Aisi Specifications Supplement 1 - 1996 Specification For The Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members

SPECIFICATION
FOR THE DESIGN OF

COLD-FORMED STEEL
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
With Commentary
1996 EDITION
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
July 30, 1999
American Iron and Steel Institute
SPECIFICATION
FOR THE DESIGN OF
COLD-FORMED
STEEL STRUCTURAL
MEMBERS
1996 EDITION
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
2 Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1
The material contained herein has been developed by the American Iron and Steel
Institute Committee on Specifications for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members. The Committee has made a diligent effort to present accurate, reliable, and
useful information on cold-formed steel design. The Committee acknowledges and is
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 Supplement to 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 AISI will publish updates of this material as new
information become available, but this can not 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 April 2000
Produced by American Iron and Steel Institute
Washington, DC
Copyright American Iron and Steel Institute 2000
Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AISI 1996 SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN OF
COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
Section A3.1........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Section A3.3........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Section A5.1.3..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Section A9........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Section B1.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Section B2.4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
B2.4 C-Section Webs With Holes Under Stress Gradient ............................................................... 7
Section B6.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Section C2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
C2 Tension Members .................................................................................................................... 8
Section C3.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Section C3.1.2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
C3.1.2.1 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Open Cross Section Members................................. 9
C3.1.2.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Closed Box Members............................................ 11
Section C3.1.3 ................................................................................................................................................... 12
C3.1.3 Beams having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing.................................... 12
Section C3.1.4 ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Section C3.1.5 ................................................................................................................................................... 13
C3.1.5 Strength for Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems.................................................................. 13
Section C3.2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
C3.2.2 Shear Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes..................................................................... 14
Section C3.4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
C3.4.2 Web Crippling Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes ...................................................... 15
Section C3.5.1 ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Section C4 ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Section C6.1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
Section C6.2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
Section D3.2.1................................................................................................................................................... 16
Section D3.3...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Section E2.6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Section E2.7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
E2.7 Shear Lag Effect in Welded Connections of Members Other Than Flat Sheets ................... 18
Section E3.2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
E3.2 Shear Lag Effect in Bolted Connections ............................................................................... 18
Section E3.3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Section E5 ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
E5.2 Tension Rupture .................................................................................................................... 21
E5.3 Block Shear Rupture.............................................................................................................. 21
Section E6.1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Section F1.......................................................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A: Base Test Method for Purlins Supporting a Standing Seam Roof System.............................. 23
APPENDIX B: Standard Procedures for Panel and Anchor Structural Tests .................................................. 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMENTARY ON AISI 1996 SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN OF
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
Section A3.1...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Section A3.3...................................................................................................................................................... 37
Section A7.1...................................................................................................................................................... 38
Section A8......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Section B2.4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 38
B2.4 C-Section Webs With Holes Under Stress Gradient ............................................................. 38
Section B6.1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
Section C2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
C2 Tension Members .................................................................................................................. 40
Section C3.1.2 ................................................................................................................................................... 40
C3.1.2.1 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Open Cross Section Members............................... 40
C3.1.2.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Closed Box Members............................................ 45
Section C3.1.3 ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Section C3.1.4 ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Section C3.1.5 ................................................................................................................................................... 46
C3.1.5 Strength for Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems.................................................................. 46
Section C3.2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
C3.2.2 Shear Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes..................................................................... 47
Section C3.4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
C3.4.2 Web Crippling Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes ...................................................... 48
Section C4 ......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Section C6.1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
Section C6.2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 49
Section D3.2.1................................................................................................................................................... 49
Section D3.3...................................................................................................................................................... 49
Section E2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
Section E2.6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Section E2.7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
E2.7 Shear Lag Effect in Welded Connections of Members Other Than Flat Sheets ................... 51
Section E3.2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Section E3.3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Section E5 ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
E5 Fracture.................................................................................................................................. 53
Section E6.1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 54
Section F1.......................................................................................................................................................... 54
Section F3.3....................................................................................................................................................... 54
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 54
AISI 1996 SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN OF
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
JULY 30, 1999
1. Section A3.1
Update the titles of ASTM A611 and A653/A653M as follows:
ASTM A611 (Grades A, B, C, and D), Structural Steel (SS), Sheet, Carbon, Cold-
Rolled
ASTM A653/A653M (SS Grades 33, 37, 40, and 50 Class 1 and Class 3; HSLAS
Types A and B, Grades 50, 60, 70 and 80), Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated
(Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron Alloy-Coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip
Process
Add ASTM A847 and ASTMA875/A875M to the section:
ASTM A847 Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless High Strength, Low Alloy
Structural Tubing with Improved Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance
ASTM A875/A875M (SS Grades 33, 37, 40, and 50 Class 1 and Class 3; HSLAS
Types A and B, Grades 50, 60, 70, and 80), Steel Sheet, Zinc-5% Aluminum
Alloy-Coated by the Hot-Dip Process
2. Section A3.3
Move the first footnote on page V-26 to the Commentary (See Supplement to the
Commentary for details).
Revise Section A3.3.2 as follows:
A3.3.2 Steels conforming to ASTM A653 SS Grade 80, A611 Grade E, A792
Grade 80, A875 SS Grade 80 and other steels which do not meet the provisions
of Section A3.3.1 shall be permitted for multiple-web configurations such as
roofing, siding and floor decking provided that:
(1) the yield point, F
y
, used for determining nominal strength in Chapters
B, C, and D is taken as 75 percent of the specified minimum yield
point or 60 ksi (414 MPa), whichever is less, and
(2) the tensile strength, F
u
, used for determining nominal strength in
Chapter E is taken as 75 percent of the specified minimum tensile
strength or 62 ksi (427 MPa), whichever is less.
Alternatively, the suitability of such steels for any configuration shall be
demonstrated by load tests according to the provisions of Section F1.
Design strengths based on these tests shall not exceed the strengths
calculated according to Chapters B through E, using the specified
minimum yield point, F
y
, and the specified minimum tensile strength, F
u
.
Exception: For multiple-web configurations, a reduced yield point, R
b
F
y
, shall
be permitted for determining the nominal flexural strength in Section C3.1.1(a),
for which the reduction factor, R
b
, shall be determined as follows:
(a) Stiffened and Partially Stiffened Compression Flanges
For
y
F E 067 . 0 t w
R
b
= 1.0
For
y y
F E 0.974 t w F E 0.067 < <
R
b
=
4 . 0
y
] 067 . 0 ) tE ( wF [ 26 . 0 1 (Eq. A3.3.2-1)
For 500 t w F E 974 . 0
y

R
b
= 0.75
(b) Unstiffened Compression Flanges
For
y
F E 0173 . 0 t w
R
b
= 1.0
For 60 t w F E 0.0173
y
<
R
b
= ) tE /( wF 6 . 0 079 . 1
y
(Eq. A3.3.2-2)
where
E = Modulus of elasticity
F
y
= Yield point as specified in Section A7.1 80 ksi (552 MPa)
t = Thickness of section
w = Flat width of compression flange
The above Exception Clause does not apply to the use of steel deck for
composite slabs, for which the steel deck acts as the tensile reinforcement of the
slab.
3. Section A5.1.3
Revise the whole section as follows:
When the seismic load model specified by the applicable code or specification is
limit state based, the resulting earthquake load (E) shall be permitted to be multiplied
by 0.67. Additionally, except for Section D5, when the load combinations specified
by the applicable code or specification or Section A5.1.2 include wind or earthquake
loads, the resulting forces shall be permitted to be multiplied by 0.75.
4. Section A9
Update the referenced documents as follows:
In the fourth referenced document, change AWS D1.3-89 to AWS D1.3-98.
Update the ASTM Standards as follows:
Change ASTM A242/A242M-93a to ASTM242/A242M-97,
Change A283/A283M-93a to A283/A283M-97,
Change A307-94a to A307-97,
Change A325-94 to A325-97,
Change A325M-93 to A325M-97,
Change A354-95 to A354-97,
Change A370-95 to A370-97a,
Change A490-93 to A490-97,
Change A500-93 to A500-98,
Change A529/A529M-94 to A529/A529M-96,
Change A563-94 to A563-96,
Change A563M-94 to A563M-97,
Change A570/A570M-95 to A570/A570M-96,
Change A572/A572M-94c to A572/A572M-98,
Change A588/A588M-94 to A588/A588M-97,
Revise the ASTM A611 title to ASTM A611-97, Structural Steel (SS),
Sheet, Carbon, Cold-Rolled,
Change A653/A653M-95 to A653/A653M-97, and change
(Galvanealed) to (Galvannealed),
Change ASTM A792/A792M-95 to ASTM A792/A792M-97,
Add ASTM A847-93, Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless High Strength,
Low Alloy Structural Tubing with Improved Atmospheric Corrosion
Resistance,
Add ASTM A875/A875M-97 (SS Grades 33, 37, 40, and 50 Class 1 and
Class 3; HSLAS Types A and B, Grades 50, 60, 70, and 80), Steel Sheet,
Zinc-5% Aluminum Alloy-Coated by the hot-Dip Process,
Change F959-95 to F959-96, and
Change F959M-95 to F959M-96.
5. Section B1.1
Revise three conditions as follows:
(1) Stiffened compression element having one longitudinal edge connected to a web
or flange element, the other stiffened by:
Simple lip 60
Any other kind of stiffener
i) when I
s
< I
a
60
ii) when I
s
I
a
90
(2) Stiffened compression element with both
longitudinal edges connected to other
stiffened elements 500
(3) Unstiffened compression element 60
6. Section B2.4
Add the following new section:
B2.4 C-Section Webs With Holes Under Stress Gradient
These provisions shall be applicable within the following limits:
(1) d
0
/ h < 0.7
(2) h / t 200
(3) Holes centered at mid-depth of the web
(4) Clear distance between holes 18 in. (457 mm)
(5) Non-circular holes, corner radii 2t
(6) Non-circular holes, d
0
2.5 in. (64 mm) and b 4.5 in. (114 mm)
(7) Circular hole diameters 6 in. (152 mm)
(8) d
0
> 9/16 in. (14 mm)
(a) Strength Determination
When d
0
/h < 0.38, the effective widths, b
1
and b
2
, shall be determined by Section
B2.3(a) by assuming no hole exists in the web.
When d
0
/h 0.38, the effective width shall be determined by Section B3.1(a)
assuming the compression portion of the web consists of an unstiffened element
adjacent to the hole with f = f
1
as shown in Figure B2.3-1.
(b) Deflection Determination
The effective widths shall be determined by Section B2.3(b) by assuming no hole
exists in the web.
where
d
0
= Depth of web hole
b = Length of web hole
b
1
, b
2
= Effective widths defined by Figure B2.3-1
h = Depth of flat portion of the web measured along the plane of the web
7. Section B6.1
Change 0.37 in the last paragraph to 0.42.
8. Section C2
C2 Tension Members
For axially loaded tension members, the nominal tensile strength, T
n
, shall be
the smallest value obtained according to the limit states of (a) yielding in the gross
section, (b) fracture in the net section away from connections, and (c) fracture in the
effective net section at the connection:
(a) For yielding:
T
n
= A
g
F
y
(Eq. C2-1)
t
= 1.67 (ASD)
t
= 0.90 (LRFD)
(b) For fracture away from the connection:
T
n
= A
n
F
u
(Eq. C2-2)
t
= 2.00 (ASD)
t
= 0.75 (LRFD)
where
T
n
= Nominal strength of member when loaded in tension
A
g
= Gross area of cross section
A
n
= Net area of cross section
F
y
= Yield point as specified in Section A7.1
F
u
= Tensile strength as specified in Section A3.1 or A3.3.2
(c) For fracture at the connection:
The nominal tensile strength shall also be limited by Sections E2.7, E3, and E4 for
tension members using welded connections, bolted connections, and screw
connections, respectively.
9. Section C3.1
Add the following footnote to the section title:
*
The provisions of this Section do not consider torsional effects, such as those resulting from loads that do
not pass through the shear center of the cross section. See Section D3 for the design of lateral bracing
required to restrain lateral bending or twisting.
10. Section C3.1.2
Section C3.1.2, Lateral-Torsional Buckling, is revised to include two subsections:
C3.1.2.1, Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Open Cross Section Members, and
C3.1.2.2, Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Closed Box Members. Section C3.1.2.1
contains design provisions given in current Section C3.1.2 with revisions, and Section
C3.1.2.2 is a new added section. The full text of both subsections is provided as follows:
C3.1.2.1Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Open Cross Section Members
For laterally unbraced segments of singly-, doubly-, and point-symmetric
sections
subject to lateral-torsional buckling, the nominal flexural strength, M

n
, shall
be calculated as follows:
M
n c c
F S (Eq. C3.1.2.1-1)
b
= 1.67 (ASD)
b
= 0.90 (LRFD)
where
S
c
= Elastic section modulus of effective section calculated at a stress F
c
relative to the extreme compression fiber
F
c
= Elastic or inelastic critical lateral-torsional buckling stress calculated as
follows:
For F
e
2.78F
y
F
c
= F
y
(Eq. C3.1.2.1-2)
For 2.78F
y
> F
e
> 0.56F
y
F
c
=
,
_
e
y
y
F 36
F 10
1 F
9
10
(Eq. C3.1.2.1-3)
For F
e
0.56F
y
F
c
= F
e
(Eq.C3.1.2.1-4)
where
F
e
= Elastic critical lateral-torsional buckling stress calculated according to
(a) or (b) below:

The provisions of this Section apply to I-, Z-, C- and other singly-symmetric section flexural members (not including
multiple-web deck, U- and closed box-type members, and curved or arch members). The provisions of this Section do
not apply to laterally unbraced compression flanges of otherwise laterally stable sections. Refer to C3.1.3 for C- and Z-
purlins in which the tension flange is attached to sheathing.
(a) For singly-, doubly-, and point-symmetric sections:
F
e
=
t ey
S
A
o
r
b
C
f
for bending about the symmetry axis. (Eq. C3.1.2.1-5)
S
f
= Elastic section modulus of full unreduced section relative to the
extreme compression fiber
For singly-symmetric sections, x-axis is the axis of symmetry oriented such
that the shear center has a negative x-coordinate.
For point-symmetric sections, use 0.5 F
e
. X-axis of Z-sections is the centroidal
axis perpendicular to the web.
Alternatively, F
e
can be calculated using the equation given in (b) for doubly-
symmetric I-sections or point-symmetric sections.
For singly-symmetric sections bending about the centroidal axis perpendicular
to the axis of symmetry:
F
e
= ( )
1
]
1
ex t
2
o
2
s
f TF
ex s
/ r + j C + j
S C
A C
(Eq.C3.1.2.1-6)
C
s
= +1 for moment causing compression on the shear center side of the centroid
C
s
= -1 for moment causing tension on the shear center side of the centroid
ex =
( )
2
x x x
2
E
K L / r
(Eq. C3.1.2.1-7)
ey
=
( )
2
y y y
2
E
K L / r
(Eq. C3.1.2.1-8)
t
=
( )
1
1
]
1

2
t t
w
2
2
o
L K
EC
+ GJ
Ar
1
(Eq. C3.1.2.1-9)
A = Full unreduced cross-sectional area
C
b
=
C B A max
max
3M + 4M + 3M + 2.5M
12.5M
(Eq. C3.1.2.1-10)
where:
M
max
= Absolute value of maximum moment in unbraced segment
M
A
= Absolute value of moment at quarter point of unbraced segment
M
B
= Absolute value of moment at centerline of unbraced segment
M
C
= Absolute value of moment at three-quarter point of unbraced segment
C
b
is permitted to be conservatively taken as unity for all cases.
For cantilevers or overhangs where the free end is unbraced, C
b
shall be taken as unity. For members subject to combined
compressive axial load and bending moment (Section C5.2), C
b
shall be taken as unity.
E = Modulus of elasticity
C
TF
= 0.6 - 0.4 (M
1
/M
2
) (Eq. C3.1.2.1-11)
where
M
1
is the smaller and M
2
the larger bending moment at the ends of
the unbraced length in the plane of bending, and where M
1
/M
2
, the
ratio of end moments, is positive when M
1
and M
2
have the same
sign (reverse curvature bending) and negative when they are of
opposite sign (single curvature bending). When the bending
moment at any point within an unbraced length is larger than that
at both ends of this length, and for members subject to combined
compressive axial load and bending moment (Section C5.2), C
TF
shall be taken as unity.
r
o
= Polar radius of gyration of the cross section about the shear center
=
2
o
2
y
2
x
x + r + r (Eq. C3.1.2.1-12)
r
x
, r
y
= Radii of gyration of the cross section about the centroidal principal axes
G = Shear modulus
K
x
, K
y
, K
t
= Effective length factors for bending about the x- and y-axes, and for twisting
L
x
, L
y
, L
t
= Unbraced length of compression member for bending about the x- and y-axes,
and for twisting
x
o
= Distance from the shear center to the centroid along the principal x-axis, taken as
negative
J = St. Venant torsion constant of the cross section
C
w
= Torsional warping constant of the cross section
j =
o
2
A
3
A
y
x - dA xy + dA x
2I
1
1
]
1

(Eq. C3.1.2.1-13)
(b) For I- or Z-sections bent about the centroidal axis perpendicular to the web (x-axis):
In lieu of (a), the following equations may be used to calculate F
e
:
F
e
=
2
f
yc
2
b
L S
EdI C
for doubly-symmetric I-sections (Eq. C3.1.2.1-14)
=
2
f
yc
2
b
L 2S
EdI C
for point-symmetric Z-sections (Eq. C3.1.2.1-15)
where
d = Depth of section
L = Unbraced length of member
I
yc
= Moment of inertia of the compression portion of a section about the centroidal
axis of the entire section parallel to the web, using the full unreduced section
Other terms are defined in (a).
C3.1.2.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Closed Box Members
For closed box members, the nominal flexural strength, M
n
, shall be determined
as follows:
If the unbraced length of the member is less than or equal to L
u
, the nominal
flexural strength shall be determined by using Section C3.1.1.
where
L
u
=
y
f y
b
EGJI
S F
0.36C
(Eq. C3.1.2.2-1)
If the lateral unbraced length of a member is larger than L
u
, the nominal flexural
strength shall be determined in accordance with C3.1.2.1, where the critical lateral
buckling stress, F
e
, is calculated as follows:
F
e
=
y
EGJI
f
LS
b
C
(Eq. C3.1.2.2-2)
where
L =Lateral unbraced length of member
I
y
=Moment of inertia of full unreduced section about its centroidal axis parallel to web
J = Torsional Constant of box section
Other variables are defined in Section C3.1.2.1.
11. Section C3.1.3
Replace the whole section as follows:
C3.1.3 Beams Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheathing
This section does not apply to a continuous beam for the region between
inflection points adjacent to a support, or to a cantilever beam.
The nominal flexural strength, M
n
, of a C- or Z-section loaded in a plane
parallel to the web, with the tension flange attached to deck or sheathing and with the
compression flange laterally unbraced shall be calculated as follows:
M
n
=RS
e
F
y
(Eq. C3.1.3-1)
b
=1.67 (ASD)
b
=0.90 (LRFD)
where R is obtained from Table C3.1.3-1 for simple span C- or Z-sections, and
R = 0.60 for continuous span C-sections
= 0.70 for continuous span Z-sections
S
e
and F
y
are defined in Section C3.1.1.
The reduction factor, R, shall be limited to roof and wall systems meeting the
following conditions:
(1) Member depth less than 11.5 inches (292 mm)
(2) Member flanges shall have edge stiffeners
(3) 60 depth/thickness 170
(4) 2.8 depth/flange width 4.5
(5) 16 flat width/thickness of flange 43
(6) For continuous span systems, the lap length at each interior support in each
direction (distance from center of support to end of lap) shall not be less than
1.5 d
(7) Member span length shall be no greater than 33 feet (10 m)
(8) For continuous span systems, the longest member span length shall not be more
than 20% greater than the shortest span length
(9) Both flanges shall be prevented from moving laterally at the supports
(10) Roof or wall panels shall be steel sheets with 50 ksi (345 MPa) minimum yield
strength, and a minimum of 0.018 in. (0.46 mm) base metal thickness, having a
minimum rib depth of 1-1/4 in. (32 mm), spaced a maximum of 12 in. (305
mm) on centers and attached in a manner to effectively inhibit relative
movement between the panel and purlin flange
(11) Insulation shall be glass fiber blanket 0 to 6 inches (152mm) thick compressed
between the member and panel in a manner consistent with the fastener being
used
(12) Fastener type: minimum No. 12 self-drilling or self-tapping sheet metal screws
or 3/16 in. (4.76 mm) rivets, having washers 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) diameter
(13) Fasteners shall not be standoff type screws
(14) Fasteners shall be spaced not greater than 12 in. (305 mm) on centers and
placed near the center of the beam flange, and adjacent to the panel high rib
(15) The design yield strength of the member shall not exceed 60 ksi (414 MPa)
If variables fall outside any of the above stated limits, the user must perform full
scale tests in accordance with Section F1 of the Specification, or apply a rational
analysis procedure. In any case, the user is permitted to perform tests, in accordance
with Section F1, as an alternate to the procedure described in this section.
TABLE C3.1.3-1
Simple Span C- or Z-Section R Values
Depth Range, in. (mm) Profile R
D 6.5 (165) C or Z 0.70
6.5 (165) < d 8.5 (216) C or Z 0.65
8.5 (216) < d 11.5 (292) Z 0.50
8.5 (216) < d 11.5 (292) C 0.40
For simple span members, R shall be reduced for the effects of compressed
insulation between the sheeting and the member. The reduction shall be calculated by
multiplying R from Table 3.1.3-1 by the following correction factor, r:
r =1.00 - 0.01 t
i
when t
i
is in inches (Eq. C3.1.3-2)
r =1.00 - 0.0004 t
i
when t
i
is in millimeters (Eq. C3.1.3-3)
t
i
=thickness of uncompressed glass fiber blanket insulation
12. Section C3.1.4
Delete under gravity load, and change C3.1.2 to C3.1.2.1 in the first
paragraph.
The Base Test Method For Purlins Supporting a Standing Seam Roof System is
provided in Appendix A, in which the base test procedure for members subjected to
uplift loads is included.
13. Section C3.1.5
The following is a new added section for the design of standing seam roof panel
systems. The Standard Procedures for Panel and Anchor Structural Tests is provided in
Appendix B of this Supplement.
C3.1.5 Strength of Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems
When results of tests on standing seam roof panel systems conducted according
to ASTM E1592-95 are to be evaluated, the Standard Procedures for Panel and
Anchor Structural Tests of Part VIII of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual
shall be followed. Strength under uplift loading shall be evaluated by this procedure.
When the number of physical test assemblies is 3 or more, safety factors and
resistance factors shall be determined in accordance with the procedures of Section
F1.1(b) with the following definition for the variables:
0
= Target reliability index
= 2.0 for panel flexural limits
= 2.5 for anchor limits
F
m
= Mean value of the fabrication factor
= 1.0
M
m
= Mean value of the material factor
= 1.1
V
M
= Coefficient of variation of the material factor
= 0.08 for anchor failure mode
= 0.10 for other failure modes
V
F
= Coefficient of variation of the fabrication factor
= 0.05
V
Q
= Coefficient of variation of the load effect
= 0.21
V
P
= Actual calculated coefficient of variation of the test results, without limit
n = Number of anchors in the test assembly with same tributary area (for anchor failure), or
number of panels with identical spans and loading to the failed span (for non-anchor failures)
When the number of physical test assemblies is less than 3, a safety factor, , of
2.0 and a resistance factor, , of 0.5 shall be used.
14. Section C3.2
This section is revised to include two subsections: C3.2.1, Shear Strength of Webs
Without Holes, and C3.2.2, Shear Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes. Section C3.2.1
contains the design provisions given in current Section C3.2 (Note, the equation numbers in
current Section C3.2 need to be revised to (Eq. C3.2.1- accordingly), and Section C3.2.2 is
a new added section as provided in the following:
C3.2.2 Shear Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes
(1) d
0
/ h < 0.7
(2) h / t 200
(3) Holes centered at mid-depth of the web
(5) Non-circular holes corner radii 2t
0
2.5 in. (64 mm) and b 4.5 in. (114 mm)
(7) Circular hole diameters 6 in (152 mm)
(8) d
0
> 9/16 in. (14 mm)
The nominal shear strength, V
n
, determined by Section C3.2.1 shall be
multiplied by q
s
:
When c/t 54
q
s
= 1.0 (Eq. C3.2.2-1)
When 5 c/t < 54
q
s

= c/(54t) (Eq. C3.2.2-3)
where
c = h/2 - d
0
/2.83 for circular holes (Eq. C3.2.2-4)
= h/2 - d
0
/2 for non-circular holes (Eq. C3.2.2-5)
d
0
= Depth of web hole
15. Section C3.4
This section is revised to include two subsections: C3.4.1, Web Crippling Strength of
Webs Without Holes, and C3.4.2, Web Crippling Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes.
Section C3.4.1 contains the design provisions given in the current section C3.4 with revisions
as described below, and Section C3.4.2 is a new added section as provided subsequently.
Add subsection title C3.4.1 Web Crippling Strength of Webs Without Holes
below the section title.
Revise section number C3.4 referenced in current Section C3.4 to C3.4.1.
Revise Eqs. C3.4-1, C3.4-2, and C3.4-6 in current Section C3.4 to
t
2
kC
1
C
4
C
9
C
[331 - 0.61(h/t)] [1 + 0.01(N/t)] (Eq. C3.4.1-1)

t
2
kC
1
C
4
C
9
C
[217 - 0.28(h/t)] [1 + 0.01(N/t)] (Eq. C3.4.1-2)

t
2
kC
1
C
4
C
9
C
[244 - 0.57(h/t)] [1 + 0.01(N/t)] (Eq. C3.4.1-6)

Delete C3 = 1.33-0.33k and its corresponding equation number, replace with C3
(Not used), and reduce the subsequent each equation number by 1.
Delete the footnote on page V-53.
Revise the definition for yield stress to
F
y
= Yield point used in design of the web, see Section A7.1, ksi (MPa).
Add the following new section C3.4.2:
C3.4.2 Web Crippling Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes
When a web hole is within the bearing length, a bearing stiffener shall be used.
For beam webs with holes, the web crippling strength shall be computed by
using Section C3.4.1 multiplied by the reduction factor, R
c
, given in this section.
(1) d
0
/ h 0.7
(2) h / t 200
(3) Hole centered at mid-depth of the web
(5) Distance between the end of the member and the edge of the hole d
(6) Non-circular holes, corner radii 2t.
0
2.5 in. (64 mm) and b 4.5 in. (114 mm)
(8) Circular hole diameters 6 in. (152 mm)
(9) d
0
> 9/16 in. (14 mm)
For using Equations C3.4.1-1 and C3.4.1-2 when a web hole is not within the
bearing length:
R
c
= 0 . 1 h x 083 . 0 h d 325 . 0 01 . 1
0
+ (Eq. C3.4.2-1)
N 1 in. (25 mm)
For using Equation C3.4.1-4 when any portion of a web hole is not within the
bearing length:
R
c
= 0 . 1 h x 053 . 0 h d 047 . 0 90 . 0
0
+ (Eq. C3.4.2-2)
N 3 in. (76 mm)
where
d = Depth of cross section
d
0
= Depth of web hole
x = Nearest distance between the web hole and the edge of bearing
N = Bearing length
16. Section C3.5.1
Add the following two definitions before the definition for P:
b
= Factor of safety for bending (See Section C3.1.1)
w
= Factor of safety for web crippling (See Section C3.4)
17. Section C4
Delete (c) The slenderness ratio, KL/r, of all compression members preferably should
not exceed 200, except that during construction only, KL/r preferably should not exceed
300. This recommendation is moved to the Commentary (See Supplement to the
Commentary for details).
18. Section C6.1
Change 0.070 to 0.0714 and 0.319 to 0.318 both in the upper and the lower
limits for D/t.
19. Section C6.2
Eqs. C6.2-5 and C6.2-6 are revised as follows:
A
e
= ) A A ( R A
0 0
+ (Eq. C6.25)
R = 0 . 1 F 2 F
e y
(Eq. C6.26)
20. Section D3.2.1
Replace the second and third sentences in the first paragraph with If the top flanges
of all purlins face in the same direction, anchorage of the restraint shall satisfy the
requirements of Sections D3.2.1(a) and D3.2.1(b). If the top flanges of adjacent
lines of purlins face in opposite directions, a restraint system shall be provided to
resist the down-slope component of the total gravity load.
In the third paragraph, change braced Z-section to purlin.
Replace the section, (a) C-Sections, with the following:
(a) C-Sections
For roof systems using C-sections for purlins with all compression flanges facing
in the same direction, a system possessing restraint force, P
L
, in addition to
resisting other loading, shall be provided:
P
L
= (0.05cos - sin)W (Eq. D.3.2.1-1)
where
W= Total vertical load (nominal load for ASD, factored load for LRFD)
supported by all purlin lines being restrained. Where more than one brace is
used at a purlin line, the restraint force PL shall be divided equally between
all braces.
= +1 for purlin facing upward direction, and
-1 for purlin facing down slope direction.
= Angle between the vertical and the plane of the web of the C-section,
degrees.
A positive value for the force, P
L
, means that restraint is required to prevent
movement of the purlin flanges in the upward roof slope direction, and a negative
value means that restraint is required to prevent movement of purlin flanges in the
downward slope direction.
Increase the equation sequence number by 1 for all the equations in the section, (b)
Z-Sections.
Add cos to the first term in the square brackets of all the equations in the section,
(b) Z-Sections.
Add vertical after Total in the definition for W.
21. Section D3.3
Delete Section D3.3.
22. Section E2.6
The whole section is revised as follows:
The nominal shear strength, P
n
, of spot welds shall be determined as follows:
When t is in inches and P
n
is in kips:
For 0.01 in. t < 0.14 in.:
P
n
=
47 . 1
t 144 (Eq. E2.6-1)
For 0.14 in. t 0.18 in.:
P
n
= 43.4t + 1.93 (Eq. E2.6-2)
When t is in millimeters and P
n
is in kN:
For 0.25 mm t < 3.56 mm:
P
n
=
47 . 1
t 51 . 5 (Eq. E2.6-3)
For 3.56 mm t 4.57 mm:
P
n
= 7.6t + 8.57 (Eq. E2.6-4)
where t = Thickness of thinnest outside sheet.
= 2.50 (ASD)
= 0.65 (LRFD)
23. Section E2.7
E2.7 Shear Lag Effect in Welded Connections of Members Other Than
Flat Sheets
The nominal tensile strength of a welded member shall be determined in
accordance with Section C2. For fracture and/or yielding in the effective net section
of the connected part, the nominal tensile strength, P
n
P
n
= A
e
F
u
(Eq. E2.7-1)
= 2.50
= 0.60
F
u
Tensile strength of the connected part as specified in Section A3.1 or A3.3.2
A
e
= AU, effective net area with U defined as follows:
When the load is transmitted only by transverse welds:
A = Area of directly connected elements
U = 1.0
When the load is transmitted only by longitudinal welds or by longitudinal
welds in combination with transverse welds:
A = Gross area of member, A
g
U = 1.0 for members when the load is transmitted directly to all of the cross
sectional elements. Otherwise the reduction coefficient U is
determined as follows:
(a) For angle members:
U = 1.0 - 1.20 x L < 0.9 (Eq. E2.7-2)
but U shall not be less than 0.4.
(b) For channel members
U = 1.0 - 0.36 x L< 0.9 (Eq. E2.7-3)
x = Distance from shear plane to centroid of the cross section
L = Length of longitudinal welds
24. Section E3.2
Replace the whole section with the following:
E3.2 Shear Lag Effect in Bolted Connections
The nominal tensile strength of a bolted member shall be determined in
accordance with Section C2. For fracture and/or yielding in the effective net section
of the connected part, the nominal tensile strength, P
n
(1) For flat sheet connections not having staggered hole patterns:
P
n
= A
n
F
t
(Eq. E3.2-1)
(a) When washers are provided under both the bolt head and the nut:
F
t
= (1.0 - 0.9r + 3rd/s) F
u

< F
u
(Eq. E3.2-2)
For double shear:
= 2.0 (ASD)
= 0.65 (LRFD)
For single shear:
= 2.22 (ASD)
= 0.55 (LRFD)
(b) When either washers are not provided under the bolt head and the nut, or only
one washer is provided under either the bolt head or the nut:
F
t
= (1.0 - r + 2.5rd/s) F
u
< F
u

(Eq. E3.2-3)
= 2.22 (ASD)
= 0.65 (LRFD)
where
A
n
= Net area of the connected part
r = Force transmitted by the bolt or bolts at the section considered, divided
by the tension force in the member at that section. If r is less than 0.2, it
shall be permitted to be taken as equal to zero.
s = Spacing of bolts perpendicular to line of stress; or gross width of sheet
for a single line of bolts.
F
u
= Tensile strength of the connected part as specified in Section A3.1 or
A3.3.2
d is defined in Section E3.1
(2) For flat sheet connections having staggered hole patterns:
P
n
= A
n
F
t
(Eq. E3.2-4)
= 2.22
= 0.65
where
F
t
is determined as follows:
(a) For connections when washers are provided under both the bolt head and the nut:
F
t
= (1.0 - 0.9r + 3rd/s) F
u
F
u
(Eq. E3.2-5)
(b) For connections when no washers are provided under the bolt head and the
nut, or only one washer is provided under either the bolt head or the nut:
F
t
= (1.0 - r + 2.5rd/s) F
u
F
u
(Eq. E3.2-6)
A
n
= 0.90 [A
g
- n
b
d
h
t + (s
2
/4g)t] (Eq. E3.2-7)
A
g
= Gross area of member
s = Sheet width divided by the number of bolt holes in the cross section being analyzed
(when evaluating F
t
)
s = Longitudinal center-to-center spacing of any two consecutive holes
g = Transverse center-to-center spacing between fastener gage lines
n
b
= Number of bolt holes in the cross section being analyzed
d
h
= Diameter of a standard hole
t is defined in Section E3.1.
(3) For other than flat sheet:
P
n
= A
e
F
u
(Eq.E3.2-8)
= 2.22
= 0.65
where
F
u
= Tensile strength of the connected part as specified in Section A3.1 or
A3.3.2
A
e
= A
n
U, effective net area with U defined as follows:
U = 1.0 for members when the load is transmitted directly to all of the cross-
sectional elements. Otherwise, the reduction coefficient U is determined
as follows:
(a) For angle members having two or more bolts in the line of force
U = 1.0 - 1.20 x L < 0.9 (Eq. E3.2-9)
(b) For Channel members having two or more bolts in the line of force
U = 1.0 - 0.36 x L< 0.9 (Eq. E3.2-10)
x = Distance from shear plane to centroid of the cross section
L = Length of the connection
25. Section E3.3
Replace the first and the second paragraphs with the following:
When deformation around the bolt holes is not a design consideration, the
nominal bearing strength, P
n
, and applicable and shall be as given in Tables
E3.31 and E3.32 for the applicable thickness and F
u
/F
sy
ratio of the connected part
and the type of joint used in the connection.
When deformation around the bolt holes is a design consideration, the nominal
bearing strength shall also be limited by the following values:
P
n
= (4.64 t + 1.53)dtF
u
(with t in inches) (Eq. E3.3-1)
For SI Units:
P
n
= (0.183 t + 1.53)dtF
u
(with t in mm) (Eq. E3.3-2)
And
= 2.22
= 0.65
The symbols , , d, F
u
, e and t in Tables E3.3-1 and E3.3-2 are defined in
Sections E3.1 and E.3.2. For conditions not shown, the design bearing strength of
bolted connections shall be determined by tests.
Change the lower limit of thickness, t, in Tables E3.3-1 and E3.3-2 from 0.024 in.
to 0.036 in. and the corresponding metric units from 0.61 mm to 0.91 mm.
26. Section E5
The section title is changed to E5, Rupture, and three subsections are included: E5.1,
Shear Rupture; E5.2, Tension Rupture; and E5.3, Block Shear Rupture. Subsection E5.1
contains the design provisions given in current Section E5, and Subsections E5.2, and E5.3
are the new added sections. Changes to current Section E5 and the content of the new
sections are provided as follows:
Change the variable in the equation for A
wc
from d
wc
to h
wc
and revise the
definitions to h
wc
= Coped flat web depth and F
u
= Tensile strength of the
connected part as specified in Section A3.1 or A3.3.2.
Add the following two new sections:
E5.2 Tension Rupture
The nominal tensile rupture strength along a path in the affected elements of
connected members shall be determined by Section E2.7 or E3.2 for welded or bolted
connections, respectively.
E5.3 Block Shear Rupture
The nominal block shear rupture design strength, R
n
, shall be determined as
follows:
(a) When F
u
A
nt
0.6F
u
A
nv
R
n
= 0.6F
y
A
gv
+ F
u
A
nt
(Eq. E5.3-1)
(b) When F
u
A
nt
< 0.6F
u
A
nv
R
n
= 0.6F
u
A
nv
+ F
y
A
gt
(Eq. E5.3-2)
For bolted connections:
=2.22
=0.65
For welded connections:
=2.50
=0.60
where
A
gv
= Gross area subject to shear
A
gt
= Gross area subject to tension
A
nv
= Net area subject to shear
A
nt
= Net area subject to tension
27. Section E6.1
Replace the whole section as follows:
Proper provisions shall be made to transfer bearing forces from steel
components covered by the Specification to adjacent structural components made of
other materials.
28. Section F1
Add the following entry to Table F1 on page V-99 as the last entry:
Type of Component M
m
V
M
F
m
V
F
Structural Members Not Listed Above 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.05

Add the following entry to Table F1 on page V-100 as the last entry:
Type of Component M
m
V
M
F
m
V
F
Connections Not Listed Above 1.10 0.10 1.00 0.15

23 Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1-Appendix A
APPENDIX A:
BASE TEST METHOD
FOR PURLINS SUPPORTING
A STANDING SEAM ROOF SYSTEM
1. Scope
1.1 The purpose of this test is to obtain the reduction factor to be used in determining the nominal
flexural strength of a purlin supporting a standing seam roof system. The reduction factor reflects the
ability of a particular standing seam roof system to provide lateral and rotational support to the purlins to
which it is attached. This applies to discrete lateral and torsional bracing when the sheeted flange of the
purlin is the compression flange, as in gravity loading cases, and when the unsheeted flange is the
compression flange, as in wind uplift cases.
1.2 This test method applies to an assembly consisting of the standing seam panel, purlin, and
attachment devices used in the system being tested. The test specimen boundary conditions described in
Section 6.6 apply only to standing seam roof systems for which the roof deck is positively anchored to
the supporting structural system at one or more purlin or eave member lines.
1.3 Due to the many different types and construction of standing seam roof systems and their
attachments, it is not practical to develop a generic method to predict the interaction of a particular
standing seam roof system and supporting structure. Therefore, the amount of resisting moment which
the supporting purlins can achieve can vary from the fully braced condition to the unbraced condition for
a given system.
1.4 This test method provides the designer with a means of establishing a nominal flexural strength
reduction factor for purlins in a simple span or continuous span, multiple purlin line, supporting a
standing seam roof system, from the results of tests on a single-span, two-purlin line, sample of the
system. The validity of this test method has been established by a research program at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University and documented in References 1 through 6.
2. Applicable Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
A370 - Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products
2.2 AISI Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, 1996 Edition.
3. Terminology
3.1 ASTM Definition Standards:
E6 - Definitions of Terms Relating to Methods of Mechanical Testing.
E380 - Practice for Use of the International System of Units (SI).
3.2 Description of terms specific to this standard:
fixed clip - a hold down clip which does not allow the roof panel to move independently of the roof
substructure
insulation - glass fiber blanket or rigid board
lateral - a direction normal to the span of the purlins in the plane of the roof sheets
thermal block - strips of rigid insulation located directly over the purlin between clips
negative moment - a moment which causes tension in the purlin flange attached to the clips and
Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1-Appendix A 24
standing seam panels
pan type standing seam roof - a "U" shaped panel which has vertical sides
positive moment - a moment which causes compression in the purlin flange attached to the clips and
standing seam panels
rib type standing seam roof - a panel which has ribs with sloping sides and forms a trapezoidal
shaped void at the side lap
sliding clip - a hold down clip which allows the roof panel to move independently of the roof
substructure
standing seam roof system - a roof system in which the side laps between the roof panels are arranged
in a vertical position above the roof line. The roof panel system is secured to the purlins by
means of concealed hold down clips that are attached to the purlins with mechanical fasteners
3.3 Symbols:
b = Flange width of the purlin
d = Depth of the purlin
B = Purlin spacing
F
y
= Design yield strength
F
yt
= Measured yield strength of tested purlin
L = Span of the purlins tested, center to center of the supports
M
n
= Nominal flexural strength of a fully constrained beam, S
e
F
y
min
nt
M = Average flexural strength of the thinnest sections tested
max
nt
M = Average flexural strength of the thickest sections tested
M
nt
= Flexural strength of a tested purlin, S
et
F
yt
M
ts
= Failure moment for the single span purlins tested, w
ts
L
2
/8
p
d
= Weight of the specimen (force/area)
p
ts
= Failure load (force/area) of the single span system tested
P
L

= Lateral anchorage force in accordance with Section D3.2.1 of the AISI Specification
R
t
= Modification factor from test, M
ts
/M
nt
R = Reduction factor computed for nominal purlin properties
min
t
R = Mean minus one standard deviation of the modification factors of the three thinnest
purlins tested
max
t
R = Mean minus one standard deviation of the modification factors of the three thickest
purlins tested
s = Tributary width of the purlins tested
S
e
= Section modulus of the effective section
S
et
= Section modulus of the effective section of the tested member using measured
dimensions and the measured yield strength
t = Purlin thickness
w
ts
= Failure load (force/length) of the single span purlins tested
4. Significance
4.1 This test method provides the requirements for evaluating the resisting moment for cold-formed C-
and Z-sections used with standing seam roof systems. This procedure is referred to as the Base Test
Method. The method is the result of extensive testing of various combinations of purlins, standing
seam panels, and fastening devices. The tests were conducted over several years, benefiting from the
experience provided by technical and industry experts. This procedure utilizes the results obtained from
single span tests to predict the strength of multi-span conditions.
4.2 The Base Test Method shall be permitted to be used to evaluate the nominal flexural strength of C-
and Z-sections of multi-span, multiple purlin line, standing seam systems, with or without discrete
intermediate braces.
4.3 The Base Test Method is applicable to both rib or pan type standing seam roof panels with
sliding or fixed type clips.
4.4 The Base Test Method shall be conducted using standing seam roof panels, clips, fasteners,
insulation, thermal blocks, discrete braces, and purlins as used in the actual standing seam roof system
except as noted in Section 4.5.
4.5 Tests conducted with insulation are applicable to identical systems with thinner or no insulation.
5. Apparatus
5.1 A test chamber capable of supporting a positive or negative internal pressure differential is
necessary. A rectangular frame shall be constructed of any material with sufficient strength and rigidity
to provide the desired pressure differential without collapse. A typical test chamber is shown on Figure
1. Other chamber orientations shall be permitted.
DEFLECTION DIRECTIONS
SUPPORT BEAM
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
VERTICAL
L
O
N
G
I
T
U
D
I
N
A
L
L3x3x1/4
L1x1x1/8
PURLINS
STANDING SEAM
PANELS
Figure 1 Test Chamber
5.2 The length of the chamber shall be determined by the maximum length of the secondary members
as required by Section 7.2. The width of the chamber shall be determined by the maximum panel length
as required by Section 6.9. Allowance shall be made in the interior chamber dimensions to
accommodate structural supports for the secondary members and sufficient clearance on all sides to
prevent interference of the chamber wall with the test specimen as it deflects.
5.3 The height of the chamber shall be sufficient to permit assembly of the specimen and to insure
adequate clearance at the maximum deflection of the specimen.
5.4 The chamber shall be sealed in a manner to prevent air leakage. All load carrying elements of the
specimen or its supports shall transfer the load to the frame support; the specimen, including
intermediate brace, shall not be attached to the chamber in any manner that would impede the deflection
of the specimen.
5.5 The test chamber shall be sealed against air leakage by applying 6 mil (0.15 mm) maximum
thickness polyethylene sheets, large enough to accommodate the system configuration and deflections.
The polyethylene shall be located on the high pressure side of the panel with sufficient folds so as not to
inhibit the spread of panel ribs under load. Edges of the polyethylene sheets shall be sealed against air
leakage with tape or other suitable methods. Polyethylene sheets around the perimeter of the specimen
shall be draped so as not to impede deflection or deformation of the specimen.
5.6 When a specimen smaller than the test chamber is tested, other panels and structure shall be
installed to complete the coverage of the chamber opening. No attachment shall be made between the
test specimen and this supplemental coverage.
5.7 An air pump is necessary to create the pressure differential in the chamber. The pump shall be of
sufficient capacity to reach the expected test values required by the applicable specifications.
5.8 The type of air pump being used will determine the method of control. This control shall be able to
regulate the pressure differential in the chamber to t 1 psf (0.05 kPa). This can be accomplished by (a) a
variable speed motor on the pump, (b) valving on the pump, or (c) variable size orifices on the chamber.
It shall be permitted to use multiple pumps where very large chambers are being used. One pump
connection to the chamber is satisfactory.
5.9 A minimum of two pressure differential measuring devices shall be monitored throughout the
duration of the test. These devices shall be capable of measuring the pressure differential to t 1 psf
(0.05 kPa).
6. Test Specimens
6.1 Test purlins shall be supported at each end by a steel beam. The beams shall be simply supported
and one of the frame end beams shall be sufficiently free to translate laterally to relieve any longitudinal
catenary forces in the specimen. Purlins shall be connected to the supporting beams as recommended in
the field erection drawings. Figure 1 shows the directional axes that are referred to in this test
procedure.
6.2 Panel supporting clips, fasteners, and panels shall be installed as recommended in the field erection
drawings.
6.3 Means of providing restraint of purlins at the support shall be as required for use in actual field
application, and shall be installed as recommended on the field erection drawings.
6.4 The purlins shall be arranged either with their flanges facing in the same direction or with their
flanges opposed. If the test is performed with the purlins opposed, and they are field installed with their
flanges facing in the same direction, a diaphragm test must be conducted in accordance with Section 8.7.
6.5 For tests including intermediate discrete point braces, the braces used in the test shall be installed in
such a manner so as not to impede the vertical deflection of the specimen.
6.6 A 1 in. x 1 in. (25 mm x 25 mm) continuous angle with a maximum thickness of 1/8 in. (3 mm) or a
member of compatible stiffness shall be attached to the underside at each end of the panels to prevent
separation of the panels at the ends of the seam. Fasteners shall be placed on both sides of each major
rib. If the specimen is arranged with the purlin flanges facing in the same direction, a 3 in. x 3 in. (76
mm x 76 mm) continuous angle with a maximum thickness of 1/4 in. (6 mm) or a member of compatible
stiffness shall be permitted to be substituted for the 1 in. x 1 in. (25 mm x 25 mm) angle at the end of the
panel, corresponding to the eave of the building using the standard panel to eave fastening system. (See
Figure 1)
6.7 All transverse panel ends shall be left free to displace vertically under load. When the 3 in. x 3 in.
(76 mm x 76 mm) eave angle is used when the purlin flanges face in the same direction, it shall be
permitted to be restrained against horizontal deflection at its ends as shown in Figure 1, providing
vertical deflection is left unrestrained.
6.8 Panel joints shall not be taped and no tape shall be used to restrict panel movement.
6.9 Panel length to be used in the test shall be, as a minimum, that length which provides full
engagement of the panel to purlin clip and attachment of the 1 in. x 1 in. (25 mm x 25 mm) angle at the
panel ends; but a length not greater than that required to achieve zero slope of the panel at the purlin
support.
6.10 The spacing of purlins being tested shall not exceed the spacing typically used with the roof
system. Results from this test shall be permitted to be used in designing purlins of the same profile that
are spaced closer together than the spacing used in the tests.
7. Test Procedure
7.1 A test series shall be conducted for each purlin profile, specified steel grade, and each panel system.
Any variation in the characteristics or dimensions of panel or clip constitute a change in panel system.
The thickness of insulation used in the test is discussed in Section 4.5. Any change in purlin shape or
dimension other than thickness constitutes a change in profile. However, the lip dimension shall be
permitted to vary with section thickness consistent with the member design and not constitute a change
in profile.
7.2 No fewer than six tests shall be run for each combination of purlin profile and panel system. Three
tests shall be conducted with the thinnest purlin of the profile and three tests shall be conducted with the
thickest purlin of the profile. All tests shall be conducted using the same purlin span which shall be the
same or greater than the span used in actual field conditions.
7.3 The physical and material properties shall be determined in accordance with ASTM A370 using
coupons taken from the web area of the failed purlin. Coupons shall not be taken from areas where cold-
working stresses could affect the results.
7.4 For gravity loading, a pressure differential load shall be applied to the system to produce a positive
moment in the system. A positive moment is defined as one which causes compression in the purlin
flange attached to the clips and standing seam panels. For uplift loading, a pressure differential load
shall be applied to the system to produce a negative moment in the system. A negative moment is
defined as one which causes tension in the purlin flange attached to the clips and standing seam panels.
7.5 An initial load equal to 5 psf (0.25 kPa) differential pressure in the direction of the test load shall be
applied and removed to set the zero readings before actual system loading begins.
7.6 The system shall be loaded to failure and the mode of failure noted. Failure is the point at which the
specimen will accept no further loading. The pressure differential at which the system fails shall be
recorded as the failure load of the specimen. When the test must be stopped due to a flexural failure of
the panel or web crippling of the purlin, it shall be permitted to exclude the test from the test program.
7.7 Vertical deflection measurements shall be taken at the mid-span of both purlins. The deck
deflection in the horizontal direction shall be measured at the seam joint nearest the center of the test
specimen.
7.8 Deflections and pressures shall be recorded at pressure intervals equal to a maximum of 20 percent
of the anticipated failure load.
8. Test Evaluation
8.1 The single span failure load is obtained from the Base Test where a uniform load is applied until
failure occurs. The computation of the failure load, w
ts
, is dependent on the purlin orientation for Z-
purlins and on the nature of the load as follows:
For Z-purlins tested for gravity loading, with flanges facing the same direction and with the top flanges
of the purlins not restrained by anchorage to a point external to the panel/purlin system:
,
_
+
B
d
2P + )s p (p = w
L
d ts ts
where
s ) p p (
t d
b
041 . 0 P
d ts
0.60 0.90
1.5
L
+
,
_
For Z-purlins tested for gravity loading with flanges opposed and for C-sections tested for gravity
loading:
)s p (p = w
d ts ts
+
For Z-purlins or C-sections tested for uplift loading:
)s p (p = w
d ts ts

The expression 2P
L
(d/B) takes into account the effect of the overturning moment on the system due to
the anchorage forces, as defined in Section D3.2.1 of the AISI Specification, applied at the top flange of
the purlin by the panel and resisted at the bottom flange of the purlin at the support. The expression
2P
L
(d/B) is to be applied only to Z-sections under gravity loading when the purlin flanges are facing in
the same direction, but shall not be included in those systems where discrete point braces are used when
the braces are restrained from lateral movement.
8.2 From the single span failure load, w
ts
, the maximum single span failure moment M
ts
is calculated
as:
M
ts
= w
ts
L
2
/ 8
8.3 The single span base test moment is the maximum moment the system can resist with the purlin size
used in the test. The maximum allowable moment of a roof system purlin, simple span or continuous, is
limited by the results of this test. The gravity load results apply for positive moment regions in the span
and uplift load results apply for negative moment regions in the span.
8.4 Using Section C3.1.1(a) of the AISI Specification, the flexural strength of each tested purlin, M
nt
, of
a fully constrained beam is calculated as:
M
nt
= S
et
F
yt
where S
et
is the section modulus of the effective section calculated using the measured cross-sectional
dimensions and measured yield strength and F
yt
is the measured yield strength obtained in accordance
with Section 7.3.
8.5 The modification factor, R
t
, is calculated for each purlin tested as:
R
t
= M
ts
/ M
nt
8.6 For purlins of the same profile, specified steel grade, and panel system as tested, the reduction factor
shall be determined from the following equation:
( ) 0 . 1 R M M
M M
R R
R
min
t nt n
nt nt
min
t
max
t
min
min max
+
,
_
where
min
t
R = Mean minus one standard deviation of the modification factors of the three thinnest
purlins tested, calculated in accordance with Section 8.5. This value may be greater than
1.0
max
t
R = Mean minus one standard deviation of the modification factors of the three thickest
purlins tested, calculated in accordance with Section 8.5. This value may be greater than
1.0
M
n
= Nominal flexural strength of section for which R is being evaluated (S
e
F
y
)
min
nt
M = Average flexural strength of the thinnest section tested, calculated in accordance with
Section 8.4
max
nt
M = Average flexural strength of the thickest section tested, calculated in accordance with
Section 8.4
8.7 If the test is performed with the purlins opposed or with an eave member at one or more edges, the
diaphragm strength and stiffness of the panel system must be tested unless the purlins are also opposed
in actual field usage. The anchorage forces for the system braced in the manner tested shall be
calculated in accordance with Section D3.2.1 of the AISI Specification. The diaphragm strength of the
panel system must be equal to or greater than the calculated brace force at the failure load of the purlin.
The stiffness of the diaphragm must be such that the deflection of the diaphragm is equal to or less than
the purlin span divided by 360 when subjected to the calculated brace force at the failure load of the
purlin.
9. Test Report
9.1 Documentation - The report shall include who performed the test and a brief description of the
system being tested.
9.2 The documentation shall include test details with a drawing showing the test fixture and indicating
the components and their locations. A written description of the test setup detailing the basic concept,
loadings, measurements, and assembly shall be included.
9.3 The report shall include a drawing showing the actual geometry of all specimens including material
specifications and test results defining the actual material properties - material thickness, yield strength,
tensile strength, and percent elongation.
9.4 The report shall include the test designation, loading increments, displacements, mode of failure,
failure load, and specimen included for each test.
9.5 The report shall include a description summarizing the test program results to include specimen
type, span, failure moments for the test series, and the supporting calculations.
References
(1) S. Brooks and T. Murray, Evaluation of the Base Test Method for Predicting the Flexural trength of
Standing Seam Roof Systems Under Gravity Loading, MBMA Project 403, VPI Report No. CE/VPI-
ST89/07, Metal Building Manufacturers Association, 1300 Sumner Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44115, July
1989, Revised November 1990.
(2) S. Brooks and T. Murray, "A Method for Determining the Strength of Z- and C-Purlin Supported
Standing Seam Roof Systems", Proceedings of the Tenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-
Formed Steel Structures, St. Louis, October 23-24, 1990, pp. 421-440.
(3) L. Rayburn and T. Murray, Base Test Method for Gravity Loaded Standing Seam Roof Systems,
MBMA Project 502, VPI Report No. CE/VPI-ST90/07, Metal Building Manufacturers Association, 1300
Sumner Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44115, December 1990.
(4) T. Murray and B. Anderson, Base Test Method for Standing Seam Roof Systems Subject to Uplift
Loading - Phase I, MBMA Project 501, VPI Report No. CE/VPI-ST90/06, Metal Building
Manufacturers Association, 1300 Sumner Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44115, December 1990, Revised
December 1991.
(5) T. Murray and A. Pugh, Base Test Method for Standing Seam Roof Systems Subject to Uplift
Loading - Phase II, MBMA Project 602, VPI Report No. CE/VPI-ST91/17, Metal Building
Manufacturers Association, 1300 Sumner Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44115, December 1991.
(6) T. Murray, Base Test Method for Uplift Loading - Final Report, MBMA Project 501, 602 and 702,
VPI Report No. CE/VPI-ST-97/10, Metal Building Manufacturers Association, 1300 Sumner Ave.,
Cleveland, Ohio 44115, November 1997.
Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1-Appendix B 31
APPENDIX B:
STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR
PANEL AND ANCHOR STRUCTURAL TESTS
1. Scope
This procedure extends and provides methodology for interpretation of results of tests performed
according to ASTM E1592-95.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E1592-95, Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Sheet Metal Roof and Siding Systems
by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference
A370-97 Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products
2.2 AISI Standards:
Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Members, 1996 Edition.
Base Test Method for Purlins Supporting a Standing Seam Roof System, AISI Cold Formed Steel
Design Manual, Chapter VIII
3. Terminology
3.1 Refer to Section 3, ASTM E1592-95.
3.2 Additional or Modified Terminology
3.2.1 clip, a single or multiple element device that frequently attaches to one edge of a panel and is
fastened to the secondary structural members with one or more screws.
3.2.2 field, the area that is not included in high pressure edge strip conditions. For purposes of the test,
a field condition is modeled when the pan distortions are independent of end and edge restraint.
3.2.3 pan, the relatively flat portion of a panel between ribs.
3.2.4 tributary area, the area directly supported by the structural member between adjacent supports.
3.2.5 trim, the sheet metal used in the finish of a building especially around openings, and at the
intersection of surfaces such as roof and walls.
3.2.6 ultimate load, the difference in static air pressure at which failure of the specimen occurs,
expressed in load per unit area, and is further defined as the point where the panel system cannot sustain
additional loading.
3.2.7 unlatching failure, disengagement of a panel seam or anchor that occurs in an unloaded assembly
due to permanent set or distortion that occurred when the assembly was loaded. This permanent set is
not always detectable from readings taken normal to the panel. It is deemed to be a serviceability failure
until a strength failure occurs, as defined in 3.2.6, ultimate load.
4. Summary of the Test Method
4.1 Refer to the requirements of Section 4, ASTM E1592-95.
5. Significance and End Use
5.2 The end use of the procedure is the determination of allowable load carrying capacity of panels
and/or their anchors under gravity or suction loading for use in a design procedure.
6. Test Apparatus
32 Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1-Appendix B
7. Safety Precautions
8. Test Specimens
8.1 Refer to the requirements of Section 8, ASTM E1 592-95.
8.2 Specimen Width - Edge seals shall not contain attachments that restrict deflection of the test panel
in the field in any way. No additional structural attachments that would resist deflection of the field of
the test panels are permitted.
8.2.1 The test panel ribs shall be installed parallel to the long side of the test chamber.
8.3 Number of Tests
8.3.1 Tests shall use minimum thickness of support members (secondary structures) and maximum
panel span. If results are to be interpolated for other values, the other extremes must be tested in order to
justify an interpolation procedure.
8.3.2 Tests shall be conducted to evaluate the field condition.
9. Calibration
10. Procedures
10.1 Refer to the requirements of Section 10, ASTM E1592-95
11. Test Evaluation
11.1 Safety factors and resistance factors shall be determined in accordance with the procedures in
Chapter F and Section C3.1.5 of the AISI Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural
Members.
11.2 If a separate test series is performed to evaluate edge conditions and the results exceed the field
case by greater than one standard deviation, a separate design allowable is permitted to be established for
edge conditions.
11.3 A qualified design professional shall analyze deflections and permanent set data to assure that
deflections and permanent set are acceptable at service loads.
12. Test Report
12.2 Report the resistance factor and/or the safety factor based on the Section C3.1.5 for the test
results. If the factor of safety is defined, report the allowable uniform design strength of the panel
system. If the allowable design strengths of the panel and anchors are determined separately, they shall
be reported separately.
12.3 If intermediate values are to be calculated for different spacings of anchors or secondary
structures, the basis of the interpolation shall be stated in the report. If the failure modes are different on
any two tests, interpolation between these two tests is not permitted.
12.4 The design professional shall include in the report the observation as to the acceptability of
deflections and permanent set data at service loads.
Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1-Appendix B 33
COMMENTARY ON THE STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR
PANEL AND ANCHOR STRUCTURAL TESTS
1. Scope
The scope of the Procedure is for testing single skin panel systems. The procedure is based on ASTM
E1592-95 with specific additions to define the required safety factors for a design procedure. Edge strip
detail confirmation is permitted by the test method.
2. Reference Documents
The previously developed standards, ASTM E1592-95 and the AISI Base Test Method have been used
in the development of this procedure.
3. Terminology
To promote accuracy and understanding, frequently used terms need mutual understanding. This list
includes the terms from ASTM E1592-95 with additions and modifications.
5. Significance and End Use
Currently, there are several organizations that have test procedures to determine product performance,
but the procedures are limited to one product configuration and do not have provisions to provide the
basis for a complete design procedure covering the evaluation of a safety factor for a range of product
configurations. Therefore, this new Standard Procedure was developed.
6. Test Apparatus
The apparatus defined in this section is specific enough to accomplish the purpose, yet broad enough to
allow many facilities to perform tests. The size of the specimen is the most important criteria. Whether
or not the apparatus consists of two sections with the specimen in between is not a major issue.
Measurement of rib spread has dubious value except when seam disengagement is the failure
mechanism. In that case, measurements tend to substantiate the failure mechanism.
7. Safety Precautions
In addition to other precautions, care must be exercised in taking the deflection readings required in this
procedure.
8. Test Specimens
The size of a test specimen has been found to be an important element in demonstrating product
performance. Minimum sizes are defined, but larger sizes are allowed. It is understood that many
products are offered to the market that have insufficient usage to justify a large test program yet proof of
performance to some degree is required. The procedure is developed to allow a single test with a
corresponding penalty due to the reduced degree of demonstrated reliability with only a single test. The
procedures of Section F provide for the reward/penalty relationship developed with increasing number of
tests and the associated coefficient of variation.
Minimum specimen size is as required in ASTM E1592-95. The minimum specimen length of 24 ft. (7.3
m) for the condition of constraint at both ends is consistent with the requirements of Factory Mutual
Procedure 4471 (1995). However, in the FM tests, panels are fastened down at all edges and it is termed
a field test. The details of the FM test do not meet the ASTM E1592-95 tests in many conditions. A
purlin space of 5 ft. (1.5 m) requires 5 spans with both ends restrained. If one end is left free, the FM test
will meet E-1592-95. The application is also different in many cases because typically FM tests are run
34 Draft Version No. 1 of 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1-Appendix B
with both ends restrained and this is used as a field test. Different results may be obtained when using
the three variations of panel end restraints in the test procedure that are allowed by E 1592-95.
When totaling the number (n) of anchors tested for evaluation of C
p
under the AISI Specification Section
C3.1.5, it is permissible to include all fasteners with the same tributary area as that associated with a
failed anchor instead of merely totaling the number of physical tests run on a complete assembly. When
totaling the number (n) of panels tested for evaluation of C
p
under the AISI Specification Section C3.1.5,
it is permissible to include all panels with the same tributary area as that associated with a failed panel
instead of merely totaling the number of physical tests run on a complete assembly
Consideration is given to the minimum spacings and material thicknesses. If allowables developed
under this procedure are intended to be used in a design procedure that encompasses different secondary
structural support spacings or thinner sections for anchors to attach to, the extremes must be tested in
order for interpolation to be valid. This precedent is established in the AISI Base Test Method for
validating the performance of purlins braced by standing seam roof panels.
10. Procedures
The procedures for loading the specimen, while not complicated, need to be defined consistent with
other existing and recognized standards. A significant difference between this procedure and the AISI
Base Test Method is the return to zero load after each load increment.
11. Test Evaluation
See Section C3.1.5 of the Commentary for the AISI Specification.
12. Test Report
The definition of items to be included in the report includes the typical list of failure loads and plots of
load versus deformation. Of paramount importance is the calculation of the resistance factor and safety
factor of design strength or allowable design strength for panels and anchors. This procedure is an
addition to those required in ASTM E1592-95. If interpolation is to be a part of the resulting design
process, then appropriate interpolation procedure should be set forth in the report.
REFERENCES:
Factory Mutual Research (1995) Approval Standard for Class I Panel Roofs, Class Number 4471,
August 1995.
COMMENTARY
ON THE 1996 EDITION OF THE
SPECIFICATION
FOR THE DESIGN OF
COLD-FORMED
STEEL STRUCTURAL
MEMBERS
1996 EDITION
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
36 Draft Version No. 1 of Commentary on 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1
The material contained herein has been developed by the American Iron and Steel
Institute Committee on Specifications for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members. The Committee has made a diligent effort to present accurate, reliable, and useful
information on cold-formed steel design. The Committee acknowledges and is 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 Supplement to
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 AISI will publish updates of this material as new information
become available, but this can not 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 April 2000
Produced by American Iron and Steel Institute
Washington, DC
Copyright American Iron and Steel Institute 2000
Draft Version No. 1 of Commentary on 1996 AISI Cold-Formed Steel Specification Supplement No. 1 37
COMMENTARY ON AISI 1996 SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN
OF COLD-FORMED STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
JULY 30, 1999
1. Section A3.1
In the second paragraph, change High-Strength, Low-Alloy (HSLA) steel to
High-Strength, Low-Alloy Steel (HSLAS).
Make the following changes in the fourth paragraph:
Change the first sentence to For the listed ASTM Standards, the yield
points of steels range from 24 to 80 ksi (165 to 552 MPa) and ,
Change the third sentence to Exceptions are ASTM A653 SS Grade 80,
ASTM A611 Grade E, ASTM SS A792 SS Grade 80, and ASTM A875 SS
Grade 80 , and
Change structural quality in the last sentence to SS.
2. Section A3.3
Change structural quality to SS in the following locations:
Two places in the third sentence of the second paragraph, and
Two places in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph
In the third paragraph, add the following sentence after the sentence ending with
(Yu, 1991):
Futher information on the test procedure should be obtained from Standard
Methods for Determination of Uniform and Local Ductility, Cold-Formed
Steel Design Manual, PartVIII (1996).
Replace the last paragraph with the following:
In the past, the limit of the yield point used in design to 75 percent of the
specified minimum yield point, or 60 ksi (414 MPa), and the tensile strength used in
design to 75 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength, or 62 ksi (427 MPa)
whichever was lower, introduced a higher safety factor, but still made low ductility
steels, such as SS Grade 80 and Grade E, useful for the named applications.
Based on the recent UMR research findings (Wu, Yu, and LaBoube, 1996),
Equation A3.3.2-1 is added in Section A3.3.2 under an Exception Clause to determine
the reduced yield point, R
b
F
y
, for the calculation of the nominal flexural strength of
multiple-web section such as roofing, siding and floor decking. For the unstiffened
compression flange, Equation A3.3.2-2 is added on the basis of a 1988 UMR study
(Pan and Yu, 1988). This new revision allows the use of a higher nominal bending
strength than previous editions of the AISI Specification. When the multiple-web
section is composed of both stiffened and unstiffened compression flange elements,
the smallest R
b
should be used to determine the reduced yield point for use on the
entire section. Different values of the reduced yield point could be used for positive
and negative moments.
The equations provided in the Exception Clause can also be used for calculating
the nominal flexural strength when the design strengths are determined on the basis of
tests as permitted by the alternative method.
It should be noted that the Exception Clause 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 of deck panels, although the UMR
study (Wu, Yu, and LaBoube, 1997) shows that the specified minimum yield point
can be used to calculate the web crippling strength of deck panels, the Specification is
adopting a conservative approach in Section C3.4.1. The lesser of 0.75 F
y
and 60 ksi
(414 MPa) is used to determine both the web crippling strength and the shear strength
for the low ductility steels. This is consistent with the previous edition of the
Specification.
Another UMR study (Koka, Yu, and LaBoube, 1997) confirmed that for the
connection design using SS Grade 80 of A653 steel, the tensile strength used in design
should be taken as 75 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength or 62 ksi (427
MPa), whichever is less. It should be noted that the current AISI design provisions are
limited only to the design of members and connections subjected to static loading
without the considerations of fatigue strength.
3. Section A7.1
Update the year of the ASTM A370 recent edition to (ASTM, 1997), referenced in the
first paragraph.
4. Section A8
Change of to or in condition 2.
5. Section B2.4
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.
The Specification does not address edge stiffened openings.
The UMR design recommendations for a web with stress gradient are based on
the tests of full-scale C-section beams having h/t ratios as large as 200 and d
0
/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 in. diameter holes.
Based on the study by Shan et al. (1994), it was determined that the nominal
bending strength of a C-section with a web hole is unaffected when d
0
/h < 0.38. For
situations where the d
0
/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 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 b

