Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277711070
CITATIONS
READS
489
1 author:
Yann Steve Siewe Tchoussonnou
Coventry University
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
ABSTRACT
This report is to compare the North American AISC-360 Standard to Eurocode 3. Conclusions show
that both codes of practice differ from each other in so many ways but not so drastically in many
situations as well and they both can give provision to very strong, effective and efficient designs.
-2-
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................................... - 2 1.
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... - 5 Rationale ................................................................................................................................................................... - 5 AIM ............................................................................................................................................................................ - 6 Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................. - 6 Organisation of the Report ....................................................................................................................................... - 6 -
2.
AISC-360 ................................................................................................................................................................ - 8 ASD (Allowable Stress or Strength Design); .............................................................................................................. - 8 LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design) ............................................................................................................. - 10 Ultimate Limit States (Limit states of strength) ......................................................................................... - 10 Comparison of ASD VS LRFD ................................................................................................................................... - 12 -
3.
EUROCODE 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... - 14 -
4.
5.
MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................................................ - 0 -
6.
7.
8.
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................... - 3 The MODEL ............................................................................................................................................................... - 3 Model Parameters ................................................................................................................................................ - 1 Procedure .............................................................................................................................................................. - 3 -
9.
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................... - 5 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... - 5 Analysis and Comparison of the results .................................................................................................................... - 5 -
10.
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... - 6 -
11.
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... - 7 -
12.
-3-
LIST OF TABLES
Table A1: Combination factors for Imposed and Snow Loads on a Structure
-4-
1. Introduction
Rationale
A building code is a legal ordinance put to practice by public bodies such as city councils, regional planning
commissions, states, federal agencies, establishing regulations governing building design and construction.
Building codes are designed and put to practice to protect public health safety and wellbeing of the
inhabitants of the region, city, state or country involved. (Merritt and Brockenbrough, 1999, pp. 6.1 6.2)
Most regions in the world have their own code of practice designed they use when it comes to the
construction industry and built environment. These codes of practice differ from each other in so many
aspects. Such codes may not be used in regions in which they were not designed for as it may bring about
conflicting National Standards unless its modified and published in a National Annex (A National Annex to
a Building Code are modifications made to a code to better serve in a particular region).
Euro codes are a set of harmonized technical rules developed by the European Committee for
Standardisation for the structural design of construction works in the European Union. (EN 1990:2002 E,
Euro code - Basis of Structural Design, CEN, November 29, 2001). Under the Public Procurement Directive,
the Member States (European Union member states) must accept designs to the Euro codes. When
published, the Euro codes will become the standard technical specification for all public works contracts:
where a contract for a public body contains a technical specification this should reference the appropriate
European Standards. (Euro codes: Frequently Asked Questions, N.D). In that light, Euro codes are therefore
the confirmed mandatory code of practice used in the European Union for Structural Design. The Structural
Euro code program comprises the following parts, each generally consisting of a number of sub-parts:
EN 1990: Basis of structural design, EN 1991: (Eurocode 1) Actions on structures, EN 1992: (Euro code 2)
Design of concrete structures, EN 1993: (Eurocode 3) Design of steel structures, EN 1994: (Eurocode 4)
Design of composite steel and concrete structures, EN 1995: (Eurocode 5) Design of timber structures, EN
1996: (Eurocode 6) Design of masonry structures, EN 1997: (Eurocode 7) Geotechnical design, EN 1998:
(Eurocode 8) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, EN 1999: (Eurocode 9) Design of aluminium
structures.
This research will concentrate on Eurocode 3 (Design of Steel Structures).
In the United States, structural steel is used in specification in accordance with the applicable specification
of ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials). ASTM International, known until 2001 as the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is an international standards organization that
develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products,
systems, and services. Amongst the codes specified by the ASTM, is the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) the technical Institute established to serve the structural steel design and construction
industry. AISC developed Specification for Structural Steel buildings commonly abbreviated AISC 360.
(ASTM International, 2015)
AISC gives provision to determine the nominal and available strengths of members, connections and other
components of steel building structures. AISC contains 2 design methods, the Allowable Stress Design
method and Load (ASD) and Resistance Factor Design method (LRFD). The former being in use for a very
long period before the latter was initiated as its modification.
-5-
EC3 is made up of many parts further divided into subparts. With each part specific to a particular
structure type such as buildings, bridges, towers, silos etc. General rules and rules for buildings are
specified in Part 1 of EC3. This part is has 11 subparts meanwhile, AISC-360 is only an integral document.
( ahin, 2011)
The design of large span structures have been increasing in the construction industry for the past decades
and large span structures ranging from bridges to buildings are being erected in all areas of the world.
These structures are constructed under codes of practices including Eurocode and AISC in the regions
where appropriate.
These codes (Euro code 3 and AISC-360) have some differences in design criteria. The differences between
them brings about a code being suitable over the other in the design of structural members or a code
designing weaker members than another. In that light, a brief comparative study of both codes is going to
be carried out stating the differences found in the use of the same large span structure with only static
loading applied to it with both codes used one after the other.
Knowledge of the information covered above is important as to properly compare these standards, its
important to know how they were formed and classified.
AIM
To Briefly Compile a Comparative Study between the American AISC-360 and the European EUROCODE 3
codes of practice.
Objectives
Following the methodology chapter is the analysis chapter. The results obtained from MIDAS Civil analysis software
is discussed and explained in this chapter.
Thereafter, comes the conclusion of the report, here all the findings from all the chapters is clearly outlined.
References and Appendices constitute the end of the document.
-7-
2. AISC-360
D+F
D+H+F+L+T
D + H + F + (Lr or S or R)
D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
D + H + F (W or 0.7E)
D + H + F + (0.75W or 0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
0.6D + W + H 0.6D (W or 0.7E)
(These are not all, just to name few)
Where
D = dead load,
E = earthquake load,
F = load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights,
H = load due to lateral earth pressure, ground water pressure, or pressure of bulk materials,
L = live load due to occupancy,
Lr = roof live load,
S = snow load,
R = nominal load due to initial rainwater or ice, exclusive of the ponding contribution,
T = self straining load,
W = wind load,
Meanwhile during design and construction, uncertainties arise. A few common uncertainties include;
errors in design and construction, random behaviour of weather and nature, material properties
exceptions. These uncertainties in both load and capacity are taken care of by the application of a single
variable :-factor of safety (). In this light, the load combinations mentioned above must satisfy the
following equation;
Fa n
Equation 1
-8-
Or more explicitly
Qd + Qt1 + Qt 2Eqn 2
Where
Fa = required strength,
Fn = nominal strength
= safety factor
Fn/ = allowable strength
= Load factor
The safety factor is always greater than 1. For each type of observed type of failure, a
different factor of safety is employed. ASD does not directly tell us the factor of safety to
use in a particular situation.
-9-
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
(The load symbols are same as the ASD symbols mentioned above)
With Load and Resistance factor Design Specifications, the design strength of each connection or
structural member cannot be less than the required strength based on factored nominal loads (Galambos
and Ravindra, 1976; Ellingwood et al., 1982). Uncertainties always exists in design and construction as
mentioned above. But the way LRFD handles these uncertainties is slightly differently from ASD as shown
below. The load combinations mentioned above must satisfy the following equation;
- 10 -
n iQi
Eqn 3
or more explicitly
Rn = Nominal resistance
= Resistance factor
The right side ( iQi) stands for the required strength. This is strength obtained from analysis of the
member or connection under factored loads with the combination used. All the different loads from
different sources are added together therefore the summation sign. Sometimes the load effects may
slightly deviate from nominal values of Qi obtained from nominal loads, load factors introduction takes
account of those deviations and other uncertainties and inaccuracies in Load determination. (Vinnakota,
2005, pp. 125 125)
The Left side ( n) is the design strength obtained from the observed member. The maximum resistance
- 11 -
ASD had been in use for more than 70 years before designers thought of modifying or upgrading.
The Following brief comparison between ASD and LRFD will give some insights to their differences
and similarities.
With ASD, the whole uncertainty and variability in the loads and resistance is applied to the
nominal strength side of the equation where these factors of safety were not obtained from
analysis but from a combination of experience and experiments carried out throughout the years.
In ASD design philosophy, uncertainties are dealt with by using a single factor of safety where
this lone variable takes care of uncertainties in both load and capacity. Whereas, in LRFD design,
uses load factors to handle uncertainties due to applied loads and a resistance factor to handle
uncertainties due to material unpredictable behaviour or construction. This therefore implies LRFD
is advantageous over ASD, because distributing different factors depending on load type as LRFD
does brings about a more effective design with lighter members.
