201217, 1996
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All fights reserved
Pn: S01413974X(96)~0259 0143974X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER
(Received 23 June 1995; revised version received 7 March 1996; accepted 9 May 1996)
ABSTRACT
NOTATION
a Weld thickness
b = 2c Flange width
d Web thickness
E Modulus of elasticity of steel
fycange(web)
Compressive yield stress of a flange (web)
ange(web)
Tensile yield stress of a flange (web)
fu Ultimate tensile strength
hw Web depth
hwe Effective depth of a web for compressed crosssection
P~ Ultimate (failure) load of a test beam
P~ Applied force that corresponds to My
M~ Ultimate (failure) bending moment
201
202 D. Beg, L. Hladnik
1 INTRODUCTION
Because of the favorable ratio between high load capacity and price, micro
alloyed high strength steel is being used increasingly in the construction of
steel structures. Some research reports I predict even a possibility of the appli
cation of plastic analysis of such structures. In any case, an interesting question
is how to determine more precisely the slenderness limit between slender
crosssections (Class 4) and semicompact crosssections (Class 3). Because
elements made of high strength steel are exploited in the presence of very
high strains and stresses, demands for compactness of crosssections are very
strict and more exact knowledge of those criteria can contribute to more econ
omical design.
Previous research in connection with the local stability and the compactness
limit for the third class crosssections of high strength steel28 applies in gen
eral to stub column tests of columns with box, cruciform and I crosssections.
Results of Rasmussen & Hancock, 8 for example, show that the slenderness
which demarcates a slender and semicompact flange of compressed cross
sections is the same for mild structural steel and high strength steel and
amounts to ( d O l e = 15 [e = (235/fy)°'5], in accordance with provisions of EVN
199311 (EUROCODE 3EC39).
For I beams in bending it is expected that the limiting slenderness will be
slightly higher, especially when more compact webs are used. In order to take
into consideration this effect in the analysis of the crosssection local stability,
it is necessary to consider the interaction between the stability of the web and
the flange. Technical regulations or standards, with the exception of Japan, ~°
presently do not take this interaction into account.
In the paper, an experimental and numerical analysis of the local stability
of welded I beams made of microalloyed high strength steel with a yield
stress around 800 MPa was presented.
Ten beams loaded in bending with different slenderness of flanges were
tested up to failure load. The influence of web slenderness was also analysed
S,Ienderness limit of Class 3 I crosssections made of high strength steel 203
using additional numerical analysis. Based on the obtained results, the limit
between sle;nder and semicompact crosssections was constructed at which the
interaction between flange and web was taken into consideration in a way
similar to that suggested by Kato. n
2 EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
Ten welded steel beams with I c r o s s  s e ~ t i o n 12,13 w e r e tested. They were made
of fine grahaed microalloyedhigh strength steel NIONICRAL 70 with the
nominal yield stress fy = 700 MPa, a product of the SteelMill JeseniceAcroni
in Slovenia, which corresponds to StE 690. The MAG welding process using
the fluxcored electrode FILTUB 32B (1.4 mm diam., fy = 690 MPa) and pre
heating to 150175°C was applied. The chosen nominal dimensions and static
scheme of tested beams are illustrated in Fig. 1. The test beams were loaded
with concentrate forces at two points 1.2 m apart so that in the span between
these two points the bending moment was constant. Arrangement of lateral
and torsional supports assured safety from lateral buckling, except for the
beam with the narrowest flange where numerical analysis predicted approxi
mately simultaneous occurrence of the local buckling of compressed flange
and lateral buckling of the middle part of the beam. The test beams have
been divided into five groups from A to E with two beams of equal nominal
dimensions. Individual groups differ only in the width or slenderness of flange.
They were chosen in the area of slender and semicompact flanges. In all cases
the webs meet the requirements for the first class of compactness.
The actual crosssection dimensions are illustrated in Table 1 and present
the average,, value of three measurements made along the middle part of the
beams.
Introduction of forces has been accomplished with a pair of hydraulic actu
ators. The :input force was measured using load cells. With the help of dis
placement l~ransducers and strain gauges the characteristic vertical and lateral
displacement of a crosssection, as well as the deformation of a crosssection
in the middle of a span and at the point of force application were measured
(Fig. 2).
The basic mechanical properties were defined using the standard tensile test
(proportional test specimens) and compression test (small cylindrical
204 D. Beg, L. Hladnik
test I
beamI b(mm)
A 1300
X lateral supports~P ~P B
c
] 270
1250
D 1220
,~ E 1200
~a=5
flange DT 3
o,I,
s6 [ sl2
tensile ss
I[ std ~ DT 6
flange ~ ~ " ~1s(2) ~ s74o)
10 10 10  10
H H H DTI(2) H
DT  displacement transducer
LC  load cell
Si  strain gauge i
Fig. 2. Measuring points.
specimens), and are given in Table 1. Yield stresses were defined at the perma
nent deformation of 0.2%.
The greatest geometrical imperfections of the crosssection (Fig. 3) in the
middle of the span are collected in Table 2 and in general do not surpass
ordinary allowed tolerance. 14
The arrangement of compressive residual stresses was also measured in
flanges of test beams from groups B and D (Fig. 4). The average value of
compressive residual stresses for crosssection B amounted to 73 MPa
(0.09fy), and for crosssection D it was 123 MPa (0.14fy), which is in accord
Slenderness limit of Class 3 I crosssections made of high strength steel 205
TABLE 1
Actual Dimensions (mm) and Yield Stresses (MPa) of Test Beams
A1 300.2 12.5 221.7 104 6.5 843 873 883 845 775 814
A2 2987 12.4 220.9 10.4 6.3 843 873 883 845 775 814
B1 2710 12.4 222.7 104 5.5 817 797 808 845 775 814
B2 2693 12.5 221.0 104 5.0 817 797 808 845 775 814
C1 2510 12.6 221.3 104 6.5 776 776 808 845 775 814
C2 2508 12.7 222.3 104 5.9 776 776 808 845 775 814
D1 2208 12.4 220.9 10.4 5.6 843 873 883 887 830 864
D2 2204 12.4 221.4 10.4 5.5 843 873 883 887 830 864
E1 198.8 12.6 220.7 10.4 5.1 817 797 808 887 830 864
E2 199.0 12.6 222.6 10.4 6.0 817 797 808 887 830 864
I b I I v
Fig. 3. Typical local geometrical imperfections.
TABLE 2
Measured Geometrical Imperfections (mm)
Test beam A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
W 2.6 3.3 1.9 23 3.6 2.7 1.6 3.2 14 4.1
w/b 00087 00110 0.0070 00085 0.0143 00107 0.0072 0.0145 00070 0.0206
emax 15 0.9 42 0.6 3.3 42 6.5 5.0 05 1.3
e~/b 0.0050 0.0030 00155 0.0022 00131 00167 0.0294 00226 0.0025 0.0065
1.7 O1 2.7 0.5 3.0 2.4 79 3.3 0.6 1.2
v/h~ 0.0077 00005 0.0121 0.0022 00135 00108 0.0357 00149 00027 0.0054
50.0 I
mm mm
MPa °'° t" 14a 220 MPa °'°' tt 3o 1i0 i~lo '//270
100.0]
,0001,/ 2011.01
D ' outside B
inside
average
50.13
MPa o.c ~ 
6O
MPa o.o o0I mm
I10 190 270
100.0 100.0, * / ' " ~ " ~
.200.0
°300.0
TABLE 3
Ultimate Loads P~ and Load Factors % of
Test Beams
1.20
0.9(I
0.80  /
0.70 
/
r~ry 0.6o 
0.50
0.40
0.30 1
0.20
0.I0
0.00 4 I I ~ ~ I ',
W/WT
The experimental results correlate very well with those obtained through
numerical analysis.
From the diagram on Fig. 7 a limit slenderness of flanges (blt)l~40, which
divides slender and semicompact welded I crosssections from high strength
steel, loaded in bending, can be obtained. The determined limit is much more
208 D. Beg, L. Hladnik
Fig. 6. Test beam D1 after the failure  the local buckling of compressed flange.
favorable than the limit for flanges (b/t)/~30, in accordance with EC 3. The
average slenderness of webs in test samples amounted to (hw/d)/e~40.
The collapse of tested beams resulted from the local buckling of compressed
flange (Fig. 6) with the exception of test beams E1 and E2, where apart from
local buckling, also the lateral buckling of beams 12A3 influenced the ultimate
carrying capacity. This was confirmed by the measured local deflections of
compressed flange and lateral movements of compessed and tension flange,
as well as measured deformations in the middle of the span. Figure 8 illustrates
the measured local deflections of the outer edge of compressed flange and
lateral displacements of compressed and tension flange of test beam A2.
3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
1.2 7
l l
I = , =,,
.
Ii
. . . . .
DI,D2
. . . . .
_
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.8
0.7 • test results
0.6 0 numerical results
U
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0,1
0 I I I i I I I i
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
(bit)/6
Fig. 7. Non.dimensional ultimate carrying capacity of test beams y. in relation to the slender
ness of flange (b/t)/e.
from Fig. 1 and initial geometrical imperfection, material and residual stresses
from Fig. 9. Residual stresses were taken from the results of our previous
research work. 15 First the analysis of the influence of flange slenderness on
limit carrying capacity was done. The results are illustrated in Fig. 7. An
agreement with the experimental results is good. Then the effect of web slen
derness on limit carrying capacity was analysed. Support beams from groups
B, D and E were calculated at five different web depths (hw = 220, 350, 500,
700, 900 rnm). Other dimensions remained unchanged. Webs with depths of
700 and 990 m m are classified according to EC 3 as slender (hwld > 124 e).
The obtained ultimate load factors are illustrated in Fig. 10 depending on
web slenderness.
The results show that when web slenderness is increased, the limit carrying
capacity is decreased. Crosssection D with the flange (b/t)/e = 33.6 can be
classified among semicompact crosssections up to web slenderness of
(hw/d)le = 82, but the crosssection with more slender web must be classified
as slender. Stability interaction between the flange and the web is therefore
present after all and influences the ultimate carrying capacity of a cross
section.
210 D. Beg, L. Hladnik
DT6 4OO.OO(;DT5
350.00 :: w=DT3 DT4
300.00
250.00
P (IN)
200.00
150.00 I
100.00
50.00
[ ntua
~J.vv
The relation between ultimate load factor and flange or web slenderness may
be defined as suggested by Kato H for ultimate carrying capacity obtained by
stub column tests:
~yt.
/Wo/Vo
 i tsoo I 1
%=d+(2a)°.5
t~ = 230 MPa
ff:790 MPa flu" = 100 MPa
fa~ = 460 MPa
~w = 50MPa
it I I .4
c,  from the
hw equilibrium
of stresses
4
+ I ;c,/2
wo=O.O17b :tt
vo=hJ250 I b , I
eqn (2) from the results of nonlinear numerical analysis. The correlation factor
amounts to 0.993 and confirms the suitability of eqn (2) for the range
0.8<%<1.1.
Equation (2) was verified by experimental results (Fig. 12). Our test results
are marked with black circles. Omitted, however, have been the results for
the beams of group E where apart from the local buckling of compressed
flange the lateral buckling of the beams influenced the ultimate carrying
capacity. The correlation coefficient amounts to 0.963. McDermott's exper
imental results 5 are marked with black triangles and refer to the determination
of bending ductility of crosssections. Among others he also tested five rolled
I sections loaded in bending and made of high strength steel with an average
yield stress of 857 MPa. The collapse of these beams occurred because of the
local buckling of compressed flange.
212 D, Beg, L. Hladnik
1.1 ~ _
l  E (b/~200/12, d=10)
0.9
0.8
D (b/t=220/12, d=10)
0.7
0.6
1111iljm"0.5
A B (b/t=270/12, d=10)
0.4
0.3
.... slenderness limit for
0.2
the web from Class 3
0.1 according to EC 3
0 ~ , J i I i i !
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0aw/d)lc
Fig. 10. The influence of web slenderness (h./d)/E on ultimate carrying capacity of a cross
section.
TABLE 4
The Results of Numerical Analysis (fy = 790 MPa)
b = 2c t hw d
1.2 /
/
/
/
1.1
a"
l
Tu~naly t.
0.9
/
¢¢ • numerical
O.S
/
analysis (t/d=l.2)
/
/
0.7 i : ; I i
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
~u hum
Fig. 11. Correlation between analytical (eqn 2) and numerical (Table 4) ultimate load factors.
]L.3
~,," • Beg, Hladnik
)L.2 t
A, /
(t/d 1 2)
/
1.1 /
0.4 /
/ , o (t/d=l O)
•
/
/
(3,.3 /
/
/
/
(L2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
~ u exP"
Fig. 12. Correlation between analytical (eqn 2) and experimental (Table 3) ultimate load
factors.
214 D. Beg, L. Hladnik
Equation (2) can be modified in such a way that will also be valid for I
sections loaded only in compression. 13 When calculating the stiffness of the
web aw, instead of using an actual depth of a web hw, the effective depth of
a web hwe is used. The effective depth hw, for compressed crosssections is
defined under the condition that the elastic critical stress of the local buckling
is equal in both cases (Ot'~r~SSu~= tr~n'Ung). Based on these suppositions hw, is
defined with the expression (3). K,~ is the coefficient of the local buckling.9
hwo =
/ ~~nding
hw =
~34.9
" hw = (3)
35
30 . . . . . . . . . . .
EC 3 ._x ~,=______
. . . . . . . .. .. ... .. .. . .. . . . . .
"  ~~< cross  section in p ure bendin g
"\ " "xF~1.(2) ;Mu=My, hwe=hw
25
(bit)Is EC 3 \x EC 3 ""',,/
20 pure 'x pure xx
compression, '~ bending x
15
I0
crosssectionint are compression
5
Eq. (2) ; P.=Py, hwe=2.444hw
t
I I

0 i I ] *, I ~ I I~ ~,
0add)/~
Fig. 13. The limit between slender (Class 4) and semicompact (Class 3) welded crosssections
made of high strength steel taking into account the interaction between flange and web.
5 CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in the article originated within the project 'Development
and introduction of microalloyed high strength steel' which was financed by
SteelMill JeseniceAcroni and the Ministry for Science and Technology of
the Republic of Slovenia.
REFERENCES
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.