ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF COLD

FORMED STEEL STRUCTURES

Prepared By:-
Mohit Jain
M.E. (Structural Engineering)
Roll No-0801CE18ME12
CFS members are generally slender thin-
walled members with open cross-sections, and
undergoes various structural instability
phenomena, such local buckling, distortional
buckling, global buckling and their
interactions.
Stiffened element
 A flat element adequately supported at both longitudinal edges.

Unstiffened element
 A flat element adequately supported at only one longitudinal edge
 Fy = 33 ksi Fu = 45 ksi
 Fy = 55 ksi Fu = 65 ksi
 E = 29500
Design methods
 Effective Width Method
Effective plate under a simplified stress distribution is considered than
the actual (full) plate with the actual nonlinear longitudinal stress
distribution.
Direct Strength Method
 If the effective width is the
fundamental concept behind the
Effective Width Method, then
accurate member elastic stability is
the fundamental idea behind the
Direct Strength Method.

 Determines all of the elastic

instabilities for the gross section,
i.e. local (Mcrl), distortional (Mcrd),
and global buckling (Mcre)
Review of various standards

Dimensional limits on cross-section of member:

 Flange flat width to thickness limits are same in above 3 codes.

 British Standard does not mention any clauses on web depth to thickness
and corner radius to thickness limits.

 In comparison with American standard, Indian Standard reduces the

web depth to thickness limit to 150 from 200 for unstiffened webs and 200
from 260 for webs with bearing stiffeners. Also, corner radius to thickness
limit is not stated.
Effective width calculation:

 Indian standard provides calculation of effective width for unstiffened and

stiffened compression element only.

 In British standard, provisions for effective width calculation of stiffened

and unstiffened elements with uniform compression and with stress
gradients are given. These provisions are different from what is mentioned
in American standard. However, clauses of elements with stress gradients
are not explicit.
Tension members

 AISI S100 provides equations for tensile strength due to gross

section yielding as Tn = Ag x fy with Φ = 0.9 and due to net section

rupture as Tn = An x Fu with Φ = 0.75.

 BS 5950-5 gives equation for tensile capacity as Pt = Ae x py.

 IS 801 limits the allowable stress on tension member to 0.6 x fy.

Compression members

In AISI S100 nominal compressive strength of a section is calculated as,

Pn = Ae x Fn with resistance factor Φ = 0.85 for yielding, flexural
buckling, torsional buckling and flexural torsional buckling (FTB) with
variation of elastic buckling stress, Fe (used to determine Fn) in each case
as follows:

 Section not subjected to torsional buckling

 Section subjected to torsional or flexural torsional buckling

BS 5950-5 provides following equations to determine compressive strength of a
member:
 Flexural buckling

 Torsional flexural buckling

For singly or doubly symmetric sections strength is determined using above
equations considering slenderness ratio as αLE/r where α is determined as
follows:

IS 801 provides limits for allowable average axial stress of doubly symmetric
section not subjected to flexural torsional buckling and singly symmetric
sections subjected to FTB.
Flexural members

 AISI S100 gives equations that calculates moment capacity of laterally stable
beams on the following basis:

a) Yielding of effective section (Mn = Se x Fy)

b) Inelastic Reserve capacity

 Equations for calculating Lateral torsional buckling strength is also given as

Mn = Sc x Fc where Sc is section modulus of effective section corresponding

to extreme fibre compressive stress Fc (as defined in code).

 In BS 5950-5, limiting stress is defined for bending elements under stress
gradient to calculate effective widths or effective section properties which are
required to determine moment capacity. Limiting stress is given by equation:

 In code buckling resistance moment is given by equation:

 IS 801 provides equations for allowable maximum compressive stress on

extreme fibre of beam under flexure to prevent lateral buckling.
 No provisions for Distortional Buckling are incorporated in British and Indian
standards.
Shear
 AISI S100: Vn = Aw x Fv
 BS 5950-5:
Average shear stress minimum of:
CUFSM Software
 CUFSM (constrained and unconstrained finite strip method)
 Open source software
 Developed by Ben Schafer at Johns Hopkins University
 Software is based on finite strip method
 Determines the elastic buckling behaviour of CFS members of any
arbitrary shape of cross-section.
Objective
 To compare different provisions given in various standards across the
world.

 Comparison of design strengths of different cold formed SSMA studs

under compression (braced column), bending (laterally stable beam),
and shear as per provisions mentioned in American (AISI S100) and
British (BS 5950-5) standards.

 To study different structures (such as simple portal frame, steel sheds,

foot over bridge etc) and use cold formed steel sections on such
structures along with possible changes in geometries.
Literature Review
 Li and Schafer (2010) has provided technical background for stability
analysis of cold-formed steel members

 Element shape functions use polynomials in the transverse direction, but

trigonometric functions in the longitudinal direction.

 Elastic and geometric stiffness matrices are formed employed in eigen

value stability analysis, and hence buckling modes are determined.
 The buckling curve is the primary result from a finite strip analysis.

 The minima of this curve are of special interest as the indicate the
critical half-wavelength and load factor for a given buckling mode.
Design strength of cold formed SSMA Studs

 Design strength of SSMA Studs has been calculated as per provisions of

American and British Standard:
 Section considered - SSMA 600S200-97
  Strengths comparison for braced column and laterally stable beam.
 Pn = Ae x fy
 Mn = Ze x fy

Compression (kN) Bending (kNm) Shear (kN)

Name
AISI S100 BS 5950-5 AISI S100 BS 5950-5 AISI S100 BS 5950-5

600-S-200-97 199.40 219.55 10.56 11.36 74.53 81.43

 Capacities of SSMA studs for braced
columns and beams calculated as per
American standard is less than that of
British standard.
Design of Portal Frame
 A case study of portal frame with column ht. 3m and
beam of length 3m with uniformly distributed load
of 4 kN/m is considered.

 Portal frame is designed using Tubular hot rolled

steel section as well as cold formed steel sections
and required quantity of steel has been compared
Compressive Strength (DSM)
 Section considered - SSMA 600S200-97
 Yield Stress = 50 ksi
 Py = A x fy = 53.32 kips
 Length L = 3m = 118.11 in
Flexural Strength (DSM)
 Section considered - SSMA 600S200-97
 Yield Stress = 50 ksi
 My = Z x fy = 95.01 kip in
 Length L = 3m = 118.11 in
Compressive and Flexural Strength:
Compression (kN) Bending (kNm)
Name AISI S100 AISI S100
BS 5950-5 BS 5950-5
(DSM) (DSM)
600-S-200-97 42.92 43.94 4.1 3.892

Portal frame design results:

Capacity Comparison for Beam using CFS & Hot Rolled Tubular Section:
Capacities
  Design forces
600-S-200-97 RHS 80x40x2.6
Compression Fx = 1kN 42.92 kN 28.73 kN
Bending Mz = 2.5 kNm 4.1 kNm 3.327 kNm
Shear Fy = 6 kN 74.53 kN 50.73 kN
Bending + Compression   Ratio – 0.705 Ratio - 0.689
Deflection   4.26 mm 15.65 mm
Unit Wt.   5.42 kg/m 4.55kg/m
 Capacity Comparison for Column using CFS & Hot Rolled Tubular Section:
Capacities
  Design forces
600-S-200-97 RHS 96X48X3.2
Compression Fx = 6 kN 42.92 kN 58.77 kN
Bending Mz = 2 kNm 4.1 kNm 5.875 kNm
Shear Fy = 1 kN 74.53 kN 74.7 kN
Bending +
  Ratio – 0.706 Ratio - 0.435
Compression
Deflection   1.41 mm 4.05 mm

Unit Wt.   5.42 kg/m 6.7 kg/m

 The steel quantity required when tubular sections are used is 53.8 kg.
When CFS sections are used quantity required is 48.8 kg.
 Deflections as observed in case of CFS sections is found to be relatively
less as compared to the hot rolled tubular sections.
TROLLEY SHED
• In the present study a live project of Trolley Shed for vegetable market
located at Khargone district (M.P.) is chosen.
• Trolley Shed is designed as per IS 800:2007.
Sections Considered
Area Iyy Izz J
S.No. Section Material
(cm2) (cm ) 4
(cm ) 4 (cm4)

1 180X180X6.0SHS 40.830 2.04E 3 2.04E 3 3.16E 3 STEEL

2 TUB63633.2 7.390 43.200 43.200 68.431 STEEL

3 TUB35353.2 3.810 6.180 6.180 10.290 STEEL
4 TUB1001004 14.900 226.000 226.000 353.894 STEEL
Use of CFS Sections
 As cold formed steel is highly susceptible to buckling phenomena due to
large moments, the use of CFS sections for trolley shed requires the
change in geometry.
Design of critical member
Critical force or LEff Section
Member Capacity
moment considered
JW6X102CS Fx = 56.2 kN Axial capacity = 144.8 kN
1m 600S200-97
Column Mz = 5.19 kNm Moment capacity = 10.8 kNm

