Modes of the Specimen

The specimen underwent local buckling and lateral-torsional buckling, as shown in
the following figures. The buckling modes resemble the analytical results. Thus, the an-
alytical results are verified experimentally. The failure modes of the tested specimens
 The experimental investigation was carried out for specimens B2B100, F2F100,
B2B157. Loading was applied as shown in the figure and the amount of load applied
obtained from the proving ring. The deflection value was taken from the dial gauge
parameters considered for the present study are (a) buckling mode of the section, (b
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 8 of 14
timate load carrying capacity,and (c) load–deflection behavior.

3.2. Buckling Modes of the Specimen

3.2. Buckling Modes of the Specimen
The specimen underwent local buckling and lateral-torsional buckling, as show
The specimen underwent local buckling and lateral-torsional buckling, as shown
the
in thefollowing
following figures. Thebuckling
figures. The buckling modes
modes resemble
resemble the analytical
the analytical results.results. Thus, th
Thus, the
analytical results are verified experimentally. The failure modes of the tested specimens specim
alytical results are verified experimentally. The failure modes of the tested
follow(Figures
follow (Figures 9–12).
9–12).

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Figure9. 9.
Figure Failure
Failure mode
mode B2B100.
B2B100.

Figure10.
Figure 10.The
Thefailure
failure mode
mode of F2F100.
of F2F100.
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 9 of 14

Figure 10. The failure mode of F2F100.

Figure
Figure11.
Figure 11.
11.The
The The
failure
failure failure
mode
mode mode
of B2B157.
of B2B157. of B2B157.

Figure 12. Tested specimens.

3.3. Load–Deflection Behavior

Figure 12. Tested specimens.

Figure 12. Tested specimens.
3.3. Load–Deflection Behavior
The B2B100 section has an ultimate load of 70.21kN and the F2F100section has an
3.3. Load–Deflection Behavior
ultimate load of 55.23kN, a 21.3% decrease in the load-carrying capacity compared with
the B2B100 section. B2B157 is the modified back-to-back connected built-up section having
a maximum load of 85.33 kN, which is a 21.6% increase in the load-carrying capacity
compared with the standard B2B100 section (Figure 13).
 The B2B100 section has an ultimate load of 70.21kN and the F2F100section has an
ultimate load of 55.23kN, a 21.3% decrease in the load-carrying capacity compared with
the B2B100 section. B2B157 is the modified back-to-back connected built-up section hav-
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 10 of 14
ing a maximum load of 85.33 kN, which is a 21.6% increase in the load-carrying capacity
compared with the standard B2B100 section (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Load vs. deflection behavior.

Figure 13. Load vs. deflection behavior.
3.4. Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity
3.4. Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity
From the table, it is found that the B2B100 standard section has a critical load of 70 kN.
TheFrom
most the table, section
effective it is found that the
is B2B157, B2B100
having standard
a critical loadsection has aa21.6%
of 85 kN, critical load ofin
increase
70kN.
load carrying capacity compared with the standard section B2B100. The local buckling in-
The most effective section is B2B157, having a critical load of 85kN, a 21.6% and
crease in load carrying
lateral-torsional buckling capacity
are thecompared withofthe
failure modes thestandard
proposedsection B2B100.
cold-formed Thebuilt-up
steel local
buckling
sections. and
Thus,lateral-torsional buckling
the analytical results are the
are verified failure modes
experimentally. of the
Section proposed
B2B157 has the
cold-formed
highest loadsteel built-up
carrying sections.
capacity amongThus,
the the analytical
three sections, results
and theare verified experimen-
load-carrying capacity is
tally.
21.6%Section
higherB2B157 hasstandard
than the the highest loadsection
B2B100 carrying capacity
(Table 2 andamong
Figurethe three sections, and
14).
the load-carrying capacity is 21.6% higher than the standard B2B100 section (Table 2 and
Figure 14).
Table 2. The ultimate load of the built-up sections.

