64 views

Uploaded by teodorabogdan

- Tunnel Load Calcs
- Limiting reinforcement for RC flexural Members-ICJ-Sept2010
- Cavern Reinforcement
- 45 Barton-Et-Al on Design Tunnel Support
- DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS.pdf
- Stress and Strains Around a Cylindrical Tunnel in an Elasto Plastic Material With Dilatancy
- Anchorage of Reinforcing Bars
- 38-Hydraulic Design of Reservoir Outlet Works
- Numerical Analysis of forepole in tunnelling
- Size Effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced
- Tunnel Support- Use of Lattice Girders in Sedimentary Rock
- Hoek-Diederichs Rock Mass Modulus-2006 Edition
- Analysis of the Radial and Tangential Stress Distribution Between Two Neighbouring Circular Holes Internal Pressure by Numerical Modelling - Sh. ARSHADNEJAD, K. GOSHTASBI
- Bi Axial
- The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings (Wiley)
- Tunnels in Weak Rock
- Approach for Finding the Minimum Reiforcement
- An Interesting Article About Preliminary Sizing
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement
- Design Analyses for a Large-Span Tunnel in Weak Rock

You are on page 1of 11

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

optimization methodology

Luisa María Gil-Martín a , Mark Aschheim b , Enrique Hernández-Montes a,∗

a University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva, 18072 Granada, Spain

b Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, United States

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to the cost and energy embodied in steel production, a reduction in the cross-sectional area of a steel

Received 11 February 2008 structural member could imply a significant saving of money and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Received in revised form Hernandez-Montes et al. [Hernández-Montes E, Aschheim M, Gil-Martin LM. The impact of optimal

2 April 2008

longitudinal reinforcement on the curvature ductility capacity of reinforced concrete column sections.

Accepted 3 April 2008

Available online 20 May 2008

Mag Concrete Res 2004;56(9):499–512; Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martín LM, Aschheim M. The design of

concrete members subjected to uniaxial bending and compression using reinforcement sizing diagrams.

Keywords:

ACI Struct J 2005;102(1):150–8] proposed an analytical approach for reducing the amount of longitudinal

Steel structures reinforcement in reinforced concrete members subjected to the action of axial force and bending moment

Structural optimization acting about a principal axis of the cross-section. The approach, which makes use of Reinforcement

Sizing Diagrams (RSD), makes use of a graphical representation of all possible reinforcement solutions

for a particular concrete cross-section subjected to a combined loading consisting of bending moment

and axial load (M, N). The common symmetric solution is recognized as just one of the infinite number

of possible solutions. The RSD methodology used in that approach is extended in the present paper to

steel sections having at least one axis of symmetry, subjected to axial force, bending moment about the

strong axis, and shear acting in the plane of the bending moment. Special considerations are introduced to

address the instabilities associated with slender steel elements. The methodology is developed following

the Eurocode 3 provisions for compact steel members.

© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction shear force, V , acting in the plane of the moment, and an axial force,

N, considered to be applied at the centroid of the rectangular web of

Structural members may be present as individual members the section, and directed along the longitudinal axis of the member

or as a part of a sub-assembly of a more complex structural (see Fig. 1). Beam–columns subjected to torsion or biaxial bending

framework. Members of indeterminate structures interact with are not considered in the present work. Furthermore, this study

one another, with respect to redistribution of loads and the is restricted to compact sections (i.e. Class 1 sections per EC3 [3])

development of instabilities. Beam–column members, which that are symmetric about the minor principal axis of the section

are subjected simultaneously to bending and axial force, occur (Fig. 1). The section is proportioned to provide sufficient strength

to resist these actions (M, N, V ) and sufficient stiffness to prevent

frequently in typical steel structures. For this reason the behaviour

premature buckling. An additional constraint, relating to the stiff-

and design of such members has been central to steel design.

ness necessary to limit deflections to acceptable levels, may also be

Beams constitute a special case, where the axial load (N) is

imposed.

negligible or zero, and are considered to be a subset of the more

It is common in concrete structures to have longitudinal

general beam–column design problem.

reinforcement arranged symmetrically in the cross-section. In

The present paper considers the optimal design of beam–column fact, the design of longitudinal reinforcement is often made

members in which external loading causes an in-plane bending with the assistance of N–M interaction diagrams, which generally

moment, M, acting about the strong axis of the cross-section, a are presented only for symmetric reinforcement. However, it

is evident from RSD design approaches that in some cases it

is feasible and economically advantageous to use asymmetric

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958 249965; fax: +34 958 249959. reinforcement distributions. Fig. 2 illustrates this for an example

E-mail addresses: mlgil@ugr.es (L.M. Gil-Martín), maschheim@scu.edu described in Hernandez-Montes et al. [1,2]. RSD methodology

(M. Aschheim), emontes@ugr.es (E. Hernández-Montes). consists in the consideration of all the possible solutions, for

0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.004

3004 L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013

Fig. 1. Nomenclature.

illustrated for a reinforced concrete section in Fig. 2.

In steel structures, doubly symmetric cross-sections are fre-

quently used, although singly symmetric cross-sections are being

used for columns to achieve economy in large warehouses. This ar-

ticle extends the RSD technique to steel construction to provide a

more precise and useful design procedure, and demonstrates that

reductions in the area of steel necessary to resist a given combi-

nation of axial load and moment (N, M) may be achieved with an

RSD-type optimization approach. This new approach allows the

engineer to choose among all the possible solutions, considering

minimum weight, availability of steel shapes, simplicity on the job

site, and so on. Fig. 2. Example of reinforcement solution for a rectangular cross-section with

top and bottom reinforcement (A0s and As respectively). (a) Reinforcement Sizing

Fig. 1 shows the basic nomenclature for the cross-section. The

Diagram for flexure according to ACI-318, for φNn = 2500 kN and φMn =

web, having thickness tw and height, d, connects to flanges having 1000 kN m. (b) Strain diagrams for symmetric reinforcement (point A) and optimal

areas A1 at the top and A2 at the bottom. The moment, M, is reinforcement (point B).

considered positive when the top flange in the cross-section is

in compression and the axial force, N, is considered positive in

tension. To simplify the equations, the fillets in rolled sections

and throat thickness in welded sections have been ignored in the

derivations. The restriction that all sections are compact (Class 1

sections per EC3 [3]) implies that the full plastic capacity of the

cross-section can be developed; that is, local buckling will not

occur.