Loads found under the same load combination are considered to have the same uncertainty or
variability; doing some substitutions on equation 3, we have
Qi
Fn /(
Qi
n = Fa
Therefore
From this illustration, we see that the factor of safety in ASD is a ratio of the load factor over the
resistance factor of LRFD(in cases where all the loads are found under the same load combination) for the
load combination considered.
With a live load to dead load ratio of 3, ASD will produce members of same structural integrity and
same member sizes as LRFD. But with a ratio different from 3, designs produced by ASD are either
less efficient or less reliable or both as compared to LRFD which is relatively more rational in its
designs.
In ASD, combined action of loads, is generally maintained under the member under considerations
yield load forces with the required strength Fa obtained from dividing the nominal strength Fn by
the safety factor thereby reducing its capacity to a point below yielding. See figure below
- 12 -
Rn = LRFD Capacity
Rn = Nominal Capacity
Figure 2.1
Quemoy
The figure above represents the Load displacement graph of a mild steel member. In LRFD, combined
action of loads is maintained under the load capacity which is equal to the product of the nominal strength
Rn and the resistance factor .
Both codes cannot be used in the same design, its either one or the other
There is no particular recommendation to which code to use. Its all up to designer. Decisions are
generally made base on finance.
LRFD designs gets the most out of material strength, thereby should be a more economical
approach.
This report focuses only on comparing AISC-LRFD to Eurocode 3, ASD wont be compared to
Eurocode 3.
- 13 -
3. EUROCODE 3
As earlier defined, Euro codes are a set of harmonized technical rules developed by the European
Committee for Standardisation for the structural design of construction works in the European Union. (EN
1990:2002 E, Euro code - Basis of Structural Design, CEN, November 29, 2001). In Europe, the Limit State
Design is enforced by the Euro codes. Euro codes are used in many (all) countries in the European Union
but little modifications may be made it but published as a National Annex ( For example; British Standards
is a UK National Annex to Euro code). In the language of the Euro codes, dead loads become permanent
actions, imposed loads, snow loads and wind loads are collectively called variable actions and load
combinations becomes combinations of actions. (David Brown, SCI Deputy Director) . As with the AISCLRFD design technique, Euro code 3 utilises limit state designs as well. This involves the use of partial safety
factors (m). Here, the strength (Characteristic Strength) is divided by partial safety factor(s) and
compared to the design loads.
According to BS EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design, clause A1.2.1(1), the maximum allowed number of
variable actions are two, therefore, the designers need to make the decision which two variable loads
should be considered. Four limit states are considered in this same volume, these are EQU, STR, GEO and
FAT which stand for Equilibrium, Strength, Ground and Fatigue respectively. The most widely considered
by designers are equilibrium(EQU) when observing overturning and sliding and strength (STR) of the
members and frames. (Brown, no date)
Combination of Actions is determined in 2 ways: the first being;
Eqn 5
Where;
Eqn 6
Eqn7
Notice the difference between Equation 6 and 7 to Equation 5 and between each other (Equations 3
& 4). That is the addition of a reduction factor () to Permanent Actions in Equation 7 and the addition
of a combination factor (0 ) in Equation 6.
Equations 6 and 7 are the most widely used of the three equations. When designing according to
Eurocode for Ultimate Limit States (ULS),Equations 6 and 7 can be computed to find out the worst
case. For example, considering only one case in each load category; (For Values of , see Appendix
A1)
Dead Load:
Gk = 9KN
Qk,2 = 6KN
1.35G + 1.5Q
k
k,1
+ 1.5 0Qk,2
(Illustration of Eqn 7)
From the results above, that member or connection should be designed considering an Ultimate load
of 32.24KN.
- 15 -
EC3
Class 1
Non-Compact
Class 2
Compact
Class 3
Slender
Class 4
Description
These are sections which can develop their plastic moment capacity
but still have quite an amount of rotation capacity.
These are sections which can develop their plastic moment capacity
but still have rather limited amount of rotation capacity due to local
buckling.
These are sections where the plastic moment capacitys development
may be prevented by local buckling when extreme compression
fibre stresses reach yield strength.
These are sections where a members (plate) local buckling will occur
before the yield stress attained.
Table 4.2 below shows the ratio of the limits of EC3 to AISC-360. From that table, it can be seen that there
is no drastic difference between the limits in both codes.
Little differences in width thickness ratios also exist as in AISC-360, the flange slenderness is determined by
using half the flange width whereas in EC3, its determined by using the only the outstanding section of the
flange.
- 16 -
5. MATERIALS
When designing according to AISC-360 or Eurocode 3, there is a choice of material to be made. EC3 has
great variety of steel grades which has various strengths, chemical and Mechanical properties. These steel
grades have equivalences in AISC-360.
In table 5.1 below are some steel grades, equivalences and properties.
Varieties of steel grades utilised by EC3 include S195, S235, S275, S355, S420, S460 etc. . Those utilised by
AISC-360 are A36, A53, A283C, A570 Grade 40, A572 Grade 50 etc. However, the most widely used in the
construction industry of these are S235, S275, S355 and A283C, A572 Grade 40 and A572 Grade 50 . Their
properties are illustrated in table 5.1 below.
Chemical Properties
Steel Grade
Yield Strength
(MPa)
Tensile Strength
(MPa)
S235
235
S275
C%
Max
Mn%
Max
P%
Max
S%
Max
Si%
Max
360
0.22
1.60
0.05
0.05
0.05
275
370
0.25
1.60
0.04
0.05
0.05
S355
355
460
0.23
1.60
0.05
0.05
0.05
A283C
205
380
0.24
0.90
0.04
0.05
0.4
A570 Gr. 40
275
380
0.25
0.90
0.035 0.04
0.4
A572 Gr. 50
355
460
0.23
1.35
0.04
0.4
0.05
From the table above, it is observed that steel grades utilised under Eurocode 3 have very close equivalences in
AISC-360 as;
Table 5.2: Steel Grade Equivalences
EC3
AISC-360
S235
A283C
S275
A570Gr40
S355
A572Gr50
-0-
6. TENSION DESIGN
AISC-360 and EC3 both consider Tensile yielding in the gross section and tensile rupture in the net
section as the two primary limit states for tension members, Serkan Sahin,2011 .
The following equations show how the nominal resistance of members to tensile yielding and tensile
rupture strengths are obtained;
F n = Ag F y
Eqn 6.1
Fn = 0.9AnFu
Eqn 6.2
Fn= UAnFu
Eqn 6.3
Where
Ag = Gross Area
Fy = Yield Stress
An = Net Area
Fu = Tensile Strength
Equation 6.1 above shows how Tensile yielding strength is calculated for both AISC-360 and EC3.
Equation 6.2 shows how tensile fracture strength is calculated for EC3 and
Equation 6.3 shows how tensile fracture strength is obtained for AISC-360.
Both equations look quite similar, the major difference is how the shear lag factor is obtained In EC3, the
tensile fracture capacity is common reduced by 10% regardless whether all cross sectional members are
connected or not. The coefficient of the Shear lag factor 0.9 may be replaced with a reduction factor which
can be any number between 0.4 and 0.7 for unsymmetrically connected members. In AISC-360, 1.0 is the
shear lag factor utilised when the tension load is transmitted directly to the cross sectional members.
Shear lag factors falling in the region of 0.6 to 0.9 may replace the 1.0 shear lag factor when dealing with Lsections, HSS or I-sections. See Table 6.1 below for more details
Table 6.1 Shear Lag Factors U
Member Description
U=1.0
U = 1-
U=1
An = Area of directly connected
members
U = 0.80
U = 0.60
Source: Sahin 2011
7. COMPRESSION DESIGN
AISC-360 and EC3 both address reduction in Capacity with the use of a non-dimensional slenderness for flexural
buckling. In AISV-360, there is a single column strength curve whereas in EC3, there are 5 distinct curves (a0, a, b,
c, d) making EC3 more elaborate and specific over AISC-360. Flexural torsional buckling, lateral torsional
buckling, flexural buckling are analysed using reduction factors.
Fn = AgFy
Where
Eqn 7.1
= reduction factor
Eqn
7.2
-1-
Source : EC3
-1-
Figure 7.2
-2-
8. METHODOLOGY
The MODEL
To compare the difference in member behaviours of the application of the different on structural steel
long span structures, a model structure was created using the analysis software MIDAS CIVIL. After the
model was generated, all loads (static; dead loads and live loads).
