Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lessingstr. 25/3
A-8010 Graz
Valorisation Project: SEMI-COMP+
n° RFS2-CT-2010-00023 tel: +43-316/873-6200 (or 6206)
fax: +43-316/873-6707
"Valorisation Action of Plastic Member Capacity of
r.greiner@TUGraz.at
Semi-Compact Steel Sections – lechner@TUGraz.at
a more Economic Design" home: www.stahlbau.TUGraz.at
DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR CROSS‐SECTION AND MEMBER DESIGN ACCORDING TO
EUROCODE 3
WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON SEMI‐COMPACT SECTIONS
12th July 2011
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
PREFACE
The present publication is the outcome of two recent research projects funded by the European
Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) and respectively entitled:
− SEMI‐COMP “Plastic member capacity of semi‐compact steel sections – a more economic
design” (RFSR‐CT‐2004‐00044);
− SEMI‐COMP+ “Valorisation action of plastic member capacity of semi‐compact steel sections – a
more economic design” (RFS2‐CT‐2010‐00023).
Both projects relate to the development of new evaluation procedures for the design resistance of
“class 3”steel cross‐sections. These ones, according to Eurocode 3 “Design of Steel Structures” [1] are
assumed to transfer no more than an elastic level of resistance while it is nowadays widely
recognized that an internal plastic redistribution may, sometimes significantly, increase their capacity
to resist forces.
The first project, SEMI‐COMP [2], has been completed in 2008, after three years of intensive research
involving Graz University of Technology (coordinator), Liège University, Ingenieurbüro Feldmann +
Weynand and ArcelorMittal Research Liège. As an outcome of this project, an original model fully in
line with the Eurocode 3 principles and allowing an increase of the design resistance of Class 3 steel
cross‐sections has been proposed as an alternative to the safe design approach presently followed in
Eurocode 3. It has further been extended to the design of members made of Class 3 profiles and has
been validated through numerical and experimental testing and advanced numerical simulations.
Finally, its safety level (γM factor) has been defined through appropriate statistical evaluations.
The quality and the economical importance for practice of this SEMI‐COMP model have convinced
RFCS to fund a complementary project called SEMI‐COMP+ aimed at disseminating, to professionals,
the new developed design procedures through the drafting of design guidelines, the diffusion of the
specific software “Semi‐Comp Design” and the organization of seminars for practitioners, at the
European level. To achieve this task, ArcelorMittal Research Liège has been substituted, in the
partnership, by the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS).
The present document is part of this global dissemination project; it contains design guidelines and
selected worked examples for the classification. All notations are chosen in accordance to Eurocodes.
More info on SEMI‐COMP+ may be found on the two following web sites:
www.stahlbau.tugraz.at/semicompplus or www.steelconstruct.com.
The use in daily practice of design approaches not explicitly covered by the norms, Eurocode 3 in the
present case, may represent a difficulty in terms of design responsibility even, as already mentioned
before, the proposed design methods are in full conformity with the basic principles of Eurocode 3.
In order to overcome this difficulty, the authors have established direct contacts with the Technical
Committee 8 “Stability” of the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) with a view
to publish so called “European Design Recommendations” providing to the practitioners and control
bodies a due validation by the recognized European experts in the field of resistance and stability of
steel structures.
2
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
As a recognition of the key support of RFCS to the development and to the dissemination of the
present guidelines, but also to the organization of seminars in various European countries, the SEMI‐
COMP and SEMI‐COMP+ partners would like to express their sincere acknowledgments to the
European Research Fund for Coal and Steel and, more particularly, to its TGS8 Committee.
Project partners:
Univ.‐Prof. DI Dr. Richard Greiner (Coordinator) Graz University of Technology, Institute for Steel
DI Dr. Andreas Lechner Structures & Shell Structures
DI Dr. Markus Kettler Lessingstrasse 25
AT ‐ 8010 Graz
Prof. Dr. Jean‐Pierre Jaspart Université de Liège, Département M&S
Chemin des Chevreuils, 1
BE ‐ 4000 Liège
Dr.‐Ing. Klaus Weynand Feldmann + Weynand GmbH
Dr.‐Ing. Claudia Ziller Vaalser Straße 259
DI Ralf Oerder DE ‐ 52074 Aachen
DI Martin Herbrand
Prof. Dr. Luis Simões da Silva ECCS – European Convention for Constructional
Mrs. Veronique Dehan Steelwork
Avenue des Ombrages 32
BE ‐ 1200 Brussels
3
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
1. INTRODUCTION
In EN 1993‐1‐1 the evaluation of the cross‐section and member resistances is based on a
classification system; four different classes are identified according to the risk of early or late
appearance of plate buckling phenomena in the constitutive cross‐section walls subjected to
compression (Fig. 1). The specific level of resistance (plastic, elastic or even lower than elastic) varies
according to the four classes, respectively named:
class 1: plastic cross‐sections
class 2: compact cross‐sections
class 3: semi‐compact cross‐sections
class 4: slender cross‐sections
Fig. 1 Moment‐rotation curve depending
on cross‐section classes 1 to 4
The classification of a cross‐section requires the classification of the individual cross‐section walls
(plates) in compression. To achieve it, reference is made to the width‐to‐thickness ratio c/t, to the
loading and to the support conditions (internal and outstand character) of each wall. The definition
of the c/t ratio for internal and outstand walls is illustrated in Fig. 2 below.
Fig. 2 Definitions for the determination of the c/t‐ratio according to EN 1993‐1‐1 for rolled and tubular
sections (left) and welded sections (right)
Classification criteria for walls in partial or complete compression are provided by EN 1993‐1‐1 where
the class of the cross‐sections is finally defined as the higher class of those of the individual walls. For
class 1 and class 2 sections, a plastic level of resistance is allowed but only an elastic one is suggested
for Class 3 sections. This results in a sudden jump of resistance at the class 2 to class 3 border as
shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 below.
4
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
c/t
Mpl Mel Meff
Fig. 3 Cross‐section resistances for strong‐axis bending according to EN 1993‐1‐1, shown for classes 1 to 4
Fig. 4 Cross‐section resistances for biaxial bending according to EN 1993‐1‐1, shown for classes 1 to 4
The RFCS‐Project SEMI‐COMP [2] had the objective to propose and validate a physically more
appropriate continuous transition resistance model for “semi‐compact” class 3 sections (Fig. 5).
5
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
Class 2
Class 1 Class 3 Class 4
c/t
Fig. 5 Overview of SEMI‐COMP research project
This has been achieved in the form of a linear transition between class 2 and class 4 borders through
the development of a calculation model duly justified by statistical safety evaluations, as requested
by EN 1990‐Annex D, see Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 3‐D‐illustration of cross‐section resistance for biaxial bending according to SEMI‐COMP (improved
capacity for class 3)
The SEMI‐COMP project raised aspects of cross‐section resistance but also of member stability (for
rolled and welded I‐ and H‐sections and rectangular hollow sections with double‐symmetric cross‐
section shape). The objective of the present Design Guidelines is to disseminate the knowledge
gained along this project to practitioners.
6
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Overview on the design of frame‐structures .................................................................................. 8
2.1. Generalities ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.2. Isolated members with “other than fork type” support conditions ....................................... 8
2.3. Members in building frames ................................................................................................... 9
3. Classification procedure ................................................................................................................ 11
3.1. General .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2. Classification for member buckling design ............................................................................ 12
3.3. Classification for cross‐section design ................................................................................... 12
3.4. Modification of the c/t‐limits for internal compression parts .............................................. 13
3.5. Classification example ........................................................................................................... 15
4. Cross‐section resistance ................................................................................................................ 17
4.1. Existing rules in EN 1993‐1‐1 ................................................................................................. 17
4.2. New proposed rules for class 3 according to the project SEMI‐COMP ................................. 20
5. Member Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 23
5.1. Existing rules in EN 1993‐1‐1 ................................................................................................. 23
5.2. New proposed rules for class 3 according to project SEMI‐COMP ....................................... 23
5.3. Example for procedure of member design ........................................................................... 25
6. Tabulated M3,Rd‐Values .................................................................................................................. 27
7. Worked examples .......................................................................................................................... 27
8. Software development .................................................................................................................. 27
9. References ..................................................................................................................................... 27
7
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
2. OVERVIEW ON THE DESIGN OF FRAME‐STRUCTURES
2.1. Generalities
As explained in the introduction chapter, new design methods for the evaluation of the resistance of
Class 3 cross‐sections have been made available through the SEMI‐COMP project. These ones are
presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the present publication.
These rules may directly be used for the verification of the design resistance of cross‐sections, by
simply comparing the applied internal forces resulting from the frame analysis (MEd) to the Class 3
corresponding increased design resistances (MRd), with due account of the possible interactions with
axial forces.
The benefit from the less conservative design approaches for Class 3 cross‐sections presented in
Chapter 4 may also be taken into account when evaluating the resistance and the stability of
members subjected to bending moments and axial forces (beam‐columns).
How to achieve this is addressed in Chapter 5 where it is explained how to slightly amend the
Eurocode 3 beam‐column formulae to profit from a higher Class 3 cross‐section resistance.
The so‐amended Eurocode 3 beam‐column formulae are directly applicable to isolated members
characterised by fork type support conditions. In these isolated members, the critical buckling
lengths for flexural buckling around the weak and strong axes but also for lateral‐torsional buckling
are all to be taken as the actual member length (system length); besides that, no second order
effects are affecting the value of the bending moments possibly applied at both member ends.
The application of the Eurocode 3 beam‐column formulae (amended or to profit from a higher Class
3 section resistance) to isolated members with other end conditions or to members in building
frames is much less obvious and many misuses of the formulae in daily practice may be foreseen at
that level.
The difference with respect to the simply supported end conditions may involve arbitrary
combinations of full, partial or null (i) warping restraint, (ii) flexural rotation restraint and (iii)
transverse displacement restraint at the member end sections. Members torsionally restrained at
some distances along their length to limit or prevent lateral‐torsional buckling effects belong also to
this category.
ECCS publication N°119 [3] provides detailed information about the application of the Eurocode 3
beam‐column formulae to isolated members with other end conditions or to members in building
frames.
In the next paragraphs, this topic is briefly addressed. But before looking at these ones, users should
be aware that, due to the complexity of the phenomena affecting the beam‐column behaviour and
the lack of extensive studies and thorough calibration procedures, a loss of accuracy is to be
expected when applying the interaction formulae to non simply supported members. The major
concern is safety, i.e., the application of the formulae should yield practically always safe strength
estimates, even if sometimes rather conservative.
2.2. Isolated members with “other than fork type” support conditions
For such members, the task of determining the appropriate buckling length Lcr for flexural and
lateral‐torsional buckling is a straightforward one (unlike in frame members) and can be performed
8
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
either analytically (numerically) or resorting to one of the various tables, charts or approximate
expressions available in the literature. Thus, the only issues addressed next concern the definition of
the diagram of bending moments MEd and the determination of the appropriate equivalent moment
factors Cm.
Two different approaches are traditionally used in Europe as far as the evaluation of the distribution
of bending moments MEd and the corresponding equivalent moment factors Cm are concerned:
− the “equivalent moment factors” method
− the “equivalent column” method
Both approaches are detailed and illustrated through worked examples in [3].
2.3. Members in building frames
The design of the frame and of its components consists of a two‐step procedure involving a global
frame analysis followed by individual cross‐section and/or member design checks.
Global frame analysis is conducted based on assumptions regarding the component behaviour
(elastic or plastic) and the geometric response (first‐order or second‐order theory) of the frame.
Once the analysis is complete, i.e. all relevant internal forces are determined in the whole structure,
then the design checks of all the frame components are performed.
In Eurocode 3, frames are classified as sway or non‐sway. The description “non‐sway frame” applies
to a frame when its response to in‐plane horizontal forces is so stiff that it is acceptable to neglect
any additional forces or moments arising from horizontal displacements of its storeys (so‐called P‐Δ
effects). This means that the global second‐order effects may be neglected. When the second‐order
effects are not negligible, the frame is said to be a “sway frame”. As criterion for differentiation the
ratio αcr = Fcr / FEd may be used.
In addition to the above, Eurocode 3 specifies that together with the second‐order effects
imperfections need to be considered for the structural stability of frames. These should be allowed
for in the frame analysis by means of an equivalent imperfection in the form of an initial sway
imperfection and individual bow imperfections of members if relevant.
Various opportunities offered by Eurocode 3 to perform the global analysis and design process are
illustrated in Table 1.
For the verification of the resistance and the stability of beam‐columns, reference has again to be
made here either to the “equivalent moment factors” method or to the “equivalent column”
method. The critical buckling length for in‐plane flexural buckling may be taken as non‐sway buckling
length connected with the specific Cm‐factors for the given boundary conditions of the individual
member. Alternatively, the critical buckling length may be taken equal to the system length and may
then be connected with the factor Cm given for simply supported members in Eurocode 3.
Obviously, as an alternative to Table 1, a full second order analysis in which all geometrical second
order effects (sway and member), all effects of imperfections (sway and local bow imperfections
about both axes), and material non‐linearities (plasticity) may be performed. In this case, no cross‐
section and member check has to be achieved further to the structural analysis.
However, this approach requires the use of advanced software codes integrating the warping effects
(7th degree of freedom), local plate imperfections and material non‐linearities.
9
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
Table 1 Various ways for the global analysis and design process
( αcr ≥ 3) No limitation
Amplified sway
Account for 2nd order
P-Δ effects moments
Account for
No Yes Yes No
sway imperfection φ
Check of components
Cross-section resistances and local stability
and frame
Joint resistances
In practice, another “intermediate” way to proceed is to perform an elastic second order analysis
(with geometrical sway and member effects and the effects of the corresponding imperfections);
only cross‐section checks under internal forces are then to be achieved as the P‐δ effects (related to
member instability) have been explicitly considered in the frame analysis.
For a 3‐D structure, this approach can also be followed in a “simplified“ manner: just perform a
second order in‐plane analysis and check the out‐of‐plane instability of the members by means of
member design formulae. The practical implementation of this procedure is however not obvious to
achieve when reference is made to the so‐called “Method 1 beam‐column formula” recommended
by Eurocode 3 as they integrate coupling phenomena between both buckling directions. This is not
the case with the so‐called “Method 2 beam‐column formula” recommended by Eurocode 3.
10
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
The here‐above described approach on basis of second‐order analysis plus imperfection may also be
used for frame structures with non‐uniform members and sections.
3. CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE
3.1. General
This chapter presents the procedure to be followed for the classification of sections of simple
members or members in frames. This classification may be performed on basis of Table 5.2 of EN
1993‐1‐1. In principle, the classification is based on c/t‐ratios of parts in compression reaching the
limit state of fy.
Additional special rules are provided for the design of class 4‐sections where use may be made of the
reduced stress state of the design stress σcom,Ed when determining the c/t‐ratios.
The specific use of c/t‐ratios based on fy or on σcom,Ed is relevant only in case of class 4‐sections and it
depends on the design method applied to the member. In case that uniform members are designed
on basis of the member buckling formulae of section 6.3 of EN 1993‐1‐1 (see Table 1) the c/t‐ratios
must be based on fy. If the member design is performed with internal forces from full second order
analyses or if no second order effect exist at all then σcom,Ed can be used for determining the c/t‐ratio.
In general, the classification of cross‐sections is used to select the appropriate design method with
respect to
− the global analysis
− the member buckling design
− the cross‐section design
• At the level of global analysis the classification allows to decide whether elastic or plastic analysis
can be used. In case of elastic global analysis it has to be verified that the stiffness properties of
the sections are not reduced by local buckling effects. In case of plastic global analysis it must be
checked if appropriate rotation capacity is provided (see background document [5]).
• At the level of member design the classification is needed to decide which type of buckling
formula (for class 2, 3, 4) applies. In the case of axially non‐uniform internal forces and bending
moments the varying stress states may lead to different classes along the member length.
• At the level of cross‐section design the classification dictates the type of cross‐section resistance,
i.e. plastic, elastic or effective resistance. Accordingly, the limit 2/3 indicates whether full plastic
capacity can be exploited in class 2 or just partial plastic capacity in class 3. The limit 3/4 indicates
that reduced effective section properties must be accounted for in class 4.
Principles: A general principle of classification is that it has to be made on basis of the loading
condition of the section including all internal forces/moments NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed, if
relevant, in a combined stress‐state. This has to be investigated for each load
combination resulting from the global analysis of the structure.
In general, the section classification is needed at the level of
− global analysis,
− member buckling design and
− cross‐section design
11
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
The classification procedure itself distinguishes between the elastic stress state and the plastic stress
state of the section. The first one determines the limit between class 3 and class 4 (called limit 3/4)
and the second one between class 2 and class 3 (called limit 2/3) as well as class 1 and class 2 (limit
1/2). The procedures are described in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.
3.2. Classification for member buckling design
The buckling resistance of members is considerably affected by the degree of plastic capacity
provided by the cross‐section behaviour. Therefore, the member buckling formulae in section 6.3 of
EN 1993‐1‐1 depend on the cross‐section classes.
In general load cases of members the stress state of the cross‐sections may vary significantly along
the member length. Accordingly, the cross‐section‐classes may vary along the length too. Since the
member buckling formulae were developed for uniform members the decisive cross‐section class
needs to be defined as the equivalent one.
From the mechanical point of view it may be proposed to take the point of maximum utilisation and
the given class there as the decisive section. This leads to the procedure of determining the
utilization factor UF along the member length in all 1/10 points together with the corresponding
section class.
3.3. Classification for cross‐section design
The aspects to be considered deal with the determination of the limits 3/4 in the elastic range (Fig. 7)
and the limits 2/3 in the plastic range (Fig. 8).
The limit class 1/2 concerns the rotation capacity and is relevant for the selection of the method of
global analysis. It may be executed analogous to the limit 2/3.
• Classification‐procedure for limit 3/4:
σ = 0
+
-
Mz,Ed
My,Ed
NEd
-
- σcom,Ed
Fig. 7: Elastic stress distribution for NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed for H‐section
− basis is the elastic stress distribution under NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed of the brutto‐section (A, I)
− class 4 governs, if the limit value c/t (fy) of class 3 is exceeded at any part of the cross‐section
− for class 4‐sections the kind of classification is related to the kind of member check (see
background document [5])
12
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
• Classification‐procedure for limit 2/3 and 1/2:
− basis is the plastic stress distribution under NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed
− increase (NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed) stepwise until the plastic limit is met and then use the
corresponding stress blocks for classification
− (pre‐condition: (NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed) increases linearly‐proportional up to the limit state, see
utilisation factor in background document [5])
− class 3 governs, if the limit value c/t (fy) of class 2 is exceeded, otherwise the section is class 2
or better
− class 2 governs, if the limit value c/t (fy) of class 1 is exceeded, otherwise the section is class 1
Mpl,y
+
NEd, My,Ed, Mz,Ed + -
(plast.) -
Npl
-
Mpl,z
Fig. 8: Procedure for the amplification of the internal forces and moments NEd + My,Ed + Mz,Ed up to the
plastic cross‐section resistance (left) and corresponding plastic stress distribution (right) for H‐section
3.4. Modification of the c/t‐limits for internal compression parts
By the results of the SEMI‐COMP Project it came out that the c/t‐limits given in Table 5.2 of EN 1993‐
1‐1 for internal parts in compression need a modification towards lower limit‐values, in order to
reach the specified safety level.
For general section shapes the c/t‐limits in Table 5.2 of EN 1993‐1‐1 for internal parts in compression
should be modified to 38 (instead of 42) at the limit 3/4 and to 34 (instead of 38) at the limit 2/3, see
Table 2. The limit 1/2 indicates the same discrepancy for internal parts in compression, and should –
although not subject of this project – also be revised accordingly.
For the specific case of RHS in bending, see Background Document [5].
13
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
Table 2 Maximum width‐to‐thickness ratios for compression parts according to project SEMI‐COMP
(modified Table 5.2 of EN 1993‐1‐1, sheet 1 of 3)
Internal compression parts
axis of bending
axis of bending
Part subject to Part subject to
Class Part subject to bending and compression
bending compression
Stress
distribution
in parts
(compression
positive)
126ε
1 when α > 0.5: c / t ≤
5.5α − 1
(modified c / t ≤ 72ε c / t ≤ 28ε
36ε
limits) when α ≤ 0.5: c / t ≤
α
188ε
2 when α > 0.5: c / t ≤
6.53α − 1
(modified c / t ≤ 83ε c / t ≤ 34 ε
41.5ε
limits) when α ≤ 0.5: c / t ≤
α
Stress
distribution
in parts
(compression
positive)
38ε
3 when ψ > −1: c / t ≤
c / t ≤ 124ε c / t ≤ 38ε 0.653 + 0.347ψ
(modified
limits) when ψ ≤ −1a : c / t ≤ 62ε (1 − ψ ) ( −ψ )
fy 235 275 355 420 460
ε = 235 / fy
ε 1.00 0.92 0.81 0.75 0.71
a ψ ≤ −1 applies where either the compression stress σ ≤ fy or the tensile strain ε y > fy / E
14
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
3.5. Classification example
Example 1: HEA 300 S355
A = 112.5 cm 2 tf
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩ I y = 18263 cm
4
tw
h
⎨t w = 8.5mm
⎪t = 14mm
⎪ f
⎧Wel , z = 420.6 cm3 ⎪⎩ r = 27 mm
⎪⎪
⎨W pl , z = 641.2 cm
3
b
⎪
⎪⎩ I z = 6310 cm
4
Section in compression and biaxial bending N+My+Mz:
⎧ N Ed = −500 kN (n = N Ed N pl , Rd = 0.125)
⎪
⎨M y , Ed = 200 kNm (mpl , y = M y , Ed M pl , y , Rd = 0.407)
⎪ (mpl , z = M z , Ed M pl , z , Rd = 0.439)
⎩M z , Ed = 100 kNm
Web in combined bending and compression:
15
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
‐35.5 kN/cm²
‐44.1 kN/cm²
‐25.4 kN/cm² ‐
‐ +
3.5 kN/cm² α =1.0
‐15.8 kN/cm²
ψ =0.57
‐ PNA
146mm
ENA
‐
208mm
α =146/208 =0.70
ψ = ‐0.44
+
6.95 kN/cm² 35.5 kN/cm²
+
+ 35.2 kN/cm²
‐ ‐
Fig. 9: Diagrams of elastic stress distribution (left) and plastic stress distribution (right) for the
determination of ψ and α
Result: Web Class 1
→ The cross‐section is class 3.
Flange Class 3
For further examples see background document [5].
16
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
4. CROSS‐SECTION RESISTANCE
4.1. Existing rules in EN 1993‐1‐1
The existing design procedure of EN 1993‐1‐1 is illustrated separately for I‐ and H‐sections and for
RHS. For a better overview the rules for elastic and for plastic resistances are visualized in diagrams
(Fig. 10 and Fig. 11) respectively Table 3 and Table 4.
The plastic design check can be presented in three steps:
Step 1: Determination of the mono‐axial bending resistances (i.e. Mpl,Rd)
Step 2: Interaction of mono‐axial bending and axial force (→ MN,Rd)
Step 3: Interaction for biaxial bending
− Design procedure for plastic CS‐resistance of I and H sections (EN 1993‐1‐1)
y
MRd
z
Mpl,Rd
Step 1:
Mel,Rd
My
Step 2: Mpl,y,Rd
Mel,y,Rd
N Ed
a/2 n=N
pl,Rd
a 1.0
Mel,z,Rd
Mpl,z,Rd
Mz
Step 3:
MN,y,Rd
MN,z,Rd
Fig. 10: Design procedure for cross‐section resistance of I‐ and H‐sections according to EN 1993‐1‐1
17
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
Table 3 Cross‐section resistance of I and H sections according to EN 1993‐1‐1
Class 2: Step 1: My,Rd = Mpl,y,Rd Mz,Rd = Mpl,z,Rd
Step 2: (1 − n)
MN,y,Rd = Mpl,y,Rd ⋅ ≤ Mpl,y,Rd
(1 − 0.5a)
n ≤ a: MN,z,Rd = Mpl,z,Rd
⎡ ⎛ n − a ⎞2 ⎤
n > a: MN,z,Rd = Mpl,z,Rd ⋅ ⎢1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1 − a ⎠ ⎥⎦
a=
( A − 2btf ) ≤ 0.5 n=
NEd
A Npl,Rd
Step 3: α β
⎡ My,Ed ⎤ ⎡ Mz,Ed ⎤
α = 2; β = 5n ≥ 1 ⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥ ≤1
⎣⎢ MN,y,Rd ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ MN,z,Rd ⎦⎥
Table 4 Cross‐section resistance of RHS and box sections according to EN 1993‐1‐1
Class 2: Step 1: My,Rd = Mpl,y,Rd Mz,Rd = Mpl,z,Rd
Step 2: (1 − n )
MN,y,Rd = Mpl,y,Rd ⋅ ≤ Mpl,y,Rd
(1 − 0.5aw )
(1 − n )
MN,z,Rd = Mpl,z,Rd ⋅ ≤ Mpl,z,Rd
(1 − 0.5af )
( A − 2btf ) ≤ 0.5 ( A − 2htw ) ≤ 0.5 NEd
aw = af = n =
A A Npl,Rd
Step 3: α β
1.66 ⎡ My,Ed ⎤ ⎡ Mz,Ed ⎤
α =β= ≤ 6 ⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥ ≤1
2
1 − 1.13n ⎣⎢ MN,y,Rd ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ MN,z,Rd ⎦⎥
18
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
− Design procedure for plastic CS‐resistance of RHS and box sections (EN 1993‐1‐1)
MRd
Mpl,Rd
Step 1:
Mel,Rd
Mel,Rd
class 2
My
Step 2: Mpl,y,Rd
Mel,y,Rd
N Ed
aw /2 n=N
pl,Rd
af /2
1.0
Mel,z,Rd
Mpl,z,Rd
Mz
Step 3:
MN,y,Rd
MN,z,Rd
Fig. 11: Design procedure for cross‐section resistance of tubular sections according to EN 1993‐1‐1
19
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
4.2. New proposed rules for class 3 according to the project SEMI‐COMP
The proposed design procedure is illustrated for I and H sections and for RHS by Fig. 12 and Fig. 13
separately. For a better overview the proposed formulae are visualized in similar form like the
existing rules in section 4.1. It can be realized that the existing and new design procedures are in
close accordance, when the plastic resistances Mpl,Rd are replaced by the ‘interpolated’ values M3,Rd.
In order to keep the formulae simple for the wide scope of different design situations minor
discontinuities have been accepted at the transitions to class 2 and to class 4. At the transition from
class 3 to class 2 the small plateaus of the M‐N‐interaction of class 2 in EN 1993‐1‐1 could not be
validated for the class 3‐sections by the new evaluations and had, therefore, been eliminated. At the
transition from class 3 to class 4 the curved My‐Mz‐interaction curve in class 3 has to pass into the
linear interaction curve in class 4, so that a small step may occur there. However, in total the given
discontinuities are numerically small in relation to the basic values of the resistances.
− Design model for CS‐resistance of I and H sections in class 3
y
MRd
Mpl,Rd z
Step 1: M3,Rd
Mel,Rd
My
Step 2: M3,y,Rd
Mel,y,Rd MN,3,y,Rd
N Ed
n=N
pl,Rd
1.0
Mel,z,Rd
M3,z,Rd MN,3,z,Rd
Mz
Step 3: MN,3,y,Rd
MN,3,z,Rd
Fig. 12: Design procedure for cross‐section resistance of I‐ and H‐sections according to SEMI‐COMP
20
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
The formulae for the new proposal are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6 as follows:
Table 5 Cross‐section resistance of I and H sections according to new class 3 design model
Interpolation β2,y,f = 10ε β3,y,f = 14ε β 2 ,z ,f = 10 ε β 3 ,z ,f = 16 ε
parameters:
β2,y,w = 83ε β3,y,w = 124ε
⎡
c / tref,y = max ⎢
( c / tf − β2,y,f ) ; ( c / tw − β2,y,w ) ;0⎤⎥ ≤1
⎢
⎣ (β3,y,f − β2,y,f ) (β3,y,w − β2,y,w ) ⎥⎦
⎡
c / tref,z = max ⎢
( c / tf − β2,z,f ⎤ )
;0 ⎥ ≤ 1
⎢
⎣ (β3,z,f − β2,z,f ⎥
⎦ )
Step 1: fy
M3,(y/z),Rd = W3,(y/z) ⋅
γM0
(
= Mpl,(y/z),Rd − Mpl,(y/z),Rd − Mel,(y/z),Rd ⋅ c / tref,(y/z) )
Step 2: MN,3,y ,Rd = M3,y ,Rd ⋅ (1 − n ) MN,3,z,Rd = M3,z,Rd ⋅ 1 − n2 ( )
Step 3 α = 2; β = 5n ≥ 1
α β
⎡ My,Ed ⎤ ⎡ Mz,Ed ⎤
⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥ ≤1
⎢⎣ MN,3,y,Rd ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ MN,3,z,Rd ⎦⎥
Table 6 Cross‐section resistance of RHS and box sections according to new class 3 design model
Interpolation β2,y,f = 34ε β3,y,f = 38ε β2,z,w = 34ε β3,z,w = 38ε
parameters:
β2,y,w = 83ε β3,y,w = 124ε
⎡
c / tref,y = max ⎢
( c / tf − β2,y,f ) ; ( c / tw − β2,y,w ) ;0⎤⎥ ≤1
⎢
⎣ (β3,y,f − β2,y,f ) (β3,y,w − β2,y,w ) ⎥⎦
⎡
c / tref,z = max ⎢
( c / tw − β2,z,w ) ;0⎤⎥ ≤ 1
⎢
⎣ (β3,z,w − β2,z,w ) ⎥⎦
Step 1: fy
M3,(y/z),Rd = W3,(y/z) ⋅
γM0
(
= Mpl,(y/z),Rd − Mpl,(y/z),Rd − Mel,(y/z),Rd ⋅ c / tref,(y/z) )
Step 2: MN,3,y,Rd = M3,y,Rd ⋅ (1 − n) MN,3,z,Rd = M3,z,Rd ⋅ (1 − n)
( )
Step 3 1.66 4
α =β= ≤ 2 + 4 ⋅ ⎡1 − max c / tref,(y/z) ⎤
1 − 1.13n2 ⎣ ⎦
α β
⎡ My,Ed ⎤ ⎡ Mz,Ed ⎤
⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥ ≤1
⎢⎣ MN,3,y,Rd ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ MN,3,z,Rd ⎥⎦
21
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
− Design model for CS‐resistance of RHS and box sections in class 3
MRd
Mpl,Rd M3,Rd
Step 1: current EC3
Mel,Rd
class 1
Mel,Rd
class 2
1.0
Mel,z,Rd
M3,z,Rd MN,3,z,Rd
Mz
Step 3: MN,3,y,Rd
MN,3,z,Rd
Fig. 13: Design procedure for cross‐section resistance of tubular sections according to SEMI‐COMP
22
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
5. MEMBER RESISTANCE
5.1. Existing rules in EN 1993‐1‐1
The member buckling rules for beam columns in the existing EN 1993‐1‐1 are given in form of two
interaction formulae, equ. (6.61) and (6.62), which cover the potential buckling modes about the yy‐
axis and the zz‐axis.
The definition and the values of each of the constitutive coefficients are provided in EN 1993–1–1 for
Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 cross‐sections.
The interaction factors kyy, kyz kzy and kzz may be taken from two alternative approaches, called
Method 1 and Method 2. The formulae for these factors are given in Annex A and Annex B.
Remark: It is important to notice that, in addition to this stability check, the resistance check of the
member end sections – if relevant – has also to be carried out.
The formulae have been validated for members with double‐symmetrical cross‐section and only
slightly unsymmetrical shapes.
5.2. New proposed rules for class 3 according to project SEMI‐COMP
The application of the linear transition of the bending resistances M3,y,Rd and M3,z,Rd in class 3 has a
corresponding effect also on the member resistances.
The cross‐section properties used for the calculation of the design values NRd, My,Rd Mz,Rd and for the
coefficients λ y , λ z , λ LT , which determine the reduction factors χy, χz, χLT depend on the specific
cross‐section class. The correlation between the classes and the properties is given in Table 7 (taken
from EN 1993‐1‐1 and amended by the results of project SEMI‐COMP for class 3):
Table 7 Values for NRk = fy Ai, Mi,Rk = fy Wi and ΔMi,Ed
Class 1 2 3 4
Ai A A A Aeff
Wy Wpl,y Wpl,y Wel,y or W3,y Weff,y
Wz Wpl,z Wpl,z Wel,z or W3,z Weff,z
ΔMy,Ed ‐ ‐ ‐ eN,y NEd
ΔMz,Ed ‐ ‐ ‐ eN,z NEd
23
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
− Method 1:
The general format of the Method 1 (Annex A) beam‐column formulae for class 1 and class 2 sections
presented in EN 1993–1–1 can be rearranged for class 3 as follows:
N Ed ⎡C Cmy ⋅ M y , Ed wz Cmz ⋅ M z , Ed ⎤
+ μ y ⎢ mLT + 0, 6 ⎥ ≤1
⎢ χ LT ⎛ ⎞ wy ⎛ N Ed ⎞
N
χ y Rk N M y , Rk M z , Rk ⎥
γ M1 ⎢ ⎜⎜ 1 − Ed ⎟⎟ C yy ⎜⎜ 1 − ⎟⎟ C yz ⎥
⎣ ⎝ N cr , y ⎠ γ M1 ⎝ N cr , z ⎠ γ M1 ⎦
dLT λ0 M y , Ed M z , Ed
2 aLT
0,1 + λ z Cmy χ LT M 3, y , Rd Cmz M 3, z , Rd
4
Wpl,y W3,y
Wpl,z W3,z
wy W3,y / Wel,y
wz W3,z / Wel,z
24
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
− Method 2:
In Method 2 (Annex B) the effect of the linear transition should be accounted for by replacing the
plastic resistances by the partial plastic resistances M3,y,Rd and M3,z,Rd as illustrated by the following
equations. The same holds for the calculation of the slenderness λLT . The interaction factors should
be the same as for plastic behaviour (class 1, class 2) in Annex B of EN 1993‐1‐1.
W3,y ⋅ f y
λLT = → χ LT
M cr
NEd My,Ed M
buckling y‐y: + k yy + k yz z,Ed ≤ 1
χ yNRk M Mz,Rk
χLT y,Rk
γM1 γM1 γM1
M3,y,Rd M3,z,Rd
NEd My,Ed M
buckling z‐z: + k zy + k zz z,Ed ≤ 1
χ zNRk M Mz,Rk
χLT y,Rk
γM1 γM1 γM1
M3,y,Rd M3,z,Rd
5.3. Example for procedure of member design
The following example illustrates the procedure for the determination of the decisive class to be
applied in the member design check:
Example 2: IPE 500 S 235
tf
A = 115.5 cm 2 r ⎧ h = 500mm
⎪
⎧Wel , y = 1928 cm 3 ⎧Wel , z = 214 cm 3 ⎪b = 200mm
⎪⎪ ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎨W pl , y = 2194 cm
3
⎨W pl , z = 336 cm
3 h ⎨t w = 10.2mm
⎪ ⎪ ⎪t = 1.6mm
⎪⎩ I y = 48200 cm
4
⎪⎩ I z = 2142 cm
4
⎪ f
tw ⎪⎩ r = 21mm
b
25
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
MyIIEd NEd
N [kN] My [kNm] Mz [kNm]
qz,Ed = 5 [kN/m]
1 350 250 0,0
2 350 247,5 ‐6,2
3 350 240 ‐7,9
L = 2x5 = 10 m
Position
6 350 187,5 14,0
7 350 160 2,3
8 350 127,5 ‐5,1
9 350 90 ‐7,9
10 350 47,5 ‐6,2
11 350 0 0,0
UF (decisive class of Profile) Class
1 0,51 1 2
2 0,52 2 2
3 0,52 3 2
4 0,59 4 3 relevant class for
5 0,54 5 3 member buckling
Position
Position
6 0,56 6 3 check
7 0,44 7 3
8 0,38 8 3
UF
9 0,32 9 3
UF‐EP
10 0,23 UF‐EE 10 3
11 0,13 11 4
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Fig. 15: Diagram of cross‐section utilisation (left) and section class along the member length (right)
• The classes were determined on basis of c/t (fy)
• The full line in Fig. 15 illustrates the utilisation according to the SEMI‐COMP approach (line ‘UF’)
• The left dashed line in Fig. 15 illustrates the utilisation for class 2 (full plastic, line ‘UF‐EP’)
• The right hand dashed line in Fig. 15 illustrates the elastic utilisation (line ‘UF‐EE’)
The member buckling check should be carried out for class 3‐sections, i.e. the class at the location
with the highest utilisation factor.
The procedure of the member checks in detail is illustrated by the worked examples in the
background document [5].
26
SEMI‐COMP+ Design Guidelines
6. TABULATED M3,Rd‐VALUES
Further to the above formulaic approach it should be noted, that the calculation of the bending
resistances M3,Rd by interpolation can be omitted by providing these values in form of tables for the
different section shapes and steel grades. The M3,y,Rd‐values for common European hot‐rolled
sections (IPE, HEAA, HEA, HEB and HEM) and the three steel grades S235, S355 and S460 are given in
the Annex B of the background document [5].
7. WORKED EXAMPLES
Worked examples for different types of members are given in a separate Annex A of the background
document [5]. Several different design situations of single span members with different moment
diagrams and transversal restraints are presented. H‐sections and tubular sections are considered.
8. SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Within the SEMI‐COMP+ project a design software “Semi‐Comp Design” has been developed for
cross‐section and member design, which is provided as freeware. This software covers the
classification of cross‐sections and the design of single span members with axial compression, end
moments and transverse loading for the beam‐column behaviour with distinct intermediate
restraints transversal to the beam axis in regular spacing.
9. REFERENCES
[2] Greiner, R., Kettler, M., Lechner, A., Jaspart, J.‐P., Boissonade, N., Bortolotti, E., Weynand, K.,
Ziller, C., Örder, R.: SEMI‐COMP: Plastic Member Capacity of Semi‐Compact Steel Sections – a
more Economic Design, RFSR‐CT‐2004‐00044, Final Report, Research Programme of the
Research Fund for Coal and Steel – RTD, 2008.
[3] Boissonade, N., Greiner, R., Jaspart, J.‐P., Lindner, J.: Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993‐1‐1:
Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS Technical Committee 8 – Structural
Stability, P 119, Brussels, 2006.
[4] Gardner, L., Nethercot, D. A.: Designers’ Guide to EN 1993‐1‐1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures – General rules and rules for buildings, Thomas Telford, SCI, 2005.
[5] Greiner, R., Kettler, M., Lechner, A., Jaspart, J.‐P., Weynand, K., Ziller, C., Örder, R.: SEMI‐
COMP+: Valorisation Action of Plastic Member Capacity of Semi‐Compact Steel Sections – a
more Economic Design, RFS2‐CT‐2010‐00023, Background Documentation, Research
Programme of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel – RTD, 2011.
27