Institute for Steel Structures Univ. Prof. Dr.Ing. Markus Feldmann MiesvanderRoheStr. 1 D52074 Aachen
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 Flexural buckling and lateral buckling on a common basis: Stability assessments according to Eurocode 3
G. Sedlacek, J. Naumes
Aachen, 17.03.2009
page II / 142
Table of content
Table of content
Executive summary 1 2 General Reference models for flexural buckling 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3 Use of 2nd order theory with imperfections Reference model of MaquoiRondal European Standard flexural buckling curves Use of the European buckling curves for other boundary conditions Conclusions 1 3 5 5 5 9 12 16 17 17 20 21 22 27 27 33 43 43 43 45 46 46 47 49 49 53 54 55 56 page I
Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns with nonuniform crosssections and nonuniform compression loads on elastic supports 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Approach for solution Options for assessment Determination of the relevant location xd (option 1) Modification of the buckling curve (option 2)
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateraltorsional buckling 4.1 4.2 Application of the reference model of MaquoiRondal Application of the European lateral torsional buckling curves for the general loading case for lateral torsional buckling
Conclusions for Recommendations for NDPs in EN 199311 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Procedure in EN 199311, section 6.3.1 Procedure according to EN 199311, section 6.3.2.1 and section 6.3.2.2 Procedure according to EN 199311, section 6.3.2.3 Procedure according to EN 199311, section 6.3.2.4 Procedure according to EN 199311, section 6.3.4 Imperfection according to EN 199311, section 5.3.4 (3)
Consideration of out of plane loading 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Transverse loads on the standard column in compression Out of plane bending and torsion for the basic situation for lateral torsional buckling General case of out of plane bending and torsion Proof of orthogonality for the seriesdevelopment Comparison with test results
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 7 Guidance for applications 7.1 7.2 7.3 General Design aids Examples to compare the results of the general method using the European lateral buckling curve with results of the component method in Eurocode 3Part 11, section 6.3.2 Examples for sheetpiling Lateral torsional buckling of beams with finplate connections Verification of haunched beams Assessment of gantrygirders Channel sections 57 57 60
71 74 82 86 91 94 101 101 104 111 111 113 117 120 126 127 130 141
Analysis of imperfections and conclusions for tolerances for fabrication 8.1 8.2 General Approaches to determine geometrical imperfections for tolerances
Design principles for obtaining sufficient reliability by numerical assessments in EN 1990 Basis of structural design 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 Objective First order reliability method (FORM) Example for the application of FORM Assumption for semiprobabilistic design Determination of design values of resistances and action effect in semiprobabilistic design Examples for determining the design values of combined action effects Determination of Mvalues for steel structures
10
Literature
page II / 142
Executive summary
Executive summary
(1) This document is an excerpt from the background document to EN 199311, that is being prepared for publication through the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission in Ispra for the maintenance, further harmonisation, further development and promotion of Eurocode 3. It has the status of an information and technical guidance under the responsibility of the authors G. Sedlacek and J. Naumes. This document is extensively discussed and commented between the authors and Ch. Mueller, F. Bijlaard and R. Maquoi in the meeting of 22 July 2008 at the RWTHAachen. Contributions of Prof. D. Ungermann, Prof. F. Bijlaard, Dr. A. Schmitt, Prof. C. Seeelberg and Prof. I. Bal to the examples and design aids in section 7 have been included. The document gives: 1. an explanation of the European flexural buckling curves and their background (MaquoiRondal) 2. an explanation of the European lateral torsional buckling curves and their background (StangenbergNaumes) consistent with the European flexural buckling curves 3. an explanation of the extension of the outofplane buckling verification to the beamcolumn with biaxial bending and torsion (Naumes) 4. the explanation of the workability of these verification methods by worked examples. (3) The document completes the design rules for the use of the general method in EN 199311 in the form of a Noncontradicting complementary information. G. Sedlacek, J. Naumes, F. Bijlaard, R. Maquoi, Ch. Mueller
(2)
page 1 / 142
page 2 / 142
General
General
(1) For the development of the design rules of Eurocode 3 the basic reliability requirements, laid down in EN 1990 Eurocode Basis of structural design [1], have been applied, that lead to the following principles: 1. The basis of resistance rules R are the results of large scale tests. The resistance rules are presented as formulae R(Xi) deducted from mechanical models used to describe the behavior of the test specimens dependant on relevant parameters Xi at the ultimate state. The resistance formulae have been calibrated to the test results. 2. This calibration has been carried out by a statistical evaluation of the test results Rexp with the resistance model Rcalc so that it gives characteristic values. Also partial factors Mi have been derived, that fulfill the reliability requirements of EN 1990. 3. The models for resistances are presented in terms of a hierarchy with a reference model Rref on the top, which is used as a basis for simplifications. Any simplified model Rsimpl is conservative in relation to the reference model Rref. 4. All reference models are consistent, i.e. they do not give conflicting results when compared with other reference models. (2) This also applies to the design models for flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling, as presented in the following.
page 3 / 142
page 4 / 142
2 2.1
Reference models for flexural buckling Use of 2nd order theory with imperfections
The highest rank in the hierarchy for stability rules for barlike structures and structural components has the use of 2nd order theory with imperfections. Imperfections are composed of structural imperfections (e.g. from residual stresses from fabrication) and of geometrical imperfections. First historical attempts to explain the results of column buckling test and lateral torsional buckling tests were based on a model with deterministic assumptions for residual stress pattern, geometrical imperfections and material properties for calculating buckling coefficients that permitted a smallerequalcomparison with test results. A breakthrough were such calculations of Beer and Schulz, that assumed standardized residual stress distributions, a geometrical imperfection of /1000 and the minimum value of the yield strength for their finiteelement calculations, to produce the European buckling coefficients, published by the ECCS. For the preparation of Eurocode 3 [2] these values have not been applicable because of the following reasons: 1. there was no justification by a reliability analysis with test results, 2. the numerical values produced for a set of slendernesses could not be described by a formula with a mechanical background without a certain scatter. (6) Therefore these European buckling coefficients were not used as a Eurocodereference model.
(4)
(5)
2.2
(1)
page 5 / 142
(2)
(2.1)
where 
M R AFl h h N R 2 AFl 2

=

2 AFl f y l 2 EAFl h 2
2 2
l 4 h
fy E
0 is the imperfection factor, that covers all parameters not included in the simple model in Figure 2.1 (e.g. structural imperfections from residual stresses, model uncertainties, and in particular the reliability correction of the imperfection e0 on the basis of evaluations of column tests, according to EN 1990 Annex D, to obtain characteristic values with the resistance formula.
For certain IProfiles the equivalent geometrical imperfection is e.g. with 0 = 0,34 and
e0 1 4 0,34 l 2
(3)
fy E
= 0,108
1 1 = 30 280
As the correction factor 0 for the equivalent geometrical imperfection has been determined from a comparison of resistances Rexp determined from tests and resistances Rcal determined from calculations, the equivalent geometrical imperfection is
page 6 / 142
Reference models for flexural buckling only defined in association with the resistance model used. Both, the resistance model and the choice of the equivalent geometrical imperfections for the column with uniform crosssection and uniform compression load constitute the reference model for stability checks with the highest rank in the hierarchy for flexural buckling. (4) Figure 2.2 shows the resistance model for the crosssectional assessment which includes a linear interaction of the resistances for compression and for bending. If the actioneffects from Figure 2.1 are inserted in this model, the formula for the European column buckling curves mula for column buckling
N Ed =
Rk
N pl M
(2.2)
The old European buckling coefficients of Beer and Schulz have been replaced by the new European buckling curves calibrated to tests.
(5)
The comparison of the basic equation and the e0assumption in Figure 2.2 makes clear that the fractures NR/MR and MR/NR compensate each other. This means, that the assumption for the equivalent geometrical imperfection (2.1) and the crosssectional assessment in Figure 2.2 must use the same definition of the resistance MR (elastic or plastic).
page 7 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (6) To illustrate this requirement, Figure 2.3 shows the determination of a value of the European buckling curve via the intersection of the loaddeformation curve and the resistancedeformation curve: 1. The curves for action effects are based on two equivalent geometrical imperfections a. for elastic resistance 1 b. for linear plastic resistance 2
( )
NEd / Npl
2 1
1 MR = Mel 3 MR = Mpl
[]
Figure 2.3: Load deformation curves acc. to MarquoiRondalmodel using different cross sectional resistances
2. The intersection points of the loaddeformation curves with the relevant resistancedeformation curves are on the same level , only the deformations are different. 3. FEMcalculations with a more accurate resistance model with geometrical and material nonlinearities and suitably adjusted structural (residual stresses) and geometrical (measured) imperfections are given in Figure 2.4. The results confirm: 1. the levels of determined with the resistance models 1, 2 and 3 are very accurate, 2. the assumption of a linear elastic crosssectional resistance is sufficient as large plastic deformations only form in the postcritical part of the loaddeformation curves. 3. the residual stress patterns for rolled sections 4 and welded sections 5 give about the same values, however the deformation capacity on the level of is different.
( )
( )
page 8 / 142
NEd / Npl
1 MR = Mel 3 MR = Mpl / (1  0,5 a) ; acc. to [2] equ. 6.36 4 FEM 5 FEM rolled profile welded profile
[]
Figure 2.4:
2.3
(1)
1,0
0,8
a0 a b c d
Euler
[]
0,6
0,4
0,2
_ []
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
page 9 / 142
page 10 / 142
Reference models for flexural buckling (2) Figure 2.6 gives a visual impression of the test results and buckling curves, and Figure 2.7 shows the Mvalues necessary to obtain the design values of resistances.
1,2 KSL a0 KSL a 1,0 KSL b KSL c KSL d Euler 0,8 A5.1: IPE160, S235 A5.2: IPE160, S235 A5.3: IPE160, S235
[]
0,6
A5.4: IPE160, S235 A5.5: IPE160, S235 A5.6: IPE160, S235 A5.7: IPE160, S235
0,4
0,2
0,0 0 0,5 1
_1,5 []
2,5
Figure 2.6:
Test results and column buckling curves for buckling about weak axis (buckling curve b) [4]
1,05
1,00
1,00
1,6
1,8
2,0
2,2
2,4
2,6
2,8
3,0
page 11 / 142
2.4
2.4.1 (1)
(2)
(2.3)
2 =
N crit EI
(2.4)
(2.5)
where
init ( x) = c 0
c0 = e0 2
(4)
(2.6) (2.7)
init ( x) =
(2.8)
q init ( x) = N Ed
(2.9)
M II ( x) = EIel =
(2.10)
2.4.2 (1)
Examples For the simply supported column, see Figure 2.1, the values are:
page 12 / 142
l x l
2
crit ( x) = a1 sin
x crit ( x) = a1 sin l
2 2
init ( x) = eo
l l
x x sin = eo sin l l
2
2 l 2 crit ( x) = a1 1 cos x l
crit ( x) = a1
2 2 x cos l l
2 l 2 l
2 2
init ( x) = eo
2 x = eo 1 cos l
2
2 x 1 cos l
Figure 2.8: Column with clamped ends under compression force NEd
(3)
For a column with a hinged end and a clamped end, see Figure 2.9 the values are
page 13 / 142
where = 4,4937
crit ( x) = a1 1 cos
crit ( x) = a1
x x x + sin l l l
2 3 x x sin cos 2 l l l l
qinit ( x) = eo N Ed
cos
= eo N Ed
M II ( x) = e0
EI ( l )
N Ed N Ed
cos
= e0
The relevant location for the crosssectional assessment xd is at the point of maximum curvature, which compared to the previous examples (EulerColumn I and IV) no longer corresponds to the point of maximum deflection. With xd = xcrit,max 0,65 l follows
M II ( xd ) = e0
N Ed 1,0 N Ed 1 2 EI ( l )
The bending moment at the point of maximum deflection xcrit,max 0,6 l results to
page 14 / 142
Figure 2.9: Column with one hinged and one clamped end under compression force NEd
(4)
For a column on elastic foundation, see Figure 2.10 the differential equation reads:
el+ 2 el +
N Ed init q c el = init = EI EI EI
crit = a1 sin
x l
and
N crit
l = EI + c l
and hence
=4
EI c
page 15 / 142
N crit = EI
1 EI c
+c
EI = 2 EI c c
2 =
imp = eo
c EI EI 2 c 2
q imp = eo N Ed 2 M II ( x) = e0 1 N Ed N Ed
2 EI c
2.5
(1)
Conclusions
The reference model for determining the flexural buckling resistance of columns with uniform crosssection and uniform compression load according to Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 is not only the reference model for any simplification, but also the reference model for other design situations because of the consistency requirement: 1. flexural buckling of columns with nonuniform distribution of crosssection and compression force and also with elastic support, 2. lateraltorsional buckling of columns and beams, 3. plate buckling of unstiffened and stiffened plate fields. This is because the reference model is included in these design situations for particular configurations of parameters.
(2)
In the following it is demonstrated, how flexural buckling of columns with nonuniform crosssections and nonuniform compression forces and lateral torsion buckling of columns and beams with whatever given loads can be assessed in compliance with the reference model of the simple column: The application for plate buckling is not included in this report.
page 16 / 142
Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns with nonuniform crosssections and nonuniform compression loads on elastic supports Approach for solution
The differential equation for the column with nonuniform crosssection and nonuniform compression force on continuous elastic supports reads:
3.1
(1)
(EI ( x) ) + crit (N E ( x) ) + c( x) = 0
where
(3.1)
Rcrit
(3)
+ crit
(3.2)
Ecrit
The imperfection reads according to EN 199311, 5.3.1 (11) equation (5.9) in a more generalized way:
init = e0
(3.3)
where x = xd is the reference point. The function (3.3) also satisfies the differential equation and the boundary conditions, see equation (3.4)
crit N E ( x) (EI ( x) crit ( x) ) + c( x) crit ( x) + crit (N E ( x) crit ( x) ) = 0 e0 EI ( x) crit ( x) x = x 1444 2444 3 4 4d
Konstante
(3.4)
crit = sin
x
l
crit =
EI 2 l2 N E
page 17 / 142
x crit = sin
l l
and therefore at x = /2:
x
l
E N E ( x) crit N E ( x)
the resistance RE in equation (3.2) reads
RE =
(3.5)
E crit
{(EI ( x) ) + c( x) } = {
crit crit E crit
crit
(N E ( x)crit )
(3.6)
(5)
Hence the bending moment along the length of the member due to the imperfection imp is according to 1st order theory:
M 0 ( x) =
E crit
(3.7)
This bending moment takes the following value at the point x = xd:
M 0 ( x) =
E e0 crit N E ( x) crit
(3.8)
= E N E ( xd ) e0
(6) If the x = xd is defined as the location relevant for the assessment of the member (because of the most onerous conditions), than the crosssectional assessment, taking into account 2nd order effect, reads:
(3.9)
(7)
ult , k ( xd ) =
N R ( x) N E ( x) x = x
(3.10)
d
=1 x = xd
(3.11)
page 18 / 142
( xd ) =
ult , k ( x) x = xd
(3.12)
( xd ) =
ult , k crit x = x
(3.13)
d
M ( x) ( 0,2) e0 = R N R ( x) x = xd
equation (3.11) may be transferred to:
(3.14)
( xd ) + ( xd ) ( ( xd ) 0,2)
1 =1 1 ( xd ) 2 ( xd )
(3.15)
which is the same basic equation for European Standard buckling curves. (9)
Thus it has been proved, that the European Standard flexural buckling curves are also applicated to columns with nonuniform distributions of stiffness and compression force, with any elastic supports and any boundary conditions without any modification, if the crosssectional data and the force NE(x) are taken at the relevant location x = xd. According to equation (3.3) also the relevant equivalent geometrical imperfections are referred to the characteristic moment [EI ( x) crit ( x)]x = x d at that relevant location.
page 19 / 142
3.2
(1)
imp = e0
(3.16)
see EN 199311, equation (5.9). 2. If ult,k(x) varies along the member length due to variable crosssections and/or variable compression forces NE (x), the value xd in general is located between  xult,k, where ult,k takes the minimum value
( )
( ) for
page 20 / 142
3.3
(1)
( x) =
ult ,k ( x) ult ,k ( x)
( (xd ) 0,2 )
1 1
E crit
EI ( x) crit ( x) , EI ( xd ) crit ( xd )
xd
Figure 3.2: Determination of the relevant location xd, if (x) has an extremum
(2)
This leads to
( x) ! = 0 x
(3)
Figure 3.2 shows that considering the function of crit (x) would lead the true
values:
true (x) from true + true ( (xd ) 0,2) E ,true ( x) = ult , k ( x) true ( x)
1 true ( (xd ))
EI ( x) crit ( x) =1 EI ( xd ) crit ( xd )
whereas the use of the European buckling curve would lead to:
1 1 2
=1
page 21 / 142
true
''fl 0.8
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 25 50 75 100 125
fl
0.6
0.4 0.2 0.0
calc
150
225
250
275
300
325
350
25
50
75
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 x [cm]
2.5 2.0
calc
Ed
E,true E,calc
true
50
75
100
125
150
225
250
275
300
325
350
25
50
75
100
125
150
225
250
275
300
325
350
(4)
It is evident from Figure 3.3 that at the point x = xd, where E,true(x) has an extremum, both E,true(x) and E,calc(x) and true(x) and calc(x) are identical. In case E,true(x) has no extremum along the length of the member, then the crosssectional verification with = 1.0 applies, see Figure 3.4
(5)
Figure 3.4: Determination of the relevant location xd, if E(x) has no extremum
(6)
3.4
(1) (2)
(3.17)
1 24 1 24 4 3 4 3
and
page 22 / 142
(3.18)
1 24 14 4 4 3 2 3
it follows:
mod f + mod f
mod 0,2 f 1
1
mod
2 mod
=1
(3.19)
(3)
mod =
1 f
2 mod
(3.20)
and
= 0,5 1 +
(4)
(3.21)
Figure 3.5 shows the unmodified buckling curve and the modified buckling curve. Either of them produce with different assumptions for ult,k the same solution:
f ult , k
(3.22)
1.4
Euler
1.2
1.0
mod
1 f
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
, mod
Figure 3.5: Modified buckling curve mod and unmodified buckling curve
page 23 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (5) One can see in Figure 3.5, that the modified buckling curve mod is always above the unmodified buckling curve, so that a calculation with ult,k,min and the unmodified buckling curve is always safesided. This secondfence solution on the safe side is in most cases the easiest and most suitable way of verification. Figure 3.6 gives a worked example for the application of the column buckling curve based on formula (3.15) to a column with a nonuniform crosssection and a nonuniform distribution of the compression force, that has a length of 10,00 m. The eigenmode analysis based on the distributions of NE and of the crosssectional values gives two important results for the further exact verification:
(6)
1. the distribution of the curvature crit , that indicates the location of the relevant
crosssection, where crit , max is attained: xd = 0,855 m
At this location the values for verification are
ult , k =
( = 0,34 ) = 0,426
The verification then reads
ult , k , min =
at x = 0 m. Hence it follows
mod =
= 0,533
and
page 24 / 142
Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns with nonuniform CS In case the modified buckling curve according to Figure 3.5 would be used:
f =
ult , k , min 1,996 = = 0,720 2,774 ult , k ult , k , min 1,996 = = 1,104 1,6376 crit
mod =
imp = e0
It gives
cr N E ( x) = 13,672mm EI ( x) crit x= x
d
page 25 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (9) Table 3.1 gives a survey on all results.
Table 3.1: Summary of calculation steps and results for tapered column example
Verification at x( '' crit,max ) x = xd NE (x) NR(x) ult,k crit f ( = 0.34) E,k
0.855 m 341 kN 946 kN 2.774 1.6376 1.302 0.426 1.182
Verification at x( ult,k,min )
0m 353 kN 705 kN 1.996 1.6376 1.104 0.533 1.064 0m 353 kN 705 kN 1.996 1.6376 1.104 0.72 0.592 1.182
page 26 / 142
4 4.1
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateraltorsional buckling Application of the reference model of MaquoiRondal
The basic model for lateraltorsional buckling that corresponds to the basic model for flexural buckling in Figure 2.1, is a beam with forkconditions at its ends and a constant bending moment along the length, see Figure 4.1, [5] [6]. My Mz
(1)
l
My Mz
Figure 4.1: Basic model for lateraltorsional buckling of an Igirder
(2)
This case is governed by two coupled differential equations for the deflection and the twist that cause displacements perpendicular to the main loading plane, see Figure 4.2 . The adoption of sinusfunctions for crit and crit leads to the eigenvalue
(3)
M y ,crit =
2 EI z
l2
Iw GI t l 2 1+ , Iz EI w 2
(4.1)
In this formula one can identify the moment My,crit,Fl,o leading to lateral flexural buckling of the top flange in compression Nz,crit,Fl,o
M y ,crit , Fl ,o =
2 EI z
2l
2
Iw = N z ,crit , Fl ,o h Iz
(4.2)
if the St. Venant torsional stiffness is neglected and also the enhancement of this moment due to the torsional stiffness by the factor:
It = 1 +
(4)
GI t l 2 1 EI w 2
(4.3)
x
(4.4)
l Iw x It sin l Iz
page 27 / 142
Iw crit Iz
Iw x ( It 1) sin Iz l
(4.5)
crit ,max,Fl = l
Iw ( It + 1) Iz
(4.6)
2 EI Fl init , Fl = e0
l
2 2
Iw ( It 1) Iz Iw ( It + 1) Iz
EI Fl
l
2
sin
x
l
(4.7)
= e0
(6)
It 1 x sin l It + 1
init , Fl ,o = e0 sin
x
l
(4.8)
i.e. it is identical with the imperfection of the column in Figure 2.1. The imperfection for the bottom flange is
init , Fl ,u = e0
It 1 x sin It + 1 l
(4.9)
1) and i.e. a value that is zero where the St. Venanttorsional stiffness is zero (It that takes the same value as for the top flange, if the torsional stiffness is very large. (7) The imperfections related to the deformations of the crosssection read:
init = e0
1 Iw It Iz sin
sin
x
l
(4.10)
init = e0
(8)
It
x
l
It + 1
When inserting these imperfections into the coupled differential equations to obtain the elastic deformations resulting from them
EI z 0 el 0 M y , E el 0 M y , E init = M 0 EI M y , E GI t el w el y , E 0 init
one obtains:
(4.11)
page 28 / 142
M y,E
el = e0
M y,E
el = e0
M y ,E el , Fl ,o = el + Iw el = e0 Iz l
2
(4.13)
(9)
M E , Fl ,o = EI Fl ,o el , Fl ,o =
EI Fl ,o 2 l 1 24 4 3
N crit , Fl , o 2
e0
M y ,E M crit
x 1 sin M y,E l
M crit
(4.14)
where EI Fl ,o
t b3 = E . 12
(10) One can obtain this bending moment easier than with equation (4.11) by applying the equations (3.6) and (3.7):
M E , Fl ,o =
M y,E M 1 crit 2 3
E crit
EI Fl ,o init , Fl
144 2444 4 3
1 M 1 24 4 crit 3
1 1
1 M y ,E
1444442444443 4 4
Moment nach Theorie 2. Ordnung
E crit
(4.15)
2 EI Fl ,o
l
2
e0
M y ,E M crit
(11) Figure 4.2 summarizes the derivation of the equations (4.14) and (4.15). The further derivations to get the equation for the assessment of the top flange in compression is performed in the same way as that for the column in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, see Figure 4.3, by using the substitution:
N E , Fl N R , Fl
M y,E M y ,R
(4.16)
page 29 / 142
Figure 4.2: Lateral torsional buckling problem and initial imperfection [5]
(12) The result is the European lateraltorsional buckling curve LT ( ) , that differs from the European flexural buckling curve by the imperfection factor , which is derived from by taking the influence of the torsional stiffness into account by the ratio of the
2 2 slenderness of the full beam LT to the slenderness of the mere top flange Fl [7]. 2 LT = 2 It Fl
(4.17)
(13) This modification effects a shift from the flexural buckling curve to the Eulercurve, see Figure 4.4, that is the stronger, the smaller the beam depth in relation to the
page 30 / 142
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateraltorsional buckling beam width and the greater the slenderness is (enhancement of It according to equation (4.3)). The use of the flexural buckling curve instead of the modified European lateral torsional buckling curve is however on the safe side.
1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 Momentenverteilung: Trgerprofil: HE 200 B 3.0 KSL a KSL b Biegedrillknicken fr einen Querscchnitt mit It = Biegedrillknicken fr ein Profil HEB 200
Figure 4.4: Comparison between lateral torsional buckling curve (for a beam HEB 200 under pure bending) and column buckling curves a and b
(14) Figure 4.5 shows a comparison of test results from [8] [9] with beams with a constant buckling moment My with the European lateral torsional buckling curve, and Table 4.1 shows the determination of the Mvalues according to EN 1990 Annex D.
re/rt 1.6
1.4
1.0
1.2
IPE 200
1.2 1.0
A
0.8
B C D E F G H I J Z
A B D F G H I J Z
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
1.2
1.2
IPE 80
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
Figure 4.5: Lateral torsional buckling of rolled beams; testresults and lateral torsional buckling curves with corresponding *values;
page 31 / 142
logNormalverteilung
s = 0.083 R = 0.107
* M =
page 32 / 142
4.2
Application of the European lateral torsional buckling curves for the general loading case for lateral torsional buckling
Definition of the general loading case The general loading case for lateral torsional buckling is defined by the following: 1. Loading in the main plane of the beamcolumn: The loading Ed in the main plane of the beamcolumn comprises any combination of longitudinal and transverse forces applied to the structural member or the full structure. The effect of this loading is taken into account by the normal force NEd(x) in the compression flange relevant for the lateral torsional buckling assessment. The force NEd(x) is non uniform along the member length and has been determined taking 2nd order effects in the main plane into account. The strength exploitation of the compression flange is defined by:
4.2.1 (1)
E N Ed ( x)
Rk , Fl ( x)
E N Ed ( x) ult ,k ( x) N Ed ( x)
E ult ,k ( x)
(4.18)
2. Loading transverse to the main plane (out of plane): The loading out of main plane is effected by the equivalent geometrical imperfections init(x) and init(x). The loadeffect in the compression flange relevant for the assessment of the full beamcolumn is the flangemoment (see equation (4.15)):
M Fl ( x) =
(4.19)
The value crit is the eigenvalue determined by numerical means, e.g. FEM, leading to
Rcrit ( x) = crit N E ( x)
(4.20)
and init , Fl ,o is the curvature of the imperfection of the compression flange de termined with the eigenmodes crit and crit , also calculated with numerical
means. These eigenmodes crit and crit satisfy the coupled differential equations at any point x and also the boundary conditions, which may be different to the situation in Figure 4.1; e.g. they may be independent from each other or coupled as in the case of point support. Therefore the eigenfunctions crit and crit may have fully different shapes and not be proportional as given in Figure 4.2. (2) In the following the general assessment formula for beamcolumns subject to lateral torsional buckling are derived in two steps: 1. neglecting the St. Venant torsional stiffness, 2. taking the St. Venant torsional stiffness into account.
page 33 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 4.2.2 (1) Basic equation with neglection of the torsional stiffness The differential equations for the case of general longitudinal and transverse heading in the main plane for lateral torsional buckling without the consideration of the St. Venanttorsional stiffness reads:
[(
)]
(4.21)
Rk
crit
Ed
= 0
(4.22)
(2)
(4.23)
(4.24)
x = xd
(3)
crit N E , Fl ( x)
// // EI Fl ,o crit + z M crit
// // crit ( x) + z M crit ( x) x = xd
(4.25)
(4)
M E , Fl =
] ]
// // crit ( x) + z M crit ( x) x = xd
]
(4.26)
= E e0 N E , Fl ( x)
(5) In using:
e0 =
M R , Fl N R , Fl
LT
0,2
(4.27)
M E , Fl = E
M R , Fl N R , Fl
LT
(4.28)
crit
page 34 / 142
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateraltorsional buckling (6) This flangemoment is inserted into the interaction formula for resistance of the flange:
N E ,Fl N R , Fl
M E ,Fl M R , Fl
=1
(4.29)
which gives:
N E , Fl N R , Fl
(7)
+E
M R , Fl N R , Fl
LT
0,2
N E , Fl M R , Fl
(4.30)
E ult ,k ,Fl
(4.31)
i.e. if the design point x on the axis of the beam is identical with the reference point x = xd for the imperfection, then with
E ult ,k , Fl , xd
(4.32)
+ 0,2
1 =1 1 2
(4.33)
Equation (4.33) demonstrates, that the standard European flexural buckling curves are applicable for solving the problem. 4.2.3 (1) Basic equation with consideration of the torsional stiffness When taking account of the St. Venanttorsional stiffness the differential equations read:
(4.34)
(4.35)
The further derivation follows in principle the derivation in section 4.2.2, however the imperfection for the flange reads:
page 35 / 142
init , Fl = e0
(4.36)
where crit is the eigenvalue obtained from equation (4.21) without considering the
St. Venant torsional stiffness, see equation (4.25). (3) Hence the flangemoment is different to the one in equation (4.26):
M E , Fl =
[ crit + z M crit ]
x = xd
(4.37)
LT
0,2
crit crit
( x)
(4.38)
(4)
Hence the assessment formula for the design point x = xd reads [7], [10]:
+ (
LT
0,2 )
crit
12crit 4 4 3
1 =1 2 1 LT
(4.39)
This equation is identical with the equation for the European lateral torsional buckling curve in Figure 4.3 and gives for the specific case in Figure 4.1 the equation (4.17). (5) By this derivation the general applicability of the standard European flexural buckling curves and of the Standard European lateral torsional buckling curves is proved. Modification of the lateral torsional buckling curves to agreed simplified assumptions Where the real design point x = xd is not known a priori, an assumption for a substitutive design point can be made, e.g. x = xmin, where ult,k,min is obtained. [11] The lateral torsional buckling curve then reads following equation (3.20) and (3.21) valid for flexural buckling
mod =
1 f
+ 2
2 mod
(4.40)
and
= 0,5 1 +
(4.41)
page 36 / 142
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateraltorsional buckling 4.2.5 (1) Worked example [5] A support frame of the Schwebebahn in Wuppertal according to Figure 4.6 is taken as an example. The supports at the feet of the columns may be modeled as forks, and the beam is laterally supported by excentric point supports. The loading is asymmetrical and effects non uniform distributions of the axial forces and bending moments in the main plane. The crosssection also varies along the length. With FEM, see Figure 4.7 the numerical values are
(2)
(3)
450/60
950
s
R ie g e l
3000
450 /40
298 kN
=26
45
0 0/6
450/40
950
mod =
s=18
6901 450/40
=1 LT = 0,49 LT = 0,722
Nachweis:
LT ult ,k ,min M 1
0,722 1,69 = 1,22 > 1,10
Figure 4.6: Example for the lateral torsional buckling verification acc. to the general method
2150 kN
298 kN
crit = 3,41)
page 37 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 4.2.6 Application to nonsymmetric crosssections
4.2.6.1 Derivation of the assessment formula (1) Nonsymmetrical crosssections are such sections as e.g. channels according to Figure 4.8 for which the limit state conditions for out of plane buckling depend on the direction of the deformation.
Pz
D E D
+ + 
+ + + +
z
Figure 4.8:
(2)
The elastic assessment for the design point D on the crosssection, related to stresses for deformations to the left hand side in Figure 4.8 reads:
Eip
fy
Eop
fy
=1
(4.42)
Eip Eop
fy
(3)
fy
E ult ,k y D crit + D crit 1 =1 = E ( LT 0,2 ) crit ult ,k crit 1 E [ y D crit + D crit ]x = x d crit
=
(4.43)
In conclusion the assessment formula (4.43) for the design point x = xd along the member length is the same as for symmetrical crosssections given in equation (4.39). The assumption of a deformation to the right hand side in Figure 4.8 would lead to the following equation for the point E on the crosssection:
(4)
Eop
fy
E (LT 0,2) crit 1 y E crit + E crit = 1 ult ,k crit 1 E [ y E crit + E crit ]x= x d crit
(4.44)
ergo the same equation as equation (4.39), however with the difference, that for the design points D and E different reference values of imperfection apply. These differences of reference values may require different imperfection factors , so that a preference direction for out of plane instability may occur.
page 38 / 142
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateraltorsional buckling (5) Hence the lateral torsional buckling for unsymmetrical crosssections may with regard to the dependence on the direction of deformation be similar to the flexural buckling of symmetrical crosssections, e.g. as for Iprofiles. For such Iprofiles flexural buckling in the main plane requires according to section 2.2 (2) of this report an imperfection ( = 0,34)
e0 1 4 = 0,34 l 2
fy E
= 0,108
1 1 = 30 280
b 2 AFl f y MR b 4 NR 2 AFl f y 4
( plastic )
l 12 b
b (elastic ) 6
2 AFl f y EAFl b 6
2 2
fy E
an imperfection (= 0,49)
e0 1 12 = 0,49 l 4
or
fy E
= 0,135
1 1 = ( plastic ) 30 220
e0 1 12 = 0,49 l 6
4.2.6.2 Justification by tests (1)
fy E
= 0,090
1 1 = (elastic ) 30 333
Channels are in general loaded such by transverse loads that the load plane does not go through the shear centre M, but is in the plane of the web, so that initial eccentricities and hence additional loading by torsion has to be considered, see Figure 4.9 a). To prove the applicability of the European lateral torsional buckling curve for channels without additional outofplane action effects an initial loading situation as given in Figure 4.9 b) is necessary for the test results, which is rather academic and can only be provided by particular test conditions in the laboratory. a) b)
(2)
page 39 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (3) (4) Tests that satisfy the conditions of Figure 4.9 b) are listed in Table 4.2. A first comparison between calculative and test results on channel sections loaded through their shear centre are given in Table 4.3. The given tests have been performed on very compact beams with a relative slenderness of 0.2 . To prove the applicability of the European lateral torsional buckling curve, further tests (e.g. [12], [13]) on channel section loaded through its shear centre will be investigated and published in the next revised version of this report. (5) The assessment of beams made of channels that are loaded with transverse loads and torsion caused by eccentricities of these loads and also with longitudinal compression forces is demonstrated in section 7.8.
Table 4.2: Tests on channels with load application in shear centre; configurations and results Nr. Test Steel Test setup Load application Fexp [kN]
407.9
215.6
114.2
page 40 / 142
ult ,k
*) load amplifier Ek = FEd / Fexp = (re / rt)1 which leads to an utilization level of 100%
page 41 / 142
page 42 / 142
5 5.1
Conclusions for Recommendations for NDPs in EN 199311 Procedure in EN 199311, section 6.3.1
The procedure in EN 199311, section 6.3.1 is the procedure with standardized European flexural buckling curves according to chapter 2 of this report. The note to clause (3) refers to the application of the European standardized flexural buckling curves and lateral torsional buckling curves, that are specified in EN 199311, section 6.3.4. An explicit assessment of a non uniform member with the application of 2nd order theory according to 5.3.4 (2), as mentioned in the note, is not necessary, as this application is already included in the flexural buckling curves and lateral torsional buckling curves. These buckling curves do contain the assumptions for imperfections as given in section 5.3.2 (11) equation (5.9), (5.10) and (5.11) and therefore can also be used for nonuniform members.
(1) (2)
5.2
(1) (2)
(3)
is possible by the National Annex. (4) The choice of the design point x = xd for different moment shapes may be taken from Table 5.1 of this report. As an alternative the given factor f can be used to modify the lateral torsional buckling curve.
page 43 / 142
Momentenverteilung
A B
xd l
=1
0,5
1 1
0,5 0,5
A B
mod mod
0,5
1,0
mod
a b
mod
B
xd = 0 LT ,mod = 1 l x > d = l
mod >
xd l xd l xd l xd l xd l xd l
0,562
0,833
3 2 2 1
Hinweis: Fr alle Lagerungen A und B gilt: , = gehalten und , = frei Verwendete Krzel: = a l ; = b l ; l = a + b ; = 0 f + 0 f + f (1 0,2 0 ) 1
2 ( f 1) 2 ( f 1) f 1
2
page 44 / 142
5.3
(1)
2. The function for the lateral torsional buckling curve in (6.57) and (6.58) is modified in the following way: 
LT ,mod =
LT ,mod = LT =
LT
f
LT +
2 LT
2 LT
(2)
= 0,5 1 + LT
2 LT ,mod LT ,0 + LT
1 f
LT ,0 = 0,2
Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 are cancelled.
The second way is justified by the following: 1. The modified lateral torsional buckling curve in EN 199311, section 6.3.2.3 has not been derived from the standardized European flexural buckling curve based on a mechanical model. 2. The amplitudes of the imperfections used for the FEMcalculations were not consistent with the amplitudes determined for flexural buckling from tests, which would be relevant in the case
GI t l 2 0. EI w 2
3. The procedure has not been verified by a reliability analysis according to Annex D of EN 1990. (3) Some comparisons between the results of the procedure in EN 199311, section 6.3.2.3 together with the recommendations for numerical values given therein
page 45 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 ( LT,mod) and the results of the standardized European lateral torsional buckling curves ( LT) according to the recommendation in section 5.3 (1) 2 of this report, as well as the results of the flexural buckling curve ( LT) in DIN EN 199311 are given in Figure 5.1.
1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
Momentenverteilung:
Momentenverteilung:
Trgerprofil: HE 400 B
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Momentenverteilung:
Momentenverteilung:
Trgerprofil: HE 400 B
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
5.4
(1)
5.5
(1)
(2)
page 46 / 142
where crit is the critical amplification factor with considering the torsional
stiffness and crit is the critical amplification factor without considering the
torsional stiffness. (3) The equation (6.66) may be deleted, because the interaction between flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is included in the procedure for determining LT (through ), so that no further interaction is necessary.
5.6
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
page 47 / 142
page 48 / 142
6 6.1
Consideration of out of plane loading Transverse loads on the standard column in compression
For the assessment of columns for flexural buckling with additional transverse loads Roik has developed a procedure, to come to a simple assessment formula for taking the supplementary effect into account. A prerequisite for the accuracy of the procedure of Roik [14] is, that the shape of the
I inplane bending moment M y according to 1st order theory is equal to the shape of
(1)
(2)
(6.1)
(6.2)
(3)
N E N E ( 0,2) M 0 1 + + =1 NE 2 M R NE 2 NR NR 1 1 NR NR
(4)
(6.3)
In order to transfer this formula into the form of the assessment formula for columns in compression:
NE
NR
(6.4)
the term ( 0,2 ) is replaced by a function of from the basic equation for :
+ ( 0,2 )
This gives:
1 1 2
=1
(6.5)
( 0,2) =
(1 ) (1 2 )
(6.6)
(6.7)
page 49 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (5) By rearranging the various terms in formula (6.7) one receives:
N M N N NE + 0 = n = 1 E 1 E 2 + E 1 + 2 2 N NR M R NR NR R
)
1. Stufe 2. Stufe 3. Stufe
(6.8)
= 1
(6.9)
144444 2444444 4 3
0,9
so that an accurate solution (1st step) and two steps of simplification (2nd step and 3rd step) can be obtained. The maximum simplification leads to
M NE + 0 n = 0,9 NR M R
(6)
(6.10)
In order to consider also other moment shapes M 0 than those according to equation (6.1), the equation (6.10) is extended:
M (1 q ) NE + 0 n NR MR
(7)
(6.11)
To determine q a development of Mz, py and in series based on of the various eigenmodes crit,m is performed:
I M y ( x) = pm crit ,m ( x) m external load p ( x) = pm crit ,m ( x) z m ( x) = m crit ,m ( x) displacement m
(6.12)
(6.13)
(EI
m m
crit ,m + N crit ,m =
) p
m
crit ,m
(6.14)
m = pm
(8)
(6.15)
page 50 / 142
crit , j
crit ,i dx = 0
fr i j
(6.16)
and
crit , j
crit ,i dx = 0
fr i j
(6.17)
it follows:
pm =
M
l l
I y ( x)
crit ( x) dx
(6.18)
crit ( x) crit ( x) dx
crit ,i = sin
crit ,i =
m x l
2
m x m sin l l
4
(6.19)
m x m crit ,i = sin l l
and for a bending moment M 0 constant along the length of the column;
(6.20)
(9)
crit ,m
= = =
EI
m
p
m
(6.21)
p
m
p
m
1 NE 1 N crit ,m
page 51 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (10) With this bending moment the following equation instead of equation (6.3) is obtained:
N E N E ( 0,2 ) + + NE 2 NR NR 1 NR
M
m
pm
R
1 NE 1 N crit ,m
crit ,m ( xd ) = 1
(6.22)
p
m
crit ,m ( xd )
(6.23)
pm crit , m MR
1444444444 444444444 2 3
NE I My pmcrit , m N crit , m 1+ I NE MR My 1 N crit , m
NE N crit , m NE 1 N crit , m
1444444444 444444444 2 3
NE I My pmcrit , m N crit , m 1 N E 2 1+ 1 I NE M R 1 N E 2 N R My 1 NR N crit , m
(6.24)
to accelerate the convergence. (12) By using the first element of the series only
M m = pm crit , m ( xd )
one gets a conservative solution:
NE NE + 1 N crit N crit
1444444 444444 2 3
1
NE M m N crit MI y 1 N E N crit
1444444 444444 2 3
1
NE M m 1 I N crit M y
NE M m NE + I N crit M y N crit
(6.25)
page 52 / 142
Consideration of out of plane loading (13) From (6.25) and using equation (6.11) one obtains
q=
M NE 2 1 m I NR My
(6.26)
(6.27)
q=
4 NE 2 N 1 = 0,27 E 2 NR NR
(6.28)
(15) When using equation (6.11) it is presumed, that the maximum values of the effects of the out of plane imperfections and the out of plane bending are approximate at the same spot x = xd. This presumption applies in case of equation (6.3) and also in case of equation (6.11) if the maxima for in plane stressing coincide with the maxima of out of plane stressing. Therefore the results are either safe sided or the actual design point x = xd should be determined.
6.2
(1) (2)
Out of plane bending and torsion for the basic situation for lateral torsional buckling
For the assessment of the standard beam with the standardized European lateral torsional buckling curves the method of Roik is also applicable. [15] For the standard beam it is assumed in the first step, that the shapes of the out of
I plane bending moments M zI and warping bimoments M w follow the shape of the
M zI = M z ,m
I Tw = Tw, m
(6.29)
crit , max
crit
(6.30)
For the example of the simple beam with hinged ends and constant bending moment My this means
M zI = M z ,m sin
I Tw = Tw, m sin
x
l
(6.31) (6.32)
x
l 1 x sin M E,y l M crit
(3)
According to the equation (6.8) and (6.9) the action effects using 2nd order theory are:
M zII = M z ,m 1
(6.33)
page 53 / 142
II Tw = Tw, m
1
(4)
x 1 sin M E, y l
M crit
(6.34)
edge
fy
(6.35)
=
(5)
M zII M R, z
II Tw
TR , w
II fl , top
M R , fl , top
N E , fl N R , fl
(6)
(6.36)
Because of the analogy to equation (6.3) the conclusions in equations (6.8) and (6.9) can be transferred, so that the assessment reads
M E,y
M R, y
I M E , fl , z
M R , fl , z
n = 1
(6.37)
(7)
If the bending moments in the top flange do not follow the eigenmodes crit and crit
II correction factors may be applied to M E , Fl , y , so that equation (6.37) is transferred us
M E, y
M R, y
I M E , fl , z
M R , fl , z
(1 q )+ T T
My
I E , fl , w R , fl , w
(1 q ) n
Tw
(6.38)
qM ,z =
M E,y M R, y M E, y M R, y
M 2 1 z ,Im Mz T 2 1 w,Im Tw
(6.39)
qT , w =
(6.40)
6.3
(1)
page 54 / 142
ult , k
M E , fl , z M R , fl , z
(1 q ) + T T
Mz
E , fl , w R , fl , w
(1 q ) n
Tw
(6.41)
= 1
qM z =
ult ,k
1
M z ,m 2 1 M zI T 2 1 w,Im Tw
(6.42)
qTw =
ult , k
(6.43)
6.4
(1)
EI z + N = 0
is satisfied by:
(6.44)
(6.45)
(3)
crit , j crit ,i
(6.46)
crit ,i
crit , j
R
2 i
2 j
crit ,i
crit , j
(6.47)
crit , j crit ,i
crit ,i crit , j
14444 244444 4 3
=0
+ crit , j crit ,i
crit ,i crit , j
0 fr i j
14fr i 44 4 j 3 2
crit , j crit ,i R crit , j crit ,i
=0 fr i j
=0
(4)
page 55 / 142
6.5
(1)
(2)
* * Table 6.1 gives the M values related to the results which are between M = 1,0 and * M = 1,1 as required.
re/rt
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Lindner  IPE 200 Lindner  HEB 200 Kindmann  Vers. II Kindmann  Vers. III
Figure 6.1: Comparison between test results from [9] and calculative results
logNormalverteilung
2.0 Quantile der logNormalverteilung 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ln re/rt 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
re/rt
page 56 / 142
7 7.1
(1)
(2)
LT ( ) =
= 0.5 1 + ( 0.2) + 2
crit = crit
+ 2 2
implicitly includes flexural buckling and all combinations of flexural and lateraltorsional buckling from both inplane compression forces, eccentricities of these compression forces and any transverse loading and also can be extended to cover outofplane loading as well. (3) (4) The flow chart for the assessment of combined flexural and lateral torsional buckling is given in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2.
In order to identify crit without effects of St. Venanttorsional stiffness and crit with
effects of St. Venant torsional stiffness computer calculations can use assumptions as given in Figure 7.1.
page 57 / 142
Input Distribution of inplane load effects (NEd, My,Ed) including 2nd order analysis Distribution of cross sectional data Boundary conditions for outofplane deflections
Analysis
ult , k ( x)
crit , crit, location of max crit
, = crit crit
xd is known
ult ,k ( xd )
( xd ) =
ult ,k ( x d ) crit
( x d ) = * , ( xd )
E = ( xd ) ult ,k ( xd )
Ed =
( x d ) ult ,k ( x d ) 1 M
page 58 / 142
z ( x) =
M z , Ed ( x) M z , Rd ( x)
Tw, Ed ( x) Tw, Rd ( x)
(1 q z )
(1 qw )
Ed ( x) =
( x) ult ,k ( x) 1 M
w ( x) =
nE =
Ed ( xd )
1 1
+ y ( xd ) + w ( xd )
n R = 1
Ed ( x d )
Ed ( x d )
2 ( xd ) 2 ( xd )
n E ( xd ) n R ( xd )
page 59 / 142
7.2
7.2.1 (1)
Design aids
Hand formulae for the determination of Mcr For particular cases, e.g. those with inplane transverse loads and inplane moments
only and without any compression forces, the values crit and crit can be obtained
by hand calculation from formulas, as given in Tables 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6. 7.2.1.1 Basis (1) The elastic critical moment for lateraltorsional buckling of a beam of uniform symmetrical crosssection with equal flanges, under standard conditions of restraint at each end and subject to uniform moment in plane going through the shear centre is given by:
M cr =
where:
2 EI z
L
2
L2 GI t I w EI z GI t + = L 2 EI z I z
1+
2 EI w
L2 GI t
(7.1)
G= It Iw Iz L
E 2 (1 + )
is the torsion constant is the warping constant is the second moment of area about the minor axis is the length of the beam between points that have lateral restraint is the Poisson ratio
(2) 
The standard conditions of restraint at each end are: restrained against lateral movement, free to rotate on plan (kz = 1); restrained against rotation about the longitudinal axis, free to warp (kw = 1); restrained against movement in plane of loading, free to rotate in this plane (ky = 1).
7.2.1.2 General formula for beams with uniform crosssections symmetrical about the minor or major axis (1) In the case of a beam of uniform crosssection which is symmetrical about the minor axis, for bending about the major axis the elastic critical moment for lateraltorsional buckling is given by the general formula:
M cr = cr
EI z GI t
L
(7.2)
page 60 / 142
cr =
C1 2 1 + wt + (C 2 g C3 j ) 2 (C 2 g C3 j ) , kz
(7.3)
wt =
kw L
EI w GI t
(7.4)
relative nondimensional coordinate of the point of load application related to shear center
g =
zg
kz L
EI z GI t
(7.5)
j =
where:
EI z k z L GI t
z j
(7.6)
C1, C2 and C3 are factors depending mainly on the loading and end restraint conditions (See Tables 7.3 and 7.4) kz and kw are buckling length factors z g = z a zs
z j = zs 0,5 ( y 2 + z 2 ) z dA Iy A
(7.7)
(7.8)
za
zs zg
is the coordinate of the point of load application related to centroid (see Figure 7.2) is the coordinate of the shear center related to centroid is the coordinate of the point of load application related to shear centre.
NOTE 1: See section 7.2.1.2 (7) and (8) for sign conventions and section 7.2.1.4 (2) for approximations for z j . NOTE 2: z j = 0 ( y j = 0 ) for cross sections with yaxis (zaxis) being axis of symmetry. NOTE 3: The following approximation for zj can be used:
c z j = 0,45 f hs 1 + 2h f
(7.9)
where: c hf
(7.10)
page 61 / 142
For Isections with unequal flanges without lips and as an approximation also with lips:
I w = 1 2 I z (hs 2 ) f
(7.11)
(2)
The buckling length factors kz (for lateral bending boundary conditions) and kw (for torsion boundary condition) vary from 0,5 for both beam ends fixed to 1,0 for both ends simply supported, with 0,7 for one end fixed (left or right) and one end simply supported (right or left). The factor kz refers to end rotation on plan. It is analogous to the ratio Lcr/L for a compression member. The factor kw refers to end warping. Unless special provision for warping fixity of both beam ends (kw = 0,5) is made, kw should be taken as 1,0.
(3) (4)
(C) Compression side, (T) tension side, S shear centre, G gravity centre Su, Sb is shear centre of upper and bottom flange
Figure 7.2: Notation and sign convention for beams under gravity loads (Fz) or for cantilevers under uplift loads ( Fz) (5) Values of C1, C2 and C3 are given in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 for various load cases, as indicated by the shape of the bending moment diagram over the length L between lateral restraints. Values are given in Table 7.3 corresponding to various values of kz and in Table 7.4 also corresponding to various values of kw . For cases with kz = 1,0 the value of C1 for any ratio of end moment loading as indicated in Table 7.3, is given approximately by:
(6)
C1 =
(7)
(7.12)
The sign convention for determining z and zj, see Figure 7.2, is:
page 62 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications coordinate z is positive for the compression flange. When determining zj from equation (7.8), positive coordinate z goes upwards for beams under gravity loads or for cantilevers under uplift loads, and goes downwards for beams under uplift loads or cantilevers under gravity loads sign of zj is the same as the sign of crosssection monosymmetry factor f from equation (7.10). Take the cross section located at the Mside in the case of moment loading, Table 7.3, and the crosssection located in the middle of the beam span in the case of transverse loading, Table 7.4.
(8)
The sign convention for determining zg is: for gravity loads zg is positive for loads applied above the shear centre in the general case zg is positive for loads acting towards the shear centre from their point of application.
page 63 / 142
page 64 / 142
page 65 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 7.2.1.3 Beams with uniform crosssections symmetrical about major axis, centrally symmetric and doubly symmetric crosssections (1) For beams with uniform crosssections symmetrical about major axis, centrally symmetric and doubly symmetric crosssections loaded perpendicular to the major axis in the plane going through the shear centre, Table 7.3, zj = 0, thus
cr =
(2)
C1 2 1 + wt + (C 2 g ) 2 C 2 g kz
(7.13)
For endmoment loading C2 = 0 and for transverse loads applied at the shear centre zg = 0. For these cases:
cr =
(3)
C1 2 1 + wt kz
(7.14)
If also wt = 0 :
cr = C1 k z
(7.15)
Figure 7.3: Beams with uniform crosssections symmetrical about major axis, centrally symmetric and doubly symmetric crosssections
(4)
For beams supported on both ends ( k y = 1 , k z = 1 , 0,5 k w 1 ) or for beam segments laterally restrained on both ends, which are under any loading (e.g. different end moments combined with any transverse loading), the following value of factor C1 may be used in the above two formulas given in section 7.2.1.3 (2) and (3) to obtain approximate value of critical moment:
C1 =
where
1,7 M max
2 M 0, 25 2 2 + M 0,5 + M 0,75
2,5
(7.16)
M max
M 0, 25 , M 0,75 M 0,5
is maximum design bending moment, are design bending moments at the quarter points and is design bending moment at the midpoint of the beam or beam segment with length equal to the distance between adjacent crosssections which are laterally restrained.
(5)
Factor C1 defined by equation (7.16) may be used also in equation (7.13), but only in combination with relevant value of factor C2 valid for given loading and boundary conditions. This means that for the six cases in Table 7.4 with boundary condition
page 66 / 142
7.2.1.4 Cantilevers with uniform crosssections symmetrical about the minor axis (1) In the case of a cantilever of uniform crosssection, which is symmetrical about the minor axis, for bending about the major axis the elastic critical moment for lateraltorsional buckling is given by the equation (7.2), where the values of relative nondimensional critical moment cr are given in Tables 7.5 and 7.6. In Tables 7.5 and 7.6 nonlinear interpolation should be used. The sign convention for determining zj and zg is given in section 7.2.1.2 (7) and (8).
(2)
page 67 / 142
C1 = 5,55
if wt > 2 if g 0 if g < 0
2 3 4 C2 = 1,255 + 1,566 wt 0,931 wt + 0,245 wt 0,024 wt , 2 2 C2 = 0,192 + 0,585 wt 0,054 wt (0,032 + 0,102 wt 0,013 wt ) g ,
page 68 / 142
if wt 2 if wt > 2 if g 0 if g < 0
C1 = 12
2 3 4 C2 = 1,661 + 1,068 wt 0,609 wt + 0,153 wt 0,014 wt , 2 2 C2 = 0,535 + 0,426 wt 0,029 wt (0,061 + 0,074 wt 0,0085 wt ) g ,
page 69 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 7.2.2 Location of assessment xd Momentenverteilung
A B
xd l
ky =1 0,5
=1
1 1
0,5 0,5
A B
k y = 0,5
mod mod
0,5
1,0
mod
a b
mod
B
xd = 0 LT , mod = 1 l x > d = l
k y = 0,7
mod >
xd l xd l xd l xd l xd l xd l
0,562
0,833
3 2 1 2
page 70 / 142
7.3
Examples to compare the results of the general method using the European lateral buckling curve with results of the component method in Eurocode 3Part 11, section 6.3.3
The use of the component method in Eurocode 3Part 11, section 6.3.3 is illustrated in Figure 7.4.
Pz,Ed My,Ed NEd Mz,Ed Mz,Ed My,Ed NEd
(1)
Py,Ed
compression only
NEd
flexural buckling
N Ed 1 y N Rd
M y , Ed + M y , Ed
LT M y , Rd
Interaction
M z , Ed + M z , Ed M z , Rd
M y , Ed + M y , Ed M z , Ed + M z , Ed N Ed + k yy + k zy 1 y N Rd LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
M y , Ed + M y , Ed M z , Ed + M z , Ed N Ed + k zy + k zz 1 z N Rd LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
Figure 7.4: Procedure for the component method
(2) (3)
For the functions kyy, kyz, kzy and kzz there are two alternatives given in Annex A and B of Eurocode 3Part 11. [2] To compare the results of the general method with the results of the component method 5 worked examples as published in [17], are chosen, for which the various steps of calculations are given in Table 7.7. Where the location of the design point xd / is not a priori evident, the procedure according to step 4 in Table 7.1 can be used to calculate (xi) at various spots xi, from which xd is the spot where the maximum value of (xi), see distribution of (x) in Table 7.7, is achieved. Where the maximum value of (x) is at an end of a member, see examples no. 1 and 2 in Table 7.7, lateral torsional buckling is not relevant for the design, but a crosssectional verification at the supports is necessary (with ult,k only).
(4)
(5)
page 71 / 142
page 72 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications (6) (7) In the calculations the reference value of the imperfection factor is always the value associated with the flexural buckling curve for the weak axes. Table 7.8 gives a comparison of the results of the general method (that can be considered as reliable) with the results of the component method in Eurocode 3 Part 11 section 6.3.2, as published in [17]. This publication also gives results for the use of the two alternatives for interaction formulas as specified in Eurocode 3Part 11, Annex A and B. The choices of the reference flexural buckling curve in this publication are not always identical with the choice of for weak axis buckling.
Utilization grades 1/Ed and 1/Ed,M from the general method with European lateral torsional buckling curves and from the specific method with flexural buckling curves modified with and f and with Annex A and B of EC3 Part 11
Beispiel Nr. Allgemeines Verfahren mit Europischer Biegedrillknickkurve 1,603 0,988 1,111 0,981 0,950 Spezielles Verfahren mit der mit und f modifizierten BDKKurve Anlage A 0,950 1,131 1,131 1,045 Anlage B 0,836 1,112 0,903 0,946
Table 7.8:
1 2 3 4 5
(8)
The comparison in Table 7.8 reveals that the results of the component method, though not being fully consistent with the principles in Eurocode 3 give rather acceptable results. Criticism on the component method may be placed in view of their limited field of application (only particular end conditions and no torsion action), complexity and lack of transparency, disproportionality of design effort in relation to the win of safety and economy.
page 73 / 142
7.4
7.4.1 (1)
Figure 7.5: Design situation for a sheet piling with two alternatives (A = single pile, B = double pile)
(2)
The loading conditions and the 1st order action effects from earth pressure are given in Table 7.10.
page 74 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications 7.4.2 (1) (2) (3) (4) Assessments for resistance and stability For inplane loading a beamcolumn check is performed using sK = L = 20.0 m as a safesided assumption (free buckling length). The verification is made using formulae (6.8) and (6.9), see Table 7.10. For out of plane buckling of the piles the restraints due to the sheet piling and the passive earth pressure of the soil may be taken into account. The assumptions made for lateral torsional buckling modes are given in Figure 7.7.
mode 1
shear shear
soil
co mp res sio n
co mp res sio n
shear
shear
mode 2
soil compression
(5) (6)
From the two modes 1 and 2 in Figure 7.7 mode 1 is selected because of the greater deformations due to shear in the sheet piling and in the soil. For restraints that the HZpiles will receive in the lateral torsional buckling mode 1 the following assumptions are made: 1. The transmission of bending moments through the locks of the sheet piling is neglected. 2. The sheet piling acts as a shear wall between the HZpiles without contributing by its stiffness to direct transverse stresses, 3. Passive earth pressure acting to the webs and flanges in the soil is taken into account by a bedding stiffness resulting from the shear deformations in the soil.
(7)
As a consequence the HZpile is modelled as given in Figure 7.8. a. boundary condition at the ends of the pile b. elastic restraints for displacements, twist and lockshear displacements
page 75 / 142
MEd
II
c c
main axis bending restraint to displacement and twist c and c due to passive earth pressure
point support
Figure 7.8: Modeling of the HZpile
(8)
For the bedding stiffness from the soil in terms of a spring stiffness k [kN/m] depending on the magnitude of displacement the principle of active and passive earth pressure given in Figure 7.9 may be taken into account.
(9)
The values k may be taken from Figure 7.10 as related to the magnitude of the passive earth pressure.
page 76 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications (10) An example for a particular soil with
d
cd tan d
(11) The equivalent spring stiffnesses c and c may be taken from Figure 7.11.
R = c = k h [kN / m m]
h c
c = k h
RM = c = k
h3 [kNm / m] 12 h3 12
h 2
c = k
(12) The assumptions for determining crit for the example k1 = 20 000 kN/m are as follows: II the inplane bending moment M Ed is determined from the bending moment I M Ed according to first order analysis by
II M Ed = M 1 Ed
1 N 1 Ed N crit
II the inplane bending moment M Ed that together with NEd causes lateral tor
sional buckling is the effect of active earth pressure that through arching in the soil mainly acts on the tension flange of the HZpile. (13) The calculations have been carried out with the FEMprogram Marc/Mentat. Table 7.9 gives the relevant buckling modes and values crit and *crit, that lead to the lateral torsional buckling curves as given in Figure 7.12. In general the first eigen
page 77 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 mode is relevant. To demonstrate the effects of the assumption of the boundary conditions at the end of the pile also the second eigenmode has been calculated. (14) Details of the assessment for inplane compression and bending and outofplane lateral torsional buckling are given in Table 7.10 with the relevant European lateral torsional buckling curve given in Figure 7.12. (15) The results ult,k in Table 7.10 demonstrate that for a bedding stiffness of 20000 kN/m for the soil the design concepts are safe.
(16) A more refined analysis taking the relevant spot, where ult,k(x) and crit (x) results in
a maximum, would even give a greater safety. (17) Table 7.11 shows the distributions of ult,k and E that indicate the position x = xd at the points of minimum of E.
*LT 1.4 1st Eigenmode
1.2
Euler
2nd Eigenmode
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
Figure 7.12: Relevant lateral torsional buckling curve for out of plane buckling of piles.
page 78 / 142
crit = 3.54
crit = 1.432
crit = 4.839
crit = 2.580
page 79 / 142
Situation A
HZ975B14/AZ13/S355 GP Crosssection fy = 355 N/mm B = 1.87 m Iy = 717 400 cm Iz = 80 110 cm Actions
4
Situation B
HZ775D26/AZ13/S355 GP fy = 355 N/mm B = 2.35 m Wy = 13 730 cm A = 397.3 cm Iy = 963 740 cm4 Iz = 677 850 cm
4
Wy = 22 615 cm A = 798.3 cm
NEd = 2020 kN / pile My,Ed = 3598 kNm / pile Npl,k = 35.5 397.3 = 14 103 kN / pile My,Ed = 4874 kNm / pile Flexural buckling about strong axis
sk = 20.0m
N crit =
NEd = 7614 kN / pile My,Ed = 4521 kNm / pile Npl,k = 35.5 798.3 = 28 340 kN / pile My,Ed = 8028 kNm / pile Flexural buckling about strong axis
sk = 20.0m
Resistances
2 21000 717400
2000
2
= 37172 kN
N crit =
2 21000 963740
2000 2
= 49936 kN
0.9 0.965
0.891 0.917
ult ,k =
ult ,k =
Lateral torsional buckling (k = 20000 kN/m) 1st global Eigenmode Verification for out offplane loading
(yydirection)
Lateral torsional buckling (k = 0 kN/m) 1st global Eigenmode 2nd global Eigenmode
= 0.550
crit =
= 0.470
crit =
= 0.309
crit =
= 0.196
crit =
1.432
2.580
3.854
8.791
= 0.34
= 0.34 = 0.942
= 0.34 = 0.986
= 0.34 = 1.0
= 0.1375
= 0.937
ult,k = 1.003
page 80 / 142
Table 7.11: Situation A: Additional information on the location x = xd (relevant design point) Lateral torsional buckling
6 5 4
3 2 1 0
1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0
ult,k E
calc
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
,, crit
10
12
14
16
18
20
6 5 4
ult,k E
3 2 1 0
1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0 2
calc
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
,, crit
10
12
14
16
18
20
page 81 / 142
7.5
7.5.1 (1)
(2)
activator
Span 2040 mm
page 82 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications (3) The test program and the results may be taken from Table 7.12.
Table 7.12: Test program [18] connection to end plate copes /s fin plates hF/t Fmax.exp [kN]
90 / 5
29.3
no
90 / 8
34.4
90 / 12
32.2
75 / 5 no 75 / 8 75 / 12 75 / 5 160/30 75 / 8 75 / 12 50 / 5 160/30 50 / 8 50 / 12
7.5.2 (1)
Calculative results The calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1. For inplane loading the loadassumption is that no support reactions other than inplane occur, see Figure 7.14. Hence the load F in the main axes of the beam causes a torsion T = F e by the eccentricity e. 2. For outofplane loading two loads are considered: the effects of equivalent imperfections the effects from eccentric loading T = F e, so that the formulas (6.41) with (6.42) and (6.43) apply.
page 83 / 142
(2)
Table 7.13 gives calculative values of the maximum loads Fz,calc. for the test conditions and a comparison with the test data re/rt = Fz,exp/Fz,calc.
Table 7.13: Results of calculation and comparison with testresults
Type a) 90/5 a) 90/8 a) 90/12 b) 75/5 b) 75/8 b) 75/12 c) 75/5 c) 75/8 c) 75/12 d) 50/5 d) 50/8 d) 50/12 ey
[mm]
Fz.exp
[kN]
Fcrit
[kN]
F*crit
[kN]
Fz.Ed
[kN]
re/rt
[]
4.7 6.2 8.2 4.7 6.2 8.2 4.7 6.2 8.2 4.7 6.2 8.2
29.3 34.4 32.2 27.3 34.6 30.8 25.4 28.2 22.6 25.6 27.9
30.08 31.70 33.24 29.22 30.92 31.88 21.31 23.13 24.20 20.09 23.79 26.05
13.21 13.92 14.60 12.84 13.59 14.01 9.36 10.16 10.63 8.83 10.45 11.44
24.00 24.50 24.75 23.50 24.10 24.05 18.20 19.27 19.65 17.75 19.72 20.80
1.221 1.403 1.302 1.162 1.436 1.280 1.318 1.435 1.273 1.298 1.341
page 84 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications (3) The test evaluation to obtain Mvalues according to EN 1990 Annex D is given in Table 7.14.
Table 7.14: Determination of Mvalues for lateral torsional buckling of beams with finplate connections
beam with finplates 2.0
re/rt
1.0
0.0
a) 90/5 a) 90/8 a) 90/12 b) 75/5 b) 75/8 b) 75/12 c) 75/5 c) 75/8 c) 75/12 d) 50/5 d) 50/8 d) 50/12
uncoped
Input values
rt = 0,08 (geometrie and yield strength) fy = 0,07 (yield strength)
coped
logstandard deviation
2.0 Quantile der logNormalverteilung 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ln re/rt 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
(4)
The results in Table 7.14 reveal that M = 1,00 could be used for this set of tests (The conservatism of the calculative values is mainly caused by the fact, that the actual imperfections of the test beams were smaller than assumed in the European lateral torsional buckling curve used).
page 85 / 142
7.6
7.6.1 (1) (2)
kV = kL =
f0 =
page 86 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications (3) The variations of parameters provided to check the assessment procedure are given in Table 7.15
Table 7.15: Variation of parameters
(4)
The cross sections at the ends of the haunches which were made by plates and welded to rolled beams are given in Table 7.16.
Table 7.16: Crosssections at the ends of the haunches for test beams VT1 to VT3 and VT4 to VT6
VT_1 VT_3
VT_4 VT_6
(5)
The full set of tests with various geometrical parameters may be taken from Table 7.17
Table 7.17: Full set of tests and parameters
page 87 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (6) The test set up for providing various end moments Ms and midspan moments MF by forces P applied with various cantilever lengths LLet is given in Figure 7.16.
(7)
Figure 7.17 shows details of the application of loads at midspan with springs to provide an elastic torsional restraint c at midspan.
page 88 / 142
7.6.3
Test results The test results for the maximum loads P in Figure 7.16 limited by elastic lateral torsional buckling are given in Table 7.18. These values have been obtained for
c = 1000 kNcm/rad.
Table 7.18: Tests results
7.6.4 (1)
Calculative results The calculations were performed using the European lateral torsional buckling curves with the determination of Pcrit by a FEMprogram. The yield strength of the material as tested was fy = 400 N/mm. Table 7.19 gives the results of the calculations and the ratios between the experimental and calculative results.
(2)
page 89 / 142
Pcrit
[kN]
P*crit
[kN]
PEd
[kN]
re/rt
[]
40.97 49.00 50.67 34.40 37.30 41.87 34.73 38.87 44.43 30.23 35.17 33.97
49.23 59.52 60.99 39.99 39.20 38.35 42.08 53.10 53.61 33.51 32.78 32.09
30.22 36.54 37.44 24.55 24.07 23.54 25.83 32.60 32.91 20.57 20.12 19.70
33.49 39.88 40.56 27.86 27.73 27.56 29.29 35.44 35.76 23.91 23.76 23.51
1.223 1.229 1.249 1.235 1.345 1.519 1.186 1.097 1.242 1.264 1.480 1.445
(3)
The test evaluation according to EN 1990 Annex D is presented in Table 7.20. As usual the Mvalues obtained are in the same magnitude M 1,00 as for other stability phenomena.
Table 7.20: Test evaluation according to EN 1990 Annex D and Mvalues
2.0 re/rt
1.0
0.0 VT1A VT2A VT3A VT4A VT5A VT6A VT1B VT2B VT3B VT4B VT5B VT6B
Input values
rt = 0,08 (geometrie and yield strength) fy = 0,07 (yield strength)
(N = 12)
logstandard deviation
2.0 Quantile der logNormalverteilung 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ln re/rt 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
page 90 / 142
7.7
7.7.1 (1) (2) (3)
Assessment of gantrygirders
Structural system and loading The structural system of the gantry girder may be taken from Figure 7.18. It is a two span continuous girder with a span length of 6 m. The steel profile is HEB 300 S235, with a rail 5 cm x 3 cm welded to the profile with fillet welds aw = 5 mm. The rail is not taken into account in the resistance of the girder. Transverse stiffeners welded to the flanges and the web of the profile are at the supports and the connections to the brackets of the frames of the industrial hall provide forkconditions. The loading results from a bridge crane with the maximum wheel loads
(4)
R = 75 kN H = 22.2 kN
The wheel distance is c = 3.6 m. (5) The dynamic factor is = 1.20, so that the vertical wheel loads are
F1 = F2 = F = 1 R = 1.2 75 = 90 kN
(6) The selfweight of the gantry girder is
g = 1.35 kN/m
7.7.2
Action effects
7.7.2.1 Maximum sagging moments (1) The load position and the design loads for the maximum sagging moment may be taken from Figure 7.19
page 91 / 142
l1 = 2.1 m
c = 3.6 m l = 6.0 m
l2 l = 6.0 m
(2)
The design values of action effects from the relevant load combination are given in Figure 7.20
(3)
ult , k = crit =
M y , Rk M y , Ed
M y , crit , LT M y , Ed
* crit = 4.216
page 92 / 142
* =
= 0.891 Ed =
(5)
qM z =
crit
1
qTw =
crit
z,d = w, d =
n E =
M y , Ed M y , Rd
1 qM z =
Ed
+ z ,d + w,d =
nR = 1
and hence:
ult , k
1 1 ult , k
2 2 = 0.913 0,90
nE < nR
A conservative assumption with qMw = 0, qMz = 0 and nR = 0.9 would lead to:
Ed
+ yd + w d =
7.7.2.2 Maximum hogging moment (1) The load position and the design loads for the maximum hogging moment may be taken from Figure 7.21.
F1,Ed = 121.5 kN HEd = 30 kN a 4.2 m TEd = 5.4 kNm b 1.8 m 1.8 m 4.2 m F2,Ed = 121.5 kN c
page 93 / 142
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 199311 (2) The design values of action effects from the relevant load combination are given in Figure 7.22.
My,Ed = 138.8 kNm
(3)
Obviously the load case maximum hogging moment is not relevant for the lateral torsional buckling verification.
7.8
7.8.1 (1)
Channel sections
Objective Tests with beams made of channel sections are evaluated using the European lateral torsional buckling curve for lateral torsional buckling with transverse bending, torsion and in combination with compression forces, to verify the reliability of the assessment method. The test data are given in Figure 7.21 and Figure 7.22.
(2)
page 94 / 142
Test
Profile
Steel
Load application
Fexp [kN]
43.0
51.2
57.4
UPE200
31.8
34.5
30.4
page 95 / 142
Test
Profile
Steel
Test setup
Load application
Fexp [kN]
Nexp [kN]
45.91
74.88
36.76
59.03
L=4m = 95 mm
29.48
278.37
10
24.16
227.93
11
22.80
37.01
12
L=6m = 95 mm
21.01
33.86
page 96 / 142
Test
Profile
Steel
Test setup
Load application
Fexp [kN]
Nexp [kN]
S355 13 fy = 418 N/mm UPE200 S355 14 fy = 364 N/mm L=6m = 95 mm 15.95 74.45 17.93 80.83
Within this test series the axial forces N have been applied through cap and ball bearings, which were fixed on 20 mm thick steel plates at both ends of the beamcolumn, which impeded a free warping of the cross section. This effect has been taken into account for the recalculations.
7.8.2 (1)
Calculative results The calculations were performed using the European lateral torsional buckling curves with = 0.49. The critical values crit for the MNinteraction have been determined using the software LTBeamN [20]. The yield strengths which have been used for the calculations, were determined from material samples of the test specimens and are given in Table 7.21 and Table 7.22. The different calculations have been performed: 1. using the elastic warpingresistance Tel,w,Rk of the channel section 2. using the plastic warping resistance Tpl,w,Rk of the channel section. Results and calculative steps of each assessment are summarized in Table 7.23 and Table 7.24. Figure 7.23 shows the determined re/rtvalues for both assessment methods.
(2)
(3)
* Table 7.25 and Table 7.26 give the M values related to the results which are be* * tween M = 1,0 and M = 1,1 as required.
page 97 / 142
Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Ek *) 0.620 0.736 0.732 0.757 0.741 0.671 0.635 0.624 0.572 0.617 0.711 0.693 0.716 0.706
ult,k 4.718 3.339 2.994 3.655 3.444 4.315 3.155 4.009 5.451 6.162 3.785 4.212 4.778 4.741
crit 2.361 1.671 1.498 1.384 1.304 1.634 1.679 2.138 1.379 1.560 1.260 1.403 1.226 1.373
*crit 0.809 0.573 0.513 0.308 0.290 0.364 1.011 1.285 1.186 1.341 0.550 0.612 0.646 0.732
0.168 0.168 0.168 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.295 0.295 0.421 0.421 0.214 0.214 0.258 0.261
0.425 0.425 0.425 0.347 0.347 0.347 0.406 0.407 0.204 0.204 0.289 0.289 0.223 0.248
ult ,k
Mw 0.411 0.220 0.153 0.159 0.120 0.262 0.167 0.314 0.087 0.179 0.065 0.141 0.050 0.123
nE = nR 0.910 0.925 0.939 0.947 0.956 0.929 0.947 0.926 0.985 0.973 0.981 0.963 0.989 0.973
re/rt 1.613 1.359 1.366 1.320 1.349 1.490 1.575 1.602 1.749 1.620 1.407 1.443 1.397 1.416
0.499 0.704 0.786 0.788 0.836 0.667 0.780 0.613 0.899 0.795 0.915 0.822 0.939 0.850
*) load amplifier Ek = FEd / Fexp = (re / rt)1 which leads to an utilization level of 100%
nE = nR
Table 7.24: Calculative results for Tw,Rk = Tpl,w,Rk and comparison with tests
Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
)
Ek *) 0.968 0.934 0.865 0.897 0.842 0.890 0.756 0.871 0.618 0.728 0.758 0.799 0.749 0.795
ult,k 3.020 2.631 2.533 3.085 3.030 3.253 2.650 2.875 5.046 5.227 3.550 3.651 4.564 4.210
crit 1.512 1.317 1.268 1.168 1.148 1.232 1.410 1.533 1.276 1.323 1.182 1.217 1.171 1.219
*crit 0.518 0.451 0.434 0.260 0.255 0.274 0.849 0.922 1.098 1.137 0.516 0.531 0.617 0.650
1
0.168 0.168 0.168 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.295 0.295 0.421 0.421 0.214 0.214 0.258 0.261
0.425 0.425 0.425 0.347 0.347 0.347 0.406 0.407 0.204 0.204 0.289 0.289 0.223 0.248
ult ,k
Mw 0.159 0.072 0.047 0.047 0.035 0.083 0.051 0.107 0.025 0.054 0.018 0.040 0.014 0.034
nE = nR 0.938 0.966 0.976 0.980 0.985 0.968 0.979 0.961 0.995 0.990 0.994 0.988 0.997 0.991
re/rt 1.033 1.071 1.156 1.114 1.187 1.123 1.323 1.149 1.619 1.374 1.320 1.251 1.335 1.258
0.779 0.894 0.929 0.933 0.950 0.885 0.929 0.854 0.971 0.937 0.976 0.948 0.983 0.957
* load amplifier Ek = FEd / Fexp = (re / rt) which leads to an utilization level of 100%
nE = nR
page 98 / 142
re/rt 2.0
Tel,w,Rk
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
Tpl,w,Rk
Figure 7.23: Comparison between test results [9] and calculative results for Tw,Rk = Tel,w,Rk (left hand side) and Tw,Rk = Tpl,w,Rk (right hand side)
Table 7.25: Determination of the *Mvalue according to EN 1990 Annex D (Tw,Rk = Tel,w.Rk)
Eingangsdaten
rt = 0,08 (Geometrie und Streckgrenze) fy = 0,07 (Streckgrenze)
logNormalverteilung
2.0 Quantile der logNormalverteilung 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ln re/rt 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 re/rt 1.4 1.6 1.8
s = 0.158 R = 0.133
*
M = 1.006
Table 7.26: Determination of the *Mvalue according to EN 1990 Annex D (Tw,R = Mpl,w,R)
Eingangsdaten
rt = 0,08 (Geometrie und Streckgrenze) fy = 0,07 (Streckgrenze)
logNormalverteilung
2.0 Quantile der logNormalverteilung 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.000 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ln re/rt 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 re/rt 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
s = 0.107 R = 0.120
*
M = 1.167
page 99 / 142
Literature
10 Literature
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design, CEN, Brussels EN 199311: Eurocode 3 Part 11 Design of steel structures General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels Maquoi, R., R. Rondal, J.: Analytische Formulierung der neuen Europischen Knickspannungskurven, Acier, Stahl, Steel 1/1978 Mller, Chr.: Zum Nachweis ebener Tragwerke aus Stahl gegen seitliches Ausweichen, Diss. RWTH Aachen 2003, Schriftenreihe Stahlbau, Heft 47, Shaker Verlag Sedlacek, G., Mller, Chr.: The European Standard family and its basis. Journal of Constructural Steel Research 62/2006), 10471056 Stangenberg, H.: Zum Bauteilnachweis offener stabilittsgefhrdeter Stahlbauprofile unter Einbeziehung seitlicher Beanspruchungen und Torsion, Diss. RWTH Aachen 2007, Schriftenreihe Stahlbau, Heft 61, Shaker Verlag Sedlacek, G., Mller, Chr., Stangenberg, H.: Lateral torsional buckling according to Eurocode 3, Ren Maquoi 65th birthday anniversary, 2007 Sedlacek, G., Ungermann, D., Kuck, J., Maquoi, R., Janss, J.: Eurocode 3 Part 1,Background Documentation Chapter 5 Document 5.03 (partim): Evaluation of test results on beams with cross sectional classes 13 in order to obtain strength functions and suitable model factors Eurocode 3  Editorial Group (1984) Sedlacek, G., Stangenberg, H., Lindner, J., Glitsch, T., Kindmann, R., Wolf, C.: Untersuchungen zum Einfluss der Torsionseffekte auf die plastische Querschnittstragfhigkeit und Bauteiltragfhigkeit von Stahlprofilen, Forschungsvorhaben P554; Forschungsvereinigung Stahlanwendung e.V., 2004 Stangenberg, H., Sedlacek, G., Mller, Ch.: Die neuen Biegedrillknicknachweise nach Eurocode 3 Festschrift 60 Jahre Prof. Kindmann 2007 Braham, M., Maquoi, R.: MerchantRankines concept brought again in honour for webtaperedIsection steel members, Festschrift Joachim Lindner, 1998 Poutr la, D. B., Snijder, H. H., Hoenderkamp, J. C. D.: Lateral torsional buckling of channel shaped sections, Experimental research report, University of Technology Eindhoven, April 1999 Poutr la, D.B.: Strength and stability of channel sections used as beam, M.Sc.thesis, University of Technology Eindhoven, December 1999 Roik, K., Kindmann, R.: Das Ersatzstabverfahren Eine Nachweisform fr den einfeldrigen Stab bei planmig einachsiger Biegung mit Druckstab, Der Stahlbau 12/1981, S. 353358
[7] [8]
[9]
[13] [14]
Naumes, J.: Biegeknicken und Biegedrillknicken von Stben und Stabsystemen auf einheitlicher Grundlage, Diss. RWTH Aachen 2009 in Vorbereitung LTBeam: Freeware program for the determination of Mcrvalues developed by CTICM; free download under: http://www.cticm.eu/spip.php?lang=en Rules for Member Stability in EN 199311: Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS Publication Nr. 119 Bouras, H.: Lateraltorsional buckling of coped beams with finplates as end support connection, MSc thesis, TUDelft, Netherlands, July 2008 Ungermann, D., Strohmann, I.: Zur Stabilitt von biegebeanspruchten ITrgern mit und ohne Voute  Entwicklung von Bemessungshilfen fr den Ersatzstabnachweis. FOSTAProject P690, Lehrstuhl fr Stahlbau der TU Dortmund in cooperation with PSP Aachen; expected date of publication end of 2008 LTBeamN: Freeware software for the determination of crvalues of beamcolumns with MNInteraction; under investigation by CTICM; free download under http://www.cticm.eu expected for mid of 2010 EN 10902: Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures  Part 2: Technical requirements for the execution of steel structures; Carjot, LouisGuy: Straightness of hot rolled beams presentation, ArcelorMittal EschsurAlzette, Luxembourg, May 29, 2008 EN 10034: Poutrelles I et H en acier de construction; tolrances de formes et de dimensions, 1993 EN 10024: Hotrolled taper flange I sections  Tolerances on shape and dimensions, 1995 Merzenich, G.; Sedlacek, G.: Hintergrundbericht zum Eurocode 1 Teil 3.2: Verkehrslasten auf Straenbrcken; Forschung Straenbau und Straenverkehrstechnik, Heft 711, 1995 Brozetti, J., Marek, P., Sedlacek, G.: Probabilistic Assessment of Structures  15.1 Study on load combination rules,p. 377387, ISBN 8086246191
[20]
[26]