!! Stability Assessments According To Eurocode 3 PDF

CEN / TC250 / SC3 / N1639E - rev2
Institute for Steel Structures

Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus Feldmann
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1
D-52074 Aachen
Tel.: +49-(0)241-8025177
Excerpt from the Background Document to Fax: +49-(0)241-8022140
EN 1993-1-1
Flexural buckling and lateral buckling
on a common basis:
Stability assessments according to Eurocode 3
G. Sedlacek, J. Naumes
Aachen, 17.03.2009
page II / 142
Table of content
Table of content
Executive summary 1
1 General 3
2 Reference models for flexural buckling 5
2.1 Use of 2nd order theory with imperfections 5
2.2 Reference model of Maquoi-Rondal 5
2.3 European Standard flexural buckling curves 9
2.4 Use of the European buckling curves for other boundary conditions 12
2.5 Conclusions 16
3 Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns with non-
uniform cross-sections and non-uniform compression loads on elastic supports 17
3.1 Approach for solution 17
3.2 Options for assessment 20
3.3 Determination of the relevant location xd (option 1) 21
3.4 Modification of the buckling curve (option 2) 22
4 Consistent determination of the resistance to lateral-torsional buckling 27
4.1 Application of the reference model of Maquoi-Rondal 27
4.2 Application of the European lateral torsional buckling curves for the
general loading case for lateral torsional buckling 33
5 Conclusions for Recommendations for NDPs in EN 1993-1-1 43
5.1 Procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.1 43
5.2 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.1 and section 6.3.2.2 43
5.3 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.3 45
5.4 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.4 46
5.5 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.4 46
5.6 Imperfection according to EN 1993-1-1, section 5.3.4 (3) 47
6 Consideration of out of plane loading 49
6.1 Transverse loads on the standard column in compression 49
6.2 Out of plane bending and torsion for the basic situation for lateral torsional
buckling 53
6.3 General case of out of plane bending and torsion 54
6.4 Proof of orthogonality for the series-development 55
6.5 Comparison with test results 56
page I
Excerpt from the Background Document to EN 1993-1-1
7 Guidance for applications 57

7.1 General 57
7.2 Design aids 60
7.3 Examples to compare the results of the general method using the European
lateral buckling curve with results of the component method in Eurocode 3-
Part 1-1, section 6.3.2 71
7.4 Examples for sheet-piling 74
7.5 Lateral torsional buckling of beams with fin-plate connections 82
7.6 Verification of haunched beams 86
7.7 Assessment of gantry-girders 91
7.8 Channel sections 94
8 Analysis of imperfections and conclusions for tolerances for fabrication 101
8.1 General 101
8.2 Approaches to determine geometrical imperfections for tolerances 104
9 Design principles for obtaining sufficient reliability by numerical assessments in
EN 1990 Basis of structural design 111
9.1 Objective 111
9.2 First order reliability method (FORM) 113
9.3 Example for the application of FORM 117
9.4 Assumption for semi-probabilistic design 120
9.5 Determination of design values of resistances and action effect in semi-
probabilistic design 126
9.6 Examples for determining the design values of combined action effects 127
9.7 Determination of M-values for steel structures 130

10 Literature 141
page II / 142
Executive summary
Executive summary
(1) This document is an excerpt from the background document to EN 1993-1-1, that is
being prepared for publication through the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the
Commission in Ispra for the maintenance, further harmonisation, further development
and promotion of Eurocode 3. It has the status of an information and technical
guidance under the responsibility of the authors G. Sedlacek and J. Naumes. This
document is extensively discussed and commented between the authors and
Ch. Mueller, F. Bijlaard and R. Maquoi in the meeting of 22 July 2008 at the RWTH-
Aachen.
Contributions of Prof. D. Ungermann, Prof. F. Bijlaard, Dr. A. Schmitt,
Prof. C. Seeelberg and Prof. I. Bal to the examples and design aids in section 7
have been included.
(2) The document gives:
1. an explanation of the European flexural buckling curves and their background
(Maquoi-Rondal)
2. an explanation of the European lateral torsional buckling curves and their
background (Stangenberg-Naumes) consistent with the European flexural
buckling curves
3. an explanation of the extension of the out-of-plane buckling verification to the
beam-column with biaxial bending and torsion (Naumes)
4. the explanation of the workability of these verification methods by worked
examples.
(3) The document completes the design rules for the use of the general method in EN
1993-1-1 in the form of a Non-contradicting complementary information.
G. Sedlacek, J. Naumes, F. Bijlaard, R. Maquoi, Ch. Mueller
page 1 / 142
page 2 / 142
General
1 General
(1) For the development of the design rules of Eurocode 3 the basic reliability require-
ments, laid down in EN 1990 Eurocode Basis of structural design [1], have been
applied, that lead to the following principles:
1. The basis of resistance rules R are the results of large scale tests. The resis-
tance rules are presented as formulae R(Xi) deducted from mechanical mod-
els used to describe the behavior of the test specimens dependant on relevant
parameters Xi at the ultimate state. The resistance formulae have been cali-
brated to the test results.
2. This calibration has been carried out by a statistical evaluation of the test re-
sults Rexp with the resistance model Rcalc so that it gives characteristic values.
Also partial factors Mi have been derived, that fulfill the reliability requirements
of EN 1990.
3. The models for resistances are presented in terms of a hierarchy with a refer-
ence model Rref on the top, which is used as a basis for simplifications. Any
simplified model Rsimpl is conservative in relation to the reference model Rref.
4. All reference models are consistent, i.e. they do not give conflicting results
when compared with other reference models.
(2) This also applies to the design models for flexural buckling and lateral torsional buck-
ling, as presented in the following.
page 3 / 142
page 4 / 142
Reference models for flexural buckling
2 Reference models for flexural buckling
2.1 Use of 2nd order theory with imperfections

(1) The highest rank in the hierarchy for stability rules for bar-like structures and struc-
tural components has the use of 2nd order theory with imperfections.
(2) Imperfections are composed of structural imperfections (e.g. from residual stresses
from fabrication) and of geometrical imperfections.
(3) First historical attempts to explain the results of column buckling test and lateral tor-
sional buckling tests were based on a model with deterministic assumptions for resid-
ual stress pattern, geometrical imperfections and material properties for calculating
buckling coefficients that permitted a smaller-equal-comparison with test results.
(4) A breakthrough were such calculations of Beer and Schulz, that assumed standard-
ized residual stress distributions, a geometrical imperfection of /1000 and the mini-
mum value of the yield strength for their finite-element calculations, to produce the
European buckling coefficients, published by the ECCS.
(5) For the preparation of Eurocode 3 [2] these values have not been applicable because
of the following reasons:
1. there was no justification by a reliability analysis with test results,
2. the numerical values produced for a set of slendernesses could not be de-
scribed by a formula with a mechanical background without a certain scatter.
(6) Therefore these European buckling coefficients were not used as a Eurocode-
reference model.
2.2 Reference model of Maquoi-Rondal

(1) A new approach for a reference model in conformity with the Eurocode-requirements
was prepared by Maquoi-Rondal [3]. These authors described the column-buckling
tests with the model of a column simply supported at its ends with an equivalent
geometrical imperfection in the form of a half-sinus wave, that included both structural
and geometrical imperfections, see Figure 2.1.
page 5 / 142
Figure 2.1: Simply supported column with initial imperfection ini
(2) The amplitude of this equivalent geometrical imperfection was defined by

MR
e0 = ( 0,2 ) (2.1)
NR
where
MR
- gives the influence of the cross-sectional shape and the resistance
NR
model, e.g. for I-Profiles and an elastic model
M R AFl h h

N R 2 AFl 2
- gives the influence of the slenderness, e.g. for I-Profiles
2 AFl f y l 2 l 4 fy
= =
2
EAFl h 2 2
h E
- 0 is the imperfection factor, that covers all parameters not included in the
simple model in Figure 2.1 (e.g. structural imperfections from residual
stresses, model uncertainties, and in particular the reliability correction of the
imperfection e0 on the basis of evaluations of column tests, according to EN
1990 Annex D, to obtain characteristic values with the resistance formula.
For certain I-Profiles the equivalent geometrical imperfection is e.g. with 0 = 0,34 and
fy = 235 N/mm for large slenderness values :
e0 1 4 fy 1 1
0,34 = 0,108 =
l 2 E 30 280
(3) As the correction factor 0 for the equivalent geometrical imperfection has been de-
termined from a comparison of resistances Rexp determined from tests and resis-
tances Rcal determined from calculations, the equivalent geometrical imperfection is
page 6 / 142
only defined in association with the resistance model used. Both, the resistance
model and the choice of the equivalent geometrical imperfections for the column with
uniform cross-section and uniform compression load constitute the reference model
for stability checks with the highest rank in the hierarchy for flexural buckling.
(4) Figure 2.2 shows the resistance model for the cross-sectional assessment which in-
cludes a linear interaction of the resistances for compression and for bending. If the
action-effects from Figure 2.1 are inserted in this model, the formula for the Euro-
pean column buckling curves ( ) are obtained, that yield to the assessment for-
mula for column buckling
Rk N pl
N Ed = = (2.2)
M M
The old European buckling coefficients of Beer and Schulz have been replaced by
the new European buckling curves calibrated to tests.
Figure 2.2: Derivation of -value
(5) The comparison of the basic equation and the e0-assumption in Figure 2.2 makes
clear that the fractures NR/MR and MR/NR compensate each other. This means, that the
assumption for the equivalent geometrical imperfection (2.1) and the cross-sectional
assessment in Figure 2.2 must use the same definition of the resistance MR (elastic or
plastic).
page 7 / 142
(6) To illustrate this requirement, Figure 2.3 shows the determination of a value of the
( )
European buckling curve via the intersection of the load-deformation curve and
the resistance-deformation curve:
1. The curves for action effects are based on two equivalent geometrical imper-
fections
a. for elastic resistance 1
b. for linear plastic resistance 2
NEd / Npl
1 MR = Mel
3 MR = Mpl
[]
Figure 2.3: Load deformation curves acc. to Marquoi-Rondal-model using

different cross sectional resistances
2. The intersection points of the load-deformation curves with the relevant resis-
( )
tance-deformation curves are on the same level , only the deformations
are different.
3. FEM-calculations with a more accurate resistance model with geometrical and
material non-linearities and suitably adjusted structural (residual stresses) and
geometrical (measured) imperfections are given in Figure 2.4. The results
confirm:
( )
1. the levels of determined with the resistance models 1, 2 and
3 are very accurate,
2. the assumption of a linear elastic cross-sectional resistance is suffi-
cient as large plastic deformations only form in the post-critical part of
the load-deformation curves.
3. the residual stress patterns for rolled sections 4 and welded sections
5 give about the same -values, however the deformation capacity
on the level of is different.
page 8 / 142
NEd / Npl 1
3

4
5
1 MR = Mel
3 MR = Mpl / (1 - 0,5 a) ; acc. to [2] equ. 6.36
4 FEM rolled profile
5 FEM welded profile

[]
Figure 2.4: comparison between load-deflection curves acc. to

Marquoi-Rondal-model and FEM-calculations
2.3 European Standard flexural buckling curves

(1) Figure 2.5 shows the European flexural buckling curves together with the imperfec-
tion factors 0, and Table 2.1 gives the allocation of these imperfection factors to vari-
ous shapes of cross-section and ways of fabrication.
1,2
Knickspannungslinie a0 a b c d
1,0
Imperfektionsbeiwert 0,13 0,21 0,34 0,49 0,76
a0
a
0,8 b
c
Euler
d
[-]
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
_
[-]
Figure 2.5: European column buckling curves [2]
page 9 / 142
Table 2.1: Selection of buckling curve for a cross sections [2]
page 10 / 142
(2) Figure 2.6 gives a visual impression of the test results and buckling curves, and
Figure 2.7 shows the M-values necessary to obtain the design values of resistances.
1,2
KSL a0
KSL a
KSL b
1,0
KSL c
KSL d
Euler
0,8 A5.1: IPE160, S235
A5.2: IPE160, S235
A5.3: IPE160, S235
[-]
A5.4: IPE160, S235

0,6
A5.5: IPE160, S235
A5.6: IPE160, S235
A5.7: IPE160, S235
0,4 A5.10: HEM340, S235
A5.11: HEM340, S235
0,2
0,0
0 0,5 1 _1,5 2 2,5 3
[-]
Figure 2.6: Test results and column buckling curves for buckling about weak axis
(buckling curve b) [4]
1,15
Versuchsauswertung
1,13
Normenvorschlag
1,10
1,08 1,08
M
1,05
1,00
1,00
0,95
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

Figure 2.7: Partial factor M1 [4]
page 11 / 142
2.4 Use of the European buckling curves for other boundary conditions
2.4.1 General
(1) The use of the sinus-function as shape of imperfection for columns is restricted to the
simply supported column with hinged ends, uniform cross-section and constant com-
pression force as illustrated in Figure 2.1.
(2) For the column with uniform cross-section and constant compression force and other
end conditions the imperfection depends on the buckling mode crit, that can be
expressed by
crit = a1 sin ( x ) + a2 cos( x ) + a3 x + a4 (2.3)
where
N crit
2 = (2.4)
EI
a1, a2, a3, a4 = constants depending on the boundary conditions
(3) The differential equation can be written in the form
q init N
el + 2 el =
= Ed init (2.5)
EI EI
where
crit ( x)
init ( x) = c 0 (2.6)
,max
crit
c0 = e0 2 (2.7)
(4) In conclusion the equivalent geometrical imperfection is

e0 N crit
init ( x) = ( x) (2.8)
, max crit
EI crit
The loading from the imperfection is

e0 N crit
q init ( x) = N Ed ( x) (2.9)
, max crit
EI crit
and the bending moment from the imperfection is

( x)
e0 N Ed crit
M II ( x) = EIel = (2.10)
N
1 Ed crit , max
N crit
2.4.2 Examples
(1) For the simply supported column, see Figure 2.1, the values are:
page 12 / 142

=
l
x
crit ( x) = a1 sin
l
2
x
( x) = a1 sin
crit
l l
2

l x x
init ( x) = eo 2 sin = eo sin

l l
l
2
x
qinit ( x) = eo N Ed sin
l l
N Ed x
M II ( x) = e0 sin
N Ed l
1 2
EI l 2
(2) For a column with clamped ends, see Figure 2.8 the values read:
2
=
l
2
crit ( x) = a1 1 cos x
l
2
2 2
( x) = a1
crit cos x
l l
2
2

l
2 2
init ( x) = eo 2 1 cos x = eo 1 cos x
2
l l
l
2
2 2
qinit ( x) = eo N Ed cos x
l l
N Ed 2
M II ( x) = e0 cos x
N Ed l
1
EI (2 l )
2
Figure 2.8: Column with clamped ends under compression force NEd
(3) For a column with a hinged end and a clamped end, see Figure 2.9 the values are
page 13 / 142

=
l
where = 4,4937
x x x
crit ( x) = a1 1 cos + sin
l l l
3 x
2
x
( x) = a1
crit 2
cos sin
l l l l
x x x
1 cos + sin
l l l
init ( x) = eo
xd xd
cos sin
l l
II
with xd = xcrit,
max 0,65 l the loading q and the bending moment M reads
x x
2 cos
sin
l l
qinit ( x) = eo N Ed
l cos(0,65 ) sin (0,65 )
4,3864 x x
= eo N Ed 2
cos sin
l l l
x x
cos sin
N Ed l l
M II ( x) = e0
N Ed cos(0,65 ) sin (0,65 )
1
EI ( l )
2
0,2172 N Ed x x
= e0 cos sin
N Ed l l
1
EI ( l )
2
The relevant location for the cross-sectional assessment xd is at the point of maximum
curvature, which compared to the previous examples (Euler-Column I and IV) no
longer corresponds to the point of maximum deflection. With xd = xcrit, max 0,65 l
follows
N Ed
M II ( xd ) = e0 1,0
N Ed
1
EI ( l )
2
The bending moment at the point of maximum deflection xcrit,max 0,6 l results to
M II ( x crit ,max ) = M II ( xd ) 0,98
page 14 / 142
Figure 2.9: Column with one hinged and one clamped end under compression force NEd
(4) For a column on elastic foundation, see Figure 2.10 the differential equation reads:
c q
N Ed init
el+ 2 el + el = init =
EI EI EI
Figure 2.10: Elastic embedded column under compression force NEd
The shape of the eigenmode results from the assumption
x
crit = a1 sin
l
where is the wave-length.
This gives from the differential equation
4
2

EI N crit + c a1 sin x = 0
l l l
and
2 2
l
N crit = EI + c
l
the minimum of which is obtained for
N crit l 2
2 2

= EI + c = 0
l l l
and hence
l EI
=4
c
page 15 / 142
so that
1 EI
N crit = EI +c = 2 EI c
EI c
c
Therefore the values read:
N crit c
2 = = 2
EI EI
EI
crit = a1 sin 4 x

c
EI EI
= a1
crit sin 4 x
c c

c
2 EI c EI
imp = eo EI
sin 4 x = eo sin 4 x
EI c EI c
2
c
c EI
q imp = eo N Ed 2 sin 4 x
EI c

N Ed EI
M II ( x) = e0 sin 4 x
N Ed c
1
2 EI c
2.5 Conclusions
(1) The reference model for determining the flexural buckling resistance of columns
with uniform cross-section and uniform compression load according to Figure 2.1 and
Figure 2.2 is not only the reference model for any simplification, but also the refer-
ence model for other design situations because of the consistency requirement:
1. flexural buckling of columns with non-uniform distribution of cross-section and
compression force and also with elastic support,
2. lateral-torsional buckling of columns and beams,
3. plate buckling of unstiffened and stiffened plate fields.
This is because the reference model is included in these design situations for par-
ticular configurations of parameters.
(2) In the following it is demonstrated, how flexural buckling of columns with non-uniform
cross-sections and non-uniform compression forces and lateral torsion buckling of
columns and beams with whatever given loads can be assessed in compliance with
the reference model of the simple column: The application for plate buckling is not
included in this report.
page 16 / 142
Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns with non-uniform CS
3 Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns

with non-uniform cross-sections and non-uniform compression loads on
elastic supports
3.1 Approach for solution

(1) The differential equation for the column with non-uniform cross-section and non-
uniform compression force on continuous elastic supports reads:
(EI ( x) ) + crit (N E ( x) ) + c( x) = 0 (3.1)
where
crit = factor to the compression load NE(x) to obtain the bifurcation-value.
(2) The solution is obtained by numerical methods and leads to the eigen-value crit and
and crit
the first modal buckling deformation crit and its derivates crit , that all sat-
isfy the boundary conditions, see equation (3.2):
) + c( x) crit + crit (N E ( x) crit

q = (EI ( x)crit ) = 0
1444424444 3 { 142 4 43 4 (3.2)
innerer Widerstand Konstante uere Einwirkung
Rcrit + crit Ecrit
(3) The imperfection reads according to EN 1993-1-1, 5.3.1 (11) equation (5.9) in a more
generalized way:
crit N E ( x)
init = e0 crit ( x) (3.3)
( x) x = x
EI ( x) crit
d
where x = xd is the reference point.

The function (3.3) also satisfies the differential equation and the boundary conditions,
see equation (3.4)

e0

crit N E ( x)
EI ( x )
crit ( x )
{
x = xd
( x) ) + c( x) crit ( x) + crit (N E ( x) crit
(EI ( x) crit }
( x) ) = 0 (3.4)
1444 42444 4 3
Konstante
In the specific case:

NE(x) = NE = const.
EI(x) = EI = const.
c(x) = 0
x
crit = sin for hinged ends of the column
l
the values are:
EI 2
crit =
l2 N E
page 17 / 142
2
x
= sin
crit
l l
and therefore at x = /2:
x
init = e0 [1] sin
l
(4) If the loading is:
E N E ( x) crit N E ( x) (3.5)
the resistance RE in equation (3.2) reads
RE =
E
crit
{(EI ( x) ) + c( x) } = {
crit crit
E
crit
crit )
(N E ( x)crit } (3.6)
(5) Hence the bending moment along the length of the member due to the imperfection
imp is according to 1st order theory:
E N ( x)
M 0 ( x) = e0 crit E ( x)
EI ( x) crit (3.7)
crit ( x) x = x
EI ( x) crit d
This bending moment takes the following value at the point x = xd:
E
M 0 ( x) = e0 crit N E ( x)
crit
(3.8)
= E N E ( xd ) e0
(6) If the x = xd is defined as the location relevant for the assessment of the member (be-
cause of the most onerous conditions), than the cross-sectional assessment, taking
into account 2nd order effect, reads:
E N E ( x) e N ( x) 1
+ E 0 E =1 (3.9)
N R ( x ) x = xd M R ( x ) x = xd 1 E
144 42444 3 14444 crit
4244444 3
in plane out of plane
(7) With the simplifications:
N R ( x)
ult , k ( xd ) = (3.10)
N E ( x) x = x d
it follows from (3.9):

E N ( x) 1
E
+ R e0 =1 (3.11)

ult , k ( x ) ( x ) M ( x )
ult , k R 1 E
crit
x = xd
(8) Using the symbols:
page 18 / 142
E
( xd ) = (3.12)
ult , k ( x) x = xd
ult , k
( xd ) = (3.13)
crit x = x d
M ( x)
e0 = R ( 0,2) (3.14)
N R ( x) x = xd
equation (3.11) may be transferred to:
( xd ) + ( xd ) ( ( xd ) 0,2)
1
=1 (3.15)
1 ( xd ) 2 ( xd )
which is the same basic equation for ( ) as given in Figure 2.2, that leads to the
European Standard buckling curves.
(9) Thus it has been proved, that the European Standard flexural buckling curves are
also applicated to columns with non-uniform distributions of stiffness and compres-
sion force, with any elastic supports and any boundary conditions without any modifi-
cation, if the cross-sectional data and the force NE(x) are taken at the relevant location
x = xd.
According to equation (3.3) also the relevant equivalent geometrical imperfections are
referred to the characteristic moment [EI ( x) crit
( x)]x = x at that relevant location.
d
page 19 / 142
3.2 Options for assessment

(1) The following rules apply for taking the relevant cross-section into account, see
Figure 3.1:
1. If the cross-sectional properties and the compression forces are uniform and
takes the maximum
ult,k is constant, then the relevant location xd is where crit
, max .
value crit
The imperfection reads:

crit N E
imp = e0 ( x) (3.16)
, max crit
EI crit
see EN 1993-1-1, equation (5.9).
2. If ult,k(x) varies along the member length due to variable cross-sections and/or
variable compression forces NE (x), the value xd in general is located between
- xult,k, where ult,k takes the minimum value
takes a maximum value.
, where the curvature crit
- x crit
(2) There are two options for a solution by design aids:

1. For standardized cases design aids give the location xd, so that the assess-
( )
ment can be carried out without a modification of the -formula,
2. for standardized cases particular locations xmin are given to determine ult,k, e.g
to determine ult,k,min and the design aids give modifications of the ( ) for-
mula, so that the right results are achieved.
(3) Normally option 1 is the most simple approach; because of its relevance for lateral-
torsional buckling verifications hereafter also the option 2 is explained.
Figure 3.1: Determination of the relevant location xd
page 20 / 142
3.3 Determination of the relevant location xd (option 1)

(1) The relevant location x = xd for applying the European flexural buckling curve accord-
ing to formula (3.15), is, where the utilization rate (x), expressed by
E E ( x)
EI ( x) crit
( (xd ) 0,2 )
1
( x) = + ,
ult ,k ( x) ult ,k ( x) E ( xd )
EI ( xd ) crit
1
crit
attains the maximum value, see Figure 3.2.

E 1 EI(x) cr it(x)
* ( (xd) - 0,2) E EI(x ) (x )
ult,k(x)
1- d crit d
cr it
E
ult,k(x) (x)
xd
Figure 3.2: Determination of the relevant location xd, if (x) has an extremum
(2) This leads to

( x) !
= 0
x
(3) (x) would lead the true
Figure 3.2 shows that considering the function of crit
values:
( x)
EI ( x) crit
true (x) from true + true ( (xd ) 0,2)
1
=1
1 true ( (xd )) ( xd )
EI ( xd ) crit
2
E ,true ( x) = ult , k ( x) true ( x)
whereas the use of the European buckling curve would lead to:
calc (x) from + ( 0,2)

1
=1
1 2
E , calc ( x) = ult , k ( x) calc ( x)
see Figure 3.3
page 21 / 142
1.6 1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2 true
0.8
1.0
''fl 0.8 fl 0.6

0.6
0.4
calc
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
x [cm] x [cm]
1.4 2.5
1.2
2.0
1.0
calc E,true
0.8 1.5
Ed
0.6
1.0 E,calc
0.4 true
0.5
0.2
0.0 0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
x [cm] x [cm]
(x) , (x ) , E (x) and (x)

Figure 3.3: Functions of crit
(4) It is evident from Figure 3.3 that at the point x = xd, where E,true(x) has an extremum,
both E,true(x) and E,calc(x)
and true(x) and calc(x)
are identical.
(5) In case E,true(x) has no extremum along the length of the member, then the cross-
sectional verification with = 1.0 applies, see Figure 3.4
E 1 EI(x) cr it(x)
* ( (xd) - 0,2) E EI(x ) (x )
ult,k(x)
1- d crit d
cr it
E
ult,k(x)
Figure 3.4: Determination of the relevant location xd, if E(x) has no extremum
(6) The values xd may be determined as design aids for practical verification.
3.4 Modification of the buckling curve (option 2)

(1) A practical solution for the modification of buckling curves is, to use the values ult,k,min
and crit, which are available from the modal analysis.
(2) In defining
E E
= = ult , k , min (3.17)
ult , k ult , k , min ult , k
1
424
3 1
424
3
mod f
and
page 22 / 142
ult , k ult , k , min ult , k

= = (3.18)
crit crit ult , k , min
14243 14243
mod 1
f
it follows:
mod 1
mod f + mod f 0,2 =1 (3.19)
f 2
mod
1 f
mod
f
(3) The modified buckling curve therefore reads:
1 1
mod = (3.20)
f 2
2
mod
+
f
and
mod 2
= 0,5 1 + 0,2 + mod (3.21)
f f

(4) Figure 3.5 shows the unmodified buckling curve and the modified buckling curve. Ei-
ther of them produce with different assumptions for ult,k the same solution:

ult , d = mod ult , k , min = f ult , k
f (3.22)
= ult , k
, mod
1.4
Euler
1.2
mod
1.0
0.8
1
f

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
, mod
Figure 3.5: Modified buckling curve mod and unmodified buckling curve
page 23 / 142
(5) One can see in Figure 3.5, that the modified buckling curve mod is always above the
unmodified buckling curve, so that a calculation with ult,k,min and the unmodified buck-
ling curve is always safe-sided. This second-fence solution on the safe side is in most
cases the easiest and most suitable way of verification.
(6) Figure 3.6 gives a worked example for the application of the column buckling curve
based on formula (3.15) to a column with a non-uniform cross-section and a non-
uniform distribution of the compression force, that has a length of 10,00 m. The
eigenmode analysis based on the distributions of NE and of the cross-sectional values
gives two important results for the further exact verification:
, that indicates the location of the relevant
1. the distribution of the curvature crit
, max is attained: xd = 0,855 m
cross-section, where crit
At this location the values for verification are
NE (x) = 341 kN
NR (x) = 946 kN
This gives
946
ult , k = = 2,774
341
2. the critical value crit = 1,6376

This gives
ult , k 2,774
= = = 1,302
crit 1,6376
( = 0,34 ) = 0,426
The verification then reads

Ek = ult ,k = 0,426 2,774 = 1,182 > 1,0
(7) A simplified check, that works with ult , k , min and crit would take
705
ult , k , min = = 1,996
353
at x = 0 m.
Hence it follows
ult , k , min 1,996

mod = = = 1,104
crit 1,6376
= 0,533
and
Ek = ult ,k ,min = 0,533 1,996 = 1,064 > 1,0
page 24 / 142
In case the modified buckling curve according to Figure 3.5 would be used:
ult , k , min 1,996
f = = = 0,720
ult , k 2,774
ult , k , min 1,996

mod = = = 1,104
crit 1,6376
mod ( = 0,34; f = 0,720) = 0,592
Ek = mod ult ,k ,min = 0,592 1,996 = 1,182 > 1,0
(8) A Finite Element calculation with a geometrically and material non-linear analysis
would take an effective geometrical imperfection proportional to crit with the maxi-
mum value at x = xd
cr N E ( x)
imp = e0 = 13,672mm
x= x
EI ( x) crit d
It gives
Ek = 1,206 > 1,0
Figure 3.6: Tapered column under non-uniform axial load
page 25 / 142
(9) Table 3.1 gives a survey on all results.
Table 3.1: Summary of calculation steps and results for tapered column example
Verification at Verification with FEM

Verification at x( ult,k,min )
x( '' crit,max ) imp = f ( crit )
x = xd 0.855 m 0m 0m 0.855 m
NE (x) 341 kN 353 kN 353 kN 341 kN
NR(x) 946 kN 705 kN 705 kN 946 kN
ult,k 2.774 1.996 1.996 -
crit 1.6376 1.6376 1.6376 -
1.302 1.104 1.104 -
f - - 0.72 -
( = 0.34) 0.426 0.533 0.592 -

E,k 1.182 1.064 1.182 1.206
page 26 / 142
Consistent determination of the resistance to lateral-torsional buckling
4 Consistent determination of the resistance to lateral-torsional buckling
4.1 Application of the reference model of Maquoi-Rondal

(1) The basic model for lateral-torsional buckling that corresponds to the basic model for
flexural buckling in Figure 2.1, is a beam with fork-conditions at its ends and a con-
stant bending moment along the length, see Figure 4.1, [5] [6].
M
Mzy
l
M
Mzy
Figure 4.1: Basic model for lateral-torsional buckling of an I-girder
(2) This case is governed by two coupled differential equations for the deflection and
the twist that cause displacements perpendicular to the main loading plane, see
Figure 4.2 .
(3) The adoption of sinus-functions for crit and crit leads to the eigen-value
2 EI z Iw GI t l 2
M y ,crit = 1+ , (4.1)
l2 Iz EI w 2
In this formula one can identify the moment My,crit,Fl,o leading to lateral flexural buckling
of the top flange in compression Nz,crit,Fl,o
2 EI z Iw
M y ,crit , Fl ,o = 2
2 = N z ,crit , Fl ,o h (4.2)
2l Iz
if the St. Venant torsional stiffness is neglected and also the enhancement of this
moment due to the torsional stiffness by the factor:
GI t l 2
It = 1 + 1 (4.3)
EI w 2
(4) The eigen-mode crit and crit is characterized by:

x
crit = sin
l
(4.4)
Iw x
crit = It sin
Iz l
which give the eigen-displacements of the top and bottom flanges:
page 27 / 142
Iw
crit ,Fl = crit crit
Iz
(4.5)
Iw x
= ( It 1) sin
Iz l
(5) Using:
2
Iw
,max,Fl =
crit ( It + 1) (4.6)
l Iz
the imperfections of the flanges according to equation (3.3) read:
2 EI Fl Iw
2
( It 1)
l Iz x
init , Fl = e0 2
sin
EI Fl Iw l
( It + 1)
l 2
Iz (4.7)
It 1 x
= e0 sin
It + 1 l
(6) Hence the imperfection for the top flange is:
x
init , Fl ,o = e0 sin (4.8)
l
i.e. it is identical with the imperfection of the column in Figure 2.1. The imperfection
for the bottom flange is
It 1 x
init , Fl ,u = e0 sin (4.9)
It + 1 l
i.e. a value that is zero where the St. Venant-torsional stiffness is zero (It 1) and
that takes the same value as for the top flange, if the torsional stiffness is very large.
(7) The imperfections related to the deformations of the cross-section read:
1 x
init = e0 sin
Iw l
It
Iz (4.10)
It x
init = e0 sin
It + 1 l
(8) When inserting these imperfections into the coupled differential equations to obtain
the elastic deformations resulting from them
EI z 0 el 0 M y , E el 0 M y , E init

0 EI M =
M y , E 0 init
(4.11)
w el y , E GI t el
one obtains:
page 28 / 142
M y,E
M crit x
el = e0 It sin
M y , E It + 1 l
1
M crit
(4.12)
M y,E
1 M crit 1 x
el = e0 sin
Iw M y , E It + 1 l
1
Iz M crit
which gives the elastic curvature of the top flange:

M y ,E
2
Iw M crit x
el , Fl ,o = el + el = e0 sin (4.13)
Iz l M y ,E l
1
M crit
(9) Hence the bending moment in the top flange is:
EI Fl ,o 2 M y ,E 1 x
M E , Fl ,o = EI Fl ,o el , Fl ,o = e0 sin (4.14)
1
42l 4
3
2
M crit M y,E l
1
N crit , Fl , o M crit
t b3
where EI Fl ,o = E .
12
(10) One can obtain this bending moment easier than with equation (4.11) by applying the
equations (3.6) and (3.7):
M y,E 1
M E , Fl ,o = , Fl
EI Fl ,o init
M crit M y ,E
12 3 1
E M crit
crit 1424 3
14442444
3 1
Moment nach Theorie 1. Ordnung E
1
crit
144444
42444444
3 (4.15)
Moment nach Theorie 2. Ordnung
2 EI Fl ,o M y ,E 1 x
= e0 sin
l 2
M crit M y,E l
1
M crit
(11) Figure 4.2 summarizes the derivation of the equations (4.14) and (4.15). The further
derivations to get the equation for the assessment of the top flange in compression is
performed in the same way as that for the column in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, see
Figure 4.3, by using the substitution:
N E , Fl M y,E
= (4.16)
N R , Fl M y ,R
page 29 / 142
Figure 4.2: Lateral torsional buckling problem and initial imperfection [5]
Figure 4.3: Derivation of LT-value [5]
(12) The result is the European lateral-torsional buckling curve LT ( ) , that differs from
the European flexural buckling curve by the imperfection factor , which is derived
from by taking the influence of the torsional stiffness into account by the ratio of the
2
slenderness of the full beam LT to the slenderness of the mere top flange Fl2 [7].
2
LT
= = (4.17)
2
Fl It
(13) This modification effects a shift from the flexural buckling curve to the Euler-curve,
see Figure 4.4, that is the stronger, the smaller the beam depth in relation to the
page 30 / 142
beam width and the greater the slenderness is (enhancement of It according to equa-
tion (4.3)). The use of the flexural buckling curve instead of the modified European
lateral torsional buckling curve is however on the safe side.
1.2
1.1
Biegedrillknicken fr einen
1.0 Querscchnitt mit It =
0.9
Biegedrillknicken fr ein
0.8 Profil HEB 200
0.7
KSL a
0.6
KSL b
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Momentenverteilung:
0.1 Trgerprofil: HE 200 B
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
Figure 4.4: Comparison between lateral torsional buckling curve (for a beam HEB 200
under pure bending) and column buckling curves a and b
(14) Figure 4.5 shows a comparison of test results from [8] [9] with beams with a constant
buckling moment My with the European lateral torsional buckling curve, and Table 4.1
shows the determination of the M-values according to EN 1990 Annex D.
re/rt 1.6 1.2
1.4 IPE 200

1.0
1.2
0.8
1.0
A
A
0.8 B
B 0.6
C
D
D
0.6 F
E
0.4
F
G
0.4 G H
H I 0.2
0.2 I J
J
Z Z
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0

1.2 1.2
IPE 80 H 200 x 100 x 5,5 x 8*

1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0

Figure 4.5: Lateral torsional buckling of rolled beams; test-results and lateral torsional buck-
ling curves with corresponding *-values;
page 31 / 142
Table 4.1: Statistical evaluation for lateral torsional buckling of rolled beams
Eingangsdaten
rt = 0,08 (Geometrie und Streckgrenze)
fy = 0,07 (Streckgrenze)
EC3 Background Document 5.03P - Appendix I (N = 142)
Standardnormalverteilung log-Normalverteilung
2.0 2.0
Quantile der Standardnormalverteilung
Quantile der log-Normalverteilung

1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
re/rt ln re/rt
b = 1.160 s = 0.083 b = 1.165 s = 0.089

= 0.071 (Modell) R = 0.107 (gesamt) = 0.076 (Modell) R = 0.111 (gesamt)
*
M = 1.223 k = 0.897 M = 1.096 M = 1.167 k = 0.898 M* = 1.047
page 32 / 142
4.2 Application of the European lateral torsional buckling curves for the
general loading case for lateral torsional buckling
4.2.1 Definition of the general loading case

(1) The general loading case for lateral torsional buckling is defined by the following:
1. Loading in the main plane of the beam-column:
The loading Ed in the main plane of the beam-column comprises any combina-
tion of longitudinal and transverse forces applied to the structural member or
the full structure. The effect of this loading is taken into account by the normal
force NEd(x) in the compression flange relevant for the lateral torsional buckling
assessment. The force NEd(x) is non uniform along the member length and has
been determined taking 2nd order effects in the main plane into account. The
strength exploitation of the compression flange is defined by:
E N Ed ( x) E N Ed ( x) E
= = (4.18)
Rk , Fl ( x) ult ,k ( x) N Ed ( x) ult ,k ( x)
2. Loading transverse to the main plane (out of plane):

The loading out of main plane is effected by the equivalent geometrical imper-
fections init(x) and init(x). The load-effect in the compression flange relevant
for the assessment of the full beam-column is the flange-moment (see equa-
tion (4.15)):
E 1
M Fl ( x) = , Fl ,o
EI Fl ,o init (4.19)
crit
1 E
crit
The value crit is the eigen-value determined by numerical means, e.g. FEM,
leading to
Rcrit ( x) = crit N E ( x) (4.20)
, Fl ,o is the curvature of the imperfection of the compression flange de-

and init
and crit
termined with the eigen-modes crit , also calculated with numerical
means.
These eigen-modes crit and crit satisfy the coupled differential equations at
any point x and also the boundary conditions, which may be different to the
situation in Figure 4.1; e.g. they may be independent from each other or cou-
pled as in the case of point support. Therefore the eigen-functions crit and crit
may have fully different shapes and not be proportional as given in Figure 4.2.
(2) In the following the general assessment formula for beam-columns subject to lateral
torsional buckling are derived in two steps:
1. neglecting the St. Venant torsional stiffness,
2. taking the St. Venant torsional stiffness into account.
page 33 / 142
4.2.2 Basic equation with neglection of the torsional stiffness

(1) The differential equations for the case of general longitudinal and transverse heading
in the main plane for lateral torsional buckling without the consideration of the
St. Venant-torsional stiffness reads:
EI z 0 //// /
0 EI //// crit E , , ,
/ 0
= [( )]
w 0
14442444 3 14442444 3 (4.21)
Rk
crit E d = 0
and the solutions obtained numerically are:

crit
/ //
crit , crit , crit , ... (4.22)
/ //
crit , crit , crit , ...
(2) The eigen-mode of the compression flange is:

crit , Fl = crit + z M crit (4.23)
and the related eigen-deformation reads:

crit + z M crit
crit , Fl = (4.24)
[ //
crit
//
+ z M crit ]x = xd
(3) From (4.2.4) the curvature-imperfection of the flange can be deducted:

crit
//
init , Fl = e0

N E , Fl ( x)
[ //
crit //
( x) + z M crit ( x) ] (4.25)
[
EI Fl ,o crit
// //
+ z M crit ]
x = xd
(4) This gives the bending moment in the flange

crit
M E , Fl =
E
EI e
N E , Fl ( x)
[ //
crit //
( x) + z M crit ( x) ]

crit
Fl ,o 0
EI Fl ,o crit

//
[ //
+ z M crit ]
x = xd
(4.26)
// //
crit ( x) + z M crit ( x)
= E e0 N E , Fl ( x)
[ //
crit ( x ) +
//
z M crit ]
( x ) x = xd
(5) In using:
M R , Fl
e0 =
N R , Fl
(
LT 0,2 ) (4.27)
the flange moment reads:
M R , Fl N E , Fl ( x)
M E , Fl = E (
)
0,2 [ crit ]
+ z M crit
1
(4.28)
( crit ) x = x
LT
N R , Fl + z M crit
d 1 E
crit
page 34 / 142
(6) This flange-moment is inserted into the interaction formula for resistance of the
flange:
N E ,Fl M E ,Fl
+ =1 (4.29)
N R , Fl M R , Fl
which gives:
N E , Fl M R , Fl N E , Fl + z M crit
crit
+E (
)
0,2
1
=1 (4.30)
N R , Fl N R , Fl
LT
M R , Fl [ crit ]x = x 1 E
+ z M crit
d

crit
(7) Using equation (4.18) gives:

E E ( x) + z M crit
( x)
+ (
LT 0,2 )1
crit
E [ crit
=1 (4.31)
ult ,k ,Fl ult ,k 1 + z M
crit ]x = x d
crit
i.e. if the design point x on the axis of the beam is identical with the reference point
x = xd for the imperfection, then with
E
= (4.32)
ult ,k , Fl , xd
the final equation is:
(
+ 0,2 ) 1
1 2
=1 (4.33)
Equation (4.33) demonstrates, that the standard European flexural buckling curves
are applicable for solving the problem.
4.2.3 Basic equation with consideration of the torsional stiffness

(1) When taking account of the St. Venant-torsional stiffness the differential equations
read:
EI z 0
0
crit [E ( , , , )] =
0 EI w GI t 0
14444 (4.34)
4244444 3 1442443
Rk crit Ed = 0
which give other numerical solutions than equation (4.21):

crit
, crit
crit , crit , ... (4.35)
, crit
crit , crit , ...
(2) The further derivation follows in principle the derivation in section 4.2.2, however the
imperfection for the flange reads:
page 35 / 142

crit N E , Fl ( x)
, Fl = e0
init [ + z M crit
] (4.36)
EI Fl [ crit ] crit
+ z M crit

where crit is the eigenvalue obtained from equation (4.21) without considering the
St. Venant torsional stiffness, see equation (4.25).
(3) Hence the flange-moment is different to the one in equation (4.26):
E crit

N E , Fl ( x)
M E , Fl = e0 [ crit ]
+ z M crit (4.37)
crit + z M crit
crit
x = xd
that reads finally:

M R , Fl crit N ( x)
M E , Fl = E
N R , Fl
( LT 0,2 ) crit
1
E crit
E , Fl
[ + z M crit
x = x crit
+ z M crit
] (4.38)
1 d
crit
(4) Hence the assessment formula for the design point x = xd reads [7], [10]:

+ ( 0,2 ) crit 1
LT =1 (4.39)
crit
2
1 LT
1
424
3

This equation is identical with the equation for the European lateral torsional buckling
curve in Figure 4.3 and gives for the specific case in Figure 4.1 the equation (4.17).
(5) By this derivation the general applicability of the standard European flexural buckling
curves and of the Standard European lateral torsional buckling curves is proved.
4.2.4 Modification of the lateral torsional buckling curves to agreed simplified as-
sumptions
(1) Where the real design point x = xd is not known a priori, an assumption for a substitu-
tive design point can be made, e.g. x = xmin, where ult,k,min is obtained. [11]
(2) The lateral torsional buckling curve then reads following equation (3.20) and (3.21)
valid for flexural buckling
1 1
mod = (4.40)
f 2
mod
+ 2
f
and
mod 2
= 0,5 1 + 0,2 + mod (4.41)
f f

page 36 / 142
4.2.5 Worked example [5]

(1) A support frame of the Schwebebahn in Wuppertal according to Figure 4.6 is taken
as an example. The supports at the feet of the columns may be modeled as forks,
and the beam is laterally supported by excentric point supports.
(2) The loading is asymmetrical and effects non uniform distributions of the axial forces
and bending moments in the main plane. The cross-section also varies along the
length.
(3) With FEM, see Figure 4.7 the numerical values are
ult,k,min = 1,69
crit = 3,41
For the verification flexural buckling curve c has been used as safe-sided approach.
All relevant calculation steps are given in Figure 4.6.
Absttzung gegen Ver-
2150 kN formungen aus der Ebene
Ergebnisse der FEM-Berechnung:
450
950 crit = 3,41

45
450/60
/60
45
0/6
0/ ult ,k , min = 1,69

0
50 s =26
450
R ie g e l
/40 298 kN Ermittlung des Abminderungsbei-

3000 450/40 wertes:
950 ult , k , min 1,69
mod = = = 0,704
crit 3,41
s=18 s=18 =1
Innerer Flansch: 450/60 LT = 0,49
6901 450/40 Alle Steifen: 450/18 LT = 0,722
Nachweis:
LT ult ,k ,min M 1
400 0,722 1,69 = 1,22 > 1,10
3000 2264 3136 3000
Figure 4.6: Example for the lateral torsional buckling verification acc. to the
general method
2150 kN
298 kN
Figure 4.7: First eigenmode of the support frame from FEM-analysis ( crit = 3,41)
page 37 / 142
4.2.6 Application to non-symmetric cross-sections
4.2.6.1 Derivation of the assessment formula

(1) Non-symmetrical cross-sections are such sections as e.g. channels according to
Figure 4.8 for which the limit state conditions for out of plane buckling depend on the
direction of the deformation.
Pz E
D D +
- + -

M y y -
y
y S M
+ + +

z z z
z z y
Figure 4.8:
(2) The elastic assessment for the design point D on the cross-section, related to stres-
ses for deformations to the left hand side in Figure 4.8 reads:
Eip Eop
+ =1 (4.42)
fy fy
where the following applies:
Eip E
=
fy ult ,k
Eop + D crit
y D crit (4.43)
= E ( LT 0,2 ) crit
1
=1
fy ult ,k crit 1 E [ y D crit ]x = x
+ D crit
d
crit
(3) In conclusion the assessment formula (4.43) for the design point x = xd along the
member length is the same as for symmetrical cross-sections given in equation
(4.39).
(4) The assumption of a deformation to the right hand side in Figure 4.8 would lead to the
following equation for the point E on the cross-section:
Eop E + E crit
y E crit
= ( LT 0,2 ) crit
1

crit 1 E [ y E crit
=1 (4.44)
fy ult ,k ]x= x
+ E crit
d
crit
ergo the same equation as equation (4.39), however with the difference, that for the
design points D and E different reference values of imperfection apply. These differ-
ences of reference values may require different imperfection factors , so that a pref-
erence direction for out of plane instability may occur.
page 38 / 142
(5) Hence the lateral torsional buckling for unsymmetrical cross-sections may with regard
to the dependence on the direction of deformation be similar to the flexural buckling
of symmetrical cross-sections, e.g. as for I-profiles. For such Iprofiles flexural buck-
ling in the main plane requires according to section 2.2 (2) of this report an imperfec-
tion ( = 0,34)
e0 1 4 fy 1 1
= 0,34 = 0,108 =
l 2 E 30 280
and in the out of main plane direction with:
b
2 AFl f y
MR 4 b b
( plastic ) (elastic )
NR 2 AFl f y 4 6
2 AFl f y l 12 fy
= =
2
EAFl b 6 2
b E
an imperfection (= 0,49)
e0 1 12 fy 1 1
= 0,49 = 0,135 = ( plastic )
l 4 E 30 220
or
e0 1 12 fy 1 1
= 0,49 = 0,090 = (elastic )
l 6 E 30 333
4.2.6.2 Justification by tests

(1) Channels are in general loaded such by transverse loads that the load plane does not
go through the shear centre M, but is in the plane of the web, so that initial eccentrici-
ties and hence additional loading by torsion has to be considered, see Figure 4.9 a).
(2) To prove the applicability of the European lateral torsional buckling curve for channels
without additional out-of-plane action effects an initial loading situation as given in
Figure 4.9 b) is necessary for the test results, which is rather academic and can only
be provided by particular test conditions in the laboratory.
a) b)
Figure 4.9: Loading conditions for channels
page 39 / 142
(3) Tests that satisfy the conditions of Figure 4.9 b) are listed in Table 4.2.
(4) A first comparison between calculative and test results on channel sections loaded
through their shear centre are given in Table 4.3. The given tests have been per-
formed on very compact beams with a relative slenderness of 0.2 . To prove the
applicability of the European lateral torsional buckling curve, further tests (e.g. [12],
[13]) on channel section loaded through its shear centre will be investigated and pub-
lished in the next revised version of this report.
(5) The assessment of beams made of channels that are loaded with transverse loads
and torsion caused by eccentricities of these loads and also with longitudinal com-
pression forces is demonstrated in section 7.8.
Table 4.2: Tests on channels with load application in shear centre; configurations
and results
Fexp
Nr. Test Steel Test set-up Load application
[kN]
1 407.9
RWTH Aachen S355

2 [9] 215.6
fy = 410
UPE 200 N/mm
L = 898.5 mm
=50 mm
3 114.2
page 40 / 142
Table 4.3: Calculative results and comparison with tests
1 nE
Test Ek*) ult,k crit *crit ult ,k Mz re/rt
= nR
1 0.985 1.000 36.5 36.3 0.487 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.015
2 0.711 3.025 110.3 109.7 0.487 1.000 0.331 0.663 0.994 1.406
3 0.996 7.066 156.8 154.4 0.483 0.994 0.142 0.852 0.995 1.004
4
*) load amplifier Ek = FEd / Fexp = (re / rt)-1 which leads to an utilization level of 100% nE = nR
page 41 / 142
page 42 / 142
Conclusions for Recommendations for NDPs in EN 1993-1-1
5 Conclusions for Recommendations for NDPs in EN 1993-1-1
5.1 Procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.1

(1) The procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.1 is the procedure with standardized
European flexural buckling curves according to chapter 2 of this report.
(2) The note to clause (3) refers to the application of the European standardized flexural
buckling curves and lateral torsional buckling curves, that are specified in EN 1993-1-
1, section 6.3.4.
An explicit assessment of a non uniform member with the application of 2nd order the-
ory according to 5.3.4 (2), as mentioned in the note, is not necessary, as this applica-
tion is already included in the flexural buckling curves and lateral torsional buckling
curves. These buckling curves do contain the assumptions for imperfections as given
in section 5.3.2 (11) equation (5.9), (5.10) and (5.11) and therefore can also be used
for non-uniform members.
5.2 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.1 and section 6.3.2.2

(1) The procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.1 and section 6.3.2.2 is the procedure
with standardized European lateral torsional buckling curves.
(2) The note to clause (2) The National Annex may determine the imperfection factors
LT opens the door for modification of the LT-values according to chapter 4 of this
report.
(3) According to chapter 4 of this report, the values in EN 1993-1-1, table 6.3 and table
6.4 are for most cases on the safe side. An improvement by the modification

crit
LT = LT
crit
is possible by the National Annex.
(4) The choice of the design point x = xd for different moment shapes may be taken from
Table 5.1 of this report. As an alternative the given factor f can be used to modify the
lateral torsional buckling curve.
page 43 / 142
Table 5.1: Bemessungsstelle xd in Abhngigkeit von der Momentenverteilung undmod
xd
Momentenverteilung f
l
A B
=1 0,5 1,0
0,78 + 0,04
0,1 2 + 0,18 + 0,22
x 1 1 + 0,08 2 + 0,1 3
0,5 1,0
0,5 1,0
A B
xd
mod = 0 LT ,mod = 1
l 0,5
x
mod > d = 0,5
l
0,5 1,0
xd
mod = 0 LT ,mod = 1
l 2
x
a b mod > d =
l
A B
xd
mod = 0 LT ,mod = 1
l 0,562
xd
mod > = 0,61
l
xd
mod = 0 LT ,mod = 1
l 0,833
xd
mod > = 0,5
l
xd
mod = 0 LT ,mod = 1 3
l 2
xd 1 2
a b mod > =
l
Hinweis: Fr alle Lagerungen A und B gilt: , = gehalten und , = frei
2
Verwendete Krzel: = a l ; = b l ; l = a + b ; = 0 f + 0 f + f (1 0,2 0 ) 1
2 ( f 1) 2 ( f 1)
f 1
page 44 / 142
5.3 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.3

(1) The procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.3 may be adapted to the procedure with
standardized European lateral torsional buckling curves in one of the following ways:
1. The following choices are made:
- LT , 0 = 0,2 according to equation (6.57)
- = 1,0 according to equation (6.57)

- Table 6.4 instead of Table 6.5
- f = 1,0 according to equation (6.58)
- LT at design point x = xd according to Table 5.1 of this report.
2. The function for the lateral torsional buckling curve in (6.57) and (6.58) is mo-
dified in the following way:
ult ,k ,min
- LT ,mod =
crit
LT
- LT ,mod = however LT ,mod 1,0
f
1
- LT =
2 2
LT + LT LT
- [
= 0,5 1 + LT ( ) 2
LT ,mod LT ,0 + LT ]
1
- =
f
- LT ,0 = 0,2
- Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 are cancelled.

(2) The second way is justified by the following:
1. The modified lateral torsional buckling curve in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.3
has not been derived from the standardized European flexural buckling curve
based on a mechanical model.
2. The amplitudes of the imperfections used for the FEM-calculations were not
consistent with the amplitudes determined for flexural buckling from tests,
GI t l 2
which would be relevant in the case 0.
EI w 2
3. The procedure has not been verified by a reliability analysis according to

Annex D of EN 1990.
(3) Some comparisons between the results of the procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section
6.3.2.3 together with the recommendations for numerical values given therein
page 45 / 142
( LT,mod) and the results of the standardized European lateral torsional buckling
curves ( LT) according to the recommendation in section 5.3 (1) 2 of this report, as
well as the results of the flexural buckling curve ( LT) in DIN EN 1993-1-1 are given
in Figure 5.1.
1.2
1.2
1.1 .LT.mod 1.1 .LT.mod
1.0 1.0
.LT .LT
0.9 0.9
0.8
.LT* 0.8
.LT*
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 Momentenverteilung: 0.4 Momentenverteilung:
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 Trgerprofil: IPE 200 0.1 Trgerprofil: HE 400 B
0.0 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 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
1.2
1.2
1.1 .LT.mod 1.1 .LT.mod
1.0 1.0
.LT .LT
0.9 0.9
0.8
.LT* 0.8
.LT*
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 Momentenverteilung: 0.4 Momentenverteilung:
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 Trgerprofil: IPE 200 0.1 Trgerprofil: HE 400 B
0.0 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 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
Figure 5.1: Vergleich der diskutierten Biegedrillknickkurven fr ausgewhlte Beispiele
5.4 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.4

(1) The approximative procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.2.4 (1) B should be
checked in view of the hierarchy of rules in relation to the standardized European
flexural and lateral-torsional buckling curves within the limits of this approximation.
5.5 Procedure according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.4

(1) The procedure in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.4, is the procedure with standardized
European flexural and lateral torsional buckling curves, which is dealt with in this re-
port.
(2) Using the results presented in this report clause (4) could be modified as follows:
(4) The reduction factor op may be determined from either of the following methods:
a) From the flexural buckling curve according to 6.3.1. Then the value op
should be calculated for the slenderness op .
b) From the lateral-torsional buckling curve according to 6.3.2. Then the

value op may be determined with the reduced imperfection factor
page 46 / 142

crit
=
crit
where crit is the critical amplification factor with considering the torsional

stiffness and crit is the critical amplification factor without considering the
torsional stiffness.
(3) The equation (6.66) may be deleted, because the interaction between flexural buck-
ling and lateral torsional buckling is included in the procedure for determining LT
(through ), so that no further interaction is necessary.
5.6 Imperfection according to EN 1993-1-1, section 5.3.4 (3)

(1) Section 5.3.4 (3) of EN 1993-1-1 deals with the amplitude of the equivalent geometri-
cal imperfection for lateral torsional buckling, for which according to section 5.3.2 (11)
the eigen-mode shall be used. The note to this clause opens the door for national
choices.
(2) The wording of clause (3) is:
For a second order analysis taking into account of lateral torsional buckling of a
member in bending the imperfections may be adopted as keo,d, where eo,d is the
equivalent initial bow imperfection of the weak axis of the profile considered. In gen-
eral an additional torsional imperfection need not to be allowed for.
(3) This wording aimed at a substitution of the imperfection defined by the eigen-mode
with combined displacement and twist by a more simple assumption of an equiva-
lent imperfection defined by a displacement only. To this end a single equivalent
of the full profile should be chosen instead of different
value of keo,d for defining init
amplitudes for the top and bottom flanges.
(4) To determine the value k is not simple, because comparative studies should be car-
ried out with the standardized European lateral torsional buckling curve to find out
what numerical value k should be taken. The value k = 0,5 given in the recommenda-
tion has been suggested by ECCS-TC8 that has taken this value form DIN 18800-
Part 2 as a first hint (knowing that it is evidently too small).
(5) It would be better to define a safe-sided equivalent imperfection as a mix of dis-
placement and twist (e.g. from GIt = 0) instead of looking for k.
page 47 / 142
page 48 / 142
Consideration of out of plane loading
6 Consideration of out of plane loading
6.1 Transverse loads on the standard column in compression

(1) For the assessment of columns for flexural buckling with additional transverse loads
Roik has developed a procedure, to come to a simple assessment formula for taking
the supplementary effect into account.
(2) A prerequisite for the accuracy of the procedure of Roik [14] is, that the shape of the
in-plane bending moment M yI according to 1st order theory is equal to the shape of
, so that the following formula applies:
the eigen-mode crit
( x)
crit
M yI ( x) = M 0 (6.1)
,max
crit
An example for the simple column with hinged ends is:
x
M yI = M 0 sin (6.2)
l
(3) This leads to the assessment formula:
N E N E ( 0,2) M 0 1
+ + =1 (6.3)
NR NR N MR N
1 E 2 1 E 2
NR NR
(4) In order to transfer this formula into the form of the assessment formula for columns
in compression:
NE
1 (6.4)
NR
the term ( 0,2 ) is replaced by a function of from the basic equation for :
+ ( 0,2 )
1
=1 (6.5)
1 2
This gives:
( 0,2) =
(1 ) (1 2 ) (6.6)

so that the formula (6.3) adopts the form:

NE N
1 E 2 +
NE
( )M N
(1 ) 1 2 + 0 = 1 E 2 (6.7)
NR NR NR MR NR
page 49 / 142
(5) By rearranging the various terms in formula (6.7) one receives:
N N
NE M N
+ 0 = n = 1 E 1 E 2 + E 1 + 2 2
NR M R NR NR
( ) (6.8)
NR
NE NE
= 1 1 2 2
N R N R 1. Stufe
144424443 1 424 3
0 , 25 0, 4
2. Stufe (6.9)
1444442444443
0 ,1
144444
42444444
3
0,9
3. Stufe
so that an accurate solution (1st step) and two steps of simplification (2nd step and 3rd
step) can be obtained. The maximum simplification leads to
NE M
+ 0 n = 0,9 (6.10)
NR M R
(6) In order to consider also other moment shapes M 0 than those according to equation
(6.1), the equation (6.10) is extended:
NE M (1 q )
+ 0 n (6.11)
NR MR
(7) To determine q a development of Mz, py and in series based on of the various eigen-
modes crit,m is performed:
M yI ( x) =
,m ( x)
pm crit

m

external load
p ( x) = ,m ( x)
z

m
pm crit

(6.12)

( x) = m crit ,m ( x) displacement
m
From the differential equation:
+ N crit
EI y crit = p z (x) (6.13)
which gives the equation:
(EI
m
m y ,m + N crit
crit ) p
,m =
m
m ,m
crit (6.14)
the solution for m is obtained:
,m
crit
m = pm (6.15)
,m + N E crit
EI y crit ,m
(8) Using the orthogonality-equations (see 1.3)
page 50 / 142

l
crit , j ,i dx = 0
crit fr i j (6.16)
and

l
crit , j ,i dx = 0
crit fr i j (6.17)
it follows:
M
I
y ( x) ( x) dx
crit
pm = l
(6.18)
crit
l
( x) crit
( x) dx
e.g. for the simple column with hinged ends with:

m x
crit ,i = sin
l
2
m m x
,i =
crit sin (6.19)
l l
4
m m x
,i =
crit sin
l l
and for a bending moment M 0 constant along the length of the column;
mx 2l
pm = l
dx
M 0 sin
=
M0
m
2 l
m 2 mx

l
sin
l
dx 2 (6.20)
2
4l
= M 0 3 3 (m = 1, 3, 5, ...)
m
(9) The bending moment M yII according to 2nd order theory results from:
M yII = EI y = EI y
m
m ,m
crit
,m
p m crit
= EIm
y
,m crit ,m
,m + N E crit
EI y crit
,m
EI z crit
= p m
m
,m crit ,m
,m + N E crit
EI y crit
(6.21)
1
= p m
NE
,m
crit
m 1
,m
crit
EI y
,m
crit
1
= p m
NE
,m
crit
m 1
N crit ,m
page 51 / 142
(10) With this bending moment the following equation instead of equation (6.3) is ob-
tained:

N E N E ( 0,2 ) pm 1

+
NR NR 1 NE 2
+ M
NE
,m ( xd ) = 1
crit (6.22)
m R 1
NR N crit ,m
(11) Equation (6.22) can by using the series-development
M yI = p
m
m ,m ( xd )
crit (6.23)
be brought into the form:

N E N E ( 0,2 ) M

m
I
,m ( xd )
p m crit
,m ( xd )
pm crit

+
NR NR
+
NE 2 M R

MR
y

N

=1
1 i
M R 1 E
NR N
crit ,m
144444444244444444 3
NE
, m
pm crit N crit , m
+
MR NE
1
N crit , m
144444444424444444443
NE
M yI , m N crit , m
pmcrit

1+
NE
MR M yI 1
N crit , m
144444444424444444443 (6.24)
NE

M yI 1 N E 2 , m N crit , m
pmcrit
1 1+
M R 1 N E 2 N R M yI 1
NE

N R N crit , m

to accelerate the convergence.

(12) By using the first element of the series only
, m ( xd )
M m = pm crit
one gets a conservative solution:
N E

N E N E ( 0,2) M N crit
I
1 y NE M m
+ + 1 1+ =1
NR NR NE 2 M R N E 2 N crit M yI N E
1 1 1
NR NR N crit
144444424444443
NE
NE NE M m N crit
1 + 1
N crit N crit MI
y 1 N E
N crit
144444424444443
NE M m NE
1 +
N crit M yI N crit
144444424444443
N E M m

1 1
N crit M yI
(6.25)

page 52 / 142
(13) From (6.25) and using equation (6.11) one obtains
N E 2 M
q= 1 mI (6.26)
NR M y

(14) For the example in (6.2) follows
NE 2
q= (1 1) = 0 (6.27)
NR
and for the example in (6.20)
NE 2 4 N
q= 1 = 0,27 E 2 (6.28)
NR NR
(15) When using equation (6.11) it is presumed, that the maximum values of the effects of
the out of plane imperfections and the out of plane bending are approximate at the
same spot x = xd. This presumption applies in case of equation (6.3) and also in case
of equation (6.11) if the maxima for in plane stressing coincide with the maxima of out
of plane stressing. Therefore the results are either safe sided or the actual design
point x = xd should be determined.
6.2 Out of plane bending and torsion for the basic situation for lateral tor-
sional buckling
(1) For the assessment of the standard beam with the standardized European lateral tor-
sional buckling curves the method of Roik is also applicable. [15]
(2) For the standard beam it is assumed in the first step, that the shapes of the out of
plane bending moments M zI and warping bi-moments M wI follow the shape of the
eigen-mode for lateral torsional buckling:

crit
M zI = M z ,m (6.29)
,max
crit

crit
TwI = Tw, m (6.30)
, max
crit
For the example of the simple beam with hinged ends and constant bending moment
My this means
x
M zI = M z ,m sin (6.31)
l
x
TwI = Tw, m sin (6.32)
l
(3) According to the equation (6.8) and (6.9) the action effects using 2nd order theory are:
1 x
M zII = M z ,m sin (6.33)
M E,y l
1
M crit
page 53 / 142
1 x
TwII = Tw, m sin (6.34)
M E, y l
1
M crit
(4) The bending moments in the top flange are
edge M zII b TwII b M IIfl , top

= + zM = 6
fy f y Iz 2 f y Iw 2 f y b2 t
(6.35)
II
M zII TwII M fl , top
= + =
M R, z TR , w M R , fl , top
(5) Therefore the assessment formula reads
N E , fl N E , fl ( 0,2 ) M Ifl 1
+ + =1 (6.36)
N R , fl N R , fl M E, y M R , fl M E , y
1 1
M crit M crit
(6) Because of the analogy to equation (6.3) the conclusions in equations (6.8) and (6.9)
can be transferred, so that the assessment reads
M E,y M EI , fl , z M E,y M E,y 2 2

+ n = 1 1 (6.37)
M R, y M R , fl , z M R , y M R , y
1444 424444 3 123
0 , 25 0, 4
1444442444443
0 ,1
1444444424444444 3
0 , 9
(7) and crit

If the bending moments in the top flange do not follow the eigen-modes crit
correction factors may be applied to M EII, Fl , y , so that equation (6.37) is transferred us-
ing equation (6.26) into:
M EI , fl , z
(1 q )+ TT
I
M E, y
M R, y
+
M R , fl , z
My
E , fl , w
(1 q ) n
Tw (6.38)
R , fl , w
where the following applies:
M E,y M
qM ,z = 2 1 z ,Im
(6.39)
M R, y Mz
M E, y T
qT , w = 2 1 w,Im (6.40)
M R, y Tw
6.3 General case of out of plane bending and torsion

(1) In the general case, see section 4.2.3, the assessment equation reads:
page 54 / 142
M E , fl , z
1
ult , k
+
M R , fl , z
(1 q ) + TT
Mz
E , fl , w
(1 q ) n
Tw (6.41)
R , fl , w
1
= 1 1 1 2 2
,k ult ,k
14ult4424443 1 424 3
0 , 25 0 , 4
1444442444443
1444444204 ,1
44444 3
0 , 9
1 M z ,m
qM z = 2 1
(6.42)
ult ,k M zI
1 T
qTw = 2 1 w,Im (6.43)
ult , k Tw
6.4 Proof of orthogonality for the series-development

(1) The differential equation:
EI z + N = 0 (6.44)
is satisfied by:
,i + i2 crit
crit ,i = 0
2
(6.45)
, j + j crit
crit , j = 0
(2) It follows:
crit , j ,i + i2 crit
crit , j crit
,i = 0
(6.46)
crit ,i , j + 2j crit
crit ,i crit
, j = 0
(3) By substraction and partial integration it follows
) ( ) + ( ) ( ) = 0
(1 crit , j crit ,i crit ,i crit , j i
2 2
j crit ,i crit , j (6.47)
42
4 43 4 142 4 43 4 1424 3 144244 3
, j crit
crit ,i ,i crit
crit , j 0 =0
R R fr i j fr i j
+ crit
, j crit
,i crit
,i crit
, j 144 244 3
144444244444
3 , j crit
crit ,i
=0 R
,i
crit , j crit
R
+ crit , j crit
,i
144244 3
=0
fr i j
(4) This proves the orthogonality necessary for the serial development.
page 55 / 142
6.5 Comparison with test results

(1) The reliability of the formulae (6.41), (6.42) and (6.43) for the verification of beam-
columns with compression, biaxial bending and torsion has been determined accord-
ing to the procedure given in EN 1990 Annex.
Figure 6.1 gives a comparison of test results from [9] with calculative results [15].
(2) Table 6.1 gives the M* -values related to the results which are between M* = 1,0 and
M* = 1,1 as required.
re/rt 2.0
Lindner - IPE 200
1.8
Lindner - HEB 200
1.6 Kindmann - Vers. II
1.4 Kindmann - Vers. III
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Figure 6.1: Comparison between test results from [9] and calculative results
Table 6.1: Determination of the M-value according to EN 1990 Annex D
Eingangsdaten
Research Project Fosta P 554 (N = 32)
2.0 2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 -2.0
re/rt ln re/rt
b = 1.298 s = 0.146 b = 1.307 s = 0.159

M = 1.333 k = 0.846 M* = 1.127 M = 1.225 k = 0.850 M* = 1.041
page 56 / 142
Guidance for applicationsGuidance for applications
7 Guidance for applications
7.1 General
(1) In the following design aids and worked examples for specific applications are given,
that illustrate the workability of the general method for flexural buckling, lateral
torsional buckling and combination of both, more generally described as out-of-
plane-buckling of members that are in-plane loaded in their strong plane.
(2) A distinction between flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is no more nec-
essary as the European lateral torsional buckling curve defined by
1
LT ( ) =
+ 2 2
[
= 0.5 1 + ( 0.2) + 2 ]

crit
=
crit
implicitly includes flexural buckling and all combinations of flexural and lateral-
torsional buckling from both in-plane compression forces, eccentricities of these com-
pression forces and any transverse loading and also can be extended to cover out-of-
plane loading as well.
(3) The flow chart for the assessment of combined flexural and lateral torsional buckling
is given in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2.

(4) In order to identify crit without effects of St. Venant-torsional stiffness and crit with
effects of St. Venant torsional stiffness computer calculations can use assumptions
as given in Figure 7.1.
Free distorsional deformation Distortional deformation restrained

Figure 7.1: Assumptions to obtain crit and crit
Note: A computer program which is freely available is: LTBeam [16]
page 57 / 142
Table 7.1: Flow chart for the lateral torsional buckling verification
Input
Distribution of in-plane load effects (NEd, My,Ed) including 2nd order analysis
Distribution of cross- sectional data
Boundary conditions for out-of-plane deflections
Analysis
ult , k ( x)
crit , crit

, location of max crit

, = crit

crit
Relevant location and assessment
xd is not known
xd is known
xd = x( ult,k,min)
ult ,k ( xd )
ult ,k ( x d )
( xd ) =
crit
(
( x d ) = * , ( xd ) )
E = ( xd ) ult ,k ( xd )
( x d ) ult ,k ( x d )
Ed = 1
M
page 58 / 142
Table 7.2: Flow chart for the lateral torsional buckling verification with out of plane loading
M z , Ed ( x)
z ( x) = (1 q z )
M z , Rd ( x)
( x) ult ,k ( x) Tw, Ed ( x)
Ed ( x) = 1 w ( x) = (1 qw )
M Tw, Rd ( x)
1
nE = + y ( xd ) + w ( xd )
Ed ( xd )
1 1
n R = 1 1 2 ( xd ) 2 ( xd )
Ed ( x d ) Ed ( x d )
n E ( xd ) n R ( xd )
page 59 / 142
7.2 Design aids
7.2.1 Hand formulae for the determination of Mcr

(1) For particular cases, e.g. those with in-plane transverse loads and in-plane moments

only and without any compression forces, the values crit and crit can be obtained
by hand calculation from formulas, as given in Tables 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6.
7.2.1.1 Basis
(1) The elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling of a beam of uniform symmet-
rical cross-section with equal flanges, under standard conditions of restraint at each
end and subject to uniform moment in plane going through the shear centre is given
by:
2 EI z L2 GI t I w EI z GI t 2 EI w
M cr = + = 1+ (7.1)
L
2
2 EI z I z L L2 GI t
where:
E
G=
2 (1 + )
It is the torsion constant

Iw is the warping constant
Iz is the second moment of area about the minor axis
L is the length of the beam between points that have lateral restraint
is the Poisson ratio

(2) The standard conditions of restraint at each end are:
- restrained against lateral movement, free to rotate on plan (kz = 1);
- restrained against rotation about the longitudinal axis, free to warp (kw = 1);
- restrained against movement in plane of loading, free to rotate in this plane
(ky = 1).
7.2.1.2 General formula for beams with uniform cross-sections symmetrical about the minor
or major axis
(1) In the case of a beam of uniform cross-section which is symmetrical about the minor
axis, for bending about the major axis the elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional
buckling is given by the general formula:
EI z GI t
M cr = cr (7.2)
L
where relative non-dimensional critical moment cr is
page 60 / 142
C1
cr = 1 + w2 t + (C 2 g C3 j ) 2 (C 2 g C3 j ) , (7.3)

kz
non-dimensional torsion parameter is
EI w
wt = (7.4)
kw L GI t
relative non-dimensional coordinate of the point of load application related to shear

center
zg EI z
g = (7.5)
kz L GI t
relative non-dimensional cross-section mono-symmetry parameter
z jEI z
j = (7.6)
k z L GI t
where:
C1, C2 and C3 are factors depending mainly on the loading and end restraint
conditions (See Tables 7.3 and 7.4)
kz and kw are buckling length factors
z g = z a zs (7.7)
0,5
z j = zs
Iy A( y 2 + z 2 ) z dA (7.8)
za is the coordinate of the point of load application related to centroid

(see Figure 7.2)
zs is the coordinate of the shear center related to centroid
zg is the coordinate of the point of load application related to shear centre.
NOTE 1: See section 7.2.1.2 (7) and (8) for sign conventions and section 7.2.1.4 (2) for approxima-
tions for z j .
NOTE 2: z j = 0 ( y j = 0 ) for cross sections with y-axis (z-axis) being axis of symmetry.
NOTE 3: The following approximation for zj can be used:
c
z j = 0,45 f hs 1 + (7.9)
2h f

where:
c is the depth of a lip
hf is the distance between centerlines of the flanges.
I fc I ft (7.10)
f =
I fc + I ft
page 61 / 142
Ifc is the second moment of area of the compression flange about the minor axis of
the section
Ift is the second moment of area of the tension flange about the minor axis of the
section
hs is the distance between the shear centre of the upper flange and shear centre of
the bottom flange (Su and Sb in Figure 7.2).
For I-sections with unequal flanges without lips and as an approximation also with lips:
( )
I w = 1 2f I z (hs 2 )
2
(7.11)
(2) The buckling length factors kz (for lateral bending boundary conditions) and kw (for tor-
sion boundary condition) vary from 0,5 for both beam ends fixed to 1,0 for both ends
simply supported, with 0,7 for one end fixed (left or right) and one end simply sup-
ported (right or left).
(3) The factor kz refers to end rotation on plan. It is analogous to the ratio Lcr/L for a com-
pression member.
(4) The factor kw refers to end warping. Unless special provision for warping fixity of both
beam ends (kw = 0,5) is made, kw should be taken as 1,0.
(C) Compression side, (T) tension side, S shear centre, G gravity centre
Su, Sb is shear centre of upper and bottom flange
Figure 7.2: Notation and sign convention for beams under gravity loads (Fz) or for cantilevers
under uplift loads (- Fz)
(5) Values of C1, C2 and C3 are given in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 for various load cases, as in-
dicated by the shape of the bending moment diagram over the length L between lat-
eral restraints. Values are given in Table 7.3 corresponding to various values of kz
and in Table 7.4 also corresponding to various values of kw .
(6) For cases with kz = 1,0 the value of C1 for any ratio of end moment loading as indi-
cated in Table 7.3, is given approximately by:
C1 = 0.310 + 0.428 + 0.262 2 (7.12)
(7) The sign convention for determining z and zj, see Figure 7.2, is:
page 62 / 142
- coordinate z is positive for the compression flange. When determining zj from

equation (7.8), positive coordinate z goes upwards for beams under gravity
loads or for cantilevers under uplift loads, and goes downwards for beams un-
der uplift loads or cantilevers under gravity loads
- sign of zj is the same as the sign of cross-section mono-symmetry factor f

from equation (7.10). Take the cross section located at the M-side in the case
of moment loading, Table 7.3, and the cross-section located in the middle of
the beam span in the case of transverse loading, Table 7.4.
(8) The sign convention for determining zg is:
- for gravity loads zg is positive for loads applied above the shear centre
- in the general case zg is positive for loads acting towards the shear centre
from their point of application.
page 63 / 142
Table 7.3: Values of factors C1 and C3 corresponding to various end moment ratios , values of
buckling length factor kz and cross-section parameters f and wt. End moment loading of the
simply supported beam with buckling length factors ky = 1 for major axis bending and kw = 1 for
torsion
page 64 / 142
Table 7.4: Values of factors C1, C2 and C3 corresponding to various transverse loading cases,
values of buckling length factors ky, kz, kw cross-section mono-symmetry factor f and torsion
parameter wt.
page 65 / 142
7.2.1.3 Beams with uniform cross-sections symmetrical about major axis, centrally symmet-
ric and doubly symmetric cross-sections
(1) For beams with uniform cross-sections symmetrical about major axis, centrally sym-
metric and doubly symmetric cross-sections loaded perpendicular to the major axis in
the plane going through the shear centre, Table 7.3, zj = 0, thus
C1
cr = 2
1 + wt + (C 2 g ) 2 C 2 g (7.13)
k z
(2) For end-moment loading C2 = 0 and for transverse loads applied at the shear centre
zg = 0. For these cases:
C1 2
cr = 1 + wt (7.14)
kz
(3) If also wt = 0 :
cr = C1 k z (7.15)
Figure 7.3: Beams with uniform cross-sections symmetrical about major axis, centrally sym-
metric and doubly symmetric cross-sections
(4) For beams supported on both ends ( k y = 1 , k z = 1 , 0,5 k w 1 ) or for beam segments
laterally restrained on both ends, which are under any loading (e.g. different end mo-
ments combined with any transverse loading), the following value of factor C1 may be
used in the above two formulas given in section 7.2.1.3 (2) and (3) to obtain approxi-
mate value of critical moment:
1,7 M max
C1 = 2,5 (7.16)
M 02, 25 + M 02,5 + M 02,75
where
M max is maximum design bending moment,
M 0, 25 , M 0,75 are design bending moments at the quarter points and
M 0,5 is design bending moment at the midpoint of the beam or beam

segment with length equal to the distance between adjacent cross-
sections which are laterally restrained.
(5) Factor C1 defined by equation (7.16) may be used also in equation (7.13), but only in
combination with relevant value of factor C2 valid for given loading and boundary con-
ditions. This means that for the six cases in Table 7.4 with boundary condition
page 66 / 142
k y = 1, k z = 1, 0,5 k w 1 , as defined above, the value C2 = 0,5 may be used together

with equation (7.16) in equation (7.13) as an approximation.
(6) In the case of continuous beam the following approximate method may be used. The
effect of lateral continuity between adjacent segments are ignored and each segment
is treated as being simply supported laterally. Thus the elastic buckling of each seg-
ment is analysed for its in-plane moment distribution (equation (7.16) for C1 may be
used) and for an buckling length equal to the segment length L. The lowest of critical
moments computed for each segment is taken as the elastic critical load set of the
continuous beam. This method produces a lower bound estimate.
7.2.1.4 Cantilevers with uniform cross-sections symmetrical about the minor axis
(1) In the case of a cantilever of uniform cross-section, which is symmetrical about the
minor axis, for bending about the major axis the elastic critical moment for lateral-
torsional buckling is given by the equation (7.2), where the values of relative non-
dimensional critical moment cr are given in Tables 7.5 and 7.6. In Tables 7.5 and 7.6
non-linear interpolation should be used.
(2) The sign convention for determining zj and zg is given in section 7.2.1.2 (7) and (8).
page 67 / 142
Table 7.5: Relative non-dimensional critical moment cr for cantilever (k y = k z = k w = 2 ) loaded by

concentrated end load F
a) For z j = 0 , z g = 0 and wt0 8 : cr = 1,27 + 1,14 wt0 + 0,017 w2 t0 .

b) For z j = 0 , 4 g 4 and wt 4 , cr may be calculated also from equation (7.13) and
(7.14), where the following approximate values of the factors C1, C2 should be used for the
cantilever under tip load F:
2 3
C1 = 2,56 + 4,675 wt 2,62 wt + 0,5 wt , if wt 2
C1 = 5,55 if wt > 2
C2 = 1,255 + 1,566 wt 0,931 w2 t + 0,245 w3 t 0,024 w4 t , if g 0
C2 = 0,192 + 0,585 wt 0,054 w2 t (0,032 + 0,102 wt 0,013 w2 t ) g , if g < 0
page 68 / 142
Table 7.6: Relative non-dimensional critical moment cr for cantilever (k y = k z = k w = 2 ) loaded by

uniformly distributed load q
2
a) For z j = 0 , z g = 0 and wt 0 8 : cr = 2,04 + 2,68 wt 0 + 0,021 wt 0.
b) For z j = 0 , 4 g 4 and t 4 , cr may be calculated also from equation (7.13) and

(7.14), where the following approximate values of the factors C1, C2 should be used for the
cantilever under uniform load q:
C1 = 4,11 + 11,2 wt 5,65 w2 t + 0,975 w3 t , if wt 2
C1 = 12 if wt > 2
C2 = 1,661 + 1,068 wt 0,609 w2 t + 0,153 w3 t 0,014 w4 t , if g 0
C2 = 0,535 + 0,426 wt 0,029 w2 t (0,061 + 0,074 wt 0,0085 w2 t ) g , if g < 0
page 69 / 142
7.2.2 Location of assessment xd
xd
Momentenverteilung f
l
A B
ky =1
=1 0,5 1,0
0,78 + 0,04
0,1 2 + 0,18 + 0,22
x 1 1 + 0,08 2 + 0,1 3
0,5 1,0
0,5 1,0
A B
k y = 0,5
xd
mod = 0 LT , mod = 1
l 0,5
x
mod > d = 0,5
l
0,5 1,0
xd
l 2
x
a b mod > d =
l
A B
k y = 0,7
xd
l 0,562
xd
mod > = 0,61
l
xd
l 0,833
xd
mod > = 0,5
l
xd
mod = 0 LT , mod = 1 3
l 2
xd 1 2
a b mod > =
l
Hinweis: Fr alle Lagerungen A und B gilt: k z , k w = 1
2
Verwendete Krzel: = a l ; = b l ; l = a + b ; = 0 f + 0 f + f (1 0,2 0 ) 1
2 ( f 1) 2 ( f 1)
f 1
page 70 / 142
7.3 Examples to compare the results of the general method using the Euro-
pean lateral buckling curve with results of the component method in
Eurocode 3-Part 1-1, section 6.3.3
(1) The use of the component method in Eurocode 3-Part 1-1, section 6.3.3 is illustrated
in Figure 7.4.
Pz,Ed
My,Ed My,Ed
NEd NEd
Mz,Ed Mz,Ed
Py,Ed
compression only inplane transverse loads and out of plane transverse loads and
inplane moments only out of plane moments only
Pz,Ed
My,Ed My,Ed Mz,Ed Mz,Ed
NEd NEd
Py,Ed
flexural buckling lateral torsional buckling out of plane bending
N Ed M y , Ed + M y , Ed M z , Ed + M z , Ed
1 1 1
y N Rd LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
Interaction
+ k yy + k zy 1
y N Rd LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
+ k zy + k zz 1
z N Rd LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
Figure 7.4: Procedure for the component method
(2) For the functions kyy, kyz, kzy and kzz there are two alternatives given in Annex A and B
of Eurocode 3-Part 1-1. [2]
(3) To compare the results of the general method with the results of the component
method 5 worked examples as published in [17], are chosen, for which the various
steps of calculations are given in Table 7.7.
(4) Where the location of the design point xd / is not a priori evident, the procedure
according to step 4 in Table 7.1 can be used to calculate (xi) at various spots xi, from
which xd is the spot where the maximum value of (xi), see distribution of (x) in
Table 7.7, is achieved.
(5) Where the maximum value of (x) is at an end of a member, see examples no. 1 and
2 in Table 7.7, lateral torsional buckling is not relevant for the design, but a cross-
sectional verification at the supports is necessary (with ult,k only).
page 71 / 142
Table 7.7: Worked examples (from ECCS-Publication No. 119 [17])
page 72 / 142
(6) In the calculations the reference value of the imperfection factor is always the value
associated with the flexural buckling curve for the weak axes.
(7) Table 7.8 gives a comparison of the results of the general method (that can be
considered as reliable) with the results of the component method in Eurocode 3
Part 1-1 section 6.3.2, as published in [17]. This publication also gives results for the
use of the two alternatives for interaction formulas as specified in Eurocode 3-
Part 1-1, Annex A and B. The choices of the reference flexural buckling curve in this
publication are not always identical with the choice of for weak axis buckling.
Table 7.8: Utilization grades 1/Ed and 1/Ed,M from the general method with European
lateral torsional buckling curves and from the specific method with flexural
buckling curves modified with and f and with Annex A and B of EC3 Part 1-1
Allgemeines Spezielles Verfahren mit der mit und f

Beispiel Nr. Verfahren mit modifizierten BDK-Kurve
Europischer
Biegedrillknickkurve Anlage A Anlage B
1 1,603 - -
2 0,988 0,950 0,836
3 1,111 1,131 1,112
4 0,981 1,131 0,903
5 0,950 1,045 0,946
(8) The comparison in Table 7.8 reveals that the results of the component method,
though not being fully consistent with the principles in Eurocode 3 give rather accept-
able results. Criticism on the component method may be placed in view of their
- limited field of application (only particular end conditions and no torsion
action),
- complexity and lack of transparency,
- disproportionality of design effort in relation to the win of safety and economy.
page 73 / 142
7.4 Examples for sheet-piling
7.4.1 Design situation

(1) The design situation for a sheet piling is given in Figure 7.5, which indicates the di-
mensions, load application and the distribution of load effects for two alternatives of
piles, see Figure 7.6:
- Alternative A has HZ-piles as single profiles.
- Alternative B has HZ-piles as double profiles
Figure 7.5: Design situation for a sheet piling with two alternatives
(A = single pile, B = double pile)
Figure 7.6: Dimension of pile A and pile B
(2) The loading conditions and the 1st order action effects from earth pressure are given
in Table 7.10.
page 74 / 142
7.4.2 Assessments for resistance and stability

(1) For in-plane loading a beam-column check is performed using sK = L = 20.0 m as a
safe-sided assumption (free buckling length).
(2) The verification is made using formulae (6.8) and (6.9), see Table 7.10.
(3) For out of plane buckling of the piles the restraints due to the sheet piling and the
passive earth pressure of the soil may be taken into account.
(4) The assumptions made for lateral torsional buckling modes are given in Figure 7.7.
mode 1
shear shear
co co
mp mp
res res
sio sio
n n
soil
shear shear
mode 2
soil
compression
Figure 7.7: Lateral torsional buckling modes
(5) From the two modes 1 and 2 in Figure 7.7 mode 1 is selected because of the greater
deformations due to shear in the sheet piling and in the soil.
(6) For restraints that the HZ-piles will receive in the lateral torsional buckling mode 1 the
following assumptions are made:
1. The transmission of bending moments through the locks of the sheet piling is
neglected.
2. The sheet piling acts as a shear wall between the HZ-piles without contribut-
ing by its stiffness to direct transverse stresses,
3. Passive earth pressure acting to the webs and flanges in the soil is taken into
account by a bedding stiffness resulting from the shear deformations in the
soil.
(7) As a consequence the HZ-pile is modelled as given in Figure 7.8.
a. boundary condition at the ends of the pile
b. elastic restraints for displacements, twist and lock-shear displacements
page 75 / 142
clamped end
for flexural and
II torsional out-of-plane
MEd
deformation
c
c
restraint to displacement
main axis and twist c and c due
bending to passive earth pressure
point support
Figure 7.8: Modeling of the HZ-pile
(8) For the bedding stiffness from the soil in terms of a spring stiffness k [kN/m] depend-
ing on the magnitude of displacement the principle of active and passive earth pres-
sure given in Figure 7.9 may be taken into account.
Figure 7.9: Active and passive earth-pressure depending on the pile-displacements
(9) The values k may be taken from Figure 7.10 as related to the magnitude of the pas-
sive earth pressure.
Figure 7.10: Example for spring-stiffness of soil [Van Tol/Brassinga]
page 76 / 142
(10) An example for a particular soil with

= 19 kN/m
d = 30
cd =0
tan d = tan (2/3 d)
k is given as follows:
k1 = 20.000 kN/m
k2 = 10.000 kN/m
k3 = 5.000 kN/m
(11) The equivalent spring stiffnesses c and c may be taken from Figure 7.11.
R = c = k h [kN / m m]
h
c
c = k h

c h3
RM = c = k [kNm / m]
12
h3
c = k
h 12
2
Figure 7.11: Determination of stiffness for springs in the verification model
(12) The assumptions for determining crit for the example k1 = 20 000 kN/m are as fol-
lows:
II
- the in-plane bending moment M Ed is determined from the bending moment
I
M Ed according to first order analysis by
II 1
M Ed = M 1Ed
N
1 Ed
N crit
II
- the in-plane bending moment M Ed that together with NEd causes lateral tor-
sional buckling is the effect of active earth pressure that through arching in the
soil mainly acts on the tension flange of the HZ-pile.
(13) The calculations have been carried out with the FEM-program Marc/Mentat.
Table 7.9 gives the relevant buckling modes and values crit and *crit, that lead to the
lateral torsional buckling curves as given in Figure 7.12. In general the first eigen-
page 77 / 142
mode is relevant. To demonstrate the effects of the assumption of the boundary con-
ditions at the end of the pile also the second eigenmode has been calculated.
(14) Details of the assessment for in-plane compression and bending and out-of-plane lat-
eral torsional buckling are given in Table 7.10 with the relevant European lateral tor-
sional buckling curve given in Figure 7.12.
(15) The results ult,k in Table 7.10 demonstrate that for a bedding stiffness of
20000 kN/m for the soil the design concepts are safe.
(x) results in
(16) A more refined analysis taking the relevant spot, where ult,k(x) and crit
a maximum, would even give a greater safety.
(17) Table 7.11 shows the distributions of ult,k and E that indicate the position x = xd at
the points of minimum of E.
*LT 1.4
1st Eigenmode
1.2 Euler 2nd Eigenmode
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0

Figure 7.12: Relevant lateral torsional buckling curve for out of plane buckling of piles.
page 78 / 142
Table 7.9: Determination of lateral torsional buckling modes
Situation A: Lateral torsional buckling modes for k = 20 000 kN/m
1st global Eigenmode
with torsional
crit = 3.54
stiffness
without tor-
crit = 1.432
sional stiffness
2nd global Eigenmode
with torsional
crit = 4.839
stiffness
without tor-
crit = 2.580
sional stiffness
page 79 / 142
Table 7.10: Cross-sectional data, loading and verifications
Situation A Situation B
HZ-975B-14/AZ13/S355 GP HZ-775D-26/AZ13/S355 GP
fy = 355 N/mm fy = 355 N/mm
Cross-
B = 1.87 m B = 2.35 m
section
4
Iy = 717 400 cm Wy = 13 730 cm Iy = 963 740 cm4 Wy = 22 615 cm
4 4
Iz = 80 110 cm A = 397.3 cm Iz = 677 850 cm A = 798.3 cm
NEd = 2020 kN / pile NEd = 7614 kN / pile

Actions
My,Ed = 3598 kNm / pile My,Ed = 4521 kNm / pile
Npl,k = 35.5 397.3 = 14 103 kN / pile Npl,k = 35.5 798.3 = 28 340 kN / pile
Resistances
My,Ed = 4874 kNm / pile My,Ed = 8028 kNm / pile
Flexural buckling about strong axis Flexural buckling about strong axis
sk = 20.0m sk = 20.0m
2 21000 717400 2 21000 963740

N crit = 2
= 37172 kN N crit = = 49936 kN
2000 2000 2
Verification 14103 28340
for in-plane
= = 0.616 = = 0.753
37172 49936
loading
= 0.884 (curve a; = 0.21) = 0.821 (curve a; = 0.21)
(z-z-direction)
2020 3598 7614 4521
+ 1 0.162 0.738 0.884 2 0.616 2 + 1 0.328 0.672 0.82 2 0.75 2
0.884 14103 4874 0.82 28340 8028
1442443 1 4243 1444444 424444444 3 1442443 1 4243 144444424444443
0.162 0.738 0.965 0.328 0.563 0.917
0.9 0.965 0.891 0.917
ult ,k = 0.965 = 1.07 ult ,k = 0.917 = 1.03

0.900 0.891
Lateral torsional buckling (k = 20000 kN/m) Lateral torsional buckling (k = 0 kN/m)
1st global 2nd global 1st global 2nd global

Eigenmode Eigenmode Eigenmode Eigenmode
ult,k = 1.07 ult,k = 1.07 ult,k = 1.03 ult,k = 1.03
Verification
for out off- crit = 3.54 crit = 4.839 crit = 10.76 crit = 26.69
plane = 0.550 = 0.470 = 0.309 = 0.196
loading
crit = 1.432
crit = 2.580
crit = 3.854
crit = 8.791
(y-y-direction)
= 0.34 = 0.34 = 0.34 = 0.34
= 0.1375 = 0.181 = 0.122 = 0.112
= 0.937 = 0.942 = 0.986 = 1.0
ult,k = 1.003 ult,k = 1.008 ult,k = 1.016 ult,k = 1.030
page 80 / 142
Table 7.11: Situation A: Additional information on the location x = xd

(relevant design point)
Lateral torsional buckling

6
4
ult,k
1st global 3
E
Eigenmode 2
ult,k = 1.07 1
calc
crit = 3.54 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
= 0.550
1.2
crit = 1.432
0.8
= 0.34
0.4 ,,
= 0.1375 crit
0
= 0.937
0.4
Verification for 0.8
out off-plane 1.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
loading
6
(y-y-direction)
5
4
ult,k
2nd global 3
E
Eigenmode 2
ult,k = 1.07 1
calc
crit = 4.839 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
= 0.470
1.2
crit = 2.580
0.8
= 0.34
,,
0.4
crit
= 0.181
0
= 0.942
0.4
0.8
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
page 81 / 142
7.5 Lateral torsional buckling of beams with fin-plate connections
7.5.1 Objective
(1) Subject of this section is to demonstrate the use of the European lateral torsional
curves for the lateral torsional buckling assessment of coped beams by re-calculating
tests, that have been carried out by F. Bijlaard and H. Bouras and TU Delft [18].
(2) The tests were 3-point bending tests according to Figure 7.13 with a conservative
load applied to the top flange
F
fork condition
realized by
2040 mm cardan support
application of
conservative load
IPE 120
S235
application of conservative load fork condition realized by cardan support
Fin plate connection detail
activator
Span 2040 mm
Figure 7.13: 3-point bending tests for lateral torsional buckling
page 82 / 142
(3) The test program and the results may be taken from Table 7.12.
Table 7.12: Test program [18]
connection to end plate copes /s fin plates hF/t Fmax.exp [kN]
90 / 5 29.3
no 90 / 8 34.4
90 / 12 32.2
75 / 5 27.3
no 75 / 8 34.6
75 / 12 30.8
75 / 5 -
160/30 75 / 8 25.4
75 / 12 28.2
50 / 5 22.6
160/30 50 / 8 25.8
50 / 12 27.9
7.5.2 Calculative results

(1) The calculations are based on the following assumptions:
1. For in-plane loading the load-assumption is that no support reactions other
than in-plane occur, see Figure 7.14. Hence the load F in the main axes of
the beam causes a torsion T = F e by the eccentricity e.
2. For out-of-plane loading two loads are considered:
- the effects of equivalent imperfections
- the effects from eccentric loading T = F e, so that the formulas (6.41)

with (6.42) and (6.43) apply.
page 83 / 142
Figure 7.14: Assumption for calculating crit
(2) Table 7.13 gives calculative values of the maximum loads Fz,calc. for the test conditions
and a comparison with the test data re/rt = Fz,exp/Fz,calc.
Table 7.13: Results of calculation and comparison with test-results
Type ey Fz.exp Fcrit F*crit Fz.Ed re/rt

[mm] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [-]
a) 90/5 4.7 29.3 30.08 13.21 24.00 1.221

a) 90/8 6.2 34.4 31.70 13.92 24.50 1.403
a) 90/12 8.2 32.2 33.24 14.60 24.75 1.302
b) 75/5 4.7 27.3 29.22 12.84 23.50 1.162
b) 75/8 6.2 34.6 30.92 13.59 24.10 1.436
b) 75/12 8.2 30.8 31.88 14.01 24.05 1.280
c) 75/5 4.7 - 21.31 9.36 18.20 -
c) 75/8 6.2 25.4 23.13 10.16 19.27 1.318
c) 75/12 8.2 28.2 24.20 10.63 19.65 1.435
d) 50/5 4.7 22.6 20.09 8.83 17.75 1.273
d) 50/8 6.2 25.6 23.79 10.45 19.72 1.298
d) 50/12 8.2 27.9 26.05 11.44 20.80 1.341
page 84 / 142
(3) The test evaluation to obtain M-values according to EN 1990 Annex D is given in
Table 7.14.
Table 7.14: Determination of M-values for lateral torsional buckling of beams with fin-
plate connections
beam with fin-plates

2.0
re/rt
1.0
0.0
a) 90/5 a) 90/8 a) 90/12 b) 75/5 b) 75/8 b) 75/12 c) 75/5 c) 75/8 c) 75/12 d) 50/5 d) 50/8 d) 50/12
uncoped coped
Input values
rt = 0,08 (geometrie and yield strength)
fy = 0,07 (yield strength)
Tests on coped beams with fin-plates (TUDelft) (N = 11)
standard deviation log-standard deviation
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 -2.0
re/rt
ln re/rt
b = 1.315 s = 0.104 b = 1.317 s = 0.105

= 0.079 (model) R = 0.112 (total) = 0.080 (model) R = 0.113 (total)
M = 1.267 k = 0.805 M* = 1.020 M = 1.185 k = 0.804 M* = 0.953
(4) The results in Table 7.14 reveal that M = 1,00 could be used for this set of tests (The
conservatism of the calculative values is mainly caused by the fact, that the actual
imperfections of the test beams were smaller than assumed in the European lateral
torsional buckling curve used).
page 85 / 142
7.6 Verification of haunched beams
7.6.1 Objective
(1) This section deals with the calculative determination of tests results obtained by
D. Ungermann and I. Strohmann with haunched beams at TU Dortmund [19].
(2) The objective of the re-calculation of this test-results is to demonstrate the reliability
of the European lateral torsional buckling curve by a test evaluation according to
EN 1990-Annex D.
7.6.2 Test set up and testing procedure

(1) The purpose of the test set up was to examine lateral torsional buckling effects for the
beam of portal frames with the span length L with haunches at the knee-points.
(2) Fig. 7.5-1 gives a survey on the loading conditions and the restraint-conditions of the
beam, for which the following parameters were varied:
max h
kV =
min h
length of haunch
kL =
total length
MF
f0 =
MS
Figure 7.15: Geometrical conditions and loading for the tests
page 86 / 142
(3) The variations of parameters provided to check the assessment procedure are given
in Table 7.15
Table 7.15: Variation of parameters
(4) The cross sections at the ends of the haunches which were made by plates and
welded to rolled beams are given in Table 7.16.
Table 7.16: Cross-sections at the ends of the haunches for test beams
VT1 to VT3 and VT4 to VT6
VT_1 VT_3 VT_4 VT_6
(5) The full set of tests with various geometrical parameters may be taken from Table
7.17
Table 7.17: Full set of tests and parameters
page 87 / 142
(6) The test set up for providing various end moments Ms and midspan moments MF by
forces P applied with various cantilever lengths LLet is given in Figure 7.16.
Figure 7.16: Test set-up, load application P and boundary conditions
(7) Figure 7.17 shows details of the application of loads at midspan with springs to pro-
vide an elastic torsional restraint c at midspan.
page 88 / 142
Figure 7.17: Load application with provisions for c at mid span
7.6.3 Test results

The test results for the maximum loads P in Figure 7.16 limited by elastic lateral tor-
sional buckling are given in Table 7.18. These values have been obtained for
c = 1000 kNcm/rad.
Table 7.18: Tests results

(1) The calculations were performed using the European lateral torsional buckling curves
with the determination of Pcrit by a FEM-program. The yield strength of the material as
tested was fy = 400 N/mm.
(2) Table 7.19 gives the results of the calculations and the ratios between the experimen-
tal and calculative results.
page 89 / 142
Table 7.19: Calculative results and comparison with test results

Type Pexp Pcrit P*crit PEd re/rt
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [-]
VT1A 40.97 49.23 30.22 33.49 1.223

VT2A 49.00 59.52 36.54 39.88 1.229
VT3A 50.67 60.99 37.44 40.56 1.249
VT4A 34.40 39.99 24.55 27.86 1.235
VT5A 37.30 39.20 24.07 27.73 1.345
VT6A 41.87 38.35 23.54 27.56 1.519
VT1B 34.73 42.08 25.83 29.29 1.186
VT2B 38.87 53.10 32.60 35.44 1.097
VT3B 44.43 53.61 32.91 35.76 1.242
VT4B 30.23 33.51 20.57 23.91 1.264
VT5B 35.17 32.78 20.12 23.76 1.480
VT6B 33.97 32.09 19.70 23.51 1.445
(3) The test evaluation according to EN 1990 Annex D is presented in Table 7.20. As
usual the M-values obtained are in the same magnitude M 1,00 as for other stabil-
ity phenomena.
Table 7.20: Test evaluation according to EN 1990 Annex D and M-values
2.0
re/rt
1.0
0.0
VT1A VT2A VT3A VT4A VT5A VT6A VT1B VT2B VT3B VT4B VT5B VT6B
Input values
rt = 0,08 (geometrie and yield strength)
fy = 0,07 (yield strength)
Tests on haunched girders (TU Dortmund) (N = 12)
standard deviation log-standard deviation
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 -2.0
re/rt
ln re/rt
b = 1.262 s = 0.101 b = 1.269 s = 0.110

= 0.080 (model) R = 0.113 (total) = 0.086 (model) R = 0.118 (total)
M = 1.268 k = 0.840 M* = 1.065 M = 1.194 k = 0.842 M* = 1.006
page 90 / 142
7.7 Assessment of gantry-girders
7.7.1 Structural system and loading

(1) The structural system of the gantry girder may be taken from Figure 7.18. It is a two
span continuous girder with a span length of 6 m.
(2) The steel profile is HEB 300 S235, with a rail 5 cm x 3 cm welded to the profile with fillet
welds aw = 5 mm. The rail is not taken into account in the resistance of the girder.
(3) Transverse stiffeners welded to the flanges and the web of the profile are at the sup-
ports and the connections to the brackets of the frames of the industrial hall provide
fork-conditions.
(4) The loading results from a bridge crane with the maximum wheel loads
R = 75 kN
H = 22.2 kN
The wheel distance is c = 3.6 m.
(5) The dynamic factor is = 1.20, so that the vertical wheel loads are
F1 = F2 = F = 1 R = 1.2 75 = 90 kN
(6) The self-weight of the gantry girder is
g = 1.35 kN/m
Figure 7.18 Structural system and loading
7.7.2 Action effects
7.7.2.1 Maximum sagging moments

(1) The load position and the design loads for the maximum sagging moment may be
taken from Figure 7.19
page 91 / 142
F1,Ed = 121.5 kN F2,Ed = 121.5 kN

HEd = 30 kN
gEd = 1.82 kN/m
a TEd = 5.4 kNm c
b
l1 = 2.1 m c = 3.6 m l2
l = 6.0 m l = 6.0 m
Figure 7.19: Load position for maximum sagging moment
(2) The design values of action effects from the relevant load combination are given in
Figure 7.20
Mz,Ed = 37.3 kNm
My,Ed = 157.7 kNm
Tw,d = 3.86 kNm
Figure 7.20: Action effects for maximum sagging moments
(3) The plastic resistances of the girder are

My,Rk = 459.8 kNm
Mz,Rk = 209 kNm
Tw,Rk = 31.4 kNm2
(4) Hence the in-plane assessment follows from
M y , Rk 459.8
ult , k = = = 2.916
M y , Ed 157.7
M y , crit , LT 1191
crit = = = 7.552
M y , Ed 157.7
*
crit = 4.216
ult , k
= = 0.621
crit
page 92 / 142
*
crit 4.216
* = = 0.34 = 0.190
crit 7.552
= 0.891
ult , k 0.891 2.916

Ed = = = 2.362
M 1.1
(5) Taking into account out-of-plane loading (bending and torsion) leads to
1 M 1
qM z = 1 z ,Im (1 0.81) = 0.025
crit M z 7.552
1 T 1
qTw = 1 w,Im (1 0.648) = 0.047
crit Tw 7.552
M y , Ed
z,d =
M y , Rd
(
1 qM z = ) 37.3
209
(1 0.025) = 0.170
Tw, Ed
w, d =
Tw, Rd
(
1 qTw =
3.86
31.4
)
(1 0.047 ) = 0.117
1 1
n E = + z ,d + w,d = + 0.170 + 0.117 = 0,710
Ed 2.362
1 1 2 2
nR = 1 1 = 0.913 0,90
ult , k
ult , k
and hence:
nE < nR 0.710 < 0.913
A conservative assumption with qMw = 0, qMz = 0 and nR = 0.9 would lead to:
1 1 37.3 3.86
+ yd + w d = + + = 0,725 0.9
Ed 2.362 209 31.4
7.7.2.2 Maximum hogging moment

(1) The load position and the design loads for the maximum hogging moment may be
taken from Figure 7.21.
F1,Ed = 121.5 kN F2,Ed = 121.5 kN

HEd = 30 kN
TEd = 5.4 kNm
a b c
4.2 m 1.8 m 1.8 m 4.2 m
Figure 7.21: Load position for maximum hogging moment
page 93 / 142
(2) The design values of action effects from the relevant load combination are given in
Figure 7.22.
My,Ed = -138.8 kNm
Mz,Ed = -17.35 kNm
Tw,d = 3.74 kNm
Figure 7.22: Action effects for maximum hogging moments
(3) Obviously the load case maximum hogging moment is not relevant for the lateral
torsional buckling verification.
7.8 Channel sections
7.8.1 Objective
(1) Tests with beams made of channel sections are evaluated using the European lateral
torsional buckling curve for lateral torsional buckling with transverse bending, torsion
and in combination with compression forces, to verify the reliability of the assessment
method.
(2) The test data are given in Figure 7.21 and Figure 7.22.
page 94 / 142
Table 7.21: Tests TU-Berlin [9]; configurations and results
Load
Test Profile Steel Fexp [kN]
application
1 43.0
2 51.2
3 57.4
S355
UPE200
fy = 400 N/mm
4 31.8
5 34.5
6 30.4
page 95 / 142
Table 7.22: Tests Ruhr-Universitt Bochum [9];configurations and results
Load Fexp Nexp

Test Profile Steel Test set-up
application [kN] [kN]
7 45.91 74.88
8 36.76 59.03
9 L=4m 29.48 278.37

= 95 mm
S355
UPE200 fy = 418
N/mm
10 24.16 227.93
11 22.80 37.01
12 L=6m 21.01 33.86

= 95 mm
page 96 / 142
Still Table 7.22: Tests Ruhr-Universitt Bochum [9];configurations and results
Load Fexp Nexp

Test Profile Steel Test set-up
application [kN] [kN]
S355
13 fy = 418 17.93 80.83
N/mm
UPE200
S355
14 fy = 364 L=6m 15.95 74.45
N/mm = 95 mm
Within this test series the axial forces N have been applied through cap and ball bearings, which
were fixed on 20 mm thick steel plates at both ends of the beam-column, which impeded a free
warping of the cross section. This effect has been taken into account for the re-calculations.

(1) The calculations were performed using the European lateral torsional buckling curves
with = 0.49. The critical values crit for the M-N-interaction have been determined
using the software LTBeamN [20]. The yield strengths which have been used for the
calculations, were determined from material samples of the test specimens and are
given in Table 7.21 and Table 7.22.
(2) The different calculations have been performed:
1. using the elastic warping-resistance Tel,w,Rk of the channel section
2. using the plastic warping resistance Tpl,w,Rk of the channel section.
Results and calculative steps of each assessment are summarized in Table 7.23 and
Table 7.24. Figure 7.23 shows the determined re/rt-values for both assessment meth-
ods.
*
(3) Table 7.25 and Table 7.26 give the M -values related to the results which are be-
*
tween M = 1,0 and M* = 1,1 as required.
page 97 / 142
Table 7.23: Calculative results for Tw,Rk = Tel,w,Rk and comparison with tests
1 nE
Test Ek *) ult,k crit *crit ult ,k Mw re/rt
= nR
1 0.620 4.718 2.361 0.809 0.168 0.425 0.499 0.411 0.910 1.613
2 0.736 3.339 1.671 0.573 0.168 0.425 0.704 0.220 0.925 1.359
3 0.732 2.994 1.498 0.513 0.168 0.425 0.786 0.153 0.939 1.366
4 0.757 3.655 1.384 0.308 0.109 0.347 0.788 0.159 0.947 1.320
5 0.741 3.444 1.304 0.290 0.109 0.347 0.836 0.120 0.956 1.349
6 0.671 4.315 1.634 0.364 0.109 0.347 0.667 0.262 0.929 1.490
7 0.635 3.155 1.679 1.011 0.295 0.406 0.780 0.167 0.947 1.575
8 0.624 4.009 2.138 1.285 0.295 0.407 0.613 0.314 0.926 1.602
9 0.572 5.451 1.379 1.186 0.421 0.204 0.899 0.087 0.985 1.749
10 0.617 6.162 1.560 1.341 0.421 0.204 0.795 0.179 0.973 1.620
11 0.711 3.785 1.260 0.550 0.214 0.289 0.915 0.065 0.981 1.407
12 0.693 4.212 1.403 0.612 0.214 0.289 0.822 0.141 0.963 1.443
13 0.716 4.778 1.226 0.646 0.258 0.223 0.939 0.050 0.989 1.397
14 0.706 4.741 1.373 0.732 0.261 0.248 0.850 0.123 0.973 1.416
*) load amplifier Ek = FEd / Fexp = (re / rt)-1 which leads to an utilization level of 100% nE = nR
Table 7.24: Calculative results for Tw,Rk = Tpl,w,Rk and comparison with tests
1 nE
Test Ek *) ult,k crit *crit ult ,k Mw re/rt
= nR
1 0.968 3.020 1.512 0.518 0.168 0.425 0.779 0.159 0.938 1.033
2 0.934 2.631 1.317 0.451 0.168 0.425 0.894 0.072 0.966 1.071
3 0.865 2.533 1.268 0.434 0.168 0.425 0.929 0.047 0.976 1.156
4 0.897 3.085 1.168 0.260 0.109 0.347 0.933 0.047 0.980 1.114
5 0.842 3.030 1.148 0.255 0.109 0.347 0.950 0.035 0.985 1.187
6 0.890 3.253 1.232 0.274 0.109 0.347 0.885 0.083 0.968 1.123
7 0.756 2.650 1.410 0.849 0.295 0.406 0.929 0.051 0.979 1.323
8 0.871 2.875 1.533 0.922 0.295 0.407 0.854 0.107 0.961 1.149
9 0.618 5.046 1.276 1.098 0.421 0.204 0.971 0.025 0.995 1.619
10 0.728 5.227 1.323 1.137 0.421 0.204 0.937 0.054 0.990 1.374
11 0.758 3.550 1.182 0.516 0.214 0.289 0.976 0.018 0.994 1.320
12 0.799 3.651 1.217 0.531 0.214 0.289 0.948 0.040 0.988 1.251
13 0.749 4.564 1.171 0.617 0.258 0.223 0.983 0.014 0.997 1.335
14 0.795 4.210 1.219 0.650 0.261 0.248 0.957 0.034 0.991 1.258
) -1
* load amplifier Ek = FEd / Fexp = (re / rt) which leads to an utilization level of 100% nE = nR
page 98 / 142
re/rt 2.0 re/rt 2.0

1.8 Tel,w,Rk 1.8 Tpl,w,Rk
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 UPE 200 - RWTH Aachen 0.4

UPE 200 - TU Berlin
0.2 UPE 200 - TU Berlin 0.2
UPE 200 - RuhrUni Bochum UPE 200 - RuhrUni Bochum
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Figure 7.23: Comparison between test results [9] and calculative results for
Tw,Rk = Tel,w,Rk (left hand side) and Tw,Rk = Tpl,w,Rk (right hand side)
Table 7.25: Determination of the *M-value according to EN 1990 Annex D (Tw,Rk = Tel,w.Rk)
Eingangsdaten
Research Project Fosta P 554 - UPE200 (T el,w,Rk) (N = 14)

2.0 2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 -2.0
re/rt ln re/rt
b = 1.479 s = 0.158 b = 1.482 s = 0.154

* *
M = 1.353 k = 0.744 M = 1.006 M = 1.218 k = 0.739 M = 0.900
Table 7.26: Determination of the *M-value according to EN 1990 Annex D (Tw,R = Mpl,w,R)
Eingangsdaten
Research Project Fosta P 554 - UPE200 (T pl,w,Rk) (N = 14)

2.0 2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.000 0.125 0.250 0.375 0.500
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 -2.0
re/rt ln re/rt
b = 1.193 s = 0.107 b = 1.201 s = 0.116

* *
M = 1.296 k = 0.900 M = 1.167 M = 1.208 k = 0.903 M = 1.090
page 99 / 142
page 100 / 142

Literature
10 Literature
[1] EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design, CEN, Brussels

[2] EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3 Part 1-1 Design of steel structures General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, Brussels
[3] Maquoi, R., R. Rondal, J.: Analytische Formulierung der neuen Europischen
Knickspannungskurven, Acier, Stahl, Steel 1/1978
[4] Mller, Chr.: Zum Nachweis ebener Tragwerke aus Stahl gegen seitliches Aus-
weichen, Diss. RWTH Aachen 2003, Schriftenreihe Stahlbau, Heft 47, Shaker Verlag
[5] Sedlacek, G., Mller, Chr.: The European Standard family and its basis. Journal of
Constructural Steel Research 62/2006), 1047-1056
[6] Stangenberg, H.: Zum Bauteilnachweis offener stabilittsgefhrdeter Stahlbauprofile
unter Einbeziehung seitlicher Beanspruchungen und Torsion, Diss. RWTH Aachen
2007, Schriftenreihe Stahlbau, Heft 61, Shaker Verlag
[7] Sedlacek, G., Mller, Chr., Stangenberg, H.: Lateral torsional buckling according to
Eurocode 3, Ren Maquoi 65th birthday anniversary, 2007
[8] Sedlacek, G., Ungermann, D., Kuck, J., Maquoi, R., Janss, J.: Eurocode 3
Part 1,Background Documentation Chapter 5 Document 5.03 (partim): Evaluation
of test results on beams with cross sectional classes 1-3 in order to obtain strength
functions and suitable model factors Eurocode 3 - Editorial Group (1984)
[9] Sedlacek, G., Stangenberg, H., Lindner, J., Glitsch, T., Kindmann, R., Wolf, C.:
Untersuchungen zum Einfluss der Torsionseffekte auf die plastische Querschnitts-
tragfhigkeit und Bauteiltragfhigkeit von Stahlprofilen, Forschungsvorhaben P554;
Forschungsvereinigung Stahlanwendung e.V., 2004
[10] Stangenberg, H., Sedlacek, G., Mller, Ch.: Die neuen Biegedrillknicknachweise nach
Eurocode 3 Festschrift 60 Jahre Prof. Kindmann 2007
[11] Braham, M., Maquoi, R.: Merchant-Rankines concept brought again in honour for
web-tapered-I-section steel members, Festschrift Joachim Lindner, 1998
[12] Poutr la, D. B., Snijder, H. H., Hoenderkamp, J. C. D.: Lateral torsional buckling of
channel shaped sections, Experimental research report, University of Technology
Eindhoven, April 1999
[13] Poutr la, D.B.: Strength and stability of channel sections used as beam,
M.Sc.-thesis, University of Technology Eindhoven, December 1999
[14] Roik, K., Kindmann, R.: Das Ersatzstabverfahren Eine Nachweisform fr den ein-
feldrigen Stab bei planmig einachsiger Biegung mit Druckstab, Der Stahlbau
12/1981, S. 353-358
page 141 / 142

[15] Naumes, J.: Biegeknicken und Biegedrillknicken von Stben und Stabsystemen auf
einheitlicher Grundlage, Diss. RWTH Aachen 2009 in Vorbereitung
[16] LTBeam: Freeware program for the determination of Mcr-values developed by CTICM;
free download under: http://www.cticm.eu/spip.php?lang=en
[17] Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1: Background documentation and design
guidelines, ECCS Publication Nr. 119
[18] Bouras, H.: Lateral-torsional buckling of coped beams with fin-plates as end support
connection, MSc thesis, TUDelft, Netherlands, July 2008
[19] Ungermann, D., Strohmann, I.: Zur Stabilitt von biegebeanspruchten I-Trgern mit
und ohne Voute - Entwicklung von Bemessungshilfen fr den Ersatzstabnachweis.
FOSTA-Project P690, Lehrstuhl fr Stahlbau der TU Dortmund in cooperation with
PSP Aachen; expected date of publication end of 2008
[20] LTBeamN: Freeware software for the determination of cr-values of beam-columns

with M-N-Interaction; under investigation by CTICM; free download under
http://www.cticm.eu expected for mid of 2010
[21] EN 1090-2: Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures - Part 2:
Technical requirements for the execution of steel structures;
[22] Carjot, Louis-Guy: Straightness of hot rolled beams presentation, ArcelorMittal
Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg, May 29, 2008
[23] EN 10034: Poutrelles I et H en acier de construction; tolrances de formes et de
dimensions, 1993
[24] EN 10024: Hot-rolled taper flange I sections - Tolerances on shape and dimensions,
1995
[25] Merzenich, G.; Sedlacek, G.: Hintergrundbericht zum Eurocode 1 Teil 3.2: Ver-
kehrslasten auf Straenbrcken; Forschung Straenbau und Straenverkehrstech-
nik, Heft 711, 1995
[26] Brozetti, J., Marek, P., Sedlacek, G.: Probabilistic Assessment of Structures - 15.1
Study on load combination rules,p. 377-387, ISBN 80-86246-19-1
page 142 / 142

!! Stability Assessments According To Eurocode 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

!! Stability Assessments According To Eurocode 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEN / TC250 / SC3 / N1639E - rev2

Institute for Steel Structures

7 Guidance for applications 57

9.7 Determination of M-values for steel structures 130

2 Reference models for flexural buckling

2.1 Use of 2nd order theory with imperfections

2.2 Reference model of Maquoi-Rondal

Figure 2.1: Simply supported column with initial imperfection ini

(2) The amplitude of this equivalent geometrical imperfection was defined by

- gives the influence of the slenderness, e.g. for I-Profiles

Figure 2.2: Derivation of -value

Figure 2.3: Load deformation curves acc. to Marquoi-Rondal-model using

3 MR = Mpl / (1 - 0,5 a) ; acc. to [2] equ. 6.36

4 FEM rolled profile

5 FEM welded profile

Figure 2.4: comparison between load-deflection curves acc. to

2.3 European Standard flexural buckling curves

Figure 2.5: European column buckling curves [2]

Table 2.1: Selection of buckling curve for a cross sections [2]

A5.4: IPE160, S235

Figure 2.7: Partial factor M1 [4]

crit = a1 sin ( x ) + a2 cos( x ) + a3 x + a4 (2.3)

(4) In conclusion the equivalent geometrical imperfection is

The loading from the imperfection is

and the bending moment from the imperfection is

M II ( x crit ,max ) = M II ( xd ) 0,98

Figure 2.10: Elastic embedded column under compression force NEd

The shape of the eigenmode results from the assumption

Therefore the values read:

3 Consistent determination of the flexural buckling resistance of columns

3.1 Approach for solution

(EI ( x) ) + crit (N E ( x) ) + c( x) = 0 (3.1)

) + c( x) crit + crit (N E ( x) crit

where x = xd is the reference point.

In the specific case:

and therefore at x = /2:

the resistance RE in equation (3.2) reads

(7) With the simplifications:

it follows from (3.9):

(8) Using the symbols:

equation (3.11) may be transferred to:

3.2 Options for assessment

The imperfection reads:

see EN 1993-1-1, equation (5.9).

(2) There are two options for a solution by design aids:

Figure 3.1: Determination of the relevant location xd

3.3 Determination of the relevant location xd (option 1)

attains the maximum value, see Figure 3.2.

(2) This leads to

E ,true ( x) = ult , k ( x) true ( x)

calc (x) from + ( 0,2)

E , calc ( x) = ult , k ( x) calc ( x)

see Figure 3.3

''fl 0.8 fl 0.6

(x) , (x ) , E (x) and (x)

3.4 Modification of the buckling curve (option 2)

ult , k ult , k , min ult , k

(3) The modified buckling curve therefore reads:

2. the critical value crit = 1,6376

The verification then reads

ult , k , min 1,996

Ek = ult ,k ,min = 0,533 1,996 = 1,064 > 1,0