The Model was first designed under EC3 specifications and analysed and then designed under AISC
specifications and tested.
The reason a long span structure was chosen is because in some cases, the difference between steel
members and their equivalents or close to equivalents in other design specifications are not too large and
easily illustrated. To better appreciate these differences, long span structures are the ideal structures to be
analysed.
The model to be analysed is only the frame because in most long span structures like Airport Terminals,
the structural frame is built and all other structures are built in the frame as separate short span
-3-
structures, one floor or two floors with its own support system independent from the overall structural
frame.
The independent short span structures under is not the point of interest in this paper so will not be
designed or analysed. Only the external structures is analysed as it has the long span members which are
the point of interest.
Model Parameters
As only the frame is analysed, the only loads to be considered are;
Dimensions of the structure
Roof Self Weight = 0.12 KN/m2
Span = 30m
Width = 8m
Height = 15m
= 8.249 KN/m
(Refer to Appendix A2 for values of Combination factors and partial Safety Factors)
Thereby, 8.249 KN/m was considered as the design Action. (Remember, Partial factors of safety,
combination factors and reduction factor were all introduced in the designs to handle uncertainties in
practice. So shouldnt be ignored)
Assumptions
9.44 KN/m
*** Lr or S or R means the biggest of the load cases which in this situation is Snow Load S = 5 KN/m
NB: The metric units KN/m is consistent throughout the report but it doesnt reflect real life situation, its
only for direct comparison, the North American AISC uses the Imperial unit system.
Materials
The model was designed using Steel S355 (yield strength 355 N/mm2), and A572 Grade 50 steel. (See procedure
below)
-2-
Sections
For analysis and comparison purposes, the same section used for the Models Eurocode Design was used
Procedure
The beams and columns were first created, then their material properties were applied to them.
(See figure 6.1 above)
Then ULS Design Action(EC3) determined above was applied to the model as thus
-3-
-4-
9. ANALYSIS
Results
After the successful computer analysis of the model. A steel code check was run by the software on the
Model under Codes. The results generated are reported as
Appendix B 1: 457x152x82 BEAM DESIGN TO EUROCODE 3
Appendix B2 : WIDE Flange W24x62 Beam Design to AISC-360
AISC-LRFD
Ratio
Slenderness (l/i),
(l/r)
241.7
228.2
0.9
Shear Resistance
0.039
0.036
0.9
Combined Resistance
0.138
0.483
0.3
0.138
0.68
0.2
Slenderness is calculated the same way under both codes. L/I and L/r for EC3 and AISC-360 respectively.
The combined resistance of EC3 is only 30% of the combined resistance In the AISC, therefore, under the
same characteristic load, at serviceable limit states, AISC 360 designed members .
From this, in axial tension, beams under EC3 will likely buckle around the same period .
-5-
10. CONCLUSION
The following conclusions were drawn after the analysis if the results.
In EC3, uncertainties are used to handle the same type of uncertainties involved in construction sector
but are employed in different ways. Partial safety factors might be looked at as the inverse of resistance
factors. Typical values for partial safety factors are 1.0 for buckling mode and yielding, and for fracture
limit states 1.25.
From the determination of design loads for both EC3 and AISC-360 in Chapter 7, it should be noted that
due to code difference (in factors applied), AISC-360 had a larger design load compared to EC3.
Nevertheless, this is not an observation which can be observed every time. AISC360 determines its design
load the loads with a few combination factors and designing for the worst case (the maximum), in that
light, the design load might be higher or lower than design by EC3 with the application of the same
characteristic load whereas EC3 has set formulae employed for design.
In calculating the tensile capacity of members, the difference is the calculation of the shear lag factor U.
EC3 has a fixed shear lag factor 0.9, while in AISC360, shear lag factors vary and are calculated in different
ways. A brief demonstration of that is shown in figure 6.1.
EC3 gives provision to five separate curves ( ao, a, b, c and d) when defining the reduction in capacity in
compression members meanwhile AISC-360 gives provision to only one curve (column strength curve).
Nevertheless, the single strength curve provided by AISC-360 gives a higher capacity value than curve b,c
and d provided by EC3. With a very limited use for design purposes, curve a0, is the only curve which gives
higher capacities compared to the single AAISC-360 curve.
Materials in EC3 and AISC-360 have very close equivalents which mechanical and chemical properties
very similar to each other. Details on this are tabulated in figure 5.1 and 5.2.
Ratio of Slenderness of AISC-360 to EC3 was very to close 1 (this number might not be the most accurate
as only one case was studied in this case, with more case studies, range small range might be concluded
rather than a fixed number). Both codes estimate ratio of slenderness the same way, thereby, for the same
characteristic load, beams designed under both codes might buckle around the same period.
-6-
11. REFERENCES
ahin, S. (2011) A comparative study of AISC-360 and EC3 strength limit states, International Journal of
Steel Structures. Springer, 11(1), pp. 1327. doi: 10.1007/S13296-011-1002-x.
EN 1990:2002 E, Eurocode - Basis of Structural Design, CEN, November 29, 2001
European Council Directive 89/106/EEC
Eurocodes: Frequently Asked Questions (no date). Eurocodes: Frequently Asked Questions. Available at:
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/tech_info/eurocodes/faq.htm
ASTM International (2015) Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTM_International (Accessed: 10 April 2015).Merritt, F. and Brockenbrough, R.
(1999) Structural Steel Designers Handbook. 3rd edn. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Roberts], B. [Compiler J. (2010) Extracts from the Structural Eurocodes for Students of Structural Design: PP
1990 2010. BSI Standards.
Duncan, C. (2005) The 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings: An Introduction, Structures
Congress 2005. doi: 10.1061/40753(171)162.
Naoum, S. (2012) Dissertation research and writing for construction students. 3rd edn. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Transportation Development Centre (no date). Government of Canada; Transport Canada; Policy Group.
Available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/14000/14063e.htm (Accessed: 10 February 2015)
Chen, W. F. and Zhou, S. P. (1987) Design of beam-columns using allowable stress design and load and
resistance factor design, Engineering Structures, 9(3), pp. 201209. doi: 10.1016/0141-0296(87)90016-2.
What are the advantages of LRFD over ASD design in Steel Structures? (no date). Bayt.com. Available at:
http://www.bayt.com/en/specialties/q/24758/what-are-the-advantages-of-lrfd-over-asd-design-in-steelstructures/ (Accessed: 26 March 2015).
Vinnakota, R. (2005) Behavior and LRFD of Steel Structures. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Steel Construction Manual Fourteenth Edition. AISC. 2011. pp. 16.1246. ISBN 1-56424-060-6.
McCormac, Jack C. (2008). Structural Steel Design (Google books (preview)) (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-221816-0
Bulleit, William M. Uncertainty in Structural Engineering. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), February 2008, pp 24 30.
Brown, D. (no date) Loads and ULS Load combinations to the Eurocodes.
Draycott, T. and Bullman, P. (2009) Structural elements design manual: working with Eurocodes.
Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
-7-
12. APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
A1. Combination factors for Imposed and Snow Loads on a Structure
Action
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.3
Category H: Roofs
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0
Limit State
ULS
SLS
Source: EC1
G = 1.35
Q
Q = 1.00
G = 1.00
-8-
APPENDIX B 1
UB 457x152x82 Design to Eurocodes
*. PROJECT
*. MEMBER NO =
*. LOADCOMB NO =
1, MATERIAL NO =
1, SECTION NO =
= I - Section. (Rolled)
Depth
Web Thick =
0.154
0.019
Fxx = 0.00000e+000
Fyy = 0.00000e+000, Fzz = 0.00000e+000
[ Eurocode3:05 6.2.3 ]
-. Nt_Rd = fy * Area / Gamma_M0 =
3727.50 kN.
0.00
3727.50
====================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK SHEAR RESISTANCE.
======================================================================================
( ). Calculate shear area.
[ Eurocode3:05 6.2.6, EN1993-1-5:04 5.1 NOTE 2 ]
-. eta = 1.2 (Fy < 460 MPa.)
-. r
= 0.0000 m.
0.0059 m^2.
-. Avz1 = eta*hw*tw
0.0055 m^2.
0.0049 m^2.
0.0055 m^2.
44.10 kN.
- 12 -
1124.52 kN.
V_Edz
44.10
1124.52
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK BENDING MOMENT RESISTANCE ABOUT MAJOR AXIS.
