IStructE Conference on Structural Engineering in Hazard Mitigation 2013

Harmonized Member Buckling Design in

Structural Eurocodes

Professor K F Chung
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR.

1
Outline

 Introduction of the Eurocodes

 Prescriptive design vs. Performance-based design

 Comparison on member buckling check for steel columns and beams

BS 5950 Part 1: 2000 vs. BS EN 1993-1-1: 2005

 The harmonized member buckling design at both room and elevated

temperatures according to:
EN 1993: steel beams susceptible to lateral buckling,
EN 1993: steel columns susceptible to axial buckling, as well as
EN 1994: steel-concrete composite columns susceptible to axial buckling

 Conclusion

2
Structure of the Eurocodes

 There are 10 separate Structural Eurocodes, each Eurocode comprises a

number of Parts, which are published as separate documents, and each Part
consists of:
 the main body of text
 Normative annexes
 Informative annexes

EN 1990 Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design

EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Structures

3
Member states, Admission and Candidate Countries

4
Harmonized Codification
The general responses to harmonised codification are very positive, and this may be
explained by the following observations:

 The fundamental concepts of harmonised codification have been firmly established

after many years of design development by engineers, researchers and code
drafters.

 The modern design philosophy, namely, the limit state design, is widely adopted,
and many design methods with rational basis rather than empirical expressions are
available.

 Modern design tools including rational design procedures, design rules with highly
involved mathematics, and integrated analysis and design methods with finite
element modelling demand the design methods to be completely rational.

In general, both the technical expertise and the resources available during the
preparation of relevant background documents are often found to be instrumental to
the code drafting and developing process.

5
Prescriptive Design vs. Performance-based Design

The prescriptive approach is generally considered to be restrictive, and little

information is provided once the limits of the design clauses are crossed. Moreover, it
is generally difficult to know how efficient the design is.

With recent advances in design development of structural design codes, performance-

based approach should be considered as a major advancement which enables
rational design and analysis on the structural behaviour of a structure against well
defined requirements at specific levels of acceptance.

It is very interesting to review the development of a number of national steel codes, and
to examine some of the design methods and clauses which have evolved over the
years. Illustrations on member buckling check are given below:

• Steel columns susceptible to axial buckling

• Steel beams susceptible to lateral buckling buckling
• Composite columns susceptible to axial buckling

6
Member Buckling Check for Hot Rolled Steel Sections
Steel columns: British Steel Code BS 5950
For a steel column susceptible to axial buckling, the slenderness of the column:
λ = Le / ry
Le is the effective length of the column
ry is the radius of gyration of the cross-section of the column

300
Design strength, py = 275 N/mm2
Compressive strength, pc

a = 2.0
200
a = 3.5
a = 5.5
a = 2.0
100

0
0 40 80 120 160 200
Slenderness ratio, λ
Column buckling curves to BS 5950
Through a non-linear interaction curve, which is commonly referred as the Perry-
Robertson formula, the effect of axial buckling in a real column is expressed as a
reduction in its design strength from its yield value, i.e. a compressive strength.
7
Member Buckling Check for Hot Rolled Steel Sections
Steel beams: British Steel Code BS 5950
For a steel beam susceptible to lateral buckling, an equivalent slenderness of the beam:
λLT = uvλ
u and v are secondary section properties of the beam related to lateral bending
and torsion
300
Compressive strength, pc

200
a = 7.0

100

0
0 40 80 120 160 200
Equivalent slenderness ratio, λLT

Beam buckling curves to BS 5950

The effect of lateral buckling in a real beam is expressed as a reduction in its design
strength from its yield value, i.e. a bending strength.
8
Member Buckling Check using Normalized Slenderness
Steel columns: Eurocode 3
For a steel column susceptible to axial buckling, the slenderness of the column:

1.2
Strength reduction factor, χ

1.0
a= 0.13
0.8 a= 0.21
a= 0.34
a= 0.49
0.6
a= 0.76
0.4

0.2

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Slenderness ratio, ̅

Column buckling curves to EC3

The effect of axial buckling in a real column is expressed as a reduction in resistance of

the cross-sections, i.e. a strength reduction factor, χc , multiplied to the axial
compression resistance of the cross-section of the member.
9
Member Buckling Check using Normalized Slenderness
Steel beams: Eurocode 3
For a steel beam susceptible to lateral buckling, an equivalent slenderness of the beam:

1.2
Strength reduction factor, χLT

1.0
a= 0.21
0.8 a= 0.34
a= 0.49
a= 0.76
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Equivalent slenderness ratio,

Beam buckling curves to EC3

The effect of lateral buckling in a real beam is expressed as a reduction in resistance of

the cross-sections, i.e. a strength reduction factor, χb multiplied to the moment
resistances of the cross-section of the member.
10
Comparisons on Member Buckling Check

EC3 BS5950
Slenderness
Force ratio Geometric ratio

Afy

Ncr LE
Column 
r
2EI
where Ncr 
L2
Wy fy
LT 
Mcr
Beam LT  uv
2EIz Iw L2GIt
where Mcr  C1  2
L2
Iz  EIz

11
Comparisons on Member Buckling Check
Resistance EN 1993-1-1:2005 BS 5950-1:2000
χAfy Pc  A gpc
Nb,Rd = pEp y
M1 pc 
 
0.5
where     pEp y
2

1 in which:
= but  ≤ 1.0 p y     1 pE
+ 2 – 2  
2
= 0.5 1 α  0.2 2

pE  2E /  2 
Column Afy
 where
Ncr py is the design strength
 is an imperfection factor LE
 is the slenderness
r
 is the Perry factor
 a     0  / 1000 but   0
a is the Robertson constant
12
Comparisons on Member Buckling Check
Resistance EN 1993-1-1:2005 BS 5950-1:2000 / HKSC
fy Mb  pbSx
Mb,Rd  LT Wy pEpy
 M1 pc 
 
0.5
LT  LT 2  pEpy
where in which:
py   LT  1 pE
1 LT 
LT  2
 LT   2
LT 
2
LT

pE  2E / LT 2 
where
but LT  1.0 py is the design strength
Beam LT is the equivalent slenderness
u  0.9  uv  W
 
 LT  0.5 1  LT LT  0.2  LT 
2

  1
v 
LT is an imperfection factor 1  0.05   / x 2 
0.25

 
Wy fy x = D/T
LT 
Mcr w = 1.0  LE/r
LT is the Perry factor
 aLT  LT  L0  / 1000 but LT  0
aLT is the Robertson constant
13
 Member Buckling Check at Elevated Temperatures
Steel and composite columns: Eurocode 3 & 4

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
Reduction factor

Reduction factor
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature (oC) Temperature (oC)
Strength reduction factors Elastic modulus reduction factors

All of the materials retain only 50% of their original strengths when their temperatures
reach 500 to 600 oC.
14
Design procedure of a unrestrained steel beam to
EN 1993: 1-1: 2005
Cold Design Hot Design

Evaluate the equivalent Evaluate the equivalent

slenderness, LT slenderness, LT

Evaluate the non-dimensional Evaluate the non-dimensional

slenderness, slenderness, ,  , com

Find out the reduction factors:

ky,,com & kE,,com

Evaluate LT Evaluate LT, ,com

Evaluate LT Evaluate LT,fi

Evaluate the buckling Evaluate the buckling

moment resistance, Mb,Rd moment resistance, Mb,fi,Rd
15
Design procedure of a pined-pined steel column to
EN 1993: 1-1: 2005
Cold Design Hot Design

Evaluate the equivalent Evaluate the equivalent

slenderness,  slenderness, 

Evaluate the non-dimensional Evaluate the non-dimensional

slenderness, ̅ slenderness,

Find out the reduction factors:

ky, & kE,

Evaluate  Evaluate 

Evaluate  Evaluate fi

Evaluate the buckling Evaluate the buckling

moment resistance, Nb,Rd moment resistance, Nb,fi,Rd
16
Member Buckling Check using Modified Slenderness
Composite columns: Eurocode 4
The axial buckling resistances of the composite columns are based on the modified
slenderness:
1.2
̅

Strength reduction factor, χ

1.0
a= 0.21
0.8
where a= 0.34
0.6 a= 0.49

Npl is the section capacity of the 0.4

composite column
0.2

Ncr is the elastic axial buckling 0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
resistance of the composite Slenderness ratio, ̅
column
Member buckling curves to EC4

The effect of axial buckling in real composite columns is expressed as a strength

reduction to the resistances of the cross-sections of the members, i.e. a strength
reduction factor, χc ,multiplied to the compression resistances of the cross-sections
of the composite columns.
17
Design procedure of a pined-pined composite column to
EN 1994: 1-2: 2005
Cold Design Hot Design

Evaluate both the design and Evaluate both the design and
characteristic plastic resistance to characteristic plastic resistance to
compression, Npl,Rd & Npl,R compression, Nfi, pl, Rd & Nfi, pl, R

Evaluate the effective flexural Evaluate the effective flexural

stiffness, (EI)eff stiffness, (EI)eff

Evaluate the non-dimensional Evaluate the non-dimensional

slenderness, ̅ slenderness,

Evaluate  Evaluate 

Evaluate  Evaluate 

Evaluate the buckling Evaluate the buckling

resistance, Nb, Rd resistance, Nb, fi, Rd
18
Conclusions

Owing to the successful design development on member buckling in the Structural

Eurocodes, the normalized slenderness ratios:
 for steel columns susceptible to axial buckling, and
LT for steel beams susceptible to lateral buckling
are shown to be effective to determine corresponding strength reduction factors
due to member buckling.

Moreover, the same design formulation for member buckling design of various
types of structural members is readily used together with parameters having
different values according to the materials of the members.

Hence, the harmonized member buckling design of steel beams and columns
as well as steel-concrete composite columns at both room and elevated
temperatures is presented, and this design method may be regarded as a
generalized method readily applicable to various structural members.

19
IStructE Conference on Structural Engineering in Hazard Mitigation 2013

Harmonized Member Buckling Design in

Structural Eurocodes

Professor K F Chung
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR.

20