AISI S100-07 Commentary

AISI S100-2007-C
AISI STANDARD
Commentary on
North American Specification
for the Design of Cold-Formed
Steel Structural Members
2001 EDITION
The material contained herein has been developed by a joint effort of the American Iron
and Steel Institute Committee on Specifications, the Canadian Standards Association Technical
Committee on Cold Formed Steel Structural Members (S136), and Camara Nacional de la
Industria del Hierro y del Acero (CANACERO) in Mexico. The organizations and the
Committees have made a diligent effort to present accurate, reliable, and useful information on
cold-formed steel design. The Committees acknowledge and are grateful for the contributions
of the numerous researchers, engineers, and others who have contributed to the body of
knowledge on the subject. Specific references are included in the Commentary on the
Specification.
With anticipated improvements in understanding of the behavior of cold-formed steel and
the continuing development of new technology, this material may eventually become dated. It
is anticipated that future editions of this specification will update this material as new
information becomes available, but this cannot be guaranteed.
The materials set forth herein are for general information only. They are not a substitute
for competent professional advice. Application of this information to a specific project should
be reviewed by a registered professional engineer. Indeed, in most jurisdictions, such review is
required by law. Anyone making use of the information set forth herein does so at their own
risk and assumes any and all resulting liability arising therefrom.
1st Printing – October 2007
Produced by American Iron and Steel Institute
Copyright American Iron and Steel Institute 2007

Commentary on the 2007 North American Cold-Formed Steel Specification
PREFACE
This document provides a commentary on the 2007 edition of the North American
Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. This Commentary should be
used in combination with the 2008 edition of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual.
The purpose of the Commentary includes: (a) to provide a record of the reasoning behind,
and justification for the various provisions of the North American Specification by cross-
referencing the published supporting research data and to discuss the changes make in the
current Specification; (b) to offer a brief but coherent presentation of the characteristics and
performance of cold-formed steel structures to structural engineers and other interested
individuals; (c) to furnish the background material for a study of cold-formed steel design
methods to educators and students; and (d) to provide the needed information to those who
will be responsible for future revisions of the Specification. The readers who wish to have more
complete information, or who may have questions which are not answered by the abbreviated
presentation of this Commentary, should refer to the original research publications.
Consistent with the Specification, the Commentary contains a main document, Chapters A
through G, and Appendices 1 and 2, and Appendices A and B. A symbol !A,B is used in the
main document to point out that additional discussions are provided in the corresponding
country specific provisions in Appendices A and/or B.
The assistance and close cooperation of the North American Specification Committee
under the Chairmanship of Professor Reinhold M. Schuster and the AISI Committee on
Specifications under the Chairmanship of Mr. Roger L. Brockenbrough and the Vice
Chairmanship of Mr. Jay W. Larson are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are extended
to Professor Wei-Wen Yu for revising the draft of this Commentary. The Institute is very grateful
to members of the Editorial Subcommittee and all members of the AISI Committee on
Specifications for their careful review of the document and their valuable comments and
suggestions. The background materials provided by various subcommittees are appreciated.
American Iron and Steel Institute

December 2007
July 2007 iii

Table of Contents
TABLE OF COTENTS
COMMENTARY ON THE 2007 EDITION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN
SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED
STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
PREFACE..................................................................................................................................................iii
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................................................................................................2
A1 Scope, Applicability, and Definitions ......................................................................................... 2
A1.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 2
A1.2 Applicability........................................................................................................................... 3
A1.3 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 4
A1.4 Units of Symbols and Terms.............................................................................................. 8
A2 Material ............................................................................................................................................ 9
A2.1 Applicable Steels ................................................................................................................. 9
A2.2 Other Steels ........................................................................................................................ 10
A2.3 Ductility .............................................................................................................................. 10
A2.4 Delivered Minimum Thickness ....................................................................................... 12
A3 Loads .............................................................................................................................................. 13
A4 Allowable Strength Design ......................................................................................................... 13
A4.1 Design Basis ....................................................................................................................... 13
A4.1.1 ASD Requirements ............................................................................................. 13
A4.1.2 Load Combinations for ASD............................................................................. 13
A5 Load and Resistance Factor Design ........................................................................................... 13
A5.1 Design Basis ....................................................................................................................... 13
A5.1.1 LRFD Requirements ........................................................................................... 14
A5.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LRFD ........................................... 19
A6 Limit States Design....................................................................................................................... 19
A6.1 Design Basis ....................................................................................................................... 19
A6.1.1 LSD Requirements.............................................................................................. 20
A6.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LSD.............................................. 20
A7 Yield Stress and Strength Increase from Cold Work of Forming .......................................... 21
A7.1 Yield Stress ......................................................................................................................... 21
A7.2 Strength Increase from Cold Work of Forming ............................................................ 22
A8 Serviceability ................................................................................................................................. 26
A9 Referenced Documents ................................................................................................................ 26
B. ELEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 27
B1 Dimensional Limits and Considerations................................................................................... 27
B1.1 Flange Flat-Width-to-Thickness Considerations .......................................................... 27
B1.2 Maximum Web Depth-to-Thickness Ratios................................................................... 29
B2 Effective Widths of Stiffened Elements ..................................................................................... 30
B2.1 Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements .................................................................. 33
B2.2 Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements with Circular or Non-Circular Holes . 35
iv July 2007
B2.3 Webs and other Stiffened Elements under Stress Gradient ........................................ 36
B2.4 C-Section Webs with Holes under Stress Gradient ...................................................... 37
B3 Effective Widths of Unstiffened Elements ................................................................................ 38
B3.1 Uniformly Compressed Unstiffened Elements ............................................................. 40
B3.2 Unstiffened Elements and Edge Stiffeners with Stress Gradient ............................... 40
B4 Effective Width of Uniformly Compressed Elements with a Simple Lip Edge Stiffener... 42
B5 Effective Widths of Stiffened Elements with Single or Multiple Intermediate Stiffeners or
Edge Stiffened Elements with Intermediate Stiffener(s) ......................................................... 43
B5.1 Effective Width of Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements with Single or
Multiple Intermediate Stiffeners ..................................................................................... 43
B5.2 Edge Stiffened Elements with Intermediate Stiffener(s).............................................. 44
C. MEMBERS ....................................................................................................................................... 46
C1 Properties of Sections ................................................................................................................... 46
C2 Tension Members ......................................................................................................................... 46
C3 Flexural Members ......................................................................................................................... 46
C3.1 Bending ............................................................................................................................... 47
C3.1.1 Nominal Section Strength [Resistance] ........................................................... 47
C3.1.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength [Resistance].......................................... 50
C3.1.2.1 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength [Resistance] for Open Cross
Section Members............................................................................... 50
C3.1.2.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength [Resistance] for Closed Box
Members ............................................................................................ 57
C3.1.3 Flexural Strength [Resistance] of Closed Cylindrical Tubular Members ... 58
C3.1.4 Distortional Buckling Strength [Resistance] ................................................... 59
C3.2 Shear ............................................................................................................................... 63
C3.2.1 Shear Strength [Resistance] of Webs without Holes ..................................... 63
C3.2.2 Shear Strength [Resistance] of C-Section Webs With Holes......................... 64
C3.3 Combined Bending and Shear......................................................................................... 65
C3.3.1 ASD Method........................................................................................................ 66
C3.3.2 LRFD and LSD Methods.................................................................................... 66
C3.4 Web Crippling ................................................................................................................... 66
C3.4.1 Web Crippling Strength [Resistance] of Webs without Holes ..................... 66
C3.4.2 Web Crippling Strength [Resistance] of C-Section Webs with Holes ......... 72
C3.5 Combined Bending and Web Crippling ........................................................................ 73
C3.5.1 ASD Method........................................................................................................ 73
C3.6 Combined Bending and Torsional Loading .................................................................. 74
C3.7 Stiffeners ............................................................................................................................. 75
C3.7.1 Bearing Stiffeners................................................................................................ 75
C3.7.2 Bearing Stiffeners in C-Section Flexural Members ........................................ 76
C3.7.3 Shear Stiffeners ................................................................................................... 76
C3.7.4 Non-Conforming Stiffeners............................................................................... 76
C4 Concentrically Loaded Compression Members ....................................................................... 76
C4.1 Nominal Strength for Yielding, Flexural, Flexural-Torsional and
Torsional Buckling ............................................................................................................ 77
C4.1.1 Sections Not Subject to Torsional or Flexural-Torsional Buckling .............. 87
July 2007 v
Table of Contents
C4.1.2 Doubly- or Singly-Symmetric Sections Subject to Torsional or Flexural-

Torsional Buckling.............................................................................................. 87
C4.1.3 Point-Symmetric Sections.................................................................................. 88
C4.1.4 Nonsymmetric Sections ..................................................................................... 88
C4.1.5 Closed Cylindrical Tubular Sections ............................................................... 88
C4.2 Distortional Buckling Strength [Resistance].................................................................. 91
C5 Combined Axial Load and Bending .......................................................................................... 93
C5.1 Combined Tensile Axial Load and Bending.................................................................. 93
C5.1.1 ASD Method........................................................................................................ 93
C5.2 Combined Compressive Axial Load and Bending ....................................................... 94
C5.2.1 ASD Method........................................................................................................ 94
D. STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLIES AND SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 99

D1 Built-Up Sections .......................................................................................................................... 99
D1.1 Flexural Members Composed of Two Back-to-Back C-Sections................................. 99
D1.2 Compression Members Composed of Two Sections in Contact.............................. 100
D1.3 Spacing of Connections in Cover Plated Sections....................................................... 101
D2 Mixed Systems ............................................................................................................................ 102
D3 Lateral and Stability Bracing..................................................................................................... 102
D3.1 Symmetrical Beams and Columns ................................................................................ 103
D3.2 C-Section and Z-Section Beams..................................................................................... 103
D3.2.1 Neither Flange Connected to Sheathing that Contributes to the Strength
and Stability of the C- or Z- section ............................................................... 103
D3.3 Bracing of Axially Loaded Compression Members.................................................... 109
D4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction ....................................................................... 109
D4.1 All Steel Design of Wall Stud Assemblies.................................................................... 110
D5 Floor, Roof or Wall Steel Diaphragm Construction............................................................... 112
D6 Metal Roof and Wall Systems ................................................................................................... 113
D6.1 Purlins and Girts and Other Members ......................................................................... 113
D6.1.1 Flexural Members Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or
Sheathing ........................................................................................................... 113
D6.1.2 Flexural Members Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing Seam Roof
System ................................................................................................................ 114
D6.1.3 Compression Members Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or
Sheathing ........................................................................................................... 114
D6.1.4 Compression of Z-Section Members Having One Flange Fastened to a
Standing Seam Roof ......................................................................................... 115
D6.2 Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems.............................................................................. 115
D6.2.1 Strength [Resistance] of Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems .................... 115
D6.3 Roof System Bracing and Anchorage ........................................................................... 116
D6.3.1 Anchorage of Bracing for Purlin Roof Systems Under Gravity Load with
Top Flange Connected to Metal Sheathing................................................... 116
D6.3.2 Alternate Lateral and Stability Bracing for Purlin Roof Systems .............. 118
E. CONNECTIONS AND JOINTS ......................................................................................................... 119
vi July 2007
E1 General Provisions ..................................................................................................................... 119

E2 Welded Connections .................................................................................................................. 119
E2.1 Groove Welds in Butt Joints........................................................................................... 120
E2.2 Arc Spot Welds ................................................................................................................ 120
E2.2.1 Shear ................................................................................................................... 120
E2.2.1.1 Minimum Edge Distance .............................................................. 120
E2.2.1.2 Shear Strength [Resistance] for Sheet(s) Welded to a Thicker
Supporting Member ....................................................................... 121
E2.2.1.3 Shear Strength [Resistance] for Sheet-to-Sheet Connections.... 121
E2.2.2 Tension ............................................................................................................... 122
E2.3 Arc Seam Welds............................................................................................................... 123
E2.4 Fillet Welds....................................................................................................................... 123
E2.5 Flare Groove Welds......................................................................................................... 124
E2.6 Resistance Welds ............................................................................................................. 125
E2.7 Rupture in Net Section of Members other than Flat Sheets (Shear Lag) ................. 125
E3 Bolted Connections..................................................................................................................... 126
E3.1 Shear, Spacing and Edge Distance ................................................................................ 127
E3.2 Rupture in Net Section (Shear Lag) .............................................................................. 127
E3.3 Bearing ............................................................................................................................. 128
E3.3.1 Strength [Resistance] Without Consideration of Bolt Hole Deformation 128
E3.3.2 Strength [Resistance] With Consideration of Bolt Hole Deformation ...... 128
E3.4 Shear and Tension in Bolts............................................................................................. 128
E4 Screw Connections ..................................................................................................................... 129
E4.1 Minimum Spacing ........................................................................................................... 130
E4.2 Minimum Edge and End Distances .............................................................................. 130
E4.3 Shear ............................................................................................................................. 130
E4.3.1 Connection Shear Limited by Tilting and Bearing ...................................... 130
E4.3.2 Connection Shear Limited by End Distance ................................................. 131
E4.3.3 Shear in Screws ................................................................................................. 131
E4.4 Tension ............................................................................................................................. 131
E4.4.1 Pull-Out.............................................................................................................. 131
E4.4.2 Pull-Over............................................................................................................ 131
E4.4.3 Tension in Screws ............................................................................................. 132
E4.5 Combined Shear and Pull-Over .................................................................................... 132
E5 Rupture ........................................................................................................................................ 133
E6 Connections to other Materials................................................................................................. 133
E6.1 Bearing ............................................................................................................................. 133
E6.2 Tension ............................................................................................................................. 133
E6.3 Shear ............................................................................................................................. 133
F. TESTS FOR SPECIAL CASES......................................................................................................... 134

F1 Tests for Determining Structural Performance ...................................................................... 134
F1.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design and Limit States Design ................................... 134
F1.2 Allowable Strength Design ............................................................................................ 135
F2 Tests for Confirming Structural Performance ........................................................................ 135
F3 Tests for Determining Mechanical Properties ........................................................................ 136
F3.1 Full Section ....................................................................................................................... 136
July 2007 vii

Table of Contents
F3.2 Flat Elements of Formed Sections ................................................................................. 136

F3.3 Virgin Steel ....................................................................................................................... 136
G. DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS FOR CYCLIC

LOADING (FATIGUE) ...................................................................................................................... 137
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 139
APPENDIX 1: COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX 1 DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL

MEMBERS USING THE DIRECT STRENGTH METHOD ................................................................. 1-3
1.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS.................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.1.1 Applicability ............................................................................................................................1-3
1.1.1.1 Pre-qualified Columns ...............................................................................................1-3
1.1.1.2 Pre-qualified Beams....................................................................................................1-4
1.1.2 Elastic Buckling .......................................................................................................................1-4
1.1.2.1 Elastic Buckling - Numerical Solutions .................................................................1-10
1.1.2.1.1 Local Buckling via Finite Strip (Pcrl, Mcrl) .............................................1-10
1.1.2.1.2 Distortional Buckling via Finite Strip (Pcrd, Mcrd) ................................1-12
1.1.2.1.3 Global (Euler) Buckling via Finite Strip (Pcre, Mcre) .............................1-12
1.1.2.2 Elastic Buckling – Manual Solutions ......................................................................1-13
1.1.3 Serviceability Determination...............................................................................................1-15
1.2 MEMBERS .................................................................................................................................... 1-15

1.2.1 Column Design .....................................................................................................................1-15
1.2.1.1 Flexural, Torsional, or Flexural-Torsional Buckling ............................................1-17
1.2.1.2 Local Buckling ...........................................................................................................1-17
1.2.1.3 Distortional Buckling ...............................................................................................1-17
1.2.2 Beam Design..........................................................................................................................1-18
1.2.2.1 Lateral-Torsional Buckling ......................................................................................1-20
1.2.2.2 Local Buckling ...........................................................................................................1-20
1.2.2.3 Distortional Buckling ...............................................................................................1-20
APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 1-20
APPENDIX 2: COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX 2 SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS.................................... 2-3

2.1 General Requirements ...............................................................................................................2-3
2.2 Design and Analysis Constraints .............................................................................................2-3
APPENDIX A: COMMENTARY ON PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES

AND MEXICO .......................................................................................................................... A-3
A1.1a Scope .............................................................................................................................A-3
A2.2 Other Steels ......................................................................................................................A-3
A2.3a Ductility ............................................................................................................................A-4
A3 Loads ............................................................................................................................................A-4
A3.1 Nominal Loads ................................................................................................................A-4
A4.1.2 Load Combinations for ASD...........................................................................A-4
A5.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LRFD .........................................A-4
C2 Tension Members .......................................................................................................................A-5
viii July 2007

D4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction .......................................................................A-5

D6.1.2 Beams Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing Seam Roof System ...A-5
D6.1.4 Compression of Z-Section Members Having One Flange Fastened to a
Standing Seam Roof .........................................................................................A-6
D6.2.1a Strength [Resistance] of Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems ....................A-6
E2a Welded Connections ..................................................................................................................A-7
E3a Bolted Connections.....................................................................................................................A-7
E3.1 Shear, Spacing and Edge Distance ................................................................................A-8
E3.2 Rupture in Net Section (Shear Lag) ..............................................................................A-8
E3.4 Shear and Tension in Bolts...........................................................................................A-10
E4.3.2 Connection Shear Limited by End Distance ...............................................A-11
E5 Rupture ......................................................................................................................................A-11
APPENDIX B: COMMENTARY ON PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CANADA ...................................... B-3

A2.1a Applicable Steels ............................................................................................................. B-3
A2.2.2 Other Steels........................................................................................................ B-3
A2.3.1a Ductility ............................................................................................................. B-3
A3 Loads ............................................................................................................................................ B-3
A6 Limit States Design..................................................................................................................... B-4
C2 Tension Members ....................................................................................................................... B-5
C2.2 Rupture of Net Section ................................................................................................... B-5
D3a Lateral and Stability Bracing..................................................................................................... B-6
D3.1a Symmetrical Beams and Columns ................................................................................ B-6
D3.1.1 Discrete Bracing for Beams ............................................................................. B-6
D3.2a C-Section and Z-Section Beams..................................................................................... B-6
D3.2.2 Discrete Bracing ................................................................................................ B-6
D3.2.3 One Flange Braced by Deck, Slab, or Sheathing .......................................... B-7
E2a Welded Connections .................................................................................................................. B-7
July 2007 ix
INTRODUCTION
Cold-formed steel members have been used economically for building construction and
other applications (Winter, 1959a, 1959b; Yu, 2000). These types of sections are cold-formed
from steel sheet, strip, plate or flat bar in roll-forming machines or by press brake or bending
operations. The thicknesses of steel sheets or strip generally used for cold-formed steel
structural members range from 0.0147 in. (0.373 mm) to about 1/4 in. (6.35 mm). Steel plates
and bars as thick as 1 in. (25.4 mm) can be cold-formed successfully into structural shapes.
In general, cold-formed steel structural members can offer several advantages for building
construction (Winter, 1970; Yu, 2000): (1) light members can be manufactured for relatively light
loads and/or short spans, (2) unusual sectional configurations can be produced economically
by cold-forming operations and consequently favorable strength-to-weight ratios can be
obtained, (3) load-carrying panels and decks can provide useful surfaces for floor, roof and wall
construction, and in some cases they can also provide enclosed cells for electrical and other
conduits, and (4) panels and decks not only withstand loads normal to their surfaces, but they
can also act as shear diaphragms to resist forces in their own planes if they are adequately
interconnected to each other and to supporting members.
The use of cold-formed steel members in building construction began in about the 1850s.
However, in North America such steel members were not widely used in buildings until the
publication of the first edition of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) Specification in
1946 (AISI, 1946). This first design standard was primarily based on the research work
sponsored by AISI at Cornell University since 1939. It was revised subsequently by the AISI
Committee in 1956, 1960, 1962, 1968, 1980, and 1986 to reflect the technical developments and
the results of continuing research. In 1991, AISI published the first edition of the Load and
Resistance Factor Design Specification for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (AISI, 1991). Both
allowable stress design (ASD) and load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specifications were
combined into a single document in 1996. In Canada, the Canadian Standards Association
(CSA) published its first edition of Design of Light Gauge Steel Structural Members in 1963 based
on the 1962 edition of the AISI Specification. Subsequent editions were published in 1974, 1984,
1989 and 1994. The Canadian Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (CSA, 1994) was
based on the Limit States Design (LSD) method.
In Mexico, cold-formed steel structural members have also been designed on the basis of
AISI Specifications. The 1962 edition of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 1962) was translated to
Spanish in 1965 (Camara, 1965).
The first edition of the unified North American Specification (AISI, 2001) was prepared and
issued in 2001. It was applicable to the United States, Canada, and Mexico for the design of
cold-formed steel structural members. The 2001 edition of the Specification was developed on
the basis of the 1996 AISI Specification with the 1999 Supplement (AISI, 1996, 1999), the 1994 CSA
Standard (CSA, 1994), and subsequent developments. In 2001, the term “Allowable Stress
Design” was renamed to “Allowable Strength Design” to clarify the nature of this design
method. In the North American Specification, the ASD and LRFD methods are used in the United
States and Mexico, while the LSD method is used in Canada. The Supplement to the 2001 edition
of the North American Specification was published in 2004 (AISI, 2004b), in which the new Direct
Strength Method was added in the Specification as Appendix 1. Following the successful use of
the first North American Specification for seven years, it was revised and expanded in 2007 on the
basis of the results of continued research and new developments (AISI, 2007a). This updated
July 2007 1
Chapter A, General Provisions
edition of the Specification includes the new Appendix 2 for the Second-Order Analysis of
structural systems. Additionally, Appendix A has been expanded to be applicable to Mexico
and, consequently, Appendix C has been deleted.
In addition to the issuance of the design specification, AISI also published the first edition of
the Design Manual in 1949 (AISI, 1949). This allowable stress design manual was revised later in
1956, 1961, 1962, 1968, 1977, 1983, and 1986. In 1991, the LRFD Design Manual was published for
using the load and resistance factor design criteria. The AISI 1996 Cold-Formed Design Manual
was prepared for the combined AISI ASD and LRFD Specifications. For using the 2001 edition of
the North American Specification, AISI published the 2002 edition of the Cold-Formed Steel Design
Manual (AISI, 2002). In 2008, the new Design Manual (AISI, 2008) will be published by AISI
based on the 2007 edition of the North American Specification.
During the period from 1958 through 1983, AISI published Commentaries on several editions
of the AISI design specification, which were prepared by Professor George Winter of Cornell
University in 1958, 1961, 1962, and 1970. From 1983, the format used for the AISI Commentary
has been changed in that the same section numbers are used in the Commentary as in the
Specification. The Commentary on the 1996 AISI Specification was prepared by Professor Wei-Wen
Yu of the University of Missouri-Rolla (Yu, 1996). The 2001 edition of the Commentary (AISI,
2001) was based on the Commentary on the 1996 AISI Specification. The current edition of the
Commentary (AISI, 2007b) was updated for the 2007 edition of the North American Specification
with extensive additions and revisions. It contains Chapters A through G, Appendices 1 and 2,
and Appendices A and B, where commentary on provisions that are only applicable to a specific
country is included in the corresponding Appendix.
As in previous editions of the Commentary, this document contains a brief presentation of
the characteristics and the performance of cold-formed steel members, connections and
assemblies. In addition, it provides a record of the reasoning behind, and the justification for,
various provisions of the specification. A cross-reference is provided between various design
provisions and the published research data.
In this Commentary, the individual sections, equations, figures, and tables are identified by
the same notation as in the Specification and the material is presented in the same sequence.
Bracketed terms used in the Commentary are equivalent terms that apply particularly to the LSD
method in Canada.
The Specification and Commentary are intended for use by design professionals with
demonstrated engineering competence in their fields.
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A1 Scope, Applicability, and Definitions
A1.1 Scope
The cross-sectional configurations, manufacturing processes and fabrication practices of
cold-formed steel structural members differ in several respects from that of hot-rolled steel
shapes. For cold-formed steel sections, the forming process is performed at, or near, room
temperature by the use of bending brakes, press brakes, or roll-forming machines. Some of
the significant differences between cold-formed sections and hot-rolled shapes are (1) absence
of the residual stresses caused by uneven cooling due to hot-rolling, (2) lack of corner fillets,
(3) presence of increased yield stress with decreased proportional limit and ductility resulting
from cold-forming, (4) presence of cold-reducing stresses when cold-rolled steel stock has not
2 July 2007
been finally annealed, (5) prevalence of elements having large width-to-thickness ratios, (6)
rounded corners, and (7) stress-strain curves can be either sharp-yielding type or gradual-
yielding type.
The Specification is applicable only to cold-formed sections not more than 1 inch (25.4 mm)
in thickness. Research conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla (Yu, Liu, and McKinney,
1973b and 1974) has verified the applicability of the specification’s provisions for such cases.
In view of the fact that most of the design provisions have been developed on the basis of
the experimental work subject to static loading, the Specification is intended for the design of
cold-formed steel structural members to be used for load-carrying purposes in buildings. For
structures other than buildings, appropriate allowances should be made for dynamic effects.
!A
A1.2 Applicability
The Specification (AISI, 2007a) is limited to the design of steel structural members cold-
formed from carbon or low-alloy sheet, strip, plate or bar. The design can be made by using
either the Allowable Strength Design (ASD) method or the Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) method for the United States and Mexico. Only the Limit States Design (LSD)
method is permitted in Canada.
In this Commentary, the bracketed terms are equivalent terms that apply particularly to
LSD. A symbol !x is used to point out that additional provisions are provided in the country
specific appendices as indicated by the letter, x.
Because of the diverse forms in which cold-formed steel structural members can be used,
it is not possible to cover all design configurations by the design rules presented in the
Specification. For those special cases where the available strength [factored resistance]¾
and/or stiffness cannot be so determined, it can be established either by (a) testing and
evaluation in accord with the provisions of Chapter F, or (b) rational engineering analysis.
Prior to 2001, the only option in such cases was testing. However, since 2001, in recognition of
the fact that this was not always practical or necessary, the rational engineering analysis
option was added. It is essential that such analysis be based on theory that is appropriate for
the situation, any available test data that is relevant, and sound engineering judgment. Safety
and resistance factors are provided for ease of use, but these factors should not be used if
applicable safety factors or resistance factors in the main Specification are more conservative,
where the main Specification refers to Chapters A through G, Appendices A and B, and
Appendix 2. These provisions must not be used to circumvent the intent of the Specification.
Where the provisions of Chapters B through G of the Specification and Appendices A and B
apply, those provisions must be used and cannot be avoided by testing or rational analysis.
In 2004, Appendix 1, Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members Using the Direct
Strength Method, was introduced (AISI, 2004b). The Appendix provides an alternative design
procedure for several Sections of Chapters C. The Direct Strength Method detailed in
Appendix 1 requires (1) determination of the elastic buckling behavior of the member, and
then provides (2) a series of nominal strength [resistance] curves for predicting the member
strength based on the elastic buckling behavior. The procedure does not require effective
width calculations, nor iteration, and instead uses gross properties and the elastic buckling
behavior of the cross-section to predict the strength. The applicability of the provided
provisions is detailed in the General Provisions of Appendix 1.
July 2007 3
In 2007, Appendix 2, Second-Order Analysis, was added in the Specification (AISI, 2007a).
The provisions of this Appendix are based on the studies conducted by Sarawit and Pekoz at
Cornell University with due considerations given to flexural-torsional buckling, semi-rigid
joints, and local instabilities. The second-order analysis was found to be more accurate than
the effect length approach.
A1.3 Definitions
Many of the definitions in Specification Section A1.3 for ASD, LRFD and LSD are self-
explanatory. Only those which are not self-explanatory are briefly discussed below.
General Terms
Effective Design Width

The effective design width is a concept which facilitates taking account of local buckling
and post-buckling strength for compression elements. The effect of shear lag on short,
wide flanges is also handled by using an effective design width. These matters are treated
in Specification Chapter B, and the corresponding effective widths are discussed in the
Commentary on that chapter.
Multiple-Stiffened Elements
Multiple-stiffened elements of two sections are shown in Figure C-A1.3-1. Each of the two
outer sub-elements of section (1) are stiffened by a web and an intermediate stiffener
while the middle sub-element is stiffened by two intermediate stiffeners. The two sub-
elements of section (2) are stiffened by a web and the attached intermediate middle
stiffener.
Stiffened or Partially Stiffened Compression Elements
Stiffened compression elements of various sections are shown in Figure C-A1.3-2, in
which sections (1) through (5) are for flexural members, and sections (6) through (9) are
for compression members. Sections (1) and (2) each have a web and a lip to stiffen the
compression element (i.e., the compression flange), the ineffective portion of which is
shown shaded. For the explanation of these ineffective portions, see the discussion of
Effective Design Width and Chapter B. Sections (3), (4), and (5) show compression
elements stiffened by two webs. Sections (6) and (8) show edge stiffened flange elements
that have a vertical element (web) and an edge stiffener (lip) to stiffen the elements while
the web itself is stiffened by the flanges. Section (7) has four compression elements
stiffening each other, and section (9) has each stiffened element stiffened by a lip and the
other stiffened element.
Thickness
In calculating section properties, the reduction in thickness that occurs at corner bends is
ignored, and the base metal thickness of the flat steel stock, exclusive of coatings, is used
in all calculations for load-carrying purposes.
Flexural-Torsional Buckling
The 1968 edition of the Specification pioneered methods for computing column loads of
cold-formed steel sections prone to buckle by simultaneous twisting and bending. This
complex behavior may result in lower column loads than would result from primary
4 July 2007
buckling by flexure alone.
w1 w2 w3
t
b1
1/2be 1/2be
t
b2 N.A.
(1)
Multiple Stiffened Hat-Section
w w
b1
1/2 be 1/2 be t
b2 N.A.
(2)
Multiple Stiffened Inverted "U"-Type Section
Flexural Members, such as Beams
Figure C-A1.3-1 Multiple-Stiffened Compression Elements
Unstiffened Compression Elements

Unstiffened elements of various sections are shown in Figure C-A1.3-3, in which sections
(1) through (4) are for flexural members and sections (5) through (8) are for compression
members. Sections (1), (2), and (3) have only a web to stiffen the compression flange
element. The legs of section (4) provide mutual stiffening action to each other along their
common edges. Sections (5), (6), and (7), acting as columns have vertical stiffened
elements (webs) which provide support for one edge of the unstiffened flange elements.
The legs of section (8) provide mutual stiffening action to each other.
ASD and LRFD Terms (USA and Mexico)
ASD (Allowable Strength Design, formerly referred to as Allowable Stress Design)

Allowable Strength Design (ASD) is a method of designing structural components such
that the allowable strength (force or moment) permitted by various sections of the
Specification is not exceeded when the structure is subjected to all appropriate
combinations of nominal loads as given in Section A4.1.2 of Appendix A of the
Specification.
July 2007 5
w w w w
b2 b2 1/2 b 1/2 b
b1 b2 b1 b1
ds b1 ds b1 ds b1
N.A. b2 N.A. b2 b2 N.A. t
t t
(1) (2) (3)

Lipped Channel I-Beam Made of Two Lipped Hat-Section
Channels Back-to-Back
w w
1/2 b 1/2 b 1/2 b 1/2 b
b1 b1
b2 N.A. t b2 N.A. t
(4) (5)
Box-Type Section Inverted
"U"-Type Section
Flexural Members, Such as Beams (Top Flange in Compression)
w1
b1 b2 w1
1/2 b1 1/2 b1
ds
1/2 b2
1/2 b2
w2 w2
t 1/2 b2
t 1/2 b2
(7)
(6) Box-Type Section
Lipped Channel
w1 w1 w1
b2 b2
b1 b1 b1 b2
ds ds
1/2 b2
w2
t
t 1/2 b2
(9)
(8) Lipped Angle
I-Section Made of Two Lipped
Channels Back-to-Back
Compression Members, Such as Columns
Figure C-A1.3-2 Stiffened Compression Elements
6 July 2007
w w w w
b b b b
b1 b1 b1
h
b2 b2 b2
h h h
b
w w
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Plain Channel Plain "Z"-Section I-Beam Made of Plain Angle
Two Plain Channels
Back-to-Back
Flexural Members, Such as Beams
w w w w
b1 b1 b1 b1
b/2 b/2 b/2
w
w w w
b1
b/2 b/2 b/2 w
(5) (6) (7) (8)

Plain Channel Plain "Z"-Section I-Section Made of Plain Angle
Two Plain Channels
Back-to-Back
Compression Members, Such as Columns
Figure C-A1.3-3 Unstiffened Compression Elements

LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design)
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a method of designing structural
components such that the applicable limit state is not exceeded when the structure is
subjected to all appropriate load combinations as given in Section A5.1.2 of Appendix A
of the Specification. See also Specification Section A5.1.1 for LRFD strength requirements.
LSD Terms (Canada)
LSD (Limit States Design)

Limit States Design (LSD) is a method of designing structural components such that the
applicable limit state is not exceeded when the structure is subjected to all appropriate
load combinations as given in Section A6.1.2 of Appendix B of the Specification. See also
Specification Section A6.1.1 for LSD requirements.
July 2007 7
In the North American Specification, the terminologies for Limit States Design (LSD) are
given in brackets parallel to those for load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The inclusion
of LSD terminology is intended to help engineers who are familiar with LSD better
understand the Specification.
It should be noted that the design concept used for the LRFD and the LSD methods is the
same, except that the load factors, load combinations, assumed dead-to-live ratios, and target
reliability indexes are slightly different. In most cases, same nominal strength [nominal
resistance] equations are used for ASD, LRFD, and LSD approaches.
A1.4 Units of Symbols and Terms

The non-dimensional character of the majority of the Specification provisions is intended
to facilitate design in any compatible systems of units (U.S. customary, SI or metric, and MKS
systems).
The conversion of U.S. customary into SI metric units and MKS systems are given in
parentheses through out the entire text of the Specification and Commentary. Table C-A1.4-1
is a conversion table for these three different units.
Table C-A1.4-1
Conversion Table
To Convert To Multiply by
in. mm 25.4
mm in. 0.03937
Length
ft m 0.30480
m ft 3.28084
in2 mm2 645.160
mm2 in2 0.00155
Area
ft2 m2 0.09290
m2 ft2 10.7639
kip kN 4.448
kip kg 453.5
lb N 4.448
lb kg 0.4535
Force
kN kip 0.2248
kN kg 101.96
kg kip 0.0022
kg N 9.808
ksi MPa 6.895
ksi kg/cm2 70.30
MPa ksi 0.145
Stress
MPa kg/cm2 10.196
kg/cm2 ksi 0.0142
kg/cm2 MPa 0.0981
8 July 2007
A2 Material
A2.1 Applicable Steels
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the basic source of steel
designations for use with the Specification. Section A2.1 contains the complete list of ASTM
Standards for steels that are accepted by the Specification. Dates of issue are included in
Section A9. Other standards that are applicable to a specific country are listed in the
corresponding Appendix.
In the AISI 1996 Specification, the ASTM A446 Standard was replaced by the ASTM
A653/A653M Standard. At the same time, the ASTM A283/A283M Standard, High-Strength,
Low-Alloy Steel (HSLAS) Grades 70 (480) and 80 (550) of ASTM A653/A653M and ASTM
A715 were added.
In 2001, the ASTM A1008/A1008M and ASTM A1011/A1011M Standards replaced the
ASTM A570/A570M, ASTM A607, ASTM A611, and ASTM A715 Standards. ASTM
A1003/A1003M was added to the list of Specification Section A2.1.
In 2007, the ASTM A1039 Standard was added to the list of Specification Section A2.1. For
all grades of steel, ASTM A1039 complies with the minimum required Fu/Fy ratio of 1.08.
Thicknesses equal to or greater than 0.064 in. (1.6 mm) also meet the minimum elongation
requirements of Specification Section A2.3.1 and no reduction in the specified minimum yield
stress is required. However, steel thicknesses less than 0.064 in. (1.6 mm) with yield stresses
greater than 55 ksi (380 MPa) do not meet the requirements of Specification Section A2.3.1 and
are subject to the limitations of Specification Section A2.3.2.
The important material properties for the design of cold-formed steel members are: yield
stress, tensile strength, and ductility. Ductility is the ability of a steel to undergo sizable
plastic or permanent strains before fracturing and is important both for structural safety and
for cold forming. It is usually measured by the elongation in a 2-inch (51 mm) gage length.
The ratio of the tensile strength to the yield stress is also an important material property; this
is an indication of strain hardening and the ability of the material to redistribute stress.
For the listed ASTM Standards, the yield stresses of steels range from 24 to 80 ksi (165 to
550 MPa or 1690 to 5620 kg/cm2) and the tensile strengths vary from 42 to 100 ksi (290 to 690
MPa or 2950 to 7030 kg/cm2). The tensile-to-yield ratios are no less than 1.13, and the
elongations are no less than 10 percent. Exceptions are ASTM A653/A653M SS Grade 80
(550); specific thicknesses of ASTM A1039/A1039M 55 (380), 60 (410), 70 (480), and 80 (550),
ASTM A1008/A1008M SS Grade 80 (550); and ASTM A792/A792M SS Grade 80 (550) steels
with a specified minimum yield stress of 80 ksi (550 MPa or 5620 kg/cm2), a specified
minimum tensile strength of 82 ksi (565 MPa or 5770 kg/cm2), and with no stipulated
minimum elongation in 2 inches (51 mm). These low ductility steels permit only limited
amounts of cold forming, require fairly large corner radii, and have other limits on their
applicability for structural framing members. Nevertheless, they have been used successfully
for specific applications, such as decks and panels with large corner radii and little, if any,
stress concentrations. The conditions for use of these SS Grade 80 (550) steels are outlined in
Specification Section A2.3.2.
For ASTM A1003/A1003M steel, even though the minimum tensile strength is not
specified in the ASTM Standard for each of Types H and L Steels, the footnote of Table 2 of
the Standard states that for Type H steels the ratio of tensile strength to yield stress shall not
be less than 1.08. Thus, a conservative value of Fu = 1.08 Fy can be used for the design of
July 2007 9
cold-formed steel members using Type H steels. Based on the same Standard, a conservative
value of Fu = Fy can be used for the design of purlins and girts using Type L steels. In 2004,
the Specification listing of ASTM A1003/A1003M steel was revised to list only the grades
designated Type H, because this is the only grade that satisfies the criterion for unrestricted
usage. Grades designated Type L can still be used but are subject to the restrictions of
Specification Section A2.3.1.
A2.2 Other Steels

Comments on other steels are provided in the corresponding Appendices of this
Commentary. A,B
!
A2.3 Ductility
The nature and importance of ductility and the ways in which this property is measured
were briefly discussed in Commentary Section A2.1.
Low-carbon sheet and strip steels with specified minimum yield stresses from 24 to 50 ksi
(165 to 345 MPa or 1690 to 3520 kg/cm2) need to meet ASTM specified minimum elongations
in a 2-inch (51 mm) gage length of 11 to 30 percent. In order to meet the ductility
requirements, steels with yield stresses higher than 50 ksi (345 MPa or 3520 kg/cm2) are often
low-alloy steels. However, SS Grade 80 (550) of ASTM A653/A653M, SS Grade 80 (550) of
A1008/A1008M, SS Grade 80 (550) of A792/A792M, and SS Grade 80 (550) of A875/A875M
steels are carbon steels, for which specified minimum yield stress is 80 ksi (550 MPa or 5620
kg/cm2) and no elongation requirement is specified. These differ from the array of steels
listed under Specification Section A2.1.
In 1968, because new steels of higher strengths were being developed, sometimes with
lower elongations, the question of how much elongation is really needed in a structure was
the focus of a study initiated at Cornell University. Steels were studied that had yield
stresses ranging from 45 to 100 ksi (310 to 690 MPa or 3160 to 7030 kg/cm2), elongations in 2
inches (51 mm) ranging from 50 to 1.3 percent, and tensile strength-to-yield stress ratios
ranging from 1.51 to 1.00 (Dhalla, Errera and Winter, 1971; Dhalla and Winter, 1974a; Dhalla
and Winter, 1974b). The investigators developed elongation requirements for ductile steels.
These measurements are more accurate but cumbersome to make; therefore, the investigators
recommended the following determination for adequately ductile steels: (1) The tensile
strength-to-yield stress ratio shall not be less than 1.08 and (2) the total elongation in a 2-inch
(51-mm) gage length shall not be less than 10 percent, or not less than 7 percent in an 8-inch
(203-mm) gage length. Also, the Specification limits the use of Chapters B through E to
adequately ductile steels. In lieu of the tensile-to-yield stress limit of 1.08, the Specification
permits the use of elongation requirements using the measurement technique as given by
Dhalla and Winter (1974a) (Yu, 2000). Further information on the test procedure should be
obtained from “Standard Methods for Determination of Uniform and Local Ductility”, Cold-
Formed Steel Design Manual, Part VI (AISI, 2008). Because of limited experimental verification
of the structural performance of members using materials having a tensile strength-to-yield
stress ratio less than 1.08 (Macadam et al., 1988), the Specification limits the use of this material
to purlins, girts, and curtain wall studs meeting the elastic design requirements of
Specification Sections C3.1.1(a), C3.1.2, D6.1.1, D6.1.2, D6.2.1, and additional country specific
requirements given in Appendices. Thus, the use of such steels in other applications
10 July 2007
(compression members, except closed box section compression members as stipulated in

Specification Exception 2, tension members, other flexural members including those whose
strength [resistance] is based on inelastic reserve capacity, etc.) is prohibited. However, in
purlins, girts, and curtain wall studs, (with special country specific requirements given in
Appendix A or B), concurrent axial loads of relatively small magnitude are acceptable
providing the requirements of Specification Section C5.2 are met and ΩcP/Pn does not exceed
0.15 for allowable strength design, Pu/φcPn does not exceed 0.15 for the Load and Resistance
Factor Design, and Pf/φcPn does not exceed 0.15 for the Limit States Design. !A,B
In 2007, curtain wall studs were added to the applications for materials having a tensile
strength-to-yield stress ratio less than 1.08. Curtain wall studs are repetitive framing
members that are typically spaced more closely than purlins and girts. Curtain wall studs are
analogous to vertical girts; as such, they are not subjected to snow or other significant
sustained gravity loads. Pending future research regarding the cyclic performance of
connections, an exception is noted on use of these lower ductility steels for curtain wall studs
supporting heavy weight exterior walls in high seismic areas.
SS Grade 80 (550) of ASTM A653/A653M, SS Grade 80 (550) of ASTM A1008/A1008M, SS
Grade 80 (550) of A792/A792M, and SS Grade 80 (550) of A875/A875M steels do not have
adequate ductility as defined by Specification Section A2.3.1. Their use has been limited in
Specification Section A2.3.2 to particular multiple-web configurations such as roofing, siding,
and floor decking.
In the past, the yield stress used in design was limited to 75 percent of the specified
minimum yield stress, or 60 ksi (414 MPa or 4220 kg/cm2), and the tensile strength used in
design was limited to 75 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength, or 62 ksi
(427 MPa or 4360 kg/cm2) whichever was lower. This introduced a higher safety factor, but
still made low ductility steels, such as SS Grade 80 (550) and Grade E, useful for the named
applications.
Based on the UMR research findings (Wu, Yu, and LaBoube, 1996), Specification Equation
A2.3.2-1 was added in Specification Section A2.3.2 under Exception 1 to determine the reduced
yield stress, RbFsy, for the calculation of the nominal flexural strength [moment resistance] of
multiple-web sections such as roofing, siding and floor decking (AISI, 1999). For the
unstiffened compression flange, Specification Equation A2.3.2-2 was added on the basis of a
1988 UMR study (Pan and Yu, 1988). This revision allows the use of a higher nominal
bending strength [resistance] than previous editions of the AISI Specification. When the
multiple-web section is composed of both stiffened and unstiffened compression flange
elements, the smallest Rb should be used to determine the reduced yield stress for use on the
entire section. Different values of the reduced yield stress could be used for positive and
negative moments.
The equations provided in Specification Exception 1 can also be used for calculating the
nominal flexural strength [resistance] when the design strengths [factored resistances] are
determined on the basis of tests as permitted by the alternative method.
It should be noted that Exception 1 does not apply to the steel deck used for composite
slabs when the deck is used as the tensile reinforcement. This limitation is to prevent the
possible sudden failure of the composite slab due to lack of ductility of the steel deck.
For the calculation of web crippling strength [resistance] of deck panels, although the
UMR study (Wu, Yu, and LaBoube, 1997) shows that the specified minimum yield stress can
July 2007 11
be used to calculate the web crippling strength [resistance] of deck panels, the Specification is
adopting a conservative approach in Specification Section C3.4. The lesser of 0.75 Fsy and 60
ksi (414 MPa or 4220 kg/cm2) is used to determine both the web crippling strength
[resistance] and the shear strength [resistance] for the low ductility steels. This is consistent
with the previous edition of the AISI Specification.
Another UMR study (Koka, Yu, and LaBoube, 1997) confirmed that for the connection
design using SS Grade 80 (550) of A653/A653M steel, the tensile strength used in design
should be taken as 75 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength or 62 ksi (427 MPa or
4360 kg/cm2), whichever is less. It should be noted that the current design provisions are
limited only to the design of members and connections subjected to static loading without the
considerations of fatigue strength.
Load tests are permitted, but not for the purpose of using higher loads than can be
calculated under Specification Chapters B through G.
For the calculation of the strength [resistance] of concentrically loaded compression
members with a closed box section, Specification Exception 2 was added on the basis of a
study at University of Sydney (Yang, Hancock, 2002). For short members where Fn = Fy in
Specification Section C4, the study shows that the limit of the yield stress used in the design
can be 90 percent of the specified minimum yield stress Fsy for low ductility steels. Tests were
performed on box-sections composed of G550 steel of AS1397 which is similar to ASTM A792
Grade 80. The box-section is formed by connecting the lips of two hat sections.
Further, for calculating the strength [resistance] of concentrically loaded long
compression members, Specification Equations A2.3.2-3 and A2.3.2-4, based on the University
of Sydney research findings (Yang, Hancock and Rasmussen, 2002), were added in the
Specification Section A2.3.2 in Exception 2 when determining the nominal axial strength
[nominal axial resistance] according to Specification Section C4.1.1. The reduction factor Rr
specified in Specification Equation A2.3.2-4 is to be applied to the radius of gyration r and
allows for the interaction of local and flexural (Euler) buckling of thin high strength low
ductility steel sections. The reduction factor is a function of the length varying from 0.65 at
KL = 0 to 1.0 at KL = 1.1L0, where L0 is the length at which the local buckling stress equals
the flexural buckling stress.
A2.4 Delivered Minimum Thickness

Sheet and strip steels, both coated and uncoated, may be ordered to nominal or minimum
thickness. If the steel is ordered to minimum thickness, all thickness tolerances are over (+)
and nothing under (-). If the steel is ordered to nominal thickness, the thickness tolerances are
divided equally between over and under. Therefore, in order to provide the similar material
thickness between the two methods of ordering sheet and strip steel, it was decided to
require that the delivered thickness of a cold-formed product be at least 95 percent of the
design thickness. Thus, it is apparent that a portion of the safety factor or resistance factor
may be considered to cover minor negative thickness tolerances.
Generally, thickness measurements should be made in the center of flanges. For decking
and siding, measurements should be made as close as practical to the center of the first full
flat of the section. Thickness measurements should not be made closer to edges than the
minimum distances specified in ASTM A568 Standard.
12 July 2007
The responsibility of meeting this requirement for a cold-formed product is clearly that of
the manufacturer of the product, not the steel producer.
In 2004, the country specific section, Specification Section A2.4a, was deleted from
Appendix B.
A3 Loads
Comments on loads and load combinations for different countries are provided in the
corresponding Appendices of this Commentary. A,B
!
A4 Allowable Strength Design
A4.1 Design Basis
The Allowable Strength Design method has been featured in AISI specifications beginning
with the 1946 edition. It is included in the Specification along with the LRFD and the LSD
methods for use in the United States, Mexico, and Canada since the 2001 edition.
A4.1.1 ASD Requirements

In the Allowable Strength Design approach, the required strengths (bending moments,
axial forces, and shear forces) in structural members are computed by accepted methods of
structural analysis for the specified nominal or working loads for all applicable load
combinations determined according to Specification Section A4.1.2. These required
strengths are not to exceed the allowable strengths permitted by the Specification.
According to Specification Section A4.1.1, the allowable strength is determined by dividing
the nominal strength by a safety factor as follows:
R ≤ Rn/Ω (C-A4.1.1-1)
where
R = required strength
Rn = nominal strength
Ω = safety factor
The fundamental nature of the safety factor is to compensate for uncertainties inherent
in the design, fabrication, or erection of building components, as well as uncertainties in
the estimation of applied loads. Appropriate safety factors are explicitly specified in
various sections of the Specification. Through experience it has been established that the
present safety factors provide satisfactory design. It should be noted that the ASD method
employs only one safety factor for a given condition regardless of the type of load.
A4.1.2 Load Combinations for ASD

Comments for load combinations are provided in Appendix A of this Commentary.
A5 Load and Resistance Factor Design

!A
A5.1 Design Basis
A limit state is the condition at which the structural usefulness of a load-carrying element
or member is impaired to such an extent that it becomes unsafe for the occupants of the
July 2007 13
structure, or the element no longer performs its intended function. Typical limit states for
cold-formed steel members are excessive deflection, yielding, buckling and attainment of
maximum strength after local buckling (i.e., postbuckling strength). These limit states have
been established through experience in practice or in the laboratory, and they have been
thoroughly investigated through analytical and experimental research. The background for
the establishment of the limit states is extensively documented in (Winter, 1970; Pekoz, 1986b;
and Yu, 2000), and a continuing research effort provides further improvement in
understanding them.
Two types of limit states are considered in the load and resistance factor design method.
They are: (1) the limit state of the strength required to resist the extreme loads during the
intended life of the structure, and (2) the limit state of the ability of the structure to perform
its intended function during its life. These two limit states are usually referred to as the limit
state of strength and limit state of serviceability. Like the ASD method, the LRFD method
focuses on the limit state of strength in Specification Section A5.1.1 and the limit state of
serviceability in Specification Section A8.
A5.1.1 LRFD Requirements

For the limit state of strength, the general format of the LRFD method is expressed by
the following equation:
ΣγiQi ≤ φRn (C-A5.1.1-1)
or
Ru ≤ φRn
where
Ru = ΣγiQi = required strength
Rn = nominal resistance
φ = resistance factor
γi = load factors
Qi = load effects
φRn= design strength
The nominal resistance is the strength of the element or member for a given limit state,
computed for nominal section properties and for minimum specified material properties
according to the appropriate analytical model which defines the strength. The resistance
factor φ accounts for the uncertainties and variabilities inherent in the Rn, and it is usually
less than unity. The load effects Qi are the forces on the cross section (i.e, bending moment,
axial force, or shear force) determined from the specified nominal loads by structural
analysis and γi are the corresponding load factors, which account for the uncertainties and
variabilities of the loads. The load factors for LRFD are discussed in the Commentary on
Appendix A for the United States and Mexico.
The advantages of LRFD are: (1) the uncertainties and the variabilities of different types
of loads and resistances are different (e.g., dead load is less variable than wind load), and
so these differences can be accounted for by use of multiple factors, and (2) by using
probability theory designs can ideally achieve a more consistent reliability. Thus LRFD
provides the basis for a more rational and refined design method than is possible with the
ASD method.
14 July 2007
(a) Probabilistic Concepts

Safety Factors or load factors are provided against the uncertainties and variabilities
which are inherent in the design process. Structural design consists of comparing nominal
load effects Q to nominal resistances R, but both Q and R are random parameters (see
Figure C-A5.1.1-1). A limit state is violated if R<Q. While the possibility of this event ever
occurring is never zero, a successful design should, nevertheless, have only an acceptably
small probability of exceeding the limit state. If the exact probability distributions of Q and
R were known, then the probability of (R - Q) < 0 could be exactly determined for any
design. In general the distributions of Q and R are not known, and only the means, Qm and
Rm, and the standard deviations, σQ and σR are available. Nevertheless it is possible to
determine relative reliabilities of several designs by the scheme illustrated in Figure C-
A5.1.1-2. The distribution curve shown is for ln(R/Q), and a limit state is exceeded when
ln(R/Q) ≤ 0. The area under ln(R/Q) ≤ 0 is the probability of violating the limit state. The
size of this area is dependent on the distance between the origin and the mean of ln(R/Q).
For given statistical data Rm, Qm, σR and σQ, the area under ln(R/Q) ≤ 0 can be varied by
Probability Density
Qm Rm
Load Effect Q Resistance R
Figure C-A5.1.1-1 Definition of the Randomness Q and R
In(R/Q) m
βσ In(R/Q)
In(R/Q)
Probability of Exceeding a Limit State
Figure C-A5.1.1-2 Definition of the Reliability Index β
July 2007 15
changing the value of β (Figure C-A5.1.1-2), since βσln(R/Q) = ln(R/Q)m, from which
approximately
ln ( R m / Q m )
β= (C-A5.1.1-2)
VR2 + VQ
2
where VR = σR/Rm and VQ = σQ/Qm, the coefficients of variation of R and Q, respectively.

The index β is called the “reliability index”, and it is a relative measure of the safety of the
design. When two designs are compared, the one with the larger β is more reliable.
The concept of the reliability index can be used for determining the relative reliability
inherent in current design, and it can be used in testing out the reliability of new design
formats, as illustrated by the following example of simply supported, braced beams
subjected to dead and live loading.
The ASD design requirement of the Specification for such a beam is
SeFy/Ω = (Ls2s/8)(D+L) (C-A5.1.1-3)
where
Se = elastic section modulus based on the effective section
Ω = 5/3 = the safety factor for bending
Fy = specified yield stress
Ls = span length, and s = beam spacing
D and L are, respectively, the code specified dead and live load intensities.
The mean resistance is defined as (Ravindra and Galambos, 1978)
Rm = Rn(PmMmFm) (C-A5.1.1-4)
In the above equation, Rn is the nominal resistance, which in this case is
Rn = SeFy (C-A5.1.1-5)
that is, the nominal moment predicted on the basis of the postbuckling strength of the
compression flange and the web. The mean values Pm, Mm, and Fm, and the corresponding
coefficients of variation VP, VM, and VF, are the statistical parameters, which define the
variability of the resistance:
Pm = mean ratio of the experimentally determined moment to the predicted
moment for the actual material and cross-sectional properties of the test
specimens
Mm = mean ratio of the actual yield stress to the minimum specified value
Fm = mean ratio of the actual section modulus to the specified (nominal) value
The coefficient of variation of R equals
VR = VP 2 + VM 2 + VF 2 (C-A5.1.1-6)
The values of these data were obtained from examining the available tests on beams
having different compression flanges with partially and fully effective flanges and webs,
and from analyzing data on yield stress values from tests and cross-sectional dimensions
from many measurements. This information was developed from research (Hsiao, Yu, and
Galambos, 1988a and 1990; Hsiao, 1989) and is given below:
Pm = 1.11, VP = 0.09; Mm = 1.10, VM = 0.10; Fm = 1.0, VF = 0.05 and thus
Rm = 1.22Rn and VR = 0.14.
The mean load effect is equal to
16 July 2007
Qm = (Ls2s/8)(Dm + Lm) (C-A5.1.1-7)

and
( D m VD ) 2 + (L m VL ) 2
VQ = (C-A5.1.1-8)
Dm + Lm
where Dm and Lm are the mean dead and live load intensities, respectively, and VD and VL
are the corresponding coefficients of variation.
Load statistics have been analyzed in a study of the National Bureau of Standards
(NBS) (Ellingwood et al., 1980), where it was shown that Dm = 1.05D, VD = 0.1; Lm = L, VL
= 0.25.
The mean live load intensity equals the code live load intensity if the tributary area is
small enough so that no live load reduction is included. Substitution of the load statistics
into Equations C-A5.1.1-7 and C-A5.1.1-8 gives
L s 2 s 1.05D
Qm = ( + 1)L (C-A5.1.1-9)
8 L
(1.05D / L ) 2 VD 2 + VL 2
VQ = (C-A5.1.1-10)
(1.05D / L + 1)
Qm and VQ thus depend on the dead-to-live load ratio. Cold-formed steel beams
typically have small D/L ratio, which may vary for different applications. Different D/L
ratio may be assumed by different countries for developing design criteria. For the
purposes of checking the reliability of these LRFD criteria it has been assumed that D/L =
1/5, and so Qm = 1.21L(Ls2 s/8) and VQ = 0.21.
From Equations C-A5.1.1-3 and C-A5.1.1-5, the nominal resistance, Rn, can be obtained
for D/L = 1/5 and Ω = 5/3 as follows:
Rn = 2L(Ls2s/8)
In order to determine the reliability index, β, from Equation C-A5.1.1-2, the Rm/Qm
ratio is required by considering Rm = 1.22Rn:
R m 1.22 x 2.0 xL(L s 2 s / 8)
= = 2.02
Qm 1.21L(L s 2 s / 8)
Therefore, from Equation C-A5.1.1-2,
ln (2.02)
β= = 2.79
0.14 2 + 0.212
Of itself β= 2.79 for beams having different compression flanges with partially and
fully effective flanges and webs designed by the Specification means nothing. However,
when this is compared to β for other types of cold-formed steel members, and to β for
designs of various types from hot-rolled steel shapes or even for other materials, then it is
possible to say that this particular cold-formed steel beam has about an average reliability
(Galambos et al., 1982).
(b) Basis for LRFD of Cold-Formed Steel Structures
A great deal of work has been performed for determining the values of the reliability
index β inherent in traditional design as exemplified by the current structural design
July 2007 17
specifications such as the ANSI/AISC S360 for hot-rolled steel, the AISI Specification for
cold-formed steel, the ACI Code for reinforced concrete members, etc. The studies for hot-
rolled steel are summarized by Ravindra and Galambos (1978), where also many further
papers are referenced which contain additional data. The determination of β for cold-
formed steel elements or members is presented in several research reports of the
University of Missouri-Rolla (Hsiao, Yu, and Galambos, 1988a; Rang, Galambos, and Yu,
1979a, 1979b, 1979c, and 1979d; Supornsilaphachai, Galambos, and Yu, 1979), where both
the basic research data as well as the β’s inherent in the AISI Specification are presented in
great detail. The β’s computed in the above referenced publications were developed with
slightly different load statistics than those of this Commentary, but the essential conclusions
remain the same.
The entire set of data for hot-rolled steel and cold-formed steel designs, as well as data
for reinforced concrete, aluminum, laminated timber, and masonry walls was re-analyzed
by Ellingwood, Galambos, MacGregor, and Cornell (Ellingwood et al., 1980; Galambos et
al., 1982; Ellingwood et al., 1982) using (a) updated load statistics and (b) a more advanced
level of probability analysis which was able to incorporate probability distributions and to
describe the true distributions more realistically. The details of this extensive reanalysis are
presented by the investigators. Only the final conclusions from the analysis are
summarized below.
The values of the reliability index β vary considerably for the different kinds of
loading, the different types of construction, and the different types of members within a
given material design specification. In order to achieve more consistent reliability, it was
suggested by Ellingwood et al. (1982) that the following values of β would provide this
improved consistency while at the same time give, on the average, essentially the same
design by the LRFD method as is obtained by current design for all materials of
construction. These target reliabilities βo for use in LRFD are:
Basic case: Gravity loading, βo = 3.0
For connections: βo = 4.5
For wind loading: βo = 2.5
These target reliability indices are the ones inherent in the load factors recommended
in the ASCE 7-98 Load Standard (ASCE, 1998).
For simply supported, braced cold-formed steel beams with stiffened flanges, which
were designed according to the allowable strength design method in the current
Specification or to any previous version of the AISI Specification, it was shown that for the
representative dead-to-live load ratio of 1/5 the reliability index β = 2.79. Considering the
fact that for other such load ratios, or for other types of members, the reliability index
inherent in current cold-formed steel construction could be more or less than this value of
2.79, a somewhat lower target reliability index of βo = 2.5 is recommended as a lower limit
in the United States. The resistance factors φ were selected such that βo = 2.5 is essentially
the lower bound of the actual β’s for members. In order to assure that failure of a structure
is not initiated in the connections, a higher target reliability of βo = 3.5 is recommended for
joints and fasteners in the United States. These two targets of 2.5 and 3.5 for members and
connections, respectively, are somewhat lower than those recommended by the ASCE 7-98
(i.e., 3.0 and 4.5, respectively), but they are essentially the same targets as are the basis for
the AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1999). For wind loading, the same ASCE target value
18 July 2007
of βo = 2.5 is used for connections in the US LRFD method. For flexural members such as
individual purlins, girts, panels, and roof decks subjected to the combination of dead and
wind loads, the target βo value used in the United States is reduced to 1.5. With this
reduced target reliability index, the design based on the US LRFD method is comparable to
the US allowable strength design method.
(c) Resistance Factors
The following portions of this Commentary present the background for the resistance
factors φ which are recommended for various members and connections in Chapters B
through E (AISI, 1996). These φ factors are determined in conformance with the ASCE 7
load factors to provide approximately a target βo of 2.5 for members and 3.5 for
connections, respectively, for a typical load combination 1.2D+1.6L. For practical reasons, it
is desirable to have relatively few different resistance factors, and so the actual values of β
will differ from the derived targets. This means that
φRn = c(1.2D+1.6L) = (1.2D/L+1.6)cL (C-A5.1.1-11)
where c is the deterministic influence coefficient translating load intensities to load effects.
By assuming D/L = 1/5, Equations C-A5.1.1-11 and C-A5.1.1-9 can be rewritten as
follows:
Rn = 1.84(cL/φ) (C-A5.1.1-12)
Qm = (1.05D/L+1)cL = 1.21cL (C-A5.1.1-13)
Therefore,
Rm/Qm =(1.521/φ)(Rm/Rn) (C-A5.1.1-14)
The φ factor can be computed from Equation C-A5.1.1-15 on the basis of Equations C-
A5.1.1-2, C-A5.1.1-4 and C-A5.1.1-14 (Hsiao, Yu and Galambos, 1988b, AISI 1996):
φ = 1.521 (PmMmFm)exp(-βo VR 2 + VQ 2 ) (C-A5.1.1-15)
in which, βo is the target reliability index. Other symbols were defined previously.
By knowing the φ factor, the corresponding safety factor, Ω, for allowable strength
design can be computed for the load combination 1.2D+1.6L as follows:
Ω = (1.2D/L + 1.6)/[φ(D/L + 1)] (C-A5.1.1-16)
where D/L is the dead-to-live load ratio for the given condition.
A5.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LRFD

Comments for load factors and load combinations are provided in Appendix A of this
Commentary. A
!
A6 Limit States Design
A6.1 Design Basis
Same as the LRFD method, a limit state is the condition at which the structural usefulness
of a load-carrying element or member is impaired to such an extent that it becomes unsafe for
the occupants of the structure, or the element no longer performs its intended function.
Typical limit states for cold-formed steel members are excessive deflection, yielding, buckling
and attainment of maximum strength after local buckling (i.e., postbuckling strength). These
July 2007 19
limit states have been established through experience in practice or in the laboratory, and
they have been thoroughly investigated through analytical and experimental research.
Two types of limit states are considered in the Limit States Design method. They are: (1)
the limit state of the strength required to resist the extreme loads during the intended life of
the structure, and (2) the limit state of the ability of the structure to perform its intended
function during its life. These two limit states are usually referred to as the limit state of
strength and limit state of serviceability. The LSD method focuses on the limit state of
strength in Specification Section A6.1.1 and the limit state of serviceability in Specification
Section A8.
A6.1.1 LSD Requirements

For the limit state of strength, the general format of the LSD method is expressed by the
following equation:
φRn ≥ ΣγiQi (C-A6.1.1-1)
or
φRn ≥ Rf
where
Rf = ΣγiQi = effect of factored loads
Rn = nominal resistance
φ = resistance factor
γi = load factors
Qi = load effects
φRn= factored resistance
The nominal resistance is the strength of the element or member for a given limit state,
computed for nominal section properties and for minimum specified material properties
according to the appropriate analytical model which defines the resistance. The resistance
factor φ accounts for the uncertainties and variabilities inherent in the Rn, and it is usually
less than unity. The load effects Qi are the forces on the cross section (i.e, bending moment,
axial force, or shear force) determined from the specified nominal loads by structural
analysis and γi are the corresponding load factors, which account for the uncertainties and
variabilities of the loads. The load factors for LSD are discussed in the Commentary on
Appendix B.
Since the design basis for the LSD and the LRFD is the same, further discussions on
how to obtain resistance factor using probability analysis can be obtained from Section
A5.1.1 (c) of the Commentary. However, attention should be paid that target values for
members and connections as well as the dead-to-live load ratio may vary from country to
country. These variations lead to the differences in resistance factors. The dead-to-live
ratio used in Canada is assumed to be 1/3, and the target of the reliability index for cold-
formed steel structural members is 3.0 for members and 4.0 for connections. These target
values are consistent with those used in other CSA design standards.
A6.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LSD

Comments for load factors and load combinations are provided in Appendix B of this
20 July 2007
Commentary.
A7 Yield Stress and Strength Increase from Cold Work of Forming

A7.1 Yield Stress
The strength [resistance] of cold-formed steel structural members depends on the yield
stress, except in those cases where elastic local buckling or overall buckling is critical. Because
the stress-strain curve of steel sheet or strip can be either sharp-yielding type (Figure C-A7.1-
1(a)) or gradual-yielding type (Figure C-A7.1-1(b)), the method for determining the yield
point for sharp-yielding steel and the yield strength for gradual-yielding steel are based on
the ASTM Standard A370 (ASTM, 1997). As shown in Figure C-A7.1-2(a), the yield point for
sharp-yielding steel is defined by the stress level of the plateau. For gradual-yielding steel,
the stress-strain curve is rounded out at the “knee” and the yield strength is determined by
either the offset method (Figure C-A7.1-2(b)) or the extension under the load method (Figure
C-A7.1-2(c)). The term yield stress used in the Specification applies to either yield point or yield
strength. Section 1.2 of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008) lists the minimum mechanical
properties specified by the ASTM specifications for various steels.
Inelastic
Strain hardening
range
Fu
Elastic
range
Stress, σ
Fy
tan-1 E
E= ε
σ
Strain, ε
(a)
Fu
tan-1 E t
Stress, σ
Et = dσ
ft
f pr dε
tan-1 E
E= ε
σ
(b) Strain, ε
Figure C-A7.1-1 Stress-Strain Curves of Carbon Steel Sheet or Strip

(a) Sharp Yielding, (b) Gradual Yielding
The strength [resistance] of members that are governed by buckling depends not only on
the yield stress but also on the modulus of elasticity, E, and the tangent modulus, Et. The
modulus of elasticity is defined by the slope of the initial straight portion of the stress-strain
curve (Figure C-A7.1-1). The measured values of E on the basis of the standard methods
usually range from 29,000 to 30,000 ksi (200 to 207 GPa or 2.0x106 to 2.1x106 kg/cm2). A value
July 2007 21
of 29,500 ksi (203 GPa or 2.07x106 kg/cm2) is used in the Specification for design purposes.
The tangent modulus is defined by the slope of the stress-strain curve at any stress level, as
shown in Figure C-A7.1-1(b).
For sharp-yielding steels, Et = E up to the yield point, but with gradual-yielding steels, Et
= E only up to the proportional limit, fpr. Once the stress exceeds the proportional limit, the
tangent modulus Et becomes progressively smaller than the initial modulus of elasticity.
Various buckling provisions of the Specification have been written for gradual-yielding
steels whose proportional limit is not lower than about 70 percent of the specified minimum
yield stress.
Determination of proportional limits for information purposes can be done simply by
using the offset method shown in Figure C-A7.1-2(b) with the distance “om” equal to 0.0001
length/length (0.01 percent offset) and calling the stress R where “mn” intersects the stress-
strain curve at “r”, the proportional limit.
A n
n
R R R
r r
Yield Point
Stress
Stress
Stress
Strain Strain Strain

o m o m o m
om = Specified Offset om = Specified Extension Under Load
(a) Showing Yield Point (b) Showing Yield Point or (c) Determination of Yield
Corresponding with Yield Strength by the Strength by Extension
Top of Knee. Offset Method. (Also Used Under Load Method.
for Proportional Limit)
Figure C-A7.1-2 Stress-Strain Diagrams Showing Methods of Yield Point

and Yield Strength Determination
A7.2 Strength Increase from Cold Work of Forming

The mechanical properties of the flat steel sheet, strip, plate or bar, such as yield stress,
tensile strength, and elongation may be substantially different from the properties exhibited
by the cold-formed steel sections. Figure C-A7.2-1 illustrates the increase of yield stress and
tensile strength from those of the virgin material at the section locations in a cold-formed
steel channel section and a joist chord (Karren and Winter, 1967). This difference can be
attributed to cold working of the material during the cold-forming process.
The influence of cold work on mechanical properties was investigated by Chajes, Britvec,
Winter, Karren, and Uribe at Cornell University in the 1960s (Chajes, Britvec, and Winter,
22 July 2007
1963; Karren, 1967; Karren and Winter, 1967; Winter and Uribe, 1968). It was found that the
changes of mechanical properties due to cold-stretching are caused mainly by strain-
hardening and strain-aging, as illustrated in Figure C-A7.2-2 (Chajes, Britvec, and Winter,
1963). In this figure, curve A represents the stress-strain curve of the virgin material. Curve B
is due to unloading in the strain-hardening range, curve C represents immediate reloading,
and curve D is the stress-strain curve of reloading after strain-aging. It is interesting to note
that the yield stresses of both curves C and D are higher than the yield point of the virgin
material and that the ductilities decrease after strain hardening and strain aging.
Cornell research also revealed that the effects of cold work on the mechanical properties
of corners usually depend on (1) the type of steel, (2) the type of stress (compression or
tension), (3) the direction of stress with respect to the direction of cold work (transverse or
longitudinal), (4) the Fu/Fy ratio, (5) the inside radius-to-thickness ratio (R/t), and (6) the
amount of cold work. Among the above items, the Fu/Fy and R/t ratios are the most
important factors to affect the change in mechanical properties of formed sections. Virgin
material with a large Fu/Fy ratio possesses a large potential for strain hardening.
Consequently as the Fu/Fy ratio increases, the effect of cold work on the increase in the yield
stress of steel increases. Small inside radius-to-thickness ratios, R/t, correspond to a large
degree of cold work in a corner, and therefore, for a given material, the smaller the R/t ratio,
the larger the increase in yield stress.
Investigating the influence of cold work, Karren derived the following equations for the
ratio of corner yield stress-to-virgin yield stress (Karren, 1967):
Fy c Bc
= (C-A7.2-1)
Fyv (R / t ) m
where
2
F ⎛F ⎞
Bc = 3.69 uv − 0.819⎜ uv ⎟ − 1.79
Fyv ⎜ Fyv ⎟
⎝ ⎠
and
F
m = 0.192 uv − 0.068
Fyv
Fyc = corner yield stress
Fyv = virgin yield stress
Fuv = virgin ultimate tensile strength
R = inside bend radius
t = sheet thickness
With regard to the full-section properties, the tensile yield stress of the full section may be
approximated by using a weighted average as follows:
Fya = CFyc + (1 - C)Fyf (C-A7.2-2)
where
Fya = full-section tensile yield stress
Fyc = average tensile yield stress of corners = BcFyv/(R/t)m
Fyf = average tensile yield stress of flats
C = ratio of corner area to total cross-sectional area. For flexural members having
July 2007 23
unequal flanges, the one giving a smaller C value is considered to be the

controlling flange
Good agreements between the computed and the tested stress-strain characteristics for a
channel section and a joist chord section were demonstrated by Karren and Winter (Karren
and Winter, 1967).
The limitation Fya ≤ Fuv places an upper bound on the average yield stress. The intent of
the upper bound is to limit stresses in flat elements that may not see significant increases in
yield stress and tensile strength as compared to the virgin steel properties.
In the last three decades, additional studies have been made by numerous investigators.
These investigations dealt with the cold-formed sections having large R/t ratios and with
thick materials. They also considered residual stress distribution, simplification of design
methods, and other related subjects. For details, see Yu (2000).
75
70 Virgin
ultimate
strength
65
K
1"
A
4
60
1"
Stress, ksi
B J
4
3"
116
C 55
5" 1"
H
16 4
D E F G Virgin
yield
str.
50
1"
16
45
5" 1" 3" 1" 3" 1" 3" 1" 5"
16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16
3"
2 16
40
A B C D E F G H J K L
Yield Strength
Ultimate Strength
(a)
75
70
65
60
3.68" 55
0.90" 0.90" 50
0.25" 0.25" 0.25" 0.25" Virgin
A B G H 50 ultimate
C C strength
50 Virgin
D F yield
0.25" C EC strength
35
30
0.25" A BCDC E C F CG H
Yield Strength
Ultimate Strength
(b)
Figure C-A7.2-1 Effect of Cold-Work on Mechanical Properties in Cold-Formed

Steel Sections. (a) Channel Section, (b) Joist Chord
24 July 2007
In 1962, the AISI Specification permitted the utilization of cold work of forming on the
basis of full section tests. Since 1968, the AISI Specification has allowed the use of the increased
average yield stress of the section, Fya, to be determined by (1) full section tensile tests, (2)
stub column tests, or (3) computed in accordance with Equation C-A7.2-2. However, such a
strength increase is limited only to relatively compact sections designed according to
Specification Section C2 (tension members), Section C3.1 (bending strength excluding the use
of inelastic reserve capacity), Section C4 (concentrically loaded compression members),
Section C5 (combined axial load and bending), Section D4 (cold-formed steel light-frame
construction), and Section D6.1 (purlins, girts and other members). Design Example of the
2008 Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI, 2008) demonstrates the use of strength increase
from cold work of forming for a channel section to be used as a beam.
In some cases, when evaluating the effective width of the web, the reduction factor ρ
according to Specification Section B2.3 may be less than unity but the sum of b1 and b2 of
Figure B2.3-1 of the Specification may be such that the web is fully effective, and cold work of
forming may be used. This situation only arises when the web width to flange width ratio,
ho/bo, is less than or equal to 4.
Increase in Fu
Strain aging
D
A Strain aging
Stress
C
Increase
in Fy
A Ductility after
Strain strain aging
hardening
B
C
Strain
Ductility after strain
hardening
Virgin ductility
Figure C-A7.2-2 Effect of Strain Hardening and Strain Aging on
Stress-Strain Characteristics
In the development of the AISI LRFD Specification, the following statistical data on
material and cross-sectional properties were developed by Rang, Galambos and Yu (1979a
and 1979b) for use in the derivation of resistance factors φ:
(Fy)m = 1.10Fy; Mm = 1.10; Vfy = VM =0.10
(Fya)m=1.10Fya; Mm = 1.10; VFya = VM =0.11
(Fu)m = 1.10Fu; Mm = 1.10; VFu = VM =0.08
Fm = 1.00; VF = 0.05
In the above expressions, m refers to mean value, V represents coefficient of variation, M
and F are, respectively, the ratios of the actual-to-the nominal material property and cross-
sectional property; and Fy, Fya, and Fu are, respectively, the specified minimum yield stress,
July 2007 25
the average yield stress including the effect of cold forming, and the specified minimum
tensile strength.
These statistical data are based on the analysis of many samples (Rang et al., 1978) and
they are representative properties of materials and cross sections used in the industrial
application of cold-formed steel structures.
A8 Serviceability
Serviceability limit states are conditions under which a structure can no longer perform its
intended functions. Safety and strength [resistance] considerations are generally not affected by
serviceability limit states. However, serviceability criteria are essential to ensure functional
performance and economy of design.
Common conditions which may require serviceability limits are:
1. Excessive deflections or rotations which may affect the appearance or functional use of the
structure. Deflections which may cause damage to non-structural elements should be
considered.
2. Excessive vibrations which may cause occupant discomfort of equipment malfunctions.
3. Deterioration over time which may include corrosion or appearance considerations.
When checking serviceability, the designer should consider appropriate service loads, the
response of the structure, and the reaction of building occupants.
Service loads that may require consideration include static loads, snow or rain loads,
temperature fluctuations, and dynamic loads from human activities, wind-induced effects, or
the operation of equipment. The service loads are actual loads that act on the structure at an
arbitrary point in time. Appropriate service loads for checking serviceability limit states may
only be a fraction of the nominal loads.
The response of the structure to service loads can normally be analyzed assuming linear
elastic behavior. However, members that accumulate residual deformations under service loads
may require consideration of this long-term behavior.
Serviceability limits depend on the function of the structure and on the perceptions of the
observer. In contrast to the strength [resistance] limit states, it is not possible to specify general
serviceability limits that are applicable to all structures. The Specification does not contain
explicit requirements, however, guidance is generally provided by the applicable building code.
In the absence of specific criteria, guidelines may be found in Fisher and West (1990),
Ellingwood (1989), Murray (1991), AISC (2005) and ATC (1999).
A9 Referenced Documents
Other specifications and standards to which the Specification makes references to have been
listed and updated in Specification Section A9 to provide the effective dates of these standards at
the time of approval of this Specification.
Additional references which the designer may use for related information are listed at the
end of the Commentary.
26 July 2007
B. ELEMENTS
In cold-formed steel construction, individual elements of steel structural members are thin
and the width-to-thickness ratios are large as compared with hot-rolled steel shapes. These thin
elements may buckle locally at a stress level lower than the yield stress of steel when they are
subjected to compression in flexural bending, axial compression, shear, or bearing. Figure C-B-1
illustrates some local buckling patterns of certain beams and columns (Yu, 2000).
Because local buckling of individual elements of cold-formed steel sections is a major design
criterion, the design of such members should provide sufficient safety against the failure by
local instability with due consideration given to the postbuckling strength of structural
components. Chapter B of the Specification contains the design requirements for width-to-
thickness ratios and the design equations for determining the effective widths of stiffened
compression elements, unstiffened compression elements, elements with edge stiffeners or
intermediate stiffeners, and beam webs. The design provisions are provided for the use of
stiffeners in Specification Section C3.7 for flexural members.
Compression Compression
flange flange
(a)
A A
Section A-A
(b)
Figure C-B-1 Local Buckling of Compression Elements

(a) beams, (b) columns
B1 Dimensional Limits and Considerations

B1.1 Flange Flat-Width-to-Thickness Considerations
(a) Maximum Flat-Width-to-Thickness Ratios

Section B1.1 (a) of the Specification contains limitations on permissible flat-width-to-
thickness ratios of compression elements. To some extent, these limitations are arbitrary.
They do, however, reflect a long time experience and are intended to delimit practical
ranges (Winter, 1970).
July 2007 27
Chapter B, Elements
The limitation to a maximum w/t of 60 for the compression flanges having one
longitudinal edge connected to a web and the other edge is stiffened by a simple lip is
based on the fact that if the w/t ratio of such a flange exceeds 60, a simple lip with a
relatively large depth would be required to stiffen the flange (Winter, 1970). The local
instability of the lip would necessitate a reduction of the bending capacity to prevent
premature buckling of the stiffening lip. This is the reason why the w/t ratio is limited to
60 for stiffened compression elements having one longitudinal edge connected to a web
or flange element and the other is stiffened by a simple lip.
The limitation to w/t = 90 for compression flanges with any other kind of stiffeners
indicates that thinner flanges with large w/t ratios are quite flexible and liable to be
damaged in transport, handling and erection. The same is true for the limitation to w/t =
500 for stiffened compression elements with both longitudinal edges connected to other
stiffened elements and for the limitation to w/t = 60 for unstiffened compression
elements. The provision specifically states that wider flanges are not unsafe, but that
when the w/t ratio of unstiffened flanges exceeds 30 and the w/t ratio of stiffened flanges
exceeds 250, it is likely to develop noticeable deformation at the full design strength
[resistance], without affecting the ability of the member to develop required strength
[resistance]. In both cases the maximum w/t is set at twice that ratio at which first
noticeable deformations are likely to appear, based on observations of such members
under tests. These upper limits will generally keep such deformations to reasonable
limits. In such cases where the limits are exceeded, tests in accordance with Specification
Chapter F are required.
(b) Flange Curling
In beams which have unusually wide and thin, but stable flanges, (i.e., primarily tension
flanges with large w/t ratios), there is a tendency for these flanges to curl under bending.
That is, the portions of these flanges most remote from the web (edges of I-beams, center
portions of flanges of box or hat beams) tend to deflect toward the neutral axis. An
approximate, analytical treatment of this problem was given by Winter (1948b). Equation
B1.1-1 of the Specification permits one to compute the maximum permissible flange width,
wf, for a given amount of flange curling, cf.
It should be noted that Section B1.1(b) does not stipulate the amount of curling which
can be regarded as tolerable, but an amount of curling in the order of 5 percent of the
depth of the section is not excessive under usual conditions. In general, flange curling is
not a critical factor to govern the flange width. However, when the appearance of the
section is important, the out-of-plane distortion should be closely controlled in practice.
Example of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI, 2008) illustrates the design
consideration for flange curling.
(c) Shear Lag Effects - Short Spans Supporting Concentrated Loads
For the beams of usual shapes, the normal stresses are induced in the flanges through
shear stresses transferred from the web to the flange. These shear stresses produce shear
strains in the flange which, for ordinary dimensions, have negligible effects. However, if
flanges are unusually wide (relative to their length) these shear strains have the effect that
the normal bending stresses in the flanges decrease with increasing distance from the
web. This phenomenon is known as shear lag. It results in a non-uniform stress
distribution across the width of the flange, similar to that in stiffened compression
28 July 2007
elements (see Section B2 of the Commentary), though for entirely different reasons. The
simplest way of accounting for this stress variation in design is to replace the non-
uniformly stressed flange of actual width wf by one of reduced, effective width subject to
uniform stress (Winter, 1970).
Theoretical analyses by various investigators have arrived at results which differ
numerically (Roark, 1965). The provisions of Section B1.1(c) are based on the analysis and
supporting experimental evidence obtained by detailed stress measurements on eleven
beams (Winter, 1940). In fact, the values of effective widths in Specification Table B1.1(c)
are taken directly from Curve A of Figure 4 of Winter (1940).
It will be noted that according to Specification Section B1.1(c), the use of a reduced width
for stable, wide flanges is required only for concentrated load as shown in Figure C-B1.1-
1. For uniform load it is seen from Curve B of the figure that the width reduction due to
shear lag for any unrealistically large span-width ratios is so small as to be practically
negligible.
The phenomenon of shear lag is of considerable consequence in naval architecture and
aircraft design. However, in cold-formed steel construction it is infrequent that beams are
so wide as to require significant reductions according to Specification Section B1.1(c). For
design purpose, see Example of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008).
For uniform load

Effective design width
1.0
B
Actual width
0.9
AISI design
0.8 criteria
A
0.7
For concentrated load
0.6
0.5
0 10 20 30
L
wf
Figure C-B1.1-1 Analytical Curves for Determining Effective Width of

Flange of Short Span Beams
B1.2 Maximum Web Depth-to-Thickness Ratios

Prior to 1980, the maximum web depth-to-thickness ratio, h/t, was limited to (a) 150 for
cold-formed steel members with unreinforced webs and (b) 200 for members which are
provided with adequate means of transmitting concentrated loads and/or reactions into the
web. Based on the studies conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla in the 1970s
(LaBoube and Yu, 1978a, 1978b, and 1982b; Hetrakul and Yu, 1978 and 1980; Nguyen and Yu,
1978a and 1978b), the maximum h/t ratios were increased to (a) 200 for unreinforced webs,
(b) 260 for using bearing stiffeners and (c) 300 for using bearing and intermediate stiffeners in
the 1980 edition of the AISI Specification. These h/t limitations are the same as that used in the
AISC Specification (AISC, 1989) for plate girders and are retained in the current edition of the
July 2007 29
Chapter B, Elements
Specification. Because the definition for “h” was changed in the 1986 edition of the AISI
Specification from the “clear distance between flanges” to the “depth of flat portion,”
measured along the plane of web, the prescribed maximum h/t ratio may appear to be more
liberal. An unpublished study by LaBoube concluded that the present definition for h had
negligible influence on the web strength [resistance].
a
b
c
d
Figure C-B2-1 Local Buckling of Stiffened Compression Flange of

Hat-Shaped Beam
B2 Effective Widths of Stiffened Elements

It is well known that the structural behavior and the load-carrying capacity of the stiffened
compression element such as the compression flange of the hat section depend on the w/t ratio
and the supporting condition along both longitudinal edges. If the w/t ratio is small, the stress
in the compression flange can reach the yield stress of steel and the strength [resistance] of the
compression element is governed by yielding. For the compression flange with large w/t ratios,
local buckling (Figure C-B2-1) will occur at the following elastic critical buckling stress:
kπ 2 E
fcr = (C-B2-1)
12(1 − µ 2 )( w/t ) 2
where
k = plate buckling coefficient (Table C-B2-1)
= 4 for stiffened compression elements supported by a web on each longitudinal edge
E = modulus of elasticity of steel
µ = Poisson’s ratio = 0.3 for steel in the elastic range
w = flat width of the compression element
t = thickness of the compression element
When the elastic critical buckling stress computed according to Equation C-B2-1 exceeds the
proportional limit of the steel, the compression element will buckle in the inelastic range (Yu,
2000).
Unlike one-dimensional structural members such as columns, stiffened compression
elements will not collapse when the buckling stress is reached. An additional load can be
carried by the element after buckling by means of a redistribution of stress. This phenomenon is
known as post-buckling strength [resistance] of the compression elements and is most
pronounced for stiffened compression elements with large w/t ratios. The mechanism of the
30 July 2007
Table C-B2-1
Values of Plate Buckling Coefficients
Type of Value of k for

Case Boundary condition long plate
stress
s.s.
(a) s.s. s.s. Compression 4.0
s.s.
Fixed
(b) s.s. s.s. Compression 6.97
Fixed
s.s.
(c) s.s. s.s. Compression 0.425
Free
Fixed
(d) s.s. s.s. Compression 1.277
Free
Fixed
(e) s.s. s.s. Compression 5.42
s.s.
s.s.
(f) s.s. s.s. Shear 5.34
s.s.
Fixed
(g) Fixed Fixed Shear 8.98
Fixed
s.s.
(h) s.s. s.s. Bending 23.9
s.s.
Fixed
(i) Fixed Fixed Bending 41.8
Fixed
post-buckling action of compression elements was discussed by Winter in previous editions of

the AISI Commentary (Winter, 1970).
Imagine for simplicity a square plate uniformly compressed in one direction, with the
unloaded edges simply supported. Since it is difficult to visualize the performance of such two-
dimensional elements, the plate will be replaced by a model which is shown on Figure C-B2-2. It
consists of a grid of longitudinal and transverse bars in which the material of the actual plate is
thought to be concentrated. Since the plate is uniformly compressed, each of the longitudinal
struts represents a column loaded by P/5, if P is the total load on the plate. As the load is
gradually increased the compression stress in each of these struts will reach the critical column
buckling value and all five struts will tend to buckle simultaneously. If these struts were simple
columns, unsupported except at the ends, they would simultaneously collapse through
unrestrained increasing lateral deflection. It is evident that this cannot occur in the grid model
of the plate. Indeed, as soon as the longitudinal struts start deflecting at their buckling stress,
the transverse bars, which are connected to them must stretch like ties in order to accommodate
July 2007 31
Chapter B, Elements
the imposed deflection. Like any structural material, they resist stretch and, thereby, have a
restraining effect on the deflections of the longitudinal struts.
The tension forces in the horizontal bars of the grid model correspond to the so-called
membrane stresses in a real plate. These stresses, just as in the grid model, come into play as
soon as the compression stresses begin to cause buckling waves. They consist mostly of
transverse tension, but also of some shear stresses, and they counteract increasing wave
deflections, i.e. they tend to stabilize the plate against further buckling under the applied
increasing longitudinal compression. Hence, the resulting behavior of the model is as follows:
(a) there is no collapse by unrestrained deflections, as in unsupported columns, and (b) the
various struts will deflect unequal amounts, those nearest the supported edges being held
almost straight by the ties, those nearest the center being able to deflect most.
In consequence of (a), the model will not collapse and fail when its buckling stress (Equation
C-B2-1) is reached; in contrast to columns it will merely develop slight deflections but will
continue to carry increasing load. In consequence of (b), the struts (strips of the plate) closest to
the center, which deflect most, “get away from the load,” and hardly participate in carrying any
further load increases. These center strips may in fact, even transfer part of their pre-buckling
load to their neighbors. The struts (or strips) closest to the edges, held straight by the ties,
continue to resist increasing load with hardly any increasing deflection. For the plate, this
means that the hitherto uniformly distributed compression stress re-distributes itself in a
manner shown on Figure C-B2-3, the stresses being largest at the edges and smallest in the
center. With further increase in load this non-uniformity increases further, as also shown on
Figure C-B2-3. The plate fails, i.e., refuses to carry any further load increases, only when the
most highly stressed strips, near the supported edges, begin to yield, i.e., when the compression
stress fmax reaches the yield stress Fy.
c
W
Figure C-B2-2 Postbuckling Strength [Resistance] Model
32 July 2007
This postbuckling strength [resistance] of plates was discovered experimentally in 1928, and
an approximate theory of it was first given by Th. v. Karman in 1932 (Bleich, 1952). It has been
used in aircraft design ever since. A graphic illustration of the phenomenon of postbuckling
strength [resistance] can be found in the series of photographs on Figure 7 of Winter (1959b).
The model of Figure C-B2-2 is representative of the behavior of a compression element
supported along both longitudinal edges, as the flange in Figure C-B2-1. In fact, such elements
buckle into approximately square waves.
In order to utilize the postbuckling strength [resistance] of the stiffened compression
element for design purposes, the AISI Specification has used the effective design width approach to
determine the sectional properties since 1946. In Section B2 of the present Specification, design
equations for computing the effective widths are provided for the following four cases: (1)
uniformly compressed stiffened elements, (2) uniformly compressed stiffened elements with
circular or noncircular holes, (3) webs and other stiffened elements with stress gradient, (4)
unstiffened elements with uniform or gradient stress, and (5) C-section webs with holes under
stress gradient. The background information on various design requirements is discussed in
subsequent sections.
B2.1 Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements
(a) Effective Width for Strength [Resistance] Determination

In the “effective design width” approach, instead of considering the nonuniform
distribution of stress over the entire width of the plate w, it is assumed that the total load
is carried by a fictitious effective width b, subject to a uniformly distributed stress equal to
the edge stress fmax, as shown in Figure C-B2-3. The width b is selected so that the area
under the curve of the actual nonuniform stress distribution is equal to the sum of the two
parts of the equivalent rectangular shaded area with a total width b and an intensity of
stress equal to the edge stress fmax.
fmax
b/2 b/2
Figure C-B2-3 Stress Distribution in Stiffened Compression Elements
Based on the concept of “effective width” introduced by von Karman et al. (von
Karman, Sechler and Donnell, 1932) and the extensive investigation on light-gage, cold-
formed steel sections at Cornell University, the following equation was developed by
Winter in 1946 for determining the effective width b for stiffened compression elements
simply supported along both longitudinal edges:
July 2007 33
Chapter B, Elements
E ⎡ ⎛ t ⎞ E ⎤
b = 1.9 t ⎢1 − 0.475⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (C-B2.1-1)
fmax ⎢⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ fmax ⎥⎦
The above equation can be written in terms of the ratio of Fcr/fmax as follows:
b Fcr ⎛ Fcr ⎞
= ⎜ 1 − 0.25 ⎟ (C-B2.1-2)
w fmax ⎜ f ⎟
⎝ max ⎠
where Fcr is the critical elastic buckling stress of a plate, and is expressed in Equation C-
B2-1.
Thus, the effective width expression (e.g., C-B2.1-1) provides a prediction of the nominal
strength [resistance] based only on the critical elastic buckling stress and the applied
stress of the plate. During the period from 1946 to 1968, the AISI design provision for the
determination of the effective design width was based on Equation C-B2.1-1. A long-time
accumulated experience has indicated that a more realistic equation, as shown below may
be used for the determination of the effective width b (Winter, 1970):
E ⎡ t E ⎤
b = 1.9 t ⎢1 − 0.415( ) ⎥ (C-B2.1-3)
fmax ⎢⎣ w fmax ⎥⎦
The correlation between the test data on stiffened compression elements and Equation
C-B2.1-3 is illustrated by Yu (2000).
It should be noted that Equation C-B2.1-3 may also be rewritten in terms of the Fcr/fmax
ratio as follows:
b Fcr ⎛ Fcr ⎞
= ⎜ 1 − 0.22 ⎟ (C-B2.1-4)
w fmax ⎜ fmax ⎟⎠
⎝
Therefore, the effective width, b, can be determined as
b = ρw (C-B2.1-5)
where ρ = reduction factor
= (1 − 0.22 / fmax / Fcr ) / fmax / Fcr = (1 − 0.22 / λ )/λ ≤ 1 (C-B2.1-6)
In Equation C-B2.1-6, λ is a slenderness factor determined below.
λ = fmax / Fcr (C-B2.1-7)
Figure C-B2.1-1 shows the relationship between ρ and λ. It can be seen that when
λ ≤ 0.673, ρ = 1.0.
Based on Equations C-B2.1-5 through C-B2.1-7 and the unified approach proposed by
Pekoz (1986b and 1986c), the 1986 edition of the AISI Specification adopted the
nondimensional format in Section B2.1 for determining the effective design width, b, for
uniformly compressed stiffened elements. The same design equations were used in the
1996 edition of the AISI Specification and was retained in this edition of the North American
Specification. For design examples, see Part I of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008).
(b) Effective Width for Serviceability Determination
The effective design width equations discussed above for strength [resistance]
determination can also be used to obtain a conservative effective width, bd, for
serviceability determination. It is included in Section B2.1(b) of the Specification as
Procedure I.
34 July 2007
For stiffened compression elements supported by a web on each longitudinal edge, a

study conducted by Weng and Pekoz (1986) indicated that Equations B2.1-8 through B2.1-
10 of the Specification can yield a more accurate estimate of the effective width, bd, for
serviceability. These equations are given in Procedure II for additional design
information. The design engineer has the option of using one of the two procedures for
determining the effective width to be used for serviceability determination.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Eq. C-B2.1-6
0.6
ρ = (1 - 0.22/ λ )/ λ < 1
ρ 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.673 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
λ
Figure C-B2.1-1 Reduction Factor, ρ, vs. Slenderness Factor, λ
B2.2 Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements with Circular or Non-Circular Holes

In cold-formed steel structural members, holes are sometimes provided in webs and/or
flanges of beams and columns for duct work, piping, and other construction purposes. The
presence of such holes may result in a reduction of the strength [resistance] of individual
component elements and the overall strength [resistance] and stiffness of the members
depending on the size, shape, and arrangement of holes, the geometric configuration of the
cross section, and the mechanical properties of the material.
The exact analysis and the design of steel sections having perforations are complex,
particularly when the shapes and the arrangement of holes are unusual. The limited design
provisions included in Section B2.2 of the Specification for uniformly compressed stiffened
elements with circular holes are based on a study conducted by Ortiz-Colberg and Pekoz at
Cornell University (Ortiz-Colberg and Pekoz, 1981). For additional information on the
structural behavior of perforated elements, see Yu and Davis (1973a) and Yu (2000).
In 2004, the Specification Equation B2.2-2 was revised to provide continuity at λ = 0.673.
In 2007, the provisions for non-circular holes were moved from Specification Section D4 to
Section B2.2. Within the limitations stated for the size and spacing of perforations and section
depth, the provisions were deemed appropriate for members with uniformly compressed
stiffened elements, not just wall studs. The validity of this approach for C-sections wall studs
was verified in a Cornell University project on wall studs reported by Miller and Pekoz (1989
and 1994). The limitations included in Specification Section B2.2 for the size and spacing of
perforations and the depth of studs are based on the parameters used in the test program.
July 2007 35
Chapter B, Elements
Although Figure B2.2-1 in the Specification shows a hole centered within the flat width, w,
holes not centered within w are allowed. For such a case, the unstiffened strip, c, and
resulting effective width, b, must be calculated separately for the strips on each side of the
hole. For sections with perforations, which do not meet these limits, the effective area, Ae, can
be determined by stub column tests.
The geometric limitations (w/t, etc.) and hole size for the circular and non-circular hole
provisions in Specification Section B2.2 are not consistent with one another. This anomaly in
the limitations is due to the differing scopes of the test programs that serve as the basis for
these effective width equations. Ongoing research on perforations will provide a consistent,
compatible design methodology in the future. The provisions for non-circular holes generally
give a more conservative prediction of the effective width than the provisions for circular
holes, as long as dh/w < 0.4.
B2.3 Webs and other Stiffened Elements under Stress Gradient

When a beam is subjected to bending moment, the compression portion of the web may
buckle due to the compressive stress caused by bending. The theoretical critical buckling
stress for a flat rectangular plate under pure bending can be determined by Equation C-B2-1,
except that the depth-to-thickness ratio, h/t, is substituted for the width-to-thickness ratio,
w/t, and the plate buckling coefficient, k, is equal to 23.9 for simple supports as listed in
Table C-B2-1.
Prior to 1986, the design of cold-formed steel beam webs was based on the full web depth
with the allowable bending stress specified in the AISI Specification. In order to unify the
design methods for web elements and compression flanges, the “effective design depth”
approach was adopted in the 1986 edition of the AISI Specification on the basis of the studies
made by Pekoz (1986b), Cohen and Pekoz (1987). This is a different approach as compared
with the past practice of using a full area of the web element in conjunction with a reduced
stress to account for local buckling and postbuckling strength (LaBoube and Yu, 1982b; Yu,
1985).
Prior to 2001, the b1 and b2 expressions used in the AISI Specification for the effective
width of webs (Equations B2.3-3 through B2.3-5) implicitly assumed that the flange provided
beneficial restraint to the web. Collected data (Cohen and Peköz (1987), Elhouar and Murray
(1985), Ellifritt et al (1997), Hancock et al (1996), LaBoube and Yu (1978), Moreyra and Peköz
(1993), Rogers and Schuster (1995), Schardt and Schrade (1982), Schuster (1992), Shan et al
(1994), and Willis and Wallace (1990) as summarized in Schafer and Peköz (1999)) on flexural
tests of C’s and Z’s indicate that Specification equations B2.3-3 through B2.3-5 can be
unconservative if the overall web width (ho) to overall flange width (bo) ratio exceeds 4.
Consequently, in 2001, in the absence of a comprehensive method for handling local web and
flange interaction, the North American Specification adopted a two-part approach for the
effective width of webs: an additional set of alternative expressions (Eqs B2.3-6 and B2.3-7),
originally developed by Cohen and Pekoz (1987) were adopted for ho/bo > 4; while the
expressions adopted in the 1986 edition of the AISI Specification (Equations B2.3-3 through
B2.3-5) remain for ho/bo ≤ 4. For flexural members with local buckling in the web, the effect
of these changes is that the strengths [resistances] will be somewhat lower when ho/bo > 4
compared with the 1996 AISI Specification (AISI, 1996). When compared with the CSA S136
36 July 2007
(CSA, 1994) Standard, there are only minor changes for members with ho/bo > 4, but an
increase in strength [resistance] will be experienced when ho/bo ≤ 4.
It should be noted that in the North American Specification, the stress ratio ψ is defined as
an absolute value. As a result, some signs for ψ have been changed in Specification Equations
B2.3-2, B2.3-3, B2.3-6 and B2.3-7 as compared with the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification
(AISI, 1996).
B2.4 C-Section Webs with Holes under Stress Gradient

Studies of the behavior of web elements with holes conducted at the University of
Missouri-Rolla (UMR) serve as the basis for the design recommendations for bending alone,
shear, web crippling, combinations of bending and shear, and bending and web crippling
(Shan et al., 1994; Langan et al., 1994; Uphoff, 1996; Deshmukh, 1996). The Specification
considers a hole to be any flat punched opening in the web without any edge stiffened
openings.
The UMR design recommendations for a perforated web with stress gradient are based
on the tests of full-scale C-section beams having h/t ratios as large as 200 and dh/h ratios as
large as 0.74. The test program considered only stud and joist industry standard web holes.
These holes were rectangular with fillet corners, punched during the rolling process. For
non-circular holes, the corner radii recommendation was adopted to avoid the potential of
high stress concentration at the corners of a hole. Webs with circular holes and a stress
gradient were not tested, however, the provisions are conservatively extended to cover this
case. Other shaped holes must be evaluated by the virtual hole method described below, by
test, or by other provisions of the Specification. The Specification is not intended to cover cross
sections having repetitive 1/2 in. diameter holes.
Based on the study by Shan et al. (1994), it was determined that the nominal bending
strength [resistance] of a C-section with a web hole is unaffected when dh/h < 0.38. For
situations where the dh/h ≥ 0.38, the effective depth of the web can be determined by treating
the flat portion of the remaining web that is in compression as an unstiffened compression
element.
Although these provisions are based on tests of singly-symmetric C-sections having the
web hole centered at mid-depth of the section, the provisions may be conservatively applied
to sections for which the full unreduced compression region of the web is less than the
tension region. However, for cross sections having a compression region greater than the
tension region, the web strength [resistance] must be determined by test in accordance with
Section F1.
The provisions for circular and non-circular holes also apply to any hole pattern that fits
within an equivalent virtual hole. For example, Figure C-B2.4-1 illustrates the Lh and dh that
may be used for a multiple hole pattern that fits within a non-circular virtual hole. Figure C-
B2.4-2 illustrates the dh that may be used for a rectangular hole that exceeds the 2.5 in. (64
mm) by 4.5 in. (114 mm) limit but still fits within an allowed circular virtual hole. For each
case, the design provisions apply to the geometry of the virtual hole, not the actual hole or
holes.
The effects of holes on shear strength [resistance] and web crippling strength [resistance]
of C-section webs are discussed in Sections C3.2.2 and C3.4.2 of the Commentary, respectively.
July 2007 37
Chapter B, Elements
Lh
dh
Figure C-B2.4-1 Virtual Hole Method for Multiple Openings
dh
Figure C-B2.4-2 Virtual Hole Method for Opening Exceeding Limit
B3 Effective Widths of Unstiffened Elements

Similar to stiffened compression elements, the stress in the unstiffened compression
elements can reach to the yield stress of steel if the w/t ratio is small. Because the unstiffened
element has one longitudinal edge supported by the web and the other edge is free, the limiting
width-to-thickness ratio of unstiffened elements is much less than that for stiffened elements.
When the w/t ratio of the unstiffened element is large, local buckling (Figure C-B3-1) will
occur at the elastic critical stress determined by Equation C-B2-1 with a value of k=0.43. This
buckling coefficient is listed in Table C-B2-1 for case (c). For the intermediate range of w/t
ratios, the unstiffened element will buckle in the inelastic range. Figure C-B3-2 shows the
relationship between the maximum stress for unstiffened compression elements and the w/t
ratio, in which Line A is the yield stress of steel, Line B represents the inelastic buckling stress,
Curves C and D illustrate the elastic buckling stress. The equations for Curves A, B, C, and D
have been developed from previous experimental and analytical investigations and used for
determining the allowable design stresses in the AISI Specification up to 1986 (Winter, 1970; Yu,
2000). Also shown in Figure C-B3-2 is Curve E, which represents the maximum stress on the
basis of the postbuckling strength of the unstiffened element. The correlation between some test
data on unstiffened elements and the predicted maximum stresses is shown in Figure C-B3-3
(Yu, 2000).
Prior to 1986, it had been a general practice to design cold-formed steel members with
unstiffened flanges by using the allowable stress design approach. The effective width equation
was not used in earlier editions of the AISI Specification due to lack of extensive experimental
verification and the concern for excessive out-of-plane distortions under service loads.
38 July 2007
Figure C-B3-1 Local Buckling of Unstiffened Compression Flange
63.3/ Fy 144/ Fy
Inelastic Elastic
Yielding Buckling Buckling
Fy
A
B w/ t = 25
Stress
Based on postbuckling strength
C
E
D
f cr
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
w
t
Figure C-B3-2 Maximum Stress for Unstiffened Compression Elements

In the 1970s, the applicability of the effective width concept to unstiffened elements under
uniform compression was studied in detail by Kalyanaraman, Pekoz, and Winter at Cornell
University (Kalyanaraman, Pekoz, and Winter, 1977; Kalyanaraman and Pekoz, 1978). The
evaluation of the test data using k=0.43 was presented and summarized by Pekoz in the AISI
report (Pekoz, 1986b), which indicates that Equation C-B2.1-6 developed for stiffened
compression elements gives a conservative lower bound to the test results of unstiffened
compression elements. In addition to the strength determination, the same study also
investigated the out-of-plane deformations in unstiffened elements. The results of theoretical
calculations and the test results on the sections having unstiffened elements with w/t=60 were
presented by Pekoz in the same report. It was found that the maximum amplitude of the out-of-
plane deformation at failure can be twice the thickness as the w/t ratio approaches 60.
However, the deformations are significantly less under the service loads. Based on the above
reasons and justifications, the effective design width approach was adopted for the first time in
Section B3 of the 1986 AISI Specification for the design of cold-formed steel members having
unstiffened compression elements.
July 2007 39
Chapter B, Elements
1.2
Yielding Inelastic Buckling Elastic Buckling
1.0
A
0.8 B
σ
0.6
Fy C
0.4
Local buckling stress D

0.2 Failure stress
0
63.3 144
0 50 100 150 200 250
w
Fy
t
Figure C-B3-3 Correlation between Test Data and

Predicted Maximum Stress
B3.1 Uniformly Compressed Unstiffened Elements

In the present Specification, it is specified that the effective widths, b, of uniformly
compressed unstiffened elements can be determined in accordance with Section B2.1(a) of the
Specification with the exception that the buckling coefficient k is taken as 0.43. This is a
theoretical value for long plates. See case (c) in Table C-B2-1. For serviceability determination,
the effective widths of uniformly compressed unstiffened elements can only be determined
according to Procedure I of Section B2.1(b) of the Specification, because Procedure II was
developed only for stiffened compression elements. See Part I of the AISI Design Manual for
design examples (AISI, 2008).
B3.2 Unstiffened Elements and Edge Stiffeners with Stress Gradient

In concentrically loaded compression members and in flexural members where the
unstiffened compression element is parallel to the neutral axis, the stress distribution is
uniform prior to local buckling. However, when edge stiffeners of the compression element
are present, the compressive stress in the edge stiffener is not uniform but varies in
proportion to the distance from the neutral axis. The unstiffened element (the edge stiffener)
in this case has compressive stress applied at both longitudinal edges. The unstiffened
element of a section may also be subjected to stress gradients causing tension at one
longitudinal edge and compression at the other longitudinal edge. This can occur in I-
sections, plain channel sections and angle sections in minor axis bending.
Previous to the 2001 edition of the Specification, unstiffened elements with stress gradient
were designed using the Winter effective width equation (Equation C-B2.1-4) and k=0.43. In
2004, Section B3.2 of the Specification adopted the effective width method for unstiffened
40 July 2007
1.25
ψ= 1 Compression
+
Tension
1.00
b
Unwelded plate tests
Welded plate tests } Uniform
compression
Unwelded plate tests ψ= 0
ψ= Welded plate tests ψ= 0
1 ψ= 1 Compression at
0.75 Compression ψ=
ψ=
0.7
5
Unwelded plate tests
Welded plate tests
}
unsupported
ψ= 1 edge
ψ= 1 0.5
b ψ=
---- + 0.2
w 5
b
0.50
ψ= 0 Compression
+
f f
0.25 ψ= ---2- b ψ= -----2
f1 f1 + f1
f2 + f1 Compression
f2
b Compression Tension b
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Slenderness (λ)
Figure C-B3.2-1 Effective Width vs. Plate Slenderness
elements with stress gradient proposed by Bambach and Rasmussen (2002a, 2002b and
2002c), based on an extensive experimental investigation of unstiffened plates tested as
isolated elements in combined compression and bending. The effective width, b, (measured
from the supported edge) of unstiffened elements with stress gradient causing compression
at both longitudinal edges, is calculated using the Winter equation. For unstiffened elements
with stress gradients causing tension at one longitudinal edge and compression at the other
longitudinal edge, modified Winter equations are specified when tension exists at either the
supported or the unsupported edges. The effective width equations apply to any unstiffened
element under stress gradient, and are not restricted to particular cross-sections. Figure C-
B3.2-1 demonstrates how the effective width of an unstiffened element increases as the stress
at the supported edge changes from compression to tension. As shown in the figure, the
effective width curve is independent of the stress ratio, ψ, when both edges are in
compression. In this case, the effect of stress ratio is accounted for by the plate buckling
coefficient, k, which varies with stress ratio and affects the slenderness, λ. When the
supported edge is in tension and the unsupported edge is in compression, both the effective
width curve and the plate buckling coefficient depend on the stress ratio, as per Equations
B3.2-4 and B3.2-5 of the Specification.
Equations are provided for k, determined from the stress ratio, ψ, applied to the full
element width such that iteration is not required, and k will usually be higher than 0.43. The
equations for k are theoretical solutions for long plates assuming simple support along the
longitudinal edge. A more accurate determination of k by accounting for interaction between
adjoining elements is permitted for plain channels in minor axis bending (causing
compression at the unsupported edge of the unstiffened element), based on research of plain
channels in compression and bending by Yiu and Pekoz (2001).
The effective width is located adjacent to the supported edge for all stress ratios,
including those producing tension at the unsupported edge. Research has found (Bambach
July 2007 41
Chapter B, Elements
and Rasmussen 2002a) that for the unsupported edge to be effective, tension must be applied
over at least half of the width of the element starting at the unsupported edge. For less
tension, the unsupported edge will buckle and the effective part of the element is located
adjacent to the supported edge. Further, when tension is applied over half of the element or
more starting at the unsupported edge, the compressed part of the element will remain
effective for elements with w/t ratios less than the limits set out in Section B1.1 of the
Specification.
The method for serviceability determination is based on the method used for stiffened
elements with stress gradient in Section B2.3(b) of the Specification.
B4 Effective Width of Uniformly Compressed Elements with a Simple Lip Edge Stiffener
An edge stiffener is used to provide continuous support along a longitudinal edge of the
compression flange to improve the buckling stress. In most cases, the edge stiffener takes the
form of a simple lip. Other types of edge stiffeners can be beneficial and are also used for cold-
formed steel members, but are not covered in Specification Section B4.
In order to provide necessary support for the compression element, the edge stiffener must
possess sufficient rigidity. Otherwise it may buckle perpendicular to the plane of the element to
be stiffened. As far as the design provisions are concerned, the 1980 and earlier editions of the
AISI Specification included the requirements for the minimum moment of inertia of stiffeners to
provide sufficient rigidity. When the size of the actual stiffener does not satisfy the required
moment of inertia, the load-carrying capacity of the beam had to be determined either on the
basis of a flat element disregarding the stiffener or through tests.
Both theoretical and experimental studies on the local stability of compression flanges
stiffened by edge stiffeners have been carried out in the past. The design requirements included
in Section B4 of the 1986 AISI Specification were based on the investigations on adequately
stiffened and partially stiffened elements conducted by Desmond, Pekoz and Winter (1981a),
with additional research work of Pekoz and Cohen (Pekoz, 1986b). These design provisions
were developed on the basis of the critical buckling criterion and the postbuckling strength
[resistance] criterion.
Specification Section B4 recognizes that the necessary stiffener rigidity depends upon the
slenderness (w/t) of the plate element being stiffened. The interaction of the plate elements, as
well as the degree of edge support, full or partial, is compensated for in the expressions for k,
ds, and As (Pekoz, 1986b).
In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification (AISI, 1996), the design equations for buckling
coefficient were changed for further clarity. The requirement of 140° ≥ θ ≥ 40° for the
applicability of these provisions was decided on an intuitive basis. For design examples, see
Part I of the Cold-Formed Steel Manual (AISI, 2008).
Test data to verify the accuracy of the simple lip stiffener design was collected from a
number of sources, both university and industry. These tests showed good correlation with the
equations in Specification Section B4.
The 1996 Commentary provided a warning to the user that lip lengths with a d/t ratio greater
than 14 may give unconservative results. Examination of available experimental data on both
flexural members (Rogers and Schuster, 1996, Schafer and Pekoz, 1999) and compression
members (Schafer, 2000) with edge stiffeners indicates that the Specification does not have an
inherent problem for members with large d/t ratios. Existing experimental data covers d/t
42 July 2007
ratios as high as 35 for both flexural and compression members.

In 2001, Dinovitzer’s expressions (Dinovitzer, et al., 1992) for n (Equation B4-11) were
adopted, which eliminated a discontinuity that existed in the previous design expressions. The
revised equation gives n =1/2 for w/t = 0.328S and n = 1/3 for w/t = S, in which S is also the
maximum w/t ratio for a stiffened element to be fully effective.
In 2007, the expressions were limited to cover only simple lip edge stiffeners, as the
previously employed expressions for complex lip stiffeners were found to be unconservative in
comparison with rigorous nonlinear finite element analysis (Schafer, et al., 2006). Design of
members with complex lips may be handled via the methods of Specification Appendix 1. In
addition, the design provisions for the uniformly compressed elements with one intermediate
stiffener were deleted in the 2007 edition of the Specification due to the fact that the effective
width of such members can be determined in accordance with Specification Section B5.1.
B5 Effective Widths of Stiffened Elements with Single or Multiple Intermediate Stiffeners or

Edge Stiffened Elements with Intermediate Stiffener(s)
B5.1 Effective Width of Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements with Single or Multiple
Intermediate Stiffeners
The structural efficiency of a stiffened element always exceeds that of an unstiffened
element with the same w/t ratio by a sizeable margin, except for low w/t ratios, for which
the compression element is fully effective. When stiffened elements with large w/t ratios are
used, the material is not employed economically inasmuch as an increasing proportion of the
width of the compression element becomes ineffective. On the other hand, in many
applications of cold-formed steel construction, such as panels and decks, maximum coverage
is desired and, therefore, large w/t ratios are called for. In such cases, structural economy can
be improved by providing intermediate stiffeners between webs.
The buckling behavior of rectangular plates with central stiffeners is discussed by Bulson
(1969). For the design of cold-formed steel beams using intermediate stiffeners, the 1980 AISI
Specification contained provisions for the minimum required moment of inertia, which was
based on the assumption that an intermediate stiffener needed to be twice as rigid as an edge
stiffener. In view of the fact that for some cases the design requirements for intermediate
stiffeners included in the 1980 Specification could be unduly conservative (Pekoz, 1986b), the
AISI design provisions were revised in 1986 according to Pekoz’s research findings (Pekoz,
1986b and 1986c) and prior to 2007 could be found in Section B4.1 of the Specification. In 2007
the design of uniformly compressed elements with multiple or single intermediate stiffeners
was merged. The multiple intermediate stiffener provisions were developed based on
Pekoz’s continuing research on intermediate stiffeners (Schafer and Pekoz 1998) and the
finding that the method developed in B5.1 of the Specification for multiple intermediate
stiffeners could provide the same reliability as the Specification Section B4.1 (AISI, 2001)
method for single intermediate stiffeners (Yang and Schafer 2006).
Prior to 2001, the AISI Specification and the Canadian Standard provided different design
provisions for determination of the effective widths of uniformly compressed stiffened
elements with multiple intermediate stiffeners or edge stiffened elements with intermediate
stiffeners. In the AISI Specification, the design requirements of Section B5 dealt with (1) the
minimum moment of inertia of the intermediate stiffener, (2) the number of intermediate
stiffeners considered to be effective, (3) the “equivalent element” of multiple-stiffened
July 2007 43
Chapter B, Elements
element having closely spaced intermediate stiffeners, (4) the effective width of sub-element
with w/t > 60, and (5) the reduced area of stiffeners. In the Canadian Standard, a different
design equation was used to determine the equivalent thickness.
Plate Sub-element
(a) Local Buckling
(a) Distortional Buckling

Figure C-B5.1-1 Local and Distortional Buckling of a Uniformly
Compressed Element with Multiple Intermediate Stiffeners
In 2001, Specification Section B5.1 was revised to reflect recent research findings for
flexural members with multiple intermediate stiffeners in the compression flange (Papazian
et al. 1994, Schafer and Peköz 1998, Acharya and Schuster 1998). The method is based on
determining the plate buckling coefficient for the two competing modes of buckling: local
buckling, in which the stiffener does not move; and distortional buckling in which the
stiffener buckles with the entire plate. See Figure C-B5.1-1. Experimental research shows that
the distortional mode is prevalent for members with multiple intermediate stiffeners.
The reduction factor, ρ, is applied to the entire element (gross area of the
element/thickness) instead of only the flat portions. Reducing the entire element to an
effective width, which ignores the geometry of the stiffeners, for effective section property
calculation allows distortional buckling to be treated consistently with the rest of the
Specification, rather than as an “effective area” or other method. The resulting effective width
must act at the centroid of the original element including the stiffeners. This insures that the
neutral axis location for the member is unaffected by the use of the simple effective width,
which replaces the more complicated geometry of the element with multiple intermediate
stiffeners. One possible result of this approach is that the calculated effective width (be) may
be greater than bo. This may occur when ρ is near 1, and is due to the fact that be includes
contributions from the stiffener area and bo does not. As long as the calculated be is placed at
the centroid of the entire element the use of be>bo is correct.
B5.2 Edge Stiffened Elements with Intermediate Stiffener(s)

The buckling modes for edge stiffened elements with one or more intermediate stiffeners
include: local sub-element buckling, distortional buckling of the intermediate stiffener, and
distortional buckling of edge stiffener, as shown in Figure C-B5.2-1. If the edge stiffened
element is stocky (bo/t < 0.328S) or the stiffener is large enough (Is > Ia and thus k = 4, per the
rules of Specification Section B4) then the edge stiffened element performs as a stiffened
element. In this case, effective width for local sub-element buckling and distortional buckling
of the intermediate stiffener may be predicted by the rules of Specification Section B5.1.
44 July 2007
However, an edge stiffened element does not have the same web rotational restraint as a
stiffened element, therefore the constant R of Specification Section B5.1 is conservatively
limited to be less than or equal to 1.0.
If the edge stiffened element is partially effective (bo/t > 0.328S and Is < Ia and thus k < 4,
per the rules of Specification Section B4) then the intermediate stiffener(s) should be ignored
and the provisions of Specification Section B4 followed. Elastic buckling analysis of the
distortional mode for an edge stiffened element with intermediate stiffener(s) indicates that
the effect of intermediate stiffener(s) on the distortional buckling stress is ±10 percent for
practical intermediate and edge stiffener sizes.
When applying Specification Section B5.2 for effective width determination of edge
stiffened elements with intermediate stiffeners, the effective width of the intermediately
stiffened flange, be, is replaced by an equivalent flat section (as shown in Specification Figure
B5.1-2). The edge stiffener should not be used in determining the centroid location of the
equivalent flat effective width, be, for the intermediately stiffened flange.
Stub compression testing performed in 2003 demonstrates the adequacy of this approach
(Yang and Hancock, 2003).
Local Sub-Element Buckling Distortional Buckling of

the Intermediate Stiffeners
Distortional Buckling of
the Edge Stiffened Element
Figure C-B5.2-1 Buckling Modes in an Edge Stiffened Element with
July 2007 45
Chapter C, Members
C. MEMBERS
This Chapter provides the design requirements for (a) tension members, (b) flexural
members, (c) concentrically loaded compression members, and (d) members subjected to
combined axial load and bending.
In 2007, the following design provisions were moved from Specification Chapter C,
Members, to Section D6, Metal Roof and Wall Systems: (1) Flexural Members Having One
Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing, (2) Flexural Members Having One Flange
Fastened to a Standing Seam Roof System, (3) Compression Members Having One Flange
Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing, and (4) Strength [Resistance] of Standing Seam Panel
System. For closed cylindrical tubular members the design provisions have been moved to new
Section C3.1.3 for flexural members and new Section C4.1.5 for compression members.
In general, a common nominal strength [resistance] equation is provided in the Specification
for a given limit state with a required safety factor (Ω) for Allowable Strength Design (ASD) and
a resistance factor (φ) for Load and Resistance Factor design (LRFD) or Limit State Design
(LSD). Design provisions that are applicable to a specific country are provided in the
corresponding Appendix.
C1 Properties of Sections
The geometric properties of a member (i.e., area, moment of inertia, section modulus, radius
of gyration, etc.) are evaluated using conventional methods of structural design. These
properties are based upon either full cross-section dimensions, effective widths or net section, as
applicable.
For the design of tension members, both gross and net sections are employed when
computing the nominal tensile strength [resistance] of the axially loaded tension members.
For flexural members and axially loaded compression members, both full and effective
dimensions are used to compute sectional properties. The full dimensions are used when
calculating the critical load or moment, while the effective dimensions, evaluated at the stress
corresponding to the critical load or moment, are used to calculate the nominal strength
[resistance]. For serviceability consideration, the effective dimension should be determined for
the compressive stress in the element corresponding to the service load. Pekoz (1986a and
1986b) discussed this concept in more detail.
Section 3 of Part I of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008) deals with the calculation of
sectional properties for C-sections, Z-sections, angles, hat sections, and decks.
C2 Tension Members
The design provisions of this section are given in Section C2 of the Appendices. The
discussion for this section is provided in the Commentary on the corresponding Appendix.
C3 Flexural Members
!A,B
For the design of cold-formed steel flexural members, consideration should be given to
several design features: (a) bending strength [resistance] and serviceability, (b) shear strength
[resistance] of webs and combined bending and shear, (c) web crippling strength [resistance]
and combined bending and web crippling, and (d) bracing requirements. For some cases,
46 July 2007
special consideration should also be given to shear lag and flange curling due to the use of thin
material. The design provisions for Items (a), (b) and (c) are provided in Specification Sections
C3, and D6.1 and D6.2, while the requirements for lateral and stability bracing are given in
Specification Sections D3 and D6.3. The treatments for flange curling and shear lag were
discussed in Section B1.1(b) and (c) of the Commentary, respectively.
Example problems are given in Part II of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI,
2008) for the design of flexural members.
C3.1 Bending
Bending strengths [resistances] of flexural members are differentiated according to
whether or not the member is laterally braced. If such members are laterally supported, then
they are proportioned according to the nominal section strength [resistance] (Specification
Section C3.1.1). Since the distortional buckling has an intermediate buckling half wavelength,
the distortional buckling still needs to be considered even for braced members. See the Direct
Strength Method Design Guide (AISI, 2006) for detailed discussion and design examples. If
they are laterally unbraced, then the limit state is lateral-torsional buckling (Specification
Section C3.1.2). For C- or Z-sections with the tension flange attached to deck or sheathing and
with compression flange laterally unbraced, the bending capacity is less than that of a fully
braced member but greater than that of an unbraced member (Specification Section D6.1.1).
For C- or Z-sections supporting a standing seam roof system under gravity or uplift loads,
the bending capacity is greater than that of an unbraced member and may be equal to that of
a fully braced member (Specification Section D6.1.2). Similarly, for standing seam roof
systems, design provisions are provided in Specification Section D6.2.1 for evaluating the
bending strength of the system based on tests. The governing nominal bending strength
[resistance] is the smallest of the values determined from the applicable conditions.
C3.1.1 Nominal Section Strength [Resistance]

Specification Section C3.1.1 includes two design procedures for calculating the nominal
section strength [resistance] of flexural members. Procedure I is based on Initiation of
Yielding and Procedure II is based on Inelastic Reserve Capacity.
(a) Procedure I - Based on Initiation of Yielding
In Procedure I, the nominal moment, Mn, of the cross section is the effective yield
moment, My, determined on the basis of the effective areas of flanges and the beam
web. The effective width of the compression flange and the effective depth of the web
can be computed from the design equations given in Chapter B of the Specification.
Similar to the design of hot-rolled steel shapes, the yield moment My of a cold-formed
steel beam is defined as the moment at which an outer fiber (tension, compression, or
both) first attains the yield stress of the steel. This is the maximum bending capacity to
be used in elastic design. Figure C-C3.1.1-1 shows several types of stress distributions
for yield moment based on different locations of the neutral axis. For balanced sections
(Figure C-C3.1.1-1(a)) the outer fibers in the compression and tension flanges reach the
yield stress at the same time. However, if the neutral axis is eccentrically located, as
shown in Figures C-C3.1.1-1(b) and (c), the initial yielding takes place in the tension
flange for case (b) and in the compression flange for case (c).
July 2007 47
Chapter C, Members
Fy Fy Fy
Neutral Neutral Neutral

axis axis axis
Fy Fy Fy
(a)
< Fy < Fy < Fy
Neutral Neutral Neutral

axis axis axis
Fy Fy Fy
(b)
Fy Fy Fy
Neutral
Neutral axis Neutral
axis axis
< Fy < Fy < Fy

(c)
Figure C-C3.1.1-1 Stress Distribution for Yield Moment

(a) Balanced Sections, (b) Neutral Axis Close to Compression Flange,
(c) Neutral Axis Close to Tensions Flange
Accordingly, the nominal section strength [resistance] for initiation of yielding is
calculated by using Equation C-C3.1.1-1:
Mn = Se Fy (C-C3.1.1-1)
where
Fy = design yield stress
Se = elastic section modulus of the effective section calculated with the extreme
compression or tension fiber at Fy.
For cold-formed steel design, Se is usually computed by using one of the following
two cases:
1. If the neutral axis is closer to the tension than to the compression flange, the
maximum stress occurs in the compression flange, and therefore the plate
slenderness ratio λ and the effective width of the compression flange are determined
by the w/t ratio and f = Fy. Of course, this procedure is also applicable to those
beams for which the neutral axis is located at the mid-depth of the section.
2. If the neutral axis is closer to the compression than to the tension flange, the
maximum stress of Fy occurs in the tension flange. The stress in the compression
flange depends on the location of the neutral axis, which is determined by the
effective area of the section. The latter cannot be determined unless the compressive
48 July 2007
stress is known. The closed-form solution of this type of design is possible but would
be a very tedious and complex procedure. It is therefore customary to determine the
sectional properties of the section by successive approximation.
For determining the design flexural strength [factored resistance], φbMn, by using the
LRFD approach, slightly different resistance factors are used for the sections with
stiffened or partially stiffened compression flanges and the sections with unstiffened
compression flanges. These φb values were derived from the test results and a dead-to-
live load ratio of 1/5. They provide the β values from 2.53 to 4.05 (AISI, 1991; Hsiao, Yu
and Galambos, 1988a).
(b) Procedure II - Based on Inelastic Reserve Capacity
Prior to 1980, the inelastic reserve capacity of beams was not included in the AISI
Specification because most cold-formed steel shapes have large width-to-thickness ratios
that are considerably in excess of the limits required by plastic design.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, research work on the inelastic strength of cold-formed
steel beams was carried out by Reck, Pekoz, Winter, and Yener at Cornell University
(Reck, Pekoz and Winter, 1975; Yener and Pekoz, 1985a, 1985b). These studies showed
that the inelastic reserve strength [resistance] of cold-formed steel beams due to partial
plastification of the cross section and the moment redistribution of statically
indeterminate beams can be significant for certain practical shapes. With proper care,
this reserve strength [resistance] can be utilized to achieve more economical design of
such members.
In order to utilize the available inelastic reserve strength [resistance] of certain cold-
formed steel beams, design provisions based on the partial plastification of the cross
section were added in the 1980 edition of the AISI Specification. The same provisions are
retained in the 2001 and the 2007 editions of the Specification. According to Procedure II
of Section C3.1.1(b) of the Specification, the nominal section strength [resistance], Mn, of
those beams satisfying certain specific limitations can be determined on the basis of the
inelastic reserve capacity with a limit of 1.25My, where My is the effective yield
moment. The ratio of Mn/My represents the inelastic reserve strength [resistance] of a
beam cross section.
The nominal moment Mn is the maximum bending capacity of the beam by
considering the inelastic reserve strength [resistance] through partial plastification of
the cross section. The inelastic stress distribution in the cross section depends on the
maximum strain in the compression flange, εcu. Based on the Cornell research work on
hat sections having stiffened compression flanges (Reck, Pekoz and Winter, 1975), the
AISI design provision limits the maximum compression strain to be Cyεy, where Cy is a
compression strain factor determined by using the equations provided in Specification
Section C3.1.1(b) (i) as shown in Figure C-C3.1.1-2.
On the basis of the maximum compression strain εcu allowed in the Specification, the
neutral axis can be located by using Equation C-C3.1.1-2 and the nominal moment Mn
can be determined by using Equation C-C3.1.1-3:
∫ σdA = 0 (C-C3.1.1-2)
∫ σydA = Mn (C-C3.1.1-3)
where σ is the stress in the cross section.
July 2007 49
Chapter C, Members
The calculation of Mn based on inelastic reserve capacity is illustrated in Part I of the

AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI, 2008) and the textbook by Yu (2000).
In 2001, the shear force upper limit was clarified. The stress upper limit is 0.35Fy for
ASD and 0.6Fy for LRFD and LSD in the North American Specification.
In 2004, additional Specification equations are provided in Section C3.1.1(b) for
determining the nominal moment strength [resistance], Mn based on inelastic reserve
capacity, for sections containing unstiffened compression elements under stress gradient.
Based on research by Bambach and Rasmussen (2002b, 2002c) on I- and plain channel
sections in minor axis bending, a compression strain factor Cy determines the maximum
compressive strain on the unstiffened element of the section. The Cy values are dependent
on the stress ratio ψ and slenderness ratio λ of the unstiffened element, determined in
accordance with Section B3.2(a) of the Specification.
3
w/ t - λ 1
Cy = 3 - 2
λ2 - λ1
2
ε
Cy = εcu
y
0
0 λ1 λ2
1.11/ Fy /E 1.28/ Fy /E
w
t
Figure C-C3.1.1-2 Factor Cy for Stiffened Compression Elements without

C3.1.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength [Resistance]

The bending capacity of flexural members is not only governed by the strength
[resistance] of the cross section, but can also be limited by the lateral-torsional buckling
strength [resistance] of the member if braces are not adequately provided. The design
provisions for determining the nominal lateral-torsional buckling strength [resistance] are
given in Specification Section C3.1.2.1 for open cross section members and C3.1.2.2 for
closed tubular members.
C3.1.2.1 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength [Resistance] for Open Cross Section

Members
If a doubly-symmetric or singly-symmetric member in bending is laterally unbraced,
it can fail in lateral-torsional buckling. For a beam having simply supported end
conditions both laterally and torsionally, the elastic critical lateral-torsional buckling
50 July 2007
stress can be determined by Equation C-C3.1.2.1-1.
π ⎛ π 2 EC w ⎞⎟
σ cr = EI y GJ⎜ 1 + (C-C3.1.2.1-1)
LS f ⎜ GJL 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
For other than simply supported end conditions, Equation C-C3.1.2.1-1 can be
generalized as given in Equation C-C3.1.2.1-1a (Galambos, 1998):
π ⎡ π 2 EC w ⎤
σ cr = EI y GJ ⎢1 + ⎥ (C-C3.1.2.1-1a)
(K y L y )S f ⎢⎣ GJ(K t L t ) 2 ⎥⎦
In the above equation, Ky and Kt are effective length factors and Ly and Lt are
unbraced lengths for bending about the y-axis and for twisting, respectively, E is the
modulus of elasticity, G is the shear modulus, Sf is the elastic section modulus of the full
unreduced section relative to the extreme compression fiber, Iy is the moment of inertia
about the y-axis, Cw is the torsional warping constant, J is the Saint-Venant torsion
constant, and L is the unbraced length.
For equal-flanged I-members with simply supported end conditions both laterally
and torsionally, Equation C-C3.1.2.1-2 can be used to calculate the elastic critical
buckling stress (Winter, 1947a; Yu, 2000):
2
⎛ Iy ⎞ ⎛
π2 E JI y ⎞⎛ L ⎞ 2
σ cr = ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (C-C3.1.2.1-2)
2(L/d)2 ⎜⎝ 2I x ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 2(1 + µ )I x 2 ⎟⎠⎝ πd ⎠
In Equation C-C3.1.2.1-2, the first term under the square root represents the lateral
bending rigidity of the member, and the second term represents the Saint-Venant
torsional rigidity. For thin-walled cold-formed steel sections, the first term usually
exceeds the second term by a considerable margin.
For simply supported I-members with unequal flanges, the following equation has
been derived by Winter for the lateral-torsional buckling stress (Winter, 1943):
⎛ ⎞
π 2 Ed ⎜ 4GJL2 ⎟
σ cr = ⎜ I yc - I yt + I y 1 + ⎟ (C-C3.1.2.1-3)
2L2 S f ⎜ π 2 I y Ed 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where Iyc and Iyt are the moments of inertia of the compression and tension portions
of the full section, respectively, about the centroidal axis parallel to the web. Other
symbols were defined previously. For equal-flange sections, Iyc = Iyt = Iy/2, Equations
C-C3.1.2.1-2 and C-C3.1.2.1-3 are identical.
For other than simply supported end conditions, Equation C-C3.1.2.1-3 can be
generalized as given in Equation C-C3.1.2.1-3a:
⎛ ⎞
π 2 Ed ⎜ 4GJ(K t L t ) 2 ⎟
σ cr = ⎜ I yc - I yt + I y 1 + ⎟ (C-C3.1.2.1-3a)
2(K y L y ) 2 S f ⎜ π 2 I y Ed 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
In Equation C-C3.1.2.1-3a, the second term under the square root represents the
Saint-Venant torsional rigidity, which can be neglected without any loss in economy.
Therefore, Equation C-C3.1.2.1-3a can be simplified as shown in Equation C-C3.1.2.1-4
by considering Iy = Iyc + Iyt and neglecting the term 4GJ(KtLt)2/(π2IyEd2):
July 2007 51
Chapter C, Members
π 2 EdI yc
σ cr = (C-C3.1.2.1-4)
(K y L y ) 2 S f
Equation C-C3.1.2.1-4 was derived on the basis of a uniform bending moment and is
conservative for other cases. For this reason σcr is modified by multiplying the right
hand side by a bending coefficient Cb, to account for non-uniform bending and the
symbol Fe is used for σcr, i.e.,
C b π 2 EdI yc
Fe = (C-C3.1.2.1-5)
(K y L y ) 2 S f
where Cb is the bending coefficient, which can conservatively be taken as unity, or
calculated from
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05 (M1/M2) + 0.3 (M1/M2)2 ≤ 2.3 (C-C3.1.2.1-6)
in which M1 is the smaller and M2 the larger bending moment at the ends of the
unbraced length.
The above Equation was used in the 1968, 1980, 1986, and 1991 editions of the AISI
Specification. Because it is valid only for straight-line moment diagrams, Equation C-
C3.1.2.1-6 was replaced by the following equation for Cb in the 1996 edition of the AISI
Specification and is retained in this edition of the Specification:
12.5M max
Cb = (C-C3.1.2.1-7)
2.5M max + 3M A + 4M B + 3M C
where
Mmax = absolute value of maximum moment in the unbraced segment
MA = absolute value of moment at quarter point of unbraced segment
MB = absolute value of moment at centerline of unbraced segment
M1 M1 2
2.5 C b = 1.75 + 1.05 + 0.3 < 2.3
M2 M2
2.0
1.5
Cb
1.0 12.5M max

Cb =
2.5Mmax+ 3MA+ 4M B+3M C
0.5 MA MB MC
M2 M1
+1.0 +0.5 0 -0.5 -1.0
M1
M2
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-1 Cb for Straight Line Moment Diagram
52 July 2007
MC = absolute value of moment at three-quarter point of unbraced segment

Equation C-C3.1.2.1-7, derived from Kirby and Nethercot (1979), can be used for
various shapes of moment diagrams within the unbraced segment. It gives more
accurate solutions for fixed-end members in bending and moment diagrams which are
not straight lines. This equation is the same as that being used in the ANSI/AISC S360
(AISC, 2005).
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-1 shows the differences between Equations C-C3.1.2.1-6 and C-
C3.1.2.1-7 for a straight line moment diagram.
In 2001, effective length factor about the y-axis, Ky, was added to Specification
Equations C3.1.2.1-14 and C3.1.2.1-15 on the basis of Equation C-C3.1.2.1-5. The Ky
factor provides for other than simply supported end conditions. In addition,
Specification Equation C3.1.2.1-14 have been permitted to be used for the design of
singly-symmetric C-sections and I sections since the 1968 edition of the AISI Specification,
and C3.1.2.1-15 has been permitted to be used for Z-sections since the 1996 edition of the
AISI Specification.
Also in 2001, the requirement of taking Cb equal to unity when considering axial
load and bending moment in Specification Section C5 was removed. This requirement
was in place since both Cb and Cm in Specification Section C5 are adjustments for the
moment gradient in the member and it was conservative to take Cb equal to unity. Cb is
an adjustment to the critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling when the bending
moment is not constant and Cm adjusts the magnitude of the second order p-delta
moment in the member. Since these are two separate quantities, it is appropriate to use
both Cb and Cm in evaluating the member under combined loads. However, it is still
conservative to take Cb equal to unity.
It should be noted that Equations C-C3.1.2.1-1a and C-C3.1.2.1-5 apply only to elastic
buckling of cold-formed steel members in bending when the computed theoretical
buckling stress is less than or equal to the proportional limit. When the computed stress
exceeds the proportional limit, the beam behavior will be governed by inelastic
buckling. The inelastic buckling stress, Fc, can be computed from Equation C-C3.1.2.1-8
(Yu, 2000):
10 ⎛⎜ 10Fy ⎞
Fc = Fy ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (C-C3.1.2.1-8)
9 36 F ⎟
⎝ e ⎠
where Fe is the elastic critical lateral-torsional buckling stress.
Equations C-C3.1.2.1-5 and C-C3.1.2.1-8 with Ky = 1.0 and Ly = L were used in the
1968, 1980 and 1986 editions of the AISI Specification to develop the allowable stress
design equations for lateral-torsional buckling of I-members. In the 1986 edition of the
AISI Specification, in addition to the use of Equations C-C3.1.2.1-5 and C-C3.1.2.1-8 for
determining the critical stresses, more design equations (Specification Equations C3.1.2.1-
4, C3.1.2.1-5, and C3.1.2.1-10) for elastic critical stress were added as alternative
methods. These additional equations were developed from the previous studies
conducted by Pekoz, Winter and Celebi on flexural-torsional buckling of thin-walled
sections under eccentric loads (Pekoz and Winter, 1969a; Pekoz and Celebi, 1969b) and
are retained in this edition of the Specification. These general design equations can be
used for singly-, doubly- and point-symmetric sections. Consequently, the elastic critical
July 2007 53
Chapter C, Members
lateral-torsional buckling stress can be determined by the following equation:

C Ar
Fe = b o σ ey σ t (C-C3.1.2.1-9)
Sf
where σey and σt are the elastic buckling stresses as defined in Specification Equations
C3.1.2.1-8 and C3.1.2.1-9, respectively.
It should be noted that point-symmetric sections such as Z-sections with equal
flanges will buckle laterally at lower strengths than doubly- and singly-symmetric
sections. A conservative design approach has been and is being used in the Specification,
in which the elastic critical buckling stress is taken to be one-half of that for I-members.
Regarding the inelastic critical buckling stress, the following equation was used for
calculating the critical moment in Section C3.1.2(a) of the 1986 edition of the AISI
Specification instead of using Equation C-C3.1.2.1-8 for inelastic critical buckling stress:
⎡ My ⎤
(Mcr)I = M y ⎢1 − ⎥ (C-C3.1.2.1-10)
⎣⎢ 4( M cr ) e ⎦⎥
in which (Mcr)e is the elastic critical buckling moment. In 1996, the basic inelastic lateral-
torsional buckling curve for singly-, doubly-, and point-symmetric sections in AISI
Specification Section C3.1.2.1(a) was redefined to be consistent with the inelastic lateral-
torsional buckling curve for I- or Z-sections in Specification Section C3.1.2.1(b). The
general shape of the curve as represented by Equation C-C3.1.2.1-8 is also consistent
with the preceding edition of the Specification (AISI, 1986).
Fc
10
F
9 y I- and C-Sections
Fy
Z-Sections
0.56F y
0
0 Lu Lu Unbraced Length, L
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Stress
As specified in Specification Section C3.1.2.1, lateral-torsional buckling is considered

to be elastic up to a stress equal to 0.56Fy. The inelastic region is defined by a Johnson
parabola from 0.56Fy to (10/9)Fy at an unsupported length of zero. The (10/9) factor is
based on the partial plastification of the section in bending (Galambos, 1963). A flat
plateau is created by limiting the maximum stress to Fy, which enables the calculation of
the maximum unsupported length for which there is no stress reduction due to lateral-
torsional instability. This maximum unsupported length can be calculated by setting Fy
equal to Fc in Equation C-C3.1.2.1-8.
This liberalization of the inelastic lateral-torsional buckling curve for singly-,
54 July 2007
doubly-, and point-symmetric sections has been confirmed by research in beam-columns

(Pekoz and Sumer, 1992) and wall studs (Niu and Pekoz, 1994).
The elastic and inelastic critical stresses for the lateral-torsional buckling strength are
shown in Figure C-C3.1.2.1-2. For any unbraced length, L, less than Lu, lateral-torsional
buckling does not need to be considered, where Lu is determined by setting Fe = 2.78Fy
and Lu = Ly = Lt. Lu may be calculated using the expression given below (AISI, 1996):
(a) for Singly-, doubly- and point-symmetric sections:
0.5
⎧ ⎡C 2 ⎤ 0.5 ⎫
⎪ GJ ⎛ GJ ⎞ ⎪
Lu = ⎨ + ⎢ 2 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ⎬ (C-C3.1.2.1-11)
⎪ 2C 1 ⎢⎣ C 1 ⎝ 2C 1 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
where
2
7.72 ⎡ K y Fy S f ⎤
C1 = ⎢ ⎥ for singly- and doubly-symmetric sections (C-C3.1.2.1-12)
AE ⎢⎣ C b πry ⎥⎦
2
30.9 ⎡ K y Fy S f ⎤
C1 = ⎢ ⎥ for point-symmetric sections (C-C3.1.2.1-13)
AE ⎢⎣ C b πry ⎥⎦
π 2 EC w
C2 = (C-C3.1.2.1-14)
(K t ) 2
(b) for I-, C- or Z-sections bent about the centroidal axis perpendicular to the web, the
following equations may be used in lieu of (a) (AISI, 1996):
For doubly-symmetric I-sections and singly-symmetric C-sections:
0. 5
1 ⎡⎢ 0.36C b π EdI yc ⎤⎥
2
Lu = (C-C3.1.2.1-15)
Ky ⎢ Fy S f ⎥
⎣ ⎦
For point-symmetric Z-sections:
0. 5
1 ⎡⎢ 0.18C b π EdI yc ⎤⎥
2
Lu = (C-C3.1.2.1-16)
Ky ⎢ Fy S f ⎥
⎣ ⎦
For members with unbraced length, L ≤ Lu, or elastic lateral-torsional buckling
stress, Fe ≥ 2.78Fy, the flexural strength [moment resistance] is determined in accordance
with C3.1.1(a).
The above discussion dealt only with the lateral-torsional buckling strength
[resistance] of locally stable beams. For locally unstable beams, the interaction of the
local buckling of the compression elements and overall lateral-torsional buckling of
members may result in a reduction of the lateral-torsional buckling strength [resistance]
of the member. The effect of local buckling on the critical moment is considered in
Section C3.1.2.1 of the Specification by using the elastic section modulus Sc based on an
effective section. i.e.,
Mn = FcSc (C-C3.1.2.1-17)
where
July 2007 55
Chapter C, Members
Fc = Elastic or inelastic critical lateral-torsional buckling stress

Sc = Elastic section modulus of effective section calculated at a stress Fc relative to
the extreme compression fiber
Using the above nominal lateral-torsional buckling strength [resistance] with a
resistance factor of φb = 0.90, the values of β vary from 2.4 to 3.8 for the LRFD method.
The research conducted by Ellifritt, Sputo and Haynes (1992) has indicated that
when the unbraced length is defined as the spacing between intermediate braces, the
equations used in Specification Section C3.1.2.1 may be conservative for cases where one
mid-span brace is used, but may be unconservative where more than one intermediate
brace is used.
The above mentioned research (Ellifritt, Sputo, and Haynes, 1992) and the study of
Kavanagh and Ellifritt (1993 and 1994) have shown that a discretely braced beam, not
attached to deck and sheathing, may fail either by lateral-torsional buckling between
braces, or by distortional buckling at or near the braced point. See Section C3.1.4 for
commentary on distortional buckling strength.
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-3 Combined Sheet-Stiffener Sections
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-4 Lateral Buckling of U-Shaped Beam
The problems discussed above dealt with the type of lateral-torsional buckling of I-
members, C-sections, and Z-shaped sections for which the entire cross section rotates
and deflects in the lateral direction as a unit. But this is not the case for U-shaped beams
and the combined sheet-stiffener sections as shown in Figure C-C3.1.2.1-3. For this case,
when the section is loaded in such a manner that the brims and the flanges of stiffeners
are in compression, the tension flange of the beam remains straight and does not
displace laterally; only the compression flange tends to buckle separately in the lateral
direction, accompanied by out-of-plane bending of the web, as shown in Figure C-
56 July 2007
C3.1.2.1-4, unless adequate bracing is provided.

The precise analysis of the lateral buckling of U-shaped beams is rather complex. The
compression flange and the compression portion of the web act not only like a column
on an elastic foundation, but the problem is also complicated by the weakening
influence of the torsional action of the flange. For this reason, the design procedure
outlined in Section 2 of Part V (Supplementary Information) of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel
Design Manual (AISI, 2008) for determining the nominal stress for laterally unbraced
compression flanges is based on the considerable simplification of an analysis presented
by Douty (1962).
In 1964, Haussler presented rigorous methods for determining the strength
[resistance] of elastically stabilized beams (Haussler, 1964). In his methods, Haussler
also treated the unbraced compression flange as a column on an elastic foundation and
maintained more rigor in his development.
A comparison of Haussler’s method with Douty’s simplified method indicates that
the latter may provide a lower value of critical stress.
An additional study of laterally unbraced compression flanges has been made at
Cornell University (Serrette and Pekoz, 1992, 1994 and 1995). An analytical procedure
has been developed for determining the distortional buckling strength [resistance] of the
standing seam roof panel. The predicted maximum capacities have been compared with
experimental results.
C3.1.2.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength [Resistance] for Closed Box Members

Due to the high torsional stiffness of closed box sections, lateral-torsional buckling is
not critical in typical design considerations, even for bending about the major axis.
Deflection limits will control most designs due to the large values of Lu. However,
lateral-torsional buckling can control the design when the unbraced length is larger than
Lu, which is determined by setting the inelastic buckling stress of Specification Equation
C3.1.2.1-2 equal to Fy, with Fe set equal to Specification Equation C3.1.2.2-2.
In computing the lateral-torsional buckling stress of closed box sections, the warping
constant, Cw, may be neglected since the effect of non-uniform warping of box sections
is small. The development of Specification Equation C3.1.2.2-2 can be found in the SSRC
Guide (Galambos, 1998). As a result of adding Section C3.1.2.2 to the Specification,
Specification Section D3.3 has been deleted.
The Saint-Venant torsional constant, J, of a box section, neglecting the corner radii,
may be conservatively determined as follows:
2(ab) 2
J= (C-C3.1.2.2-1)
(a / t 1 ) + ( b / t 2 )
where
a = distance between web centerlines
b = distance between flange centerlines
t1 = thickness of flanges
t2 = thickness of webs
In 2001, the unbraced length, L, in Specification Equation C3.1.2.2-2 was replaced with
KyLy, where Ky is the effective length factor for bending about the y-axis. The Ky factor
July 2007 57
Chapter C, Members
provides for other than simply supported end conditions. Detailed discussions are
provided in Section C3.1.2.1 of the Commentary.
C3.1.3 Flexural Strength [Resistance] of Closed Cylindrical Tubular Members

The discussion on cylindrical tubular member behavior and buckling modes are
provided in Commentary Section C4.1.5. It should be noted that the design provisions of
Specification Sections C3.1.3 and C4.1.5 are applicable only for members having a ratio of
outside diameter-to-wall thickness, D/t, not greater than 0.441E/Fy because the design of
extremely thin tubes will be governed by elastic local buckling resulting in an
uneconomical design. In addition, cylindrical tubular members with unusually large D/t
ratios are very sensitive to geometric imperfections.
For thick cylinders in bending, the initiation of yielding does not represent a failure
condition as is generally assumed for axial loading. Failure is at the plastic moment
capacity, which is at least 1.29 times the moment at first yielding. In addition, the
conditions for inelastic local buckling are not as severe as in axial compression due to the
stress gradient.
Specification Equations C3.1.3-2, C3.1.3-3 and C3.1.3-4 are based upon the work
reported by Sherman (1985) and an assumed minimum shape factor of 1.25. This slight
reduction in the inelastic range has been made to limit the maximum bending stress to
0.75Fy, a value typically used for solid sections in bending for the ASD method. The
reduction also brings the criteria closer to a lower bound for inelastic local buckling. A
small range of elastic local buckling has been included so that the upper D/t limit of
0.441E/Fy is the same as for axial compression.
1.6
1.4
Spec. Eq. C3.1.3-2
1.25
1.2 Spec. Eq. C3.1.3-3
1.0
Fc Spec. Eq. C3.1.3-4

0.8
Fy 0.75
0.6
0.4
0.2 D/t=
0.441E/Fy D/t=0.318E/Fy D/t=0.0714E/Fy
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
E t
Fy D
Figure C-C3.1.3-1 Nominal Flexural Strength of Cylindrical

Tubular Members
58 July 2007
All three equations for determining the nominal flexural strength [moment resistance]
of closed cylindrical tubular members are shown in Figure C-C3.1.3-1. These equations
have been used in the AISI Specification since 1986 and are retained in this Specification. In
1999, the limiting D/t ratios for Specification Equations C3.1.3-2 and C3.1.3-3 have been
revised to provide an appropriate continuity. The safety factor Ωb and the resistance factor
φb are the same as that used in Specification Section C3.1.1 for sectional bending strength.
C3.1.4 Distortional Buckling Strength [Resistance]

Distortional buckling is an instability that may occur in members with edge stiffened
flanges, such as lipped C- and Z-sections. As shown in Figure C-C3.1.4-1, this buckling
mode is characterized by instability of the entire flange, as the flange along with the edge
stiffener rotates about the junction of the compression flange and the web. The length of
the buckling wave in distortional buckling is considerably longer than local buckling, and
noticeably shorter than lateral-torsional buckling. The Specification provisions of Section B4
partially account for distortional buckling, but research has shown that a separate limit
state check is required (Ellifritt, Sputo, and Haynes 1992, Hancock, Rogers, and Schuster
1996, Kavanagh and Ellifritt 1994, Schafer and Peköz 1999, Hancock 1997, Yu and Schafer
2003, 2006). Thus, in 2007, Specification Section C3.1.4 was added to address distortional
buckling as a separate limit state.
Determination of the nominal strength in distortional buckling (Specification Equation
C3.1.4-2) was validated by testing. Results of one such study (Yu and Schafer 2006) are
shown in Figure C-C3.1.4-2. The Direct Strength Method of Appendix 1 of the Specification
also uses Equation C3.1.4-2. In addition, the Australian/New Zealand Specification
(AS/NZS 4600) has used Equation C3.1.4-2 since 1996. Calibration of the safety and
resistance factors for Equation C3.1.4-2 is provided in the commentary to Appendix 1.
Distortional buckling is unlikely to control the strength if (a) edge stiffeners are
sufficiently stiff and thus stabilize the flange (as is often the case for C-sections, but
typically not for Z-sections due to the use of sloping lips), (b) unbraced lengths are long
and lateral-torsional buckling strength limits the capacity, or (c) adequate rotational
restraint is provided to the compression flange from attachments (panels, sheathing, etc.).
The primary difficulty in calculating the strength in distortional buckling is to
efficiently estimate the elastic distortional buckling stress, Fd. Recognizing the complexity
of this calculation, this Specification section provides three alternatives: C3.1.4(a) provides a
conservative prediction for unrestrained C- and Z-sections, C3.1.4(b) provides a more
comprehensive method for C- and Z-Section members and any open section with a single
web and single edge stiffened compression flange, and C3.1.4(c) offers the option to use
rational elastic buckling analysis, e.g., see the Appendix 1 commentary. The equations of
C3.1.4(a) assume the compression flange is unrestrained; however, the methods of
C3.1.4(b) and (c) allow for a rotational restraint, kφ, to be included to account for
attachments which restrict flange rotation.
While it is always conservative to ignore the rotational restraint, kφ, in many cases it
may be beneficial to include this effect. Due to the large variety of possible conditions, no
specific method is provided for determining the rotational restraint. Instead, per Section
A1.2 of the Specification, kφ may be estimated by testing or rational engineering analysis.
Test determination of kφ may use AISI S901 (AISI 2002). K from this method is a lower
July 2007 59
Chapter C, Members
bound estimate of kφ. The member lateral deformation may be removed from the
measured lateral deformation to provide a more accurate estimate of kφ.
Testing on 8 in. and 9.5 in. (203 and 241 mm) deep Z-sections with a thickness between
0.069 in. (1.75 mm) and 0.118 in. (3.00 mm), through-fastened 12 in. (205 mm) o.c., to a
36 in. (914 mm) wide, 1 in. (25.4 mm) and 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) high steel panels, with up to
6 in. (152 mm) of blanket insulation between the panel and the Z-section, results in a kφ
between 0.15 to 0.44 kip-in./rad./in. (0.667 to 1.96 kN-mm/rad./mm) (MRI 1981).
Additional testing on C- and Z-sections with pairs of through-fasteners provides
considerably higher rotational stiffness: for 6 and 8 in. (152 and 203 mm) deep C-sections
with a thickness between 0.054 and 0.097 in. (1.27 and 2.46 mm), fastened with pairs of
fasteners on each side of a 1.25 in. (31.8 mm) high steel panel flute at 12 in. (305 mm) o.c.,
kφ is 0.4 kip-in./rad./in. (1.78 kN-mm/rad./mm); and for 8.5 in. (216 mm) deep Z-sections
with a thickness between 0.070 in. and 0.120 in. (1.78 mm to 3.05 mm), fastened with pairs
of fasteners on each side of 1.25 in. (31.8 mm) high steel panel flute at 12 in. (305 mm) o.c.,
kφ is 0.8 kip-in./rad./in. (3.56 kN-mm/rad./mm) (Yu and Schafer 2003, Yu 2005).
Examples of rational engineering analysis to estimate the rotational stiffness are
provided in the Direct Strength Method Design Guide (AISI 2006). For a flexural member,
kφ can be approximated as:
kφ ≈ EI/(W/2) (C-C3.1.4-1)
where E is the modulus of the attached material, I is the moment of inertia of the
engaged attachment, and W is the member spacing. The primary complication in such a
method is determining how much of the attachment (decking, sheathing, etc.) is engaged
when the flange attempts to deform. For the Z-sections tested in Yu (2005) experimental kφ
is 0.8 kip-in./rad./in. (3.56 kN-mm/rad./mm). Using an estimate of EI/(W/2) the rational
engineering values are kφ of 9 kip-in./rad/in. (40.0 kN-mm/rad./mm) if the entire panel,
flutes and all, are engaged; kφ of 1.2 kip-in./rad/in. (5.34 kN-mm/rad./mm) if only the
corrugated bottom panel, but not the flutes, is engaged; and kφ of 0.003 kip-in./rad./in.
(0.0133 kN-mm/rad./mm) if plate bending of the t = 0.019 in. (0.483 mm) panel occurs. The
observed panel engagement is between the last two estimates, and assuming the
corrugated bottom pan, but not the 1.25 in. (31.8 mm) high flutes is engaged is reasonable.
For members with wood sheathing attached, little experimental information is
available. The problem has been studied numerically using the same paired fastener detail
as in Yu’s (2005) and Yu and Schafer (2003) tests but replacing the steel panel with a
simulated wood member, thickness = 0.5 in. (12.7 mm), E = 1000 ksi (6900 MPa), and µ =
0.3. The calculated kφ is 5.1 kip-in./rad./in. (22.7 kN-mm/rad./mm) for 6 and 8 in. (152 to
203 mm) deep C-sections with a thickness between 0.054 and 0.097 in. (1.37 and 2.46 mm);
and kφ is 4.1 kip-in./rad./in. (18.2 kN-mm/rad./mm) for 8.5 in. (216 mm) deep Z-sections
with thickness between 0.070 and 0.120 in. (1.78 mm and 3.05 mm). From calculations
assuming a fully engaged 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) thick wood sheet on top of C- or Z-section
members spaced 12 in. (305 mm) apart, kφ is predicted to be 1.7 kip-in./rad./in. (7.56 kN-
mm/rad./mm). Thus, use of EI/(W/2) provides a reasonably conservative approximation,
with I calculated assuming the full engagement of wood sheet.
The presence of moment gradient can also increase the distortional buckling moment
(or equivalently stress, Fd). However, this increase is lessened if the moment gradient
occurs over a longer length. Thus, in determining the influence of moment gradient (β) the
60 July 2007
ratio of the end moments, M1/M2, and the ratio of the critical distortional buckling length
to the unbraced length, L/Lm, should both be accounted for. Yu (2005) performed elastic
buckling analysis with shell finite element models of C- and Z-sections under different
moment gradients to examine this problem. Significant scatter exists in the results,
therefore a lower bound prediction (Specification Equation C3.1.4-11) for the increase was
selected.
1.5 Z-section (AISI 2002 Ex. I-10)
M y =107.53kip-in.
1
M cr / M y
Local M cr /M y =0.85 Lateral-torsional

Distortional M cr /M y =0.77
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half-wavelength (in.)
Figure C-C3.1.4-1 Rational Elastic Buckling Analysis of a Z-Section under Restrained Bending
Showing Local, Distortional, and Lateral-Torsional Buckling Modes
(a) Simplified Provision for Unrestrained C- and Z-Sections with Simple Lip Stiffeners
The provision of Specification Section C3.1.4(a) provides a conservative approximation
to the distortional buckling length, Lcr, and stress, Fd, for C- and Z-sections with simple lip
stiffeners bent about an axis perpendicular to the web. The provision ignores any
rotational restraint, which would restrain distortional buckling. The expressions were
specifically derived as a conservative simplification to those provided in Specification
Sections C3.1.4(b) and (c).
(b) For C- and Z-Sections or any Open Section with a Stiffened Compression Flange Extending to
One Side of the Web where the Stiffener is either a Simple Lip or a Complex Edge Stiffener
The provisions of Specification Section C3.1.4(b) provide a general method for
calculation of the distortional buckling stress, Fd, for any open section with an edge
stiffened compression flange, including complex edge stiffeners. The provisions of
Specification Section C3.1.4(b) also provide a more refined answer for any C- and Z-section
including those meeting the criteria of C3.1.4(a). The expressions employed here are
derived in Schafer and Peköz (1999) and verified for complex stiffeners in Schafer et al.
(2006). The equations used for the distortional buckling stress, Fd, in AS/NZS 4600 are also
similar to those in Specification Section C3.1.4 (b), except that when the web is very slender
and is restrained by the flange, AS/NZS 4600 uses a simpler, conservative treatment. Since
the provided expressions can be complicated, solutions for the geometric properties of C-
and Z-sections based on centerline dimensions are provided in Table C-C3.1.4(b)-1.
July 2007 61
Chapter C, Members
(c) Rational Elastic Buckling Analysis

Rational elastic buckling analysis consists of any method following the principles of
mechanics to arrive at an accurate prediction of the elastic distortional buckling stress
(moment). It is important to note that this is a rational elastic buckling analysis and not
simply an arbitrary rational method to determine ultimate strength. A variety of rational
computational and analytical methods can provide the elastic buckling moment with a
high degree of accuracy. Complete details are provided in Section 1.1.2 of the commentary
to Appendix 1 of the Specification. The safety and resistance factors of this section have been
shown to apply to a wide variety of cross-sections undergoing distortional buckling (via
the methods of Appendix 1). As long as the member falls within the geometric limits of
main Specification Section B1.1, the same safety and resistance factors have been assumed to
apply. Application of the β expression, to account for moment gradient, as provided in
Specification Section C3.1.4(b) is a rational extension to solutions which do not typically
account for moment gradient such as the finite strip method.
1.2
Eq. C3.1.4-2
Distortional buckling tests
1.1
0.9
Mtes t/My
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0 .5
(My /Mc r )
Figure C-C3.1.4-2 Performance of Distortional Buckling Prediction with Test Data

on Common C- and Z-sections in Bending (Yu and Schafer 2006)
62 July 2007
Table C-C3.1.4(b)-1
Geometric flange properties for C- and Z-sections
b b
θ d θ
h h
A f = (b + d )t A f = (b + d )t
J f = 1 3 bt 3 + 1 3 dt 3 J f = 1 3 bt 3 + 1 3 dt 3
I xf =
(
t t 2 b 2 + 4 bd 3 + t 2 bd + d 4 ) I xf =
( )
t t 2 b 2 + 4 bd 3 − 4 bd 3 cos 2 (θ ) + t 2 bd + d 4 − d 4 cos 2 (θ)
12(b + d ) 12(b + d )
I yf =
(
t b 4 + 4db 3 ) I yf =
(
t b 4 + 4db 3 + 6d 2 b 2 cos(θ) + 4d 3 b cos 2 (θ ) + d 4 cos 2 (θ ) )
12(b + d ) 12(b + d )
tb 2 d 2 tbd 2 sin (θ )(b + d cos(θ ))
I xyf = I xyf =
4(b + d ) 4(b + d )
C wf = 0 C wf = 0
b2 b 2 − d 2 cos(θ )
xo = xo =
2(b + d ) 2(b + d )
hx =
(
− b 2 + 2db ) hx =
(
− b 2 + 2db + d 2 cos(θ) )
2 (b + d ) 2(b + d )
− d2 − d 2 sin (θ )
h y = yo = h y = yo =
2 (b + d ) 2 (b + d )
C3.2 Shear
C3.2.1 Shear Strength [Resistance] of Webs without Holes
The shear strength [resistance] of beam webs is governed by either yielding or
buckling, depending on the h/t ratio and the mechanical properties of steel. For beam
webs having small h/t ratios, the nominal shear strength [resistance] is governed by shear
yielding, i.e.,
Vn = A w τ y = Α w Fy / 3 ≈ 0.60Fy ht (C-C3.2.1-1)
in which Aw is the area of the beam web computed by (ht), and τy is the yield stress of steel
in shear, which can be computed by Fy / 3 .
For beam webs having large h/t ratios, the nominal shear strength [resistance] is
governed by elastic shear buckling (Yu, 2000), i.e.,
k v π 2 EA w
Vn = A w τ cr = (C-C3.2.1-2)
12(1 − µ 2 )( h/t ) 2
in which τcr is the critical shear buckling stress in the elastic range, kv is the shear buckling
coefficient, E is the modulus of elasticity, µ is the Poisson’s ratio, h is the web depth, and t
is the web thickness. By using µ = 0.3, the shear strength [resistance], Vn, can be
determined as follows:
July 2007 63
Chapter C, Members
Vn = 0.904Ek v t 3 / h (C-C3.2.1-3)
For beam webs having moderate h/t ratios, the nominal shear strength [resistance] is
based on inelastic shear buckling (Yu, 2000), i.e.,
Vn = 0.64 t 2 k v Fy E (C-C3.2.1-4)
The Specification provisions are applicable for the design of webs of beams and decks
either with or without transverse web stiffeners.
The nominal strength [resistance] equations of Section C3.2.1 of the Specification are
similar to the nominal shear strength [resistance] equations given in the AISI LRFD
Specification (AISI, 1991). The acceptance of these nominal strength [resistance] equations
for cold-formed steel sections has been considered in the study summarized by LaBoube
and Yu (1978a).
Previous editions of the AISI ASD Specification (AISI, 1986) used three different safety
factors when evaluating the allowable shear strength [resistance] of an unreinforced web
because it was intended to use the same nominal strength [resistance] equations for the
AISI and AISC Specifications. To simplify the design of shear using only one safety factor
for ASD and one resistance factor for LRFD, Craig (Craig, 1999) carried out a calibration
using the data by LaBoube and Yu (LaBoube, 1978a). Based on this work, the constant used
in Specification Equation C3.2.1-3 was reduced from 0.64 to 0.60. In addition, the ASD
safety factor for yielding, elastic and inelastic buckling is now taken as 1.60, with a
corresponding resistance factor of 0.95 for LRFD and 0.80 for LSD.
C3.2.2 Shear Strength [Resistance] of C-Section Webs With Holes

For C-section webs with holes, Schuster et al. (1995) and Shan et al. (1994) investigated
the degradation in web shear strength [resistance] due to the presence of a web
perforation. The test program considered a constant shear distribution across the
perforation, and included d0/h ratios ranging from 0.20 to 0.78, and h/t ratios of 91 to 168.
Schuster’s qs equation was developed with due consideration for the potential range of
both punched and field cut holes. Three hole geometries, rectangular with corner fillets,
circular, and diamond, were considered in the test program. Eiler (1997) extended the work
of Schuster and Shan for the case of constant shear along the longitudinal axis of the
perforation. He also studied linearly varying shear but this case is not included in the
Specification. The development of Eiler’s reduction factor, qs, utilized the test data of both
Schuster et al. (1995) and Shan et al. (1994). The focus of the test programs was on the
behavior of slender webs with holes. Thus for stocky web elements with
h/t ≤ 0.96 Ek v /Fy , an anomaly exists; the calculated available shear strength [resistance] is
independent of t when h is constant. In this region, the calculated available shear strength
[resistance] is valid but may be somewhat conservative.
The provisions for circular and non-circular holes also apply to any hole pattern that
fits within an equivalent virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-1 illustrates the Lh and dh that may be
used for a multiple hole pattern that fits within a non-circular virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-2
illustrates the dh that may be used for a rectangular hole that fits within a circular virtual
hole. For each case, the design provisions apply to the geometry of the virtual hole
geometry, not the actual hole or holes.
64 July 2007
C3.3 Combined Bending and Shear

For cantilever beams and continuous beams, high bending stresses often combine with
high shear stresses at the supports. Such beam webs must be safeguarded against buckling
due to the combination of bending and shear stresses.
For disjointed flat rectangular plates, the critical combination of bending and shear
stresses can be approximated by the following interaction equation (Bleich, 1952), which is
part of a unit circle:
2 2
⎛ fb ⎞ ⎛ τ ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1.0 (C-C3.3-1)
⎝ fcr ⎠ ⎝ τ cr ⎠
or
2 2
⎛ fb ⎞ ⎛ τ ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1.0 (C-C3.3-2)
⎝ fcr ⎠ ⎝ τ cr ⎠
where fb is the actual compressive bending stress, fcr is the theoretical buckling stress in pure
bending, τ is the actual shear stress and τcr is the theoretical buckling stress in pure shear. The
above equation was found to be conservative for beam webs with adequate transverse
stiffeners, for which a diagonal tension field action can be developed. Based on the studies
made by LaBoube and Yu (1978b), Equation C-C3.3-3 was developed for beam webs with
transverse stiffeners satisfying the requirements of Specification Section C3.7.
f τ
0.6 b + = 1.3 (C-C3.3-3)
fbmax τ max
1.2
A B
1.0
Eq. C-C3.3-3
0.8
C
Eq. C-C3.3-1
t h = 120
t max 0.6 t
h = 150
t
0.4
h = 200
t
Note: Shaded symbols represent test
0.2 specimens without additional sheets
on top and bottom flanges.
0 D
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
fb
fb max
Figure C-C3.3-1 Interaction Diagram for τ/τmax and fb/fbmax
July 2007 65
Chapter C, Members
The above equation was added to the AISI Specification in 1980. The correlations between
Equation C-C3.3-3 and the test results of beam webs having a diagonal tension field action
are shown in Figure C-C3.3-1.
C3.3.1 ASD Method

Since 1986, the AISI ASD Specification uses strength ratios (i.e., moment ratio for
bending and force ratio for shear) instead of stress ratios for the interaction equations.
Specification Equations C3.3.1-1 and C3.3.1-2 are based on Equations C-C3.3-2 and C-C3.3-3,
respectively, by using the allowable moment, Mnxo/Ωb, and the allowable shear force,
Vn/Ωv.
C3.3.2 LRFD and LSD Methods

For the load and resistance factor design and the limit states design, the interaction
equations for combined bending and shear are also based on Equations C-C3.3-2 and C-
C3.3-3 as given in Specification Equations C3.3.2-1 and C3.3.2-2 by using the required and
design strengths. In both equations, different symbols are used for the required flexural
strength [factored moment] and the required shear strength [factored shear] according to
the LRFD and the LSD methods.
C3.4 Web Crippling

C3.4.1 Web Crippling Strength [Resistance] of Webs without Holes
Since cold-formed steel flexural members generally have large web slenderness ratios,
the webs of such members may cripple due to the high local intensity of the load or
reaction. Figure C-C3.4.1-1 shows typical web crippling failure modes of unreinforced
single hat sections (Figure C-C3.4.1-1(a)) and of I-sections (Figure C-C3.4.1-1(b))
unfastened to the support.
(a) (b)
Figure C-C3.4.1-1 Web Crippling of Cold-Formed Steel Sections
In the past, the buckling problem of plates and the web crippling behavior of cold-
formed steel members under locally distributed edge loading have been studied by
numerous investigators (Yu, 2000). It has been found that the theoretical analysis of web
crippling for cold-formed steel flexural members is rather complicated because it involves
the following factors: (1) nonuniform stress distribution under the applied load and
66 July 2007
adjacent portions of the web, (2) elastic and inelastic stability of the web element, (3) local
yielding in the immediate region of load application, (4) bending produced by eccentric
load (or reaction) when it is applied on the bearing flange at a distance beyond the curved
transition of the web, (5) initial out-of-plane imperfection of plate elements, (6) various
edge restraints provided by beam flanges and interaction between flange and web
elements, and (7) inclined webs for decks and panels.
For these reasons, the present AISI design provision for web crippling is based on the
extensive experimental investigations conducted at Cornell University by Winter and Pian
(1946) and Zetlin (1955a); at the University of Missouri-Rolla by Hetrakul and Yu (1978 and
1979), Yu (1981), Santaputra (1986), Santaputra, Parks and Yu (1989), Bhakta, LaBoube and
Yu (1992), Langan, Yu and LaBoube (1994), Cain, LaBoube and Yu (1995) and Wu, Yu and
LaBoube (1997); at the University of Waterloo by Wing (1981), Wing and Schuster (1982),
Prabakaran (1993), Gerges (1997), Gerges and Schuster (1998), Prabakaran and Schuster
(1998), Beshara (1999), and Beshara and Schuster (2000 and 2000a); and at the University of
Sydney by Young and Hancock (1998). In these experimental investigations, the web
crippling tests were carried out under the following four loading conditions for beams
having single unreinforced webs and I-beams, single hat sections and multi-web deck
sections:
1. End one-flange (EOF) loading
2. Interior one-flange (IOF) loading
3. End two-flange (ETF) loading
4. Interior two-flange (ITF) loading
All loading conditions are illustrated in Figure C-C3.4.1-2. In Figures (a) and (b), the
distances between bearing plates were kept to no less than 1.5 times the web depth in order
to avoid the two-flange loading action. Application of the various load cases is shown in
Region
of failure
> 1.5h > 1.5h

> 1.5h > 1.5h
Region Region
of failure of failure
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure C-C3.4.1-2 Loading Conditions for Web Crippling Tests

(a) EOF Loading, (b) IOF Loading, (c) ETF Loading, (d) ITF Loading
July 2007 67
Chapter C, Members
(a)
Lo
End One-Flange
Loading
>1.5h or 2.5h for

Fastened to Support
Interior Two-Flange Interior Two-Flange Single Web Channel
Loading Loading and C-Sections
> 1.5h
(b)
Lo < 1.5h < 1.5h
End One-Flange Interior Two-Flange End Two-Flange

Loading Loading Loading
Figure C-C3.4.1-3 Application of Loading Cases
Figure C-C3.4.1-3 and the assumed reaction or load distributions are illustrated in Figure
C-C3.4.1-4.
In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification, and in previous editions, different web
crippling equations were used for the various loading conditions stated above. These
equations were based on experimental evidence (Winter, 1970; Hetrakul and Yu, 1978) and
the assumed distributions of loads or reactions acting on the web as shown in Figure C-
C3.4.1-4. The equations were also based on the type of section geometry, i.e., shapes having
single webs and I-sections (made of two channels connected back to back, by welding two
angles to a channel, or by connecting three channels). C-and Z-sections, single hat sections
and multi-web deck sections were considered in the single web member category. I-
sections made of two channels connected back to back by a line of connectors near each
flange or similar sections that provide a high degree of restraint against rotation of the web
were treated separately. In addition, different equations were used for sections with
stiffened or partially stiffened flanges and sections with unstiffened flanges.
68 July 2007
Lo (a) End One-Flange Loading Lo
>1.5h >1.5h
(b) Interior One-Flange Loading
<1.5h
(c) End Two-Flange Loading

>1.5h or 2.5h for
Fastened to Support
Single Web Channel
or C-Sections
<1.5h
(d) Interior Two-Flange Loading
Figure C-C3.4.1-4 Assumed Distribution of Reaction or Load
July 2007 69
Chapter C, Members
Prabakaran (1993) and Prabakaran and Schuster (1998) developed one consistent
unified web crippling equation with variable coefficients (Specification Equation C3.4.1-1).
These coefficients accommodate one or two flange loading for both end and interior
loading conditions of various section geometries. Beshara (1999) extended the work of
Prabakaran and Schuster (1998) by developing new web crippling coefficients using the
available data as summarized by Beshara and Schuster (2000). The web crippling
coefficients are summarized in Tables C3.4.1-1 to C3.4.1-5 of the Specification and the
parametric limitations given are based on the experimental data that was used in the
development of the web crippling coefficients. From Specification Equation C3.4.1-1, it can
be seen that the nominal web crippling strength of cold-formed steel members depends on
an overall web crippling coefficient, C, the web thickness, t, the yield stress, Fy, the web
inclination angle, θ, the inside bend radius coefficient, CR, the inside bend radius ratio, R/t,
the bearing length coefficient, CN, the bearing length ratio, N/t, the web slenderness
coefficient, Ch, and the web slenderness ratio, h/t.
This new equation is presented in a normalized format and is non-dimensional,
allowing for any consistent system of measurement to be used. Consideration was given to
whether or not the test specimens were fastened to the bearing plate/support during
testing. It was discovered that some of the test specimens in the literature were not
fastened to the bearing plate/support during testing, which can make a considerable
difference in the web crippling capacity of certain sections and loading conditions.
Therefore, it was decided to separate the data on the basis of members being fastened to
the bearing plate/support and those not being fastened to the bearing plate/support. The
fastened to the bearing plate/support data in the literature were primarily based on
specimens being bolted to the bearing plate/support, hence, a few control tests were
carried out by Schuster, the results of which are contained in (Beshara 1999), using self-
drilling screws to establish the web crippling integrity in comparison to the bolted data.
Based on these tests, the specimens with self-drilling screws performed equally well in
comparison to the specimens with bolts. Fastened to the bearing plate/support in practice
can be achieved by either using bolts, self-drilling/self-tapping screws or by welding.
What is important is that the flange elements are restrained from rotating at the location of
load application. In fact, in most cases, the flanges are frequently completely restrained
against rotation by some type of sheathing material that is attached to the flanges.
The data was further separated in the Specification based on section type, as follows.
1) Built-up sections (Table C3.4.1-1);
2) Single web channel and C-sections (Table C3.4.1-2);
3) Single web Z-sections (Table C3.4.1-3);
4) Single hat sections (Table C3.4.1-4); and
5) Multi-web deck sections (Table C3.4.1-5).
In the case of unfastened built-up members such as I-sections (not fastened to the
bearing plate/support), the available data was for specimens that were fastened together
with a row of fasteners near each flange line of the member (Winter and Pian 1946) and
Hetrakul and Yu (1978) as shown in Figure C-C3.4.1-5(a). For the fastened built-up
member data of I-sections (fastened to the bearing plate/support), the specimens were
fastened together with two rows of fasteners located symmetrically near the centerline
length of the member, as shown in Figure C-C3.4.1-5(b) (Bhakta, LaBoube and Yu, 1992).
70 July 2007
Calibrations were carried out by Beshara and Schuster (2000) in accordance with
Supornsilaphachai, Galambos and Yu (1979) to establish the safety factors, Ω, and the
resistance factors, φ, for each web crippling case. Based on these calibrations, different
safety factors and corresponding resistance factors are presented in the web crippling
coefficient tables for the particular load case and section type. In 2005, the safety and the
resistance factors for built-up and single hat sections with interior one-flange loading case
have been revised based on a more consistent calibration. For the fastened built-up
sections, the factors were revised from 1.65 to 1.75 (for ASD), 0.90 to 0.85 (for LRFD) and
0.80 to 0.75 (for LSD). For the fastened single hat section, the factors were revised from
1.90 to 1.80 (for ASD) and 0.80 to 0.85 (for LRFD). For the unfastened single hat sections,
the factors were revised from 1.70 to 1.80 (for ASD), 0.90 to 0.80 (for LRFD) and 0.75 to 0.70
(for LSD). Also in 2005 the coefficients for built-up sections were revised to remove
inconsistencies between unfastened and fastened conditions and to better reflect the
calibration for the safety factor and the resistance factors. Also, a minimum bearing length
of 3/4 in. (19 mm) was introduced based on the data used in the development of the web
crippling coefficients. For fastened to support single web C- and Z-section members under
interior two-flange loading or reaction, the distance from the edge of bearing to the end of
the member (Figure C-C3.4.1-2(d)) must be extended at least 2.5h. This requirement is
necessary because a total of 5h specimen length was used for the test setup shown in
Figure C-C3.4.1-2(d) (Beshara, 1999). The 2.5h length is conservatively taken from the edge
of bearing rather than the centerline of bearing.
The assumed distributions of loads or reactions acting on the web of a member, as
shown in Figure C-C3.4.1-4, are independent of the flexural response of the member. Due
to the flexural action, the point of bearing will vary relative to the plane of bearing,
resulting in a non-uniform bearing load distribution on the web. The value of Pn will vary
because of a transition from the interior one-flange loading (Figure C3.4.1-4(b)) to the end
one-flange loading (Figure C3.4.1-4(a)) condition. These discrete conditions represent the
experimental basis on which the design provisions were founded (Winter, 1970; Hetrakul
and Yu, 1978). Based on additional updated calibrations, the resistance factor for Canada
LSD for the unfastened interior one-flange loading (IOF) case in Table C3.4.1-4 was
changed from 0.75 to 0.70 in 2004.
t t
Fasteners h 1.5 in.(38 mm) h
1.5 in.(38 mm) Fasteners
(a) Winter and Pian 1946 (b) Bhakta, LaBoube and Yu 1992
Hetrakul and Yu 1978
Figure C-C3.4.1-5 Typical Bolt Pattern for I-Section Test Specimens
The research indicates that a Z-section having its end support flange bolted to the
section’s supporting member through two 1/2-in. (12.7 mm) diameter bolts will experience
an increase in end-one-flange web crippling capacity (Bhakta, LaBoube and Yu, 1992; Cain,
July 2007 71
Chapter C, Members
LaBoube and Yu, 1995). The increase in load-carrying capacity was shown to range from 27
to 55 percent for the sections under the limitations prescribed in the Specification. A lower
bound value of 30 percent increase was permitted in Specification Section C3.4 of the 1996
Specification. This is now incorporated under “Fastened to Support” condition.
In 2005, the R/t limit in Table C3.4.1-3 regarding Interior-one-flange loading for
fastened Z-sections was changed from 5 to 5.5 to achieve consistency with Specification
Equations C3.5.1-3 and C3.5.2-3 which stipulate a limit of R/t = 5.5.
For two nested Z-sections, the 1996 AISI Specification permitted the use of a slightly
different safety factor and resistance factor for the interior one flange loading condition.
This is no longer required since the new web crippling approach now takes this into
account in Table C3.4.1-3 of the Specification under the category of “Fastened to Support”
for the interior one flange loading case.
The previous web crippling coefficients in Table C3.4.1-5 for end one flange loading
(EOF) of multi-web deck sections in the design provisions (AISI 2001) were based on
limited data. This data was based on specimens that were not fastened to the support
during testing, hence, the previous coefficients for this case were also being used
conservatively for the case of fastened to the support. Based on extensive testing, web
crippling coefficients were developed by James A. Wallace (2003) for both the unfastened
and fastened case of EOF loading. Calibrations were also carried out to establish the
respective safety factors and resistance factors.
In 2004, the definitions of “one-flange loading” and “two-flange loading” were revised
according to the test setup, specimen lengths, development of web crippling coefficients,
and calibration of safety factors and resistance factors. In Figures C-C3.4.1-3 and C-C3.4.1-
4 of the Commentary, the distances from the edge of bearing to the end of the member were
revised to be consistent with the Specification.
Specification Equation C3.4.1-2 for single web C- and Z-sections with an overhang or
overhangs is based on a study of the behavior and resultant failure loads from an end-one-
flange loading investigation performed at the University of Missouri-Rolla (Holesapple
and LaBoube, 2002). This Equation is applicable within the limits of the investigation. The
UMR test results indicated that in some situations with overhangs, the interior-one-flange
load capacity may not be achieved and the interior-one-flange loading condition was
therefore removed from Figures C-C3.4.1-3 and C-C3.4.1-4.
C3.4.2 Web Crippling Strength [Resistance] of C-Section Webs with Holes

Studies by Langan et al. (1994), Uphoff (1996) and Deshmukh (1996) quantified the
reduction in web crippling capacity when a hole is present in a web element. These studies
investigated both the end-one-flange and interior-one-flange loading conditions for h/t
and dh/h ratios as large as 200 and 0.81, respectively. The studies revealed that the
reduction in web crippling strength is influenced primarily by the size of the hole as
reflected in the dh/h ratio and the location of the hole, x/h ratio.
The provisions for circular and non-circular holes also apply to any hole pattern that
fits within an equivalent virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-1 illustrates the Lh and dh that may be
used for a multiple hole pattern that fits within a non-circular virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-2
illustrates the dh that may be used for a rectangular hole that fits within a circular virtual
hole. For each case, the design provisions apply to the geometry of the virtual hole
72 July 2007
geometry, not the actual hole or holes.
C3.5 Combined Bending and Web Crippling

C3.5.1 ASD Method
This Specification contains interaction equations for the combination of bending and
web crippling. Specification Equations C3.5.1-1 and C3.5.1-2 are based on an evaluation of
available experimental data using the web crippling equation included in the 2001 edition
of the Specification (LaBoube, Schuster, and Wallace, 2002). The experimental data is based
on research studies conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla (Hetrakul and Yu, 1978
and 1980; Yu, 1981 and 2000), Cornell University (Winter and Pian, 1946), and the
University of Sydney (Young and Hancock, 2000). For embossed webs, crippling strength
[resistance] should be determined by tests according to Specification Chapter F.
The exception clause included in Specification Section C3.5.1 for single unreinforced
webs applies to the interior supports of continuous spans using decks and beams, as
shown in Figure C-C3.5-1. Results of continuous beam tests of steel decks (Yu, 1981) and
several independent studies by manufacturers indicate that, for these types of members,
the postbuckling behavior of webs at interior supports differs from the type of failure
mode occurring under concentrated loads on single span beams. This postbuckling
strength [resistance] enables the member to redistribute the moments in continuous spans.
For this reason, Specification Equation C3.5.1-1 is not applicable to the interaction between
bending and the reaction at interior supports of continuous spans. This exception clause
applies only to the members shown in Figure C-C3.5-1 and similar situations explicitly
described in Specification Section C3.5.1.
The exception clause should be interpreted to mean that the effects of combined
bending and web crippling need not be checked for determining load-carrying capacity.
Furthermore the positive bending resistance of the beam should be at least 90 percent of
the negative bending resistance in order to insure the safety implied by the Specification.
Using this procedure the service loads may (1) produce slight deformations in the
member over the support, (2) increase the actual compressive bending stresses over the
support to as high as 0.8 Fy, and (3) result in additional bending deflection of up to 22
percent due to elastic moment redistribution.
If load-carrying capacity is not the primary design concern because of the above
behavior, the designer is urged to use Specification Equation C3.5.1-1.
In 1996, additional design information was added to Specification Section C3.5.1(c) for
two nested Z-shapes. These design provisions are based on the research conducted at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, University of Missouri-Rolla, and a metal building
manufacturer (LaBoube, Nunnery and Hodges, 1994). The web crippling and bending
behavior of unreinforced nested web elements is enhanced because of the interaction of the
nested webs. The design equation is based on the experimental results obtained from 14
nested web configurations. These configurations are typically used by the metal building
industry.
Based on the test data of LaBoube, Nunnery, and Hodges (1994), in 2003, the
interaction equation for the combined effects of bending and web crippling was re-
evaluated because new web crippling equation was adopted for Section C3.4.1 of the
Specification.
July 2007 73
Chapter C, Members
(a) Decks
Deck or cladding
<10"
(b) Beams Deck, cladding
or braces
Figure C-C3.5-1 Sections Used for Exception Clause of Specification Section C3.5

For the load and resistance factor design and the limit states design methods,
Specification Equations C3.5.2-1 and C3.5.2-2 are based on the same equations as used for
ASD using the required and design strengths. In both equations, different symbols are
used for the required strength [resistance] for the concentrated load or reaction due to
factored loads, and the required flexural strength [factored moment] according to the
LRFD and the LSD methods.
In the development of the original LRFD equations, a total of 551 tests were calibrated
for combined bending and web crippling strength [resistance]. Based on φw = 0.75 for
single unreinforced webs and φw = 0.80 for I-sections, the values of reliability index vary
from 2.5 to 3.3 as summarized in the AISI Commentary (AISI, 1991).
For two nested Z-shapes, Specification Equation C3.5.2-3 was derived from the same
research work discussed in Section C3.5.1 for Specification Equation C3.5.1-3.
C3.6 Combined Bending and Torsional Loading

When the transverse loads applied to a bending member do not pass through the shear
center of the cross-section of the member, twisting and torsional stresses can develop. The
torsional stresses consist of pure torsional shear stresses, shear stresses due to warping and
normal stresses due to warping. References such as the AISC Steel Design Guide (AISC,
1997a) “Torsional Analysis of Structural Steel Members” describe the effect of torsion and
how these stresses may be calculated.
Open cold-formed steel sections have little resistance to torsion, thus severe twisting and
large stresses can develop. In many situations, however, the connection between a beam and
the member delivering the load to the beam is such that it constrains twisting and in effect
causes the resultant load to act as though it is delivered through the shear center. In such
cases the torsional effects do not occur. Positive connections between the load bearing flange
and supported elements, in general, prevent torsional effects. An example of this is a purlin
74 July 2007
supporting a through fastened roof panel that will prevent movement in the plane of the roof
panel. It is important that the designer ensure that torsion is adequately constrained when
evaluating a specific situation.
In situations where torsional loading cannot be avoided, discrete bracing will reduce the
torsional effects. Torsional bracing at the third points of the span would be adequate for
most light construction applications. The bracing should be designed to prevent torsional
twisting at the braced points.
Specification Section C3.6 provides design criteria for a member that is subjected to
torsional loading. The provision uses a reduction factor to reduce the nominal moment
strength as determined by Specification Section C3.1.1(a) This reduction factor requires
calculation of both the usual bending stresses and the torsional warping stresses at critical
points on the cross-section. The largest combination of these is the denominator of the
reduction factor while the bending stress alone at this same point is the numerator. The
member is then selected based on bending alone with the effect of torsion accounted for by
the reduction in the nominal moment capacity.
The largest combination of compression stresses on the cross section may occur at the
junction of the web and flange or at the junction of the edge of flange and flange stiffener.
The second condition has the more severe effect on reducing the moment capacity of the
member. This can occur when the applied load is positioned off the member away from both
the web and the shear center. This is shown from the test results reported in the referenced
paper by Bogdan M. Put and others (Put et al., 1999). This is not a practical situation for
structural assemblies, however this location of the critical compression stresses would occur
at the position of a torsional brace located at mid-span of a member. To allow for the more
favorable situation, the provisions of Specification Section C3.6 permit the moment capacity to
be increased by 15% when the critical combination of compressive stresses occurs at the
junction of the flange and web. This is also supported by tests on channels conducted by
Winter in 1950 (Winter et al., 1950), which indicated that an overstress of 15% did not
significantly affect the carrying capacity.
The provisions of this Section need not be used in combination with the bending
provisions in Specification Sections D6.1.1 and D6.1.2 since these provisions are based on tests
in which torsional effects were present.
C3.7 Stiffeners
C3.7.1 Bearing Stiffeners
Design requirements for attached bearing stiffeners (previously called transverse
stiffeners) and for shear stiffeners were added in the 1980 AISI Specification and were
unchanged in the 1986 Specification. The same design equations are retained in Section
C3.7 of the current Specification. The term “transverse stiffener” was renamed to “bearing
stiffeners” in 2004. The nominal strength [resistance] equation given in Item (a) of
Specification Section C3.7.1 serves to prevent end crushing of the bearing stiffeners, while
the nominal strength [resistance] equation given in Item (b) is to prevent column-type
buckling of the web-stiffeners. The equations for computing the effective areas (Ab and Ac)
and the effective widths (b1 and b2) were adopted from Nguyen and Yu (1978a) with
minor modifications.
The available experimental data on cold-formed steel bearing stiffeners were evaluated
July 2007 75
Chapter C, Members
by Hsiao, Yu and Galambos (1988a). A total of 61 tests were examined. The resistance
factor of 0.85 used for the LRFD method was selected on the basis of the statistical data.
The corresponding reliability indices vary from 3.32 to 3.41.
In 1999, the upper limit of w/ts ratio for the unstiffened elements of cold-formed steel
bearing stiffeners was revised from 0.37 E Fys to 0.42 E Fys for the reason that the
former was calculated based on the allowable strength design approach, while the latter is
based on the effective area approach. The revision provided the same basis for the
stiffened and unstiffened elements of cold-formed steel bearing stiffeners.
C3.7.2 Bearing Stiffeners in C-Section Flexural Members

The provisions of this section are based on the research by Fox and Schuster (2002),
which investigated the behavior of stud and track type bearing stiffeners in cold-formed
steel C-section flexural members. These stiffeners fall outside of the scope of Specification
Section C3.7.1. The research program investigated bearing stiffeners subjected to two-
flange loading at both interior and end locations, and with the stiffener positioned between
the member flanges and on the back of the member. A total of 263 tests were carried out on
different stiffened C-section assemblies. The design expression in Specification Section
C3.7.2 is a simplified method applicable with the limits of the test program. A more
detailed beam-column design method is described in Fox (2002).
C3.7.3 Shear Stiffeners

The requirements for shear stiffeners included in Specification Section C3.7.3 were
primarily adopted from the AISC Specification (1978). The equations for determining the
minimum required moment of inertia (Specification Equation C3.7.3-1) and the minimum
required gross area (Specification Equation C3.7.3-2) of attached shear stiffeners are based
on the studies summarized by Nguyen and Yu (1978a). In Specification Equation C3.7.3-1,
the minimum value of (h/50)4 was selected from the AISC Specification (AISC, 1978).
For the LRFD method, the available experimental data on the shear strength
[resistance] of beam webs with shear stiffeners were calibrated by Hsiao, Yu and Galambos
(1988a). The statistical data used for determining the resistance factor were summarized in
the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 1991). Based on these data, the reliability index was found to
be 4.10 for φ = 0.90.
C3.7.4 Non-Conforming Stiffeners

Tests on rolled-in stiffeners covered in Specification Section C3.7.4 were not conducted
in the experimental program reported by Nguyen and Yu (1978). Lacking reliable
information, the available strength [resistance] of stiffeners should be determined by
special tests.
C4 Concentrically Loaded Compression Members

Axially loaded compression members should be designed for the following limit states
depending on the configuration of the cross-section, thickness of material, unbraced length, and
end restraint: (1) yielding, (2) overall column buckling (flexural buckling, torsional buckling, or
76 July 2007
flexural-torsional buckling), (3) local buckling of individual elements, and (4) distortional
buckling. The first three limit states are discussed in Section C4.1 and ditortional buckling limit
state is discussed in Section C4.2. For the design tables and example problems on columns, see
Parts I and III of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI, 2008).
C4.1 Nominal Strength for Yielding, Flexural, Flexural-Torsional and Torsional

Buckling
In this section, the limit states of yielding and overall column buckling are discussed.
A. Yielding
It is well known that a very short, compact column under an axial load may fail by
yielding. The yield load is determined by Equation C-C4.1-1:
Py = A g Fy (C-C4.1-1)
where Ag is the gross area of the column and Fy is the yield stress of steel.
B. Flexural Buckling of Columns
(a) Elastic Buckling Stress
A slender, axially loaded column may fail by overall flexural buckling if the cross-
section of the column is a doubly-symmetric shape, closed shape (square or rectangular
tube), cylindrical shape, or point-symmetric shape. For singly-symmetric shapes, flexural
buckling is one of the possible failure modes. Wall studs connected with sheathing
material can also fail by flexural buckling.
The elastic critical buckling load for a long column can be determined by the following
Euler equation:
π 2 EI
(Pcr ) e = (C-C4.1-2)
( KL ) 2
where (Pcr)e is the column buckling load in the elastic range, E is the modulus of
elasticity, I is the moment of inertia, K is the effective length factor, and L is the unbraced
length. Accordingly, the elastic column buckling stress is
(Pcr ) e π2E
(Fcr ) e = = (C-C4.1-3)
Ag ( KL / r ) 2
in which r is the radius of gyration of the full cross section, and KL/r is the effective
slenderness ratio.
(b) Inelastic Buckling Stress
When the elastic column buckling stress computed by Equation C-C4.1-3 exceeds the
proportional limit, Fpr, the column will buckle in the inelastic range. Prior to 1996, the
following equation was used in the AISI Specification for computing the inelastic column
buckling stress:
⎛ Fy ⎞
(Fcr ) I = Fy ⎜⎜ 1 − ⎟ (C-C4.1-4)
⎝ 4(Fcr ) e ⎟⎠
It should be noted that because the above equation is based on the assumption that
Fpr = Fy/2, it is applicable only for (Fcr)e ≥ Fy/2.
July 2007 77
Chapter C, Members
By using λc as the column slenderness parameter instead of slenderness ratio, KL/r,

Equation C-C4.1-4 can be rewritten as follows:
⎛ λ 2⎞
(Fcr ) I = ⎜ 1 − c ⎟Fy (C-C4.1-5)
⎜ 4 ⎟⎠
⎝
where
Fy KL Fy
λc = = (C-C4.1-6)
( Fcr ) e rπ E
Accordingly, Equation C-C4.1-5 is applicable only for λc ≤ 2.
(c) Nominal Axial Strength [Compressive Resistance] for Locally Stable Columns
If the individual components of compression members have small w/t ratios, local
buckling will not occur before the compressive stress reaches the column buckling stress
or the yield stress of steel. Therefore, the nominal axial strength [compressive resistance]
can be determined by the following equation:
Pn = AgFcr (C-C4.1-7)
where
Pn = nominal axial strength
Ag = gross area of the column
Fcr = column buckling stress
(d) Nominal Axial Strength [Compressive Resistance] for Locally Unstable Columns
For cold-formed steel compression members with large w/t ratios, local buckling of
individual component plates may occur before the applied load reaches the nominal axial
strength [compressive resistance] determined by Equation C-C4.1-7. The interaction effect
of the local and overall column buckling may result in a reduction of the overall column
strength [resistance]. From 1946 through 1986, the effect of local buckling on column
strength was considered in the AISI Specification by using a form factor Q in the
determination of allowable stress for the design of axially loaded compression members
(Winter, 1970; Yu, 2000). Even though the Q-factor method was used successfully for the
design of cold-formed steel compression members, research work conducted at Cornell
University and other institutions have shown that this method is capable of
improvement. On the basis of the test results and analytical studies of DeWolf, Pekoz,
Winter, and Mulligan (DeWolf, Pekoz and Winter, 1974; Mulligan and Pekoz, 1984) and
Pekoz’s development of a unified approach for the design of cold-formed steel members
(Pekoz, 1986b), the Q-factor method was eliminated in the 1986 edition of the AISI
Specification. In order to reflect the effect of local buckling on the reduction of column
strength, the nominal axial strength [compressive resistance] is determined by the critical
column buckling stress and the effective area, Ae, instead of the full sectional area. When
Ae cannot be calculated, such as when the compression member has dimensions or
geometry beyond the range of applicability of the AISI Specification, the effective area Ae
can be determined experimentally by stub column tests using the procedure given in Part
VI of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008). For a more in-depth discussion of the
background for these provisions, see Pekoz (1986b). Therefore, the nominal axial strength
[compressive resistance] of cold-formed steel compression members can be determined
by the following equation:
78 July 2007
Pn = AeFcr (C-C4.1-8)
where Fcr is either elastic buckling stress or inelastic buckling stress whichever is
applicable, and Ae is the effective area at Fcr.
In the 1986 edition of the AISI Specification, the nominal axial strength [resistance] for C-
1
AISI 1986 & 1991 Specifications

0.8
Eq. C-C4-4
Fcr Eq. C-C4-10

Fy 0.6
or
AISI 1996 and Eq. C-C4-3
Fn 2001 Specifications
0.4
Fy
Eq. C-C4-11
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
lc
Figure C-C4.1-1 Comparison between the Critical Buckling Stress Equations
0.6
Based on the AISI 1986
Specification and Variable F.S.
0.5
0.4 Based on the AISI 1986

Specification and F.S. = 1.92
Pd
Py 0.3
0.2 Based on the AISI 1996 and 2001

Specifications and F.S. = 1.80
0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
lc
Figure C-C4.1-2 Comparison between the Design Axial Strengths [Resistances], Pd
July 2007 79
Chapter C, Members
0.8
Based on the AISI 1991
0.6
Pn
Py
Based on the AISI 1996 and
0.4 2001 Specifications
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
lc
Figure C-C4.1-3 Comparison between the Nominal Axial Strengths [Resistances], Pn
KL = L
P
Figure C-C4.1-4 Overall Column Buckling
and Z-sections and single angle sections was limited by Equation C-C4.1-9, which is
determined by the local buckling stress of the unstiffened element and the area of the full
cross-section:
Aπ 2 E
Pn = (C-C4.1-9)
25.7( w/t ) 2
This equation was deleted since the 1996 edition of the Specification based on a study
80 July 2007
conducted by Rasmussen at the University of Sydney (Rasmussen, 1994) and validated by

Rasmussen and Hancock (1992).
In the 1996 AISI Specification, the design equations for calculating the inelastic and elastic
flexural buckling stresses have been changed to those used in the AISC LRFD Specification
(AISC, 1993). As given in the Specification Section C4.1(a), these design equations are as
follows:
2
For λ c ≤ 1.5 : Fn = ( 0.658 λ c )Fy (C-C4.1-10)
⎡ 0.877 ⎤
For λ c > 1.5 : Fn = ⎢ 2 ⎥ Fy (C-C4.1-11)
⎣⎢ λ c ⎦⎥
where Fn is the nominal flexural buckling stress which can be either in the elastic range or
in the inelastic range depending on the value of λc = Fy / Fe , and Fe is the elastic
flexural buckling stress calculated by using Equation C-C4.1-3. Consequently, the
equation for determining the nominal axial strength [compressive resistance] can be
written as
Pn=AeFn (C-C4.1-12)
which is Equation C4.1-1 of the Specification.
The reasons for changing the design equations from Equation C-C4.1-4 to Equation C-
C4.1-10 for inelastic buckling stress and from Equation C-C4.1-3 to Equation C-C4.1-11 for
elastic buckling stress are:
1. The revised column design equations (Equations C-C4.1-10 and C-C4.1-11) are based
on a different basic strength [resistance] model and were shown to be more accurate by
Pekoz and Sumer (1992). In this study, 299 test results on columns and beam-columns
were evaluated. The test specimens included members with component elements in the
post-local buckling range as well as those that were locally stable. The test specimens
included members subject to flexural buckling as well as flexural-torsional buckling.
2. Because the revised column design equations represent the maximum strength
[resistance] with due consideration given to initial crookedness and can provide the
better fit to test results, the required safety factor can be reduced. In addition, the
revised equations enable the use of a single safety factor for all λc values even though
the nominal axial strength [compressive resistance] of columns decreases as the
slenderness increases because of initial out-of-straightness. By using the selected safety
factor and resistance factor, the results obtained from the ASD and LRFD approaches
would be approximately the same for a live-to-dead load ratio of 5.0.
The design provisions included in the AISI ASD Specification (AISI, 1986), the LRFD
Specification (AISI, 1991), the 1996 Specification and the current Specification (AISI, 2001,
2007) are compared in Figures C-C4.1-1, C-C4.1-2, and C-C4.1-3.
Figure C-C4.1-1 shows a comparison of the critical flexural buckling stresses used in
the 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2007 Specifications. The equations used to plot these two
curves are indicated in the figure. Because of the use of a relatively smaller safety factor
in the 1996, 2001 and 2007 Specifications, it can be seen from Figure C-C4.1-2 that the
design capacity is increased for thin columns with low slenderness parameters and
decreased for high slenderness parameters. However, the differences would be less
than 10%. For the LRFD method, the differences between the nominal axial strengths
July 2007 81
Chapter C, Members
[compressive resistances] used for the 1991, 1996, 2001 and the 2007 LRFD design
provisions are shown in Figure C-C4.1-3. The curve for the LSD provisions would be
the same as the curve for LRFD.
(e) Effective Length Factor, K
The effective length factor K accounts for the influence of restraint against rotation and
translation at the ends of a column on its load-carrying capacity. For the simplest case, a
column with both ends hinged and braced against lateral translation, buckling occurs in a
single half-wave and the effective length KL, being the length of this half-wave, is equal
to the actual physical length of the column (Figure C-C4.1-4); correspondingly, for this
case, K = 1. This situation is approached if a given compression member is part of a
structure which is braced in such a manner that no lateral translation (sidesway) of one
end of the column relative to the other can occur. This is so for columns or studs in a
structure with diagonal bracing, diaphragm bracing, shear-wall construction or any other
provision which prevents horizontal displacement of the upper relative to the lower
column ends. In these situations it is safe and only slightly, if at all, conservative to take
K = 1.
If translation is prevented and abutting members (including foundations) at one or both
ends of the member are rigidly connected to the column in a manner which provides
substantial restraint against rotation, K-values smaller than 1 (one) are sometimes
justified. Table C-C4.1-1 provides the theoretical K values for six idealized conditions in
which joint rotation and translation are either fully realized or nonexistent. The same
table also includes the K values recommended by the Structural Stability Research
Council for design use (Galambos, 1998).
In trusses, the intersection of members provides rotational restraint to the compression
members at service loads. As the collapse load is approached, the member stresses
Table C-C4.1-1
Effective Length Factors K for Concentrically Loaded
Compression Members
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Buckled shape of column

is shown by dashed line
Theoretical K value 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

Recommended K value
when ideal conditions 0.65 0.80 1.2 1.0 2.10 2.0
are approximated
Rotation fixed, Translation fixed

Rotation free, Translation fixed
End condition code
Rotation fixed, Translation free
Rotation free, Translation free
82 July 2007
approach the yield stress which greatly reduces the restraint they can provide. For this
reason K value is usually taken as unity regardless of whether they are welded, bolted, or
connected by screws. However, when sheathing is attached directly to the top flange of a
continuous compression chord, research (Harper, LaBoube and Yu, 1995) has shown that
the K values may be taken as 0.75 (AISI, 1995).
On the other hand, when no lateral bracing against sidesway is present, such as in the
portal frame of Figure C-C4.1-5, the structure depends on its own bending stiffness for
lateral stability. In this case, when failure occurs by buckling of the columns, it invariably
takes place by the sidesway motion shown. This occurs at a lower load than the columns
would be able to carry if they where braced against sidesway and the figure shows that
KL P P
Figure C-C4.1-5 laterally Unbraced Portal Frame
5.0
4.0
Hinged
3.0 base
(I/L) beam
(I/L) column
2.0
Fixed
1.0 base
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
K
Figure C-C4.1-6 Effective Length Factor K in Laterally
Unbraced Portal Frames
July 2007 83
Chapter C, Members
the half-wave length into which the columns buckle is longer than the actual column
length. Hence, in this case K is larger than 1 (one) and its value can be read from the
graph of Figure C-C4.1-6 (Winter et al., 1948a and Winter, 1970). Since column bases are
rarely either actually hinged or completely fixed, K-values between the two curves should
be estimated depending on actual base fixity.
Figure C-C4.1-6 can also serve as a guide for estimating K for other simple situations.
For multi-bay and/or multi-story frames, simple alignment charts for determining K are
given in the AISC Commentaries (AISC, 1989; 1999; 2005). For additional information on
frame stability and second order effects, see SSRC Guide to Stability Design Criteria for
Metal Structures (Galambos, 1998) and the AISC Specifications and Commentaries.
If roof or floor slabs, anchored to shear walls or vertical plane bracing systems, are
counted upon to provide lateral support for individual columns in a building system,
their stiffness must be considered when functioning as horizontal diaphragms (Winter,
1958a).
C. Torsional Buckling of Columns
It was pointed out at the beginning of this section that purely torsional buckling, i.e.,
failure by sudden twist without concurrent bending, is also possible for certain cold-
formed open shapes. These are all point-symmetric shapes (in which shear center and
centroid coincide), such as doubly-symmetric I-shapes, anti-symmetric Z-shapes, and
such unusual sections as cruciforms, swastikas, and the like. Under concentric load,
torsional buckling of such shapes very rarely governs design. This is so because such
members of realistic slenderness will buckle flexurally or by a combination of flexural and
local buckling at loads smaller than those which would produce torsional buckling.
However, for relatively short members of this type, carefully dimensioned to minimize
local buckling, such torsional buckling cannot be completely ruled out. If such buckling is
elastic, it occurs at the critical stress σt calculated as follows (Winter, 1970):
1 ⎡ π 2 EC w ⎤
σt = ⎢ GJ + ⎥ (C-C4.1-13)
Aro2 ⎣⎢ ( K t L t ) 2 ⎦⎥
The above equation is the same as Specification Equation C3.1.2.1-9, in which A is the full
cross-sectional area, ro is the polar radius of gyration of the cross section about the shear
center, G is the shear modulus, J is Saint-Venant torsion constant of the cross section, E is
the modulus of elasticity, Cw is the torsional warping constant of the cross section, and Kt
Lt is the effective length for twisting.
For inelastic buckling, the critical torsional buckling stress can also be calculated
according to Equation C-C4.1-10 by using σt as Fe in the calculation of λc.
D. Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Columns
As discussed previously, concentrically loaded columns can buckle in the flexural
buckling mode by bending about one of the principal axes; or in the torsional buckling
mode by twisting about the shear center; or in the flexural-torsional buckling mode by
simultaneous bending and twisting. For singly-symmetric shapes such as channels, hat
sections, angles, T-sections, and I-sections with unequal flanges, for which the shear
center and centroid do not coincide, flexural-torsional buckling is one of the possible
buckling modes as shown in Figure C-C4.1-7. Unsymmetric sections will always buckle in
the flexural-torsional mode.
84 July 2007
P
Shear Centroid
Center
Figure C-C4.1-7 Flexural-Torsional Buckling of a

Channel in Axial Compression
It should be emphasized that one needs to design for flexural-torsional buckling only
when it is physically possible for such buckling to occur. This means that if a member is
so connected to other parts of the structure such as wall sheathing that it can only bend
but cannot twist, it needs to be designed for flexural buckling only. This may hold for the
entire member or for individual parts. For instance, a channel member in a wall or the
chord of a roof truss is easily connected to girts or purlins in a manner which prevents
twisting at these connection points. In this case flexural-torsional buckling needs to be
checked only for the unbraced lengths between such connections. Likewise, a doubly-
symmetric compression member can be made up by connecting two spaced channels at
intervals by batten plates. In this case each channel constitutes an “intermittently fastened
component of a built-up shape.” Here the entire member, being doubly-symmetric, is not
subject to flexural-torsional buckling so that this mode needs to be checked only for the
individual component channels between batten connections (Winter, 1970).
The governing elastic flexural-torsional buckling load of a column can be found from the
following equation, (Chajes and Winter, 1965; Chajes, Fang and Winter, 1966; Yu, 2000):
1 ⎡
Pn = (Px + Pz ) − (Px + Pz )2 − 4βPx Pz ⎤⎥ (C-C4.1-14)
2β ⎢⎣ ⎦
If both sides of this equation are divided by the cross-sectional area A, one obtains the
equation for the elastic, flexural-torsional buckling stress Fe as follows:
1 ⎡
Fe = ⎢ (σ ex + σ t ) − (σ ex + σ t )2 − 4βσ ex σ t ⎤⎥ (C-C4.1-15)
2β ⎣ ⎦
For this equation, as in all provisions which deal with flexural-torsional buckling, the x-
axis is the axis of symmetry; σex = π2E/(KxLx/rx)2 is the flexural Euler buckling stress
about the x-axis, σt is the torsional buckling stress (Equation C-C4.1-13) and β=1-(xo/ro)2.
It is worth noting that the flexural-torsional buckling stress is always lower than the Euler
July 2007 85
Chapter C, Members
stress σex for flexural buckling about the symmetry axis. Hence, for these singly-
symmetric sections, flexural buckling can only occur, if at all, about the y-axis which is the
principal axis perpendicular to the axis of symmetry.
For inelastic buckling, the critical flexural-torsional buckling stress can also be calculated
by using Equation C-C4.1-10.
An inspection of Equation C-C4.1-15 will show that in order to calculate β and σt, it is
necessary to determine xo = distance between shear center and centroid, J = Saint-Venant
torsion constant, and Cw = warping constant, in addition to several other, more familiar
cross-sectional properties. Because of these complexities, the calculation of the flexural-
torsional buckling stress cannot be made as simple as that for flexural buckling. Formulas
for typical C-, Z-sections, angle and hat sections are provided in Part I of the Design
Manual (AISI, 2008).
For one thing, any singly-symmetric shape can buckle either flexurally about the y-axis
or flexural-torsionally, depending on its detailed dimensions. For instance, a channel stud
with narrow flanges and wide web will generally buckle flexurally about the y-axis (axis
parallel to web); in contrast a channel stud with wide flanges and a narrow web will
generally fail in flexural-torsional buckling. If flexural-torsional buckling is indicated, the
information and design aids in Parts I and VII of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008)
facilitate and expedite the necessary calculations.
The above discussion refers to members subject to flexural-torsional buckling, but made
up of elements whose w/t ratios are small enough so that no local buckling will occur.
For shapes which are sufficiently thin, i.e., with w/t ratios sufficiently large, local
buckling can combine with flexural-torsional buckling similar to the combination of local
with flexural buckling. For this case, the effect of local buckling on the flexural-torsional
buckling strength can also be handled by using the effective area, Ae, determined at the
stress Fn for flexural-torsional buckling.
E. Additional Design Consideration for Angles
During the development of a unified approach to the design of cold-formed steel
members, Pekoz realized the possibility of a reduction in column strength due to initial
sweep (out-of-straightness) of angle sections. Based on an evaluation of the available test
results, an initial out-of-straightness of L/1000 was recommended by Pekoz for the
design of concentrically loaded compression angle members and beam-columns in the
1986 edition of the AISI Specification. Those requirements were retained in Sections C4.1,
C5.2.1, and C5.2.2 of the 1996 edition of the Specification. A study conducted at the
University of Sydney (Popovic, Hancock, and Rasmussen, 1999) indicated that for the
design of singly-symmetric unstiffened angles sections under the axial compression load,
the required additional moment about the minor principal axis due to initial sweep
should only be applied to those angle sections, for which the effective area at stress Fy is
less than the full, unreduced cross-sectional area. Consequently, clarifications have been
made in Sections C5.2.1 and C5.2.2 of the 2001 edition of the AISI Specification to reflect
the research findings.
F. Slenderness Ratios
The slenderness ratio, KL/r, of all compression members preferably should not exceed
200, except that during construction only, KL/r should not exceed 300. In 1999, the above
86 July 2007
recommendations were moved from the Specification to the Commentary.

The maximum slenderness ratios on compression and tension members have been
stipulated in steel design standards for many years but are not mandatory in the AISI
Specification.
The KL/r limit of 300 is still recommended for most tension members in order to control
serviceability issues such as handling, sag and vibration. The limit is not mandatory,
however, because there are a number of applications where it can be shown that such
factors are not detrimental to the performance of the structure or assembly of which the
member is a part. Flat strap tension bracing is a common example of an acceptable type
of tension member where the KL/r limit of 300 is routinely exceeded.
The compression member KL/r limits are recommended not only to control handling,
sag and vibration serviceability issues but also to flag possible strength [resistance]
concerns. The AISI Specification provisions adequately predict the capacities of slender
columns and beam-columns but the resulting strengths [resistances] are quite small and
the members relatively inefficient. Slender members are also very sensitive to
eccentrically applied axial load because the moment magnification factors given by 1/α
will be large.
C4.1.1 Sections Not Subject to Torsional or Flexural-Torsional Buckling

If concentrically loaded compression members can buckle in the flexural buckling
mode by bending about one of the principal axes, the nominal flexural buckling strength
[resistance] of the column should be determined by using Equation C4.1-1 of the
Specification. The elastic flexural buckling stress is given in Equation C4.1.1-1 of the
Specification, which is the same as Equation C-C4.1-3 of the Commentary. This provision is
applicable to doubly-symmetric sections, closed cross sections and any other sections not
subject to torsional or flexural-torsional buckling.
C4.1.2 Doubly- or Singly-Symmetric Sections Subject to Torsional or Flexural-Torsional

Buckling
As discussed previously in Section C4.1, torsional buckling is one of the possible
buckling modes for doubly- and point-symmetric sections. For singly-symmetric sections,
flexural-torsional buckling is one of the possible buckling modes. The other possible
buckling mode is flexural buckling by bending about the y-axis (i.e., assuming x-axis is the
axis of symmetry).
For torsional buckling, the elastic buckling stress can be calculated by using Equation
C-C4.1-13. For flexural-torsional buckling, Equation C-C4.1-15 can be used to compute the
elastic buckling stress. The following simplified equation for elastic flexural-torsional
buckling stress is an alternative permitted by the AISI Specification:
σ t σ ex
Fe = (C-C4.1-16)
σ t + σ ex
The above equation is based on the following interaction relationship given by Pekoz
and Winter (1969a):
1 1 1
= + (C-C4.1-17)
Pn Px Pz
July 2007 87
Chapter C, Members
or
1 1 1
= + (C-C4.1-18)
Fe σ ex σ t
Research at the University of Sydney (Popovic, Hancock, and Rasmussen, 1999) has
shown that singly-symmetric unstiffened cold-formed steel angles, which have a fully
effective cross-section under yield stress, do not fail in a flexural-torsional mode and can be
designed based on flexural buckling alone as specified in Specification Section C4.1.1. There
is also no need to include a load eccentricity for these sections when using Specification
Section C5.2.1 or Section C5.2.2 as explained in Item E of Section C4.1.
C4.1.3 Point-Symmetric Sections

This section of the Specification is for the design of discretely braced point-symmetric
section subjected to axial compression. An example of a point-symmetric section is a
lipped or unlipped Z-section with equal flanges. The critical elastic buckling stress of
point-symmetric sections is the lesser of the two possible buckling modes, the elastic
torsional buckling stress, σt, as defined in Specification Equation C3.1.2.1-9 or the elastic
flexural buckling stress about its minor principal axis, as defined in Specification Equation
C4.1.1-1. Figure C-D3.2.1-5 shows the relationship of the principal axes to the x and y axes
of a lipped Z-section. The elastic flexural buckling stress should be calculated for axis 2.
C4.1.4 Nonsymmetric Sections

For nonsymmetric open shapes the analysis for flexural-torsional buckling becomes
extremely tedious unless its need is sufficiently frequent to warrant computerization. For
one thing, instead of the quadratic equations, cubic equations have to be solved. For
another, the calculation of the required section properties, particularly Cw, becomes quite
complex. The method of calculation is given in Parts I and V of the AISI Design Manual
(AISI, 2008) and the book by Yu (2000). Section C4.1.4 of the Specification states that
calculation according to this section shall be used or tests according to Chapter F shall be
made when dealing with nonsymmetric open shapes.
C4.1.5 Closed Cylindrical Tubular Sections

Closed thin-walled cylindrical tubular members are economic sections for compression
and torsional members because of their large ratio of radius of gyration to area, the same
radius of gyration in all directions, and the large torsional rigidity. Like other cold-formed
steel compression members, cylindrical tubes must be designed to provide adequate safety
not only against overall column buckling but also against local buckling. It is well known
that the classical theory of local buckling of longitudinally compressed cylinders
overestimates the actual buckling strength [resistance] and that inevitable imperfections
and residual stresses reduce the actual strength [resistance] of compressed tubes radically
below the theoretical value. For this reason, the design provisions for local buckling have
been based largely on test results.
Local Buckling Stress
Considering the post-buckling behavior of the axially compressed cylinder and the
88 July 2007
important effect of the initial imperfection, the design provisions included in the AISI
Specification were originally based on Plantema’s graphic representation and the additional
results of cylindrical shell tests made by Wilson and Newmark at the University of Illinois
(Winter, 1970).
From the tests of compressed tubes, Plantema found that the ratio Fult/Fy depends on
the parameter (E/Fy)(t/D), in which t is the wall thickness, D is the mean diameter of the
tube, and Fult is the ultimate stress or collapse stress. As shown in Figure C-C4.1-8, line 1
corresponds to the collapse stress below the proportional limit, line 2 corresponds to the
collapse stress between the proportional limit and the yield stress, and line 3 represents the
collapse stress occurring at yield stress. In the range of line 3, local buckling will not occur
before yielding. In ranges 1 and 2, local buckling occurs before the yield stress is reached.
The cylindrical tubes should be designed to safeguard against local buckling.
Elastic
buckling Inelastic buckling Yielding
A1 3
1.0
2
0.8 Eq. (C-C4.1-20)

0.75 B1
0.6
F ult
Fy
0.4 1 Eq. (C-C4.1-21)
0.2
For D/t = 0.441E/Fy For D/t = 0.112E/Fy
0
2.27 8.93
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
E t
Fy D
Figure C-C4.1-8 Critical Stress of Cylindrical Tubes for Local Buckling
Based on a conservative approach, the Specification specifies that when the D/t ratio is
smaller than or equal to 0.112E/Fy, the tubular member shall be designed for yielding. This
provision is based on point A1, for which (E/Fy)(t/D) = 8.93.
When 0.112E/Fy < D/t < 0.441E/Fy, the design of tubular members is based on the
inelastic local buckling criteria. For the purpose of developing a design equation for
inelastic buckling, point B1 was selected to represent the proportional limit. For point B1,
⎛ E ⎞⎛ t ⎞ Fult
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 2.27 , = 0.75 (C-C4.1-19)
⎜ Fy ⎟⎝ D ⎠ Fy
⎝ ⎠
Using line A1B1, the maximum stress of cylindrical tubes can be represented by
July 2007 89
Chapter C, Members
Fult ⎛ E ⎞⎛ t ⎞
= 0.037 ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ + 0.667 (C-C4.1-20)
Fy ⎜ Fy ⎟⎝ D ⎠
⎝ ⎠
When D/t ≥ 0.441E/Fy, the following equation represents Line 1 for elastic local
buckling stress:
Fult ⎛ E ⎞⎛ t ⎞
= 0.328⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (C-C4.1-21)
Fy ⎜ Fy⎟⎝ D ⎠
⎝ ⎠
The correlations between the available test data and Equations C-C4.1-20 and C-C4.121
are shown in Figure C-C4.1-9. The definition of symbol “D” was changed from “mean
diameter” to “outside diameter” in the 1986 AISI Specification in order to be consistent with
the general practice.
1.2
A1
1.0
0.8
B1
Fult
0.6 Eq. (C-C4.1-20)
Fy
0.4
University of Illinois
Lehigh University
Eq. (C-C4.1-21)
University of Tokyo
0.2 University of Alberta
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
E t
Fy D
Figure C-C4.1-9 Correlation between Test Data and AISI Criteria for Local Buckling of
Cylindrical Tubes under Axial Compression
As indicated in Commentary Section C3.1.3, Specification Section C4.1.5 is only applicable

to members having a ratio of outside diameter-to-wall thickness, D/t, not greater than
0.441E/Fy because the design of extremely thin tubes will be governed by elastic local
buckling resulting in an uneconomical design. In addition, cylindrical tubular members
with unusually large D/t ratios are very sensitive to geometric imperfections.
When closed cylindrical tubes are used as concentrically loaded compression members
the nominal axial strength [compressive resistance] is determined by the same equation as
given in Specification Section C4.1, except that (1) the nominal buckling stress, Fe, is
determined only for flexural buckling and (2) the effective area, Ae, is calculated by
Equation C-C4.1-22:
A e = [ 1 − (1 − R 2 )(1 − A o /A )]A (C-C4.1-22)
90 July 2007
where
R = Fy / 2Fe (C-C4.1-23)
⎡ 0.037 ⎤
Ao = ⎢ + 0.667 ⎥A ≤ Α (C-C4.1-24)
⎢⎣ DFy / tE ⎥⎦
A = area of the unreduced cross section.
Equation C-C4.1-24 is used for computing the reduced area due to local buckling. It is
derived from Equation C-C4.1-20 for inelastic local buckling stress (Yu, 2000).
In 1999, the coefficient, R, was limited to one (1.0) so that the effective area, Ae, will
always be less than or equal to the unreduced cross sectional area, A. To simplify the
equations, R = Fy/(2Fe) is used rather than R = Fy /( 2 Fe ) as in the previous edition of the
AISI Specification. The equation for the effective area is simplified to Ae = Ao + R(A - Ao) as
given in Equation C4.1.5-1 of the North American Specification.
C4.2 Distortional Buckling Strength [Resistance]

Distortional buckling is an instability that may occur in members with edge stiffened
flanges, such as lipped C- and Z-sections. As shown in Figure C-C4.2-1, this buckling mode is
characterized by instability of the entire flange, as the flange along with the edge stiffener
rotates about the junction of the flange and the web. The length of the buckling wave in
distortional buckling is considerably longer than local buckling, and noticeably shorter than
flexural or flexural-torsional buckling. The Specification provisions of Section B4 partially
account for distortional buckling, but research has shown that a separate limit state check is
required (Schafer 2002). Thus, in 2007, treating distortional buckling as a separate limit state,
Specification Section C3.1.4 was added to address distortional buckling in beams and
Specification Section C4.2 was added to address distortional buckling in columns. Note, as
stated in the Specification, when a member is designed in accordance with Section D6.1.3,
Compression Members Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing, the
0.5
Z-section with lips (AISI 2002 Ex. I-10)
0.45
0.4
P y =45.23kips
0.35
Flexural
0.3
Pcr / Py
0.25
0.2 Local Pcr /Py =0.16 Distortional Pcr /Py =0.29
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half-wavelength (in.)
Figure C-C4.2-1 Rational Elastic Buckling Analysis of a Z-Section under Compression

Showing Local, Distortional, and Flexural Buckling Modes
July 2007 91
Chapter C, Members
Section C4.2 Distortional Buckling Strength provisions need not be applied since distortional
buckling is inherently included as a limit state in the Section D6.1.3 strength prediction
equations.
Determination of the nominal strength in distortional buckling (Specification Equation
C4.2-2) was validated by testing. Equation C4.2-2 was originally developed for the Direct
Strength Method of Appendix 1 of the Specification. Calibration of the safety and resistance
factors for Specification Equation C4.2-2 is provided in the commentary to Appendix 1. In
addition, the Australian/New Zealand Specification (AS/NZS 4600) has used an expression
of similar form to Specification Equation C4.2-2, but yielding slightly less conservative
strength predictions than Equation C4.2-2, since 1996.
Distortional buckling is unlikely to control the strength of a column if (a) the web is
slender and triggers local buckling far in advance of distortional buckling, as is the case for
many common C-sections, (b) edge stiffeners are sufficiently stiff and thus stabilize the flange
(as is often the case for C-sections, but typically not for Z-sections due to the use of sloping lip
stiffeners), (c) unbraced lengths are long and flexural or flexural-torsional buckling strength
limits the capacity, or (d) adequate rotational restraint is provided to the flanges from
attachments (panels, sheathing, etc.).
The primary difficulty in calculating the strength in distortional buckling is to efficiently
estimate the elastic distortional buckling stress, Fd. Recognizing the complexity of this
calculation this section of the Specification provides three alternatives: Specification Section
C4.2(a) provides a conservative prediction for unrestrained C- and Z-sections, Section C4.2(b)
provides a more comprehensive method for C- and Z-Section members and any open section
with a single web and flanges of the same dimension, and Section C4.2(c) offers the option to
use rational elastic buckling analysis. See the Appendix 1 commentary for further discussion.
The equations of Section C4.2(a) assume the compression flange is unrestrained; however, the
methods of Sections C4.2(b) and (c) allow for a rotational restraint, kφ, to be included to
account for attachments which restrict flange rotation. Additional guidance on kφ is provided
in the Commentary Section C3.1.4.
(a) Simplified Provision for Unrestrained C- and Z-sections with Simple Lip Stiffeners
The provision of Specification Section C4.2(a) provides a conservative approximation to
the distortional buckling stress, Fd, for C- and Z-sections with simple lip stiffeners. The
expressions were specifically derived as a conservative simplification to those provided in
Sections C4.2(b) and (c). For many common sections the provisions of Section C4.2(a) may
be used to show that distortional buckling of the column will not control the capacity.
(b) For C- and Z-Sections or Hat Sections or Any Open Section with Stiffened Flanges of Equal
Dimension where the Stiffener is either a Simple Lip or a Complex Edge Stiffener
The provisions of Specification Section C4.2(b) provide a general method for calculation
of the distortional buckling stress, Fd, for any open section with equal edge stiffened
compression flanges, including those with complex edge stiffeners. The provisions of
Specification Section C4.2(b) also provide a more refined answer for any C- and Z-section
including those meeting the criteria of Section C4.2(a). The expressions employed here are
derived in Schafer (2002) and verified for complex stiffeners in Schafer et al. (2006). The
equations used for the distortional buckling stress, Fd, in AS/NZS 4600 are also similar to
those in Specification Section C4.2(b), except that when the web is very slender and is
restrained by the flange, AS/NZS 4600 uses a simpler, conservative treatment. Since the
92 July 2007
provided expressions can be complicated, solutions for the geometric properties of C- and
Z-sections based on centerline dimensions are provided in Table C-C3.1.4(b)-1.
(c) Rational Elastic Buckling Analysis
Rational elastic buckling analysis consists of any method following the principles of
mechanics to arrive at an accurate prediction of the elastic distortional buckling stress. It
is important to note that this is a rational elastic buckling analysis and not simply an
arbitrary rational method to determine strength. A variety of rational computational and
analytical methods can provide the elastic buckling moment with a high degree of
accuracy. Complete details are provided in Section 1.1.2 of the Commentary to Appendix
1 of the Specification. The safety and resistance factors of this section have been shown to
apply to a wide variety of cross-sections undergoing distortional buckling (via the
methods of Appendix 1). As long as the member falls within the geometric limits of main
Specification Section B1.1 the same safety and resistance factors have been assumed to
apply.
C5 Combined Axial Load and Bending

In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification, the design provisions for combined axial load
and bending were expanded to include expressions for the design of members subject to
combined tensile axial load and bending. In the 2001 and this edition, combined axial and
bending for the limit states design (LSD) method has been added. The design approach of the
LSD method is the same as the LRFD method.
C5.1 Combined Tensile Axial Load and Bending

These provisions apply to concurrent bending and tensile axial load. If bending can occur
without the presence of tensile axial load, the member must also conform to the provisions of
Specification Sections C3, D4 and D6.1. Care must be taken not to overestimate the tensile load
as this could be unconservative.
C5.1.1 ASD Method

Specification Equation C5.1.1-1 provides a design criterion to prevent yielding of the
tension flange of a member under combined tensile axial load and bending. Specification
Equation C5.1.1-2 provides a design criterion to prevent failure of the compression flange.

Similar to the ASD method, two interaction equations are included in Specification
Section C5.1.2 for the LRFD and the LSD methods. Specification Equations C5.1.2-1 and
C5.1.2-2 are used to prevent the failure of the tension flange and compression flange,
respectively. In both equations, different symbols are used for the required tensile axial
strength [factored tension] and the required flexural strength [factored moment] according
to the LRFD and the LSD methods.
July 2007 93
Chapter C, Members
C5.2 Combined Compressive Axial Load and Bending

Cold-formed steel members under a combination of compressive axial load and bending
are usually referred to as beam-columns. The bending may result from eccentric loading,
transverse loads, or applied moments. Such members are often found in framed structures,
trusses, and exterior wall studs. For the design of such members, interaction equations have
been developed for locally stable and unstable beam-columns on the basis of thorough
comparison with rigorous theory and verified by the available test results (Pekoz, 1986a;
Pekoz and Sumer, 1992).
The structural behavior of beam-columns depends on the shape and dimensions of the
cross section, the location of the applied eccentric load, the column length, the end restraint,
and the condition of bracing. In this edition of the Specification, the ASD method is included
in Section C5.2.1. Specification Section C5.2.2 is for the LRFD and the LSD methods.
In 2007, the Specification introduced the second order analysis approach as an optional
method of stability analysis. This new method is provided in Appendix 2 and specifies the
use of a geometrically non-linear second order analysis for determining the required
moments and axial loads [factored moments and axial loads] for use in Specification Sections
C5.2.1 and C5.2.2. The moments and axial loads are the maximums in a member. Appendix 2
also specifies the values for Kx, Ky, αx, αy, Cmx and Cmy to be used. Detailed discussion is
provided in the commentary on Appendix 2.
The previous effective length approach is still permitted. In this case, the required
moments and axial forces for the ASD method and the required strengths [factored moments
and axial forces] for the LRFD and LSD methods are derived from a first order elastic analysis
and stability effects are accounted for by choosing appropriate K-factors in combination with
αx, αy, Cmx and Cmy calculated in accordance with Specification Sections C5.2.1 and C5.2.2.
To avoid situations of the load ΩcP (or P ) exceeding the Euler buckling load PE, the
amplification factor α is limited to a positive value in the 2007 Specification.
C5.2.1 ASD Method

When a beam-column is subject to an axial load P and end moments M as shown in
Figure C-C5.2-1(a), the combined axial and bending stress in compression is given in
Equation C-C5.2.1-1 as long as the member remains straight:
P M
f= + (C-C5.2.1-1)
A S
= fa + fb
where
f = combined stress in compression
fa = axial compressive stress
fb = bending stress in compression
P = applied axial load
A = cross-sectional area
M = bending moment
S = section modulus
It should be noted that in the design of such a beam-column by using the ASD method,
the combined stress should be limited by certain allowable stress F, that is,
94 July 2007
P P
M B M
Lb C
M A M
P P
(a) (b)
Figure C-C5.2-1 Beam-Column Subjected to Axial Loads and End Moments
fa + fb ≤ F
or
fa fb
+ ≤ 1.0 (C-C5.2.1-2)
F F
As specified in Sections C3.1, D6.1 and C4 of the Specification, the safety factor Ωc for
the design of compression members is different from the safety factor Ωb for beam design.
Therefore Equation C-C5.2.1-2 may be modified as follows:
fa fb
+ ≤ 1.0 (C-C5.2.1-3)
Fa Fb
where
Fa = allowable stress for the design of compression members
Fb = allowable stress for the design of beams
If the strength ratio is used instead of the stress ratio, Equation C-C5.2.1-3 can be
rewritten as follows:
P M
+ ≤ 1.0 (C-C5.2.1-4)
Pa M a
where
P = applied axial load = Afa
Pa = allowable axial load = AFa
M = applied moment = Sfb
Ma = allowable moment = SFb
According to Equation C-A4.1.1-1,
P
Pa = n
Ωc
Mn
Ma =
Ωb
In the above equations, Pn and Ωc are given in Specification Sections C4 and D6.1, while
Mn and Ωb are specified in Specification Sections C3.1 and D6.1. Substituting the above
July 2007 95
Chapter C, Members
expressions into Equation C-C5.2.1-4, the following interaction equation (Specification

Equation C5.2.1-3), can be obtained:
Ω cP Ω bΜ
+ ≤ 1.0 (C-C5.2.1-5)
Pn Μn
Equation C-C5.2.1-4 is a well-known interaction equation, which has been adopted in
several specifications for the design of beam-columns. It can be used with reasonable
accuracy for short members and members subjected to a relatively small axial load. It
should be realized that in practical applications, when end moments are applied to the
member, it will be bent as shown in Figure C-C5.2-1(b) due to the applied moment M and
the secondary moment resulting from the applied axial load P and the deflection of the
member. The maximum bending moment at mid-length (point C) can be represented by
Mmax =ΦM (C-C5.2.1-6)
where
Mmax = maximum bending moment at mid-length
M = applied end moments
Φ = amplification factor
It can be shown that the amplification factor Φ may be computed by
1
Φ= (C-C5.2.1-7)
1 − P/PΕ
where PE = elastic column buckling load (Euler load) = π2EI/(KLb)2. Applying a safety
factor Ωc to PE, Equation C-C5.2.1-7 may be rewritten as
1
Φ= (C-C5.2.1-8)
1 − Ω c P/PE
If the maximum bending moment Mmax is used to replace M, the following interaction
equation can be obtained from Equations C-C5.2.1-5 and C-C5.2.1-8:
ΩcP ΩbΜ
+ ≤ 1.0 (C-C5.2.1-9)
Pn (1 − Ω c P/PE )Μ n
It has been found that Equation C-C5.2.1-9, developed for a member subjected to an
axial compressive load and equal end moments, can be used with reasonable accuracy for
braced members with unrestrained ends subjected to an axial load and a uniformly
distributed transverse load. However, it could be conservative for compression members
in unbraced frames (with sidesway), and for members bent in reverse curvature. For this
reason, the interaction equation given in Equation C-C5.2.1-9 should be further modified
by a coefficient Cm, as shown in Equation C-C5.2.1-10, to account for the effect of end
moments:
ΩcP ΩbCm Μ
+ ≤ 1.0 (C-C5.2.1-10)
Pn αΜ n
The above equation is Specification Equation C5.2.1-1, in which α = 1- ΩcP/PE.
In Equation C-C5.2.1-10, Cm can be determined for one of the three cases defined in
Specification Section C5.2.1. For Case 1, Cm is given as 0.85. In Case 2, it can be computed
by Equation C-C5.2.1-11 for restrained compression members braced against joint
translation and not subject to transverse loading:
96 July 2007
M1
C m = 0.6 − 0.4 (C-C5.2.1-11)
M2
where M1/M2 is the ratio of smaller to the larger end moments. For Case 3, Cm may be
approximated by using the value given in the AISC Commentaries for the applicable
condition of transverse loading and end restraint (AISC, 1989, 1999, and 2005).
Figure C-C5.2-2 illustrates the interaction relation. In order to simplify the illustration,
bending about only one axis is considered in Figure C-C5.2-2 and the safety factors, Ωc and
Ωb, are taken as unity. The ordinate is the compressive axial load on the member and the
abscissa is the bending moment. When the moment is zero, the limiting axial load is Pn
determined in accordance with Specification Section C4, which is based on column buckling
and local buckling. When the axial load is zero, the limiting moment, Mn, is determined in
accordance with Specification Sections C3 and D6.1 and is the lowest of the effective yield
moment, the moment based on inelastic reserve capacity (if applicable) or the moment
based on lateral-torsional buckling. The interaction relation cannot exceed either of these
limits.
When Specification Equation C5.2.1-1 is plotted in Figure C-C5.2-2, the axial load limit is
Pn and the moment limit is Mn/Cm, which will exceed Mn when Cm < 1. Therefore,
Specification Equation C5.2.1-2 is used as a mathematical stratagem to limit the moment to
Mn and match the rigorous solution at low axial loads. The interaction limit is the lower of
the two equations as shown by hash marks. Specification Equation C5.2.1-2 is a linear
relation between the nominal axial yield strength Pno = FyAe and Mn, and does not
represent a failure state over its whole range. If Specification Equation C5.2.1-2 uses the
moment capacity based only on yield or local buckling, Mno = FySeff, it would be
represented by the dashed line, which could exceed an Mn limit based on lateral-torsional
buckling. Clearly, load combinations in the shaded region would be unconservative. If Mn
is determined by Mno, the relation in Figure C-C5.2-2 still apply. If Cm/α ≥ 1, Specification
Equation C5.2.1-1 controls.
P
Pno
Specification Eq. C5.2.1-2

Pn
0.15Pn
M
Mn Mno Mn C m
Figure C-C5.2-2 Interaction Relations
July 2007 97
Chapter C, Members
For low axial loads, Specification Equation C5.2.1-3 may be used. This is a conservative
simplification of the interaction relation defined by Specification Equations C5.2.1-1 and
C5.2.1-2.
In 2001, a requirement of each individual ratio in Specification Equations C5.2.1-1 to
C5.2.1-3 not exceeding unity was added to avoid situations of the load ΩcP exceeding the
Euler buckling load PE, which leads to amplification factor Φ (given in Equation C-C5.2.1-
8) negative.
For the design of angle sections using the ASD method, the required additional
bending moment of PL/1000 about the minor principal axis is discussed in Item E of
Section C4 of the Commentary.

The LRFD and the LSD methods use the same interaction equations as the ASD
method, except that φcPn and φbMn are used for design strengths [factored resistances]. In
addition, the required axial strength [factored compressive force], Pu or Pf, and the
required flexural strength [factored moment], Mu or Mf, are to be determined from
factored loads according to the requirements of Section A5.1.2 of the Specification Appendix
A for USA and Mexico, and Appendix B for Canada. In Specification Equations C5.2.2-1
through C5.2.2-3, symbols P and M are used for the required compressive axial strength
[factored compressive force] and the required flexural strength [factored moment] for both
the LRFD and the LSD methods.
It should be noted that, as compared with the 1991 edition of the AISI LRFD
Specification, the definition of factor α was changed in the AISI 1996 and this edition of the
Specification by eliminating the φc term because the term PE is a deterministic value and
hence does not require a resistance factor.
The interaction equations used in Specification Section C5.2.2 are the same as that used
in the AISI LRFD Specification (AISI, 1991) but they are different as compared with the
AISC Specifications (AISC, 1999 and 2005) due to the lack of sufficient evidence for cold-
formed steel columns to adopt the AISC criteria.
Similar to Specification Section C5.2.1, ASD Method, the requirement of each individual
ratio in Specification Equations C5.2.2-1 to C5.2.2-3 not exceeding unity was added in 2001.
For the design of angle sections using the LRFD and the LSD methods, the required
additional bending moment of PL/1000 about the minor principal axis was discussed in
Item E of Section C4 of the Commentary.
98 July 2007
D. STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLIES AND SYSTEMS

D1 Built-Up Sections
I-Sections made by connecting two C-sections back to back are one type of built-up section
that is often used as either flexural or compression members. Cases (2) and (8) of Figure C-A1.2-
2 and Cases (3) and (7) of Figure C-A1.2-3 show several built-up I-sections. For built-up flexural
members, the Specification is limited to two back-to-back C-sections. For built-up compression
members, other sections can be used.
D1.1 Flexural Members Composed of Two Back-to-Back C-Sections

For the I-sections to be used as flexural members, the longitudinal spacing of connectors
is limited by Equation D1.1-1 of the Specification. The first requirement is an arbitrarily
selected limit to prevent any possible excessive distortion of the top flange between
connectors. The second is based on the strength [resistance] and arrangement of connectors
and the intensity of the load acting on the beam (Yu, 2000).
The second requirement for maximum spacing of connectors required by Specification
Equation D1.1-1 is based on the fact that the shear center of the C-section is neither coincident
with nor located in the plane of the web; and that when a load Q is applied in the plane of the
web, it produces a twisting moment Qm about its shear center, as shown in Figure C-D1.1-1.
The tensile force of the top connector Ts can then be computed from the equality of the
twisting moment Qm and the resisting moment Tsg, that is
Qm = Tsg (C-D1.1-1)
Qm
Ts = (C-D1.1-2)
g
Considering that q is the intensity of the load and that s is the spacing of connectors as
shown in Figure C-D1.1-2, the applied load is Q=qs/2. The maximum spacing smax used in
the Specification can easily be obtained by substituting the above value of Q into Equation C-
D1.1-2 of this Commentary. The determination of the load intensity q is based upon the type of
loading applied to the beam. The requirement of three times the uniformly distributed load is
applied to reflect that the assumed uniform load will not really be uniform. The Specification
prescribes a conservative estimate of the applied loading to account for the likely
concentration of loads near the welds or other connectors that join the two C-sections.
Ts
S.C.
g
m
Ts
Figure C-D1.1-1 Tensile Force Developed in the Connector for C-Section
July 2007 99
Chapter D, Structural Assemblies and Systems
For simple C-sections without stiffening lips at the outer edges,

wf2
m= (C-D1.1-3)
2w f + d / 3
For C-sections with stiffening lips at the outer edges,
w f dt ⎡ ⎛ 4D 2 ⎞⎟⎤
m= ⎢ w f d + 2 D⎜ d − ⎥ (C-D1.1-4)
4I x ⎢⎣ ⎜ 3d ⎟⎠⎥⎦
⎝
where
wf = Projection of flanges from the inside face of the web (For C-sections with
flanges of unequal width, wf shall be taken as the width of the wider flange)
d = Depth of C-section or beam
D = Overall depth of lip
Ix = Moment of inertia of one C-section about its centroidal axis normal to the web
In addition to the above considerations on the required strength [effect of factored loads]
of connections, the spacing of connectors should not be so great as to cause excessive
distortion between connectors by separation along the top flange. In view of the fact that C-
sections are connected back to back and are continuously in contact along the bottom flange,
a maximum spacing of L/3 may be used. Considering the possibility that one connection may
be defective, a maximum spacing of smax = L/6 is the first requirement in Specification
Equation D1.1-1.
g s
s
Figure C-D1.1-2 Spacing of Connectors
D1.2 Compression Members Composed of Two Sections in Contact

Compression members composed of two shapes joined together at discrete points have a
reduced shear rigidity. The influence of this reduced shear rigidity on the buckling stress is
taken into account by modifying the slenderness ratio used to calculate the elastic critical
buckling stress (Bleich, 1952). The overall slenderness and the local slenderness between
connected points both influence the compressive resistance. The combined action is
expressed by the modified slenderness ratio given by the following:
2 2
⎛ KL ⎞ ⎛ KL ⎞ ⎛a ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (C-D1.2-1)
⎝ r ⎠m ⎝ r ⎠ o ⎝ ri ⎠
100 July 2007

Note that in this expression, the overall slenderness ratio, (KL/r)o, is computed about the
same axis as the modified slenderness ratio, (KL/r)m. Further, the modified slenderness ratio,
(KL/r)m, replaces KL/r in the Specification Section C4 for both flexural and flexural-torsional
buckling.
This modified slenderness approach is used in other steel standards, including the AISC
(AISC, 1999 and 2005), CSA S136 (CSA S136, 1994), and CAN/CSA S16.1 (CAN/CSA S16.1-
94, 1994).
To prevent the flexural buckling of the individual shapes between intermediate
connectors, the intermediate fastener spacing, a, is limited such that a/ri does not exceed one
half the governing slenderness ratio of the built-up member (i.e. a/ri ≤ 0.5(KL/r)o). This
intermediate fastener spacing requirement is consistent with the previous edition of the AISI
Specification with the one half factor included to account for any one of the connectors
becoming loose or ineffective. Note that the previous edition of S136 (S136, 1994) had no limit
on fastener spacing.
The importance of preventing shear slip in the end connection is addressed by the
prescriptive requirements in Specification Section D1.2(2) adopted from the AISC (AISC, 1999)
and CAN/CSA S16.1 (CAN/CSA S16.1-94, 1994). These provisions were added to the North
American Specification since 2001.
The intermediate fastener(s) or weld(s) at any longitudinal member tie location is
required, as a group, to transmit a force equal to 2.5 percent of the nominal axial strength
[resistance] of the built-up member. A longitudinal member tie is defined as a location of
interconnection of the two members in contact. In the 2001 edition of the Specification, a 2.5
percent total force determined in accordance with appropriate load combinations was used
for design of the intermediate fastener(s) or weld(s). This requirement was adopted from
CSA S136-94. In 2004, the requirement has been changed to be a function of the nominal axial
strength. This change is to ensure that the nominal axial strength [resistance] of the built-up
member is valid and is not compromised by the strength [resistance] of the member
interconnections.
Note that the provision in Specification Section D1.2 has been substantially taken from
research in hot-rolled built-up members connected with bolts or welds. These hot-rolled
provisions have been extended to include other fastener types common in cold-formed steel
construction (such as screws) provided they meet the 2.5 percent requirement for shear
strength [resistance] and the conservative spacing requirement a/ri ≤ 0.5(KL/r)o.
D1.3 Spacing of Connections in Cover Plated Sections

When compression elements are joined to other parts of built-up members by intermittent
connections, these connectors must be closely spaced to develop the required strength [effect
of forces] of the connected element. Figure C-D1.3-1 shows a box-shaped beam made by
connecting a flat sheet to an inverted hat section. If the connectors are appropriately placed,
this flat sheet will act as a stiffened compression element with a width, w, equal to the
distance between rows of connectors, and the sectional properties can be calculated
accordingly. This is the intent of the provisions in Section D1.3 of the Specification.
Section D1.3(a) of the Specification requires that the necessary shear strength [resistance]
be provided by the same standard structural design procedure that is used in calculating
flange connections in bolted or welded plate girders or similar structures.
July 2007 101

Section D1.3(b) of the Specification ensures that the part of the flat sheet between two
adjacent connectors will not buckle as a column (see Figure C-D1.3-1) at a stress less than
1.67fc, where fc is the stress at service load in the connected compression element (Winter,
1970; Yu, 2000). The AISI requirement is based on the following Euler equation for column
buckling:
π2E
σ cr =
( KL/r ) 2
by substituting σcr = 1.67fc, K = 0.6, L = s, and r = t/ 12 . This provision is conservative
because the length is taken as the center distance instead of the clear distance between
connectors, and the coefficient K is taken as 0.6 instead of 0.5, which is theoretical value for a
column with fixed end supports.
Section D1.3(c) ensures satisfactory spacing to make a row of connectors act as a
continuous line of stiffening for the flat sheet under most conditions (Winter, 1970; Yu, 2000).
Figure C-D1.3-1 Spacing of Connectors in Composite Section
D2 Mixed Systems
When cold-formed steel members are used in conjunction with other construction materials,
the design requirements of the other material specifications also must be satisfied.
D3 Lateral and Stability Bracing

Bracing design requirements were expanded in the 1986 AISI Specification to include a
general statement regarding bracing for symmetrical beams and columns and specific
requirements for the design of roof systems subjected to gravity load. These requirements are
retained in this Specification. !B
Lateral restraints are applied to the top flange of C- and Z-sections to resist the tendency of
Z-sections to translate laterally, and the tendency of both Z- and C-sections to twist due to
eccentrically applied loads. By restraining lateral displacement and torsional rotation, second
order effects are minimized. Anchorage is most commonly applied along the frame lines due to
the effectiveness and ease in which the forces are transferred out of the system. In the absence
of substantial diaphragm stiffness, anchorage may be required along the interior of the span to
prevent large lateral displacements. Torsional braces applied along the span of a Z- or C-
section provide an alternative to interior anchorage.
102 July 2007

D3.1 Symmetrical Beams and Columns

There are no simple, generally accepted techniques for determining the required strength
[resistance] and stiffness for discrete braces in steel construction. Winter (1960) offered a
partial solution and others have extended this knowledge (Haussler, 1964; Haussler and
Pahers, 1973; Lutz and Fisher, 1985; Salmon and Johnson, 1990; Yura, 1993; SSRC, 1993). The
design engineer is encouraged to seek out the stated references to obtain guidance for design
of a brace or brace system. B
!
D3.2 C-Section and Z-Section Beams
C-sections and Z-sections used as beams to support transverse loads applied in the plane
of the web may twist and deflect laterally unless adequate lateral supports are provided.
Section D3.2 of the Specification includes the requirements for spacing and design of braces,
when neither flange of the beam is braced by deck or sheathing material. The bracing
requirements for members having one flange connected to deck or sheathing materials are
provided in D6.3.1. B
!
D3.2.1 Neither Flange Connected to Sheathing that Contributes to the Strength and
Stability of the C- or Z- section
(a) Bracing of C-Section Beams

If C-sections are used singly as beams, rather than being paired to form I-sections,
they should be braced at intervals so as to prevent them from rotating in the manner
indicated in Figure C-D3.2.1-1. Figure C-D3.2.1-2, for simplicity, shows two C-sections
braced at intervals against each other. The situation is evidently much the same as in
the composite I-section of Figure C-D1.1-2, except that the role of the connectors is now
played by the braces. The difference is that the two C-sections are not in contact, and
that the spacing of braces is generally considerably larger than the connector spacing.
In consequence, each C-section may actually rotate very slightly between braces, and
this will cause some additional stresses, which superimpose on the usual, simple
bending stresses. Bracing should be so arranged that: (1) these additional stresses are
small enough not to reduce the load-carrying capacity of the C-section (as compared to
what it would be in the continuously braced condition); and (2) rotations should be
kept small enough to be unobjectionable on the order of 1 to 2 degrees.
In order to obtain the information for developing bracing provisions, different C-
section shapes have been tested at Cornell University (Winter, 1970). Each of these was
tested with full, continuous bracing; without any bracing; and with intermediate
bracing at two different spacings. In addition to this experimental work, an
approximate method of analysis was developed and checked against the test results. A
condensed account of this was given by Winter, Lansing and McCalley (1949b). It is
indicated in that reference that the above requirements are satisfied for most
distributions of beam load if between supports not less than three equidistant braces
are placed (i.e., at quarter-points of the span, or closer). The exception is the case where
a large part of the total load of the beam is concentrated over a short portion of the
span; in this case an additional brace should be placed at such a load. Correspondingly,
previous editions of the AISI Specification (AISI, 1986; AISI, 1991) provided that the
July 2007 103

distance between braces shall not be greater than one-quarter of the span; it also
defined the conditions under which an additional brace should be placed at a load
concentration.
For such braces to be effective it is not only necessary that their spacing be
appropriately limited; in addition, their strength [resistance] should suffice to provide
the force required to prevent the C-section from rotating. It is, therefore, necessary also
to determine the forces that will act in braces, such as those forces shown in Figure C-
D3.2.1-3. These forces are found if one considers that the action of a load applied in the
plane of the web (which causes a torque Qm) is equivalent to that same load when
applied at the shear center (where it causes no torque) plus two forces P = Qm/d
which, together, produce the same torque Qm. As is sketched in Figure C-D3.2.1-4, and
shown in some detail by Winter, Lansing and McCalley (1949b), each half of the
channel can then be regarded as a continuous beam loaded by the horizontal forces and
supported at the brace points. The horizontal brace force is then, simply, the
appropriate reaction of this continuous beam. The provisions of Specification Section
D3.2.1 provide expressions for determining bracing forces PL1 and PL2, which the
braces are required to resist at each flange.
(b) Bracing of Z-Section Beams
Most Z-sections are anti-symmetrical about the vertical and horizontal centroidal
Q
Q Q P = Qm
d
m
Q
S.C.
dm
V
S.C.
V
P = Qm
V d
Figure C-D3.2.1-3 Lateral Forces Applied to C-Section
Q
Figure C-D3.2.1-1 Rotation of C-Section Beams
Figure C-D3.2.1-4 Half of C-Section Treated as a Continuous Beam Loaded by

Figure C-D3.2.1-2 Two C-Sections BracedForces
Horizontal at Intervals Against Each Other
104 July 2007

axes, i.e. they are point-symmetrical. In view of this, the centroid and the shear center
coincide and are located at the midpoint of the web. A load applied in the plane of the
web has, then, no lever arm about the shear center (m = 0) and does not tend to
produce the kind of rotation a similar load would produce on a C-section. However, in
Z-sections the principal axes are oblique to the web (Figure C-D3.2.1-5). A load applied
in the plane of the web, resolved in the direction of the two axes, produces deflections
along each of them. By projecting these deflections onto the horizontal and vertical
planes it is found that a Z-beam loaded vertically in the plane of the web deflects not
only vertically but also horizontally. If such deflection is permitted to occur then the
loads, moving sideways with the beam, are no longer in the same plane with the
reactions at the ends. In consequence, the loads produce a twisting moment about the
line connecting the reactions. In this manner it is seen that a Z-beam, unbraced between
ends and loaded in the plane of the web, deflects laterally and also twists. Not only are
these deformations likely to interfere with a proper functioning of the beam, but the
additional stresses caused by them produce failure at a load considerably lower than
when the same beam is used fully braced.
In order to obtain information for developing appropriate bracing provisions, tests
have been carried out on three different Z-sections at Cornell University, unbraced as
well as with variously spaced intermediate braces. In addition, an approximate method
of analysis has been developed and checked against the test results. An account of this
was given by Zetlin and Winter (1955b). Briefly, it is shown that intermittently braced
Z-beams can be analyzed in much the same way as intermittently braced C-beams. It is
merely necessary, at the point of each actual vertical load Q, to apply a fictitious
horizontal load Q(Ixy/Ix) or Q[Ixy/(2Ix)] to each flange. One can then compute the
vertical and horizontal deflections, and the corresponding stresses, in conventional
ways by utilizing the convenient axes x and y (rather than 1 and 2, Figure C-D3.2.1-5),
except that certain modified section properties have to be used. To control the lateral
deflection, brace forces, P, must statically balance the fictitious force.
+y
2
Q
P=QIxy/(2Ix)
Fictitious
load
1
-x +x
1
Fictitious
load
P=QIxy/(2Ix)
-y
2
Figure C-D3.2.1-5 Principal Axis of Z-Section
July 2007 105

In this manner it has been shown that as to location of braces the same provisions that
apply to C-sections are also adequate for Z-sections. Likewise, the forces in the braces
are again obtained as the reactions of continuous beams horizontally loaded by
fictitious loads P. It should, however, be noted that the direction of the bracing forces
in Z-beams is different from the direction in C-beams. In the Z-beam, the bracing
forces are acting in the same direction, as shown in Fig. C-D3.2.1-5 in order to constrain
bending of the section about the axis x-x in Figure C-D3.2.1-5. The directions of the
bracing forces in the C-beam flanges are in the opposite direction as shown in Figure C-
D3.2.1-3 in order to resist the torsion caused by the applied load. In the previous
edition of the Specification, the magnitude of the Z-beam bracing force was shown as P
= Q(Ixy/Ix) on each flange. In 2001, this force was corrected to P = Q[Ixy/(2Ix)].
Py P
θ
ys y ys y
esx Px
PL1
m esy
Py
S.C. x, xs
C. x, x sd Mz Px
PL2
Figure C-D3.2.1-6 C-Section Member Subjected to a

Concentrated Load
(c) Slope Effect and Eccentricity

For a C- or Z-section member subjected to an arbitrary load, bracing forces, PL1 and
PL2, on flanges need to resist (1) force component Px that is perpendicular to the web,
(2) the torsion caused by eccentricity about the shear center, and (3) for the Z-section
member, the lateral movement caused by component Py, that is parallel to the web.
To develop a set of equations applicable to any loading conditions, the x and y axes
are oriented such that one of the flanges is located in the quadrant with both x and y
axes positive. Since the torsion should be calculated about the shear center, coordinates
xs and ys that go through the shear center and parallel to x and y axes are established.
Load eccentricities ex and ey should be measured based on xs and ys coordinate system.
For the C-section member as shown in Figure C-D3.2.1-6, the bracing forces on both
flanges are given in Equations C-D3.2.1-1 and C-D3.2.1-2.
P M
PL 1 = − x + z (C-D3.2.1-1)
2 d
P M
PL 2 = − x − z (C-D3.2.1-2)
2 d
M z = −Px e sy + Py e sx (C-D3.2.1-3)
where d = overall depth of the web; esx, esy = eccentricities of design load about the
shear center in xs- and ys-direction, respectively; Px, Py = components of design load in
106 July 2007

x- and y-direction, respectively; Mz = torsional moment about the shear center; and PL1
= bracing force applied to the flange located in the quadrant with both positive x and y
axes, and PL2 = bracing force applied on the other flange. Positive PL1 and PL2 indicate
that a restraint is required to prevent the movement of the corresponding flange in the
negative x-direction.
For a special case where design load, Q, is through the web, as shown in Figure C-
D3.2.1-3, Py = -Q, Px = 0; esx = m, esy = d/2, and from Equation C-D3.2.1-3, Mz = -Qm.
Therefore
PL1 = -Qm/d (C-D3.2.1-4)
PL2 = Qm/d (C-D3.2.1-5)
In which, m = distance from centerline of web to the shear center.
For the Z-section member as shown in Figure C-D3.2.1-7, bracing forces, PL1 and PL2,
are given in Equations C-D3.2.1-6 and C-D3.2.1-7.
I xy P M
PL 1 = Py ( )− x + z (C-D3.2.1-6)
2I x 2 d
I xy P M
PL 2 = Py ( )− x − z (C-D3.2.1-7)
2I x 2 d
where Ix, Ixy = unreduced moment of inertia and product of inertia; respectively. Other
variables are defined under the discussion for C-section members.
Py P
y, ys θ y, ys
esx PL1
Px
esy Py x, xs
x, x s Px
Mz
d PL2
Figure C-D3.2.1-7 A Z-Section Member Subjected to an Arbitrary Load
Assuming that a gravity load, P, acts at 1/3 of the top flange width, bf, and the Z-
Section member rests on a sloped roof with an angle of θ, Px = -Psinθ; Py = -Pcosθ; esx =
bf/3; esy = d/2 and Mz = Psinθ(d/2) - Pcosθ(bf/3). Substituting the above expressions
into equations C-D3.2.1-6 and C-D3.2.1-7 results in
I xy Pb f cos θ
PL 1 = −P cos θ( ) + P sin θ −
2I x 3d
I xy Pb f cos θ
PL 2 = −P cos θ( )+
2I x 3d
In considering the distribution of loads and the braces along the member length, it is
required that the resistance at each brace location along the member length be greater
July 2007 107

than or equal to the design load within a distance of 0.5a on each side of the brace for
distributed loads. For concentrated loads, the resistance at each brace location should
be greater than or equal to the concentrated design load within a distance 0.3a each
side of the brace, plus 1.4(1-l/a) times each design load located farther than 0.3a but not
farther than 1.0a from the brace. In the above, a is the distance between centerline of
braces along the member length and l is the distance from concentrated load to the
brace to be considered.
(d) Spacing of Braces
During the period from 1956 through 1996, the AISI Specification required that braces
be attached both to the top and bottom flanges of the beam, at the ends and at intervals
not greater than one-quarter of the span length, in such a manner as to prevent tipping
at the ends and lateral deflection of either flange in either direction at intermediate
braces. The lateral-torsional buckling equations provided in Specification Section
C3.1.2.1 can be used to predict the moment capacity of the member. Beam tests
conducted by Ellifritt, Sputo and Haynes (1992) have shown that for typical sections, a
mid-span brace may reduce service load horizontal deflections and rotations by as
much as 80 percent when compared to a completely unbraced beam. However, the
restraining effect of braces may change the failure mode from lateral-torsional buckling
to distortional buckling of the flange and lip at a brace point. The natural tendency of
the member under vertical load is to twist and translate in such a manner as to relieve
the compression on the lip. When such movement is restrained by intermediate braces,
the compression on the stiffening lip is not relieved, and may increase. In this case,
local distortional buckling may occur at loads lower than that predicted by the lateral-
torsional buckling equations of Specification Section C3.1.2.1.
Research (Ellifritt, Sputo and Haynes, 1992) has also shown that the lateral-torsional
buckling equations of Specification Section C3.1.2.1 predict loads, which are
conservative for cases where one mid-span brace is used but may be unconservative
where more than one intermediate brace is used. Based on such research findings,
Section D3.2.1 of the Specification was revised in 1996 to eliminate the requirement of
quarter-point bracing. It is suggested that, minimally, a mid-span brace be used for C-
section and Z-section beams to control lateral deflection and rotation at service loads.
The lateral-torsional buckling strength [resistance] of an open cross section member
should be determined by Specification Section C3.1.2.1 using the distance between
centerlines of braces “a” as the unbraced length of the member “L” in all design
equations. In any case, the user is permitted to perform tests, in accordance with
Specification Section F1, as an alternative, or use a rigorous analysis, which accounts for
biaxial bending and torsion.
Section D3.2.1 of the Specification provides the lateral forces for which these discrete
braces must be designed.
The Specification permits omission of discrete braces when all loads and reactions on a
beam are transmitted through members that frame into the section in such a manner as
to effectively restrain the member against torsional rotation and lateral displacement.
Frequently, this occurs in the end walls of metal buildings.
In 2007, the title of this section was changed to clarify that it is and was formerly
anticipated that the C- and Z-sections covered by these provisions would be
supporting sheathing and be loaded as a result of providing this support function. The
108 July 2007

revised title reflects that the supported sheathing is not contributing to the strength and
stiffness of these members by virtue of the nature of its connection to the C- and Z-
sections.
D3.3 Bracing of Axially Loaded Compression Members

The requirements for bracing a single compression member were developed from a study
by Green et. al (2004). With the exception of the compression member force used for design,
the requirements for brace strength for a single compression member are similar to those in
the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings for compression member nodal bracing
(AISC, 2005). The requirements for brace stiffness for a single compression member are
similar to the AISC provisions, with the exception that 2(4-(2/n)) instead of 8 is used as the
multiplier for the bracing stiffness. AISC assumes n = infinity. It is considered that this
simplification is too conservative for cold-formed steel structures. Analytical modeling by
Sputo and Beery (2006) has shown that these provisions may be applied to members of varied
cross sections.
For the calculation of bracing strength [resistance] and stiffness, the nominal strength
[resistance] of the member, Pn, is used rather than the required strength [factored resistance].
It is considered that using the full braced strength is the proper formulation, since the
equations for the member strength [resistance] (axial, flexural, and combined axial and
flexural) consider that the member be able to develop the full braced strength [resistance].
The brace provisions for lateral translation assume that the braces are perpendicular to
the compression member being braced and located in the plane of buckling. The stiffness
requirements include the contributions of the bracing members, connections, and anchorage
details.
In addition to the requirement to brace against lateral translation, there is a torsional
demand for members subject to torsional or flexural-torsional buckling which is not
accounted for by this section, and which may be determined through rational analysis or
other methods. In any case, torsional effects should be considered in the design of bracing.
D4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

In 2007, the scope of Section D4 on Wall Studs and Wall Stud Assemblies of the 2001 edition
of the Specification with 20004 Supplement was broadened to Light-Frame Construction. This
was done in order to recognize the growing use of cold-formed steel framing in a broader range
of residential and light commercial framing applications and to provide a means for either
requiring or accepting use of the various ANSI-approved standards that have been developed
by the AISI Committee on Framing Standards.
The North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing - General Provisions addresses
requirements for construction with cold-formed steel framing that are common to prescriptive
and engineered design. Use of the General Provisions is mandatory for the design and
installation of structural members and non-structural members utilized in cold-formed steel
repetitive framing applications where the specified minimum base steel thickness is between 18
mils (0.0179 inches) (0.455mm) and 118 mils (0.1180 inches) (2.997 mm) because certain
requirements, such as corrosion protection, product designators, manufacturing and installation
tolerances are not addressed adequately by the Specification.
July 2007 109

The other referenced standards include the following:

(a) The North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing – Header Design [Header Standard]
provides technical information and specifications for designing headers made from cold-
formed steel. Use of the Header Standard is optional for the design and installation of cold-
formed steel box and back-to-back headers, and double and single L-headers for load
carrying purposes in buildings because individual structural members of a header assembly
can be designed fully, albeit often less efficiently, using the Specification alone.
(b) The North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing – Truss Design [Truss Standard]
provides technical information and specifications on cold-formed steel truss construction.
Use of the Truss Standard is mandatory for the design of cold-formed steel trusses for load
carrying purposes in buildings because certain requirements, such as design responsibilities,
design requirements specific to truss assemblies using C-shape, hat-shape and z-shape
sections and gusset plates, as well as manufacturing, quality criteria, installation and testing
as they relate to the design of cold-formed steel trusses are not addressed adequately by the
Specification.
(c) The North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing – Wall Stud Design (Wall Stud
Standard) provides technical information and specifications for designing wall studs made
from cold-formed steel. Use of the Wall Stud Standard is optional for the design and
installation of cold-formed steel studs for both structural and non-structural walls in
buildings because individual structural members of a wall stud assembly can be designed
fully, albeit often less efficiently, using the Specification alone. For more comments on the
design and use of wall studs, see Section D4.1 of this Commentary.
(d) The North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing—Floor and Roof System Design
(FRSD Standard) provides technical information and specifications for designing floor and
roof systems made from cold-formed steel. Use of the FRSD Standard is optional for the
design and installation of cold-formed steel framing for floor and roof systems in buildings
because individual structural members of a floor and roof system assembly can be designed
fully, albeit often less efficiently, using the Specification alone.
See Appendix A for commentary on the country specific standards. !A
These framing standards are available for adoption and use in the United States, Canada
and Mexico, and provide an integrated treatment of Allowable Strength Design (ASD), Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), and Limit States Design (LSD). These framing standards
do not preclude the use of other materials, assemblies, structures or designs not meeting the
criteria herein, when the other materials, assemblies, structures or designs demonstrate
equivalent performance for the intended use to those specified in the standards.
Other framing standards have been developed by the AISI Committee on Framing
Standards, but are not yet North American in scope. These framing standards are currently
available for adoption and use in the United States, and are referenced directly in the U.S.
building codes.
D4.1 All Steel Design of Wall Stud Assemblies

It is well known that column strength [resistance] can be increased considerably by using
adequate bracing, even though the bracing is relatively flexible. This is particularly true for
those sections generally used as load-bearing wall studs which have large Ix/Iy ratios.
110 July 2007

Cold-formed I-, C-, Z-, or box-type studs are generally used in walls with their webs
placed perpendicular to the wall surface. The walls may be made of different materials, such
as fiberboard, pulp board, plywood, or gypsum board. If the wall material is strong enough
and there is adequate attachment provided between wall material and studs for lateral
support of the studs, then the wall material can contribute to the structural economy by
increasing the usable strength [resistance] of the studs substantially.
In order to determine the necessary requirements for adequate lateral support of the wall
studs, theoretical and experimental investigations were conducted in the 1940s by Green,
Winter, and Cuykendall (1947). The study included 102 tests on studs and 24 tests on a
variety of wall material. Based on the findings of this earlier investigation, specific AISI
provisions were developed for the design of wall studs.
In the 1970s, the structural behavior of columns braced by steel diaphragms was a special
subject investigated at Cornell University and other institutions. The renewed investigation
of wall-braced studs has indicated that the bracing provided for studs by steel panels is of the
shear diaphragm type rather than the linear type, which was considered in the 1947 study.
Simaan (1973) and Simaan and Pekoz (1976), which are summarized by Yu (2000), contain
procedures for computing the strength [resistance] of C- and Z-section wall studs that are
braced by sheathing materials. The bracing action is due to both the shear rigidity and the
rotational restraint supplied by the sheathing material. The treatment by Simaan (1973) and
Simaan and Pekoz (1976) is quite general and includes the case of studs braced on one as well
as on both flanges. However, the provisions of Section D4 of the 1980 AISI Specification dealt
only with the simplest case of identical sheathing material on both sides of the stud. For
simplicity, only the restraint due to the shear rigidity of the sheathing material was
considered.
The 1989 Addendum to the AISI 1986 Specification included the design limitations from
the Commentary and introduced stub column tests and/or rational analysis for the design of
studs with perforations (Davis and Yu, 1972; Rack Manufacturers Institute, 1990).
In 1996, the design provisions were revised to permit (a) all steel design and (b) sheathing
braced design of wall studs with either solid or perforated webs. For sheathing braced
design, in order to be effective, sheathing must retain its design strength [resistance] and
integrity for the expected service life of the wall. Of particular concern is the use of gypsum
sheathing in a moist environment.
In 2004 the sheathing braced design provisions were removed from the Specification and a
requirement added that sheathing braced design be based on appropriate theory, tests, or
rational engineering analysis that can be found in AISI (2004); Green, Winter, and
Cuykendall (1947); Simaan (1973); and Simaan and Pekoz (1976).
In 2007, in addition to the revisions of the Sepecification Section D4 as discussed in
Section D4 of this Commentary, the provisions for non-circular holes were moved from
Specification Section D4.1 to Section B2.2 on Uniformly Compressed Stiffened Elements with
Circular or Non-Circular Holes. Within the limitations stated for the size and spacing of
perforations and section depth, the provisions were deemed appropriate for members with
uniformly compressed stiffened elements, not just wall studs.
July 2007 111

D5 Floor, Roof or Wall Steel Diaphragm Construction

In building construction, it has been a common practice to provide a separate bracing
system to resist horizontal loads due to wind load, blast force, or earthquake. However, steel
floor and roof panels, with or without concrete fill, are capable of resisting horizontal loads in
addition to the beam strength [resistance] for gravity loads if they are adequately
interconnected to each other and to the supporting frame. The effective use of steel floor and
roof decks can therefore eliminate separate bracing systems and result in a reduction of
building costs. For the same reason, wall panels can provide not only enclosure surface and
support normal loads, but they can also provide diaphragm action in their own planes.
The structural performance of a diaphragm construction can be evaluated by either
calculations or tests. Several analytical procedures exist, and are summarized in the literature
(Steel Deck Institute, 2004; Metal Construction Association, 2004; Department of Army, 1992;
and ECCS, 1977). Analytical methods depend on the capacity of the connections between the
panels and structural supports. The support thickness and mechanical properties must be
considered. As an example, the tilting potential of screws is discussed in Section E4.3 and is
distinct from the bearing capacity controlled by panels. When using analytical methods, refer to
the applicability limits. Tested performance is measured using the procedures of the Standard
Method for Static Load Testing of Framed Floor, Roof and Wall Diaphragm Construction for
Buildings, ASTM E455. Part VI of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008) contains the Test
Procedure with Commentary on Cantilever Test Method for Cold-Formed Diaphragms. Yu
(2000) provides a general discussion of structural diaphragm behavior.
The safety factors and resistance factors listed in the Specification are based on a recalibration
of the full-scale test data summarized in the Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual,
First Edition. The recalibration used the method of Specification Section A5.1.1 and F1.1 and the
load factors in ASCE 7-98. The most probable diaphragm D/L load ratio is zero and this was
used in the recalibration. The dominant diaphragm limit state is connection related. Consistent
with Commentary Section A 5.1.1(b), the calibration used βo = 3.5 for all load effects except wind
load. The US LRFD method allows βo = 2.5 for connections subjected to wind loads. For both
welds and screws calibration using βo = 2.5 suggests factors less severe than φ = 0.8 and Ω = 2.0.
Because of concerns over weld quality control and to avoid significant departures from the SDI
historically accepted values and the previous edition's Table D5, φ = 0.70 and Ω = 2.35 were
conservatively selected for wind loads. These values more closely equate to a calibration using
βo ≥ 3.0. Since diaphragm stiffness is typically determined from the test data at 0.4 times the
nominal load, this selection also avoids inconsistencies between strength and stiffness service
determinations.
Consistent with confidence in construction quality control and the test data, the
recalibration provides a distinction between screw fasteners and welded connections for load
combinations not involving wind loading. The calibration of resistance to seismic loads is based
on a load factor of 1.6 and is consistent with AISC. The safety factor for welded diaphragms
subjected to earthquake loading is slightly larger than those for other loading types. That factor
is also slightly larger than the recalibration suggested. The increase is due to the greater
toughness demands required by seismic loading, uncertainty over load magnitudes, and
concern over weld quality control. When the load factor for earthquake loading is one, the 0.7
multiplier of ASCE 7 - 98 is allowed in ASD and the safety factors of Table D5 apply. If a local
code requires a seismic load factor of 1.6, the factors of Table D5 still apply.
112 July 2007

The Steel Deck Institute (1987) and the Department of Army (1992) have consistently
recommended a safety factor of two to limit “out of plane buckling” of diaphragms. Out of
plane buckling is related to panel profile, while the other diaphragm limit state is connection
related. The remainder of the Specification requires different safety and resistance factors for the
two limit states and larger safety factors for connection controlled states. The safety and
resistance factor for panel buckling were changed and the limit state being considered was
clarified relative to the previous edition. The prescribed factors for out of plane panel buckling
are constants for all loading types.
The Specification allows mechanical fasteners other than screws. The diaphragm shear value
using any fastener must not be based on a safety factor less than the individual fastener shear
strength safety factor unless: 1) sufficient data exists to establish a system effect, 2) an analytical
method is established from the tests, and 3) test limits are stated.
D6 Metal Roof and Wall Systems

For members with one flange connected to deck or metal sheathing, the member flexural
and compression strengths as well as bracing requirements are provided in Specification Section
D6.
D6.1 Purlins and Girts and Other Members

D6.1.1 Flexural Members Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing
For beams having the tension flange attached to deck or sheathing and the compression
flange unbraced, e.g., a roof purlin or wall girt subjected to wind suction, the bending
capacity is less than a fully braced member, but greater than an unbraced member. This
partial restraint is a function of the rotational stiffness provided by the panel-to-purlin
connection. The Specification contains factors that represent the reduction in capacity from a
fully braced condition. These factors are based on experimental results obtained for both
simple and continuous span purlins (Pekoz and Soroushian, 1981 and 1982; LaBoube, 1986;
Haussler and Pahers, 1973; LaBoube, et al., 1988; Haussler, 1988; Fisher, 1996).
The R factors for simple span C-sections and Z-sections up to 8.5 inches (216 mm) in
depth have been increased from the 1986 Specification, and a member design yield stress
limit is added based on the work by Fisher (1996).
As indicated by LaBoube (1986), the rotational stiffness of the panel-to-purlin
connection is primarily a function of the member thickness, sheet thickness, fastener type
and fastener location. To ensure adequate rotational stiffness of the roof and wall systems
designed using the AISI provisions, Specification Section D6.1.1 explicitly states the
acceptable panel and fastener types.
Continuous beam tests were made on three equal spans and the R values were
calculated from the failure loads using a maximum positive moment, M = 0.08 wL2.
The provisions of Specification Section D6.1.1 apply to beams for which the tension
flange is attached to deck or sheathing and the compression flange is completely unbraced.
Beams with discrete point braces on the compression flange may have a bending capacity
greater than those completely unbraced. Available data from simple span tests (Pekoz and
Soroushian, 1981 and 1982; LaBoube and Thompson, 1982a; LaBoube, et al., 1988; LaBoube
and Golovin, 1990) indicate that for members having a lip edge stiffener at an angle of 75
July 2007 113

degrees or greater with the plane of the compression flange and braces to the compression
flange located at third points or more frequently, member capacities may be increased over
those without discrete braces.
For the LRFD method, the use of the reduced nominal flexural strength [resistance]
(Specification Equation D6.1.1-1) with a resistance factor of φb = 0.90 provides the β values
varying from 1.5 to 1.60 which are satisfactory for the target value of 1.5. This analysis was
based on the load combination of 1.17 W - 0.9D using a reduction factor of 0.9 applied to
the load factor for the nominal wind load, where W and D are nominal wind and dead
loads, respectively (Hsiao, Yu and Galambos, 1988a; AISI, 1991).
In 2007 the panel depth was reduced from 1-1/4 inch (32 mm) to 1-1/8 inch (29 mm).
This reduction in depth was justified because the behavior during full-scale tests indicated
that the panel deformation was restricted to a relatively small area around the screw
attachment of the panel to the purlin. Also, tests by LaBoube (1986) demonstrated that the
panel depth did not influence the rotational stiffness of the panel to purlin attachment.
Prior to the 2001 edition, the Specification specifically limited the applicability of these
provisions to continuous purlin systems in which any given span length did not vary from
any other span length by more than 20 percent. This limitation was included in recognition
of the fact that the research was based on systems with equal bay spacing. In 2007, the
Specification was revised to permit purlin systems with adjacent span lengths varying more
than 20 percent to use the reduction factor, R, for the simply supported condition. The
revision allows a row of continuous purlins to be treated with a continuous beam
condition R-factor in some bays and a simple span beam condition R-factor in others. The
20 percent span variation rule is a local effect and as such, only variation in adjacent spans
is relevant.
D6.1.2 Flexural Members Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing Seam Roof System
The design provision of this section is only applicable to the United States and Mexico.
The discussion for this section is provided in the Commentary on Appendix A. !A
D6.1.3 Compression Members Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing
For axially loaded C- or Z- sections having one flange attached to deck or sheathing
and the other flange unbraced, e.g., a roof purlin or wall girt subjected to wind or seismic
generated compression forces, the axial load capacity is less than a fully braced member,
but greater than an unbraced member. The partial restraint relative to weak axis buckling
is a function of the rotational stiffness provided by the panel-to-purlin connection.
Specification Equation D6.1.3-1 is used to calculate the weak axis capacity. This equation is
not valid for sections attached to standing seam roofs. The equation was developed by
Glaser, Kaehler and Fisher (1994) and is also based on the work contained in the reports of
Hatch, Easterling and Murray (1990) and Simaan (1973).
A limitation on the maximum yield stress of the C- or Z- section is not given in the
Specification since Specification Equation D6.1.3-1 is based on elastic buckling criteria. A
limitation on minimum length is not contained in the Specification because Equation
D6.1.3-1 is conservative for spans less than 15 feet. The gross area, A, has been used rather
than the effective area, Ae, because the ultimate axial stress is generally not large enough to
114 July 2007

result in a significant reduction in the effective area for common cross section geometries.
As indicated in the Specification, the strong axis axial load capacity is determined
assuming that the weak axis of the strut is braced.
The controlling axial capacity (weak or strong axis) is suitable for usage in the
combined axial load and bending equations in Section C5 of the Specification (Hatch,
Easterling, and Murray, 1990).
D6.1.4 Compression of Z-Section Members Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing

Seam Roof
The design provision of this section is only applicable to the United States and Mexico.
The discussion for this section is provided in the Commentary on Appendix A. A
!
D6.2 Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems
D6.2.1 Strength [Resistance] of Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems
Under gravity loading, the nominal strength [nominal resistance] of many panels can
be calculated accurately. Under uplift loading, nominal strength [nominal resistance] of
standing seam roof panels and their attachments or anchors cannot be calculated with
accuracy. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the nominal strength [nominal resistance]
by testing. Three test protocols have been used in this effort: FM 4471 developed by
Factory Mutual, CEGS 07416 by the Corps of Engineers and E1592 by ASTM. In
Supplement No. 1 to the 1996 Edition of the Specification, (AISI, 1999), only the ASTM
E1592-95 procedure was approved. In 2004, the Factory Mutual and Corps of Engineers
protocols were also approved, provided that testing was in accordance with the AISI test
procedure defined in S906. While these test procedures have a common base, none defines
a design strength [factored resistance]. Specification Section D6.2.1 and AISI S906,
“Standard Procedures for Panel and Anchor Structural Tests”, adopted in 1999, added
closure to the question by defining appropriate resistance and safety factors. The safety
factors determined in Section D6.2.1 will vary depending on the characteristics of the test
data. In 2006 limits were placed on the safety factor and resistance factor determined in
this section, to require a minimum safety factor of 1.67 and a maximum resistance factor of
0.9.
The Specification permits end conditions other than those prescribed by ASTM E1592-
01. Areas of the roof plane that are sufficiently far enough away from crosswise restraint
can be simulated by testing the open/open condition that was permitted in the 1995
edition of ASTM E1592. In addition, eave and ridge configurations that do not provide
crosswise restraint can be evaluated.
The relationship of strength [resistance] to serviceability limits may be taken as
strength limit/serviceability limit = 1.25, or
Ωserviceability = Ωstrength/1.25 (C-D6.2.1-1)
It should be noted that the purpose of the test procedure specified in Specification
Section D6.2.1 is not to set up guidelines to establish the serviceability limit. The purpose is
to define the method of determining the available strength [factored resistance] whether
based on the serviceability limit or on the nominal strength [resistance]. The Corps of
Engineers Procedure CEGS 07416 (1991) requires a safety factor of 1.65 on strength
July 2007 115

[resistance] and 1.3 on serviceability. A buckling or crease does not have the same
consequences as a failure of a clip. In the latter case, the roof panel itself may become
detached and expose the contents of a building to the elements of the environment.
Further, Galambos (1988a) recommended a value of 2.0 for the target reliability index, βo,
when slight damage is expected and a value of 2.5 when moderate damage is expected.
The resulting ratio is 1.25.
In Specification Section D6.2.1, a target reliability index of 2.5 is used for connection
limits. It is used because the consequences of a panel fastener failure (βo = 2.5) are not
nearly so severe as the consequences of a primary frame connection failure (βo = 3.5). The
intermittent nature of wind load as compared to the relatively long duration of snow load
further justifies the use of βo = 2.5 for panel anchors. In Specification Section D6.2.1, the
coefficient of variation of the material factor, VM, is recommended to be 0.08 for failure
limited by anchor or connection failure, and 0.10 for limits caused by flexural or other
modes of failure. Specification Section D6.2.1 also eliminates the limit on coefficient of
variation of the test results, Vp, because consistent test results often lead to Vp values lower
than the 6.5 percent value set in Specification Section F1. The elimination of the limit will be
beneficial when test results are consistent.
The value for the number of tests for fasteners is set as the number of anchors tested
with the same tributary area as the anchor that failed. This is consistent with design
practice where anchors are checked using a load calculated based on tributary area. Actual
anchor loads are not calculated from a stiffness analysis of the panel in ordinary design
practice.
D6.3 Roof System Bracing and Anchorage

D6.3.1 Anchorage of Bracing for Purlin Roof Systems Under Gravity Load with Top Flange
Connected to Metal Sheathing
In metal roof systems utilizing C- or Z-purlins, the application of gravity loads will
cause torsion in the purlin and lateral displacements of the roof system. These effects are
due to the slope of the roof, the loading of the member eccentric to its shear center, and for
Z-purlins, the inclination of the principal axes. The torsional effects are not accounted for
in the design provisions of Sections C3.1 and D6.1, and lateral displacements may create
instability in the system. Lateral restraint is typically provided by the roof sheathing and
lateral anchorage devices to minimize the lateral movement and the torsional effects. The
anchorage devices are designed to resist the lateral anchorage force and provide the
appropriate level of stiffness to ensure the overall stability of the purlins.
The calculation procedure in Specification Equations D6.3.1-1 through D6.3.1-6
determines the anchorage force by first calculating an upper bound force for each purlin,
Pi, at the line of anchorage. This upper bound force is then distributed to anchorage
devices and reduced due to the system stiffness based on the relative effective stiffness of
each component. For the calculation procedure, the anchorage devices are modeled as
linear springs located at the top of the purlin web. The stiffness of anchorage devices that
do not attach at this location must be adjusted, through analysis or testing, to an equivalent
lateral stiffness at the top of the web. This adjustment must include the influence of the
attached purlin but not include any reduction due to the flexibility of the sheathing to
116 July 2007

purlin connection. Specification Equation D6.3.1-4 establishes an effective lateral stiffness

for each anchorage device, relative to each purlin, that has been adjusted for the flexibility
of the roof system between the purlin location and the anchorage location. It is important
to note that the units of Ap are area per unit width. Therefore the bay length, L, in this
equation must have units consistent with the unit width used for establishing Ap. The
resulting product, LAp, has units of area. The total effective stiffness for a given purlin is
then calculated with Specification Equation D6.3.1-5 by summing the effective stiffness
relative to each anchorage device and the system stiffness from Specification Equation
D6.3.1-6. The force generated by an individual purlin is calculated by Equation D6.3.1-2,
and then distributed to an anchorage device based on the relative stiffness ratio in
Specification Equation D6.3.1-1.
Lateral bracing forces will accumulate within the roof sheathing, and must be
transferred into the anchorage devices. The strength of the elements in this load path must
be verified. AISI S912, Test Procedures for Determining a Strength Value for a Roof Panel-
to-Purlin-to-Anchorage Device Connection, provides a means to determine a lower bound
strength [resistance] for the complete load path. For through-fastened roof systems, this
strength [resistance] value can be reasonably estimated by rational analysis by assuming
that the roof fasteners within twelve inches of the anchorage device participate in the force
transfer.
The 1986 through 2001 Specifications included brace force equations that were based on
the work by Murray and Elhouar (1985) with various extensions from subsequent work.
The original work assumed the applied loading was parallel to the purlin webs. The later
addition of the “cosθ” and “sinθ” terms attempted to account for the roof slope but it failed
to correctly model the system effect for higher sloped roofs. Tests by Lee and Murray
(2001) and Seek and Murray (2004) showed generally that the brace force equations
conservatively predicted the lateral anchorage forces at slopes less than 1:12 but predicted
unconservative lateral anchorage forces at steeper slopes. The new procedure outlined in
Specification Section D6.3.1 was formulated to correlate better with test results. Also, the
original work was based on the application of one anchorage device to a group of purlins.
Until the work of Sears and Murray (2007) a generally accepted manual technique to
extend this procedure to roofs with multiple anchors was not available.
Prior to the work by Seek and Murray (2006, 2007) and Sears and Murray (2007), the
anchorage devices were assumed to have a constant and relatively high lateral stiffness.
The current provisions recognize the finite stiffness of the anchorage device, and the
corresponding decrease in anchorage forces for more flexible anchorage devices.
Specification Equation D6.3.1-7 establishes a minimum effective stiffness that must be
provided to limit the lateral displacement at the anchorage device to d/20. This required
stiffness does not represent the required stiffness of each anchorage device, but instead the
total stiffness provided by the stiffness of the purlin system (Ksys) and the anchorage
devices relative to the most remote purlin.
Several alternative rational analysis methods have been developed to predict lateral
anchorage forces for Z-section roof systems. A method for calculating lateral anchorage
forces is presented by Seek and Murray (2006, 2007). The method is similar to the
procedure outlined in Specification Section D6.3.1 but uses a more complex method derived
from mechanics to determine the lateral force introduced into the system at each Z-section,
Pi, and distributes the force to the components of the system according to the relative
July 2007 117

lateral stiffness of each of the components. The method is more computationally intensive
but allows for analysis of more complex bracing configurations such as supports plus third
points lateral anchorage and supports plus third points torsional braces.
A method to predict lateral anchorage forces using the finite element method is
presented in Seek and Murray (2004). The model uses shell finite elements to model the Z-
sections and sheathing in the roof system. The model accurately represents Z-section
behavior and is capable of handling configurations other than lateral anchorage applied at
the top flange. However, the computational complexity limits the size of the roof system
that can be modeled by this method.
Rational analysis may also be performed using the elastic stiffness model developed by
Sears and Murray (2007) upon which the provisions of Specification Section D6.3.1 are
based. The model uses frame finite elements to represent the Z-sections and a truss system
to represent the diaphragm. The model is computationally efficient allowing for analysis
of large systems.
D6.3.2 Alternate Lateral and Stability Bracing for Purlin Roof Systems
Tests (Shadravan and Ramseyer, 2007) have shown that C- and Z-sections can reach the
capacity determined by Specification Section C3.1 through the application of torsional
braces along the span of the member. Torsional braces applied between pairs of purlins
prevent twist of the section at a discrete location. The moments developed due to the
torsional brace can be resolved by forces in the plane of the web of each section and do not
require external anchorage at the location of the brace. The vertical forces should,
however, be accounted for when determining the applied load on the section.
Torsional braces should be applied at or near each flange of the Z- or C-section to
prevent deformation of the web of the section and insure the effectiveness of the brace.
When twist of the section is thus prevented, a section may deflect laterally and retain its
strength [resistance]. Second order moments can be resisted by the rotational restraints.
Therefore, a more liberal lateral deflection of L/180 between the supports is permitted for a
C- or Z- section with torsional braces. Anchorage is required at the frame line to prevent
excessive deformation at the support location that undermines the strength [resistance] of
the section. A lateral displacement limit therefore is imposed along the frame lines to
insure that adequate restraint along the frame lines is provided.
118 July 2007

E. CONNECTIONS AND JOINTS

E1 General Provisions
Welds, bolts, screws, rivets, and other special devices such as metal stitching and adhesives
are generally used for cold-formed steel connections (Brockenbrough, 1995). The 2007 edition of
the Specification contains provisions in Chapter E for welded connections, bolted connections,
and screw connections. Among the above three commonly used types of connections, the
design provisions for using screws were developed in 1993 and were included in the 1996 AISI
Specification for the first time. The following brief discussions deal with the applications of rivets
and other special devices:
(a) Rivets
While hot rivets have little application in cold-formed steel construction, cold rivets find
considerable use, particularly in special forms, such as blind rivets (for application from one
side only), tubular rivets (to increase bearing area), high shear rivets, and explosive rivets.
For the design of connections using cold rivets, the provisions for bolted connections may be
used as a general guide, except that the shear strength [resistance] of rivets may be quite
different from that of bolts. Additional design information on the strength [resistance] of
rivets should be obtained from manufacturers or from tests.
(b) Special devices
Special devices include: (1) metal stitching, achieved by tools that are special
developments of the common office stapler, and (2) connecting by means of special
clinching tools that draw the sheets into interlocking projections.
Most of these connections are proprietary devices for which information on strength
[resistance] of connections must be obtained from manufacturers or from tests carried out
by or for the user. Guidelines provided in Specification Chapter F are to be used in these
tests.
The plans and/or specifications are to contain adequate information and design
requirement data for the adequate detailing of each connection if the connection is not
detailed on the engineering design drawings.
In this edition of the Specification, the ASD, LRFD and LSD design provisions for welded and
bolted connections were based on the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification with some revisions
and additions which will be discussed in subsequent sections.
E2 Welded Connections
Welds used for cold-formed steel construction may be classified as fusion welds (or arc
welds) and resistance welds. Fusion welding is used for connecting cold-formed steel members
to each other as well as connecting such members to heavy, hot-rolled steel framing (such as
floor panels to beams of the steel frame). It is used in groove welds, arc spot welds, arc seam
welds, fillet welds, and flare groove welds.
The design provisions contained in this Specification section for fusion welds have been
based primarily on experimental evidence obtained from an extensive test program conducted
at Cornell University. The results of this program are reported by Pekoz and McGuire (1979)
July 2007 119

Chapter E, Connections and Joints
and summarized by Yu (2000). All possible failure modes are covered in the Specification since
1996, whereas the earlier Specification mainly dealt with shear failure.
For most of the connection tests reported by Pekoz and McGuire (1979), the onset of
yielding was either poorly defined or followed closely by failure. Therefore, in the provisions of
this section, rupture rather than yielding is used as a more reliable criterion of failure.
The welded connection tests, which served as the basis of the provisions given in
Specification Sections E2.1 through E2.5, were conducted on sections with single and double
sheets. See Specification Figures E2.2-1 and E2.2-2. The largest total sheet thickness of the cover
plates was approximately 0.15 inch (3.81 mm). However, within this Specification, the validity of
the equations was extended to welded connections in which the thickness of the thinnest
connected part is 0.18 inch (4.57 mm) or less. For arc spot welds, the maximum thickness of a
single sheet (Specification Figure E2.2.1.2-1) and the combined thickness of double sheets
(Specification Figure E2.2.1.2-2) are set at 0.15 inch (3.81 mm).
In 2001, the safety factors and resistance factors in this section were modified for consistency
based on the research work by Tangorra, Schuster, and LaBoube (2001).
For design tables and example problems on welded connections, see Part IV of the Design
See Appendix A or B for additional commentary.
! A,B
E2.1 Groove Welds in Butt Joints

The design equations for determining nominal strength [resistance] for groove welds in
butt joints have been taken from the AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1993). Therefore, the
AISC definition for the effective throat thickness, te, is equally applicable to this section of the
Specification. Prequalified joint details are given in AWS D1.3-98 (AWS, 1998) or other
equivalent weld standards.
E2.2 Arc Spot Welds

Arc spot welds (puddle welds) used for connecting thin sheets are similar to plug welds
used for relatively thicker plates. The difference between plug welds and arc spot welds is
that the former are made with prepunched holes, but for the latter no prepunched holes are
required. Instead, a hole is burned in the top sheet by the arc and then filled with weld metal
to fuse it to the bottom sheet or a framing member. The provisions of Section E2.2 apply to
plug welds as well as spot welds.
E2.2.1 Shear
E2.2.1.1 Minimum Edge Distance
The edge distance requirements provided in the Specification Section E2.2.1.1 are to
ensure the connection provides the sufficient strength for preventing shear failure of
connected part in the direction of stress. Compared with previous editions of the AISI
Specification, the limiting Fu/Fsy ratio was revised to be consistent with Specification
Section A2.3.1.
120 July 2007

E2.2.1.2 Shear Strength [Resistance] for Sheet(s) Welded to a Thicker Supporting

Member
The Cornell tests (Pekoz and McGuire, 1979) identified four modes of failure for arc
spot welds, which are addressed in this Specification section. They are: (1) shear failure of
welds in the fused area, (2) tearing of the sheet along the contour of the weld with the
tearing spreading the sheet at the leading edge of the weld, (3) sheet tearing combined
with buckling near the trailing edge of the weld, and (4) shearing of the sheet behind
weld. It should be noted that many failures, particularly those of the plate tearing type,
may be preceded or accompanied by considerable inelastic out-of-plane deformation of
the type indicated in Figure C-E2.2-1. This form of behavior is similar to that observed in
wide, pin-connected plates. Such behavior should be avoided by closer spacing of welds.
When arc spot welds are used to connect two sheets to a framing member as shown in
Specification Figure E2.2.1.1-2, consideration should also be given to the possible shear
failure between thin sheets.
Figure C-E2.2-1 Out of Plane Distortion of Welded Connection
The thickness limitation of 0.15 inch (3.81 mm) is due to the range of the test program
that served as the basis of these provisions. On sheets below 0.028 inch (0.711 mm) thick,
weld washers are required to avoid excessive burning of the sheets and, therefore,
inferior quality welds.
In the AISI 1996 Specification, Equation E2.2-1 was revised to be consistent with the
research report (Pekoz and McGuire, 1979).
In 2001, the equation used for determining da for multiple sheets was revised to be
(d-t).
E2.2.1.3 Shear Strength [Resistance] for Sheet-to-Sheet Connections

The Steel Deck Institute Design Manual (SDI, 1987) stipulates that the shear strength
for a sheet-to-sheet arc spot weld connection be taken as 75% of the strength of a sheet-
to-structural connection. SDI further stipulates that the sheet-to-structural connection
strength [resistance] be defined by Specification Equation E2.2.1.2-2. This design
provision was adopted by the Specification in 2004. Prior to accepting the SDI design
recommendation, a review of the pertinent research by Luttrell (SDI, 1987) was
performed by LaBoube (LaBoube, 2001). The test data thickness range that is reflected in
the Specification documents the scope of Luttrell’s test program. SDI suggests that sheet-
to-sheet welds are problematic for thickness less than 0.0295 in. (0.75 mm). Such welds
July 2007 121

result in “blow holes” but the perimeter must be fused to be effective.

Quality control for sheet–to-sheet connections is not within the purview of AWS
D1.3. However, using AWS D1.3 as a guide, the following quality control/assurance
guidelines are suggested:
(1) Measure the visible diameter of the weld face,
(2) Ensure no cracks in the welds,
(3) Maximum undercut = 1/8 of the weld circumference, and
(4) Sheets are to be in contact with each other.
E2.2.2 Tension
For tensile capacity of arc spot welds, the design provisions in the 1989 Addendum
were based on the tests reported by Fung (1978) and the study made by Albrecht (1988).
Those provisions were limited to sheet failure with restrictive limitations on material
properties and sheet thickness. These design criteria were revised in 1996 because the tests
conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla (LaBoube and Yu, 1991 and 1993) have
shown that two potential limit states may occur. The most common failure mode is that of
sheet tearing around the perimeter of the weld. This failure condition was found to be
influenced by the sheet thickness, the average weld diameter, and the material tensile
strength. In some cases, it was found that tensile failure of the weld can occur. The strength
[resistance] of the weld was determined to be a function of the cross-section of the fused
area and tensile strength of the weld material. Based on analysis by LaBoube (LaBoube,
2001), the nominal strength [resistance] equation was changed in 2001 to reflect the
ductility of the sheet, Fu/Fy, and the sheet thickness, the average weld diameter, and the
material tensile strength.
The multiple safety factors and resistance factors recognize the behavior of a panel
system with many connections versus the behavior of a member connection and the
potential for a catastrophic failure in each application. In Specification Section E2.2.2 a
target reliability index of 3.0 for the United States and Mexico and 3.5 for Canada is used
for the panel connection limit, whereas a target reliability index of 3.5 for the United States
and Mexico and 4 for Canada is used for the other connection limit. Precedence for the use
of a smaller target reliability index for systems was established in Section D6.2.1 of the
Specification.
Tests (LaBoube and Yu, 1991 and 1993) have also shown that when reinforced by a
weld washer, thin sheet weld connections can achieve the design strength [resistance]
given by Specification Equation E2.2.2-2 using the thickness of the thinner sheet.
The equations given in the Specification were derived from the tests for which the
applied tension load imposed a concentric load on the weld, as would be the case, for
example, for the interior welds on a roof system subjected to wind uplift. Welds on the
perimeter of a roof or floor system would experience an eccentric tensile loading due to
wind uplift. Tests have shown that as much as a 50 percent reduction in nominal
connection strength [resistance] could occur because of the eccentric load application
(LaBoube and Yu, 1991 and 1993). Eccentric conditions may also occur at connection laps
depicted by Figure C-E2.2-2.
At a lap connection between two deck sections as shown in Figure C-E2.2-2, the length
of the unstiffened flange and the extent of the encroachment of the weld into the
122 July 2007

unstiffened flange have a measurable influence on the strength [resistance] of the welded
connection (LaBoube and Yu, 1991). The Specification recognizes the reduced capacity of
this connection detail by imposing a 30 percent reduction on the calculated nominal
strength [resistance].
Interior Weld Exterior Weld
Lap Connection Subjected to Subjected to
Concentric Load Eccentric Load
Beam
Figure C-E2.2-2 Interior Weld, Exterior Weld and Lap Connection
E2.3 Arc Seam Welds

The general behavior of arc seam welds is similar to that of arc spot welds. No simple
shear failures of arc seam welds were observed in the Cornell tests (Pekoz and McGuire,
1979). Therefore, Specification Equation E2.3-1, which accounts for shear failure of welds, is
adopted from the AWS welding provisions for sheet steel (AWS, 1998).
Specification Equation E2.3-2 is intended to prevent failure by a combination of tensile
tearing plus shearing of the cover plates.
E2.4 Fillet Welds

For fillet welds on the lap joint specimens tested in the Cornell research (Pekoz and
McGuire, 1979), the dimension, w1, of the leg on the sheet edge generally was equal to the
sheet thickness; the other leg, w2, often was two or three times longer than w1 (See
Specification Figure E2.4-1). In connections of this type, the fillet weld throat commonly is
larger than the throat of a conventional fillet welds of the same size. Usually ultimate failure
of fillet welded joints has been found to occur by the tearing of the plate adjacent to the weld,
See Figure C-E2.4-1.
In most cases, the higher strength of the weld material prevents weld shear failure,
therefore, the provisions of this Specification section are based on sheet tearing. Because
specimens up to 0.15 inch (3.81 mm) thickness were tested in the Cornell research (Pekoz and
McGuire, 1979), the last provision in this section is to cover the possibility that for sections
thicker than 0.15 inch (3.81 mm), the throat dimension may be less than the thickness of the
cover plate and the tear may occur in the weld rather than in the plate material. Additional
research at the University of Sydney (Zhao and Hancock, 1995) has further indicated that
weld throat failure may even occur between the thickness of 0.10 in. (2.54 mm) to 0.15 in.
(3.81 mm). Accordingly, the Specification was revised, in 2001, to require weld strength
[resistance] check when the plate thickness is greater than 0.10 in. (2.54 mm). For high
strength materials with yield stress of 65 ksi (448 MPa) or higher, research at the University of
Sydney (Teh and Hancock, 2000) has shown that weld throat failure does not occur in
materials less than 0.10 in. (2.54 mm) thick and that the AISI Specification provisions based on
sheet strength are satisfactory for high strength material less than 0.10 in. (2.54 mm) thick.
July 2007 123

Prequalified fillet welds are given in AWS D1.3-98 (AWS, 1998) or other equivalent weld
standards.
A-A
a. Transverse Fillet b. Longitudinal Fillet

Sheet Tear Sheet Tear
Figure C-E2.4-1 Fillet Weld Failure Modes
E2.5 Flare Groove Welds

The primary mode of failure in cold-formed steel sections welded by flare groove welds,
loaded transversely or longitudinally, also was found to be sheet tearing along the contour of
the weld. See Figure C-E2.5-1.
Transverse Sheet Tear Longitudinal Sheet Tear
Figure C-E2.5-1 Flare Groove Weld Failure Modes

Except for Specification Equation E2.5-4, the provisions of this Specification section are
intended to prevent shear tear failure. Specification Equation E2.5-4 covers the possibility that
thicker sections may have effective throats less than the thickness of the channel and weld
failure may become critical.
In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification, the former Specification Figure E2.5-4 was
replaced by four new drawings to describe in more detail the different possible flare bevel
groove weld uses. Specification Figures E2.5-4 and E2.5-5 show the condition where the weld
is filled flush to the surface. This weld is a prequalified weld in AWS D1.3-98 (AWS, 1998)
which provides the definition of the effective throat for this type of weld. The distinction of
double and single shear requirements in the Specification for flare groove welds is indicated
on these figures. Specification Figures E2.5-6 and E2.5-7 show flare bevel groove welds which
are frequently used in cold-formed steel construction in which the weld is not filled flush to
124 July 2007

the surface. The vertical leg of the weld can either be greater, Figure E2.5-6, or less, Figure
E2.5-7, than the radius of outside bend surface. The definition of the horizontal leg of the
weld in each case is slightly different as indicated. No change was needed in the Specification
requirements from previous editions except in the definitions of the effective throat for use in
Specification Equation E2.5-4.
In 2001, the Specification was revised to require that weld strength be checked when the
plate thickness is greater than 0.10 in. (2.54 mm) based on the research by Zhao and Hancock
(1995).
E2.6 Resistance Welds

The shear values for outside sheets of 0.125 inch (3.18 mm) or less in thickness are based
on “Recommended Practice for Resistance Welding Coated Low-Carbon Steels,” AWS C1.3-
70, (Table 2.1 - Spot Welding Galvanized Low-Carbon Steel). Shear values for outside sheets
thicker than 0.125 inch (3.18 mm) are based upon “Recommended Practices for Resistance
Welding,” AWS C1.1-66, (Table 1.3 - Pulsation Welding Low-Carbon Steel) and apply to
pulsation welding as well as spot welding. They are applicable for all structural grades of
low-carbon steel, uncoated or galvanized with 0.90 oz/ft2 (275 g/m2) of sheet, or less, and are
based on values selected from AWS C1.3-70, Table 2.1; and AWS C1.1-66, Table 1.3. The
above values may also be applied to medium carbon and low-alloy steels. Spot welds in such
steels give somewhat higher shear strengths than those upon which the above values are
based; however, they may require special welding conditions. In view of the fact that AWS
C1.1-66 and AWS C1.3-70 Standards were incorporated in AWS C1.1-2000, resistance welds
should be performed in accordance with AWS C1.1-2000 (AWS, 2000).
In the 2001 edition and this edition of the Specification, a design equation is used to
determine the nominal shear strength [resistance] that replaces the tabulated values given in
the previous specifications. The upper limit of Specification Equations E2.6-1, E2.6-3 and E2.6-5
is selected to best fit the data provided in AWS C1.3-70, Table 2.1 and AWS C1.1-66, Table 1.3.
Shear strength [resistance] values for welds with the thickness of the thinnest outside sheet
greater than 0.180 in. (4.57 mm) have been excluded in Specification Equations E2.6-2, E2.6-4
and E2.6-6 due to the thickness limit set forth in Specification Section E2.
E2.7 Rupture in Net Section of Members other than Flat Sheets (Shear Lag)
Shear lag has a debilitating effect on the nominal tensile strength [resistance] of a cross
section. The AISI Specification addresses the shear lag effect on tension members other than
flat sheets in welded connections. The AISC Specification’s design approach has been
adopted.
When computing U for combinations of longitudinal and transverse welds, L is taken as
the length of the longitudinal weld because the transverse weld does little to minimize shear
lag. For angle or channel sections, the distance, x , from shear plane to centroid of the cross
section is defined in Figure C-E2.7.
July 2007 125

L L
x
x
Figure C-E2.7 x Definition for Sections with Fillet Welding
E3 Bolted Connections
The structural behavior of bolted connections in cold-formed steel construction is somewhat
different from that in hot-rolled heavy construction, mainly because of the thinness of the
connected parts. Prior to 1980, the provisions included in the AISI Specification for the design of
bolted connections were developed on the basis of the Cornell tests (Winter, 1956a, 1956b).
These provisions were updated in 1980 to reflect the results of additional research performed in
the United States (Yu, 1982) and to provide a better coordination with the specifications of the
Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC, 1980) and AISC (1978). In 1986, design
provisions for maximum size of bolt holes and the allowable tension stress for bolts were added
in the AISI Specification (AISI, 1986). In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification, minor changes
of the safety factors were made for computing the allowable and design tensile and shear
strengths [resistances] of bolts. The allowable tension stress for the bolts subject to the
combination of shear and tension was determined by the equations provided in Specification
Table E3.4-2 with the applicable safety factor.
(a) Scope
Previous studies and practical experiences have indicated that the structural behavior of
bolted connections used for joining relatively thick cold-formed steel members is similar to
that for connecting hot-rolled shapes and built-up members. The AISI Specification criteria
are applicable only to cold-formed steel members or elements less than 3/16 inch (4.76 mm)
in thickness. For materials not less than 3/16 inch (4.76 mm), reference is made to the
specifications or standards stipulated in Section E3a of Appendix A or B.
Because of lack of appropriate test data and the use of numerous surface conditions, this
Specification does not provide design criteria for slip-critical (also called friction-type)
connections. When such connections are used with cold-formed members where the
thickness of the thinnest connected part is less than 3/16 inch (4.76 mm), it is recommended
that tests be conducted to confirm their design capacity. The test data should verify that the
specified design capacity for the connection provides a sufficient safety against initial slip at
least equal to that implied by the provisions of the specifications or standards listed in
Section E3a of Appendix A or B. In addition, the safety against ultimate capacity should be
at least equal to that implied by this Specification for bearing-type connections.
The Specification provisions apply only when there are no gaps between plies. The
designer should recognize that the connection of a rectangular tubular member by means of
126 July 2007

bolt(s) through such members may have less strength [resistance] than if no gap existed.
Structural performance of connections containing unavoidable gaps between plies would
require tests in accordance with Specification Section F1.
(b) Materials
This section lists five different types of fasteners which are normally used for cold-
formed steel construction. In view of the fact that A325 and A490 bolts are available only for
diameters of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) and larger, A449 and A354 Grade BD bolts should be used
as an equivalent of A325 and A490 bolts, respectively, whenever smaller bolts (less than 1/2
inch (12.7 mm) in diameter) are required.
During recent years, other types of fasteners, with or without special washers, have been
widely used in steel structures using cold-formed steel members. The design of these
fasteners should be determined by tests in accordance with Chapter F of this Specification.
(c) Bolt Installation
Bolted connections in cold-formed steel structures use either mild or high-strength steel
bolts and are designed as a bearing-type connection. Bolt pretensioning is not required
because the ultimate strength of a bolted connection is independent of the level of bolt
preload. Installation must ensure that the bolted assembly will not come apart during
service. Experience has shown that bolts installed to a snug tight condition do not loosen or
“back-off” under normal building conditions and are not subject to vibration or fatigue.
Bolts in slip-critical connections, however, must be tightened in a manner which assures
the development of the fastener tension forces required by the Research Council on
Structural Connections (1985 and 2000) for the particular size and type of bolts. Turn-of-nut
rotations specified by the Research Council on Structural Connections may not be applicable
because such rotations are based on larger grip lengths than are encountered in usual cold-
formed construction. Reduced turn-of-the-nut values would have to be established for the
actual combination of grip and bolt. A similar test program (RCSC, 1985 and 1988) could
establish a cut-off value for calibrated wrenches. Direct tension indicators (ASTM F959),
whose published clamping forces are independent of grip, can be used for tightening slip-
critical connections.
(d) Hole Sizes
Design information for oversized and slotted holes is included in the Appendices
because such holes are often used in practice to meet dimensional tolerances during
erection. A,B
!
E3.1 Shear, Spacing and Edge Distance
The design provisions of this section are given in Section E3.1 of Appendix A. The
!A
E3.2 Rupture in Net Section (Shear Lag)
The design provisions of this section are given in Section E3.2 of Appendix A. The
!A
July 2007 127

E3.3 Bearing
Previous bolted connection tests have shown that the bearing strength [resistance] of
bolted connections depends on (1) the tensile strength Fu of the connected parts, (2) the
thickness of connected parts, (3) the diameter of bolt, (4) joints with single shear and double
shear conditions, (5) the Fu/Fy ratio, and (6) the use of washers (Winter, 1956a and 1956b;
Chong and Matlock, 1974; Yu, 1982 and 2000). These design parameters were used in the
1996 and earlier editions of the AISI Specification for determining the bearing strength
[resistance] between bolt and connected parts (AISI, 1996).
In the Canadian Standard (CSA, 1994), the d/t ratio was also used in the design equation
for determining the bearing strength [resistance] of bolted connections.
In this edition of the Specification, the design format and tables for determining the
bearing strength [resistance] without consideration of bolt hole deformation were revised in
2001 on the basis of the research work conducted at the University of Sydney (Rogers and
Hancock, 1998) and at the University of Waterloo (Wallace, Schuster, and LaBoube, 2001a and
2001b).
E3.3.1 Strength [Resistance] Without Consideration of Bolt Hole Deformation

Rogers and Hancock (Rogers and Hancock, 1998) developed the design equation for
bearing of bolted connections with washers (Specification Table E3.3.1-1). Based on research
at the University of Waterloo (Wallace, Schuster, and LaBoube, 2001a), the Rogers and
Hancock equation was extended to bolted connections without washers and to the inside
sheet of double shear connections with or without washers (Specification Table E3.3.1-2). In
Specification Table E3.3.1-1, the bearing factor C depends on the ratio of bolt diameter to
member thickness, d/t. The design equations in the Specification Section E3.3.1 are based on
available test data. Thus, for sheets thinner than 0.024 in. (0.61 mm), tests must be
performed to determine the structural performance.
The safety factor and resistance factor are based on calibration of available test data
(Wallace, Schuter, and LaBoube, 2001b).
E3.3.2 Strength [Resistance] With Consideration of Bolt Hole Deformation

Based on research at the University of Missouri-Rolla (LaBoube and Yu, 1995), design
equations have been developed that recognize the presence of hole elongation prior to
reaching the limited bearing strength [resistance] of a bolted connection. The researchers
adopted an elongation of 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) as the acceptable deformation limit. This limit is
consistent with the permitted elongation prescribed for hot-rolled steel.
Since the nominal strength value with consideration of bolt hole deformation should not
exceed the nominal strength without consideration of the hole deformation, this limit was
added in 2004.
E3.4 Shear and Tension in Bolts

The design provisions of this section are given in Section E3.4 of Appendix A or B. In
Appendix A, the commentary is provided for Section E3.4. A
!
128 July 2007

E4 Screw Connections
Results of over 3500 tests worldwide were analyzed to formulate screw connection
provisions (Pekoz, 1990). European Recommendations (1987) and British Standards (1992) were
considered and modified as appropriate. Since the provisions apply to many different screw
connections and fastener details, a greater degree of conservatism is implied than is otherwise
typical within this Specification. These provisions are intended for use when a sufficient number
of test results is not available for the particular application. A higher degree of accuracy can be
obtained by testing any particular connection geometry (AISI, 1992).
Over 450 elemental connection tests and eight diaphragm tests were conducted in which
compressible fiberglass insulation, typical of that used in metal building roof systems (MBMA,
2002), was placed between the two pieces of steel (between steel sheet samples in the elemental
connection tests and between the deck and purlin in the diaphragm tests) (Lease and Easterling,
2006a, 2006b). The results indicate that the equations in Section E4 of the Specification are valid
for applications that incorporate 6-3/8 in. (162 mm) or less of compressible fiberglass insulation.
Screw connection tests used to formulate the provisions included single fastener specimens
as well as multiple fastener specimens. However, it is recommended that at least two screws
should be used to connect individual elements. This provides redundancy against under-
torquing, over-torquing, etc., and limits lap shear connection distortion of flat unformed
members such as straps.
Proper installation of screws is important to achieve satisfactory performance. Power tools
with adjustable torque controls and driving depth limitations are usually used.
For the convenience of designers, Table C-E4-1 gives the correlation between the common
number designation and the nominal diameter for screws. See Figure C-E4-1 for the
Table C-E4-1 Nominal Diameter for Screws
Number Nominal Diameter, d

Designation in. mm
0 0.060 1.52
1 0.073 1.85
2 0.086 2.18
3 0.099 2.51
4 0.112 2.84
5 0.125 3.18
6 0.138 3.51
7 0.151 3.84
8 0.164 4.17
10 0.190 4.83
12 0.216 5.49
1/4 0.250 6.35
Figure C-E4-1 Nominal Diameter for Screws
July 2007 129

measurement of nominal diameters.
E4.1 Minimum Spacing

Minimum Spacing is the same as specified for bolts.
E4.2 Minimum Edge and End Distances

In 2001, the minimum edge distance was decreased from 3d to 1.5d with a provision
added for nominal shear strength based on end distance.
E4.3 Shear
E4.3.1 Connection Shear Limited by Tilting and Bearing
Screw connections loaded in shear can fail in one mode or in combination of several
modes. These modes are screw shear, edge tearing, tilting and subsequent pull-out of the
screw, and bearing of the joined materials.
Tilting of the screw followed by threads tearing out of the lower sheet reduces the
connection shear capacity from that of the typical connection bearing strength (Figure C-
E4.3-1).
These provisions are focused on the tilting and bearing failure modes. Two cases are
given depending on the ratio of thicknesses of the connected members. Normally, the head
Tilting g
arin
Be
Pns
Spec. Eq. E4.3.1-3
Spec. Eq. E4.3.1-1
t2
Figure C-E4.3-1 Comparison of Tilting and Bearing
t1 tilting N/A
bearing Pns = 2.7 t1dFu1 or
t2 bearing Pns = 2.7 t2dFu2
Figure C-E4.3-2 Design Equations for t2/t1 ≥ 2.5
t1 tilting Pns = 4.2 (t 23d)1/2 Fu2 or

bearing Pns = 2.7 t1dFu1 or
t2 bearing Pns = 2.7 t2dFu2
Figure C-E4.3-3 Design Equations for t2/t1 ≤ 1.0
130 July 2007

of the screw will be in contact with the thinner material as shown in Figure C-E4.3-2.
However, when both members are the same thickness, or when the thicker member is in
contact with the screw head, tilting must also be considered as shown in Figure C-E4.3-3.
It is necessary to determine the lower bearing capacity of the two members based on
the product of their respective thicknesses and tensile strengths.
E4.3.2 Connection Shear Limited by End Distance

The provisions of this section are given in Section E4.3.2 of the Appendices. The
discussion of this section is provided in the Commentary on the corresponding Appendix.
!A,B
E4.3.3 Shear in Screws
Shear strength [resistance] of the screw fastener itself should be known and
documented from testing. Screw strength should be established and published by the
manufacturer. In order to prevent the brittle and sudden shear fracture of the screw, the
Specification applies a 25 percent adjustment to the safety factor or the resistance factor
where determined in accordance with Specification Section F1.
E4.4 Tension
Screw connections loaded in tension can fail either by pulling out of the screw from the
plate (pull-out) or pulling of material over the screw head and the washer, if a washer is
present, (pull-over) or by tensile fracture of the screw. The serviceability concerns of gross
distortion are not covered by the equations given in Specification Section E4.4.
Diameter and rigidity of the fastener head assembly as well as sheet thickness and tensile
strength have a significant effect on the pull-over failure load of a connection.
There are a variety of washers and head styles in use. Washers must be at least 0.050 inch
(1.27 mm) thick to withstand bending forces with little or no deformation.
E4.4.1 Pull-Out
For the limit state of pull-out, Specification Equation E4.4.1-1 was derived on the basis of
the modified European Recommendations and the results of a large number of tests. The
statistic data on pull-out design considerations were presented by Pekoz (1990).
E4.4.2 Pull-Over
For the limit state of pull-over, Specification Equation E4.4.2-1 was derived on the basis
of the modified British Standard and the results of a series of tests as reported by Pekoz
(1990). In 2007, a rational allowance was included to cover the contribution of steel washers
beneath screw heads. For the special case of screws with domed washers, that is washers
that are not solid or do not seat flatly against the sheet metal in contact with the washer,
the calculated nominal pull-over strength [resistance] should not exceed 1.5t1d'wFu1 with
d'w = 5/8 in. (16 mm). The 5/8 in. (16 mm) limit does not apply to solid steel washers in
full contact with the sheet metal. In accordance with Specification Section E4, testing is
allowed as an alternative method to determine fastener capacity. To use test data in design,
July 2007 131

the tested material should be consistent with the design. When a polygon shaped washer is
used and capacity is determined using Specification Equation E4.4.2-1, the washer should
have rounded corners to prevent premature tearing.
E4.4.3 Tension in Screws

Tensile strength [resistance] of the screw fastener itself should be known and
documented from testing. Screw strength [resistance] should be established and published
by the manufacturer. In order to prevent the brittle and sudden tensile fracture of the
screw, the Specification applies a 25 percent adjustment to the safety factor or the resistance
factor where determined in accordance with Section F1.
E4.5 Combined Shear and Pull-Over

Research pertaining to the behavior of a screw connection has been conducted at West
Virginia University (Luttrell, 1999). Based on a review and analysis of West Virginia
University’s data for the behavior of a screw connection subject to combined shear and
tension (Zwick and LaBoube, 2002), equations were derived that enable the evaluation of the
strength of a screw connection when subjected to combined shear and tension. The tests
indicated that at failure the sheet beneath the screw head pulled over the head of the screw or
the washer. Therefore, the nominal tensile strength is based solely on Pnov. Although both
non-linear and linear equations were developed, for ease of computation and because the
linear equation provides regions of Q/Pns and T/Pnov equal to unity, the linear equation was
adopted for the Specification. The proposed equation is based on the following test program
limits:
0.0285 in. (0.724 mm) ≤ t1 ≤ 0.0445 in. (1.13 mm)
No. 12 and No. 14 self-drilling screws with or without washers
dw ≤ 0.75 in. (19.1 mm)
62 ksi (427 MPa or 4360 kg/cm2)≤ Fu1 ≤ 70.7 ksi (487 MPa or 4970 kg/cm2)
t2 / t1 ≥ 2.5
The limit t2 / t1 ≥ 2.5 reflects the fact that the test program (Luttrell, 1999) focused on
connections having sheet thicknesses that precluded the tilting limit state from occurring.
Thus, this limit ensures that the design equations will only be used when tilting limit state is
not the control limit state.
The linear form of the equation as adopted by the Specification is similar to the following
more conservative linear design equation that has been used by engineers:
Q/Pns + T/Pnov ≤ 1.0
An eccentric load on a clip connection may create a non-uniform stress distribution
around the fastener. For example, tension tests on roof panel welded connections have
shown that under an eccentrically applied tension force the resulting connection capacity is
50% of the tension capacity under a uniformly applied tension force. Thus, the Specification
stipulates that the pull-over strength shall be taken as 50% of Pnov. If the eccentric load is
applied by a rigid member such as a clip, the resulting tension force on the screw may be
uniform, thus the force in the screw can be determined by mechanics and the capacity of the
fastener should be reliably estimated by Pnov. Based on the field performance of screw
132 July 2007

attached panels, the 30 percent reduction associated with welds at sidelaps need not be
applied when evaluating the strength of sidelap screw connections at supports or sheet to
sheet. The reduction is due to transverse prying or peeling. It is acceptable to apply the 50
percent reduction at panel ends due to longitudinal prying.
E5 Rupture
The design provisions of this section are given in Section E5 of the Appendices. The
discussion of this section is provided in the Commentary on the corresponding Appendix.
!A,B
E6 Connections to other Materials
E6.1 Bearing
The design provisions for the nominal bearing strength [resistance] on the other materials
should be derived from appropriate material specifications.
E6.2 Tension
This Section is included in the Specification to raise the awareness of the design engineer
regarding tension on fasteners and the connected parts.
E6.3 Shear
This Section is included in the Specification to raise the awareness of the design engineer
regarding the transfer of shear forces from steel components to adjacent components of other
materials.
July 2007 133

Chapter F, Tests for Special Cases
F. TESTS FOR SPECIAL CASES

All tests for (1) the determination and confirmation of structural performance and (2) the
determination of mechanical properties must be made by an independent testing laboratory or
by a manufacturer’s testing laboratory. Information on tests for cold-formed steel diaphragms
can be found in Design of Light Gage Steel Diaphragms (AISI, 1967). A general discussion of
structural diaphragms is given in Cold-Formed Steel Design (Yu, 2000).
F1 Tests for Determining Structural Performance

This Specification section contains provisions for proof of structural adequacy by load tests.
This section is restricted to those cases permitted under Section A1.2 of the Specification or
specifically permitted elsewhere in the Specification.
F1.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design and Limit States Design
The determination of load-carrying capacity of the tested elements, assemblies,
connections, or members is based on the same procedures used to calibrate the LRFD design
criteria, for which the φ factor can be computed from Equation C-A5.1.1-15. The correction
factor CP is used in Specification Equation F1.1-2 for determining the φ factor to account for
the influence due to a small number of tests (Pekoz and Hall, 1988b and Tsai, 1992). It should
be noted that when the number of tests is large enough, the effect of the correction factor is
negligible. In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification, Equation F1.1-3 was revised because
the old formula for CP could be unconservative for combinations of a high VP and a small
sample size (Tsai, 1992). This revision enables the reduction of the minimum number of tests
from four to three identical specimens. Consequently, the ± 10 percent deviation limit was
relaxed to ± 15 percent. The use of CP with a minimum VP reduces the need for this
restriction. In Specification Equation F1.1-3, a numerical value of CP = 5.7 was found for n = 3
by comparison with a two-parameter method developed by Tsai (1992). It is based on the
given value of VQ and other statistics listed in Specification Table F1, assuming that VP will be
no larger than about 0.20. The requirements of Specification Section F1.1(a) for n = 3 help to
ensure this.
The 6.5 percent minimum value of VP, when used in Specification Equation F1.1-2 for the
case of three tests, produces safety factors similar to those of the 1986 edition of the AISI ASD
Specification, i.e. approximately 2.0 for members and 2.5 for connections. The LRFD
calibration reported by Hsiao, Yu and Galambos (1988a) indicates that VP is almost always
greater than 0.065 for common cold-formed steel components, and can sometimes reach
values of 0.20 or more. The minimum value for VP helps to prevent potential unconservatism
compared to values of VP implied in LRFD design criteria.
In evaluating the coefficient of variation VP from test data, care must be taken to use the
coefficient of variation for a sample. This can be calculated as follows:
s2
VP =
Rm
where
s2 = sample variance of all test results
134 July 2007

1 n
= ∑ (R i − R m )2
n − 1 i =1
Rm = mean of all test results
Ri = test result i of n total results
Alternatively, VP can be calculated as the sample standard deviation of n ratios Ri/Rm.
For beams having tension flange through-fastened to deck or sheathing and with
compression flange laterally unbraced (subject to wind uplift), the calibration is based on a
load combination of 1.17W-0.9D with D/W = 0.1 (see Section D6.1.1 of this Commentary for
detailed discussion).
The statistical data needed for the determination of the resistance factor are listed in
Specification Table F1. The data listed for screw connections were added in 1996 on the basis
of the study of bolted connections reported by Rang, Galambos, and Yu (1979b). The same
statistical data of Mm, VM, Fm, and VF have been used by Pekoz in the development of the
design criteria for screw connections (Pekoz, 1990).
In 1999, two entries were added to Table F1, one for "Structural Members Not Listed
Above" and the other for "Connections Not Listed Above". It was considered necessary to
include these values for members and connections not covered by one of the existing
classifications. The statistical values were taken as the most conservative values in the
existing table.
In 2004, the statistic data VM for screw bearing strength was revised from 0.10 to 0.08.
This revision is based on the tensile strength statistic data provided in the UMR research
report (Rang, Galambos, and Yu, 1979b). In addition, Vf was revised from 0.10 to 0.05 to
reflect the tolerance of the cross-sectional area of the screw.
In 2007, additional entries were made to Table F1 to provide statistical data for all limit
states included within the Specification for the standard connection types. The entry
"Connections Not Listed Above" is intended to provide statistical data for connections other
than welded, bolted, or screwed.
Also in 2007 the specification more clearly defined the appropriate material properties
that are to be used when evaluating test results by specifying that supplier provided
properties are not to be used.
F1.2 Allowable Strength Design

The equation for the safety factor Ω (Specification Equation F1.2-2) converts the resistance
factor φ from LRFD test procedures in Specification Section F1.1 to an equivalent safety factor
for the allowable strength design. The average of the test results, Rn, is then divided by the
safety factor to determine an allowable strength [resistance]. It should be noted that
Specification Equation F1.2-2 is identical with Equation C-A5.1.1-16 for D/L=0.
F2 Tests for Confirming Structural Performance

Members, connections and assemblies that can be designed according to the provisions of
Chapters A through E of the Specification need no confirmation of calculated results by test.
However, special situations may arise where it is desirable to confirm by test the results of
calculations. Tests may be called for by the manufacturer, the engineer, or a third party.
July 2007 135

Chapter F, Tests for Special Cases
Since design is in accordance with the Specification, all that is needed is that the tested
specimen or assembly demonstrates a strength [resistance] not less than the applicable nominal
resistance, Rn.
F3 Tests for Determining Mechanical Properties

F3.1 Full Section
Explicit methods for utilizing the effects of cold work are incorporated in Section A7.2 of
the Specification. In that section, it is specified that as-formed mechanical properties, in
particular the yield stress, can be determined either by full-section tests or by calculating the
strength of the corners and computing the weighted average for the strength of corners and
flats. The strength of flats can be taken as the virgin strength of the steel before forming, or
can be determined by special tension tests on specimens cut from flat portions of the formed
section. This Specification section spells out in considerable detail the types and methods of
these tests, and their number as required for use in connection with Specification Section A7.2.
For details of testing procedures which have been used for such purposes, but which in no
way should be regarded as mandatory, see AISI Specification (1968), Chajes, Britvec and
Winter (1963), and Karren (1967). A Stub-Column Test Method for Effective Area of Cold-Formed
Steel Columns is included in Part VI of the AISI Design Manual (AISI, 2008).
F3.2 Flat Elements of Formed Sections

Specification Section F3.2 provides the basic requirements for determining the mechanical
properties of flat elements of formed sections. These tested properties are to be used in
Specification Section A7.2 for calculating the average yield stress of the formed section by
considering the strength increase from cold work of forming.
F3.3 Virgin Steel

For steels other than the ASTM Specifications listed in Specification Section A2.1, the
tensile properties of the virgin steel used for calculating the increased yield stress of the
formed section should also be determined in accordance with the Standard Methods of
ASTM A370 (1997).
136 July 2007

Commentary on the 2007 AISI North American Cold-Formed Steel Specification
G. DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS FOR

CYCLIC LOADING (FATIGUE)
Fatigue in a cold-formed steel member or connection is the process of initiation and
subsequent growth of a crack under the action of a cyclic or repetitive load. The fatigue process
commonly occurs at a stress level less than the static failure condition.
When fatigue is a design consideration, its severity is determined primarily by three factors:
(1) the number of cycles of loading, (2) the type of member and connection detail, and (3) the
stress range at the detail under consideration (Fisher et al. 1998).
Fluctuation in stress, which does not involve tensile stress, does not cause crack propagation
and is not considered to be a fatigue situation.
When fabrication details involving more than one category occur at the same location in a
member, the design stress range at the location must be limited to that of the most restrictive
category. By locating notch-producing fabrication details in regions subject to a small range of
stress, the need for a member larger than required by static loading will often be eliminated.
For axially stressed angle members the Specification allows the effects of eccentricity on the
weld group to be ignored provided the weld lengths L1 and L2 are proportional such that the
centroid of the weld group falls between “ x ” and “b/2” in Figure C-G1(a). When the weld
lengths L1 and L2 are so proportioned, the effects of eccentric loads causing moment about x-x
in Figure C-G1(b) also need not be considered.
L1
L2
x
b/2
(a)
x x
x
y
(b)
Figure C-G1, Welded Angle Members
Research by Barsom et al. (1980) and Klippstein (1988, 1985, 1981, 1980) developed fatigue
information on the behavior of sheet and plate steel weldments and mechanical connections.
Although research indicates that the values of Fy and Fu do not influence fatigue behavior, the
Specification provisions are based on tests using ASTM A715 (Grade 80), ASTM A607 Grade 60,
July 2007 137

Chapter G, Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members and Connections for Cyclic Loading (Fatigue)
and SAE 1008 (Fy = 30 ksi). Using regression analysis, mean fatigue life curves (S-N curves)
with the corresponding standard deviation were developed. The fatigue resistance S-N curve
has been expressed as an exponential relationship between stress range and life cycle (Fisher et
al, 1970). The general relationship is often plotted as a linear log-log function, Eq. C-G1.
log N = Cf - m log FSR (C-G1)

Cf = b - (n s) (C-G2)
where
N = number of full stress cycles
m = slope of the mean fatigue analysis curve
FSR = effective stress range
B = intercept of the mean fatigue analysis curve from Table C-G1
n = number of standard deviations to obtain a desired confidence level
= 2 for Cf given in the Table G1 of the Specification
s = approximate standard deviation of the fatigue data
= 0.25 (Klippstein, 1988)
The database for these design provisions are based upon cyclic testing of real joints;
therefore, stress concentrations have been accounted for by the categories in Table G1 of the
Specification. It is not intended that the allowable stress ranges should be compared to “hot-
spot” stresses determined by finite element analysis. Also, calculated stresses computed by
ordinary analysis need not be amplified by stress concentration factors at geometrical
discontinuities and changes of cross section. All categories were found to have a common slope
with m = -3. Equation G3-1 of the Specification is to be used to calculate the design stress range
for the chosen design life, N. Table G1 of the Specification provides a classification system for the
various stress categories. This also provides the constant Cf that is applicable to the stress
category that is required for calculating the design stress range FSR.
Table C-G1 Intercept for Mean Fatigue Curves
Stress Category b
I 11.0
II 10.5
III 10.0
IV 9.5
The provisions for bolts and threaded parts were taken from the AISC Specification (AISC,
1999).
138 July 2007

REFERENCES
Acharya, V.V. and R.M. Schuster (1998), “Bending Tests of Hat Section with Multiple
Longitudinal Stiffeners,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 1998.
Albrecht, R. E. (1988), “Developments and Future Needs in Welding Cold-Formed
Steel,” Proceedings of the Ninth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1988.
Allen, D. E. and T. M. Murray (1993), “Designing Criterion for Vibrations Due to
Walking,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Fourth Quarter, 1993.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1978), Specification for the Design, Fabrication and
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, Chicago, IL, November 1978.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1986), Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification For Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL, 1986.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1989), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings -
Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design, Chicago, IL, 1989.
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL, December 1993.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1997a), Steel Design Guide Series 9: Torsional
Analysis of Structural Steel Members, Chicago, IL, 1997.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1997b), AISC/CISC Steel Design Guide Series 11:
Floor Vibration Due to Human Activity, Chicago, IL, 1997.
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL, 1999.
American Institute of Steel Construction (2005), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
Chicago, IL, 2005.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1946), Specification for the Design of Light Gage Steel
Structural Members, New York, NY, 1946.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1949), Light Gage Steel Design Manual, New York, NY,
1949.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1956), Light Gage Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual,
(Part I - Specification, Part II - Supplementary Information, Part III - Illustrative
Examples, Part IV - Charts and Tables of Structural Properties, and Appendix), New
York, NY, 1956.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1960), Specification for the Design of Light Gage Cold-
Formed Steel Structural Members, New York, NY, 1960.
Examples, Part IV - Charts and Tables of Structural Properties, and Appendix), New
York, NY, 1961.
July 2007 139

References
Examples, Part IV - Charts and Tables of Structural Properties, Appendix, and
Commentary on the 1962 Edition of the Specification by George Winter), New York, NY,
1962.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1967), Design of Light Gage Steel Diaphragms, First
Edition, New York, NY, 1967.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1968), Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members, New York, NY, 1968.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1977), Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual, (Part I -
Specification, 1968 Edition; Part II - Commentary by George Winter, 1970 Edition; Part
IV -Illustrative Examples, 1972 Edition, March 1977; and Part V - Charts and Tables, 1977
Edition), Washington, D.C, 1977.
Specification, 1980 Edition, Part II - Commentary, Part II - Supplementary Information,
Part IV - Illustrative Examples, Part V - Charts and Tables), Washington, D.C., 1983.
Specification, 1986 Edition with the 1989 Addendum, Part II - Commentary, 1986 Edition
with the 1989 Addendum, Part III - Supplementary Information, Part IV - Illustrative
Examples, Part V - Charts and Tables, Part VI - Computer Aids, Part VII - Test
Procedures), Washington, D. C., 1986.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1991), LRFD Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual, (Part I -
Specification, Part II - Commentary, Part III - Supplementary Information, Part IV -
Illustrative Examples, Part V - Charts and Tables, Part VI - Computer Aids, Part VII -
Test Procedures), Washington, DC, 1991.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1992), “Test Methods for Mechanically Fastened Cold-
Formed Steel Connections,” Research Report CF92-2, Washington, DC, 1992.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1995), “Design Guide for Cold-Formed Steel Trusses,”
Publication RG-95-18, Washington, DC, 1995.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1996), Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual, Washington,
D. C., 1996.
American Iron and Steel Institute (1999), Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members with Commentary, 1996 Edition, Supplement No.1, Washington, DC,
1999.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2001), North American Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members with Commentary, Washington, DC, 2001.
DC, 2002.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2004a), Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing – Wall
Stud Design, Washington, DC, 2004.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2004b), Supplement 2004 to the North American
Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, 2001 Edition,
Washington, DC, 2004.
140 July 2007

American Iron and Steel Institute (2005), “Test Procedure for Determining a Strength
Value for a Roof Panel-to-Purlin-to-Anchorage Device Connection”, S912-05.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2006), Direct Strength Method (DSM) Design Guide,
Design Guide 06-1, Washington, DC, 2006.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2007a), North American Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, Washington, DC, 2007.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2007b), Commentary on North American Specification for
the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, Washington, DC, 2007.
DC, 2008.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1997), “Standard Methods and Definitions
for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM 370, 1997.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1995), “Standard Test Method for Structural
Performance of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems by Uniform Static Air Pressure
Difference,” E 1592-95, 1995.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1991), Specification for the Design and Construction of
Composite Slabs and Commentary on Specifications for the Design and Construction of
Composite Slabs, ANSI/ASCE 3-91, 1991.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1998), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ASCE Standard 7-98, 1998.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA, 2005.
American Welding Society (1966), Recommended Practice for Resistance Welding, AWS
C1.1-66, Miami, FL, 1966.
American Welding Society (1970), Recommended Practice for Resistance Welding Coated Low
Carbon Steels, AWS C1.3-70, (Reaffirmed 1987), Miami, FL, 1970.
American Welding Society (1996), Structural Welding Code - Steel, ANSI/AWS D1.1-96,
Miami, FL, 1996.
American Welding Society (1998), Structural Welding Code - Sheet Steel, ANSI/AWS D1.3-
98, Miami, FL, 1998.
American Welding Society (2000), Recommended Practices for Resistance Welding,
ANSI/AWS C1.1/C1.1M-2000, Miami, FL, 2000.
Applied Technology Council (1999), ATC Design Guide 1: Minimizing Floor Vibration,
Redwood City, California, 1999.
AS/NZS (1996). AS/NZS 4600: 1996 Cold-Formed Steel Structures. Standards Australia
and the Australian Institute of Steel Construction.
Bambach, M. R., and K. J. R. Rasmussen (2002a), "Tests on Unstiffened Elements under
Combined Bending and Compression," Research Report R818, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia, May 2002.
Bambach, M.R. and K.J.R. Rasmussen (2002b), “Elastic and Plastic Effective Width
Equations for Unstiffened Elements,” Research Report R819, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia, 2002.
July 2007 141

References
Bambach, M.R. and K.J.R. Rasmussen (2002c), “Design Methods for Thin-Walled
Sections Containing Unstiffened Elements,” Research Report R820, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia, 2002.
Barsom, J. M., K. H. Klippstein, and A. K. Shoemaker (1980), “Fatigue Behavior of Sheet
Steels for Automotive Applications,” Research Report SG 80-2, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington, DC, 1980.
Beshara, B. (1999), “Web Crippling of Cold-Formed Steel Members,” M.A.Sc. Thesis,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 1999.
Beshara, B. and R.M. Schuster (2000), “Web Crippling Data and Calibrations of Cold-
Formed Steel Members,” Final Report, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 2000.
Beshara, B. and R.M. Schuster (2000a), “Web Crippling of Cold Formed C- and Z-
Sections,” Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 2000.
Bhakta, B.H., R.A. LaBoube, and W.W. Yu (1992), “The Effect of Flange Restraint on Web
Crippling Strength,” Final Report, Civil Engineering Study 92-1, University of Missouri-
Rolla, Rolla, MO, March 1992.
Birkemoe, P. C. and M. I. Gilmor (1978), Behavior of Bearing - Critical Double-Angle
Beam Connections, Engineering Journal, AISC, Fourth Quarter, 1978.
Bleich, F. (1952), Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
NY, 1952.
British Standards Institution (1992), British Standard: Structural Use of Steelwork in
Building, “Part 5 - Code of Practice for Design of Cold-Formed Sections,” BS 5950: Part 5:
CF92-2, 1992.
Brockenbrough, R. L. (1995), Fastening of Cold-Formed Steel Framing, American Iron and
Steel Institute, Washington, DC, September 1995.
Bryant, M.R. and Murray, T.M. (2001) “Investigation of Inflection Points as Brace Points
in Multi-Span Purlin Roof Systems” Report No. CE/VPI-ST 99/08, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blackburg, VA 2001.
Bulson, P. S. (1969), The Stability of Flat Plates, American Elsevier Publishing Company,
New York, NY, 1969.
Cain, D.E., R.A. LaBoube and W.W. Yu (1995), “The Effect of Flange Restraint on Web
Crippling Strength of Cold-Formed Steel Z- and I-Sections,” Final Report, Civil
Engineering Study 95-2, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, May 1995.
Camara Nacional de la Industria del Hierro y del Acero (1965), Manual de Diseno de
Secciones Estructurales de Acero Formadas en Frio de Calibre Ligero, Mexico, 1965.
Canadian Standards Association (1994a), Limit States Design of Steel Structures,
CAN/CSA-S16.1-94, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
Canadian Standards Association (1994b), Cold Formed Steel Structural Members, S136-94,
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994.
Canadian Standards Association (1995), Commentary on CSA Standard S136-94, Cold
Formed Steel Structural Members, S136.1-95, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1995.
142 July 2007

Carril, J.L., R. A. LaBoube and W. W. Yu (1994), “Tensile and Bearing Capacities of

Bolted Connections,” First Summary Report, Civil Engineering Study 94-1, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Mo., May 1994.
Chajes, A., S. J. Britvec and G. Winter (1963), “Effects of Cold-Straining on Structural
Steels,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. ST2, February 1963.
Chajes, A. and G. Winter (1965), “Torsional-Flexural Buckling of Thin-Walled
Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. ST4, August 1965.
Chajes, A., P.J. Fang, and G. Winter (1966), “Torsional-Flexural Buckling, Elastic and
Inelastic, of Cold-Formed Thin-Walled Columns,” Engineering Research Bulletin, No. 66-1,
Cornell University, 1966.
Chong, K. P. and R. B. Matlock (1975), “Light Gage Steel Bolted Connections without
Washers,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST7, July 1975.
Cohen, J. M. and T. B. Pekoz (1987), “Local Buckling Behavior of Plate Elements,”
Research Report, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, 1987.
Craig, B. (1999), "Calibration of Web Shear Stress Equations", Canadian Cold Formed
Steel Research Group, University of Waterloo, December, 1999.
Davis, C. S. and W. W. Yu (1972), “The Structural Performance of Cold-Formed Steel
Members with Perforated Elements,” Final Report, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla,
MO, May 1972.
Department of Army (1985), Seismic Design for Buildings, U.S. Army Technical Manual 5-
809-10, Washington, D.C., 1985.
Deshmukh, S. U. (1996), "Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Web Elements with Web
Openings Subjected to Web Crippling and a Combination of Bending and Web
Crippling for Interior-One-Flange Loading," thesis presented to the faculty of the
University of Missouri-Rolla in partial fulfillment for the degree Master of Science.
Desmond, T. P., T. B. Pekoz and G. Winter (1981a), “Edge Stiffeners for Thin-Walled
Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST2, February 1981.
Desmond, T. P., T. B. Pekoz and G. Winter (1981b), “Intermediate Stiffeners for Thin-
Walled Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST4, April 1981.
DeWolf, J.T., T. B. Pekoz and G. Winter (1974), “Local and Overall Buckling of Cold-
Formed Steel Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, October 1974.
Dhalla, A. K., S. J. Errera and G. Winter (1971), “Connections in Thin Low-Ductility
Steels,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST10, October 1971.
Dhalla, A. K. and G. Winter (1974a), “Steel Ductility Measurements,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST2, February 1974.
Dhalla, A. K. and G. Winter (1974b), “Suggested Steel Ductility Requirements,” Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST2, February 1974.
Dinovitzer, A.S., M. Sohrabpour and R.M. Schuster (1992), “Observations and
Comments Pertaining to CAN/CSA-S136-M89,” Proceedings of the Eleventh International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla,
MO, October, 1992.
Douty, R. T. (1962), “A Design Approach to the Strength of Laterally Unbraced
Compression Flanges,” Bulletin No. 37, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1962.
July 2007 143

References
Eiler, M. R., R. A. LaBoube, and W.W. Yu (1997), “Behavior of Web Elements with
Openings Subjected to Linearly Varying Shear,” Final Report, Civil Engineering Series
97-5, Cold-Formed Steel Series, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1997.
Elhouar, S., and T.M. Murray (1985) “Adequacy of Proposed AISI Effective Width
Specification Provisions for Z- and C-Purlin Design.” Fears Structural Engineering
Laboratory, FSEL/MBMA 85-04, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1985.
Ellifritt, D. S. (1977), “The Mysterious 1/3 Stress Increase,” Engineering Journal, AISC,
Fourth Quarter, 1977.
Ellifritt, D. S., T. Sputo and J. Haynes (1992), “Flexural Capacity of Discretely Braced C’s
and Z’s,” Proceedings of the Eleventh International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1992.
Ellifritt, D. S., R. L. Glover, J. D. Hren (1998) “A Simplified Model for Distortional
Buckling of Channels and Zees in Flexure,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International
MO, October, 1998.
Ellingwood, B., T. V. Galambos, J. G. MacGregor, and C. A. Cornell (1980),
“Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for American National Standard
A58: Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other
Structures,” U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special
Publication 577, June 1980.
Ellingwood, B., J. G. MacGregor, T. V. Galambos, and C. A. Cornell (1982), “Probability
Based Load Criteria: Load Factors and Load Combinations,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST5, May 1982.
Ellingwood, B. (1989), “Serviceability Guidelines for Steel Structures,” Engineering
Journal, AISC, First Quarter, 1989.
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (1977), “European
Recommendations for the Stressed Skin Design of Steel Structures,” ECCS-XVII-77-1E,
CONSTRADO, London, March 1977.
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (1987), “European
Recommendations for the Design of Light Gage Steel Members,” First Edition, Brussels,
Belgium, 1987.
Fisher, J. M. and M.A. West (1990), Serviceability Design Considerations for Low-Rise
Buildings, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, 1990.
Fisher, J. M., (1996), “Uplift Capacity of Simple Span Cee and Zee Members with
Through - Fastened Roof Panels,” Final Report MBMA 95-01, Metal Building
Manufacturers Association, 1996.
Fisher, J.W., K. H. Frank, M. A. Hirt and B.M. McNamee (1970), “Effect of Weldments on
the Fatigue Strength of Steel Beams,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 102, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC, 1970.
Fisher, J. W., G. L. Kulak, and I. F.C. Smith (1998), “A Fatigue Primer for Structural
Engineers,” National Steel Bridge Alliance, 1998.
144 July 2007

Fox, S.R. (2002), “Bearing Stiffeners in Cold Formed Steel C-Sections”, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
2002.
Fox, S.R. and Schuster, R.M. (2002), “Bearing Stiffeners in Cold-Formed Steel C-
Sections.” Final Report, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 2002.
Fung, C. (1978), “Strength of Arc-Spot Welds in Sheet Steel Construction,” Final Report
to Canadian Steel Industries Construction Council (CSICC), Westeel-Rosco Limited,
Canada, 1978.
Galambos, T. V. (1963), “Inelastic Buckling of Beams,”Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 89, No. ST5, October 1963.
Galambos, T. V., B. Ellingwood, J. G. MacGregor, and C. A. Cornell (1982), “Probability
Based Load Criteria: Assessment of Current Design Practice,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST5, May 1982.
Galambos, T. V. (Editor) (1988a), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures,
Fourth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1988.
Galambos, T. V. (1988b), “Reliability of Structural Steel Systems, “ Report No. 88-06,
American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C., 1988.
Galambos, T. V. (1998), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, Fifth Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998.
Gerges,R.R. (1997), “Web Crippling of Single Web Cold-Formed Steel Members
Subjected to End One-Flange Loading,” M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Canada, 1997.
Gerges,R.R. and R.M. Schuster (1998), “Web Crippling of Members Using High-Strength
Steels,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, October 1998.
Glaser, N.J., R. C. Kaehler and J. M. Fisher (1994), “Axial Load Capacity of Sheeted C
and Z Members,” Proceedings of the Twelfth International Specialty Conference on Cold-
Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, October 1994.
Green, G. G., G. Winter and T. R. Cuykendall (1947), “Light Gage Steel Columns in Wall-
Braced Panels,” Bulletin, No. 35/2, Cornell University Engineering Experimental Station,
1947.
Green, P.S., T. Sputo, and V. Urala (2004). “Bracing Strength and Stiffness Requirements
for Axially Loaded Lipped Cee Studs.” Proceedings of the Seventeenth International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Stee Structuresl, University of Missouri-Rolla, 2004.
Hancock, G. J., Y. B. Kwon and E. S. Bernard (1994), “Strength Design Curves for Thin-
Walled Sections Undergoing Distortional Buckling,” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 31, 1994.
Hancock, G. J. (1995), “Design for Distortional Buckling of Flexural Members,”
Proceedings, Third International Conference on Steel and Aluminum Structures, Istanbul,
Turkey, May 1995.
Hancock, G.J. (1997), “Design for Distortional Buckling of Flexural Members,” Thin-
Walled Structures, Vol. 27, No.1, 1997.
July 2007 145

References
Hancock, G.J., C. A. Rogers, and R.M. Schuster (1996). “Comparison of the Distortional
Buckling Method for Flexural Members with Tests.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth
International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-
Rolla, MO, 1996.
Hardash, S. G., and R. Bjorhovde (1985), “New Design Criteria for Gusset Plates in
Tension,” AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2nd Quarter, 1985.
Harper, M.M., R.A. LaBoube and W. W. Yu (1995), “Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Roof
Trusses,” Summary Report, Civil Engineering Study 95-3, University of Missouri-Rolla,
Rolla, MO, May 1995.
Harris, P. S. and R. A. LaBoube (1985), “Understanding the Engineering Safety Factor in
Building Design,” Plant Engineering, August 1985.
Hatch, J., W. S. Easterling and T. M. Murray (1990), “Strength Evaluation of Strut-
Purlins,” Proceedings of the Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, October 1990.
Haussler, R. W. (1964), “Strength of Elastically Stabilized Beams,” Journal of Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 90, No. ST3, June 1964; also ASCE Transactions, Vol. 130, 1965.
Haussler, R. W. and R. F. Pahers (1973), “Connection Strength in Thin Metal Roof
Structures,” Proceedings of the Second Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1973.
Haussler, R. W. (1988), “Theory of Cold-Formed Steel Purlin/Girt Flexure,” Proceedings
of the Ninth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1988.
Hetrakul, N. and W. W. Yu (1978), “Structural Behavior of Beam Webs Subjected to Web
Crippling and a Combination of Web Crippling and Bending,” Final Report, Civil
Engineering Study 78-4, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, June 1978.
Hetrakul, N. and W. W. Yu (1980), “Cold-Formed Steel I-beams Subjected to Combined
Bending and Web Crippling,” Thin-Walled Structures - Recent Technical Advances and
Trends in Design, Research and Construction, Rhodes, J. and A. C. Walker (Eds.), Granada
Publishing Limited, London, 1980.
Hill, H. N. (1954), “Lateral Buckling of Channels and Z-Beams,” Transactions, ASCE, Vol.
119, 1954.
Holcomb, B. D., R. A. LaBoube and W. W. Yu (1995), “Tensile and Bearing Capacities of
Bolted Connections,” Second Summary Report, Civil Engineering Study 95-1, University
of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Mo., May 1995.
Holesapple, M.W. and R.A. LaBoube (2002), “Overhang Effects on End-One-Flange Web
Crippling Capacity of Cold-Formed Steel Members,” Final Report, Civil Engineering
Study 02-1, Cold-Formed Steel Series, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO, 2002.
Hsiao, L. E., W. W. Yu and T. V. Galambos (1988a), “Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Cold-Formed Steel: Calibration of the AISI Design Provisions,” Ninth Progress
Report, Civil Engineering Study 88-2, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, February
1988.
146 July 2007

Hsiao, L. E., W. W. Yu and T. V. Galambos (1988b), “Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Cold-Formed Steel: Comparative Study of Design Methods for Cold-Formed Steel,”
Eleventh Progress Report, Civil Engineering Study 88-4, University of Missouri-Rolla,
Rolla, MO, February 1988.
Hsiao, L. E. (1989), “Reliability Based Criteria for Cold-Formed Steel Members,” thesis
presented to the University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1989.
Hsiao, L. E., W. W. Yu, and T. V. Galambos (1990), “AISI LRFD Method for Cold-
Formed Steel Structural Members,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No.
2, February 1990.
Johnston, B. G. (Editor) (1976), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, Third
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1976.
Joint Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, USA (1992), Chapter 13, Seismic Design
for Buildings, TM 5-809-10/NAVFACP-355/AFM 88-3, Washington, DC, 20 October
1992.
Kalyanaraman, V., T. Pekoz, and G. Winter (1977), “Unstiffened Compression
Elements,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. ST9, September 1977.
Kalyanaraman, V., and T. Pekoz (1978), “Analytical Study of Unstiffened Elements,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST9, September 1978.
Karren, K. W. (1967), “Corner Properties of Cold-Formed Steel Shapes,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST1, February, 1967.
Karren, K. W. and G. Winter (1967), “Effects of Cold-Work on Light Gage Steel
Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST1, February 1967.
Kavanagh, K. T. and D. S. Ellifritt (1993), “Bracing of Cold-Formed Channels Not
Attached to Deck or Sheeting,” Is Your Building Suitably Braced?, Structural Stability
Research Council, April 1993.
Kavanagh, K. T. and D. S. Ellifritt (1994), “Design Strength of Cold-Formed Channels in
Bending and Torsion,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 5, May 1994.
Kian, T. and T. B. Pekoz (1994), “Evaluation of Industry-Type Bracing Details for Wall
Stud Assemblies,” Final Report, submitted to American Iron and Steel Institute, Cornell
University, January 1994.
Kirby, P. A. and D. A. Nethercot (1979), Design for Structural Stability, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1979.
Klippstein, K. H. (1980), “Fatigue Behavior of Sheet Steel Fabrication Details,”
Proceedings of the Fifth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November, 1980.
Klippstein, K. H. (1981), “Fatigue Behavior of Steel-Sheet Fabrication Details,” SAE
Technical Paper Series 810436, International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI.
Klippstein, K. H. (1985), “Fatigue of Fabricated Steel-Sheet Details - Phase II,” SAE
Technical Paper Series 850366, International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI.
Klippstein, K. H. (1988), “Fatigue Design Curves for Structural Fabrication Details Made
of Sheet and Plate Steel,” unpublished AISI research report.
July 2007 147

References
Koka, E.N., W. W. Yu and R. A. LaBoube (1997), “Screw and Welded Connection

Behavior Using Structural Grade 80 of A653 Steel (A Preliminary Study),” Fourth
Progress Report, Civil Engineering Study 97-4, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO,
June 1997.
Kulak, G.L., and G.Y. Grondin, (2001), “AISC LRFD Rules for Block Shear in Bolted
Connections – A Review,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Fourth Quarter, 2001.
LaBoube, R.A., and W. W. Yu (1978). “Structural Behavior of Beam Webs Subjected to
Bending Stress.” Civil Engineering Study Structural Series, 78-1, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, 1978.
LaBoube, R. A. and W. W. Yu (1978a), “Structural Behavior of Beam Webs Subjected
Primarily to Shear Stress,” Final Report, Civil Engineering Study 78-2, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, June 1978.
LaBoube, R. A. and W. W. Yu (1978b), “Structural Behavior of Beam Webs Subjected to a
Combination of Bending and Shear,” Final Report, Civil Engineering Study 78-3,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, June 1978.
LaBoube, R. A. and M. B. Thompson (1982a), “Static Load Tests of Braced Purlins
Subjected to Uplift Load,” Final Report, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO,
1982.
LaBoube, R. A. and W. W. Yu (1982b), “Bending Strength of Webs of Cold-Formed Steel
Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST7, July 1982.
LaBoube, R. A. (1983), “Laterally Unsupported Purlins Subjected to Uplift,” Final
Report, Metal Building Manufacturers Association, 1983.
LaBoube, R. A. (1986), “Roof Panel to Purlin Connection: Rotational Restraint Factor,”
Proceedings of the IABSE Colloquium on Thin-Walled Metal Structures in Buildings,
Stockholm, Sweden, 1986.
LaBoube, R. A., M. Golovin, D. J. Montague, D. C. Perry, and L. L. Wilson (1988),
“Behavior of Continuous Span Purlin System,” Proceedings of the Ninth International
MO, November 1988.
LaBoube, R. A. and M. Golovin (1990), “Uplift Behavior of Purlin Systems Having
Discrete Braces,” Proceedings of the Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1990.
LaBoube, R. A. and W. W. Yu (1991), “Tensile Strength of Welded Connections,” Final
Report, Civil Engineering Study 91-3, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, June
1991.
LaBoube, R. A. and W. W. Yu (1993), “Behavior of Arc Spot Weld Connections in
Tension,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 7, July 1993.
LaBoube, R. A., J. N. Nunnery, and R. E. Hodges (1994), “Web Crippling Behavior of
Nested Z-Purlins,” Engineering Structures, (G.J. Hancock, Guest Editor), Vol. 16, No. 5,
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., London, July 1994.
LaBoube, R. A., and Yu, W. W. (1995), “Tensile and Bearing Capacities of Bolted
Connections,” Final Summary Report, Civil Engineering Study 95-6, Cold-Formed Steel
Series, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1995.
148 July 2007

LaBoube, R. A., and W. W Yu (1999), “Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members

and Connections for Cyclic Loading (Fatigue),” Final Report, Civil Engineering Study
Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO, 1999.
LaBoube, R.A. (2001a), “Tension on Arc Spot Welded Connections – AISI Section
E2.2.2,” University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 2001.
LaBoube, R.A. (2001b), “Arc Spot Welds in Sheet-to-Sheet Connections,” Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 2001.
LaBoube, R. A., R.M. Schuster, and J. Wallace (2002), “Web Crippling and Bending
Interaction of Cold-Formed Steel Members,” Final Report, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2002.
Langan, J. E., R. A LaBoube, and W. W Yu (1994), "Structural Behavior of Perforated
Web Elements of Cold-Formed Steel Flexural Members Subjected to Web Crippling and
a Combination of Web Crippling and Bending," Final Report, Civil Engineering Series
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1994.
Lau, S. C. W. and G. J. Hancock (1987), “Distortional Buckling Formulas for Channel
Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, May 1987.
Lease, A. R. and Easterling, W. S. (2006a). “Insulation Impact on Shear Strength of
Screw Connections and Shear Strength of Diaphragms.” Report No. CE/VPI – 06/01.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2006.
Lease, A. and Easterling, W.S. (2006b). “The Influence of Insulation on the Shear
Strength of Screw Connections.” Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Specialty
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Orlando, FL, 2006.
Lee, S., and T. M. Murray (2001). “Experimental Determination of Required Lateral
Restraint Forces For Z-Purlin Supported, Sloped Metal Roof Systems” CE/VPI-ST 01/09,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2001.
Luttrell, L.D. (1999), “Metal Construction Association Diaphragm Test Program,” West
Virginia University, WV, 1999.
Lutz, L. A. and J. M. Fisher (1985), “A Unified Approach for Stability Bracing
Requirements,” Engineering Journal, AISC, 4th Quarter, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1985.
Macadam, J. N., R. L. Brockenbrough, R. A. LaBoube, T. Pekoz, and E. J. Schneider
(1988), “Low-Strain-Hardening Ductile-Steel Cold-Formed Members,” Proceedings of the
Ninth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1988.
Metal Building Manufacturers Association (2002). Metal Building Systems Manual, Metal
Building Manufacturers Association, Cleveland, OH, 2002.
Metal Construction Association (2004), A Primer on Diaphragm Design, Glenview IL, 2004.
Midwest Research Institute (1981). “Determination of Rotational Restraint Factor ‘F’ for
Panel to Purlin Connection Rigidity.” Observer’s Report, MRI Project No. 7105-G,
Midwest Research Institute for Metal Building Manufacturers Association, 1981.
Miller, T. H. and T. Pekoz (1989), “Studies on the Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Wall
Stud Assemblies,” Final Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1989.
July 2007 149

References
Miller, T. H. and T. Pekoz (1994), “Unstiffened Strip Approach for Perforated Wall
Studs,” Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 2, February 1994.
Moreyra, M.E. (1993). “The Behavior of Cold-Formed Lipped Channels under Bending,”
M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1993.
Mulligan, G. P. and T. B. Pekoz (1984), “Locally Buckled Thin-Walled Columns,” Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. ST11, November 1984.
Murray, T. M. and S. Elhouar (1985), “Stability Requirements of Z-Purlin Supported
Conventional Metal Building Roof Systems,” Annual Technical Session Proceedings,
Structural Stability Research Council, 1985.
Murray, T. M. (1991), “Building Floor Vibrations,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Third
Quarter, 1991.
Nguyen, P. and W. W. Yu (1978a), “Structural Behavior of Transversely Reinforced
Beam Webs,” Final Report, Civil Engineering Study 78-5, University of Missouri-Rolla,
Rolla, MO, July 1978.
Nguyen, P. and W. W. Yu, (1978b), “Structural Behavior of Longitudinally Reinforced
Beam Webs,” Final Report, Civil Engineering Study 78-6, University of Missouri-Rolla,
Rolla, MO, July 1978.
Ortiz-Colberg, R. and T. B. Pekoz (1981), “Load Carrying Capacity of Perforated Cold-
Formed Steel Columns,” Research Report No. 81-12, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1981.
Pan, L.C., and W. W. Yu (1988), "High Strength Steel Members with Unstiffened
Compression Elements," Proceedings of the Ninth International Specialty Conference on Cold-
Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO, November, 1988.
Papazian, R.P., R.M. Schuster and M. Sommerstein (1994), “Multiple Stiffened Deck
Profiles,” Proceedings of the Twelfth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 1994.
Pekoz, T. B. and G. Winter (1969a), “Torsional-Flexural Buckling of Thin-Walled Sections
Under Eccentric Load,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. ST5, May
1969.
Pekoz, T. B. and N. Celebi (1969b), “Torsional-Flexural Buckling of Thin-Walled Sections
under Eccentric Load,” Engineering Research Bulletin 69-1, Cornell University, 1969.
Pekoz, T. B. and W. McGuire (1979), “Welding of Sheet Steel,” Report SG-79-2, American
Iron and Steel Institute, January 1979.
Pekoz, T. B. and P. Soroushian (1981), “Behavior of C- and Z- Purlins Under Uplift,”
Report No. 81-2, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1981.
Pekoz, T. B. and P. Soroushian (1982), “Behavior of C- and Z- Purlins Under Wind
Uplift,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1982.
Pekoz, T. B. (1986a), “Combined Axial Load and Bending in Cold-Formed Steel
Members,” Thin-Walled Metal Structures in Buildings, IABSE Colloquium, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1986.
Pekoz, T. B. (1986b), “Development of a Unified Approach to the Design of Cold-
Formed Steel Members,” Report SG-86-4, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1986.
150 July 2007

Pekoz, T. B. (1986c), “Developments of a Unified Approach to the Design of Cold-

Formed Steel Members,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1986.
Pekoz, T. B. (1988a), “Design of Cold-Formed Steel Columns,” Proceedings of the Ninth
Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1988.
Pekoz, T. B. and W. B. Hall (1988b), “Probabilistic Evaluation of Test Results,”
Proceedings of the Ninth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, November 1988.
Pekoz, T. B. (1990), “Design of Cold-Formed Steel Screw Connections,” Proceedings of the
Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1990.
Pekoz, T. B. and O. Sumer (1992), “Design Provisions for Cold-Formed Steel Columns
and Beam-Columns,” Final Report, submitted to American Iron and Steel Institute,
Cornell University, September 1992.
Popovic, D., G.J. Hancock, and K.J.R. Rasmussen (1999), “Axial Compression Tests of
Cold-Formed Angles,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No.5, May 1999.
Prabakaran, K. (1993), “Web Crippling of Cold-Formed Steel Sections,” M.S. Thesis,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 1993.
Prabakaran, K. and R.M. Schuster (1998), “Web Crippling of Cold-Formed Steel
Members,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 1998.
Put, B.M., Y.L. Pi and N.S. Trahair (1999), Bending and Torsion of Cold-Formed Channel
Beams, Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 5, May 1999.
Rack Manufacturers Institute (1997), Specification for the Design, Testing, and Utilization of
Industrial Steel Storage Racks, Charlotte, NC, 1997.
Rang, T. N., T. V. Galambos, W. W. Yu, and M. K. Ravindra (1978), “Load and
Resistance Factor Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members,” Proceedings of the
Fourth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, June 1978.
Rang, T. N., T. V. Galambos, and W. W. Yu (1979a), “Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Cold-Formed Steel: Study of Design Formats and Safety Index Combined with
Calibration of the AISI Formulas for Cold Work and Effective Design Width,” First
Progress Report, Civil Engineering Study 79-1, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO,
January 1979.
Rang, T. N., T. V. Galambos, and W. W. Yu (1979b), “Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Cold-Formed Steel: Statistical Analysis of Mechanical Properties and Thickness of
Material Combined with Calibration of the AISI Design Provisions on Unstiffened
Compression Elements and Connections,” Second Progress Report, Civil Engineering
Study 79-2, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, January 1979.
Rang, T. N., T. V. Galambos, and W. W. Yu (1979c), “Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Cold-Formed Steel: Calibration of the Design Provisions on Connections and Axially
Loaded Compression Members,” Third Progress Report, Civil Engineering Study 79-3,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, January 1979.
July 2007 151

References
Rang, T. N., T. V. Galambos, and W. W. Yu (1979d), “Load and Resistance Factor Design
of Cold-Formed Steel: Calibration of the Design Provisions on Laterally Unbraced
Beams and Beam-Columns,” Fourth Progress Report, Civil Engineering Study 79-4,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, January 1979.
Rasmussen, K. J. R. and G. J. Hancock (1992), “Nonlinear Analyses of Thin-Walled
Channel Section Columns,” Thin Walled Structures (J. Rhodes and K.P. Chong, Eds.), Vol.
13, Nos. 1-2, Elsevier Applied Science, Tarrytown, NY, 1992.
Rasmussen, K. J. R. (1994), “Design of Thin-Walled Columns with Unstiffened Flanges,”
Engineering Structures, (G. J. Hancock, Guest Editor), Vol. 16, No. 5, Butterworth-
Heinmann Ltd., London, July 1994.
Ravindra, M. K. and T. V. Galambos (1978), “Load and Resistance Factor Design for
Steel,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST9, September 1978.
Reck, H. P., T. Pekoz, and G. Winter (1975), “Inelastic Strength of Cold-Formed Steel
Beams” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST11, November 1975.
Research Council on Structural Connections (1980), Specification for Structural Joints Using
ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts, 1980.
Research Council on Structural Connections (1985), Allowable Stress Design Specification
for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts, 1985.
Rivard, P. and T.M. Murray (1986), “Anchorage Forces in Two Purlin Line Standing
Seam Z-Purlin Supported Roof Systems,” Research Report, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK, December 1986.
Roark, R. J. (1965), Formulas for Stress and Strain, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY, 1965.
Rogers, C.A., and R. M. Schuster (1995) “Interaction Buckling of Flange, Edge Stiffener
and Web of C-Sections in Bending.” Research Into Cold Formed Steel, Final Report of
CSSBI/IRAP Project, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, 1995.
Rogers, C. and R.M. Schuster (1996), “Cold-Formed Steel Flat Width Ratio Limits, d/t,
and di/w,” Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 1996.
Rogers, C. A., and G. J. Hancock (1998), “Bolted Connection Tests of Thin G550 and
G300 Sheet Steels,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 7, 1998.
Salmon, C. G., and J.E. Johnson (1990), Steel Structures: Design and Behavior, Third
Edition, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1990.
Santaputra, C. (1986), “Web Crippling of High Strength Cold-Formed Steel Beams,”
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1986.
Santaputra, C., M. B. Parks, and W. W. Yu (1989), “Web Crippling Strength of Cold-
Formed Steel Beams,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 10, October
1989.
152 July 2007

Schafer, B.W. and T. Pekoz (1998), “Cold-Formed Steel Members with Multiple
Longitudinal Intermediate Stiffeners in the Compression Flange,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No.10, October, 1998.
Schafer, B.W., and T. Peköz (1999), “Laterally Braced Cold-Formed Steel Flexural
Members with Edge Stiffened Flanges.” Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 125,
No. 2, February 1999.
Schafer, B.W. (2000), “Distortional Buckling of Cold-Formed Steel Columns,” Final
Report, sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Schafer, B.W. (2002), “Local, Distortional, and Euler Buckling in Thin-Walled Columns,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No.3, March 2002.
Schafer, B.W., Sarawit, A., Peköz, T. (2006). “Complex Edge Stiffeners for Thin-Walled
Members.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 2, February, 2006.
Schardt, R. W., Schrade (1982), “Kaltprofil-Pfetten.” Institut Für Statik, Technische
Hochschule Darmstadt, Bericht Nr. 1, Darmstadt, 1982.
Schuster, R.M. (1992). “Testing of Perforated C-Stud Sections in Bending.” Report for the
Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario, 1992.
Schuster, R. M., C. A. Rogers, and A. Celli (1995), “Research into Cold-Formed Steel
Perforated C-Sections in Shear,” Progress Report No. 1 of Phase I of CSSBI/IRAP
Project, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, 1995.
Sears, J. M. and T. M. Murray (2007), “Proposed Method for the Prediction of Lateral
Restraint Forces in Metal Building Roof Systems,” Annual Stability Conference Proceedings,
Structural Stability Research Council, 2007.
Seek, M. W. and T. M. Murray (2004). “Computer Modeling of Sloped Z-Purlin
Supported Roof Systems to Predict Lateral Restraint Force Requirements.” Conference
Proceedings, Seventeenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri.
Seek, M. W. and T. M. Murray (2006). “Component Stiffness Method to Predict Lateral
Restraint Forces in End Restrained Single Span Z-Section Supported Roof Systems with
One Flange Attached to Sheathing.” Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Specialty
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures. University of Missouri-Rolla. Rolla, MO,
2006.
Seek, M.W. and T.M. Murray (2007) “Lateral Brace Forces in Single Span Z-Section Roof
Systems with Interior Restraints Using the Component Stiffness Method.” Annual
Stability Conference Proceedings, Structural Stability Research Council, 2007.
Serrette, R. L. and T. B. Pekoz (1992), “Local and Distortional Buckling of Thin-Walled
Beams,” Proceedings of the Eleventh International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1992.
Serrette, R. L. and T. B. Pekoz (1994), “Flexural Capacity of Continuous Span Standing
Seam Panels: Gravity Load,” Proceedings of the Twelfth International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1994.
Serrette, R. L. and T. B. Pekoz (1995), “Behavior of Standing Seam Panels,” Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Steel and Aluminum Structures, Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey, May 1995.
July 2007 153

References
Shadravan, S. and C. Ramseyer (2007), “Bending Capacity of Steel Purlins with Torsional
Bracing Using the Base Test, “ Annual Stability Conference Proceedings, Structural Stability
Research Council, 2007.
Shan, M. Y., R. A. LaBoube, and W. W. Yu (1994), "Behavior of Web Elements with
Openings Subjected to Bending, Shear and the Combination of Bending and Shear,"
Final Report, Civil Engineering Series 94-2, Cold-Formed Steel Series, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla
Sherman, D. R. (1976), “Tentative Criteria for Structural Applications of Steel Tubing
and Pipe,” American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D. C., 1976.
Sherman, D. R. (1985), “Bending Equations for Circular Tubes,” Annual Technical Session
Proceedings, Structural Stability Research Council, 1985.
Simaan, A. (1973), “Buckling of Diaphragm-Braced Columns of Unsymmetrical Sections
and Applications to Wall Studs Design,” Report No. 353, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,
1973.
Simaan, A. and T. Pekoz (1976), “Diaphragm-Braced Members and Design of Wall
Studs,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, ST1, January 1976.
Sputo, T., and K. Beery (2006). “Accumulation of Bracing Strength and Stiffness
Demand in Cold-Formed Steel Stud Walls.” Proceedings of the Eighteenth International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, 2006.
Steel Deck Institute, Inc. (1981), Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual, First
Edition, Canton, OH, 1981.
Steel Deck Institute, Inc. (1987), Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual, Canton,
OH, 1987.
Steel Deck Institute, Inc. (2004), Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual, Third
Edition, Fox River Grove, IL, 2004.
Steel Deck Institute, Inc. (2006), Design Manual for Composite Decks, Form Decks, Roof
Decks, Cellular Deck Floor Systems with Electrical Distribution, SDI Publication No. 30, 2006.
Stolarczyk, J. A., J. M. Fisher, A. Ghorbanpoor (2002), “Axial Strength of Purlins
Attached to Standing Seam Roof Panels,” Proceedings of the Sixteenth International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO,
October 2002.
Structural Stability Resarch Council (1993), Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?, Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA, April 1993.
Supornsilaphachai, B., T. V. Galambos, and W. W. Yu (1979), “Load and Resistance
Factor Design of Cold-Formed Steel: Calibration of the Design Provisions on Beam
Webs,” Fifth Progress Report, Civil Engineering Study 79-5, University of Missouri-
Rolla, Rolla, MO, September 1979.
Supornsilaphachai, B. (1980), “Load and Resistance Factor Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members,” thesis presented to the University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1980.
Surry, D., R. R. Sinno, B. Nail, T.C.E. Ho, S. Farquhar, and G. A. Kopp (2007),
“Structurally-Effective Static Wind Loads for Roof Panels,” Journal of the Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 6, June 2007.
154 July 2007

Tangorra, F. M., R. M. Schuster, and R. A. LaBoube (2001), “Calibrations of Cold Formed

Steel Welded Connections,” Research Report, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, 2001.
Teh, L.H. and G.J. Hancock (2000), “Strength of Fillet Welded Connections in G450 Sheet
Steels,” Research Report R802, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, University
of Sydney, July, 2000.
Tsai, M. (1992), Reliability Models of Load Testing, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Aeronautical
and Astronautical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (1991), “Guide Specification for Military
Construction, Standing Seam Metal Roof Systems,” October 1991.
Uphoff, C. A. (1996), “Structural Behavior of Circular Holes in Web Elements of Cold-
Formed Steel Flexural Members Subjected to Web Crippling for End-One-Flange
Loading,” thesis presented to the faculty of the University of Missouri-Rolla in partial
fulfillment for the degree Master of Science, 1996.
von Karman, T., E. E. Sechler, and L.H. Donnell (1932), “The Strength of Thin Plates in
Compression,” Transactions, ASME, Vol. 54, 1932.
Wallace, A.W. (2003), "Web Crippling of Cold-Formed Steel Multi-Web Deck Sections
Subjected to End One-flange Loading," Final Report, Canadian Cold Formed Steel
Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada, May 2003.
Wallace, J. A., R.M. Schuster, and R.A. LaBoube (2001a), “Testing of Bolted Cold-Formed
Steel Connections in Bearing”, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 2001.
Wallace, J. A., R.A. LaBoube, and R.M. Schuster (2001b), “Calibration of Bolted Cold-
Formed Steel Connections in Bearing (With and Without Washers)”, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 2001.
Weng, C. C. and T. B. Pekoz (1986), “Subultimate Behavior of Uniformly Compressed
Stiffened Plate Elements,” Research Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1986.
Willis, C.T., and B. Wallace (1990), “Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Purlins under
Gravity Loading.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. 116 No. 8, 1990.
Wing, B.A. (1981), “Web Crippling and the Interaction of Bending and Web Crippling of
Unreinforced Multi-Web Cold-Formed Steel Sections,” M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 1981.
Wing, B.A. and R.M. Schuster (1982), “Web Crippling of Decks Subjected to Two-Flange
Loading,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November, 1982.
Winter, G. (1940), “Stress Distribution in and Equivalent Width of Flanges of Wide,
Thin-Walled Steel Beams,” Technical Note No. 784, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, Washington, D. C., 1940.
Winter, G. (1943), “Lateral Stability of Unsymmetrical I-beams and Trusses,”
Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 198, 1943.
Winter, G. (1944), “Strength of Slender Beams,” Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 109, 1944.
Winter, G. and R. H. J. Pian (1946), “Crushing Strength of Thin Steel Webs,” Cornell
Bulletin 35, pt. 1, April 1946.
July 2007 155

References
Winter, G. (1947a), Discussion of “Strength of Beams as Determined by Lateral

Buckling,” by Karl deVries, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 112, 1947.
Winter, G. (1947b), “Strength of Thin Steel Compression Flanges,” (with Appendix),
Bulletin No. 35/3, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1947.
Winter, G. (1947c), “Strength of Thin Steel Compression Flanges,” Transactions, ASCE,
Vol. 112, 1947.
Winter, G., P. T. Hsu, B. Koo, and M. H. Loh (1948a), “Buckling of Trusses and Rigid
Frames,” Bulletin No. 36, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1948.
Winter, G. (1948b), “Performance of Thin Steel Compression Flanges,” Preliminary
Publication, 3rd Congress of the International Association of Bridge and Structural
Engineers, Liege, Belgium.
Winter, G. (1949a), “Performance of Compression Plates as Parts of Structural
Members,” Research, Engineering Structures Supplement (Colston Papers, Vol. II), 1949.
Winter, G., W. Lansing, and R. B. McCalley, Jr. (1949b), “Performance of Laterally
Loaded Channel Beams,” Research, Engineering Structures Supplement. (Colston Papers,
Vol. II), 1949.
Winter, G., W. Lansing and R. McCalley (1950), Performance of Laterally Loaded Channel
Beams, Four papers on the performance of Thin Walled Steel Structures, Cornell
University, Engineering Experiment Station, Reprint No. 33, November 1, 1950.
Winter, G. (1956a), “Light Gage Steel Connections with High-Strength, High-Torqued
Bolts,” Publications, IABSE, Vol. 16, 1956.
Winter, G. (1956b), “Tests on Bolted Connections in Light Gage Steel,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. ST2, February 1956.
Winter, G. (1958a), “Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams,” Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 84, No. ST2, March 1958.
Winter, G. (1958b), Commentary on the 1956 Edition of the Light Gage Cold-Formed Steel
Design Manual, American Iron and Steel Institute, New York, NY, 1958.
Winter, G. (1959a), “Development of Cold-Formed, Light Gage Steel Structures,” AISI
Regional Technical Papers, October 1, 1959.
Winter, G. (1959b), “Cold-Formed, Light Gage Steel Construction,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. ST9, November 1959.
Winter, G. (1960), “Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams,” Transactions, ASCE, Vol.
125, 1960.
Winter, G. and J. Uribe (1968), “Effects of Cold-Work on Cold-Formed Steel Members,”
Thin-Walled Steel Structures - Their Design and Use in Buildings, K. C. Rockey and H. V.
Hill (Eds.), Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, United Kingdom, 1968.
Winter, G. (1970), Commentary on the 1968 Edition of the Specification for the Design of Cold-
Formed Steel Structural Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, New York, NY, 1970.
Wu, S., W. W. Yu and R. A. LaBoube (1996), “Strength of Flexural Members Using
Structural Grade 80 of A653 Steel (Deck Panel Tests),” Second Progress Report, Civil
Engineering Study 96-4, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1996.
156 July 2007

Wu, S., W. W. Yu and R. A. LaBoube (1997), “Strength of Flexural Members Using

Structural Grade 80 of A653 Steel (Web Crippling Tests),” Third Progress Report, Civil
Engineering Study 97-3, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, February 1997.
Yang, D and G.J. Hancock (2002), “Compression Tests of Cold-Reduced High Strength
Steel Stub Columns”, Research Report R815, Center for Advanced Structural
Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia, March
2002.
Yang, D, G.J. Hancock, and Rasmussen (2002), “Compression Tests of Cold-Reduced
High Strength Steel Long Columns”, Research Report R816, Center for Advanced
Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, March
2002.
Yang, D., and G.J. Hancock (2003). “Compression Tests of Cold-Reduced High Strength
Steel Channel Columns Failing in the Distortional Mode.” Research Report R825,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia, 2003.
Yang, H. and B.W. Schafer (2006), “Comparison of AISI Specification Methods for
Members with Single Intermediate Longitudinal Stiffeners,” Report to American Iron
and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 2006.
Yener, M. and T. B. Pekoz (1985a), “Partial Stress Redistribution in Cold-Formed Steel,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 6, June 1985.
Yener, M. and T. B. Pekoz (1985b), “Partial Moment Redistribution in Cold-Formed
Steel,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 6, June 1985.
Yiu, F. and T. Pekoz (2001), “Design of Cold-Formed Steel Plain Channels,” Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, 2001.
Young, B. and G.J. Hancock (1998), “Web Crippling Behaviour of Cold-Formed
Unlipped Channels,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, October 1998.
Young, B. and G.J Hancock (2000), “Experimental Investigation of Cold-Formed
Channels Subjected to Combined Bending and Web Crippling,” Proceedings of the
Fifteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, October 2000.
Yu, C. (2005). “Distortional Buckling of Cold-Formed Steel Members in Bending.” Ph.D.
Thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 2005.
Yu, C. and B.W. Schafer (2003). “Local Buckling Tests on Cold-Formed Steel Beams.”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 12, December 2003.
Yu, C. and B.W. Schafer (2006). “Distortional Buckling Tests on Cold-Formed Steel
Beams.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 4, April 2006.
Yu, W. W. and C. S. Davis (1973a), “Cold-Formed Steel Members with Perforated
Elements,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST10, October 1973.
Yu, W. W., V. A. Liu, and W. M. McKinney (1973b), “Structural Behavior and Design of
Thick, Cold-Formed Steel Members,” Proceedings of the Second Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1973.
Yu, W. W., V. A. Liu, and W. M. McKinney (1974), “Structural Behavior of Thick Cold-
Formed Steel Members,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST1,
January 1974.
July 2007 157

References
Yu, W. W. (1981), “Web Crippling and Combined Web Crippling and Bending of Steel
Decks,” Civil Engineering Study 81-2, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, April
1981.
Yu, W. W. (1982), “AISI Design Criteria for Bolted Connections,” Proceedings of the Sixth
International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University at Missouri-
Rolla, Rolla, MO, November 1982.
Yu, W. W. (1985), Cold-Formed Steel Design, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, 1985.
Yu, W.W.(1996), Commentary on the 1996 Edition of the Specification for the Design of Cold-
Formed Steel Structural Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.,
1996.
Yu, W. W. (2000), Cold-Formed Steel Design, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY, 2000.
Yura, J.A. (1993), “Fundamentals of Beam Bracing,” Is Your Structure Suitably Braced?
Structural Stability Research Council, April 1993.
Zetlin, L. (1955a), “Elastic Instability of Flat Plates Subjected to Partial Edge Loads,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 81, September 1955.
Zetlin, L. and G. Winter (1955b), “Unsymmetrical Bending of Beams with and without
Lateral Bracing,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 81, 1955.
Zhao, X.L. and G.J. Hancock (1995), “Butt Welds and Transverse Fillet Welds in Thin
Cold-Formed RHS Members,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No.11,
November, 1995.
Zwick, K. and R. A. LaBoube (2002), “Self-Drilling Screw Connections Subject to
Combined Shear and Tension”, Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, 2002.
158 July 2007

Appendix 1:
Commentary on Appendix 1
Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members
Using the Direct Strength Method
2007 EDITION
APPENDIX 1: COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX 1 DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL

STRUCTURAL MEMBERS USING THE DIRECT STRENGTH METHOD
1.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1.1 Applicability
The Direct Strength Method of Appendix 1 is an alternative procedure for determining the
strength [resistance] and stiffness of cold-formed steel members (beams and columns). The
reliability of Appendix 1 is insured by using calibrated safety factor, Ω, and resistance factor, φ,
within set geometric limits, and conservative Ω and φ for other configurations. The applicability
of Appendix 1 to all beams and columns implies that in some situations competing methods
may exist for strength determination of a member: the main Specification¿ and Appendix 1. In
this situation there is no preferred method. Either method may be used to determine the
strength [resistance]. The fact that one method may give a greater or lower strength [resistance]
prediction in a given situation does not imply an increased accuracy for either method. The Ω
and φ factors are designed to insure that both methods reach their target reliability.
The method of Appendix 1 provides solutions for beams and columns only, but these
solutions must be combined with the regular provisions of the main Specification to cover other
cases: shear, beam-columns, etc. For example, an application to purlin design was completed
using the provisions of this Appendix for the bending strength, and then those calculations
were augmented by shear, and shear and bending interaction calculations, in line with the main
Specification (Quispe and Hancock, 2002). Further, beam-columns may be conservatively
examined using the provisions of the main Specification, by replacing the beam and column
design strength [factored resistance] with the provisions of this Appendix, or beam-columns
may be analyzed using the actual stress state (Schafer, 2002b).
The pre-qualified columns and beams only include members without perforations
(punchouts). Members with perforations generally may be designed by the main Specification.
For perforated members not covered by the Specification one may want to consider a rational
analysis method, which partially employs the methods of this Appendix. The key issue in such
a rational analysis is the accurate determination of the elastic local, distortional, and global
buckling loads (or moments) for the member with perforations. Numerical (e.g., finite element)
analysis where the holes are explicitly considered is one option in this case.
Note:
¿
The North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, Chapters A
through G and Appendices A and B and Appendix 2, is herein referred to as the main Specification.
1.1.1.1 Pre-qualified Columns

An extensive amount of testing has been performed on concentrically loaded, pin-ended,
cold-formed steel columns (Kwon and Hancock, 1992; Lau and Hancock, 1987; Loughlan,
1979; Miller and Peköz, 1994; Mulligan, 1983; Polyzois et al., 1993; Thomasson, 1978). Data
from these researchers were compiled and used for calibration of the Direct Strength Method.
The geometric limitations listed in Appendix 1 are based on these experiments. In 2006 the
pre-qualified category of Lipped C-Section and Rack Upright were merged, as a rack upright
is a C-section with a complex stiffener. In addition, the complex stiffener limits from the
July 2007 1-3

Appendix 1,Commentary on Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members Using the Direct Strength Method
original Rack Upright category were relaxed to match those found for C-section beams with
complex stiffeners (Schafer, et al., 2006).
It is intended that as more cross-sections are verified for use in the Direct Strength
Method, these tables and sections will be augmented. Companies with proprietary sections
may wish to perform their own testing and follow Chapter F of the main Specification to
justify the use of lower Ω and higher φ factors for a particular cross-section. Alternatively,
member geometries that are not pre-qualified may still use the method of Appendix 1, but
with the increased Ω and reduced φ factors consistent with any rational analysis method as
prescribed in A1.2 of the main Specification.
1.1.1.2 Pre-qualified Beams

An extensive amount of testing has been performed on laterally braced beams (Cohen,
1987; Ellifritt et al., 1997; LaBoube and Yu, 1978; Moreyara, 1993; Phung and Yu, 1978; Rogers,
1995; Schardt and Schrade, 1982; Schuster, 1992; Shan et al., 1994; Willis and Wallace, 1990)
and on hats and decks (Acharya and Schuster, 1998; Bernard, 1993; Desmond, 1977; Höglund,
1980; König, 1978; Papazian et al., 1994). Data from these researchers were compiled and used
for calibration of the Direct Strength Method. The geometric limitations listed in the
Appendix are based on the experiments performed by these researchers. The original
geometric limits were extended to cover C- and Z-section beams with complex lip stiffeners
based on the work of Schafer et al. (2006). For rounded edge stiffeners or other edge stiffeners
that do not meet the geometric criteria either for pre-qualified simple, or complex, stiffeners
one may still use the method of Appendix 1, but instead with the rational analysis Ω and φ
factors prescribed in A1.2 of the main Specification. See the note on pre-qualified columns for
further commentary on members which do not meet the pre-qualified geometric limits.
Users of this Appendix should be aware that pre-qualified beams with large flat width-to-
thickness ratios in the compression flange will be conservatively predicted by the method of
this Appendix when compared to the main Specification (Schafer and Peköz, 1998). However,
the same beam with small longitudinal stiffeners in the compression flange will be well
predicted using this Appendix.
1.1.2 Elastic Buckling

The elastic buckling load is the load in which the equilibrium of the member is neutral
between two alternative states: buckled and straight. Thin-walled cold-formed steel members
have at least 3 relevant elastic buckling modes: local, distortional, and global (Figure C-1.1.2-1).
The global buckling mode includes flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional buckling for
columns, and lateral-torsional buckling for beams. Traditionally, the main Specification has only
addressed local and global buckling. Further, the main Specification’s approach to local buckling
is to conceptualize the member as a collection of “elements” and investigate local buckling of
each element separately.
The method of this Appendix provides a means to incorporate all three relevant buckling
modes into the design process. Further, all buckling modes are determined for the member as a
whole rather than element by element. This insures that compatibility and equilibrium are
maintained at element junctures. Consider, as an example, the lipped C-Section shown in pure
compression in Figure C-1.1.2-1(a). The member’s local elastic buckling load from the analysis
is:
1-4 July 2007

Pcrl = 0.12 x 48.42 kips = 5.81 kips (25.84 kN).

The column has a gross area (Ag) of 0.881 in2 (568.4 mm2), therefore,
fcrl = Pcrl/Ag = 6.59 ksi (45.44 MPa)
The main Specification determines a plate buckling coefficient, k, for each element, then fcr,
and finally the effective width. The centerline dimensions (ignoring corner radii) are h = 8.94 in.
(227.1 mm), b = 2.44 in. (62.00 mm), d = 0.744 in. (18.88 mm), and t = 0.059 in. (1.499 mm), the
critical buckling stress, fcr of each element as determined from the main Specification:
lip: k = 0.43, fcrl-lip= 0.43[π2E/(12(1-µ2))](t/d)2 = 72.1 ksi (497 MPa)
flange: k = 4, fcrl-flange= 4.0[π2E/(12(1-µ2))](t/b)2 = 62.4 ksi (430 MPa)
web: k = 4, fcrl-web= 4.0[π2E/(12(1-µ2))](t/h)2 = 4.6 ksi (32.0 MPa)
Each element predicts a different buckling stress, even though the member is a connected
group. These differences in the buckling stress are ignored in the main Specification. The high
flange and lip buckling stresses have little relevance given the low web buckling stress. The
finite strip analysis, which includes the interaction amongst the elements, shows that the flange
aids the web significantly in local buckling, increasing the web buckling stress from 4.6 ksi (32.0
MPa) to 6.59 ksi (45.4 MPa), but the buckling stress in the flange and lip are much reduced due
to the same interaction. Comparisons to the distortional buckling stress (fcrd) using k from B4.2
of the main Specification do no better (Schafer and Peköz, 1999; Schafer, 2002).
The method of this Appendix allows rational analysis to be used for determining the local,
distortional and global buckling load or moment. Specific guidance on elastic buckling
determination follows. Users are reminded that the strength of a member is not equivalent to
the elastic buckling load (or moment) of the member. In fact the elastic buckling load can be
lower than the actual strength, for slender members with considerable post-buckling reserve; or
the elastic buckling load can be fictitiously high due to ignoring inelastic effects. Nonetheless,
the elastic buckling load is a useful reference load for determining a member’s slenderness and
ultimately its strength.
Manual and numerical solutions for elastic buckling prediction are covered in the following
sections. It is permissible to mix the manual and numerical methods; in some cases it is even
advantageous. For example, numerical solutions for member local and distortional buckling are
particularly convenient; however, unusual long column bracing conditions (KL)x ≠ (KL)y ≠
(KL)t may often be handled with less confusion using the traditional manual formulas. Use of
the numerical solutions is generally encouraged, but verification with the manual solutions can
aid in building confidence in the numerical solution.
July 2007 1-5

1.5
AISI (2002) Ex. I−8
My=126.55kip−in.
1
Mcr / My
Lateral−torsional
Local Mcr/My=0.67 Distortional M cr/My=0.85

0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half−wavelength (in.)
0.4
AISI (2002) Ex. I−8
0.35
Py=48.42kips
0.3
Flexural
0.25
Pcr / Py
0.2
0.15 Local Pcr/Py=0.12 Distortional P cr/Py=0.26
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
(a) 9CS2.5x059 of AISI 2002 Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual Example I-8
Figure C-1.1.2-1 Examples of Bending and Compression Elastic Buckling Analysis

with Finite Strip Method
1-6 July 2007

1.5
AISI (2002) Ex. I−10
My=107.53kip−in.
1
Mcr / My
Lateral−torsional
Local Mcr/My=0.85 Distortional M cr/My=0.76

0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half−wavelength (in)
0.5
AISI (2002) Ex. I−10

0.45
0.4
Py=45.23kips
0.35
0.3
Flexural
Pcr / Py
0.25
Distortional P cr/Py=0.29
0.2
Local Pcr/Py=0.16
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
(b) 8ZS2.25x059 of AISI 2002 Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual Example I-10

with Finite Strip Method (cont.)
July 2007 1-7

1.5
AISI (2002) Ex. I−12
My=2.12kip−in.
1
Mcr / My
Distortional M cr/My=1.03
Lateral−torsional
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
3.5
AISI (2002) Ex. I−12
My=2.12kip−in.
2.5
2
Mcr / My
Distortional M cr/My=2.18
1.5
Lateral−torsional
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
(c) 2LU2x060 of AISI 2002 Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual Example I-12

1-8 July 2007

AISI (2002) Ex. I−13

7
My=79.09kip−in.
5
Mcr / My
Lateral−torsional
3
Local Mcr/My=3.46
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
AISI (2002) Ex. I−13

4.5 Py=86.82kips
3.5
3
Pcr / Py
2.5
Flexural−torsional
2 Local Pcr/Py=2.66
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
(d) 3HU4.5x135 of AISI 2002 Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual Example I-13

July 2007 1-9

1.1.2.1 Elastic Buckling - Numerical Solutions

A variety of numerical methods: finite element, finite differences, boundary element,
generalized beam theory, finite strip analysis, and others, may provide accurate elastic
buckling solutions for cold-formed steel beams and columns.
Traditional finite element analysis using thin plate or shell elements may be used for
elastic buckling prediction. Due to the common practice of using polynomial shape functions,
the number of elements required for reasonable accuracy can be significant. Finite element
analysis books such as Cook et al. (1989) and Zienkiewicz and Taylor (1989, 1991) explain the
basic theory; while a number of commercial implementations can provide accurate elastic
buckling answers if implemented with care. Finite difference solutions for plate stability are
implemented by Harik et al. (1991) and others. The boundary element method may also be
used for elastic stability (Elzein, 1991).
Generalized beam theory, developed by Schardt (1989), extended by Davies et al. (1994)
and implemented by Davies and Jiang (1996, 1998), and Silvestre and Camotim (2002a, 2002b)
has been shown to be a useful tool for elastic stability analysis of cold-formed steel members.
The ability to separate the different buckling modes makes the method especially amenable
to design methods.
Finite strip analysis is a specialized variant of the finite element method. For elastic
stability of cold-formed steel structures, it is one of the most efficient and popular methods.
Cheung and Tham (1998) explains the basic theory while Hancock et al. (2001) and Schafer
(1997) provide specific details for stability analysis with this method. Hancock and his
researchers (see Hancock et al., 2001 for full references and descriptions) pioneered the use of
finite strip analysis for stability of cold-formed steel members and convincingly
demonstrated the important potential of finite strip analysis in both cold-formed steel design
and behavior.
The Direct Strength Method of this Appendix emphasizes the use of finite strip analysis
for elastic buckling determination. Finite strip analysis is a general tool that provides accurate
elastic buckling solutions with a minimum of effort and time. Finite strip analysis, as
implemented in conventional programs, does have limitations, the two most important ones
are
• the model assumes the ends of the member are simply supported, and
• the cross-section may not vary along its length.
These limitations preclude some analysis from readily being used with the finite strip
method, but despite these limitations the tool is useful, and a major advance over plate
buckling solutions and plate buckling coefficients (k’s) that only partially account for the
important stability behavior of cold-formed steel members.
The American Iron and Steel Institute has sponsored research that, in part, has led to the
development of the freely available program, CUFSM, which employs the finite strip method
for elastic buckling determination of any cold-formed steel cross-section. The program is
available at www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/cufsm and runs on any PC with Windows 9x, NT,
2000, XP. Tutorials and examples are available online at the same address.
1.1.2.1.1 Local Buckling via Finite Strip (Pcrl, Mcrl)
In the finite strip method, members are loaded with a reference stress distribution: pure
compression for finding Pcr, and pure bending for finding Mcr (see Figure C-1.1.2-1).
1-10 July 2007

Determination of the buckling mode requires consideration of the half-wavelength and

mode shape of the member. Special attention is given to the half-wavelength and mode
shape for local, distortional, and global buckling via finite strip analysis in the following
sections.
Half-wavelength
Local buckling minima occur at half-wavelengths that are less than the largest
characteristic dimension of the member under compressive stresses. For the examples of
Figure C-1.1.2-1, this length has been demarcated with a short vertical dashed line. For
instance, the largest out-to-out dimension for the lipped channel of Figure C-1.1.2-1 (a) is 9
in. (229 mm), therefore the cutoff for local buckling is at 9 in. (229 mm). Minima in the
buckling curves that fall at half-wavelengths less than this length are considered as local
buckling modes. Buckling modes occurring at longer lengths are either distortional or
global in nature.
The criteria of limiting the half-wavelength for local buckling to less than the largest
outside dimension under compressive stresses is based on the following. Local buckling of
a simply supported plate in pure compression occurs in square waves, i.e., it has a half-
wavelength that is equal to the plate width (the largest outside dimension). If any stress
gradient exists on the plate, or any beneficial restraint is provided to the edges of the plate
by other elements, the critical half-wavelength will be less than the width of the plate.
Therefore, local buckling, with the potential for stable post-buckling response, is assumed
to occur only when the critical half-wavelength is less than the largest potential “plate”
(i.e., outside dimension with compressive stresses applied) in a member.
Mode shape
Local buckling involves significant distortion of the cross-section, but this distortion
involves only rotation, not translation, at the fold lines of the member. The mode shapes
for members with edge stiffened flanges such as those of the lipped cee or zee provide a
direct comparison between the difference between local buckling and distortional
buckling. Note the behavior at the flange/lip junction – for local buckling only rotation
occurs, for distortional buckling translation occurs.
Discussion
Local buckling may be indistinct from distortional buckling in some members. For
example, buckling of the unlipped angle may be considered as local buckling by the main
Specification, but is considered as distortional buckling as shown in Figure C-1.1.2-1(c),
because of the half-wavelength of the mode, and the characteristics of the mode shape. By
the definitions of this Appendix, no local buckling mode exists for this member. Local
buckling may be at half-wavelengths much less than the characteristic dimension if
intermediate stiffeners are in place, or if the element undergoes large tension and small
compressive stress.
Users may encounter situations where they would like to consider the potential for
bracing to retard local buckling. Springs may be added to a numerical model to include the
effect of external bracing. Care should be used if the bracing only provides support in one
direction (such as a deck on a compression flange) as the increase of the local buckling
strength is limited in such a case. In general, since local buckling occurs at short
wavelengths, it is difficult to effectively retard this mode by external bracing. Changes to
the geometry of the member (stiffeners, change of thickness, etc.) should be pursued
July 2007 1-11

instead.
1.1.2.1.2 Distortional Buckling via Finite Strip (Pcrd, Mcrd)
Half-wavelength
Distortional buckling occurs at a half-wavelength intermediate to local and global
buckling modes, as shown in the figures given in C-1.1.2-1. The half-wavelength is
typically several times larger than the largest characteristic dimension of the member. The
half-wavelength is highly dependent on both the loading and the geometry.
Mode shape
Distortional buckling involves both translation and rotation at the fold line of a
member. Distortional buckling involves distortion of one portion of the cross-section and
predominately rigid response of a second portion. For instance, the edge stiffened flanges
of the lipped cee and zee are primarily responding as one rigid piece while the web is
distorting.
Discussion
Distortional buckling may be indistinct (without a minimum) even when local buckling
and long half-wavelength (global) buckling are clear. The lipped cee and zee in bending
show this basic behavior. For some members distortional buckling may not occur.
Bracing can be effective in retarding distortional buckling and boosting the strength
[resistance] of a member. Continuous bracing may be modeled by adding a continuous
spring in a finite strip model. For discrete bracing of distortional buckling, when the
unbraced length is less than the critical distortional half-wavelength, best current practice
is to use the buckling load (or moment) at the unbraced length. The key consideration for
distortional bracing is limiting the rotation at the compression flange/web juncture.
1.1.2.1.3 Global (Euler) Buckling via Finite Strip (Pcre, Mcre)
Global bucking modes for columns include: flexural, torsional and flexural-torsional
buckling. For beams bent about their strong-axis, lateral-torsional buckling is the global
buckling mode of interest.
Half-wavelength
Global (or “Euler”) buckling modes: flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional for
columns, lateral-torsional for beams, occur as the minimum mode at long half-
wavelengths.
Mode Shape
Global buckling modes involve translation (flexure) and/or rotation (torsion) of the
entire cross-section. No distortion exists in any of the elements in the long half-wavelength
buckling modes.
Discussion
Flexural and distortional buckling may interact at relatively long half-wavelengths
making it difficult to determine long column modes at certain intermediate to long lengths.
When long column end conditions are not simply supported, or when they are dissimilar
for flexure and torsion, higher modes are needed for determining the appropriate buckling
1-12 July 2007

load. By examining higher modes in a finite strip analysis, distinct flexural and flexural-
torsional modes may be identified. Based on the boundary conditions, the effective length,
KL, for a given mode can be determined. With KL known, then Pcre (or Mcre) for that mode
may be read directly from the finite strip at a half-wavelength of KL by using the curve
corresponding to the appropriate mode. For beams, Cb of the main Specification may be
employed to account for the moment gradient. Mixed flexural and torsional boundary
conditions may not be directly treated. Alternatively, traditional manual solutions may be
used for global buckling modes with different bracing conditions.
Elastic Buckling – Manual Solutions

Local buckling
Manual solutions for member local buckling rely on the use of element plate buckling
coefficients, as given below.
For columns,
Pcrl = Agfcrl (C-1.1.2-1)
Ag = gross area
fcrl = local buckling stress
For beams,
Mcrl = Sgfcrl (C-1.1.2-2)
Sg = gross section modulus to the extreme compression fiber
fcrl = local buckling stress at the extreme compression fiber
and
2
π2E ⎛ t ⎞
fcrl =k (C-1.1.2-3)
2 ⎜⎝ w ⎟⎠
12(1 − µ )
where
E = Young’s Modulus
µ = Poisson’s ratio
t = element thickness
w = element flat width
k = element (plate) buckling coefficient. Local plate buckling coefficients for an
isolated element may be predicted through use of commentary Table C-B2-1.
Schafer and Peköz (1999) present additional expressions for stiffened and
unstiffened elements under a stress gradient. Elastic local buckling of a
member may be conservatively approximated by using the minimum of the
local buckling stress of the elements, which make up the member. However,
using the minimum element solution and ignoring interaction may be
excessively conservative for predicting member local buckling. To alleviate
this, hand methods that account for the interaction of two elements are
available. Solutions include two stiffened or edge stiffened elements (a flange
and a web) under a variety of loading cases Schafer (2001, 2002); and local
buckling of an edge stiffened element, including lip/flange interaction
(Schafer and Peköz, 1999).
July 2007 1-13

Distortional Buckling
Distortional buckling of members with edge stiffened flanges may also be predicted by
manual solutions. Unfortunately, the complicated interaction that occurs between the edge
stiffened flange and the web leads to cumbersome and lengthy formulas.
For columns,
Pcrd = Agfcrd (C-1.1.2-3)
Ag = gross area of the member
fcrd = distortional buckling stress (see below)
For beams,
Mcrd = Sffcrd (C-1.1.2-4)
Sf = gross section modulus to the extreme compression fiber
fcrd = distortional buckling stress at the extreme compression fiber. Solutions and
design aids for fcrd are available for beams (Hancock et al., 1996; Hancock, 1997;
Schafer and Peköz, 1999) and for columns (Lau and Hancock, 1987; Schafer 2002).
Design aids for flanges with unusual edge stiffeners (e.g., Bambach et al., 1998)
or flexural members with a longitudinal stiffener in the web (Schafer, 1997) are
also available. See the Commentary on the Main Specification Sections C3.1.4 and
C4.2 for additional information.
Global Buckling
Global buckling of members is calculated in the main Specification. Therefore, for both
beams and columns, extensive closed-form expressions are already available and may be
used for manual calculation. See the Commentary to main Specification Sections C4 and C3 for
additional details.
For columns,
Pcre = Agfcre (C-1.1.2-5)
Ag = gross area of the member
fcre = minimum of the elastic critical flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional buckling
stress. fcre is equal to Fe of Section C4 of the main Specification. The hand methods
presented in Specification Sections C4.1.1 through C4.1.4 provide all necessary
formula. Note, Section C4.1.4 specifically addresses the long-standing practice
that Fe (or fcre) may be calculated by rational analysis. Rational analysis hand
solutions to long column buckling are available - see the Commentary for main
Specification Section C4.1.4 as well as Yu (2000) or Hancock et al. (2001). The hand
calculations may be quite lengthy, particular if member properties xo and Cw are
unknown.
For beams,
Mcre = Sffcre (C-1.1.2-6)
Sf = gross section modulus to the extreme compression fiber
fcre = elastic critical lateral-torsional buckling stress. fcre is equal to Fe of main
Specification Section C3.1.2.1 for open cross-section members and C3.1.2.2 for
closed cross-section members. Hand solutions are well established for doubly-
and singly-symmetric sections, but not so for point symmetric sections (zees). Fe
1-14 July 2007

of point-symmetric sections is taken as half of the value for doubly-symmetric

sections. Rational numerical analysis may be desirable in cases where a close to
exact solution is required.
1.1.3 Serviceability Determination

The provisions of this Appendix use a simplified approach to deflection calculations that
assume the moment of inertia of the section for deflection calculations is linearly proportional to
the strength of the section, determined at the allowable stress of interest. This approximation
avoids lengthy effective section calculations for deflection determination.
1.2 MEMBERS
1.2.1 Column Design
Commentary Section C4 provides a complete discussion on the behavior of cold-formed steel
columns as it relates to the main Specification. This commentary addresses the specific issues
raised by the use of the Direct Strength Method of Appendix 1 for the design of cold-formed
steel columns. The thin-walled nature of cold-formed columns complicates behavior and
design. Elastic buckling analysis reveals at least three buckling modes: local, distortional, and
Euler (flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional) that must be considered in design. Therefore, in
addition to usual considerations for steel columns: material non-linearity (e.g., yielding),
imperfections, and residual stresses, the individual role and potential for interaction of buckling
modes must also be considered. The Direct Strength Method of this Appendix emerged through
the combination of more refined methods for local and distortional buckling prediction,
improved understanding of the post-buckling strength and imperfection sensitivity in
distortional failures, and the relatively large amount of available experimental data.
Fully effective or compact columns are generally well predicted by conventional column
curves (AISC, 2001; Galambos, 1998, etc.). Therefore, the long column strength, Pne, follows the
same practice as the main Specification and uses the AISC (2001) curves for strength prediction.
The main Specification provides the long column strength in terms of a stress, Fn (Equations
C4.1-2 and C4.1-3). In the Direct Strength Method this is converted from a stress to a strength by
multiplying the gross area, Ag, resulting in the formulas for Pne given in Appendix 1.
In the main Specification, column strength is calculated by multiplying the nominal column
buckling stress, Fn, by the effective area, Ae, calculated at Fn. This accounts for local buckling
reductions in the actual column strength (i.e., local-global interaction). In the Direct Strength
Method, this calculation is broken into two parts: the long column strength without any
reduction for local buckling (Pne) and the long column strength considering local-global
interaction (Pnl).
The strength curves for local and distortional buckling of a fully braced column are
presented in Figure C-1.2.1-1. The curves are presented as a function of slenderness, which in
this case refers to slenderness in the local or distortional mode, as opposed to traditional long
column slenderness. Inelastic and post-buckling regimes are observed for both local and
distortional buckling modes. The magnitude of the post-buckling reserve for the distortional
buckling mode is less than the local buckling mode, as may be observed by the location of the
strength curves in relation to the critical elastic buckling curve.
July 2007 1-15

Inelastic Regime Post-Buckling Regime
1.0
Local: Eq. 1.2.1-6
Distortional: Eq. 1.2.1-9

Elastic Critical Buckling
Pn
Py 0.5
0.4
Pnl P Pcrl 0.4
= 1-0.15 crl
Py Py Py
0.6 0.6
Pnd P Pcrd
= 1-0.25 crd
Py Py Py
Pnd Pcr
=
Py Py
0
0 1 2 3 4
Slenderness = Py /Pcr
Figure C-1.2.1-1 Local and Distortional Direct Strength Curves

for a Braced Column (Pne = Py )
The development and calibration of the Direct Strength provisions for columns are reported
in Schafer (2000, 2002). The reliability of the column provisions was determined using the test
data of Appendix Section 1.1.1.1 and the provisions of Chapter F of the main Specification. Based
on a target reliability, β, of 2.5, a resistance factor, φ, of 0.84 was calculated for all the
investigated columns. Based on this information the safety and resistance factors of Appendix
Section 1.2.1 were determined for the pre-qualified members. For the United States and Mexico
φ = 0.85 was selected; while for Canada φ = 0.80 since a slightly higher reliability, β, of 3.0 is
employed. The safety factor, Ω, was back calculated from φ at an assumed dead to live load
ratio of 1 to 5. Since the range of pre-qualified members is relatively large, extensions of the
Direct Strength Method to geometries outside the pre-qualified set is allowed. Given the
uncertain nature of this extension, increased safety factors and reduced resistance factors are
applied in that case, per the rational analysis provisions of Section A1.2(b) of the main
Specification.
The provisions of Appendix 1, applied to the columns of Section 1.1.1.1, are summarized in
Figure C-1.2.1-2 below. The controlling strength is either by Appendix 1 Section 1.2.1.2, which
considers local buckling interaction with long column buckling, or by Section 1.2.1.3, which
considers the distortional mode alone. The controlling strength (minimum predicted of the two
modes) is highlighted for the examined members by the choice of marker. Overall performance
of the method can be judged by examination of Figure C-1.2.1-2. Scatter exists throughout the
data set, but the trends in strength are clearly shown, and further, the scatter (variance) is
similar to that of the main Specification.
1-16 July 2007

1.2.1.1 Flexural, Torsional, or Flexural-Torsional Buckling

As discussed in detail above, the strength expressions for long wavelength buckling of
columns follow directly from Section C4 of the main Specification. These provisions are
identical to those used for compact section hot-rolled columns in the AISC Specification
(2001) and are fully discussed in the Commentary to Section C4. The axial elastic strength, Pne,
calculated in this section represents the upper bound capacity for a given column. Actual
column strength is determined by considering reductions that may occur due to local
buckling, and performing a separate check on the distortional mode. See Section 1.1.2 for
1.5
Local: Eq. 1.2.1-6
⎛ Ptest ⎞ local
⎜ ⎟
⎜ P ⎟ 1
⎝ y ⎠d distortional
or
⎛ Ptest ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ Pne ⎠ l
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
λ d = Py Pcrd or λ l = Pne Pcrl
Figure C-1.2.1-2 Direct Strength Method for Concentrically Loaded Pin-Ended Columns
information on rational analysis methods for calculation of Pcre.
1.2.1.2 Local Buckling

The expression selected for local buckling of columns is shown in Figure C-1.2.1-1 and
Figure C-1.2.1-2 and is discussed in Section 1.2.1. The potential for local-global interaction is
presumed, thus the column strength in local buckling is limited to a maximum of the long
column strength, Pne. See Section 1.1.2 for information on rational analysis methods for
calculation of Pcrl.
1.2.1.3 Distortional Buckling

The expression selected for distortional buckling of columns is shown in Figure C-1.2.1-1
and Figure C-1.2.1-2 and is discussed in Section 1.2.1. Based on experimental test data and on
July 2007 1-17

the success of the Australian/New Zealand code (see Hancock et al., 2001 for discussion and
Hancock et al. 1994 for further details) the distortional buckling strength is limited to Py
instead of Pne. This presumes that distortional buckling failures are independent of long-
column behavior, i.e., little if any distortional-global interaction exists. See Section 1.1.2 for
information on rational analysis methods for calculation of Pcrd.
1.2.2 Beam Design

Commentary Section C3 provides a complete discussion on the behavior of cold-formed steel
beams as it relates to the main Specification. This commentary addresses the specific issues
raised by the use of the Direct Strength Method of Appendix 1 for the design of cold-formed
steel beams.
The thin-walled nature of cold-formed beams complicates behavior and design. Elastic
buckling analysis reveals at least three buckling modes: local, distortional, and lateral-torsional
buckling (for members in strong-axis bending) that must be considered in design. The Direct
Strength Method of this Appendix emerged through the combination of more refined methods
for local and distortional buckling prediction, improved understanding of the post-buckling
strength and imperfection sensitivity in distortional failures, and the relatively large amount of
available experimental data.
Inelastic Regime Post-Buckling Regime
1.0
Local: Eq. 1.2.2-6

Elastic Critical Buckling
Mn
M y 0.5
0.4
Mnl Mcrl Mcrl 0.4
= 1-0.15
My My My
0.5
Mnd Mcrd Mcrd 0.5
= 1-0.22
My My My
Mnd Mcr
=
My M y
0
0 1 2 3 4
Slenderness = M y/Mcr
Figure C-1.2.2-1 Local and Distortional Direct Strength Curves

for a Braced Beam (Mne = My)
The lateral-torsional buckling strength, Mne, follows the same practice as the main
Specification. The main Specification provides the lateral-torsional buckling strength in terms of a
stress, Fc (Equations C3.1.2.1-2, -3, -4 and -5). In the Direct Strength Method, this is converted
from a stress to a moment by multiplying by the gross section modulus, Sf, resulting in the
formulas for Mne given in Appendix 1.
1-18 July 2007

In the main Specification, for beams that are not fully braced and locally unstable, beam
strength is calculated by multiplying the predicted stress for failure in lateral-buckling, Fc, by
the effective section modulus, Sc, determined at stress Fc. This accounts for local buckling
reductions in the lateral-torsional buckling strength (i.e., local-global interaction). In the Direct
Strength Method, this calculation is broken into two parts: the lateral-torsional buckling
strength without any reduction for local buckling (Mne) and the strength considering local-
global interaction (Mnl).
The strength curves for local and distortional buckling of a fully braced beam are presented
in Figure C-1.2.2-1 and compared to the critical elastic buckling curve. While the strength in
both the local and distortional modes exhibit both an inelastic regime and a post-buckling
regime, the post-buckling reserve for the local mode is predicted to be greater than that of the
distortional mode.
The reliability of the beam provisions was determined using the test data of Section 1.1.1.2
and the provisions of Chapter F of the main Specification. Based on a target reliability, β, of 2.5, a
resistance factor, φ, of 0.90 was calculated for all the investigated beams. Based on this
information the safety and resistance factors of Appendix Section 1.2.2 were determined for the
pre-qualified members. For the United States and Mexico φ = 0.90; while for Canada φ = 0.85
because Canada employs a slightly higher reliability, β, of 3.0. The safety factor, Ω, is back
calculated from φ at an assumed dead to live load ratio of 1 to 5. Since the range of pre-qualified
members is relatively large, extensions of the Direct Strength Method to geometries outside the
pre-qualified set is allowed. However, given the uncertain nature of this extension, increased
safety factors and reduced resistance factors are applied in that case, per the rational analysis
provisions of Section A1.2(b) of the main Specification.
1.5
Local: Eq. 1.2.2-6
Local
1
Distortional
M test
My
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
λmax = M y M cr
Figure C-1.2.2-2 Direct Strength Method for laterally braced beams
The provisions of Appendix 1, applied to the beams of Section 1.1.1.2, are summarized in
July 2007 1-19

Figure C-1.2.2-2. The controlling strength is determined either by Section 1.2.2.2, which
considers local buckling interaction with lateral-torsional buckling, or by Section 1.2.2.3, which
considers the distortional mode alone. The controlling strength (minimum predicted of the two
modes) is highlighted for the examined members by the choice of marker. Overall performance
of the method can be judged by examination of Figure C-1.2.2-2. The scatter shown in the data is
similar to that of the main Specification.
1.2.2.1 Lateral-Torsional Buckling

As discussed in detail above, the strength expressions for lateral-torsional buckling of
beams follow directly from Section C3 of the main Specification and are fully discussed in
Section C3 of the Commentary. The lateral-torsional buckling strength, Mne, calculated in this
section represents the upperbound capacity for a given beam. Actual beam strength is
determined by considering reductions that may occur due to local buckling and performing a
separate check on the distortional mode. See Section 1.1.2 for information on rational analysis
methods for calculation of Mcre.
1.2.2.2 Local Buckling

The expression selected for local buckling of beams is shown in Figures C-1.2.2-1 and C-
1.2.2-2 and is discussed in Section 1.2.2. The use of the Direct Strength Method for local
buckling and the development of the empirical strength expression is given in Schafer and
Peköz (1998). The potential for local-global interaction is presumed; thus, the beam strength
in local buckling is limited to a maximum of the lateral-torsional buckling strength, Mne. For
fully braced beams, the maximum Mne value is the yield moment, My. See Section 1.1.2 for
information on rational analysis methods for calculation of Mcrl.
1.2.2.3 Distortional Buckling

The expression selected for distortional buckling of beams is shown in Figures C-1.2.2-1
and C-1.2.2-2 and is discussed in Section 1.2.2. Based on experimental test data and on the
success of the Australian/New Zealand code (see Hancock, 2001 for discussion) the
distortional buckling strength is limited to My instead of Mne. This presumes that distortional
buckling failures are independent of lateral-torsional buckling behavior, i.e., little if any
distortional-global interaction exists. See Section 1.1.2 for information on rational analysis
methods for calculation of Mcrd.
APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES
Acharya, V.V. and R.M. Schuster (1998), “Bending Tests of Hat Section with Multiple
Longitudinal Stiffeners,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Specialty Conference on
Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 1998.
American Institute of Steel Construction (2001), Manual of Steel Construction: Load and
Resistance Factor Design, 3rd Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
IL.
American Iron and Steel Institute (2002), Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual, American Iron
and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
1-20 July 2007

Bambach, M.R., J.T. Merrick and G.J. Hancock (1998), “Distortional Buckling Formulae
for Thin Walled Channel and Z-Sections with Return Lips,” Proceedings of the 14th
Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1998, 21-38.
Bernard, E.S. (1993), “Flexural Behavior of Cold-Formed Profiled Steel Decking,” Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.
Cheung, Y.K. and L.G. Tham (1998), Finite Strip Method, CRC Press, 1998.
Cohen, J. M. (1987), “Local Buckling Behavior of Plate Elements,” Department of
Structural Engineering Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1987.
Cook, R.D., D.S. Malkus and M.E. Plesha (1989), Concepts and Applications of Finite
Element Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Third Edition.
Davies, J.M. and C. Jiang (1996), “Design of Thin-Walled Beams for Distortional
Buckling,” Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1996, 141-154.
Davies, J.M., C. Jiang and V. Ungureanu (1998), “Buckling Mode Interaction in Cold-
Formed Steel Columns and Beams,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Specialty
Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO,
October 1998, 53-68.
Davies, J.M., P. Leach, D. Heinz (1994), “Second-Order Generalised Beam Theory.”
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, 31 (2-3) 221-242.
Desmond, T.P. (1977), “The Behavior and Design of Thin-Walled Compression Elements
with Longitudinal Stiffeners,” Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1777.
Ellifritt, D., B. Glover and J. Hren (1997), “Distortional Buckling of Channels and Zees
Not Attached to Sheathing,” Report for the American Iron and Steel Institute,
Washington DC, 1997.
Elzein, A. (1991), Plate Stability by Boundary Element Method, Springer-Verlag, NY, 1991.
Galambos, T.V. (1998), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, John Wiley &
Sons, the Fifth Edition.
Hancock, G.J. (1997), “Design for Distortional Buckling of Flexural Members,” Thin-
Walled Structures, 27(1), 3-12, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Hancock, G.J., Y.B. Kwon and E.S. Bernard (1994), “Strength Design Curves for Thin-
Walled Sections Undergoing Distortional Buckling,” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Elsevier, 31(2-3), 169-186.
Hancock, G.J., T.M. Murray and D.S. Ellifritt (2001), Cold-Formed Steel Structures to the
AISI Specification, Marcell-Dekker, New York, NY.
Hancock, G.J., C.A. Rogers and R.M. Schuster (1996) “Comparison of the Distortional
Buckling Method for Flexural Members with Tests.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth
Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1998, 125-140.
Harik, I.E., X. Liu and R. Ekambaram (1991), “Elastic Stability of Pates with Varying
Rigidities,” Computers and Structures, 38 (2) 161-168.
Höglund, T. (1980), “Design of Trapezoidal Sheeting Provided with Stiffeners in the
Flanges and Webs,” Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, D28:1980.
July 2007 1-21

König, J. (1978), “Transversally Loaded Thin-Walled C-Shaped Panels With Intermediate

Stiffeners,” Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, D7:1978.
Kwon, Y.B. and G.J. Hancock (1992), “Strength Tests of Cold-Formed Channel Sections
undergoing Local and Distortional Buckling,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 117, No. 2, 1786 – 1803.
LaBoube, R.A. and W. W. Yu (1978), “Structural Behavior of Beam Webs Subjected to
Bending Stress,” Civil Engineering Study Structural Series, 78-1, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.
Lau, S.C.W., and G.J Hancock (1987),. ”Distortional Buckling Formulas for Channel
Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, 1063 – 1078.
Loughlan, J. (1979), “Mode Interaction in Lipped Channel Columns under Concentric or
Eccentric Loading,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Miller, T.H. and T. Peköz (1994), “Load-Eccentricity Effects on Cold-Formed Steel
Lipped- Channel Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 3, 805-
823.
Moreyra, M.E. (1993), “The Behavior of Cold-Formed Lipped Channels under Bending,”
M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Mulligan, G.P. (1983), “The Influence of Local Buckling on the Structural Behavior of
Singly-Symmetric Cold-Formed Steel Columns,” Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY.
Papazian, R.P., R.M. Schuster and M. Sommerstein (1994), “Multiple Stiffened Deck
Profiles,” Proceedings of the Twelfth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October, 1994, 217-228.
Phung, N., W.W. Yu (1978), “Structural Behavior of Longitudinally Reinforced Beam
Webs,” Civil Engineering Study Structural Series, Department of Civil Engineering, 78-6,
University of Missouri-Rolla, MO.
Polyzois, D., P. Charnvarnichborikarn (1993), “Web-Flange Interaction in Cold-Formed
Steel Z-Section Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 9, 2607-
2628.
Quispe, L., G.J. Hancock (2002), “Direct Strength Method for the Design of Purlins,”
Proceedings of the 16th International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 2002, 561-572.
Rogers, C.A. (1995), “Interaction Buckling of Flange, Edge Stiffener and Web of C-
Sections in Bending,” M.S. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Schafer, B.W. (1997), “Cold-Formed Steel Behavior and Design: Analytical and
Numerical Modeling of Elements and Members with Longitudinal Stiffeners,” Ph.D.
Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Schafer, B.W. (2000), “Distortional Buckling of Cold-Formed Steel Columns: Final
Report,” Sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC.
Schafer, B.W. (2001), “Progress Report 2: Test Verification of the Effect of Stress Gradient
on Webs of Cee and Zee Sections,” submitted to the AISI and MBMA, July 2001.
Schafer, B.W. (2002), “Local, Distortional, and Euler Buckling in Thin-walled Columns,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 3, 289-299.
1-22 July 2007

Schafer, B.W. (2002b), “Progress on the Direct Strength Method,” Proceedings of the 16th
International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Orlando, FL. 647-662.
Schafer, B.W., Sarawit, A., Peköz, T. (2006). “Complex edge stiffeners for thin-walled
members.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 2, 212-226.
Schafer, B.W., T. Peköz, (1998), “Direct Strength Prediction of Cold-Formed Steel
Members using Numerical Elastic Buckling Solutions,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth
Rolla, Rolla, MO, October 1998.
Schafer, B.W. and T. Peköz, (1999), “Laterally Braced Cold-Formed Steel Flexural
Members with Edge Stiffened Flanges.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125,
No. 2.
Schardt, R. (1989), Verallgemeinerte Technische Biegetheorie [Generalized Beam Theory],
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Schardt, R. and W. Schrade (1982), “Kaltprofil-Pfetten,” Institut Für Statik, Technische
Hochschule Darmstadt, Bericht Nr. 1, Darmstadt.
Schuster, R.M. (1992), “Testing of Perforated C-Stud Sections in Bending,” Report for the
Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario,
Canada.
Shan, M., R.A. LaBoube and W. W. Yu (1994), “Behavior of Web Elements with
Openings Subjected to Bending, Shear and the Combination of Bending and Shear,”
Civil Engineering Study Structural Series, 94-2, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.
Silvestre, N. and D. Camotim (2002a), “First-Order Generalised Beam Theory for
Arbitrary Orthotropic Materials,” Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier. Vol. 40, 755-789.
Silvestre, N. and D. Camotim (2002b), “Second-Order Generalised Beam Theory for
Arbitrary Orthotropic Materials,” Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier. Vol. 40, 791-820.
Thomasson, P. (1978), “Thin-walled C-shaped Panels in Axial Compression,” Swedish
Council for Building Research, D1:1978, Stockholm, Sweden.
Willis, C.T. and B. Wallace (1990), “Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Purlins under
Gravity Loading,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 116, No. 8.
Yu, W.W. (2000), Cold-Formed Steel Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. and R.L. Taylor (1989), The Finite Element Method: Volume 1 Basic
Formulations and Linear Problems, McGraw Hill, the Fourth Edition.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. and R.L. Taylor (1991), The Finite Element Method: Volume 2 Solid and
Fluid Mechanics Dynamics and Non-linearity, McGraw Hill, the Fourth Edition.
July 2007 1-23

Appendix 2:
Commentary on Appendix 2
Second-Order Analysis
2007 EDITION
APPENDIX 2: COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX 2 SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS

The provisions of this Appendix are based on Sarawit (2003), Sarawit and Pekoz (2006) and
AISC (2005). The provisions here are supported by an extensive study on Industrial Steel
Storage Racks (2006) sponsored at Cornell University by the Rack Manufacturers Institute and
the American Iron and Steel Institute. The subject of Notional Loads is discussed fully in the
Commentary to Appendix 7 of AISC (2005). The application to cold-formed steel structures has
to include the frequently encountered flexural-torsional buckling, semi-rigid joints and local
instabilities. In Sarawit (2003) and Sarawit and Pekoz (2006) it is shown that the second order
analysis gives more accurate results than the effective length approach.
2.1 General Requirements

Required strengths [factored forces and moments] are determined by analysis according to
Specification Appendix 2 and the members have to satisfy the provisions of Section C5 of the
main body of the Specification. In checking the strength [resistance] by Specification Section C5
magnification of the moments does not need to be included since the second order analysis
gives the magnified moments.
Since the frame stability is considered by the second order analysis, nominal axial strength
[resistance] in Specification Section C5.2 should be determined with an effective length
coefficient equal to 1.0.
2.2 Design and Analysis Constraints

Second order frame analysis is permitted either on the out-of-plumb geometry without
notional loads or on the plumb geometry by applying notional loads or minimum lateral loads
as defined in Specification Appendix 2. If second order elastic analysis is used, namely
inelasticity effects are not modeled explicitly; axial and flexural stiffnesses are to be reduced as
specified in Specification Appendix 2.
It is required to carry out a second-order analysis that considers both the effect of loads
acting on the deflected shape of a member between joints or nodes (P-δ effects) and the effect of
loads acting on the displaced location of joints or nodes in a structure (P-∆ effects). On a
member level P-δ effects need to be modeled explicitly. Adding a node or nodes along the
length of the member will suffice. These intermediate nodes do not need to account for the
initial out-of-straightness for the member. This is because for members, the design equations
used include the presence of δ imperfection and thus member strength is already calibrated to
include the effect of P-δ.
The 20 percent reduction in member stiffness EI, namely multiplying EI by 0.8, that is used
in the AISC Specification (2005) is applied only to E for convenience in analysis. The reasoning
for the 20 percent reduction in EI as well as the inelastic buckling factor τb is provided in the
commentary to the AISC Specification. Part of the justification for 20 percent reduction in
member stiffness is based on a resistance factor of 0.9 used in the AISC for columns. However in
the AISI Specification the resistance factor is less than 0.9. For this reduced resistance factor, the
adequacy of 20 percent reduction in member stiffness for cold-formed steel frames can be
deduced from the studies described in Sarawit and Pekoz (2006), which is based on Sarawit
(2003). Sarawit and Pekoz (2006) shows that for typical industrial storage rack frames with a
wide variety of section properties, configurations, and behavior modes, a reduction of 10percent
July 2007 2-3

Commentary on Appendix 2, Second-Order Analysis
in member stiffnesses results in an increased conservatism of 10 percent in the calculated load

carrying capacity. A 20 percent reduction in member stiffnesses would lead to an increased
conservatism of 20 percent in the calculated load carrying capacity. A parametric study of
individual columns in Sarawit and Pekoz (2006) shows that some unconservative results can be
obtained in a few instances if the stiffness of members is not reduced in the analysis. Reducing
the stiffness by 20 percent gives satisfactory results for these cases.
It should be noted that the nominal axial and flexural strengths [resistances] used in the
interaction equations of Section C5.2 do not need to be calculated based on reduced value of E.
APPENDIX 2 REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction (2005), Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, March 9, 2005.
Sarawit, A. (2003), Cold-Formed Steel Frame and Beam-Column Design, PhD Thesis,
and Research Report 03-03, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, March 2003.
Sarawit, A. And T. Pekoz (2006), “Notional Load Method for Industrial Steel Storage
Racks,” Thin-Walled Structures, Elserier, Vol. 44, No. 12, December 2006.
2-4 July 2007

Appendix A:
Commentary on Provisions
Applicable to the United States
and Mexico
2007 EDITION
APPENDIX A: COMMENTARY ON PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES AND

MEXICO
The Commentary on Appendix A provides a record of reasoning behind, and justification for,
provisions that are applicable to the United States and Mexico. The format used herein is
consistent with that used in Appendix A of the Specification.
A1.1a Scope
In the 2007 edition of the Specification, both the Allowable Strength Design and the Load
and Resistance Factor Design are permitted to be used in a design.
A2.2 Other Steels

Although the use of ASTM-designated steels listed in Specification Section A2.1 is
encouraged, other steels may also be used in cold-formed steel structures, provided they
satisfy the requirements stipulated in this provision.
In 2004, these requirements were clarified and revised. The Specification has long required
that such “other steels” conform to the chemical and mechanical requirements of one of the
listed specifications or “other published specification.” Specific requirements for a published
specification have been detailed in the definitions under General Terms, A1.3. It is important
to note that, by this definition, published requirements must be established before the steel is
ordered, not by a post-order screening process. The requirements must include minimum
tensile properties, chemical composition limits, and for coated sheets, coating properties.
Testing procedures must be in accord with the referenced ASTM specifications. A proprietary
specification of a manufacturer, purchaser, or producer could qualify as a published
specification if it meets the definition requirements.
As an example of these Specification provisions, it would not be permissible to establish a
minimum yield stress or minimum tensile strength, greater than that ordered to a standard
ASTM grade, by reviewing mill test reports or conducting additional tests. However, it
would be permissible to publish a manufacturer’s or producer’s specification before the steel
is ordered requiring that such enhanced properties be furnished as a minimum. Testing to
verify that the minimum properties are achieved could be done by the manufacturer or the
producer. The intent of these provisions is to ensure that the material factor Mm (see Chapter
F) will be maintained at about 1.10, corresponding to an assumed typical 10 percent overrun
in tensile properties for ASTM grades.
Special additional requirements have been added to qualify unidentified material. In such
a case, the manufacturer must run tensile tests sufficient to establish that the yield stress and
tensile strength of each master coil are at least 10 percent greater than the applicable
published specification. As used here, master coil refers to the coil being processed by the
manufacturer. Of course, the testing must always be adequate to ensure that specified
minimum properties are met, as well as the ductility requirements of Specification Section
A2.3.
Where the material is used for fabrication by welding, care must be exercised in selection
of chemical composition or mechanical properties to ensure compatibility with the welding
process and its potential effect on altering the tensile properties.
July 2007 A-3

Appendix A, Commentary on Provisions Applicable to the United States and Mexico
A2.3a Ductility
The low ductility steel application is limited for curtain wall stud application in heavy
weight exterior walls in seismic areas with Design Categories D, E and F.
A3 Loads
A3.1 Nominal Loads
The Specification does not establish the dead, live, snow, wind, earthquake or other
loading requirements for which a structure should be designed. These loads are typically
covered by the applicable building code. Otherwise, the American Society of Civil Engineers
Standard, ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE, 2005) should be used as the basis for design.
Recognized engineering procedures should be employed to reflect the effect of impact
loads on a structure. For building design, reference may be made to AISC publications (AISC,
1989; AISC 1999, AISC 2005).
When gravity and lateral loads produce forces of opposite sign in members, consideration
should be given to the minimum gravity loads acting in combination with wind or
earthquake loads.
A4.1.2 Load Combinations for ASD

In 2001, the Specification was revised to specify that all loads and load combinations
were required to follow the applicable building code. In the absence of an applicable
building code, loads and load combinations should be determined according to the
American Society of Civil Engineers Standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE, 2005).
When steel decks are used for roof and floor composite construction, steel decks should
be designed to carry the concrete dead load, the steel dead load, and the construction live
load. The construction load is based on the sequential loading of concrete as specified in
the ANSI/ASCE Standard 3-91 (ASCE, 1991) and in the Design Manual of Steel Deck
Institute (SDI, 2006).
A5.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LRFD

In 2001, the Specification was revised to specify that all loads and load combinations
were required to follow the applicable building code. In the absence of an applicable
building code, loads and load combinations should be determined according to the
American Society of Civil Engineers Standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE, 2005).
In view of the fact that building codes and ASCE/SEI 7 do not provide load factors and
load combinations for roof and floor composite construction using cold-formed steel deck,
the following load combination may be used for this type of composite construction:
1.2Ds + 1.6Cw + 1.4C
where
Ds = weight of steel deck
Cw = weight of wet concrete during construction
A-4 July 2007

C = construction load, including equipment, workmen and formwork, but excluding

the weight of the wet concrete.
The above load combination provides safety construction practices for cold-formed
steel decks and panels which otherwise may be damaged during construction. The load
factor used for the weight of wet concrete is 1.6 because of delivering methods and an
individual sheet can be subjected to this load. The use of a load factor of 1.4 for the
construction load is comparable to the allowable strength design method.
C2 Tension Members
As described in Specification Section C2, the nominal tensile strength [resistance] of axially
loaded cold-formed steel tension members is determined either by yielding of the gross area of
the cross-section or by rupture of the net area of the cross section. At locations of connections,
the nominal tensile strength [resistance] is also limited by the capacities specified in Specification
Sections E2.7, E3, and E5 for tension in connected parts.
Yielding in the gross section indirectly provides a limit on the deformation that a tension
member can achieve. The definition of yielding in the gross section to determine the tensile
strength [resistance] is well established in hot-rolled steel construction.
For the LRFD Method, the resistance factor of φt = 0.75 used for rupture of the net section is
consistent with the φ factor used in the AISC Specification (AISC, 2005). The resistance factor
φt = 0.90 used for yielding in the gross section was also selected to be consistent with the AISC
Specification (AISC, 2005).
D4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction

In addition to the standards listed in Specification Section D4, the following standard should
be applicable to the United States:
(e) The North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing—Lateral Design (Lateral Standard)
addresses the design of lateral force resisting systems to resist wind and seismic forces in a
wide range of buildings constructed with cold-formed steel framing. Use of the Lateral
Standard is mandatory for the design and installation of cold-formed steel light-framed shear
walls, diagonal strap bracing (that is part of a structural wall) and diaphragms to resist
wind, seismic and other in-plane lateral loads because certain requirements, such as design
requirements specific to shear walls and diaphragms sheathed with wood structural panels,
gypsum board, fiberboard and steel sheet, as well as special seismic requirements for these
and systems using diagonal strap bracing are not adequately addressed by the Specification.
D6.1.2 Beams Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing Seam Roof System
For beams supporting a standing seam roof system, e.g. a roof purlin subjected to dead
plus live load, or uplift from wind load, the bending capacity is greater than the bending
strength of an unbraced member and may be equal to the bending strength of a fully
braced member. The bending capacity is governed by the nature of the loading, gravity or
uplift, and the nature of the particular standing seam roof system. Due to the availability
of many different types of standing seam roof systems, an analytical method for
determining positive and negative bending capacities has not been developed at the
present time. However, in order to resolve this issue relative to the gravity loading
July 2007 A-5

condition, Section D6.1.2 was added in the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification for
determining the nominal flexural strength of beams having one flange fastened to a
standing seam roof system. In Specification Equation D6.1.2-1, the reduction factor, R, can
be determined by AISI S908 published by AISI (AISI, 2004). Application of the base test
method for uplift loading was subsequently validated after further analysis of the research
results.
D6.1.4 Compression of Z-Section Members Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing

Seam Roof
The strength of axially loaded Z-sections having one flange attached to standing seam
roof may be limited by either a combination of torsional buckling and lateral buckling in
the plane of the roof, or by flexural buckling in a plane perpendicular to the roof. As in the
case of Z-sections carrying gravity or wind loads as beams, the roof diaphragm and purlin
clips provide a degree of torsional and lateral bracing restraint that is significant, but not
necessarily sufficient, to develop the full strength of the cross section.
Specification Equation D6.1.4-1 predicts the lateral buckling strength using an ultimate
axial buckling stress (kafRFy) that is a percentage of the ultimate flexural stress (RFy)
determined from uplift tests performed using AISI S908, Base Test Method for Purlins
Supporting a Standing Seam Roof System, as published by AISI. This equation, developed
by Stolarczyk, el al. (2002), was derived empirically from elastic finite element buckling
studies and calibrated to the results of a series of tests comparing flexural and axial
strengths using the uplift “Base Test” setup. The gross area, A, has been used rather than
the effective area, Ae, because the ultimate axial stress is generally not large enough to
result in a significant reduction in the effective area for common cross section geometries.
Specification Equation D6.1.4-1 may be used with the results of uplift “Base Tests”
conducted with and without discrete point bracing. There is no limitation on the
minimum length because Equation D6.1.4-1 is conservative for spans that are smaller than
that tested under the “Base Test” provisions.
The strength of longer members may be governed by axial buckling perpendicular to
the roof; consequently, the provisions of Specification Sections C4.1 and C4.1.1 should also
be checked for buckling about the strong axis.
D6.2.1a Strength [Resistance] of Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems

The introduction of the wind uplift loading required strength factor of 0.67 was a result
of research conducted to correlate the static uplift capacity represented by tests performed
in accordance with S906 (AISI, 2008) and the dynamic behavior of real wind, Surry et. al.
(2007). This research utilized two separate methods of comparison. The first method
utilized full-scale tests conducted at Mississippi State University (MSU) using simulated
wind loads on a portion of a standing seam metal roof and the second method utilized
model-scale wind tunnel tests carried out at the University of Western Ontario of an
aeroelastic “failure” model of the same roof system. In spite of these significantly different
approaches, the results obtained were very consistent. It was found that the E1592 uniform
pressure test contains conservatism of about 50 percent for the roof system tested by both
approaches, and up to about 80 percent for the other roof systems tested only at MSU. This
conservatism arises if the roof system is required to withstand the code-recommended
A-6 July 2007

pressure applied as uniform pressure in the E1592 test, without accounting for the reality
of the dynamic spatially-varying properties of the wind-induced pressures. The limits of
applicability of this factor (panel thickness and width) are conservatively listed based on
the scope of the research. The failure mode is restricted to those failures associated with
the load in the clip because this was how the research measured and compared the static
and dynamic capacities. The required strength factor of 0.67 is not permitted to be used
with other observed failures. In addition, the research does not support or confirm whether
interpolation would be appropriate between E1592 tests of the same roof system with
different spans, where one test meets the requirements, such as a clip failure, and another
test does not, such as a panel failure.
E2a Welded Connections

The upper limit of the Specification applicability was revised in 2004 from 0.18 in. (4.57 mm)
to 3/16 in. (4.76 mm). This change was made to be consistent with the limit given in the AWS
D1.3 (1998).
The design provisions for welded connections were developed based primarily on
experimental evidence obtained from an extensive test program conducted at Cornell
University. In addition, the Cornell research provided the experimental basis for the AWS
Structural Welding Code for Sheet Steel (AWS, 1998). In most cases, the provisions of the AWS
code are in agreement with this Specification section.
The terms used in this Specification section agree with the standard nomenclature given in
the AWS Welding Structural Code for Sheet Steel (AWS, 1998).
For welded material thicknesses greater than 3/16 in. (4.76 mm), AISC Specification (2005)
should be followed.
E3a Bolted Connections

In Table E3a of Appendix A, the maximum size of holes for bolts having diameters not less
than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) is based on the specifications of the Research Council on Structural
Connections and the American Institute of Steel Construction (RCSC, 2000 and 2004; AISC,
1989, 1999, and 2005), except that for the oversized hole diameter, a slightly larger hole diameter
is permitted.
For bolts having diameters less than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm), the diameter of a standard hole is
the diameter of bolt plus 1/32 inch (0.794 mm). This maximum size of bolt holes is based on
previous editions of the AISI Specification.
When using oversized holes care must be exercised by the designer to ensure that excessive
deformation due to slip will not occur at working loads. Excessive deformations which can
occur in the direction of the slots may be prevented by requiring bolt pretensioning.
Short-slotted holes are usually treated in the same manner as oversized holes. Washers or
backup plates should be used over oversized or short-slotted holes in an outer ply unless
suitable performance is demonstrated by tests. For connections using long-slotted holes,
Specification Section E3.4 requires the use of washers or back-up plates and that the shear
capacity of bolts be determined by tests because a reduction in strength may be encountered.
An exception to the provisions for slotted holes is made in the case of slotted holes in lapped
and nested zees. Resistance is provided in this situation partially by the nested components,
July 2007 A-7

rather than direct bolt shear and bearing. An oversize or slotted hole is required for proper fit-
up due to offsets inherent in nested parts. Recent research (Bryant and Murray, 2001) has
shown that lapped and nested zee members with 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) diameter bolts without
washers and 9/16 in. x 7/8 in. (14.3 mm x 22.2 mm) slotted holes in the direction of stress can
develop the full moment in the lap.
E3.1 Shear, Spacing and Edge Distance

The provisions for minimum spacing and edge distance were revised in 1980 to include
additional design requirements for bolted connections with standard, oversized, and slotted
holes. The minimum edge distance of each individual connected part, emin, is determined by
using the tensile strength of steel (Fu) and the thickness of connected part. According to the
different ranges of the Fu/Fsy ratio, two different safety and resistance factors are used for
determining the required minimum edge distance. These design provisions are based on the
following basic equation established from the test results:
P
e= (C-E3.1-1)
Fu t
in which e is the required minimum edge distance to prevent shear failure of the connected
part for a force, P, transmitted by one bolt, and t is the thickness of the thinnest connected
part. For design purpose, a safety factor of 2.0 and a resistance factor of 0.70 are used for
Fu/Fsy ≥ 1.08. For Fu/Fsy < 1.08, a safety factor of 2.22 and a resistance factor of 0.60 are used
according to the degree of correlation between the above equation and the test data. In
addition, several requirements were added to the AISI Specification in 1980 concerning (1) the
minimum distance between centers of holes, as required for installation of bolts, (2) the
required clear distance between edges of two adjacent holes, and (3) the minimum distance
between the edge of the hole and the end of the member. The same design provisions were
retained in the 1986 AISI Specification and were also used in the 1996 AISI Specification, except
that the limiting Fu/Fsy ratio has been reduced from 1.15 to 1.08 for the consistency with
Specification Section A2.3.1. The test data used for the development of Equation C-E3.1-1 are
documented by Winter (1956a and 1956b) and Yu (1982, 1985, and 2000).
E3.2 Rupture in Net Section (Shear Lag)

In the AISI Specification, the nominal tensile strength [resistance], Pn, of the net section of
bolt connected parts is based on the loads determined by Specification Sections C2 and E3.2,
whichever is smaller. In the use of the equations provided in Specification Section E3.2, the
following design features should be noted:
1. The provisions are applicable only to the thinnest connected part less than 3/16 inch (4.76
mm) in thickness. For materials thicker than 3/16 inch (4.76 mm), the design should
follow the specifications or standards stipulated in Section E3a of Appendix A or B.
2. The nominal tensile strength, Pn, on the net section of a bolt connected member is
determined by the tensile strength of the connected part (Fu), and the ratio “d/s” for
connections with a single bolt or a single row of bolts perpendicular to the force.
3. Different equations are given for bolted connections with and without washers (Chong
and Matlock, 1975).
A-8 July 2007

4. The nominal tensile strength on the net section of a connected member is based on the
type of joint, either a single shear lap joint or a double shear butt joint.
The presence of staggered or diagonal hole patterns in a bolted connection has long been
recognized as increasing the net section area for the limit state of rupture in the net section.
LaBoube and Yu (1995) summarized the findings of a limited study of the behavior of bolted
connections having staggered hole patterns. The research showed that when a staggered
hole pattern is present, the width of a rupture plane can be adjusted by use of s′2/4g.
Because of the lack of test data necessary for a more accurate design formulation, a
discontinuity between this Specification and the specifications or standards, stipulated in
Appendix A, may occur. The presence of a discontinuity should not be a significant design
issue because the use of the staggered hole patterns is not common in cold-formed steel
applications.
L
L
x
x
Figure C-E3.2-1 x Definition for Sections with Bolted Connections

Shear lag has a debilitating effect on the tensile capacity of a cross section. Based on UMR
research (LaBoube and Yu, 1995) design equations have been developed that can be used to
estimate the influence of the shear lag. The research demonstrated that the shear lag effect
differs for an angle and a channel. For both cross sections, however, the key parameters that
influence shear lag are the distance from the shear plane to the center of gravity of the cross
section and the length of the bolted connection (Fig. C-E3.2-1). The research showed that for
cold-formed sections using single bolt connections, bearing usually controlled the nominal
strength, not rupture in the net section.
Previous tests showed that for flat sheet connections using a single bolt or a single row
having multiple bolts perpendicular to the force (Chong and Matlock, 1975; Carill, LaBoube
and Yu, 1994), the joint rotation and out-of plane deformation of flat sheets are excessive. The
strength reduction due to tearing of steel sheets in the net section is considered by
Specification Equations. E3.2-2 and E3.2-4 according to the d/s ratio and the use of washers
(AISI, 1996). For flat sheet connections using multiple bolts in the line of force and having
less out-of-plane deformations, the strength reduction is not required in this edition of the
Specification (Rogers and Hancock, 1998).
For flat sheet connections having staggered hole patterns as shown in Figure C-E3.2-2, the
nominal tensile strength of path ABDE can be determined by Specification Section E3.2(a). In
addition, the nominal tensile strength of the staggered path ABCDE can be determined by
Specification Section E3.2(b). For this case, Specification Equation E3.2-2 can be used to compute
Ft as long as each line of bolts parallel to the force has only one bolt.
The value for φ used with Specification Equation E3.2-8 is based on statistical analysis of
July 2007 A-9

the test data with a corresponding value of β = 3.5 for LRFD. The Ω values are unchanged
from previous editions of the AISI ASD Specification.
B
g1
C
g2
D
E
s'
Figure C-E3.2-2 Flat Sheet Connections Having Staggered Holes
E3.4 Shear and Tension in Bolts

For the design of bolted connections, the allowable shear stresses for bolts have been
provided in the AISI Specification for cold-formed steel design since 1956. However, the
allowable tension stresses were not provided in Specification Section E3.4 for bolts subject to
tension until 1986. In Specification Table E3.4-1, the allowable stresses specified for A307 (d ≥
1/2 inch (12.7 mm)), A325, and A490 bolts were based on Section 1.5.2.1 of the AISC
Specification (1978). It should be noted that the same values were also used in Table J3.2 of the
AISC ASD Specification (1989). For A307, A449, and A354 bolts with diameters less than 1/2-
inch (12.7 mm), the allowable tension stresses were reduced by 10 percent, as compared with
these bolts having diameters not less than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm), because the average ratio of
(tensile-stress area)/(gross-area) for 1/4-inch (6.35 mm) and 3/8-inch (9.53 mm) diameter
bolts is 0.68, which is about 10 percent less than the average area ratio of 0.75 for 1/2-inch
(12.7 mm) and 1-inch (25.4 mm) diameter bolts. In the AISI ASD/LRFD Specification (1996),
Table E3.4-1 provided nominal tensile strengths for various types of bolts with applicable
safety factors. The allowable tension stresses computed from Fnt/Ω were approximately the
same as that permitted by the AISI 1986 ASD Specification. The same table also gave the
resistance factor to be used for the LRFD method.
The design provisions for bolts subjected to a combination of shear and tension were
added in AISI Specification Section E3.4 in 1986. Those design equations were based on
Section 1.6.3 of the AISC Specification (AISC, 1978) for the design of bolts used for bearing-
type connections.
In 1996, Specification Tables E3.4-2 to E3.4-5, which listed the equations for determining
the reduced nominal tension stress, F′nt, for bolts subjected to the combination of shear and
tension were included in the Specification and were retained in the 2001 edition. In 2007,
Specification Tables E3.4-2 to E3.4-5 were replaced by Specification Equations E3.4-2 and E3.4-3
to determine the reduced tension stress of bolts subjected to the combined tension and shear.
Specification Equations E3.4-2 and E3.4-3 were adopted to be consistent with the AISC
Specification (AISC, 2005).
A-10 July 2007

Note that when the required stress, f, in either shear or tension, is less than or equal to 20
per cent of the corresponding available stress, the effects of combined stress need not be
investigated.
For bolted connection design, the possibility of pullover of the connected sheet at the bolt
head, nut, or washer should also be considered when bolt tension is involved, especially for
thin sheathing material. For unsymmetrical sections, such as C- and Z-sections used as
purlins or girts, the problem is more severe because of the prying action resulting from
rotation of the member which occurs as a consequence of loading normal to the sheathing.
The designer should refer to applicable product code approvals, product specifications, other
literature, or tests.
For design tables and example problems on bolted connections, see Part IV of the Design
E4.3.2 Connection Shear Limited by End Distance

The nominal shear per fastener as limited by edge distance is the same as that specified
for bolts.
E5 Rupture
Connection tests conducted by Birkemoe and Gilmor (1978) have shown that on coped
beams a tearing failure mode as shown in Figure C-E5-1(a) can occur along the perimeter of the
holes. Hardash and Bjorhovde (1985) have demonstrated these effects for tension members as
illustrated in Figure C-E5-1(b) and Figure C-E5-2. The provisions provided in Specification
Section E5 for shear rupture have been adopted from the AISC Specification (AISC, 1978). For
additional design information on tension rupture strength [resistance] and block shear rupture
strength [resistance] of connections (Figures C-E5-1 and C-E5-2), refer to the AISC Specifications
(AISC, 1989, 1999, and 2005).
Block shear is a limit state in which the resistance is determined by the sum of the shear
strength [resistance] on a failure path(s) parallel to the force and the tensile strength [resistance]
on the segment(s) perpendicular to the force, as shown in Figure C-E5-2. A comprehensive test
program does not exist regarding block shear for cold-formed steel members. However, a
limited study conducted at the University of Missouri-Rolla indicates that the AISC LRFD
equations may be applied to cold-formed steel members. The φ (LRFD) and Ω (ASD) values for
block shear were taken from the AISI 1996 edition of the Specification, and are based on the
performance of fillet welds. In calculating the net web area Awn, for coped beams, the web
depth is taken as the flat portion of the web as illustrated in Fig. C-E5-3.
The summary paper “AISC LRFD Rules for Block Shear in Bolted Connections – A Review”
(Kulak and Grondin, 2001) provides a summary of test data for block shear rupture strength. In
2004, Equations E5.3-1 and E5.3-2 were adopted for the limit state of block shear rupture for
bolted cold-formed steel connections because eccentricity in cold-formed steel sections is
usually small. In theory, provisions for block shear could also be applied to screw connections.
However, because the final placement location of self-drilling screws cannot be assured, a block
shear check is of little significance. Also, tests performed at the University of Missouri-Rolla
have indicated that the current design equations for shear and tilting provide a reasonably good
estimate of the connection performance for multiple screws in a pattern (LaBoube and Sokol,
2002).
July 2007 A-11

Cope
Beam Failure by tearing
Failure by tearing out of shaded
out of shaded portion
Shear portion Shear
area Tensile
area
Tensile area
area
Po
(a) (b)
Figure C-E5-1 Failure Modes for Block Shear Rupture
Po
Po
Small tension
force
Large tension
force
Large shear
force
Small shear
force
Po
Po
(a) (b)
Figure C-E5-2 Block Shear Rupture in Tension
hwc
Figure C-E5-3 Definition of hwc
A-12 July 2007

Appendix B:
Commentary on Provisions
Applicable to Canada
2007 EDITION
APPENDIX B: COMMENTARY ON PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CANADA

This commentary on Appendix B of the Specification provides a record of reasoning behind,
and justification for, provisions that are applicable only to Canada. Only those sections of
Appendix B of the Specification are addressed herein or where additional commentary is
required beyond what is already contained in the Commentary on the 2007 Edition of the North
American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members (hereinafter referred
to as the Commentary). The format used herein is consistent with that used in Appendix B of the
Specification.
In comparison to Appendix B of the 2001 edition of CSA Standard S136, a few changes have
been incorporated into this Specification. The most significant ones are as follows:
a) The entire Section A2.4a, including Table B-A2.4-1 [Hot-Dipped Metallic Coating
Thickness Allowances], has been deleted from Appendix B. Information on metallic
coating thicknesses can now be found in Sheet Steel Facts #10, published by the Canadian
Sheet Steel Building Institute (CSSBI) and is available at www.cssbi.ca.
b) The entire Section A3 on loads has been revised in accordance with the 2005 Edition of the
National Building Code of Canada.
c) Some changes have been made in Section C2.2 on rupture of net section tension members,
and a new section has been added for coped beams.
A2.1a Applicable Steels

CSA Standard G40.20/G40.21 is referenced because it is widely used in Canada for
structural quality bars and plate.
A2.2.2 Other Steels

Provisions are included for determining the mechanical properties of unidentified
structural steels.
A2.3.1a Ductility
The use of low ductility steel has been limited to curtain wall stud applications in
specific low seismic areas.
A3 Loads
The load provisions contained in Appendix B of CSA S136-01 were changed to be
compatible with the changes that are incorporated in Part 4 of the National Building Code of
Canada (NBC) 2005. This entails the following:
(1) The version of Limit States Design in NBC 2005 is based on the companion action format,
which is being adopted world-wide and is a more rational method of combining loads than
the previous version.
(2) NBC 1995 distinguished wind load for different categories of buildings using a return
period approach, an increase in design loads for earthquake based on building use by
means of an importance factor, and made no allowance for different snow loads based on
July 2007 B-3

Appendix B, Provisions Applicable to Canada
the occupancy of the structure. In NBC 2005, it was decided to harmonize the approach
used, and so the importance factor methodology was chosen for snow, wind and earthquake
loads.
A6 Limit States Design

In limit states design, the resistance of a structural component is checked against the various
limit states. For the ultimate limit states resistance, the structural member must retain its
load-carrying capacity up to the factored load levels. For serviceability limit states, the
performance of the structure must be satisfactory at specified load levels. Specified loads are
those prescribed by the National Building Code of Canada. Examples of serviceability
requirements include deflections and the possibility of vibrations.
Section A6 of the Specification sets forth the fundamental safety criterion that must be met,
namely:
Factored resistance ≥ effect of factored loads
The factored resistance is given by the product φRn, where φ is the resistance factor which is
applied to the nominal member resistance, Rn. The resistance factor is intended to take into
account the fact that the resistance of the member may be less than anticipated, due to
variability of the material properties, dimensions, and workmanship, and also to take into
account the type of failure and uncertainty in the prediction of the resistance.
The resistance factor does not, however, cover gross human errors. Human errors cause
most structural failures and typically these human errors are “gross” errors. Gross errors are
completely unpredictable and are not covered by the overall safety factor inherent in buildings.
In limit states design, structural reliability is specified in terms of a safety index, β,
determined through a statistical analysis of the loads and resistances. The safety index is
directly related to the structural reliability of the design; hence, increasing β increases the
reliability, and decreasing β decreases the reliability. The safety index, β, is also directly related
to the load and resistance factors used in the design.
The National Building Code of Canada defines a set of load factors, load combination factors,
and specified minimum loads to be used in the design, hence fixing the position of the nominal
load distribution and the factored load distribution. The design Standard is then obligated to
specify the appropriate resistance function.
Those responsible for writing a design Standard are given the load distribution and load
factors, and must calibrate the resistance factors, φ, such that the safety index, β, reaches a
certain target value. The technical committee responsible for CSA Standard S136 elected to use
a target safety index of 3.0 for members and 4.0 for connections.
In order to determine the loading for calibration, it was assumed that 80% of cold-formed
steel is used in panel form (e.g., roof or floor deck, wall panels, etc.) and the remaining 20% for
structural sections (purlins, girts, studs, etc.). An effective load factor was arrived at by
assuming live-to-dead load ratios and their relative frequencies of occurrence.
Probabilistic studies show that consistent probabilities of failure are determined for all
live-to-dead load ratios when a live load factor of 1.50 and a dead load factor of 1.25 are used.
B-4 July 2007

C2 Tension Members
The general provisions for the design of tension members have not changed with respect to
the CSA Standard S136-01. The only change that was made involves staggered connections.
C2.2 Rupture of Net Section

Based on the research carried out by LaBoube and Yu (1995), a correction was made by
only applying the 0.9 factor to the direct tension and stagger failure paths. In CSA S136-01,
the 0.9 factor was also applied to the shear failure path. See Commentary for detailed
explanation.
Examples of tension members are shown in Figures B-C2.2-1 and B-C2.2-2. Block tear-out
can also occur at the end of a coped beam, where the applied force is a shear at the end of a
beam. This force causes tension on horizontal planes and shear on vertical planes. An
example is shown in Figure B-C2.2-3. Other possible failure paths should also be checked.
1
2
wg h 5
6
3
4 h=hole diameter
Failure Path 1, 2, 3, 4 Failure Path 5, 2, 3, 6

Lc = Lt Lc = 0.6Lv
Lt = (wg – h) Lv = 2(e – h/2)
Lc = (wg – h) Lc = 0.6[2(e – h/2)] = 1.2e – 0.6h
Figure B-C2.2-1 Potential Failure Paths of Single Lap Joint
2
3
g
4
g
5 h h=hole diameter
g
6
g 7
8
s e
Failure Path 3, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 Failure Path 3, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Lc = 0.9[Lt + Ls]+ 0.6Lv Lc = 0.9[Lt + Ls]+ 0.6Lv
Lt = (2g – h) Lt = 0
Ls = 2(g + s2/4g – h) Ls = 4(g + s2/4g – h)
Lv = (2e – h) Lv = (2e – h)
Lc = 0.9[(2g – h) + 2(g + s2/4g –h)] Lc = 0.9[4(g + s2/4g – h)] + 0.6(2e – h)
+ 0.6(2e – h)
Figure B-C2.2-2 Potential Failure Paths of Stiffened Channel
July 2007 B-5

1
e1 2
h
g
3
h=hole diameter
g
4 5
6
s e2
Failure Path 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Lc = Lt + 0.6Lv
Lt = (s + e2 – 1.5h)
Lv = (e1 + 2g – 2.5h)
Lc = (s + e2 – 1.5h) + 0.6(e1 + 2g – 2.5h)
Figure B-C2.2-3 Potential Failure Path of Coped Stiffened Channel
The provision regarding block tear-out of Section C2.2 was rewritten in accordance with
the latest research by Kulak and Grondin (2001). A new section on coped beams was also
added as per the recommendations by these authors.
D3a Lateral and Stability Bracing

The provisions of this section cover members loaded in the plane of the web. Conditions
may occur that cause a lateral component of the load to be transferred through the bracing
member to supporting structural members. In such a case, these lateral forces shall be additive
to the requirements of this section. The provisions in the Specification recognize the distinctly
different behavior of the members to be braced, as defined in Section D3.1 and D3.2 of this
Appendix. The term “discrete braces” is used to identify those braces that are only connected to
the member to be braced for this express purpose.
D3.1a Symmetrical Beams and Columns

D3.1.1 Discrete Bracing for Beams
This section was revised to retain the 2% requirement for the compressive force in the
compressive flange of a flexural member at the braced location only. The discrete bracing
provisions for columns are provided in Section D3.3.
D3.2a C-Section and Z-Section Beams

This section covers bracing requirements of channel and Z-sections and any other section
in which the applied load in the plane of the web induces twist.
D3.2.2 Discrete Bracing

This section provides for brace intervals to prevent the member from rotating about the
shear centre for channels or from rotating about the point of symmetry for Z-sections. The
B-6 July 2007

spacing must be such that any stresses due to the rotation tendency are small enough so
that they will not significantly reduce the load-carrying capacity of the member. The
rotation must also be small enough (in the order of 2°) to be not objectionable as a service
requirement.
Based on tests and the study by Winter et al. (1949b), it was found that these
requirements are satisfied for any type of load if braces are provided at intervals of
one-quarter of the span, with the exception of concentrated loads requiring braces near the
point of application.
Fewer brace points may be used if it can be shown to be acceptable by rational analysis
or testing in accordance with Chapter F of the Specification, recognizing the variety of
conditions, including the case where loads are applied out of the plane of the web.
For sections used as purlins with a standing seam roof, the number of braces per bay is
often determined by rational analysis and/or testing. The requirement for a minimum
number of braces per bay is to recognize that predictability of the lateral support and
rotational restraint is limited on account of the many variables such as fasteners,
insulation, friction coefficients, and distortion of roof panels under load.
D3.2.3 One Flange Braced by Deck, Slab, or Sheathing

Forces generated by the tendency for lateral movement and/or twist of the beams,
whether cumulative or not, must be transferred to a sufficiently stiff part of the framing
system. There are several ways in which this transfer may be accomplished:
(a) by the deck, slab, or sheathing providing a rigid diaphragm capable of transferring the
forces to the supporting structure;
(b) by arranging equally loaded pairs of members facing each other;
(c) by direct axial force in the covering material that can be transferred to the supporting
structure or balanced by opposing forces;
(d) by a system of sag members such as rods, angles, or channels that transfer the forces to
the supporting structure; or
(e) by any other method that designers may select to transfer forces to the supporting
structure.
For all types of single web beams, the flange that is not attached to the deck or
sheathing material may be subject to compressive stresses under certain loading
arrangements, such as beams continuous over supports or under wind load. The elastic
lateral support to this flange provided through the web may allow an increase in limit
stress over that calculated by assuming that the compressive flange is a column, with
pinned ends at points of lateral bracing. Research indicates that the compressive limit
stress is also sensitive to the rotational flexibility of the joint between the beam and the
deck or sheathing material.
This section is intended to apply even when the flange that is not attached to the
sheathing material is in tension.
E2a Welded Connections

See Commentary for detailed information. Both fabricators and erectors must be certified
under CSA Standard W47.1 for arc welding and CSA Standard W55.3 for resistance welding.
July 2007 B-7

This provision extends the certification requirements to the welding of cold-formed members or
components to other construction, e.g., welding steel deck to structural steel framing.
B-8 July 2007

AISI S100-07 Commentary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AISI S100-07 Commentary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AISI S100-07 Commentary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AISI S100-2007-C

North American Specification

for the Design of Cold-Formed

Steel Structural Members

1st Printing – October 2007

Produced by American Iron and Steel Institute

Copyright American Iron and Steel Institute 2007

American Iron and Steel Institute

July 2007 iii

C4.1.2 Doubly- or Singly-Symmetric Sections Subject to Torsional or Flexural-

D. STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLIES AND SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 99

E. CONNECTIONS AND JOINTS ......................................................................................................... 119

E1 General Provisions ..................................................................................................................... 119

F. TESTS FOR SPECIAL CASES......................................................................................................... 134

July 2007 vii

F3.2 Flat Elements of Formed Sections ................................................................................. 136

G. DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND CONNECTIONS FOR CYCLIC

APPENDIX 1: COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX 1 DESIGN OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL

1.2 MEMBERS .................................................................................................................................... 1-15

APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 1-20

APPENDIX 2: COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX 2 SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS.................................... 2-3

APPENDIX A: COMMENTARY ON PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES

viii July 2007

D4 Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction .......................................................................A-5

APPENDIX B: COMMENTARY ON PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CANADA ...................................... B-3

Effective Design Width

buckling by flexure alone.

Flexural Members, such as Beams

Figure C-A1.3-1 Multiple-Stiffened Compression Elements

Unstiffened Compression Elements

ASD and LRFD Terms (USA and Mexico)

ASD (Allowable Strength Design, formerly referred to as Allowable Stress Design)

N.A. b2 N.A. b2 b2 N.A. t

(1) (2) (3)

Figure C-A1.3-2 Stiffened Compression Elements

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Flexural Members, Such as Beams

b/2 b/2 b/2

b/2 b/2 b/2 w

(5) (6) (7) (8)

Compression Members, Such as Columns

Figure C-A1.3-3 Unstiffened Compression Elements

LSD Terms (Canada)

LSD (Limit States Design)

A1.4 Units of Symbols and Terms

A2.2 Other Steels

(compression members, except closed box section compression members as stipulated in

A2.4 Delivered Minimum Thickness

A4.1.1 ASD Requirements

A4.1.2 Load Combinations for ASD

A5 Load and Resistance Factor Design

A5.1.1 LRFD Requirements

(a) Probabilistic Concepts

Load Effect Q Resistance R

Figure C-A5.1.1-1 Definition of the Randomness Q and R

Probability of Exceeding a Limit State

Figure C-A5.1.1-2 Definition of the Reliability Index β

where VR = σR/Rm and VQ = σQ/Qm, the coefficients of variation of R and Q, respectively.

Qm = (Ls2s/8)(Dm + Lm) (C-A5.1.1-7)

A5.1.2 Load Factors and Load Combinations for LRFD