Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine

International Specialty Conference on Cold- (1990) - 10th International Specialty Conference

Formed Steel Structures on Cold-Formed Steel Structures

Oct 23rd, 12:00 AM

Tests of Purlins with Screw Fastened Sheeting under Wind Uplift

P. N. Georgiou

N. L. Ings

Michael Celeban

Gregory J. Hancock

Chris Healy

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/isccss

Part of the Structural Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Georgiou, P. N.; Ings, N. L.; Celeban, Michael; Hancock, Gregory J.; and Healy, Chris, "Tests of Purlins with
Screw Fastened Sheeting under Wind Uplift" (1990). International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Steel Structures. 4.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/isccss/10iccfss/10iccfss-session4/4

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been
accepted for inclusion in International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures by an authorized
administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including
reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
 Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold·formed Steel Structures
St. Louis, Missouri, U.s.A., October 23-24, 1990

TESTS OF PURLINS WITH SCREW FASTENED SHEETING UNDER WIND UPLIFT

G.J. Hancock *, M. Celeban **, C. Healy ***, P.N. Georgiou * and N.L. Ings*.

Summary

The paper describes a test program on purlin-sheeting systems for which the sheeting
was screw fastened to the purlins. The test program simulates wind uplift .. Z-section
purlins were tested in three span and two span continuous lapped configurations. Both
C- and Z-section were tested as simple spans. The test purlins were supported by a
range of bridging (bracing) members ranging from no bracing to 2 braces per span.
The test results are compared with the design method in the Australian Cold-Formed
Steel Structures Standard (AS1538-1988). Tests of unbraced simply supported purlins
are compared with the design method of Pekoz and Soroushian. Tests of unbraced
continuous Z-sections are compared with the design method proposed by LaBoube et
aL

* Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering

School of Civil and Mining Engineering
University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
** Lysaght Building Industries, Chullora, NSW, Australia
*** Stramit Industries, Rydalmere, NSW, Australia

393
 394

1 INTRODUCTION

Roof systems composed of high tensile steel profiled sheeting screw-fastened to

cold-formed steel purlins of high strength steel are very common in Australia and
throughout the world. In Australia, the design of such systems is usually performed
according to the Australian Cold-Formed Steel Structures Code (AS1538-1988)
(Standards Association of Australia 1988) and is usually governed by wind uplift.
Despite their wide use, very little data is available in the public domain on the strength
and deflection characteristics of such systems. In 1988, a large vacuum test rig was
commissioned in the Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering at the University of
Sydney using funds provided by the Metal Building Products Manufacturers Association
for the purpose of providing test data on metal roofing systems. The test rig uses a
conventional vacuum box to simulate wind uplift.

An extensive test program on purlin-sheeting systems with screw fastening was

performed in 1989 in the vacuum test rig. Z-section purlins were tested in three span
and two span continuous lapped configurations. Both C and Z-sections were tested as
simple spans. The test purlins were supported by a range of bracing (bridging)
members ranging from no bracing to 2 braces per span. In addition, a range of section
slenderness values was used so as to precipitate both local buckling and yielding failures
in the sections. The tests were called the Common Test Program since the purlins,
sheeting, screw fastenings, laps, bridging (bracing) and cleats were common to the
ma.jor manufacturers in Australia.

The purpose of the paper is to compare the test results with design values for purlin
sections. The design procedures used are those in the Australian Cold-Formed Steel
Structures Standard AS1538-1988 (Standards Association of Australia 1988» and those
proposed for unbridged (unbraced) simrly supported purlins (Pekoz and Soroushian
1982) and continuous Z-section purlins (LaBoube et al. 1988). In addition, proposals
for improvement in the design procedures are discussed.

2 TEST RIG

The test rig consists of a vacuum chamber of length 21 metres (69 ft), of height 4
metres (13.1 ft) and of width approximately 1 metre (3.3 ft). The front and back
planes (21 m x 4 m) consist of purlin and sheeting roofing systems sealed with plastic
sheeting located between the purlins and metal roof sheeting. A cross-section of the
rig is shown in Fig. 1. The top, bottom and end planes consist of stiffened steel
plating with the stiffeners external to the vacuum chamber. The plastic sheeting is
attached to the top, bottom and end planes in such a way as not to constrain the
roofing system under test.

Transverse support frames, as shown in Fig. 1, support vertical I-section steel members
with cleats attached. The vertical members simulate rafters in prototype structures.
The purlins are attached to the cleats on the vertical members. The purlins and
sheeting are not attached to the vacuum chamber or support frames at any other points.

Air is sucked from the chamber using a Nucon Exhauster with capacity 3600 m 3 per
hour (127000 fta per hour). The pressure in the chamber is controlled by an adjustable
 395

flap at the northern end which provides a controlled leak. The pressure difference
between the inside and outside of the chamber is measured using two pressure
transducers, one at either end of the rig.

3 TEST SPECIMENS

3.1 Test Series

The tests on the three span lapped Z-sections are designated Series 1 (Sl), the tests on
the two span lapped Z-sections are designated Series 2 (S2) , and the tests on the
simply supported C and Z-sections are designated Series 3 (S3).

3.2 Overall Geometry

The overall dimensions of the Series 1 and 2 lap.I?ed test specimens were 21 metres long
by 4 metres high as shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) respectively giving spans of 7 metres
(23 ft) and 10.5 metres (34.5 ft) respectively. The overall dimensions of the Series 3
simply supported test specimens were 7 metres long by 4 metres high as shown in Fig.
2(c). The 4 lines of purlins were equally spaced at 1200 mm (47.2 in) with the edge
purlins 200 mm (7.9 in) from the top and bottom of the sheeting. The ribs of the
sheeting were located vertically. The purlins were attached to cleats at 7000 mm (275.5
in) centres for Series 1 and 3, 10500 mm (413.4 in) centres for Series 2, and were
lapped over the interior supports in Series 1 and 3.

3.3 Purlin Types and Dimensions

Three basic Z-sections were used for the Series 1 tests. These were 150 mm (5.9 in)
deep with 1.9 mm (0.Q75 in) thickness (Z150-19), 200 mm (7.9 in) deep with 1.5 mm
(0.059 in) thickness (Z200-15) and 200 mm (7.9 in) deep with 1.9 mm (0.075 in)
thickness (Z200-19). One basic Z-section was used for the Series 2 testing. This was
300 mm (11.8 in) deep with 2.5 mm (0.098 in) thickness (Z300-25). One basic
Z-section and one basic C-section were used for the Series 3 testing (Z200-24,
C200-24). These were 200 mm (7.9 in) deep with 2.4 mm (0.094 in) thickness. The
mean measured overall depth, overall flange widths, overall lip depth and total
thicknesses including coatings of the sections are summarised in Table 1. A summary of
the purlins used in the different tests is given in Table 2.

All purlins were constructed from G450 steel to Australian Standard AS1397 -1984
(Standards Association of Australia 1984) of yield stress 450 MPa (65 ksi).

3.4 Sheeting Types and Screw Fastenings

Two different sheeting types were used for the tests. These were Amatek
MONOCLAD sheeting and Lysaght TRIMDECK sheeting. The mean measured
thickness including coatings was 0.47 mm (0.019 in). Both of these sheetings, although
from different manufacturers, had very similar profiles. The particular sheeting used on
 396

each test is given in Table 2.

Fasteners for Series 1 consisted of self-tapping 12 mm (0.47 in) diameter screws with a
Neoprene washer under the head at every crest. Fasteners for Series 2 Tests 1 and 2
consisted of self-tapping 12 mm (0.47 in) diameter screws with a Neoprene washer
under the head at every crest. Fasteners for Series 2 Test 3 consisted of self-tapping 14
mm (0.55 in) diameter screws with cyclone washers under the head at every crest.
Fasteners for Series 3 consisted of self-tapping 12 mm (0.47 in) diameter screws with a
Neoprene washer under the head at every crest for Test No. 1 and 14 mm (0.55 in)
diameter screws with a cyclone washer under the head at every crest for all other tests
including Test No. lR.

After a pressure of 2.6 kPa (54.3 psf) in Series 2 Test 1, an additional line of screw
fasteners was included' in the pans at points midway between the crests and
approximately midway across the flanges of the purlins. These additional fasteners were
used on the southern end only for the two inner purlins for a distance up to
approximately 6000 mm (236.2 in) from the southern end. They were used after it was
observed that the original line of fasteners was close to the web.

The sidelaps were fastened midway between the purlins with 8 mm (0.31 in) diameter
self-tapping screws for all tests.

3.5 Bridging

The bridging used for each test is summarised in Table 2. The bridging for the Series
1 tests consisted of 70 mm x 32 mm x 1.25 mm (2.8 in x 1.3 in x 0.049 in) unlipped
channels bolted at each end to the webs of the purlins. The positions of the rows of
bridging are shown for each test specimen in Fig. 3(a). The bridging for Series 2
consisted of 150 mm x 65 mm x 1.5 mm (5.9 in x 2.6 in x 0.059 in) unlipped channel
sections bolted at each end to the webs of the purlins. The positions of the rows of
bridging are shown for each Series 2 test specimen in Fig. 3(b). The bridging for the
Series 3 tests consisted of 70 mm x 32 mm x 1.25 mm (2.8 in x 1.3 in x 0.049 in)
unlipped channels bolted at each end to the webs of the purlins. The positions of the
rows of bridging are shown for each Series 3 test specimen in Fig. 3(c).

For all tests, the bridging only spanned between the purlins and was not connected to
external supports.

3.6 Cleats, Laps and Bolts

Standard two-hole cleats were used for all tests. For the Series 1 tests, the standard
cleats had nominal section dimensions 75 mm x 200 mm x 8 mm (2.9 in x 7.9 in x 0.31
in). Two M12 Grade 8.8 bolts (0.5 in) were used at each cleat. Two bolts were used
in both ends of each lap for all Series 1 tests, one bolt in the web and one bolt in the
unsheeted flange. The distance between the bolt centrelines for all Series 1 laps was
900 mm (35.4 in). For the Series 2 tests, the standard cleats had nominal ·section
dimensions 100 mm x 310 mm x 11 mm (3.9 in x 12.2 in x 0.43 in). The distance
between the bolt centrelines for all Series 2 laps was 1500mm (59.1 in). Two M16
 397

Grade 8.8 bolts (0.63 in) were used at each cleat. Two bolts were used in both ends
of each lap for all Series 2 tests, one bolt in the web and one bolt in the unsheeted
flange. For the Series 3 tests, standard cleats had nominal section dimensions 100 mm
x 310 mm x 12 mm (3.9 in x 12.2 in x 0.43 in). Two M12 Grade 8.8 (0.5 in) bolts
were used at each cleat.

For all tests, all bolts were torqued to 54 N.m (40 ft.lbs).

4 TEST PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTATION

4.1 Instrumentation

The tests were instrumented to electronically measure displacements and pressures. Six
displacement transducers were used to measure the vertical and horizontal displacements
of the purlins at the centre of each of the three spans in the Series 1 tests, at the
centre of each of the two spans in the Series 2 tests, and the centre of the single span
in the Series 3 tests. Only the bottom three rows of purlins were instrumented. The
displacement transducers were connected to the test specimen by long wires so that
displacements normal to the direction being measured did not produce a significant
alteration in the readings. Two pressure transducers were used, one at each end of the
rig. Both displacement and pressure transducers were connected to the data logger
which consisted of an HP3054A interfacing to an Apricot microcomputer.

4.2 Test Procedure

The pressure was generally increased in 0.2 kPa (4.2 psf) increments until the vicinity
of failure where the increment was reduced to approximately 0.1 kPa (2.1 psf). In
several of the tests, the pressure was further increased after initial local failure in the
span at one end of the rig or the other until failure occurred at the other end of the
rig. Readings of pressure and displacement were taken at all increments. Readings
were normally taken after unloading to determine the permanent deformation in the
structure.

For Series 1 Tests 4 and 9 and for Series 2 Test 1, where tears occurred in the plastic
sheeting, the structure was unloaded and a new test commenced after repair. For
Series 2 Test 1, additional screw fasteners were added prior to reloading as described in
Section 3.4 above. For Series 3 Test 1, where the sheeting broke away from the purlins
after large twisting deformations caused the screws to pull through the crests of the
sheeting, the screw fasteners were replaced with 14 mm diameter screws with cyclone
washers under the heads. The test was repeated and the test is called Series 3 Test lR.

5 TEST RESULTS

5.1 Measured Failure Pressures

A complete summary of the measured pressure differences at failure is given in Table

 398

3. The range varied from 1.86 kPa (38.8 psf) for a three span lapped Z150-19 section
with no bridging to a value of 4.54 kPa (94.8 psf) for a two span lapped Z300-25
section with two rows of bridging in each span.

5.2 Failure Modes

In all cases, other than Series 3 Test 1, failure involved local buckling of the purlin
section at the flange-web junction, the lip-stiffener or across the whole flange. Series
3 Test 1 failed when the sheeting broke away from the purlins after large twisting
deformations caused the screws to pull through the crests of the sheeting. For Series 1,
all purlins other than Test No. 6 failed in the end span. Series 1 Test 6 failed at the
end of the lap in the interior span. In Series 1 Tests 7, 8 and 9 and Series 2 Tests 2
and 3, signific.ant distortion occurred at the end of the lap in the end span. The failure
positions and failure types are shown for all test specimens in Figs. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c).

In the Series 1 tests, the unbridged purlins (SIT1, S1T4, SIT7) generally failed by a
single flange-web local buckle occurring towards the centre of each purlin in one of
the end spans. The flange-web local buckling mode is shown in Fig. 4. The purlins
with one row of bridging (S1T2, S1T5, S1T8) generally had a combination of a
flange-web local buckle in the section of purlin on one side of the bridge and a lip
stiffener buckle in the section on the other side of the bridge, as shown in Fig. 5. In
some instances, the flange-web local buckle or lip-stiffener buckle occurred at the
bridging point. The purlins with two rows of bridging (S1T3, S1T6, S1T9) in the end
span generally had a failure of the whole flange of the type shown in Fig. 6 or a
failure similar to that of the purlins with one row of bridging in the end span.
Distortion of the type which occurred at the end of the laps in Series 1 Tests 7, 8 and
9 and Series 2 Tests 2 and 3 is shown in Fig. 7.