======================================================================================
( ). Calculate plastic resistance moment about major axis.
[ Eurocode3:05 6.1, 6.2.5 ]
-. Wply
-. Mc_Rdy =
0.0018 m^3.
Wply * fy / Gamma_M0 =
639.71 kN-m.
88.20
639.71
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK BENDING MOMENT RESISTANCE ABOUT MINOR AXIS.
======================================================================================
( ). Calculate plastic resistance moment about minor axis.
[ Eurocode3:05 6.1, 6.2.5 ]
-. Wplz
0.0002 m^3.
83.78 kN-m.
0.00
83.78
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK LATERAL-TORSIONAL BUCKLING RESISTANCE.
======================================================================================
( ). Calculate lateral-torsional buckling resistance (Mb_Rd).
- 13 -
= 0.300
-. Gs
-. Ncr
= Pi^2*Es*Izz / Lu^2 =
-. psi
= 0.000
-. C1
= 1.132
-. Mcr
370.48 kN.
207.56 kN-m.
-. Mb_Rd
= Xi_LT*Wply*fy / Gamma_M1 =
153.05 kN-m.
88.20
153.05
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK INTERACTION OF COMBINED RESISTANCE.
======================================================================================
( ). Calculate Major reduced design resistance of bending and shear.
[ Eurocode3:05 6.2.8 (6.30) ]
-. In case of V_Edz / Vpl_Rdz < 0.5
-. My_Rd = Mc_Rdy =
639.71 kN-m.
83.78 kN-m.
M_Edy
M_Edz
My_Rd
Mz_Rd
-. a
-. Alpha = 2.000
-. Beta = MAX[ 5*n, 1.0 ] = 1.000
-. N_Ed < 0.25*Npl_Rd
931.88 kN.
811.55 kN.
639.71 kN-m.
2866.97 kN.
83.78 kN-m.
- 15 -
APPENDIX B2
WIDE Flange W24x62 Beam Design to AISC-360
PROJECT
*. MEMBER NO =
*. LOADCOMB NO =
2, SECTION NO =
= I - Section. (Rolled)
Depth
Web Thick =
0.179
0.015
Pu
My
Mz
---------------------------------------------------------------DL
0.00
18.00
0.00
LL
0.00
25.20
0.00
DL+LL
0.00
WL or EL
43.20
0.00
0.00
45.00
0.00
---------------------------------------------------------------DL+LL+WL(EL)
0.00
88.20
0.00
88.20 kN-m.
0.00 kN-m.
0.00 kN.
-. Vuz =
0.00 kN.
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK AXIAL STRENGTH.
======================================================================================
( ). Check slenderness ratio of axial tension member (l/r).
[ AISC-LRFD2K Specification B7. ]
-. l/r = 228.2 < 300.0 ---> O.K.
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK FLEXURAL STRENGTH ABOUT MAJOR AXIS.
======================================================================================
( ). Compute plastic bending moment (Mp).
[ AISC-LRFD2K Specification F1.1. (F1-1) ]
-. Mp = MIN[ Fy*Zyy, 1.5*Fy*Syy ] =
864.33 kN-m.
= 10.0 ksi.
- 17 -
592.04 kN-m.
= 90.55
= 137.27
864.33
0.00 kN-m.
0.00 kN-m.
[ 0.12+0.076(M1/M2) ]*Es*rz
-. Lpd = --------------------------- = 0.895 m.
Fy
( ). Compute limiting laterally unbrace length for full plastic bending
capacity (Lp).
- 18 -
[ Es*Gs*J*Area ]
0.39270 m^(-1).
= 157161.37596 kN^2-m^4.
202.71 kN-m.
202.71 kN-m.
= 9.15
864.33 kN-m.
202.71 kN-m.
182.44 kN-m.
88.20
182.44
======================================================================================
[[[*]]] CHECK INTERACTION OF COMBINED STRENGTH.
======================================================================================
( ). Check interaction ratio of combined strength.
[ AISC-LRFD2K Specification H1.1. ]
-. Pu/phiPn < 0.20 ---> Formula(H1-1b)
Pu
[ Muy
Muz ]
- 20 -
phiMnz ]
1362.25 kN.
1226.03 kN.
44.10 kN.
44.10
1226.03
- 21 -