1.

4
L=500 mm ηc
N Sd
L=1020 mm çç ÷÷
1.2 χ zω xzη A f 0, 2
L=1020 mm
L=1540 mm
L=1540 mm 1
Totally 47 beams

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
γc
Web in compression M y. Sd Flange in compression
ç ÷
χ LT ω xLT M y. Rd

Buckling of T-Section Beam-

Columns in Aluminium with or
without Transverse Welds
Stefan Edlund

TRITA-BKN. Bulletin 54, 2000

ISSN 1103-4270
ISRN KTH/BKN/B--54--SE

Doctoral Thesis
 Buckling of T-Section Beam-Columns in Aluminium
with or without Transverse Welds

Stefan Edlund

Department of Structural Engineering

Royal Institute of Technology
S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

TRITA-BKN. Bulletin 54, 2000

ISSN 1103-4270
ISRN KTH/BKN/B--54--SE

Doctoral Thesis
©Stefan Edlund 2000
KTH, TS-Högskoletryckeriet, Stockholm 2000
Abstract
This thesis deals with buckling of T-section beam-columns in aluminium with or without
transverse welds. Totally 26 unwelded and 39 transversely welded T-section beam-columns
were tested. Five of the welded beams were clamped. All unwelded and the rest of the welded
beams were simply supported for bending. The welding affects the load-carrying capacity of
the beam-columns, because it introduces a heat-affected zone with reduced strength. All beam-
columns had the same theoretical cross-section dimensions. The thickness of the flange and the
web was 6 mm. The depth and the width were 60 mm. The theoretical beam lengths were 500,
1020 and 1540 mm, respectively. Tensile tests of both the parent and the heat-affected material
were made in order to determine the material properties.

Comparisons were made between the buckling tests and three codes, the European aluminium
code Eurocode 9, the British aluminium code BS 8118 and the Swedish steel code BSK. Some
interpretations of the codes had to be made, because the codes are not totally clear when
applied on T-sections. Most problems are related to the fact that the section modulus is not the
same for the two edges. In the interaction formulas, only the edge in compression was
considered when the bending moment capacity was calculated. The chosen interpretation of the
codes was often very conservative when compared with the buckling tests.

The general-purpose finite element program Abaqus was used to develop numerical models of
the tested beam-columns. Shell elements were used. The models were calibrated with the
results from the buckling tests. The stress-strain curves used in the finite element calculations
were obtained from the tensile tests. The results of the finite element calculations were
satisfactory. The numerical models could predict the load carrying capacity accurate enough. A
similar deformed shape of the tested and calculated beam-columns was also obtained.

Different modifications of Eurocode 9 were analysed in order to improve the results. One
modification was that the ultimate strength of the heat-affected zone was used instead of the
yield strength of the parent material when the buckling reduction factors of a welded section
were calculated. The calculation of the bending moment capacity in the interaction formulas
was also modified. The plastic section modulus was used to calculate the bending moment
capacity when the tip of the web was in tension. When the bending moment acted in the
opposite direction, the calculation of the bending moment capacity was based on a modified
classification of the web element. The investigation in this thesis indicates that Eurocode 9 is
too severe in the classification of the cross-section. The way the bending moment capacity is
calculated for unsymmetric cross-sections in the interaction formulas needs to be further
analysed. Tensile failure at the tip of the web was also discussed. This thesis shows that the
codes need to be improved when it concerns unsymmetric cross-sections. Some information
how Eurocode 9 can be improved is given.

Keywords: Buckling, buckling tests, Eurocode 9, aluminium beam-columns, beam-columns,

T-sections, finite element analysis, transverse welds, codes, unsymmetric cross-sections.

i
ii
Preface

The research presented in this doctoral thesis was carried out at the Department of Structural
Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Especially I would like to thank:

My supervisor Prof. Torsten Höglund for his guidance, help and for being a discussion partner,
assoc. Prof. Costin Pacoste for reading the manuscript and giving valuable comments,
SkanAluminium and SAPA for the financial support, SAPA for delivering the aluminium
profiles free of charge and the laboratory personnel, Mr. Stefan Trillkott, Mr. Claes Kullberg,
Mr. Olle Läth and Mr. Daniel Hissing, for performing the tests.

Stockholm, February 2000

Stefan Edlund

iii
iv
Notations
A Gross cross-section area
Aef Effective cross-section area
E Modulus of elasticity
G Shear modulus
I ef . x Effective second moment of area, major axis
Ix Second moment of area, major axis
Iy Second moment of area, minor axis
Kv Saint-Venant torsion constant
Kw Warping constant
M Bending moment
M cr Critical bending moment
M RSx Bending moment capacity according to BS 8118
M Rxd Bending moment capacity according to BSK
M y. Rd Bending moment capacity according to Eurocode 9
N Axial force, centric or eccentric
N cr Critical axial force
W ef . x.c Effective section modulus of the edge in compression, major axis
W ef .x .t Effective section modulus of the edge in tension, major axis
W el. x .c Elastic section modulus of the edge in compression, major axis
W el .x .t Elastic section modulus of the edge in tension, major axis
W el.y Elastic section modulus, minor axis
W pl .x Plastic section modulus, major axis
W pl. y Plastic section modulus, minor axis

b Width of flange
bf Width of flange element
bw Depth of web element
e Load eccentricity
f 0 ,2 Yield strength of parent material
fu Ultimate strength of parent material
f haz Ultimate strength of heat-affected material
h Cross-section depth
k 1y Unsymmetry factor used in Eurocode 9
l, L Beam length
lc Buckling length
r Radius between flange and web
tf Flange thickness
tw Web thickness
ty Cross-section constant

v
w mid Midspan deflection
yef .gc Location of centre of gravity for an effective cross-section
y gc Location of centre of gravity
y pl Location of plastic neutral axis
ys Distance between centre of gravity and shear centre
z haz Location of transverse weld

ε max Maximum strain

ε min Minimum strain

Abbreviations
EC9 Eurocode 9
haz Heat-affected zone
lap Load application point

vi
Contents
Abstract
Preface
Notations
Abbreviations

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Aim and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Buckling tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Tensile tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 Comparisons between tests and different codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Buckling according to Eurocode 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.1 Cross -section classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.2 Effective cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.2.3 Flexural buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.4 Lateral-torsional buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Buckling according to BS8118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.1 Cross -section classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.2 Effective cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.3 Flexural buckling (major axis buckling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3.4 Lateral-torsional buckling (minor axis buckling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4 Buckling according to BSK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4.1 Cross -section classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4.2 Effective cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.4.3 Flexural buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.4.4 Lateral-torsional buckling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.5 Critical loads according to the theory of elastic beam-columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.6 Comparisons between buckling reduction factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.7 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4 Finite element calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2 Material model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.3 Finite element model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.4 Results and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5 Further analysis of Eurocode 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.1 Buckling and tensile failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.2 Section check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.3 Suggestions for improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

vii
6 Conclusions, comments and further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Appendix A. Photos of the test equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendix B. Load-deflection curves of the tested beam-columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Appendix C. Example of Abaqus input files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

List of Bulletins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

viii
1. Introduction
1.1 Aim and scope
Load carrying constructions in aluminium are increasingly used in offshore and transportation
industry. The main reasons are the extrusion technique, corrosion resistance and the lightness
of the material. Examples of constructions in the offshore industry are helicopter decks,
telescoping bridges, stair towers, cable ladders, accommodation modules and other parts
exposed to the marine environment. In the shipping industry aluminium constructions are used
in hulls for high-speed ferries and other vessels, topside parts of ships and large gas storage
tanks. The car industry is using aluminium constructions in the space-frame concept and
energy absorbing components. Aluminium constructions are used in train coaches.
Furthermore, the use of aluminium constructions in the aircraft industry has a long history.

Lot of research has been made on bi-symmetric I-sections, whereas unsymmetric cross-
sections are not so widely studied. Most steel and aluminium codes are mainly written for bi-
symmetric I-sections and rectangular hollow sections and are just partly adjusted to fit other
cross-sections. The use of the extrusion technique makes unsymmetric cross-sections in
aluminium more common than in steel. It is therefore especially important that aluminium
codes can handle unsymmetric cross-sections. Extruded aluminium profiles can be adjusted to
fit many different purposes and therefore they often end up unsymmetric. These are some
reasons for studying buckling of aluminium beam-columns with unsymmetric cross-sections.
The T-section is one of the most monosymmetric sections to be found. To choose a totally
unsymmetric cross-section would likely have been a too large step.

Most of the aluminium beam-columns in this thesis are transversely welded. When aluminium
is welded there will be a heat-affected zone with reduced strength. This will affect the load
carrying capacity of the beam-columns. When structural steel is welded there will normally not
be a zone with reduced strength. For high strength steel, such a reduced strength zone may
however occur, but the strength is not so drastically reduced as for aluminium. The width of
the heat-affected zone is much smaller in steel than in aluminium due to the difference in heat
transfer. The heat-affected zone makes buckling of aluminium beam-columns more
complicated than steel beam-columns. The loss of strength in the heat-affected zone is a
disadvantage for aluminium in comparison to steel. The effect of the loss of strength can to
some extent be reduced by making a “smart” construction. The extrusion technique is a
usefully tool for this. Suitable cross-sections can be made and welds can be located where they
do less harm. Modern welding techniques such as friction stir welding cause less reduction of
the strength in the heat-affected zone but is difficult to use for transverse welding.

The content of this thesis is not only applicable on T-sections in aluminium. Parts of it are also
applicable to other unsymmetric cross-sections, like monosymmetric I-sections. This type of
cross-sections are perhaps more common than T-sections. A T-section can be seen as an
extreme case of a monosymmetric I-section. All monosymmetric cross-sections have that in
common that the section modulus for the two edges is not the same. How this should be treated
is not clearly explained in the codes of today. At least not for the codes analysed in this thesis.
Even though aluminium and steel are two different materials and have different qualities, the
way of calculating aluminium and steel constructions have similarities. Parts of this thesis
could therefore also be applicable on steel constructions. Hopefully this thesis can contribute to
make the future codes better, especially aluminium codes but perhaps also steel codes.

1
The use of beam-columns with monosymmetric I-sections is discussed in Hernelind et al. [25].
When the compressive axial load is eccentric, a monosymmetric cross-section can be more
material effective than a symmetric one. One practical example where eccentric loads exist is a
beam-column with loads from a roof and an overhead crane. Even a T-section can be more
material effective than a bi-symmetric I-section under certain loading conditions. When
considering that the usage of a building can be changed in the future, it can however be
preferable to choose a not too unsymmetric cross-section.

The objectives of this thesis are:

1. Perform a literature search to find out was has been done. A literature search increases the
knowledge of the topic being considered and avoids duplicate work.

2. Perform buckling tests as reference material when evaluating different calculation methods.
It is also important that they are documented so accurate that other future researchers can
make use of them. Buckling tests are important when evaluating different design formulas.
The tests should preferable be unique.

3. Evaluate different codes and compare the results from the buckling tests with the results
from the codes. Eurocode 9 is one of the most important codes.

4. Develop a numerical model and see if this model can predict the load carrying capacity of
the beam-columns accurate enough. The model should not only be able to predict the
capacity, it is also important that it describes the physical behaviour of the tested beam-
columns. Otherwise it can be more difficult to claim that it can predict the capacity for
other not tested beam-columns. The goal of the development of the model is to have a tool
that numerically can simulate a buckling test. It is time consuming to learn the chosen
computer program, develop the numerical model and to calibrate the model with physical
tests. To come up with realistic results the computer program has to be advanced and these
programs tend to be non-user-friendly. The user must have knowledge about the theory
used in the program. However, when the numerical model has been developed, it is fast and
easy to use the model for extensive numerical simulations. Parametric studies and perhaps
also shape optimisation can be performed.

5. Make suggestions for improved design of aluminium beam-columns with unsymmetric

cross-sections with or without transverse welds.

1.2 Previous work

Below is a list of short descriptions of previous work related to the work presented in this
thesis. The search of literature was focused on buckling of aluminium columns or beam-
columns, with or without transverse welds. The references are chronologically ordered. The
undated report by Gilson and Cescotto [23] was inserted where it was believed to be produced.

2
Hill and Clark [26] made buckling tests on extruded I-section beam-columns. Four different
lengths and load eccentricities were used. Totally 33 beam-columns were tested and they failed
by flexural-torsional buckling. Comparisons with some theories were made. One conclusion
was that an earlier proposed design formula gave unconservative results. The work by Hill and
Clark was comment on in an appended discussion.

In Clark [14] buckling tests on eccentrically compressed aluminium beam-columns were made.
The cross-sections were rectangular, solid or hollow. Totally 36 buckling tests were made. The
alloy was AA6061-T6. The failure was plane plastic buckling. Comparisons were made with
various design formulas. One conclusion was that an existing design formula used for lateral
buckling also could be used for the tested beam-columns.

Hill et al. [27] discussed the design of aluminium beam-columns. Different interaction
formulas were used. Comparisons were made with earlier buckling tests. The results of 12
eccentrically compressed aluminium beam-columns with circular tube cross-sections were
presented. Some proposals were made. Only flexural buckling was considered. In an appended
discussion the work was comment on.

A theoretical study of how the shape of the stress-strain curve affects the load carrying
capacity of compressed aluminium columns is given in Baehre [2]. Local and flexural-torsional
buckling are not considered.

Höglund [31] described a method to design beam-columns with respect to flexural buckling.
The way Eurocode 9 treats the effect of transverse welds has its origin in this design method.

In Bernard et al. [5] buckling of unwelded axially compressed aluminium columns with I- or
O-sections were considered. Compression and tensile tests of the material were made. The
residual stresses of the extruded profiles were measured. Normally the residual stresses were
lower than 30 MPa, but a few peaks of 50 MPa were found. Totally 66 columns were tested. A
computer program was used to calculate buckling curves, i.e. the buckling reduction factor as
function of the slenderness parameter. The program could only consider in-plane buckling.
Imperfections were considered. Ramberg-Osgood material model was used based on the
material data from the compression tests. The buckling tests were used to check the buckling
curves. This work was used by the ECCS committee 16, described by Frey and Mazzolani
[21].

Klöppel and Bärsch [35] produced tables with buckling reduction factors for axially
compressed aluminium columns. The tables were produced with help of a German code for
steel structures and the results from an extensive test series with compressed aluminium
columns. Only flexural buckling and extruded unwelded columns were considered. Among
other things, the effect of imperfections, undesired load eccentricity, the shape of the cross-
sections and different material properties were studied. The test series was likely the same as
the flexural buckling tests presented in Klöppel and Bärsch [36].

3
Klöppel and Bärsch [36] presented results of a test series with 120 unwelded aluminium
columns with I-, T- or tubular cross-sections. Only flexural buckling was considered for these
columns. Three different alloys, three different slenderness values and some undesired load
eccentricity was used. The results of a test series with 39 columns with channel sections were
also presented. The axial load was applied at the centre of gravity and the column-ends were
free to warp. The columns with low slenderness failed by local buckling whereas the other
columns failed by flexural-torsional buckling. Also some tests with beams failing by lateral-
torsional buckling was made as well as some buckling tests on shell cylinders. The results of
the tests were compared with a new version of the German aluminium code DIN 4113 and
good agreement was obtained.

Frey and Mazzolani [21] presented the results of ECCS (European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork) committee 16, “Aluminium Alloy Structures”. The main task for
this committee was to establish buckling curves for axially loaded, unwelded and extruded
aluminium columns. The effect of initial curvature, variation of wall thickness of hollow cross-
sections and different material properties of the different alloys were considered.

Valtinat and Müller [56] used a computer program for beam-columns to calculate the buckling
load of longitudinally or transversely welded aluminium columns, centrically or eccentrically
loaded. The alloy was AA6082-T6. Only bi-symmetrical I-sections were considered. By a
parametric study the upper and lower bound of the influence of the welds on the strength of the
columns was investigated. A design method for longitudinally welded columns was proposed.

Gilson and Cescotto [23] made flexural buckling tests on extruded unwelded aluminium
columns with T-sections. Tensile and stub column tests were made to determine the material
properties. The dimensions of the cross-section and the imperfections were measured. Totally
14 buckling tests were made. The capacities from the tests were compared with the capacities
from ECCS recommendations and some computer program. Good agreement was obtained
between the capacities from the tests and the computer program. ECCS recommendations were
conservative.

Kitipornchai and Wang [34] made a theoretical study on lateral buckling of T-beams under
moment gradient. An energy approach and Fourier series were used. Two assumptions were
made: the material was linear elastic and the cross-section was rigid. Beam theory was used.
One conclusion was that a design formula used in some codes was unsafe to use. One of these
codes was Eurocode 3, the European steel code.

Valtinat and Dangelmaier [57] dealt with buckling of unwelded and welded axially loaded
aluminium columns mainly with I-, circular or square tube cross-sections. The results from
interaction formulas of a German code and a German dissertation were compared with the
results of an earlier theoretical study and with some previously made buckling tests. Some of
the buckling tests were made on columns with hollow cross-sections with transverse welds.
One of the results was that the position of the transverse welds only had a minor influence on
the load-carrying capacity of the columns. The German dissertation gave in general better
results than the German code.

4
In Baehre and Riman [3] buckling tests on extruded aluminium columns with rectangular
hollow cross-sections and transverse welds were made. Totally 123 columns were tested. A
computer program was also used to calculate the load carrying capacity of aluminium columns.
A reduction factor was proposed to be inserted in the interaction formulas of the draft
aluminium code DIN 4113. The reduction factor takes into account the position of the
transverse weld. A new interaction formula was also proposed.

Bulson and Nethercot [11] gave some aspects on the draft version of BS 8118 regarding the
design of aluminium columns, beams and beam-columns.

Nethercot [44] presented aspects on the design of aluminium columns in the draft version of
BS 8118. The interaction formulas of the draft code were presented and the results of them
were compared with many buckling tests found in the literature.

Hong [28] presented buckling design curves for aluminium columns failing by flexural
buckling. Local and flexural-torsional buckling were not considered. The type of alloy,
symmetry of the cross-section and welding condition affected the shape of buckling curves.
The buckling curves were the results of a study at Cambridge during 1979-1983 and were
recommended to the revisionary committee of the British aluminium code CP118. Likely these
curves were at least partly adopted in BS 8118.

Bradford [8] developed a finite element method that incorporated plate behaviour for
modelling the lateral-distortional buckling of elastic T-beams. The theory does not assume that
the cross-section is rigid. The method was verified with other theoretical methods. When the
beam was subjected to equal end moments such that the tip of the web was in tension, lateral-
distortional and lateral-torsional buckling gave similar result. Under the same loading
condition but when the tip of the web was in compression, lateral-distortional buckling gave a
lower moment capacity than lateral-torsional buckling. For a beam with length-to-height ratio
of 15, the buckling moment was 36% lower. Lateral-torsional buckling assumes that the cross-
section is rigid.

Höglund [32] compared results from buckling tests found in the literature with different
interaction formulas, among others a proposal by Mazzolani and a proposal based on the
Swedish steel code BSK [7]. The results from 220 buckling tests were used. The tested beam-
columns were all unwelded and centrically or eccentrically compressed. The shape of the
cross-sections varied. The literature, where the tests were found, is included in the reference
list of this thesis.

Benson [4] tested 19 hollow square, thin-walled aluminium extruded beam-columns. The test
specimens were eccentrically compressed. The alloy was AA6063-T6. The test results were
used to evaluate the design methods in the Swedish Regulation for Light Gauge Structures, the
ISO working draft ISO/TC 167/SC 3 N122E and a modified version of the Swedish steel code
BSK.

Höglund [33] presented interaction formulas for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling of I-
beam-columns. The formulas are used in the Swedish steel code, BSK. Comparisons were
made with tests on steel and aluminium beam-columns reported in the literature. The
agreement was found to be excellent, especially for the aluminium tests.

5
Hong [29] used a computer program to simulate flexural buckling of transversely welded
aluminium columns with solid rectangular cross-sections. Local and flexural-torsional buckling
were not considered. Ramberg-Osgood material model was used. Transverse welding was
simulated by depositing weld material on the four faces of the tubular section. The alloy was
AA6061. To verify the results of the computer simulations buckling tests on aluminium
columns with square tubular cross-sections were made. Especially the effect of the transverse
weld’s position on the load carrying capacity was studied. Different buckling curves were
drawn. One finding was that a sine curve was suitable to be used to describe the load carrying
capacity of a column as function of the transverse weld’s position, similar to the calculations in
Eurocode 9 and the modified Swedish steel code BSK. Only pin-ended columns were
considered.

The paper by Nethercot [45] deals with buckling of aluminium columns, beams and beam-
columns with transverse welds. Numerical results from the two computer programs INSTAF
and BIAXIAL were compared with a draft version of BS 8118. The two computer programs
are described in Lai and Nethercot [37]. One result was that it is only somewhat conservative
to design a transversely welded aluminium column as if the whole column consisted of heat-
affected material, irrespective of the transverse weld’s position.

Buckling curves for aluminium columns, beams, plates and shear webs were discussed in
Marsh [41]. The effect of welds was also discussed.

Lai and Nethercot [37] used two finite element computer programs to analyse welded and
unwelded aluminium structural members. The first program, INSTAF, was used for in-plane
analysis. It could consider geometric and material nonlinearity, the effect of residual stresses
and strain hardening of the material. The results of the program were compared with some
earlier made buckling tests and showed good agreement. The second program, BIAXIAL, was
used to analyse the 3D-behaviour of beam-column elements. This program could consider the
effect of twisting, warping, residual stresses and initial curvature. Both programs could
consider the effect of longitudinal and transverse welds. A piecewise form of Ramberg-Osgood
material model was used in both programs. Five unwelded and 22 welded beams were tested in
4-point bending tests to check parts of the programs. All tested beams had a rectangular cross-
section, which expected the beams to fail in pure bending. Plates of different lengths were
welded to the two flanges to create the heat-affected material. Tensile tests were made both on
parent and heat-affected material. The beams were tested up to a reasonable high deflection but
not up to failure. INSTAF was generally conservative with a maximum difference of 10%
between the tested and calculated load. The two programs were used to make parametric
studies on transversely welded beams and columns, with bi-symmetrical I-sections. The
columns were pin-ended and subjected to axial load only. The beams were simply supported
with a point load at midspan. Also some other structures were calculated. The parametric study
showed that it is unsafe to neglect the softening effect of welds at the ends of columns. It also
showed that the load carrying capacity of columns were lowered most when the welds were
located at mid-height. The capacity was almost equal as if the whole column was made of heat-
affected material.

6
The two computer programs INSTAF and BIAXIAL described above were used in Lai and
Nethercot [38] to calculate various types of axially loaded aluminium columns. The purpose
was to check the column design curves of a draft version of BS 8118. All cross-sections were
“compact” for which no local buckling occurred. Imperfections were considered. The cross-
sections were I- or T-shaped. The columns were unwelded, transversely welded or longitudinal
welded. The strength of most types of columns was safely predicted by the method of the draft
code. However, some improvements of the draft code were presented, especially for
transversely welded columns when the welds were located at the column ends.

Sanne et al. [49] describe buckling tests of unwelded aluminium columns with I-sections. A
few beam-columns were tested with a centric load, but for most beam-columns the
compressive load was applied eccentrically. The maximum eccentricity was 5 times the depth
of the cross-section. Also tests with unequal load eccentricity at the two ends of the beam-
column were made. Totally 40 beam-columns were tested. The alloy was AA6351. The
material properties were determined by tensile tests. The load carrying capacity from the tests
were compared with the capacities from the Swedish steel code BSK, the ECCS
recommendations and the Norwegian aluminium code NS 3471. BSK gave the best results.

In Sanne [50] 24 extruded aluminium beam-columns with I-sections were tested. The beam-
columns were welded with one transverse weld at different sections along the beam-column.
The load was applied with an eccentricity such that major axis bending and axial compression
occurred. Some beam-columns were loaded centrically. The alloy was AA 6351-T6. The
results were compared with a modified version of the Swedish steel code, BSK. The
modifications made it possible to take into account the weakening effect of the weld. The
comparisons showed that it was possible to use the modified BSK under the condition that the
ultimate strength of the heat-affected zone was used as design strength. Using the yield
strength will give very conservative results.

The book by Sharp [52] deals with design of aluminium structures. Much of the research
presented in the book was conducted at Alcoa Laboratories (Aluminium Company of America)
during the last 30-40 years. Among other things, the design of columns, beams and beam-
columns were discussed.

Hellgren [24] presented the results of two test series with totally 28 extruded beam-columns
with I-sections. The alloy was AA 6351-T6. The beam-columns were welded with one
transverse weld at different sections along the beam-column. The compressive load was
applied with an eccentricity in one or two directions. For some beam-columns the load was
applied centrically. The results from the tests were compared with BS 8118 and a draft version
of Eurocode 9. The draft Eurocode 9 was less conservative than BS 8118.

Corona and Ellison [15] made an experimental and theoretical study of T-beams under pure
bending. The investigation was focused on the case when the tip of the web was in
compression. The tested beams were hot rolled and made of steel. They had length-to-height
ratios ranging from 10 to 20. Tensile and compression tests were made to determine the
material properties. Some theory was developed to calculate the moment-curvature response.
The theory was only briefly described, but the stress-strain curve was trilinear. The theory
showed good agreement with the tests.

The work by Edlund [17,18,20] is included in this thesis.

7
Bradford [9] studied lateral-distortional buckling of elastic T-section cantilevers. The study
was pure theoretical where the finite element method described in Bradford [8] was used. The
case when the tip of the web was in compression was studied. Lateral-distortional buckling
generally gave a lower buckling load than lateral-torsional buckling.

Langhelle [39] studied aluminium structures exposed to fire. Eight buckling tests were made at
room temperature. The aluminium columns in these tests had rectangular hollow cross-sections
and were centrically compressed. The alloy was AA6082 and the temper was T4 or T6. Two
columns were transversely welded at mid-height. The wall thickness was 5 or 7 mm. Global
buckling occurred before local buckling for the columns with 7 mm wall thickness. For the
columns with 5 mm wall thickness, global and local buckling occurred simultaneously. Besides
the 8 tests at room temperature, 23 buckling tests were made at elevated temperature.
Comparisons were made with Abaqus, another nonlinear finite element program and with three
different codes, Eurocode 9, BS 8118 and the Norwegian aluminium code NS 3471.

The paper by Rasmussen and Rondal [47] is dealing with column curves for extruded
aluminium columns failing by flexural buckling. A column curve is the same as the previously
used expression “buckling curve”.

8
2 Buckling tests
2.1 Introduction

Buckling tests were performed. The tested beams were divided in two test series. The first
series consisted of 26 unwelded beams, which were tested in 1996. The second series was
larger, 39 welded beams tested in 1997 and 1998. All unwelded beams and 34 of the welded
beams were simply supported for bending. The remaining five of the welded beams had
clamped ends. Most welded beams were transversely welded either at the quarterspan or at the
midspan, but for some beams two or three transverse welds were used. A transverse weld is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam. The lengths of the beams were 500, 1020
and 1540 mm, respectively. The theoretical cross-section dimensions were the same for all
beams. The dimensions are shown in figure 2.1. The six load application points I-VI are also
shown in the figure. The notation a in figure 2.1 is equal to the distance between the centre of
gravity and the shear centre.

60
I
SC
a
II
a
6 6 III GC
a
IV
a
60 6 V
a
VI

Figure 2.1. Theoretical cross-section dimensions in mm and load application points.

The beams were cut from profiles of five meters in length. All profiles were delivered free of
charge from SAPA (Skandinaviska Aluminium Profiler AB) in Vetlanda. The alloy and temper
for the welded beams were AA6082-T6. In order to get a sufficient large difference in strength
between the parent and the heat-affected material it was necessary to use temper T6. The
profiles from 1996 were taken from stocks so the alloy and temper were unknown, but
probably the material was AA6082-T6 as for the profiles from 1997 and 1998. However, this
was of no real importance since the material properties were determined by tensile tests.

Figure 2.2 shows a sketch of the test equipment when the beam was simply supported for
bending. In appendix A two photos of the test equipment are also presented. The compression
force was applied by a hydraulic jack. With some time interval the load was increased by a
suitable load step. Most beams were tested by using a time interval of two minutes during the
whole test process. When quite many beams had been tested it was found out that it was
necessary to speed up the test process. This was done by increasing the load instantaneously up
to about 75% of the theoretical load carrying capacity and then use a two minutes interval. The
theoretical load carrying capacity was calculated according to the Swedish steel code BSK [7],
see section 3.4. The load step used in connection with the two minutes interval was chosen
with help of the theoretical load carrying capacity. After each load step the distance between

9
the supports was fixed so the deflection in the direction of the applied load was constant during
the whole load step. One reason for this was to avoid difficulties that otherwise would have
occurred in conjunction with possible leaks in the hydraulic system. The measuring data was
used to determine the failure load and to draw load-deflection diagrams. The reason for the
time interval was that the transverse deflection of the beam should be stabilised. The value of
the applied load changed somewhat during the two minutes interval due to the fixed
deformation in the direction of the applied load. This can be seen in the load-deflection curves
in appendix B.

mp3 mp6 mp9

mp0

Aluminium beam

2 HEA 800

steel plate
steel plate mp2 mp5 mp8
steel ball
steel ball mp1 mp4 mp7 load cell
jack

mp = measuring point

Figure 2.2. The test equipment seen from the side and from above, simply supported case.

Three measurements of the deflection at the midspan were made. This made it possible to see if
the beam twisted during the test. In 1996 and 1997, the beams were tested such that the force of
gravity acted parallel with the web. During the testing in 1998 the force of gravity acted along
the flange. The reason for this was that different persons from the laboratory personnel made
the tests and also that there was a year between the different test series so details were likely
forgotten by the laboratory personnel.

The measurements are illustrated in figure 2.3. The deflection was also measured at the
supports. By this way it was possible to compensate the midspan deflection from the possible
movements of the steel ball at the supports when the applied load was increased.

It was important to know if the deflection was parallel with the flange or the web. Any other
information about the direction of the deflections was not considered as important. This means
for instance that all measured deflection values could have been multiplied with –1 in a load-
deflection diagram in appendix B, if this was considered to give a more “beautiful” diagram.
All deflections were measured with rotational potentiometers.

10
 1998

1996, 1997

Figure 2.3. Measurement of the deflection.

Figure 2.4 shows the steel plate used to transfer the load into the beam. Only the most
important dimensions are shown in the figure. To prevent the beam from sliding at the
supports, seven eight mm screws with sharpened tips were used in each steel plate together
with a 20 mm deep milled groove. Two of the screws are shown in the figure. The hinge at the
supports was accomplished by a 14 mm steel ball. The friction was reduced by a sheet of
teflon.

Figure 2.4. Steel plate used to transfer the load into the beam, dimensions in mm.

11
Five of the welded beams had clamped ends, which were obtained by removing the steel balls
and the teflon sheets so the load was applied directly to the steel plates at the beam-ends. The
load was applied at the centre of gravity of the T-section for the clamped beams. A steel ring
was screwed to the back of the steel plates in order to fix the beam. The steel rings also
prevented to some extent the beam from rotating at the supports. This adjustment of the
supports was believed to give an accurate enough approximation of clamped ends. This fact
was also confirmed to a certain extent by a visual inspection of the supports. When the load
carrying capacities according to the different codes were calculated, the possible non-perfect
clamped ends were considered by testing different buckling lengths.

For all beams, the cross-section dimensions were measured with a slide-calliper and the beam
length with a ruler. The results of the measurements are shown in table 2.7 and 2.8. In these
tables, some data about the test series can also be found.

The welds were obtained by introducing weld material on the surface around the beams. If the
beams had been jointed with traditional butt welds, the initial curvature of the beams would
have probably been larger. It was also more convenient to introduce the heat-affected material
in this way. The initial curvature of aluminium profiles is very low, because immediately after
the extrusion the profiles are stretched. The heating during the welding could have induced
some initial curvature, but visually no curvature was seen.

According to Mazzolani [42], the initial curvature of an extruded aluminium profile is about
l 2000 (displacement at midspan), where l is the length of the profile. For the tested beams, the
midspan deflection will then be 0,25-0,77 mm. In the codes the initial curvature is considered
in the buckling formulas. For the Abaqus calculated beams, the initial curvature can be seen as
included in the imperfections. It was decided that the initial curvature of both the unwelded and
the welded beams were not necessary to measure.

Residual stresses are very small in extruded profiles. The quenching, which is a part of the
heat-treatment of temper T6, induce some residual stresses, but according to Mazzolani [42]
they are very small (less than 20 MPa) and have negligible effect on the load carrying capacity.

However, residual stresses in welded profiles are not small. All welded beams in this thesis
were transversely welded. Residual stresses of transverse welds have less influence on the load
carrying capacity than longitudinal welds because they are local and they are mostly directed
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam. Residual stresses are mostly directed
parallel with the welds. The effect of the residual stresses is at least partly included in the heat-
affected material model based on the tensile tests. For the reasons given above, it was decided
that the residual stresses were not necessary to measure. If the welds were longitudinal, residual
stresses had to be considered.

The weld itself was not studied but rather the affect of the heat-affected zone adjacent to the
weld. MIG-welding was used for all welds, both the beams and the tensile tests.

12
2.2 Tensile tests

The strength of the material was determined by tensile tests. All tensile tests were made for the
material in the direction of the extrusion. According to Hopperstad [30] and Moen [43] the
material is anisotropic, so the direction of measurement is of importance. From each profile a
tensile test for the parent material was made. The reason for this was to determine the
characteristics of the different materials as thoroughly as possible. Even if two profiles were
made of the same alloy and temper, the material properties still could vary to a certain extent.
The different alloying elements are allowed to vary in a quite wide range for a certain alloy.
This means that two alloys with the same designation can have different material properties.
When welded beams were cut from a profile, a tensile test for the heat-affected material was
also made. The test specimens were tested in a Material Test System, MTS 311.21s, according
to the Swedish standard. The heat-affected material for the welded tensile tests was obtained by
introducing weld material on the surface of profile parts. The test specimens were then cut
from the web of these parts. Two initial tensile tests were made, one where a traditional butt
weld was used and one where the weld material was introduced on the surface. The failure for
the jointed tensile test was brittle and the failure load was very low. The non-jointed tensile test
behaved in a better way. For the welded tensile tests and beams, there were mainly two reasons
for introducing weld material on the surface instead of using traditional butt welds: the result of
the two initial tensile tests and that it was more convenient. The beams and corresponding
tensile test must be welded as similar as possible.

When the load carrying capacity according to different codes was calculated, only the yield
strength f0.2 of the parent material and the ultimate strength fhaz of the heat-affected material
were needed. The ultimate strength fhaz was evaluated as the maximum stress that occurred.
When more complicated calculation methods are used, like the finite element calculations in
chapter 4, the whole stress-strain curve is needed.

During a buckling test it is the compression strength rather than the tensile strength that is most
decisive for the load carrying capacity of the beam. However, it is difficult to perform good
compression tests, and therefore the compression strength was approximated with the tensile
strength. The most important reason for this fact is connected to difficulties in avoiding
buckling of the specimen. For this reason the test specimens must be very short. This will in
turn make the strain measurements more difficult. Moreover, the prevented lateral contraction
at the supports will have a larger influence when the length of the specimens is short. For these
reasons the compression strength was taken equal to the tensile strength.

