Cgna14546enc 001 PDF

ISSN 1018-5593
* *
* *
Commission of the European Communities
technical steel research
Properties and service performance
Interaction diagrams between axial

load and bending moment M for
columns submitted to buckling:
improvement of methods proposed in
standards and codes
s
Commission of the European Communities
technical steel research

Properties and service performance
Interaction diagrams between axial

load and bending moment M for
columns submitted to buckling:
improvement of methods proposed in
standards and codes
ARBED Recherches
66 rue de Luxembourg
L4221 EschsurAlzette
Contract No 7210 SA/510

(1.7.1988 31.12.1990)
Final report
DirectorateGeneral
Science, Research and Development PARI. EURP.
1993 f.j Q EUR 14546 EN
1.
Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Directorate-General XIII
Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of Research
L-2920 Luxembourg
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting
on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of
the following information.
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1993

ISBN 92-826-6166-0
ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels Luxembourg, 1993
Printed in Belgium
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been performed by ARBED S A. during the years 1988 to 1990 and
sponsored by C.E.C., the Commission of the European Community (C.E.C. Agreement
N 7210-S A/510).
We want to acknowledge first of all the important financial support from the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, as well as the moral support given
during this research by all the members of the C.E.C. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE F6
"LIGHT WEIGHT S TRUCTURES ".
Thanks are also due to all, who by any means may have contributed in this research:
- ARBED-Research: RPS Department : MM. Becker F., Braun P., Noesen .,

Wagner G.
Product Department : M. Lorenzini E.
Process Control Dept. : M. Keiser .
- BOCHUM University, Laboratory of civil engineering: MM. Hanenkamp W., Hammer W.
- LIEGE University, Laboratory of civil engineering: M. BoeraeveP.
- TNO-Delft: M. Bijlaard F.S.K., Mrs Van Hove D.
- KREMER FRRES, steel fabricator (Steinfort, Luxbg)

INTERACTION DIAGRAMS BETWEEN AXIAL LOAD
AND BENDING MOMENT M FOR COLUMNS SUBMITTED TO
BUCKLING : IMPROVEMENT OF METHODS PROPOSED IN
STANDARDS AND CODES
AgreementN7210SA/510 C.C. ARBED
Summary
Differences have been observed when comparing the NM interaction diagrams for
columns submitted to buckling according to the various standards and codes. These
differences are particularly significant for buckling of wideflangehotrolled columns HD
according to the weak axis, and it appears that the NM interaction formula proposed in the
Eurocode 3 penalizes the thick flange sections in comparison with a non linear method or
in comparison with the results of the numerical codes Finelg or Ceficoss.
The purpose of this research was to check by means of buckling tests the behaviour of HD
columns submitted to eccentric loading, and to compare the results with the values
calculated according to Eurocode 3 and other national standards.
Numerical simulations of different profiles with Finelg software have been compared to
design rules issued from Eurocode 3. These comparisons led to the testing programme of 13
thick flange HD columns in FeE 355 steel grade with flange thicknesses from 52 to 125
mm. The programme included 4 buckling tests according to the strong axis and 9 buckling
tests according to the weak axis, with uniform and bitriangular moment distributions. All
the initial geometrical and mechanical imperfections have been measured: initial
deformations, residual stresses, real geometry and eccentricities, yield points,...
The test results were compared with Eurocode 3 design and formulas (1984 and 1990
versions), with Swiss formulas (Sia 1611990 version) and with Finelg simulations which
are closer to the reality. The comparisons were carried out for the whole NM interaction
curves including different phenomena: buckling, resistance of crosssections, lateral
torsional buckling and bending.
It was pointed out that the proposed rules in Erucode 3 are too conservative in the scope of
these 13 HD compression tests. First proposals for improvements of the NM formulas are
introduced. It was also shown that with a simple and reliable modelization Finelg software
can easily be used as tool for realistic and safe design.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
LATIN UP P ER CASE LETTERS
A Sectional area; name of sample for tensile tests

Width
C Annexes
E Effect of action; modulus of elasticity
F F orce; surface; action
I Moment of inertia
L Length
M Moment; bending moment
Compression; axial load
Newton
R Resistance; reaction
S Internal forces and moments
W Name of American hot-rolled shapes
W Web; name of transducers
W Section modulus
LATIN LOWER CASE LETTERS
a Geometrical data
b Buckling; width
c Half width of H profile
d Length; distance
e F lange thickness; eccentricity
f F lange
h Height
i Radius of gyration
k Coefficient; kilo
1 Length
m Meter
Plates
r Radius
t Thickness
u Up
w Web
Coordinate in X axis
y Coordinate in Y axis
Coordinate in axis
VII
GREEK LOWER CASE LETTERS
a. Angle; Ratio
Moment distribution factor; Correction factor
Partial safety factor
Strain; maximal strain
Reduction factor
Buckling reduction factor
Slenderness; load multiplier
Coefficient of correlation
Normal stress
Mechanical characteristics
Reduction factor for buckling
Ratio between end moments
SUBSCRIPT
b Buckling
E Young modulus
k Characteristics
pl(x,y) Plastic variable according to (x,y) axes
LT Lateral-torsional
M Moment
min Minimum
ml Partial safety factor 1
(according to) axial force
R Resistance
r Reduced; radius of fillet
red Reduction formula
s Slide
t Tangent
uit Ultimate (limit state)
y Yield
y Strong axis
Weak axis
2 Square
OTHER EXP RESSIONS
SIA Swiss society of engineers and architects

EC Eurocode
EN Euronorm
ECCS European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
FeE Steel grade (yield point)
crit Critical
red Reduced
ecc Eccentricity
LTB Lateral-torsional buckling
min Minimum
- V III
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ill
SUMMARY V
LIST OF SYMBOLS Vll-viii
CONTENTS Ei-XI
SOMMAIRE - KURZFASSUNG XIII-XIV
PART I : REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION 3
1.1. Purposes 3
1.2. Description 3
2. TESTING PROGRAMME 4
2.1. Preselection 4
2.2. Numerical simulations with Finelg 5
2.2.1. Hypothesis 5
2.2.2. Eurocode 3:1984 and 1988 versions 7
2.2.3 Results 10
2.3. Definitive selection 12
3. DESIGN OF THE SPECIMENS 12
4. BUCKLING TESTS 12
4.1. Generalities 12
4.2. Preparation 13
4.2.1. Measurements 13
4.2.2. Supports 14
4.3. Realization 15
4.4. Results 16
5. RESIDUAL STRESSES 17
5.1. Method of mesurements 17
5.2. Results 18
- IX -
6. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE BUCKLING TESTS 19
6.1. Measured initial imperfections 19
6.1.1. Geometrical imperfections 19
6.1.2. Mechanical imperfections 20
6.1.3. Supports 21
6.2. Comparison between the measurements and the numerical
simulations 21
7. COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENTS, EUROCODE 3,

SIA 161 AND THE NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS 24
7.1. Collaps leads 24
Figures 7.1.1 to 7.1.V 27-31
7.2 N-M interaction curves 33
7.2.1 Buckling strength 33
72.1.1. Eurocode 3 (84 and 90 versions) 33
72.12. SIA 161(90 version) 33
7.2.2. Resistance of cross-sections 34
72.2.1. Eurocode 3 (84 version) 34
72.22. Eurocode 3 (90 version) 35
72.2.3 SIA 161 (90 version) 35
7.2.3 Bending resistance 36
7.2.4 Lateral-torsional buckling strength 36
72.4.1. Eurocode 3 (84 version) 36
72.42. Eurocode 3 (90 version) 38
72.43. SIA 161 (90 version) 39
7.2.5 Comments 40
Figures 7.2.0 to 7.2. 43-56
7.3 New proposal for codes formulas 57
Figures 7.3.0 to 7.3. 59-72
8. STATISTICAL EVALUATION (Annex of Eurocode 3) 73
9. CONCLUSIONS 75
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
FIGURES
1 to 3 - Chapter 1 : Introduction 83-87
4 to 29 - Chapter 2 : Testing Programme 89-136
30 to 59 - Chapter 4 : Buckling Tests 117-148
60 to 71 - Chapter 5 : Residual Stresses 149-162
72 to 90 - Chapter 6 : Numerical Simulations of the Buckling Tests 163-183
PARTII : ANNEXES
ANNEX A (Al to A53): Design of the specimens 187-241

ANNEX B (Bl to 16): Geometrical measurements before the tests 243-260
ANNEX C (Cl to C47): Tests results (Load-deflection curves;
residual deformations after the tests) 261-309
ANNEX D (Dl to D32): Measurements of residual stresses 311-344
XI
DIAGRAMMES D'INTERACTION ENTRE LA FORCE
AXIALE DE COMPRESSION ET LE MOMENT DE
FLEXION M POUR DES COLONNES SOUMISES AU
FLAMBEMENT: AMLIORATION DES MTHODES
PROPOSES DANS LES NORMES
Somm aire
Des diffrences peuvent tre observes en comparant les diagrammes d'interaction NM

pour des colonnes soumises au flambement, diagrammes tablis d'aprs plusieurs normes.
Ces diffrences deviennent particulirement significatives pour le flambement selon axe
faible des colonnes larges ailes (profils lamins chaud de type HD). apparat
mme que les formules d'interaction proposes dans lTSurocode 3 dfavorisent les secti
ons ailes paisses par rapport aux rsultats obtenus avec des mthodes non linaires
et avec des simulations numriques non linaires (logiciels Finelg ou Ceficoss).
Le but de cette recherche consiste vrifier, au moyen d'essais de flambement, le

comportement des colonnes HD soumises des compressions excentres. Ces rsultats sont
compars avec les valeurs calcules d'aprs Eurocode 3 et d'autres normes nationales.
Les simulations numriques des diffrents profils avec le logiciel Finelg ont t
compares aux rgles de calculs de rEurocode 3. Ces comparaisons nous ont permis
d'tablir le programme des essais: le programme comprend 4 essais de flambement selon
l'axe fort et 9 essais selon l'axe faible sur des colonnes HD ailes paisses en
qualit d'acier FeE 355, avec des paisseurs d'ailes variant entre 52 et 125 mm; les
essais se partagent en distributions de moment de flexion uniformes et bitriangulaires.
Toutes les imperfections initiales gomtriques et mcaniques ont t mesures: dfor
mes initiales, contraintes rsiduelles, geometries et excentricits relles, limites
lastiques, etc.
Les rsultats des essais ont t compars aux rgles de dimensionnement suivant l'Euro
code 3 (design et formules des versions de 1984 et de 1990), et suivant la norme suisse
(Sia 161 version de 1990). Les essais ont t compars galement des simulations
numriques selon Finelg qui sont proches de la ralit. Ces comparaisons ont t rali
ses pour des courbes compltes d'interaction NM incluant diffrents phnomnes:
flambement, rsistance des sections droites, dversement et flexion.
a t mis en vidence que les rgles proposes dans lTiurocode 3 sont trop scuri
taires dans le cadre de ces 13 essais de compression de profils HD.
Une amlioration des formules d'interaction NM est propose. Il a t aussi dmontr

qu'avec un modle simple et fiable on peut utiliser facilement le logiciel Finelg comme
outil de conception raliste et scuritaire.
XIII
INTERAKTIONSDIAGRAMME FR AXIALE LASTEN
UND BIEGEBEANSPRUCHUNGEN AN KNICKG E
FHRDETEN STTZEN
Kur fas 8 u ng
Einige Unterschiede knnen schon, beim Vergleich der NM Interaktionsdiagramme fr

Sttzen unter Normalbedingungen, gem verschiedener Normen und Gesetzen, festgestellt
werden. Diese Unterschiede werden noch deutlicher beim Ausknicken von breitflanschigen
Sttzen um die schwache Achse (warmgewalzte Profile der Serie HD). Es zeigt sich, da
gem Interaktionsformeln aus Eurocode 3 (der Versionen 84 und 90), die dickflanschigen
Trger, im Vergleich mit den Resultaten von nichtlinearen Methoden oder im Vergleich
mit numerischen Simulationen (Programme wie FINELG und CEFICOSS), benachteiligt
werden.
Der Zweck dieser Versuche besteht darin, mittels Knickversuchen das Verhalten von HD
Sttzen mit exzentrischer Last zu prfen, und diese Ergebnisse mit denen aus den
Berechnungswerten gem Eurocode und .anderen nationalen Normen zu vergleichen.
Numerische Simulationen verschiedener Profile die mittels FINELGProgrammen berechnet

wurden, wurden mit den Bemessungskonzepten gem Eurocode 3 verglichen. Diese Verglei
che fhrten uns zu dem Versuchsprogramm mit 13 breitflanschigen Sttzen (HD) aus Stahl
FeE 355 und Flanschdicken von 52 bis 125 mm. Das Programm beinhaltet 4 Knickversuche um
die starke Achse und 9 um die schwache Achse, mit jeweils uniformer und bitriangularer
Momentverteilung.
Alle geometrischen und mechanischen Imperfektionen wurden vor den Versuchen gemessen
(Verformung, Eigenspannungen, Geometrie, Exzentrizitten, Streckgrenzen usw.).
Die Versuchsergebnisse wurden den Vorschriften nach Eurocode 3 (Versionen 84 und 90),
den Schweizer Normen (SIA 161 Version 1990) und den realistischeren FINELG Simulationen
gegenbergestellt. Diese Vergleiche wurden fr die vollstndigen NM B erechnungskurven,
einschlielich verschiedener Phnomene: Knicken, Tragfhigkeit, B iegeDrillKnicken und
Biegung ausgefhrt.
Es stellte sich durch die 13 Druckversuche an HDProfilen heraus, da die vorgeschla

genen Vorschriften aus Eurocode 3 zu konservativ ausgelegt sind. Eine Verbesserung der
NM Interaktionsformeln wurde vorgeschlagen. Desweiteren stellte sich heraus, da
FINELG vereinfachte und zuverlssige Modelldarstellungen erlaubt, welche realistisch
und ausreichend sicher sind.
XIV
PART I
REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION 4
For normal service conditions, the N-M interaction curves for columns submitted to
compression may be calculated point by point with a non linear finite elements
software as FINELG or CEFICOSS, but on the other hand, they must be plotted in
accordance with the actual european or national standards and prescriptions.
In this context we observed several relatively important divergences between the

different standards and the numerical simulations, as it is shown on the N-M
diagram of figure 1, for an HD 400x400x744 profile.
These differences (up to 50 %) appear above all for the buckling according to the
weak axis and it seems that Eurocode 3 "Unified common rules for steel construc-
tion" (1984 version) penalizes the massive columns with its interaction formula
compared to a non-linear method and compared to the results of CEFICOSS numerical
simulations. This is also true to the actual codes in Great Britain, Belgium and
the United States.
1.1. PURPOSES
In this research we want to check the behaviour of the massive columns like HD
hot-rolled sections (with thicknesses above 40 mm) by a serie of buckling tests
under eccentric loads and to compare the results issued from the actual prescrip-
tion of Eurocode 3. We want to point out that the actual proposed rules in Euro-
code 3 may be too much conservative and so that they don't allow the designers to
use the maximum of the real buckling strength under eccentric loads of the steel
massive columns.
We want to investigate this particular domain of the construction rules not yet
controlled by means of full-scale tests.
We know that a testing programme ( [ l ] , [2]) concerning buckling without eccentri-

city of these same massive columns has allowed at that time to improve their
classification in the european buckling curves; in the same way another research
[3] has led to a better classification of the profiles with high strength steel
for buckling problems.
1.2. DESCRIPTION
The testing programme of this research can be separated in two parts:
a) realization of 9 buckling tests according to the weak axis for thick flanged
HD columns (NM1 to NM9) with uniform moment distributions (NM1 to NM6) and
with bitriangular moment distributions (NM7 to NM9) (fig. 2 and 3).
3 -
b) Realization of 4 buckling tests according to the strong axis for thick
flanged HD columns (NM 10 to NM 13) with uniform moment distributions (NM 10,
NM 11) and with bitriangular moment distributions (NM 12, NM 13).
The theoretical part of the proposed research consists in drawing the interaction
NM curves relating to results of the tests and according to the Eurocode 3 pres
criptions in order to deduce the practical conclusions of the comparison between
the codes and the reality.
On the other hand, we will take advantage of the test results to check also the
precision of the numerical simulations done with the Finelg software.
2. TESTIN
G PRO
G RAMME
Like presented in the previous report n 2 [] we selected different thick flanged

HD profiles to quantify the corresponding divergences between simulations and
Eurocode 3 rules and to show the excesses of safety. This led to a testing
programme of 13 hotrolled profiles.
In the previous report n 3 [] we measured the steel qualities, we controlled the

chosen values of the buckling parameters in the testing programme because of the
testrig limits. The definitive selection of the different parameters allowed to
design the 13 specimens (calculations, drawings) and to begin their fabrication.
2.1. PRESE
L ECTION
We chose thick flanged HD profiles available on the ARB ED stock with different
flange thicknesses (over 40 mm), different slenderness ratios (buckling lengths,
...) and different eccentricities. For memory, the slenderness ratio means:
- Xr V*
=
7tV(E/oy)

where Lb is the buckling length of the column,

the radius of gyration (= V7A),
I the moment of inertia,
A the sectional area,
E the Young modulus,
cy the yield strength.
List of the chosen available and adequate profiles:
HD 400x400x422 (flange thickness, e = 52.5 mm)

HD 310x310x454 (e = 69.0 mm)
HD 310x310x500 (e = 75.0 mm)
HD 400x400x678 (e = 82.0 mm)
W 14x16x550 = HD 400x400x818 (e = 97.0 mm)
W 14x16x730 = DH 400x400x0186 (e = 125.0 mm)
We extracted one sample from a flange of each tested beam to determine the steel
quality.
Results of the tensile tests:
Name of Yield point Tensile strength Ultimate

the specimen [N/mm*] [N/mm*J strain
[%]
NM1 372,0 542 29,7

NM2;NM7 331,0 530 30,4
NM3 389,0 534 29,4
NM4 345,0 540 29,5
NM5 349,5 524 30,4
NM6 374,0 543 29,4
NM8;NM11 384,0 557 27,6
NM9; NM13 354,5 527 27,7
NM10 381,0 548 29,1
NM12 310,5 505 32,8
With these datas we must choose adequate parameters as the length of the columns
and the eccentricity of the load because the testing apparatus (University of
Bochum - Germany) imposes any limits:
* the distance between the supports of the testing machine is maximum equal to
10 meters;
* the maximal compressive load which can be applied is 20.000,0 kN.
2.2. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS WITH FINELG
2.2.1. Hypothesis [12
The calculations concern the buckling phenomena according to the weak and the
strong axis, with different bending moment distribution either uniform (usually
more unfavorable) or bitriangular (more realistic in frames) (figure 4).
5 -
The software Finelg is a finite element program to solve:
* geometrically and materially non linear solid or structural problems under

static dead loads;
* linear and non linear instability problems, leading to eigenvalue computa

tion (buckling load);
Geometrical non linearity covers large displacements (i.e. large rotations);

material non linearity covers classical elastoplasticity. Only small strains
are considered at present (limit: 1 + = 1).
The numerical technique available in Finelg enables one to follow the non
linear evolution of a structure under increasing external loading up to
collapse or instability, and even beyond. The external loading may consist of
imposed loads or displacements that vary proportionally; additional constant
loads and/or displacements may be superimposed (i.e. dead load,...).
For the simulations we used the socalled GPPAA finite element, classical beam
element of engineers, for plane frames (no shear considered). Non linear geome
trical effects are dealt with through the finite element using the corotational
Lagrangian formulation taking into account the element curved current deflec
tion (Modified Marguerre's theory).
The columns have been discretized in a number of finite elements depending of

their length (range of lengths: 4,00 m to 8,71 m) (usually 12 elements for a
bitriangular moment distribution and 10 elements for an uniform moment distri
bution), with 4 Lobatto integration points along the length of elements and 3/7
or 9/7 integration points across the section (web/flange) for buckling accord
ing to respectively weak axis or strong axis. The columns are simply supported
(perfect hinges) (figure 5).
For the uniform moment distribution the bendingcompression is provided by an

eccentric load (finite elements defined with an eccentricity of the nodes to
the beam axis); for bitriangular moment distribution there is no given eccen
tricity but concentrated bending moments and axial loads at each extremity.
The residual stresses have been introduced in the profiles according to the
recommendations of Eurocode (figure 5).
First no initial geometrical imperfections have been introduced to obtain the

upper carrying capacity with the numerical simulations (because in reality you
always have the unfavorable effect of initial deformations) [].
At a second step we introduced a sinusodal initial deformation with a maximal
amplitude of L/1000 where L is the length of the column between hinged supports
(figure 6: examples of NM5 andNM13) [&].
The FeE 355 steel quality is defined by the mechanical parameters of the used
constitutive law taking into account strainhardening (figure 7): E, Young
modulus; ay, yield strength; Et, tangent modulus; at tensile strength. For
all the actual numerical simulations we took the measured values of the steel
quality.
2.2.2. Eurocode 3:84 and 88 versions
For members submitted to pure compression, the buckling resistance is control

led by the same formulas in both versions of Eurocode 3 [9 ], [ l O l
For all members subject to combined bending and axial compression, the inter
action relationship presents any differences.
** 84 Version f]
Basic interaction formula: for strong and weak axis.
M
H
y,z y,z 1
N M
*y,z pi piy> z
with:

= (1 ) 2 . *
y,z y,z
Xy,z Npl Xy,z * Np!
Npi, plastic normal force of the steel section
Mpj, plastic moment of the steel section; it is allowable to take
1,10 M p l if N/N p l > 0,10
-
= , relative slenderness ratio

z , buckling reduction factor

y,z, strong and weak axis
, moment distribution factor

uniform distribution: == 1,10
triangular distribution: == 0,66
bitriangular distribution: == 0,66+ 0,44.,
M
l
with > 0,44 and =
H<L 2
M
88 Version IO
Basic interaction formula: for strong and weak axis.
N M
y,* y.s
M
V s
Xmin. Npl/vnl pl 7>/1
with:
Xmin = minimum of Xy and Xz
N
y,*
\ * = 1

,' ^1
V <1.5
= ^ ( 2 - 4 ) + ( , - 1 ) 0 9 0
W - w
pl
y, y> z
Vvz W
y z w
' y,z
Y m j, partial safety factor (taken equal to 1,0)
Npi, plastic normal force of the steel section
Mpj, plastic moment of the steel section
-
= , relative slenderness ratio

z , buckling reduction factor

Wpi , plastic section modulus for the strong and the weak axis
T,z
Wy z , elastic section modulus for the strong and weak axis
y,z, strong and weak axis
, moment distribution factor

uniform distribution: = 1.10
triangular distribution: = 1.80
bitriangular distribution: = 1.80 - 0,70., with
M,
= and -1 < < 1
M, M,
According to the Eurocode 3 (88 version) classification of cross-sections, all

the 13 tests belong to the Class 1 (the most favourable one) for which the
cross-sections can form a plastic hinge with the rotation capacity required for
plastic analysis. This classification determines the interaction formula to use
for members submitted to combined bending and axial compression [ l 0 1
The classification in Class 1 corresponds to a maximum width-to-thickness ratio

for compression elements [ l O l
* webs submitted to compression:
d/t < 33
* webs submitted to bending:
d/t<72e
* flanges submitted to compression:
d{< 10
~
where = V^/oy (= 0.81, for FeE 355 steel)
t M
M
9 -
Webs ( % ) ) Flange (c/( t ' e) )
Profiles
Compression Bending Compression
HD 400 400 422 10,80 10,80 4,79
HD 400 400 678 7,06 7,06 3,20
HD 400 400 818 5,89 5,89 2,77
= W 14 16 550
HD 400 400 1086 4,55 4,55 2,23
= W 14 16 730
HD 310 310 454 7,50 7,50 2,99
HD 310 310 500 6,75 6,75 2,79
2.2.3. Results
a) Without initial geometrical imperfection [5 J:
* At this step of profiles selection (report n 2; []) it wasn't neces

sary to vary the strength values in function of the thickness as pres
cribed in Eurocode (or Euronorm).
We took the steel grade with a yield point of 355 MPa because we did not
know the real strength of the specimens yet.
* As explained previously no initial shallow deflection has been intro

duced to obtain the upper carrying capacity with the numerical simulati
ons (because in reality you always have the unfavorable effect of initi
al deformations).
* ECCS residual stresses have been introduced.
* The safety factor m l was equal to 1,0 for the calculation with Euro
code 3 formula.
The comparison between Finelg and Eurocode 3 is presented on the fig. 8
Afterwards (report n 3, [6]) we knew the real measured yield points of

each specimen and after new calculations with Finelg for NM1 and NM10
specimens we had to introduce a greater eccentricity than the initial
chosen value because of too big maximal failure loads. We changed the
eccentricities respectively from 5 to 8 cm and from 15 to 18 cm.
10
b) With initial geometrical imperfection (figure 6; [6 ]):
For Finelg simulations, we took the measured yield points. ECCS residual
stresses have been introduced and initial sinusodal deformations too
(figure 6).
For the comparison with Eurocode 3 results we varied the steel quality in
function of the thickness as prescribed in Euronorm 10025 applied by Euro
code 3 for thicknesses till 100 mm and in Euronorm 25 for thicknesses upper
than 100 mm (figure 7). The safety factor v m l was equal to 1.10.
The comparison between Finelg and Eurocode 3 appears on figure 9.
Two examples of Finelg calculations and the comparisons with Eurocode 3 (84 and
89 versions) are shown on the following figures:
* Example NM5:
Section HD 400x400x1086 (or W14xl6x730), buckling according to the weak

axis, uniform moment distribution, buckling length of 8,18 m.
Figure 10:
diagram load multiplier in function of the deflection.
Figure 11:
deformation of the column at load 14250 kN.
Figure 12:
bending moment distribution at load 14250 kN.
Figure 13:
normal force distribution at load 14250 kN.
Figure 14:
state of plastification at load 14250 kN (degree of plastifica
tion; general view of the beam on the side of the flanges
submitted to tension by bending).
Figure 15: state of plastification at load 14250 kN (degree of plastifica
tion; general view of the beam on the side of the flanges
submitted to compression by bending).
tion; view of the central zone on the side of the flanges
submitted to compression by bending).
tion; general view of the web).
Figure 18: comparison of FINELG simulations with Eurocode 3 (84 and 89
versions) on interaction NM diagrams.
Figure 19: calculations of Eurocode 3 (84 and 89 versions) interaction NM
diagrams.
* Example NM13:
Section HD 310x310x500, buckling according to the strong axis, bitriangular

moment distribution, buckling length of 8,00 m.
Figure 20: diagram load multiplier in function of the deflection.

Figure 21: deformation of the column at load 12570 kN.
Figure 22: bending moment distribution at load 12570 kN.
11
Figure 23: normal force distribution at load 12570 kN.
Figure 24: state of plastification at load 12570 kN (degree of plastifica-
tion; general view of the beam).
tion; view of the flange submitted to compression by bending).
tion; view of the web at an extremity).
tion; view of the flange submitted to tension by bending).
Figure 28: comparison of Finelg simulations with Eurocode 3 (84 and 89
versions) on interaction N-M diagrams.
Figure 29: calculations of Eurocode 3 (84 and 89 versions) interaction N-M
diagrams.
2.3. DEFINITIVE SELECTION
The definitive selection for the testing programme appears on figure 9 with the
final parameters for the design of the specimens and the actualized differences
between Finelg numerical simulations and Eurocode 3 rules (November 89 version).
We chose 9 buckling tests according to the weak axis and 4 tests according to the
strong axis, with different moment distributions (uniform and bitriangular), dif-
ferent slenderness ratios, different eccentricities, for different flange thick-
nesses.
3. DESIGN OF THE SPECIMENS
On the basis of the definitive selection (figure 9) we designed for fabrication

the 13 specimens with the final chosen parameters.
We calculated the layout of the siffening at the extremities to avoid any local
problem of unstability or stresses concentration; the extremity plates, the
stiffeners and the columns are welded together.
All the drawings used for fabrication appear on annexes Al to A53 (Part II).
4. BUCHUNG TESTS
4.1. GENERALITIES
In this buckling problem with N-M interaction we don't face a bifurcation of

equilibrium but a divergence problem, a non linear phenomenon of bending-compres-
sion with transverse displacements.
12
All the unavoidable geometrical and mechanical initial imperfections are practi
cally inducing the buckling of the columns.
In real beams we meet such imperfections as:
* geometry: dimensions of profile;

* imperfect loading mode (imperfect eccentricity of the applied loads);
* initial deformations along the columns (curvature);
* yield scatter over the profiles;
* residual stresses in the profiles.
4.2. PREPARATION 7
4.2.1. Measurements
Before the buckling tests we took different measurements of the geometrical

characteristics of the profiles and measurements of the initial geometrical
imperfections, which strongly influence the buckling behaviour of the columns.
The dimensions of the profiles (height, width, web and flange thicknesses) were
measured as defined on Annexes B l and B 2 (Part II) at 5 positions along each
column.
The web eccentricities, the web deformations and the parallelism of the flanges
are evaluated as shown on Annex B3.
The different measurements are given on Annexes B4 to 16.
(1) On figure 30 we compare the nominal values of the crosssections (h, b,

tw tf) with the measured ones which are the average of all the measu
rements taken along each specimen. On figure 31 we calculate the main
statical characteristics of each crosssection.
(2) On figure 32 we compare the allowable tolerances with the measured mean
ones for the geometry of each crosssection (h, b, t w , tf). The most
important geometrical values (h, b, tf) according to our buckling tests
have quite good acceptance; the web thicknesses (t w ) show more differen
ces whith allowable tolerances but not too much and moreover, buckling
tests are not so sensitive to such t w variations.
On figure 33 we compare the allowable tolerances with the measured ones

which are the maximal values over the length of each specimen; these tole
rances concern the parallelism of the flanges, the web eccentricities and
the web deformation.
13
These tolerances are acceptable and will be neglected for the numerical
simulations.
(3) The figure 34 shows the measured distances in comparison with a straight
reference line, to determine along the columns the initial deformation
perpendicular to the weak or to the strong axis respectively; the measure-
ments were taken all the 15 cm along each specimen.
On the figures 35 to 47 the measured initial deformations of each specimen

are compared with the permitted sinusodal deviation according to Eurocode
3; we also draw the approximate initial deformations introduced in the
numerical simulations (described in chapter 6):
- figures 35 to 43 concern the columns NM1 to NM9 submitted to buckling

according to the weak axis.
- figures 44 to 47 concern the columns NM10 to NM13 submitted to buckling

according to the strong axis.
We always have acceptable initial deformation of the columns according to

Eurocode 3.
(4) The eccentricities of the profiles on the extremity plates were measured
as defined on figure 48. We deduced the values of the real eccentricities
from a formula given on figure 49.
(5) As our supports are hinges (control of this topic in the following chapter
4.2.2.) we can measure the real buckling length of each column (fig. 50).
4.2.2. Supports
The collapse load of a buckling test is directly dependent on the buckling

length defined as the length of the fictitious column hinged at both extremi-
ties which would have the same collapse load as the given piece. So this impor-
tant characteristic of the test has to be known with precision for a correct
exploitation of the results (comparison to buckling curves, numerical simula-
tions, ...).
The supports are assumed to be hinges at both extremities like shown on fig. 51
for the uniform moment distribution and on fig. 52 for the bitriangular moment
distribution; a detailed drawing of the hinges appears on figure 53. This type
of support is fully influenced by the teflon properties and so we measured the
friction with the following procedure (figure 54):
14
* for each applied axial load we had friction between the roller and his
supports, friction which introduced a resistant moment called Ms greater
than the applied moment (= F d);
* keeping constant the axial load we increased the eccentric load F up to a

certain level Fs which determined the slide moment Ms (= Fs d) necessary
to turn the roller.
So we obtained two curves (for two diameters of roller; 100 and 200 mm): Ms in
function of (figure 55).
We can see that for the minimal given eccentricity (for NM9 we have 5 cm) the
moment applied at the hinges against friction is always greater than the slide
moment Ms. On the other hand the curves also show that the friction coefficient
decreases when the applied load increases (figure 56).
So that's why in the scope of our tests we can expect a hinge behaviour of the
supports.
We will control this conclusion by measuring the residual plastic deformations

along each column after the tests (see chapter 4.4.).
As pointed out on figure 53, the support behaves like a hinge in the main buck
ling planes (planes perpendicular to the weak axis for NM1 to NM9 and to the
strong axis for NM10 to NM13); but with the halfcylinder of 570 mm length the
columns are fully fixed in the other planes (planes parallel to the weak axis
and to the strong axis respectively).
4.3. REAL IZATION [7]
During the tests we took measurements:
* Strain gages were fixed in highly stressed expected zones like shown on
figures 57 and 58 respectively for the buckling according to the weak axis and
to the strong axis, both cases for uniform and bitriangular moment distribu
tions.
* Three transducers were put along each column in each buckling plan to measure
the lateral displacements in function of the applied load (main displacements)
and to control up to collapse that we hadn't biaxial buckling (parasitical
displacements) (figure 59: position of wl to w6 transducers for buckling
according to the weak axis, for example).
15
4.4. RESULTS [14]
* For buckling according to the weak axis (NM1 to NM9 tests) you can find on
Annexes CI to C18 the curves of load-displacements measured with transducers
wl to w3 (main displacements perpendicular to the weak axis) and with trans-
ducers w4 to w6 (parasitical displacements perpendicular to the strong axis)
to control the behaviour for each test NM1 to NM9.
* For buckling according to the strong axis (NM10 to NM 13 tests) you can find on
Annexes C19 to C26 the curves of load-displacements measured with transducers
wl to w3 (main displacements perpendicular to the strong axis) and with trans-
ducers w4 to w6 (parasitical displacements perpendicular to the weak axis) to
control the behaviour for each test NM10 to NM13.
* With a uniform moment distribution (NM1 to NM6, NM10, NM11), the tests show as
expected that since the beginning of loading up to collapse the mid-length
main displacements w2 are always superior to the others (wl and w3) which
remain equal during the whole loading.
The w2 maximal values are included between 118 mm and 235 mm. The maximal
parasitical displacement (w4, w5, w6) is equal to 12 mm with usual values not
upper than 3.6 mm and so we can conclude that there are no significant out-of-
buckling-plan displacements.
* For bitriangular moment distribution (NM7 to NM9, NM12, NM13), at the begin-
ning of loading, the mid-length displacements w2 is equal to zero and the
others (wl and w3) remain equal; but at a certain level of loading wl and w3
become different more and more up to the maximal applied load after which the
global behaviour completely changed.
The maximal values of main displacements are included between 200 and 350 mm.
The maximal parasitical displacements (w4, w5, w6) is equal to 10.3 mm with
usual values not upper than 4.0 mm and so we can conclude that there are no
significant out-of-buckling-plan displacements.
* We measured the residual plastic deformations after the tests along each
column to control the correct behaviour of the hinged supports which influen-
ces directly the definition of the buckling length (Annexes C27 to C39). These
figures show that there is no opposite curvature at both extremities of each
column submitted to a uniform or a bitriangular moment distribution (the
measurements a, b, c have been already defined on figure 34).
- 16
As it can be seen on Annexes C33, C34, C35, C38 and C39 (residual state after
tests) for the tests with a theoretical bitriangular moment distribution (NM7
to NM9, NM12, NM13) the columns didn't keep this distribution because the
plastic residual deformations are not bi-sinusoidal like at the beginning of
loading. In practice, we have opposite but not equal eccentricities (fig. 49)
and we have different layouts of initial deformations (figures 41 to 43, 46
and 47); these both topics initiate differences between the bending moments
applied at both extremities, differences which are emphasized by - effects
and lead to these residual deformations.
On Annexes C40 to C47 we have some photos of the tests:
- NM1 specimen at collapse with both end plates and hinges, submitted to a
uniform moment distribution (Annex C40);
- detail of end plate and hinged support of a specimen (Annex C41);
- detail of the hinged support with the half-cylinder welded to the end
plate, the teflon sheet and the block-support (Annex C42, figure 53);
- NM7 specimen with both end plates and hinges at collapse, submitted to a
bitriangular moment distribution (Annex C43);
- view of the upper part of the NM7 specimen at collapse (Annex C44);
- view of transducers measuring the displacements of the columns according to
both bending axis (main and parasitical displacements: Annex C45; fig. 59);
- view of the strain gages measuring the strains of the most loaded part of
the specimens (Annex C46 shows a test according to the strong axis;
figure 58);
- view of the residual plastic deformations after testing NM7 and NM9, both
according to weak axis and with bitriangular moment distribution (Annex
C47; Annexes C33 and C35).
5. RESIDUAL STRESSES [g]
The measurements of the residual stresses were carried out on profiles of 2 m

length extracted from the original beams before the buckling tests.
The destructive method called the "cutting out method" was used by the University
of Lige which was in charge of these measurements [13 ].
5.1. METHOD OF MEASUREMENTS
This "cutting out method" is based on the relaxation of the residual stresses due
to the division of sections into pieces (figures 60 and 61) for which strains are
measured and from which the internal stresses state can be deduced (figure 62).
17
With this process only the longitudinal components of the residual stresses can
be measured but it is clear that they have the main influence in problem of
columns instability.
We measured the residual stresses on 9 profiles (NM1, NM2, NM3, NM4, NM5, NM8,
NM9, NM10, NM12) because several profiles were cut out from the same hotrolled
beams: NM2 = NM7, NM8 = NM11, NM9 = NM13.
The measurements have to be corrected in such a way to obtain an equilibrium of

the stresses over the crosssection because no external loads were applied to the
beams [l3l
1) the measurements in each cut bar are multiplied by the area of the correspon
ding bar to obtain the load existing in the bar. The sum over the cross
section give an axial load N.
2) the positions Y and of each bar are well known and we can deduce a resul
ting bending moment on the section according to Y and Z, in other words My
and Mz.
3) the "as measured" residual stresses are then corrected to residual stresses
with equilibrium by the following formula:
equilibr. = as measured N/A (My.Y)/Iy (Mz.Z)/Iz
5.2. RESU
L TS
The residual stresses as measured and with equilibrium, the differences between
the residual stresses with equilibrium and as measured are all provided for each
crosssection NM1, NM2, NM3, NM4, NM5, NM8, NM9, NM10 and NM12, on Annexes
Dl to D18. These differences quantify the errors of the measurements.
Given as examples, the Annexes D19 to D30 show the graphical distribution of the
residual stresses over the thickness of each part of profile. The diagrams
concern the graphical distribution for residual stresses as measured and with
equilibrium for NM2, NM4, NM5 specimens. We can mention that the differences
between the values of the residual stresses are more important rather than the
differences of their distribution over the thickness of the flanges.
For the numerical simulations that we want to be simple we introduced the mean
values through the thickness of the residual stresses with equilibrium (fig. 63
to 71).
It , I I
Notice: Signs convention for Annexes Dl to D30: "" is used for tension and, "+
for compression.
18
On Annexes D31 and D32 we have some profiles after cutting out.
6. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE BUCKLING TESTS []
The numerical simulations have been carried out with the computer program Finelg
[12] using the finite element method which has been presented in the chapter
2.2.1.
As explained for these simulations we used the socalled GPPAA finite element,
classical beam element of engineers, for plane frames (no shear considered). Non
linear geometrical effects are dealt with through the finite elements using the
corotational Lagrangian formulation taking into account the element curved current
deflection (Modified Marguerre's theory). The columns are made of non linear
material (figures 4 to 7).
As described we chose a simple modelization of this buckling problem (beam finite

elements) to obtain quickly results without too much time for preparation of the
data sets and for running of the software. With this simple approach Finelg
simulations can be easily used as a tool for realistic and safe design.
To be closer to the measurements (only for some cases like NM12 and NM13 too much
on the safe side as shown afterwards) we would have to use shell finite elements
but this would need much more time.
6.1. MEASURED INITIAL IMPERFECnONS
6.1.1. Geometrical imperfections
As explained in the chapter 4.2.1 we took before the buckling tests different
measurements of the geometrical characteristics of the profiles and measure
ments of the initial geometrical imperfections, which strongly influence the
buckling behaviour of the columns.
(1) About the geometry of the sections the dimensions of the profiles (height,
width, web and flange thicknesses) were measured at 5 positions along each
column. For the simulations we took the overall average of each measured
dimension. Figure 30 shows the nominal and measured mean values of the
dimensions of the profiles for each column.
(2) To simplify the simulations we didn't take into account the variation of
the crosssection dimensions (h, b, t w , tf) and the variation of the
crosssection deformations, along each specimen; the tolerances shown on
figures 32 and 33 respectively are acceptable and will be neglected for
the simulations.
19 -
(3) About the initial deformation along the columns the measurements were
taken all the 15 cm along each specimen. For the simulations we intro-
duced an approximation of the measured initial deformation which is
an envelope curve of the measurements as given on the following figures:
* figures 35 to 43 concern the columns NM1 to NM9 submitted to buckling

according to the weak axis; the approximation of the initial deforma-
tions must be compared with the a and b measured curves.
* figures 44 to 47 concern the columns NM10 to NM13 submitted to budding

according to the strong axis; the approximation of the initial deforma-
tions must be compared with the c measured curve.
It can be noticed that for buckling according to the strong axis we also
measured along the columns the initial imperfections perpendicular to the
weak axis (figures 44 to 47 for columns NM10 to NM13: the a and b measured
curves); so we controlled before testing with numerical simulations that
biaxial buckling was avoided and so that we didn't need to guide the
columns with intermediate supports [7].
(4) About the eccentricities of the profiles on the extremity plates we

provide the measurements on the figure 48. We deduced the values of eccen-
tricities from a formula given on the figure 49. These values of the
measured eccentricities at both extremities were used for the simula-
tions.
(5) About the buckling length of the columns we give it as the measured length
between hinged supports on the figure 50. These values were used for the
simulations.
6.1.2. Mechanical imperfections
1) About the mechanical characteristics of the columns we realized tensile

tests: the specimens for these tests were taken from both flanges (Al, A2)
and from the web (A3) of NM residual pieces (figure 72).
To quantify the yield scatter over the profiles we cut the whole cross-
section of NM12 column into specimens for tensile tests. Figure 73 shows
that the yield scatter over the NM12 flanges is not so much important and
that the specimens extracted at the standard position (width(b)/6) are
nearly equal to the mean value calculated for each flange. We neglect the
effect of yield scatter over the web and between web and flanges because in
overall buckling problems the web doesn't interfere consequently on the
final results.
- 20
So in the simulations we considered for the whole cross-section the
more precise measured mechanical characteristics ( y,0.2 %) as the
average of both values obtained in the flanges (figure 72: (Al+A2)/2).
(2) About the residual stresses distribution over the NM profiles we used the
residual stresses with equilibrium for the numerical simulations (chapter
5). We calculated the mean values through the thickness as shown on
figures 63 to 71. We compared the distribution of the measured mean
residual stresses with the ECCS recommendations (figure 74).
Finally to simplify the simulations we introduced a similar distribution

to the ECCS one (tri-triangular distribution over each part of a profile)
with extremal values fitted to the measures (figures 75 to 83). We
define the correction factor , as the factor which multiplies the
values of the ECCS residual stresses distribution to obtain proportionally
the residual stresses distribution for the numerical simulations. This
correction factor is provided on figures 75 to 83. F or example if =
1.0 we use the defined ECCS values for the simulations.
6.1.3. Supports
The supports are assumed to be hinges at both extremities like shown on fig. 51
for the uniform moment distribution and on figure 52 for the bitriangular
moment distribution.
In the previous chapter 4.2.2. we have shown that according to tests results of
the supports (friction properties of the teflon sheets) and in the scope of our
N-M buckling tests we can expect a hinge behaviour of the supports.
We have also controlled this conclusion by measuring the residual plastic

deformations along each column after the tests: no opposite curvature appeared
at both extremities of any column (chapter 4.4.).
6.2. COMP ARISONS BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENTS AND THE NUMERICAL

SIMULATIONS
In the numerical simulations:
* the columns are simply supported (perfect hinges) (figure 84);

all the measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section,
initial deformation along the columns, eccentricity, buckling length) are
introduced;
the F eE 355 steel grade is defined by the mechanical parameters of the used
constitutive law taking into account strain-hardening (figure 85): E, Young
modulus; y, yield strength; E t, tangent modulus; t, tensile strength.
21
In order to underline the effect of the two most important parameters influencing
the buckling of columns ( y; residual stresses) we decided to introduce 3
different hypothesis for numerical simulations in varying each parameter from
case to case:
Hypothesis 1:
* the measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section,

taken into account (chapter 6.1.1.);
* the measured mechanical characteristics ( y) are considered as in the report
n4[7];
* ECCS residual stresses have been introduced (figure 74).
The results are given on figure 87.
Hypothesis 2:
* more precise measured mechanical characteristics ( y) are considered (chapter

6.1.2.: figure 72);
* ECCS residual stresses have been introduced (figure 74).
Hypothesis 3:

* more precise measured mechanical characteristics ( y) are considered (chapter

6.1.2.: figure 72);
* the measured residual stresses have been introduced proportionally to the

correction factor according to the ECCS distribution (chapter 6.1.2.).
22
We compare the results of all hypothesis on the figure 90:
* from hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 2, we have the influence of the measured yield

points and our massive columns submitted to buckling are quite sensitive to
these variations of yield points values;
* from hypothesis 2 to hypothesis 3, we have the influence of the measured

residual stresses and our massive columns submitted to buckling seem more
sensitive to these variations of residual stresses according to the weak axis
rather than according to the strong axis.
23
7. COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENTS, EUROCODE 3.
SIA 161 AND THE NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
7.1. COL L APSE L OADS
The complete programme of the 13 thick flanges sections buckling tests is

reminded on figure 7.1.1
The measured bearing capacity of the 13 columns submitted to buckling are equal
to the maximal loads of the loaddisplacements curves given on Annexes CI to C26
(chapter 4.4.) [ l 4 l We compare these measured bearing capacity (5) to the Euro
code 3 rules, to the SIA 161 swiss rules and to the numerical simulations.
** We applied the Eurocode 3 rules (90 version [ l l ]) with two assumptions:
(1) once with the point of view of the designer taking into account the
theoretical yield point decreasing in function of the flange thickness
for FeE 355 (NM1, NM3, NM6, NM8 to NM11, NM13) and FeE 275 (NM2,
NM4, NM5, NM7, NM12) steels (according to Eurocode 3 and EN 10025
(figure 86) (see chapter 3.2.2.1. of EC 3) and with the partial safety
factor m l = 1.10 (as prescribed by chapter 5.1.1. (EC 3) for resis
tance to buckling problems); all the geometrical datas are nominal.
(2) on the other hand the most realistic use of NM formulas is carried
out with all the measured values:
geometry of the sections (figure 30);

eccentricities of the loads (figure 49);
buckling lengths (figure 50);
more precise measured yield points (figure 72).
The measurements of the initial deformations and of the residual

stresses cannot be used because these parameters are already included in
the Eurocode 3 buckling curves. The partial safety factor = 1.0.
** We applied the SIA 161 swiss rules (90 version [17]) with all the measu
red values (geometry of the sections, eccentricities of the loads, buckling
lengths, yield points) (3). The safety factor R = 1,0.
** The numerical simulations used for the comparison (4) are based on all
the measured geometrical and mechanical characteristics (hypothesis 3 defined
in chapter 6.2.).
24
** The comparisons between the Eurocode 3 rules (EC3 Design (1), EC3 Formula
(2)), SIA 161 rules (SIA 161 Formula (3)), the Finelg numerical simulations
(4) and the measured collapse loads (5) appear on figure 7.1.II.
The differences (given in percentages) quantify the excesses (+x%) and the
lacks (x%) of safety issued from the standard rules and the numerical simu
lations according to the measurements of the collapse loads.
> For a Eurocode 3 design (assumption (1)) we obtain quite important safety
margins (from +30 % to +70 %: differences (5)/(l) on fig. 7.1.II)
> A realistic use of the Eurocode 3 formulas (assumption (2)) based on the
measured values of geometry and yield point provide results on the safe
side but still with too much important differences (from +7 % to +25 %:
differences (5)/(3) on figure 7.1.II).
> The differences (5)/(4) show also the good estimation of the real collapse
load with the Finelg numerical simulations using all the measured initial
imperfections: from 2,5 % to +5 % (figure 7.1.II). Differences are bigger
for buckling according to the strong axis and bitriangular moment distri
bution NM12 and NM13 (+7 % and +10 % respectively) but always on the safe
side; as explained for these two cases we would need another modelization
more precise (but more expensive) with shell finite elements.
We tried to understand the safety margin of the realistic use of Eurocode 3

formulas (assumption (2)) (from +7 % to +25 %). With this assumption (2) we
introduced all the possible measured values (geometry, yield point) and we kept
the partial safety factor y^Q = 1,0
So the remaining differences between the measurements and the EC3 formula could
be understood with the two intrinsic parameters. of EC3: the initial deformations
and the residual stresses. On figures 7.1.III and 7.1.IV we draw the initial
deformations of each specimen with the applied bending moments (5) according to
the Eurocode 3 permitted deviation of IVI 000 (4). We also write the correction
factor (3) defined in chapter 6.1.2 as the factor which multiplies of the tri
triangular ECCS residual stresses distribution (figure 74) to approximate the
measured residual stresses distribution (so if = 1,0 we have the measured resi
dual stresses equal to the ECCS values).
25
> A realistic use of the SIA 161 formulas (assumption (3)) also based on the
measured values of geometry and yield point give safe results but still
with too much important differences (from 0,3 % to +46 %: differences (5)
/ (3) on figure 7.1.II). It can be pointed out that these SIA 161 swiss
formulas (3) provide collapse loads closer to the test results in compari
son with the Eurocode 3 formulas (2), especially for uniform moment
distribution tests (from 0,3 % to +22 % for SLA 161 (3) instead of +13 %
to +25 % for Eurocode 3 (2)). The SLA 161 formulas seem to be better than
Eurocode 3 formulas but not for all the cases: greater safety margins are
obtained for buckling tests according to the weak axis with bitriangular
moment distribution (from +24 % to +46 % for SIA 161 (3) instead of +7 %
to 24 % for Eurocode 3 (2)).
On figures 7.1.Ill and 7.1.IV all the measured initial deformations have quite
lower maximal values and sometimes opposite layouts comparing to EC3 limitations;
we have also the correction factor of residual stresses often smaller (8 times)
or equal (4 times) to 1,0 (EC3 distribution). These two differences are favoura
ble to provide a higher real collapse load and they could explain that measure
ments are always on the safe side but Eurocode 3 formulas are still too conserva
tive according to the FLNELG numerical simulations which are themselves closer to
the reality including all the available measurements (initial imperfections).
On figure 7.1.V we compare Eurocode 3 formulas (assumption (3) with all the
measurements) with Finelg results (4) and we can underline the excesses of safety
of EC3 for each specimen:
* from 15 % to 22 % for 8 buckling tests according to strong and weak axis for
uniform moment distribution,
* from 3 % to 25 % for 5 buckling tests according strong and weak axis for
bitriangular moment distribution.
26
(NM) EC3 INTERACTION :
PROGRAMME OF HD SECTIONS B UCKLING TESTS
PROFILE NO V1INAL VA LUES h/b MEASURED BUCKLING BUCKLING SLENDERNESS MOMENT NOMINAL
NUMBERS
NAME OF THE PRO FILE YIELD AXIS LENGTH RATIO DISTRIBUTION LOAD
POINT
h b l r EC3 ECCEN.
'w f
(1)
[mml Imm) [mml Imm) [mml [N/mm2] Im] lem)
HD 400X400X678 484 427 50.5 82.0 15.0 1.13 363.0 WEAK 4.00 0.4574 UNIFORM 8.0
NM1
NM2
NM3
NM4
W14X16X730 569 454 78.0 125.0 15.0 1.25 349.0 WEAK 8.18 0.8338 UNIFORM 15.0
NM5
W14X16X550 514 437 60.5 97.0 15.0 1.18 374.0 WEAK 8.71 0.9716 UNIFORM 15.0
NM6
HD 400X400X678 484 427 50.5 82.0 15.0 1.13 317.0 WEAK 7.46 0.8531 BITRIANGULAR 15.0
NM7
NM8
NM9
W14X16X550 514 437 60.5 97.0 15.0 1.18 362.3 STRONG 8.00 0.5246 UNIFORM 18.0
NM10
HD 400X400X678 484 427 50.5 82.0 15.0 1.13 374.7 STRONG 8.57 0.5836 UNIFORM 15.0
NM11
HD 400X400X678 484 427 50.5 82.0 15.0 1.13 305.4 STRONG 8.00 0.5448 BITRIANGULAR 15.0
NM12
HD 310X310X500 427 340 45.0 75.0 15.0 1.26 367.0 STRONG 8.00 0.6248 BITRIANGULAR 15.0
NM13
NM1:A:\NMTABL4
Remarks : (1) more precise measured yield points

51 Note : W 14X16X730 = HD 400X400X1086
W 14X16X550 = HD 400X400X818

(N-M) EC3 INTERACTION :
COMPARISON BETWEEN EC3 RULES AND SIA 161 , FINELG SIMULATIONS AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS
NAME PROFILE NOMINAL MEASURED BUCK BUCKLING MOM. NOM CORR COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE
LING INAL
NAME FLANGE YIELD AXIS LENGTH DISTRIB LOAD FACT, LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD MEAS/EC3 MEAS/SIA MEAS./FINELG
THICKNES: POINT EC3 EC3 SIA FINELG MEASURES

t ECCEN.
16) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) |5)/(1) (5)/(2) (5)/(3) (5)/(4)
Imm] IN/mm2] [ml IkNl [kNl IkNl [kNl [kNl [%] (%l [%l [%)
[cm]
NM1 HD 400X400X678 82.0 363.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 8.0 0.82 12082 13522 13869 16380 16888 + 40
C +2 5) + 22 +3
NM2 HD 400X400X678 82.0 317.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 6890 9058 9222 11086 11005 + 60 + 21 + 19 0.7
NM3 HD 400X400X422 52.5 368.1 WEAK 4.88 UNIF. 15.0 0.77 4838 5634 5201 6793 6998 + 45 + 24 + 19 +3
NM4 HD 310X310X454 69.0 353.3 WEAK 5.34 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 4155 4704 5029 5496 5598 + 35 + 19 + 11 +2
NM5 W14X16X730 125.0 349.0 WEAK 8.18 UNIF. 15.0 1.86 7883 11282 13032 13740 13398
9818
+ 19 +3 c^
0.8
NM6 W14X16X550 97.0 374.0 WEAK 8.71 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 7562 8651 9209 9902 + 13 +7
&
ro
co
NM7 HD 400X400X678 82.0 317.0 WEAK 7.46 BITRI. 15.0 1.00 8959 12640 10844 13048 13473 + 50
O) + 24 +3
HD 400X400X678 82.0 374.7 WEAK 8.48 BITRI. 15.0 0.83 10595 13621 10999 14415 15138 + 43 + 11 + 38 +5
NM9 HD 310X310X500 75.0 367.0 WEAK 8.00 BITRI. 5.0 0.80 8196 9536 8095 11913 11815 + 44 + 24 QAS) 0.8
NM10 W14X16X550 97.0 362.3 5TRONG 8.00 UNIF. 18.0 0.77 13190 15332 17374 17556 17318 + 31 + 13
v0 1.4
NM11 HD 400X400X678 82.0 374.7 STRONG 8.57 UNIF. 15.0 0.83 11247 13278 15084 15520 15678 + 39 + 18 +4 +1
NM12 HD 400X400X678 82.0 305.4 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.85 11366 14786 14945 15549 16618 + 46 + 12 + 11 +7
NM13 HD 310X310X500 75.0 367.0 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.80 10358 12240 12402 12852 14130 + 36 + 15 + 14
fe)
Remarks: (1) Eurocode 3 ( 1 9 9 0 ) values are calculated with m l = 1 . 1 , nominal geometrical datas.and the decreasing in function of the flange NMI:A:\NMCOMP
thickness (according to EN 1 0 0 2 5 ) (EC3 DESIGN).
(2) - Eurocode 3 ( 1 9 9 0 ) values are calculated with m l = 1 . 0 and measured values: geometry of the sections,eccentricities of the loads,
1
buckling lengths and yield points cry (EC3 FORMULA).
co'
(3) - SIA 161 ( 1 9 9 0 ) values are calculated with mr = 1.0,and measured values : geometry of the sections,eccentricities of the loads,
c
buckling lengths and yield points (SIA 161 FORMULA)
CD
(4) the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of geometrically and materially non linear columns .
For the hypothesis 3 of figure 8 9 :measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section,initial deformation,eccentricity) are taken
into account;more precise measured mechanical characteristics (cry) (6) are considerod;measured residual stresses have been introduced
proportionally to the correction factor according to the ECCS distribution .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROCODE 3 FORMULA AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS.
COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE
NAME PROFILE NOMINAL MEASURED BUCK- BUCKLING MOM NOM- CORR. EC3 permitted deviation Measured initial
LINO INAL
deformation LOAD LOAD MEASURES/EC3
NAME FLANGE YIELD AXIS LENGTH DISTRIB LOAD FACT. L/1000
THICKNESS POINT Lb a EC3 MEASURES
t 12) ECCEN. (4) I5) I6) (6MI1)
(1)
[mm] IN/mm2] [m] (3) [kN] [kNl [%]
(cml
4.0mm L/2817- 1.4mm
13522 + 26
NM1 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 82.0 363.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 8.0 0.82
L/2174-1.8mm
4.0mm L/1880 -2.41mm
82.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 9058 11006 + 21

NM2 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 317.0
4.88mm
6634 6998 + 24
NM3 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 4 2 2 62.5 368.1 WEAK 4.88 UNIF. 16.0 0.77
L/1627 -3.0mm
5.34mm
172064-2.8mm
4704 5698 + 19
NM4 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 4 5 4 69.0 363.3 WEAK 6.34 UNIF. 16.0 1.00
8.18mm L/8lB0-1mm
11282 13398 + 19
NM6 W14X16X730 125.0 349.0 WEAK 8.18 UNIF. 15.0 1.86
L/2045_-4mm L/4090-2mm
8.71mm L/1889 -4.81mm

8661 9818 + 13
NM6 W 14X16X660 97.0 374.0 WEAK 8.71 UNIF. 16.0 1.00
7.46mm L/4892- 1.69mm
NM7 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 82.0 317.0 WEAK 7.46 BITRI. 16.0 1.00 12640 13473 +7
^1
L/4813-1.66mm L/7636-0.99m,)
8.48mm L/7604-1.13mm
L/2817-3.24mm + 11
16.0 0.83 13621 15138
NM8 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 82.0 374.7 WEAK 8.48 BITRI.
(D
8.0mm
L/2417-3.3mm U2624-3.1mi
9536 11816 + 24
NM9 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 76.0 367.0 WEAK 8.00 BITRI. 6.0 0.80
NM2:A:\NMIXFFER
DIFFERENCES B ETWEEN EUROCODE 3 FORMULA AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS.
COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE

NAME PROFILE NOMINAL MEASURED BUCK BUCKLING MOM NOM CORR. EC3 permitted deviation Measured initial
INAL
deformation LOAD MEASURES/ECS
NAME FLANGE YIELD AXIS LENGTH DISTRIB LOAD FACT, L/1000
ECCEN. EC3 MEASURES
THICKNESS POINT Lb
(51 ID (6) (6)/(1)
(41
(2)
Imi [cm] I3) [kN] IkNI l%]
[mtnl [N/mm2]
8.0mm I LV8000 1 .Omm

15332 17318 + 13
W14X16X550 97.0 362.3 STRONG 8.00 UNIF. 18.0 0.77
NM10
L/BOOO 1 .Omm'
8.57mm'
13278 15678
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 82.0 374.7 STRONG 8.57 UNIF. 15.0 0.83
NM11
173809 2.25mm /
CO
O
8.0mm
14786 16618 +7
NM12 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 82.0 305.4 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.85
L/2402 3.33mm
8.0mm j L/10268 0.78mm \
12240 14130 + 10
HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 75.0 367.0 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.80
NM13 x
I M i l ? , 1.83mm
L/4372 1 Rniffl
NM2:<t\NMDIFFE1
(1) Eurocode 3 (1990) values are calculated w i t h ^ m l =1.0 and measured values : geometry of the sections,eccentricities of the loads,
buckling lengths and yield points (2) (EC3 FORMULA).
CO (3) Measured residual stresses are compared to ECCS distribution.

C
CD (4) The permitted deviation of the columns is in accordance with Eurocode 3 : Lb/ 1000 maximal value of a sinusoidal deformation.
(5) The measured initial deformation is an approximation of the measurements used for Finelg numerical simulations.
COMPARISON B ETWEEN EC3 RULES, FINELG SIMULATIONS AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS
NAME PROFILE NOMINAL MEASURED BUCK BUCKLING MOM. NOM CORR COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE
LING INAL
NAME FLANGE YIELD AXIS LENGTH DISTRIB LOAD FACT, LOAD LOAD LOAD MEASURES/EC3 MEASURES/FINELG FINELG/EC3
THICKNES POINT EC3 FINELG MEASURES

t ECCEN. (51/(4)
(6) (3) (4) (5) (5)/(3) (41/(3)
Imm] [N/mm2] Imi IkNI IkNI IkNI [%1 [%] [%]
Icml
NM1 HD 400X400X678 82.0 363.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 8.0 0.82 13522 16380 16888
C) +3 + 21
82.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 9058 11086 11005 + 21 0.7 + 22
NM2 HD 400X400X678 317.0
52.5 4.88 UNIF. 15.0 0.77 5634 6793 6998 + 24 +3 + 21

NM3 HD 400X400X422 368.1 WEAK
NM4 HD 310X310X454 69.0 353.3 WEAK 5.34 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 4704 5496 5598 + 19 +2 + 17
NM5 W14X16X730 125.0 349.0 WEAK 8.18 UNIF. 15.0 1.86 11282 13740 13398 + 19
(5) + 22
NM6 W14X16X550 97.0 374.0 WEAK 8.71 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 8651 9902 9818 + 13 0.8 + 15
NM7 HD 400X400X678 82.0 317.0 WEAK 7.46 BITRI. 15.0
15.0
1.00
0.83
12640
13621
13048
14415
13473
15138
( ^
+ 11
+3
+5
..)_____.
+6
NM8 HD 400X400X678 82.0 374.7 WEAK 8.48 BITRI.
NM9 HD 310X310X500 75.0 367.0 WEAK 8.00 BITRI. 5.0 0.80 9536 11913 11815 + 24 0.8
"(5
NM10 W14X16X550 97.0 362.3 STRONG 8.00 UNIF. 18.0 0.77 15332 17556 17318 + 13 1.4 + 15
82.0 374.7 STRONG 8.57 UNIF. 15.0 0.83 13278 15520 15678 + 18 +1 + 17
NM11 HD 400X400X678
NM12 HD 400X400X678 82.0 305.4 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.85 14786 15549 16618 + 12 +7 +5
NM13 HD 310X310X500 75.0 367.0 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.80 12240 12852 14130 + 15
" +5
NM2:A:\NMCOMP1
Remarks:
(3) Eurocode 3 ( 1 9 9 0 ) velues are calculated with m l = 1 . 0 and measured values: geometry of the sections,eccentricities of the loads,
buckling lengths and yield points cry (EC3 FORMULA).
(Q
C (4) the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of geometrically and materially non linear columns .
For the hypothesis 3 of figure 8 9 :measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section,initial deformation,eccentricity) ere taken
CD
into account;more precise measured mechanical characteristics () (6) are considered measured residual stresses have been introduced
7.2. N-MINTERACTION CURVES
In general the N-M interaction curve that we can draw for a member is composed of
parts describing different phenomena to which correspond different formulas
(figure 7.2.O.):
1) buckling strength;
2) resistance_of cross-sections;
3) bending resistance;
4) laeralorsional buckling strength.
It can be pointed out that for the tests NM1 to NM11 it is the buckling formulas
which give the minimal collapse axial load and, that for the tests NM12 and
NM13 it is the resistance of crosssections which provides the lowest values of
the collapse load already for applied eccentricities greater or equal to 5 cm
(figures 7.2.XII and 7.2.XIII).
7.2.1. Buckng strength
7.2.1.1. Eurocode 3 (84 and 90 versions) (93, [ill)
The buckling behaviour is defined by the formulas already presented in

chapter 2.2.2., for which lateraltorsional buckling is not a potential
failure mode. The 88 version of EC3 [lO] is equal to the 90 version [ l l 3.
7.2.1.2. SIA 161 (90 version) 17~\
The buckling strength is defined by the following interaction formula for one
buckling plane, if the buckling is prevented outofplane and if it is not
necessary to check lateraltorsional buckling:
Nd , 1 u).Md
+ s^SLO
NK/yR i_2k MR/rR
( ^
M
R = MRy = Mpiy, but M Ry < 1 + 0 , 2 - M ly, f o r buckling according to the strong axis
MR = M^ = Mpl2, for buckling according to the weak axis
Nd, M max: compression axial load (positive) and bending moment
(greatest absolute value), determined from first order theory,
without equivalent imperfections, for the considered risk situa
tion.
: coefficient used for bending according to each axis, taking into

account the distribution of the moments for a linear diagram
along the beam.
The following conditions are applied for end moments, to be

introduced with their sign, for the considered risk situation:
' M d,min ' iMd.max |
33
M d, mi
= 0,6 + 0,4 , but > 0,40
"M d, max
Nk: ultimate buckling strength under compression load centered in the

considered plane (Nk = XA.fy, where is the buckling
reduction factor identical to the Eurocode 3 one).
, critical load for elastic buckling in the considered plane

cr* (N c r = 2 .|. = 2 . /
2= 1/(1 (AW/2A)), but 2 < 1,2
Mpjy, Mpi z : plastic bending moment according to the axis of strong

and weak inertias.
Ik. kk" buckling length and slenderness related to the direction of consi
dered buckling.
We took the safety factor , equal to 1,0
7.2.2. Resistance of cross-sections .
The resistance of crosssections is described by the following formulas if the

applied axial load is greater than N ] ^ ^ , underneath which the effect
of the axial load may be neglected (domain of bending resistance).
7.2.2.1. Eurocode 3 (84 version) t]
Chapter 5.2.3.2.: Plastic interaction conditions for H and I profiles.
For doubly symmetrical rolled H and I profiles with uniaxial bending and
compression, the influence of the axial force may be neglected if the axial
force is not greater than the limiting value given in the following table.
Otherwise, the plastic moment must be reduced by the appropriate formula from
the table.
Bending about the strong Bending about the weak

axis axis
Limiting 0.1 Npl 0,2 Npl
sections value "
HEA ; HEB
HEM 100 to f
HEM 600 * Reduction Npi ^
formula Mred = U l M p l ( l ) Hed = Mpl 1 I 0,8 )j
Limiting 0,18 Npl 0,36 Npl
I sections value"
(IPE) *
f (
NT 0,36 fi
Reduction M Ted =l,22M pl [lj^] Md = Mpl 1
formula V
I 0,64
* : or equivalent sections in the appropriate standard in force,

" : limit
34
7.2.2.2. Eurocode 3 (90 version) [il ]
Chapter 5.4.8.1.: Bending and axial force
In flanged sections, the reduction of the theoretical plastic resistance

moment by the presence of small axial forces is counter-balanced by strain
hardening and may be neglected. However when the axial force exceeds half the
plastic tension resistance of the web, or a quarter of the plastic tension
resistance of the cross-section, whichever is smaller, allowance shall be
made for its effect on the plastic resistance moment.
N
A 1
w
In other words, Ni , = minimum ( ^ , ? ), where A _ i s the web area.
For crosssections without bolt holes, the following approximations may be
used for standard rolled I or sections:
N N y = M p l y (ln)/(l0.5a) but M N y < M p l y
% z = MPl,z 11 [ + H > ] but M Nz S Mpl)Z
where = N S d / N p l > R d
and a = f^ = (A2btf)/A but a < 0,5
7.2.2.3. SIA 161 (90 version) [l7
Chapter 4.1.3.4.: Ultimate Resistance of crosssections.
Interaction NM for double T bisymetrical shapes.
The plastic bending moment M p i y >j et M p i z jq reduced by the axial

load N(j have respectively the following values:
B ending according to the strong axis:
M
ply, = Mply -\l [ * " Wfc J ' Ut M
P^ N ~ M P^
35
Bending according to the weak axis:
Nd
M plZiN = M p l 2 , for ^ - < T
_ ( Nd , N
d A.
, rrr. > - 7 -
Mpiz,N = M p l z
' 1 / A N pl /y R A
with ^ = 1 / ( 1 - ^ ) and 2 = 1 / ( 1 - ^ ) , but 2 < 1,2
Aw = web area = (h - tf). t w
So, for hending according to the weak axis, limit defined on figure 7.2.0
is equal to (Aw/A) N p j = Aw fy.
7.2.3. Bending resistance
In general the design bending moment would not exceed the plastic bending
moment M p j = W p i fy.
So for given eccentricities (ecc.) at both end of the columns, we could not
obtain an ultimate axial load greater than (Mp]/ecc).
7.2.4. Lateral-torsional bucklin

g stren
g th
For columns submitted to bending according to the strong axis we must control
if the lateral-torsional buckling is a potential failure mode.
7.2.4.1. Eurocode 3 (84 version) [93
Chapter 5.3.3.5. Alternative verification: the verification of sufficient

buckling safety shall be carried out by the following equation:
My
<1
M
*M uy
where:
%yr = ( ^ g ) = reduction coefficient for buckling

1 +
- 36
w
=
li = plastic shape factor
w
=
ûy Wpi. f = plastic moment capacity for class 1 sections

M = the ideal lateral-torsional buckling stress at the compressed
edge of the cross-section under the action of My alone.
Pertinent values for different moment diagrams shall be taken
from the literature.
For single span beams with IPE or HE -sections (or profiles with similar
dimensions) and knife-edge supports at both top and bottom flanges, the
following value may be assumed:
E b t
c
Ki,M = > 66
1 h 235
For <250 no check is necessary
b t
(My)LT (MyHest
Name LB lh 250 235 M
ply =* -Mply = Ntest eccy
btf fy M
M [kN-cm] [kN-cm] [kN-cm]
[cm] (1) (2) (4) (5)
(3)
NMIO 800 97,0 162 0,5599 0,9788 683.562,0 669.075,0 311.724,0
NM11 857 118,5 157 0,6128 0,9674 546.653,0 528.828,0 235.170,0
NM12 800 110,6 192 0,5921 0,9723 546.653,0 531.511,0 249.270,0
NM13 800 134,0 160 0,6545 0,9556 350.218,3 334.682,0 211.950,0
On the table the values (1) are always lower than the values (2); this fact means
that no check is necessary. For N-M interaction curves we don't take into account the
lateral-torsional buckling phenomenon.
On the other hand for our 4 tests according to the strong axis NM10 to NM13 the
ultimate bending moment reached during the test (My)test (5) is always lower than the
lateral-torsional buckling moment ( M y ) ^ (4).
37
7.2.4.2. Eurocode 3 (90 version) [il ]
Chapter 5.5.2.: Lateraltorsional buckling of beams.
Remark (7): If the nondimensional slenderness Xjjj* is lower than 0,40

no allowance for lateraltorsional buckling is necessary.
The calculation of ^ is given in Annex F [ i l ].

^TI^LT^lJ [ M
where -^ = E/f
w = 1 for Class 1 crosssections
The geometrical slenderness ratio ^ for lateraltorsional buckling is

given for all classes of crosssection, by:
XLT=[ÊWpl.y/Mcr]*
For a beam of uniform crosssection, the elastic critical moment for lateral
torsional buckling of doubly symmetrical crosssections is given for end
moment loading by:
2 _k
i2
l
w
(kL) 2 GI t
Mcr = C! +
2
(kL) kw. 2 EI
E
where G
2(1 + )
It torsion constant
Iw warping constant = (I z (h tf)2)/4
Iz second moment of area about weak axis
L length of beam between points which have lateral restraint
C! factor depending on the loading conditions and end restraint
conditions (table F l . 1. [ i l ] )
effective length factor refering to outofplane bending end
conditions (from 0,5 to 1,0)
and kw effective length factor refering to warping end conditions (from
0,5 to 1,0)
38
With the hinged support defined on figure 53, we have
- hinges at both ends in the bending plane;

- fixation at both ends out of the bending plane (half-cylinder)
and so k = 0,50.
The NM specimens are welded to end plates (figures 51 and 52, Annex A). So
warping is prevented and k w = 0,50
Names k kw C1 xLT
[cm. [kNcm] L
NM10 0,5 0,5 1 800 7.338.482 23,4 0,31

NM11 0,5 0,5 1 857 4.663.251 26,0 0,35
NM12 0,5 0,5 3,149 800 16.058.098 14,0 0,17
NM13 0,5 0,5 3,149 800 7.869.174 16,0 0,21
As shown on the table the relative slenderness xLT is lower than 0,40
and consequently the lateral-torsional buckling is not a potential failure
mode.
7.2.4.3. SIA 161 (90 version) [17]
Chapter 3.254.: Lateral-torsional buckling of beams submitted to bending.
The ultimate resistance to bending M R is limited to the lateral-torsional

buckling moment D = D W p l y
The stress for lateral-torsional buckling oD is equal to:
W
C.fwhereC = ( z - ^ - ))0,45
0
,45 and = (
V P' yf
y
1 + 4'5 "crD W
y
According to the paragraph number 3.254.7 the critical stress of elastic

lateral-torsional buckling CRD can be determined with scientifically
well recognized theories. We use the results with the realistic assumptions
issued from E urocode 3 (90 version) (see 7.2.4.2.) where M c r is the
critical moment of elastic lateral-torsional buckling and is equal to:
crD W y
- 39
Names M
c r (E C3-90)
[kN-cm]
NMIO 7.338.482 0,3052 0,9979
NM11 4.663.251 0,3424 0,9964
NM12 16.058.098 0,1845 0,9998
NM13 7.869.174 0,2110 0,9996
In fact we obtain the ultimate resistance to bending:
M D = OD W p l y = fy W p l y = M p l y
In other words ) is proportional to the full plastic bending moment

Mpiy. We can conclude with the table that the reduction factor is
nearly equal to 1,0 and that lateral-torsional buckling is not a potential
failure mode.
7.2.5. Comments
The best way to underline th e excess of safety of the standards formulas

consists in drawing the complete N-M interaction curves and parameters (figures
7.2.1 to 7.2.):
* the curve from E urocode 3 (90 version), with the realistic hypothesis (2)
defined in chapter 7.1.;
* the curve from E urocode 3 (84 version), with the same hypothesis (2) defined
in chapter 7.1.;
* the curve from SIA 161 (90 version), with the realistic hypothesis (3)
defined in chapter 7.1.;
* the curve from Finelg numerical simulations, with the hypothesis (3) defined
in chapter 6.2., including all the initial imperfections but nominal
eccentricities; this curve describes the real behaviour;
* the test result;
* the result from Finelg numerical simulations with the hypothesis (3) defined
in chapter 6.2. but with the measured eccentricities.
On these figures 7.2.1 to 7.2.XIII we draw two shaded areas:
- dark shaded areas between the N-M interaction curves of E urocode 3 (90
version) and SIA 161 (90 version);
- light shaded areas between the N-M interaction curve of Finelg numerical
simulations and the closest standard curve issued from E urocode 3 (90
version) or SIA 161 (90 version).
40 -
With these shaded areas we can estimate respectively:
* the differences between the formulas of Eurocode 3 (90 version) and SIA 161
(90 version) and,
* the whole range of the excess of safety issued from these standards NM
interaction formulas.
With these figures we can quantify the safety margin of standards NM inter
action formulas for each specimen in comparing the values (or M) from Finelg
curve with the values from standards curve for each eccentricity.
If we compare the NM interaction curves issued from Eurocode 3 (90 version)

and SIA 161 (90 version) (dark shaded areas), we conclude the following items:
* for the uniform moment distribution and for both bending axis (weak axis:
NM1 to NM6; strong axis: NM10 to NM11) the formulations of SLA 161 code is
better, closer to reality than the Eurocode 3 (the reality is defined by
Finelg interaction curve);
* for the bitriangular moment distribution the formulation of Eurocode 3 is

either similar to the SLA 161 code for the strong axis (NM12, NM13), or
better, closer to reality than SIA 161 for the weak axis (NM7 to NM9).
If we compare the NM interaction curves issued from both Eurocode 3 versions

(84 and 90 versions), we come to the following conclusions:
* for the uniform moment distribution and for both bending axis (weak axis:
NM1 to NM6; strong axis: NM10, NM11) the formulation of 84 version is
better, closer to reality than the 90 version;
* for the bitriangular moment distribution and for both bending axis especi
ally more for the weak axis (weak axis: NM7 to NM9; strong axis: NM12,
NM13) the formulation of 90 version is better, closer to reality than the
84 version.
41
N-M INTE RACTION

1) Buckling strength ( Nb ){for NM1 to NM11 )
plastic
critical <>
2) Resistance
ross-sections ( R)
M12and NM13)
3) Bending
esistance
( Mpl/ecc.)
M plastic M
4) Lateral-torsional buckling strength (if\ , T > 0,4 , for E C3 ) ( N, T )
- For a given eccentricity , ecc : = mnimum [1Mb , N R , N L T , (Mpl/ecc)]
* E urocode 3 ( 1984 Version ) :

1) chapter 5.3.4
2) chapter 5.2.3.2 :
Bending about Bending about
.. v the strong axis the weak axis
limit 0,1 Npl 0,2 Npl sections
0,18 Npl 0,36 Npl I sections
Eurocode 3 ( 1990 Version ) :
1) chapter 5.5.4
2) chapter 5.4.8.1 :
Aw . a Npl
Nlimit = minimum
where Aw is the web area
SiA 161 ( 1990 Version) :
chapter 4.13.4 : for bending about weak axis
limit = ( Aw /A ) . N p l , where Aw is the web area.
NM2:A:\IMTER
Figure 7.2.0
43 -
N-M INTE RACTION: N M 1 COLUMN
[MN]
- 400400678
- WEAK AXIS
- YIELD POINT = 363 N/mm2
- BUCKLING LE NGTH L = 4,0 m
-7'
<*f
-<4-r
UNIFORM
MOMENT
DISTRIBUTION
e = 100 cm
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Mpl = 2689,3
(Q
M Y [kNm]
C
-^
CD EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCOD
E 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) E
FIN LG TESTS RE SULTS
ro
_.*-. _._._._ A
\ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities NM2A:A:\DESNM1
ecc up = 8,33 cm ; ecc down = 7,76 cm )

N-M INTE RACTION : N M 2 COLUMN
[MN]
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

MY [kNm] Mpl = 2406,3
EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCOD

E 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) E
FIN LG ET STS RE SULTS
g ____^____. _.._....._ A
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : NM2A:A:\DESNM2
N-M INTERACTION : N M 3 COLUMN
[MN]
1,000 2,000
Mpl= 1626,8
(Q
MY [kNm]
C
-^
<D EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS
g ^ _.._.._0..._.._ A
O
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities NM2A:A:\DESNM3
NM INTERACTION: N M 4 COLUMN
[MN]
600 800 1,000 1,400 1,600

I MY [kNm] Mpl= 1426,2
co'
c
n EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS
CD
O
* _.._.......
Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities NM2A:A:\DESNM4

NM INTERACTION : N M 5 COLUMN
[MN]
2,000 3,000 5,000

I
CO*
MY [klMm] Mpl = 4609.1
C
-^
CD EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS
g _____^ ...... A
ro
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities :
< NM2A:A:\DESNM6
[MN]
30
Npl = 3 8 , 3 6 /
CD
2,000 4,000
MY [kNm] Mpl = 3 5 0 6 , 8
(Q
C
-i
CD EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCOD
E 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FIN
E LG TESTS RE SULTS
B -*- -.-o-- -
ro
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : NM2:A:\DESNM6
[MN]
Ol
o
1,000 1,500 ,500 3,000

Mpl = 2402,1
(Q
MY [klMm]
C
-*
CD
EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FIN
E LG TESTS RE SULTS
ro B --*- -...-..e-- A
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities NM2A:\OESNM7
ecc up = -15,01 cm ; ecc down = 12,43 cm )
[MN]
Npl = 32.44 / HD 400400'678
WEAK AXIS
YIELD POINT = 374,7 N/mm'
BUCKLING LENGTH L = 8,48 m

ff

BITRIANGULAR
MOMENT
DISTRIBUTION
=50cm
= 100cm
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
(O* MY [klMm] Mpl = 2857,1
c
CD
EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS
k) B * ...0
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities :
NM2A:A:\DESNM8
ecc UD = 14,78 cm ; ecc down = 12.68 cm )
N-M INTE RACTION: N M 9 COLUMN
[MN]
Npl = 2 3 , 0 9 /
Ol
IO
1,000 1,500 2,000

I MY [kNm] Mpl = 1618,0
ca'
c
-^ EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FIN
E LG TESTS RE SULTS
CD
ro -*- -..-e-- -
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities NM2:A:\DESNM9
ecc up = -3,86 cm ; ecc down = 4,33 cm )

N M INTERACTION : | \ | M 1 0 COLUMN
[MN]
UI
2,000 4,000 8,000

MX [kl\lm] Mpl = 6 9 9 9 , 4
CO
C
(D
^ .e A
S)
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities
NM2A:\DESNM10A
ecc UD = 17.79 cm ; ecc down = 18.16 cm )
NM INTERACTION : M 1 1 COLUMN
[MN]
1,000 2,000 3,000 6,000
(O
MX [klMm] Mpl = 5707,7
C
t
(0 TESTS RE SULTS
E LG
g ____^___. _.._.._.._ -A
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities NM2A:A:\DESNM11A
N-M INTE RACTION : N M 1 2 COLUMN
[MN]
Ol
1,000 2,000 6,000

Mpl = 4633,1
(
MX [klMm]
C
-
CD TESTS RE SULTS
E LG
vj
a * --e--
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : NM2A:A:\DESNM12A

ecc up = 14.99 cm ; ecc down = 14.90 cm )
NM INTERACTION : N M 1 3 COLUMN
[MN]
Ol
OJ
1,000 2,000 4,000

CO
C
MX [klMm] Mpl = 3546,4
CD
ro * ...e.... _
X
2_A= Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities
NM2A:A:\DESNM13A
7.3. NEW PROPOSAL S FOR CODES FORMUL AS
The NM interaction formulations of Eurocode 3 and SIA 161 are too conservative
as it is highlighted in the previous chapters as well for the collapse loads
(chapter 7.1.) as for the complete NM interaction curves (chapter 7.2.).
In view of the NM interaction curves (figures 7.2.1 to 7.2.XIII) it appears that

the excess of safety is already important in the case of centered axial load
(eccentricity = 0) and of course that this excess goes on as the eccentricities
increase.
A) Consequently the first idea to improve the NM formulas consists in improving

the bucklingdependent term which exists in the codes formulas: , the buck
ling reduction factor calculated with the same formula in both codes (Euro
code 3 and SIA 161) and depending on the selection of the buckling curves for
I shapes. So for each NM specimen we propose to take the buckling curve
upper than the one imposed by the codes as follows:
NAME PROFILE NOMINAL NOMINAL BUCK Buckling Buckling reduction lector

LING curvei % IEC 3) end (SIA 161)
NAME FLANGE h/b AXIS
Imposed RPS Imposed RPS
THICKNESS by new by new
t
the code proposait the codes proposals
Imm] EC3 SIA 161 EC3 SIA 161 EC3 SIA 161 EC3 SIA 161
NM1 HD 4O0X4OOX678 82.0 1.13 WEAK c c 0.859 0.859 0.897 0.897
NM2 HD 400X400X678 82.0 1.13 WEAK c c 0.859 0.859 0.897 0.897
NM3 HD 400X400X422 52.5 1.04 WEAK c c 0.783 0.783 0.835 0.835
NM4 HD 310X310X454 69.0 1.24 WEAK c c " 0.660 0.660 0.723 0.723
NM5 W14X16X730 125.0 1.25 WEAK d c 0.524 0.600 0.600 0.661
NMS W14X16X550 97.0 1.18 WEAK c c 0.540 0.540 0.597 0.597
NM7 HD 400X400X678 82.0 1.13 WEAK c c 0.613 0.613 0.675 0.675
NM8 HD 400X400X678 82.0 1.13 WEAK c c 0.541 | 0.541 0.598 0.598
NM9 HD 310X310X500 75.0 1.28 WEAK c c 0.439 0.439 0.484 0.484
NM10 W14X16X550 97.0 1.18 STRONG b b 0.866 0.866 0.911 0.911
NM11 HD 400X400X678 82.0 1.13 STRONG b b 0.890 0.690

0.837 0.837
NM12 HD 400X400X678 82.0 1.13 STRONG b b 0.856 0.856 0.904 0.904
NM13 HD 310X310X500 75.0 1.26 STRONG b b 0.815 0.815 0.873 0.873
57
) On the other hand for the SIA 161 (90 version) formula we propose to change
the coefficient as follows:
= coefficient taking into account the distribution of the moments for a

linear diagram along the beam (chapter 7.2.1.2.),
Md, m i n
= 0,6 + 0,4 ,
Md, max
must be 0,40 according to SIA 161.
We propose to eliminate this limitation.
So for bitriangular moment distribution will be equal to 0,20 and the NM

interaction curve is improved especially for specimens tested according to
the weak axis (NM7 to NM9).
With all these changements of and , the SIA 161 (90 version) formula seems
to give the best NM interaction behaviour, closer to the reality than the
Eurocode 3 formula:
figure 7.3.0.: comparison of the collapse loads between Eurocode 3, SIA

161, Finelg simulations and the measurements.
This figure can be directly related to the figure 7.1.II. which shows the
results issued from the actual rules.
figures 7.3.1 to 7.3.XIIL: comparison of the complete NM interaction

curves where the actual rules of the codes and the RPS new proposals are
drawn together.
C) In the codes formulas there are the partial safety factor of the material,
Y m l (Eurocode 3) and the resistance factor YR (SIA 161), which must be
taken equal to 1,10 in both codes. The NM formulas are already too safe and
applying this value of 1,10 will lead to "oversafe" results. So we proposed
the value of safety factors equal to 1^0 in the scope of these tests
results.
AU these proposals are introduced in the scope of these 13 compression tests

of thick flanges (52 mm < tf < 125 mm) hotrolled H shapes and more deve
lopments (tests, calculations...) would be necessary to control our conclusi
ons or to extend them to other H profiles.
58
COMPARISON BETWEEN EC3 RULES AND SIA 161 , FINELG SIMULATIONS AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS
NAME PROFILE NOMINAL MEASURED BUCK- BUCKLING MOM. NOM- CORR COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE
LINO INAL
NAME FLANGE YIELD AXIS LENGTH DISTRIB LOAD FACT. LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD MEAS/EC3 MEAS/SIA MEAS./FINELG
THICKNESS POINT B EC3 EC3 SIA FINELG MEASURES

t ECCEN. (5)/(4)
(6) ID 12) (3) (4) 15) (5)/|1| (5)/(2) |5)/(3)
(mm) |N/mm2] Im) IkNI IkN] IkN) IkN) IkN) [%1 1%1 1%) 1%)
(cm)
NM1 HD 400X400X678 82.0 363.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 8.0 0.82 12356 13852 14186 16380 16888 + 37 + 22) + 19 +3
NM2 HD 400X400X678 82.0 317.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 6977 9204 9356 11086 11005 + 58 + 20 + 20 -0.7
NM3 HD 400X400X422 52.5 368.1 WEAK 4.88 UNIF. 15.0 0.77 4966 5796 6040 6793 6996 + 41 + 21 + 16 +3
NM4 HD 310X310X454 69.0 353.3 WEAK 5.34 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 4312 4887 5176 5496 5598 + 30 + 15 +8 +2
NM5 W14X16X730 125.0 349.0 WEAK 8.18 UNIF. 15.0 1.86 8370 12151 13519 13740 13398
C+60) + 10 -1 On)
NM6 W14X16X550 97.0 374.0 WEAK 8.71 UNIF. 15.0 1.00 7956 9025 9561 9902 9618 ( + 23J +9 +3 -0.8
Ol
CD
NM7 HD 400X400X678 82.0 317.0 WEAK 7.46 BITRI. 15.0 1.00 9252 13082 12820 13048 13473 + 46
09 +5 +3
NM8 HD 400X400X678 82.0 374.7 WEAK 8.48 BITRI. 16.0 0.83 11146 14598 13162 14415 15138 + 36 +4 + 15 +5
NM9 HD 310X310X500 75.0 367.0 WEAK 8.00 BITRI. 5.0 0.80 8957 10459 9262 11913 11815 + 32 + 13 Qi) -0.8
NM10 W14X16X550 97.0 362.3 3TR0NG 8.00 UNIF. 18.0 0.77 13478 15692 17798 17556 17318 + 28 + 10 (,,) -1.4
NM11 HD 400X400X678 82.0 374.7 STRONG 8.57 UNIF. 15.0 0.83 11578 13720 15568 15520 15678 + 35 + 14 + 0.7 +1
NM12 HD 400X400X678 82.0 305.4 5TR0NG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.85 11366 14786 14945 15549 16618 + 46 + 12 + 11 +7
NM13 HD 310X310X500 75.0 367.0 STRONG 8.00 BITRI. 15.0 0.80 10357 12240 12403 12852 14130 + 36 + 15 + 14
<t!i>
Remarks: (1) - Eurocode 3 (1990) values are calculated with ml = 1 . 1 , nominal geometrical datas, and the ay decreasing in function of the flange NM1:A:\NMC0MP2
thickness (according to EN 10025) (EC3 DESIGN). RPS new proposal for N-M interaction formula.
(2) - Eurocode 3 (1990) values are calculated with ml =1.0 and measured values: geometry of the sections,eccentricities of the loads,
CO buckling lengths and yield points ay (EC3 FORMULA). RPS new proposal for N-M interaction formula.
c (3) - SIA 161 (1990) values are calculated with mr = 1.0,and measured values : geometry of the sections,eccentricities of the loads,
CD
buckling lengths and yield points ay (SIA FORMULA) RPS new proposal for N-M interaction formula.
(4) - the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of geometrically and materially non linear columns .

For the hypothesis 3 of figure 89 :measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section,initial deformation,eccentricity) are taken
into account;more precise measured mechanical characteristics (ay) (6) are considered;measured residual stresses have been introduced
[MN]
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Mpl = 2689,3
(Q
C RPS New proposal g >|< RPS New proposal 0 ,, J

(D
MY [kNm]
Actual Rule Actual Rule O
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 8,33 cm ; ecc down = 7,76 cm ) : A:\DESNM1
fC>
[MN]
HD 400*400*678
WEAK AXIS
YIELD POINT = 317 N/mm'
BUCKLING LE NGTH L = 4,0 m
,500
Mpl = 2406,3
Tl EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCOD
E 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FIN
E LG ET STS RE SULTS
' RPS New proposal <- RPS New proposal Q- MY [kNm]
c
-t
CD Actual Rule Actual Rule O
'
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 14,93 cm ; ecc down = 14,73 cm ) NM9:A:\DESNM2
INTERACTION : N M 3 COLUMN
[MN]
1,000 1,500 2,000

Mpl= 1626,8
MY [kNm]
(Q EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 1 6 1 (1990) FNELG T E S T S RESULTS
C RPS New proposal 0 >fs RPS New proposal 0 A; I
= Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities :

CO ecc up = 14,86 cm ; ecc down = 14,96 cm ) NMS A:\DESNM3
NM INTERACTION: NM 4 COLUMN
[MN]
20
Npt = 2 0 , 5 0 /
1,600
Mpl = 1426.2
(Q
C RPS New proposal *" RPS New proposal Ar MY [kNm]
-
CD
"P / A = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 15,26 cm ; ecc down = 14,75 cm ) NM9:A:\DESNM4
[MN]
1,000 2,000 5,000

Mpl = 4609,1
EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCOD
E 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINE LG ET STS RE SULTS
co' RPS New proposal g >|< RPS New proposal 0- -,, |
MY [kNm]
c

vj
CO
- * neig simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 15,19 cm ; ecc down = 15,21 cm ) NM9:A:\DESNM6
- INTE RACTION : N M 6 COLUMN
[MN]
30
Npl = 3 8 . 3 6 /
1,000 4,000
Mpl = 3506,8
co EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINE LG ET STS RE SULTS MY [klMm]
RPS New proposal 0- - M
c RPS New proposai 0 fc
-
CD
/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 15,35 cm ; ecc down = 15,26 cm ) NM8:A:\DSNM8
CO
INTERACTION : N M 7 COLUMN
[MN]
>
1,000 1,500 2,000 ,500 3,000

Mp,=24o2,i MY [kNm]
(Q*
c RPS New proposal 0 >|< RPS New proposal 0
-
(D Actual Rule Actual Rule O

< \= Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 15,01 cm ; ecc down = 12,43 cm ) NM9:A:\PEDESNM7
INTERACTION N M 8 COLUMN
>
1,000 2,500 13,000 3,500

Mp,=2857.i MY [kNm]
IQ
C EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS
O RPS New proposal 0 >|< RPS New proposal 0
KJ

/ \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 14,78 cm ; ecc down = 12,68 cm ) NM9:A:\PEDESNM8
NM INTERACTION:NM 9 COLUMN
[MN]
16
Npl = 2 3 , 0 9 /
05
00
2,000
31 MY [kNm]
ca'
c RPS New proposal * RPS New p r o p o s a l 0 aioncouLia

CD Actual Rule
D Actual Rule O

\= Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 3 , 8 6 cm ; ecc d o w n = 4 , 3 3 cm )
NM9:A:\PEDESNM9
NM INTERACTION : N M 1 0COLUMN
[MN]
W 1 4 1 6 * 5 5 0 = HD 400 400 818
STRONG AXIS
YIELD POINT = 362,3 N/mm1
B UCKLING LENGTH L = 8,0 m
h 7'

4
UNIFORM
MOMENT
DISTRIBUTION
O
CD
8,000
Mpl = 6999,4
EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS MX [klMm]
(Q >|< RPS New proposal 0 h
C
RPS New proposai B
(D Actual Rule Actual Rule

A = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 17.79 cm ; ecc down = 18.16 cm ) NM9:\DESNM10A
[MN]
35
HD 4 0 0 4 0 0 * 6 7 8
Npl = 32.29
STRONG AXIS
YIELD POINT = 374.7 Nimm'
30 BUCKLING LENGTH L = 8.57

Ncrt = 28.22p
UNIFORM
MOMENT
>l
o DISTRIBUTION
1,000 2,000 6,000

Mpl = 5 7 0 7 , 7
(Q
C
-
EUROCODE 3 ( 1 9 9 0 )
RPS New proposal
EUROCODE 3 ( 1 9 8 4 )
^
SIA 161 ( 1 9 9 0 )
RPS New proposal 0
FINELG
A
TESTS RESULTS

MX [klMm]
(D
vj
CA)
\ = Finelg simulations ( w i t h measured eccentricities : ecc up = 1 5 , 0 3 cm ; ecc d o w n = 1 4 , 9 8 c m ) NM9: A:\DESNM11 A

[MN]
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Mpl = 4633,1
MX [klMm]
(Q
C EUROCODE 3 (1990) E UROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINE LG E
T STS RE SULTS
CD RPS New proposal B * RPS New proposal -Q-
Actual Rule O
Actual Rule
NM9:A:\DESNM12A
X / \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up = 14.99 cm ; ecc down = 14.90 cm )
[MN]
1,000 4,000
I MPI=3546.4 MX [kNm]
C' EUROCODE 3 (1990) EUROCODE 3 (1984) SIA 161 (1990) FINELG TESTS RESULTS
c RPS N e w proposal g >|< RPS New proposal Q
CD
x A 14,90 cm ; ecc down = 15,13 cm ) NM9:A:VDESNM13A

= / \ = Finelg simulations (with measured eccentricities : ecc up =
8. STATISTICAL EVALUATION (ANNEX OF EUROCODE 3)
After discussion during a meeting of the F6 Executive Committee, TNO B uilding and
Construction Research was asked to consider the safety of the concerned EC3 design
regulations with the method described in Annex of EC3 [15]. This method is based
on a statistical analysis oftest results.
In the report [16] the results of the statistical analysis of the 13 NM tests are
given. We just copy out the conclusions of the report [l6l:
The resistance of the members can be written as followed:
* m i n A W p l , f yk
N
R d = W , + y(k e yA A) (for specimens 1 to 9)
pi, mn^ 'm
XminAWpl,yfyk
N
R d = W. + (k e y A) (for specimens 10 ant 11)
p i , y ^y y * m i n ^ 'm
2AW
N
nl.vfvk (for specimens 12 and 13)
Rd= 2 W + e (A+2bt
p l j f)
'm
This can be rewritten as:
k
NRd'WM* zNRd^m/YM) e
z
+ =1
W
^min^y^M pl, i y ^
NRd^m/YM) kyNRdWt^
=1
w
xmi^y^M pi,iy%)
N
pl,Rd * NRf T & ' W
/(I(0,5a))
%d(?*nAM) = M
pl,y .pi , Rd
an
This means that the regulations in Eurocode 3 are safe when y*m./~Wi ^ 1 d
unsafe when */ > 1
73
For the specimens 1 to 11, where failure was due to buckling, the factor 7* m
varies between about 1.05 and 1.25, dependent on the coefficient of variation
taken into account for the variables and k. When these coefficients of
variation are low enough (i.e. lower than 0.10), then the statistical analysis
shows that the concerned design regulation in Eurocode 3 can be considered as
safe. The coefficient of correlation is high (about 0.98), which means that the
formula fits well with the real buckling behaviour.
For the specimens 12 and 13, which failed due to reaching the ultimate resistance,
the factor 7* m is about 1.05. This means that the statistical analysis shows
that the concerned design regulation is safe. The coefficient of correlation p,
which is equal to 1.0, shows that the formula completely describes the actual
resistance of a member loaded by compression combined with bending.
74
9. CONCLUSIONS
In this research we checked the behaviour of the massive HD hot-rolled columns

(with flange thicknesses above 40 mm) by 13 full-scale-tests under eccentric
compression loads. We carried out these compression tests carefully to avoid para-
sitical effects: control of the behaviour of the hinged supports, control of
failure mode in one bending plane. We took different measurements before and after
the tests to obtain all the precise and necessary informations for the use of
codes formulas (Eurocode 3 and SIA 161) and for the numerical simulations with
Finelg software: geometrical characteristics of each specimen, initial geometrical
imperfections (initial deformations, real eccentricities and buckling lengths),
mechanical characteristics of each specimen (yield points, residual stresses;
control of yield scatter over a profile).
With all these measurements we simulated the 13 tests with a simple modelization
using beam finite elements of Finelg non linear software and we obtain a good
accordance with the measured collapse loads. From these credible calculations we
deduced the complete N-M interaction curves for each specimen and, these simulated
curves represent the real N-M behaviour of the columns.
Then we compared the tests results (measured collapse loads and Finelg simulated
N-M interaction curves) with the prescriptions of Eurocode 3 (84 and 90
versions) and SIA 161 swiss code (90 version) used with the measured values of
geometry and yield points.
We highlighted that the proposed rules in Eurocode 3 and SLA 161 are too much
conservative in such a way that they don't allow the designers to use the maximum
of the real buckling or resistance strength under eccentric loads of the steel
massive columns.
Comparing both versions of Eurocode 3 (84 and 90 versions) we came to the follow-
ing conclusions:
* for the uniform moment distribution and for both bending axis (weak axis: NM1
to NM6; strong axis: NM10, NM11) the Eurocode 3 formulation of 84 version is
better, closer to reality than the 90 version (the reality is defined by Finelg
interaction curve).
* for the bitriangular moment distribution and for both bending axis especially
more for the weak axis (weak axis: NM7 to NM9; strong axis: NM12 to NM13) the
Eurocode 3 formulation of 90 version is quite better, closer to reality than
the 84 version.
75 -
If we compare the N-M interaction curves issued from Eurocode 3 (90 version) and
SIA 161 (90 version), we conclude the following items:
* for the uniform moment distribution and for both bending axis (weak axis: NM1
to NM6; strong axis: NM10, NM11) the formulation of SIA 161 code is better,
closer to reality than the Eurocode 3;
* for the bitriangular moment distribution the formulation of Eurocode 3 is

either similar to the SIA 161 code for the strong axis (NM12, NM13) or better,
closer to reality than SIA161 for the weak axis (NM7 to NM9).
We tried to improve the codes formulation by introducing some changements in the

rules and it seems that the SIA 161 (90 version) improved formulas give the best
N-M interaction behaviour, closer to reality than the Eurocode 3 (90 version)
improved formulas.
On the other hand because of the conservatism of the codes N-M formulas it is
obviously too much safe to apply safety factors (Y ml or ) equal to 1,10.
We proposed the value 1,00 in the scope of these tests results.
All these proposals are introduced in the scope of these 13 compression tests of
thick flanges (52 mm < tf < 125 mm) hot-rolled shapes and more developments
(tests, calculations...) would be necessary to control our conclusions or to
extend them to other profiles.
It can be noticed that even if the applied eccentricities seem to be low, the
carrying capacity of the columns submitted to compression and bending M may be
governed by the codes formulas of cross-sections resistance instead of buckling
strength.
As shown in this report, F inelg non linear numerical simulations gave collapse
loads closed to the tests and we drew complete N-M interaction curves for each
specimen. With this simple and reliable modelization we can easily use the F inelg
software as a tool for realistic and safe design.
106-RPS/CHAN/CK
76
10. BIBLIO
G RAPHY
[1 ] Products n 279282 BE
Buckling of thickflanged Isection columns
Joint research program of the ARB ED S.A. and the Stahlwerke PeineSalz
gitter A6 companies / February 9th, 1982.
[2 ] Prfbericht N 820387
Knickversuche an IProfilen mit Flanschdicken t = 97 mm aus dem Werkstoff

St 523.
Versuchsanstalt fr Stahl, Holz und Steine. Universitt (TH) Karlsruhe
(August 30th, 1985).
[3] ECSC Agreement Number 7210SB /501. B uckling of section beams in high
strength steelDraft final report / November 24th, 1981.
[4] ARB EDResearch Centre, Interaction diagrams between axial load and
bending moment M for columns submitted to buckling: improvement of methods
proposed in standards and codes. C.E.C. Agreement n 7210SA/510.
Technical report n 1, Luxembourg, March 89.
Technical report n 2, Luxembourg, September 89.
bending moment M for columns submitted to buckling: improvement of mthods
Technical report n 3, Luxembourg, April 90.
Technical report n 4, Luxembourg, October 90.
Technical report n 5, Luxembourg, April 91.
[9] Eurocode 3 (84), Industrial processes, B uilding and Civil Engineering,

C.E.C. EUR 8849,1984,
Common unified rules for steel structures.
77
[IO] Eurocode 3 (88), Design of steel structures, Part 1 General rules for
Buildings.
Volume 1, Chapters 1 to 9: Final Draft (December 1988).
[ll] Eurocode 3 (90). Design of steel structures, Part 1 General rules for
Building.
Volume 1, Chapters 1 to 9: Edited Draft (Issue 5, November 1990).
[12] FINELG, Nonlinear finite element analysis program, 1986 (3rd update),
users's manual, Universit de Lige / Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de
Lausanne.
[13] Mesure de Contraintes Rsiduelles Rapport N 90/28, 25.02.91, MSMMcani

que des Matriaux, Stabilit des Constructions, Mcanique des Structures
Universit de Lige.
[14] Exzentrische Druckversuche an Stahlsttzen, NM Interaktion von HD Quer

schnitten, B ericht N A08/90, 31.10.90, RuhrUniversitt B ochum, Institut
fr Konstruktiven Ingenieurbau.
[lo] Annex of Eurocode 3 (Design of Steel Structures, Part 1 General rules

for B uildings, November 90) about the procedure for the determination of
design resistance from tests (Provisional guide).
[l6] "Statistical Analysis of 13 NM tests on wide flanged steel columns", TNO

Report n 91811, September 1991.
ir. B.W.E.M. Van Hove, Delft.
[17] SIA 161, Socit suisse des ingnieurs et des architectes, SN 555161,
Norme suisse pour la construction mtallique. Edition de 1990, 08/1991,
Zrich.
78
STRUCTURAL STEEL RESEARCH REPORTS
established by
RPS DEPARTEMENT / ARBED RECHERCHES
[101] Grardy J.C. .Schleich J.B.; Elasto Plastic Behaviour of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid
Connections / NORDIC STEEL COLLOQUIUM on Research and Development within The
Field of steel Construction; Odense, Denmark , 911 September 1991, RPS Report No 101/91.
[102] Grardy J.C., Schleich J.B.;Semi-Rigid Action in Steel Frames Structures / CEC agreement
No 7210SA / 507 ; Draft of Final Report, November 1991, RPS Report No 102/91.
[103] Ppin R.,Schleich J.B.; Seismic Resistance of Composite Structures, SRCS / CEC agreement
No 7210SA / 506 ; Draft of Final Report, November 1991, RPS Report No 103/91.
[104] Chantrain Ph..Schleich J.B.; Interaction Diagrams between Axial Load and Bending
Moment M for Columns submitted to Buckling / CEC agreement No 7210SA / 510 ; Draft of
Final Report, November 1991, RPS Report No 104/91.
[105] Schaumann P., Steffen .; Verbundbrcken auf Basis von Walztrgern, Versuch Nr. 1
Einstegiger Verbundtrger / HRA, Bochum, Juli 1990, HRA Bericht A 89199, RPS Report No
105/90.
[106] Schaumann P., Steffen .; Verbundbrcken auf Basis von Walztrgern, Versuch Nr. 2
Realistischer Verbundbrckentrger / HRA, Bochum, November 1991, HRA Bericht
A 891992, RPS Report No 106/91.
[107] Bruis ., Wang J.P. ; Composite Bridges with Hot Rolled Beams in High Strength Steel
Fe E 460 , and Spans up to 50 m / Service Ponts et Charpentes, Universit de Lige; Lige,
November 1991, RPS Report No 107/91.
[108] Schleich J.B., Witry .; Acier HLE pour Ponts Mixtes Portes Moyennes de 20 50 m /
Journe Sidrurgique ATS 1991; Paris, 4 et 5 dcembre 1991, RPS Report No 108/91.
[109] Schaumann P, Steffen .; Verbundbrcken auf Basis von Walztrgern, Versuch Nr. 5
Haupttrgerstoss mit Stahlbetonauflagerquertrger / HRA, Bochum, Januar 1992, HRA
Bericht A 90232A, RPS Report No 109/92.
[110] Schaumann P, Schleich J.B., Kulka H., Tilmanns H.; Verbundbrcken unter Verwendung
von Walztrgern / Zusammenstellung der Vortrge anlsslich des Seminars
"Verbundbrckentag" am 12.09.90 an der Ruhruniversitt Bochum, RPS Report No 110/92.
[ I l l ] Schaumann P., Steffen .; Verbundbrcken auf Basis von Walztrgern, Versuche Nr. 3 u. 4
Haupttrgerstoss mit geschraubten Steglaschen / HRA; Bochum 1992, HRA Bericht 90232B,
RPS Report No 111/92.
[112] Schleich J.B., Witry .; Neues Konzept fr einfache Verbundbrcken mit Spannweiten von
20 bis 50 m / IX. Leipziger MetallbauKolloquium; Leipzig, 27. Mrz 1992, RPS Report
No 112/92.
[113] Bergmann R., Kindmann R.; Auswertung der Versuche zum Tragverhalten von
Verbund profilen mit ausbetonierten Kammern; Verbundsttzen / Ruhruniversitt
Bochum, Bericht No 9201, Februar 1992, RPS Report No 113/92.
[114] Bergmann R., Kindmann R.; Auswertung der Versuche zum Tragverhalten von
Verbundprofilen mit ausbetonierten Kammern; Verbundtrger / Ruhruniversitt
Bochum, Bericht No 9202, Mrz 1992, RPS Report No U4/92.
[115] Schleich J.B., Wippel H., Witry .; Untersuchungen an stegparallel versteiften

Rahmenknoten, ausgefhrt aus dickflanschigen hochfesten Walzprofilen . Entwurf
hochbelasteter Vierendeeltrger im Rahmen des Neubaus des Zentrums fr Kunst und
Medientechnologie ( ZKM ), Karlsruhe / RPS Report No 115/92.
[116] Chantrain Ph., Becker ., Schleich J.B.; Behaviour of HISTAR hot-rolled profiles in the
steel constructionTests/RPS Repon No 116/91.
79
FIGURES
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
INTERACTION DIAGRAM N-M
HP 400 X 400 X 744 WEAK AX,S

YIELD POINT 23,5 KN/cm 2
N[KN]
20000
non linear method

ex: DIN 18800)
CEFICOSS (no strain hardening)
EUROCODE 3 (1984 version) L = 4,00m
(interaction formula)
10000 -
20000
10000
M[KNm]
85 Figure 1
Layout for the tests
with uniform moment distribution
M=N-e
scale 1 : 20
Figure 2
86
with bitriangular moment distribution
M=N-e
M=N-e
scale 1:20
Figure 3
- 87 -
CHAPTER 2:
TESTING PROGRAMME
BUCKLING PROBLEMS WITH ECCENTRICITIES
STATIC SYSTEMS
M = Ne
=1
BM=1.10(EC3,1984)
B M , = 1.10(EC3,1989)
Equivalent uniform moment
factors
uniform
moment
distribution
N M = Ne
.
W,t
=1
fyl,if/= 0.44 (EC3.1984)
(^,=2.50(3,1989)
Equivalent uniform moment
factors
e
j >
M = Ne
bltriangular
moment
distribution Figure 4
91

11 "
!
10
()

7
6
5
4
3

2

1 6
1
e
M=ANe
Discretization : uniform moment bitriangular moment

distribution distribution
0.3oy(lfh/b>1.2)
0.5oy(tfh/b<1.2)
Residual stresses
( where = 23,5 kN/cm 2 )
0.3 oy
0.5 oy
Figure 5
92
GEOMETRICAL IMPERFECTIONS
Sinusodal initial deformations have been introduced
in numerical simulations for both types of loading

A M
L/1000
10
L/1000
r . .
<n
m
^4+*
,
AN AN
Uniform moment Bitriangular moment
Figure 6
93
STEEL TRILINEAR LAW

E = 21000 kN/cm2
Et = 2.10kN/cm 2
= 35.5 kN/cm2
OJ =51.0 kN/cm2
atQ
. O
Nominal values of yield strength
[N/mm2]
FeE 355
355
335
/
305
EN 10025 (EC3) EN 25
Material thickness [mm]

40 100
Figure 7
- 94
PROGRAM OF HD SECTIONS B UCKLING TESTS
BUCKLING SLENDERNESS MOMENT LOAD COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE
PROFILE h/b t STEEL BUCKLING
NUMBERS
LENGTH RATIO DISTRIBUTION ECCEN. LOAD LOAD FINELG / EC3

NAME QUALITY AXIS
FINELG EC3
Imi Icml lto| Ito) !%1

|mm|
4.00 0.471 UNIFORM 5.0 1896 1669 + 13.6

HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 FeE 355 WEAK
NM1
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 WEAK 4.00 0.471

NM2 FeE 355
FeE 355 WEAK 4.88 0.604 15.0

NM3 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 4 2 2 1.04 52.5
FeE 355 WEAK 5.34 0.802 UNIFORM 15.0

NM4 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 4 5 4 1.24 69.0
WEAK 8.18 0.900 UNIFORM 15.0

NM5 W14X16X730 1.25 125.0 FeE 355
FeE 355 WEAK 8.71 1.000 15.0

co NM6 W14X16X550 1.18 97.0
on
1.13 82.0 FeE 355 WEAK 7.46 0.880
NM7 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8
1.13 82.0 FeE 3 5 5 WEAK 8.48 1.000

NM8 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8
HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 1.26 75.0 FeE 355 WEAK 8.00 1.189

NM9
0.540 UNIFORM 15.0 1858 1637 + 13.5
W14X16X550 1.18 97.0 FeE 3 5 5 STRONG 8.00
NM10
1.13 82.0 FeE 3 5 5 STRONG 8.57 0.600

NM11 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8
1.13 82.0 FeE 3 5 5 STRONG 8.00 0.561

NM12 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8
STRONG 8.00 0.643 .

HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 1.26 75.0 FeE 355
NM13
NMEC3:A:\HAPPORT3\FINR3
Remarks : the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of geometrically
and materially non linear columns. ECCS residual stresses have been introduced but there were no initial deformations.
The yield point is equal to 355 MPa.

CO
c The safety factor Tm 1 is equal to 1,0.
CD
Range of sections : b (width) > 340 mm ; h (height) > 425 mm
00
PROGRAM OF HD SECTIONS B UCKLING TESTS
PROFILE h/b t MEASURED BUCKLING BUCKLING SLENDERNESS MOMENT LOAD COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE
NUMBERS
NAME YIELD AXIS LENGTH RATIO DISTRIBUTION ECCEN. LOAD LOAD FINELG / EC3
POINT FINELG EC3
[mm| [N/mm2l [ml EC3 [cml Ito] Itol [%1
NM1 HO 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 372 WEAK 4.00 0.4574 UNIFORM 8.0 1696 1208 + 40.3
HO 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 331 WEAK 4.00 0.4574 UNIFORM 15.0 1122 874 + 2B .4
NM2
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 4 2 2 1.04 52.5 3B9 WEAK 4.88 0.5B71 UNIFORM 15.0 694.2 484 + 43.5
NM3
HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 4 5 4 1.24 69.0 345 WEAK 5.34 0.7799 UNIFORM 15.0 532.1 416 + 28.1
NM4
W14X16X730 1.25 125.0 349.5 WEAK 8.18 0.8338 UNIFORM 15.0 1425 972 + 46.6
NM5
W14X16X550 1.18 97.0 374 WEAK 8.71 0.9716 UNIFORM 15.0 994.8 756 + 31.5
NM6
CD
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 331 WEAK 7.46 0.B531 BITRIANGULAR 15.0 1417 1125 + 25.9
NM7
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 384 WEAK 8.48 0.9698 BITRIANGULAR 15.0 1513 1060 + 42.8
NM8
HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 1.26 75.0 354.5 WEAK 8.00 1.1551 BITRIANGULAR 5.0 1192 820 + 45.5
NM9
1.18 97.0 381 STRONG 8.00 0.5246 UNIFORM 18.0 1802 1319 + 36.6
NM10 W14X16X550
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 384 STRONG 8.57 0.5836 UNIFORM 15.0 1551 1125 + 37.9
NM11
HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 1.13 82.0 310.5 STRONG 8.00 0.5448 BITRIANGULAR 15.0 1594 1694 5.9
NM12
1.26 354.5 STRONG 8.00 0.6248 BITRIANGULAR 15.0 1260 1214 + 3.6
NM13 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 75.0
Remarks : the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of geometrically
and materially non linear columns. ECCS residual stresses have been introduced and the initial
sinusodal deformations have a maximal amplitude of L/1000 ; the measured mechanical
characteristics are considered.
CQ Eurocode 3 values are calculated with $ m1= 1.1 and the a decreasing in function of the
C
flange thickness.
NM:\A:\HAPP0HT3:FINR
CD Range of sections : b (width) > 340 mm ; h (height) > 425 mm
co
^1
(Q
C
CD
NM5
BUCKLING HD 4-00X400X1 06/1_ = 8 . 1 8 m / e = 1 5 o m / N = l 5 00 k N / F e E 3 5 5/we a k axis
J.
: :
'
S s s V V V
' L' ' . I s
(O
00 \ s \
2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 9 9 1 0 1 0 I l r - 1 1 j 2 l 2 13
/ s I
_
^
DEFORMEE
V U E EN PLAN
DEPL= 20 . O
MULT= 9.5 0
REAC= O . 14-3E + 05
(Q Y
C
CD L.
NM5
BUCKLING HD 4 0 O X 4 O 0 X 1 086/l_ = 8 . 1 8 m / e = 1 5 c m / N = l 5 0 0 k N / F e E 3 5 5 / w e k exis F
co + +
co + + ! +
1' 3 ' 4 8 9 ' io: ii! _12J
DIAGRAMME DE MZ
VUE EN PLAN
MULT = 9 . 50
REAC = 0.143E+05
DMAX= 0.396E+06
ELEMENT 7 ( 7)
CO
c Lx
CD I 1
NM5
N3
BUCKLING HD 4-00X4-00X1 0 8 6 / L = 8 . 1 8 m / e = 1 5 c m / N = 1 500k N / F e E 3 5 5/we a k exis F
o
o
8 IO 11 12
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
i- a. _ _ _ .J _ _ J L _ _ J U a. _ .1. _ _ _ - _i_ a. -A. j J DIAGRAMME DE
V U E EN PLAN
MULT = 9 . 50
REAC = 0.143E+05
Y DMAX= 0.142E+05
(
c
CD
L: ELEMENT 7 ( 8)
' NM5
CO
BUCKLING HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 1 86/|_=8 . 1 8nv'e=1 5cnri/N=1 5 k h k F e E 3 5 5 / u e a k axis

3
iP 85
MPIHIIfl'!
78
k.*ii. 71
64
Mil. 57
5
42
35
8
1
14
7
co
c PLASTIFICATION
*
CD
P>>
SCHEMA~D"MOTO

MULT= 9.50
REfC= 0.143E+05
ARBEDRPS !6/3/9 DESFIN U5. NM5
BUCKLING HD 400X400X1086/L=8.18m/e=15cm/N=15kN/FeE355/weak axis
100
92
85
78
71
64
o
)
y 57
'1 f 5
42
t*. 28
21
14
7
(Q
C
-
CD
ai SCHEM DE MOTO
MULT= 9.50
fRBE D-RPS 26/03/90 E
D SFIN U5.2 I
REAC= 0.143E+05
NM5
BUCKLING HD 400X400X1086/|_=8.18m/e=15cm/N=15kN/FeE355/tjeak axis
CQ
C
PLASTIFKATION
CD
SCHEM"DE~Mf5
O)
MULT= 9.50
I fRB EDRPS 26/03/90 DESFIN U5.2~"l REAC= 0.143E+05
NM5
BUCKLING HD 404136/|_=8. 1 8m/e=1 5cnv'N= 1 5kN/FeE355/ujeak axis
1
92
85
mm 78
"
71
1 a '3 4 5 6 7 q 10 11 12 , , 64
O
o 1 3
4 5 6 7 g 10 11 IE 57
U
e
^f
> . . . 42
i i-.. 35
28
21
14
7
PLASTIFICATION
(O
c SCHEMP~D~MT

CD

V
MULT= 3.5
'S REHC = 0.143E+05
HRBEDRPS fi/f13/'Rn DESFIN Uc o NM5
23635.9
\ [KN] INTERACTION N-M-DIAGRAM
HD 400x400x1086 WEAK AXIS
LENGTH im) = 8.2 YIELD POINT [kN/cm2] = 3 0 . 5

20000.
LAMDABAR = 0.834 BETA 1984 = 1.10 BETA 1989 = 1.10

\ s& h- e
15000. \
/ FIN
E Lli v.J 1
Diff=46.6%
L = 8.18m
o
en
10000. \X_jJ
/ ^ \ \ r -v ' '
/ \ E C 3 1989 \ E C 3 1984
~ \ Moment uniform
\ . distribution
5000.
^ 1 r^>
ca' 0.0 v^
c 2000. 3000. 4000. M [KNml
1000.
4079.6
CD NM5
CXI
NM 5
* DATE : 29-HAR-1990 08:29:48 *
PROFILNAHE HD 4 0 0 x 4 0 0 x 1 0 8 6
HOEHE [cm] 56.90
BREITE [cm] 45.40
STEGDICKE [cm] 7.80
FLANSCHDICKE [cm] 12.50
RADIUS [cm] 1.50
MOMENTENVERTEI LUNGSFAKTOR X-ACHSE EC3 1984 > 1.1000

MOMENTENVERTEI LUNGSFAKTOR Y-ACHSE EC3 1984 > 1.1000
HOMENTENVERTEILUNGSFAKTOR X-ACHSE EC3 1989 > 1.1000
MOMENTENVERTE ILUNGSFAKTOR Y-ACHSE EC3 1989 > 1.1000
RELATIVE SCHLANKHEIT X-ACHSE > 0.4786

RELATIVE SCHLANKHEIT Y-ACHSE > 0.8338
GEWAEHLTE KNICKKURVE X-ACHSE :d

GEWAEHLTE KNICKKURVE Y-ACHSE :d
VORGESCHLAGENE KNICKKURVE NACH EC3 X-ACHSE :d
VORGESCHLAGENE KNICKKURVE NACH EC3 Y-ACHSE :d
ABHINDERUNGSFAKTOR FUER DIE STARKE ACHSE > 0.7944

ABHINDERUNGSFAFTOR FUER DIE SCHWACHE ACHSE > 0.5592
EINGEGEBENE STRECKGRENZE [KN/cm'2] : 35.50

VERWENDETE STRECKGRENZE [KN/cm'2] : 30.50
PLASTISCHE NORMALKRAFT Npl [KN] > 42265.4
PLASTISCHES MOMENT X-ACHSE [KN m] > 8299.51
PLASTISCHES MOMENT Y-ACHSE [KN m] > 4079.57
|E [cm] | PROFIL STRECKG. L [cm]| NX [KN] NY [KN] MX[KNnO MY[KNm]| NX89 [KN] NY89 [KN] MX89 [KNm] | MY89 [KNm] KX KY |
000 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 33575.3 23635.9 0.0 0.0| 30523.0 21487.2 0.0| 0.0 0.00 0.00|
001 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0] 32070.1 22034.7 320.7 220.3| 28796.6 19769.1 288.0| 197.7 1.48 1.79|
002 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 30711.9 20677.1 614.2 413.5| 27304.3 18305.5 546.1| 366.1 1.46 1.72|
003 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 29477.8 19504.5 884.3 585.1| 25995.5 17043.6 779.9| 511.3 1.44 1.67|
004 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 28350.0 18477.0 1134.0 739.1| 24834.2 15944.5 993.4| 637.8 1.42 1.63|
005 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 27314.2 17566.3 1365.7 878.3| 23793.7 14978.5 1189.71 748.9 1.40 1.59|
006 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 26358.5 16751.7 1581.5 1005.1| 22854.0 14123.0 1371.21 847.4 1.38 1.561
007 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 25473.3 16017.3 1783.1 1121.2) 21999.4 13359.8 1540.0| 935.2 1.37 1 -531
008 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 24650.4 15350.8 1972.0 1228.1| 21217.8 12675.0 1697.4| 1014.0 1.36 1 -511
009 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 23883.1 14742.5 2149.5 1326.8| 20499.0 12098.6 1844.9| 1088.9 1.34 1.49|
010 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 8 1 8 . 0 | 23165.6 14184.5 2316.6 1418.4| 19835.1 11609.7 1983.51 1161.0 1.33 1.47|
011 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 22492.9 13670.4 2474.2 1503.7| 19219.4 11165.4 2114-11 1228.2 1.32 1.451
012 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 8 1 8 . 0 | 21860.5 13194.8 2623.3 1583.4| 18646.3 10759.2 2237.6| 1291.1 1.31 1.431
013 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 21264.9 12753.4 2764.4 1657.9| 18111.1 10386.1 2354.41 1350.2 1.30 1.42|
014 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 20702.8 12342.4 2898.4 1727.9| 17609.9 10041.7 2465.41 1405.8 1.29 1 -411
015 HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 20171.1 11958.5 3025.7 1793.8| 17139.3 9722.6 2570.9| 1458.4 1.29 1.39|
H pur HD 400x400x1086 30.50 818.0| 0. 0. 8299.5 4079.6| 0. 0. 8299.5J 4079.6 1.28 1.38|
Figure 19
106
BUCKLING HD 3 1 O X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 / L = 8 . O O m / e = 1 5 c m / N = 1 3 0 0 k N / F e E 3 5 5 / s tr . ax. bl-t
10 . 0
1
9.67 I 1 J . '
| 1 __^_*
I Ml l l
l _/i '
7 . 50
I / '
I g ' ' '
/
/ l l
1 /
/
1 / 1
o 1 / 1
5 . 00 1 / 1 I I
1 / I I
/ l
/ i l l
/ '
/
/ 1 1 1 1
P i I ' COURBE PD
2 . 50 /
/ I . 5. 2
/ \ I
/
/
/ l ' '
r \
/
/ '
r ' 0 . 2 5 0 . 5 0 ' 0 . 7 5 ' 1| . 0 0
(O l
C I I I '
CD I I I ' NM13
ro I l l '
o
BUCKLING HD 310X310X500/L=8.00m/e=l5om/N=1300kN/FeE355/str. ax. b
' '
o t -'
10 11 12 13141516
00 7~*TT|"~. It
hi 2 3
rr TZ~ 31413117
f* 1 DEFORMEE
I L - * ~
VUE EN PLAN
DEPL= 75.0
MULT= 9.67
REAC= 0.126E+05
Y
CO
C
CD
Lx
NM13
BUCKLING HD 310X310X500/L=8.00m/e=l5om/N=l300kN/FeE355/str. ax. bl-t

~ .
o
CD
Il 2 3 4! 5 ', 6 1 ==r^
11 12 13141516
- - - _ _
* - - - * - ' '
" i i DIAGRAMME DE
V U E EN PLAN
MULT = 9 . 67
REAC = 0 . 126E+05
Y DMAX= 0.19+06
(
C

CD
L
ELEMENT 16 ( 17)
NM13
) H
BUCKLING HD 310X310X500/L=8.00m/e=l5om/N=l300kN/F eE355/str. ex. bl-t
1 2 3 4 10 11 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6
I

| _| _| _| _| M , - 1 _ _ 1 m^ 1 _ _ - _ 1 1 1 I
1 | _| _| _| _|
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DIAGRAMME DE
VUE EN PLAN
MULT = 9 . 67
REAC = 0 . 1 2 6 E + 05
DMAX= 0.126E+05
CQ
C
CD
L. ELEMENT 16 ( 17)
) I 1 NM13
BUCKLING HD 310X310X500/|_=8. 00m/e=15cm/N=1300kN/FeE355/str . . b i t
10
92
85
78
71
64
57
58
42
35
28
21
14
7
co
c ^siFiamoN
SCHM~D~MOTO
Y
MULT= 9 67
*
' y I PIRB EDRPS 27/03/90 DESFIN U5.2 I REHC= 0.126E+05
NM-
BUCKLING HD 310X31X5/L=8.m/e=15cm/N=1300kN/FeE355/str. . bi-t
100
92
85
78
71
64
57
50
42
35
28
21
14
7
CQ
C PLASTIFICATION
i
CD
ro SCHEMA DE MOTO
en z
MULT= 9.67
y
X ARBED-RPS 27/03/90 DESFIN U5.2 I
REAC= 0.126E -05
NM13
BUCKLING HD 31 0X310X500/L=8.00m/e=15cm/N=1300kN/FeE355/str. . b i-t
100
92
pis 85
m 78
' 71

64
57
V.''50
42
35
28
21
14
7
co
c PLASTIFICATION
SCHEMA DE MOTO
G Y MULT= 9.67
I ARBED-RPS 27/03/90 DESFIN U5.2 I
REAC= 0.126E -05
.13
U C LNG HD 31 ><31 5 / L=8 . 0 0 ' e = 1 5 c ' = 1300 k I I ' F e E 3 S 5 ' s t r . . b i t
100
14 32
iî w. oc
78
71
;#i- 64
;- l-:i r .- ;
57
50
W 42
35
28
21
14
I~l
t'
CQ
C PLASTIFICATION
CD
ro SCHEMA~D~MT
MULT= 9.67
^\~7 REfiC= 0.126E+05
I PRBED-RPS E7/03/90 DESFIN U5.2 I NM 13
17581 ,f \ [KN] INTERACTION NMD AGRAM
HD 310x310x500 STRONG AXIS
LENGTH y = 8.0 YIELD POINT [kN/cm2] = 3 3 . 5

15000.
\ FINELG B
LAMDA AR = 0.625 B ETA 1984 = 0.44 B ETA 1983 = 2.50
" \ /L
v ^> _Diff.3.6%

10000. / \ EC31984\ EC 3 1989 ^ ,
L = 8.00 m
. \ (* e *
/
1
X '
5000.
\ . Moment bitriangular
\ \^ distribution
/ I I I 1 *
<' u"
c^ O.C
CD 1500. 2250. 3000. M [KNm
750.
3304.9
00 NM13
DATE 29HAR1990 09:05:25 * NM 13
PROFILNAME HD 3 1 0 x 3 1 0 x 5 0 0
HOEHE [cm] 2.70
BREITE [cm] 34.00
STEGDICKE [cm] 4.50
FLANSCHDICKE [cm] 7.50
RADIUS [cm] 1.50
MOMENTENVERTEILUNGSFAKTOR X-ACHSE EC3 1984 > 0.4400

HOHENTENVERTEILUNGSFAKTOR Y-ACHSE EC3 1984 > 0.4400
MOMENTENVERTEILUNGSFAKTOR X-ACHSE EC3 1989 > 2.5000
MOMENTENVERTEILUNGSFAKTOR Y-ACHSE EC3 1989 > 2.5000
RELATIVE SCHLANKHEIT X-ACHSE > 0.6248

RELATIVE SCHLANKHEIT Y-ACHSE > 1.1551
GEUAEHLTE KNICKKURVE X-ACHSE :b

GEUAEHLTE KNICKKURVE Y-ACHSE : c
VORGESCHLAGENE KNICKKURVE NACH EC3 X-ACHSE :b
VORGESCHLAGENE KNICKKURVE NACH EC3 Y-ACHSE :c
ABMINDERUNGSFAKTOR F UER DIE STARKE ACHSE > 0.8244

ABMINDERUNGSFAFTOR F UER DIE SCHWACHE ACHSE > 0.4558
EINGEGEBENE STRECKGRENZE [KN/cm'2] : 35.50

VERWENDETE STRECKGRENZE [KN/ctn'2] : 33.50
PLASTISCHE NORMALKRAF T Npl [KN] > 21325.5
PLASTISCHES MOMENT X-ACHSE [KN m] > 3304.88
PLASTISCHES MOMENT Y-ACHSE [KN m] > 1500.88
|E [cm] | PRO
F IL STRECKG. L [cm]| NX [KN] NY [KN] |MX[KNm] MY [KNm] | NX89 [KN] NY89 [KN] MX89 [KNm] | MY89[KNm] ** KY
000 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 17581.3 9719.1 | 0.0 0.0| 15983.0 8835.6 0.0] 0.0 | 0.00 0.00]
001 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 16831.5 9387.1 | 168.3 93.91 15802.2 8727.2 158.0] 87.3 | 0.22 0.19|
002 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 16145.3 9084.0 | 322.9 181.7| 15610.0 8609.5 312.2] 172.2 | 0.22 0.20|
003 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 15514.4 8789.0 | 465.4 263.7| 15405.9 8482.0 462.2| 254.5 | 0.23 0.211
004 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 14931.9 8491.8 | 597.3 339.7| 15189.7 8344.3 607.6| 333.8 | 0.25 0.23|
005 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 14392.0 8205.3 | 719.6 410.3| 14961.1 8195.9 748.1| 409.8 | 0.26 0.241
006 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 13890.1 7930.6 | 833.4 475.8| 14720.2 8036.9 883.2| 482.2 | 0.27 0.26|
007 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 13422.2 7668.1 | 939.6 536.8| 14467.4 7867.5 1012.7| 550.7 | 0.28 0.27|
008 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 12984.6 7417.8 | 1038.8 593.4| 14203.2 7688.3 1136.3| 615.1 | 0.29 0.29|
009 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 12574.6 7179.5 | 1131.7 646.2| 13928.4 7500.3 1253.6| 675.0 | 0.31 0.311
010 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 12189.4 6952.7 | 1218.9 695.3| 13644.2 7305.1 1364.4| 730.5 | 0.32 0.32|
011 HD 310x310x500 33.50 800.0] 11826.8 6737.1 | 1301.0 741.1| 13352.0 7104.2 1468.7| 781.5 | 0.34 0.341
012 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 11485.0 6532.1 | 1378.2 783.9| 13053.4 6899.6 1566.41 827.9 | 0.35 0.36|
013 HD 310x310x500 33.50 8 0 0 . 0 | 11162.0 6337.2 | 1451.1 823.8| 12750.2 6693.3 1657.5| 870.1 | 0.37 0.38|
014 HD 310x310x500 33.50 800.0| 10856.4 6151.8 | 1519.9 861.3| 12444.2 6487.4 1742.21 908.2 | 0.38 0.40|
015 HD 310x310x500 33.50 800.0| 10566.7 5975.4 | 1585.0 896.3| 12137.3 6283.5 1820.6| 942.5 | 0.40 0.42]
M pur |HD 310x310x500 33.50 800.0| 0 . 0. 1500.9 |
| 3304.9 1500.9| 0. 0. 3304.9| 0.41 0.441
Figure 29
116
CHAPTER 4:
BUCKLING TESTS
GEOMETRICAL IMPERFECTIONS (1)
GEOMETRY OF THE SECTIONS
h b 1 X r
NUMBERS PROFILE w f
NAME
MEASURED NOMINAL MEASURED NOMINAL MEASURED NOMINAL MEASURED NOMINAL

NOMINAL
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
484.00 480.65 427.00 424.43 50.50 48.86 82.00 80.07 15.00

NM1 HD 400X400X678
484.00 481.65 427.00 426.65 50.50 50.33 82.00 81.12 15.00

NM2 HD 400X400X678
425.00 425.95 409.00 408.31 33.00 33.16 52.50 51.91 15.00

NM3 HD 400X400X422
414.97 336.00 336.62 40.50 40.85 69.00 69.13 15.00

NM4 HD 310X310X454 415.00
564.27 454.00 452.60 78.00 76.87 125.00 124.31 15.00

NM5 W14X16X730 569.00
509.81 437.00 432.96 60.50 57.81 97.00 97.16 15.00

NM6 W14X16X550 514.00
481.19 427.00 426.54 50.50 50.50 82.00 81.00 15.00

NM7 HD 400X400X678 484.00
483.87 427.00 424.46 50.50 52.04 82.00 82.18 15.00

NM8 HD 400X400X678 484.00
423.71 340.00 338.76 45.00 44.91 75.00 74.33 15.00

NM9 HD 310X310X500 427.00
515.47 437.00 436.05 60.50 58.55 97.00 97.63 15.00

NM10 W14X16X550 514.00
481.69 427.00 424.58 50.50 52.00 82.00 81.79 15.00

NM11 HD 400X400X678 484.00
480.27 427.00 428.75 50.50 49.37 82.00 81.20 15.00

NM12 HD 400X400X678 484.00
423.59 340.00 338.57 45.00 45.13 75.00 74.27 15.00

NM13 HD 310X310X500 427.00
*
(Q
C
CD
GO
H- b
O
GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NM CROSS-SECTIONS
NUMBERS PROFILE BUCKLING MEASURE:D VALUES CALCULATED VALUES
NAME AXIS OF THE PROFILE OF THE PROFILE

h b F
' w Ix ly Wx Wy Wplx Wply
mm mm mm mm cm2 cm c m
cm3 cm3 cm3 cm3
NM1 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 480.65 424.43 48.86 80.07 838.21 18.6059 11.0506 12074.26 4823.35 14898.47 7408.59
NM2 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 481.65 426.65 50.33 81.12 854.89 18.5935 11.1013 12272.34 4938.75 15176.18 7590.93
NM3 HD 400X400X422 WEAK 425.95 408.31 33.16 51.91 532.66 17.2738 10.5245 7462.72 2889.94 8818.61 4419.54
NM4 HD 310X310X454 WEAK 414.97 336.62 40.85 69.13 580.38 16.0003 8.7185 7161.10 2621.11 8855.91 4036.69
o
NM5 W14X16X730 WEAK 564.27 452.60 76.87 124.31 1369.83 20.5703 11.8796 20544.12 8542.46 26697.91 13206.61
W14X16X550 509.81 432.96 57.81 97.16 1025.64 19.2574 11.3426 14921.65 6095.42 18827.03 9376.35
NM6 WEAK
481.19 426.54 50.50 81.00 854.12 18.5718 11.0940 12244.46 4929.09 15142.90 7577.45
NM7 HD 400X400X678 WEAK
NM8 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 483.87 424.46 52.04 82.18 865.85 18.6129 11.0193 12398.54 4953.83 15370.16 7625.03
423.71 338.76 44.91 74.33 629.06 16.1531 8.7699 7747.55 2856.36 9672.70 4408.67
NM9 HD 310X310X500 WEAK
NM10 W 14X16X550 STRONG 515.47 436.05 58.55 97.63 1040.85 19.4779 11.4083 15321.40 6213.30 19319.23 9562.39
NM11 HD 400X400X678 STRONG 481.69 424.58 52.00 81.79 B61.88 18.5309 11.0230 12288.47 4933.06 15232.68 7592.78
HD 400X400X678 480.27 428.75 49.37 81.20 855.15 18.5648 11.1858 12273.50 4991.16 15170.58 7662.47
NM12 STRONG
NM13 HD 310X310X500 STRONG 423.59 338.57 45.13 74.27 628.97 16.1428 8.7599 7738.81 2851.07 9663.32 4401.83
CO
C NM1:A:\0EOMET.DRW
-
CD
CO
GEOMETRICAL IMPERFECTIONS (2) :tolerances
GEOMETRY OF THE SECTIONS
NUMBERS PROFILE 1 b tW t f r
NAME
l
NOMIN. TOLEFANCE NOMIN. MEAS. TOLERANCE NOMIN. MEAS. TOLERANCE NOMIN. MEAS. TOLERANCE
NOMINAL
MEAS. ALLOW. MEAS. ALLOW. MEAS. ALLOW. MEAS. ALLOW. MEAS.
|mm| |mm] |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm] |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm| |mm]
|mm|
NM1 HD 400X400X678 484.0 480.6 4 3.4 427.0 424.4 4 2.6 50.5 48.9 1 (1.6) 82.0 80.1 2 1.9 15.0
HD 400X400X678 484.0 481.6 4 2.4 427.0 426.6 4 0.4 50.5 50.3 + 1 0.2 82.0 81.1 2 0.9 15.0
NM2
HD 400X400X422 425.0 425.9 3 + 0.9 409.0 408.3 4 0.7 33.0 33.2 + 1 + 0.2 52.5 51.9 2 0.6 15.0
NM3
NM4 HD 310X310X454 415.0 415.0 3 0.00 336.0 336.6 4 + 0.6 40.5 40.8 1 + 0.3 69.0 69.1 2 + 0.1 15.0
NM5 W14X16X730 569.0 564.3 5 4.7 454.0 452.6 4 1.4 78.0 76.9 + 1 125.0 124.3 2 0.7 15.0
NM6 W14X16X550 514.0 509.8 4 (.) 437.0 433.0 4 4.0 60.5 57.8 + 1 (2.7) 97.0 97.2 2 + 0.2 15.0
NM7 HD 400X400X678 484.0 481.2 4 2.8 427.0 426.5 4 0.5 50.5 50.5 1 0.00 82.0 81.0 2 1.0 15.0
HD 400X400X678 484.0 483.9 4 0.1 427.0 424.5 4 2.5 50.5 52.0 1 (+ 1.5) 82.0 82.2 + 2 + 0.2 15.0
NM8
NM9 HD 310X310X500 427.0 423.7 3 C" 2 340.0 338.8 4 1.2 45.0 44.9 + 1 0.1 75.0 74.3 2 0.7 15.0
NMIO W14X16X550 514.0 515.5 4 + 1.5 ' 4 3 7 . 0 436.0 4 1.0 60.5 58.5 1 C 2.) 97.0 97.6 2 + 0.6 15.0
HD 400X400X678 484.0 481.7 4 2.3 427.0 424.6 4 0.6 50.5 52.0 + 1 (+ 1.5) 82.0 81.8 2 0.2 15.0
NM1 1
NM12 HD 400X400X678 484.0 480.3 4 3.7 427.0 428.7 4 + 1.7 50.5 49.4 + 1 (.,.} 82.0 81.2 2 0.8 15.0
NM13 HD 310X310X500 427.0 423.6 3 (T3.) 340.0 338.6 4 1.4 45.0 45.1 + 1 + 0.1 75.0 74.3 2 0.7 15.0
NM1:A.\NMIOH
Remark: The measured values are the average

of all the measurements taken along
each specimen.
c
CD
CO
GEOMETRICAL IMPERF ECTIONS (2) :tolerances
GEOMETRY OF THE SE CTIONS
NUMBERS PROFILE FLANGE WEB WEB

NAME PARALLELISM ECCENTRICITY DEFORMATION
dl,TOLERANCE d2,T0LERANCE d3,T0LERANCE
ALLOW.
MEAS. ALLOW. MEAS. ALLOW. MEAS.
1.5%b
Imml (mm| Imm] Imml |mm| (mm) i
NM1 HD 400X400X678 6.4 -3.15 3.5 1.78 2.0 -0.30
tf
HD 400X400X678 6.4 -1,45 3.5 2.78 2.0 -0.35
NM2
NM3 HD 400X400X422 6.1 -2.5 3.5 -3.30 2.0 (^2.90 )
NM4 HD 310X310X454 5.0 1.75 3.5 -0.78 2.0 0.45
NM5 W14X16X730 6.8 0.6 3.5 ;.15 ) 2.0 0.33
NM6 W14X16X550 6.5 2.4 3.5 -2.53 . 2.0 0.35
NM7 HD 400X400X678 6.4 -1.8 3.5 -0.73 2.0 -0.3

N3
NM8 HD 400X400X678 6.4 0.55 3.5 1.38 2.0 -0.58
-0.28 Remark: The measured tolerances

NM9 HD 310X310X500 5.1 0.35 3.5 -2.42 2.0
are the maximal values
6.5 1.5 3.5 -4.8 2.0 0.25 over the length of
NM10 W14X16X550
each specimen
NM11 HD 400X400X678 6.4 -2.45 3.5 1.43 2.0 -0.23
NM12 HD 400X400X678 6.4 -3.25 3.5 (4.68) 2.0 -0.43
NM13 HD 310X310X500 5.1 -0.75 3.5 (3.78^ 2.0 -0.28
CQ d2 = ( b l - b 2 ) /2
dl =(k1 +k2)/2
C
\
CD
CO
CO
NMI A\NMIOL?
b1 b2
J
Initial geometrical imperfections (3)
Measures are taken all the 150 mm along each column
150 Reference line f

mm<>-<>-<
O) r, t t t t t t t t t t 1 F
t w
load axis
(1) layout for uniform moment distribution

(2) layout for bitriangular moment distribution
measured points for :
buckling according to
the weak axis :
, a a,b
buckling according to
the strong axis :
c;a,b
> b
Figure 34
- 123
GEOMETRICAL IMPE RFE CTIONS (3)
Initial deformation.
NM1 COLUMN
Buckling according to the weak axis
uniform moment distribution
Deformation [mm]
5
measured measured approximation for permitted deviation
4
points a points b finelg calculation E C3: L/1000
N- ^3 -N
7,8 2 8,3
cm cm
1
- 0<fc
-1
-2
-3
-4
(Q
C
-t
CD

en
b Buckling length : 4,00 m H M V * MUITIAIINMIDOEF
NM2 COLUMN
Deformation [mm] uniform moment distribution
5 l i l i
4 measured measured approximation for permitted deviation
points a points b finelg calculation EC3: L/1000
.3 + o e
N
2 ..."" L...
14,7 ...o/ y " 14,9

.''
*^ ""'..
cm 1 *rkA cm
* " " / * V\\, I ' '.
J 0
/'
's. ja'
's y
Ol
'
S
.
.0
y'
'" I. .1
'
'. ..er'
*
... j ._.n
0 4 5
Length [m]
co
c
-^
CD

en I: b B uckling length : 4,00 m MMI A>MIT1AltNMIHDFr
NM3 COLUMN
uniform moment distribution
Deformation [mm]
5
4
points a points b finelg calculation E C3: L/1000
^ TF^C - + o
3 "O...
15,0 2 ;
\ZJiô- "Sij^? 14,9
cm cm
I 1
,-"" / *-+-+~\ \ " " ' >
l
0 ^ 'r y--t-
)
O) -1
,
V /' S
' tzf*'
s
-2 '

'v.
-3 '13. .a""'
-4 ^ ^
-Q B"" E ) ' "
-5
-6
-1
o
0 2 3 4 5 6
Length [m]
II
C
*
co
b Buckling length : 4 , 8 8 m H** 1-AMNtlF*l\NMinO(f

NM4 COLUMN
0

4
+ O Q
3
14,7
2 15,3
cm 1 cm
)
0<
1
*., if
S," y
0
'
..y
'y'
"""'SX\. ,"' y"

2 y'
' ; >
" \ ...
.Jl.J^..JI.{iJI...J 'j J..II. <..Si... o y"
'
3 '. y
'.
'. VI
4 .
'"^.
5 ">.. & . . ^ 1 i""
6
7
o
0 2 3 4 5
(Q Length [m]
i:
C
-
CD
GO
OD
b B uckling length : 5,34 m NM1.A.tMUmtNM4BOCF

NM5 COLUMN
Buckling according t o the weak axis
Deformation [mm] uniform m o m e n t distribution
4
.3
O EJ
2
1
ro
CD
0 4 5
x:
CO Length [m]
c

CD

co
b B uckling length : 8,18 m * n n Mt. BO t
NM6 COLUMN
uniform m o m e n t distribution
Deformation [mm]
4
N- points a points b finelg calculation
o
15,3
2
cm
ro
co
CO
C

CD
O
b Buckling length : 8,71 m MM I A tmiTiAlWMSBDtF
NM7 COLUMN
Deformation [mm] bitriangular moment distribution

.3 a c o a
N
12,4
cm
o cm
15,0
4 5 8
I
c Length [m]
t
CD
b B uckling length : 7,46 m

NM8 COLUMN
bitriangular m o m e n t distribution
Deformation [mm]
4
.3 points a points b finelg calculation E C3: L/1000

2
cm
14,8
0 1 2 4 5
Length [m]
I
(Q
C > a
*
CD
b Buckling length : 8,48 m NM IzltllMlTlAKNMfltttCf

NM9 COLUMN
5
I I I
.3 +

4,3
2
cm 1
<
0 b "t".
7*'
-1
V"o...
N^X nr'"' S
.+*''',''v,' * "
... ' /
V ^ cm
)
-2
"'t
" ^ ^ sJ^'V r^Te?"'
~~^'" S
3,9
\ y'
-3 'o
V^s
'> *
'' v
s'
s'

-4
\
y'
-5
L. . J '
-6
ja'"
"!3 . . ^ .' ''lr
) **"' . ,
4 5 8
(Q
c^ Length [m]
CD

00
II b B uckling length : 8,00 m MINIIIAUNMVnOF

COLUMN
Buckling according to the strong axis
5
co
b Buckling length : 8.00 m

c
NMiiAiMiriAuNuioflotr
GEOMETRICAL IMPERFECTIO NS (3)
NM11 CO LUMN
4 measured measured measured approximation for permitted deviation
.3 +- + - + -.\
points a points b points c finelg calculation EC3: L/1000
- 1
\
2
~7f. 15,0
15,0 --^.^.^'
i-----' i---
'"n.
cm 1 ' cm
l a g . '&---- \ " " -
&&'
j ' ---- f+*1 -*--> -wm- > i--A ri-A. A A
.
0 C 1 Q
\ v y'
-1 *v^ ^ - + - ^
VX / / " + '
\
t* -2 y'
y'
-3
y'
-4 ,
y'
\
y
-5 'ra.
s'
's. y'
-6 tl
y'
y''
-7 'S.
.
s'
~~'iq. .FI''
-8
0 4 5

Length [m]
ca
c
CD
b Buckling length : 8.57 m
- 1 AMNITI*HNM11BOf

NM12 COLUMN
Buckling according t o the strong axis
Deformation [mm] bitriangular m o m e n t distribution
5
4 measured measured measured approximation for permitted deviation
points a points b points c finelg calculation E C3:_L/1000
~3
14,9 2
cm 1
0
-1
en
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
4 5
II
to Length [m]
c
CD
b Buckling length : 8,00 m 1-A.tmiTlAl\NM17BOtf

C
NM13 COLUMN
5
measured measured measured approximation for permitted deviation

points a points b points c finelq calculation EC3: L/1000
N- 1 - o
a
15,1
cm
co -; cm
(35
14,9
4 5
I
co Length [m]
c
CD
b Buckling length : 8,00 m

c I'A\MITIAlvNM1->H}{r
INITIAL GEOMETRICAL IMPERF ECTIONS (4)
MEASURES ARE TAKEN AT BOTH EXTREMITY PLATES OF EACH COLUMN
COLUMN EXTREMITY PLATE S : DIME NSIONS POSITION OF THE PROFILE S ON THE E XTRE MITY PLATE S
Nr UP DOWN UP DOWN
L Bp L B
P P P a
P b
P P d
P e
p 'P a
p b
P C
P d
P e
p f
P
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
NM 1 1100 880 1102 881 419 609 610 422 198 202.5 417 602 603 419 195.4 199
NM 2 1098 880 1101 880 485 673 673 485 196 198.5 485 672 672 485 195.6 197.7
NM 3 1100 880 1099 880 492 680 682 499 222.5 229 497 682 681 495 227 226.8
NM 4 1102 880 1101 880 535 683 682 537 235 234.2 529 676 677.5 532 231.3 231.5
NM 5 1101 880 1099 880 474 664 666 476 159.4 161 477 664 663 473 158 157.7
NM 6 1102 879 1101 881 487 674 675 491 185.5 184.9 488.5 672 673 488 186 184.5
NM 7 1099 880 1101 880 187.1 374 373 186.5 198.2 198.9 464 648 648 462 199.4 199.2
NM 8 1100 879 1099 880 184.8 379 381 187.5 195.7 200.1 465.5 648 650 465 199.1 198.6
NM 9 1100 879 1099 880 343 487 487 345 228 226.8 423 568 568.5 428 227.8 228.5
NM 10 1100 879 1100 880 227.9 409 409 227.8 115.6 113.3 229.2 412 410 227.5 112.5 108.8
NM 11 1101 878 1100 882 225.1 412 411 227.3 156.9 161.8 230 414 414 230.6 158.5 160.3
NM 12 1101 880 1101 878 224.8 415 412 217.5 156.5 164.5 223.9 412.5 413 222.7 160.6 162.2
NM 13 1103 880 1103 881 266.5 416 416.5 268.5 189.8 191.6 269 418 418 271.8 188.1 188.1
NM 1: A:\NMIMPERF
NM1 -NM 9 NM 1 0 - N M 13
Buckling according to the weak axis Buckling according to the strong axis
bp-
dp
,l I

f.:
(Q
C
CD
00
ECCENTRICITIES OF THE COLUMNS
NUMBERS PROFILE BUCKLING MEASURED VALUES MEASURED Nominal
NAME AXIS OF THE PROFILE LOAD

ECCENTRICITIES ECCENTRICITIES
h b t w tf down up
mm mm mm mm [cm] [cm] [cm]
NM1 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 480.6 424.4 48.9 80.1 7.76 8.33 8
NM2 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 481.6 426.6 50.3 81.1 14.72 14.93 15
NM3 HD 400X400X422 WEAK 425.9 408.3 33.2 51.9 14.96 14.86 15
NM4 HD 310X310X454 WEAK 415.0 336.6 40.8 69.1 14.75 15.26 15
NM5 W14X16X730 WEAK 564.3 452.6 76.9 124.3 15.21 15.19 15
NM6 W14X16X550 WEAK 509.8 433.0 57.8 97.2 15.26 15.35 15
NM7 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 481.2 426.5 50.5 81.0 12.43 15.01 15
NM8 HD 400X400X678 WEAK 483.9 424.5 52.0 82.2 12.68 14.78 15
NM9 HD 310X310X500 WEAK 423.7 338.8 44.9 74.3 4.33 5

3.86
NM10 W14X16X550 STRONG 515.5 436.0 58.5 97.6 18.16 17.79 18
NM11 HD 400X400X678 STRONG 481.7 424.6 52.0 81.8 14.98 15.03 15
HD 400X400X678 STRONG 480.3 428.7 49.4 81.2 14.90 15

NM12 14.99
NM13 HD 310X310X500 STRONG 423.6 338.6 45.1 74.3 15.13 14.90 15
*NM1-NM9 *NM10-NM13 NM1:A:\NM,N.3.DRW

Remarks
Buckling according to the weak axis Buckling according to the strong axis
Formula for evaluation of the eccentricities Formula for evaluation of the eccentricities :
(Q
C b + t w + a P + bp+ Cp+ d p - 2 * L, Lp- -fp- h
e = e =
*
CD
Where a p , b p I c p I d p , e p , f p are defined in figure 31
LENGTH OF THE COLUMNS
NUMBERS PROFILE NAME DISTANCE BETWEEN MEASURED LENGTH

THE PLATES BETWEEN HINGED
SUPPORT
[m] [m]
NM1 HD 400X400X678 3.62 4.00

NM2 HD 400X400X678 3.62 4.00
NM3 HD 400X400X422 4.5 4.88
NM4 HD 310X310X454 4.96 5.34
NM5 W14X16X730 7.8 8.18
NM6 W14X16X550 8.33 8.71
NM7 HD 400X400X678 7.08 7.46
NM8 HD 400X400X678 8.10 8.48
NM9 HD 310X310X500 7.62 8.00
_ NM10 W14X16X550 7.62 8.00
NM11 HD 400X400X678 8.19 8.57
NM12 HD 400X400X678 7.62 8.00
NM13 HD 310X310X500 7.62 8.00
* Thickness of the extremity plates = 2 * ( 2 * 70 ) = 280 mm

* Distance from the extremity plates
to the center of the hinged support = 2*50 = 100 mm
= 380 mm
' BUCKLING
70
70
50
V-
///////////////////////////////////// NM1:A:\NMLENGTH
Figure 50
139 -
with uniform moment distribution
1
k
/ /
=

, 4g

I
rl 3 f
* * 1
I
,,e. scaie .
/

Figure 51
140
/ith bitriangular moment distribution
IVUN-e
M = N-e
scale 1: 20
Figure 52
141
buckling length
IV)
Bearing friction (1)
Friction test :
teflon sheet on both contact surfaces
For different values of the axial load :

- is applied and kept constant
- introduces a resistant moment due to friction Ms
- Ms is greater than the applied moment (F d)
- We increase F
- When F = F s,we obtain the slide moment necessary
to turn the roller.
The equilibrium is : Ms = F sd
Figure 54
- 143
Friction moment in function of axial load
Friction moment Ms [kNm]
10
Axial load [MN]
friction test for friction test for

r = 100 mm r = 200 mm
B ....A--
for NM 9 ; min. ecc. = 5 cm for NM 10; max. ecc. = 18 cm

applied Moment> Ms applied Moment>Ms
e
Figure 55
144
//friction coefficient

Ms * p Mapplied
I Pi

Ms = =
Mapplied = Fd ; Mapplied < Ms while F < Fs
If Mapplied = Ms,equilibrium is : Ms = Fsd =
=> =
Fs
[kN] [kN]
= 100 m m = 200 m m = 100 m m = 200 m m
100 2,8 5,5 0,280 0,275
500 4,3 8,5 0,086 0,085
1000 5,7 12,3 0,057 0,062
2500 7,7 21 0,031 0,042
5000 10 27 0,020 0,027
7500 14,3 30 0,019 0,020
10000 18,7 31,4 0,019 0,016
12500 23 32,1 0,018 0,013
15000 27,2 33 0,018 0,011
17000 31 36,4 0,018 0,010
19000 / 38 / 0,010
Figure 56
145
Buckling tests
Set up of strain gages for buckling according
to the weak axis
Uniform moment distribution :

L/2
2x10 = 20 strain gages
per column
IV2
JL L
100 mm
k \\ y-\ 100 mm
*
100 mm
>L r
X
.100 mm
v
Hprofile
x 100 mm
+ 200 mm
k >>
Hprofile Bi-triangular moment distribution :

+ 200 mm
2 x 2 x 1 0 = 40 strain gages
per column
Figure 57
146
Buckling tests
Set up of strain gages for buckling according
to the strong axis
Uniform moment distribution
2 15 = 30 strain gages
per column
Bi-triangular moment distribution :
2 x 2 x 1 5 = 60 strain gages
per column
Figure 58
147
Buckling tests
Measurements of lateral displacements :
for each column,6 transducers
W4W6
il 11
"i"
"i
"i"
"i"
"i"
ll
<i
L/4 "M
Mi
"
"
Mi
'ii
'iL.
"i"
Mi
'il
I'M
'M
"i"
Mi
L74 lil
I'M
"M
Ml
'M
" W2
'iL
Ml
'il
'il
lil
Ml
Ml
lil
ijl
L/4 Ml
Ml
lil
"M
Ml
"i
Ml
lii
<W3
Mi
Mi
lil
M'
Ml
Ml
Ml
L/4 M'
Mi
Ml
Mi
Ml
M'
Mi
II I'
_i_
Bckling according to the weak axis

Parasitical displacements Main displacements Figure 59
148
CHAPTER 5:
RESIDUAL STRESSES
length of the pieces = 200 mm
L = basis of measurements for the transducer
= 100 mm
m 3}
o m
m

S
>
O
H
m (I)
o
H
7J
O
2 m
ro
m
C/)
(Q
C
CD
o
following on
Figure 61
RESIDUAL STRESSES
. CUTTING OUT OF PIECES
. POINTS OF MEASUREMENTS W14x16x730
11 Vi I'M 5-1 2M ?( 81 *1 , .m
t t 1 1 t i
t
1 - a a . JS 3 3 3 SX > lit. -J5J litt
lil ft- ! O. i. J a 5J 3J. ^ > * ) J4I.
S H*S AS V Vi V M 5> Ili H* Sif av stif- (& B l i 5 f * f * .Mf
4 i fl 2 3J- * <(<- 5J - -iW is* S Sfl- jtf * .& y H if 3} y J* J-ifl.

^
5 S o a i^ 3 W *: 55 -SS H i 1 5 i 35 1 It WW S 9J | * 5 ****> Mt
io JO jo te o ô ico
>
1>
r = 15 mm
-* AA-.
3 3oV-.
.ioT 3c-.
3<
>
(D
m 3
in
o
3H 3II
00
a = 78 mm I 3>*
3U

3SO
Ato SO -*f A
*
. xf^ y v ô ao iv
t JO IS *> JM < b
156j n u a 3 ; -r ! iS 3-H6 J35 ^ ^ SrMJ 1 * B B S s s e
* J. 4* * - * & -fl 3tt- .ffiaS i A i i \ 1 * * * VC i n - Uf 1 ut

"
in
CM -m -Of J $-* -IS* *fl<) O- MS 4 ( aÔ1) vM V t ida* J KB U ! -

J U . JM. Ja (i. * o J5X /iSfie.
^
t t
-
t
-<*.!
J
-*S1
r ' Y
-44
*> V .
ff!

JJS.
Y
i
a i M.
iS-i
s- -m. > . i id a*, . U> U. Sii lil
J I L
6 28 mm 3 x 39,3 mm 6 x 28 mm
b = 454 mm
Figure 61
152
RESIDUAL STRESSES : measurements of the strains
calculations of the stresses
4 ^(LgLj^/lOO
V

t B* =(LrLV
Cutting out of the profiles into pieces

12,C = 12,F = +()/6
A
V A
(
fc'"
I
V
.
6 C < F T/3
1

> < G T/3
0
< H . T/3

E

B
Cutting out of the pieces into slides

For the CF slide, for example :
(L4 C +L 4 F L3 C L 3 F )
= 205000 + en
2*100 12,Cf N/mm 2
Figure 62
153
MECHANICAL IMPERFECTIONS (2)
RESIDUAL STRESSES MEASUREMENTS
NM1 COLUMN
MEAN VALUES OVER THE THICKNESS [N/mm2]
m >
_ ,y^
^\ J
vO *
co \
/ ~
~
LH >
t
= tension
( 0 = compression
Figure 63
154
MECHANICAL IMPERF ECTIONS (2)
NM2 = NM7 COLUMN
= tension
Q = compression
- 155 - Figure 64
NM3 COLUMN
_
0
= tension
0 = compression
156
Figure 65
NM4 COLUMN
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 66
- 157
NM5 COLUMN
= tension
Q = compression 158 Figure 67

NM8 = NM11 COLUMN
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 68
159
NM9 = NM13 COLUMN
^ ^

86
^n.
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 69
160
NM10 COLUMN
= tension
Q = compression
161 Figure 70
NM12 COLUMN
108
>

28
76
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 71
162
CHAPTER 6:
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE BUCKLING TESTS

CHARACTERISTICS FROM TENSILE TESTS
NUMBERS PROFILE MEASIJRED SAMPLES YIELD YIELD POINT TENSILE MAXIMAL

POINTS
NAME tw tf FOR SIMULATIONS STRESS STRAIN
02
O)
(A1+A2)/2 (1)
\ e
ult
[mm] [mm] [N/mm2] [N/mm ! ] [N/mm2] [%]
A1 366.0 560 26.2

NM1 HD 400X400X678 48.86 80.07 A2 360.0 363.0 560 25.9
A3 365.5 560 27.7
A1 317.5 524 32.6
NM2 HD 400X400X678 50.33 81.12 A2 316.2 317.0 523 30.6
A3 I 521 32.1
A1 371.5 532 30.0
NM3 HD 400X400X422 33.16 51.91 A2 364.5 368.1 529 30.1
A3 350.8 511 31.7
A1 354.9 547 28.6
NM4 HD 310X310X454 40.85 69.13 A2 351.7 353.3 549 28.7
A3 351.7 548 30.7
A1 345.7 543 26.7
NM5 W14X16X730 76.87 124.31 A2 352.3 349.0 550 28.4
A3 330.0 530 27.7
A1 I 543 29.4
NM6 W14X16X550 57.81 97.16 A2 I 374.0 543 29.4
A3 1 / /
A1 317.5 524 32.6
NM7 HD 400X400X678 50.50 81.00 A2 316.2 317.0 523 30.6
A3 / 521 32.1
A1 373.9 551 29.9
NM8 HD 400X400X678 52.04 82.18 A2 375.5 374.7 558 28.7
A3 370.2 561 28.6
A1 '374.0 552 27.7
NM9 HD 310X310X500 44.91 74.33 A2 360.0 367.0 545 28.3
A3 355.4 537 29.1
A1 364.6 549 26.5
NM10 W14X16X550 58.55 97.63 A2 360.0 . 362.3 546 25.6
A3 346.2 533 27.9
A1 373.9 551 29.9
NM11 HD 400X400X678 52.00 81.79 A2 375.5 374.7 558 28.7
A3 370.2 561 28.6
A1 302.3 504 /
NM12 HD 400X400X678 49.37 81.20 A2 308.5 305.4 513 31.6
A3 309.3 508 31.0
A1 374.0 552 27.7
NM13 HD 310X310X500 45.13 74.27 A2 360.0 367.0 545 28.3
A3 355.4 537 29.1
NM1:A:\NMMECHAN
A2 -
ult [%]
165
Figure 72
YIELD SCATTER OVER THE PROFILE
NM12 COLUMN
ay mean = 301,4 N/mm2

Yield points = oy,0,2%
Figure 73
166
0.3 cry ( if h/b > 1.2)
0 . 5 ( j y ( i f h / b < 1.2)
Residual stresses
(where ay = 23,5 kN/cm2)
Qcompression
0 traction
NU1A\RESOUAL Figure 74
167 -
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM1 COLUMN
: measurements (mean values over the thickness)
ECCS residual stresses distributions :
: correction factor = 1,0 (ECCS recommendations)
: correction factor = 0,82 (for simulations)
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 75
168
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM2 = NM7 COLUMN
measurements (mean values over the thickness)
ECCS residual stresses distributions
= tension
0 = compression
Figure 76
169
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM3 COLUMN
= tension
= compression
Figure
170
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM4 COLUMN
: correction factor 0 1,0 (ECCS recommendations)
= tension
0 = compression
Figure 78
171
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM5 COLUMN
: correction factor 1,86 (for simulations)
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 79
172
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM8 = NM11 COLUMN
: correction factor 1,0 (ECCS recommendations)
: correction factor D = 0,83 (for simulations)
= tension
Q = compression
Figure 80
173
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM9 = NM13 COLUMN
: correction factor - 0,80 (for simulations)
@ = tension
Q = compression
Figure 81
- 174
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM10 COLUMN
: correction factor 0 = 0,77 (for simulations)
= tension
= compression
Figure 82
175
RESIDUAL STRESSES
NM12 COLUMN
= tension
0 = compression
Figure 83
176
=.

11
10
Q
()

10
8
7 ()
6
5
4
3
2
1 i 1
=.
Discretization uniform moment bitrianguiar moment

Figure 84
177
OtO
(>
STEEL TRILINEAR LAW
E = 210000 N/mm2
Et = 21.0 N/mm2
cry = 355 N/mm2
<rt = 510 N/mm2
Figure 85
- 178
Nominal values of yield strength
[N/mm2]1
355 FeE 355

335
295
275 FeE 275

255
225
EC3- EN 10025
Material thickness [mm]

40 100
NM5:A:\NMNOMIN
Figure 86
179
(N-M) INTERACTION :
COMPARISON BETWEEN FINELG SIMULATIONS (HYPOTHESIS 1) AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS
PROFILE MEAS. MEASURED BUCKLING BUCKLING MOMENT MEASURED COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE
NUMBERS
LOAD LOAD LOAD
NAME t YIELD AXIS LENGTH DISTRIBUTION MEAS./FINELG
ECCEN. FINELG MEASURES (2)/(D
FLANGE POINT down up
(1) (2)
[mm] [N/mm2] [m] [cm] [cm] [kN] [kN] [%]
NM1 HD 400X400X678 80.1 372 WEAK 4.00 UNIFORM 7.757 8.332 16596 16888 + 1.7
NM2 HD 400X400X678 81.1 331 WEAK 4.00 UNIFORM 14.725 14.925 11496 11005 -4.3
NM3 HD 400X400X422 51.9 389 WEAK 4.88 UNIFORM 14.962 14.862 7040 6998 -0.6
NM4 HD 310X310X454 69.1 345 WEAK 5.34 UNIFORM 14.750 15.262 5406 5598 +3.5
NM5 W14X16X730 124.3 349.5 WEAK 8.18 UNIFORM 15.210 15.190 14280 13398 -6.2
00 NM6 W14X16X550 97.2 374 WEAK 8.71 UNIFORM 15.257 15.345 9738 9818 +0.8
o
NM7 HD 400X400X678 81.0 331 WEAK 7.46 BITRIANGULAR 12.430 15.010 13426 13473 +0.3
NM8 HD 400X400X678 82.2 384 WEAK 8.48 BrTRIANGULAR 12.680 14.780 14725 15138 +2.8
NM9 HD 310X310X500 74.3 354.5 WEAK 8.00 BrTRIANGULAR 4.330 3.860 11925 11815 -0.9
NM10 W14X16X550 97.6 381 STRONG 8.00 UNIFORM 18.162 17.787 18373 17318 -5.7
NM11 HD 400X400X678 81.8 384 STRONG 8.57 UNIFORM 14.976 15.031 15989 15678 -1.9
NM12 HD 400X400X678 81.2 310.5 STRONG 8.00 BrTRIANGULAR 14.897 14.987 15755 16618 +5.5
NM13 HD 310X310X500 74.3 354.5 STRONG 8.00 BITRIANGULAR 15.126 14.901 12404 14130 + 13.9
Remark : (1) - the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of the geometrically and
and materially non linear columns .
For the hypothesis 1 : - measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section, initial
(Q
C deformation, eccentricity) are taken into account

CD - the measured mechanical characteristics () are considered
00 - ECCS residual stresses have been introduced
(NM) INTERACTION :
COMPARISON BETWEEN FINELG SIMULATIONS (HYPOTHESIS 2) AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS
PROFILE MEAS. MEASURED BUCKLING BUCKLING MOMENT MEASURED COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE
NUMBERS
YIELD LOAD LOAD LOAD
NAME t AXIS LENGTH DISTRIBUTION MEAS./FINELG
FLANGE POINT ECCEN.
FINELG MEASURES (2)/(1)
0) down up
(1) (2)
[mm] [N/mm2] [m] [cm] [cm] [kN] [kN] [%]
NM1 HD 400X400X678 80.1 363.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIFORM 7.757 8.332 16272 16888 +3.8
NM2 HD 400X400X678 81.1 317.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIFORM 14.725 14.925 11086 11005 0.7
NM5 W14X16X730 124.3 349.0 WEAK 8.18 UNIFORM 15.210 15.190 14265 13398 6.1
NM6 W14X16X550 97.2 374.0 WEAK 8.71 UNIFORM 15.257 15.345 9738 9818 +0.8
HD 400X400X678 81.0 317.0 WEAK 7.46 BTRIANGULAR 12.430 15.010 12964 13473 +3.9
NM7
HD 400X400X678 82.2 374.7 WEAK 8.48 BITRIANGULAR 12.680 14.780 14477 15138 +4.6
NM8
HD 310X310X500 74.3 367.0 WEAK 8.00 BTRIANGULAR 4.330 3.860 12238 11815 3.5
NM9
W14X16X550 97.6 362.3 STRONG 8.00 UNIFORM 18.162 17.787 17556 17318 1.4
NM10
HD 400X400X678 81.8 374.7 STRONG 8.57 UNIFORM 14.976 15.031 15504 15678 + 1.1
NM11
HD 400X400X678 81.2 305.4 STRONG 8.00 BITRIANGULAR 14.897 14.987 15497 16618 +7.2
NM12
HD 310X310X500 74.3 367.0 STRONG 8.00 BITRIANGULAR 15.126 14.901 12824 14130 + 10.2
NM13
Remark : (1) the numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of the geometrically and
and materially non linear columns.
For the hypothesis 2 : measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section, initial
(Q deformation, eccentricity) are taken into account
C
i more precise measured mechanical characteristics (cr) are considered (3)
> ECCS residual stresses have been introduced
oo
oo
(N-M) INTE RACTION :
COMPARISON BE TWE E N FINE LG SIMULATIONS (HYPOTHE SIS 3) AND ME ASURE D COLLAPSE LOADS
NUMBERS PROFILE MEAS. MEASURED BUCKLING BUCKLING MOMENT MEASURED CORRECTION COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE
t YIELD LOAD FACTOR LOAD LOAD
NAME AXIS LENGTH DISTRIBUTION MEAS./FINELG
FLANGE POINT ECCEN. FINELG MEASURES (2)/(1)
(3) down up (4) (1) (2)
|mml [N/mm2] Im] [cm] lem] IkNI IkNI [%]
NM1 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 80.1 363.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIFORM 7.757 8.332 0.82 16380 16888 +3
NM2 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 81.1 317.0 WEAK 4.00 UNIFORM 14.725 14.925 1.00 11086 11005 -0.7
NM3 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 4 2 2 51.9 368.1 WEAK 4.88 UNIFORM 14.962 14.862 0.77 6793 6998 +3
NM4 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 4 5 4 69.1 353.3 WEAK 5.34 UNIFORM 14.750 15.262 1.00 5496 5598 + 2
NM5 W14X16X730 124.3 349.0 WEAK 8.18 UNIFORM 15.210 15.190 1.86 13740 13398 -2.5
NM6 W14X16X550 97.2 374.0 WEAK 8.71 UNIFORM 15.257 15.345 1.00 9902 9818 -0.8
CO
NM7 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 81.0 317.0 WEAK 7.46 BITRIANGULAR 12.430 15.010 1.00 13048 13473 +3
NM8 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 82.2 374.7 WEAK 8.48 BITRIANGULAR 12.680 14.780 0.83 14415 15138 + 5
NM9 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 74.3 367.0 WEAK 8.00 BITRIANGULAR 4.330 3.860 0.80 11913 11815 -0.8
NM10 W 14X16X550 97.6 362.3 STRONG 8.00 UNIFORM 18.162 17.787 0.77 17556 17318 -1.4
NM11 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 81.8 374.7 STRONG 8.57 UNIFORM 14.976 15.031 0.83 15520 15678 +1
NM12 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 81.2 305.4 STRONG 8.00 BITRIANGULAR 14.897 14.987 0.85 15549 16618 +7
NM13 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 74.3 367.0 STRONG 8.00 BITRIANGULAR 15.126 14.901 0.80 12852 14130 + 10
Remark : (1) - the numerical simulations with FINE LG have been carried out withassumptions of the geometrically
CQ
and materially non linear columns .
C For the hypothesis 3 : - measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section, initial

Q deformation, eccentricity) are taken into account
CO
CD
- more precise measured mechanical characteristics ( )vare considered (3)
- measured residual stresses have been introduced proportionally to the
correction factor according to the E CCS distribution (4) NM1:A:\NMTABL3
(NM) INTERACTION :
COMPARISON B ETWEEN FIN ELG SIMULATIONS AND MEASURED COLLAPSE LOADS
MEAS. MEAS. BUCKL. MOM. CORREC. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE
NUMBERS PROFILE
LOAD LOAD LOAD
YIELD YIELD FACTOR LOAD MEAS./FINELG MEAS./FINELG MEAS./FINELG
NAME AXIS DISTR. FINELG FINELG FINELG
POINT POINT (Hyp. 1) (Hyp. 2) (Hyp. 3) MEASURES (Hyp. 1) (Hyp. 2) (Hyp. 3)
(6) (7) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (4)/(1) (4)/(2) (4)/(3)
|N/mm2| |N/mm2| IkNI IkNI IkNI IkNI l%l 1%I 1%I
UNIF. 16596 16272 16380 16888 + 1.7 + 3.8 +3

NM1 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 372.0 363.0 WEAK 0.82
UNIF. 11496 11086 11086 11005 4.3 0.7 0.7

NM2 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 331.0 317.0 WEAK 1.00
WEAK UNIF. 7040 6728 6793 6998 0.6 + 4.0 +3

NM3 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 4 2 2 389.0 368.1 0.77
WEAK UNIF. 5406 5496 5496 5598 + 3.5 + 1.9 + 2

NM4 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 4 5 4 345.0 353.3 1.00
NM5 W14X16X730 349.5 349.0 WEAK UNIF. 1.86 14280 14265 13740 13398
(S>
+ 0.8
O + 0.8
C9
0.8
374.0 WEAK UNIF. 9738 9738 9902 9818
NM6 W14X16X550 374.0 1.00
00 13426 12964 13048 13473 + 0.3 + 3.9 +3

NM7 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 331.0 317.0 WEAK BITR. 1.00
WEAK BITR. 14725 14477 14415 15138 + 2.8 + 4.6 + 5

NM8 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 384.0 374.7 0.83
11925 12238 11913 11815 0.9 3.5 0.8

NM9 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 354.5 367.0 WEAK BITR. 0.80
UNIF. 18373 17556 17556 17318 5.7 1.4 1.4

NM10 W14X16X550 381.0 362.3 STRUNG 0.77
15989 15504 15520 15678 1.94 + 1.1 +1

NM11 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 384.0 374.7 STRONG UNIF. 0.83
STRONG BITR. 15755 15497 15549 16618 + 5.5 + 7.2 +7

NM12 HD 4 0 0 X 4 0 0 X 6 7 8 310.5 305.4 0.85
NM13 HD 3 1 0 X 3 1 0 X 5 0 0 354.5 367.0 STRONG BITR. 0.80 12404 12824 12852 14130 (+13.9) (+10.2) <W>
Remarks : The numerical simulations with FINELG have been carried out with assumptions of the geometrically and materially
non linear columns.
For the 3 hypothesis, measured initial geometrical imperfections (geometry of the section, initial deformation, eccentricity)
are taken into account.
(Q The initial measured mechanical characteristics (cr ) (6) are considered for the hypothesis 1. More precise measured
CD mechanical characteristics ( ) (7) are used for hypothesis 2 and 3.
CO ECCS residual stresses have been introduced for the hypothesis 1 and 2.
O
For the hypothesis 3, measured residual stresses have been used proportionally to the correction factor (5) according
NM 1: A:\NMTABL6
to the ECCS distribution.
PART II
ANNEXES
ANNEX A (Al TO A53):
DESIGN OF THE SPECIMENS

NM 1
4112kg
3 4 cb 600x450x70 St "52 J "594
2 2 1100x880x70 St 52 1064
1 1 HD 400x400x678 1= 3620 St 52 2454 kq
eo. Nbre. Designation Dimensions Mat O b s e r v a l ions
n h t EUROPEAN RESEARCH N 7 2 1 0 S A 510 Echelle1:1 16

Division
'e KIMIN ! LRACTIKI DIAGRAMS FUR HICK Dessine.NOESENA. D a t e 28.12 89
Fi t L I i t K l r l t b FLANGE COLUMNS SUB MITTED TO B UCKLING
Modificat ions
Service Plpmpnt Indice Nom Date

NM 1 a 4/ ! 3.5
b
c
s d o c u m e n t r e s t e n o t r e p r o p r i t et ne peut t r e r e p r o d u i t ni c o m d
e
u n i q u des t i e r s d'une m a n i r e q u e l c o n q u e sans n o t r e a u t o r i s a t i o n Numero du plan
90001
s^ k Recherches
sID Service
RPS
A1
189
! il I
li l! NM1
Wlll"l|i| ny ' ui '''' 'HUM'
.V25
! I
t> 20 b. 20
'~'

LU20 t, 20
V25
,liliiiii,i;'i. ' "'; "lili K Jkl |

i i i '
_80!

A2
190
NM1
880
LO
W 7x110 55
LO

5 f 4 _4
_+._ 4 _.4_._ +
f = 70

CD
-i-

I
4 f 4
LO
t f f h

SCHNITT DD M 1=5
A3
191
NM1
SCHNITT AA M M
82
o //
CS)
I . \ i r
12_ 1 7 ~
SCHNITT B B M VI
SCHNITT CC M 1:1
A4
192

L 20 t^ 20
CD
LO
CO
V25
\
A IMilill lilllllllilj ninnali liliiiiYhihlN
! I i!
o \

80
>
Ol
NM 2
,150
TT
150
3848 kg
3 4 >i 500x300x70 330
2 2 1100x880x70 1064
1 1 HD 400x400x678 1= 3620 mm St 52 2454 kq
Rep. Nbre. Dsignation Dimensions Mat. Observations
Division O b j f . f EUROPEAN RESEARCH N 7210 SA 510 Echel e : 1:1 1:5

NMINTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR THICK
c Dessin :N0ESEN A. Date:2.190
o FLANGE COLUMNS SUB MITTED TO B UCKLING
to Modifications
c
Service Elment NM 2 Indice Nom Date
m
a
Q
b
Ce document r e s t e n o t r e p r o p r i t et ne peut t r e reproduit ni com d

e
muniqu des tiers d'une manire quelconque sans notre autorisation
Numro du plan
90002
sID
1k. Recherches
Service
RPS
A6
194
NM 2
SCHNITT DD M 1 = 5
A7
195
NM 2
SCHNITT AA
82
SCHNITT BB
50,5-
SCHNITT CC M TI
A8
196 -
NM 2
A9
197
300
200 100
V37/450
oo
tri

co
00 o
o
o
LD
V 25 V42
\ _Z
"7,
44 nmiim li billin Hi' Un umin.nliliK ll|lilliiHiitV
o
r-~- !
>
o
IO
NM 3
150
150
3151kg
3 2 =t3 380x450x70 St 52 185
2 2 c*3 1100 580 73 St 52 1064
1 1 HD 400x400x422 1 = 4500mm St 52 1899 kg
Rep. Nbre. Dsignation Dimensions Mat Observations
n . . , EUROPEAN RESEARCH N 7 2 1 0 / S A 510 Echel e 1:1 1=5

Division
c D e s s i n e NOESEN . Date 3.1.09

o
to Modificat ions
c
(
Service Elment NM 3 Indice Nom Date
Ol
a
b
Ce d o c u m e n t r e s t e n o t r e p r o p r i t e t ne p e u t t r e r e n r o r i u i t ni c o m d
e
m u n i q u e a d e s t i e r s d u n e m a n i r e q u e l c o n q u e s a n s n o t r e a u t o r i s a t ion N u m e r o du p l a n
90003
SiD
m^ m. Recherches
Service
RP.S.
A11
199
NM 3
I
4...

^^W^^

^20/290

o
-4
o I
LA
I
i _.|
I
4 " \ f
LO
LO i
SCHNITT DD M 1 = 5
A12
200
NM 3
- 201 A13
NM 3
SCHNiT AA M V \
SCHNffT B B MM
SCHNITT CC
202
AU
D D
380
O

17 LT
J & 17/425
V26/30
V25 . V25
V:
flihifrill 11 III n mun n i JjjjLf l i l olii ^Z
o
LU
>
ai
NM 4
150
O
o
LO
150
3563 kg
3 2 50045070 St 52 247
2 2 qfa 1100x080x70 St 52 1064
1 1 HD 310x310x454 I = 4960 mm St 52 2252 kq
Rep. N b r e . Desi g n a t i o n Dimensions Mat Observations
Division . , EUROPEAN RESEARCH ' 7 2 1 0 S A 510 Echelle 11 15
D e s s i n e NOESEN A. Date ..1.90

5
a M o d i f i c a t ions
c
m Service Elment NM 4 Indice Nom Date
ai
Q a
b
Ce d o c u m e n t r e s t e n o t r e p r o p r i t e t ne p e u t t r e r e p r o d u i t ni c o m d
e
m u n i q u e des t i e r s d'une m a n i r e q u e l c o n q u e sans
N u m e r o du p l a n
90004
=D
s^ k Recherches
Service
RPS
A16
204
NM 4
890
55 55
7110
IP 37 ! I !
in
H I !~ +
|__ _._i
_..(.

-i-
O
LA
LO
H
X
C7\ 6
t> 20/425
h O
LO
H
C3
Lrt
LO
I
+
4

i
4 -f y "

SCHNITT DD M15
A17
205
3)
k 20/425
o
IV) LO
o 4
Oi
V25 i V26/500
=a I ,
i i i i i l i l H l l l l V l l l H l l l l l l l l l l l l l l U l l l ifcv S
o

50 ^
>
00
NM 4
SCHNITT AA M TI
207 - 19
J50 NM 5
HF
9832 kg
3 4 450x300x70 St 52 297
2 2 1100x880x70 St 52 1064
1 1 W 14x16x730 l = 760 mm St 52 8471
Rep. Nbre. Dsignation Dimensions Mal Observat ions
Division . EUROPEAN RESEARCH 7210 SA 510 Echelle : 1=1 B1:

Objet'
c Dessine :N0ESEN A. D a t e . ^ 1 . 90
o
ra M o d i f i c a t ions
c
(A
Service Elmonl NM > Indice Nom Dat e
>
O a
b
Ce document reste n o t r e p r o p r i t et ne peut t r e reproduit ni com d

e
muniqu des tiers d une manire quelconque sans notre autorisation
Numero du plan
90 005
=ID
3^ ^ Recherches
Service
RPS
A20
208
NM 5
SCHNITT DD MV5
A21
209
NM 5
70
20 30 20
SChMITTAA M 1=1
210 - A22
300
200
o
o
IO o
k 15/400 LT>
t
(D o
LO
m
V 26
llllillll/lllhlliyililllillilK \lilllllllllli|llllUI Thr
' 11 HI IX
(D
>
CO
Ol
150
NM 6
o
co
50
5179 Kg
3 2 600x450x70 St 52 297
2 2 1100x580x70 St 52 1064
1 1 W 1416*550 1= 8330 St 52 6818 kg
Division , . . . EUROPEAN RESEARCH N 7210 / SA 510 E c h e l l e ;1 '^ 1:5
c Dessine :N0ESEN A. D a t e : 5.1.90

o
ra Modifications
c Fi*.ni. W! Indice Nom
Service Date
m
> a
a :
b
Ce d o c u m e n t r e s t e n o t r e p r o p r i t e t ne p e u t t r e r e p r o d u i t ni c o m d
e
m u n i q u des t i e r s d'une m a n i r e q u e l c o n q u e sans
Numro du plan
90 006
=n?
AS^ ak Recherches
Service
RPS
A24
212
NM 6
55 7*110
880
Ht

LO 37
_.|
+

C7N
O
O
O
LO
t
LO
+ + H H f + f~
SCHNITT DD M 1 = 5
A25
213
NM 6
* SCHNITT AA M 1:1
214 - A26

b. 26/425
)
Ol
V 25
V 26/600
V s.
St"
>
to
>
NM 7
6161kg"
. 3 4 450x300x73 St 52 297
2 2 =t 1100x080 70 S>.52 104.
.1, 1. HD 400x400x675 i^TDBO 5 t 52 40O
EUROPEAN RESEARCH N ' 7 2 1 0 S A 510 EchelleVI 15
Division 1
NHIKI! EXACTION DIAGRAMS FR THICK
Desrs'in:NOESENA. D a t e S .190
c RECHERCHES FLANGE COLUMNS SUB MITTED TO B UCKLING
o
Modifications
c
M Service Elment: Indice Nom Date
O NM y
Q a A/ 4ti.lt,
b
e document reste notre p r o p r i t et ne peut t r e reDroduit ni com d

e
uniqu des tiers d une manire quelconque sans notre autorisation Numro du plan
90007
F^
= r a Service
k Recherches RPS
A28
216
150
NM 7
300 <
200 .100
V22IUX)
V25 d _ V 2 6 _
50
150
29
217
NM 7
Q80
55 i55_
7x110
in ,37 .
LT
& "f f + i
+

o
10
o
LO
C
u
I
1/1
I 4 _..
i
in i
SCHNiTDD M 1 = 5
A30
218
300
200 100
o
o
V 22 im
I\3
o
LH
CO
V25 V26 V2
/lllllilllllllliilllllllllll ii uniu ini EH
mumm] num
R ^4
150
>

NM 7
70
20 30 20
SCHNITT A A M 1=1
3>ET/)ILB
- 220 A32
NM 8
6853 kg
3 4 ch 450x300x70 St 52 297
2 2 cfc3lXX)x<580x70 St 52 1064
1 1 HD 400x400x675 . l = 5100 St 52 5492
Rep. Nbre. Designation Dimensions Mat Ubservat ions
EUROPEAN RESEARCH ' 7 2 1 0 S A 510 1:
Echelle : "' 1:
5
Division Ohjpt
c Dessin :N0ESN A. D a t e . 5.1.90

o
ra Modifications
c Indice Nom Date
(
Service Flempnt NM 8
o
O a
b
A/ ? 5.S>
c
Ce document reste notre proprit et ne peut t r e reproduit ni com d
e
munique a des tiers d une maniere quelconque sans notre autorisation
Numero du plan
908
=ID
5^ L Recherches
Service
RPS
221 A33
150
NM 8
300
200
vjSipo
V25 V26
~AV
5 0 (Ti
150 r
222 A34
NM 8
880
55 155
7x110
in
in 37

70^ . 3 U 7 0 -i
^26 V 26
y y,
- -s
<D
CD
LO
A__ ... .. .
LO
CD
CD
/ m
s
>
V25 V25
A
t',
\
1 *s
\
X
2~ ^ 20/290
. M
<D CD
in
J
: ; , > \ \ \\HD400400 678.

\
vvN\\\S\V\\\\Vov
120/290/ V\V s N\
\s \ \\
. . \\
> \
8 .W
X < \ ^
CD
LD
^" . in
>
V
J -
U8U
SCHNITT DD M 1 = 5
A35
223
NM 8
70
SCHNITT A A M 1=1
fL4LB
- 224 A36
300
200 100 <
t
o
o
V 22 7400
IO
IO
Ol
V25 \ V26
/ U l i i i lilillilliJlinliiilllllllllX
+50
> l
GO
150
00
150 NM 9
o
S
F
50
5424 kg
3 4 500x500x70 St 52 550
2 2 c3 00?070 St 52 1064
1 1 HD 310x310x500 1=^20 St 52 3810 kq
Division . , EROPEAN RESEARCH N*7210SA 510 Echell e : 1=1 1:5
c Dessin :N0ESEN A Date:10.1.90

o
Modifications
c
Service FI NM 9 Indice Nom Date
M
Q a A/ 4. i.So
b
c
d
e
munjqu des tiers d'une manire quelconque sans Numro du plan
90009
R
=ID Service
Ik Recherches RPS
A38
226
NM 9
880
55 55
7 110
LO!
LO
37
'
1

..\
LD
X
V25 V25
LO
LO
A39
227
NM 9
70
SCHNITT A A M 1=1
228 A40
_fc_24/475

o
o
LTl
fc>24/475
IO
(O
V25
V35/500 V35/500
* 25
50
>
CO
180
NM 10

180
7631 H3
3 4 300x500x70 52 330
2 2 1100x580x70 52 1064
1 1 W 14x16x550 1=7620 St 52 6237 kg
Rep. Nbre. Designation Dimensions Mat 0 bservat ions
e
Division n h | P t . EUROPEAN RESEARCH N 7 2 1 0 S A 510 Echelle : 1:1 1=5
c Dessin :N0ESEN Date.B..1.90

o
Modifications
ra
c NM 10 Indice Nom Date
W
Service
41
O a M 4(.3.9
b
c
d
Ce document r e s t e notre proprit et ne peut t r e r e o r o d u i l ni com
e
muniqu des tiers d'une manire quelconque sans notre autorisation Numero du plan
90 010
=13
S^ Recherches
Service
R.RS.
230
A42
NM 10
880
55 55
in
f 7x110
LD
4- 15 70
4-

4
70 _15
_. + ._

267 << ++
W2

"i
I
t

CO
"t"
^
LD 'T" 4 1~
I
in
43
231
NM 10
70
232
A44

>
<)

\ 1 >

V 32/450
c5
I c
Li
M O
co d
:
V 25 90 V25 s4 V42
>
/
IJ' \ \ \ \ ,
| U4
1
4

> 2
2
NM 11
J 150
CD
rr\
rn
co
IJ
J 150
6 94'' kg
3 4 => 500x300x70 St 52 330
2 2 11008070 St 52 10 64
1 1 HD 400x400x678 1 = 8190 St 52 5553 kg
Rep. Nbre. Dsignation Dimensions Mat Observat ions
Division h it EUROPEAN RESEARCH 7210 SA 510 Echelle : ' :2 TSO
c Dessine : OESENA. Date.11.1.90

o
re M o d i f i c a t ions
c
t Service Flftm.nt NM 11 Indice Nom Date
a
a a
b
Ce document r e s t e notre proprit et ne peut t r e reproduit ni com d

e
muniqu des tiers d'une manire quelconque sans notre autorisation
umro du plan
90011
=ID
5^ * Recherches
Service
RPS
234 A46
NM 11
R !
fc20/290 ^20/290
i !
! i
V25
IX.
-4
235 A47
NM 12
150
o
VD
_i **
150
6560 kg
J
3 4 500 '300 ' 7 0 S T " 52 33
2 2 1100* 880'70 ST 52 64
1 1 HD 4 0 0 x 4 0 0 x 6 7 8 1 = 7620 mm ST 52 5166
Rep. jNbre. Dsignation Dimensions Mat Observations
Division 0 h . , EUROPEAN RESEARCH ' 7 2 1 0 S A 510 Echel e '

) e
MINItPACTiON DIAGRAMS FR THICK
c Destin:* Date
o FLANGE COLUMNS SUB MITTED TO B UCKLING
IB Modifications
C
m Service Elment Indice Nom Date

NM 12 a A/ 3.So
b
s document reste notre proprit et ne peut t r e reproduit ni com d

e
uniqu des tiers d'une manire quelconque sans notre autorisation
Numro du plan
90 012
E k Recherches
=o Service
RPS
A48
236
NM 12
,

> / . / / / / / ] < . ' ' / J _
,' ' . /y .
/-'
/>
HD 400x400x678^/
/.
^ / LAGERACHS
49
237
150 NM 13
D"
il
150
5149 kg
3 4 500x250x70 St 52 275
2 2 =*= 1100x890x70 St 52 1064
1 1 HD 310x310x500 l = 7620 St 52 3810 kq
Division n h i , . EUROPEAN RESEARCH "7210SA 510 Echelle : M 1=5

c Dessine : NOESEN A. D a t e 11.190
o
IO M o d i f i c a t ions
c
ID Service FI.Mn.nl N M 13 Indice Nom Date
f
O a A/ 4i. J. s.
b
Ce d o c u m e n t reste notre proprit et ne peut t r e reproduit ni com d

e
muniqu des tiers d'une manire quelconque sans notre autor isat ion
Numro du plan
90013
/
s^ k Recherches
sID Service
RPS
A50
- 238
NM 13
880
55 55
7 110
J-l
f h f 4

I
+
i
4
r 70^

t V 40/200 V 40/ 2 00
o
LO
in
o
in _.+._
V 20/450 V20/45d)
f J,
V25 ^

X
i 4 o

m

CM *
tn
o
m
in
_.|__
340
4 h 4 1 )
un
>n
SCHNITT DD M 15
A51
239
NM 13
70
J \
SCHNITT AA M M
A52
240
2 50
150 400
o
o
V 20/450
(D
o
o
ro
*
D D LTI
o
3
V25 V 2E
N20/25 ) S V40/200
it =V 1
50
O

1150 f
>

ANNEX B (Bl TO B16):
GEOMETRICAL MEASUREMENTS BEFORE THE TESTS

Geometrical characteristics of the sections (1)
1 L, 2 L, 3 L, 4 L,
5 cm 5 cm
5 measured sections along each column.
o- o-
3 mm
<S>
! I Height of section :
external
<
3 measures
|c2 d per measured section
internal (c)
2 measures

per measured section
h3 h2 hi
-^ 1
r
Width of section :
2 measures
j \.
B1
- 245 -
1
*
w
/ *
2 L, 3 L, 4 L,
/4
5 cm 5 cm1-1
Web thickness :
1 r + 5 mm
- * ! 3 measures
-2 per measured section
(from the results of the figure 3
r + 5 mm (web measures) calculation with
the mean value of the flange
widths (figure 1)
-i>-
t 1 ->-
-^ Flange thickness :
4 measures
1
B2
246
1 L, 3 L, 4 L/
2 L
5 cm 5 cm
^ r + 5 mm Web eccentricity
and web deformation :
down <>
6 measures
r + 5 mm
3 mm
m
I I
4 >|
Parallelism of the flanges :
[c2 d 2 measures (c1,c2)
J L
1
h3 h2 hi
B3
247
Column Nr. NM 1
Profile HD 400x400x678
Nominal Measured sections

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 80,3 80,4 80,6 80,6 80,4

Flange thickness 2 79,9 79,8 79,8 79,7 79,8
82 [mm] 3 80,4 80,5 80,4 80,7 80,6
4 79,3 79,5 79,6 79,6 79,4
427 Flange width 1 424,6 424,5 424,4 424,6 424,1

2 424,3 424,7 424,3 424,0 424,8
[mm]
Web 1 189,1 189,2 189,8 187,4 189,2
eccentricity up 2
3
189,0
189,3
189,1
189,8
189,5
190,0
187,2
187,9
189,3
190,0
188,25 and web
1 186,8 186,1 187,2 188,3 186,5
deformation down 2 186,0 185,9 186,7 187,5 186,4
[mm] 3 184,9 185,4 186,3 187,6 185,7
1 48,5 49,3 47,3 48,6 48,7

Web thickness
50,5 2 49,4 49,6 48,1 49,6 48,7
[mm] 3 50,2 49,4 48,0 48,8 48,7
External height h 1 483,0 483,2 483,6 484,3 483,2

484 h 2 480,2 480,2 480,4 480,5 480,2
[mm] h 3 478,2 478,3 478,2 478,0 478,2
320 Internal height C 1 322,2 322,0 322,2 321,9 322,3

[mm] C 2 320,2 319,6 319,4 319,5 320,0
B4
248 -
Column Nr. NM 2

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 80,6 80,9 80,9 80,9 80,6

82 [mm] 3 81,8 81,7 81,6 81,3 81,7
4 80,3 80,3 80,1 80,3 79,9
427 Flange width 1 426,8 426,9 426,9 427,5 427,5

2 426,1 426,2 426,0 426,3 426,3
[mm]
Web 1 189,0 190,3 191,3 191,0 190,8
eccentricity up 2 189,4 189,7 190,4 190,2 190,0
3 189,4 189,7 190,4 189,9 190,0
188,25 and web 1 187,3 186,2 185,0 186,0 186,3
[mm] 3 187,3 186,3 185,1 186,1 186,1
1 50,1 50,0 50,1 49,9 49,8

Web thickness 2 50,7
50,5 49,7 50,6 50,7 50,6
[mm] 3 49,7 50,5 50,9 50,9 50,8
External height h 1 483,1 483,5 483,5 483., 6 433,7

484 h 2 481,8 481,5 481,7 481,7 481,7
[mm] h 3 479,7 479,8 479,9 479,7 479,8
Internal height C 1 321,2 321,2 321,0 321,4 321,2

320 C 2 318,4 318,4 31-8,4 318,3 318,3
[mm]
B5
249 -
Column Nr. NM 3

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 52,4 52,4 52,3 52,3 52,0

52,5 [mm] 3 52,7 52,3 52,1 52,5 52,8
4 51,3 50,8 50,8 51,1 51,2
Flange width 1 408,3 408,2 408,8 408,8 408,7

409 2 408,3 407,7 407,8 407,8 408,1
[mm]
Web 1 187,3 188,9 187,9 186,8 184,9
eccentricity up 2 186,8 184,4 187,0 185,6 184,2
3 187,0 188,5 186,9 185,4 184,1
188 and web
1 188,7 186,6 187,9 188,9 191,2
[mm] 3 188,6 186,4 188,3 189,6 191,2
1 32,3 32,4 32,5 32,6 32,3

Web thickness
33 2 33,0 37,1 33,4 33,5 33,1
[mm] 3 32,7 33,0 33,1 33,3 33,1

425 h 2 425,6 425,0 424,9 425,3 425,3
[mm] h 3 424,5 423,9 423,5 423,8 424,4

320 C 2 322,4 321,9 321,6 321,3 322,1
[mm]
B6
250
Column Nr. NM 4
Profile HD 310X310X454

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 69,9 69,4 69,7 68,7 69,2

69 [mm] 3 68,2 68,3 68,3 68,5 68,3
4 69,4 69,8 69,6 69,9 69,9
Flange width 1 336,2 336,3 336,2 336,0 336,2

336 2 337,0 337,1 337,0 337,1 337,1
[mm]
Web 1 147,1 146,8 147,6 147,3 147,6
147,5 147,2 147,8 147,7 147,7
eccentricity up 2
3 147,5 147,5 148,1 147,9 148,1
147,75 and web 1 148,4 148,9 148,2 147,8 148,1
3 148,7 148,8 148,0 148,4 148,1
[mm]
1 41,1 41,0 40,8 41,4 40,9
Web thickness 2 40,8 41,0 41,2 41,5 41,2
40,5 40,4 40,4 40,5 40,2 40,4
[mm] 3

h 2 413,2 413,3 413,6 413,6 413,4
415 [mm] h 3 415,3 415,4 415,5 415,4 415,3

277 [mm] C 2 276,1 276,3 276,2 276,2 276,2

- 251
Column Nr. NM 5
Profile W 14x16x730

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 124,0 124,0 124,0 124,4 124,2

125 [mm] 3 124,3 124,7 124,5 124,5 124,6
4 123,9 123,9 123,5 123,4 123,8
Flange width 1 452,3 452,2 452,4 453,5 453,9

454 2 451,3 451,8 452,0 453,3 453,3
[mm]
Web 1 190,5 191,6 193,1 189,9 192,8
eccentricity up 2
3
190,4
190,0
191,8
191,2
193,4
193,3
190,3
190,1
192,7
192,3
188 and web
1 184,4 183,1 183,0 185,9 183,7
[mm] 3 185,0 183,8 183,1 186,2 184,3
1 76,9 77,3 76,1 77,6 77,1

Web thickness
78 2 77,0 77,0 76,0 77,1 77,2
[mm] 3 76,8 77,0 75,8 77,1 77,0

569 h 2 562,4 564,0 564,2 564,6 564,4
[mm] h 3 564,4 564,9 564,8 564,7 564,8

319 C 2 316,3 316,6 316,8 316,5 315,7
[mm]
B8
252
Column Nr. NM 6
Profile W 14x16x550

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 96,8 96,7 96,9 97,2 96,7

97 [mm] 3 96,3 96,9 96,6 96,5 96,4
4 98,3 98,2 97,7 97,6 97,5
Flange width 1 432,2 433,0 433,1 433,8 434,0

437 2 433,1 433,0 432,7 432,6 432,1
[mm]
Web 1 184,2 184,8 186,5 186,3 186,7
eccentricity up 2 184,8 185,4 186,9 186,6 186,3
3 184,4 185,8 187,7 186,9 187,2
188,25 and web 1 189,8 189,6 189,9 189,4 189,0
3 189,4 189,0 189,3 188,2 188,0
[mm]
1 58,6 58,6 56,5 57,5 57,3
Web thickness 2 58,4 58,6 56,5 58,0 58,4
60,5 57,8
[mm] 3 58,8 58,2 55,9 58,1

514 h 2 509,8 509,5 509,7 509,6 509,4
[mm] h 3 512,7 512,2 512,0 511,8 511,6

320 C 2 316,9 316,8 316,6 316,4 316,6
[mm]
B9
253
Column Nr. NM 7

value 1 2 3 4 5
1
1 80,6 80,0 80,9 80,9 80,8
82 [mm] 3 81,4 81,9 81,2 81,9 81,6
4 79,3 79,8 79,7 79,7 79,6
427 Flange width 1 426,9 427,1 427,0 427,0 427,0

[mm] 2 426,3 426,1 425,9 426,1 426,0
Web 1 187,7 187,8 187,9 188,9 188,7

eccentricity up 2
3
187,3
187,3
187,1
187,0
187,3
187,2
188,4
188,5
188,1
188,3
188,25 and web
1 188,6 188,8 188,5 187,6 187,7
[mm] 3 188,8 188,7 188,3 187,4 187,3
Web thickness 1 50,3 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,1

50,5 2 50,6 50,7 50,6 50,7 50,7
[mm] 3 50,5 50,9 50,9 50,6 50,9

484 h 2 480,7 480,6 480,2 481,3 481,4
[mm] h 3 479,6 480,0 479,6 480,0 479,8

320 C 2 319,5 318,1 317,9 318,3 318,4
[mm]
B10
254
Column Nr. NM 8

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 82,8 81,9 81,7 81,5 81,7

82 [mm] 3 81,7 83,3 82,9 83,1 83,1
4 80,9 81,7 82,3 82,6 82,3
Flange width 1 425,2 425,6 424,4 425,2 424,5

427 2 423,9 424,4 423,1 424,3 424,0
[mm]
Web 1 187,4 187,8 187,3 187,3 187,3
eccentricity up 2 187,3 187,6 187,4 187,2 187,1
3 187,2 187,7 187,8 187,9 187,4
188,25 and web
1 185,9 186,2 185,8 185,9 183,9
3 184,0 184,3 183,9 184,2 184,5
[mm]
1 ' 51,2 51,0 50,6 51,5 53,0
Web thickness 52,3 52,0
50,5 2 52,3 52,1 51,4
[mm] 3 53,3 53,0 52,0 52,6 52,3

484 h 2 482,3 482,5 482,2 483,0 482,1
[mm] h 3 485,4 484,7 484,8 484,8 484,3

320 C 2 317,4 316,8 316,8 316,7 316,8
[mm]
B11
255
Column Nr. NM 9

value
1 2 3 4 5
1 74,4 74,3 74,4 73,9 74,2

75 [mm] 3 74,0 73,7 74,0 74,0 74,4
4 75,1 74,6 75,0 74,4 74,6
Flange width 1 338,4 338,6 338,6 338,6 338,7

340 2 339,0 338,8
[mm] 338,8 339,2 338,9
Web 1 145,2 146,5 145,4 145,9 145,4

eccentricity up 2 144,2 145,4 145,0 145,3 143,9
3 144,0 144,8 144,3 144,7 144,0
147,5 and web
1 148,3 148,2 148,2 147,8 148,6
3 149,6 149,5 149,7 149,7 150,1
[mm]
1 45,2 44,0 45,1 45,2 44,8
Web thickness
45 2 45,7. 44,7 44,8 45,0 45,8
[mm] 3 45,1 44,4 44,7 44,5 44,7

427 h 2 423,4 422,9 423,7 422,9 423,5
[mm] h 3 424,1 423,4 424,5 423,5 424,6

C 2 275,5 275,2 275,0 274,9 274,6
[mm]
B12
256
Column Nr. NM 10
Profile W 14x16x550

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 97,3 97,5 96,2 97,5 97,8

97 [mm] 3 97,4 97,6 97,7 97,4 97,4
4 98,3 98,9 98,9 99,1 98,3
Flange width 1 436,6 436,6 436,4 436,3 435,3

437 2 436,2 436,1 436,2 435,9 434,9
[mm]
Web 1 186,0 185,1 185,4 185,8 183,9
eccentricity up 2
3
185,8
185,8
184,7
184,4
184,8
184,4
184,7
184,0
183,4
183,0
188,25 and web 1 192,2 192,5 191,9 192,7
192,8
[mm] 3 192,5 193,0 193,7 193,5 193,7
1 58,4 58,4 58,4 58,4 58,5

Web thickness 2 58,6 58,7 59,0 59,0
60,5 58,9
[mm] 3 58,1 58,9 58,2 58,6 58,4

514 h 2 514,4 514,7 514,7 514,9 515,2
[mm] h 3 516,9 517,2 517,3 517,3 517,5

320 C 2 321,3 321,4 321,5 321,4 321,7
[mm]
B13
257
Column Nr. NM 11

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 82,2 81,8 81,7 81,6 81,3

82 [mm] 3 81,3 82,3 82,5 82,3 82,5
4 81,2 81,8 81,8 82,0 82,1
427 Flange width 1 425,1 425,3 425,0 425,5 425,8

[mm] 2 423,3 423,8 423,7 424,3 424,0
Web 1 187,5 186,5 187,3 188,4 187,2

eccentricity up 2
3
187,0
186,8
185,9
185,9
186,9
187,3
187,7
187,9
187,0
187,5
188,25 and web
1 186,1 187,2 185,8 185,7 185,4
[mm] 3 184,9 186,2 184,5 184,6 184,1
1 50,6 50,8 51,2 50,8 52,3

Web thickness
50,5 2 51,8 52,0 52,2 52,1 53,1
[mm] 3 52,5 52,4 52,5 52,4 53,3

484 h 2 481,8 482,2 481,9 482,2 482,3
[mm] h 3 479,6 479,3 478,5 479,5 479,5

[mm] C 2 316,7 316,4 316,5 316,7 317,1
B14
258
Column Nr. NM 12

value 1 2 3 4 5
1 81,4 81,4 81,6 81,5 81,3

82 [mm] 3 81,3 81,3 81,3 81,2 81,9
4 81,9 81,8 81,6 81,0 81,9
Flange width 1 429,2 428,8 428,8 428,6 428,9

427 2 429,1 428,6 428,3 428,4 428,8
[mm]
Web 1 192,0 191,8 192,3 192,8 193,5
up 2 192,0 192,1 192,7 193,3 194,0
eccentricity 3 193,0 193,0 193,8 194,4 195,5
188,25 and web
1 187,8 187,6 186,7 186,6 185,8
3 187,0 186,6 184,9 185,0 184,1
[mm]
1 ' 49,3 49,3 49,5 49,1 49,5
Web thickness 49,5 49,4 49,8
50,5 2 49,5 49,4
[mm] 3 49,1 49,1 49,8 49,1 49,2

484 h 2 480,2 480,3 480,1 480,5 480,7
[mm] h 3 478,0 477,3 478,1 477,9 477,2

320 C 2 315,9 315,3 315,9 316,0 316,2
[mm]
15
- 259
Column Nr. NM 13

value
1 2 3 4 5
1 74,2 74,5 74,4 74,8 74,1

75 [mm] 3 74,0 74,8 73,9 74,5 74,3
4 74,0 74,8 74,3 74,9 74,5
Flange width 1 339,0 338,6 338,6 338,9 338,6

340 2 338,6 338,3 338,4 338,4 338,3
[mm]
Web 1 151,1 150,2 150,2 149,8 151,1
eccentricity up 2 150,8 150,4 150,1 149,4 150,1
3 150,3 149,4 149,0 148,4 149,2
147,5 and web
1 142,9 142,7 142,7 143,6 144,0
[mm] 3 143,0 143,4 144,0 144,4 142,5
1 44,8 45,5 45,6 45,2 43,3

Web thickness
45 2 44,4 44,7 44,8 44,8 44,7
[mm] 3 45,5 45,6 45,5 45,8 46,7

427 h 2 423,1 423,7 423,1 423,6 422,8
[mm] h 3 423,6 423,9 423,1 423,8 422,8

277 C 2 275,9 275,9 275,6 275,7 275,4
[mm]
B16
- 260 -
ANNEX C (Cl TO C47):
TESTS RESULTS (LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES;
RESIDUAL DEFORMATIONSAFTER THE TESTS)

Load [ MN ]
20
O
fi)
15
**$ Q.
1= Q. ro
oc
MMI
</>
*
"
CD _ L 2
co
10
O b
co S 3
(
3 o &
^

D (0
*" ^/*
m Transducer W1 (/> ^
5 O
| Transducer W2 c
< fi)

% Transducer W3
0 *
o 40 60 80 140
100 120
Displacements [ mm ]
main displacement perpendicular to the weak axis
Load [ MN ]
20
O
0)
Q.
-15
Q. D

C/> C
*
o
D) 2
)
O b
>
t*
-10 3
b (Q
3 o ^^
^+

3
iH
0)
(/> S
5 o
c TT
5

0)

(/>
<7>'
O 0,5 0,5 1
parasitical displacement perpendicular to the strong axis
Load [ MN ]
O
Q)
o.
Q. m
m c
"~ o
"^
to
TT
IO Q>
o s
Ml
OJ
Ol o 3
O)
(
3 o ro
(D CD
3 CO
CO
o
c
<
CD
(0
(

GO 40 60 80 100 120
Load [ MN ]
12
ert O
10 :j._: 0)
* Q.
t *:
' l"
8 CD
C
"2. O
.^1
ro
33
6 0) M
b Ml
O
o >
( (
4 3

o ro -+

^ 3 0)
^^
2 Transducer W4 0)
O
Q)
I Transducer W5 c
^ TT
---it
0 <
(D
^ Transducer W6 0)
t
o
0,5 0 0,5 1 1.5
Load [ MN ]
O
03
Q.
CD
c c
TD ^ o
00
0> a
o

IO
>
b 3
(D OD
(
3 co
o
(D (D
3 (0
5" s
(D
o 0)
c PT
< 0)

t
t
O

50 100 200
Load [ MN ]
-10
O
>

o. ro
</> c
G '* o
*
Q) 00
ro
33
OD
O

O
J) s 3
(Q
3 o

3
- *" *
(0
0) :
o
c Q)
< D
(D
0)
t
o 1 0 1 2
CD
O
Q>
CL

CD
C
O
D ) <*> MMI
ro
co 3
2 b (Q
3 S"
(D 0)
3
3"
o TT
c Q)
<

c"
o 100 150 250
Load [ MN ]
6
O
>

D
4
CO c
"* o
*"
ro > co
o O o 3
3 co (Q
3 o 4*

3 CO
2 * *" ^
CO S:
o
Q)
-1 c TT
3

Q)

co
co"
O 0
00 4 6
Load [ MN ]
-14
O
fi)
-12 Q.

Q.
-10 t c
"S* o
Q> 01
ro -8 3
(Q
-6 3 5 <D
(D t
3
-4
S
t
O
TT
C
-2 <
(D
t t
O 0
CD 250
Load [ MN ]
14
O
)
o.

MB
CD
t
""
C
T5 O
)
ro
> ro PT
O o
CD O) 2 3
(Q
(O
o
3

3 t
* ^.^
t ^
O
c TT
< Q)
(D
0)
t
o
o 0 1
Load [ MN ]
10
9 O
Q.
8
CD
7 (fl C
O
6 a M
ro
> f* MS
Ci 3
5 (D (> (
3 O >

4 (D
3
(0
3 ^+
(D
Q)
2
o
1
c Q)

-^ Transducer W3 <

O
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Load [ MN ]
12
O
-10 D
~t^

8 ' $. MM
(0
ro
" * c
ir / ro o
TT
) D) Ui
6 ,/ 1
O b
O) 3
(Q
*'>'
3 loo >
(D (D
3 (/>
4 *~ ^ 7 *
Transducer W4 0) :
o
i. I Transducer W5 c Q)
2 f <
fi)
(!)
^ Transducer W6 0)
(7>"
i
ro 0 1 2 3
Load [ MN ]
O
0>
.

D
C
O
"Euo
)
0)
-J
O o 3
O)
co (
3 5o
o t
3
t
O D)
TT
C
< Q)

t t
O
CO
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Load [ MN ]
14
O
0)

CD
t C
" *~* o
) fi) o TT
vi
o b 3
co (Q
3 o vi
o (D
3 t
*- _^**
k
o
o fi>
c TT
< fi)
(D
(0
t
4 6 8 10
Load [ MN ]
O
fi)
Q.

CD
t C
^ O
ro TT
ro
0) ro
b 3
lo (
3 o 00

D t
t S

c Q)
-
< Q)

t
t
O
Ol 50 100 150 200 250 300
Buckling test
NM 8 (weak axis)
( 22.06.90 )
Load - displacements curves
Load [ MN ] -16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4 Transducer W4
Transducer W5
-2
-*- Transducer W6
0
-3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3
C16
- 278
Load [ MN ]
12
O
-10 o>
Q.
00
MB
(f
8
"D " >
c
to o
TT
)
^
D)
vi
(O
6 bk
O b
co 2 3
(Q
^ ^ ^
3 o (O
^ ^
*H* 3 ^s (
4 TransducerW1 (f
O
C >
Transducer W2
2

* Transducer W3 <f
CO'
O 0 *
vi 100 200 300 400
Buckling test
NM 9 (weak axis)
(21.06.90)
Load [ MN ] "12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2 -
0
-5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3
C18
280
Load [ MN ]
O
fi)

o.
* ^ B
ro
c/> c
IO o
ro
fi)
O b
O

3
(D co *
(Q
3 o
(D (D
3 (
*> -*
o
c 3
(
3
(D
0) fi)
(/)
O
CD 50 100
main displacement perpendicular to the strong axis
Buckling test
NM 10 (strong axis)
( 26.06.90 )
Load [ MN ] - 2 0
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
- 1 0 1 2 3 4
parasitical displacement perpendicular to the weak axis
C20
282
Load [ MN ]
16
O
14 Q>
Q.

12
Q. CD
t C
10 O
TT
s
ro
oo
3
8 CD j o (Q
3 2 S"
CD </>
6 3
CO &
4 O

c 3
(
2 < 0>

C/>
0 5'
O
0 50 100 150 200 250
ro
Buckling test
NM 11 (strong axis)
( 29.06.90 )
Load [ MN ] -16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
C22
284
Load [ MN ]
O
D)

1
o. m
w" c
o
"S.
ro Q) ^
UI i O 3
CD o (Q
ro
CD CD
3 t
t co

O O
C 3
< (
0)
t
X
t"
O
ro 50 100 150 200 250

Buckling test
NM 12 (strong axis)
( 27.06.90 )
C24
- 286
Load [ MN ]
O
0>
o.
CD
^ ^ ^ mim m
( C
t "D ro O
0> 00
Ml
ro
vi L O
o
(D (O -^
I 3 o
(Q

+- o (D
(0
Transducer W1 't/T
O -

Transducer W2 C 3
- CO
CD
< 0)
Transducer W3 0)
-f * t
)
)

200 250
Buckling test
NM 13 (strong axis)
( 28.06.90 )
Load [ M N ] - 1 6
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4 -
-2 -
-K Transducer W6
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
C26
288 -
Deformation [ mm ]
200

(/>
150

MVI
Q> O
100 a? ,_,. 0) c

*

50 O
c O </>
ro
OD
co 0 1

1 o
7? C

3 3

-50
\

( 3

/
^VH^
-100
Measured point a

i
-150 Measured point b
3
-200
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o Distance between the extremity plates : 3,615 m
)
Deformation [ mm ]
200
2J
(D
150 t
a
IMN
Q.
C
100 Q)
<D I T
50 0)
t
sVi 7="
IO

1 1
co
0 ta
y
o

O
50 1
^ 3 (D
(
(D o
100
150
Measured point a t
to i
+
j Measured point D
MB
1 . . . . . 1 O
200 3
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
)
CO
Deformation [ mm ]
200

150 .

0) O
h C
100
3"
i-
D)
^
(D
50 O D)
co O (0
s
ro M B
TT C
y
co 1 1
0
3 O

3
mim m
3
50 \ (
^
100 Measured point a
3
150 Measured pomi o
... I
200
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o
ro Distance between the extremity plates : 4,5 m
ID
Deformation [ mm ]
200
ID
o
150 0)
MBB
fi) o.
100 3? c
<D o
- (D
50 O
c O (0
IO
co
) 0 t
o C ^*
HB
3 3
\

a
O
Q.
-50
\

( 3 (D
<D O
-100 ^4 s/ Measured point a
t
*H+fK 3
fi>
-150
-+ Measured point b
t-*
H
O
-200 I
3
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o
CO Distance between the extremity plates : 4,96 m
o
Deformation [ mm ]
200 ID

150 t
0> O
c0)
mernrn
^
100

3"

50 fi)
O
co o w
TT c O
IO
CO
0
s.
1 1
MHB
3 3
3
-50 ^ CO
+*+* * *
^
-100 -+++-+-M- H - H ^ Measured point a
Ol 3

-150
| Measured point b
> >
3
-200
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
Deformation [ mm ]
200

150 co
100
Q) O
M
c
m*
3"
50 -
)
CO
coO
O (A
0
^ ;
K^ * PT C O
^k. U * * *
mimm
3
-50 ^
^
dd (O
^
"+-K, A ^ L
100 fc*+ H=H-^-
Measured point a 3
>
150 D)
1-4
Measured point b
marnrn
200 O
3
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
O Length [ m ]

ho Distance between the extremity plates : 8,33 m
Deformation [ mm ]
200 J3

150 ^fH (/>
HM a
^ ^ \
S. Q.
C
100 *A^* * * *
CD 3 " Q)
50

4 y \
"*
0)
IO
co
0 F
^
^ \
i
s w
H
)
o

50 3
(
^.Z
100 Measured point a 5*
( ^ 3
150 \ Measured point o
TB
O
3
200
o 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o
Distance between the extremity plates : 7,08 m

Deformation [ mm ]
200
3D

</>
a va

cCD

"*
>
CO E (
ii
Ol

3

(

0)
00 3

3
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o
Deformation [ mm ]
200

co
150 mim m
Q.
0) O
t C
100 * D)

*
3"

50
co O
O CO
)
s
CO
1 7s C

vi
0 O
3 3
MB
V ( 3

50
y

\
100 Jr
Measured point a 10
co 3
2.
150
200
X^**"' | Measured point b MM
O
3
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o

Deformation [ mm ]
200
13
(D
150 Measured point a (/>
O
Q) -h
100 Measured point b
S c
Q)
50 -4 Measured point c
Q)
c 2. co
INJ
CD
00 0 *i+m H - H 4 - H B - R - h h = H = H - H -4=*==4 Mt t M
i*^
O
* *
fej
3 3
-50 & o
-100
* * * * * * $ SS o -t
** o 3
-150 MS
O
3
-200
o 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
o
CD
Deformation [ mm ]
200 1 1 1 ID
<D
Measured point a 0)
150
O
100
| Measured point b ) h cQ)
S
50 =4^ Measured point c s
to
c 2. 0)
l 1 1 1 1 1 1L1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 1 f i l. i=k t=t=*=*=*=:+=fc i i i l i l i r t*
co
(O 0 f ' T T T ' t ff HtHTr ttT rf t M T ' r r i r *
. *
MMI
O
50
3 3
CD
CD S o
100 * * * * *
' ,'<***iM* ) * * * * * *
* * * ^ 3
150
200
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
O

Deformation [ mm ]
200
Measured point a o
150 co
O HMS
Measured point b )
100
SS
c
Q)
50 *|sr Measured point c

Q)
c 2. CO
o
o 0 w-m t 11 H t 11 f H4++H H U M ' I M H Hafc* UHI
o
50 i&

o
?*
, ^ o
100 i?!pf co ^
"*
fc 3
150 *m& ^
200
0 2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
O

Deformation [ mm ]
200
J3
Measured point a
150 O 0)

100
Measured point b
c0)
S
50 ^ Measured point c
0)
c 2. t
co
o
0 %H+t U H Ht t m 11 t M t HfHH H M
o
3 3 Q.
50
CDS
100 tf
* co ^ 3
% W
150 ^
o
3
200
2 3 4 5 6 8
Length [ m ]
CD
C 40
302
C 41
- 303
C 42
304
C 43
305
C 44
- 306 -
C 45
307 -
C 46
308 -
309 C 47
ANNEX D (Dl TO D32):
MEASUREMENTS OF RESIDUAL STRESSES

RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS OF N M 1 COLUMN : TABLES OF VALUES
10 26 -60 -60 106 105 138 58 10 40 -109

66 45 7 -11
-35 6S -96 -110 -86 131 60 8 19 -27 -44

131 19 -11 33
-3S -114 -93 -113 78 47 76 78 -35 -14 -21 -101

76 6 -23
10
41
64
74
98
74
75
58
15
-74 -65 -HO -54 -123 -74 -24 66 48 40 -54 39

133 28 7
-62 -S -117 -48 -206 -137 -52 49 43 41 30 -25

94 46 -28
-30 -127 -16 -200 -106 3 1C3 95 30 -50 -4

43 SS -to -66
NM1 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm2] as measured
59 39 2 -15 -14 25 -62 -61 -106 105 139 60 13 41 -104
96 14 -16 29 58 -70 98 -110 -85 133 63 11 23 -22 -29
71 2 -26 -3S 115 -94 -113 -77 -45 78 81 -31 -10 -15 -9S
13
44
68
60
133
82
84
69
27
HI 36 16 -64 -54 ->2S -42 110 -60 .10 et 64 57 -36 -21
103 55 -18 -51 -47 -104 35 -192 -123 27 66 60 59 -11 -5
52 78 29 -55 17 -113 -2 -185 -90 19 120 '13 49 -30 17
NM1 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm2] with equilibrium

D1
313 -
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS OF N M 1 C O L U M N : TABLE S OF V A L U E S
-7 6 -5 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1 -0 0 1 2 3 4 4
-6 -5 -4 -3 3 -2 -1 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 5
-5 -4 -3 -3 -2 -1 -0 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6
10
11
7 t 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19
9 9 10 11 12 12 13 u 15 16 16 17 12 19 20
9 10 11 IZ 13 13 14 15 14 17 17 ia 19 20 21
NM1 PROFILE : differences between residual stresses with equilibrium

and as measured [N/mm2]
NM2:A:\MEASUR1
D2
314
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS OF NM 2 COLUMN : TABLES OF VALUES
109 89 SI 27 35 -22 -117 -76 -a? 40 16 43 4 91 104
93 112 111 31 47 -7S -165 -111 -123 71 -12 15 28 92 10
92 1S1 101 46 7 -101 -153 -133 -US 64 -6 17 43 19 133
-v.
-3
-2
-5
-13
-11
-24
-49
119 54 -31 -26 -78 -103 -209 -21 -I -73 -52 -39 53 S9 87
103 50 -68 -21 -37 -77 -165 -157 -14 58 -11 17 64 3 87
150 69 -34 42 -2 31 100 -103 -76 -17 u 33 70 72 124
NM2 PROFILE : residual stresses [IM/mm2] as measured
112 92 54 30 38 1 -115 -73 -86 -38 18 45 6 100 10
98 116 115 35 SI -74 -161 -107 -119 -67 -9 19 31 96 111
97 157 106 52 12 96 -147 -127 -140 -59 -63 22 53 24 118
60
-25
10
-29
142 77 -8 3 55 80 -186 -195 -162 -51 -2 17 75 111 109
127 75 -43 4 13 53 141 -133 124 -35 12 41 7 106 110
176 95 8 6 24 -6 75 -77 50 a 43 56 95 97 141
NM2 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm 2 ] with equilibrium

315 D3
RESIDUAL STRESSES
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
6 6 6 6 S S S 5 5 5 5 5 5 S 5
11
12
14
16
17
19
20
23 a 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22
25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 . 24 24 24 24 23 23
26 26 26 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
NM 2 PROFILE : differences between residual stresses with equilibrium

NM2:A:\MEASUR21
D4
316
RESIDUAL STRESSES
42 14 60 25 18 -58 -29 -34 -30 -82 -48 0 -52 28 47 33 59
55 23 -48 -32 -15 2? -108 -121 -42 -90 -47 -35 -53 11 55 -15 38
-125
-53
-54
-53
-40
-24
-25
-18
-51
-34
44
-44
22 44 38 20 -26 -63 -64 -120 -105 -123 35 -127 -32 -34 -2 -35 88
36 34 -26 -20 2 -69 -37 -121 -S9 -81 19 -22 13 -28 16 13 79
NM3 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm 2 ] as measured
j3 34 82 44 40 -37 -8 -15 -9 -42 -28 20 -32 47 44 S3 79
73 45 -25 -10 7 50 -87 -100 -41 -69 -44 -14 -33 32 75 5 58
-103
-31
-33
-2
-14
-25
-9
34
-18
52 74 69 SO 4 -S3 -34 -90 76 -94 64 -98 -4 -7 27 -7 115
67 66 5 11 33 -39 7 -90 -59 -SI 49 8 42 1 45 41 108
NM3 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm 2 ] with equilibrium

-317- D5
RESIDUAL STRESSES
22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19
a 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20
22
23
23
21
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
31 31 30 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 28
31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 2 9 2 9 2 9 2 9 2 9 2 8

D6
318 -
RESIDUAL STRESSES
94 6 J? -23 -26 -37 2 -32 13 10 27
37 -0 29 -17 25 10 59 -19 9 55 72
19
60
59
73
72
10
-22
52 SI -1 -19 -55 -1 -40 -91 -12 S 50
133 105 S -71 30 -11 3 -7 31 97
NM 4 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm 2 ] as measured
69 -7 -51 -33 -35 -44 6 39 S 6 25
23 -14 -40 -29 -35 1 -66 -25 2 51 69
10
50
49
61
59
-24
-34
31 39 19 37 -71 16 -74 104 -23 -5 41
, Si -14 99 -a 14 26 52 -19 20 97
NM 4 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm 2 ] with equilibrium

D7
319
RESIDUAL STRESSES
H -13 -12 -10 -9 -a -7 6 -S -4 -2
-15 -14 -12 -11 -10 -9 -a -7 -6 -4 -3
-10
-10
-11
-12
-12
-13
-13
-14
-21 -JO -IS -17 -16 -15 14 13 -12 10 -9
-22 -20 -1 -ia -17 -16 -15 14 12 -11 -10

NM2:A:\MEASUR41
D 8
320
RESIDUAL STRESSES
-35 -72 6 -30 -52 -50 -159 -94 -45 15 -20 4 -38 -15
-62 37 -58 -110 -6 11 54 -201 -94 5 17 56 20 28 179
44 59 -48 12 30 -38 -112 -201 -13 -31 -44 53 39 51 109
38 a -18 -14 -70 -56 -H3 -221 -94 -21 -114 18 37 55 98
-111 -92
-53 -47
-71 -70
-74 -58
-72 -54
-53 -75
-44 -77
-112 -107
76 9 -12 -38 37 -143 -105 -134 -104 -137 -104 61 -80 -9 79
38 -5 23 -41 17 -94 -74 -104 -55 -79 -18 -2 -67 23 75
61 -58 14 -35 57 -38 -37 -51 -S7 2 -28 11 -21 20 75
54 37 143 35 -20 -39 15 17 1 6 5-i 27 73
57 -12 44 27 3 3 107 -47 2 31 25 49 4 25

27
97 -0 -53 49 65 -34 -151 -48 52 42 99 42 48 218

-1
117 -11 47 84 15 -41 -152 W' 14 0 95 80 91 147

125
139 37 40 -17 -4 -94 -174 -50 22 -72 59 77 93 135

94
-45 -47
-8 -24
-28 -29
-32 -18
-32 -17
-14 -38
28 -41
-74 -73
120 51 29 2 1 -104 70 103 -75 108 -78 34 -55 15 101
81 34 43 3 20 59 -41 -73 -25 -52 8 23 -44 45 94
102 -1 52 2 92 4 5 20 -2 23 -3 35 2 41 94
94 107 93 72 177 48 11 -10 42 42 25 29 75 47 91

- 321 - D9
RESIDUAL STRESSES
a 61 59 58 56 55 53 51 49 48 46 45 43 42 40
61 59 58 57 55 54 52 SO 48 46 45 43 42 41 39
60 58 57 55 54 52 51 49 47 45 44 42 41 39 38
ss 57 55 54 53 51 49 47 45 44 42 41 39 38 37
46 44
4S 43
43 41
42 40
40 38
39 37
37 36
36 34
u 42 41 39 3 37 35 33 31 29 28 26 25 23 22
42 41 40 38 37 35 34 32 30 28 26 25 24 22 21
11 40 38 37 35 34 32 30 28 27 25 24 22 21 19
40 38 37 3 34 33 31 2? 27 25 24 22 21 20 18

NM2:A:\MEASUR61
D10
322
RESIDUAL STRESSES
u 24 12 1 31 38 41 109 103 77 105 63 6 29 43
67 31 5 6 (0 55 61 165 113 113 119 17 3 59 65
153 46 11 6 31 40 90 13 127 96 IM 16 9 21 58
36
42
34
72
64
34
18
62
59 12 31 19 84 6 10
51 10 135 190 3 107 100 12
5 a 33 U 69 79 135 H2 154 23 43 50 1* 11 33
11 12 5 28 41 93 82 96 46 25 26 5
45 29 0
25 16 15 19 20 87 79 52 78 34 37 62 77
56 35
9 10 22 36 40 142 88 86 91 12 35 93 100
77 43
4 22 13 20 6 113 101 .71 79 14 41 62 94

165 59
11
16
60
99
92
63
35
49
30
80 10 56 7 56 21 77 102 146 39 69 60 54 37 55
17 32 58 17 40 49 103 109 119 15 9 9 28 33 79
11 36 84 0 16 10 60 48 60 9 40 5 19 71 52
323 D11
RESIDUAL STRESSES
10 12 13 15 17 19 20 22 24 2 27 29 31 32 3*
11 12 14 16 1 19 21 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 35
11 13 15 17 18 20 22 2 25 27 29 31 32 34 36
'25
26
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
21 23 2 26 28 30 31 33 35 37 38 40 42 44 45
22 23 25 27 29 30 32 34 36 37 39 41 43 44 46
22 2 26 28 29 31 33 35 36 38 40 42 43 45 47

D12
324
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS OF N M 9 COLUMN : TABLES OF VALUES
-26 -1 1 3 -53 -12 -7 24 67 6 -97
-53 -9 -45 -6S -79 -132 -71 4 -2S -12 -12
-60
-26
15
37
77
21
-9
17 60 -23 IS -34 -7 60 -20 -63 30 65
14 -19 -15 -16 -24 -SS -57 36 -34 -12 6
NM 9 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm2] as measured
4 30 32 34 -21 -50 25 56 99 39 -64
-25 19 -17 -36 -50 -103 -42 33 2 18 -52
36
-3
36
27
52
90
31
-1
21 63 -19 22 -30 -3 65 -15 -58 36 70
15 -18 -15 15 -23 -86 -55 -34 -32 -9 9
NM 9 PROFILE : residual stresses [N/mm2] with equilibrium

- 325 - D13
RESIDUAL STRESSES
31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 33
28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30 30 30
23
23
20
18
13
11
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 6 6
0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3

D14
326
RESIDUAL STRESSES
97 29 (9 41 17 6 -56 1 41 91 101 19 2
117 40 35 1* -84 -60 -86 -21 1 44 88 25 -33
93 14 '5 i6 -115 -39 -139 4 -14 13 68 14 37
-51
-37
-33
16
-9
30
-ti
-48
-0
59 27 -3 -33 -41 -63 -109 55 -23 53 89 141 K
7* 18 38 7 -0 -35 -84 -59 7 M 21 6 57
7 -0 66 5 35 -11 44 -49 49 51 39 91 44
NM 10 PROFILE : residual Stresses [N/mm 2 ] as measured
102 33 52 '3 -15 67 56 1 40 89 99 16 -6
121 44 38 12 -82 -59 -86 -25 0 42 86 21 -37
97 18 -2 44 -114 -39 139 4 -16 . 10 65 -18 -41
-52
-38
-34
18
-11
-32
-51
-51
-83
60 27 -4 -35 -44 -66 113 -59 -30 47 82 134 10
74 18 37 9 -J -39 -88 64 2 61 21 61 49
76 1 64 -7 32 -15 -48 55 43 U 32 83 3

- 327 - D15
RESIDUAL STRESSES
s i 3 3 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2 -3 -4
5 4 3 2 2 1 0 -0 -1 -2 -3 -3 -4
4 4 2 1 1 -0 -1 -1 -2 -3 i -4
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-0 -1 -2 2 -3 -4 -5 -5 -6 -7 -7 t
0 \ 1 2 3 -4 -4 -5 6 -6 -7 - -
0 -1 -2 2 - -4 -s -5 -6 -7 -7 - 9

and as measured [Nimm2]
D16
328
RESIDUAL STRESSES
,,, m 61 55 1 27 -3 51 58 gl 30 IM 125 69
57 1
107 12 3* " "74 '3' la
"10 " 3S ,33 11
*
,27 il 24 -104 -91 -87 -6 0 4 53 4 13 21
-1
-50
-24
-63
-2
-29
-26
38
52
75 93 88 22 28 54 81 58 63 83 79 109 63 21 3
97 87 62 41 28 75 17 32 37 58 66 69 63 1 1
73 51 83 39 22 95 8 20 9 56 68 114 72 14 17
81 111 31 32 27 -27 -1 -29 25 33 57 6 130 102 47
77 9 5 29 -11 -60 -101 -65 -7 35 24 11 110 98 38
98 57 32 -17 -4 -131 -117 -112 -31 -25 22 29 71 61 -1
106
-75
-48
-87
26
52
-48
-60
74
" 68 64 -2 -51 32 103 -79 -84 62 59 90 45 J -14
1 63 38 18 -50 53 -39 -53 -58 39 44 50 U -19 -18
** 2* 59 16 -1 73 -13 1 -11 36 49 96 54 3 1

329 D17
RESIDUAL STRESSES
30 -30 -29 29 -28 -28 27 -26 -26 -25 -25 -24 -24 23 -22
-30 -29 -29 -21 -28 -27 27 -26 -25 -25 -24 -24 -23 -23 -22
-30 -29 -29 28 -27 -27 26 -26 -25 -25 -24 -23 -23 -22 -22
-25
25
24
-24
-24
-23
-23
-22
-22
-25 -25 -24 -24 -23 -23 -22 -21 -21 -20 -20 -19 -19 18 18
25 -24 -24 -23 -23 -22 -22 -21 -20 -20 -19 -19 -18 -18 -17
-25 -2* -24 -23 -22 -22 -21 21 -20 20 -19 -18 -18 -17 -17

D18
330
upper flange lower flange
150 150
100 100
50
2
co
50 c
0 0 DD
-50 -50 m
-100 s
m
-100 -150
H
-150 -200 CO 33
-200 _L_J L_l I L J I L -250 O
"
m
RBCDEFGH J L.M 0 R B C D E F G H J L 0 ~F
^

SI S2 S3 SU SS SG ro
O c
>
O
r
(_
S (f)
H
O " <7> J ]
10 i % DD
m
>
20
TI

(/>
30 \
O
UO > m
(/)

50 \
60 co

70 J L J_l I L J I L m
RBCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ
c
ESI web o

co NM2 PROFILE : residual stresses as measured
200
m
>

c
DD
m

m
*

3D
;
m
0)
"
R B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
D
51 S2 S3 ) C
>
L)

C
co )

10 Q
J3
ra
0 ja. _EL
~ JU m
0)
10 >
"D
20 0)
30 o m
</)
>
1+0
50 V
60

70 L 33
DD
RBCDEFGH I J K L M N 0 P Q C

ES3 web O
o
) 2 PROFILE : residual Stresses with equilibrium
O
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS
NM2
RBCDEF&H I JKLMN
STRESSES WITH EQUILIBRIUM

IN THE UPPER FLANGE
3'JL
D21
333
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS
NM2
RBCDEFGH I JKLMNO
STRESSES WITH EQUILIB RIUM

IN THE LOWER FLANGE
R L D [ r G H ! J U 0
x :
7: D22
334
100
80 m
60 >
UO
20 c
ID
0 m
S
-20 m
30
-WO H
-60 m
R B C D E F G H 1 J R B C D E F G H 1 J

"

7 o
SI - - S2 S3 --- St+ s c
-u >
O "
O-

en "
C/>
S
33
80 o m
60 (
UO

20 o m
O)
>-

0 w D
-20 (-
-i
I I I I DD
-1+0 1 I I
CD
R B C D E F G H I J K L M M O C
tsi web
D
ro N M 4 PROFILE : residual stresses as measured
co
m
>
co
c
DD
m
m 3D
m
O (

R B C D E F G H
- S2 t
SI O
O
>
(/)

3D
80
DD
m
GO > (
U0
TI c/>
o m
Z0 >
f
0 ISL 8 g
M
20
I4O J L I 1 I I I I 1
DD
CD
C
R B C D E F G H I J L 0
we
EZ3 b

ro

4 PROFILE : residual stresses with equilibrium

RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS
NM4
250 ^
P^.
O D
B C 0 E F G H U

IN THE UPPER FLANGE
I ! !
D25
337
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS
NM4
B 'CD E F G H !

IN THE LOWER FLANGE
I !.'
[ F
i '
:
r i
. S3
==' ' i !
1 ,
D26
! 1
338
200 200
m
100 100 >

<
0 ID
m
S
00 100 m
7
H
CO 2J
:oo J I L I I 200 J I L_L J I I l l l
O
B C D E F C H 1 J L 0 flBCDEFCH 1 J L MM 0 "
m
SI S2 S3 SU S5 SB S7 S8 <"
en
D
O c
>
O "
co web
(/)
5
200
2
G)
33
100
ID m
>
TI

0 m
100
&J
MJ CdJ EH II 1 \ tqj
1
>
co

200 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1

DD
fiBCDEFCH 1 J L 0 DD
C
Fsn R 1 EH R2
D
NM5 PROFILE : residual stresses as measured
200 200 m
>
100 100
c
.1 -
m
0 0 S
~r m
100 V ,^ - 100 -z.
-\
10
J I L 200
U
200 J I L I y\ ' \ I I J I L J I L
m
R B C D E F C H 1 J L 0 R B C D E F C H 1 J L 0 "
SI -- S2 S3 SU S5 --- SG S7 SB en D
O

c
>
CZ "
o
web
co

O J3
JU
200 >
TI
m
0)
100 _L
O m
I>-
100
0
rm U

-i
(/)
X
I I I I ro
200 I I I L
cz
R B C D E F C H 1 J L M M0
[sa R l R2

00
NM5 PROF ILE : residual stresses with equilibrium
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS

IN THE UPPER FLANGE
341 -
D 29
RESIDUAL STRESSES
MEASUREMENTS

IN THE LOWER FLANGE
30
- 342
RESIDUAL STRESSES
PROFILE NM 1 AFTER CUTTING-OUT
PROFILE NM 2 AFTER CUTTING-OUT
343 D 31
RESIDUAL STRESSES
PROFILE AFTER CUTTING-OUT
D 32
344
For up-to-date information on
European Community research...
C O R
Community Research & Development Information Service
CORDIS is the Community information service set up under the VALUE programme to give
quick and easy access to information on European Community research programmes.
It consists of an on-line service at present offered free-of-charge by the European Commis-
sion Host Organisation (ECHO) and a series of off-line products such as:
CORDIS on CD-ROM;
CORDIS Interface for Windows users;
Multimedia Guide to European Science and Technology.
The on-line databases can be assessed either through a menu-based interface that makes
CORDIS simple to use even if you are not familiar with on-line information services, or for
experienced users through the standard easy to learn Common Command Language (CCL)
method of extracting data.
CORDIS comprises at present eight databases:

RTD-News: short announcements of Calls for Proposals, publications and events in the
R&D field
RTD-Programmes: details of all EC programmes in R&D and related areas
RTD-Projects: containing over 17,000 entries on individual activities within the pro-
grammes
RTD-Publications: bibliographic details and summaries of more than 57,000 scientific
and technical publications arising from EC activities
RTD-Results: provides valuable leads and hot tips on prototypes ready for industrial
exploitation and areas of research ripe for collaboration
RTD-Comdocuments: details of Commission communications to the Council of Minis-
ters and the European Parliament on research topics
RTD-Acronyms: explains the thousands of acronyms and abbreviations current in the
Community research area
RTD-Partners: helps bring organisations and research centres together for collabora-
tion on project proposals, exploitation of results, or marketing agreements.
For more information on CORDIS registration forms, contact:
CORDIS Customer Service

European Commission Host Organisation
BP2373
L-1023 Luxembourg
Tel.: (+352) 34 98 12 40 Fax: (+352) 34 98 12 48
If you are already an ECHO user, please Indicate your customer number.
VL
European Communities Commission
EUR 14546 Interaction diagrams between axial load and bending
moment M for columns submitted to buckling: improve
ment of methods proposed in standards and codes
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
1993 XIV, 344 pp., num. tab., fig. 21.0 29.7 cm
Technical steel research series
ISBN 9282661660
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 40
Differences have been observed when comparing the NM interaction dia

grams for columns submitted to buckling according to the various standards
and codes. These differences are particularly significant for buckling of wide
flange hotrolled HD columns according to the weak axis; and it appears that
the NM interaction formula proposed in the Eurocode 3 penalizes the thick
flange sections in comparison with a nonlinear method or in comparison
with the results of the numerical codes Finelg or Ceficoss.
The purpose of this research was to check by means of buckling tests the
behaviour of HD columns submitted to eccentric loading, and to compare
the results with the values calculated according to Eurocode 3 and other na
tional standards.
Numerical simulations of different profiles with Finelg software have been
compared to design rules issued from Eurocode 3. These comparisons led
to the testing programme of 13 thick flange HD columns in FeE 355 steel
grade with flange thicknesses from 52 to 125 mm. The programme included
four buckling tests according to the strong axis and nine buckling tests ac
cording to the weak axis, with uniform and bitriangular moment distributions.
All the initial geometrical and mechanical imperfections have been meas
ured: initial deformations, residual stresses, real geometry and eccentrici
ties, yield points, etc.
The test results were compared with Eurocode 3 design and formulas (1984
and 1990 versions), with Swiss formulas (Sia 161 1990 version) and with
Finelg simulations which are closer to reality. The comparisons were carried
out for the whole NM interaction curves including different phenomena:
buckling, resistance of crosssections, lateraltorsional buckling and bend
ing.
It was pointed out that the proposed rules in Eurocode 3 are too conserva
tive in the scope of these 13 HD compression tests. First proposals for im
provements of the NM formulas are introduced. It was also shown that with
a simple and reliable modelization Finelg software can easily be used as a
tool for realistic and safe design.
Venta y suscripciones Salg og abonnement Verkauf und Abonnement
Sales and subscriptions Vente et abonnements Vendita e abbonamenti
Verkoop en abonnementen Venda e assinaturas
BELGIQUE/BELGI FRANCE NORGE TRKIYE
Moniteur belge / Journal officiel Narvesen Info Center Pres G a z e t e Kitap Dergl
Belgisch Staatsblad Service des publications Bertrand Narvessns vel 2 Pazariama Dagltlm Tlcaret ve sanavi
Rue d e Louvain 4 2 / Leuvenseweg 42 d e s C o m m u n a u t europennes PO B ox 6125 Etterstad A
B1000 B ruxelles / B 1000 B russel 2 6 , rue Desaix N0602 Oslo 6 Narlibahe Sokak . 15
Tl. ( 0 2 ) 5 1 2 00 2 6 F75727 Paris Cedex 15 Tei. (22) 57 3 3 0 0 lstanbulCagaloglu
Fax (02) 511 01 8 4 Tl. ( 1 ) 4 0 58 75 00 Telex 79668 NIC Tel. (1) 520 92 9 6 528 55 66
Fax (1) 40 5 8 77 00 Fax (22) 68 19 01 Fax 520 64 57
Autres distributeurs / Telex 23822 DSVOTR
Overige verkooppunten
Librairie e u r o p e n n e / SVERIGE
IRELAND
Europese boekhandel ISRAEL
BTJAB
Rue d e la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244 Government Supplies Agency
B1040 B ruxelles / B 1040 B russel Traktorvgen 13 ROY International
45 Harcourt Road S22100Lund
Tl. (02) 231 04 35 Dublin 2 PO B o x 13056
Fax (02) 735 08 6 0 Tel. (046) 18 00 00
Tel. ( 1 ) 6 6 1 3 1 1 1 Fax (046) 18 01 25 41 Mishmar Hayarden Street
Fax (1) 4 7 80 645 3 0 79 4 7 Tel Aviv 61130
J e a n D e Lannoy
Tel. 3 496 108
Avenue d u Roi 202 /Koningslaan 202 Fax 3 544 60 39
B1060 B r u x e l l e s / B 1060 B russel SCHWEIZ / SUISSE / SVIZZERA
Tl. (02) 538 51 69 ITALIA
Tlex 63220 U N B O O K OSEC
Fax(02) 538 08 41 Licosa SpA UNITED STATES OF A M E R I C A /
Via Duca d i Calabria 1/1 Stampfenbachstrae 85 CANADA
D o c u m e n t delivery: Casella postale 552 CH8035 Zrich
Credoc 150125 F r e n z e Tel. ( 0 1 ) 3 6 5 54 4 9 UNIPUB
Tel.(055)64 5 4 1 5 Fax (01) 365 5 4 11 4611F Assembly Drive
Rue d e la M o n t a g n e 3 4 / B ergstraat 3 4 Fax 64 12 57 Lanham. M D 207064391
B t e 1 1 / B u s 11 Telex 570466 LICOSA I
B1000 B r u x e l l e s / B 1000 B russel CESKA R E P U B U K A Tel. Toll Free (800) 274 4888
Tl. (02)511 69 41 Fax (301) 459 0056
Fax (02) 513 31 95 NIS R
GRANDDUCH DE LUXEMB OURG
Havelkova 22
CANADA
Messageries du livre 130 00 Praha 3
Tel. (2) 235 84 4 6
DAN M A R K 5, rue Raiffeisen Subscriptions only
Fax (2) 235 97 88
L2411 Luxembourg Uniquement abonnements
J . H. Schultz Information A / S Tl. 40 10 2 0 Renouf Publishing C o . Ltd
Fax 4 0 10 2 4 01 MAGYARORSZAG
Herstedvang 1012 1294 A l g o m a Road
DK2620 Albertslund Ottawa, Ontario K1B 3W8
EuroInfoService
Tit. 4 3 6 3 2 3 00 Tel. (613)741 43 3 3
Fax (Sales) 4 3 63 19 69 NEDERLAND Club Sziget Fax (613) 741 54 39
Fax (Management) 4 3 63 19 4 9 Margitszlget Telex 0534783
S D U Overheidsinformatie 1138 B udapest
Exteme Fondsen Te/./Fax 1 111 60 61
Postbus 20014 1 111 62 16
2500 EA 'sGravenhage AUSTRALIA
DEUTSCHLAND
Tel. (070) 37 89 911
Fax (070) 34 75 778 POLSKA Hunter Publications
Bundesanzeiger Verlag
58A Gipps Street
Breite Strae 7880 Business Foundation Collingwood
Postfach 10 05 3 4 Victoria 3066
D50445 Kln PORTUGAL ul. Krucza 38/42
00512 Warszawa Tel. (3)417 5361
Tel. (02 21) 2 0 290 Fax (3)419 7 1 5 4
Telex ANZEIGER B O N N 8 882 595 Imprensa Nacional Tel. (22) 21 99 9 3 , 6282882
Fax 2 02 92 7 8 International Fax&Phone
Casa d a Moeda, EP (039) 120077
Rua D. Francisco Manuel d e Melo, 5
P1092 Lisboa Codex JAPAN
Tel. ( 0 1 ) 6 9 3 4 1 4 ROMANIA
GREECE/ Kinokuniya C o m p a n y Ltd
Distribuidora d e Livros Euromedia 177 Shinjuku 3 C h o m e
Q.C. Eleftheroudakls S A Bertrand, L d . ' Shinjukuku
65, Strada Dionisio Lupu
International B ookstore Grupo B ertrand, SA Tokyo 16091
70184 B ucuresti Tel. (03) 34390121
Nikis Street 4 Rua das T e n a s d o s Vales, 4A TelTFax 0 12 9 6 4 6
GR10563 Athens Apartado 37
Tel. ( 0 1 ) 3 2 2 63 2 3 Journal D e p a r t m e n t
2700 A m a d o r a Codex
Telex 2 1 9 4 1 0 E L E F Tel. (01) 49 59 050 BLGARIJA PO B o x 55 Chitse
Fax 323 9 8 21 Telex 15798 B ERDIS Tokyo 156
Fax 4 9 60 255 Europress Klasslca B K Ltd Tel. (03) 34390124
66. b d Vitosha
1463 Sofia
TeiVFax 2 52 74 75 SOUTHEAST ASIA
ESPAA UNITED KINGDOM
Boletn Oficial del Estado H M S O B ooks (Agency section) RUSSIA Legal Library Services Ltd
Trafalgar, 2 9 H M S O Publications Centre STK Agency
E28071 Madrid 51 Nine Elms Lane CCEC Robinson Road
Tel. (91) 538 22 95 London S W 8 5DR 9,60ietiya Oktyabrya Avenue PO B ox 1817
Fax (91) 538 2 3 4 9 Tel. (071) 873 9090 117312 M o s c o w Singapore 9036
MundiPrensa L i b r o , S A Fax 873 8463 TelTFax (095) 135 52 2 7
Telex 29 71 138
Castell, 3 7 SOUTH AFRICA
E28001 Madrjd CYPRUS
Tel. (91) 431 3 3 9 9 (Ubros) OSTERREICH Saffo
431 32 22 (Suscripciones) Cyprus C h a m b e r of C o m m e r c e and
Industry 5th Floor, Export House
435 3 6 37 (Direccin) M a n z ' s c h e Verlags Cnr Maude & West Streets
Tlex 4 9 3 7 0 M P U E und Universittsbuchhandlung Chamber B uilding Sandten 2146
Fax (91) 575 3 9 9 8 38 Grivas Dhigenis Ave
Kohlmarkt 16 Tel. (011)8833737
Sucursal: A1014Wien 3 Dellgiorgis Street Fax (011)8836569
Tel. (0222) 531 61133 PO B ox 1455
Libreria Internacional A E D O S Nicosia
Consejo d e Ciento, 391 Telex 112 500 B O X A
Fax (0222) 531 61181 Tel. (2) 449500/462312
E08009 B arcelona Fax (2) 458630 AUTRES PAYS
Tel. (93) 488 3 4 92 OTHER COUNTRIES
Fax (93) 487 7 6 59 ANDERE LANDER
SUOMI/FINLAND MALTA
Uibreria d e la Generalitt Office des publications officielles
d e Catalunya Akateemlnen Kirjakauppa Miller distributors Ltd d e s C o m m u n a u t s europennes
Rambla deis Estudia, 118 (Palau Moja) Keskuskatu 1 Scots House, M.A. Vassalli street 2 , rue Mercier
E08002 B arcelona PO B ox 128 PO B o x 272 L2985 Luxembourg
Tel. (93) 302 6 8 35 SF00101 Helsinki Valletta Tl. 499 281
302 6 4 62 Tel. (0) 121 41 Tel. 2 4 73 01 Tlex PUB OF LU 1324 b
Fax (93) 302 12 99 Fax (0) 121 44 41 Fax 23 49 14 Fax 48 85 73/48 68 17
w
NOTICE TO THE READER
o
All scientific and technical reports published by the Commission of the European Communities
are announced in the monthly periodical 'euro abstracts'. For subscription (1 year: ECU 118)
please write to the address below. A
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 40

ISBN IB-flSb-blbb-D
* \ 1 \ OFFIC
E FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
* CH& * OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
* *
***
L-2985 Luxembourg

Cgna14546enc 001 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cgna14546enc 001 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cgna14546enc 001 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN 1018-5593

Commission of the European Communities

technical steel research

Properties and service performance

Interaction diagrams between axial

technical steel research

Interaction diagrams between axial

Contract No 7210 SA/510

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1993

- ARBED-Research: RPS Department : MM. Becker F., Braun P., Noesen .,

- BOCHUM University, Laboratory of civil engineering: MM. Hanenkamp W., Hammer W.

- LIEGE University, Laboratory of civil engineering: M. BoeraeveP.

- TNO-Delft: M. Bijlaard F.S.K., Mrs Van Hove D.

- KREMER FRRES, steel fabricator (Steinfort, Luxbg)

AgreementN7210SA/510 C.C. ARBED

LATIN UP P ER CASE LETTERS

A Sectional area; name of sample for tensile tests

LATIN LOWER CASE LETTERS

OTHER EXP RESSIONS

SIA Swiss society of engineers and architects

3. DESIGN OF THE SPECIMENS 12

7. COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENTS, EUROCODE 3,

8. STATISTICAL EVALUATION (Annex of Eurocode 3) 73

ANNEX A (Al to A53): Design of the specimens 187-241

Des diffrences peuvent tre observes en comparant les diagrammes d'interaction NM

Le but de cette recherche consiste vrifier, au moyen d'essais de flambement, le

Une amlioration des formules d'interaction NM est propose. Il a t aussi dmontr

Einige Unterschiede knnen schon, beim Vergleich der NM Interaktionsdiagramme fr

Numerische Simulationen verschiedener Profile die mittels FINELGProgrammen berechnet

Es stellte sich durch die 13 Druckversuche an HDProfilen heraus, da die vorgeschla

In this context we observed several relatively important divergences between the

We know that a testing programme ( [ l ] , [2]) concerning buckling without eccentri-

The testing programme of this research can be separated in two parts:

Like presented in the previous report n 2 [] we selected different thick flanged

In the previous report n 3 [] we measured the steel qualities, we controlled the

where Lb is the buckling length of the column,

HD 400x400x422 (flange thickness, e = 52.5 mm)

Results of the tensile tests:

Name of Yield point Tensile strength Ultimate

NM1 372,0 542 29,7

* the maximal compressive load which can be applied is 20.000,0 kN.

2.2. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS WITH FINELG

2.2.1. Hypothesis [12

* geometrically and materially non linear solid or structural problems under

* linear and non linear instability problems, leading to eigenvalue computa

Geometrical non linearity covers large displacements (i.e. large rotations);

The columns have been discretized in a number of finite elements depending of

For the uniform moment distribution the bendingcompression is provided by an

First no initial geometrical imperfections have been introduced to obtain the

2.2.2. Eurocode 3:84 and 88 versions

For members submitted to pure compression, the buckling resistance is control

Basic interaction formula: for strong and weak axis.

Npi, plastic normal force of the steel section

Mpj, plastic moment of the steel section; it is allowable to take

1,10 M p l if N/N p l > 0,10

z , buckling reduction factor

, moment distribution factor