Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Local–Distortional Interaction in Cold-formed Steel Columns: Mechanics,

Testing, Numerical Simulation and Design
André Dias Martins a, Dinar Camotim a,⁎, Pedro Borges Dinis a, Ben Young b
a
ICIST, CEris, DECivil, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper provides an overview of the latest developments of the research activity carried out by the
Received 4 August 2015 authors concerning the non-linear behaviour, ultimate strength and Direct Strength Method (DSM) design of
Received in revised form 4 October 2015 cold-formed steel (plain and stiffened) columns experiencing local–distortional (L–D) interaction. Initially,
Accepted 5 October 2015
numerical results obtained by means of Generalized Beam Theory (GBT) elastic post-buckling analyses are
Available online 22 October 2015
presented and their unique modal nature is used to illustrate and provide the main behavioural/mechanics
Keywords:
features of this mode coupling phenomenon. Then, both experimental and numerical (obtained from Abaqus
Cold-formed steel columns shell finite element analyses – SFEA) are presented and discussed, making it possible to provide clear evidence
Local–distortional interaction and characterize the column L-D interactive behaviour and failure. Besides reporting on two experimental test
Generalized Beam Theory (GBT) series performed by the authors, the paper also presents a critical review of other experimental results available
Experimental studies in the literature concerning columns undergoing L–D interaction. The numerical results deal with columns
Shell finite element simulations exhibiting different cross-section shapes and fairly extensive parametric studies are carried out, in order to
Direct Strength Method (DSM) design (i) assess the relevance of L–D interaction, as far as the ultimate strength erosion is concerned, and (ii) gather
substantial ultimate strength data. Next, after showing the inadequacy of the currently codified DSM column de-
sign curves to predict L–D interactive failures, the paper presents and assesses the merits of DSM-based design
approaches recently developed specifically to handle such failures.
© 2015 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Thin-walled cold-formed structural systems are often made of
high-strength steel and formed by open cross-section profiles
exhibiting a high strength-to-weight ratio but also strongly suscepti-
ble to instability phenomena involving cross-section deformation,
namely local (L) and distortional (D) buckling, which occur for col-
umns with short-to-intermediate unrestrained lengths. The practical
relevance of this mode coupling phenomenon stems from the fact that a
fair number of commonly used cold-formed steel members exhibit
cross-section geometries (shape and dimensions) leading to quite
close critical local and distortional buckling stresses — Figs. 1(a)–(c)
show the shapes of lipped channel column distortional, local and
“mixed local–distortional” buckling modes.
Besides the closeness between the L and D critical buckling loads,
other aspects play a relevant role in assessing the relevance of L–D
interaction. Indeed, since the post-critical strength reserves associated
with “pure” local and distortional buckling are clearly distinct, the
sequence of the two critical buckling loads is important, as well as the
ratio between the squash load and the higher of them — the use of
high-strength steels is responsible for stronger L–D interaction effects.
Because virtually all the existing specifications for cold-formed steel
structures either ignore or inadequately account for the ultimate
strength erosion stemming from L–D interaction, which means that
there is the risk that they may lead to unacceptably low safety levels
(i.e., a high likelihood of reaching unsafe designs), efficient (accurate
and safe) design rules/methodologies that take into consideration this
coupling phenomenon need to be developed. Such a task requires a
considerable amount of research work, in order to obtain reliable and
physically based models that lead to rational formulae and/or procedures.
Considerable research work has been devoted to investigate L–D in-
teraction in cold-formed steel columns,1 particularly in the last decade,
including experimental investigations, numerical simulations and
design proposals. The last ones consisted mainly of developments/
improvements of the Direct Strength Method (DSM) [2], already
included in the Australian/New Zealand [3], North American [4]

⁎ Corresponding author at: DECivil, Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-
001 Lisboa, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: andrerdmartins@ist.utl.pt (A.D. Martins), dcamotim@civil.ist.utl.pt
(D. Camotim), dinis@civil.ist.utl.pt (P.B. Dinis), young@hku.hk (B. Young).
1
Even if this work deals exclusively with L–D interaction in cold-formed steel
unperforated columns, it is worth mentioning that this coupling phenomenon also plays
an important role in the behaviour and strength of perforated columns — for instance, ex-
perimental evidence of this fact was reported by Moen and Schafer [1].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.10.005
2352-0124/© 2015 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
+ =
Distortional Mode Local Mode
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Lipped channel column critical (a) distortional, (b) local and (c) “mixed L–D” buckling modes.
and Brazilian [5] cold-formed specifications for the design of uniformly
compressed columns (with or without perforations/holes). However,
most of the above research activity concerned columns with “plain”
cross-sections (designation implying the absence of intermediate
stiffeners) — mostly (but not exclusively) lipped channels. For in-
stance, the works of Kwon and Hancock [6], Loughlan et al. [7],
Young et al. [8] and Dinis et al. [9] succeeded in providing experi-
mental evidence of L–D interaction. On the other hand, Silvestre
et al. [10], Dinis and Camotim [11], Kumar [12] and Martins et al.
[13] resorted to shell finite element analyses (SFEA) to investigate
this phenomenon and obtained ultimate strength data that led to
the establishment of DSM-based approaches capable of handling
the ultimate strength erosion stemming from L–D interaction.
For “plain” cross-sections, local buckling is almost always triggered
by the web, where most of the L–D interaction takes place.
This is no longer true in the presence of intermediate stiffeners
(e.g., “v-shaped” web stiffeners in lipped channels), as local buckling
is bound to be commonly triggered by the flanges, thus altering the
L–D interaction features. Kwon and Hancock [6], Yap and Hancock
[14] and He et al. [15] reported experimental evidence of flange-
triggered L–D interaction, while Martins et al. [16] conducted a
numerical study to assess the influence of L–D interaction on the be-
haviour and design of web-stiffened lipped channel (WSLC) columns
exhibiting a wide variety of combinations of the ratios between the
local buckling, distortional buckling and yield stresses. Concerning
web-flange-stiffened lipped channel (WFSLC) columns, in which
local buckling is again mostly triggered by the web, there is consider-
ably less information on L–D interaction — indeed, to the authors' best
knowledge, the only results available are the experimental tests
reported by Yang and Hancock [17] and the numerical investigation
carried out by Martins et al. [18].
Traditionally, the non-linear behaviour of thin-walled members
could only be rigorously assessed by resorting to shell finite element
simulations,2 providing outputs that are not easy to interpret
(e.g., [7,10–13,15,16,18]). However, in the last decade Generalized
Beam Theory (GBT) has emerged as a powerful alternative to
perform geometrically non-linear imperfect analyses (GNIA) of pris-
matic thin-walled members [21], providing clarifying (structurally
meaningful) results with equal accuracy and much less computa-
tional effort (drastic d.o.f. reduction). The GBT-based GNIA make it
possible to unveil and quantify the contributions of the various
deformation modes to the member structural response under con-
sideration. This feature enables acquiring a much deeper insight on
the mechanical aspects involved in that response. Regarding the
GBT formulations to perform GNIA of cold-formed steel members,
it is worth mentioning the works of (i) Silvestre and Camotim [22],
2
Or, to a smaller extent, to spline finite strip analyses (e.g., Prola and Camotim [19] or
Kwon and Hancock [20]).
39
Local-Distortional Interaction
(c)
on the local and distortional post-buckling behaviour of columns
with “plain” and stiffened lipped channel cross-sections, and Basaglia
et al. [23], who extended the domain of application to cover members
with open branched cross-sections and exhibiting more general sup-
port and loading conditions. As far as thin-walled members affected
by L–D interaction are concerned, and to the authors' best knowledge,
the only GBT numerical post-buckling results available concern simply
supported lipped channel columns and were obtained by (i) Silvestre
& Camotim [24], for columns with almost coincident local and distor-
tional critical buckling loads (“true L–D interaction”), and (ii) Martins
et al. [25], for columns with several ratios between the local and
distortional buckling loads (either “true L–D interaction” or “secondary
L or D bifurcation interaction”).
The objective of this work is to provide a critical overview of
the research activity carried out by the authors in the last few years
concerning cold-formed steel (plain and stiffened) columns affected
by L–D interaction. Initially, numerical results obtained through GBT
elastic post-buckling analyses are presented and discussed, with the
aim of providing in-depth insight on the mechanical aspects involved
in the column response, namely the evolution, along given equilibrium
paths, of the column (i) deformed configuration (expressed in modal
form), (ii) relevant displacement profiles, and (iii) stress distributions.
Particular attention is devoted to the structural interpretation of the dis-
tinctive features exhibited by columns undergoing “true” and secondary
bifurcation” L–D interaction. Next, experimental tests performed at The
University of Hong Kong, providing clear evidence of L–D interactive
failures, are briefly addressed and the results obtained commented.
Then, an Abaqus [26] SFEA numerical investigation aimed at
characterising and comparing the L–D interactive behaviour and failure
of plain and stiffened (web and web-flange-stiffened) lipped channel
columns is presented and discussed — it involves fairly extensive para-
metric studies, carried out in order to (i) asses how the relevance of the
L–D interaction effects varies with the ratios between the local buckling,
distortional buckling and squash loads, and (ii) gather substantial ulti-
mate strength data. Finally, the experimental and numerical ultimate
strength data reported previously are used to (i) improve/develop
existing/new DSM-based design approaches specifically developed to
handle L–D interactive failures, as well as to (ii) assess the merits of
the failure load estimates provided by those design approaches for col-
umns undergoing different levels of L–D interaction.
2. Mechanics of local–distortional interaction in thin-walled columns
In order to shed new light on the mechanics of L–D coupling, the
geometrically non-linear response of simply supported (end cross-sec-
tions pinned and free to warp) thin-walled lipped channel columns is
investigated, taking advantage of the unique modal features of the
GBT-based analyses. The columns considered display geometries
(cross-section dimensions and length) selected with the help of
40 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

bf Dimensions
bw (mm) 100 120 120
bf (mm) 80 80 80
t E=210GPa
bl (mm) 10 10 15
bw
v=0.30 t (mm) 1.90 1.36 1.36
L (mm) 400 450 500
bl Buckling loads
PcrD (kN) 107.6(1) 51.8(1) 86.0(1)
Natural node PcrL (kN) 179.3(5) 52.3(5) 53.6(5)
Intermediate node
RDL (-) 0.60 ≈ 1.00 1.60
(a)

Pcr (kN) RDL≈0.60 Pcr (kN) RDL≈1.00 Pcr (kN) RDL≈1.60

75 75
200

150 50 50

100
25 25
50
L L L
L=40 (cm) L=45 (cm) L=50 (cm)
0 0 0
10 100 1000 10 100 1000 10 100 1000
(b1) (b2) (b3)

1 3 5 7 9 15 17 26

(c)

Fig. 2. Selected lipped channel column (a) GBT discretization, dimensions and buckling loads, (b) Pcr vs. L curves, selected length and corresponding critical buckling mode shape, and
(c) in-plane deformed configurations of the most relevant conventional and transverse extension modes, and warping displacements of the most relevant shear modes.

