Download as pdf
ZILINSKA UNIVERZITA V ZILINE
Fakulta stavebna
STEEL STRUCTURES
Josef VICAN and Jaroslav ODROBINAK
ZILINA 2008 ZILINSKA UNIVERZITA V ZILINE, Stavebna fakulta
STEEL STRUCTURES
Vitan Josef - Odrobitiak Jaroslav
Podta vybranjch kapitol zo slovenského origindlu
Bujiiak Jan, Furtak Kazimierz, Vitan Josef
NAVRHOVANIE KONSTRUKCIi PODLA EUROKODOV
Vyd. Zilinska univerzita v Ziline/ EDIS — vydavatelstvo 2U, Zilina 2003, ISBN 80-8070-078-8
aktualizované a dopinené v sulade s normami
EN 1990: 2002 Basis of structural design
EN 1993-1-1: 2005 Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
EN 1993-1-8: 2005 Design of steel structures. Part 1-8: Design of joints
vyd. European Committee for Standardisation, Central Secretariat: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels.
Za jazykov a vecnti spravnost zodpoveda prof. Ing. Josef Vian, CSc., veduici katedry stavebnych
konitrukcif a mostov. Text nepresiel jazykovou Upravou.
Vydala Zilinské univerzita v Ziline, Zilina 2008
Issued by University of Zilina, Zilina 2008
© Vigan Josef, Odrobitidk Jaroslav, 2008
Tlaé / Printed by EDIS — vydavatelstvo Zilinskej univerzity v Ziline
ISBN 978-80-554-0053-2
Vydané s podporou Eurépskeho socidineho fondu, projekt SOP {Z— 2005/NP1-007
Issued with support of European Social Foundation, project SOP LZ - 2005/NP1-00 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.....
2. BASIS OF DESIGN
21 General
2.2 Reliability management.
2.3 Design working life of building
4 Durability of steel structures
2.5 Principles of limit states design.
2.5.1 Theoretical basis
2.5.2 Limit states ..
2.5.3 Basic variables. . A
2521 Actions and environmental influences.
2.5.3.2 Material and product properties.
2433, Geometrical data..
2.6 Verification by the partial factor method
2.6.1 Separated reliability condition...
2.6.2. Application of representative values
3. MATERIALS.
3.1 General
3.2 Structural steel.
4 DURABILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES..
5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS..
5.1 Structural modelling for analysis
5.2. Global analysis.
5.3 Imperfections.
5.3.1 General
5.3.2. Imperfections for global analysis of frames
5.3.3 Imperfection for analysis of bracing systems..
5.3.4 Member imperfection
5.4 Methods of global analysi:
5.3 Classification of cross-sections ..
6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ..sssssssseses
6.1 General.
6.2 Resistance of cross-sections
6.2.1 _ Resistance of compact cross-sections of Class 1 an
- Cross-section subjected to tension...
Cross-section subjected to compression
Cross-section subjected to bending
Cross-section subjected to shear...
Cross-section subjected to bending and shea
Cross-section subjected to bending and axial forc
sistance of semi-compact cross-sections of Class 3.
General. oe ae
Cross-section subjected to bending, shear and axial force........ 56
Cross-section subjected to torsion . 56
GORMAA socrsoicosssoegereson 56
St, Venant torsion of the open cross-sectior 60
Bredt torsion of the box CrOS$-SCCtiOM.......cssssssessseisancsstssssnsnsessiussnsnsenenseeseeene woo
Warping torsion of the open cross-section son 6.3. Buckling resistance of members subjected to compression.
63.1 _ Introduction.
6.3.2 Structural stability of ideal member subjected to compression
63.3 Buckling resistance.
6.3.4 Buckling reduction factor and buckling curves
6.3.5 Buckling resistance
6.3.6 Uniform built-up compression members...
63.6.1 Laced built-up compression members
6.3.6.2 _Battened built-up compression member
63.6.3 Closely spaced built-up members.
6.4 Buckling resistance of members subjected to bending
64.1 Cross-sections of members subjected to bending
64.2 Resistance of members subjected to bending...
6.4.3 Structural stability of members subjected to bending
6.4.4 Buckling resistance of members subjected to bending...
7 CONNECTIONS.
7.1 Basis of design...
7.2 Connections made with bolts, rivets or pin:
7.2.1 Distribution of forces between fasteners at the ultimate limit state.
7.2.2 Positioning of holes for bolts and rivets
7.2.3 Categories of bolted connections
7.2.4 Design resistance for bolts subjected to shear and/or tension.
7241 Shear resistance.
7.2.4.2 Bearing resistance.
7243 Tension resistance...
7244 Punching shear resistance.
7245 Resistance to combined shear and tension..
7.2.5 The use fit bolts...
7.2.6 Slip-resistant connections using preloaded bolts
7.2.6.1 Design slip resistance
7.26.2 Combined tension and she:
7.2.7 Injection bolts and their design resistance
7.2.8 Riveted connections...
72.9 Prying forces...
72.10 Deductions for fastener holes.
7.2.10.1 De for block tearing
7.2.10.2 Asymmetrically connected members in ter
7.2.10.3 Lug angles..
7.2.11 Connections made with pins
7.3. Welded connections.
7.3.1 General.
7.3.2 Distribution of forces...
73.3 Fillet welds...
733.1 Common fillet weds.
733.2 Intermittent fillet wel
$334 Fillet welds all round
7.3.3.4 Long fillet welds
73.4 Butt welds.
73.5 Plug welds..
7.3.6 Flare groove weld:
73.7. Eccenirically loaded welds
7.3.8 Welding in cold-formed zones.
7.3.9 Connections to unstiffened flanges..
References 1 INTRODUCTION
The presented publication comprises the basic information related to design principles of steel
structural elements according to European standards EN 1990 [1], EN 1993-1-1 [6] and EN
1993-1-8 [11]. The basis of steel structures design is accompanied by the theoretical
foundation and derivation of the major formulas applied in the design practice.
Due to relative high strength of steel, steel structures consist of very slender thin-walled
structural members so that their behaviour is very complicated because of global and local
buckling effects. These influences cause reduction of the cross-sectional and member
resistance which has to be considered in frame of steel structure design. Nevertheless, the
steel is always considered to be the most quality building material and its application in
building industry is given especially due to following advantages:
— high strength enabling design of slender and light-weight structures which are easily
transported and erected;
industrial way of fabrication ensuring production quality and accurateness:
— reconstruction ability of steel structures and also structures made of other building
materials;
— return of steel material - steel recycling.
On the other side the slendemess of steel members represents the basic disadvantage of the
steel as the material for building structures. Low resistance to fire and corrosion and high
acoustic, thermal and electrical conductivity belong also to other disadvantages of steel
introducing higher operating costs during steel structure exploitation compared to structures
made of other building materials-concrete, timber, masonry. In the past, the production of
steel was considered as the most energy consuming process in comparison with production of
other building materials. Therefore the new method of steel production was developed in the
last decades of 20-th century. The new process is based on the shortening of production cycle
due to direct connection of the steel production with steel hot-rolling, by application of
consistent automation and by improving of anticorrosive protection. Consequence of these
approaches was registered into the favourable price relations ensuring competitiveness of steel
in building industry. 2 BASIS OF DESIGN
2.1 General
Steel structures have to be designed in accordance with the general rules given in EN 1990
[I]. The basic requirements of [1] section 2 should be satisfied where limit state design is
used in conjunction with the partial factor method and the load combinations given in EN
1990 [1] together with the actions given in EN 1991 [2]. From the viewpoint of basic
requirements of EN 1990 [1], the steel structures have to be designed and executed in such a
way that it will, during their intended life, with appropriate degrees of reliability and in an
economical way
— sustain all actions and influences likely to occur during execution and exploitation, and
— remain fit for the use for which it is required.
The basic requirements will be fulfilled, if the steel structures will have adequate:
— structural resistance,
— serviceability, and
— durability.
In the case of fire, the structural resistance have to be adequate for the required period of time.
If it is relevant, steel structures have to be designed in such a way that it will not be damaged
by events such as:
= explosion,
— impact, and
— the consequences of human errors.
From the view point of cross-sectional and member resistances, serviceability and durability,
the rules given in the various parts of EN 1993 should be applied.
Depending on the type of action affecting durability and the design working life (see EN 1990
[1] and Table 2.1) steel structures should be
~ designed against corrosion by means of
- suitable surface protection (see EN ISO 12944 [28]) ;
~ the use of weathering steel;
— the use of stainless steel (see EN 1993-1-4 [7]);
- detailed for sufficient fatigue life (see EN 1993-1-9 [12]) ;
~ designed for wearing;
~ designed for accidental actions (see EN 1991-1-7 [5]);
— inspected and maintained.
Potential damage has to be avoided or limited by appropriate choice of one or more of the
following:
— avoiding, eliminating or reducing the hazards to which the structure can be subjected;
— selecting a structural form which has low sensitivity to the hazards considered;
— selecting a structural form and design that can survive adequately the accidental removal
of an individual member or a limited part of the steel structure, or the occurrence of
acceptable localised damage;
— avoiding as far as possible structural systems that can collapse without warning;
— appropriate tying the structural members together. 2.2 Reliability management
The reliability level required for steel structures in frame of EN 1990 [1] have to be achieved:
a) by design in accordance with EN 1990 to EN 1999 and
b) by
— appropriate execution and
— quality management measures.
The choice of the reliability levels for a particular steel structure should take account of the
relevant factors, including:
— the possible cause and /or mode of attaining a limit state ;
— the possible consequences of failure in terms of risk to life, injury, potential economical
losses;
— public aversion to failure;
— the expense and procedures necessary to reduce the risk of failure.
The levels of reliability that apply to a particular steel structure may be specified in one or
both of the following ways:
— by the classification of the structure as a whole;
— by the classification of its components.
The levels of reliability relating to structural resistance and serviceability can be achieved by
suitable combinations of:
a) preventative and protective measures (e.g. implementation of safety barriers, active and
passive protective measures against fire, protection against risks of corrosion such as
painting or cathode protection);
b) measures relating to design calculations:
— representative values of actions;
— the choice of partial factors;
c) measures relating to quality management;
d) measures aimed to reduce errors in design and execution of the structure, and gross
human errors;
e) other measures relating to the following other design matters:
— the basic requirements;
— the degree of robustness (structural integrity);
— durability, including the choice of the design working life;
— the extent and quality of preliminary investigations of soils and possible environmental
influences;
— the accuracy of the mechanical models used;
— the detailing;
f) efficient execution, e.g. in accordance with execution standards referred to in EN 1991 to
EN 1999,
g) adequate inspection and maintenance according to procedures specified in the project
documentation. 2.3 Design working life of buildings
The design working life should be taken as the period for which a building structure is
expected to be used for its intended purpose. For the specification of the intended design
working life of a permanent building see Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Design working life of structures
Design working | _ Indicative ‘Examples
life category | design working
life (years)
1 10 ‘Temporary structures ”
2 101025 Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry girders,
bearings
3 15 to 30 Agricultural and similar structures
= 50. Building structures and other common structures
- Monumental building structures, bridges, and
3 100 rar 2 .
other civil engineering structures
Structures or parts of structures that can be dismantled with a view to being re-used
should not be considered as temporary.
2.4 Durability of steel structures
In order to achieve an adequately durable steel structure, the following rules should be taken
into account:
— the intended or foreseeable use of the structure;
— the required design criteria;
— the expected environmental conditions;
— the composition, properties and performance of the materials and products;
— the properties of the soil:
— the choice of the structural system;
— the shape of members and the structural detailing;
— the quality of workmanship, and the level of control;
— the particular protective measures;
— the intended maintenance during the design working life.
The environmental conditions have to be identified at the design stage so that their
significance can be assessed in relation to durability and adequate provisions can be made for
protection of the materials used in the structure. The degree of any deterioration can be
estimated on the basis of calculations, experimental investigation, experience from earlier
constructions, or a combination of these considerations. Therefore, steel structures and their
components should either be designed for environmental actions and fatigue or else protected
from them. The effects of deterioration of material, corrosion or fatigue should be taken into
account by appropriate choice of material (see EN 1993-1-4 [7] and EN 1993-1-10 [13]) and
details (see EN 1993-1-9 [12]), or by structural redundancy and by the choice of an
appropriate corrosion protection system. 2.5 Principles of limit states design
2.5.1 Theoretical basis
Structural reliability is an ability of a structure to fulfil required functions from the viewpoint
of preserving real service indicators in the actual conditions and limits during the required
time period.
Partial basic reliability components are as follows:
— safety — do not endanger human health and environment,
— serviceability — utilization of a structure for intended purpose,
— durability — time period of the reliable service - design working life.
The current state of the reliability verification of building structures has a semi probabilistic
character with the theoretical background based on the second level reliability methods
designated like engineering approaches to the reliability theory (see Fig. 1).
Deterministic Probabilistic methods
methods
‘Methods of
2. level
calibration
‘Methods of 1. level
Partial safety factor method
Fig. 2.1 Classification of the reliability verification methods
Methods of
3. level
calibration
The engineering method or also method of the extreme function of reliability margin belongs
to these approaches, Using above-mentioned method, the reliability of structure or its
component could be expressed by means of the reliability margin g in the following form:
e-R-E, 1)
where R is the general random variable structural resistance as a function of its m-components
and E is the general random variable structural response to actions in the form of k- partial
action effects. The expression (2.1) of the reliability margin g is only possible considering
knowledge of the basic statistic characteristics of the random variables R and E , which can
be obtained using test results, measurements and observations of the statistic methods.
Considering g being the linear function of the statistically independent random variable R and
E, the statistic characteristics of the reliability margin can be determined as follows:
Hy = Ha Me > (22)
o=oj+o2, (23)
;
oe @4)
%% Where /4,, gs Me are the means of the random variables g, R, E;
O,.Oq+ are their standard deviations;
a,.ay.a_ are their skewness coefficients.
To determine the probability density function of the reliability margin, the following relation
can be used when R and E are considered to be statistically independent
£,(g)= Te g+E)f, (E)dE = fh (R)f;(g-E)AR . (25)
where f, (R),f; (E) are the probability density functions of R and E.
Resistance R
EER ..... Limit state
Fig. 2.2 Probability density function of the reliability margin g
obability of failure Ps the probability of reliability P, (survival probability) and
reliability index # are often used to quantify the reliability level. Considering the known
probability density function f,(g) of the reliability margin, the reliability level can be defined:
P.=P(g>0)=P(R-E>0)= fe(e)ae (2.6)
é
and the probability of failure P; then be expressed in the form:
°
P, =P(g<0)=1-P, = ff(e)de. 2.7)
Considering normal Gaussian distribution of the probability density function of the reliability
margin, the probability of failure can be define as follows:
(2.8)
where ® is the cumulative distribution function of the normally distributed reliability margin
gand the ratio 4/0 is the reliability index f. Reliability index f represents the structural
reliability expression in a more appropriate way, because probability of failure achieves very
small values like 10 till 10°. Elementary reliability index # can be expressed in the
following form: 29)
Voi+
Taking into account the reliability margin g as the function of random variables, the general
reliability condition can be written in the form:
Pr=P[R-E B= Ox (Pu) > (2.11)
where oy is the inverse cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution,
A isthe design target reliability index in accordance with Table 2.2.
When the reliability margin g has unsymmetrical distribution, the values of the reliability
index f can be determined using fractiles of the probability of failure considering relevant
skewness coefficient a, Reliability verification of the structural member according to above
introduced engineering approach seems to be very complicated task because R and E are the
linear and also nonlinear functions of the random variables.
Table 2.2 Design target reliability index for structural members
Limit state Target reliability index
1 year 50 years
Ultimate 47 3.8
Fatigue 1.510 3.87
Serviceability (irreversible) 29 | 1S
) See Annex B of EN 1990
2) Depends on degree of inspectability, reparability and damage tolerance.
For example, the action effects E are the combination of the various types of actions usually
expressed by means of their sum, but the resistance function R is usually expressed as the
multiplication of the random variables relating to cross-sectional or structural member
resistance. Therefore, the reliability margin g can be used in the form:
X->X, (2.12)
aot
fs 2
a=
eI
where X; are the random variables in the n-dimensional space.
Generally, the reliability margin calculation is relatively complicated and therefore
approximate methods (FORM, SORM) or more often simulation methods (Monte - Carlo,
Latin Hypercube Sampling and Importance Sampling) are used to calculate probability of failure P; or reliability index f in relevant applications. But, the above-introduced methods
are not used for practical design of building structures, where the simplified approaches based
on partial factor method are applied.
2.5.2 Limit states
‘The structures occur in certain states during their lifetime, which could be divided:
— from the viewpoint of activity: - service;
- downtime;
— from the viewpoint of failure: - failure-free state;
- state of failure.
Specific structural state is so called limit state. Limit state of the structure or its component
occurs:
— when performing required functions was stopped;
— when the structure does not meet the proposed requirements anymore ;
— in the case of structural collapse .
In the case of building structures, two types of limit states have to be distinguished:
— ultimate limit states —related to the safety and durability of structures
— serviceability limit states — related to the serviceability of structures
The limit states that concern the safety of people, and/or the safety of the structure should be
classified as ultimate limit states. The following ultimate limit states have to be verified where
they are relevant:
— loss of equilibrium of the structure or any part of it, considered as a rigid body;
— failure by excessive deformation, transformation of the structure or any part of it into
a mechanism, rupture, loss of stability of the structure or any part of it, including supports
and foundations ;
— failure caused by fatigue or other time-dependent effects.
The limit states that concern the functioning of the structure or structural members under
normal use, the comfort of people, the appearance of the construction works from the
viewpoint of high deflection or extensive cracking should be classified as serviceability limit
states. The verification of serviceability limit states should be based on criteria concerning the
following aspects:
a) deformations that affect
— the appearance,
— the comfort of users, or
— the functioning of the structure (including the functioning of machines or services),
or that cause damage to finishing or non-structural members;
b) vibrations
— that cause discomfort to people, or
— that limit the functional effectiveness of the structure;
c) damage that is likely to adversely affect
— the appearance,
— the durability, or
— the functioning of the structure.
12 Limit states should be related to design situations. The relevant design situations have to be
selected taking into account the circumstances under which the structure is required to fulfil
its function. Design situations should be classified as follows:
— persistent design situations, which conform to the conditions of normal use;
— transient design situations, which refer to temporary conditions applicable to the structure,
e.g. during execution or repair ;
— accidental design situations, which correspond to exceptional conditions applicable to the
structure or to its exposure, e.g. to fire, explosion, impact or the consequences of localised
failure;
— seismic design situations, which refer to conditions applicable to the structure when
subjected to seismic events.
The selected design situations have to be sufficiently severe and varied so as to take into
account all conditions that can reasonably be foreseen to occur during the execution and use
of the structure.
2.5.3 Basic variables
2.5.3.1 Actions and environmental influences
Actions can be classified by their variation in time as follows:
— permanent actions (G), e.g, self-weight of structures, fixed equipment and road surfacing,
and indirect actions caused by shrinkage and uneven settlements;
— variable actions (Q), ¢.g. imposed loads on building floors, beams and roofs, wind actions
or snow loads;
~— accidental actions (A), e.g. explosions, or impact from vehicles.
Certain actions, such as seismic actions and snow loads, may be considered as either
accidental and/or variable actions, depending on the site location. Actions caused by water
may be considered as permanent and/or variable actions depending on the variation of their
magnitude with time. Actions should also be classified:
— by their origin, as direct or indirect,
— by their spatial variation, as fixed or free, or
— by their nature and/or the structural response, as static or dynamic.
An action should be described by a model, its magnitude being represented in the most
common cases by one scalar which may have several representative values.
For the limit state design, the representative values of actions are used. The main
tepresentative value of the action entering calculations is the characteristic value of the action,
which should be specified:
— asa mean value, an upper or lower value, or a nominal value (which does not refer to
a known statistical distribution);
— in the project documentation, provided that consistency is achieved with methods
given in EN 1991 [2]
The characteristic value of a permanent action shall be taken as follows:
~ if the variability of G is small, one single value G, may be used;
_ if the variability of G cannot be considered as small, two values shall be used — an upper
value G isup and a lower value G kit
13 ‘The variability of G may be neglected if G does not vary significantly during the design
working life of the structure and its coefficient of variation is in the range of 0.05 to 0.10
depending on the type of structure. G, should then be taken equal to the mean value. In cases
when the structure is very sensitive to variations in G (e.g. some types of prestressed concrete
structures), two values should be used even if the coefficient of variation is small. Then Gx ine
is the 5% fractile and Gxsup is the 95% fractile of the statistical distribution for G, which may
be assumed to be Gaussian. The self-weight of the structure may be represented by a single
characteristic value and be calculated on the basis of the nominal dimensions and mean unit
masses, see EN 1991-1-1 [3].
The characteristic value (Q,) of the variable action has to correspond to either:
— an upper value with an intended probability of not being exceeded or a lower value with an
intended probability of being achieved, during some specific reference period;
— a nominal value, which may be specified in cases where a statistical distribution is not
known,
For example, the characteristic value of climatic actions is based upon the probability of 0.02
of its time varying part being exceeded for a reference period of one year. This is equivalent
to a mean return period of 50 years for the time-varying part. However in some cases the
character of the action and/or the selected design situation makes another fractile and/or return
period more appropriate.
For multi-component actions like the variable traffic action on bridges, the characteristic
action should be represented by groups of values, each to be considered separately in design
calculations,
For combination of action, other representative values of a variable action should be taken
into account:
a) the combination value, represented as a product yQy, used for the verification of ultimate
limit states and irreversible serviceability limit states;
b) the frequent value, represented as a product y;Qj, used for the verification of ultimate limit
states involving accidental actions and for verifications of reversible serviceability limit
states;
c) the quasi-permanent value, represented as a product y2Qi, used for the verification of
ultimate limit states involving accidental actions and for the verification of reversible
serviceability limit states. Quasi-permanent values are also used for the calculation of long-
term effects.
For buildings, for example, the frequent value is chosen in such a way, that the time it is
exceeded is 0.01 of the reference period, i.e. 0.5 year. For road traffic loads on bridges, the
frequent value is defined on the basis of a return period of one week. For loads on building
floors, the quasi-permanent value is usually chosen so that the proportion of the time it is
exceeded is 0.50 of the reference period. The quasi-permanent value can alternatively be
determined as the value averaged within a chosen period of time. In the case of wind actions
or road traffic loads, the quasi-permanent value is generally taken as zero.
2.5.3.2 Material and product properties
Properties of materials entering the reliability verification of a structure and its components
(including soil and rock) or other product properties should be represented by characteristic
values. When a limit state verification is sensitive to the variability of a material property,
upper and lower characteristic values of the material property should be taken into account.
Usually, following criteria are used to establish material property characteristic values: — where a low value of material or product property is unfavourable, the characteristic value
should be defined as the 5% fractile value;
— where a high value of material or product property is unfavourable, the characteristic value
should be defined as the 95% fractile value.
Material property values should be determined from standardised tests performed under
specified conditions. A conversion factor should be applied where it is necessary to convert
the test results into values that can be assumed to represent the behaviour of the material or
product in the structure or the ground. Where insufficient statistical data are available to
determine the characteristic values of a material or product property, nominal values may be
taken as the characteristic values. The characteristic values of the structural stiffness
parameters (¢.g. modulus of elasticity, creep coefficients) and thermal expansion coefficients
should be represented by a mean value. Different values should be used to take into account
the duration of the load. In some cases (e.g. in case of instability), a lower or higher value
than the mean for the modulus of elasticity may have to be taken into account. Values of
material or product properties are given in EN 1992 to EN 1999 and in the relevant
harmonised European technical specifications or other documents. If values are taken from
product standards without guidance on interpretation being given in EN 1992 to EN 1999, the
most adverse values should be used.
2.5.3.3 Geometrical data
Geometrical data of cross-sections and structural members should be represented by their
characteristic values, which can be taken as the dimensions specified in the design of
buildings. Where statistical distribution of geometrical data is sufficiently known, values of
geometrical quantities that correspond to a prescribed fractile of the statistical distribution
may be used.
2.6 Verification by the partial factor method
2.6.1 Separated reliability condition
Partial factor method refers to the semi probabilistic methods of the first level and it is the
basic method for reliability verification of building structures in accordance with currently
valid standards. It belongs among methods using individual partial safety factors in reliability
conditions to express effect of random variability and time dependency of parameters entering
the reliability verification. N. Streleckij introduced the concept of this method in 1947 and in
the Slovak republic is used since 1968.
The semi probabilistic concept of the partial factor method is characterised by deterministic
format of reliability condition in the separate form:
E, (2.16a)
He (1+ Ge Be) S Hp (1- Aq ByY_) » respectively, (2.16b)
where je , of @ ve are the mean value, the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation
of action effects E and je , ox a vg are the mean value, the standard deviation and the
coefficient of variation of the structural resistance. The formulas are graphically shown in
Fig. 2.3. Sensitivity factors of the action effects a and structural resistance ag are defined by
following formulas:
Op OR
VOR +0E
and their values used in practical applications were established according to EN 1990 [1]
ag = 0.7 and ap = 0.8 which are valid for the range 0.16 (2.19)
Rg =R(Xais@u)/%ea = R(MXui Fase Aa) = RK / Payee) » (2.20)
where Frepi= WF 2.21)
and 7g; __is the partial factor for the action which takes account of the possibility of
unfavourable deviations of the action values from the representative values;
ye; is the partial factor for action taking account of model and dimension
uncertainties;
Ymi _ is the partial factor for material properties;
yu; is the partial factor for material properties taking account of model and
dimension uncertainties;
Ysa — is the partial factor which takes account of uncertainties due to load response
modelling;
yea is the partial factor taking account of uncertainties due to the structural
resistance modelling:
@jqq __ i8 the nominal value of a geometrical characteristic;
Aa _ is the change of the nominal value of a geometrical characteristic;
™ is a converse factor accounting for the effect of test sample volume and scale,
temperature and any other relevant parameters usually involved into the value
of partial factor 74
‘Assuming the proportional relation between action effect E; and action F;, and considering the
design values ay of geometrical parameters in the form of nominal values ayom, Which may be
respected in the most cases excluding situations, where geometrical parameter significantly
affects structural resistance (e.g imperfection in the case of member buckling, lateral torsional buckling, web buckling etc), the partial factors y,, and y,,may be expressed in following
form:
Yai = Ysa Tei > (2.22)
Yai = Tui Tra + (2.23)
Direct relation for partial factors of action effects and structural resistance could be also
obtained using definitions of design and characteristic values as follows:
Ye = (Me + By Oe Op) IE, = bg (1+ By Oe Ve) /Ey (2.24)
-_R, -
T= Ry (4p - Bite) sill Auanve) a (2.25)
:
‘The reliability condition (2.13) for ultimate limit states expressed by means of characteristic
values of action effects and structural resistance and by the values of their partial factors
should have following form:
By =E (oj Gi, Yo Qua ZoiMoi Qui) S Ra =Ry/ Pu - (2.26)
The following ultimate limit states shall be verified as relevant:
a) EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid
body, where :
— minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of actions from a single
source are significant, and
— _ the strengths of construction materials or ground are generally not governing ;
b) STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members
including footings, piles and basement walls, etc., where the strength of
construction materials of the structure governs;
c) GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the strengths of soil or rock
are significant in providing resistance;
d) FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.
When considering a limit state of static equilibrium of the structure (EQU), it should be
verified that:
where Ey.gxt is the design value of the effect of destabilising actions;
Egy is the design value of the effect of stabilising actions.
Where it is appropriate, the expression for a limit state of static equilibrium may be
supplemented by additional terms, including, for example, a coefficient of friction between
rigid bodies.
When considering a limit state of rupture, excessive deformation of a cross-section, member
or connection or stability loss of member (STR or GEO), it should be verified that:
E, 1, (2.29)
where the combination of actions in brackets { }, in (2.29) may either be expressed as:
Lr esGes + HP + Peis ¥ L7Hoics » (2.30)
or, alternatively for STR and GEO limit states, the less favourable of the two following
expressions:
LresGus # reP'# roo Qs + LVoMoiQes > (2.31a)
‘a a
LS resGes + PP’ + 7: Q.y FL raiWoies » (2316)
Fs fs
where "+" implies "to be combined with";
z= implies "the combined effect of";
Gj __ is the characteristic value of permanent action effects;
¥03 _ is the partial factor for permanent action effects;
is the characteristic value of prestressing action effects;
y> __ is the partial factor for prestressing action effects;
Qu _ is the characteristic value of leading variable action effects;
Qxi is the characteristic value of the i-th accompanying variable action effects;
Yai _ is the partial factor for leading variable action effects;
yoi _ is the partial factor for the i-th accompanying variable action effects;
Y%, is the factor for combination values of a variable action effect;
vv; __ is the factor for combination value of the i-th accompanying variable action
effect;
€ isa reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G.
The values of the partial factors y for design action effects and yo factors for combination
values of action effects should be obtained from EN 1991 [2] and from Annex A in EN 1990
ti}.
The reliability condition for serviceability limit states should have the following form:
ESG. (2.32)
where Ey is the design value of the action effects specified in the serviceability criterion,
determined on the basis of the relevant combination;
Ca is the limiting design value of the relevant serviceability criterion.
The design values of the action effects Ea in relation (2.32) should be determined by
combining the values of actions that are considered to occur simultaneously, For the
serviceability limit states, the following types of combinations of action effects should be
considered to verify serviceability requirements and performance criteria: If the functioning or damage of the structure or finishes, or non-structural members (e.g.
partition walls, claddings) is being considered, the verification for deflection should take
account of those effects of permanent and variable actions that occur after the execution of the
member. If the appearance of the structure is being considered, the quasi-permanent
combination (expression 2.35) should be used. If the comfort of the user or the functioning of
machinery is being considered, the verification should take account of the effects of the
relevant variable actions. Long term deformations due to shrinkage, relaxation or creep should
be considered where relevant, and calculated using the effects of the permanent actions and
quasi-permanent values of the variable actions.
Horizontal displacements are represented schematically in Fig. 2.5, where
u is the overall horizontal displacement within the building height H,
ui is the horizontal displacement within a storey height Hi
Fig. 2.5 Definition of horizontal displacements
From the viewpoint of satisfactory vibration behaviour of buildings and their structural
members under serviceability conditions, the following aspects should be considered:
a) the comfort of the user;
b) the functioning of the structure or its structural members (e.g. cracks in partitions, damage
to cladding, sensitivity of building contents to vibrations).
Other aspects may be considered for each project and agreed with the client. For the
serviceability limit state of a structure or a structural member not to be exceeded when
subjected to vibrations, the natural frequency of vibrations of the structure or structural
member should be kept above limit values which depend upon the function of the building
and the source of the vibration. Those limit values can be found in relevant standards for
building design. If the natural frequency of vibrations of the structure is lower than the
appropriate value, a more refined analysis of the dynamic response of the structure, including
the consideration of damping, should be performed. Possible sources of vibration that should
be considered include walking, synchronised movements of people or machinery, ground
bore vibrations from traffic, and wind actions.
2 3 MATERIALS
3.1 General
The choice of the appropriate material is the basic task of the design of reliable and economic
buildings and engineering structures. The material characteristics and properties affect global
concept of the bearing structures due to dimensions of cross-sections and structural elements.
The designer should choice such materials, using which the steel structures would be
fabricated by the most simple and economic way to serve within whole durability respecting
adequate service costs. The quality of structural steels is given by their mechanic, physic and
technological properties in dependence on the chemical composition, structure, type of
production and type of heat treatment.
The decisive mechanic properties of structural steels are strength, elasticity, ductility, toughness
and hardness of steel. Especially strength characteristics, ductility and notch and fracture
toughness are the most relevant steel properties from the viewpoint of a structure design.
3.2 Structural steel
The nominal values of the yield strength f, and the ultimate strength f, for structural steel
should be obtained:
— by adopting the values fy = Ren and fy = Rm direct from the product standard;
— or using values given in Table 3.1, where the nominal values presented there should be
considered as the characteristic values.
For structural steels a minimum ductility is required that should be expressed in terms of limits
for:
- the ratio f, / fy of the specified minimum ultimate tensile strength f, to the specified
minimum yield strength fy;
— the elongation at failure on a gauge length of 5.65,/A, (where Ao is the original cross-
sectional area);
- the ultimate strain &, where & corresponds to the ultimate strength f, .
For the limiting values of the ratio f, / fy, the elongation at failure and the ultimate strain €,,
the following values were recommended:
~ f/f = 1.10;
- elongation at failure not less than 15%;
= & 2 156, where ey is the yield strain («= fy / E).
Steel conforming to one of the steel grades presented in Table 3.1 should be accepted as
satisfying above mentioned requirements.
The material should have sufficient fracture toughness to avoid brittle fracture of tension
elements at the lowest service temperature expected to occur within the intended design working
life of the structure. The lowest service temperatures to be adopted in design of individual
structural elements are given in EN 1991-1-5 [4]. The maximum structural element thicknesses
are defined in EN 1993-1-10 [13] depending on steel grade, minimum Charpy V-notch energy
value, reference temperature and reference stress. If the conditions given int [13] are satisfied for
the lowest specified temperature, no further check against brittle fracture need to be made.
2 Table 3.1 Nominal values of yield strength fy and ultimate tensile strength f, for hot rolled
structural steel
Nominal thickness of the element t [mm]
Standard
and t<40 mm 40 mm (Combination of models-<—>| Theoretical models
y v y
; ‘Analytical Numerical
fa canes models models
v v yv y
Laboratory Real Continual Finite
models structures models models
yi
Y
Static or dynamic structural
response to actions
Fig. 5.1 Classification of calculation models
Numerical models use the apparatus of the numerical mathematics to find sufficiently
sophisticated solution reflecting initial assumptions, conditions and limitations. They are able
to determine the structural response to actions in the cases of very complicated spatial
structures to describe their real behaviour more exactly. Variation or differential methods
belong among typical examples of the continual numerical models used for determining
structural response of plated or web structures. At present, the finite types of models are
preferred based on discretisation of structural components into small elements - Finite
element method (FEM). FEM represents the general approach to the solution of partial
differential equations, where solution of physic problem is transformed into the numerical
form and obtained numerical solution enables to describe the observed physic phenomena.
Differential equations are solved indirectly by means of their transformed equivalent variation
shapes. The results can be obtained by solution of integrals over investigated area in form of
sum of integrals over arbitrary sub regions called finite elements. At present, FEM represents
the general methods for structural analysis of building or engineering structures.
In the case of steel structures modelling, it is necessary to take account of behaviour of joints
connecting individual structural members or components. The effects of the behaviour of the
joints on the distribution of internal forces and moments within a structure, and on the overall
deformations of the structure, may generally be neglected, but where such effects are
significant (such as in the case of semi-continuous joints) they should be taken into account.
To identify whether the effects of joint behaviour on the structural analysis should be taken
into account, three joint models should be differentiated as follows:
— simple, in which the joint may be assumed not to transmit bending moments;
— continuous, in which the behaviour of the joint may be assumed to have no effect on the
analysis; — semi-continuous, in which the behaviour of the joint needs to be taken into account in the
analysis
5.2 Global analysis
Generally, the global analysis means the determinations of the structural response to actions
in the form of internal forces and moments. The internal forces and moments may generally
be determined by means of:
- first-order analysis, using the initial geometry of the structure;
- second-order analysis, taking into account the influence of the deformation of the
structure.
The effects of the deformed geometry (second-order effects) should be considered if they
increase the action effects significantly or modify significantly the structural behaviour. First
order analysis may be used for the structure, if the increase of the relevant internal forces or
moments or any other change of structural behaviour caused by deformations can be
neglected. This condition may be assumed to be fulfilled, if the following criterion is
satisfied:
= 210 = for elastic analysis
it 6)
iq = E215 — for plastic analysis
Fea
where Oc, is the factor by which the design loading would have to be increased to cause
elastic instability in a global mode;
Fes is the design loading on the structure;
Fa is the elastic critical buckling load for global instability mode based on initial
elastic stifthess.
A greater limit for og; in case of plastic analysis is given in equations (5.1) because structural
behaviour may be significantly influenced by non linear material properties in the ultimate
limit state e.g. where a frame forms plastic hinges with moment redistributions or where
significant non linear deformations from semi-rigid joints occur.
Portal frames with shallow roof slopes and beam-and-column type plane frames in buildings
may be checked for sway mode failure with the first-order analysis if the criterion is satisfied
for each storey. In these structures Or may be calculated using the following approximate
formula, provided that the axial compression in the beams or rafters is not significant:
sella
= (Be . 62)
. les Bis
where Heq _ is the design value of the horizontal reaction at the bottom of the storey to the
horizontal loads and fictitious horizontal loads;
Vea _ is the total design vertical load on the structure on the bottom of the storey;
Oya is the horizontal displacement at the top of the storey, relative to the bottom of
the storey, when the frame is loaded with horizontal loads (e.g. wind) and
fictitious horizontal loads which are applied at each floor level;
h _ ig the storey height.
29 Ava
Fig. 5.2 Notations for calculating ox for multi-storey buildings
When the influence of the deformed geometry of a structure has to be taken into account,
following rules should be applied to consider these effects and to verify the structural
stability.
The verification of the stability of frames or their parts should be carried out considering
imperfections and second-order effects. According to the type of frame and type of the global
analysis, second-order effects and imperfections may be taken into account by one of the
following methods:
a) both totally by the global analysis;
b) partially by the global analysis and partially through individual stability checks of
members according to chapter 6;
c) for basic cases by individual stability checks of equivalent members according to chapter 6
using appropriate buckling lengths in accordance with the global buckling mode of the structure.
Second-order effects may be calculated using an analysis appropriate to the type of structure
(including step-by-step or other iterative procedures). For frames where the first sway
buckling mode is predominant first order elastic analysis should be carried out with
subsequent amplification of relevant action effects (e.g, bending moments) by appropriate
factors. For single storey frames designed on the basis of elastic global analysis second-order
sway effects due to vertical loads may be calculated by increasing the horizontal loads Hrg
(e.g. wind) and equivalent loads Veg @ due to imperfections (see 5.3) and other possible sway
effects according to first order theory by the factor:
— provided that a, 2 3.0, (5.3)
@,
where Oe; may be calculated according to relation (5.2), provided that the roof slope is
shallow and that the axial compression in the beams or rafters is not significant as defined in
5.2.1(4)B in EN 1993-1-1 [6].
For multi-storey frames second-order sway effects may be calculated by means of the method
using relation (5.3) provided that all storeys have a similar
- distribution of vertical loads and
- distribution of horizontal loads and
- distribution of frame stiffness with respect to the applied storey shear forces. In accordance with type of method taking account of the second-order effects and
imperfections, the stability of individual members should be checked according to the
following approaches:
a) If the second-order effects in individual members and relevant member imperfections (see)
are totally taken into account in the global analysis of the structure, no individual stability
check for the members according to chapter 6 is necessary.
b) If second-order effects in individual members or certain individual member imperfections
(e.g. member imperfections for flexural or lateral torsional buckling) are not totally taken
into account in the global analysis, the individual stability of members should be checked
according to the relevant criteria presented in chapter 6 for the effects not included in the
global analysis. This verification should take account of end moments and forces from the
global analysis of the structure, including global second-order effects and global
imperfections (see 5.3) when relevant and may be based on a buckling length equal to the
system length.
Where the stability of a frame is assessed by a check with the equivalent column method
according to rules presented in chapter 6 the buckling length values should be based on a
global buckling mode of the frame accounting for the stiffness behaviour of members and
joints, the presence of plastic hinges and the distribution of compressive forces under the
design loads. In this case internal forces to be used in resistance checks are calculated
according to first- order theory without considering imperfections.
5.3 Imperfections
5.3.1 General
For design of steel structures, appropriate allowances should be included in the structural analysis
to take account of the effects of imperfections, including residual stresses and geometrical
imperfections and any minor eccentricities present in joints of the unloaded structure. The
following types of imperfections should be taken into account in case of steel structures:
— geometric imperfections such as lack of verticality, lack of straightness, lack of flatness,
Jack of fit;
— material imperfections such as residual stresses arising due to hot rolling or welding
— structural imperfections such as eccentricities in joints of structural members in frames, etc,
Taking account of all types of imperfections is very complicated and requires elastic-plastic
global analysis of the structure, Therefore, equivalent geometrical imperfections should be
used in practical design, with values reflecting and expressing approximately the possible
effects of all type of imperfections unless these effects are included in the resistance formulae
for member design (see chapter 6). The following equivalent geometrical imperfections
should be taken into account:
a) global imperfections for frames and bracing systems;
b) local imperfections for individual members.
5.3.2 Imperfections for global analysis of frames
For implementation of equivalent geometrical imperfections in global analysis, their
imperfection shape and size should be known. The assumed shape of global imperfections and
local imperfections may be derived from the elastic buckling mode of a structure in the plane
of buckling considered. From the viewpoint of the structural reliability, both in and out of
31 plane buckling including torsional buckling with symmetric and asymmetric buckling shapes
should be taken into account in the most unfavourable direction and form.
For frames sensitive to buckling in a sway mode the effect of imperfections should be allowed
for in frame global analysis by means of an equivalent imperfection in the form of an initial
sway imperfection and individual bow imperfections of members. The imperfections may be
determined as follows:
a) global initial sway imperfections, see Fig. 5.3:
©=0, a, a, , (5.4)
where @, _ is the basic value: @, = 1/200;
On is the reduction factor for height h applicable to columns:
2 2
“=z but 5
H=oNew H=oNea
— <_
Ne
tea
Fig. 5.4 Configuration of sway imperfections 6 for horizontal forces on floor diaphragms
When performing the global analysis for determination of end forces and moments to be used
in member checks according to chapter 6.3, local bow imperfections may be neglected.
However for frames sensitive to second-order effects local bow imperfections of members
additionally to global sway imperfections should be incorporated in the structural analysis of
the frame for each compressed member where the following conditions are fulfilled:
~ at least one moment resistant joint at one member end;
A f,
- A>05, (5.7)
a
where Neg is the design value of the compression force;
2 is the in-plane non-dimensional slenderness calculated for the member
considered as hinged at its ends;
A___ is the cross-sectional area of the member;
f is the characteristic value of steel yield strength.
The effects of initial sway imperfection combined with and local bow imperfections may be
replaced by systems of equivalent horizontal forces, introduced for each column according to
Fig. 5.4 and Fig. 5.5. These initial equivalent imperfections should apply in all relevant
horizontal directions, but should only be considered in one direction at a time. For multi-
storey beam-and-column building frames, equivalent forces according to Fig. 5.5 should be
applied at each floor and roof level.
33 initial sway imperfections initial bow imperfections
Nea Nea Nes New
en | Hun
=
BI
I
FSP sNeseos
—— — LB Y
BI
t Bi
=|
SI
ESI] Newco
a
t t
Nea New Nua
Fig 5.5 Replacement of initial imperfections by equivalent horizontal forces
The possible torsional effects on a structure caused by anti-symmetric sways at the two
opposite sides should also be considered in accordance with Fig. 5.6.
A a eee 5
caxesuexwesee| 7 was
1 translational sway \
2 rotational sway F ,
a—t 8 al aeet
pond |
(a) Sides A-A and B-B sway (b) Sides A-A and B-B sway
in same direction in opposite direction
Fig. 5.6 Translational and torsional effects (plan view)
‘As an alternative to the above described shape of initial equivalent imperfections, the shape of
the clastic critical buckling mode 7, of the structure may be applied as a unique global and
local imperfection. Then, the size of initial bow imperfection may be taken as values:
Na — 20 Nr
El Nae :
where for eo can be written:
Tair = &0 Tee > 6.8)
ua! za
e,= a (4-02) Zu for 2>02, (5.9)
Nyy 1- yA is the relative slenderness of the structure; (5.10)
a is the imperfection factor for the relevant buckling curve;
x is the reduction factor for the relevant buckling curve depending on the
relevant cross-section;
@uk is the minimum force amplifier for the axial force configuration Neg in
members to reach the characteristic resistance Npx of the most axially stressed
cross-section without taking buckling into account;
Gee is the minimum force amplifier for the axial force configuration Neg in
members to reach the elastic critical buckling;
Mnx _ is the characteristic bending resistance of the critical cross-section, e.g. Me,rk
or Mpix according to cross-section classification;
Nex — is the characteristic resistance to normal force of the critical cross-section, i.e.
Nourk
EI 7, mx iS the bending moment due to 7; at the critical cross-section;
nec is the shape of elastic critical buckling mode.
‘The amplifiers an. and do of the members should be calculated under an assumption that
structure is loaded by axial forces Neg only that result from the first-order elastic analysis of
the structure for the design actions.
5.3.3 Imperfection for analysis of bracing systems
Bracing systems ensure lateral stability of building frames and also the stability of structural
compression member within the length of them. In the analysis of bracing systems the effects
of imperfections should be included by means of an equivalent geometric imperfection of the
members to be restrained, in the form of an initial bow imperfection with amplitude:
e, = @,L/500 , (5.11)
where L is the span of the bracing system
os(i+ ) . (6.12)
m
in which m is the number of members to be restrained.
and
As a simplification, the effects of the initial bow imperfections of the members to be
restrained by a bracing system may be replaced by the equivalent stabilizing force as shown in
Fig. 5.7:
ey +4;
43 = DN 8
where é is the in plane deflection of the bracing system due to q and any external loads
calculated from first-order analysis. If the second-order analysis is used, 4, may be taken as 0.
(5.13)
Where the bracing system is ensuring the stability of the compression flange of a beam of
constant height, the force Ney in Fig, 5.7 may be obtained from
Ne =Me/h , (5.14)
where Meg is the maximum moment in the beam and h is the overall depth of the beam.
35 When a beam is subjected to bending moment and external compression force, Nrg should
include a part of the compression force.
New
ee
eo ~ imperfection The force Neu is assumed uniform within the span
ga ~ equivalent force per unit length _L of the bracing system, It is slightly conservative
1 ~ bracing system for non-uniform forces.
Fig 5.7 Equivalent stabilizing force
“
Nes
6
L-splice
2- bracing system
DSS ce ee
26Nex
2
é
Nea
nul
Fig. 5.8 Bracing forces at splices in compression elements
At points where beams or compression members are spliced (see Fig. 5.8), it should also be
verified that the bracing system is able to resist a local force equal to @,,N,4/100 applied to
it by each beam or compression member which is spliced at that point, and to transmit this,
force to the adjacent points at which that beam or compression member is restrained.
5.3.4 Member imperfections
In the most cases, the effects of local bow imperfections of members are included in the
formulas valid for member buckling resistance. Where the stability of members is taken into
account using second-order analysis according to section 5.2, imperfections ¢9 should be
36 considered for compression members. For the second-order analysis taking account of lateral
torsional buckling of a member in bending, the imperfections may be adopted as:
four =K Gy» (5.15)
where eo is the equivalent initial bow imperfection of the weak axis of the profile considered
and for k the value k = 0.5 is recommended. In general an additional torsional imperfection
needs not to be allowed for.
5.4 Methods of global analysis
The internal forces and moments may be determined using either:
a) elastic global analysis or
b) plastic global analysis.
Elastic global analysis may be used in all cases and is based on the assumption that the stress-
strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is. The assumption is valid
for both the first-order or the second-order global analysis and even if the resistance of a
cross-section is based on its plastic resistance, Elastic global analysis may also be used for
cross-sections the resistances of which are limited by local buckling.
Plastic global analysis may be used only where the structure has sufficient rotation capacity at
the actual locations of the plastic hinges, whether this is in the members or in the joints and
the stability of members at plastic hinges is sufficiently ensured,
Where a plastic hinge occurs in a member, the member cross-sections should be double
symmetric or single symmetric with a plane of symmetry in the same plane as the rotation of
the plastic hinge and it should satisfy the following requirements:
a) at plastic hinge locations, the cross-section of the member which contains the plastic hinge
should have a rotation capacity of not less than that is required at the plastic hinge location;
b) in a uniform member sufficient rotation capacity may be assumed at a plastic hinge if both
the following requirements are satisfied:
— the member has Class 1 cross-sections at the plastic hinge location;
— where a transverse force that exceeds 10 % of the shear resistance of the cross-section,
(0.1 Vira) is applied to the web at the plastic hinge location and web stiffeners should
be provided within a distance along the member of b/2 from the plastic hinge location,
where h is the height of the cross-section at this location.
c) where the cross-section of the member vary along its length, the following additional
criteria should be satisfied:
— adjacent to plastic hinge locations, the thickness of the web should not be reduced for a
distance each way along the member from the plastic hinge location of at least 2d,
where d is the clear depth of the web at the plastic hinge location;
— adjacent to plastic hinge locations, the compression flange should be Class 1 for a
distance each way along the member from the plastic hinge location of not less than the
greater of:
— 2d, where d is as defined in section a),
— the distance to the adjacent point at which the moment in the member has fallen to
0.8 times the plastic moment resistance at the point concerned.
— elsewhere within the member the compression flange should be Class 1 or Class 2 and
the web should be Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3.
37 Where a plastic hinge occurs in a joint the joint should either have sufficient strength to
ensure the hinge remains in the member or should be able to sustain the plastic resistance for a
sufficient rotation, see EN 1993-1-8 [11]. As a simplified method for a limited plastic
redistribution of moments in continuous beams where some peak moments calculated by an
elastic analysis exceed the plastic bending resistance of 15% maximum, the parts in excess of
these peak moments may be redistributed in any member, provided, that
a) the internal forces and moments in the frame remain in equilibrium with the applied loads;
b) all the members in which the moments are reduced have Class 1 or Class 2 cross-sections;
¢) lateral torsional buckling of the members is prevented.
Plastic global analysis allows for the effects of material non-linearity in calculating the action
effects of a structural system. The behaviour should be modelled using one of the following
methods:
~ elastic-plastic analysis with plastified sections or joints as plastic hinges;
~ non-linear plastic analysis considering the partial plastification of members in plastic
zones;
~ rigid plastic analysis neglecting the elastic behaviour between hinges.
The bi-linear stress-strain relationship presented in Fig. 5.9b may be used for the grades of
structural steel specified in section, Alternatively, a more precise relationship in Fig. 5.9¢ may
be adopted in accordance with rules given in EN 1993-1-5 [8].
mh
wn
a
o
ey
a) b) °c)
Fig. 5.9 Bi-linear stress-strain relationships
Rigid plastic analysis may be applied if no effects of the deformed geometry (e.g. second-
order effects) have to be considered. The stress-strain diagram according to Fig. 5.9a should
be used in this analysis. In this case joints are classified only by strength according to EN
1993-1-8 [11].
5.5 Classification of cross-sections
The role of cross-section classification is to identify the extent to which the resistance and
rotation capacity of cross-sections is limited by its local buckling resistance. Depending on
the slenderness of individual elements of cross-section, four classes of cross-sections are
defined, as follows:
Class 1 cross-sections (called as compact) are those which can form a plastic hinge with
the sufficient rotation capacity required for plastic analysis without reduction of the
resistance.
~ Class 2 cross-sections (called as compact) are those which can develop their plastic
moment resistance, but have limited rotation capacity because of local buckling.
38 ~ Class 3 cross-sections (called as semi-compact) are those in which the stress in the extreme
compression fibre of the steel member assuming an elastic distribution of stresses can
reach the yield strength, but local buckling is liable to prevent development of the plastic
moment resistance.
- Class 4 cross-sections (called as slender) are those in which local buckling will occur
before the stress achieve the yield strength in one or more parts of the cross-section.
The classification of a cross-section depends on the slenderness of the individual compression
cross-sectional parts defined as the width to thickness ratio. Compression parts include every
part of a cross-section which is either totally or partially in compression under the considered
action combination. In general, the various compression parts at a cross-section (such as a
web or flange) can be in different classes. A cross-section is classified according to the
highest (least favourable) class of its compression parts. The limiting slenderness for Class 1,
2, and 3 compression parts should be obtained from Table 6.
Cross-section with a part which not fulfils the limits for Class 3 should be taken as Class 4.
Alternatively, sections of Class 4 may be treated as Class 3 sections if the width to thickness
ratios are less than the limiting proportions for Class 3 obtained from Table 6.1 when ¢ is
increased by:
f, /
(5.16)
Fon 6a
where ctom,c¢ is the maximum design compressive stress in the part taken from first-order or,
where necessary, the second-order global analysis. However, when verifying the design
buckling resistance of a member using section 6.3, the limiting proportions for Class 3 should
always be obtained from Table 6.1. Where the web is considered to resist shear forces only
and is assumed not to contribute to the bending and normal force resistance of the cross
section, the cross section may be designed as Class 2, 3 or 4 sections, depending only on the
flange class.
39 6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES
6.1 General
The ultimate limit states relate to reliability attributes such as safety and durability. In case of
steel structures, the ultimate limit states are derived from the fractures of the steel structural
members causing rapture of material with the following member collapse. The following
types of fracture should be distinguished:
— tough fracture;
— brittle fracture;
— fatigue fracture.
The tough fracture arises in case of quiet static loading due to exceeding the material strength.
It is accompanied by the significant plastic deformations arising after attainment of the yield
strength. The fracture area is dead, smooth and is oriented in direction approximately of 45° to
the plane of stressing.
Brittle fracture could occur due to failure of atomic coupling within the splitting of
crystallographic grain. The brittle fracture area has glazy crystal appearance and it is rectangular
towards stressing direction. It is usually arising in conjunction with a crack and after attainment
of its critical length the brittle fracture with a great velocity occurs. Brittle fracture is considered
to be very dangerous due to very small plastic deformation following the type of fracture
without any fracture signalisation. Liability to brittle fracture is depending on:
— chemical composition of steel, especially on the content of carbon, siliceous, sulphur and
phosphorus;
— temperature of material, especially the low temperature supports arising of brittle fracture;
— stress state, spatial stress state is very dangerous from the viewpoint of brittle fracture;
— thickness of material, material of the greater thickness is more prone to brittle fracture;
— material treatment and quality of structural details.
In the case, when a structural member is subjected to the repeated cyclic stressing followed by
a local material plasticization, the fatigue fracture can occur. Material defects and
inappropriate structural details represent the structural notches usually considered as initiators
of possible fatigue fractures. In the adjacent area of the notch, the local plasticization occurs
due to stress peaks. The stress peaks are sources of microscopic cracks mutually connecting to
bigger cracks having length of 10 to 100 xm. When the crack is oriented upright to direction
of main tension stresses, it can develop to the fatigue fracture assuming no changes of stress
state in the notch adjacent area. The fatigue fracture area is characterised by two parts. One
part of fracture area is glaze and the second one is grainy. The smoothed area is arising due to
crack developing. The grain area is a consequence of the brittle fracture caused by local
reduction of dimensions due to crack.
Then, the following ultimate limit states of steel structures can be derived from the above
presented types of fractures:
— limit state due to exceeding of material strength (STR);
— limit state caused by excessive plastic deformation (STR);
~ limit state induced by the loss of stability of structural members (STR);
— limit state of brittle fracture (STR);
— limit state of fatigue fracture (FAT);
40 Table 6.1 (sheet 1 of 3) Maximum width-to-thickness ratios for compression parts
__ — [ c Axis of
bendi
tk, t t 4h tar 4
ty
5 A 1 4
et “¢ l cr] Axis of
~ TT | ~ bending
aes Part subject to] Part subject to Part subject to bending and
bending compression compression
f t
Stress 1 =
distribution in f+] atin
parts aaa c | We
(compression | | - | (esa)
positive) = = 5 —
y f
when @>0.5 ; ¢/t< is
1 cits 72e c/t<33e oe
when @ $0.5 ; ¢/ts ==
a
when @>0.5 : c/t< —-
2 c/t<83e c/t 382 No
when a $0.5 : c/ts——
a
Stress S iG
distribution in =
parts {+ le le |
(compression | er * /
positive) ~ i a ‘
whentps] ere/e
0,67 + 0,33
3 c/t< 1246 c/t<42e P
when y <-1" :¢/t $ 62e(1-y),/(-y)|
6 235 275 355 460
« [| 10 | ox 0.81 0.75 0.71
*) yws-1 applies where either the compression stress o< fy or the tensile strain & > fy/E
4 Table 6.1 (sheet 2 of 3); Maximum width-to-thickness ratios for compression parts
Outstand flanges
|
c. ‘
rit t! Te
t t is
Rolled sections Welded sections
Gis Part subject to Part subject to bending and compression
compression Tip in compression Tip in tension
Siress
distribution in
parts
(compression
positive)
9e
1 c/ts9e clts=
a
2 c/ts10e ais t0e
@
Stress —_
distribution in +] =e
parts 1
(compression | i-e—2—
| positive)
3 eltst4e olts21 ek,
For kg see EN 1993-1-5
fy 235 275 355 |
é 00 81
42 Table 6.1 (sheet 3 of 3): Maximum width-to-thickness ratios for compression parts
‘Angles
h
ey
nt Does not apply to angles
Refer also to “Outstand t b in continuous contact
flanges” (see sheet 2 of 3) 4 with other components
Class Section in compression
Stress _
distribution Cas,
across section Ly!
(compression
positive) -
b+h
3 h/tsise: 2" <11.5¢
2t
Tubular sections
t f
4
Class__| Section in bending and/or compression
1 dit <506*
2m d/t< 706
3 d/t< 9027
Note: For d/t>90e see EN 1993-1-6.
£ 235 275 355 420 460
é 1.00 0.92 0.81 0.75 0.71
[2 1.00 0.85 0.66 0.56 0.51
Except for above introduced ultimate limit states directly corresponding to the individual
fractures, the limit state caused by loss of equilibrium (EQU) of the structure or any part of it,
considered as a rigid body, should be proved. For symbols STR, FAT and EQU see section 2.6.2.
By means of classification of steel cross-sections, the relevant limit state for checked cross-
section should be defined and also the method for global analysis, model for determination of
the structural resistance and character of cross-sectional resistance assessment should be
specified. From this viewpoint, the values of partial factors ym for structural steel should
correspond to the classification of cross-sections depending on various characteristic values of
resistance as follows:
— resistance of cross-sections whatever the class: yao = 1.00:
~ resistance of members to instability assessed by member checks: ji = 1.00 ;
- resistance of cross-sections in tension to fracture: ywa = 1.25;
~ resistance of joints: see EN 1993-1-8 [11]
43 6.2 Resistance of cross-sections
In accordance with the reliability concept described in section 2,5, the design value of an action
effect at any cross-section should not exceed the corresponding design resistance. If several
action effects act simultaneously the combined effect should not exceed the cross-sectional
design resistance for that combination. The design values of resistance should depend on the
classification of the cross-section. Elastic verification according to the elastic resistance (see
Class 3 sections) may be carried out for all cross-sectional classes provided that effective cross
sectional properties are used for the verification of Class 4 cross-sections, by which the effect of
local buckling may be taken into account. For the elastic verification the following yield
criterion for a critical point of the cross section may be used based on the Huber-Mises-Hencky
(H-M-H) hypothesis of plasticisation, unless other interaction formulae is applied:
2 2 2
Orta a Sata _| Zxea_ |] _Ca0a_|, 3 ta | <10, (1)
fy /Yvo0 fy/7mo) (fy /ru0 Jf /7m0 £,/Yva0
where ox
You might also like