Fig. 3 presents the flow chart for the design procedure described

in this paper.

As was observed with reinforced concrete, an infinite number

of solutions exist for the design of a steel cross-section subjected

to combined loads N and M. These solutions can be presented

using graphics similar to those used in the reinforced concrete RSD

representation (Fig. 2).

The extension to steel members requires consideration of

buckling modes. The buckling modes considered herein are

identified in Table 1. For members in compression, two types of

bucklings are considered: flexural buckling (i.e. Euler buckling

for slender members and inelastic buckling for stocky members)

and torsional-flexural buckling. In the former, the cross-section

does not rotate about the longitudinal axis; in the latter, rotation

occurs. For members bending about the strong axis, the instability

phenomena considered is lateral-torsional buckling.

The EC3 [3] approach for checking buckling of members

subjected to axial compression and bending known as the General

Fig. 3. Flow chart of the proposed method.

Method was adopted for the developments described in this article.

Specifically, the conditions considered are single-span members avoided by enforcing constraints on web dimensions in the design

of constant cross-section under axial compression, with end-fork process outlined herein.

conditions (i.e. pin supported without warping restraint).

Other potential buckling modes involve buckling of the web due 2. Constraints on web dimensions

to shear and local buckling of plates loaded – totally or partially – in

compression. The restriction that all sections are compact implies The analytical approach developed herein begins with an

that the full plastic capacity of the cross-section can be developed; assumed web thickness, tw . Given tw , the height of the web, d, is

that is, local buckling will not occur. Shear buckling of the web is limited as follows:

L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013 3005

Table 1

Buckling modes considered

Members in compression (M = 0, - · - · - buckling axis) Members in bending about the Members subjected to shear Plates under compression

strong axis

Lateral buckling (N = 0, - · - · - buckling axis)

Flexural buckling Torsional-flexural Lateral-torsional buckling Buckling shear Local buckling

buckling

enough (cross-section can form a

plastic hinge with the capacity

required from plastic analysis

without reduction of the

resistance) the

width-to-thickness ratios of

plates in cross-section

(compressed flange and web)

are limited

Item 6.3.1.3 Item 6.3.1.4 Item 6.3.2 Section 5 Table 5.2

Eurocode 3. Part 1-1. Eurocode 3. Part 1-1. Eurocode 3. Part 1-1. Eurocode 3. Part 1-5. Eurocode 3. Part 1-1.

1. Shear strength: To provide sufficient shear strength, EC3 [3] expressions that may be used to determine the flange areas, A1 and

provisions for shear strength require that: A2 :

V d

d≥ √ = dmin . (1) A1 · fyf · d + M − N · =0

tw · fyw / 3 2

(3)

d

2. Shear buckling: To prevent shear buckling, the slenderness of A2 · fyf · d + M + N · = 0.

2

the web has to be limited. EC3 [4] (Section 5.1(2) of part 1-5) Once preliminary values of A1 and A2 are obtained using Eqs. (3),

provisions require, where webs are not stiffened, that then the width of the flanges may be determined as follows.

d/tw 0.83 Depending on the ratio of axial load to moment, one or both

λ̄w = √ < flanges may be in compression. The aspect ratio (or equivalently,

37.4 · ε · kτ η

flange slenderness, b/tw ) of the compression flange(s) is limited to

or equivalently, prevent local buckling of the flange in the plane of the web. EC3 [4]

expressions for local buckling of the flange (Section 8 of Eurocode

0.83

< · 37.4 · ε · kτ · tw = d1 3, Parts 1–5) are used to obtain an upper limit for the thickness of

p

d (2)

η the compression flange in relation to the thickness of the web and

where kτ = the shear buckling coefficient for the web, η = the the height of the web, given that A1 = bf c · tf c :

strain hardening coefficient and ε is given by the following s

d E d · tw k2 · E2 · tw

3

expression ≤k ⇒ tf c ≤ (4)

s tw fyf A1 fyf2 · bf c · d

235

ε= . where E = 210,000 N/mm2 and k = 0.3 for compression flange in

fy (N/mm2 ) Class 1.

An accepted value of η, equal to 1.2, is used herein. Assuming Once the thickness of the top flange, tf c , and bottom flange, tf t ,

that there are web stiffeners only at supports results in kτ = are established, the corresponding widths are easily determined,

given the required areas A1 and A2 from Eqs. (3).

5.34.

A1 A2

Eurocode 3 limits the height of the web for Class 1 members; the bf c = and bf t = . (5)

tf c tf t

maximum height of the web, d2 , is discussed in Table 5.2 of EC3 [3].

Thus, the height of the web, d, is limited to dmin ≤ d ≤ dmax In the procedure described below, tf c is set equal to tf t , thus

where dmax = min(d1 , d2 ), d1 is given by Eq. (2), d2 is given by Table eliminating one variable.

Since the cross-section is compact (Class 1), the width of the

5.2 of EC3 [3] and dmin is given by Eq. (1).

compression flange is limited to

bf c ≤ 18 · ε · tf c + tw (6)

3. Preliminary proportioning of flanges

as described in Table 5.2 of Part 1-1 of EC3 [3].