GBTUL [27] and aimed at illustrating the various interaction phenomena, 2.1. Cross-section analysis
namely (i) “true L–D interaction”, when RDL = Pcrd/Pcrl is close to 1.00, (ii)
a “secondary local bifurcation interaction”, when RDL is well below 1.00, According to GBT, the member mid-surface displacement field
and (iii) “secondary distortional bifurcation”, when RDL is well above is expressed
1.00 — PcrD and PcrL are the column critical distortional and local buckling
loads, corresponding to modes with nl and nd half-waves. Fig. 2(a) shows uðx; sÞ ¼ uk ðsÞϕk;x ðxÞ vðx; sÞ ¼ vk ðsÞϕk ðxÞ wðx; sÞ ¼ wk ðsÞϕk ðxÞ ð1Þ
the output of this selection procedure, i.e., the cross-section dimensions
(bw, bf, bl, t — web-flange-lip widths and wall thickness) of the three se-
where (i) x, s, z denote coordinates along the member length, cross-
lected columns (E = 210GPa, v = 0.3) — the values of PcrL, PcrD, nl and nd
section mid-line and wall thickness (u, v, w are the corresponding
are also given. On the other hand, Figs. 2(b1)–(b3) show the signature
displacements), (ii) (.),x ≡ d(.)/dx, (iii) the summation convention
curves of the three columns, providing the variation of the critical buck-
applies to subscript k, (iv) functions uk(s), vk(s) and wk (s) are the dis-
ling load Pcr with the length L (logarithmic scale), as well as associated
placement profiles associated with deformation mode k, obtained
buckling mode shapes. In order to preclude interaction with global (flex-
from the cross-section analysis, and (v) ϕk(x) are modal amplitude
ural–torsional) buckling, the critical global buckling loads are much
functions, defined along the member length and obtained from the
higher than PcrL and PcrD — the fairly short lengths automatically ensure
member analysis (i.e., they are the problem unknowns).
this condition.
The GBT cross-section analysis involves a lengthy and fairly complex
The performance of a GBT geometrically non-linear analysis in-
set of operations, which has been described in detail in the literature
volves two main tasks, namely (i) a cross-section analysis, intended
(e.g., [21,28]). A brief overview of the key aspects of the procedures in-
to determine the deformation modes and evaluate the correspond-
volved is presented next, in the context of members with unbranched
ing modal mechanical properties, and (ii) a member analysis,
open cross-sections (the overwhelming majority of cold-formed steel
which consists of solving the system of non-linear differential equi-
members fall into this category):
librium equations — in this particular case, uniformly compressed
columns undergoing L–D interaction are dealt with. Next, the main (i) The n-walled cross-section is discretized into n + 1 natural (wall
aspects involved in each of the above tasks are briefly addressed — edges) and m intermediate nodes.
much more detailed accounts can be found in the literature (e.g., (ii) The deformations modes are divided into three sets, namely
[21,23,28]). conventional, shear and transverse extension modes.
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
(iii) The conventional modes, which constitute the core of GBT and are
associated with null membrane shear strains and transverse ex-
tensions, can still be subdivided into (iii1) global (in-plane rigid-
body motions: axial extension, major/minor-axis bending, tor-
sion), (iii2) distortional (warping and transverse wall bending)
and (iii3) local (transverse wall bending only).
(iv) The shear modes concern exclusively the non-linear variation of
the warping displacements along the cross-section wall mid-lines.
(v) The transverse extension modes involve only in-plane
displacements and are characterized by non-null membrane
transverse extensions.
The lipped channel cross-section discretization shown in Fig. 2(a),
which is adopted in this work and comprises 17 (6 natural and 11 inter-
mediate) nodes, leads to 17 conventional (4 global, 2 distortional and 11
local), 14 shear modes and 14 transverse extension deformation modes.
The main features of the most relevant ones for the problem under
consideration (5 conventional, 2 shear and 1 transverse extension) are
displayed in Fig. 2(c).
2.2. Member analysis
After knowing the cross-section deformation modes and associated
modal properties, it is possible to determine the member (column) geo-
metrically non-linear (post-buckling) behaviour by solving the differen-
tial equilibrium equation system [22]
 




C kh ϕk −ϕk ;xxxx −Dkh ϕk −ϕk ;xx þ Bkh ϕk −ϕk −C kjh ϕk;xx ϕ j;x −ϕk;xx ϕ j;x
   
1 1
þ C hjk ϕk;x ϕ j;x −ϕk;x ϕ j;x þ C kijh ϕk;x ϕi;x ϕ j;x −ϕk;x ϕi;x ϕ j;x
2 ;xx 2
þ h:o:t: ¼ qh
where (i) ϕk is the modal amplitude function associated to deformation
mode k, describing the initial geometrical imperfections (similar to
Eq. (1)), (ii) qh are the modal distributed loads, (iii) Ckh , Bkh , Dkh are
second-order tensors characterizing the cross-section linear mechanical
behaviour and (iv) Ckjh ,Ckijh are third and fourth-order tensors, associated
with the geometrically non-linear mechanical behaviour — expressions
providing these tensor components can be found in [22].
The solution of the equation system (2) and associated support
conditions, for any given deformation mode set, can be obtained by
means of a GBT-based beam finite element formulation similar to
that adopted by Basaglia et al. [23], which is akin (but not identical)
to the one developed in [21] — the former is slightly more efficient
(computationally). The main ingredients of this finite element
formulation are briefly addressed next:
(i) Approximate the modal amplitude functions ϕk(x) by means of lin-
ear combinations of (i1) Lagrange cubic polynomial primitives, for
the deformations modes involving solely warping displacements,
and (i2) Hermite cubic polynomials, for the remaining convention-
al deformation modes and the transverse extension modes.
(ii) Solve the ensuing system of non-linear algebraic equations
by means of an incremental-iterative technique based on (ii1)
Newton–Raphson's method and (ii2) a load or arc-length control
strategy (both strategies were implemented) – more details
concerning the numerical implementation of incremental-
iterative techniques can be found in Clarke and Hancock [29] and
Crisfield [30].
2.3. Numerical results
The compressive force is applied at both end cross-sections, where
the mode 1 (axial extension) displacements may occur freely — they
are prevented at the mid-span cross-section, thus ensuring “fully
41
symmetric” loading and support conditions.3 The columns analysed
contain (i) critical-mode initial geometrical imperfections with small
amplitudes (10% of the wall thickness t) and (ii) are longitudinally
discretized into 24 GBT beam finite elements. The GBT results are
compared with values yielded by Abaqus SFEA, employing models
developed in previous L–D interaction studies (see Section 4 for details).
2.3.1. True L–D and secondary local bifurcation interaction
Figs. 3(a)–(b) displays the post-buckling equilibrium paths P/Pcr vs.
v/t (v is the mid-span top flange-lip corner displacement parallel to
the web caused by the applied load, i.e., excluding the initial imperfec-
tion value) of columns undergoing “true L–D” and “secondary local bi-
furcation” interaction, respectively. Also depicted are the initial
geometrical imperfection shapes considered — in [10,11,31], it was
shown that a “pure” distortional initial geometrical imperfection involv-
ing outward flange-lip motions leads to the lowest lipped channel col-
umn strengths. It is worth noting the non-negligible post-buckling
asymmetry, with respect to the flange-lip motion “sign”, first unveiled
by Prola and Camotim [19]. The preliminary GBT buckling analysis pro-
vided the following critical buckling mode participations factors: (i) 5–
89%, 7–9%, 9–2% (RDL = 1.00), and (ii) 5–93%, 7–5%, 9–1% (RDL = 0.60)
— note that the distortional deformation mode is slightly more “preva-
lent” in the latter column. In order to assess the relevance of the different
GBT deformation modes for the column response, results obtained from
five “approximate” analyses are depicted in Figs. 3(a)–(b), namely those
including the following deformation mode sets: (i) 1 + 5, (ii) 1 + 3 + 5,
(iii) 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9, (iv) 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 15 + 17, and
(v) 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 15 + 17 + 26.
;x
As for the curves displayed in Figs. 4(a)–(c), they provide the
evolution, as P/Pcr increases from 0.25 to 0.75, of the RDL = 1.00 column
;x
ð2Þ web transverse displacement profiles due to the joint contribution
of modes 7 + 9 (w7 + 9(x)).4 On the other hand, the curves in
Figs. 5(a)–(d) provide the evolution, as P/Pcr grows above 0.75, of the
web transverse displacement profiles due to modes 3 (Fig. 5(a) —
w3(x)) and 5 (Fig. 5(b) — w5(x)). Finally, Fig. 6 shows column deformed
configurations at several advanced post-buckling stages: P/Pcr = 1.00;
1.17; 1.33; 1.50 (RDL = 1.00) and P/P cr = 1.00; 1.25; 1.50; 1.75
(RDL = 0.60). The analysis of all these post-buckling results prompts
the following remarks:
(i) The GBT equilibrium path obtained with the 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 +
9 + 15 + 17 + 26 modes virtually coincides with the SFEA
(“exact”) values up to P/Pcr = 1.50 (RDL = 1.00) or P/Pcr = 1.75
(RDL = 0.60). This is quite remarkable, since the GBT analysis
involves only 456 d.o.f., a tiny fraction of the number
required by the SFEA (over 27,000 d.o.f.). Moreover, note
that the same deformation mode set led to “exact” results
for both columns.
(ii) The consideration of the conventional deformation mode set
(1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9) leads to accurate results only up to P/
Pcr ≈ 0.90. Beyond this applied load level, the accuracy of the
GBT response improves with the inclusion of the shear modes
(15 + 17), but only the further inclusion of the transverse exten-
sion mode 26 makes it possible to “match” the SFEA equilibrium
path.
(iii) The observation of Figs. 4(a)–(c), which concern the RDL = 1.00
column and include pure sinusoidal curves (for comparison pur-
poses), shows that w7 + 9(x), quantifying the contribution of the
local deformation modes, (iii1) is virtually sinusoidal for P/
3
Silvestre and Camotim [24] showed that, at the advanced post-buckling stages, the ap-
plication of the compressive force at one end cross-section only, while the other is fully ax-
ially restrained, has a non-negligible impact on the column deformed configuration.
4
Recall that local buckling is triggered by the web. Note also that the column critical
“distortional” buckling mode exhibits a 11% contribution from the local modes 7 + 9,
which means that part of w7 + 9(x) “belongs” to the single half-wave “distortional”
deformations.
42 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

P /Pcr RDL≈1.00 P /Pcr RDL≈0.60

1.50 ABAQUS
1.75
1+3+5 GBT 1+3+5
1+5 1.50
1.25 1+3+5+7+9+15+17+26 1+5
1+3+5+7+9+15+17+26

1+3+5+7+9+15+17 PcrD≡ PcrL 1.25

1.00 1+3+5+7+9+15+17
1+3+5+7+9 PcrD 1+3+5+7+9
1.00
0.75
v
0.75
0.50 v
80 0.50
10 80
10
0.25 120
0.25 100
v /t v /t
t=1.36
0.00 0.00 t=1.9

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(a) (b )

Fig. 3. GBT post-buckling equilibrium paths of lipped channel columns undergoing (a) “true L–D” and (b) “secondary local bifurcation” interaction — several deformation mode sets are
included in the analysis.

x /L x /L x /L
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0 0 0
w 7+9 /t 2 w7+9 /t 5 w7+9 /t
2
SIN 4 SIN 10 SIN
4 6 15
8 20
6
10 25
8 12 30
14 35
10
16 40
(x10-3) P /Pcr =0.25 (x10-3) P /Pcr =0.50 (x10-3) P /Pcr =0.75
12 18 45

(a) ( b) (c)
Fig. 4. Contribution of the local deformation modes 7 + 9 (w7 + 9(x)) to the web transverse bending of the RDL = 1.00 column, for (a) P/Pcr = 0.25, (b) P/Pcr = 0.50 and (c) P/Pcr = 0.75.

Pcr ≈ 0.25 and (iii2) gradually moves away from this shape as the
load increases to P/Pcr ≈ 0.50 and P/Pcr ≈ 0.75. A closer look at the
differences between w7 + 9(x) and the sinusoidal curve shows that
they exhibit five half-waves, i.e., are akin to the columns critical
local buckling mode. This emergence of deformations akin to the
local buckling mode at early loading stages characterizes the so-
called “true L–D interaction” and implies that this coupling phe-
nomenon would also occur in elastic–plastic columns regardless
of their yield stresses (provided, of course, that the squash load
Py is not substantially below Pcr — see Section 4.2). A similar inves-
tigation for the RDL = 0.60 column (not presented here) unveiled
the absence of local deformations up to P/Pcr = 0.75 — w7 + 9(x)
perfectly matches a half-wave sinusoid up to this applied load
level. The emergence of deformations akin to the local buckling
mode only occurs at relatively advanced loading stages, which
characterizes the so-called “secondary local bifurcation (L–D) in-
teraction” and implies that this coupling phenomenon does not
occur in elastic–plastic columns if Py is moderately below Pcr5 —
see Section 5.1.
5
Recently, the authors [13,16,18] analysed several fixed-ended columns with
RDL ≈0.60 and showed that, even when the Py/Pcr is quite large, the influence of the L-D in-
teraction on the column failure load is minute, as attested by the fact that these loads are
accurately predicted by the currently codified DSM distortional design curve — only for
columns with RDL N 0.80 does L–D interaction erode the column ultimate strength. In the
simply supported column analysed in this work, the equilibrium path has a limit point
for P/Pcr = 1.74, i.e., very soon after the “secondary bifurcation” load level (P/Pcr =
1.66), which means that, in elastic–plastic columns, the failure load erosion is not
significant.
(iv) Figs. 5(a)–(b) concern higher applied load levels (P/Pcr ≥ 0.75) and
shows the expected dominance of the distortional (mode 5) single
half-wave sinusoid, akin to the initial imperfection shape (see
Fig. 5(b)). On the other hand, Fig. 5(a) shows the non-negligible
contribution of minor-axis flexure (mode 3), stemming from the
load eccentricity caused by the effective centroid shift due to the
stress redistribution associated with the pronounced distortional
deformations (comprising the flange-stiffener motions and the
web transverse bending) − for more information about the
effective centroid shift phenomenon, see [32]. It is still worth not-
ing the shapes of the w3(x) curves, which reflect the variation of
the load eccentricity along the column length — the fact that
they are “flat” in the central region seems to indicate that the
load eccentricity is only relevant near the column supports (but
further research is needed in order to fully understand why this
happens).
(v) It should be mentioned that considering a different initial imper-
fection shape (e.g., a “pure” local one) may significantly change
the evolution of w(x), particularly at the earlier loading stages —
the changes become progressively less meaningful as loading pro-
gresses [31].
Lastly, Figs. 7(a)–(b) provide the evolution of the mid-span mem-
brane longitudinal normal stress distribution as P/Pcr increases, for the
two columns under scrutiny. Given the strong resemblance between
these two stress distributions, the following conclusions apply to
both columns:
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57 43

x /L x /L
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.0 0.0
P /Pcr =1.00 0.5 P /Pcr =1.00

1.0 P /Pcr =1.125

1.0 P /Pcr =1.25
P /Pcr =1.25
1.5
2.0 P /Pcr =1.50
P /Pcr =1.375 2.0

P /Pcr =1.50 w3 2.5 P /Pcr =1.75 w3

3.0 w3 /t
w3 /t 3.0
(a1) (a2)

x /L x /L
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.0 0.0
P /Pcr =0.75 P /Pcr =0.75
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0 P /Pcr 3.0
1.00 P /Pcr
6.0 1.125 4.0 1.00
1.25 1.25
1.375
5.0 1.50
8.0 w5 1.50 w5 1.75
6.0
w5 /t 7.0
w5 /t
10.0
(b1) (b2)

Fig. 5. Evolution of the web transverse bending displacement profile caused by the deformation modes (a) 3 (w3(x)) and (b) 5 (w5(x)), for the (1) RDL = 1.00 and (2) RDL = 0.60 columns.

(i) At the early loading stages, the stress distribution remains
practically uniform, since mode 1 (axial extension) is practi-
cally the only one contributing to the column deformed
configuration.
(ii) As loading progresses, the stresses gradually (ii1) increase in
the lips, exhibiting a linear variation that reaches very high
values in the tips at the more advanced post-buckling stages
(these very high lip compressive stresses are responsible
for reducing the column strength), (ii2) increase in the flange-
web corners and (iii3) decrease in the lip-flange corners,
where tensile stresses develop even at relatively early loading
stages — this evolution is due the growing contributions from
deformation modes 5 (mostly — very high warping displacement
gradients at the lips), 15 and 17. Moreover, due to the increasing

P/Pcr =1.00 P/Pcr =1.17 P/Pcr =1.33 P/Pcr =1.50

P/Pcr =1.00 P/Pcr =1.25 P/Pcr =1.50 P/Pcr =1.75

Fig. 6. Lipped channel column Abaqus deformed configurations for P/Pcr = 1.00; 1.17; 1.33; 1.50 (RDL = 1.00) and P/Pcr = 1.00; 1.25; 1.50; 1.75 (RDL = 0.60).
44 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

M M
xx (MPa) RDL≈1.00 xx (MPa) RDL≈0.60
500 1000

0
0
P /Pcr
-500 0.25 P /Pcr
0.50 0.25
-1000
-1000 0.50
0.75
0.90 0.85
-1500 1.00 -2000 1.00
1.25 1.25
-2000 1.50 1.50
D E
-3000 1.75
D E
-2500 F F

-3000 A -4000 A
C B C B
lip flange web flange lip lip flange web flange lip
-3500
A B C D E F -5000 AB C D E F
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Mid-span membrane longitudinal normal stress evolution: (a) RDL = 1.00 and (b) RDL = 0.60 columns.

stress redistribution due to the (local) post-buckling behaviour, 2.3.2. Secondary distortional bifurcation interaction
the web stress distribution becomes clearly non-linear for Fig. 8 shows the post-buckling equilibrium path P/Pcr vs. w/t (w is the
P/Pcr N 0.90. mid-span web mid-point transverse displacement caused by the
(iii) In previous works [13,16,18], it was observed that, in columns applied load) and the initial geometrical imperfection shape included
under “true L–D interaction”, the onset of yielding always in the GBT-based analysis. Unlike in the two columns analysed previ-
occurs at the lip tips of the “most distorted” half-wave with ously, the critical-mode initial imperfection shape is now local, exhibits
outward flange-lip motions — this observation is in agreement five half-waves and involves inward web bending at mid-span. The GBT
with the very high compressive stresses mentioned in the pre- buckling analysis provided the following relevant modal participation
vious item and suggests that the distortional deformations factors: 7–88%, 9–9%, 5–1% — because of the (minute) contribution
play a relevant role in the elastic–plastic column behaviour of mode 5, ϕ5(x) displays five half-waves at the early loading stages
(and collapse). (not shown here). This equilibrium path was obtained with the GBT
(iv) The stress distribution patterns obtained for these columns deformation mode set 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 15 + 17 + 19 + 26,
are qualitatively similar to those reported in [22] for a “pure” which leads to extremely accurate results — see the comparison with
distortional post-buckling behaviour – note the extremely the “exact” SFEA equilibrium path up to P/Pcr = 1.756.
high compressive stresses at the lip tips. Naturally, a column The curves depicted in Figs. 9(a)–(d) provide the evolution, as P/Pcr
with local initial imperfections would exhibit a different stress increases from 0.50, of the web transverse bending displacement
distribution evolution in the early loading stages — however, profiles caused by the contributions of modes 3 (Fig. 9(a) — w3(x)),
as loading progresses, the fast growing contribution of distor- 5 (Fig. 9(b) — w5(x)7), 7 + 9 (Fig. 9(c) — w7 + 9(x)) and
tional mode 5 would lead to stress distributions similar to 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 26 (Fig. 9(d) — w3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 26(x) ≡ w(x)). Finally,
those shown in Figs. 7(a)–(b). Fig. 10 shows column deformed configurations (amplified 5 times) at
four load levels, namely P/Pcr = 1.00; 1.25; 1.50; 1.75 (all corresponding
to quite advanced post-buckling stages). The close observation of all
these post-buckling results leads to the following comments:
(i) For P/Pcr ≤ 0.75, w(x) ≡ w3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 26(x) consists almost
P /Pcr RDL≈1.60 exclusively of the five half-wave contributions from the local
1.75 ABAQUS deformation modes 7 + 9, akin to the initial imperfection
GBT shape — the single half-wave contributions from modes 3 and
1.50 5 (see Fig. 9(a)–(b)) are barely visible, as the five half-wave
amplitudes are practically identical. When the load increases
beyond P/Pcr = 0.75, the above picture begins to change, as the
1.25
relative importance of the contributions from modes 3 and
5 (mostly the latter) gradually grow, as evidenced by the fact
1.00 PcrL that the w3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 26(x) five half-waves become progres-
sively more unequal: the central half-wave amplitude increases
0.75 beyond the remaining ones, while the two adjacent half-waves
decrease, thus reflecting the presence of the aforementioned
0.50 single half-wave modal contributions — this is clearly visible in
80 Figs. 9(d) and 10, for P/Pcr = 1.75, i.e., just before reaching the
15
0.25 120 w
w /t
6
Note that the equilibrium path limit point takes place for P/Pcr ≈ 1.77, i.e., again quite
t=1.36 soon after the “secondary bifurcation” load level (P/Pcr ≈ 1.60). This behavioural feature,
0.00 which also occurred in the column with RDL = 0.60 (“secondary local bifurcation”), implies

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 that, in elastic–plastic columns, the failure load will never be noticeably eroded/influenced
by L–D interaction — if the squash load exceeds the critical distortional bifurcation one vis-
ibly, the column fails either elastically or very soon after the onset of yielding.
7
Fig. 8. GBT and Abaqus post-buckling equilibrium path of the lipped channel column This profile quantifies the contribution of mode 5 (symmetric distortional) to the
undergoing “secondary distortional bifurcation (L–D) interaction”. transverse bending displacement of the web.
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57 45

x /L x /L
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.7 5 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
0.00 0.0
0.02 0.1
0.04 P /Pcr 0.2 P /Pcr
0.50 0.50
0.06 0.75 0.3 0.75
1.00 1.00
0.08 1.15 0.4 1.15
1.25 1.25
0.10 1.50 0.5 1.50
w3 1.75
0.12 w5 1.75
0.6
w 3 /t w 5 /t
0.14 0.7
(a) (b)

x /L x /L
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
-2.0 -1.5
-1.5 w7+9
P /Pcr -1.0 P /Pcr
0.50 0.50
-1.0 0.75 -0.5 0.75
-0.5 1.00 1.00
1.15 0.0 1.15
0.0
1.25 0.5 1.25
0.5 1.50 1.50
1.0 1.75 1.0 1.75
1.5 1.5
2.0 w 2.0
7+9 /t w3+5+7+9+26 /t
2.5 2.5
(c) (d)

