Cold Formed Steel and Traditional Structural Steel: In Construction Industry

Permtermsin Zoltan^*
*Correspondence: Permtermsin Zoltan, Department of Metallurgical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, Email:

Introduction

When it comes to choosing the best material for construction projects, understanding the differences between cold-formed steel and traditional structural steel is essential. Both types of steel have their unique properties, benefits and limitations, making them suitable for different types of projects. This article will guide you through the key factors to consider when choosing between cold-formed steel and traditional structural steel. Cold-formed steel is created by rolling or pressing thin sheets of steel at room temperature. This manufacturing process leads to a lightweight, highly precise material that is easy to handle and work with. CFS is known for its versatility, making it popular for applications such as wall panels, roofing and light structural frames [1].

Traditional structural steel, often referred to as hot-rolled steel, is produced by heating steel above its recrystallization temperature and then rolling it into desired shapes. This process results in a dense, strong material that is typically used in heavy-duty construction applications like bridges, large buildings and industrial structures. CFS is designed to handle significant loads, especially in applications where weight savings are critical. However, it may not match the load-bearing capacity of traditional structural steel for larger, more demanding projects. CFS is highly efficient in tension and compression applications and is often reinforced with additional bracing to maximize strength [2].

Description

Traditional structural steel is generally stronger and more resilient when it comes to heavy loads and stress. It can be used in massive structures where durability and the ability to bear significant weight are paramount. Its high load-bearing capacity makes it ideal for constructing columns, beams and girders in high-rise buildings and infrastructure projects. One of the major advantages of CFS is its ease of fabrication. Since it’s created through a cold process, no additional heating is necessary, resulting in a cleaner, more energy-efficient production. CFS components are often pre-fabricated and cut to exact specifications, which reduces on-site labor and waste. Its light weight makes it easier and quicker to install, saving time and labor costs [3]. Hot-rolled steel fabrication involves high heat and more complex processes. While this requires more energy and may be less environmentally friendly than CFS, it results in a denser and more durable end product. Traditional steel components can also be prefabricated or modified on-site, but the larger weight of the material may necessitate heavy machinery and skilled labor, increasing project timelines and costs. CFS is generally more cost-effective for small to medium-sized projects due to its lightweight nature, reduced transportation costs and simpler installation. The precision of prefabricated CFS can lower waste and on-site errors, contributing to overall cost savings. While traditional structural steel often comes with higher material and handling costs, it’s the go-to choice for projects that demand superior strength and longevity [4].

The initial investment may be higher, but for projects requiring long-term durability and stability, structural steel may provide better value over the life of the structure. CFS is a sustainable material as it can be made from recycled steel and is 100% recyclable at the end of its life. The cold forming process is less energy-intensive than hot rolling, which contributes to a smaller carbon footprint. For eco-conscious projects aiming for green certifications, CFS may be a favorable option. While traditional structural steel can also be recycled, its production is more energy-intensive due to the high-temperature process required. However, advances in green steel production methods are helping to mitigate its environmental impact. The choice between CFS and traditional steel can hinge on a project’s sustainability goals and lifecycle analysis [5].

Conclusion

The choice between cold-formed steel and traditional structural steel depends on the specific needs of your project. Cold-formed steel is ideal for projects requiring lightweight, cost-effective and sustainable solutions, while traditional structural steel is best suited for heavy-duty construction where strength and long-term durability are paramount. Understanding the distinctions between these two types of steel will help you make an informed decision that aligns with your project’s budget, timeline and sustainability goals. Carefully evaluate your project requirements and consult with structural engineers and construction professionals to determine which type of steel is right for your needs.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Rao, B. V. N. and M. S. Rashid. “Direct observations of deformation-induced retained austenite transformation in a vanadium-containing dual-phase steel.”Mater Charact 39 (1997): 435-453.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Perdahcıoğlu, Emin Semih and Hubert JM Geijselaers. “Mechanical behavior of multi-phase steels comprising retained austenite.”Materials15 (2022): 498.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Kuang, Shuang, Yong-lin Kang, Hao Yu and Ren-dong Liu. “Effect of continuous annealing parameters on the mechanical properties and microstructures of a cold rolled dual phase steel.”Int J Miner Metall Mater 16 (2009): 159-164.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Sugimoto, Koh-ichi, Tsutomu Iida, Jyunya Sakaguchi and Takahiro Kashima. “Retained austenite characteristics and tensile properties in a TRIP type bainitic sheet steel.”ISIJ Int 40 (2000): 902-908.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Yan, Shu, Xianghua Liu, Wayne J. Liu and Huifang Lan, et al. “Microstructural evolution and mechanical properties of low-carbon steel treated by a two-step quenching and partitioning process.”Mater Sci Eng 640 (2015): 137-146.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at