This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
New design rules for plated structures in Eurocode 3
´ Bernt Johansson a, Rene Maquoi b, Gerhard Sedlacek
˚ ˚ Division of Steel Structures, Lulea University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea, Sweden MSM, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Liege, B-4000 Liege, Belgium c Institute of Steel Construction, RWTH Aachen, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
Received 18 June 1999; received in revised form 6 July 2000; accepted 31 August 2000
Abstract This paper gives an overview of Eurocode 3 Part 1.5 Design of Steel Structures. Supplementary rules for planar plated structures without transverse loading have been developed together with the Eurocode 3-2 Steel bridges. It covers stiffened and unstiffened plates in common steel bridges and similar structures. This paper presents the background and justiﬁcation of some of the design rules with focus on the ultimate limit states. The design rules for buckling of stiffened plates loaded by direct stress are presented and explained. For shear resistance and patch loading the new rules are brieﬂy derived and compared with the rules in Eurocode 3-1-1. Finally, the statistical calibration of the rules to tests is described. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Steel structures; Plated structures; Design; Plate buckling; Stiffened plates; Shear buckling; Patch loading
1. Introduction New design rules for plated structures have been developed by CEN/TC250/SC3 (project team PT11). The result of the work is the ENV-version of Eurocode 3 Part 1.5 (EC3-1-5) . It has been drafted in close co-operation with the project team PT2 preparing the steel bridge code and it contains rules for stiffened or unstiffened plated structures. These rules are not speciﬁc for bridges, which is the reason for
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-241-80-5177; fax: +49-241-888-8140. E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (G. Sedlacek).
0143-974X/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 0 - 1
B. Johansson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311
making them a part of EC3-1, which contains general rules. The table of contents shown in Fig. 1 gives an overview of EC3-1-5. In addition there is an informative annex containing formulae for elastic buckling coefﬁcients, which has been included for the convenience of the designer. Such coefﬁcients may alternatively be found in handbooks or by computer calculations. All veriﬁcations are presented in Section 2 of EC3-1-5. For the ultimate limit states (ULS) the requirements are the same as in EC3-1-1. For the serviceability limit states (SLS) no requirements are given, only methods for ﬁnding stresses, etc. The requirements depend on the particular application; for instance, requirements for bridges are found in EC3-2 . The focus of this paper is Section 4 of EC3-1-5, which contains methods for ﬁnding the resistance to plate buckling in ULS. The objective of the paper is to present the scientiﬁc background to the rules. First the mechanical models behind the rules are explained and references to source documents are given. All such models include simpliﬁcations, which had to be justiﬁed by calibration of the rules against test results. Several models for each failure mode have been checked with calibrations according to Annex Z of EC3-1-1  and the ones chosen to be included in EC3-1-5 are those giving the lowest scatter and the most uniform safety. EC3-1-5 explicitly permits the use of different steel grades in ﬂanges and webs
Table of contents of Eurocode 3 Part 1.5.
B. Johansson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311
in so-called hybrid girders. No detail rules are given for the design of such girders but in all design rules, subscripts (f for ﬂange and w for web) indicate the relevant yield strength. Although the rules may look unfamiliar to many engineers they are in fact only a new combination of rules from different European countries. For the time being they represent a set of useful rules for common plated structures. However, the rules are not complete in the sense that any type of plated structure is covered. There are also details that may be improved with existing knowledge but the time and funds available for the work have not allowed this. One such item is the formula for the effective area of unstiffened plates. The single formula from EC3-1-1 has been retained although it has not been harmonised with the slenderness limit between cross section classes 3 and 4. A set of formulae for different boundary conditions and states of residual stresses should be developed but this has to wait until the ENversion is prepared.
2. Design of stiffened plates for direct stress 2.1. General Plates resisting predominantly direct stresses are used as ﬂanges and webs of plateand box-girders. The distinction between ﬂange and web is sometimes questionable. The deﬁnition used here is that a ﬂange is subject to a distribution of direct stresses that is not very far from being uniform (no account being taken in this respect of shear-lag effects). A web is subject to a distribution of direct stresses with a signiﬁcant gradient and most often a change from tension to compression. For very wide plates used as webs or ﬂanges, it is sometimes more economical to stiffen a relatively thin plate than to increase the plate thickness in order to avoid any stiffening. A plate is normally ﬁrst stiffened transversally, i.e. by stiffeners transverse to the direction of longitudinal stresses, and, when necessary, by additional longitudinal stiffeners. When the distribution of compressive stresses is quasi uniform, the longitudinal stiffeners are equally spaced. If not, the stiffeners are located in an optimum manner in order to combine efﬁciency and economy. The transverse stiffeners are usually parts of transverse bracings of the crosssection of the structure and for this purpose they are normally stiff in bending. There is some advantage for them being designed to fulﬁl this requirement. Such transverse stiffeners are denoted rigid when they constitute nodal lines for plate buckling under the action of compressive stresses. That is a ﬁrst principle of the design rules of EC3-1-5. Accordingly, the amount of efforts devoted to check plate buckling is substantially reduced and facilitated. Possible instability is restricted to: buckling of the whole panel for unstiffened panels; buckling of unstiffened subpanels or buckling of the whole panel for longitudinally stiffened panels.
It will be used especially when designing so-called web plate elements. Johansson et al. However. including possible interaction with bending. That is a second principle of EC3-1-5. The width B of the panel is the distance between its boundaries to adjacent panels or possibly between one such boundary and a free edge. with Fig. . For longitudinally stiffened panels two extreme cases concerning the stiffening are identiﬁed in EC3-1-5. some account should be taken of the discrete location of the longitudinal stiffener(s). In addition. Components of a stiffened plate. there are rules for patch loading. 2. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 In both cases the length a of the panel is equal to the distance between the transverse stiffeners deﬁning this panel. Those edges are so-called loaded edges. the multiple stiffener approach is generally accepted when the number of stiffeners is at least three. the scope of which is plates subject to uniaxial direct stresses only. Instead. A subpanel is an unstiffened plate having the length a of the panel to which it belongs and a width b. 2.282 B. 2. see Fig. The case of a few unequally spaced longitudinal stiffeners in the compression zone Smearing of the stiffness would be too rough an approach in this case and is therefore not recommended. The case of plates subject to general biaxial loading is not included at the present time.1.1. The wording loaded/unloaded refers to loading by direct stresses. That is in relation to a third principle. For design purposes.2. The longitudinal edges of a panel are denoted unloaded edges. The case of equally spaced multiple stiffeners in the compression zone When the behaviour of the longitudinally stiffened panel as a whole is considered the number of longitudinal stiffeners located in the compression zone is sufﬁciently large to justify the smearing of their ﬂexural stiffness across the panel width.1. the behaviour of the subpanels has to be checked independently. This method enables the designer to analyse special situations where the widths of the subpanels are very different because of a steep stress gradient across the panel width. or better. 2.
is computed using the wellknown Winter formula used in EC3-1-1: r 1/lp 0. the relative plate slenderness lp. Johansson et al. 3. which is deﬁned as: Fig. The effective cross-sectional area (bt)eff of a subpanel is a part r( 1) of the gross cross-sectional area (bt): (bt)eff r(bt) (2) where r.22/l2 1 p (3) This formula accounts for favourable effects resulting from post-buckling plate behaviour. termed the effectiveness of the cross-section. Unstiffened subpanel/panel.B. It is equally applicable to an unstiffened panel for which b should be replaced by B. Unstiffened panels or subpanels This section refers to a subpanel according to Fig. . 2. on the one hand. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 283 the scope of the design rules of EC3-1-5. The resistance of an unstiffened subpanel of width b and thickness t is conventionally given by the squash load of the effective cross-sectional area (bt)eff: Nu (bt)efffy (1) where (bt)eff is the effective cross-sectional area of the unstiffened (sub)panel and fy is the material yield stress. The possible effect of plate buckling is clearly introduced as a penalty on the gross cross-sectional area bt rather than on the magnitude of the stress at the ultimate limit state. The effectiveness r depends on a single parameter. thus excluding implicitly girders of very high depth where the stiffening of the web would need a large number of unequally spaced longitudinal stiffeners in the compression zone. The latter are devoted to normal structures. 3. the characteristic resistance is described and no partial safety factors appear. and for detrimental effects of unavoidable structural and geometrical imperfections.2. on the other. For simplicity.
in Eq. i. (7). which creates a discontinuity in the design rules. the conservative assumption of simply supported edges is usually made. then the properties of the stiffening would also affect the plate critical buckling stress. y. any non-linear distribution of longitudinal direct stresses across the plate can be characterised by the stress ratio y. According to the Winter formula.4e ks) and it involves: the width-to-thickness ratio (b/t).673. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 lp (fy/scr) (4) Any elastic critical stress scr is commonly written as: scr kssE (5) where ks is the buckling coefﬁcient and sE the so-called reference Eulerian stress: sE p2Et2/12(1 v2)b2 189800(t/b)2 (in N/mm2) More explicitly. the governing parameter. Finally. Johansson et al. the buckling coefﬁcient ks. That is due to the difﬁculty in assessing the magnitude of edge restraints. for a plate of constant thickness. The validity of this formula has been extended to any type of boundary and longitudinal loading conditions by introducing the relevant buckling coefﬁcient ks. This inconsistency is expected to be remedied in the ﬁnal version of Eurocode 3. to be expressed in N/mm2). ratio of the extreme edge direct stresses. However. Unfortunately. In addition.284 B. which indicates that the relative plate slenderness of a given plate increases with the material yield stress (fy. that is to plate buckling what column slenderness is to column buckling. which amounts to 4 for a simply supported long plate subject to uniform compression but depends on the aspect ratio a=a/b of the subpanel or a/B of the (unstiffened) panel. the penalty r applicable to the gross crosssection is seen to start (r 1) when the relative plate slenderness lp exceeds 0. a. In practice. the relative plate slenderness lp writes: lp (b/t)/(28. the buckling coefﬁcient for the most general case is a function: ks ks (boundary conditions. As a result. stiffening properties) (8) (7) (6) . this limit does not coincide with the limit between section classes 3 and 4.e. should the plate possibly be stiffened. the designer is free to take the edge restraint into account if the value is justiﬁed. the yield stress factor e=√(235/fy). except when a plate edge is free.
3. which may largely exceed the elastic critical plate-buckling load.2. 2. As mentioned in Section 2. where rp. on the one hand.3.e. the effectiveness of the stiffened panel is obtained by a simple interpolation between the value of the effectiveness rp for the plate-like behaviour.3. in a revised version of EC3-1-5. The behaviour of any stiffened panel lies somewhere between these two limits.2 and 2. on the other. a plate where the buckling coefﬁcient no longer depends on the plate aspect ratio. Effectiveness of the stiffened panel The fact that a plate panel is stiffened in the longitudinal direction makes its behaviour more like that of a column type structural element than that of a plate type element in the range of small slenderness.1. An individual (unstiffened) subpanel is treated in Section 2. the effectiveness rc must increase from cc and approach rp when x increases. rp and cc is discussed in Sections 2. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 285 2. Therefore. Johansson et al. owing to approximations and simpliﬁcations included in the procedures described in Sections 2. to simplify the process without a signiﬁcant penalty on the results by adopting simply: rc cc but not smaller than rp. only the behaviour of the stiffened panel as a whole is of concern. On the other hand. In order to prevent the parameter x from being negative.p to the elastic critical column buckling stress scr.p.3.2 and 2.B. x has 1 as an upper bound.p/scr. Because expression (10) does not reﬂect a monotonic decrease when x increases. the application of which is mainly governed by the number of longitudinal stiffeners in the compression zone of the stiffened panel. this requirement is not necessarily fulﬁlled.c) 1 0 x 1 (10) It is understandable that scr. How to assess the values of scr.c.1.3. However.3. This interpolation is empirically based but its suitability was supported by calibration: rc (rp cc)x(2 x) cc (9) The interpolation is governed by a factor x that measures the vicinity of the elastic critical plate buckling stress scr. Longitudinally stiffened panels In this section. and the value cc for the column-like behaviour. While plate-like behaviour exhibits a signiﬁcant post-buckling resistance.c according to: x (scr.c. is the value of rp. For design purposes. i. scr.3. the elastic critical column buckling load is an upper bound of the resistance. it can be suggested. computed for a very long stiffened plate. 0 must be adopted as a lower bound.3. two distinct design approaches may be contemplated. .p should not be smaller than scr.
that would lead to the substitution of the actual discretely stiffened plate by an orthotropic plate.e. of the actual stiffened panel to the second moment of area Ip(=Bt3/12(1 v2)) of the plate for longitudinal bending relative cross-sectional area.3. may be obtained by any means: computer analysis.p 2((1+a2)2+g) if a (1 g)0.1. Then the properties of the equivalent orthotropic plate may be assumed uniformly distributed across the width. each is especially applicable to speciﬁc types of stiffened panels.e. Johansson et al.5] or simply by the following approximate expressions: ks. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 2. 2. Conceptually. designated as ks. 4. 4 (compression is taken as positive). ratio of the cross-sectional area Asl of the longitudinal stiffeners without any contribution of the plate to the cross-sectional area Ap (=Bt) of the plate aspect ratio edge stress ratio.286 B.p. multiple stiffeners are equally spaced or not far from being such. ratio of the second moment of area Ix. Deﬁnition of the stress ratio y. see Fig.3.25 a2(y+1)(1+d) 4(1+ 1+g) ks. i. s1 and s2 being respectively the larger and the smaller edge stresses. The buckling coefﬁcient for the stiffened panel. referred to as the equivalent orthotropic plate in the following.25 (11a) (11b) a=a/B y=s2/s1 Fig.2. i. Usually.2. . appropriate charts [4. Plate-like behaviour Two methods are speciﬁed. Multiple longitudinal stiffeners—Concept of equivalent orthotropic plate The basic idea is to smear the ﬂexural stiffness of the longitudinal stiffeners across the plate width. (y+1)(1+d) if a (1 g)0.p where: g=Ix/Ip d=Asl/Ap relative ﬂexural stiffness.
The full effectiveness of any stiffener can be achieved by complying with deemed-to-satisfy requirements. no instability of any stiffener in its whole (stiffener tripping) occurs before the stiffened panel reaches its ultimate strength.B. the relative plate slenderness lp.o 0. Possibly a plate can be ﬁtted with notably unequally spaced multiple stiffeners. which should be prohibited. The elastic critical plate-like buckling stress scr. However. the wall elements of the stiffeners do not exhibit local buckling and that. The equivalent orthotropic plate is characterised by an effectiveness ro for the plate-like behaviour: ro 1/lp.p ks. may very well have class 4 sections because the local buckling of the walls of the stiffener will not trigger a collapse. e.p is: scr.o and ro are used instead of the EC3-1-5 symbols lp and r for the sake of clarity. closed stiffeners. Hence.22/l2 1 p.o of the equivalent orthotropic plate it should be taken into account that the critical stress is referred to the gross crosssectional area A and yield load to the effective cross-section Aeff. on the one hand.o (14) The symbols lp. In the case of such closed class 4 stiffeners the local buckling should be considered in the same way as for subpanels of the plate. bA is calculated only for the compressed part of the plate. trapezoidal boxes. One or two stiffeners in the compression zone—concept of equivalent column on an elastic foundation The following procedure is especially dedicated to situations where both the number and the location of the longitudinal stiffeners result from a notably non-uniform distribution of direct stresses. 2.g. which leads to a smaller value than if the whole plate had been considered in case the stresses change sign.psE (12) where sE is given by Eq. (6) with B instead of b. Then the assumption that the distribution of the ﬂexural properties of the equivalent orthotropic plate is varying linearly across the panel width may look more appropriate than a uniform distribution. Plate buckling initiated by tripping of open stiffeners is likely to result in a sudden and so-called catastrophic type of collapse.p) (13) where bA=Aeff/A. In that case. the stiffeners are said to be fully effective. When deﬁning the relative plate slenderness lp. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 287 The above expressions imply that. Johansson et al. that is. In EC3-1-5. as in a web element. Then use shall be made of computer simulations or charts .o (Aefffy/Ascr.p) (bAfy/scr. A special procedure is suggested which accounts for the discrete nature of the stiffening in a simple way.2. on the other hand. The elastic critical plate buckling stress scr.p is no longer based on the concept of an equivalent orthotropic plate but on one of an equivalent column .3. becomes: lp.2. a fourth principle of EC3-1-5.
possible stiffeners in the tension zone are fully disregarded. The properties of the equivalent column. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Fig. Notional cross-sectional area of equivalent column. 2. and the behaviour of the plate sheet in the direction transverse to the stiffeners. 6. 6. Physical model of a compression strut on an elastic foundation. 5. Case of one stiffener When there is only one longitudinal stiffener in the compression zone. on the one hand.3. Fig. The elastic critical column buckling stress of this equivalent column is used as an approximation of scr. the single stiffener divides the width B of the panel into two subpanels of width b1 and b2. see Fig.2. .p. For sake of simplicity.3. supported by an elastic foundation. the location of the equivalent column is that of the stiffener. Accordingly. see Fig.288 B. on the other. Johansson et al. can be satisfactorily accounted for. 5. respectively. must be determined so that both the number and location of the stiffeners. and the elastic foundation is represented by the plate. including its elastic foundation.
of the compressive force in the stiffener is disregarded in the following. and that simple supports have been conservatively assumed for the stiffener. In the absence of any elastic foundation. that is determined as follows from both subpanels adjacent to the stiffener. see Fig. In accordance with the physical model. on the other hand. a second step is required.p scr. Owing to the plate effect. 7. it is found to be: ac 4. each of these stiffeners is considered assuming that the other one acts as a rigid support. It is composed of the gross cross-sectional area Asl of the stiffener and a notional crosssectional area of the plate sheet. the procedure described above is applied three times. To account for possible simul2 1 2 taneous column buckling of both stiffeners. over the length a. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 289 The gross cross-section of the elastically founded equivalent column is used for the determination of the section properties (cross-sectional area A.2.p is given as scr. 6: half the width of the subpanel when fully in compression.B. on the one hand. the buckling length of the equivalent column would be equal to the distance a between the transverse stiffeners. due account shall be taken of an effective cross-sectional area of the stiffener. In addition. This may be the case if a closed stiffener is used. The effective cross-sectional area of the equivalent column is used for the computation of bA. second moment of area Isl about an axis through the centroid and parallel to the plate sheet).3. It is noted that the latter are designed so as to be rigid. This consists of the effective parts of the plate adjacent to the stiffener and if the stiffener is partially effective only. the variation. the buckling length ac of the equivalent column will be smaller than the distance a. (16) with b1=b∗ and 1 b2=b∗ and B=B∗ is taken as the sum of b∗ and b∗. Johansson et al. Case of two stiffeners When there are two stiffeners in the compression zone.25 (15) The elastic critical column buckling stress that is taken as an appraisal of scr.p 1.4.05E Islt3B Ab1b2 if a ac (16a) (16b) p2EIsl Et3Ba2 if a ac 2 2 Aa 4p (1−v2)Ab2b2 1 2 2. one third of the width of the sole compressed part of the subpanel when stresses change from compression to tension. see Fig.p is given by Eq. In a ﬁrst step. The value of scr.33 Islb2b2 1 2 t3B 0. That is done .
In that step. 2. assuming that this part is released from any support along its longitudinal edges.c p2EIx. Johansson et al. When there is a signiﬁcant gradient of the direct stresses along the length of the .3.p. Column-like behaviour The elastic critical column-like buckling stress scr.3. This buckling stress appears as a characteristic of the compression part of the stiffened panel.c is deﬁned as the Euler stress for out-of-plane buckling of an equivalent column represented by the part of the stiffened plate that is in compression. the lumped stiffener is located at the position of the resultant of the forces in the individual stiffeners.290 B. of which the lowest one should be selected. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Fig. Procedure for two stiffeners in the compression zone. The whole procedure provides the designer with three values of scr. see Fig.c/Aca2 (17) where Ixc is the second moment of area for longitudinal bending and Ac the gross area of the equivalent column. both stiffeners are lumped into a single one having the following properties. is subject to uniform compression and has a buckling length equal to the length of the stiffened panel. scr. 7. by means of an intuitive conservative trick. That clearly appears as a set of conservative assumptions. 7: the cross-sectional area A is the sum of those computed earlier for the individual stiffeners. the second moment of area Isl is the sum of those computed earlier for the individual stiffeners.
and the nature of built-up section (the stiffeners being welded onto the plate). undue conservatism can be avoided by reducing appropriately the buckling length.c (bAfy/scr. Distances e1 and e2.c Because of the non-symmetry about the buckling axis due to one-sided longitudinal stiffeners.B.34) for hollow section stiffeners Fig. which is done by increasing the imperfection coefﬁcient ae to : ae a0 [0.09/(i/e)] where: i (Ix.c 0. due allowance is made for a geometric imperfection larger than 1/1000 of the buckling length (the latter is the one covered implicitly by the regular European column buckling curves). The relative column slenderness lp. .c/Ac) (20) and e is the largest of the distances from the neutral axis of the stiffened panel to the centre of the plate or the centroid of the one-sided longitudinal stiffeners (alternatively of either set of stiffeners when both-sided stiffeners). 8. see Fig. Because of the better stability of closed section stiffeners. on the other hand.c (19) with f=0. which then becomes smaller than the length a of the stiffened panel. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 291 compressed part of the stiffened panel.c) (18) The effectiveness cc for the column-like behaviour is given by the reduction factor for column buckling given as: cc 1 f+ (f2−l2 ) p. The initial out-ofstraightness accounted for is 1/500 of the buckling length.5[1+ae(lp. distinction is made between types of stiffener sections according to: Curve b (a0=0.c then writes: lp. p. Johansson et al. 8.2)+l2 ]. on the one hand.
o rcAc. a more conservative strength.4.o of the part of the equivalent orthotropic plate located in the tension zone: At. It is a tension ﬁeld theory that is capable of predicting ¨ the resistance of short as well as long panels and it replaces the two methods in EC3-1-1. Hence. For very wide ﬂanges there is a further reduction of the effective area with respect to shear lag according to EC3-1-5. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Curve c (a0=0. At a certain slenderness the plate reaches its yield resistance but this does not necessarily mean the maximum resistance.c ( bt)eff. Effective cross-sectional area of the stiffened panel The effective cross-sectional area of the stiffened panel is composed of: The gross cross-sectional area At. 3.6fy. 2. and (Sbt)t is the gross cross-sectional area of all the subpanels that are fully in tension. and (Sbt)eff.292 B.c is the effective cross-sectional area of all the subpanels that are fully or partially in compression.7fy for steels of grade S355 and lower.c.3. For higher grades the strain hardening is less pronounced and there are no test results available. 0. Design of plates for shear 3. is proposed. where Ac. The effective cross-sectional area Aeff. General The resistance of slender plates to shear is based on the rotated stress ﬁeld theory as proposed by Hoglund .c where (Asl)eff.c is the effective cross-sectional area of all the stiffeners located in the compression zone.o (22) of the part of the equivalent orthotropic plate located in the compression zone. Johansson et al. In EC3-1-1 there are special rules for rolled beams for which a shear area .o (Asl)eff. Strain hardening and the contribution from the ﬂanges makes it possible to utilise higher resistance without excessive deformations.49) for open section stiffeners.o (Asl)t ( bt)t (21) where (Asl)t is the gross cross-sectional area of all the stiffeners located in the tension zone.o accounts for possible plate buckling of the subpanels: Ac.1. In EC3-1-5 the maximum strength in shear is put to 0.
1.0.0 and 1. respectively. Vertical stiffeners are supposed to be widely spaced and no vertical stresses act on the ﬂanges.2. The state of pure shear that may exist for low loads rotates as shown in Fig. This would be the rational solution but in the meantime a temporary solution has been introduced for the shear resistance. That is another way of taking the increased resistance into account and it can not be combined with the above mentioned increased strength which refers to the geometrical web area. for which the conditions of equilibrium are s1 t/tan(j) (23) Fig. The partial safety factors gM0 and gM1 have been suggested to have different values in EC3-2: 1. 9. This result is quite new and there has been no time for re-calibrating the resistance functions for various instability modes in order to use the same partial safety factor. This is simply that the plateau is shifted in relation to the ratio between the partial safety factors. . State of stress in a slender girder web after buckling. 9. 3.B. The reason for this is a study of the statistical distribution of yield strength and geometrical properties of beams. It was later widened to include such stiffeners . Johansson et al. Rotated stress ﬁeld theory for plain web The rotated stress ﬁeld theory was ﬁrst developed for girders with slender webs with stiffeners at the supports only and for girders with transverse stiffeners but without horizontal stiffeners . / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 293 larger than web area is deﬁned. The state of stress in the web caused by a shear force must be such that no vertical stresses appear at the edges. which justiﬁes gM0=1. consider a girder with a slender web and widely spaced transverse stiffeners. First.
while the tests with non-rigid end-posts do not. Johansson et al. (23)–(26) the shear resistance can now be solved to tu fv in which fv fy/ 3 lw fv tcr 3 (26) 4 lw 1− 1 1 − 4l4 2 3l2 w w (27) Eq. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 s2 t tan(j) (24) An observation from tests is that the compressive stress remains close to the critical shear stress and this is used as an assumption in the theory s2 tcr p2E t2 w kt 12(1−v2)hw2 (25) The ultimate strength of a web is assumed to be reached when it yields according to the von Mises yield criterion s2 s2 s1s2 fyw 1 1 From Eqs.294 B. 10 together with some test results for a girder with widely spaced vertical stiffeners. (23) and (24) is uniform over the depth leads to the following expression for the tensile force Nt hwtwfv 1 l2 w lw tu fv 2 (28) This force is larger than the actual force because the state of stress close to the ﬂanges will be more like pure shear. It is clear that the solid dots representing tests of girders with rigid end-posts ﬁt very well with the prediction. The reason for this is the resulting tension in the web. (27). (27) in order to allow for scatter in the test results and also for . which has to be anchored at the girder ends. If the end-post consists of a single plate the resistance to shear will be less than predicted by Eq. The force has to be resisted by the end-post if the full strength should be developed. The resistance actually used in the design according to EC3-1-5 is reduced slightly compared with Eq. Assuming that the state of stress as given by Eqs. (27) is shown in Fig.
10.20gM1/gM0 for S235.83h lw 1.08 lw h=1.05gM1/gM0 for S420 and S460 Rigid end-post h 0. the systematic deviation for girders with non-rigid end-posts.37/(0. and requirements for stiffness and strength are given in EC3-1-5. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 295 Fig. S275 and h=1. Transverse stiffeners are assumed to be rigid.08 1. that is.83/lw 0. they deform under buckling. cw is found in Table 1 and cf will be discussed later. (27). Longitudinal stiffeners may be ﬂexible. The design resistance is given by VRcd cvfywdhwtw/ 3 where cv=cw+cf. they form nodal lines in the buckling pattern. It is clear from test results that the effect of longitudinal stiffeners will be overestimated Table 1 Contribution from the web to shear resistance cw according to EC3-1-5 lw lw 0.83h 0. that is. Contribution of stiffeners The inﬂuence of stiffeners is accounted for by their increase of the critical stress.83/lw (29) . Shear resistance according to rotated stress ﬁeld theory together with test results for girders with widely spaced vertical stiffeners.7+lw) S355 Non rigid end-post h 0.B.3.83/lw 1. 3. This has been done by curve ﬁtting using simpler expressions than in Eq. Johansson et al.
This is also true for the simple post critical resistance according to EC3-1-1. In addition to the check for buckling of the whole stiffened panel there is a check for buckling of the largest subpanel. which is quite close to the resistance for a non-rigid end-post according to EC3-1-5.34(a/hw)2 ktsl ktsl 9 hw a 2 3/4 1/3 (30) (31) 2.296 B. There is less post-critical strength in a web with ﬂexible stiffeners than in a plain web. This is because EC3-1-1 does not have any requirements other than that there should be a stiffener at the end of the girder. is the same in both diagrams because the inﬂuence of the panel length is reﬂected only by its inﬂuence on the slenderness parameter lw. This is dealt with by reducing the second moment of area of the longitudinal stiffeners to one third of the actual value when calculating the critical stress. shown by solid curves. . The resistance according to EC3-1-5. This reduction has been considered in the following approximate formulae for the buckling coefﬁcient from Annex A3 of EC3-1-5 kt 5. Johansson et al. This comparison assumes that the ﬂanges do not contribute. 11. The draw- Fig.1 Isl tw hw (32) Isl 2 twhw but not less than In (32) Isl denotes the sum of the second moments of area of all longitudinal stiffeners. assuming that the stiffeners are rigid.34 4(hw/a)2 ktsl kt 4 5. 11. Comparison between resistance to shear without contribution from ﬂanges according to EC31-1 and EC3-1-5 assuming gM1=gM0. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 if the theoretical critical stress is used for calculating the slenderness parameter lw. A comparison between the resistance to shear according to EC3-1-1 and EC3-15 is shown in Fig.
Another advantage of the new rules is that they are simpler to use. 13. which gives fair estimates of the resistance for any length of the panel. After some simpliﬁcations the contribution from the ﬂanges can be expressed as cf bft2fyf 3 f ctwhwfyw 0. This does not reﬂect the real behaviour of a girder. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 297 back of the tension ﬁeld method (it overestimates the resistance for short panels and underestimates it for long panels) has been eliminated by the method for a rigid endpost in EC3-1-5. 3. The simple post critical method does not take the contribution of the ﬂanges into account.4.6bft2fyf f a th2 fyw w (34) An example of the resistance to shear including the effect of the ﬂanges is shown in Fig. This effect is taken into account by adding a tension ﬁeld that can be supported by the ﬂanges acting as beams supported by the stiffeners according to Fig.8.Rd 2 (33) c 1. Johansson et al. Tension ﬁeld supported by the ﬂanges. .25 1 MSd Mf. 12. The tension ﬁeld method does take the effect into account but in such a way that the effect disappears when the slenderness is lower than 0. This is a much smaller tension ﬁeld than that of EC3-1-1 because the rotated stress ﬁeld already catches the post buckling resistance of the web alone. The resistance according to EC3-1-5 is compared with the one according to EC3-1-1. 12.B. Fig. Contribution from ﬂanges The intermediate vertical stiffeners prevent the ﬂanges from moving towards each other. including girders with no intermediate transverse stiffeners.
2. Model for patch loading resistance The design rules in EC3-1-5 cover three different cases of patch loading. MSd=0 and assuming gM1=gM0. General The rules for the resistance of a web to patch loading are new in the Eurocode context and have been developed by Lagerqvist  and Lagerqvist and Johansson .1. Resistance to shear for a girder with bf=25tf. crippling and buckling have been merged into one veriﬁcation. The rules have been checked for steel grades up to S690 and there is no longer any need for the special formula for S460 in Annex D of EC3-1-1. see Fig. The design procedure includes the following parameters: a yield resistance Fy a slenderness parameter l=√Fy/Fcr where Fcr is the elastic buckling force . 14. 4. tf=3tw and fyw=fyf=355 MPa.298 B. 13. Because of space limitation only the most common case is dealt with here. Johansson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Fig. 4. Design for patch loading 4. The new rules also cover a wider range of load applications and steel grades. The new rules use the same format as other buckling rules. The three veriﬁcations in EC3-1-1 for crushing.
a resistance function c=c(l) which reduces the yield resistance for l larger than a certain limiting value. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 299 Fig. Deﬁnition of parameters. (38) was originally proposed  but during the drafting of EC3-1-5 it was simpliﬁed to c(l) 0.47 1 l 2 3 w (35) (36) (37) (38) c(l) 0. The Fig.B. Johansson et al. Patch loading. Mechanical model for the yield resistance for patch loading. 15 is used for the yield resistance. . 15.5 1 l (39) The mechanical model according to Fig. 14.06 The expression in Eq. The characteristic resistance is written as FR Fyc(l) and the parameters are written as Fy fywtwly Fcr kF pE t 12(1−v2)hw 0.
5 the bending moment has no inﬂuence on the patch load resistance. This assumption is based on the observations from the tests that the length of the deformed part of the web increased when the web slenderness increased. for the model in Fig.02 (42) The buckling coefﬁcient kF in Eq. (37) was determined on the basis of the results from an FE analysis. is calculated under the assumption that the ﬂange alone contributes to the resistance. With a simpliﬁed expression for Mo. This inﬂuence is accounted for by Eq. Mo. a more realistic case.300 B. 15 is given by ly ss 2tf(1 where m1 fyfbf fywtw hw tf 2 m1+m2) (40) (41) m2 0. The left diagram for zero loaded length shows a fairly large difference between the two design methods.4 FR MR (45) The resistance to patch loading according to EC3-1-5 is compared with that of EC31-1 in Fig. it is assumed that a part of the web contributes to the resistance. (45).2 times the web depth. shows a large difference only for a stocky web. These expressions were simpliﬁed in EC3-1-5 to kF 6 2 hw a 2 (43) (44) ss kF 2 6 6 hw It is also necessary to consider the interaction with bending moment. 10. Johansson et al. The right diagram for a loaded length of 0. Mi. which shows the quotient between the two resistances as a function of ﬂange thickness over web thickness. Fs Ms 0. The FE analysis included the inﬂuence from the stiffness of the ﬂanges as well as the length of the applied load and expressions for kF. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 mechanical model has four plastic hinges in the ﬂange and the plastic moment resistance for the inner plastic hinges.8 1. For the outer plastic hinges. 16. the effective loaded length ly. where the inﬂuence of these parameters are included can be found in Ref. from which it follows that when the ratio Ms /MR 0. .
It is assumed that both the action effects S and the resistance R of a structure are subject to statistical normal distributions. 16. Calibration of design rules versus test results 5. To guarantee that the distribution of the action effects S and the resistance R have a sufﬁcient safety distance a safety index b is deﬁned in EC1-1 as follows: b mR−mS s2 +s2 R S 3. To deﬁne the design values in Eq. sS is the standard deviation of the action effect and sR is the standard deviation of the resistance. 17. Johansson et al.B. Eq. (46) may be expressed by (47) . / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 301 Fig. The safety requirement for a structure is deﬁned by the criterion [Rd] [Sd] 0 where [Rd] and [Sd] are design values. 5. Comparison between patch loading resistance according to EC3-1-5 and EC3-1-1 for a girder with bf/tf=25 and a large distance between vertical stiffeners. mR is the mean value of the resistance. which uses the following deﬁnitions and assumptions. General The new design rules provided in EC3-1-5 were calibrated versus test results by a statistical evaluation according to Annex Z of EC3-1-1. (47).8 (46) where mS is the mean value of the action effect.1. which are characterised by mean values “m” and standard deviations “s”. see Fig.
mR sR s +s 2 R 2 S bsR mS −sS s2 +s2 R S bsS 0 (48) With the notations aR sR s2 +s2 R S sS s2 +s2 R S aS it is possible to express the design values as Rd mR aRbsR Sd mS aSbsS (49) (50) With the approximations aR=0.302 B.8 and aS=0.7 the design values of the action effects and of the resistances can be described independently from each other and a more . Statistical distribution of the action effects S and the resistances R. 17. Johansson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Fig.
If the plot shows a straight line. 17. the so called design ¯ model for the resistance. has to be established. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 303 detailed investigation of the design value of the resistance can be carried out using the statistical procedure given in Annex Z of EC3-1-1. ¯ Plot of re rt values. By comparing the strength values from the resistance function rt using measured input data with test results re. In a ﬁrst step of this procedure a resistance function rt=gR(x). the actual distribution corresponds to a unimodal ¯ normal function as assumed and the statistical data (b and Sd) are determined with the standard formulae provided in Annex Z of EC3-1-1. see Fig. which may be interpreted as a composition of two or more normal distributions. the mean value correction factor ¯ b for the resistance function rt and the standard deviation Sd for the deviation term d can be determined.B. . This gives the following formula describing the ﬁeld ¯ R brtd (51) In most cases the probabilistic density distribution of the deviation term d cannot be described by a single normal distribution as is assumed in Fig. the density distribution for the resistance is checked by plotting the measured probability distribution on Gaussian paper. 18. This is an arithmetic description of the inﬂuence of all relevant parameters x on the resistance r which is investigated ¯ by tests. For the case that the plot shows a curved line the relevant normal distribution at Fig. It may be represented by a non-normal distribution. Johansson et al. 18. mean value correction b and standard deviation Sd of the deviation term d. Therefore.
05 for thickness t nb = 0.005 for width b nh = 0.07 for strength fy nt = 0. To this end. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 the design point is determined by a tangent to the lower tail of the measured distribution. the test population is not representative of the total population of struc¯ tures and therefore is only used to determine the mean value deviation b and the scatter value Sd of the design model. see Fig. 19. To consider scatter effects of parameters not sufﬁciently represented by the test population the standard deviation of the resistance has to be increased. ¯ The statistical data b and Sd of the relevant normal distribution are then determined from the tangent approach to the actual distribution. Johansson et al.304 B. In general. 19. . in addition to the standard deviation Sd.005 for depth h These variation coefﬁcients are combined with the standard deviation Sd according to Eq. Plot of rei/rti-values on Gaussian paper and deﬁnition of the relevant normal distribution at the design point. the following variation coefﬁcients are taken into account for the yield strength and geometrical values: nfy = 0. (52) Fig.
5. .64sR−0. The gM-value of the resistance function is obtained from the ratio of the characteristic value to the design value gM Rk Rd (55) (53) In most cases instead of a 5% fractile value Rk a value Rnom with nominal values for the input parameters is used as characteristic value.2. the design value Rd of the resistance function may be deﬁned by ¯ Rd bmR exp(aRbsR 0. Calibration of the design rules for shear buckling The design rules for shear buckling were checked versus test results according to the procedure given in Section 5.04.5s2 ) R (54) where aRb = 0. For the statistical evaluation the test results were obtained from a data bank given by Hoglund  which contains 166 test results for ¨ the following types of steel plate girders: girders with stiffeners at support only. (53) ¯ Rk bmR exp( 1. Johansson et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 305 sR (ni)2+S 2 d (52) Using a log normal distribution for R the characteristic value Rk of the resistance function may be represented by the 5% fractile value and can be obtained from Eq.0sfy−0.B.5s2 ) 0. To consider Rnom instead of Rk a modiﬁed partial safety factor gM* is used from: g∗ M kgM k may be expressed by: (57) (56) where k=Rnom/Rk. shear ∗ buckling and buckling due to patch loading.64sR 0.1.5s2 ) b exp(−1.64sR−0.8·3.5s2 ) R R The procedure explained above is used in the following to determine the g∗ values M for the resistance functions for plate buckling due to compression stresses.8 = 3. For the resistance functions for plate buckling exp(−2.867 fy k ¯ ¯ b exp(−1. girders with transverse intermediate stiffeners.5s2 ) R Also. Where gM is not in compliance with the ∗ standard value gM=1. the function Rnom is subsequently ∗ modiﬁed to reach the standard value gM.10 used for stability checks.
M The sensitivity of the design model to the variation of the yield strength fyw was checked by plotting the ratio Vei/Vti versus the yield strength of the web fyw (Fig. For these individual subsets the statistical evaluations were carried out and the statistical results are presented in Fig. Calibration of the design rules for patch loading The statistical evaluation for the design model of patch loading was carried out with test results. see Fig. which were loaded by patch loading.10 can be applied M in the design model g∗ .306 B. The ﬁgure shows that for all subsets ∗ g∗ -values lower than 1.10 were determined so that a gM-value of 1. 20. 5. Owing to the small variation of the mean values of Vei/Vti the conclusion can be drawn that the inﬂuence of fyw is adequately considered in the design model. 23. Since the procedure of the design model for shear buckling depends on the arrangement of stiffeners. Johansson et al. . 20. see Fig. the available test results were subdivided into subsets.3. Fig. 22). which were obtained from a data bank given by Lagerquist . Only 150 of 166 tests could be used for the statistical evaluation because some of these specimens did not fail by shear buckling. The data bank contains test results for welded and rolled I-girders. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 girders with longitudinal and transverse stiffeners. end patch loading or opposite patch loading. Subsets of test results. 21.
21. g∗ -values for the design model of shear buckling. 22. M Fig. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 307 Fig. . Johansson et al.B. Sensitivity plot for fyw.
24. Fig. M ¯ In Fig. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Fig. Different cases of patch loading. 25 a sensitivity plot is given for the slenderness parameter l which shows that the scatter of the ratio Fei/Fti is only slightly inﬂuenced by the slenderness parameter l. M . Johansson et al. 24. According to the data base and the various design models the test results were subdivided into the following subsets: Data set 1: Data set 2: Data set 3: Patch loading End patch loading Opposite patch loading For these subsets the statistical evaluations were carried out. and a summary of the statistical results is presented in Fig.308 B. g∗ -values for the design model of patch loading. The ﬁgure shows that for all three subsets a g∗ -value of 1. 23.10 is justiﬁed.
Unfortunately. because either some relevant data were not given in the test reports or the tests were carried out with additional initial imperfections which are not considered in the design model. Ns kyNSeN 1. the shifting of the neutral axis of the stiffened steel plate due to local buckling was considered using the interaction formula for bending and axial compression which is provided in EC3-1-1. Finally 25 tests were applicable to calibrate the design model. not all of the collected tests could be used to check the design model. see Eq. In this case the design resistance of a longitudinal stiffened steel plate was determined by taking into account the local buckling of both subpanels and stiffeners. In these tests the longitudinal stiffeners were designed as bulb ﬂats. 25.5. 5.4. In addition. Calibration of the design rules for buckling of stiffened plates The calibration of the design model for plate buckling was carried out with test results for multiple longitudinally stiffened steel plate girders in compression which were obtained from a literature study. (58). / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 309 Fig. Some of these stiffeners do not fulﬁl the design recommendations given in EC 3 Part 1. see Table 2.5 rcAcfy (58) . ﬂats or angles. because they are not fully effective (class 4 section). Johansson et al. Sensitivity plot for the slenderness l.B.0 rcAcfy Wefffy where: ky 1 myNS 1.
y 4) 0. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 Table 2 Test results for longitudinal stiffened steel plates in compression Authors Dorman and Dwight  Test 3 (TPA3) No of tests 4 Stiffener types All tests with bulb ﬂats 4 (TPA4) 7 (TPB3) 8 (TPB8) Scheer and Vayas  1 (III A 50-70) 2 (III A 75-70) 3 (III A 75-100) Fukumoto  B-1-1 B-1-1r B-2-1 B-3-1 C-1-4 C-2-1 Lutteroth  All tests 3 All tests with bulb ﬂats 6 All tests with ﬂats 12 9 tests with ﬂat plates 3 tests with ﬂat plates and angles ¯ my lc(2bM. Johansson et al.1 The statistical evaluation was carried out for the different groups of tests given in Table 2.310 B. Statistical results for the design model of plate buckling. M Fig. 26 and show that a g∗ -value of 1.y 1. .9 bM. The results of the statistical evaluations are presented in Fig. 26.10 can be applied in the design model.
39(2):87–119. Calcul des ames et semelles raidies des ponts en acier.4:15–28. Report. p. In addition to widening the scope to stiffened plates it also includes some improvements of the present rules in EC3-1-1.  Lagerqvist O. 130–139). New York: ASCE. Stahlbau 1987. 94. Bull. Patch loading. Design of thin plate I-girders in shear and bending with special reference to web buckling. Conclusions The ﬁrst common European pre-standard considering plate buckling has been published for trial application. Dwight JB. Johansson B. Stockholm. Tests on stiffened compression panels and plate panels. Constr Met 1979.  Fukumoto Y. This will facilitate a future widening of EC3 to higher steel grades. Royal Institute of Technology.2 ¨ pp. ¨ TU Braunschweig. Massonnet CH.1 to V/5.  Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. 1974.4:41–53.  Balaz I. ENV 19931-1:1992. Comparison with tests. Ernst & Sohn (Tables Q001 ¨ ¨ to Q005. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 57 (2001) 279–311 311 6. Resistance of I-girders to concentrated loads. ENV 1993-2:1997.1 General rules and rules for buildings. W. In: Specialty conference on metal bridges. ¨  Hoglund T. Ausgesteifte Druckgurte von Kastentragerbrucken. 63-75. Part 2 Steel Bridges. Structural Engineering 1995:4. 6036-1. 1981. Constr Met 1983.  Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. London: Institute of Civil Engineers. Division of Building Statics and Structural Engineering. Ultimate compressive strength of stiffened plates. Steel Structures.  Scheer J. Traglastversuche mit ausgesteiften Blechfeldern unter allseitiger Navierscher Lagerung und konstanter Stauchung der Endquerschnitte. Johansson et al. In: Conference on steel box girder bridges. resistance of steel girders subjected to concentrated forces. Supplementary rules for planar plated structures without transverse loading. Royal Institute of Technology. ENV 1993-1-5:1997. ˆ  Jetteur PH. pp. Department of Civil and Mining Engineering. ¨ ¨ . The design rules have been veriﬁed by calibrations to tests. 96–105). Maquoi R. which include also steel grades above the present limit of S460. Part 1. The ﬁrst author has already received several questions and remarks indicating the need for clariﬁcation and corrections. Skaloud M. Division of Steel Structures. Formulations d’Ayrton-Perry pour le ﬂambement des barres metalliques. Schluβbericht Nr. W. ´  Rondal J. Stockholm. Ernst & Sohn (Tables V/1.  Kloppel/Scheer Beulwerte ausgesteifter Rechteckplatten. Dept. Lulea University of Technology.5 General rules. The test application shows that this ﬁrst version of EC3-1-5 can be improved in several respects. Band II.  Kloppel/Moller Beulwerte ausgesteifter Rechteckplatten. Institut fur Stahlbau. ¨  Hoglund T. Further comments and remarks are welcomed and they may be sent to the ﬁrst author for consideration in the ENversion of EC3-1-5. Part 1. Doctoral ˚ thesis 1994:159 D. Vayas I.  Dorman AP. Strength of steel and aluminium plate girders—shear buckling and overall web buckling of plane and trapezoidal webs.  Lagerqvist O. 1982. Tech.5:145–54. J Constr Steel Res 1996.B. Maquoi R. References  Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.