See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267847447

Buckling verification according to Eurocode 3 - Part 1.5: Amelioration of the

stress limit approach

Conference Paper · August 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 1,261

7 authors, including:

Martin Mensinger Markus Feldmann

Technische Universität München RWTH Aachen University
226 PUBLICATIONS   415 CITATIONS    416 PUBLICATIONS   1,632 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joseph Ndogmo Ulrike Kuhlmann

Technische Universität München Universität Stuttgart
24 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    329 PUBLICATIONS   1,184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ROBUSTIMPACT View project

Stresspatches – Klebtechnische Ertüchtigung von Ermüdungsschäden für Konstruktionen des Stahlbaus View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Mensinger on 05 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Buckling Verification according to Eurocode 3 - Part 1.5:
Amelioration of the Stress Limit Approach
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus Feldmann *
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Sedlacek *
Dipl.-Ing. Johannes Naumes *
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Mensinger **
Dr.-Ing. Joseph Ndogmo **
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ulrike Kuhlmann ***
Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Braun ***

* RWTH Aachen, Chair of Metal and Light Metal Construction, Germany, stb@stb.rwth-aachen.de
** Technische Universität München, Chair of Metal Construction, Germany, m.mensinger@bv.tum.de
*** Universität Stuttgart, Institute for Structural Design, Germany, sekretariat@ke.uni-stuttgart.de

Abstract:
DIN Fachbericht 103 which is the ongoing German code for steel bridges and Eurocode 3 – Part 1-5 provides two
methods for plate buckling verification: the effective width approach and the stress limit approach (reduced stress
method). Due to the buckling of panels caused by in-plane shear and bending stresses, the part of the cross section
which is under compression has to be reduced. This reduced cross sectional area has to be reduced further due to global
buckling of the stiffened panel, whereas special attention has to be paid to column-like buckling behaviour. The final
verification is satisfied if the stresses calculated with the new effective area are smaller-equal than the yield stress. With
the effective width approach it is possible to mobilize the post-critical reserves of the whole cross section due to load
shedding between the different plates. Thus the bearing capacity of the cross section is usually higher than based on the
stress limit approach. By applying the stress limit approach the stress limit of the weakest part of the cross section may
govern the resistance of the full section. In this paper the two methods will be briefly presented. In the aim to get
approximately the same bearing capacity for both methods the stress limit approach will be modified regarding the
mobilization of the strength reserves. Existing bridges will be recalculated to compare the modified stress limit
approach with the effective width approach.
Keywords: effective width, stress limit approach, plate buckling, column-like behaviour, post-critical behaviour

1 Introduction:
The first German standard DIN 4114 which deals with the buckling safety of the thin-walled structural members was
developed between 1939 and 1952 and introduced as German code in July 1952. It was only valid for the webs of plate
girders, whereas no post-critical reserves were considered. A new buckling curve, taking into account post-critical
reserves of the single plate, was elaborated in 1978 by the new German code DASt-Ri. 012, which differentiated
between column-like and plate-like behaviour. To prepare the transition from German Standard to European Standard,
DIN 18800 Part 3 based on the partial safety factor concept took place in November 1990. To prepare the introduction
of Eurocode 3 Part 1.5 in Germany, DIN-Fachbericht 103 was elaborated and is now the sole valid code for steel
bridges. Both standards deal with completely new verification formats and take into account the post-critical plate
reserves by the use of the Winter-curve. In general, they provide two methods for plate buckling verification: effective
width method, which takes into account load shedding as well (appropriate for the ultimate limit state) and the reduced
stress method (appropriate for the serviceability limit state). This paper shows that the later method can be modified to
take into account load shedding between the cross-sectional members to reflect the real bearing capacity of the cross
section.

2 Effective width method for the plate buckling verification

2.1 Bending and in-plane stresses
The calculation of the extreme stresses follows the theory of elasticity on the level of the design loads, which contain
the partial safety factors. The concept bases on the effective widths (Figure 1).
Due to the buckling of the subpanels caused by the in-plane bending stresses, the part of the cross section which is
under compression will be reduced with the reduction factor ρ taken as follows:

- for internal compression plate elements (two longitudinal edges supported):

λ P − 0.055 ⋅ (3 + ψ )
ρ= 2
≤ 1 .0 for λ P > 0.673 and (3 + ψ ) ≥ 0
λP (1)
ρ = 1 .0 for λ P ≤ 0.673
- for outstand compression plate elements (one longitudinal edge supported and the other free):

λ P − 0.188
ρ= 2
≤ 1.0 for λ P > 0.748
λP (2)
ρ = 1 .0 for λ P ≤ 0.748
where

fy
λP = (3)
σ crit

Figure 1: Full and effective cross-section [5]

This reduced cross sectional area has to be reduced further more due to the global buckling of the whole panel whereas
column-like behaviour has to be take into account for the determination of the final reduction factor ρc, which is
obtained by an interpolation between the reduction factors χc and ρ for column- and plate-type behaviour, respectively.
ρ c = (ρ − χ c ) ⋅ ξ ⋅ (2 − ξ ) + χ c (4)
where
σ cr , p
0≤ξ = −1≤1 (5)
σ cr ,c
σcr,p is the elastic critical plate buckling stress
σcr,c is the elastic critical column buckling stress
χc is the reduction factor due to column buckling available in Eurocode 3 Part 1-1.
ρ is the reduction factor due to plate buckling

The stresses calculated with the new effective area must be lower than the yield stress. The displacement of the neutral
axis has to be considered by the calculation of the stresses.
The verifications are performed in the Ultimate Limit State as follows:
 σ x, Ed N Ed M + N Ed e N
η1 = = + Ed ≤ 1.0
f yd f y Aeff f y Weff (6)
γ M1 γ M1

2.2 Shear stresses

Due to the shear stresses, the effective width of the plate will be calculated considering the participation of the web
(Fig. 2) and flanges if these parts are not completely used for the load transfer of the bending moments (MSd < Mf,Rd).

f yw f yw
λ w = 0.76 ⋅ = 0.76 ⋅
τ cr kτ ⋅ τ E

Figure 2: Reduction factor χw for the web participation [5]

The buckling verification is performed at the Ultimate Limit State as follows:

V Ed V Ed
η3 = = ≤ 1.0
Vbw, Rd f yw (7)
χw ⋅ hw ⋅ t w
γ M1 ⋅ 3

2.3 Transverse forces

The buckling verification is performed at the Ultimate Limit State as follows:
σ z , Ed FEd 2 ⋅ FEd ⋅ γ M 1
η2 = = = ≤ 1.0
f ywd f yw Leff t w
2
0.9 ⋅ k F ⋅ E ⋅ f yw ⋅ l y (8)
t
γ M1 hw

2.4 Interaction between shear force, bending moment and axial forces
The final M-N-V-interaction verification is done with full plastic resistance of the cross section resistance consisting of
the effective area of the flanges and the fully effective web, irrespective of its section class, acc. to equation (9)
⎡
η 1 + ⎢1 −
M f , Rd ⎤
[
⎥ 2η 3 − 1 ] 2
≤ 1.0 (9)
⎣⎢ M pl , Rd ⎦⎥

2.5 Interaction between transverse force, bending moment and axial force
η 2 + 0.8η1 ≤ 1.4 (10)
Where:
Aeff is the effective cross section area,
hw is the height of the web,
eN is the shift in the position of the neutral axis (Fig. 1),
FEd is the design transverse force,
fyd is the design yield stress fy/γM1 or fy/γM0
f, w following EN 1993-1-1:2005 the indexes f and w denote the flange and the web,
 Leff is the effective length for resistance to transverse forces, ly is the effective loaded length
MEd is the design bending moment,
NEd is the design axial force,
t is the thickness of the plate,
VEd is the design shear force including shear from torsion,
Weff is the effective elastic section modulus,
χw is the reduction factor due to shear,
Mf,Rd is the design plastic moment resistance of a section consisting only of the effective flanges,
Mpl,Rd is the plastic moment resistance of a section.

To calculate⎯η1 , the gross cross section properties should be used for the interaction between shear forces, bending
moment and axial load. Furthermore the conditions η1 ≤ 1.0 and η3 ≤ 1.0 have to be satisfied. In case that⎯η3 does not
exceed 0.5, the design resistance to bending moment and axial force does not need to be reduced to carry the shear
force. The interaction between shear force, bending moment and local transverse force is not available in the DIN EN
1993-1-5: 2005.
2.6 Rules to avoid excessive plate breathing
Because of the systematic use of the post-critical reserves, the out-of-plane deformations are maintained within the
linear limits for steel bridges and gantry-girders to avoid the secondary effects like web breathing. Therefore the
following condition has to be satisfied at the level of working stresses:
2 2
⎛ σ x, Ed , ser ⎞ ⎛ τ Ed , ser ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜1.1 ⎟⎟ ≤ 1.1 (11)
⎝ kσ σ E ⎠ ⎝ kτ σ E ⎠

3 Reduced stress method for the plate buckling verification

The stress limit of the weakest part of the cross section may govern the resistance of the full section. The following
criterion must be fulfilled:
2 2 2
⎛ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ τ Ed ⎞
⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ + 3⎜ ⎟ ≤ 1.0 (12)
⎜ ρ x f y γ M 1 ⎟ ⎜ ρ z f y γ M 1 ⎟ ⎜ ρ x f y γ M 1 ⎟ ⎜ ρ z f y γ M 1 ⎟ ⎜ χν f y γ M 1 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
where
ρx the reduction factor ρc in the x-direction taking into account column-like behaviour if necessary
ρz the reduction factor ρc in the z-direction taking into account column-like behaviour if necessary
χv the reduction factor for shear stresses

To calculate the reduction factors the slenderness

α ult ,k
λP = (13)
α crit
has to be used.
αcrit is the minimum load amplifier for the design loads to reach the elastic critical load of the plate under the complete
stress field. It could be calculated using the FE method, relevant computer programs, such as EBPlate [10] or from
available solutions in literature. If the values of αcrit are not available for combined stresses and only αcrit,i values are
known for the components, then αcrit may be determined from:
−1
⎡ 2⎤
⎢ ⎛ 1 +ψ x 1 +ψ z ⎞ ⎥
⎜ + ⎟
⎢ ⎜ 4α 4α crit , z ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ crit , x
⎥
⎢ 1 +ψ x 1 +ψ z 1 −ψ x 1 −ψ z ⎥
α crit =⎢ + + + + ⎥ (14)
⎢ 4α crit , x 4α crit , z 2α 2
crit , x 2α crit
2
,z ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ + 2 ⎥
⎢ α crit ,τ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
σ crit , x
α crit , x = (15)
σ x ,Ed

σ crit , z
α crit , z = (16)
σ z ,Ed

τ crit ,τ
α crit ,τ = (17)
τ τ ,Ed
αult,k may be calculated based on the von-Mises-criterion for point yielding (see Fig. 3), assuming that the resistance of
the whole panel is reached when yielding occurs without plate buckling:
2 2 2
1 ⎛ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ τ Ed ⎞ f
=⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ + 3⎜ ⎟ ⇒ α ult ,k = yk (18)
α ult
2 ⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟ σ
,k ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ V

It should be noted that other yield criteria exist like:

τ Ed 1
- the criterion for large yield zone where yielding occurs when ≥ (see Fig. 3)
τy 3
2 2 2
⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ 3 α ult ,k ⋅ τ Ed 1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⋅ − ⎟ =1 (19)
⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜2 τ yk 2 ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝

τ Ed 1
- the criterion for larger yield zone where yielding occurs when ≥ (see Fig. 3 )
τy 2
2 2 2
⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ x, Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ σ z , Ed ⎞ ⎛ α ult ,k ⋅ τ Ed ⎞
⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ + ⎜2⋅ − 1⎟ = 1 (20)
⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ f yk ⎟⎜ f yk ⎟ ⎜ τ yk ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

As simplification min (ρx, ρz, χv)= ρ may be introduced in Equation (12) so the verification becomes:
α ult ,k
ρ ≥ 1.0 (21)
γ M1
γM1 being the partial factor applied to this method.

Equation 18
Equation 19
Equation 20

Figure 3: Yield curves with various criteria τEd/τy for the start of the interaction [8]
4 Amelioration of the method of reduced stresses to cover the bearing capacity of the section
If the load Ed (σx, τ) does not reach the strength Rd (Fig. 4 left) of the panel under consideration, the buckling
verification for the panel is sufficient. But if the load Ed is larger than the strength R (Fig. 4 right) the plateau properties
could be activated for the whole section to use the increase of the strength ΔR (Fig. 5).

Figure 4: Sufficient and insufficient resistance R of a plate element according to the reduce stress method [8]

Figure 5: Enhancement of the resistance R by ΔR by additional rotation (straining) [8]

According to Fig. 6 the stress σR in the web, for which the buckling verification is not fulfilled, is reduced to
(σR - ΔσR) (Fig. 7) assuming that the difference ΔσR is assigned to the flange which is not buckled neither under σR nor
under (σR + ΔσR). The stress increase ΔσR in the flange leads to the moment increase ΔMR and thus to the increase of
the bending moment resistance of the whole section from MR to (MR + ΔMR). However, this does not mean that the
shear force resistance is also increased from VR to (VR + ΔVR) because the VR is limited by the buckling verification of
the web (VR, MR).

neutral elastic
axis σR leads to MR
ΔσR leads to
additional Δ MR
rotation strain gradient
after rotation

Figure 6: First step to determine ΔΜR [9]

 Figure 7: Decrease of σR to σR - ΔσR by the increase of τR to τR + ΔτR [9]

If the reserves of the flange are completely utilized for the bearing capacity of the whole cross section, the web must
carry larger shear force which can be determined by

⎛ ΔM R ⎞
VR + ΔVR = VR ⋅ ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ (22)
⎝ MR ⎠
The increased shear stresses (τR + ΔτR) interact with the decreased bending stresses (σR - ΔσR) in such a way that the
plateau criterion for web buckling remains (Fig. 7). This plateau criterion for simultaneous applied longitudinal stresses
σx and shear stresses τ is given in Fig. 8. It satisfies the following equation derived from the chosen yield criterion:
2
⎞ ⎛ 3 ⋅ (τ R + Δτ R ) ⎞
2
Δσ R ⎛ f yk ⋅ ρ
= 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ (23)
σR ⎜ ⎟
⎝ γ M 1 ⋅σ R ⎠ ⎝ σR ⎠

Figure 8: Interaction of plate buckling strengths σR - τR [8]

With (τR + ΔτR) ≥ τED Equation (23) becomes

2 2
Δσ R ⎛ f yk ⋅ ρ ⎞ ⎛ 3 ⋅τ Ed ⎞
= 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜ ⎟ (24)
σR ⎜ ⎟
⎝ γ M 1 ⋅σ R ⎠ ⎝ σR ⎠
The consequences for the moment-strain curves and the shear forces-deformation curves are illustrated in Figures 9 and
10.
For small shear stresses with τEd/τy ≤ 0.5 (Fig. 9), the moment reserves can be fully utilized at the level 1 for the web
and at the level 2 for the flange. In this case one can neglect the verification of interaction between shear force and
bending moment in the web.

Figure 9: Effects of the interaction of plate buckling strength for τEd/τy ≤ 0.5 (σR und τR without interaction) [9]
For high shear stresses with τEd/τy >0.5 (Fig. 10), the mobilisation of the reserves in the flange (level 2) is only possible
if the simultaneous reduction of the bearing capacity accounted for by the increase of the shear stresses in the web,
cp. Fig 10.

Figure 10: Effects of the interaction of plate buckling strength for τEd/τy >0.5 (σR und τR with interaction) [9]

Figure 11 shows the utilisation factors of some stiffened web-panel by the recalculation of the bearing capacity of
different bridges with the effective width method (method 1) and with the reduced stress method (method 2) without
utilisation of the plateau properties (i.e. without load shedding) as it is actually given in the code. The difference shows
that method 1 is appropriate for the ultimate limit state (ULS) and method 2 for the service limit state (SLS).

Figure 11: Comparison of utilisation factors: effective width method and reduced stress method without the
mobilisation of strength reserves[8]

Figure 12 shows the comparison between method 1 and method 2 with mobilisation of the plateau properties (i.e. with
load shedding). Differences to method 1 exist where the cross section interaction is most different to the cross section
interaction of method 1.

Figure 12: Comparison of utilisation factors: effective width method and reduced stress method
with the mobilisation of the strength reserves [8]
Legend:
M1-η·τ: method 1 - calculation of the utilisation factor for the shear force bearing capacity with the net section
M1-η·σ: method 1 - calculation of the utilisation factor for the bending moment bearing capacity with the net section
M1-η·σ(η·τ): method 1 - calculation of the utilisation factor for the M-N-V bearing capacity with the gross section
erw. M2-η·τ: method 2 - calculation of the utilisation factor for the shear force bearing capacity with the net section
erw. M2- η·σ(η·τ): method 2 - calculation of the utilisation factor for the M-N-V bearing capacity with the net section
and mobilisation of the plateau properties

Figure 13 shows the results calculated with different approaches of the yield curves and mobilisation of the plateau
properties (i.e. with load shedding). The yield criterion according to Eq. 20 perfoms better than the yield criteria
according to Eq. 18 and 19. With the mobilisation of the plateau properties all yield criteria lead to higher resistances
for the buckling verification.

Figure 13: Comparison of utilisation factors: reduced stress method with different yield criteria [8]

Legend:
M2-FK1, M2-FK2, M2-FK3: method 2 with yield criterion 1, 2 and 3 with respectively Eq. 18, 19 and 20
erw. M2-FK1-η·τ, erw. M2-FK2-η·τ, erw. M2-FK3-η·τ: method 2 - calculation of the utilisation factor for the shear
force bearing capacity with the net section and respectively with yield criterion 1, 2 and 3
erw. M2-FK1-η·σ(η·τ), erw. M2-FK2-η·σ(η·τ), erw. M2-FK3-η·σ(η·τ): method 2 - calculation of the utilisation factor
for the M-N-V bearing capacity with the net section and mobilisation of the plateau properties, respectively with yield
criterion 1, 2 and 3.

5 Final remark
This paper is based on the knowledge gained within the AiF-project 14771 “Entwicklung und Aufbereitung
wirtschaftlicher Bemessungsregeln für Stahl- und Verbundträger mit schlanken Stegblechen im Hoch- und
Brückenbau” [8], which has been funded by the German Federation of Industrial Research Associations (AiF) and
commissioned by the German Committee for Steel Construction (DASt). The authors would like thank both for the
friendly support and help on the present work.

6 References
[1] DIN 4114. Stabilitätsfälle. Juli 1952.
[2] DIN 18800 Teil 3 Stahlbauten; Stabilitätsfälle, Plattenbeulen. November 1990.
[3] DIN-Fachbericht 103: Stahlbrücken. März 2003. Berlin. Beuth-Verlag.
[4] DIN EN 1993-1-1:2005: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbauten. Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln
und Regeln für den Hochbau. Juli 2005. Berlin. Beuth-Verlag.
[5] DIN EN 1993-1-5:2006: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbauten. Teil 1-5: Plattenförmige Bauteile.
Februar 2007. Berlin. Beuth-Verlag.
[6] DIN EN 1993-2: 2007: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbauten. Teil 2: Stahlbrücken. Februar 2007.
Berlin. Beuth-Verlag.
[7] J. Scheer, H. Nölke and E. Gentz. DASt-Richtlinie 012 – Beulsicherheitsnachweise für Platten – Grundlagen,
Erläuterung, Beispiele, Stahlbau-Verlags-GmbH, Köln, 1979.
 [8] Sedlacek, G., Feldmann, M., Naumes, J., Müller, Chr., Kuhlmann, U., Braun, B., Mensinger, M. und Ndogmo, J.:
Entwicklung und Aufbereitung wirtschaftlicher Bemessungsregeln für Stahl- und Verbundträger mit schlanken
Stegblechen im Hoch- und Brückenbau. AiF-Forschungsvorhaben, 2008.
[9] Naumes, J., Feldmann, M. und Sedlacek, G.: Gemeinsame Grundlagen von Methode 1 (wirksame Breiten) und
Methode 2 (Beulspannungsbegrenzung) beim Plattenbeulnachweis nach EC 3-Teil 1-5. Stahlbau 3, Seite 139-
147. 78. Jahrgang, März 2009.
[10] EBPlate: Computer program for the determination of the ideal critical buckling resistance of stiffened plates,
developed by CTICM within the scope of the RFCS-project ComBri (Kuhlmann, et al.); free download under
http://www.cticm.eu/spip.php?article45

View publication stats