



Institute for Steel Structures and Shell Structures 

Lessingstr. 25/3 

A8010 Graz 

Valorisation Project: SEMICOMP+ n° RFS2CT201000023 
tel: +43316/8736200 (or 6206) fax: +43316/8736707 

"Valorisation Action of Plastic Member Capacity of SemiCompact Steel Sections – a more Economic Design" 
r.greiner@TUGraz.at lechner@TUGraz.at home: www.stahlbau.TUGraz.at 
DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR CROSS ‐ SECTION AND MEMBER DESIGN ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 3 WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON SEMI‐ COMPACT SECTIONS
12 ^{t}^{h} July 2011
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
PREFACE
The present publication is the outcome of two recent research projects funded by the European Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) and respectively entitled:
− SEMI‐ COMP “Plastic member capacity of semi ‐compact steel sections – a more economic design” (RFSR‐ CT‐ 2004 ‐ 00044);
− SEMI‐ COMP+ “Valorisation action of plastic member capacity of semi ‐compact steel sections – a more economic design” (RFS2 ‐ CT‐ 2010 ‐ 00023).
Both projects relate to the development of new evaluation procedures for the design resistance of “class 3”steel cross ‐ sections. These ones, according to Eurocode 3 “Design of Steel Structures” [1] are assumed to transfer no more than an elastic level of resistance while it is nowadays widely recognized that an internal plastic redistribution may, sometimes significantly, increase their capacity to resist forces.
The first project, SEMI ‐ COMP [2], has been completed in 2008, after three years of intensive research involving Graz University of Technology (coordinator), Liège University, Ingenieurbüro Feldmann + Weynand and ArcelorMittal Research Liège. As an outcome of this project, an original model fully in line with the Eurocode 3 principles and allowing an increase of the design resistance of Class 3 steel cross ‐ sections has been proposed as an alternative to the safe design approach presently followed in Eurocode 3. It has further been extended to the design of members made of Class 3 profiles and has been validated through numerical and experimental testing and advanced numerical simulations. Finally, its safety level ( γ _{M} factor) has been defined through appropriate statistical evaluations.
The quality and the economical importance for practice of this SEMI ‐COMP model have convinced RFCS to fund a complementary project called SEMI‐ COMP+ aimed at disseminating, to professionals, the new developed design procedures through the drafting of design guidelines, the diffusion of the specific software “Semi ‐ Comp Design” and the organization of seminars for practitioners, at the European level. To achieve this task, ArcelorMittal Research Liège has been substituted, in the partnership, by the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS).
The present document is part of this global dissemination project; it contains design guidelines and selected worked examples for the classification. All notations are chosen in accordance to Eurocodes.
More info on SEMI‐COMP+ may be found on the two following web sites:
www.stahlbau.tugraz.at/semicompplus or www.steelconstruct.com.
The use in daily practice of design approaches not explicitly covered by the norms, Eurocode 3 in the present case, may represent a difficulty in terms of design responsibility even, as already mentioned before, the proposed design methods are in full conformity with the basic principles of Eurocode 3. In order to overcome this difficulty, the authors have established direct contacts with the Technical Committee 8 “Stability” of the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) with a view to publish so called “European Design Recommendations” providing to the practitioners and control bodies a due validation by the recognized European experts in the field of resistance and stability of steel structures.
2
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
As a recognition of the key support of RFCS to the development and to the dissemination of the present guidelines, but also to the organization of seminars in various European countries, the SEMI ‐ COMP and SEMI ‐ COMP+ partners would like to express their sincere acknowledgments to the European Research Fund for Coal and Steel and, more particularly, to its TGS8 Committee.
Project partners:
Univ.‐ Prof. DI Dr. Richard Greiner (Coordinator) 

DI 
Dr. Andreas Lechner 
Graz University of Technology, Institute for Steel Structures & Shell Structures 
DI 
Dr. Markus Kettler 
Lessingstrasse 25 AT ‐ 8010 Graz 
Prof. Dr. Jean ‐ Pierre Jaspart
Université de Liège, Département M&S Chemin des Chevreuils, 1 BE ‐ 4000 Liège
Dr.‐ Ing. Klaus Weynand Dr.‐Ing. Claudia Ziller 
Feldmann + Weynand GmbH Vaalser Straße 259 

DI 
Ralf Oerder 
DE ‐ 52074 Aachen 
DI 
Martin Herbrand 
Prof. Dr. Luis Simões da Silva Mrs. Veronique Dehan
ECCS – European Convention for Constructional Steelwork Avenue des Ombrages 32 BE ‐ 1200 Brussels
3
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
1. INTRODUCTION
In EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 the evaluation of the cross ‐section and member resistances is based on a classification system; four different classes are identified according to the risk of early or late appearance of plate buckling phenomena in the constitutive cross ‐section walls subjected to compression (Fig. 1). The specific level of resistance (plastic, elastic or even lower than elastic) varies according to the four classes, respectively named:
Fig. 1 Moment‐rotation curve depending on cross‐section classes 1 to 4
class 1: plastic cross ‐ sections
class 2: compact cross ‐sections
class 3: semi ‐ compact cross ‐ sections
class 4: slender cross ‐sections
The classification of a cross ‐ section requires the classification of the individual cross ‐ section walls (plates) in compression. To achieve it, reference is made to the width ‐ to ‐thickness ratio c/t, to the loading and to the support conditions (internal and outstand character) of each wall. The definition of the c/t ratio for internal and outstand walls is illustrated in Fig. 2 below.
Fig. 2 Definitions for the determination of the c/t‐ratio according to EN 1993‐1‐1 for rolled and tubular sections (left) and welded sections (right)
Classification criteria for walls in partial or complete compression are provided by EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 where the class of the cross ‐ sections is finally defined as the higher class of those of the individual walls. For class 1 and class 2 sections, a plastic level of resistance is allowed but only an elastic one is suggested for Class 3 sections. This results in a sudden jump of resistance at the class 2 to class 3 border as shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 below.
4
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
^{M} Rd
^{M}
^{M}
pl
el
c/t
Fig. 3 Cross‐section resistances for strong‐axis bending according to EN 1993‐1‐1, shown for classes 1 to 4
Fig. 4 Cross‐section resistances for biaxial bending according to EN 1993‐1‐1, shown for classes 1 to 4
The RFCS‐ Project SEMI ‐ COMP [2] had the objective to propose and validate a physically more appropriate continuous transition resistance model for “semi ‐ compact” class 3 sections (Fig. 5).
5
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
^{M} Rd
^{M}
^{M}
pl
el
c/t
Fig. 5 Overview of SEMI‐COMP research project
This has been achieved in the form of a linear transition between class 2 and class 4 borders through the development of a calculation model duly justified by statistical safety evaluations, as requested by EN 1990 ‐ Annex D, see Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 3‐D‐illustration of cross‐section resistance for biaxial bending according to SEMI‐COMP (improved capacity for class 3)
The SEMI ‐ COMP project raised aspects of cross ‐ section resistance but also of member stability (for rolled and welded I‐ and H ‐ sections and rectangular hollow sections with double ‐ symmetric cross ‐ section shape). The objective of the present Design Guidelines is to disseminate the knowledge gained along this project to practitioners.
6
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 
4 
2. Overview on the design of frame‐ structures 
8 
2.1. Generalities 
8 
2.2. Isolated members with “other than fork type” support conditions 
8 
2.3. Members in building frames 
9 
3. Classification procedure 
11 
3.1. General 
11 
3.2. Classification for member buckling design 
12 
3.3. Classification for cross ‐ section design 
12 
3.4. Modification of the c/t‐ limits for internal compression parts 
13 
3.5. Classification example 
15 
4. Cross ‐section resistance 
17 
4.1. Existing rules in EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 
17 
4.2. New proposed rules for class 3 according to the project SEMI ‐COMP 
20 
5. Member Resistance 
23 
5.1. Existing rules in EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 
23 
5.2. New proposed rules for class 3 according to project SEMI ‐ COMP 
23 
5.3. Example for procedure of member design 
25 
6. Tabulated M _{3}_{,}_{R}_{d} ‐ Values 
27 
7. Worked examples 
27 
8. Software development 
27 
9. References 
27 
7
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
2. OVERVIEW ON THE DESIGN OF FRAME ‐STRUCTURES
2.1. Generalities
As explained in the introduction chapter, new design methods for the evaluation of the resistance of Class 3 cross‐ sections have been made available through the SEMI‐COMP project. These ones are presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the present publication.
These rules may directly be used for the verification of the design resistance of cross ‐sections, by simply comparing the applied internal forces resulting from the frame analysis (M _{E}_{d} ) to the Class 3 corresponding increased design resistances (M _{R}_{d} ), with due account of the possible interactions with axial forces.
The benefit from the less conservative design approaches for Class 3 cross ‐sections presented in Chapter 4 may also be taken into account when evaluating the resistance and the stability of members subjected to bending moments and axial forces (beam ‐ columns).
How to achieve this is addressed in Chapter 5 where it is explained how to slightly amend the Eurocode 3 beam‐ column formulae to profit from a higher Class 3 cross ‐section resistance.
The so ‐ amended Eurocode 3 beam‐ column formulae are directly applicable to isolated members characterised by fork type support conditions. In these isolated members, the critical buckling lengths for flexural buckling around the weak and strong axes but also for lateral ‐ torsional buckling are all to be taken as the actual member length (system length); besides that, no second order effects are affecting the value of the bending moments possibly applied at both member ends.
The application of the Eurocode 3 beam‐ column formulae (amended or to profit from a higher Class 3 section resistance) to isolated members with other end conditions or to members in building frames is much less obvious and many misuses of the formulae in daily practice may be foreseen at that level.
The difference with respect to the simply supported end conditions may involve arbitrary combinations of full, partial or null (i) warping restraint, (ii) flexural rotation restraint and (iii) transverse displacement restraint at the member end sections. Members torsionally restrained at some distances along their length to limit or prevent lateral ‐ torsional buckling effects belong also to this category.
ECCS publication N°119 [3] provides detailed information about the application of the Eurocode 3 beam‐ column formulae to isolated members with other end conditions or to members in building frames.
In the next paragraphs, this topic is briefly addressed. But before looking at these ones, users should be aware that, due to the complexity of the phenomena affecting the beam‐ column behaviour and the lack of extensive studies and thorough calibration procedures, a loss of accuracy is to be expected when applying the interaction formulae to non simply supported members. The major concern is safety, i.e., the application of the formulae should yield practically always safe strength estimates, even if sometimes rather conservative.
2.2. Isolated members with “other than fork type” support conditions
For such members, the task of determining the appropriate buckling length L _{c}_{r} for flexural and lateral ‐ torsional buckling is a straightforward one (unlike in frame members) and can be performed
8
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
either analytically (numerically) or resorting to one of the various tables, charts or approximate expressions available in the literature. Thus, the only issues addressed next concern the definition of the diagram of bending moments M _{E}_{d} and the determination of the appropriate equivalent moment factors C _{m} .
Two different approaches are traditionally used in Europe as far as the evaluation of the distribution of bending moments M _{E}_{d} and the corresponding equivalent moment factors C _{m} are concerned:
− the “equivalent moment factors” method
− the “equivalent column” method
Both approaches are detailed and illustrated through worked examples in [3].
2.3. Members in building frames
The design of the frame and of its components consists of a two ‐step procedure involving a global frame analysis followed by individual cross ‐section and/or member design checks.
Global frame analysis is conducted based on assumptions regarding the component behaviour (elastic or plastic) and the geometric response (first‐order or second ‐order theory) of the frame. Once the analysis is complete, i.e. all relevant internal forces are determined in the whole structure, then the design checks of all the frame components are performed.
In Eurocode 3, frames are classified as sway or non ‐ sway. The description “non ‐ sway frame” applies to a frame when its response to in ‐ plane horizontal forces is so stiff that it is acceptable to neglect any additional forces or moments arising from horizontal displacements of its storeys (so ‐called P ‐Δ effects). This means that the global second ‐ order effects may be neglected. When the second ‐order effects are not negligible, the frame is said to be a “sway frame”. As criterion for differentiation the ratio α _{c}_{r} = F _{c}_{r} / F _{E}_{d} may be used.
In addition to the above, Eurocode 3 specifies that together with the second ‐ order effects imperfections need to be considered for the structural stability of frames. These should be allowed for in the frame analysis by means of an equivalent imperfection in the form of an initial sway imperfection and individual bow imperfections of members if relevant.
Various opportunities offered by Eurocode 3 to perform the global analysis and design process are illustrated in Table 1.
For the verification of the resistance and the stability of beam‐ columns, reference has again to be made here either to the “equivalent moment factors” method or to the “equivalent column” method. The critical buckling length for in ‐plane flexural buckling may be taken as non ‐sway buckling length connected with the specific C _{m} ‐ factors for the given boundary conditions of the individual member. Alternatively, the critical buckling length may be taken equal to the system length and may then be connected with the factor C _{m} given for simply supported members in Eurocode 3.
Obviously, as an alternative to Table 1, a full second order analysis in which all geometrical second order effects (sway and member), all effects of imperfections (sway and local bow imperfections about both axes), and material non ‐ linearities (plasticity) may be performed. In this case, no cross ‐ section and member check has to be achieved further to the structural analysis.
However, this approach requires the use of advanced software codes integrating the warping effects (7th degree of freedom), local plate imperfections and material non ‐linearities.
9
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
Table 1 Various ways for the global analysis and design process
Global analysis
Account for 2nd order PΔ effects
Account for sway imperfection φ
Account for local bow imperfection
e 0,d
Check of components
and frame
In practice, another “intermediate” way to proceed is to perform an elastic second order analysis (with geometrical sway and member effects and the effects of the corresponding imperfections); only cross ‐ section checks under internal forces are then to be achieved as the P ‐δ effects (related to member instability) have been explicitly considered in the frame analysis.
For a 3 ‐ D structure, this approach can also be followed in a “simplified“ manner: just perform a second order in ‐ plane analysis and check the out‐ of ‐ plane instability of the members by means of member design formulae. The practical implementation of this procedure is however not obvious to achieve when reference is made to the so ‐ called “Method 1 beam‐ column formula” recommended by Eurocode 3 as they integrate coupling phenomena between both buckling directions. This is not the case with the so ‐called “Method 2 beam‐ column formula” recommended by Eurocode 3.
10
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
The here‐ above described approach on basis of second ‐order analysis plus imperfection may also be used for frame structures with non ‐ uniform members and sections.
3. CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE
3.1. General
This chapter presents the procedure to be followed for the classification of sections of simple members or members in frames. This classification may be performed on basis of Table 5.2 of EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1. In principle, the classification is based on c/t‐ratios of parts in compression reaching the limit state of f _{y} .
Additional special rules are provided for the design of class 4 ‐sections where use may be made of the reduced stress state of the design stress σ _{c}_{o}_{m}_{,}_{E}_{d} when determining the c/t‐ratios.
The specific use of c/t‐ ratios based on f _{y} or on σ _{c}_{o}_{m}_{,}_{E}_{d} is relevant only in case of class 4 ‐ sections and it depends on the design method applied to the member. In case that uniform members are designed on basis of the member buckling formulae of section 6.3 of EN 1993 ‐1 ‐ 1 (see Table 1) the c/t ‐ ratios must be based on f _{y} . If the member design is performed with internal forces from full second order analyses or if no second order effect exist at all then σ _{c}_{o}_{m}_{,}_{E}_{d} can be used for determining the c/t‐ ratio.
In general, the classification of cross ‐sections is used to select the appropriate design method with respect to
− the global analysis
− the member buckling design
− the cross ‐ section design
• At the level of global analysis the classification allows to decide whether elastic or plastic analysis can be used. In case of elastic global analysis it has to be verified that the stiffness properties of the sections are not reduced by local buckling effects. In case of plastic global analysis it must be checked if appropriate rotation capacity is provided (see background document [5]).
• At the level of member design the classification is needed to decide which type of buckling formula (for class 2, 3, 4) applies. In the case of axially non ‐uniform internal forces and bending moments the varying stress states may lead to different classes along the member length.
• At the level of cross ‐ section design the classification dictates the type of cross ‐section resistance, i.e. plastic, elastic or effective resistance. Accordingly, the limit 2/3 indicates whether full plastic capacity can be exploited in class 2 or just partial plastic capacity in class 3. The limit 3/4 indicates that reduced effective section properties must be accounted for in class 4.
Principles: 
A general principle of classification is that it has to be made on basis of the loading condition of the section including all internal forces/moments N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d} , if relevant, in a combined stress ‐ state. This has to be investigated for each load combination resulting from the global analysis of the structure. 
In general, the section classification is needed at the level of 

− global analysis, 

− member buckling design and 

− cross ‐ section design 
11
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
The classification procedure itself distinguishes between the elastic stress state and the plastic stress state of the section. The first one determines the limit between class 3 and class 4 (called limit 3/4) and the second one between class 2 and class 3 (called limit 2/3) as well as class 1 and class 2 (limit 1/2). The procedures are described in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.
3.2. Classification for member buckling design
The buckling resistance of members is considerably affected by the degree of plastic capacity provided by the cross ‐ section behaviour. Therefore, the member buckling formulae in section 6.3 of EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 depend on the cross ‐ section classes.
In general load cases of members the stress state of the cross ‐ sections may vary significantly along the member length. Accordingly, the cross ‐section‐ classes may vary along the length too. Since the member buckling formulae were developed for uniform members the decisive cross ‐ section class needs to be defined as the equivalent one.
From the mechanical point of view it may be proposed to take the point of maximum utilisation and the given class there as the decisive section. This leads to the procedure of determining the utilization factor UF along the member length in all 1/10 points together with the corresponding section class.
3.3. Classification for cross ‐section design
The aspects to be considered deal with the determination of the limits 3/4 in the elastic range (Fig. 7) and the limits 2/3 in the plastic range (Fig. 8).
The limit class 1/2 concerns the rotation capacity and is relevant for the selection of the method of global analysis. It may be executed analogous to the limit 2/3.
• Classification ‐ procedure for limit 3/4:
N Ed
Fig. 7: Elastic stress distribution for N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d} for H‐section
− basis is the elastic stress distribution under N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d} of the brutto ‐ section (A, I)
− class 4 governs, if the limit value c/t (f _{y} ) of class 3 is exceeded at any part of the cross ‐section
− for class 4 ‐sections the kind of classification is related to the kind of member check (see background document [5])
12
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
• Classification ‐ procedure for limit 2/3 and 1/2:
− basis is the plastic stress distribution under N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d}
− increase (N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d} ) stepwise until the plastic limit is met and then use the corresponding stress blocks for classification
− (pre‐ condition: (N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d} ) increases linearly ‐ proportional up to the limit state, see utilisation factor in background document [5])
− class 3 governs, if the limit value c/t (f _{y} ) of class 2 is exceeded, otherwise the section is class 2 or better
− class 2 governs, if the limit value c/t (f _{y} ) of class 1 is exceeded, otherwise the section is class 1
N pl
Fig. 8: Procedure for the amplification of the internal forces and moments N _{E}_{d} + M _{y}_{,}_{E}_{d} + M _{z}_{,}_{E}_{d} up to the plastic cross‐section resistance (left) and corresponding plastic stress distribution (right) for H‐section
3.4. Modification of the c/t‐ limits for internal compression parts
By the results of the SEMI ‐ COMP Project it came out that the c/t‐ limits given in Table 5.2 of EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 for internal parts in compression need a modification towards lower limit‐values, in order to reach the specified safety level.
For general section shapes the c/t‐ limits in Table 5.2 of EN 1993 ‐1 ‐1 for internal parts in compression should be modified to 38 (instead of 42) at the limit 3/4 and to 34 (instead of 38) at the limit 2/3, see Table 2. The limit 1/2 indicates the same discrepancy for internal parts in compression, and should – although not subject of this project – also be revised accordingly.
For the specific case of RHS in bending, see Background Document [5].
13
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
Table 2 Maximum width ‐ to ‐ thickness ratios for compression parts according to project SEMI‐COMP (modified Table 5.2 of EN 1993 ‐1 ‐ 1, sheet 1 of 3)
Internal compression parts 

axis of bending axis of bending 

Class 
Part subject to bending 
Part subject to compression 
Part subject to bending and compression 

Stress 




distribution 

in parts 

(compression 

positive) 

1 
when α> 
0.5: c / t ≤ 126 5.5 ε α− 1 

(modified 
c 
/ t ≤ 72 ε 
c 
/ t ≤ 28 ε 

limits) 
when 
α≤ 0.5: c / t ≤ 
36 ε 

α 

2 
when α> 0.5: c / t ≤ 188 ε 6.53 α− 1 

(modified 
c 
/ t ≤ 83ε 
c 
/ t ≤ 34 ε 

limits) 
when 
α≤ 
0.5: c / t ≤ 41.5 ε 

α 

Stress 




distribution 

in parts 

(compression 

positive) 

3 (modified 
c / t ≤ 124 ε 
c 
/ t ≤ 38 ε 
when 
ψ>− 1: c/ t ≤ 38 ε 0.653 + 0.347 ψ 

limits) 
_{w}_{h}_{e}_{n} ψ ≤ − 1 
a : c / t 62 ≤ ε( −ψ)(−ψ) 1 

f 
235 
275 
355 
420 
460 

y
ε= 235 / f 
y 

ε 
1.00 
0.92 
0.81 
0.75 
0.71 

^{a} 
ψ≤−1 applies where either the compression stress σ ≤ 
f y 
or the tensile strain ε > f /E y y 
14
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
3.5. Classification example
Example 1:
HEA 300
= 112.5
A
⎧ W
el
⎪ ⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
W
I
,
y
=
2
cm
cm
3
3
1260
1383
⎩
pl
, y
= cm
y = 18263
4
cm
⎪ ⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎩
el
, z
= 420.6
= 641.2
W
I
pl
, z
= 6310
cm
z
⎧ W
cm
3
cm
4
3
S355
b
h
⎧ h
b
t
t
r
⎩
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
w
f
290
= 300
=
mm
mm
mm
= 8.5
= 14
mm
= 27
mm
Section in compression and biaxial bending N+M _{y} +M _{z} :
⎧
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎩
N Ed
=− 500
kN
M
M
y 200
=
z kNm
kNm
,
,
Ed
Ed
= 100
(
(
(
nN
m
Ed
N
=
=
pl Rd
,
M
0.125)
pl ,, z Rd
==
pl
, y
m
pl z
,
=
y , Ed
z , Ed
pl
,, y Rd
=
M
MM
0.407)
0.439)
Web in combined bending and compression:
c 
= ht − 2· 
f 
− 2· 
r 
= 
290 − 2·14 − 
2·27 
== 208 24.5 

t 
w 
t 
w 
8.5 
8.5 

c 
24.5 =< 
42 
ε = 
42 0.81 ⋅ 
= 
64.8 
the web is class 3 or better 

t 
w 
0.67 
0.33 +⋅ ψ 
0.67 0.33 0.44 −⋅ 

(= 
61.5 with new limits 
) 

456 
ε 
⋅ 456 0.81 

<= 
= 45.6 
the web is class 2 or better 

13 α − 1 
13 0.70 ⋅− 
1 

( = 42.6 with new limits 
) 

396 
ε 
396 0.81 ⋅ 

<= 
= 39.6 
the web is class 1 
13
α
−
1
13 ⋅− 0.70
1
( = 35.8with new limits
)
Flange in combined bending and compression:
+
0.07 0.57
⋅
2
=
0.47
the flange is class 3 or better
the flange is class 3
15
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
‐ 44.1 kN/cm²
3.5 kN/cm²
35.2 kN/cm²
‐ 35.5 kN/cm²
Fig. 9: Diagrams of elastic stress distribution (left) and plastic stress distribution (right) for the determination of _{ψ} and _{α}
Result:
Web
Flange Class 3
Class 1
→ The cross ‐section is class 3.
For further examples see background document [5].
16
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
4. CROSS ‐SECTION RESISTANCE
4.1. Existing rules in EN 1993 ‐1‐1
The existing design procedure of EN 1993‐1 ‐1 is illustrated separately for I‐ and H‐sections and for RHS. For a better overview the rules for elastic and for plastic resistances are visualized in diagrams (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11) respectively Table 3 and Table 4.
The plastic design check can be presented in three steps:
Step 1: Determination of the mono ‐axial bending resistances (i.e. M _{p}_{l}_{,}_{R}_{d} )
Step 2: Interaction of mono ‐axial bending and axial force (→ M _{N}_{,}_{R}_{d} )
Step 3: Interaction for biaxial bending
− Design procedure for plastic CS ‐ resistance of I and H sections (EN 1993 ‐ 1 ‐ 1)
Fig. 10: Design procedure for cross‐section resistance of I‐ and H‐sections according to EN 1993‐1‐1
17
SEMI‐COMP+
Design Guidelines
Table 3 Cross ‐section resistance of I and H sections according to EN 1993‐1 ‐1
Class 2: 
Step 1: 
MM y,Rd = pl,y,Rd 
MM z,Rd = pl,z,Rd 

Step 2: 
MM N,y,Rd =⋅ pl,y,Rd n ≤ a: M N,z,Rd = M ( 
( M 1 − n ) ≤ 1 pl,y,Rd − 0.5a ) pl,z,Rd 

n > a: M N,z,Rd = M 
pl,z,Rd ⎡ ⋅−⎢ 1 ⎢ ⎣ ⎛ n − a ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ − 2 ⎤ ⎠⎥ ⎟ ⎦ 1 a 
⎥ 

a 
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.