2011/9/16

TYLI IN-HOUSE COURSE ON

DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES
TO EC3

J Y Richard Liew
Professor
PhD, PE, MIStructE, CEng, ACPE, StEr

National University of Singapore

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
E-MAIL: ceeljy@nus.edu.sg

Schedule
Dates : 01 Oct 2011, Saturday Venue : Spring Singapore
08 Oct 2011, Saturday Podium Block, Level 3
15 Oct 2011, Saturday Room P303
12 Nov 2011, Saturday
Ti
Time : 9:00am
9 00 - 1:00pm
1 00

Date Topics Date Topics

01/10/2011, 1. Introduction 8/10/2011, 5. Restrained beam
Saturday 2. Local buckling and 6. Unrestrained beam
section classification 7. Composite beam
3 Tension member
3. 8
8. B i and
Bracing d Ti
Ties
4. Compression member
15/10/2011 9. Beam-column &
Simple frames
10. Multi-storey frames
12/11/2011 11. Portal frames
12. Plate girders
2

R Liew 1
 2011/9/16

References
Compulsory reading
• EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part1.1: General rules and rules for
buildings.
• EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part1.1:
General rules and rules for buildings, 2004.
• Steel building design: Design data, Publication P363, jointly published by The Steel
Construction Institute and the British Constructional Steelwork Association UK, 2009.
• 8 Chapters course notes by Prof. J Y Richard Liew.
Supplementary Readings
• Johnson, R.P., "Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete", Vol 1, Beams, Slabs,
Column and Frames for Buildings, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 3rd ed., 2004.
• Johnson R P and Anderson D, Designers’ guide to EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of
composite steel and concrete structures, Part1.1: General rules and rules for buildings,
Thomas Telford
Telford, 2004
2004.
• Gardner L and Nethercot D, Designers’ guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of
steel structures, Part1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, Thomas Telford, 2003.

Overview on Structural Eurocodes

10 Structural Eurocodes
 EN1990: Basis of structural design
 EN1991: Actions on structures
 EN1992: Design of concrete structures
 EN1993: Design of steel structures
 EN1994: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
 EN1995: Design of timber structures
 EN1996: Design
g of masonryy structures
 EN1997: Geotechnical design
 EN1998: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
 EN1999: Design of aluminium structures

R Liew 2
 2011/9/16

Standards relating to SS EN 1993 and SS EN 1994

SS EN 1990
SS EN 1991

SS EN 1992 SS EN 1993
SS EN 1993

(3 Parts) (21 Parts)

(4Parts)

SS EN 206
SS 544

Overview on Eurocode 3 (EN1993)

Part 1 (General)
 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
 Part 1-2: Structural fire design
 Part 1-3: Supplementary rules for cold formed members and sheeting
 Part 1-4: Supplementary rules for stainless steel
 Part 1-5: Plated structural elements
 Part 1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures
 Part 1-7: Plated structures subject to out of plane loading
 Part 1-8:
1 8: Design of joints
 Part 1-9: Fatigue
 Part 1-10: Material toughness and through thickness properties
 Part 1-11: Design of structures with tension components
 Part 1-12: Additional rules for the extension of EN1993 up to steel grades S700
6

R Liew 3
 2011/9/16

Part 2 (Bridges)
 Part 2-1: Bridges

Part 3 (Towers, Masts and Chimneys)

 Part 3-1: Towers, masts and chimneys
y – Towers and Masts
 Part 3-2: Towers, masts and chimneys – Chimneys

Part 4 (Silos, Tanks and Pipelines)

 Part 4-1: Silos, tanks and pipelines – Silos
 Part 4-2: Silos, tanks and pipelines – Tanks
 Part 44-3:
3: Silos, tanks and pipelines – Pipelines

Part 5 (Piling)
 Part 5: Piling

Part 6 (Crane Supporting Structures)

 Part 6: Crane supporting structures 7

Conventions
Property Symbol Subscript Definition
area A k characteristic
section modulus W d design
radius of gyration i E effect
second moment of area I Rd design resistance
el elastic
Loads Symbol pl plastic
Permanent action G
z
V i bl action
Variable ti Q Member axes
Accidental action A y y z–z Minor axis
y–y Major axis
x–x Longitudinal axis
z

R Liew 4
 2011/9/16

Mechanical Properties of Steel

Material Properties & Notation (EC3)

EN 1993-1-1 Clause 3.2.6

Modulus of elasticity: E  210 GPa Shear Modulus G = 81 GPa

Poisson’s ratio:   0.3

03

Coefficient of thermal expansion:   12  10 6 / o C

z b

tw
y y h d

x-x axis: along

member axis
tf
z 10

R Liew 5
 2011/9/16

Mechanical Properties of Steel

Stress f
E  210 GPa
fu

• fu = ultimate stress
Est • fy = yield stress
fy 1 • E = Young’s modulus
• u = ultimate strain
• y = yield strain
E
• Elongation measured in percentage
1 Elastic
Strain Necking
Plastic hardening and failure
Strain 
y  sh u
Elongation at failure, f

11

European Standard for Structural Steel

EN 10025–2:2004 Technical delivery conditions for non-alloy structural steels.
EN 10025–3:2004 Technical delivery conditions for normalized/normalized
rolled weldable fine ggrain structural steels.
EN 10025–4:2004 Technical delivery conditions for thermomechanical rolled
weldable fine grain structural steels.
EN 10025–5:2004 Technical delivery conditions for structural steels with
improved atmospheric corrosion resistance.
EN 10025–6:2004 Technical delivery conditions for flat products of high yield
strength structural steels in the quenched and tempered
condition.

12

R Liew 6
 2011/9/16

Specifying Steel Grade

BS EN 10025 - S 275 Replace BS4360

A steel to
the standard Minimum yield of
275 N/mm2
275
S for “structural” 355
E for “engineering” 460
13

Standardised steel grade

system
European standard number
For hot
hot-finished
finished hollow section H=hollow section

EN 10210 S 355 J2H

Suffix for test
S = Structural steel Temperature
For Impact
Grade designation test
based on yield “Room” JR
zero J0
Strength t<16mm -200C J2
-300C K2
14

R Liew 7
 2011/9/16

Nominal values of yield strength fy & ultimate strength fu

for non-
non-alloy structural steel
EN 10025-2:2004
Nominal S235 S275 S355 S450
Thickness fy fu fy fu fy fu fy fu
[ ]
[mm] [MP ] [MPa]
[MPa] [MP ] [MP ] [MPa]
[MPa] [MP ] [MP ] [MPa]
[MPa] [MP ] [MP ] [MPa]
[MPa] [MP ]
t ≤ 16 235 360 275 410 355 470 450 550
16 < t ≤ 40 225 360 265 410 345 470 430 550
40 < t ≤ 63 215 360 255 410 335 470 410 550
63 < t < 80 215 360 245 410 325 470 390 550
80 < t < 100 215 360 235 410 315 470 380 550
100 < t < 150 195 350 225 400 295 450 380 530
150 < t < 200 185 340 215 380 285 450 - -
200 < t < 250 175 340 205 380 275 450 - -

15

The structural Eurocodes –

National Annexes
• Include
– Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs)
– Choice of alternative methods in the annexes.
– Reference to non-conflicting complimentary
information (NCCI)

16

R Liew 8
 2011/9/16

Design approach of Eurocodes

• Outlined in EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design
• Based on limit state design
• Principal limit states
• Ultimate limit state, concerned with ‘collapse’
– Yielding; buckling; overturning
• Serviceable limit state, concerned with ‘function’
– Deflection; vibration
• Accident limit states
• Fire resistance
• Durability
• Robustness

17

Ultimate Limit state design

Design Resistance
 Design Effect x 
m

Characteristic resistance Characteristic action

÷ ×
Partial factor for resistance Partial factor for action

(Decrease characteristic (Increase characteristic action)

resistance)

18

R Liew 9
 2011/9/16

Design Strength of Steel

 m 1 Number of results

95%
Confidence limit
Mean

275 300 350 N/mm2

Strength of material

19

Design Approach of Eurocodes

The approach in Eurocode is based on Limit State Design and the following are the
two main types of limit states:
Ultimate Limit States
states associated with collapse or with other similar forms of structural failure
 yielding
 buckling
 overturning
Serviceability Limit States
states that correspond to conditions beyond which specified service requirements
for a structure or structural member are no longer met.
 excessive deflection
 excessive vibration

20

R Liew 10
 2011/9/16

Partial Factors
Partial safety factors account for
Variability of material strength
A t l material
Actual t i l strength
t th may ddeviate
i t ffrom itits characteristic
h t i ti
value
Variability of action
Actual loads may deviate from its characteristic value.
Variabilityy of structural p
performance
Variations in geometrical data
Variations in workmanship
Differences between idealized and actual behaviour.

21

Combination of actions
Terms used in BS 5950-1:2000
Dead load – permanent action.
Imposed load – variable action

j 1
G, j Gk , j   Q ,1Qk ,1    Q ,i 0,i Qk ,i
i 1
(excluding wind).

Permanent actions Leading Accompanying

variable variable
action actions

ψ : combinations factors
Details for γ and ψ given in EN 1990: 2002.
Typical ULS combinations:
1.35DL + 1.5IL (unfavourable DL and IL)
1.35DL + 1.5IL + 0.9WL (unfavourable DL, IL and WL; IL dominant)
1.0DL + 0IL + 1.5WL (favourable DL and IL, WL dominant)

22

R Liew 11
 2011/9/16

Actions
3 types: permanent (G), variable (Q) and accidental (A).

Partial factors for actions γ :

Actions ULS SLS

Unfavourable conditions:
Permanent action (G) / Dead load (DL) 1.35 0
Variable action (Q) / Imposed load (IL) 1.5 1.0
Favourable conditions:
Permanent action (G) / Dead load (DL) 1.0 0
Va iable action (Q) / Imposed load (IL)
Variable 0 0

Favourable: action results in lower load resultant/effect.

Unfavourable: action results in higher load resultant/effect.
Load resultant/effect: bending moment, shear, tension, compression, overturning, etc.

23

Load Combinations for ULS

EN 1990 Clause 6.4.3.2
The fundamental combination for ULS is given as follows:


j 1
G, j Gk , j   Q ,1Qk ,1    Q ,i 0,i Qk ,i
i 1
NON‐LEADING variable action
LEADING variable action 

Unfavourable Condition

 1.35G
j 1
k, j  1.5Qk ,1   1.5 0,i Qk ,i
i 1

Values of 0,i
0 i are found in Table A1.1 of EN 1990:2002
Typical recommended values of  factors for buildings are listed below:
 = 1.0 (imposed loads in storage areas)
 = 0.0 (imposed loads in roof)
 = 0.7 (imposed loads in other categories of buildings)
 = 0.5 (wind loads on buildings)
 = 0.6 (temperature in buildings)
24

R Liew 12
 2011/9/16

Load Combinations (2)

Ultimate Limit States: Simplifications


j 1
G , j Gk , j   Q ,1Qk ,1  
i 1
Q , i 0, i Qk , i

For permanent + imposed action,

1.35Gk  1.5Qk
For permanent + imposed action + other variable action,

1.35Gk  1.5Qk  1.5  0Qk , i

25

Equivalent Horizontal Force (EHF)

• To account for the effect of initial sway imperfection, EC3 requires the
consideration of equivalent horizontal forces, for each column.
• EHF is a function of the design vertical load, NEd.

EHF   N Ed N Ed N Ed

  0 h m  N Ed

0  1 / 200
2 2
h    h  1.0
h 3
 1
 m  0.5  1   N Ed N Ed

m 
h: height of structure in meters
m: number of columns in a row with the NEd applied on the column ≥ 50%Ned,avg for
all columns in the vertical plane.
26

R Liew 13
 2011/9/16

CP65/BS5950 versus EC1

Concrete Structural Steel
EC1

BS 8110/CP65 BS5950
1.4DL + 1.6IL + NHLb 1.35DL + 1.5IL + GIE

1.2DL + 1.2IL + 1.2WL (or 1.2DL + 1.2IL + 1.2WL (or 1.35DL + 1.05IL + 1.5WL +
NHLa) NHLc) GIE
1.35DL + 1.5IL + 0.75WL +
GIE

1.4DL + 1.4WL (or NHLa) 1.4DL + 1.4WL (or NHLc) 1.35DL + 1.5WL + GIE

1.0DL + 1.4WL (or NHLa) 1.0DL + 1.4WL (or NHLa) 1.0DL + 1.5WL + GIE

GIE = Geometric Imperfection Effects

BS 8110/CP65
a NHL = 1.5%(unfactored DL)

BS5950
b NHL = 0.5%(factored DL + factored IL)
c NHL = 1.0%(factored DL)

Note: The effects of imperfection applied in all the load combinations is applicable for all buildings types (i.e. of concrete,
structural steel or composite construction). In load combinations where wind load is considered, the governing of the two,
i.e. the larger of the 1.5%(unfactored DL) and ultimate wind load will be adopted in these combinations.

27

Example 1
A beam of span 9 m is simply supported at its ends. It is loaded by two
concentrated loads at its third-points. Calculate the moment and shear
forces required for beam design.

The dead and imposed loads are given as follows:

DL Distributed load 3 kN/m

Concentrated load 40 kN

IL Concentrated load 60 kN

28

R Liew 14
 2011/9/16

Design loads
54 kN + 90 kN 54 kN + 90 kN

4.05 kN/m

3m 3m 3m
162 kN 162 kN

Design loads:
DLDistributed load 3 × 1.35 = 4.05 kN/m
Concentrated load 40 × 1.35 = 54 kN

IL Concentrated load 60 × 1.5 = 90 kN

29

Load resultants/effects
54 kN + 90 kN 54 kN + 90 kN

4.05 kN/m

3m 3m 3m
162 kN 162 kN

Maximum bending moment occurs at mid-span:

MEd = 162×4.5 – 4.05×4.5×4.5/2 – (54+90)×1.5 = 472 kNm.

Maximum shear force occurs at the supports:

VEd = 162 kN.

30

R Liew 15
 2011/9/16

Example 2
A gantry structure experiences the following loads. Evaluate the load
combinations that need to be considered in the ultimate limit state.

G Q
G,
Wind

Permanent action, G
self weight of beam = 3 kN
Self-weight of each column = 2 kN

7m Imposed action, Q = 3.5 kN

Wind load, W = 6 kN

RA 4m RB
31

Example 2
Ultimate Limit State
Total design load at the bottom,

G, Q VEd  1.35  3   1.5  3.5   1.35  2  2   14.7 kN

W
Total horizontal design reaction,

H Ed  1.5  5  7.5 kN
H Ed  0.15VEd  2.21 kN
7m
EHF can be disregarded!

RA 4m RB

32

R Liew 16
 2011/9/16

Example 2  G , j Gk , j   Q ,1Qk ,1   Q , i 0, i Qk , i
j 1 i 1

Ultimate Limit State Consider the unfavorable loading condition:

Imposed load is the leading variable action
1.35G + 1.5Q + 0.75W+EHF
G Q
G,
W Design wind load:
  W 0W  1.5  0.5  6  4.5 kN
Design dead load on the beam:
7m
Column weight   G G  1.35  3  4.05 kN
1.35x2 = 2.7kN
Design imposed load on the beam:
B   Q Q  1.5  3.5  5.25 kN
M B 0
RA 4m RB   3.75   7   4.05  5.25   2  2.7  4
RA 
4
 0.53 kN (Uplifting)
RB  15.23 kN 33

Example 2  G , j Gk , j   Q ,1Qk ,1   Q , i 0, i Qk , i
j 1 i 1

Ultimate Limit State Consider the favorable loading condition:

Imposed load is the leading variable action
1.0G + 0Q + 0.75W+EHF
Gk, Qk
Wk Design wind load:
  W 0Wk  1.5  0.5  6  4.5 kN
Design dead load on the beam (favorable):
7m
Column weight   G Gk  1.0  3  3 kN
1.0x2 = 2 kN
Design imposed load on the beam (favorable):
B   Q Qk  0  3.5  0 kN
M B 0
RA 4m RB   4.5   7  3  2  2  4
RA 
4
 4.38 kN (Uplifting)
34

R Liew 17
 2011/9/16

Example 2 Consider wind load as the leading variable action

Ultimate Limit State 

j 1
G , j Gk , j   QWk  
i 1
Q , i 0, i Qk , i

For unfavorable loading condition:

G Q
G,
1.35G + 1.5W + 1.05Q+EHF
W
Design wind load:
  W W  1.5  5  7.5 kN
7m Design dead load on the beam:
Column weight
1.35x2 = 2.7kN   G G  1.35  3  4.05 kN
Design imposed load on the beam:
  Q 0Q  1.5  0.7  3.5  3.675 kN
M B0
RA 4m RB   7.5   7   4.05  3.675   2  2.7  4
RA 
4
 6.56 kN (Uplifting)
RB  19.69 kN 35

Example 2 Consider wind load as the leading variable action

Ultimate Limit State 

j 1
G , j Gk , j   QWk  
i 1
Q , i 0, i Qk , i

For favorable loading condition:

Gk, Qk
1.0G + 1.5W + 0Q+EHF
Wk
Design wind load:
  W Wk  1.5  5  7.5 kN
7m Design dead load on the beam:
Column weight
1.0x2 = 2 kN   G Gk  1.0  3  3 kN
Design imposed load on the beam:
  Q 0Qk  0  0.7  3.5  0 kN
M B 0
RA 4m RB
  7.5   7   3   2  2  4
RA 
4
 9.63 kN (Uplifting)
36

R Liew 18
 2011/9/16

Summary
Possible load combinations
• Imposed load is leading variable
1.35G + 1.5Q + 0.75W+EHF (unfavourable)
1.0G + 0Q + 0.75W+EHF (imposed load & dead load are favarourable)
• Wind load is leading variable
1.35G + 1.5W + 1.05Q+EHF (unfavaourable)*
1.0G + 1.5W + 0Q+EHF (imposed load and dead load are favourable)**

Maximum reaction forces acting

g on the columns from the loading
g
combinations:
Tension: 9.63 kN Uplift**
Compression: 19.69kN*

37

Load Combinations for SLS

Partial Factor for Serviceability Limit State
Action Partial Factor
Permanent Action ((G)) G=0.00
Variable Action (Q) Q=1.00

EN 1990 Clause 6.5.3

The combination of actions for serviceability limit states is given as follows:
Qk ,1   0,i Qk ,i  EHF
i 1

If the leading variable action is the imposed load, Qk, we can simply it as follows:
Qk  0.5Wk  EHF

If the leading variable action is the wind load, Wk, we can simplify it as follows:
Wk  0.7Qk  EHF
38

R Liew 19
 2011/9/16

BS5950 VS Eurocode 3
• Eurocodes are arranged by structural
phenomenon not design routine
• Most checks are presented in expressions,
not graphs and tables
• “Simple” approaches found in BS5950 are
missing
i i – the
th E
Eurocode
d presentst the
th
rigorous methods.

39

Frame imperfections and equivalent

horizontal forces

1/200
 = 0.5%

• Need to consider if H Ed  0.15VEd

• Account for frame imperfection

• Include for all load combinations

40

R Liew 20
 2011/9/16

Imperfections
• Frame imperfections (discussed earlier)
• Member imperfection. BS5950:Part 1 bases on 1% or 2.5%
compressive force for column and
• Bracing imperfection. beam, respectively

41

Second Order Effect

• Need to consider second effect if cr < 10.

10
• BS5950 checks NHL only. EC3 checks for all load
combinations including wind loads and imperfections.
• Even in low rise buildings the additional forces due to the
loads acting on the displaced structure may need to be
considered.
• Where the structure is regular i.e. rectangular framing
with symmetric loading, simple methods such as BS5950
may be used.
• If cr < 3 direct analysis must be used.

42

R Liew 21
 2011/9/16

Direct second order analysis for unusual structures

43

Load Combinations for SLS

Partial Factor for Serviceability Limit State
Action Partial Factor

Permanent Action (G) G=0.00

Variable Action (Q) Q=1.00

The combination of actions for serviceability limit states is given as follows:

Qk ,1   0,i Qk ,i  EHF
i 1

Typical SLS combinations:

Eurocode BS5950
Beam Design 1.0IL 1.0IL
Frame design 1.0IL + 0.5WL+EHF 1.0IL + 1.0WL
1.0WL+0.7IL+EHF

44

R Liew 22
 2011/9/16

Buckling Resistances

Af y Instead of
L
Compression members 
N cr r

Wy f y L
Lateral torsional buckling LT  Instead of LT  nuv
M cr ry

In BS5950, the moment gradient effect is accounted for directly

in the calculation of Mb.
In EC3, the effect of non-uniform bending is allowed in Mcr.

45

Buckling Resistances –
the outcomes
• For flexural
fle ral buckling
b ckling – almost identical
• For lateral torsional buckling – resistance
from EC3 can be considerably higher than
that according to BS5950 – some 25% for
a 7m 533 x 210 UB.

46

R Liew 23
 2011/9/16

Combined Bending and Axial Load

• The expressions in EC3 are not for the faint-
hearted They are equivalent to the more exact
hearted.
approaches in BS5950.
• SS national annexes adopt the UK practice to
have simple expression for simple construction:
N Ed M y , Ed M
  1.5 z , Ed  1
N b , z , Rd M b , Rd M z , Rd

• Software will be used by most designers using

the general expressions in the Eurocode.

47

Connections
• No significant change in connection component strength
• Bolt bearing resistance in EC3 Part 1-8
1 8 is much higher.
But higher  value is recommended in national annex to
reduce it back to BS 5950 value.
• Eurocode requires connections to be classified as “pin”
or “rigid”. But SS national annex states that connections
designed in accordance with the “green book” published
by SCI on simple and moment connections can be
considered as simple and rigid respectively.
• Eurocode allows semi-rigid design.

48

R Liew 24