BEST PRACTICE

Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 1/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Load Introduction

This best practice gives a guideline how to check load introduction.

N
Conditions / Description of situation

O
Within Mammoet a large variety of (support) structures is used. Quite often these structures consist of a
stack of (standard) Mammoet equipment, like shown below. It needs to be checked if sufficient local area is
activated to transfer the compression loadings. Such strength checks typically are called ‘load introduction
checks’.

SE
U
AL
N
R

Content
TE

This best practice gives a guideline how to check load introduction.

S275 added 5 March WJon GVee WJon

01
IN

pg. 7-8 2021 903245 903333 903245

For information 31 Dec WJon GVee WJon
00
only 2018 903245 903333 903245
Approved Owner
Rev. Description Date Author
R

(By subject matter expert) (For questions)

Without authorized signature(s) this document is uncontrolled, not binding and for indicative purposes only
FO

NOTE
THIS BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINE IS PREPARED BASED ON THE BEST KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME OF
WRITING AND SUBJECTED TO NEW INSIGHTS. FOR ALTERATIONS CONTACT THE OWNER.

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 2/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Verification load introduction

The suggested procedure is as follows:

N
1) Check local yielding
2) Check sensitivity for plate buckling

O
3) If sensitive, check plate buckling

Note:

SE
This best practice only applies for checking the load introduction into the webs of standard H / I beams and
welded girders without longitudinal stiffeners added to the web.

U
Check local yielding

This check is explained using the example situation as shown in figure 1:

AL
N
R
TE
IN
R
FO

Figure 1: Example situation single HEB-500 pushing onto 2x HEB-300 (all beams grade S355)

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 3/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Step 1: determine profile parameters:

N
O
SE
U
AL
Figure 2: Profile parameters

HEB-500: tf1 = 28 mm, R1 = 27 mm, tw1 = 14.5 mm, s = 102 mm, Hi,1 = 444 mm
N

HEB-300: tf2 = 19 mm, R2 = 27 mm, tw2 = 11.0 mm, s = 81 mm, Hi,2 = 262 mm
R

Step 2: determine effective widths upper and lower beam:

TE

The first part of the load spreading follows 45 degree lines from the web to the edge of the flange. For the
HEB-500 the effective width is 102 mm. Due to the large rolling radius, a HEB profile is more favourable than
a plate girder with a welded web:
IN
R
FO

Figure 3: Determination effective width

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 4/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
When an intermediate layer of plywood is used, as a conservative approach no additional load spreading due
to the plywood shall be taken into account (refer annex C). As an example assume 2 layers of 18mm
plywood and a 50mm steel plate as intermediate material, only the 50mm steel plate will contribute to the
load spreading:

N
O
SE
U
AL
Figure 4: Effect of intermediate layers on load spreading

For load introduction in the longitudinal direction of the beam a more favourable 1:2.5 can be used (refer
N

annex B, due to the extra stiffness added by the (welded) web). L2 can now be calculated:
R

L2 = S + 2 x 2.5 x (tf + R) = 102 + 2 x 2.5 x (19 + 27) = 332 mm.

Using similar approach L1 can be calculated:

TE

L1 = S + 2 x 2.5 x (tf + R) = 81 + 2 x 2.5 x (28 + 27) = 356 mm.

Because the actual c.t.c. distance between the HEB-300 beams is only 300 mm, instead of using 2 x 356 mm
IN

the total effective length L3 shall be limited to:

L3 = L1 + c.t.c. = 356 + 300 = 656 mm

R

Step 3: calculate effective area’s:

FO

A1 = L3 x tw1 = 656 x 14.5 = 9512 mm2

A2 = L2 x tw2 = 332 x 11.0 = 3652 mm2

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 5/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Step 4: calculate stresses:

It is assumed on the connection a compression force N = 500 kN (ULS) is acting.

N
Note: For the special case where both a force (N) and moment (M) are acting refer annex A.

O
Section A-A (upper beam):

SE
U
Section B-B (lower beam):
AL
N

It is concluded both sections have sufficient safety against local yielding.

R
TE
IN
R
FO

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 6/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Check sensitivity for plate buckling

Step 5: determine if ‘SWAY’ buckling can be an issue:

N
O
SE
U
AL
Figure 5: Buckling geometry

For single profiles, or multiple profiles without stiffeners or endplates typically use ‘sway’.
N
R
TE
IN
R
FO

Figure 6: End plates and stiffeners are used to prevent ‘sway’ buckling

When stiffeners and / or endplates are added (refer figure 6) sway buckling is prevented, use ‘non-sway’.

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 7/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Step 6: Calculate the non-dimensional slenderness as per EN 1993-1-1:

N
O
For grade S355 steel it can be shown that:
‫ܪ‬
ߣҧ = 0.0227 × ݅ (ܱܰܰ െ ܹܵ‫)ܻܣ‬
‫ݓݐ‬

‫݅ܪ‬
ߣҧ = 0.0453 × (ܹܵ‫)ܻܣ‬

SE
‫ݓݐ‬

For grade S275 steel it can be shown that:

‫ܪ‬
ߣҧ = 0.0200 × ݅ (ܱܰܰ െ ܹܵ‫)ܻܣ‬
‫ݓݐ‬

U
‫݅ܪ‬
ߣҧ = 0.0399 × (ܹܵ‫)ܻܣ‬
‫ݓݐ‬
AL
For grade S235 steel it can be shown that:
‫ܪ‬
ߣҧ = 0.0184 × ݅ (ܱܰܰ െ ܹܵ‫)ܻܣ‬
‫ݓݐ‬

‫݅ܪ‬
ߣҧ = 0.0369 × (ܹܵ‫)ܻܣ‬
‫ݓݐ‬
N

With Hi = internal height in between flanges and tw = thickness web (also refer figure 2)
R

Use the following graph and/or table (EN 1993-1-1 table 6.2 -> use buckling curve c) to determine the
buckling reduction factors:
TE
IN
R
FO

Figure 7: Buckling curves / buckling reduction factors as per EN 1993-1-1

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 8/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
For the example HEB-500, material S355, sway (no endplate, no stiffeners):

N
For the example HEB-300, material S355, non-sway (due to endplate):

O
SE
Step 7: calculate corrected unity checks:

U
AL
In this example under the given load the corrected unity checks are well below 1.00 [-]. As such no further
plate buckling checks are required.
N

Note:
R

For most commonly used HEB beams the buckling reduction factors as per above method are given below,
TE

for both ‘sway’ and ‘non-sway’ situation:

HEB reduction S355 reduction S275 reduction S235 reduction S355 reduction S275 reduction S235
NON-SWAY NON-SWAY NON-SWAY SWAY SWAY SWAY
100 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.78 0.82 0.85
IN

200 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.63 0.69 0.73

300 0.82 0.86 0.88 0.50 0.57 0.61
400 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.44 0.52 0.56
500 0.73 0.78 0.81 0.35 0.42 0.47
R

600 0.67 0.73 0.76 0.29 0.35 0.40

700 0.63 0.70 0.73 0.26 0.32 0.36
FO

800 0.57 0.64 0.68 0.21 0.26 0.30

900 0.53 0.60 0.64 0.19 0.24 0.27
1000 0.48 0.55 0.60 0.16 0.21 0.23
Table 1: Buckling reduction factors for HEB beams

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 9/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
It can be seen mainly for the larger HEB profiles, plate buckling can be more of an issue.
Check plate buckling

If the corrected unity check exceeds 1.00 [-]:

N
O
An additional plate buckling check is recommended. Due to certain conservatism used in the sensitivity

SE
check, the actual unity check typically should be lower, a more detailed plate buckling analysis is required.

For the special case where local compression due to load introduction is combined with compression due to
global bending / axial force also a more detailed plate buckling analysis is recommended:

U
AL
N
R
TE

Figure 8: Combined buckling due to local compression and global compression

IN

For these purposes within Mammoet several software packages are available:

1) Mammoet calculation handbook Excel sheet 3.10

R

2) FE-Beul dedicated plate buckling program

3) SCIA / Ansys plate buckling analysis
FO

In case of lack of experience with the above software ask your teamleader, technical advisor, or an
experienced colleague for assistance.

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 10/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Annex A: combination normal force (N) and moment (M)

In this annex it is assumed on the connection both a compression force (N) and a moment (M) are acting. For
checking section A-A this force and moment can directly be used. For checking section B-B first a resulting

N
force R needs to be calculated.

O
Assumed: N = 500 kN, M = 50 kNm (ULS)

SE
U
AL
N
R
TE
IN
R
FO

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 11/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Section A-A:

N
O
SE
Section B-B:

U
AL
N
R
TE

In this example under the given loads the corrected unity checks are below 1.00 [-]. As such no further plate
buckling checks are required.
IN
R
FO

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 12/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Annex B: code references to using 1:2.5 load spreading

EN 1993-1-8 section 6.2.6.2:

N
O
SE
U
AL
N
R
TE
IN
R
FO

The factor 5 is based on two sided 1:2.5 load spreading.

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 13/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
AISC 360-16 chapter J10:

N
The factor 5 is based on two sided 1:2.5 load spreading.

O
Rn = capacity of the web [N]
Fyw = yield strength of the web [N/mm2]
tw = thickness of the web [mm]

SE
lb = length of the stiff load intro on top [mm] (corresponds to ‘c’ in the figure below)
k = thickness flange + radius [mm]

U
DIN 18800 section 7.5.2:
AL
N
R
TE
IN

The factor 5 is based on two sided 1:2.5 load spreading.

R
FO

Status For information only

 BEST PRACTICE
Subject Load Introduction Date 5 March 2021 Page 14/14 Sap nr. 6000170926
Doc. nr. 050200005 Region Europe Rev. 01

LY
Annex C: plywood and load spreading

Typically as a conservative approach no additional load spreading due to plywood shall be taken into
account. Further explanation is given using the example below:

N
O
SE
4 N/mm2

4 N/mm2 U
AL
N

Assume on both sides of the plywood the compression bearing stress acting is approx. 4 N/mm2. This equals
the maximum SLS bearing capacity of the plywood. Assume the plywood would spread this load under 45
degrees, in that case section A-A can be checked for the effect of a distributed area load acting on a 18mm
R

cantilever arm.
TE

Section A-A: (per unit of length)

IN
R

Mainly the shear stress exceeds the shear capacity of the plywood (approx 1.2 N/mm2). Since the plywood
has unsuffcient strength, in this example asumming 45 degree load distribtion is considered not realistic.
FO

As a conservative approach is it recommended to assume plywood layers do no contribute to the load

spreading.

Status For information only