Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Reliability calibrations for the design of cold-formed steel portal frames by T

advanced analysis
⁎
Francisco Sena Cardoso, Hao Zhang, Kim J.R. Rasmussen, Shen Yan
The University of Sydney, Australia

A B S T R A C T

The steel industry is developing a design-by-advanced analysis specification for cold-formed steel construction. This effort provides an opportunity to utilize the latest
nonlinear structural analysis (advanced analysis) to design steel structures based on their overall system behaviour. This paper concerns the system reliability
calibrations of this design-by-analysis method, with a particular focus on cold-formed steel portal frames. Four typical portal frames are considered. The system
reliability assessment takes into account all important random variables. A limit-state design criterion is developed which is consistent with a desired level of system
safety.

1. Introduction Method is to determine the strength of a member as opposed to the

Several steel structures design specifications permit design by ad-
vanced nonlinear structural analysis. Advanced analysis has received
considerable attention from the research communities for several dec-
ades. Fully nonlinear analyses have been developed capable of accu-
rately capturing the true behaviour of steel structures subject to com-
plex buckling modes. In professional practice, as early as 1998, the
Australian Standard AS4100 [1] included the design by advanced
analysis method. It allows internal actions to be obtained by nonlinear
structural analysis. However, connection and section capacities are still
required to be evaluated and checked. The scope of using advanced
analysis in AS4100 is limited to fully braced compact cross-sections.
More recently, the American Steel Specification AISC 360-10 [2] sig-
nificantly broadened the scope of advanced analysis (referred to as
“inelastic analysis” in the Specification). It permits the design of a steel
frame to be based directly on the nonlinear structural analysis without
the need for checking capacities of individual members. For this reason,
the design by advanced analysis method is termed as the Direct Design
Method (DDM) in this paper. In AISC 360-10, the advanced analysis
method can be applied to non-compact cross-sections and members not
fully braced, provided the relevant limit states are captured in the
analysis. The recently revised version of the Australian/New Zealand
Standard for Cold-formed Steel Structures AS/NZS4600 [3] now also
features provisions for the DDM by advanced analysis.
The Direct Design Method is not to be confused with the Direct
Strength Method, which is permitted in Australia/New Zealand [3], and
North America [4]. The Direct Strength Method is a design method for
thin-walled members (columns and beams) [5]. The Direct Strength
system strength given by the DDM. Moreover, the current Direct
Strength Method is based on computational member elastic buckling
stability analysis, while the DDM requires a fully nonlinear system
analysis.
The Direct Design Method must satisfy certain modelling/analysis
requirements articulated in the standards, as well as structural relia-
bility requirements. Appendix I of AISC360-10 [2] requires that the
DDM must account for the natural variabilities in system, member and
connection resistance, and provide a structural reliability for the frame
no less than the current member-based design method. To fulfill this
requirement, a resistance factor at the system level can be combined
with the nominal frame strength predicted by the advanced analysis.
The design equation is given by:
ϕs Rn ⩾ ∑i γi Qni (1)
where ϕs and Rn are the resistance factor and nominal resistance of the
system, respectively, and Qni and γi denote the structural load and the
corresponding load factor. The resistance Rn is the ultimate load-car-
rying limit of the frame at incipient instability of the frame. Rn is
computed using the nominal values of structural parameters. The
structural failure risk due to the uncertainties in structural resistance is
controlled through the use of ϕs. The current resistance factors stipu-
lated in the specification, e.g. 0.9 for flexural members, were developed
for individual member safety check, as opposed to the system-level
check in the design-by-analysis method. The system resistance factor
needs to be determined by a structural reliability calibration procedure
conducted at the system level.
The system reliability implications of the DDM have been examined

