NSCC2009

1 INTRODUCTION
In the frame of the unification of the European technical rules for the design of steel structures
(Eurocode 3) a method has been developed to select steels to avoid brittle fracture. This concept is
implemented in EN 1993-1-10:2005 and applicable to structural steel members subject to fatigue
loads (e.g. bridges) with details covered by EN 1993-1-9:2005. It is based on a safety assessment
using fracture mechanics and assumes surface cracks with design sizes which may have developed
from initial flaws which were not found by non-destructive testing (NDT) and propagated under
fatigue load. In assessment the K-concept is applied using stress intensity factors.
The subject of this paper are recent practical engineering applications of these rules in different
fields of applicability. In fact the rules are developed with a main focus on bridge structures.
Therefore some of the basic assumptions of the standard simplified procedure using tabulated
values are not transferable to other fatigue loaded steel structures than bridges. However using the
basic design formula and using sufficiently chosen assumptions also other structures can be
designed.
The paper starts with a summary of the background of the design rules. Thereafter an example
shows a standard application using the simplified procedure. The paper ends with other examples
of application using the basic design formula.
ABSTRACT: The new European unified technical design rules for steel structures (Eurocode
3) offer a method in EN 1993-1-10 to select steels to avoid brittle fracture. This concept,
based on a safety assessment using fracture mechanics, is available for members subject to fa-
tigue loads (e.g. bridges). This paper present the wide range of applicability of these rules.
Innovative rules in Eurocode 3, Part 1-10 for the choice of material
toughness and the wide range of applicability
B. Khn
1
& G. Sedlacek
2
1
Verheyen-Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Kreuznach, Germany
2
c/o Institute of Steel Construction, RWTH University, Aachen, Germany
25


2 BACKGROUND OF THE RULES
2.1 Fracture-behavior of steel under low temperature
For ferritic steels, the fracture behavior of tensile loaded components, in particular the extent, to
which they exhibit a non-linear load-deformation curve by yielding, depends strongly on the
temperature. Figure 1 shows in a schematic way the fracture behavior of tensile loaded components
which bear a crack-like flaw. The figure contains different information which are related to the
fracture behavior. Characteristic temperatures are also defined which enable the distinction of
fracture behavior into brittle and ductile:
1. The fracture mechanism (on a microscopic scale) being cleavage at low temperatures and
becoming shear or ductile above a temperature T
i
.
2. The fracture stress depending on temperature and increasing from low temperatures to a
temperature T
gy
, where net section yielding is observed before fracture and going further up to
a temperature T
m
where the full plastic behavior in the gross section and the ultimate load is
reached.
3. The macroscopic description of the fracture behavior is defined as brittle if fracture occurs
before net section yielding and where the global behavior is linear elastic or as ductile behind
this point, where plasticity can be observed in the cross section and the load displacement
deviates from linearity.

The temperature region above T
m
characterises the
region with large plastic strains which enable plastic
redistribution of stress concentrations in the cross-
section and the formation of plastic hinges for
plastic mechanisms. In the upper shelf region above
T
a
the ultimate tension strength results from the
stability criterion and is not controlled by toughness.
In the range T 7 T
m
(room temperature) all member
tests have been carried out, from which the
resistance functions and design rules for steel
structures in Eurocode 3 have been derived.
Below T
m
is the temperature transition range that
leads to the lower shelf behavior, where the material
toughness decreases with temperature and the fail-
ure modes change from ductile to brittle.
Below T
m
the macroscopic plastic deformations are
smaller than those above T
m
. They suffice to reduce
stress concentrations in the cross-sections so that the
nominal stress concept can be applied. They are,
however, no longer sufficient for plastic hinge rota-
tions, so that global analysis should be made on an
elastic basis.

Figure 1. Fracture behavior of components depending on temperature (schematic view).

A limit that separates this macroscopic ductile failure mode from the brittle failure mode is the tem-
perature T
gy
, at which net section yielding is reached before failure. The brittle fracture avoidance
concept presented here is related to this area.
Below T
gy
the plastic deformations are restricted to local crack tip zones, which can be quantified
with fracture mechanics parameters like K, CTOD or J-Integral.
2.2 Fracture mechanics method in background of the design rules
Fracture assessments in the brittle area below the temperature T
i
below which no stable crack
growth may occur could be performed with fracture mechanical parameters as J-integrals or CTOD-
values that take both the elastic and the plastic strains into account.
However for practical reasons, the stress intensity functions, initially valid for the fully elastic range
T < T
Ic
only, can be used in a more practical way because of their availability from handbooks
26

where solutions can be found for most relevant cases. The stress intensity factor K is taken for mode
I actions and has been derived from a stress field around the crack tip. Its validity is limited to
elastic behavior where plasticity even in the vicinity of the crack tip is limited. The error resulting
from neglecting the local plasticity at the crack tip is considered by a correction factor k
R6
from the
CEB6-R6-Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) (Harrison et al. 1986) applied to the elastic value of
the action effect K
appl,d
.
The corresponding resistance is K
Mat,d
depending on temperature T
Ed
, which may be determined
from J-Integral, CTOD or valid K
Ic
-values from CT-tests.
The basic verification format with these values reads:
E
d
(K) > R
d
(K) or K
appl,d
> K
Mat,d
(1)
which, however, needs further processing to achieve two goals:
1. Correlation between the resistance K
Ic
raised from CT-tests and the standard values T
KV

raised from Charpy-V-tests,
2. Transformation to a format for verifying with temperatures on the action side T
Ed
and as well
as on the resistance side T
Rd
(based on T
KV
).
The first goal is reached in two steps. First by expressing K
Mat,d
as a function of T
Ed
by the
standardized K-(T
K100
- T
Ed
)-Master curve from Wallin (Wallin 1994), which refers to the
temperature T
K100
, for which K
Mat
takes the value 100 MPa. Second by correlating the temperature
T
K100
for the fracture mechanical parameter K = 100 MPa(m)
0.5
with the temperature T
27J
for the
Charpy-impact energy KV = 27J (modified Sanz-correlation (Marandat et al.1976, Sanz 1980)).
The verification formula based on K-values may be transferred to a formula based on temperature
values T by applying logarithms, so that the final assessment scheme reads, see also Figure 2:
Figure 2. Safety assessment for limit state brittle fracture in EN 1993-1-10
( )
Ed d Mat d appl
T K K
,
*
,

( )
Ed d Mat
R
d appl
d appl
T K
k
K
K
,
6
, *
,

4 1
100
6
, *
,
25
10
52
exp 70 20
|
|

\
|

+
)
`

+
+

=
eff
R Ed
R
d appl
d appl
b
T T T

k
K
K

4 1
27
6
, *
,
25
10
52
18
exp 70 20
|
|

\
|

+
)
`

+ +
+

=
eff
R J Ed
R
d appl
d appl
b
T C T T

k
K
K

T
100
100
T in C
K in
MPam
Sanz-T
100
-T
27J
-Correlation
T
27J
27
T in C
A
V
in J
T
27J
in C
T
100
in C
T
100
= T
27J
- 18C
= 13C
T
100
100
T
Ed
in C
K
Mat
in
MPam
Wallin-Toughness-Curve
1
1
L
R
k
R6
R6-FAD
Wallin-Master-Kurve
Modifizierte Sanz-T
100
-T
27J
-Korrelation
KV in J
( )
R
eff
d appl
Ed J
T
b
K
T C T +
|
|
|
|
|

\
|

|
|

\
|

+
70
10
25
20
ln 52 18
25 , 0
*
,
27
27


For more information about the background of the design rules, see (Khn 2005, Stranghner 2006,
Sedlacek et al. 2008).
3 EXAMPLE FOR STANDARD APPLICATION
3.1 Input parameters
For a composite road bridge with the cross-section in Figure 3 the choice of material for the bottom
flange of the steel girder is questioned. The dimensions of the steel girder are also given in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Cross-section of composite bridge at mid-span (continuous over 2 spans; location Magde-
burg-Germany) and dimension of cross-section of the steel beam at mid-span

The reference temperature is determined in Table 1.

Table 1. Determination of reference temperature.
No Effect Value
1
2
3
4
5
6
Minimum air temperature T
md

Radiation loss of member, T
r

T

(detail: transverse stiffener welded to bottom

flange covered by EN 1993-1-9)
T
R
(National Annex)
1
005 . 0

= s & (from project specification): & T
DCF = 0 (no cold-forming):
DCF
T
- 25 C
- 5 K
0 K

0 K
- 16 K*)
0 K
7 T
Ed
- 46 C
*
)
calculated with f
y
(t) = f
y0
0.25 t/t
0
= 355 0,25 26/1 = 349 N/mm and

(2.1)


For more information on input parameters used in formula (2.1) see (Khn 2005).
The relevant stress
Ed
is calculated with
1
= 0.7 from the accidental load combination ( = 1.0)
and is given to 215 N/mm. That lead to a stress level of
Ed
= 215/349 f
y
(t) = 0.62 f
y
(t).
3.2 Simplified choice of material
The use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10:2005 gives the minimum toughness requirement T
27J
= -20C,
or S355J2, see Figure 4, where
( )
K K n n
t f
T
y
16 ~ 3 . 15
0001 . 0
005 . 0
550
349 1440
550
1440
5 . 1
5 . 1
0
= |

\
|
=
|
|

\
|

= l
&
&
l &

Material S355
[cm/m]
2.6
1.0
1.2
28

t
permissible
(0.62f
y
(t)) = 39 mm > t
available
= 26 mm (3).

Figure 4. Interpolation of steel grade from Table 2-1 of EN 1993-1-10
4 OTHER POSSIBILITIES OF APPLICATION
4.1 Components of wind power plants (Specific: strain rate effects and other metallic materials
than structural steel)
In general members of the towers of wind power plants (see Figure 5) are made of structural steel
and therefore it can deal with like shown in the section 3. However what should be kept in mind, is
the strain rate effect. According to Khn 2005 (section 3.2.2.5.3) non-
neglectable strain rates ( & = 0.0001 to 0.1 s
-1
) may occur during
squalls. However in most cases sufficient ductile steel grade may be
chosen also for members which are critical ones form the point of view
of brittle fracture (e.g. braces, built-in part of foundation, etc.).
Therefore often fine grain steel grades (e.g. S355 NL or ML) were
taken to ensure sufficient safety against brittle fracture also in cases
where power plants are built in cold climate regions. But what to do
with elements not made of structural steel, e.g. rotor hub and shaft ?
These elements are made of different metallic materials. E.g. regular
shafts are made of forged steel as 30CrNiMo8. In such cases only de-
tailed investigations should be carried out using the basic verification
format, see formula (1). The main problem of these investigations is to
gather sufficient information on the material in particular toughness
characteristics considering also strain rate effects. Technical delivery
conditions, e.g. as EN 10083:1996, do not provide toughness require-
ments or, if so, the requirements are useless for a brittle fracture inves-
tigations. Additionally it has to be noticed that the load on such mem-
bers may be high in particular if stress concentration effects due to
change in stiffness have to be taken into account (e.g. in the area around
the connection between shaft and rotor hub).
Figure 5. Wind power plant

Finally it has to be considered that wind power plants in general have different load histories
comparing with bridges. On one hand a high number of load cycles are close to the cut-off limit
defined by the fatigue design procedure. But on the other hand the number of these load cycles is
much higher (x10 to x100) than on bridges and some of the load cycles are in a range not much less
than yield strength, which is also not typical for bridges. Therefore special assumptions have to be
10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
at T C J
min.
JR 20 27 60 50 40 35 30 25 20 90 75 65 55 45 40 35 135 115 100 85 75 65 60
J0 0 27 90 75 60 50 40 35 30 125 105 90 75 65 55 45 175 155 135 115 100 85 75
J2 -20 27 125 105 90 75 60 50 40 170 145 125 105 90 75 65 200 200 175 155 135 115 100
JR 20 27 55 45 35 30 25 20 15 80 70 55 50 40 35 30 125 110 95 80 70 60 55
J0 0 27 75 65 55 45 35 30 25 115 95 80 70 55 50 40 165 145 125 110 95 80 70
J2 -20 27 110 95 75 65 55 45 35 155 130 115 95 80 70 55 200 190 165 145 125 110 95
M, N -20 40 135 110 95 75 65 55 45 180 155 130 115 95 80 70 200 200 190 165 145 125 110
ML, NL -50 27 185 160 135 110 95 75 65 200 200 180 155 130 115 95 230 200 200 200 190 165 145
JR 20 27 40 35 25 20 15 15 0 65 55 45 40 30 25 25 110 95 80 70 60 55 45
J0 0 27 60 50 40 35 25 20 15 95 80 65 55 45 40 30 150 130 110 95 80 70 60
J2 -20 27 90 75 60 50 40 35 25 135 110 95 80 65 55 45 200 175 150 130 110 95 80
K2, M, N -20 40 110 90 75 60 50 40 35 155 135 110 95 80 65 55 200 200 175 150 130 110 95
ML, NL -50 27 155 130 110 90 75 60 50 200 180 155 135 110 95 80 210 200 200 200 175 150 130
M, N -20 40 95 80 65 55 45 35 30 140 120 100 85 70 60 50 200 185 160 140 120 100 85
ML, NL -50 27 135 115 95 80 65 55 45 190 165 140 120 100 85 70 200 200 200 185 160 140 120
Q -20 30 70 60 50 40 30 25 20 110 95 75 65 55 45 35 175 155 130 115 95 80 70
M, N -20 40 90 70 60 50 40 30 25 130 110 95 75 65 55 45 200 175 155 130 115 95 80
QL -40 30 105 90 70 60 50 40 30 155 130 110 95 75 65 55 200 200 175 155 130 115 95
ML, NL -50 27 125 105 90 70 60 50 40 180 155 130 110 95 75 65 200 200 200 175 155 130 115
QL1 -60 30 150 125 105 90 70 60 50 200 180 155 130 110 95 75 215 200 200 200 175 155 130
Q 0 40 40 30 25 20 0 0 0 65 55 45 35 30 20 20 120 100 85 75 60 50 45
Q -20 30 50 40 30 25 20 0 0 80 65 55 45 35 30 20 140 120 100 85 75 60 50
QL -20 40 60 50 40 30 25 20 0 95 80 65 55 45 35 30 165 140 120 100 85 75 60
QL -40 30 75 60 50 40 30 25 20 115 95 80 65 55 45 35 190 165 140 120 100 85 75
QL1 -40 40 90 75 60 50 40 30 25 135 115 95 80 65 55 45 200 190 165 140 120 100 85
QL1 -60 30 110 90 75 60 50 40 30 160 135 115 95 80 65 55 200 200 190 165 140 120 100
S420
S460
S690
steel
grade
S235
S275
S355
sub
grade
Charpy energy reference temperature T
Ed
in C
KV

Ed=0.25 x fy(t)
Ed
=0.50 x f
y
(t)
Ed
=0.75 x f
y
(t)
29


drawn for calculation and special requirements have to be pointed out for fabrication. Both have to
be combined to ensure that crack sizes assumed for the design and used in the fracture mechanics
calculation are safe. In brittle fracture assessments safe means that an initial flaw with a defined
initial size can surely be found by the required quality checks (e.g. by using NDT). And in the
accidental case that such a flaw will be not found it has to be ensured that the time between two
inspections or the life time (optimum) is shorter than the time which the initial crack needs to grow
under the specific load history to a critical crack size, where brittle fracture may occur under
frequent loads. Proper requirements for fabrication of shafts can be:
No welding allowed (also no repair welding)
Stress concentration effects have to be minimised (e.g. by smooth change of stiffness)
No cold forming
100% NDT with special regard on the surface (no cracks allowed, other defects must have a
specific distance to the surface and surface roughness is limited)
Based on such requirements an accidental initial crack size has to be assumed and crack growth
calculations have to be carried out to show whether there is enough time to find the crack before it
becomes a critical one. If there is sufficient time a fracture mechanics calculation has to show that
available toughness is higher than the toughness requirements due to the crack, the frequent load
and under consideration of strain rate effects. Simplified assumptions concerning the model used for
calculation of stress intensity factors may be made, e.g. see Figure 6.













Figure 6. Shaft with semi-elliptically surface crack simplified by a plate (width W and thickness t) with an
edge crack on one side (crack depth a)

Depending on the boundary condition brittle fracture investigations on such components often lead
to toughness requierments of K
mat
= 45 100 MPa(m)
0.5
, which can be fulfilled by forged steel as
30CrNiMo8. However the calculated requirement should be agreed by contract, because most of the
available technical delivery conditions do not provide it.
4.2 Stop devices (Specific: strain rate and cold forming effects)
At some steel structures working platforms are needed on a high level. If rails can not be built in
stop devices are used as fall protection for the workers, see Figure 7.














Figure 7. Examples for stop devices

Simplified model:
plate with edge crack on one side
t
W

Top-view
View
section mast
30
In the case a worker is fixed on such stop devices and falls down his or her fall will be stopped by
it. Also if energy absorbers are used to damp the fall, the load-time-history of the stop device will
often show strain rates & 7 10
-4
s
-1
. Therefore strain rate effects have to be considered in brittle
fracture investigations of such components. Till now only few types of stop devices were
investigated to find out their specific maximum of strain rate. However strain rates up to & = 10 s
-1

have been found. But it has to be noticed that these few results can not be transferred to other types
of stop devices due to their different load-time- and load-deformation-behaviour.

Additionally some types of stop devices (e.g. the one right hand side in Figure 7) show huge plastic
deformation after a fall was stopped, see Figure 8.












Figure 8. Example for plastic deformation of a stop device after a fall was stopped

These plastic deformations have to be taken into account, too, if brittle fracture calculations were
carried out for such stop devices. According to Khn 2005 the degree of cold forming can be
calculated using the following equation:
( )
100
1
16
max

+

= =
b
h
n L
f
DCF (4)
with f, L, h, b and n according to Figure 9.



Figure 9. Definition of dimensions used in equation (4)

This equation leads for typical dimensions of the type of stop device as shown in Figure 7 (right
hand side) to degrees of cold forming (DCF) of 30% to 35%. Using equation (2.3) and (2.4) of EN
1993-1-10 : 2005 both effects (strain rate and cold forming) lead to a temperature shift of transition
temperature of T
& -75 K and T
cf
-105 K. With regard on these results it is obviously that:
brittle fracture investigations are recommended for all stop devices and not only for as they are used
in cold climate environments, and
if normal structural steel should be used further detailed investigations are recommended to find
more realistic assumptions for both effects than the above mentioned theoretically estimated values.
For the discussed typ of stop device tests were carried out, where the load-time-history during the
damping of a fall as well as the final plastic deformation were measured. It has been shown that
both strain rate ( & > 4 s
-1
) and plastic deformation (DCF > 15%) are much lower than theoretically
estimated. It has to be considered, too, that both effects have their maximum not at the same time
(maximum of strain rate at the beginning of damping fall and maximum degree of cold forming at
the end) and in general the point of the member, where strain rate and plastic deformation have their
e e e e e
L
r
f

/2
b
h
plastische Dehnungen

max
max
h
/
2
Plastic strain
31


maximum, did not have other negative effects concerning brittle fracture, e.g. welds, change of
stiffness, etc.. Therefore generally such typs of stop devices may be made of steel grade S355 J2.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The new European unified technical design rules for steel structures (Eurocode 3) offer a method in
EN 1993-1-10 to select steels to avoid brittle fracture. This concept, based on a safety assessment
using fracture mechanics, is available for various members made of structural steel. In general the
method is used for members subject to fatigue loads, but it is also applicable for members under
quasi static loads, see Hhler et al. 2004. As shown in the present paper the method may be used in
cases with specific toughness requirements due to high strain rate and / or high cold deformation
effects, too. Also other metallic materials can be dealt with. This method was used sufficently for
the choice of material for following applications: boat hulls, bogies of trains, crane structures made
of high performace steel grades up to S1100, hangers of arch bridges with thicknesses larger than
180mm and huge inhomogenities of the material in through thickness direction, cast nodes, castor
containers concidering also the negative effect of nuclear radiation on the toughness, pressure
vessels, pressure pipe lines, etc.
6 REFERENCES
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties,
2005.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-9: Fatigue, 2005.
EN 10083: Steels for quenching and tempering - Part 1: General technical delivery conditions, 2006
Harrison, R.P., K. Loosemore and I. Milne, Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects,
CEGB-Report R/H/R6, Revision 3, 1986.
Hhler, S., Khn, B., Sedlacek, G., Brittle fracture mechanical concept for welded connections in steel struc-
tures, Proc. of the 10th Nordic Steel Conference, Copenhagen (Denmark), 7-9 June 2004, pp 65 to 76
Khn, B., Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der europischen Regelungen zur Vermeidung von Sprdbruch,
Dissertation am Lehrstuhl fr Stahlbau, RWTH Aachen, 2005, ISBN 3-8322-3901-4.
Marandat et al. 1976 Marandat, B., Sanz, G., tude par la mcanique de la rupture de la tnacit daciers
rsistance moyenne fournis en forte paisseur, Revue de Mtallurgie, pp. 359-383, April 1976.
Sanz, G., Essai de mise au point dune mthode quantitive de choix des qualits daciers vis--vis du risque
de rupture fragile, Revue de Mtallurgie, CIT, pp. 621-642, July 1980.
Sedlacek, G., Feldmann, M., Khn, B., Tschickardt, D., Hhler, S., Mller, C., Hensen, W., Stranghner, N.,
Dahl, W., Langenberg, P., Mnstermann, S., Brozetti, J., Raoul, J., Pope, R., Bijlaard, F., Commentary and
worked examples to EN 1993-1-10 Material toughness and through thickness properties and other tough-
ness oriented rules in EN 1993, JRC ECCS Joint Report, 1st Edition, Sept. 2008, EUR 23510 EN.
Stranghner, N., Werkstoffwahl im Stahlbrcken, DASt (Deutscher Ausschu fr Stahlbau), Forschungs-
bericht 4/2006, Stahlbau Verlags- und Service GmbH, Dsseldorf, 2006
Wallin K., Methodology for Selecting Charpy Toughness Criteria for Thin High Strength Steels, Part 1, 2
and 3, Jernkontorets Forskning, Nr. 4013/89, VTT Manufacturing Technology, VTT Espoo, 1994.
32