Steel Structures II Project: Student: Ionoaia Anca-Olivia FILS, Year IV

Steel Structures II Project

Student: Ionoaia Anca-olivia
FILS, year IV
1.1 INPUT DATA
Hstr ≔ 7 m
Dspan ≔ 22 m
Dspan = 22000 mm
dspan ≔ 2200 mm
tbay ≔ 11 m
slope ≔ 0.05
αslope ≔ atan ((slope)) = 2.862 °
1.2 SNOW LOAD ASSESMENT
The characteristic snow load at the roof level is given by the following formula from CR-1-3/2012:
According to CR-1-3/2012 (Fig. 1) and table A1 the characteristic value for the snow load
at the ground level , Sk for the city choosen for this project, is:
Fig. 1 Characteristic value for Snow load at ground level

Snow (for Sibiu)
kN
sk ≔ 1.5 ――
m2
The slope of the roof also needs to be taken into account when computing the snow load, thus the factors μi :
0.8 ⋅ αslope
μ1 ≔ 0.8 μ2 ≔ 0.8 + ―――― = 0.801
30
In design, three loadind cases need to be considered for roofs with two slopes, but since my
structure is symmetrical, I will take into account only two cases, one uniformly distributed, and
the other with a higher snow load on one of the slopes than on the other, as seen in the Fig.2:
Fig.2 Slope factors for roofs with 2 slopes

0 ≤ α ≤ 30°
For purlin design ->only case I
For truss design ->case I + case II
γIs ≔ 1
Ce ≔ 1
Ct ≔ 1
kN
S1 ≔ γIs ⋅ μ1 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 1.2 ――
m2
1.3 WIND LOAD ASSESMENT
The wind load is assessed using CR1-1-4/2012, the reference value for the dynamic wind
pressure qb, being 0.6 kPa, as seen in the following Fig.3:
Fig. 1 Reference dynamic wind pressure zoning

1.4 Industrial Dust Load
kN
dust ≔ 0.5 ――
m2
2. GEOMETRICAL SOLUTION FOT THE ROOF TRUSS

The geometrical solution fot the roof truss was established according to the lecture notes
According to my odd student number I have to choose PRATT TRUSS :
D=22m b=2750 mm
3. ROOF PURLIN DESIGN

The roof purlin will be designed according to the 2 loading cases given by the snow load.
The purlin I will compute will be a purlin situated in the field, since it will have the largest
Tributary Area thus, being most loaded. For the design, I will first asses the loads and the load
combination according to CR0-2012.
Where, Ψ0.I ≔ 0.7 is a simultaneity factor from CR0-2012, Gk,j are the permanent loads, Qk,i
are the variable loads.
Also, I will have to take into account the weight of the industrial dust, given in the project
theme.
3.1. EVALUATION OF INTERNAL FORCES
Dead loads:
kN
roof_weight ≔ 0.5 ――
m2
kN
purlin_weight ≔ 0.15 ――
m2
kN
dust ≔ 0.5 ――
m2
kN
technological_load ≔ 0.3 ――
m2
Snow (for Sibiu)

kN
sk1 ≔ 1.5 ――
m2
kN
sk2 ≔ 1.5 ――
m2
wind (for Sibiu)

kN
qb ≔ 0.6 ――
m2
⎛ roof_weight ⎞ kN
qSLU ≔ 1.35 ⎜―――― + purlin_weight + dust + technological_load⎟ + 1.5 ⋅ S1 = 3.758 ――
⎝ cos ⎛⎝αslope⎞⎠ ⎠ m2
qSLS ≔ 1 ⎜―――― + purlin_weight + dust + technological_load⎟ + Ψ0_2 ⋅ S1 = 2.291 ――
The linearly distributed loads on the purlin will be determined from the distributed loads acting
over a tributary area, I will choose by looking for the worst-case loading scenario as seen in the
Fig. 5. I will compute the snow load for the purlin using the biggest value for the snow load
possible, the snow load affected by the μ2 ≔ 0.952 coefficient.
The resulting linearly distributed load will be:

kN
pULS ≔ qSLU ⋅ dspan = 8.268 ――
m
kN
pSLS ≔ qSLS ⋅ dspan = 5.039 ――
m
Projecting this load on the z-axis of the cross-section:

kN
pz_ULS ≔ pULS ⋅ cos ⎛⎝αslope⎞⎠ = 8.258 ――
m
kN
pz_SLS ≔ pSLS ⋅ cos ⎛⎝αslope⎞⎠ = 5.033 ――
m
These being the In-plane and normal components of the linearly distributed load acting on the
roof purlin.
The purlin is computed as a continuos beam, the bemding moments and the shear forces will
be computed by using Wrinler's coefficients. In order to obtain a more accurate diagram for the
variation of the bending moment, I will generate the diagram using an equivalent simply
supported beam, acted on by the distributed load and the continuity moments computed using
Wrinkler's coefficients.
The diagram for the shear force can be obtained easier, because the variation is linear, thus, no
Wrinkler's coefficients.
The diagram for the shear force can be obtained easier, because the variation is linear, thus, no
intermediary sampling points are required. The diagram I obtained can be seen in the Fig. 6
below.
3.2. STATIC SCHEME
α1 ≔ 0.395 β1 ≔ 0.078
α2 ≔ 0.625 β2 ≔ 0.105
α3 ≔ 0.523 β3 ≔ 0.033
α4 ≔ 0.474 β4 ≔ 0.046
α5 ≔ 0.50 β5 ≔ 0.079
for first span
ULS VULS ≔ α1 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 35.881 kN
MULS ≔ β1 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay 2 = 77.939 m ⋅ kN
second support
VULS ≔ α2 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 56.774 kN
for current span
Fig. 6 SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM FOR THE PURLIN
The bending moment diagram was obtained by summing up the moments in a

certain cross section, on the associated simply supported beam, taking into
account the continuity moments.
Fig. 7 BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM FOT THE PURLIN
3.3. CROSS SECTION VARIATION
Because of the difference in internal forces, it is possible to vary the cross section of the
purlin in order to better use the material. This variation is given by the different values for
the bending moment, so the best way to vary the cross section is to modify the size of the
flanges. The purlin thus obtained will have a constant height of the web and the width of
the flanges will vary according to the internal force requirement. The change of cross-
section usually takes place at a distance of 0.2t from the internal supports. I will use 3
different cross-sections in my design and I will distribute them over the lenght according to
the fugure below.
3.4. SIZING OF THE CROSS-SECTION
I Propose a double-symmetric cross section made out of welded steel plates.

I will begin by sizing the height of the web, since it will be constant over the entire lenght of the
purlin. The web thickness and height, will have to respect the conditions given in table 5.2 in
EN1993-1-1-2006, in order to avoid local buckling.
I will work with S235 STEEL.
3.5. SIZING OF THE WEB

Bay: tbay ≔ 11 m
Numer of bays: nt ≔ 7
Cross-Section 1: fyd ≔ 235 MPa

M1 ≔ 51.4 kN ⋅ m
Cross-Section 2:
M2 ≔ 88.3 kN ⋅ m
Cross-Section 3:
M3 ≔ 117.4 kN ⋅ m
The weights for the average bending moment will be taken as vectors, for easier
summing up. Thus , the weights for the average bending moment M* will be:
Cross-Section 1: w1i ≔ 0.6 ⋅ tbay + 0.6 ⋅ tbay + 0.6 ⋅ tbay + 0.6 ⋅ tbay + 0.6 ⋅ tbay = 33 m
Cross-Section 2: w2i ≔ 0.8 ⋅ tbay + 0.4 ⋅ tbay + 0.4 ⋅ tbay + 0.4 ⋅ tbay + 0.4 ⋅ tbay + 0.8 ⋅ tbay = 35.2 m
Cross-Section 3: w3i ≔ 0.4 ⋅ tbay + 0.4 ⋅ tbay = 8.8 m
Finally, the weighted average bending moment for the sizing of the web, M* will be:
M1 ⋅ w1i + M2 ⋅ w2i + M3 ⋅ w3i

MEd ≔ ――――――――― = 75.811 kN ⋅ m
nt ⋅ tbay
Using this average bending moment, I will now compute the neccesary height of
the web for the roof purlins:
MEd
Wy_nec ≔ ―― = 322.602 cm 3
fyd
Knowing the available tickness for the plates, tw={3, 4, 5, 6 , 7,.....} [mm], I will choose a
tickness for my web, and compute the necessary height of the web. Also, I will check if the
geometric criteria is fullfilled, in order to remain in the assumed cross-section. Cross Section
Class 3, according to EC3.
I will choose
tw ≔ 8 mm
The resulting web height will be:
‾‾‾‾‾‾
Wy_nec
hw_nec ≔ 1.15 ⋅ ――― = 230.933 mm
tw
Since hw needs to be a multiple of 10[mm], I will choose hw ≔ 250 mm
Check for the Cross-Section Class, according to Table 5.2 EC3:
1
―
‾‾‾‾
235 kg
2
m⋅s
ε≔ ―― = 0.001 ―― ⋅ ――
fyd 1
― kg
2
m
The ratio c/t will be given in this case by the ratio: hw/tw:
hw hw The condition is fullfilled

― = 31.25 ― ≤ 124
tw tw
3.6. SIZING OF THE FLANGES
The size of the flanges will be computed for each of the proposed cross-sections.
Cross-Section 1:
The size of the flanges will be determined by the design bending moment and the
necessary section modulus.
M1 = 51.4 kN ⋅ m
The necessary section modulus will be:
M1
Wy_Cs1 ≔ ―― = 218.723 cm 3
fyd
I will now propose a flange tickness(tf) and compute the flange width (bf).
I will choose :
tf ≔ 12 mm
Wy_Cs1 1
Af_nec1 ≔ ――― - ―⋅ hw ⋅ tw = 541.56 mm 2
hw 6
From this, the width of the flange for this cross-section results:
Af_nec1
bf_nec ≔ ――― = 45.13 mm
tf
But, bf must be a multiple of 10 [mm], so: bf ≔ 150 mm
I will now check the cross-section class according to EC3, Table5.2

( ε ≔ ((1)) )
bf - tw
c ≔ ――― = 71 mm
2
c
―= 5.917 5.917 ≤ 14 ⋅ ε
tf
Cross-Section 2:
M2 = 88.3 kN ⋅ m
M2
Wy_Cs2 ≔ ―― = 375.745 cm 3
fyd
I will choose :
tf ≔ 12 mm
Wy_Cs2 1
Af_nec2 ≔ ――― - ―⋅ hw ⋅ tw = 1169.645 mm 2
hw 6
Af_nec2
bf_nec ≔ ――― = 97.47 mm
tf

( ε ≔ ((1))
bf - tw
c ≔ ――― = 96 mm
2
c
―= 8 8 ≤ 14 ⋅ ε
tf
Cross-Section 3:
M3 = 117.4 kN ⋅ m
M3
Wy_Cs3 ≔ ―― = 499.574 cm 3
fyd
Browse for Image...
I will choose :
tf ≔ 12 mm
Wy_Cs3 1
Af_nec3 ≔ ――― - ―⋅ hw ⋅ tw = 1664.965 mm 2
hw 6
Af_nec3
bf_nec ≔ ――― = 138.747 mm
tf

( ε ≔ ((1))
bf - tw
c ≔ ――― = 121 mm
2
c 10.08 ≤ 14 ⋅ ε
―= 10.083
tf
The final dimensions for all the purlin cross-section proposed:

3.7. CHECKS FOR THE PURLIN
3.7.1 STRENGHT (ULS)
Strenght checks will be performed according to SR EN1993-1-1, on all the designed cross-
sections.
3.7.1.1 SECTION 1
tw ≔ 8 mm
hw ≔ 250 mm
tf ≔ 12 mm
bf ≔ 150 mm
fyd ≔ 235 MPa
hw
ymax ≔ ― + tf = 137 mm
M1 = 51.4 kN ⋅ m 2
⎛h 3 ⋅t ⎞ ⎛t 3 ⋅b
2⎞
w w ⎜ f f
⎛ hw tf ⎞ ⎟
Iy_1 ≔ ⎜――― ⎟ + ――― + tf ⋅ bf ⋅ ⎜― + ―⎟ = 4132.807 cm 4
⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎜ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎟⎠
Iy_1
Wy_1 ≔ ―― = 301.665 cm 3
ymax
Mc_Rd ≔ Wy_1 ⋅ fyd = 70.891 kN ⋅ m
M1
―― = 0.725
Mc_Rd
3.7.1.1 SECTION 2
tw ≔ 8 mm
hw ≔ 250 mm
tf ≔ 12 mm
bf ≔ 230 mm
fyd ≔ 235 MPa
M2 = 88.3 kN ⋅ m
M2 = 88.3 kN ⋅ m
Bending Check:
⎛h 3 ⋅t ⎞ ⎛t 3 ⋅b
2⎞
⎛ hw tf ⎞
w
Iy_2 ≔ ⎜―――
w
⎟ + ⎜―――
f f
+ tf ⋅ bf ⋅ ⎜― + ―⎟
⎟
= 5781.415 cm 4
⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎜⎝ 12 ⎝ 2 2⎠ ⎟⎠
Iy_2
Wy_2 ≔ ―― = 422.001 cm 3
ymax
Mc_Rd ≔ Wy_2 ⋅ fyd = 99.17 kN ⋅ m
M2
―― = 0.89
Mc_Rd
Shear Check:
V2 ≔ 50.85 kN
Av ≔ hw ⋅ tw = 2000 mm 2
⎛ fyd ⎞
Vc_Rd ≔ Av ⋅ ⎜―― ⎟ = 271.355 kN
⎜⎝ ‾‾
3 ⎟⎠
V2
――= 0.187 0.187 ≤ 1
Vc_Rd
Bending Shear Interaction:

2
⎛ V2 ⎞
ρ ≔ ⎜2 ⋅ ――- 1⎟ = 0.391
⎝ Vc_Rd ⎠
⎛ ρ ⋅ Av 2 ⎞
⎜
Mvy_Rd ≔ Wy_2 - ――― ⎟ ⋅ fyd = 91.515 kN ⋅ m
⎜⎝ 6 ⋅ tw ⎟⎠
M2
――― = 0.965 0.965 ≤ 1
Mvy_Rd
Since the cross-section was not fulfilled the bending-shear interaction, another 30[mm]
have been added to the flanges of the cross-section. The final resulting cross-section is:
V2 M2
Even if ―― ≤ 0.5 then ―――is not neccesary
Vc_Rd Mvy_Rd
to be smaller than1.
3.7.1.1 SECTION 3
tw ≔ 8 mm
hw ≔ 250 mm
tf ≔ 12 mm
bf ≔ 300 mm
fyd ≔ 235 MPa
M3 = 117.4 kN ⋅ m
Bending Check:
⎛h 3 ⋅t ⎞ ⎛t 3 ⋅b
2⎞
w w ⎜ f f
⎛ hw tf ⎞ ⎟
Iy_3 ≔ ⎜――― ⎟ + ――― + tf ⋅ bf ⋅ ⎜― + ―⎟ = 7223.947 cm 4
⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎜ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎟⎠
Iy_3
Wy_3 ≔ ―― = 527.295 cm 3
ymax
Mc_Rd ≔ Wy_3 ⋅ fyd = 123.914 kN ⋅ m
M3
―― = 0.947
Mc_Rd
Shear Check:
V3 ≔ 63.57 kN
Av ≔ hw ⋅ tw = 2000 mm 2
⎛ fyd ⎞
Vc_Rd ≔ Av ⋅ ⎜―― ⎟ = 271.355 kN
⎜⎝ ‾‾
3 ⎟⎠
V3
――= 0.234 0.234 ≤ 0.5
Vc_Rd
Bending Shear Interaction:

2
⎛ V3 ⎞
ρ ≔ ⎜2 ⋅ ――- 1⎟ = 0.282
⎝ Vc_Rd ⎠
⎛ ρ ⋅ Av 2 ⎞
⎜
Mvy_Rd ≔ Wy_3 - ――― ⎟ ⋅ fyd = 118.383 kN ⋅ m
⎜⎝ 6 ⋅ tw ⎟⎠
M3
――― = 0.992 0.619 ≤ 1
Mvy_Rd
All the purlins proposed fulfill the strenght requirements in the ULS.
3.7.1. DEFELCTION CHECK (SLS)
The deflection check will be done only for the cross-section in the field.
For the deflection check, I will take into account both the deflection given by the
distributed load, and the counter-defelction given by the continuity moments at the
ends of the purlin as seen in Fig. 10.
For Cross-Section 2
tbay
fadm ≔ ―― = 44 mm
250
E ≔ 210 GPa
Iy_2 ≔ 5781.415 cm 4
kN
pz_SLS ≔ 5.495 ――
m
4
5 pz_SLS ⋅ tbay
f1 ≔ ―― ⋅ ――――= 0.086 m
384 E ⋅ Iy_2
Fig. 10 Deflections.
2
1 M2 ⋅ tbay
f2 ≔ ― ⋅ ――― = 0.055 m
16 E ⋅ Iy_2
fII ≔ f1 - f2 = 31.281 mm fII ≤ fadm
For Cross-Section 1
tbay
fadm ≔ ―― = 44 mm
250
E ≔ 210 GPa
Iy_1 ≔ 4132.807 cm 4
kN
pz_SLS ≔ 5.495 ――
m
4
5 pz_SLS ⋅ tbay
f3 ≔ ―― ⋅ ――――= 0.121 m
384 E ⋅ Iy_1
1 M1 ⋅ tbay 2
f4 ≔ ― ⋅ 2 ⋅ ――― = 0.09 m
16 E ⋅ Iy_1
fI ≔ f3 - f4 = 31.125 mm fI ≤ fadm
3.7.2. SPLICE DESIGN
The Design stress, is reduced to a couple of forces in order to compute the splicing plates
required for the purlins.
3.7.2.1. SPLICE FOR C-S 3:
M3 ≔ 117.4 kN ⋅ m
fyd ≔ 235 MPa
fu ≔ 360 MPa
hw ≔ 250 mm
bf ≔ 300 mm
tf ≔ 12 mm
Computing the level arm: Splice details from the lecture notes
h ≔ hw + 2 ⋅ tf = 274 mm
The resulting couple of forces will be:

M3
H ≔ ―― = 428.467 kN
h
From this, I obtain the necessary area for the cover plate:
H
Acp_nec ≔ ―― = 1823.264 mm 2
fyd
The top and the bottom cover plates will be dimensioned now:
For the top cover plate:

a ≔ 20 mm
btop_cp ≔ bf - a = 280 mm
Acp_nec
ttop_cp_nec ≔ ――― = 6.512 mm resulting
btop_cp ttop_cp ≔ 8 mm
Atop_cp ≔ ttop_cp ⋅ btop_cp = 2240 mm 2
Strenght Check for the Top cover plate:
H
――― = 191.28 MPa 191.28 MPa ≤ 235 MPa
Atop_cp
Sizing the fillet weld:
tmin ≔ min ⎛⎝tf , ttop_cp⎞⎠ = 8 mm aw ≔ 0.7 ⋅ tmin = 5.6 mm

aw < 0.7 ⋅ tmin

βw ≔ 0.8 γM2 ≔ 1.25 resulting aw ≔ 5 mm
fu
fvw_d ≔ ――――= 207.846 MPa
‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2
Atop_cp ⋅ fyd
――――
1.0
lw_nec ≔ ――――= 253.264 mm resulting lw_top ≔ 250 mm
2 ⋅ aw ⋅ fvw_d
The weld must be shorter than:
60 ⋅ aw = 300 mm
For the bottom cover plate:
tbot_cp ≔ tf = 12 mm
Acp_nec
bbot_cp_nec ≔ ――― = 151.939 mm resulting bbot_cp ≔ 160 mm
tbot_cp
Abot_cp ≔ bbot_cp ⋅ tbot_cp = 1920 mm 2
H
――― = 223.16 MPa 223.16 MPa ≤ 235 MPa
Abot_cp
Sizing the filled weld:
tmin ≔ min ⎛⎝tf , tbot_cp⎞⎠ = 12 mm aw ≔ 0.7 ⋅ tmin = 8.4 mm
aw < 0.7 ⋅ tmin resulting aw ≔ 8 mm

βw ≔ 0.8 γM2 ≔ 1.25
fu
fvw_d ≔ ――――= 207.846 MPa
‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2
Abot_cp ⋅ fyd
――――
1.0
lw_nec ≔ ――――+ 2 ⋅ aw = 151.677 mm resulting lw_top ≔ 160 mm
2 ⋅ aw ⋅ fvw_d
60 ⋅ aw = 480 mm
3.7.2.2. SPLICE FOR C-S 1:
M1 ≔ 51.4 kN ⋅ m
fyd ≔ 235 MPa
fu ≔ 360 MPa
hw ≔ 250 mm
bf ≔ 150 mm
tf ≔ 12 mm
Computing the level arm:

h ≔ hw + 2 ⋅ tf = 274 mm
The resulting couple of forces will be:

M1
H ≔ ―― = 187.591 kN
h
From this, I obtain the necessary area for the cover plate:
H
Acp_nec ≔ ―― = 798.261 mm 2
fyd
The top and the bottom cover plates will be dimensioned now:
For the top cover plate:
a ≔ 20 mm
btop_cp ≔ bf - a = 130 mm
Acp_nec
ttop_cp_nec ≔ ――― = 6.14 mm resulting
btop_cp ttop_cp ≔ 8 mm
Atop_cp ≔ ttop_cp ⋅ btop_cp = 1040 mm 2
H
――― = 180.376 MPa 180.376 MPa ≤ 235 MPa
Atop_cp
Sizing the fillet weld:
tmin ≔ min ⎛⎝tf , ttop_cp⎞⎠ = 8 mm aw ≔ 0.7 ⋅ tmin = 5.6 mm

βw ≔ 0.8 γM2 ≔ 1.25 aw < 0.7 ⋅ tmin resulting aw ≔ 5 mm
fu
fvw_d ≔ ――――= 207.846 MPa
‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2
Atop_cp ⋅ fyd
――――
1.0
lw_nec ≔ ――――= 117.587 mm resulting lw_top ≔ 120 mm
2 ⋅ aw ⋅ fvw_d
60 ⋅ aw = 300 mm
For the bottom cover plate:
tbot_cp ≔ tf = 12 mm
Acp_nec
bbot_cp_nec ≔ ――― = 66.522 mm resulting bbot_cp ≔ 70 mm
tbot_cp
Abot_cp ≔ bbot_cp ⋅ tbot_cp = 840 mm 2
H
――― = 223.323 MPa 223.323 MPa ≤ 235 MPa
Abot_cp
Sizing the filled weld:
tmin ≔ min ⎛⎝tf , tbot_cp⎞⎠ = 12 mm aw ≔ 0.7 ⋅ tmin = 8.4 mm
aw < 0.7 ⋅ tmin resulting aw ≔ 8 mm

βw ≔ 0.8 γM2 ≔ 1.25
fu
fvw_d ≔ ――――= 207.846 MPa
‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2
Abot_cp ⋅ fyd
――――
1.0
lw_nec ≔ ――――+ 2 ⋅ aw = 75.359 mm resulting lw_top ≔ 80 mm
2 ⋅ aw ⋅ fvw_d
60 ⋅ aw = 480 mm
4. DESIGN OF THE ROOF TRUSS
4.1. EVALUATION OF INTERNAL FORCES
I will evaluate the internal forces for the roof truss both in the Ultimate Limit State and the
Servicialbility Limit State. For this evaluation I will use Ftool.
- FOR THE TRUSS DESIGN
Load combinations- snow load case I

Case I
0.8 ⋅ αslope
μ2 ≔ 0.8 + ―――― = 0.801
30
kN
S1 ≔ γIs ⋅ μ2 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 1.202 ――
m2
Case II
kN
S1 ≔ γIs ⋅ μ2 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 1.202 ――
m2
kN
S2 ≔ 0.5 ⋅ γIs ⋅ μ2 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 0.601 ――
m2
The nominal loads linearly distributed on the purlin (vertical direction) [kN/m2]:
QULS ≔ qSLU ⋅ dspan ⋅ tbay = 91.024 kN
QSLS ≔ qSLS ⋅ dspan ⋅ tbay = 55.467 kN

Load combinations- snow load case II
Qk1 ≔ S2 = 0.601 kPa
QULS ≔ qSLU ⋅ dspan ⋅ tbay = 69.208 kN
QSLS ≔ qSLS ⋅ dspan ⋅ tbay = 45.286 kN
Load combinations- snow load case I

Load combinations- snow load case II
Fig. 9 ULS Loading for the TRUSS Snow Load

Case I
Fig. 9 ULS Member's internal force
Fig. 10 Member's Joints Numbering

4.2. SIZING AND CHECKS
For the sizing of the truss members, the internal forces for ULS are used,
determined above they have been summarized in the following table:
Table 1 Summary of Axial forces in truss
All the truss elements have the cross-section built from two equal angles side by side:
The radii of gyration will be:
iy ≔ iz1
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ 2
2 ⎛ tg ⎞
iz ≔ iz1 + ⎜―+ e⎟
⎝2 ⎠
Fig. 11 Truss member Cross-Section
According to 1993-1-1 the filler plates are placed as follows: at l1<l 5 i min for members in
compression (but not less than 2 filler plates along the members between joints, and l1<80i min for
members in tension(but not less than one filler plate along the members between joints), where i
min is the minimum radius of gyration og one angle.
The proposed angles need to be checked in tension and compression. The design values for
this check will be the maximum value of axial force for the checked cross-section. The
other ones having lower axial force, will be covered/
4.2.2 Strenght and Stability Checks:
4.2.2.1 Compression Member Check
The strenght and stability checks will be performed on the cross-section of the
compressed members of the truss.
Top Flange
Ned ≔ -791 kN -axial compression force in member
Angle: 150x150x12
N
fyd ≔ 235 MPa tg ≔ 15 mm E ≔ 210000 ―― α ≔ 0.49
mm 2
γM1 ≔ 1.0
bmax ≔ 150 mm
bmax
tg ≔ ―― = 15 mm
10
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
Sectional characteristics:
iz ≔ 4.60 cm ecc ≔ 4.12 cm iz1 ≔ 46 mm
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ 2
2
⎛ tg ⎞ 2 ⋅ 34.83 = 69.66
iz ≔ iz1 + ⎜―+ ecc⎟ = 66.99 mm
⎝2 ⎠
Lel ≔ 2773 mm A ≔ 69.66 cm 2

Solidarization plates will be provided at the distance 15xiy at (least)=690 mm
Buckling check around Axis y-y:
Lcr_y ≔ Lel = 2773 mm Lcr_y

λy ≔ ――= 60.283
iz1
λy
λy_ ≔ ―= 0.642
λ1
ϕy ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λy_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λy_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.814
1
χy ≔ ―――――― = 0.54
ϕy + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕy 2 + λy_ 2
χy ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nb_Rd_y ≔ ―――― = 884.322 kN
γM1
-Buckling check around Axis z-z
Lcr_z ≔ Lel = 2773 mm Lcr_z

λz ≔ ―― = 41.394
iz
λz
λz_ ≔ ―= 0.441
λ1
ϕz ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.656
1
χz ≔ ―――――― = 0.691
ϕz + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕz 2 + λz_ 2
χz ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nb_Rd_z ≔ ―――― = 1131.657 kN
γM1
Nb_Rd ≔ min ⎛⎝Nb_Rd_y , Nb_Rd_z⎞⎠ = 884.322 kN NEd ≔ 791 kN

NEd
Final Check: ――= 0.894 ((0.894 < 1))
Nb_Rd
Diagonal
Angle: 120x120x10 Ned ≔ -268.3 kN -axial compression force in member
N
fyd ≔ 235 MPa tg ≔ 15 mm E ≔ 210000 ―― α ≔ 0.49
mm 2
γM1 ≔ 1.0
bmax ≔ 150 mm
bmax
tg ≔ ―― = 15 mm
10
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
iz ≔ 3.67 cm ecc ≔ 3.31 cm iz1 ≔ 36.7 mm
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ 2
2
⎛ tg ⎞ 2 ⋅ 23.2 = 46.4
iz ≔ iz1 + ⎜―+ ecc⎟ = 54.729 mm
⎝2 ⎠
Lel ≔ 3419 mm A ≔ 46.4 cm 2
Solidarization plates will be provided at the distance 15xiy(at least)=550.5 mm
Lcr_y ≔ 0.8 ⋅ Lel = 2735.2 mm Lcr_y

λy ≔ ――= 74.529
iz1
λy
λy_ ≔ ―= 0.794
λ1
ϕy ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λy_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λy_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.96
1
χy ≔ ―――――― = 0.453
ϕy + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕy 2 + λy_ 2
χy ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nb_Rd_y ≔ ―――― = 494.261 kN
γM1

λz ≔ ―― = 62.472
iz
λz
λz_ ≔ ―= 0.665
λ1
ϕz ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.835
1
χz ≔ ―――――― = 0.525
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2
ϕz + ϕz + λz_ 2
χz ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nb_Rd_z ≔ ―――― = 572.995 kN
γM1
Nb_Rd ≔ min ⎛⎝Nb_Rd_y , Nb_Rd_z⎞⎠ = 494.261 kN NEd ≔ 268.3 kN
NEd
Final Check: ――= 0.543 ((0.543 < 1))
Nb_Rd
Vertical
Angle: 60x60x5 Ned ≔ -91 kN -axial compression force in member
N
fyd ≔ 235 MPa tg ≔ 15 mm E ≔ 210000 ―― α ≔ 0.49
mm 2
γM1 ≔ 1.0
bmax ≔ 150 mm
bmax
tg ≔ ―― = 15 mm
10
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
iz ≔ 1.82 cm ecc ≔ 1.64 cm iz1 ≔ 18.2 mm
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ 2
⎛ tg
⎞ 2 ⋅ 5.82 = 11.64
iz ≔ iz1 2 + ⎜―+ ecc⎟ = 30.041 mm
⎝ 2 ⎠
Lel ≔ 1673 mm A ≔ 11.64 cm 2
Solidarization plates will be provided at the distance 15xiy(at least)=273 mm
Lcr_y ≔ 0.8 ⋅ Lel = 1338.4 mm Lcr_y

λy ≔ ――= 73.538
iz1
λy
λy_ ≔ ―= 0.783
λ1
ϕy ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λy_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λy_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.949
1
χy ≔ ―――――― = 0.459
ϕy + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕy 2 + λy_ 2
χy ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nb_Rd_y ≔ ―――― = 125.471 kN
γM1

λz ≔ ―― = 55.691
iz
λz
λz_ ≔ ―= 0.593
λ1
ϕz ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.772
1
χz ≔ ―――――― = 0.573
ϕz + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕz 2 + λz_ 2
χz ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nb_Rd_z ≔ ―――― = 156.696 kN
γM1
Nb_Rd ≔ min ⎛⎝Nb_Rd_y , Nb_Rd_z⎞⎠ = 125.471 kN NEd ≔ 91 kN
NEd
Final Check: ――= 0.725 ((0.725 < 1))
Nb_Rd
4.2.2.1 Members in Tension
Bottom Chord
Angle: 150x150x12 Ned_t ≔ 784.4 kN -axial tension force in member
N
fyd ≔ 235 MPa tg ≔ 15 mm E ≔ 210000 ―― α ≔ 0.49
mm 2
γM1 ≔ 1.0
bmax ≔ 150 mm
bmax
tg ≔ ―― = 15 mm
10
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
iz ≔ 4.6 cm ecc ≔ 4.12 cm iz1 ≔ 46 mm
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ 2
2
⎛ tg ⎞ 2 ⋅ 34.83 = 69.66
iz ≔ iz1 + ⎜―+ ecc⎟ = 66.99 mm
⎝2 ⎠
Lel ≔ 2750 mm A ≔ 69.66 cm 2
Solidarization plates will be provided at the distance 15xiy(at least)=690mm
Lcr_y ≔ Lel = 2750 mm Lcr_y

λy ≔ ――= 59.783
iz1
λy
λy_ ≔ ―= 0.637
λ1
ϕy ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λy_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λy_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.81
1
χy ≔ ―――――― = 0.544
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2
ϕy + ϕy + λy_ 2
χy ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nt_Rd_y ≔ ―――― = 889.947 kN
γM1

λz ≔ ―― = 41.051
iz
λz
λz_ ≔ ―= 0.437
λ1
ϕz ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.654
1
χz ≔ ―――――― = 0.694
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2
ϕz + ϕz + λz_ 2
χz ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nt_Rd_z ≔ ―――― = 1136.854 kN
γM1
Nt_Rd ≔ min ⎛⎝Nt_Rd_y , Nt_Rd_z⎞⎠ = 889.947 kN NEd_t ≔ 784.4 kN
NEd_t
Final Check: ――= 0.881 ((0.881 < 1))
Nt_Rd
Diagonal
Angle: 80x80x8 Ned_t ≔ 79.9 kN -axial tension force in member
N
fyd ≔ 235 MPa tg ≔ 15 mm E ≔ 210000 ―― α ≔ 0.49
mm 2
γM1 ≔ 1.0
bmax ≔ 150 mm
bmax
tg ≔ ―― = 15 mm
10
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
iz ≔ 2.43 cm ecc ≔ 2.26 cm iz1 ≔ 24.3 mm
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ 2
⎛ tg
⎞ 2 ⋅ 12.3 = 24.6
iz ≔ iz1 2 + ⎜―+ ecc⎟ = 38.685 mm
⎝2 ⎠
Lel ≔ 3889 mm A ≔ 24.6 cm 2

Solidarization plates will be provided at the distance 15xiy(at least)=360 mm
Lcr_y ≔ 0.8 ⋅ Lel = 3111.2 mm Lcr_y

λy ≔ ――= 128.033
iz1
λy
λy_ ≔ ―= 1.363
λ1
ϕy ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λy_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λy_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 1.714
1
χy ≔ ―――――― = 0.256
ϕy + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕy 2 + λy_ 2
χy ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nt_Rd_y ≔ ―――― = 148.054 kN
γM1

λz ≔ ―― = 100.531
iz
λz
λz_ ≔ ―= 1.07
λ1
ϕz ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 1.286
1
χz ≔ ―――――― = 0.338
ϕz + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕz 2 + λz_ 2
χz ⋅ A ⋅ fyd
Nt_Rd_z ≔ ―――― = 195.33 kN
γM1
Nt_Rd ≔ min ⎛⎝Nt_Rd_y , Nt_Rd_z⎞⎠ = 148.054 kN NEd_t ≔ 91 kN
Final Check: NEd_t

――= 0.615 ((0.615 < 1))
Nt_Rd
λmax ≤ λadm
-allowable slenderness (STAS 10108-0/78)
-Top Chord
Ly_max_top_chord ≔ 2773 mm
Lz_max_top_chord ≔ 2773 mm
iy_top_chord ≔ 36.7 mm
iz_top_chord ≔ 54.729 mm
Ly_max_top_chord
λy_top ≔ ――――― = 75.559
iy_top_chord
Lz_max_top_chord
λz_top ≔ ――――― = 50.668
iz_top_chord
λadm ≔ 120 λmax ≔ max ⎛⎝λy_top , λz_top⎞⎠ = 75.559
=> λmax ≤ λadm
-Diagonals& Vertical Members
λadm ≔ 150
Ly_max_diag ≔ 3111.2 mm
Lz_max_diag ≔ 3889 mm
iy_diag ≔ 24.3 mm
iz_diag ≔ 38.685 mm
Ly_max_diag
λy_diag ≔ ―――― = 128.033
iy_diag
Lz_max_diag
λz_diag ≔ ―――― = 100.53
iz_diag
λadm ≔ 150 λmax ≔ max ⎛⎝λy_diag , λz_diag⎞⎠ = 128.033

Steelλadm
Structures λmax ≔ max ⎛⎝λy_diag , λz_diag⎞⎠ = 128.033
≔ 150 II Project
=> λmax ≤ λadm
4.2.3 Welded Shop Connections
The welded connections corresponding to the vertical elements and the diagonals of the
roof truss must be sized and checked.
The notations for the weld design are presented in the figure below:
Nweld ≔ min ⎛⎝1.3 ⋅ Ned , Nb_Rd⎞⎠
Fig. 12 Notations for the weld design from Lecture Notes
I will compute these connections for all the members in the truss, even
though the top chord and the bottom chord are usually butt-welded, I may
need the sizes for some of the gusset plates. The shear strenght of the
welds will be:
βw ≔ 0.8 for S235 γM2 ≔ 1.25
the ultimate strenght of the

fu ≔ 360 MPa parent material
fu
fvw_d ≔ ――――= 207.846 MPa shear strenght of the fillet
‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2 weld
-Member 1-2: -compression
NEd ≔ 526.5 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 884.322 kN
Nweld ≔ min ⎛⎝1.3 ⋅ NEd , Nb_Rd⎞⎠ = 684.45 kN

Nweld = 684.45 kN b ≔ 150 mm ec ≔ 41.2 mm fvw_d ≔ 208 MPa
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 496.454 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 187.996 kN
b
a1 ≔ 9 mm a2 ≔ 9 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 150.6 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 68.213 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
But the weld lenghts must be a multiple of 5 mm
=> l1_calc ≔ 160 mm
l2_calc ≔ 70 mm
l1 ≔ max ⎛⎝b , 15 ⋅ a1 , l1_calc⎞⎠ = 160 mm l1 ≤ 540 60 ⋅ a1 = 540 mm
-Member 1-3: -tension
NEd ≔ 579.2 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 492.947 kN
Nweld ≔ min ⎛⎝1.3 ⋅ NEd , Nt_Rd⎞⎠ = 492.947 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 356.976 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 135.971 kN
b
a1 ≔ 7 mm a2 ≔ 7 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 136.588 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 60.693 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 140 mm
l2_calc ≔ 60 mm
-Member 2-3: -compression 60x60x5
NEd ≔ 91 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 125.471 kN

b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 85.965 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 32.335 kN
b
a2 ≔ 5 mm
a1 ≔ 5 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 51.329 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 25.546 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 60 mm
l2_calc ≔ 30 mm
-Member 2-4: -compression (same as Member 1-2)
NEd ≔ 526.6 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 884.322 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 496.549 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 188.031 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 188.031 kN
b
a1 ≔ 9 mm a2 ≔ 9 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 150.625 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 68.222 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 160 mm
l2_calc ≔ 70 mm
NEd ≔ 268.3 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 494.261 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 252.582 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 96.208 kN
b
a1 ≔ 7 mm a2 ≔ 7 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 100.738 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 47.038 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 110 mm
l2_calc ≔ 50 mm
NEd ≔ 737.8 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 492.947 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 356.976 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 135.971 kN
b
a1 ≔ 7 mm a2 ≔ 7 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}

N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 136.588 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 60.693 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 140 mm
l2_calc ≔ 70 mm
-Member 4-5: -tension 80x80x8
NEd ≔ 40.6 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 148.054 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 37.87 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 14.91 kN
b
a1 ≔ 6 mm a2 ≔ 6 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}

N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 27.172 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 17.974 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 30 mm
l2_calc ≔ 20 mm

150x150x12
NEd ≔ 744 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 884.322 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 641.428 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 242.894 kN
b
a1 ≔ 9 mm a2 ≔ 9 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}

N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 189.322 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 82.875 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 170 mm
l2_calc ≔ 80 mm
NEd ≔ 61.8 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 125.471 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 58.38 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 21.96 kN
b
a1 ≔ 5 mm a2 ≔ 5 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}

N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 38.068 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 20.558 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 40 mm
l2_calc ≔ 20 mm
NEd ≔ 784.4 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 492.947 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 356.976 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 135.971 kN
b
a1 ≔ 7 mm a2 ≔ 7 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}

N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 136.588 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 60.693 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 140 mm
l2_calc ≔ 70 mm
NEd ≔ 56.5 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 125.471 kN
Nweld = 73450 N b ≔ 60 mm ec ≔ 16.4 mm fvw_d ≔ 208 MPa
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 53.374 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 20.076 kN
b
a2 ≔ 5 mm
a1 ≔ 5 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 35.66 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 19.652 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 40 mm
l2_calc ≔ 20 mm
NEd ≔ 791 kN
Nb_Rd ≔ 884.322 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 641.428 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 242.894 kN
b
a1 ≔ 9 mm a2 ≔ 9 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 189.322 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 82.875 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 190 mm
l2_calc ≔ 90 mm
-Member 7-8: -tension 80x80x8
NEd ≔ 79.9 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 148.054 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 74.527 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 29.343 kN
b
a1 ≔ 6 mm a2 ≔ 6 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 41.858 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 23.756 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d

=> l1_calc ≔ 50 mm
l2_calc ≔ 30 mm
NEd ≔ 727.9 kN
Nt_Rd ≔ 492.947 kN
b - ec
N1 ≔ ――⋅ Nweld = 356.976 kN
b
ec
N2 ≔ ―⋅ Nweld = 135.971 kN
b
a1 ≔ 7 mm a2 ≔ 7 mm
a1 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a1={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
a2 ≤ min ⎛⎝0.7 ⋅ tg , 0.85 ⋅ tL⎞⎠ a2={3; 3.5; 4; 5; 5.5; 6; 7}
N1
l1_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a1 = 136.588 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 60.693 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1_calc ≔ 140 mm
l2_calc ≔ 70 mm
Welded Site Connections
Site Connection for Top Flange
The connection for the top chord is constructed using two splices, having an equivalent
cross-section to the top chord.
Fig. 13 Splices sketch for top chord
The splices are cut in such a way to allow the welding of the connection on site. The
full sketch given in the lecture notes is presented below:
Fig. 14 Top chord splice (from lecture notes)
The design efforts for the connection are:
NEd ≔ 791 kN Nb_Rd ≔ 884.322 kN Nweld ≔ min ⎛⎝1.3 ⋅ NEd , Nb_Rd⎞⎠ = 884.322 kN
A150x150x15 ≔ 34.83 cm 2 AP20 ≔ 2 ⋅ A150x150x15 = 69.66 cm 2 tc ≔ 15 mm
bP20 ≔ 150 mm
AP25 ≔ AP20 - 2 ⋅ ⎛⎝2 ⋅ tc 2 + 0.5 ⋅ tc 2 ⎞⎠ = 58.41 cm 2
AP27_nec ≔ AP20 - AP25 = 11.25 cm 2
The necessary of P27 is evaluated and rounded up to 10 mm.
bP27_nec ≔ 2 ⋅ ⎛⎝bP20 - tc⎞⎠ + tg - 2 ⋅ 15 mm = 255 mm 255 mm ≥ 80 mm
bP27 ≔ 260 mm
AP27_nec
tP27_nec ≔ ――― = 4.327 mm
bP27
But tP27_nec must be greater than 8 mm.
=> tP27 ≔ 8 mm
Strenght Check
AP27 ≔ tP27 ⋅ bP27 = 2080 mm 2
NEd N
―――― = 99.861 ―― 99.861 ≤ 235 fyd
AP25 + AP27 mm 2 ―― =235N/mm^2
γM0
Dimensiong the Weld Seams:
0.7 ⋅ tc = 10.5 mm
Choosing the Seam thicknesses:

a2 ≔ 7 mm a3 ≔ 5 mm
The design axial force Ned is distributed according to the areas of the splices:
AP25
N2 ≔ Nweld ⋅ ―――― = 652.105 kN
AP25 + AP27
AP27
N3 ≔ Nweld ⋅ ―――― = 232.217 kN
AP25 + AP27
From this, I will compute the necessary weld seams, the shear strenght of the
weld is the same as for the shop welded connections.
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 237.937 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
N3
l3_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a3 = 121.643 mm
2 ⋅ a3 ⋅ fvw_d
The weld seams also need to fulfill the following constructive requirements:
15 ⋅ a2 ≤ l2 ≤ 60 ⋅ a2 105 ≤ l2 ≤ 420 mm
15 ⋅ a3 ≤ l3 ≤ 60 ⋅ a3 75 ≤ l3 ≤ 300 mm
The resulting weld lenght will be:
l2 ≔ 240 mm l3 ≔ 125 mm
Site Connection for BOTTOM FLANGE
The connection for the bottom chord is constructed in a similar manner to the
connection for the top chord, using two splices.
Fig. 15 Splices sketch for bottom chord
The splices are cut in such a way as to allow the welding of the connection on site.
Fig. 16 Bottom Chord splices from the lecture notes
The design efforts for the connection are:
NEd ≔ 784.4 kN Nb_Rd ≔ 889.947 kN Nweld ≔ min ⎛⎝1.3 ⋅ NEd , Nb_Rd⎞⎠ = 889.947 kN
A150x150x15 ≔ 34.83 cm 2 AP10 ≔ 2 ⋅ A150x150x15 = 69.66 cm 2 tc ≔ 15 mm
bP10 ≔ 150 mm
AP15 ≔ AP10 - 2 ⋅ ⎛⎝2 ⋅ tc 2 + 0.5 ⋅ tc 2 ⎞⎠ = 58.41 cm 2
AP17_nec ≔ AP10 - AP15 = 11.25 cm 2
The necessary of P27 is evaluated and rounded up to 10 mm.
bP17_nec ≔ 2 ⋅ ⎛⎝bP10 - tc⎞⎠ + tg - 2 ⋅ 15 mm = 255 mm 255 mm ≥ 80 mm
bP17 ≔ 260 mm
AP17_nec
tP17_nec ≔ ――― = 4.327 mm
bP17
But tP17_nec must be greater than 8 mm.
=> tP17 ≔ 8 mm
Strenght Check
AP17 ≔ tP17 ⋅ bP17 = 2080 mm 2
NEd N
―――― = 99.028 ―― 99.861 ≤ 235 fyd
AP15 + AP17 mm 2 ―― =235N/mm^2
γM0
Dimensiong the Weld Seams:
0.7 ⋅ tc = 10.5 mm
Choosing the Seam thicknesses:

a2 ≔ 7 mm a3 ≔ 5 mm
The design axial force Ned is distributed according to the areas of the splices:
AP15
N2 ≔ Nweld ⋅ ―――― = 656.253 kN
AP15 + AP17
AP17
N3 ≔ Nweld ⋅ ―――― = 233.694 kN
AP15 + AP17
From this, I will compute the necessary weld seams, the shear strenght of the
weld is the same as for the shop welded connections.
N2
l2_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a2 = 239.362 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
N3
l3_nec ≔ ―――― + 2 ⋅ a3 = 122.353 mm
2 ⋅ a3 ⋅ fvw_d
The weld seams also need to fulfill the following constructive requirements:
15 ⋅ a2 ≤ l2 ≤ 60 ⋅ a2 105 ≤ l2 ≤ 420 mm
15 ⋅ a3 ≤ l3 ≤ 60 ⋅ a3 75 ≤ l3 ≤ 300 mm
The resulting weld lenght will be:
l2 ≔ 240 mm l3 ≔ 130 mm
Deflection Check
In order to perform the deflection check, the internal forces corresponding to the SLS-
characteristic load combination are used.
Deflection check:
NEd_SLS ⋅ li ⋅ nEd D
fmax ≔ ∑ ――――― fa ≔ ――― fmax < fa
i E ⋅ Ai 250 mm
D-span
Ned,sls-the internal force corresp. to SLS
li-lenght
Ai-the cross sectional area
ni-the axial force obtained applying a unitary virtual force at the node where the
deflection needs to be checked
Fig. 17 Static scheme of the roof truss with a unitary applied force
The axial force Ni is obtained from the axial forces corresponding to ULS:
QSLS ≔ 55.467 kN
QULS ≔ 91.024 kN
QSLS
――= 0.609
QULS
Member 1-2
NEd_SLS ≔ -320.6385 kN
li ≔ 2773 mm
nEd ≔ 0.6
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
NEd_SLS ⋅ li ⋅ nEd
fi ≔ ―――――= -0.7293635 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 1-3
NEd_SLS ≔ 352.7328 kN
li ≔ 3048 mm
nEd ≔ 0.8
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 1.1759207 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 2-3
NEd_SLS ≔ -55.419 kN
li ≔ 1673 mm
nEd ≔ 0
Ai ≔ 582 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 0 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 2-4
NEd_SLS ≔ -320.6994 kN
li ≔ 2773 mm
nEd ≔ 0.7
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= -0.8510857 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 3-4
NEd_SLS ≔ -163.3947 kN
li ≔ 3419 mm
nEd ≔ 0.6
Ai ≔ 2320 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= -0.6879883 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 3-5
NEd_SLS ≔ 449.3202 kN
li ≔ 2750 mm
nEd ≔ 1.2
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 2.0272024 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 4-5
NEd_SLS ≔ 24.7254 kN
li ≔ 2032 mm
nEd ≔ 0
Ai ≔ 1230 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 0 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 4-6
NEd_SLS ≔ -453.096 kN
li ≔ 2773 mm
nEd ≔ 1.7
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= -2.9202246 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 5-6
NEd_SLS ≔ -37.6362 kN
li ≔ 3644 mm
nEd ≔ 0.6
Ai ≔ 582 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= -0.673276 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 5-7
NEd_SLS ≔ 477.6996 kN
li ≔ 2750 mm
nEd ≔ 1.7
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 3.0532595 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 6-7
NEd_SLS ≔ -34.4085 kN
li ≔ 2391 mm
nEd ≔ 0
Ai ≔ 582 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 0 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 6-8
NEd_SLS ≔ -481.719 kN
li ≔ 2773 mm
nEd ≔ 2.5
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= -4.5657369 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 7-8
NEd_SLS ≔ 48.6591 kN
li ≔ 3889 mm
nEd ≔ 0.6
Ai ≔ 1230 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 0.4395708 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 7-9
NEd_SLS ≔ 443.2911 kN
li ≔ 2750 mm
nEd ≔ 2.1
Ai ≔ 3483 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 3.5000015 mm
E ⋅ Ai
Member 8-9
NEd_SLS ≔ 56.5 kN
li ≔ 2750 mm
nEd ≔ 0.8
Ai ≔ 1230 mm 2
fi ≔ ―――――= 0.4812234 mm
E ⋅ Ai
fmax ≔ 0.2495033 mm
D ≔ 22000 mm
D
fadm ≔ ―― = 88 mm
250
fmax < fadm

Nsum ≔ 36.1746 kN
lsum ≔ 42188 mm
nsum ≔ 13.9
Asum ≔ 32620 mm 2
Nsum ⋅ lsum ⋅ nsum

fmax ≔ ――――― = 3.0967363 mm
E ⋅ Asum
TRANSVERSE FRAME ANALYSIS

The transverse frame represents the main lateral load resisting system of the industrial
building. It is made up of columns and truss beams which are simply supported on the
columns.
The transverse frames carry all vertical loads and lateral loads which act in the transverse
direction such as wind loads and seismic loads.
The static analysis will be carried out for each loading hypothesis, using the characteristic
values of loads. The trusses are considered axially nondeformable and as such able to
ensure equal displacement of the columns at the top level. In transverse direction, the
columns are fixed at the base and are hinged at the top.
Fig. 18 Static Scheme
OUTLINE
-> Evaluation of Loads
->Load combinations
->Static scheme. Evaluation of internal forces for columns
->Loads Evaluation- ROOF LEVEL
Permanent Loads
Tributary Area
Atr ≔ D ⋅ tbay = 242 m 2
Permanent load
kN
qac ≔ 1.95 ――
m2
qac ⋅ Atr
P ≔ ――― = 235.95 kN
2
Variable Loads
Snow Load according to CR-1-1-3/2012
αslope ≔ atan ((slope)) = 2.862 °
Case I
μ1 ≔ 0.8
0.8 ⋅ αslope -I have calculate it already at the

μ2 ≔ 0.8 + ―――― = 0.801 begining of the project
30
0.5 ⋅ μ1 = 0.4
kN
S1 ≔ γIs ⋅ μ1 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 1.2 ――
m2
Case II
kN
S1 ≔ γIs ⋅ μ2 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 1.202 ――
m2
kN
S2 ≔ 0.5 ⋅ γIs ⋅ μ1 ⋅ Ce ⋅ Ct ⋅ sk = 0.6 ――
m2
Tributary Area
Atr ≔ D ⋅ tbay = 242 m 2
Fig. 19 Sketch from lecture notes

Snow Load
S1 ⋅ Atr
z1 ≔ ――― = 145.442 kN
2
S2 ⋅ Atr
z2 ≔ ――― = 72.6 kN
2
Wind Load according to CR-1-1-4/2012
The wind load action is modeled by means of static equivalent pressures.

The basic wind pressure for the given site (Sibiu) is:
qb ≔ 0.6 kPa
Fig. 20 Zoning of the reference values of dynamic wind

pressure
The design wind pressures were determined according to the design

code CR1-1-4/2012.
z0 ≔ 1
z ≔ 10
Cpq_z is the gust factor for wind pressure
Cr_z is the roughness coefficient depending on the site conditions

Fig. 21 Figure taken from CR1-1-4/2012
Z- height at which the wind pressure is computed

Zo-roughness lenght, depending on the terrain category
Kr-terrain factor depending on the roughness lenght
qp - peak value of dynamic pressure of wind
The wind action against buildings and structures
The pressure is adjusted using the Aerodynamic pressure coefficients

(0.8 for face D-windward and 0.5 for face E-leeward) for vertical walls,
from Table 4.1. Thus, I obtain the following wind pressures:
Cpq - is the gust factor for wind pressure

Cr 2 -is the roughness coefficient depending on the site conditions
terrain category III

=>
z0 ≔ 0.3 -roughness lenght
kr_zo ≔ 0.214
kr_zo 2 = 0.046
ze ≔ h
H≔7 m
h ≔ H + 0.85 m + 1.315 m = 9.165 m
ze
ze ≔ 9.165 ―= 4.583
2
2
⎛ ze ⎞
Cr ≔ kr_zo 2 ⋅ ln ⎜―⎟ = 0.535
⎝ z0 ⎠
β ≔ 4.5 - 0.856 ⋅ ln ⎛⎝ze⎞⎠ = 2.604
‾‾
β = 1.614
β -represents a proportionality factor for the surface roughness
‾‾
β
Iv ≔ ――――= 0.1888
⎛ ze ⎞
2.5 ⋅ ln ⎜―⎟
⎝ z0 ⎠
g ≔ 3.5
g-peak factor
Cpq ≔ 1 + 2 ⋅ g ⋅ Iv = 2.3213
Iv -turbulence intensity
Ce ≔ Cpq ⋅ Cr = 1.243
kN
qp ≔ Ce ⋅ qb = 0.7458 ――
m2
qp (ze)- peak velocity pressure evaluated at a reference height ''ze''
Faces D and E depend on the diirection of wind
D- face perpendicular to wind (pressure) -WINDWARD

E- (suction) - LEEWARD
Cpe -pressure coefficient

face D => Cpe_D ≔ 0.8 pressure
face D => Cpe_E ≔ 0.5 suction
kN
we_D ≔ Cpe_D ⋅ qp = 0.597 ――
m2
kN
we_E ≔ Cpe_E ⋅ qp = 0.373 ――
m2
we -wind pressure acting on external surfaces of vertical walls
kN
wp ≔ we_D ⋅ tbay = 6.563 ―― wind pressure
m
kN wind sucction
ws ≔ we_E ⋅ tbay = 4.102 ――
m
VEd_wp ≔ wp ⋅ h = 60.147 kN
VEd_ws ≔ ws ⋅ h = 37.592 kN
h
MEd_wp ≔ VEd_wp ⋅ ―= 275.625 kN ⋅ m
2
h
MEd_ws ≔ VEd_ws ⋅ ―= 172.266 kN ⋅ m
2
Seismic Load according to P100-1/2013
S-seismic force applied on the

structure
S=Fb
City: Sibiu
ag ≔ 0.20 g Tc ≔ 0.7 q ≔ 2.5 λ≔1
G-permanent loads
kN
qac ≔ 1.95 ―― -sum of permanent loads
m2
Atr ≔ D ⋅ tbay = 242 m 2 -tributary area for 1

transversal frame
kN
z ≔ 1.202 ――
m2
kN
Ggrav ≔ qac + 0.4 ⋅ z = 2.431 ――
m2
γI_e ≔ 1.0
βT1 ≔ 2.5
ag ⋅ βT1
Sd ≔ ――― = 0.7
q
mmass ≔ Atr ⋅ Ggrav = 588.254 kN

Fb ≔ γI_e ⋅ Sd ⋅ mmass ⋅ λ = 411.778 kN
=> NEd ≔ 0
Fb
VEd ≔ ―= 205.889 kN
2
Fb ⋅ h
MEd ≔ ――= 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
2
COLUMN DESIGN
The column is fixed in the foundation in the transverse plane and hinged in
the longitudinal plane of the industrial building. In order to prevent sway in
the longitudinal direction of the building, vertical bracing is provided.
->Evaluation of Loads- from transverse frame analysis

->Evaluation of internal forces
->Cross-section sizing
->Verifications
For column design the maximum values should be determined
kN
roof_truss_weight ≔ 0.15 ――
m2
kN
G ≔ roof_weight + purlin_weight + dust + technological_load + roof_truss_weight = 1.6 ――
m2
which I calculated above in

qac ⋅ Atr the table
P ≔ ――― = 235.95 kN
2
S1 ⋅ Atr
z1 ≔ ――― = 145.442 kN
2
kN
wp ≔ we_D ⋅ tbay = 6.563 ――
m
NEd_P ≔ P = 235.95 kN NEd_z ≔ z1 = 145.442 kN
VEd_z ≔ 0 kN
VEd_P ≔ 0 kN
MEd_P ≔ 0 kN ⋅ m MEd_z ≔ 0 kN ⋅ m
NEd_ws ≔ 0 kN NEd_wp ≔ 0 kN
VEd_ws ≔ ws ⋅ h = 37.592 kN
VEd_wp ≔ wp ⋅ h = 60.147 kN
h
MEd_wp ≔ VEd_wp ⋅ ―= 275.625 kN ⋅ m
h 2
MEd_ws ≔ VEd_ws ⋅ ―= 172.266 kN ⋅ m
2
F1 NEd_F1 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ NEd_P + 1.5 ⋅ NEd_z + 1.05 ⋅ NEd_wp = 536.695 kN
VEd_F1 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ VEd_P + 1.5 ⋅ VEd_z + 1.05 ⋅ VEd_wp = 63.155 kN
MEd_F1 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ MEd_P + 1.5 ⋅ MEd_z + 1.05 ⋅ MEd_wp = 289.406 m ⋅ kN
F2 NEd_F2 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ NEd_P + 1.5 ⋅ NEd_z + 1.05 ⋅ NEd_ws = 536.695 kN
VEd_F2 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ VEd_P + 1.5 ⋅ VEd_z + 1.05 ⋅ VEd_ws = 39.472 kN
MEd_F2 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ MEd_P + 1.5 ⋅ MEd_z + 1.05 ⋅ MEd_ws = 180.879 m ⋅ kN

F4 NEd_F4 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ NEd_P + 1.05 ⋅ NEd_z + 1.5 ⋅ NEd_ws = 471.246 kN
VEd_F4 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ VEd_P + 1.05 ⋅ VEd_z + 1.5 ⋅ VEd_ws = 56.388 kN
MEd_F4 ≔ 1.35 ⋅ MEd_P + 1.05 ⋅ MEd_z + 1.5 ⋅ MEd_ws = 258.399 m ⋅ kN
Fb
VEd ≔ ―= 205.889 kN
2
Fb ⋅ h
MEd ≔ ――= 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
2
NEd_S ≔ 0 kN
VEd_S ≔ VEd = 205.889 kN
MEd_S ≔ MEd = 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
S1 NEd_S1 ≔ 1 ⋅ NEd_P + NEd_S + 0.4 ⋅ NEd_z = 294.127 kN
VEd_S1 ≔ 1 ⋅ VEd_P + VEd_S + 0.4 ⋅ VEd_z = 205.889 kN
MEd_S1 ≔ 1 ⋅ MEd_P + MEd_S + 0.4 ⋅ MEd_z = 1886.97 m ⋅ kN
NEd_max ≔ max ⎛⎝NEd_F1 , NEd_F2 , NEd_F3 , NEd_F4 , NEd_S1 , NEd_S2⎞⎠ = 536.695 kN
MEd_max ≔ max ⎛⎝MEd_F1 , MEd_F2 , MEd_F3 , MEd_F4 , MEd_S1 , MEd_S2⎞⎠ = 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
F1,F2 provide maxixum axial force

S1 provide maximum bending mom
=>
NEd_max ≔ NEd_F1 = 536.695 kN

I
VEd_corr ≔ VEd_F1 = 63.155 kN
MEd_corr ≔ MEd_F1 = 289.406 kN ⋅ m
Where Ned,max is the maximum axial force(maximum obtained from all

posible combinations) and Med,corr; Ved,corr are the bending moment and
shear force corresponding to that combination
MEd_max ≔ MEd_S1 = 1886.97 kN ⋅ m

II
NEd_corr ≔ NEd_S1 = 294.127 kN
VEd_corr ≔ VEd_S1 = 205.889 kN
''corr''-means the load corresponding to the load combination
Where Med,max is the maximum bending moment(maximum obtained from

all posible combinations) and Ned,corr; Ved,corr are the axial force and shear
force corresponding to that combination
COLUMN DESIGN
The column is considered fixed in the foundation in the transverse plane and hinged in the
longitudinal plane of the industrial building. In order to prevent sway in the longitudinal
direction of the building, vertical bracings are provided.
CROSS SECTION SIZING
-WEB
I propose dimensions such that twxhw verifies the slenderness

requirement for class 3 cross-sections
I propose: HEB 900
tw ≔ 18.5 mm
hw ≔ 900 mm
b ≔ 300 mm
tf ≔ 35 mm
I calculate the sectional characteristics
-Total area
A ≔ 37128 mm 2
-Shear Area
Av ≔ 18875 mm 2
-Moment of Inertia
Took it from table from www.eurocodeapplied.com
Iy ≔ 4941 ⋅ 10 6 mm 4
Iz ≔ 158.2 ⋅ 10 6 mm 4
-Stenght modulus(Elastic modulus)
Wy ≔ 10980 ⋅ 10 3 mm 3
Wz ≔ 1054 ⋅ 10 3 mm 3
-Stenght modulus(Plastic modulus)
Wpl_y ≔ 12580 ⋅ 10 3 mm 3
Wpl_z ≔ 1658 ⋅ 10 3 mm 3
-Warping constant
Iw ≔ 29196000 ⋅ 10 6 mm 6
-St. Venant torsional constant
It ≔ 11540 ⋅ 10 3 mm 4
-Root radius
0.81 ⋅ 10 5 = 81000
r ≔ 30 mm
Checks for the column
fu
fvw ≔ ――――= 207.846 MPa
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2
N
fyd = 235 MPa γM0 ≔ 1.1 γM1 ≔ 1.1 γM2 ≔ 1.25 E ≔ 210000 ――
mm 2
Cross-Section Class Check
For the flanges:
fy ≔ 235
‾‾‾‾
235 b - tf - 2 ⋅ r
ε≔ ―― =1 c ≔ ―――― = 102.5 mm
fy 2
c
―= 2.929 5.221 ≤ 9 ⋅ ε = 1 => class 1 flange
tf
For the web:
NEd1 ≔ NEd_max = 536.695 kN
dw ≔ hw - 2 ⋅ tf - 2 ⋅ r = 770 mm
NEd2 ≔ NEd_corr = 294.127 kN
NEd2
NEd1 dN ≔ ――― = 67.65 mm
dN ≔ ――― = 123.449 mm tw ⋅ fyd
tw ⋅ fyd
dN + dw
α ≔ ――― = 0.58 0.58 ≥ 0.5
2 ⋅ dw
dw
― = 41.622 41.622 ≤ 60.531 396 ⋅ ε
tw ―――= 60.531 =>Class 1 web
13 ⋅ α - 1
Strenght Check(ULS)
Resistances:
fyd
-axial resistance NRd ≔ A ⋅ ―― = 7931.891 kN
γM0
⎛ fyd ⎞
Av ⋅ ⎜―― ⎟
⎜⎝ ‾‾
3 ⎟⎠
-shear resistance VRd ≔ ―――― = 2328.099 kN
γM0
fyd
-bending resistance MRd ≔ Wy ⋅ ―― = 2345.727 kN ⋅ m
γM0
Axial, bending and shear
Avz ≔ A - 2 ⋅ tf ⋅ b + ⎛⎝tw + 2 ⋅ r⎞⎠ ⋅ tf = 18875.5 mm 2
Avz ⋅ fyd
Vpl_z_Rd ≔ ―――= 2328.161 kN
‾‾
3 ⋅ γM0
Bending Check:
Wpl_y ⋅ fyd
Mpl_Rd_y ≔ ―――― = 2687.545 kN ⋅ m
γM0
Case I
MEd ≔ 289.406 kN ⋅ m
MEd
―――= 0.108 0.108 ≤ 1
Mpl_Rd_y
Case II
MEd ≔ 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
MEd
―――= 0.702 0.702 ≤ 1
Mpl_Rd_y
CASE I
VEd ≔ 63.155 kN
VEd
――― = 0.027 0.027 ≤ 0.5
Vpl_z_Rd
CASE II
VEd ≔ 205.889 kN
VEd
――― = 0.088 0.088 ≤ 0.5
Vpl_z_Rd
CASE I- first par of forces
NEd ≔ 536.695 kN NEd

―― = 0.068 0.092 ≤ 1
NRd
NRd = 7931.891 kN
VEd ≔ 63.155 kN VEd

―― = 0.027 0.055 ≤ 1
VRd
VRd = 2328.099 kN
MEd ≔ 289.406 kN ⋅ m MEd

―― = 0.123 0.238 ≤ 1
MRd
MRd = 2345.727 kN ⋅ m
The axial force and bending moment interaction check:
NEd MEd
―― + ―― = 0.191 0.092 + 0.238 ≤ 1
NRd MRd
CASE II- second pair of forces Mmax and the corresponding axial force and shear force
NEd ≔ 294.127 kN NEd

―― = 0.037 0.05 ≤ 1
NRd
NRd = 7931.891 kN
VEd ≔ 205.889 kN
VRd = 2328.099 kN VEd

―― = 0.088 0.179 ≤ 1
VRd
MEd ≔ 1886.97 kN ⋅ m MEd 0.98 ≤ 1

―― = 0.804
MRd
MRd = 2345.727 kN ⋅ m
The axial force and bending moment interaction check:
NEd MEd
―― + ―― = 0.842 0.037 + 0.804 ≤ 1
NRd MRd
General Stability (Buckling) Check
-Axial resistance: NRk ≔ A ⋅ fyd = 8725.08 kN
-Bending resistance: MRk ≔ Wpl_y ⋅ fyd = 2956.3 kN ⋅ m
Flexural buckling check-on y-y direction
Buckling resistance with respect to y-y direction
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
Lcolumn ≔ h = 9.165 m
fLy ≔ 2 Lcr_y ≔ fLy ⋅ Lcolumn = 18330 mm

y-y buckling check lenght multiplier
z-z buckling check lenght multiplier fLz ≔ 0.5 Lcr_x ≔ fLz ⋅ Lcolumn = 4.583 m
iy ≔ 364.8 mm
αy ≔ 0.34
Lcr_y 1
λ_ ≔ ――⋅ ―= 0.53503
iy λ1
λ_ ≔ 0.57
ϕ ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + αy ⋅ ((λ_ - 0.2)) + λ_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.725
1
χy ≔ ―――――= 0.852 0.852 ≤ 1
ϕ + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕ 2 - λ_ 2
χy ⋅ NRk
Nby_Rd ≔ ――― = 6756.643 kN
γM1
N
E ≔ 210000 ――
mm 2
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iy
Ncr_y ≔ ――― = 30479.579 kN
Lcr_y 2
‾‾‾‾‾‾
A ⋅ fyd
λy ≔ ―― = 0.53503
Ncr_y
-FLEXURAL BUCKLING CHECK-on z-z direction
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
Lcolumn ≔ h = 9.165 m
fLy ≔ 2 Lcr_y ≔ fLy ⋅ Lcolumn = 18330 mm

y-y buckling check lenght multiplier
z-z buckling check lenght multiplier fLz ≔ 0.5 Lcr_z ≔ fLz ⋅ Lcolumn = 4582.5 mm
iz ≔ 65.3 mm
αz ≔ 0.49
Lcr_z 1
λ_ ≔ ―― ⋅ ―= 0.747246
iz λ1
λ_ ≔ 0.79
ϕ ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + αz ⋅ ((λ_ - 0.2)) + λ_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 0.957
1
χz ≔ ―――――= 0.668 0.668 ≤ 1
ϕ + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕ 2 - λ_ 2
χz ⋅ NRk
Nbz_Rd ≔ ――― = 5301.964 kN
γM1
N
E ≔ 210000 ――
mm 2
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz
Ncr_z ≔ ――― = 15614.23 kN
Lcr_z 2
‾‾‾‾‾‾
A ⋅ fyd
λz ≔ ―― = 0.74752
Ncr_z
LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING CHECK-on y-y direction
Critical Bending Moment for Bending Twisting bucling

k≔1 kw ≔ 1 zg ≔ 0 C1 ≔ 1.77 C3 ≔ 0.94 G ≔ 79.3 GPa
Lcr_LT ≔ Lcolumn = 9165 mm ψ≔0
π 2 ⋅ E = 2072.617 GPa
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz = 327887997412991 N ⋅ mm 2
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Iw Lcr_LT 2 ⋅ G ⋅ It
Mcr ≔ C1 ⋅ ――― ⋅ ―+ ――――― = 4472.317 kN ⋅ m
Lcr_LT 2 Iz π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz
Reduced Slenderness for Bending-Twisting Buckling:
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
Wpl_y ⋅ fyd
λLT ≔ ―――― = 0.813
Mcr
Reduction factor for Bending-Twisting Buckling
hw = 900 mm hw > 2 ⋅ b 2 ⋅ b = 600 mm curve D
=> αLT ≔ 0.76
λ_ = 0.79
ϕ ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + αLT ⋅ ⎛⎝λLT - 0.2⎞⎠ + λLT 2 ⎞⎠ = 1.063
1
χLT ≔ ―――――= 0.572 0.439 ≤ 1
ϕ + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕ 2 - λLT 2
Check susceptibily to torsional deformation
The elastic flexural buckling force about z-z axis
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz
Ncr_z ≔ ――― = 15614.23 kN
Lcr_z 2
The elastic flexural buckling force
A = 37128 mm 2
I0 ≔ Iy + Iz = 5099200000 mm 4
G = 79.3 GPa
It = 11540000 mm 4
kg ⋅ m 3
G ⋅ It = 915122 ―――
s2
kg ⋅ m 5
E ⋅ Iw = 6131160 ―――
s2
Lcr_T ≔ Lcolumn = 9.165 m
Lcr_T 2 = 83997225 mm 2
A ⎛ π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iw ⎞
Ncr_T ≔ ―⋅ ⎜G ⋅ It + ―――― ⎟ = 11908.513 kN
I0 ⎜⎝ Lcr_T 2 ⎟⎠
The elastic torsional-felxural buckling force:
I0 ⎛ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
2 ⎛⎝Iy + Iz⎞⎠ ⎞
Ncr_TF ≔ ―――― ⋅ ⎜⎛⎝Ncr_z + Ncr_T⎞⎠ - ⎛⎝Ncr_z + Ncr_T⎞⎠ - 4 ⋅ ――― ⋅ Ncr_z ⋅ Ncr_T ⎟ = 12696.306 kN
2 ⋅ ⎛⎝Iy - Iz⎞⎠ ⎜⎝ I0 ⎟⎠
NEd ≔ 536.695 kN
4 ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
⎛ NEd ⎞ ⎛ NEd ⎞ λ_0_LT ≔ 0.439
λ_0lim ≔ 0.2 ⋅ ‾‾‾
C1 ⋅ ⎜1 - ――⎟ ⋅ ⎜1 - ――― ⎟ = 0.261
⎝ Ncr_z ⎠ ⎝ Ncr_TF ⎠
λ_0_LT > λ_0lim
0.439 > 0.261
Interaction Coefficients
Computations for the interaction factors
NEd
1 - ――
Ncr_y
μy ≔ ――――― = 0.997
NEd
1 - χy ⋅ ――
Ncr_y
NEd
1 - ――
Ncr_z
μz ≔ ――――― = 0.995
NEd
1 - χy ⋅ ――
Ncr_z
Wpl_y
wy ≔ ――= 1.146 1.146 ≤ 1.5
Wy
Wpl_z
wz ≔ ――= 1.573 1.573 > 1.5 =>
Wz
wz ≔ 1.5
According to table A.2

ψ1 ≔ 0
NEd ≔ 536.695 kN
NEd
Cmy.0 ≔ 0.79 + 0.21 ⋅ ψ1 + 0.36 ⋅ ⎛⎝ψ1 - 0.33⎞⎠ ⋅ ――= 0.788
Ncr_y
MEd ≔ 289.406 kN ⋅ m
MEd A
εy ≔ ―― ⋅ ――= 1.823
NEd Wy
It
αLT ≔ 1 - ―= 0.998
Iy
‾‾
εy ⋅ αLT
Cmy ≔ Cmy.0 + ⎛⎝1 - Cmy.0⎞⎠ ⋅ ――――― = 0.91
1 + ‾‾
εy ⋅ αLT
αLT
CmLT ≔ Cmy 2 ⋅ ――――――――― = 0.858
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
⎛ NEd ⎞ ⎛ NEd ⎞
⎜1 - ――⎟ ⋅ ⎜1 - ――― ⎟
⎝ Ncr_z ⎠ ⎝ Ncr_TF ⎠
NRk = 8725.08 kN
NEd
npl ≔ ――= 0.068 bLT ≔ 0 Mz_Ed ≔ 0 dLT ≔ 0
NRk
――
γM1
Computations for factors Cyy and Czz
λy = 0.535
λz = 0.748
λ_max ≔ max ⎛⎝λy , λz⎞⎠ = 0.748
⎛⎛ 1.6 1.6 ⎞ ⎞
Cyy ≔ 1 + ⎛⎝wy - 1⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜⎜1 - ―― ⋅ Cmy 2 ⋅ λ_max - ―― ⋅ Cmy 2 ⋅ λ_max 2 ⎟ ⋅ npl - bLT⎟ = 0.995
⎝⎝ wy wy ⎠ ⎠
Wy
――= 0.873 => 0.946 ≥ 0.873
Wpl_y
⎛⎛ Cmy 2 ⋅ λ_max 2 ⎞ ⎞
Czy ≔ 1 + ⎛⎝wy - 1⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎜⎜2 - 14 ⋅ ――――― ⎟ ⋅ ⎛⎝npl - dLT⎞⎠⎟ = 0.987
⎜⎝⎜⎝ wy 5 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
‾‾‾
wy Wy
0.6 ⋅ ― ⋅ ――= 0.458
wz Wpl_y
0.875 ≥ 0.458
Computation of interaction factors kyy and kzy
First pair of forces NEd = 536.695 kN
1 1
kyy ≔ Cmy ⋅ CmLT ⋅ ―――⋅ ―― = 0.813
NEd Cyy
1 - ――
Ncr_z
1 1 ‾‾‾
wy Wy
kzy ≔ Cmy ⋅ CmLT ⋅ ――― ⋅ ―― ⋅ 0.6 ⋅ ― ⋅ ――= 0.368
NEd Czy wz Wpl_y
1 - ――
Ncr_y
Second pair of forces NEd ≔ 294.127 kN
1 1
kyy ≔ Cmy ⋅ CmLT ⋅ ―――⋅ ―― = 0.8
NEd Cyy
1 - ――
Ncr_z
1 1 ‾‾‾
wy Wy
kzy ≔ Cmy ⋅ CmLT ⋅ ――― ⋅ ―― ⋅ 0.6 ⋅ ― ⋅ ――= 0.365
NEd Czy wz Wpl_y
1 - ――
Ncr_y
M-N Interaction formulas Check
First pair of forces
NEd ≔ 536.695 kN
VEd ≔ 63.155 kN
MEd ≔ 289.406 kN ⋅ m
My_Ed ≔ MEd = 289.406 kN ⋅ m
MRk_y ≔ Wpl_y ⋅ fyd = 2956.3 kN ⋅ m
NEd My_Ed
―――+ kyy ⋅ ――――= 0.23
χy ⋅ NRk MRk_y
――― χLT ⋅ ―――
γM1 γM1
Second pair of forces
NEd ≔ 294.127 kN
VEd ≔ 205.889 kN
MEd ≔ 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
My_Ed ≔ MEd = 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
NEd My_Ed
―――+ kyy ⋅ ――――= 1.026
χy ⋅ NRk MRk_y
――― χLT ⋅ ―――
γM1 γM1
First pair of forces
NEd ≔ 536.695 kN
VEd ≔ 63.155 kN
MEd ≔ 289.406 kN ⋅ m
My_Ed ≔ MEd = 289.406 kN ⋅ m
NEd My_Ed
―――+ kzy ⋅ ――――= 0.17 0.191 ≤ 1
χz ⋅ NRk MRk_y
――― χLT ⋅ ―――
γM1 γM1
Second pair of forces
NEd ≔ 294.127 kN
VEd ≔ 205.889 kN
MEd ≔ 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
My_Ed ≔ MEd = 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
NEd My_Ed
―――+ kzy ⋅ ――――= 0.504 0.643 ≤ 1
χz ⋅ NRk MRk_y
――― χLT ⋅ ―――
γM1 γM1
Conclusion: The HEB 900 Cross-Sec tion fulfills all the checks for stability,
including the bending interaction criteria.
COLUMN BASE DESIGN
The anchor bolts are designed to resist the tension produced by the base bending
moment in the load combination that produces the maximumm bending moment
associated to the minimum axial force in the cross-section at the base of the
column.
Starting from the base of the column (HEB 900), I assigned the dimensions
for the base plate:
hw = 900 mm => A ≔ b + 2 ⋅ 20 mm + 2 ⋅ 100 mm = 540 mm

b = 300 mm => B ≔ hw + 2 ⋅ 100 mm = 1100 mm
For the foundation I will use concrete Class C20/25 with characteristic compressive
strenght and design compressive strenght defined above:
N
fck ≔ 40 ―― = 40000000 Pa
mm 2
N
fcd ≔ 26.66 ―― = 26660000 Pa
mm 2
We take the maximum bending moment and the corresponding

axial force
NEd ≔ 294.127 kN
VEd ≔ 205.889 kN
MEd ≔ 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
Abp ≔ A ⋅ B = 594000 mm 2
A = 540 mm B = 1100 mm
NEd MEd
σb ≔ ―― + ――― = 17822.712 kPa σb ≤ fcd = 1
Abp B2 ⋅ A
―――
6
Transversal stiffeners
The maximum compression force is:
MEd NEd
Nts ≔ ―― + ―― = 1862.491 kN
B 2
Knowing that the stiffner will be welded on it's whole lenght and that the
weld seam must take the Nts load, establish the height of the stiffener will be
done by establishing the lenght of the weld seam.
The necessary height of the transveral stiffeners:
Propose thickness of the transversal stiffeners:
tts ≔ 21.5 mm
fu = 360 MPa
aw ≔ 10 mm
βw = 0.8
γM2 = 1.25
Nts
hts_nec ≔ ――――――― + 2 ⋅ aw = 468.046 mm
fu
2 ⋅ aw ⋅ ――――
‾‾
3 ⋅ βw ⋅ γM2
Constructive requirements:
15 ⋅ aw ≤ 600 ≤ 60 ⋅ aw
15 ⋅ aw = 150 mm
60 ⋅ aw = 600 mm
Transversal stiffeners: 500x15
Anchor Bolts
I took the loads combination that provides me the maximum bending

moment.
NEd ≔ 294.127 kN NEd ≔ 235.95 kN
VEd ≔ 205.889 kN
MEd ≔ 30.073 kN ⋅ m
MEd ≔ 1886.97 kN ⋅ m
NEd ≔ 0.9 ⋅ 235.95 + 1.5 ⋅ 0 + 1.05 ⋅ 294.127 = 521.188
MEd ≔ 0.9 ⋅ 0 + 1.5 ⋅ 30.073 + 1.05 ⋅ 1886.97 = 2026.428
=> Nb_Ed ≔ 521.188 kN
Mb_Ed ≔ 2026.428 kN ⋅ m
Computing the level arm for the anchor bolt
hb ≔ B - 120 mm = 980 mm
The anchor bolt I will choose is M72 GR.5.6

N
db ≔ 72 mm fub ≔ 500 ―― rezistenta la rupere
mm 2
N
fyb ≔ 0.6 ⋅ fub = 300 ――
N mm 2
fyb ≔ 300 ―― limita de curgere
mm 2
k2 ≔ 0.9
For one bolt:
1 ⎛ Mb_Ed Nb_Ed ⎞
N1b_Ed ≔ ―⋅ ⎜―― - ――⎟ = 903.595 kN
2 ⎝ hb 2 ⎠
2
π ⋅ ⎛⎝0.89 ⋅ db⎞⎠
As ≔ ――――― = 3225.038 mm 2
4
k2 ⋅ fub ⋅ As
Nb_Rd ≔ ―――― ⋅ 10 -6 = 0.001 kN
γM2
N1b_Ed
――― = 778280.864
Nb_Rd
BASE PLATE DESIGN
For the base plate, the same load combination will be used as for the
design procedure for the column at the base of the structure-same
combination used for checking cross-section 1-1.
Nb_Ed ≔ 521.188 kN
Mb_Ed ≔ 2026.428 kN ⋅ m
The design of the base plate will be done using, the method of strips, therefore the
baseplate will be split into parts.
I established the dimensions for each of the pieces from the base plate.
-Plate 1 -plate fixed on 4 sides
a1 ≔ 300 mm
b1 ≔ 900 mm
a2 ≔ 300 mm
b2 ≔ 100 mm
a3 ≔ 100 mm
b3 ≔ b1 + 2 b2 = 1100 mm
a-the short side
I will take the thickness of the base plate
tp ≔ 90 mm
I will establish the moment associated to each piece using the strip
method.
I took alfa and beta from lecture notes.
-Plate 1
b1
―= 3 => α ≔ 0.125
a1
M1 ≔ α ⋅ σb ⋅ a1 2 ⋅ 1 mm = 200.506 kN ⋅ mm
-Plate 2
b2 ⎛ b2 ⎞
―= 0.333 ⎜―≤ 0.5⎟
a2 ⎝ a2 ⎠
M2 ≔ 0.5 ⋅ σb ⋅ b2 2 ⋅ 1 mm = 89.114 kN ⋅ mm
-Plate 3
M3 ≔ 0.5 ⋅ σb ⋅ a3 2 ⋅ 1 mm = 89.114 kN ⋅ mm
MEd ≔ max ⎛⎝M1 , M2 , M3⎞⎠ = 200.506 kN ⋅ mm
The necessary thickness of the base plate is:
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
6 ⋅ MEd
tp_nec ≔ ――――= 75.041 mm
fyd
1 mm ⋅ ――
γM0
The resulting plate thickness will be:
tp ≔ 90 mm
https://www.sidma.ro/tabla-groasa-laminata-la-cald-in-foi-ltg-
PORTAL FRAME DESIGN
The loads applied are the Purlin weight, Truss weight, Industrial dust,
Snow, Wind and Earthquake.
The portal frame ensures stability in the longitudinal direction and it

carries lateral loads acting in the same direction.
Evaluation of Loads-I used the same forces as for the anchor bolts.
cpe_D ≔ 0.8
cpe_E ≔ -0.5
Wind pressure:
z1 ≔ 5.8 m
z2 ≔ 5.8 m
kN
we_D ≔ Cpe_D ⋅ qp = 0.597 ――
m2
kN
we_E ≔ Cpe_E ⋅ qp = 0.373 ――
m2
Dspan ⎛ z1 + z2 ⎞
W1_D ≔ we_D ⋅ ――⋅ ⎜――― ⎟ = 38.064 kN
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠
Dspan ⎛ z2 ⎞
W2_D ≔ we_D ⋅ ――⋅ ⎜―⎟ = 19.032 kN
2 ⎝2⎠
Dspan ⎛ z1 + z2 ⎞
W1_E ≔ we_E ⋅ ――⋅ ⎜――― ⎟ = 23.79 kN
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠
Dspan ⎛ z2 ⎞
W2_E ≔ we_E ⋅ ――⋅ ⎜―⎟ = 11.895 kN
2 ⎝2⎠
1.5 ⋅ W1_D = 57.096 kN
1.5 ⋅ W2_D = 28.548 kN
1.5 ⋅ W1_E = 35.685 kN
1.5 ⋅ W2_E = 17.842 kN

NEd1_wind ≔ 4.4713 kN
SEISMIC LOAD
ag ≔ 0.20 g γI_e ≔ 1.0 λ ≔ 1.0 q≔4 for x diagonals
βT1 ≔ 2.5
Atributary_bracings ≔ D ⋅ 7 ⋅ tbay = 1694 m 2

kN kN kN kN kN kN kN
gm ≔ 0.15 ⋅ ―― ⋅ 1.0 + 0.15 ⋅ ―― ⋅ 1.0 + 0.3 ⋅ ―― ⋅ 1.0 + 0.5 ⋅ ―― ⋅ 1.0 + 0.5 ⋅ ―― ⋅ 1.0 + 1.202 ⋅ ―― ⋅ 0.4 = 2.081 ――
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2
D = 22 m
tbay = 11 m
m
Gbracings ≔ gm ⋅ Atributary_bracings = 3524875.2 ― ⋅ kg -total weight
s2
ag ⋅ βT1
c ≔ γI_e ⋅ ――― = 0.438
q
Fb_bracings ≔ Gbracings ⋅ c = 1542.133 kN
Fb_bracings seismic force corresponding to one

Sbracings ≔ ――― = 771.066 kN
2 portal frame
NEd1_seism ≔ 313.33 kN NEd1_wind ≔ 4.4713 kN
The design axial forces
NEd_E1 ≔ max ⎛⎝NEd1_seism , NEd1_wind⎞⎠ = 313.33 kN
Lcolumn
e0 ≔ ――― = 45.825 mm
200
axial force in element E2
cos ((51)) = 0.742
Sbracings
NEd2_seism ≔ ――― = 1038.957 kN TENSION
cos ((51))
AXIAL FORCE IN ELEMENT E1
Nt_Rd_E2 ≔ NEd_E2 ⋅ 2.35 = 963.655 kN

Nt_Rd_E2
ωN ≔ ―――= 2.35
NEd_E2
Sbracings COMPRESSION
NEd1_seism ≔ 1.1 ⋅ 1.4 ⋅ ωN ⋅ ――― = 1395.245 kN
2
The moment generated by the eccentricity in the column

will be:
NEd_column ≔ 521.188 kN
MEd ≔ e0 ⋅ NEd_column = 23.883 m ⋅ kN
q ⋅ Lcolumn 2
MEd ≔ ―――― = 41.999 m 2
8
8 ⋅ e0 ⋅ NEd_column kN
q ≔ ―――――― 2
= 2.275 ――
Lcolumn m
q ⋅ Lcolumn
NEd_Hz ≔ ―――― = 10.424 kN
2
Lcolumn
R ≔ q ⋅ 1.25 ⋅ ――― = 13.03 kN
2
NEd3_seism ≔ R = 13.03 kN
For the cross-section I will use Hollow Sections profiles. (CHS)
521.188 forta axiala din cazul de incarcare seismic in

stalp
CHECKS
NEd1_seism = 1395.245 kN NEd1_wind ≔ 4.4713 kN

The design axial forces
Element 1 (compressed memeber)
γM0 ≔ 1
NEd_E1
Anec ≔ ―――= 9895.353 mm 2
fyd
0.6 ⋅ ――
γM0
ASHS ≔ 10221 mm 2 = 102.21 cm 2
Nt_Rd ≔ ASHS ⋅ fyd = 2401.935 kN
NEd_E1
――― = 0.581
Nt_Rd
LE1 ≔ 11000 mm
Lcr_y ≔ LE1 = 11 m
i ≔ 66.4 mm
Lcr_y
λyz ≔ ――= 165.663
i
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
λyz
λyz_ ≔ ―― = 1.764
λ1
Table 62 =>
α ≔ 0.21
ϕ ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λyz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λyz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 2.22
1
χ1 ≔ ―――――― = 0.28
ϕ + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕ 2 - λyz_ 2
fyd
Nt_Rd_E1 ≔ χ1 ⋅ ASHS ⋅ ―― = 673.181 kN
1
Element E2 (tensioned member)
NEd_E2
Anec ≔ ―――= 7368.491 mm 2
fyd
0.6 ⋅ ――
γM0 SHS 180/16
ASHS2 ≔ 10221 mm 2 = 102.21 cm 2
Nt_Rd ≔ ASHS2 ⋅ fyd = 2401.935 kN
NEd_E2
――― = 0.433
Nt_Rd
LE2 ≔ 13825 mm
Lcr_y ≔ 0.5 ⋅ LE2 = 6.913 m
i ≔ 66.4 mm
Lcr_y
λyz ≔ ――= 104.104
i
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
λyz
λyz_ ≔ ―― = 1.109 λyz_ ≤ 2
λ1
Table 62 =>
α ≔ 0.21
ϕ ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λyz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λyz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 1.21
1
χ2 ≔ ―――――― = 0.59
ϕ + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕ 2 - λyz_ 2
fyd
Nb_Rd_E2 ≔ χ2 ⋅ ASHS ⋅ ―― = 1417.605 kN
1
Element E3 (compressed
memeber)
NEd_E3 = 54.286 kN
NEd_E3
Anec ≔ ―――= 385.01 mm 2
fyd
0.6 ⋅ ―― I propose SHS 40/3.2
γM0
ASHS_2 ≔ 460 mm 2 = 4.6 cm 2

Nt_Rd ≔ ASHS_2 ⋅ fyd = 108.1 kN
NEd_E3
――― = 0.502
Nt_Rd
LE3 ≔ 11000 mm
Lcr_y ≔ LE3 = 11 m
i ≔ 14.9 mm
Lcr_y
λyz ≔ ――= 738.255
i
‾‾‾
E
λ1 ≔ π ⋅ ―― = 93.913
fyd
λyz
λyz_ ≔ ―― = 7.861
λ1
Table 62 =>
α ≔ 0.21
ϕ ≔ 0.5 ⋅ ⎛⎝1 + α ⋅ ⎛⎝λyz_ - 0.2⎞⎠ + λyz_ 2 ⎞⎠ = 32.203
1
χ3 ≔ ―――――― = 0.016 χ≤1
ϕ + ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
ϕ 2 - λyz_ 2
fyd
Nb_Rd_E3 ≔ χ3 ⋅ ASHS ⋅ ―― = 37.867 kN
1
Design of connections for vertical bracing
Nt_Rd_E1 = 673.181 kN
Nb_Rd_E2 = 1417.605 kN
Nb_Rd_E3 = 37.867 kN
NE1_vert ≔ 1.1 ⋅ 1.4 ⋅ Nt_Rd_E1 = 1036.699 kN
NE2_vert ≔ 1.1 ⋅ 1.4 ⋅ Nb_Rd_E2 = 2183.112 kN
NE3_vert ≔ Nb_Rd_E3 = 37.867 kN
ELEMENT 1
kN
fu = 360000 ――
m2
β ≔ 0.8
γM2 ≔ 1.25
telement ≔ 16 mm
a1 ≔ 0.7 ⋅ telement = 11.2 mm minimum conditions
a1 ≔ 12 mm
fu N
fvw_d ≔ ―――― = 207.846 ――
‾‾
3 ⋅ β ⋅ γM2 mm 2
NE1_vert
l1_nec ≔ ―――― = 207.826 mm
2 ⋅ a1 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1 ≔ 360 mm
ELEMENT 2
telement ≔ 16 mm
a2 ≔ 12 mm
fu N
fvw_d ≔ ―――― = 207.846 ――
‾‾
3 ⋅ β ⋅ γM2 mm 2
NE2_vert
l2_nec ≔ ―――― = 437.646 mm
2 ⋅ a2 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l2 ≔ 440 mm
ELEMENT 3
telement ≔ 3.2 mm
a3 ≔ 3 mm
fu N
fvw_d ≔ ―――― = 207.846 ――
‾‾
3 ⋅ β ⋅ γM2 mm 2
NE3_vert
l1_nec ≔ ―――― = 30.365 mm
2 ⋅ a3 ⋅ fvw_d
=> l1 ≔ 40 mm

Steel Structures II Project: Student: Ionoaia Anca-Olivia FILS, Year IV

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Structures II Project: Student: Ionoaia Anca-Olivia FILS, Year IV

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Structures II Project

Steel Structures II Project

1.1 INPUT DATA

Fig. 1 Characteristic value for Snow load at ground level

Fig.2 Slope factors for roofs with 2 slopes

1.3 WIND LOAD ASSESMENT

Fig. 1 Reference dynamic wind pressure zoning

1.4 Industrial Dust Load

2. GEOMETRICAL SOLUTION FOT THE ROOF TRUSS

According to my odd student number I have to choose PRATT TRUSS :

3. ROOF PURLIN DESIGN

3.1. EVALUATION OF INTERNAL FORCES

Snow (for Sibiu)

wind (for Sibiu)

The resulting linearly distributed load will be:

Projecting this load on the z-axis of the cross-section:

3.2. STATIC SCHEME

for first span

ULS VULS ≔ α1 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 35.881 kN

MULS ≔ β1 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay 2 = 77.939 m ⋅ kN

VULS ≔ α2 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 56.774 kN

MULS ≔ β2 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay 2 = 104.918 m ⋅ kN

VULS ≔ α3 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 47.508 kN

MULS ≔ β3 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay 2 = 32.974 m ⋅ kN

for current span

VULS ≔ α4 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 43.057 kN

MULS ≔ β4 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay 2 = 45.964 m ⋅ kN

VULS ≔ α5 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay = 45.419 kN

MULS ≔ β5 ⋅ pz_ULS ⋅ tbay 2 = 78.939 m ⋅ kN

Fig. 6 SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM FOR THE PURLIN

The bending moment diagram was obtained by summing up the moments in a

Fig. 7 BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM FOT THE PURLIN

3.3. CROSS SECTION VARIATION

3.4. SIZING OF THE CROSS-SECTION

I Propose a double-symmetric cross section made out of welded steel plates.

3.5. SIZING OF THE WEB

Cross-Section 1: fyd ≔ 235 MPa

Cross-Section 3: w3i ≔ 0.4 ⋅ tbay + 0.4 ⋅ tbay = 8.8 m

M1 ⋅ w1i + M2 ⋅ w2i + M3 ⋅ w3i

The resulting web height will be:

Since hw needs to be a multiple of 10[mm], I will choose hw ≔ 250 mm

Check for the Cross-Section Class, according to Table 5.2 EC3:

hw hw The condition is fullfilled

3.6. SIZING OF THE FLANGES

But, bf must be a multiple of 10 [mm], so: bf ≔ 150 mm

I will now check the cross-section class according to EC3, Table5.2

But, bf must be a multiple of 10 [mm], so: bf ≔ 200 mm

I will now check the cross-section class according to EC3, Table5.2

Browse for Image...

But, bf must be a multiple of 10 [mm], so: bf ≔ 250 mm

I will now check the cross-section class according to EC3, Table5.2

The final dimensions for all the purlin cross-section proposed:

3.7. CHECKS FOR THE PURLIN

3.7.1 STRENGHT (ULS)

Mc_Rd ≔ Wy_1 ⋅ fyd = 70.891 kN ⋅ m

Mc_Rd ≔ Wy_2 ⋅ fyd = 99.17 kN ⋅ m

Bending Shear Interaction:

Mc_Rd ≔ Wy_3 ⋅ fyd = 123.914 kN ⋅ m

Bending Shear Interaction:

3.7.1. DEFELCTION CHECK (SLS)

fII ≔ f1 - f2 = 31.281 mm fII ≤ fadm

3.7.2. SPLICE DESIGN

3.7.2.1. SPLICE FOR C-S 3: