You are on page 1of 2

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction
After having an over view of this study, which include a review of the structural behavior of thin elements, discussions of terms generally used in the design of cold-formed steel structural members and design considerations for designing cold formed section as a compression or as a flexural member in addition to, design aids for cold formed section according to the ECP [2], more over to that the comparison between ECP and AISI with ASD and LRFD methods the following conclusion is obtained and it can be easily under stood .

5.2 What can be concluded from the study?


In comparison between designing cold formed sections according to the ECP using both designing methods on the other side comparing between the ECP [2] and the AISI specifications, the following conclusion is obtained. 1. It is important to mention that the comparison between the ECP [1] and the ECP [2] is not just a comparison between two design methods it is also a comparison between two editions of codes with modifications in the last edition ECP [2] so that it can be an improved approach to the design of structural steel buildings according to ECP, in addition to that the ECP [2] can be used to design cold formed sections with ASD method if the load combinations and the factor of safety according to the ECP [1] are used in the design. These factors of safety are: Design Case For compression member where For l>100 For compression member where For l<100 For Flexural member For shear F.O.S 2.76 1.71 1.72 1.65

114

2. Designing cold formed section using ECP [2] is less complex than that using ECP [1] as the design is based on the full section properties not on the effective section properties. 3. Designing using the ECP [2] acquires the maximum section capacity in the design saving in the material cost. 4. Checking the section against flexural torsional buckling is not in the ECP [1], so it is a defect in the code it self not in the ASD design method as the equation used to check the section against torsional buckling in the ECP [2] is not related to the method used but it is an equation that can be used in both methods. 5. The design procedures of calculating the effective section properties are the same in both methods with slightly small differences according to the ECP, which are the reduction factor for the flat width of the element (r) and the Maximum width to thickness ratios for un stiffened and stiffened compression elements. r = (1.1lp-0.16-0.1y) / lp2 = in the ECP [2] r = ( lp- 0.15- 0.05y) / lp2 = in the ECP [1] 33/Fy=for ECP [2] 222/Fy=for ECP [2] , 23/Fy=for ECP [1] , 190/Fy=for ECP [1]

And that means that the effective section according to the ECP [2] is more than that in the ECP [1] 6. The design procedures of calculating the section capacity is totally different in both methods according to the ECP. 7. The equations used to calculate the warping constant for different cold formed sections, are not mentioned in the ECP. 8. In opposite to the AISI specification concerning the cold formed sections the ECP is not introduced in a neat and complete way, as a lot of guides are taken as a references to get a full view of the design considerations for the ECP [2]. 9. Also the ECP [1] is taken as a reference to complete some points in the ECP [2] as the actual crippling strength. 10. According to the AISI specifications the design procedures using the ASD method and the LRFD method to calculate the section nominal moment capacity are the same, and it only differs in the first and last steps in calculating the loading and the ultimate moment capacity. 11. Different from the ECP [1] the ASD method in the AISI specification takes checking the section against flexural torsional buckling in to consideration.
115

You might also like