However, a brittle tensile test is a bad approximation of the compression strength. From the
buckling tests of the welded beams it was possible to see that the load carrying capacity of the
beams was not determined by the strength of the weld itself. For one beam where the bending
induced compression in the flange and tension in the web, a crack appeared in the weld.
However, this was most certainly a secondary failure caused by large displacements. The other
welds were uncracked. For these reasons it was desirable that the failure of the welded tensile
tests should be ductile and occur at the heat-affected zone beside the weld.

In this section, nominal stresses and strains are shown. It means that the stresses were
calculated as measured force divided by original cross-section area and the strains as measured

13
elongation divided by original length. The elongation was measured over a distance of 50 mm.
This distance was the same as the original length. There exists other ways of calculating
stresses and strains. In chapter 4, “true” or Cauchy stresses and log-strains are used and
explained.

The beams tested during 1996 were all unwelded. These beams were cut from six profiles.
From each of these profiles a tensile test was made. The values of the yield strength and the
modulus of elasticity from these tensile tests are shown in table 2.1. These values were
evaluated graphically from the printouts of the testing machine.

Table 2.1. f0,2 and E for the unwelded tensile tests from 1996.
Tensile test 1 2 3 4 5 6
f0,2 [MPa] 323 268 326 324 320 313
E [GPa] 68,8 71,0 70,3 65,0 70,7 70,7

The yield strength for tensile test 2 was much lower than the rest so all profiles may not have
been made of the same alloy. As already mentioned, it was however likely that the material was
AA6082-T6. The modulus of elasticity should be close to 70 GPa. For tensile test number 4 the
modulus of elasticity differed quite much from 70 GPa. It is difficult to give a reasonable
explanation for this. The reason was likely not slip in the measuring device. The stress-strain
curve would then have similar shape as the curve for the understiff behaviour in figure 2.5, but
this was not the case. The slope of the stress-strain curve was constant in the elastic region,
which can be seen in figure 4.2. All stress-strain curves from 1996 were left unmodified,
because no detectable errors occurred during the testing.

The tensile tests from 1997 were denoted A-G and AW-GW, where A-G were unwelded and
AW-GW were welded. Corresponding notations from 1998 were 1-4 and 1W-4W. The
profiles, from which the tensile tests and the beams were cut, were denoted in the same way as
the parent material. Profile F was excluded. In table 2.2 the results from the first series of
tensile tests from 1997 and the tensile tests from 1998 are shown.

The failure for the welded tensile tests CW, DW and EW in table 2.2 occurred at the weld. For
the other welded tensile tests in table 2.2, the failure occurred beside the weld in the heat-
affected zone. In table 2.2, the failure strain at maximum load is shown for the welded tensile
tests. The failures which occurred at the heat-affected zone were significant more ductile than
the failures which occurred in the weld.

The welded tensile test CW had significant lower ultimate strength than the other tensile tests.
One explanation is that less weld material was used for tensile test CW than for the other
welded tensile tests. There could also be welding defects like enclosed pores. Studying the
welded zone thoroughly made it possible to observe that the penetration of the weld material
was deeper for the specimens were failure occurred at the weld, as opposed to the cases when
the failure occurred at the heat-affected zone. The reason why the failure did not occur more
often at the weld was that the welds were overfilled in most cases, which in turn enlarged the
cross-section area.

14
The materials which correspond to the tensile tests 1, 1W, 3W, 4 and 4W were slightly
modified due to under- or overstiff behaviour at the start of the stress-strain curve, see figure
2.5.

350

300

250

200

Understiff behaviour Overstiff behaviour

150

100

50

0
Strain [-]

Figure 2.5. Under- and overstiff behaviour at the start of the stress-strain curve.

The understiff behaviour was most likely due to slip in the test equipment. The overstiff
behaviour was more difficult to explain. A modification was performed such that the start of
the stress-strain curve was straightened and the whole curve was moved parallel with the
strain-axis so the curve started at zero stress and strain. The values that are shown in table 2.2
are the values that were obtained after the modification due to under- or overstiff behaviour.

Table 2.2. Tensile tests from 1997 (first series) and 1998.
Tensile Unwelded tensile test Welded tensile test
Test f0,2 [MPa] E [GPa] fhaz [MPa] E [GPa] Failure strain, A50 [%]
A, AW 296 71,1 227 76,6 4,96
B, BW 293 71,1 213 71,7 4,50
C, CW 298 71,4 68 57,1 0,452
D, DW − − 167 71,0 2,04
E, EW − − 183 70,0 2,72
G, GW 276 70,5 205 76,3 4,79
1, 1W 312 70,7 188 90,9 7,42
2, 2W 307 71,4 189 65,6 7,40
3, 3W 283 69,8 183 99,4 7,36
4, 4W 321 69,8 191 76,2 7,42

From the longest beams tested during 1997, pieces were sawn out and used as tensile tests after
the beams were tested. These tensile tests are shown in table 2.3. The failure for tensile test
CW in table 2.3 occurred at the weld while the failure for tensile tests DW and EW occurred at
the heat-affected zone.

15
Table 2.3. Second series of tensile tests from 1997.
Tensile Unwelded tensile test Welded tensile test
Test f0,2 [MPa] E [GPa] fhaz [MPa] E [GPa] Failure strain, A50 [%]
C, CW 293 74,0 137 73,3 1,74
D, DW 284 71,2 179 79,0 6,73
E, EW 311 70,5 183 74,1 6,55

From table 2.2 and 2.3 it is clear that the values for the welded tensile tests were uncertain and
highly dependent on how the welding was performed. Another question was if the beams and
corresponding tensile test were welded in the same way. Even a small difference in, for
instance, the depth of penetration seemed to affect the strength to a very high degree. The
welds of the tensile tests from 1998 seemed to have more even quality, at least when
considering the values of fhaz and the failure strain, but the wide scatter of the modulus of
elasticity was undesired. For the welded tensile tests from 1997, the start of the stress-strain
curve was non-linear, which made the evaluation of the modulus of elasticity rather arbitrary.
This non-linearity was not present for the welded stress-strain curves from 1998. An example
of a non-linear start of a stress-strain curve is given in figure 2.6.

The value of f0,2 was possible to determine more accurate. The value of f0,2 for material C in
table 2.2 and 2.3 does not differ much. The yield strength in table 2.1 is for all profiles except
one, not so widely scattered, but the material was unknown so not too many conclusions can be
drawn.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020 0.0024
Nominal strain [-]

Figure 2.6. The start of the stress-strain curve for material BW.

It is evident that there were more uncertainties with the welded tensile tests than the unwelded.
There were several possible causes for that. One cause was that the section area was much
enlarged in areas where the weld material was located. It was likely that the elongation only
occurred for the parts where the section area was not enlarged. The result would be too low
strain values, which means that the modulus of elasticity would be enlarged. Another cause
could be residual stresses due to welding. The failures did not occur perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the test specimens. This indicates that the strength was not uniformly

16
distributed over the width of the specimens. The residual stresses due to welding could also be
one explanation why the start of some welded stress-strain curves was non-linear.

A third cause could be eccentricity of the test specimens. The load was applied through two
holes, see figure 2.7. If the holes were not located centric along the centre line of the test
specimens there would be an additional moment to the axial force. How much the eccentricity
affected the strain values depended on which side of the specimens the strains were measured.
No information was given on the location of measurement points for the strains. The effect of
the eccentricity was thus uncertain. Problems with this kind of eccentricity can also be present
for unwelded tensile tests. It is likely that the different causes sometimes interacted and
sometimes counteracted each other. This could be an explanation why the modulus of elasticity
differed so much, but it is doubtful if this explanation is good enough, because it was not
possible to see any significant difference in size and extension of the weld material. It would
have been more realistic if the values were not so widely scattered.

20 mm

Figure 2.7. Test specimen for the tensile tests.

The value of fhaz is not affected by any strain problems, since it is evaluated as the maximum
stress value. The calculation according to different codes in chapter 3 only uses fhaz and is
accordingly not affected by any strain problems. This is not the case for the finite element
calculations in chapter 4. In this calculation the whole stress-strain curve is used. It appeared
necessary in this context to correct at least some stress-strain curves due to unrealistic values of
the modulus of elasticity. The uncertainties discussed above were present for all welded tensile
tests and therefore it was decided that all stress-strain curves of the heat-affected material
should be modified. The modification was performed such that all strain values for the heat-
affected materials were multiplied with a factor so a modulus of elasticity close to 71 GPa was
obtained. Before this modification could be made, it was necessary to decide which tensile tests
that should represent the different heat-affected materials. For most materials there was only
one choice. For material CW there were no satisfactory choices. Material A and C were almost
identical, see figure 4.3. For this reason material CW was set equal to material AW. Both
materials DW and EW were taken from table 2.3, probably because of the lower strain values
in table 2.2. The value of fhaz for material DW in table 2.2 is also quite low. When the different
heat-affected materials had been selected, the strains were multiplied with the factors that are
given in table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Strain multiplication factors.

Material AW BW DW EW GW 1W 2W 3W 4W
Factor 1,08 1,00 1,27 1,04 1,07 1,29 0,918 1,40 1,08

Some comments about material C must also be made. For this material there were two
reasonable tensile tests. The yield strength f0,2 for material C was set equal to the mean value
from table 2.2 and 2.3. In the finite element calculations in chapter 4, the stress-strain curve for

17
material C was taken from table 2.3. When considering the value of the modulus of elasticity
probably it would have been better to choose the other tensile test, but this was not done.

The strength values for the chosen and sometimes modified materials from 1997 and 1998 are
summarised in table 2.5. These values were used when the load carrying capacities according
to different codes were calculated.

Table 2.5. Final nominal strength values for the materials from 1997 and 1998.
Profile A B C D E G 1 2 3 4
f0,2 [Mpa] 296 293 296 284 311 276 312 307 283 321
fhaz [MPa] 227 213 227 179 183 205 188 189 183 191

In section 4.2, the stress-strain curves for all tensile tests are shown. These curves are the
material models used in the Abaqus calculations. They are shown after the modifications due to
under- or overstiff behaviour at the start of the stress-strain curves and unrealistic values of the
modulus of elasticity. The curves for the heat-affected materials are also modified at large
strain values. Only the “true” stress and log-strain versions of the curves are shown. It was
decided that these curves were more important to show than the nominal stress-strain curves,
because they were used in the Abaqus calculations.

To estimate the reasonableness of the strength values from the tensile tests, comparisons were
made with values from the literature. The values are given in table 2.6 and are valid for the
extruded alloy AA6082, temper T6, thickness 6 mm and MIG-welding.

Table 2.6. Strength values from some literature.

Literature f0,2 [MPa] fhaz [MPa] fu [MPa]
Eurocode 9 [12] 260 202 * 310
BS 8118 [10] 255 128 ** 275
SAPA’s handbook [51] 260 310
BKR 99 [6] 245 180 290
“Goda råd…..” [54] 190 290
TALAT [40] 270
* f haz = ρ haz ⋅ f u = 0,65 ⋅ 310 = 202 MPa
** f haz = k z ⋅ f 0,2 = 0,5 ⋅ 255 = 128 MPa

Eurocode 9, BS 8118, SAPA’s handbook and BKR 99 give the same type of values and they
can be considered as minimum guaranteed values. For the other literature no additional
information about the values was found. BKR 99 does not distinguish between different
welding techniques, so the value of fhaz does not require MIG-welding.

It was not found in BS8118 that it is allowed to use fu when the strength of the heat-affected
material is calculated, like it is in Eurocode 9 and BSK, and therefore the strength of the heat-
affected material was set equal to k z f 0,2 . In section 5.5.2 of Eurocode 9 it is clearly stated that
f0,2 and fu should be multiplied with the same reduction factor ρhaz. Such a clear statement was

18
not found in BS 8118, but it was assumed that kz should be used in the same way. Both
Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 say that f0,2 is lowered more than fu when the material is welded. It
can therefore be questioned that both f0,2 and fu are lowered with the same reduction factor, but
probably this should be seen as an acceptable approximation which has been adopted. Perhaps
it would have been better to give values of the yield and ultimate strength of the heat-affected
material instead of a reduction factor?

A few conclusions can be drawn when the values in table 2.5 and 2.6 are compared. The lowest
value of fhaz is given by BS 8118. Eurocode 9 gives a higher value of fhaz than quite many of
the tensile tests.

2.3 Results

In table 2.7 and 2.8 there are some data and measured results of the tested beams. From the two
major series three minor test series were selected. These latter series were tested in connection
with a course for the ungraduate students of the last year. There was a desire that the
numeration of the three minor series should be continuous, which is the reason for the
numeration in table 2.7 and 2.8. Among other things, the measurements showed that the
thickness t for all beams was a bit larger ( 6,03 mm ≤ t ≤ 6,20 mm ) than the theoretical (6 mm).
The notations b, h, tw and tf in the tables are explained in figure 3.5.

In table 2.8 the desired weld locations are shown. As can be seen, for some beams two or three
transverse welds were used. When the beams were simply supported for bending, a weld
location of 0 or lc was not possible. This location corresponded to the centre of the steel ball. It
was not possible to locate the welds closer to the centre of the steel ball than about 65 mm. The
buckling length and the beam length were denoted lc and l, respectively. zhaz is the distance
between the point of contra flexure of the buckling curve and the most critical weld. No value
of zhaz is given for the clamped beams since several buckling lengths were tested and for each
buckling length a new value of zhaz was obtained. Both lc and zhaz are further explained in
section 3.1. The beam length l is equal to the distance between the two groove bottoms of the
steel plates at the beam-ends.

One horizontal and one vertical load-deflection diagram is shown for each beam in appendix B.
For all eccentrically loaded beams which were simply supported for bending, the load-
deflection curves according to the first and second order beam theory were inserted in one of
the two diagrams. The beam theory formulas are shown below. The buckling length lc is equal
to the distance between the steel balls at the supports.

e l c2
wmid ,1 = N , first order analysis
8 EI
é π N π2E Ix
w mid ,2 = e ê1 cosç ÷ − 1ú PE2 = , second order analysis
êë 2 PE2 ú l c2

19
From the diagrams in appendix B it can be seen that the load-deflection curves for the second
order analysis coincide fairly well with the corresponding measured curves when the load level
is reasonable low.

Somewhat generalized, the course of events for the tests can be described as follows. The load-
deflection diagrams in appendix B give additional information.

Load application point I-II: During the test the beam bent in the direction of the web. The
deflection parallel with the flange was generally small, except at failure when this deflection
became very large.

Load application point IV-VI: During the test the beam bent in the direction of the web. The
deflection parallel with the flange was mostly small. At failure there was a local buckle in the
web.

Load application point III: The deflection parallel with the web was small. The deflection
parallel with the flange was also small, except at failure when this deflection became very
large.

When the marks from the seven screws were studied at one of the two ends of PB-39 in table
2.8, it was possible to see that slip had occurred. The slip mark from all screws had the same
shape. The most reasonable explanation for this was that the beam was not properly knocked
into the bottom of the groove when the testing started. In the beginning when the load was
applied, the beam sank uniformly into the bottom of the groove. The result was probably that
PB-39 obtained too low load carrying capacity. This can also be seen when the failure load for
PB-39 is compared with the failure load for PB-37. It is reasonable to believe that these two
beams should have closer failure loads (67,4 kN and 51,3 kN). For the reasons given above PB-
39 was not part of the evaluation of the test results.

The slip for PB-22 in table 2.7 was more easily seen. In this case the screws and the groove
could not withstand the moment caused by the applied load and therefore a rotation of the steel
plates occurred.

The load-deflection curves for the welded column PB-23 in table 2.8 are shown in appendix B.
The deflection parallel with the web, i.e. the stiff direction, is large while the deflection parallel
with the flange, i.e. the weak direction, is small. This situation seems not realistic and it does
not occur for the other centrically compressed columns. When the test specimen for PB-23 was
studied it was observed that local buckling had occurred at the tip of the web. Furthermore, it
was observed that the penetration of the weld material in the flange was not so deep, which
could mean that the heat-affected zone was small in the flange. In the web the penetration was
larger and the softer web therefore buckled for the centric load. The deformation of the test
specimen agreed with the information obtained from the load-deflection diagrams in appendix
B. This buckling test indicates that it can be more unfavourable when just a part of the cross-
section is welded than if the whole cross-section is welded. Due to these observations, the
tested load carrying capacity for PB-23 could be too low. The welded column PB-23 is used in
the further evaluation in this thesis, but it is given special comments.

20
Table 2.7. Unwelded beams from 1996.
Beam Profile Lap l b h tw tf N [kN]
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] test
PB-1 2 II 500,0 60,00 60,00 6,06 6,10 104,8
PB-2 1 V 500,0 59,94 60,00 6,12 6,12 61,2
PB-3 1 IV 501,5 60,00 60,02 6,07 6,11 88,8
PB-4 3 V 502,0 60,00 60,00 6,08 6,09 61,6
PB-19 2 II 502,0 60,03 60,09 6,09 6,13 105,2
PB-20 1 V 501,0 60,04 60,03 6,08 6,13 61,1
PB-21 2 III 501,0 59,98 60,00 6,04 6,09 -H
PB-22 3 I 500,5 60,02 60,02 6,12 6,13 -SL

PB-5 5 II 1020,0 60,04 60,00 6,04 6,08 73,7

PB-6 4 V 1019,5 59,98 59,97 6,04 6,03 42,4
PB-7 5 II 1020,5 59,96 59,97 6,11 6,12 67,2
PB-8 5 IV 1020,0 59,96 59,98 6,06 6,09 49,3
PB-9 4 III 1020,5 59,95 59,92 6,04 6,06 64,4
PB-10 3 IV 1019,0 60,01 59,99 6,11 6,12 58,5
PB-11 4 I 1019,5 60,02 60,01 6,05 6,07 52,7
PB-12 6 IV 1020,5 59,95 59,99 6,07 6,08 55,4
PB-23 6 III 1019,5 60,02 60,00 6,06 6,08 64,9
PB-24 6 V 1019,5 59,92 59,92 6,06 6,10 43,6

PB-13 2 II 1540,5 60,04 59,97 6,05 6,07 32,9

PB-14 1 V 1540,0 60,09 60,02 6,05 6,07 25,0
PB-15 1 II 1539,5 60,02 60,05 6,05 6,06 31,9
PB-16 3 III 1540,0 60,01 60,04 6,08 6,07 32,5
PB-17 2 I 1539,5 60,02 60,00 6,05 6,07 31,2
PB-18 5 V 1540,0 60,02 60,01 6,05 6,08 26,0
PB-25 4 I 1540,5 60,01 60,06 6,11 6,10 30,9
PB-26 6 III 1540,5 59,95 60,05 6,08 6,08 32,0
H SL
= Failure load too high for the test equipment = Slip occurred
Lap = Load application point

21
Table 2.8. Welded beams from 1997 and 1998.
Beam Pro- Lap Weld- zhaz l b h tw tf N [kN]
file location [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] test
PB-1 G I lc/2 273 499,5 60,05 60,13 6,09 6,20 59,9
PB-2 G IV lc/2 275 499,0 60,05 60,13 6,10 6,17 63,5
PB-3 G II l c/2 272 500,0 60,12 60,14 6,09 6,12 84,2
PB-4 G V lc/2 272 500,0 60,06 60,06 6,13 6,17 47,0
PB-5 G I lc/4 141 499,0 60,03 60,05 6,11 6,17 59,3
PB-6 G V l c/4 135 499,5 60,01 60,01 6,08 6,11 51,0
PB-19 4 II lc/2 275 500,0 60,05 60,13 6,10 6,14 90,7
PB-20 4 II lc/4 151 500,0 60,03 60,10 6,10 6,15 83,4
PB-21 4 V 0 , lc 66 499,0 60,05 60,10 6,10 6,16 55,2
PB-22 2 VI lc/4 150 500,0 60,00 60,05 6,05 6,15 36,9
PB-23 G III lc/2 275 499,0 60,00 60,03 6,09 6,13 98,9
PB-24 C I 0 , lc 65 500,0 59,95 59,98 6,03 6,10 54,7SL
PB-25 G VI lc/4 153 501,0 60,00 60,03 6,05 6,10 36,9

PB-7 A I lc/2 533 1020,0 60,10 60,18 6,09 6,14 38,4

PB-8 A V lc/2 532 1020,5 60,15 60,19 6,13 6,15 34,7
PB-9 A II lc/2 533 1019,0 60,07 60,12 6,09 6,12 51,2
PB-10 A IV lc/2 532 1019,0 60,07 60,12 6,07 6,11 47,4
PB-11 B I lc/4 270 1019,0 60,04 60,10 6,09 6,13 43,5
PB-12 B V lc/4 261 1019,0 60,04 60,08 6,16 6,18 34,8
PB-26 2 III lc/2 535 1018,0 60,00 60,10 6,10 6,13 62,9
PB-27 2 VI lc/4 281 1018,0 60,00 60,05 6,08 6,13 28,5
PB-28 3 I lc/2 537 1019,0 60,03 60,13 6,10 6,16 38,5
PB-29C 1 III 0,l - 1019,0 60,05 60,08 6,11 6,15 105,2
PB-30C C III 0 , l/2 , l - 1019,0 60,00 60,00 6,08 6,10 89,2
PB-31 B VI lc/4 280 1019,0 60,00 60,00 6,06 6,10 28,0
PB-32C C III 0 , l/2 , l - 1019,0 60,00 60,00 6,10 6,11 117,9

PB-13 D I lc/2 790 1539,0 60,04 60,10 6,10 6,14 25,0

PB-14 E IV lc/2 795 1539,0 60,05 60,10 6,09 6,13 26,2
PB-15 C II lc/2 795 1539,0 60,04 60,06 6,09 6,13 29,7
PB-16 D V lc/2 793 1540,0 60,04 60,08 6,07 6,12 22,3
PB-17 D I lc/4 410 1539,5 60,07 60,11 6,10 6,12 27,4
PB-18 E V lc/4 400 1540,0 59,99 60,05 6,06 6,12 25,7
PB-33 4 I lc/2 795 1539,0 60,03 60,10 6,10 6,15 27,4
PB-34 3 VI lc/4 409 1540,0 60,10 60,15 6,10 6,16 20,0
PB-35 3 I lc/4 408 1539,0 60,05 60,13 6,11 6,18 26,2
PB-36 2 III lc/2 795 1539,0 60,00 60,05 6,08 6,13 26,9
C
PB-37 1 III 0 ,l - 1538,0 60,00 60,10 6,10 6,16 67,4
PB-38 1 VI lc/4 410 1539,0 60,00 60,08 6,10 6,15 21,3
PB-39C E III 0,l - 1539,0 60,00 60,00 6,08 6,10 51,3SL
C SL
= Clamped beam = Value not reliable due to slip
Lap = Load application point

22
By observing the load application point, material, beam length and possible weld location(s)
for the tested beams some conclusions could be drawn when the load carrying capacities were
compared. The failure load for PB-2 and PB-20 in table 2.7 was almost the same (61,2 kN and
61,1 kN). The same applies for PB-1 and PB-19 (104,8 kN and 105,2 kN). These results are
satisfactory, but it is undesirable that the failure load for PB-5 and PB-7 in the same table differ
so much (73,7 kN and 67,2 kN). It is also undesirable that there is such a large difference of the
failure load for PB-30 and PB-32 in table 2.8 (89,2 kN and 117,9 kN). In table 2.8, the beam
PB-20 ought to be stronger than PB-19, but this is not the case. The two beams have the same
material, load application point and length, but the weld was located at the quarterspan for PB-
20 whereas it was located at the midspan for PB-19. In table 2.8, PB-1 is stronger than PB-5.
For the same reason as PB-19 and PB-20, the result ought to be reverse. For PB-13 and PB-17
in table 2.8 the situation is the same. The two beams have the same length, material and load
application point, but different weld location. In this case the result is more reasonable, the
beam is stronger with a weld at the quarterspan than at the midspan. The comparisons made
above show that the scatter of the test results was sometimes quite high and not always so
reliable.

The results in table 2.9 are an attempt of showing how much the load carrying capacity for a
beam is reduced due to welding. The capacity will be reduced because the welding introduce a
heat-affected zone with reduced strength. The table shows the percentage change in the load
carrying capacity as a function of beam length, weld location and load application point. All
unwelded and all welded beams with one transverse weld were sorted into the suitable
categories in table 2.9. When more than one beam suited each category, an average load
carrying capacity was calculated so one capacity before and one after the welding was obtained.
From the capacities, the percentage difference was then calculated. The capacity differences
could not always be calculated because all combinations of beam length, load application point
and weld location were not tested. The differences in cross-section dimensions and especially
the strength were not considered. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from table 2.9, but
perhaps there is a tendency that the reduction is lower for the longer beams. This could be
reasonable because for the longer beams, the failure is more of an instability type than a
material strength type. At least two unrealistic situations can be found in table 2.9. It is not
likely that the reduction should be higher when a short beam is welded at the quarterspan than
at the midspan. It is also not likely that the capacity of a beam is increased when it is welded as
the figure +0,78% indicates. The reason can be differences in strength and the scattering of the
test results as discussed in accordance to table 2.7 and 2.8.

Table 2.9. Change of the load carrying capacity due to welding.

Beam length Weld I II III IV V
[mm] location
500 lc/2 - -16,7% - -28,5% -23,3%
lc/4 - -20,6% - - -16,8%
1020 lc/2 -27,0% -27,3% -2,71% -12,9% -1,93%
lc/4 -17,5% - - - -1,91%
1540 lc/2 -15,6% -8,33% -16,6% - -12,5%
lc/4 -13,7% - - - +0,78%

23
24
3 Comparisons between tests and different codes
3.1 Introduction
The failure load from the tests was compared with the load carrying capacity from three
different codes, the European aluminium code Eurocode 9 [12], the British aluminium code BS
8118 [10] and the Swedish steel code BSK [7]. It was necessary to use a modified version of
BSK because the code does not describe how the local weakening at the heat-affected zone
should be calculated. This is natural since for normal construction steel, welding will not
induce a heat-affected zone that lowers the strength. In contrast, for high strength steel such a
zone will occur. However, this zone is very narrow due to the lower thermal conductivity of
steel in comparison to aluminium. Thus at least in principle there will not be any loss of
strength due to the prevented lateral contraction. This has been verified by tensile tests on butt-
welded joints in high strength steel. BSK 3:413 states that a local weakening may be calculated
with respect to the ultimate strength instead of the yield strength.

The codes are mainly written for double-symmetric I-sections and rectangular hollow sections
and are just partly adjusted to fit other cross-sections. It is not obvious how the codes should be
applied on T-sections. The largest problem is related to the fact that there are two section
moduli and that the elastic section modulus can be larger than the plastic section modulus.
How to handle these situations is not clearly described in the codes. Also some other situations
occur in the codes that require some kind of interpretation. It would be desirable that the codes
were so clearly written that a detailed description of the calculations was not needed.
Unfortunately, this is not the case for a T-section when both axial force and bending moment
are present. If the only applied load was an axial force, the codes would likely be clear enough.
To give clear descriptions of the calculations was considered as necessary. These descriptions
are given in sections 3.2-3.4. The calculations are described straightforward without too much
discussion around the subjects. The reason is that additional information can be found in the
codes, but also to save space. When something is considered to be unclear or when different
interpretations have been made, detailed explanations and sometimes references to the codes
are given. To get full understanding of this chapter, access to, or knowledge about, the codes is
likely needed.

The bending moment capacity is used in the interaction formulas for buckling. The codes are
not totally clear in their description of how to handle the moment capacity for unsymmetric
cross-sections.

One interpretation of the codes could be to always use the moment capacity when both the
compression and tension edges are considered, i.e. to use the lowest section modulus of the two
edges. This interpretation has some drawbacks.

The load carrying capacity for a T-section ought to be lower when the bending moment acts
such that the web is in compression than in the opposite case. The results from the tests and the
derivation of M cr in section 3.5 also showed that this was the case. If both the compression and
tension edges are considered when the moment capacity is calculated, it is not sure that there
will be a difference in the load carrying capacity when the load eccentricity is equal. However,
in the first case the bending moment causes compression in the web and in the second case
compression in the flange. This is one drawback.

25
The chosen interpretation was to only consider the section modulus of the edge in compression
when calculating the bending moment capacity in the interaction formulas. This is reasonable
because the stresses caused by the axial force and the bending moment have the same sign at
the edge in compression. At the edge where the bending moment causes tension, the axial force
and the bending moment counteract each other. Such an effect is not found in the interaction
formulas. This is a second drawback.

It was found that the chosen interpretation gave better result for the tested beams loaded at
position I and II, than the interpretation to use the lowest section modulus when calculating the
bending moment capacity. This is a third drawback.

For the tested beams it was found that the chosen interpretation gave conservative results.
However, when the bending moment was large and the web was in tension it was found that
the interaction formulas for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling gave unsafe values for the
load carrying capacity. The reason can be large tensile stresses or insufficient buckling checks.
This is further discussed in chapter 5.

The chosen interpretation of how the bending moment capacity should be calculated, i.e. to
only consider the section modulus of the edge in compression, will lead to the situation that
W el. x.c is greater than W pl. x when the bending moment causes compression in the flange and
tension in the web. The formulas in the codes are not suited for such a situation. It would for
instance mean that the bending moment capacity would not be highest in the most compact
cross-section class. The situation for the shape factors α yc and α yt in Eurocode 9 is also
unclear. These shape factors are explained in section 3.2.3. For these reasons some
modifications of the codes were needed. The uncertainty about how the shape factors should be
calculated has to do with unsymmetry of the cross-section and is not only present for the
chosen interpretation of how the bending moment capacity should be calculated.

Figure 3.1 and 3.2 show the variation of the bending moment capacity when only the edge in
compression is considered as a function of the slenderness parameter β . The figures, which are
out of scale, are valid for the Eurocode 9 calculations. The same figures are also valid for BS
8118 and BSK when class 1 and β 1 are excluded. The names of the classes and the indices of β
are also different. More details are found in section 3.2-3.4. The index x of the section moduli
has been excluded. Figure 3.1 is used when the bending moment acts such that the tip of the
web is in compression, i.e. when W el .c < W pl . This figure is obtained from Eurocode 9 without
any modifications. One disadvantage with this model is that the moment capacity is
discontinuous when β is equal to β1. Such a discontinuity is physically impossible.

Figure 3.2 is used when the top of the flange is in compression, i.e. when W el .c > W pl . This
figure is modified from what is found in the codes. The dashed lines show how the moment
capacity should vary if the formulas from the codes were used without any modifications.

A theoretical proof for the chosen way of treating the bending moment capacity is difficult to
find, but some motivations for the chosen modification will be given here. It is not reasonable
to use a lower moment capacity when the cross-section is stiffer, like the dashed line in figure
3.2 indicates. When W el .c > W pl , it is difficult to find a suitable expression for the bending
moment capacity, which is higher than W el .c f 0,2 . The calculations based on the chosen

26
modification did not lead to any unrealistic results. There is a desire that the formulas in the
codes should be simple to use. The chosen modification leads to simple formulas. For these
reasons, the distribution in figure 3.2 was seen as a suitable choice.

The shape of the moment-slenderness curve in figure 3.1 and 3.2 is uncertain for class 4 cross-
sections and has not been investigated.

Wpl 2,05
M = 1,08 ( ) Wel.c f 0,2
M Wel.c

M = Wpl f 0,2 M = Wel.cf 0,2

M = Wef.cf 0,2

β
class 1 class 2 class 3 class 4
β β β
1 2 3

Figure 3.1. Moment capacity when only the edge in compression is considered, Wpl > W el.c,
Load application point IV, V or VI in figure 2.1.

M = Wel.cf
0,2 M = Wef.cf 0,2

β
class 1 class 2 class 3 class 4
β β β
1 2 3

Figure 3.2. Moment capacity when only the edge in compression is considered, Wpl < W el.c,
Load application point I or II in figure 2.1.

It would clearly be desirable if the codes were more precise in their description of how to
handle the bending moment capacity when the cross-sections are unsymmetric. This is
especially important in aluminium codes, because unsymmetric cross-sections are more
common in aluminium than in steel.

All three codes are using the buckling length lc in the calculations. For the simply supported
beams, the steel balls at the supports were considered as hinges and the buckling length is then
equal to the distance between the steel balls according to all codes. This distance was 50 mm
longer than the beam length l.

According to the theory of elastic beam-columns, the buckling length for the clamped beams is
equal to 0,5 times the distance between the clamped ends. Both Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 give
a value of 0,7. The value according to BSK is 0,6. These values can be seen as a compensation
for partially clamped ends, which can be caused by the slenderness of surrounding construction
elements. The ends of the tested beams were not perfectly clamped. However, it is

27
questionably if these conditions correspond to the values from the codes. According to
Eurocode 9 and BS 8118, the clamping effect of the supports should be neglected when the
welds are located at the ends of the clamped beams. All of the tested clamped beams were
transversely welded at the supports. The calculation of the clamped beams according to
Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 was performed for three values of the buckling length 0,5l, 0,7l and
1,0l. In the corresponding calculations according to BSK the buckling lengths 0,5l and 0,6l
were used. Here, as before, the beam length is denoted by l. The reason for using different
buckling lengths is just to see which one gives the best result. When the buckling length was
0,6l or 0,7l, the slope at the supports was theoretically not exactly zero. By making use of the
beam length l in the formulas for the buckling length, it was assumed that the clamping effect
was at the bottom of the grooves of the steel plates at the beam-ends. The same assumption
was made when the clamped beams were calculated with Abaqus, as described in chapter 4.
Figure 3.3 visualises the buckling length of a clamped beam.

The weld location zhaz of the most critical weld was also needed in the calculations. This value
represents the distance between the point of contra flexure of the buckling curve and the centre
of the weld. For those beams which were simply supported, the point of contra flexure was
located at the centre of the steel ball. For the clamped beams, zhaz for a weld location of 0 or l,
see table 2.8, is calculated as (l − l c) 2 , see figure 3.3. When the weld was located at the
midspan, zhaz was calculated as l c 2 . For the simply supported beams, zhaz are measured
values. The values of zhaz are given in table 2.8. The notation zhaz is also used when the
calculation according to Eurocode 9 is described, even though the co-ordinate z does not suit
the co-ordinate system used in Eurocode 9. The weld location zhaz is not used by BS 8118. This
way of calculating clamped beams is described in Eurocode 9 section 5.9.4.7.

lc = 0,5 l, 0,6 l, 0,7l or 1,0 l

3lc - l l - lc l - lc 3lc - l
2 2 lc 2 2
l

Figure 3.3. Buckling model of the clamped beams.

The critical loads from the theory of elastic beam-columns are used in the codes to calculate
the slenderness parameters. This theory and the codes also have the names of the buckling
phenomena in common. However, there is likely no standard regarding the names of the
various buckling phenomena. Different names are used in different literature. The theory of
elastic beam-columns is described in several books, Timoshenko and Gere [55], Chen and
Atsuta [13], StBK-K2 [53] and Runesson et al. [48]. It should therefore be no doubt about the
meaning of the phenomena even if the names of them may vary.

Depending on the symmetry of the cross-section, the critical load for a centrically compressed
column is determined by following buckling phenomena according to the theory of elastic
beam-columns.

28
 bi-symmetric: flexural buckling and torsional buckling
monosymmetric: flexural buckling and flexural-torsional buckling
unsymmetric: flexural-torsional buckling

It is assumed that the torsion and bending of the beam-column are not restrained The meaning
of the names of the buckling phenomena is quite obvious. Flexural buckling has only a bending
mode with no torsion. Torsional buckling has only a torsion mode with no bending. The
buckling mode for flexural-torsional buckling is a combination of bending and torsion.

The information about how the symmetry of the cross-section affects the buckling is given
because some confusing situations occur when the theory of elastic beam-columns is compared
with the codes. These situations are related to the symmetry of the cross-section and are
described below.

In Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 there are two buckling phenomena mentioned for a centrically
compressed column, flexural buckling and torsional buckling according to Eurocode 9 and
column buckling and torsional buckling according to BS 8118, respectively. Column buckling
and flexural buckling should most likely be seen as denoting the same phenomenon. The term
flexural buckling is used here.

If the torsional buckling section of Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 should be seen as a combination
of torsional buckling and flexural-torsional buckling according to the theory of elastic beam-
columns, it seems confusing that the codes specify that torsional buckling may be ignored for
compact cross-sections with only radiating outstands, like a T-section. The calculation in
section 3.5 showed that flexural-torsional buckling determined the capacity for all beam-
columns.

If on the other hand the torsional buckling section of the codes should be seen as torsional
buckling according to the theory of elastic beam-columns, it seems confusing that cross-
sections like angles and tees are mentioned. According to the theory of elastic beam-columns,
torsional buckling can only occur for bi-symmetric cross-sections. When considering the
theory of elastic beam-columns, it seems also confusing to apply a flexural buckling section
according to some code on a member with an unsymmetric cross-section. It is not obvious if
the flexural or the torsional buckling section of Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 consider the flexural-
torsional buckling mode. It would be desirable if the codes treated the buckling phenomena
more concordant with the theory of elastic beam-columns.

When the calculations were performed according to Eurocode 9 and BSK, it was also
necessary to check the load carrying capacity at the unwelded midspan for the welded beams,
which were welded at the quarterspan. This calculation was obtained by setting
ω 0 = ω xy = ω xz = ω xLT = 1 in Eurocode 9 and ρ0 = ρ zx = ρ zy = ρ zLT = 1 in BSK. This has to
do with the sine expression, which takes into account the location of the transverse weld. When
the weld is not located at the midspan, it is not sure that the welded section is the most critical
section.

Apart from the flexural and lateral-torsional buckling checks also a section check is generally
needed. A section check verifies that the cross-section has enough capacity to resist the applied
loads. In this check no buckling is considered. When ω xc = 1,0 in BSK, the interaction formula
for flexural buckling will be identical with the interaction formula for section check. In

29
Eurocode 9, it is somewhat uncertain how the interaction formula for lateral-torsional buckling
looks like when the beam is stubby, i.e. all buckling reduction factors are equal to 1,0. When
torsional buckling determines the capacity, A ef should not be used. When minor axis flexural
buckling determines the capacity, A ef should be used. This assumes that the cross-section only
consists of radiating outstands and belongs to class 4 for axial compression. If it is assumed
that A ef should be used, the interaction formula for lateral-torsional buckling will be identical
with the interaction formula for section check. In BS 8118 it is not possible to obtain the
section check interaction formula by setting any buckling reduction factor equal to 1,0. For all
three codes, the section check requirement will normally be automatically fulfilled in the
checks for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling. One possible exception has to do with the
above discussion about A ef. Another exception is in BS 8118 when all transverse welds are
located close to a point of zero curvature in the buckled form of the strut. In this case f 0,2 is
used in the buckling checks whereas f haz is used in the section check. The section check in
Eurocode 9 and BSK are very similar. Besides the different notations, the only difference is
that the upper limit for the exponent of the axial force term is 2,0 in Eurocode 9 and 1,56 in
BSK.

The interaction formulas for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling are explained in section
3.2-3.4. The Eurocode 9 version of the interaction formula for section check is given in section
5.2. The interaction formula for section check of a welded section according to BS 8118 is
given in section 3.3.3.

The cross-section is built up by elements. Both Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 are somewhat vague
in their description of when these elements should be considered as welded or unwelded. The
interpretation of the codes was that longitudinal welds result in welded elements and transverse
welds result in unwelded elements. Since only transverse welds were present for the tested
beams, all elements were considered as unwelded.

The calculations were performed as thoroughly as possible by using measured values of the
cross-section dimensions, beam lengths, weld locations, yield strengths f 0 ,2 and the ultimate
strengths f haz . Also the 6 mm radius between the web and the flange was considered when
the cross-section constants were calculated. In the calculations, the modulus of elasticity E was
70 GPa and the shear modulus G was 27 GPa. The used strength values are found in table 2.1
and 2.5. The cross-section dimensions, beam lengths and weld locations are found in table 2.7
and 2.8. The notations of the cross-section dimensions are shown in figure 3.5.

The load eccentricity e is always positive in the formulas in this chapter.

The Swedish steel code BSK was developed before Eurocode 9. Quite many of the buckling
formulas in Eurocode 9 have been obtained from BSK. This is the reason why the calculations
according to BSK and Eurocode 9 look so similar.

The different codes do not use the same co-ordinate system, as can be seen in figure 3.4.

30
Figure 3.4. Co -ordinate systems used in Eurocode 9, BS 8118 and BSK.

The notations according to the different codes were kept intact as much as possible. The
different co-ordinate systems complicated the choice of some of the notations, because it was
not desirable to have two notations for the same constant. The notations were chosen so they
suited the co-ordinate system used in BS 8118 and BSK. This co-ordinate system was chosen
as the main system throughout this chapter. The notations that are used in section 3.2 without
being suited to the co-ordinate system used in Eurocode 9 are Ix, Iy, Ief.x, Wel.x.c, W el.x.t , Wef.x.c,
Wef.x.t, Wel.y, Wpl.x , Wpl.y, yef.gc, ygc, ys, ty, and zhaz.

Below are the formulas for the cross-section constants A, ygc, Ix, Iy, Wpl.y, ypl, Wpl.x , ty, ys, K v
and K w given. The plastic neutral axis for major axis bending was located in the flange for all
beams. The formulas for ypl and Wpl.x are therefore sufficient. The co-ordinates x and y in the
integral expression for ty are measured from the centre of gravity. ys is the distance between the
centre of gravity and the shear centre, i.e. equal to the notation a in figure 2.1.

(  π
A = bt f + h − t f t w + r 2  2 − 
 2
)
1 tf 4r  
2
r  πr2
y gc = b
A  2
+
tw
2
( 
)(
h − t f h + t f + 2r 2t f +  −
 2
)
t f + r − 
2  3π  

3
t w h −t f ( )3 + t w r 2  r  2
Ix =
bt f
3
+
12 4
( )(
h − t f h+ t f ) 2
+ 2 r2  + t f +   −
12  2  

π r2 r2 8r  
−
2 4

( )
 + t f + r  t f + r −   − A y gc
3π 
2

t f b 3 b w t w 3 r (2 r + t w )
3
π r2 r2  t w  t w 8r  
Iy = + + −  +  + r   + r − 
12 12 12 2 4 2 2 3π  

( h − t f ) t w 2 + t f b 2 + r 2 (t π r2  t w 4r 
W pl . y = w + r) −  +r− 
4 4 2 2 3π 

π
( 
b t f + h − t f t w + r 2 2 − 
 2
)
y pl = when y pl ≤ t f
2b

31
 W pl. x =
b
2
(
t f − y pl t f + y pl +
tw
2
)(
h−t f h+t f + ) ( )( )
2 when y pl ≤ t f
r πr2
2 4 r  b y pl
+ 2r t f +  − t f + r −  −
 2 2  3π  2

t y = 2 ys −
1
(
∫ y + x 2 y dA = 2 y s −
Ix A
3 I
Ix
) y s = y gc −
tf
2
tw
x0 = +r y 0 = y gc − t f − r
2
b 4
( )  + 24b  y ( 2
)
4 3
2
I =  y gc − y gc − t f gc − y gc − t f  +
4 

( ) − ( h− y ) ( ) − ( h − y )  +
3
t  4 4 tw  2 2
+ w  y gc − t f  + 24  y gc − t f
4  gc gc

r
(
+  y gc − t f
2
) 4 4 r
[(
 3 t w3 
− 0  + 2 gc − t f − r  x0 −
y
 3
y

−
8 
) ]
2r3 r 2 
− r2 
 5
+
2
 2 x 02 2 x 0 y 0 π y0 2
π y 0 − x 0 + 2r  y0 +

(3
−
3
+
 2
)
x0 + y0
2
( ) 

K v = 1,15 ⋅
1
3[t f 3 ⋅ b + t w3 ⋅ h − t f 2 ( )]
Kw =
t f ⋅ b3 t w ⋅ h −t f 2
3
+
3
( )3
144 36

The warping, from which the warping constant K w is calculated, consists of two parts, the
contour warping and the thickness warping. The contour warping is normally so dominant that
the thickness warping can be neglected. For a T-section, the contour warping is zero and
therefore the expression for K w was derived from the thickness warping. A brief derivation is
shown below. Additional information is found in Edlund [19].

A point on the cross-section is described by the co-ordinates s and n, where s is directed along
the centre line of the branches of the cross-section and n is directed perpendicular to the
tangent of the centre line. The non-normalised sectorial co-ordinate with respect to the shear
centre, Ω sc , is equal to n h nsc , where h nsc is the perpendicular distance from the shear centre
to the normal of the tangent of the centre line of the cross-section. For the T -section in figure
3.5, the distance h nsc is equal to –s, but the minus sign can be excluded.

1 1 1 b2 tf 2 h −t f 2 tw 2 
Ωm = Ω
∫ sc dA = ∫∫ n s dn ds = 2 ∫ s ds ∫ n dn + ∫ s ds ∫ n dn  = 0
AA A sn A  0 −t f 2 0 − tw 2 

32
 K w = ∫ ( Ω sc − Ω m) dA = ∫ ∫ (n s− 0) dn ds =
2 2

A sn

b2 tf 2
= 2 ∫ s2 ds ∫ n 2 dn +
h −t f 2
∫ s 2 ds
tw 2
∫n 2 dn = f b +
(
t 3 3 t w h −t f 2
3
)3
0 −t f 2 0 −t w 2 144 36

b
y
tf ypl s s
r ygc
x s
shear centre
bf r h
bw

tw

Figure 3.5. Cross-section notations and model for calculating Kw.

3.2 Buckling according to Eurocode 9

3.2.1 Cross-section classification

The classification is performed separately for bending and axial compression. No classification
is made for the combined state of stress, like it is in BS 8118. The cross-section can belong to
different classes for axial compression and bending moment. There are four different classes 1,
2, 3 and 4, where class 4 corresponds to the highest slenderness. The most compact class in BS
8118 and BSK is divided in two classes in Eurocode 9, class 1 and 2, where both class 1 and 2
are used for plastic analysis but class 2 has limited rotation capacity. This is the reason why BS
8118 and BSK have three classes and Eurocode 9 has four.

Bending moment: tip of the web in tension

bf b
βf = βw= g w
tf tw
g = 0,70 + 0,30ψ −1 <ψ ≤ 1
0,80
g= ψ ≤ −1
1−ψ

The coefficient ψ is the ratio of the stresses at the edges of the web related to the maximum
compressive stress. The stresses are calculated for the bending moment action. When checking
for the limit between class 2 and 3 it is allowed to use the plastic neutral axis when the stresses
are calculated. The interpretation of the code was that elastic stresses were used when ψ was
calculated, but the elastic neutral axis was set equal to the plastic neutral axis. This appears like
an odd mixture of the theories of elasticity and plasticity, but a better interpretation of the code
was not found.

33
As an example, if plastic stresses were used and the plastic neutral axis was located in the
flange but close to the web, ψ would have been +1. If on the other hand the plastic neutral axis
was located in the web but close to the flange, ψ would have been −1. Such a discon-tinuity
does not seem reasonable. When plastic stresses are used, ψ can only be +1 or –1.

The plastic neutral axis was located in the flange for all beams. This means that the whole web
was always in tension. Therefore, the web belonged to class 1.

Bending moment: tip of the web in compression

b
flange = class 1 βw= w
tw

Axial compression:
bf bw
βf = βw=
tf tw

Cross-section classification:

The classification is made separately for the web and the flange. The whole cross-section is
given the same class as the most slender part. When the flange is less highly stressed than the
most severely stressed fibre in the section, it is allowed to use a modified higher value of ε for
the classification of the flange for bending and also for evaluating the effective thickness of the
flange, (see the formulas in this section and section 3.2.2). This feature is explained in section
5.4.4 of Eurocode 9. The stresses used in this check should be calculated for the effective
cross-section, i.e. a cross-section reduced to local buckling. This seems complicated in a
general case. The factor ε is used both during the classification and when the effective cross-
section is calculated, but the value of ε is unknown. An iterative procedure is needed to
determine ε. The calculation of the effective cross-section is often by itself an iterative
procedure, because only the thickness of the compressed parts is reduced. This means that an
iterative procedure is needed inside an iterative procedure.

For the T-sections used in this thesis, the situation is simpler than in the general case. When the
bending moment acted such that the flange was in tension and the web was in compression, the
flange in tension belonged to class 1. When the bending moment acted in the reversed
direction, the whole cross-section always belonged to class 1 and the effective cross-section
was the same as the gross cross-section. It was shown that it was always possible to use the
higher value of ε , for the flange under bending moment action. The absolute values of the
stresses were compared. The maximum stress for bending always occurred at the tip of the
web.

In BS 8118 it is also allowed to use a higher value of ε for the flange, but the stresses are
calculated for the gross section and for the combined state of stress. The stresses are calculated
from either the plastic or the elastic neutral axis. The calculation is more precise described in
section 3.3.1. The use of the gross section makes the calculation easier but the use of the
combined state of stress and the mixture of the elastic and plastic neutral axis make the
calculation more complicated than the one in Eurocode 9.

34
The slenderness β is referred to as either β f
or β w .

Bending moment resistance Axial compression resistance

β ≤ β1 : class 1 β ≤ β2 : class 1 or 2
β1 < β ≤ β2 : class 2 β2 < β ≤ β 3 : class 3
β2 < β ≤ β 3 : class 3 β3 < β : class 4
β3 < β : class 4

β 1 = 3,0ε β 2 = 4,5ε β 3 = 6,0ε heat-treated and unwelded outstand

250
ε= flange for axial compression or web, (f 0,2 in MPa)
f 0 ,2

ε=
(
250 h − y gc )
(y )
flange for bending, (f0,2 in MPa)
f 0,2 gc − t f 2

The notations b f, tf, b w, tw, ygc and h are defined in figure 3.5.

3.2.2 Effective cross-section

If the cross-section belongs to class 4 according to bending, Wef.x.c and Wef.x.t need to be
calculated. If the cross-section is slender for axial compression (class 4) also Aef must be
calculated. The effective section modulus is calculated for the bending moment action and the
effective area for the centric axial force action. The effective cross-sections are calculated by
reducing the thickness of only the compressed parts.

The calculations showed that the flange never belonged to class 4. The web belonged to class 4
for axial compression and for bending moment action when the web was in compression and
the flange was in tension. The formulas are only shown for those cases when class 4 occurred.

Web (unsymmetric, heat-treated and unwelded flat outstand):

βw bw
x= = (f0,2 in MPa)
ε t w 250 f 0,2
ρ c = 1,0 when x ≤ 6
10 24 120
ρc = − when x > 6 but ρ c ≤
x x2 x2
t ef . w = ρ c t w

The elastic neutral axis is determined by b c, which is equal to the compressed part of the web.
In a general case an iterative procedure is needed to find the elastic neutral axis. However, for
the T-sections it is possible to find b c by solving a quadratic equation. The elastic neutral axis
for the effective section always was located in the web, i.e. b c ≤ b w .

35
Calculation of Wef.x.c and Wef.x.t:

( )  π
A eff = b t f + h − b c − t f t w + b c t ef .w + r 2  2 − 
 2
 t f 2 tw b  
1  2
b +
2
( )( ) 
h − t f − b c h + t f − b c + t ef .w b c  h − c  + 
 2 
y ef . gc =
A eff  π 2 
+ 2 r 2  t f +  − r  t f + r − 
r 4r

  2 2  3π  
b c = h − yef . gc

I ef . x =
bt f
3
+
(
t w h− t f − bc ) 3 + t w (h − t )( ) 2 t ef . w b c3
f − b c h + t f − bc + +
3 12 4 12
 b 
2  r2  r 
2
+ t ef .w b c  h − c  + 2 r 2  +  t f +   −
 2 12  2  

π r2 r 2 8r  
−
2 4
( 
)
 + t f + r  t f + r −   − A eff y ef .gc
3π 
2

I ef . x
W ef .x .c = tip of the web
h − yef .gc
I ef . x
W ef . x .t = edge of the flange
y ef . gc

tf
y
r ef.gc

bf r tw
h
bw
bc
t ef.w

Figure 3.6. Effective cross-section.

36
Calculation of Aef:

The thickness for the whole web is reduced, i.e. b c is equal to b w in figure 3.6.

 π
A ef = b t f + r t w + b w t ef .w + r 2  2 − 
 2

3.2.3 Flexural buckling

The load carrying capacity N is calculated from the formula below.

ξ yc
 N  N ⋅e
  + = 1,00
 χ ω xy η A f  ω 0 M y .Rd
 y 0,2 

When the interaction formula above is compared with the equations in Eurocode 9 which deals
with flexural buckling of axial compressed columns, i.e. no bending moment is present, there is
a factor k 1y missing in the interaction formula. This seems inconsistent. When the eccentricity
e is zero, the interaction formula and the equations for flexural buckling of axial compressed
columns ought to give the same result. The k 1y factor has been left out in the interaction
formula because it is left out in Eurocode 9. The factor k 1y takes into account the asymmetry of
the cross-section. When the cross-section is symmetric about the buckling axis, k 1y has no
effect.

The k 1y factor was calculated for all beams but it was not used when the load carrying capacity
was calculated. The reason for calculating k 1y was to give some information about what the
effect of it should have been, if it had been used when the load carrying capacity was
calculated. The obtained values of k 1y are shown in section 3.7.

2
 y gc  λy
2

k 1y = 1 − 2 ,4 1− 2 
 h  1 + λ 2 1+
y λ ( )( y )
2

M y. Rd = α yc W el .x .c f 0 ,2
ξ yc = ξ 0 χ y but ξ yc ≥ 0,80
ξ 0 = 1,00 (EC9 5.9.3.4)
1
ω xy = ω 0 ⋅ welded section
(
χ y + 1 − χ y sin 
 lc 
)
 π ⋅ z haz 


ω 0 = f haz f 0 ,2 but ω 0 ≤ 1,00 welded section

ω 0 = ω xy = 1,0 unwelded section
1
χy = but χ y ≤ 100
,
2
φ + φ2 − λ y

37
 l c η A f 0 ,2
λy=
π EIx

[ (
φ = 0,5 1 + 0,2 λ y − 0,1 + λ ) y
2
]
η =1 class 1, 2 and 3 for axial compression
η = Aef A class 4 for axial compression

When the cross-section belongs to class 1, 2 or 3 for bending, M y. Rd should not be less than
W el . x.c f 0,2 . This has to do with the chosen interpretation of how M y. Rd should be calculated.
The factor ξ 0 in Eurocode 9 corresponds to γ 0 in BSK, which is calculated differently as can
be seen in section 3.4.3.

The shape factorsα yc and α yt are calculated as below. The classes according to bending were
used when the shape factors were calculated. There are some differences from BSK. In BSK
all shape factors have an upper limit of 1,25. In Eurocode 9 it is only the shape factor for minor
axis bending which is limited to 1,25.

The formula for the shape factors for class 1 cross-sections is described in Mazzolani [42]. It is
derived for symmetric cross-sections and how well it suits T-sections is unknown. It is surely
not suited for the situation when the elastic section modulus is greater than the plastic section
modulus. This situation cannot occur for α yc when M y. Rd is calculated because of the chosen
interpretation of how M y. Rd should be calculated. This can be seen in figure 3.1 and 3.2.

The shape factors α yc and α yt are used to calculate α max . This factor is calculated as the
maximum value of the shape factors α yc and α yt , with the exception that the shape factors of
class 1 are calculated according to class 2. This means that the formula for the shape factors for
class 1 cross-sections will not cause any problems when α max is calculated. α max is only used
to calculate η 0 , which is used in connection with lateral-torsional buckling. The limits of η 0
means indirect that the upper limit of α max is 1,41.

n=
(
loge 0,002 ( 0,5 ⋅ 0,10 − 310 70000 ) ) = 17,7732
loge (260 310 )
W pl .x W pl. x
α 0 yc = α 0 yt =
W el. x.c W el .x .t
⋅10[ ]
0,0796− 0,0809⋅loge ( n 10) = 1,079131α
0,21⋅loge ( 1000 n)
α yc = α 0 yc
2,054943
0 yc class 1
⋅10[0,0796 − 0,0809⋅log ( n 10)] = 1,079131α 0yt
0,21⋅log (1000 n) 2,054943
α yt = α 0 yt e e class 1
W pl .x W pl .x
α yc = α yt = class 2
W el . x.c W el. x.t
β 3 − β  W pl .x  β 3 − β  W pl .x 
α yc = 1 +  − 1 α yt = 1 +  − 1 class 3
β 3 − β 2  W el .x .c  β 3 − β 2  W el . x.t 

38
 W ef . x.c W ef . x.t
α yc = α yt = class 4
W el .x .c W el .x .t

bw
β= tip of the web in compression
tw
bf
β= tip of the web in tension
tf
β 2 = 4 ,5ε β 3 = 6,0ε
250
ε= tip of the web in compression, (f 0,2 in MPa)
f 0 ,2

ε=
(
250 h − y gc )
(y )
tip of the web in tension, (f 0,2 in MPa)
f 0,2 gc − t f 2

3.2.4 Lateral-torsional buckling

The load carrying capacity N is calculated from the formulas below.

ηc γ
 N   N ⋅e  c

  +  = 1,00
χ ω η A f   χ LT ω xLT M y .Rd 
 z xz 0 ,2 

ηc = η0 χ z but η c ≥ 0,80
η 0 = α max2 but 1,00 ≤ η 0 ≤ 2 ,00
γ c = 1,00 (EC9 5.9.3.4)
1
ω xz = ω 0 ⋅ welded section
 π ⋅ z haz 
(
χ z + 1 − χ z sin
 lc 
)


1
ω xLT = ω 0 ⋅ welded section
 π ⋅ z haz 
(
χ LT + 1 − χ LT sin
 lc 
) 

ω xz = ω xLT = 1,0 unwelded section

1
χ LT = but χ LT ≤ 1,00
φ LT + φ LT 2 − λ LT 2
M y. Rd
λ LT =
M cr

Also here there is a difference between Eurocode 9 and BSK. The factor γ c in Eurocode 9
corresponds to β c in BSK. However, these two factors are not calculated in the same way, as
outlined in section 3.4.4.

39
There is an upper limit of M y. Rd in the formula for λ LT . This upper limit is W pl. x f 0,2 , but
when W el. x.c is greater than W pl .x , this limit can hardly be suitable. The interpretation of the
code was that the higher value of α yc , which normally is obtained in class 1, is not admissible.
The limit values are then given by

M y .Rd ≤ W pl .x f 0 ,2 tip of the web in compression, W el. x. c < W pl .x

M y. Rd ≤ W el . x.c f 0,2 tip of the web in tension, W el. x. c > W pl .x

[
φ LT = 0,5 1 + α LT λ ( LT )
− λ 0, LT + λ LT
2
]
α LT = 0,1 λ 0, LT = 0,6 class 1 and 2 for bending
α LT = 0,2 λ 0, LT = 0,4 class 3 and 4 for bending

η = 1,0 class 1, 2 and 3; torsional buckling of class 4 sections

η = Aef A minor axis flexural buckling of class 4 sections

When η is calculated, the classes are according to axial compression. M cr is the elastic critical
moment according to lateral-torsional buckling of beams and is calculated according to section
3.5. The notations α yc , α yt , α max , ω 0 and M y .Rd are explained in section 3.2.3.

The buckling reduction factor χ z should be chosen according to flexural buckling in the x-y
plane, i.e. minor axis buckling, or lateral-torsional buckling of columns. In the section of
Eurocode 9, which deals with resistance of axial compressed members, there are two buckling
phenomena mentioned, flexural buckling and torsional buckling. There is no section dealing
with lateral-torsional buckling of columns, which is rather confusing.

According to Eurocode 9 it is not necessary to check torsional buckling for a member with a T-
section when the section belongs to class 1 according to axial compression. The interpretation
of the classification procedure in Eurocode 9 was that both class 1 and 2 exist for axial
compressed columns, but there is no difference in the way the sections are calculated. It seems
therefore confusing that only for class 1 cross-sections it is not necessary to check torsional
buckling. The interpretation was that for both class 1 and 2 sections there is no need to check
for torsional buckling. This is a difference from BS 8118. If a translation from BS 8118 is
made, the result is that for class 1,2 and 3 there is no need to check for torsional buckling.

The reduction factor χ z was calculated for both minor axis flexural buckling and torsional
buckling and the lowest value was chosen except when the cross-section belonged to class 1 or
2 according to axial compression. For these cross-sections χ z according to minor axis flexural
buckling was chosen even if torsional buckling gave a lower value of χ z . However, the
calculations showed that all cross-sections belonged to class 4 for axial compression.

40
If the rare situation should occur that the cross-section belongs to class 4 for axial compression
and χ z according to minor axis flexural buckling and torsional buckling give the same value,
the least favourable situation is chosen, i.e. Aef is used.

In the torsional buckling section of Eurocode 9 it is possible for a T-section to calculate the
slenderness parameter both by using the theoretical load carrying capacity Ncr and by using the
formulas shown below. By comparing these two ways of calculating the slenderness parameter
it was possible to find an expression of N cr, which is shown below under the headline torsional
buckling. As a comparison, Ncr from this expression was compared with Ncr from the theory of
elastic beam-columns. There are some uncertainties about what torsional buckling according to
Eurocode 9 corresponds to according to the theory of elastic beam-columns, but most likely
Ncr under the headline torsional buckling should be compared with the flexural-torsional
buckling load Ncr which is calculated in section 3.5. The result of the comparison is shown in
section 3.7. The origin of the expression for Ncr in Eurocode 9 is unknown.

If χ z is chosen according to minor axis flexural buckling there is a factor k 1z missing in the
interaction formula for lateral-torsional buckling in the same way as the factor k 1y was missing
in the interaction formula for flexural buckling. The T-section is symmetric around the minor
axis and if k 1z should have been considered it would have been reasonable to set the value
equal to 1,0.

In Eurocode 9 it is not clearly stated how the effective area Aef should be treated in connection
with lateral-torsional buckling. In the lateral-torsional buckling section of Eurocode 9 it is
written that A ef always should be used when the cross-section belongs to class 4 for axial
compression. In the section of Eurocode 9 which deals with axially compressed members it is
written that A ef should not be used in connection with torsional buckling when the cross-
section belongs to class 4 for axial compression and the cross-section consists of entirely
radiating outstands. The chosen interpretation was to follow the section in Eurocode 9 which
deals with axially compressed members. This choice affected the result of the calculation,
because all cross-sections belonged to class 4 for axial compression and χ z for torsional
buckling was lower than χ z for minor axial flexural buckling for all tested beam-columns
except one.

Minor axis flexural buckling

1
χz= but χ z ≤ 1,00
φ + φ2 − λ z
2

[ ( )
φ = 0 ,5 1 + 0,2 λ z − 0,1 + λ z
2
]
l c η A f 0,2
λz=
π E Iy
η =1 class 1, 2 and 3 for axial compression
η = Aef A class 4 for axial compression

41
Torsional buckling
1
χz = but χ z ≤ 1,00
φ + φ2 − λ 2
[
φ = 0,5 1 + 0,2( λ − 0,6) + λ 2 ]
Af 0,2
λ=
N cr


π 2 E I y 1+ s −
2
(1+ s2) 2 − 4 X s 2
N cr = ⋅
lc2 2X
2
lc A h  h
s= X = 1,3 − 0,8 + 0,2  
λ0 I y b  b
1,5
h  b h   12 ,0  h
λ0 = 1,4 + 1,5 h + 1,1 b  −  t + t 
tw  w f tw

3.3 Buckling according to BS8118

3.3.1 Cross-section classification

The cross-section should be given a single classification, fully compact, semi-compact or

slender. During the classification, the slenderness parameters β for the elements in the cross-
section are calculated for the combined action of the axial force and the bending moment. Fully
compact and semi-compact cross-sections are considered as compact when the axial
compression resistance is calculated. The distances y1 and y2 are used when ε for the flange is
calculated. This procedure is described below.

Bending moment: tip of the web in tension; Compression axial force:

bf bw
βf = βw= g
tf tw
g = 0,65 + 0,35ψ 0 ≤ψ ≤ 1
g = 0,65 + 0,30ψ −1≤ψ ≤ 0
0,70
g= ψ ≤ −1
1− ψ

As in Eurocode 9, the coefficient ψ is the ratio of the stresses (with sign) at the edges of the
web element, where the denominator contains the maximum compressive stress. The stresses
should be calculated for the combined action of the axial force and the bending moment. In
Eurocode 9 only the bending moment is considered. The ratio ψ can only be larger than 1,0
when the whole web is in tension and then the web is fully compact.

42
 Check for the limit between fully compact and semi-compact

The elastic stresses are calculated from the plastic neutral axis. The same type of
calculation is also used in Eurocode 9. More information is found in section 3.2.1.

ψ=
( )
eA h − y pl − I x

( )
r = 6 mm
eA t f + r − y pl − I x

y 1 = h − y pl when −
1
+
A Ix
e
( 1
h − y pl > − −
e
)y else y1 = y pl
A I x pl
y 2 = y pl − t f 2

Check for the limit between semi-compact and slender

ψ=
( )
eA h − y gc − I x

( )
r = 6 mm
− eA y gc − t f − r − I x

y 1 = h − y gc when −
1 e
+
A Ix
( 1 e
h − y gc > − − )
y else y1 = y gc
A I x gc
y 2 = y gc − t f 2

Bending moment: tip of the web in compression; Compression axial force:

bw
βw=
tw

Check for the limit between fully compact and semi-compact

It was shown that ypl was always larger than t f 2 .

βf =
bf
tf
when
e
Ix
( 1
y pl − t f 2 − < 0
A
) flange in compression

β f = (fully) compact when

I
e
x
(y pl − tf 2) − ≥ 0
1
A
flange in tension

y 1 = h − y pl y 2 = y pl − t f 2

Check for the limit between semi-compact and slender

βf =
bf
tf
when
e
Ix
1
(
y gc − t f 2 − < 0
A
) flange in compression

β f = (fully) compact when

I
e
x
(y gc − t f 2) − ≥ 0
1
A
flange in tension

y 1 = h − y gc y 2 = y gc − t f 2

43
Compression axial force:

bf bw
βf = βw=
tf tw

Cross-section classification:

The classification is made separately for the web and the flange. The whole cross-section is
given the same class as the most slender part. The slenderness β is referred to as either β f or
β w . When the flange is not so highly stressed as the most severely stressed fibre in the section,
it is allowed to use a higher value of ε for the classification of the flange. This is explained in
section 4.3.3.5 of BS 8118. It was shown that the higher value of ε was always possible to use
for the flange, except for the case of a centric axial force. y1 and y2 are the distances from the
neutral axis of the gross section to the most severely stressed fibre and to the centre of the
flange, respectively. When checking for the limit between fully compact and semi-compact,
the plastic neutral axis is used. The elastic neutral axis is used when checking for the limit
between semi-compact and slender.

Bending moment resistance Axial compression resistance

β ≤ β1 : fully compact β ≤ β0 : compact
β1 < β ≤ β0 : semi-compact β0 < β : slender
β0 < β : slender

β 0 = 7ε β 1 = 6ε outstand and unwelded element

250
ε= flange for axial compression and web, (f 0,2 in MPa)
f 0 ,2

250 y1
ε= flange for bending and axial compression, (f 0,2 in MPa)
f 0,2 y 2

The notations b f, tf, b w, tw, ygc, ypl and h are defined in figure 3.5.

3.3.2 Effective cross-section

If the cross-section is considered as slender, two effective cross-sections should normally be

calculated: one for the axia l force action and one for the bending moment action. When the
cross-section has only radiating outstands (BS 8118 4.7.6.4), like a T-section, only one
effective cross-section based on the bending moment action needs to be calculated. This
calculation will result in the effective section modulus Wef.x.c. The effective area A ef is thus not
needed.

44
When an element of a cross-section is slender and at least partly in compression, the thickness
for the whole element is reduced. This is in contrast to Eurocode 9 and BSK for which only the
compressed parts are reduced.

The effective cross-section must be calculated only for the case when the bending moment
causes compression in the web and tension in the flange. Only the thickness of the web is
reduced.

βw bw
x= = (f0,2 in MPa)
ε t w 250 f 0 ,2
105
kL = when x ≥ 12,1
x2
11 28
kL = − 2 when 7 < x < 12,1
x x
k L = 10 , when x ≤ 7
t ef .w = k L t w

 π
A eff = b t f + b w t ef . w + t w r + r 2  2 − 
 2

b t f 2 t ef .w 
1  2
 +
2
(
bw h + t f + r + ) 

y ef . gc =
A eff   r π r2  4r  
 + r  t f +  (t w + 2 r ) − t + r −  
  2 2  f 3π  

3
t ef .w b w 3 t ef .w  2
( ) 2 + r(t w + 2r) 12
r  r
bt f 2
I ef . x = + + b h +t f +r +t f +  −
3 12 4 w  2 

π r2 r2 8r  
−
2 4 ( 
)
+ t f + r  t f + r −   − A eff y ef . gc
 3π  
2

I ef . x
W ef . x .c = tip of the web
h − yef . gc

45
 b

tf
r yef.gc

bf r tw h
bw

tef.w

Figure 3.7. Effective cross-section.

3.3.3 Flexural buckling (major axis buckling)

The load carrying capacity N is calculated from the formulas below.

N N ⋅e N 2⋅ e
+ + = 1,0
P Rx M RSx 2 P Rx M RSx
P Rx = χ x A k z f 0,2

The cross-section was treated as unwelded and severely asymmetric when the expression for φ
was obtained.

lc A k z f 0 ,2  0,45 1 − 0,45⋅ 0,2 

λ = φ = 0,51+ + 
π E Ix  λ λ
2

 1 
χ x = φ 1 − 1 − 2 2  but χ x ≤ 10
,
 λ φ 

The factor k z takes into account the softening of the heat-affected zone. For the beams with no
transverse welds and for the beams where all transverse welds are located close to a point of
zero curvature in the buckled form of the strut, k z is equal to 1,0. For all other beams k z is equal
to f haz f 0 ,2 . This means that the welded simply supported beams PB-21 and PB-24, the
welded clamped beams PB-29, PB-37 and PB-39 when the buckling length is equal to the
beam length and all unwelded beams were calculated for k z = 10 , . For the other beams,
k z = f haz f 0 ,2 . If the strength values would have been taken from the code, k z would have
been 0,5 instead of f haz f 0,2 . For the welded beams wherek z = 10
, , it was necessary to
perform a section check for a welded section. This section check is performed according to the
formula below. The second factor of the last term is just to ensure that the moment capacity of
a welded section is used. When the formula is applied on a clamped beam, the last term
vanishes because the load eccentricity e is zero for clamped beams.

46
 N N ⋅ e k z f 0 ,2
+ ⋅ = 1,0 section check at a welded section
A f haz M RSx f haz

The bending moment capacity M RSx is calculated as below. When the cross-section is fully
compact or semi-compact, M RSx should not be less than W el. x.c k z f 0 ,2 . This has to do with
the chosen interpretation of how M RSx should be calculated. The β -values are calculated for
the bending moment action only.

M RSx = W pl .x k z f 0 ,2 fully compact

β0− β
M RSx = W el .x .c k z f 0,2 + (
W
β 0 − β 1 pl .x
)
− W el .x .c k z f 0,2 semi-compact

M RSx = W ef . x.c k z f 0 ,2 slender

bw
β= tip of the web in compression
tw
bf
β= tip of the web in tension
tf
β 0 = 7ε β 1 = 6ε
250
ε= tip of the web in compression, (f0,2 in MPa)
f 0 ,2

250 y1
ε= tip of the web in tension, (f 0,2 in MPa)
f 0,2 y 2

The distances y1 and y2 are calculated according to section 3.3.1, where the elastic neutral axis
is used when the stresses are calculated.

3.3.4 Lateral-torsional buckling (minor axis buckling)

The load carrying capacity N is calculated from the formulas below.

N N ⋅e
+ = 10
,
P Ry M Rx

P Ry = χ y A k z f 0,2

The expression for φ assumes a symmetric unwelded cross-section. The cross-section is

symmetric around the minor axis and the cross-section was treated as unwelded because there
were no longitudinal welds. The lateral-torsional buckling moment M cr is calculated according
to section 3.5 while k z is calculated according to section 3.3.3.

47
 lc Akz f 0 ,2  0,20 1 − 0,20 ⋅ 0,2 
λ= φ = 0,51 + + 
π EIy  λ λ
2

 1 
χ y = φ 1 − 1 − 2 2  but χ y ≤ 10
,
 λ φ 

M Rx = χ LT M RSx

M RSx  0,1 1 − 0,1 ⋅ 0,6 

λ = φ LT = 0,51 + + 2 
 λ LT
LT
M cr λ LT 
 1 
χ LT = φ LT 1 − 1 −  but χ LT ≤ 1,0
λ LT φ LT 
2
 2

3.4 Buckling according to BSK

3.4.1 Cross-section classification

The classification is performed separately for bending and axial compression. In contrast to BS
8118, no classification is made for the combined state of stress. The cross-section can belong
to different classes for axial compression and bending moment. There are three different
classes 1, 2 and 3, where 3 is the most slender class.

There are no formulas given in BSK for the limit slenderness values of the cross-section
classes when the stress gradient is non-uniform for the web. Therefore, the code had to be
interpreted in some way. This is explained below.

The classification is made separately for the web and the flange. The whole cross-section is
given the same class as the most slender part.

Bending moment: tip of the web in tension

It is not likely that the tip of the web will buckle, because quite much of the web, including the
tip, is in tension. The web was therefore considered as a web of an I-beam, i.e. a plate
supported at four edges. The flange is calculated by considering local buckling of a plate
supported at three edges. The plastic neutral axis was located in the flange for all beams. This
means that the whole web was always in tension according to the theory of plasticity.
Therefore, the web belonged to class 1. The classification of the flange is shown below.

bf E E
βf = β fpl = 0,3 β fel = 0 ,44
tf f 0 ,2 f 0 ,2

class 1: β f ≤ β fpl
class 2: β fpl < β f ≤ β fel

48
 E
class 3: β fel < β f < 2
f 0 ,2

As can be seen, there is an upper limit for the slenderness β f of class 3. It is not allowed to
exceed this limit.

Bending moment: tip of the web in compression

The flange was in tension and therefore it belonged to class 1. The limit value β wpl was
calculated for the case when the whole web was uniformly compressed, whereas β wel was
obtained from the expression of the slenderness parameter λ used when the effective thickness
is calculated. By setting λ equal to 0,67, β wel is obtained. It seemed natural to use λ equal to
0,67 as the limit between class 2 and 3 because when λ is less than 0,67, the thickness is not
reduced. The classification of the web is shown below.

bw
βw=
tw
E y gc − t f − r
β wpl = 0,3 ψ =−
f 0 ,2
h − y gc

0,67 E
β wel = when − 3 < ψ ≤ 1
0,76 3 + ψ f 0 ,2

The limits of ψ are explained in section 3.4.2.

class 1: β w ≤ β wpl
class 2: β wpl< β ≤ β
w wel
class 3: β wel < β w

There ought to be an upper limit for class 3, but it was not known how this limit should be
calculated. The calculations showed that β w exceeded β wel with about 4% at most. When
considering the upper limit of the slenderness of the flange β f , 4% should not be a problem.

Axial compression:
bf bw
βf = βw=
tf tw

The stress gradient is uniform and therefore the classification of the web and the flange can be
performed in the same way as the flange was classified when the bending moment caused
compression in the flange and a tension in the web. Essentially there are only two classes for

49
axial compression, slender or non-slender. The only difference is if the cross-section area
should be calculated for the effective or the gross cross-section.

The notations b f, tf, b w, tw, ygc and h are defined in figure 3.5.

3.4.2 Effective cross-section

If the cross-section belongs to class 3, Wef.x.c and Wef.x.t (class 3 for bending) and Aef (class 3
for axial compression) must be calculated. The effective section modulus is calculated for the
bending moment action and the effective area for the centric axial force action. The effective
cross-sections are calculated by reducing the thickness of the compressed parts only.

The calculations showed that the flange never belonged to class 3. The web belonged to class 3
for axial compression and for bending moment action when the tip of the web was in
compression. The formulas are only shown for those cases when class 3 occurred. The
formulas for Wef.x.c, W ef.x.t and A ef are found in section 3.2.2.

 1 0,22 
t ef .w =  − 2  t w when λ > 0,67
λ λ 
t ef . w = t w when λ ≤ 0,67

Bending moment: tip of the web in compression

y gc − t f − r
ψ =−
h − y gc

0,76 b w 3 + ψ f 0 ,2
λ= when − 3 < ψ ≤ 1
tw E

When ψ ≤ −3 local buckling will not occur because the web is mostly in tension and the web
belongs to class 1. The effective thickness will than be equal to the gross thickness. By
observing the formula for ψ and figure 3.5 it can be seen that ψ can never be larger than 1,0.

Axial compression:

1,52 b w f 0,2
λ=
tw E

50
3.4.3 Flexural buckling

The load carrying capacity N is calculated from the formulas below.

γ xc
 N  N ⋅e
  + = 1,00
 ρ zx N Rxcd  ρ 0 M Rxd
1
ρ zx = ρ0 ⋅ welded section
 π ⋅ z haz 
ω xc + (1 − ω xc) sin 
 lc 
ρ 0 = f haz f 0,2 but ρ 0 ≤ 1,00 welded section
ρ0 =ρ = 1,0 unwelded section
zx
γ 0 = η max 2 but 1,00 ≤ γ 0 ≤ 1,56
η max = maximum of η xc and η xt
M Rxd = η xc W el. x. c f 0,2
N Rxcd = ω xc A f 0 ,2 class 1 or 2 for axial compression
N Rxcd = ω xc A ef f 0,2 class 3 for axial compression
γ xc = γ 0 ω xc but γ xc ≥ 0,80

When the cross-section belongs to class 3 for bending, the exponent γ 0 = 1,0 , but this
modification will not affect the value of γ 0 . When the cross-section belongs to class 3 for
bending, η max is less than 1,0 and the lower bound 1,0 of γ 0 will make the calculation
equivalent to a situation where γ is equal to 1,0. When the cross-section belongs to class 1 or
0
2 for bending, the bending moment capacity M Rxd should not be less than W el . x.c f 0 ,2 . This
has to do with the chosen interpretation of how M Rxd should be calculated.

The buckling reduction factor ω xc is calculated as:

α − α 2 − 4,4 λ c2
ω xc = but ω xc ≤ 100
,
2 ,2 λ c 2
lc Af 0,2
λc = class 1 or 2 for axial compression
π EIx
lc A ef f 0 ,2
λc = class 3 for axial compression
π E I def .x

α = 1 + 0,34(λ c − 0,2) + 11
, λ c2

The second moment of area Idef.x is calculated for an effective cross-section. The effective
thickness is not calculated in the same manner as it was when local buckling was considered.
The index def comes from the word deformation, but Idef.x is only used in the ultimate limit
state. It was only necessary to calculate the effective thickness for the web, tdef.w, and the

51
formula is shown below. It was shown that tdef.x always was equal to tw, which means that Idef.x
was always equal to Ix.

18 t w 2
t def .w = but t def .w ≤ t w
bw

The shape factors η xc and η xt are calculated as below. There is an upper limit of 1,25 for all
shape factors. The upper limit 1,0 of k fw has no effect. k fw is only used in class 2 for bending
and then k fw can only vary between 0 and 1.

W pl. x W pl .x
η xc = η xt = class 1 for bending
W el. x .c W el. x.t
 W pl. x 
η xc = 1 +  − 1 k fw class 2 for bending
 W el. x.c 
 W pl. x 
η xt = 1 +  − 1 k fw class 2 for bending
 W el . x.t 
W ef . x.c W ef .x .t
η xc = η xt = class 3 for bending
W el .x .c W el. x. t

Bending moment: tip of the web in tension

β fel − β f
k fw = but k fw ≤ 1,00
β fel − β fpl
bf E E
βf = β fpl = 0,3 β fel = 0 ,44
tf f 0 ,2 f 0 ,2

Bending moment: tip of the web in compression

β wel − β w
k fw = but k fw ≤ 1,00
β wel − β wpl
bw E y gc − t f − r
βw= β wpl = 0,3 ψ =−
tw f 0 ,2
h − y gc

0,67 E
β wel = when − 3 < ψ ≤ 1
0,76 3 + ψ f 0 ,2

When the cross-section belongs to class 2 for bending, ψ cannot be less than or equal to
–3. The limits of ψ are further explained in section 3.4.2. The notations b f, tf, b w, tw, ygc, r and h
are defined in figure 3.5.

52
3.4.4 Lateral-torsional buckling

The load carrying capacity N is calculated from the formulas below.

αc βc
 N   N ⋅e 
  +  = 1,00
 ρ ⋅N   ρ zLT⋅ M Rxcd 
 zy Rycd 
1
ρ zy = ρ 0 ⋅ welded section
(
ω yc + 1 − ω yc sin 
 lc 
)
 π ⋅ z haz

1
ρ zLT = ρ 0 ⋅ welded section
 π ⋅ z haz
ω xb + (1 − ω xb) sin  
 lc 
ρ zy = ρ zLT = 1,0 unwelded section
M Rxcd = ω xb ⋅ M Rxd
N Rycd = ω yc A f 0,2 class 1 and 2 for axial compression
N Rycd = ω yc A ef f 0 ,2 class 3 for axial compression
α c = α 0ω yc but α c ≥ 0,80

α 0 = η max ⋅η y
2 2
but 1,00 ≤ α 0 ≤ 2 ,00
β c = ηy
2
but 1,00 ≤ β c ≤ 1,56

When the cross-section belongs to class 3 for bending, the exponents α c and β c are calculated
for η max = η y = 1,0 . Unlike the similar modification for section check and flexural buckling
( γ 0 = 1,0 ), this modification will affect the load carrying capacity of the interaction formula.
The result is not affected if all shape factors are less than 1,0. However, η y is not less than 1,0
for the T-sections, so the result will be affected. All cross-sections belonged to class 1 for
minor axis bending. The exponents are thus calculated different in BSK and Eurocode 9.

The notations M Rxd , ρ 0 and η max are explained in section 3.4.3. The buckling reduction
factors ω yc and ω xb are calculated as

116
,
ω yc = but ω yc ≤ 1,00
1 + λ c2
1,02
ω xb = but ω xb ≤ 100
, (hot rolled beam)
1 + λ b4
Af 0,2
λc = class 1 and 2 for axial compression
N cr
Aef f 0 ,2
λc = class 3 for axial compression
N cr

53
 M Rxd
λb =
M cr

Ncr and M cr are the critical loads according to the theory of elastic beam-columns and are
calculated according to section 3.5.

The shape factor η y is calculated as below. Class 2 and 3 did not occur for minor axis
bending.

W pl. y
ηy = but η y ≤ 1,25 class 1 for bending
W el. y

3.5 Critical loads according to the theory of elastic beam-columns

Two critical loads were needed, Ncr and M cr. The flexural-torsional buckling load Ncr is used
in BSK and as a comparison to the critical load obtained in the torsional buckling section of
Eurocode 9. In BS 8118, N cr is not used at all. The critical moment M cr is calculated from
lateral-torsional buckling of beams and is used by all three codes. The co-ordinate system was
chosen according to BS 8118 and BSK.

The formulas are shown for the simply supported case. A clamped beam is calculated as a
simply supported beam, with the exception that the warping is free at the beam-ends. The
warping rigidity 4E K w will then be replaced with E K w in the formulas for Ncr and M cr.

Calculation of Ncr

The only present load is an axial force applied at the centre of gravity. The governing
differential equations and the corresponding boundary conditions are given below. The
boundary conditions are believed to be reasonable when observing the steel plate in figure 2.4.
The first equation gives the critical load according to major axis flexural buckling. The last two
equations are coupled and give the flexural-torsional buckling load.

IV ''
E I xwy + N wy = 0
(
E I y w x IV + N wx '' + φ'' ys = 0 )
 Ip  ''
E K wφ +  N − G K v φ + N w x '' y s = 0
IV
 A 

w x ( 0) = w x (l c) = w y (0) = w y ( l c) = 0 (deflection is zero)

w x '' (0) = w x '' (l c) = w y (0) = w y ( l c) = 0
'' ''
(bending moment is zero)
φ (0) = φ(l c) = 0 (restrained torsion)
φ (0) = φ (l c) = 0
' '
(restrained warping)

54
The equations are solved by the assumptions shown below. These assumptions satisfy the
boundary conditions.

πz πz æ 2π z ö
w y ( z ) = A1 sinç ÷ w x ( z ) = A 2 sinç ÷ φ ( z ) = A 3 ç 1 − cosç ÷÷
lc lc è lc

A non-trivial solution of the constants A1, A2and A3 requires that the determinant, of the two
equation systems from which the constants are calculated, is zero. From these two conditions
the two equations for Ncr are obtained.

N cr = N Ex major axis flexural buckling

( N Ey − N cr)( N T − N cr )i p 2 − y s2 N cr 2 = 0 flexural-torsional buckling

Ip I p = I x + I y + A ⋅ ys
2
ip =
A
1 π 2 4E K w
NT = 2 çG Kv + ÷ torsional buckling load
ip l c2
π2E Ix
N Ex = major axis flexural buckling load
l c2
π2E I y
N Ey = minor axis flexural buckling load
l c2

The following equations hold for the flexural-torsional buckling load N cr .

( N Ey − N cr )( N T − N cr ) − (1 − a) N cr 2 = 0
N Ey + N T ± ( N Ey + N T ) − 4a N Ey N T ú
1 2
N cr = ê
2a
Ix+ Iy Ix+ Iy
a= = 2 0< a ≤1
Ip I x + I y + A⋅ ys
(
N cr < min N Ey , N T ) or (
N cr > max N Ey , N T ) when a ≠ 1

By observing the boundaries for a it can be seen that the expression inside the square root is
always positive. This means that there are always two real roots of the quadratic equation for
+ and − , where the sign in the superscript
N cr . Due to the ±-sign N cr is split into N cr N cr
+ and
shows if the plus or minus sign is used. When a = 1 following expressions for N cr −
N cr
are obtained.

+ (a = 1) =
N cr
1
2 [ ]
N Ey + N T + N Ey − N T = max N Ey , N T ( )
− ( a = 1) = 1
N cr [
N + N T − N Ey − N T = min N Ey , N T
2 Ey ] ( )

55
 + and
Since both N cr − are continuous functions within the interval of a it means that
N cr
+ ≥ max
N cr ( )
N Ey , N T and N cr− ≤ min
( ) − is of interest and
N Ey , N T . This shows that only N cr
that the flexural-torsional buckling load always is lower than, or equal to the lowest value of,
N Ey and N T . This is also stated but not explained in Runesson et al. [48] and StBK-K2 [53].

Further observations:
+ (a →
N cr 0+) = ∞

( ) ( )
− (a →
N Ey N T
0+ ) =
1
N cr ; min N Ey , N T ≤ N cr ( 0+ ) ≤ min N Ey , N T
− a→
N Ey + N T 2
+
∂ N cr
<0 0< a ≤1
∂a

+ = ∞ at a =
This means that N cr 0 + and then decreases steadily down to max N Ey , N T at ( )
− ∂ a varies within the interval 0 < a ≤ 1 .
a = 1 . The sign of the derivative ∂ N cr

Calculation of Mcr

The only present loads are two equal end moments, Mx. The differential equations are shown
below. The assumptions and boundary conditions used when Ncr was derived are also used in
the derivation of Mcr. The critical moment is calculated in the same way as Ncr, i.e. by setting
the determinant equal to zero. Mx will then be equal to Mcr.

E I y w x IV + M x φ '' = 0
E K w φ IV − G K v φ '' + M x w x '' + t y M x φ '' = 0

π é π π 2 1 4E K w
M cr = E I y G Kv ⋅ ê + 1+ 2 ç 2 + ÷ú
lc êë m ⋅ l c lc m G Kv ú

2 G Kv
m=− tip of the web in compression
ty EIy
2 G Kv
m= tip of the web in tension
ty EIy

The formula for Mcr can also be found in annex H of Eurocode 9.

56
3.6 Comparison between the buckling reduction factors

All three codes are using a slenderness parameter, λ c according to BSK and λ according to
Eurocode 9 and BS 8118. In principle, this parameter is the same for all three codes. In this
section no differences between the different slenderness parameters are made. More
information about the slenderness parameters and the expressions for the buckling reduction
factors are found in section 3.2-3.4.

There is a parameter used in the different codes which is given by

φ=
1
2
[ ( )
1+ α λ − λ 0 + λ 2 ] Eurocode 9

φ=
2λ
1
[ (
2 1+ c λ − λ 1 + λ) 2
] BS 8118

α = 1 + β 1 ( λ c − 0,2) + 11
, λ c2 BSK

The expressions for the parameters contain the slenderness parameter and some constants.
When the notation α '= 1 + c1(λ − c 2) + λ 2 is introduced, where c1 and c2 are any constants, the
parameters can be written as

α'
φ= Eurocode 9
2
α'
φ= BS 8118
2λ 2
α ≈ α' BSK

The buckling reduction factors can then be written as

1 α '− α '2 − 4 λ 2
χ= = Eurocode 9
α' α' 2 2λ 2
+ ç ÷ −λ2
2 2
é
ê ú
α' ê 1 ú α '− α ' 2 − 4 λ 2
χ= ê1 − 1 − 2ú
= BS 8118
2λ 2 ê 2 α ' ú 2λ 2
ê λ ç ÷
ë 2λ 2 ú

α '− α ' 2 − 4 ⋅ 11
, λ c2
ωc = BSK
2 ⋅ 1,1λ c 2

The calculations show that basically the same formulas have been used in the different codes
but different correction factors have been used. The factor 1,1 used in BSK is not used in the
other codes. It is a safety factor and has its origin in the thickness variation of the flanges of
rolled I-profiles in steel. The effect of the safety factor is that the buckling reduction factor will

57
be lowered most for beams with high slenderness. A reason for this is that a reduction of the
flange thickness has largest influence for slender beams.

It is somewhat amazing that the same formula has been rewritten in so different ways.

3.7 Results
In table 3.1 and 3.2, the load carrying capacities, the bending moment capacities and some
cross-section classes are shown for the three codes considered in this thesis. For Eurocode 9
and BSK, only the cross-section class for bending is shown. The classes fully compact, semi-
compact and slender in BS 8118 have been replaced in the tables with 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
In the tables the superscript F, L and S mark if flexural buckling, lateral-torsional buckling or
section check determined the load carrying capacity, respectively. Lateral-torsional buckling
determined the capacity for all beams except for a number of the short ones.

For the quarterspan welded beams in Eurocode 9 and BSK, an additional buckling check at the
unwelded midspan was needed. In BSK this check was not decisive for any beam. In Eurocode
9 the additional buckling check determined the capacity only for the clamped and welded
beams PB-29, PB-37 and PB-39 when the buckling length was equal to the beam length. In this
case, the calculation model corresponded to a simply supported beam with one transverse weld
at each end. The buckling check at the weld will just turn into a section check without
considering any buckling. Therefore the buckling check at the unwelded midspan determined
the load carrying capacity.

For a few welded beams in BS 8118, the strength of the parent material was used in the
buckling check. For these beams it was necessary to perform a section check for a welded
section. The section check was decisive only for the welded beams PB-21 and PB-24.

The cross-section class for axial compression in Eurocode 9 and BSK was always equal to the
most slender class, 4 in Eurocode 9 and 3 in BSK. In Eurocode 9, the ratio Aef A varied
between 0,923 and 0,945. Corresponding values in BSK were 0,955 and 0,979, i.e. somewhat
higher than in Eurocode 9. The effective area A ef was not needed in BS 8118. In Eurocode 9,
k 1y varied between 0,944 and 0,957. If k 1y would have been used, its effect would have been
small. The comments about Aef A and k 1y apply to all beams, also the clamped ones.

When the buckling reduction factors are calculated a slenderness parameter is used. For welded
struts f 0,2 is used when this parameter is calculated according to Eurocode 9 and BSK
whereas f normally is used in BS 8118, (see section 3.3.3). This is a major difference
haz
between the three codes. It is probably more correct to use f haz instead of f 0,2 when the
buckling of a welded section is checked. The way Eurocode 9 and BSK are calculating the
slenderness parameter can be seen as an acceptable simplification. For a welded beam where
the transverse welds are not located at the midspan, two buckling checks are needed, one at the
welded section and one at the unwelded midspan. This is further explained in section 3.1. The
simplification lies in the fact that the same buckling reduction factors are used for both these
buckling checks. This way of calculating the buckling will lead to the peculiar situation that the
load carrying capacity will increase when f 0,2 is lowered and f haz is kept constant. The

58
reason for this is that f haz is used when the axial force and moment capacities are calculated
but f 0,2 is used in the calculation of the buckling reduction factors. A lower value of f 0,2
will give a lower slenderness, which in turn will give a higher value of the buckling reduction
factor, but this lower buckling reduction will not be compensated by a lower value of f haz .

The different buckling reduction factors in the three codes could be compared in diagrams
where the reduction factors are functions of the slenderness parameters. The slenderness
parameters are in general not calculated in exactly the same way for the three codes and
therefore it is unsuitable to draw these diagrams. Mostly it was difficult to draw any general
conclusions about the value differences of the reduction factors between the codes, but some
observations for the simply supported beams are given below.

Reduction factor for major axis flexural buckling

For the unwelded beams the highest values were obtained in Eurocode 9, the lowest in BS
8118. For the welded beams BSK mostly gave the lowest values.

Reduction factor for minor axis flexural buckling

The highest values were mostly obtained in BS 8118.

Reduction factor for lateral-torsional buckling of beams

The highest values were obtained in BS 8118, the lowest in BSK.

When the clamped beams were calculated according to Eurocode 9 and BS 8118, three
different buckling lengths were used, 0,5l, 0,7l and 1,0l, where l is the beam length. The value
0,5 comes from the theory of elastic beam-columns, whereas the values 0,7 and 1,0 come from
the codes. For a beam with unwelded ends 0,7 is used and 1,0 is consequently used when the
ends are welded. If these codes were followed strictly it means that 1,0 should be used, because
all tested clamped beams were transversely welded at the ends. In the BSK calculations, two
different buckling lengths were used, 0,5l and 0,6l. The origin of 0,5 is the same as for the
other two codes. The value 0,6 comes from BSK. More information about the buckling lengths
is found in section 3.1.

When the criterion for approval is that the load carrying capacity according to the code should
be lower than the tested load carrying capacity for all four clamped beams, the following
conclusions can be drawn about the buckling length multipliers for clamped beams:

Eurocode 9: 0,5 is not enough; 0,7 is enough; 1,0 is not needed or too conservative
BS 8118: 0,5 and 0,7 are not enough; 1,0 is enough
BSK: 0,5 is not enough; 0,6 is enough

This means that the note in Eurocode 9 about neglecting the clamping effect for clamped
beams with welded ends is not needed. However, too few clamped beams were tested to draw
any secure conclusions.

Cross-section classes are shown in table 3.1-3.2. At load application point I and II, the cross-
sections belonged to the most compact cross-section class. At position IV, V and VI, the cross-
sections belonged to the most slender class, except in BSK where some cross-sections
belonged to the second most slender class. The limit between the most and the second most

59
slender class seems to be somewhat more generous in BSK than in the other two codes. The
load application points are shown in figure 2.1.

The interaction formulas for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling according to Eurocode 9
and BSK are very similar. However, one difference is that the exponents are not calculated in
exactly the same way. The exponent β c used in the interaction formula for lateral-torsional
buckling according to BSK was equal to 1,00 when the cross-section belonged to the most
slender class for bending and 1,56 otherwise. In Eurocode 9 corresponding exponent was
always equal to 1,00. Both the exponents ξ yc and γ xc were equal to 0,8 for all middle and
long beams due to the lower bound of 0,8. For the short beams, the result varied. The comment
about ξ yc and γ xc also applies to η c and α c .

In table 3.1-3.2, the bending moment capacities are shown. According to the chosen
interpretation, these capacities are equal to the bending moment capacity when only the edge in
compression is considered. The formulas for the bending moment capacities are shown in
section 3.2-3.4. According to Eurocode 9 and BSK, the moment capacity is always calculated
for an unwelded section. This is not the case in BS 8118. In order to make a more correct
comparison between the three codes, M RSx in table 3.2 has been calculated for an unwelded
section. This is a difference from what is found in section 3.3.

At load application point I and II, the three codes give the same value for the moment capacity.
This has to do with figure 3.2. At position IV, V and VI, Eurocode 9 gives the lowest value of
the moment capacity and BSK the highest. At these positions, the cross-section mostly belongs
to the most slender class and therefore the differences between the codes have a lot to do with
the value of the effective cross-section modulus W ef . x.c .

The shape factor for major axis bending has an upper limit of 1,25 according to BSK. Such an
upper limit does not exist in Eurocode 9, as can be seen in section 3.2.3. This difference
between the codes will not affect the result of the calculated beams. The reason for this can be
seen in figure 3.1 and 3.2. At load application point I or II, the shape factor is 1,0. At position
IV, V or VI, the cross-section belongs to class 4 for bending and the shape factor is less than
1,0.

60
Table 3.1. Some results for the unwelded beams from 1996.
Beam Lap Test Eurocode 9 BS 8118 BSK
N N M y. Rd CB N M RSx CC N M Rxd CB
[kN] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm]
PB-1 II 104,8 95,6F 3,74 1 87,8F 3,74 1 93,3L 3,74 1
PB-2 V 61,2 35,7L 1,51 4 40,0F 1,61 3 37,4L 1,78 3
L
PB-3 IV 88,8 56,4 1,50 4 62,4F 1,59 3 55,9L 1,76 3
L
PB-4 V 61,6 35,5 1,51 4 39,9F 1,61 3 37,2L 1,78 3
PB-19 II 105,2 96,1F 3,76 1 88,3F 3,76 1 93,7L 3,76 1
L
PB-20 V 61,1 35,5 1,50 4 39,8F 1,60 3 37,2L 1,77 3
H L
PB-21 III - 143,1 - - 144,3L - 3 111,4L - -
PB-22 I -SL 82,3F 4,57 1 76,7F 4,57 1 82,4L 4,57 1

PB-5 II 73,7 46,3L 4,46 1 49,2L 4,46 1 51,3L 4,46 1

PB-6 V 42,4 24,0L 1,48 4 28,5L 1,58 3 25,9L 1,75 3
PB-7 II 67,2 46,5L 4,48 1 49,3L 4,48 1 51,5L 4,48 1
PB-8 IV 49,3 33,6L 1,48 4 38,5L 1,58 3 35,3L 1,74 3
PB-9 III 64,4 57,0L - - 58,8L - 3 56,7L - -
PB-10 IV 58,5 34,1L 1,52 4 39,1L 1,62 3 35,9L 1,79 3
PB-11 I 52,7 39,0L 4,51 1 42,2L 4,51 1 44,1L 4,51 1
PB-12 IV 55,4 33,3L 1,46 4 38,2L 1,56 3 35,0L 1,72 3
PB-23 III 64,9 57,4L - - 59,1L - 3 56,8L - -
PB-24 V 43,6 23,9L 1,45 4 28,3L 1,55 3 25,7L 1,71 3

PB-13 II 32,9 23,7L 3,73 1 24,6L 3,73 1 27,7L 3,73 1

PB-14 V 25,0 16,1L 1,49 4 18,4L 1,59 3 17,8L 1,75 3
PB-15 II 31,9 24,0L 4,50 1 24,9L 4,50 1 28,4L 4,50 1
PB-16 III 32,5 27,7L - - 28,1L - 3 30,2L - -
PB-17 I 31,2 20,9L 3,73 1 22,0L
3,73 1 24,9L 3,73 1
PB-18 V 26,0 16,0L 1,48 4 18,4L 1,57 3 17,7L 1,74 3
PB-25 I 30,9 21,4L 4,54 1 22,5L 4,54 1 25,9L 4,54 1
PB-26 III 32,0 27,6L - - 28,0L - 3 30,1L - -
F L
= Flexural buckling = Lateral-torsional buckling
SL H
= Slip occurred = Failure load too high for the test equipment
CB = Cross-section class for bending CC = Cross-section class for combined action
Lap = Load application point

61
Table 3.2. Some results from the welded beams from 1997 and 1998.
Beam Lap Test Eurocode 9 BS 8118 BSK
N N M y. Rd CB N M RSx U CC N M Rxd CB
[kN] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm]
F
PB-1 I 59,9 53,3 3,90 1 50,7F 3,90 1 56,4L 3,90 1
PB-2 IV 63,5 39,0L 1,35 4 42,6F 1,43 3 50,9L 1,68 2
PB-3 II 84,2 73,3F 3,88 1 69,8F 3,88 1 70,9L 3,88 1
L F
PB-4 V 47,0 24,4 1,35 4 26,9 1,44 3 33,0F 1,70 2
PB-5 I 59,3 54,0F 3,89 1 50,6F 3,89 1 59,9L 3,89 1
PB-6 V 51,0 24,7L 1,34 4 26,6F 1,42 3 32,5F 1,66 2
F F
PB-19 II 90,7 66,6 4,52 1 65,5 4,52 1 61,3L 4,52 1
PB-20 II 83,4 68,0F 4,52 1 65,5F 4,52 1 66,9L 4,52 1
PB-21 V 55,2 22,9L 1,50 4 27,2S 1,60 3 25,0L 1,77 3
L F
PB-22 VI 36,9 15,8 1,44 4 17,6 1,53 3 17,2L 1,69 3
PB-23 III 98,9 108,9L - - 120,6L - 3 84,9L - -
SL F S
PB-24 I 54,7 59,8 4,12 1 66,2 4,12 1 69,0F 4,12 1
PB-25 VI 36,9 17,7L 1,33 4 19,4F 1,41 3 23,2F 1,64 2

PB-7 I 38,4 29,6L 4,17 1 38,0L 4,17 1 33,3L 4,17 1

PB-8 V 34,7 18,3L 1,43 4 24,2L 1,52 3 23,4L 1,72 2
PB-9 II 51,2 35,3L 4,16 1 45,7L 4,16 1 38,9L 4,16 1
PB-10 IV 47,4 25,4L 1,41 4 33,8L 1,50 3 31,6L 1,67 2
PB-11 I 43,5 32,7L 4,12 1 36,9L 4,12 1 37,1L 4,12 1
PB-12 V 34,8 19,5L 1,43 4 23,4L 1,52 3 25,2L 1,74 2
PB-26 III 62,9 35,7L - - 56,0L - 3 35,2L - -
PB-27 VI 28,5 12,6L 1,45 4 16,1L 1,54 3 13,8L 1,70 3
PB-28 I 38,5 24,7L 3,99 1 34,6L 3,99 1 27,6L 3,99 1
PB-31 VI 28,0 14,4L 1,39 4 17,6L 1,48 3 18,3L 1,66 2

PB-13 I 25,0 13,4L 3,99 1 20,8L 3,99 1 16,1L 3,99 1

PB-14 IV 26,2 12,0L 1,46 4 19,4L 1,56 3 13,1L 1,72 3
PB-15 II 29,7 18,5L 4,15 1 24,5L
4,15 1 21,8L 4,15 1
PB-16 V 22,3 9,88L 1,36 4 14,9L
1,45 3 13,1L 1,66 2
PB-17 I 27,4 16,7L 3,99 1 20,7L 3,99 1 20,1L 3,99 1
PB-18 V 25,7 11,3L 1,45 4 14,9L
1,55 3 12,5L 1,71 3
PB-33 I 27,4 12,8L 4,52 1 21,1L 4,52 1 15,6L 4,52 1
PB-34 VI 20,0 9,78L 1,37 4 12,4L
1,46 3 13,0L 1,68 2
PB-35 I 26,2 17,3L 4,00 1 21,0L
4,00 1 20,9L 4,00 1
PB-36 III 26,9 17,2L - - 27,6L - 3 18,7L - -
PB-38 VI 21,3 9,40L 1,47 4 12,4L
1,57 3 10,5L 1,73 3
F L
= Flexural buckling = Lateral-torsional buckling
S SL
= Section check = Value not reliable due to slip
CB = Cross-section class for bending CC = Cross-section class for combined action
C
Lap = Load application point = Clamped beam
U
= Calculated for an unwelded section

62
Table 3.2. (Continued).
Beam Lap Test Eurocode 9 BS 8118 BSK
N U
N M y. Rd CB N M RSx CC N M Rxd CB
[kN] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm]
PB-29C 0,5 III 105,2 98,7L - - 116,4L - 3 76,5L - -
-″- 0,6 -″- -″- - - - - - - 71,4L - -
-″- 0,7 -″- -″-
L L
83,3 - - 96,0 - 3 - - -
-″- 1,0 -″- -″-
L L
63,3 - - 65,3 - 3 - - -
C L L L
PB-30 0,5 III 89,2 121,9 - - 134,5 - 3 94,1 - -
-″- 0,6 -″- -″- - - - - - - 82,3L - -
-″- 0,7 -″- -″-
L L
84,7 - - 104,5 - 3 - - -
-″- 1,0 -″- -″-
L L
47,9 - - 62,1 - 3 - - -
PB-32C 0,5 III 117,9 122,3L - - 134,8L - 3 94,4L - -
-″- 0,6 -″- -″-
L
- - - - - - 82,6 - -
-″- 0,7 -″- -″-
L L
84,9 - - 104,7 - 3 - - -
-″- 1,0 -″- -″-
L L
48,0 - - 62,2 - 3 - - -
PB-37C 0,5 III 67,4 60,6L - - 89,1L - 3 53,1L - -
-″- 0,6 -″- -″-
L
- - - - - - 46,7 - -
-″- 0,7 -″- -″-
L L
48,0 - - 55,4 - 3 - - -
-″- 1,0 -″- -″-
L L
29,9 - - 30,3 - 3 - - -
PB-39C 0,5 III 51,3SL 58,4L - - 87,2L - 3 51,2L - -
-″- 0,6 -″- -″-
L
- - - - - - 45,0 - -
-″- 0,7 -″- -″- 46,4L - - 54,6L - 3 - - -
-″- 1,0 -″- -″- 29,5L - - 30,0L - 3 - - -
F L
= Flexural buckling = Lateral-torsional buckling
S SL
= Section check = Value not reliable due to slip
CB = Cross-section class for bending CC = Cross-section class for combined action
C
Lap = Load application point = Clamped beam
U
= Calculated for an unwelded section

Conclusions about the load carrying capacities can be drawn directly from table 3.1 and 3.2.
However, especially when many beams are calculated interaction diagrams are useful tools.
These diagrams are just graphical representations of the interaction formulas. By making use of
the load carrying capacities from the tests and the formulas in the codes, the interaction
diagrams in figure 3.8-3.13 were constructed. For each code two interaction diagrams are
shown, one for flexural buckling and one for lateral-torsional buckling. In each diagram, only
those beams are shown, for which the buckling check was decisive for the capacity. No
interaction diagram for section check according to BS 8118 is shown, because this check
determined the capacity only for two beams and one of them could not be used in the diagrams
due to slip at the support.

Only the simply supported beams are included in the interaction diagrams. The clamped beams
were mostly calculated to evaluate the effect of the different buckling lengths.

The exponents η c in Eurocode 9 and α c in BSK are undetermined for centrically compressed
columns. For these columns the exponents have been set equal to 1,0 in the interaction
diagrams.

63
The notations N Sd , M Sxd and M y. Sd are used in the numerators of the labels of the co-
ordinate axes. These notations are just the dimensional loads and are not used elsewhere in this
thesis.

To make the diagrams more informative, the beams have been separated in the three different
lengths. The diagrams also have two halves. The left one is for the beams where the bending
moment caused compression in the web and tension in the flange. The right half is accordingly
used when the bending moment acted in the opposite direction.

Each marker in the diagrams corresponds to a tested beam. The straight lines are the graphical
presentation of the interaction formulas. It is undesirable when a marker lies below the straight
lines, but if the marker lies close below the straight lines the situation might not be so drastic.
Normally, safety factors are used which have not been considered here.

The critical load Ncr in section 3.2.4 was calculated both with the formulas in Eurocode 9 and
with the formulas for the flexural-torsional buckling load in section 3.5. The average value of
the quotient between Ncr from Eurocode 9 and the flexural-torsional buckling load was 0,9803.
The standard deviation for the same quotient was 2,01%. Eurocode 9 thus gave a somewhat
lower value of the critical load than the theory of elastic stability. In this analysis all tested
beams were included, also the clamped.

When χ z is calculated according to Eurocode 9 the lowest value of χ z according to minor

axis flexural buckling and torsional buckling should be chosen. Minor axis flexural buckling
determined the load carrying capacity only for the unwelded beam PB-19. For all other beams
torsional buckling gave a lower value of χ z . When torsional buckling determines the capacity,
A ef should not be used when the capacity according to lateral-torsional buckling is calculated,
even if the cross-section has been considered as slender for axial compression. A condition for
this is that the cross-section consists of entirely radiating outstands. This led to the situation
that η , which is equal to Aef A , was set equal to 1,0 for all beams except the unwelded beam
PB-19 when the lateral-torsional buckling capacity was calculated.

When the centrically compressed and welded column PB-23 was calculated according to
Eurocode 9 and BS 8118, corresponding marker ended up quite much below the straight lines.
This was not the case for the BSK calculations. The reason for this situation was different
values of the buckling reduction factor and that A ef was used in BSK and not in the other two
codes. For the welded column PB-23 the load carrying capacity is calculated as:

N = χ z A f haz Eurocode 9
N = χ y A f haz BS 8118
N = ω yc A ef f haz BSK

As described in section 2.3, the tested load carrying capacity for the welded column PB-23
might be too low. When the distribution of the markers in the interaction diagrams according to
Eurocode 9 and BS 8118 is studied, it can be seen that the marker for PB-23 does not follow
the pattern for the other markers. This increases the suspicion that the load carrying capacity

64
for PB-23 is too low. The marker for PB-23 is recognised as the square on the vertical axis. It
could therefore be unsuitable to use the welded column PB-23 to draw any deeper conclusions.

The best result is obtained when all markers lie close above the straight lines. From the
interaction diagrams it is difficult to judge which code best could predict the load carrying
capacity. The results in table 3.1-3.2 were used to calculate the quotients between the tested
load carrying capacity and the capacity from the codes. The average value and the standard
deviation were then calculated from these quotients. The results are shown in table 3.3, where
it can be seen that the least bad results were obtained for BS 8118. Only the simply supported
beams have been considered in table 3.3b.

Table 3.3a. Unwelded beams from 1996

N test N EC 9 N test N BS 8118 N test N BSK
Average 1,47 1,35 1,36
St. dev. 23,8% 14,8% 22,5%

Table 3.3b. Welded beams from 1997 and 1998

N test N EC 9 N test N BS 8118 N test N BSK
Average 1,75 1,41 1,52
St. dev. 41,7% 31,6% 32,9%

From table 3.3 and figures 3.8-3.13 it can be seen that the result was not too good for any code.
For most beams the result was too conservative. In section 5.3 different modifications of
Eurocode 9 are discussed that improve the result of the calculated beams.

ξ yc
1.8 N Sd
ç ÷
L=500 mm çχ ω ηAf ÷
y xy 0,2
Totally 7 beams 1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
M y . Sd
Web in compression ω 0 M y. Rd Flange in compression

Figure 3.8. Flexural buckling according to Eurocode 9.

65
 2
ηc
N Sd
çç ÷÷
L=500 mm 1.8 χ zω xzη A f 0,2
L=1020 mm
1.6
L=1540 mm
Totally 50 beams
1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
γc
M y. Sd
Web in compression ç ÷ Flange in compression
χ LT ω xLT M y. Rd

Figure 3.9. Lateral-torsional buckling according to Eurocode 9.

1.8
L=500 mm N Sd
1.6 P Rx
Totally 16 beams

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
M Sxd N Sd
Web in compression ç1+ ÷ Flange in compression
M RSx 2 P Rx

Figure 3.10. Flexural buckling according to BS 8118.

66
 2

L=500 mm 1.8 N Sd
L=1020 mm P Ry
=1540 mm 1.6
Totally 40 beams
1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
M Sxd
Web in compression M Rx Flange in compression

Figure 3.11. Lateral-torsional buckling according to BS 8118.

1.8 γ xc
N Sd
ç ÷
ρ zx N Rxcd
1.6
L=500 mm
Totally 3 beams 1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
M Sxd
Web in compression ρ 0 M Rxd Flange in compression

Figure 3.12. Flexural buckling according to BSK.

67
 2

αc
1.8
ç N Sd ÷
L=500 mm ç ρ N Rycd ÷
zy
L=1020 mm 1.6
L=1540 mm
1.4
Totally 54 beams

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
βc
M Sxd
Web in compression ç ÷ Flange in compression
ρ zLT M Rxcd

Figure 3.13. Lateral-torsional buckling according to BSK.

68
4 Finite element calculation
4.1 Introduction

For the numerical calculation the general-purpose finite element computer program Abaqus
was chosen, [1]. The numerical calculation can also be based on other methods. Mazzolani [42]
describes an iterative finite difference method. The method is applied to flexural buckling and
does not consider any torsion, local buckling or out-of-plane buckling. However, the method
can consider any uniaxial stress-strain material model. The stress-strain curve can for instance
have different shape on the compression and tension side. When the beams were loaded such
that the tip of the web was in compression, load application point IV-VI in figure 4.6, the
compression stress at the tip of the web became quite high. This has to do with the unsymmetry
of the T-section. For the welded beams another cause was that two different materials were
used. It was therefore likely that local buckling occurred. From the buckling tests it was also
possible to see that local buckling occurred, but sometimes it was difficult to know if local
buckling was a primary or secondary failure. When the beams were tested the deflection was
measured such that it was possible to see that some torsion occurred, see the discussion in
accordance to figure 2.3. Lateral-torsional buckling determined the load carrying capacity for
most of the beams, when the capacities according to the different codes were calculated. For
the reasons given above, a drawback of the method described by Mazzolani was that it could
not consider local buckling and out-of-plane buckling, and the method was therefore not an
alternative. Abaqus offers more refined calculation methods, which can describe the physical
behaviour of the beams better. The method described by Mazzolani is from 1974 and should
today most likely be seen as obsolete. The computers today are more powerful and more
refined calculation methods can thus be used.

4.2 Material model

The parent and the heat-affected material were modelled as an elastic-plastic material. The
“true” or Cauchy stresses and logarithmic plastic strains used in this material model were
calculated from nominal stress-strain values obtained from uniaxial tensile tests from both the
parent and the heat-affected material. In very simple terms, the Cauchy and nominal stresses
are calculated as force divided by final area and as force divided by original area, respectively.
Constant volume is assumed. The final area is the original area compensated for lateral
contraction. Log-strains are often used when the strains are large. Cauchy stresses are
associated with log-strains. In Crisfield [16], Cauchy stresses and log-strains are further
described. Equation 4.1 shows the relationship between the different stresses and strains.

σ true = σ nom (1 + ε nom) ε log = log e (1 + ε nom) (4.1)

The chosen material model in Abaqus assumes that the stress-strain curve has the same shape
on the compression and tension side. This is probably not true for large strains. At the tension
side there will always be an ultimate strain level, where failure occurs. Such a strain level does
not exist on the compression side. Sanne [50] made some compression and tensile tests on
aluminium alloy AA6351-T6, both for the parent and the heat-affected material. The specimens
used for the compression tests were just 20 mm long in order to prevent any buckling. The

69
stress-strain curves did not have the same shape on the compression and tension sides. No
ultimate strength was reached for the compression tests but the maximum compression stress
was larger than the ultimate tensile strength. Sanne used nominal stresses and strains. When
true stresses and log-strains are used the difference between the compression and tension side
will be smaller. This can be seen in equation 4.1 and figure 4.1. In equation 4.1, σnom and εnom
are positive in tension and negative in compression. Even if “true” stresses and log-strains are
used it is still uncertain if the stress-strain curve has the same shape on the compression and
tension side at large strain levels.

Figure 4.1 shows the stress-strain curves from one compression test and one tensile test of the
heat-affected material. The nominal compression stress-strain curve was graphically obtained
from Sanne [50]. It was also possible to graphically obtain a tensile test diagram, but the
diagram was cut at 0,8% strain, so the diagram was not of great interest. Instead the stress-
strain curve for the welded tensile test 4W was inserted in the diagram. The curve for this
tensile test was somewhat representative for all tensile tests. There was not such a large
difference between the different stress-strain curves for the tensile tests when considering the
scale of the diagram in figure 4.1. The alloys were not the same, but still, the stress-strain curve
on the tension and compression side differed quite much in this example. The largest difference
was that the compression test did not have any ultimate strain level. In figure 4.1, also f 0, 2 and
f u for the two alloys are given. The strength values were obtained from SAPA’s handbook
[51]. Alloy 6351 seemed to be an obsolete alloy, because the strength values were only found
in an older version of SAPA’s handbook. For the tensile test, yielding started at a lower stress
level than the compression test, even though that the strength values from the handbook were
higher. As discussed in section 2.2 good compression tests are difficult to perform. For this
reason, there is a risk that for instance the stress levels of the compression test in figure 4.1 are
not so accurate, but the important thing is that compression tests do not have an ultimate strain
level as the tensile tests have. The slope of the stress-strain curve for tensile tests also goes
down when the maximum stress is reached. Such a downward slope does not seem natural for a
compression test curve.

At high compression strain levels, the stress-strain curve from the tensile tests needs to be
corrected. The compression strains were quite high when the beams were loaded at position IV-
VI, see figure 4.6. For some beams the calculated maximum compression strain was much
higher than the failure strain from the tensile tests. Some correction of the stress-strain curves
from the tensile tests at high strain levels was therefore needed before the curves could be used
as a material model in the calculations. This applies only for the heat-affected material, because
the strains in the parent material will not be so high. This is natural because most of the
deformation will occur at the softer zones. In figure 4.1, there is a straight line, which is an
approximation of the true stress-strain relationship in the figure at high compression strains.
The slope of this line was used as the stress-strain relationship at high strain levels for all heat-
affected materials. This modification of the materials did not affect the tensile stresses, because
the tensile strains were not so high.

70
 500

450

400
nominal stress
350
straight line
300

250
true stress
200

150 nominal stress

100 − −=−=−=− Compression test by Sanne, 6351-T6, f0,2=245 MPa, fu=290 MPa
Material 4W, tensile test, 6082-T6, f0,2=260 MPa, fu=310 MPa
50

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36
Strain [-]

Figure 4.1 Compression and tensile test.

All heat-affected materials used in the Abaqus calculations are shown in figure 4.4. The upper
limit of 16% strain was chosen because it was believed that the maximum compression strain
would not exceed that value. However, no problems will occur if this limit is exceeded,
Abaqus just assumes that the stress remains constant for plastic strains exceeding the last given
point on the stress-strain curve. When the Abaqus model later was used in chapter 5 the limit
16% was exceeded. To give a more complete picture of the materials used in the Abaqus
calculations, also the parent materials are shown in figures 4.2-4.3. To reduce the amount of
input to the Abaqus calculations the stress-strain curves were represented by 12-19 straight line
segments.

From the discussion in this section and section 2.2 it is evident that there are uncertainties
about the material. It is possible that more testing of the materials should have been made, but
for instance good compression tests are difficult to perform. The uncertainties of the material
model can be said to be part of the overall uncertainties that all numerical models have.

As discussed in section 2.2, material AW was also used as material CW. The reason for this
was that no satisfactory tensile test existed for material CW and material A and C were almost
identical, see figure 4.3.

71
 400
3 4
350
5 1
6
300

2
250

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Logarithmic strain [-]

Figure 4.2. Parent materials from 1996.

400
4 1 2 E

350

300 B
A,C G 3 D

250

200

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Logarithmic strain [-]

Figure 4.3. Parent materials from 1997 and 1998.

72
 275
4W AW GW
250 BW

225

200
2W
175
DW
3W
150 1W
EW
125

100

75

50

25

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16
Logarithmic strain [-]

Figure 4.4. Heat-affected materials from 1997 and 1998.

Von Mises yield surface with isotropic hardening was used. The von Mises yield surface,
which assumes that the yield is isotropic, was chosen even though Hopperstad [30] found out
that aluminium alloys exhibit anisotropic yield and hence, the von Mises yield surface should
not be valid. One reason for using von Mises yield surface was that the anisotropic yield
parameters were not found in the literature and there was no time for doing any extensive
material tests. The isotropic yield surface was “dared” to be used because the tested beams
were used as a verification of the Abaqus model. It also became more evident that the material
was anisotropic when Moen [43] was read. Some kind of check how the anisotropy affected the
calculations was therefore necessary. This check is shown in the next paragraph. The thesis by
Moen was published in 1999 and it was not known when the calculations started. In other older
literature it has not been found that the material should be anistropic. In Frey and Mazzolani
[21] it is written that for extruded aluminium profiles, the maximum scatters of f 0, 2 in
different directions are low and are not significant for the load carrying capacity of compressed
members. This statement was based on tests and it indicates that the material could be
considered as isotropic. In Moen [43] there are some additional discussions about the
anisotropic yield, where also the stress ratios rij defining the anisotropic yield surface are given.
These stress ratios are used as input to the Abaqus calculations and are defined as the ratio
between the yield stress in the direction ij divided by the reference yield stress, which was
chosen in the direction of the extrusion. For each plate element composing the cross-section,
Moen suggests that ryy=0,95, rxy=0,84 and rxx=rxz=ryz=rzz=1. The local x-, y- and z-co-ordinate
of the plate are in the direction of the extrusion, perpendicular to the direction of the extrusion
and in the direction of the thickness, respectively. The values of rxx and ryy are average values
from tensile test whereas rxy is based on some calculations. The stress ratios given by Moen
were surely used for unwelded extruded material. It was not clearly found, but the stress ratios
were probably also used for the heat-affected material. According to Moen [43], the anisotropy
was hardly affected by the shape of the section and the temper of the alloys. To give a correct

73
material model of the heat-affected zone is very complex because the material is not
homogeneous due to the temperature difference during welding.

In order to investigate how the plastic anisotropy affected the load carrying capacity of the
beams, four unwelded beams of different lengths and load application points were calculated
with all stress ratios equal to 1,0, i.e. von Mises yield surface or isotropic yielding, and with the
stress ratios suggested by Moen by making use of Hill’s yield surface. The maximum
difference in the load carrying capacity was about 0,03%. Moen also made some sensitivity
studying on the effect of the plastic anisotropy. From two of he’s diagrams it could be seen that
the anisotropy only had a minor influence on the maximum load carrying capacity, but in the
post-buckling area the capacity was affected to a larger extent. From these observations it was
decided that the anisotropy did not affect the load carrying capacity to an extent that required
recalculation. Hence, the values from the isotropic models were kept. If any difference in the
load carrying capacity could be seen, the isotropic material gave the higher value.

How changes in the material properties affected the load carrying capacity of the beams was
studied by calculating a few beams with a modified stress-strain curve. From the second point
up to the last point on the stress-strain curve, the stress values were successively increased. The
stress at the last point was increased with 10%. The modulus of elasticity was not affected by
this modification. Figure 4.5 shows how the stress-strain curve was modified for one parent
and one heat-affected material. The other materials were modified in the same way. For the
welded beams, only the heat-affected material was modified.

450

400

350

300

250

200

150 Origin parent material

Modified parent material
100
Origin heat-affected material
50 Modified heat-affected material

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Logarithmic strain [-]
Figure 4.5. Stress-strain curves showing the effect of the material modifications.

Table 4.1 shows the increase of the load carrying capacity for the beams in this calculation. The
theoretical beam lengths and load application points are also shown. From table 4.1, it can be
seen that the load carrying capacity seems to be least affected for the longest beams. The reason
is most likely the lower strain levels. For the unwelded beams, the maximum imperfection was

74
0,1 mm. The welded beams were calculated for a maximum imperfection of 1,0 mm and 30
mm heat-affected zone. A few more unwelded beams were calculated, but there were some
numerical problems for these beams during the analysis. The reason for these problems was
unknown, but in some way they were related to the material modification because when these
beams were calculated with the unmodified material no numerical problems occurred.

Table 4.1. Increase of load carrying capacity due to material modifications.

Beam l [mm] lap Increase [%]
PB-22 UW 500 I 3,1
PB-9 UW 1020 III 0,0
PB-15 UW 1540 II 0,0
PB-18 UW 1540 V 0,0

PB-1 W 500 I 4,9

PB-22 W 500 VI 6,7
PB-7 W 1020 I 3,1
PB-26 W 1020 III 0,91
PB-31 W 1020 VI 2,7
PB-15 W 1540 IV 0,29
PB-34 W 1540 VI 1,3
PB-36 W 1540 III 0,17
UW = Unwelded beam
W = Welded beam

Bauschinger effects were not considered. When the material is loaded into the plastic range in
one direction, elastic unloaded in the reverse direction, yielding starts at a stress level less than
the original yield stress. This is known as the Buschinger effect and it is further described in
Hopperstad [30] and Mazzolani [42]. Even if some parts of the beam can be unloaded when the
applied load is increased (due to local buckling for instance), it is not likely that the unloading
will be so high that any Bauschinger effect will occur. The Bauschinger effect is present in
structural metals as aluminium, steel and stainless steel. It is especially important to consider
the Bauschinger effect when the load is cyclic. It could be reasonable to believe that the
compressive strength should be lower than the tensile strength for the parent material due to the
Bauschinger effect. The reason for this is that the profiles are stretched after the extrusion. This
could be a motivation for not approximate the compression strength with the tensile strength,
but as mentioned in section 2.2, good compression tests are difficult to perform.

4.3 Finite element model

Shell elements were used to model the beams. Abaqus divides the shell elements in thin, thick
and general-purpose elements. From what was found in the Abaqus manuals, it was decided
that a general-purpose shell element was best suited. It was assumed that the strains should be
large, because of the unsymmetry of the cross-section and that two different materials were
used. A finite strain element was therefore considered as necessary. The three node elements
were excluded because the strain is constant for these elements and a very dense mesh would
be required to obtain accuracy in the calculations. The geometry also does not require
triangular elements. When the axisymmetric elements were excluded, only two possible

75
elements remained, S4 and S4R. The element S4 has four integration points, while S4R has
one. Both elements have four nodes and six degrees of freedom at each node, three
displacements and three rotations. Mesh instabilities like hourglass modes can occur for S4R.
A fully integrated element, like S4, could have problems with locking. However, in the Abaqus
manuals it is written that locking cannot occur for S4. The term hourglass mode comes from
the physical shape of the mesh. The element integrals are calculated exactly for a fully
integrated element when the element is undeformed. Locking means that the element gets much
too stiff when the thickness of the element becomes small in comparison to the other
dimensions of the element. A condition for this is that the theory for “thick” elements is used.
Six unwelded and six welded beams were calculated with both the elements S4 and S4R. Both
elements behaved well and no numerical problems occurred. It was found that the load carrying
capacity was 0,067% - 0,85% lower for S4R than for S4. The execution time was roughly
estimated to be three times longer for S4 than for S4R. The difference in the load carrying
capacity is very small when considering the overall uncertainty of the Abaqus model. If for
instance two tensile tests were made for each material and the average value was used, the
result would likely be more affected. It was decided to use S4R in the further calculations.

The steel plates used to transfer the load into the beam, see figure 2.4, were modelled with rigid
3D beam elements, RB3D2. The model is shown in figure 4.6, where also the load application
points I-VI are shown. These rigid elements have the same degrees of freedom at each node as
the shell elements S4R.

II

III

IV

VI
3 2
1

Figure 4.6. FE-model of the rigid connection at the beam-ends.

Two different widths of the heat-affected zone were used, represented by a bhaz value of 15 and
25 mm in figure 4.7. The extension 25 mm was used first and the origin of it was much due to
the “one inch rule”. Eurocode 9 gives a value of 20 mm for a MIG butt-weld in a 6 mm thick
aluminium plate. The weld material was located on the surface of the profiles and the cross-
section was quite much enlarged where the weld material was located. The lump of the weld
material reduced the extension of the heat-affected zone. Even if the lump had reduced strength
due to the heating it still was a reinforcement for the beam because of the larger cross-section
area. When the extension 25 mm was used the calculated load carrying capacities were too low.
For the reasons given above it was also natural to use a lower value than 25 mm. It was decided
to also use a value of 15 mm. The width of the heat-affected zone is equal to twice the value of
bhaz, i.e. 30 and 50 mm, respectively.

76
 bhaz

Figure 4.7. Extension of the heat-affected zone.

The self-weight of the beam and the rigid connections at the beam-ends were not considered in
the calculations. The beams tested in 1996 and 1997 were tested such that the force of gravity
acted along the web. During the testing in 1998 the force of gravity acted parallel with the
flange. This was actually not a problem but it somewhat complicated the input to the
calculations. Figure 2.3 gives some additional information. As some kind of verification of
how much the self-weight affected the deflection some hand calculations were made, see figure
4.8 and the connected equations. For the longest beams with the weakest bending stiffness, for
example the welded beam PB-36, the midspan deflection was 0,23 mm. This showed that the
self-weight did not affect the deflection so much. It is also possible to say that the effect of the
self-weight was included in the imperfections used in the calculations.

q = area ⋅ density ⋅ g = ( 60 ⋅ 6 + 54 ⋅ 6) ⋅ 10 −6 ⋅ 2700 ⋅ 9,81 = 18,1 N m

M = volume ⋅ density ⋅ g ⋅ eccentricity = 80 ⋅ 130 ⋅ 40 ⋅ 10 −9 ⋅ 7800 ⋅ 9,81⋅ 0,025 = 0,796 Nm
5q L 4 M L2
w mid = +
384 EI 8 EI
EI y = 7628 Nm 2
EI x = 16330 Nm2 L = 0,55 m, 1,07 m or 1,59 m

M q
M

EI
L

Figure 4.8. Model for the self-weight calculation.

In the calculations, imperfections were also considered. It was necessary to use imperfections
in order to get a reasonable failure mode. A few eccentrically loaded beams were calculated
with no imperfections. The failure mode was flexural buckling where the deflection was
parallel with the web. No torsion or deflection parallel with the flange occurred. The likely
reason was the symmetry of the numerical model. This shows that the imperfections are
important. The shape of the imperfections was chosen equal to the shape of the first
eigenmode. It was difficult to define the magnitude of the imperfections. Abaqus’ manuals
suggest a few percent of the shell thickness. The initial curvature according to Mazzolani [42],
which is discussed in section 2.1, gives a midspan deflection of 0,25-0,77 mm for the tested
beams. These figures can also be a hint about the magnitude of the imperfections.

For the welded beams, the largest degree of freedom was set equal to 1,0. The unit was
assumed to be millimetres because a rotation of 1,0 radians is huge. For the unwelded beams,
two different values were used, 1,0 and 0,1. The lower value 0,1 was an attempt to calibrate the

77
magnitude of the imperfections so that the load carrying capacity according to Abaqus gave the
same capacity as the buckling tests.

The magnitude of the imperfections was the only parameter that was varied for the unwelded
beams. For the welded beams the magnitude of the imperfections was kept constant, instead the
width of the heat-affected zone was varied. When Abaqus calculates the eigenmodes, it ignores
all nonlinear material data. The eigenmodes used as imperfections were thus based on linear
elastic material. As an example of the importance of the imperfections, when the centric loaded
column PB-23 in table 4.3 was calculated with no imperfections the load carrying capacity
became 126,5 kN. With a maximum imperfection of 0,1 mm the load carrying capacity became
61,4 kN. The imperfections were necessary for the numerical calculations, but it is not claimed
that they were an approximation of the real initial curvature of the beams.

The imperfections are likely the most “mysterious” part of the finite element model. The choice
of the imperfections is mainly governed by two conditions. The first is that the numerical
model should describe the physical behaviour of the beam from the test. If, for instance, a local
buckle occurred during the testing a local buckle should also occur during the Abaqus
calculation. The second condition is that the calculated and tested load carrying capacity should
be equal within an accepted tolerance. It is necessary to have several buckling tests to compare
with in order to judge and calibrate the numerical model.

Residual stresses, which are further discussed in section 2.1, were not taken into account.

The mesh density will affect the results of the finite element calculations. A denser mesh will
give a more accurate result of the numerical solution. Eight of the welded and simply supported
beams were calculated with two different mesh densities. The width of the heat-affected zone
was kept constant equal to 30 mm. The coarse mesh divided the web and flange in 16 elements
each and the reduced beam length in 90 elements, which totally gave 2880 shell elements. The
fine mesh used 100 elements along the reduced beam length and 20 elements along the flange
and the web, giving totally 4000 shell elements. The results of the calculations are shown in
table 4.2. The reduced beam length is 40 mm shorter than the beam length. This is due to the
grooves of the steel plates at the supports. The beam lengths of the tested beams are found in
tables 2.7-2.8.

78
Table 4.2. Some welded beams from 1997 and 1998, 30 mm haz.
Coarse mesh Dense mesh
Beam Profile Lap* N [kN] N [kN] εmax at εmin at N [kN] εmax at εmin at
test weld [%] weld [%] weld [%] weld [%]
PB-1 G I 59,9 56,7 4,4 -5,8 56,7 4,4 -5,8
PB-22 2 VI 36,9 32,2 3,9 -11,9 32,1 4,2 -12,4
PB-7 A I 38,4 40,3 2,3 -3,3 40,4 2,2 -2,9
PB-26 2 III 62,9 51,8 0,40 -0,90 51,7 0,38 -0,77
PB-31 B VI 28,0 30,1 2,3 -5,4 30,1 2,8 -6,9
PB-15 C II 29,7 27,6 0,35 -0,81 27,6 0,35 -0,81
PB-34 3 VI 20,0 20,3 2,0 -4,8 20,3 2,0 -4,7
PB-36 2 III 26,9 27,7 0,16 -0,39 27,7 0,16 0,40
*) Load application point.

The load carrying capacity was only affected little by using the dense mesh. The strains were
affected more, but the strains were not used in any calculations. They were just used to see
which part of the stress-strain curve that was used in the calculations, so the accuracy of the
strains was not so important. From the results in table 4.2, the conclusion was drawn that the
coarse mesh was accurate enough. One advantage of the coarse mesh was that the calculation
time was quite much faster. This was the only analyse about the effect of the mesh density that
was made. The coarse mesh (2880 elements) was used for all unwelded and all welded beams
with one transverse weld. For the beams with two or three transverse welds, which also
included all clamped beams, 100 elements were used along the longitudinal axis of the beam,
which totally gave 3200 shell elements. It was decided that the more changes in the material
properties for the beams with two or three transverse welds required a denser mesh to retain the
accuracy of the calculations. This is the explanation why 90 or 100 elements were used along
the longitudinal axis of the beam. It is possible that the effect of the mesh density should have
been studied more thoroughly, for instance by using an even more dense mesh, because the
mesh refinement is not high enough to guarantee that the decimals of the load carrying capacity
could not be changed. However, when considering the overall uncertainty of the model and
how the model is used, a change of for instance 0,1 kN of the load carrying capacity will not be
very important. For two beams the load carrying capacity was 0,1 kN higher for the coarse
mesh than for the dense mesh. For one beam the situation was in the opposite case. This is
somewhat confusing, because the finite element solution ought to converge from “the same
side” for all beams. One possible explanation for this situation could be not perfectly smooth
load-displacement curves. It was found that the values of the parameters in Riks method
somewhat affected the load carrying capacity. If a bad choice was made, the load-displacement
curves could be slightly jagged. If the curves were considered too jagged, the parameters were
changed and a new calculation was made. The shell elements were uniformly distributed along
the beam length within each material region.

The clamped beams were also analysed with Abaqus. Only four clamped beams were tested
with useful result and there were also some uncertainties about the clamping effect of the
supports. It was therefore difficult to develop a reliable model for the clamped beams. There
were so few tests to calibrate the model with. The numerical model for the clamped beams was
only used in this chapter to make comparisons with the tested clamped beams. It was not
considered to be so reliable that it could be used for any extensive numerical simulations. The

79
clamped beams were modelled somewhat different than the simply supported beams. The
differences are related to the support conditions and are described below.

For the clamped beams, all degrees of freedom for the rigid connection at the two beam-ends
were set equal to zero, except for the displacement along the longitudinal axis of the beam for
the rigid connection at one beam-end. In figure 2.4 a sketch of the rigid connection at the
beam-ends can be seen. The seven screws clamp the web but not the flange. When the beam
was deflected laterally, i.e. in the direction parallel with the flange, it was not reasonable to
believe that there would be any tension stresses at the boundary between the flange and the
rigid connection at the beam-ends. For this reason, the boundary between the rigid connection
and the flange was modelled with truss elements that could resist compression but not tension.
The compression modulus of elasticity of these truss elements was set equal to 1000 times the
value of aluminium. By this way the flanges could not penetrate the rigid connections at the
beam-ends. The truss elements could not have zero length and therefore a small “deformation”
of 0,1 mm was introduced for the rigid connections at the beam-ends. This “deformation” was
equal to the length of the truss elements. Some constraints were introduced between the
degrees of freedom at the ends of the truss elements. The twelve degrees of freedom for the two
end nodes were reduced to following eight: ux, uy, uz1, uz2, θx1, θx2, θy and θz. Only the
displacement uz and the rotation θx were thus independent for the two nodes. The constraints
between the displacements and the rotations were introduced because it was believed that the
groove of the steel plates in figure 2.4 affected the movement of the flanges at the supports.
The maximum “gap” that occurred was equal to the width of the two outermost shell elements
on one side of the flange. Some additional information is found in figure 4.9.

u z1 Rigid connection
θ x1
0,1 mm
x
y
θ x2
truss element
u z2 z
Beam flange

Figure 4.9. Part of the model between the beam flange and the rigid connection at the
supports of the clamped beams, (out of scale).

For the clamped beams, the whole beam length, i.e. also the part of the beam inside the 20 mm
deep grooves of the steel plates at the supports, was divided in shell elements. This means that
the clamped beam length was 40 mm longer than the simply supported beam length, which
earlier was denoted as the reduced beam length. The modifications of the flange connection
and the extension of the beam length were introduced because the connection between the rigid
connection at the beam-ends and the beam was considered to be overstiff. It probably would
have been more correct to make these modifications also for the simply supported beams, but
for these beams the rigid connections at the beam-ends could move more freely and a overstiff
connection was therefore not considered so important.

80
The imperfections were calculated first in a separate linear elastic buckling analysis.
Thereafter, the load carrying capacities were calculated with the modified Riks method. It is an
arc-length method and it can pass limit points like local maximum load or local maximum
deflection on the load-deflection curve. The load carrying capacity analysis was deformation-
governed. More information about the modified Riks method is found in the Abaqus manuals
[1]. Arc-length methods are further described in Crisfield [16]. There were no numerical
problems of importance.

Fairly many input files were needed for the Abaqus calculations. In order to simplify the work,
a computer program was written which gave the input files as output. For each beam, two input
files were needed. The first file was used to calculate the imperfections and the second to
calculate the load carrying capacity. As an example, the content of the two input files for the
welded beam PB-35 with 50 mm heat-affected zone is shown in appendix C. The input files for
the unwelded beams and the beams with two or three transverse welds looked basically the
same as the given example of PB-35. The shell elements were just divided into different
material regions. The input files for the clamped beams looked partly quite different. These
input files contained almost 1000 lines and therefore it was too much to show the whole
content of these files. Instead, some parts of an input file for a clamped beam are shown in
appendix C. The parts are taken from PB-37 with 50 mm heat-affected zone and are unique for
the clamped beams. In chapter 5 Abaqus is used to calculate the bending moment capacity of
beams. Parts of the two input files for such a calculation are also shown in appendix C. The
parts are obtained from the two input files of a beam loaded such that the tip of the web was in
compression. Only the parts which regard the loading conditions are shown, because the
geometry and the material parts are the same as in the other Abaqus calculations.

The rotation around the longitudinal axis of the beam was set equal to zero at both beam- ends.
Some numerical experiments with rotational springs were made, but they did not turn out
satisfactory. At least visually, the first eigenmode was close to a rigid body rotation around the
longitudinal axis of the beam. This eigenmode was not suitable to be used as imperfection
when considering the deformation of the beam during the testing. A better result could perhaps
have been obtained with a larger rotational stiffness. This was not tested. Reasonable results
were obtained without any rotational springs, and then it was easier to just let the rotations
being locked. There were also uncertainties about which value of the rotational stiffness that
should be chosen. Without any restrictions of the rotation, the numerical model would be a
mechanism.

When the beam is totally symmetric about the midspan, only half of the beam could be
modelled. However, this was not utilised. One reason was simplicity. The same type of
computer program was used for all simply supported beams, also for the beams with a weld at
the quarterspan. The location of the welds was also based on measured values, which means
that very few of the welded beams were totally symmetric about the midspan. The first elastic
buckling mode was used as imperfection. Generally it is hazardous to utilise symmetry in
connection with buckling, because the unsymmetric buckling modes are left out. It was not
known if the first buckling mode always was symmetric. This is also one reason for not utilise
the symmetry in the calculations.

81
4.4 Results and conclusions

As one example of the shape of the imperfections, the first eigenmode of the welded beam PB-
4 is shown in figure 4.10. The shape of the eigenmodes was for instance affected by the beam
length and the boundary conditions.

Figure 4.10. First eigenmode of the welded beam PB-4, 50 mm haz.

Figure 4.11-4.13 shows the deformed shape at maximum load for three welded beams, PB-4,
PB-10 and PB-35. The viewpoint of the pictures was chosen close to perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the undeformed beams, which means that the figures are quite informative
about the mesh density. Only the outline of beam PB-35 is shown, otherwise the picture would
just be black. For this beam also the undeformed shape is shown. For PB-4, it can be seen that
there was a local buckle at the weld. This buckle was probably the main cause for the failure.
Local buckling seemed to have occurred also for PB-10, but the global buckling was more
dominant. Both PB-4 and PB-10 were loaded such that the tip of the web was in compression.
For the longer beams the global buckling seemed to be the main cause for the failure.

The applied load, i.e. the support reaction (the calculations were deformation-governed), was
plotted against the deflection of the point at the junction between the web and the flange at the
midspan of the beam. The deflection was chosen both in the direction of the undeformed web
and flange, i.e. two different diagrams were drawn. The selected point was not affected by local
buckling. The deflections of this point could therefore be used to describe the deflection of the
whole beam. This means that the two diagrams could be used to see if both twisting and
bending of the beam occurred at the same time. This could be interesting to know because
when the load carrying capacities according to the different codes were calculated, lateral-
torsional buckling determined the load carrying capacity for most beams. Lateral-torsional
buckling is a buckling mode where both twisting and bending occurs at the same time. The two
diagrams showed that twisting and bending quite often occurred at the same time, at least close
to the maximum load.

82
Figure 4.11. Displaced mesh for the welded beam PB-4, 50 mm haz.

Figure 4.12. Deformed mesh for the welded beam PB-10, 50 mm haz.

Figure 4.13. Outline of the undeformed and deformed mesh for the welded beam PB-35,
50 mm haz.

In table 4.3 and 4.4 the load carrying capacities and the extreme values of the strains at
maximum load are shown. All shell elements and both E11 and E22 were considered in order
to find the extreme values of the strains. E11 and E22 are the two strain components in Abaqus
that are associated with normal stresses. From table 4.4 it can be seen that especially the
compression strains in the welds sometimes became very high. This had to do with the load

83
application point, the unsymmetry of the cross-section and that two different materials were
used. When all beams and all shell elements were considered, the extreme values of the strains
were +5,6% and –16,5%. The strains in the parent material are not shown in table 4.4, but they
were considerably lower than the strains in the heat-affected zone. The extreme values of these
strains were +1,93% for PB-21 and –3,51% for PB-4. Both these strains occurred at 30 mm
heat-affected zone. From table 4.3 it can be seen that the strains for the unwelded beams were
even smaller.

For the unwelded beams, the extreme values of the strains occurred at the midspan of the beam
at the tip of the web or at the tip of the two flange halves, i.e. not where the web and the flange
are connected. In exceptional cases the extreme strains occurred at the supports.

Table 4.3. Some results of the unwelded beams from 1996.

1,0 mm imperfection 0,1 mm imperfection
Beam Profile Lap N [kN] N [kN] εmax [%] εmin [%] N [kN] εmax [%] εmin [%]
test Abaqus Abaqus
PB-1 2 II 104,8 97,2 0,26 -0,54 105,0 0,29 -0,51
PB-2 1 V 61,2 60,7 0,66 -1,50 60,8 0,64 -1,47
PB-3 1 IV 88,8 88,0 0,49 -1,16 88,1 0,46 -1,11
PB-4 3 V 61,6 60,8 0,62 -1,44 60,8 0,61 -1,41
PB-19 2 II 105,2 97,7 0,27 -0,56 105,5 0,29 -0,52
PB-20 1 V 61,1 60,4 0,63 -1,44 60,4 0,67 -1,53
H
PB-21 2 III - 144,7 0,15 -0,50 172,4 0,14 -0,58
SL
PB-22 3 I - 86,0 0,67 -0,72 89,9 0,73 -0,59

PB-5 5 II 73,7 57,9 0,30 -0,53 63,8 0,35 -0,47

PB-6 4 V 42,4 37,6 0,61 -0,73 38,8 0,54 -0,71
PB-7 5 II 67,2 58,1 0,29 -0,52 63,9 0,34 -0,44
PB-8 5 IV 49,3 50,6 0,48 -0,55 52,3 0,46 -0,55
PB-9 4 III 64,4 51,7 0,30 -0,54 53,9 0,22 -0,46
PB-10 3 IV 58,5 53,6 0,48 -0,55 55,4 0,41 -0,53
PB-11 4 I 52,7 48,2 0,63 -0,59 51,6 0,83 -0,50
PB-12 6 IV 55,4 50,7 0,48 -0,55 52,5 0,43 -0,53
PB-23 6 III 64,9 58,2 0,23 -0,47 61,4 0,16 -0,40
PB-24 6 V 43,6 42,1 0,49 -0,95 42,1 0,37 -0,93

PB-13 2 II 32,9 28,1 0,17 -0,39 29,2 0,18 -0,38

PB-14 1 V 25,0 24,7 0,46 -0,40 25,2 0,44 -0,41
PB-15 1 II 31,9 29,6 0,19 -0,45 30,6 0,18 -0,40
PB-16 3 III 32,5 29,1 0,34 -0,45 29,8 0,28 -0,40
PB-17 2 I 31,2 27,2 0,34 -0,42 28,6 0,38 -0,40
PB-18 5 V 26,0 23,6 0,50 -0,41 24,0 0,43 -0,41
PB-25 4 I 30,9 24,8 0,37 -0,55 25,6 0,38 -0,49
PB-26 6 III 32,0 27,9 0,34 -0,45 28,6 0,28 -0,40
SL H
= Slip occurred = Failure load too high for the test equipment
Lap = Load application point

84
Table 4.4. Some results of the welded beams from 1997 and 1998.
50 mm haz 30 mm haz
Beam Profile Lap N [kN] N [kN] εmax at εmin at N [kN] εmax at εmin at
test Abaqus weld [%] weld [%] Abaqus weld [%] weld [%]
PB-1 G I 59,9 51,0 2,9 -4,4 56,7 4,4 -5,8
PB-2 G IV 63,5 59,1 2,7 -6,9 64,7 2,7 -7,0
PB-3 G II 84,2 68,2 1,8 -4,2 76,0 2,1 -5,4
PB-4 G V 47,0 41,8 3,4 -8,8 45,5 3,7 -9,5
PB-5 G I 59,3 55,4 3,8 -5,1 61,0 5,2 -5,7
PB-6 G V 51,0 41,5 2,6 -6,2 45,2 3,6 -9,7
PB-19 4 II 90,7 60,8 2,2 -4,9 69,8 2,7 -6,7
PB-20 4 II 83,4 66,5 2,8 -6,6 76,1 3,6 -9,1
PB-21 4 V 55,2 44,6 5,1 -14,4 48,5 5,6 -16,5
PB-22 2 VI 36,9 29,2 3,8 -8,4 32,2 3,9 -11,9
PB-23 G III 98,9 92,7 0,99 -2,4 103,8 1,2 -3,1
SL
PB-24 C I 54,7 67,6 5,0 -6,6 71,9 4,8 -5,1
PB-25 G VI 36,9 31,3 2,8 -6,3 34,2 3,8 -10,2

PB-7 A I 38,4 36,8 1,5 -2,1 40,3 2,3 -3,3

PB-8 A V 34,7 34,4 2,3 -5,1 37,1 2,6 -5,4
PB-9 A II 51,2 45,6 0,56 -1,3 49,0 0,96 -1,9
PB-10 A IV 47,4 45,5 1,8 -4,0 49,1 1,8 -3,6
PB-11 B I 43,5 40,8 2,0 -2,6 44,2 2,4 -3,1
PB-12 B V 34,8 36,5 2,1 -4,8 38,8 2,3 -6,0
PB-26 2 III 62,9 49,3 0,22 -0,54 51,8 0,40 -0,90
PB-27 2 VI 28,5 25,2 3,0 -6,9 27,8 3,1 -7,3
PB-28 3 I 38,5 29,4 1,6 -2,4 32,8 2,5 -3,5
PB-29C 1 III 105,2 100,7 1,8 -5,0 111,2 2,2 -4,9
PB-30C C III 89,2 97,8 0,98 -2,3 109,7 1,3 -3,1
PB-31 B VI 28,0 28,2 2,0 -4,8 30,1 2,3 -5,4
PB-32C C III 117,9 98,0 0,98 -2,3 110,0 1,3 -3,1

PB-13 D I 25,0 20,8 0,81 -1,1 22,4 1,2 -1,8

PB-14 E IV 26,2 25,4 0,39 -0,79 25,6 0,32 -0,73
PB-15 C II 29,7 27,0 0,18 -0,44 27,6 0,35 -0,81
PB-16 D V 22,3 20,5 1,7 -3,1 21,7 1,2 -2,7
PB-17 D I 27,4 22,9 0,98 -1,4 24,5 1,4 -2,1
PB-18 E V 25,7 22,7 1,2 -2,6 23,3 0,92 -2,1
PB-33 4 I 27,4 22,1 0,79 -1,2 23,6 1,1 -1,6
PB-34 3 VI 20,0 19,0 2,6 -5,5 20,3 2,0 -4,8
PB-35 3 I 26,2 23,5 0,78 -1,1 24,8 1,2 -1,9
PB-36 2 III 26,9 27,4 0,13 -0,31 27,7 0,16 -0,39
C
PB-37 1 III 67,4 70,6 0,69 -1,4 76,7 0,83 -1,9
PB-38 1 VI 21,3 19,4 2,3 -4,9 20,5 1,8 -4,2
PB-39C E III 51,3SL 70,6 0,71 -1,4 76,9 0,81 -1,8
C SL
= Clamped beam = Value not reliable due to slip Lap = Load application point

85
For all short and middle long beams, which were welded at the quarterspan, the extreme values
of the strains in the parent material occurred close to the weld. For the longest of these beams,
the position of the extreme strains was close to the weld, at the midspan or somewhere between
the weld and the midspan. When there was a weld at the midspan, the extreme values of the
strains in the parent material naturally occurred close to the weld at the midspan. No extreme
strains occurred at the supports for the welded beams. The position in the section was mostly at
the tip of the web or at the tip of the two flange halves.

Some conclusions about the imperfections can be drawn from the results in table 4.3. When the
magnitude of the imperfections was changed, the load carrying capacity was affected
differently depending on where the load was applied. When the load was applied at position V
the load carrying capacity seemed to be affected least. Position I, II and III affected the capacity
most. The largest difference was obtained for a short centrically loaded column, PB-21. The
different load application points are shown in figure 4.6.

In section 2.3 it was written that the tested load carrying capacity for the welded column PB-23
might be too low. It is difficult to verify this suspicion with the evaluation made here.

Comparisons between the load carrying capacities according to Abaqus and the failure loads
from the tests are made in table 4.5. The best results are obtained when the quotient is as close
to one as possible. For the unwelded beams, a maximum imperfection of 0,1 mm gave better
results than 1,0 mm imperfection. The load carrying capacity according to Abaqus was higher
than the tested one, for only four of the 24 unwelded beams when the imperfection was 0,1
mm. This indicates that a better result probably would have been obtained with a smaller
imperfection than 0,1 mm. For the welded beams, a width of the heat-affected zone of 30 mm
gave better results than a width of 50 mm. When the width was 30 mm, the load carrying
capacity according to Abaqus was lower than the tested capacity for 23 beams. For the other 14
beams the Abaqus load carrying capacity was accordingly higher. The results would probably
be better if the width of the heat-affected zone was chosen somewhat lower than 30 mm. When
considering that the best results probably are obtained when Abaqus gives a higher load
carrying capacity for about half of the beams, it is reasonable to believe that the result of the
unwelded beams could be improved more than the result of the welded beams. When the
magnitude of the imperfections and the width of the heat-affected zones are changed there is a
risk that a few results become quite bad even if the overall result gets better. It is possible that a
deeper study of the effect of the imperfections and the width of the heat-affected zone should
have been made, but the Abaqus calculations were quite time consuming and some limitations
had to be defined. The notations N 1,0 , N 0,1 , N 50 and N 30 denote the load carrying capacity
at 1,0 mm maximum imperfection, 0,1 mm maximum imperfection, 50 mm heat-affected zone
and 30 mm heat-affected zone, respectively.

86
Table 4.5. Comparisons between Abaqus and tests.
Unwelded beams from 1996 Welded beams from 1997 and 1998
Beam Ntest/N1,0 Ntest/N0,1 Beam Ntest/N50 Ntest/N30
PB-1 1,078 0,998 PB-1 1,174 1,057
PB-2 1,008 1,007 PB-2 1,074 0,981
PB-3 1,009 1,008 PB-3 1,234 1,108
PB-4 1,014 1,012 PB-4 1,124 1,032
PB-19 1,076 0,997 PB-5 1,071 0,972
PB-20 1,012 1,011 PB-6 1,229 1,127
PB-5 1,273 1,156 PB-19 1,491 1,300
PB-6 1,127 1,094 PB-20 1,254 1,097
PB-7 1,157 1,052 PB-21 1,239 1,139
PB-8 0,974 0,942 PB-22 1,262 1,148
PB-9 1,246 1,194 PB-23 1,067 0,953
PB-10 1,092 1,055 PB-25 1,178 1,080
PB-11 1,093 1,021 PB-7 1,043 0,952
PB-12 1,092 1,055 PB-8 1,008 0,936
PB-23 1,114 1,058 PB-9 1,122 1,045
PB-24 1,036 1,036 PB-10 1,042 0,965
PB-13 1,170 1,126 PB-11 1,067 0,984
PB-14 1,013 0,992 PB-12 0,954 0,898
PB-15 1,079 1,044 PB-26 1,276 1,215
PB-16 1,120 1,093 PB-27 1,130 1,026
PB-17 1,146 1,092 PB-28 1,310 1,174
C
PB-18 1,103 1,082 PB-29 1,045 0,946
C
PB-25 1,245 1,206 PB-30 0,912 0,813
PB-26 1,147 1,120 PB-31 0,993 0,930
PB-32C 1,203 1,072
PB-13 1,204 1,116
PB-14 1,030 1,022
PB-15 1,098 1,078
PB-16 1,090 1,027
PB-17 1,199 1,119
PB-18 1,133 1,104
PB-33 1,238 1,162
PB-34 1,054 0,986
PB-35 1,114 1,054
PB-36 0,983 0,970
PB-37C 0,954 0,878
PB-38 1,098 1,037
C
= Clamped beam

87
The average values and the standard deviations for the quotients in table 4.5 are shown in table
4.6 and 4.7. The unwelded beams were evaluated for two different cases: all beams and the
case where the three “worst” beams were excluded. The welded beams were evaluated for four
different cases: all beams, all beams where the clamped beams were excluded, the clamped
beams and the case where also the two “worst” beams were excluded.

The “worst” beams were those beams where the calculated and tested load carrying capacity
differed most. The values inside the parentheses are the number of beams that were used when
the average values and standard deviations were calculated. The best results are obtained when
the average value is close to one and the standard deviation is as small as possible. As can be
seen in the tables, the unwelded beams gave somewhat better results. This was natural because
there were quite many uncertainties about the heat-affected material. The standard deviation
shows how wide the quotients in table 4.5 are scattered. If a constant was added to all
quotients, the standard deviation would not be changed. Such a change of the quotients is not
realistic when the imperfections and the heat-affected zones are changed. This shows that the
standard deviation is affected by changes of the imperfections and the heat-affected zones. This
is also shown by the results of table 4.6 and 4.7.

When the results of table 2.7 and 2.8 were discussed, it was shown that the scattering of the test
results sometimes was quite high and not always so reliable. A numerical model is always a
simplification of the reality. These are two reasons why one cannot expect that the results
should be so exactly. The results were though considered so accurate that the Abaqus model
was used in chapter 5 to calculate beams with larger load eccentricity.

When the clamped beams were tested, there were some uncertainties about the clamping effect
of the supports. If some rotation of the supports occurred during the testing, the tested load
carrying capacity ought to be lower than the capacity from the Abaqus calculation. In general, it
was difficult to draw any conclusions about the clamped beams, because so few of them were
tested.

When tables 3.3 and 4.6-4.7 are compared, it can be seen that Abaqus could predict the load
carrying capacity better than the codes.

Table 4.6. Evaluation of the unwelded beams in table 4.5.

All (24) All – 3 (21)
Ntest/N1,0 Ntest/N0,1 Ntest/N1,0 Ntest/N0,1
Average 1,101 1,106 1,079 1,043
St. dev. 8,00% 6,56% 5,74% 4,71%

Table 4.7. Evaluation of the welded beams in table 4.5.

All (37) All – clamped (33) Clamped (4) All – clamped – 2 (31)
Ntest/N50 Ntest/N30 Ntest/N50 Ntest/N30 Ntest/N50 Ntest/N30 Ntest/N50 Ntest/N30
Average 1,127 1,041 1,146 1,058 1,029 0,9274 1,122 1,041
St. dev. 11,8% 9,98% 11,5% 9,41% 12,9% 11,1% 9,07% 7,59%

88
5 Further analysis of Eurocode 9
5.1 Buckling and tensile failure
Introduction

When the bending moment, caused by the applied compressive load, acts such that the tip of
the web is in tension, it is likely that tensile failure could occur at the tip of the web. When the
bending moment acts in the reverse direction, there is no risk for a tensile failure because the
more slender web will buckle before the stiffer flange fails in tension.

All tested beams where the bending moment caused tension in the web were sorted out. From
these beams it was found that tensile failure was not necessary to check when the calculations
were performed according to the three codes. The flexural and lateral-torsional buckling
checks were sufficient. See further section 3.7.

The load eccentricity of the beams that were sorted out was 14 or 28 mm. For a beam subjected
to transverse loads the bending moment term of the interaction formulas will likely be more
dominant than what it was for the tested beams. For this reason, it is desirable that the
interaction formulas should be valid for wider combinations of the axial force and the bending
moment than what was obtained from the tested beams. If for instance the axial force is zero,
the allowable bending moment will be equal to the bending moment capacity when only the
edge in compression is considered. However, the bending moment capacity when both the
compression and tension edges are considered will be smaller when the tip of the web is in
tension. This indicates that the flexural and lateral-torsional buckling checks may not be
sufficient when the bending moment term of the interaction formulas is large.

In this section different formulas are derived. The derivation is based on similar assumptions as
the formulas in Eurocode 9 and BSK. The sine expression, which takes into account the
location of the transverse weld, is for example used. Only Eurocode 9 is considered because it
is believed to be the most important code of the three codes in chapter 3. Consequently, the
notations follow Eurocode 9.

Abaqus calculations

The Abaqus numerical model described in chapter 4 was used to calculate beams with a larger
load eccentricity than the tested ones in order to check the interaction formulas for flexural and
lateral-torsional buckling. The larger load eccentricity increased the bending moment term of
the interaction formulas. All of these beams were simply supported for bending and were either
unwelded or welded with one transverse weld. For the unwelded beams the maximum
imperfection was 0,1 mm. For the welded beams the maximum imperfection was 1,0 mm and
the width of the heat-affected zone was 30 mm. These values were chosen because of the
results of the Abaqus calculations in chapter 4. In chapter 4 more information about the
Abaqus model is found.

For most of the beams that were used in the Abaqus calculations, the load application point
was equal to I, see figure 4.6. For these beams, the only difference from the earlier Abaqus
calculations was that one co-ordinate of the load application point was changed and that the

89
parameters used by the Riks method was modified so they suited the new larger load
eccentricity.

It was of interest to know what the bending moment capacities of the beams were, i.e. when the
only load was a pure bending moment applied at both beam-ends. For the unwelded beams and
the midspan welded beams, this calculation was performed by gradually increase the rotation
of the two beam-ends. The rotations were always equal but with opposite sign. The rotation
was prescribed at load application point III, i.e. at the centre of gravity. The Riks method was
not used here. The reason for this is that the Riks method only can prescribe the value of one
degree of freedom and not two, as needed. This could probably have been overcomed in some
way, but the selected method worked fine so no change of method was needed. The moment
capacity was then obtained as the mean value of the maximum value of the two end moments.
For the unwelded beams these two end moments were equal. When the weld was located at the
midspan, the difference between the two end moments was small. When the weld was located
at the quarterspan, the difference between the two end moments was so large that the method
was not suitable to use. To gradually increase the applied end moments would most likely
cause numerical problems. If a higher applied load is given than the maximum load, no
numerical solution exists. There also exist more than one corresponding displacement to each
load level. These are two possible numerical problems with load governed calculations. For the
beams where the weld was located at the quarterspan, no pure bending moment calculation was
performed. Instead, these beams were calculated with a load eccentricity of 1014 mm. In
appendix C, parts of the two input files used in the Abaqus calculations of the bending moment
capacities are shown. The parts are obtained from the two input files of a beam loaded such
that the tip of the web was in compression. Only the parts which regard the loading conditions
are shown, because the geometry and the material parts are the same as in the other Abaqus
calculations.

The prescribed displacement or rotation was applied through a system of rigid beam elements.
This was probably one reason why no numerical problems occurred even when the load
eccentricity was very large.

The maximum positive strain became quite large for some of the Abaqus models, especially
when the load eccentricity was large and when the applied load was given by two pure bending
moments. For the welded beams the overall maximum positive strain became 19,27%. This
value can for instance be compared with the minimum elongation according to Eurocode 9,
which is 10%. It can also be compared with the failure strains from the tensile tests described
in section 2.2, but it was difficult to know what the maximum strain was because for most
tensile tests the measuring equipment stopped to measure the strain at 8,47% nominal strain.
During a tensile test, the strain is measured over a distance of 50 mm. The strains from a
tensile test therefore can be seen as mean values over this 50 mm distance. Locally, the strains
are much higher. The high strain values from the Abaqus calculations were local values. It was
therefore decided that the strain level was not a limiting factor for the load carrying capacity of
the Abaqus calculations, i.e. the maximum load was chosen independently of the strain level.
In order to see how the strain level affected the capacity of the beams, the load carrying
capacity was also selected when the maximum positive strain was about 10%. The strains are
obtained at each increment of the Abaqus calculation. The increment, which gave a maximum
positive strain nearest above 10%, was chosen. The level 10% was obtained from Eurocode 9,
as described above. This comparison showed that the capacity was lowered with maximum
3,72%, but for most beams the figure was much lower. The above discussion about the strains

90
considers the welded beams. The strains for the unwelded beams were likely smaller. This was
concluded for the unwelded beams in chapter 4.

The Abaqus calculations showed that the flexural and lateral-torsional buckling checks were
insufficient. The chosen interpretation of Eurocode 9, which is described in section 3.2,
therefore required a tensile failure check. The load carrying capacities from the Abaqus
calculations are used in figure 5.2 and section 5.3.

The Abaqus calculations give some information about when the flexural and lateral-torsional
buckling checks in section 3.2 are insufficient. For the short beams, the buckling checks are
insufficient when the load eccentricity is greater than or equal to 78 mm. Corresponding
eccentricity for the middle long beams is 214 mm. For the long beams, the buckling checks
were sufficient for all eccentricities. When the load eccentricity exceeds the values given above
an additional failure check is thus needed.

In table 5.1 the Abaqus calculated beams are shown. The models for the beams are the same as
in chapter 4 with the exception that the load application points have been changed.

Table 5.1. Abaqus calculated beams.

Beam e [mm] Beam e [mm]
PB-2 UW pure moment PB-11 W 128
PB-22 UW 78 PB-11 W 214
PB-22 UW 128 PB-11 W 314
PB-22 UW 328 PB-11 W 1014
PB-9 UW pure moment PB-26 W pure moment
PB-11 UW 78 PB-28 W 42,5
PB-11 UW 228 PB-28 W 164
PB-11 UW 628 PB-28 W 214
PB-16 UW pure moment PB-13 W 42,5
PB-17 UW 328 PB-13 W 128
PB-17 UW 628 PB-13 W 214
PB-17 W 42,5
PB-1 W 78 PB-17 W 128
PB-1 W 114 PB-17 W 214
PB-1 W 214 PB-17 W 414
PB-5 W 78 PB-17 W 1014
PB-5 W 114 PB-33 W 42,5
PB-5 W 214 PB-33 W 214
PB-5 W 1014 PB-35 W 214
PB-23 W pure moment PB-35 W 614
PB-7 W 128 PB-35 W 1014
PB-7 W 314 PB-36 W pure moment
PB-11 W 42,5
UW = Unwelded beam W = Welded beam
e = Load eccentricity

91
Navier’s equation

The simplest tensile failure check is probably Navier’s equation, which is shown below. The
positive directions of N and M 0 are found in connection to figure 5.1.

−N M0
+ ≤ 1,00 (5.1)
ω 0 A f 0,2 ω 0 f 0,2 W el. x.t
= ω 0 = f haz f 0,2 but ω 0 ≤ 1,00 welded section
ω 0 = 1,0 unwelded section

Navier’s equation is an elastic check of the cross-section where no buckling is considered. It

was found that Navier’s equation was too conservative. It became less conservative when the
elastic section modulus was replaced with the plastic section modulus, but the formula was still
useless as a tensile failure criterion. This replacement of the section modulus meant that the
curve for Navier’s equation in figure 5.2 and 5.5 was moved parallel to the right. The plastic
section modulus was introduced with the motivation that Navier’s equation was seen as the
sum of the degree of usage of the axial force and the bending moment. The denominator
contains the force capacity and the numerator the corresponding acting force.

Initial interaction formula for tensile check

A suitable tensile failure interaction formula should most likely consider second order effects.
This is not the case for Navier’s equation. An attempt to develop such an interaction formula
will be presented in the remainder of this section. The formula is based on the similar
assumptions as the flexural buckling interaction formula in Eurocode 9 and BSK.

During the derivation of the formulas, it is assumed that the cross-section is not slender, i.e. the
gross cross-section constants are used. If an interaction formula finally will be used as a tensile
failure criterion, considerations regarding the slenderness of the cross-section should be made,
i.e. the gross cross-section constants have to be replaced with the effective cross-section
constants.

The normal stress at the two edges of the strut in figure 5.1 can be written as

N M ( z) N M 0 + N w( z )
σ ( z) = − − =− − edge in compression
A W el. x.c A W el . x.c
N M ( z) N M 0 + N w( z )
σ ( z) = − + =− + edge in tension
A W el. x.t A W el . x.t

The axial force N is positive in compression. The bending moment M 0 should always be
taken positive. The direction of M 0 is considered by selecting correct values of W el. x.c and
W el. x.t .

92
Figure 5.1. Strut.

The expressions “edge in compression” and “edge in tension” refer to the stresses caused by
the bending moment. At the edge in tension, the stress can be compressive if the axial force is
dominant. The stresses are positive in tension and negative in compression. The stresses at the
edge in compression are mainly used to make a comparison with the expression for flexural
buckling in Eurocode 9.

The deflection curve w(z) is chosen as the buckling curve of an unwelded Euler strut with
pinned ends, i.e. a half sine wave. The amplitude wmax of the half sine wave is obtained from
the condition that the yield stress f0,2 is reached at the midspan of the Euler strut, giving the
conditions

N Rd χ y N Rd χ y w max
σ ( l c 2) = − − =−f 0, 2 edge in compression
A W el . x.c
N Rd χ y N Rd χ y w max
σ ( l c 2) = − + = f 0, 2 edge in tension
A W el . x.c
N Rd = A f 0 ,2

where NRd is the axial force capacity of the cross-section. There is no need to check the
compression stress at the edge in tension, because this will lead to a negative value of wmax,
which is not possible. When wmax is negative the formulas for the stresses at the compression
and tension edges are not valid. The following two expressions of wmax are obtained

w max =
N Rd χ y
(
W el . x.c f 0,2
1− χ y ) edge in compression

w max =
N Rd χ y
(
W el . x.t f 0,2
1+ χ y ) edge in tension

The value of wmax should decrease when the beam gets stiffer, i.e. when χ y is increased. For
this reason the expression of wmax of the edge in tension is not realistic. χ y is the buckling
reduction factor and it is positive with a maximum value of 1,0.

The formulas for the stresses are based on the theory of elasticity and therefore the stresses
must be within − ω 0 f 0,2 ≤ σ ≤ ω 0 f 0,2 , where ω 0 is equal to f haz f 0,2 when there is a weld
at z and 1,0 otherwise.

93
The normal stress at the two edges of the strut in figure 5.1 can then be written as

N 1 æ π ⋅z ö
σ ( z) = − − ç M 0 + N w max sinç ÷÷ ≥ −ω 0 f 0 ,2 edge in compression
A W el . x.c è lc
N 1 æ π ⋅z ö
σ ( z) = − + ç M 0 + N w max sinç ÷÷ ≤ ω 0 f 0, 2 edge in tension
A W el . x.t è lc

It is not likely that the compression stress at the edge in tension will determine the load
carrying capacity. When the expressions for the stresses above are rewritten with help of the
expression of wmax, the following interaction formulas are obtained.

é
( ) π ⋅z
N M0 (5.2)
ê χ y + 1 − χ y sinç ÷ú + ≤ 1,00
ω 0 N Rd χ y ë lc ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x.c edge in compression

é
( ) π ⋅z
N W M0 (5.3)
ê − χ y + el . x.c 1 − χ y sinç ÷ú + ≤ 1,00
ω 0 N Rd χ y ë W el . x.t lc ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x.t edge in tension

The interaction formula of the edge in tension can also be compared with the earlier presented
Navier’s equation, eq. 5.1. By rewriting the interaction formula, it can easily be seen that the
interaction formula is a more restrictive demand than Navier’s equation. This is also natural,
because the interaction formula includes second order effects, which is not the case for
Navier’s equation.

−N
+
M0
+
N W el . x.c
ω 0 A f 0,2 ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x.t ω 0 N Rd χ y W el . x.t
(
1 − χ y sinç)π ⋅z
lc
÷ ≤ 1,00
edge in
tension

The interaction formula for flexural buckling is given in section 3.2.3. When the exponent is
excluded, the interaction formula is given by

N é
ê
ω 0 N Rd χ y ë
( )
χ y + 1 − χ y sinç
π⋅z
lc
÷ú +
M0
ω 0 α yc W el . x.c f 0, 2
≤ 1,00

As can be seen, this interaction formula is basically the same as the interaction formula of the
edge in compression. The only difference is the denominator of the moment term. The
difference can probably best be explained by seeing the interaction formulas in the codes as the
sum of the degree of usage of the axial force and the bending moment as described in
accordance with Navier’s equation. The derivation of the interaction formulas shown here is
more or less just a way to find out what expression the axial force term, of the interaction
formula, should be multiplied with.

Navier’s equation was by it self too conservative and to use the more conservative interaction
formula of the edge in tension as a failure criterion does not make sense. The interaction
formula was therefore modified in some ways to make it less conservative. The quotient
W el. x.c W el. x.t was set equal to 1,0 to make the formula easier to use and to make it more

94
similar to the interaction formulas used in the codes. W el . x.t was replaced with the capacity
W pl . x in the same manner as the interaction formulas in the codes. None of these
modifications gave any satisfactory results.

Proposed interaction formula for tensile check

After testing different types of interaction formulas it was found that the formula in equation
5.4 gave satisfactory results when compared with the Abaqus calculations. Equation 5.4 is not
really a tensile failure check, because then the axial force and the bending moment terms
should have opposite signs. At the edge where the bending moment causes tension, the axial
force and the bending moment counteract each other. It is not really a section check either,
because the buckling reduction factor χ y is included in the formula. Perhaps the expression
second order section check could be used, if such an expression is possible. The equation could
also be seen as an additional buckling check because of the similarities with the interaction
formula for flexural buckling in Eurocode 9, see section 3.2.3. The differences are the
exponent ξ 'yc and the way the bending moment capacity is calculated. Despite the improper
look of the formula, equation 5.4 is denoted a tensile failure check. It was not possible to find a
suitable “proper” interaction formula for tensile failure.

The derivation of equation 5.4 was mostly based on testing different possible formulas and
choosing the one, which gave the best result. A “proof” of the formula is hard to find, but some
further comments are given here. When the axial force is zero the moment capacity according
to equation 5.4 is equal to the plastic section modulus multiplied with the strength. This is
reasonable when the bending moment acts such that the tip of the web is in tension. No lateral
buckling will likely then occur. The derivation of equation 5.4 was also governed by the desire
that it should look similar to the other interaction formulas in Eurocode 9.

In equation 5.4 N and M should always be inserted with positive sign, i.e. in the same way as
for the interaction formulas in the codes.

ξ 'yc
ç N ÷ M
ç ω xy χ η A f ÷ + ≤ 1,00 (5.4)
y 0, 2 ω 0 f 0,2 W pl . x
= ξ 'yc = ξ '0 χ y but ξ 'yc ≥ 0,80
ξ '0 = α max 2 but 1,00 ≤ ξ '0 ≤ 1,56

The notations α max , χ y , η , ω 0 and ω xy are explained in section 3.2.3. To make the
calculations more similar to the ones in section 3.2.3, an attempt was also made to set ξ '0 = 1,0 ,
but this attempt did not turn out well. For the shortest beams, the curve for the “proposed
tensile check” in figure 5.2 became concave instead of convex, which was not intended. For
the longer beams there was no difference, ξ 'yc was not changed due to the lower bound 0,8.

95
By setting M y.Rd = W pl .x f 0, 2 , the interaction formula for flexural buckling in section 3.2.3
could be used as a tensile failure check, but it will be highly conservative for the shortest
beams.

The proposed interaction formula for the tensile check worked fine for the T-profiles used in
this thesis. However, the interaction formula must be more extensively tested before using it as
a general tensile failure check for any type of compressed member. It is hazardous and early to
claim that it should be used in a code like Eurocode 9.

For a welded beam, which is not welded at the midspan, it is necessary to check for flexural
and lateral-torsional buckling both at the unwelded midspan and at the welded section closest
to the midspan. Likely this procedure is also necessary for the tensile failure check, because the
sine expression is also used in the proposed interaction formula for tensile failure. The sine
expression takes into account the location of the transverse weld. When the weld is not located
at the midspan, it is not sure that a welded section is the most critical section.

Equation 5.4 is further discussed in section 5.3.

Diagrams

To get a better understanding of the different interaction formulas six diagrams were drawn. It
was necessary to use six diagrams because all variables used by the interaction formulas must
be constant for each diagram, if they are not included in the co-ordinates of the axes. If the
theoretical cross-section dimensions, beam lengths and weld locations were used, the constant
variables would be exactly the same for all beams in each diagram. However, measured values
were used and therefore, the constant variables were calculated as the average value from the
tested beams included in a diagram.

In the diagrams, Navier’s equation (eq. 5.1), the initial interaction formula for the tensile check
(eq. 5.3), the proposed interaction formula for the tensile check (eq. 5.4) and the interaction
formulas for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling (see section 3.2) were inserted. The tested
beams with a load application point equal to I or II (see figure 4.6) and the additional beams
calculated with Abaqus are represented by markers (plus- and cross-signs) in the appropriate
diagram. The co-ordinates of the markers are calculated by making use of the load carrying
capacities from the tests and the numerical simulations.

The radius between the web and the flange is not included in the Abaqus model and therefore,
W el. x.c and A are calculated without consideration of the radius for the Abaqus calculated
beams in figure 5.2. For the tested beams, the radius is included in the calculation of W el. x.c
and A.

The load eccentricity in mm is shown in the diagrams for the beams with the largest load
eccentricity. In the diagrams, the theoretical beam lengths, L, and the possible weld locations
are shown. See also tables 2.7-2.8.

As can be seen in the diagrams, Navier’s equation and the interaction formula for the initial
tensile check (as well as their modified versions) are straight lines. From the distribution of the
markers, it can be seen that a straight line would be a bad tensile check.

96
The straight lines representing Navier’s equation and the initial tensile check are cut at the
position where the stress at the compression side reaches − ω 0 f 0,2 . For the initial tensile
check, the stresses at the edge in compression have been calculated with equation 5.2.

All cross-sections used here belonged to the most compact class for bending and the most
slender class for axial compression. This means that the cross-section area A was replaced with
the effective area Aef for all formulas in figure 5.2, except for Navier’s equation and lateral-
torsional buckling. Navier’s equation was never intended to be used as a tensile failure
criterion and therefore Aef was not used. It is just shown as a common formula that probably
many engineers would use to check the tensile failure if no specific information was given. The
effective area was not used in the formula for lateral-torsional buckling because torsional
buckling determined the axial compression capacity for all columns except one. When
torsional buckling determines the capacity, Aef should not be used. More information is found
in section 3.2.4 and 3.7.

1
L=500 mm, unwelded or a weld at the midspan Lateral-torsional buckling, EC9
0.9 Flexural buckling, EC9
Proposed tensile check
N 0.8 Navier's equation
Initial tensile check
ω 0 f 0,2 A
0.7 Test
Abaqus
0.6

0.5
28
0.4

0.3

0.2
78 78
114
0.1 128 214
328
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x.c

Figure 5.2a. Graphic analysis of interaction formulas, symmetric short beams.

97
 1
L=500 mm, a weld at the quarterspan Lateral-torsional buckling, EC9
0.9 Flexural buckling, EC9
Proposed tensile check
0.8 Navier's equation
N
Initial tensile check
ω 0 f 0,2 A 0.7 Test
Abaqus
0.6

0.5
28
0.4

0.3

0.2 78

114
0.1
214
0 1014

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el. x.c

Figure 5.2b. Graphic analysis of interaction formulas, unsymmetric short beams.

1
Lateral-torsional buckling, EC9
L=1020 mm, unwelded or a weld at the midspan
0.9 Flexural buckling, EC9
Proposed tensile check
N 0.8 Navier's equation
ω 0 f 0,2 A Initial tensile check
0.7 Test
Abaqus
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
42,5
0.2

128 164
0.1 214
78
228 314
0 628

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el. x.c

Figure 5.2c. Graphic analysis of interaction formulas, symmetric middle long beams.

98
 1
Lateral-torsional buckling, EC9
L=1020 mm, a weld at the quarterspan
0.9 Flexural buckling, EC9
Proposed tensile check
N 0.8 Navier's equation
Initial tensile check
ω 0 f 0,2 A
0.7 Test
Abaqus
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 42,5
128
0.1 214
314
0 1014

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el. x.c

Figure 5.2d. Graphic analysis of interaction formulas, unsymmetric middle long beams.

1
Lateral-torsional buckling, EC9
L=1540 mm, unwelded or a weld at the midspan
0.9 Flexural buckling, EC9
Proposed tensile check
N 0.8 Navier's equation
ω 0 f 0,2 A Initial tensile check
0.7 Test
Abaqus
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 42,5

128
0.1 214

328 628
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el. x.c

Figure 5.2e. Graphic analysis of interaction formulas, symmetric long beams.

99
 1
Lateral-torsional buckling, EC9
L=1540 mm, a weld at the quarterspan
0.9 Flexural buckling, EC9
Proposed tensile check
0.8 Navier's equation
N
Initial tensile check
ω 0 f 0,2 A Test
0.7
Abaqus
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 42,5

0.1 214 414

128 614

0 1014

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x.c

Figure 5.2f. Graphic analysis of interaction formulas, unsymmetric long beams.

5.2 Section check

Introduction

This section is mainly used to check the interaction formula for section check in Eurocode 9
when the axial force is compressive and the bending moment makes the tip of the web to be in
tension. The section check is performed at the edge where the stresses from the axial force and
the bending moment have the same direction, i.e. at the edge in compression. In the same way
as in section 5.1 there is a suspicion about that the interaction formula may be insufficient
when the bending moment is dominant and causes the tip of the web to be in tension. In this
case the stresses at the tip of the web could be decisive for the capacity of the cross-section.
The interaction formula for section check of a T-section is given below.

η0 1,0
N æ M ö
çç ÷÷ + ç ÷ = 1,00 (5.5)
ω0η A f 0, 2 è ω 0 M y. Rd
η=1 class 1, 2 and 3 for axial compression
η = Aef A class 4 for axial compression

All cross-sections used here belonged to the most compact class for bending and the bending
moment caused tension in the tip of the web. This means that M y. Rd = W el. x.c f 0,2 . The
exponent η 0 is explained in section 3.2.4.

100
Abaqus calculations

The Abaqus model described in chapter 4 was also used to calculate stubby beams to check the
interaction formula for section check. These beams were simply supported for bending and
unwelded. Beams with three different lengths l and six different load eccentricities e were
used, see table 5.2. Three different beam lengths were used in order to see how the load
carrying capacity was affected. Even if all beam lengths were short, some kind of buckling
might have occurred. Due to the steel plates at the supports, the distances between the pinned
ends were 50 mm longer than the beam lengths in table 5.2, see section 3.1. The 100 mm
beams were calculated first. These beams were calculated both with 0,1 mm as maximum
imperfection and without imperfections. It was found that the imperfections had very little
influence on the load carrying capacity. The 70 and 130 mm beams were calculated thereafter
without any imperfections. The cross-section dimensions and material of the unwelded beam
PB-1 in table 2.7 were used for all calculations. For the 100 mm beams in table 5.2, the load
carrying capacities are from the calculations without imperfections, but the imperfections had
so little influence that it would not be possible to see the difference without using more digits.

Table 5.2. Some data and results for the Abaqus calculated beams.
Beam l [mm] e [mm] εmax [%] εmin [%] N [kN]
1 70 14 23,5 -105 177,6
2 70 28 28,6 -20,7 112,0
3 70 39 21,3 -11,1 83,4
4 70 64 20,8 -4,49 50,5
5 70 114 19,1 -2,32 27,3
6 70 164 20,7 -2,30 18,5

7 100 14 5,83 -23,7 154,9

8 100 28 5,35 -12,3 101,8
9 100 39 5,67 -8,55 77,8
10 100 64 7,64 -4,32 48,1
11 100 114 12,3 -3,96 26,5
12 100 164 13,6 -4,21 18,1

13 130 14 4,30 -10,5 144,7

14 130 28 4,01 -4,94 96,8
15 130 39 3,36 -2,92 74,7
16 130 64 3,99 -1,91 46,7
17 130 114 5,73 -2,78 25,8
18 130 164 6,34 -2,97 17,6

Some numerical problems occurred for beam number 1 in table 5.2. It was not possible to pass
the peak of the load-deflection curve, but several of the last increments gave a load equal to
177,6 kN. The likely reason was the large compressive strain, -105%. This strain occurred at a
corner of the flange plate and when corresponding element was studied, it was possible to see
that it was distorted. Perhaps the numerical problems could have been overcomed if the shell
element S4 was used instead of S4R, but this was not tested. The element S4 is believed to be
less sensitive for numerical problems than S4R. The elements S4 and S4R are described in
section 4.3.

101
The cause of the failure was not always so easy to see. The failure mode for the beams with the
largest load eccentricity was of a “bending-type”, while it was more of a “squashing-type”
failure for the beams with the smallest load eccentricity. The difference between the capacities
within the same load eccentricity can most likely be explained with some kind of flange
curling.

Especially for the longest beams, the load carrying capacity was reduced due to flange curling.
When the beam is bent, the compressive force in the flange will have a component directed
downwards. When this component bend the flange, the phenomenon is called flange curling
and is visualised in figure 5.3. The flange curling effect ought to be more apparent for the
beams with large load eccentricity because the bending moment is larger in these beams.
Flange curling is dependent on the curvature, which is caused by the bending moment.

DISPLACEMENT MAGNIFICATION FACTOR = 5.00 ORIGINAL MESH DISPLACED MESH

RESTART FILE = pb139 STEP 1 INCREMENT 12
2 3 TIME COMPLETED IN THIS STEP 3.12 TOTAL ACCUMULATED TIME 3.12
ABAQUS VERSION: 5.7-1 DATE: 15-JUL-1999 TIME: 12:33:22

Figure 5.3. Flange curling for beam number 15 in table 5.2.

Plastic analyses

The cross-section itself was also analysed by making use of two plastic analyses. For both
analyses, the axial force and the bending moment around the axis through the elastic centre of
gravity were calculated from the stress distribution. The radius between the web and the flange
was not considered in any of the two analyses, otherwise, the calculations would have been too
complicated. The two plastic analyses assume that the cross-section is not slender. The axial
force and the bending moment were thus calculated for the gross cross-section. To make
plastic analyses of slender cross-sections would be too extensive in the scope of this thesis.

102
The first and simplest plastic analysis assumed that the stress was equal to ± ω 0 f 0,2 over the
whole cross-section and that the strain was unlimited, i.e. ± ∞ . The formulas for the axial force
and the bending moment are shown below and are clarified by figure 5.4. This type of plastic
analysis can for instance be found in Petersen [46]. When y 0 varies between 0 and y pl the
axial force is in tension. The expressions for N and M should be multiplied with the strength
ω 0 f 0, 2 , but in figure 5.5 it can be seen that the strength disappears in the division. The value
of the strength does consequently not affect the result of this calculation.

y pl ≤ y 0 ≤ t f

( )
N = − t w h − t f − b t f + 2b y 0

M=
tw 2
2 [ 2
(
b 2 2
)] [
h − t f − 2 y gc h − t f + t f − 2 y 0 − 2 y gc t f − 2 y 0
2
( )]
t f ≤ y0 ≤ h
( )
N = bt f − t w h + t f + 2 t w y 0

M = b t f ç y gc −
tf
2
÷+
tw 2
2 [ 2
( )]
h + t f − 2 y gc h + t f + t w y 0 2 y gc − y 0( )
b
y
tf ypl
ygc y0
x x

h
y

tw

Figure 5.4. Cross-section with notations used for the two plastic analyses.

In the second and more advanced plastic analysis, two material models were used, Ramberg-
Osgood’s model obtained from Eurocode 9 where the “plastic range” was considered and the
“true” stress-log strain model used in the Abaqus calculations in chapter 4. The strain was
limited to ± 10% for both material models. The limit 10% was obtained as the minimum
elongation for alloy 6082-T6 in Eurocode 9. Like in the Abaqus calculations, the stress is
assumed to be constant if the strain exceeds the last given point on the stress-strain curve. The
Ramberg-Osgood material model is given by

σ σ 17 ,77
ε= + 0,002 ç ÷ σ in MPa
70000 260

103
The stress-strain curve for both material models was assumed to be odd, i.e. σ ( − ε ) = −σ ( ε ) .
The calculations had to be performed numerically, so no formulas for the axial force and the
bending moment can be shown. A linear strain distribution was assumed. The stresses were
calculated from the strains. When Ramberg-Osgood’s model was used, this was done with
Newton-Raphson iteration method. The flange and the web were divided in 10 and 55
elements, respectively. The stress was calculated at the centre of these elements.

Plastic analyses, like the ones described here, could perhaps be used in codes, but likely they
are too complicated. The usage of interaction formulas in codes is very common and to change
this procedure is likely difficult. Plastic analyses could perhaps be used in codes as an
alternative to interaction formulas. The likelihood that plastic analyses should be used in codes
would increase if simplifying curve fitting or dimensioning diagrams were used. However, it
has not been investigated if this is possible. For a general cross-section plastic analyses could
be complicated and when computer programming is required, the likelihood for plastic
analyses to be used in codes will decrease. In this thesis it is not claimed or intended that the
plastic analyses should be used in any code, they are just shown to make comparisons with the
Abaqus calculations and with the interaction formulas for section check in the codes.

Diagrams

In figure 5.5 different curves are inserted. The formulas for flexural and lateral-torsional
buckling are presented in section 3.2. The formulas for Navier’s equation and the tensile
checks are presented in section 5.1.

It is somewhat uncertain how the interaction formula for lateral-torsional buckling looks like
when the beam is stubby, i.e. all buckling reduction factors are equal to 1,0. When torsional
buckling is decisive for the capacity Aef should not be used. When minor axis flexural buckling
is decisive Aef should be used. This assumes that the cross-section only consists of radiating
outstands and belongs to class 4 for axial compression. These conditions were also met. It was
decided to include Aef, in the interaction formula for lateral-torsional buckling because this is
the most unfavourable situation. The interaction formula for lateral-torsional buckling and
section check will then be identical.

The shortest beams (70 mm) from the Abaqus calculations were chosen. The reason for this
was that the cross-section deformed least for these beams and thus, this calculation was most
alike a plastic analysis. According to Eurocode 9, the buckling reduction factors χ y and χ LT
became 0,995 and 0,951, respectively. Despite that, both of them were set equal to 1,0 in the
interaction formulas for flexural buckling, lateral-torsional buckling and tensile checks. These
factors are calculated for the buckling length, which is 50 mm longer than the beam length, see
section 3.1.

The reason why the curve for the second plastic analysis lies “outside” the curve for the first
analysis is that the stresses in the second analysis quite often are higher than f 0,2 and lower
than − f 0,2 .

The only difference between Navier’s equation and the formula for the initial tensile check in
figure 5.5 is that Aef is included in the initial tensile check but not in Navier’s equation. Like

104
the Abaqus calculated beams in figure 5.2, W el. x.c and A were calculated without consideration
of the radius between the flange and the web for the beams in figure 5.5. For the two plastic
analyses, the radius was not considered when N, M, W el. x.c and A were calculated. The load
eccentricities in millimetres are shown in figure 5.5.

In the Abaqus calculations the cross-section can deform whereas it is rigid in the two plastic
analyses. This can be one explanation why the result differs between the two methods.

The result shows that the interaction formula for section check in Eurocode 9 is insufficient
when compared with the Abaqus calculated stubby beams. The proposed interaction formula
for tensile check is sufficient as a section check, but perhaps it is too conservative.

Section check is further discussed in section 5.3.

1.3
Stubby beams, plastic analysis L-T buckling & section check, EC9
1.2 Flexural buckling, EC9
1.1 Proposed tensile check
N Navier's equation
1
ω 0 f 0, 2 A 14 Initial tensile check
Abaqus
0.9
Second plastic analysis,
0.8 Ramberg-Osgood
0.7 Second plastic analysis,
"true" stress-log strain
0.6 28
0.5 First plastic analysis
39
0.4
0.3
64
0.2
114
0.1
164
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x.c

Figure 5.5. Graphic analysis of different formulas.

5.3 Suggestions for improvements

Results of the unmodified calculations

Figures 5.6-5.9 show the interaction diagrams for flexural and lateral-torsional buckling when
both the tested simply supported beams and the Abaqus calculated beams in section 5.1 are
inserted. The unwelded and welded beams are treated separately in order to more clearly see
the effect of the welding. The filled markers represent the Abaqus calculated beams. These
beams were all simply supported for bending. The calculations strictly followed section 3.2.
The tensile failure check in section 5.1 has not been considered. For the welded Abaqus
calculated beams, which were unwelded at the midspan, the additional buckling check at the

105
unwelded midspan was not decisive for any beam. More information about this type of
interaction diagrams is found in section 3.7.

2
L=500 mm ξ yc
1.8 ç N Sd ÷
L=500 mm çχ ω ηAf ÷
y xy 0, 2
Totally 6 beams
1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
M y . Sd
Web in compression Flange in compression
ω 0 M y . Rd

Figure 5.6. Flexural buckling of unwelded beams, original calculation.

2
ξ yc
L=500 mm 1.8 N Sd
ç ÷
L=500 mm çχ ω ηAf ÷
y xy 0 ,2
Totally 13 beams 1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
M y . Sd
Web in compression Flange in compression
ω 0 M y . Rd

Figure 5.7. Flexural buckling of welded beams, original calculation.

106
 2
ηc
L=500 mm N Sd
1.8 çç ÷÷
L=1020 mm χ zω xzη A f 0 ,2
L=1020 mm 1.6
L=1540 mm
L=1540 mm 1.4
Totally 29 beams
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
γc
Web in compression M y . Sd Flange in compression
ç ÷
χ LT ω xLT M y. Rd

Figure 5.8. Lateral-torsional buckling of unwelded beams, original calculation.

2
ηc
L=500 mm N Sd
1.8 çç ÷÷
L=1020 mm χ zω xzη A f 0 ,2
L=1020 mm 1.6
L=1540 mm
L=1540 mm 1.4
Totally 53 beams
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
γc
æ M y . Sd ö
Web in compression ç ÷ Flange in compression
χ
è LT ω xLT M y . Rd

Figure 5.9. Lateral-torsional buckling of welded beams, original calculation.

As can be seen from figures 5.6-5.9, the result is not too good. For many beams the result is
very conservative. From the Abaqus calculated beams the conclusion can be drawn that the
chosen interpretation of Eurocode 9 is unsafe for the short and middle long beams when the
bending moment is dominant and causes the tip of the web to be in tension. This conclusion
was also drawn from figure 5.2. For one welded short centrically compressed column (PB-23)

107
the result was also unsafe. However, this column should perhaps be excluded as described in
section 2.3. It can also be concluded that the result for the unwelded beams was better than for
the welded ones. This is perhaps most clearly shown for the centrically compressed columns.
In some sense the welding seems to affect the accuracy of the calculations. In table 3.1 and 3.2
the calculated and tested load carrying capacity for each tested beam-column can be found.

Possible modifications

Some possible modifications to improve the result of the Eurocode 9 calculations will now be
discussed.

The moment capacity M y . Rd is calculated as

M y. Rd = W ef . x.c f 0,2 tip of the web in compression (class 4 for bending)

M y. Rd = W el . x.c f 0,2 tip of the web in tension (class 1 for bending)

In figure 3.2 it can be seen why M y . Rd is calculated the way it does when the cross-section
belongs to class 1 for bending. To increase the value of M y . Rd for class 4 cross-sections
would improve the result. The markers on the left-hand side of the interaction diagrams for
lateral-torsional buckling would then move to the right. This indicates that the cross-section
classification for bending is too severe when the bending moment causes the tip of the web to
be in compression.

When the tip of the web is in compression, typical values of the section moduli W ef . x.c ,
3 3 3
W el. x.c and W pl. x are 4719 mm , 5536 mm and 9986 mm , respectively. To replace W ef . x.c
with W el. x.c for class 4 cross-sections would improve the result, but likely the increase of
M y . Rd will not be enough when considering the distribution of the markers in the lateral-
torsional buckling diagrams. To set M y. Rd = W pl . x f 0,2 for a class 4 cross-section seems
confusing, but likely the result will be improved by this modification. This means that the fully
plastic moment could be developed when the bending moment acts such that the tip of the web
is in compression.

It is difficult to motivate that the plastic section modulus should be used in the calculation of
M y . Rd when the tip of the web is in compression. According to Eurocode 9, the cross-section
then belongs to the most slender class. This modification was therefore not seen as a
reasonable option. A higher value of M y . Rd can also be obtained by modifying the
classification of the web element. This classification is based on a model where the web
element is seen as a long rectangular plate supported along three edges. The elastic critical
stress for such a plate can be written as

2
π 2Etw
σ cr = k σ
( )
12 1 −ν 2 b w 2

108
where ν is Poisson’s ratio. The value of the buckling coefficient k σ depends on the stress
distribution and the boundary conditions at the edges. The expression of σ cr is used in BSK to
calculate a slenderness parameter λ given by

λ=
f 0, 2
=
1
⋅
( )
12 1 − ν 2 b w
⋅ ⋅
f 0, 2
σ cr kσ π tw E

When the above expression of λ was compared with the expression of λ found in BSK, a value
of k σ was obtained. When this value was compared with values of k σ found in the literature
it was concluded that the three supporting edges of the web element were considered as simply
supported in BSK. In Eurocode 9 this cannot so clearly be seen, but it is assumed that also
Eurocode 9 consider the three supporting edges as simply supported. Values of k σ are given
in Galambos [22], Timoshenko and Gere [55] and Sharp [52].

A modification of the classification of the web element will now be described. The long
supporting edge of the web element is considered as clamped instead of simply supported. This
modification will lead to a less severe classification of the cross-section and thus a higher value
of M y. Rd .

When the quotient b w t w , of a plate where the long supporting edge is clamped, is multiplied
with the factor k σ .c k σ .s , the slenderness parameter λ for this plate will be equal to λ for a
plate where the long supporting edge is simply supported. The indices .c and .s of k σ stand for
clamped and simply supported, respectively. The quotient b w t w is known as the slenderness
parameter β w in Eurocode 9. A reasonable modification of the classification of the web ele-
ment could therefore be to multiply the limit slenderness parameters β 1 - β 3 with k σ .c k σ .s .

Figure 5.10 shows the value of k σ for different stress distributions and boundary conditions.
The values are obtained from Galambos [22]. The values of k σ in Timoshenko and Gere [55]
and Sharp [52] sometimes differ somewhat from the values in figure 5.10. The reasons for this
are unknown. The simply supported edges are shown as dashed lines.

σ σ σ σ

σ σ σ σ
kσ =0,42 kσ =1,33 kσ =0,57 kσ =1,61

Figure 5.10. The value of k σ for different stress distributions and boundary conditions.

109
The parameters β 1 and β 2 are used in the plastic state and therefore it is reasonable to use a
constant stress distribution. The parameter β 3 is used in the elastic state. This means that the
stress distribution is linear but not constant. When the peak compressive stress is at the tip of
the web element, the linear stress distribution is not considered in Eurocode 9. In this case the
same values of the slenderness parameters are used as if the compressive stress was constant.
The triangular stress distribution in figure 5.10 is not identical with the stress distribution in the
elastic state, but the difference is small. The factors to correct β 1 - β 3 are then given by

k σ .c = 1,33 = 1,78
used to correct β 1 and β 2
k σ .s 0,42
k σ .c = 1,61
= 1,96 used to correct β 3
k σ .s 0,42

The modified classification of the web element was made as described in section 3.2.1, with
the exception that slenderness parameters β 1 - β 3 were multiplied with the correction factors
above. If the cross-section belonged to class 4 according to the modified classification, β w
was divided with 1,96 in the formula for x in section 3.2.2 when the effective cross-section was
calculated. The value of α yc for a class 3 cross-section was for instance given by

1,96 β 3 − β w W pl . x
α yc = 1 + ç − 1÷
1,96 β 3 − 1,78 β 2 W el . x.c

If the modified classification of the web element should be adopted in Eurocode 9, some
modifications of how the corrections are made might be necessary in order to agree with the
calculation scheme of Eurocode 9.

It would be desirable if it was possible to modify the calculations such that the tensile failure
check in section 5.1 was not needed. The markers on the right-hand side of the interaction
diagrams then would have to be moved to the right. This type of movement can be achieved by
replacing W el. x.c with W pl. x when calculating M y . Rd for a class 1 cross-section. In this
3 3
calculation W el. x.c and W pl. x will typically be 14023 mm and 9998 mm , respectively. This
means that M y . Rd is lowered with 28,7%. This replacement will make the flexural buckling
formula more similar to the tensile failure formula in section 5.1

To use the lowest section modulus of the two edges when M y. Rd is calculated could also be a
possible modification. In section 3.1 it was motivated that this interpretation of M y. Rd was not
suitable. For this reason this modification was not considered in this section.

Table 5.3 shows the increase of the buckling reduction factors when f haz is used instead of
f 0,2 . The calculation is made for η = Aef A = 1. The evaluation is made for all beams in table
2.8 except for the clamped ones. When χ LT was calculated, the calculation of M y . Rd strictly

110
followed section 3.2. The quotient between f haz and f 0,2 is not the same for all materials.
This is one reason for the interval of the percentage increase.

Table 5.3. Increase of the buckling reduction factors when f 0 ,2 is replaced with f haz .
L [mm] Increase of χ y [%] Increase of χ z [%] Increase of χ LT [%]
500 3,2-6,1 9,1-21,3 0,0-3,6
1020 18,6-34,0 28,2-55,0 3,3-5,5
1540 26,3-58,2 29,2-66,4 7,4-31,9

When the buckling reduction factors are increased the load-carrying capacity will increase.
This is positive for all tested beam-columns except for the welded and centrically compressed
column PB-23. The reason is that the result was conservative for all tested beam-columns
except for this one. In section 2.3 it was written that the tested load carrying capacity for this
column might be too low. The Eurocode 9 calculations increase this suspicion. Table 5.3
shows that the increase is largest for the longest beams. This is positive because the result was
most conservative for these beams. Some dramatic increases are shown in the table so this
modification will have a major effect on the result.

Another possible modification could be to change the shape of the χ − λ curves. When
evaluating the curves for χ y and χ z , especially the centrically compressed columns are
useful. However, few of these columns were tested. It is more difficult to evaluate the
correctness of χ y and χ z from the eccentrically compressed beam-columns because more
parameters are involved in the calculations. For the few centrically compressed columns that
were tested, the result was better for the unwelded columns than for the welded ones. From this
it is difficult to motivate a modification of the curves for χ y and χ z .

The reduction factor for lateral-torsional buckling of beams χ LT could also be changed. In
table 5.4, the value of χ LT as function of the load application point and the beam length is
shown. All tested beams were considered, except the clamped ones. When χ LT was
calculated, the calculation of M y. Rd strictly followed section 3.2 and the yield strength f 0,2
was always used. When the bending moment causes the tip of the web to be in compression, a
better result is obtained when χ LT is increased because the markers on the left-hand side of
the interaction diagrams are moved to the right. When the bending moment causes
compression in the flange, a better result is instead obtained when χ LT is decreased. It is
difficult to fulfil the desire to both increase and decrease the value of χ LT . To change the
values of χ LT will only have a minor effect on the distribution of the markers in the
interaction diagrams, because it is not realistic to make any major changes to the shape of the
curve for χ LT . The value of χ LT is determined by α LT , λ 0, LT and the quotient
M y.Rd M cr , see section 3.2.4.

111
Table 5.4. χ LT in Eurocode 9 as function of the beam length and load application point.
L=500 mm L=1020 mm L=1540 mm
Lap I-II 1,00 0,91-0,94 0,69-0,79
Lap IV-VI 0,96-0,97 0,91-0,92 0,85-0,88

All cross-sections belonged to class 4 for axial compression. This means that there is an
effective area A ef . If A ef is set equal to the gross area A, the load carrying capacity will
generally increase. This is positive for most beam-columns. The load carrying capacity will not
always increase because A ef is not always used. This is explained in section 3.2.4. As a
conclusion, the result will likely be improved by replacing A with Aef , but the improvement
will likely be small. This indicates that the cross-section classification for axial compression is
too severe. The ratio A ef A varied between 0,923 and 0,945 for the Eurocode 9 calculations.
One motivation for not using A ef is the discussion about the classification of the web element,
which was described in connection with the calculation of M y. Rd .

The exponents of the interaction formulas only affect the markers, which do not lie on the co-
ordinate axes. Since the distribution of the markers on the left-hand side of the interaction
diagrams for lateral-torsional buckling almost is parallel with the straight line representing the
interaction formula, it was considered that a change of the exponents was not a good idea. Also
when considering the distribution of the markers on the right-hand side of the interaction
diagrams it is doubtful that a change of the exponents could improve the result. For the short
beams, the exponent ξ yc varied between 0,86 and 0,88. The exponent η c varied between 1,33
and 1,51 for the short beams when the bending moment caused compression in the flange and
tension in the web. For the non-mentioned beams the exponents ξ yc and η c were equal to 0,8.
The exponent γ c was always equal to 1,0.

It could not be observed that the result for the quarterspan welded beams was worse than for
the midspan welded beams. No conclusions could therefore be drawn that the parameters
ω xLT , ω xy and ω xz should be wrong in some way.

One option is to change the material strengths f 0,2 and f haz . From the discussion in chapter
2 it can be concluded that the values of f 0,2 likely are quite accurate whereas the accuracy of
f haz can be discussed. The load carrying capacity of the welded beams is increased when
f haz is increased. This is positive for those welded beams where the calculated load carrying
capacity was lower than the tested capacity, i.e. for most welded beams.

To introduce some kind of unsymmetry factor to correct the interaction formulas is an

undesirable option. The factor would complicate the calculations and it would be difficult to
explain. There is always a risk that the factor gives bad results when applied on other cross-
sections than the T-sections used here, especially when no theory verifies the factor. Even
though the difference is not so dramatic, the result was still better for the unwelded beams than
for the welded ones. This indicates that not only the unsymmetry is the reason for the not too
good result, but also the material.

112
Modified calculations

The modifications were analysed, both separately and in combination. It has to be considered
that the modifications interact on each other. The result of the analysis showed that the
modifications below gave improved prediction of the load carrying capacity of the beam-
columns. The modifications were present during the whole calculation.

• When the tip of the web was in tension, M y. Rd was calculated as W pl . x f 0,2 .
α max was calculated according to class 2.
• When the tip of the web was in compression, the calculation of M y. Rd was based on
the modified classification of the web element.
• η = Aef A = 1
• f haz was used to calculate the buckling reduction factors of a welded section
• f 0,2 was used to calculate the buckling reduction factors of an unwelded section
(midspan). This is not a modification. The information is just shown to clarify how
the calculations were made.

The modifications worked fine for the beams used here, but it is unknown how well they suit
other beams and other cross-sections. It is hazardous and too early to suggest any
modifications of Eurocode 9. The investigation in this thesis only gives indications of how the
calculations could be modified. Together with other investigations there could be enough
motivations to suggest modifications of Eurocode 9.

To use f haz instead of f 0,2 when calculating the buckling reduction factors of a welded
section was the only modification of the buckling reduction factors that could be motivated.

Some additional calculations on unwelded and simply supported stubby beams were made with
Abaqus to evaluate the value of the bending moment capacity when the bending moment
caused compression in the web and tension in the flange. These bending moment capacities
were compared with W pl. x f 0,2 . The results of these calculations are shown in table 5.5. The
material and cross-section dimensions were chosen from the three unwelded beams PB-1, PB-4
and PB-5 in table 2.7. The calculations were made for a maximum imperfection of 0,1 mm.
Two different beam lengths were used, 100mm and 150 mm, respectively. Due to the steel
plates at the supports, the buckling lengths were 50 mm longer than the beam lengths. At
failure, the tip of the web buckled. The shell element S4 was used instead of S4R, because the
element S4 is less sensitive for numerical problems. It seems that numerical problems more
often occur for the stubby beams than for the longer beams. The beam length 70 mm was also
used in some calculations, but then some numerical problems occurred. These problems were
not overcomed even though the element S4 was used. The elements S4 and S4R are described
in section 4.3. The bending moment capacity according to Abaqus was calculated as described
in section 5.1.

113
Table 5.5. Bending moment capacity when the tip of the web is in compression.
l [mm] M [kNm] Abaqus f 0,2 [MPa] W pl . x f 0,2 [kNm]
PB-1 100 2,92 268 2,66
150 2,73
PB-4 100 3,45 326 3,25
150 3,20
PB-5 100 3,34 320 3,17
150 3,09

It is not unrealistic that M according to Abaqus in table 5.5 mostly is higher than W pl. x f 0, 2 .
One reason can be that the stresses in the Abaqus calculations are higher than f 0,2 . The
bending moment capacity for class 1 cross-sections, as defined in Eurocode 9, is also higher
than W pl. x f 0,2 , see section 3.2.3. When the bending moment acted such that the tip of the web
was in compression, the cross-section always belonged to class 3, but fairly close to class 2,
according to the modified classification. This means that a lower value of M y. Rd has been
used than what was obtained from the Abaqus calculations. This indicates that the modified
classification of the web element does not lead to unrealistic high values of M y. Rd .

When considering the results of the calculations, it can be concluded that the variation of the
bending moment capacity in figure 3.1-3.2 was not satisfactory. For the T-sections used here,
figure 3.1 will give a too low value of the bending moment capacity. This can be corrected by
modifying the calculation of the slenderness parameters β, which has been described. Perhaps
a constant value of W pl f 0,2 should be used in figure 3.2 instead of W el.c f 0, 2 when the cross-
sections belong to class 1-3? The situation for class 4 cross-sections is then uncertain, because
W ef .c could be larger than W pl . The way the bending moment capacity is calculated for
unsymmetric cross-sections in the interaction formulas needs to be further analysed.

The markers in figure 5.14, which are also marked with a plus sign, represent those beams,
which were welded at the quarterspan and for which the buckling check at the unwelded
midspan determined the load carrying capacity. The capacity for these beams was calculated in
the same way as for the unwelded beams, because the buckling check at the welded
quarterspan was not decisive. The buckling check at the unwelded midspan was not decisive
for all quarterspan welded beams.

The result for the welded column PB-23 was deteriorated by the modifications. However, in
section 2.3 it was written that the reliability of this test could be questioned. It was therefore
considered that the worse result of PB-23 was not so important.

The average values and the standard deviations for the quotient between the tested, or with
Abaqus calculated, load carrying capacity and the capacity from the modified Eurocode 9
calculations are shown in table 5.6. All beams in figure 5.11-5.14 have been considered in this
calculation. The notation N test is used for both the tested and Abaqus calculated beams. When
the values in tables 3.3 and 5.6 are compared it can be seen that the result was improved, to a
great extent, by the modifications.

114
Table 5.6. Result of the modified Eurocode 9 calculation.
N test N EC 9 , unwelded beams N test N EC 9 , welded beams
Average value 1,24 1,21
Standard deviation 19,8% 12,0%

2
ξ yc
L=500 mm
1.8 ç N Sd ÷
L=500 mm çχ ω ηAf ÷
y xy 0 ,2
Totally 6 beams 1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
M y . Sd
Web in compression Flange in compression
ω 0 M y . Rd

Figure 5.11. Flexural buckling of unwelded beams, modified calculation.

L=500 mm ξ yc
1.8
ç N Sd ÷
L=500 mm
çχ ω ηAf ÷
Totally 19 beams 1.6 y xy 0 ,2

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
M y . Sd
Web in compression Flange in compression
ω 0 M y . Rd

Figure 5.12. Flexural buckling of welded beams, modified calculation.

