Comparative Structural Design of Industrial Buildings by Hot-Rolled and Cold-Formed Steel Sections

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

Comparative Structural Design of Industrial Buildings by Hot-Rolled and Cold-Formed Steel Sections Anuj Soni1, Rahul Satbhaiya2 1M.T.ech Research Scholar, Infinity Management and Engineering College 2Assistant Professor and Head of Civil Department, Infinity Management and Engineering College ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------1.3 Objectives Abstract - This study presents a comparative structural

analysis of Cold-Formed Steel (CFS) and Hot-Rolled Steel (HRS) for a mid-rise industrial building (12 m × 35 m × 13 m) using STAAD software. The performance of both materials is evaluated under identical loading conditions, focusing on bending moments, shear forces, axial forces, deflections, support reactions, and seismic loads. Results indicate that CFS exhibits lower bending moments, shear forces, support reactions, and deflections compared to HRS, along with superior seismic performance (36% lower base shear) and approximately 24% cost savings. Despite higher axial force capacity, CFS proves to be a more efficient and economical choice for industrial applications, offering practical advantages for sustainable construction in budget-constrained regions.

The primary objectives of this research are: To compare the structural efficiency and load-bearing capacity of HRS and CFS sections.



To assess the material and weight efficiency of both steel types.



To evaluate cost implications across fabrication, transportation, and erection phases.



To analyze seismic performance using Time History Analysis in STAAD software.

This study aims to provide engineers and designers with data-driven insights to support material selection in modern industrial construction.

Keywords: Cold-formed steel, Hot-rolled steel, Structural analysis, Industrial buildings, Seismic performance, STAAD, Cost efficiency

2. Literature Review

1.INTRODUCTION

2.1 Steel Structures in Industrial Buildings

1.1 Background

Steel is a preferred material in industrial construction due to its high strength-to-weight ratio, modularity, and resistance to environmental loads. It enables large unobstructed spans essential for warehouses, factories, and other industrial operations. The adaptability of steel also supports faster construction and reduced labor costs (Chen et al., 2017).

The demand for efficient, cost-effective, and structurally sound industrial buildings has led to growing interest in the use of different steel sections—primarily Hot-Rolled Steel (HRS) and Cold-Formed Steel (CFS). These structures require large, unobstructed spaces capable of supporting dynamic loads, making steel the preferred material due to its high strength-to-weight ratio and durability. While HRS has traditionally dominated the industry for its superior loadbearing capacity, CFS is increasingly being considered for its lightweight properties, material efficiency, and cost benefits.

2.2 Hot-Rolled Steel (HRS) Hot-rolled steel sections are manufactured at high temperatures, allowing for ductile and strong structural members like beams and columns. Their resistance to buckling and ability to handle heavy loads make them ideal for primary structural components in large-scale industrial buildings (AISC, 2018). However, they are heavier and more energy-intensive to produce, increasing costs and environmental impact (Smith & Brown, 2017).

1.2 Research Significance Despite advancements in steel construction, limited comparative research exists on the performance of HRS and CFS in industrial buildings. As industries seek more sustainable and economical solutions, evaluating these two materials under structural and seismic conditions becomes crucial. This study addresses this gap by analyzing a mid-rise industrial building using both HRS and CFS, focusing on parameters such as bending moments, shear forces, axial forces, deflection, and seismic behavior.

© 2025, IRJET



|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

2.3 Cold-Formed Steel (CFS) Cold-formed steel is shaped at room temperature, producing lighter sections with high yield strength. It is commonly used for secondary members such as purlins, girts, and decking.

CFS is advantageous in terms of weight reduction,

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 97

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

transportation ease, and customization (Mandal & Chakraborty, 2021). Limitations include lower buckling resistance under compression and potential for corrosion over time (Zhou et al., 2022).

formed steel (CFS) sections. Using STAAD PRO software, both structural systems are modeled and analyzed under identical geometric, material, and loading conditions, including seismic analysis, to assess their overall performance.

2.4 Design Standards for Steel Structures

3.2 Building Model Specifications

Steel design is governed by national and international codes.

HRS design follows IS 800 (India), AISC (USA), and Eurocode 3 (Europe), while CFS is covered under IS 801 and AISI S100.

These standards address key aspects like strength, stability, serviceability, and connection detailing (Sharma & Gupta, 2016).

A mid-rise industrial building is designed with consistent geometry for both HRS and CFS models.

Key specifications are as follows: Table 3.1Geometric Parameters of Model

2.5 Comparative Studies on HRS and CFS Previous studies have explored several performance aspects: 









Fire Resistance: Crosti et al. (2009) emphasized the need for advanced fire modeling, particularly for CFS due to its thin-walled nature.

Joint Behavior: Bayan et al. (2011) and Lee et al. (2014) identified joint weaknesses in CFS structures, especially under load.

Parameter

Details

Building Type

Rectangular cladded building

Section Type

IS sections (HRS and CFS)

Support Condition

Fixed

Length

35 meters

Width

12 meters 13 meters

Height

(10 m eave + 3 m truss rise)

Truss Type

Howe type

Number of Trusses

10

Span

12 meters

Opening in Wall Area

10%

Buckling Analysis: Garifullin & Nackenhorst (2015) reported that initial imperfections significantly influence CFS column behavior.

Life of Structure

50 years

Terrain Category

2

Class of Structure

A

Applications and Cost: Shabari & Prasad (2017) demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of CFS in housing systems, while Thande (2014) highlighted key structural components in warehouse design.

Topography

Flat (< 3° slope)

Roof Covering

Corrugated metal sheets (5 kg/m²)

Seismic Performance: Petruzzelli et al. (2012) and Ragavan et al. (2018) showed that both HRS and CFS can perform well under seismic loading, provided bracing and connection detailing are optimized.

2.6 Research Gap Although individual performance studies exist, few works offer a direct, comprehensive comparison of HRS and CFS in mid-rise industrial buildings. There is a particular lack of studies involving dynamic load analysis using tools like Time History Analysis. This research aims to fill this gap by evaluating the structural and economic performance of both steel types under identical loading conditions using STAAD software.

3. Methodology 3.1 Overview This study adopts a comparative approach to evaluate the structural behavior and cost-effectiveness of industrial buildings constructed using hot-rolled steel (HRS) and cold-

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

a)

Top View

b)

Front View

Figure 3.1 Top view abd front view of geometric layour

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 98

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

The building layout includes typical beam-column framing for industrial use. Load combinations are based on IS 800:2007 for limit state design, including dead load, live load, and seismic load cases.

3.3 Material Selection Material selection emphasizes structural performance, availability, and economic feasibility: 



Hot-Rolled Steel (HRS): Standard I- and H-sections selected for their high strength and stiffness, commonly used in industrial frameworks.

Cold-Formed Steel (CFS): C- and Z-sections chosen for their lightweight and cost-effective characteristics, suitable for efficient load transfer with reduced material usage.

Using

STAAD

Modeling: Accurate 3D models including geometry, boundary conditions, section properties, and loading.



Analysis: Linear static and dynamic (Time History) analysis for performance evaluation under various load conditions, including dead, live, wind, and seismic loads.



Seismic Response: Time period, base shear, and mode shapes



Deflection: Maximum displacement under service loads



Shear Forces and Bending Moments: Resistance to lateral and flexural loads



Support Reactions: Impact on foundation loads and design



Cost Analysis: Material, fabrication, and erection costs

4. Modelling and Calculations

PRO



Axial Forces: Ability to resist vertical loads in columns and truss members

This methodology provides a framework for evaluating the suitability of HRS and CFS in industrial buildings, offering insights for material selection and structural optimization.

Material optimization is performed via STAAD PRO to ensure code compliance and structural adequacy.

3.4 Structural Analysis STAAD PRO is used for:





Model Geometry: Following Geometry is prepared with the help of structural wizard tool in staad Pro.

3.5 Seismic Analysis Seismic behavior is evaluated as per IS 1893:2016 using parameters such as: 

Seismic Zone Factor, Importance Factor, and Response Reduction Factor



Base Shear Calculation using the IS formula

Figure 4.1 Isometric view of geometric layout 



Time Period Evaluation based on empirical and analytical methods



Base Shear Distribution across the height based on stiffness and mass

Material Properties: Material Properties for both types of structures are assigned form Staad data base as cold formed steel Indian section and Hot rolled steel Indian section.

Dynamic response parameters such as base shear, time period, story drift, and support reactions are recorded and compared for both HRS and CFS models.

3.6 Comparison Parameters The comparison is based on the following structural and economic criteria:

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 99

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net



Load Calculation



The "Perform Analysis" command in structural analysis software such as STAAD is used to execute the analysis of a structural model based on the defined geometry, loads, load combinations, boundary conditions, and material properties. By running this command, engineers can determine the structure’s response, including deflections, stresses, and support reactions.

The analysis can cover static, dynamic, linear, or nonlinear methods, depending on the project’s complexity.

This step is essential for evaluating the structure’s safety, stability, and serviceability, allowing designers to identify and address issues like excessive deflections or overstressing before construction begins.

Figure 4.2 Assignment of Material Properties 

After Assignment of geometric and material properties structure will look like as follows:

Figure 3.3 Material propert Assigned modal 

Support Conditions: Fixed Support is used at all columns as shown in figure below

5. Result Analysis 5.1 Seismic Analysis The seismic analysis reveals that cold-formed steel (CFS) structures demonstrate improved seismic efficiency compared to hot-rolled steel (HRS) structures. The CFS frame, with a significantly lower seismic weight (290.27 kN vs. 457.88 kN for HRS), experiences about 36% lower base shear (-11.33 kN vs. -17.83 kN). This reduction is mainly due to the lighter nature of CFS, which reduces seismic forces.

The time period of the CFS structure is longer (0.68 s vs.

0.58194 s), indicating lower stiffness and resulting in reduced spectral acceleration (1.956 g vs. 2.337 g). Minimum base shear is also lower for CFS (-1.93 kN compared to 3.21 kN for HRS).

Figure 3.4 Assignment of supports

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 100

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

5.2 Maximum Deflection The hot-rolled steel frame exhibits a maximum deflection of 4.93 mm, while the optimized CFS frame shows a lower deflection of 3.78 mm. This reduction in deflection highlights the superior structural stiffness and performance of the CFS frame under load, enhancing its serviceability and aesthetic appeal.

Figure 5.3 Comparison of Maximum Bending Moment 5.5 Maximum Axial Force Comparison Cold-formed steel (CFS) shows a higher axial force (47.315 kN) than hot-rolled steel (HRS) (40.280 kN), indicating HRS handles axial loads more efficiently. However, CFS offers benefits like lower weight and cost, making it suitable where overall efficiency and economy are priorities.

Figure 5.1 Comparison of Maximum defelction 5.3 Maximum Shear Forces The comparison of maximum shear forces reveals that the optimized cold-formed steel (CFS) frame exhibits lower shear forces than the hot-rolled steel frame. Specifically, the CFS frame shows maximum shear forces of 7.863 kN about the y-axis (Fy) and 0.928 kN about the z-axis (Fz), compared to 9.551 kN and 1.211 kN, respectively, for the hot-rolled steel frame.

Figure 5.4 Comaprison of maximum Axial force 5.6 Maximum Support Reaction The maximum support reaction for cold-formed steel (35.45 kN) is approximately 17.2% lower than that of hotrolled steel (42.833 kN). This indicates better load distribution efficiency in CFS, resulting in reduced stress on foundations, cost savings, and faster, easier installation, making it a more practical and economical choice for modern construction.

Figure 5.2 Comparison of maximum shear force 5.4 Maximum Bending Moments Cold-formed steel (CFS) shows lower bending moments (Mz = 11.254 kNm, My = 7.321 kNm) than hot-rolled steel (Mz = 13.539 kNm, My = 8.876 kNm), indicating better loadhandling efficiency and reduced flexural stress—making CFS a cost-effective choice for construction.

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 101

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net 

CFS structures demonstrated lower maximum shear forces (7.863 kN and 0.928 kN) than HRS (9.551 kN and 1.211 kN). This reflects better handling of lateral stresses and improved internal force distribution.



The axial force capacity in CFS was slightly higher (47.315 kN) compared to HRS (40.28 kN). Although this may indicate slightly less axial load efficiency, the advantages in weight and cost still favor CFS in most scenarios.



Maximum support reactions were 35.450 kN for CFS and 42.833 kN for HRS, showing about a 17.2% reduction with CFS. This highlights improved load distribution and a potential for lighter foundation design.



CFS frames experienced a maximum deflection of 3.78 mm, compared to 4.93 mm in HRS. This indicates better stiffness and serviceability performance for cold-formed sections.



Due to its lighter weight, CFS generated 36% less base shear compared to HRS in seismic conditions. The longer time period due to reduced stiffness further contributes to lower seismic forces, making CFS more favorable in earthquake-prone areas.



CFS provides an estimated 24% cost savings over HRS. This is attributed to reduced material weight, simpler handling, and faster construction. In cost-sensitive regions like India, CFS offers a significant economic advantage.

Figure 5.5 Comparison of Maximum Support Reaction 5.7 Cost Comparison The cost analysis between hot-rolled steel (HRS) and coldformed steel (CFS) reveals a significant economic advantage in favor of CFS. The data presented below summarizes the total material weight, overall cost, and cost savings associated with using CFS in place of traditional HRS sections. This analysis confirms that CFS can lead to approximately 24% cost savings compared to HRS.

Overall, the study concludes that cold-formed steel is a superior alternative for industrial steel frames, especially where weight, cost, and seismic performance are critical factors. Its availability, cost-effectiveness, and structural efficiency make it an excellent choice for modern construction applications.

6. Future Scope While the current research establishes key benefits of CFS over HRS, several areas remain open for further investigation:

Figure 5.6 Compariosn of weight and cost of structure

5. Conclusions This study conducted a detailed comparison between hotrolled and cold-formed steel sections for a 3D mid-rise industrial building frame, under identical design and loading conditions.



Analysis of Tall and Heavy Structures: Future studies could evaluate the scalability of CFS in high-rise buildings or heavy industrial structures, where additional design considerations are involved.





Seismic and Wind Load Studies: More detailed assessments are needed to explore CFS behavior under dynamic loads in high seismic zones or regions with intense wind activity. This will help refine design codes and guidelines.

Cold-formed steel (CFS) sections exhibited lower bending moments (11.254 kNm and 7.321 kNm) compared to hot-rolled steel (HRS) sections (13.539 kNm and 8.876 kNm). This implies improved flexural efficiency in CFS frames, which may allow for material optimization.

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 102





International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 12 Issue: 07 | Jul 2025

p-ISSN: 2395-0072

www.irjet.net

[11].

Subramanian, N. (2014). Design of Steel Structures.

Oxford University Press.

Connection Behavior: Structural performance is highly influenced by connection behavior. Research should focus on testing various CFS connection types (bolted, welded, etc.) under different load conditions to develop efficient joint designs.

[12].

Ghersi, A., Landolfo, R., & Mazzolani, F.M. (1994).

Buckling modes of double channel cold-formed beams.

Thin-Walled Structures, 19.

Hybrid Structural Systems: Exploring hybrid designs that combine CFS with reinforced concrete, timber, or other materials could offer performance and sustainability benefits. These systems may be particularly valuable in mixed-use or modular construction.

[13].

Calderoni, B., De Martino, A., Ghersi, A., & Landolfo, R. (1994). On the seismic resistance of light gauge steel frames. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas (STESSA ’94), Timisoara, Romania.

Reference

[14].

Calderoni, B., De Martino, A., Ghersi, A., & Landolfo, R. (1997). Influence of local buckling on the global seismic performance of light gauge portal frame. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas (STESSA ’97), Kyoto.

[1]. Kalyanshetti, M.G., & Mirajkar, G.S. (2012). Comparison between Conventional Steel Structures and Tubular Steel Structures. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(6), 1460-1464. Retrieved from www.ijera.com

[15].

Fiorino, L., Della Corte, G., & Landolfo, R. (2004). An experimental study on seismic behavior of sheathed cold-formed steel stud shear walls. In Proceedings of the XI Congresso Nazionale “L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia” (ANIDIS 2004), Genova.

By addressing these areas, future research can further strengthen the case for cold-formed steel as a sustainable, economical, and high-performance solution in modern structural engineering.

[2]. IS 800:2007. General Construction in Steel – Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards.

[3]. IS 801:1975. Code of Practice for Use of Structural Steel in Overhead Transmission Line Towers. Bureau of Indian Standards.

[4]. IS 875:2015, Part 1. Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures.

Bureau of Indian Standards.

[5]. IS 875:2015, Part 2. Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures.

Bureau of Indian Standards.

[6]. IS 875:2015, Part 3. Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures.

Bureau of Indian Standards.

[7]. IS 806:2009. Code of Practice for Use of Steel Tubes for Buildings and Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards.

[8]. Dubina, D., et al. (2007). Analysis and Design of Steel Structures.

[9]. Gary S. (2010). Analysis and Design of Steel Structures.

Retrieved from http://raselpics.ru/steel-designstructures-practice.pdf [10].

IIT-Kharagpur. (2023). Design of Steel Structures.

NPTEL Online Material for the Students. Retrieved from www.scribd.com

© 2025, IRJET

|

Impact Factor value: 8.315

|

ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

|

Page 103