Table 2. The ultimate load of the built-up sections. % Variation in Strength

Ultimate Load (kN)
Specimen With Respect to Considering C/S Area
Experiment % Variation in Strength
Ultimate Load (kN) B2B100 for F2F100
Specimen
B2B100 70.21 With Respect
- to Considering-C/S Area
Experiment
B2B100 for F2F100
F2F100 55.23 −21.3% −51.7%
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWB2B100 70.21 - - 11 of 15
B2B157 85.33 21.6% -
F2F100 55.23 −21.3% −51.7%
B2B157 85.33 21.6% -

Figure14.
Figure 14. Ultimate
Ultimate load
load carrying
carryingcapacity.
capacity.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Comparison of Ultimate Load-Carrying Capacity
The many criteria discussed included ultimate load bearing capability, buckling
mode, and load–deflection behaviour. The loads corresponding to the maximum deflec-
tion for B2B100mm, F2F100mm, and B2B157mm were plotted for both analytical and
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 11 of 14

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Comparison of Ultimate Load-Carrying Capacity
The many criteria discussed included ultimate load bearing capability, buckling mode,
and load–deflection behaviour. The loads corresponding to the maximum deflection for
B2B100mm, F2F100mm, and B2B157mm were plotted for both analytical and experimental
investigations. It is clear from Table 3 that the experimental method has a greater load value
than the analytical method, especially in B2B157, which has 18.6% and 21.4% greater load
carrying capacity than B2B100 in the analytical and experimental investigations, respec-
tively, as shown in Figure 15. The results are comparable to the existing outcomes [14–16].

Table 3. The ultimate load-carrying capacity of specimens.

Load Corresponding to
% Variation in Ultimate Load (kN) % Variation in Strength
Specimen Max Deflection (kN)
Strength (Analytical) PEXPERIMENT (Experimental)
PANSYS
B2B100 73.44 - 70.21 -
F2F100 56.77 −22.6% 55.23 −21.3%
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
B2B157 87.05 18.6% 85.33 21.6% 12 of 15

Figure15.
Figure 15.Comparative
Comparative bar chart
bar chart of the experimental
of the experimental and results
and analytical analytical resultsload-carrying
of ultimate of ultimate
load-carrying
capacity. capacity.

Thus,the
Thus, theload-carrying
load-carryingcapability
capabilityis is improved
improved byby increasing
increasing the the
boltbolt spacing
spacing within
within the
the permissible
permissible limits,
limits, whichwhich eventually
eventually depictsdepicts
similarsimilar findings
findings to the literature
to the literature sources
sources [17–19].
[17–19].
4.2. Comparison of Load versus Deflection Curve
4.2. Comparison of Load VersusDeflection
The load correlating Curvecomparison for specimens B2B100, B2B157,
to the deflection
and F2F100 for both analytical and experimental
The load correlating to the deflection comparisonbehaviour was plotted
for specimens as shown
B2B100, in
B2B157,
Figures 16–18. This analytical behavior has a somewhat greater value than the experimental
and F2F100 for both analytical and experimental behaviour was plotted as shown in
behavior and, inThis
Figures 16–18. addition, the outcomes
analytical exhibit
behavior has a similar trend
a somewhat variation
greater to the
value than theexisting
experi-
outcomes [20,21]. and, in addition, the outcomes exhibit a similar trend variation to the
mental behavior
existing outcomes [20,21].
 4.2. Comparison of Load VersusDeflection Curve
The load correlating to the deflection comparison for specimens B2B100, B2B157,
and F2F100 for both analytical and experimental behaviour was plotted as shown in
Figures 16–18. This analytical behavior has a somewhat greater value than the experi-
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 12 of 14
mental behavior and, in addition, the outcomes exhibit a similar trend variation to the
existing outcomes [20,21].

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15
Figure16.
Figure 16. Load
Load vs.
vs. deflection
deflection for
for B2B100.
B2B100.

Figure 17.
17. Load vs.
vs. deflection for
for B2B157.
Figure 17. Load
Figure Load vs. deflection
deflection for B2B157.
B2B157.

Figure 18. Load vs. deflection for F2F100.

