“Many builders assume that an R-21 wall requires a 2×6 or 6-in. steel stud stuffed with an R-21 batt,” says the Scottsdale Construction Systems post, “How to Achieve R-21 with a 3½-in. Cold-Formed Steel Wall.” “That assumption made sense for wood framing, but it doesn’t hold for steel, and it often leads to heavier, more expensive walls than a project needs.”

Scottsdale, a Steel Framing Industry Association (SFIA) member, examined nine wall assemblies designed to achieve R-21 or higher in this post.

The analysis demonstrates how continuous exterior insulation reduces thermal bridging through steel framing. It also illustrates why nominal insulation R-values differ from the thermal performance of complete wall assemblies.

Nominal vs. Effective R-Values

An insulation product’s nominal R-value measures its resistance to heat flow under standardized test conditions. However, the R-value printed on insulation does not represent the thermal performance of an entire wall. It describes the insulation by itself, as tested in a laboratory.

Steel studs conduct heat through the framing cavity, creating thermal bridges that reduce the effectiveness of cavity insulation.

“Steel conducts heat so well that cavity insulation loses roughly half its nominal value,” Scottsdale says.

For example, ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Appendix A, provides the following effective R- values for steel studs at 16″ on center:

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Appendix A

“The table above uses ASHRAE 90.1’s long-standing steel-framing values,” Scottsdale says. “The newer AISI S250-21 method, which the calculator later in this article uses, models the steel more precisely and usually credits the cavity somewhat more. Under S250, an R-15 batt in 3½-in. studs performs at about R-7.4 with no exterior insulation and about R-8.4 behind R-12 of continuous insulation.”

But the key discussion point is this: Continuous insulation installed outside the steel studs reduces thermal bridging through the steel framing assembly, allowing more of the insulation’s nominal R-value to contribute to the wall’s overall thermal resistance. Cladding attachments and other penetrations, however, can affect an assembly’s performance, as noted in the 9 wall assemblies below.

The Scottsdale post illustrates how the effective thermal resistance of cavity insulation, continuous exterior insulation and other wall components contribute to overall wall performance:

R_total = R_{cavity,effective} + R_continuous + R_finishes + R_{air films}

Scottsdale’s simplified calculation illustrates how insulation and other wall components contribute to total thermal resistance. Actual wall performance also depends on thermal bridging through cladding attachments, ventilated air spaces and other assembly details.

Understanding U-Factors

The U-factor measures how readily heat passes through a wall assembly. Unlike R-values, lower U-factors indicate better thermal performance.

The U-factor is the inverse of the assembly’s effective R-value:

U = 1 / R_effective

For example, a wall with an effective R-value of 21 has a U-factor of approximately 0.048.

Energy codes often specify maximum allowable U-factors, making this measurement important when evaluating wall assemblies for code compliance.

Understanding ASHRAE and AISI S250 Calculations

Scottsdale’s analysis uses two approaches to evaluate steel-framed wall performance: ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and AISI S250.

Don Allen, SFIA executive director, notes two important distinctions:

• ASHRAE tables account for typical framing conditions, including top and bottom tracks and an allowance for approximately one additional stud for every 10 stud spaces, which may or may not apply universally to every ASHRAE calculation
• AISI S250-21, North American Standard for Thermal Transmittance of Building Envelopes with Cold-Formed Steel Framing, provides a methodology for calculating a true center-of-wall U-factor

The updated standard, SFIA AISI S250-26, is expected to be available for download by the end of November 2026.

Consequently, the two methods can produce different results for similar wall assemblies.

For example, Scottsdale reports that an R-15 batt in a 3½-in. steel stud wall provides approximately R-6.4 under the ASHRAE approach. Its AISI S250 calculation produces approximately R-7.4 without exterior insulation.

These values are not directly interchangeable because the methodologies represent different framing conditions.

Designers should use the applicable standard, calculation method and energy code requirements when evaluating wall performance.

Calculate Wall Thermal Performance

Scottsdale provides an interactive S250 Wall Calculator that allows designers to evaluate different CFS wall assemblies.

Users can adjust stud dimensions, spacing, insulation and cladding to calculate effective R-values and U-factors. The calculator also compares results against a user-defined thermal performance target. The tool uses the AISI S250-21 methodology.

Disclaimer: SFIA does not endorse or independently verify Scottsdale’s S250 Wall Calculator, its results or the wall assembly calculations presented in this article. Designers are responsible for verifying calculations against applicable standards, building codes and project-specific requirements.

Scottsdale’s S250 Wall Calculator lets designers customize wall assemblies and calculate effective R-values, U-factors and thermal performance compliance.

Nine Wall Assemblies Designed to Achieve R-21

Scottsdale evaluated 9 wall assemblies using 3½-in. steel studs spaced 16 in. on center.

Six assemblies incorporate ZIP System R-12 insulated sheathing. Three use other continuous insulation materials, including polyisocyanurate, mineral wool and expanded polystyrene (EPS). The following table summarizes Scottsdale’s published calculations.

9 Wall Assemblies

Source: Scottsdale Construction Systems. The examples use R-15 batt cavity insulation, except the one-coat stucco assembly, which uses R-13. Cavity values are effective R-values for steel framing from ASHRAE 90.1, Appendix A. Material, air space, and air film values come from the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, Chapter 26. The ZIP foam value comes from Huber’s ZIP System R-sheathing data sheet, which rates the R-12 panel at R-12.6 including its OSB layer. The S250 results use the same layer values but replace the ASHRAE cavity value with the full S250 calculation for the whole wall. See Scottdale’s post for more information.

Scottsdale’s S250 calculations assume 33-mil steel studs with 1⅝-in. flanges. Results will vary with stud dimensions, spacing, insulation properties and other assembly details.

Design Considerations for Exterior Insulation

Several factors influence the performance and suitability of these assemblies.

Cladding attachment: Exterior insulation increases the distance between cladding and structural framing. Fasteners, clips, girts and other attachment systems must accommodate the insulation thickness and applicable loads.

Air spaces: Some of Scottsdale’s calculations include thermal resistance from air spaces behind exterior cladding. Ventilated cavities may not qualify for the assumed R-values under the applicable calculation method.

Sheathing limitations: ZIP System R-sheathing has specific application restrictions. Its structural bracing provisions do not automatically apply to steel framing, and its evaluation report limits permitted construction types.

Moisture management: Exterior insulation can help maintain warmer temperatures at the sheathing and framing. Designers must also evaluate vapor control, condensation potential, drainage and climate-specific requirements.

Code compliance: Energy codes establish insulation requirements through prescribed assemblies, equivalent insulation combinations or maximum U-factors. Requirements depend on the applicable code edition, climate zone and building classification.

These considerations reinforce the importance of evaluating the complete wall assembly rather than relying solely on insulation product ratings.

The Bottom Line

Achieving R-21 thermal performance does not necessarily require 6-in. steel studs.

Scottsdale’s analysis illustrates how 3½-in. CFS framing, combined with cavity insulation and continuous exterior insulation, can achieve effective R-values of R-21 or higher. Designers should verify assembly calculations, applicable energy codes and product requirements before specifying a wall system.

Read the full Scottsdale post.

Additional Resources

• Scottsdale Case Study: CFS Components Frame 8,500-Square-Foot Custom Home
• Scottsdale Case Study: Cold-Formed Steel Framing Advances Mid-Rise Hotel Construction
• Scottsdale Case Study: Wood-to-Steel Conversion Advances Hotel Construction Project

The post Achieving an Effective R-21 With 3½-In. Cold-Formed Steel-Framed Walls — Scottsdale appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• Understanding AISI S400 Stud Blocking Requirements for Steel Sheet Sheathed Shear Walls
• Howick Case Study: CFS Panelization Delivers Walls for 100 Homes in 4 Months
• CFS Panelization Delivers Walls for 100 Homes in 4 Months

 

Load-bearing cold-formed steel (CFS) wall studs should not overhang supporting elements. Engineers cannot use the full axial capacity of stud members when overhangs occur. Design methods should account for actual bearing conditions, and construction details should ensure full bearing whenever possible. Engineers should direct remediation if load-bearing studs do not achieve full bearing on supporting elements during construction.

Tech Note W602-26 on Stud Base Overhang at CFS Bearing Walls

CFSEI Tech Note W602-26 Covers:

• Stress considerations: How stud base overhang affects stress distribution and axial load capacity
• Concrete bearing conditions: Recommended slab edge tolerances to maintain full support of load-bearing CFS studs
• Steel bearing conditions: Supporting member width and alignment tolerances for CFS walls bearing on hot-rolled steel
• Wood and cross-laminated timber supports: Bearing considerations for wood and cross-laminated timber, including the potential need for bearing plates
• CFS bearing conditions: Alignment and erection tolerances for heavily loaded CFS bearing conditions
• Reinforcement methods: Engineered approaches for addressing inadequate bearing before and after structural loading

Referenced Code Standards

The publication references industry standards and technical resources, including:

• AISI S100-16 (220) w/S2-2020, North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing, 2020 Edition
• AISI S240-20, North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing, 2020 Edition

Tech Note W602-26 helps engineers design bearing conditions and evaluate stud base overhang in CFS load-bearing wall systems.

• CFSEI members: Corporate, Professional and Student Members can access Tech Note W602-26 free of charge
• Nonmembers: Purchase the publication through CFSEI

Industry experts write and update CFSEI Technical Notes to guide professionals in CFS design and construction.

Additional Resources

• Updated CFSEI Tech Note Explains Cold-Formed Steel Truss-to-Bearing Connections
• CFSEI Releases Updated Tech Note G500-25: Field Guide – Inspection Checklist for Structural CFS Framing
• CFSEI Releases Tech Note B011-25 for Engineers New to Cold-Formed Steel Framing Design
• CFSEI Publishes Tech Note F140-25: ‘Welding Cold-Formed Steel’
• CFSEI Publishes Tech Note L400-25: ‘Non-Bearing Cold-formed Steel Lateral Force Resisting Systems’
• CFSEI Publishes Tech Note on Evaluation and Remediation of Cold-Formed Steel Members and Connections
• CFSEI Publishes Tech Note on the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Bearing Stiffeners
• CFSEI Publishes Tech Note on Hole Reinforcement of Cold-Formed Steel Compression Members
• CFSEI Publishes Technical Note on Strap Braced Wall Design, Loose Strap Considerations

The post CFSEI Releases Tech Note W602-26 on Stud Base Overhang at CFS Bearing Walls appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• American Way Engineering Wins CFSEI Award for Cold-Formed Steel Design at Super Nintendo World
• McClure Wins 2026 CFSEI Award for CFS Transfer Detail at Kansas City Apartments
• Best Practices for Load-Bearing CFS Design: Insights from Structures Congress 2026

 

The November 2026 research paper, “Fire risk to U.S. structures nearly triples by mid-century,” analyzes historical fire activity, development patterns and structural losses. Led by Virginia Iglesias of the University of Colorado Boulder, researchers analyzed historical data through 2023.

The findings identify growing challenges as development expands into fire-prone landscapes. Researchers emphasize proactive mitigation, improvements to existing buildings and policies that address future fire exposure.

New research published in Nature Communications projects that fire risk to U.S. buildings could nearly triple by 2060.

Download

Growth in Fire Risk

The researchers combined historical fire records, development patterns and climate projections to assess future risks to buildings. Their analysis considered fire activity, structural exposure and vulnerability to damage.

Under business-as-usual conditions, the study projects fire could damage or destroy 133,200 to 449,100 structures. These losses span the years 2024 to 2060. These estimates represent modeled scenarios rather than precise forecasts and assume no additional adaptation.

The study identifies several key regional findings:

• Western United States: Annual structural fire risk could increase 2.2 to 3.7 times, depending on the climate model. California remains a major center of projected structural losses
• Central United States: The study projects increasing fire risk across 84.1% of census tracts by 2051–2060
• Eastern United States: Fire risk is expanding into areas with historically lower exposure, creating new challenges for communities

Development patterns also influence structural losses. Continued construction in areas with flammable vegetation increases the number of buildings exposed to fire. Socioeconomic conditions can compound these risks by limiting communities’ ability to prepare and recover.

Future State-Level Fire Risk to Private Structures. The maps show projected changes in annual fire risk and cumulative structural losses through 2060. Source: Iglesias, V., et al. (2026). “Fire risk to U.S. structures nearly triples by mid-century.” Nature Communications, 17, Article 10960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-78904-z. © The Author(s) 2026. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Reproduced with permission from Springer Nature.

Proactive Fire Mitigation

The study emphasizes that communities must address more than changing fire conditions to limit losses. Historical development patterns, land-use decisions and structural vulnerabilities also influence fire risks.

The researchers discuss several approaches to improving community resilience:

• Home improvements: Retrofit existing homes to reduce their vulnerability to fire
• Defensible space: Manage vegetation and combustible materials surrounding buildings
• Building codes: Strengthen construction requirements through climate-informed building codes
• Land-use planning: Consider fire exposure when making decisions about future development
• Community preparedness: Improve early warning systems, risk communication and investments in critical infrastructure

These measures highlight the importance of coordinated planning and continued investment. No single strategy can address the growing risks associated with fire activity and development.

Addressing Future Fire Risks

The Nature Communications research identifies a growing challenge for communities across the United States. Rising fire activity, continued development and existing vulnerabilities could substantially increase structural losses over the coming decades.

The findings reinforce the importance of coordinated mitigation, updated building practices and long-term planning. Noncombustible materials such as CFS framing offer an option to consider in comprehensive fire-resilient building design.

Read the full Nature Communications study.

Additional Resources

• Cold-Formed Steel Framing 101 — A Practical Guide for Designers, Builders and Owners
• 10 Ways Cold-Formed Steel Framing Creates Safer Job Sites
• Home Builders Turn to Steel as Wildfire Threats Intensify

The post New Study Finds Fire Risk to U.S. Structures Could Nearly Triple by 2060 appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• Noncombustibility Report #1: Construction Fire Risk, Wildfire-Resilient Homes and Palisades Rebuild
• Update #23: Cold-Formed Steel Advances Aquarium Design, Fire Resilience and Storm Recovery
• Insurance Costs Are Re-Shaping Construction Choices — And the Data Speaks for Itself

 

Don Allen, executive director of the Steel Framing Industry Association (SFIA), and Sarah Majlesi, senior engineer for cold-formed steel at the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC ICCA), presented “Integrating Cold-Formed Steel and the Future of North American Standards.”

The session followed SFIA’s completion of the review and approval process for 6 CFS framing standards and 13 CFS test standards. All 19 are now American National Standards, with updated documents expected to be available for download by the end of November.

Beyond standards development, Allen and Majlesi explored differences in Canadian and U.S. engineering requirements and the growing integration of CFS framing with structural steel in building construction.

SFIA Advances 19 American National Standards

Allen outlined SFIA’s expanded standards development role following the American Iron and Steel Institute’s (AISI) decision to discontinue its construction-related standards activities at the end of 2023.

SFIA became an accredited American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards development organization in July 2024. The association subsequently assumed responsibility for standards previously administered by AISI.

SFIA AISI S202-26 is among 19 newly approved American National Standards for cold-formed steel (CFS) framing. The updated standards are expected by late November, with a new document design planned.

The 6 CFS framing American National Standards are:

• SFIA AISI S202: Code of Standard Practice
• SFIA AISI S220: Nonstructural Framing
• SFIA AISI S230: One- and Two-Family Dwellings
• SFIA AISI S240: Structural Framing
• SFIA AISI S250: Thermal Transmittance
• SFIA AISI S400: Seismic Design

Thirteen additional standards establish testing methods for CFS products, members and assemblies. All 19 American National Standards are expected to be available for download by the end of November 2026.

Allen said SFIA is maintaining an open, consensus-based development process that includes Canadian participation and other international stakeholders.

That collaboration is important because Canadian building codes reference several of the standards now administered by SFIA.

For example, the National Building Code of Canada references S220 for nonstructural framing. Meanwhile, the primary North American specification for CFS structural member design, formerly AISI S100, is being updated through CSA as S136.

Don Allen’s presentation highlighted how accessible cold-formed steel (CFS) manufacturing has become, with improved roll-forming equipment, greater material availability and increased manufacturer support.

Engineering CFS Buildings Across Borders

Majlesi demonstrated how engineers apply North American CFS standards through a comparative design exercise involving Toronto, Ontario, and Buffalo, New York.

The hypothetical four-story mixed-use building featured three residential levels above ground-floor commercial space. Its structural system combined CFS load-bearing walls, deep composite steel deck floors and X-braced steel strap walls for seismic resistance.

Majlesi explained how the same building configuration must accommodate different loading requirements under Canadian and U.S. building codes. For example, the specified interior wall pressure was 10 pounds per square foot in Toronto, compared with 5 pounds per square foot in Buffalo.

Her presentation followed the engineering process from preliminary layouts and floor system selection through structural analysis, member design and connection detailing.

Majlesi also addressed seismic design, diaphragm performance, stud and track selection, and fire-resistance and acoustic-rated assemblies. The exercise demonstrated the importance of evaluating framing members, connections and floor systems as an integrated structural system.

Structural steel framing and cold-formed steel (CFS) wall framing work together on a commercial construction project, demonstrating the benefits of hybrid steel construction.

Structural Steel and CFS Work Together

Allen highlighted projects demonstrating how CFS framing and structural steel complement one another.

CFS commonly forms walls and accommodates smaller openings. Structural steel can provide additional capacity around larger openings, at heavily loaded locations and where load paths require additional support.

One example was 7 Alma Crescent in Halifax, Nova Scotia, a project involving Stronghold LGS. The company manufactures CFS framing in-house. Various projects incorporate the assemblies and structural steel at concentrated load locations. These include podium structures and locations where load paths do not align.

“As our projects grow in size, we are using structural steel more frequently,” said Khalid Al-Hammadi of Stronghold LGS. Al-Hammadi was quoted in Allen’s presentation.

Other examples included Aljoya Apartments in Mercer Island, Washington; 92 West Paces Ferry in Atlanta; and Poly Canyon Village student housing in San Luis Obispo, California.

The projects illustrated how designers can combine steel framing systems to address different structural requirements within a building.

Off-Site Construction Expands Opportunities

Allen also discussed how advances in manufacturing technology are expanding opportunities for CFS framing. Roll-forming equipment, improved manufacturer support and the availability of compliant steel coils are making CFS production more accessible to fabricators and panel manufacturers.

CFS framing also offers advantages for off-site construction. These include its dimensional stability, consistent material properties and the ability to manufacture components to specified lengths.

Allen noted that product identification and compliance programs help manufacturers verify material properties and maintain production consistency.

The Canadian Steel Conference session emphasized two developments shaping steel construction: 

1. The modernization of North American CFS standards 
2. The increasing integration of CFS framing with structural steel

For engineers, fabricators and contractors, both developments create opportunities to apply steel framing systems across a broader range of building applications.

To access SFIA’s updated standards when published, visit SFIA’s ANSI Information page.

Additional Resources

• SFIA Completes Review and Approval of Cold-Formed Steel Framing Standards and Test Standards
• SFIA Advances Cross-Border Collaboration at Canadian Steel Construction Summit
• SDI Transfers 12 S900 Test Standards to the SFIA Standards Committee

The post New CFS Standards, Hybrid Design Highlight Canadian Steel Conference Session appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• SFIA Completes Review and Approval of Cold-Formed Steel Framing and Test Standards
• SFIA Approves Updates to Code Compliance Certification Program
• CFSEI Publishes Tech Note L400-25: ‘Non-Bearing Cold-formed Steel Lateral Force Resisting Systems’

 

The milestone marks a significant step in SFIA’s transition to overseeing standards previously administered by the American Iron and Steel Institute.

“These standards are fundamental to how cold-formed steel framing is designed, specified and constructed,” said Don Allen, SFIA executive director. “Our responsibility is to keep them current, technically accurate and responsive to industry needs. The professionals who participated in this process have helped ensure that work continues.”

SFIA became an accredited American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards development organization in July 2024. Since then, the association has worked with industry professionals through its Standards Committee and Canvass Groups to review and approve standards covering structural and nonstructural framing, seismic design, thermal performance and testing methods for CFS products and assemblies.

The consensus-based process brings together engineers, manufacturers, researchers and other construction industry professionals. Their participation helps ensure that the standards reflect broad technical expertise and establish consistent requirements for CFS design and construction.

Standards Address Key CFS Applications

SFIA’s standards portfolio covers several important areas of CFS design and construction. The updated American National Standards are expected to be available for download by the end of November 2026:

• SFIA AISI S202 — Code of Standard Practice for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing: Establishes standard practices for structural CFS framing
• SFIA AISI S220 — North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Nonstructural Framing: Addresses nonstructural framing applications
• SFIA AISI S230 — Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing — Prescriptive Method for One and Two-Family Dwellings: Provides prescriptive requirements for residential CFS framing
• SFIA AISI S240 — North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing: Establishes requirements for structural framing systems
• SFIA AISI S250 — North American Standard for Thermal Transmittance of Building Envelopes With Cold-Formed Steel Framing: Addresses thermal performance of building envelopes incorporating CFS framing
• SFIA AISI S400 — North American Standard for Seismic Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Systems: Establishes requirements for seismic design
• SFIA AISI S900 Series — Cold-Formed Steel Framing Test Standards: Provides standardized testing methods for CFS products and assemblies

Together, these standards provide technical resources for architects, engineers, contractors, manufacturers and building officials involved in CFS construction.

For additional information and access to the standards when published, visit SFIA’s ANSI Information page.

The Steel Framing Industry Association (SFIA) became an accredited American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards development organization in 2024.

SFIA Recognizes Canvass Group Members

Industry professionals serving on SFIA Canvass Groups played an important role in completing the standards review and approval process. Under SFIA’s ANSI-accredited procedures, the SFIA Standards Committee reviews proposed revisions and presents them to Canvass Groups representing a balance of industry interests.

SFIA’s Canvass Group participants reviewed proposed standards, submitted comments and voted on their approval. The participants included engineers, manufacturers, researchers and other construction industry professionals. Their involvement helped ensure that standards reflect broad technical expertise through a consensus-based process that emphasizes openness, balanced representation and due process.

SFIA recognizes the members of its Canvass Groups for their participation in the standards development process. Their contributions helped the association reach this milestone and supports the continued development and maintenance of cold-formed steel standards.

SFIA AISI S202 — Code of Standard Practice for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing

• Chad Casbon, PE — ClarkDietrich Engineering Services
• Paul Dalia — Classic Engineering
• Jim DesLaurier — Marino\WARE Industries
• Brian Gerber — IAPMO Construction Products Group
• Greg Greenlee — Structural Building Components Association
• Andrew Newland, PE — ADTEK Engineers
• Pat Hainault, PE — raSmith
• Peter A. Humphrey, PE — MiTek
• Riley Mahaffey, PE — Steel Stud Manufacturers Association
• Kara Peterman, Ph.D. — University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Christopher H. Raebel, Ph.D., PE, SE — American Institute of Steel Construction
• Thomas Sputo, Ph.D., PE, SE — Steel Deck Institute
• Jacob Thompson, PE, SE — TrusSteel
• Brandon Wahl — 360 Engineering Group
• Kirsten Zeydel, SE — Nevell Group

SFIA AISI S220 — Nonstructural Framing

• Andrew J. Barone, PE, SE — Shirk & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers
• Brit Capizzano — Chemcoaters
• Helen Chen, Ph.D., PE — ACE Technology Group
• Christian Chinsio — Gypsum Association
• Zach Collins — Meier Architecture Engineering
• Nader Elhajj, PE — FRAMECAD America
• Josh Garton, PE, SE — McClure Engineering
• Francisco Granados — Acesco
• Ronald Hall — Hill International
• Mario Hernandez C. — Panel Rey S.A.
• Riley Mahaffey, PE — Steel Stud Manufacturers Association
• Jason Mahn, PE — Marino\WARE Design Group
• Patricia (Pat) Miller — Blue Diamond Construction
• Bala A.V. Surampudi — GPLA
• Michael Weigner — Intertek Building & Construction

SFIA AISI S230 — Prescriptive Method for One and Two-Family Dwellings

• Jon Paul Cardin, PE — Metal Building Manufacturers Association
• Nader Elhajj, PE — FRAMECAD America
• Sarah Hesse, SE — Devco Engineering
• Reynaud Serrette, Ph.D. — Santa Clara University
• Akira Usami, PE — CEMCO
• Brandon Wahl — 360 Engineering Group
• Tim Waite, PE — Simpson Strong-Tie Company
• Rahim Zadeh — RAZ Tech
• Bill Zhang, Ph.D., PE, SE — Kansas State University

SFIA AISI S240 — Structural Framing

• Hannah Blum, Ph.D. — University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Chad Casbon, PE — ClarkDietrich Engineering Services
• Jim DesLaurier — Marino\WARE Industries, Inc.
• Brian Gerber — IAPMO Construction Products Group
• Greg Greenlee — Structural Building Components Association
• Jeff Kreinke, PE, SE — Excel Engineering
• Riley Mahaffey, PE — Steel Stud Manufacturers Association
• Sarah Majlesi, P.Eng — Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
• Clifton Melcher, PE, SE — Simpson Strong-Tie Company
• Richard Mountcastle — RTMFathom
• Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D., PE — FDR Engineers
• Thomas Sputo, Ph.D., PE, SE — Steel Deck Institute
• Daniel Stadig — raSmith
• Cheng Yu, Ph.D., PE — University of North Texas
• Kirsten Zeydel, SE — Nevell Group

SFIA AISI S250 — Thermal Transmittance of Building Envelopes With CFS Framing

• Paul Dalia — Classic Engineering
• Brian Gerber — IAPMO Construction Products Group
• Perry Green — engNoveX
• Robert Grupe — Steel Framing Industry Association
• Sarah Majlesi, P.Eng — Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
• Kara Peterman, Ph.D. — University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Michael Schmeida — Build Environments
• Adam Shoemaker — ClarkDietrich
• Bob Zabcik — Z-Tech Consulting

SFIA AISI S400 — Seismic Design of CFS Structural Systems

• Zane Clark — Zane Clark Consulting
• Muhammad Ghoraba — The Steel Network, Inc.
• Tara Hutchinson, Ph.D, PE — University of California San Diego
• Nicola Ishaq, P.Eng — Bailey Metal Products Limited
• Sarah Majlesi, P.Eng — Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
• Kara Peterman, Ph.D. — University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D., PE — FDR Engineers
• Amanpreet Singh, Ph.D. — University of Texas at Austin
• Thomas Sputo, Ph.D., PE, SE — Steel Deck Institute
• Shahab Torabian — Thornton Tomasetti
• Jason Warren — Steel Stud Manufacturers Association
• Kirsten Zeydel, SE — Nevell Group

SFIA AISI S900 Series — CFS Framing Test Standards

Thirteen test standards were balloted together by this Canvass Group.

• Raj Eshwar — ClarkDietrich
• Perry Green — engNoveX
• Georgi Hall — CEMCO
• Sarah Hesse, SE — Devco Engineering
• Clifton Melcher, PE, SE — Simpson Strong-Tie Company
• Kara Peterman, Ph.D. — University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D., PE — FDR Engineers
• Thomas Sputo, Ph.D., PE, SE — Steel Deck Institute
• Cheng Yu, Ph.D., PE — University of North Texas

Additional Resources

• SDI Transfers 12 S900 Test Standards to the SFIA Standards Committee
• SFIA Appoints Jay Larson as Secretariat of the Newly Formed SFIA Standards Committee
• With ANSI Accreditation, SFIA Begins Process of Managing CFS Framing Standards

The post SFIA Completes Review and Approval of Cold-Formed Steel Framing Standards and Test Standards appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• New CFS Standards, Hybrid Design Highlight Canadian Steel Conference Session
• SFIA Approves Updates to Code Compliance Certification Program
• SFIA Selects Keystone to Administer Updated Code Compliance Certification Program

 

The article “Building the Complex: The Steel Behind the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art,” from SFIA member ClarkDietrich, highlights how custom steel fabrication and precision engineering supported the project.

Unique Construction Challenges

Located in Los Angeles’ Exposition Park, the 300,000-square-foot Lucas Museum of Narrative Art took 8 years to construct. The building’s complex curves and fluid geometry challenged crews to coordinate extensive framing systems.

Framing contractor Sharpe Interior Systems partnered with ClarkDietrich to address the project’s curved surfaces. Together, they developed custom CFS framing components to achieve the museum’s distinctive architecture.

The project team faced several challenges:

• Complex geometry: Many walls curve in 2 directions simultaneously, requiring precise framing alignment
• Different finish systems: Varying substrate thicknesses complicated transitions between finishes across curved surfaces
• Large-scale installation: Crews needed to coordinate extensive straight and curved framing assemblies while maintaining dimensional accuracy
• Construction disruptions: Material shortages and unpredictable lead times during the COVID-19 pandemic complicated procurement and scheduling

“This is a different breed with the complex geometry,” says Bill Funderburg, project executive for Sharpe Interior Systems.

Wide Hat Channels

The museum’s lobby presented a challenge where different wall finishes meet.

The lower 10 feet feature a hard-troweled Texston finish. Above that height, an acoustic Fellert system incorporates drywall, 1” insulation board and a finished surface. The two systems required different substrate depths, but their finished surfaces had to align.

The project team developed custom steel hat channels measuring up to 20 feet long, with 2” fastening flanges. Standard hat channels typically feature ⅞” flanges.

The wider profiles provided additional fastening space. Integrated dimensional adjustments maintained smooth transitions between the different finish systems.

By incorporating these features during manufacturing, the team reduced field modifications and simplified installation.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by ClarkDietrich (@clarkdietrich)

120 Miles of Framing, 20 Miles Curved

The museum’s construction required an extensive network of CFS framing to accommodate its distinctive architecture.

Key project quantities included:

• 120+ miles of metal framing
• 20 miles of curved steel framing
• 1.2 million square feet of drywall supported
• 90,000 square feet of compound curves
• 536,000 square feet of wall framing
• 148,000 square feet of ceiling framing

The framing system incorporated numerous stud sizes, tracks, gauges and connectors to accommodate different architectural conditions.

CFS framing provided the dimensional consistency and fabrication flexibility needed to execute the museum’s intricate design.

Stretch-Formed Steel Achieves Curves

The museum’s signature curves required specialized steel manufacturing techniques.

The project team used stretch-forming to reshape straight ProSTUD® drywall framing members into precise radii. This process allowed steel components to follow the building’s sweeping architectural surfaces.

Testing revealed that the stretch-formed steel exceeded specified strength requirements. These results demonstrated how specialized fabrication could achieve challenging geometries while maintaining structural performance.

Manufacturing coordination also supported construction efficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic. Custom steel components typically arrived within 2 weeks, while standard materials arrived within 1 week. Predictable delivery helped crews maintain installation progress despite broader construction disruptions.

3 Keys to Success

The Lucas Museum demonstrates how CFS framing can meet demanding architectural requirements through precision engineering and specialized fabrication.

1. Custom steel profiles maintained surface alignment across different finishes
2. Stretch-formed components delivered accurate curves while exceeding specified strength requirements
3. Early coordination between the framing contractor and the manufacturer reduced field adjustments and simplified installation

The project highlights CFS framing’s strength, dimensional accuracy and manufacturing flexibility. At the Lucas Museum, these advantages helped transform an ambitious architectural vision into a precisely constructed landmark.

Additional Resources

• ClarkDietrich Offers Innovative Steel Framing Solution for Chicken N Pickle in Texas
• ClarkDietrich Wins SFIA ‘Sustainable Project’ Award for Acrisure Arena
• ClarkDietrich Engineering Design Wins 2024 CFSEI Award for the IQHQ Research and Development District – Block 2A

The post How Cold-Formed Steel Shaped LA’s Lucas Museum of Narrative Art appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• How High Can You Construct a Building with Cold-Formed Steel Framing? The Answer May Surprise You
• McClure Earns 2026 CFSEI Award for 10 World Trade CFS Framing
• Salas O’Brien Receives 2026 CFSEI Award for Barclays Center CFS Platform

 

Steel Framing Supports Data Center Demands

Growing data center demand is creating opportunities for cold-formed steel (CFS) framing manufacturers. These facilities require extensive structural framing, electrical infrastructure and specialized wall assemblies. SFIA member ClarkDietrich supplies the industry with CFS components manufactured at its Warren, Ohio, facility.

ClarkDietrich manufactures several products for data center construction, including:

• BlazeFrame RipTRAK accommodates structural movement at wall joints
• MaxTrak allows deflection within wall assemblies
• Structural steel studs, clips and connectors support framing and connection requirements

Read the article. 

CFS Solves Mass Timber Challenges

Mass timber buildings often require additional framing solutions to accommodate tall walls and fire-rated assemblies. Murdoch University’s Boola Katitjin building in Perth, Australia, demonstrates how cold-formed steel (CFS) meets these challenges. The four-story, 172,000-square-foot academic facility combines an engineered timber structure with CFS framing.

Interior walls reaching 35 feet presented a significant engineering challenge. Without available structural tiebacks, designers used back-to-back CFS studs to create stable, single-span wall assemblies. Reinforcing components increased stiffness and helped prevent stud rotation. 

These applications demonstrate how CFS complements mass timber by addressing structural and fire-resistance requirements. The combination allows each material to serve a distinct role within a complex building system.

Read the article. 

CFS Strengthens Hybrid Framing Design

Hybrid construction combines cold-formed steel (CFS) with wood, mass timber, concrete and masonry to meet different building requirements. Rather than relying on one material for the framing system, designers can use each system where its structural properties offer the greatest benefit. 

CFS provides lightweight framing, dimensional consistency and strength. Its applications range from residential buildings to mid-rise commercial projects.

In hybrid systems, CFS offers several advantages:

• Framing versatility: Serves as load-bearing framing, lateral bracing or infill walls
• Noncombustibility: Noncombustible steel framing supports fire-resistance-rated assemblies when properly designed and installed
• Construction efficiency: Prefabricated components and prepunched utility openings can simplify installation and trade coordination

Western Michigan University’s Golden Oaks student housing combines prefabricated cold-formed steel (CFS) framing and cross-laminated timber floors in a hybrid design that reduced construction time by 25%.

Combining materials requires careful engineering, particularly where steel connects to wood or concrete. Designers must account for differential movement, thermal bridging and fastening requirements to maintain building performance. 

Hybrid construction shows how CFS can complement other materials to meet structural and architectural needs.

Read the article. 

Additional Resources

• Update #12: CFS Advances UC Berkeley Project, Curtain Wall Connections and a Hotel in Scotland
• Update #11: U.S. Steel Plans Major Mill Investment, CFS Advances Glamping Pods and Residential Construction
• Update #10: CFS Aids Saudi Gigaprojects, Wisconsin Housing and Australian Modular Housing
• Update #9: MAREK Builds Ismaili Center, ClarkDietrich Receives Certification for Connectors and U.S. Steel Invests in DRI

The post Update #13: CFS Supports Data Centers, Mass Timber Construction and Hybrid Designs appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• Update #9: MAREK Builds Ismaili Center, ClarkDietrich Receives Certification for Connectors and U.S. Steel Invests in DRI
• Update #12: CFS Advances UC Berkeley Project, Curtain Wall Connections and a Hotel in Scotland
• FRAMECAD Launches Steelform Core Machine, a Lower-Cost Entry Point for CFS Framing Production

 

Same-store sales grew by 12% with the U.S. PVF Division leading the way with 16% growth, followed by U.S. Electrical which grew 15%.

Member purchases from AD suppliers increased 25%. Member distributions grew 35%.

AD reported record $89.6 billion in member sales in first nine months of 2026.

Chairman and CEO Bill Weisberg commented, “The results we’re sharing through the first nine months of the year reflect the strength of the independent businesses that make up our membership, and the value they continue to generate through their partnerships with AD suppliers and their exceptional local service. We’re excited to keep delivering for our Owner-Members and working alongside our member-elected governing groups to finish the year strong.”

Read the AD news release.

Additional Resources

• AD Member Sales Reach a Record $58 Billion Through First Six Months of 2026
• AD Member Sales Reach a Record $100 Billion in 2025
• AD and The Commonwealth Group, An Alliance of PHCP distributors, Announce Their Intent to Merge

The post AD Reports Record $89.6 Billion in Member Sales in First Nine Months of 2026 appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

       

Prefabricated Steel Advances Army Construction Strategy

The U.S. Army is turning to prefabricated steel buildings as part of a broader effort to replace aging military facilities. Facing a $140 billion infrastructure backlog, the service is evaluating factory-built modules and prefabricated steel buildings. The approach could shorten on-site construction for repeatable facilities, including barracks.

The shift follows problems with earlier prefabricated wood-framed dormitories at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Structural deficiencies, climate-control failures and mold prompted evacuations. Army official David Dentino contrasted those buildings with newer steel-based prefabricated structures.

“It’s so much more durable,” says Dentino, the Army’s deputy assistant secretary for installations, housing and partnerships. “We’ve got a lot of lessons learned … and what we are seeing with the current vendors is light years ahead in terms of quality and durability.”

Cold-formed steel (CFS) roof trusses span a U.S. Army barracks at Fort Bliss, Texas, where contractors fabricated them on site to reduce transportation needs and manufacturing delays.

The Army has established targets of 50% faster construction and 30% lower costs. At Fort Bliss, Texas, a separate barracks project uses on-site fabrication of cold-formed steel (CFS) roof trusses. Contractors produce the trusses as needed for buildings with 3D-printed concrete walls. This approach eliminates deliveries of completed truss assemblies and helps avoid manufacturing delays.

Read the article. 

CFS and Structural Steel Shape Campus Housing

Syracuse University in New York is combining structural steel with cold-formed steel (CFS) framing in two multistory residence halls. Together, the buildings will accommodate 1,304 students. The projects demonstrate how CFS framing integrates with structural steel in multistory residential construction.

Both residence halls use substantial quantities of steel framing:

• 315 Waverly Ave.: The 11-story building uses approximately 1,003 tons of structural steel and CFS framing
• 501 Comstock Ave.: The 10-story building uses 839 tons of structural steel and CFS framing

Read the article.

CFS Meets Florida’s Coastal Wind Requirements

Florida Tech’s Crimson Crossing residence hall in Melbourne, Florida, uses cold-formed steel (CFS) framing engineered for coastal wind loads. The 6-story building spans 212,237-square-feet and provides 556 beds across 149 apartment-style units. The project increased the university’s on-campus housing capacity by 27%.

Engineers designed the load-bearing CFS framing to meet Florida’s demanding coastal wind-load requirements. The steel system serves 6 floors of residential space. CFS provides dimensional consistency across the repeated layouts, helping crews maintain framing precision throughout construction.

General contractor CBG Building Company completed the project in 15 months. Crimson Crossing demonstrates how load-bearing CFS framing meets structural demands in large, multistory residential buildings along Florida’s coast.

Read the article.

Additional Resources

• Update #26: CFS Benefits on Display in Coastal Australia, Nova Scotia and Rural Colombia
• Update #25: Cold-Formed Steel Framing Supports Community Center, Waterfront Condominium and Residential Development
• Update #24: Cold-Formed Steel Advances Historic Renovation, Veterans Housing and Net-Zero School  
• Update #23: Cold-Formed Steel Advances Aquarium Design, Fire Resilience and Storm Recovery
• Update #22: Cold-Formed Steel Supports Wildfire Rebuilding, Courthouse Acoustics and Micro Homes

The post Update #27: Cold-Formed Steel Framing in Military Facilities and University Housing appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• Louisiana Builders Turn to Steel-Framed Homes After Hurricane Ida
• Prefabricated Cold-Formed Steel Panels Cut Costs, Speed Construction of 7-Story Tucson Apartments
• Scottsdale Case Study: CFS Components Frame 8,500-Square-Foot Custom Home

 

Howard Akin, CEO of SFIA member Accurate Steel Fab, discusses the cost advantages of cold-formed steel (CFS) framing.

Akin joined Matt Stillwell of SFIA member FRAMECAD on the Steel Framing Connections podcast. Their conversation explored construction costs, offsite manufacturing, engineering and emerging opportunities in residential construction.

Beyond Materials Costs

Developers frequently compare steel and wood framing based on material and installation costs alone. However, those comparisons often overlook expenses that affect the overall project.

“Everybody assumes wood is less,” says Akin. “But they’re forgetting a lot of ancillary costs that steel doesn’t have.”

According to Akin, developers should consider:

• Insurance costs: Noncombustible steel framing can reduce certain construction and property insurance expenses
• Construction schedules: Offsite manufacturing allows crews to fabricate wall panels and roof trusses during site preparation
• Labor requirements: Prefabricated panels reduce onsite cutting, assembly and layout work
• Long-term performance: Steel maintains dimensional stability without moisture-related shrinking or swelling

Akin described a planned 300-unit multifamily development to demonstrate potential insurance savings. The project’s estimated builder’s risk insurance cost reached $650,000 with wood framing. The comparable estimate for CFS framing totaled $300,000, representing a savings of $350,000.

Initial steel framing costs may be slightly higher or lower than wood, depending on the project. However, savings in insurance, labor and construction time can make a difference over the building’s lifetime.

Engineering and Detailing Control Costs

Efficient CFS framing begins with proper design and engineering. Accurate Steel Fab uses specialized detailing and structural engineering to prepare framing components before manufacturing. Akin explained that efficient building designs can require seven to eight pounds of steel per square foot of floor space. Less efficient designs may require 12 to 14 pounds.

That difference highlights how proper design and detailing can significantly reduce steel requirements and material costs. Early coordination between architects, engineers and detailers helps eliminate unnecessary material.

Accurate Steel Fab reviews detailed framing drawings and component information before fabrication.

Steel coils at Accurate Steel Fab’s manufacturing facility provide the raw material for producing cold-formed steel framing components. Photo Credit: Accurate Steel Fab

Prefabrication Reduces Onsite Labor

Construction speed represents one of CFS framing’s greatest advantages. Accurate Steel Fab manufactures steel wall panels and roof trusses while contractors complete site preparation and foundation work.

“We can be running walls and roof trusses and everything else while the dirt work’s going on,” says Akin. “So the minute we pour a slab, we’re there and it’s going up.”

Manufacturing also changes the installation process. Traditional wood framing often requires crews to measure, cut and assemble individual components onsite. Accurate Steel Fab delivers prefabricated wall panels with identification numbers showing their installation locations.

That approach provides:

• Simplified installation through numbered panels and predetermined assembly sequences
• Reduced field fabrication because crews receive preassembled framing components
• Improved quality control through detailed engineering and factory production
• More predictable schedules by coordinating manufacturing with site preparation

Technology Improves Manufacturing Efficiency

Accurate Steel Fab continues improving its manufacturing processes through automation and production tracking. The company uses FRAMECAD roll-forming technology to manufacture CFS framing components for residential and commercial projects. FRAMECAD’s Nexa software helps organize panel sequences, track manufacturing output and monitor equipment utilization.

Each manufactured steel member also receives a unique identification number, supporting material traceability throughout production.

Cold-formed steel framing components manufactured by Accurate Steel Fab feature identification markings that support material traceability and quality control. Photo Credit: Accurate Steel Fab

Looking ahead, artificial intelligence and manufacturing data could further improve efficiency. These technologies may help identify production bottlenecks and give customers greater visibility into project progress.

New Housing Opportunities

Accurate Steel Fab manufactures framing for projects ranging from accessory dwelling units to large custom homes and multifamily buildings. Recent projects include several 5,000-square-foot homes and an approximately 8,000-square-foot residence. Production housing offers additional opportunities, where repeatable designs can improve manufacturing efficiency and reduce construction time.

Akin also sees potential for smaller, more affordable homes. He cited prices of $150,000 to $250,000 for approximately 1,000-square-foot ADUs, with framing manufactured offsite for onsite assembly.

For developers, the message is clear: Framing decisions should consider overall construction costs, not just the price of materials.

Additional Resources

• Accurate Steel Fab: Accelerating Project Delivery With Pre-Panelized Steel Components
• FRAMECAD Podcast: Don Allen Explains How SFIA Is Unifying the Steel Framing Industry
• FRAMECAD Launches “Steel Framing Connections” Podcast Focused on Real-World CFS Projects

The post Howard Akin Discusses the Real Cost of Steel vs. Wood Framing on FRAMECAD Podcast appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• Unlocking Savings of $280,000+ By Using Steel Framing to Build Fast Food Restaurants
• Nonresidential Construction Backlogs Remain Steady, Construction Input Costs Dip
• Ken Simonson: Look for Growth and High Input Prices in 2022

 

These 3 projects demonstrate how steel framing conversions provided effective solutions for hospitality, education and adaptive reuse projects.

1. Grand Junction High School: CFS Frames 45-Foot-Tall Walls

The 3-story, 240,000-square-foot Grand Junction High School in Colorado features 154 tons of cold-formed steel (CFS) framing.

The project team selected structural CFS for curtain walls rather than traditional concrete masonry units common in schools.

SFIA member ClarkDietrich supplied framing products and engineered wall systems for the project.

The 3-story, 240,000-square-foot Grand Junction High School in Colorado features 154 tons of cold-formed steel (CFS) framing.

The cantilevered wing walls at Grand Junction High School required custom cold-formed steel (CFS) framing solutions to meet complex structural demands.

CFS Walls Improve Design Efficiency

The project team designed CFS framing for several complex building features:

• Curtain wall conversion: 3-story bypass CFS framing replaced CMU, with engineered headers over door and window openings
• Tall interior walls: Engineers designed 45-foot-tall walls with brick-veneer backing and framing for stadium-style seating platforms
• Cantilevered features: CFS framing formed wing walls that required custom engineering and detailing

The design also included metal-panel façades instead of brick in selected areas to reduce maintenance.

Engineers selected member sizes to meet structural loads without using excess steel.

The resulting CFS systems met complex design needs while reducing material use and helping control costs.

Read the BuildSteel article on Grand Junction High School.

2. Mullin Transportation Design Center: CFS Revitalizes Former Wind Tunnel

The Mullin Transportation Design Center in Pasadena, California, turned a former supersonic wind tunnel into a modern educational facility.

The 31,000-square-foot structure now houses design studios, viewing decks and design elements that appear to float within the building.

SFIA member CEMCO supplied cold-formed steel (CFS) framing for the project’s new interior assemblies.

The 31,000-square-foot Mullin Transportation Design Center in Pasadena, California, uses cold-formed steel (CFS) framing to transform a former supersonic wind tunnel into a modern educational facility.

Cold-formed steel (CFS) framing supports the Mullin Transportation Design Center’s building-within-a-building concept while minimizing structural loads on the historic structure.

CFS Supports Adaptive Reuse

The project team replaced wood and structural steel with CFS in several interior assemblies:

• Material conversion: CFS replaced heavier framing in partitions, soffits and ceilings, reducing structural weight and material costs
• Structural efficiency: Lightweight CFS helps create the building-within-a-building concept while minimizing loads on the existing structure
• Seismic separation: CFS framing allowed for the required separation between the new interior structure and the historic building shell

The new interior structure rests on 63 piles and grade beams. Cast-in-place concrete decks support the steel framing above.

CFS simplified installation, improved mechanical and electrical coordination and lowered construction risks.

The conversion kept the historic structure while creating modern learning spaces with unique design features.

Read the BuildSteel article on Mullin Transportation Design Center.

3. Avid Candlewood Suites: Designed for 124-Mph Winds

The 4-story Avid Candlewood Suites in Mission, Texas, originally called for wood framing.

The project team switched to load-bearing cold-formed steel (CFS) framing for greater strength and efficiency. The conversion allowed off-site fabrication to reduce field labor and speed installation.

SFIA member Scottsdale Construction Systems supplied the roll-forming technology and software for producing the steel framing components.

The Avid Candlewood Suites in Mission, Texas, converted from wood to load-bearing cold-formed steel (CFS) framing, is designed for 124-mph winds.

X-braced cold-formed steel (CFS) walls resisted lateral loads at Avid Candlewood Suites, while heavier first-floor members carried higher gravity and overturning forces.

Engineering the Conversion

The conversion required engineers to address structural loads, lateral stability and fabrication requirements:

• High-wind design: Engineers designed the framing for 124-mph ultimate wind speeds under Exposure C and Risk Category II criteria
• Lateral stability: X-braced CFS walls resisted lateral loads, while heavier first-floor members carried higher gravity and overturning forces
• Digital coordination: Scottsdale’s software linked framing layouts, structural analysis and fabrication data

Engineers also evaluated floor vibration, wall movement and vertical deflection to meet the hotel’s serviceability requirements.

The approach kept the original architectural design while using an engineered CFS framing system.

Read the BuildSteel article on Avid Candlewood Suites.

CFS for Better Building Solutions

These projects demonstrate how CFS conversions address structural, architectural and construction challenges.

Each project used a distinct conversion approach:

• Wood-to-steel framing for a 4-story hotel
• CMU-to-CFS curtain walls for a 3-story high school
• Heavy framing-to-CFS assemblies for adaptive reuse

Their results highlight how CFS conversions can improve structural efficiency, support architectural flexibility and reduce material demands.

Additional Resources

• 3 Award-Winning Projects Push the Limits of Cold-Formed Steel Design
• 3 Steel Framing Projects Show How CFS Framing Saves Time and Labor
• 10 Ways Steel Framing Solves Modern Construction Challenges

The post 3 Projects Switched to CFS And Solved Design and Construction Challenges appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• Scottsdale Case Study: Cold-Formed Steel Framing Advances Mid-Rise Hotel Construction
• Scottsdale Case Study: Wood-to-Steel Conversion Advances Hotel Construction Project
• Maxan Interior Systems Earns SFIA Honors for Sculptural CFS Canopy in Etobicoke, Ontario

 

An 8,500-square-foot custom home in Texas demonstrates these capabilities. The residence incorporates multiple vaulted and cathedral ceilings, expansive interior spaces and complex structural steel connections.

SFIA member Scottsdale Construction Systems supplied the technology used to prefabricate the home’s CFS framing components. A 6-person crew erected the home’s steel framing in just 2 weeks.

Images provided by Scottsdale Construction Systems.

A 6-person crew erected the cold-formed steel (CFS) framing in this 8,500-square-foot Texas home in just 2 weeks using prefabricated components manufactured with Scottsdale roll-forming technology.

Meeting Custom Home Design Demands

In the article, “Beautiful Custom Premium Homes Built with Roll Forming Technology,” Scottsdale details the project’s coordinated framing approach. It shows how offsite manufacturing and field assembly helped bring the home’s design to life. 

The Texas home needed framing that fit its unique design and met strict material standards. Three needs shaped the design:

• Architectural Complexity: Varied ceiling shapes required custom framing and precise component dimensions
• Structural Integration: The design required connections between CFS framing and structural steel systems
• Material Selection: The homeowner specified no wood materials

CFS framing offered the flexibility and precise sizing needed for the project. Steel does not burn and resists termites, rot and warping from moisture, helping the home last longer.

Cold-formed steel (CFS) framing provided the precision needed to accommodate complex ceiling geometries and structural steel connections.

The Texas home’s distinctive architecture required customized framing solutions, with cold-formed steel (CFS) delivering dimensional accuracy and structural integration.

Precision Framing, 2-Week Installation

The project team manufactured CFS framing components that met the home’s specific design requirements.

• Offsite manufacturing produced consistent framing dimensions
• The crew of 6 erected the steel framing in just 2 weeks

Crews installed prefabricated CFS components alongside the home’s structural steel framing. The 2-week schedule shows how fabrication and careful planning can speed framing on custom homes.

Cold-formed steel (CFS) framing provides the precision and dimensional consistency needed to construct customized stair assemblies.

An aerial view shows how prefabricated cold-formed steel (CFS) framing integrates with structural steel systems.

Customized cold-formed steel (CFS) wall and roof framing demonstrates the versatility and precision of steel framing in premium residential construction.

A Model for Residential Construction

The Texas home shows how CFS framing can handle complex designs while saving construction time. Precise off-site fabrication and careful planning helped crews frame the custom home efficiently.

Read the Scottsdale article.

Additional Resources

• Scottsdale Case Study: Cold-Formed Steel Framing Advances Mid-Rise Hotel Construction
• Scottsdale Case Study: Wood-to-Steel Conversion Advances Hotel Construction Project
• Scottsdale: Modular Steel Warehouse Showcases Large-Span Cold-Formed Steel Design

The post Scottsdale Case Study: CFS Components Frame 8,500-Square-Foot Custom Home appeared first on BuildSteel.org.

      

Related Stories

• CFS Components Produced With Scottsdale Tech Frame 8,500-Square-Foot Custom Home
• Update #27: Cold-Formed Steel Framing in Military Facilities and University Housing
• Innovative Steel Design for Nine31 Apartments Earns CFSEI Award for McClure