In the remainder of the paper, the flanges are assumed to have

This section describes simple approximations that are used to identical thickness (tf c = tf t = tf ) and values of bf c and bf t obtained

establish preliminary proportions of the flanges. Equilibrium of from Eqs. (5) are rounded up to the nearest integer (in millimeters).

forces acting on the cross-section is established for preliminary Cross-sections whose neutral plastic fiber (NPF) is located

proportioning throughout the method assuming that axial load is outside the web when subjected to conditions of pure flexure

applied at the centroid of the rectangular web (Fig. 1). In order (i.e., for N = 0, the neutral plastic fiber, which divides the cross-

to determine the preliminary proportions of the flanges, as a first section area into two equal areas, is located in a flange) are not

approximation, the flexural resistance of the web is ignored and considered further. Then, with reference to Fig. 1,

the forces carried by the top and bottom flanges are assumed to act

bf c · tf + tw · (d + 2 tf ) − bf t · tf

at the ends of the web. Thus, assuming that the flanges are yielding, tt < < tf + d. (7)

2 · tw

summation of moments about either ends of the web results in

3006 L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013

zg = za − z0

4.1. Lateral buckling

(y2 + z2 )

Z

zj = z0 − 0.5 z dA

The structural member can freely deflect about both principal A Iy

axes of the cross-section. As in EC3 [3], axis y–y is the strong one

and z0 is the distance to the shear center from the centroid of

and axis z–z is the weak one.

the section, za is the location of the point of load application with

The design buckling resistance of a compression member is

respect to the centroid of the section, k and kw are effective length

established in EC3 [3] as:

factors, C1, C2 and C3 are factors depending on the loading and end

χ · A · fy restraint, It is the torsion constant, Iw is the warping constant, L is

Nb,Rd = (8) the length of the member between lateral restraints and Iz is the

γM 1

moment of inertia along weak axis z–z.

where A is the cross-section area, fy is the yield strength, χ is the

reduction factor for pure axial compression corresponding to the

4.3. Combined lateral and lateral-torsional buckling

relevant buckling mode and γM1 = 1.0.

Depending on the restraint conditions, the relevant mode of

To verify the resistance to combined lateral and lateral-

buckling for doubly symmetric cross-sections may correspond to

torsional buckling for a prismatic member in bending and axial

weak axis buckling, for which

compression the General Method proposed by EC3 [3] is used, as

π2 EIz described in this section.

Ncr = Ncr,z = .

`2 The interaction formulae for instability effects for structural

components subject to compression and uniaxial bending in the

In the case of a singly symmetric section, the relevant buckling

plane is given by:

mode corresponds to torsional-flexural buckling, obtained from

the non-dimensional slenderness defined as (Kaim [6]): NEd My,Ed

+ ≤1 (11)

s

A fy

χ · NRk /γM1 χLT · My,Rk /γM1

λ=

Ncr,FT where γM1 is the partial safety factor for the building (γM1 =

1.0), NEd is the design normal force, My,Ed is the design bending

where moment about the y–y axis, NRk is the characteristic resistance

v

!2 ! to normal force of the critical cross-section, equal to Npl (full

z02

u

Ncr,z Ncr,T u Ncr,T Ncr,T

Ncr,FT = 1 +

− t

1− +4 plastic axial force) for Class 1 members, My,Rk is the characteristic

i20

2

z0 Ncr,z Ncr,z Ncr,z moment resistance of the critical cross-section about y–y axis,

2 1− i2

0

equal to Mpl,y (full plastic bending moment about the strong axis)

π2 E Iw for Class 1 members, χ is the relevant reduction factor for pure axial

!

1

with Ncr,T = G It + and i2o = i2y + i2z + zo2

i20 L2 compression, and χLT is the reduction factor for lateral-torsional

buckling, defined previously in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

where variables iy and iz are the radii of gyration about strong and

weak axes, respectively, and zo is the distance between the centroid

5. Cross-section strength

and the shear center of the section. For the determination of χ in

Eq. (8) the buckling curve associated with weak axis bending, given

Since only Class 1 sections are considered in this paper, the

in Section 6.3.1.4 of EC3 [3], may be used.

plastic capacity is of interest. Where shear force and axial force are

present, allowance should be made for the effect of both shear and

4.2. Lateral-torsional buckling axial force on the resistance moment. However, EC3 [3] establishes

that this effect can be neglected where the shear force is less than

Design of buckling resistance for a bending member under half the plastic shear capacity (Vpl,Rd ). For larger shear forces, the

lateral-torsional buckling is defined in general in Section 6.3.2 of design resistance of the cross-section to combinations of moment

EC3 [3] as: and axial force should be calculated using a reduced yield strength

χLT · Wpl,y · fy for the shear area, (1 − ρ)fyw , where

Mb,Rd = (9)

γM1 !2

2 · VEd fyw

where Wpl,y is the plastic section modulus for bending about

ρ= −1 and Vpl,Rd = (d · tw ) · √ (12)

Vpl,Rd 3

y–y axis, fy is the yield strength, χLT is the reduction factor for

lateral-torsional buckling and γM1 = 1.0. For a cross-section of where an axial force is present, allowance should be made for its

a statically determinant beam, the value of χLT depends on the effect on the plastic moment resistance (EC3 [3]). According to

relationship between the plastic moment and the critical moment EC3 [3], for doubly symmetric I- and H-sections allowance need not

for elastic lateral-torsional buckling, Mcr (or squared dimensionless to be made for the effect of the axial force on the plastic resistance

slenderness ratio). moment about the y–y axis when both the following criteria are

For a cross-section symmetric about the minor axis z–z, Mcr is satisfied:

given as (annex F EC3 [5]): 0.5 · d · tw · fy

NEd ≤ 0.25 · Npl,Rd and NEd ≤ . (13)

π2 E · Iz (kL)2 G · It γM0

(" 2

k Iw

Mcr = C1 +

(kL)

2 kw 2 Iz π E · Iz Otherwise it is necessary to account for the effect of axial force on

#1/2 flexural strength. Cases, in which the axial force causes a reduction

+ C2 · zg − C3 · zj

2

− C2 · zg − C3 · zj

(10) in flexural strength, as illustrated in Fig. 4, are considered in this

section.

L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013 3007

Fig. 4. Different cases where axial force causes a reduction in flexural strength.

influence of the axial load N on the plastic bending strength, is (see

Fig. 5):

tf tf

MRd = fyf bf c · tf · d + tf + − PNA + bf t · tf · PNA −

2 2

1

+ , fyw · ρ · tw · d + tf − PNA − y · · d + tf − PNA + y

2

1

+ fyw · ρ · tw · PNA − tf − y · · PNA − tf + y .

(17)

2

Case b: PNA + |y| ≤ d + tf and PNA − |y| < tf

Values of y1 and δt indicated in Fig. 4(b) can be obtain from the

Fig. 5. Example corresponding to pure flexure (triangular moment diagram). system of two equations:

To account for the effect of axial force on flexural strength, an

!

auxiliary parameter y is defined (Chen [7]) as (see Fig. 4(a)): y21 PNA − tf 2

fyw · ρ · tw · − − fyf · δt · bf t

2 2 (18)

N

y= . (14) δt

2 · tw · fyw · (1 − ρ)

· PNA − tf + = 0.