CEE6X102CS Fx = 22.9 kN Axial capacity = 87.3 kN

1m 600S162-97
Column Mz = 4.67 kNm Moment capacity = 8.77 kNm
JWE10X102CS Fx = 46.3 kN Axial capacity = 68 kN
3.2m 1000S250-97
Overhang support  
CEE4X071CS Fx = 41.1 kN Axial capacity = 42.53 kN
1.12m 400S162-68
Column diagonals  
CEE2.5X057CS Fx = 29.8 kN Axial capacity = 45.74 kN
0.5m 250S162-54
Column horizontal  
JW6X102CS Fx = 45.5 kN Axial capacity = 75.61 kN
1.28m 600S200-97
Overhang top chord Mz = 1.57 kNm Moment capacity = 7.66 kNm
CEE3.5X071CS Fx = 25 kN 350S162-68 Axial capacity = 41.6 kN
1.25m
Overhang bottom chord      
CEE3.5X071CS Fx = 29.4 kN 350S162-68 Axial capacity = 41.4 kN
1.28m
Overhang diagonal      
CEE2.5X057CS Fx = 22 kN Axial capacity = 45.74 kN
0.5m 250S162-54
Overhang vertical  
JW6X102CS Fx = 53.6 kN 2m 600S200-97 Axial capacity = 73.57 kN
CEE5.5X071CS Fx = 18.2 kN 2m 550S162-68 Axial capacity = 22.68 kN
Sections Considered
Results

 The quantity of steel required for the construction of trolley shed using
tubular sections is 645 kg whereas when cold formed sections are used
quantity required is 341 kg.
SGSITS STEEL SHED
 Proposed SGSITS Steel Shed to be constructed using hot rolled hollow
sections covering an area of 27 x 30 m.
 The shed consists of 6 frames at bay spacing of 6 m.
 Shed is designed as per IS 800:2007
 Sections Considered
Area Iyy Izz J
S.No. Section Material
(cm2) (cm4) (cm4) (cm4)

1 132X132X4.8SHS 23.830 634.390 634.390 987.876 STEEL

2 72X72X3.2SHS 8.540 66.320 66.320 104.211 STEEL

3 50X50X2.6SHS 4.760 17.470 17.470 27.689 STEEL

4 100X100X4.0SHS 14.950 226.350 226.350 353.894 STEEL

Use of CFS Sections
 Design of critical members:
Critical force or LEff Section
Member Capacity
moment considered

Fx = 102.8 kN Compression capacity = 119 kN

Top chord member 1.44m 600S200-97
Mz = 1.23 kNm Moment capacity = 8.53 kNm

Fx = 98.6 kN Compression capacity = 119 kN

Bottom chord member 1.44m 600S200-97
Mz = 2.22 kNm Moment capacity = 8.53 kNm

Truss diagonal & Fx = 48.2 kN Compression capacity = 53.5 kN

1.8m 600S162-97
vertical members  

Fx = 132 kN Compression capacity = 155 kN

Columns 1.05m 800S350-97
My = 4.62 kNm Moment capacity = 19.3 kNm

Fx = 67.5 kN Compression capacity = 103.4 kN

Column diagonals 1.15m 600S162-97
 
Results

 Unit weight of section used:

 Cold formed purlin SSMA 800-S-200-97 - 6.43kg/m

 RHS 122x61x3.6 - 9.67kg/m.

 Steel take-off:

 Using hot rolled tubular section - 1600 kg

 Using cold formed steel section - 1842 kg (two frames required)

Steel Take-Off, kg

Steel Take-Off, kg
2000 1842
1800
1600
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 645
600
400 341
200 47.7 52.7
0
Portal Frame Trolley Shed SGSITS Shed

Cold Formed Hot Rolled

 Foot Over Bridge
The study consists of existing foot over bridge located at MG Road, Indore. The bridge covers span
of 30m and at the height of 6.8 m above road level with the passage of vehicles underneath. The
structure is made up using hot rolled hollow steel sections.
 Conclusions
 Indian standard 801 was introduced in 1975 and is based on working stress method
needs to be revised in accordance with latest research work. Design methods such
EWM & DSM has to be updated and included in upcoming version of cold formed
design code. British standard also needs to include DSM.

 Capacities of SSMA studs for braced columns and beams calculated as per
American standard is less than that of British standard. These capacities are
tabulated in annexure.

 In portal frame steel take-off when cold formed sections were used was 9.5% less
than that of hollow sections.
 In trolley shed, to use CFS sections, it was required to change the geometry of
frame as CFS sections are often susceptible to buckling due to large moments or
axial loads. Steel requirement is reduced significantly (around 47%) on
comparing with hollow section. For small span it is much economical to use
cold formed steel sections.

 In SGSITS shed, if cold formed steel sections were used, two frames connected
together and runs adjacent to one another are required whereas for tubular
section single frame is enough to carry load. Therefore, there is increase in
quantity of steel by 15% with respect to tubular sections. For large span
structure use of CFS sections would be inappropriate.

 Using CFS sections on foot over bridge is not feasible due to large span and
heavy loads.
THANK YOU!!