EN1993 Benchmarks

Benchmarks
Steel Code Check EN 1993 EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-2 EN 1993-1-3 EN 1993-1-5
Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993
Release: Author:
Scia Engineer 2010.0 P. Van Tendeloo
Document: Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993 Revision: 02/2010
All information in this document is subject to modification without prior notice. No part or this document may be reproduced, stored in a database or retrieval system or published, in any form or in any way, electronically, mechanically, by print, photo print, microfilm or any other means without prior written permission from the publisher. SCIA Software is not responsible for any direct or indirect damage because or imperfections in the documentation and/or the software. Copyright 2010 SCIA Software. All rights reserved
INTRODUCTION BENCHMARKS EN 1993-1-1
1 4
Benchmark 1: Global Imperfections .......................................................... 4 Benchmark 2: Bow Imperfections ............................................................. 6 Benchmark 3: Material Yield Strength ...................................................... 9 Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area ........................................... 12 Benchmark 5: Designers Guide Ex. 5.1 ................................................. 16 Benchmark 6: Designers Guide Ex. 6.2 ................................................. 18 Benchmark 7: Designers Guide Ex. 6.4 ................................................. 20 Benchmark 8: Designers Guide Ex. 6.5 ................................................. 21 Benchmark 9: Designers Guide Ex. 6.6 ................................................. 23 Benchmark 10: Designers Guide Ex. 6.7 ............................................... 25 Benchmark 11: Designers Guide Ex. 6.8 ............................................... 27 Benchmark 12: Designers Guide Ex. 6.9 ............................................... 32 Benchmark 13: Designers Guide Ex. 6.10 ............................................. 39 Benchmark 14: Designers Guide Ex. 13.1 ............................................. 45 Benchmark 15: Designers Guide Ex. 13.3 ............................................. 47 Benchmark 16: Nachweispraxis Beispiel 1 ............................................. 49 Benchmark 17: ECCS N119 Worked Example 1 .................................. 51 Benchmark 18: ECCS N119 Worked Example 2 .................................. 56 Benchmark 19: ECCS N119 Worked Example 3 .................................. 64 Benchmark 20: ECCS N119 Worked Example 4 .................................. 69 Benchmark 21: ECCS N119 Worked Example 5 .................................. 75 Benchmark 22: ECCS N119 Members in building frames .................... 84 Benchmark 23: Access Steel Document SX002a-EN-EU ...................... 93 Benchmark 24: Access Steel Document SX001a-EN-EU ...................... 95 Benchmark 25: Access Steel Document SX007a-EN-EU ...................... 98 Benchmark 26: Access Steel Document SX030a-EN-EU .................... 101 Benchmark 27: Access Steel Document SX029a-EN-EU .................... 114 Benchmark 28: Access Steel Document SX021a-EN-EU .................... 126
BENCHMARKS EN 1993-1-2
130
Benchmark 29: Access Steel Document SX044a-EN-EU .................... 130 Benchmark 30: Access Steel Document SX046a-EN-EU .................... 134 Benchmark 31: Access Steel Document SX047a-EN-EU .................... 138 Benchmark 32: Access Steel Document SX048a-EN-EU .................... 142 Benchmark 33: Access Steel Document SX043a-EN-EU .................... 146 Benchmark 34: Temperature Domain ................................................... 149 Benchmark 35: Combined Compression and Bending ......................... 154
BENCHMARKS EN 1993-1-3
164
Benchmark 36: Designers Guide Ex. 13.1 ........................................... 164 Benchmark 37: Designers Guide Ex. 13.2 ........................................... 167 Benchmark 38: Access Steel Document SX022a-EN-EU .................... 170 Benchmark 39: Access Steel Document SX023a-EN-EU .................... 173 Benchmark 40: Access Steel Document SX024a-EN-EU .................... 177 Benchmark 41: Access Steel Document SX025a-EN-EU .................... 180 Benchmark 42: Stiffened Cross-section................................................ 182 Benchmark 43: Purlin Design in Uplift .................................................. 191
Introduction
In this document, the results of Scia Engineer concerning the Steel Code Check according to EN 1993 are compared to benchmark projects. A total of 43 benchmarks are evaluated for EN 1993-1-1, EN 1993-1-2 and EN 1993-1-3. In addition some benchmarks include parts of EN 1993-1-5. An overview of supported articles as well as theoretical background on how specific code rules have been implemented/supported within Scia Engineer can be found in the Steel Code Check Theoretical Background document, revision 12/2009. All checks are executed according to the regulations given in the following codes and correction sheets: Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1 - 1 : General rules and rules for buildings EN 1993-1-1:2005 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1 - 1 : General rules and rules for buildings EN 1993-1-1:2005/AC:2009 Corrigendum Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1 - 2 : General rules - Structural fire design EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1 - 2 : General rules - Structural fire design EN 1993-1-2:2005/AC:2009 Corrigendum Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1-3: General rules Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting EN 1993-1-3:2006
Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1-3: General rules Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting EN 1993-1-3:2006/AC:2009 Corrigendum Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.5 : Plated structural elements EN 1993-1-5 : 2006 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.5 : Plated structural elements EN 1993-1-5 : 2006/AC:2009 Corrigendum The following list gives an overview of the different benchmarks.
Benchmarks EN 1993-1-1 Benchmarks 1 to 4 concern manual calculations. Benchmarks 5 to 15 concern examples of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. Benchmark 16 concerns an example Biegedrillknicken, Ernst & Sohn, 2002. of Nachweispraxis Biegeknicken und
Benchmarks 17 to 22 concern examples of ECCS N119 Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1, Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS, 2006. Benchmarks 23 to 28 concern examples of Access Steel, which can be found on the website http://www.access-steel.com/
Benchmarks EN 1993-1-2 Benchmarks 29 to 33 concern examples of Access Steel, which can be found on the website http://www.access-steel.com/ Benchmarks 34 to 35 concern manual calculations.
Benchmarks EN 1993-1-3 Benchmarks 36 to 37 concern examples of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. Benchmarks 38 to 41 concern examples of Access Steel, which can be found on the website http://www.access-steel.com/ Benchmarks 42 to 43 concern manual calculations.
For each Benchmark, the reference results and the Scia Engineer output are given. Where needed, the results are followed by comments. More background information concerning each benchmark can be found in the specified references. For those benchmarks in which the verification is done using both Interaction Method 1 and 2 two Scia Engineer project files are provided (XXX_1.esa and XXX_2.esa).
Benchmark 1: Global Imperfections
Benchmarks EN 1993-1-1
Project file: EN_Benchmark01.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction In this benchmark, the equivalent sway imperfections according to EN 1993-1-1 are checked. A portal frame is modeled as shown on the following picture. The frame has a total height of 12m and is loaded on the top side of the columns by 100 kN point loads. The column bases are taken as fixed, the beam-column connections as hinged.
Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation.
2
h
2 12
h
0,577
2 3
2 3
0,5 1
1 m
m
0,5 1
1
1 3
0,816
200
0,577 0,816
0,0027217
This results in a leverage arm e for the point loads at the top:
e h tg ( ) 12 0,0027217 0,03266 m
Due to this leverage arm, the expected moment at the column bases is calculated as follows:
M F e 100 kN 0,03266 m 3,266 kNm
Scia Engineer Results
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results.
Benchmark 2: Bow Imperfections

Project file: EN_Benchmark02.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction In this benchmark, the local bow imperfections according to EN 1993-1-1 are checked. A set of six Euler columns is modeled. The columns have length 4m and crosssection IPE 240. For each column bow imperfections and normal force loading are defined as shown in the following table: Column Bow imperfection B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 According to code elastic According to code plastic According to code elastic only if required According to code plastic only if required According to code elastic only if required According to code plastic only if required Normal Force [kN] 100 100 100 100 1300 1300
Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation. IPE 240 Buckling curve y-y: a Buckling curve z-z : b curve a:
Elastic analysis:
e0 L
1 300
curve b: Plastic analysis: curve a:
e0 L e0 L e0 L
1 250 1 250 1 200
curve b:
For the imperfections if required the critical Euler load is calculated:

2
Ncr , y
EI y
2
210000 38920000 4000 2
5041,64 kN
25% of Ncr,y = 1260,41 kN

2
Ncr, z
EI z L2
210000 2836000 4000 2
367,37 kN
25% of Ncr,z = 91,84 kN
With a length of 4m the imperfection value e0 can be calculated for each column for each direction. Due to these imperfection values, the normal force loading will cause bending moments My and Mz in the columns. The expected results are shown in the following table.
Column Buckling axis B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 y-y z-z y-y z-z y-y z-z y-y z-z y-y z-z y-y z-z
e0 [mm] 13,33 16 16 20 0 16 0 20 13,33 16 16 20
N [kN] 100 100 100 100 1300 1300
My [kNm] Mz [kNm] 1,33 1,6 1,6 2 0 1,6 0 2 17,33 20,8 20,8 26
For columns B3 and B4 the normal force loading is lower then the limit for buckling around the y-y axis so no imperfection has to be applied in that case. For buckling around the z-z axis the imperfection is required. Scia Engineer Results
Benchmark 3: Material Yield Strength

Project file: EN_Benchmark03.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction In this benchmark, two items are checked: Reduction of the yield strength in function of the thickness for rolled sections, according to EN 1993-1-1. Calculation of the average yield strength for cold-formed sections according to EN 1993-1-3.
Two sections are modeled: hot rolled HE1000X393 fabricated from S235 and a cold-formed RHSCF300/100/12.5 fabricated from S275.
Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation. CS1 - HE1000X393 S235 tf = 43,9 mm > 40 mm fy = 215 N/mm
M0 =1,00
With area A = 50020 mm and

NRd A fy
M0
the compression capacity will be:
50020 215 1,00
10754 ,3kN
CS2 - RHSCF300/100/12.5 S275 The average yield strength is calculated as follows:

fya fyb knt 2 Ag fu fyb fu 2 fyb
With: fyb = fu = Ag = k= n= t=
275 N/mm 430 N/mm 8700 mm 7 for cold rolling 4 (90 bends) 12,5 mm
fya 275
fya 352,95
7 4 12,5 2 8700
352,5
430 275
430 275 2
fya = 352,5 N/mm With

NRd
M0 =1,00

8700 352,5 1,00 3066,75kN
A fy
M0
Scia Engineer Results Results for CS1 - HE1000X393 S235
10
Results for CS2 - RHSCF300/100/12.5 S275
11
Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area

Project file: EN_Benchmark04.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction In this benchmark, the effective cross-section is calculated for a rolled section with class 4 web. The cross-section is of type IPE 600, fabricated from S355 and loaded by uniform compression. The classification is done according to EN 1993-1-1, the calculation of the effective cross-section area is done according to EN 1993-1-5. Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation. S355 IPE 600 = 0,81 H= B= tf = tw = r= A= 600 mm 220 mm 19 mm 12 mm 24 mm 15600 mm
Classification for outstand flanges

c B 2 tw 2 r 220 2 12 2 24 80 mm
c tf
80 19
4,21
Limit for class 1: 9 = 7,32 4,21 < 7,32 The flanges are classified as class 1
12
Classification for internal compression parts

c H 2tf 2r 600 2 19 2 24
514 mm
c tw
514 12
42,83
Limit for class 3: 42 = 34,17 42,83 > 34,17 The web is classified as class 4
Calculation of effective area
b c = 514 mm
= 1,0 k = 4,0 13
12 28,4 0,81
514
0,9369
0,9369 0,055 3 1 0,9369 2

beff
0,8228
0,8228 514 422,83 mm
be1 = be2 = 211,46 mm

220 24 19 211
12
Aeff = 220 x 19 x 2 + 211,46 x 12 x 2 + 2 x 24x 12 = 14011,16 mm
With
NRd
M0 =1,00

14011,16 355 1,00 4973,96kN
Aeff
M0
fy
14
15
Benchmark 5: Designers Guide Ex. 5.1

Project file: EN_Benchmark05.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 5.1: Cross-section classification under combined bending and compression of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A member is to be designed to carry combined bending and axial load. In the presence of a major axis bending moment and an axial force of 300 kN, the crosssection classification is determined of a 406 x 178 x 54 UB in grade S275 steel. Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification under pure compression Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 6,86 8,32 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 3 limit 46,81 38,8 Web Class 4
Classification under combined loading Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 6,86 8,32 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 2 limit 46,81 52,33 Web Class 2
16
Scia Engineer Results Classification under pure compression
Classification under combined loading
17

Project file: EN_Benchmark06.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.2: Cross-section resistance in compression of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A 254 x 254 x 73 UC is to be used as a short compression member. The resistance of the cross-section in compression is calculated assuming grade S355 steel. Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification Flanges c/tf Class 2 limit 7,77 8,14 Flanges Class 2 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 23,29 26,85 Web Class 1
Compression resistance Nc,Rd 3305 kN
18
19

Project file: EN_Benchmark07.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.4: Shear resistance of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. The shear resistance is determined of a 229 x 89 rolled channel section in grade S275 steel loaded parallel to the web. Reference Results The reference gives following results: Shear resistance Av Vpl,Rd 2092 mm 332 kN
Shear buckling does not need to be considered
20

Project file: EN_Benchmark08.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.5: Cross-section resistance under combined bending and shear of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A short span (1,4m), simply supported, laterally restrained beam is to be designed to carry a central point load of 1050 kN. A 406 x 178 x 74 UB in grade S275 steel is assessed for its suitability for this application.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 4,68 8,32 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 37,94 66,56 Web Class 1
Bending resistance Mc,y,Rd 412 kNm
Shear resistance Av Vpl,Rd 4184 mm 689,2 kN
21
Resistance to combined bending and shear My,V,Rd 386,8 kNm
22

Project file: EN_Benchmark09.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.6: Cross-section resistance under combined bending and compression of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A member is to be designed to carry a combined major axis bending moment and an axial force. In this example, a cross-section check is performed to determine the maximum bending moment that can be carried by a 457 x 191 x 98 UB in grade S235 steel in the presence of an axial force of 1400 kN.
Compression resistance Npl,Rd 2937,5 kN
Bending resistance Mpl,y,Rd 524,5 kNm
23
Resistance to combined bending and axial force MN,y,Rd 342,2 kNm
24

Project file: EN_Benchmark10.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.7: Buckling resistance of a compression member of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A circular hollow section member is used as an internal column in a multi-storey building. The column has pinned boundary conditions at each end, and the interstorey height is 4m. The critical combination of actions results in a design axial force of 1630 kN. The suitability of a hot rolled 244,5 x 10 CHS in grade S275 steel is assessed for this application.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification Tube d/t Class 1 limit 24,5 42,7 Tube Class 1
Compression resistance Nc,Rd 2026,8 kN
Member Buckling resistance in compression Ncr red curve 6571 kN 0,56 a 0,21 0,91 Nb,Rd 1836,5 kN
25
26

Project file: EN_Benchmark11.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.8: Lateral Torsional Buckling resistance of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A simply supported primary beam is required to span 10,8m and to support two secondary beams. The secondary beams are connected through fin plates to the web of the primary beam, and full lateral restraint may be assumed at these points. A 762 x 267 x 173 UB section is considered in grade S275 steel. For Lateral Torsional Buckling the general case is used.
27
Shear resistance Av Vpl,Rd 9813 mm 1959 kN
Resistance to combined bending and shear My,V,Rd 1704 kNm
Lateral torsional buckling: segment BC C1 Mcr red

LT LT LT
1,052 5699 kNm 0,55 0,34 0,86 1469 kNm
Mb,Rd
Lateral torsional buckling: segment CD C1 Mcr red

LT LT LT
1,879 4311 kNm 0,63 0,34 0,82 1402 kNm
Mb,Rd
28
29
LTB for segment BC:
LTB for segment CD:
30
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The benchmark gives a wrong moment diagram. In Scia Engineer the loading has been adapted to obtain the same diagram since the values of the end moments influence the calculation of the C1 factor. A small difference in the values for Mcr is caused by a different Iw section property: Reference Iw = 9390 x 10^9 mm^6 Scia Engineer Iw = 9551,7 x 10^9 mm^6.
31

Project file: EN_Benchmark12.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.9: Member resistance under combined major axis bending and axial compression of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. A rectangular hollow section member is to be used as a primary floor beam of a 7,2 m span in a multi-storey building. Two design point loads of 58 kN are applied to the primary beam from secondary beams. The secondary beams are connected through fin plates to the webs of the primary beam, and full lateral and torsional restraint may be assumed at these points. The primary beam is also subjected to a design axial force of 90 kN. The suitability of a hot rolled 200 x 100 x 16 RHS in grade S355 steel is assessed for this application. For Lateral Torsional Buckling the general case is used. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using alternative method 1 (Annex A).
32
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification (under pure compression) Web c/tw Class 1 limit 9,50 26,85 Web Class 1
Compression resistance Nc,Rd 2946,5 kN
Shear resistance Av Vpl,Rd 5533,3 mm 1134 kN
Bending resistance Mc,y,Rd 174,3 kNm
Resistance to combined bending, shear and axial force My,NV,Rd 174,3 kNm
Member Buckling resistance in compression Ncr,y red ,y

y y
1470 kN Ncr,z 1,42 red ,z 0,21 0,41

z z
4127 kN 0,84 0,21 0,77 2266 kN
Nb,y,Rd
1209 kN Nb,z,Rd
33
Member Buckling resistance in bending: segment BC C1 Mcr red

LT LT LT
1,0 3157 kNm 0,23 0,76 0,97 169,5 kNm
Mb,Rd
Verification according to Method 1 red ,0 Cmy,0 aLT bLT dLT Cmy CmLT y z wy wz npl Cyy Czy kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,23 1,01 0,189 0 0 1,01 1,00 0,96 0,99 1,33 1,27 0,03 0,98 0,95 1,06 0,69 0,94 0,61
34
35
36
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. In Scia Engineer an RRW section was used to obtain the same Wpl.
There is a slight difference in Mcr due to the fact the reference ignores the warping contribution.
37
According to EN 1993-1-1 art. 6.3.2.1(4) the effect of lateral-torsional buckling may be ignored ( LT = 1,00) in case: with 0,23 < 0,40 =>
LT
= 0,40 by default = 1,00

LT
The reference does not take this into account and thus has -
= 0,97.
The critical check is at 2,4m. To obtain the shear check and classification for pure compression, member data are used for checking the position at 0m.
38

Project file: EN_Benchmark13.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 6.10: Member resistance under combined biaxial bending and axial compression of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. An H section member of length 4,2m is to be designed as a ground floor column in a multi-storey building. The frame is moment resisting in-plane and pinned outof-plane, with diagonal bracing provided in both directions. The column is subjected to major-axis bending due to horizontal forces and minor axis bending due to eccentric loading from the floor beams. From the structural analysis, the design effects are shown in following figure. The suitability of a hot rolled 305 x 305 x 240 H section in grade S275 steel is assessed for this application.
For Lateral Torsional Buckling the general case is used. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using alternative method 2 (Annex B).
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 3,51 8,32 Flanges Class 1
39
Web
c/tw Class 1 limit
10,73 30,51 Web Class 1
Bending resistance Mc,y,Rd Mc,z,Rd 1168 kNm 536,5 kNm
Shear resistance Av,z Vpl,z,Rd Av,y Vpl,y,Rd 8605,82 mm 1366,36 kN 24227 mm 3847 kN
Resistance to combined bending, shear and axial force My,NV,Rd Mz,NV,Rd 773,8 kNm 503,9 kNm 2 2,04
Member Buckling resistance in compression 23863 kN Ncr,y 153943 kN Ncr,z red ,y

y y
0,23 red ,z 0,34 0,99

z z
0,59 0,49 0,79 6640 kN
Nb,y,Rd
8314 kN Nb,z,Rd
40
Member Buckling resistance in bending C1 Mcr red

LT LT LT
2,752 17114 kNm 0,26 0,21 0,99 1152 kNm
Mb,Rd
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy Cmz CmLT kyy kzz kyz kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,40 0,60 0,40 0,41 0,78 0,47 0,79 0,66 0,97
41
42
43
Comments The reference applies a wrong formula for Av,z in the shear resistance check. The results shown above for Av,z and Vpl,z,Rd are those corrected by manual calculation. There is a slight difference in Mcr due to a different C1 factor. Reference C1 = 2,752 Scia Engineer C1 = 2,70. In Scia Engineer the C1 factor for end-moment loading is calculated according to the approximate formula (F.3) of informative annex F of ENV 1993-1-1:1992. This formula is limited to 2,70. According to EN 1993-1-1 art. 6.3.2.1(4) the effect of lateral-torsional buckling may be ignored ( LT = 1,00) in case: with 0,26 < 0,40 =>
LT
= 0,40 by default = 1,00

LT
= 0,99.
To determine the interaction factors kij using alternative method 2 (Annex B) a distinction is made between members not susceptible to torsional deformations (Table B.1) and members susceptible to torsional deformations (Table B.2). The reference concludes that the member is susceptible to torsional deformations and uses Table B.2 leading to a kzy value of 0,79. However, due to the previous point, since LT = 1,00 the member is considered within Scia Engineer as being non-susceptible to LT-buckling and thus Table B.1 is applied leading to a kzy value of 0,6 kyy = 0,6 * 0,406 = 0,2436
44

Project file: EN_Benchmark14.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 13.1: Calculation of section properties for local buckling of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. The effective area and the horizontal shift in neutral axis due to local buckling are calculated for a 200 x 65 x 1,6 lipped channel in zinc-coated steel with a nominal yield strength of 280 N/mm. The section is subjected to pure compression. The properties are calculated from the idealized section given in the reference.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Effective section properties Aeff eN 341,5 mm 8,66 mm
45
46

Project file: EN_Benchmark15.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 13.3: Member resistance in compression (checking flexural, torsional and torsional-flexural buckling) of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. The member resistance of a 100 x 50 x 3 plain channel section column subjected to compression is calculated. The column length is 1,5m, with pinned end conditions, so the effective length is assumed equal to the system length. The steel has yield strength 280 N/mm. Reference Results The reference gives following results: Member resistance in compression A Ncr,y Ncr,z Ncr,T Sigma,cr,T Ncr,TF Sigma,cr,TF red 555 mm 787 kN 127 kN 121 kN 218 N/mm 114 kN 205 N/mm 1,16 0,49 0,45 Nb,Rd 69,17 kN
47
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference calculates a wrong formula for Nb,Rd. The result shown above for Nb,Rd is that corrected by manual calculation.
48
Benchmark 16: Nachweispraxis Beispiel 1

Project file: EN_Benchmark16.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Beispiel 1: Schnittgrssenberechnung und Spannungsberechnung bei zweiachsiger Biegung mit Torsion of Nachweispraxis Biegeknicken und Biegedrillknicken, Ernst & Sohn, 2002. A member with forked end supports is loaded in axial compression, bi-axial bending and torsion. The member concerns an IPE 200 of steel grade S235. A direct stress check is performed according to EN 1993-1-3 in the middle of the member which includes the direct stress due to warping.
Reference Results The reference gives following results:
N A
My z Iy
Mz y Iz
M I
12,6 28,5
1170 270 ( 10) ( 5) 1940 142
624,78 ( 47,9) 12990

182,84 N mm 2
18,3
kN cm2
4,42 60,31 95,07 23,04
With
M0 =1,00
the Stress check according to EN 1993-1-3 formula (6.11a) is:
fya
tot , Ed M0
182,84
235 1,00
Unity check: 0,78
49
50
Benchmark 17: ECCS N119 Worked Example 1

Project file: EN_Benchmark17_1.esa & EN_Benchmark17_2.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Worked Example 1 of ECCS N119 Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1, Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS, 2006.
This first worked example deals with the basic case of in-plane behaviour. The beam-column is subjected to compression and triangular major axis bending moment. The member is so restrained that both lateral and lateral torsional displacements are prevented. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using both alternative method 1 (Annex A) and alternative method 2 (Annex B).
Classification Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 4,1 9,0 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 28,39 33,00 Web Class 1
51
Shear resistance Av,z Vpl,z,Rd 1400 mm 190 kN
Member Buckling resistance in compression Ncr,y red ,y

y y
3287 kN 0,451 0,21 0,939
Verification according to Method 1 Cmy,0 bLT Cmy y wy Cyy eq. (6.61) 0,782 0 0,782 0,996 1,135 1,061 0,985
52
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy kyy eq. (6.61) 0,6 0,65 0,874
53
Verification according to Method 1
54
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference calculates a wrong value for c in the classification of the web. The result shown above for c is that corrected by manual calculation. The reference calculates a wrong value for Av,z in the shear resistance check. The result shown above for Av,z is that corrected by manual calculation.
55

This second worked example deals with spatial behaviour. The beam-column is subjected to compression, transverse forces and major axis end moments. the transverse load is assumed to act at the shear centre. Lateral torsional buckling is not prevented, and may therefore occur. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using both alternative method 1 (Annex A) and alternative method 2 (Annex B).
56
Resistance to combined bending, shear and axial force My,NV,Rd 468 kNm

y y
0,182 red ,z 0,21 1,00

z z
0,865 0,34 0,683
Member Buckling resistance in bending (General) C1 Mcr red

LT LT LT
2,15 2179 kNm 0,486 0,34 0,89 0,653 0,861 1,00
kc f
LT,mod
57
Member Buckling resistance in bending (Rolled) red

LT LT LT
0,473 0,49 0,959 0,653 0,864 1,00
kc f
LT,mod
Verification according to Method 1 y wy z wz Cmy,0 Mcr0 red 0 aLT bLT dLT Cmy Cyy Czy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 1,00 1,138 0,918 1,5 0,789 1014 kNm 0,713 0,998 0 0 0,919 1,003 0,893 0,936 0,777
58
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy Cm,LT kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) Scia Engineer Results 0,495 0,495 0,492 0,847 0,628 1,006
59
60
61
Comments The reference calculates a wrong value for Av,z in the shear resistance check. The result shown above for Av,z is that corrected by manual calculation. Since it concerns a case of combined loading, the FriLo LTB solver is used to calculate the exact Mcr through an eigenvalue solution. The reference uses an approximate graphic for determining C1 (and thus Mcr). Reference Mcr = 2179 kNm Scia Engineer Mcr = 2310,41 kNm.
62
According to EN 1993-1-1 art. 6.3.2.1(4) the effect of lateral-torsional buckling may be ignored ( LT = 1,00) in case: with = 0,40 by default
LT
350 / 2310,41 = 0,1515 < 0,16 =>
= 1,00
LT
= 0,89.
In the determination of Cmy,0 for method 1 the reference assumes the moment diagram to be linear which is not the case. The reference thus uses the linear approximation where Scia Engineer uses the correct general method for calculating Cmy,0. The reference is thus not consistent: for C1 the combined loading is taken into account, but for Cmy,0 not. In the verification according to method 1, the reference uses the General Case for LTB. However, the reference also applies the reduction factor f to calculate LT,mod in this case. In EN 1993-1-1 this reduction is only specified for the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections Case and not for the General Case. Due to the differences in the LTB reduction factor and in the Cmy,0 factor, the eventual verification formulas have differences. In the verification according to method 2, the reference uses the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections Case for LTB. For determination of kc, the reference uses specific tables according to BS 5950. In Scia Engineer the default table according to EN 1993-1-1 is used. Reference kc = 0,653 Scia Engineer kc = 0,91 To determine the interaction factors kij using alternative method 2 (Annex B) a distinction is made between members not susceptible to torsional deformations (Table B.1) and members susceptible to torsional deformations (Table B.2). The reference concludes that the member is susceptible to torsional deformations and uses Table B.2 leading to a kzy value of 0,847. However, since LT = 1,00 the member is considered within Scia Engineer as being non-susceptible to LT-buckling and thus Table B.1 is applied leading to a kzy value of 0,6 kyy = 0,6 * 0,492 = 0,2952
63

Project file: EN_ Benchmark19_1.esa & EN_Benchmark19_2.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Worked Example 3 of ECCS N119 Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1, Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS, 2006.
This third worked example deals with spatial behaviour. The beam-column is subjected to compression and transverse forces causing major axis bending. Lateral torsional buckling is not a potential mode of failure because of the shape of the cross-section. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using both alternative method 1 (Annex A) and alternative method 2 (Annex B).
Classification Web c/tw Class 1 limit 14,0 33,00 Web Class 1
64

y y
0,605 red ,z 0,21 0,888

z z
1,065 0,21 0,62
Verification according to Method 1 y wy z wz Cmy,0 bLT dLT Cmy Cyy Czy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,969 1,266 0,543 1,184 1,007 0 0 1,007 0,868 0,524 0,946 1,131
65
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,95 1,213 0,728 0,904 1,112
66
67
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference uses an RHS200x100x10 which has different properties than the same section according to British Standard, Stahlbau Zentrum Schweiz or VoestAlpine Krems. In Scia Engineer the section according to British Standard has been used. Due to differences in the cross-section properties, small differences in the classification and verification occur.
68

This fourth worked example deals with spatial behaviour. The beam-column is subjected to compression and biaxial bending. Lateral torsional buckling is not a potential mode of failure because of the shape of the cross-section. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using both alternative method 1 (Annex A) and alternative method 2 (Annex B).
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification Web c/tw Class 1 limit 14,0 33,00 Web Class 1
69
Bending resistance Mc,y,Rd Mc,z,Rd 82,7 kNm 49,8 kNm
Shear resistance Av,z Vpl,z,Rd Av,y Vpl,y,Rd 3600 mm 488 kN 2000 mm 271 kN
Resistance to combined bending, shear and axial force My,NV,Rd Mz,NV,Rd 82,7 kNm 44,9 kNm 1,763 1,763

y y
0,605 red ,z 0,21 0,888

z z
1,065 0,21 0,620
Verification according to Method 1 y wy z wz Cmy,0 Cmy 0,990 1,266 0,883 1,184 0,998 0,998
70
Cmz,0 Cmz bLT dLT Cyy Cyz Czy Czz eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62)
0,759 0,759 0 0 0,954 0,919 0,827 1,012 0,923 0,988
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy Cmz kyy kyz kzy kzz eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,933 0,6 1,030 0,466 0,618 0,777 0,817 0,903
71
72
73
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference uses an RHS200x100x10 which has different properties than the same section according to British Standard, Stahlbau Zentrum Schweiz or VoestAlpine Krems. In Scia Engineer the section according to British Standard has been used. Due to differences in the cross-section properties, small differences in the classification and verification occur. A small difference in shear resistance occurs due to the fact that the reference uses a formula to calculate the shear area which is different than the formula given in EN 1993-1-1.
74

Project file: EN_Benchmark21_1.esa & EN_Benchmark21_2.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Worked Example 5 of ECCS N119 Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1, Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS, 2006. This fifth worked example deals with spatial behaviour. The beam-column is subjected to compression and biaxial bending. The transverse loading is assumed to act through the shear center. Lateral torsional buckling is a potential mode of failure according to the shape of the cross-section. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using both alternative method 1 (Annex A) and alternative method 2 (Annex B).
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Classification Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 4,6 9 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 41,8 45,6 Web Class 1
75
Bending resistance Mc,y,Rd Mc,z,Rd 516 kNm 78,9 kNm
Shear resistance Av,z Vpl,z,Rd Av,y Vpl,y,Rd 5990 mm 814 kN 6718 mm 912 kN
Resistance to combined bending, shear and axial force My,NV,Rd Mz,NV,Rd 516 kNm 78,9 kNm 2 1

y y
0,195 red ,z 0,21 1,00

z z
0,927 0,34 0,644
76

LT LT LT
1,2 1079 kNm 0,691 0,34 0,789 0,907 0,955 0,826
kc f
LT,mod

LT LT LT
0,697 0,49 0,827 0,907 0,954 0,867
kc f
LT,mod
Verification according to Method 1 y wy z wz Cmy,0 Cmy Cmz,0 Cmz Mcr0 1,00 1,138 0,937 1,5 0,999 1,00 0,771 0,771 899 kNm
77
red 0 aLT bLT cLT dLT eLT Cyy Cyz Czy Czz eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62)
0,757 0,998 0,043 0,468 0,347 0,719 0,981 0,863 0,843 1,014 0,964 0,870
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy Cm,LT Cmz kyy kyz kzy kzz eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,925 0,925 0,6 0,924 0,489 0,961 0,815 0,752 0,974
78
79
80
81
82
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. There are some small round-off differences between the cross-section properties. In Scia Engineer the cross-section according to the Arcelor catalogue has been used. The reference calculates a wrong value for the shear area in the shear resistance check. The result shown above for the shear area is that corrected by manual calculation. Since it concerns a case of combined loading, the FriLo LTB solver is used to calculate the exact Mcr through an eigenvalue solution. In the verification according to method 1, the reference uses the General Case for LTB. However, the reference also applies the reduction factor f to calculate LT,mod in this case. In EN 1993-1-1 this reduction is only specified for the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections Case and not for the General Case. Due to the differences in the LTB reduction factor, the eventual verification formulas have differences. In the verification according to method 1, both the reference and Scia Engineer use the modified formula for calculation of Czz.as given in correction sheet EN 1993-1-1:2005/AC:2009.
83
Benchmark 22: ECCS N119 Members in building frames

Project file: EN_Benchmark22_1.esa & EN_Benchmark22_2.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example Members in building frames of ECCS N119 Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1, Background documentation and design guidelines, ECCS, 2006. In this example, a three bay three storey building is analysed. The building is loaded by permanent loads, different cases of imposed loads and wind loading. A 2nd order analysis is carried out taking into account sway imperfections. The verification is done for one of the inner columns. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using both alternative method 1 (Annex A) and alternative method 2 (Annex B).
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Sway imperfection

m h
0,791 2/3 0,00264
84
Buckling ratio for in-plane buckling ly / Lc 0,777
Shear resistance Av,z Vpl,z,Rd 3755 mm 509,5 kN
Member Buckling resistance in compression red ,y

y y
0,258 red ,z 0,34 0,979

z z
0,566 0,49 0,805
85

LT LT LT
1,77 2488 kNm 0,348 0,21 0,966 0,752 0,927 1,00
kc f
LT,mod

LT LT LT
0,339 0,34 1,00 0,752 0,929 1,00
kc f
LT,mod
Verification according to Method 1 y z wy wz Cmy,0 Cmy Mcr0 red 0 aLT bLT 1,00 0,978 1,118 1,5 0,787 0,895 1406 kNm 0,463 0,992 0
86
dLT Cyy Czy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62)
0 1,037 0,998 0,588 0,534
Verification according to Method 2 Cmy CmLT kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,6 0,6 0,612 0,936 0,508 0,674
87
88
89
90
91
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference assumes that, during 2nd Order analysis, the bending moment remains linear. An exact 2nd order analysis by Scia Engineer shows that this is not the case. As a result, different calculation methods will be used for C1 and Cmy,0. In order to perform the verification using the same moment diagram, the moment diagram from the reference was inputted in Scia Engineer through the use of non-calculated internal forces. In Scia Engineer the C1 factor for LTB is calculated according to the formula for end moment loading given in ENV 1993-1-1:1992. This formula results in a value of 1,88 in case of a triangular moment diagram. The reference uses a similar formula which results in a value of 1,77. This slight difference in C1 results in a difference in Mcr. Reference Mcr = 2488kNm Scia Engineer Mcr = 2645 kNm In the verification according to Method 1, the reference uses the General Case for LTB. However, the reference also applies the reduction factor f to calculate LT,mod in this case. In EN 1993-1-1 this reduction is only specified for the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections Case and not for the General Case. To determine the interaction factors kij using alternative method 2 (Annex B) a distinction is made between members not susceptible to torsional deformations (Table B.1) and members susceptible to torsional deformations (Table B.2). The reference concludes that the member is susceptible to torsional deformations and uses Table B.2 leading to a kzy value of 0,936. However, since LT = 1,00 the member is considered within Scia Engineer as being non-susceptible to LT-buckling and thus Table B.1 is applied leading to a kzy value of 0,6 kyy = 0,6 * 0,611 = 0,367
92
Benchmark 23: Access Steel Document SX002a-EN-EU

Project file: EN_Benchmark23.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX002a-EN-EU Buckling resistance of a pinned column with intermediate restraints of Access Steel, http://www.accesssteel.com/, 2005. This worked example concerns the procedure to determine the buckling resistance of a pinned column with intermediate restraints.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Member Buckling resistance in compression 6206,0 kN Ncr,y 1964,5 kN Ncr,z red ,y
y y
1,019 red ,z 0,34 0,585

z z
0,573 0,49 0,801 1193 kN
Nb,Rd
93
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. There are some small round-off differences between the cross-section properties. In Scia Engineer the cross-section according to the Arbed catalogue has been used.
94

Project file: EN_Benchmark24.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX001a-EN-EU Simply supported laterally unrestrained beam of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2004. This example gives the details for the verification of a simple non-composite beam under uniform loading. The beam is laterally restrained at the supports only. The loading is acting at the top flange (destabilizing). For Lateral Torsional Buckling the Rolled Sections or Equivalent Welded case is used.
95
Member Buckling resistance in bending (Rolled) C1 C2 Mcr red

LT LT LT
1,127 0,454 113,9 kNm 1,288 0,49 0,48 0,94 0,984 0,488 92,24 kNm
kc f
LT,mod
Mb,Rd
96
97

Project file: EN_Benchmark25.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX007a-EN-EU Simply supported beam with lateral restraint at load application point of Access Steel, http://www.accesssteel.com/, 2005. This worked example deals with a simply supported beam with lateral restraints at supports and at load application point. For Lateral Torsional Buckling the Rolled Sections or Equivalent Welded case is used.
98
Shear resistance Av,z Vpl,z,Rd 7011,5 mm 1437 kN
Member Buckling resistance in bending (Rolled) C1 Mcr red

LT LT LT
1,77 1590 kNm 0,837 0,49 0,74 0,752 0,876 0,845 942,22 kNm
kc f
LT,mod
Mb,Rd Scia Engineer Results
99
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference assumes a linear bending moment diagram which is not the case since the beam is loaded by both point loads and a line load. As a result, a difference is obtained in the C1 and kc factors. In Scia Engineer the actual moment diagram is used instead of a linear approximation. This difference in C1 and kc results in a slight difference in Scia Engineer LT,mod = 0,81 LT,mod. Reference LT,mod = 0,845
100

Project file: EN_Benchmark26.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX030a-EN-EU Elastic design of a single bay portal frame made of fabricated profiles of Access Steel, http://www.accesssteel.com/, 2006. A single bay portal frame made of welded profiles is designed according to EN 1993-1-1. This worked example includes the elastic analysis of the frame using the 1st Order theory, and all the verifications of the members based on the effective properties of the cross-sections (class4). For Lateral Torsional Buckling the General case is used. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using alternative method 1 (Annex A).
Buckling amplification factor

cr
29,98
101
Sway imperfection
m h
0,866 0,74 0,0032
Column Verification Classification Flanges c/tf Class 3 limit 9,8 11,3 Flanges Class 3 Web c/tw Class 3 limit 131,9 92,3 Web Class 4
Effective cross-section properties Aeff Iy,eff Weff,y 7586 mm 1215420000 mm4 2867400 mm
Shear Buckling Eta1 k E cr red

W W
0,721 5,34 10,7 N/mm 57,14 N/mm 1,894 0,438 430,9 kN 0,26
Vbw,Rd Eta 3
102

y y
0,1935 red ,z 0,34 1,00

z z
0,6116 0,49 0,778 2095 kN
Nby,Rd
2693 kN Nbz,Rd

LT LT LT
1,31 3873 kNm 0,5127 0,76 0,7705 784,3 kNm
Mb,Rd
Verification according to Method 1 y z Cmy,0 Mcr0 red 0 aLT Cmy CmLT kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 1,0 0,995 0,79 2957 kNm 0,587 1,00 0,951 1,00 0,953 0,948 0,877 0,890
103
Rafter Verification
Effective cross-section properties Aeff Iy,eff Weff,y 7346 mm 1175820000 mm4 2772100 mm
Shear Buckling Eta1 k E cr red

W W
0,729 5,34 10,7 N/mm 57,14 N/mm 1,894 0,438 430,9 kN 0,349
Vbw,Rd Eta 3
Determination of buckling length around yy-axis cr Ncr,y Lcr,y 76,43 9546 kN 16180 mm
104

y y
0,5228 red ,z 0,34 0,874

z z
0,6398 0,49 0,7619 1987 kN
Nby,Rd
2279 kN Nbz,Rd

LT LT LT
1,39 3640 kNm 0,52 0,76 0,7653 753,1 kNm
Mb,Rd
Verification according to Method 1 y z Cmy,0 Mcr0 red 0 aLT Cmy CmLT kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62) 0,9983 0,9953 0,9927 2619 kNm 0,613 1,00 0,9985 1,014 1,024 1,021 0,967 0,972
105
Column Verification
106
107
108
Rafter Verification
109
110
Buckling shape for determination of Ncr,y:
111
112
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. There is a slight difference in the classification slenderness due to the weld throat which is not accounted for in Scia Engineer. For calculating the in-plane buckling resistance of the rafter, the reference assumes the frame to be restrained against horizontal displacement. Scia Engineer takes into account the actual frame without this assumption. In the calculation of Cmy,0 the reference approximates the rafter as one straight member of 30m. Scia Engineer uses the actual geometry of the rafter.
113

Project file: EN_Benchmark27.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX029a-EN-EU Elastic design of a single bay portal frame of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006. A single bay portal frame made of rolled profiles is designed according to EN 1993-1-1. This worked example includes the elastic analysis of the frame using the 1st Order theory, and all the verifications of the members under ULS combinations. For Lateral Torsional Buckling the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections case is used. The interaction factors kij for combined bending and compression are determined using alternative method 1 (Annex A).
Buckling amplification factor

cr
14,57
114
Sway imperfection
m h
0,866 0,74 0,0032
Column Verification
115

y y
0,284 red ,z 0,21 0,9813

z z
1,481 0,34 0,3495

LT LT LT
1,77 1351 kNm 0,8455 0,49 0,7352 0,7519 0,8765 0,8388
kc f
LT,mod
Verification according to Method 1 y z wy wz Mcr0 red 0 aLT Cmy,0 Cmy CmLT npl Cyy Czy 0,9999 0,9447 1,144 1,5 763,3 kNm 1,125 0,9982 0,7896 0,9641 1,00 0,03765 0,9849 0,9318
116
kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62)
0,9818 0,5138 0,9534 0,5867
Rafter Verification
117

y y
0,7906 red ,z 0,21 0,8011

z z
1,605 0,34 0,3063

LT LT LT
2,75 1159 kNm 0,7215 0,49 0,8125 0,91 0,9556 0,8503
kc f
LT,mod
Verification according to Method 1 y z wy wz Mcr0 red 0 aLT Cmy,0 Cmy CmLT npl Cyy Czy 0,9946 0,9208 1,138 1,5 421,5 kNm 1,196 0,9981 0,9803 0,996 1,072 0,0428 0,9774 0,9011
118
kyy kzy eq. (6.61) eq. (6.62)
1,116 0,5859 0,8131 0,5385
Column Verification
119
120
121
Rafter Verification
122
123
124
Comments In the verification of the column, the reference gives a wrong value for c/tf in the classification of the flanges. The value shown above has been corrected by a manual calculation. In the verification of the column, in Scia Engineer the C1 factor for LTB is calculated according to the formula for end moment loading given in ENV 19931-1:1992. This formula results in a value of 1,88 in case of a triangular moment diagram. The reference uses a similar formula which results in a value of 1,77. This slight difference in C1 results in a difference in Mcr. Reference Mcr = 1351 kNm Scia Engineer Mcr = 1432 kNm In the verification of the rafter, the reference gives a wrong value for c/tf in the classification of the flanges. The value shown above has been corrected by a manual calculation. In the verification of the rafter, the reference uses an approximate graphic for determining C1 for combined loading which gives 2,75. Scia Engineer uses the method outlined in the Steel Code Check Theoretical Background which gives 2,47. This slight difference in C1 results in a difference in Mcr. Reference Mcr = 1159 kNm Scia Engineer Mcr = 1033 kNm In the verification of the rafter, the reference applies a fictitious restraint at the top of the column to calculate the in-plane buckling length. Scia Engineer uses the actual geometry of the structure. In order to execute the verification using the same assumptions, the buckling length used by the reference was inputted in Scia Engineer.
125

Project file: EN_Benchmark28.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX021a-EN-EU Simply supported IPE profile purlin of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006. This example gives the details of the verification according to EN 1993-1-1 of a simply supported purlin under a uniform loading. The purlin is an I-section rolled profile which is laterally restrained by steel sheeting. For Lateral Torsional Buckling the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections case is used. The purpose of this benchmark for Scia Engineer is to verify the calculation of the LTB resistance for a member which is laterally restrained by sheeting at the tension flange.
126
Member Buckling resistance in bending (Rolled) Mcr red

LT LT LT
27,20 kNm 1,297 0,34 0,525 24,02 kNm
Mb,Rd
127
128
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference and Scia Engineer use a different method to calculate the shear stiffness of the diaphragm. The reference gives insufficient data concerning the K1 and K2 manufacturer factors (as specified in the Steel Code Check Theoretical Background). Therefore, the K1 factor has been inputted in Scia Engineer in such a way that the same shear stiffness was obtained as in the reference. The reasoning behind this is that purpose of this benchmark for Scia Engineer is to verify the calculation of the LTB resistance for a member which is laterally restrained by sheeting at the tension flange, not the actual calculation of the sheeting. The FriLo LTB solver was used to calculate Mcr through an eigenvalue analysis. For LTB the Rolled sections and equivalent welded sections case is used. According to EN 1993-1-1 in this case the reduction factor may be reduced by the factor f. The reference does not apply this modification (however for this example the modification has no effect).
129
Project file: EN_Benchmark29.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX044a-EN-EU Fire design of a protected HEB section column exposed to the standard temperature time curve of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006. This worked example illustrates the fire design of a column that is continuous over two storeys. Heat transfer into the section is evaluated using the EN1993-1-2 calculation procedure. The resistance of the column is evaluated using the simple calculation model for compression members given in EN1993-1-2. The column, fabricated from a hot-rolled HEB section, supports two floors and is fire protected with sprayed vermiculite cement. The required period of fire resistance is R90.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Fire Situation Ap/V g at 90 min a,t at 90 min ky, 159 m-1 1006,0 C 553,8 C 0,613 130
kE,
0,444
Buckling resistance Lcr,z,fi Ncr,z red ,z red ,z,

z,fi
2,45 m 4706 kN 0,702 0,825 0,581 825,0 kN
Nb,fi, ,Rd
131
132
133

Project file: EN_Benchmark30.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX046a-EN-EU Fire design of an unprotected IPE section beam exposed to the standard time temperature curve of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006. The worked example illustrates the fire design of a simply supported noncomposite beam. The transfer of heat into the beam is evaluated using a step-bystep calculation procedure. The structural resistance of the member at elevated temperature is evaluated using the simple calculation model for members subject to bending given in EN1993-1-2. A beam made of hot-rolled IPE section is a part of the floor structure of an office building. The beam is loaded uniformly and restrained against lateral torsional buckling by a concrete slab. The beam is design to achieve a fire resistance rating of R15.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Fire Situation Am/V ksh g at 15 min a,t at 15 min ky, 188 m-1 0,667 738,6 C 613,8 C 0,436
134
Classification Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 5,3 7,07 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 35 56,6 Web Class 1 Shear resistance Av,z Vfi,t,Rd Bending resistance 1 2 Mfi,t,Rd 0,7 1,0 107,6 kNm 2568 mm 177,8 kN
135
136
137

Project file: EN_Benchmark31.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX047a-EN-EU Fire design of protected IPE section beam exposed to parametric fire curve of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006. This worked illustrates the fire design of a simply supported non-composite beam. Heat transfer into the section is calculated using the equation for protected members given in EN1993-1-2, which is evaluated using an iterative calculation procedure. The structural resistance is calculated using the simple calculation model for members in bending, given in EN1993-1-2. A steel beam forms part of a floor structure of an office building. The beam is uniformly load and restrained against lateral torsional buckling by a concrete slab. The beam is required to achieve 60 minutes fire resistance and will be fire protected using sprayed vermiculite cement. The thermal actions will be determined using the parametric temperature - time curve.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Fire Situation Ap/V g at 42,5 min a,t at 42,5 min ky, 188 m-1 562,1 C 582,5 C 0,525
138
Classification Flanges c/tf Class 1 limit 5,3 7,07 Flanges Class 1 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 35 56,6 Web Class 1 Shear resistance Av,z Vfi,t,Rd Bending resistance 1 2 Mfi,t,Rd 0,85 1,0 106,7 kNm 2568 mm 214,1 kN
139
140
141

Project file: EN_Benchmark32.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX048a-EN-EU Fire design of protected unrestrained HEA section beam exposed to the standard temperature time curve of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006. This example illustrates the fire design of a simply supported beam with partial lateral restraint. Transfer of heat into the section is calculated with the equation given in EN1993-1-2, which is evaluated using an incremental calculation procedure. The structural resistance is evaluated using the simple calculation model for beams subject to LTB given in EN1993-1-2. A hot-rolled HEA section has forming part of floor structure of an office building supports a concentrated load. The beam is restrained at the ends and at the point of load application. The beam is required to achieve R30 fire resistance and is to be fire protected with sprayed vermiculite cement.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Fire Situation Ap/V g at 30 min a,t at 30 min ky, kE, 165 m-1 841,8 C 396 C 1,000 0,704
142
Classification Flanges c/tf Class 2 limit Class 3 limit 8,6 8,5 11,9 Flanges Class 3 Web c/tw Class 1 limit 24,5 61,2 Web Class 1 Shear resistance Av,z Vfi,t,Rd Lateral Torsional Buckling C1 Mcr red red
LT,fi LT LT,
3174 mm 430,6 kN
1,77 1362,7 kNm 0,438 0,522 0,704 167,6 kNm
Mfi,t,Rd
143
144
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. Within Scia Engineer the C1 factor for LTB is calculated according to the formula for end moment loading given in ENV 1993-1-1:1992. This formula results in a value of 1,88 in case of a triangular moment diagram. The reference uses a similar formula which results in a value of 1,77. This slight difference in C1 results in a difference in Mcr. Reference Mcr = 1362,7 kNm Scia Engineer Mcr = 1448,37 kNm
145
Benchmark 34: Temperature Domain

Project file: EN_Benchmark33.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX043a-EN-EU Fire design of unprotected HEB section column exposed to the standard temperature time curve of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2006.
This worked example illustrates the fire design of a column that is continuous over two storeys. The resistance of the member at elevated temperature is evaluated using the simple calculation model given in EN1993-1-2. A column fabricated from a hot-rolled HEB section supports two floors. The member is to be constructed without fire protection and its load bearing resistance is to be checked for exposure to the standard temperature-time curve. The required fire resistance is R15.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Fire Situation a,t at 15 min ky, kE, 565 C 0,578 0,411
Buckling resistance Lcr,z,fi 2,45 m
146
Ncr,z red ,z red ,z,

z,fi
4706 kN 0,702 0,833 0,577 772,5 kN
Nb,fi, ,Rd
147
148

Project file: EN_Benchmark34.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark is based on an example worked out at the training for Fire Safety Engineering as part of the TETRA project Brandveilig Constructief Ontwerp in September 2009. In this benchmark the fire resistance of an unprotected beam on two supports is evaluated in case of flexure. The beam is part of an office building. At the top side a concrete slab prohibits the occurrence of lateral torsional buckling. Due to this slab the beam is exposed to fire at three sides. The beam is exposed to the standard ISO 834 curve and is required to have a resistance R15. The verification is carried out in the Temperature domain using a manual calculation. To determine the eventual fire resistance at the critical temperature a monogram is used as published by Infosteel (http://www.infosteel.be/).
Reference Results Length Properties IPE 300 S 275 fy = 275 N/mm E = 210000 N/mm Density: a = 7850 kg/m l = 7,4m
149
Section properties A = 5380 mm; Wpl,y = 628.4 10mm; Iy = 8356 104mm4. The section is taken as Class 1 in bending. Loading: Permanent: gk = 4,8 kN/m Variable: qk = 7,8 kN/m Accidental situation using 2,1 = 0,3 for office buildings. reduction factor for the design load level for the fire situation:
E d , fi
fi
fi
Ed
1,1 k
gk gk
G
qk
fi
Q
4,8 0,3 7,8 4,8 1,35 7,8 1,5
0,393
Section factor for an unprotected beam subjected to fire at three sides:

Am V 188m
1
Box shape section factor for an unprotected beam subjected to fire at three sides:
Am V
b 2h V
0.15m 2 0.3m 0.005380 m
139 m
Correction factor for the shadow effect:

0.9 k sh Am V Am V 0.9 139 m 188m 1
1
0,665
150
The modified section factor thus becomes:

P k sh Am V 0,665 * 188m
1
125m
Adaptation factors for non-uniform temperature distribution along the crosssection and along the member: - 1 = 0,7 - 2 = 1,0 unprotected beam subjected to fire at three sides simply supported member
Degree of utilization at time t=0:

0 fi 1 2
0,393 0,7 1,0
0,275
The critical temperature is calculated as:

a ,cr
39.19 ln
1 0,9674
3,833 0
482
a , cr
39.19 ln
1 0,9674 * 0,2753,833
482
677 C
Using the monogram this critical temperature corresponds to a fire resistance of 17 minutes. The member thus meets the requirement of R15.
151
152
153
Benchmark 35: Combined Compression and Bending

Project file: EN_Benchmark35.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark is based on an example worked out at the training for Fire Safety Engineering as part of the TETRA project Brandveilig Constructief Ontwerp in September 2009. In this example a beam of an office building is subjected to the combined loading of bending and compression. At the top side a floor is resting on the beam however the floor is not prohibiting lateral torsional buckling thus instability can occur. The beam is exposed to fire at three sides and protected by a hollow encasement of gypsum. The required fire resistance is R90. The verification is carried out in the Resistance domain using a manual calculation. To determine the critical temperature a monogram is used as published by Infosteel (http://www.infosteel.be/). This benchmark uses the correction to the interaction equations as published in the EN 1993-1-2:2005/AC:2009 correction sheet.
154
Reference Results Length Properties Beam Protection Gypsium dp = 20 mm (hollow encasement) p = 0,2 W/(mK) cp = 1700 J/(kgK) HE 200 B S 235 Section class 1 E = 210000 N/mm Aa = 7810 mm Iz = 2000 cm4 It = 59,3 cm4 Iw = 171100 cm6 l = 10 m
As a conservative measure the density of the protection is not accounted for. Loading: Permanent: Gk = 96,3 kN gk = 1,5 kN/m Variable: qk = 1,5 kN/m Accidental combination of actions in case of fire:
EdA
GA
Gk
Ad
2 ,1
Qk ,1
2 ,i
Qk ,i
For office buildings 2,1 = 0.3.
155
Design loading in the fire situation:

N fi ,d
M fi ,d
1,0 96.3 96,3kN

1,0 1,5 0,3 1,5 10 8 24,38kNm
The steel temperature is calculated using the monogram published by Infosteel. For a member subjected to fire at three sides and having hollow encasement protection the following section factors are determined:
Ap V 2 h b Aa
p
2 0.2m 0.2m 0.00781m

1
77 m
Ap
V dp
77m
0,2 W mK 0,020m
770
W m K
This leads to the following critical temperature:

a,max,90
540 C
156
First of all the combined effect of buckling and bending is checked:

N fi , d
y , fi
k y M y , fi , d fy
M , fi
A k y,
W pl , y k y ,
fy
M , fi
The reduction factor y,fi is used since it concerns single bending and thus in plane effects need to be combined. Relative slenderness at room temperature:
Lcr
y
iy
1000 8,54 93.9
1,247
Lcr
z
iz
1000 5,07 93.9
2,10
For a critical temperature of 540 C the following reduction factors apply: ky, = 0,656 kE, = 0,484 Relative slenderness in the fire situation:
k y,
y, y
k E,
y,
1,247
0,656 0,484 0,656 0,484
1,452
k y,
z, z
k E,
z,
2,10
2,45
The reduction factor for flexural buckling can then be calculated:
0,65
235 fy
0,65
235 235
y,
0,65
y,
1 1 2 1 1 2
y,
y,
1 1 0,65 1,452 1,452 2 1 1 0,65 2,45 2,45 2
2,03 4,27
z,
z,
z,
z,
157
1
y , fi y, y,
y,
y , fi
2,04
2,04 1,46
0,29
1
z , fi z, z,
z,
z , fi
4,27
1 4,27 2,45
0,13
Since the bending moment diagram is caused by a line load
M,y
= 1,3
2*
M ,y
5*
y,
0,44 *
M ,y
0,29 0.8 with
y,
limited to 1,1
(Using the EN 1993-1-2:2005/AC:2009 correction sheet)

y
2 1,3 5 min(1,452 ; 1,1) 0,44 1,3 0,29

1
y , fi y
1,778 0,8
ky
N fi ,d fy
m , fi
Aa k y ,
ky
1,778 96,3e3 N 235 N mm 0,29 7810 mm 0,656 1
1,49 3
Check:
96,3 10 N 0,29 7810 mm 0,656 235 N / mm
1,49 24,38 10 Nm 642,5 0,656 235 N / mm
0,64 1
158
Second the combined effect of compression and lateral torsional buckling is checked
N fi ,d
z , fi
k LT M y , fi ,d fy
LT , fi M , fi
A k y,
W pl , y k y ,
fy
M , fi
Relative slenderness at room temperature:
W pl , y f y
LT
M cr
LT
642,5 23,5 14549,11
1,0187
With:
M cr
C1
E Iz ( k L)
k kw
Iw Iz
( k L) G I t E Iz
2
(C 2 z g ) C 2 z g
M cr
1,13
21000 2000 * (1,0 1000 )
1,0 1,0
171100 2000
(1,0 1000 ) 8100 59,3 20 20 (0,45 ) 0,45 21000 2000 2 2
With C1 and C2 determined according to ENV 1993-1-1 Annex F.
M cr
145,49kNm
Relative slenderness in the fire situation:

k y,
LT , LT
kE,
LT ,
1,0187
0,656 0,484
1,19
The reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling can then be calculated:
LT ,
1 1 2
LT ,
LT ,
LT ,
1 1 0,65 1,19 1,19 2

1 1,59 1,19
1,59
1
LT , fi LT , LT ,
LT ,
LT , fi
1,59
0,38
159
Since the bending moment diagram is caused by a line load
M,LT
= 1,3
LT
0,15
LT
z,
M , LT
0,15 0.9
0,327 0,9
0,15 2,44 1,3 0,15
k LT
1
z , fi
LT
N fi ,d fy
m , fi
A k y,
k LT
0,327 96,3e 3 N 235 N mm 0,13 78,1e 2 mm 0,656 1,0
0,799 1
Check:
N fi ,d
z , fi
k LT M y , fi ,d fy
LT , fi M , fi
A k y,
W pl , y k y ,
fy
M , fi
96,3e 3 N 235 N mm 0,13 78,1e mm 0,656 1,0

2
0,799 24,38e 6 Nmm 235 N mm 0,38 642,5e 3 mm 0,656 1,0
1,13 1
The member thus does not meet the R90 requirement.
160
161
162
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. A slight difference is caused by rounding errors in the manual calculation.
163
Project file: EN_Benchmark36.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 13.1: Calculation of section properties for local buckling of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. The effective area and the horizontal shift in neutral axis due to local buckling is calculated for a 200 x 65 x 1.6 lipped channel in zinc-coated steel with a nominal yield strength of 280 N/mm^2 and a Young modulus of 210000 N/mm^2, and subjected to pure compression. It is assumed that the zinc coating forms 0,04 mm of the thickness of the section, and the contribution of the coating is ignored in the calculations.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Local Buckling calculation Part [mm] Web 198,4 Flanges 63,4 Lips 14,2
k 4,0 4,0 0,43
2,44 0,78 0,53
0,37 0,92 1,00
beff [mm] 73,87 58,31 14,2
Effective section properties Aeff 341,5 mm^2 eNy 8,66 mm
164
Scia Engineer Results Results for CS1 Actual C-section including rounded corners:
With cYLCS of the gross section 17,66 mm this gives: eNy = 25,73 17,66 = 8,07 mm
165
Results for CS2 Idealized C-section without rounded corners:
With cYLCS of the gross section 16,46 mm this gives: eNy = 25,12 16,46 = 8,66 mm Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. CS1 was inputted as an actual C-section including rounded corners. The notional widths are thus calculated by Scia Engineer using the exact geometry. The reference example however idealizes the cross-section to a section without roundings. Within Scia Engineer this cross-section has been inputted as CS2. This leads to an exact comparison with the benchmark results.
166

Project file: EN_Benchmark37.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns Example 13.2: Cross-section resistance to distortional buckling of Designers Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3, The Steel Construction Institute, 2005. This example demonstrates the method set out in EN 1993-1-3 for the calculation of cross-section resistance to (local and) distortional buckling. The example is based on the same 200 x 65 x 1,6 mm lipped channel section of example 13.1, where effective section properties for local buckling were determined.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Local Buckling calculation Part [mm] Web 198,4 Flanges 63,4 Lips 14,2
k 4,0 4,0 0,5
2,44 0,78 0,49
0,37 0,92 1,00
beff [mm] 73,87 58,31 14,2
Distortional Buckling calculation - Lips As 67,6 mm^2 Is 1132,4 mm^4 b1 53,6 mm b2 53,6 mm hw 198,4 mm kf 1,0 K 0,22 N/mm^2 212 N/mm^2 cr 1,15 0,64 d As,red 43,3 mm^2 Effective section properties Aeff 292,8 mm^2 eNy 3,92 mm
167
Scia Engineer Results Results for CS1 Actual C-section including rounded corners:
With cYLCS of the gross section 17,66 mm this gives: eNy = 21,16 17,66 = 3,50 mm
168
Results for CS2 Idealized C-section without rounded corners:
With cYLCS of the gross section 16,46 mm this gives: eNy = 20,38 16,46 = 3,92 mm Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. CS1 was inputted as an actual C-section including rounded corners. The notional widths are thus calculated by Scia Engineer using the exact geometry. The reference example however idealizes the cross-section to a section without roundings. Within Scia Engineer this cross-section has been inputted as CS2. This leads to an exact comparison with the benchmark results.
169

Project file: EN_Benchmark38.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX022a-EN-EU Calculation of effective section properties for a cold-formed lipped channel section in bending of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2005. This example deals with the effective properties calculation of a cold formed lipped channel section subjected to bending about its major axis.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Local Buckling calculation Part [mm] k Flange Edge fold 72 19,8 4 0,5 0,789 0,614 0,914 1,00
beff [mm] 65,8 19,8
be1 [mm] 32,9
be2 [mm] 32,9
170
Distortional Buckling calculation Iteration 1 As 103,3 mm^2 Is 3663 mm^4 b1 61,73 mm hw 198 mm kf 0 K 0,439 N/mm^2 355,78 N/mm^2 cr 0,992 0,753 d Distortional Buckling calculation Iteration n be1 32,9 mm be2,n 35,9 mm ceff,n 19,8 mm 0,737 d,n
Local Buckling calculation Part [mm] k Web 198 22,58
0,914
0,959
beff [mm] 97,5
be1 [mm] 39
be2 [mm] 58,5
Effective section properties Aeff 689,2 mm^2 Ieff,y 4140000 mm^4 Weff,y,c 40460 mm^3 Weff,y,t 43260 mm^3
Scia Engineer Results Result for the initial calculation i.e. without stiffener iterations:
171
Result using stiffener iterations:
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference ignores the fact that the principal axis is not parallel to the flanges (alfa = -1,47 deg). As a result, the top flange is not in uniform compression but subject to a stress gradient. Scia Engineer accounts for the actual stress distribution leading to small differences in the results. The reference does not detail the calculation of b2. The reference does not detail the different stiffener iteration steps. 172

Project file: EN_Benchmark39.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX023a-EN-EU Calculation of effective section properties for a cold-formed lipped channel section in compression of Access Steel, http://www.access-steel.com/, 2005. This example deals with the effective properties calculation of a cold-formed lipped channel section subjected to compression.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Local Buckling calculation Part [mm] k Upper Flange Lower Flange Upper Fold Lower Fold Web 72 64 19,8 19,8 198 4 4 0,5 0,5 4 0,789 0,702 0,614 0,614 2,171 0,914 0,978 1,00 1,00 0,414
beff [mm] 65,8 62,6 19,8 19,8 82
be1 [mm] 32,9 31,3
be2 [mm] 32,9 31,3
41
41
173
Distortional Buckling calculation Upper stiffener Iteration 1 As 103,3 mm^2 Is 3663 mm^4 b1 61,73 mm b2 54,41 mm hw 198 mm kf 0,97 K 0,331 N/mm^2 309 N/mm^2 cr 1,064 0,701 d Distortional Buckling calculation Lower stiffener Iteration 1 As 100,2 mm^2 Is 3618 mm^4 K 0,406 N/mm^2 350,7 N/mm^2 cr 0,999 0,748 d Distortional Buckling calculation Upper stiffener Iteration n be1 32,9 mm be2,n 36 mm ceff,n 19,8 mm 0,683 d,n Distortional Buckling calculation Lower stiffener Iteration n be1 31,3 mm be2,n 32 mm ceff,n 19,8 mm 0,744 d,n
Effective section properties Aeff 436,8 mm^2
174
Scia Engineer Results Result for the initial calculation i.e. without stiffener iterations:
Result using stiffener iterations:
175
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. For the distortional buckling calculation (iteration 1) of the lower stiffener, the reference uses a wrong value for kf. More specifically the reference uses kf 0,97 for both the upper and the lower stiffener however for the lower stiffener a value of 1,031 should be used. Within Scia Engineer the correct kf value is used.
176

Project file: EN_Benchmark40.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX024a-EN-EU Design of a cold-formed steel lipped channel wall stud in compression of Access Steel, http://www.accesssteel.com/, 2006. This example deals with the design of a pinned wall stud subjected to compression. The stud is composed of a cold-formed lipped channel section where boards are attached to both flanges and they prevent buckling in the weak direction and torsional buckling.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Effective section properties Aeff 118 mm^2 Weff,z,com 1274 mm^3 Weff,z,ten 2585 mm^3
Combined compression and bending eNz 3,04 mm Nc,Rd 41,3 kN Mcz,Rd,com 0,45 kNm 0,077 kNm Mz,Ed UC 0,785
177
Comments The reference does not detail the calculation of the effective section properties. The compression force causes a shift in neutral axis towards the edge folds. This implies that the compression load, acting at the centroid of the gross section, causes a weak axis moment which gives compression in the web and tension in the edge folds. The effective shape for this negative weak axis moment leads to only a reduction of the web and causes the centroid to shift just to the left of the middle of the flanges. As a result, the section modulus at the compression (web) side Weff,z,com is slightly bigger than the section modulus at the tension (edge fold) side Weff,z,ten.
178
The reference however has the inverse i.e. a big modulus at the tension side compared to a small modulus at the compression side. This seems to correspond to a positive weak axis moment which causes tension in the web and compression in the edge folds. For this effective shape there is practically no reduction so the centroid nearly stays at its original location. This causes a big section modulus at the tension (web) side Weff,z,ten and a small section modulus at the compression (edge fold) side Weff,z,com. The reference seems to be applying an incorrect sign/direction of the weak axis bending moment, causing incorrect effective section moduli values.
179

Project file: EN_Benchmark41.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction This benchmark concerns the example SX024a-EN-EU Design of a cold-formed steel lipped channel wall stud in compression of Access Steel, http://www.accesssteel.com/, 2006. This example deals with the design of a pinned wall stud subjected to tension. The stud is made of one thin-walled cold-formed lipped channel section.
Reference Results The reference gives following results: Average Yield Strength k 7 n 4 fya 359,1 N/mm^2 Axial Tension Check Ag Nt,Rd UC
198 mm^2 71,1 kN 0,675
180
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. The reference does not check Fn,Rd while this is more limiting than Nt,Rd. Within Scia Engineer, to account for this M2 has been set to 1,00 so Fn,Rd is not limiting.
181
Benchmark 42: Stiffened Cross-section

Project file: EN_Benchmark42.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction In this benchmark the effective section calculation for a stiffened cross-section is evaluated. More specifically the effective area in compression for a Sadef Sigma Plus section of type SADEFSP 420x2.00 is determined. This section contains both internal stiffeners in the web and double edge folds at the flange tips. The cross-section is made of S390GD+Z and has a metallic coating of 0,5 mm. The results are verified by a manual calculation; therefore the optional stiffener iterations are not applied.
182
Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation. The following picture shows the part numbers for the different elements of the cross-section:
Since the section is symmetric, the reductions are calculated for one half of the section.
183
From the Initial Shape 1: DEF 3: I 5: I 7: I 9: RI 11: I w = 9,60 mm w= 22,25 mm w= 89 mm w= 70,69 mm w= 44,70 mm w= 218,36 mm
rm = 4 + 1,50 / 2 = 4,75 mm From Profile library shape the depression angle is determined as 21,252 degrees. Notional widths 1: DEF 3: I 5: I 7: I bp = 9,60 + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 20,05) / 2) = 12,323 mm bp = 22,25 + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 20,05) / 2) + 4,75 * sin (90 / 2) = 28,33 mm bp = 89 + 4,75 * sin (90 / 2) + 4,75 * sin (90 / 2) = 95,718 mm bp = 70,69 + 4,75 * sin (90 / 2) + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) = 76,75 mm bp = 44,70 + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) = 50,06 mm bp = 218,36 + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) + 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) = 223,724 mm
9: RI
11: I
Epsilon = sqrt ( 235 / 390) = 0,77625 Slenderness Limit for internal compression elements in case psi = 1,00: 0,5 + sqrt ( 0,085 - 0,055 * 1,00) = 0,673205 Slenderness Limit for outstand compression elements: 0,748
184
Centerline Lengths of web elements 7: I lc = 76,75 + 4,75 * [tan (90 / 2) - sin (90 / 2)] + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] = 78,708656 mm lc = 50,06 + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] = 51,1948267 mm lc = 223,724 + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] = 224,8588267 mm lc = 50,06 + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] = 51,1948267 mm lc = 76,75 + 4,75 * [tan (90 / 2) - sin (90 / 2)] + 4,75 * [tan ( (90 21,252) / 2) - sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2)] = 78,708656 mm
9: RI
11: I
13: RI
15: I
Local buckling 1: DEF k = 0,43 Lambda,p = (12,323 / 1,50) / (28,4 * 0,77625 * sqrt(0,43) ) = 0,568 => Rho = 1,00 => beff = 1,00 * 12,323 = 12,323 mm k=4 Lambda,p = (28,33 / 1,50) / (28,4 * 0,77625 * sqrt(4) ) = 0,4284 => Rho = 1,00 => beff = 1,00 * 28,33 = 28,33 mm => be1 = be2 = 0,5 * 28,33 = 14,165 mm k=4 Lambda,p = (95,718 / 1,50) / (28,4 * 0,77625 * sqrt(4) ) = 1,4473 => Rho = 0,5859 => beff = 0,5859 * 95,718 = 56,081 mm => be1 = be2 = 0,5 * 56,081 = 28,04 mm k=4 Lambda,p = (76,75 / 1,50) / (28,4 * 0,77625 * sqrt(4) ) = 1,160 => Rho = 0,69857 => beff = 0,69857 * 76,75 = 53,615 mm => be1 = be2 = 0,5 * 53,615 = 26,8076 mm No reduction for local buckling k=4 Lambda,p = (223,724 / 1,50) / (28,4 * 0,77625 * sqrt(4) ) = 3,383 => Rho = 0,27637 => b eff = 0,27637 * 223,724 = 61,83 mm => be1 = be2 = 0,5 * 61,83 = 30,915 mm
3: I
5: I
7: I
9: RI 11: I
185
Distortional buckling Double Edge Fold 1-2-3-4-5 1: 2: Fully effective => w = 9,60 mm Rounding with angle (90 - 20,05) => w = 2 * pi * 4,75 * ((90 20,05)/360) = 5,80 mm Fully effective => w = 22,25 mm Rounding with angle 90 => w = 2 * pi * 4,75 * (90/360) = 7,4613 mm be2 = 28,04 mm => be2,w = 28,04 - 4,75 * sin (90 / 2) = 24,681 mm
3: 4: 5:
=> As = [ 9,60 + 5,80 + 22,25 + 7,4613 + 24,681 ] * 1,50 = 104,69 mm^2 This section is inputted as a general cross-section to calculate the section properties:
Is = IYLCS = 17426,81 mm^4
186
b1 = 100 - (1,5 / 2) - 1,5 - 4 - 24,681 + cYLCS = 91,33 mm b2 = 91,33 mm ( symmetrical section) kf = 1,00 (symmetrical section in compression) hw = sum of the centerline lengths of all elements in the web (7, 9, 11, 13, 15) = 78,708656 + 51,1948267 + 224,8588267 + 51,1948267 + 78,708656 = 484,67 mm
E = 210000 N/mm^2 mu = 0,3 => K = [ 210000 * (1,5)^3 ] / [ 4 * (1 - (0,3)^2)] * [1 / [ 91,33^2 * 484,67 + 91,33^3 + 0,5 * 91,33 * 91,33 * 484,67 * 1,00 ] ] = 0,02852567 N/mm^2 => Sigma,cr,s = [ 2 * sqrt ( 0,02852567 * 210000 * 17426,81 ) ] / 104,69 = 195,192 N/mm^2 => Lambda,d = sqrt ( 390 / 195,192 ) = 1,4135 => Chi,d = 0,66 / 1,4135 = 0,4669198 => As,red = 0,4669198 * 104,69 = 48,8818 mm^2 >= 1,38
Distortional buckling Intermediate stiffener 7-8-9-10-11 7: be2 = 26,8076 mm => be2,w = 26,8076 - 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) = 24,1258 mm Rounding with angle (90 - 21,252) => w = 2 * pi * 4,75 * ((90 21,252)/360) = 5,70 mm Fully effective => w = 44,70 mm Rounding with angle (90 - 21,252) => w = 2 * pi * 4,75 * ((90 21,252)/360) = 5,70 mm be2 = 30,915 mm => be2,w = 30,915 - 4,75 * sin ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) = 28,2332 mm
8:
9: 10:
11:
=> As = [ 24,1258 + 5,70 + 44,70 + 5,70 + 28,2332 ] * 1,50 = 162,6885 mm^2
187
This section is inputted as a general cross-section to calculate the section properties:
Is = IZLCS = 64167,8190 mm^4 b1 = (1,5 / 2) + 4 + 70,69 - 24,1258 + cZLCS = 89,6672 mm centerline length element 11: 218,36 + 4,75 * tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) + 4,75 * tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) = 224,8585 mm b2 = 224,8585 - 4,75 * tan ( (90 - 21,252) / 2) - 28,2332 + (77,868 - CZLCS) = 232,891 mm E = 210000 N/mm^2 mu = 0,3 => K = [ 0,25 * (89,6672 + 232,891) * 210000 * 1,5^3 ] / [ (1 - 0,3^2) * 89,6672 * 89,6672 * 232,891 * 232,891 ] = 0,14402 N/mm^2 => Sigma,cr,s = [ 2 * sqrt ( 0,14402 * 210000 * 64167,8190 ) ] / 162,6885 = 541,571 N/mm^2 => Lambda,d = sqrt ( 390 / 541,571) = 0,8486 => between 0,65 and 1,38
188
=> Chi,d = 1,47 - 0,723 * 0,8486 = 0,8565 => As,red = 0,8565 * 162,6885 = 139,34 mm^2 Effective Area Aeff = 1132,8549 - 2 * (1 - 0,5859) * 95,718 * 1,5 - 2 * (1 - 0,69857) * 76,75 * 1,5 - (1 - 0,27637) * 223,724 * 1,5 - 2 * (104,69 - 48,8818) - 2 * (162,6885 - 139,34) = 543,387 mm^2
189
Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results. A slight difference is due to rounding errors.
190
Benchmark 43: Purlin Design in Uplift

Project file: EN_Benchmark43.esa Scia Engineer Version 10.0.86 Introduction In this benchmark the uplift purlin design according to EN 1993-1-3 chapter 10 is evaluated. The member has a KU80/40x3.0 cross-section, a length of 3m and is fabricated of S390GD+Z material. At the top flange the member is connected to a diaphragm of type E96/1.50. The bolts are positioned in the bottom flange of the diaphragm and each rib is connected. The extremities of the purlin are simply supported. The purlin is loaded in uplift by two loads: a permanent point load of 5 kN in the middle of the member and a variable line load of 2 kN/m. Both loads are combined according to a ULS Set B combination. Both the resistance of the cross-section according to article 10.1.4.1 as well as the buckling resistance of the free flange according to 10.1.4.2 are checked. The results are verified by a manual calculation in the middle of the member, at 1,5m. Due to the fact that a point load is applied at this position, also the resistance to local transverse forces is evaluated.
191
Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation. In a first step the shear stiffness of the diaphragm is determined using MathCad and compared to the required stiffness as given in article 10.1.1(6). In the same calculation the rotational stiffness of the diaphragm is determined.
192
193
194
Since the shear stiffness is higher than the required stiffness the purlin may be considered as being laterally restrained in the plane of the sheeting and thus the provisions of chapter 10 may be applied.
195
A) Cross-section Resistance of the free flange Equivalent Lateral Load The combination ULS returns in the mid section a bending moment of -8,44 kNm => qEd = 8 * M / L^2 = 8 * 8,44 / 3^2 = 7,5022222 kN/m (Printed positive due to uplift) Since Iyz = 0 for this section this implies that kh0 = 0 The loading concerns Uplift loading. For Uplift the loading is assumed to act in the middle of the flange.
=> kh = kh0 - f / h with h = 80 mm and f = 24,05 - 11,38 + 20 = 32,67 mm => kh = 0 - 32,67 / 80 = -0,408375 The minus sign indicates that the loading is acting in the opposite sense as indicated in the code.
196
=> qh,Ed = -0,408375 * 7,5022222 kN/m = -3,06372 kN/m The code indicates that the loading is acting from the web to the tip of the flange. However, due to the minus sign of kh the loading works in inverse direction, thus from the tip of the flange to the web (i.e. causing compression in the tip and tension in the web)
Free Flange Geometry For a cold formed channel section the height of the free flange is taken as 1/5 h => 1/5 * 80 mm = 16 mm This length is measured including the length of the rounding. The rounding has length (Pi/2) * (3 + 3/2) = 7,0686 mm => The length of the web part is: 16 - 7,0686 = 8,9314165294 mm
197
Af = 149,97 mm^2 Ifz = IZLCS = 24074 mm^4 Distance from centroid to web: 16,34 mm => Wfz,web = 24074 / 16,34 = 1473,32 mm^3 Distance from centroid to flange tip: 40 - 16,34 = 23,66 mm => Wfz,flange tip = 24074 / 23,66 = 1017,50 mm^3
Lateral Spring Stiffness Since no anti-sag bars have been defined the length La = 3m The connected flange with b = 40 mm The fastener distance a = 0,5 b = 20 mm Since this concerns a simple U-section the developed height of the web hd is taken as the full height h => hd = h = 80 mm
198
The determination of qh,Ed indicated that the loading is pointing from the tip to the web due to the minus sign of kh Therefore, qh is bringing the purlin into contact with the sheeting at the purlin web => bmod = a = 20 mm The rotational spring stiffness of the diaphragm is calculated as CD = cvorh = 0,4064 kNm/m (see MathCad calculation above). => (1 / K ) = [[4 * (1 - 0,3 * 0,3) * 80 * 80 * (80 + 20)] / [210000 * 3 * 3 * 3] + [80 * 80] / [ 0,4064 * 1000] = 16,158896 mm^2/N => K = 0,061885 N/mm^2 = 61,8854 kN/m^2
=> R = [ 0,061885 * 3000^4 ] / [ pi^4 * 210000 * 24074 ] = 10,179 Lateral Bending Moment Since it concerns a single span member the boundary conditions are taken as Hinged - Hinged. Since the member is loaded by uplift the free flange is in compression. Using the analytical solution for Hinged-Hinged boundary conditions the Mfz,Ed value is determined in each section using MathCad:
199
Properties for the final check Since there is no axial force, Aeff is taken as Ag from the initial shape: Aeff = 450,36 mm^2
The cross-section has a cZLCS coordinate of 40 mm. Using the Run Analysis tool, the effective shape for negative y-y bending is determined for a stress of 390 N/mm^2 This effective shape has an inertia Iy,eff = 4,2557 * 10^5 mm^4 and a cZLCS coordinate of 40,79 mm (Using iterations) => shift in neutral axis: 40,79 - 40 = 0,79 mm upward Weff,restrained flange (top) = Iy,eff / (80 - 40,79) = 10853,61 mm^3 Weff, free flange (bottom) = Iy,eff / (40,79) = 10433,19 mm^3 Since Weff,y is different from Wel,y the safety factor Gamma M is taken as Gamma M1 = 1,00 Wfz = Wfz,flange tip = 1017,50 mm^3 since the lateral load causes compression in the flange tip.
Unity Check
(10.3a) : (10.3b) :
- [(8,44 * 10^6) / 10853,61] / [390 / 1,00] + [ 0 / 450,36] / [390 / 1,00 ] = - 1,99 + 0 = 1,99 (using absolute values) [(8,44 * 10^6) / 10433,19] / [390 / 1,00] + [ 0 / 450,36] / [390 / 1,00 ] + [0,222 * 10^6 / 1017,50] / [390 / 1,00 ] = 2,07 + 0 + 0,56 = 2,64
200
B) Buckling resistance of the free flange
Test to see if the free flange is in tension or compression: (tension is negative, compression is positive) [(8,44 * 10^6) / 10433,19] + [ 0 / 450,36] = 809 => compression => The buckling resistance needs to be checked Free Flange Buckling Length La = 3000 mm R = 10,179 Situation: Since the member has only one part for system length Ly it is seen as Simple span. For uplift table 10.2b is used: There are no anti-sag bars present on the member Eta1 = 0.694 Eta2 = 5.45 Eta3 = 1.27 Eta4 = -0.168 => lfz = 0.694 * 3000 * ( 1 + 5.45 * 10,179 ^1.27 ) ^ -0.168 = 952,933 mm Reduction factor for flexural buckling of the free flange ifz = sqrt ( Ifz / Af ) = sqrt (24074 / 149,97) = 12,67 mm Lambda1 = pi * [210000 / 390] ^ 0,5 = 72,90 Lambda,fz = ( 952,933 / 12,67 ) / 72,90 = 1,0317
Lambda,0,LT = 0,4 LTB curve b => Alpha,LT = 0,34 Fi,LT = 0,5 * [ 1 + 0,34 * (1,0317 - 0,4 ) + 0,75 * 1,0317 * 1,0317 ] = 1,006552 Chi,LT = 1 / [ 1,006552 + sqrt ( 1,006552 * 1,006552 - 0,75 * 1,0317 * 1,0317) ] = 0,68025
201
Unity Check (10.7) : (1 / 0,68025 ) * [ [(8,44 * 10^6) / 10433,19] / [390 / 1,00] + [ 0 / 450,36] / [390 / 1,00 ] ] + [0,222 * 10^6 / 1017,50] / [390 / 1,00 ] = 3,61
C) Resistance to Local Transverse Forces Resistance to local transverse force alone The cross-section has a single unstiffened web. The resistance is determined according to article 6.1.7.2. The transverse load of 6,75 kN is applied at 1,5m in the middle of the beam. With a default bearing length Ss of 10 mm the distance of the edge of the load to a member end becomes c = 1500 10/2 = 1495 mm. hw = 80 3/2 3/2 = 77 mm c > 1,5 hw which implies the loading is categorized as Internal Loading. With t = 3 mm Ss/t = 10 / 3 = 3,33 < 60 which implies (6.15d) needs to be used k = 390 / 228 = 1,71 k3 = 0,7 + 0,3 * (90 / 90)^2 = 1,00 k4 = 1,22 0,22 * 1,71 = 0,84368 k5 = 1,06 0,06 * (3 / 3) = 1,00 Rw,Rd = = 1,00 * 0,84368 * 1,00 * [14,7 - (77 / 3) / 49,5 ] * [1 + 0,007 * 10 / 3] * 3 * 3 * 390 / 1,00 = 42,976 kN
Unity check: 6,75 / 42,976 = 0,16 Bending resistance The section modulus of the gross section is Wel,y = 10978,33 mm^3 The effective section modulus under uplift loading is Weff,y = 10647,88 mm^3 Since the effective section modulus is smaller than the gropss section modulus the bending resistance is determined according to article 6.1.4.1 formula (6.4)
202
Mc,Rd = 10647,88 * 390 / 1,00 = 4,1527 kNm With MEd = 8,44 kNm this gives: Unity check: 8,44 / 4,1527 = 2,03 Combined bending and local transverse force MEd = 8,44 kNm Mc,Rd = 4,1527 kNm FEd = 6,75 kN Rw,Rd = 42,976 kN Unity Check: [ (8,44 / 4,1527) + (6,75 / 42,976) ] / 1,25 = 1,75
203
204
205
206
207

EN1993 Benchmarks

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EN1993 Benchmarks

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Benchmarks

Steel Code Check EN 1993 EN 1993-1-1 EN 1993-1-2 EN 1993-1-3 EN 1993-1-5

Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993

Scia Engineer 2010.0 P. Van Tendeloo

Document: Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993 Revision: 02/2010

Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993

Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993

INTRODUCTION BENCHMARKS EN 1993-1-1

Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993

Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993

Benchmarks Steel Code Check EN 1993

Benchmark 1: Global Imperfections

Benchmark 1: Global Imperfections

Reference Results The results are checked by a manual calculation.

Scia Engineer Results

Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results.

Benchmark 2: Bow Imperfections

Benchmark 2: Bow Imperfections

Benchmark 2: Bow Imperfections

curve b: Plastic analysis: curve a:

1 250 1 250 1 200

For the imperfections if required the critical Euler load is calculated:

210000 38920000 4000 2

25% of Ncr,y = 1260,41 kN

210000 2836000 4000 2

25% of Ncr,z = 91,84 kN

Benchmark 2: Bow Imperfections

e0 [mm] 13,33 16 16 20 0 16 0 20 13,33 16 16 20

N [kN] 100 100 100 100 1300 1300

My [kNm] Mz [kNm] 1,33 1,6 1,6 2 0 1,6 0 2 17,33 20,8 20,8 26

Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results.

Benchmark 3: Material Yield Strength

Benchmark 3: Material Yield Strength

With area A = 50020 mm and

the compression capacity will be:

50020 215 1,00

Benchmark 3: Material Yield Strength

CS2 - RHSCF300/100/12.5 S275 The average yield strength is calculated as follows:

fya = 352,5 N/mm With

the compression capacity will be:

Scia Engineer Results Results for CS1 - HE1000X393 S235

Benchmark 3: Material Yield Strength

Results for CS2 - RHSCF300/100/12.5 S275

Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results.

Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area

Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area

Classification for outstand flanges

Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area

Classification for internal compression parts

Calculation of effective area

Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area

0,9369 0,055 3 1 0,9369 2

0,8228 514 422,83 mm

be1 = be2 = 211,46 mm

Aeff = 220 x 19 x 2 + 211,46 x 12 x 2 + 2 x 24x 12 = 14011,16 mm

the compression capacity will be:

Benchmark 4: Effective Cross-Section Area

Scia Engineer Results

Comments The results correspond to the benchmark results.

Benchmark 5: Designers Guide Ex. 5.1

Benchmark 5: Designers Guide Ex. 5.1

Benchmark 5: Designers Guide Ex. 5.1

Scia Engineer Results Classification under pure compression