2

This parameter represents the portion of the web in the vicinity of

the plastic neutral axis that is considered to resist the axial force, N, Now, the α parameter, defined in Table 5.2 of EC3 [3], is given as a

function of N by

where fyw is the specified minimum yield strength for the steel of

the web, tw is the thickness of the web and ρ is the factor defined tf + d − PNA − y1

in Eq. (12). Thus, determination of the flexural strength depends If N ≥ 0 (tension) ⇒ α =

d (19)

on where the neutral axis is relative to the flanges. Four cases are If N < 0 (compression) ⇒ α = 1.

considered:

Then, the maximum value of web height for a Class 1 section is

Case a: PNA + |y| ≤ d + tf and PNA − |y| ≥ tf

In this case the portion of the web in compression, α (Table 5.2 396 ε

If α > 0.5 ⇒ d ≤ · tw

α

EC3 [3]) can be obtained from: For N ≥ 0 ⇒ 13 · − 1 .

36 ε (20)

If α ≤ 0.5 ⇒ d ≤ · tw

tf + d − PNA − y α

α= . (15)

d For N < 0 ⇒ d ≤ 33ε · tw

The maximum web height for a Class 1 section depends on α as and the plastic moment capacity accounting for N can be obtained

follows: as (Fig. 4(b))

396 ε tf

If α > 0.5 ⇒ d ≤ · tw . − PNA + bf t · tf − δt

MRd = fyf bf c · tf · d + tf +

13 · α − 1 2

(16)

36 ε 1

If α ≤ 0.5 ⇒ d ≤ · tw . × PNA − · ttf − δt + fyw · ρ · tw

α 2

3008 L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013

1

6. Design refinement

.

× d + tf − PNA − y1 · · d + tf − PNA + y1 (21)

2

In the preliminary design we had assumed that the axial force

Case c: PNA + |y| > d + tf and PNA − |y| > tf

was applied at the center of the web. The section dimensions

Values of y2 and δc in Fig. 4(c) can be obtain from the system: may now be refined to recognize that the axial force is applied

at the center of gravity of the cross-section. The center of gravity

N − fyw · ρ · tw · d + tf − PNA + y2 − fyf · δc · bf c = 0

is located a distance h from the lowest fiber of the cross-section

2 !

y22 d + tf − PNA (Fig. 1).

fyw · ρ · tw · − We may define e as the distance between the center of gravity

2 2 (22)

and the initial point of application of axial force (at the center of

δc

− fyf · δc · bf c · d + tf − PNA + = 0. the web). Then

2

d

Then α (Table 5.2 EC3 [3]) is e=h− + tf . (30)

2

If N > 0 (tension) ⇒ α = 0 Therefore, the bending moment at the center of gravity of the

tf + d − PNA − y2 (23) cross-section, Mg , is

If N ≤ 0 (compression) ⇒ α = .

d Mg = M + N · e. (31)

The maximum value of web height of a Class 1 section is: To provide a cross-section of minimum cross-sectional area

that satisfies the preceding constraints relating to strength and

396 ε

If α > 0.5 ⇒ d ≤

· tw

stability, the following procedure is adopted:

13 · α − 1

For N ≤ 0 ⇒

36 ε

.

+ χLT ·Myy,,RkEd/γM1 < 0.95 the section provides

MRd NEd M

(24) 1. If ≥ 1 and

If α ≤ 0.5 ⇒ d ≤ · tw Mg χ·NRk /γM1

α

excess capacity. To reduce the cross-sectional area, the widths

For N > 0 ⇒ no limit of both flanges are incrementally reduced until:

MRd NEd My,Ed

and the reduced flexural strength accounting for N is (Fig. 4(c)) ≥ 1 and 0.95 ≤ + ≤ 1.

Mg χ · NRk /γM1 χLT · My,Rk /γM1

tf + δc

" !

MRd = fyf bf c · tf − δc · d + tf + < 1 or > 1 the section has

MRd NEd My,Ed

− PNA 2. If Mg χ·NRk /γM1 + χLT ·My,Rk /γM1

2

# inadequate strength or is governed by instability. To provide

1

+ bf t · tf · PNA − · tf sufficient strength, the flange areas must be increased. The axial

2 force and bending moment determine the approach to increase

flange area, as follows.

1

+ fyw · ρ · tw · PNA − tf − y2 · · PNA − tf + y2 . (25)

2 (a) If M = 0 or N = 0, the section is symmetric (Eqs. (3))

and areas of both flanges are increased incrementally by the

Case d: PNA + |y| > d + tf and PNA − |y| < tf same amount.

Values of δt and δc in Fig. 4(d) can be obtained from the system (b) If M 6= 0 and N 6= 0, then one of the flange areas is

of equations: increased as applicable in order to reduce the eccentricity

given in Eq. (30) and the corresponding moment given in

N − fyw · ρ · tw · d − fyf · δc · bf c + δt · bf t = 0 Eq. (31). If the axial force is tensile (N > 0), the area of

fyw · ρ · tw · d + tf − PNA − (PNA − tf ) + fyf · δc · bf c

2

(26) the axial force is compressive (N < 0), the area of the

2

δc

δt

bottom flange (which is in tension) is increased. Since the

× d + tf − PNA + − fyf · δt · bf t · PNA − tf + = 0. objective is to minimize the cross-sectional area, it may be

2 2

possible to reduce the area of one flange when the other

Then, α is given as a function of N in Table 5.2 EC3 [3] as one is increased. Consequently, there is a large family of

solutions, in which a doubly symmetric cross-section is only

If N > 0 (tension) ⇒ α = 0. one possible solution.

(27)

If N < 0 (compression) ⇒ α = 1. The iterative refinement of the flange areas can stop when:

≥ 1 and 0.95 ≤ + ≤ 1.

Mg χ · NRk /γM1 χLT · My,Rk /γM1

For N > 0 ⇒ d ≤ 33 · ε · tw .

For each value of d a large number of different possible solutions

For N = 0 ⇒ d ≤ 72 · ε · tw . (28) exist. Thus, the designer may select the most economical cross-

For N > 0 ⇒ no limit. section, considering total area and perhaps other factors such

as the discrete sizes of component materials and the ease of

The reduced flexural strength accounting for N is (Fig. 4(d)) fabrication.

In the event that several different solutions are found that have

tf + δc

" !

MRd = fyf bf c · tf − δc · d + tf + the same minimum area, we select as optimal the solution having

− PNA

2 the minimum value of the interaction factor (Eq. (11)), defined as:

#

1

+ bf t tf − δt · PNA −

tf − δt

. (29) NEd My,Ed

2 ζ= + . (32)

χ · NRk /γM1 χLT · My,Rk /γM1

L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013 3009

Fig. 6. Flange area solutions: (a) several flange thicknesses; (b) flange thickness of

19 mm.

7. Examples

conditions (i.e. pin supported and free (unrestrained) warping)

and subject to a triangular bending moment diagram (ψ = 0), as

shown in Fig. 5. The span is 4 m and the peak bending moment is

M = 407 KN m. This moment corresponds to the lateral-torsional

buckling moment of H-shaped HEB300 made from Grade 235 steel

Fig. 7. Cross-section area and width of flanges; bending moment.

(fy = 235 N/mm2 ), for which the total cross-sectional area is

14,910 mm2 and section dimensions are bf c = bf t = 300 mm, tw = solution for the standard HEB300 shape is identified in Fig. 6(b), and

11 mm, tf c = tf t = 19 mm, and d = 262 mm. clearly is just one of the many possible solutions.

Design solutions were obtained for different web depths: d. The total cross-sectional area for the preceding solutions is

Fig. 6(a) shows values of flange areas for a doubly symmetric cross- plotted in Fig. 7(a) and (b). Fig. 7(a) presents results for flange

section obtained from Eqs. (3) with A1 = A2 as a continuous curve. thicknesses, tf , between 3 and 22 mm and Fig. 7(b) presents the

Individual points on the plot of Fig. 6(a) correspond to refined subset of results for tf equal to 19 mm. The minimum cross-

values, obtained using the method of Section 6. sectional area is identified by Point A in these figures. In Fig. 7(a)

During the refinement process, the flange dimensions are the minimum cross-sectional area is 10,648 mm2 and corresponds

iteratively adjusted to satisfy all considerations as described to d = 550 mm, tf c = tf t = 11 mm, and bf c = bf t = 209 mm.

previously (i.e. Class 1 cross-section, strength and instabilities). The In Fig. 7(b), the minimum cross-sectional area is 11,701 mm2 and

refinements were completed for flange thicknesses in increments corresponds to tf c = tf t = 19 mm, d = 511 mm and bf c =

of 2 mm and web heights in increments of 5 mm. For each bf t = 160 mm. The point corresponding to HEB300 is identified in

combination of flange thickness and web height, the required Fig. 7(b), where a significant saving of cross-sectional area (about

21.5 %) is readily apparent. Fig. 7(c) compares flange widths for the

flange area was determined, and this flange area corresponds to a

subset of solutions for which tf c = tf t = 19 mm.

particular value of flange width. For the special case of this example

For members governed by strength rather than instability, it

(N = 0) doubly symmetric sections are optimal solutions, bf =

is obvious that a slender section (such as an I shape) is more

bf c = bf t . Values of flange thickness, tf = tf c = tf t varied from 3 mm

economical than a stocky section, such as an H shape. The

to 2 · tw (with tw = 11 mm) and web heights, d, varied from 10 mm numerical results indicate that for this case, even where potential

to dmax . instabilities are considered, the slender shape is more economical

A subset of these results, corresponding to flange thickness than a stocky one.

tf = 19 mm, is examined in Fig. 6(b). One may appreciate

that the initial approximation from Eqs. (3) (given by the solid 7.2. Pure compression

line) overestimated the dimensions of the flange because the

contribution of the web was ignored. During the refinement The simply supported element considered in the previous

process this error was eliminated. The point corresponding to the example is considered here subject to a concentric compressive

3010 L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013

4 m, and ψ = 0.

sections.

axis

was adopted as a benchmark for applying this optimization

methodology to the case of simultaneous axial compression and

strong axis bending. The length of the element is 4 m and it

is considered to be simply supported with end-fork conditions

(warping unrestrained). The bending moment diagram has a

triangular shape (ψ = 0). Lateral and lateral-torsional bucklings

are considered.

The General bending moment-axial force interaction diagram

for an IPE500 shape (Eq. (11)) is plotted in Fig. 9. Two combinations

of load will be studied, represented by points D and H in Fig. 9.

The axial compression force and bending moment corresponding

to these points are:

Point H: N = −1130 kN & My = 112 kN m.

moment is positive because it causes compression in the upper

Fig. 8. Pure compression (tf = 19 mm).

flange.

Fig. 10(a) shows, for each value of the height of the web, top and

axial force, N, equal to −2.73 × 106 N. This load corresponds

bottom flange areas obtained from Eqs. (3) (A1 and A2 ) and the total

to the buckling capacity of the H-shaped HEB300 (bf c = bf t =

area of the cross-section (A1 + A2 + d · tw ), for load corresponding

300 mm, tw = 11 mm, tf c = tf t = 19 mm, d = 262 mm) having

to Point D in Fig. 9. In this example, the thickness of web and

Grade 235 steel (fy = 235 N/mm2 ) and lb = 4 m.

flanges of the IPE500 shape were adopted (tw = 10.2 mm and

Since M = 0, flanges’ areas determined from Eqs. (3) are not

tf c = tf t = 16 mm). The web depth, d, is considered in increments

influenced by d, the height of the web. So, initial values of flange

dimensions of flanges (Eqs. (3)) represent flange areas (A1 = A2 of 5 mm.

in Eqs. (3)) that are invariant with the height of the web, and thus Fig. 10(b) plots flange areas and total cross-section area as a

plot as a horizontal line in Fig. 8(a). Points corresponding to refined function of the web height, d. The results reflect the refinements

solutions for the subset of results corresponding to tf c = tf t = described in Section 6, addressing requirements for Class 1

19 mm, are indicated in Fig. 8(a). sections, strength and instabilities including interaction. The

Fig. 8(b) shows the variation of total cross-sectional area as minimum cross-section area corresponds to Point A (10,973 mm2 ),

a function of the depth of web, d. Points in this figure are for which the dimensions are d = 395 mm, bf c = 220 mm and

identified corresponding to minimum area (Point A, corresponding bf t = 214 mm. Point B of Fig. 10(b) identifies a cross-section

to 13,300 mm2 ) and the standard HEB300 section. In this example approximately equivalent to IPE500 (11,034 mm2 ) for which the

the cross-sectional area can be reduced by about 10%. Fig. 8(c) dimensions are d = 470 mm, bf c = 217 mm, and bf t = 173 mm.

plots the flange width as a function of d. Point A corresponds to Fig. 10(c) plots the flange width as a function of d after the

bf c = bf t = 306 mm, d = 152 mm. Dimensions of cross-section, refinements of Section 6.

obtained from Eqs. (3) for thickness of flanges equal to 19 mm, are Fig. 10(d) plots other possible solutions for point D in Fig. 9

inadequate because of buckling (ζ > 1) while in this example the under the additional constraint that the cross-section be doubly

refinement process results in ζ ≤ 1 for all sections (the element symmetric. In this case, the minimum cross-section area is

will not buckle under the applied load). In this case the refinement 10,983 mm2 and occurs for d = 396 mm and bf c = bf t = 217 mm.

process required an increase in both flange areas until Eq. (11) In this figure, a point corresponding to IPE500 is also shown.

L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013 3011

Table 2(a)

Summary of results for Point D in Fig. 9

d bf c bf t Area Class cross-section Verification of resistance (EC3)

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2 ) [C1: Class 1; C2: Class 2; C3: Class 3; C4: Class 4]

IPE500 468 200 200 11,173.6 Compression flange: 200−210.2 = 94.9 ≤ 9 · 16 = 144 ⇒ C1 NEd = 4.83 × 105 N ≤ Min{0.25 · Npl = 6.56 × 105 ,

Web: 0.5 · d · tw · fy = 5.61 × 105 } = 5.61 × 105 N,

486

N (M = 0): 10 .2 = 45.9 > 42 ⇒ C4 ⇒ ρ = 0.9 (the effect of axial force on the plastic moment of

486

M (N = 0): 10 .2 = 45.9 ≤ 72 ⇒ C1

resistance does not need to be taken into account)

486 396 My,Ed = 2.88 × 108 N mm ≤ My,Rd = 4.95 × 108 N mm

N + M : α = 0.72 ⇒ 10 .2 = 45.9 ≤ 13·α−1 = 47.74 ⇒ C1

Singly 395 220 214 10,973.0 Compression flange: Case a (in Section 5):

220−10.2

symmetric 2

= 104.9 ≤ 9 · 16 = 144 ⇒ C1 My,Ed = 2.88 × 108 N mm ≤ MN,y,Rd

cross-section Web: = 4.045 × 108 N mm

395

N (M = 0): 10 .2 = 38.73 < 42 ⇒ C3

395

M (N = 0): 10 .2 = 38.73 < 72 ⇒ C1

395 396

N + M : α = 0.751 ⇒ 10 .2 = 38.73 < 13·α−1 = 45.19 ⇒

C1

Doubly 396 217 217 10,983.2 Compression flange: NEd = 4.83 × 105 N

217−10.2

symmetric 2

= 103.4 ≤ 9 · 16 = 144 ⇒ C1 > Min{0.25 · Npl = 6.45 × 105 , 0.5 · d · tw · fy

cross-section Web: = 4.75 × 105 } = 4.75 × 105 N,

396

N (M = 0): 10 .2 = 38.82 ≤ 42 ⇒ C3 (the effect of axial force on the plastic moment of

396

M (N = 0): 10 .2 = 38.82 ≤ 72 ⇒ C1

resistance need to be taken into account). Section 6.2.9

N + M : α = 0.75 ⇒ 10396 396 of EC3 [3].

.2 = 38.82 ≤ 13·α−1 = 45.26 ⇒ C1 A−2bf tf 5

a= = 0.37 ≤ 0.5; n = 4.83×106 = 0.19;

A 2.58×10

My,Ed = 2.88 × 108 N mm

1−n

≤ MN,y,Rd = My,Rd 1− 0.5a

= 4.27 × 108 N mm

(a) Top and bottom flange areas and the total area of the cross-section (b) Solutions after refinement procedure for load corresponding to Point

obtained from Eqs. (3), for load corresponding to Point D in Fig. 9. D in Fig. 9. Point A corresponds to minimum cross-section area and

point B is closer to height of web of IPE500.

(c) Solutions after refinement procedure. Flange widths (d) Solutions after refinement procedure imposing double symmetry. Point

corresponding to Points A (minimum cross-section area) and B A1 corresponds to minimum cross-section area.

(closer to IPE500).

The saved cross-area is not significant. Details are summarized in area for initial possible solutions from Eqs. (3) for the specific

Table 2(a). case of flange thickness, tf equal to 16 mm and web thickness, tw

Fig. 11 plots solutions for loading corresponding to Point H equal to 10.2 mm. These values correspond to those of the IPE500

in Fig. 9. Fig. 11(a) shows flange areas and total cross-sectional shape. In order to avoid numerical problems, the minimum value

3012 L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013

(a) Solutions from Eqs. (3) with minimum width of flange equal to 2 · tw (b) Solutions after refinement procedure. Point A (minimum cross-section area)

(with tw = 10.2 mm) for load corresponding to point H in Fig. 9. corresponds to d = 290 mm, bf c = 253 mm, bf t = 197 mm. Point B (closer to

height of web of IPE500) corresponds to d = 470 mm, bf c = 210 mm,

bf t = 177 mm.

(c) Solutions after refinement procedure (widths of flanges for Point A (d) Solutions after refinement procedure imposing double symmetry.

corresponds to minimum cross-section area and Point B is closer to Point A1 (minimum cross-section area) corresponds to

IPE500). d = 296 mm, bf = 228 mm. Note that the section closer to IPE500

(d = 467 mm, bf = 200 mm) is out of range because it does not satisfy

Class 1 requirements for compact sections.

sections are not considered here. In Fig. 11, the range of web

height over which possible solutions exist is indicated. One may Design generally implies the management of several unknowns

appreciate that solutions exist for values of d ranging between 185 in the pursuit of a practical solution. In many cases, design

and 335 mm and between 440 and 520 mm, but for 335 < d < problems are not sufficiently constrained to have a single solution;

440 mm the section does not satisfy the requirements for Class 1 an infinite number of theoretical solutions exist where the

number of unknowns is greater than the number of equations.

sections and thus no solutions could be obtained in this range.

Minimization is always a way to obtain a particular solution,

Fig. 11(b) shows a subset of the solutions obtained after but often the solution obtained using a minimization procedure

refinement, for tf = 16 mm and tw = 10.2 mm. The minimum is not feasible for construction. The optimization process based

area solution is identified by Point A (10,158 mm2 ), for which d = on RSD proposed in this paper is a way of representing the

290 mm, bf c = 253 mm and bf t = 197 mm. Point B corresponds infinite solutions and allows engineers to choose constructable

approximately to the IPE500 shape (10,986 mm2 ), for which d = solutions that require less material than that would be determined

470 mm, bf c = 210 mm, and bf t = 177 mm. Fig. 11(c) plots the using conventional design approaches. Since multiple possible

flange widths as a function of web depth, d, for the refined solutions solutions are portrayed on the RSD representation, the engineer

that are plotted in Fig. 11(b). may consider factors other than mathematically pure optimization

Fig. 11(d) plots additional solutions under the constraint that when deciding upon a particular design solution, such as

the section is doubly symmetric, for the loading corresponding to availability of steel shapes and price differentials, simplicity of the

Point H of Fig. 9. These solutions are different from those plotted job site, and labour. Similar advantages have already been realized

in reinforced concrete design, in which significant savings in steel

previously due to the fact that symmetric constraint was not

reinforcement are possible where non-symmetric solutions may

considered before. In this case the minimum cross-section area

be used.

is 10,315 mm2 and occurs for d = 296 mm and bf c = bf t =

The assumptions required to implement the EC3 methodology

228 mm. In Fig. 11(d), the point corresponding to the IPE500 shape in this paper can be modified to suit the requirements of other

is located outside of the range of possible solutions because for this codes without the methodology losing validity. As well, the

load combination, the IPE500 shape is not in Class 1. Details are methodology can be extended sections in classes other than

summarized in Table 2(b). Class 1.

L.M. Gil-Martín et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3003–3013 3013

Table 2(b)

Summary of results for Point H in Fig. 9

d bf c bf t Area Class cross-section Verification of resistance (EC3)

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2 ) [C1: Class 1; C2: Class 2; C3: Class 3; C4: Class 4]

IPE500 468 200 200 11,173.6 Compression flange: 200−210.2 = 94.9 ≤ 9 · 16 = 144 ⇒ C1 NEd = 1.13 × 106 N > Min{0.25 · Npl = 6.56 × 105 ,

Web: 0.5 · d · tw · fy = 5.61 × 105 } = 5.61 × 105 N

486

N(M = 0): 10 .2 = 45.9 > 42 ⇒ C4 ⇒ ρ = 0.9 (the effect of axial force on the plastic moment of

486

M (N = 0): 10 .2 = 45.9 ≤ 72 ⇒ C1

resistance need to be taken into account). Section 6.2.9

N + M : α = 1 ⇒ 10 486 456 of EC3 [3].

.2 = 45.9 > 13·α−1 = 38; A−2bf tf 6

ψ = 0.226; 45.9 ≤ 56.4 ⇒ C3 a= = 0.43 ≤ 0.5; n = 1.13×106 = 0.43;

A 2.63×10

My,Ed = 1.12 × 108 N mm ≤ MN,y,Rd

1−n

= My,Rd 1− 0.5a

= 3.6 × 108 N mm

Singly 290 253 197 10,158.0 Compression flange: Case d (in Section 5):

253−10.2

symmetric 2

= 121.4 ≤ 9 · 16 = 144 ⇒ C1 My,Ed = 1.12 × 108 N mm ≤ MN,y,Rd

cross-section Web: = 2.00 × 108 N mm

290

N(M = 0): 10 .2 = 28.43 < 33 ⇒ C1

290

M (N = 0): 10 .2 = 28.43 < 72 ⇒ C1

290 396

N + M : α = 1 ⇒ 10 .2 = 28.43 ≤ 13·α−1 = 33 ⇒ C1

Doubly 296 228 228 10,315.2 Compression flange: NEd = 1.13 × 106 N > Min{0.25 · Npl

228−10.2

symmetric 2

= 108.9 ≤ 9 · 16 = 144 ⇒ C1 = 6.06 × 105 , 0.5 · d · tw · fy = 3.57 × 105 } = 3.57 × 105 N

cross-section Web: (the effect of axial force on the plastic moment of

296

N(M = 0): 10 .2 = 29.01 ≤ 33 ⇒ C1 resistance need to be taken into account). Section 6.2.9

296

M (N = 0): 10 .2 = 29.01 ≤ 72 ⇒ C1

of EC3 [3].

A−2bf tf 6

N + M : α = 1 ⇒ 10 298 396

.2 = 29.01 ≤ 13·α−1 = 33 ⇒ C1 a= = 0.29 ≤ 0.5; n = 1.13×106 = 0.47;

A 2.42×10

My,Ed = 1.12 × 108 N mm ≤ MN,y,Rd

1−n

= My,Rd 1− 0.5a

= 1.98 × 108 N mm

Design of steel structures. Part 1.5: Plated structural elements. Brussels;

[1] Hernández-Montes E, Aschheim M, Gil-Martin LM. The impact of optimal 2004.

longitudinal reinforcement on the curvature ductility capacity of reinforced [5] EC3. Eurocódigo 3. Proyecto de Estructuras de acero. UNE-ENV 1993-1-1. Parte

concrete column sections. Mag Concrete Res 2004;56(9):499–512. 1-1: Reglas generales y para edificación. AENOR; 1996.

