This document provides an overview of Eurocode 3 (EC3) for steel structure design compared to the British Standard BS5950. It discusses the current status of EC3, terminology differences, changes in symbols and values, potential pitfalls, and examples of designing beams, compression members, and lateral-torsional buckling. Key points include:
- EC3 terminology is more consistent and logical across materials than BS5950 terminology.
- Symbols, values like Young's modulus, and load factors have some changes between the standards.
- EC3 is split across multiple documents while BS5950 was in one.
- Design of elements like beams, compression members, and buckling is generally similar but with some
This document provides an overview of Eurocode 3 (EC3) for steel structure design compared to the British Standard BS5950. It discusses the current status of EC3, terminology differences, changes in symbols and values, potential pitfalls, and examples of designing beams, compression members, and lateral-torsional buckling. Key points include:
- EC3 terminology is more consistent and logical across materials than BS5950 terminology.
- Symbols, values like Young's modulus, and load factors have some changes between the standards.
- EC3 is split across multiple documents while BS5950 was in one.
- Design of elements like beams, compression members, and buckling is generally similar but with some
This document provides an overview of Eurocode 3 (EC3) for steel structure design compared to the British Standard BS5950. It discusses the current status of EC3, terminology differences, changes in symbols and values, potential pitfalls, and examples of designing beams, compression members, and lateral-torsional buckling. Key points include:
- EC3 terminology is more consistent and logical across materials than BS5950 terminology.
- Symbols, values like Young's modulus, and load factors have some changes between the standards.
- EC3 is split across multiple documents while BS5950 was in one.
- Design of elements like beams, compression members, and buckling is generally similar but with some
This document provides an overview of Eurocode 3 (EC3) for steel structure design compared to the British Standard BS5950. It discusses the current status of EC3, terminology differences, changes in symbols and values, potential pitfalls, and examples of designing beams, compression members, and lateral-torsional buckling. Key points include:
- EC3 terminology is more consistent and logical across materials than BS5950 terminology.
- Symbols, values like Young's modulus, and load factors have some changes between the standards.
- EC3 is split across multiple documents while BS5950 was in one.
- Design of elements like beams, compression members, and buckling is generally similar but with some
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 22
Eurocode 3 for Dummies The Opportunities and Traps
a brief guide on element design to EC3
Tim McCarthy Email tim.mccarthy@umist.ac.uk
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
Slides available on the web
http://www2.umist.ac.uk/construction/staff/ mccarthy/index.htm Follow the link from my home page From 21 March 2003
21/03/2003
Overview Eurocode 3 n n
Current status Coverage Major and minor differences with BS5950 Beams, Struts
Pitfalls n
Element Design n
Capacity comparisons 21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
EC3 Current Status
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
E-SCI News March 2003
21/03/2003
Eurocode terminilogy EN EuroNorm n
mandatory standard You can use it if you wish
ENV EuroNorm Voluntaire
n
DD Draft for development DC Draft for public comment prEN
n
PrePre-EuroNorm between DD and EN
Manchester Centre for Civil
21/03/2003
& Construction Engineering
EC3 Current Published Status
DD ENV 19931993-1-1:1992 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. General rules and rules for buildings (together with United Kingdom National Application Document) DD ENV 19931993-1-2:2001 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. General rules. Structural fire design (together with United Kingdom National Application Document) DD ENV 19931993-1-3:2001 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. General rules. Supplementary rules for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting 21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
Other ECs Published Status
prEN 19941994-1-1:2002 Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1 General rules and rules for buildings. Stage 49 Examination Document DD ENV 19981998-3:1997 Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Towers, masts and chimneys
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
Potential pitfalls Terminology n
Restricted vocabulary More logical symbol name conventions Lots of subscripts Young Youngs Modulus etc Need to consult more than one part
Change in symbols n
Changes in values n
Multiple documents n
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
Terminology BS5950 Force Capacity n
EC3 Action Resistance
n
Mc py
Mc,Rd fy
Design strength n
Yield strength n
Dead load Live load Wind load
Permanent load Variable load Another variable load
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
10
Terminalogy BS5950 in wonderland Words evolved over time Inconsistent at times No link with concrete structural codes EC3 Vocabulary consistent with meaning Consistent across all Eurocodes Easy to translate
Major axis is y-y Vertical axis is z-z X direction is along the member This is consistent with most FE and Frame analysis software EC3 Definitions
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
14
BS Section classification = (275/py)0.5
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
15
prEN1993 Classification Different outstand Different = (235/fy)0.5
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
16
Multiple documents The DD ENV 1993:11993:1-1 contained all the information in one 300 page document. It also contained the National Application Document prEN1993prEN1993-1-1 Contains member and frame design but omits fasteners prEN1993 must be read in conjunction with the UK National Annex 21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
17
Element Design Beams n n n
Moment capacity/resistance Shear Deflections
x
Compression members z Lateral Torsional Buckling u
y
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
Engineering & Construction
18
Moment Resistance BS5950 Class 1 and 2 n M = p S c y Class 3 semi-compact n M = p Z or c y Mc = pySeff Class 4 slender n M = p Z c y eff Low shear n F < 60 % P v v 21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
EC3 Class 1 and 2 n M c,Rd = fy W pl /M1 n M1 = 1.05 in UK Class 3 n M c,Rd = fy W el,min /M1 Class 4 n M c,Rd = fy W eff,min /M1 Low shear n V Ed < 50% VplRd & Construction Engineering 19
Shear Resistance BS5950 Pv = 0.6 py Av Shear area n
EC3 Vpl,Rd = Av (fy/ 3)/M1 Shear area
n n
Av = tD
Av = A 2btf +(tw+2r)tf Approx = 1.04tD hw/tw > 72
Shear buckling if n
d/t > 70
Shear buckling if n
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
20
Deflections BS5950 Serviceability LS n n n
EC3 ? EN1990 Serviceability LS
n n n
Imposed load only Span/360 - brittle Span/200 - generally
Permanent action, 1 Variable action, 2 PrePre-camber, 0 max < L/ 250 2 < L / 350 brittle 2 < L / 300 generally
n n n
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
21
Deflections BS5950 Serviceability LS n n n
EC3 ? EN1990 Serviceability LS
n n n
Imposed load only Span/360 - brittle Span/200 - generally
Permanent action, 1 Variable action, 2 PrePre-camber, 0 max < L/ 250 2 < L / 350 brittle 2 < L / 300 generally
n n
max = 1 + 2 - 0 1 2 0 max
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
22
Compression Members Pc = Ag pc from Tables 23 and 24 pc is a function of BS5950 requires a large number of tables Nb,Rd= A fy/M1 is a reduction factor depends on n
Example UC 203x203x60 of grade S275 is axially loaded and pinned at each end of its 6m length. A = 76.4 cm cm, flange thickness, tf = 14.2mm, radius of gyration about minor axis, izz = 5.2 cm, depth, h = 209.6mm, width b = 205.8 h/b= h/b= 1.01 => H section Table 3.1: tf = 14.2mm < 40mm therefore fy=275N/mm fy=275N/mm for S275 grade E = 210000 N/mm N/mm Slenderness - zz= zz= 600/5.2 = 115 <180 OK a=1.0, implies 1=(E/fy)0.5 = 86.8 ( zz/ 1) a0.5= 115/86.8 = 1.324
21/03/2003
26
0.38
1.32
21/03/2003
27
Example UC 203x203x60 of grade S275 is axially loaded and pinned at each end of its 6m length. Figure 6.3 factor, = 0.38 NbRd = 0.38*1.0*76.4*10 0.38*1.0*76.4*10*275/1.05 = 760kN BS5950 786kN
21/03/2003
28
But EC loads are typically 5% lower than BS Scaling the capacity by this figure gives: EC3 = 760/0.95 = 800 kN EC3 stronger than BS at 786 kN
21/03/2003
29
LTB BS5950:2000 and Mx Mb/mLT Mb = pb modulus pb from LT LT = uvW Class 1 & 2: W = 1.0 Class 1 & 2: Mb = pbSx 21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
Mx Mcx
& Construction Engineering
30
LTB BS5950:2000 Mx Mb/mLT and Mb = pb modulus pb from LT LT = uvW Mb = pbSx Mx Mcx
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
31
BS 5959 Table 18 mLT
When = 0 mLT = 0.6
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
32
BS5950 - mLT for UDL
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
33
pb from Table 16
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
34
1.0 For UB, UC
EC3 LTB
Same approach as for Compression
M b .Rd = LT wW pl . y f y / M 1
? LT
LT + LT LT 2
2 0 ,5
1.05
2 LT = 0,51+ LT (LT 0.2) + LT
21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
35
EC3 LTB 2 LT = 0,51+ LT ( LT 0.2) + LT LT = 0,34 for rolled UCsections LT = 0,49 for rolled UB sections The non-dimensional slenderness
W ply.fy
LT = M pl .Rd / M cr
M cr = C1
2 EI z L2
I w L2GI t + I z 2 EI z
Where C1 results from the bending moment diagram
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
36
EC3 LTB Moment factor, C1 loaded between restraints
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
37
EC3 LTB Moment factor, C1, due to end moments
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
38
Same curves as before!
M b .Rd = LT wW pl . y f y / M 1
21/03/2003
Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
39
Example Uniform moment unbraced length 3m UB 610x229x140 S275 BS Mb = 1100 kNm EC3 MbRd = 960kNm For comparison scale by 1/0.95 n
MbRd scaled = 1010 kNm < than BS
21/03/2003
40
Summary of LTB BS5950 splits calculations between strength and equivalent moment EC3 combines equivalent moment and section properties to give a reduction factor EC3 uses EXACT same buckling curves for LTB and Strut buckling EC3 look awful but is easily programmed in a spreadsheet 21/03/2003 Manchester Centre for Civil
& Construction Engineering
41
Conclusions Eurocodes are not that difficult They are just a little different Rationalises terminology across materials and countries The EFTA region is 10 times bigger than UK Eurocodes are not going to go away this time 21/03/2003 42
Questions?? 1.
How quickly will the take up be in the UK? Ans: Ans: It should be quicker than the switch from BS449 to 5950 was since both EC3 and BS5950 are limit states codes. EC3 will become mandatory. What does EC3 say about effective lengths? Ans: Ans: The EC3 guidance is not as helpful as BS5950 Table 22. EC3 gives the general approach for effective lengths in frames which results in the same values as Table 22
2.
21/03/2003
43
Questions?? 1.
How is Europe progressing with using EC3? Ans: Ans: The German speaking countries have already adopted the DDENV as a DIN. Benelux countries are well advanced. The rest are planning the implementation. What Whats in EC3 about sway, lambda crit etc? Ans: Ans: There is a lengthy section in the prEN on frame stability. On initial viewing, this looks very like the BS5950:2000 approach. See Section 5 of the prEN for the full details
