Eur 23510 en

f
COMMENTARY AND WORKED EXAMPLES

to EN 1993-1-10 “Material toughness and
through thickness properties“
and other toughness oriented rules in EN 1993
G. Sedlacek, M. Feldmann, B. Kühn, D. Tschickardt, S. Höhler, C. Müller, W. Hensen, N. Stranghöner
W. Dahl, P. Langenberg, S. Münstermann, J. Brozetti, J. Raoul, R. Pope, F. Bijlaard
Background documents in support to the implementation, harmonization and

further development of the Eurocodes
Joint Report
Joint Report
Prepared under the JRC – ECCS cooperation agreement for the evolution of Eurocode 3
(programme of CEN / TC 250)
Editors: M. Géradin, A. Pinto and S. Dimova
First Edition, September 2008
EUR 23510 EN - 2008

COMMENTARY AND WORKED EXAMPLES
to EN 1993-1-10 “Material toughness and
through thickness properties“
and other toughness oriented rules in EN 1993
G. Sedlacek, M. Feldmann, B. Kühn, D. Tschickardt, S. Höhler, C. Müller, W. Hensen, N. Stranghöner
W. Dahl, P. Langenberg, S. Münstermann, J. Brozetti, J. Raoul, R. Pope, F. Bijlaard
Background documents in support to the implementation, harmonization and

further development of the Eurocodes
Joint Report
Prepared under the JRC – ECCS cooperation agreement for the evolution of Eurocode 3
(programme of CEN / TC 250)
First Edition, September 2008
EUR 23510 EN - 2008

The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the
conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European
Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close
to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being
independent of special interests, whether private or national.
European Commission
Joint Research Centre
The European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) is the federation of the National
Associations of Steelwork industries and covers a worldwide network of Industrial Companies,
Universities and Research Institutes.
http://www.steelconstruct.com/
Contact information
Address: Mies-van-der-Rohe-Straße 1, D-52074 Aachen
E-mail: sed@stb.rwth-aachen.de
Tel.: +49 241 80 25177
Fax: +49 241 80 22140
http://www.stb.rwth-aachen.de
Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible
for the use which might be made of this publication.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server
http://europa.eu/
JRC 47278
EUR 23510 EN
ISSN 1018-5593
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
© European Communities, 2008

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Printed in Italy
Acknowledgements
This report with a commentary and worked examples to the design rules in
EN 1993-1-10 and other toughness oriented-rules in EN 1993 has been prepared on
the basis of numerous sources:
- working papers worked out for the project teams for the preparation of the ENV-
version and EN-version of Eurocode 3 with funding by the ECCS,
- reports from research projects funded by the European Community for Steel and
Coal (ECSC) and the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS),
- reports from research projects funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

(DFG), and Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschung (AIF),
- various doctoral thesis' and a habilitation thesis mentioned in the bibliography that
were prepared in particular at the Institute of Steel Construction and the Institute
of Ferrous Metallurgy at RWTH Aachen,
- results of expertises for practical applications of the methods mentioned in the

bibliography,
- numerous discussions in particular with Mr. Sanz, Mr. Wallin, Prof. Dahl, Prof.
Burdekin and with members of the project teams, in particular J. Brozzetti, J.
Raoul, J.B. Schleich and R. Pope, who helped in this interdisciplinary field to
develop rules of good practice.
All these valuable contributions from pre-normative and co-normative research

aiming at laying the basis of the toughness ortiented rules in Eurocode 3 are
gratefully acknowledged.
The preparation of the manuscript of this report was in the hands of D. Tschickardt,
B. Kühn and C. Müller. Prof. M. Feldmann, Prof. W. Dahl, P. Langenberg and Prof.
N. Stranghöner gave useful contributions. Prof. F. Bijlaard helped in the proof-
reading of the text. Thanks to all of them for the valuable works and contributions.
Aachen, September 2008
Gerhard Sedlacek
i
ii
Foreword
The EN Eurocodes are a series of European standards which provide a common

series of methods for calculating the mechanical strength of elements playing a
structural role in construction works, i.e. the structural construction products. They
make it possible to design construction works, to check their stability and to give the
necessary dimensions of the structural construction products.
They are the result of a long procedure of bringing together and harmonizing the
different design traditions in the Member States. In the same time, the Member
States keep exclusive competence and responsibility for the levels of safety of works.
According to the Commission Recommendation of 11 December 2003 on the
implementation and use of Eurocodes for construction works and structural
construction products, the Member States should take all necessary measures to
ensure that structural construction products calculated in accordance with the
Eurocodes may be used, and therefore they should refer to the Eurocodes in their
national regulations on design.
The Member States may need using specific parameters in order to take into account
specific geographical, geological or climatic conditions as well as specific levels of
protection applicable on their territory. The Eurocodes contain thus ‘nationally
determined parameters’, the so-called NDPs, and provide for each of them a
recommended value. However, the Member States may give different values to the
NDPs if they consider it necessary to ensure that building and civil engineering works
are designed and executed in a way that fulfils the national requirements.
The so-called background documents on Eurocodes are established and collected to
provide technical insight on the way the NDPs have been selected and may possibly
be modified at the national level. In particular, they intend to justify:
– The theoretical origin of the technical rules,
– The code provisions through appropriate test evaluations whenever
needed (e.g. EN 1990, Annex D),
– The recommendations for the NDPs,
– The country decisions on the choice of the NDPs.
Collecting and providing access to the background documents is essential to the

Eurocodes implementation process since they are the main source of support to:
– The Member States, when choosing their NDPs,
– To the users of the Eurocodes where questions are expected,
– To provide information for the European Technical Approvals and
Unique Verifications,
– To help reducing the NDPs in the Eurocodes when they result from
different design cultures and procedures in structural analysis,
– To allow for a strict application of the Commission Recommendation of
11 December 2003,
– To gradually align the safety levels across Member States,
– To further harmonize the design rules across different materials,
– To further develop the Eurocodes.
iii
This joint ECCS-JRC report is part of a series of background-documents in support to
the implementation of Eurocode 3. It provides background information on the specific
issue of design rules affected by the toughness of steel.
In its various parts, EN 1993 – Eurocode 3 currently addresses steel properties

essentially with regard to strength. The toughness properties are also dealt with in
Part 1-10 and Part 1-12.
The interrelation between toughness properties and the safety of steel structures is
not commonly known, and therefore EN 1993-1-10 does not explicitly address this
issue. The background material to EN 1993-1-10 presented in this report provides
the necessary explanations on the underlying principles and their application rules. It
also opens the door to the application of these principles to situations not yet fully
covered by EN 1993.
Due to its rather innovative character, some of the contents of this joint ECCS-JRC
still needs to be complemented through additional research likely to be carried out in
the context of the further development of Eurocode 3.
The European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) has initiated the
development of this commentary in the frame of the cooperation between the
Commission (JRC) and the ECCS for works on the further evolution of the
Eurocodes. It is therefore published as a Joint Commission (JRC)-ECCS-report.
Aachen, Delft and Ispra, September 2008
Gerhard Sedlacek
Director of ECCS-research
Frans Bijlaard
Chairman of CEN/TC 250/SC3
Michel Géradin, Artur Pinto and Silvia Dimova

European Laboratory for Structural Assessment, IPSC, JRC
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 1
1. GENERAL GUIDANCE THROUGH THE COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY 1
1.1 Section 1: Objective of the guidance 1
1.2 Section 2: Commentary and background of EN 1993-1-10, section 2:
Selection of materials for fracture toughness 1
1.2.1 Designation of steels and selection to performance
requirements 1
1.2.2 The use of strength-values fy and fu from coupon tests and of
toughness values T27J of the material in EN 1993 3
1.2.3 Conclusions 5
1.3. Section 3: Commentary and background of EN 1993-1-10, section 3:
Selection of materials for through-thickness properties 6
1.4 Section 4: Complementary rules for the design to avoid brittle fracture
on the basis of the background to EN 1993-1-10 6
1.4.1 Scope 6
1.4.2 Assessment of residual safety and service life of old riveted
structures 7
1.4.3 Choice of material for welded connections in buildings 7
1.5 Section 5: Other toughness-related rules in EN 1993 8
1.6 Section 6: Finite element methods for determining fracture resistances
in the upper shelf area of toughness 8
1.6.1 The use of porous metal plasticity models 8
1.6.2 Damage curves 11
1.7 Section 7: Liquid metal embrittlement in hot dip zinc coating 11
1.8 Bibliography 12
SECTION 2 13
2 SELECTION OF MATERIALS TO AVOID BRITTLE FRACTURE (TOUGHNESS
REQUIREMENTS) 13
2.1 General 13
2.1.1 Basis of the selection method 13
2.1.2 Applicability of the selection method 13
2.2 Procedure 15
2.2.1 Fracture-behaviour of steel and temperature 15
2.2.2 Principals of Fracture-Mechanics used for the brittle fracture
concept 17
2.2.3 Design situation for fracture assessment 22
2.2.4 Basis of the fracture mechanic assessment 26
v
2.2.5 Transformation to the temperature format 30
2.2.6 Explanation of temperature shifts ΔTi 32
2.2.7 Application of the fracture mechanic method to develop table
2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 60
2.3 Maximum permitted thickness values - Examples 80
2.3.1 Use of table 2.1 of EN 1990-1-10 80
2.3.2 Examples for the use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 82
2.4 Specific cases for using fracture mechanics 90
2.4.1 General 90
2.4.2 Example for the calculative determination of material quality 93
2.4.3 Example for the use of fracture mechanics calculations assisted
by testing 97
2.4.4 Some other typical examples 102
2.5 Bibliography 106
SECTION 3 110
3 SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THROUGH-THICKNESS PROPERTIES 110
3.1 General 110
3.2 Procedure 113
3.2.2 Allocation of influence to the requirement ZEd 113
3.2.3 Minimum requirement ZEd 121
3.2.4 Allocation of ZEd to Z-classes in EN 10164 121
3.3 Examples of application 122
3.3.1 Connection of the hangers of a tied-arch-bridge to the arch 122
3.3.2 Welded connection of the arch of a tied arch bridge to the main
girder 122
3.3.3 Connection of troughs to cross-beams in an orthotropic steel
deck of a road bridge 123
3.3.4 More general examples 125
SECTION 4 128
4. COMPLEMENTARY RULES FOR THE DESIGN TO AVOID BRITTLE
FACTURE ON THE BASIS OF THE BACKGROUND TO EN 1993-1-10 128
4.1 Assessment of the residual safety and service life of old riveted
structures 128
4.1.1 General 128
4.1.2 Hazards from stress situation and stress ranges 132
4.1.3 Material check and evaluation 139
4.1.4 Assessment of the “safe service period” 141
4.1.5 Design tables 149
vi
4.1.6 Example for the fracture mechanics based safety
assessment 167
4.1.7 Bibliography 168
4.2 Choice of material for welded connections in buildings 170
4.2.1 Objective 170
4.2.2 Basis of fracture mechanical assessment 171
4.2.3 Tables for the choice of material to avoid brittle fracture 175
4.2.4 Example 178
4.2.5 Bibliography 180
SECTION 5 181
5. OTHER TOUGHNESS-RELATED RULES IN EN 1993 181
5.1 The role of upper-shelf toughness 181
5.1.1 Resistance rules in Eurocode 3 and upper-shelf toughness 181
5.1.2 Appropriate models for calculation of upper shelf toughness
requirements 182
5.1.3 Transfer of upper shelf toughness models into practice 187
5.2 Empirical rules for minimum upper-shelf toughness 187
5.2.1 General 187
5.2.2 AUBI-quality and correlations 188
5.3 Explanations of net-section resistances in EN 1993-1-1 193
5.3.1 General 193
5.3.1 Influence of upper-shelf toughness on net-section resistance to
tension 193
5.4 Choice of material for capacity design 199
5.4.1 General requirement 199
5.4.2 Conclusions for „capacity design“ 199
5.4.3 Behaviour of components subject to capacity design in the
temperature-transition area 200
SECTION 6 203
6. DAMAGE MECHANICS – CALCULATION OF LIMIT STATE CONDITION OF
FRACTURE IN THE UPPER SHELF WITH LOCAL MODELS 203
6.1 Introduction 203
6.2 Model for determining crack initiation 204
6.3 The GTN – Damage model 205
6.3.1 General 205
6.3.2 Examples for the determination of micro structures
parameters 207
6.3.3 Mesh sizes for FEM calculations 208
vii
6.3.4 Calculation of J-integral values Ji 209
6.3.5 Conclusions for practical FEM-calculations 210
6.3.6 Example of practical application 212
6.4 The use of damage curves for crack initiation for cyclic straining 214
6.4.1 General 214
6.4.2 The combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model 214
6.4.3 Accumulation of effective equivalent strains ε p,eff 215
6.5 Numerical simulation of crack growth 216

SECTION 7 219
7. LIQUID METAL EMBRITTLEMENT IN HOT DIP ZINC-COATING 219
7.1 Introduction 219
7.2 Equivalent plastic strain resistances of steels in the zinc bath 221
7.2.1 General 221
7.2.2 LNT-test specimen and test set up 222
7.2.3 Test results 223
7.3 Equivalent plastic strain requirements from the steel components 227
7.3.1 General 227
7.3.2 Assessment for the limit state case a) 230
7.3.3 Assessment for the limit state case b) 239
7.3.4 Conclusions for standardisation 244
7.4 Testing of structural elements that are zinc coated for cracks 245
viii
Section 1
1. General guidance through the commentary and summary

1.1 Section 1: Objective of the guidance
(1) This commentary gives explanations and worked examples to the design rules
in Eurocode 3 that are influenced by toughness properties of the structural
steels used.
(2) It is therefore a commentary and background document to EN 1993-1-10

“Material toughness and through thickness properties” and its extension in EN
1993-1-12 “Design rules for high-strength steels”, where toughness properties
are expressively addressed. It is however also a background to other parts of
EN 1993, e.g. to EN 1993-1-1 “Design of steel structures – Basic rules and
rules for buildings”, where the design rules are related only to strength
properties as the yield strength fy and the tensile strength fu without explicitly
mentioning the role of toughness that is hidden behind the resistance
formulae.
(3) Finally it gives some comments to chapter 6 of EN 1998-1: “Design of

structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings”.
1.2 Section 2: Commentary and background of EN 1993-1-10, section 2:

Selection of materials for fracture toughness
1.2.1 Designation of steels and selection to performance requirements
(1) The term „steel“ comprises a group of about 2500 materials with iron (ferrum)
being the main component which are tailor-made to meet the performance
requirements of various applications.
(2) Structural steels are designated according to their application, mechanical

properties, physical properties, particular performances and the type of
coating according to fig. 1-1.
1
Fig. 1-1: Distinction of structural steels
(3) The selection of steels normally is related to the following performance

requirements:
1. Strength requirements, e.g. related to the characteristic values of the

yield strength fy and tensile strength fu (mostly in relation to the
maximum strain εu at fracture).
2. Applicability to fabrication, e.g. weldability (controlled by the chemical

analysis and heat-treatment), applicability for cold forming (also
depending in the contents of nitrogen) and applicability for zinc-coating
(for sufficient resistance to cracking in the zinc-bath and also for
sufficient quality of the coating depending on the silicon-content).
3. Applicability for different temperatures, e.g. with regard to strength- and

creeping behaviour (at elevated service temperatures), strength
2
behaviour in the case of fire and fracture behaviour at low temperatures
(brittle fracture).
4. Resistance to corrosion, e.g. steels with normal corrosion resistance

without or with corrosion protection by painting or coating, weathering
steels, stainless steels.
5. Special properties, as e.g. wearing resistance or magnetic properties.
(4) EN 1993-1-10 section 2 addresses the steel selection of ferritic structural

steels with different strength that are exposed transiently or pertinently to low
temperatures to avoid brittle fracture.
1.2.2 The use of strength-values fy and fu from coupon tests and of toughness
values T27J of the material in EN 1993
(1) The design rules for ultimate limit states in the various parts of EN 1993 are
based on a “technical stress strain curve” as given in fig. 1-2, where fy is the
yield strength and fu is the tensile ultimate strength, determined from steel
coupons tests at room temperature.
Fig. 1-2: “Technical stress-strain-curve” from steel coupon tests for room
temperature as used for design
(2) The yield strength fy varies with the temperature T, see also section 2, fig. 2.1
and fig. 2.5, and with the strain rate ε& that can be considered together with the
temperature T according to table 1.1.
3
Steel fy (ε&,T ) m
grade
S235
2.8
m
S275 ⎡ ⎛ 10 8
⎞⎤
fy ,RT + 960 ⋅ ⎢1 − 1.0767 ⋅ 10 − 4 ⋅ T ⋅ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥
S355 ⎣ ⎝ ε& ⎠⎦
3.27
S460
m
S690 ⎡ ⎛ 1010 ⎞⎤
fy ,RT + 960 ⋅ ⎢1 − 7.2993 ⋅ 10 −5 ⋅ T ⋅ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ 3.74
S890 ⎣ ⎝ ε& ⎠⎦
Table 1-1: Yield strength fy depending on T and ε& [1]
(3) Such variations from the conditions of the steel coupon tests are normally
neglected for structures exposed to climatic actions in Europe.
(4) The fracture strength σfracture results from the “notch situation” of the test piece
considered (e.g. effected by initial cracks) and from the toughness of the
material, that depends on the temperature as well, see also fig. 2.1, fig. 2.2
and fig. 2.5.
(5) The resistance functions for “cold design” in all parts of EN 1993 are based on
experimental tests of prefabricated components also carried out at room
temperature and hence apply to the upper shelf region of the toughness-
temperature curve, see also fig. 2.2.
(6) The behaviour at the ultimate limit state is therefore ductile, and the design
models used for the resistances are only related to the material strength fy and
fu as given in fig. 1-2, see fig. 1.3.
4
Ductile failure modes treated Brittle fracture prevented
by design codes based on material strength by choice of material
σR,R
F σ
FR,R
load- fracture
deflection- yielding
curves of fracture
prefabricated
components δ δε, δ
ε, δ
Mode 0 Mode 1 Mode 2
Excessive Member failure Fracture after
deformation by instability, yielding, e.g.
by yielding, e.g. buckling bolt
e.g. tension
bar Brittle fracture avoided
by background safety
failure modes
Rk (fy ) Rk (fy , λ ) Rk (fu )
assessment based on
Rd = Rd = Rd = material toughness
γ M0 γ M1 γ M2
γ M 0 = 1.00 γ M 0 = 1.10 γ M 0 = 1.25
RK = γ M ⋅ Rd
Fig. 1.3: Load-deflection curves of prefabricated components in tests at

room temperature and associated resistance functions based on fy an fu only
(7) The influence of toughness on the resistance functions in the upper shelf
region is taken into account only indirectly by factors applied to the tensile
strength fu, see section 5.
(8) An explicit toughness-oriented verification has been carried out as a

background study to justify the quantitative elements of the rules for the choice
of materials in EN 1993-1-10 that are related to the lower part of the transition
area of the toughness-temperature curve. The principles of the fracture-
mechanics assessment method used are stated in section 2 of EN 1993-1-10;
details however and guidance how to use it for other cases are only given in
section 2 of this commentary.
1.2.3 Conclusions
(1) The two-way safety assessments for steel-structures, i.e.:
- the strength related checks for ultimate limit states in the various parts
of EN 1993, which as far as tension resistance is concerned indirectly
take toughness properties in the upper shelf region into account, and
- the toughness related checks hidden behind the rules for the choice of
material to avoid brittle fracture
ensure appropriate safety of steel structures in the full temperature range of

application.
(2) The safety assessment in the upper shelf region is based on ductile
behaviour, the consequences of which are
5
- nominal stresses can be used and stress concentrations and residual
stresses can be neglected,
- plastic design assumptions can be applied for members and
connections, e.g. secondary moments can be ignored,
- energy dissipation is possible by hysteretical behaviour that produces
beneficial behaviour-factors q for seismic design.
(3) The toughness assessment behind section 2 of EN 1993-1-10 is based on an

accidental design situation with extremely low temperatures and consequently
low toughness values on one side and a crack-scenario to determine onerous
toughness requirements on the other side. It is performed in the elastic range
of material properties where no significant influence of plastification can be
expected. Such an explicit toughness assessment needs not be made any
more in design if the rules for the selection of material in EN 1993-1-10,
section 2 are used.
(4) A prerequisite of the strength-oriented and toughness-oriented design rules in

EN 1993 is, that the fabrication of the structural component considered
complies with EN 1090-Part 2.
1.3. Section 3: Commentary and background of EN 1993-1-10, section 3:

Selection of materials for through-thickness properties
(1) Section 3 of this commentary relates to section 3 of EN 1993-1-10: Selection

of materials for through-thickness properties according to Z-grades as
specified in EN 10164.
(2) The commentary explains the phenomenon, gives different routes for the
choice of through-thickness-quality and presents a numerical procedure based
on a limit state for Z-values (percentage short transverse reduction of area
(STRA) in a tensile test:
ZEd ≤ ZRd.
(3) The Z-requirements are associated with various influences, mainly the weld
configuration and weld size and the restraint to welding shrinkage.
(4) The efficiency and reliability of the procedure is proved by test results.
1.4 Section 4: Complementary rules for the design to avoid brittle fracture
on the basis of the background to EN 1993-1-10
1.4.1 Scope
(1) Section 4 gives complementary non conflicting informations to section 2 of EN

1993-1-10 in that some additional application rules are given that comply with
the principles, basic assumptions and methods given in EN 1993-1-10.
(2) These application rules apply to
- Assessment of residual safety and service life of old riveted structures

(section 4.1)
- Choice of material for welded connections in buildings (section 4.2).
6
1.4.2 Assessment of residual safety and service life of old riveted structures
(1) The assessment of residual safety and service life of old riveted structures is
an example for how any such assessment could be performed for any existing
steel structure, that is subjected to fatigue loads.
(2) The procedure given complements the general procedure given in the JRC-
Scientific Technical Report: “Assessment of Existing Steel Structures:
Recommendations for Estimation of Remaining Fatigue Life (EUR 23252-EN-
2008) by giving a fracture mechanics based method to prove “damage-
tolerance” of existing structures.
(3) Whereas for the selection of material for new projects the “safe service
periods” between inspections are specified such that the fatigue load for that
“safe service periods” is equivalent to 1/4 of the full fatigue damage accepted
for the full nominal service life of the structures (e.g. a safe-service period of
30 years for a full nominal service life of 120 years). Subsequently the
associated steel grade and toughness properties are the unknowns; the
assessment of existing structures however works with known values of the
steel grade and toughness properties of the existing steel and asks for the
associated value of “safe service period”
(4) The “safe service period” should be sufficiently large, so that the formation of
cracks can be detected in usual inspections by NDT-methods before they get
critical (sufficient prewarning).
(5) If the “safe service periods” are too small, the inspection intervals or the
fatigue loading can be reduced or appropriate retrofitting measures can be
applied.
(6) The assessment method presented is based on the conservative assumption

of through cracks and gives design aids to perform the assessment with tables
and graphs.
1.4.3 Choice of material for welded connections in buildings
(1) As EN 1993-1-10, section 2 has been developed for structures subjected to

fatigue as bridges, crane runways or masts subjected to vortex induced
vibrations, its use for buildings where fatigue plays a minor role would be
extremely safe-sided.
(2) Section 4.2 gives for the particular case of welded connections of tension
elements with slots in gusset plates (as e.g. for bracings or tension rods)
alternative rules based on assumptions more appropriate for buildings with
predominant static loading.
(3) These assumptions are:
- a structural detailing not classified in EN 1993-1-9

- initial cracks as through cracks with a larger size than in EN 1993-1-10
7
- crack growth by fatigue with a smaller fatigue load than in EN 1993-1-
10: This fatigue load is equivalent to the damage D = Δσ 3 ⋅ n = 263 ⋅ 105
- certain limits for the dimensions following good practice.
(4) As a result tables for the selection of materials are given that are similar to
table 2.1 given in EN 1993-1-10.
1.5 Section 5: Other toughness-related rules in EN 1993
(1) Section 5 of this commentary refers to the influence of toughness on the

resistance rules in EN 1993 and EN 1998 which nominally relate to the
strength properties of material only. The influence of toughness, which is in
the upper shelf region of the toughness-temperature diagram, is normally
hidden in factors to the strength or in other descriptive rules.
(2) The first part 5.1 of this section explains the relationship between experimental
results for fracture loads from large wide plate tests and various fracture
mechanics approaches in the upper shelf region.
(3) Part 5.2 explains the background of a recommendation for the choice of
material for bridges given in table 3-1 of EN 1993-2 – Design of steel bridges –
that is based on a traditional empirical approach to secure a certain toughness
level at room temperature for plate thicknesses above 30 mm. It is not
performance oriented but may still be used as a requirement in addition to the
minimum requirement in EN 1993-1-10 by some bridge authorities.
(4) Part 5.3 explains the background of the ultimate resistance formula for net
sections in Part 1-1 and Part 1-12 of EN 1993 also addressing the assumption
of geometrical imperfections in the form of crack-like flaws by which toughness
aspects enter into the formula.
Also the effects of strength on the maximum strains for ductile behaviour are
highlighted.
(5) Part 5.4 finally deals with the conclusions from “capacity design” for the
material properties. The requirements for material toughness, structural
detailing and fabrication are the higher, the higher the material strengths are.
1.6 Section 6: Finite element methods for determining fracture resistances in

the upper shelf area of toughness
1.6.1 The use of porous metal plasticity models
(1) Sections 2 to 5 of this commentary are related to the dual approach for safety
assessments to avoid failure:
1. the strength-controlled approach represented by the resistance

formulae in EN 1993
2. the toughness-controlled approach usually carried out by fracture
mechanics, where the method used depends on the temperature and
its impact on the toughness properties in the toughness-temperature-
diagram as follows:
a) in the lower shelf region: relevant material properties: KIC or Jc
leading to the fracture stress σfracture.
8
b) in the transition area between the lower shelf region and the
upper shelf region: relevant material properties:
Av-T-curve or J-T-curve
c) upper shelf region: relevant material properties: JR-curve (J-Δa)

from large plate tests.
(2) Section 6 tackles with an alternative to this dual approach that is based on
damage theory. With this theory it is possible to determine material properties
from the microstructure of the steel and to simulate numerically with FE-
methods
a) the performance of steel coupon tests,

b) the performance of fracture mechanics tests,
c) the performance of any structural member, the failure of which may
have been modelled using the results of steel coupon tests or fracture
mechanics tests.
Thus the damage theory has the potential to cover both the application fields
of the strength controlled and of the fracture mechanics controlled methods in
the future.
(3) Table 1-2 gives a survey on consequences of damage theory on the

constitutive law to be applied to a single cell (of grain size) of a FE-mesh, to
simulate the behaviour of a structural member.
The parameters of the GTN-model are determined for the material in

consideration from tests (fitted parameters), so that effects of damages can be
calculated for members of different shape made of this material.
9
Table 1-2: Features of GTN-model to simulate damage effects of a single
cell of material
10
(4) A typical example giving the the consequences of effects of different
constitutive laws (true stress-strain curves) is the plastic resistance of cold-
formed profiles, see fig. 1.4.
Fig. 1.4: Effects of increase of strength by cold forming on constitutive

laws for cold-formed and not cold-formed regions of sections.
(5) Part 6.4 of section 6 also deals with the use of the damage theory for cyclic
straining as experienced in the response to seismic actions. It includes a
model for strain accumulation.
1.6.2 Damage curves
(1) With using a constitutive law for ductile material behaviour the results of tests
or of calculations with the damage theory may be plotted in damage-curves,
that give local ultimate equivalent plastic strains limited by the formation of
micro cracks (equivalent to Ji) in finite elements versus the relevant parameter
σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3
“stress triaxiality” h = , see 6.3.5 and 6.4.3
3σ v
(2) Whereas the “stability strength” allows to determine failure loads for load-
controlled design situations (e.g. tension rods), the use of the damage curve is
appropriate, where in deformation-controlled design situations the ultimate
strains, to avoid cracking, are looked for (e.g. for pressure vessels).
(3) For cases of failure controlled by “stability strength” it is sufficient that the
ultimate strain of material causing cracking is greater that the maximum strain
εu associated with fu.
1.7 Section 7: Liquid metal embrittlement in hot dip zinc coating
(1) In the years 2000-2005 an increased number of cracks in galvanised steel

components have been observed that formed in the zinc bath during the
dipping process.
(2) Research has been reactivated to find out the causes for these cracks and to
initiate measures to avoid them.
(3) The research revealed that cracking occurred where a limit state defined by
the balance between the crack driving plastic equivalent strains εpl,E and the
strain-capacity εpl,R of the steel influenced by dipping speed and by more or
less corrosive compositions of the liquid zinc-alloy was exceeded.
11
(4) Both the actions εpl,E and the resistances εpl,R follow the concept of the
damage curves in section 5; they also are time-dependant, so that the rules
for strain-accumulation for cyclic loading in section 5 apply.
(5) Section 7 gives the background of the limit state assessment for avoiding
cracking of steel components in the hot zinc bath as far as needed to
understand the process and the basis for more descriptive rules for design,
fabrication and zinc-coating that could be part of a future amendment of
Eurocode 3 and of EN 1090.
1.8 Bibliography
[1] Kühn, B., Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der europäischen Regelungen zur
Vermeidung von Sprödbruch, Dissertation am Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau, RWTH
Aachen, Shaker-Verlag, ISBN 3-8322-3901-4.
12
Section 2
2 Selection of materials to avoid brittle fracture (toughness requirements)
2.1 General
2.1.1 Basis of the selection method
(1) The basis of the selection of materials for fracture toughness is an Ultimate
Limit State verification based on fracture mechanics for an accidental design
situation for structural members in tension or bending.
(2) This verification includes the following influences:
- structural detailing of the steel member considered

- effects from external actions and residual stresses on the member
- assumption of crack-like flaws at spots with strain concentrations
- material toughness dependent on the temperature
For particular applications also the influences of cold forming and large strain-
rates are included.
(3) As the material toughness for the steel-grade to be chosen is specified in the
product standards, e.g. EN 10025, as the test-temperature TKV [°C] of Charpy
impact energy tests, for which a certain minimum value KV of impact energy
shall be achieved, (e.g. for steel S355 J2: T27J = -20°C, or KVmin ≥ 27 Joule for
the testing temperature T27J = - 20°C) the fracture mechanics verification has
to be carried out in such a way that it refers to this specification of product
property.
(4) According to EN 10025-1 KVmin is the lower limit to the mean value of 3 tests
carried out in a qualification procedure for steel as given in the Harmonised
European materials standards as EN 10025, where the minimum value
measured must exceed 70% of KVmin. There are also cases where another 3
tests are required to fulfil requirements for KVmin.
2.1.2 Applicability of the selection method
(1) The selection method for fracture toughness has been developed on the basis
of safety assumptions which include the presence of initial cracks (e.g. from
fabrication) that may have been undetected during inspections and may grow
in service from fatigue.
(2) Therefore the verification has been performed for rather large design values of
crack sizes. It is applicable to unwelded and welded structures subjected to
fatigue loading, such as bridges or crane runways.
(3) The method covers all structural details for which fatigue classes are given in
EN 1993-1-9.
(4) The method may also be used for building structures, where fatigue is less
pronounced. In this case the use of the large design values of crack sizes may
be justified by the fact that, due to less refined welding controls, the initial
13
cracks may be larger, so that they compensate the smaller crack growth from
fatigue.
(5) The selection method in EN 1993-1-10 presumes that the selection of material
shall be made in the design stage to specify the steel grade for material
delivery. It is therefore related to the numerical values of TKV specified in the
product standards (e.g. in EN 10025) and takes into account that actual values
are probably much higher than those specified.
(6) If the method is to be used to confirm or justify the suitability of existing

material by a “fitness for purpose” study (e.g. for existing structures or material
already available, from which measured data can be taken), the method may
not be used without a modification of the safety elements.
(7) The core of the method is table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 which is based on the
following:
1. Standard curve of design value of crack size versus plate thickness t,

that envelopes all design values of crack size resulting from initial
cracks and crack growths for the fatigue classes in EN 1993-1-9
2. Safety elements covering the use of TKV-values specified in the
Harmonised European material standards for steel
3. Definition of yield strength as specified in the Harmonised European
material standards for steel
4. Nominal stresses from external loading for an accidental design
situation
5. Static loading without dynamic impact effect limited by a strain rate
∂ε
ε& = ≤ 4 ⋅ 10 − 4 /sec.
∂t
6. Welding in conformity with EN 1090-Part 2
7. Residual stress, both local from welding and global from remote
restraints to shrinkage of welded components
8. No modification of material toughness by cold forming: ε cf ≤ 2 % .
(8) Table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 may also be used where the assumptions for ε&
and ε cf are not met by modifying the reference temperature TEd by ΔTε&
according to (2.2.6.4) or ΔTε,cf according to (2.2.6.5).
(9) For other cases, there is no full guidance in EN 1993-1-10, but the principles
are given in sections 2.2 and 2.3 and the door opener for more refined
methods is established is section 2.4.
(10) The commentary and background document gives explanations to the

standard procedure in EN 1993-1-10 and also gives supplementary non
contradicting information on how the principles and the door opener for more
refined methods in EN 1993-1-10 may be used.
14
2.2 Procedure
2.2.1 Fracture-behaviour of steel and temperature
(1) For ferritic steels, the fracture behaviour of tensile loaded components, in
particular the extent, to which they exhibit a non-linear load-deformation curve
by yielding, depends strongly on the temperature.
(2) Fig. 2-1 shows in a schematic way the fracture behaviour of tensile loaded
components wich bear a crack-like flaw. The figure contains different
informations which are related to the fracture behaviour. Characteristic
temperatures are also defined which enable the distinction of fracture
behaviour into brittle and ductile:
1. The fracture mechanism (on a microscopic scale) being cleavage at low

temperatures and becoming shear or ductile above a temperature Ti.
2. The fracture stress depending on temperature and increasing from low

temperatures to a temperature Tgy, where net section yielding is
observed before fracture and going further up to a temperature Tm
where the full plastic behaviour in the gross section and the ultimate
load is reached.
3. The macroscopic description of the fracture behaviour is defined as

brittle if fracture occurs before net section yielding and where the global
behaviour is linear elastic or as ductile behind this point, where plasticity
can be observed in the cross section and the load displacement
deviates from linearity.
15
Fig. 2-1: Fracture behaviour of components depending on
temperature (schematic view)
(3) The temperature region above Tm signifies the region with large plastic strains
which enable plastic redistribution of stress concentrations in the cross-section
and the formation of plastic hinges for plastic mechanisms. In the upper shelf
region above Ta the ultimate tension strength results from the stability criterion
A ⋅ ∂σ = ∂A ⋅ σ (2-1)
and is not controlled by toughness.
(4) In the range T ≥ Tm (room temperature) all member tests have been carried
out, from which the resistance functions and design rules for steel structures in
Eurocode 3 have been derived, see fig. 2-2.
16
Toughness
Elasto-plastic behaviour
of steel structures with
flaws and weld discontinuities
Validity of the design rules
Temperature transition
Upper shelf behaviour
behaviour
Temperature
Fig. 2-2: Temperature range for validity of design rules in Eurocode 3
(5) Below Tm is the temperature transition range that leads to the lower shelf
behaviour, where the material toughness decreases with temperature and the
failure modes change from ductile to brittle.
Below Tm the macroscopic plastic deformations are smaller than those above
Tm. They suffice to reduce stress concentrations in the cross-sections so that
the nominal stress concept can be applied. They are, however, no longer
sufficient for plastic hinge rotations, so that global analysis should be made on
an elastic basis.
A limit that separates this macroscopic ductile failure mode from the brittle
failure mode is the temperature Tgy, at which net section yielding is reached
before failure. The brittle fracture avoidance concept presented here is related
to this area.
Below Tgy the plastic deformations are restricted to local crack tip zones, which
can be quantified with fracture mechanics parameters like K, CTOD or J-
Integral.
2.2.2 Principals of Fracture-Mechanics used for the brittle fracture concept
(1) The principals of fracture mechanics are based on the perception that the local
stress concentration in the vicinity of a crack in any component can be
quantified by a single parameter. This single parameter can be calculated
analytically or by use of Finite Element Simulation as crack driving force
depending on the outer stress and (if necessary) of secondary stresses.
(2) The parameters which have been developed are:
- Stress Intensity Factor K (Unit: MPam0,5), which is limited to linear

elastic behaviour and in most cases cannot be applied for structural
steels due to there good local and global yielding behaviour.
- J-Integral (Unit: N/mm), which is presenting a path independent line

Integral around the crack tip and provides the crack driving force as an
energy parameter which allows the optimal quantitative description of
effects of local plasticity.
17
- CTOD (Crack Tip Opening Displacement, Unit: mm) which also suites
for elastic-plastic behaviour and represents the opening of the crack tip
as a measure of local plasticity ahead of the crack tip.
(3) To allow for the calculation of the critical limit condition where fracture may
occur in a structure with possible defects it is necessary to obtain the
resistance of the material against crack initiation with the same fracture
mechanics parameters, see fig. 2-3.
Here: Limit state of Fracture
Fracture is defined as:

Initiation of Cracks
U
S Loading S <(=)> Resistance R N
A
S
F
A
E Crack driving Force <(=)> Crack Resistance
F
E
K, J, CTOD (Component) <(=)> K, J, CTOD (Material)

Fig. 2.3: Limit state design for fracture problems
(4) Special small scale laboratory test specimens have been developed from
which the most widely used are the CT- (Compact Tension) and the SENB-
(Single Edge Notch Bending) specimen (fig. 2-4).
C(T)-Probe SE (B)-Probe
F
L
Wt W W
a a
F F S
L F/2 F/2
Fig. 2-4: Fracture Mechanics specimen
(5) The transitional behaviour of ferritic steels is also observed from the fracture
mechanics test as shown schematically in fig. 2-5.
18
Fig. 2-5: Transitional fracture behaviour of fracture mechanics specimen
The fig. 2-5 is similar to that shown in fig. 2-1. The major difference is the
definition of the indices related to fracture mechanics tests. The indices can be
interpreted as follows:
c: the fracture mechanism at crack initiation is cleavage. Further crack

growth is spontaneous without energy consumption. The crack
behaviour is also named unstable crack growth.
i: the mechanism at crack initiation is ductile. Further increase of load is

necessary to drive the crack further. Hence, the crack grows under
energy assumption. The crack behaviour is also named stable crack
growth.
u: in the transition region the fracture mode changes from ductile to

cleavage after initiation of stable crack growth (index i)
m: the load displacement curve reaches a maximum value.
19
In view of this background it is important to know that only the fracture
mechanics values obtained for crack initiation (index i or c) are transferable
geometry independent material values.
(6) The fracture mechanics analysis can now be performed in the following way:
1. Derive a fracture mechanics model of the structure concerned with a

representative flaw assumption.
2. Derive the crack driving force with analytical solutions like stress
intensity factor solutions from handbooks corrected by plastic correction
factor as given by the failure assessment diagram FAD (fig. 2-6).
3. Derive material resistance as fracture toughness value from tests at

adequate temperature or from correlation. Correlations which have
specifically been developed for structural steels and weldments are
provided from the master curve concept, see fig. 2-7 and fig. 2-8.
4. Calculate in the limit condition for fracture from three parameters free to
choose (crack geometry, toughness, stress) one when the other two are
known. This means that you can calculate critical crack length for
fitness for purpose or critical toughness for material selection or critical
stress fracture for component dimension and strength, fig. 2-3.
5. Verify results from either experience or larges scale tests and select
appropriate safety factors to cover scatter from input parameters and
model uncertainty.
(7) Another important feature is that material toughness values obtained with
elastic plastic fracture mechanics test procedure like J-Integral or CTOD can
be transferred into units of stress intensity factor K, thus not being the same
value as a valid KIc value, but a representative of the elastic plastic fracture
toughness and for use in conjunction with FAD analysis. The formula to be
used is:
KJ = [J*E/(1-υ2))0,5 (2-2)
20
Fig. 2-6: Schematic view of the failure assessment diagram (FAD)
Fig. 2-7: Fracture mechanics master curve for ferritic steels
21
Fig. 2-8: Transition temperature correlation between fracture mechanics
transition temperature T100 and charpy transition temperature T27J
Fig. 2-9: Principal of fracture mechanics analysis as being used for brittle
fracture concept in EN1993-1-10
2.2.3 Design situation for fracture assessment

2.2.3.1 Requirements for ultimate limit state verification with ductile
behaviour
(1) In general, ultimate limit state verifications are carried out by balancing design
values of action effects Ed and resistances Rd:
Ed ≤ Rd (2-3)
22
(2) The design values of resistance Rd in Eurocode 3 have been determined from:
Rk
Rd = (2-4)
γM
where
Rk = characteristic values of resistance determined from the statistical

evaluation of large scale tests carried out in test laboratories at
room temperature (in general defined as 5% fractiles of a large
representative population).
γM = partial factor to obtain design values (also determined by test

evaluations for αR = 0.8 and β = 3.80. However, for practical
reason classified into γM0, γM1 and γM2)
These resistance values reflect ductile failure modes as encountered in the

upper shelf region of the toughness-temperature curve.
(3) Fig. 2-10 gives a schematic view on how member tests to determine R-values
for Eurocode 3 have been carried out:
1. Members made of semi-finished products according to EN-product

standards and fabricated according to execution standards as EN 1090-
2 are considered to be representative for the statistical distribution of
properties (e.g. geometries, mechanical properties, imperfections)
controlled by these standards).
2. Such members have been subjected to tests with boundary conditions,

load applications and load paths that mirror real loading conditions. The
results are experimental resistances Rexp,i, for which an appropriate
calculative design model Rcalc is proposed.
3. From a comparison of the experimental values Rexp,i with the calculative

values Rcalc,i the model uncertainty is determined (mean value-
correction and error term), from which the statistical properties and
hence the characteristic values Rk and the design values Rd are
determined and after classification of γM the Rk-value can be corrected.
4. The statistical characteristics, obtained from the test evaluation (e.g.

the mean values and standard deviations for geometrical and
mechanical properties) can then be used to check the results of the
quality control of the manufacturers.
23
Requirements for quality Design standards
characteristic resistance
Product standards Execution standards Rk = Rnom χ(e0)
design resistance
- dimensions minimum Rd = Rk / γM
- tolerances execution quality:
- lower limits for - straightness safety factor
material properties - tolerances γM = 1,10
f e L
(fu, fy) - flaws
f
Rexp
Rm
S*
fu ,fy Rk }
e γM
Rd
Tests with members

Complying with Test
product standards evaluation
and execution according
standards EN 1990 Rcalc
Fig. 2-10: Consistency of product standards, execution standards and

design standards
(4) This procedure, providing consistency between the properties specified in

product standards and the design rules in Eurocode 3, is only valid for ductile
behaviour excluding any brittle fracture.
(5) To secure ductile behaviour for all design situations covered by Eurocode 3,
two conditions must be met:
1. Sufficient ductility by specifying the material properties in the upper-

shelf region of the temperature-toughness diagram as in section 3 of
EN 1993-1-1.
2. Avoidance of brittle fracture by performing additional safety verification

in the temperature transition range of the temperature-toughness
diagram with toughness properties of the material, which leads to a
selection of material.
2.2.3.2 Requirements for ultimate limit state verifications to avoid brittle

behaviour
(1) Fig. 2-11 gives an overview on the design situations for the ultimate limit state
verifications for ductile behaviour and the ultimate limit state verification to
avoid brittle behaviour together with the temperature-toughness diagram.
24
Material toughness
J, CTOD, K
B1
Ji , CTODi
JC-, KIC-
domain A1
σR, R
Tmin Ti Troom T
Action
effect σE, E
plastic
R pl α R el
behaviour Rd = =
B2 E ( γG GK + γQ QK ) γM γM
curves of
equal densities Rel B3
E (GK + QK )
A2 E (GK + ψ1 QK ) fy A3 σEd = σ (GK + ψ1 QK )
E (GK + ψ2 QK ) elastic
behaviour
E (GK)
Tmin Troom T εy ε
Fig. 2-11: Design situations in the upper-shelf region B and the transition
region A of the toughness-temperature diagram.
(2) The design point B1 (for ductile behaviour) in the upper shelf region
corresponds to the load level B2 of the load-temperature-diagram, which
results in the design values of action effects
Ed = E (γg· Gk + γQ · Qk + ....) (2-5)
that are compared with the design values of resistances Rd at point B3 on the
elasto-plastic part of the load deformation curve R-ε from the member tests.
(3) Supplementary requirements for the material to achieve ductile behaviour in

the region B have been related to the following:
- requirements for the strain behaviour of the material at fracture, e.g. εu

> 15 εy or A5 ≥ 1,5% aiming at sufficient plastic deformation capacity (to
neglect stress concentrations and residual stresses) and at sufficient
rotation capacity for redistribution of stresses in cross-sections or of
moments by plastic mechanisms
- toughness requirements depending on the plate thickness, e.g. in view

of sufficient resistance to instable crack growth initiated by welding
defects, as given in section 3 of EN 1993-Part 2.
(4) The design point A1 designates the verification to avoid brittle fracture in the
lower part of the temperature transition of the toughness temperature diagram.
This verification is necessary for structures that are not protected against low
temperatures, e.g. by facades. The verification therefore is carried out for the
25
lowest possible temperature of the member Tmd, for which the material
toughness takes the minimum value.
(5) In general, for structures exposed to climate actions, the temperature and
other actions are correlated in such a way, that the load-level A2 in the load
temperature diagram is relevant, which because of probability of occurrence is
below the load level B2. The design point A2 is also below the design point B2
because the verification in the temperature transition area is carried out with
accidental assumptions for the location and size of crack-like defects, so that
an accidental design situation may be applied. For such an accidental design
situation the design value of action effect is
Ed = E (Gk + ψ1 Qk1 + ....) (2-6)
instead of equation (2-5).
For the load level A2 according to (2-6) the relevant loading point on the load
deformation curve is A3, which is on its linear elastic part. This means that
plastic deformations are very small (restricted to a limited local reduction of
stress concentrations in the cross-section), and the analysis is performed with
an elastic global behaviour without plastic redistribution of action effects.
(6) This explains why, depending on the design case, the loading level for the
fracture mechanical verification (EN 1993-1-10 equation (2.1)) is below the
loading level for the other ultimate limit state verifications in other parts of EN
1993.
The accidental design situation applied for the fracture mechanical verification
takes the minimum temperature TEd as the leading action A (TEd) and the other
actions as accompanying actions, so that the combination rule (EN 1993-1-10,
Equation 2.1) reads according to EN 1990, section 6:
Ed = E {A (TEd) “+“ ΣGk “+“ ψ1 Qk1 “+“ Σ ψ2i Qki} (2-7)
The use of this load-combination results in a stress σEd, taken as a nominal

stress, which is then expressed as a portion of fy(t), see EN 1993-1-10,
2.3.2(1) equation (2.6), between the limits
0.25 fy(t) ≤ σEd ≤ 0.75 fy(t) (2-8)
for which table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 applies.
2.2.4 Basis of the fracture mechanic assessment
(1) Fracture assessments in the brittle area below the temperature Ti below which
no stable crack growth may occur could be performed with fracture
mechanical parameters as J-integrals or CTOD-values that take both the
elastic and the plastic strains into account.
However for practical reasons, the stress intensity functions, initially valid for
the fully elastic range T < TIC only, can be used in a more practical way
because of their availability from handbooks where solutions can be found for
most relevant cases.
26
The stress intensity factor K is taken for mode I actions, see fig. 2-12 and has
been derived from a stress field around the crack tip according to fig. 2-13. Its
validity is limited to elastic behaviour where plasticity even in the vicinity of the
crack tip is limited.
Fig. 2-12: Action modes for cracks
a θ⎡ ⎛ θ 3θ ⎞⎤ K
σx = σ ⋅ cos ⎢1 − ⎜ sin ⋅ sin ⎟⎥ = ⋅ f x (θ )
2r 2⎣ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎦ 2π r
a θ⎡ ⎛ θ 3θ ⎞⎤ K
σy = σ ⋅ cos ⎢1 + ⎜ sin ⋅ sin ⎟⎥ = ⋅ f y (θ )
2r 2⎣ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠⎦ 2π r
a θ θ 3θ K
σ xy = σ ⋅ cos ⋅ sin ⋅ cos = ⋅ f xy (θ )
2r 2 2 2 2π r
Fig. 2-13: Definition of the stress intensity factor K
(2) The error resulting from neglecting the local plasticity at the crack tip is
considered by a correction factor kR6 from the CEB6-R6-Failure Assessment
Diagram (FAD) [9] applied to the elastic value of the action effect Kappld, which
results in
K appld ,correct =
K appld
kR 6 − ρ
σ
= Ed
πad ⋅ Y ⋅ MK
kR 6 − ρ
[
MPa m ] (2-9)
27
where
σEd is the design value of the stress applied to the member from external
loads [MPa =ˆ N/mm²]
ad is the design size of the crack [m]
Y is the correction function for various crack positions and shapes (see
table 2-3) taken from Raju-Newman) [-]
MK is the correction function for various attachments with semi-elliptical
crack shapes (see table2-4) [-]
kR6 is the plasticity correction factor from the R6-Failure Assessment
Diagram (FAD) (see table 2-5) [-]
ρ is a correction factor for local residual stresses (see table 2-6), that may
be taken ρ = 0 for non welded details [-].
(3) The corresponding resistance is KMat,d depending on TEd, which may be

determined from J-Integral, CTOD or valid KIC-values from CT-tests.
(4) The basic verification format with these values reads:
Ed (K) ≤ Rd (K) or
Kappld ≤ KMatd (2-10)
Which, however, needs further processing to achieve two goals:
1. Correlation between the resistance KIc and the standard values TKV,
2. Transformation to a format for verifying with temperatures TEd and TKV.
(5) The first goal is reached in two steps:
1. by expressing KMat,d as a function of TEd by the standardized K-(TK100 -

TEd)-Master curve from Wallin [3], which refers to the temperature TK100,
for which KMat takes the value 100 MPa m :
⎛ Tmin −TK 100 −TK

⎞ ⎛ 25 ⎞0,25 ⎛ 1 ⎞
0,25
K Mat = 20 + ⎜ 77 ⋅ e 52
+ 11⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜⎜ ln ⎟⎟ (2-11)
⎜ ⎟ ⎝ beff ⎟⎠ ⎝ 1− pf ⎠
⎝ ⎠
where
TK = 13 (0.5 – pf) (2-12)
represents the effect of the standard deviation in the correlation

between KMat and TK100 for a required probability level pf.
For the use of EN 1993-1-10 pf is taken 50% (mean value), as

corrections for sufficient reliability are not performed for the individual
elements of the procedure, but for the procedure as a whole, as
explained in fig. 2-10.
28
2. by correlating the temperature T100 for the fracture mechanical
parameter K = 100 MPa m with the temperature T27J for the Charpy-
impact energy Kv = 27J (modified Sanz-correlation [43],[44]), which
reads in the mean:
TK100 = T27J – 18 °C (2-13)
This correlation of the K-(TK100 – TEd)-Master curve with the Charpy-

energy curve KV-TEd is supplemented by an additional safety element
ΔTR, which controls the overall reliability of the total formula in a
modified way according to the procedure illustrated in fig. 2-10.
Fig. 2-14: Fracture mechanical assessment using stress intensity

functions K
(6) Fig. 2-14 gives the total process and the final expression for the verification in
terms of K-values.
29
1
⎛ 25 ⎞ 4
(7) The expression ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ addresses the effect of the crack front on the failure
b
⎝ eff ⎠
probability and has been derived from a weakest link model with beff
representing the length of the critical crack front.
beff takes the values given in table 2-7 depending on the crack shape. E.g. for
through thickness cracks the total front length is beff = 2t.
ΔTR is the safety term that effects a temperature shift according to the
reliability required.
2.2.5 Transformation to the temperature format
(1) The verification formula based on K-values as presented in fig. 2-14 may be
transferred to a formula based on temperature values T by applying
logarithms, see fig. 2-15, so that the final assessment scheme reads:
TEd ≥ TRd (2-14)
where
TEd = Tmd + ΔTr + ΔTσ + ΔTR [+ ΔTε& + ΔTcf ] [°C ] (2-15)
TRd = TK 100 + ΔTt − 18 [°C ] (2-16)
and
Tmd = lowest air temperature (e.g. – 25°C)
ΔTr = radiation loss for member considered (e.g. - 5K) [45]
⎡ 1
⎤
⎢⎜ ⎛ K ⎞ ⎛ b ⎞ 4
− 20 ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ − 10 ⎥
appl,d eff
⎢ ⎜⎝ k R 6 − ρ ⎠⎝ 25 ⎠ ⎥
ΔTσ = − 52 ln⎢ ⎥ [K ] (2-17)
⎢ 70 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
= temperature shift according to stress situation limited to 120 [K].
ΔTt = term to consider the variation of material toughness in the thickness

direction of the product (inhomogeneity of material properties)
ΔTR= additive safety element, determined from large scale test evaluations
according to EN 1990 Annex D (e.g. ΔTR = +7 [K] for T27J values taken from
EN 10025)
1,5
1440 − fy (t ) ⎛ ε& ⎞
ΔTε& = − ⎜⎜ ln ⎟ [K ] (2-18)
550 ⎝ ε&0 ⎟⎠
30
= influence of the strain rate with ε& 0 = 0,0001 [s-1].
ε& 0 = 4 ⋅ 10-4 [s-1] is the limit for static loading where

ΔTε& is ignored
ΔTcf = - 3 DCF [K] (2-19)
with DCF = degree of cold forming [%]
K*appl,d # Kmat,d Transformation TEd $ TRd
Assessment scheme
TEd $ TRd
Action side Resistance
[
TEd = Tmd + Δ Tr + Δ Tσ + Δ TR + Δ Tε& + Δ Tεpl ] TRd = TK 100 + ΔTt
" Lowest air temperature with a suitable return " Influence of material toughness
period in combination with σEd, e.g.,
T100 = T27 J − 18 [ ° C]
Tmd ,Germany = − 25° C
" Variation of material toughness in through
" Radiation loss thickness direction
Δ Tr = − 5K
ΔTt = 12,9 ⋅ tanh (1,9 ⋅ ln(t ) − 7,6) + 12,8 [ K ]
" Influence of stress, crack imperfection and
member shape and dimension
⎡ ⎛ Kappl ⎞ ⎛ beff ⎞
14
⎤
⎢⎜ − 20⎟ ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − 10 ⎥
⎢ ⎝ k R6 − ρ ⎠ ⎝ 25 ⎠ ⎥ [ ]
Δ Tσ = − 52 ⋅ ln ⎢ ⎥ K
70
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
with Δ Tσ ≤ + 120 K
" Additive safety element
e. g. Δ TR = + 7 K ( with β = 3,8)
for the case that T27J-values are used from
standards EN 10025, ...
may be supplemented by
" Influence of the strain rate
1440 − f y ( t ) ⎛ ε& ⎞
1,5
Δ Tε& = − ⋅ ⎜ ln ⎟ [ K]
550 ⎝ ε&0 ⎠
with ε&0 = 0,0001 s −1
" Influence from cold forming
Δ TDCF
cf = − 3 ⋅ DCF [ K ]
with DCF = Degree of Cold Forming [ % ]
Fig. 2-15: Transformation into a verification formula based on temperature

values and final assessment scheme
31
(2) Though the temperature shifts ΔTi affect the resistance side of the material,
they are listed on the action side for achieving an easy-to-use format for the
application of table 2.1.
(3) In the following, the temperature shifts ΔTi in fig. 2-15, that may be
supplemented by further shifts from other effects, are explained in detail.
2.2.6 Explanation of temperature shifts ΔTi

2.2.6.1 Shift from stresses ΔTσ
(1) ΔTσ in (2-15) represents the temperature shift due to the actual stresses in the
member and may be calculated from the fracture mechanical action effect in
(2-9) using the correction factor kR6 from
1 σp
k R6 = for L r = ≤1 (2-20)
1+ 0,5 L2r σ gy
k R 6 = 0,816 for L r = 1 (2-21)
where
σp is the stress from external loads applied to the gross-section
σgy is the stress applied to the gross-section

to obtain yielding in the net section
2.2.6.2 Shift from inhomogeneity of material ΔTt
(1) The inhomogeneity of the material is characterized by a decrease in

toughness from the surface to the middle of thick plates, as identified by
Nießen [37], Haesler [38] and Brecht [39] for steels S 355, S 460, und S 690.
As sampling for Charpy energy tests is made close to the surface of plates
(≤ 2 mm), the reduction of toughness in the middle of the plate is not taken
into account by using the T27J-values. The formula to take the difference
between the position of the samples and the middle of the plate into account in
the mean, is according to Kühn [34]
ΔTt = 12,9 tanh (2,1 ⋅ ln(t ) − 7,6 ) + 12,8 (2-22)
see fig. 2-16,
32
Fig. 2-16: Temperature shift ΔTt for accounting for the inhomogeneity of
thick plates
(2) The procedure for applying expression (2-22) is as follows:
1. Consider the core of the plate according to fig. 2-17

1/3 t 1/3 t 1/3 t
surface area
core
t
surface area
Fig. 2-17: Definition of surface area and core area of plate
2. If the design crack depth ad of the critical surface crack reaches the
core of the plate, formula (2-22) applies.
(3) In fig. 2-18 a comparison is given between temperature shifts as measured

and temperature shifts according to formula (2-22) for various plate
thicknesses.
Fig. 2-18: Formula for Temperature shift ΔTt in comparison with test results
33
2.2.6.3 Additional safety element ΔTR
2.2.6.3.1 General
(1) The strength functions TRd and ΔTi in the formulae (2-15) and (2-16) have
been chosen such that they give about the expected values for failure (~ 50
%-fractiles). The additional safety element ΔTR shall produce the reliability of
assessment required.
(2) As required in EN 1990-Annex D, ΔTR shall be determined from large scale

tests that are performed in such a way that they are representative for actual
structures.
(3) The application rules in EN 1990, however, apply to resistances R, for which
the relationship between Rd and RK is expressed in a multiplicative way, see
(2-4), whereas the verification format for the assessment to avoid brittle
fracture combines the variables in an additive way. Therefore the principle
presented in Annex D had to be transferred from multiplicative safety elements
to additive safety elements as presented in fig. 2-19.
(4) The design values are given by
Rd = mR + αR βσR (2-22)
with
αR = 0.8
β = 3.8
where mR and σR statistical parameters of the distribution of R
34
Fig. 2-19: Statistical evaluation of the safety element ΔTR by the procedure
in EN 1990, Annex D (additive form) [4, 41, 42]
2.2.6.3.2 Tests for calibration
(1) Two test series with large scale fracture tests at low temperatures Texp have
been used to determine the model uncertainty of the design model developed
and to determine the safety element ΔTR for achieving the required reliability of
resistance:
1. test series with Double Edge Cracked Tension (DECT) elements

according to fig. 2-20,
35
2. test series with welded details according to fig. 2-21, that had semi-
elliptical surface cracks with the dimension (ad/2cd) at the hot spots for
fatigue.
Fig. 2-20: DECT-test elements
Fig. 2-21: Test elements with welded details

36
Table 2-1: Properties of DECT-test specimens and test results [42]
(2) The test results for the DECT-tests are given in table 2-1.
(3) For the test specimens 1 to 10 in table 2-1, the yield strengths fy (t, T) had
been measured, whereas for specimens 11 to 19 the yield strengths had to be
calculated using the formula according to TWI and Wallin [3, 42].
55555 t
f y (t, T ) = f y,T =293K + − 189 − 0,25 (2-24)
T t0
where
fy,T = 293 K = yield strength [N/mm2] related to T = 293 K =ˆ 20°C
T= testing temperature [K]
t= plate thickness [mm]
t0 = reference plate thickness 1 mm

37
(4) A comparison between the results of equation (2-24) and the yield strength
values fy (t,T) as measured is given in fig. 2-22 [42].
Fig. 2-22: Comparison between the results of equation (2-23) and yield
strength values as measured [42]
(5) As the DECT-tests, according to fig. 2-20, see table 2-1, did not contain any
welded attachments and hence not any residual stresses from welds, a further
test series, see fig. 2-21 and table 2-2, has been used to include these effects
in the evaluation for ΔTR.
(6) In total 48 large scale tension tests were carried out with specimens that had
various welded attachments according to the fatigue classes in EN 1993-1-9.
(7) These test pieces had initial semi-elliptical surface cracks with a depth of a0 ~
2.2 mm and a width of 2 c0 ~ 11 mm, artificially cut in by electro-erosion at the
hot spots for fatigue at the weld toes, so that the a0/c0-ratio was about 0.40.
(8) These artificial initial cracks were subjected to a first high fatigue loading Δσ1
to initiate a realistic sharp crack front and then to a fatigue load with stress
ranges Δσ2 = Δσc according to fig. 2-21, with a mean stress of about 0.5 fy
1. to obtain sufficiently large crack sizes (ad/2cd = aend/2cend), the

subsequent fracture tests were carried out (anders loopt de zin niet,
denk ik) at low temperatures of about T = - 100°C to -120°C, so that
brittle fracture could be achieved.
2. to check, as a side effect, the predictability of crack growth from initial

crack sizes via the Paris equation by comparing a0/2c0 with aend/2cend.
38
Table 2-2: Properties of welded test specimens and test results
39
Table 2-2: Properties of welded test specimens and test results (continued)
2.2.6.3.3 Calculation models
(1) For obtaining ΔTR, the experimental test results Texp from section 2.2.6.3.2 had
to be compared with calculative results Tcalc, which are determined for the
geometrical and mechanical data as measured for the test specimens, e.g. the
crack sizes ad and cd and the values T27J and fy.
(2) For calculating ΔTσ according to equation (2-17), the values Kappl,d, kR6, ρ and
beff needed to be determined.
(3) For the determination of Kappl,d, see equation (2-9), table 2-3 gives the
correction functions Y for various crack positions and shapes and table 2-4
gives the correction functions MK for various attachments with semi-elliptical
crack shapes.
40
Table 2-3: Stress intensity correction factors Y for various crack configurations
[15], [21]
41
Table 2-4: Stress intensity correction factors MK for welded attachments and
semi-elliptical surface cracks at the weld toe [16], [17]
(4) The input parameters of the failure assessment diagram (FAD), see fig. 2-14,
are given in table 2-5 and the correction factor ρ may be taken from table 2-6.
42
Table 2-5: Determination of kR6 [9], [22], [46]
43
Table 2-6: Definition of ρ
(5) The value beff is given in table 2-7.
Table 2-7: Definition of beff
44
(6) Where T27J has to be determined from other values TKV, fig. 2-23 gives a
suitable relationship.
Fig. 2-23 Relationship between T27J and TKV
2.2.6.3.4 Evaluation of fracture tests for DECT-elements
(1) For the DECT-tests table 2-8 gives a comparison of the values Tcalc and Texp
together with the values for the mean value corrections bi and the error terms
δI according to fig. 2-19.
45
Table 2-8: Comparison of calculative results Tcalc and experimental test
results Texp [42]
(2) In fig. 2-24 the values Texp/Tcalc are plotted; they are arrayed about the mean
line (diagonal: Texp = Tcalc), which needs the temperature shift ΔTR to obtain
design values related to measured input values.
46
Fig. 2-24: Comparison of experimental Texp-values and calculative Tcalc-
values for DECT-elements
(3) In fig. 2-25, the differences bi = Texp – Tcalc are arrayed in descending order
and plotted on Gaussian paper. According to this plot, the formula (2-17) fits to
the test results in the mean, so that for predicting expected values the safety
element ΔTR = 0 K may be used.
This corresponds fully with the prior assumption that for the various functions
in the fracture mechanics assessment, see fig. 2-14, mean value functions
should be applied.
47
Fig. 2-25: Determination of the safety element ΔTR for DECT-elements
(4) In applying the definition of design values according to equation (2-23), the
safety element ΔTR for ULS-verifications related to the use of measured values
T27J and fy is obtained on the level
Rd = mR + 3.03 σR (2-25)
which, according to fig. 2-25, gives a safety element
ΔTR,measured = + 38 K (2-26)
(5) When the mean value correction values bi are referred to nominal values T27J
and fy instead of measured ones, the mean line of distribution is shifted in
parallel by
ΔΔTR = − 45 K (2-27)
(6) This value ΔΔTR represents the positive effect of the difference between actual
values of T27J and fy as measured and the nominal values T27J and fy as
48
specified in product standards; hence it mirrors the over-quality of the material
as delivered.
(7) The safety element ΔTR related to the use of nominal values T27J and fy is
therefore
ΔTR,nom = − 7 K (2-28)
This value has been justified also by the evaluation of test results with welded
details, see chapter 2.2.6.3.5, and therefore has been adopted for any fracture
mechanical assessment related to nominal material properties including the
determination of the allowable plate thicknesses in table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10.
2.2.6.3.5 Evaluation of tests with welded details
(1) The evaluation of tests with welded details included two steps:
1. Evaluation on the basis of the actual geometry and material properties

as measured.
2. Evaluation of the fatigue tests to derive suitable standard assumptions
for design values of crack sizes.
(2) For the evaluation of the first step, Tcalc was determined by the hand formulae
for Y and MK-functions given in table 2-3 and table 2-4 and by FEM
calculations.
(3) The results Texp and Tcalc are given in fig. 2-26 together with the results of the
evaluation of the DECT-tests.
49
Fig. 2-26: Evaluation of tests with welded details
(4) The comparison shows that the Y- and MK-functions from handbooks, see fig.
2-26a) are safe-sided with regard to FEM -calculations, see fig. 2-26 b), so that
only those values have been used for the further evaluations of safety factors.
(5) The plot of the results bi = Texp – Tcalc for the test group with non-welded details
and longitudinal attachments is given in fig. 2-27 and for the test group with
details with transverse welds in fig. 2-28.
50
Fig. 2-27: Determination of the safety Fig. 2-28: Determination of the safety
element ΔTR, meas for the test group with element ΔTR, meas for the test group with
non-welded details and details with details with transversal attachments
longitudinal attachments
(6) The results show that the safety elements ΔTR, meas for measured values T27J
and fy and the safety elements ΔTR, nom for nominal values T27J and fy are all
safe-sided with respect to the ΔTR-values derived from the DECT-tests.
(7) The results also show that the effects of local residual stresses σS from
welding of the attachments can be neglected in the calculation model for the
sake of ease of use. They have not been included in the determination of the
toughness requirement Kappl,d (no ρ-value considered) and therefore they are
covered by the mean value corrections bi and error terms δi and subsequently
by the model-uncertainty expressed by the ΔTR-values, can be neglected in
the calculation model for the sake of ease of use.
(8) The evaluation of the second step, the evaluation of the fatigue tests to derive
suitable standard assumptions for the design values of crack sizes, was
carried out in the following way:
1. On one side the crack growth was calculated using the Paris equation
Δa
= C ⋅ ΔK m (2-29)
ΔN
where
51
Δ K = Δ σ c π a i Y ⋅ MK (2-30)
with a/c ratios varying from cycle step to cycle step and C and m taken
from measurements for each test specimen, see fig. 2-29,
Fig. 2-29: Crack growth curves calculated with values C and m in the Paris-
equation, determined from large scale tests
On the other hand the crack growth was calculated with a boundary
element programme (BEASY), also with C- and m-values from material
tests that fitted well to the Gurney-correlation, see fig. 2-30.
Fig. 2-30: Correlation of C-and m-values according to Gurney
52
2. In fig. 2-31 and fig. 2-32 some comparisons are given for typical crack
growth histories from experiments and calculations are given, revealing:
- the good accuracy of BEM-calculations,

- the safe-sidedness of calculations with hand formulae, in
particular with constant a/c ratios.
Fig. 2-31: Comparison of typical crack growth histories from experiments

and calculations
Fig. 2-32: Comparison of typical crack growth histories from experiments

and calculations
53
3. The conclusions drawn are the following:
a) In principle, two types of crack growth can be distinguished:
- those for non welded details and details with longitudinal

attachments where the initial crack developed to the final
crack size and
- those for details with transverse welds where in parallel to
the growth of the artificial initial crack other initial cracks
developed along the welded toe that first grew
independently from each other and finally grew together to
a single crack only, see fig. 2-33.
Fig. 2-33: Stages of crack growth for cracks at transverse weld toes
In order to compensate these effects, the following assumptions

should be made for initial ratios a0/c0:
- for non welded details and longitudinal attachments
a0/c0 = 0.40
- for details with transverse welds (2-31)
a0/c0 = 0.15
b) The C- and m-values should be taken for tests to obtain best

coincidence. If such values do not exist, they can be chosen as:
m = 3 and C = 1.80 ⋅ 10-13
to fit the Gurney-correlation, see fig. 2-30.
2.2.6.3.6 Conclusions for the safety element ΔTR
(1) For the test-evaluations to determine ΔTR in 2.2.6.3, the following conclusions
can be made:
1. - ΔTR values have been determined from test evaluations for a

design fractile level αRβ = 3,03 corresponding with the reliability
requirement in EN 1990.
- For these evaluations only tests that exhibited brittle fracture and
not ductile failure have been considered and treated, as if only
54
brittle fracture would always happen in the cases of the testing
conditions (100%).
- In fact only a portion (~ 70 %) of the total number of test

specimen has shown brittle fracture and this portion depends on
the temperature, see fig. 2-34.
Fig. 2-34: Portion of the test specimens showing brittle

fracture (~ 70 %)
Therefore, for efficiency reasons, the expensive tests were

carried out at very low temperatures.
- Hence αRβ = 3,03 may be considered as an upper bound, and

the lower the real design fractile, the higher the temperature.
2. Of all test evaluations, the DECT-tests give the most onerous

conditions for the safety elements ΔTR.
- There may be doubts whether the large scale tests with welded
attachments actually cover all practical cases and also the crack
sizes ad/cd used for the fracture tests may have been too large to
give the extreme values of the relative toughness requirements,
see fig. 5-16. Therefore, the ΔTR-values from DECT-tests have
been further used for all other details, also including welded
ones.
3. - The ΔTR-values cover local residual stresses from weld

attachments on large scale specimens. Therefore such residual
*
stresses need not be further considered in determining K appl,d .
- However, global residual stresses resulting from remote

restraints that were not included in the tests, see fig. 2-35, shall
*
be additionally considered in K appl ,d as an applied external stress
σS in addition to the working stress σp from external loads.
55
- Finally, global residual stresses have been assumed in the
preparation of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 to be σS = 100 N/mm2
as a lump value for all cases considered.
Fig. 2-35: Local and global residual stresses for a fracture mechanics
model with weld attachment
4. There are various ΔTR-values for different purposes:
a) - For the case of mean value predictions on the basis of

measured input values (e.g. for expected values in tests)
ΔTR = 0 K should be used.
b) - For unique verifications of a project, where measured

input values exist for T27J and fy, the value ΔTR = -38 K is
required to cover model uncertainty of the verification
procedure.
- In this case expert advice is recommended.
c) - For normal design, where T27J and fy-values are used

from standards (EN 10025), which represent a lower
bound value that is rarely reached, the safety element ΔTR
= + 7K may be used that takes account of the usual over-
quality of steels delivered.
- This value ΔTR = + 7 K is close to the value ΔTR = 0 K for

mean value-prediction for measured input values, so that
the extreme accidental case, that the steel delivered only
attains the nominal standard value T27J, is sufficiently
covered.
5. The maximum allowable values of element thickness in table 2.1 of EN

19931-10 were calculated for the case, that T27J-values are used from
appropriate EN-standards, which requires a safety element ΔTR = + 7 K.
Hence the values in table 2.1 do include this safety element already and
ΔTR = 0 K is recommended in using the tabulated values.
56
6. To consider special national safety aspects or other reliability
requirements the safety element ΔTR and possibly a shift of σEd may be
given in the National Annex to EN 1993-1-10.
7. For any calculative approaches, the shape of the initial crack

imperfection should depend on the notch case when fatigue can control
crack growth. The a0/c0-ratio should be
- for non-welded details and longitudinal attachments
a0/c0 = 0.40
- for details with transverse welds
a0/c0 = 0.15.
8. Models for crack growth calculations based on BEM give reliable

results. Solutions with correction functions Y and MK from handbooks
are safe-sided when calculations with varying a/c-ratios are performed.
For calculations with constant a0/c0-ratios the results are even more
conservative.
2.2.6.4 Temperature shift from strain rate ΔTε&
(1) The term ΔTε& according to equation (2-17)
1440 − f y (t ) ⎛ ε& ⎞
1, 5
ΔTε& = ⎜⎜ ln ⎟⎟ with ε&0 = 10−4 s −1

550 ⎝ ε&0 ⎠
takes the strain-rate effect for 4 ⋅10−4 < ε& < 5 ⋅103 / s into account. The upper limit
of 5 ⋅ 10 3 / s is given by the boundary for validity without “dynamic stress
concentration factors”.
(2) This term originates form test-evaluations of [1] and [20], see fig. 2-36 and
shows that the lower the strain-rate effects, the higher the yield strength of the
material.
57
Fig. 2-36: Influence of strain-rate on the toughness-temperature shift,
ε& 0 = 0,0001/ s
(3) For developing table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10, the term ΔTε& has been taken as
ΔTε& =0, so that any strain rate exceeding the limit 4 ⋅ 10 −4 should be taken into
account.
(4) Studies made on behalf on the stress fluctuations in bridges under moving
traffic show that for that type of loading the limit is not exceeded. The limit of
4 ⋅ 10-4 is also the magnitude of strain rate used in tension coupon tests.
2.2.6.5 Temperature shift from cold forming ΔTcf
(1) Cold forming produces a reduction of toughness mainly from the enhancement
of yield-strength by cold-straining, see fig. 2-37.
Fig. 2-37: Influence of cold forming on the toughness-temperature diagram
58
(2) Though fig. 2-37 refers to cold forming with straining in the direction of tension
stresses σEd, it may also be applied for cold-forming in the direction transverse
to the direction of tension stresses.
(3) The term
ΔTcf = - 3 DCF
where
DCF is the degree of cold forming in [%]
applies only for
DCF ≥ 2 %
and is constant for
DCF ≥ 15 %
(4) Here the degree of cold forming DCF, e.g. for bending is defined as given in
fig. 2-38.
1
ε
t
ε
⎛ t ⎞
DCF = ε max − ε d = ⎜ ⋅ 100 − 2 ⎟ [%]
2ε 1
⎝ 2r ⎠
r
t r
Fig. 2-38: Geometrical definition of DCF for a yield point elongation of 2%
(5) In EN 1993-1-8 conditions for welding in cold-formed zones and adjacent

material are given, that make it plausible that cold-forming has negative
influences on material properties. In using the situation for TEd = -5°C (without
ΔTCF), TEd-values including ΔTCF according to fig. 2-39 are calculated that
according to table 2.1 of EN 1993-10 result in allowable plate thicknesses as
given in fig. 2-40.
Ratio between
Maximum
bending radius r in TEd (without
applied plastic ΔT*DCF in K TEd in ° C
mm and material ΔTDCF) in ° C
strain DCF in %
thickness t in mm
≥ 25 ≤2 0 -5 -5
10 ≤ r/t < 25 ≤5 -8 -5 -13
3,0 ≤ r/t 10 ≤ 14 -21 -5 -26
2,0 ≤ r/t < 3,0 ≤ 20 -30 -5 -35
Fig. 2-39: Calculation of ΔTCf for cold forming for σEd = 0,75 fy
59
Ratio between Maximum allowable plate
Maximum applied
bending radius r in thickness t in mm
plastic strain DCF TEd in ° C
mm and material
in % EN 1993-1-10 EN 1993-1-8
thickness t in mm
≥ 25 ≤2 -5 30 all
10 ≤ r/t < 25 ≤5 -13 23 16
3,0 ≤ r/t 10 ≤ 14 -26 17 12
2,0 ≤ r/t < 3,0 ≤ 20 -35 15 10
Fig. 2-40: Comparison of permissible plate thickness for cold forming

products according to EN 1993-1-10 and EN 1993-1-8
2.2.7 Application of the fracture mechanic method to develop table 2.1

of EN 1993-1-10
2.2.7.1 Assumptions for application
(1) The assumptions for the application of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 were the
following:
1. The table should be developed for the most onerous case of structures
susceptible to fatigue, where the design crack ad/2cd should not only
cover the crack sizes overlooked in inspections after fabrication
(denoted as initial cracks a0/2c0), but also the crack growth that results
from fatigue from putting the structure into use until the moment the
cracks grown are detected.
2. As the crack growth does not only depend on the size of the initial
crack, but also on the fatigue class and the fatigue loading, the fatigue
resistance and the fatigue load applied for crack growth should cover all
relevant fatigue classes in EN 1993-1-9 and be defined such, that it
takes reference to the maximum possible load in fatigue assessments.
3. The basis of the table should be defined in a mathematical way, so that

it can be easily reproduced by computers.
(2) In conclusion, the following assumptions had to be made:
1. Description of size of initial cracks

2. Definition of fatigue loading for determining the crack growth to obtain
design cracks
3. Choice of a fracture mechanics model and of a simplified way of
calculation to determine the design values of crack size ad and
,d as input to ΔTσ
*
subsequently K appl
4. Justification of the safe-sidedness of the results by a refined analysis for
a large series of details
5. Presentation of the results in table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 versus suitably
scaled input-parameters
60
2.2.7.2 Description of the size of initial cracks
(1) For a structural detail, e.g. as given in fig. 2-41, the initial crack in the form of a
semi-elliptical crack is assumed to be located at the hot spot for fatigue.
Fig. 2-41: Example of a fatigue detail with the hot spot for fatigue
It has a crack depth of
⎛ t ⎞
a 0 = 0.5 ln ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ for t < 15 mm (2-32)
⎝ t0 ⎠
where t0 = 1 mm
and
⎛ t ⎞
a 0 = 0.5 ln a 0 = 0,5 ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ for t ≥ 15 mm ( 2-33)
⎝ t0 ⎠
see fig. 2-42.
Fig. 2-42: Size of the initial surface crack depending on the plate thickness
(2) The a0/c0-ratio, that gives the width 2c0 of the initial crack, if the crack depth a0
is known, is chosen as
61
a0/c0 = 0.4 (2-34)
taking into account rest-line evaluations from fatigue tests as given in fig. 2-43.
Fig. 2-43: a/c-ratios from evaluations of rest-lines from fatigue tests
(3) With the crack width, a comparison was made with the detectability of cracks
with non-destructive testing (NDT) methods, demonstrating that such initial
cracks are most probably detectable with Magnetic Testing (MP) and even
with Ultra-Sonic Testing (US), see fig. 2-44.
Fig. 2-44: Minimum crack width 2c0 detectable by inspection methods after
fabrication
62
2.2.7.3 Definition of fatigue loading for determining design cracks
2.2.7.3.1 General
(1) The maximum fatigue load a structure can bear with a survival probability of
95% is defined for the fatigue detail class Δσc by the damage equation applied
for the full service life:
D 5% = 1=
(
Σ Δσ Ei3
)
⋅ ni
(2-35)
Δσ c ⋅ 2 ⋅ 10 6
3
(2) This fatigue load represents the characteristic value of the fatigue strength
according to EN 1993-1-9, see fig. 2-45, and includes any damage equivalent
loading spectrum {Δσ i , n i } during the service life that fulfils the equation (2-35).
Δσ Δσ
m=3 m=3
D = 1,0 D = 1,0
Δσc Δσc
ΔσD
D = 1/4 ΔσD m=5
ΔσL
D = 1/4
2·106 N 2·106 5·106 108 N
Fig. 2-45: S-N-curves for fatigue and damage curves D = 1 and D = 1/4
(3) The fatigue load for the growth of the initial crack to its design value has been
chosen as
1
D 5% = (2-36)
4
(4) In the case of ΔσEi = ΔσC this means that the fatigue load for crack growth
reads:
Δσ 3c ⋅ 500.000 (2-37)
(5) The lapse of time in which this fatigue load makes undetected initial cracks
grow to their design values, is called hereafter “safe service period”.
63
2.2.7.3.2 Consequences for damage tolerance
(1) The fatigue assessment in EN 1993-1-9 includes partial factors to obtain the
target reliability and is expressed by
(γ Δσ ) ⋅ nEi ∑ (γ Ff Δσ Ej ) ⋅ nEj
Dd = ∑ di = ∑ Ff 3 Ei
3 5
n
+ 5
= k ≤1
NRdi ⎛ Δσ c ⎞ ⎛ Δσ ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ 2 ⋅ 106 ⎜⎜ D
⎟⎟ ⋅ 5 ⋅ 106
γ
⎝ 4Mf4 γ
1 4⎠2444 3 1 ⎝ 4Mf4
4⎠2444 3
for for (2-38)

Δσ D Δσ D Δσ L
γ Ff Δσ i > > γ Ff Δσ j >
γ Mf γ Mf γ Mf
(2) The stress ranges from the use of long life structures as bridges are mainly in
the range
Δσ D Δσ L
> γ Ff Δσ j >
γ Mf γ Mf
so that on the safe side for the service life of bridges
∑ (γ Δσ j ) ⋅ n j
5
Ff
Dd = 5
=k ≤1 (2-39)
⎛ Δσ D ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ 5 ⋅ 10 6
⎝ γ Mf ⎠
can be applied.
(3) From equation (2-39) and the load for crack growth the following conclusions ´
may be drawn:
1. For γFf = 1,0 and γMf = 1,0 the fatigue load for crack growth leads to a
“safe service period” of only ¼ of the total fatigue life (e.g. ¼ of 120
years = 30 years for bridges).
2. If after this “safe service period” an inspection of the structure is carried

out similar to the one after fabrication, the starting position after this
inspection is the same as after fabrication:
- if no damages are detected, the presence of undetected initial

cracks may be assumed and a new “safe service period” may
start,
- if damages are detected, relevant measures for repair or
retrofitting can be taken before a new “safe service period” may
start, see fig. 2-46.
64
Fig. 2-46: Nominal design fatigue life of a structure and sequence of
“safe service periods” with regular inspections and main
inspections
So the “safe service period” takes the role of a period between main
inspections, the number n of which is during the total fatigue life:
TLife
n= −1= 4 −1= 3 (2-40)
Tperiod
3. The target reliability of 5% for the resistance as applied for the case with
γFf = 1.0 and γMf = 1.0, is sufficient for the determination of “safe service
periods”. Hence γFf-factors and γMf = factors greater than 1.0 applied in
the normal fatigue design according to EN 1993-1-9 can be used to
extend the “safe service period” by
r = (γ Ff ⋅ γ Mf )
5
(2-41)
This results in an expression for the necessary number of inspections,

which is
4
n= −1 (2-42)
(γ Ff ⋅ γ Mf )5
This equation gives a link between the number of inspections and the
recommended partial factors in EN 1993-1-9, see table 2-9, and allows
to choose γ Ff ⋅ γ Mf = 1.0 without loosing safety, as this is ensured by
65
inspections. The choice of γ Ff ⋅ γ Mf = 1.35 would mean that the “safe
service period” is identical with the nominal fatigue life and an
inspection would only be necessary when the end of the nominal fatigue
life is reached.
Partial factors Number n of inspections during

γFf ⋅ γMf design fatigue life
1,0 3
1,15 1
1,35 0
Table 2-9: Number of inspections between “safe service periods”
during service life
(4) This link between the reliability of the fatigue assessment and the choice of the
toughness of the material by the inherent concept of “safe service periods”
between inspections controlled by crack growth from a quarter of the full
fatigue load during the full design life makes structures “damage tolerant”.
(5) The concept of “damage tolerance” is a feature of structural robustness as it

ensures that not failure can occur without pre-warning by very large and visible
cracks. It also justifies the efficiency of inspections in that it ensures that the
occurrence of such large and visible cracks is possible and that those cracks
are detectable before a failure will happen.
(6) A side effect of “damage tolerance” of structures is that their use is not limited
to the nominal fatigue life, see fig. 2-47. Damage tolerance also makes
structures robust against unforeseen developments of fatigue loads and errors
in the choice of fatigue class.
66
Fig. 2-47: Damage tolerance by “safe service periods” between inspections
makes fatigue life independent of calculative design fatigue life
(7) Tension elements in old riveted bridges built up from many thin plates have
been “damage tolerant”, because the poor toughness of the material then
used has been compensated by the crack arresting effect of the joints
between the lamellas and the redundancies of their number. Equivalence to
such crack arresting effects and redundancies is obtained for thick plates
without any crack arresting joint by high toughness of the material, which
provides sufficiently long “safe service periods” between inspections similar to
the ones for riveted components.
(8) The alternative to “damage tolerance” is the “safe life” concept that should only
be adopted in exceptional cases where inspections are not possible. This
concept works without any pre-warning mechanisms and requires that both the
design values for fatigue loading and the design values for fatigue resistances
are chosen such that they reliably cover the full nominal design life (e.g. for
bridges ~ 100 years) and that at the end of the nominal fatigue life the
structure still has a failure probability comparable with the one used for
ultimate limit states. It therefore works with very large partial factors and
possibly with monitoring the loads, see fig. 4-16. At the end of the nominal
fatigue life the structure is no longer useable and has to be replaced by a new
one.
67
*
2.2.7.4 Choice of fracture mechanics model to determine K appl,d
2.2.7.4.1 Pilot studies
(1) To fulfil the requirements for a reference fracture mechanics model that gives
the numerical values for allowable plate thicknesses in table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-
10 in a reproducible way, the following pilot studies have been undertaken
1. Studies with alternatives to choose a reference detail and a model for

that detail that can be considered as representative for common design
practice.
2. Use of geometric parameters for that detail that cover actual design
situations.
3. Use of a calculation method for the crack growth that is simple and
conservative enough to give design values of crack sizes ad and action
effects Kappl,d that do not only cover the detail considered, but also all
other details in EN 1993-1-9.
2.2.7.4.2 Choice of fracture mechanics model
(1) From studies of many design situations the structural situation in fig. 2-48 has
been chosen to be representative, which applies to the steel beam of a
composite bridge with transverse web stiffeners, for which the allowable plate
thickness of the bottom flange is questioned.
Fig. 2-48: Steel beam with fracture mechanics models â, ã, ä

representing fatigue details
(2) The notch situation for this bottom flange may be associated with the fatigue
classes of the following structural details:
â the welded connection between the web plate and the flange
ã a longitudinal attachment to the flange
ä a transverse attachment to the flange
(3) The fracture mechanical model 2 with a longitudinal attachment and the
fatigue class Δσc = 56 N/mm2 and a semi-elliptical surface crack at the weld
68
toe has been finally chosen to determine the allowable plate thickness t of
flanges, see fig. 2-49.
Fig. 2-49: Fracture mechanical model chosen for determining the

allowable plate thickness
2.2.7.4.3 Choice of geometrical parameters
(1) For concretizing the standard detail according to fig. 2-49, the following
geometrical parameters have been assumed:
a) for the dimensions:
L/t = 8.20
T/t = 0.15
B/t = 7.50
Θ = 45°
b) for the initial cracks
a0 according to fig. 2-42.
a0/c0 = constant = 0.40.
(2) Fig. 2-50 shows that the assumptions for dimensions cover a range of
parameters, and fig. 2-51 makes it clear that with respect to the values Mk (a0)
practical design situations are covered in the mean.
69
Fig. 2-50: Example for boundary conditions for the geometrical parameters
for t = 80 mm
Fig. 2-51: Comparison of Mk (a0) for the dimensions chosen and for
practical cases
(3) These assumptions and the safe-sidedness of a0/c0 = constant is taken into
account to obtain design values ad and hence Kappl,d-values that also cover
other structural details of EN 1993-1-9 and their variations in terms of
dimensions.
2.2.7.4.4 Performance of calculation of ad and Kappl,d
(1) The calculation of the design values of ad and Kappl,d follows the flow given in
fig. 2-52.
70
Fig. 2-52: Flow for the calculation of ad and Kappl,d
(2) Fig. 2-53 shows the results ad versus the plate thickness t, which can be
expressed by a numerical function
Fig. 2-53: Curve ad for the standard detail
71
(3) Fig. 2-54 shows that the design values ad and cd (for a/c = 0,4) are actually
detectable by various methods.
Fig. 2-54: Design values of crack width {2cd} and detectability by NDT-
methods
(4) Fig. 2-55 gives the Kappl,d-curve determined with ad calculated for the stress
level 100 MPa and its mathematical presentation.
Fig. 2-55: Kappl,d-curve determined with ad for a unique stress of 100 MPa
72
2.2.7.4.5 Justification of the simplified method chosen by more refined
analysis
(1) Fig. 2-56 gives a series of results for Kappl,d from more refined calculations of
ad and cd with Boundary Element Methods (BEM) for various details that
contain both initial cracks with a0/c0 = 0.4 and with a0/c0 = 0.15 and it
demonstrates that the results obtained in fig. 2-55 are safe-sided.
Fig. 2-56: Comparison of the standard Kappl,d-curve with more accurate

calculations for practical cases
(2) The details calculated with more refined methods are given in table 2-10.
73
Table 2-10 Details from EN 1993-1-9 analysed with more refined calculation
methods
74
Table 2-10 (continued) Details from EN 1993-1-9 analysed with more
refined calculation methods
2.2.7.5 Determination of values in table 2.1
(1) The calculation of the values for allowable plate thicknesses in table 2.1 of EN
1993-1-10 was carried out according to the flow given in fig. 2-57.
75
Fig. 2-57: Flow of calculation of the allowable plate thicknesses in table 2.1
of EN 1993-1-10
(2) Three levels of σEd from “frequent loads” have been chosen, the maximum
being σEd= 0.75 fy (t). This value corresponds to the maximum possible
“frequent stress”, where for the ultimate limit state verification yielding of the
extreme fibre of the elastic cross-section has been assumed:
fy (t )
σ Ed = = 0,75 fy (2-43)
1,35
(3) A basic assumption for the external loading on the fracture mechanics model
is that it contains in addition to the “frequent” stress σp from actual external
loads also residual stresses σS = 100 MPa from remote restraints.
(4) The presentation of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10, however, is related only to the
stresses σp from actual external loads (the residual stress σS is silently
included in the calculation).
(5) The choice of σS = 100 MPa is justified by the following:
1. stress measurements of residual stresses in components from remote

restrains
76
2. assuming that σEd = 0.75 fy + 100 MPa gives the yield strength
3. assuming that σEd = fy + 100 MPa would give the mean value of fy.
(6) For the yield strength referred to by the stress levels σp, that are expressed as
portions of the yield strength, and for determining the FAD-correction factor kR6
the values specified in the product standards should be used that depend on
the plate thickness t in the form of a step function.
To facilitate the situation, the step function for fy (t) has been substituted by a
continuous approximation
⎛t ⎞
fy (t ) = fy ,nom − 0.25⎜⎜ ⎟⎟, t1 = 1mm (2-44)
⎝ t1 ⎠
(7) Fig. 2-58 shows the values ΔTσ calculated for table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 with
σ p = 0.75 f y (t ) and various plate thicknesses for S355 and the results of
studies with BEM for practical design situations to demonstrate the safe-
sidedness.
Fig. 2-58: ΔTσ-values for S355, σp = 0.75 fy compared with results from
BEM-calculations with practical details
(8) Where TKV-values in the standards were not expressed in terms of T27J but in
terms of T40J or T30J, the following correlations were used:
T40J = T27J + 10 [°C]

T30J = T27J + 0 [°C] (2-45)
(9) Table 2-11 includes the final results from table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10.
77
Table 2-11: Tabulated values from table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 and table 4 of
EN 1993-1-12 for the choice of material to avoid brittle fracture
(10) Table 2-11 also includes values from table 4 in EN 1993-1-12 that covers the
choice of material for high strength steels not listed in EN 1993-1-10.
2.2.7.6 Summary
(1) Table 2-12 gives a summary of formulae used in the application of the fracture
mechanic method to develop table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10
78
Initial cracks (a0)
Position: at hot spots for fatigue
Shape: semielliptical
Sizes: a0 = 0,5·ln(t/t0) with t0 = 1mm
2·c0 = 5·a0 for longitudinal stiffener and pure plate
3·c0 = 20·a0 for transverse stiffener and reinforced plate
Loading of structural member
σEd = σp + σs
σp = σ{Gk ”+” ψ1Qk}
σs = 100 N/mm² from remote restraints of structural member, effects of residual
stresses at hot spots from local welding are included in ΔTR (test evaluation)
Fatigue load
Applied in terms of damage D = ∑ Δσ i

m
⋅ ni
=
1
with constant stress ranges Δσ i = Δσ c
Δσ ⋅ 2 ⋅106
m
c 4
Fatigue crack growth to critical crack size (ad)

Use of C and m in Δa/ΔN = C·ΔKm from material tests,
satisfying the Gurney-Correlation C = 1,315 ⋅ 10 − 4 1 m
895 , 4
Determination of K*appl,d
σ Ed ⋅ π ⋅ ad ⋅ Y ⋅ M k
For *
K appl ,d = MPa m (σEd in N/mm² and ad in m) where
kR6 − ρ
Y = Correction function for various crack position and shapes, see table 2-3
Mk = Correction function for various attachments, see table 2-4
kR6 = plasticity correction factor from R6-FAD, see table 2-5
ρ = correction factor for local residual stresses, see table 2-6
Standardized K*appl,d-curve
σ Ed ⎛ 8 ⋅10 −5 ⋅ t 3 − 0,01 ⋅ t 2 + 0,7244 ⋅ t + 6,6957 ⎞
, d (t ) =
*
K appl ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ for the case t < 50mm
σ0 ⎝ kR6 − ρ ⎠
σ Ed ⎛ 0,2735 ⋅ t + 14,38 ⎞
, d (t ) = ⋅ ⎜⎜
*
K appl ⎟⎟ for the case t ≥ 50mm
σ0 ⎝ kR6 − ρ ⎠
complying with
σ0 = 100 MPa
ad = 2·10-6 ·t3 + 0,0006 ·t2 + 0,1341 ·t + 0,6349 (with t in mm)
2·cd = 5 ·ad
Effective crack front beff
beff see table 2-7

Table 2-12: Summary of assumptions and formulae to develop table 2.1 of
EN 1993-1-10
79
(2) This table 2-12 may be referred to where table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 shall be
bypassed by more refined methods, see section 2.4.
2.3 Maximum permitted thickness values - Examples

2.3.1 Use of table 2.1 of EN 1990-1-10
(1) The use of table 2.1 of EN 1990-1-10 follows the flow chart given in fig. 2-59.
80
Input
Conditions
ε& ≤ 4 ⋅ 10 −4 (static load)

ε cf ≤ 2% (no significant cold-forming)
Reference temperature TEd = Tmr + ΔTr

= lowest temperature of member
Example: TEd = - 25°C – 5°C = - 30°C
Yield strength fy (t) from product standard

t
(or fy (t) = fy,norm – 0,25 [N/mm2])
t0
Example: ⋅ fy = 355 N/mm2
Tension stress from external load
σ Ed = σ G + ψ1 σ Q1....
= χ ⋅ fy (t)
Example: σEd = 0.5 fy (t)
Selection of steel grade Selection of plate

thickness
Example: S355 J2 Example: t =65 mm
Table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10
Permissible plate thickness Permissible steel grade
Example: t = 65 mm Example: S 355 J2
Fig. 2-59: Flow chart for using table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10
81
(2) Where the conditions for ε& and εcf for the use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 are
not met, the reference temperature TEd should be adjusted by using the ΔTε& -
and ΔTε,cf -values that shift the requirements towards lower temperatures.
(3) For values TEd and σEd, which are between the tabulated values, interpolations
may be carried out.
(4) For central Europe (Germany) the values TEd may be used according to table
2-13.
No. Member Reference

Temperature TEd [°C]
1 Steel bridges and Composite bridges - 30° C
2 Buildings
Members exposed to external climate - 30° C
Members protected from external climate 0° C
3 Crane runways
Members exposed to external climate - 30° C
Members protected from external climate 0° C
4 Hydraulic structures
Members fully or almost fully emerged from - 30° C

water
Members with one sided contact with water - 15° C
Members partially submerged in water - 15° C
Members fully submerged in water - 5° C
Table 2-13: Reference temperatures for various applications in central

Europe (Germany)
2.3.2 Examples for the use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10

2.3.2.1 The use for steel bridges
(1) The development of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 has been primarily oriented to
the use for steel bridges with particular emphasis on fatigue.
82
(2) Particular choices of the material for bridges may be based on the following
assumptions:
1. For road bridges the stresses from permanent and variable loads
may be estimated as
σ(G k )
~ 1.0
σ(Q K )
The ULS-verification reads with the following assumptions:
γG = 1.35
γQ = 1.35
ψ1 = 0.4
γM0 = γM1 = 1.10
f y (t )
σult = 1.35 σ (Gk) + 1.35 σ (Qk) =
1.10
The tension stress is
σEd = σ ((GK) + ψ1 ⋅ (QK))
f y (t )
= ≈ 0.50 f y (t )
2
1.35 ⋅ ⋅ 1 .1
1 + 0. 4
2. For railway bridges ψ1 may be taken as 1.0, so that σEd follows from
σEd = σ (GK) + σ (QK)
f y (t )
= ≈ 0.66 f y (t )
1.35 ⋅ 1.1
where γM0 is taken as 1.0, it follows
σEd = 0.75 fy (t)
(3) The allowable plate thicknesses for these stress levels are given in fig. 2-60
and fig. 2-61.
83
Fig. 2-60: Allowable plate thicknesses for road bridges
Fig. 2-61: Allowable plate thicknesses for railway bridges
2.3.2.2 Worked examples

2.3.2.2.1 Composite Bridge
(1) For a composite road bridge with the cross-section in fig. 2-62 the choice of
material for the bottom flange of the steel girder is questioned.
84
Fig. 2-62: Cross-section of composite bridge at mid-span (continuous over
2 spans; location Magdeburg-Germany)
(2) The dimensions of the steel girder are given in fig. 2-63
40mm
10mm
12mm
947mm
26mm
600mm
Fig. 2-63: Cross-section of the steel beam at mid-span; material S355
(3) The action effects are summarized in table 2-14.
85
No. Load case Reduction factor M [kNm] N [kN] σsteel, bottom
for concrete flange
[kN/cm2]
1 Self weight steel 130 1,024
2 Self weight prefabricated 384 3,024

concrete slabs
3 Construction load 198 1,559
4 In situ concrete, t0 n0 780 4,333
5 In situ concrete, nF,B1 772 4,568

t1 = 130 days
6 In situ concrete, t∞ nF,B2 768 4,741
7 Construction load n0 213 1,183
8 Permanent finish, nF,B1 720 3,600

t1 = 100 days
9 Permanent finish, t∞ nF,B2 717 3,696
10 Creeping t1 = 100 days nF,Bx1 - 55,4 - 0,274
11 Creeping t2 = ∞ nF,Bx2 - 81,1 - 0,410
12 Traffic load, max n0 2.230 10,773
13 Traffic load, min n0 - 690 - 3,333
14 Shrinkage t1= 100 days nF,S1 84,2 639 -0,180
15 Shrinkage t∞ nF,S2 500 2989 -1,025
16 Settlement n0 80,9 0,391
17 Temperature ΔTtop+=10K n0 257 1,242
18 Temperature ΔTtop-= 7K n0 -180 -0,869
19 Wind, vertical n0 80,1 0,387
20 Braking load n0 96,3 0,465

Table 2-14: Load cases and stresses in bottom flange
86
(4) The reference temperature is determined in table 2-15
No Effect Value
1 Minimum air temperature Tmd - 25 °C
2 Radiation loss of member, ΔTr - 5 °K
3 ΔTσ (detail: transverse stiffener welded to 0 °K

bottom flange covered by EN 1993-1-9)
4 ΔTR (National Annex) 0 °K
5 ε& = 0.005 s −1 (from project specification): ΔTε& - 16 K*)
6 DCF = 0 (no cold-forming): ΔTDCF 0 °K

7 TEd - 46 °C
*) fy(t) = 355 – 0,25 · 26/1 = 349 N/mm²
1.5
1440 − 349 ⎛ 0.005 ⎞
ΔTε& = −
⎜ ln ⎟ = − 15,3 K ~ 16 K
550 ⎝ 0.0001 ⎠
Table 2-15: Determination of reference temperature TEd
(5) The relevant stress σEd is calculated with ψ1 = 0.7 from the load combination:
1.0 {1 “+” 2 “+” 5 “+” 8 “+” 16} + 0.7 {12 “+” 17 “+” 19 “+” 20}:
σEd = 1.0 { 1.024 + 3.024 + 4.568 + 3.6 + 0.391} +

0.7 { 10.773 + 1.242 + 0.387 + 0.465}
= 21.50 KN/cm² = 215 N/mm²
215
σEd = ⋅ f y ( t ) = 0.62 f y ( t )
349
(6) The use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 gives the minimum toughness
requirement T27J = - 20C, or S355J2, see fig. 2-64, where
t permissable (0,62 ⋅ fy (t )) = 39 mm > tavailable = 26 mm .
Charpy energy reference temperature TEd [°C]

steel sub
CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
grade grade
at T °C Jmin. σEd=0,75 x fy(t) σEd=0,50 x fy(t) σEd=0,25 x fy(t)
S235 JR 20 27 60 50 40 35 30 25 20 90 75 65 55 45 40 35 135 115 100 85 75 65 60
J0 0 27 90 75 60 50 40 35 30 125 105 90 75 65 55 45 175 155 135 115 100 85 75
J2 -20 27 125 105 90 75 60 50 40 170 145 125 105 90 75 65 200 200 175 155 135 115 100
S275 JR 20 27 55 45 35 30 25 20 15 80 70 55 50 40 35 30 125 110 95 80 70 60 55
J0 0 27 75 65 55 45 35 30 25 115 95 80 70 55 50 40 165 145 125 110 95 80 70
J2 -20 27 110 95 75 65 55 45 35 155 130 115 95 80 70 55 200 190 165 145 125 110 95
M, N -20 40 135 110 95 75 65 55 45 180 155 130 115 95 80 70 200 200 190 165 145 125 110
ML, NL -50 27 185 160 135 110 95 75 65 200 200 180 155 130 115 95 230 200 200 200 190 165 145
S355 JR 20 27 40 35 25 20 15 15 0 65 55 45 40 30 25 25 110 95 80 70 60 55 45
J0 0 27 60 50 40 35 25 20 15 95 80 65 55 45 40 30 150 130 110 95 80 70 60
J2 -20 27 90 75 60 50 40 35 25 135 110 95 80 65 55 45 200 175 150 130 110 95 80
K2, M, N -20 40 110 90 75 60 50 40 35 155 135 110 95 80 65 55 200 200 175 150 130 110 95
ML, NL -50 27 155 130 110 90 75 60 50 200 180 155 135 110 95 80 210 200 200 200 175 150 130
S420 M, N -20 40 95 80 65 55 45 35 30 140 120 100 85 70 60 50 200 185 160 140 120 100 85
ML, NL -50 27 135 115 95 80 65 55 45 190 165 140 120 100 85 70 200 200 200 185 160 140 120
S460 Q -20 30 70 60 50 40 30 25 20 110 95 75 65 55 45 35 175 155 130 115 95 80 70
M, N -20 40 90 70 60 50 40 30 25 130 110 95 75 65 55 45 200 175 155 130 115 95 80
QL -40 30 105 90 70 60 50 40 30 155 130 110 95 75 65 55 200 200 175 155 130 115 95
ML, NL -50 27 125 105 90 70 60 50 40 180 155 130 110 95 75 65 200 200 200 175 155 130 115
QL1 -60 30 150 125 105 90 70 60 50 200 180 155 130 110 95 75 215 200 200 200 175 155 130
S690 Q 0 40 40 30 25 20 0 0 0 65 55 45 35 30 20 20 120 100 85 75 60 50 45
Q -20 30 50 40 30 25 20 0 0 80 65 55 45 35 30 20 140 120 100 85 75 60 50
QL -20 40 60 50 40 30 25 20 0 95 80 65 55 45 35 30 165 140 120 100 85 75 60
QL -40 30 75 60 50 40 30 25 20 115 95 80 65 55 45 35 190 165 140 120 100 85 75
QL1 -40 40 90 75 60 50 40 30 25 135 115 95 80 65 55 45 200 190 165 140 120 100 85
QL1 -60 30 110 90 75 60 50 40 30 160 135 115 95 80 65 55 200 200 190 165 140 120 100
Fig. 2-64: Interpolation of steel grade from table 2-1 of EN 1993-1-10

87
2.3.2.2.2 Industrial building
(1) For a steel frame of a steel production plant, see fig. 2-65, the choice of
material shall be made for the end plate of the beam at the bolted beam-
column connection.
Fig. 2-65: End plate (pos. 1) of the bolted beam-column-connection of a

steel frame made of S235, t = 80 mm
(2) The static analysis gives the following values for the ULS-verification:
a) Maximum stress in end plate: σEd,ULS = 18.2 kN/cm²

b) Permanent and variable loads with the same relevant load arrangement
for calculating σEd,ULS:
Gk = 8.6 kN/m²
Qk = 20 kN/m²
c) γG = γQ = 1.35
d) ψ1 = 0.70
3) The relevant stress σEd follows from
1 .0 1. 0
σ Ed = σ G + ψ1 σQ
1.35 1.35
88
(4) With
GK 8 .6
= = 0.30
GK + Q K 8.6 + 20
follows
σG = 0.30 σEd,ULS
σQ = 0.70 σEd,ULS
and
σEd = 0.74 · 0.3 σEd,ULS + 0.7 · 0.74 · 0.7 σEd,ULS

= 0.58 σEd,ULS
= 0.58 · 182 = 105.6 N/mm²
(5) With
80
fy(t) = 235 – 0.25 = 215 N/mm²
1 .0
follows
105.6
σ Ed = f y ( t ) = 0.49 f y ( t )
215
(6) The reference temperature TEd is specified for the most severe action scenario
with full service loading according to table 2-16:
t permissable (− 15°C ) = 82,5 mm ≈ tavailable = 80 mm
No Effect Value
1 Minimum air temperature Tmd - 10 °C

(for the specific project)
2 - 5 °K
Radiation loss of member (as specified)
3 0 °K
ΔTσ
4 0 °K
ΔTR
5 0 °K
ΔTε&
6 0 °K
ΔTDCF
7 TEd - 15 °C
Table 2-16: Determination of reference temperature TEd
89
(7) The use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 gives the minimum toughness
requirement T27J = 0 °C or S235 J0, see fig. 2-66:
Charpy-V-values Reference temperature TEd [°C]
steel sub
CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
grade grade
at T °C Jmin. σEd=0,75 x fy(t) σEd=0,50 x fy(t) σEd=0,25 x fy(t)
S235 JR 20 27 60 50 40 35 30 25 20 90 75 65 55 45 40 35 135 115 100 85 75 65 60
J0 0 27 90 75 60 50 40 35 30 125 105 90 75 65 55 45 175 155 135 115 100 85 75
J2 -20 27 125 105 90 75 60 50 40 170 145 125 105 90 75 65 200 200 175 155 135 115 100
S275 JR 20 27 55 45 35 30 25 20 15 80 70 55 50 40 35 30 125 110 95 80 70 60 55
J0 0 27 75 65 55 45 35 30 25 115 95 80 70 55 50 40 165 145 125 110 95 80 70
J2 -20 27 110 95 75 65 55 45 35 155 130 115 95 80 70 55 200 190 165 145 125 110 95
M, N -20 40 135 110 95 75 65 55 45 180 155 130 115 95 80 70 200 200 190 165 145 125 110
ML, NL -50 27 185 160 135 110 95 75 65 200 200 180 155 130 115 95 230 200 200 200 190 165 145
S355 JR 20 27 40 35 25 20 15 15 0 65 55 45 40 30 25 25 110 95 80 70 60 55 45
J0 0 27 60 50 40 35 25 20 15 95 80 65 55 45 40 30 150 130 110 95 80 70 60
J2 -20 27 90 75 60 50 40 35 25 135 110 95 80 65 55 45 200 175 150 130 110 95 80
K2, M, N -20 40 110 90 75 60 50 40 35 155 135 110 95 80 65 55 200 200 175 150 130 110 95
ML, NL -50 27 155 130 110 90 75 60 50 200 180 155 135 110 95 80 210 200 200 200 175 150 130
S420 M, N -20 40 95 80 65 55 45 35 30 140 120 100 85 70 60 50 200 185 160 140 120 100 85
ML, NL -50 27 135 115 95 80 65 55 45 190 165 140 120 100 85 70 200 200 200 185 160 140 120
S460 Q -20 30 70 60 50 40 30 25 20 110 95 75 65 55 45 35 175 155 130 115 95 80 70
M, N -20 40 90 70 60 50 40 30 25 130 110 95 75 65 55 45 200 175 155 130 115 95 80
QL -40 30 105 90 70 60 50 40 30 155 130 110 95 75 65 55 200 200 175 155 130 115 95
ML, NL -50 27 125 105 90 70 60 50 40 180 155 130 110 95 75 65 200 200 200 175 155 130 115
QL1 -60 30 150 125 105 90 70 60 50 200 180 155 130 110 95 75 215 200 200 200 175 155 130
S690 Q 0 40 40 30 25 20 0 0 0 65 55 45 35 30 20 20 120 100 85 75 60 50 45
Q -20 30 50 40 30 25 20 0 0 80 65 55 45 35 30 20 140 120 100 85 75 60 50
QL -20 40 60 50 40 30 25 20 0 95 80 65 55 45 35 30 165 140 120 100 85 75 60
QL -40 30 75 60 50 40 30 25 20 115 95 80 65 55 45 35 190 165 140 120 100 85 75
QL1 -40 40 90 75 60 50 40 30 25 135 115 95 80 65 55 45 200 190 165 140 120 100 85
QL1 -60 30 110 90 75 60 50 40 30 160 135 115 95 80 65 55 200 200 190 165 140 120 100
Fig. 2-66: Interpolation of steel grade from table 2-1 of EN 1993-1-10
2.4 Specific cases for using fracture mechanics

2.4.1 General
(1) Section 2.4 of EN 1993-1-10 opens the door for using fracture mechanics
methods for by-passing table 2-1 in section 2.3 by more refined assessments.
(2) Such more refined methods should be consistent with the way how table 2.1
of EN 1993-1-10 has been derived and hence be based on assumptions not
contradictory to EN 1993-1-10.
(3) Fig. 2-67 summarizes the procedure for the determination of numerical values
in table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 (left side of the chart).
90
Fig. 2-67: Fracture mechanics procedure
(4) The possibilities for by-passing are expressed by the following cases (right
side of the chart in fig. 2.67):
*
case 1: The conservative standardized K appl,d -curve is used, however,
TKV values are not taken from the standards, but from material
tests for the specific case.
*
case 2 a) The conservative standardized K appl,d -curve is substituted by a
*
more refined value K appl ,d for the specific case of a design
situation very close to the one used for developing table 2.1 of
EN 1993-1-10, so that it can be assumed to be covered by the
large scale tests described in section 2.2.6.3.2.
The assumptions for a0/c0 are as in table 2-1, however, crack

growth is calculated with varying a/c-values.
91
Either TKV-values from standards or from material tests can be
used.
case 2 b) When a K-verification is used to eliminate uncertainties of the

Wallin-Master-Curve and Sanz-correlation, the fracture
mechanical resistance should be based on Kc(T) values from
small scale material tests for the specific case. The safety
element ΔTR = - 40 °C is based on the scatter of the K-T-
transition curve experienced in general for steel material.
case 3: Where the design situation to be considered differs from the one
assumed in the development of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 and is
not covered by the tests described in section 2.2.6.3.2, a
combined calculative-experimental procedure should be used
where calculations follow the procedure mentioned in case 2 and
in addition large scale fracture tests are performed to be used to
check the predictability of crack growth and fracture resistance
by calculative means, see fig. 2-68.
In this case, the large scale test should follow a load temperature
path that includes the safety elements to be adopted in the
calculative design, see fig. 2-69.
Fig. 2-68: Fracture mechanical safety evaluation assisted by large scale

testing
92
Fig. 2-69: Load temperature path for large scale fracture tests.
2.4.2 Example for the calculative determination of material quality
2.4.2.1 Design situation
(1) For a road bridge according to fig. 2-70 with a cross-section as given in fig. 2-
71, a central arch has been provided with hangers made of solid steel bars
connecting the bridge deck with the arch.
Fig. 2-70: Main bridge span with central arch
93
Fig. 2-71: Cross-section of the bridge with central arch
(2) The geometry of the hangers with a diameter of 220 mm and made of steel
S420, is given in fig. 2-72. Because of the lengths of some hangers that
exceeded the production length, welded splices were necessary, see fig. 2-73
Fig. 2-72: Configuration of the hangers with position of welded splices and
detailing of forged ends
Fig. 2-73: Detail of welded splice
(3) The ends of the hangers were forged; details of the connections of the hanger
ends to the arch and to the cross-beams of the deck may be taken from fig. 2-
74 and fig. 2-75.
94
Fig. 2-74: Connection of hangers Fig. 2-75: Connection of hangers
to the cross-beams of deck to the arch
(4) The purpose of the calculative assessment using section 2.4 of EN 1993-1-10
was to verify the choice of the material S420 for the hangers, which are not
included in table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10.
2.4.2.2 Critical cross-sections and choice of fracture mechanical models
(1) The critical cross-sections to be checked are:
1. at the welded splice in the middle of the hanger length

2. at the transition of the round section to the forged flat ends of the
hangers
3. at the welded ends of the forged parts of hanger.
(2) The fracture mechanical models for the critical cross-section are the following:
a) at the welded splice, see fig. 2-76 a) with the assumption of a surface
crack
b) at the welded splice, see fig. 2-76 b) with the assumption of a central
crack
c) at the transition of the round section to the forged flat ends, see fig. 2-76
a) with the assumption of a surface crack
d) for the welded end connections, see fig. 2-76 c) with the assumption of
a semi-elliptical surface crack
95
Fig. 2-76: Fracture mechanical models used for the choice of material
2.4.2.3 Determination of the fracture mechanical requirement K*appl,d and

ΔTσ and safety verification
(1) The fracture mechanical requirements for the critical sections a), b), c) and d)
are given in Table 2-17
,d and ΔTσ
*
Table 2-17: Determination of K appl
(2) The verification is performed using the limit state equation:
TEd ≥ TRd
where
TEd = Tmin + ΔTr + ΔTσ + ΔTR + [ΔTε& + ΔTcf ]

TRd = (T27 J − 18 ) + ΔTt
(3) The input values are:
Tmin = -25°C T27J = -50°C (S420 NL)

ΔTr = - 5° K ΔTt see Table 2-17
ΔTσ see Table 2-17
ΔTR = +7 K
96
ΔTε& =0K
ΔTcf =0K
(4) The verification is given in Table 2-18:
Critical section a) b) c) d)
Tmin -25 -25 -25 -25
ΔTr -5 -5 -5 -5
ΔTσ +23 +24 -17 +2
ΔTR +7 +7 +7 +7
TEd 0 °C +1 °C -40 °C -21 °C
T27J -50 °C -50 °C -50 °C -50 °C
ΔT27J 0K +50 K 0K 0K
Sanz-Correlation -18 K -18 K -18 K -18 K
TRd -68 °C -18 °C -68 °C -68 °C
Table 2-18: Safety verification
(5) According to Table 2-18 the section relevant for the choice of material is
section b) and the choice of S420 NL can be confirmed.
2.4.3 Example for the use of fracture mechanics calculations assisted

by testing
2.4.3.1 Design situation for a unique verification
(1) For a building that had to be suspended to a bridge on top of two towers, see
fig. 2-77, the choice of material for that bridge was subject to discussion.
Details of the bridge structure are given in fig. 2-78.
Roof truss for the Sony Center,

Center, Berlin
Detail "S"
12 m
Querschnitt I-I
Detail "O"
12 m 12 m 12 m 12 m 12 m
60 m
Querschnitt I-I
100 mm Werkstoff S 460 (Diagonale)
100 mm und S 690 (Obergurt, Auflager)
600 mm
Fig. 2-77: Steel bridge on top of towers to bear suspended storeys of a building
97
Obergurtknoten S
Untergurtknoten O
Fig. 2-78: Details of the bridge structure
(2) Materials were S460 and S690 with plate thicknesses up to 100 mm.
(3) The choice of material had to be justified by a unique verification that included
the following tests:
1. Material tests for getting input values for the numerical assessment
2. Single large scale tests to confirm the results of the numerical

assessment for two details.
(4) Whereas the number of material test was such that the scatter could be
determined, the single large scale tests were only meant to serve for
comparison with a numerical simulation of the behaviour of the test specimens
in the context of prior knowledge. The amount of prior knowledge may be
gauged by the extent to which the simulation is based, on direct previous
experience, authoritative reference and reported results from comparable tests
if available.
(5) It is not reasonable to rely on the results of a single test if there is very little
applicable prior knowledge. In such cases, at least two results should be
established so that it is easier to detect an anomalous result. In this example it
was achieved by the safe-sided procedure of testing a symmetrical specimen
and using the test results from one of the two possible failure positions that
actually fails.
(6) If prediction from a simulation differs significantly from a single test result, even
safe-sidedly, then the following steps should be taken:
1. Error bounds should be established for experimental accuracy and

statistical reliability of the numerical simulation to assess whether the
result is truly anomalous.
2. A search of additional prior knowledge should be undertaken to improve

the simulation or reduce its unreliability.
3. If these steps do not resolve the difference, at least one further test
should be performed.
98
(7) Below items of the example that are of general concern are addressed:
1. Design and fabrication of large scale specimens

2. Introduction of artificial flaws
3. Execution of tests
4. Safety evaluation
2.4.3.2 Design and fabrication of large scale test specimens
(1) Test specimens should include all features of the member as built that are
relevant for the brittle fracture at low temperature.
(2) Fig. 2-79 gives above the actual details with the “critical spots” for the initiation
of brittle fracture (upper line) and the design of the test specimens which are
symmetrical and reduced in scale such that fracture may be achieved in the
testing machine at lower level (lower line).
Detail “O” 100 420 100 Detail “S”

S690
gusset plates
600
S460 critical spot
critical spot
100 S460
S690
40 100 S460
100 S460
100
40
600 Test specimen

Test specimen Detail “S”
Detail “O” S690
S460
300 critical spot
210
critical spot 100 S460
S690 100 S460
40
100 S460
Fig. 2-79: Examples for structural details as built (above) and design of test
specimens (below)
(3) The test specimens should be produced in the same way as the structural
parts built in using the same material and fabrication and welding techniques
as well as NDT-techniques for quality control.
(4) The equivalence of the stress-situation for the test specimen and the structural
member built in should be proved by a comparison of SCF-factors or K-factors
99
at the critical locations where cracks have the most severe effects. Fig. 2-80
gives a comparison of numerical values.
Fig. 2-80: Comparison of SCF-functions and K-values to check the stress-

equivalence of the structural detail as built and the test specimen
(below)
2.4.3.3 Introduction of flaws
(1) Flaws should be introduced either during fabrication (e.g. by including ceramic
blades (e.g. 5 mm x 0.3 mm) in the welds) or after fabrication (e.g. by saw or
electric erosion). The introduced flaw shall be subjected to sufficient cyclic
loading to generate initial growth of the crack. This should be carried out at
room temperature.
(2) If the member is subject to fatigue, the test specimen should be subjected to
suitable fatigue loading, also at room temperature. If the member is subject to
predominantly static loads an additional fatigue loading is not necessary.
(3) Flaws should achieve at least the size of the design values (see fig. 2-53 and
fig. 2-54). They may be larger to reduce the fracture load for the testing
machine.
(4) Samples should be taken from the test specimens that permit the
determination of all material data necessary for the numerical simulations.
2.4.3.4 Execution of tests
(1) Each test specimen should be loaded with the actions from fig. 2-69 in the
following order:
1. The nominal load from permanent load (Gk) should be applied at a

temperature representative for the erection phase (e.g. room
temperature). This loading may effect a possible favourable
redistribution of residual stresses before the action of low temperature is
applied.
2. The temperature is reduced to TEd and then the additional nominal
stresses from variable loads (ψ 1 ⋅ Q k ) are applied to reach the design
situation the structure must (be able to) sustain.
100
3. After this, the temperature is further reduced by Ttest to investigate the
influence of the scatter of the toughness properties in the temperature
transition range. A scatter of 40°C may be assumed.
4. In the last phase, the loading is increased until fracture is reached.
2.4.3.5 Numerical simulations
(1) In parallel to the large scale test numerical calculations should be performed to
check the yielding resistance and the brittle fracture resistance of the test
specimen using the material data determined from the large scale test
specimens.
(2) The calculations aim at mean values and may be performed with the K-method
or the T-method. In order to obtain expected values, the safety element ΔTR in
the T-method should be taken as ΔTR = 0°C.
(3) By comparing the test results with the numerical model, the simulation model
should be checked and subsequently improved if necessary. The following
should be checked:
(i) whether yielding occurs before brittle fracture, because if not, residual
stress effects may require reconsideration.
(ii) that brittle fracture starts where expected.
(iii) that the resistance as tested corresponds to the resistance as
calculated, subject to an estimated allowance for experimental and
statistical errors.
2.4.3.6 Safety evaluation
(1) If the simulation is close to that experienced in the test, the numerical model
may be used for the safety evaluation.
(2) If the K-method is used, the KMat,d(TEd) value may be determined by using prior
knowledge from former material tests from comparable material together with
the specific material tests from the test specimen at a temperature (TEd - ΔT).
(3) If the T-method is used, the T27J-value may be determined for the temperature
TEd and the safety requirement be met by using the safety element ΔTR =
- 38°C for measured T27J-values.
101
2.4.4 Some other typical examples
(1) Some other typical examples for the use of section 2.4 of EN 1993-1-10 are
given in the following:
1. Plate thickness of the top flange and bottom flange of a composite

bridge, see fig. 2-81 and fig. 2-82.
Bridge system and construction
Construction at supports
Fig. 2-81: Composite road bridge-cross-sections.
Support Span Support

Upper chord
75 75 115 135 115 85 85 60 60 60 115 140 145 145 140 115 60 60 60 85 85 115 135 115 75 75
Bottom plates
30 70 70 95 45 50 70 70 50 70 95 45 30 70
40 40 40 40
125,28
Fig. 2-82: Composite road bridge distribution of plate thickness for the
upper chords and the bottom plates
102
2. Plate thickness of 100 mm of the horizontal girder of the ∇-pylon of a
road bridge over the river Rhine, see fig. 2-83. The horizontal girder is a
tension element that links the stayed cables supporting the bridge deck.
Rheinbrücke Ilverich
+ 81,00
+ 46,71
[m]
63,00 63,00 287,50 63,00 63,00
plates in S460 TM
plates in S460 TM
Fig. 2-83: Horizontal tension element of a ∇-pylon
3. Castor container for transporting nuclear waste. The relevant load case
results from an accidental situation during transport, for which the
material toughness of the thick shell had to be determined, see fig. 2-
84.
Fig. 2-84: Castor container
103
4. Wind tunnel for aerodynamic design. The wind tunnel is a container that
is operated with low testing temperatures and air pressure, see fig. 2-
85.
• Dimensions 65 x 30 m
• Volumen 5750 m3
• Air pressure
-110 kN/m2 , + 95 kN/m2
• Test temperature -40°C
• Max. plate thickness 50 mm
• Choice of material P275NL2
Fig. 2-85: Wind tunnel with technical specifications.
5. Composite bridge with a triangle cross-section and single bottom

chords made of steel tubes welded to cast steel nodes, see fig. 2-86,
fig. 2-87 and fig. 2-88.
Fig. 2-86: View of the composite bridge with a cross-section made of two
separate triangle girders.
104
Fig. 2-87: Details of the welded connection between steel tubes and cast
steel node.
Fig. 2-88: Cast steel node in factory
105
2.5 Bibliography
[1] Liessem, A., Bruchmechanische Sicherheitsanalysen von Stahlbauten aus

hochfesten niedriglegierten Stählen, Bericht aus dem Institut für
Eisenhüttenkunde der RWTH Aachen, Shaker Verlag, Band 3/96, 1996
[2] Sedlacek G., Dahl W., Stötzel G., Liessem A., Improvement of the methods
given in Eurocode 3, Annex C, for the choice of material to avoid brittle
fracture, IIW-Doc. X-1274-93, 1993
[3] Wallin K., Methodology for Selecting Charpy Toughness Criteria for Thin High
Strength Steels, Part 1, 2 and 3, Jernkontorets Forskning, Nr. 4013/89, VTT
Manufacturing Technology, VTT Espoo, 1994
[4] Stranghöner N., Sedlacek, G., Stötzel G., Langenberg P, Dahl W.,
Sprödbruch-Konzept-Teilsicherheitsbeiwerte im Eurocode 3 statistisch
ermitteln, Materialprüfung 39, 1997, S. 339-343
[5] Stranghöner N., Sedlacek G., Stötzel, G., Dahl W., Langenberg P., The New
Eurocode 3 - Part 2 – Annex C, Approach for the Choice of Steel material to
Avoid Brittle Fracture, Proc. of the Seventh (1997) International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, USA, 1997, S. 551-556
[6] Stahlgütewahl nach Betriebsfestigkeitskatalogen, DFG-Forschungsvorhaben,

1994-1997, Gemeinschaftsvorhaben des Lehrstuhls für Stahlbau mit dem
Institut für Eisenhüttenkunde der RWTH Aachen und dem Lehrstuhl für
Stahlbau der TU Dresden
[7] AIF Forschungsvorhaben 9044, Bruchmechanische Sicherheitsanalyse im

Stahlbau, 1994
[8] EC3 Design of steel structures, Part 2 Steel Bridges, Annex C Design against
brittle fracture
[9] Harrison, R.P., K. Loosemore and I. Milne, Assessment of the integrity of

structures containing defects, CEGB-Report R/H/R6, Revision 3, 1986
[10] Marandet, B. und G., Sanz, Étude par la mécanique de la rupture de la

ténacité d’aciers à resistance moyenne fournis en forte épaisseur, Revue de
Métallurgie, S. 359-383, april 1976
[11] Liessem A., Dahl W., Effect of toughness on the failure of high and very high
strength structural steels in the elasto-plastic and fully plastic range on the
basis of large scale tests, EUUR 13954, European Commission Technical
Steel Research
[12] Liessem A., Nießen T., Dahl W., Investigation of the effect of toughness and
crack geometry on the crack propagation behaviour by tensile tests on large
specimens of structural steels on different strength levels, EUR 16627,
European Commission, Technical Steel Research
[13] Kalinowski B., Bruchmechanische Sicherheitsanalyse an Bauteilen mit

aufgeschweißten Versteifungen, Dissertation RWTH Aachen, 1998
106
[14] Guerney, T.R., Fatigue of welded structures, Cambridge University press,
Cambridge 2nd ed. 1978
[15] Newman, J.C. and Raju, I.S., An empirical stress intensity equation for the
surface crack, Eng. Frac, Mech. 15, 1981, S. 185-192
[16] Hobbacher, Stress Intensity Factors of Welded Joints, Engineering Fracture

Mechanics, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 173-182, 1993, and Vol. 49, No. 2, p323, 1994
[17] Zettelmoyer, N,. Fischer J.W., Stress Gradient Correction Factor for Stress
Intensity of welded Stiffeners and Cover Plates, Welding Research
Supplement
[19] Langenberg P, Dahl W., Sedlacek G., Stötzel G., Stranghöner N., RWTH
Aachen, ANNEX C Material choice for the avoidance of brittle fracture in
EUROCODE 3, Mis-Matching of Welds 96, Reinstorf-Lüneburg, April 1996
[20] J. Falk, Untersuchungen zum Einfluß der Belastungsgeschwindigkeit auf das

Verformungs- und Bruchverhalten an Stählen unterschiedlicher Festigkeit und
Zähigkeit, Fortschrittsberichte VDI, Reihe 18, Nr. 117, 1993
[21] Murakami, Y., Stress Intensity Factors Handbook, Pergamon Press, Frankfurt,
1987
[22] Beltrami, Chr., Numerische Analyse der lokalen Beanspruchung in Bauteilen

mit Rissen und Quantifizierung der Zähigkeitsanforderungen, Bericht aus dem
Institut für Eisenhüttenkunde, RWTH Aachen, Shaker Verlag, Band 5/95, 1995
[23] Colbach, Henri, diploma thesis, Institute of steel construction, RWTH Aachen,
1994, Untersuchung typischer geschweißter Konstruktionsdetails hinsichtlich
ihrer Zähigkeitsanforderungen bei Vorhandensein von Oberflächenrissen
[25] DS 804, Vorschriften für Eisenbahnbrücken und sonstige Ingenieurbauwerke

(VEI), Deutsche Bundesbahn, 1.1.1983, Bundesbahn Zentralamt München
[26] BS 5400 (October 1996), Draft, Design of Steel Highway Bridges, British
Standard
[27] NFA 26-010 (May 1980), Choix des qualités d’aciers pour construction
métalique ou chaudronée vis-a-vis au risque de rupture fragile, Association
Francaise de Normalisation (AFNOR)
[28] DASt-Richtlinie 009, Empfehlung zur Wahl der Stahlsorte für geschweißte
Bauteile (4/73), Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbau
[29] Kühn B., Sedlacek G., Höhler S., Bericht zum Stand und zur weiteren
Bearbeitung der DASt-Richtlinie 009 „Empfehlungen zur Wahl der
Stahlgütegruppe für geschweißte Stahlbauten“, Fortlaufender Bericht Stand
11/00, Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau, RWTH Aachen
[30] Heuser, A., Abu-Zeid, O.A., Dahl, W., Änderung des Festigkeits- und
Zähigkeitsverhaltens von Baustählen durch Kaltverformung, Sonderdruck aus
107
„Stahl und Eisen“ 107 (1987), Heft 20, Seite 952-956, Verlag Stahleisen mbH,
Düsseldorf
[31] Verein Deutscher Eisenhüttenleute, STEEL- A Handbook for Materials

Research and Engineering, Volume 1: Fundamentals, Springer Verlag Berlin,
Verlag Stahleisen mbH, Düsseldorf
[32] Degenkolbe, J., Müsgen, B., Arch. Eisenhüttenwes. 44 (1973), Nr. 10, S.
769/74
[33] Burdekin, F.M., Lucha, P., Hadley, I., Ogle, M.H., Notch Toughness of Steel
for Bridges, Final Report (DPU 9/3/38) for Highways Agency, UMIST, TWI,
1997
[34] Kühn, B., Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der europäischen Regelungen zur
Vermeidung von Sprödbruch, Dissertation am Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau, RWTH
Aachen, Shaker-Verlag, ISBN 3-8322-3901-4.
[35] Sedlacek, G., Müller, Ch., Background document on the safety and
recommended γMf factores in prEN 1993-1-9, 1st Draft, Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau,
RWTH Aachen, May 2001
[36] Sedlacek, G., Stranghöner, N., Stötzel, G., Dahl, W., Langenberg, P., Wallin,
K., Brozzetti, J., Nussbaumer, A., Blauel, J.G., Burdekin, F.M., Background
documentation to Eurocode 3 – Design of Steel Structures – Part 2 – Bridges
– for Chapter 34 – Materials – Choice of steel material to avoid brittle fracture,
Document No.: II.3.1, Draft, Aachen, May 1997
[37] Verein Deutscher Eisenhüttenleute, STEEL, A Handbook for Materials

Research and Engineering, Volume 2:Applications, Springer Verlag Berlin,
Verlag Stahleisen mbH, Düsseldorf
[38] Halbritter, J., Mokosch, M., Beurteilung der Schweißeignung in kaltgeformten

Bereichen hochfester Feinkornbaustähle, Schweissen & Schneiden, 51
(1999), Heft 6, Verlag für Schweißen und verwandte Verfahren, DVS-Verlag
GmbH, Düsseldorf
[39] Hadley, I., Investigation of the Notch Toughness of Steel for Bridges, First
Progress Report (220570/1/95) for Highways Agency, TWI, March 1995
[40] Hadley, I., Ogle, M.H., Burdekin, F.M., Luccha, O., Investigation of the Notch
Toughness of Steel Bridges, for Highways Agency, TWI and UMIST
Progress Report No. 2 (220570/2/95) June 1995
Progress Report No. 3 (220570/3/95), October 1995
Progress Report No. 4 (220570/4/96), January 1996
Progress Report No. 5 (220570/5/96), May 1996
Progress Report No. 6 (Report on Full-Scale Testing), (220570/6/97),
June 1997
Progress Report No. 7 (220570/7/97), June 1997
[41] Stranghöner, N., Werkstoffwahl im Stahlbrücken, DASt (Deutscher Ausschuß

für Stahlbau), Forschungsbericht 4/2006, Stahlbau Verlags- und Service
GmbH, Düsseldorf, 2006
108
[42] Stranghöner, N., Sedlacek, G., Stötzel, G., Dahl, W., Langenberg, P.,
Background Documentation to Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures, Part 2,
bridges, for Chapter 3 – Materials, Choice of Steel Material to Avoid Brittle
Fracture, Document No.: II.3.1, Draft, Aachen, May 1997
[43] Marandat, B., Sanz, G.: “Étude par la mécanique de la rupture de la ténacité
d’aciers à résistance moyenne fournis en forte épaisseur”, Revue de
Métallurgie, pp. 359-383, April 1976
[44] Sanz, G.: “Essai de mise au point d’une méthode quantitive de choix des
qualités d’aciers vis-à-vis du risque de rupture fragile”, Revue de Métallurgie,
CIT, pp. 621-642, July 1980
[45] Mangerig, I.: Minimale Oberflächentemperaturen von Stahlbrücken”,

unveröffentlichtes Dokument.
[46] Silcher, H.: “Untersuchung der Einflussfaktoren auf das bruchmechanische

Verhalten von Proben mit symmetrischen Fehlergeometrien”, Technisch-
wissenschaftlicher Bericht, MPA Darmstadt, 91-03, 1991
109
Section 3
3 Selection of materials for through-thickness properties
3.1 General
(1) Section 3 of EN 1993-1-10 gives rules for the choice of Z-qualities of steels
subject to requirements for deformation properties perpendicular to the surface
of the steel product.
(2) Such requirements arise from welding, when shrinkage of welds is restrained
locally or globally in through thickness direction, and needs compensation by
local plastic through thickness strains.
(3) Damages from such excessive strains are known as lamellar tearing, see fig.
3-1.
Fig. 3-1: Lamellar tearing
(4) They occur almost exclusively during fabrication, where the microstructure of
steels with a certain sulphur content is segregated by tension stresses normal
to the plane of the laminations, see fig. 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 and delaminations are
linked via shear steps.
Fig. 3.2: Damage case a plate (30 mm) Fig. 3-3: Damage case of a plate (28 mm)
Made of St 52-3 of a cruciform joint made of R St37-2
110
Fig. 3.4: Micrograph showing lamellar tearing
(5) Lamellar tearing is therefore a weld induced flaw in the material which
generally becomes evident during ultrasonic inspection. The main risk of
tearing is with cruciform, T- and corner joints and with full penetration welds.
(6) The suitability of material for through-thickness requirements should be based

on the through-thickness ductility quality criterion in EN 10164, which is
expressed in terms of quality classes identified by Z-values representing the
percentage of short transverse reduction of area (STRA) in a tensile test.
(7) The choice of material depends on requirements affected by the design of

welded connections and the execution.
(8) For the choice of quality class, EN 1993-1-10 provides two classes depending
on the consequences of lamellar tearing, see fig. 3-5.
111
Application of the method for the choice
of through thickness quality
Class 1 Class 2
General application to all Application restricted to cases of high risks

prefabricated components in- associated with lamellar tearing
dependently on the material
and end use
Determination of risk
• Criticality of the location in terms of applied

tensile stress and degree of redundancy
• the strain in the through-thickness direction in
the element to which the connection is made.
This strain arises from the shrinkage of the
weld metal as it cools. It is greatly increased
where free movement is restrained by other
portions of the structure.
• The nature of the joint detail, in particular
welded cruciform , tee and corner joints. For
example, at point shown in fig. 3-1, the
horizontal plate might have poor ductility in
the through-thickness direction. Lamellar
tearing is most likely to arise if the strain in
the joint acts through the thickness of the
material, which occurs if the fusion face is
roughly parallel to the surface of the material
and the induced shrinkage strain is
perpendicular to the direction of rolling of the
material. The heavier the weld, the greater is
the susceptibility.
• Chemical properties of transversely stressed
material. High sulphur levels in particular,
even if significantly below normal steel
product standard limits, can increase the
lamellar tearing
Risk significant Risk insignificant
Specification of through-thickness properties from EN Post fabrication

10164 inspection to
identify whether
lamellar tearing has
occurred and repair
where necessary
Fig. 3-5: Routes for the choice of through-thickness-quality
112
(9) Guidance on the avoidance of lamellar tearing during welding is given in EN
1011-2.
3.2 Procedure
(1) The limit state of lamellar tearing is expressed by the following formula
ZEd ≤ ZRd (3-1)
where:
ZEd is the design value of the Z-requirement resulting from the magnitude of
strains from restrained metal shrinkage under the weld beads.
ZRd is the design value of the material capacity to avoid lamellar tearing
expressed by the Z-classes for material according to EN 10164 e.g.
Z15, Z25 or Z35.
3.2.2 Allocation of influence to the requirement ZEd
3.2.2.1 Influences
(1) The local straining which may exhaust the ductility of the material depends on
the following influences:
a effective weld depth aeff between through plate and incoming plate
b shape and position of weld, weld bead sequence
c effect of material thickness s of the through plate
d remote restraint of shrinkage from welding due to stiffness of other
portions of the structure
e influence of preheating.
3.2.2.2 Representation of influences in the limit state equation
(1) The requirement ZEd has been allocated to the influences a to e in the form
ZEd = Za + Zb + Zc + Zd + Ze (3-2)
using partial requirements Zi for each influences i.
(2) The allocation is given in table 3-1 on the basis of damages reported, see
table 3-2.
(3) Table 3-2 contains data from failures due to lamellar tearing which are
arranged according to minimum values of STRA (short transverse reduction of
area) in through-thickness direction determined from tests. In most failure
cases, the mean values of STRA are below 15%, only for three cases they are
between 15% and 25%. No failure case above 25% is reported. Two damage
cases have been excluded in the evaluation due to the special failure case
during the preheating due to internal rolling stress (case 20) and the specific
test configuration (designed to provoke lamellar tearing) and additionally
overstress during test (case 22). This complies with conclusions from the UK
113
[2] and Japan [9]. According to French data [10] lamellar tearing would not
more be expected for STRA greater than 35%.
Table 3-1 Allocation of Zi-values to the influences i
114
Table 3-2: Description of damage cases [15]
(4) The evaluation of damage cases according to EN 1993-10 is given in table 3-3
and table 3-4
115
Table 3-3 Evaluation of test results
116
Table 3.4: Evaluation of damage cases given in table 3-2
(5) According to this evaluation, the procedure in EN 1993-1-10 gives safe results
if structural steels not classified as Z-grades according to EN 10164 provide a
Z-quality equivalent Z = 10.
(6) Fig. 3-6 gives a lower bound relationship between Z-values and the sulphur
content of steels S355 [14].
117
Fig. 3-6: Comparison between the percentage reduction of area in
transverse direction to the reduction of area in thickness direction of steel
S355 in relation to the sulphur content [14].
3.2.2.3 Influence of the effective weld depth aeff (a)
(1) In Fig. 3-7, the relationship between the effective weld depth aeff for straining,
defined in fig. 3-8, and the percentage short transverse reduction of area
(STRA) = Zdamage of the material, for which lamellar tearing was reported (see
table 3-2), is plotted. For fillet welds the effective weld depth corresponds to
the leg length of weld.
Fig. 3-7: Zdamage [% STRA] versus weld depth aeff
aeff aeff
s s
Fig. 3-8: Definition of effective weld depth aeff for shrinkage
(2) In the mean, a linear relationship between effective weld depth aeff and
damage (% STRA) can be identified for aeff < 50 mm. For aeff > 50 mm the
damage effect is taken as constant (Za = 15) because of the effect of welding
sequence to shrinkage.
118
(3) In using the mean lines (instead of an enveloping line), also the other
influences need to be considered to be conservative in the choice.
(4) Table 3-1 shows for influence (a) the linear relationship between Za and aeff
from fig. 3-7.
3.2.2.4 Influence of the shape and position of weld and weld bead sequence (b)
(1) The reference case for the shape and position of weld is the case of fillet
welds for T-, cruciform- and corner-joints for which Zb = 0 was used.
(2) The cases above this reference case in table 3-1 are more favourable and
allow to compensate unfavourable effects of other influences; the cases below
the reference case are less favourable.
(3) Weld bead sequences close to buttering, balanced welding and weld bead
sizes with aeff ≤ 7 mm for multipass welds reduce the risk of lamellar bearing.
3.2.2.5 Thickness s of plate with through thickness strains (c)
(1) The plot of plate thickness s versus Zdamage in % STRA for the material, for
which lamellar bearing was reported (see table 3-2), is given in fig. 3-9.
Fig. 3-9: Zdamage [% STRA] versus plate thickness s
(2) In the mean, a linear relationship between Zdamage and plate thickness s has
been derived for s ≤ 80 mm with a maximum value Zdamage = 15 for s > 70 mm
plates.
(3) The limitation Zc = 15 mm may be understood as effect from the limited St-
Venant-zone affected by the straining requirement from metal shrinkage.
(4) In order to consider various consequences of potential delaminations, the Z-

requirements, established for plate thickness, are reduced by 50% when
external loads are predominantly static and lead to compression only.
119
3.2.2.6 Influence of remote restraint to shrinkage due to stiffness of other
portions of the structure (d)
(1) The damage evaluation does not give a clear correlation with the global
restraint effects from stiffness of the surrounding members; therefore relatively
small Zd-values have been allocated to the cases, see table 3-5:
- low restraint (e.g. built-up members with longitudinal welds, without

restraints to shrinkage)
- medium restraint (e.g. for cruciform joints of members which are
restrained at their ends)
- high restraint (e.g. for tubes through cut outs in plates and shells).
Table 3-5: Examples for determining ZEd and allocation to the ZRd-classes in
EN 10164
3.2.2.7 Influence of preheating (e)
(1) For preheating (> 100°C), a bonus Ze = - 8 has been adopted. This is an
advantage in particular for thick plates.
(2) It should, however, be noted that where the shrinkage of the preheated
material after completion of welding can provide additional strain to that arising
120
from cooling of the weld itself, the bonus from preheating should not be
applied.
3.2.3 Minimum requirement ZEd
(1) For defining minimum requirements tests in [11] with fillet-welded T- and
cruciform joints were evaluated, see table 3-3.
(2) The results of this evaluation correspond with the conclusions in [11], that for
fillet-welded T- and cruciform joints with aeff ≤ 7 mm no guaranteed Z-values
are necessary for s < 40 mm.
(3) This requirement applies, if hydrogen in welds is limited to 0.5 ml/100 g.
(4) The conclusions in table 3-1 also comply with the various damage cases as
referred to in fig. 3-7, fig. 3-9 and table 3-2. From 7 damage cases with ZR ≤
5%, 4 cases could be allocated to low restraint and from these 4 cases 2
cases had plate-thicknesses s < 14 mm, so that for s = 10 mm, aeff ≤ 10 mm,
Zd = 0 and Ze = 0 the minimum requirement ZEd = Za (=3) + Zc (=2) = 5 could
be estimated.
3.2.4 Allocation of ZEd to Z-classes in EN 10164
(1) The value ZEd according to expression (3-2) should be allocated to the through
thickness ductility quality classes according to EN 10164 by table 3-6.
Table 3-6: Choice of quality class according to EN 10164
According to this table, it is possible that Z-values of the Z-classes according

to EN 10164, which are related to the mean from 3 measurements from
material tests, are smaller than ZEd.
(2) In fact the Z-classes in EN 10164 represent lower bound values which are
rarely met. Therefore, the classification according to table 3-6 is sufficiently
reliable and satisfies the condition of equation (3-1) with regard to design
values.
(3) The allocation in table 3-6 may be modified when reliability differentiation to
various design situations is applied.
121
3.3 Examples of application
3.3.1 Connection of the hangers of a tied-arch-bridge to the arch
(1) Fig. 3-10 gives a typical detail of the connection of a hanger of an arch-bridge
to the arch. Fig. 3-10 a) shows the box-type cross-section of the arch with a
diaphragm to which the hanger is welded; fig. 3-10 b) gives a section in the
plane of the arch indicating the spot, where the quality of the plate of the
diaphragm shall be determined.
Fig. 3-10: Welded connection of hanger to the arch of an arch bridge:

a) cross-section of the arch and connection of hanger
b) section in plane of the arch
(2) The diaphragm has a plate thickness of t = 30 mm and is made of S235 J2.
(3) The Z-qualities are determined in table 3-7. For Ze preheating of 100°C has
been provided.
Zi
Za Zb Zc Zd Ze ZEd ZRd
-8
20 6 5 6 5 (pre-
14 Z15
heati
ng)
30
Table 3-7: Determination of Z-quality
(4) The choice made is Z15.
3.3.2 Welded connection of the arch of a tied arch bridge to the main girder
(1) Fig. 3-11 shows the connection of the end of the box-type arch to the open
section main girder with stiffeners for the bearings.
Fig. 3-11 a) gives a section in the plane of the arch with the bottom flange of
the main girder. Fig. 3-11 b) gives a section at the end of the arch, also with
the bottom flange of the main girder and the stiffeners for the bearings.
122
Fig. 3-11: Welded connection of the arch to the main girder
a) section in plane of the arch;
b) cross-section at the end of the arch
(2) The bottom flange has a plate thickness of t = 40 mm and is made of S355
NM; the plate-thickness of the stiffeners is t = 25 mm.
(3) The determination of Z-quality may be taken from table 3-8.
Zi
40
25 8 5 8 3 -8 16 Z15
(4) The choice made is Z15.
3.3.3 Connection of troughs to cross-beams in an orthotropic steel deck of a

road bridge
(1) Fig. 3-12 gives the view and the cross-section of the road bridge
“Kronprinzenbrücke” with an orthotropic deck plate designed by Calatrava.
(2) Due to the small construction depth of the cross-beams and cut-outs in their
webs for pipes, the deck had to be designed such that the troughs are not
continuously going through the webs of the cross-beams, but are inserted in
between and welded to the webs.
123
Fig. 3-12: General view and cross-section in the axis of the pier
(3) Fig. 3-13 gives details of the welded joints of the trapezoidal ribs at the cross-
beams. The Z-quality of the webs of the cross-beams was questioned.
2 2
6 2 2
18-30
Fig. 3-13: Welded joint of troughs to webs of cross-beams
(4) The thickness of the web-plate varies between t = 18 mm and t = 30 mm. The
steel is S355 NM.
(5) Table 3-9 gives the fig.s for the determination of Z-quality. The quality finally
chosen was Z35.
124
2 2 Zi
6 2 2
18-30 3 5 6 5 0 Z19 Z35
3.3.4 More general examples
(1) More general examples for details in bridges are given in table 3-5.
125
3.4 Bibliography
[1] Schönherr, „Werkstoffliche und Konstruktive Maßnahmen zum Vermeiden von

Lamellenbrücken in Schweißkonstruktionen“, DVS-Berichte, Band 50,
„Schweißen und Schneiden 1978 Fortschritt und Qualität“, Düsseldorf 1978,
S. 83-87
[2] Farrar, J.C. Ginn, B.J.; Dolby, R.E.: „The use of small scale destructive tests to
assess susceptibility to lamellar tearing”, IIW-Doc. IX-890-74
[3] Schönherr, W.: “Beurteilung der Schweißneigung von Stahl bei

Beanspruchung des Bauteils in Dickenrichtung”, Schweißen und Schneiden,
Jg. 27 (1975), Heft 12, S. 491-495
[4] Dennin, G.; „Kriterien zum Festlegen der Mindestbrucheinschnürung bei

Zugbeanspruchung von Erzeugnissen senkrecht zur Walzebene“, Schweißen
und Schneiden, Jg. 28 (1976), Heft 10, S. 391-393
[5] Granström, A.: „The relevance of test methods for lamellar tearing“, IIW-Doc
IX-1086-78
[6] König, H.; Rohweder, A.: “Schadensfall und seine Auswirkungen auf die
schweißgerechte Konstruktion eines Erz-Öl-Tankers”, DVS-Bericht 31, S.
165/172, Deutscher Verlag für Schweißtechnik, Düsseldorf, 1974
[7] Kußmaul, K.; Blind, D.; „Hinweise zur werkstoff- und schweißgerechten
Konstruktion anhand von Bauspielen aus dem Behälter- und Rohrleitungsbau,
DVS-Bericht 31, S. 85-92, Deutscher Verlag für Schweißtechnik, Düsseldorf,
1974
[8] Heuschkel, J.: „Anisotropy and Weldability“, Wdg. J. Res. Suppl. 50 (1971), H.
3, S. 110-s/26-s
[9] Inagaki, M.; Tamura, H.; Nakazima, A.; Ito, Y.; Tanaka, J.; Shimoyama, T.:
”Japanese Report on Lamellar Tearing of Sub-Commission”, IX-F, IIW-Doc.
IX-873-74
[10] Cadiou, L; Samman, J.; Leymonie, C.; ”Acoustic emission as a method for
evaluating of susceptibility of a steel plate to lamellar tearing”, IIW-Doc. IX-
858-73
[11] Pargeter, R.J.; Davey, T.G.; Jones, R.L.; Ogle, M.H.; Billson, D.R.; Mudge,
P.J.: “Study of through thickness properties of steel for bridge construction”,
The Welding Institute, Report 34048/3/91, March 1991
[12] IIW-Doc IX-1008-76
[13] The cases 5, 8, 10, 15, 17, 21 and 22 result from experts-reports or research-
investigations of Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM)
[14] Rheinstahl Technik 11 (1973) Nr. 3, Page 180-186.
126
[15] Sedlacek, G.; Kühn, B.; Dahl, W.; Langenberg, P.; Schönherr, W.: Background
Document 2 to Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, Part 1-10, Chapter:
through-thickness properties. Sept. 2001.
127
Section 4
4. Complementary rules for the design to avoid brittle facture on the basis
of the background to EN 1993-1-10
4.1 Assessment of the residual safety and service life of old riveted
structures
4.1.1 General
(1) Section 2 of this report gives the background of the safety assessment of
structural members based on toughness that has been used to develop table
2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 for the choice of material to avoid brittle fracture.
(2) This safety assessment included
- an initial flaw overlooked in inspection after fabrication and acting like

an initial crack
- crack growth from fatigue taking place during a certain “safe service
period” that leads to a design size of crack at the end of the “safe
service period”
- fracture mechanical assessment at the end of the “safe service period”
verifying that at that time the structure is still safe, even if the design
size of the crack and an extremely low temperature reducing the
material toughness are combined.
(3) For old riveted steel bridges, this assessment procedure may be used to verify
their residual safety and residual service life by proceeding as follows:
1. It is assumed, that after an appropriate service time, fatigue has

progressed in the riveted connections of the structural members to such
an extent that through cracks at the heads of the rivets or cracks in
inner plates exceeding cover plates have reached a certain size on the
surface so that they are detectable, see fig. 4-1.
Fig. 4-1: Assumption for the initial through-crack size a0 for a)

angles, b) plates covered by angles
2. The time when these cracks may occur may not be accurately predicted
by conventional fatigue calculations due to the large scatter of the
fatigue strength and also due to uncertainty of the time dependent
development of fatigue load. However, where the scatter can be limited
(e.g. for railway bridges, where the loading is documented) the start of
the period that fatigue cracks may occur may be assumed with 80% of
the nominal fatigue life with a certain probability.
128
3. It is assumed that the initial through crack with the size a0 has been
overlooked during a main inspection of the bridge so that it propagates
during the following “safe service period” due to fatigue until it reaches a
critical size acrit for which the ultimate limit state verification for the
accidental design situation with extremely low temperatures is just
fulfilled, see fig. 4-2.
4. In case the inspection after the “safe service period” shows such large
crack sizes, the assumption holds and the fatigue life is going to end. In
case no cracks are detected, a new “safe service period” with the same
starting conditions as the old “safe service period” can start.
Fig. 4-2: Crack growth from through crack size a0 to crack size acrit
during a “safe service period” due to the fatigue load (Δσ5 ⋅ N)
(4) In conclusion, the following safety assessments are necessary for old riveted
bridges:
1 Conventional ultimate limit state verifications for persistent and

transient design situations (assuming ductile behaviour) using the
relevant load combination, however, with partial factors modified.
(γ G ⋅ G) + (γ Q ⋅ QK1 ) + (γ Q ⋅ ψ Q2 ⋅ QK 2 ) ≤ R K
γM
2. Conventional serviceability limit state verification with criteria from

traffic and maintenance.
3. Conventional fatigue verifications on the basis of EN 1993-1-9, using

information on fatigue loads that occurred in the past and fatigue loads
expected in the future.
The partial factors γFf ⋅ γMf in these fatigue verifications depend on the
outcome of an additional toughness check to avoid brittle fracture,
which is specified in 4.
129
If the toughness check according to 4. results in a sufficiently long “safe
service period”, the concept of “damage tolerance” can be applied and
the γ Ff ⋅ γ Mf -values for the fatigue verification may be taken as 1.0.
The conventional fatigue verification results in the following conclusions

for the residual life:
a) Details for which the fatigue loading is below the fatigue

threshold values for crack growth as given below, do not need
further crack growth checks according to 4, because they are
supposed to have an infinite fatigue life.
b) The magnitude of the residual fatigue life determined with the

conventional fatigue check indicates how urgent main
inspections with “safe service periods” are. If the residual fatigue
life is short, uncertain or even negative, the future use of the
bridge fully relies on sufficiently long “safe service periods” in
combination with inspections.
4. Determination of the “safe service period” on the basis of a fracture

mechanical toughness check.
This determination includes a number of action steps which are given in

the flow chart in fig. 4-3.
The method presented is based on the J-integral as fracture mechanics

value for the material toughness, which in the elastic range is equal to
K2
J= (4-1)
E
where K is the stress intensity factor.
130
Fig. 4-3: Flow chart for the determination of “safe service periods”
of existing riveted bridges with fracture mechanical values
(5) In the following, the various steps in the flow chart given in fig. 4-3 are
explained.
131
4.1.2 Hazards from stress situation and stress ranges
4.1.2.1 Determination of nominal stresses and stress ranges
(1) Nominal stresses and nominal stress ranges are calculated from external
normal forces and bending moments, neglecting stress concentration factors,
e.g. due to holes or other notches.
(2) Nominal stresses in the net section are used for the conventional ultimate limit
state assessments.
(3) Nominal stresses in gross sections are used for fracture mechanics
assessments, where the applied stresses are gross section stresses and net
section effects (effects of holes and cracks) are included in the fracture
mechanical model, see fig. 4-2.
(4) Nominal stresses may, however, only be used where net-section yielding
occurs before net section fracture; otherwise residual stresses and restraints
that would vanish by net-section yielding have to be taken into account by
increasing the external normal forces and bending moments.
(5) Nominal stress ranges result from external variable loads only; they are
applied in the way indicated in EN 1993-1-9, normally to the gross sections.
4.1.2.2 Combination of permanent and variable actions
(1) For the conventional ultimate limit state verification of old riveted bridges,
advantage can be taken from prior knowledge of permanent and variable
loads, so that the partial factors γG and γQ can be reduced in relation to the
factors applied to the design of new bridges.
(2) The recommended values for conventional ultimate limit state assessments
are
γG = 1.15 instead of 1.35

γQ = 1.20 instead of 1.35 (4-2)
(3) For the fracture mechanics assessment in view of “damage tolerance”, the
accidental load combination applies where the lowest temperature of the
member is the leading action, whereas permanent and variable traffic loads
are the accompanying actions.
Hence γG =1.00 is applied to permanent loads and frequent values ψ1 Qk1 are
used for variable loads.
(4) Fatigue checks are made with traffic effects only.
4.1.2.3 Identification of failure-critical components
(1) The fracture mechanics assessment is only necessary for those components
in tension of a bridge:
132
- which are failure critical,
- for which the stress ranges exceed the fatigue threshold values
- which have no cross-sectional redundancies.
(2) Failure critical components for the fracture mechanics assessment are those
tension elements, the failure of which would cause a collapse of the structure.
(3) Fig. 4-4 gives the flow chart for the determination of the failure-critical
elements by a check of the failure path.
Fig. 4-4: Identification of failure-critical components
(4) Failure critical components identified by the procedure given in fig. 4.4 should
be further checked in view of
a) a threshold check for stress ranges

b) redundancies
4.1.2.4 Threshold check
According to EN 1993-1-9, the S-N-curve for riveted connections is given as

shown in fig. 4-5, indicating a constant amplitude endurance limit ΔσD = 52
N/mm2.
133
Fig. 4-5: S-N-curve for the fatigue assessment of old riveted steel bridges
related to Δσ for net sections
(2) A comparison with test results, see fig. 4-6, which include the loss of clamping
forces in the rivets, demonstrates, however, that an endurance limit at 5 ⋅ 106
cycles is vague, so that threshold values ΔσD should preferably be determined
from fracture mechanical modelling.
Fig. 4-6: Comparison of S-N-curve for riveted connections with test

results [21]
(3) Fig. 4-7 shows in what way the threshold values ΔσD and ΔKth are linked and
how ΔσD can be calculated for a member with holes and cracks using ΔKth-
values from tests.
134
Fig. 4-7: Relationship between ΔσD and ΔKth.
(4) In determining the ΔKth-values, the advantageous effects of the R-ratio may be
considered, see fig. 4-8.
135
Fig. 4-8: ΔKth-values dependent on of the R-ratio.
(5) Fig. 4-9 gives a survey on various recommendations together with test results
related to old mild steel and also to puddle iron.
Fig. 4-9: ΔKth-values according to various recommendations
136
(6) To demonstrate some consequences of the use of these ΔKth-values, fig. 4-10
gives ΔσD-values calculated with the initial crack sizes
2 a = D + 2 ⋅ 5 mm (4-3)
where D is the diameter of the head of the rivet and ΔKth = 4 Mpa m is
assumed. Fig. 4-11 gives the ΔσD-values for single angles, calculated
according to the recommendation of BS PD-6493 for ΔKth - R.
Fig. 4-10: ΔσD-values in dependence of the crack-size a0 and the plate

width w for ΔKth = 4 Mpa m
Fig. 4-11: ΔσD-values for angles using the ΔKth-R-function from BS PD-6493
4.1.2.5 Partial failure checks for redundancies
(1) Partial failure checks of built up cross-sections to identify redundancies should

be performed for the ultimate limit state in the following way:
137
1. a single plate element of the cross-section is assumed to be cracked,
so that all the other elements shall resist the force from that element
2. the stresses in all the other elements should not exceed the permissible
stress
fy fy
σR = = (4-4)
γ M0 1.10
(2) In case the threshold check and the safety check according to (1) is not
fulfilled for failure critical components, a fracture mechanical safety check is
necessary.
(3) Fig. 4-12 indicates in what way the multiple plate composition of the built up
cross-section may control the hazard of brittle failure.
Fig. 4-12: Hazards of built up multiple plate members

138
4.1.3 Material check and evaluation
4.1.3.1 Type of material
(1) Sampling should be made from the failure-critical components by drilling with a
pod, see fig. 4-13. The circular specimens (RCT-specimen) have a diameter of
60 to 76 mm and may be used to determine as a minimum
- the true stress-strain curve and fy and fu

- the J-values at the lowest temperature to be considered.
Fig. 4-13: Circular specimen for material evaluations
(2) The relevant type of old steel according to the production method may be
taken from fig. 4-14.
139
Fig. 4-14: Identification scheme for old steels
4.1.3.2 Strength and toughness properties
(1) Strength and toughness properties may be determined for the individual case
or from statistics gained from the evaluation of many material tests from
riveted steel bridges built with S235 in about the year 1900.
(2) Fig. 4-15 gives some values from such statistics.
Fig. 4-15: Statistical material data for old steel bridges
140
(3) The 5% fractiles for Rel and JMat given in fig. 4-15 may be used for fracture
mechanics assessment, if no other information is available.
4.1.4 Assessment of the “safe service period”

4.1.4.1 General
(1) The assessment of the “safe service period” for components of old riveted
steel bridges is performed with the following steps:
1. Definition of the initial crack size a0 at the failure critical section that is
detectible.
2. Determination of the critical crack size acrit, for which the member has
reached the required minimum safety for the relevant combination of
actions for the lowest ambient temperature.
3. Determination of the maximum “safe service period” Tp for crack growth

Δa = acrit – a0 and comparison with the regular inspection intervals Tinsp.
(2) The relevance of “damage tolerance” for the partial factors γFf ⋅ γMf used in
conventional fatigue checks may be taken from fig. 4-16, where n is the
nominal number of stress cycles during the full fatigue life Tservice of the bridge
and design values nd depend on the following cases:
1. “Damage tolerance” applicable

2. “Damage tolerance” not applicable, however
2a: Loading Δσi and cycles ni are controlled

2b: only the time of fatigue life Tservice is controlled.
Fig. 4-16: Relevance of “damage tolerance” for the partial factors for
conventional fatigue checks (right column: n = 3.927x107).
4.1.4.2 The J-integral assessment
(1) The J-integral safety assessment follows the procedure given in fig. 4-17 and
is performed in various steps
141
Fig. 4-17: Procedure to determine acrit
(2) The steps for the assessment are the following:
1. According to fig. 4-17, a fracture mechanical model (e.g. CCT) with the
initial crack size a0 (composed of a hole with two lateral cracks) is
assumed.
2. For this crack size, the Jappl-Integral curve versus the applied nominal
stresses σappl is calculated.
3. The crack size is then increased to a = a0 + Δa yielding to another Jappl -

σappl-curve, and this procedure is varied until a Jappl - σappl-curve is
found, for which the Jappl-value meets the material value Jmat at the
design value of the nominal stress σappl = σEd.
The value a pertaining to this curve is the critical crack size acrit.
4. For the applied stress σgy that effects net section yielding the associated
value Jappl = Jgy is determined and compared with the material
toughness JMAT, see fig. 4-18.
142
If JMAT ≥ Jgy (4-5)
then the use of nominal stresses σEd is justified.
If JMAT < Jgy (4-6)
then σEd should be increased to include residual stresses (e.g. 100

Mpa) and stresses due to restraints and deformations.
Fig. 4-18: Definition of failure mode and of applied stresses σEd

depending on ductility.
5. From acrit and a0 the maximum value of crack growth Δa due to fatigue
should be determined. Using the fatigue load for the structure the “safe
service period” Tp possible to effect the crack growth Δa can be
calculated. Tp corresponds with a certain number np of stress cycles.
6. The “safe service period” Tp should be more than 1.5 times the time
interval Tinsp between regular inspections, see fig. 4-2.
(3) This procedure may be applied by using assessment aids given in the
following section.
4.1.4.3 Assessment aids for the fracture mechanics assessment

4.1.4.3.1 General
(1) The following assessment aids refer to the stepwise assessment procedure
given in 4.1.4.2.
(2) The assessment aids are based on the following:
1. All structural details are represented by the following basic fracture

mechanics models:
- Central Crack Tension element (CCT)

- Double Edge Crack Tension element (DECT)
- Single Edge Crack Tension element (SECT),
see example in fig. 4-19.
143
Fig. 4-19: Examples for structural details represented by basic fracture
mechanics models
2. The fatigue crack growth Δa may be calculated with the same fracture
mechanics model as for acrit, see example in fig. 4-20.
144
Fig. 4-20: Calculation of crack growth Δa
3. For each basic fracture mechanics model, the attainment of Jgy is

assumed to be the ultimate limit state of the cracked element. Fig. 4-21
shows the Jappl-σappl curves for various a/w-ratios that do not have a
significant strength increase for σappl > σgy.
145
Fig. 4-21: Jappl-σappl-curves and standardised curves for different a/w-
ratios
4. The limit values σgy and Jgy may be easily described by formulae for the
basic fracture mechanics models, see fig. 4-22.
146
Fig. 4-22: Definition of the limit values σgy and Jgy
5. The function Jappl-σappl below the limit values σgy and Jgy can be
described by standard functions, see fig. 4-21, so that complete sets of
calculation formulae to determine critical crack sizes acrit can be derived.
4.1.4.3.2 Reliability of the assessment aids
(1) Fig. 4-23 gives a comparison between the results of the formulae and more
accurate FEM-calculations.
147
Fig. 4-23: Comparison of results of formulae and FEM-calculations
(2) In Fig. 4-24 a comparison is given between the failure loads from experiments
with large scale cracked test pieces Fexp and the failure loads predicted by the
formulae
Fig. 4-24: Model uncertainty of the formulae for failure loads
148
(3) Fig. 4-25 gives the distribution function for the ratios Fexp/Fcalc and the
justification for the partial factor γM = 1.0, that may be applied.
Fig. 4-25: Determination of partial factor γM for the application of the

assessment formulae
4.1.5 Design tables
(1) A complete set of built up members and their allocation to fracture mechanics
models is given in tables A.1-A.9.
(2) Tabulated values and graphs for determining acrit for given values JMat and fy
and the geometrical values for the basic fracture mechanics models are
presented in tables B.1-B.5 (plate with centre crack), in tables C.1-C.5 (plate
with double edge crack) and tables D.1-D.5 (plate with single edge crack).
(3) Values to determine np for the “safe service period” for a given damage
equivalent stress range Δσe are given in tables B6-B7 (plate with centre crack),
in tables C.6-C.7 (plate with double edge crack) and tables D.6 – D.7 (plate
with single edge crack).
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
4.1.6 Example for the fracture mechanics based safety assessment
(1) For a tension member of a truss system, as given in fig. 4-26, the following
data are given:
1. Material values (lower bound values for -30°C)
fy = 250 N/mm2
JMat = 17 N/mm
2. Nominal stresses and stress cycles
permanent σG = 45 N/mm2
variable σG = Δσ = 60 N/mm2
stress cycles nSd = 1,5 n = 270000 LC
residual σs = 25 N/mm2
stress ratio d=
( )
45 N / mm 2 + 60 N / mm 2 + 25 N / mm 2
= 0,52
250 N / mm 2
Fig. 4-26: Cross-section of tension member
(2) The equivalent fracture mechanics model is according to table A.2 (middle
line):
CCT: w = 1,10 ⋅ c/2 = 77 mm
(3) The initial crack size is a0 = 20 mm, see fig. 4-27.
Fig. 4-27: Fracture mechanics model and initial crack size.
(4) Using table B.4 the critical size acrit is
acrit = 34 mm
(5) Using table B.6 the load cycles for Δa = 34 – 21 = 13 mm are
nR = 132244 LC < nInsp
(6) In conclusion, the cross-section should either be reinforced or the inspection

interval tInsp reduced to
*
TInsp = 132244/270000 ≈ 0.5 tInsp, tInsp = normal inspection interval
167
4.1.7 Bibliography
[1] HENSEN W. Grundlagen für die Beurteilung der Weiterverwendung alter

Stahlbrücken. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen 1992
[2] DAHL W., SCHUMANN O., SEDLACEK G. Method to Back Decision on

Residual Safety of Bridges, IABSE Workshop Remaining Fatigue life of Steel
Structures Lausanne 1990, IABSE Report Vol. 59, 1990, S. 313-326
[3] SEDLACEK G., HENSEN W., BILD J., DAHL W., LANGENBERG, P.
Verfahren zur Ermittlung der Sicherheit von alten Stahlbrücken unter
Verwendung neuester Erkenntnisse der Werkstofftechnik, Bauingenieur, 1992.
[4] SEDLACEK G., HENSEN W. Nouvelles Methodes de calcul pour la

rehabilitation des Ponts métalliques anciens. Construction Métallique, No. 3,
1992.
[5] SEDLACEK G., HENSEN W. New assessment methods for the residual safety
of old steel bridges. Steel Research 64, No. 8/9, 1993.
[6] DAHL W., SEDLACEK G. Untersuchungen zur Ermittlung der Sicherheit und
Restnutzungsdauer der Karl-Lehr-Brücke in Duisburg. Expertise for the town
Duisburg, 1986.
Restnutzungsdauer der Anhalter-Bahn-Brücke in Berlin. Expertise for the
railway authority in Berlin, 1989.
Restnutzungsdauer der U-Bahnbrücken zwischen Gleisdreieck und Bahnhof
Möckernbrücke in Berlin. Expertise for the railway authority in Berlin, 1990.
[9] DAHL W., LANGENBERG P., SEDLACEK G., STÖTZEL G.

Sicherheitsüberprüfung von Stahlbrücken. DFG-Forschungsvorhaben Da85/62
und Se351/9.
[10] EUROCODE 3, PART 1.1 Design of steel structures: General rules and rules
for buildings – ANNEX Determination of design resistance from tests.
Document CEN/TC250/SC3/ N361E, Sept. 1993.
[11] BRÜHLWILER E. Essais de Fatigue sur des Poutres a Tripplis Double en fer
Puddle. Publication ICOM 159/1986.
[12] BILD J. Beitrag zur Anwendung der Bruchmechanik bei der Lösung von
Sicherheitsproblemen im Stahlbau. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen, 1988.
[13] CHEREPANOW G.P. PMM 31 (1967) No. 3, p. 476/88.
[14] RICE J.R., TRANCEY D.M.J. Mech. Phys. Solids 17 (1969), p. 201/17.
168
[15] LANGENBERG P., DAHL W., HAN S. Bruchverhalten alter Stähle in
genieteten Brücken – Bruchmechanische Sicherheitsanalyse und
Bauteilversuche. DVM Tagung des AK Bruchvorgänge, 2/1996.
[16] LANGENBERG P. Bruchmechanische Sicherheitsanalyse anrissgefährdeter

Bauteile im Stahlbau, Dissertation, RWTH Aachen 1995.
[17] STÖTZEL G. Verfahren zur zuverlässigen Bestimmung der Sicherheit bei

Weiterverwendung alter Stahlbrücken. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen.
[18] EHRHARDT H. Untersuchung zum Einfluss unterschiedlicher

Fehlergeometrien auf das Versagensverhalten von Stahl auf der Grundlage
von Großzugversuchen. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen 1988.
[19] PARIS P., ERDOGAN F. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. Journal
of Basic Engineering, Trans ASME Series D, Vol. 85, pp. 528-534 (1963)
[20] STÖTZEL G., SEDLACEK G., LANGENBERG P., DAHL W. Material

Identification and Verification Method for the Residual Safety of Old Bridges,
IABSE-Report.
[21] KÜHN, B. et al. “Assessment of existing steel structures: Recommendations

for Estimation of Remaining Fatigue Life”, Joint Report JRC, ECCS, 1st
Edition, Feb. 2008, EUR 23252 EN-2008, ISSN 1018-5593.
169
4.2 Choice of material for welded connections in buildings
4.2.1 Objective
(1) EN 1993-1-10 gives in its table 2.1 permissible plate thicknesses depending
on the steel-grade, the lowest temperature of the member and the stress
applied from external actions covering fracture mechanical assessments for all
details specified with fatigue categories in EN 1993-1-9.
(2) The background of EN 1993-1-10 as laid down in section 2 of this commentary

reveals that a basic assumption for the fracture mechanics assessment is that
cracks with the initial size a0 may have propagated by fatigue during a “safe
service period” equivalent to ¼ of the full service life to their design size ad.
Hence it is applicable to all structures loaded in fatigue.
(3) Table 2-1 of EN 1992-1-10 may also be used on the safe-side for details that
are specified in EN 1993-1-9, but are not subjected to fatigue, as is the case
for buildings, assuming that the design size of crack ad may originate from
larger initial cracks a0, that may have been overlooked in inspections, and
smaller contributions from crack propagation.
(4) However, often in buildings welded connections are used that are not
classified for fatigue in EN 1993-1-9, and that have such a poor fatigue
behaviour that special consideration are necessary.
(5) Fig. 4-28 gives examples of such connections, that are frequently used
because of the possibility to accept large tolerances of length from fabrication
and erection in a residual slot, and for which in the following specific rules for
the choice of material to avoid brittle fracture are given.
Fig. 4-28: Welded connections with thick plates and slots in buildings
170
4.2.2 Basis of fracture mechanical assessment
(1) The fracture mechanical assessment is performed for a design situation as

given in fig. 4-29.
Fig. 4-29: Definition of geometric parameters and relevant cross-section A-A
(2) In Fig. 4-29 also the relevant geometrical parameters influencing the stress
state at the critical section A-A are indicated:
• thickness of gusset plate t

• net width of gusset plate at section A-A 2w*
• slot width at section A-A H/2w*
• length of welded connection L/w*
(3) Cracks are supposed to be at the ends of the slot.
(4) To limit the parameter variation particular ranges of parameters that are
frequently used (common plate dimensions) and that represent limits of
favourable or unfavourable toughness requirements, are given in table 4-1.
parameter unfavourable common favourable

edge distance w* [mm] 300 130 80
length of weld L/w* [-] 0,8 1,3 1,6
width of slot H/2w* [-] 1,2 0,55 0,4
Table 4-1: Geometric parameter combinations
171
(5) The procedure to develop tables for the choice of material is similar to the one
used to prepare table 2-1 of EN 1993-1-10, however, with the following
differences:
1. The initial crack is quarter-elliptic with the same dimensions as in EN

1993-1-10
a0 = 0,5 ln (t)
a
c 0 = 0 = 1,25 ln ( t )
0,4
see fig. 4-30.
Fig. 4-30: Notches from fabrication and assumption for initial crack
2. A crack propagation is assumed under the fatigue load usually used to

distinguish between structures with predominantly static load and
structures susceptible to fatigue, i.e.
γ Ff Δ σ ≤ 26 N / mm 2 / γ Mf .
As fatigue assessments are also only relevant if the number of load

cycles is
n ≥ 20.000
the fatigue loading assumed reads
D = 263 ⋅ 20,000
172
3. During the fatigue life, crack propagation takes place in two steps, see
fig. 4-31.
1. First the quarter-elliptic cracks grow into the thickness direction

to form a through-thickness crack.
2. Then the through-thickness crack grows into the width direction.
Instead of considering the two steps, only a single step is taken into
account by assuming that the initial crack is a through-thickness crack
and has the initial crack-size
a 0* = 1,25 ln (1 + t ) for t < 15 mm
a 0* = 1,25 ln (t ) for ≥ 15 mm.
For the crack growth from this initial crack, a reduced fatigue load for
determining the design crack
a d = a 0* + Δa *
is assumed, which reads
D * = 26 3 ⋅ 10 .000
Fig. 4-31: Growth of the elliptical corner crack until a through thickness
crack has formed (left) and assumption for edge-crack (right).
4. The calculation of the toughness requirement Kappl for the accidental

design situation with
• the extremely low temperature TEd

• the “frequent” stress σEd
• the design size of crack ad and sharp corners of the slot
and the geometric conditions in table 4-1 lead to functions Kappl (t) as
given in fig. 4-32. In this fig., also the standard function Kappl(t) as used
for preparing table 2-1 of EN 1993-1-10 is indicated.
173
Fig. 4-32: Kappl depending on the gusset plate thickness for various
dimensions.
5. Fig. 4-32 shows that for the welded connection with slots according to
fig. 4-28 the function Kappl is almost independent of the plate-thickness t,
but differs with the parameter w*. Therefore, the tables for the choice of
material have to be referred to the gusset-plate-width w* and not to their
thickness t.
Fig. 4-33 and fig. 4-34 give the full picture on the toughness
requirement depending on the gusset plate width w* and the weld-length
L.
Fig. 4-33: Kappl depending on the gusset-plate width w*
174
Fig. 4-34: Kappl depending on the weld length L
4.2.3 Tables for the choice of material to avoid brittle fracture
(1) Tables 4-2 to 4-5 give the allowable gusset plate widths w* for the different
limits of parameters according to table 4-1.
L/w* ≥ 1.3 t ≤ 120mm - safety verification not fulfilled, special examination required
H/2w* ≤ 0.55 all: all widths of gusset plates permitted
Charpy energy reference temperature TEd in °C
steel sub CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
grade grade at T J σEd=0,75*fy(t) σEd=0,50*fy(t) σEd=0,25*fy(t)
[°C] min. Maximum allowable gusset plate widths w* in mm
JR 20 27 - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - 60 50 30 30 20 - -
S235 J0 0 27 - - - - - - - 50 30 20 - - - - 140 90 60 50 30 30 20
J2 -20 27 40 30 - - - - - 120 70 50 30 20 - - 340 220 140 90 60 50 30
JR 20 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 40 30 20 - - -
J0 0 27 - - - - - - - 40 20 - - - - - 120 80 50 40 30 20 -
S275 J2 -20 27 30 20 - - - - - 90 50 40 20 - - - 280 180 120 80 50 40 30
M,N -20 40 50 30 20 - - - - 140 90 50 40 20 - - 440 280 180 120 80 50 40
ML,NL -50 27 140 80 50 30 20 - - 380 230 140 90 50 40 20 all all 440 280 180 120 80
JR 20 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 30 20 - - - -
J0 0 27 - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - 80 50 40 30 20 - -
S355 J2 -20 27 - - - - - - - 50 30 20 - - - - 190 120 80 50 40 30 20
K2,M,N -20 40 30 - - - - - - 80 50 30 20 - - - 310 190 120 80 50 40 30
ML,NL -50 27 80 40 30 - - - - 230 140 80 50 30 20 - all 480 310 190 120 80 50
M,N -20 40 - - - - - - - 50 40 20 - - - - 240 150 90 60 40 30 20
S420
ML,NL -50 27 50 30 - - - - - 160 90 50 40 20 - - all 380 240 150 90 60 40
Q -20 30 - - - - - - - 30 20 - - - - - 130 80 50 40 30 20 -
M,N -20 40 - - - - - - - 50 30 20 - - - - 200 130 80 50 40 30 20
S460 QL -40 30 20 - - - - - - 80 50 30 20 - - - 330 200 130 80 50 40 30
ML,NL -50 27 40 20 - - - - - 130 80 50 30 20 - - 520 330 200 130 80 50 40
QL1 -60 30 70 40 20 - - - - 220 130 80 50 30 20 - all 520 330 200 130 80 50
Q 0 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 30 - - - - -
Q -20 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60 40 30 - - - -
QL -20 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90 60 40 30 - - -
S690
QL -40 30 - - - - - - - 30 - - - - - - 150 90 60 40 30 - -
QL1 -40 40 - - - - - - - 50 30 - - - - - 250 150 90 60 40 30 -
QL1 -60 30 20 - - - - - - 80 50 30 - - - - 420 250 150 90 60 40 30
Table 4-2: Maximum allowable gusset plate width w* for common plate
dimensions according to Table 4-1 for t ≤ 120 mm
175
steel sub CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
JR 20 27 20 - - - - - - 60 40 30 20 - - - 190 120 80 60 40 30 30
S235 J0 0 27 50 30 20 - - - - 150 90 60 40 30 20 - 440 280 190 120 80 60 40
J2 -20 27 150 90 50 30 20 - - 380 240 150 90 60 40 30 all all 440 280 190 120 80
JR 20 27 - - - - - - - 40 30 20 - - - - 150 100 70 50 30 30 20
J0 0 27 40 20 - - - - - 110 70 40 30 20 - - 360 230 150 100 70 50 30
S275 J2 -20 27 110 60 40 20 - - - 290 180 110 70 40 30 20 all all 360 230 150 100 70
M,N -20 40 180 110 60 40 20 - - 460 290 180 110 70 40 30 all all all 360 230 150 100
ML,NL -50 27 all 300 180 110 60 40 20 all all 460 290 180 110 70 all all all all all 360 230
JR 20 27 - - - - - - - 30 20 - - - - - 110 70 50 30 30 20 -
J0 0 27 20 - - - - - - 70 40 30 20 - - - 260 160 110 70 50 30 30
S355 J2 -20 27 60 30 20 - - - - 180 110 70 40 30 20 - all 400 260 160 110 70 50
K2,M,N -20 40 100 60 30 20 - - - 290 180 110 70 40 30 20 all all 400 260 160 110 70
ML,NL -50 27 290 170 100 60 30 20 - all 480 290 180 110 70 40 all all all all 400 260 160
M,N -20 40 60 40 20 - - - - 210 120 70 40 30 20 - all all 310 200 130 80 50
S420
ML,NL -50 27 190 110 60 40 20 - - all 340 210 120 70 40 30 all all all all 310 200 130
Q -20 30 30 20 - - - - - 100 60 40 20 - - - 440 270 170 110 70 50 30
M,N -20 40 50 30 20 - - - - 170 100 60 40 20 - - all 440 270 170 110 70 50
S460 QL -40 30 90 50 30 20 - - - 280 170 100 60 40 20 - all all 440 270 170 110 70
ML,NL -50 27 150 90 50 30 20 - - 460 280 170 100 60 40 20 all all all 440 270 170 110
QL1 -60 30 270 150 90 50 30 20 - all 460 280 170 100 60 40 all all all all 440 270 170
Q 0 40 - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - 130 80 50 30 20 - -
Q -20 30 - - - - - - - 40 20 - - - - - 210 130 80 50 30 20 -
QL -20 40 20 - - - - - - 60 40 20 - - - - 340 210 130 80 50 30 20
S690
QL -40 30 30 20 - - - - - 110 60 40 20 - - - all 340 210 130 80 50 30
QL1 -40 40 50 30 20 - - - - 190 110 60 40 20 - - all all 340 210 130 80 50
QL1 -60 30 90 50 30 20 - - - 320 190 110 60 40 20 - all all all 340 210 130 80
Table 4-3: Maximum allowable gusset plate width w* for common plate
steel sub CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
JR 20 27 40 30 20 - - - - 120 70 50 30 30 20 - 380 250 170 110 80 60 40
S235 J0 0 27 110 60 40 30 20 - - 300 190 120 70 50 30 30 all all 380 250 170 110 80
J2 -20 27 310 180 110 60 40 30 20 all all 300 190 120 70 50 all all all all 380 250 170
JR 20 27 30 20 - - - - - 90 50 40 30 20 - - 310 200 140 90 60 50 40
J0 0 27 70 40 30 20 - - - 220 140 90 50 40 30 20 all all 310 200 140 90 60
S275 J2 -20 27 220 130 70 40 30 20 - all 370 220 140 90 50 40 all all all all 310 200 140
M,N -20 40 370 220 130 70 40 30 20 all all 370 220 140 90 50 all all all all all 310 200
ML,NL -50 27 all all 370 220 130 70 40 all all all all 370 220 140 all all all all all all all
JR 20 27 - - - - - - - 50 30 20 - - - - 210 140 90 60 40 30 30
J0 0 27 40 20 - - - - - 130 80 50 30 20 - - all 340 210 140 90 60 40
S355 J2 -20 27 110 70 40 20 - - - 370 220 130 80 50 30 20 all all all 340 210 140 90
K2,M,N -20 40 200 110 70 40 20 - - all 370 220 130 80 50 30 all all all all 340 210 140
ML,NL -50 27 all 350 200 110 70 40 20 all all all 370 220 130 80 all all all all all all 340
M,N -20 40 130 70 40 30 - - - 420 250 150 90 50 30 20 all all all 400 250 160 100
S420
ML,NL -50 27 400 230 130 70 40 30 - all all 420 250 150 90 50 all all all all all 400 250
Q -20 30 60 30 20 - - - - 200 120 70 40 30 20 - all all 350 220 140 90 60
M,N -20 40 100 60 30 20 - - - 350 200 120 70 40 30 20 all all all 350 220 140 90
S460 QL -40 30 180 100 60 30 20 - - all 350 200 120 70 40 30 all all all all 350 220 140
ML,NL -50 27 320 180 100 60 30 20 - all all 350 200 120 70 40 all all all all all 350 220
QL1 -60 30 all 320 180 100 60 30 20 all all all 350 200 120 70 all all all all all all 350
Q 0 40 - - - - - - - 40 30 - - - - - 260 160 100 60 40 30 20
Q -20 30 20 - - - - - - 70 40 30 - - - - 440 260 160 100 60 40 30
QL -20 40 30 20 - - - - - 130 70 40 30 - - - all 440 260 160 100 60 40
S690
QL -40 30 50 30 20 - - - - 220 130 70 40 30 - - all all 440 260 160 100 60
QL1 -40 40 100 50 30 20 - - - 390 220 130 70 40 30 - all all all 440 260 160 100
QL1 -60 30 190 100 50 30 20 - - all 390 220 130 70 40 30 all all all all 440 260 160
Table 4-4: Maximum allowable gusset plate width w* for favourable plate
176
steel sub CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
JR 20 27 140 90 50 30 20 - - all 250 160 100 70 40 30 all all all 330 220 150 110
S235 J0 0 27 all 240 140 90 50 30 20 all all all 250 160 100 70 all all all all all 330 220
J2 -20 27 all all all 240 140 90 50 all all all all all 250 160 all all all all all all all
JR 20 27 100 60 30 20 - - - 300 180 120 70 50 30 20 all all all 270 180 120 90
J0 0 27 280 170 100 60 30 20 - all all 300 180 120 70 50 all all all all all 270 180
S275 J2 -20 27 all all 280 170 100 60 30 all all all all 300 180 120 all all all all all all all
M,N -20 40 all all all 280 170 100 60 all all all all all 300 180 all all all all all all all
ML,NL -50 27 all all all all all 280 170 all all all all all all all all all all all all all all
JR 20 27 50 30 20 - - - - 180 110 70 40 30 20 - all all 290 190 120 80 60
J0 0 27 150 90 50 30 20 - - all 290 180 110 70 40 30 all all all all 290 190 120
S355 J2 -20 27 all 270 150 90 50 30 20 all all all 290 180 110 70 all all all all all all 290
K2,M,N -20 40 all all 270 150 90 50 30 all all all all 290 180 110 all all all all all all all
ML,NL -50 27 all all all all 270 150 90 all all all all all all 290 all all all all all all all
M,N -20 40 all 310 170 100 60 30 20 all all all 340 200 120 70 all all all all all all 340
S420
ML,NL -50 27 all all all 310 170 100 60 all all all all all 340 200 all all all all all all all
Q -20 30 240 140 80 40 30 20 - all all 270 160 100 60 30 all all all all all 290 190
M,N -20 40 all 240 140 80 40 30 20 all all all 270 160 100 60 all all all all all all 290
S460 QL -40 30 all all 240 140 80 40 30 all all all all 270 160 100 all all all all all all all
ML,NL -50 27 all all all 240 140 80 40 all all all all all 270 160 all all all all all all all
QL1 -60 30 all all all all 240 140 80 all all all all all all 270 all all all all all all all
Q 0 40 40 20 - - - - - 170 100 60 30 20 - - all all 350 210 130 80 50
Q -20 30 80 40 20 - - - - 300 170 100 60 30 20 - all all all 350 210 130 80
QL -20 40 140 80 40 20 - - - all 300 170 100 60 30 20 all all all all 350 210 130
S690
QL -40 30 250 140 80 40 20 - - all all 300 170 100 60 30 all all all all all 350 210
QL1 -40 40 all 250 140 80 40 20 - all all all 300 170 100 60 all all all all all all 350
QL1 -60 30 all all 250 140 80 40 20 all all all all 300 170 100 all all all all all all all
Table 4-5: Maximum allowable gusset plate width w* for favourable plate
(2) If the slot has no sharp corners by rounding the ends, this would enhance the
fatigue resistance and therefore also reduce the toughness requirement, see
fig. 4-35.
Fig. 4-35: Alternative gusset plate connection
(3) Table 4-6 gives the allowable plate width w* for a cut out with a radius of 30
mm.
177
H/2w* ≤ 0.55 radius R = 30 mm all: all widths of gusset plates permitted
steel sub CVN 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
JR 20 27 50 30 20 - - - - 100 70 50 40 30 20 20 240 180 130 100 80 60 50
S235 J0 0 27 100 70 50 30 20 - - 210 140 100 70 50 40 30 all 340 240 180 130 100 80
J2 -20 27 210 140 100 70 50 30 20 all 300 210 140 100 70 50 all all all 340 240 180 130
JR 20 27 30 20 - - - - - 80 60 40 30 20 20 - 210 150 120 90 70 50 40
J0 0 27 70 50 30 20 - - - 170 120 80 60 40 30 20 all 290 210 150 120 90 70
S275 J2 -20 27 160 110 70 50 30 20 - 350 240 170 120 80 60 40 all all all 290 210 150 120
M,N -20 40 240 160 110 70 50 30 20 all 350 240 170 120 80 60 all all all all 290 210 150
ML,NL -50 27 all 360 240 160 110 70 50 all all all 350 240 170 120 all all all all all all 290
JR 20 27 20 - - - - - - 50 40 30 20 - - - 160 120 90 70 50 40 30
J0 0 27 50 30 20 - - - - 110 80 50 40 30 20 - 310 220 160 120 90 70 50
S355 J2 -20 27 100 70 50 30 20 - - 240 160 110 80 50 40 30 all all 310 220 160 120 90
K2,M,N -20 40 150 100 70 50 30 20 - 350 240 160 110 80 50 40 all all all 310 220 160 120
ML,NL -50 27 350 230 150 100 70 50 30 all all 350 240 160 110 80 all all all all all 310 220
M,N -20 40 110 70 50 30 20 - - 270 180 120 80 60 40 30 all all 370 260 180 130 100
S420
ML,NL -50 27 250 170 110 70 50 30 20 all all 270 180 120 80 60 all all all all 370 260 180
Q -20 30 60 40 30 20 - - - 150 110 70 50 30 20 20 all 330 230 160 120 80 60
M,N -20 40 90 60 40 30 20 - - 230 150 110 70 50 30 20 all all 330 230 160 120 80
S460 QL -40 30 140 90 60 40 30 20 - 340 230 150 110 70 50 30 all all all 330 230 160 120
ML,NL -50 27 210 140 90 60 40 30 20 all 340 230 150 110 70 50 all all all all 330 230 160
QL1 -60 30 330 210 140 90 60 40 30 all all 340 230 150 110 70 all all all all all 330 230
Q 0 40 - - - - - - - 50 30 20 - - - - 190 130 90 60 50 30 20
Q -20 30 20 - - - - - - 70 50 30 20 - - - 270 190 130 90 60 50 30
QL -20 40 40 20 - - - - - 110 70 50 30 20 - - all 270 190 130 90 60 50
S690
QL -40 30 60 40 20 - - - - 160 110 70 50 30 20 - all all 270 190 130 90 60
QL1 -40 40 90 60 40 20 - - - 250 160 110 70 50 30 20 all all all 270 190 130 90
QL1 -60 30 140 90 60 40 20 - - 380 250 160 110 70 50 30 all all all all 270 190 130
Table 4-6: Maximum allowable gusset-plate width w* for a cut out with a radius
of 30 mm.
4.2.4 Example
(1) For a design situation as given in fig. 4-36, the following geometric data apply:
⋅ Gusset plate thickness t = 30 mm

⋅ Weld length L = 240 mm
⋅ Slot width H = 120 mm
⋅ Net width w* of gusset plate w* = 150 mm
giving the following parameters for Table 4-4
L / w * = 1,6
H / 2w * = 0,4
t ≤ 40 mm
From static design:
Force of diagonal
bar Dd
1310 kN
Steel grade S355
Fig. 4-36: Example for a gusset plate connection

178
(2) ( )
In case the cut out of the gusset plate would not be symmetrical w 1* ≠ w *2 the
verification should be performed independently for both sides of the
connection using
L / w 1* ,L / w *2
H / 2w 1* ,H / w *2
(3) The loading situation for the ultimate limit state verification is
DEd = 1310 kN
which yields
DEdLS Dd 1310
σ ULS = = = = 144 N / mm 2
A net 2w * t 2 ⋅ 150 ⋅ 30
The reference stress σEd for the choice of material should be determined for
the “frequent” loading situation, for which (on the safe side) the characteristic
value of stress is taken:
σ ULS 144
σ ULS = = = 107 N / mm 2
γF 1,35
which gives for Table 4-4:
*
σ Ed 107
σ Ed = = f y (t ) = 0,31f y (t )
f y (t ) 347,5
(4) The design temperature TEd is defined by
TEd = Tmdv + ΔTε& + ΔTεcf
for which TEd = - 30°C
is specified (strain-rate effects and cold forming are not considered).
(5) Using Table 4-4, the allowable gusset-plate width can be interpolated as
follows for steel grade S355 J2:
allow. w* for σEd = 0,25 fy (t) = 210 mm

which is larger than the choice made (150 mm).
179
4.2.5 Bibliography
[1] Kühn, B.: Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der europäischen Regelungen zur
Vermeidung von Sprödbruch, Diss. RWTH Aachen, Heft 54, Shaker Verlag,
Aachen 2005, ISBN 3-8322-3901-4
[2] Höhler, S.: Beitrag zur Erweiterung der Regelungen der Stahlsortenwahl zur
Vermeidung von Sprödbruch auf Anschlüsse unter vorwiegend ruhender
Beanspruchung, Diss. RWTH Aachen, Heft 58, Shaker Verlag, Aachen 2006,
ISBN 3-8322-5399-8
[3] Klinkenberg, A., Peter, A., Saal, H., Volz, M.: Berechnungsmodelle für
geschweißte Anschlüsse in ausgeschnittenen Knotenblechen, Stahlbau 68
(1999), S. 173-180, und Berichtigungen/Ergänzungen S. 688-689
180
Section 5
5. Other toughness-related rules in EN 1993
5.1 The role of upper-shelf toughness

5.1.1 Resistance rules in Eurocode 3 and upper-shelf toughness
(1) The strength-related design rules in the various parts of EN 1993 have been
presented in such a way that ductile behaviour of the material is assumed and
the material toughness seems to have no significant effect on the attainment of
the ultimate limit state, see fig. 1-2.
(2) Material toughness is only explicitly addressed in EN 1993-1-10 for the choice
of material to avoid brittle fracture, but not any more in other parts of Eurocode
3.
(3) As, however, the rules in EN 1993-1-10 exclude only brittle fracture in the
temperature-transition range of the material toughness, see fig. 2-11, a basic
prerequisite of the strength related design rules in view of toughness is, that
the toughness properties in the upper-shelf region of the toughness
temperature diagram are sufficient to attain these strengths.
(4) EN 1993-1-10 does not address the toughness properties in the upper-shelf
region. Therefore toughness limits in the upper-shelf region have been
implicitly taken into account in the strength rules of the various parts of
Eurocode 3, so that they reflect the requirements from both strength and
toughness.
(5) Fig. 5-1 explains the principle underlying the involvement of the upper-shelf
toughness in the strength rules in Eurocode 3.
Fig. 5-1: Principle underlying the involvement of upper-shelf toughness in

the strength rules in Eurocode 3.
(6) A basic safety criterion for all strength rules in Eurocode 3 is, that for any
resistance in tension, the accidental presence of crack-like flaws is assumed
independently of the execution requirement in EN 1090-2, which does not
permit any detectable cracks in inspections after execution.
(7) This assumption makes it possible to link the resistance rules in Eurocode 3
with toughness requirements and to make this link accessible to numerical
checks where appropriate numerical models for the toughness verification in
the upper-shelf region are available.
181
(8) The safety criteria for the toughness verification in the various parts of
Eurocode 3 are the following:
1. For any of the rules, the ductility requirement is that net section yielding
shall be reached before fracture in the net section.
2. For some of the rules (where capacity design applies) the ductility
requirement is that gross section yielding must occur before fracture in
the net section.
5.1.2 Appropriate models for calculation of upper shelf toughness

requirements
5.1.2.1 General
(1) There are two mechanical approaches for determining the ultimate resistance
of steel components in tension in the upper-shelf region of the toughness
temperature diagram:
1. fracture mechanics
2. damage mechanics
(2) Fracture mechanics procedures are well established. International guidelines

such as BS7910 or FITNET procedure have been published. Therefore, the
application is recommended in such areas where crack like defects may be
assumed in constructions.
(3) Damage mechanics allows to determine the fracture behaviour of structural

components in tension also without the assumption of crack-like imperfections,
because structural response to load is modelled on the microscopic level
where void nucleation, void growth and void coalescence leads to crack
initiation and to further stable crack growth. Such models employ material
parameters which can be determined from tests. More details of this approach,
which is in the state of development for practical applications, are given in
section 6.
5.1.2.2 Fracture mechanics approach for upper-shelf behaviour
(1) In case of upper shelf behaviour the development of a fracture is governed by

local and global plasticity of the material. Fig. 2-1 shows that temperatures
higher than the transition temperature for instable crack growth initiate cracks
in a stable manner and crack growth consumes further energy, different to the
instable behaviour in the brittle area. On a global scale the net section reaches
yielding and plasticity starts to spread over the gross section and may reach
gross section yielding before a crack initiates, when toughness is high and
initial damage is small.
(2) In many design rules for steels structures the relation between the tensile
strength Rm and the yield strength Re is assumed to represent ductility and
resistance against fracture. This assumption can be interpreted as follows.
(3) The tensile strength fu = Rm of the material is considered to be the limit where
fracture in the net section occurs and the yield strength, fy = Rel is used to
determine the stress σgy for net section yielding.
182
(4) The fracture stress σfracture and the yield stress σgy applied to the gross section
could be determined for a plate with a center crack as given in fig. 5-2, if
infinite material toughness is presumed.
Fig. 5-2: Limits for σfracture and σgy dependent on Anet/Agross
(5) In practice many tests have been performed on wide plates with defined
cracks of different geometry and position made from structural steels with yield
strength between 235 and 890 MPa and representing different toughness
levels (steel quality). Typical Wide Plate test components are shown in Fig. 5-
3. Such cracks have normally been introduced by sawing or sawing plus
fatigue.
Fig. 5-3: Typical Wide Plate test components with different position and
geometry of defined cracks. The short name is explained following:
DENT (Double Edge Notched Tension)
CNT (Centre Notched Tension)
SENT (Single Notched Tension)
DSNT (Double Surface Notched Tension)
SSNT (Single Surface Notched Tension)
(6) From such tests the influence of the material toughness in the upper-shelf
region and the strength Rm and Re together with the geometry of the test
specimens and the crack geometry on the fracture stress has been studied.
Fig. 5-4 gives some typical test results for a steels grade S355 J2 and for
different specimen types. .
183
A net
Fig. 5-4: Actual fracture stresses dependent on
A gross
(7) The result shows, that only for crack-free structures the theoretical fracture
stress fu = Rm (1-2a/W) may be reached. In case of cracks the real fracture
stress is lower. How low the real fracture stress is depends on the material
toughness and the geometry of the defect.
5.1.2.3 Basis for the calculation of the upper shelf fracture resistance
(1) For the fracture mechanics based failure analysis in the upper-shelf region
ideally the elastic plastic J-Integral is used. However the Failue Assessment
Diagram can also be used beyond net section yielding.
(2) The toughness requirement for a structural member with cracks expressed in
terms of the J-Integral may be obtained from FEM (e.g. with ABAQUS)
calculations using the following input parameters:
• the true stress-strain curve valid for the temperature considered, including
the Lueders strain where necessary.
• the von Mises yield criterion and isotropic material considered
• elasto-plastic-calculations with deformation control
A result from such a calculation for different stress strain curves is shown in fig.
5-5.
184
Fig. 5-5: Example for Jappl-curves as a function of applied load and
different temperatures
(3) For resistances JMat the Ji-values, which represent the start of stable crack
growth, may be used. They may be based on standard CT-tests, see fig. 2-4.
(4) Fig. 5-6 gives an example for the results of such a calculation.
Fig. 5-6: Fracture mechanical assessment in the upper-shelf region
(5) On the left hand side of fig. 5-6, the Jappl-curve is given versus the stresses
applied to the gross section of a test specimen (made of steel S355 N) tested at
T = -20°C, for which a Ji-value of 170 KN/m had been determined.
(6) On the right hand side of fig. 5-6, the fracture strength as calculated with Ji is
indicated; it is below the theoretical resistance curve
⎛ 2a ⎞
σult = Rm ⎜1 − ⎟ (5-1)
⎝ w⎠
but above the stress for net section yielding
185
⎛ 2a ⎞
σgy = Rel ⎜1 − ⎟ (5-2)
⎝ w⎠
(7) The experimental value of resistance is also indicated; it requires a higher

toughness value JR, that results from a certain amount Δa of stable crack
growth.
(8) Above the temperature Ti, where failure occurs after a certain amount of stable
crack growth, the failure analysis on the basis of Ji is conservative. But it may
be based on the tearing instability concept.
(9) Herein the J-integral Jappl as a function of crack length and load F is compared
with the JR - Δa crack resistance curve, for which fig. 5-7 gives examples
Fig. 5-7: JR - Δa curves and Ji-values
(10) The tearing instability concept uses the point of instability defined by
Jappl (a, F) = JR (Δa) (5-3)
and
∂ Jappl ∂ JR
≥ . (5-4)
∂a ∂a
This means that the limit state is reached, where the Jappl (a, F)-curve has a
common tangent point with the JR (Δa)-curve, see fig. 5-8.
186
Fig. 5-8: Determination of fracture resistance with stable crack growth
(11) The JR - Δa-curve is a material property independent on the stress-state (as the
Ji-value is), if the curve is determined from a test specimen with a stress
situation which is equal to and more severe than the stress state of the
structural component considered; this applies to CT-test specimens.
(12) This concept can also be used in conjunction with the FAD concept.
5.1.3 Transfer of upper shelf toughness models into practice
(1) In the following, results of toughness checks that are either experimental or
calculative, are presented to explain in what way toughness criteria have
influenced the design rules for resistances in the various parts of Eurocode 3.
(2) Section 5.2 explains the background of the recommendation for sufficient
upper-shelf toughness in table 3-1 of EN 1993-2 – Design of steel bridges.
(3) Section 5.3 gives explanations of net section resistances in EN 1993-1-1, 6.23
(2) b) and 6.2.5 (4).
(4) Section 5.4 addresses the choice of material for “capacity design” as used for
plastic hinges or for seismic resistant structures.
5.2 Empirical rules for minimum upper-shelf toughness

5.2.1 General
(1) Whereas the mechanical modelling for the fracture-mechanical assessment in

the temperature transition range of the toughness temperature diagram can be
based on geometrically independent material values determined from small-
scale tests (applicable to T ≤ Ti with the limit state of crack initiation), the
verification in the upper-shelf region of the temperature needs the stable crack
growth to be considered by the JR-Δa-curves, that for accuracy reasons need
tests on large scale members with geometries similar to the one for the
member in question.
(2) Before such methods for the quantitative toughness assessment in the upper-
shelf region were developed, particular qualitative assessment methods were
187
used which were based on test pieces with initial cracks that were subjected to
large plastic strains.
(3) An example for such a test was the AUBI-test according to the German
specification SEP 1390 (1996), which was required for plate thicknesses larger
than 30 mm for welded structures subjected to tensile stresses for steel grades
S235, S275 and S355, see fig. 5-9.
Fig. 5-9: AUBI-test according to SEP 1390 (1996)
(4) The principles of the AUBI-test are:
1. On the tension side of the test piece, a weld bead is applied that is
brittle enough to act as crack starter when the test piece is bent.
2. The test piece is bent “quasi-statically” to an angle of 60°.
3. The material is accepted if the crack growth initiated from the brittle
weld bead and driven by the tensile strains from plastic bending is
stopped in the heat affected zone or in the base material without
exceeding a certain crack length at the angle of 60°.
(5) The test has the disadvantage that it cannot be correlated quantitatively with
any member loading nor with a realistic member resistance, so that no relation
can be established with the realistic member performance in the ultimate limit
state. Insofar, the test gave only empirical data, which, however, have lead to
an enhancement of the product quality of structural steels now represented by
fine grain steels according to EN 10025-3/4. Because of their production
technology, these fine grain steels have better toughness properties than
classical steels.
(6) In order to maintain this quality standard in the upper-shelf region without
applying the AUBI-test, it was necessary to correlate the results of the AUBI-
test with the methods used in Eurocode 3.
5.2.2 AUBI-quality and correlations

5.2.2.1 Correlation to Charpy-V-impact energies
(1) To identify an equivalence between the acceptance of material by the AUBI-

test and associated values AV of Charpy-V-impact tests at T = -20°C, particular
tests were carried out with a selection of 13 steel plates that were considered
to be critical in view of AUBI acceptance.
(2) Fig. 5-10 shows the results of the AUBI-tests with failure before an angle of
60° was reached and without failure at an angle of 60°, as well as some
results (non fracture) at an angle of 90°. The fig. also indicates the plate
thicknesses tested.
188
Fig. 5-10: Comparison of AUBI-tests and Charpy-V energy results in Joule
(3) Fig. 5-10 gives a trend relationship between Kv at TKv = -20°C and the
attainable bending angle α in the AUBI-test. But the small number of tests and
the large scatter do not allow the development of an acceptable correlation.
The Kv-values allocated to AUBI-tests with different plate thicknesses that
were accepted at an angle of 60°, do not give any correlation either.
(4) Hence it is not possible to apply any reliability evaluation to the tests; the only
conclusion is the engineering judgement that the borderline between AUBI-
tests accepted and non-accepted may be estimated at T70J ≤ - 20°C. A
dependence on thickness of the material cannot be found.
(5) The conclusion was, that it would be preferable to correlate the acceptance
and non-acceptance by the AUBI-test directly with the toughness qualities of
modern steels according to EN 10025 Parts 3 and 4 instead of developing
equivalence criteria for Charpy-energy testing that shall lead to such qualities.
(6) In the following, such a correlation is developed.
5.2.2.2 Correlation to steel qualities
(1) For the correlation between the acceptance and non-acceptance of the AUBI-
test and the steel quality according to EN 10025, the quality control data for 4
different steel producers for the production period after 1996 for steels S355
J2 G3, were evaluated. In total 1133 AUBI-tests were carried out, from which
18 tests (1,59%) failed in the production control.
(2) The analysis of those AUBI-tests that did not fail revealed that those steels
complied both in their chemical analysis and their mechanical properties with
fine-grain-steels according to EN 10025-2/4. This means that the AUBI-test
indirectly requires higher qualities of S355 according to EN 10025.
189
Fig. 5-11: trend analysis for the AUBI correlation
(3) Fig. 5-11 shows the trend analysis for average values and for the lowest single
values of Charpy-energies for AUBI-tests, that passed and that failed
independent of the plate-thickness: It becomes clear that the correlation
between the KV-values and the AUBI-test results suffers from a large scatter.
A certain tendency is related to the thickness influence.
(4) For further evaluation in a first step, a safe-sided equivalence criterion was
developed in assuming that the portion of AUBI-tests that failed (1.8 %) is
weighed in the same way as those that passed (98.4 %). Table 5-1 shows the
results in the column “equal weighing”.
Equivalence criterium
Failed
Range of Passed AUBI-tests AUBI- Weighting acc. to
Equal weighting
thickness Lower distribution free tests failure probability
in mm tolerance limit TU Extreme Smallest Smallest
Average Average
values TE single single
value value
value value
Proportion of
Kv,min in J at Kv in J at Kv,min in J at Kv in J at Kv,min in J at Kv in J at
population
T = -20 °C T = -20 °C T = -20 °C T = -20 °C T = -20 °C T = -20 °C
in %
(=30) (=29)
30 ≤ t < 50 21 98,68 49 35 50 21 30
50 ≤ t < 80 29 97,36 85 57 81 30 43
≥ 80 26 96,76 100 63 90 31 45
Table 5-1: Equivalence criteria from steel quality control data; the results of
Charpy-energy tests refer to the test temperature of -20°C
(5) If the weighing of the portion that failed is assumed to be according to the
failure probability as indicated in fig. 5-12, the equivalence values are reduced
accordingly. These results are more realistic and therefore are used for the
following conclusion.
190
Fig. 5-12: Failure probability of AUBI-tests in steel production control
5.2.2.3 Conclusions
(1) The results in Table 5-1 show that for plate-thicknesses t < 30 mm no AUBI-
tests are necessary, as the T27J-values according to EN 10025 are sufficient to
reach the acceptance of AUBI-tests.
(2) For plate thicknesses 30 mm ≤ t ≤ 80 mm, the requirements from the column
“Weighing according to the failure-probability” of table 5-1 are close to those
specified for T = -20°C for fine-grain steels in EN 10025.
(3) In conclusion, a sufficient steel quality to stop crack growth from initial cracks
due to large straining as carried out in the AUBI-tests, can be achieved by
applying the choice of material given in table 3.1 of EN 1993 – Part 2, see
table 5-2.
Example Nominal plate thickness Additional requirement

t ≤ 30 mm T27J = -20 °C acc. to EN 10025
Fine grained steel acc. to EN
1 30 < t ≤ 80 mm
10025, e.g. S355N/M
Fine grained steel acc. to EN
t > 80 mm
10025, e.g. S355NL/ML
Table 5-2: Choice of material given in table 3.1 of EN 1993-2
(4) The consequence of such a choice is given in fig. 5-13
191
Fig. 5-13: Comparison of permissible plate thicknesses for road-bridges with
σEd = 0,5 fy (t) according to EN 1993-1-10 and the AUBI-equivalence criteria
(5) The conclusions from Table 5.2 are given in detail in Table 5-3.
Steel Product thickness [mm]

grade
t ≤ 30 30 < t ≤ 80 t > 80
Fine grained steel type N Fine grained steel type
No additional
S355 or M acc. to EN 10025- NL or ML acc. to EN
requirements
3/-4 10025-3/-4
Fine grained steel type N Fine grained steel type
No additional
S275 or M acc. to EN 10025- NL or ML acc. to EN
requirements
3/-4 10025-3/-4
No additional type +N or +M acc. to type +N or +M acc. to
S235
requirements EN 10025-2 EN 10025-2
Table 5-3: Additional requirements to EN 1993-10 to fulfil the AUBI-

requirement
(6) In general, the AUBI-test is a traditional test not related to any quantified
structural performance and subsequent numerical verification. Therefore it should be
fully abandoned to give room for performance oriented test & verification methods.
192
5.3 Explanations of net-section resistances in EN 1993-1-1
5.3.1 General
(1) EN 1993 specifies in Part 1-1, 6.2.3 (2) b) and 6.2.5 (4) and in Part 1-12,
6.2.3, the ultimate resistance of net sections to tension:
0.9 Anet ⋅ fy
NRd = (5-4)
γ M2
where γM2 is recommended to be
γM2 = 1.25. (5-5)
(2) The reasons for the factor 0.9 in the resistance formula are the following:
1. test evaluation of tension tests with bolted connections, see

commentary to EN 1993-1-1,
2. consistency with resistance formula for bolts in tension from test
evaluations of bolt tests, see commentary to EN 1993-1-8,
3. fracture mechanics safety assessments.
(3) In this section, the reasoning from fracture mechanics safety assessments is
given.
5.3.1 Influence of upper-shelf toughness on net-section resistance to tension

5.3.2.1 Tensile strength from the stability criterion
(1) The tensile strength fu = Rm is defined as the maximum stress related to the
initial gross section area Ao of the tension test specimen, as specified for the
determination of the conventional stress-strain curve, see fig. 5-14 b)
193
Fig. 5-14: Stress-strain curve:
a) true stress-strain curve
b) conventional stress-strain curve
(2) The true stress-strain curve relates to the actual stress σw related to the actual
gross-section A and the actual strain εw, see fig. 5-14 a) and is a real material
constant independent of the test specimen.
(3) The maximum fu = Rm is reached where the differential dF of the applied force
with increasing deformation attains the value
∂ F = ∂σ w ⋅ A + d A ⋅ σ w = 0 (5-7)
which leads to the stability criterion for the ultimate stress fu:
∂σ w
= σw (5-8)
∂ε w
(4) Fig. 5-14 a) demonstrates that the “stability strength” fu resulting from this
criterion leads to ultimate strains εu which automatically are the smaller, the
higher the yield strength of the material is.
fy
(5) A consequence of this behaviour is that the yield-strength ratio
fu
automatically depends on the magnitude of the yield strength, see fig. 5-15.
194
fy
Fig. 5-15: Relationship between yield strength ratio and the yield
fu
strength
fy 1
(6) EN 1993-1-1 limits the yield strength ratio to ≤ = 0.90; EN 1993-1-12
fu 1.10
fy 1
recommends a limit ≤ = 0.95 to get the nominal values of higher
fu 1.05
strength steels included.
(7) Such limitations have no direct mechanical impact on the reliability of

structures resulting from design rules in EN 1993; they only have an indirect
impact by permissible tolerances for defects from production and fabrication as
indicated in 5.3.2.2.
5.3.2.2 Impact of material toughness
(1) In the upper-shelf region for temperatures above Tgy it can be assumed that in
any case net section yielding σgy will be reached before fracture occurs in the
net section.
195
Fig. 5-16: Comparison of fracture stresses from large scale mechanical
tests with σfracture from “stability strength” and net section yield
strength
(2) Fig. 5-16 gives the results of large scale fracture tests for CNT-test specimens
for S355 J2 with two different toughness values Av = 85 J and Av = 200 J from
Charpy-V-impact tests that reveal that
1. the fracture stress σfracture is above the net section yield curve for any
value 2a/w.
High values 2a/w are not unrealistic, because for structural components
the value 2a does not signify the actual length of a crack, but the
effective length of crack, which may be far higher than the actual length
of crack through structural detailing, see fig. 5-17.
Fig. 5-17: Effect of structural detailing to net section area
This means that the criterion applies realistically to the whole 2a/w-
range with particular importance of 2a/w ~ 1/3 for the net section of
bolted connections, where the decrease of “stability strength” by
toughness attains about the maximum.
2. The linear “stability strength” fu cannot be fully reached due to the

decrease of fracture strength by toughness, so that the definition
196
NRK = 0.9 ⋅ fu ⋅ Anet
is based on the assumption that either, see fig 5-18
case a): the material toughness is sufficient to cover
σfracture = 0.90 ⋅ fu
for any value 2a/w or

or
case b): the interaction of material toughness with the magnitude
of effective cracks 2a/w is such that a certain permissible
value 2a/w is not exceeded.
Fig. 5-18: Conclusions from σfracture = 0.9 fu
3. The decrease of the toughness controlled fracture stress at 2a/w ≈ 0 is

the steeper, the lower the toughness values are, see fig. 5-16. The
slope of the tangents at 2a/w = 0 are indicators for permissible 2a/w
values from the inter-section points of these tangents with the fracture
line 0.9 fu ⋅ Anet.
(3) Fig. 5-19 shows the role of the steel grade for the theoretical values σult
according to equation (5-1) and σgy according to equation (5-2) for S690 and
S235. It also shows the σfracture-curves, which were calculated with the
hypothesis that S690 would have the same toughness value as S235.
197
Fig. 5-19: Determination of σfracture using the same toughness values for
S690 as for S235
(4) From fig. 5-19 it is evident that for reaching the criteria
- net section yielding before net-section fracture and

- σfracture = 0.9 fu
the toughness-requirements for high strength steels are significantly higher

than for mild steels.
(5) Fig. 5-20 gives fracture stresses σfracture in relation to the net section yield
stresses, which are based on the assumption that the toughness of high
strength steels is increased in relation to the toughness of mild steels by a
factor equal to the square of the yield strengths.
Fig. 5-20: σfracture-curves for material toughness adjusted to the yield

strength of material
fy
(6) The choice of the yield-strength ratio in EN 1993-1-1: ≤ 0.9 is related to the
fu
fracture strength criterion
σfracture ≥ 0.9 fu
198
see fig. 5-18, by which it shall be secured for steel grades S235 to S460 that
for the upper-shelf toughness of material adjusted to the yield strength, the
criterion
- net section yielding before net-section fracture
can be achieved for all 2a/w-values.
The structural detailing for high strength steels as S690, see fig. 5-20, should
be such that the effective crack sizes 2a/w are small if (2) 2. case b) applies,
so that the net section criterion can also be reached where, due to lower
toughness or a higher yield strength ratio, the σfracture-curve may have
intersections with the σgy-line.
fy
(7) For steels according to EN 1993-12 and yield strength ratios ~ 0.95, see
fu
fig. 5-15, the requirement to keep small values 2a/w by appropriate detailing is
even more important, see fig. 5-18. Otherwise the criterion net section yielding
before net section fracture cannot be maintained with the consequence that
residual stresses and deformation controlled secondary stresses have to be
taken into account in the design.
5.4 Choice of material for capacity design

5.4.1 General requirement
(1) “Capacity design” is needed where yielding of the gross-section of a structural

element is required before the ultimate limit state is reached, e.g. for the
formation of plastic hinges for moment redistribution or for limiting action
effects by energy dissipation as in seismic design or in accidental situations.
(2) “Capacity design” requires that gross section yielding proceeds to net section
fracture, so that plastic zones can form in the gross sections before a
structural component can fail due to insufficient resistance capacity in the net
section.
5.4.2 Conclusions for „capacity design“
(1) In the diagram for stability strength and yield strength, see fig 5-3, “capacity
design” requires that the intersection of the fracture curve
⎛ 2a ⎞
σ fracture = R m ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ w⎠
with the gross section yield line
Rel = const.
is of importance, see fig 5-21.
199
Fig 5-21 Permissible values 2a/w for gross section yielding for different
steel grades
(2) Fig 5-21 makes clear that independently of toughness considerations, the
possibilities for structural detailing (e. g. for choice of net sections by bolted
connections) are the greater, the smaller the yield strength and the higher the
yield strength ratio is.
That is the reason why low grade steels should be preferably used for seismic
resistant structural components according to chapter 6 of EN 1998-1, where
energy dissipation by hysteretic yielding is required.
(3) When looking at the toughness effects, the conclusions are even more
pronounced, because the possibilities for structural detailing are even more
reduced, see intersection points of fracture curves with Rel/Rm in fig 5-16, so
that the conclusion is, that the permissible values 2a/w are a function of yield
strength ratio and toughness of material.
(4) The conclusions for design are therefore:
1. There should be no geometric notches in the plastic zones that would

enhance the size of effective initial cracks (e.g. by holes or
attachments).
The rules for good design for energy dissipation are equivalent to good
design for fatigue.
2. The size of permissible cracks is the smaller, the higher the yield
strength ratio is; higher yield strength ratios as for S235 and S355
should be preferred.
5.4.3 Behaviour of components subject to capacity design in the temperature-

transition area
(1) Where the formation of plastic zones (e.g. for earthquakes) is combined with
the occurrence of low temperatures, EN 1993-1-10 may be applied to protect
the structural component from brittle failure during the time period, where it is
still in the elastic range and before the yield strength fy(t) is reached.
200
(2) This also affects the structural detailing of energy dissipation components. The
design, production and erection should be such that
- steel-grade should be up to S355,

- fabrication and erection should be such that residual stresses may be
neglected,
- the upper value of yield strength should be specified according to
chapter 6 of EN 1998-1 for delivery,
- notch effects should be reduced.
(3) In this case, table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 may be used for the choice of material
in conjunction with σEd = 0.75 fy, as the permissible plate thicknesses for σEd =
0.75 fy are actually related to the attainment the yield strength:
σEd = 0.75 fy + 100 Mp ≈ fy
(4) Under certain conditions (adiabatic or large strain rates) the temperature of a
dissipative component may increase with yielding once during the hysteretic
deformations the yield strength is exceeded. Fig. 5-22 gives an example for a
possible temperature development that may cause a temperature shift in the
toughness temperature diagram so that the behaviour is more favourable.
Fig 5-22: Typical net stress-temperature yielding curve for steel
201
5.5 Bibliography
[1] Kühn, B.: Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der europäischen Regelungen zur
Vermeidung von Sprödbruch, Schriftenreihe Stahlbau – RWTH Aachen, Heft
54 (2005), Shaker Verlag
[2] Hubo, R.: Bruchmechanische Untersuchungen zum Einsatz von Stählen

unterschiedlicher Festigkeit und Zähigkeit, VDI-Verlag: Fortschritt-Berichte-
VDI, Reihe 18 – Mechanik/Bruchmechanik, Nr. 80 (1990)
[3] Sedlacek, G., Müller, Chr., Nußbaumer, A.: Toughness-Requirements in

Structural Applications, Structural Engineering Document (SED): Use and
application of high-performance Steels for Steel Structures, No. 8, IABSE
2005
[4] Sedlacek, G., Höhler, S,. Dahl, W., Kühn, B., Langenberg, P., Finger, M.,
Floßdorf, F.-J., Schröter, F. Hocké, A.,: Ersatz des Aufschweißbiegeversuchs
durch äquivalente Stahlgütewahl, Stahlbau 74 (2005), S. 539-546
[5] Stranghöner, N.: Werkstoffwahl im Brückenbau, DASt-Forschungsbericht

4/2006
[6] Dahl, W., Ehrhardt, H.: „Einfluß des Spannungszustandes auf das
Verformungs- und Bruchverhalten von Stählen in Großzugversuchen”, Stahl
und Eisen 108 (1983), Heft 6, Seite 289-292.
[7] Dahl, W.: “Application of fracture mechanics concepts to the failure of steel
constructions”, Steel research, Issue No 3/86, pages 131-134.
[8] Dahl, W., Hesse, W.: „Auswirkung der Beurteilung von Stählen auf die
Anwendung im Hoch- und Anlagenbau”, Stahl und Eisen 106 (1986), Heft 12,
Seite 695-702.
202
Section 6
6. Damage Mechanics – Calculation of limit state condition of fracture in

the upper shelf with local models
6.1 Introduction
(1) Finite element methods combined with the use of the true stress-strain curve
for steel, see fig. 5-14, and the von Mises-yield criterion, expressed by the
yield potential
2
⎛σ ⎞
Φ=⎜ v ⎟ −1= 0
⎜σ ⎟
⎝ y ⎠
where σv is the von-Mises-equivalent stress

σy is the yield stress
allow to determine the ultimate resistance of tension elements in terms of

“stability” resistance, see equation (5-7) for monotonic loading. In this case
only the limit condition of plastic yielding but not that of the final fracture
developing from local damage can be obtained.
These tools are based on fully ductile behaviour without damage and therefore
do not give any indication when cracks will occur and induce rupture,
(2) In order to be able to predict the failure of a tension element by rupture, the
damage mechanics approaches have been developed which are capable of
simulating the following behaviour more realistically:
1. Description of the local microcstructural behaviour leading to rupture

which is expressed as development of voids in the material with the
onset of yielding, growth of voids and coalescence that leads to a
critical limit from where cracks are initiated (continuum models
suplemented by the GNT-model).
These approaches are both appropriate for determining component

behaviour or fracture mechanical resistance values like Ji for crack
initiation (see chapter 5) and the growth of a stable crack associated
with the JR resistance curve .
(3) Whereas fracture mechanics models use a single, one-dimensional parameter

(e.g. by the fracture mechanics parameter K or J or CTOD) and are based on
the assumption of crack-like imperfections for the safety assessment, damage
mechanics approaches are based on a set of parameters representing the
microstructure of steel. Such approaches can be applied to all type of
structural elements with initial cracks or without initial cracks and therefore
represent the most realistic attempt to predict the rupture which works without
the safe-sided assumption of the presence of initial cracks (see chapter 5).
(4) In the following some basics and first applications of damage mechanics are
demonstrated. However, it must be noted that this method requires the use of
Finite Elements together with model parameters derived from experiments.
203
(5) The aspects of reliability in relation to requirements, model uncertainties,
imperfections and scatter of input data as well as the relation of measured
data to data specified in product standards, which all are necessary for the use
of damage mechanics in practical safety assessments, is not addressed in this
section.
6.2 Model for determining crack initiation
(1) Fig. 6-1 illustrates the role of the microstructural development of microvoids at
the crack tip of a fracture mechanics model under tension in the upper-shelf
region.
Fig. 6-1: Schematic presentation of ductile damage development at a crack tip
(2) The phases of the development of voids develop from void nucleation to void
growth and to void coalescence, which is identical with crack initiation, see fig.
6-2.
Growing together of voids Ligament necking Secondary void nucleation
Fig. 6-2: Different types of void coalescence
(3) The conclusion of the use of the porous metal plasticity model, see section
6.3, is that the stress and the strain for crack initiation can be determined, see
fig. 6-3.
204
Fig. 6-3: Determination of the limit state of crack initiation
(4) The simulation of further development from crack initiation to failure requires
the use of an effective behaviour law for damaged elements, that regulates the
stress transfer through damaged elements, see section 6-5.
6.3 The GTN – Damage model

6.3.1 General
(1) The GTN – Damage model of Gurson, Tvergaard and Needleman modifies the
von Mises yield model in such a way that the effects of micro voids (micro-
structural damage) are included.
(2) The modified yield potential reads
2
⎛σ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
Φ=⎜ v ⎟ + 2 q1 f * cosh⎜ 3 q2 σ H ⎟
⎜σ ⎟ ⎜2 σ y ⎟⎠
⎝ y ⎠ ⎝
( )
− 1 − q3 f * 2 = 0
with the additional parameters
σH = hydrostatic stress components

q1 = 1.5 ⎫
⎪
q2 = 1.0 ⎬ model parameters
q3 = 2.25 ⎪⎭
f* = modified void volume fraction
(3) In each element of the FE-calculation, a void is considered which is supposed

to grow due to local stresses and strains resulting in a void volume fraction f.
This gives
⎧ f ; for f ≤ fc ⎫
f * (f ) = ⎨ ⎬
⎩fc + κ (f − fc ); for f > fc ⎭
where
fc = critical void volume fraction, at the load drop point of a tension test
depending on the stress triaxiality of the spot considered,
205
κ= acceleration factor (often determined directly in the range of 4 to 8) or
determined from
0.667 − fc
κ=
ff − fc
with
ff = final void volume fraction at microscopic failure at which the stress

transfer through an element is interrupted.
(4) The value f results from growth of existing voids and strain controlled
nucleation of new voids:
f= fgrowth + fnucleation =
fN ⎡ 1 ⎛ ε pl − ε N ⎞ 2 ⎤
= (1 − fo ) ε& pl
kk + exp ⎢− ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ε& pl
SN 2π ⎢⎣ 2 ⎝ SN ⎠ ⎥⎦
where fo = initial void volume fraction

fN = volume fraction of newly nucleating voids at the
characteristic equivalent plastic strain εN (measured by
change of electric resistance)
εN = characteristic equivalent plastic strain for new nucleation
of voids
ε& plkk = rate of plastic strain due to hydrostatic stresses
ε pl = equivalent plastic strain
ε& pl = rate of equivalent plastic strain
SN = 0.1 standard deviation of strain-controlled nucleation of
secondary voids
(5) The input parameters that need to be determined for the particular case and
cannot be put constant on the basis of sensitivity studies are then
fo = initial volume fraction of primary void initiated by constituents as non-

metallic inclusions or hard micro structure constituents of sufficient size.
The quantification is performed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
and x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) of polished surfaces.
fN = volume fraction of secondary voids nucleating during primary void
coalescence at smaller micro structure constituents to be quantified in a
similar way as fo, (more difficult due to their small size).
εN = characteristic strain of secondary void nucleation, quantified by the
direct current potential drop (DCPD) technique, i.e. by measuring the
electric resistance of the cross-section which drops when cavities form.
fc = critical void volume fraction, determined e.g. by numerical cell model
simulations or from tensile tests at the load drop point. As fc depends
on on the stress triaxiality, the test should comply with the triaxiality
state expected in the structure considered.
ff = final void volume fraction which is in the range of 10% to 20%. Because
of accuracy problems in measuring ff, the κ-value is often given directly.
206
6.3.2 Examples for the determination of micro structures parameters
(1) For the determination of the micro structure parameters, a structural steel
S355J2G3 and a pressure vessel steel P460Q are selected [7].
(2) Table 6-1 gives the chemical composition of the steels, fig. 6-4 gives the
micrographs of the micro structure and fig. 6-5 gives the SEM-fracture
surfaces [7].
Steel C Si Mn P S Cr Mo
S355J2 0.15 0.36 1.35 0.020 0.009 0.073 <0.005
P460Q 0.13 0.32 1.38 0.007 <0.001 0.164 0.054
Steel Ni Al Cu Nb Ti V Zn
S355J2 0.04 0.037 0.086 <0.001 0.001 0.006 0.002
P460Q 0.38 0.032 0.190 <0.001 0.004 0.032 0.002
Table 6-1: Chemical composition of the steels S355J2G3 and P460Q, mass
contents in %
Fig. 6-4: Micrographs: left: ferritic-perlitic micro structure of steel S355J2G3;

right: bainitic-ferritic micro structure of steel P460Q, both after HNO3-etching
Fig 6-5: SEM-fracture surfaces: left ductile fracture surface of steel S355J2G3;
right: ductile fracture surface of steel P460Q. Both fracture surfaces, with
different sizes of dimples, result from fracture mechanics tests with CT-
specimens carried out at room temperature
(3) Obviously the void size distribution differs a lot between the two materials:
207
- In steel S355J2G3 primary void nucleation at non-metallic inclusions is
the major mechanism of ductile failure behaviour. Accordingly, fo = 0.20
was chosen and the nucleation of secondary voids was neglected (fN =
εN = SN = 0).
- In steel P460Q mainly secondary voids have nucleated and primary

void growth was not considered (fo = 0)
The parameters for secondary void nucleation were
εN = 0.21 from DCPD-technique

fc = 0.04 from cell model simulations
fN = 0.3% was selected,
κ=6 was selected.
(4) Table 6-2 gives the chemical composition of another pressure vessel steel
P690Q, which gave the same GTN-model parameters as the steel P460Q
except for εN = 0.12.
Steel C Si Mn P S Cr Mo
0.14 0.31 0.83 0.011 <0.001 0.61 0.42
P690Q
Ni Al Cu Nb Ti V Zn
1.01 0.041 0.27 0.001 0.002 0.051 0.003
Table 6-2: Chemical composition of steel P690Q, mass contention [7].
6.3.3 Mesh sizes for FEM calculations
(1) In each finite element containing a void, the mesh sizes very much depend on
the average spacing between non metallic inclusions.
(2) For steels with similar parameters
1. void size distribution

2. ductility
3. purity degree
the adequate mesh size is also similar.
(3) Fig. 6-6 gives element sizes in meshes determined from calibrations of test
results, related to the 90% quantile value of void diameter; they are in the
magnitude of grain sizes
208
Fig. 6.6 Relations between FE-element size at a crack tip and size
distributions of voids on ductile fracture surfaces for several pressure vessels
and structural steels [7]
6.3.4 Calculation of J-integral values Ji
(1) Fig. 6-7 shows load-CTOD-curves from fracture mechanics tests with CT-
specimens as well as the results of simulations with the GTN-damage model,
resulting in Ji-values for crack initiation obtained from the ends of the curves.
(2) Obviously the experimental and numerical values coincide.
Fig. 6-7: Load crack tip opening displacement curves from experiment and
simulation for steels S355J2G3 (left side) and P460Q (right side) [7]
209
6.3.5 Conclusions for practical FEM-calculations
(1) From tensile tests with cylindrical tension specimens with different notches or
from calculations with the GTN damage model, the two parameters
- stress triaxiality h, which is calculated from
σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3
h=
σV
where σ1, σ2, σ3 are the principle stresses
σV is the equivalent stress
- the equivalent plastic strain ε pl
have been identified as the leading parameters to characterize ductile crack

initiation from the growth of voids and void coalescence.
(2) Hence a failure criterion for crack initiation could be developed as a function of
these two parameters, see fig. 6-8.
Fig. 6-8: Damage curve as ductile crack initiation criterion from void
coalescence
(3) In general, such damage curves are determined by tests with variations of
notch geometry accompanied by FEM-calculations to identify the stress
triaxility and the equivalent plastic strain at the relevant spot. From a least
square fit a mean curve satisfying the formula
ε pl = c 1 ⋅ e c 2h + ε ipl
can be derived, where
c1, c2 are fit parameters

ε ipl is the equivalent plastic strain necessary to provoke ductile failure at
hydrostatic stress state
210
(4) Fig. 6-9 shows test specimens with different notch situations, which may lead
to equivalent plastic strains as given in fig. 6-10.
Fig. 6-9: Geometry and size of tensile specimens used to determine the
damage curve
Fig. 6-10: Limits of equivalent plastic strain for different stress triaxialities
(5) Fig. 6-10 shows the exponential decrease of equivalent plastic strain for the
smooth specimen and the notched specimens R1 and R2 on one hand and
different plastic strain limits for the notch specimens R0.1 and R0.2 which are
more or less independent of the stress triaxiality h on the other hand.
211
Fig. 6-11 Ductile crack initiation behaviour from specimen centre and notch
root surface under single tension
a) R2-specimen, b) R0.1 specimen
(6) As fig. 6-11 demonstrates, the different results for R0.1 and R0.2 are caused by
the fact that for those cases the relevant spot is not the centre of the cross-
section with growth of voids controlled by triaxiality (equiaxed tensile mode of
failure) but the surface, where the failure mode is controlled by the growths
and coalescence of voids along a local shear band oriented at an angle of 45°
to the tensile axes.
(7) In conclusion, the damage curve following the growth and coalescence of
voids according to the triaxial stress state has a lower limit for h controlled by
the shear type of failure at the surface, which is not covered by the GTN-
model.
6.3.6 Example of practical application
(1) For a pressure vessel as given in fig. 6-12 made of steel P460Q, a FEM-
calculation was carried out using the true stress-strain curve of the material
from unaxial tensile tests and extrapolated according to the Hollomon
approach to cover strains beyond the uniform elongation from tensile tests
[8,9].
212
500 800
Alle Angaben in [mm] 200
3410
980 11400 980

Fig. 6-12: Geometry of the pressure vessel
(2) The inner pressure was increased until it reached the critical level where for
the first time an element in the model reached the damage curve for ductile
crack initiation.
(3) The steel P460Q-damage curve has been identified by experimental and
numerical investigations with cylindrical notched tensile samples as
ε pl = 0,96 e −0,6h + 0,14
(4) Fig. 6-13 shows the position of ductile crack initiation from the distributions of
plastic equivalent strain and stress triaxiality that are plotted.
Fig. 6-13: Damage curve reached at a point near the nozzle
213
(5) The nozzle has been identified as the critical spot where a ductile crack could
be initiated when the critical inner pressure is 16 MPa (expected value without
safety elements).
6.4 The use of damage curves for crack initiation for cyclic straining
6.4.1 General
(1) According to Ohata and Toyoda [6] the damage curves according to fig. 6-10
determined for monotonic loading can also be used to determine the crack
initiation with FEM for cyclic loading as relevant for seismic design.
(2) The assumptions made to obtain accurate results are the following:
1. For cyclic loading the Bauschinger effect is taken into account by a

stress/strain field determined by a combined non-linear isotropic
kinematic hardening model.
2. Strain accumulation only considers effective equivalent plastic strains

( ε p )eff, controlled by the loops of back stresses in the kinematic
hardening component of the combined hardening model.
(3) In the following, the assumptions made and some results are described.
6.4.2 The combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model
(1) In the combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model, equivalent plastic strains

and equivalent stresses of the true stress-strain curve are composed of two
components:
1. the isotropic hardening component σ

2. the kinematic hardening component α
see fig. 6-14.
Fig. 6-14: Non-linear isotropic and kinematic hardening components used for
the FE-analysis of cyclic loading
(2) The conclusions are hysteretic curves of true stress and true strain that are
close to experiments as they consider the Bauschinger effect, see fig. 6-15.
214
Fig. 6-15: Approximation of hysteretical true stress-strain curves by the
combined hardening model
(3) The model also allows to follow the loops of the components of stresses σ
and backstresses α in all phases of the cycles, see fig. 6-16.
Fig. 6-16: Cyclic development of loops: a) Cyclic development of components

σ and α ; b) Time history of cycles σ and α
6.4.3 Accumulation of effective equivalent strains ε p,eff
(1) The basic assumption of the effective damage model [6] is that once the cyclic
loops of equivalent stresses and strains are stabilized, there is no contribution
from equivalent strains to damage.
(2) Hence contributions from equivalent plastic strains to damage are controlled
by the cyclic development of back stresses such that only those portions of the
equivalent plastic strains are damage-effective which belong to backstresses
α larger than the maximum α -values of the preceding loop, see fig. 6-17.
215
Fig. 6-17: Evolution of equivalent backstresses α and determination of
effective equivalent strains ( ε pl )eff.
(3) Fig. 6-18 shows on the left hand side the accumulation of the full equivalent
plastic strains that would give very conservative results and on the right hand
side the accumulation of effective equivalent plastic strains that gives accurate
values.
Fig. 6-18: Comparison of accumulation of a) all equivalent plastic strains; b)

effective equivalent plastic strains
6.5 Numerical simulation of crack growth
(1) The GTN-model could be supplemented by a law for the stress transfer
through damaged elements.
(2) One possibility is the use of cohesive elements in addition to the other
continuum elements, which are positioned where crack initiation and growth is
expected, see fig. 6-19.
Fig. 6-19: FE-model of a Charpy specimen with a layer of cohesive elements
216
(3) The cohesive model is a traction separation law, that describes the
transmittable stress T as a function of separation δ, see fig. 6-20, in which the
maximum transmittable stress T0 and the critical separation δ0 leading to final
failure are the input parameters.
Fig. 6-20: Typical traction-separation laws for ductile and brittle behaviour in
the cohesive zone model
(4) Also damage curves can be combined with a damage evolution law to
consider the behaviour of damaged elements. Other than for cohesive zones
the crack path needs not to be defined prior to the simulation start. The easiest
way is the assumption of linear loss of strength which is final at a characteristic
deformation of the element.
217
6.6 Bibliography
[1] Gurson, A. L., J. Engineering Material Technology, 99 (1977), 2.
[2] Tvergaard, V.: International J. Fract., 18 (1982), 237.
[3] Tvergaard, V.,Needlman, A.: Acta metall. 32 (1984) No. 1, 157.
[4] Needlman, A., Tvergaard, V.: J. Mech. Phy. Solids, 35 (1987), 151.
[5] Tvergaard, V., Needlman, A.: J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 40 (1992) No. 2, 447.
[6] Ohata, M., Toyoda, M.: Damage concept for evaluating ductile cracking of
steel structures subjected to large-scale cyclic straining, Science and
Technology of Advanced Materials 5 (2004) page 241-249.
[7] Münstermann, S.: Numerische Beschreibung des duktilen

Versagensverhaltens von hochfesten Baustählen unter Berücksichtigung der
Mikrostruktur, Berichte aus dem Institut für Eisenhüttenkunde IEHK – RWTH
Aachen, Band 4/2006 Shaker Verlag.
[8] Münstermann, S., Prahl, U., Bleck, W.: Numerical modelling of toughness and
failure processes in steel, Steel Research Int. 78 (2007) No. 3 page 224-235.
[9] Münstermann, S., Bleck, W., Langenberg, P.: New approaches for safety
assessments of pressure vessels. 2nd International Seminar on Society and
Materials, SAM 2, Nantes, 24-25 April 2008.
218
Section 7
7. Liquid metal embrittlement in hot dip zinc-coating

7.1 Introduction
(1) Liquid metal embrittlement (LME) or liquid metal assisted cracking (LMAC) are
phenomena associated with the stress-corrosion attack of certain liquid metals
on the surface of solid base metals.
(2) Examples of such phenomena are the attack of Gallium (melting temperature
+ 26°C) on aluminium alloys or of certain liquid zinc alloys (melting
temperature ~ +419°C) on steel components in the zinc bath, see fig. 7-1.
Fig. 7-1: Example of cracks from zinc coating by hot dip galvanizing
(3) The corrosion mechanism is such that the liquid metal attacks the grain
boundaries of the solid metal and causes a reduction of surface tension so
that the grains loose their coherence, in particular under tensile stresses. They
separate in forming surface cracks in the zinc bath into which the liquid metal
(the alloy or eutectica with lower melting temperatures) penetrate and allow
initial cracks to grow, see fig. 7-2.
219
Fig. 7-2: Cracks filled with liquid metal in the zinc bath
(4) The main crack controlling parameters for the formation of such cracks in the
zinc bath are
1. Surface conditions and microstructure of steel as well as

aggressiveness of the zinc alloy, both measured in tests, that give the
characteristic values of strain resistance versus the exposure time of
the steel in the zinc bath and other parameters, like strain rate etc.
2. Time of exposure in the zinc bath reducing the strain resistance
3. Magnitude of residual strains in the steel component dependent on

time, where a distinction is made between
a) Residual strains arisen during fabrication of the steel component

before dipping (stationary)
b) Additional residual strains due to the dipping process until the
steel component has attained a uniform temperature equal to the
bath temperature (instationary)
c) Residual stresses that remain in the steel component after it has
attained the bath temperature in the zinc bath (stationary).
4. Other influences as a consequence of the treatment of the steel

components before dipping, such as cleaning, application of flux agents,
preheating etc.
(5) In the following paragraphs, an engineering model is presented that describes

the limit state of crack initiation on the basis of equivalent plastic strains εpl in
the steel material:
220
1. Equivalent strain requirements εpl,E are derived from the steel
fabrication and dipping process and exposure time
2. Equivalent strain resistances εpl,R are determined from a standardized

testing procedure, taking material properties and surface conditions of
the steel and characteristics of the zinc alloy as well as the exposure
time into account (modified LNT-test).
(6) The limit state equation reads:
ε pl,E ≤ ε pl,R (7-1)
(7) In this limit state equation, the role of strain resistance is dominant with regard
to the sensitivity of all basic variables. It needs determination by refined
methods, see section 7.2.
(8) The strain requirements are characterized by a mean level of residual stresses
and strains expected in any structural component from fabrication, depending
on the type of cross-section (see classification of column buckling curves in
EN 1993-1-1 according to cross-section) and by variations from this mean
value caused by the dipping process, depending in particular on the structural
detailing (e.g. on the structural form and the thickness ratio of the welded
plates connected). In general strain requirements can be categorized into
groups on the basis of more refined numerical analysis with typical details, see
section 7.3.2.4.
(9) For the time being, the limit state conditions presented in this report are
assumed to give safe-sided solutions. So far, there is no possibility to define
their reliability, because there are no sufficient statistics available yet.
(10) Therefore, in addition to the numerical verification of the limit state, inspections
of the structural members after zinc coating are necessary. Inspection
methods are specified that take account of the fact that a visual control of zinc
coated surfaces is not sufficient, as cracks may be filled and covered by zinc,
see section 7.4.
7.2 Equivalent plastic strain resistances of steels in the zinc bath

7.2.1 General
(1) During the dipping process in the liquid zinc bath, the zinc alloy causes a
reduction of surface energy between the grains, which leads to a reduction of
intercrystalline cohesion and hence to “liquid metal embrittlement“. A
consequence of this embrittlement is a reduction of the equivalent strain
resistance in the zinc bath, which is recovered after the zinc coating process.
221
(2) In order to obtain characteristic values of the equivalent plastic strain
resistance that depends on the various process parameters, such as
- composition of zinc alloy and bath temperature

- steel-quality
- microstructure and surface condition of steel product or of machined
surfaces
- strain rate
a standardized test with sufficiently small test specimens is needed. The

results of this test are independent of the scale and the particular loading
condition of this test specimen and can be transferred to any large scale
structural component.
(3) Such a test has been developed from the fracture mechanics CT test
specimen: the LNT-test specimen.
7.2.2 LNT-test specimen and test set up
(1) Fig. 7-3 gives details of the LNT-test-specimen with its dimensions that can be
dipped into the liquid zinc bath and loaded horizontally by tensile forces, see
fig. 7-4. The sharp crack tip of the CT test specimen (in general obtained by
applying fatigue load cycles) is substituted by a drilled hole, the bottom of
which is locally strained by the tension forces applied at the top of the
specimen in such a way that after sufficient exposure time cracking can be
expected.
Fig. 7-3: LNT-test specimen
222
F
Fig. 7-4: Zinc bath, LNT-test specimen before dipping and application of
tensile forces
(2) The local equivalent plastic strain at the bottom of the hole affected by the
tensile forces can be determined by FEM-calculations:
2 2
ε pl ,c = ∫ ε&pl dt (7-2)
3
(3) Fig. 7-5 gives an example of such calculations with the applied finite element
mesh in fig. 7-5a) and the plot of equivalent plastic strains in fig. 7-5 b).
Fig. 7-5: FE-mesh and plot of equivalent plastic strains
7.2.3 Test results
(1) As indicated in fig. 7-6, the load displacement characteristic can be measured
in a test. It exhibits a sudden drop when cracking starts.
(2) From FEM, the associated local equivalent strain at the bottom of the hole can
be calculated.
(3) While the load-displacement curve in fig. 7-6 applies for a test specimen
heated to 450°C without the corrosion effect of a liquid zinc bath (test
specimen exposed to the air), giving a cracking strain of 27%, fig. 7-7 gives the
values for a zinc alloy with a tin content Sn of 1.2%.
223
22 33
20 30
27%
equivalent plastic strain, %

18 load a0_05 27
load FEM
16 24
average local
14 21
12 18
load, kN
10 15
8 12
6 Plastic equivalent 9
strain FEM
4 6
2 3
0 0
0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5 20 22,5
load line displacement, mm
Fig. 7-6: Load displacement and equivalent plastic strain displacement curve
for steel exposed to the air with a temperature of 450 °C
22 33
20 load FEM 30
%
plastic equivalent strain, %

18 27
16 24
average local
14 load a0_04 21
load, kN
12 18
10 15
8 12
Plastic
6 equivalent 9%
9
strain FEM
4 6
2 3
0 0
0 2,5 5 7,5 10 12,5 15 17,5 20 22,5
load line displacement, mm
Fig. 7-7: Load displacement and equivalent plastic strain displacement curve
in liquid zinc alloy with Sn 1.2%
(4) Fig. 7-8 gives a comparison of test results for zinc alloy a0, zinc alloy a1 and
with exposure to the air at 450 °C, all related to steel S460N, see table 7-1.
224
alloy Pb, M.-% Sn, M.-% Bi, M.-% Al, M.-% Ni, M.-% Fe, M.-%
a0 --- 1,20 0,11 0,0057 0,047 0,028
a1 0,70 --- --- 0,005 --- 0,03
Table 7-1: Chemical composition of zinc alloys

620
600
air
von Mises stress, N/mm²
580
a0
560
average local
540
a1
520
500
480
460
440
420
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
average local plastic equivalent strain, %
Fig. 7-8: Comparison of equivalent plastic strain resistances for different zinc
alloys and for exposure to the air
(5) A systematic investigation of the influence of the components tin (Sn), lead
(Pb) and bismuth (Bi) in the zinc alloy for steel S355J2 has lead to the
equivalent plastic strains εpl,c [%] as given in fig. 7-9. It demonstrates that:
1. Sn is the relevant constituent that gives the steepest gradient
2. classes of equal resistance can be established, e.g. for

class 1 Sn < 0.1%
class 2 0.1 % < Sn < 0.3%
class 3 0.3 % < Sn
with increasing aggressiveness.
3. the contents of Pb and Bi should be limited by Pb < 0.9%, Bi < 0.08%

and Pb + 10 Bi < 1.2%.
(6) The dependency of exposure time is indicated in fig. 7-9.
225
Fig. 7-9: Influence of interaction of Sn, Pb and Bi on equivalent plastic strain
resistance
Fig. 7-10: Equivalent plastic strain resistance of different zinc alloys depending
on exposure time
(7) A side effect of the testing procedure is that the coefficient αt for the heat
transfer from the zinc bath to the steel specimen required to calculate the
heating time from the temperature of the steel component before dipping to
the temperature of the zinc bath can also be experimentally determined.
(8) Fig. 7-11 gives a comparison of the temperature-time curve as measured

during dipping and as calculated with a numerical model using αt.
226
Fig. 7-11: Comparison of the time histories of temperature of a specimen as
measured and as calculated
7.3 Equivalent plastic strain requirements from the steel components

7.3.1 General
(1) Equivalent plastic strain requirements result from an accumulation of strains

due to
1. Time history of fabrication

2. Time history of heating process during dipping, if the heating process is
relevant for cracking
3. Time history of the exposure in the zinc bath, if the time effect is
relevant for cracking.
(2) Fig. 7-12 shows the dipping procedure versus time and fig. 7-13 gives an
example of the temperature distributions over a selected cross-section
resulting in residual strain distributions that are laid over the residual strain
distribution of the component from fabrication.
Fig. 7-12: Time history of dipping for a mass particle of the structural
component
227
Fig. 7-13: Time history of temperature for a cross-section of a structural
component
(3) The residual strains that arise from the temperature distribution are shown in
fig. 7-14.
Fig. 7-14: Residual strain increments from temperature distributions
Fig. 7-15 demonstrates an example of the time history of equivalent plastic

strain from fabrication (t = 0), superimposed with strains from the heating with
time variant temperature distributions until full heating is achieved (without any
temperature gradient). The full equivalent plastic strain accumulation process
including stress relief by the exposure to the zinc bath heat is relevant for the
strain requirement at a certain time.
228
Fig. 7-15: Example of a time history of equivalent plastic strain requirements
(4) Fig. 7-16 gives an example for how various zinc alloys give different equivalent
strain-time histories. This is due to the fact that the heat transition coefficient
varies with the composition of the alloy. With increasing heat transition
coefficient the maximum values of the occurring strain increases also.
Fig. 7-16: Effect of different zinc-alloys with different heat-transition coefficients

at on temperature- and equivalent strain-histories
229
Fig. 7-17: Cases a) and b) for the limit state assessment
(5) Fig. 7-17 demonstrates the principle of the limit state assessment for two zinc
alloys of different aggressiveness:
case a: For a highly aggressive zinc alloy (e.g. zinc class 3), the peak
value of the time history of strain requirement reached during the
dipping process is relevant for cracking. Cracks may occur during
the submerging of the structural component into the zinc bath
and appropriate measures to reduce the risk are related to
reducing the peak value by preheating or reducing the required
time for full submergence.
case b: For moderate or low aggressive zinc alloys (e.g. zinc class 1),
the exposure time in the zinc bath leading to a reduction of strain
resistance is relevant for cracking, and appropriate measures to
reduce the risk are related to reducing the exposure time by
reducing the thickness of plates and the differences in
thicknesses of plates.
(6) In the following paragraphs, the basic characteristic for modelling the limit
state case a) and the limit state case b) are explained.
7.3.2 Assessment for the limit state case a)
7.3.2.1 Reference model for the dipping process
(1) In order to obtain a simple reference model for the dipping process, a
rectangular plate with the plate thickness s and the depth h is assumed to be
dipped with the velocity v into the liquid zinc bath. The plate is supposed to be
without residual stresses or strains, fig. 7-18.
230
Fig. 7-18: Reference model for the dipping process
(2) The reference model is used for the following purposes:
1. to calculate the time tαt of a particular plate element, see fig. 7-18, to
heat up from the preheating temperature Tv to the melting temperature
of pure zinc Ta = 419 °C.
In this calculation, the heat conductivity in the plate is neglected. The

heat transfer coefficient αt is taken as the actual effective value for the
zinc alloy in question, which may be determined according to 7.2.3 (7),
see fig. 7-11.
2. to determine the time-history of instationary residual stresses and

strains caused by strains ε* from temperature differences from dipping
with different velocities v to identify the time tσ when the maximum of
residual stresses and strains occurs.
3. to use the pseudo-limit state criterion based on the assumption that in

the beginning of the heating up phase the zinc freezes at the “cold”
surface of the steel component and hence reduces the corrosion effect
of the zinc alloy until the steel component has adopted the temperature
of the zinc bath (cracking of the frozen zinc layer is not considered).
Based on this assumption, the limit state is defined by the requirement

that the time interval tσ for attaining the maximum of the time history of
residual stresses should be longer than the heating up time tαt:
tσ - tαt ≥ 0 (7-3)
tσ
≥1 (7-4)
t αt
4. to link the simplified limit state equation (7-4) to the actual limit state as
indicated as case a) in fig. 7-17 by adaption factors kc that are used, as
explained in section 7.3.2.3.
7.3.2.2 Determination of the reference time tαt
(1) The calculation of the reference time tαt in fig. 7-18 is based on the following
assumptions:
231
1. The heat-transfer between the zinc-bath and the steel plate is constant
with time:
dT
Cρ V = α t A (Ta − T ) (7-5)
dt
where
C is the specific heat capacity of the plate

ρ is the specific mass
V is the volume of the plate
T is the temperature of the plate
t is the time
αt is the effective heat transfer coefficient for the zinc alloy
A is the surface of the plate
Ta is the melting temperature of pure zinc (419 °C)
TBath is the melting temperature of the zinc alloy.
2. The first zinc coat freezes on the plate surface and prohibits further
access of aggressive constituents of the zinc alloy to the steel surface,
thus protecting the steel from cracking. Any cracking of the first zinc
coat is not considered.
232
(2) Equation (7-5) leads to
CVρ dT
dt = ⋅ (7-6)
Aα t Ta − T
which gives
C ⋅ s ⋅ ρ Ta dT C⋅s⋅ρ T − TBath
t αt = ∫ = ln v (7-7)
2α t Tv Ta − T 2α t 419 − TBath
(3) For the example of a plate with
s = 0.01
TBath = 450 °C
Tv = 50 °C
αt = 6000 W/m² K
C = 600 J/kg K
ρ = 7,800 kg/m²
the temperature-time curve is given in fig. 7-19.
Fig. 7-19: Examples for a temperature-time curve
(4) Indicative values for effective coefficients of heat transfer are given in table 7-2
for zinc alloy classes as defined in 7.2.3(5).
Weight proportion of zinc alloy Effective

heat
Zinc alloy Sum of other transfer
class Sn Pb + 10 Bi Ni Al elements
coefficient
(without Zn)
αt,eff
3000
1 Sn ≤ 0,1% 1,5 % < 0,1% < 0,1% < 0,1%
W/m2K
6000
2 0,1% < Sn ≤ 0,3% 1,5 % < 0,1% < 0,1% < 0,1%
W/m2K
15000
3 Sn > 0,3% 1,3 % < 0,1% < 0,1% < 0,1%
W/m2K
Table 7-2: Effective coefficients of heat transfer
233
7.3.2.3 Pseudo-limit state equation for the reference model
(1) The pseudo-limit state equation for the reference model in fig. 7-18 reads:
h C⋅s⋅ρ Tv − TBath
− ln ≤0 (7-8)
v 2α t 419°C − TBath
or
C⋅s⋅ρ⋅ V Tv − TBath
ln ≤1 (7-9)
2α t h 419°C − TBath
(2) For the example of a plate with h = 0.50 m, s = 0.01 m without residual
stresses and strains, the time histories of stresses during the submerging
process are given in fig. 7-20 for various dipping velocities.
Fig. 7-20: Time histories of residual stresses for various dipping velocities
(3) In fig. 7-20 the pseudo-limit state is reached for a velocity v = 3.5 m/min.
(4) The conditions for the attainment of the pseudo-limit state are presented in fig.
7-21.
234
engineering model verification model
tσ h ⋅ 2α t 1 t h ⋅ 2α t 1
= ⋅ ≤1 k c ⋅ σ = kc ⋅ ⋅ ≤1
tαt C ⋅ s ⋅ ρ ⋅ v ln Tv − Tbath tαt C ⋅ s ⋅ ρ ⋅ v ln Tv − Tbath
419° − Tbath 419° − Tbath
Fig. 7-21: Conditions for the attainment of the pseudo-limit state
7.3.2.4 Adaption factor kc
(1) To adapt the limit state equation (7-9) derived for the reference model to
realistic limit state conditions, the definition of tαt is modified, see fig. 7-21:
t αt
αt =
t real (7-10)
kc
where kc is the adaption factor.
(2) The factor kc is composed of
kc = kdetail · kweld · ksurface · kcoldform · kpreheat
where
kdetail represents the structural detailing

kweld represents the weld thickness
ksurface represents the surface roughness
kcoldform represents the effects of prestraining by cold forming
kpreheat represents the effects of Tv in addition to its effect in the limit
state formula.
(3) The factor kdetail has the most important effect. Fig. 7-22 demonstrates how the
time interval for reaching the realistic limit state case a) in fig. 7-17 is
correlated to the pseudo-limit state in fig. 7-21.
235
Fig. 7-22: Determination of t real
αt and t αt to determine kc
(4) According to fig. 7-22, the determination of kc needs to calculate the equivalent
plastic strain requirements ε E of structural components with different details
and process conditions.
(5) In fig. 7-23, examples for equivalent plastic strain requirements ε E are given
for
ν = 0.25 m/min
αt = 15,000 W/m²
Tv = 50 °C
TBath = 450 °C
236
Fig. 7-23: Examples of equivalent plastic strain requirements for various
details.
(6) The associated equivalent plastic strain resistances for the various zinc alloy
classes are given in table 7-3.
Weight proportion of zinc alloy Plastic

Zinc alloy Sum of other strain
class Sn Pb + 10 Bi Ni Al elements resistance
(without Zn) εR,ref
1 Sn ≤ 0,1% 1,5 % < 0,1% < 0,1% < 0,1% 12%
2 0,1% < Sn ≤ 0,3% 1,5 % < 0,1% < 0,1% < 0,1% 6%
3 Sn > 0,3% 1,3 % < 0,1% < 0,1% < 0,1% 2%
*) Pre-condition: salt content of flux ≥ 450 g/l and iron content in flux < 10g/l
Table 7-3: Equivalent plastic strain resistances
(7) A comparison of fig. 7-23 with table 7-3 shows that for zinc alloy class 3, many
details frequently used in practice should not be used for zinc coating.
7.3.2.4 Conclusions for limit state assessment for case a)
(1) The limit state verification for case a) is based on the formula
h ⋅ 2α t 1
kc ⋅ ≤1 (7-11)
C⋅s⋅ρ⋅v Tv − TBath
ln
419° − TBath
where
kc = kdetail · kweld · ksurface · kcoldform · kpreheat.
237
(2) This formula is applicable to the following parameters:
1. α t -values according to the zinc alloy classes in table 7-2

2. kdetail-classes according to table 7-4
class of structural
εE Detail kkonst
detail
Profiles without attachment parts, constant
section, no constructive notches
All rolled sections: I, IPE, HEA, HEB. HEM
Welded sections taking into account the
thickness ratio
I ≤2% 1,0
tmax / tmin ≤ 2,0
Profiles with attachment parts, constant section,
constructive notches in terms of attachments
taking into account the thickness ratio
tmax / tmin ≤ 2,0
Profiles with attachment parts, constant section,
constructive notches in terms of attachments
taking into account the thickness ratio
II ≤6% tmax / tmin > 2,0 2,0
drillings
nodes of lattice girders
hollow sections with connection plates
Profiles with constructive notches
III ≤12% 5,0
at the free end of a beam
Table 7-4: Classification of structural details and kdetail-values
3. Other ki-values may be taken form table 7-5.
Adjustment coefficient k
a < 5mm 1,00

Weld thickness 5mm < a ≤ 12mm 1,25
12mm < a 1,50
Surface roughness
Quality level 4 1,00
according to EN ISO
Quality level 1-3 1,20
9013, table 5
εpl < 1% 1,00
Cold forming 1% < εpl < 5% 1,10
5% < εpl < 20% 1,25
Preheating effects on TV ≤ 50 °C 1,00

yield strenght 50 °C < < 200 °C 1,10 – Tv / 400
Table 7-5: Classification of weld, surface, cold forming- & preheating effects.
238
7.3.3 Assessment for the limit state case b)
7.3.3.1 General
(1) Case b) of limit states according to fig. 7-17 leads to the critical time ts, when
the degradation of strain resistance in the zinc bath has attained the residual
strain requirement, see fig. 7-24.
Fig. 7-24: Determination of ts for the limit state case b)
(2) The verification is carried out in terms of equivalent plastic strains
ε Es ≤ ε Rs (7-12)
7.3.3.2 Equivalent plastic strain requirements ε Es
(1) The main cause of equivalent plastic strain requirements εEs is fabrication, e.g.
by rolling, cold forming and welding and the liquid zinc bath.
(2) The values of these equivalent plastic strains are correlated with the thickness
s of steel products and give a function for εEs depending on plate thickness s
and the process time of the steel material in the liquid zinc bath as indicated in
fig. 7-25.
239
Fig. 7-25: Relationship between εEs and s and dipping time ts.
7.3.3.3 Equivalent plastic strain resistance ε Rs
(1) For the decrease of equivalent plastic strain resistance with the time, the
function given in fig. 7-26 can be used.
Fig. 7-26: Decrease of strain resistance of steel in the zinc bath
(2) The parameters have been determined from deformation-controlled LNT-tests,

where the strain ε is proportional to the load-line displacement δ, see fig. 7-27
∂ε
using different strain rates ε& = .
∂t
240
Fig. 7-27: Relation of time, load-line deformation and strain at notch tip for
deformation controlled LNT-tests
(3) Fig. 7-28 shows a matrix with variation of the composition of the zinc-alloy on
the vertical axis and the applied strain rate ε& on the horizontal axis.
Fig. 7-28: Dependence of the LNT-test results on the zinc alloy and the strain
rate
From test results it can be seen that, while holding the composition of the zinc
alloy constant, a decrease of the strain rate from test to test leads to lower
strain resistances. For constant strain rates the strain resistance decreases
with increasing content of low melting alloying elements (e.g. tin).
(4) Some results of the variation of the composition of the zinc-melt for ε& = const
and of the variation of the strain rate ε& in case of constant composition of the
zinc-melt are given in fig. 7-29.
241
Fig. 7-29: Decrease of strain resistance of steel in the zinc bath
(5) The function in fig. 7-26 is based on the following assumptions:
1. The reference value ε Rs,ref is the value, determined with the LNT-test
according to section 7.2 with the typical strain rate
⎡ 1⎤
ε& = 5 ⋅ 10 − 4 ⎢ ⎥ (7-13)
⎣s⎦
⎡ 1⎤
2. To transfer the results of the LNT-test to the case ε& = 0 ⎢ ⎥ a
⎣s⎦
relationship between the integral
⎡ ε (t ) ⎤
ln ⎢ ∫ Rs dt ⎥ (7-14)
⎣ ε Rs,ref
*
⎦
where ε Rs
*
,ref is
ε Rs
*
,ref = 60 ⋅ ε R ,ref (7-15)
and the strain rate ε& according to fig. 7-30, which has been determined
from evaluations of tests, see fig. 7-6 and fig. 7-7, is used
242
Fig. 7-30: Correlation related to ε&
3. From fig. 7-30 the pairs of values
⎡ ε (t ) ⎤
ln ⎢ ∫ Rs dt ⎥ = 2,5 and ε& = 5 ⋅ 10 − 4
⎣ ε Rs,ref
*
⎦
and
⎡ ε (t ) ⎤
ln ⎢ ∫ Rs dt ⎥ = 5,0 and ε& = 0 (7-16)
ε *
⎣ Rs,ref ⎦
can be determined.
4. From (7-16) follows
ε (t )dt
ε R ( ts )
∫ = e5 (7-17)
0 ε R ,ref
*
And from fig. 7-27 with assumption of a linear function follows

ε R ( ts )
ε (t ) ε (ts )
∫ dt ≈ 0,5 * R
⋅t (7-18)
0 ε R,ref
*
ε R,ref s
so that in conclusion the dipping time ts reads:
ε R* ,ref
[s ] = 5 ⋅ ε R,ref [min]
*
ts = 2 ⋅ 148 ⋅ (7-19)
ε R (t s ) ε R (ts )
243
7.3.3.4 Limit state assessment for case b)
(1) In the ultimate limit state of cracking the requirement εE according to fig. 7-25
and the resistance εR(ts) according to equation (7-19) are equal, and the
critical dipping time ts for various zinc alloy classes and equivalent plastic
strains can be determined, as given in fig. 7-31.
Zinc class
Strain
requirement 1 2 3
εES
εR,ref = 12 % εR,ref = 6 % εR,ref = 2 %
0,5 % 120 min. 60 min. 20 min.
1,0 % 60 min. 30 min. 10 min.
1,5 % 40 min. 20 min. 6,7 min.
2,0 % 30 min. 15 min. 5 min.
Fig. 7-31: Critical dipping time ts for various zinc alloy classes and strain
requirements (εRef = ε*/60)
(2) It is evident from fig. 7-31 that for zinc alloy class 1 all time values for dipping
are within safe limits, whereas zinc alloy classes 2 and 3 require restrictions of
dipping time and hence of plate thicknesses.
7.3.4 Conclusions for standardisation
(1) The limit state procedure to avoid cracking from liquid metal embrittlement
requires cooperation between the designer and the zinc coating expert, as
both structural detailing and the zinc coating-process influence the limit state.
(2) The flow chart giving the influence of structural detailing and of the zinc
coating process is given in fig. 7-32.
244
Structural assessment to avoid cracking during galvanizing
Construction Hot dip galvanizing
Maximum plate thickness Structural detail

Zinc class 1
Requirement class k1
Standard cases Zinc class Zinc class 2
Zinc class 3
Weld thickness ks
Preheating temperature Tv
Parameters different
Surface roughness kO
from the standard cases Process parameters Dipping speed v
Cold forming ku
Holding time ts
Verification
Dipping process Holding time
tσ h ⋅ 2α t 1
kc ⋅ = kc ⋅ ⋅ ≤1 ts (min ) ⋅ ε ES
tα t C ⋅ s ⋅ ρ ⋅ v ln Tv − Tbath ≤ 1,0
5 ⋅ ε Rref
419° − Tbath
LNT- Test
αt(T,t), εR,ref(t)
Fig. 7-32: Flow chart for the structural assessment to avoid cracking from
liquid metal embrittlement
(3) As the assessment procedure so far cannot be controlled in view of its actual
reliability, structural members after zinc coating should be checked anyway in
view of cracks.
7.4 Testing of structural elements that are zinc coated for cracks
(1) Non Destructive Testing should be performed with the MT-procedure, taking
into account:
1. The reduced sensitivity for coating thicknesses tz ≥ 50 μm (see EN

1290, Annex 1)
2. The reduced accessibility at the corners of web, flange and plates.
(2) Therefore, the procedure should be modified with regard to the magnetic
specific flow and magnetic field potential, the testing system and the powder
suspension.
245
7.5 Bibliography
[1] Feldmann M., Pinger T., Tschickardt D.: Cracking in large steel structures
during hot dip galvanizing. Intergalva 2006, Neapel (Engels: Naples) 2006.
[2] Katzung W., Schulz W.-D.: Beitrag zum Feuerverzinken von
Stahlkonstruktionen - Ursachen und Lösungsvorschläge zum Problem der
Rissbildung. Stahlbau 74 (2005), S. 258-273.
[3] Sedlacek, G. et al.: Zur sicheren Anwendung feuerverzinkter Träger. Stahlbau
73 (2004), S. 427 – 437.
[4] Bleck W., Mansfeld A., Dilthey U., Gräb T., Sedlacek G., Feldmann M.,
Stangenberg H., Grotmann D., Langenberg P.: Pilotstudie zum sicheren
Einsatz des hochfesten Stahls S460 in stückverzinktem Zustand in
geschweißten Konstruktionen; P 504, Studiengesellschaft für Stahlanwendung
e.V., Düsseldorf 2002, nicht veröffentlicht.
[5] Forschungsvorhaben „Vermeidung von Rissen beim Feuerverzinken von
großen Stahlkonstruktionen mit hochfesten Stählen“. AiF-
Forschungsvorhaben 14545 N71 gefördert von dem Gemeinschaftsausschuss
Verzinken e.V. (GAV) im Rahmen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller
Forschungsvereinigungen „Otto von Guericke“ e.V. (AiF). Forschungsstellen:
Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau und Leichtmetallbau und Institut für Eisenhüttenkunde,
RWTH Aachen.
[6] Herbsleb, G; Schwenk, W.: Untersuchungen zur Lötbrüchigkeit von
hochlegierten Stählen. Werkstoffe und Korrosion 28 (1977), S. 145-153.
[7] Poag, G.; Zervoudis, J.: Influence of various parameters on steel cracking
during galvanizing. AGA Tech Forum, Kansas City, 2003.
[8] Pankert, R., Dhaussy, D., Beguin, P. and Gilles, M.: Drei Jahre industrielle
Erfahung mit GALVECO® Legierung. GAV Forschungskolloquium
Feuerverzinken, Wiesbaden, 2003.
[9] Kikuchi, M.: Liquid metal embrittlement of steels by molten zinc, Koyoto,
Japan: Proceedings of the 23rd Japanese Congress on Material Research,
1980.
[10] Kikuchi, M.: Study on fracture mechanisms of liquid metal embrittlement
cracking of steels in molten zinc, Proceedings of the 24th Japanese Congress
on Material Research, 1981.
[11] Klemens, D., Kaszàs, S.: Untersuchung der Spannungsrisskorrosion von
Baustählen in flüssigem Zink. Werkstoffe und Korrosion 43(1992), 561-564.
[12] Klemens, D.: Inbetriebnahme von Verzinkungskesseln, Spannungen im
Kesselmaterial und Rissgefährdung durch unterschiedliche Zinkschmelzen.
Gemeinschaftsausschuss Verzinken e.V. Düsseldorf, Vortrags- und
Diskussionsveranstaltung GAV 1983.
246
[13] Schulz, W.-D., Schubert, P.: Zum Einfluss der Topographie der
Stahloberfläche auf Fehler beim Stückgut-Feuerverzinken, Mat.-wiss. Und
Werkstofftechnik 22 (2002), 128-131.
[14] Richter, F.: Die wichtigsten physikalischen Eigenschaften von 52
Eisenwerkstoffen. Stahleisen-Sonderberichte, Heft 8, Verlag Stahleisen mbH,
Düsseldorf, 1973.
[15] Richter, F.: Physikalische Eigenschaften von Stählen und ihre
Temperaturabhängigkeit, polynome und graphische Darstellungen.
Stahleisen-Sonderberichte, Heft 10, Verlag Stahleisen mbH, 1983.
[16] Nürnberger, U.; Menzel, K.: „Rissbildung beim Feuerverzinken von Feinkorn-
baustählen“, Abschlussbericht in der Forschungs- und Materialprüfungsanstalt
Baden-Württemberg, 1998
[17] Pargeter, R.: Liquid metal penetration during hot dip galvanizing,
http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/unprotected/pdfs/ksrjp003.pdf (2003)
[18] Abe, H. et al.: Study of HAZ Cracking of Hot-Dip Galvanizing Steel Bridges
(IIW-Doc. IX-1795-94). International Institute of Welding, Paris, 1994.
[19] Feldmann M., Bleck W., Langenberg P., Pinger T., Tschickardt D., Völling A.,
Ermittlung der Rissanfälligkeit beim Stückverzinken, MP Materials Testing 49 –
5 2007
[20] Feldmann M., Pinger T., Tschickardt D., Bleck W., Völling A., Langenberg P.:
Analyse der Einflüsse auf die Rissbildung infolge Flüssigmetallversprödung
beim Feuerverzinken, Stahlbau 77 (2008)
[21] Feldmann M., Pinger T., Tschickardt D. Langenberg P., v. Richthofen A.
Karduck P., Rissbildung durch Flüssigmetallversprödung beim
Feuerverzinken, Stahlbaukalender 2008
[22] Pinger, T.: Zur Vermeidung von Flüssigmetallversprödung beim
Feuerverzinken von Stahlkonstruktionen, Diss. RWTH Aachen 2008.
247
European Commission
EUR 23510 EN – Joint Research Centre
Title: Commentary and Worked Examples to EN 1993-1-10 “Material Toughness and

Through Thickness Properties“ and Other Toughness Oriented Rules in EN 1993
Author(s): G. Sedlacek, M. Feldmann, B. Kühn, D. Tschickardt, S. Höhler, C. Müller,

W. Hensen, N. Stranghöner, W. Dahl, P. Langenberg, S. Münstermann,
J. Brozetti, J. Raoul, R. Pope, F. Bijlaard
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2008 – 247 pp. – 21x 29.7 cm
EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593
Abstract
This commentary gives explanations and worked examples to the design rules in Eurocode 3
that are influenced by the strength and toughness properties of the structural steels used. It is
a commentary and background document to EN 1993-1-10 “Material toughness and through
thickness properties” and its extension in EN 1993-1-12 “Design rules for high-strength
steels”, where toughness properties are explicitly addressed.
It however provides also background to other parts of EN 1993, e.g. to EN 1993-1-1 “Design
of steel structures – Basic rules and rules for buildings”, where the design rules are related
only to strength properties as the yield strength and the tensile strength without explicitly
mentioning the role of toughness that is hidden behind the resistance formulae. Finally it gives
some comments to chapter 6 of EN 1998-1: “Design of structures for earthquake resistance –
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings”.
The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the
conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the
European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for
the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member
States, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national.
The European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) is the federation of the
National Associations of Steelwork industries and covers a worldwide network of Industrial
Companies, Universities and Research Institutes.

Eur 23510 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eur 23510 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eur 23510 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

f

COMMENTARY AND WORKED EXAMPLES

Background documents in support to the implementation, harmonization and

Editors: M. Géradin, A. Pinto and S. Dimova

First Edition, September 2008

EUR 23510 EN - 2008

Background documents in support to the implementation, harmonization and

Editors: M. Géradin, A. Pinto and S. Dimova

First Edition, September 2008

EUR 23510 EN - 2008

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

© European Communities, 2008

- reports from research projects funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

- results of expertises for practical applications of the methods mentioned in the

All these valuable contributions from pre-normative and co-normative research

Aachen, September 2008

The EN Eurocodes are a series of European standards which provide a common

Collecting and providing access to the background documents is essential to the

In its various parts, EN 1993 – Eurocode 3 currently addresses steel properties

Aachen, Delft and Ispra, September 2008

Michel Géradin, Artur Pinto and Silvia Dimova

6.5 Numerical simulation of crack growth 216

1. General guidance through the commentary and summary

(2) It is therefore a commentary and background document to EN 1993-1-10

(3) Finally it gives some comments to chapter 6 of EN 1998-1: “Design of

1.2 Section 2: Commentary and background of EN 1993-1-10, section 2:

(2) Structural steels are designated according to their application, mechanical

(3) The selection of steels normally is related to the following performance

1. Strength requirements, e.g. related to the characteristic values of the

2. Applicability to fabrication, e.g. weldability (controlled by the chemical

3. Applicability for different temperatures, e.g. with regard to strength- and

4. Resistance to corrosion, e.g. steels with normal corrosion resistance

5. Special properties, as e.g. wearing resistance or magnetic properties.

(4) EN 1993-1-10 section 2 addresses the steel selection of ferritic structural

Table 1-1: Yield strength fy depending on T and ε& [1]

Fig. 1.3: Load-deflection curves of prefabricated components in tests at

(8) An explicit toughness-oriented verification has been carried out as a

(1) The two-way safety assessments for steel-structures, i.e.:

ensure appropriate safety of steel structures in the full temperature range of

(3) The toughness assessment behind section 2 of EN 1993-1-10 is based on an

(4) A prerequisite of the strength-oriented and toughness-oriented design rules in

1.3. Section 3: Commentary and background of EN 1993-1-10, section 3:

(1) Section 3 of this commentary relates to section 3 of EN 1993-1-10: Selection

(1) Section 4 gives complementary non conflicting informations to section 2 of EN

(2) These application rules apply to

- Assessment of residual safety and service life of old riveted structures

(6) The assessment method presented is based on the conservative assumption

1.4.3 Choice of material for welded connections in buildings

(1) As EN 1993-1-10, section 2 has been developed for structures subjected to

(3) These assumptions are:

- a structural detailing not classified in EN 1993-1-9

1.5 Section 5: Other toughness-related rules in EN 1993

(1) Section 5 of this commentary refers to the influence of toughness on the

1.6 Section 6: Finite element methods for determining fracture resistances in

1. the strength-controlled approach represented by the resistance

c) upper shelf region: relevant material properties: JR-curve (J-Δa)

a) the performance of steel coupon tests,

(3) Table 1-2 gives a survey on consequences of damage theory on the

The parameters of the GTN-model are determined for the material in