Figure 18.
Figure 18. Load
Load vs.
vs. deflection
deflection for
for F2F100.
F2F100.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The analytical
The analytical investigationfocused
focused on on finding all three specimens’ ultimate
The analyticalinvestigation
investigation focused finding
on all three
finding specimens’
all three ultimate
specimens’ load-
ultimate
load-carrying
carrying capacity.
capacity. Finite Finite
element element
models models
were were developed
developed using using ANSYS
ANSYS software software
16.1 to
load-carrying capacity. Finite element models were developed using ANSYS software
16.1
study to study
thestudy the
buckling buckling behavior of the fabricated sections. Specimen B2B157 was
16.1 to the behavior
buckling of the fabricated
behavior of thesections. Specimen
fabricated sections.B2B157 was discovered
Specimen B2B157 was to
discovered
be the most to be the section
effective most effective
compared section
with compared
the standardwith the standard
section B2B100. section
Thus, B2B100.
sections
discovered to be the most effective section compared with the standard section B2B100.
Thus, sections
B2B100, F2F100,B2B100, F2F100,
and B2B157 andfabricated,
were B2B157 were andfabricated,
a test wasand a test was
performed to performed
find the ulti-to
Thus, sections B2B100, F2F100, and B2B157 were fabricated, and a test was performed to
find the
mate ultimate load-carrying
load-carrying capacity and capacity
relation toand
therelation
analyticalto results.
the analytical results. This
This experiment ex-
study
find the ultimate load-carrying capacity and relation to the analytical results. This ex-
periment study
investigated investigated
in depth in depth
the behaviour of the behaviour of cold-formed
cold-formed steel built-up sec-
periment study investigated in depth the behavioursteel built-up sections.
of cold-formed To acquire
steel built-up sec-a
tions. To knowledge
complete acquire a complete
of the knowledge
behaviour of of proposed
the the behaviour
cold of the proposed
formed steel coldsections,
built-up formed
tions. To acquire a complete knowledge of the behaviour of the proposed cold formed
steel built-up sections, both experimental and finite element analyses were used. The
steel built-up sections, both experimental and finite element analyses were used. The
advanced finite element tool ANSYS was used to create finite element models of
advanced finite element tool ANSYS was used to create finite element models of
cold-formed steel built-up beams that were tested. The load–deflection curves and buck-
cold-formed steel built-up beams that were tested. The load–deflection curves and buck-
ling modes from the test and the finite element analyses were compared to validate them.
ling modes from the test and the finite element analyses were compared to validate them.
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 13 of 14

both experimental and finite element analyses were used. The advanced finite element tool
ANSYS was used to create finite element models of cold-formed steel built-up beams that
were tested. The load–deflection curves and buckling modes from the test and the finite
element analyses were compared to validate them. Cold-formed steel built-up beams were
the subject of the experimental studies. The beams were put through their paces with a
two-point load and a simply supported end condition. The failure modes predicted by
finite element analysis match the failure modes observed in the tests very well.
i. B2B157 is the most effective section among the proposed built-up beams, according
to analytical and experimental data.
ii. The fabricated section B2B157 has a load-carrying capacity that is 21.6 percent
higher than B2B100 for the same quantity of material.
iii. Load-carrying capability is improved by increasing the bolt spacing within permis-
sible limits.
iv. The ANSYS software-based finite element model accurately predicts the strength
and behavior of the beams. As a result, the finite element analysis may be utilized
to predict the flexural member’s load capacity with a high confidence level. While
designing cold-formed steel beams, local, distortional, bending, web buckling, and
lateral-torsional buckling must be considered.
v. The addition of a stiffened element at the web area and edge stiffeners at the flange
significantly improves the flexural strength and behavior of the beams.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.S., N.S., R.K.M., J.A., S.R. and S.S.; methodology, R.S.,
N.S., R.K.M., J.A., S.R. and S.S.; formal analysis, R.S., N.S., R.K.M., J.A., S.R. and S.S.; investigation,
R.S., N.S., R.K.M., J.A., S.R. and S.S.; resources, R.S., N.S., R.K.M., J.A., S.R. and S.S.; writing—original
draft preparation, R.S., N.S., R.K.M., J.A., S.R. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, S.S., K.S., C.L.
and E.M.T.E.; supervision, S.S., C.L. and E.M.T.E.; project administration, S.S., K.S., C.L. and E.M.T.E.;
funding acquisition, S.S., C.L. and E.M.T.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No data were used to support this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. AISI-S100; North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members 2007 EDITION. American Iron
and Steel Institute and Canadian Standards Association: Canada; USA, 2007.
2. Cheng, Y.; Schaferb, B.W. Simulation of cold-formed steel beams in local and distortional buckling with applications to the direct
strength method. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2006, 63, 581–590.
3. Muftah, F.; Mohd Sani, M.S.H.; Mohd Kamal, M.M. Flexural Strength Behaviour of Bolted Built-Up Cold-Formed Steel Beam
with Outstand and Extended Stiffener. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2019, 19, 719–732. [CrossRef]
4. Li, Q.Y.; Young, B. Experimental study on cold-formed steel built-up section beam-columns experiencing non-uniform bending.
Eng. Struct. 2022, 256, 113954. [CrossRef]
5. Pastor, M.M.; Roure, F. Open cross-section beams under pure bending I. Experimental investigations. Thin-Walled Struct. 2008, 46,
476–483. [CrossRef]
6. Pastor, M.M.; Roure, F. Open cross-section beams under pure bending II. Finite element simulation. Thin-Walled Struct. 2009, 47,
514–521. [CrossRef]
7. Zhao, Y.H.; Sun, G.J.; Lu, L.; Zhu, J. Comparative analysis of stiffening style of cold formed thin-walled channel steel members. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC 2015), Sousse, Tunisia, 18–20
December 2015.
8. Ghannam, M. Bending Moment Capacity of Cold-Formed Steel Built-Up Beams. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2018, 19, 660–671. [CrossRef]
9. Manikandan, P.; Thulasi, M. Investigation on cold-formed steel lipped channel built-up I beam with intermediate web stiffener.
Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 11, 97–107. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 7140 14 of 14

10. Manikandan, P.; Sukumar, S. Behaviour of Stiffened Cold-Formed Steel Built-up Sections with Complex Edge Stiffeners under
Bending. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 19, 2108–2115. [CrossRef]
11. Magnucki, K.; Paczos, P.; Kasprzak, J. Elastic Buckling of Cold-Formed Thin-Walled Channelbeams with drop flanges. J. Struct.
Eng. 2010, 136, 886–896. [CrossRef]
12. DolamuneKankanamge, N.; Mahendran, M. Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel beams subject ssto lateral–torsional
buckling. Thin-Walled Struct. 2012, 51, 25–38. [CrossRef]
13. Bai, Y.; Nardi, D.C.; Zhou, X.; Picón, R.A.; Flórez-López, J. A new comprehensive model of damage for flexural subassemblies
prone to fatigue. Comput. Struct. 2021, 256, 106639. [CrossRef]
14. Huang, H.; Yao, Y.; Liang, C.; Ye, Y. Experimental study on cyclic performance of steel-hollow core partially encased composite
spliced frame beam. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 163, 107499. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, W.; Liu, X.; Huang, Y.; Tong, M.N. Reliability-based analysis of the flexural strength of concrete beams reinforced with
hybrid BFRP and steel rebars. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2022, 22, 171. [CrossRef]
16. Huang, H.; Huang, M.; Zhang, W.; Yang, S. Experimental study of predamaged columns strengthened by HPFL and BSP under
combined load cases. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 17, 1210–1227. [CrossRef]
17. Mousavi, A.A.; Zhang, C.; Masri, S.F.; Gholipour, G. Structural damage detection method based on the complete ensemble
empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise: A model steel truss bridge case study. Struct. Health Monit. 2021, 21, 887–912.
[CrossRef]
18. Liu, C.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, T.; Jia, H. Hybrid Dynamic Modeling and Analysis of High-Speed Thin-Rimmed Gears. ASME.
J. Mech. Des. 2021, 143, 123401. [CrossRef]
19. Gu, M.; Mo, H.; Qiu, J.; Yuan, J.; Xia, Q. Behavior of Floating Stone Columns Reinforced with Geogrid Encasement in Model Tests.
Front. Mater. 2022, 9, 980851. [CrossRef]
20. Feng, Y.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Y.; Niu, Z.; Dai, B.; Fan, Y.; Chen, X. A 200-225-GHz Manifold-Coupled Multiplexer Utilizing Metal Wave
guides. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2021, 69, 5327–5333. [CrossRef]
21. Meza, F.J.; Becque, J.; Hajirasouliha, I. Experimental study of cold-formed steel built-up beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020126.
[CrossRef]