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shen.yan@sydney.edu.au (S. Yan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.054
Received 13 August 2018; Received in revised form 16 December 2018; Accepted 17 December 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Sena Cardoso et al.
in a limited number of case studies, e.g., [6–9]. Buonopane and Schafer
[6] investigated the system reliabilities of Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) and the DDM using 16 planar two-storey two-bay gravity
frames. The uncertainties in steel yield stress, dead and live loads were
considered. The uncertainties in other parameters, e.g., Young’s mod-
ulus and sectional properties, were ignored. Zhang et al. [9] examined
the system reliabilities of a number of simple structures, including a
continuous beam and four frames with different levels of redundancy
and capability of load redistribution. The study discussed the reliability
implications of the LRFD and the second-order inelastic method in
AISC360-10. A similar work has been conducted by Thai et al. [7] for
two low-rise planar frames with partially restraint connections. A
general reliability framework for assessing the system reliabilities of
steel frames was developed in [10]. Using the reliability framework in
[10], systematic reliability calibrations were conducted for the DDM for
typical planar steel frames [11] and space steel frames comprising
members of locally stable hollow sections [12]. All these aforemen-
tioned studies focused on structures comprising compact members with
full lateral bracing.
The present study concerns the derivation of system resistance
factors suitable for the limit state design by advanced analysis of cold-
formed steel portal frames comprising members of locally unstable
sections. Section 2 introduces the four baseline frames used for the
reliability calibration, the nonlinear finite element (FE) structural
models and the system failure modes. The four baseline frames are
chosen to represent typical constructions of cold-formed portal frames.
Section 3 presents the framework of the reliability calibration, in-
cluding the probabilistic models of random variables, and the system
reliability assessment tool. In Section 4, the reliability calibration re-
sults are presented and discussed. System resistance factors consistent
with a desired system reliability level are suggested.
2. Baseline frames and FE models
2.1. Descriptions of the frames
Wind design of four portal frames are considered to derive the
system resistance factor for the advanced analysis. The frames are de-
noted by WF1 to WF4. Series WF1 and WF2 have a relatively short span
of 8 m, comprising members made from single channels. Series WF3
and WF4 have a large span of 14 m, comprising members made from
back-to-back channels. Fig. 1 shows the layout of the frames. These
frames represent the common construction of cold-formed portal frames
with typical values of span, heights and pitch angles as used in practice.
The geometries and cross-section sizes of WF1-WF4 are summarized in
Table 1. The frames are selected to cover a variety of failure modes; this
will be discussed in some details in Section 2.3.
The steel is considered as elastic-perfectly plastic. Sensitivity ana-
lyses suggested that the common failure modes of portal frames with
cold-formed steel sections are not particularly influenced by the post-
Fig. 1. Geometry of the portal frame and wind load.
165
Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171
yielding behaviour of the steel [13]. The nominal value of the yield
stress is 550 MPa, with a modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa.
For cold-formed steel sections, coiling, uncoiling, cold bending to
shape, and straightening of the formed member lead to a complicated
set of initial stresses in the section. Likewise, as a result of the manu-
facturing process, the yield stress of the section corners is typically
enhanced, a phenomena commonly referred to as corner strength en-
hancement. Regarding the modelling of residual stresses and corner
strength enhancement in finite element analysis, three main approaches
have been followed: (i) model the actual manufacturing process, by
assuming the stress-strain curve of virgin steel, followed by the mod-
elling of the actual coiling, uncoiling, roll-forming or press-braking
processes, e.g., in Pastor et al. [14], (ii) model residual stresses and
corner strength enhancement independently, e.g., in Crisan et al. [15],
and (iii) simply ignore simultaneously both effects assuming that the
favourable effect of corner strength enhancement is cancelled by the
unfavourable effect of residual stress, e.g., in Sarawit [16], Sena Car-
doso and Rasmussen [17]. The present study adopts the third approach,
assuming that the enhanced yield stress in the highly worked corner
compensates the effect of residual stress.
As observed from joint component tests [18], the moment-rotation
curves of typical bolted portal frame joints can be reasonably described
by a multi-linear curve. Thus, a bi-linear curve in Fig. 2 is adopted to
model the partial rigidity of the joints. The bi-linear moment-rotation
curve is defined by four parameters, M1, M2, K1 and K2. The present
study does not consider joint failure. It is assumed that at the ultimate
state of the frame, the joints have not reached their ultimate moment
capacities or their ductility limits.
Three types of initial geometric imperfections are relevant for a
cold-formed frame, i.e., imperfections at frame, member and cross-
section levels. The member imperfections of a space member include
strong axis out-of-straightness (camber imperfection), weak axis out-of-
straightness (bow imperfection), and twist imperfection. Fig. 3 de-
monstrates the sectional imperfections, including the local and distor-
tional imperfections.
It is assumed that the camber, bow and twist imperfections along
the member length is described by a half sinusoidal (single wave) curve,
i.e.,
π·z
αi (z ) = Ai ·sin ⎛ ⎞
⎝ L ⎠ (2)
in which αi represents the ith member imperfection (camber, bow, and
twist), z is the coordinate along the member, L represents the length
between end restraint points, and Ai is the amplitude of the ith member
imperfection. For the cross-section distortional imperfection, the mag-
nitude (δ in Fig. 3) varies along the member by:
π·z ⎞
δdis (z ) = Adis ·sin ⎛
⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ld ⎠ (3)
in which δdis (z ) represents the distortional imperfection magnitude at
location z, Ld is the buckling half-wavelength for the distortional im-
perfection, and Adis is the maximum amplitude (at the middle of Ld).
Similarly, the variation of the local imperfection, δloc (z ) , along the
member is given by
π·z ⎞
δloc (z ) = Aloc ·sin ⎛
⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ll ⎠ (4)
in which Ll is the buckling half-wavelength for the local imperfection,
and Aloc is the maximum amplitude.
The nominal parameters for the four frames are given in Table 2,
including the connection stiffness parameters and the initial geometric
imperfections. In particular, the design (nominal) value of frame out-of-
plumbness angle is 1/500 (as specified in AS4600 [3] and AISI S100-10
[4]). Design value of member out-of-straightness (camber and bow
imperfections) is L/1000. Note that the nominal frame models do not
F. Sena Cardoso et al. Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171

Table 1
Dimensions and section sizes of the frames (unit: mm).
WF1 WF2 WF3 WF4

Heave 4800 6300 7800 4800

Hapex 6000 7500 9900 6900
Span 8000 8000 14,000 14,000
Column (H × W × t) C(302 × 96 × 1.5) C(203 × 76 × 2.4) 2C(203 × 76 × 2.4) 2C(254 × 76 × 1.2)
Rafter (H × W × t) C(352 × 108 × 2.4) C(352 × 108 × 3.0) 2C(352 × 108 × 3.0) 2C(352 × 108 × 3.0)

H × W × t = height × width × thickness

Table 2
Connection properties and initial geometric imperfections (nominal values).
WF1 WF2 WF3 WF4

Eave joint
M1 [kNm] 64 64 76 76
M2 [kNm] 76 76 92 92
K1 [kNm/rad] 6400 6400 7600 4800
K2 [kNm/rad 400 400 400 300

Apex joint
M1 [kNm] 56 56 68 68
M2 [kNm] 80 80 96 96
K1 [kNm/rad] 1400 1400 17,000 10,500
K2 [kNm/rad 1500 1500 1750 1125

Column base
M1 [kNm] 60 60 60 60
M2 [kNm] 100 100 100 100
Fig. 2. Moment-rotation curve of semi-rigid joints.
K1 [kNm/rad] 6000 6000 6000 6000
K2 [kNm/rad 450 450 450 450
Out-of-plane purlin spaced 1 m spaced 0.6 m spaced spaced 0.7 m
0.7 m
Out-of-plane girts spaced spaced spaced spaced
0.76 m 0.763 m 0.76 m 0.78 m
Frame Out-of- 1/500 1/500 1/500 1/500
plumb

Column initial geometric imperfections

Bow imp., L (m) 1/1000, 1/1000, 1/1000, 1/1000, 0.78
0.76 0.763 0.76
Camber imp., L (m) 1/1000, 4.6 1/1000, 6.1 1/1000, 7.6 1/1000, 4.6
Rafter initial geometric imperfections
Bow imp., L (m) 1/1000, 1 1/1000, 0.6 1/1000, 0.7 1/1000, 0.7
Camber imp., L (m) 1/1000, 3.6 1/1000, 3.6 1/1000, 6.8 1/1000, 4.8

L = length between restraint points

while the nominal structural models do not include the twist or sec-
tional imperfections, the structural analysis models used in the relia-
bility calibrations do incorporate the local, distortional and twist im-
perfections. Therefore, possible influence of random twist and sectional
imperfections on system safety are reflected in the derived ϕs factor.

2.2. Advanced FE analysis models

Fig. 3. Sectional initial geometric imperfections for single channel and double
channels, (a) distortional imperfections, and (b) local imperfections.
include the twist imperfection or the sectional imperfections. Sensi-
tivity analyses have shown that the sectional imperfection mainly af-
fects the failure modes involving sectional buckling, with a reduction of
system ultimate strength typically no greater than 3% [13]. For other
failure modes involving no cross-sectional buckling, the influence of
sectional imperfection is even smaller [13]. It should be noted that
Structural modelling and analyses are carried out using the software
ABAQUS [19]. Rafters and columns are modelled using shell-elements
(S4R element in ABAQUS). For back-to-back cold-formed channels, the
interactions between two webs are simulated by creating a TIE con-
straint between the webs. Four elements are typically used cross the
width of each flat plate. The geometric imperfections are incorporated
in the structural models directly by placing the relevant FE nodes at the
defined imperfect geometry. The most critical combination of the di-
rections of each type of geometric imperfections is determined and used
for the nominal structural model. For the design of a main-wind-force-
resisting frame, external wind load pressure is applied to the windward
wall, leeward wall and the roof, as shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that
the gravity load has already included the self-weight of the structure.
The ultimate limit states of the frames are determined from the load-
displacement (apex drift) response curves computed by static pushover
analyses. If a peak point exists in the load-displacement response, the

166
F. Sena Cardoso et al. Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171

corresponding load is the ultimate load the frame can support. In the parameters (yield stress, elastic modulus and cross-section thickness)
case where the load-displacement response has no clear descending have been previously studied in the reliability calibrations of earlier
part, the point where the stiffness of the curve reduces to 5% of the versions of cold-formed seel design codes [21,22]. Other uncertain
initial stiffness is taken as the limit point [20]. In addition, a dis- parameters are discussed in some details herein.
placement-based criterion is also imposed, i.e., the system limit point
cannot exceed the point when the lateral displacement (at apex)
3.1. Semi-rigid joint properties
reaches 5% of the frame height. As will be discussed subsequently, in
most cases the ultimate strengths of the frames are defined by the peak
Joints of cold-formed portal frames often use bolted connection
points in the load-displacement responses, except for a few cases in
systems. Although test data of cold-formed joints exist in the literature,
which the displacement criterion governed the frame strength limit.
e.g., [23–28], there are only very limited test results of nominally
Details of the nonlinear finite element models can be found elsewhere
identical joints to estimate the stochastic variability of joint properties.
[13].
Component tests of cold-formed portal frame joints were reported in
[24]. The connections were formed by connecting the webs and flanges
2.3. Failure behaviours of the frames of back-to-back channels with gusset plates using bolts. Four nominally
identical apex joints and two eave joints were tested, and the joint
The four frames under given values of gravity loads are first ex- moment-rotation responses were fitted to a multi-linear curve. Based on
amined to investigate their failure modes. In all analyses, the given the four apex joint tests, the COV’s of M1, M2, K1 and K2 were found to
gravity loads are first fully applied, then the wind load is applied in- be 0.087, 0.086, 0.232 and 0.042, respectively [24]. The results suggest
crementally until the failure of the system. that the initial stiffness K1 has a larger uncertainty than the other
Frame WF1 (under a gravity load of 1.2 kN/m): At a wind load of parameters. As the statistical data for cold-formed joints are very
3.04 kN/m, distortional buckling and yielding occur near the eave and scarce, the present paper assumes that cold-formed joints have similar
base of the right column. Frame sway instability occurs when the wind uncertainties as typical hot-rolled steel joints, for which a relatively
load increases to 4.57 kN/m. At the ultimate limit state, spatial plastic large supporting database is available, e.g. [29,30]. Typically, the COV
hinges formed near the eave and the base of the right column. of the initial stiffness of hot-rolled steel connections is on the order of
Frame WF2: under a constant gravity load of 2.4 kN/m, distortional 0.20–0.30. Adding engineering judgement, the present study assumes
buckling occurs near the eave of the right column when the applied that K1 has a relatively large COV of 0.30, K2 has a COV of 0.15, M1 has
wind load is about 5.36 kN/m. When the wind pressure is further in- a COV of 0.10 and M2 has a COV of 0.15. It is further assumed that the
creased to 8.74 kN/m, both columns start yielding and lateral-torsional means of these parameters are equal to their nominal values. All these
buckling occurs in the left column. The frame is at a state of incipient parameters are modelled by lognormal distributions.
collapse when the wind load reaches 10.91 kN/m.
The failure mode of frame WF3 (under a gravity load of 1.8 kN/m)
3.2. Initial geometric imperfections
is excessive drift. The 5% drift criterion is reached when the wind load
increases to 7.63 kN/m.
Survey data of out-of-plumbness of cold-formed frames do not exist
For frame WF4 (under a gravity load of 2.4 kN/m), yielding starts
in the archival literature. Instead, the present study uses the database of
near the base of the right column when the wind load is about 5.79 kN/
the out-of-plumbness of general steel structures [31,32]. A lognormal
m. At a wind load of 8.40 kN/m, the eave of the right column develops
random variable can describe the out-of-plumbness angle, with a zero
distortional buckling. Frame sway instability occurs when the wind
mean and a standard deviation of 1/610 [13].
load increases to 9.81 kN/m. At that time spatial plastic hinges develop
Table 4 summarizes the statistics of the amplitudes of member im-
near the base-plate and eave of the right column.
perfections reported in the literature. The results are quite scattered,
e.g., the mean major axis out-of-straightness varies between 1/1340
3. System reliability calibration and 1/4794. The weighted average values (weighting by the number of
data in each source) of the mean major and minor axes member out-of-
Table 3 presents the statistics of the uncertain variables, including straightness are 1/2490 and 1/2249, respectively. These two values are
elastic modulus, yield stress, cross-section thickness, geometric im- significantly smaller than the typical design value of member out-of-
perfections, and joint properties. For comparison, the design (nominal) straightness in main stream specifications (1/1000 in AS4600 [3] and
values are also listed. The nominal values are used in the design stage, AISI S100-10 [4]). The weighted average values in the last row of
while the statistics are used for the probabilistic study and reliability Table 4 are used as the statistics of the member imperfection
calibration. The stochastic characteristics of some of the uncertain
Table 4
Table 3 Statistics of the amplitudes of member imperfections.
Nominal values and statistics of the uncertain parameters.
Ref. # of Camber (×L)* Bow (×L)* Twist ratio
Nominal mean Std Dev Dist. type data
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev
Frame out-of-plumb 1/500 0 1/610 Normal [o/m] [o/m]
Section thickness t tn tn 0.05tn LogNormal
Bow imp. L/1000 L/2250 L/3500 Normal [43] 32 1/4794 1/11470 1/1912 1/4646 – –
Camber imp. L/1000 L/2500 L/3300 Normal [44] 12 – – 1/2359 1/1842 – –
Twist (degree/m) 0 0.26 0.2 Normal [45] 31 1/3673 1/3984 1/2715 1/4475 0.1312 0.0984
Distortional imp 0 0.81t 0.62t Normal [46] 4 1/2510 1/2829 1/2462 1/6655 0.1083 0.0492
Local imp 0 0.375t 0.34t Normal [47] 89 1/1564 1/1937 1/2685 1/4475 – –
E En En 0.06En LogNormal [48] 23 1/4578 1/8403 1/4444 1/14190 – –
Fy Fyn 1.1Fyn 0.11Fyn LogNormal [49] 29 1/1340 1/3797 1/1148 1/4342 0.3609 0.1969
M1 M1n M1n 0.1M1n LogNormal [50] 210 1/3477 1/5643 1/2242 1/3054 0.3740 0.2428
M2 M2n M2n 0.15M2n LogNormal [51] 24 1/1427 1/2422 1/2457 1/5596 – –
K1 K1n K1n 0.3K1n LogNormal Weighted 1/2490 1/3829 1/2249 1/3716 0.2590 0.1968
K2 K2n K2n 0.15K2n LogNormal Average

Note: the subscript n represents the nominal value. * L = length between restraint points.

167
F. Sena Cardoso et al. Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171

Table 5 95 were studied in [33]. It was found that Wmax has a mean of 0.90W50
Survey of local imperfection results. and a COV of 0.35, in which W50 represents the design wind load with a
Ref. Shape of cross-section # of data Local Distortional 50-year return period wind speed. An Extreme Type I distribution can
fit Wmax. This wind load statistic has been used extensively in the de-
Mean StDev Mean StDev velopment of LRFD criteria in the United States. Note that the wind
directionality factor was estimated based on a simple geometric ana-
[43] Channels and hats 41 0.420t 0.720t – –
[44] Channels 12 0.400t 0.330t – – lysis at a time when there were no data on directionality effects. Thus in
[44] – 45 – – 2.140t 1.290t [33], it was assumed that the directionality factor had a mean of 0.85
[52] Channels 45 – – 0.790t 0.270t (which is equivalent to its nominal value). Recent experimental re-
[53] Channels 11 0.550t 0.220t – – search has revealed that this assumption was conservative [34]. The
[53] Channels 33 – – 0.680t 0.300t
mean value of the directionality factor is closer to 0.72 (which is 0.835
[45] Channels 31 0.480t 0.150t 0.470t 0.170t
[46] Channels 4 0.224t 0.119t 0.750t 0.220t of its nominal value) for non-hurricane regions. Using the updated
[54] Channels 24 – – 1.360t 0.350t statistics of the directionality factor, the mean of Wmax in ASCE7-16
[47] Channels 88 0.280 t 0.070 t 0.260 t 0.490 t decreases from 0.9W50 to 0.75W50, with the COV unchanged [34], as
[51] Channels 24 0.306t 0.282t 0.350t 0.850t
shown in Table 6.
[55] Channels 30 0.480t 0.170t 0.890t 0.210t
Weighted average 0.375t 0.34t 0.81t 0.62t The wind load statistics for AS/NZS1170.2 were examined in
[35–38], and are summarized in Table 6. It is estimated that Wmax has a
Note: t = section thickness. mean of 0.68W50 and a COV of 0.39. These values are not dissimilar to
the updated American wind load statistics.
amplitudes, assuming normal distributions. In the probabilistic studies In the aforementioned studies, the means of Wmax were expressed
(simulations), the amplitudes of the member imperfections are sampled using W50 since the loading standards traditionally defined the design
randomly, and then randomly assigned a direction. Eq. (2) is then used (nominal) wind loads using the 50-year-return period wind speeds.
to determine the member imperfections at any location along the However, in current American and Australian wind load standards, the
member length. nominal wind speeds are defined using a high-return-period (i.e.,
The statistical data of the local imperfections from the literature are 500–700 years) as opposed to the traditional 50-year return period to
summarized in Table 5. Results from different sources are combined to eliminate the need for the “cyclone factor” in earlier loading standards.
obtain the weighted average values. It was found that the local im- The wind load for T-year return period, denoted by WT, is approxi-
perfection has a mean value of 0.375t, and a standard deviation of mately related to W50 as [34]:
0.34t; the mean of the distortional imperfection is 0.81t with a standard
WT = W50 [0.36 + 0.1 ln(12T )]2 (6)
deviation of 0.62t. These statistics are adopted in the present study.
In ASCE7-16 [39], the nominal wind load Wn (for Risk Category II
structures) corresponds to a return period of 700 years, thus W700/
3.3. Wind load statistics
W50 = 1.6. Using W700 as the nominal wind load Wn, the mean of Wmax
is expressed as 0.75W50 = 0.75W700/1.6 = 0.47Wn. In AS/NZS1170.2
Wind loading is the major influence in cold-formed structural de-
[40], the design wind speed Wn is for a return period of 500 years (for
sign. It is therefore important to evaluate wind load statistics carefully.
common structures with Importance Level 2 and a 50-year service life).
In a general form, the wind load, W, on a structure may be written as
Therefore, W500/W50 = 1.5. Accordingly, the mean of Wmax is rewritten
W = c·Cp·E ·G·D·V 2 (5) as 0.68W50 = 0.45W500 = 0.45 Wn. It can be seen that the wind loads
in ASCE7-16 and AS/NZS1170.2 have similar statistics, i.e., the mean of
in which c is a constant, V = wind speed, Cp = pressure coefficient, wind load Wmax is about 0.45Wn ∼ 0.47Wn, with a COV approximately
E = exposure factor, G = gust factor, and D = directionality factor. In 0.35–0.40. In the present paper, the wind load Wmax is modelled as an
design, the wind load of interest is the maximum wind load, denoted by Extreme Type 1 largest distribution. The mean and COV of Wmax are
Wmax, corresponding to the maximum wind speed, Vmax, to occur in taken as 0.47Wn and 0.40, respectively. This wind load probabilistic
50 years (typical service lifetime). All the parameters in Eq. (5) (except model covers both the wind loads in ASCE7-16 and AS/NZS1170.2.
for the constant c) are random. The estimation of the statistics of these
random parameters is a very difficult task requiring extensive sup- 3.4. System reliability analysis method
porting data. In certain cases, the Delphi questionnaire method (expert
judgement) has been used to estimate the wind load statistics [33]. As In general, wind loads govern the design of light gauge steel frames.
more data becomes available, the wind load probabilistic models are Therefore, the ϕs for cold-formed portal frames is calibrated considering
updated [34]. Table 6 summarises the statistics for the wind pressure wind load combination. The reliability calibration of gravity loads only
parameters in the American loading standards ASCE7-95 and ASCE7-16 is not presented in this paper, but can be found elsewhere [13].
and the Australian standard AS/NZS1170.2-11. The safety of a structure can be quantified by its failure probability,
The wind load statistics for the American loading standard ASCE7- Pf. Direct Monte Carlo simulation is often used for evaluating structural
reliability [41]. However, this method is computationally prohibitive
Table 6 for the present study, as capturing the rare event of structural failure
Wind load statistics for ASCE7 and AS/NZS1170.2. requires a considerable amount of trails (on the order of 105 or larger),
ASCE7-95 ASCE7-16 AS/NZS 1170.2 each trail requiring a nonlinear shell element-based analysis. Thus, the
simplified reliability analysis method introduced in [10] is used in the
Mean/ COV Mean/ COV Mean/ COV present study. In this method, the stochastic characteristics of the lat-
nominal nominal nominal
eral resistance of the frame is first estimated using random sampling
Cp 0.91 0.15 0.91 0.15 0.95 0.15 techniques, and then compared with the wind loads to approximate the
E 0.97 0.15 0.97 0.15 0.90 0.20 failure probability.
G 0.96 0.12 0.96 0.12 0.95 0.10 Wind-resistance design must satisfy Eq. (7), i.e.,
D 1.0 0.12 0.835 0.12 0.81 0.1
Vmax/V50 1.0 0.12 1.0 0.12 1.0 0.12 ϕs Rn = 1.2Dn + Wn (7)
Wmax/W50 0.90 0.35 0.75 0.35 0.68 0.39
where Dn = dead load, and Wn = wind load. To evaluate the system

168
F. Sena Cardoso et al. Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171

reliability, the limit state function corresponding to Eq. (7) can be ex- Table 7
pressed as: Statistics of lateral resistance and system reliability index of WF1.

g ( ) = Rw − Wmax (8) Dn ϕs Wn R̄w VR β

in which Rw represents the lateral capacity of the frame (simultaneously
subjected to the dead load Dn). The system fails if Rw is smaller than
Wmax.
The core of the reliability analysis is to obtain the stochastic model
for Rw. This can be achieved using the random sampling technique
through the following steps:
1. Generate a frame with randomly sampled geometric, material and
stiffness properties, and loaded with the dead load Dn. Note that the
dead load is treated deterministically herein since its uncertainty is
significantly smaller than that of wind load.
2. Carry out an advanced analysis to compute the frame’s lateral re-
sistance Rw of the frame.
3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 to obtain samples of the lateral resistance Rw,
and compute its empirical statistics (sample mean, standard devia-
tion, and distribution type).
Step 1 can be performed using the standard random sampling
technique, or more efficient techniques such as Latin Hypercube
Sampling (LHS). This study typically used 200 LHS simulations to cover
the probability space of Rw. Once the statistics of Rw is obtained, the
system failure probability is equivalent to evaluating the probability
that Rw is smaller than Wmax. This represents the simplest form of re-
liability evaluation, and can be computed easily [41].
Limit state structural design has traditionally used the reliability
index, β, to quantify the structural reliability. The probability of failure
Pf is related to β by β = Φ−1(1 − Pf), and Φ denotes the cumulative
distribution of a unit normal [22,41]. In this paper, the system relia-
bility index is denoted by βs, with the subscript “s” to emphasise it is a
“system” reliability.
4. Reliability calibration results
Using the reliability analysis method presented in Section 3, the
system reliability index βs of a given system can be computed, and the
relation between βs and ϕs can be established. Obviously, the required
value of ϕs for achieving a given target reliability index may not be the
same for different frames. Even for the same frame, the required re-
sistance factor depends on the loading scenario, notably the wind-to-
gravity load ratio. Since wind loads are more uncertain than the dead
load, the required resistance factor would decrease as the wind load
becomes more dominant. However, for design purposes, a single re-
sistance factor is desirable. To achieve this goal, the reliability cali-
bration considers three different levels of design dead load for each of
the four baseline frames. The three values of dead load represent (re-
latively) heavy, medium and light dead loads. Accordingly, the design
wind load that the frame can support becomes more dominant as the
applied dead load is reduced. Under each design dead load, three values
of ϕs (0.7, 0.8 and 0.9) are considered to establish the link between ϕs
and system reliability index βs.
For a structural system designed according to Eq. (7), the linkage
relating βs and ϕs is determined using the following four steps.
Step 1. Establish a “nominal” FE structural model using the nominal
values of frame properties. For a prescribed design dead load Dn and
a given system resistance factor ϕs, choose the nominal wind load
Wn such that the frame satisfies Eq. (7).
Step 2. Perform a probabilistic analysis (simulations) to estimate the
statistics of the lateral resistance Rw of the frame designed in Step 1
(see Section 3.4).
Step 3. Evaluate the reliability associated with the limit state: g
() = Rw − Wmax.
1.2 0.9 3.927 4.575 0.127 2.43
0.8 3.414 2.79
0.7 2.902 3.21
0.8 0.9 4.169 4.687 0.147 2.29
0.8 3.654 2.63
0.7 3.139 3.20
0.45 0.9 4.377 4.915 0.145 2.29
0.8 3.857 2.64
0.7 3.335 2.99
R̄w = mean of Rw, VR = COV of Rw.
Step 4. Repeat Step 2 and Step 3 for each combination of Dn and ϕs.
For each Dn, a ϕs versus βs curve is plotted. The average curve for the
three values of Dn is used to represent the relationship between ϕs
and βs for the frame.
This procedure is demonstrated using the example of WF1. Table 7
presents the values of Wn associated with the three values of Dn and
three values of ϕs, i.e. a total of nine combinations of Dn and ϕs. For
each pair of (Dn, Wn, ϕs), the frame is at its ultimate limit state ac-
cording to the design Eq. (7).
Next, a sample distribution of the lateral resistance of WF1 under
the (deterministic) nominal dead load Dn is generated using 200 LHS
simulations. Since the system lateral resistance is generally influenced
by the gravity loads acting on the frame, the probabilistic analyses of
the system lateral resistance need to be conducted for all three values of
Dn. Fig. 4 plots the histograms of the lateral resistance (Rw) of WF1
under three values of Dn (1.2 kN/m, 0.8 kN/m and 0.45 kN/m). The
mean values and COVs of Rw for WF1 are listed in Table 7. It suggests
that the COVs of Rw under different Dn are quite similar, in a narrow
range of 0.13 and 0.15. Rw can be modelled as a lognormal.
With the probabilistic information of Rw and Wmax, the reliability
indices of WF1 for each case of ϕs and Dn are computed using the direct
Monte Carlo technique and listed in the last column of Table 7. For a
prescribed target βs, the required ϕs can be directly obtained from
Table 7. For example, to achieve a target βs of 2.5, ϕs needs to be 0.855
for WF1.
Tables 8–10 summarize the loading information, lateral resistance
models, and reliability analysis results of the other three baseline
frames. It can be seen that the uncertainty of WF3’s ultimate strength is
relatively low, about 0.05–0.06. Similar observation is also made in the
case of WF2 under the particular dead load Dn of 3.6 kN/m. This is
because the failures of WF3 and WF2 (with Dn of 3.6 kN/m) are con-
trolled by the deformation criterion. This failure mode is less influenced
by the uncertainty of material strength (Fy). Also, the randomness in
material stiffness (Young’s modulus) is significantly less than the
variability associated with steel yield stress. On the other hand, the
failure of other frames are affected more by the randomness in both
material strength and stiffness. The COVs for the ultimate strengths of
these frames vary between 0.11 and 0.18, with a typical value of 0.15.
Table 11 summarizes the average values of βs (at three levels of dead
load) for the four frames considering three possible system resistance
factors (ϕs = 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9). For a given value of ϕs, the reliability
indices for the four frames are comparable. For instance, for a ϕs value
of 0.90, the reliability indices of the four frames vary between 2.34 and
2.56, with an average value of 2.41. Alternatively, the required ϕs for
achieving a certain reliability index can be readily obtained from
Table 11.
Hot-rolled steel members subject to dead and live loads have a
target reliability index approximately 2.6–2.8, and about 2.5 under
wind loads in the existing AISC LRFD [21,22,42]. Historically, the

169
F. Sena Cardoso et al. Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171

Table 9
Statistics of lateral resistance and system reliability index of WF3.
Dn ϕs Wn R̄w VR β

1.8 0.9 6.792 7.41 0.056 2.38

0.8 6.002 2.71
0.7 5.212 3.10

1.2 0.9 6.895 7.498 0.048 2.35

0.8 6.107 2.69
0.7 5.317 3.13

0.8 0.9 6.963 7.569 0.054 2.38

0.8 6.175 2.7
0.7 5.387 3.05

R̄w = mean of Rw, VR = COV of Rw.

Table 10
Statistics of lateral resistance and system reliability index of WF4.
Dn ϕs Wn R̄w VR β

2.4 0.9 8.637 11.388 0.161 2.66

0.8 7.495 2.98
0.7 6.430 3.37

1.8 0.9 8.830 11.697 0.18 2.60

0.8 7.813 2.88
0.7 6.745 3.24

1.0 0.9 9.640 11.838 0.172 2.41

0.8 8.567 2.72
0.7 7.283 3.11

R̄w = mean of Rw, VR = COV of Rw.

Table 11
Reliability indices βs of four frames (average of three levels of Dn).
ϕs WF1 WF2 WF3 WF4 Average

0.9 2.34 2.38 2.37 2.56 2.41

0.8 2.69 2.65 2.70 2.86 2.73
0.7 3.14 2.94 3.09 3.24 3.10

target reliabilities of cold-formed members are somewhat lower than

those of hot-rolled steel members, partly due to the higher live-to-dead
load ratio in cold-formed steel members. Under gravity loads only, cold-
formed steel structural members are calibrated to fulfil a target member
reliability index of approximately 2.5 [3,4]. For the Direct Design
Method, if a target reliability index for frame systems can be estab-
lished, the ϕs versus βs relationship in Table 11 can assist the code
writers to arrive at a suitable value of ϕs. For instance, to achieve a βs
value of 2.5 under wind loads, the required ϕs for WF1 to WF4 would be
0.856, 0.856, 0.861 and 0.910, respectively. The average value of ϕs is
0.87. Considering that resistance factors in design standards are cus-
Fig. 4. Histograms of lateral resistance (Rw) of WF1. tomarily rounded to the nearest 0.05, a ϕs of 0.85 may be adopted. The
final choices of target system reliability indices for the advanced ana-
Table 8 lysis method ultimately rest with the specification committee.
Statistics of lateral resistance and system reliability index of WF2.
Dn ϕs Wn R̄w VR β 5. Conclusion
3.6 0.9 12.223 13.328 0.071 2.36
0.8 11.135 2.63 A reliability analysis has been presented for designing cold-formed
0.7 9.918 2.91 steel portal frames by the Direct Design Method using advanced non-
1.8 0.9 9.245 10.602 0.105 2.44 linear structural analysis. The system reliability calibration is based on
0.8 8.400 2.70 four frames representing typical constructions of cold-formed steel
0.7 7.568 2.97 portal frames, with various failure modes. Through simulation techni-
1.0 0.9 8.580 9.546 0.107 2.34 ques, the probabilistic characteristics of the ultimate lateral strengths of
0.8 7.717 2.63 the baseline frames are determined. It is found that the ultimate
0.7 6.853 2.95 strength of frame WF3 has a relatively small uncertainty, with a COV of
R̄w = mean of Rw, VR = COV of Rw.
about 0.05. This is because the failure of frame WF3 is controlled by the
deformation criterion, thus less influenced by the uncertainty of

170
F. Sena Cardoso et al.
material strength. The limit states of other frames are defined by the
peak points of the load-displacement responses, and thus affected by
the randomness in both material strength and stiffness. The ultimate
strengths of these frames have coefficients of variation in the range
between 0.11 and 0.18, with a typical value of 0.15.
The derived values of ϕs for the four frames are comparable. If as-
suming a system reliability index of 2.5 for wind design, the values of ϕs
of the four frames vary between 0.856 and 0.910; the averaged ϕs is
0.87. This system resistance factor may be used for cold-formed portal
frames with similar failure modes to those examined in the present
work. The variation of system reliability level (βs) as a function of the
frame resistance factor ϕs developed in this paper can help the speci-
fication committees to arrive at the suitable ϕs for the Direct Design
Method.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Australian Research Council
under Discovery Grant DP110104263. Francisco Sena Cardoso was
provided with a supplementary scholarship by the Centre for Advanced
Engineering at the University of Sydney. This support is gratefully ac-
knowledged.
References
[1] AS4100. AS4100-1998 Steel structures. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia;
1998.
[2] AISC. AISC 360-10 Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois:
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); 2010.
[3] AS4600. Cold-formed steel structures. Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia; 2018.
[4] AISI-S100. North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel struc-
tural members. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI); 2012.
[5] Schafer BW. Review: the direct strength method of cold-formed steel member de-
sign. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(7–8):766–78.
[6] Buonopane SG, Schafer BW. Reliability of steel frames designed with advanced
analysis. J Struct Eng 2006;132(2):267–76.
[7] Thai HT, Uy B, Kang WH, Hicks S. System reliability evaluation of steel frames with
semi-rigid connections. J Constr Steel Res 2016;121:29–39.
[8] Zhang H, Ellingwood BR, Rasmussen KJR. System reliabilities in steel structural
frame design by inelastic analysis. Eng Struct 2014;81:341–8.
[9] Zhang H, Liu H, Ellingwood BR, Rasmussen KJR. System reliabilities of planar
gravity steel frames designed by the inelastic method in AISC 360–10. J Struct Eng
2018;144(3):1–8.
[10] Zhang H, Shayan S, Rasmussen KJR, Ellingwood BR. System-based design of planar
steel frames, I: reliability framework. J Constr Steel Res 2016;123:135–43.
[11] Zhang H, Shayan S, Rasmussen KJR, Ellingwood BR. System-based design of planar
steel frames, II: reliability results and design recommendations. J Constr Steel Res
2016;123:154–61.
[12] Liu W, Zhang H, Rasmussen K. System reliability-based Direct Design Method for
space frames with cold–formed steel hollow sections. Eng Struct 2018;166:79–92.
[13] Sena Cardoso F. System reliability-based criteria for designing cold-formed steel
structures by advanced analysis PhD thesis The University of Sydney; 2016.
[14] Pastor JBMM, Roure F, Casafont M. Residual stresses and initial imperfections in
non-linear analysis. Eng Struct 2013;46:493–507.
[15] Andrei Crisan VU, Dubina Dan. Behaviour of cold-formed steel perforated sections
in compression: Part 2—numerical investigations and design considerations. Thin-
Walled Struct 2012;61:97–105.
[16] Sarawit AT. Cold-formed steel frame and beam-column design PhD thesis Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University; 2003.
[17] Sena Cardoso F, Rasmussen KJR. Finite element (FE) modelling of storage rack
frames. J Constr Steel Res 2016;126:1–14.
[18] Zhang X, Rasmussen KJR, Zhang H. Experimental investigation of locally and dis-
tortionally buckled portal frames. J Constr Steel Res 2016;122:571–83.
[19] ABAQUS. version 6.10. Simulia, Dassault Systèmes, France; 2010.
[20] Ziemian RD, McGuire W, Deierlein GG. Inelastic limit states design. Part I: planar
frame studies. J Struct Eng 1992;118(9):2532–49.
[21] Ellingwood BR, MacGregor JG, Galambos TV, Cornell CA. Probability based load
criteria: load factors and load combinations. J Struct Division ASCE 1982;108(5).
171
Engineering Structures 182 (2019) 164–171
[22] Ellingwood BR. LRFD: implementing structural reliability in professional practice.
Eng Struct 2000;22:106–15.
[23] Chung KF, Ho HC, Wang AJ, Yu WK. Advances in analysis and design of cold-
formed steel structures. Adv Struct Eng 2016;11(6):615–32.
[24] Zhang X. Steel portal frames with locally unstable members PhD thesis The
University of Sydney; 2014.
[25] Dubina D. Structural analysis and design assisted by testing of cold-formed steel
structures. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(7–9):741–64.
[26] Chung KF, Lau L. Experimental investigation on bolted moment connections among
cold formed steel members. Eng Struct 1999;21(10):898–911.
[27] Wong MF, Chung KF. Structural behaviour of bolted moment connections in cold-
formed steel beam-column sub-frames. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58(2):253–74.
[28] Blum HB. Long-span cold-formed steel double channel portal frames PhD thesis The
University of Sydney; 2017.
[29] Rauscher TR, Gerstle KH. Reliability of rotational behavior of framing connections.
Eng J Am Inst Steel Construct 1992;29(1):12–9.
[30] Bjorhovde R, Brozzetti J, Colson A. Connections in steel structures: behaviour,
strength and design. CRC Press; 1988.
[31] Beaulieu D, Adams PF. The results of a survey on structural out-of-plumbs. Can J
Civ Eng 1978;5(4):462–70.
[32] Lindner J, Gietzelt R. Assumptions for imperfections for out-of-plumb of columns.
Stahlbau 1984;53:97–102.
[33] Ellingwood BR, Tekie PB. Wind load statistics for probability-based structural de-
sign. J Struct Eng 1999;125(4):453–63.
[34] McAllister TP, Wang N, Ellingwood BR. Risk-informed mean recurrence intervals
for updated wind maps in ASCE 7–16. J Struct Eng 2018;144(5):06018001.
[35] Pham L, Holmes JD, Leicester RH. Safety indices for wind loading in Australia. J
Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1983;14(1–3):3–14.
[36] Holmes JD. Wind loads and limit states design. Civ Eng Trans, IE Aust
1985;27:21–6.
[37] Henderson DJ, Ginger JD. Vulnerability model of an Australian high-set house
subjected to cyclonic wind loading. Wind Struct 2007;10(3):269–85.
[38] Holmes JD, Kwok KCS, Ginger JD. Wind loading handbook for Australia and New
Zealand-background to AS/NZS 1170.2 wind actions. Report No. AWES-HB-001-
2012, Australian Wind Engineering Society; 2012.
[39] ASCE7-16. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other
structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2017.
[40] AS/NZS1170.2. Structural design actions, Part 2: wind actions, Standards Australia/
Standards New Zealand; 2011.
[41] Melchers RE. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. John Wiley & Sons;
1999.
[42] Ellingwood BR. Probability-based codified design: past accomplishments and future
challenges. Struct Saf 1994;13:159–76.
[43] Dat DT, Peköz T. The strength of cold-formed steel columns. Technical Report No.
80-4. Cornell University; 1980.
[44] Mulligan GP. The influence of local buckling on the structural behavior of singly-
symmetric cold-formed steel columns. Technical Report No. 83-1. Cornell
University; 1983.
[45] Young B. The behaviour and design of cold-formed channel columns PhD thesis
Sydney, Australia: The University of Sydney; 1997.
[46] Dubina D, Ungureanu V. Effect of imperfections on numerical simulation of in-
stability behaviour of cold-formed steel members. Thin-Walled Struct
2002;40(3):239–62.
[47] Shifferaw Y, Vieira Jr LCM, Schafer BW. Compression testing of cold-formed steel
columns with different sheathing configurations. Annual stability conference,
structural stability research council. 2010.
[48] Rossi B, Jaspart J, Rasmussen K. Combined distortional and overall flexural-tor-
sional buckling of cold-formed stainless steel sections: experimental investigations.
J Struct Eng 2010;136(4):354–60.
[49] Schafer BW. Sheating braced design of wall studs. Research Report RP13-1.
Washington, D. C.: American Iron and Steel Institute; 2013.
[50] Zeinoddini V. Geometric imperfections in cold-formed steel members PhD thesis
Johns Hopkins University; 2011.
[51] Vieira LCM, Schafer BW. Behavior and design of sheathed cold-formed steel stud
walls under compression. J Struct Eng 2013;139(5):772–86.
[52] Lau SCW, Hancock GJ. Inelastic buckling of channel columns in the distortional
mode. Thin-Walled Struct 1990;10(1):59–84.
[53] Kwon Y, Hancock G. Tests of cold-formed channels with local and distortional
buckling. J Struct Eng 1992;118(7):1786–803.
[54] Wang H, Zhang Y. Experimental and numerical investigation on cold-formed steel
C-section flexural members. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(5):1225–35.
[55] Peterman KD. Experiments on the stability of sheathed cold-formed steel studs
under axial loading and bending Master thesis Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins
University; 2012.