and d
0
that may be used for a multiple hole pattern that fits within a non-circular
virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-2 illustrates the d
0
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.
b
d
0
Figure C-B2.4-1 Virtual Hole Method for Multiple Openings
d
0
Figure C-B2.4-2 Virtual Hole Method for Opening Exceeding Limit
6. Section B6.1
Add the following paragraph to the end of the section:
In 1999, the upper limit of w/t
s
ratio for the unstiffened elements of cold-formed
steel transverse stiffeners has been revised from 0.37
ys
F E to 0.42
ys
F E for the
reason that the former was calculated based on the allowable stress design approach,
while the latter is based on effective area approach. The revision provides the same
basis for the stiffened and unstiffened elements of cold-formed steel transverse
stiffeners.
7. Section C2
C2 Tension Members
As described in Specification Section C2, the nominal tensile strength of axially
loaded cold-formed steel tension members is determined either by yielding of the
gross area of the cross-section or by fracture of the net area of the cross section. At
locations of connections, the nominal tensile strength is also limited by the capacities
specified in Specification Sections E2.7, E3, and E4 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 is well established in hot-rolled steel construction.
For the LRFD Method, the resistance factor of
t
= 0.75 used for fracture of the
net section is consistent with the factor used in the AISC LRFD Specification
(AISC, 1993). The resistance factor
t
0.90 used for yielding in the gross section
was selected to be consistent with the AISC LRFD Specification (AISC, 1993).
8. Section C3.1.2
Section C3.1.2, Lateral-Torsional Buckling, includes two subsections: C3.1.2.1, Lateral-
Torsional Buckling Strength for Open Cross Section Members, and C3.1.2.2, Lateral-
Torsional Buckling Strength for Closed Box Members. The content of both subsections is
provided as follows:
C3.1.2.1Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Open Cross Section
Members
The bending capacity of flexural members is not only governed by the strength
of the cross section, but can also be limited by the lateral-torsional buckling strength
of the member if braces are not adequately provided. The design provisions for
determining the nominal lateral-torsional buckling strength are given in Specification
Section C3.1.2.1.
If a doubly-symmetric or singly-symmetric member in bending is laterally
unbraced, it can fail in lateral-torsional buckling. In the elastic range, the critical
lateral-torsional buckling stress can be determined by Equation C-C3.1.2.1-1.
t ey
f
o
2
w
2
y
f
cr
S
Ar
GJL
EC
1 GJ EI
LS
=
,
_
(C-C3.1.2.1-1)
In the above equation,
ey
and
t
are the elastic buckling stresses as defined in
Eq. C3.1.2.1-8 and Eq. C3.1.2.1-9, respectively, E is the modulus of elasticity, G is the
shear modulus, S
f
is the elastic section modulus of the full unreduced section relative
to the extreme compression fiber, I
y
is the moment of inertia about the y-axis, C
w
is
the torsional warping constant, J is the St. Venant torsion constant, and L is the
unbraced length.
For equal-flanged I-members, equation C-C3.1.2.1-2 can be used to calculate
the elastic critical buckling stress (Winter, 1947a; Yu, 1991):
2
2
x
y
2
x
y
2
2
cr
d
L
)I + 2(1
JI
+
2I
I
2(L/d)
E
=
,
_
,
_
,
_
(C-C3.1.2.1-2)
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 St. Venant
torsional rigidity. For thin-walled cold-formed steel sections, the first term usually
exceeds the second term by a considerable margin.
For I-members with unequal flanges, the following equation has been derived
by Winter for the lateral-torsional buckling stress (Winter, 1943):
,
_
2
y
2
2
y yt yc
f
2
2
cr
Ed I
4GJL
+ 1 I + I - I
S 2L
Ed
= (C-C3.1.2.1-3)
where I
yc
and I
yt
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, I
yc
= I
yt
= I
y
/2,
Equations C-C3.1.2.1-2 and C-C3.1.2.1-3 are identical.
In Equation C-C3.1.2.1-3, the second term under the square root represents the
St. Venant torsional rigidity, which can be neglected without any loss in economy.
Therefore, Equation C-C3.1.2.1-3 can be simplified as shown in Equation C-C3.1.2.1-
4 by considering I
y
= I
yc
+ I
yt
and neglecting the term 4GJL
2
/
2
I
y
Ed
2
:
f
2
yc
2
cr
S L
EdI
=

(C-C3.1.2.1-4)
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
cr
is modified by multiplying by a
bending coefficient C
b
, to account for non-uniform bending, i.e.,
f
2
yc
2
b
e
S L
EdI C
= F

(C-C3.1.2.1-5)
where C
b
is the bending coefficient, which can conservatively be taken as unity, or
calculated from
C
b
=1.75 + 1.05 (M
1
/M
2
) + 0.3 (M
1
/M
2
)
2
2.3 (C-C3.1.2.1-6)
in which M
1
is the smaller and M
2
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 is replaced by the following equation for C
b
in the 1996
edition of the Specification:
C B A max
max
b
3M + 4M + 3M + 2.5M
12.5M
= C (C-C3.1.2.1-7)
where
M
max
= absolute value of maximum moment in the unbraced segment
M
A
= absolute value of moment at quarter point of unbraced segment
M
B
= absolute value of moment at centerline of unbraced segment
M
C
= 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 AISC LRFD
Specification (AISC, 1993).
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.
< 2.3
2.0
C
b
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
+0.5 +1.0 0 -0.5 -1.0
C
b
C
b
M
A
M
B
M
C
M
1
M
2
M
A
M
B
3 4 2.5M 3 + + +
12.5M
max
M
C
max
=
M
1
M
2
M
1
M
2
M
1
M
2
= 1.75+1.05 +0.3
2
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-1 C
b
for Straight Line Moment Diagram
It should be noted that Equations C-C3.1.2.1-1 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 can be computed from Equation C-
C3.1.2.1-8 (Yu, 1991):
,
_

e
y
y c
F 36
F 10
1 F
9
10
F (C-C3.1.2.1-8)
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 L
u
,
lateral-torsional buckling does not need to be considered.
y
0.56
F
y
0
0
F
c
F
F
y
10
Lu Unbraced Length, L
9
C-Sections (1986 Specification)
I- and Z-sections (1986 Specification)
Figure C-C3.1.2.1-2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength
Equations C-C3.1.2.1-5 and C-C3.1.2.1-8 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 moments, more design equations (Specification Equations C3.1.2.1-5 and
C3.1.2.1-6) for elastic critical moment were added as alternative methods. These
additional equations were developed from the previous studies conducted by Pekoz,
Winter and Celebi on torsional-flexural buckling of thin-walled sections under
eccentric loads (Pekoz and Winter, 1969a; Pekoz and Celebi, 1969b) and are retained
in the 1996 and this edition of the Specification. These general design equations can
be used for singly-, doubly- and point-symmetric sections. 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 the 1986 edition of the Specification instead of
Equation C-C3.1.2.1-8 for singly-symmetric sections:
(M
cr
)
I
=
1
1
]
1
e cr
y
y
) M ( 4
M
1 M (C-C3.1.2.1-9)
in which (M
cr
)
I
is the elastic critical buckling moment. In 1996, the basic inelastic
lateral buckling curve for singly-, doubly-, and point-symmetric sections in
Specification Section C3.1.2.1(a) has been redefined to be consistent with the inelastic
lateral 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, 1980).
As specified in Specification Section C3.1.2.1, lateral-torsional buckling is
considered to be elastic up to a stress equal to 0.56F
y
. The inelastic region is defined
by a Johnson parabola from 0.56F
y
to (10/9)F
y
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 F
y
which enables
the calculation of the maximum unsupported length for which there is no stress
reduction due to lateral instability. This maximum unsupported length can be
calculated by setting F
y
equal to F
c
in Equation C-C3.1.2.1-8.
This liberalization of the inelastic lateral-torsional buckling curve for singly-,
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 above discussion dealt only with the lateral-torsional buckling strength 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-torsinal buckling strength of the member. The effect
of local buckling on the critical moment is considered in Section C3.1.2.1 of the AISI
Specification by using the elastic section modulus S
c
based on an effective section.
M
n
=F
c
S
c
(C-C3.1.2.1-10)
where
F
c
= Elastic or inelastic critical lateral-torsional buckling stress
S
c
= Elastic section modulus of effective section calculated at a stress F
c
relative to the extreme compression fiber
Using the above nominal lateral buckling strength with a resistance factor of
b
= 0.90, the values of 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. The
distortional buckling strength of C- and Z-sections has been studied extensively at the
University of Sydney by Lau and Hancock (1987); Hancock, Kwon and Bernard
(1994); and Hancock (1995).
The problems discussed above dealt with the type of lateral-torsional buckling
of I-members, channels, 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-C3.1.2.1-4, unless adequate bracing is provided.
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 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 VII (Supplementary Information) of the AISI
Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI, 1996) for determining the allowable design
strength 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 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 Hausslers method with Doutys 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 of the
standing seam roof panel. The predicted maximum capacities have been compared
with experimental results.
C3.1.2.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength 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 L
u
.
However, lateral-torsional buckling can control the design when the unbraced length
is larger than L
u
, which is determined by setting the inelastic buckling stress of Eq.
C3.1.2.1-3 equal to F
y
, the yield stress with F
e
set equal to Eq. C3.1.2.2-2.
In computing the lateral-torsional buckling stress of closed box sections, the
warping constant, C
w
, may be neglected since the effect of non-uniform warping of
box sections is small. The development of Eq. 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,
Section D3.3 has been deleted.
The torsional constant, J, of a box section, neglecting the corner radii, may be
conservatively determined as follows:
J
ab
a t b t
+
2
2
1 2
( )
( / ) ( / )
(Eq. C-C3.1.2.2-1)
where
a = Distance between web centerlines
b = Distance between flange centerlines
t
1
= Thickness of flanges
t
2
= Thickness of webs
9. Section C3.1.3
Add ; Fisher, 1996 after Haussler, 1988 at the end of the first paragraph.
Insert the following paragraph after the first paragraph:
The R factors for simple span C-sections up to 8.5 inches in depth and Z-
sections up to 9.5 inches in depth have been increased from the 1986 Specification,
and a member design yield strength limit is added based on the work by Fisher (1996).
Delete the second sentence in the paragraph starting with As indicated by
LaBoube.
10. Section C3.1.4
In the first sentence, delete under gravity load, and add or uplift from wind load,
after subjected to dead plus live load,.
Change The bending strength to The bending capacity in the second sentence.
Delete (1996) at the end of the third sentence.
Change the last two sentences to In Specification Equation C3.1.4-1, the reduction
factor, R, can be determined by the test procedures, which were established in 1996
and are included in Part VIII of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual (AISI,
1996). Application of the base test method for uplift loading was subsequently
validated after further analysis of the research results.
11. Section C3.1.5
C3.1.5 Strength of Standing Seam Roof Panel Systems
The nominal strength of a standing seam roof panel system is determined using
the ASTM E1592-95 (1995) test procedure. A methodology of interpreting test results
is specified in the Specification Section C3.1.5.
Clarification and extension of the ASTM E1592-95 (1995) test procedure is
presented in the Standard Procedures for Panel and Anchor Structural Tests in Part
VIII of the AISI Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual. The Specification Section C3.1.5
provides the method for the calculation of a safety factor for one or more tests.
The relationship of strength to serviceability limits may be taken as strength
limit/serviceability limit = 1.25, or

serviceability
=
strength
/1.25 (Eq. C-C3.1.5-1)
It should be noted that the purpose of the test procedure specified in
Specification Section C3.1.5 is not to set up guidelines to establish the serviceability
limit. The purpose is to define the method of determining the controlling allowable
load whether based on the serviceability limit or on the ultimate load. The Corps of
Engineers Procedure CEGS 07416 (1991) requires a safety factor of 1.65 on strength
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 (1988) recommended a value of 2.0 for
0

when slight damage is expected
and a value of 2.5 when moderate damage is expected. The resulting ratio is 1.25.
In Section C3.1.5, a target reliability of 2.5 is used for connection limits. It is
used because the consequences of a panel fastener failure (
0
= 2.5) are not nearly so
severe as the consequences of a primary frame connection failure (
0

= 3.5). The
intermittent nature of wind load as compared to the relatively long duration of snow
load further justifies the use of
0
= 2.5 for panel anchors. In Section C3.1.5, the
coefficient of variation of the material factor, V
M
, 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. Section C3.1.5 also eliminates the limit on coefficient of
variation of the test results, V
p
, because consistent test results often lead to V
p
values
lower than the 6.5% 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.
12. Section C3.2
This section contains two subsections: C3.2.1, Shear Strength of Webs Without Holes,
and C3.2.2, Shear Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes. Section C3.2.1 contains the
content of current Section C3.2 with revisions described below, and Section C3.2.2 is a new
added section as provided subsequently:
Add subsection title C3.2.1, Shear Strength of Webs Without Holes after the
section title.
Change the equation numbers in current Section C3.2 to (C-C3.2.1-, and revise the
section reference from C3.2 to C3.2.1 both in the fifth and the last paragraphs.
Add the follow new section:
C3.2.2 Shear Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes
Schuster et al. (1995) and Shan et al. (1994) investigated the degradation in web
shear strength due to the presence of a web perforation. The test program considered
a constant shear distribution across the perforation, and included d
0
/h ratios ranging
from 0.20 to 0.78, and h/t ratios of 91 to 168. Schusters q
s
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 Eilers reduction factor, q
s
, 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
y v
/F Ek 0.96 h/t , an
anomaly exists; the calculated design shear strength is independent of t when h is
constant. In this region, the calculated design shear strength is valid but may be
somewhat conservative.
that fits within an equivalent virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-1 illustrates the b

and d
0
that
may be used for a multiple hole pattern that fits within a non-circular virtual hole.
Figure C-B2.4-2 illustrates the d
0
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
13. Section C3.4
This section includes two subsections: C3.4.1, Web Crippling Strength of Webs
Without Holes, and C3.4.2, Web Crippling Strength of C-Section Webs With Holes.
Section C3.4.1 contains the contents of current Section C3.4 with revisions described
below, and Section C3.4.2 is a new added section as provided subsequently:
Add the subsection title C3.4.1, Web Crippling Strength of Webs Without Holes
after the section title.
Replace the seventh paragraph in current Section C3.4 with the following:
In the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification, HSLAS Grades 70 and 80 of
A653 and A715 steels were added in Specification Section A3.1. These two grades of
steels have minimum yield points of 70 ksi (483 MPa) for grade 70 and 80 ksi (552
MPa) for grade 80. Because the AISI provisions for web crippling strength were
previously developed on the basis of the experimental investigations using steels
having F
y
less than 55 ksi (379 MPa) (Hetrakul and Yu, 1978), previous Specification
Equations C3.4-1, C3.4-2, and C3.4-6 were limited only to F
y
< 66.5 ksi (459 MPa).
For this reason, when F
y
66.5 ksi (459 MPa), the value of kC
3
was taken as 1.34 in
the 1996 edition of the Specification. Recent research at the University of Missouri-
Rolla (Wu, Yu and LaBoube, 1997) indicated that the web crippling strength
increased for beams using the yield point of steel greater than 66.5 ksi (459 MPA).
Based on the results of 262 web crippling tests using yield strengths from 58.2 ksi
(401 MPa) to 165.1 ksi (1138 MPa), the constant C
3
is replaced by C
1
in Equations
C3.4.1-1, C3.4.1-2 and C3.4.1-6 of the Specification. The upper limit of the design
yield point for A653 SS Grade 80 and A611 Grade E steels is defined by Section
A3.3.2 and is the lesser of 0.75 F
y
and 60 ksi (414 MPa).
C3.4.2 Web Crippling Strength 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 d
0
/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 d
0
/h ratio and the location of the hole, x/h ratio.
that fits within an equivalent virtual hole. Figure C-B2.4-1 illustrates the b

and d
0
that
may be used for a multiple hole pattern that fits within a non-circular virtual hole.
Figure C-B2.4-2 illustrates the d
0
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.
14. Section C4
Add the following to the end of the section:
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 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
concerns. The AISI Specification provisions adequately predict the capacities of
slender columns and beam-columns but the resulting strengths 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/ will be large.
15. Section C6.1
In the third paragraph, after the second sentence add the sentence In 1999, the
bounds of Specification Equations C6.1-1 and C6.1-2 have been revised to provide an
appropriate continuity.
Revise the D/t values on Figure C-C6.1-1 from 0.319E/F
y
to 0.318E/F
y
and
0.70E/F
y
to 0.0714E/F
y
.
16. Section C6.2
In 1999, the coefficient, R, was limited to one so that the effective area, A
e
, will
always be less than or equal to the unreduced cross sectional area, A. To simplify the
equations, R = F
y
/2F
e
rather than R =
e y
F 2 F as in the previous Specification
edition.
17. Section D3.2.1
Revise the first sentence to In metal roof systems attached to C- or Z-purlins,
.
Revise the equation numbers in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph and the
second sentence of the second paragraph to Equations D3.2.1-2 through
D3.2.1-7.
In 1999, an explicit requirement is indicated for purlins facing opposite
directions to resist the down-slope component of the total gravity load. To have a
consistent approach in calculating the restraint force for C- and Z-sections, Equation
D3.2.1-1 is added for calculating the anchorage force for C-sections. In addition,
cos term is added to the first term of Equation D3.2.1-1 for C-sections and
Equations D3.2.1-2 through D3.2.1-7 for Z-sections. The original research was done
assuming the roof was flat and the applied loading was parallel to the purlin webs. In
the equations, Wcos is the component of the vertical loading parallel to the purlin
webs.
18. Section D3.3
As a result of adding Section C3.1.2.2, Lateral-Torsional Buckling Strength for Closed
Box Members, Section D3.3 is deleted.
19. Section E2
The following changes are made in response to the updates of the AWS Structural
Welding Code for Sheet Steel:
Change the year of the recent edition of the AWS Structural Welding Code for
Sheet Steel to (AWS, 1998) referenced in the fourth paragraph and the sixth
paragraph of Section E2.
At the end of Section E2.1, add the sentence Prequalified joint details are given
in AWS D1.3-98 (AWS, 1998).
At the end of Section E2.2, add the sentence The provisions of Section E2.2 apply
to plug welds as well as spot welds.
In the second paragraph of Section E2.4, correct the referenced authors name to
McGuire, and at the end of the second paragraph add the sentence Prequalified
fillet welds are given in AWS D1.3-98 (AWS, 1998).
The weld illustrations in Figures C-E2.4-1 and CE2.5-1 are revised to reflect the
good quality of prequalified welds:
A
A-A
a. Transverse Fillet
Sheet Tear
b. Longitudinal Fillet
Sheet Tear
Figure C-E2.4-1 Fillet Weld Failure Mode
Transverse Sheet Tear Longitudinal Sheet Tear
Figure C-E2.5-1 Flare Groove Weld Failure Modes
In the third paragraph of Section E2.5, revise the third sentence to This weld is a
prequalified weld in AWS D1.3-98 (AWS, 1998).
20. Section E2.6
Delete listed from the first sentence.
Change 0.125 inch (3.22 mm) to 0.125 in. (3.18 mm) in both the first and the
second sentences.
Change (2.7 N/m
2
) to (275 g/m
2
).
Delete Values for intermediate thicknesses may be obtained by straight line
interpolation.
In 1999, a design equation is used to determine the nominal shear strength
which replaces the tabulated values given in the previous specifications. The upper
limit of Eqs. E2.6-1 and E2.6-3 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 values for welds with the
thickness of the thinnest outside sheet greater than 0.180 in. (4.57 mm) have been
excluded in (Eq. E2.6-2) and (Eq. E2.6-4) due to the thickness limit set forth in
Section E2.
21. Section E2.7
Add the following new sections:
E2.7 Shear Lag Effect in Welded Connections of Members Other Than
Flat Sheets
Shear lag has a debilitating effect on the nominal tensile strength of a cross
section. The AISI Specification addresses the shear lag effect on tension members
other than flat sheets in welded connections. The AISC Specifications 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.
22. Section E3.2
In the first sentence, change on the net section to of the net section.
Change item 4 to The nominal tensile strength.
Add the following paragraphs to the end of the section:
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
fracture 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
fracture 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 AISI and AISC cannot be avoided. 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.
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). The research showed that for single bolt connections,
bearing controlled the nominal strength, not fracture in the net section.
The value for used with Eq. E3.2-8 is based on statistical analysis of the
test data with a corresponding value of 35 . . The values are unchanged from
previous editions of the ASD Specification.
23. Section E3.3
Add the following paragraphs to the end of the section:
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 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.
Research at the University of Sydney (Rogers and Hancock, 1998), has
shown that the bearing coefficient for steels of thickness less than 0.036 in (0.91 mm)
may be significantly less than 3.0. A lower limit of 0.036 in (0.91 mm) has therefore
been chosen for Table E3.3-1.
24. Section E5
E5 Fracture
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 and block shear rupture strength of connections (Figures
C-E5-1 and C-E5-2), refer to the AISC Specifications (AISC, 1989 and 1993).
Shear
area
Cope
Tensile
area
Failure by tearing
out of shaded
portion
Shear
area
Beam
Tensile
area
P
o
Failure by tearing
out of shaded
portion
(a)
(b)
Large shear
force
P
o
P
o
Small tension
force
(a) (b)
Small shear
force
P
o
P
o
Large tension
force
Block shear is a limit state in which the resistance is determined by the sum
of the shear strength on a failure path(s) parallel to the force and the tensile strength
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 and values for block shear were taken from the 1996 edition of the
Specification, and are based on the performance of fillet welds. In calculating the net
Figure C-E5-1 Fatigue Modes for Block Shear Rupture
Figure C-E5-2 Block Shear Rupture in Tension
web area A
wn
, the web depth is taken as the flat portion of the web as illustrated in
Fig. C-E5-3.
h
wc
Figure C-E5-3 Definition of h
wc
25. Section E6.1
The design provisions for the nominal bearing strength on the other materials
should be derived from appropriate material specifications.
26. Section F1
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.
27. Section F3.3
Update the year of the ASTM A370 recent edition to (1997).
28. REFERENCES:
The following references are added or updated:
American Society for Testing 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 for Testing and Materials (1997), Standard Methods and
Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM 370, 1997.
American Welding Society (1998), Structural Welding Code - Sheet Steel,
ANSI/AWS D1.3-98, Miami, FL, 1998.
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.
Eiler, M. R., LaBoube, R. A., and Yu, W.W. (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
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.
Galambos, T. V. (1998), Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 5
th
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998.
Galambos, T. V. (1988), Reliability of Structural Steel Systems, Report No. 88-06
published by AISI, 1988.
Hardash, S. G., and Bjorhovde, R. (1985), New Design Criteria for Gusset Plates in
Tension, AISC Engineering Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2nd Quarter.
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.
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.
Langan, J. E., LaBoube, R. A., and Yu, W. W. (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 94-3, Cold-Formed Steel Series, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla
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.
Rogers, C. A., and Hancock, G. J. (1998), Bolted Connection Tests of Thin G550
and G300 Sheet Steels, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 7,
1998.
Shan, M. Y., LaBoube, R. A., and Yu, W. W. (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
Schuster, R. M., Rogers, C. A., and Celli, A. (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
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.
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.
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.
1101 17
th
Street, NW, Suite 1300
Washington, DC 20036-4700
S
G
0
0
1
-
S
U
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
1
-
0
4
0
0
-
1
K
-
R
I

Aisi Specifications Supplement 1 - 1996 Specification For The Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aisi Specifications Supplement 1 - 1996 Specification For The Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SPECIFICATION

FOR THE DESIGN OF

subject to lateral-torsional buckling, the nominal flexural strength, M

[331 - 0.61(h/t)] [1 + 0.01(N/t)] (Eq. C3.4.1-1)

[217 - 0.28(h/t)] [1 + 0.01(N/t)] (Eq. C3.4.1-2)

[244 - 0.57(h/t)] [1 + 0.01(N/t)] (Eq. C3.4.1-6)

Structural Members Not Listed Above 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.05

Connections Not Listed Above 1.10 0.10 1.00 0.15

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi