Structural Steelwork Eurocodes

Development of
A Trans-national Approach
Course: Eurocode 3

Module 7 : Worked Examples

Lecture 21: Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using

simple and semi-rigid joints.

Objectives:
 To explain the main principles of EC3 by practical worked example.


References:
 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1.1 General rules and rules for buildings


Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

Contents:
1 Frame geometry and loading
2 Objectives and design steps
3 Frame design with pinned joints
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Preliminary design of beams and columns
3.3 Frame analysis
3.3.1 Serviceability limit state
3.3.2 Ultimate limit state
3.4 Design checks
3.4.1 Serviceability limit state
3.4.2 Ultimate limit state
3.4.2.1 Column stability
3.4.2.2 Section check of the beams
3.4.2.3 Section check of the columns
3.5 Design of joints
4 Frame design with semi-rigid joints
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Preliminary design of beams, columns and joints
4.3 Frame analysis
4.3.1 Serviceability limit state
4.3.2 Ultimate limit state
4.4 Design checks
4.4.1 Serviceability limit state
4.4.2 Ultimate limit state
4.4.2.1 Column stability
4.4.2.2 Section check of the beams
4.4.2.3 Section check of the columns
4.5 Design of the joints
5 Frame design with partial-strength joints
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Preliminary design of beams and columns
5.3 Design of the joints
5.4 Frame analysis
5.4.1 Serviceability limit state
5.4.2 Ultimate limit state
5.5 Design checks
5.5.1 Serviceability limit state
5.5.2 Ultimate limit state
5.5.2.1 Column stability
5.5.2.2 Section checks of the beams
5.5.2.3 Section checks of the columns
6 Conclusions

09/12/20 2
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

1 Frame geometry and loading

Figure 1 shows a non-sway braced frame. The frame consists of two storeys and two bays.
The beam span is 7,2m. The height from column foot to the beam at floor level is 4,5m, the
height from floor to roof is 4,2m. It is assumed that the column foot is pinned to the
foundation.

3 Roof IPE 4 4 IPE 3

HEA HEA HEA 4,2 m

1 Floor IPE 2 2 IPE 1

HEA HEA HEA 4,5 m

7,2 m 7,2 m

Figure 1 Geometry of the braced frame

The following load case, corresponding to dead and live load (no horizontal loads) is governing;
the design loads include the partial safety factors for actions.

Design loads Roof Floor

Serviceability limit 40 kN/m 59 kN/m

state

Ultimate limit state 54 kN/m 81 kN/m

Table 1 Governing load case

The steel grade chosen for beams, columns and joints is S235, with f y = 235 N/ mm2. The
following partial safety factors for strength have been adopted during the design :

M0 = 1,1;
M1 = 1,1;
Mb = 1,25.
The columns are HEA sections. They are fully supported against lateral-torsional buckling. The
columns are continuous from column foot to roof. They are supported against out-of-plane
movement at foot, floor and roof levels.

09/12/20 3
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

Beams are IPE sections. The beams are supported against lateral torsional buckling; they have
no initial camber. All the sections fulfill the requirements for Class 1 sections.
2 Objectives and design steps
In this example, the beams, columns and joints will be designed. For this, three solutions will
be studied :
 Frame design with pinned joints;
 Frame design with semi-rigid joints;
 Frame design with partial-strength joints.
One starts with the design of a simple frame with pinned joints (Section 3). Then, one
introduces joints having a certain rotational stiffness and moment resistance; this probably
allows lower beam sizes. To see whether this expectation is confirmed, an elastic analysis
(Section 4) and a plastic analysis (Section 5) have respectively been carried out.

3 Frame design with pinned joints

3.1 Introduction
Frame design with pinned joints is typical when the members are designed by an engineer and
the joints in a subsequent step by the steel fabricator. The steps described in Sections 3.2 to
3.4.2 are normally performed by the engineer; the step described in Section 3.5 is the task of the
steel fabricator (refer to Lectures 7 and 8 for more explanation in this respect).

3.2 Preliminary design of beams and columns

The following sizes for beams and columns are chosen :
 Floor beams : IPE 550
 Roof beams : IPE 450
 Outer columns : HE 200 A
 Inner columns : HE 240 A.

3.3 Frame analysis

3.3.1 Serviceability limit state

The maximum deflection amounts :

5q Sd l 4b
u
384EI b
where :
u deflection;
E Young modulus equal to 210000 N/mm 2;
Ib second moment of area of the beam;
qSd design uniformly distributed load at serviceability limit state.

5  59  7200 4
Floor beams :  14,6 mm
384  210000  67120  10 4

09/12/20 4
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

5  40  7200 4
Roof beams :  19,8 mm
384  210000  33740  10 4

3.3.2 Ultimate limit state

In the case of a frame with pinned joints, the frame analysis is based on simple equilibrium
equations.
The maximum moment in the beam is :
MSd = 1/8 qSd lb2
where :
MSd moment in the beam span;
qSd design uniformly distributed load at ultimate limit state;
lb beam span.
Floor beams : MSd = 1/8 x 81 x 7,2 2 = 525 kNm
Roof beams : MSd = 1/8 x 54 x 7,2 2 = 350 kNm
The maximum axial force in the column is :
NSd = S 1/2 qSd lb
where :
NSd axial force in the columns;
S summation sign for all the connected beams at all floor and roof levels.
Outer columns : NSd = 1/2 x 81 x 7,2 + ½ x 54 x 7,2 = 486 kN
Inner columns : NSd = 2 x (1/2 x 81 x 7,2 + 1/2 x 54 x 7,2) = 972 kN

3.4 Design checks

EC3 Fig. 4.1
3.4.1 Serviceability limit state
To reduce the volume of calculations reported here, only the max limit has been checked :
u  max = lb / 250 (floor beam) and u  max = lb / 200 (roof beam)
Floor beam : 14,6 mm  72000 mm / 250 = 28,8 mm
Roof beam : 19,8 mm  72000 mm / 200 = 36 mm
 Satisfactory.

3.4.2 Ultimate limit state

To reduce the volume of the worked example, the check of the ultimate limit state is limited to
the following aspects :
· Column stability;
· Cross-sectional checks of beams and columns. 5.5.1.1

3.4.2.1 Column stability

In accordance with Eurocode 3, the criterion to be fulfilled is :
NSd   A A fy / M1
where :

09/12/20 5
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

NSd acting compressive force in the column;

 reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode, i.e. z in this case;
A = 1 for Class 1 cross-sections;
M1 partial safety factor, taken equal to 1,1;
A cross-sectional area of the column.
The value of  depends on the reduced slenderness of the columns :

 =  / 1 ( A )1/2
where :
l = l / iz
l1 = 93,9 (steel grade S235);
iz radius of gyration;
l column buckling length (taken here equal to the system length).
Outer columns HE 200 A :
l = l / iz = 4500 / 49,8 = 90,4
l - = l / l1 (A)1/2 = 90,4 / 93,9 = 0,96 hence  = 0,58 (buckling curve c).
NSd = 486 kN   A A fy / M1 = 0,58 · 5380 · 235 / 1,1 = 666 kN.
.  Satisfactory
Inner columns HE 240 A:
l = l / iz = 4500 / 60,0 = 75
 =  / 1 ( A )1/2 = 75 / 93,9 = 0,80 hence  = 0,66 (buckling curve c).

NSd = 972 kN   A A fy / M1 = 0,66 · 7680 · 235 / 1,1 = 1082 kN

 Satisfactory.

3.4.2.2 Section check of the beams 5.4.5.1

The check of beam cross-sections is conducted in accordance with Eurocode 3. Because the
beam sections are Class 1, a plastic verification is permitted :
MSd  Mc.Rd = Wpl fy / M0
where Wpl is the plastic section modulus.
Floor beam : 525.10 6 Nmm  2780.103 · 235 /1,1 = 593.10 6 Nmm.
Roof beam : 350.10 6 Nmm  1702.103 · 235 /1,1 = 364.10 6 Nmm,.
 Satisfactory.

3.4.2.3 Section check of the columns

The section check of the columns is covered by the buckling check carried out in Section
3.4.2.1.

3.5 Design of joints

Joints may be designed as simple joints, e.g.
 Web cleated joints;

09/12/20 6
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

 Fin plate joints;

Chapter 6
 Flexible end-plate joints (thin end-plates only welded to the web of the beam).
These types of connections need to be designed for shear force only. Detailing should be such
that the rules of Eurocode 3 are satisfied.

4 Frame design with semi-rigid joints

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, as in Section 3, the members can be designed by the engineer and the joints by
the steel fabricator. During member design (Sections 4.2 to 4.5), the effect of the joints on the
frame behaviour is taken into account by assuming that the engineer makes a good assessment
of the mechanical properties of the joints. In the subsequent step of the joint design (Section
4.6), the steel fabricator needs to ensure that the mechanical properties of the joints are close
enough to the assumptions made by the engineer (See also Lectures 7 and 8 for more
explanations).

4.2 Preliminary design of beams, columns and joints

Column sizes will be chosen as in Section 3. However, we will try to save on the beam sizes.
Therefore, beams are chosen one section size lower than in the case of the frame with pinned
joints:
 Floor beams : IPE 500
 Roof beams : IPE 400
 Outer columns : HE 200 A
 Inner column : HE 240 A.
For the joints, flush end-plate connections will be contemplated. A first assessment of the
initial stiffness of these joints is made using the following formula :

E z 2 t f .c
S j.app 
kx
where :
Sj.app approximate initial stiffness of the joint;
kx coefficient taken from Table 2;
z distance between the compression and tension resultants. For extended end-plate
joints, this distance equals approximately the beam height;
tf.c column flange thickness;
E Young modulus (= 210.000 N/mm 2).
The values of Sj.app are listed in Table 2.

Type of joint kx

Extended end-plate, single sided 13

09/12/20 7
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

Extended end-plate, double sided 7,5

symmetrically

Table 2 kx-factor for different types of joints

Joint Sj.app (Nmm/rad)

1 IPE 500 floor

210000  500 2  10
=
HE200A column 13
40.109
2 IPE 500 floor
210000  500 2  10
= 84.109
HE240A column 7,5

3 IPE 400 roof

210000  400 2  10
= 26.109
HE200A column 13
4 IPE 400 roof
210000  400 2  12
= 54.109
HE240A column 7,5

Table 3 Approximate initial joint stiffness

4.3 Frame analysis

In this case, a first-order linear frame analysis is carried out. In accordance with Eurocode 3, Annex J -
half of the initial stiffness of the joint is introduced in the frame analysis at the ultimate limit (revised)
state. Since serviceability limit state is not governing the design of the frame, the same value
of the joint stiffness has been used for this limit state.
In this worked example, it is assumed that the available frame analysis software reflect the
stiffness of the joint by means of a spring element.

4.3.1 Serviceability limit state

The results of the frame analysis program are as follows :
Floor beam : u = 12,2 mm.
Roof beam : u = 15,9 mm.

4.3.2 Ultimate limit state

The results of the frame analysis program are as follows (Figure 2) :
Outer columns : NSd = 444 kN MSd = 23 kNm
Inner column : NSd = 1055 kN MSd = 0 kNm
Floor beam : MSd = 360 kNm
Roof beam : MSd = 225 kNm
1 joint IPE 500 floor beam-to-HE200A column : MSd = 78 kNm
2 joint IPE 500 floor beam-to HE240A column : MSd = 251 kNm
3 joint IPE 400 floor beam-to HE200A column : MSd = 60 kNm
4 joint IPE 400 floor beam-to HE240A column : MSd = 188 kNm

09/12/20 8
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

joint 3 188 joint 4 60

joint 1 251 joint 2 78

Figure 2 Moment distribution (ultimate limit state)

4.4 Design checks

4.4.1 Serviceability limit state

Only the max limit of Eurocode 3 has been checked here : Figure 4.1

u  max = lb / 2500 (floor) and u  max = lb / 200 (roof)

Floor beam : 12,2 mm  72000 mm / 250 = 28,8 mm.
Roof beam : 15,9 mm  72000 mm / 200 = 36 mm.
 Satisfactory.

4.4.2 Ultimate limit state

In this worked example, the check of the ultimate limit state is again limited to the following
aspects :
· Column stability;
· Cross-sectional checks of beams and columns.

4.4.2.1 Column stability

Inner column HE 240A :
NSd   A A fy / M1
NSd = 1055 kN   A A fy / M1 = 0,66 · 7680 · 235 / 1,1 = 1082 kN,.

09/12/20 9
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

 Satisfactory.
Outer column HE 200 A :
It is assumed that lateral-torsional buckling is not a possible failure mode.
(It has to be noted that Eurocode 3 is rather conservative concerning stability checks of I or H
columns loaded with axial force and uni-axial bending about the strong-axis compared to tests
and other national design standards (for example the German and the Dutch Standards).
According to Eurocode 3, the criterion to be fulfilled is :

N sd k y M y.Sd
 1 5.5.4
 min Af y /  M1 Wpl.y f y /  M1
where :
min the smaller of the  values relative respectively to weak-axis and strong-axis buckling,
here z = 0,58;
 y N sd
ky = 1 1
 y Af y

y =  y ( 2 My  4)  ( Wpl. y  Wel.y ) / Wel. y but y  0,9

= 0,27 x (2 x 1,8 - 4) + (430.10 3 - 389.103) / 389.103 = 0
My determined based on Eurocode 3, in this case 1,8;
Figure 5.5.3
y = l / l1 (A)1/2 = 25,6 / 93,9 = 0,27

l = l / iy = 4500 / 17,6 = 25,6

l1 = 93,9
l column buckling length, i.e. 4500 mm.
444.10 3 1  23  10 6
 1
0,58  5380  235 / 1.1 430.10 3  235 / 1.1
0,67 + 0,24 = 0,91  1.
 Satisfactory.

4.4.2.2 Section check of the beams

Check of the beams with Eurocode 3 :
IPE 500 floor beam : 5.4.5.1
360.10 Nmm  2200.10 x 235 /1,1 = 517.10 Nmm.
6 3 6

 Satisfactory.
IPE 400 roof beam :
225.106 Nmm  1308.103 x 235 /1,1 = 307.10 6 Nmm.
 Satisfactory.

4.4.2.3 Section check of the columns

Since weak-axis buckling is the governing failure mode for the inner column, no check of the
inner column section needs to carried out.
The section check of the outer column can be carried out using Eurocode 3:
5.4.8.1(3)

09/12/20 10
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

444.10 3
NSd / Npl.Rd = = 0.38  1
5380x 235 / 1,1
23.10 6
MSd / My.pl = = 0,25  1
430.10 3 x 235 / 1,1
Since NSd / Npl.Rd  0.5, there is no need to check the interaction between axial force and bending
moment.
 Satisfactory.
4.5 Design of the joints
Joints have been designed using a specific software called CoP (Table 4). Flush end-plates have
been contemplated for all the joints. Despite the high value of bending moments in the internal
joints, transverse column web stiffeners are avoided whilst the web remains free for erection of
beams out of the plane of the frame. Bolts are 10,9. However a web reinforcement plate is
required on internal columns to avoid the premature crushing of the column web in
compression.
Elevations Details

10 10
0 0
80
M16 HR M16 HR
10,9 10,9 90
af = 7mm
af = 7mm
50
0 240
IPE 500
IPE 500 aw = 6 mm
aw = 6 mm

80
200/490/16 200/490/16
HEA 200 50 100 50
HEA 200

150/510/6 10 100
0

M16 HR 60
M16 HR
10,9 90
10,9
af = 7mm af = 7mm
90
50
IPE 500 0 100
aw = 6 mm IPE 500 aw = 6 mm 90
60
200/490/16 200/490/16

HEA 200 HEA 240 50 100 50

Figure 3 Geometry of the connections for IPE500 beams.

Joint MRd (kNm) Sj.ini (Nmm/rad)

1 IPE 500 floor beam 160 78.109

HE200A column

2 IPE 500 floor beam 246 359.109

HE240A column

09/12/20 11
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

3 IPE 400 roof beam 128 58.109

HE200A column

4 IPE 400 roof beam 140 228.109

HE240A column

Table 4 Joint properties according to CoP calculations

Whether the assumed stiffness was accurate enough in the frame analysis has to be checked.
This can be done using Table 5.
Since all the approximate values Sj.app are lower, then the actual stiffness Sj.act computed based
on CoP software, it is only required to check the upper limit.
Verification of the joints between an IPE 400 roof beam and a HE 240A inner column :
10S j.app EI b
S j.act 
8EI b  S j.app l b
10
 S j.app
S j.app l b
8
EI b
10
 54.10 9   Nmm / rad
54 10 9 x 7200
8
210000 x 23131.10 4
The results for the other joints in the frame are summarised in Table 6. It appears in each case
that the actual stiffness is higher than the approximate stiffness. Therefore, only a check on the
upper bound is required.
This check is satisfactory. The difference between the actual stiffness and the approximate
stiffness will not lead to more than a 5% drop in frame bearing resistance.

Frame Lower bound Upper bound

Braced 8S j.app EI b 8EI b

S j.act  If S j.act  then:
10EI b  S j.app l b lb
10S j.app EI b
S j.act 
8EI b  S j.app l b
else: Sj.act £¥
where :
Sj.app assumed stiffness adopted in the frame analysis (this is an approximation
of the 'actual' stiffness);
Sj.act 'actual' stiffness of a joint;
E Young modulus;
lb beam length;
Ib second moment of area of the beam.

Table 5 Bounds of variance between actual and approximate

stiffnesses

Joint Sj.app Upper bound Sj.act (Nmm/rad)

(Nmm/rad) (Nmm/rad)

09/12/20 12
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

1 IPE 500 floor beam 40.109 78.109 78.109

HE200A column
2 IPE 500 floor beam 84.109  359.109
HE240A column

3 IPE 400 roof beam 26.109 68.109 58.109

HE200A column

4 IPE 400 roof beam 54.109  228.109

HE240A column

Table 6 Check of joint stiffness

5 Frame design with partial-strength joints
5.1 Introduction
In this application, the theory of plasticity is used. The latter can lead to economical results, as
is shown in the following.
In contrast to the design procedures given in Sections 3 and 4, both member and joint designs
are preferably performed by one single party, e.g. the steel fabricator. The reason for this is as
follows: when using plastic design joints, properties need to be determined at an early stage of
the design procedure and be included in the frame analysis. This is in contrast with the
previous applications, where it was possible first to design beams and columns and then, in a
second step, to design the joints.

5.2 Preliminary design of beams and columns

The same beam and column sizes as in Section 4 will be used :
 Floor beams : IPE 500
 Roof beams : IPE 400
 Outer columns : HE 200 A
 Inner column : HE 240 A.

5.3 Design of the joints

As a first step, flush end-plate joints will be contemplated. All the flush end-plates have been
chosen 12 mm thick. Bolts are M20 Grade 8.8. In all the joints, four bolt rows have been used.
Figure 4 shows the geometry of the flush end- plates.
The joint properties were computed by means of the CoP software; they are listed in Table 7.
The governing failure mode of the joints is related to the bending of the end-plate. So a
sufficient rotation capacity is available and a plastic design is permitted.

09/12/20 13
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

Joint Mrd (kNm) Sj.ini Rotational

(Nmm/rad) capacity

1 IPE 500 floor beam 70 25.109 sufficient

HE200A column

2 IPE 500 floor beam 104 60.109 sufficient

HE240A column

3 IPE 400 roof beam 54 16.109 sufficient

HE200A column

4 IPE 400 roof beam 80 32.109 sufficient

HE240A column

Table 7 Joint properties according to CoP calculations

50 50
50 50

376 IPE 400

476
50
50
50
50

50 100 50 50 100 50

Flush end-plate: IPE 500 Flush end-plate: IPE 400

Figure 4 Geometry of the flush end plate connections

For the design of the joints connecting a beam to the columns, the following rule should be
satisfied (see Figure 5) :
1 / 8q Sd l 2b
1
M pl.y  0,5M Rd.1  0,5M Rd.2
where :
Mpl.y resistance moment of the beam, see Section 4.4.2.2;
MRd.1 resistance moment of the joint connecting the beam to the outer column;
MRd.2 resistance moment of the joint connecting the beam to the inner column.
In this case, a bending moment of 1/8 qSd lb2 is taken at mid span, considering that this
assumption is sufficiently accurate.

09/12/20 14
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

qSd

lb

MSd.1  MRd.1 2 MSd.1  MRd.1

1/8 qSd l

MSd  Mpl.y

Figure 5 Equilibrium of a beam

Check of the floor beam :
525
 0,87  1
517  0,5  70  0,5  104

 Satisfactory.
Check of the roof beam:
350
 0,93  1
307  0,5  54  0,5  80

 Satisfactory.

5.4 Frame analysis

5.4.1 Serviceability limit state

For sake of simplicity, the entire stiffness of the joints is neglected when determining the
deflections at the serviceability limit state. This yields the following results :

5  59  7200 4
Floor beam : u = = 20,3 mm
384  210000  48200.10 4

5  40  7200 4
Roof beam : u = = 28,8 mm
384  210000  23130.10 4

5.4.2 Ultimate limit state

It is assumed that, at collapse, the outer column is still continuous, but pinned connected to the
beams and loaded with 54 kNm (design moment capacity of the joint) at roof level and 70 kNm
(design moment capacity joint) at the floor level (see Figure 6). Then, the axial force in the
outer column is equal to :
Nc.Sd = S (1/2 qSd lb + (MRd.1 - MRd.2) / lb ) )
= 1/2 x 81 x 7,2 + (70 - 104) / 7,2 +

09/12/20 15
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

1/2 x 54 x 7,2 + (54 - 80) / 7,2

= 478 kN
The axial force in the inner column is equal to :
Nc.Sd = S (1/2 qSd lb + (MRd.2 - MRd.1) / lb ) )
= (1/2 x 81 x 7,2 + (70 - 104) / 7,2 +
1/2 x 54 x 7,2 + (54 - 80) / 7,2 ) x 2
= 989 kN
With help of first order elastic analysis, the moment in the outer column just below the floor is :
MSd = 23 kNm.

54 kNm
HE 200 A 4,2 m

70 kNm
HE 200 A 4,5 m

Figure 6 Moments acting on the outer column

5.5 Design checks

5.5.1 Serviceability limit state
Floor : 20,3 mm  72000 mm / 250 = 28,8 mm.
Roof : 28,8 mm  72000 mm / 200 = 36 mm.
 Satisfactory.
(Note : if this verification was not satisfactory, then a first order elastic frame analysis could be
carried out, taking the stiffness of the joints into consideration).

09/12/20 16
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

5.5.2 Ultimate limit state

5.5.2.1 Column stability

With reference to 4.4.2.1, the check of column stability will be satisfactory for the inner
column.
5.5.4
For the outer columns, Eurocode 3 needs to be checked (see also Section 4.4.2.1).

N sd k y M y.Sd
 1
 min Af y /  M1 Wpl.y f y /  M1

478.10 3 1.23.10 6
 1
0,58  5380  235 / 1,1 430.10 3  235 / 1,1

0,71 + 0,25 = 0,96

 Satisfactory.

5.5.2.2 Section checks of the beams

No check is required, since this has been done in Section 5.2
5.5.2.3 Section checks of the columns
Since weak-axis buckling is the governing failure mode for the inner column, no check of the
inner column section needs to be carried out.
The section check of the outer columns can be carried out using Eurocode 3: 5.4.8.1(3)

N sd 478.10 3
NSd / Npl.Rd =   0,41  1
Af y /  M 0 5380x 235 / 1,1

M y.Sd 23.10 6
MSd / My.pl =   0,25  1
Wpl.y f y /  M 0 430.10 3 x 235 / 1,1

Since NSd / Npl.Rd  0,5, there is no need to check the interaction between axial force and bending
moment.
 Satisfactory.

6 Conclusions
This worked example showed that semi-rigid / partial-strength concept, as given in Chapter 6.3
can be applied to braced frames in a straightforward manner. Based on the design of a simple
frame with pinned joints, the beam and column sizes can be derived. General rules for
economic design are :
 The columns in the frame with semi-rigid / partial-strength joints are identical to those used
in the frame with simple (pinned) joints;
 The beam sizes are one section lower.
Calculations to the frames with semi rigid / partial strength joints showed that a plastic frame
analysis with partial strength joints normally leads to simpler joints then elastic frame analysis.
The three possibilities are summarised in Table 8 :

Possibility Frame Joint Type of joint Beam Parties

09/12/20 17
Structural Steelwork Eurocodes – Development of a Trans-National Approach
Worked examples
Comparative design of a braced non-sway frame using simple, semi-rigid joints

analysis modelling sizes

Section 3 Elastic Simple Angle cleats, fin plate or IPE 550 / Engineer
partial depth end plate IPE 450 and
Steel Fabricator

Section 4 Elastic Semi- rigid Haunched end plates IPE 500 / Engineer
IPE 400 and
Steel Fabricator

Section 5 Plastic Partial Flush end plates IPE 500 / Engineer

strength IPE 400 or
Steel Fabricator

Table 8 Summary of frame alternatives

09/12/20 18