Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Design philosophy of Eurocodes — background

information
Gerhard Sedlacek *, Heiko Stangenberg
Rheinisch–Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Mies-van-der-Rohe Strasse 1, D-52074 Aachen
Germany

Abstract

ENV 1993-1.4 — Supplementary rules for stainless steels — may be used as a complemen-
tary part to Eurocode 3 Part 1.1 — General rules and rules for buildings — to design structural
elements made of stainless steel. The rules specified in ENV 1993-1.4 are based on the design
rules for carbon steels although the stress–strain curves for austenitic stainless steels do not
exhibit a distinct yielding plateau. The particular material behaviour of stainless steels affects
the design rules; however, in drafting ENV 1993-1.4, very conservative rules were adopted
owing to the fact that experimental evidence was not available to justify more favourable
rules. This paper deals with the base design philosophy of Eurocodes, points out some relevant
differences between designing with carbon steels and austenitic stainless steels related to this
philosophy, and presents further test results.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Eurocodes; Stainless steel; Limit state design; Reliability; Rotation capacity; Fillet welds

1. The Eurocodes and the Construction Product Directive

The European Common Market is controlled by directives prepared by the Com-

mission of the European Communities and agreed by the Council of Ministers, see
Fig. 1.
The directive that represents the basis for the free exchange of goods and services
in the construction market is the Construction Product Directive (CPD), which has
already been implemented in the legal systems of the member states.
This CPD defines essential requirements for construction products in structures

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-241-80-5177; fax: +49-241-888-140.

E-mail address: sed@stb.rwth-aachen.de (G. Sedlacek).

0143-974X/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 9 6 - 6
174 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

Fig. 1. The Construction Product Directive (CPD) and the ENV Eurocodes.

and other civil engineering works. An important essential requirement related to the
design of structures is the requirement for sufficient “mechanical resistance and stab-
ility”.
For the preparation of European technical specifications for products, the CPD
provides a mechanism that works as follows.

앫 Basic Principles for achieving sufficient “mechanical resistance and stability” are
laid down in an Interpretative Document prepared by a Standing Committee with
representatives of member states.
앫 This Standing Committee also prepares mandates for CEN to draft European pro-
duct specifications, ENVs and ENs, that specify product properties and testing
procedures to prove that these properties comply with the essential requirements.
앫 Most product standards, however, are referred to in design standards or need
design standards to prove compliance of the properties of products with the essen-
tial requirements. Therefore, the Commission also initiated the preparation of uni-
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 175

fied European design standards in the construction field — the Eurocodes, which
provide principles and application rules for the design of buildings and civil engin-
eering works.

The Eurocodes are being prepared by CEN Technical Committee (TC) 250.
Almost all Eurocodes have already reached ENV status and have been used in test
applications; preparations are underway to convert them into ENs.
It is planned that the first EN Eurocodes in the building area be issued in 2000
and the complete set of Eurocodes should be finished in about 2002. Revisions will
be provided every five years.
In order to obtain Eurocodes covering various highly specialised fields, a two-
dimensional unification was necessary:

앫 a unification of rules across various materials; and

앫 a unification of rules across national borders and traditions.

To achieve this goal ‘basic rules of the game’ had to be agreed. This was done in
Eurocode 1 — Part 1, Basis of design, which represents both a ‘code for codemakers’
and also gives all basic safety-related principles that may be used when no specific
code is available.
On the basis of these rules, international Project Teams with experts in the relevant
fields prepared the various parts of codes for actions and resistances under the guid-
ance of TC 250 Subcommittees and with the assistance of a Co-ordination Group
and Horizontal Groups for specific questions, e.g., for terminology and fire safety.

2. Limit state design

What are the basic principles laid down in Eurocode 1-1, Basis of design?
One principle is the limit state design concept, which may be explained easily
with the example of a beam, loaded by an action force S to which the beam reacts
with resistance R, see Fig. 2. It is assumed that S is statistically distributed and a
design value Sd=gFSk has to be resisted at the ultimate limit state (ULS), where Sk
is the characteristic value of the action force and gF is the partial factor for actions.
To prove sufficient resistance, tests may be carried out with such beams, resulting
in load–deflection curves where the resistances R are defined by their maxima. Resist-
ances also are statistically distributed with Rd=Rk/gM being the design value for the
ULS check, where Rk is the characteristic value of resistance and gM is the partial
factor for resistances. Sufficient reliability of design is achieved when RdⱖSd.
The load–deflection curve also reveals the importance of serviceability limit states,
which often are expressed as stiffness criteria defined either for deflection or
vibration limits. The checks are performed for load levels corresponding to character-
istic loads Sk only or even smaller representative loads yiSk with the combination
factor y depending on the case.
176 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

Fig. 2. Verifications for the ‘ultimate limit state’ of a beam in bending.

3. Agreements concerning reliability

1. Statistical distribution of s and r:

2. Safety index, b:
mR−mS
b⫽ ⱖ3.8
冑s +s
2
S
2
R
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 177

Tref⫽50 years.

3. Weighting factors, aS and aR, and design values.

The reliability of the ULS check is controlled by the safety index b, defined by
a value 3.8 for a reference time of 50 years, see Fig. 3.
In order to avoid interaction between design values of actions and resistances,
weighting factors aS=0.70 and aR=0.80 are introduced in the building area by which
design values on the action side and the resistance side can be determined fully inde-
pendently.
In applying this semi-propabilistic concept, the partial safety factor gG=1.35 for

Fig. 3. Safety-related agreements in Basis of design.

178 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

permanent actions could be defined and the partial safety factor gQ=1.50 for the
variable loads be predetermined.
Load combinations for multiple actions are considered in a conservative way with
full design values for Gd=135G and Qd1=1.5Q1, where Q1 is the leading variable
action. A combination factor y02 is only applied to the second variable action, 1.5Q2,
which represents the accompanying variable action. The conservatism of this
approach should provide sufficient robustness of the safety assessment to limit the
numbers of actions to be considered to three.
The resistance for steel structures has been treated in the following way.

앫 All resistance functions rt have been calibrated against test results, and mean
correction factors b̄ and error terms sδ have been determined, which represent the
model uncertainities of rt.
앫 From numerous test evaluations for various failure modes, rd and rk values have
been determined, from which the following conclusions could be drawn:

2.1. g∗M1=1.10 could be taken for all resistance functions governed by the yield-
ing (fy=Rp0.2%);
2.2. g∗M2=1.25 could be taken for all resistance functions governed by the tensile
strength (fu=Rm), e.g., for failure modes connected with ruptures; and
2.3. rk values could be determined from nominal values for dimensions and
strengths.

This procedure, developed for Eurocode 3, has been adopted in the meanwhile in
most research and test laboratories that contribute to the definition of strength func-
tions. It has harmonised the efficiency of the preparation, performance, evaluation
and documentation of tests. In the past, before the development of this procedure,
about 80% of the test reports were not useable for code evaluation because of short-
comings in the documentation.

4. The contents of Eurocode 3

ENV-Eurocode 3 for steel structures contains six parts to date, see Table 1, with
a large Part 1 — General rules for buildings [1] — including many subparts and
annexes, Part 2 for bridges, Part 3 for masts, towers and chimneys, Part 4 for tanks,
silos and pipelines, Part 5 for piling and Part 6 for crane supporting structures. Parts
7 and 8, related to marine and maritime structures and agricultural buildings, respect-
ively, are so far prospective only.
Parts 2–6 give only supplementary rules for their specific field that may be applied
in addition to the basic rules already specified in Part 1.
Rules for stainless steel structures are given in Part 1.4 of ENV-Eurocode 3 [2].
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 179

Table 1
Contents of ENV 1993 — Eurocode 3

Eurocode 3 Steel Structures

Part 1.1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1.2 Fire resistance
Part 1.3 Cold-formed thin-gauge members and sheeting
Part 1.4 Stainless steels
Part 1.5 Plated structures with in-plane loads
Part 1.6 Shell structures
Part 1.7 Plated structures with out-of-plane loads
Part 2 Steel bridges
Part 3.1 Masts and towers
Part 3.2 Chimneys
Part 4.1 Tanks
Part 4.2 Silos
Part 4.3 Pipelines
Part 5 Piling
Part 6 Crane structures
(Part 7 Marine and maritime structures)
(Part 8 Agricultural structures)

5. Material properties and resistance functions

It is interesting to see in what way material properties specified in the material

ENs are considered in resistance functions in Eurocode 3, see Table 2.
For ferritic steels there is guidance on the correct choice of steel to avoid brittle
fracture. These rules are based on fracture mechanics checks for loading situations
with extremely low ambient temperatures as dominant actions. For austenitic stain-
less steels these checks are generally not relevant.
The yield strength (or 0.2% proof stress for stainless steels) is the property mostly

Table 2
Material properties and resistance functions

Material properties Resistance functions

Toughness, T27 J Brittle fracture

Yield strength, fy (Rp0,2%) Plastic resistance
Column buckling
Plate buckling
Shell buckling
Tensile strength, fu Net section resistance
Bolts in bearing
Bolts in shear
Fillet welds
fu/fy ratio Rotation capacity
Sensitivity to discontinuities
Fatigue strength
180 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

related to in the design rules. This is relevant for all failure modes governed by
stability, and the so-called ‘plastic resistances’ represent an important reference value
for calculating the ultimate strength.
Exceeding the yield strength is not considered as an ultimate limit state, except
when extreme deformations caused by decreasing stiffness could result in failure. In
areas of local yielding, strain-hardening effects may be taken into account.
The tensile strength so far has been chosen as the main parameter for all failure
modes introduced by cracking or material rupture.
Full butt-welded connections so far are all considered as fabricated with matching
or overmatching electrodes so that base material checks are relevant and no weld
material checks are needed.
For fillet welds, however, particular strength functions have been determined,
related to the properties of the base material.
For usual steel structures, the yield strength ratio fu/fy is only of concern when
determining the magnitude of the rotation capacity. This is needed if plastic design
with moment redistribution is applied or when cross-section yielding is required,
e.g., for earthquake-resistant structures, or when tolerances for discontinuities must
be specified. For normal use in the structural field, the yield strength ratio for carbon
steels may attain values of almost unity.
The fatigue strength so far is considered to be approximately independent of the
steel grades.
In the following, some selected aspects illustrating the basic philosophy are dealt
with more thoroughly.

6. Rotation capacity and bending moment resistance

In Eurocode 3 the resistance of framed structures and continuous beams made of

carbon steels may be calculated according to plastic hinge theory or the elastic theory,
depending on the rotation capacity of the cross-section.
The areas in which the different methods of analysis and models for the cross-
sectional strengths may be applied are classified by the cross-sectional Classes 1, 2,
3 and 4. Since the limiting b/t ratios are applied to stainless steel, the cross-section
classifications can be interpreted as follows.
The Class 1 cross-section allows moment redistribution due to the formation of
plastic hinges. The resistances of plastic hinges (plastic moments) are related to a
strength which is determined by assuming perfectly plastic behaviour of the material
with a limiting value equal to the conventional elastic limit, Rp0.2%, by neglecting
the effect of hardening. Adopting these assumptions the actual rotation capacity R
can be determined from three-point bending tests, see Fig. 4, and calculated from
the rotation values jplast and jrot of the moment–rotation (M–j) curves [4]:
jrot
R⫽ ⫺1. (1)
jplast
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 181

Fig. 4. Decomposition of a static indeterminate beam to simply supported beams.

Class 2 sections need to consider the maximum bending moments from an elastic
analysis without moment redistribution, but are allowed to exploit the plastic
strengths of the cross-section as for Class 1 sections.
For Class 3 sections, the limit state is related to the strength corresponding to the
attainment of the conventional elastic limit Rp0.2% in the extreme fibre of the full
cross-section, whereas for Class 4 sections, yielding in the extreme fibre may only
be allowed when local buckling is taken into account by reducing the cross-section
to the effective one.
As the controlling parameter for the classification of cross-sections, the b/t ratios
of the elements in compression are considered. The values for the b/t ratios are based
on carbon steel S235. An adjustment to other, and in particular stainless steel, grades
may be performed by multiplying with e values which are derived from the Euler
buckling formula:

se⫽fy⫽ 冉冊 t 2 p2E
2
fy t 2 p2
⇒ ⫽ 冉冊
2
⫽
b 12(1−m ) E b 12(1−m ) b
t 2
冉冊
k where k⫽const.⇒
b
t
(2a)

冪f k
E
⫽
y
182 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

(b/t)
(b/t)S235
⫽
冑
冑
(E/fy)k
(ES235/fyS235)k
⫽ 冪f
235
y
E b b
⇒ ⫽
210,000 t t 冉冊 S235
冪f
235
y
E
⇒
210,000 t
b
(2b)

⫽ 冉冊b
t S235
e.

The b/t ratios for Class 1 cross-sections in Eurocode 3 were mainly derived from tests
on three-point-loaded beams in which a plastic hinge occurs at mid-span. Regarding a
stainless steel Class 1 cross-section, elastic behaviour can be assumed until the Rp0.2%
limit is reached in the extreme fibre, neglecting the influence of the non-linearity.
The load-bearing capacity, Mu, reveals a certain level of strain hardening and the
decreasing part of the moment–rotation curve is caused by local buckling and its
effect on stiffness degradation.
In order to find out the maximum values of b/t ratio for Class 1 sections, the
rotation requirement RS has to be determined and compared with the actual rotation
capacity RR. The rotation requirements were determined by evaluating continuous
beams and framed structures with different geometric ratios and different material
grades.
The results of some recent four-point bending tests with stainless steel [3] show
that the non-linear behaviour starts earlier than the non-linear behaviour of beams
with comparable cross-sections made of carbon steel. The influence of this behaviour
on the rotation requirements depends significantly of the system (e.g., position of
load, span ratios, etc).
The rotation requirements are also dependent on the M–j behaviour of the plastic
hinge forming last; i.e., the achievement of the full plastic moment may be ‘delayed’
owing to the non-linear rotational behaviour of this hinge, thus requiring higher
rotations in the first plastic hinges in order to achieve the theoretical plastic hinge
mechanism.
An example is a hyperstatic frame as given in Fig. 4. The behaviour can be ana-
lysed by referring to the moment–rotation behaviour of simply supported beams and
dividing the continuous frame into simply supported elements at the points of con-
traflexure.
When the moment–rotation curves of these simply supported elements are known,
see Fig. 5, the ultimate moment resistance can easily be determined.
The maximum resistance is achieved when the rotations in the first plastic hinges
are in the descending (unstable) area and the rotation of the second plastic hinge is
in the ascending (stable) area of the moment–rotation curves.

7. Member stability

In Eurocode 3, member stability for columns is determined with the help of the
various European buckling curves which can be interpreted as ‘stability classes’. The
choice of the relevant buckling curve depends on the type of cross-section con-
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 183

Fig. 5. Synthesis of the global load–deformation curves of simply supported beams.

sidered. For example, the lateral torsional buckling resistance of a beam in bending
without lateral restraints should be taken as:
MLTB⫽cbwWfy/gM1, (3)
where c is the reduction factor, as a function depending on the parameters a and
l̄0.
For members of constant cross-section, the value of c may be determined from:
1
c⫽
冑
, (4)
j+ j2+l̄2
with
1
j⫽ [1⫹a(l̄⫺l̄0)⫹l̄2],
2

冪 p E ⫽l 冑b ,
l fybw l
l̄⫽ 2 w
i 1

l
l⫽ ,
i

冪f ,
E
l1⫽p
y
184 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

bw=1 for Class 1 and 2

bw=Wel/Wpl for Class 3
bw=Weff/Wpl for Class 4 cross−sections
and where

E initial modulus of elasticity,

i radius of gyration about the relevant axis, based on the properties of the
gross cross-section
l buckling length for flexural buckling about the relevant axis
aLT imperfection factor characterising the buckling curve
l̄0 limiting slenderness depending on cross-section shape and the method
of manufacture.

For the example of a welded (doubly symmetric) open section, the relevant buck-
ling curve (d) is described by the imperfection factor a=0.76. As the design rules
are based on the Ayrton–Perry formulae, it is obvious that non-linear material behav-
iour is also neglected for buckling. For large relative slendernesses, the use of an
initial modulus of elasticity may lead to satisfactory results. For small and medium
slendernesses, however, the non-linearity of the material is covered implicitly by
assuming design imperfections included in the buckling curve. Since the buckling
curves were originally calibrated for carbon steel members, there is a larger scatter
to be expected for stainless steels. It would be interesting to find out how this scatter
affects the safety of the design model.
To evaluate the design models by statistical means (Eurocode 3, Part 1.1, Annex
Z) it is always desirable to have a large number of tests to reduce the necessary
fractile values for determining the characteristic and design resistance to a minimum.
If only a small number of test results is available, numerical methods can be helpful
to simulate additional ‘tests’ that may supplement these few experimental tests.
By this means, the testing may be reduced to pilot testing only as the influence
of parameter variation can easily be checked by finite element analysis. Parameter
studies carried out with this ‘electronic test generator’ can be utilised to enhance the
number of ‘test results’.
The reliability of the simulations can be expressed by the scatter between the tests
and their computer simulations. Fig. 6 shows the scatter between five lateral torsional
buckling tests and their simulations.
As the tests and their numerical simulations generally differ from each other, a
correction of the mean value of the numerical results is unavoidable. The mean value
of the ratio between tests and numerical simulations may be determined by:

冘
n
1 rei
b̄FEM⫽ . (5)
ni⫽1rFEMi
The coefficient of variation of the scatter between simulations and tests VFEM
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 185

Fig. 6. Correlation between tests and numerical simulations.

affects the coefficient of variation of the random variable Vr that may be determ-
ined from:

冋 j
Vr2⫽(V2FEM⫹1)(V2d⫹1) ⌸ (V2Xi⫹1) ⫺1.
i⫽1
册 (6)

According to the weight from the number of simulated original tests, the character-
istic and design resistance may be determined from:
rk⫽b̄(r)grt(Xm)b̄FEM exp(⫺uk,⬁artQrt⫺uk,nadQd⫺uk,maFEMQFEM⫺0.5Q2) (7)
and
rd⫽b̄(r)grt(Xm)b̄FEM exp(⫺ud,⬁artQrt⫺ud,nadQd⫺ud,maFEMQFEM⫺0.5Q2), (8)
with
冑
Q⫽ ln(V2r+1),

Q ⫽冑ln(V +1),
rt
2
rt

Q ⫽冑ln(V +1),
d
2
d

Q ⫽冑ln(V +1),
FEM
2
FEM

QFEM
aFEM⫽
Q
and where

Qd standard deviation in a log-normal distribution of the ratios of ‘electronic

tests’ versus theoretical results
Qrt standard deviation in a log-normal distribution of all basic variables of the
resistance function, see Annex Z
186 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

Q standard deviation in a log-normal distribution of the random variable (see

Annex Z), here derived from ‘electronic tests’ which are based on a simul-
ation of m experimental tests
ad weighting factor for Qd, see Annex Z
art weighting factor for Qrt, see Annex Z
m total number of simulated experimental tests
n total number of electronic test results.

Statistical evaluations with only experimental results and with numerical results
obtained from finite element analyses calibrated against tests have shown that the
determination of g∗M by the proposed procedure leads to conservative results.

8. Fillet welds

Failure of components containing fillet welds may occur in the connected parts
besides the weld, in the weld itself, or partly in the weld and partly in the connected
parts. For developing a strength function for fillet welds, it is clear that the only
relevant cases are where weld failure governs.
The available calculation methods for checking the strength of fillet welds are
based on the simplifying assumption that stresses are uniformly distributed within the
throat section of a fillet weld. In Euorcode 3, two calculation methods are considered:

method 1 stress component method

method 2 mean stress method.

Method 1, the stress component method, assumes the throat section in its actual
position to be the resisting section. The stress components on this throat section are
calculated and used in the strength function.
In method 2, the mean stress method, an average stress on the throat section of
a weld is used in the strength function. In fact, this is equivalent to moving the throat
section from its actual position to one side of the seam.
The throat section is given by the throat depth a times the effective length l. The
throat depth a is the smallest height of the triangle inscribed in the cross-section of
the weld. The effective length l coincides with the overall length of the seam, pro-
vided that, obviously, faulty ends due to tailing off are eliminated.
In a fillet weld the actual stress distribution in the plane of the cross-section of
the weld is complicated. The stress state changes from one point to another and
stress peaks are present. However, stresses in fillet welds are usually considered as
uniformly distributed in the throat section. This assumption is based substantially on
satisfactory ductility and toughness of the material, which are checked by means of
quality control of the welding material and qualification tests of the welding process.
The following stress components are considered:
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 187

sT tensile or compressive stress acting perpendicular to the actual throat sec-

tion
tT shear stress acting perpendicular to the weld axis
t储 shear stress acting parallel to the weld axis
s储 tensile or compressive stress acting parallel to the weld axis on its
cross-section.

The stress component s储 has no significant influence on the weld strength. Therefore,
only the stress components sⲚ, tⲚ and t储 are included in the strength functions.
The method is based on a description of the ultimate surface described by the
Huber–Hencky–Von Mises criterion in the form of an ellipsoid determined by:
s2Ⲛ 3t2Ⲛ 3t2储
⫹ ⫹ ⫽1. (9)
f 2u,w f 2u,w f 2u,w
From this equation it is possible to determine whether a multi-axial stress state
characterised by sⲚ, tⲚ and t储 is acceptable or not. The equation gives the verifi-
cation condition:
冑s 2
Ⲛ+3(t2Ⲛ+t2储 )ⱕfvw. (10)

The ultimate tensile strength of the weld depends on electrode quality, which must
be chosen in relation to the base material. In general, therefore, the ultimate tensile
strength of the weld fvw can be expressed as a function of the strength fu of the
parent material in combination with the efficiency coefficient bw of the fillet weld:
fvw,d⫽fu/(bwgMw). (11)
The strength function used in Eurocode 3 becomes:

冑s 2
Ⲛ,d +3(t2Ⲛ,d+t2储,d)ⱕ
fu
bwgMw
; gMw⫽1.25; sⲚ,dⱕ
fu
gMw
. (12)

For a weld configuration having welds parallel to the load direction only, method
1 and method 2 result in the same ultimate strength, with:
fu
fvw,dⱕ ; gMw⫽1.25
bwgMw 3 冑
where:
Fd
svw,dⱕ
冘 al
. (13)

Within the current European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) research project
‘Development of the use of stainless steel in construction’ [3], fillet weld resistances
188 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

with welds transverse and longitudinal to the direction of loading were tested, see
Fig. 7.
The test series comprised 46 test specimens, 22 with welds parallel and 24 with
welds transverse to the direction of loading. The specimens were manufactured by
TIG welding. The specimens were made of grade 1.4301 with electrode material
1.4316 and of grade 1.4462 with electrode material X2CrNi22-9.
Tensile coupon tests from the parent material for both orientations of rolling, from
the electrode material and from the actual weld material were performed to derive
a strength function taking into account all the mechanical properties of the test pieces.
From the test results it can be concluded that a weld configuration having only
welds parallel to the load direction is the most severe configuration and thus governs
the determination of the value bw. It was decided to optimise the value bw for this
weld configuration, accepting some probable conservatism for the other weld con-
figurations, since it does not seem practical to have different strength functions.
As the electrode material for carbon steels is chosen to be overmatching for S355,
the correlation factor bw varies depending on the material strength. For stainless
steels the electrode material depends on the base material to be welded and therefore
it is chosen individually and results in bw=1.00.
The configuration and the tensile strength of the base material have the most seri-
ous influence on the scatter of the strength function. Therefore the experimental data
were analysed by splitting the test results into sub-sets with the same material grade
on the one hand and the same weld configuration on the other.
From the tensile coupon test results performed for the weld material it could be
confirmed that the electrode material chosen for steel grades 1.4301 and 1.4462
resulted in matching electrodes.
Fig. 8 is a plot of the test results for parent material 1.4462 versus the design

Fig. 7. Test specimens for determining fillet weld resistances with welds (a) transverse to the direction
of loading and (b) longitudinal to the direction of loading.
 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190 189

Fig. 8. Test results versus theoretical resistances based upon the stress component method (bw=1).

function (stress component method). The corresponding sensitivity diagram for the
weld configuration is given in Fig. 9.
The results of the statistical analysis for the strength function according to Annex
Z of Eurocode 3 are summarised in Fig. 10. The outcome of the statistical evaluation
is represented by the values for g∗M, gM and kc. The values for g∗M are a bit lower
than 1.25 for the weld configuration with welds parallel to the direction of loading,
for both material grades. For the configuration with welds transverse to the direction
of loading, much lower values have been obtained.
Therefore a value bw=1 can be used to determine the resistance for all given
weld configurations.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity diagram for weld configuration based upon the stress component method (bw=1).
190 G. Sedlacek, H. Stangenberg / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54 (2000) 173–190

Fig. 10. Comparison of statistical results (grades and configurations separated) for fillet welds parallel
and perpendicular to the load axis.

9. Conclusion

A short overview on the design philosophy of Eurocodes in general, and of Euroc-

ode 3 in particular, is given. In the development of the Eurocodes and of Eurocode
3, Part 1.4, great advantage has been drawn from co-operation with international
technical scientific bodies, research institutes and industry. This had made a valuable
contribution to the unification of design philosophy and the development of design
rules that should improve the safety of our structures and remove obstacles to the
free trade of construction products and engineering services.

References

[1] ENV 1993-1-1: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1: General rules — supplementary rules for stainless
steels. CEN, 1992.
[2] ENV 1993-1-4: Design of steel structures. Part 1-4: General rules – supplementary rules for stainless
steels. CEN, 1996.
[3] Development of the use of stainless steel in construction. Final Report, ECSC-sponsored research
project, 1997–1999 (in press).
[4] Hoffmeister B. Plastische Bemessung von Verbundkonstruktionen unter Verwendung realitätsnaher
Last Verformungsansätze. Dissertation Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau, Schriftenreihe Stahlbau, Heft 36.
Aachen: RWTH Aachen, 1998.