Eurobuild Portal Frame Design Comparison

Eurobuild in Steel
Comparison of the Design of a Portal Frame

EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAME EUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
CONTENTS:
1 INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
2 COMPARISON OF THE DESIGNS ...................................................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 FRANCE............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 GERMANY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 SWEDEN............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 UNITED KINGDOM ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3 FRANCE: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO CM66 .........................................................................................................................13

3.1 CROSS-SECTIONAL PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 CHECK, IF EFFECTS OF DEFORMED SHAPE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED (2ND ORDER EFFECTS) ............................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 INTERNAL FORCES ACC. TO 1ST ORDER THEORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.4 CLASSIFICATION OF CROSS-SECTIONS (LOCAL BUCKLING CHECK) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.6 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
4 GERMANY: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO DIN 18800.............................................................................................................27

5 SWEDEN: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BSK99 .......................................................................................................................38

PAGE 2 OF 98

6 U.K.: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BS 5950-1 ...........................................................................................................................50

6.1 FRAME GEOMETRY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
6.2 LOADING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51
6.3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
6.4 CALCULATE, αCR, FOR STABILITY............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 54
6.5 COLUMN DESIGN: IPE 600 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
6.6 RAFTER DESIGN: IPE 400 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67
6.7 HAUNCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
ANNEX A: CHARACTERISTIC VALUES OF INTERNAL FORCES ...............................................................................................................................95

ANNEX B: PLASTIC FAILURE OF PORTAL FRAME.......................................................................................................................................................96
PAGE 3 OF 98
1 Introduction:
The typical structure of a single-storey hall in most countries in Europe is the portal frame. This document provides a comparison of the
calculation methods acc. to Eurocode 3 (EN 1993-1-1) and the national standard of the respective country.
The calculation is performed for a typical portal frame structure in Europe as shown in Figure 1. The frame uses hot rolled I-sections of steel
grade S235 for the rafter and columns. Frame span is 30m and eaves height 5m, which are typical dimensions for small and medium sized
industrial halls in Europe. Haunches are used for the eaves by providing additional hot-rolled sections welded onto the bottom flange of the
rafter. The eaves connection as well as the apex is typically bolted and assumed rigid for this example, so that effects of rotations in the
connections do not have to be taken into account. Column bases are pinned as no increased horizontal stiffness, e.g. for cranes, has to be
provided.
Figure 1: Sketch of the treated portal frame structure
PAGE 4 OF 98
Frame spacing is 5.0m, which allows the profile sheeting to span between the frames directly. For this case in this example it is assumed that
the sheeting provides sufficient stiffness to avoid lateral torsional buckling of the rafter section. In addition to that the bottom flange of the
haunch is assumed lateral restrained. Alternatively in the U.K. calculation rafters are provided to show the effect of single lateral and torsional
restraints on lateral torsional buckling of the frame.
In the following Figure 2 the load scheme as well as the characteristic loads is shown. The resulting internal forces are given in the respective
chapters for the individual countries.
Figure 2: Load scheme and characteristic loads
In all European countries covered by the project, except the U.K., for single-storey portal frames usually elastic design for the actions is
performed, and then compared to the plastic resistances of the sections, where allowed by the section classes. Therefore ANNEX A provides
the internal forces, determined elastically for the unfactored loads, separated by the individual load cases.
Due to the current practice in the U.K. a plastic method of global analysis of EN 1993-1-1 is compared to the national code. For this calculation
method ANNEX B describes the design for plastic failure of portal frames in general.
The left column in the tables below contains the calculation according to Eurocode 3, whereas in the right column the respective national
standard is covered. Where possible, the structure of the calculation is kept similar for both designs, i.e. the calculation is divided into the
same subchapters for both standards. For the used equations and values references to the respective chapter in EN 1993-1-1 and the
respective national code are given.
PAGE 5 OF 98
This ensures a quick comparison of the calculation procedure for the portal frame, so that similarities and differences can be found out at first
sight.
2 Comparison of the designs

This chapter summarises the main similarities and/or differences in the design of portal frames according to EN1993-1-1 and the respective
national standard. For detailed comparison see relevant chapter in the design tables below.
2.1 FRANCE
General issues:
CM66 "Constructions Métalliques – 1966" is quite an old code drafted in the mid-60's. It follows the admissible stress design approach
and does not inform for plastic design. In 1980 "Additif 80" was published with limited guidance for plastic design, both on the plastic
analysis and members check aspect. In that time it was considered as a very first step to plastic design. Additif 80 introduces plastic
inches, the ULS and SLS approach in design.
The use of both codes conducts to hybrid design situations, not fully admissible stress and not fully plastic approach. The code takes
count of this situation and gives guidance to check in both situation from point to point. Usually the designer makes his decision before
starting to design "CM66, pure elastic design" or "CM66 + Additif 80", plastic design with corrective factors on formula originally set for
elastic design.
Safety factors: CM66 set safety factors on the loads. They are quite the same as Eurocode. There are NO safety factors on material.
When needed as for example for buckling phenomenon's, safety factor are directly introduced in the formula but not really showed as.
Load combinations: Load combinations are not the same than Eurocode. Loads are weighted depending of the combinations.
Design of members:
Structural analysis: In additive 80 the second effect order is taken in count with a critical factor. The control is made by comparison
between the loaded situation and the situation when the collapse occurs. A "distance factor" is required. Formula of additive 80 and
Eurocode show differences but the final results appear to be in a relative close range.
PAGE 6 OF 98
Buckling: When checking buckling with interaction between forces, Additif 80 uses k factors which are always greater than 1, increasing
the influence of the related force. It appears in calculation with Eurocode that k factors lower than 1, decreasing the effect of the related
force are accepted (see § 5.1.2.4.). Additif 80 always require k>1.0. χ factors are not concerned by this remark.
Buckling length: There is an important gap of interpretation in clause 3.5.1.2.1 of Eurocode between European countries. In France we
still use the approach as expressed in the ENV and NAD document version of Eurocode 3. The following approach is used: When αcr is
greater than 10, the buckling length may be limited to the real geometrical length of the element.
Buckling check: Additif 80 allows to consider a pinned column base with a rigidity factor of 0.05 (0.00 if purely pinned) taking into
account a relative limited restrain at the considered base (a joint is never absolutely pinned) and at the opposite consideration a purely
fixed base with a rigidity factor of 0.95 (purely fixed would be 1.00).
Section class: There is no section class in CM66 but from clause to clause the code gives provisions to limit the slenderness ratio of the
elements or make the step to design accounting for local buckling check. Specific limits are given for the slenderness ratio: as an
b 235
< 42
tf σe
example, section webs for plastic check are limited as: . If this condition is not met, local buckling check shall be made.
CM66 + additive 80 provide a direct calculation method for Ncr for longitudinal and transversal buckling and Mcr for lateral torsional
buckling. In the current draft of Eurocode3 there is no direct provision on this calculation.
Design of joints and constructive issues:
All joint designs are quite different and there is too much to say in a short description.
SLS: CM66 requires complying with vertical deflexion limits. It does not require complying with horizontal displacement limits. The
current drafts of Eurocodes do not require any limits. For Eurocode, provisions should be introduced in the national annex or in the
tender document.
2.2 GERMANY
General issues:
Generally almost the same design of portal frames, differences only in details.
Nearly comparable amount of effort in design of portal frames.
Almost the same usage of terms and symbols, only slight differences in indices.
PAGE 7 OF 98
Same semi-probabilistic safety-concept as DIN 18800, only load combinations in EN 1993-1-1 are more detailed.
Safety factor on material reduced from γM = 1.1 in DIN 18800 to γMi = 1.0 in EN 1993-1-1 (general part) currently, but National Annex not
available yet.
Design of members:
Basically the same design procedure, small differences in details.
Both give the opportunity to use detailed calculations for the structure, e.g. 2nd order effects, as well as simplified methods. The more
detailed the methods, the more effort in design.
EN 1993-1-1 provides another method for the interaction between shear and axial stress of members, which leads to ultimate loads
being significantly higher.
Design of joints and constructive issues:
Basically the same design procedure for bolted and welded joints, small differences in equations.
EN 1993-1-8 provides a design method for structural bolted joints using custom dimensions and gives the normative possibility of
considering the effect of semi-rigid joints on the global structure.
Both, DIN18800 and EN1993-1-1, provide similar constructive specifications for the consideration of sheeting and or purlins for lateral
torsional buckling.
2.3 SWEDEN
EN 1993-1-1 contains much more detailed information and more complete rules for design of steel structures than BSK.
The technical content in EN 1993-1-1 is quite similar to that of BSK. They are based on the same semi-probabilistic safety-concept and the
differences are mainly in details.
The safety factor in EN 1993 is moved from the resistance to the loads compared to BSK. The Swedish design method includes safety
classes and this will be retained when we apply the Eurocodes. In the lowest safety class, applicable for members that are unlikely to
harm people if failing, the design loads are reduced with a factor 0,83.
The classification of cross-sections is extended to four instead of three classes in BSK. The Swedish Class 2 is split into two classes,
Class 2 and 3 in EN 1993-1-1.
PAGE 8 OF 98
There is one additional buckling curve in EN 1993-1-1 that is valid for high-strength steel. The other curves are the same except for very
slender bars where EN 1993-1-1 gives 10 % higher values.
For axial force and bending moment EN 1993-1-1 gives two different possibilities where Method 1 is chosen in the Swedish National
Annex. The calculations needed are extensive compared to BSK, and sometimes it is easier to include second order effects to avoid
this interaction.
For lateral torsional buckling the differences in buckling curves are insignificant with the choice done in the Swedish NA..
Small differences in the use of terms and symbols.
2.4 UNITED KINGDOM
Plastic analysis assumes that plastic hinges occur at points in the frame where the value of the applied moment is equal to the plastic
moment capacity of the member provided. Failure is deemed to have taken place when sufficient hinges have formed to create a
mechanism.
‘Plastic’ design produces the lightest and hence the most economical form for a portal frame when using hot rolled sections.
In the UK, single storey portals frames are almost always designed using ‘plastic’ design techniques.
For ‘plastic’ designed portal frames in order to prevent local buckling, it is essential that Class 1 plastic sections are selected at hinge
positions that rotate, Class 2 compact sections can be used elsewhere.
‘Plastic’ design methods result in relatively slender frames and checking frame stability is a basic requirement of the method. Both in-
plane and out-of-plane stability of both the frame as a whole and the individual members must be considered.
In addition, it is essential that local buckling and lateral distortion are also checked, because of the large strains at the hinge positions.
Onset of plasticity normally occurs at loads well above those at the serviceability limit state and the plastic rotations are small.
The effect of axial load on the classification of members should be considered. However, in many members, the axial force is so small
compared with the bending moment that the classification is not affected.
Haunches provide for an economical bolted connection between the rafter and the column. However, haunches should be designed
(i.e. proportioned) to prevent plastic hinges forming within their length.
Purlins and side rails are used to provide intermediate lateral restraint to the rafters and columns and support the roofing and wall
sheeting.
PAGE 9 OF 98
Structural cladding or decking (cladding that spans between frames and where no purlins or side rails are present) is not typically used
in the UK. This is because for ‘plastic’ design, structural cladding on its own cannot provide torsional restraint to the frame members.
Extra restraint steel has to be provided to the bottom/inner flange of the rafter/column, thereby increasing costs.
Elastic design is a common design method in all countries. However, ‘plastic’ design may be accepted with reluctance and with onerous
requirements for stability or for analysis methods, e.g. second-order analysis only.
‘Elastic’ design is used in the UK where deflection is the governing criteria.
‘Elastic’ design is recommended for the design of tied portal frames.
Design of a portal frame can be undertaken using BS 5950 by elastic or ‘plastic’ design techniques.
For plastic design of portal frames using EC3-1-1 the following procedure is suggested. More detailed information can be obtained from
SCI Publication P164 Design of steel portal frames for Europe Chapter 17 Design procedures.
1. Define frame geometry, determine loads, load combinations, γ factors and ψ factors.
2. Choose trial sections and trial haunch lengths by selecting beam sections that have resistances at least equal to the following:
Rafter Mpl = wL2/24 Haunch Mpl = wL2/10
Column Mpl = wL2/12 x (height to bottom of haunch / height to centre of rafter)
where w is the maximum ULS gravity load/unit length along the span and L is the span of the portal.
The haunch length should be chosen to optimise the overall portal structure. A length of L / 10 from the column face is a
reasonable initial choice, but the proportions of the haunch generally depend of the characteristics of each individual building,
especially the size of the rafter. A haunch length of L / 10 will normally place the first hinge in the top of the column. A rather
longer haunch will place the first hinge at the sharp end of the haunch.
3. Calculate frame imperfection equivalent forces. This can be by a preliminary frame analysis (which is necessary for all but the
simplest buildings) or by a suitable approximation.
4. Perform plastic analysis of the frame assuming:
PAGE 10 OF 98
a.) No reduction in plastic moment of resistance from coexistent axial and shear forces. This approach may need modifying,
where axial loads are high, e.g. in tied portals, in portals with steep slopes and in portals with heavy roofing loads.
b.) A trial value of VSd / Vcr  = 0,12 unless a better estimate is possible.
Note that in uplift cases, the members might be subject to axial tension. In this case, there will be no destabilisation of the
frame and VSd / Vcr can be taken as zero.
5. Calculate an accurate value of VSd / Vcr.
6. If (accurate VSd / Vcr) > (trial VSd / Vcr) or if a more refined design is required, return to Step 4.
Note: For relatively slender frames, it is often wise to check the deflections at the serviceability limit state (SLS), before checking
the buckling resistance.
7. For the columns check that:
a.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate.
b.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate.
c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate.
d.) Resistance of member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate.
8. For the rafters check that:
a.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate.
b.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate.
c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate.
d.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate.
9. For the haunches check that:
a.) The classification is Class 1 or Class 2 as appropriate,
b.) The cross sectional resistance is adequate, as step 7b above, but checking at several cross sections within the length of
the haunch (both ends, quarter, mid-span and three quarter points) is recommended.
PAGE 11 OF 98
c.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between lateral restraints is adequate, but giving special attention to
the effect of the taper.
d.) The resistance of the member to minor axis buckling between torsional restraints is adequate, but giving special attention
to the effect of the taper.
10. Check web buckling resistance to shear and transverse forces.
11. Check the connections.
12. Check the restraints.
A summary of the ‘plastic’ design procedure using British Standard BS 5950 Part 1 : 2000 is given annexed to the British calculation in § 6 .
More detailed information can be obtained from SCI Publication P325 Introduction to Steelwork Design to BS 5950-1:2000 Chapter 12
Plastic design of portal frames.
PAGE 12 OF 98
3 France: Calculation procedure compared to CM66

EN 1993-1-1 Règles CM66 + Additif 80
3.1 Cross-sectional properties
3.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σe = 235N/mm²

b = 220mm; h = 600mm; tf = 19mm; tw = 12mm; r = 24mm b = 220mm; h = 600mm; tf = 19mm; tw = 12mm; r = 24mm
4 4
A = 156cm² ; Iy = 92080cm ; Iz = 3390cm ; Wpl,y = 3520cm³ A = 156cm² ; Ix = 92080cm4 ; Iy = 3390cm4 ; Zx = 3520cm³
Iω = 2846000cm6; IT = 165cm4 J = 165cm4
fy
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 3666 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) N p = Aeff ⋅ σ e = 3666 kN (Add.80 § 4.2)
γ M0
fy Aw = 562 × 12 = 6744
Vpl,z,Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 1137 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
3 ⋅ γ M0 Vpy = 0,58 × A w × σ e = 0,58 × 6744 × 235 / 1000 = 919kN (Add.80 § 4.4)
fy
Mpl, y,Rd = Wpl, y ⋅ = 827,2 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) M p = Zσ e = 3520 × 235 / 1000 = 827,20kNm (Add.80 § 4.3)
γ M0
3.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σe = 235 N/mm2

b = 180mm; h = 400mm; tf = 13,5mm; tw = 8,6mm; r = 21mm b = 180mm; h = 400mm; tf = 13,5mm; tw = 8,6mm; r = 21mm
4 4 4 4
A = 84,5cm² ; Iy = 23130cm ; Iz = 1320cm ; Wpl,y = 1308cm³ A = 84,5cm² ; Ix = 23130cm ; Iy = 1320cm ; Zx = 1308cm³
6
Iω = 490000cm ; IT = 51,1cm
4
J = 51,1cm4
fy
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 1985,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) N p = Aeff ⋅ σ e = 8450 × 235 / 1000 = 1985,80kN (Add.80 § 4.2)
γ M0
fy Aw = 373 × 8,6 = 3208mm 2
Vpl,z,Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 579,7 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
3 ⋅ γ M0 V py = 0,58 Awσ e = 0,58 × 3208 × 235 / 1000 = 437 kN (Add.80 § 4.4)
PAGE 13 OF 98
fy
Mpl, y,Rd = Wpl, y ⋅ = 307,4 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) M px = Z x ⋅ σ e = 1308 × 235 / 1000 = 307,40 kNm (Add.80 § 4.3)
γ M0
3.1.3 Eaves haunch: IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σe = 235N/mm²

b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; tf = 13,5(16)mm; tw = 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm b = 180(200)mm; h = 820mm; tf = 13,5(16)mm; tw = 8,6(10,2)mm; r = 21mm
4 4
A = 159,6cm² ; Iy = 134868cm ; Iz = 2390cm ; Wpl,y = 3920,7cm³ A = 159,6cm² ; Ix = 134868cm4 ; Iy = 2390cm4 ; Zx = 3920,7cm³
Iω = 2694000cm6; IT = 101,7cm4 J = 101,7cm4
fy
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 3750,6 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) N p = Aeff ⋅ σ e = 15960 × 235 / 1000 = 3750,6 kN (Add.80 § 4.2)
γ M0
fy Aw = Aw, IPE 400 + Aw, IPE 500 = 3208 + 4774 = 7982mm 2
Vpl,z,Rd = 579,7 + A w,IPE500 ⋅ = 1277,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3))
3 ⋅ γ M0 V py = 0,58 × Aw × σ e = 0,58 × 7982 × 235 / 1000 = 1088kN (Add.80 § 4.4)
fy
Mpl,y,Rd = Wpl,y ⋅ = 921,4 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) M px = Z x ⋅ σ e = 3920,70 × 235 / 1000 = 921,40kNm (Add.80 § 4.3)
γ M0
3.2 Check, if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2nd order effects)
Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames Second order effects do not have to be considered if:
with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied: αcr > 5 ( Add.80. § 7)
H   h  1
α cr =  Ed  ⋅   ≤ 15 ( for plastic analysis) (EC3, 5.2.1 (4)) αp ≥
 
 VEd   δH,Ed  1
1−
With HEd = design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads α cr
VEd = total design vertical loads
with αcr = force amplification factor for elastic critical buckling
δH,Ed = horizontal displacement at the eave due to all horizontal loads
αp = force amplification factor for collapse mechanism
h = storey height
αcr = 10,79 > 5 (determined by computer analysis)
 32,0   6000 
α cr = ⋅  = 25,9 ≥ 15 → First order analysis sufficient 3 αp min = 1,39 > 1
=
1
= 1,102 (determined at the top of column)
 270,4   27,4 
1 1
1− 1−
α cr 10,79
→ First order analysis sufficient
PAGE 14 OF 98
3.3 Internal forces acc. to 1st order theory
Loading combinations: (Add.80 § 3.41)
Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A:

LC 1: 1,33 ⋅ Edeadload + 1,5 ⋅ Esnow DECISIVE !
LC 1: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p LC 2: 1,33 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind

LC 2: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p LC 3: 1,33 ⋅ Edeadload + 1,42 × 0,5 ⋅ Esnow + 1,42 ⋅ Ewind
LC 3: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + 1,5 ⋅ 0,6 ⋅ E wind + E Im p
LC 4: 1 ⋅ Edeadload + 1,67 ⋅ Esnow
LC 4: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind + 1,5 ⋅ 0,5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p
LC 5: 1 ⋅ Edeadload + 1,75 ⋅ Ewind
LC 1 is decisive because of the relieving effect of the wind undertow on the roof.
LC 6: 1 ⋅ Edeadload + 1,67 × 0,5 ⋅ Esnow + 1,75 ⋅ Ewind
PAGE 15 OF 98
3.4 Classification of cross-sections (local buckling check)
3.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Non plate buckling conditions? (Add.80 § 5.1)

c/t = (220/2-12/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
235
Compressed flange: b/tf = 220/19 = 11,58 < 20 = 20 OK
σe
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547 Partially or totally compressed Web?
c/t = (600-2⋅19-2⋅24) / 12 = 42,83 If: (with N > 0 for traction)
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,547-1) = 64,8 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) Aw 6744 N − 134,19 A 6744
− 0,75 = −0,75 × = −0,32 ≤ = = −0,037 ≤ w = = 0,43
A 15600 Np 3666 A 15600
hw  100 A N  235
⇒ = 46,8 ≤  67 + = 64,18 OK
tw  3 Aw N p  σ e

3.4.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Non plate buckling conditions? (Add.80 § 5.1)

(180/2-8,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
235
Compressed flange b/tf = 180/13,5 = 13,33 < 20 = 20 OK
σe
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585 Partially or totally compressed Web:
c/t = (400-2⋅13,5-2⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,5 If: (with N > 0 for traction)
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,585-1) = 60,0 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) Aw 3208 N − 108 A 3208
− 0,75 = −0,75 × = −0,28 ≤ = = −0,054 ≤ w = = 0,38
A 8450 N p 1985,8 A 8450
hw  100 A N  235
⇒ = 43,4 ≤  67 + = 62,2 OK
tw  3 Aw N p  σ e

Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above) Flange: element in compression (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
PAGE 16 OF 98
(200/2-10,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)

235
b/tf = 200/16 = 12,5 < 20 = 20 OK (Add.80 § 5.1)
σe
Web: IPE 400-part: in tension Web:
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) Aw 7982 N − 111,5 A 7982
− 0,75 = −0,75 × = −0,38 ≤ = = −0,030 ≤ w = = 0,50
c/t = (420-16-21) / 10,2 = 37,5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3, table 5.2) A 15960 N p 3750,60 A 15960
Section for eaves haunch is class 2-section, therefore the internal forces have to be
 
determined elastically, but plastic resistances can be activated. ⇒ hw = 468 = 45,9 ≤  67 + 100 A N  235 = 65 OK
tw 10,2  3 Aw N p  σ e

3.5 Ultimate limit states
3.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)
3.5.1.1 Resistance of cross-section
3.5.1.1.1 Check for shear force
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 101,1kN Check if the shear force shall also be included in the checking for axial force and
Check for shear buckling: bending moment?
hw 514 ε 1
= = 42,8 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 12 η 1
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd

Vz,Ed 101,1
Vpl,z,Rd
=
1137,0
= 0,089 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))
3.5.1.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment
Internal forces: |NEd| = 135,5kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces:

Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3)) |Vy| = 99,1 kN ; |N| = 125,5 kN ; |Mx| = 594,25 kNm
PAGE 17 OF 98
NEd 125,5 Vy N 99,1 124,35

=
Npl,Rd 3666,0
= 0,034 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) If : 0≤ + 0,2 × = + 0,2 × = 0,115 < 0,6 (Add.80 § 4.61)
V py N p 919 3666
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y N 124,35
Check < 0,25 and | NEd | < = 850,7 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4)) And 0≤ = = 0,034 < 0,18
γ M0 Np 3666
→ no interaction between N and My 3 ⇒ Mx = 594,25 kNm ≤ Mpx = 827,20 kNm
M y,Ed 606,8
Mpl,y,Rd
=
827,2
= 0,734 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
3.5.1.2 Buckling resistance of member
3.5.1.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about y-axis)
Flexural buckling length: Lcr,y = 37,08m (determinable by literature) Flexural buckling length:
2
π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 From computer analysis (with αcr = 10,79):
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr,y = = 1388,0 kN
3708 2 ⇒ LKx = 36,41 m (close from Eurocode results)
Hand checking using the proposed method of CM66 “Rigidity factor KAKB method"
3666,0
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1,625 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
1388,0 1,6 + 2,4 K A
LKx = L (CM 66 § 5.134)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2) KA
Reduction value: χy = 0,324 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) (Considering that the columns are pinned at their bases: ⇒ KB = 0)
 Ib 
∑  L  23130
771
KA =  b A
= 30 = = 0,048
 Ib   Ic  23130 92080 771 + 15347
∑  L  + ∑  L  30
+
6
 b A  c A
1,6 + 2,4 × 0,048
LKx = L = 5,98L = 35,87m
0,048
Additive 80 of CM66 allows to considered that the base of column is not perfectly
pinned: ⇒ KB = 0,05
PAGE 18 OF 98
1,35 + 1,92 K A
LKx = L (Add.80 § 5.33)
0,04 + K A
1,35 + 1,92 × 0,048
LKx = L = 4,048L = 24,29m
0,04 + 0,048
To keep comparison with National Standard, we use the buckling length determined
by the computer analysis
LKx 36410
λx = = = 149,84 (Add.80 § 5.31)
ix 243
λx σ e 149,84 235
⇒ λx = = × = 1,595
π E π 210000
3.5.1.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about z-axis)
Flexural buckling length: Lcr,z = 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings) Flexural buckling length: Lcr,z = 6,00m (lateral restraints at endings)
2
π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 LKy 6000
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr,z = 2
= 1951,7 kN λy = = = 128,76 (Add.80 § 5.31)
600 iy 46,6
3666,0 λ y σ e 128,76
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ z = = 1,371 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) 235
1951,7 ⇒ λy = = × = 1,371
π E π 210000
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve b (EC3, table 6.2) 2
Reduction value: χz = 0,395 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) 2λ
k0 =
2 2 2
1 + α (λ − 0,2) + λ − (1 + α (λ − 0,2) + λ ) 2 − 4λ
Table B gives values for I sections
λ max = λx = 1,595 ⇒ k0 = 3,25
3.5.1.2.3 Lateral torsional buckling
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV1993-1-1, Annex F: Elastic critical moment
PAGE 19 OF 98
1
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z  I ω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T  2 π 2 ⋅ EI y h* JG  2 LD 
2
M cr = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2  = 1431,8 kNm (ENV 1993-1-1, Annex F, 1.3 (3)) M D = C1 ⋅ ⋅ ς+   (Add.80 § 5.22)

L2  I z π ⋅ E ⋅ I z 
2 LD
2
EI y  πh* 
827,2 LD = 6,00 m
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ LT = = 0,76 (EC3, 6.3.2.2 (1))
1431,8 ς = 1 (I section)
Rolled section → chapter 6.3.2.3 applicable (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1)) C1 = 1,88 (triangular moment diagram)
Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c (EC3, table 6.5) h* = H - tf = 600 – 19 = 581 mm
Reduction value: χLT = 0,789 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1)) π 2 ⋅ 210000 × 3390.10 4 × 581 165.10 4 × 81000  2 × 6000 
2
M D = 1,88 ⋅ ⋅ 1+   .1 / 10
6
χ LT 0,789 2 × 6000 2 210000 × 3390.10 4  π × 581 
Modified reduction value χ LT,mod = = = 0,901 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (2))
f 0,876
M D = 1434kNm
3.5.1.2.4 Interaction for compression force and bending
Internal forces: |NEd| = 135,5kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces: |N| = 134,2 kN, |Mx| = 594,25 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with double-symmetric section N k fx M x
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) k0 + ≤1 (Add.80 § 5.32)
N p k D M px
Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B
Equivalent uniform moment values: Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) Cmx
k fx = (Add.80 § 5.32)
Cm,LT = 0,6 (EC3, Annex B, table B.3) 2 N
1− λx
Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.2 Np

(
k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2

)
NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 

= 1,046 > Cmy 1 + 0,8

NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 
= 0,982
Cmx = 1 (sway portal frame)
  N 134,2
= = 0,037
    N p 3666
0,1 ⋅ λ z NEd 0,1 NEd
k zy = 1 −  = 0,963 < 1 −  = 0,973
 ( C − 0 ,25 ) χ z ⋅ N pl,Rd
  ( C − 0,25 ) χ z ⋅ N pl,Rd
 λ x = 1,595
 m,LT   m,LT 
→ kyy = 0,982; kzy = 0,973 (EC3, Annex B, table B.2) 1
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))
k fx = = 1,104
1 − 1,5952 × 0,037
NEd My,Ed
χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k yy ⋅
χLT,mod ⋅ Mpl,y,Rd
= 0,114 + 0,800 = 0,914 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
PAGE 20 OF 98
NEd M y,Ed 1
χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k zy ⋅
χ LT,mod ⋅ Mpl,y,Rd
= 0,094 + 0,792 = 0,886 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.62)) kD =
n
(Add.80 § 5.22)
M 
n 1 +  p 
 MD 
n = 2 (hot rolled section)
1
kD = = 0,866
2
 827,20 
2 1+  
 1434 
N k fx M x 1,104 594,25
k0 + = 3,25 × 0,037 + × = 1,036 ≅ 1 (Add.80 § 5.32)
N p k D M px 0,866 827,20
3.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
3.5.2.1 Resistance of cross section
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 80,1kN Check if the shear force shall be included in the checking for axial force and
Check for shear buckling: bending moment.
hw 331 ε 1
= = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 8,6 η 1

Vz,Ed 80,1
Vpl,z,Rd
=
579,7
= 0,138 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))

Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3)) |Vy| = 79,2 kN ; |N| = 107,87 kN ; |Mx| = 208 kNm
PAGE 21 OF 98
NEd 108,7 Vy
=
Npl,Rd 1985,8
= 0,055 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) If : 0≤ + 0,2 ×
N
=
79,2
+ 0,2 ×
107,87
= 0,192 < 0,6 (Add.80 § 4.61)
V py N p 437 1985,80
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y N 107,87
γ M0 N p 1985,80
→ no interaction between N and My 3 ⇒ Mx = 208 kNm ≤ Mpx = 307,40 kNm
M y,Ed 216,6
Mpl,y,Rd
=
307,4
= 0,705 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Ncr,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis) Flexural buckling length:
1985,8 For the determination of the buckling length along xx, a buckling analysis is
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1,336 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) performed to calculate the buckling amplification factor αcr for the load
1117,7
combination giving the highest vertical load, with a lateral restrain at top of
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2) column:
Reduction value: χy = 0,451 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) ⇒ Ncr,x = 3250 kN (from computer analysis)
⇒ LKx = 12,14m
LKx 12140
λx = = = 73,40 (Add.80 § 5.31)
ix 165,5
λx σ e 73,40 235
λx = = × = 0,781
π E π 210000
3.5.2.2.2 Out of plane flexural buckling (about z-axis) and lateral torsional buckling
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides For this example it is assumed, that the roof is made of profile sheeting providing
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 1993-1-1 provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. (cf. check with EN 1993-1-1)
formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2.
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χz = χLT = 1,0)
PAGE 22 OF 98
Internal forces: |NSd| = 108,7kN, |My,Sd| = 216,6 kNm Internal forces:

No second order analysis, uniform member with double-symmetric section |Vy| = 79,2 kN ; |N| = 107,87 kN ; |Mx| = 208 kNm
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) 2
2λ
Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3) k0 = (Add.80 § 5.31)
2 2 2
Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1 1 + α (λ − 0,2) + λ − (1 + α (λ − 0,2) + λ ) 2 − 4λ

(
k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2

) NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 

= 1,024 > Cmy 1 + 0,8

NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 
= 0,987
Table B gives values for I sections
  λ max = λx = 0,781 ⇒ k0 = 1,35
→ kyy = 0,987; kzy = 0 (no out of plane failure)
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4)) N k fx M x
k0 + ≤1
NEd My,Ed N p k D M px
χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k yy ⋅
= 0,123 + 0,695 = 0,818 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
Cmx (Add.80 § 5.32)
k fx =
N 2
1− λ x
Np
Cmx = 1 (sway portal frame)
N 107,87
= = 0,054
N p 1985,80
λ x = 0,781
1
k fx = = 1,034
1 − 0,7812 × 0,054
kD = 1 (Add.80 § 5.22)
N k fx M x 1,034 208
k0 + = 1,35 × 0,054 + × = 0,771 < 1 OK (Add.80 § 5.32)
N p k D M px 1 307,4
3.5.3 Eaves haunch IPE 400 & haunched IPE 500 (S235)
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 114,5kN Check if the shear force shall be included in checking for axial force and bending
PAGE 23 OF 98
Check for shear buckling: moment.

hw 331 ε 1
= = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (IPE 400) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 8,6 η 1
hw 383 ε 1
= = 37,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (haunched IPE 500) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 10,2 η 1

Vz,Ed 114,5
Vpl,z,Rd
=
1277,8
= 0,090 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))

Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3)) |Vy| = 113,24 kN ; |N| = 111,46 kN ; |Mx| = 594,25 kNm
NEd 112,3 Vy
=
Npl,Rd 3750,6
= 0,030 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) If : 0≤ + 0,2 ×
N 113,24
= + 0,2 ×
111,46
= 0,11 < 0,6 (Add.80 § 4.61)
V py Np 1088 3750,60
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y N 111,46
γ M0 N p 3750,60
→ no interaction between N and My 3 ⇒ Mx = 594,25 kNm ≤ Mpx = 921,40 kNm
M y,Ed 606,8
Mpl,y,Rd
=
921,4
= 0,659 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: For the verification of the haunch, the compressed part of the cross-section is
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400. considered isolated composed of the compressed flange and 1/6 of the web with a
buckling length along the yy-axis equal to 3,70m (length between the top of column
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
and the end of haunch with a torsional restraint).
For lateral torsional buckling of the haunch, where the lower flange is in
compression, for this example it is assumed, that lateral restraints are provided.
PAGE 24 OF 98
130 mm
x
200 mm
Properties of the compressed part:
Section at the mid-length of the haunch including 1/6th of the web depth
Section area A = 45 cm2
Second moment of area /xx Ix = 693 cm4
Second moment of area /yy Iy =1068 cm4
⇒ iz = 1068 = 4,87cm
45
L fz 3700
λy = = = 75,98 (Add.80 § 5.31)
iy 48,7
λx σ e 75,98 235
λx = = × = 0,809
π E π 210000
k0 = 1,54 Table C (T section) (Add.80 § 5.31)
Compression in the bottom flange:
4500 594250 × 1000
N f = 111,46 × + × 4500 = 713,50kN
15960 3920,7.103 × 1000
Verification of buckling resistance of the bottom flange:
N Ed , f 713500
k0 = 1,54 × = 1,039 ≅ 1 (Add.80 § 5.31)
N Rk 4500 × 235
PAGE 25 OF 98
3.6 Serviceability limit states
3.6.1 Vertical deflection
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uz = 132mm Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uy = 132 mm
PrEN 1993-1-1 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements. CM66 requires max. uy < L/200 for roofs in general.
ENV 1993-1-1 (1993) gives max. uz < L/200 for roofs in general. (ENV, table 4.1) ( Additif 80 § 6.1 and CM66 § 5.25)
132mm = L/227 < L/200 3 uy = 132 mm = L/227 < L/200
3.6.2 Horizontal deflection
Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19,9mm Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19,9 mm
PrEN 1993-1-1 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements. CM66 do not requires any limits for horizontal displacements
ENV 1993-1-1 (1993) gives max. uz < H/300 for single-storey buildings (ENV, 4.2.2 (4)) ENV 1993-1-1 DAN requires max. ux < H/150 for portal frame (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
19,9mm = H/302 < H/300 3 ux = 19,9 mm = H/302 < H/150
PAGE 26 OF 98
4 Germany: Calculation procedure compared to DIN 18800

EN 1993-1-1 DIN 18800
4.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) fy,k = 240N/mm²; γM = 1,1

4 4
A = 156cm² ; Iy = 92080cm ; Iz = 3390cm ; Wpl,y = 3520cm³ A = 156cm² ; Iy = 92080cm4 ; Iz = 3390cm4 ; Wpl,y = 3520cm³
Iω = 2846000cm6; IT = 165cm4 CM = 2846000cm6; IT = 165cm4
fy f y,k
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 3666 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) Npl,d = A ⋅ = 3403,6 kN
γ M0 γM
fy f y,k
Vpl,z,Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 1137 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) Vpl,z,d = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 912,0 kN
3 ⋅ γ M0 3 ⋅ γM
fy fy,k
Mpl, y,Rd = Wpl, y ⋅ = 827,2 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) Mpl,y,d = Wpl,y ⋅ = 768,0 kNm
γ M0 γM
4.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)

4 4
A = 84,5cm² ; Iy = 23130cm ; Iz = 1320cm ; Wpl,y = 1308cm³ A = 84,5cm² ; Iy = 23130cm4 ; Iz = 1320cm4 ; Wpl,y = 1308cm³
6 4 6 4
Iω = 490000cm ; IT = 51,1cm Iω = 490000cm ; IT = 51,1cm
fy f y,k
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 1985,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) Npl,d = A ⋅ = 1843,6 kN
γ M0 γM
fy f y,k
Vpl,z,Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 579,7 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) Vpl,z,d = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 452,2 kN
3 ⋅ γ M0 3 ⋅ γM
PAGE 27 OF 98
fy f y,k
Mpl, y,Rd = Wpl, y ⋅ = 307,4 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) Mpl,y,d = Wpl,y ⋅ = 285,4 kNm
γ M0 γM

4 4
A = 159,6cm² ; Iy = 134868cm ; Iz = 2390cm ; Wpl,y = 3920,7cm³ A = 159,6cm² ; Iy = 134868cm4 ; Iz = 2390cm4 ; Wpl,y = 3920,7cm³
Iω = 2694000cm6; IT = 101,7cm4 Iω = 2694000cm6; IT = 101,7cm4
fy f y,k
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 3750,6 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) Npl,d = A ⋅ = 3482,2 kN
γ M0 γM
fy f y,k
Vpl,z,Rd = 579,7 + A w,IPE500 ⋅ = 1277,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) Vpl,z,d = ( A − 2 ⋅ b IPE 400 ⋅ t f ,IPE 400 − b IPE500 ⋅ t f ,IPE500 ) ⋅ = 995,1kN
3 ⋅ γ M0 3 ⋅ γM
fy f y,k
Mpl,y,Rd = Wpl,y ⋅ = 921,4 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) Mpl,y,d = Wpl,y ⋅ = 855,4 kNm
γ M0 γM
4.2 Check, if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2nd order effects)
Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames Second order effects do not have to be considered if either
with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied: N Sd 1
= ≤ 0,1 with ηKi,d = force amplifier for elastic critical buckling
H   h  NKi,d ηKi,d
α cr =  Ed  ⋅   ≤ 15 ( for plastic analysis) (EC3, 5.2.1 (4))
 
 VEd   δH,Ed  (from literature or computer analysis)
With HEd = design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads Npl,d
or λ K,y ≤ 0,3 ⋅ with λ K,y = slenderness for elastic critical buckling
VEd = total design vertical loads N Sd
N Sd
h = storey height or β K ,y ⋅ ε = s K, y ⋅ with sK,y = elastic critical buckling length
(EI y ) d
 32,0   6000 
α cr =  ⋅  = 25,9 ≥ 15 → First order analysis sufficient 3
 270,4   27,4 
N Sd 1 1
NKi,d
= =
ηKi,d 10,44
= 0,096 < 0,1 → First order analysis sufficient 3
PAGE 28 OF 98
Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A: Loading combinations:
LC 1: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p LC 1: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p
LC 2: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p LC 2: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p
LC 3: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + 1,5 ⋅ 0,6 ⋅ E wind + E Im p LC 3: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ 0,9 ⋅ E snow + 1,5 ⋅ 0,9 ⋅ E wind + E Im p
PAGE 29 OF 98
4.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Flange : ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)

c/t = (220/2-12/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) vorh (b/t) = (220/2-12/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → plastic-plastic analysis allowed
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547 Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547
c/t = (600-2⋅19-2⋅24) / 12 = 42,83 vorh (b/t) = (600-2⋅19-2⋅24) / 12 = 42,83 < 32 / α = 58,5
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,547-1) = 64,8 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) → plastic-plastic analysis allowed
4.4.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Flange : ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure)

(180/2-8,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) vorh (b/t) = (180/2-8,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → plastic-plastic analysis allowed
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585 Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585
c/t = (400-2⋅13,5-2⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,5 vorh (b/t) = (400-2⋅13,5-2⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,49 < 32 / α = 54,7
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,585-1) = 60,0 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) → plastic-plastic analysis allowed
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
(200/2-10,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2) vorh (b/t) = (200/2-10,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → plastic-plastic analysis allowed
Web: IPE 400-part: in tension Web: IPE 400-part: in tension
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (420-16-21) / 10,2 = 37,5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3, table 5.2)
Section for eaves haunch is class 2-section, therefore the internal forces have to be
vorh (b/t) = (420-16-21) / 10,2 = 37,5 > 37 / α = 37
determined elastically, but plastic resistances can be activated. Web of haunched IPE 500 is class 3-section, so only elastic cross-section
resistances can be used.
PAGE 30 OF 98
4.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 101,1kN Internal shear force: |Vz,Sd| = 101,1kN
Check for shear buckling: Check for shear buckling:
hw 514 ε 1 b 514
= = 42,8 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (EC3, 6.2.6 (6)) = = 42,8 < 70
tw 12 η 1 t 12
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd → No shear buckling 3→ shear resistance V pl,z,d
Vz,Sd 101,1
Vz,Ed
=
101,1
= 0,089 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1)) = = 0,111 < 1,0 3
Vpl,z,Rd 1137,0 Vpl,z,d 912,0
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2)) Check < 0,33 → no interaction between Vz and My 3
Internal forces: |NEd| = 135,5kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces: |NSd| = 125,5kN, |My,Sd| = 606,8 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3)) Axial force is compression & hole clearance < 1mm→ holes need not be considered
NEd 125,5 N Sd 125,5
=
Npl,Rd 3666,0
= 0,034 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) =
Npl,d 3403,6
= 0,037 < 1,0 3
Check < 0,25 and | NEd | <
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y
= 850,7 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4)) Check < 0,10 → no interaction between N and My 3
γ M0
M y,Sd 606,8
= = 0,790 < 1,0 3
→ no interaction between N and My 3 Mpl,y,d 768,0
M y,Ed 606,8
Mpl,y,Rd
=
827,2
= 0,734 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
PAGE 31 OF 98
Flexural buckling length: Lcr,y = 37,08m (determinable by literature) Flexural buckling length: Lcr,y = 37,08m (determinable by literature)
2
π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080 π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr,y = = 1388,0 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: NKi,y = = 1388,0 kN
3708 2 3708 2
3666,0 3744,0
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1,625 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) Slenderness: λ K,y = = 1,642
1388,0 1388,0
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2) Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t < 40mm → buckling curve a
Reduction value: χy = 0,324 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) Reduction value: κy = 0,318
2
π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390 π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr,z = = 1951,7 kN Elastic critical flexural buckling force: NKi,z = = 1951,7 kN
600 2 600 2
3666,0 3744,0
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ z = = 1,371 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) Slenderness: λ K,z = = 1,385
1951,7 1951,7
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve b (EC3, table 6.2) Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t < 40mm → buckling curve b
Reduction value: χz = 0,395 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) Reduction value: κz = 0,388
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV1993-1-1, Annex F: Elastic critical moment from DIN 18800, Part 2:
1
π 2 ⋅ EI z C M + 0,039 ⋅ L2 ⋅ I T
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z  I ω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T 2 MKi,y = ζ ⋅ ⋅ = 1348,1kNm
M cr = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2  = 1431,8 kNm (ENV 1993-1-1, Annex F, 1.3 (3)) L2 Iz
L2  I z π ⋅ E ⋅ I z 
844,8
827,2 Slenderness: λ M = = 0,792
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ LT = = 0,76 (EC3, 6.3.2.2 (1)) 1348,1
1431,8
Rolled section and moment gradient ψ = 0 < 0,5 → kn = 1,0 → n = 2,5
Rolled section → chapter 6.3.2.3 applicable (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
Reduction value: κM = 0,897
Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c (EC3, table 6.5)
PAGE 32 OF 98
Reduction value: χLT = 0,789 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))

χ LT 0,789
Modified reduction value χ LT,mod = = = 0,901 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (2))
f 0,876
No second order analysis, uniform member with double-symmetric section Uniform member with double-symmetric section, approx. constant axial force
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) and no torsional load → stability check with interaction factors
Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B 1
Values for moment distribution: β m = 1 − = 0,893 > 0,66 ; β M,y = 1,8
Equivalent uniform moment values: Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) ηKi,d
Cm,LT = 0,6 (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
N Sd  N Sd 
Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.2 Coefficient: ∆n = ⋅ 1 −  ⋅ κ y 2 ⋅ λ K,y 2 = 0,030 < 0,1
κ y ⋅ Npl,d  κ y ⋅ N pl,d

 


(
k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2 ) NEd 

χ y ⋅ NRd 

= 1,046 > Cmy 1 + 0,8

NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 
= 0,982
Coefficient: a y = 0,15 ⋅ λ K,z ⋅ β M,y − 0,15 = 0,224 < 0,9
 
 0,1 ⋅ λ z NEd   0,1 NEd  N Sd
k zy = 1 −  = 0,963 < 1 −  = 0,973 Interaction factor: k y = 1− ⋅ a y = 0,977 < 1,0
 (C m,LT − 0,25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd   (C m,LT − 0,25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd  κ z ⋅ Npl,d
   
Check for compression and bending:
→ kyy = 0,982; kzy = 0,973 (EC3, Annex B, table B.2)
N Sd β m ⋅ M y,Sd
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4)) In plane:
κ y ⋅ Npl,d
+⋅
Mpl,y,d
+ ∆n = 0,125 + 0,706 + 0,03 = 0,861 < 1,0 3
NEd My,Ed
χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k yy ⋅
= 0,114 + 0,800 = 0,914 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
N Sd M y,Sd
Out of plane:
κ z ⋅ Npl,d
+ ky ⋅
κ M ⋅ Mpl,y,d
= 0,103 + 0,861 = 0,964 < 1,0 3
NEd M y,Ed
χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k zy ⋅
= 0,094 + 0,792 = 0,886 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.62))
4.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
PAGE 33 OF 98
hw 331 ε 1 b 331
= = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (EC3, 6.2.6 (6)) = = 38,5 < 70
tw 8,6 η 1 t 8,6
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd → No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,d
Vz,Sd 80,1
Vz,Ed
=
80,1
= 0,138 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Vpl,z,d
=
452,2
= 0,177 < 1,0 3
Vpl,z,Rd 579,7
NEd 108,7 N Sd 108,7
=
Npl,Rd 1985,8
= 0,055 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) =
Npl,d 1843,6
= 0,059 < 1,0 3
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y
= 482,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4)) Check < 0,10 → no interaction between N and My 3
γ M0
M y,Sd 216,6
= = 0,759 < 1,0 3
→ no interaction between N and My 3 Mpl,y,d 285,4
M y,Ed 216,6
Mpl,y,Rd
=
307,4
= 0,705 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Ncr,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: NKi,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
1985,8 2028,0
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1,336 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ K,y = = 1,347
1117,7 1117,7
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2) Rolled section; h/b >1,2; t < 40mm → buckling curve a
Reduction value: χy = 0,451 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1)) Reduction value: κy = 0,445
PAGE 34 OF 98
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 1993-1-1 provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. DIN 18800 provides the same
formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2. formulas for this check as PrEN 1993-1-1 in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2,
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χz = χLT = 1,0) → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling
Internal forces: |NSd| = 108,7kN, |My,Sd| = 216,6 kNm Internal forces: |NSd| = 108,7kN, |My,Sd| = 216,6 kNm
No second order analysis, uniform member with double-symmetric section Uniform member with double-symmetric section, approx. constant axial force
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) and no torsional load → stability check with interaction factors
Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1 Value for moment distribution: ψ = -0,283 → β m = 1,0


(
k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2 ) NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 

= 1,024 > Cmy 1 + 0,8

NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 
= 0,987 Coefficient: ∆n =
N Sd 
⋅ 1 −

N Sd 
 ⋅ κ y 2 ⋅ λ K,y 2 = 0,041 < 0,1

  κ y ⋅ Npl,d  κ y ⋅ Npl,d 
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4)) Check for compression and bending:
My,Ed N Sd β m ⋅ M y,Sd
NEd
χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k yy ⋅
= 0,123 + 0,695 = 0,818 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.61)) In plane:
κ y ⋅ Npl,d
+⋅
Mpl,y,d
+ ∆n = 0,132 + 0,759 + 0,041 = 0,932 < 1,0 3
hw 331 ε 1 b 331
= = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (IPE 400) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6)) = = 38,5 < 70 (IPE 400)
tw 8,6 η 1 t 8,6
hw 383 ε 1 b 383
= = 37,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (haunched IPE 500) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6)) = = 37,5 < 70 (haunched IPE 500)
tw 10,2 η 1 t 10,2

→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,d
PAGE 35 OF 98
Vz,Ed 114,5 Vz,Sd 114,5

Vpl,z,Rd
=
1277,8
= 0,090 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Vpl,z,d
=
995,1
= 0,115 < 1,0
NEd 112,3 Check for elastic cross-section resistance due to local buckling:
=
Npl,Rd 3750,6
= 0,030 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1))
N Sd M y,Sd − 112,3 60680 kN
min . σ Sd = + ⋅ zo = + ⋅ ( −38,63 ) = −18,08
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y A Iy 159,6 134868 cm²
Check < 0,25 and | NEd | < = 989,2 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
γ M0 N Sd M y,Sd − 112,3 60680 kN
max . σ Sd = + ⋅ zu = + ⋅ 43,37 = 18,81
A Iy 159,6 134868 cm²
→ no interaction between N and My 3
max . | σ Sd | 18,81
M y,Ed
=
606,8
= 0,659 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1)) f y,d
=
21,82
= 0,862 < 1,0 3
Mpl,y,Rd 921,4
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400. In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter). Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uz = 132mm DIN 18800 as well as the standards dealing with building construction in steel as
PrEN 1993-1-1 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements. DIN 18801 give no information concerning the limitation of vertical deflections.
ENV 1993-1-1 (1993) gives max. uz < L/200 for roofs in general. (ENV, table 4.1)
PAGE 36 OF 98
132mm = L/227 < L/200 3

Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19,9mm As for vertical deflections no limitation of horizontal deflections exists in German
PrEN 1993-1-1 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements. standards.
ENV 1993-1-1 (1993) gives max. uz < H/300 for single-storey buildings (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
19,9mm = H/302 < H/300 3
PAGE 37 OF 98
EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF THE DESIGN OF A PORTAL FRAMEEUROCODE 3 – NATIONAL STANDARD
5 Sweden: Calculation procedure compared to BSK99

EN 1993-1-1 BSK99
5.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) fyk = 235N/mm²; fuk = 340N/mm2; γM = 1,0; γn = 1,1 (BSK99, 2:21 and 3:42)
4 4
A = 156cm² ; Iy = 92080cm ; Iz = 3390cm ; Wpl,y = 3520cm³ A = 156cm²; Iy = 92080cm4; Iz = 3390cm4; Wpl,y = 3520cm³, Wpl,z = 486cm3,
Wel,y = 3069cm³, Wel,z = 308cm³
Iω = 2846000cm6; IT = 165cm4 Iω = 2846000cm6; IT = 165cm4
fy f yk
Npl,Rd = A ⋅
γ M0
= 3666 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) N pl,d = A ⋅ = 3333kN
γ M ⋅γ n
fy f yk
Vpl,z,Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 1137 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) M pl,y,d = Wpl,y ⋅ = 752, 0 kNm (BSK99, 6:243)
3 ⋅ γ M0 γ M ⋅γ n
fy
Mpl, y,Rd = Wpl, y ⋅ = 827,2 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2))
γ M0
5.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
4 4
A = 84,5cm² ; Iy = 23130cm ; Iz = 1320cm ; Wpl,y = 1308cm³ A = 84,5cm²; Iy = 23130cm4; Iz = 1320cm4; Wpl,y = 1308cm³; Wel,y = 1160cm³
fy f yk
Npl,Rd = A ⋅ = 1985,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) N pl,d = A ⋅ = 1805 kN (BSK99, 6:22)
γ M0 γ M ⋅γ n
PAGE 38 OF 98
fy f yk
Vpl,z,Rd = ( A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ t f + ( t w + 2r ) ⋅ t f ) ⋅ = 579,7 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) M pl,y,d = Wpl,y ⋅ = 279, 4 kNm (BSK99, 6:243)
3 ⋅ γ M0 γ M ⋅γ n
fy
Mpl, y,Rd = Wpl, y ⋅ = 307,4 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2))
γ M0
4 4
A = 159,6cm² ; Iy = 134868cm ; Iz = 2390cm ; Wpl,y = 3920,7cm³ A = 159,6cm²; Iy = 134868cm4; Iz = 2390cm4; Wpl,y = 3920,7cm³; Wel,y = 3451,1cm³
fy f yk
Npl,Rd = A ⋅
γ M0
= 3750,6 kN (EC3, 6.2.3 (2)) N pl,d = A ⋅ = 3410 kN (BSK99, 6:22)
γ M ⋅γ n
fy f yk
Vpl,z,Rd = 579,7 + A w,IPE500 ⋅ = 1277,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.6 (3)) M pl,y,d = Wpl,y ⋅ = 837, 6 kNm (BSK99, 6:243)
3 ⋅ γ M0 γ M ⋅γ n
fy Comments:
Mpl,y,Rd = Wpl,y ⋅ = 921,4 kNm (EC3, 6.2.5 (2)) The steel grade normally used in Sweden is S355.
γ M0
The walls would have been used to brace the columns.
The factor, γn depends on the risk for bodily injury in case of a collapse.
nd
5.2 Check, if effects of deformed shape have to be considered (2 order effects)
Sway mode failure may be checked with first order analysis for portal frames Second order effects are indirectly considered in the interaction equations of K18:51
with shallow roof slopes if the following criteria is satisfied: – 53 when the bending moment is calculated according to the theory of elasticity
and the frame is one storey high. (K18:55)
H   h 
α cr =  Ed  ⋅   ≤ 15 ( for plastic analysis) (EC3, 5.2.1 (4))
 
 VEd   δH,Ed 
With HEd = design value of horizontal reaction to all horizontal loads
VEd = total design vertical loads
h = storey height
PAGE 39 OF 98
 32,0   6000 
α cr =  ⋅  = 25,9 ≥ 15 → First order analysis sufficient 3
 270,4   27,4 
Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A: The load combination used for the ultimate limit states design is
LC 1: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p
1, 0 ⋅ Dead load + 1,3 ⋅ Snow load + 0, 25 ⋅ Wind load
LC 2: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind + E Im p The load from sway imperfection is not used together with the sway buckling length.
LC 3: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + 1,5 ⋅ 0,6 ⋅ E wind + E Im p
PAGE 40 OF 98
5.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Flange:

c/t = (220/2-12/2–24) / 19 = 4,21 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Ek
c/t =(220/2-12/2-24) / 19 =4,21 ≤ 0,3 ⋅ = 9 → class 1 (BSK99,table 6:211a)
f yk
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,547 Web:
c/t = (600-2⋅19-2⋅24) / 12 = 42,83 Ek
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,547-1) = 64,8 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
c/t =(600-2 ⋅19-2 ⋅ 24) / 12 =42,83 ≤ 2, 4 ⋅ = 71, 7 → class 1
f yk
(BSK99,table 6:211a)
5.4.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Flange:

(180/2-8,6/2–21) / 13,5 = 4,79 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Ek
c/t =(180/2-8,6/2-21) / 19 =4,62 ≤ 0,3 ⋅ = 9 → class 1 (BSK99,table 6:211a)
f yk
Web: plastic stress distribution α = 0,585 Web:
c/t = (400-2⋅13,5-2⋅21) / 8,6 = 38,5 Ek
< 396 / (13 ⋅ 0,585-1) = 60,0 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
c/t =(400/2-2 ⋅13,5-2 ⋅ 21) / 8,6 =38,5 ≤ 2, 4 ⋅ = 71, 7 → class 1
f yk
(BSK99,table 6:211a)
Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above) Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) (IPE 500 only, IPE 400 see above)
(200/2-10,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)
Ek
c/t =(200/2-10,2/2-21) / 16 =4,62 ≤ 0,3 ⋅ = 9 → class 1 (BSK99,table 6:211a)
f yk
Web: IPE 400-part: in tension Web: IPE 400-part: in tension
PAGE 41 OF 98
Haunched IPE 500 part : α = 1 (constant pressure) Haunched IPE 500 part: α = 1 (constant pressure)
c/t = (420-16-21) / 10,2 = 37,5 < 38 → class 2 (EC3, table 5.2)
Ek
Section for eaves haunch is class 2-section, therefore the internal forces have to be c/t =(420-16-21) / 10,2=37,5 ≤ 1, 46 ⋅ = 43, 6 → class 1 (BSK99, table 6:211a)
determined elastically, but plastic resistances can be activated. f yk
5.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 101,1kN Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 92kN
Check for shear buckling: Slenderness and reduction value
hw 514 ε 1 bw f
= = 42,8 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 12 η 1 λw = 0,35 ⋅ ⋅ yk = 0,50 → ω v = 0, 67 (BSK99, 6:261d)
tw Ek
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd The shear resistance is the smallest of:
Vz,Ed 101,1 f yk
Vpl,z,Rd
=
1137,0
= 0,089 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1)) Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅ = 1036kN (BSK99, 6:261a)
γ M ⋅γ n
Vz,Ed 92,3
= = 0, 089 < 1, 0 3
Vpl,z,Rd 1036
Class 1 → No interaction between Vz and My
Internal forces: |NEd| = 125,5kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces: |NEd| = 110,5kN, |My,Ed| = 493,6 kNm
Axial force is compression → holes need not be considered (EC3, 6.2.4 (3)) Wpl,y
NEd 125,5 ηy = = 1,15 (BSK 99, 6:242)
=
Npl,Rd 3666,0
= 0,034 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) Wel,y
γ 0 = ηy 2 = 1,32 (K18:51 e)
PAGE 42 OF 98
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y γ
 NSd 
0
M Syd  110,5 1,32 493, 6
γ M0
= 850,7 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))
  + =  + = 0, 67 < 1, 0 3 (K18:51 a)
 N Rd  M Ryd  3333  752, 0
M y,Ed 606,8
Mpl,y,Rd
=
827,2
= 0,734 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Flexural buckling length: Lcr,y = 37,08m (determinable by literature) Flexural buckling length: Lcr,y = 37,08m (determinable by literature)
N cr,y =
2
π ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080
= 1388,0 kN
π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 92080
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr,y = = 1388 kN
3708 2 37082
3666,0 A ⋅ f yk 3666
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y = = 1,625 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
1388,0 Class 1 section: Slenderness: λyc = = = 1, 63 (BSK 99, 6:233a)
N cr 1388
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (BSK 99, table 6:233)
Reduction value: χy = 0,324 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
→ β1 = 0, 21 → α = 4, 20 (BSK 99, 6:233)
α − α 2 − 4, 4λc 2
Reduction value: ω yc = = 0,30 (BSK 99, 6:233b)
2, 2λc 2
N Ed 110,5
≤1 = 0,11 < 1 3
ω yc ⋅ N pl,d 0,30 ⋅ 3333
Comments:
In Sweden the handbook K18 Dimensionering av stålkonstruktioner is a complement
to the Swedish code BSK 99. The flexural buckling length for columns in frames
calculated as shown in K18:38 gives, Lcr,y= 23,1m. The differences in flexural
buckling length can be explained with that the columns connection to the foundation
is assumed to be partially restrained for rotation in K18:38. With Lcr,y according to
K18:38 the reduction value, ωc=0,63.
PAGE 43 OF 98
N cr,z =
π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390
= 1951,7 kN
π 2 ⋅ 21000 ⋅ 3390
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: 2 Elastic critical flexural buckling force: N cr,z = = 1951, 7 kN
600 6002
3666,0 A ⋅ f yk 3666
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ z = = 1,371 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
1951,7 Class 1 section: Slenderness: λzc = = = 1,37 (BSK 99, 6:233a)
N cr 1952
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve b (EC3, table 6.2)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve b (BSK 99, table 6:233)
Reduction value: χz = 0,395 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
→ β1 = 0,34 → α = 3, 46 (BSK 99, 6:233)
α − α 2 − 4, 4λc 2
Reduction value: ω zc = = 0,37 (BSK 99, 6:233b)
2, 2λc 2
N Ed 110,5
≤1 = 0, 09 < 1 3
ω zc ⋅ N pl,d 0,37 ⋅ 3333
Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV1993-1-1, Annex F: Elastic critical moment from literature or ENV1993-1-1, Annex F
1 1
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z  I ω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T 2 π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ Iz  Iω L2 ⋅ G ⋅ I T  2
M cr = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2  = 1431,8 kNm (ENV 1993-1-1, Annex F, 1.3 (3)) M cr = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2  = 1432 kNm (ENV 1993-1-1, Annex F, 1.3 (3))
L2  I z π ⋅ E ⋅ I z  L2  Iz π ⋅ E ⋅ Iz 
827,2
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ LT =
1431,8
= 0,76 (EC3, 6.3.2.2 (1)) χ m = 0,8 + 0, 2  M 2 M  ≥ 0,8 (BSK 99, 6:2442)
 1 
Rolled section → chapter 6.3.2.3 applicable (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1)) M 2 = 0 → χ m = 0,8
Rolled section and h/b > 2 → buckling curve c (EC3, table 6.5)
Class 1 section: Slenderness:
Reduction value: χLT = 0,789 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (1))
χ LT
ηcWel,y f yk 1,15 ⋅ 3069 ⋅ 235 −3
Modified reduction value χ LT,mod = =
0,789
= 0,901 (EC3, 6.3.2.3 (2)) λb = = ⋅10 = 0,85 (BSK 99, 6:2442a)
f 0,876 χ m M cr 0,8 ⋅1432
PAGE 44 OF 98
1, 02
Rolled section → ωb = ≤ 1, 0 (BSK 99, 6:2442b)
1 + λb 4
1, 02
ωb = = 0,80
1 + 0,954
M y , Ed 0,8 ⋅ 493, 6
≤1 = 0, 66 < 1 3
ωb ⋅ M pl , y ,d 0,80 ⋅ 752, 0
Internal forces: |NEd| = 135,5kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Double-symmetric section

No second order analysis, uniform member with double-symmetric section Interaction for flexural buckling
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) γ 0 = ηy 2 ≥ 1
Portal frame is “frequent structure” → “standard case” → Annex B
Equivalent uniform moment values: Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) γ 0 = 1,152 = 1,32 (K18:51 e)
Cm,LT = 0,6 (EC3, Annex B, table B.3) γ yc = γ 0ω yc ≥ 0,8 γ yc = 0,8 (K18:52 d)
Member susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.2
γ yc
 NSd 
k yy


(
= Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2) NEd 

χ y ⋅ NRd 

= 1,046 > Cmy 1 + 0,8

NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 
= 0,982   +
M Syd
≤ 1, 00 (K18:52 a)
   N Rycd  M Ryd
 0,1 ⋅ λ z NEd   0,1 NEd  0,8
k zy = 1 −  = 0,963 < 1 −  = 0,973  110,5  493, 6

 (C m,LT − 0,25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd 


 (C m,LT − 0,25 ) χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd 
  0,30 ⋅ 3333  + = 0,83 ≤ 1 3
  752, 0
→ kyy = 0,982; kzy = 0,973 (EC3, Annex B, table B.2)
Comments: With the different flexural buckling length and reduction value in section
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4)) γ yc
 NSd  M Syd
NEd My,Ed + ≤ 1, 00 and γ yc = 0,83 gives the result
χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k yy ⋅
= 0,114 + 0,800 = 0,914 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
3.5.1.2.1 the interaction 
 N Rycd  M Ryd
 
0,83
NEd M y,Ed  110,5  493, 6
χ z ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k zy ⋅
= 0,094 + 0,792 = 0,886 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.62))  0, 63 ⋅ 3333  + = 0, 74 ≥ 1 3
  752, 0
PAGE 45 OF 98
5.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 80,1kN Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 65,8kN
hw 331 ε 1 bw f yk
= = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 8,6 η 1 λw = 0,35 ⋅ ⋅ = 0, 45 → ω v = 0, 67 (BSK99, 6:261d)
tw Ek
→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd The shear resistance is the smallest of:
Vz,Ed 80,1 f yk
Vpl,z,Rd
=
579,7
= 0,138 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1)) Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅ = 513,9 kN (BSK99, 6:261a)
γ M ⋅γ n
Check < 0,5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2)) Vz,Ed
=
65,8
= 0,13 < 1, 0 3
Vz,Rd 513,9
Class 1 → No interaction between Vz and My
Internal forces: |NEd| = 108,7kN, |My,Ed| = 216,6 kNm Internal forces: |NEd| = 89,6kN, |My,Ed| = 173,3kNm
NEd 108,7 ηy = = 1,13 (BSK 99, 6:242)
=
Npl,Rd 1985,8
= 0,055 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) Wel,y
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y
γ 0 = ηy 2 = 1, 27 (K18:51 e)
Check < 0,25 and | NEd | < = 482,8 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4)) γ
γ M0  NSd 
0
M Syd  89, 6 1,27 173,3
  + =  + = 0, 64 < 1 3 (K18:51 a)
→ no interaction between N and My 3  N Rd  M Ryd  1805  279, 4
M y,Ed 216,6
Mpl,y,Rd
=
307,4
= 0,705 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
PAGE 46 OF 98
Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Ncr,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis) Elastic critical flexural buckling force: Ncr,y = 1117,7kN (from computer analysis)
Class 1 section: Slenderness: λ y =

1985,8
= 1,336 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
A ⋅ f yk 1986
1117,7 Class 1 section: Slenderness: λyc = = = 1,33 (BSK 99, 6:233a)
N cr 1118
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (EC3, table 6.2)
Rolled section; h/b >1,2; tf < 40mm → buckling curve a (BSK 99, table 6:233)
Reduction value: χy = 0,451 (EC3, 6.3.1.2 (1))
→ β1 = 0, 21 → α = 3,19 (BSK 99, 6:233)
α − α 2 − 4, 4λc 2
Reduction value: ωc = = 0, 42 (BSK 99, 6:233b)
2, 2λc 2
For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profile sheeting provides For this example it is assumed, that the roofing made of profiled sheeting provides
sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints. PrEN 1993-1-1 provides sufficient continuous lateral and torsional restraints.
formulas for this check in Annexes BB.2.1 and BB.2.2. → No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling
→ No out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling (χz = χLT = 1,0)
Internal forces: |NSd| = 108,7kN, |My,Sd| = 216,6 kNm Double-symmetric section, member not susceptible to torsional deformations
No second order analysis, uniform member with double-symmetric section Interaction for flexural buckling
→ stability check with interaction factors (EC3, 6.3.3 (1)) γ yc = γ 0ω yc ≥ 0,8 γ yc = 1, 27 ⋅ 0, 42 = 0,53 → γ yc = 0,8 (K18:52 e)
Cmy = 0,9 (sway buckling mode) (EC3, Annex B, table B.3)
γ yc
Member not susceptible to torsional deformations → EC3, Annex B, table B.1  NSd  M Syd
  + ≤ 1, 00 (K18:52 a)

(
k yy = Cmy 1 + λ y − 0,2

) NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 

= 1,024 > Cmy 1 + 0,8

NEd 
χ y ⋅ NRd 
= 0,987  N Rycd  M Ryd
  0,8
 89, 6  173,3
 0, 42 ⋅1805  + = 0,80 ≤ 1 3
Check for compression force and bending: (EC3, 6.3.3 (4))   279, 4
NEd My,Ed
χ y ⋅ Npl,Rd
+ k yy ⋅
= 0,123 + 0,695 = 0,818 < 1,0 3 (EC3, eq. (6.61))
PAGE 47 OF 98
Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 114,5kN Internal shear force: |Vz,Ed| = 94,1kN
hw 331 ε 1 IPE 400
= = 38,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (IPE 400) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 8,6 η 1 f yk
bw
λw = 0,35 ⋅ ⋅ = 0, 45 → ω v = 0, 67 (BSK99, 6:261d)
hw 383 ε 1 tw Ek
= = 37,5 < 72 ⋅ = 72 ⋅ = 72 (haunched IPE 500) (EC3, 6.2.6 (6))
tw 10,2 η 1
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅
f yk
= 513,9 kN (BSK99, 6:261a)
Vz,Ed 114,5 γ M ⋅γ n
Vpl,z,Rd
=
1277,8
= 0,090 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.6 (1))
Haunched IPE 500

λw = 0,35 ⋅
bw
⋅
f yk
= 0, 44 → ω v = 0, 67 (BSK99, 6:261d)
tw Ek
The shear resistance is the smallest of:
f yk
Vz,Rd = ω v ⋅ Aw ⋅ = 616,9 kN (BSK99, 6:261a)
γ M ⋅γ n
Vz,Ed 94,1
= = 0, 08 < 1, 0 3
Vz,Rd 513,9 + 616,9
Internal forces: |NEd| = 112,3kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces: |NEd| = 92,5kN, |My,Ed| = 493,6 kNm
ηy = = 1,14 (BSK 99, 6:242)
Wel,y
PAGE 48 OF 98
NEd
=
112,3
= 0,030 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.4 (1)) γ 0 = ηy 2 = 1, 29 (K18:51 e)
Npl,Rd 3750,6
γ
 NSd 
0
M Syd  92,5 1,29 493, 6
0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w ⋅ f y
= 989,2 kN (EC3, 6.2.9.1 (4))   + =  + = 0, 60 < 1 3 (K18:51 a)
γ M0  N Rd  M Ryd  3410  837, 6

M y,Ed 606,8
Mpl,y,Rd
=
921,4
= 0,659 < 1,0 3 (EC3, 6.2.5 (1))
Stability failures of member do not have to be considered: Stability failures of member do not have to be considered:
In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400. In plane flexural buckling is covered safely by check of IPE 400.
Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter). Out of plane flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling is excluded (see Rafter).
Maximum vertical displacement at apex: uz = 132mm No vertical deflection limits

PrEN 1993-1-1 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 1993-1-1 (1993) gives max. uz < L/200 for roofs in general. (ENV, table 4.1)
132mm = L/227 < L/200 3

Maximum horizontal displacement at eaves: ux = 19,9mm No vertical deflection limits

PrEN 1993-1-1 (11.2003) does not specify allowable displacements.
ENV 1993-1-1 (1993) gives max. uz < H/300 for single-storey buildings (ENV, 4.2.2 (4))
19,9mm = H/302 < H/300 3
PAGE 49 OF 98
6 U.K.: Calculation procedure compared to BS 5950-1
EN 1993-1-1 BS 5950-1
6.1 FRAME GEOMETRY
CL The configuration of the single storey portal frame is given below and shows steel
IPE 400 (S235)
section sizes, the eaves haunch and the arrangement of purlins and side rails. Note
6° the steel grade is S235 for the rafter and columns.
CL
IPE 500 haunch IPE 400 (S235)
6m 6°
IPE 600 (S235)
IPE 500 haunch
6m
3700 IPE 600 (S235)
30 m
Spacing of portal frames = 5.0 m
3700
30 m
Spacing of portal frames = 5.0 m
w kN/m The proposed frame for analysis purposes is defined by the line diagram as in the
Rise h r = 1.58 m figure below, where the lines represent the centrelines of the members.
b h = 3.7 m
w kN/m
Rise h r = 1.58 m
b h = 3.7 m
6°
h= 6 m
Pinned base 6°
H H h= 6 m
L = 30 m Pinned base
H H
V V L = 30 m
V V
Portal frame dimensions Portal frame dimensions
The cladding to the roof and walls is supported by purlins and side rails, or Frame span = L = 30 m
PAGE 50 OF 98
alternatively by deep profiled sheeting spanning between the frames, provided that Eaves height = h = 6 m
torsional restraints are introduced at plastic hinge positions as follows: Frame centres = Ls = 5 m
• At both ends of the haunch (i.e. one to the column, one to the rafter)
• At an intermediate position along the rafter.
The roof sheeting or purlins provide lateral restraint to the outer flange of the rafter The length of the haunch is taken as 3.7 m which is 12% of the span of the frame.
and columns.
6.2 LOADING
6.2.1 Vertical Loads Unfactored loads
The value of snow load that has been used in this case is 0.70 kN/m2 but the Dead loads: Sheeting = 0.20 kN/m2
relevant national code must be used. Purlins = 0.07 kN/m
2
Frame = 0.11 kN/m2

Services = 0.28 kN/m2
Roofing = 0.20 kN/m2 × 5.0 m = 1.0 kN/m on plan Total dead load = 0.66 kN/m2
Services 2
= 0.20 kN/m × 5.0 m = 1.0 kN/m on plan Imposed load = 0.60 kN/m2
Snow = 0.70 kN/m2 × 5.0 m = 3.5 kN/m on plan
6.2.2 Combination factor ψ Load combiantions
Note that where the NAD specifies a value for ψ0 , this value must be used instead of The vertical load (Dead and Imposed) at the ultimate limit state is usually used to
the value from Eurocode 1. The value in Eurocode 0, EN 1990:2002 Table A1.1 is determine the size of the members for preliminary design purposes. At the detailed
0.7 generally, but 1.0 for structures supporting storage loads. design stage, other load combinations should also be checked at the ultimate and
the serviceability limit states.
In this example, wind load is considered in combination with vertical loading. Total factored load w = Ls (γ fd × 0.66 + γ fi × 0.60)
= 5 (1.4 × 0.66 + 1.6 × 0.60)
= 9.42 kN/m
6.2.3 Global analysis
Plastic analysis of single-storey steel portal frames leads to an economical form of

structure. However, in this case, member sizes are given for consistency by elastic
analysis, which will lead to a higher failure load than required for this building.
PAGE 51 OF 98
6.3 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS MOMENT CAPACITY
6.3.1 Frame imperfection – equivalent horizontal forces Column (IPE 600 Grade S235)
φ = φ0 ⋅ α h ⋅ α m EN1993-1-1; §5.3.2 The moment capacity of both the column and the rafter will be reduced slightly
because of the axial loads. The reduction in moment capacity is usually ignored at
Where φ0 = 1 200 the preliminary design stage.
Conservatively, α h = 1 , αm = 1
giving φ = 1 / 200 × 1.0 × 1.0 = 1 / 200 Axial Force Fc* = V = wL/2 = 9.42 × 30/2 = 141.3 kN
The column loads could be calculated by a frame analysis, but a simple calculation n = Fc/Apy = 141.3 × 103 / (156 × 102 × 235) = 0.04
based on plan areas is suitable for single storey portal frames.
Thus, the unfactored equivalent horizontal forces are given by: Span/height to eaves L/h = 30/6 = 5.0
Permanent/frame = 88.8/ 200 = 0.444 kN Rise/span hr /L = 1.58/30 = 0.053
Variable/frame = 105.0 / 200 = 0.525 kN
Vertical load wL = 9.42 × 30 = 282.6 kN
wL2 = 11.3 × 302 = 8478 kNm
Note: EC3 requires that all loads that could occur at the same time are considered M cx = Sx × f y = 3512 × 235 × 10 −3 = 825.3 kNm
together, so frame imperfection forces and wind loads should be considered as
additive to permanent loads and variable loads with the appropriate load combination As n = 0.04 it can be conservatively assumed that the reduced moment capacity of
factor, ψ. the column will be very similar to the moment capacity with no axial load acting. (For
a similar UK UB sections the reduction in bending moment capacity for n = 0.04 less
than 1% (0.75%)).
Hence assume M.rx = 825.3 x 99.25/100 = 819.1 kNm
which is > the 525.6 kNm required.
6.3.2 Partial safety factors and second order effects Rafter (IPE 400 Grade S235)
For simplicity, when carrying out an elastic-plastic software analysis the reduced Axial force Fc* = Hcosθ + Vsinθ = 101.7 cos 6o + 141.3 sin 6o
collapse load factor can be accounted by multiplying the partial load factor by: = 115.9 kN
1 n = Fc/Apy =
3 2
115.9 × 10 / (84.5 × 10 × 235)
 
1 − 1  = 0.06
 α cr 
 
PAGE 52 OF 98
Assume for preliminary calculations, based on experience, that αcr = 9 From section tables moment capacity of column
1 1 *The axial load should be that which is relevant to the load case being checked. In
So = = 1. 125
1 1 practice, however, the axial load is so low that the conservatism in using the largest
1− 1−
α cr 9 axial load is negligible for low pitch roofs.
Therefore the modified partial safety factors are: M cx = S x × f y = 1307 × 235 × 10 −3 = 307.1 kNm
γG = 1,35 × 1.125 = 1.52
As n = 0.06 it can be conservatively assumed that the reduced moment capacity of
γQ = 1,5 × 1.125 = 1.69
the column will be very similar to the moment capacity with no axial load acting. (For
a similar UK UB sections the reduction in bending moment capacity for n = 0.06 less
6.3.3 Analysis than 1% (0.85%)).
In this example, the bases have been assumed to be pinned for simplicity Hence assume M.rx = 307.1 × 99.15/100 = 304.5 kNm
Steel grade is S235. Assume sections are Class 1, then check later. which is > the 296.7 kNm required.
Column : IPE 600 has tf ≤ 40 mm, and so fy = 235 N/ mm2
3. 152 ⋅ 10 6 × 235
Mp = W pl, y f y γ MO =
1 × 10 6
= 740. 7 kNm
Rafters : IPE 400 has tf≤ 40 mm, and so fy = 235 N/ mm2
1. 307 ⋅ 10 6 × 235
Mp = W pl, y f y γ MO =
1 × 10 6
= 307. 1 kNm
Load factor Hinge Span Member Position

number no. (m)
0.898 1 1 RH Column 5.0
1.070 2 1 LH Rafter 12.04
Although hinge 1 occurs at a load factor ≤ 1,0, a mechanism is not formed until the
second hinge has formed. Therefore this combination of section sizes is suitable for
PAGE 53 OF 98
preliminary sections.
A diagram of bending moments, shear and axial forces is given opposite for a load
factor 1,0, which is the condition at ultimate limit state. The bending moments in the
columns are shown to reduce from the level of the bottom of the haunch to the top of
the column. This is the true bending moment in the column when the haunch to
column connection is a bolted connection on the inner vertical face of the column.
Load combination 1: bending moment, shear and axial load
6.4 CALCULATE, αcr, FOR STABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF SECTIONS WITH AXIAL LOAD
These checks use internal forces derived from a separate analysis using partial At the detailed design stage, it is necessary to ensure that the sections can be
safety factors 1.35 and 1.5, not the increased values used to allow for second order classified as ‘plastic’ or Class 1 cross-sections. The axial load is usually so low that,
effects in the ultimate limit state analysis. providing the section can be classified as plastic when subject to bending only.
6.4.1 Load combination no.1 For column (IPE 600 Grade S235)
6.4.1.1 Sway stability check
For frames where L ≤ 8 h may be found applying a simple modification to αcr,H. In this ε = (275/py)½ = (275/235)½ = 1.08
case L = 30 m and h =6.0 m, so 30 ≤ 8 × 6 = 48, so the following formulae is used:
Flange b/T = 5.8
 N Limiting b/T value for Class 1 plastic flange = 9ε = 9.72

  
= 0. 81 −   α 5.8 < 9.72 ∴ flange is classified as plastic
E,ULS
α cr,e, s

  N R,cr   cr, H
 max 
PAGE 54 OF 98
where : Web d/t = 42.8

 N E,ULS  80ε
  is the maximum ratio in any rafter Limiting d/t value for Class 1 plastic “Web Generally” = but ≥ 40ε
 N  1 + r1
 R,cr  max
N R,cr is the Euler load of the rafter on the full span (assumed pinned) 80ε = 86.4
Fc
π 2 EI π 2 × 210000 × 23130 × 10 4 r1 = but –1 < r1 ≤ 1
= = =533kN dtp yw
2 2
L 30000
N R,ULS is the maximum axial compression in the rafter in the load case 141. 3 × 10 3
= 107kN (value obtained with the analysis of the software without = 514. 0 × 12. 0 × 235 = 0.097
considering second order effects)
1 + r1 = 1 + 0.097 = 1.097
αcr,H is the elastic critical buckling factor as by Horne(1975) 80ε 86. 4
Limiting d/t value = =
 H EHF  h   h  6. 0 × 10 3 1 + r1 1. 097
αcr,H =    =   = = 21. 3 EN1993-1-1; §5.2.1(4)B
V  δ   δ  281. 8
 ULS  = 78.8
h 42.8 < 78.8 ∴ web is classified as plastic
where   is the minimum ratio of [column height]/[horizontal deflection of the
δ 
column top derived from first order analysis]
  N E,ULS     107 × 10 3   Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic, so the section can be classified

α cr,e, s = 0. 81 −   α
cr, H = 0. 8 1 − 

  ⋅ 21. 3 = 13. 6
 as plastic.
  N    503 × 10 3  max 
 R,cr  max 
Therefore,
1 1
= = 1. 08
1 1
1− 1−
α cr 13. 6
PAGE 55 OF 98
6.4.1.2 Rafter snap-through buckling load factor For rafter (IPE 400 Grade S235)
ε = (275/py) ½ = (275/235) ½ = 1.08
 D  55. 7(4 + L h )  I c + I r 
α cr,r =    (tan 2θ r ) Flange b/T = 6.7
 L  Ω −1  I r 
where D cross-section of the rafter Limiting b/T value for Class 1 plastic flange = 9ε = 9.72
L span of the bay 6.7 < 9.72 ∴ flange is classified as plastic
h mean height of the column from base to eaves or valley)
Web d/t = 34.5
Ic in-plane second moment of area of the column(taken as zero if the
The axial load in the rafter is generally so small that it can be assumed that the
column is not rigidly connected to the rafter, or if the rafter is
supported on a valley beam) neutral axis is at mid-depth and the d/t limit can be taken as 80ε, but for
completeness the axial load will be taken into account.
Ir in-plane second moment of area of the rafter
80 ε
Fyr nominal yield strength of the rafters Limiting d/t value for Class 1 plastic “Web Generally” = but ≥ 40ε
θr roof slope if the roof is symmetrical
1 + r1
‘Snap through’ will only occur if the ratio given by Ω = Wr W0 is >1.0. Fc 101. 9 × 10 3
r1 = = = 0.15
Wo is the plastic failure load of the rafters as fixed ended beam of span L dtp yw 331 × 8. 6 × 235
(Mp= w × l 2 16 )
80ε 86. 4
Limiting d/t value = = = 75.1
Wo = 16 × M p L = 16 × 307. 1 (30 − 7. 4 ) = 217. 4 kN 1 + r1 1. 15
Wr is the total factored vertical load on the rafters of the bay 34.5 < 75.1 ∴ web is classified as plastic
Roofing = 1.35 kN/m2 × 1.44 = 1.35 kN/m Both the flange and the web are classified as plastic, so the section can be classified
Services = 1.35 × 1.44 = 1.35 kN/m as plastic.
Rafter = 1.35 × 0.76 = 0.88 kN/m
Snow = 1.5 × 5.04 = 5.25 kN/m
Total = 8.83kN/m
8.83 × 30-7.4) = 199.6 kN
Ω = Wr W0 = 199. 6 217. 4 = 0. 92 ≤ 1
Therefore the ‘snap through’ will not occur and need not be considered further for
this example.
PAGE 56 OF 98
6.5 COLUMN DESIGN: IPE 600 IN-PLANE FRAME STABILITY

Load combination no.1 is clearly the worst case for the column for axial force, This check should be carried out at the preliminary design stage, after the size of the
bending moment and shear force as well as restraint to the compression flange. sections is determined. It should be carried out again at the detailed design stage if
Therefore, the columns checks need to be made for only load combination no.1 the section sizes are reduced.
MEd = 540.8 kNm
VEd = 108.1 kN
NEd = 148.8 kN
6.5.1 Classification Check the geometry of the Frame
The section is Class 1 to permit plastic hinge formation. The web is checked from EN
1993-1-1 Sheet 1 of Table 5.2.
f y / γ MO
(a) L ≤ 5h
L = 30 m, 5h = 5 × 6 = 30 m
30 m ≤ 30 m ∴ OK
=
αc
(b) hr ≤ 0.25L
h 58,0 c hr = 1.58 m 0.25L = 0.25 × 30 = 7.5 m
∴ 1.58 m < 7.5 m ∴ OK
=
∴ geometry of the frame is within the limits
fy / γ MO
Formula Method- Vertical Loads
Plastic stress distribution in web Check effective span to depth ratio of the rafter satisfies the condition:
Web is under combined axial and bending forces, so find α :    275 
Lb 44 L ρ
Depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load
≤ .   
D Ω h  4 + ρLr / L   p yr 
= NEd / ( fy × tw / γMO) = 148.8×103 / (235 × 12.0 / 1) = 52.8 mm
 2 Dh 
∴ αc = c / 2 + 52.8 / 2 where Lb =L–   Lh
D + D 
∴α = 0.5 + [( 52.8 / 2) / 514] = 0.55  s h 
assuming Dh ≈ Ds
PAGE 57 OF 98
∴for Class 1, limiting c t w = 396 ε / (13 α -1 ) Lh is the length of a single haunch (= 3.7 m)
= 396 × 1.0 / ( 13 × 0.55 − 1 ) = 64.3 ∴ Lb = 30 – 3.7 = 26.3 m
actual c t w = 514 / 12.0 = 42.8 → web is Class 1  2I   L  2 × 92080 30
ρ =  c  = × = 39.8
Flange check from EN 1993-1-1 Sheet 2 of Table 5.2  I r   h  23130 6
∴for Class 1, limiting c t f = 9 ε = 9 × 1.0 = 9 Lr = L/cos θ = 30/cos 6o
= 30.2 m
actual c t f = 85 / 19 = 4.5 → flange is Class 1 Ω = Wr/Wo
Wr = wL = 9.42 × 30 = 282.6 kN
Wo is the maximum value of Wr that causes failure of the rafter
treated as a fixed ended beam of span L
Plastic hinges
Wo
30 m
Calculation of Wo – failure load of fixed-ended beam
6.5.2 Cross-sectional resistance Mp = Mcx = WoL/16

The frame analysis assumed that there is no deduction in the plastic moment Wo = 16Mcx/L = 16 × 305/30 = 162.7 kN
resistance from interaction with shear force or axial force. This assumption must be
checked because it is more onerous than checking that the cross-sectional Ω = Wr/Wo = 282.6/162.7 = 1.74
resistance is sufficient.
Load combination no.1 is clearly the worst load combination.
44 L  ρ   275 
Max. shear force, VEd = 108.1 kN .   
Ω h  4 + ρLr / L   p y 
Max. axial force, NEd = 148.8 kN
Check that the plastic moment of resistance, Mpl.Rd , is not reduced by the coincident 44 30  39. 8  275
shear force. EN1993-1-1; §6.2.8(2) = .   = 133.6
1. 74 6  4 + 39. 8 × 30. 2 / 30  235
Check VEd ≯ 0.5 Vpl,Rd Lb/D = 26.3 × 103/400 = 66.8
Av = h tw = 600 × 12.0 = 7200 mm2 §6.2.6(3a) As Lb/D < 133.6, the frame is stable under gravity loads
PAGE 58 OF 98
Vpl,Rd = Av (fy / √3) / γMO EN1993-1-1; §6.2.6(2) ∴ The required load factor for frame stability
= 7200 ( 235 / √3) / 1 λr = 1.0 for gravity load case
= 976 kN
∴ 0.5 Vpl,Rd = 0.5 × 1045 = 523 kN For horizontal loads

Required load factor λr for frame stability
Max VEd = 108.1 kN λsc
λr =
As VED ≯ 0.5 Vpl,Rd , plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the coexistent λsc − 1
shear force.
Now check that the plastic moment of resistance, Mpl.Rd , is not reduced by the
220 DL  ρ   275 
coincident axial force’ EN 1993-1-1; §6.2.9(4) λsc =  
Check: ΩhL b  4 + ρLr / L   p yr 
(i) N Ed ≯ 0.25 Npl.Rd Eqn. 6.33 220 × 0. 4 × 30  39. 8  275 

=   
∴ 0.25 Npl.Rd = 0.25 × 15600 × 235 / 1 = 916.5 kN 1. 74 × 6 × 26. 3  4 + 39. 8 × 30. 2 / 30  235 
0. 5 hw t w f y = 10.2
(ii) N Ed ≯ Eqn. 6.34
γ MO
0. 5 hw t w f y 0. 5 × 564 × 10. 2 × 235 10. 2
= = 795. 2 kN ∴ λr = = 1.11
γ MO 1. 0 10. 2 − 1
Max NEd = 148.8 kN ≤ 795.2 kN Therefore, for this load case, λp must not be less than 1.11. The actual value of λp
would depend on the magnitude of the applied horizontal loads, but generally λp
Checks (i) and (ii) show that the plastic moment of resistance is not reduced by the
would be greater than λr. In this example it is assumed that vertical load case is
coexistent axial force. Therefore the frame analysis assumption is validated.
critical.
6.5.3 Buckling between intermediate restraints
6.5.3.1 Upper section analysis
For members with plastic hinges, EC3 gives guidance for member buckling check.
The critical column bending moment diagram is from load combination no.1 in this
structure, causing a plastic hinge to occur at the underside of the haunch. Therefore,
PAGE 59 OF 98
find the stable length with a plastic hinge.
N = 148,8 kN 540,8 kNm

V = 108,1 kN
1350
394.8 kNm
6000
3650
N = 148,8 kN 0 kNm
V = 108,1 kN
Geometry Bending moments
below haunch
Moments, forces and restraints

Stable length of column: EN1993-1-1; BB3.1.1
38i z
Lm =
1  N Ed  1  W pl, y 2  f y  2
  +   
57. 4  A  756C1
2  AI  235 
 t 
where
NEd = 148.8 kN A = 15600mm2
Wpl,y = 3512 × 103mm3 It = 165 × 104mm4
2
fy = 235 N/mm iz = 46.6 mm
C1 is dependant on ψ based on the shape of the bending moment
diagram.
NCCI SN003a-EN-EU; Table 3.1
3650
ψ = = 0. 73 → C1 = 1. 1532
5000
PAGE 60 OF 98
38 × 46. 6
Lm =
1  148. 8 × 10 3 
 +
1  (
 3512 × 10 3 2 )  235  2
 
 
57. 4  15600  756 × 1. 1532 2  15600 × 165 × 10 4  235 
 
=2196 mm
Therefore, 1350 mm is acceptable.
6.5.3.2 Lower section (3650 mm) LAYOUT OF PURLINS AND SIDE RAILS
(a) Calculate slenderness λ and λLT At this stage, a more detailed assessment of the frame geometry can be made. It is
also useful to determine a layout of purlins and side rails that can provide restraint to
Assume side rail depth = 200 mm plastic hinges and adjacent lengths.
183
15083 1100
200
6 @ 16 30 P10
P8 P9
= P7
=
= P5 P6
P3 P4
P2
620
P1
400
s6
l6
600
s5
h6
4 @ 1300
6000
s4
=
s3
s2
Cross-section through column 1
180
Distance from columns shear centre to centre of side rail, a Purlin and side rail spacing
a = 600 / 2 + 200/ 2 = 400 mm The value of the bending moment can be found at any point in the rafter from the
2
is = iy2 + iz2 + a2 formula:
is2 = 2432 + 46.62 + 4002 = 221221 mm2
Mx = VΡx – H hx – w Ρ x2/2
Distance between shear centres of flanges where Ρx is the horizontal distance to the point considered
hs = 600 −19 = 581 mm
PAGE 61 OF 98
 2 Iw  hx is the height of the point considered

a + 
 Iz  = h + Ρx tanθ
α =  
2
 is  V is the vertical reaction at the base due to w
 
  H is the horizontal reaction at the base due to w
w is the load per unit length of the frame (factored loading)
Using the simplification for doubly symmetric I sections;
Iw = Iz ( hs / 2)2
 a 2 + (h s 2 )2 
α =  
 is 2 
 
 400 2 + (581 2)2 
=  
 221221 
 
= 1.1
The slenderness of the column is given by :
Lt iz
λ =
[α + (I L
t t
2
2. 6π 2 I z is 2 )]
0. 5
3650 46. 6
=
[1. 1 + (16. 5 × 10 5
× 3650 2
)]
2. 6 × π 2 × 3. 39 × 10 7 × 221221
0. 5
= 71.2
Note:λ has been calculated using the slenderness method, λLT has been calculated
using the Mcr method to show the different approached for obtaining these
parameters.
λ = λ λ1
= 71.2 93.9
= 0.76
PAGE 62 OF 98
Wy f y
λ LT = for Class 1 W y = W pl.y EN1993-1-1; §6.3.2.2
M cr
Where BB3.3.1
 
 
 is 2 1  π 2 EI z a 2 π 2 EI w  
M cr,o = N cr N cr = 2 + + GI t  
 2a is  Lt 2
Lt 2 
 
 12 
 I w = I z (hs 2) = 2142 × 10 × (484 2) = 1. 25 × 10 
2 4 2
1  1 
M cr = C m M cr,0 → C m = 2
c2  Bo + B1 β t + B2 β t 
 
 1 + 10η 5 η 
B0 = B1 =
 1 + 20η π + 10 η 
 
 0. 5 0. 5 N crE 
 B2 = − η= 
 1 + π η 1 + 20η N crT 
 π 2 × 210000 × 3387 × 10 4 × 400 2 

 +
 3650 2 
 
 + π × 210000 × 2. 86 × 10 +
2 12
1  = 6. 428 × 10 6
NcrT = Ncr =
165974  3650 2 
 4

 + 81000 × 165 × 10 
 
 
π 2 EI z π 2 × 210000 × 3387 × 10 4
NcrE = = = 5. 269 × 10 6
Lt 2 3650 2
N crE 5. 269 × 10 6
η= = = 0. 82
N crT 6. 428 × 10 6
PAGE 63 OF 98
1 + 10η 5 η 0. 5 0. 5
B0 = = 0. 53 B1 = = 0. 371 B2 = − = 0. 101
1 + 20η π + 10 η 1+π η 1 + 20η
and β = 0 because it is the ratio of the smaller end moment to the larger end
moment in the column
Therefore,
1 1
Cm = = = 1. 89
B o + B1 β t + B 2 β t 2
0. 528 + 0. 371 × 0 + 0. 101 × 0 2
c =1
is 2 221221
M cr,o = N cr = × 6. 428 × 10 6 = 1778 kNm
2a 2 × 400
1 1
M cr = C m M cr,0 = × 1. 89 × 1778 = 3360 kNm
2
c 12
Wy f y 3152 × 10 3 × 235
λ LT = = = 0. 50
M cr 3360 × 10 6
(b) Calculate buckling resistance for axial load

Nb, Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3
1
χ min =
2
φ + φ2 −λ
φ [
= 0.5 1 + α (λ − 0.2) + λ 2
]
h b = 600/200 = 3.0 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.2
tf = 19 mm
buckling between axis z-z
Use Curve b for hot rolled I sections
α = 0.34
PAGE 64 OF 98
φ [
= 0.5 1 + 0.34(0.76 − 0.2 ) + 0.76
2
]
= 0.884
1
χz =
0. 884 + 0. 884 2 − 0. 76 2
= 0.45
Nb, Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1
Nb, Rd = 0. 45 ⋅ 15600 ⋅ 235 1
= 1650 kN
(c) Calculate buckling resistance for bending
Mb, Rd = χ LT Wpl, y f y γ M1
1
χ LT =
φ LT + φ LT 2 − β ⋅ λ LT 2
φ LT [ ( )
= 0. 5 1 + α LT λ LT − λ LT,0 + β ⋅ λ LT
2
]
λ LT,0 = 0.4 ( maximum value)
β = 0.75
hb = 3.0 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.5
For hot rolled sections use Curve c for buckling.

α = 0.49
φLT [
= 0. 5 1 + 0. 49(0. 5 − 0. 4 ) + 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 5 2 ] = 0. 62
1
χ LT = = 0.94
0.62 + 0.62 2 − 0.75 ⋅ 0.5 2
Mb, Rd = 0. 94 × 3512 × 10 3 × 235 1 = 776 kNm
(d) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
PAGE 65 OF 98
N Ed M y, Ed + ∆M y, Ed M z, Ed + ∆M z, Ed
+ k yy + k yz ≤1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3.3(4)
χ y N Rk M y, Rk M z, Rk
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
+ k zy + k zz ≤1
χ z N Rk M y, Rk M z, Rk
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
The following simplifications may be made:
• ∆M y, Ed and ∆M z, Ed =0 for Class 1
• No bending minor axis
Buckling about y-y axis is covered by Merchant-Rankine
Therefore,
N Ed M y, Ed
+ k zy ≤1
χ z N Rk M y, Rk
γ M1 γ M1
N Ed N b.Rd.z + k yz ⋅ M y.Ed M b.Rd.y ≤ 1. 0
As λz ≥1 EN1993-1-1; Table B.2
 0,1 N Ed   0,1 N Ed 
kzy = 1 −  = 1 − 
 (C mLT − 0, 25 ) χ z N Rk γ M1   (C mLT − 0, 25 ) N b, Rd, z 
ψ =0
C mLT = 0, 6 + 0, 4ψ y ≥ 0, 4 EN1993-1-1; Table B.3
C mLT = 0, 6 + 0, 4 ⋅ 0 = 0. 6
 0,1 × 0. 76 148. 8 × 10 3 
kzy = 1 − 
 (0. 6 − 0, 25) 1650 × 10 3 
= 0.98
PAGE 66 OF 98
148. 8 1650 + 0. 98 ⋅ 394. 8 775. 8 = 0. 59 ≤ 1. 0 ∴Column OK
6.6 RAFTER DESIGN: IPE 400 DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC FAILURE LOAD
For the rafter it is not clear which load case gives the worst load combination, At the preliminary design stage, it is not necessary to calculate the plastic failure
specifically for buckling. Therefore all load combinations should be checked. load. At the detailed design stage, however, the plastic failure load (w′) will be used
instead of the applied factored loading (w).
The rafter checks for cross-sectional resistance need to be made for the worst case
load effects. This is produced by load combination 1 near the apex of the roof. Assume that the plastic hinges are located in the column at the bottom of the eaves
haunch and in the rafters at the second purlin from the ridge (i.e. P9 in the figure
below.
MEd = 252.6 kNm The moment in the rafter at P9 is then given by:
VEd = 107.4 kN w′ 2
M@P9 = V ′Ρ9 - H′ h9 - (Ρ9)
NEd = 117.2 kN 2
6.6.1 Classification and the moment in the column @ the bottom of the eaves haunch is given by:
Ensure the section is Class 1 to accommodate plastic hinge formation. Web check M@S6 ≈ H1(h – Dh – Ds/2)
from EN 1993-1-1 Sheet 1 of Table 5.2 : w′ is the collapse load
V ′and H′ are the reactions at the base due to w′
f y / γ MO
At the point of failure, the moment M@P9 and M@S6 must be equal to the reduced
moment capacities of the rafter and column sections provided (see Section 5 of
these calculations).
Thus M@P9 = Mr.rx = 304.5 kNm
=
αc
M@S6 = Ml.rx = 819.1 kNm
h 58,0 c
=
fy / γ MO
Plastic stress distribution in web

The web is under combined axial and bending forces, so find α :
PAGE 67 OF 98
Depth of stress block at yield stress resisting axial load
= NEd / ( fy × tw / γ MO ) = 117.2 ×103 / (235 × 8.6 / 1) = 58.0 mm

∴ αc = c / 2 + 50.6 / 2 w'
∴ α = 0.5 + [( 58.0/ 2) / 331.0] = 0.59 M r.rx
∴ for Class 1, limiting c t w = 396 ε / (13 α -1 ) 0.62
= 396 × 1.0 / ( 13 × 0.59 − 1 ) = 59.4 M l.rx

59
actual c/t w = 331 / 8.6 = 38.5 → web is Class 1
h9
6m
Flange check from EN 1993-1-1 Sheet 2 of Table 5.2
∴for Class 1, limiting c t f = 9 ε = 9 × 1.0 = 9
actual c/t f = 64.7 / 13.5 = 4.8 → flange is Class 1 Determination of failure load w′
Ρ9 = 13.72 m
h9 = 7.44 m
6.6.2 Cross-sectional resistance
H′ = (M@S6)/(h@S6) = 819.1/5.38 = 152.2 kN
The frame analysis assumed that there is no reduction in the plastic moment V′ = w′ L/2 = 15w′
resistance from interaction with shear force or axial force. This assumption must be
checked because it is more onerous than checking that the cross-sectional
resistance is sufficient.
Load combination no.1 is clearly the worst load combination Substituting:
Max. shear force, VEd = 107.4 kN M@P9 = 15w′ × 13.72 – 152.2 × 7.44 – w′ × 13.722/2
Max. axial force, NEd = 117.2 kN Equating M@P9 to Mr.rx
Therefore the plastic moment resistance is not reduced by coincident shear. 304.5 = 111.7w’ – 1132.4
w′ =12.86 kN/m
Check that the plastic moment of resistance, Mpl.Rd , is not reduced by the coincident
shear force. EN1993-1-1; §6.2.8(2)
Collapse load w′ = 12.86 kN/m (compare with the applied factored load w of
Check VEd ≯ 0.5 Vpl,Rd EN1993-1-1; §6.3.4 = 9.42 kN/m calculated originally)
2
Av = h t w = 400 × 8.6 = 3440 mm
Vpl,Rd = Av (fy / √3) / γMO
= 3440 ( 235 / √3) / 1 EN1993-1-1; §6.2.6(2)
PAGE 68 OF 98
= 389 kN
∴ 0.5 Vpl,Rd = 0.5 × 389 = 194 kN The corresponding base reactions are:
H′ = 152.2 kN
Max VEd = 107.4 kN V′ = 192.9 kN
This is less than 194 kN, and therefore the plastic moment is not reduced by co- w' 12.86
existent shear. 8p = = = 1.37
w 9.42
Check that the plastic moment of resistance, Mpl.Rd , is not reduced by the coincident
axial force: EN1993-1-1; §6.2.9(4)
Check:
(i) N Ed ≯ 0.25 Npl.Rd Eqn. 6.33
∴ 0.25 Npl.Rd = 0.25 × 8450 × 235 / 1 = 496 kN
0. 5 hw t w f y
(ii) N Ed ≯ Eqn. 6.34
γ MO
0. 5 hw t w f y 0. 5 × 373 × 8. 6 × 235
= = 377 kN
γ MO 1. 0
Max NEd = 117.2 kN ≤ 377 kN
Checks (i) and (ii) show that the plastic moment of resistance is not required by the
coexistent axial force.
Therefore, the effects of shear and axial force on the plastic resistance moment can
be neglected according to EC3 and the frame analysis assumption is validated.
6.6.3 Buckling between intermediate restraints COLUMN STABILITY
By inspection, the worst case is near the apex in the left hand rafter, because this
has the highest bending moment in the rafter.
6.6.3.1 Stable length check for high bending moment
The critical rafter bending moment diagram is obtained from load combination no.1 in
PAGE 69 OF 98
this structure, causing a plastic hinge very close to the apex, and so the stable length
620
Plastic hinge
with a plastic hinge is calculated according to the following criteria:. position
MEd = 343.1 kNm
819.1 kNm
VEd = 0 kN s6
1300
NEd = 107.8 kN Stay
621.2 kNm
s5
4 @ 1300
6000
s4
4080
s3
Rafter under highest bending moment s2

1
180
Bending moment diagram and restraints to column
C1 = 1 because the bending moment is approximately uniform between The hinge position will be torsionally restrained by the provision of a rafter stay at the
restraints. The stable length of the rafter is given by: base of the haunch to side rail S6.
38i z The distance to the next lateral restraint to the compression flange from the plastic
Lm = EN1993-1-1; BB3.1.1 hinge position can be determined by one of four approaches:
2
1  N Ed  1  W pl, y 2  f y 
  +    1. Calculate the limiting distance Lm.
57. 4  A  756C1
2  AI  235  2. For IPE section, calculate the modified distance Lm to account for
 t 
moment gradient.
3. For IPE section, calculate limiting distance Ls.
4. Use Appendix G of BS5950-1: 2000
38 × 39. 5 The first approach assumes no restraint to the tension flange and is conservative.
Lm = The second approach also assumes no restraint to tension flange, but involves more
1  107. 8 × 10 3 
 +
1  (
 1307 × 10 3 2 )  235  2
 
work because it takes account of the shape of bending moment and hence permits

57. 4  8450

 756 × 1
2  8450 × 51. 3 × 10 4  235  use of a greater length between restraints.
  The third approach is a simplification of Appendix G for IPE sections.
=1741 mm The fourth approach is generally too complex for manual design and gives little
advantage for the column as usually only one restraint is required between the
PAGE 70 OF 98
plastic hinge position and the base.

Therefore, 1200 mm purlin spacing provides stability. In many cases, it will be adequate to provide an adjacent lateral restraint to the
compression flange at a distance Lm from the plastic hinge position. The section
between this restraint and the base should then prove adequate when checked to
BS 5950-1: Clause 4.8.3.3.
6.6.3.2 Combined axial and moment check for lower bending moments Check length between side rails S6 and S5
Where bending moment is lower, the purlin spacing can be increased. BS 5950-1: 2000 Clause 5.3.3(a) is used to check the length between restraints at
side rails S6 and S5. Assume restraint is provided at S6 and S5 by means of column
stays.
Limiting length Lm is given by:
38ry
Lm = 1
 f  x   py  
2 2 2
 c +     
130  36   275  
fc = V′/A = 192.9 × 103/156 × 102 = 12.4 N/mm2

A
= 0. 566 ( D − T )
Rafter under lower bending moments
x
The critical case is in right hand rafter. Try purlin spacing at 2200 mm centres. J
Check for lateral torsional buckling between purlins. Load combination no.1 gives the D=600 mm T=19.0mm A=156.0 cm2 J=165 cm4
biggest moments: x = 32.0
Max. moment, MEd = 252.6 kN
Max. axial force, NEd = 117.2 kN 38 × 46. 6
Lm = 1
= 2160 mm
(a) Calculate buckling resistance to axial force 12. 4  32. 0  2
 235 
2
 2
 +     
Firstly the slenderness should be calculated  130  36   275  
Lcr 1 2200 1 Thus, the length of 1550 mm from the plastic hinge position at side rail S6 to the
λ = = × = 0. 59
i z λ1 39. 5 93. 9 column stay at side rail S5 is stable.
Wy ⋅ f y
λ LT = EN1993-1-1; §6.3.2.2
M cr
PAGE 71 OF 98
π 2 EI z Iw L2 GI t
M cr = C1 + SN003a-EN-EU
L2 Iz π 2 EI z
C1 comes from the table indicated for the correspondent value of ψ
Check the length between side rail S5 and the base (1)
Conservati ve → C1 = 1
In order to obtain Iw , the distance between shear centres of flanges must be There is no plastic hinge in the length between S5 and the base and a restraint to the
calculated; compression flange has been provided at side rail S5 by means of a column stay.
hs = 400 −13.5 = 386.5 mm
Iw = I z (h s 2 ) 2 = For external columns, the relevant check is for out-of-plane buckling only, because
in-plane member stability is assured by the in-plane frame stability checks given in
= 1318 × 10 4 × (386. 5 2 )2 = 0. 49 × 10 12 Section 7 of this example. It is therefore required that:
π 2 × 210000 × 1. 32 × 10 7 0. 49 × 10 12 2200 2 × 80769 × 5. 13 × 10 5 Fc m LT M LT

M cr = 1× + + ≤ 1^
2200 2 1. 32 × 10 7 π 2 × 210000 × 1. 32 × 10 7 Pcy Mb
= 1193kNm MLT = M@S5 = 621.2 kNm
Fc = V′ = 192.9 kN
1. 31 × 10 6 × 235
λ LT = = 0.51 mLT = 0.6 for β = 0.0
1302 × 10 6 Pz = AgPy = 156 × 235= 3666 kN
(a) Calculate buckling resistance to bending Fc 192. 9
= = 0.05
Nb, Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 EN1993-1-1; §6.2.9.1(5) Pz 3666
which is significantly less than the limit for Class 2 or compact sections (typically
1 between 0.25 and 0.35).
χ min = EN1993-1-1; §6.3.1.2
2
φ + φ −λ 2
For LEY = 4.08 m ry = 4.66 cm λ = 4080 46. 6 = 87. 6
φ

(
= 0. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 2 + λ 
2
) 
∴ pc = 117 N/mm2
Pcy = p c Ag = 117 × 156 × 10 2 × 10 −3 = 1825 kN
hb = 400 180 = 2.22
L EY = 4. 08 m ry = 4. 66 cm λ = 4080 46. 6 = 87. 6
tf = 13.5 mm
Buckling between axis z-z; EN1993-1-1; Table 6.2 λLT = uv λ β w
Use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.34 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.1
PAGE 72 OF 98
φ [
= 0.5 1 + 0.34(0.51 − 0.2 ) + 0.51
2
] x = D
T =
600
19 = 31. 6 with u = 0.9
= 0.68 βw = 1. 0 for UB’s and UC’s
1 1
χz = v = = 0. 92
( )
0. 25
0. 68 + 0. 68 2 − 0. 51 2 1 + 0. 05 87. 6 2

 31. 6 
= 0.84
λ LT = 0. 9 × 0. 92 × 87. 6 × 1. 0 = 73
pb = 164 N/mm2 Sx = 3512 cm3
Nb, Rd = 0.84 ⋅ 8450 ⋅ 235 1
= 1767kN Mb = pb S x = 164 × 3512 × 10 3 × 10 −6 = 576 kNm
(b) Calculate buckling resistance for bending Fc m LT M LT 192. 9 0. 6 × 621. 2

∴ + = + = 0.08 + 0.65 = 0.73 < 1
Mb, Rd = χ LT ⋅ W pl, y ⋅ f y γ M1
Pcy Mb 1825 576
1
χ LT = ∴ No further column restraints are required between side rail S5 and the base.
2 2
φ LT + φ LT − β ⋅ λ LT
φ LT [ ( )
= 0. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT,0 + β ⋅ λ LT
2
]
β = 0.75
hb = 2.22
Use Curve c for hot rolled I sections α = 0.49
φLT [ ]
= 0. 5 1 + 0. 49(0. 51 − 0. 4 ) + 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 51 2 = 0. 62 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.5
1
χ LT = = 0. 95 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.3
0. 62 + 0. 62 2 − 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 512
Mb, Rd = 0. 95 × 1. 31 × 10 6 × 235 1 = 289 kNm
PAGE 73 OF 98
(c) Calculate buckling resistance to combined axial and bending
+ k yy + k yz ≤1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3.3(4)
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
+ k zy + k zz ≤1
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
There are the following simplifications:
1) ∆M y, Ed and ∆M z, Ed = 0 for Class 1
2) No bending minor axis
3) Buckling about y-y axis is covered by Merchant-Rankine
Therefore,
N Ed M y, Ed
+ k zy ≤1
χ z N Rk M y, Rk
γ M1 γ M1
N Ed N b.Rd.z + k zy ⋅ M y.Ed M b.Rd.y ≤ 1. 0
As λz <1
 0,1λ z
2
N Ed   0,1λ z
2
N Ed 
kzy = 1 −  = 1 − 
ψ=1 Conservative
C mLT = 0, 6 + 0, 4ψ y ≥ 0, 4
C mLT = 0, 6 + 0, 4 ⋅ 1 = 1
 0,1 × 0. 57 140. 7 × 10 3 
kzy = 1 −  = 0.996 EN1993-1-1; §6.3.2.2, BB3.1.1
 (1 − 0, 25) 1668 × 10 3 
PAGE 74 OF 98
117. 2 1668 + 0. 996 ⋅ 252. 6 289 = 0. 94 ≤ 1. 0 ∴Rafter OK

The rafter is stable between intermediate restraints to compression flange.
6.6.4 Buckling between torsional restraints RAFTER STABILITY BELOW THE APEX
Where the bottom flange is in compression, the stability must be checked between The plastic hinge (at purlin P9) will be restrained by the purlin P9 and a rafter stay to
torsional restraints (e.g. restraint to bottom and top flanges). For first trial, assume
rotational restraints are positioned at approximately quarter span intervals(see give torsional restraint.
diagram in section 1.1 of this worked example) The rafter near the apex is subject to a sagging moment in this load case. The
compression flange is stabilised by the purlin.
6.6.4.1 Load combination no.1 Check the length between purlins P9 and P8
Worst case between RH haunch tip and quarter span rotational restraint between 18 3
15 08 3 1100
2992 mm and 9217 mm from the intersection of the rafter and the column.
6 @ 16 30 P10
P8 P9
Taking hogging moment as positive for this calculation:: =
= P6 P7
P4 P5
MEd.haunch = 252.6 kN P2
P3
P1
MEd.2 = 99.5 kN
MEd.3 = -31.7 kN
MEd.4 = -139.0 kN
MEd.restrarint = -222.5 kN
Purlin spacing
38ry
Lm = 1
 f  x   py  
2 2 2
 c +     
straint
straint
130  36   275  
Torsional re
Torsional re
where fc = F/A F@P8 = 115.9 kN

3 2
fc = 115.9 × 10 /(84.5 × 10 ) = 13.2 N/mm2
Worst buckling from gravity loads x = 0. 566 ( D − T ) A J = 0. 566 × (400 − 13. 5) × 84. 5 51. 3
(a) Calculate slenderness λ and λLT
PAGE 75 OF 98
The purlins provide intermediate restraints x = 28.1

Assume side rail depth = 200 mm 38 × 39. 5
Lm = 1
= 2030 mm
13. 2  28. 1  2  235  2  2
=
 +     
200
 130  36   275  
=
The distance between purlins P9 and P8= 1630 mm. This is less than Lm, therefore
300
no additional purlin is required between P9 and P8.
400
=
Cross section through rafter
Distance between the centroid of the rafter and the centroid of the purlins, a
a = 400 / 2 + 200/ 2 = 300 mm
is2 = iy2 + iz2 + a2
is2 = 1652 + 39.52 + 3002 = 118785 mm2
Distance between shear centres of flanges
hs = 400 −13.5 = 386.5 mm
 2 Iw 
a + 
 Iz 
α =  
2
 is 
 
 
Using the simplification for doubly symmetric I sections:
Iw = Iz ( hs / 2)2
 a 2 + (hs 2 )2 
α =  
 is 2 
 
PAGE 76 OF 98
 300 2 + (386. 5 2 )2 
=  
 118785 
 
= 1.072
(a) calculate slenderness for λ and λ LT

Lt iz
λ =
[α + (I t L t 2 2. 6 π 2 I z i s 2 )]
0. 5
6225 39. 5
=
[1. 072 + (5. 13 × 10 5
× 6225 2 2. 6 × π 2 × 1. 32 × 10 7 × 118785 )]
0. 5
= 126.1
λ = λ λ1
= 126.1 93.9
= 1.34
0.5 0. 5
 1   W 2a 
λ LT =   C  pl, y 2  λ EN1993-1-1; BB3.3.2
 A i 
 Cn   s 
where
12
Cn =
[R1 + 3R 2 + 4 R3 + 3 R 4 + R 5 + 2(R s − R E )]
M y, Ed + a N Ed
R1 to R5 are the values of R according to R = at ends, quarter
f y W pl, y
points and mid-length. Only positive values are included.
Conservatively, taking NED positive at all positions:
NED = 168.7 kN
PAGE 77 OF 98
M y, Ed + a N Ed − 222. 8 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300

R1 = = <0 so Omitted
f y W pl, y 235 × 1310 × 10 3
M y, Ed + a N Ed − 139. 0 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300

R2 = = <0 so Omitted
f y W pl, y 235 × 1310 × 10 3
M y, Ed + a N Ed − 31. 7 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300

R3 = = = 0. 02
f y W pl, y 235 × 1310 × 10 3
M y, Ed + a N Ed 99. 5 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300

R4 = = = 0. 44
f y W pl, y 235 × 1310 × 10 3
M y, Ed + a N Ed 254. 7 × 10 6 + 117.2 × 10 3 × 300

R5 = = = 0. 94
f y W pl, y 235 × 1310 × 10 3
R E = max{R1 , R 5 } = 0. 94
R s = max value of R in the length studied = R 5
12
Cn = = 5. 21
[4 × 0. 02 + 3 × 0. 44 + 0. 94]
Conservatively C =1
0. 5 0. 5
 1   1. 31 × 10 6 2 × 300 
λ LT =   × 1 ×  × 
 × 1. 34 = 0. 51
 5. 21   8450 118785 
(b) Calculate buckling resistance to axial load
Nb, Rd = χ ⋅ A ⋅ f y γ M1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3
1
χ min =
2
φ + φ2 −λ
PAGE 78 OF 98
φ

(
= 0. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 2 + λ 
2
) 
hb = 400 180 = 2.22 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.2
tf = 13.5 mm
buckling about z-z axis
→ Curve b for hot rolled I sections
→α = 0.34
φ [
= 0. 5 1 + 0. 34(1. 34 − 0. 2 ) + 1. 34 2 ]
= 1.59
1
χz =
1. 59 + 1. 59 2 − 1. 34 2
= 0.41
Nb, Rd = 0. 41 ⋅ 8450 ⋅ 235 1
= 812 kN
Mb, Rd = χ LT ⋅ W pl, y ⋅ f y γ M1
1
χ LT =
φ LT + φ LT 2 − β ⋅ λ LT 2
φLT [ ( )
= 0. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT,0 + β ⋅ λ LT
2
]
β = 0.75
h/b = 2.5 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.5
For hot rolled sections use Curve c α = 0.49
PAGE 79 OF 98
φLT [
= 0. 5 1 + 0. 49(0. 46 − 0. 4 ) + 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 46 2 ] = 0. 59
1
χ LT = = 0. 975
0. 59 + 0. 59 2 − 0. 75 ⋅ 0. 46 2
Mb, Rd = 0. 975 × 1310 × 10 3 × 235 1 = 300. 3 kNm
+ k yy + k yz ≤1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3.3(4)
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
+ k zy + k zz ≤1
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
There are the following simplifications:
∴ ∆M y, Ed and ∆M z, Ed =0 for Class 1
∴No bending minor axis

∴Buckling about y-y axis is covered by Merchant-Rankine
So,
N Ed M y, Ed
+ k zy ≤1
χ z N Rk M y, Rk
γ M1 γ M1
N Ed N b.Rd.z + k zy ⋅ M y.Ed M b.Rd.y ≤ 1
As λz ≥1 EN1993-1-1; Table B.2
 0,1λ z
2
N Ed   0,1λ z
2
N Ed 
kzy = 1 −  = 1 − 
PAGE 80 OF 98
Conservatively taking ψ=1 EN1993-1-1; Table B.3
C mLT = 0, 6 + 0, 4ψ y ≥ 0, 4
C mLT = 0, 6 + 0, 4 ⋅ 1 = 1
 0,1 117. 2 × 10 3 
kzy = 1 − 
 (1 − 0, 25) 812 × 10 3 
= 0.981
117. 2 812 + 0. 981 ⋅ 252. 6 300. 3 = 0. 97 ≤ 1. 0 ∴Rafter is acceptable.
6.7 HAUNCH DESIGN EAVES HAUNCH STABILITY

The bending moments and plastic modulus (and effective elastic modulus where This section includes the length up to purlin P3.
appropriate) of the section are required at end and quarter points for the stability Four design options exist for the situation where the tension flange is restrained
checks, so these points are also used to check the stresses along the haunch. between restraints to the compression flange.
Determine section properties of the haunched beam-at four positions along haunch:
37 20 1. Ignore the tension flange restraints and design to Clause 4.8.3.3.1 providing
93 0 93 0 restraints to the compression flange as necessary.
93 0 5°
93 0 2. Limit the length between compression flange restraint to Lm given by
Clause 5.3.3.
A
3. Limit the length between compression flange restraints to Ls as given by
Clause 5.3.4.
4. Check the length according to Appendix G of BS 5950-1:2000.
620
From IPE 400

A IPE 500 Method 2 will be conservative as it ignores the restraint to the tension flange
Section A - A between torsional restraints.
4 5
2 3 Method 3 is relatively straightforward but using the limiting length Ls requires the
1
distance between tension flange restraints to be adequate when checked to
Clause 4.8.3.3 (or Clause I.1)
IPE 600
Method 4 would not normally be carried out manually although it can be shown that
Haunch geometry rafter stays to the compression flange at purlins P3 and P5 would be adequate.
PAGE 81 OF 98
Position Distance Areagross Areaeff Areaweb,eff Wpl,y Weff,ply β= Method 3 will be demonstrated here.
2 2
from (mm2) (mm ) (mm ) (mm3) Weff.pl.y
column Method 3, Clause 5.3.4 approach (Simple Method)
face W pl, y
(mm)
Provided the geometrical limitations are complied with, the spacing Ly between
3 3
1 0 11478 11142 6282 3176×10 2986×10 0.94 restraints to the compression flange should not exceed the limiting spacing Ls.
2 925 10656 10656 5796 2647×10
3
2647×10
3
1.0 For S275 (assume acceptable for S235 steel grade)
3 3 620 ry
3 1850 9831 9831 4971 2156×10 2156×10 1.0 Ls = 0. 5
4 2775 9010 9010 4150 1706×103 1706×103 1.0   100  
2
K1 72 −   
  x  
Moments acting at the four positions are as follows: ry and x for the un-haunched section (i.e. rafter)
MEd1 = 577.8 kNm at 0.302 m from intersection of rafter and column Dh
≈ 1, ∴ K1 = 1.25
MEd2 = 488.3 kNm at 1.232 m from intersection of rafter and column Ds
MEd3 = 403.5 kNm at 2.162 m from intersection of rafter and column 620 × 39. 5
∴Ls = 0. 5
mm
MEd4 = 323.1 kNm at 3.092 m from intersection of rafter and column   100  
2
1. 25 72 −   
MEd5 = 247.8 kNm at 4.022 m from intersection of rafter and column   28. 1  
∴Ls = 2543 mm
The length of the haunch (between the column face and purlin P3) is 3700 mm. This
400
is greater than Ls, therefore an additional stay at purlin P2 would be required.

410
Alternatively the length between the face of the column and purlin P3 could be
checked according to Appendix G.2.2.
Assumed
820
elastic
P4 P5
neutral P3
axis P2
P1
420
410
*
* 3.70 m
10,4 224,6
235
Haunch restraints
Elastic stress distribution in web
PAGE 82 OF 98
Therefore stresses available to resist bending:
σ M = f y γ MO − σ N = 235 1 − 10. 4 = 224. 6 N mm 2

(b) Classify web assuming σ M = 224.6 N/mm2
∴Coexistent stress at top of haunch would be
σ = σ M – σ N = 224.6 – 10.4 = 214.2
Total depth = rafter + web + bottom flange
= 796. 5
∴Depth from neutral axis to underside of middle flange
 796. 5 
= 400 −   = 1. 8mm
 2 
∴bending and axial stress at top of haunch cutting:
= 224. 6 × (1. 8 214. 2 ) + 10. 4 = 11. 40 N mm 2

Distance from assumed elastic neutral axis to top of root radius on bottom flange of
haunch cutting
= 796. 5 − 21 − 13. 5 = 363. 8 mm

2
∴bending and axial stress at top of root radius on bottom flange of haunch cutting
= 216. 0 N/mm2
For class 3 check, ψ = 0.053
Depth of web excluding roof radius = 404-21=383 mm
Class 3 limit for ψ >-1:
ε 42 × 1. 0
c t w ≤ 42 = = 61. 1
0. 67 + 0. 33ψ 0. 67 + 0. 33 × 0. 053
PAGE 83 OF 98
383
c tw = = 38 So, web class 3
10. 2
6.7.1 Cross-sectional resistance RAFTER STABILITY ABOVE THE HAUNCH (BETWEEN PURLINS P3 AND P5)
For the stability checks given in this document for tapered haunches to remain valid, The length between purlin P3 and P5 is mostly in the hogging region and does not
the tapered haunch must not contain a plastic hinge. contain a plastic hinge. Restraints (stays) are provided to the compression flange at
purlins P3 and P5
6.7.1.1 Shear Using 4.8.3.3.2(a) out-of-plane buckling because the in-plane stability of the rafter is
assured by the in-plane frame stability.
The depth of the web between flanges is not greater than in the rafter, so shear Fc m LT M LT
buckling is not a problem in the haunch. + ≤ 1
Pcy Mb
The shear in the rafter has been checked in 5.2 above , showing VED ≯0.5Vpl.Ed
In the haunch, the shear area Av increases more than the applied shear VED, so the
shear force has no effect, by inspection.
The tables provided below give the axial and moment resistance of the haunch
section at various positions from the column face. A series of checks is carried out to
determine whether the cross-sectional moment resistance Mc.Ed is reduced by
coexistent axial force. Positions 1 to 5 are checked to find MED/Mc.Ed
191.5 kNm 60.9 kNm
PAGE 84 OF 98
6.7.1.2 Axial and bending
Position Distance NEd Aeff Npl.Rd Aweb,eff Aweb,eff fy

2 2
(mm) (kN) (mm ) (kN) (mm )
1 0 119.5 11142 2618 6282 1476×103
2 925 118.9 10656 2504 5796 1362×103
3
3 1850 118.3 9831 2310 4971 1168×10
3
4 2775 117.7 9010 2117 4150 975×10
3
5 3700 117.2 8450 1986 3208 754×10
Position Distance MEd Is NEd> Mc.Rd Is

(mm) (kNm) (=Mpl.y.Rd) MEd>Mc.Rd?
0.5Aweb.efffy 0.25Npl.Rd
1 0 577.8 No No 702 No
2 925 488.3 No No 622

No
3 1850 403.5 No No 507
No
4 2775 323.1 No No 401
No
5 3700 247.8 No No 307
No
The loading on the haunch is a combination of axial load, shear and bending. By
inspection, the applied shear force is small relative to the shear capacity of the
section and need not therefore be considered. Check positions 1 to 5 to find
M Ed M c.Rd where M c.Rd is the cross-sectional moment of resistance. With low
coexistent axial force and shear force, M c.Rd = M pl.Rd
577. 8 69.5
i. Position 1: = 0. 82 < 1 ∴OK β ≈ − = – 0.36
702 191.5
488. 3 ∴ mLT = 0.47
ii. Position 2: = 0. 79 < 1 ∴OK
622 MLT = M@P3 = 191.5 kNm
PAGE 85 OF 98
403. 5 Fc m LT M LT
iii. Position 3: = 0. 80 < 1 ∴OK + ≤ 1
507 Pcy Mb
323. 1
iv. Position 4: = 0. 81 < 1 ∴OK 192. 9 0. 47 × 191. 5
401 + = 0.18 + 0.40 = 0.58 ∴ OK
1048 223. 5
247. 8
v. Position 5: = 0. 81 < 1 ∴OK
307
→ No plastic hinges in the haunch
6.7.2 Buckling between intermediate restraints
Assuming a purlin is positioned at the mid-length of the haunch, intermediate

buckling should be checked between the column and purlin, and between purlin and
haunch tip. Overall buckling between checks should be carried out for the haunch as
a whole.
The following effective section properties are required:
1. Effective area
2. Effective plastic section modulus
Table 6.2.2.1 gives effective section properties at the start and mid span of the
haunch, calculated for the haunch neglecting the “middle” flange, but remembering
its stabilising effect on the web.
PAGE 86 OF 98
6.7.2.1 Check between column flange and mid-haunch purlin
18 50 mm
4 5
2 3
1
Buckling on deep end of haunch
From 6.2 above, Position 1 is the most critical cross-section,

having M Ed M c.Rd = 0. 82 . Therefore, the resistance is calculated using the area
and modulus at this cross section, together with the axial force and bending moment
at this cross section
Note that χ z and χ LT are calculated at the deepest end because this gives the most
conservative results where the flanges are of constant section and the web is of
constant thickness along the haunch.
(a) Calculate buckling resistance to axial force
N b.Rd.z = χ z Aeff f y γ M1
l = 1850 mm
βA = Aeff A = 11142 = 0. 971
11478
Iz = 1. 312 × 10 7 neglecting the middle flange
iz (
= 1. 312 × 10 7 11478 )
0. 5
= 33. 81
λ = 1850 33. 99 = 54. 71
= λ (β A )0. 5 λ1 = 54. 71 × 0. 971 93. 91 = 0. 574
0. 5
λ
To obtain χ z as above the following steps should be done.
PAGE 87 OF 98
1
χ min =
2
φ + φ2 −λ
φ

(
= 0. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 2 + λ 
2
) 
hb = 796. 5 180 = 4.43

tf = 13.5 mm
Buckling between axis z-z use Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.34
φ [
= 0. 5 1 + 0. 34(0. 574 − 0. 2 ) + 0. 574 2 ]
= 0.73
1
χz =
0. 73 + 0. 73 2 − 0. 574 2
= 0.85
Nb, Rd = χ z Aeff f y γ M1
Nb, Rd = 0. 85 × 11142 × 235 1
= 2225 kN
(b) Calculate buckling resistance to bending moment
M b.Rd.z = χ LT Weff.pl.y f y γ M1
βw = Weff.pl.y W pl.y = 2986 3176 = 0. 94

λ LT = 0. 9λ z = 0. 9 × 0. 574 = 0. 485
1
χ LT =
φ LT + φ LT 2 − β ⋅ λ LT 2
φ LT [ ( )
= 0. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT,0 + β ⋅ λ LT
2
]
PAGE 88 OF 98
β = 0.75
hb = 53.36
For hot rolled sections use Curve c α = 0.49
φ LT = 0.60
χ LT = 0.97
Mb, Rd = 0. 97 × 2. 986 × 10 6 × 235 1 = 297 kNm

N Ed M y, Ed + ∆ M y, Ed M z, Ed + ∆ M z, Ed
+ k yy + k yz ≤1
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
+ k zy + k zz ≤1
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
Which reduces to -
As λ z ≥ 1
 0,1 N Ed   0,1 N Ed 
kzy = 1 −  = 1 − 
 (C mLT − 0, 25) χ z N Rk γ M1   (C mLT − 0, 25) N b, Rd , z 
kzy = Conservatively
117. 2 + 247. 8 = 0. 89 ≤ 1. 0 OK
2138 297
PAGE 89 OF 98
6.7.3 Buckling between torsional restraints
37 20 mm
4 5
2 3
1
Haunch buckling length

Section 6.2 of this example shows that the critical section in the haunch is Position 1
because MEd/MRd is maximum at that point. Therefore, check the resistance based on
forces, moments and resistances at that point.
(a) Calculate slenderness λ and λLT
χ z and χ LT are calculated the constants accounting for the effect of the taper are
based on the shallow end of the haunch
l = 3720 mm
Iz = 1.312 × 107 mm4 (ignoring the middle flange)
iz = (1.312 × 10y/8450)0.5 = 39.4
α = 1.072
The axial slenderness (for restrained tension flange) is given by:
Lt iz
λ =
[α + (I L
t t
2
2. 6π 2 I z is 2 )]
0. 5
3720 39. 4
=
[1. 072 + (5. 13 × 10 5
× 3720 2 2. 6 × π 2 × 1. 312 × 10 7 × 118785 )]
0. 5
= 63.7
PAGE 90 OF 98
λ = λ λ1
= 63.7 93.9
= 0.678
0. 5 0. 5
 1   W pl, y 2 a 
λ LT =   c  λ EN1993-1-1; BB3.3.2
 Cn   A i 2
 s 
where C n = 1.2
and since
= 400
h/tf
13. 5 = 29. 6
h/b = 400 = 2. 22
180
23
 hmax3 
c = 1+  − 1 EN1993-1-1; BB 3.3.3
h   
 − 9   hmin 
t 
 f 
hmax = 654
hmin = 400
23
3  654 
c = 1+  − 1 = 1. 1
 400  400
 − 9   
 13. 5 
0. 5 0. 5
 1   1. 3 × 10 6 2 × 300 
λ LT =   × 1. 1 ×  × 
 × 0. 678 = 0. 654
 1. 2   8450 118785 
(b) Calculate buckling resistance to axial load
Nb, Rd = χ A f y γ M1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3
PAGE 91 OF 98
1
χ min =
2
φ + φ2 − λ
φ

(
= 0. 5 1 + α λ − 0. 2 + λ 
2
) 
hb = 796.5 180 = 4.43 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.2
tf = 14.6 mm
Buckling between axis z-z
Curve b for hot rolled I sections α = 0.34
φ [
= 0. 5 1 + 0. 34(0. 678 − 0. 2 ) + 0. 678 2 ]
= 0.811
1
χz =
0. 811 + 0. 811 2 − 0. 678 2
= 0.796
A = 11142 mm2 (neglecting the middle flange)
Nb, Rd = χ A f y γ M1
Nb, Rd = 0. 796 × 11142 × 235 1
= 2084 kN
Mb, Rd = χ LT W pl, y f y γ M1
1
χ LT =
φ LT + φ LT 2 − β λ LT 2
φ LT [ (
= 0. 5 1 + α λ LT − λ LT,0 + β λ LT ) 2
]
β = 0.75
PAGE 92 OF 98
h/b = 2.22 EN1993-1-1; Table 6.5

Use Curve c for hot rolled I sections α =0.49
φ LT = 0.723
χ LT = 0.854
Mb, Rd = 0. 854 × 2986 × 10 3 × 235 1 = 599 kNm
+ k yy + k yz ≤1 EN1993-1-1; §6.3.3(4)
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
+ k zy + k zz ≤1
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1
Which reduces to –
As λz ≤1 EN1993-1-1; Table B.2
 0,1λ z
2
N Ed   0,1λ z
2
N Ed 
kzy 
= 1−  
= 1− 
 (C mLT − 0, 25) χ z N Rk γ M1   (C mLT − 0, 25) N b, Rd, z 
ψ =1
C mLT = 0,6 + 0,4 ⋅ 1 = 1 EN1993-1-1; Table B.3
kzy = 0.98
119. 5 2084 + 0. 98 × 577. 8 599 = 0. 99 ≤ 1. 0 ∴ Acceptable.
PAGE 93 OF 98
General design procedure according o BS 5950-1: 2000:

BS 5950-1: 2000
1. Select steel grade and trial sections
2. Check in-plane stability of frame (λp ≥ λr) using: Cl. 5.5.3
• Sway check method, or Cl. 5.5.4.1
• Amplified moments method, or Cl. 5.5.4.4
• Second-order analysis Cl. 5.5.4.5
3. Check out-of-plane stability of frame Cl. 5.5.1
4. Check in-plane stability of members Cl. 5.2.3.1
5. Check out-of-plane stability of members Cl. 5.3.1

Determine limiting segment length for:
(a) Segment adjacent to plastic hinge (Lm) Cl. 5.3.3
(b) Member or segment with one flange restrained (Ls) using:
– Simple method, or
Cl. 5.3.4
– Annex G approach
Annex G.3
6. Check deflections Table 8
7. Design connections and bases to transmit forces and moments.
PAGE 94 OF 98
ANNEX A: Characteristic values of internal forces
Characteristic values of internal forces due to the particular load cases determined by first order analysis, see load scheme in Figure 2.
Figure 3: Characteristic internal forces due to dead load incl. profiles
Figure 4: Characteristic internal forces due to snow load
Figure 5: Characteristic internal forces due to wind load
Figure 6: Characteristic internal forces due to sway imperfection
PAGE 95 OF 98
ANNEX B: Plastic failure of portal frame
Plastic failure of a portal frame subject to uniformly distributed loading may be analysed by considering the development of either: pairs of
plastic hinges in the rafters, or a plastic hinge in the rafter and also at the top of the column.
For the first case, the positions of the plastic hinges occur at the tip of the haunch, at distance a into the span, and at a variable position x from
the apex (see Figure 3(a)). For the second case, the plastic hinge occurs in the column below the haunch and at position x from the apex.
Equilibrium can be established for each plastic hinge position in terms of the horizontal reaction R at the base of the column, the applied
loading and the plastic resistance of the rafter (beam), as illustrated in Figure 3(b). These equilibrium equations can be solved to establish the
minimum value of the load w, at failure. A plastic hinge will form in the column for low-rise long span portal frames.
Figure 3: Plastic hinge mechanisms in portal frame
Case 1: Plastic hinges in rafters

Equilibrium is established at the plastic hinge positions, according to:
At point A:
wLa wa 2
R(H + a tan θ) = − + M pl
2 2
At point B:
PAGE 96 OF 98
2
wL  L  wL 
R(H + (0.5L – x) tan θ) =  − x  −  − x  − M pl
2 2  2 2 
Solving these two equations by eliminating the reaction R leads to the following relationship between the applied moment and bending
resistance of the rafter.
 4a 4a 2 4 x 2  L  a a 2  
1 − + −  H +  − x  −  tan θ 
   
wL2  L L2 L2  2  L L2  
M pl =
8 [2 H + (0. 5 L + a − x ) tan θ ]
where w is the load per unit length applied to the rafter
and Mpl is the plastic bending resistance of the rafter
L is the span of the portal frame
H is the column length
a is the length of the haunch
θ is the slope of the rafter
This unique equation is a function of x, which can be solved by selecting different values of x and establishing the minimum value of w (or
maximum value of Mpl). The term in brackets represents the deviation from the free bending moment, wL2/8.
Example: L = 25 m θ = 15° a=2m H = 7.5 m
Try x = 3 m and x/L = 0.12:
M pl =
[( ) ( )
wL2 1 − 4 × 0. 08 + 4 × 0. 08 2 − 4 × 0. 12 2 × 7. 5 + (12. 5 − 3) 0. 08 − 0. 08 2 × 0. 27 ]
8 [2 × 7. 5 + (12. 5 + 2 − 3) × 0. 27]
= 0.28 (wL2/8)
Try x = 1 m and x/L = 0.04:
Mpl = 0.27(wL2/8)
This shows that there is a relatively small variation in Mpl for different values of x, and it may be found that x ≈ 2 m. The horizontal reaction R is
established from the previous equations, and for this value of x is given by:
R = 0.45 (wL/2)
PAGE 97 OF 98
Case 2: Plastic hinges at top of column and the rafter

A plastic hinge may occur at the top of the column below the haunch in which case, equilibrium is established from:
R(H –b) = Mpl,col
where
b is the depth of the haunch
Mpl,col is the plastic bending resistance of the column
The equation for equilibrium at point B in the rafter is the same as the previous case. Solving the two equations leads to the following
relationship between the applied moment and the bending resistances of the rafter and column:
 L  
 H +  − x  tan θ 
 2   = wL
2
 4x 2 
M pl + M pl ,col 1 − 2 
(H − b ) 8  L 
( ) ( )
For x/L ≈ 0.08 and b/H = 0.1 and Mpl = 0.28 wL2 / 8 , it follows that Mpl,col = 0.42 wL2 / 8 . Therefore, the bending resistance of the column
should be 51% higher than that of the rafter in order for Case 1 to control. If Mpl,col < 1.51 Mpl, then Case 2 will control.
Note:
The analysis provided above is for the vertical loading case only. It does not consider horizontal loads or wind loading which can cause non-
symmetrical loading. This approach is satisfactory for BS 5950 however care should be taken when designing using Eurocode 3-1-1 as all
load combinations must be taken into account.
PAGE 98 OF 98

Eurobuild Portal Frame Design Comparison

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Eurobuild Portal Frame Design Comparison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurobuild in Steel

Comparison of the Design of a Portal Frame

3 FRANCE: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO CM66 .........................................................................................................................13

4 GERMANY: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO DIN 18800.............................................................................................................27

5 SWEDEN: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BSK99 .......................................................................................................................38

5.5 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

6 U.K.: CALCULATION PROCEDURE COMPARED TO BS 5950-1 ...........................................................................................................................50

ANNEX A: CHARACTERISTIC VALUES OF INTERNAL FORCES ...............................................................................................................................95

Figure 1: Sketch of the treated portal frame structure

Figure 2: Load scheme and characteristic loads

2 Comparison of the designs

2.4 UNITED KINGDOM

3 France: Calculation procedure compared to CM66

3.1.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)

fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σe = 235N/mm²

3.1.2 Rafter: IPE 400 (S235)

fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σe = 235 N/mm2

fy = 235N/mm²; γM0 = γM1 = 1,0 (EC3, 6.1) σe = 235N/mm²

3.3 Internal forces acc. to 1st order theory

Loading combinations: (Add.80 § 3.41)

Loading combinations acc. to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3) and Annex A:

LC 1: 1,35 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E snow + E Im p LC 2: 1,33 ⋅ E deadload + 1,5 ⋅ E wind

3.4 Classification of cross-sections (local buckling check)

3.4.1 Column: IPE 600 (S235)

Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Non plate buckling conditions? (Add.80 § 5.1)

Flange: ψ = α = 1 (constant pressure) Non plate buckling conditions? (Add.80 § 5.1)

(200/2-10,2/2–21) / 16 = 4,62 < 9 → class 1 (EC3, table 5.2)

3.5 Ultimate limit states

3.5.1 Column IPE600 (S235)

3.5.1.1 Resistance of cross-section

3.5.1.1.1 Check for shear force

→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd

Check < 0,5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))

3.5.1.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment

Internal forces: |NEd| = 135,5kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces:

NEd 125,5 Vy N 99,1 124,35

→ no interaction between N and My 3 ⇒ Mx = 594,25 kNm ≤ Mpx = 827,20 kNm

3.5.1.2 Buckling resistance of member

3.5.1.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about y-axis)

3.5.1.2.3 Lateral torsional buckling

M cr = C1 ⋅ ⋅ + 2  = 1431,8 kNm (ENV 1993-1-1, Annex F, 1.3 (3)) M D = C1 ⋅ ⋅ ς+   (Add.80 § 5.22)

3.5.1.2.4 Interaction for compression force and bending

3.5.2 Rafter IPE 400 (S235)

3.5.2.1 Resistance of cross section

3.5.2.1.1 Check for shear force

→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd

Check < 0,5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))

3.5.2.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment

Internal forces: |NEd| = 108,7kN, |My,Ed| = 216,6 kNm Internal forces:

3.5.2.2 Buckling resistance of member

3.5.2.2.1 In plane flexural buckling (about y-axis)

3.5.2.2.3 Interaction for compression force and bending

Internal forces: |NSd| = 108,7kN, |My,Sd| = 216,6 kNm Internal forces:

3.5.3.1 Resistance of cross section

3.5.3.1.1 Check for shear force

Check for shear buckling: moment.

→ No shear buckling 3 → shear resistance Vpl,z,Rd

Check < 0,5 → no interaction between Vz and My 3 (EC3, 6.2.8 (2))

3.5.3.1.2 Check for axial force and bending moment

Internal forces: |NEd| = 112,3kN, |My,Ed| = 606,8 kNm Internal forces:

3.5.3.2 Buckling resistance of member

3.6 Serviceability limit states