[2] Hernández-Montes E, Gil-Martín LM, Aschheim M. The design of concrete [6] Kaim P. Spatial buckling behavior of steel members under bending and

members subjected to uniaxial bending and compression using reinforcement compression. Ph.D. thesis. Institute for Steel, Timber and Shell Structures, Graz

sizing diagrams. ACI Struct J 2005;102(1):150–8. University of Technology, H.12; 2004.

[3] EC3. European Committee for Standarization. ENV1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design [7] Chen WF, Shoal I. Plastic design and second-order analysis of steel frames.

of steel structures. Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels; 2005. Springer-Verlag. New-York Inc.; 1995.

- Tunnel Load CalcsUploaded bySanjoy Sanyal
- Limiting reinforcement for RC flexural Members-ICJ-Sept2010Uploaded byscribdengineer
- Cavern ReinforcementUploaded bybalaji_raoch
- 45 Barton-Et-Al on Design Tunnel SupportUploaded byRodrigo Muñoz Valderrama
- DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS.pdfUploaded byYoshua Yang
- Stress and Strains Around a Cylindrical Tunnel in an Elasto Plastic Material With DilatancyUploaded byChaithanyam Kyasnoori
- Anchorage of Reinforcing BarsUploaded byAntonette Marie Elgario
- 38-Hydraulic Design of Reservoir Outlet WorksUploaded bySalman Tariq
- Numerical Analysis of forepole in tunnellingUploaded byRed Orange
- Size Effect on Shear Strength of ReinforcedUploaded byAsim Bashir
- Tunnel Support- Use of Lattice Girders in Sedimentary RockUploaded byJunaida Wally
- Hoek-Diederichs Rock Mass Modulus-2006 EditionUploaded bychouszesze
- Analysis of the Radial and Tangential Stress Distribution Between Two Neighbouring Circular Holes Internal Pressure by Numerical Modelling - Sh. ARSHADNEJAD, K. GOSHTASBIUploaded byIoan-Lucian Stan
- Bi AxialUploaded byfabricio88
- The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings (Wiley)Uploaded byHamed Nikbakht
- Tunnels in Weak RockUploaded byswabright
- Approach for Finding the Minimum ReiforcementUploaded bysumankanthnelluri7
- An Interesting Article About Preliminary SizingUploaded byAnonymous D1h2pK
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield DisplacementUploaded byLuís Macedo
- Design Analyses for a Large-Span Tunnel in Weak RockUploaded bymoomeejee
- types of cracks in reinforcement concreteUploaded byMohamed Salah
- Tunnel LiningUploaded byswabright
- Numerical Validation and Refinement of Empirical Rock Mass ModulusUploaded byshahabk
- A simple displacement control technique for pushover AnalysisUploaded byKtk Zad
- USACE - !Structural Design and Evaluation of Outlet WorksUploaded byAlin Catinean
- The Ground Reaction Curve due to Tunnelling under Drainage ConditionUploaded byNguyễn Hòa
- 139C-Modelling of reinforced concrete structures-KAMIŃSKI-2011Uploaded byZiyad12
- Interaction Behaviours Between Parallel Tunnels in Soft GroundUploaded bysheeeep
- 426_Theorem of Optimal Reinforcement for Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byGabriel Ionita
- The Effect of Initial Rust on the Bond Strength of ReinforcementUploaded byMustafa

- Shi 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- CIDECT-Design Guide for Concrete Filled Hollow Section ColumnsUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings - T.paulay,M.priestley (1992) +Uploaded byvuhoanghn
- User and Installation ManualUploaded bycristobal cabrera
- Van Long 2008 Engineering StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Elghazouli 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- 2008 Van Long Limit Shakedown Analysis 3D Steel FramesUploaded byseln_2811
- Saito 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Daniunas 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Nie 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Maheri 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan
- Han 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byteodorabogdan

- Cidect 5bp 4-05 Part 2Uploaded byzewhite
- 1 Modeling of Shear Walls for Non Linear and Pushover Analysis of Tall BuildingsUploaded byVenkata Hareen Cherukuri
- Plywood Design SpecificationUploaded bybmndevelop
- Shaft AnalysisUploaded byKarina Stein
- Catalogo_HALFEN_MT-FBC10-E.PDFUploaded bygorrotxa0
- Form Finding and Optimization of Shells and MembranesUploaded byJuniorz Zavaleta
- Large Displacement SolutionsUploaded bymatteo_1234
- Manual Respinse 2000Uploaded byalexadr10
- Pagine Da NAYYAR M. L. - Piping HandbookUploaded byAlessio Barbone
- Strand7 - Buckling Analysis - Linear vs NonlinearUploaded byaktc
- Beam BucklingUploaded byNishant Pratap Singh
- Copy of Skid Calculation Make Up Water Tank Rev a.by AmUploaded byPriyo Jati Wahyono
- Lecture 5 FinalUploaded byAastha Soni
- Daniel Celarec. the Sensitivity of Seismic Response Parameters to the Uncertain Modelling Variables of Masonry-Infilled Reinforced Concrete FramesUploaded byAdel Adel
- 02-02-2011- Safety & Reliability Engr CourseworkUploaded byRotimi Owowa
- Determining Weld SizeUploaded byJose Luis Olivares Lopez
- Top Head Lug & Tail Lug DesignUploaded byBolarinwa
- Jacketing of Column 122Uploaded bysolomonce
- Lecture Schedule Steel StructuresUploaded bysandeepgolu19
- Theory of Structures P.1 EL-Dakhakhni1Uploaded byrey
- Engineering and Structural Mechanics NGUploaded byessy_ab
- Stresses Around Bolt HoleUploaded byDasaka Brahmendra
- BS8110 spreadsheetUploaded byPcEng
- AS_NZS4600_draft.pdfUploaded byahmetmufithuseyin
- Steel (Khmer)Uploaded byHENGKIMHACH
- 1.02 Ramesh Pinjani.pptxUploaded bymchkpp
- Analysis of the Behaviour of Stainless Steel Bolted ConnectionsUploaded bySam Samoura
- IRJET-Behavior of Eccentrically Loaded R.C. Columns Confined with CFRP CompositesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Load Path on Rc Building StructuresUploaded bysyont
- abschn19Uploaded byMichael