Fig. 9. Evolution of the web transverse bending displacement profile due to the deformation modes (a) 3 (w3(x)), (b) 5 (w5(x)), (c) 7 + 9 (w7 + 9(x)) and (d) 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 26
(w3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 26(x) ≡ w(x)), for the RDL = 1.60 column.

failure load. The emergence of distortional deformations at fairly 3. Experimental investigations

advanced loading stages (close to P/Pcr = 1.0) characterizes the
so-called “secondary distortional bifurcation L–D interaction”
and means that this interactive behaviour does not occur in
elastic–plastic columns if Py is below Pcr. Indeed, these deforma-
tions can only develop if the squash load is large enough to allow
the applied load to approach the distortional bifurcation load
level, taking advantage of the high column local post-critical
strength reserve.
(ii) Note that the mode 3 amplitude function now closely resembles
a single-half-wave sinusoid, unlike in the two columns analysed
previously (no “flattened” central portion). Although no
clear physical explanation for this difference is yet available,
it certainly has to do with the fact that the effective centroid
shift now stems mainly from local deformations (and not
distortional ones).
Although several researchers carried out studies specifically aimed
at investigating the effect of L–D interaction in fixed-ended cold-
formed steel columns (exhibiting plain or stiffened cross-sections),
the specimens providing clear experimental evidence of this coupling
phenomenon (and the ensuing ultimate strength erosion) were rela-
tively scarce. Moreover, since most of the above researchers reported
essentially experimental results, it is fair to say that fairly little informa-
tion was available about the mechanics of L–D interaction. This situation
was altered by the extensive numerical (SFEA) investigations reported
in [10,11,31], which made it possible to acquire in-depth knowledge
on the behavioural aspects characterising the structural response and
ultimate strength of columns affected by L–D interaction. As a natural
sequence of these numerical investigations, an experimental test pro-
gram was carefully planned and performed, at The University of Hong

P/Pcr =1.00 P/Pcr =1.25 P/Pcr =1.50 P/Pcr =1.75

Fig. 10. Abaqus column deformed configurations at P/Pcr = 1.00; 1.25; 1.50; 1.75 (RDL = 1.60) (×5).
46 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
Kong (UHK), concerning fixed-ended columns expected to experi-
ence visible L–D interaction — two cross-section shapes were consid-
ered, namely “plain” lipped channels [8] and rack-sections [9].
Next, the main features and results of the experimental test
program carried out at UHK are briefly reviewed — more details
can be found in [8,9]. After that, a collection and classification of
the test results available in the literature on columns undergoing
L–D interaction is presented.
3.1. Tests performed at the University of Hong Kong
The experimental test program involved (i) 16 lipped channel (C) and
(ii) 10 rack-section (R) cold-formed steel columns brake-pressed
from high strength and mild zinc-coated structural steel sheets — the
zinc coating was removed, by acid etching, before performing the
tests. Table 1 provides the various specimen dimensions (bw, bf, bl, bs, —
web/flange/lip/stiffener widths, thickness t and length L, as shown in
Table 1), the critical local/distortional/global buckling loads (determined
with GBTUL [27]) and squash load (PcrL, PcrD, PcrG, Py), the load ratios
PcrD/PcrL, PcrG/PcrMax, Py/PcrMax, where PcrMax = max{PcrD; PcrL}, and the
column failure loads PExp. The specimen ends were milled flat electron-
ically and welded to 25 mm thick steel plates, thus ensuring full contact
with the test machine end bearings, an essential aspect to achieve fully
fixed end supports. The specimen material properties were obtained by
means of tensile coupon tests and initial geometrical imperfection mea-
surements were made (details can be found in [8,9]). A servo-controlled
hydraulic testing machine was employed to apply the compressive axial
force, through steel plates welded to the column ends — the top end
plate was bolted to the associated bearing plate, which was fully
restrained against warping, twisting and major and/or minor axis
bending. This setting may be said to correspond to “fully fixed-ended”
support conditions. A data acquisition system recorded the readings
of the load cell and displacement transducers (located at the top
and mid-span cross-sections) at regular intervals during the tests.
Figs. 11(a)–(b) concern a lipped channel specimen and provide
front and side views of the test rig and a typical set-up for testing a
fixed-ended column.
All the specimens tested (Cs and Rs) were found to fail in local–
distortional interactive modes (“L–D”) — Figs. 12(a)–(b) show the
deformed configurations, near collapse, of two C and two R column
specimens, which provide very clear experimental evidence of the
simultaneous occurrence of local and distortional deformations.
However, it is worth noting that these L–D interaction stem from
“secondary distortional bifurcation L–D interaction” [13], and not
from the near coincidence of P crL and PcrD : indeed, P crD /PcrL varies
from (i) 1.73 to 2.71 (C), and (ii) 1.31 to 1.46 (R). Interaction occurs
because P y is “enough above” PcrD to allow for the development of
L–D coupling before the plasticity effects become significant: Py/PcrD
varies from (i) 1.09 to 6.10 (C), and (ii) 1.57 to 2.44 (R).8
3.2. Other test results available in the literature
Without claiming to be completely exhaustive, the experimental
results available in the literature providing evidence of the occurrence
of L–D interaction in fixed-ended cold-formed steel columns are
co-authored by (i) Kwon and Hancock [6], Loughlan et al. [7] and
Kwon et al. [33,34], for plain lipped channel columns (there are
also some results concerning plain hat-section columns in [34]),
(ii) Kwon and Hancock [6], Kwon et al. [34], Yap and Hancock [14]
and He et al. [15], for web-stiffened lipped channel columns, (iii) Yang
8
It is worth noting that these test results were quite surprising at the time, due the fair-
ly separated critical local and distortional buckling loads. In fact, it may be said that
interpreting/understanding this experimental evidence provided the motivation for the
work reported in [13].
and Hancock [17], for web-flange-stiffened lipped channel columns,
and (iv) Yap and Hancock [35], for columns with complex-stiffened
cross-sections.9
Table 2 summarizes the available test results concerning fixed-
ended cold-formed steel columns experiencing L–D interaction.
After using the reported geometrical and material properties to
evaluate the critical local/distortional/global buckling loads (again
determined using GBTUL [27]) and the squash load of the various
column specimens, the above test results are divided into six sets,
according to the (i) cross-section geometry (plain cross-sections,
namely lipped channels, hat-sections or rack-sections, web-stiffened
lipped channels or web-flange-stiffened lipped channels — PCS, WSLC
or WFSLC) and (ii) L–D interaction nature (secondary local bifurcation,
true interaction or secondary distortional bifurcation — SLB, TI or
SDB) — N stands for the number of test results. By observing this
table, one readily concludes that there are only sizeable numbers of
test results for (i) PCS columns failing under SDB L–D interaction
(23 test results) and (ii) WSLC columns collapsing due to TI L–D
interaction (27 test results) — indeed, the number of test results is
either scarce or null for all the remaining cases. Nevertheless,
a total of 112 test results were collected, including the 26 reported
in [8,9] and the quite “dubious” 20 reported in [7] — as shown in
[13], local failures were misinterpreted as L–D interactive failures,
due to the fact that “distortional deformations” suddenly appear at
the onset of collapse triggered by severe yielding at the web-flange
corners/edges. At this point, it is worth noting that the authors are
currently planning an experimental test program, to be carried out
at The University of Hong Kong, involving WSLC and WFSLC columns
with geometries selected to ensure SLB, TI and SDB L–D interaction —
these test results will help “fill the gaps” in Table 2.
4. Numerical simulations
This section provides a brief overview of the most relevant issues
concerning the buckling and post-buckling behaviour of columns
exhibiting almost identical critical local and distortional buckling loads
(PcrL ≈ PcrD — TI L–D interaction) and the performance of parametric
studies aimed at gathering extensive failure load data. The results
presented concern fixed-ended columns with (i) plain cross-sections,
such as lipped channels (C), hat-sections (H), zed-sections (Z), and
rack-sections (R) [13], (ii) web-stiffened lipped channels (WSLC) [16]
and (iii) web-flange-stiffened lipped channels (WFSLC) [18] experiencing
more or less severe L–D interaction effects, since they exhibit several
combinations of (i) distortional-to-local critical buckling load ratios
(PcrD/PcrL), (ii) squash-to-non-critical buckling load ratios (Py/PcrMax)
and (iii) slenderness values.
The numerical simulations were carried out by means of Abaqus
SFEA [26], using existing models previously developed and validated
against experimental results by the authors [9,31] and also some
recommendations from Schafer et al. [36]. The main characteristics
of the model employed are: shell finite element elastic–plastic anal-
ysis using Riks's arc-length control strategy involving (i) columns
discretized into fine meshes of 4-node isoparametric shell (S4) ele-
ments (length-to-width ratio close to 1, except in the lips and
intermediate stiffeners), (ii) end supports simulated by rigid
plates attached to the end section centroids and (iii) steel material
behaviour modelled by a linear-elastic/perfectly-plastic stress–
strain curve (both residual stresses and corner strength effects
are disregarded).
9
Because of the possible occurrence of two distinct distortional buckling modes, one as-
sociated with “short half-wave lengths” and the other with “long half-wave lengths”, two
types of L–D interaction are reported in this work. Due to the unusual cross-section shapes
and the small number of test results reported in [35], it was decided to exclude them from
this study.
Table 1
Specimen dimensions, yield stresses, critical and yield-to-critical load ratios, failure loads (mm, kN).

Specimen bw bf bl bs L t Py PcrL PcrD PcrG P crD P crG Py PExp Obs.

P crL P crMax P crMax

C-1 104.9 81.6 15.2 – 2498 0.962 154 24 43 100 1.80 2.34 3.60 39.9 L–D
C-2 101.8 82.1 15.5 – 2499 0.984 157 26 46 98 1.73 2.14 3.44 42.1 L–D
C-3 94.9 80.9 16.9 – 2499 0.978 152 28 51 88 1.80 1.71 2.97 42.0 L–D
C-4 152.5 131.2 14.7 – 1425 1.227 320 33 57 1147 1.73 20.00 5.58 68.1 L–D

A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

C-5 152.4 131.0 15.8 – 1426 1.227 322 33 64 1161 1.92 18.19 5.03 71.0 L–D
C-6 154.5 141.0 15.0 – 1426 1.206 331 31 54 1223 1.76 22.57 6.10 67.7 L–D
C-7 110.5 82.2 16.1 – 1148 1.459 221 78 144 802 1.84 5.56 1.53 109.0 L–D
C-8 118.5 82.0 15.7 – 1149 1.453 225 70 138 900 1.97 6.51 1.63 102.8 L–D
C-9 118.6 81.9 15.9 – 1148 1.469 228 72 143 916 1.98 6.39 1.59 103.6 L–D
C-10 203.7 192.7 19.0 – 1852 1.478 458 42 76 2057 1.83 26.94 5.99 92.9 L–D
C-11 204.7 191.9 20.6 – 1849 1.459 454 41 87 2087 2.14 24.04 5.22 94.7 L–D
C-12 182.1 113.1 19.2 – 1030 1.934 290 99 243 4416 2.46 18.21 1.20 145.2 L–D
C-13 181.1 112.5 20.2 – 1026 1.915 287 97 263 4414 2.71 16.79 1.09 146.1 L–D
C-14 182.5 122.5 19.4 – 1027 1.974 309 108 252 4880 2.34 19.40 1.23 142.5 L–D
C-15 238.9 162.7 21.1 – 1946 1.966 400 79 158 2952 2.00 18.67 2.53 129.7 L–D
C-16 238.2 162.3 23.1 – 1947 1.947 398 78 174 2964 2.24 17.00 2.28 131.6 L–D
R-1 73.0 37.1 17.3 21.3 1300 1.002 112 52 72 111 1.37 1.55 1.57 58.2 L–D
R-2 78.4 47.4 17.2 21.0 1800 0.998 125 49 66 98 1.35 1.49 1.89 54.4 L–D
R-3 83.6 52.3 17.1 20.4 2100 0.982 129 43 63 92 1.46 1.46 2.05 54.3 L–D
R-4 88.6 57.2 17.2 21.3 2499 0.999 130 43 60 87 1.40 1.45 2.16 51.4 L–D
R-5 88.6 57.2 17.5 21.4 2500 0.981 138 41 59 84 1.45 1.43 2.34 51.0 L–D
R-6 83.5 52.5 17.3 21.6 1397 1.193 175 78 102 156 1.31 1.53 1.72 81.6 L–D
R-7 88.5 57.9 17.7 21.0 1599 1.186 184 72 99 152 1.38 1.53 1.86 79.8 L–D
R-8 93.7 67.3 17.4 20.8 1902 1.227 206 75 98 146 1.31 1.49 2.10 79.8 L–D
R-9 98.7 72.2 17.0 21.0 2501 1.201 211 66 87 121 1.32 1.39 2.42 75.5 L–D
R-10 98.8 72.2 17.2 20.8 2501 1.175 206 62 85 118 1.36 1.39 2.44 74.3 L–D

47
48 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

Top end plate

Rigid flat
bearing plate

Transducers

Column
specimen

Special
bearing

Bottom end plate

(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Test rig and typical test set-up: (a) front and (b) side views (lipped channel specimen [9]).

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Experimental evidence of the occurrence of L–D interaction in (a) C and (b) R column tests.

4.1. Buckling behaviour
The column geometry (cross-section dimensions and length)
selection, ensuring different “levels” of L–D interaction, i.e., distinct
ratios between PcrD and PcrL, was made by an educated “trial-and-
error” procedure involving the performance of GBT buckling analysis
sequences using the code GBTUL [27] mainly due to its computational
efficiency and modal nature. Figs. 13(a)–(d) illustrate this procedure
for fixed-ended steel columns (E = 210GPa; v = 0.30) with six com-
mon cross-section shapes: C + H + Z (identical local and distortional
buckling behaviours), R, WSLC and WFSLC. The columns have identical
PcrL and PcrD and each figure shows a Pcr vs. L (logarithmic scale) curve
and the “mixed” L–D buckling mode associated with the selected
column length LDL. Due to the virtual coincidence of PcrL and PcrD, it is
just logical to expect the selected column post-buckling behaviour
(elastic or elastic–plastic) to be strongly influenced by L–D interaction.

Table 2
Summary of the available test results on cold-formed steel columns undergoing L–D interaction.

SLB N TI N SDB N

PCS Kwon and Hancock [6] 5 Loughlan et al. [7] 20

Kwon et al. [34] 5 Kwon et al. [33] 3

WSLC Yap and Hancock [14] 2 Kwon and Hancock [6] 3 He et al. [15] 5
Yap and Hancock [14] 9
He et al. [15] 4 He et al. [15] 8 Kwon et al. [33] 3
Kwon et al. [33] 7

WFSLC Yang and Hancock [17] 5 Yang and Hancock [17] 7

Total 6 42 38
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57 49

Pcr (kN) Pcr (kN) R-sections Pcr (kN) WSLC Pcr (kN) WFSLC
150 75
Z
300 15
125 C
H 250
60 12
1.6
100 120
200
10
80 45 9
75 1.6 150
120
160 30 90 6
50 80
10 100 12.5
10
90
12.5
12
1.6 190 1.05 0.405
25 120 50 2.32 15 120 3 120
10
LDL=100 80 (mm) LDL=185 (cm) L (mm) LDL=80 (cm) L (mm) LDL=140 (cm) L
0 (mm)
0 0 0
10 100 1000 L (cm) 10 100 1000 10 100 1000 10 100 1000
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 13. Pcr vs. L curves and “mixed” L–D buckling modes: (a) C + H + Z, (b) R, (c) WSLC, (d) WFSLC.

However, recall that it was found experimentally that L–D interaction
may also be significant when PcrL and PcrD are quite apart (secondary
bifurcation interaction). In order to attempt to establish conditions
under which L–D interaction is relevant, a systematic numerical
(Abaqus SFEA) investigation was carried out, involving columns
exhibiting different “levels” of L–D interaction — the outcome of this
research effort is briefly presented in the next section.
4.2. Parametric study: elastic–plastic post-buckling behaviour and ultimate
strength
After conducting a preliminary study to determine, for each cross-
section type (C, H, Z, R, WSLC, WFSLC), the most detrimental column
initial geometrical imperfection shape, i.e., the one leading to
the lowest column ultimate strength [11,18,31,37], parametric
studies were performed to obtain numerical failure loads of initially
imperfect fixed-ended columns with the aforementioned cross-
section shapes and geometries leading to more or less severe L–D
interaction effects 10 : P crD /P crL varying from 0.40 to 2.40 — each
value is associated with a different critical (local or distortional)
slenderness, namely 1.00–1.25–1.50–1.75–2.00–2.50–3.00–3.25–3.50.
The failure load data obtained was subsequently used to (i) identify
the combinations of PcrD/PcrL and slenderness for which L–D interac-
tion is relevant (i.e., leads to a visible ultimate strength erosion),
(ii) assess the merits of the currently codified Direct Strength
Method (DSM) design curves in predicting L–D interactive failures and
(iii) provide guidance/validation concerning the search for DSM-
based design approaches able to capture efficiently the ultimate
strength erosion stemming from this coupling phenomenon —
these last two aspects are addressed in great detail in Section 5.
The results obtained provided clear evidence that the ultimate
strength of fixed-ended cold-formed steel columns may be substan-
tially eroded by the occurrence of “true L–D interaction” and
“secondary distortional bifurcation L–D interaction” (if Py is above
PcrD) — the latter provides numerical corroboration for the experi-
mentally observed L–D interaction reported in [8,9]. As for the
“secondary local bifurcation L–D interaction”, it was found to cause
quite minute failure load erosion, which means that it can be
neglected for design purposes. Figs. 14(a)–(f) display the deformed
configurations and plastic strain distributions associated with L–D
interactive collapses occurring in fixed-ended C, H, Z, R, WSLC,
WFSLC columns experiencing “true L–D interaction” — note that, in
the last figure, the presence of a large number of local half-waves
with very small amplitudes is almost imperceptible.
10
For details of these numerical studies see [13] for (PCS columns), [16] (WSLC columns)
and [18] (WFSLC columns).
5. Direct Strength Method (DSM) Design
The well known and widely accepted “Effective Width Method”
(EWM) accounts for the local post-buckling strength reserve by
reducing the widths of the individual compressed walls/plates forming
a thin-walled cross-section. However, the fact that its application to
cold-formed steel members with complex cross-sections (large wall
numbers, more or less involved lips and/or intermediate stiffeners) is
cumbersome and time-consuming has led to its progressive replace-
ment by the Direct Strength Method (DSM). First proposed almost
two decades ago, by Schafer and Peköz [38], and based on an original
idea of Hancock et al. [39], the DSM is nowadays widely accepted as
an efficient methodology to design cold-formed steel columns and
beams failing in local (fNL), distortional (fND) and global or interactive
local–global (fNE) modes.11 The method has now been shown to provide
an efficient and general approach to obtain efficient (safe and accurate)
estimates of the ultimate strength of cold-formed steel columns and
beams on the sole basis of the steel yield stress and elastic critical
buckling stresses associated with local, distortional and global modes.
For columns, the DSM nominal strengths fNL and fND, which were mostly
calibrated against fixed-ended column results, are provided by “Winter-
type” expressions that can be found in Schafer's state-of-the-art report
[2]. Moreover, Schafer [41] also proposed two distinct strategies to esti-
mate the failure loads of columns experiencing L–D interaction: replac-
ing fy by either (i) fND in the fNL equations (NLD approach — fNLD) or (ii)
fNL in the fND equations (NDL approach — fNDL). These approaches have
already been employed by several authors — for instance, both were
adopted in [15], while only the former was considered in [17]. Later,
Silvestre et al. [10] proposed a novel DSM-based design approach, de-
veloped in the context of fixed-ended C columns undergoing “true L–
D interaction” (MNDL approach — fMNDL), which was subsequently
shown to cover also H, Z and R-section columns by Dinis and Camotim
[11].12 Recently, the authors extended and generalized the scope of
the above findings, namely by assessing the performance of the MNDL
approach for “plain cross-section” [13], WSLC [16] and WFSLC [18] col-
umns affected also by a “secondary (local or distortional) bifurcation L–
D interaction”. This approach (i) coincides with fND for λD b 1.5 and, for
11
In fact, the column distortional design curve was proposed in [39], even if a significant
portion of the test specimens failed in L-D interactive modes and the corresponding failure
loads were used (incorrectly, in the authors' opinion) in the calibration of this curve, which
was based exclusively on experimental results. However, a recent numerical investigation
on the influence of the cross-section shape and end support conditions on the ultimate
strength of cold-formed steel columns buckling and failing in distortional modes [40]
showed that the current DSM distortional design curve adequately predicts the fixed-
ended column failure loads.
12
This approach was developed, calibrated and validated on the basis of numerical
(SFEA) ultimate strength values concerning fixed-ended columns exhibiting RDL values
comprised between 0.90 and 1.10, i.e., the numerical results were restricted to columns
strongly affected by L–D interaction, for which the ultimate strength erosion is most se-
vere (all are included in the “true L–D interaction” region [13]).
50 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
(a)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 14. L–D interactive failure modes and plastic strain distributions in (a) C, (b) H, (c) Z, (d) R, (e) WSLC, (f) WFSLC columns.
more slender columns (λD ≥ 1.5), (ii) defines a modified local strength f
⁎NL, dependent on the critical half-wave length ratio LcrD/LcrL (obtained
from simply supported column signature curves) and estimates the col-
umn ultimate strength by replacing fNL with f ⁎NL in the NDL equations –
this modified local strength leads to fND and fNDL estimates for LcrD/
LcrL ≤ a and LcrD/LcrL ≥ b, where “a” and “b” are integers whose values de-
pend on the cross-section shape (see details in [18]).
Next, a brief overview of the numerical failure loads reported in [13,
16,18] is presented and discussed. These failure loads, which are
subsequently used to assess the quality of the corresponding DSM
predictions, concern a representative fraction/sample of the fixed-
ended columns analysed, which (i) display plain C, WSLC and WFSLC
cross-sections (the first ones may also be viewed as representing the re-
maining plain C + H + Z + R columns), (ii) are affected by various
“levels” of (true and secondary bifurcation) L–D interaction, (iii) exhibit
distinct RDL = PcrD/PcrL values, namely RDL = 0.40–0.60–0.80–1.00–
1.30–1.60–2.00, (iv) are analysed with 9 distinct yield stresses, covering
a wide critical (local or distortional) slenderness range (1.00–1.25–
1.50–1.75–2.00–2.50–3.00–3.25–3.50).
Figs. 15(a1)–(b4) and 16(a1)–(b3) plot fU/fy against λL and λD for the
7 C + WSLC + WFSLC column sets identified in the previous paragraph.
The numerical fU/fy values concerning each RDL value are compared with
their DSM predictions13: (i) fNL or fND, and (ii) fNDL. Since the fMNDL de-
pends on the LcrD/LcrL limit, which is different for each cross-section
type, the corresponding strength curves are not shown, in order to im-
prove the readability of the figures (more details can be found in [13,16,
18]) — note the numerical assessment of the merits of the MNDL ap-
proach will be further discussed in Section 5.1. The observation of the
figure pairs makes it possible to extract the following conclusions:
(i) Although all the numerical fU/fy values are well aligned along
“Winter-type” curves, those concerning the WFSLC columns
decrease faster with λD, which is due to the lower post-critical
stiffness, with respected to those exhibited by the C and WSLC
columns, as reported in [18].
13
Note that the NDL curve is column-dependent, since it depends on the L and D buck-
ling loads. Therefore, the NDL curves appearing in Figs. 15(a1)–(b4) and 16(a1)–(b3) are all
different. Conversely, the L and D curves are always the same in Figs. 15(a) and 16(a), and
Figs. 15(b) and 16(b), respectively.
(b)
(d)
(f)
(ii) As expected, in the RDL = 0.40 columns the fND values provide
fairly accurate ultimate strength estimates in the whole slender-
ness range, which means that there is no perceptible ultimate
strength erosion due to L–D interaction. The same occurs in the
RDL = 0.60 and RDL = 0.80 C and WSLC columns. However, this
is not true for the corresponding slender (λD ≥ 3.00) WFSLC
columns, as the fU/fy values are visibly overestimated by the
distortional design curve, with the overestimation growing
with RDL, even if typical distortional collapse modes are observed
(minute local deformations were only detected in the most
slender columns). To illustrate this assertion, Figs. 17(a1)–(c1)
show the failure modes and corresponding plastic strains of
three columns with λcr = 3.50, namely a C column with RDL =
0.58, a WSLC column with RDL = 0.50 and a WFSLC column
with RDL = 0.55 — Figs. 17(a2)–(c2) provide close-ups of
the web-flange-web deformed configurations of the C-WSLC–
WFSLC columns, which unveil the presence of small (but clearly
perceptible) local deformations.
(iii) On the other hand, the fNL values provide fairly accurate ultimate
strength estimates for the stocky columns with RDL N 1.00, which
exhibit typical local collapses. For instance, Figs. 18(a1)–(c1)
show the local collapse modes of three columns with λcr =
1.25, namely a C column with RDL = 2.40, a WSLC column with
RDL = 2.00 (amplified 10 times) and a WFSLC column with
RDL = 1.60 (also amplified 10 times) — the normal stress redistri-
bution (shift from the more midwidth regions towards the stiffer
corners), which is at the root of the “effective width concept”,
is “illustrated” in these figures by the yields zones near
the web-flange and flange-lip corners. As for the slender
RDL N 1.00 columns (RDL = 1.30, RDL = 1.60, RDL = 2.00 —
Figs. 16(a1)–(b3)), practically all their failure loads are well
overestimated by the current DSM local and distortional design
curves, thus providing clear evidence of the occurrence of signif-
icant “secondary distortional bifurcation L–D interaction”.
Figs. 18(a2)–(c2) depict the L–D interactive collapse modes of
columns differing from those in Figs. 18(a1)–(c1) only in the
fact they have a much higher yield stress (λcr = 3.5). Naturally,
the λcr value for which L–D interaction ceases to be relevant
increases with RDL. Moreover, generally speaking, the RDL N 1.00
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57 51