In the Series 2 tests, the unbridged purlins (S2T1) failed by a single flange-web local
buckle of the type shown in Fig. 4. The purlins with one row of bridging (S2T2) had
a flange-web local buckle in the section of purlin nearer the simply supported end.
Section distortion of the type shown in Fig. 7 was also visible at the end of the lap in
this test. The purlins with two rows of bridging (S2T3) had a combination failure with
a flange-web local buckle between the bridging points and a failure of the whole inner
flange at the end of the lap.

In the Series 3 tests, the unbridged purlins with cyclone washers (S3TlR and S3T4)
failed by a single flange-web local buckle of the type shown in Fig. 4 occurring
towards the centre of the purlins. The Z-sections with one row of bridging (S3T2)
had a combination of a flange-web local buckle in the section of lower inner purlin on
one side of the bridge and a lip stiffener buckle in the section on the other side of the
bridge of the type shown in Fig. 5. The Z-sections with two rows of bridging (S3T3)
underwent a flange-web local buckle in the vicinity of the centre of the span. The
C-sections with one row of bridging (S3T5) had a general flange failure of the type
shown in Fig. 6. The C-sections with two rows of bridging (S3T6) underwent a
combination of flange-web local buckles, lip-stiffener buckles and outer flange general
failure. It is interesting to observe that in the Series 3 tests, the C-sections with
bridging, which twisted less than the Z-sections, underwent outer flange general failure
rather than lip-stiffener failure or flange-web local buckling as for the Z-sections.
 399

5.3 Load-Deflection Response

The load-deflection response curves of all specimens are given in detailed reports
(Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering 1989, 1990a, 1990b). Several typical
load-deflection response curves are given here to demonstrate observed behavIOur.
They show the deflections normal to the plane of the wall.

Fig. 8 shows the displacement on the inner end purlin for Test S1T2 which had one
row of bridging. The readings for all four inner end purlins were almost identical.
The values are compared with a simple linear elastic analysis of a continuous beam
accounting for the double section in the region of the laps. There is a change in the
stiffness at about 0.7 kPa, probably as a result of slipping on the cleat bolts as friction
was overcome. The graph is then linear and approXImately parallel with the theoretical
graph until close to failure.

Fi~. 9 shows the displacement on an inner end purlin for Test SlT7 which had no
bridging. As for the previous case, the readings for all four inner end purlins were
almost identical and so only one has been shown. The values are compared with a
linear elastic analysis. The experimental results are more nonlinear for this test as a
result of the twisting of the unbridged purlin. The stiffness in the midrange after
initial slipping and before significant twisting was close to the theoretical value.

5.4 Determination of Load Ratio in Purlins

One of the main purposes of the deflection measurements perpendicular to the plane of
the wall system was to determine the initial flexibilities of the inner (F(INNER» and
outer (F(OUTER» purlins so that the proportion of the total load carried by the inner
and outer purlins could be estimated. The ratios are all summarised in Table 3.

For the Series 1 tests, the ratios (F(INNER)/F(OUTER» are based on the secant values
at 1.0 kPa (20.9 psf) and 2.0 kPa (41.8 psf). For Tests SlT1 - SlT3, which exhibited
some nonlinearity at 2.0 kPa, the mean ratio has been computed at 1.0 kPa as 1.63.
For Test S1T4 - SlT6, which exhibited some nonlinearity at 2.0 kPa, the mean ratio
has been computed from the values at 1.0 kPa as 1.82. For Test SlT7 - SlT9 , the
ratio has been computed at 2;0 kPa as 1.86. For the Series 2 tests, the ratios
(F(INNER)/F(OUTER» are based on the secant values at 2.0 kPa and 3.0 kPa. The
mean ratio has been computed as 1.73 excluding the values for the southern end in Test
S2T1 at 3.0 kPa where substantial nonlinear response occurred. For the Series 3 tests,
the ratios (F(INNER)/F(OUTER» are based on the secant values at 1.0 kPa and 2.0
kPa. For Test S3T1, which exhibited considerable nonlinearity at 2.0 kPa, the ratio is
significantly higher than for all other tests. Hence it has been ignored in computing the
mean values. The mean value computed for all tests is 1.71.

5.5 Line Loads on Inner Purlins

If the load is apportioned between the inner and outer purlins based on the assumption
that the sheeting is a continuous beam spanning the four purlins which are assumed not
to deflect, then the ratio of the load on the inner and outer purlins can be determined
 400

from a statically indeterminate beam analysis to be 1.86. However, the inner purlins
deflect more than the outer purlins as a consequence of the additional load upon them.
In this case, some additional load is transferred to the outer purlins and so the load
ratio will be less than 1.86. Assuming that the measured values of the different
deflections of the inner and outer purlins are purely a function of the load carried, the
ratio of the load on the inner and outer purlins is therefore the ratio
F(INNER)/F(OUTER).

The line loads on the inner purlins may be computed from the average line loads on
the assumption that the relative deflections are a result of the relative loads, and that
the mean value for a certain purlin size can be used for all tests of that size, so that:

Computed Line.Load ~ Avera e F(INNER) 2

on Inner Purlln g x F(OUTER)+F(INNER) x

The computed values are set out in Table 3. The percentage increase for the inner
purlin based on the measured displacements ranges from 24 to 30 percent depending
upon the configuration.

It should be appreciated that the computed line loadS are based on several assumptions.
These assumptions are:
(a) The average value of all the tests of a certain size purlin has been used to
compute the load on each test even though there is a variation from one test to the
next.
(b) The values of flexibility are based on the deflections at 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 kPa and not
those at ultimate. There may be a redistribution of loads between the purlins as
the ultimate load of the system is approached.
However the nature of the structural response of the bridged purlins, which is
almost linear up to the point of localised failure, indicates that this method is fairly
sound.

6 DESIGN LOADS

The design of laterally unbraced and intermediately braced beams is set out in Section
3.3 of AS1538-1988 (Standards Association of Australia 1988). The design procedure is
based on the computation of the elastic flexural-torsional buckling stress for
combination with the yield stress of the steel according to Clause 3.3.2 (Maximum
Permissible Stress). The Australian Standard allows an elastic flexural-torsional
buckling analysis to be used in place of the formulae given in the standard. For simply
supported and continuous beams, a finite element buckling analysis of the type
described in Section 5.2.2 of Hancock (1988) can be performed allowing for:
(a) Type of beam support including simply supported or continuous.
(b) Loading position including top flange, shear centre and bottom flange.
(c) Positioning and type of braces (bridging).
 401

(d) Restraint provided by sheeting including the membrane, shear and flexural
stiffnesses.
The analysis described applies to sections symmetric with respect to the plane of
loading. For the case of C and Z-sections, a model developed by Ings and Trahair
(1984) sets out assumptions in relation to the application of the buckling analysis to
these sections. The model includes diaphragm shear stiffness but not the flexural
stiffness of the sheeting.

The computed design loads based on this model taken in conjunction with the finite
element analysis are set out in. Table 3. In all cases other than Series 2 Test 3,
flexural-torsional buckling controlled the design. For Series 2 Test 3, combined shear
and bending in the web at the end of the lap controlled the design. The factor of
safety determined by dividing the test line load on the inner purlin by the design load
is also given in Table 3.

The computed factors of safety range from 1.65 to 6.05. The mean value for purlins
with two rows of bridging (2 in the end span only for Series 1) is 1.96, for one row of
bridging is 2.58 and for no bridging is 4.06. Clearly, the model becomes less accurate
as the amount of bridging is decreased. This conservatism is most likely a consequence
of the fact that the sheeting flexural stiffness provides torsional restraint to the purlins.
This torsional restraint is not included in the model and becomes more important for
purlins with no bridging where the main resistance to twisting comes from the sheeting
restraint. For purlins with two rows of bridging, the bridging is more important in
providing torsional restraint and has been included in the analysis. An obvious
improvement to the model is to include torsional restraint provided by the sheeting.
However, this restraint involves the screw fastener and needs to be quantified.
Research in this area is continuing at the University of Sydney.

A design method for unbridged simply supported purlins under wind uplift was
presented by Pekoz and Soroushian (1982). A summary of the method is given in
Section 5.5 of Hancock (1988). The method is applicable to Test Nos. S3TlR and S3T4
which were both simply supported over 7 metres (23 ft) span and were unrestrained
from twisting except by torsional restraint from the sheeting. The method uses a spring
stiffness (K) based on a test of a unit length of purlin attached to the sheeting. The K
values determined by test for the sheeting/purlin/screw fastening combinations in Test
Nos. S3TlR and S3T4 were 0.060 N/mm2 (9.0 psi) and 0.061 N/mm2 (8.8 psi)
respectively. Using these values of K in conjunction with the purlin dimensions in
Table 1, a yield stress of 450 MPa (65 ksi) and assuming no initial iml?erfections gives
failure line loads of 3.60 kN/m (20.6 lb/in) and 3.67 kN/m (21.0 lb/in) for Test Nos.
S3T1R and S3T4 respectively. These values are close to the actual failure loads of 3.28
kN/m and 3.63 kN/m given in Table 3.

For continuous Z-section purlins without bridging, a simple design method based on
tests was given by LaBoube et al. (1988). The method simply assumes that the design
load for unbridged purlins is 70 percent of that for purlins which are completely
prevented from twisting. The test results in the current program indicate that purlins
without bridging fail at a load which is in the range 66 - 77 percent of those with two
rows of bridging which are therefore fairly heavily restrained against twisting. The
current test program is therefore in line with the conclusions of LaBoube et al. (1988)
for continuous Z-section purlins without bridging.
 402

7 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the purlins tested 'in the vacuum type purlin test rig are set out in this
paper. The test rig appears to have functioned satisfactorily with no apparent
difficulties in controlling applied pressure. No restraint was applied to the purlins and
sheeting other than that of the cleats attached to the rafters.

Several general conclusions regarding the behaviour of the purlins can be made. These
are:
(a) The loads supported by purlins without bridging ranged from 66 to 77 percent of
those with two rows of bridging. This is in line with the conclusions of LaBoube
et al. (1988) where a value of 70 percent is recommended for design.
(b) Purlins without bridging twisted substantially more than those with bridging and
produced a more nonlinear response especially for deflections normal to the plane
of the wall. As a consequence, purlins with bridging were stiffer in bending in
their plane than those without bridging.
(c) The position of the screw fasteners relative to the width of the flange was found
to have a large effect on the nonlinear twisting response of the purlins without
bridging and consequently on the ultimate load.
(d) Side lap fasteners were sufficient to transfer membrane forces to the cleats at the
ends of the purlins and the need for attachment of the bridging to stiff supports
was not apparent during testing.
(e) All test specimens failed suddenly by localised failure of the purlins at the
flange-web junction, the lip-stiffener or across the full width of the flange except
for the simply supported Z-sections without cyclone washers and bridging which
failed by the screw fasteners pulling through the crests of the sheeting after
substantial twisting of the unbridged purlins.
(f) The ratio of the loads on the inner and outer purlins varied from 1.62 to 1.86
depending on the flexibility of the purlins. These values can be compared with a
value of 1.86 based on the assumption that the sheeting is a continuous beam
spanning vertically on unyielding supports.

Several general conclusions regarding the comparison of the design procedure in the
Australian Standard (1988) with the test results can be made. These are:
(a) The Ings/Trahair model based on a finite element analysis is fairly accurate for
purlins with two rows of bridging but is overly conservative for purlins with one
row of bridging and extremely conservative for purlins with no bridging.
(b) The torsional restraint provided by the sheeting plays a large part in the strength
of the purlin-sheeting system for purlins with little or no bridging, but is not
important for purlins with two rows of bridging.

The design method of Pekoz and Soroushian (1988) provides accurate estimates of the
failure loads of simply supported purlins without torsional restraint except from
sheeting.
 403

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The funding of the vacuum type purlin test rig by members of the Metal Building
Products Manufacturers Association is appreciated. The authors are grateful to Lysaght
Building Industries and Stramit Industries for permission to publish the test results.

9 APPENDIX - REFERENCES

Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering (1989), Vacuum Test Rig - Common
Purlin Test Program - Series 1, Investigation Report S754, December, University of
Sydney.
Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, Vacuum Test Rig (1990a) - Common
Purlin Test Progranl - Series 2, Investigation Report S761 January, University of
Sydney.
Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering (1990b), Vacuum Test Rig - Common
Purlin Test Program - Series 3, Investigation Report S768 March, University of
Sydney. .
Hancock, G.J. (1988), Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Australian Institute
of Steel Construction.
Ings, N.L. and Trahair, N.S. (1984), "Lateral Buckling of Restrained Roof Purlins",
Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 2, No.4, pp 285-306.
LaBoube, R.A., Golovin, M., Montague, D.J., Perry, D.C. and Wilson, L.L. (1988),
"Behaviour of Continuous Span Purlin Systems",Proceedings, Ninth International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St Louis, Missouri, USA,
November, pp 191-203.
Pekoz, T. and Soroushian, P. (1982), "Behaviour of C and Z-Purlins under Wind
Uplift", Proceedings, Sixth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, St Louis, Missouri, November, pp 409 - 429.
Standards Association of Australia (1988), Cold-Formed Steel Structures Code,
AS1538-1988
Standards Association of Australia (1984), Steel Sheet and Strip - Hot-Dipped
Zinc-Coated or Aluminium/Zinc-Coated, AS1397-1984.
 404

TABLE 1 - MEAN SECTION DIMENSIONS

(All dimensions in millimetres)

Purl in Depth Flange Lips Thickness

Wide Narrow

Z150-19 152.5 65.6 59.3 17.1 1.92

Z200-15 202.0 79.5 70.8 18.1 1.51

Z200-19 200.0 77 .8 72.0 18.2 1. 93

Z300-25* 300.0 105.5 91.9 31.3 25.9 2.53

Z300-25** 305.5 102.9 96.3 29.4 25.8 2.53

Z200-24 205.0 83.0 74.0 20.0 2.45

C200-24 206.0 77 .1 77 .1 21.3 2.45

* Tests S2T1 , S2T2 ** Test S2T3

(1 in = 25.4 mm)
 405

TABLE 2 - TEST SPECIMEN DETAILS

Series Test Purlin Sheeting Lap length Bridging

No. No. Size (bo It cent re)

Z150-19 MONOCLAD 900 mm 0 - 0 - 0

2 Z150-19 MONOCLAD 900 mm - 1 - 1

3 Z150-19 TRIMDECK 900 mm 2 - 1 - 2

4 Z200-15 TRIMDECK 900 mm 0 - 0 - 0

5 Z200-15 TRIMDECK 900 mm - 1 - 1

6 Z200-15 TRIMDECK 900 mm 2 - 1 - 2

7 Z200-19 TRIMDECK 900 mm 0 - 0 - 0

1 8 Z200-19 TRIMDECK 900 mm - 1 - 1

9 Z200-19 TRIMDECK 900 mm 2 - 1 - 2

2 Z300-25 MONOCLAD 1500 mm 0 - 0

2 2 Z300-25 MONOCLAD 1500 mm - 1

2 3 Z300-25 TRIMDECK 1500 mm 2 - 2

3 1,1R Z200-24 TRIMDECK 0

3 2 Z200-24 TRIMDECK

3 3 Z200-24 TRIMDECK 2

3 4 C200-24 MONOCLAD 0

3 5 C200-24 MONOCLAD

3 6 C200-24 MONOCLAD 2

0 - 0 - 0 , 0 - 0 , 0 refer to no bridging

1 - 1 - 1 , 1 - 1 , 1 refer to one row of bridging in each span

2 - 2 • 2 refer to two rows of bridging in each span

2 - 1 - 2 refers to one row of bridging in centre span and two rows of bridging in end span

(1 in - 25.4 mm)
 406

TABLE 3 - FAILURE PRESSURES, LOADS AND FACTORS OF SAFETY

Series Failure Computed Computed Design Factor

No. Pressure Load Line Load Load of
Test (kPa) Factor on Inner (kN/m) Safety
No. on Inner Purlin
Purlin (kN/m)

SIT1 1.86 1.24 2.31 0.63 3.67

S1T2 2.12 1. 24 2.63 1.14 2.31

S1T3 2.40 1. 24 2.98 1.45 2.06

S1T4 2.00 1.29 2.58 0.80 3.23

S1T5 2.28 1.29 2.94 1. 55 1.90

S1T6 3.00 1.29 3.87 2.19 1. 76

S1T7 2.70 1.30 3.51 1.07 3.28

S1T8 3.29 1.30 4.28 2.01 2.13

S1T9 3.50 1.30 4.55 2.76 1.65

S2T1 3.41 1.27 4.33 1. 30 3.33

S2T2 3.88 1. 27 4.93 2.16 2.28

S2T3 4.54 1.27 5.77 2.53 2.28

S3T1 2.10 1.26 2.65 0.67 3.96

S3T1R 2.60 1.26 3.28 0.67 4.90

S3T2 2.93 1.26 3.69 1.58 2.34

s3T3 3.78 1.26 4.76 2.39 1.99

S3T4 2.88 1.26 3.63 0.60 6.05

S3T5 2.88 1.26 3.63 1. 41 2.57

S3T6 3.74 1.26 4.71 2.31 2.04

(1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 psi = 6.895 kPa, 1 kPa = 20.9 psf,

1 kN/m = 5.72 lb/in = 477 kip/ft)

 407

pg
F
Roof Sheeting

Air Sucked
Out of Here
Cleat
Purlin

Rafter Member

Support Frame
Force on
Purlin-Sheeting
System

FIG.1 SECTION OF VACUUM TYPE PURLIN TEST RIG

 Top Edge of
Sheeting Purlins
Laps Laps
7000mm 7000mm 7000mm
1 I
r--
- t--=
200mm
I 1200mm
4000mm -jr
1200mm
rT
I -.J ~
- I 00
T 1200mm
I -.J
~, 200mm
-
r:
I
Support Bottom Edge Support Support Support
Frame Frame Frame
Frame of Sheeting
(1 in = 25.4mml

FIG.2(a) TEST SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS - SERIES 1

 Top Edge of
Sheeting Purlins Laps
10S00mm 10S00mm
I :
r-- I-
I-.J 200mm
I
I
1200mm
I-
4000mm I
I
1200mm
I-
I ,j>.

I
1200mm fi5
1-
- ---. 200mm

pp pp pp
Frame Bottom Edge Frame Frame
of Sheeting
(1 in = 2S.4mml
FIG.2(b) TEST SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS - SERIES 2
 Top Edge of
Sheeting
Purlins under Test

5000mm I 7000mm ,2000mm 5000mm

I ~ooomm_I_\
-,- -!- \ -I
~200mm
I I 1200mm
-.I I
I
1 I I 1200mm
I
II
I
I 1200mm
I 1\ /I 200mm
I
It >I>-
I .....
I 0
Support Z30'025 Support Support
'\ 10mm gap
'
/ supp~rt Support Z30025 Support
Frame Frame Frame (see detail) Frame Frame Frame
for for for for
Bottom End Central Central End
Purlins Purlins Purlins Purlins
Edge
of Sheeting I· ·1
Simply Supported
Purlins under Test Last crest of test
sheeting not screwed
(1 in = 25.4mml
of-i into purlins
10mm
~
Gap Detail

FIG.2(c) TEST SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS - SERIES 3

 411

~ ;; 1
TEST aD Flange-Web
S1T1 2530 Buckle
2710
Wide Flange Narrow Flange Wide Flange
Out (WFI Out (NFl Out (WFI
?89~ I l 2890
r----1 aDFlange-Web

:~Brid+ ·1
TEST Buckle

i ·1
S1T2 o Lip Stiffener
I I Buckle
WF NF WF

1~4~, r 45 (l 18~ 1~40~1

aDFlange-Web

i I }§:~~
TEST Buckle
S1T3
I II iNF WF NF
o Lip Stiffener
Buckle

TEST
S1T4 : aD Flange-Web
Buckle

NF WF NF
2800 2800
II II aDFlange-Web
TEST
S1T5
I "fir NF WF NF
I I
Buckle
o Lip Stiffener
Buckle
(All dimensions in mm,
1 in = 25.4mml
FIG.3(al BRIDGING POSITION AND FAILURE MODES
SERIES 1 - TEST 1-5
 412

(}~01'11825 1825~ 2370

Il I- 1 -I
TEST x Flange Failure
S1T6
I II
NF
I: 1
WF
! INF 1 I
at End of lap

Lap Distortion

TEST
S1T7
"'" .• • Flange-Web
Buckle

NF
I WF
I NF
2800
Ii. 1~80~ I
H
I .~NF
TEST o lip Stiffener
S1T8 Buckle
i 1
WF
1
NF
I • Flange-Web
Local Buckle
t
I ~41°1_ <,1 840
Lap Distortion11840"" 2410
1 I-' I' -I
TEST • Outer Flange
S1T9
I I:NF
1 ! 1
WF
I 1
NF
1 I
General Failure

(All dimensions in mm.

1 in = 25.4mm)

FIGo3(a) continued BRolDGING POSITION AND FAILURE MODES

SERIES 1 - TESTS 6-9
 413

Test • Flange-Web
S2T1 : I Local Buckle
Wide Flange Out Narrow Flange Out
(WFI (NFl
I_ 4735 -I I_ 4735 _I

• Flange-Web

I·
Test
S2T2
I NF WF
Local Buckle

End of
1}570_1~73~ 1 Lap' 1~72.51.3570_1
-,
• Flange-Web
Test I! .:. , Local Buckle
S2T3 !-
I
.l \ '\
\ \
• Inner Flange
General Failure
WF NF \4 500mm
(All dimensions in mm. 1 in = 2S.4mml 4340mm

FIG.3(b) BRIDGING POSITION AND FAILURE MODES

SERIES 2 - TEST 1-3
 414

~- Sheeting broke away

Test S3T1
~- from central purlins

• Flange-Web Local Buckle

Test S3T1R

!l 280mm
1-
Tes t S3T2
- I- • Flange-Web Local Buckle
)( Lip Stiffener Buckle
-IJ ,.... BIridging
I'
SOOmm 700mm

880mm

-
)
,It-- • Flange-Web Local Buckle
Test S3T3
_f--"'"_ [")1-
1210mm BIridging
If4S~I?10~1.24Sql
mm mm mm
11 in = 2S.4mml

FIG.3Icl BRIDGING POSITIONS AND FAILURE MODES

SERIES 3 - TEST 1-3
 415

• Flange-Web Local Buckle

Test S3T4

Test S3TS
I f I Bridging
• Outer Flange General Failure

• Outer Flange General Failure

Test S3T6
I
Bridging
1~45~1~1b~I~4S~1
mm mm mm

(1 in = 2S.4mml

FIG.3(c) continued BRIDGING POSITIONS AND FAILURE MODES

SERIES 3 - TEST 4-6
 416

FIG.4 FLANGE-WEB LOCAL BUCKLE

FIG.S FLANGE-WEB LOCAL BUCKLE AND LIP STIFFENER BUCKLE

 417

FIG.6 GENERAL FLANGE FAILURE

FIG.7 DISTORTION AT END Of LAP

 418

3.0
/
' - Linear elastic
/ theory
2.5 /
/
/
2.0
ttl
a...
~ Inner purlin
QJ
1.5 northern end
'-
::J
VI '/ span
VI
QJ
'-
a...
'/
1.0 '/
'/
'/
0.5 'I
Ij

50 100 150
Displacement (mm)

S1T2 _ _ Gauge 4
(1 in = 2S.4mm, 1 kPa = 20.9psf)

FIG.8 PRESSURE-INWARDS DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE

 419

3.0
J- Linear elastic theory
I
2.5
/
I Inner purlin
2.0 northern end
ro
a... span
..:.::
QJ
c....
::::J 1.5
VI
VI
QJ
c....
a...
1.0

0.5

50 100 150
Displacement (mm)

51T7 _ _ Gauge 4

(1 in = 25.4mm, 1 kPa = 20.9psf)

FIG.9 PRESSURE-INWARDS DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE