NSCC2009

Innovative rules in Eurocode 3, Part 1-10 for the choice of material

toughness and the wide range of applicability
B. Khn1 & G. Sedlacek2
1

Verheyen-Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Kreuznach, Germany

c/o Institute of Steel Construction, RWTH University, Aachen, Germany

ABSTRACT: The new European unified technical design rules for steel structures (Eurocode
3) offer a method in EN 1993-1-10 to select steels to avoid brittle fracture. This concept,
based on a safety assessment using fracture mechanics, is available for members subject to fatigue loads (e.g. bridges). This paper present the wide range of applicability of these rules.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the frame of the unification of the European technical rules for the design of steel structures
(Eurocode 3) a method has been developed to select steels to avoid brittle fracture. This concept is
implemented in EN 1993-1-10:2005 and applicable to structural steel members subject to fatigue
loads (e.g. bridges) with details covered by EN 1993-1-9:2005. It is based on a safety assessment
using fracture mechanics and assumes surface cracks with design sizes which may have developed
from initial flaws which were not found by non-destructive testing (NDT) and propagated under
fatigue load. In assessment the K-concept is applied using stress intensity factors.
The subject of this paper are recent practical engineering applications of these rules in different
fields of applicability. In fact the rules are developed with a main focus on bridge structures.
Therefore some of the basic assumptions of the standard simplified procedure using tabulated
values are not transferable to other fatigue loaded steel structures than bridges. However using the
basic design formula and using sufficiently chosen assumptions also other structures can be
designed.
The paper starts with a summary of the background of the design rules. Thereafter an example
shows a standard application using the simplified procedure. The paper ends with other examples
of application using the basic design formula.

25

2 BACKGROUND OF THE RULES

2.1 Fracture-behavior of steel under low temperature

For ferritic steels, the fracture behavior of tensile loaded components, in particular the extent, to
which they exhibit a non-linear load-deformation curve by yielding, depends strongly on the
temperature. Figure 1 shows in a schematic way the fracture behavior of tensile loaded components
which bear a crack-like flaw. The figure contains different information which are related to the
fracture behavior. Characteristic temperatures are also defined which enable the distinction of
fracture behavior into brittle and ductile:
1. The fracture mechanism (on a microscopic scale) being cleavage at low temperatures and
becoming shear or ductile above a temperature Ti.
2. The fracture stress depending on temperature and increasing from low temperatures to a
temperature Tgy, where net section yielding is observed before fracture and going further up to
a temperature Tm where the full plastic behavior in the gross section and the ultimate load is
reached.
3. The macroscopic description of the fracture behavior is defined as brittle if fracture occurs
before net section yielding and where the global behavior is linear elastic or as ductile behind
this point, where plasticity can be observed in the cross section and the load displacement
deviates from linearity.
The temperature region above Tm characterises the
region with large plastic strains which enable plastic
redistribution of stress concentrations in the crosssection and the formation of plastic hinges for
plastic mechanisms. In the upper shelf region above
Ta the ultimate tension strength results from the
stability criterion and is not controlled by toughness.
In the range T 7 Tm (room temperature) all member
tests have been carried out, from which the
resistance functions and design rules for steel
structures in Eurocode 3 have been derived.
Below Tm is the temperature transition range that
leads to the lower shelf behavior, where the material
toughness decreases with temperature and the failure modes change from ductile to brittle.
Below Tm the macroscopic plastic deformations are
smaller than those above Tm. They suffice to reduce
stress concentrations in the cross-sections so that the
nominal stress concept can be applied. They are,
however, no longer sufficient for plastic hinge rotations, so that global analysis should be made on an
elastic basis.
Figure 1. Fracture behavior of components depending on temperature (schematic view).

A limit that separates this macroscopic ductile failure mode from the brittle failure mode is the temperature Tgy, at which net section yielding is reached before failure. The brittle fracture avoidance
concept presented here is related to this area.
Below Tgy the plastic deformations are restricted to local crack tip zones, which can be quantified
with fracture mechanics parameters like K, CTOD or J-Integral.
2.2 Fracture mechanics method in background of the design rules

Fracture assessments in the brittle area below the temperature Ti below which no stable crack
growth may occur could be performed with fracture mechanical parameters as J-integrals or CTODvalues that take both the elastic and the plastic strains into account.
However for practical reasons, the stress intensity functions, initially valid for the fully elastic range
T < TIc only, can be used in a more practical way because of their availability from handbooks
26

where solutions can be found for most relevant cases. The stress intensity factor K is taken for mode
I actions and has been derived from a stress field around the crack tip. Its validity is limited to
elastic behavior where plasticity even in the vicinity of the crack tip is limited. The error resulting
from neglecting the local plasticity at the crack tip is considered by a correction factor kR6 from the
CEB6-R6-Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) (Harrison et al. 1986) applied to the elastic value of
the action effect Kappl,d.
The corresponding resistance is KMat,d depending on temperature TEd, which may be determined
from J-Integral, CTOD or valid KIc-values from CT-tests.
The basic verification format with these values reads:
Ed (K) > Rd (K) or Kappl,d > KMat,d
(1)
which, however, needs further processing to achieve two goals:
1.
Correlation between the resistance KIc raised from CT-tests and the standard values TKV
raised from Charpy-V-tests,
2.
Transformation to a format for verifying with temperatures on the action side TEd and as well
as on the resistance side TRd (based on TKV).
The first goal is reached in two steps. First by expressing KMat,d as a function of TEd by the
standardized K-(TK100 - TEd)-Master curve from Wallin (Wallin 1994), which refers to the
temperature TK100, for which KMat takes the value 100 MPa. Second by correlating the temperature
TK100 for the fracture mechanical parameter K = 100 MPa(m)0.5 with the temperature T27J for the
Charpy-impact energy KV = 27J (modified Sanz-correlation (Marandat et al.1976, Sanz 1980)).
The verification formula based on K-values may be transferred to a formula based on temperature
values T by applying logarithms, so that the final assessment scheme reads, see also Figure 2:
*
K appl
,d

K Mat ,d (TEd )

K Mat ,d (TEd )

R6-FAD

kR6
1

*
K appl
,d =

LR

K appl ,d
kR6

Wallin-Toughness-Curve
Wallin-Master-Kurve
KMat in
MPam
100
T100

*
K appl
,d =

K appl ,d
kR6

TEd in C
14

T T + TR
25
20 + 70exp Ed 100
+ 10
52

beff

K in
MPam

Sanz-T100-T27J-Correlation
Modifizierte
Sanz-T100-T27J-Korrelation
AVininJJ
KV

100

27

T in C

T100

T27J

T in C

T100
in C
T100 = T27J - 18C
= 13C

T27J in C

*
K appl
,d =

K appl , d
kR6

14

25
T T27 J + 18C + TR
20 + 70exp Ed
+ 10
52

beff

0 , 25

beff
K*

10
appl , d 20

25

18C TEd + 52 ln
+ TR
70

T27 J

Figure 2. Safety assessment for limit state brittle fracture in EN 1993-1-10

27

For more information about the background of the design rules, see (Khn 2005, Stranghner 2006,
Sedlacek et al. 2008).
3 EXAMPLE FOR STANDARD APPLICATION
3.1 Input parameters

For a composite road bridge with the cross-section in Figure 3 the choice of material for the bottom
flange of the steel girder is questioned. The dimensions of the steel girder are also given in Figure 3.

[cm/m]

1.0

1.2

Material S355

2.6

Figure 3. Cross-section of composite bridge at mid-span (continuous over 2 spans; location Magdeburg-Germany) and dimension of cross-section of the steel beam at mid-span
The reference temperature is determined in Table 1.
Table 1. Determination of reference temperature.

No
1
2
3
4
5
6

Effect
Value
Minimum air temperature Tmd
- 25 C
Radiation loss of member, Tr
- 5K
T (detail: transverse stiffener welded to bottom
0K
flange covered by EN 1993-1-9)
TR (National Annex)
0K
& = 0.005 s 1 (from project specification): T&
- 16 K*)
0K
DCF = 0 (no cold-forming): TDCF
7
TEd
- 46 C
*) calculated with fy(t) = fy0 0.25 t/t0 = 355 0,25 26/1 = 349 N/mm and
1440 f y (t )
&
ln

T& =
550
&0

1 .5

1440 349
0.005
=
ln

550
0.0001

1 .5

= 15.3 K ~ 16 K

(2.1)

For more information on input parameters used in formula (2.1) see (Khn 2005).
The relevant stress Ed is calculated with 1 = 0.7 from the accidental load combination ( = 1.0)
and is given to 215 N/mm. That lead to a stress level of Ed = 215/349 fy(t) = 0.62 fy(t).
3.2 Simplified choice of material

The use of table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10:2005 gives the minimum toughness requirement T27J = -20C,
or S355J2, see Figure 4, where
28

tpermissible(0.62fy(t)) = 39 mm > tavailable = 26 mm

Charpy energy
steel
grade
S235

S275

S355

sub
grade

KV

(3).

reference temperature TEd in C

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

10

Ed=0.75 x fy(t)

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

10

Ed=0.50 x fy(t)

-10

-20

at T C

Jmin.

JR
J0
J2
JR
J0
J2
M, N
ML, NL
JR
J0

20
0
-20
20
0
-20
-20
-50
20
0

27
27
27
27
27
27
40
27
27
27

60
90
125
55
75
110
135
185
40
60

50
75
105
45
65
95
110
160
35
50

40
60
90
35
55
75
95
135
25
40

35
50
75
30
45
65
75
110
20
35

30
40
60
25
35
55
65
95
15
25

25
35
50
20
30
45
55
75
15
20

20
30
40
15
25
35
45
65
0
15

90
125
170
80
115
155
180
200
65
95

75
105
145
70
95
130
155
200
55
80

65
90
125
55
80
115
130
180
45
65

55
75
105
50
70
95
115
155
40
55

45
65
90
40
55
80
95
130
30
45

40
55
75
35
50
70
80
115
25
40

35
45
65
30
40
55
70
95
25
30

135
175
200
125
165
200
200
230
110
150

115
155
200
110
145
190
200
200
95
130

100
135
175
95
125
165
190
200
80
110

85
115
155
80
110
145
165
200
70
95

J2

-20

27

75
90
130
80
115
60
70
90
105
125
30
40
50
60
75
90

60
75
110
65
95
50
60
70
90
105
25
30
40
50
60
75

50
60
90
55
80
40
50
60
70
90
20
25
30
40
50
60

40
50
75
45
65
30
40
50
60
70
0
20
25
30
40
50

35
40
60
35
55
25
30
40
50
60
0
0
20
25
30
40

135
155
200
140
190
110
130
155
180
200
65
80
95
115
135
160

110
135
180
120
165
95
110
130
155
180
55
65
80
95
115
135

95
110
155
100
140
75
95
110
130
155
45
55
65
80
95
115

80
95
135
85
120
65
75
95
110
130
35
45
55
65
80
95

65
80
110
70
100
55
65
75
95
110
30
35
45
55
65
80

55
65
95
60
85
45
55
65
75
95
20
30
35
45
55
65

45

40
27
40
27
30
40
30
27
30
40
30
40
30
40
30

90
110
155
95
135
70
90
105
125
150
40
50
60
75
90
110

25

-20
-50
-20
-50
-20
-20
-40
-50
-60
0
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60

200
200
210
200
200
175
200
200
200
215
120
140
165
190
200
200

175
200
200
185
200
155
175
200
200
200
100
120
140
165
190
200

150
175
200
160
200
130
155
175
200
200
85
100
120
140
165
190

130
150
200
140
185
115
130
155
175
200
75
85
100
120
140
165

K2, M, N
ML, NL
S420
M, N
ML, NL
S460
Q
M, N
QL
ML, NL
QL1
S690
Q
Q
QL
QL
QL1
QL1

35
50
30
45
20
25
30
40
50
0
0
0
20
25
30

-30

-40

-50

75
100
135
70
95
125
145
190
60
80

65
85
115
60
80
110
125
165
55
70

60
75
100
55
70
95
110
145
45
60

110
130
175
120
160
95
115
130
155
175
60
75
85
100
120
140

95
110
150
100
140
80
95
115
130
155
50
60
75
85
100
120

80
95
130
85
120
70
80
95
115
130
45
50
60
75
85
100

Ed=0.25 x fy(t)

55
80
50
70
35
45
55
65
75
20
20
30
35
45
55

Figure 4. Interpolation of steel grade from Table 2-1 of EN 1993-1-10

4 OTHER POSSIBILITIES OF APPLICATION
4.1 Components of wind power plants (Specific: strain rate effects and other metallic materials

than structural steel)

In general members of the towers of wind power plants (see Figure 5) are made of structural steel
and therefore it can deal with like shown in the section 3. However what should be kept in mind, is
the strain rate effect. According to Khn 2005 (section 3.2.2.5.3) nonneglectable strain rates ( & = 0.0001 to 0.1 s-1) may occur during
squalls. However in most cases sufficient ductile steel grade may be
chosen also for members which are critical ones form the point of view
of brittle fracture (e.g. braces, built-in part of foundation, etc.).
Therefore often fine grain steel grades (e.g. S355 NL or ML) were
taken to ensure sufficient safety against brittle fracture also in cases
where power plants are built in cold climate regions. But what to do
with elements not made of structural steel, e.g. rotor hub and shaft ?
These elements are made of different metallic materials. E.g. regular
shafts are made of forged steel as 30CrNiMo8. In such cases only detailed investigations should be carried out using the basic verification
format, see formula (1). The main problem of these investigations is to
gather sufficient information on the material in particular toughness
characteristics considering also strain rate effects. Technical delivery
conditions, e.g. as EN 10083:1996, do not provide toughness requirements or, if so, the requirements are useless for a brittle fracture investigations. Additionally it has to be noticed that the load on such members may be high in particular if stress concentration effects due to
change in stiffness have to be taken into account (e.g. in the area around
the connection between shaft and rotor hub).

Figure 5. Wind power plant

Finally it has to be considered that wind power plants in general have different load histories
comparing with bridges. On one hand a high number of load cycles are close to the cut-off limit
defined by the fatigue design procedure. But on the other hand the number of these load cycles is
much higher (x10 to x100) than on bridges and some of the load cycles are in a range not much less
than yield strength, which is also not typical for bridges. Therefore special assumptions have to be
29

drawn for calculation and special requirements have to be pointed out for fabrication. Both have to
be combined to ensure that crack sizes assumed for the design and used in the fracture mechanics
calculation are safe. In brittle fracture assessments safe means that an initial flaw with a defined
initial size can surely be found by the required quality checks (e.g. by using NDT). And in the
accidental case that such a flaw will be not found it has to be ensured that the time between two
inspections or the life time (optimum) is shorter than the time which the initial crack needs to grow
under the specific load history to a critical crack size, where brittle fracture may occur under
frequent loads. Proper requirements for fabrication of shafts can be:
No welding allowed (also no repair welding)
Stress concentration effects have to be minimised (e.g. by smooth change of stiffness)
No cold forming
100% NDT with special regard on the surface (no cracks allowed, other defects must have a
specific distance to the surface and surface roughness is limited)
Based on such requirements an accidental initial crack size has to be assumed and crack growth
calculations have to be carried out to show whether there is enough time to find the crack before it
becomes a critical one. If there is sufficient time a fracture mechanics calculation has to show that
available toughness is higher than the toughness requirements due to the crack, the frequent load
and under consideration of strain rate effects. Simplified assumptions concerning the model used for
calculation of stress intensity factors may be made, e.g. see Figure 6.

W
t

Simplified model:
plate with edge crack on one side

Figure 6. Shaft with semi-elliptically surface crack simplified by a plate (width W and thickness t) with an
edge crack on one side (crack depth a)

Depending on the boundary condition brittle fracture investigations on such components often lead
to toughness requierments of Kmat = 45 100 MPa(m)0.5, which can be fulfilled by forged steel as
30CrNiMo8. However the calculated requirement should be agreed by contract, because most of the
available technical delivery conditions do not provide it.
4.2 Stop devices (Specific: strain rate and cold forming effects)

At some steel structures working platforms are needed on a high level. If rails can not be built in
stop devices are used as fall protection for the workers, see Figure 7.
View

Top-view section mast

Figure 7. Examples for stop devices

30

In the case a worker is fixed on such stop devices and falls down his or her fall will be stopped by
it. Also if energy absorbers are used to damp the fall, the load-time-history of the stop device will
often show strain rates & 7 10-4 s-1. Therefore strain rate effects have to be considered in brittle
fracture investigations of such components. Till now only few types of stop devices were
investigated to find out their specific maximum of strain rate. However strain rates up to & = 10 s-1
have been found. But it has to be noticed that these few results can not be transferred to other types
of stop devices due to their different load-time- and load-deformation-behaviour.
Additionally some types of stop devices (e.g. the one right hand side in Figure 7) show huge plastic
deformation after a fall was stopped, see Figure 8.

Figure 8. Example for plastic deformation of a stop device after a fall was stopped

These plastic deformations have to be taken into account, too, if brittle fracture calculations were
carried out for such stop devices. According to Khn 2005 the degree of cold forming can be
calculated using the following equation:
DCF = max =

16 f
h
100
L (n + 1) b

(4)

with f, L, h, b and n according to Figure 9.

b

h/2

max

max

/2

plastische
Dehnungen
Plastic
strain

Figure 9. Definition of dimensions used in equation (4)

This equation leads for typical dimensions of the type of stop device as shown in Figure 7 (right
hand side) to degrees of cold forming (DCF) of 30% to 35%. Using equation (2.3) and (2.4) of EN
1993-1-10 : 2005 both effects (strain rate and cold forming) lead to a temperature shift of transition
temperature of T & -75 K and Tcf -105 K. With regard on these results it is obviously that:
brittle fracture investigations are recommended for all stop devices and not only for as they are used
in cold climate environments, and
if normal structural steel should be used further detailed investigations are recommended to find
more realistic assumptions for both effects than the above mentioned theoretically estimated values.
For the discussed typ of stop device tests were carried out, where the load-time-history during the
damping of a fall as well as the final plastic deformation were measured. It has been shown that
both strain rate ( & > 4 s-1) and plastic deformation (DCF > 15%) are much lower than theoretically
estimated. It has to be considered, too, that both effects have their maximum not at the same time
(maximum of strain rate at the beginning of damping fall and maximum degree of cold forming at
the end) and in general the point of the member, where strain rate and plastic deformation have their
31

maximum, did not have other negative effects concerning brittle fracture, e.g. welds, change of
stiffness, etc.. Therefore generally such typs of stop devices may be made of steel grade S355 J2.
5 CONCLUSIONS

The new European unified technical design rules for steel structures (Eurocode 3) offer a method in
EN 1993-1-10 to select steels to avoid brittle fracture. This concept, based on a safety assessment
using fracture mechanics, is available for various members made of structural steel. In general the
method is used for members subject to fatigue loads, but it is also applicable for members under
quasi static loads, see Hhler et al. 2004. As shown in the present paper the method may be used in
cases with specific toughness requirements due to high strain rate and / or high cold deformation
effects, too. Also other metallic materials can be dealt with. This method was used sufficently for
the choice of material for following applications: boat hulls, bogies of trains, crane structures made
of high performace steel grades up to S1100, hangers of arch bridges with thicknesses larger than
180mm and huge inhomogenities of the material in through thickness direction, cast nodes, castor
containers concidering also the negative effect of nuclear radiation on the toughness, pressure
vessels, pressure pipe lines, etc.
6 REFERENCES
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties,
2005.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-9: Fatigue, 2005.
EN 10083: Steels for quenching and tempering - Part 1: General technical delivery conditions, 2006
Harrison, R.P., K. Loosemore and I. Milne, Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects,
CEGB-Report R/H/R6, Revision 3, 1986.
Hhler, S., Khn, B., Sedlacek, G., Brittle fracture mechanical concept for welded connections in steel structures, Proc. of the 10th Nordic Steel Conference, Copenhagen (Denmark), 7-9 June 2004, pp 65 to 76
Khn, B., Beitrag zur Vereinheitlichung der europischen Regelungen zur Vermeidung von Sprdbruch,
Dissertation am Lehrstuhl fr Stahlbau, RWTH Aachen, 2005, ISBN 3-8322-3901-4.
Marandat et al. 1976 Marandat, B., Sanz, G., tude par la mcanique de la rupture de la tnacit daciers
rsistance moyenne fournis en forte paisseur, Revue de Mtallurgie, pp. 359-383, April 1976.
Sanz, G., Essai de mise au point dune mthode quantitive de choix des qualits daciers vis--vis du risque
de rupture fragile, Revue de Mtallurgie, CIT, pp. 621-642, July 1980.
Sedlacek, G., Feldmann, M., Khn, B., Tschickardt, D., Hhler, S., Mller, C., Hensen, W., Stranghner, N.,
Dahl, W., Langenberg, P., Mnstermann, S., Brozetti, J., Raoul, J., Pope, R., Bijlaard, F., Commentary and
worked examples to EN 1993-1-10 Material toughness and through thickness properties and other toughness oriented rules in EN 1993, JRC ECCS Joint Report, 1st Edition, Sept. 2008, EUR 23510 EN.
Stranghner, N., Werkstoffwahl im Stahlbrcken, DASt (Deutscher Ausschu fr Stahlbau), Forschungsbericht 4/2006, Stahlbau Verlags- und Service GmbH, Dsseldorf, 2006
Wallin K., Methodology for Selecting Charpy Toughness Criteria for Thin High Strength Steels, Part 1, 2
and 3, Jernkontorets Forskning, Nr. 4013/89, VTT Manufacturing Technology, VTT Espoo, 1994.

32