ABSTRACT and test methods for the types of construction for which the
The steel design standards for buildings of the three building codes apply. The evolution of standards is simi-
countries of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are lar in every country, being based on the same underlying
compared in this paper. The special emphasis is on the scientific and technical principles, but the details, such as
criteria for the stability design of plates, columns, beams, arrangement of topics, formulas, and assumptions regard-
and beam-columns. It is shown that while the theoretical ing loads among these documents tend to diverge. This is
and experimental basis for all three codes is common, the due to the fact that historic traditions and individual pref-
final form of the criteria is not the same: different for- erences lead to different ways of expressing the same con-
mulas are used for columns, beams, and beam-columns. cepts.
Other differences arise from the fact that all three coun- In the modern world, engineering endeavors overlap na-
tries use different units. However, the designed propor- tional and continental boundaries, and a structural engi-
tions of the structural elements and structures are often neer often needs to operate under a variety of different
not significantly different in the final execution. Each code standards to design the same type of structure. There is,
has advantages and disadvantages in its details of design. therefore, great importance in comparing different design
However, there appears to be no major obstacle to arriving standards. Such comparisons explain the different ways
at mutually satisfactory codes which are essentially inter- in which, say, a beam or a column is designed in differ-
changeable among countries. ent countries, and they can point out the common aspects.
Such comparisons will eventually lead to design standards
in the same regions of the world becoming more alike. The
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
evolution of the Eurocodes in Europe is one such example
This paper is an outcome of the discussions of the North of consolidation (CEN, 1993). Because of the economic
American Coordinating Committee on Structural Steel and technical importance of design standards, many pre-
Design, which were conducted in four annual meetings vious comparisons have been made in the literature. Some
since 1995. It was reviewed and discussed by the mem- recent studies, for example, are found in the following ref-
bers of this group, whose members are: B. Ellingwood, erences: Beedle (1991), Galambos (1996, 1998), Bildand
F. Frias, M. Gilmor, N. Iwankiw, O. deBuen, H. Krentz, Kulak (1991), Kennedy et al. (1993), Liew et al. (1994),
D. J. L. Kennedy, G. L. Kulak, and E. Martinez-Romero. and White and Clarke (1997a and b).
The financial support of the American Institute of Steel This paper is one of the outcomes of a series of an-
Construction in the preparation of this paper is gratefully nual meetings of a group called North American Coordi-
acknowledged. The help of G. Jimenez Lopez in the inter- nation Committee on Structural Steel Design, formed to
pretation of the Mexican standard is appreciated. explore the similarities and differences in steel design
standards in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A
INTRODUCTION companion paper (Ellingwood, 1998) addresses loads,
For reasons of public safety the design of structures is reg- load factors, and the load combinations in the design codes
ulated by building codes. These legal documents are sup- of the three countries, as well as the assumptions underly-
ported by a variety of technical standards which provide ing their general design criteria. The present paper com-
criteria for materials, loads, design methods, limit states, pares the design standards for steel building structures of
the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The three stan-
dards are the Load and Resistance Factor Design Spec-
ification for Structural Steel Buildings of the American
Theodore V. Galambos is Emeritus Professor of Struc- Institute of Steel Construction (AISC, 1993a), Reglamento
tural Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Min-
de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal (the construc-
nesota.
tion regulations of the Federal District of Mexico, RCDF,
Table 1
Contents of CSA (1994) and AISC (1993)
0.6
0.5
0.4 I-
0.3 \-
0.2
0.1
0.0 J I I L _L J_
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
J/2
(bf/2tf)(Fy/EY
0.6
§
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1/2
(h/tw)/ (Fy/E)
Table 4
Column Equations
F
Fcr = 0.658Ac2Fy Fcr = Fy{\ + A f p F - >
(1 +A2"-0.15 2 ")"
forA c < 1.5 n = 2.24, SSRC column curve n = 1.4, most shapes; if
No. 1, welded H-shapes with Fy > 345 MPa (50 ksi), a larger
flame-cut edges, hollow value of n may be used
structural sections (class H)
1 .0
C S A , n= 2 . 2 4
0.8
•A I S C
0.6
^
R C D F , n= 1 .4
•^ 0.4
C S A , n= 1 . 3 4
R C D F, n= 1 .0
0.2
0.0
Table 5
Web Shear Limit States Stresses Fv
AISC CSA RCDF
HE
for - < 2.45 /-|- for y < 2.27 / J- for — < 2.19 /
tw y l~y *W \ Fy
E
1.50 / 1.44 l^-
F > y
- F F — ^
Fy
v F _ V Fy X Fy
Fv -l-y hv F hv
h
h h
tw tw tw
u)
V=
u h 2
(\
h
(h\2
k)
for 3.07 ^- < y < 260 for 3.21 / J - < < 260 for 3.13 / J - < y < 260
\ Fy lW tw
V Fy V y HV
0.5
0.4
CSA, RCDF
0.3
0.2 h
0.1
0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300
h/tw
Table 6
Capacity of Laterally Unbraced Beams
where : Lp = 1.76/> / J ^
1
L, - ^ V + V^+^FT
77 EGJ A
^*i — "^r- •» / — ~ —
SXV 2
X2 =
TN
FL = Fy - Fr
Ff = 70 MPa for rolled shapes,
maximum compressive residual stress at flange tips
5. Beam-Columns
for - A - > 0.2 ~ - +l^ ^ ~ s 1.00
The philosophy behind the beam-column interaction equa- 4>cPn <pcPn 9 <phMnx
tions of the CSA and the AISC standards is somewhat dif-
ferent. The CSA equations are strictly applicable to the P P M
for - A - £ 0.2 -pL- + -P£- < 1.00
strength of the member, given the axial and bending forces <pcPn 2<pcPn (PbMnx
1.0
CSA/RCDF
0.9 h
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
50 100 150 200 250 300
LI r.
0.
0.
0.:
W690 x 125 (W 27 x 84); Fy = 345 MPa (50 ksi)
0.
0. I I I I I I
50 100 150 200 250 300
Urtl
0 h
20 40 60 80 100 120
Lp/ry
^ 0.6 h CSA/RCDF
WuIMp
0.8 h
*. 0.6
-e- 0.4
CSA/RCDF
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
*MuIMp
Fig. 9 Comparison of beam-column interaction curves, lateral-torsional buckling.