Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SOFiSTiK | 2018
BDK
Buckling Resistance of Steel Members
BDK Manual, Version 2018-4
Software Version SOFiSTiK 2018
Copyright © 2018 by SOFiSTiK AG, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
SOFiSTiK AG
This manual is protected by copyright laws. No part of it may be translated, copied or reproduced, in any form or by
any means, without written permission from SOFiSTiK AG. SOFiSTiK reserves the right to modify or to release
new editions of this manual.
The manual and the program have been thoroughly checked for errors. However, SOFiSTiK does not claim that
either one is completely error free. Errors and omissions are corrected as soon as they are detected.
The user of the program is solely responsible for the applications. We strongly encourage the user to test the
correctness of all calculations at least by random sampling.
Front Cover
Project: New SOFiSTiK Office, Nuremberg | Contractor: WOLFF & MÜLLER, Stuttgart | Architecture: WABE-PLAN
ARCHITEKTUR, Stuttgart | Structural Engineer: Boll und Partner. Beratende Ingenieure VBI, Stuttgart | MEP: GM Planen +
Beraten, Griesheim | Lead Architect: Gerhard P. Wirth gpwirtharchitekten, Nuremberg | Vizualisation: Armin Dariz, BiMOTiON
GmbH
Contents | BDK
Contents
Contents i
SOFiSTiK 2018 i
BDK | Contents
ii SOFiSTiK 2018
Task Description | BDK
1 Task Description
BDK provides solution to the problem of beam stability. It determines the stability eigenvalues
for buckling of a straight individual member. The member, which is taken from the entire sys-
tem, is calculated with STAR2 or ASE and the buckling resistance check of steel members is
performed according to the specified design code.
Having available the complete system, the program sets up and solves the formed stability
eigenvalue problem and the eigenvalues and eigenforms are determined for a prespecified and
calculated loadcase. Following the eigenvalues determination and taking into consideration the
defined design parameters, BDK performs the buckling check according to the selected design
code.
DIN 18800-2 / OEN 4300: Structural steelwork analysis of safety against buckling of linear
members and frames [1].
EN 1993-1-1: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
[2].
BS 5950-1: Structural use of steelwork in building [3].
For the calculation of the lateral torsional buckling safety for an individual beam, according to
DIN 18800-2, the assumptions of this design code hold. This implies that the design is strictly
valid only for double symmetric I and H sections, without the intended torsional loading.
Materials, section profiles and the design code to comply with, are selected by the user at the
early steps of defining the total structural system. Regardless of the initial design standard
selection, the user may explicitly redefine in the BDK task the specification of a different design
standard (see NORM). This practice should be done with caution, since significant differences
exist between the design codes, regarding material mechanical behaviour and properties as
well as the considered safety factors.
Warning
! At the current version of BDK, it is possible to calculate only the effective properties
for THIN-WALLED cross-sections (Iterative Method). Another apporach would be to use
the SIG NEFF input in AQUA, which works both for solid, as well as for thin-walled cross-
sections. Please refer to the VERiFiCATiON Manual Design - Example DCE-EN 30.
For the determination of the critical force and moment for buckling, always an eigenvalue anal-
ysis is performed, except of explicitly user-defined buckling lengths. In the unlikely event that
the eigenvalue analysis fails, analytical formulas are used.
2 Theoretical Principles
The user should explicitly define the exact boundary conditions by assigning spring constant
values or fixities, for each end to suppress a number of degrees of freedom (CVA / CVE / CVL
/ CVM / CV).
Warning
! Default start and end boundary conditions are assumed as Fork-Fork. Therefore, it
is recommended for the user to explicitly enter the support conditions!
• See CVA, CVE, CVL, CVM, CV.
• Lateral Torsional Buckling: the most general case of buckling where deflections towards
both axes as well as torsional rotation (twist) occur.
• Lateral Buckling: lateral deflection and torsional rotation (twist).
• Flexural Buckling: buckling about the strong or weak axis, in-plane deformation, no tor-
sional rotation.
• Torsional Buckling: buckling about the longitudinal axis, torsional rotation (twist), the
beam axis remain straight.
2.4 Eigenvalues
The case of buckling will occur if an element will suffer from large forces due to small defor-
mations induced by geometric non-linear effects. This will limit the ultimate load for slender
structures.
The elasto-static theory of stability will not account for material non-linearities, while the stan-
dard plastic design method will not account for the geometric non-linearities. As both theories
are not applicable in a general case, their results will define basic design parameters used for
the combined design of the effects.
For the quite general case treated within the program a solution based on an analytical ap-
proach is no longer available. The solution is obtained by a variational approach based on
the energy. The expression of the energy comprehends quite a lot of terms and is given and
explained in detail in the book of Petersen [4] (eq. 7.65 page 675) or Roik, Carl, and Lindner
[5]. BDK uses an extended formulation according to Schroeter [6].
Z
= 1/ 2 {E z y 00 + E y z 00 + ECm δ00 + G t δ0 +
N 2z m y 0 δ0 − 2ym z 0 δ0 + y02 + z02 + 2
m
δ 02
−
(2.1)
My −2 z 00 δ − ry δ02 +Mz 2 y 00 δ + rz δ02 +
M r δ02 − 2Mt y 0 z 00 + z 0 y 00 }
For the deformations the program uses hermitian polynoms with a degree up to 8, which can
also be selectable by the user. The energy integrals will be evaluated numerically with Gaus-
sian quadrature based on the available internal forces and moments, stiffnesses and loads in
the database. A complete eigenvalue analysis will give the positive and negative eigenvalues.
The support conditions are defined by springs or distributed beddings. Independently BDK tries
to determine the values for these supports, by using the displacements and internal forces and
moments of the investigated loadcase. The user is also able to change these manually. It is
recommended for the user to explicitly enter the support conditions!
During the analysis one can stipulate if the influence of the normal force should be taken into
account or if these terms should be ignored (lateral buckling).
All buckling cases described in Section 2.3 are special cases of the general-case this equation
2.1 stands for. Therefore, depending on the nature of the problem under consideration, the
corresponding equation components are omitted.
• FLEX mode: buckling due to the axial force. BDK assumes a centrally applied axial force
and ignores the effects of loading eccentricities, transverse loadings and bending moments.
• LAT mode: buckling due to transverse loadings and bending moments. Axial forces effects
are ignored but not the effect of their potential eccentricity on the inner moments.
• LTB mode: buckling due to a combination of loadings. All loading effects and their excen-
tricities are taken into consideration.
The design is performed e.g. for central buckling by means of a degree of utilisation of the
buckling load.
N
= ≤ 1 (2.2)
κ · Nps,d
sK sK
λK = =p (2.3)
/ A
v
u E
λ = π (2.4)
t
ƒy,k
λK
λK = (2.5)
λ
1 p
2 ; λ> 2
κ= λ 2 (2.6)
λ p
1 −
; λ< 2
4
This function has been used for many years in the AISC code, but as it is unsafe for the
transition region, therefore one has to use sufficiently high safety factors when implementing
this function.
For steel we therefore utilise four reduced buckling curves, which are defined by the following
functions:
λK ≤ 0.2
1.0 ;
1
; λK > 0.2
κ= (2.7)
r
2
k + k 2 − λk
1
; λK > 3.0
λK (λK + α)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0
0.8
0.7 b
0.6 c
χ d
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
λ
BDK performes the design check for the combined bending and axial compression, as it is
described in EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.3, Eq. 6.61 and 6.62 with the interaction factors kyy , kyz , kzy ,
kzz . Interaction factors are calculated according to Method 1, Annex A, Table A.1.
Special care should be taken for the case of angle cross-sections. In Eurocode it is stated that
all rules relate to principal axis properties, which are generally defined by the axes ”y-y” and
”z-z”, but for the sections such as angles are defined by the axes ”u-u” and ”v-v”, as shown in
Fig. 2.2. BDK performs the check with respect to ”y-y” and ”z-z” and not ”u-u” and ”v-v”.
y
z
A more pictorial representation of the design algorithm according to EN 1993-1-1, for compres-
sion and for bending can be visualised in Fig. 2.3 and 2.4.
As mentioned earlier, for the determination of the critical load Ncr and moment Mcr , an eigen-
value analysis is performed. In the unlikely event that the eigenvalue analysis fails, e.g. due to
non adequate input of the system definition, a fallback solution with approximatively analytical
formulas is used. For the case of the elastic critical load for flexural buckling Ncr the Euler
Formula with effective buckling length factor β = 1.0 is used:
π 2 E
Ncr = (2.10)
(β · L)2
In case the eigenvalue analysis fails, it is recommended, that the user inputs manually an
effective buckling length factor, in order to ensure that a more accurate representation of the
critical force will be used in the design check.
Accordingly, for the case of the critical lateral buckling moment Mcr a fallback approximate
formula is considered, as described in ECCS TC 8 - No. 119 [7]:
v
π2 E t L2 Gt ω
u
Mcr = C1 + (2.11)
L2 π2 E
where C1 is determined for the same distinction of the moment distribution cases as in the
determination of kc in EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.6.
• Annex A, Method 1: The intention of the formulae for Method 1 is to present general,
transparent, consistent and accurate interaction criteria, as described in ECCS TC 8 - No.
119 [7]. Each factor involved in this formulae is linked with a physical effect, which allows
for the influence of the different phenomna to be represented. This method can represent
both members susceptible and not susceptible to torsional deformation.
Various factors in this method, need to be determined explicitly. BDK employs the eigen-
value analysis to determine them and does not derive them from analytical formulas, in
order to offer a more accurate representation of the system under consideration:
– λ̄0 , representing the reduced slenderness for lateral torsional buckling for the partic-
ular case of constant bending moment,
– C1 , the factor depending on the bending moment distribution and end restraints con-
ditions,
• Annex B, Method 2: Method 2 distinguishes the two standard cases of torsionally stiff
and torsionally flexible members separately [8]. It has been developed principally in such
a way that the application range also covers members with intermediate lateral restraints,
which may not be effective for in plane flexural buckling.
START
Input
Yes
of SKy
and SKz
No
No Eig. Anal.
successful
Yes
Euler
Critical force Ncr NEd / Ncr ≤ 0.4
Formula
Calculate non
dimensional
Slenderness λ
slenderness λ, EN Effects of flexural
1993-1-1, 6.3.2 buckling may be
ignored, EN 1993-
1-1, 6.3.1.2(4)
Imperfection factor α,
EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.1
Reduction factor χ
Calculate utilisation
Design buckling
NEd / Nb,Rd , EN
resistance Nb,Rd
1993-1-1, 6.3.1.1(1)
NEd / Nb,Rd
END
START
Yes Yes
2
Critical force Mcr MEd / Mcr ≤ λLT,0
Slenderness λLT
Cross-section
Determine buckling curve No Yes Determine buckling curve
G1-G3
EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.5 EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.4
general case
Imperfection factor αLT Imperfection factor αLT
EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.3 EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.3
Determine correction factor kc
Calculate LT EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.6 Calculate LT
EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.3(1) EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.2(1)
ƒ ≤ 1.0
LT EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.3(2) LT
MEd / Mb,Rd
END
2.8 Lateral torsional buckling according to DIN 18800-2 [1] / OEN 4300
The analysis procedure for the lateral torsional buckling design is made according to DIN
18800, Part 2 Element 301, where it says: For the simplification of beams, continuous
beams and frames, one can evaluate flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling separately.
Whereby the flexural buckling analysis is followed by the lateral torsional buckling analysis.
Each analysis is made for individual beams, which are picked from the entire system. Each
beam is subjected to the beam-end internal forces and moments, which are determined for the
entire system.
The flexural buckling analysis is made with the programs STAR2 or ASE. All the individual
beams, of the system being analysed for flexural buckling, are provided with support conditions,
usually torsional restraints are applied. The STAR2 or ASE calculation has to be made with
ultimate loads or γ-factor loads. Whereby the analysis procedure elastic-elastic or plastic-
plastic (non-linear theory) according to DIN 18800, Part 2 Table 101 is possible in STAR2
or ASE. All the elasto-plastic regions must be fixed laterally against torsion and deformation,
which is required for the conservation of the cross-section.
The individual checks are then calculated with the equations from the elements 310, 318 and
321 of the DIN 18800-2.
Mb
M ≤ (2.12)
mLT
pb is a reduced value of the yield strength, which is calculated with the formulas of Annex B.2.1.
BDK will determine the equivalent slenderness λLT directly from the calculated eigenvalues.
With this method we avoid the limits of the specified profile types. If λLT is not more than the
limiting slenderness λL0 , pb is taken as equal to py .
3 Input Description
Start
Eigenvalue analysis
Design check
Output ECHO
Record Items
CVA CB CY CZ DX DY DZ
CVE CB CY CZ DX DY DZ
CVM TYPE NO CB CY CZ DX
DY DZ
CVL REF S CY DX HDIV
CV DX CY CZ
TVAR NAME VAL SCOP CMNT
CTRL OPT CURV SCL BETA LLT0 TAB BMY
BMZ BMQY BMQZ SFAC LCST SWY SWZ
Record Items
LTB MTHD
LF NO
MEMB REF FROM TO INC SKY SKZ TYPE
ECHO OPT VAL
The record MEMB is used to start a calculation. The other records describe the attributes of
an analysis. They have to be defined before MEMB.
The records HEAD, END and PAGE are described in the general manual SOFiSTiK: ”FEA /
STRUCTURAL Installation and Basics”.
The supports are in the local directions of the beam and are defined as spring constants
(positive values) or as fixities (negative values). The value -1.0 or the literal FIX represent a
fixed constraint.
These input values are active only for the subsequent MEMB input.
The supports are in the local directions of the beam and are defined as spring constants
(positive values) or as fixities (negative values). The value -1.0 or the literal FIX represent a
fixed constraint.
These input values are active only for the subsequent MEMB input.
The supports are in the local directions of the beam and are defined as spring constants
(positive values) or as fixities (negative values). The value -1.0 or the literal FIX represent a
fixed constraint.
A lateral-torsional restraint for e.g. SPT 1001 and NODE 1002 is defined by:
+PROG BDK
HEAD
! ...
CVM TYPE SPT NO 1001 CY FIX CZ FIX DX FIX
! ...
END
These input values are active only for the subsequent MEMB input.
The supports are in the local directions of the beam and are defined as spring constants
(positive values) or as fixities (negative values). The value -1.0 or the literal FIX represent a
fixed constraint.
+PROG BDK
HEAD
! ...
CVL REF STRT S 1.0 CY FIX DX FIX
CVL REF MID S 0.5 CY FIX DX FIX
CVL REF END S 0.5 CY FIX DX FREE
CVL REF XI S 0.4 CY FIX DX FREE
CVL HDIV 4 CY FREE DX FIX
! ...
END
These input values are active only for the subsequent MEMB input.
For the torsional support the user has to manually add the flexural stiffness of the flange to the
value DX, for the case where the support is created by the support CX or CY.
These input values are active only for the subsequent MEMB input.
SOFiSTiK variables, defined via STO# or LET# are globally valid. For more complex tasks, it
becomes necessary to define variables valid only within a scope. TVAR allows a very general
definition of those numeric variables within a freely selectable scope. The definition of literals
or the definition of tables or functions is not possible.
There is a range of variables in the Eurocodes allowing to adopt national factors called boxed
values. They are defined in the INI files in general. A survey of the accepted names is given in
the file master.ini.
For special cases, these values may be defined with TVAR. If for example a change of the
material safety factor is required, for the design according to a specific National Annex, then it
is possible to specify the factor GAM-S for SCOP DESI:
+PROG BDK
HEAD
NORM DC "EN" NDC "1993-2005"
TVAR NAME GAM-S VAL 1.1 SCOP DESI
! ...
END
CTRL
3.10.1 EN 1993-1-1
3.10.3 BS 5950
The control values according to DIN 18800-2, EN 1993-1-1, BS 5950-1, can be defined with
this input record.
module AQB is needed. Then this AQB-deliverd class is taken over as default for the design.
If this is not the case, then a class 3 will be assumed. For design according to EN 1993-1-
1, a class of G1-G3 can be defined, corresponding to class 1-3, but design with respect to
EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.2 denoted as "general case". If design according to EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.3
(default case), is to be performed, then cross-section class 1-3 has to be input. Input AUTO
treats cross-section class respectively to EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.3 while AUTO:G - respectively to
EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.2. As already mentioned, BDK may also treat class 4 cross sections. If the
section is classifed as 4, the non effective parts according EN 1993-1-5 will be calculated and
taken into account.
Since the default case for lateral torsional buckling design according to EN 1993-1-1, is done
with respect to section 6.3.2.3, the values of β and λLT,0 are chosen from the file for the design
code (INI file) mostly with 0.75 and 0.4, respectively. If design according to section 6.3.2.2 is
requested through the cross-section class G1-G3, then β and λLT,0 are chosen 1.0 and 0.2,
respectively, leading to the simplification of equation 6.57 to 6.56.
The lateral torsional buckling curve is equivalently determined from tables 6.4 and 6.5. For
rolled steel shapes of I-section, if no curve is specified, an automatic determination is per-
formed, taking into account the ratio of h/b. For classification of these sections as welded,
a zero root radius has to be input in the cross-section definition (see AQUA record PROF).
In case the automatic determination is not able to deliver a curve for the type of the cross-
section, a default type d is assumed, corresponding to "other cross-sections" as denoted in EN
1993-1-1, Table 6.4.
The correction factor kc (EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2.3), is by default calculated by BDK and not taken
by the limited eight only cases that are provided in EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.6. According to DIN
EN 1993-1-1, C1 = kc−2 holds. This enables the option to determine a more representative
value for kc , according to the moment distribution of the system under consideration, through
the eigenvalue analysis and the C1 factor. In case the user wants to limit the solution to the
eight cases presented in EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.6, then CTRL TAB YES has to be provided and
both kc and C1 will be derived by the table values.
With the option of CTRL LCST a loadcase number can be provided, where the results of
enveloping of the corresponding loadcases and members, i.e. the maximum utilisation level
for the designed members, will be stored and can then be represented in WinGRAF or Result
Viewer. If CTRL LCST 0 is input, then any further design will not be considered to the previous
LCST specified.
These input values remain active for the subsequent MEMB-inputs, as long as they are not
newly defined.
NO Loadcase number 1
The ID number represents the Design Element number. If nothing is defined BDK will automat-
ically try to use the SLN Number as ID. In case the user has defined a sequence of Structural
lines and nothing is defined, then BDK will randomly use an ID that is available.
+PROG BDK
HEAD Example
! ...
! ID = 3 for SLN 5 (User defined)
MEMB SLN 5 TYPE LTB ID 3
! ID = 6 (BDK - automatic)
MEMB SLN 6 TYPE LTB
! ...
END
For every MEMB record an analysis is made for the selected series of beams or trusses.
Therefore an MEMB record must always come last in the input order, because it concludes
the input definition of the requested analysis. A series of beams or trusses should generally
not have any supports, bends or extreme point loads between its endings, because only a
continuous deflection curve is generated.
The input option CONT serves as a continuation line, offering the possibility to enter a number
of different elements to be considered in the designed member. For example, the following
input would process the member consisting of structural lines 5, 3, 11:
+PROG BDK
HEAD Example
! ...
MEMB SLN 5 TYPE LTB
CONT 3
CONT 11
! ...
END
For the buckling design, further eigenvalue analyses may be performed internally for the deter-
mination of the critical loads, depending on the specified standard. This is done independently
of the specification of the MEMB input.
ECHO
All options have a normal extent of output as default, except of EIGE with a default of no output
and SUM with an extreme output as default. The effect of the individual options can be seen in
Chapter 4: Output Description.
4 Output Description
ECHO FORC
SECTIONAL VALUES
ECHO SECT
4.3 Materials
MATERIALS
ECHO MAT
START/END
S Beginning of beam
E End of beam
CB[kNm3] Warping moment
CY[kN/ m] Displacement
CZ[kN/ m] Displacement
DX[kNm] Torsion
DY[kNm] Rotating spring
DZ[kNm] Rotating spring
4.4.2 Continuous
CONTINUOUS
4.4.3 Intermediate
INTERMEDIATE
4.4.4 Lateral
LATERAL
ECHO BOUN
BUCKLING EIGENVALUES
ECHO EIGE
ECHO EIGE
DESIGN VALUES
LATERAL BUCKLING
INTERACTION FACTORS
AUXILIARY TERMS
ECHO MEMB
NO No printing of results
DESIGN VALUES
ECHO MEMB
NO No printing of results
YES Only design values table and utilisation table is
printed
FULL All tables are printed
4.8.3 BS 5950
ECHO SUM
Literature
[1] DIN 18800-2:2008. Stahlbauten, Teil 2: Stabilitätsfälle - Knicken von Stäben und Stabw-
erken. DIN. 2008.
[2] EN 1993-1-1:2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. CEN. 2005.
[3] BS 5950-1:2000. Structural use of steelwork in building, Part 1: Code of practice for design
- Rolled and welded sections. BSi. 2001.
[4] Chr. Petersen. Statik und Stabilität der Baukonstruktionen. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig,
1980.
[5] K. Roik, J. Carl, and J. Lindner. Biegetorsionsprobleme gerader dünnwandiger Stäbe.
Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1972.
[6] H. Schroeter. Berechnung idealer Kipplasten von Trägern veränderlicher Höhe mit Hilfe
Hermit’scher Polynome. Mitteilungen aus dem Institut für Bauingenieurwesen I, Heft 5
Technische Universität München, 1980.
[7] N. Boissonnade et al. Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1, Background documen-
tation and design guidelines. ECCS Technical Committee 8 - Stability. No. 119. 2006.
[8] R. Greiner and J. Lindner. “Interaction formulae for members subjected to bending and ax-
ial compression in EUROCODE 3 - the Method 2 approach”. In: Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 62 (2006), pp. 757–770.