This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Comparison of the Design of a Portal Frame
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 2 OF 98
CONTENTS:
1 INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
2 COMPARISON OF THE DESIGNS...................................................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 FRANCE............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 GERMANY........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 SWEDEN............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 UNITED KINGDOM......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3 FRANCE: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO CM66.........................................................................................................................13
3.1 CROSSSECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2
ND
ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1
ST
ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.4 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSSSECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.6 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
4 GERMANY: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO DIN 18800.............................................................................................................27
4.1 CROSSSECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
4.2 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2
ND
ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 28
4.3 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1
ST
ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
4.4 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSSSECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.6 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
5 SWEDEN: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BSK99.......................................................................................................................38
5.1 CROSSSECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
5.2 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2
ND
ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 39
5.3 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1
ST
ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40
5.4 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSSSECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 3 OF 98
5.5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
5.6 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
6 U.K.: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BS 59501...........................................................................................................................50
6.1 FRAME GEOMETRY..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
6.2 LOADING........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51
6.3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
6.4 CALCULATE, α
CR
, FOR STABILITY............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 54
6.5 COLUMN DESIGN: IPE 600 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
6.6 RAFTER DESIGN: IPE 400 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67
6.7 HAUNCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
ANNEX A: CHARACTERISTIC VALUES OF INTERNAL FORCES...............................................................................................................................95
ANNEX B: PLASTIC FAILURE OF PORTAL FRAME.......................................................................................................................................................96
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 4 OF 98
1 Introduction:
The typical structure of a singlestorey hall in most countries in Europe is the portal frame. This document provides a comparison of the
calculation methods acc. to Eurocode 3 (EN 199311) and the national standard of the respective country.
The calculation is performed for a typical portal frame structure in Europe as shown in Figure 1. The frame uses hot rolled Isections of steel
grade S235 for the rafter and columns. Frame span is 30m and eaves height 5m, which are typical dimensions for small and medium sized
industrial halls in Europe. Haunches are used for the eaves by providing additional hotrolled sections welded onto the bottom flange of the
rafter. The eaves connection as well as the apex is typically bolted and assumed rigid for this example, so that effects of rotations in the
connections do not have to be taken into account. Column bases are pinned as no increased horizontal stiffness, e.g. for cranes, has to be
provided.
Figure 1: Sketch of the treated portal frame structure
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 5 OF 98
Frame spacing is 5.0m, which allows the profile sheeting to span between the frames directly. For this case in this example it is assumed that
the sheeting provides sufficient stiffness to avoid lateral torsional buckling of the rafter section. In addition to that the bottom flange of the
haunch is assumed lateral restrained. Alternatively in the U.K. calculation rafters are provided to show the effect of single lateral and torsional
restraints on lateral torsional buckling of the frame.
In the following Figure 2 the load scheme as well as the characteristic loads is shown. The resulting internal forces are given in the respective
chapters for the individual countries.
Figure 2: Load scheme and characteristic loads
In all European countries covered by the project, except the U.K., for singlestorey portal frames usually elastic design for the actions is
performed, and then compared to the plastic resistances of the sections, where allowed by the section classes. Therefore ANNEX A provides
the internal forces, determined elastically for the unfactored loads, separated by the individual load cases.
Due to the current practice in the U.K. a plastic method of global analysis of EN 199311 is compared to the national code. For this calculation
method ANNEX B describes the design for plastic failure of portal frames in general.
The left column in the tables below contains the calculation according to Eurocode 3, whereas in the right column the respective national
standard is covered. Where possible, the structure of the calculation is kept similar for both designs, i.e. the calculation is divided into the
same subchapters for both standards. For the used equations and values references to the respective chapter in EN 199311 and the
respective national code are given.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 6 OF 98
This ensures a quick comparison of the calculation procedure for the portal frame, so that similarities and differences can be found out at first
sight.
2 Comparison of the designs
This chapter summarises the main similarities and/or differences in the design of portal frames according to EN199311 and the respective
national standard. For detailed comparison see relevant chapter in the design tables below.
2.1 FRANCE
General issues:
CM66 "Constructions Métalliques – 1966" is quite an old code drafted in the mid60's. It follows the admissible stress design approach
and does not inform for plastic design. In 1980 "Additif 80" was published with limited guidance for plastic design, both on the plastic
analysis and members check aspect. In that time it was considered as a very first step to plastic design. Additif 80 introduces plastic
inches, the ULS and SLS approach in design.
The use of both codes conducts to hybrid design situations, not fully admissible stress and not fully plastic approach. The code takes
count of this situation and gives guidance to check in both situation from point to point. Usually the designer makes his decision before
starting to design "CM66, pure elastic design" or "CM66 + Additif 80", plastic design with corrective factors on formula originally set for
elastic design.
Safety factors: CM66 set safety factors on the loads. They are quite the same as Eurocode. There are NO safety factors on material.
When needed as for example for buckling phenomenon's, safety factor are directly introduced in the formula but not really showed as.
Load combinations: Load combinations are not the same than Eurocode. Loads are weighted depending of the combinations.
Design of members:
Structural analysis: In additive 80 the second effect order is taken in count with a critical factor. The control is made by comparison
between the loaded situation and the situation when the collapse occurs. A "distance factor" is required. Formula of additive 80 and
Eurocode show differences but the final results appear to be in a relative close range.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 7 OF 98
Buckling: When checking buckling with interaction between forces, Additif 80 uses k factors which are always greater than 1, increasing
the influence of the related force. It appears in calculation with Eurocode that k factors lower than 1, decreasing the effect of the related
force are accepted (see § 5.1.2.4.). Additif 80 always require k>1.0. χ factors are not concerned by this remark.
Buckling length: There is an important gap of interpretation in clause 3.5.1.2.1 of Eurocode between European countries. In France we
still use the approach as expressed in the ENV and NAD document version of Eurocode 3. The following approach is used: When α
cr
is
greater than 10, the buckling length may be limited to the real geometrical length of the element.
Buckling check: Additif 80 allows to consider a pinned column base with a rigidity factor of 0.05 (0.00 if purely pinned) taking into
account a relative limited restrain at the considered base (a joint is never absolutely pinned) and at the opposite consideration a purely
fixed base with a rigidity factor of 0.95 (purely fixed would be 1.00).
Section class: There is no section class in CM66 but from clause to clause the code gives provisions to limit the slenderness ratio of the
elements or make the step to design accounting for local buckling check. Specific limits are given for the slenderness ratio: as an
example, section webs for plastic check are limited as:
e f
t
b
σ
235
42 <
. If this condition is not met, local buckling check shall be made.
CM66 + additive 80 provide a direct calculation method for N
cr
for longitudinal and transversal buckling and M
cr
for lateral torsional
buckling. In the current draft of Eurocode3 there is no direct provision on this calculation.
Design of joints and constructive issues:
All joint designs are quite different and there is too much to say in a short description.
SLS: CM66 requires complying with vertical deflexion limits. It does not require complying with horizontal displacement limits. The
current drafts of Eurocodes do not require any limits. For Eurocode, provisions should be introduced in the national annex or in the
tender document.
2.2 GERMANY
General issues:
Generally almost the same design of portal frames, differences only in details.
Nearly comparable amount of effort in design of portal frames.
Almost the same usage of terms and symbols, only slight differences in indices.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 8 OF 98
Same semiprobabilistic safetyconcept as DIN 18800, only load combinations in EN 199311 are more detailed.
Safety factor on material reduced from γ
M
= 1.1 in DIN 18800 to γ
Mi
= 1.0 in EN 199311 (general part) currently, but National Annex not
available yet.
Design of members:
Basically the same design procedure, small differences in details.
Both give the opportunity to use detailed calculations for the structure, e.g. 2
nd
order effects, as well as simplified methods. The more
detailed the methods, the more effort in design.
EN 199311 provides another method for the interaction between shear and axial stress of members, which leads to ultimate loads
being significantly higher.
Design of joints and constructive issues:
Basically the same design procedure for bolted and welded joints, small differences in equations.
EN 199318 provides a design method for structural bolted joints using custom dimensions and gives the normative possibility of
considering the effect of semirigid joints on the global structure.
Both, DIN18800 and EN199311, provide similar constructive specifications for the consideration of sheeting and or purlins for lateral
torsional buckling.
2.3 SWEDEN
EN 199311 contains much more detailed information and more complete rules for design of steel structures than BSK.
The technical content in EN 199311 is quite similar to that of BSK. They are based on the same semiprobabilistic safetyconcept and the
differences are mainly in details.
The safety factor in EN 1993 is moved from the resistance to the loads compared to BSK. The Swedish design method includes safety
classes and this will be retained when we apply the Eurocodes. In the lowest safety class, applicable for members that are unlikely to
harm people if failing, the design loads are reduced with a factor 0,83.
The classification of crosssections is extended to four instead of three classes in BSK. The Swedish Class 2 is split into two classes,
Class 2 and 3 in EN 199311.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 9 OF 98
There is one additional buckling curve in EN 199311 that is valid for highstrength steel. The other curves are the same except for very
slender bars where EN 199311 gives 10 % higher values.
For axial force and bending moment EN 199311 gives two different possibilities where Method 1 is chosen in the Swedish National
Annex. The calculations needed are extensive compared to BSK, and sometimes it is easier to include second order effects to avoid
this interaction.
For lateral torsional buckling the differences in buckling curves are insignificant with the choice done in the Swedish NA..
Small differences in the use of terms and symbols.
2.4 UNITED KINGDOM
Plastic analysis assumes that plastic hinges occur at points in the frame where the value of the applied moment is equal to the plastic
moment capacity of the member provided. Failure is deemed to have taken place when sufficient hinges have formed to create a
mechanism.
‘Plastic’ design produces the lightest and hence the most economical form for a portal frame when using hot rolled sections.
In the UK, single storey portals frames are almost always designed using ‘plastic’ design techniques.
For ‘plastic’ designed portal frames in order to prevent local buckling, it is essential that Class 1 plastic sections are selected at hinge
positions that rotate, Class 2 compact sections can be used elsewhere.
‘Plastic’ design methods result in relatively slender frames and checking frame stability is a basic requirement of the method. Both in
plane and outofplane stability of both the frame as a whole and the individual members must be considered.
In addition, it is essential that local buckling and lateral distortion are also checked, because of the large strains at the hinge positions.
Onset of plasticity normally occurs at loads well above those at the serviceability limit state and the plastic rotations are small.
The effect of axial load on the classification of members should be considered. However, in many members, the axial force is so small
compared with the bending moment that the classification is not affected.
Haunches provide for an economical bolted connection between the rafter and the column. However, haunches should be designed
(i.e. proportioned) to prevent plastic hinges forming within their length.
Purlins and side rails are used to provide intermediate lateral restraint to the rafters and columns and support the roofing and wall
sheeting.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 10 OF 98
Structural cladding or decking (cladding that spans between frames and where no purlins or side rails are present) is not typically used
in the UK. This is because for ‘plastic’ design, structural cladding on its own cannot provide torsional restraint to the frame members.
Extra restraint steel has to be provided to the bottom/inner flange of the rafter/column, thereby increasing costs.
Elastic design is a common design method in all countries. However, ‘plastic’ design may be accepted with reluctance and with onerous
requirements for stability or for analysis methods, e.g. secondorder analysis only.
‘Elastic’ design is used in the UK where deflection is the governing criteria.
‘Elastic’ design is recommended for the design of tied portal frames.
Design of a portal frame can be undertaken using BS 5950 by elastic or ‘plastic’ design techniques.
For plastic design of portal frames using EC311 the following procedure is suggested. More detailed information can be obtained from
SCI Publication P164 Design of steel portal frames for Europe Chapter 17 Design procedures.
1. Define frame geometry, determine loads, load combinations, γ factors and ψ factors.
2. Choose trial sections and trial haunch lengths by selecting beam sections that have resistances at least equal to the following:
Rafter M
pl
= wL
2
/24 Haunch M
pl
= wL
2
/10
Column M
pl
= wL
2
/12 x (height to bottom of haunch / height to centre of rafter)
where w is the maximum ULS gravity load/unit length along the span and L is the span of the portal.
The haunch length should be chosen to optimise the overall portal structure. A length of L / 10 from the column face is a
reasonable initial choice, but the proportions of the haunch generally depend of the characteristics of each individual building,
especially the size of the rafter. A haunch length of L / 10 will normally place the first hinge in the top of the column. A rather
longer haunch will place the first hinge at the sharp end of the haunch.
3. Calculate frame imperfection equivalent forces. This can be by a preliminary frame analysis (which is necessary for all but the
simplest buildings) or by a suitable approximation.
4. Perform plastic analysis of the frame assuming:
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 11 OF 98
a.) No reduction in plastic moment of resistance from coexistent axial and shear forces. This approach may need modifying,
where axial loads are high, e.g. in tied portals, in portals with steep slopes and in portals with heavy roofing loads.
b.) A trial value of V
Sd
/ V
cr
= 0,12 unless a better estimate is possible.
Note that in uplift cases, the members might be subject to axial tension. In this case, there will be no destabilisation of the
frame and V
Sd
/ V
cr
can be taken as zero.
5. Calculate an accurate value of V
Sd
/ V
cr
.
6. If (accurate V
Sd
/ V
cr
) > (trial V
Sd
/ V
cr
) or if a more refined design is required, return to Step 4.
Note: For relatively slender frames, it is often wise to check the deflections at the serviceability limit state (SLS), before checking
the buckling resistance.
7. For the columns check that:
a.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate.
b.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate.
c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate.
d.) Resistance of member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate.
8. For the rafters check that:
a.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate.
b.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate.
c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate.
d.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate.
9. For the haunches check that:
a.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate,
b.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate, as step 7b above, but checking at several cross sections within the length of
the haunch (both ends, quarter, midspan and three quarter points) is recommended.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 12 OF 98
c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate, but giving special attention to
the effect of the taper.
d.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate, but giving special attention
to the effect of the taper.
10. Check web buckling resistance to shear and transverse forces.
11. Check the connections.
12. Check the restraints.
A summary of the ‘plastic’ design procedure using British Standard BS 5950 Part 1 : 2000 is given annexed to the British calculation in § 6 .
More detailed information can be obtained from SCI Publication P325 Introduction to Steelwork Design to BS 59501:2000 Chapter 12
Plastic design of portal frames.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 13 OF 98
3 France: Calculation procedure compared to CM66
EN 199311 Règles CM66 + Additif 80
3.1 Crosssectional properties
3.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σ
e
= 235N/mm²
b = 220mm; h = 600mm; t
f
= 19mm; t
w
= 12mm; r = 24mm b = 220mm; h = 600mm; t
f
= 19mm; t
w
= 12mm; r = 24mm
A = 156cm² ; I
y
= 92080cm
4
; I
z
= 3390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3520cm³ A = 156cm² ; I
x
= 92080cm
4
; I
y
= 3390cm
4
; Z
x
= 3520cm³
I
ω
= 2846000cm
6
; I
T
= 165cm
4
J = 165cm
4
kN 3666
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
(EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) kN A N
e eff p
3666 = ⋅ = σ (Add.80 § 4.2)
kN 1137
3
f
) t ) r 2 t ( t b 2 A ( V
0 M
y
f w f Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ + + ⋅ ⋅ − = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
6744 12 562 = × =
w
A
kN 919 1000 / 235 6744 58 , 0 A 58 , 0 V
e w py
= × × = σ × × = (Add.80 § 4.4)
kNm 2 , 827
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) kNm Z M
e p
20 , 827 1000 / 235 3520 = × = = σ (Add.80 § 4.3)
3.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σ
e
= 235 N/mm
2
b = 180mm; h = 400mm; t
f
= 13,5mm; t
w
= 8,6mm; r = 21mm b = 180mm; h = 400mm; t
f
= 13,5mm; t
w
= 8,6mm; r = 21mm
A = 84,5cm² ; I
y
= 23130cm
4
; I
z
= 1320cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 1308cm³ A = 84,5cm² ; I
x
= 23130cm
4
; I
y
= 1320cm
4
; Z
x
= 1308cm³
I
ω
= 490000cm
6
; I
T
= 51,1cm
4
J = 51,1cm
4
kN 8 , 1985
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) kN A N
e eff p
80 , 1985 1000 / 235 8450 = × = ⋅ = σ (Add.80 § 4.2)
kN 7 , 579
3
f
) t ) r 2 t ( t b 2 A ( V
0 M
y
f w f Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ + + ⋅ ⋅ − = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
2
3208 6 , 8 373 mm A
w
= × =
kN A V
e w py
437 1000 / 235 3208 58 , 0 58 , 0 = × × = = σ (Add.80 § 4.4)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 14 OF 98
kNm 4 , 307
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) kNm Z M
e x px
40 , 307 1000 / 235 1308 = × = ⋅ = σ (Add.80 § 4.3)
3.1.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σ
e
= 235N/mm²
b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; t
f
= 13,5(16)mm; t
w
= 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; t
f
= 13,5(16)mm; t
w
= 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm
A = 159,6cm² ; I
y
= 134868cm
4
; I
z
= 2390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3920,7cm³ A = 159,6cm² ; I
x
= 134868cm
4
; I
y
= 2390cm
4
; Z
x
= 3920,7cm³
I
ω
= 2694000cm
6
; I
T
= 101,7cm
4
J = 101,7cm
4
kN 6 , 3750
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) kN A N
e eff p
6 , 3750 1000 / 235 15960 = × = ⋅ = σ (Add.80 § 4.2)
kN 8 , 1277
3
f
A 7 , 579 V
0 M
y
500 IPE , w Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ + = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
2
500 , 400 ,
7982 4774 3208 mm A A A
IPE w IPE w w
= + = + =
kN A V
e w py
1088 1000 / 235 7982 58 , 0 58 , 0 = × × = × × = σ (Add.80 § 4.4)
kNm 4 , 921
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) kNm Z M
e x px
40 , 921 1000 / 235 70 , 3920 = × = ⋅ = σ (Add.80 § 4.3)
3.2 Check, if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2
nd
order effects)
Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames
with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied:
) analysis plastic for ( 15
h
V
H
Ed , H Ed
Ed
cr
≤


.

\

δ
⋅


.

\

= α (EC3, 5.2.1 (4))
With H
Ed
= design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads
V
Ed
= total design vertical loads
δ
H,Ed
= horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads
h = storey height
15 9 , 25
4 , 27
6000
4 , 270
0 , 32
cr
≥ = 
.

\

⋅ 
.

\

= α → First order analysis sufficient 3
Second order effects do not have to be considered if:
α
cr
> 5 ( Add.80. § 7)
α
p
≥
cr
α
1
1
1
−
with α
cr
= force amplification factor for elastic critical buckling
α
p
= force amplification factor for collapse mechanism
α
cr
= 10,79 > 5 (determined by computer analysis)
α
p min
=
1,39
>
102 , 1
79 , 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
=
−
=
−
cr
α
(determined at the top of column)
→ First order analysis sufficient
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 15 OF 98
3.3 Internal forces acc. to 1
st
order theory
Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A:
LC 1:
p Im snow deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 2:
p Im wind deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 3:
p Im wind snow deadload
E E 6 , 0 5 , 1 E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 4:
p Im snow wind deadload
E E 5 , 0 5 , 1 E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof.
Loading combinations: (Add.80 § 3.41)
LC 1:
snow deadload
E E ⋅ + ⋅ 5 , 1 33 , 1 DECISIVE !
LC 2:
wind deadload
E E ⋅ + ⋅ 5 , 1 33 , 1
LC 3:
wind snow deadload
E E E ⋅ + ⋅ × + ⋅ 42 , 1 5 , 0 42 , 1 33 , 1
LC 4:
snow deadload
E E ⋅ + ⋅ 67 , 1 1
LC 5:
wind deadload
E E ⋅ + ⋅ 75 , 1 1
LC 6:
wind snow deadload
E E E ⋅ + ⋅ × + ⋅ 75 , 1 5 , 0 67 , 1 1
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 16 OF 98
3.4 Classification of crosssections (local buckling check)
3.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Non plate buckling conditions? (Add.80 § 5.1)
Compressed flange: b/t
f
= 220/19 = 11,58 < 20
235
20 =
e
σ
OK
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547
c/t = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42,83
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,5471) = 64,8 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Partially or totally compressed Web?
If: (with N > 0 for traction)
32 , 0
15600
6744
75 , 0 75 , 0 − = × − = −
A
A
w
≤
037 , 0
3666
19 , 134
− =
−
=
p
N
N
≤
43 , 0
15600
6744
= =
A
A
w
⇒
18 , 64
235
3
100
67 8 , 46 =


.

\

+ ≤ =
e p w w
w
N
N
A
A
t
h
σ
OK
3.4.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
(180/28,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Non plate buckling conditions? (Add.80 § 5.1)
Compressed flange b/t
f
= 180/13,5 = 13,33 < 20
235
20 =
e
σ
OK
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585
c/t = (4002⋅13,52⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,5
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,5851) = 60,0 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Partially or totally compressed Web:
If: (with N > 0 for traction)
28 , 0
8450
3208
75 , 0 75 , 0 − = × − = −
A
A
w
≤
054 , 0
8 , 1985
108
− =
−
=
p
N
N
≤
38 , 0
8450
3208
= =
A
A
w
⇒ 2 , 62
235
3
100
67 4 , 43 =


.

\

+ ≤ =
e p w w
w
N
N
A
A
t
h
σ
OK
3.4.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above) Flange: element in compression (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 17 OF 98
(200/210,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
b/t
f
= 200/16 = 12,5 < 20
235
20 =
e
σ
OK (Add.80 § 5.1)
Web: IPE 400part: in tension
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (4201621) / 10,2 = 37,5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3, table 5.2)
Section for eaves haunch is class 2section, therefore the internal forces have to be
determined elastically, but plastic resistances can be activated.
Web:
38 , 0
15960
7982
75 , 0 75 , 0 − = × − = −
A
A
w
≤
030 , 0
60 , 3750
5 , 111
− =
−
=
p
N
N
≤
50 , 0
15960
7982
= =
A
A
w
⇒
65
235
3
100
67 9 , 45
2 , 10
468
=


.

\

+ ≤ = =
e p w w
w
N
N
A
A
t
h
σ
OK
3.5 Ultimate limit states
3.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)
3.5.1.1 Resistance of crosssection
3.5.1.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 101,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 8 , 42
12
514
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 089 , 0
0 , 1137
1 , 101
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Check if the shear force shall also be included in the checking for axial force and
bending moment?
3.5.1.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 135,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
Internal forces:
V
y
 = 99,1 kN ; N = 125,5 kN ; M
x
 = 594,25 kNm
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 18 OF 98
0 , 1 034 , 0
0 , 3666
5 , 125
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 7 , 850
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 734 , 0
2 , 827
8 , 606
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
If :
6 , 0 115 , 0
3666
35 , 124
2 , 0
919
1 , 99
2 , 0 0 < = × + = × + ≤
p py
y
N
N
V
V
(Add.80 § 4.61)
And
18 , 0 034 , 0
3666
35 , 124
0 < = = ≤
p
N
N
⇒ M
x
= 594,25 kNm ≤ M
px
= 827,20 kNm
3.5.1.2 Buckling resistance of member
3.5.1.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,y
= 37,08m (determinable by literature)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 0 , 1388
3708
92080 21000
N
2
2
y , cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 625 , 1
0 , 1388
0 , 3666
y = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
y
= 0,324 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length:
From computer analysis (with α
cr
= 10,79):
⇒ L
Kx
= 36,41 m (close from Eurocode results)
Hand checking using the proposed method of CM66 “Rigidity factor K
A
K
B
method"
L
K
K
L
A
A
Kx
4 , 2 6 , 1 +
=
(CM 66 § 5.134)
(Considering that the columns are pinned at their bases: ⇒ K
B
= 0)
048 , 0
15347 771
771
6
92080
30
23130
30
23130
=
+
=
+
=


.

\

+


.

\



.

\

=
∑ ∑
∑
A
c
c
A
b
b
A
b
b
A
L
I
L
I
L
I
K
m L L L
Kx
87 , 35 98 , 5
048 , 0
048 , 0 4 , 2 6 , 1
= =
× +
=
Additive 80 of CM66 allows to considered that the base of column is not perfectly
pinned: ⇒ K
B
= 0,05
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 19 OF 98
L
K
K
L
A
A
Kx
+
+
=
04 , 0
92 , 1 35 , 1
(Add.80 § 5.33)
m L L L
Kx
29 , 24 048 , 4
048 , 0 04 , 0
048 , 0 92 , 1 35 , 1
= =
+
× +
=
To keep comparison with National Standard, we use the buckling length determined
by the computer analysis
84 , 149
243
36410
= = =
x
Kx
x
i
L
λ (Add.80 § 5.31)
⇒ 595 , 1
210000
235 84 , 149
= × = =
π
σ
π
λ
λ
E
e x
x
3.5.1.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis)
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,z
= 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 7 , 1951
600
3390 21000
N
2
2
z , cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 371 , 1
7 , 1951
0 , 3666
z = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve b (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
z
= 0,395 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,z
= 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
76 , 128
6 , 46
6000
= = =
y
Ky
y
i
L
λ (Add.80 § 5.31)
⇒ 371 , 1
210000
235 76 , 128
= × = =
π
σ
π
λ
λ
E
e
y
y
2
2
2 2
2
0
4 ) ) 2 , 0 ( 1 ( ) 2 , 0 ( 1
2
λ λ λ α λ λ α
λ
− + − + − + − +
= k
Table B gives values for I sections
595 , 1 max = =
x
λ λ ⇒ k
0
= 3,25
3.5.1.2.3 Lateral torsional buckling
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311, Annex F: Elastic critical moment
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 20 OF 98
kNm 8 , 1431
I E
I G L
I
I
L
I E
C M
2
1
z
2
T
2
z
2
z
2
1 cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
⋅ ⋅
+ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ π
⋅ =
ω
(ENV 199311, Annex F, 1.3 (3))
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 76 , 0
8 , 1431
2 , 827
LT = = λ (EC3, 6.3.2.2 (1))
Rolled section → chapter 6.3.2.3 applicable (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c (EC3, table 6.5)
Reduction value: χ
LT
= 0,789 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Modified reduction value 901 , 0
876 , 0
789 , 0
f
LT
mod , LT
= =
χ
= χ (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (2))
2
* 2
* 2
1
2
2

.

\

+ ⋅
⋅
⋅ =
h
L
EI
JG
L
h EI
C M
D
y D
y
D
π
ς
π
(Add.80 § 5.22)
L
D
= 6,00 m
1 = ς (I section)
C
1
= 1,88 (triangular moment diagram)
h* = H  t
f
= 600 – 19 = 581 mm
6
2
4
4
2
4 2
10 / 1 .
581
6000 2
10 . 3390 210000
81000 10 . 165
1
6000 2
581 10 . 3390 210000
88 , 1 
.

\

×
×
×
×
+ ⋅
×
× × ⋅
⋅ =
π
π
D
M
kNm M
D
1434 =
3.5.1.2.4 Interaction for compression force and bending
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 135,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1))
Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B
Equivalent uniform moment values: C
my
= 0,9 (sway buckling mode)
C
m,LT
= 0,6 (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.2
( ) 982 , 0
N
N
8 , 0 1 C 046 , 1
N
N
2 , 0 1 C k
Rd y
Ed
my
Rd y
Ed
y
my yy
=


.

\

⋅ χ
+ > =


.

\

⋅ χ
− λ + =
973 , 0
N
N
) 25 , 0 C (
1 , 0
1 963 , 0
N
N
) 25 , 0 C (
1 , 0
1 k
Rd , pl z
Ed
LT , m Rd , pl z
Ed
LT , m
z
zy
=


.

\

⋅ χ −
− < =


.

\

⋅ χ −
λ ⋅
− =
→ k
yy
= 0,982; k
zy
= 0,973 (EC3, Annex B, table B.2)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
0 , 1 914 , 0 800 , 0 114 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
yy
Rd , pl y
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
Internal forces: N = 134,2 kN, M
x
 = 594,25 kNm
1
0
≤ +
px
x
D
fx
p
M
M
k
k
N
N
k (Add.80 § 5.32)
p
x
mx
fx
N
N
C
k
2
1 λ −
= (Add.80 § 5.32)
C
mx
= 1 (sway portal frame)
037 , 0
3666
2 , 134
= =
p
N
N
595 , 1 = x λ
104 , 1
037 , 0 595 , 1 1
1
2
=
× −
=
fx
k
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 21 OF 98
0 , 1 886 , 0 792 , 0 094 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
zy
Rd , pl z
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.62))
n
n
D
p
D
M
M
k


.

\

+
=
1
1
(Add.80 § 5.22)
n = 2 (hot rolled section)
866 , 0
1434
20 , 827
1
1
2
2
=

.

\

+
=
D
k
036 , 1
20 , 827
25 , 594
866 , 0
104 , 1
037 , 0 25 , 3
0
= × + × = +
px
x
D
fx
p
M
M
k
k
N
N
k ≅ 1 (Add.80 § 5.32)
3.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
3.5.2.1 Resistance of cross section
3.5.2.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 80,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 138 , 0
7 , 579
1 , 80
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Check if the shear force shall be included in the checking for axial force and
bending moment.
3.5.2.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Ed
 = 216,6 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
Internal forces:
V
y
 = 79,2 kN ; N = 107,87 kN ; M
x
 = 208 kNm
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 22 OF 98
0 , 1 055 , 0
8 , 1985
7 , 108
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 8 , 482
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 705 , 0
4 , 307
6 , 216
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
If : 6 , 0 192 , 0
80 , 1985
87 , 107
2 , 0
437
2 , 79
2 , 0 0 < = × + = × + ≤
p py
y
N
N
V
V
(Add.80 § 4.61)
And 18 , 0 054 , 0
80 , 1985
87 , 107
0 < = = ≤
p
N
N
⇒ M
x
= 208 kNm ≤ M
px
= 307,40 kNm
3.5.2.2 Buckling resistance of member
3.5.2.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N
cr,y
= 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 336 , 1
7 , 1117
8 , 1985
y = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
y
= 0,451 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length:
For the determination of the buckling length along xx, a buckling analysis is
performed to calculate the buckling amplification factor α
cr
for the load
combination giving the highest vertical load, with a lateral restrain at top of
column:
⇒ N
cr,x
= 3250 kN (from computer analysis)
⇒ m L
Kx
14 , 12 =
40 , 73
5 , 165
12140
= = =
x
Kx
x
i
L
λ (Add.80 § 5.31)
781 , 0
210000
235 40 , 73
= × = =
π
σ
π
λ
λ
E
e x
x
3.5.2.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) and lateral torsional buckling
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 199311 provides
formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2.
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χ
z
= χ
LT
= 1,0)
For this example it is assumed, that the roof is made of profile sheeting providing
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. (cf. check with EN 199311)
3.5.2.2.3 Interaction for compression force and bending
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 23 OF 98
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Sd
 = 216,6 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1))
C
my
= 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1
( ) 987 , 0
N
N
8 , 0 1 C 024 , 1
N
N
2 , 0 1 C k
Rd y
Ed
my
Rd y
Ed
y
my yy
=


.

\

⋅ χ
+ > =


.

\

⋅ χ
− λ + =
→ k
yy
= 0,987; k
zy
= 0 (no out of plane failure)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
0 , 1 818 , 0 695 , 0 123 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
yy
Rd , pl y
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
Internal forces:
V
y
 = 79,2 kN ; N = 107,87 kN ; M
x
 = 208 kNm
2
2
2 2
2
0
4 ) ) 2 , 0 ( 1 ( ) 2 , 0 ( 1
2
λ λ λ α λ λ α
λ
− + − + − + − +
= k (Add.80 § 5.31)
Table B gives values for I sections
781 , 0 max = =
x
λ λ ⇒ k
0
= 1,35
1
0
≤ +
px
x
D
fx
p
M
M
k
k
N
N
k
p
x
mx
fx
N
N
C
k
2
1 λ −
=
(Add.80 § 5.32)
C
mx
= 1 (sway portal frame)
054 , 0
80 , 1985
87 , 107
= =
p
N
N
781 , 0 = x λ
034 , 1
054 , 0 781 , 0 1
1
2
=
× −
=
fx
k
k
D
= 1 (Add.80 § 5.22)
771 , 0
4 , 307
208
1
034 , 1
054 , 0 35 , 1
0
= × + × = +
px
x
D
fx
p
M
M
k
k
N
N
k < 1 OK (Add.80 § 5.32)
3.5.3 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
3.5.3.1 Resistance of cross section
3.5.3.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 114,5kN Check if the shear force shall be included in checking for axial force and bending
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 24 OF 98
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (IPE 400) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 37
2 , 10
383
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (haunched IPE 500) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 090 , 0
8 , 1277
5 , 114
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
moment.
3.5.3.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 112,3kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
0 , 1 030 , 0
6 , 3750
3 , 112
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 2 , 989
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 659 , 0
4 , 921
8 , 606
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Internal forces:
V
y
 = 113,24 kN ; N = 111,46 kN ; M
x
 = 594,25 kNm
If : 6 , 0 11 , 0
60 , 3750
46 , 111
2 , 0
1088
24 , 113
2 , 0 0 < = × + = × + ≤
p py
y
N
N
V
V
(Add.80 § 4.61)
And 18 , 0 03 , 0
60 , 3750
46 , 111
0 < = = ≤
p
N
N
⇒ M
x
= 594,25 kNm ≤ M
px
= 921,40 kNm
3.5.3.2 Buckling resistance of member
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch, where the lower flange is in
compression, for this example it is assumed, that lateral restraints are provided.
For the verification of the haunch, the compressed part of the crosssection is
considered isolated composed of the compressed flange and 1/6 of the web with a
buckling length along the yyaxis equal to 3,70m (length between the top of column
and the end of haunch with a torsional restraint).
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 25 OF 98
Properties of the compressed part:
Section at the midlength of the haunch including 1/6th of the web depth
Section area A = 45 cm
2
Second moment of area /xx I
x
= 693 cm
4
Second moment of area /yy I
y
=1068 cm
4
⇒
cm i
z
87 , 4
45
1068
= =
98 , 75
7 , 48
3700
= = =
y
fz
y
i
L
λ (Add.80 § 5.31)
809 , 0
210000
235 98 , 75
= × = =
π
σ
π
λ
λ
E
e x
x
54 , 1
0
= k Table C (T section) (Add.80 § 5.31)
Compression in the bottom flange:
kN N
f
50 , 713 4500
1000 10 . 7 , 3920
1000 594250
15960
4500
46 , 111
3
= ×
×
×
+ × =
Verification of buckling resistance of the bottom flange:
039 , 1
235 4500
713500
54 , 1
,
0
=
×
× =
Rk
f Ed
N
N
k ≅ 1 (Add.80 § 5.31)
200 mm
130 mm
x
y
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 26 OF 98
3.6 Serviceability limit states
3.6.1 Vertical deflection
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: u
z
= 132mm
PrEN 199311 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. u
z
< L/200 for roofs in general. (ENV, table 4.1)
132mm = L/227 < L/200 3
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: u
y
= 132 mm
CM66 requires max. u
y
< L/200 for roofs in general.
( Additif 80 § 6.1 and CM66 § 5.25)
u
y
= 132 mm = L/227 < L/200
3.6.2 Horizontal deflection
Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: u
x
= 19,9mm
PrEN 199311 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. u
z
< H/300 for singlestorey buildings (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
19,9mm = H/302 < H/300 3
Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: u
x
= 19,9 mm
CM66 do not requires any limits for horizontal displacements
ENV 199311 DAN requires max. u
x
< H/150 for portal frame (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
u
x
= 19,9 mm = H/302 < H/150
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 27 OF 98
4 Germany: Calculation procedure compared to DIN 18800
EN 199311 DIN 18800
4.1 Crosssectional properties
4.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) f
y,k
= 240N/mm²; γ
M
= 1,1
b = 220mm; h = 600mm; t
f
= 19mm; t
w
= 12mm; r = 24mm b = 220mm; h = 600mm; t
f
= 19mm; t
w
= 12mm; r = 24mm
A = 156cm² ; I
y
= 92080cm
4
; I
z
= 3390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3520cm³ A = 156cm² ; I
y
= 92080cm
4
; I
z
= 3390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3520cm³
I
ω
= 2846000cm
6
; I
T
= 165cm
4
C
M
= 2846000cm
6
; I
T
= 165cm
4
kN 3666
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
(EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) kN 6 , 3403
f
A N
M
k , y
d , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
kN 1137
3
f
) t ) r 2 t ( t b 2 A ( V
0 M
y
f w f Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ + + ⋅ ⋅ − = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) kN 0 , 912
3
f
) t b 2 A ( V
M
k , y
f d , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ − =
kNm 2 , 827
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) kNm 0 , 768
f
W M
M
k , y
y , pl d , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
4.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) f
y,k
= 240N/mm²; γ
M
= 1,1
b = 180mm; h = 400mm; t
f
= 13,5mm; t
w
= 8,6mm; r = 21mm b = 180mm; h = 400mm; t
f
= 13,5mm; t
w
= 8,6mm; r = 21mm
A = 84,5cm² ; I
y
= 23130cm
4
; I
z
= 1320cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 1308cm³ A = 84,5cm² ; I
y
= 23130cm
4
; I
z
= 1320cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 1308cm³
I
ω
= 490000cm
6
; I
T
= 51,1cm
4
I
ω
= 490000cm
6
; I
T
= 51,1cm
4
kN 8 , 1985
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) kN 6 , 1843
f
A N
M
k , y
d , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
kN 7 , 579
3
f
) t ) r 2 t ( t b 2 A ( V
0 M
y
f w f Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ + + ⋅ ⋅ − = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) kN 2 , 452
3
f
) t b 2 A ( V
M
k , y
f d , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ − =
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 28 OF 98
kNm 4 , 307
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) kNm 4 , 285
f
W M
M
k , y
y , pl d , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
4.1.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) f
y,k
= 240N/mm²; γ
M
= 1,1
b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; t
f
= 13,5(16)mm; t
w
= 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; t
f
= 13,5(16)mm; t
w
= 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm
A = 159,6cm² ; I
y
= 134868cm
4
; I
z
= 2390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3920,7cm³ A = 159,6cm² ; I
y
= 134868cm
4
; I
z
= 2390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3920,7cm³
I
ω
= 2694000cm
6
; I
T
= 101,7cm
4
I
ω
= 2694000cm
6
; I
T
= 101,7cm
4
kN 6 , 3750
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) kN 2 , 3482
f
A N
M
k , y
d , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
kN 8 , 1277
3
f
A 7 , 579 V
0 M
y
500 IPE , w Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ + = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) kN 1 , 995
3
f
) t b t b 2 A ( V
M
k , y
500 IPE , f 500 IPE 400 IPE , f 400 IPE d , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ − ⋅ ⋅ − =
kNm 4 , 921
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) kNm 4 , 855
f
W M
M
k , y
y , pl d , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
4.2 Check, if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2
nd
order effects)
Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames
with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied:
) analysis plastic for ( 15
h
V
H
Ed , H Ed
Ed
cr
≤


.

\

δ
⋅


.

\

= α (EC3, 5.2.1 (4))
With H
Ed
= design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads
V
Ed
= total design vertical loads
δ
H,Ed
= horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads
h = storey height
15 9 , 25
4 , 27
6000
4 , 270
0 , 32
cr
≥ = 
.

\

⋅ 
.

\

= α → First order analysis sufficient 3
Second order effects do not have to be considered if either
1 , 0
1
N
N
d , Ki d , Ki
Sd
≤
η
= with η
Ki,d
= force amplifier for elastic critical buckling
(from literature or computer analysis)
or
Sd
d , pl
y , K
N
N
3 , 0 ⋅ ≤ λ with y , K λ = slenderness for elastic critical buckling
or
d y
Sd
y , K y , K
) EI (
N
s ⋅ = ε ⋅ β with s
K,y
= elastic critical buckling length
1 , 0 096 , 0
44 , 10
1 1
N
N
d , Ki d , Ki
Sd
< = =
η
= → First order analysis sufficient 3
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 29 OF 98
4.3 Internal forces acc. to 1
st
order theory
Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A:
LC 1:
p Im snow deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 2:
p Im wind deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 3:
p Im wind snow deadload
E E 6 , 0 5 , 1 E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 4:
p Im snow wind deadload
E E 5 , 0 5 , 1 E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof.
Loading combinations:
LC 1:
p Im snow deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 2:
p Im wind deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 3:
p Im wind snow deadload
E E 9 , 0 5 , 1 E 9 , 0 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 30 OF 98
4.4 Classification of crosssections (local buckling check)
4.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Flange : ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
vorh (b/t) = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → plasticplastic analysis allowed
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547
c/t = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42,83
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,5471) = 64,8 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547
vorh (b/t) = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42,83 < 32 / α = 58,5
→ plasticplastic analysis allowed
4.4.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
(180/28,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Flange : ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
vorh (b/t) = (180/28,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → plasticplastic analysis allowed
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585
c/t = (4002⋅13,52⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,5
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,5851) = 60,0 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585
vorh (b/t) = (4002⋅13,52⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,49 < 32 / α = 54,7
→ plasticplastic analysis allowed
4.4.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
(200/210,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
vorh (b/t) = (200/210,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → plasticplastic analysis allowed
Web: IPE 400part: in tension
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (4201621) / 10,2 = 37,5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3, table 5.2)
Section for eaves haunch is class 2section, therefore the internal forces have to be
determined elastically, but plastic resistances can be activated.
Web: IPE 400part: in tension
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure)
vorh (b/t) = (4201621) / 10,2 = 37,5 > 37 / α = 37
Web of haunched IPE 500 is class 3section, so only elastic crosssection
resistances can be used.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 31 OF 98
4.5 Ultimate limit states
4.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)
4.5.1.1 Resistance of crosssection
4.5.1.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 101,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 8 , 42
12
514
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 089 , 0
0 , 1137
1 , 101
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Internal shear force: V
z,Sd
 = 101,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
70 8 , 42
12
514
t
b
< = =
→ No shear buckling 3→ shear resistance V
pl,z,d
0 , 1 111 , 0
0 , 912
1 , 101
V
V
d , z , pl
Sd , z
< = = 3
Check < 0,33 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3
4.5.1.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 135,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
0 , 1 034 , 0
0 , 3666
5 , 125
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 7 , 850
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 734 , 0
2 , 827
8 , 606
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 125,5kN, M
y,Sd
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered
0 , 1 037 , 0
6 , 3403
5 , 125
N
N
d , pl
Sd
< = = 3
Check < 0,10 → no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 790 , 0
0 , 768
8 , 606
M
M
d , y , pl
Sd , y
< = = 3
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 32 OF 98
4.5.1.2 Buckling resistance of member
4.5.1.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,y
= 37,08m (determinable by literature)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 0 , 1388
3708
92080 21000
N
2
2
y , cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 625 , 1
0 , 1388
0 , 3666
y = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
y
= 0,324 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,y
= 37,08m (determinable by literature)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 0 , 1388
3708
92080 21000
N
2
2
y , Ki
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Slenderness: 642 , 1
0 , 1388
0 , 3744
y , K = = λ
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t < 40mm → buckling curve a
Reduction value: κ
y
= 0,318
4.5.1.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis)
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,z
= 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 7 , 1951
600
3390 21000
N
2
2
z , cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 371 , 1
7 , 1951
0 , 3666
z = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve b (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
z
= 0,395 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,z
= 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 7 , 1951
600
3390 21000
N
2
2
z , Ki
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Slenderness: 385 , 1
7 , 1951
0 , 3744
z , K = = λ
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t < 40mm → buckling curve b
Reduction value: κ
z
= 0,388
4.5.1.2.3 Lateral torsional buckling
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311, Annex F:
kNm 8 , 1431
I E
I G L
I
I
L
I E
C M
2
1
z
2
T
2
z
2
z
2
1 cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
⋅ ⋅
+ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ π
⋅ =
ω
(ENV 199311, Annex F, 1.3 (3))
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 76 , 0
8 , 1431
2 , 827
LT = = λ (EC3, 6.3.2.2 (1))
Rolled section → chapter 6.3.2.3 applicable (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c (EC3, table 6.5)
Elastic critical moment from DIN 18800, Part 2:
kNm 1 , 1348
I
I L 039 , 0 C
L
EI
M
z
T
2
M
2
z
2
y , Ki
=
⋅ ⋅ +
⋅
⋅ π
⋅ ζ =
Slenderness: 792 , 0
1 , 1348
8 , 844
M = = λ
Rolled section and moment gradient ψ = 0 < 0,5 → k
n
= 1,0 → n = 2,5
Reduction value: κ
M
= 0,897
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 33 OF 98
Reduction value: χ
LT
= 0,789 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Modified reduction value 901 , 0
876 , 0
789 , 0
f
LT
mod , LT
= =
χ
= χ (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (2))
4.5.1.2.4 Interaction for compression force and bending
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 135,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1))
Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B
Equivalent uniform moment values: C
my
= 0,9 (sway buckling mode)
C
m,LT
= 0,6 (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.2
( ) 982 , 0
N
N
8 , 0 1 C 046 , 1
N
N
2 , 0 1 C k
Rd y
Ed
my
Rd y
Ed
y
my yy
=


.

\

⋅ χ
+ > =


.

\

⋅ χ
− λ + =
973 , 0
N
N
) 25 , 0 C (
1 , 0
1 963 , 0
N
N
) 25 , 0 C (
1 , 0
1 k
Rd , pl z
Ed
LT , m Rd , pl z
Ed
LT , m
z
zy
=


.

\

⋅ χ −
− < =


.

\

⋅ χ −
λ ⋅
− =
→ k
yy
= 0,982; k
zy
= 0,973 (EC3, Annex B, table B.2)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
0 , 1 914 , 0 800 , 0 114 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
yy
Rd , pl y
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
0 , 1 886 , 0 792 , 0 094 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
zy
Rd , pl z
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.62))
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 135,5kN, M
y,Sd
 = 606,8 kNm
Uniform member with doublesymmetric section, approx. constant axial force
and no torsional load → stability check with interaction factors
Values for moment distribution: 66 , 0 893 , 0
1
1
d , Ki
m
> =
η
− = β ; 8 , 1
y , M
= β
Coefficient: 1 , 0 030 , 0
N
N
1
N
N
n
2
y , K
2
y
d , pl y
Sd
d , pl y
Sd
< = λ ⋅ κ ⋅


.

\

⋅ κ
− ⋅
⋅ κ
= ∆
Coefficient: 9 , 0 224 , 0 15 , 0 15 , 0 a
y , M
z , K
y
< = − β ⋅ λ ⋅ =
Interaction factor: 0 , 1 977 , 0 a
N
N
1 k
y
d , pl z
Sd
y
< = ⋅
⋅ κ
− =
Check for compression and bending:
In plane: 0 , 1 861 , 0 03 , 0 706 , 0 125 , 0 n
M
M
N
N
d , y , pl
Sd , y m
d , pl y
Sd
< = + + = ∆ +
⋅ β
⋅ +
⋅ κ
3
Out of plane: 0 , 1 964 , 0 861 , 0 103 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
d , y , pl M
Sd , y
y
d , pl z
Sd
< = + =
⋅ κ
⋅ +
⋅ κ
3
4.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
4.5.2.1 Resistance of cross section
4.5.2.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 80,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
Internal shear force: V
z,Sd
 = 80,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 34 OF 98
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 138 , 0
7 , 579
1 , 80
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
70 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
b
< = =
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,d
0 , 1 177 , 0
2 , 452
1 , 80
V
V
d , z , pl
Sd , z
< = = 3
Check < 0,33 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3
4.5.2.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Ed
 = 216,6 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
0 , 1 055 , 0
8 , 1985
7 , 108
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 8 , 482
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 705 , 0
4 , 307
6 , 216
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Sd
 = 216,6 kNm
Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered
0 , 1 059 , 0
6 , 1843
7 , 108
N
N
d , pl
Sd
< = = 3
Check < 0,10 → no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 759 , 0
4 , 285
6 , 216
M
M
d , y , pl
Sd , y
< = = 3
4.5.2.2 Buckling resistance of member
4.5.2.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N
cr,y
= 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 336 , 1
7 , 1117
8 , 1985
y = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
y
= 0,451 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N
Ki,y
= 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 347 , 1
7 , 1117
0 , 2028
y , K = = λ
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t < 40mm → buckling curve a
Reduction value: κ
y
= 0,445
4.5.2.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) and lateral torsional buckling
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 35 OF 98
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 199311 provides
formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2.
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χ
z
= χ
LT
= 1,0)
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. DIN 18800 provides the same
formulas for this check as PrEN 199311 in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2,
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling
4.5.2.2.3 Interaction for compression force and bending
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Sd
 = 216,6 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1))
C
my
= 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1
( ) 987 , 0
N
N
8 , 0 1 C 024 , 1
N
N
2 , 0 1 C k
Rd y
Ed
my
Rd y
Ed
y
my yy
=


.

\

⋅ χ
+ > =


.

\

⋅ χ
− λ + =
→ k
yy
= 0,987; k
zy
= 0 (no out of plane failure)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
0 , 1 818 , 0 695 , 0 123 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
yy
Rd , pl y
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Sd
 = 216,6 kNm
Uniform member with doublesymmetric section, approx. constant axial force
and no torsional load → stability check with interaction factors
Value for moment distribution: ψ = 0,283 → 0 , 1
m
= β
Coefficient: 1 , 0 041 , 0
N
N
1
N
N
n
2
y , K
2
y
d , pl y
Sd
d , pl y
Sd
< = λ ⋅ κ ⋅


.

\

⋅ κ
− ⋅
⋅ κ
= ∆
Check for compression and bending:
In plane: 0 , 1 932 , 0 041 , 0 759 , 0 132 , 0 n
M
M
N
N
d , y , pl
Sd , y m
d , pl y
Sd
< = + + = ∆ +
⋅ β
⋅ +
⋅ κ
3
4.5.3 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
4.5.3.1 Resistance of cross section
4.5.3.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 114,5kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (IPE 400) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 37
2 , 10
383
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (haunched IPE 500) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
Internal shear force: V
z,Sd
 = 114,5kN
Check for shear buckling:
70 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
b
< = = (IPE 400)
70 5 , 37
2 , 10
383
t
b
< = = (haunched IPE 500)
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,d
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 36 OF 98
0 , 1 090 , 0
8 , 1277
5 , 114
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
0 , 1 115 , 0
1 , 995
5 , 114
V
V
d , z , pl
Sd , z
< = =
Check < 0,33 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3
4.5.3.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 112,3kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
0 , 1 030 , 0
6 , 3750
3 , 112
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 2 , 989
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 659 , 0
4 , 921
8 , 606
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 112,3kN, M
y,Sd
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered
Check for elastic crosssection resistance due to local buckling:
² cm
kN
08 , 18 ) 63 , 38 (
134868
60680
6 , 159
3 , 112
z
I
M
A
N
. min
o
y
Sd , y
Sd
Sd
− = − ⋅ +
−
= ⋅ + = σ
² cm
kN
81 , 18 37 , 43
134868
60680
6 , 159
3 , 112
z
I
M
A
N
. max
u
y
Sd , y
Sd
Sd
= ⋅ +
−
= ⋅ + = σ
0 , 1 862 , 0
82 , 21
81 , 18
f
  . max
d , y
Sd
< = =
σ
3
4.5.3.2 Buckling resistance of member
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch, where the lower flange is in
compression, for this example it is assumed, that lateral restraints are provided.
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
4.6 Serviceability limit states
4.6.1 Vertical deflection
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: u
z
= 132mm
PrEN 199311 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. u
z
< L/200 for roofs in general. (ENV, table 4.1)
DIN 18800 as well as the standards dealing with building construction in steel as
DIN 18801 give no information concerning the limitation of vertical deflections.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 37 OF 98
132mm = L/227 < L/200 3
4.6.2 Horizontal deflection
Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: u
x
= 19,9mm
PrEN 199311 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. u
z
< H/300 for singlestorey buildings (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
19,9mm = H/302 < H/300 3
As for vertical deflections no limitation of horizontal deflections exists in German
standards.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 38 OF 98
5 Sweden: Calculation procedure compared to BSK99
EN 199311 BSK99
5.1 Crosssectional properties
5.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) f
yk
= 235N/mm²; f
uk
= 340N/mm
2
; γ
M
= 1,0; γ
n
= 1,1 (BSK99, 2:21 and 3:42)
b = 220mm; h = 600mm; t
f
= 19mm; t
w
= 12mm; r = 24mm b = 220mm; h = 600mm; t
f
= 19mm; t
w
= 12mm; r = 24mm
A = 156cm² ; I
y
= 92080cm
4
; I
z
= 3390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3520cm³ A = 156cm²; I
y
= 92080cm
4
; I
z
= 3390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3520cm³, W
pl,z
= 486cm
3
,
W
el,y
= 3069cm³, W
el,z
= 308cm³
I
ω
= 2846000cm
6
; I
T
= 165cm
4
I
ω
= 2846000cm
6
; I
T
= 165cm
4
kN 3666
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ =
(EC3, 6.2.3 (2))
yk
pl,d
M n
3333kN
f
N A
γ γ
= ⋅ =
⋅
kN 1137
3
f
) t ) r 2 t ( t b 2 A ( V
0 M
y
f w f Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ + + ⋅ ⋅ − = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
yk
pl,y,d pl,y
M n
752, 0kNm
f
M W
γ γ
= ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:243)
kNm 2 , 827
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2))
5.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) f
yk
= 235N/mm²; f
uk
= 340N/mm
2
; γ
M
= 1,0; γ
n
= 1,1 (BSK99, 2:21 and 3:42)
b = 180mm; h = 400mm; t
f
= 13,5mm; t
w
= 8,6mm; r = 21mm b = 180mm; h = 400mm; t
f
= 13,5mm; t
w
= 8,6mm; r = 21mm
A = 84,5cm² ; I
y
= 23130cm
4
; I
z
= 1320cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 1308cm³ A = 84,5cm²; I
y
= 23130cm
4
; I
z
= 1320cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 1308cm³; W
el,y
= 1160cm³
I
ω
= 490000cm
6
; I
T
= 51,1cm
4
I
ω
= 490000cm
6
; I
T
= 51,1cm
4
kN 8 , 1985
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.3 (2))
yk
pl,d
M n
1805kN
f
N A
γ γ
= ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:22)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 39 OF 98
kN 7 , 579
3
f
) t ) r 2 t ( t b 2 A ( V
0 M
y
f w f Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ + + ⋅ ⋅ − = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
yk
pl,y,d pl,y
M n
279, 4kNm
f
M W
γ γ
= ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:243)
kNm 4 , 307
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2))
5.1.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
f
y
= 235N/mm²; γ
M0
= γ
M1
= 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) f
yk
= 235N/mm²; f
uk
= 340N/mm
2
; γ
M
= 1,0; γ
n
= 1,1 (BSK99, 2:21 and 3:42)
b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; t
f
= 13,5(16)mm; t
w
= 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; t
f
= 13,5(16)mm; t
w
= 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm
A = 159,6cm² ; I
y
= 134868cm
4
; I
z
= 2390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3920,7cm³ A = 159,6cm²; I
y
= 134868cm
4
; I
z
= 2390cm
4
; W
pl,y
= 3920,7cm³; W
el,y
= 3451,1cm³
I
ω
= 2694000cm
6
; I
T
= 101,7cm
4
I
ω
= 2694000cm
6
; I
T
= 101,7cm
4
kN 6 , 3750
f
A N
0 M
y
Rd , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.3 (2))
yk
pl,d
M n
3410kN
f
N A
γ γ
= ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:22)
kN 8 , 1277
3
f
A 7 , 579 V
0 M
y
500 IPE , w Rd , z , pl
=
γ ⋅
⋅ + = (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
yk
pl,y,d pl,y
M n
837, 6kNm
f
M W
γ γ
= ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:243)
kNm 4 , 921
f
W M
0 M
y
y , pl Rd , y , pl
=
γ
⋅ = (EC3, 6.2.5 (2))
Comments:
The steel grade normally used in Sweden is S355.
The walls would have been used to brace the columns.
The factor, γ
n
depends on the risk for bodily injury in case of a collapse.
5.2 Check, if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2
nd
order effects)
Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames
with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied:
) analysis plastic for ( 15
h
V
H
Ed , H Ed
Ed
cr
≤


.

\

δ
⋅


.

\

= α (EC3, 5.2.1 (4))
With H
Ed
= design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads
V
Ed
= total design vertical loads
δ
H,Ed
= horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads
h = storey height
Second order effects are indirectly considered in the interaction equations of K18:51
– 53 when the bending moment is calculated according to the theory of elasticity
and the frame is one storey high. (K18:55)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 40 OF 98
15 9 , 25
4 , 27
6000
4 , 270
0 , 32
cr
≥ = 
.

\

⋅ 
.

\

= α → First order analysis sufficient 3
5.3 Internal forces acc. to 1
st
order theory
Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A:
LC 1:
p Im snow deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 2:
p Im wind deadload
E E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 3:
p Im wind snow deadload
E E 6 , 0 5 , 1 E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
LC 4:
p Im snow wind deadload
E E 5 , 0 5 , 1 E 5 , 1 E 35 , 1 + ⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
The load combination used for the ultimate limit states design is
1, 0 Dead load 1, 3 Snow load 0, 25 Wind load ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅
The load from sway imperfection is not used together with the sway buckling length.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 41 OF 98
LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof.
5.4 Classification of crosssections (local buckling check)
5.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Flange:
k
yk
/ =(220/212/224) / 19 =4,21 0, 3 9
E
c t
f
≤ ⋅ = →class 1 (BSK99,table 6:211a)
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547
c/t = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42,83
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,5471) = 64,8 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Web:
k
yk
/ =(6002 192 24) / 12 =42,83 2, 4 71, 7
E
c t
f
⋅ ⋅ ≤ ⋅ = → class 1
(BSK99,table 6:211a)
5.4.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)
(180/28,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Flange:
k
yk
/ =(180/28,6/221) / 19 =4,62 0, 3 9
E
c t
f
≤ ⋅ = → class 1 (BSK99,table 6:211a)
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585
c/t = (4002⋅13,52⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,5
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,5851) = 60,0 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Web:
k
yk
/ =(400/22 13,52 21) / 8,6 =38,5 2, 4 71, 7
E
c t
f
⋅ ⋅ ≤ ⋅ = → class 1
(BSK99,table 6:211a)
5.4.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
(200/210,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
k
yk
/ =(200/210,2/221) / 16 =4,62 0, 3 9
E
c t
f
≤ ⋅ = → class 1 (BSK99,table 6:211a)
Web: IPE 400part: in tension Web: IPE 400part: in tension
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 42 OF 98
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (4201621) / 10,2 = 37,5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3, table 5.2)
Section for eaves haunch is class 2section, therefore the internal forces have to be
determined elastically, but plastic resistances can be activated.
Haunched IPE 500 part: α = 1 (constant pressure)
k
yk
/ =(4201621) / 10,2=37,5 1, 46 43, 6
E
c t
f
≤ ⋅ = → class 1 (BSK99, table 6:211a)
5.5 Ultimate limit states
5.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)
5.5.1.1 Resistance of crosssection
5.5.1.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 101,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 8 , 42
12
514
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 089 , 0
0 , 1137
1 , 101
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 92kN
Slenderness and reduction value
yk
w
w v
w k
0, 35 0, 50 0, 67
f
b
t E
λ ω = ⋅ ⋅ = → = (BSK99, 6:261d)
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
yk
z,Rd v w
M n
1036kN
f
V A ω
γ γ
= ⋅ ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:261a)
z,Ed
pl,z,Rd
92, 3
0, 089 1, 0
1036
V
V
= = < 3
Class 1 → No interaction between V
z
and M
y
5.5.1.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 125,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
0 , 1 034 , 0
0 , 3666
5 , 125
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 110,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 493,6 kNm
pl,y
y
el,y
1,15
W
W
η = = (BSK 99, 6:242)
2
0 y
1, 32 γ η = = (K18:51 e)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 43 OF 98
Check < 0,25 and kN 7 , 850
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 734 , 0
2 , 827
8 , 606
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
0 1,32
Syd
Sd
Rd Ryd
110, 5 493, 6
0, 67 1, 0
3333 752, 0
M
N
N M
γ
 
 
+ = + = <
 
\ .
\ .
3 (K18:51 a)
5.5.1.2 Buckling resistance of member
5.5.1.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,y
= 37,08m (determinable by literature)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 0 , 1388
3708
92080 21000
N
2
2
y , cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 625 , 1
0 , 1388
0 , 3666
y = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
y
= 0,324 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,y
= 37,08m (determinable by literature)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force:
2
cr,y 2
21000 92080
1388 kN
3708
N
π ⋅ ⋅
= =
Class 1 section: Slenderness:
yk
yc
cr
3666
1, 63
1388
A f
N
λ
⋅
= = = (BSK 99, 6:233a)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (BSK 99, table 6:233)
1
0, 21 4, 20 β α → = → = (BSK 99, 6:233)
Reduction value:
2 2
c
yc 2
c
4, 4
0, 30
2, 2
α α λ
ω
λ
− −
= = (BSK 99, 6:233b)
Ed
yc pl,d
1
N
N ω
≤
⋅
110, 5
0,11 1
0, 30 3333
= <
⋅
3
Comments:
In Sweden the handbook K18 Dimensionering av stålkonstruktioner is a complement
to the Swedish code BSK 99. The flexural buckling length for columns in frames
calculated as shown in K18:38 gives, L
cr,y
= 23,1m. The differences in flexural
buckling length can be explained with that the columns connection to the foundation
is assumed to be partially restrained for rotation in K18:38. With L
cr,y
according to
K18:38 the reduction value, ω
c
=0,63.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 44 OF 98
5.5.1.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis)
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,z
= 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: kN 7 , 1951
600
3390 21000
N
2
2
z , cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
=
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 371 , 1
7 , 1951
0 , 3666
z = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve b (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
z
= 0,395 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Flexural buckling length: L
cr,z
= 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force:
2
cr,z 2
21000 3390
1951, 7 kN
600
N
π ⋅ ⋅
= =
Class 1 section: Slenderness:
yk
zc
cr
3666
1, 37
1952
A f
N
λ
⋅
= = = (BSK 99, 6:233a)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve b (BSK 99, table 6:233)
1
0, 34 3, 46 β α → = → = (BSK 99, 6:233)
Reduction value:
2 2
c
zc 2
c
4, 4
0, 37
2, 2
α α λ
ω
λ
− −
= = (BSK 99, 6:233b)
Ed
zc pl,d
1
N
N ω
≤
⋅
110, 5
0, 09 1
0, 37 3333
= <
⋅
3
5.5.1.2.3 Lateral torsional buckling
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311, Annex F:
kNm 8 , 1431
I E
I G L
I
I
L
I E
C M
2
1
z
2
T
2
z
2
z
2
1 cr
=
⋅ ⋅ π
⋅ ⋅
+ ⋅
⋅ ⋅ π
⋅ =
ω
(ENV 199311, Annex F, 1.3 (3))
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 76 , 0
8 , 1431
2 , 827
LT = = λ (EC3, 6.3.2.2 (1))
Rolled section → chapter 6.3.2.3 applicable (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c (EC3, table 6.5)
Reduction value: χ
LT
= 0,789 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Modified reduction value 901 , 0
876 , 0
789 , 0
f
LT
mod , LT
= =
χ
= χ (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (2))
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311, Annex F
1
2 2
2
ω z T
cr 1 2 2
z z
1432kNm
I E I L G I
M C
L I E I
π
π
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
= ⋅ ⋅ + =
⋅ ⋅
(ENV 199311, Annex F, 1.3 (3))
2
m
1
0, 8 0, 2 0, 8
M
M
χ
 
= + ≥

\ .
(BSK 99, 6:2442)
2 m
0 0, 8 M χ = → =
Class 1 section: Slenderness:
c el,y yk 3
b
m cr
1,15 3069 235
10 0,85
0,8 1432
W f
M
η
λ
χ
−
⋅ ⋅
= = ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK 99, 6:2442a)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 45 OF 98
Rolled section →
b
4
b
1, 02
1, 0
1
ω
λ
= ≤
+
(BSK 99, 6:2442b)
b
4
1, 02
0, 80
1 0, 95
ω = =
+
,
, ,
1
y Ed
b pl y d
M
M ω
≤
⋅
0, 8 493, 6
0, 66 1
0, 80 752, 0
⋅
= <
⋅
3
5.5.1.2.4 Interaction for compression force and bending
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 135,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1))
Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B
Equivalent uniform moment values: C
my
= 0,9 (sway buckling mode)
C
m,LT
= 0,6 (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.2
( ) 982 , 0
N
N
8 , 0 1 C 046 , 1
N
N
2 , 0 1 C k
Rd y
Ed
my
Rd y
Ed
y
my yy
=


.

\

⋅ χ
+ > =


.

\

⋅ χ
− λ + =
973 , 0
N
N
) 25 , 0 C (
1 , 0
1 963 , 0
N
N
) 25 , 0 C (
1 , 0
1 k
Rd , pl z
Ed
LT , m Rd , pl z
Ed
LT , m
z
zy
=


.

\

⋅ χ −
− < =


.

\

⋅ χ −
λ ⋅
− =
→ k
yy
= 0,982; k
zy
= 0,973 (EC3, Annex B, table B.2)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
0 , 1 914 , 0 800 , 0 114 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
yy
Rd , pl y
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
0 , 1 886 , 0 792 , 0 094 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
zy
Rd , pl z
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.62))
Doublesymmetric section
Interaction for flexural buckling
2
0 y
1 γ η = ≥
2
0
1,15 1, 32 γ = = (K18:51 e)
yc 0 yc
0, 8 γ γ ω = ≥
yc
0,8 γ = (K18:52 d)
yc
Syd
Sd
Rycd Ryd
1, 00
M
N
N M
γ
 
+ ≤


\ .
(K18:52 a)
0,8
110, 5 493, 6
0, 83 1
0, 30 3333 752, 0
 
+ = ≤

⋅
\ .
3
Comments: With the different flexural buckling length and reduction value in section
3.5.1.2.1 the interaction
yc
Syd
Sd
Rycd Ryd
1, 00
M
N
N M
γ
 
+ ≤ 

\ .
and
yc
0, 83 γ = gives the result
0,83
110, 5 493, 6
0, 74 1
0, 63 3333 752, 0
 
+ = ≥

⋅
\ .
3
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 46 OF 98
5.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
5.5.2.1 Resistance of cross section
5.5.2.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 80,1kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 138 , 0
7 , 579
1 , 80
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 65,8kN
Slenderness and reduction value
yk
w
w v
w k
0, 35 0, 45 0, 67
f
b
t E
λ ω = ⋅ ⋅ = → = (BSK99, 6:261d)
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
yk
z,Rd v w
M n
513, 9 kN
f
V A ω
γ γ
= ⋅ ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:261a)
z,Ed
z,Rd
65, 8
0,13 1, 0
513, 9
V
V
= = < 3
Class 1 → No interaction between V
z
and M
y
5.5.2.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Ed
 = 216,6 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
0 , 1 055 , 0
8 , 1985
7 , 108
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 8 , 482
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 705 , 0
4 , 307
6 , 216
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 89,6kN, M
y,Ed
 = 173,3kNm
pl,y
y
el,y
1,13
W
W
η = = (BSK 99, 6:242)
2
0 y
1, 27 γ η = = (K18:51 e)
0 1,27
Syd
Sd
Rd Ryd
89, 6 173, 3
0, 64 1
1805 279, 4
M
N
N M
γ
 
 
+ = + = <
 
\ .
\ .
3 (K18:51 a)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 47 OF 98
5.5.2.2 Buckling resistance of member
5.5.2.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N
cr,y
= 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
Class 1 section: Slenderness: 336 , 1
7 , 1117
8 , 1985
y = = λ (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Reduction value: χ
y
= 0,451 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N
cr,y
= 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
Class 1 section: Slenderness:
yk
yc
cr
1986
1, 33
1118
A f
N
λ
⋅
= = = (BSK 99, 6:233a)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t
f
< 40mm → buckling curve a (BSK 99, table 6:233)
1
0, 21 3,19 β α → = → = (BSK 99, 6:233)
Reduction value:
2 2
c
c 2
c
4, 4
0, 42
2, 2
α α λ
ω
λ
− −
= = (BSK 99, 6:233b)
5.5.2.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) and lateral torsional buckling
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 199311 provides
formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2.
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χ
z
= χ
LT
= 1,0)
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profiled sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints.
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling
5.5.2.2.3 Interaction for compression force and bending
Internal forces: N
Sd
 = 108,7kN, M
y,Sd
 = 216,6 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1))
C
my
= 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1
( ) 987 , 0
N
N
8 , 0 1 C 024 , 1
N
N
2 , 0 1 C k
Rd y
Ed
my
Rd y
Ed
y
my yy
=


.

\

⋅ χ
+ > =


.

\

⋅ χ
− λ + =
→ k
yy
= 0,987; k
zy
= 0 (no out of plane failure)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
0 , 1 818 , 0 695 , 0 123 , 0
M
M
k
N
N
Rd , y , pl mod , LT
Ed , y
yy
Rd , pl y
Ed
< = + =
⋅ χ
⋅ +
⋅ χ
3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
Doublesymmetric section, member not susceptible to torsional deformations
Interaction for flexural buckling
yc 0 yc
0, 8 γ γ ω = ≥
yc yc
1, 27 0, 42 0, 53 0,8 γ γ = ⋅ = → = (K18:52 e)
yc
Syd
Sd
Rycd Ryd
1, 00
M
N
N M
γ
 
+ ≤ 

\ .
(K18:52 a)
0,8
89, 6 173, 3
0, 80 1
0, 42 1805 279, 4
 
+ = ≤

⋅
\ .
3
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 48 OF 98
5.5.3 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
5.5.3.1 Resistance of cross section
5.5.3.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 114,5kN
Check for shear buckling:
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 38
6 , 8
331
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (IPE 400) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
72
1
1
72 72 5 , 37
2 , 10
383
t
h
w
w
= ⋅ =
η
ε
⋅ < = = (haunched IPE 500) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance V
pl,z,Rd
0 , 1 090 , 0
8 , 1277
5 , 114
V
V
Rd , z , pl
Ed , z
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between V
z
and M
y
3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Internal shear force: V
z,Ed
 = 94,1kN
Slenderness and reduction value
IPE 400
yk
w
w v
w k
0, 35 0, 45 0, 67
f
b
t E
λ ω = ⋅ ⋅ = → = (BSK99, 6:261d)
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
yk
z,Rd v w
M n
513, 9 kN
f
V A ω
γ γ
= ⋅ ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:261a)
Haunched IPE 500
yk
w
w v
w k
0, 35 0, 44 0, 67
f
b
t E
λ ω = ⋅ ⋅ = → = (BSK99, 6:261d)
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
yk
z,Rd v w
M n
616, 9 kN
f
V A ω
γ γ
= ⋅ ⋅ =
⋅
(BSK99, 6:261a)
z,Ed
z,Rd
94,1
0, 08 1, 0
513, 9 616, 9
V
V
= = <
+
3
5.5.3.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 112,3kN, M
y,Ed
 = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
Internal forces: N
Ed
 = 92,5kN, M
y,Ed
 = 493,6 kNm
pl,y
y
el,y
1,14
W
W
η = = (BSK 99, 6:242)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 49 OF 98
0 , 1 030 , 0
6 , 3750
3 , 112
N
N
Rd , pl
Ed
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
Check < 0,25 and kN 2 , 989
f t h 5 , 0
 N 
0 M
y w w
Ed
=
γ
⋅ ⋅ ⋅
< (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
→ no interaction between N and M
y
3
0 , 1 659 , 0
4 , 921
8 , 606
M
M
Rd , y , pl
Ed , y
< = = 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
2
0 y
1, 29 γ η = = (K18:51 e)
0 1,29
Syd
Sd
Rd Ryd
92, 5 493, 6
0, 60 1
3410 837, 6
M
N
N M
γ
 
 
+ = + = <
 
\ .
\ .
3 (K18:51 a)
5.5.3.2 Buckling resistance of member
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch, where the lower flange is in
compression, for this example it is assumed, that lateral restraints are provided.
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
5.6 Serviceability limit states
5.6.1 Vertical deflection
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: u
z
= 132mm
PrEN 199311 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. u
z
< L/200 for roofs in general. (ENV, table 4.1)
132mm = L/227 < L/200 3
No vertical deflection limits
5.6.2 Horizontal deflection
Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: u
x
= 19,9mm
PrEN 199311 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. u
z
< H/300 for singlestorey buildings (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
19,9mm = H/302 < H/300 3
No vertical deflection limits
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 50 OF 98
6 U.K.: Calculation procedure compared to BS 59501
EN 199311 BS 59501
6.1 FRAME GEOMETRY
L
C
IPE 400 (S235)
6°
IPE 500 haunch
IPE 600 (S235)
30 m
3700
6 m
Spacing of portal frames = 5.0 m
The configuration of the single storey portal frame is given below and shows steel
section sizes, the eaves haunch and the arrangement of purlins and side rails. Note
the steel grade is S235 for the rafter and columns.
L
C
IPE 400 (S235)
6°
IPE 500 haunch
IPE 600 (S235)
30 m
3700
6 m
Spacing of portal frames = 5.0 m
w kN/m
h
6°
V
H
Pinned base
H
V
r
Rise h = 1.58 m
L = 30 m
h= 6 m
b = 3.7 m
The proposed frame for analysis purposes is defined by the line diagram as in the
figure below, where the lines represent the centrelines of the members.
w kN/m
h
6°
V
H
Pinned base
H
V
r
Rise h = 1.58 m
L = 30 m
h= 6 m
b = 3.7 m
Portal frame dimensions Portal frame dimensions
The cladding to the roof and walls is supported by purlins and side rails, or Frame span = L = 30 m
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 51 OF 98
alternatively by deep profiled sheeting spanning between the frames, provided that
torsional restraints are introduced at plastic hinge positions as follows:
• At both ends of the haunch (i.e. one to the column, one to the rafter)
• At an intermediate position along the rafter.
Eaves height = h = 6 m
Frame centres = L
s
= 5 m
The roof sheeting or purlins provide lateral restraint to the outer flange of the rafter
and columns.
The length of the haunch is taken as 3.7 m which is 12% of the span of the frame.
6.2 LOADING
6.2.1 Vertical Loads Unfactored loads
The value of snow load that has been used in this case is 0.70 kN/m
2
but the
relevant national code must be used.
Dead loads: Sheeting = 0.20 kN/m
2
Purlins = 0.07 kN/m
2
Frame = 0.11 kN/m
2
Services = 0.28 kN/m
2
Roofing = 0.20 kN/m
2
× 5.0 m = 1.0 kN/m on plan
Services = 0.20 kN/m
2
× 5.0 m = 1.0 kN/m on plan
Snow = 0.70 kN/m
2
× 5.0 m = 3.5 kN/m on plan
Total dead load = 0.66 kN/m
2
Imposed load = 0.60 kN/m
2
6.2.2 Combination factor ψ Load combiantions
Note that where the NAD specifies a value for ψ
0
, this value must be used instead of
the value from Eurocode 1. The value in Eurocode 0, EN 1990:2002 Table A1.1 is
0.7 generally, but 1.0 for structures supporting storage loads.
The vertical load (Dead and Imposed) at the ultimate limit state is usually used to
determine the size of the members for preliminary design purposes. At the detailed
design stage, other load combinations should also be checked at the ultimate and
the serviceability limit states.
In this example, wind load is considered in combination with vertical loading. Total factored load w = L
s
(γ
fd
× 0.66 + γ
fi
× 0.60)
= 5 (1.4 × 0.66 + 1.6 × 0.60)
= 9.42 kN/m
6.2.3 Global analysis
Plastic analysis of singlestorey steel portal frames leads to an economical form of
structure. However, in this case, member sizes are given for consistency by elastic
analysis, which will lead to a higher failure load than required for this building.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 52 OF 98
6.3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS
MOMENT CAPACITY
6.3.1 Frame imperfection – equivalent horizontal forces Column (IPE 600 Grade S235)
m h 0
α α φ φ ⋅ ⋅ = EN199311; §5.3.2
Where
0
φ = 200 1
Conservatively, 1 , 1
m h
= = α α
The moment capacity of both the column and the rafter will be reduced slightly
because of the axial loads. The reduction in moment capacity is usually ignored at
the preliminary design stage.
giving φ = 1 / 200 × 1.0 × 1.0 = 1 / 200 Axial Force F
c
*
= V = wL/2 = 9.42 × 30/2 = 141.3 kN
The column loads could be calculated by a frame analysis, but a simple calculation
based on plan areas is suitable for single storey portal frames.
n = F
c
/Ap
y
= 141.3 × 10
3
/ (156 × 10
2
× 235) = 0.04
Thus, the unfactored equivalent horizontal forces are given by:
Span/height to eaves L/h = 30/6 = 5.0
Permanent/frame = 88.8/ 200 = 0.444 kN
Variable/frame = 105.0 / 200 = 0.525 kN
Rise/span h
r
/L = 1.58/30 = 0.053
Vertical load wL = 9.42 × 30 = 282.6 kN
wL
2
= 11.3 × 30
2
= 8478 kNm
Note: EC3 requires that all loads that could occur at the same time are considered
together, so frame imperfection forces and wind loads should be considered as
additive to permanent loads and variable loads with the appropriate load combination
factor, ψ.
= × × = × =
−3
y x cx
10 235 3512 f S M 825.3 kNm
As n = 0.04 it can be conservatively assumed that the reduced moment capacity of
the column will be very similar to the moment capacity with no axial load acting. (For
a similar UK UB sections the reduction in bending moment capacity for n = 0.04 less
than 1% (0.75%)).
Hence assume M
.rx
= 825.3 x 99.25/100 = 819.1 kNm
which is > the 525.6 kNm required.
6.3.2 Partial safety factors and second order effects Rafter (IPE 400 Grade S235)
For simplicity, when carrying out an elasticplastic software analysis the reduced
collapse load factor can be accounted by multiplying the partial load factor by:


.

\

−
cr
1
1
1
α
Axial force F
c
*
= Hcosθ + Vsinθ = 101.7 cos 6
o
+ 141.3 sin 6
o
= 115.9 kN
n = F
c
/Ap
y
= 115.9 × 10
3
/ (84.5 × 10
2
× 235)
= 0.06
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 53 OF 98
Assume for preliminary calculations, based on experience, that α
cr
= 9
From section tables moment capacity of column
So 125 . 1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
cr
=
−
=
−
α
Therefore the modified partial safety factors are:
γ
G
= 1,35 × 1.125 = 1.52
γ
Q
= 1,5 × 1.125 = 1.69
6.3.3 Analysis
In this example, the bases have been assumed to be pinned for simplicity
Steel grade is S235. Assume sections are Class 1, then check later.
Column : IPE 600 has t
f
≤ 40 mm, and so f
y
= 235 N/ mm
2
*The axial load should be that which is relevant to the load case being checked. In
practice, however, the axial load is so low that the conservatism in using the largest
axial load is negligible for low pitch roofs.
= × × = × =
−3
10 235 1307
y x cx
f S M 307.1 kNm
As n = 0.06 it can be conservatively assumed that the reduced moment capacity of
the column will be very similar to the moment capacity with no axial load acting. (For
a similar UK UB sections the reduction in bending moment capacity for n = 0.06 less
than 1% (0.85%)).
Hence assume M
.rx
= 307.1 × 99.15/100 = 304.5 kNm
which is > the 296.7 kNm required.
kNm 7 . 740
10 1
235 10 152 . 3
6
6
MO y y pl, p
=
×
× ⋅
= = γ f W M
Rafters : IPE 400 has t
f
≤ 40 mm, and so f
y
= 235 N/ mm
2
kNm 1 . 307
10 1
235 10 307 . 1
6
6
MO y y pl, p
=
×
× ⋅
= = γ f W M
Load factor Hinge
number
Span
no.
Member Position
(m)
0.898 1 1 RH Column 5.0
1.070 2 1 LH Rafter 12.04
Although hinge 1 occurs at a load factor ≤ 1,0, a mechanism is not formed until the
second hinge has formed. Therefore this combination of section sizes is suitable for
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 54 OF 98
preliminary sections.
A diagram of bending moments, shear and axial forces is given opposite for a load
factor 1,0, which is the condition at ultimate limit state. The bending moments in the
columns are shown to reduce from the level of the bottom of the haunch to the top of
the column. This is the true bending moment in the column when the haunch to
column connection is a bolted connection on the inner vertical face of the column.
Load combination 1: bending moment, shear and axial load
6.4 CALCULATE, α
cr
, FOR STABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF SECTIONS WITH AXIAL LOAD
These checks use internal forces derived from a separate analysis using partial
safety factors 1.35 and 1.5, not the increased values used to allow for second order
effects in the ultimate limit state analysis.
At the detailed design stage, it is necessary to ensure that the sections can be
classified as ‘plastic’ or Class 1 crosssections. The axial load is usually so low that,
providing the section can be classified as plastic when subject to bending only.
6.4.1 Load combination no.1 For column (IPE 600 Grade S235)
6.4.1.1 Sway stability check
For frames where L ≤ 8 h may be found applying a simple modification to α
cr,H
. In this
case L = 30 m and h =6.0 m, so 30 ≤ 8 × 6 = 48, so the following formulae is used:
ε = (275/p
y
)
½
= (275/235)
½
= 1.08
Flange b/T = 5.8
H cr,
max
R,cr
E,ULS
s cr,e,
1 8 . 0 α α
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

− =
N
N
Limiting b/T value for Class 1 plastic flange = 9ε = 9.72
5.8 < 9.72 ∴ flange is classified as plastic
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 55 OF 98
where :
max
R,cr
E,ULS


.

\

N
N
is the maximum ratio in any rafter
R,cr
N is the Euler load of the rafter on the full span (assumed pinned)
=
2
2
L
EI π
=
2
4 2
30000
10 23130 210000 × × × π
=533kN
R,ULS
N is the maximum axial compression in the rafter in the load case
= 107kN (value obtained with the analysis of the software without
considering second order effects)
Web d/t = 42.8
Limiting d/t value for Class 1 plastic “Web Generally” =
1
1
80
r +
ε
but ≥ 40ε
80ε = 86.4
r
1
=
yw
c
dtp
F
but –1 < r
1
≤ 1
=
235 0 . 12 0 . 514
10 3 . 141
3
× ×
×
= 0.097
1 + r
1
= 1 + 0.097 = 1.097
α
cr,H
is the elastic
critical buckling factor as by Horne(1975)
α
cr,H
=
3 . 21
8 . 281
10 0 . 6
3
ULS
EHF
=
×
=


.

\

=


.

\



.

\

δ δ
h h
V
H
EN199311; §5.2.1(4)B
Limiting d/t value =
097 . 1
4 . 86
1
80
1
=
+ r
ε
= 78.8
where


.

\

δ
h
is the minimum ratio of column height/horizontal deflection of the
column top derived from first order analysis
42.8 < 78.8 ∴ web is classified as plastic
6 . 13 3 . 21
10 503
10 107
1 8 . 0 1 8 . 0
max
3
3
H cr,
max
R,cr
E,ULS
s cr,e,
= ⋅
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

×
×
− =
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

− = α α
N
N
Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic, so the section can be classified
as plastic.
Therefore,
08 . 1
6 . 13
1
1
1
1
1
1
cr
=
−
=
−
α
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 56 OF 98
6.4.1.2 Rafter snapthrough buckling load factor For rafter (IPE 400 Grade S235)
( )
( )
r
r
r c
I
I I h L
L
D
θ
Ω
α 2 tan
1
4 7 . 55
cr,r


.

\

+


.

\

−
+


.

\

=
ε = (275/p
y
)
½
= (275/235)
½
= 1.08
Flange b/T = 6.7
where D crosssection of the rafter
L span of the bay
h mean height of the column from base to eaves or valley)
I
c
inplane second moment of area of the column(taken as zero if the
column is not rigidly connected to the rafter, or if the rafter is
supported on a valley beam)
I
r
inplane
second moment of area of the rafter
F
yr
nominal yield strength of the rafters
θ
r
roof slope if the roof is symmetrical
Limiting b/T value for Class 1 plastic flange = 9ε = 9.72
6.7 < 9.72 ∴ flange is classified as plastic
Web d/t = 34.5
The axial load in the rafter is generally so small that it can be assumed that the
neutral axis is at middepth and the d/t limit can be taken as 80ε, but for
completeness the axial load will be taken into account.
Limiting d/t value for Class 1 plastic “Web Generally” =
1
1
80
r +
ε
but ≥ 40ε
‘Snap through’ will only occur if the ratio given by Ω =
0
W W
r
is >1.0.
W
o
is the plastic failure
load of
the rafters as fixed ended beam of span L
(M
p
= ) 16
2
l w ×
W
o
= 16 × = L M
p
16 × kN 4 . 217 ) 4 . 7 30 ( 1 . 307 = −
W
r
is the total factored vertical load on the rafters of the bay
Roofing = 1.35 kN/m
2
× 1.44 = 1.35 kN/m
Services = 1.35 × 1.44 = 1.35 kN/m
Rafter = 1.35 × 0.76 = 0.88 kN/m
Snow = 1.5 × 5.04 = 5.25 kN/m
Total = 8.83kN/m
8.83 × 307.4) = 199.6 kN
r
1
=
235 6 . 8 331
10 9 . 101
3
yw
c
× ×
×
=
dtp
F
= 0.15
Limiting d/t value =
15 . 1
4 . 86
1
80
1
=
+ r
ε
= 75.1
34.5 < 75.1 ∴ web is classified as plastic
Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic, so the section can be classified
as plastic.
Ω =
0 r
W W = 1 92 . 0 4 . 217 6 . 199 ≤ =
Therefore the ‘snap through’ will not occur and need not be considered further for
this example.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 57 OF 98
6.5 COLUMN DESIGN: IPE 600
INPLANE FRAME STABILITY
Load combination no.1 is clearly the worst case for the column for axial force,
bending moment and shear force as well as restraint to the compression flange.
Therefore, the columns checks need to be made for only load combination no.1
This check should be carried out at the preliminary design stage, after the size of the
sections is determined. It should be carried out again at the detailed design stage if
the section sizes are reduced.
M
Ed
= 540.8 kNm
V
Ed
= 108.1 kN
N
Ed
= 148.8 kN
6.5.1 Classification Check the geometry of the Frame
The section is Class 1 to permit plastic hinge formation. The web is checked from EN
199311 Sheet 1 of Table 5.2.
f /
f /
h
=
=
58,0
y
γ
MO
MO
y
γ
Plastic stress distribution in web
αc
c
Web is under combined axial and bending forces, so find α :
Depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load
= N
Ed
/ ( f
y
× t
w
/ γ
MO
) = 148.8×10
3
/ (235 × 12.0 / 1) = 52.8 mm
∴ αc = c / 2 + 52.8 / 2
∴ α = 0.5 + [( 52.8 / 2) / 514] = 0.55
(a) L ≤ 5h
L = 30 m, 5h = 5 × 6 = 30 m
30 m ≤ 30 m ∴ OK
(b) h
r
≤ 0.25L
h
r
= 1.58 m 0.25L = 0.25 × 30 = 7.5 m
∴ 1.58 m < 7.5 m ∴ OK
∴ geometry of the frame is within the limits
Formula Method Vertical Loads
Check effective span to depth ratio of the rafter satisfies the condition:
D
L
b
≤
+
yr r
275
/ 4
.
44
p L L h
L
ρ
ρ
Ω
where L
b
= L –
h
h s
h
2
L
D D
D


.

\

+
assuming D
h
≈ D
s
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 58 OF 98
∴for Class 1, limiting
w
t c = 396 ε / (13 α 1 )
= 396 × 1.0 / ( 13 × 0.55 − 1 ) = 64.3
actual
w
t c = 514 / 12.0 = 42.8 → web is Class 1
Flange check from EN 199311 Sheet 2 of Table 5.2
∴for Class 1, limiting
f
t c = 9 ε = 9 × 1.0 = 9
actual
f
t c = 85 / 19 = 4.5 → flange is Class 1
L
h
is the length of a single haunch (= 3.7 m)
∴ L
b
= 30 – 3.7 = 26.3 m
ρ =
h
L
I
I
r
c
2
=
6
30
23130
92080 2
×
×
= 39.8
L
r
= L/cos θ = 30/cos 6
o
= 30.2 m
Ω = W
r
/W
o
W
r
= wL = 9.42 × 30 = 282.6 kN
W
o
is the maximum value of W
r
that causes failure of the rafter
treated as a fixed ended beam of span L
o
W
30 m
Plastic hinges
Calculation of W
o
– failure load of fixedended beam
6.5.2 Crosssectional resistance
M
p
= M
cx
= W
o
L/16
The frame analysis assumed that there is no deduction in the plastic moment
resistance from interaction with shear force or axial force. This assumption must be
checked because it is more onerous than checking that the crosssectional
resistance is sufficient.
W
o
= 16M
cx
/L = 16 × 305/30 = 162.7 kN
Ω = W
r
/W
o
= 282.6/162.7 = 1.74
Load combination no.1 is clearly the worst load combination.
Max. shear force, V
Ed
= 108.1 kN
Max. axial force, N
Ed
= 148.8 kN
+
y r
275
/ 4
.
44
p L L h
L
ρ
ρ
Ω
Check that the plastic moment of resistance, M
pl.Rd
, is not reduced by the coincident
shear force. EN199311; §6.2.8(2) =
235
275
30 / 2 . 30 8 . 39 4
8 . 39
6
30
.
74 . 1
44
× +
= 133.6
Check
Ed
V ≯ 0.5
Rd pl,
V L
b
/D = 26.3 × 10
3
/400 = 66.8
A
v
= h t
w
= 600 × 12.0 = 7200 mm
2
§6.2.6(3a)
As L
b
/D < 133.6, the frame is stable under gravity loads
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 59 OF 98
V
pl,Rd
= A
v
(f
y
/ √3) / γ
MO EN199311; §6.2.6(2)
= 7200 ( 235 / √3) / 1
= 976 kN
∴ The required load factor for frame stability
λ
r
= 1.0 for gravity load case
∴ 0.5
Rd pl,
V = 0.5 × 1045 = 523 kN
Max V
Ed
= 108.1 kN
As V
ED
≯
0.5
Rd pl,
V , plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the coexistent
shear force.
For horizontal loads
Required load factor λ
r
for frame stability
λ
r
=
1
sc
sc
− λ
λ
Now check that the plastic moment of resistance, M
pl.Rd
, is not reduced by the
coincident axial force’ EN 199311; §6.2.9(4)
Check:
λ
sc
=


.

\



.

\

+
yr r b
275
/ 4
220
p L L hL
DL
ρ
ρ
Ω
(i)
Ed
N ≯ 0.25 N
pl.Rd
Eqn. 6.33
∴ 0.25 N
pl.Rd
= 0.25 × 15600 × 235 / 1 = 916.5 kN
=


.

\



.

\

× + × ×
× ×
235
275
30 / 2 . 30 8 . 39 4
8 . 39
3 . 26 6 74 . 1
30 4 . 0 220
(ii)
Ed
N ≯
MO
y w w
5 . 0
γ
f t h
Eqn. 6.34
= 10.2
kN
f t h
2 . 795
0 . 1
235 2 . 10 564 5 . 0
5 . 0
MO
y w w
=
× × ×
=
γ
∴ λ
r
=
1 2 . 10
2 . 10
−
= 1.11
Max N
Ed
= 148.8 kN ≤ 795.2 kN
Checks (i) and (ii) show that the plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the
coexistent axial force. Therefore the frame analysis assumption is validated.
Therefore, for this load case, λ
p
must not be less than 1.11. The actual value of λ
p
would depend on the magnitude of the applied horizontal loads, but generally λ
p
would be greater than λ
r
. In this example it is assumed that vertical load case is
critical.
6.5.3 Buckling between intermediate restraints
6.5.3.1 Upper section analysis
For members with plastic hinges, EC3 gives guidance for member buckling check.
The critical column bending moment diagram is from load combination no.1 in this
structure, causing a plastic hinge to occur at the underside of the haunch. Therefore,
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 60 OF 98
find the stable length with a plastic hinge.
0 kNm
Bending moments
below haunch
Geometry
Moments, forces and restraints
3
6
5
0
1
3
5
0
6
0
0
0
N = 148,8 kN
V = 108,1 kN
N = 148,8 kN
V = 108,1 kN
540,8 kNm
394.8 kNm
Stable length of column: EN199311; BB3.1.1
2
y
t
2
y pl,
2
1
m
235 756
1
4 . 57
1
38


.

\



.

\

+


.

\

=
f
AI
W
C A
N
i
L
Ed
z
where
N
Ed
= 148.8 kN A = 15600mm
2
W
pl,y
= 3512 × 10
3
mm
3
I
t
= 165 × 10
4
mm
4
f
y
= 235 N/mm
2
i
z
= 46.6 mm
C
1
is dependant on ψ based on the shape of the bending moment
diagram.
NCCI SN003aENEU; Table 3.1
ψ = 1532 . 1 73 . 0
5000
3650
1
= → = C
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 61 OF 98
( )
2
4
2
3
2
3
m
235
235
10 165 15600
10 3512
1532 . 1 756
1
15600
10 8 . 148
4 . 57
1
6 . 46 38


.

\



.

\

× ×
×
×
+


.

\

×
×
= L
=2196 mm
Therefore, 1350 mm is acceptable.
6.5.3.2 Lower section (3650 mm)
LAYOUT OF PURLINS AND SIDE RAILS
(a) Calculate slenderness λ and λ
LT
Assume side rail depth = 200 mm
At this stage, a more detailed assessment of the frame geometry can be made. It is
also useful to determine a layout of purlins and side rails that can provide restraint to
plastic hinges and adjacent lengths.
=
=
2
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
=
=
Crosssection through column
s
s
s
4
s
s
1
P
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
6
5
3
2
1
6
l
6
1100
15083
183
6 @ 1630
=
=
6
0
0
0
6
2
0
4
@
1
3
0
0
1
8
0
h
Distance from columns shear centre to centre of side rail, a Purlin and side rail spacing
a = 600 / 2 + 200/ 2 = 400 mm
i
s
2
= i
y
2
+ i
z
2
+ a
2
i
s
2
= 243
2
+ 46.6
2
+ 400
2
= 221221 mm
2
The value of the bending moment can be found at any point in the rafter from the
formula:
M
x
= VΡ
x
– H h
x
– w Ρ
x
2
/2
Distance between shear centres of flanges
h
s
= 600 −19 = 581 mm
where Ρ
x
is the horizontal distance to the point considered
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 62 OF 98
α =





.

\

+
2
s
z
w 2
i
I
I
a
h
x
is the height of the point considered
= h + Ρ
x
tanθ
V is the vertical reaction at the base due to w
H is the horizontal reaction at the base due to w
w is the load per unit length of the frame (factored loading)
Using the simplification for doubly symmetric I sections;
I
w
= I
z
( h
s
/ 2)
2
α =
( )


.

\

+
2
s
2
s
2
2 h
i
a
=
( )


.

\

+
221221
2 581 400
2 2
= 1.1
The slenderness of the column is given by :
λ =
( )  
5 . 0
2
s z
2 2
t t
z t
6 . 2 i I L I
i L
π α +
=
( )  
5 . 0
7 2 2 5
221221 10 39 . 3 6 . 2 3650 10 5 . 16 1 . 1
6 . 46 3650
× × × × × × + π
= 71.2
Note:λ has been calculated using the slenderness method, λ
LT
has been
calculated
using the M
cr
method to show the different approached for obtaining these
parameters.
λ =
1
λ λ
= 9 . 93 2 . 71
= 0.76
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 63 OF 98
LT λ =
cr
y y
M
f W
for Class 1
pl.y y
W W = EN199311; §6.3.2.2
Where BB3.3.1
( ) ( )
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
)
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
´
¦
=
+
−
+
=
+
=
+
+
=
+ +
=
× = × × = =


.

\

+ + = =
→ =
crT
crE
2
1 0
2
t 2 t 1 o
m
12 2 4 2
z w
t
2
t
w
2
2
t
2
z
2
2
s
cr cr
2
s
cr,o
cr,0 m
2
cr
20 1
5 . 0
1
5 . 0
10
5
20 1
10 1
1
10 25 . 1 2 484 10 2142 2
1
2
1
N
N
B
B B
B B B
C
h I I
GI
L
EI
L
a EI
i
N N
a
i
M
M C
c
M
s
η
η η π
η π
η
η
η
β β
π π
N
crT
= N
cr
=
6
4
2
12 2
2
2 4 2
10 428 . 6
10 165 81000
3650
10 86 . 2 210000
3650
400 10 3387 210000
165974
1
× =








.

\

× × +
+
× × ×
+
+
× × × ×
π
π
N
crE
=
6
2
4 2
2
t
z
2
10 269 . 5
3650
10 3387 210000
× =
× × ×
=
π π
L
EI
82 . 0
10 428 . 6
10 269 . 5
6
6
crT
crE
=
×
×
= =
N
N
η
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 64 OF 98
101 . 0
20 1
5 . 0
1
5 . 0
371 . 0
10
5
53 . 0
20 1
10 1
2 1 0
=
+
−
+
= =
+
= =
+
+
=
η η π η π
η
η
η
B B B
and β = 0 because it is the ratio of the smaller end moment to the larger end
moment in the column
Therefore,
C
m
= 89 . 1
0 101 . 0 0 371 . 0 528 . 0
1 1
2 2
t 2 t 1
=
× + × +
=
+ + β β B B B
o
c 1 =
kNm 3360 1778 89 . 1
1
1 1
kNm 1778 10 428 . 6
400 2
221221
2
2
cr,0 m
2
cr
6
cr
2
cr,o
= × × = =
= × ×
×
= =
M C
c
M
N
a
i
M
s
50 . 0
10 3360
235 10 3152
6
3
cr
y y
LT =
×
× ×
= =
M
f W
λ
(b) Calculate buckling resistance for axial load
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A ⋅ ⋅ EN199311; §6.3
2
2
min
1
λ φ φ
χ
− +
=
φ = ( )  
2
2 . 0 1 5 . 0 λ λ α + − +
b h = 600/200 = 3.0 EN199311; Table 6.2
t
f
= 19 mm
buckling between axis zz
Use Curve b for hot rolled I sections
α = 0.34
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 65 OF 98
φ = ( )  
2
76 . 0 2 . 0 76 . 0 34 . 0 1 5 . 0 + − +
= 0.884
z
χ =
2 2
76 . 0 884 . 0 884 . 0
1
− +
= 0.45
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A ⋅ ⋅
N
b, Rd
= 1 235 15600 45 . 0 ⋅ ⋅
= 1650 kN
(c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending
M
b, Rd
=
M1 y y pl, LT
γ χ f W
LT
χ =
2
LT
2
LT LT
1
λ β φ φ ⋅ − +
LT
φ = ( )  
2
LT LT,0 LT
LT
1 5 . 0 λ β λ λ α ⋅ + − +
LT,0 λ = 0.4 ( maximum value)
β = 0.75
b h = 3.0 EN199311; Table 6.5
For hot rolled sections use Curve c for buckling.
α = 0.49
φ
LT
= ( )   62 . 0 5 . 0 75 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 0 49 . 0 1 5 . 0
2
= ⋅ + − +
94 . 0
5 . 0 75 . 0 62 . 0 62 . 0
1
2 2
=
⋅ − +
=
LT
χ
M
b, Rd
= kNm 776 1 235 10 3512 94 . 0
3
= × × ×
(d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 66 OF 98
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
yz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
yy
M1
Rk y
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
EN199311; §6.3.3(4)
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
zz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
The following simplifications may be made:
•
Ed y,
M ∆ and
Ed z,
M ∆ =0 for Class 1
• No bending minor axis
Buckling about yy axis is covered by MerchantRankine
Therefore,
1
M1
Rk y,
Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤ +
γ
γ
χ M
M
k
N
N
0 . 1
b.Rd.y y.Ed yz b.Rd.z Ed
≤ ⋅ + M M k N N
As
z
λ ≥ 1 EN199311; Table B.2
k
zy
=
( ) ( )
−
− =
−
−
z Rd, b,
Ed
mLT M1 Rk z
Ed
mLT
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
N
N
C N
N
C γ χ
ψ =0
4 , 0 4 , 0 6 , 0
y mLT
≥ + = ψ C EN199311; Table B.3
6 . 0 0 4 , 0 6 , 0
mLT
= ⋅ + = C
k
zy
=
( )
×
×
−
×
−
3
3
10 1650
10 8 . 148
25 , 0 6 . 0
76 . 0 1 , 0
1
= 0.98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 67 OF 98
0 . 1 59 . 0 8 . 775 8 . 394 98 . 0 1650 8 . 148 ≤ = ⋅ + ∴Column OK
6.6 RAFTER DESIGN: IPE 400
DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC FAILURE LOAD
For the rafter it is not clear which load case gives the worst load combination,
specifically for buckling. Therefore all load combinations should be checked.
The rafter checks for crosssectional resistance need to be made for the worst case
load effects. This is produced by load combination 1 near the apex of the roof.
At the preliminary design stage, it is not necessary to calculate the plastic failure
load. At the detailed design stage, however, the plastic failure load (w′) will be used
instead of the applied factored loading (w).
Assume that the plastic hinges are located in the column at the bottom of the eaves
haunch and in the rafters at the second purlin from the ridge (i.e. P
9
in the figure
below.
M
Ed
= 252.6 kNm
V
Ed
= 107.4 kN
N
Ed
= 117.2 kN
6.6.1 Classification
The moment in the rafter at P
9
is then given by:
M@P
9
= V
′Ρ
9
 H′ h
9

2
w′
(Ρ
9
)
2
and the moment in the column @ the bottom of the eaves haunch is given by:
Ensure the section is Class 1 to accommodate plastic hinge formation. Web check
from EN 199311 Sheet 1 of Table 5.2 :
f /
f /
h
=
=
58,0
y
γ
MO
MO
y
γ
Plastic stress distribution in web
αc
c
The web is under combined axial and bending forces, so find α :
M@S
6
≈ H
1
(h – D
h
– D
s
/2)
w′ is the collapse load
V
′and H′ are the reactions at the base due to w′
At the point of failure, the moment M@P
9
and M@S
6
must be equal to the reduced
moment capacities of the rafter and column sections provided (see Section 5 of
these calculations).
Thus M@P
9
= M
r.rx
= 304.5 kNm
M@S
6
= M
l.rx
= 819.1 kNm
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 68 OF 98
Depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load
= N
Ed
/ ( f
y
× t
w
/
MO
γ ) = 117.2 ×10
3
/ (235 × 8.6 / 1) = 58.0 mm
∴ α c = c / 2 + 50.6 / 2
∴ α = 0.5 + [( 58.0/ 2) / 331.0] = 0.59
∴ for Class 1, limiting
w
t c = 396 ε / (13 α 1 )
= 396 × 1.0 / ( 13 × 0.59 − 1 ) = 59.4
actual c/t
w
= 331 / 8.6 = 38.5 → web is Class 1
Flange check from EN 199311 Sheet 2 of Table 5.2
∴for Class 1, limiting
f
t c = 9 ε = 9 × 1.0 = 9
actual c/t
f
= 64.7 / 13.5 = 4.8 → flange is Class 1
w'
M
5
9
9
M
h
l.rx
r.rx
6m
0.62
Determination of failure load w′
6.6.2 Crosssectional resistance
The frame analysis assumed that there is no reduction in the plastic moment
resistance from interaction with shear force or axial force. This assumption must be
checked because it is more onerous than checking that the crosssectional
resistance is sufficient.
Ρ
9
= 13.72 m
h
9
= 7.44 m
H′ = (M@S
6
)/(h@S
6
) = 819.1/5.38 = 152.2 kN
V′ = w′ L/2 = 15w′
Load combination no.1 is clearly the worst load combination
Max. shear force, V
Ed
= 107.4 kN
Max. axial force, N
Ed
= 117.2 kN
Therefore the plastic moment resistance is not reduced by coincident shear.
Check that the plastic moment of resistance, M
pl.Rd
, is not reduced by the coincident
shear force. EN199311; §6.2.8(2)
Check
Ed
V ≯ 0.5
Rd pl,
V EN199311; §6.3.4
A
v
= h t
w
= 400 × 8.6 = 3440 mm
2
V
pl,Rd
= A
v
(f
y
/ √3) / γ
MO
= 3440 ( 235 / √3) / 1 EN199311; §6.2.6(2)
Substituting:
M@P
9
= 15w′ × 13.72 – 152.2 × 7.44 – w′ × 13.72
2
/2
Equating M@P
9
to M
r.rx
304.5 = 111.7w’ – 1132.4
w′ =12.86 kN/m
Collapse load w′ = 12.86 kN/m (compare with the applied factored load w of
= 9.42 kN/m calculated originally)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 69 OF 98
= 389 kN
∴ 0.5
Rd pl,
V = 0.5 × 389 = 194 kN
Max V
Ed
= 107.4 kN
This is less than 194 kN, and therefore the plastic moment is not reduced by co
existent shear.
The corresponding base reactions are:
H′ = 152.2 kN
V′ = 192.9 kN
8
p
=
w
' w
=
42 . 9
86 . 12
= 1.37
Check that the plastic moment of resistance, M
pl.Rd
, is not reduced by the coincident
axial force: EN199311; §6.2.9(4)
Check:
(i)
Ed
N ≯ 0.25 N
pl.Rd
Eqn. 6.33
∴ 0.25 N
pl.Rd
= 0.25 × 8450 × 235 / 1 = 496 kN
(ii)
Ed
N ≯
MO
y w w
5 . 0
γ
f t h
Eqn. 6.34
kN 377
0 . 1
235 6 . 8 373 5 . 0
5 . 0
MO
y w w
=
× × ×
=
γ
f t h
Max N
Ed
= 117.2 kN ≤ 377 kN
Checks (i) and (ii) show that the plastic moment of resistance is not required by the
coexistent axial force.
Therefore, the effects of shear and axial force on the plastic resistance moment can
be neglected according to EC3 and the frame analysis assumption is validated.
6.6.3 Buckling between intermediate restraints COLUMN STABILITY
By inspection, the worst case is near the apex in the left hand rafter, because this
has the highest bending moment in the rafter.
6.6.3.1 Stable length check for high bending moment
The critical rafter bending moment diagram is obtained from load combination no.1 in
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 70 OF 98
this structure, causing a plastic hinge very close to the apex, and so the stable length
with a plastic hinge is calculated according to the following criteria:.
M
Ed
= 343.1 kNm
V
Ed
= 0 kN
N
Ed
= 107.8 kN
Rafter under highest bending moment
s
s
4
s
s
5
3
2
s
6
1
Stay
Plastic hinge
position
6
2
0
4
@
1
3
0
0
1
8
0
6
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
4
0
8
0
819.1 kNm
621.2 kNm
Bending moment diagram and restraints to column
C
1
= 1 because the bending moment is approximately uniform between
restraints. The stable length of the rafter is given by:
The hinge position will be torsionally restrained by the provision of a rafter stay at the
base of the haunch to side rail S
6
.
2
y
t
2
y pl,
2
1
Ed
z
m
235 756
1
4 . 57
1
38


.

\



.

\

+


.

\

=
f
AI
W
C A
N
i
L EN199311; BB3.1.1
The distance to the next lateral restraint to the compression flange from the plastic
hinge position can be determined by one of four approaches:
1. Calculate the limiting distance L
m
.
2. For IPE section, calculate the modified distance L
m
to account for
moment gradient.
3. For IPE section, calculate limiting distance L
s
.
4. Use Appendix G of BS59501: 2000
( )
2
4
2
3
2
3
m
235
235
10 3 . 51 8450
10 1307
1 756
1
8450
10 8 . 107
4 . 57
1
5 . 39 38


.

\



.

\

× ×
×
×
+


.

\

×
×
= L
=1741 mm
The first approach assumes no restraint to the tension flange and is conservative.
The second approach also assumes no restraint to tension flange, but involves more
work because it takes account of the shape of bending moment and hence permits
use of a greater length between restraints.
The third approach is a simplification of Appendix G for IPE sections.
The fourth approach is generally too complex for manual design and gives little
advantage for the column as usually only one restraint is required between the
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 71 OF 98
plastic hinge position and the base.
Therefore, 1200 mm purlin spacing provides stability.
In many cases, it will be adequate to provide an adjacent lateral restraint to the
compression flange at a distance L
m
from the plastic hinge position. The section
between this restraint and the base should then prove adequate when checked to
BS 59501: Clause 4.8.3.3.
6.6.3.2 Combined axial and moment check for lower bending moments Check length between side rails S
6
and S
5
Where bending moment is lower, the purlin spacing can be increased. BS 59501: 2000 Clause 5.3.3(a) is used to check the length between restraints at
side rails S
6
and S
5
. Assume restraint is provided at S
6
and S
5
by means of column
stays.
Rafter under lower bending moments
The critical case is in right hand rafter. Try purlin spacing at 2200 mm centres.
Check for lateral torsional buckling between purlins. Load combination no.1 gives the
biggest moments:
Limiting length L
m
is given by:
L
m
=
2
1
2
y
2
c
y
275 36 130
38


.

\



.

\

+
p
x f
r
f
c
= V′/A = 192.9 × 10
3
/156 × 10
2
= 12.4 N/mm
2
x = ( )
J
A
T D − 566 . 0
D=600 mm T=19.0mm A=156.0 cm
2
J=165 cm
4
x = 32.0
Max. moment, M
Ed
= 252.6 kN
Max. axial force, N
Ed
= 117.2 kN
(a) Calculate buckling resistance to axial force
Firstly the slenderness should be calculated
59 . 0
9 . 93
1
5 . 39
2200 1
1 z
cr
= × = =
λ
λ
i
L
LT λ =
cr
y y
M
f W ⋅
EN199311; §6.3.2.2
L
m
=
2
1
2 2
275
235
36
0 . 32
130
4 . 12
6 . 46 38


.

\



.

\

+
×
= 2160 mm
Thus, the length of 1550 mm from the plastic hinge position at side rail S
6
to the
column stay at side rail S
5
is stable.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 72 OF 98
z
2
t
2
z
w
2
z
2
1 r
EI
GI L
I
I
L
EI
C M
c
π
π
+ = SN003aENEU
C
1
comes from the table indicated for the correspondent value of ψ
1 ve Conservati
1
= → C
Check the length between side rail S
5
and the base (1)
In order to obtain I
w
, the distance between shear centres of flanges must be
calculated;
h
s
= 400 −13.5 = 386.5 mm
There is no plastic hinge in the length between S
5
and the base and a restraint to the
compression flange has been provided at side rail S
5
by means of a column stay.
( )
( )
12 2 4
2
z w
10 49 . 0 2 5 . 386 10 1318
2
× = × × =
= =
s
h I I
For external columns, the relevant check is for outofplane buckling only, because
inplane member stability is assured by the inplane frame stability checks given in
Section 7 of this example. It is therefore required that:
kNm 1193
10 32 . 1 210000
10 13 . 5 80769 2200
10 32 . 1
10 49 . 0
2200
10 32 . 1 210000
1
7 2
5 2
7
12
2
7 2
cr
=
× × ×
× × ×
+
×
× × × ×
× =
π
π
M
b
LT LT
cy
c
M
M m
P
F
+ ≤ 1^
M
LT
= M@S
5
= 621.2 kNm
LT λ = =
×
× ×
6
6
10 1302
235 10 31 . 1
0.51
F
c
= V′ = 192.9 kN
m
LT
= 0.6 for β = 0.0
P
z
= A
g
P
y
= 156 × 235= 3666 kN
(a) Calculate buckling resistance to bending
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A ⋅ ⋅ EN199311; §6.2.9.1(5)
2
2
min
1
λ φ φ
χ
− +
= EN199311; §6.3.1.2
φ = ( )
+ − +
2
2 . 0 1 5 . 0 λ λ α
b h = 180 400 = 2.22
t
f
= 13.5 mm
Buckling between axis zz; EN199311; Table 6.2
Use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.34 EN199311; Table 6.1
z
c
P
F
=
3666
9 . 192
= 0.05
which is significantly less than the limit for Class 2 or compact sections (typically
between 0.25 and 0.35).
For L
EY
= 4.08 m r
y
= 4.66 cm 6 . 87
6 . 46
4080
= = λ
∴ p
c
= 117 N/mm
2
= × × × = =
−3 2
10 10 156 117
g c cy
A p P 1825 kN
6 . 87
6 . 46
4080
cm 66 . 4 m 08 . 4
EY
= = = = λ
y
r L
w LT
β λ λ v u =
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 73 OF 98
φ = ( )  
2
51 . 0 2 . 0 51 . 0 34 . 0 1 5 . 0 + − +
= 0.68
z
χ =
2 2
51 . 0 68 . 0 68 . 0
1
− +
= 0.84
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A⋅ ⋅
N
b, Rd
= 1 235 8450 84 . 0 ⋅ ⋅
= 1767kN
(b) Calculate buckling resistance for bending
M
b, Rd
=
M1 y y pl, LT
γ χ f W ⋅ ⋅
LT
χ =
2
LT
2
LT LT
1
λ β φ φ ⋅ − +
LT
φ = ( )  
2
LT LT,0 LT 1 5 . 0 λ β λ λ α ⋅ + − +
6 . 31
19
600
= = =
T
D
x with 9 . 0 = u
0 . 1 =
w
β for UB’s and UC’s
( )
92 . 0
6 . 31
6 . 87
05 . 0 1
1
25 . 0
2
=
+
= v
73 0 . 1 6 . 87 92 . 0 9 . 0
LT
= × × × = λ
164
b
= p N/mm
2
=
x
S 3512 cm
3
= × × × = =
−6 3
x b b
10 10 3512 164 S p M 576 kNm
∴
b
LT LT
cy
c
M
M m
P
F
+ =
576
2 . 621 6 . 0
1825
9 . 192 ×
+ = 0.08 + 0.65 = 0.73 < 1
∴ No further column restraints are required between side rail S
5
and the base.
LT,0 λ = 0.4 ( maximum value)
β = 0.75
b h = 2.22
Use Curve c for hot rolled I sections α = 0.49
φ
LT
= ( )   62 . 0 51 . 0 75 . 0 4 . 0 51 . 0 49 . 0 1 5 . 0
2
= ⋅ + − + EN199311; Table 6.5
LT
χ = 95 . 0
51 . 0 75 . 0 62 . 0 62 . 0
1
2 2
=
⋅ − +
EN199311; Table 6.3
M
b, Rd
= kNm 289 1 235 10 31 . 1 95 . 0
6
= × × ×
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 74 OF 98
(c) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
yz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
yy
M1
Rk y
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
EN199311; §6.3.3(4)
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
zz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
There are the following simplifications:
1)
Ed y,
M ∆ and
Ed z,
M ∆ = 0 for Class 1
2) No bending minor axis
3) Buckling about yy axis is covered by MerchantRankine
Therefore,
1
M1
Rk y,
Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤ +
γ
γ
χ M
M
k
N
N
0 . 1
b.Rd.y y.Ed zy b.Rd.z Ed
≤ ⋅ + M M k N N
As
z
λ < 1
k
zy
=
( ) ( )
−
− =
−
−
z Rd, b,
Ed
mLT
2
z
M1 Rk z mLT
2
z
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
N
N
C N
N
C
Ed
λ
γ χ
λ
ψ=1 Conservative
4 , 0 4 , 0 6 , 0
y mLT
≥ + = ψ C
1 1 4 , 0 6 , 0
mLT
= ⋅ + = C
k
zy
=
( )
×
×
−
×
−
3
3
10 1668
10 7 . 140
25 , 0 1
57 . 0 1 , 0
1 = 0.996 EN199311; §6.3.2.2, BB3.1.1
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 75 OF 98
0 . 1 94 . 0 289 6 . 252 996 . 0 1668 2 . 117 ≤ = ⋅ + ∴Rafter OK
The rafter is stable between intermediate restraints to compression flange.
6.6.4 Buckling between torsional restraints RAFTER STABILITY BELOW THE APEX
Where the bottom flange is in compression, the stability must be checked between
torsional restraints (e.g. restraint to bottom and top flanges). For first trial, assume
rotational restraints are positioned at approximately quarter span intervals(see
diagram in section 1.1 of this worked example)
The plastic hinge (at purlin P
9
) will be restrained by the purlin P
9
and a rafter stay to
give torsional restraint.
The rafter near the apex is subject to a sagging moment in this load case. The
compression flange is stabilised by the purlin.
6.6.4.1 Load combination no.1 Check the length between purlins P
9
and P
8
Worst case between RH haunch tip and quarter span rotational restraint between
2992 mm and 9217 mm from the intersection of the rafter and the column.
Taking hogging moment as positive for this calculation::
M
Ed.haunch
= 252.6 kN
M
Ed.2
= 99.5 kN
M
Ed.3
= 31.7 kN
M
Ed.4
= 139.0 kN
M
Ed.restrarint
= 222.5 kN
1
P
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
1100
15083
183
=
6 @ 1630
=
Purlin spacing
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
Worst buckling from gravity loads
(a) Calculate slenderness λ and λ
LT
L
m
=
2
1
2
y
2
c
y
275 36 130
38


.

\



.

\

+
p
x f
r
where f
c
= F/A F@P
8
= 115.9 kN
f
c
= 115.9 × 10
3
/(84.5 × 10
2
) = 13.2 N/mm
2
( ) ( )
3 . 51
5 . 84
5 . 13 400 566 . 0 566 . 0 × − × = − =
J
A
T D x
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 76 OF 98
The purlins provide intermediate restraints x = 28.1
Assume side rail depth = 200 mm
=
=
2
0
0
3
0
0
=
4
0
0
=
Cross section through rafter
L
m
=
2
1
2 2
275
235
36
1 . 28
130
2 . 13
5 . 39 38


.

\



.

\

+
×
= 2030 mm
The distance between purlins P
9
and P
8
= 1630 mm. This is less than L
m
, therefore
no additional purlin is required between P
9
and P
8
.
Distance between the centroid of the rafter and the centroid of the purlins, a
a = 400 / 2 + 200/ 2 = 300 mm
i
s
2
= i
y
2
+ i
z
2
+ a
2
i
s
2
= 165
2
+ 39.5
2
+ 300
2
= 118785 mm
2
Distance between shear centres of flanges
h
s
= 400 −13.5 = 386.5 mm
α =





.

\

+
2
s
z
w 2
i
I
I
a
Using the simplification for doubly symmetric I sections:
I
w
= I
z
( h
s
/ 2)
2
α =
( )


.

\

+
2
s
2
s
2
2
i
h a
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 77 OF 98
=
( )


.

\

+
118785
2 5 . 386 300
2 2
= 1.072
(a) calculate slenderness for λ and
LT
λ
λ =
( )  
5 . 0
2 2 2
6 . 2
s z t t
z t
i I L I
i L
π α +
=
( )  
5 . 0
7 2 2 5
118785 10 32 . 1 6 . 2 6225 10 13 . 5 072 . 1
5 . 39 6225
× × × × × × + π
= 126.1
λ =
1
λ λ
= 9 . 93 1 . 126
= 1.34
LT λ = λ
5 . 0
2
s
y pl,
5 . 0
n
2
1


.

\



.

\

i
a
A
W
C
C
EN199311; BB3.3.2
where
C
n
=
( )  
E s
R R R R R R R − + + + + + 2 3 4 3
12
5 4 3 2 1
R
1
to R
5
are the values of R according to
y pl, y
Ed Ed y,
W f
N a M
R
+
= at ends, quarter
points and midlength. Only positive values are included.
Conservatively, taking N
ED
positive at all positions:
N
ED
= 168.7 kN
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 78 OF 98
3
3 6
y pl, y
Ed Ed y,
1
10 1310 235
300 10 117.2 10 8 . 222
× ×
× × + × −
=
+
=
W f
N a M
R <0 so Omitted
3
3 6
y pl, y
Ed Ed y,
2
10 1310 235
300 10 117.2 10 0 . 139
× ×
× × + × −
=
+
=
W f
N a M
R <0 so Omitted
02 . 0
10 1310 235
300 10 117.2 10 7 . 31
3
3 6
y pl, y
Ed Ed y,
3
=
× ×
× × + × −
=
+
=
W f
N a M
R
44 . 0
10 1310 235
300 10 117.2 10 5 . 99
3
3 6
y pl, y
Ed Ed y,
4
=
× ×
× × + ×
=
+
=
W f
N a M
R
94 . 0
10 1310 235
300 10 117.2 10 7 . 254
3
3 6
y pl, y
Ed Ed y,
5
=
× ×
× × + ×
=
+
=
W f
N a M
R
{ }
5
5 1
studied length the in R of value max
94 . 0 , max
R R
R R R
s
E
= =
= =
 
21 . 5
94 . 0 44 . 0 3 02 . 0 4
12
n
=
+ × + ×
= C
Conservatively C = 1
LT λ = 51 . 0 34 . 1
118785
300 2
8450
10 31 . 1
1
21 . 5
1
5 . 0
6
5 . 0
= ×


.

\

×
×
×
× ×


.

\

(b) Calculate buckling resistance to axial load
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A ⋅ ⋅ EN199311; §6.3
2
2
min
1
λ φ φ
χ
− +
=
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 79 OF 98
φ = ( )
+ − +
2
2 . 0 1 5 . 0 λ λ α
b h = 180 400 = 2.22 EN199311; Table 6.2
t
f
= 13.5 mm
buckling about zz axis
→ Curve b for hot rolled I sections
→ α = 0.34
φ = ( )  
2
34 . 1 2 . 0 34 . 1 34 . 0 1 5 . 0 + − +
= 1.59
z
χ
=
2 2
34 . 1 59 . 1 59 . 1
1
− +
= 0.41
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A ⋅ ⋅
N
b, Rd
= 1 235 8450 41 . 0 ⋅ ⋅
= 812 kN
(c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending
M
b, Rd
=
M1 y y pl, LT
γ χ f W ⋅ ⋅
LT
χ
=
2
LT
2
LT LT
1
λ β φ φ ⋅ − +
φ
LT
= ( )  
2
LT LT,0 LT 1 5 . 0 λ β λ λ α ⋅ + − +
LT,0 λ = 0.4 ( maximum value)
β = 0.75
h/b = 2.5 EN199311; Table 6.5
For hot rolled sections use Curve c α = 0.49
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 80 OF 98
φ
LT
= ( )   59 . 0 46 . 0 75 . 0 4 . 0 46 . 0 49 . 0 1 5 . 0
2
= ⋅ + − +
LT
χ
= 975 . 0
46 . 0 75 . 0 59 . 0 59 . 0
1
2 2
=
⋅ − +
M
b, Rd
= kNm 3 . 300 1 235 10 1310 975 . 0
3
= × × ×
(d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
yz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
yy
M1
Rk y
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
EN199311; §6.3.3(4)
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
zz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
There are the following simplifications:
∴
Ed y,
M ∆ and
Ed z,
M ∆ =0 for Class 1
∴No bending minor axis
∴Buckling about yy axis is covered by MerchantRankine
So,
1
M1
Rk y,
Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤ +
γ
γ
χ M
M
k
N
N
1
b.Rd.y y.Ed zy b.Rd.z Ed
≤ ⋅ + M M k N N
As
z
λ ≥ 1 EN199311; Table B.2
k
zy
=
( ) ( )
−
− =
−
−
z Rd, b,
Ed
mLT
2
z
M1 Rk z
Ed
mLT
2
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
N
N
C N
N
C
z
λ
γ χ
λ
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 81 OF 98
Conservatively taking ψ=1 EN199311; Table B.3
4 , 0 4 , 0 6 , 0
y mLT
≥ + = ψ C
1 1 4 , 0 6 , 0
mLT
= ⋅ + = C
k
zy
=
( )
×
×
−
−
3
3
10 812
10 2 . 117
25 , 0 1
1 , 0
1
= 0.981
0 . 1 97 . 0 3 . 300 6 . 252 981 . 0 812 2 . 117 ≤ = ⋅ + ∴Rafter is acceptable.
6.7 HAUNCH DESIGN
EAVES HAUNCH STABILITY
The bending moments and plastic modulus (and effective elastic modulus where
appropriate) of the section are required at end and quarter points for the stability
checks, so these points are also used to check the stresses along the haunch.
Determine section properties of the haunched beamat four positions along haunch:
This section includes the length up to purlin P
3
.
Four design options exist for the situation where the tension flange is restrained
between restraints to the compression flange.
IPE 600
A
A
Haunch geometry
1
2
3
4
5
Section A  A
5°
6
2
0
3720
930
930
930
930
From
IPE 500
IPE 400
1. Ignore the tension flange restraints and design to Clause 4.8.3.3.1 providing
restraints to the compression flange as necessary.
2. Limit the length between compression flange restraint to L
m
given by
Clause 5.3.3.
3. Limit the length between compression flange restraints to L
s
as given by
Clause 5.3.4.
4. Check the length according to Appendix G of BS 59501:2000.
Method 2 will be conservative as it ignores the restraint to the tension flange
between torsional restraints.
Method 3 is relatively straightforward but using the limiting length L
s
requires the
distance between tension flange restraints to be adequate when checked to
Clause 4.8.3.3 (or Clause I.1)
Method 4 would not normally be carried out manually although it can be shown that
rafter stays to the compression flange at purlins P
3
and P
5
would be adequate.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 82 OF 98
Position Distance
from
column
face
(mm)
Areagross
(mm
2
)
Areaeff
(mm
2
)
Areaweb,eff
(mm
2
)
Wpl,y
(mm3)
Weff,ply β=
y pl,
eff.pl.y
W
W
1 0 11478 11142 6282 3176×10
3
2986×10
3
0.94
2 925 10656 10656 5796 2647×10
3
2647×10
3
1.0
3 1850 9831 9831 4971 2156×10
3
2156×10
3
1.0
4 2775 9010 9010 4150 1706×10
3
1706×10
3
1.0
Method 3 will be demonstrated here.
Method 3, Clause 5.3.4 approach (Simple Method)
Provided the geometrical limitations are complied with, the spacing L
y
between
restraints to the compression flange should not exceed the limiting spacing L
s
.
For S275 (assume acceptable for S235 steel grade)
L
s
=
5 . 0
2
1
y
100
72
620


.

\

−
x
K
r
Moments acting at the four positions are as follows:
M
Ed1
= 577.8 kNm at 0.302 m from intersection of rafter and column
M
Ed2
= 488.3 kNm at 1.232 m from intersection of rafter and column
M
Ed3
= 403.5 kNm at 2.162 m from intersection of rafter and column
M
Ed4
= 323.1 kNm at 3.092 m from intersection of rafter and column
M
Ed5
= 247.8 kNm at 4.022 m from intersection of rafter and column
Assumed
elastic
neutral
axis
Elastic stress distribution in web
4
2
0
224,6 10,4
235
4
0
0
8
2
0
4
1
0
4
1
0
r
y
and x for the unhaunched section (i.e. rafter)
s
h
D
D
≈ 1, ∴ K
1
= 1.25
∴L
s
=
5 . 0
2
1 . 28
100
72 25 . 1
5 . 39 620


.

\

−
×
mm
∴L
s
= 2543 mm
The length of the haunch (between the column face and purlin P
3
) is 3700 mm. This
is greater than L
s
, therefore an additional stay at purlin P
2
would be required.
Alternatively the length between the face of the column and purlin P
3
could be
checked according to Appendix G.2.2.
1
P
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
*
* 3.70 m
Haunch restraints
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 83 OF 98
Therefore stresses available to resist bending:
2
N MO y M
mm N 6 . 224 4 . 10 1 235 = − = − = σ γ σ f
(b) Classify web assuming σ
M
= 224.6 N/mm
2
∴Coexistent stress at top of haunch would be
σ = σ
M
– σ
N
= 224.6 – 10.4 = 214.2
Total depth = rafter + web + bottom flange
= 5 . 796
∴Depth from neutral axis to underside of middle flange
mm 8 . 1
2
5 . 796
400 =


.

\

− =
∴bending and axial stress at top of haunch cutting:
( )
2
mm N 40 . 11 4 . 10 2 . 214 8 . 1 6 . 224 = + × =
Distance from assumed elastic neutral axis to top of root radius on bottom flange of
haunch cutting
8 . 363 5 . 13 21
2
5 . 796
= − − = mm
∴bending and axial stress at top of root radius on bottom flange of haunch cutting
0 . 216 = N/mm
2
For class 3 check, 053 . 0 = ψ
Depth of web excluding roof radius = 40421=383 mm
Class 3 limit for ψ >1:
1 . 61
053 . 0 33 . 0 67 . 0
0 . 1 42
33 . 0 67 . 0
42
w
=
× +
×
=
+
≤
ψ
ε
t c
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 84 OF 98
38
2 . 10
383
w
= = t c So, web class 3
6.7.1 Crosssectional resistance RAFTER STABILITY ABOVE THE HAUNCH (BETWEEN PURLINS P
3
AND P
5
)
For the stability checks given in this document for tapered haunches to remain valid,
the tapered haunch must not contain a plastic hinge.
The length between purlin P
3
and P
5
is mostly in the hogging region and does not
contain a plastic hinge. Restraints (stays) are provided to the compression flange at
purlins P
3
and P
5
6.7.1.1 Shear
Using 4.8.3.3.2(a) outofplane buckling because the inplane stability of the rafter is
assured by the inplane frame stability.
The depth of the web between flanges is not greater than in the rafter, so shear
buckling is not a problem in the haunch.
The shear in the rafter has been checked in 5.2 above , showing V
ED
≯0.5V
pl.Ed
In the haunch, the shear area A
v
increases more than the applied shear V
ED,
so
the
shear
force has no effect, by inspection.
b
LT LT
cy
c
M
M m
P
F
+ ≤ 1
The tables provided below give the axial and moment resistance of the haunch
section at various positions from the column face. A series of checks is carried out to
determine whether the crosssectional moment resistance M
c.Ed
is reduced by
coexistent axial force. Positions 1 to 5 are checked to find M
ED
/M
c.Ed
191.5 kNm 60.9 kNm
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 85 OF 98
6.7.1.2 Axial and bending
Position Distance
(mm)
NEd
(kN)
Aeff
(mm
2
)
Npl.Rd
(kN)
Aweb,eff
(mm
2
)
Aweb,eff fy
1 0 119.5 11142 2618 6282 1476×10
3
2 925 118.9 10656 2504 5796 1362×10
3
3 1850 118.3 9831 2310 4971 1168×10
3
4 2775 117.7 9010 2117 4150 975×10
3
5 3700 117.2 8450 1986 3208 754×10
3
Is NEd> Position Distance
(mm)
MEd
(kNm)
0.5Aweb.efffy 0.25Npl.Rd
Mc.Rd
(=Mpl.y.Rd)
Is
MEd>Mc.Rd?
1 0 577.8 No No 702 No
2 925 488.3 No No 622
No
3 1850 403.5 No No 507
No
4 2775 323.1 No No 401
No
5 3700 247.8 No No 307
No
The loading on the haunch is a combination of axial load, shear and bending. By
inspection, the applied shear force is small relative to the shear capacity of the
section and need not therefore be considered. Check positions 1 to 5 to find
c.Rd Ed
M M where
c.Rd
M is the crosssectional moment of resistance. With low
coexistent axial force and shear force,
pl.Rd c.Rd
M M =
i. Position 1: 82 . 0
702
8 . 577
= < 1 ∴OK
ii. Position 2: 79 . 0
622
3 . 488
= < 1 ∴OK
β ≈
5 . 191
5 . 69
− = – 0.36
∴ m
LT
= 0.47
M
LT
= M@P
3
= 191.5 kNm
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 86 OF 98
iii. Position 3: 80 . 0
507
5 . 403
= < 1 ∴OK
iv. Position 4: 81 . 0
401
1 . 323
= < 1 ∴OK
v. Position 5: 81 . 0
307
8 . 247
= < 1 ∴OK
→ No plastic hinges in the haunch
b
LT LT
cy
c
M
M m
P
F
+ ≤ 1
5 . 223
5 . 191 47 . 0
1048
9 . 192 ×
+ = 0.18 + 0.40 = 0.58 ∴ OK
6.7.2 Buckling between intermediate restraints
Assuming a purlin is positioned at the midlength of the haunch, intermediate
buckling should be checked between the column and purlin, and between purlin and
haunch tip. Overall buckling between checks should be carried out for the haunch as
a whole.
The following effective section properties are required:
1. Effective area
2. Effective plastic section modulus
Table 6.2.2.1 gives effective section properties at the start and mid span of the
haunch, calculated for the haunch neglecting the “middle” flange, but remembering
its stabilising effect on the web.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 87 OF 98
6.7.2.1 Check between column flange and midhaunch purlin
1850 mm
1
5
4
3
2
Buckling on deep end of haunch
From 6.2 above, Position 1 is the most critical crosssection,
having 82 . 0
c.Rd Ed
= M M . Therefore, the resistance is calculated using the area
and modulus at this cross section, together with the axial force and bending moment
at this cross section
Note that
z
χ and
LT
χ are calculated at the deepest end because this gives the most
conservative results where the flanges are of constant section and the web is of
constant thickness along the haunch.
(a) Calculate buckling resistance to axial force
M1 y eff z b.Rd.z
γ χ f A N =
( )
( ) 574 . 0
91 . 93
971 . 0 71 . 54
71 . 54 99 . 33 1850
81 . 33 11478 10 312 . 1
flange middle the neglecting 10 312 . 1
971 . 0
11478
11142
mm 1850
5 . 0
1
5 . 0
A
5 . 0
7
z
7
z
ff A
=
×
= =
= =
= × =
× =
= = =
=
λ β λ λ
λ
β
i
I
A A
l
e
To obtain
z
χ as above the following steps should be done.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 88 OF 98
min
χ =
2
2
1
λ φ φ − +
φ = ( )
+ − +
2
2 . 0 1 5 . 0 λ λ α
b h = 180 5 . 796 = 4.43
t
f
= 13.5 mm
Buckling between axis zz use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.34
φ = ( )  
2
574 . 0 2 . 0 574 . 0 34 . 0 1 5 . 0 + − +
= 0.73
z
χ =
2 2
574 . 0 73 . 0 73 . 0
1
− +
= 0.85
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y ff z
γ χ f A
e
N
b, Rd
= 1 235 11142 85 . 0 × ×
= 2225 kN
(b) Calculate buckling resistance to bending moment
M1 y eff.pl.y LT b.Rd.z
γ χ f W M =
485 . 0 574 . 0 9 . 0 9 . 0
94 . 0 3176 2986
z LT
pl.y eff.pl.y w
= × = =
= = =
λ λ
β W W
LT
χ =
2
LT
2
LT LT
1
λ β φ φ ⋅ − +
LT
φ = ( )  
2
LT LT,0 LT 1 5 . 0 λ β λ λ α ⋅ + − +
LT,0 λ = 0.4 ( maximum value)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 89 OF 98
β = 0.75
b h = 53.36
For hot rolled sections use Curve c α = 0.49
LT
φ = 0.60
LT
χ = 0.97
M
b, Rd
= kNm 297 1 235 10 986 . 2 97 . 0
6
= × × ×
(d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
yz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
yy
M1
Rk y
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
zz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
Which reduces to 
1
b.Rd.y y.Ed zy b.Rd.z Ed
≤ ⋅ + M M k N N
As
z
λ ≥ 1
k
zy
=
( ) ( )
−
− =
−
−
z Rd b
Ed Ed
N
N
C N
N
C
, , mLT M1 Rk z mLT
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
γ χ
k
zy
= Conservatively
0 . 1 89 . 0
297
8 . 247
2138
2 . 117
≤ = + OK
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 90 OF 98
6.7.3 Buckling between torsional restraints
3720 mm
1
2
5
4
3
Haunch buckling length
Section 6.2 of this example shows that the critical section in the haunch is Position 1
because M
Ed
/M
Rd
is maximum at that point. Therefore, check the resistance based on
forces, moments and resistances at that point.
(a) Calculate slenderness λ and λ
LT
z
χ and
LT
χ are calculated the constants accounting for the effect of the taper are
based on the shallow end of the haunch
l = 3720 mm
I
z
= 1.312 × 10
7
mm
4
(ignoring the middle flange)
i
z
= (1.312 × 10
y
/8450)
0.5
= 39.4
α = 1.072
The axial slenderness (for restrained tension flange) is given by:
λ =
( )  
5 . 0
2
s z
2 2
t t
z t
6 . 2 i I L I
i L
π α +
=
( )  
5 . 0
7 2 2 5
118785 10 312 . 1 6 . 2 3720 10 13 . 5 072 . 1
4 . 39 3720
× × × × × × + π
= 63.7
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 91 OF 98
λ =
1
λ λ
= 9 . 93 7 . 63
= 0.678
LT
λ = λ
5 . 0
2
y pl,
5 . 0
n
2
1


.

\



.

\

s
i
a
A
W
c
C
EN199311; BB3.3.2
where
n
C = 1.2
and since
h/t
f
= 6 . 29
5 . 13
400
=
h/b = 22 . 2
180
400
=
c =
3 2
min
max
f
1
9
3
1


.

\

−


.

\

−
+
h
h
t
h
EN199311; BB 3.3.3
h
max
= 654
h
min
= 400
c = 1 . 1 1
400
654
9
5 . 13
400
3
1
3 2
=


.

\

−


.

\

−
+
LT λ = 654 . 0 678 . 0
118785
300 2
8450
10 3 . 1
1 . 1
2 . 1
1
5 . 0
6
5 . 0
= ×


.

\

×
×
×
× ×


.

\

(b) Calculate buckling resistance to axial load
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A EN199311; §6.3
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 92 OF 98
min
χ =
2
2
1
λ φ φ − +
φ = ( )
+ − +
2
2 . 0 1 5 . 0 λ λ α
b h = 180 5 . 796 = 4.43 EN199311; Table 6.2
t
f
= 14.6 mm
Buckling between axis zz
Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.34
φ = ( )  
2
678 . 0 2 . 0 678 . 0 34 . 0 1 5 . 0 + − +
= 0.811
z
χ =
2 2
678 . 0 811 . 0 811 . 0
1
− +
= 0.796
A = 11142 mm
2
(neglecting the middle flange)
N
b, Rd
=
M1 y
γ χ f A
N
b, Rd
= 1 235 11142 796 . 0 × ×
= 2084 kN
(c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending
M
b, Rd
=
M1 y y pl, LT
γ χ f W
LT
χ =
2
LT
2
LT LT
1
λ β φ φ − +
LT
φ = ( )  
2
LT LT,0 LT 1 5 . 0 λ β λ λ α + − +
LT,0 λ = 0.4 ( maximum value)
β = 0.75
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 93 OF 98
h/b = 2.22 EN199311; Table 6.5
Use Curve c for hot rolled I sections α =0.49
LT
φ = 0.723
LT
χ = 0.854
M
b, Rd
= kNm 599 1 235 10 2986 854 . 0
3
= × × ×
(d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
yz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
yy
M1
Rk y
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
EN199311; §6.3.3(4)
1
M1
Rk z,
Ed z, Ed z,
zz
M1
Rk y,
LT
Ed y, Ed y,
zy
M1
Rk z
Ed
≤
+
+
+
+
γ
∆
γ
χ
∆
γ
χ M
M M
k
M
M M
k
N
N
Which reduces to –
1
b.Rd.y y.Ed zy b.Rd.z Ed
≤ ⋅ + M M k N N
As
z
λ ≤ 1 EN199311; Table B.2
k
zy
=
( ) ( )
−
− =
−
−
z Rd, b,
Ed
mLT
2
M1 Rk z
Ed
mLT
2
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
25 , 0
1 , 0
1
N
N
C N
N
C
z z
λ
γ χ
λ
ψ = 1
C
mLT
= 0,6 + 0,4 1 1 = ⋅ EN199311; Table B.3
k
zy
= 0.98
0 . 1 99 . 0 599 8 . 577 98 . 0 2084 5 . 119 ≤ = × + ∴ Acceptable.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 94 OF 98
General design procedure according o BS 59501: 2000:
BS 59501: 2000
1. Select steel grade and trial sections
2. Check inplane stability of frame (λ
p
≥ λ
r
) using:
• Sway check method, or
• Amplified moments method, or
• Secondorder analysis
Cl. 5.5.3
Cl. 5.5.4.1
Cl. 5.5.4.4
Cl. 5.5.4.5
3. Check outofplane stability of frame Cl. 5.5.1
4. Check inplane stability of members Cl. 5.2.3.1
5. Check outofplane stability of members
Determine limiting segment length for:
(a) Segment adjacent to plastic hinge (L
m
)
(b) Member or segment with one flange restrained (L
s
) using:
– Simple method, or
– Annex G approach
Cl. 5.3.1
Cl. 5.3.3
Cl. 5.3.4
Annex G.3
6. Check deflections Table 8
7. Design connections and bases to transmit forces and moments.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 95 OF 98
ANNEX A: Characteristic values of internal forces
Characteristic values of internal forces due to the particular load cases determined by first order analysis, see load scheme in Figure 2.
Figure 3: Characteristic internal forces due to dead load incl. profiles
Figure 4: Characteristic internal forces due to snow load
Figure 5: Characteristic internal forces due to wind load
Figure 6: Characteristic internal forces due to sway imperfection
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 96 OF 98
ANNEX B: Plastic failure of portal frame
Plastic failure of a portal frame subject to uniformly distributed loading may be analysed by considering the development of either: pairs of
plastic hinges in the rafters, or a plastic hinge in the rafter and also at the top of the column.
For the first case, the positions of the plastic hinges occur at the tip of the haunch, at distance a into the span, and at a variable position x from
the apex (see Figure 3(a)). For the second case, the plastic hinge occurs in the column below the haunch and at position x from the apex.
Equilibrium can be established for each plastic hinge position in terms of the horizontal reaction R at the base of the column, the applied
loading and the plastic resistance of the rafter (beam), as illustrated in Figure 3(b). These equilibrium equations can be solved to establish the
minimum value of the load w, at failure. A plastic hinge will form in the column for lowrise long span portal frames.
Figure 3: Plastic hinge mechanisms in portal frame
Case 1: Plastic hinges in rafters
Equilibrium is established at the plastic hinge positions, according to:
At point A:
R(H + a tan θ) =
pl
2
2 2
M
wa wLa
+ −
At point B:
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 97 OF 98
R(H + (0.5L – x) tan θ) =
pl
2
2 2 2 2
M x
L w
x
L wL
−


.

\

− −


.

\

−
Solving these two equations by eliminating the reaction R leads to the following relationship between the applied moment and bending
resistance of the rafter.
( )   θ
θ
tan 5 . 0 2
tan
2
4 4 4
1
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
x a L H
L
a
L
a
x
L
H
L
x
L
a
L
a
wL
M
pl
− + +


.

\

−


.

\

− +


.

\

− + −
=
where w is the load per unit length applied to the rafter
and M
pl
is the plastic bending resistance of the rafter
L is the span of the portal frame
H is the column length
a is the length of the haunch
θ is the slope of the rafter
This unique equation is a function of x, which can be solved by selecting different values of x and establishing the minimum value of w (or
maximum value of M
pl
). The term in brackets represents the deviation from the free bending moment, wL
2
/8.
Example: L = 25 m θ = 15° a = 2 m H = 7.5 m
Try x = 3 m and x/L = 0.12:
( ) ( )( )  
( )   27 . 0 3 2 5 . 12 5 . 7 2
27 . 0 08 . 0 08 . 0 3 5 . 12 5 . 7 12 . 0 4 08 . 0 4 08 . 0 4 1
8
2 2 2 2
pl
× − + + ×
× − − + × × − × + × −
=
wL
M
= 0.28 (wL
2
/8)
Try x = 1 m and x/L = 0.04:
M
pl
= 0.27(wL
2
/8)
This shows that there is a relatively small variation in M
pl
for different values of x, and it may be found that x ≈ 2 m. The horizontal reaction R is
established from the previous equations, and for this value of x is given by:
R = 0.45 (wL/2)
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
PAGE 98 OF 98
Case 2: Plastic hinges at top of column and the rafter
A plastic hinge may occur at the top of the column below the haunch in which case, equilibrium is established from:
R(H –b) = M
pl,col
where
b is the depth of the haunch
M
pl,col
is the plastic bending resistance of the column
The equation for equilibrium at point B in the rafter is the same as the previous case. Solving the two equations leads to the following
relationship between the applied moment and the bending resistances of the rafter and column:
( )


.

\

− =
−


.

\


.

\

− +
+
2
2 2
,
4
1
8
tan
2
L
x wL
b H
x
L
H
M M
col pl pl
θ
For x/L ≈ 0.08 and b/H = 0.1 and M
pl
= 0.28 ( ) 8 /
2
wL , it follows that M
pl,col
= 0.42 ( ) 8 /
2
wL . Therefore, the bending resistance of the column
should be 51% higher than that of the rafter in order for Case 1 to control. If M
pl,col
< 1.51 M
pl
, then Case 2 will control.
Note:
The analysis provided above is for the vertical loading case only. It does not consider horizontal loads or wind loading which can cause non
symmetrical loading. This approach is satisfactory for BS 5950 however care should be taken when designing using Eurocode 311 as all
load combinations must be taken into account.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME CONTENTS: 1 2
EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 COMPARISON OF THE DESIGNS ...................................................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 FRANCE............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 GERMANY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 SWEDEN............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 UNITED KINGDOM ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3
FRANCE: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO CM66 .........................................................................................................................13
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 CROSSSECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2ND ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 14 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1ST ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSSSECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
4
GERMANY: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO DIN 18800.............................................................................................................27
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 CROSSSECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2ND ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 28 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1ST ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSSSECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
5
SWEDEN: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BSK99 .......................................................................................................................38
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 CROSSSECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2ND ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 39 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1ST ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSSSECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 PAGE 2 OF 98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME
5.5 5.6
EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
6
U.K.: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BS 59501 ...........................................................................................................................50
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 FRAME GEOMETRY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 LOADING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 CALCULATE, αCR, FOR STABILITY............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 54 COLUMN DESIGN: IPE 600 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 RAFTER DESIGN: IPE 400 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67 HAUNCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
ANNEX A: CHARACTERISTIC VALUES OF INTERNAL FORCES ...............................................................................................................................95 ANNEX B: PLASTIC FAILURE OF PORTAL FRAME.......................................................................................................................................................96
PAGE 3 OF 98
Column bases are pinned as no increased horizontal stiffness. for cranes. Haunches are used for the eaves by providing additional hotrolled sections welded onto the bottom flange of the rafter.g. Frame span is 30m and eaves height 5m. The eaves connection as well as the apex is typically bolted and assumed rigid for this example. The calculation is performed for a typical portal frame structure in Europe as shown in Figure 1. has to be provided.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 1 Introduction: The typical structure of a singlestorey hall in most countries in Europe is the portal frame. Figure 1: Sketch of the treated portal frame structure PAGE 4 OF 98 . The frame uses hot rolled Isections of steel grade S235 for the rafter and columns. which are typical dimensions for small and medium sized industrial halls in Europe. to Eurocode 3 (EN 199311) and the national standard of the respective country. e. This document provides a comparison of the calculation methods acc. so that effects of rotations in the connections do not have to be taken into account.
For this calculation method ANNEX B describes the design for plastic failure of portal frames in general. Alternatively in the U. whereas in the right column the respective national standard is covered. determined elastically for the unfactored loads. the calculation is divided into the same subchapters for both standards. the structure of the calculation is kept similar for both designs. In the following Figure 2 the load scheme as well as the characteristic loads is shown. i. PAGE 5 OF 98 . separated by the individual load cases. Where possible. In addition to that the bottom flange of the haunch is assumed lateral restrained..e. For the used equations and values references to the respective chapter in EN 199311 and the respective national code are given. where allowed by the section classes.K.0m. and then compared to the plastic resistances of the sections. For this case in this example it is assumed that the sheeting provides sufficient stiffness to avoid lateral torsional buckling of the rafter section. Due to the current practice in the U. The resulting internal forces are given in the respective chapters for the individual countries. Therefore ANNEX A provides the internal forces.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Frame spacing is 5.K.K. The left column in the tables below contains the calculation according to Eurocode 3. a plastic method of global analysis of EN 199311 is compared to the national code. calculation rafters are provided to show the effect of single lateral and torsional restraints on lateral torsional buckling of the frame. except the U. for singlestorey portal frames usually elastic design for the actions is performed. Figure 2: Load scheme and characteristic loads In all European countries covered by the project. which allows the profile sheeting to span between the frames directly.
plastic design with corrective factors on formula originally set for elastic design. so that similarities and differences can be found out at first sight. In 1980 "Additif 80" was published with limited guidance for plastic design. Design of members: Structural analysis: In additive 80 the second effect order is taken in count with a critical factor. 2 Comparison of the designs This chapter summarises the main similarities and/or differences in the design of portal frames according to EN199311 and the respective national standard. The use of both codes conducts to hybrid design situations. The code takes count of this situation and gives guidance to check in both situation from point to point. There are NO safety factors on material. Safety factors: CM66 set safety factors on the loads.1 FRANCE General issues: CM66 "Constructions Métalliques – 1966" is quite an old code drafted in the mid60's. In that time it was considered as a very first step to plastic design. Load combinations: Load combinations are not the same than Eurocode. safety factor are directly introduced in the formula but not really showed as. It follows the admissible stress design approach and does not inform for plastic design. For detailed comparison see relevant chapter in the design tables below. Additif 80 introduces plastic inches. A "distance factor" is required. PAGE 6 OF 98 . They are quite the same as Eurocode. Usually the designer makes his decision before starting to design "CM66. Formula of additive 80 and Eurocode show differences but the final results appear to be in a relative close range. Loads are weighted depending of the combinations. When needed as for example for buckling phenomenon's. The control is made by comparison between the loaded situation and the situation when the collapse occurs.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD This ensures a quick comparison of the calculation procedure for the portal frame. 2. the ULS and SLS approach in design. pure elastic design" or "CM66 + Additif 80". not fully admissible stress and not fully plastic approach. both on the plastic analysis and members check aspect.
4. only slight differences in indices.5.95 (purely fixed would be 1. Buckling check: Additif 80 allows to consider a pinned column base with a rigidity factor of 0. Additif 80 uses k factors which are always greater than 1.2 GERMANY General issues: Generally almost the same design of portal frames. For Eurocode.1.05 (0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Buckling: When checking buckling with interaction between forces.1 of Eurocode between European countries. In France we still use the approach as expressed in the ENV and NAD document version of Eurocode 3.1. PAGE 7 OF 98 .0. provisions should be introduced in the national annex or in the tender document. Section class: There is no section class in CM66 but from clause to clause the code gives provisions to limit the slenderness ratio of the elements or make the step to design accounting for local buckling check. Design of joints and constructive issues: All joint designs are quite different and there is too much to say in a short description.00). SLS: CM66 requires complying with vertical deflexion limits. local buckling check shall be made. Almost the same usage of terms and symbols. If this condition is not met. differences only in details. 2. Buckling length: There is an important gap of interpretation in clause 3. Additif 80 always require k>1. It does not require complying with horizontal displacement limits. χ factors are not concerned by this remark. decreasing the effect of the related force are accepted (see § 5.00 if purely pinned) taking into account a relative limited restrain at the considered base (a joint is never absolutely pinned) and at the opposite consideration a purely fixed base with a rigidity factor of 0. the buckling length may be limited to the real geometrical length of the element. The current drafts of Eurocodes do not require any limits. Specific limits are given for the slenderness ratio: as an example. It appears in calculation with Eurocode that k factors lower than 1. Nearly comparable amount of effort in design of portal frames. section webs for plastic check are limited as: 235 b < 42 tf σe . In the current draft of Eurocode3 there is no direct provision on this calculation.). increasing the influence of the related force. CM66 + additive 80 provide a direct calculation method for Ncr for longitudinal and transversal buckling and Mcr for lateral torsional buckling.2.2. The following approach is used: When αcr is greater than 10.
Safety factor on material reduced from γM = 1. EN 199311 provides another method for the interaction between shear and axial stress of members. The Swedish design method includes safety classes and this will be retained when we apply the Eurocodes. The technical content in EN 199311 is quite similar to that of BSK.3 SWEDEN EN 199311 contains much more detailed information and more complete rules for design of steel structures than BSK. EN 199318 provides a design method for structural bolted joints using custom dimensions and gives the normative possibility of considering the effect of semirigid joints on the global structure. The Swedish Class 2 is split into two classes. DIN18800 and EN199311. small differences in equations.83. which leads to ultimate loads being significantly higher. 2. The safety factor in EN 1993 is moved from the resistance to the loads compared to BSK. the more effort in design. The more detailed the methods. The classification of crosssections is extended to four instead of three classes in BSK. as well as simplified methods.0 in EN 199311 (general part) currently. Design of joints and constructive issues: Basically the same design procedure for bolted and welded joints.g. They are based on the same semiprobabilistic safetyconcept and the differences are mainly in details. Both.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Same semiprobabilistic safetyconcept as DIN 18800. provide similar constructive specifications for the consideration of sheeting and or purlins for lateral torsional buckling. 2nd order effects. Design of members: Basically the same design procedure. e. PAGE 8 OF 98 . but National Annex not available yet. Class 2 and 3 in EN 199311. only load combinations in EN 199311 are more detailed.1 in DIN 18800 to γMi = 1. the design loads are reduced with a factor 0. small differences in details. In the lowest safety class. Both give the opportunity to use detailed calculations for the structure. applicable for members that are unlikely to harm people if failing.
In addition.. ‘Plastic’ design produces the lightest and hence the most economical form for a portal frame when using hot rolled sections. The calculations needed are extensive compared to BSK. Haunches provide for an economical bolted connection between the rafter and the column.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD There is one additional buckling curve in EN 199311 that is valid for highstrength steel. The other curves are the same except for very slender bars where EN 199311 gives 10 % higher values. For axial force and bending moment EN 199311 gives two different possibilities where Method 1 is chosen in the Swedish National Annex. in many members. it is essential that Class 1 plastic sections are selected at hinge positions that rotate. because of the large strains at the hinge positions. Failure is deemed to have taken place when sufficient hinges have formed to create a mechanism. Both inplane and outofplane stability of both the frame as a whole and the individual members must be considered. PAGE 9 OF 98 . the axial force is so small compared with the bending moment that the classification is not affected. However.e. 2. For lateral torsional buckling the differences in buckling curves are insignificant with the choice done in the Swedish NA. single storey portals frames are almost always designed using ‘plastic’ design techniques. Purlins and side rails are used to provide intermediate lateral restraint to the rafters and columns and support the roofing and wall sheeting. Onset of plasticity normally occurs at loads well above those at the serviceability limit state and the plastic rotations are small. and sometimes it is easier to include second order effects to avoid this interaction.4 UNITED KINGDOM Plastic analysis assumes that plastic hinges occur at points in the frame where the value of the applied moment is equal to the plastic moment capacity of the member provided. it is essential that local buckling and lateral distortion are also checked. However. In the UK. Small differences in the use of terms and symbols. Class 2 compact sections can be used elsewhere. The effect of axial load on the classification of members should be considered. proportioned) to prevent plastic hinges forming within their length. ‘Plastic’ design methods result in relatively slender frames and checking frame stability is a basic requirement of the method. For ‘plastic’ designed portal frames in order to prevent local buckling. haunches should be designed (i.
especially the size of the rafter. This can be by a preliminary frame analysis (which is necessary for all but the simplest buildings) or by a suitable approximation. load combinations. However. determine loads. structural cladding on its own cannot provide torsional restraint to the frame members. Calculate frame imperfection equivalent forces. e. The haunch length should be chosen to optimise the overall portal structure. Choose trial sections and trial haunch lengths by selecting beam sections that have resistances at least equal to the following: Rafter Mpl = wL2/24 Haunch Mpl = wL2/10 Column Mpl = wL2/12 x (height to bottom of haunch / height to centre of rafter) where w is the maximum ULS gravity load/unit length along the span and L is the span of the portal. Design of a portal frame can be undertaken using BS 5950 by elastic or ‘plastic’ design techniques. 4. 1. secondorder analysis only. but the proportions of the haunch generally depend of the characteristics of each individual building. For plastic design of portal frames using EC311 the following procedure is suggested. 2. γ factors and ψ factors. 3. Elastic design is a common design method in all countries. More detailed information can be obtained from SCI Publication P164 Design of steel portal frames for Europe Chapter 17 Design procedures. ‘plastic’ design may be accepted with reluctance and with onerous requirements for stability or for analysis methods. A length of L / 10 from the column face is a reasonable initial choice. Perform plastic analysis of the frame assuming: PAGE 10 OF 98 . A haunch length of L / 10 will normally place the first hinge in the top of the column. Define frame geometry. ‘Elastic’ design is used in the UK where deflection is the governing criteria. This is because for ‘plastic’ design.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Structural cladding or decking (cladding that spans between frames and where no purlins or side rails are present) is not typically used in the UK. ‘Elastic’ design is recommended for the design of tied portal frames. A rather longer haunch will place the first hinge at the sharp end of the haunch. thereby increasing costs. Extra restraint steel has to be provided to the bottom/inner flange of the rafter/column.g.
) No reduction in plastic moment of resistance from coexistent axial and shear forces. If (accurate VSd / Vcr) > (trial VSd / Vcr) or if a more refined design is required. return to Step 4.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate. 8.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate. before checking the buckling resistance. Note: For relatively slender frames.12 unless a better estimate is possible. d. where axial loads are high.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate. b. For the columns check that: a. in portals with steep slopes and in portals with heavy roofing loads. Calculate an accurate value of VSd / Vcr. there will be no destabilisation of the frame and VSd / Vcr can be taken as zero. 5. d. the members might be subject to axial tension.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate. but checking at several cross sections within the length of the haunch (both ends.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD a. PAGE 11 OF 98 . In this case.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate. quarter. it is often wise to check the deflections at the serviceability limit state (SLS). b. 7. b. For the haunches check that: a. midspan and three quarter points) is recommended. Note that in uplift cases.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate. in tied portals. 9. 6. This approach may need modifying. e.g.) A trial value of VSd / Vcr = 0.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate. c. b. For the rafters check that: a. c.) Resistance of member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate. as step 7b above.
) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate. 11. d. More detailed information can be obtained from SCI Publication P325 Introduction to Steelwork Design to BS 59501:2000 Chapter 12 Plastic design of portal frames. 10. PAGE 12 OF 98 . 12.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate. A summary of the ‘plastic’ design procedure using British Standard BS 5950 Part 1 : 2000 is given annexed to the British calculation in § 6 . but giving special attention to the effect of the taper. Check the restraints. Check the connections. Check web buckling resistance to shear and transverse forces. but giving special attention to the effect of the taper.
20kNm (Add.58 × A w × σ e = 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 3 3.6mm. tw = 12mm.y = 3520cm³ Iω = 2846000cm6.5 (2)) M p = Zσ e = 3520 × 235 / 1000 = 827.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 1985. y.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 3666 kN 4 4 σe = 235N/mm² b = 220mm.2.2. tf = 13.1cm Npl. Iy = 1320cm . γM0 = γM1 = 1. Iz = 3390cm . tf = 13.6 = 3208mm 2 V py = 0. 6. 6.1) fy = 235N/mm². tw = 12mm.Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 1137 kN (EC3.5mm.6 (3)) (Add.4) Mpl. Iy = 23130cm .2) Vpl. tf = 19mm.6 (3)) (Add.5cm² .z.80kN Aw = 373 × 8.5mm. Wpl. h = 400mm. Zx = 1308cm³ J = 51.1. 6.6mm.5cm² .z. h = 600mm.2. IT = 165cm4 Npl.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235) (EC3.58 Awσ e = 0.3 (2)) N p = Aeff ⋅ σ e = 3666 kN Aw = 562 × 12 = 6744 Vpy = 0. r = 24mm A = 156cm² . 6.2. r = 21mm A = 84.80 § 4.7 kN 6 4 4 4 σe = 235 N/mm2 b = 180mm.80 § 4.80 § 4.y = 1308cm³ Iω = 490000cm . 6.Rd = Wpl.58 × 3208 × 235 / 1000 = 437 kN (Add. h = 600mm.1.3 (2)) N p = Aeff ⋅ σ e = 8450 × 235 / 1000 = 1985. γM0 = γM1 = 1. tw = 8. tf = 19mm.0 b = 180mm. r = 21mm A = 84.4) PAGE 13 OF 98 .Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ (EC3. h = 400mm. Ix = 23130cm .2) Vpl. Wpl.58 × 6744 × 235 / 1000 = 919kN (Add.3) 3.80 § 4. y ⋅ fy γ M0 = 827.80 § 4.1cm4 4 4 (EC3. 6. Ix = 92080cm4 . r = 24mm A = 156cm² .1) fy = 235N/mm². 6. Iy = 3390cm4 . IT = 51.8 kN fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 579.2 kNm (EC3. Iy = 92080cm .1 France: Calculation procedure compared to CM66 EN 199311 Règles CM66 + Additif 80 Crosssectional properties Column: IPE 600 (S235) (EC3.2. Zx = 3520cm³ J = 165cm4 (EC3.0 b = 220mm.1 3. Iz = 1320cm . tw = 8.
Ix = 134868cm4 .8 kN (EC3.2.3) 3. 6.2. IPE 400 + Aw. tw = 8. 6. r = 21mm (EC3. 6.3) = 921.z.80 § 4.2.5(16)mm. tw = 8.1 (4)) Second order effects do not have to be considered if: αcr > 5 αp ≥ ( Add. r = 21mm A = 159.102 (determined at the top of column) 1 1 1− 1− α cr 10.Rd = 579.79 → First order analysis sufficient PAGE 14 OF 98 αcr = 10. γM0 = γM1 = 1.7 + A w.7cm4 Npl.1.6 kN 4 4 σe = 235N/mm² b = 180(200)mm.5(16)mm. h = 820mm.0 A = 159.6 (3)) V py = 0. y ⋅ fy γ M0 = 307.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) (EC3.2. IPE 500 = 3208 + 4774 = 7982mm 2 (Add.80. Wpl.6(10.4 27.0 6000 = ⋅ = 25.1) fy = 235N/mm².2) Vpl. IT = 101.39 > = = 1.79 > 5 .Ed (EC3.7cm³ J = 101.2 Check.9 ≥ 15 → First order analysis sufficient 270. Zx = 3920.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 3750. Iz = 2390cm .70 × 235 / 1000 = 921.40kNm (Add.6 kN Aw = Aw.58 × 7982 × 235 / 1000 = 1088kN M px = Z x ⋅ σ e = 3920. y.4 α cr with αcr = force amplification factor for elastic critical buckling αp = force amplification factor for collapse mechanism (determined by computer analysis) 1 1 αp min = 1. § 7) 1 1− 1 With HEd = design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads VEd = total design vertical loads δH.4) (Add.2)mm.Rd = Wpl. 6.5 (2)) 3.y = 3920.4 kNm EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD (EC3.80 § 4. Iy = 134868cm .6(10.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Mpl. tf = 13.2.7cm³ Iω = 2694000cm6. 6.3 (2)) N p = Aeff ⋅ σ e = 15960 × 235 / 1000 = 3750. h = 820mm.y. if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2nd order effects) Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied: α cr H h ≤ 15 ( for plastic analysis) = Ed ⋅ V Ed δH.y ⋅ fy γ M0 fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 1277.80 § 4.Ed = horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads h = storey height α cr 32.2)mm.Rd = Wpl.4 kNm (EC3.58 × Aw × σ e = 0.5 (2)) M px = Z x ⋅ σ e = 1308 × 235 / 1000 = 307.40 kNm (Add. tf = 13.6cm² . 5. Iy = 2390cm4 .7cm4 b = 180(200)mm.6cm² .IPE500 ⋅ Mpl.80 § 4.
4.33 ⋅ E deadload + 1. .41) LC 1: LC 2: LC 3: LC 4: LC 5: LC 6: 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof.5 ⋅ Esnow DECISIVE ! 1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 3.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1. 6. to 1st order theory EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Loading combinations: Loading combinations acc.6 ⋅ E wind + E Im p .5 ⋅ Esnow + 1.5 ⋅ Esnow + 1.3 Internal forces acc.33 ⋅ Edeadload + 1. to EN 1990.5 ⋅ E wind + 1.42 ⋅ Ewind 1 ⋅ Edeadload + 1. 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p (Add.5 ⋅ E snow + 15 ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 0.42 × 0.5 ⋅ E wind 1.67 × 0.2 (3) and Annex A: LC 1: LC 2: LC 3: LC 4: 1.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.75 ⋅ Ewind 1 ⋅ Edeadload + 1.75 ⋅ Ewind PAGE 15 OF 98 1.3.67 ⋅ Esnow 1 ⋅ Edeadload + 1.80 § 3.33 ⋅ Edeadload + 1.
585 c/t = (4002⋅13.2) − 0.2) ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (180/28.2) b/tf = 180/13.18 = 46.5 = 13.19 N A 6744 = −0. IPE 400 see above) PAGE 16 OF 98 .75 × = −0.3 Flange: Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) Flange: element in compression (IPE 500 only.80 § 5.6 = 38.43 A 15600 Np 3666 A 15600 ⇒ hw 100 A N 235 = 64.5471) = 64.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 3.4.79 < 9 → class 1 (Add.8 → class 1 (EC3. table 5.38 A 8450 N p 1985.2) ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4.80 § 5. table 5. table 5.2 Flange: Rafter: IPE 400 (S235) Non plate buckling conditions? (EC3.4.5 < 396 / (13 ⋅ 0.4 3.054 ≤ w = = 0.33 < 20 235 σe = 20 OK Partially or totally compressed Web: If: (with N > 0 for traction) − 0.0 → class 1 (EC3.4 ≤ 67 + = 62.6/2–21) / 13.037 ≤ w = = 0.21 < 9 → class 1 (Add.28 ≤ = = −0.75 Aw 3208 N − 108 A 3208 = −0.83 < 396 / (13 ⋅ 0.1) Compressed flange: b/tf = 220/19 = 11.4.32 ≤ = = −0. IPE 400 see above) ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only.5851) = 60.52⋅21) / 8.75 × = −0.547 c/t = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42. table 5.1 Flange: EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Classification of crosssections (local buckling check) Column: IPE 600 (S235) Non plate buckling conditions? (EC3.2 tw 3 Aw N p σ e OK 3.75 Aw 6744 − 134.8 ≤ 67 + tw 3 Aw N p σ e OK 3.58 < 20 Partially or totally compressed Web? If: (with N > 0 for traction) 235 σe = 20 OK Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0.1) Compressed flange Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0.8 A 8450 ⇒ hw 100 A N 235 = 43.5 = 4.
1 3.1 = 0. 6.Ed = 606.5 kN .62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3.Ed Vpl.9 ≤ 67 + 100 A N 235 = 65 tw 10.75 × = −0. N = 125. My.2) EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 235 b/tf = 200/16 = 12. table 5.2.5 < 20 Web: σe = 20 OK (Add. 6.2) Section for eaves haunch is class 2section.0 → shear resistance Vpl.1 kN .Rd = 101.2/2–21) / 16 = 4.5kN.1.50 A 15960 N p 3750.75 Aw 7982 N − 111.1 Ultimate limit states Column IPE600 (S235) Resistance of crosssection Check for shear force Check if the shear force shall also be included in the checking for axial force and bending moment? (EC3.6 (1)) (EC3.2.8 (2)) Check < 0.6 (6)) Internal shear force: Vz. − 0.5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3.2. table 5.z.60 A 15960 ⇒ hw = 468 = 45.z.25 kNm Internal forces: NEd = 135.1.4 (3)) Internal forces: Vy = 99.5.80 § 5.2 = 37. therefore the internal forces have to be determined elastically.1.2 3 Aw N p σ e OK 3.38 ≤ = = −0.Rd (EC3.5. 6.1.8 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered PAGE 17 OF 98 .2.089 < 1.1kN Check for shear buckling: hw 514 ε 1 = = 42.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME (200/210. Mx = 594.Ed = 101. 6.5 A 7982 = −0.030 ≤ w = = 0.5.1.1) Web: IPE 400part: in tension Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t = (4201621) / 10.5.8 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 12 η 1 → No shear buckling Vz.2 Check for axial force and bending moment (EC3.5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3.0 1137.5 3. but plastic resistances can be activated.1 3.
048 Additive 80 of CM66 allows to considered that the base of column is not perfectly pinned: ⇒ KB = 0.2 (1)) Rolled section.1. 6.18 3666 Np → no interaction between N and My M y.0 kN 3666. 6.0 827.034 < 0.0 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD (EC3.134) (Considering that the columns are pinned at their bases: ⇒ KB = 0) Ib 23130 771 b A 30 = = = 0.5 (1)) 0≤ 0≤ Vy V py + 0. 6.y = π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 3708 2 2 Flexural buckling length: Flexural buckling length: From computer analysis (with αcr = 10.4 × 0.2 Mx = 594.41 m (close from Eurocode results) Hand checking using the proposed method of CM66 “Rigidity factor KAKB method" Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1388.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME NEd 125.61) Check < 0.87m 0.2 3. 6.25 and  NEd  < 0.324 LKx = 1.0 = 1.35 = = 0.734 < 1.1.y = 37.9.048 KA = 23130 92080 771 + 15347 Ib Ic + ∑ L + ∑ L 30 6 b A c A ∑ L LKx = 1.5 = = 0.2.3. table 6.Rd 3666.2.Rd = 606.4 K A L KA (CM 66 § 5.2.05 PAGE 18 OF 98 .08m (determinable by literature) N cr.0 (EC3.4 (1)) If : And ⇒ (EC3.6 3666 N p 919 (Add.1 124.y.98L = 35.1.3.2.35 N = + 0.80 § 4.6 + 2. 6.2 × = 0.625 1388. tf < 40mm → buckling curve a Reduction value: χy = 0.048 L = 5.8 = 0.0 Npl.1 Buckling resistance of member In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis) Lcr.Ed Mpl.1 (4)) N 124.79): ⇒ LKx = 36. h/b >1.1.2 (1)) (EC3.7 kN (EC3.2) (EC3.6 + 2.2 × 99.20 kNm 3.25 kNm ≤ Mpx = 827.034 < 1.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 = 850.5.115 < 0.5.2.
tf < 40mm → buckling curve b Reduction value: χz = 0.76 235 = × = 1.1. we use the buckling length determined by the computer analysis λx = ⇒ LKx 36410 = = 149.2. 6.048L = 24.25 Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311.z = 6.31) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ z = = 1951.33) 1.7 kN λy = ⇒ LKy 6000 = = 128.35 + 1.31) λx = λx σ e 149.84 ix 243 (Add.371 1951.595 3.048 L = 4.80 § 5.2 (1)) λy = Rolled section.80 § 5.048 To keep comparison with National Standard.3.00m (lateral restraints at endings) (Add.1.595 π E π 210000 3. Annex F: PAGE 19 OF 98 .0 = 1.00m (lateral restraints at endings) N cr.04 + K A EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD LKx = LKx = (Add.35 + 1.7 (EC3. h/b >1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 1. 6.5.84 235 = × = 1.80 § 5.2.2) + λ ) 2 − 4λ ⇒ Table B gives values for I sections λ max = λx = 1.1.76 iy 46.2) + λ − (1 + α (λ − 0. table 6.371 210000 π E π 2λ 2 2 2 2 k0 = 1 + α (λ − 0.1.6 3666.395 λ y σ e 128.3.92 K A L 0.92 × 0.3 Lateral torsional buckling Elastic critical moment k0 = 3.5.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) Lcr.04 + 0.29m 0.2 (1)) (EC3.2) (EC3.z = π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 600 2 2 Flexural buckling length: Flexural buckling length: Lcr.z = 6.2.
3 (1)) (EC3. Mx = 594.Rd (EC3. kzy = 0. table B.3 (3)) M D = C1 ⋅ π 2 ⋅ EI y h* 2 LD 2 JG 2 LD ⋅ ς+ EI y πh* 2 (Add.2.046 > Cmy 1 + 0.9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3.mod = χ LT 0.88 (triangular moment diagram) h* = H .8 kNm No second order analysis.2.3.32) ( ) Cmx = 1 (sway portal frame) N 134. Annex F.00 m ς = 1 (I section) C1 = 1. table 6. 6.1 / 10 210000 × 3390.6 Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3. Annex B.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 1 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD M cr π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z I ω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T 2 = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 = 1431.LT = 0.25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl.5) (EC3.104 1 − 1.3 (4)) (EC3.3 applicable Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c Reduction value: Modified reduction value χLT = 0.2 χ y ⋅ NRd χ y ⋅ NRd NEd 0.2.037 N p 3666 λ x = 1.2 = 0.3 (2)) LD = 6.8 kNm L2 Iz π ⋅ E ⋅ Iz (ENV 199311.5952 × 0.5. Annex B.0 χ y ⋅ Npl. Annex B.789 χ LT.tf = 600 – 19 = 581 mm Rolled section → chapter 6. uniform member with doublesymmetric section → stability check with interaction factors (EC3.2 (1)) (EC3. (6.61)) PAGE 20 OF 98 .Rd NEd 0.LT − 0. 6.914 < 1.22) Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ LT = 827.y.2 kN.2 NEd = 1.76 1431.4 Interaction for compression force and bending Internal forces: N = 134. table B.1.5kN.982 k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0.901 f 0.Ed = 606.1 = 0. 6.3 (1)) Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B Equivalent uniform moment values: Cmy = 0.3.80 § 5.973 k0 N k fx M x + ≤1 N p k D M px Cmx 1− λx 2 (Add. My. eq.88 ⋅ π 2 ⋅ 210000 × 3390.3 (1)) (EC3.114 + 0.10 4 × 81000 2 × 6000 6 .3.876 M D = 1.3) Cm.80 § 5.32) k fx = N Np (Add. table B.037 → kyy = 0.Ed NEd + k yy ⋅ = 0.3.973 Check for compression force and bending: My.25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl.595 k fx = 1 = 1. 1. 6.2.3.8 NEd = 0.10 4 × 581 2 × 6000 2 ⋅ 1+ 165. 6.2) (EC3.mod ⋅ Mpl. 6.8 (EC3.963 < 1 − (C m.800 = 0.1 ⋅ λ z k zy = 1 − (C m.3.2.Rd = 0.80 § 5.2 = = 0.25 kNm Internal forces: NEd = 135.982.2.Rd χLT.10 4 π × 581 2 M D = 1434kNm 3.3.LT − 0.789 = = 0.
Ed = 80.2 Check for axial force and bending moment (EC3.6 (1)) (EC3.5.1.z.y.62)) 1 M 1+ p M D n (Add.20 N p k D M px (Add.Ed Vpl.5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3.5.2.Rd = 80.22) n = 2 (hot rolled section) kD = 1 827.036 ≅ 1 0.6 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered PAGE 21 OF 98 .0 χ z ⋅ Npl. Mx = 208 kNm Internal forces: NEd = 108. (6.2.104 594.2 3.5.0 579.1 = 0.1.80 § 5.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME M y.6 (6)) Internal shear force: Vz.Rd (EC3.792 = 0.25 N k fx M x + = 3. N = 107.8 (2)) Check < 0.2.094 + 0.2. 6.2.4 (3)) Internal forces: Vy = 79.1 Rafter IPE 400 (S235) 1.7 → shear resistance Vpl.Rd EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD kD = n (EC3.32) Resistance of cross section Check for shear force Check if the shear force shall be included in the checking for axial force and bending moment.Ed NEd + k zy ⋅ = 0. 6.1kN Check for shear buckling: hw 331 ε 1 = = 38.138 < 1.2.886 < 1.87 kN .mod ⋅ Mpl.5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 8.Rd χ LT.25 × 0.6 η 1 → No shear buckling Vz.80 § 5.z.2. (EC3.7kN.20 2 1+ 1434 2 = 0. 6.Ed = 216.866 k0 3. 6.5.1 3.866 827. My.2 kN .037 + × = 1. eq.
h/b >1.2 LKx 12140 = = 73.2.3.1 Buckling resistance of member In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis) Ncr. a buckling analysis is performed to calculate the buckling amplification factor αcr for the load combination giving the highest vertical load. 6.2.61) N 107.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 = 482. 6.40 165. 6. PrEN 199311 provides formulas for this check in Annexes BB.1 and BB.2.Rd = 216.2) (EC3.2.2.5.80 § 5.055 < 1.4 Mx = 208 kNm ≤ Mpx = 307. 6.80 → no interaction between N and My M y.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME NEd 108. that the roof is made of profile sheeting providing sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints.18 N p 1985.5 ix 235 λx σ e 73.8 = 1.1.705 < 1.2.1 (4)) If : And ⇒ 0≤ 0≤ + 0.6 1985.054 < 0.87 N = + 0.5.y.2. → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χz = χLT = 1.3 Interaction for compression force and bending PAGE 22 OF 98 .2 × = 0.2 × (Add.40 = × = 0.25 and  NEd  < 0.8 kN EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Vy V py 79.14m (from computer analysis) λx = λx = 3.7 = = 0. 6.5 (1)) 3.781 210000 π E π (Add.7 Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = (EC3. table 6.2.2 (1)) (EC3.5.0 Npl.9.5.87 = = 0.40 kNm (EC3.Rd 1985.7kN (from computer analysis) 1985.x = 3250 kN ⇒ LKx = 12. (cf. tf < 40mm → buckling curve a Reduction value: χy = 0.80 N p 437 (EC3.2 107.2.2.192 < 0. that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. with a lateral restrain at top of column: ⇒ Ncr.2.Ed Mpl.2 3.6 = 0.3.31) Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) and lateral torsional buckling For this example it is assumed.4 (1)) (EC3.8 Check < 0. check with EN 199311) For this example it is assumed.2 (1)) Rolled section.2.2.1.336 1117.80 § 4.2.0) 3.0 307.y = 1117.451 Flexural buckling length: For the determination of the buckling length along xx.
2 χ y ⋅ NRd χ y ⋅ NRd → kyy = 0.054 (Add.Rd EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Internal forces: Vy = 79.7kN.80 λ x = 0.3 3.034 208 + = 1.034 1 − 0.5.1.32) kD = 1 k0 3.Sd = 216.2) + λ ) 2 − 4λ ⇒ (Add.3 (1)) Cmy = 0.5kN Check if the shear force shall be included in checking for axial force and bending Internal shear force: PAGE 23 OF 98 .9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3.3) Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3.80 § 5. Annex B.35 × 0.771 < 1 OK N p k D M px 1 307.781 k0 k fx = k0 = 1.987.7812 × 0. 6.61)) χ y ⋅ Npl.y.5.22) (Add.987 k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0.mod ⋅ Mpl.80 § 5.32) 2 x N 1− λ Np Cmx Cmx = 1 (sway portal frame) N 107.3.054 + × = 0.Rd χLT. 6. table B.818 < 1.Ed NEd + k yy ⋅ = 0.054 N p 1985.80 § 5. eq. N = 107.3. Annex B. My.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Internal forces: NSd = 108. Mx = 208 kNm k0 = 2λ 2 2 2 2 1 + α (λ − 0.1 NEd = 1. (6. kzy = 0 (no out of plane failure) Check for compression force and bending: (EC3.3.87 kN .35 N k fx M x + ≤1 N p k D M px (Add.1 3.781 k fx = 1 = 1.3.2 kN .695 = 0.3 (4)) My.5.1 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) N k fx M x 1.2) + λ − (1 + α (λ − 0.Ed = 114. table B.8 NEd = 0.123 + 0.80 § 5.024 > Cmy 1 + 0.87 = = 0. uniform member with doublesymmetric section → stability check with interaction factors (EC3.31) ( ) Table B gives values for I sections λ max = λx = 0.4 Resistance of cross section Check for shear force Vz.6 kNm No second order analysis.0 (EC3.
40 kNm (EC3.2.2 × = 0.60 → no interaction between N and My M y.6 (6)) → No shear buckling Vz.46 kN . For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch.8 → shear resistance Vpl.4 (3)) (EC3.0 Npl.2 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD moment.2. PAGE 24 OF 98 .5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3.z.Ed Vpl.0 1277.4 (1)) = 989. the compressed part of the crosssection is considered isolated composed of the compressed flange and 1/6 of the web with a buckling length along the yyaxis equal to 3.25 kNm ≤ Mpx = 921.Ed = 606.6 1088 3750. where the lower flange is in compression.4 Mx = 594. 6.659 < 1.3kN.5.8 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered NEd 112.80 § 4.090 < 1.y. that lateral restraints are provided.46 = = 0.5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 η 1 tw 10.8 (2)) Check < 0. Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.11 < 0.25 kNm If : 0≤ Vy V py 0≤ + 0.2.70m (length between the top of column and the end of haunch with a torsional restraint).1. Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).6 (1)) (EC3. 6.2 × 111. 6.0 921. (IPE 400) (haunched IPE 500) (EC3.Rd (EC3.3.24 = + 0.25 and  NEd  < 0.18 N p 3750.3. 6.2 Check for axial force and bending moment (EC3.2.46 N 113.z. 6. 6. N = 111.Rd = 606.24 kN . My. 6.03 < 0.Rd = 114.60 Np (Add. Mx = 594.61) (EC3.2.6 (6)) (EC3.2.2.030 < 1.2. for this example it is assumed.5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 8.6 Check < 0.3 = = 0.5 (1)) 3.2 kN Internal forces: NEd = 112.1 (4)) And ⇒ N 111.Ed Mpl.9.5 = 0. 6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Check for shear buckling: hw ε 1 331 = = 38.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 Internal forces: Vy = 113.5.Rd 3750.6 η 1 hw 383 ε 1 = = 37.8 = 0.2 Buckling resistance of member For the verification of the haunch.
f N Rk = 1.98 48.31) λx σ e 75.809 π E π 210000 (Add.80 § 5.103 × 1000 Verification of buckling resistance of the bottom flange: k0 N Ed .54 × 713500 = 1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD y 130 mm x 200 mm Properties of the compressed part: Section at the midlength of the haunch including 1/6th of the web depth A = 45 cm2 Section area Ix = 693 cm4 Second moment of area /xx Second moment of area /yy Iy =1068 cm4 ⇒ iz = 1068 = 4.80 § 5.54 Table C (T section) Compression in the bottom flange: N f = 111.31) k0 = 1.87cm 45 λy = λx = L fz iy = 3700 = 75.50kN 15960 3920.98 235 = × = 0.46 × 4500 594250 × 1000 + × 4500 = 713.7 (Add.039 ≅ 1 4500 × 235 (Add.80 § 5.7.31) PAGE 25 OF 98 .
ux < H/150 for portal frame ux = 19.6.2 (4)) (ENV.2 Horizontal deflection Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19.2 (4)) PAGE 26 OF 98 .6. 4. ( Additif 80 § 6. uy < L/200 for roofs in general.9 mm = H/302 < H/150 Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19.1) Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uy = 132 mm CM66 requires max.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 3.6 3. uz < L/200 for roofs in general.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.1 Serviceability limit states Vertical deflection EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uz = 132mm PrEN 199311 (11. ENV 199311 (1993) gives max.25) uy = 132 mm = L/227 < L/200 3.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.1 and CM66 § 5. ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. table 4. 132mm = L/227 < L/200 (ENV. 4.9mm PrEN 199311 (11.2. uz < H/300 for singlestorey buildings 19.9mm = H/302 < H/300 (ENV.2.9 mm CM66 do not requires any limits for horizontal displacements ENV 199311 DAN requires max.
6.3 (2)) Npl.d = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f ) ⋅ Mpl.2.5cm² . IT = 51.8 kN fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 579.k γM f y.1 b = 180mm.5mm. h = 400mm. Iy = 92080cm4 . γM = 1.1.6 kN Vpl. y. tf = 13.z.6mm.z. h = 600mm. 6.y = 1308cm³ Iω = 490000cm . Wpl.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 3666 kN 4 4 fy. 6.2. γM0 = γM1 = 1. 6. IT = 165cm4 Npl.y = 3520cm³ Iω = 2846000cm6.1 b = 220mm.1cm Npl.1) fy = 235N/mm².1. γM = 1. h = 600mm.Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ Mpl. Iz = 1320cm4 .5mm.z. r = 24mm A = 156cm² . y ⋅ fy γ M0 = 827.y ⋅ fy. Wpl. r = 21mm A = 84. tf = 19mm.7 kN 6 4 4 4 fy. Iz = 3390cm . r = 21mm A = 84.5cm² .y.d = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f ) ⋅ PAGE 27 OF 98 . r = 24mm A = 156cm² .5 (2)) = 768. tw = 8.d = A ⋅ f y.Rd = Wpl.1) DIN 18800 fy = 235N/mm². h = 400mm.k = 240N/mm².0 b = 220mm.0 b = 180mm.6mm.d = Wpl. Iy = 23130cm . tw = 12mm. tf = 13.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 1985.2 kNm fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 1137 kN (EC3.6 (3)) Vpl.3 (2)) Npl.d = A ⋅ = 3403.k γM = 1843.1 Germany: Calculation procedure compared to DIN 18800 EN 199311 Crosssectional properties Column: IPE 600 (S235) (EC3.2 kN Vpl. Iy = 23130cm4 .2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235) (EC3.k = 240N/mm².1cm 6 4 (EC3. 6.6 (3)) Vpl. IT = 51. 6. Iz = 1320cm .k 3 ⋅ γM = 912. Iy = 92080cm .y = 1308cm³ Iω = 490000cm .y = 3520cm³ CM = 2846000cm6. Iz = 3390cm4 . 6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 4 4.2.0 kN (EC3.k γM (EC3. γM0 = γM1 = 1. tf = 19mm. tw = 12mm. Wpl. tw = 8.2.6 kN f y. Wpl.2.Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ (EC3.1 4.z.k 3 ⋅ γM = 452.0 kNm 4. IT = 165cm4 f y.
h = 820mm.IPE500 ) ⋅ Mpl. Iy = 134868cm4 .y ⋅ f y.d = force amplifier for elastic critical buckling (from literature or computer analysis) With HEd = design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads VEd = total design vertical loads δH.5(16)mm.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 3750. h = 820mm.y ⋅ fy γ M0 fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 1277.k = 240N/mm².1 NKi.9 ≥ 15 → First order analysis sufficient 270.y = slenderness for elastic critical buckling or β K .4 kNm f y.Rd = 579.y ≤ 0. Iz = 2390cm4 .z.8 kN (EC3.d N Sd with ηKi.d 10.2 kN Vpl. γM0 = γM1 = 1. Iz = 2390cm . 6. y ⋅ fy γ M0 = 307.4 kNm (EC3. IT = 101.IPE500 ⋅ Mpl.4 27.y = elastic critical buckling length (EI y ) d N Sd 1 1 = = = 0.2.2.096 < 0.IPE 400 − b IPE500 ⋅ t f .2)mm. Wpl. IT = 101. 6.y = 3920.6(10.0 6000 α cr = ⋅ = 25. Iy = 134868cm .Rd = Wpl.y ⋅ ε = s K.y.d ηKi.2)mm.1) fy = 235N/mm².44 → First order analysis sufficient PAGE 28 OF 98 .5 (2)) 4.7cm³ Iω = 2694000cm6. if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2nd order effects) Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied: α cr H h ≤ 15 ( for plastic analysis) = Ed ⋅ V Ed δH.1 NKi.2 Check.6 (3)) Vpl.d = Wpl. γM = 1.k γM = 855.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) (EC3. r = 21mm A = 159. r = 21mm (EC3.4 kNm 4. tf = 13.Ed (EC3.6 kN 4 4 fy. y ⋅ N Sd with sK.5(16)mm.y.1 (4)) Second order effects do not have to be considered if either N Sd 1 = ≤ 0.k 3 ⋅ γM = 995.3 ⋅ with λ K.d = ( A − 2 ⋅ b IPE 400 ⋅ t f .4 kNm f y.7cm4 Npl.y.3 (2)) Npl.Ed = horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads h = storey height 32.7cm4 f y. 6.7cm³ Iω = 2694000cm6.6cm² .k γM b = 180(200)mm. tf = 13.7 + A w.1 b = 180(200)mm.2. 6.2.d = A ⋅ = 3482. tw = 8.2. 6. 5.1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Mpl.z.Rd = Wpl.y ⋅ = 285.d ηKi. tw = 8.1kN = 921.4 or λ K.d Npl.k γM EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD (EC3.6cm² .5 (2)) Mpl. y. Wpl.y = 3920.d = Wpl.0 A = 159.6(10.
to 1st order theory EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Loading combinations acc.9 ⋅ E snow + 15 ⋅ 0.3 Internal forces acc. 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1. LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof. .35 ⋅ E deadload + 1. 6. PAGE 29 OF 98 .EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 4.5 ⋅ E wind + 1.3.5 ⋅ 0. to EN 1990.5 ⋅ E snow + 15 ⋅ 0.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p 1.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p 1.6 ⋅ E wind + E Im p .4.35 ⋅ E deadload + 15 ⋅ 0.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p 1.9 ⋅ E wind + E Im p .2 (3) and Annex A: LC 1: LC 2: LC 3: LC 4: 1.5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p Loading combinations: LC 1: LC 2: LC 3: 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.
83 < 32 / α = 58.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 4. PAGE 30 OF 98 .6 = 38.62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3.585 vorh (b/t) = (4002⋅13.5 > 37 / α = 37 Web of haunched IPE 500 is class 3section. table 5. table 5.2) Section for eaves haunch is class 2section.5471) = 64.547 vorh (b/t) = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42.585 c/t = (4002⋅13.79 < 9 → plasticplastic analysis allowed Web: (EC3. but plastic resistances can be activated.4.2/2–21) / 16 = 4.2) ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (180/28.5 = 4. table 5. so only elastic crosssection resistances can be used.2) plastic stress distribution α = 0.5 → plasticplastic analysis allowed 4.4 4. IPE 400 see above) vorh (b/t) = (200/210.547 c/t = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42.5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3.52⋅21) / 8.1 Flange: Web: EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Classification of crosssections (local buckling check) Column: IPE 600 (S235) Flange : ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) vorh (b/t) = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4. IPE 400 see above) (200/210.2) ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4.3 Flange: Web: Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only.6 = 38.21 < 9 → plasticplastic analysis allowed Web: (EC3.8 → class 1 (EC3.4.2) plastic stress distribution α = 0. therefore the internal forces have to be determined elastically. table 5.79 < 9 → class 1 plastic stress distribution α = 0.2 Flange: Web: Rafter: IPE 400 (S235) Flange : ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) vorh (b/t) = (180/28.62 < 9 → plasticplastic analysis allowed Web: IPE 400part: in tension Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) vorh (b/t) = (4201621) / 10.49 < 32 / α = 54. table 5.6/2–21) / 13.2/2–21) / 16 = 4.21 < 9 → class 1 plastic stress distribution α = 0.52⋅21) / 8.2) IPE 400part: in tension Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t = (4201621) / 10.7 → plasticplastic analysis allowed 4. ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only.5851) = 60.2 = 37. table 5.4.2 = 37.5 < 396 / (13 ⋅ 0.5 = 4.0 → class 1 (EC3.6/2–21) / 13.83 < 396 / (13 ⋅ 0.
5.8 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 12 η 1 b 514 = = 42.d → No shear buckling Vz.d = → no interaction between N and My → no interaction between N and My M y.0 (EC3.5.1 = 0.111 < 1. My.5.790 < 1.2.1. 6.0 1137.Rd = 101.4 (1)) Internal forces: NSd = 125. 6.2.2.1 (4)) Check < 0.8 = 0.9.0 827.0 912.037 < 1.5kN.0 Npl.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 = 850.5kN. 6.0 768.1.1 4.8 < 70 t 12 → No shear buckling → shear resistance Vpl.Ed = 101.8 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered NEd 125.Sd = 101.2 606.Sd Mpl.25 and  NEd  < 0.1.Ed = 606.5 = = 0.0 Check < 0.5 (1)) PAGE 31 OF 98 .2.z.5.7 kN (EC3.6 (1)) (EC3.y.6 (6)) Internal shear force: Vz.1 4.6 Check < 0. 6.Ed Vpl.d 3403.1kN Check for shear buckling: hw ε 1 514 = = 42.5 4.1kN Check for shear buckling: (EC3.0 Npl.2 Check for axial force and bending moment Internal forces: NEd = 135.z.1 Ultimate limit states Column IPE600 (S235) EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Resistance of crosssection Check for shear force Internal shear force: Vz.1.1.5 = = 0.0 → shear resistance Vpl.d = 101.Rd 3666.Sd Vpl. 6.034 < 1.33 → no interaction between Vz and My 4. 6.10 M y.z.Rd (EC3. 6.2.1 = 0.4 (3)) (EC3.Rd = 606.z.y.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 4.8 (2)) Vz.089 < 1.2.8 kNm Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered N Sd 125.Sd = 606.0 (EC3.5 → no interaction between Vz and My Check < 0.734 < 1. My.8 = 0.Ed Mpl.2.
5 Reduction value: κM = 0.5.08m (determinable by literature) NKi.8 kNm 827. table 6.2 (1)) Rolled section.3. t < 40mm Reduction value: κz = 0.388 → buckling curve b χz = 0.2. 1.3.1 Buckling resistance of member In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis) EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Flexural buckling length: Lcr.1.0 = 1.0 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1388.1. Part 2: MKi. 6.1 = 1431. tf < 40mm → buckling curve a Reduction value: 4.3 applicable Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c Rolled section and moment gradient ψ = 0 < 0.3.8 = 0.2.318 → buckling curve a χy = 0.2.3.z = π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 600 2 = 1951.y = π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 3708 2 2 Flexural buckling length: Lcr.z = 6.08m (determinable by literature) N cr.2.385 1951.1kNm Iz 844. table 6.039 ⋅ L2 ⋅ I T = 1348.1. 6.00m (lateral restraints at endings) N cr.3 Rolled section.1.2 (1)) (EC3.3.y = ζ ⋅ π 2 ⋅ EI z L2 ⋅ C M + 0.1.2) (EC3. t < 40mm Reduction value: κy = 0. h/b >1.2.1.76 1431.z = 3744. h/b >1.8 (ENV 199311.1.7 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Slenderness: λ K. 6.2.5 PAGE 32 OF 98 .897 → kn = 1.2 Rolled section. h/b >1.y = 3744. 6. 6.2. 6.2 (1)) (EC3.2.3.5. tf < 40mm → buckling curve b Reduction value: 4.642 1388.z = 6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 4.0 → n = 2.3. table 6.625 1388.0 = 1.5.2.792 1348.5.7 3666.2 4.395 Lateral torsional buckling Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311.0 = 1.371 1951.0 (EC3. Annex F.1.y = 37.7 (EC3.324 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) Flexural buckling length: Lcr.2) (EC3.3 (3)) Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ LT = (EC3. Annex F: M cr π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z I ω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 L2 Iz π ⋅ E ⋅ Iz 1 2 Elastic critical moment from DIN 18800.0 = 1.2 (1)) (EC3.0 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Slenderness: λ K.7 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ z = = 1951.y = π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 3708 2 = 1388.3 (1)) (EC3.2 = 0.0 3666. h/b >1.2 (1)) Rolled section.5) Slenderness: λ M = Rolled section → chapter 6.y = 37.2.00m (lateral restraints at endings) NKi.z = π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 600 2 2 Flexural buckling length: Lcr.
1 a y = 0.125 + 0.15 ⋅ λ K.114 + 0.789 χ LT.3 (1)) (EC3.2.1.Sd N Sd +⋅ + ∆n = 0.2.0 κ z ⋅ Npl.y = 1.3.977 < 1.893 > 0.0 κ y ⋅ Npl. ηKi. eq.3 (1)) Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B Equivalent uniform moment values: Cmy = 0.y.914 < 1. (6.8 NEd = 0.3 (4)) (EC3. My.66 . uniform member with doublesymmetric section → stability check with interaction factors (EC3.964 < 1.Sd N Sd + ky ⋅ = 0.z ⋅ β M.8 kNm Uniform member with doublesymmetric section.861 < 1.2 4.y 2 = 0.LT = 0.0 χ z ⋅ Npl.5.y.3.2.5kN.5.3.Rd NEd 0.d β M.5. (6.Rd χ LT.9 k y = 1− N Sd ⋅ a y = 0.2.03 = 0.y − 0.d → kyy = 0.789 = = 0.y. 6.25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl.d M y. kzy = 0.792 = 0.d (EC3. 6. 6. Annex B.mod ⋅ Mpl. Annex B.1 = 0.1 ⋅ λ z k zy = 1 − (C m.982.LT − 0.mod ⋅ Mpl.d ⋅ κ y 2 ⋅ λ K.861 = 0.8 ( ) N Sd ⋅ 1 − κ y ⋅ Npl.d κ M ⋅ Mpl.4 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD χLT = 0.d 1 = 0.973 Internal forces: NSd = 135.Rd (EC3.1kN Check for shear buckling: Internal shear force: Vz. constant axial force and no torsional load → stability check with interaction factors Values for moment distribution: β m = 1 − Coefficient: Coefficient: Interaction factor: ∆n = N Sd κ y ⋅ Npl.800 = 0. approx.d Mpl.Rd M y.0 χ y ⋅ Npl.25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Reduction value: Modified reduction value 4.6 (EC3.1 4.1 Rafter IPE 400 (S235) Resistance of cross section Check for shear force Internal shear force: Vz.LT − 0.103 + 0.0 κ z ⋅ Npl. 6.Ed = 80.2 NEd = 1.886 < 1.982 k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0.876 (EC3.3 (2)) Interaction for compression force and bending Internal forces: NEd = 135.030 < 0.224 < 0.3.1.963 < 1 − (C m.62)) 4.15 = 0.5.046 > Cmy 1 + 0.2) (EC3.2 χ y ⋅ NRd χ y ⋅ NRd NEd 0.Sd = 606.Ed NEd + k zy ⋅ = 0.Sd = 80. My.2.706 + 0.5kN.8 kNm No second order analysis.Rd χLT.901 f 0.mod = χ LT 0.Ed NEd + k yy ⋅ = 0.094 + 0.61)) Check for compression and bending: In plane: Out of plane: β m ⋅ M y.3) Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3.y.Ed = 606. table B. table B.9 (sway buckling mode) Cm.Rd = 0.1kN Check for shear buckling: PAGE 33 OF 98 . Annex B.973 Check for compression force and bending: My. table B. eq.
2.347 1117.2.445 NKi.2.7kN (from computer analysis) 2028.z.5 4.7 = = 0.4 (EC3.2) (EC3. 6.10 M y.7kN.5.Rd = 80.055 < 10 . 6.0 = 1.059 < 10 .d Check < 0. table 6.2. 6.2.2.5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 η 1 tw 8.Ed Vpl.6 (6)) b 331 = = 38.1 = 0.5 (1)) 4.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME hw 331 ε 1 = = 38. 6.4 (3)) Internal forces: NSd = 108.8 Check < 0.6 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD (EC3. 6.z.6 kNm Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered N Sd 108.y.177 < 1.4 (1)) (EC3.1 (4)) → no interaction between N and My → no interaction between N and My M y.25 and  NEd  < 0.y = 1117.7 → shear resistance Vpl. 6.3.y = 1117.y.7 = = 0.Ed = 216.8 (2)) → No shear buckling Vz.2. h/b >1.138 < 1. 6.2.z.6 = 0.8 = 1.0 579.5 < 70 t 8.0 285. 6.2 4.1.336 1117.7kN.2. My.6 = 0.2 → buckling curve a χy = 0.5.Rd = 216.5.9. tf < 40mm → buckling curve a Reduction value: 4.5.6 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3.Sd Mpl.y = Rolled section.2 → shear resistance Vpl.2. Npl.3.1 = 0. t < 40mm Reduction value: κy = 0.6 → No shear buckling Vz.759 < 1.2. My.2 (1)) (EC3.2.4 216.z.0 307. h/b >1.1.2.0 452. Npl.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 = 482.33 → no interaction between Vz and My Internal forces: NEd = 108.Rd (EC3.8 kN (EC3.d 1843.6 (1)) (EC3.1.2.d = 80.2 → no interaction between Vz and My Check for axial force and bending moment Check < 0.Sd = 216.Ed Mpl.7 Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ K.Sd Vpl.d = NEd 108.2. 6.1 Buckling resistance of member In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = Ncr.6 Check < 0.705 < 1.2 (1)) Rolled section.7 (EC3.7kN (from computer analysis) 1985.451 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) and lateral torsional buckling PAGE 34 OF 98 .Rd 1985.
6 kNm No second order analysis.759 + 0. → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling Internal forces: NSd = 108.mod ⋅ Mpl.0 (EC3.z.3 (4)) My. Annex B.Rd Internal forces: NSd = 108.695 = 0.5.7kN. 6.3 4.6 (6)) (EC3.Ed = 114. Annex B.024 > Cmy 1 + 0.Sd N Sd +⋅ + ∆n = 0.6 kNm Uniform member with doublesymmetric section.61)) χ y ⋅ Npl.8 NEd = 0. DIN 18800 provides the same formulas for this check as PrEN 199311 in Annexes BB.Sd = 114. (6.6 η 1 hw 383 ε 1 = = 37. approx.283 Coefficient: ∆n = N Sd κ y ⋅ Npl.0) 4.1 and BB.2.5 < 70 t 10.2.1 NEd = 1.Sd = 216.d Check for compression and bending: In plane: β m ⋅ M y.2.5.2.3. PrEN 199311 provides formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.Rd χLT.0 ⋅ κ y 2 ⋅ λ K. eq.3) Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3.3. 6. that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints.5 < 70 t 8.5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 10.d → β m = 1.3.3 (1)) Cmy = 0. that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints.1 ( ) N Sd ⋅ 1 − κ y ⋅ Npl.2.d → No shear buckling → shear resistance Vpl.1 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) Resistance of cross section Check for shear force Internal shear force: Vz.2.3 Interaction for compression force and bending EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD For this example it is assumed. kzy = 0 (no out of plane failure) Check for compression force and bending: (EC3.5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 8.0 κ y ⋅ Npl.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME For this example it is assumed.z.987.818 < 1.5kN Check for shear buckling: hw 331 ε 1 = = 38. My.Ed NEd + k yy ⋅ = 0. table B.9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3.5kN Check for shear buckling: (IPE 400) (haunched IPE 500) (EC3.132 + 0.932 < 1.Rd → No shear buckling PAGE 35 OF 98 .Sd = 216.2 η 1 Internal shear force: Vz.041 < 0.6 b 383 = = 37.5.6 (6)) b 331 = = 38.5. table B. → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χz = χLT = 1.1.2. My.2 (IPE 400) (haunched IPE 500) → shear resistance Vpl.1 and BB.2.3.d 4.7kN. uniform member with doublesymmetric section → stability check with interaction factors (EC3.y.2.2 χ y ⋅ NRd χ y ⋅ NRd → kyy = 0.987 k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0.d Mpl.041 = 0.y 2 = 0. 6. constant axial force and no torsional load → stability check with interaction factors Value for moment distribution: ψ = 0.1 4. 6.y.123 + 0.
d 114.Rd 3750.8 (2)) = Check < 0. σ Sd = N Sd M y. Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.Ed Vpl.2.1) PAGE 36 OF 98 .4 (3)) (EC3.  σ Sd  18. for this example it is assumed.Rd = 606.3kN. (ENV. 6.5 = 0. uz < L/200 for roofs in general.0 1277. Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).2.Sd Vpl.5.d 21. For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch.5.81 A Iy 159.6.y.8 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered NEd 112.2 Buckling resistance of member Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.6 134868 cm² Check < 0.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 = 989. 6. table 4.5 (1)) max .0 Npl.8 kNm Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered Check for elastic crosssection resistance due to local buckling: min .63 ) = −18. Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).2 kN (EC3.Sd − 112.4 (EC3.1 (4)) max .6 134868 cm² N Sd M y. 6.0 f y.9.z.2 → no interaction between Vz and My Check for axial force and bending moment Check < 0. 6. DIN 18800 as well as the standards dealing with building construction in steel as DIN 18801 give no information concerning the limitation of vertical deflections. 6.2.Ed = 606.0 995.6 (1)) (EC3.Ed Mpl. 6. σ Sd = → no interaction between N and My M y.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Vz.5 4.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.1 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD = (EC3. 4.Rd 114.3 = = 0.8 = 0.4 (1)) Internal forces: NSd = 112.2. that lateral restraints are provided. My.5 = 0.37 = 18.3.82 4.862 < 1.81 = = 0.090 < 1.1 Serviceability limit states Vertical deflection Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uz = 132mm PrEN 199311 (11.8 Vz.6 (EC3.1.030 < 1.25 and  NEd  < 0.3. My.33 → no interaction between Vz and My Internal forces: NEd = 112.z.2. ENV 199311 (1993) gives max.08 A Iy 159.2.3 60680 kN + ⋅ zo = + ⋅ ( −38.115 < 1. where the lower flange is in compression.3 60680 kN + ⋅ zu = + ⋅ 43.0 921.Sd − 112.659 < 1.6 4.Sd = 606.3kN.
9mm = H/302 < H/300 As for vertical deflections no limitation of horizontal deflections exists in German standards. 4.2 Horizontal deflection EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19.2 (4)) PAGE 37 OF 98 .6.2.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 132mm = L/227 < L/200 4. uz < H/300 for singlestorey buildings 19.9mm PrEN 199311 (11. (ENV. ENV 199311 (1993) gives max.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
tf = 13. Wel.y.y = 1308cm³.z. IT = 165cm4 Npl. γn = 1. γM0 = γM1 = 1.y = 3520cm³. γM = 1.0. tf = 19mm.6 (3)) M pl. Iz = 1320cm .1cm4 (EC3.2.z = 486cm3.2. h = 400mm.y = 1160cm³ Iω = 490000cm6.6mm. 6. Wpl. y. h = 600mm. tw = 8. Iy = 23130cm4. h = 400mm. r = 21mm (BSK99.0. Iy = 92080cm4. 2:21 and 3:42) A = 84.5cm².1 b = 180mm.y = 1308cm³ Iω = 490000cm6. γM = 1. Wpl. 6.8 kN 4 4 (EC3. h = 600mm.3 (2)) N pl.6mm. r = 24mm A = 156cm² .2 kNm IPE 400 (S235) (EC3. y ⋅ 5. Iz = 3390cm4. tf = 13.z = 308cm³ Iω = 2846000cm6. 0 kNm (BSK99. 6. r = 24mm (BSK99.Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ Mpl.d = Wpl.2.1) BSK99 fy = 235N/mm². γM0 = γM1 = 1.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 3666 kN 4 4 fyk = 235N/mm². fuk = 340N/mm2.5cm² . tw = 12mm.5 (2)) Rafter: fy = 235N/mm².EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 5 5.2 fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 1137 kN (EC3.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 1985. tw = 8. IT = 51. Iz = 3390cm .d = A ⋅ f yk γ M ⋅γ n = 1805 kN (BSK99. fuk = 340N/mm2.1 5.Rd = Wpl.1 b = 220mm. 6:22) PAGE 38 OF 98 .5mm. tw = 12mm.y = 3069cm³.1cm4 Npl.5mm. Wpl. 6. 2:21 and 3:42) A = 156cm². Iy = 23130cm . 6.0 b = 220mm.y ⋅ γ M ⋅γ n fy γ M0 = 827. IT = 51.3 (2)) N pl. Wpl. 6:243) Vpl.1. tf = 19mm.d = A ⋅ f yk γ M ⋅γ n = 3333kN f yk = 752.1) fyk = 235N/mm².1. Iy = 92080cm .0 b = 180mm.1 Sweden: Calculation procedure compared to BSK99 EN 199311 Crosssectional properties Column: IPE 600 (S235) (EC3. IT = 165cm4 (EC3. γn = 1. Wel. Wpl.2. 6. r = 21mm A = 84. Iz = 1320cm4. Wel.y = 3520cm³ Iω = 2846000cm6.
γn depends on the risk for bodily injury in case of a collapse. The factor.5 (2)) Eaves haunch: fy = 235N/mm². Wpl.d = A ⋅ f yk γ M ⋅γ n = 3410 kN f yk = 837.6 (3)) M pl. r = 21mm A = 159.Rd = A ⋅ fy γ M0 = 3750.7 kN (EC3.1 (BSK99. 5. y.6 (3)) M pl.5(16)mm.Rd = Wpl.Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 579. y ⋅ 5. Iy = 134868cm .8 kN (EC3.7 + A w. IT = 101.y = 3920. 6. 5. γM = 1.0. tw = 8.1cm³ Iω = 2694000cm6.2 Check.1.4 kNm (EC3. tf = 13.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Vpl.Ed = horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads h = storey height PAGE 39 OF 98 .5 (2)) Comments: The steel grade normally used in Sweden is S355. 6:243) = 921. 2:21 and 3:42) b = 180(200)mm.2. r = 21mm b = 180(200)mm. 6.Ed (EC3. Iz = 2390cm .6(10. h = 820mm. if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2 nd order effects) Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied: H h ≤ 15 ( for plastic analysis) α cr = Ed ⋅ V δ Ed H.2.3 fy γ M0 = 307.y = 3451.2.y.IPE500 ⋅ Mpl.6cm² .6 kN 4 4 (EC3. tf = 13.z.1 (4)) Second order effects are indirectly considered in the interaction equations of K18:51 – 53 when the bending moment is calculated according to the theory of elasticity and the frame is one storey high. 6. Iz = 2390cm4.2.7cm4 Npl.y = 3920.4 kNm IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) (EC3.y ⋅ fy γ M0 fy 3 ⋅ γ M0 = 1277.3 (2)) N pl.z. The walls would have been used to brace the columns. 4 kNm (BSK99.y ⋅ f yk γ M ⋅γ n = 279. 6:243) Mpl. h = 820mm.1) fyk = 235N/mm².d = Wpl.6(10.y.y. γn = 1. IT = 101. 6.7cm³ Iω = 2694000cm6. γM0 = γM1 = 1. Iy = 134868cm4. tw = 8.2)mm.d = Wpl. (K18:55) With HEd = design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads VEd = total design vertical loads δH. Wpl.0 A = 159. 6 kNm (BSK99. 6:22) Vpl.7cm³.5(16)mm.y ⋅ γ M ⋅γ n (BSK99.6cm².2. 6.7cm4 (EC3.2)mm. fuk = 340N/mm2. Wel.2.Rd = Wpl.Rd = 579. 6.
5 ⋅ E snow + 15 ⋅ 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 32. 25 ⋅ Wind load The load from sway imperfection is not used together with the sway buckling length. 6.3.0 6000 α cr = ⋅ = 25.6 ⋅ E wind + E Im p .35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.4.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.2 (3) and Annex A: LC 1: LC 2: LC 3: LC 4: 1. to EN 1990.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p PAGE 40 OF 98 . 1. 0 ⋅ Dead load + 1. to 1st order theory Loading combinations acc.5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p 1.5 ⋅ 0.3 ⋅ Snow load + 0.5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p The load combination used for the ultimate limit states design is 1.4 27.9 ≥ 15 → First order analysis sufficient 270.5 ⋅ E wind + 1.35 ⋅ E deadload + 1.4 5. 1.3 Internal forces acc.
2) c/t =(220/212/224) / 19 =4. 4 ⋅ Ek = 71.83 < 396 / (13 ⋅ 0.6/2–21) / 13.21 < 9 → class 1 Flange: (EC3. 5.585 c/t = (4002⋅13.4.62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3.table 6:211a) Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0.5 = 4.2) c/t =(400/22 ⋅13.2/221) / 16 =4.table 6:211a) Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0.5 < 396 / (13 ⋅ 0.2) c/t =(180/28.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only. 4 ⋅ Ek = 71. table 5. 7 → class 1 f yk (BSK99.83 ≤ 2. table 5.79 < 9 → class 1 Flange: (EC3.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (180/28.21 ≤ 0. table 5.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof. IPE 400 see above) c/t =(200/210.4 5.5851) = 60.5 ≤ 2. 7 → class 1 f yk (BSK99.table 6:211a) 5.3 ⋅ Web: Ek = 9 → class 1 f yk (BSK99.5471) = 64.62 ≤ 0.52 ⋅ 21) / 8.2/2–21) / 16 = 4.2) c/t =(6002 ⋅192 ⋅ 24) / 12 =42.6 = 38.6/221) / 19 =4. table 5.3 ⋅ Web: IPE 400part: in tension Ek = 9 → class 1 f yk (BSK99.table 6:211a) Web: IPE 400part: in tension PAGE 41 OF 98 .3 ⋅ Web: Ek = 9 → class 1 f yk (BSK99.table 6:211a) 5.1 Classification of crosssections (local buckling check) Column: IPE 600 (S235) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t = (220/212/2–24) / 19 = 4.0 → class 1 (EC3. table 5.2) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only.8 → class 1 (EC3.4.6 =38. IPE 400 see above) (200/210.52⋅21) / 8.4.62 ≤ 0.547 c/t = (6002⋅192⋅24) / 12 = 42.
table 6:211a) Resistance of crosssection Check for shear force Internal shear force: Vz.2.5kN.5 → no interaction between Vz and My = 92.5.5 = = 0. My. 6:261d) → No shear buckling Vz.2. 6.0 Internal forces: NEd = 110.5. 6.2 = 37.2.1.4 (3)) (EC3.y Wel.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t = (4201621) / 10. 6:261a) Check < 0.1 = 0.2.5kN.5 5.2) Section for eaves haunch is class 2section. 46 ⋅ Ek = 43.z.1.1. 0 1036 Class 1 → No interaction between Vz and My 5.6 kNm (EC3. My.8 (2)) The shear resistance is the smallest of: Vz.50 → ω v = 0. Npl.z. 5.5 ≤ 1. 67 tw Ek f yk = 1036kN (BSK99.4 (1)) ηy = Wpl. but plastic resistances can be activated.1 5.8 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 12 η 1 Internal shear force: Vz.y = 1.z.1kN Check for shear buckling: hw 514 ε 1 = = 42.35 ⋅ f bw ⋅ yk = 0.Ed = 92kN Slenderness and reduction value (EC3. 6.Rd 3666.Rd γ M ⋅γ n (BSK99.Ed Vpl.Rd = 101. therefore the internal forces have to be determined elastically.Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅ Vz.0 1137.15 (BSK 99. 6 → class 1 f yk (BSK99.8 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered NEd 125.Ed = 606.034 < 10 .2=37. 6.Ed = 101. 6.089 < 1.1 Ultimate limit states Column IPE600 (S235) Haunched IPE 500 part: α = 1 (constant pressure) c/t =(4201621) / 10.Rd (EC3. 089 < 1.1.5.2 Check for axial force and bending moment Internal forces: NEd = 125.5. table 5.2.Ed = 493.0 → shear resistance Vpl.1.6 (6)) λw = 0. 6:242) (K18:51 e) PAGE 42 OF 98 γ 0 = ηy 2 = 1.Ed Vpl.1 5.6 (1)) (EC3.3 = 0.32 .5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3.
6.2 5. 2λc 2 110.324 Rolled section.1 Buckling resistance of member In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis) Flexural buckling length: Lcr.0 = 1.3.5 1. 20 Reduction value: α − α 2 − 4.2.y.5 (1)) 5.y according to K18:38 the reduction value.734 < 1.0 (EC3. 6.5.1. 0 N Rd γ Check < 0.y = A ⋅ f yk N cr π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 37082 = 3666 = 1. table 6:233) (BSK 99.30 ⋅ 3333 N Ed ≤1 ω yc ⋅ N pl.d Comments: In Sweden the handbook K18 Dimensionering av stålkonstruktioner is a complement to the Swedish code BSK 99.5.625 1388. 6:233a) 3666. With Lcr.30 2. 6:233b) → β1 = 0. 63 1388 = 1388 kN (BSK 99. The flexural buckling length for columns in frames calculated as shown in K18:38 gives.y = π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 3708 2 2 Flexural buckling length: Lcr.2) (EC3.0 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr. 67 < 1.25 and  NEd  < = 850. h/b >1.32 493.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 0 M Syd 110. 6.Ed Mpl.63. table 6.7 kN (EC3. Lcr. 6 NSd + = = 0. PAGE 43 OF 98 . 21 → α = 4.1m. tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (BSK 99.1.1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 0.2.8 = 0.0 827.2.2. h/b >1.1.5 = 0. 6:233) (BSK 99.08m (determinable by literature) N cr.Rd = 606.y = 37.2 (1)) (EC3. ωc=0.1 (4)) (K18:51 a) → no interaction between N and My M y.3. 0 + M Ryd 3333 752.08m (determinable by literature) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1388. 6. 4λc 2 ω yc = = 0.11 < 1 0.2 (1)) Class 1 section: Slenderness: λyc = Rolled section. tf < 40mm → buckling curve a Reduction value: χy = 0.2 (EC3.y= 23. The differences in flexural buckling length can be explained with that the columns connection to the foundation is assumed to be partially restrained for rotation in K18:38.9.2.y = 37.
85 χ m M cr 0.2. table 6.2.3.5. table 6:233) (BSK 99. 6:2442a) λb = ηcWel.y f yk 1.371 1951.2) (EC3.3.2. table 6.5) (EC3. 2 M 2 M ≥ 0. 6:233) (BSK 99.2.2.1. 6.z = π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 600 2 Flexural buckling length: Lcr.8 (ENV 199311.mod = χ LT 0. 7 kN (BSK 99.15 ⋅ 3069 ⋅ 235 −3 = ⋅10 = 0.5.8 + 0.z = A ⋅ f yk N cr π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 6002 = 3666 = 1. 09 < 1 0.8 Class 1 section: Slenderness: (BSK 99. 6.00m (lateral restraints at endings) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ z = = 1951.2.876 M 2 = 0 → χ m = 0.395 Rolled section.0 = 1.2 (1)) (EC3. 46 Reduction value: ω zc = α − α 2 − 4.789 χ LT. Annex F.2 (1)) (EC3.37 1952 = 1951.1.3 (2)) χ m = 0. Annex F = 1431.7 Class 1 section: Slenderness: λzc = Rolled section.76 1431.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 5. Annex F: M cr π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z I ω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2 L2 Iz π ⋅ E ⋅ Iz 1 2 Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311.00m (lateral restraints at endings) N cr.d 5.1. h/b >1.8 (BSK 99.34 → α = 3.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) Flexural buckling length: Lcr.3 (3)) Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ LT = (EC3. 6. 1. 6:233a) (BSK 99.1.789 = = 0.2 (1)) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr.3 Lateral torsional buckling 110. 6:233b) 3666.3.2.5 = 0.3 (1)) (EC3. 2λc 2 N Ed ≤1 ω zc ⋅ N pl.3 (3)) M cr = C1 ⋅ π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz Iω L2 L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T 2 ⋅ + 2 = 1432 kNm Iz π ⋅ E ⋅ Iz 1 1 (ENV 199311. tf < 40mm → buckling curve b → β1 = 0. 6.2 = 0. h/b >1.3.2.3. 4λc 2 = 0.z = 6.3 applicable Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c Reduction value: Modified reduction value χLT = 0.2. 1.8 kNm 827.37 ⋅ 3333 Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV199311.3 (1)) (EC3.3.901 f 0.3. Annex F. 6:2442) Rolled section → chapter 6.8 ⋅1432 PAGE 44 OF 98 .z = 6. tf < 40mm → buckling curve b Reduction value: χz = 0.37 2. 6.7 kN (EC3. 6.
152 = 1.800 = 0.2.1.1 = 0. 02 1 + λb 4 ≤ 1.Ed NEd + k zy ⋅ = 0.8 NSd N Rycd γ yc γ yc = 0.4 Interaction for compression force and bending Internal forces: NEd = 135. 63 ⋅ 3333 0.1 ⋅ λ z k zy = 1 − (C m.Rd χ LT.0 χ y ⋅ Npl. table B.973 Check for compression force and bending: NEd + k yy ⋅ = 0.8 NEd = 0. Annex B.792 = 0.2) (EC3.9 (sway buckling mode) Cm.0 χ z ⋅ Npl.83 gives the result (EC3. eq. (6. 00 (K18:52 d) (K18:52 a) ( ) + M Syd M Ryd 0.5 0.80 0.Ed (EC3.LT − 0. My. 6. 0 γ yc Comments: With the different flexural buckling length and reduction value in section NSd 3. Annex B.1.Rd → kyy = 0.3) Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3.y.914 < 1.mod ⋅ Mpl. 00 and γ yc = 0.982 = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0. 6.5. Ed ωb ⋅ M pl . 6:2442b) ωb = 1. uniform member with doublesymmetric section → stability check with interaction factors (EC3. 0 M y .LT = 0.1 the interaction N Rycd 110. 6 = 0. table B.6 (EC3.982.2.094 + 0.LT − 0. Annex B. 66 < 1 0. 6 = 0.25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl.8 NEd 0.5.32 (K18:51 e) γ yc = γ 0ω yc ≥ 0.62)) + 493. 0 PAGE 45 OF 98 .25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl.83 ≤ 1 752. eq. y .2 k yy NEd = 1.886 < 1.963 < 1 − (C m.3 (1)) Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B Equivalent uniform moment values: Cmy = 0. 0 (BSK 99.Ed = 606.80 ⋅ 752.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD → ωb = Rolled section 1.61)) 110.2 χ y ⋅ NRd χ y ⋅ NRd NEd 0. table B. kzy = 0.046 > Cmy 1 + 0.5kN. 74 ≥ 1 752.y.114 + 0.30 ⋅ 3333 + 493.Rd M y. 6 = 0. (6.3.8 ⋅ 493.83 + M Syd M Ryd ≤ 1.5 0.Rd My.954 ≤1 = 0.Rd = 0. 02 1 + 0.Rd χLT.3 (4)) (EC3.8 ≤ 1.mod ⋅ Mpl.8 kNm No second order analysis.d 5.973 Doublesymmetric section Interaction for flexural buckling γ 0 = ηy 2 ≥ 1 γ 0 = 1.3.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
5.5.2 5.5.2.1 5.5.2.1.1 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
Resistance of cross section Check for shear force
Internal shear force: Vz,Ed = 80,1kN Check for shear buckling:
hw ε 1 331 = = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 8,6 η 1
Internal shear force: Vz,Ed = 65,8kN Slenderness and reduction value (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
λw = 0,35 ⋅
bw ⋅ tw
f yk Ek f yk
= 0, 45 → ω v = 0, 67
(BSK99, 6:261d)
→ No shear buckling
Vz,Ed Vpl,z,Rd = 80,1 = 0,138 < 1,0 579,7
→ shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd (EC3, 6.2.6 (1)) (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅ Vz,Ed Vz,Rd =
γ M ⋅γ n
= 513,9 kN
(BSK99, 6:261a)
Check < 0,5
→ no interaction between Vz and My
65,8 = 0,13 < 1, 0 513,9
Class 1 → No interaction between Vz and My
5.5.2.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: NEd = 108,7kN, My,Ed = 216,6 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered NEd 108,7 = = 0,055 < 10 , Npl,Rd 1985,8 Check < 0,25 and  NEd  <
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 = 482,8 kN
Internal forces: NEd = 89,6kN, My,Ed = 173,3kNm (EC3, 6.2.4 (3)) (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
ηy =
Wpl,y Wel,y
γ
= 1,13
(BSK 99, 6:242) (K18:51 e) (K18:51 a)
γ 0 = ηy 2 = 1, 27
0 M Syd 89, 6 1,27 173,3 NSd = = 0, 64 < 1 + + M Ryd 1805 279, 4 N Rd
→ no interaction between N and My
M y,Ed Mpl,y,Rd = 216,6 = 0,705 < 1,0 307,4
(EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
PAGE 46 OF 98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
5.5.2.2 5.5.2.2.1 Buckling resistance of member In plane flexural buckling (about yaxis)
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y =
Ncr,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
1985,8 = 1,336 1117,7
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Class 1 section: Slenderness:
Ncr,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
(EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) (EC3, table 6.2) (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
λyc =
A ⋅ f yk N cr
=
1986 = 1,33 1118
(BSK 99, 6:233a) (BSK 99, table 6:233) (BSK 99, 6:233)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a Reduction value: χy = 0,451
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a
→ β1 = 0, 21 → α = 3,19
Reduction value:
ωc =
α − α 2 − 4, 4λc 2 = 0, 42 2, 2λc 2
(BSK 99, 6:233b)
5.5.2.2.2
Out of plane flexural buckling (about zaxis) and lateral torsional buckling
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 199311 provides formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2. → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χz = χLT = 1,0)
5.5.2.2.3 Interaction for compression force and bending
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profiled sheeting provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling
Internal forces: NSd = 108,7kN, My,Sd = 216,6 kNm No second order analysis, uniform member with doublesymmetric section → stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3) Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1
NEd = 1,024 > Cmy 1 + 0,8 NEd = 0,987 k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2 χ y ⋅ NRd χ y ⋅ NRd → kyy = 0,987; kzy = 0 (no out of plane failure) Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4)) My,Ed NEd + k yy ⋅ = 0,123 + 0,695 = 0,818 < 1,0 (EC3, eq. (6.61)) χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd χLT,mod ⋅ Mpl,y,Rd
Doublesymmetric section, member not susceptible to torsional deformations Interaction for flexural buckling
γ yc = γ 0ω yc ≥ 0,8
NSd N Rycd
γ yc
γ yc = 1, 27 ⋅ 0, 42 = 0,53 → γ yc = 0,8
≤ 1, 00
173,3 = 0,80 ≤ 1 279, 4
(K18:52 e) (K18:52 a)
(
)
+
M Syd M Ryd
0,8
89, 6 0, 42 ⋅1805
+
PAGE 47 OF 98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
5.5.3 5.5.3.1 5.5.3.1.1 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
Resistance of cross section Check for shear force
Internal shear force: Vz,Ed = 114,5kN Check for shear buckling:
hw ε 1 331 = = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 8,6 η 1 hw ε 1 383 = = 37,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 tw 10,2 η 1
(IPE 400) (haunched IPE 500)
(EC3, 6.2.6 (6)) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
Internal shear force: Vz,Ed = 94,1kN Slenderness and reduction value IPE 400
λw = 0,35 ⋅
bw ⋅ tw
f yk Ek f yk
= 0, 45 → ω v = 0, 67
(BSK99, 6:261d)
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
→ No shear buckling
Vz,Ed Vpl,z,Rd 114,5 = = 0,090 < 1,0 1277,8
→ shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd (EC3, 6.2.6 (1)) (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅
γ M ⋅γ n
f yk Ek f yk
= 513,9 kN
(BSK99, 6:261a)
Haunched IPE 500
Check < 0,5
→ no interaction between Vz and My
λw = 0,35 ⋅
bw ⋅ tw
= 0, 44 → ω v = 0, 67
(BSK99, 6:261d)
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅ Vz,Ed Vz,Rd
5.5.3.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
γ M ⋅γ n
= 616,9 kN
(BSK99, 6:261a)
=
94,1 = 0, 08 < 1, 0 513,9 + 616,9
Internal forces: NEd = 112,3kN, My,Ed = 606,8 kNm Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered
Internal forces: NEd = 92,5kN, My,Ed = 493,6 kNm (EC3, 6.2.4 (3))
ηy =
Wpl,y Wel,y
= 1,14
(BSK 99, 6:242)
PAGE 48 OF 98
29 493.659 < 1.Rd = 606. 29 0 M Syd 92.9mm PrEN 199311 (11. Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uz = 132mm PrEN 199311 (11.1 (4)) → no interaction between N and My M y.2.5. 6 NSd = = 0. 132mm = L/227 < L/200 5.5 (1)) 5.2. 6. 4. that lateral restraints are provided.6 5. 6.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.Rd 3750.5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ M0 (EC3.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD NEd 112.2 Buckling resistance of member Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400. uz < H/300 for singlestorey buildings 19.9mm = H/302 < H/300 No vertical deflection limits (ENV.4 (1)) = 989. uz < L/200 for roofs in general.0 Npl.2.4 (EC3.5 1.8 = 0.Ed Mpl.2.0 921.25 and  NEd  < 0.2 Horizontal deflection No vertical deflection limits (ENV.9.2 (4)) PAGE 49 OF 98 . ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).2 kN γ 0 = ηy 2 = 1. For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch.3.2003) does not specify allowable displacements. Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter). ENV 199311 (1993) gives max. 6 N Rd (K18:51 e) (K18:51 a) γ Check < 0. table 4.1 Serviceability limit states Vertical deflection Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.030 < 1. where the lower flange is in compression.1) Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19.6. 6.y.3 = = 0. 60 < 1 + + M Ryd 3410 837. for this example it is assumed. 5.6 (EC3.6.
: Calculation procedure compared to BS 59501 EN 199311 BS 59501 The configuration of the single storey portal frame is given below and shows steel section sizes. the eaves haunch and the arrangement of purlins and side rails. where the lines represent the centrelines of the members. Note the steel grade is S235 for the rafter and columns. w kN/m b h = 3.0 m 6m 30 m IPE 600 (S235) 3700 Spacing of portal frames = 5.7 m 6° Pinned base H V L = 30 m V h= 6 m H Rise h r = 1.58 m The proposed frame for analysis purposes is defined by the line diagram as in the figure below.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 6 U.58 m Portal frame dimensions Portal frame dimensions The cladding to the roof and walls is supported by purlins and side rails. or Frame span = L = 30 m PAGE 50 OF 98 .0 m 30 m w kN/m b h = 3. IPE 400 (S235) 6° 6.1 FRAME GEOMETRY IPE 400 (S235) 6° C L IPE 500 haunch 6m IPE 600 (S235) C L IPE 500 haunch 3700 Spacing of portal frames = 5.K.7 m 6° Pinned base H V L = 30 m V h= 6 m H Rise h r = 1.
60 kN/m2 Roofing Services Snow 6. other load combinations should also be checked at the ultimate and the serviceability limit states. However.66 + γ fi × 0.3 Global analysis Plastic analysis of singlestorey steel portal frames leads to an economical form of structure.2 6.0 m = 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME alternatively by deep profiled sheeting spanning between the frames.2.66 kN/m2 = 0. In this example.0 kN/m on plan = 1.0 m Combination factor ψ 2 = 1.60) = 9. Total factored load w = Ls (γ fd × 0.0 kN/m on plan = 3. The value in Eurocode 0.1 LOADING Vertical Loads The length of the haunch is taken as 3.70 kN/m2 but the relevant national code must be used. this value must be used instead of the value from Eurocode 1. member sizes are given for consistency by elastic analysis.20 kN/m × 5.20 kN/m2 × 5. but 1.0 for structures supporting storage loads.70 kN/m2 × 5.7 m which is 12% of the span of the frame. PAGE 51 OF 98 .42 kN/m 6.07 kN/m = 0. EN 1990:2002 Table A1. The vertical load (Dead and Imposed) at the ultimate limit state is usually used to determine the size of the members for preliminary design purposes. The roof sheeting or purlins provide lateral restraint to the outer flange of the rafter and columns. wind load is considered in combination with vertical loading.60) = 5 (1. which will lead to a higher failure load than required for this building. in this case.1 is 0.4 × 0. Dead loads: Sheeting Purlins Frame Services = 0.7 generally.5 kN/m on plan Total dead load Imposed load Load combiantions Note that where the NAD specifies a value for ψ0 .2.6 × 0. At the detailed design stage.2 = 0.20 kN/m2 2 = 0.66 + 1.e. provided that torsional restraints are introduced at plastic hinge positions as follows: Eaves height = h = 6 m Frame centres = Ls = 5 m EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD • At both ends of the haunch (i. one to the rafter) • At an intermediate position along the rafter. one to the column.11 kN/m2 = 0. Unfactored loads The value of snow load that has been used in this case is 0.0 m = 0.28 kN/m2 = 0.2. 6.
ψ.0 = 1 / 200 The column loads could be calculated by a frame analysis.58/30 = 5.6 kNm required.06 PAGE 52 OF 98 .3 x 99. so frame imperfection forces and wind loads should be considered as additive to permanent loads and variable loads with the appropriate load combination factor.1 kNm Hence assume M.rx which is > the 525.3 × 302 = 8478 kNm Note: EC3 requires that all loads that could occur at the same time are considered together. = 825. αm = 1 Axial Force Fc* n giving φ = 1 / 200 × 1.3.6 kN = 11.3 kNm As n = 0.04 less than 1% (0.2 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD MOMENT CAPACITY Column (IPE 600 Grade S235) φ = φ0 ⋅ α h ⋅ α m Where φ0 = 1 200 The moment capacity of both the column and the rafter will be reduced slightly because of the axial loads.5 × 10 × 235) 0. §5.04 = 30/6 = 1. when carrying out an elasticplastic software analysis the reduced collapse load factor can be accounted by multiplying the partial load factor by: Axial force Fc* = Hcosθ + Vsinθ n 1 1 − 1 α cr = Fc/Apy = = = = 101. (For a similar UK UB sections the reduction in bending moment capacity for n = 0.42 × 30 = 282.1 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS Frame imperfection – equivalent horizontal forces EN199311. M cx = Sx × f y = 3512 × 235 × 10 −3 = 825. α h = 1 . 6.053 Span/height to eaves L/h Rise/span hr /L Vertical load wL wL2 Variable/frame = 105.0 = 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 6.25/100 = 819. Conservatively.3 sin 6o 115. The reduction in moment capacity is usually ignored at the preliminary design stage.444 kN = V = wL/2 = 9.3 kN = Fc/Apy = 141.75%)).0 / 200 = 0.8/ 200 = 0.3 × 103 / (156 × 102 × 235) = 0.7 cos 6o + 141. but a simple calculation based on plan areas is suitable for single storey portal frames.3.3.9 × 10 / (84.42 × 30/2 = 141.9 kN 3 2 115.0 × 1.525 kN = 9.2 Partial safety factors and second order effects Rafter (IPE 400 Grade S235) For simplicity. Thus.3 6.04 it can be conservatively assumed that the reduced moment capacity of the column will be very similar to the moment capacity with no axial load acting. the unfactored equivalent horizontal forces are given by: Permanent/frame = 88.
070 1 2 RH Column LH Rafter 5.3 Analysis In this example. 1 1 1. a mechanism is not formed until the second hinge has formed. and so fy = 235 N/ mm2 which is > the 296. then check later.1 × 99. however.1 kNm As n = 0.rx = 307. y f y γ MO = 740.35 × 1.3. 152 ⋅ 10 6 × 235 1 × 10 6 Rafters : IPE 400 has tf≤ 40 mm.898 1. 1 1− 1 = 1 1− 1 9 = 1. 7 kNm 3. the bases have been assumed to be pinned for simplicity Steel grade is S235. (For a similar UK UB sections the reduction in bending moment capacity for n = 0.7 kNm required. 307 ⋅ 10 6 × 235 1 × 10 6 Load factor Member Position (m) 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Assume for preliminary calculations. 1 kNm Hinge number Span no. Column : IPE 600 has tf ≤ 40 mm.15/100 = 304.04 Although hinge 1 occurs at a load factor ≤ 1.06 it can be conservatively assumed that the reduced moment capacity of the column will be very similar to the moment capacity with no axial load acting.06 less than 1% (0.125 = 1. In practice.85%)). the axial load is so low that the conservatism in using the largest axial load is negligible for low pitch roofs. Hence assume M.69 M cx = S x × f y = 1307 × 235 × 10 −3 = 307.5 × 1. Assume sections are Class 1. that αcr = 9 So EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD From section tables moment capacity of column *The axial load should be that which is relevant to the load case being checked.0. and so fy = 235 N/ mm2 Mp = = W pl. 125 α cr Therefore the modified partial safety factors are: γG γQ = 1. Mp = = W pl. Therefore this combination of section sizes is suitable for PAGE 53 OF 98 .0 12.125 = 1. y f y γ MO = 307. based on experience.52 = 1.5 kNm 6.
so the following formulae is used: ε = (275/py)½ = (275/235)½ Flange b/T = 1. s N E.1 6.8 α cr.H.72 ∴ flange is classified as plastic PAGE 54 OF 98 .35 and 1. 81 − N R. FOR STABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF SECTIONS WITH AXIAL LOAD These checks use internal forces derived from a separate analysis using partial safety factors 1.5. A diagram of bending moments. it is necessary to ensure that the sections can be classified as ‘plastic’ or Class 1 crosssections. The axial load is usually so low that.4.1 Sway stability check At the detailed design stage.0 m. αcr. not the increased values used to allow for second order effects in the ultimate limit state analysis.08 = 5. This is the true bending moment in the column when the haunch to column connection is a bolted connection on the inner vertical face of the column. so 30 ≤ 8 × 6 = 48.72 5.0. which is the condition at ultimate limit state.1 Load combination no.ULS = 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME preliminary sections. shear and axial load 6. shear and axial forces is given opposite for a load factor 1. EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Load combination 1: bending moment. For column (IPE 600 Grade S235) For frames where L ≤ 8 h may be found applying a simple modification to αcr. In this case L = 30 m and h =6.4 CALCULATE.cr α cr.1.4. The bending moments in the columns are shown to reduce from the level of the bottom of the haunch to the top of the column.e. 6. providing the section can be classified as plastic when subject to bending only.8 < 9. H max Limiting b/T value for Class 1 plastic flange = 9ε = 9.
81 − 3 N 503 × 10 max R. 0 × 10 = = = 21. §5. 08 α cr PAGE 55 OF 98 . H = 0.ULS is = the maximum axial compression in the rafter in the load case 107kN (value obtained with the analysis of the software without considering second order effects) 141.8 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD N E. 6 = 1.8 ∴ web is classified as plastic α cr.097 = αcr.H is = the elastic critical buckling factor as by Horne(1975) H EHF VULS is h h 6. 097 EN199311. so the section can be classified as plastic.1(4)B = 78.2. 81 − Therefore.cr max Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic. 6 cr. 3 × 10 3 = 514.ULS 107 × 10 α ⋅ 21.ULS N R. s = 0. 0 × 235 = 0.cr N R. 3 = 13. 0 × 12.cr is the maximum ratio in any rafter max is = the Euler load of the rafter on the full span (assumed pinned) Limiting d/t value for Class 1 plastic “Web Generally” = 80ε r1 80ε 1 + r1 but ≥ 40ε = 86.097 = 1.H αcr. 4 1. 3 δ δ 281.4 = π 2 EI L 2 = π 2 × 210000 × 23130 × 10 4 30000 2 Fc dtp yw =533kN but –1 < r1 ≤ 1 N R.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME where : Web d/t = 42. 1 1− 1 = 1− 1 1 13. 3 N E.097 1 + r1 = 1 + 0. 8 3 Limiting d/t value 80ε 1 + r1 = 86.e.8 < 78.8 where h δ the minimum ratio of [column height]/[horizontal deflection of the column top derived from first order analysis] 42.
6 kN r1 = Fc dtp yw = 101. 4 kN is the total factored vertical load on the rafters of the bay = 1. 92 ≤ 1 Therefore the ‘snap through’ will not occur and need not be considered further for this example.4. 6 × 235 = 0.76 = 1.35 kN/m = 1.15 Limiting d/t value = 80ε 1 + r1 = 86. 9 × 10 3 331 × 8.0.72 ∴ flange is classified as plastic Web d/t = 34.35 × 0.2 Rafter snapthrough buckling load factor For rafter (IPE 400 Grade S235) EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD α cr.5 × 5. 7(4 + L h ) I c + I r (tan 2θ r ) = Ω −1 L I r D L h Ic ε = (275/py) ½ Flange b/T = (275/235) ½ = 1. 1 (30 − 7. 4 ) = 217.5 The axial load in the rafter is generally so small that it can be assumed that the neutral axis is at middepth and the d/t limit can be taken as 80ε. 6 217. so the section can be classified as plastic. Limiting d/t value for Class 1 plastic “Web Generally” = 80 ε 1 + r1 but ≥ 40ε θr ‘Snap through’ will only occur if the ratio given by Ω = Wr W0 is >1.4) = 199. Wo Wo Wr is the plastic failure load of the rafters as fixed ended beam of span L (Mp= w × l 2 16 ) = 16 × M p L = 16 × 307. but for completeness the axial load will be taken into account.83 × 307. PAGE 56 OF 98 .r D 55.08 = 6.35 kN/m2 × 1.7 < 9.7 where Ir Fyr crosssection of the rafter span of the bay mean height of the column from base to eaves or valley) inplane second moment of area of the column(taken as zero if the column is not rigidly connected to the rafter. or if the rafter is supported on a valley beam) inplane second moment of area of the rafter nominal yield strength of the rafters roof slope if the roof is symmetrical Limiting b/T value for Class 1 plastic flange = 9ε = 9.83kN/m 8.44 = 1.35 × 1.35 kN/m = 0.25 kN/m Total = 8. 15 = 75.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 6.72 6.1 Roofing Services Rafter Snow 34. Ω = Wr W0 = 199.88 kN/m = 5.1. 4 1.44 = 1.04 = 1.1 ∴ web is classified as plastic Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic.5 < 75. 4 = 0.
8 kNm = 108.8 / 2) / 514] = 0. = 540. 5h = 5 × 6 = 30 m ∴ OK 30 m ≤ 30 m = αc (b) c hr ≤ 0.Vertical Loads Plastic stress distribution in web Web is under combined axial and bending forces.25L = 0.5 + [( 52.58 m h 58.58 m < 7.55 Check effective span to depth ratio of the rafter satisfies the condition: Lb D ≤ 44 L .25L hr = 1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 6. f y / γ MO (a) L ≤ 5h L = 30 m.1 is clearly the worst case for the column for axial force.0 0.5 m = ∴ geometry of the frame is within the limits fy / γ MO Formula Method.8 kN Classification Check the geometry of the Frame The section is Class 1 to permit plastic hinge formation.8×103 / (235 × 12.5 COLUMN DESIGN: IPE 600 INPLANE FRAME STABILITY EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Load combination no.25 × 30 = 7.1 MEd VEd NEd 6. The web is checked from EN 199311 Sheet 1 of Table 5. Therefore. bending moment and shear force as well as restraint to the compression flange. after the size of the sections is determined.2. It should be carried out again at the detailed design stage if the section sizes are reduced.8 mm ∴ αc ∴α = c / 2 + 52.1 This check should be carried out at the preliminary design stage.5 m ∴ OK ∴ 1. Ω h 275 ρ 4 + ρLr / L p yr Lb =L– where assuming 2 Dh D + D h s Lh Dh ≈ Ds PAGE 57 OF 98 .1 kN = 148.5.8 / 2 = 0.0 / 1) = 52. the columns checks need to be made for only load combination no. so find α : Depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load = NEd / ( fy × tw / γMO) = 148.
3 Lb = 30 – 3.8 = 133.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME ∴for Class 1.6.2 m Ω = Wr/Wo = 39.7 = 1.5 Vpl. limiting c actual c t f = 9 ε = 9 × 1. is not reduced by the coincident EN199311. Check VEd ≯ 0. limiting c actual c EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Lh is the length of a single haunch (= 3.6/162. This assumption must be checked because it is more onerous than checking that the crosssectional resistance is sufficient.6 = 26.3 m t w = 514 / 12. §6.8 kN Ω 275 ρ 44 L .2 Crosssectional resistance Mp Wo = Mcx = 16Mcx/L = Wr/Wo = WoL/16 = 16 × 305/30 = 162.2.8 → web is Class 1 Flange check from EN 199311 Sheet 2 of Table 5.6 kN Wo is the maximum value of Wr that causes failure of the rafter treated as a fixed ended beam of span L Plastic hinges Wo 30 m Calculation of Wo – failure load of fixedended beam 6.74 The frame analysis assumed that there is no deduction in the plastic moment resistance from interaction with shear force or axial force.0 = 9 2I L 2 × 92080 30 ρ = c = × 23130 6 Ir h o Lr = L/cos θ = 30/cos 6 = 30. VEd Max.0 = 42. NEd = 108. the frame is stable under gravity loads PAGE 58 OF 98 . axial force.7 kN = 282.2.5 → flange is Class 1 Wr = wL = 9.1 kN = 148.7 m) t w = 396 ε / (13 α 1 ) ∴ = 396 × 1. 74 6 4 + 39. = 66.8(2) shear force. shear force.6(3a) Check that the plastic moment of resistance.8 t f = 85 / 19 = 4. Mpl. Load combination no.Rd .Rd Av = h tw = 600 × 12.3 × 103/400 As Lb/D < 133.2 ∴for Class 1.55 − 1 ) = 64. 8 × 30. 8 1. Ω h 4 + ρLr / L p y = Lb/D §6. 2 / 30 235 44 .0 / ( 13 × 0.7 = 26. Max.42 × 30 = 282.1 is clearly the worst load combination.0 = 7200 mm2 275 30 39.5.
Therefore. 8 1. 2 × 235 1.33 = N Ed ≯ 0.1 in this structure. 6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Vpl.5.1 kN As VED ≯ 0.11. 5 hw t w f y γ MO Max NEd ∴ λr = 10. for this load case.11 = 148.25 Npl. 2 − 1 = 1. 3 4 + 39. PAGE 59 OF 98 . Mpl.Rd .5 × 1045 = 523 kN Max VEd = 108.Rd = 0.2 kN Checks (i) and (ii) show that the plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the coexistent axial force.9(4) coincident axial force’ Check: (i) ∴ (ii) λr = 1. 6.5 Vpl. λp must not be less than 1.6(2) EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD ∴ The required load factor for frame stability = 7200 ( 235 / √3) / 1 = 976 kN ∴ 0. 74 × 6 × 26. but generally λp would be greater than λr. §6. EC3 gives guidance for member buckling check. In this example it is assumed that vertical load case is critical. Therefore the frame analysis assumption is validated. 2 kN 0. The critical column bending moment diagram is from load combination no.Rd = 0.8 kN ≤ 795.25 Npl.0 for gravity load case For horizontal loads Required load factor λr for frame stability λr = λsc λsc − 1 275 ρ 220 DL ΩhL b 4 + ρLr / L p yr 275 220 × 0.5.3 6. causing a plastic hinge to occur at the underside of the haunch.Rd = Av (fy / √3) / γMO EN199311. 2 10.2 Eqn. 2 / 30 235 λsc = N Ed ≯ 0. §6.Rd . 0 = 795. The actual value of λp would depend on the magnitude of the applied horizontal loads.5 Vpl. 8 × 30. Now check that the plastic moment of resistance.5 kN Eqn. Therefore.1 Buckling between intermediate restraints Upper section analysis For members with plastic hinges. 5 × 564 × 10.34 γ MO = 0. 6. 4 × 30 39.3. plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the coexistent shear force.25 × 15600 × 235 / 1 = 916.Rd 0.2.2. is not reduced by the EN 199311. 5 hw t w f y = 10.
y 2 AI t f y 2 235 A It iz where = 148. 1532 PAGE 60 OF 98 .8 kN = 3512 × 103mm3 = 235 N/mm 2 = 15600mm2 = 165 × 104mm4 = 46.8 kNm 394.1.8 kN V = 108. 4 A NEd Wpl.8 kN V = 108.6 mm is dependant on ψ diagram. EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 1350 N = 148. forces and restraints Stable length of column: EN199311.1 kN Geometry 3650 0 kNm Bending moments below haunch Moments.1 kN 540. BB3. 73 → C1 = 1.y fy C1 1 + 2 756C1 W pl. = based on the shape of the bending moment NCCI SN003aENEU.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME find the stable length with a plastic hinge.1 ψ 3650 5000 = 0.8 kNm 6000 N = 148. Table 3.1 Lm = 38i z 1 N Ed 57.
62 + 4002 = 221221 mm2 The value of the bending moment can be found at any point in the rafter from the formula: Mx is2 = VΡx – H hx – w Ρ x2/2 is the horizontal distance to the point considered Distance between shear centres of flanges hs = 600 −19 = 581 mm where Ρx PAGE 61 OF 98 . 8 × 10 3 1 + 57. 1350 mm is acceptable. 1532 2 3512 × 10 3 2 15600 × 165 × 10 4 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Lm = ( ) 235 2 235 =2196 mm Therefore.3.2 Lower section (3650 mm) LAYOUT OF PURLINS AND SIDE RAILS (a) Calculate slenderness λ and λLT Assume side rail depth = 200 mm = 200 At this stage.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 38 × 46. 6 1 148. a more detailed assessment of the frame geometry can be made. a a is 2 = 1 Purlin and side rail spacing = 600 / 2 + 200/ 2 = 400 mm = iy2 + iz2 + a2 = 2432 + 46. 4 15600 756 × 1.5. 15083 6 @ 16 30 = = 1100 183 620 400 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 = = P9 P10 s6 600 l6 4 @ 1300 s5 s4 s3 s2 180 6000 h6 Crosssection through column Distance from columns shear centre to centre of side rail. It is also useful to determine a layout of purlins and side rails that can provide restraint to plastic hinges and adjacent lengths. 6.
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 2 Iw a + Iz = 2 is hx EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD is the height of the point considered = h + Ρx tanθ V H w α is the vertical reaction at the base due to w is the horizontal reaction at the base due to w is the load per unit length of the frame (factored loading) Using the simplification for doubly symmetric I sections.1 The slenderness of the column is given by : λ = [α + (I L t Lt iz t 2 2.2 93. Iw = Iz ( hs / 2)2 α a 2 + (h s 2 )2 = is 2 400 2 + (581 2)2 = 221221 = 1.9 = 0. 6 × π 2 × 3. 39 × 10 7 × 221221 )] 0. λ = λ λ1 = 71. 6π 2 I z is 2 5 )] 0. 5 = [1. 1 + (16. 6 × 3650 2 2.2 Note:λ has been calculated using the slenderness method. 5 = 71.76 PAGE 62 OF 98 . 5 × 10 3650 46. λLT has been calculated using the Mcr method to show the different approached for obtaining these parameters.
5 0.2.0 1 π 2 EI z a 2 π 2 EI w is 2 + + GI t N cr N cr = 2 M cr. §6. 25 × 10 1 → C m = 2 Bo + B1 β t + B2 β t 5 η 1 + 10η B0 = B1 = π + 10 η 1 + 20η 0.3. 428 × 10 6 PAGE 63 OF 98 .1 M cr = 1 c2 C m M cr.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Wy f y M cr EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD λ LT = Where for Class 1 W y = W pl. 82 = 5.y EN199311. 428 × 10 6 = Ncr = 165974 3650 2 4 + 81000 × 165 × 10 = NcrE π 2 EI z Lt 2 = = π 2 × 210000 × 3387 × 10 4 3650 2 = 0.o = 2 2 2a is Lt Lt 2 2 4 12 I w = I z (hs 2) = 2142 × 10 × (484 2) = 1.2 BB3. 5 N crE − η= B2 = 1 + π η 1 + 20η N crT NcrT π 2 × 210000 × 3387 × 10 4 × 400 2 + 3650 2 2 12 1 + π × 210000 × 2. 269 × 10 6 6.3. 269 × 10 6 η= N crE N crT 5. 86 × 10 + = 6.
5 1+π η 0. 89 =1 is 2 2a 1 2 × 400 1 = C m M cr.3 χ min φ = 1 φ + φ2 −λ 2 2 = 0. Table 6. 371 B2 = − = 0.34 PAGE 64 OF 98 .o = M cr λ LT = (b) Calculate buckling resistance for axial load Nb. 428 × 10 6 = 1778 kNm M cr. 89 × 1778 = 3360 kNm 2 c 12 Wy f y M cr = 3152 × 10 3 × 235 3360 × 10 6 = 0.0 = × 1. Cm c = 1 B o + B1 β t + B 2 β t 2 = 1 0. 53 B1 = π + 10 η = 0.5 1 + α [ (λ − 0. 101 × 0 2 = 1. 5 1 + 20η EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD B0 = = 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 1 + 10η 1 + 20η 5 η 0. 101 because it is the ratio of the smaller end moment to the larger end and β = 0 moment in the column Therefore. 50 N cr = 221221 × 6. 371 × 0 + 0. §6.2) + λ ] EN199311.2 h b = 600/200 = 3. Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 EN199311. 528 + 0.0 tf = 19 mm buckling between axis zz Use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.
5 1 + 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 5 1 + α LT λ LT − λ LT. 884 + 0.62 + 0.4 ( maximum value) = 0. 45 ⋅ 15600 ⋅ 235 1 = 1650 kN (c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending Mb.5 2 = 0. 49(0. 76 2 = 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME φ = 0. = 0. 4 ) + 0. Rd Nb. Table 6. 94 × 3512 × 10 3 × 235 1 = 776 kNm (d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending PAGE 65 OF 98 .5 λ LT.94 = 0.75 ⋅ 0.76 − 0.0 β hb α φLT For hot rolled sections use Curve c for buckling. 5 2 [ ] = 0.62 2 − 0. y f y γ M1 = χ LT φ LT 1 φ LT + φ LT 2 − β ⋅ λ LT 2 = 0. Rd = 1 0.0 + β ⋅ λ LT = 0. 884 2 − 0.34(0.45 Nb. 5 1 + 0.884 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD [ 2 ] χz = 1 0.76 = 0. Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 = 0.2 ) + 0. 5 − 0. 62 χ LT Mb. Rd = χ LT Wpl.75 = 3.49 [ ( ) 2 ] EN199311.0 = 0.
6 + 0. Ed and ∆M z. Ed + ∆M z.Rd. 25 ) N b.Ed M b. Rk M z. 4ψ y ≥ 0.3 ψ =0 C mLT = 0. Ed + ∆M y. Rk γ M1 • χ LT γ M1 γ M1 The following simplifications may be made: ∆M y. Rk γ M1 γ M1 N Ed N b. 4 ⋅ 0 = 0. M y. Ed M z. 76 148. z EN199311. Ed N Ed + k zy + k zz ≤1 χ z N Rk M y. 4 C mLT = 0.3(4) γ M1 χ LT γ M1 γ M1 M y.Rd. 25 ) χ z N Rk N Ed 0. Rd. 6 − 0. 6 + 0.y ≤ 1. 8 × 10 3 (0. Ed + ∆M z.1 N Ed = 1 − γ M1 (C mLT − 0.1 × 0. Rk χ y N Rk EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD EN199311.98 PAGE 66 OF 98 . Table B.1 (C mLT − 0. Ed N Ed + k zy ≤1 χ z N Rk M y. Ed + ∆M y. Ed N Ed + k yy + k yz ≤1 M y. Ed =0 for Class 1 • No bending minor axis Buckling about yy axis is covered by MerchantRankine Therefore.3. Table B.2 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME M y. 0 As kzy λz ≥1 = 1 − EN199311. 25) 1650 × 10 3 = 0. §6. Ed M z. 6 kzy = 1 − 0.z + k yz ⋅ M y. Rk M z.
1 kNm = = fy / γ MO Plastic stress distribution in web The web is under combined axial and bending forces. 59 ≤ 1.6. 0 ∴Column OK EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 6. the moment M@P9 and M@S6 must be equal to the reduced moment capacities of the rafter and column sections provided (see Section 5 of these calculations). however. 98 ⋅ 394.2 : f y / γ MO is the collapse load V ′and H′ are the reactions at the base due to w′ At the point of failure. Therefore all load combinations should be checked.rx = 304. At the detailed design stage. 8 1650 + 0. the plastic failure load (w′) will be used instead of the applied factored loading (w). αc Thus c h 58.2 kN Classification = V ′Ρ9 . 8 775.6 RAFTER DESIGN: IPE 400 DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC FAILURE LOAD For the rafter it is not clear which load case gives the worst load combination.1 = 252.5 kNm M@S6 = Ml.6 kNm = 107.e. so find α : PAGE 67 OF 98 .EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 148. 8 = 0. Assume that the plastic hinges are located in the column at the bottom of the eaves haunch and in the rafters at the second purlin from the ridge (i. it is not necessary to calculate the plastic failure load. Web check from EN 199311 Sheet 1 of Table 5.rx = 819. This is produced by load combination 1 near the apex of the roof.H′ h9  w′ 2 (Ρ9) 2 and the moment in the column @ the bottom of the eaves haunch is given by: M@S6 ≈ H1(h – Dh – Ds/2) w′ Ensure the section is Class 1 to accommodate plastic hinge formation. The moment in the rafter at P9 is then given by: M@P9 MEd VEd NEd 6. P9 in the figure below.0 M@P9 = Mr.4 kN = 117. The rafter checks for crosssectional resistance need to be made for the worst case load effects. specifically for buckling. At the preliminary design stage.
44 – w′ × 13. VEd = 107. §6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load = NEd / ( fy × tw / ∴ ∴ ∴ EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD γ MO ) = 117. Check that the plastic moment of resistance.6 = 3440 mm = 3440 ( 235 / √3) / 1 = Av (fy / √3) / γMO EN199311.2 ×103 / (235 × 8.8(2) shear force.86 kN/m = 12.0 / ( 13 × 0.rx for Class 1.Rd .4 w′ =12.42 kN/m calculated originally) Collapse load w′ = 400 × 8. limiting c 6m h9 t f = 9 ε = 9 × 1.4 kN = 117.Rd Av = h t w Vpl.59 0. is not reduced by the coincident EN199311.7 / 13.722/2 Equating M@P9 to Mr. NEd Therefore the plastic moment resistance is not reduced by coincident shear.1/5.86 kN/m (compare with the applied factored load w of = 9.6(2) PAGE 68 OF 98 .2.8 → flange is Class 1 Ρ9 6.72 m = 7.Rd EN199311.0 mm = c / 2 + 50.5 Vpl.62 M l.6 = 38.2 × 7. Load combination no.38 = 152.2.5 + [( 58.5 = 4.rx 304. limiting c t w = 396 ε / (13 α 1 ) = 396 × 1.44 m = (M@S6)/(h@S6) = 819.0 = 9 Determination of failure load w′ actual c/t f = 64. This assumption must be checked because it is more onerous than checking that the crosssectional resistance is sufficient.1 is clearly the worst load combination Max.6.2 kN = w′ L/2 = 15w′ The frame analysis assumed that there is no reduction in the plastic moment resistance from interaction with shear force or axial force. Check VEd ≯ 0.4 2 Substituting: M@P9 = 15w′ × 13. §6.7w’ – 1132.rx 9 αc α w' M r.2 ∴for Class 1.72 – 152.4 actual c/t w = 331 / 8.5 → web is Class 1 Flange check from EN 199311 Sheet 2 of Table 5. §6.6 / 2 = 0.2 kN Max.59 − 1 ) = 59.5 = 111. shear force.3. axial force. Mpl.0/ 2) / 331.6 / 1) = 58.0] = 0.2 Crosssectional resistance h9 H′ V′ = 13.
6. the effects of shear and axial force on the plastic resistance moment can be neglected according to EC3 and the frame analysis assumption is validated. §6.25 × 8450 × 235 / 1 = 496 kN Eqn.4 kN The corresponding base reactions are: H′ = 152.Rd Max VEd = 0. 6.Rd = 0.34 0. 0 γ MO Max NEd = 377 kN = 117. Check that the plastic moment of resistance.1 Stable length check for high bending moment The critical rafter bending moment diagram is obtained from load combination no. is not reduced by the coincident EN199311.Rd 0.9 kN EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD This is less than 194 kN.25 Npl. 5 × 373 × 8.1 in PAGE 69 OF 98 . 6 × 235 1. the worst case is near the apex in the left hand rafter.3.9(4) axial force: Check: (i) ∴ (ii) 8p = w' w = 12. 5 hw t w f y 0. 5 hw t w f y γ MO = Eqn.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME = 389 kN ∴ 0.5 Vpl.3 Buckling between intermediate restraints COLUMN STABILITY By inspection.5 × 389 = 194 kN = 107.2 kN ≤ 377 kN Checks (i) and (ii) show that the plastic moment of resistance is not required by the coexistent axial force. Therefore.25 Npl. and therefore the plastic moment is not reduced by coexistent shear.6. 6. 6.2 kN V′ = 192. Mpl.6.86 9.2.33 N Ed ≯ 0.42 = 1.Rd .37 N Ed ≯ 0. because this has the highest bending moment in the rafter.
For IPE section. 3 × 10 4 ( ) 235 2 235 =1741 mm 4080 .8 kN Rafter under highest bending moment Bending moment diagram and restraints to column C1 = 1 because the bending moment is approximately uniform between restraints. MEd VEd NEd EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Plastic hinge position 819.2 kNm 4 @ 1300 6000 620 s6 Stay s5 s4 s3 s2 180 1 = 343. 4 8450 756 × 1 1307 × 10 3 2 8450 × 51. BB3. The second approach also assumes no restraint to tension flange. For IPE section. The stable length of the rafter is given by: The hinge position will be torsionally restrained by the provision of a rafter stay at the base of the haunch to side rail S6. 2. The fourth approach is generally too complex for manual design and gives little advantage for the column as usually only one restraint is required between the PAGE 70 OF 98 Lm = 38i z 1 N Ed 57. 4 A 1 + 2 756C1 W pl. Use Appendix G of BS59501: 2000 The first approach assumes no restraint to the tension flange and is conservative. The third approach is a simplification of Appendix G for IPE sections. 4. calculate the modified distance Lm to account for moment gradient. and so the stable length with a plastic hinge is calculated according to the following criteria:. but involves more work because it takes account of the shape of bending moment and hence permits use of a greater length between restraints.1. y 2 AI t f y 235 2 EN199311. The distance to the next lateral restraint to the compression flange from the plastic hinge position can be determined by one of four approaches: 1.1 Lm = 38 × 39. 5 1 107.1 kNm 1300 621. 8 × 10 3 1 + 2 57. calculate limiting distance Ls.1 kNm = 0 kN = 107.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME this structure. causing a plastic hinge very close to the apex. Calculate the limiting distance Lm. 3.
3. Check for lateral torsional buckling between purlins. moment. the length of 1550 mm from the plastic hinge position at side rail S6 to the column stay at side rail S5 is stable.9 × 103/156 × 102 = 12. Limiting length Lm is given by: Lm = 38ry 2 2 f x py c + 130 36 275 1 2 fc Rafter under lower bending moments = V′/A = 192. 566 ( D − T ) x A J The critical case is in right hand rafter. 59 Thus.3. In many cases.0 Lm = 38 × 46. it will be adequate to provide an adjacent lateral restraint to the compression flange at a distance Lm from the plastic hinge position.3.2 kN x D=600 mm T=19. λ LT = Wy ⋅ f y M cr EN199311. BS 59501: 2000 Clause 5. axial force. 9 = 0. 4 32.6 kN NEd = 117. Load combination no.3.8.3(a) is used to check the length between restraints at side rails S6 and S5. 1200 mm purlin spacing provides stability. the purlin spacing can be increased.3. = 252.2 PAGE 71 OF 98 . Check length between side rails S6 and S5 Therefore.6.0 cm2 J=165 cm4 = 32.2 Combined axial and moment check for lower bending moments Where bending moment is lower.0mm A=156.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD plastic hinge position and the base. Assume restraint is provided at S6 and S5 by means of column stays. 0 + 130 36 2 (a) Calculate buckling resistance to axial force Firstly the slenderness should be calculated 235 275 2 1 = 2160 mm 2 λ = Lcr 1 i z λ1 = 2200 39. Try purlin spacing at 2200 mm centres.2. §6. 6 12. 5 × 1 93.1 gives the biggest moments: Max. The section between this restraint and the base should then prove adequate when checked to BS 59501: Clause 4. MEd Max.4 N/mm2 = 0. 6.
Rd Fc EN199311.22 EN199311.34 λLT uv λ β w PAGE 72 OF 98 . 2 + λ ( ) λ = 4080 46.35).1. It is therefore required that: = 400 −13. 32 × 10 7 + m LT M LT Mb = M@S5 = V′ = 0.9 kN for β = 0. hs There is no plastic hinge in the length between S5 and the base and a restraint to the compression flange has been provided at side rail S5 by means of a column stay.66 cm 2 = 0. For external columns.9. 32 × 10 7 + 2200 2 × 80769 × 5.2 which is significantly less than the limit for Class 2 or compact sections (typically between 0. 6 = 87. 6 Use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0. because inplane member stability is assured by the inplane frame stability checks given in Section 7 of this example. 9 3666 = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 Pz χ min φ = 1 φ + φ −λ 2 2 EN199311.5 = 386. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 31 × 10 6 × 235 1302 × 10 6 = 0. 6 = 87. §6. Table 6.5 mm Buckling between axis zz. λ = 4080 46.08 m = 117 N/mm2 ry = 4. §6.0 = 156 × 235= 3666 kN = 0. 49 × 10 12 M cr = 1× π 2 × 210000 × 1. 5 2 )2 = 0.1 Pcy L EY = p c Ag = 4. Table 6.2 kNm = 192. the relevant check is for outofplane buckling only. 49 × 10 12 1.2. 13 × 10 5 Fc Pcy MLT Fc mLT Pz π 2 × 210000 × 1.25 and 0.1(5) 192. 6 = 1825 kN ∴ hb = 400 180 = 2. For LEY pc = 4.3.2 EN199311. the distance between shear centres of flanges must be calculated. 08 m = = 117 × 156 × 10 2 × 10 −3 ry = 4.5 mm Iw = I z (h s 2 ) 2 = = 1318 × 10 4 × (386.6 = AgPy = ≤ 1^ = 621.05 = 1193kNm λ LT = 1. 66 cm tf = 13.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME π 2 EI z L2 Iw Iz L2 GI t EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD M cr C1 = C1 + π 2 EI z SN003aENEU comes from the table indicated for the correspondent value of ψ Conservati ve → C1 = 1 Check the length between side rail S5 and the base (1) In order to obtain Iw .51 (a) Calculate buckling resistance to bending Nb. 32 × 10 7 2200 2 0.
0 for UB’s and UC’s 1 D 2 1 + 0. 0 = 73 = 0.0 + β ⋅ λ LT = 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 95 × 1.3 χ LT Mb. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT.5 1 + 0. 2 576 = 0.08 + 0. 25 = 0. 62 + 0. 6 [ 2 ] 31. 51 2 v ( ) 0. 6 × 621. Table 6. 6 with u = 0.51 − 0. 9 1825 + 0.22 [ ( ) ] λ LT. 75 ⋅ 0. 62 = [ ] EN199311.73 < 1 (b) Calculate buckling resistance for bending Mb.0 β hb φLT Use Curve c for hot rolled I sections α = 0.68 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD x = 600 19 = T = 1. Rd Fc Pcy m LT M LT Mb 192. 95 = 0.2 ) + 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME φ = 0. 51 − 0.65 = χ LT ⋅ W pl. 5 1 + 0.9 βw 1 = = χz = 0. y ⋅ f y γ M1 = χ LT φ LT 1 ∴ 2 2 No further column restraints are required between side rail S5 and the base. 6 31.75 = 2. φ LT + φ LT − β ⋅ λ LT 2 = 0. 6 × 1. 31 × 10 6 × 235 1 = 289 kNm PAGE 73 OF 98 . 9 × 0. 68 2 − 0. 05 87. Rd Nb. Rd 1 0. 92 = 0.34(0. 49(0. Table 6.51 = 0.5 EN199311.84 Nb. 68 + 0. 92 × 87.84 ⋅ 8450 ⋅ 235 1 = 1767kN = = + 164 N/mm2 pb S x = Sx = 3512 cm3 = 164 × 3512 × 10 3 × 10 −6 = 576 kNm = 0.4 ( maximum value) = 0.49 = 0. 51 2 = 0. 512 = 0. 62 2 − 0. 4 ) + 0. Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 λ LT pb Mb ∴ = 0.
2.1.y ≤ 1. z ψ=1 Conservative C mLT = 0. §6. 6 + 0. Ed + ∆M z. 25 ) N b. Ed N Ed + k zy + k zz ≤1 χ z N Rk M y.1λ z = 1 − γ M1 (C mLT − 0. 6 + 0. Rd. Rk γ M1 N Ed N b. Ed M z. 4 C mLT = 0. Ed + ∆M z.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME (c) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD M y. Ed ≤1 M y.1 × 0. 0 As kzy λz <1 = 1 − (C mLT 0. Ed N Ed + k yy + k yz ≤1 M y. Rk χ y N Rk EN199311.Ed M b. 7 × 10 3 = 0. BB3. Rk γ M1 χ LT γ M1 γ M1 There are the following simplifications: 1) ∆M y.2.996 (1 − 0. 4 ⋅ 1 = 1 kzy = 1 − 0.3. Ed M z.Rd.1 PAGE 74 OF 98 .3. Ed + ∆M y.1λ z 2 − 0.z + k zy ⋅ M y. Rk M z.3(4) γ M1 χ LT γ M1 γ M1 M y. Rk M z. Ed + ∆M y. 25 ) χ z N Rk N Ed 2 N Ed 0. 57 140. χ z N Rk γ M1 N Ed + k zy M y.Rd. Ed and ∆M z. Ed = 0 for Class 1 2) No bending minor axis 3) Buckling about yy axis is covered by MerchantRankine Therefore. 4ψ y ≥ 0. 25) 1668 × 10 3 EN199311. §6.
For first trial.5 × 10 ) = 13.1 of this worked example) The plastic hinge (at purlin P9) will be restrained by the purlin P9 and a rafter stay to give torsional restraint.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 117. EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 6.6. 5) × 84.restrarint = 222.1 Check the length between purlins P9 and P8 15 08 3 6 @ 16 30 = = 1100 18 3 Worst case between RH haunch tip and quarter span rotational restraint between 2992 mm and 9217 mm from the intersection of the rafter and the column.g. 566 × (400 − 13. 6.4 = 139.haunch = 252.4 Buckling between torsional restraints RAFTER STABILITY BELOW THE APEX Where the bottom flange is in compression.6.2 = 99. 94 ≤ 1.7 kN MEd. 996 ⋅ 252. 3 (a) Calculate slenderness λ and λLT PAGE 75 OF 98 .9 kN = 115.5 kN MEd.1 Load combination no.2 N/mm2 Worst buckling from gravity loads x = 0. the stability must be checked between torsional restraints (e.6 kN MEd. 0 ∴Rafter OK The rafter is stable between intermediate restraints to compression flange. assume rotational restraints are positioned at approximately quarter span intervals(see diagram in section 1. restraint to bottom and top flanges).0 kN MEd. The compression flange is stabilised by the purlin.9 × 10 /(84.4. 2 1668 + 0. The rafter near the apex is subject to a sagging moment in this load case. 6 289 = 0. Taking hogging moment as positive for this calculation:: MEd. 566 ( D − T ) A J = 0. 5 51.5 kN Lm Torsional re straint straint P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P1 P2 Purlin spacing = 38ry 2 2 f x py c + 130 36 275 1 2 Torsional re where fc fc = F/A 3 F@P8 = 2 115.3 = 31.
1 = 38 × 39.5 mm Distance between shear centres of flanges α 2 Iw a + Iz = 2 is = Iz ( hs / 2)2 Using the simplification for doubly symmetric I sections: Iw α a 2 + (hs 2 )2 = is 2 PAGE 76 OF 98 = . therefore no additional purlin is required between P9 and P8. 5 13.5 = 386. This is less than Lm. 1 2 235 2 + 130 36 275 1 = 2030 mm 2 = The distance between purlins P9 and P8= 1630 mm. 2 28.52 + 3002 = 118785 mm2 = 400 −13.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME The purlins provide intermediate restraints Assume side rail depth = 200 mm = 200 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD x Lm = 28. = 400 300 Cross section through rafter Distance between the centroid of the rafter and the centroid of the purlins. a a is2 is2 hs = 400 / 2 + 200/ 2 = 300 mm = iy2 + iz2 + a2 = 1652 + 39.
y 2 λ A i s 12 0. 6 × π 2 × 1.7 kN PAGE 77 OF 98 . Only positive values are included.072 (a) calculate slenderness for λ λ LT λ = [α + (I 126. Ed + a N Ed f y W pl. quarter R1 to R5 are the values of R according to R = points and midlength. 32 × 10 7 × 118785 )] 0. BB3. 5 × 6225 2 2. Conservatively.2 [R1 + 3R 2 + 4 R3 + 3 R 4 + R 5 + 2(R s − R E )] M y.9 = 1. taking NED positive at all positions: NED = 168. y at ends. 072 + (5.1 Lt iz t L t 2 2.3. 6 π 2 I z i s 2 5 )] 0.1 93.5 EN199311.34 0. 5 λ LT where Cn 1 = C n = W 2a C pl. 5 λ = = 126. 5 = = [1. 13 × 10 λ λ1 6225 39. 5 2 )2 118785 and EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD = = 1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 300 2 + (386.
2 × 10 3 × 300 235 × 1310 × 10 3 = 0. 5 = 5. 7 × 10 6 + 117. Ed + a N Ed f y W pl. 34 = 0. Ed + a N Ed f y W pl.3 χ min = 1 φ + φ2 −λ 2 PAGE 78 OF 98 . 21 Conservatively C λ LT 1 = 5. y M y. §6.2 × 10 3 × 300 235 × 1310 × 10 3 <0 so Omitted R3 = = − 31. 02 + 3 × 0. y M y. 5 × 1. 02 R4 = = = 0. 31 × 10 6 2 × 300 ×1× × 118785 8450 0. 94 R s = max value of R in the length studied = R 5 Cn = 12 [4 × 0. Ed + a N Ed f y W pl. 94 R E = max{R1 . 44 + 0. R 5 } = 0. 5 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300 235 × 1310 × 10 3 99. y − 222. 94] =1 0. y = 254. 8 × 10 6 + 117. Ed + a N Ed f y W pl. 44 R5 = M y. y M y. 51 (b) Calculate buckling resistance to axial load Nb. 0 × 10 6 + 117. 21 1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME M y. Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 EN199311. 7 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300 235 × 1310 × 10 3 = 0.2 × 10 3 × 300 235 × 1310 × 10 3 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD R1 = = <0 so Omitted R2 = = − 139. Ed + a N Ed f y W pl.
59 φ [ ] χz = 1 1. 59 2 − 1. Rd Nb. Table 6. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 41 ⋅ 8450 ⋅ 235 1 = 812 kN (c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending Mb.5 For hot rolled sections use Curve c α = 0. Table 6.2 hb = 400 180 = 2.0 β h/b = 2. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT. 2 + λ EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD ( ) EN199311. Rd = χ LT ⋅ W pl. y ⋅ f y γ M1 χ LT = φLT 1 φ LT + φ LT 2 − β ⋅ λ LT 2 = 0. 2 ) + 1.49 PAGE 79 OF 98 . 34 − 0.0 + β ⋅ λ LT = 0.75 [ ( ) 2 ] EN199311. 34(1. Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 = 0.41 Nb.5 λ LT. 34 2 = 1. 59 + 1.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME φ 2 = 0. 34 2 = 0.34 = 0.4 ( maximum value) = 0. 5 1 + 0.22 tf = 13.5 mm buckling about zz axis → Curve b for hot rolled I sections →α = 0.
Ed M b. Ed M z. 46 2 = EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD [ ] = 0.y ≤ 1 As kzy λz ≥1 = 1 − EN199311. 75 ⋅ 0. 25 ) χ z N Rk N Ed 2 0. Ed N Ed + k zy ≤1 M y. Table B. 75 ⋅ 0. Rd. 59 χ LT Mb. 25 ) N b. 975 × 1310 × 10 3 × 235 1 = 300. Ed + ∆M z. 975 = 0. Ed + ∆M y.2 0. Rk χ LT γ M1 γ M1 There are the following simplifications: ∴ ∆M y. Ed N Ed + k yy + k yz ≤1 M y. Ed M z. Rd 1 0. z PAGE 80 OF 98 . §6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME φLT = 0. M y.3. 59 + 0.1λ z N Ed = 1 − γ M1 (C mLT − 0. Ed and ∆M z. 46 2 = 0.Rd. Rk χ y N Rk EN199311.1λ z 2 (C mLT − 0. Ed + ∆M z. 46 − 0. Ed + k zz ≤1 M y.z + k zy ⋅ M y. 59 2 − 0. 4 ) + 0. 3 kNm (d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending M y.Rd. Rk χ z N Rk γ M1 γ M1 N Ed N b. 5 1 + 0. Rk M z. Ed =0 for Class 1 ∴No bending minor axis ∴Buckling about yy axis is covered by MerchantRankine So. Rk M z.3(4) γ M1 χ z N Rk γ M1 N Ed + k zy χ LT γ M1 γ M1 M y. 49(0. Ed + ∆M y.
3 = 0. 2. Check the length according to Appendix G of BS 59501:2000.8.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Conservatively taking ψ=1 EN199311. Limit the length between compression flange restraint to Lm given by Clause 5.A 1 IPE 600 Haunch geometry PAGE 81 OF 98 .981 117.3 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD C mLT = 0. Determine section properties of the haunched beamat four positions along haunch: 37 20 93 0 93 0 93 0 93 0 This section includes the length up to purlin P3. Table B.3.1) Method 4 would not normally be carried out manually although it can be shown that rafter stays to the compression flange at purlins P3 and P5 would be adequate. 4 C mLT = 0. 25) 812 × 10 3 0. 981 ⋅ 252.3 (or Clause I.4.3. 4 ⋅ 1 = 1 kzy = 1 − 117.8. Method 2 will be conservative as it ignores the restraint to the tension flange between torsional restraints. Four design options exist for the situation where the tension flange is restrained between restraints to the compression flange. 2 812 + 0. Ignore the tension flange restraints and design to Clause 4. Method 3 is relatively straightforward but using the limiting length Ls requires the distance between tension flange restraints to be adequate when checked to Clause 4. 2 × 10 3 (1 − 0. so these points are also used to check the stresses along the haunch. 5° A 620 A 2 3 From IPE 500 4 IPE 400 5 Section A . Limit the length between compression flange restraints to Ls as given by Clause 5. 6 + 0. 3.3.3. 6 + 0. 1. 4ψ y ≥ 0. 6 300.7 HAUNCH DESIGN EAVES HAUNCH STABILITY The bending moments and plastic modulus (and effective elastic modulus where appropriate) of the section are required at end and quarter points for the stability checks.3. 4. 0 ∴Rafter is acceptable.3.1 providing restraints to the compression flange as necessary.1 = 0. 6. 97 ≤ 1.
5 mm Assumed elastic neutral axis 420 410 = 2543 mm ∴Ls The length of the haunch (between the column face and purlin P3) is 3700 mm.4 approach (Simple Method) 11478 10656 9831 9010 11142 10656 9831 9010 6282 5796 4971 4150 3176×10 2647×10 2156×10 3 3 3 2986×10 2647×10 2156×10 3 3 3 0.70 m 10. For S275 (assume acceptable for S235 steel grade) Ls = 620 ry 2 100 K1 72 − x 0.0 Provided the geometrical limitations are complied with. Alternatively the length between the face of the column and purlin P3 could be checked according to Appendix G. the spacing Ly between restraints to the compression flange should not exceed the limiting spacing Ls.94 1.3 kNm at 1.y W pl.232 m from intersection of rafter and column = 403.2.25 MEd3 MEd4 MEd5 = 620 × 39.022 m from intersection of rafter and column Dh Ds ∴Ls ≈ 1.2.302 m from intersection of rafter and column = 488.5 kNm at 2.pl.ply β= Weff. This is greater than Ls.092 m from intersection of rafter and column = 247. rafter) = 577.6 235 Haunch restraints Elastic stress distribution in web PAGE 82 OF 98 . y EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Method 3 will be demonstrated here. ∴ K1 = 1.3.0 1.8 kNm at 0. Clause 5.e.162 m from intersection of rafter and column = 323. therefore an additional stay at purlin P2 would be required.8 kNm at 4. 5 1706×103 1706×103 Moments acting at the four positions are as follows: MEd1 MEd2 ry and x for the unhaunched section (i.y (mm3) Weff. 5 2 100 1. P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 400 410 820 * * 3.eff 2 (mm ) Wpl.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Position Distance from column face (mm) 1 2 3 4 0 925 1850 2775 Areagross (mm2) Areaeff 2 (mm ) Areaweb.1 kNm at 3.0 1. 1 0. 25 72 − 28.4 224. Method 3.
4 = 214. 8 214. 0 0. ψ = 0. 0 N/mm2 For class 3 check.6 N/mm2 ∴Coexistent stress at top of haunch would be σ = σ M – σ N = 224. 053 = 61. 67 + 0. 8 mm ∴bending and axial stress at top of root radius on bottom flange of haunch cutting = 216. 33ψ = 42 × 1. 8mm = 400 − 2 ∴bending and axial stress at top of haunch cutting: = 224. 5 2 − 21 − 13.2 = 796. 1 PAGE 83 OF 98 . 6 N mm 2 (b) Classify web assuming σ M = 224. 40 N mm 2 Distance from assumed elastic neutral axis to top of root radius on bottom flange of haunch cutting = 796. 5 = 363. 5 = 1. 4 = 224. 5 ∴Depth from neutral axis to underside of middle flange Total depth = rafter + web + bottom flange 796.6 – 10.053 Depth of web excluding roof radius = 40421=383 mm Class 3 limit for ψ >1: c t w ≤ 42 ε 0. 2 ) + 10. 67 + 0. 4 = 11.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Therefore stresses available to resist bending: EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD σ M = f y γ MO − σ N = 235 1 − 10. 33 × 0. 6 × (1.
The shear in the rafter has been checked in 5.Ed In the haunch.7. The tables provided below give the axial and moment resistance of the haunch section at various positions from the column face. so the shear force has no effect. A series of checks is carried out to determine whether the crosssectional moment resistance Mc.7. 6.Ed Fc Pcy + m LT M LT Mb ≤ 1 191.3.2 above . Restraints (stays) are provided to the compression flange at purlins P3 and P5 Using 4. the tapered haunch must not contain a plastic hinge.1. showing VED ≯0. 2 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD c tw = = 38 So.8.5Vpl. web class 3 6.Ed is reduced by coexistent axial force.9 kNm PAGE 84 OF 98 .1 Shear The depth of the web between flanges is not greater than in the rafter.5 kNm 60.3. Positions 1 to 5 are checked to find MED/Mc.2(a) outofplane buckling because the inplane stability of the rafter is assured by the inplane frame stability.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 383 10.1 Crosssectional resistance RAFTER STABILITY ABOVE THE HAUNCH (BETWEEN PURLINS P3 AND P5) For the stability checks given in this document for tapered haunches to remain valid. so shear buckling is not a problem in the haunch. The length between purlin P3 and P5 is mostly in the hogging region and does not contain a plastic hinge. the shear area Av increases more than the applied shear VED. by inspection.
eff fy 1476×103 1362×103 1168×10 975×10 754×10 3 3 3 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Position Distance (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 0 925 1850 2775 3700 Position Distance (mm) 1 2 3 4 5 0 925 1850 2775 3700 MEd (kNm) 577. Check positions 1 to 5 to find M Ed M c.5 118.Rd is the crosssectional moment of resistance.7 117.3 117.9 118.y. 82 < 1 ∴OK < 1 ∴OK β ≈ − 69.Rd where M c. With low coexistent axial force and shear force.7.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 6.8 Is NEd> 0. 79 ∴ mLT = 0.Rd = M pl.3 403.2 Axial and bending NEd (kN) 119.5Aweb.1 247.eff 2 (mm ) 6282 5796 4971 4150 3208 Aweb.Rd (kN) 2618 2504 2310 2117 1986 Aweb.Rd Is (=Mpl.Rd? 702 622 507 401 307 No No No No No The loading on the haunch is a combination of axial load. By inspection.5 191.Rd) MEd>Mc.5 = – 0. shear and bending. 3 = 0.Rd i. 8 702 488. ii.1. Position 1: Position 2: 577. M c.36 622 = 0.5 323.47 MLT = M@P3 = 191. the applied shear force is small relative to the shear capacity of the section and need not therefore be considered.8 488.2 Aeff 2 (mm ) 11142 10656 9831 9010 8450 Npl.Rd No No No No No No No No No No Mc.25Npl.efffy 0.5 kNm PAGE 85 OF 98 .
5 507 323. 81 = 0.40 = 0. 5 = 0.7. Overall buckling between checks should be carried out for the haunch as a whole. PAGE 86 OF 98 . v. 9 1048 0.18 + 0.2 Buckling between intermediate restraints Assuming a purlin is positioned at the midlength of the haunch.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 403. Effective plastic section modulus Table 6. 8 307 = 0. intermediate buckling should be checked between the column and purlin.58 ∴ OK → No plastic hinges in the haunch 6. and between purlin and haunch tip. 1 = 0. Effective area 2. 47 × 191. calculated for the haunch neglecting the “middle” flange. 81 192. 80 < 1 ∴OK < 1 ∴OK < 1 ∴OK EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD Fc Pcy + iii. Position 3: Position 4: Position 5: m LT M LT Mb + ≤ 1 401 247.2. iv.2.1 gives effective section properties at the start and mid span of the haunch. 5 223. but remembering its stabilising effect on the web. The following effective section properties are required: 1.
71 × 0. having M Ed M c.7.1 Check between column flange and midhaunch purlin 18 50 mm EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 Buckling on deep end of haunch From 6. 82 .EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 6. the resistance is calculated using the area and modulus at this cross section. 99 = 54. together with the axial force and bending moment at this cross section Note that χ z and χ LT are calculated at the deepest end because this gives the most conservative results where the flanges are of constant section and the web is of constant thickness along the haunch.Rd. 971 11478 = 1.2. (a) Calculate buckling resistance to axial force N b. 81 λ λ = 1850 33. Therefore. 5 λ1 = 54.z = χ z Aeff f y γ M1 l = 1850 mm = Aeff A = 11142 = 0. 574 To obtain χ z as above the following steps should be done.2 above.Rd = 0. Position 1 is the most critical crosssection. 312 × 10 7 11478 βA Iz iz ( ) 0. 71 0. 5 = 33. PAGE 87 OF 98 . 312 × 10 7 neglecting the middle flange = 1. 91 = 0. 5 = λ (β A )0. 971 93.
5 1 + α λ − 0. Rd Nb.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD χ min φ = 1 φ + φ2 −λ 2 2 = 0.85 Nb. 2 ) + 0.4 ( maximum value) [ ( ) 2 ] PAGE 88 OF 98 λ LT.y = 2986 3176 = 0.y W pl.43 Buckling between axis zz use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0. Rd = χ z Aeff f y γ M1 = 0. 574 = 0.34 φ = 0. 94 = 0. 574 2 = 0. 73 2 − 0.y f y γ M1 = Weff.5 mm = 4.Rd. 485 = βw λ LT χ LT φ LT 1 φ LT + φ LT 2 − β ⋅ λ LT 2 = 0. 574 2 = 0.z = χ LT Weff. 85 × 11142 × 235 1 = 2225 kN (b) Calculate buckling resistance to bending moment M b.pl.73 [ ] χz = 1 0. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT. 5 180 = 13. 9λ z = 0. 574 − 0. 9 × 0. 34(0.pl.0 .0 + β ⋅ λ LT = 0. 5 1 + 0. 73 + 0. 2 + λ ( ) hb tf = 796.
Ed + ∆ M z. Rd . Ed M z. Ed + ∆M z.75 = 53. Rk χ LT γ M1 γ M1 Which reduces to  N Ed N b.Rd.36 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD hb For hot rolled sections use Curve c α = 0. 25) N b. Rk M z.1 = 1 − γ M1 (C mLT − 0.Ed M b. 986 × 10 6 × 235 1 = 297 kNm χ LT Mb. Ed M z. Ed + k zz ≤1 M y. 89 ≤ 1. Rk M z. Rk χ LT γ M1 γ M1 χ z N Rk γ M1 N Ed + k zy M y. 97 × 2. 0 OK PAGE 89 OF 98 .z + k zy ⋅ M y.49 φ LT = 0. 25) χ z N Rk N Ed N Ed 0.Rd. z = Conservatively 117. Ed + ∆M y.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME β = 0.60 = 0. Ed + ∆ M y. Rd (d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending χ y N Rk γ M1 N Ed + k yy M y.1 (C mLT − 0. 2 2138 + 247.y ≤ 1 As λ z ≥ 1 kzy kzy = 1 − 0. Ed + k yz ≤1 M y.97 = 0. 8 297 = 0.
5 = [1. 4 × 3720 2 2.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME 6. Therefore. 072 + (5.7. 6 × π 2 × 1.3 Buckling between torsional restraints 37 20 mm EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 Haunch buckling length Section 6. 6π 2 I z is 2 5 )] 0.072 iz α The axial slenderness (for restrained tension flange) is given by: λ = [α + (I L t Lt iz t 2 2. moments and resistances at that point.7 PAGE 90 OF 98 . check the resistance based on forces.312 × 107 mm4 (ignoring the middle flange) = (1. 312 × 10 7 × 118785 )] 0. 13 × 10 3720 39.2 of this example shows that the critical section in the haunch is Position 1 because MEd/MRd is maximum at that point.5 = 39.312 × 10y/8450)0. (a) Calculate slenderness λ and λLT χ z and χ LT are calculated the constants accounting for the effect of the taper are based on the shallow end of the haunch l Iz = 3720 mm = 1.4 = 1. 5 = 63.
678 = 0. 1 λ LT 1 = 1. Rd = χ A f y γ M1 EN199311.7 93.3 PAGE 91 OF 98 .3. 6 180 = 2. 654 (b) Calculate buckling resistance to axial load Nb. 5 = 29.3. 5 23 = 1. 3 × 10 6 2 × 300 × 1. 5 W pl.2 where C n = 1. 22 3 23 c hmax − 1 = 1+ h h − 9 min t f = 654 = 400 = 1+ EN199311.678 0.2 and since h/tf h/b = 400 = 400 13.3 hmax hmin c 654 − 1 400 400 − 9 13. 5 3 0. y 2 a c A i 2 s λ EN199311. 5 λ LT 1 = C n 0. BB3. BB 3. 2 1. §6.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD λ = λ λ1 = 63.9 = 0. 5 × 0. 1 × × 118785 8450 0.
811 2 − 0. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 5 1 + 0.34 φ = 0. 796 × 11142 × 235 1 = 2084 kN (c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending Mb.811 [ ] χz = 1 0. Rd = 11142 mm2 (neglecting the middle flange) = χ A f y γ M1 = 0. Rd Nb.0 β = 0. Table 6. Rd = χ LT W pl.2 hb = 796. 811 + 0. 2 + λ ( ) EN199311. 678 2 = 0. 678 2 = 0.4 ( maximum value) = 0. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT.75 [ ( ) 2 ] PAGE 92 OF 98 . 2 ) + 0.5 180 = 4.0 + β λ LT = 0. 678 − 0. y f y γ M1 = χ LT 1 φ LT + φ LT 2 − β λ LT 2 φ LT λ LT. 34(0.43 tf = 14.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD χ min φ = 1 φ + φ2 − λ 2 2 = 0.6 mm Buckling between axis zz Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.796 A Nb.
Ed + ∆M z. Rk χ y N Rk EN199311. Ed + ∆M z.Ed M b. Table B. Rk M z.z + k zy ⋅ M y. Ed N Ed + k yy + k yz ≤1 M y. 98 × 577.4 ⋅ 1 = 1 = 0. 854 × 2986 × 10 3 × 235 1 = 599 kNm EN199311.854 = 0. Rk M z.3. Ed M z. Table B.1λ z 0.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME h/b EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD = 2.5 Use Curve c for hot rolled I sections α =0. Ed + ∆M y. Rk χ z N Rk γ M1 χ LT γ M1 γ M1 Which reduces to – N Ed N b. 5 2084 + 0.3 119.y ≤ 1 As kzy λz ≤1 EN199311. 8 599 = 0.2 2 2 0. 25) N b.6 + 0. 99 ≤ 1. 25) χ z N Rk γ M1 (C mLT − 0.Rd.98 EN199311.1λ z N Ed N Ed 1 − = 1 − = (C mLT − 0. §6. Table 6. Ed M z.Rd.22 = 0. Rd. z ψ C mLT kzy =1 = 0.723 = 0. 0 ∴ Acceptable.3(4) γ M1 χ LT γ M1 γ M1 M y.49 φ LT χ LT Mb. Ed N Ed + k zy + k zz ≤1 M y. Rd (d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending M y. Ed + ∆M y. PAGE 93 OF 98 .
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME General design procedure according o BS 59501: 2000:
EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
BS 59501: 2000
1. 2.
Select steel grade and trial sections Check inplane stability of frame (λp ≥ λr) using: Cl. 5.5.3 Cl. 5.5.4.1 Cl. 5.5.4.4 Cl. 5.5.4.5 Cl. 5.5.1 Cl. 5.2.3.1 Cl. 5.3.1 Cl. 5.3.3 Cl. 5.3.4 Annex G.3 Table 8
• Sway check method, or • Amplified moments method, or • Secondorder analysis
3. Check outofplane stability of frame 4. Check inplane stability of members 5. Check outofplane stability of members
Determine limiting segment length for: (a) Segment adjacent to plastic hinge (Lm) (b) Member or segment with one flange restrained (Ls) using: – Simple method, or – Annex G approach 6. 7. Check deflections Design connections and bases to transmit forces and moments.
PAGE 94 OF 98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME
EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
ANNEX A: Characteristic values of internal forces Characteristic values of internal forces due to the particular load cases determined by first order analysis, see load scheme in Figure 2.
Figure 3: Characteristic internal forces due to dead load incl. profiles
Figure 4: Characteristic internal forces due to snow load
Figure 5: Characteristic internal forces due to wind load
Figure 6: Characteristic internal forces due to sway imperfection
PAGE 95 OF 98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME ANNEX B: Plastic failure of portal frame
EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
Plastic failure of a portal frame subject to uniformly distributed loading may be analysed by considering the development of either: pairs of plastic hinges in the rafters, or a plastic hinge in the rafter and also at the top of the column. For the first case, the positions of the plastic hinges occur at the tip of the haunch, at distance a into the span, and at a variable position x from the apex (see Figure 3(a)). For the second case, the plastic hinge occurs in the column below the haunch and at position x from the apex. Equilibrium can be established for each plastic hinge position in terms of the horizontal reaction R at the base of the column, the applied loading and the plastic resistance of the rafter (beam), as illustrated in Figure 3(b). These equilibrium equations can be solved to establish the minimum value of the load w, at failure. A plastic hinge will form in the column for lowrise long span portal frames.
Figure 3: Plastic hinge mechanisms in portal frame
Case 1: Plastic hinges in rafters
Equilibrium is established at the plastic hinge positions, according to: At point A: R(H + a tan θ) At point B:
PAGE 96 OF 98
=
wLa
2
−
wa 2
2
+ M pl
04: Mpl = 0. 4a 4a 2 4 x 2 + − 1 − L L2 L2 wL2 8 L a a 2 H + − x − 2 L L2 tan θ M pl = [2 H + (0. 5 + (12. 12 2 × 7.5 m Try x = 3 m and x/L = 0. The term in brackets represents the deviation from the free bending moment.27(wL2/8) This shows that there is a relatively small variation in Mpl for different values of x. 5 + (12.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME wL wL L − x − − x − M pl 2 2 2 2 2 EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD R(H + (0. 08 2 − 4 × 0. 08 2 × 0.12: M pl = wL2 1 − 4 × 0. Example: L = 25 m θ = 15° a=2m H = 7. and it may be found that x ≈ 2 m. which can be solved by selecting different values of x and establishing the minimum value of w (or maximum value of Mpl).28 (wL2/8) Try x = 1 m and x/L = 0. 08 − 0. 5 + 2 − 3) × 0. and for this value of x is given by: R = 0.45 (wL/2) PAGE 97 OF 98 .5L – x) tan θ) = Solving these two equations by eliminating the reaction R leads to the following relationship between the applied moment and bending resistance of the rafter. 27 8 [( [2 × 7. 5 − 3) 0. 08 + 4 × 0. 5 L + a − x ) tan θ ] where and w is the load per unit length applied to the rafter Mpl is the plastic bending resistance of the rafter L is the span of the portal frame H is the column length a is the length of the haunch θ is the slope of the rafter This unique equation is a function of x. 27] ) ( ) ] = 0. The horizontal reaction R is established from the previous equations. wL2/8.
equilibrium is established from: R(H –b) where = Mpl. the bending resistance of the column should be 51% higher than that of the rafter in order for Case 1 to control.42 wL2 / 8 . It does not consider horizontal loads or wind loading which can cause nonsymmetrical loading.28 wL2 / 8 .51 Mpl.col is the depth of the haunch b Mpl. ( ) ( ) PAGE 98 OF 98 .08 and b/H = 0. Note: The analysis provided above is for the vertical loading case only.1 and Mpl = 0. Therefore.col = 0. This approach is satisfactory for BS 5950 however care should be taken when designing using Eurocode 311 as all load combinations must be taken into account.col L H + 2 − x tan θ wL2 = (H − b ) 8 4x 2 1 − 2 L For x/L ≈ 0.col is the plastic bending resistance of the column The equation for equilibrium at point B in the rafter is the same as the previous case. If Mpl. then Case 2 will control. Solving the two equations leads to the following relationship between the applied moment and the bending resistances of the rafter and column: M pl + M pl . it follows that Mpl.EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME Case 2: Plastic hinges at top of column and the rafter EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD A plastic hinge may occur at the top of the column below the haunch in which case.col < 1.
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.