RDL=0.40 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=0.40 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns

WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WS-D Imp WS-D Imp
P-D Imp 0.8 P-D Imp

0.6 D
L
0.4
0.2 NDL
λL NDL
0.0 λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a1) (b1)

RDL=0.60 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=0.60 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns

WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WS-D Imp WS-D Imp
P-D Imp 0.8 P-D Imp

0.6
L D
0.4

NDL
0.2
NDL
λL 0.0 λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a2) (b2)

RDL=0.80 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=0.80 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns

WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WS-D Imp WS-D Imp
P-D Imp 0.8 P-D Imp

0.6
L D
0.4
0.2
NDL NDL
λL 0.0 λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a3) (b3)

RDL=1.00 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=1.00 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns

WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WS-D Imp WS-D Imp
P-D Imp 0.8 P-D Imp

0.6 D
L
0.4
NDL 0.2
NDL
λL 0.0 λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a4) (b4)

Fig. 15. Variation of fU/fy and corresponding DSM local and distortional strength predictions with (a) λL and (b) λD for (1)–(4) RDL = 0.40–0.60–0.80–1.00 (C, WSLC and WFSLC columns).

column ultimate strengths tend to be less overestimated by the
fNL values as RDL increases (switch from “true” to “secondary
distortional bifurcation” L–D interaction) and λL decreases, as
the L–D interaction effects become less relevant — the number
of accurate estimates, indicating local failures, grows (slowly)
with RDL (see Figs. 16(a1)–(a3)).
(iv) In view of the content of the previous item, most of the
RDL = 0.80, RDL = 1.00, RDL = 1.30, RDL = 1.60 column
ultimate strengths are not accurately predicted by the
current DSM local or distortional strength curves — it is
necessary to resort to the MNDL approach to obtain accurate
predictions.
52 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

RDL=1.30 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=1.30 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns

WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WFS-L Imp WFS-L Imp
WS-D Imp 0.8 WS-D Imp
WS-L Imp WS-L Imp
L
P-D Imp
0.6 P-D Imp
P-L Imp P-L Imp
0.4 D
NDL
0.2
λL 0.0
NDL
λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a1) (b1)
RDL=1.60 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=1.60 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns
WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WFS-L Imp WFS-L Imp
WS-D Imp 0.8 WS-D Imp
WS-L Imp WS-L Imp
L
P-D Imp
0.6 P-D Imp
D
P-L Imp P-L Imp
0.4
NDL 0.2
λL 0.0 NDL λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a2) (b2)
RDL=2.00 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns fU /fy RDL=2.00 Plain+WS+WFS LC columns
WFS-D Imp 1.0 WFS-D Imp
WFS-L Imp WFS-L Imp
WS-D Imp 0.8 WS-D Imp
WS-L Imp WS-L Imp
L P-D Imp
0.6 P-D Imp
P-L Imp D P-L Imp
0.4
NDL
0.2
λL 0.0
NDL
λD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(a3) (b3)

Fig. 16. Variation of fU/fy and corresponding DSM local and distortional strength predictions with (a) λL and (b) λD for (1)–(3) RDL = 1.30–1.60–2.00 (C, WSLC and WFSLC columns).

(v) Naturally, in the RDL = 1.00 columns L–D interaction occurs in the
whole slenderness range, as is clearly shown in Figs. 15(a4)–(b4)
— this column is affected by strong “true L–D interaction”. The
high ultimate strength erosion can be readily detected by looking
at the difference between the numerical ultimate loads and their
fNL and fND estimates.
(vi) Qualitatively speaking, the results concerning the C and WSLC
columns are very similar. Indeed, for identical RDL (same level of
L–D interaction) and slenderness values, the WSLC and C column
fU/fy values are nearly coincident, even if the former are generally
a bit higher.14 On the other hand, again for identical RDL and slen-
derness values, the WFSLC fU/fy values are, in general, higher
(stocky columns) and lower (slender columns) than those
concerning their WSLC and C counterparts — the ultimate
strength degradation observed in the slender columns is related
to the lower post-critical stiffness observed in the WFSLC col-
umns.
14
Note that the failure loads of the two column sets were obtained considering the most
detrimental distortional initial imperfections, which are distinct in both columns. While
the former involve inward flange-lip motions, the latter is associated with outward
flange-lip motions.
(vii) Lastly, in view of what was mentioned in the previous item, it
seems logical to expect that it may be possible to handle jointly
the design of WSLC and C columns exhibiting L–D interactive fail-
ures. However, the same is not true for the WFSLC columns — sig-
nificant differences were found in the high critical slenderness
range (λD N 2.50).15
5.1. Assessment of the numerical ultimate strength estimates
On the basis of the significant amount of numerical column failure
loads obtained, it is possible to draw some conclusions concerning the
quality of their DSM-based predictions. Figs. 19(a)–(d) plot, respective-
ly, fU/fND vs. λL, fU/fNL vs. λD, fU/fNDL vs. λD and fU/fMNDL vs. λD,16 concerning
the (i) “plain cross-section” (C, H, Z, R — Figs. 19(a1)–(d1) [13]) (ii)
15
Note that in the existing cold-formed specifications, the DSM “pre-qualified columns”
cover only C (with simple or complex lips), WSLC, H, Z and R cross-sections — the WFSLC
columns are excluded.
16
The inclusion of the apparently “illogical” fU/fND vs. λL and fU/fNL vs. λD plots (instead of
the “logical” fU/fND vs. λD and fU/fNL vs. λL ones) was done to for clarity purposes, i.e., to im-
prove the “readability” — although both plot pairs contain the same information, in the lat-
ter the points corresponding to the various ratio values are located on the same vertical
line and “on top of each other”.
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
(a1)
(a2)
Fig. 17. Failure modes and plastic strains of the (a1) RDL = 0.58 C, (b1) RDL = 0.50 WSLC and (c1) RDL = 0.55 WFSLC columns with λcr = 3.50, including (a2) web, (b2) top flange and (c2)
web close-ups.
(a1)
(a2)
Fig. 18. Failure modes and plastic strains of the (a) RDL = 2.40 C, (b) RDL = 2.00 WSLC and (c) RDL = 1.60 WFSLC columns with (1) λcr = 1.25 and (2) λcr = 3.50.
WSLC (Figs. 19(a2)–(d2) [16]), and (iii) WFSLC (Figs. 19(a3)–(d3) [19])
columns. Note that Figs. 19(a)–(b) include only results of columns with
RDL ≤ 1.0 and RDL N 1.0, respectively, while Figs. 19(c)–(d) include all the
columns analysed. The observation of these figures prompts the follow-
ing comments:
(i) First of all, as already mentioned by several authors, the current
DSM local and distortional design curves (fNL and fND) are unable
to predict adequately the ultimate strength erosion due to L–D in-
teraction. As expected, the local curve estimates exhibit very poor
indicators, with the sole exception of the stocky columns with
high RDL, which collapse in pure local modes and, thus, are not af-
fected by L–D interaction — the worst indicators correspond to
the WFSLC columns: mean and standard deviation equal to 0.77
and 0.22, and minimum of 0.39. The same applies to the fND pre-
dictions, although their quality is higher than that of the fNL esti-
mates. Note that all unsafe estimates in Figs. 19(a1)–(a3) concern
either columns experiencing “true L–D interaction” or quite slen-
der (λD N 2.5) WFSLC columns (see Figs. 19(b1)–(b3)) — in this re-
gard, note also how the WFSLC column “estimate cloud” differs
from its plain and WSLC counterparts.
(ii) The fNDL values provide safe failure load estimates for
practically all columns analysed. However, a large fraction of
the numerical failure loads are excessively underestimated,
particularly in low-to-moderate slenderness range. Nevertheless,
the fNDL estimates concerning the WFSLC columns exhibit bet-
ter indicators than their plain and WSLC counterparts — see
Figs. 19(c1)–(c3).
(iii) Clearly, the fMNDL values provide the best failure load estimates,
as readily confirmed by looking at Figs. 19(d1)–(d3) and corre-
sponding fU/fMNDL indicators. Note that the worst among them
are associated with the WFSLC columns, even if they still consti-
tute very good predictions, as attested by their mean (1.00),
standard derivation (0.10), minimum value (0.79) and maxi-
mum value (1.22). Moreover, note that this is, at present, the
most efficient (safe and accurate) DSM-based design approach
against column failing in L–D interactive modes.
53
(b1) (c1)
(b2) (c2)
(b1) (c1)
(b2) (c2)
5.2. Assessment of the experimental ultimate strength estimates
After having assessed the quality of the estimates of the numerical
failure loads, attention is now turned to presenting and discussing
a similar procedure for the experimental failure loads available
in the literature concerning the (plain and stiffened) column tests
(see Sections 3.1 and 3.2).17 For the sake of clarity, it was decided to
address first the results concerning “plain cross-section” columns,
presented in Figs. 20(a1)–(b1). Then, the results concerning columns
with stiffened cross-sections (WSLC and WFSLC), presented in
Figs. 20(a2)–(b2), will be dealt with.18
Figs. 20(a1)–(b1) plot the appropriate sets of fExp/fNDL and fExp/fMNDL
ratios against the distortional slenderness — the use of the word
“appropriate” means that (i) Figs. 20(a1) includes all experimental
results and (ii) Figs. 20(b 1) includes only the results concerning
specimens with 0.70 b RDL b 1.60, i.e., inside the domain of applica-
tion of the MNDL approach — as shown in Table 2, this includes all
the tests reported by Kwon and Hancock [6], Dinis et al. [9] and
Kwon et al. [34], as well as specimen A-8-4-1000 from Kwon et al.
[33]. The first plot clearly shows that, in general, the NDL approach
provides safe predictions of the experimental failure loads (moreover,
no unsafe estimate has fExp/fNDL below 0.86), but a fair number of
them are excessively conservative — the overall fExp/fNDL mean and stan-
dard deviation are equal to 1.13 and 0.20. It should be noted that, if the
specimens with “doubtful” L–D interactive collapses [8] are removed,
the fExp/fNDL indicators improve to 1.05 and 0.18, respectively.19 As for
the second plot, it shows that the fMNDL estimates are a bit on the unsafe
side, as reflected by the fact that the overall fExp/fMNDL mean and
17
At this stage, it should be noted that most of the tests results on column L–D interac-
tion available in the literature were obtained from studies that did not have the investiga-
tion of this coupling phenomenon as their primary objective — [8,9,17] are exceptions to
this “rule”.
18
Due to space limitations, only the overall results are presented. However, the individ-
ual results (per author) can be found in [13], for “plain cross-section” columns, and in [18],
for web and web-flange stiffened lipped channel columns.
19
Recall that, in the authors' opinion, these specimens failed in pure local modes.
54 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57

fU/fND Plain fU/fND WS fU/fND WFS

1.5 1.5 1.5
Mean=1.08 Mean=1.03 Mean=0.94
St. Dev.=0.08 St. Dev.=0.08 St. Dev.=0.14

1.0 1.0 1.0

D D
or or
λL λL 0.5 λL
0.5 0.5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(a1) (a2) (a3)
fU/fNL Plain fU/fNL WS fU/fNL WFS
1.5 1.5 1.5
Mean=0.79 Mean=0.77
St. Dev.=0.14 St. Dev.=0.22
Mean=0.82
St. Dev.=0.15 1.0
1.0 1.0

λD λD
D
0.5 or
λD
0.5 0.5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(b1) (b2) (b3)
fU/fNDL Plain fU/fNDL WS fU/fNDL WFS
2.0 2.0 2.0
Mean=1.28 Mean=1.28 Mean=1.20
St. Dev.=0.17 St. Dev.=0.18 St. Dev.=0.08
1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0

or
λD λD 0.5 λD
0.5 0.5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(c1) (c2) (c3)
fU/fMNDL Plain fU/fMNDL fU/fMNDL WFS
1.5 1.5 1.5
Mean=1.03 Mean=1.00 Mean=1.00
St. Dev.=0.06 St. Dev.=0.07 St. Dev.=0.10

1.0 1.0 1.0

D
or
λD λD 0.5 λD
0.5 0.5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(d1) (d2) (d3)

Fig. 19. Plots of (a) fU/fND vs. λL, (b) fU/fNL vs. λD, (c) fU/fNDL vs. λD and (d) fU/fMNDL vs. λD, concerning all the numerical failure loads for (1) plain (C, H, Z, R), (2) WSLC and (3) WFSLC columns.

standard deviation are equal to 0.93 and 0.10 — note that the removal of
the single test result reported in [33] and all the hat column test results
reported in [34] would improve the above indicators to 0.98 and 0.07.20
20
In the tests reported in [33,34], the specimen fixed-ended support conditions are a bit
“suspicious”, since they were achieved through polyester resin capping system. If this ar-
rangement is not capable of ensuring fully fixed-ended columns at high load levels (as the
authors believe), it seems logical to expect lower experimental failure loads.
Figs. 20(a2)–(b2) shows similar plots but concerning web and web-
flange-stiffened lipped channel columns. Again, Figs. 20(a2) includes all
experimental results and Figs. 20(b2) only those to which the MNDL ap-
proach is applicable — this means that it does not include specimens
(i) SWC2000_1 and SWC2000_2, from [14], (ii) WSC20-1000-1,
WSC20-1000-2 and WSC20-1000-3, from [15], (iii) LC800a, LC800b,
LC800sa and LC800sb, from [17], and (iv) B-6-2-400, B-6-1-400 and
B-8-1-400, from [34]. The first plot shows that the NDL approach pro-
vides satisfactory predictions (fExp/fNDL mean and standard deviation
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57 55

fExp /fNDL fExp /fMNDL

2.0 1.50
Mean=1.13 Kwon & Hancock [6] Mean=0.93
St. Dev.=0.20 Loughlan et al. [7] St. Dev.=0.10
Kwon et al. [33] 1.25
1.5
Young et al. [8]
Dinis et al. [9] 1.00
Kwon et al. [34]
1.0
0.75
λD λD
0.5 0.50
0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75
(a1) (b1)
fExp /fNDL fExp /fMNDL
1.50 1.50
Mean=0.97 Kwon & Hancock [6] Mean=0.83
St. Dev.=0.15 Yap & Hancock [14] St. Dev.=0.13
1.25 Kwon et al. [33] 1.25
He et al. [15]
1.00 Yang & Hancock [17] 1.00

0.75 0.75
λD λD
0.50 0.50
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(a2) (b2)

Fig. 20. Plots (a) fExp/fNDL vs. λD and (b) fExp/fMNDL vs. λD concerning the available experimental results for (1) “plain cross-sections” and (2) web and web-flange-stiffened lipped
channel columns.

equal to 0.97 and 0.15), even if most of them (32 out of 53) are unsafe
and the scatter is quite high. Moreover, it is worth noting that some
fExp/fNDL values are clearly (i) above 1.0 (the 4 tests from [17] and 2
tests from [6]) or (ii) below 1.0 (specimen B-6-1-1200 from [33] is the
“extreme case”). On the other hand, Fig. 20(b2) shows that, in general,
the fMNDL values provide worst estimates of fExp than their fNDL counter-
parts, in the sense that the numbers and amounts of the overestimations
are considerably larger, as reflected by the fairly poor fExp/fMNDL indica-
tors: 0.83 (mean) and 0.13 (standard deviation). Nevertheless, it is
worth noting that the fMNDL values predict quite well (better than the
fNDL ones) the failure loads reported in [6,17].
It may be readily concluded that the use of the MNDL approach
to predict the WSLC and WFSLC column experimental failure loads
is not as successful as its application to the “plain cross-section”
columns — recall that this design approach provided equally good esti-
mates of the numerical failure loads concerning the two sets of column.
Thus, further investigation, both numerical and experimental, is required
to clarify this matter (fresh insight on the post-buckling behaviour and
ultimate strength of the web and web-flange-stiffened lipped channel
columns is needed). In particular, the authors plan to carry out a test cam-
paign involving columns with these two cross-section in the near future.
6. Concluding remarks
This paper provided an overview of the research activity carried out
by the authors in the last few years on the non-linear behaviour and
design of cold-formed steel thin-walled columns experiencing L–D
interaction. The results presented and discussed were obtained from
GBT geometrically non-linear analyses, experimental tests and Abaqus
shell finite element simulations. The experimental and numerical failure
loads gathered were also used to develop and assess the merits of
DSM-based design approaches for columns under these circumstances.
The columns analysed have several cross-section shapes, both plain
(no intermediate stiffeners) and stiffened, and exhibited different “levels”
of L–D interaction. After illustrating and mechanically characterising,
with the help of GBT-based modal results, the most relevant behavioural
features underlying this coupling phenomenon, both experimental and
numerical (Abaqus SFEA) results concerning the column elastic–plastic
post-buckling behaviour and ultimate strength were presented and
discussed. Then, the experimental and numerical failure mode and load
data gathered for several cross-section shapes, which provided clear
evidence of the occurrence of L–D interaction effects, were used (i) to
confirm the inability of the current (local and distortional) DSM design
curves to predict the ultimate strength erosion stemming from L–D inter-
action and (ii) develop and assess the merits of DSM-based design ap-
proaches specially aimed at handling cold-formed steel columns failing
in L–D interactive modes.
Among the various conclusions drawn from this investigation, the
following ones deserve to be specially mentioned, as they reflect the
knowledge acquired by the authors in the last few years:
(i) First of all, there are two markedly different types of L–D interac-
tion, namely “true L–D interaction” and “secondary (local or
distortional) bifurcation L–D interaction”. The former is associated
with close critical local and distortional buckling loads (PcrL and
PcrD) and is characterized by local and distortional deformations
emerging at early loading stages. In the latter, characterized by
PcrD/PcrL values well above (“secondary distortional bifurcation”)
or below (“secondary local bifurcation”) 1.0, the “non-critical”
deformations only emerge at fairly advanced loading stages —
providing, of course, that the squash load Py lies enough above
the non-critical buckling load.
(ii) Although the two types of L–D interaction may occur in simply
supported and fixed-ended columns, their extent and relevance
are considerably higher in the latter. In fact, only the “true L–D
interaction” is relevant in simply supported columns, as both
“secondary bifurcation L–D interactions” were found to have
very little (if any) influence on the column failure load. In
fixed-ended columns, on the other hand, a secondary bifurcation
may lead to significant failure load erosion, particularly when
local buckling precedes distortional buckling and the squash
load is well above the critical distortional buckling load.
(iii) The same qualitative behavioural features were unveiled in the
context of fixed-ended “plain cross-section” and stiffened lipped
channel columns. In particular, it was found that only the
“secondary local bifurcation L–D interaction” may be ignored
for design purposes, since the current DSM distortional strength
curve provide accurate estimates. “True L–D interaction” and
“secondary distortional bifurcation L–D interaction” must be
taken in account in column design, since they may cause
56 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
significant failure load erosion and, thus, leading to unsafe de-
signs.
(iv) The DSM-based failure load ultimate estimation confirmed what
had already been concluded by other researchers, namely that
the current DSM local and distortional strength curves cannot cap-
ture the ultimate strength erosion stemming from L–D interaction.
(v) On the basis of the fairly extensive numerical failure load data
gathered, a slightly modified version of the previously developed
MNDL approach (MNDL) was proposed for the design of cold-
formed steel columns undergoing L–D interaction. Together with
the NDL approach, they constitute the two DSM-based approaches
currently available to handle L–D interactive failures.
(vi) The numerical failure load data mentioned in the previous item
was also used to assess the merits of the NDL and (modified)
MNDL design approaches. The former was shown to provide
practically always conservative estimates, which may be a quite
useful trait in the preliminary design stages. However, it was also
found that such estimates are often excessively conservative,
thus leading to uneconomical designs. On the other hand, the
MNDL design approach proved to be the most efficient procedure,
in the sense that it yielded consistently safe and accurate failure
load estimates for all the columns analysed.
(vii) Although it may be possible to handle jointly the design of “plain
cross-section” and web-stiffened lipped channel columns, the
SFEA results obtained indicate that the same does not apply to
web-flange-stiffened lipped channel columns, which exhibit a
substantially lower post-critical strength. Note that the web-
flange-stiffened lipped channel columns are currently not “DSM
pre-qualified columns”, i.e., cannot be designed with the codified
DSM strength curves.
(viii) The comparison between the available experimental column
failure loads and their estimates provided by the DSM-based
NDL and MNDL approaches showed that the former predict
(viii1) the ultimate strength of “plain cross-section” columns
almost always on the safe side (sometimes excessively so) and
(viii2) that of stiffened lipped channel columns reasonably well,
even if there are several unsafe estimates. As for the latter, they
predict (viii1) the ultimate strength of “plain cross-section”
columns almost fairly well, particularly those tested in Sydney
and Hong Kong, and (viii2) that of stiffened lipped channel
columns rather poorly (substantial underestimations) — further
experimental and numerical studies are needed to shed fresh
light on this surprising issue.
In order to complete the path leading to the codification of an
efficient and easy-to-use DSM design approach for columns undergoing
L–D interaction (and before assessing the reliability of such method),
a fair amount of research work is still needed. At this point, it should
be mentioned that the authors have currently under way several inves-
tigations on L–D interaction in cold-formed steel columns, namely (i) an
experimental test program, to be performed at The University of Hong
Kong, involving web-stiffened and web-flange-stiffened lipped channel
columns with geometries carefully selected to ensure strong L–D
interaction and (ii) an in-depth study on the mechanics of L–D interac-
tion in fixed-ended columns, taking full advantage of the GBT unique
modal features.
Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia — Portugal), through the
doctoral scholarship SFRH/BD/87746/2012.
References
[1] Moen CD, Schafer BW. Experiments on cold-formed steel columns with holes.
Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(10):1164–82.
[2] Schafer BW. Review: the direct strength method of cold-formed steel member
design. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(7–8):766–78.
[3] Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS). Cold-Formed Steel Structures – AS/NZS
4600. 2nd ed. Sydney-Wellington: Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand;
2005.
[4] American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). North American Specification (NAS) for the
Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (AISI-S100-12). Washington DC: Amer-
ican Iron and Steel Institute (AISI); 2012.
[5] Brazilian standard on design of cold-formed steel structures (ABNT NBR
14762:2010). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Brazilian Association of Standards (ABNT);
2010(in Portuguese).
[6] Kwon YB, Hancock GJ. Tests of cold-formed channels with local and distortional
buckling. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 1992;118(7):1786–803.
[7] Loughlan J, Yidris N, Jones K. The failure of thin-walled lipped channel compression
members due to coupled local–distortional interactions and material yielding. Thin-
Walled Struct 2012;61(December):14–21.
[8] Young B, Silvestre N, Camotim D. Cold-formed steel lipped channel columns
influenced by local–distortional interaction: strength and DSM design. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 2013;139(6):1059–74.
[9] Dinis PB, Young B, Camotim D. Local–distortional interaction in cold-formed steel
rack-section columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2014;81(August):185–94.
[10] Silvestre N, Camotim D, Dinis PB. Post-buckling behaviour and direct strength design
of lipped channel columns experiencing local/distortional interaction. J Constr Steel
Res 2012;73(June):12–30.
[11] Dinis PB, Camotim D. Cold-formed steel columns undergoing local–distortional
coupling: behaviour and direct strength prediction against interactive failure.
Comput Struct 2015;147(15 January):181–208.
[12] Kumar MVA. Interaction of Local, Distortional and Overall Buckling in Cold Formed
Steel Lipped Channel Compression Members. (Ph.D. Thesis in Civil Engineering)
India: Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras; 2012.
[13] Martins AD, Dinis PB, Camotim D, Providência P. On the relevance of local–distortional
interaction effects in the behaviour and design of cold-formed steel columns. Comput
Struct 2015;160(November):57–89.
[14] Yap DCY, Hancock GJ. Experimental study of high strength cold-formed stiffened-
web C-sections in compression. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2011;137(2):162–72.
[15] He Z, Zhou X, Liu Z, Chen M. Post-buckling behaviour and DSM design of web-
stiffened lipped channel columns with distortional and local mode interaction.
Thin-Walled Struct 2014;84(November):189–203.
[16] Martins AD, Dinis PB, Camotim D, Providência P. On the influence of local–distortional
interaction in the behavior and design of cold-formed steel web-stiffened lipped
channel columns. Proceedings of 22nd International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures (CCFSS 2014, St. Louis, 5–6/11); 2014. p. 171–91.
[17] Yang D, Hancock GJ. Compression tests of high strength steel channel columns with
interaction between local and distortional buckling. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2004;
130(12):1954–63.
[18] Martins AD, Dinis PB, Camotim D, Providência P. On the influence of local–distortional
interaction effects in the behaviour and design of stiffened cold-formed steel columns.
CD-ROM Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures
(ICASS 2015, Lisbon, 21–24/7), Paper 37; 2015.
[19] Prola LC, Camotim D. On the distortional post-buckling behavior of cold-formed
lipped channel steel columns. Proceedings of SSRC Annual Stability Conference
(Seattle, 24–27/4); 2002. p. 571–90.
[20] Kwon YB, Hancock GJ. Post-buckling analysis of thin-walled channel sections under-
going local and distortional buckling. Comput Struct 1993;49(3):507–16.
[21] Silvestre N, Camotim D. Nonlinear generalized beam theory for cold-formed steel
members. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2003;3(4):461–90.
[22] Silvestre N, Camotim D. Local-plate and distortional postbuckling behavior of cold-
formed steel lipped channel columns with intermediate stiffeners. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 2006;132(4):529–40.
[23] Basaglia C, Camotim D, Silvestre N. Non-linear GBT formulation for open-section
thin-walled members with arbitrary support conditions. Comput Struct 2011;
89(21–22):1906–19.
[24] Silvestre N, Camotim D. GBT-based analysis of the local-plate/distortional buckling
mode interaction in lipped channel columns. In: Pignataro M, Rondal J, Gioncu
V, editors. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Coupled Instabilities in
Metal Structures (CIMS'04 — Rome, 27–29/09). Timisoara: Editura Orizonturi
Universitare; 2004. p. 449–62.
[25] Martins AD, Camotim D, Dinis PB, Providência P. On the mechanics of
local–distortional interaction in lipped channel thin-walled columns. USB Proceedings
of SSRC Annual Stability Conference (Nashville, 24–27/3); 2015.
[26] Simulia Inc. ABAQUS Standard (version 6.7–5); 2008.
[27] Bebiano R, Pina P, Silvestre N, Camotim D. GBTUL 1.0β – Buckling and Vibration
Analysis of Thin-Walled Members. DECivil/IST, Technical University of Lisbon;
2008(http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/gbt).
[28] Silvestre N. Generalized Beam Theory: New Formulations, Numerical Implementation
and Applications. (Ph.D. Thesis in Civil Engineering) Portugal: Technical University of
Lisbon; 2005(Portuguese).
[29] Clarke MJ, Hancock GJ. A study of incremental-iterative strategies for non-linear
analyses. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1990;29(7):1365–91.
[30] Crisfield MA. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures — Essentials,
vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
[31] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Silvestre N. FEM-based analysis of the local-plate/distortional
mode interaction in cold-formed steel lipped channel columns. Comput Struct
2007;85(19–20):1461–74.
[32] Young B, Rasmussen KJR. Shift of effective centroid in channel columns. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 1999;125(5):524–31.
 A.D. Martins et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 38–57
[33] Kwon YB, Kim BS, Hancock GJ. Compression tests of high strength cold-formed
steel channel with buckling interaction. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(2):
278–89.
[34] Kwon YB, Kim NK, Kim BS. A study on the direct strength method for compression
members undergoing mixed mode buckling. Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium
on Steel Structures (ISSS'05 — Seoul 10–11/03); 2005. p. 108–19.
[35] Yap DCY, Hancock GJ. Experimental study of complex high-strength cold-formed
cross-shaped steel section. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2008;134(8):1322–33.
[36] Schafer BW, Li Z, Moen CD. Computational modeling of cold-formed steel. Thin-
Walled Struct 2010;48(10–11):752–62.
[37] Martins AD, Dinis PB, Camotim D, Providência P. Local–distortional interaction in
web-stiffened LC columns: post-buckling behaviour, strength and DSM design.
57
UBS Proceedings of 7th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures
(Eurosteel 2014 — Naples, 10–12/9); 2014.
[38] Schafer BW, Peköz T. Direct strength predition of cold-formed steel members using
numerical elastic buckling solutions. In: Shanmugam N, Liew JYR, Thevendran V,
editors. Thin-Walled Structures — Research and Development (ICTWS'98 —
Singapore, 2–4/12). Elsevier; 1998. p. 137–44.
[39] Hancock GJ, Kwon YB, Bernard ES. Strength design curves for thin-walled sections
undergoing distortional buckling. J Constr Steel Res 1994;31(2–3):169–86.
[40] Landesmann A, Camotim D. On the direct strength method (DSM) design of cold-formed
steel columns against distortional failure. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;67(June):168–87.
[41] Schafer BW. Local, distortional and Euler buckling in thin-walled columns. J Struct
Eng (ASCE) 2002;128(3):289–99.