Search

Industrial buildings based on Cold Formed Steel (CFS) members have gained an extent of construction all over the world. It becomes an alternative process of construction to the Hot Rolled Steel (HRS) elements, allowing it to respond to the requirements in a short time. The aim of this work is to present a technical and economic comparative study of an industrial building case, made of CFS versus HRS elements, and designed according to the European and American codes. Relying on numerical modeling, the design according to Eurocode 3 demonstrates that the industrial building made of CFS is more economical compared to the HRS members building by 43% in terms of weight and 28% in terms of cost. In addition, based on the Average Capacity Design (ACD) ratio of the elements of a CFS, the design according to Eurocode 3 part 1-3 is less conservative than the same building designed according to American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) code. Moreover, the American code privileges the safety aspect of the designed CFS building with the ASD method over the LRFD and LSD methods. Otherwise, a CFS building designed according to Eurocode 3 part 1-3 with truss columns and beams reveals a weight saving of 25% and 14%, respectively, compared to a building with a full web of beams and columns, and a building with a full web of columns and steel trusses.

Industrial buildings made of Cold Formed Steel (CFS) members have gained an extent of construction all over the world. It has become an alternative process of construction to the Hot Rolled Steel (HRS) elements, allowing it to respond to the requirements in a short time. The aim of this work is to present a technical and economical comparative study of an industrial building case made of CFS versus HRS elements and designed according to the European and American codes. Relying on numerical modeling, the design according to Eurocode 3 demonstrates that the industrial building made of CFS is more economical compared to the HRS members building by 43% in terms of weight and 28% in terms of cost. In addition, based on the Average Capacity Design (ACD) ratio of the CFS elements, it turns out that the design according to Eurocode 3 part 1-3 is less conservative than the same building designed according to the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) code. Moreover, the American code privileges the safety aspect of the designed CFS building with the ASD method over the LRFD and LSD methods. Otherwise, the CFS building designed according to Eurocode 3 part 1-3 with truss columns and beams reveals a weight saving of 25% and 14%, respectively, compared to the building with a full web of beams and columns, and the building with a full web of columns and steel trusses.