115
 2

L=500 mm ηc
1.8
L=1020 mm N Sd
çç ÷÷
L=1020 mm χ zω xzη A f 0, 2
1.6
L=1540 mm
L=1540 mm 1.4
Totally 29 beams
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
γc
Web in compression M y. Sd Flange in compression
ç ÷
χ LT ω xLT M y. Rd

Figure 5.13. Lateral-torsional buckling of unwelded beams, modified calculation.

L=500 mm ηc
1.8 N Sd
L=1020 mm çç ÷÷
L=1020 mm χ zω xzη A f 0, 2
1.6
L=1540 mm
L=1540 mm 1.4
Totally 47 beams
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
γc
M y . Sd
Web in compression ç ÷ Flange in compression
χ LT ω xLT M y. Rd

Figure 5.14. Lateral-torsional buckling of welded beams, modified calculation.

116
Comparison between modified Eurocode 9 and the theory of elastic beam-columns

The modified Eurocode 9 calculations were compared with the theory of elastic beam-
columns. This comparison is shown in figure 5.15. Only unwelded and pin-ended beam-
columns with restrained warping at the ends were considered. In the modified Eurocode 9
calculations, f 0,2 was set equal to 260 MPa. This value was obtained from Eurocode 9, see
table 2.6. The cross-section constants were calculated for the theoretical cross-section
dimensions where also the radius between the flange and the web was considered. The
calculations were made for E = 70 GPa and G = 27 GPa. The six load application points are
shown in figure 5.15 as vertical dashed lines. The three buckling lengths are also shown. The
load eccentricity e is directed as the co-ordinate y in figure 3.5. Elsewhere in this thesis, N cr is
applied at the centre of gravity, but here N cr is applied anywhere along the y-axis in figure
3.5. In the modified Eurocode 9 calculations, flexural buckling determined the load carrying
capacity for the shortest beam-columns with large (both positive and negative) load
eccentricity. For the other beam-columns, lateral torsional buckling was decisive.

The value of N cr from the theory of elasticity is obtained from the formula below. It is based
on the same assumptions as the formulas in section 3.5. The different notations in the formula
below are explained in section 3.5. The major axis flexural buckling load always gave a higher
value of N cr than what was obtained from the formula below.

2 é æIp ö Ip ù
( ) 2 Ip Ip
ê y sc − e − A + t y eú N cr + ê N Ey çè A − t y e÷ø + A N T ú N cr − A N T N Ey = 0
ë

Some conclusions can be drawn from figure 5.15. According to the theory of elasticity, the
highest value of N cr is obtained when the load is applied at the shear centre. In Eurocode 9,
the highest value is instead obtained at the centre of gravity.

In the modified Eurocode 9 calculation, M y.Rd of the edge in compression was 2,52 kNm.
Corresponding value for the edge in tension was 2,56 kNm. The difference between these two
bending moment capacities is small and this is the reason why the curves in figure 5.15 for the
modified Eurocode 9 calculations almost are symmetric about the centre of gravity.

The theory of elasticity always gives a higher value of N cr than the modified Eurocode 9
calculations. The largest difference is obtained for the shortest beam-columns. The reason for
this is the material. The longest beam-columns behave more elastic.

117
 N cr [ kN]
300
VI V IV III II I
Theory of elasticity
Modified Eurocode 9
250

200

lc=550 mm
150

100

lc=1070 mm

50

lc=1590 mm
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
e [mm]

Figure 5.15. The load carrying capacity as function of the load eccentricity.

Modification of the section check in Eurocode 9

What has been written so far in section 5.3 has to do with buckling in Eurocode 9, but the
calculation in section 5.2 showed that also the interaction formula for section check needs to be
improved. When the bending moment is large and causes tension in the web, the chosen
interpretation of the interaction formula for section check in Eurocode 9 is unsafe. The
interaction formula for section check, equation 5.5, was modified by setting
M y.Rd = W pl . x f 0, 2 . The result of this modification is shown in figure 5.16. This figure is
equivalent to figure 5.5, except that it is based on the modified calculation of section check and
that some curves, which were not considered as important in this section, have been removed.

The modification of M y.Rd was the only modification, which was considered in the section
check calculations. To set η = Aef A = 1 will improve the result but the improvement will be
small. Since the buckling check almost always determine the load carrying capacity, it will not
be so very important if the section check is highly conservative.

The shape of the interaction formula curve has the limitation that the co-ordinate of the vertical
axis never will increase when the co-ordinate of the horizontal axis increases. The co-ordinate
axes are those found in figure 5.16. This means that the rounded shape found in figure 5.16 for
the plastic analysis curves cannot be obtained with the interaction formulas. This is one reason
why the interaction formula for section check cannot give so excellent result.

118
 1.3
Stubby beams, plastic analysis Section check
1.2
Abaqus
1.1
N
1
ω 0 f 0, 2 A 14
0.9
Second plastic analysis,
0.8 Ramberg-Osgood
0.7 Second plastic analysis,
"true" stress-log strain
0.6 28
0.5 First plastic analysis
39
0.4
0.3
64
0.2
114
0.1
164
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
M
ω 0 f 0,2 W el . x .c

Figure 5.16. Section check, modified calculation.

Some comments

The results in figures 5.11-5.14 and 5.16 showed that a tensile failure check was not needed.
Despite that, the tensile failure discussion in section 5.1 and 5.2 was kept. Perhaps future
researchers have plans to deal with tensile failure checks and then, the content of section 5.1
and 5.2 can be useful. If another interpretation of the Eurocode 9 calculations was chosen than
the modified versions shown here, a tensile failure check could be needed. If for instance the
interpretation in section 3.2 is chosen, a tensile failure check is needed in some cases. These
are some motivations for keeping the tensile failure discussion in section 5.1 and 5.2.

When it concerns buckling, it is also difficult to know if there are two phenomena involved,
tensile failure and buckling, or if all failures are due to buckling. Naturally, it is most
convenient to only consider buckling, because this will reduce the number of interaction
formulas. Tensile failure could exist in the physical reality even though it is not needed when
the load carrying capacity is calculated. The buckling and section checks could have been
“manipulated” in such a way that the tensile failure check is included.

119
120
6 Conclusions, comments and further research
A thesis should contain unique parts. The buckling study in this thesis dealing with T-section
beam-columns in aluminium with both an axial compressive force and a bending moment
present is most likely unique. When also Eurocode 9 is involved, the study will be even more
unique. Everything that has to do with Eurocode 9 is new, since it was published in 1998.
Research has been made on buckling of centrically compressed T-section columns in
aluminium, but no research has been found where also a bending moment is present.

Generally the buckling tests worked fine. However, there were some difficulties related to the
welding. For the welded tensile tests, it is important to obtain a ductile failure at the heat-
affected zone and not a brittle failure at the weld. This was not always so easy to obtain. There
were also some uncertainties about the clamping effect of the beam-ends of the clamped
beams.

When it concerns unsymmetric cross-sections, the codes need to be improved. This applies
both for the usage of the codes and the results that the codes give. The codes are not always so
easy to follow and sometimes information is lacking how to perform the calculations. A reason
for this can be that it is unknown how certain structural components should be calculated.
There is also a question how general a code should be. It is hardly economical to make a code
for constructions that are never made. Beam-columns with unsymmetric cross-sections are
considered to be reasonable structural components. Some motivations for this are given in
section 1.1. It is more important that aluminium codes are adjusted to unsymmetric cross-
sections, because unsymmetric cross-sections are more common in aluminium than in steel.
This has to do with the extrusion technique used for aluminium profiles. It is most important
that the codes do not give unsafe results, but it is uneconomical if the results are too
conservative.

When the codes are applied on unsymmetric cross-sections, all information is not given by the
codes and therefore, some interpretations have to be made. At least this is true when both a
compressive axial force and a bending moment are present at the same time. When only an
axial force is present, the codes are clearer. The literature search showed that quite much
research has been made on centrically compressed columns with unsymmetric cross-sections.
Therefore, the codes ought to be able to handle these structural components fairly well.

The chosen interpretations of the codes in section 3.2-3.4 were very conservative for many of
the tested beams. The Abaqus calculations showed that the chosen interpretation of Eurocode 9
was unsafe when the bending moment was large and caused tension in the web. To handle this
situation a tensile failure check or modified versions of the buckling checks could be used.
This is discussed in chapter 5.

The Abaqus calculations worked fine, but some comments for likely improvements are given
here. It would have been better if the width of the heat-affected zone was determined by
hardness tests. A more accurate value would then have been obtained than the two guesses 30
and 50 mm. Hopefully the tested width of the heat-affected zone would not have been so
widely scattered. A constant value of the width could then have been used. The magnitude of
the imperfections could then have been the only parameter that was varied for both the
unwelded and welded beams. Likely, a better result could have been obtained if the
imperfections were a function of the beam length. By adjusting the imperfections further, for

121
instance by having different shape of the imperfections for the different load application points,
the result could likely further have been improved. By making the imperfections unique for
each beam-column and calibrate the imperfections so the tested and calculated load carrying
capacity coincided, a very excellent result could have been obtained. However, this would be
“cheating”. When a non-tested beam-column was calculated such an excellent result could not
be obtained, because there would not be a tested beam-column to calibrate the imperfections
with. Generally the shell element S4R was a satisfactory choice. However, if numerical
problems occurred for S4R or if there was a suspicion that numerical problems could occur, the
element S4 was likely a better choice. These were just some observations that were made when
the Abaqus calculations were finished. The reason for writing these observations is that future
researchers hopefully can have some use of them. The main reason for not doing hardness tests
was lack of time.

In section 5.3 different modifications of Eurocode 9 were analysed. It was found that a better
result was obtained when f haz was used instead of f 0,2 when the buckling reduction factors
of a welded section were calculated. The calculation of M y.Rd in the interaction formulas was
also modified. When the tip of the web was in tension, W pl.x was used to calculate M y.Rd .
When the bending moment acted in the opposite direction, the calculation of M y.Rd was based
on a modified classification of the web element. The investigation in this thesis indicates that
Eurocode 9 is too severe in the classification of the cross-section. Also other modifications
were analysed, but they only had minor effects on the result.

Tensile failure at the tip of the web was also discussed. An interaction formula for tensile
failure was presented. The tensile failure interaction formula was not needed when the
modified versions of the buckling checks were used.

The investigation in this thesis gives some information about how the bending moment
capacity in the interaction formulas should be calculated for unsymmetric cross-sections.
Likely more research is needed in this area. It could be interesting to study buckling of beam-
columns with other unsymmetric cross-sections than T-sections. If the cross-section
dimensions were changed, also T-sections could be further analysed. There is a risk that the
findings in this thesis do not give so accurate results when applied on other unsymmetric cross-
sections. It is the combination of unsymmetric cross-sections, compressive axial force and
bending moment that is interesting, since very little research seems to have been made in this
area. The investigation in this thesis about the clamped beams is small. To further analyse the
behaviour of clamped beams could be an area of future research. A reason for this research
could be to evaluate the correctness of the statement in Eurocode 9 that the clamping effect of
clamped beams should be neglected when transverse welds are located at the clamped ends.

122
7 References
[1] ABAQUS (1997). ABAQUS/Standard User’s manual Volume I-III and ABAQUS
Post manual. Version 5.7. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, USA.

[2] Baehre, R., (1966). “Tryckta strävor av elastoplastiskt material – några

frågeställningar”. Väg- och vattenbyggaren nr 3 1966, (in Swedish).

[3] Baehre, R., Riman, R., (1986). “Traglastuntersuchung von Druckstäben aus Aluminium
mit Quernähten”. Schweißen und Schneiden 38, Heft 8, (in German).

[4] Benson, P., (1990). “Local and Flexural Buckling of Eccentrically Loaded Square,
Thin-Walled Aluminium Alloy Columns”. Royal Institute of Technology, Department
of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden.

[5] Bernard, A., Frey, F., Janss, J., Massonnet, Ch., (1971). “Research on the behaviour of
aluminium columns against buckling”. University of Liège, Laboratories for testing
materials and stability of constructions, Liège, Belgium.

[6] Boverket, (1998). “BKR 99, Boverkets konstruktionsregler 99”, BFS 1993:58,
ISBN 91-7147-455-2, (in Swedish).

[7] Boverket, (1999). “BSK 99, Boverkets handbok om stålkonstruktioner”,

ISBN 91-7147-527-3, (in Swedish).

[8] Bradford, M. A., (1990). “Lateral-Distortional Buckling of Tee-Section Beams”.

Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 13-30.

[9] Bradford, M. A., (1999). “Elastic distortional buckling of tee-section cantilevers”.

Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 3-17.

[10] BSI-British Standards Institution, (1991). “BS 8118, Structural use of aluminium”,
Part 1. Code of practice for design, 2 Park Street, London, W1A 2BS,
ISBN 0-580-19209-1.

[11] Bulson, P. S., Nethercot, D. A., (1986). “New British Code for the Design of Aluminium
Structures”. Colloquium on thin-walled metal structures in buildings, IABSE,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 43-50.

[12] CEN, European Committee for Standardization, (1998). “Eurocode 9, Design of

Aluminium Structures”, ENV 1999-1-1:1998 E, May 1998.

[13] Chen, W.-F., Atsuta, T., (1977). “Theory of Beam-Columns”, Volume 2, Space
behavior and design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA. ISBN 0-07-010759-9.

[14] Clark, J. W., (1955). “Eccentrically loaded aluminium columns”. ASCE Trans.,
Vol. 120, pp. 1116-1132.

123
[15] Corona, E., Ellison, M. S., (1997). “Plastic Buckling of T-Beams under Pure Bending”.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 123, No. 5, pp. 466-474.

[16] Crisfield, M. A., (1991). “Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and
Structures”, Volume 1, Reprinted 1994, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Baffins Lane,
Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1UD, England, ISBN 0-471-92956-5.

[17] Edlund, S., (1997). “Buckling Tests of Unwelded Aluminium T-sections”,

Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Stockholm,
Sweden, Technical Report 1997:3, Steel Structures.

[18] Edlund, S., (1997). “Buckling tests of welded aluminium T-sections”,

Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Stockholm,
Sweden, Technical Report 1997:18, Steel Structures.

[19] Edlund, S., (1997). “Arbitrary Thin-Walled Cross Sections. Theory and
Computer Implementation”, Licentiate Thesis, Bulle tin 33, Royal Institute of
Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden.

[20] Edlund, S., (1998). “Buckling Tests of Aluminium T-profiles with Transverse Welds”.
Nordic Steel Construction Conference 98, Norwegian Steel Associatio n,
ISBN 82-91466-02-5.

[21] Frey, F., Mazzolani, F. M., (1977). “Buckling behaviour of aluminium-alloy extruded
members”. International Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures, Liège, pp. 85-94.

[22] Galambos, T. V., (1988). “Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures,
Fourth edition”. John Wiley & Sons Inc., USA. ISBN 0-471-09737-3.

[23] Gilson, S., Cescotto, S., (undated). “Experimental research on the buckling of alu-
alloys columns with unsymmetrical cross-section.” Laboratoire de Matériaux et
Théorie des Structures, Université de Liège, Belgium.

[24] Hellgren, M., (1995). “Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Aluminium Beam-Columns with

Transverse Butt-Welds”. Proceedings of the third international conference on steel and
aluminium structures, Istanbul, Turkey, Bogazici university, Department of civil
engineering.

[25] Hernelind, K., Höglund, T., Nylander, H., (1974). “Steel columns in buildings”,
National Swedish Building Research, Report R50:1974, ISBN 91-540-2362-9,
(in Swedish).

[26] Hill, H. N., Clark, J. W., (1951). “Lateral buckling of eccentrically loaded I-section
columns”. ASCE Trans., Vol. 116, pp. 1179-1196.

[27] Hill, H. N., Hartmann, E. C., Clark, J. W., (1956). “Design of aluminium alloy
beam-columns”. ASCE Trans., Vol. 121, pp. 1-21.

124
[28] Hong, G. M., (1987). “Aluminium column curves”. Aluminium structures, design and
construction. R. Narayanan Ed., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, pp. 40-49.

[29] Hong, G. M., (1991). “Effects of non-central transverse weld on aluminium columns”.
International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, ICSAS, Singapore.

[30] Hopperstad, O. S., (1993). “Modelling of cyclic plasticity with application to steel
and aluminium structures.” The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Department of
Structural Engineering, Trondheim, Norway.

[31] Höglund, T., (1968). “Interaction Design Method for Beam-Columns”. Royal Institute
of Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden,
Bulletin no. 77, (in Swedish).

[32] Höglund, T., (1990). “Bending and Compression of Aluminium Members”. Royal
Institute of Technology, Department of Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden.

[33] Höglund, T., (1991). “Flexural and lateral-torsional buckling of aluminium and steel
beam-columns”. International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, ICSAS,
Singapore.

[34] Kitipornchai, S., Wang, C. M., (1986). “Lateral buckling of tee beams under moment
gradient”. Computers & Structures, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 69-76.

[35] Klöppel, K., Bärsch, W., (1971).”Ein Beitrag zur Bemessung von Druckstäben aus
Aluminium”. ALUMINIUM, No. 2, pp. 146-153, (in German).

[36] Klöppel, K., Bärsch, W., (1973).”Versuche zum Kapitel ,,Stabilitätsfälle“ der
Neufassung von DIN 4113”. ALUMINIUM, No. 10, pp. 690-699, (in German).

[37] Lai, Y. F. W., Nethercot, D. A., (1992). “Strength of aluminium members containing
local transverse welds”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 241-254.

[38] Lai, Y. F. W., Nethercot, D. A., (1992). “Design of aluminium columns”, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 188-194.

[39] Langhelle, N. K., (1999). “Experimental Validation and Calibration of Nonlinear Finite
Element Models for Use in Design of Aluminium Structures Exposed to Fire”.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Marine Structures,
Faculty of Marine Technology, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway. ISBN 82-471-0376-1.

[40] Lundberg, S., (1995). “Design Philosophy”, TALAT Lecture 2204, Training in
Aluminium Application Technologies, ATP−Aluminium Training Partnership,
Brussels.

[41] Marsh, C., (1991). “Unified treatment of buckling proposed for the ISO standard on
aluminium structures”. International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures,
ICSAS, Singapore.

125
[42] Mazzolani, F. M., (1995). “Aluminium Alloy Structures”, Second edition, E & FN
Spon, an imprint of Chapman & Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SE1 8HN, UK, ISBN
0-419-17770-1.

[43] Moen, L. A., (1999). “Rotational capacity of aluminium alloy beams”, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Department of Structural Engineering,
N-7034 Trondheim, Norway. ISBN 82-471-0365-6.

[44] Nethercot, D. A., (1987). “Aspects of column design in the new UK structural
aluminium code”. Aluminium structures, design and construction. R. Narayanan
Ed., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, pp. 50-59.

[45] Nethercot, D. A., (1991). “Behaviour and design of aluminium beams, columns and
beam columns”. International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, ICSAS,
Singapore.

[46] Petersen, C., (1994). “Stahlbau”, Grundlagen der Berechnung und baulichen
Ausbildung von Stahlbauten, 3. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Friedr.
Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany.
ISBN 3-528-28837-X. (in German).

[47] Rasmussen, K. J. R., Rondal, J., (1999). “Column Curve Formulation for Aluminium
Alloys”. Fourth International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, Espoo,
Finland. Helsinki University of Technology, ISBN 0-08-043014-7.

[48] Runesson, K., Samuelsson, A., Wiberg, N.-E., (1989). “Knäckning”, Chalmers
University of Technology, Department of Structural Mechanics, Gothenburg,
Sweden, (in Swedish).

[49] Sanne, L., Benson, P., Höglund, T., (1992). “Lateral Torsional Buckling of Aluminium
Beam Columns – Test and Design”. The Royal Institute of Technology, Department of
Structural Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, Report 1992:6.

[50] Sanne, L., (1993). “Lateral Torsional Buckling of Aluminium Beam-Columns with
Transverse Butt Welds.” The Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Structural
Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden.

[51] SAPA, (1995). “Handbok för konstruktörer, Hur man lyckas med aluminiumprofiler”,
(in Swedish).

[52] Sharp, M. L., (1993). “Behavior and Design of Aluminum Structures”, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., ISBN 0-07-056478-7.

[53] Statens Stålbyggnadskomitté, (1973). “StBK-K2, Kommentarer till stålbyggnadsnorm

70, knäckning, vippning, buckling”, AB Svensk Byggtjänst, (in Swedish).

[54] Svetskommissionen, IVA, (1997). “Goda råd vid aluminiumsvetsning”,

ISBN 91-630-5056-0, (in Swedish).

126
[55] Timoshenko, S. P., Gere, J. M., (1961). “Theory of elastic stability”, Second edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., ISBN 0-07-085821-7.

[56] Valtinat, G., Müller, R., (1977). “Ultimate load of beam columns in aluminium alloys
with longitudinal and transversal welds”. Second Int. Coll. Stability, Prelim. Rep.,
Liège, pp. 393-402.

[57] Valtinat, G., Dangelmaier, P., (1986). “Näherungsweise Berechnung der Traglasten
von nichtgeschweißten und geschweißten Druckstäben aus Aluminium”,
Bauingenieur, Vol. 61, pp. 507-513, (in German).

127
128
Appendix A. Photos of the test equipment.

Figure A.1. Test equipment.

Figure A.2. Detail of the test equipment.

129
Figure A.3. View of the test equipment.

Figure A.4. Detail of the test equipment.

Figure A.5. Detail of the test equipment.

130
Appendix B. Load-deflection curves of the tested beam-columns.
This appendix shows the load-deflection curves for all tested beams. For the beams tested in
1996 and 1997, a horizontal deflection is parallel with the flange and a vertical deflection is
accordingly parallel with the web. The horizontal and vertical deflections for the beams from
1998 are reversed. The deflection measurements are further described in accordance to figure
2.3. At the end of the testing, the attachment of the measuring device could sometimes get
loose from the beam. This is the reason why the load-deflection curves sometimes have an odd
shape. Lap stands for “load application point”, see figure 2.1. The beam length is denoted L.
The formulas for first and second order analysis are found in section 2.3.

Unwelded beams from 1996

PB-1, L = 500 mm, Lap = II PB-1, L = 500 mm, Lap = II

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 Test 40 Flange
First order analysis Web
20 20
Second order analysis
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-2, L = 500 mm, Lap = V PB-2, L = 500 mm, Lap = V

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
Flange
30 30
Test Web
20 First order analysis 20
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-3, L = 500 mm, Lap = IV PB-3, L = 500 mm, Lap = IV

100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 Flange 50
40 Web 40
Test 30
30
20 First order analysis 20
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

131
 PB-4, L = 500 mm, Lap = V PB-4, L = 500 mm, Lap = V
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 Test 30
Flange
20 First order analysis 20
Web
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-19, L = 500 mm, Lap = II PB-19, L = 500 mm, Lap = II

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60
Flange
40 Test 40 Web
20 First order analysis
20
Second order analysis
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-20, L = 500 mm, Lap = V PB-20, L = 500 mm, Lap = V

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
Test Flange
20 20
First order analysis Web
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-21, L = 500 mm, Lap = III PB-21, L = 500 mm, Lap = III
160 160
140 140
Flange
120 Test 120 Web
100 100
80 The failure load 80
60 was not reached 60
40 40 The failure load
20 20 was not reached
0 0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

132
 BP-22, L = 500 mm, Lap = I PB-22, L = 500 mm, Lap = I
80 80
70 70
Slip occurred
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30 Flange
Test
20 First order analysis 20 Web
10 10 Slip occurred
Second order analysis
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-5, L = 1020 mm, Lap = II PB-5, L = 1020 mm, Lap = II

80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
Flange
30 30
Test Web
20 20
First order analysis
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-6, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V PB-6, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V

45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
Test Flange
15 15
First order analysis Web
10 10
Second order analysis
5 5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-7, L = 1020 mm, Lap = II PB-7, L = 1020 mm, Lap = II

80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
Flange
30 30
Test Web
20 20
First order analysis
10 10
Second order analysis
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

133
 PB-8, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV PB-8, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV
60
60
50
50
40 40
30 30
Test Flange
20 20
First order analysis Web
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-9, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III PB-9, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III
70 70

60 60

50 50
40 40
30 30 Flange
20 20 Web
Test
10 10
0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-10, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV PB-10, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV

70 70

60 60
50 50

40 40
30 30
Flange
Test
20 20 Web
First order analysis
10 Second order analysis 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-11, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I PB-11, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I

70 60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20 Test 20 Flange
First order analysis Web
10 10
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

134
 PB-12, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV PB-12, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV
60 60
50 50

40 40

30 30 Flange
Test Web
20 First order analysis 20

10 Second order analysis 10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-23, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III PB-23, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
Test Flange
20 20
Web
10 10
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-24, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V BP-24, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 Flange 20
Test
Web
10 First order analysis 10
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-13, L = 1540 mm, Lap = II PB-13, L = 1540 mm, Lap = II

40 35
30
30 25
20
20
15 Flange
Test
First order analysis 10 Web
10
Second order analysis 5
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

135
 PB-14, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V PB-14, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V
30 30
25 25

20 20

15 15

10 Test 10 Flange
First order analysis Web
5 Second order analysis 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-15, L = 1540 mm, Lap = II PB-15, L = 1540 mm, Lap = II

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
Test Flange
10 10
First order analysis Web
5 Second order analysis 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-16, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III PB-16, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 Test 15 Flange
10 10 Web
5 5
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-17, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I PB-17, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I

35 35

30 30

25 25

20 20
15 Flange
15
Web
Test 10
10
First order analysis
5 5
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

136
 PB-18, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V PB-18, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V
30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15 Flange
Test Web
10 10
First order analysis
5 Second order analysis 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-25, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I PB-25, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
Test Flange
10 10
First order analysis Web
5 Second order analysis 5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-26, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III PB-26, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 Test 15 Flange
10 10 Web

5 5
0 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

Welded beams from 1997

PB-3, L = 500 mm, Lap = II PB-3, L = 500 mm, Lap = II

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 Test 40
30 First order analysis 30 Flange
20 Second order analysis 20 Web
10 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

137
 PB-4, L = 500 mm, Lap = V PB-4, L = 500 mm, Lap = V
50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 Test 20 Flange
15 First order analysis 15 Web
10 Second order analysis 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-7, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I PB-7, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I

45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20 Flange
15 15
Test Web
10 First order analysis 10
5 Second order analysis 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-8, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V PB-8, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V

40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 Test 20
15 First order analysis 15 Flange
10 Second order analysis 10 Web

5 5
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-9, L = 1020 mm, Lap = II PB-9, L = 1020 mm, Lap = II

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30 Flange
20 20 Web
Test
10 First order analysis 10
Second order analysis
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

138
 PB-10, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV PB-10, L = 1020 mm, Lap = IV
50
50
45
40 40
35
30 30
Flange
25
20 Test 20 Web
First order analysis 15
10 Second order analysis 10
5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-11, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I PB-11, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 Test 20 Flange
First order analysis Web
10 10
Second order analysis

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-12, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V PB-12, L = 1020 mm, Lap = V

40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15 Flange
Test
10 First order analysis 10 Web
5 Second order analysis 5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-13, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I PB-13, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 Test 10
First order analysis Flange
5 5
Second order analysis Web
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

139
 PB-14, L = 1540 mm, Lap = IV PB-14, L = 1540 mm, Lap = IV
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 Test 10
First order analysis Flange
5 5
Second order analysis Web
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-15, L = 1540 mm, Lap = II PB-15, L = 1540 mm, Lap = II

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 Test 10 Flange
First order analysis
5 5 Web
Second order analysis
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 -5 5 15 25 35 45
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-16, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V PB-16, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10
Test Flange
5 First order analysis 5 Web
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-17, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I PB-17, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I

30
30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10 Flange
Test
5 First order analysis 5 Web
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

140
 PB-18, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V PB-18, L = 1540 mm, Lap = V
30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 Test 10 Flange
First order analysis Web
5 5
Second order analysis
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

Welded beams from 1998

PB-1, L = 500 mm, Lap = I PB-1, L = 500 mm, Lap = I

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30 Upper edge
Test
20 Lower edge
20
First order analysis
10 10
Second order analysis
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-2, L = 500 mm, Lap = IV PB-2, L = 500 mm, Lap = IV

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
Upper edge
30 30 Lower edge
20 Test 20 First order analysis
10 10 Second order analysis

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-5, L = 500 mm, Lap = I PB-5, L = 500 mm, Lap = I

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30 Upper edge
Test
20 Lower edge
20
First order analysis
10 10 Second order analysis
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

141
 PB-6, L = 500 mm, Lap = V PB-6, L = 500 mm, Lap = V
60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30 Upper edge
Test 20 Lower edge
20
First order analysis
10 10 Second order analysis

0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-19, L = 500 mm, Lap = II PB-19, L = 500 mm, Lap = II

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40 Upper edge
Test
Lower edge
20 20 First order analysis
Second order analysis
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-20, L = 500 mm, Lap = V BP-20, L = 500 mm, Lap = V

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
Upper edge
30 30
Test Lower edge
20 20
First order analysis
10 10 Second order analysis
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-21, L = 500 mm, Lap = V PB-21, L = 500 mm, Lap = V

60 60
50 50
40 40

30 30
Test Upper edge
20 20 Lower edge
First order analysis
10 10
Second order analysis
0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

142
 PB-22, L = 500 mm, Lap = VI PB-22, L = 500 mm, Lap = VI
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20 Upper edge
Test Lower edge
15 15
10 10 First order analysis
Second order analysis
5 5
0 0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-23, L = 500 mm, Lap = III PB-23, L = 500 mm, Lap = III
120 120

100 100

80 80

60 Test 60
Upper edge
40 40 Lower edge
20 20
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-24, L = 500 mm, Lap = I PB-24, L = 500 mm, Lap = I

60 60
50 50
40 40

30 30
Upper edge
Test
20 20 Lower edge
First order analysis
10 10 Second order analysis
0 0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 2 4 6 8 10
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-25, L = 500 mm, Lap = VI PB-25, L = 500 mm, Lap = VI

40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
Upper edge
15 15
Test Lower edge
10 10
First order analysis
5 5 Second order analysis
0 0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

143
 PB-26, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III PB-26, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III
70 70
60 60 Upper edge
Lower edge
50 50
40 40
30 30
Test
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-27, L = 1020 mm, Lap = VI PB-27, L = 1020 mm, Lap = VI

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15
Upper edge
10 10
Test Lower edge
5 5 First order analysis
Second order analysis
0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-28, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I PB-28, L = 1020 mm, Lap = I

45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
Test Upper edge
15 15
Lower edge
10 10
First order analysis
5 5 Second order analysis
0 0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-29, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III PB-29, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III
120 120

100 100

80 80
Clamped beam
60 60

40 40
Upper edge
20 Clamped beam 20
Test Lower edge
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

144
 PB-30, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III PB-30, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III
100 100

80 80
Clamped beam
Clamped beam 60
60

40 40

20 Test 20 Upper edge

Lower edge
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Vertical midspan deflection[mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-31, L = 1020 mm, Lap = VI PB-31, L = 1020 mm, Lap = VI

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15
Test Upper edge
10 10 Lower edge
5 5 First order analysis
Second order analysis
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-32, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III PB-32, L = 1020 mm, Lap = III
140 140
Upper edge
120 Clamped beam 120
Lower edge
100 100
80 80 Clamped beam
60 60
Test
40 40
20 20
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-33, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I PB-33, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15
Upper edge
10 10 Lower edge
Test
First order analysis
5 5
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

145
 PB-34, L = 1540 mm, Lap = VI PB-34, L = 1540 mm, Lap = VI
25 25

20 20

15 15
Upper edge
10 10
Lower edge
Test First order analysis
5 5
Second order analysis
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-35, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I PB-35, L = 1540 mm, Lap = I

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15
Upper edge
10 10 Lower edge
Test
5 First order analysis
5
Second order analysis
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-36, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III PB-36, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III
30 30
25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10 Upper edge
Test
Lower edge
5 5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-37, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III PB-37, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III
80 80
70 70 Clamped beam
60 60
50 Clamped beam 50
40 40
30 Test 30
Upper edge
20 20
Lower edge
10 10
0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

146
 PB-38, L = 1540 mm, Lap = VI PB-38, L = 1540 mm, Lap = VI
25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10 Upper edge
Test Lower edge
5 5 First order analysis
Second order analysis
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

PB-39, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III PB-39, L = 1540 mm, Lap = III
60 60
Clamped beam Clamped beam
50 50

40 40
Slip occurred Slip occurred
30 30

20 Test 20

10 10 Upper edge
Lower edge
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Vertical midspan deflection [mm] Horizontal midspan deflection [mm]

147
148
Appendix C. Example of Abaqus input files.
The first example shows the content of the two input files for the welded beam PB-35 with 50
mm heat-affected zone. The first and largest part is the same for the two input files, so this part
is only shown once. The two input files were used to calculate the imperfections and the load
carrying capacity, respectively. The second example shows some parts of the input files for the
clamped beam PB-37 with 50 mm heat-affected zone. The third example shows some parts of
the input files used when the bending moment capacity was calculated.

*HEADING 17,89,9
PB-35 50 mm haz *NGEN,NSET=RWEB
mat 3, loadl=1, zhaz=408, len=1539, 9001,9017
b=60.05, h=60.13, tw=6.11, tf=6.18, *NGEN,NSET=RFLANGE1
haz=50, (lmid=749.500000) 9017,9025
*NODE *NGEN,NSET=RFLANGE2
1, 57.04, 0., 0. 9017,9089,9
17, 0., 0., 0. *NGEN,N SET=LWWEB
25, 0., -30.025, 0. 2001,2017
89, 0., 30.025, 0. *NGEN,NSET=LWFLANS1
9001, 57.04, 0., 1499 2017,2025
9017, 0., 0., 1499 *NGEN,NSET=LWFLANS2
9025, 0., -30.025, 1499 2017,2089,9
9089, 0., 30.025, 1499 *NGEN,NSET=RWWEB
2001, 57.04, 0., 338 2301,2317
2017, 0., 0., 338 *NGEN,NSET=RWFLANS1
2025, 0., -30.025, 338 2317,2325
2089, 0., 30.025, 338 *NGEN,NSET=RWFLANS2
2301, 57.04, 0., 388 2317,2389,9
2317, 0., 0., 388 *ELEMENT,TYPE=RB3D2
2325, 0., -30.025, 388 5001,1,2
2389, 0., 30.025, 388 5017,17,18
19001,-14.25,0,-45 5025,17,26
19002,0,0,-45 5033,19006,1
19003,14.26,0,-45 5034,19006,2
19004,28.52,0,-45 5035,19006,3
19005,42.78,0,-45 5036,19005,3
19006,57.04,0,-45 5037,19005,4
19007,0,-15.0125,-45 5038,19005,5
19008,0,-30.025,-45 5039,19005,6
19009,0,15.0125,-45 5040,19005,7
19010,0,30.025,-45 5041,19004,7
19101,-14.25,0,1544 5042,19004,8
19102,0,0,1544 5043,19004,9
19103,14.26,0,1544 5044,19004,10
19104,28.52,0,1544 5045,19004,11
19105,42.78,0,1544 5046,19003,11
19106,57.04,0,1544 5047,19003,12
19107,0,-15.0125,1544 5048,19003,13
19108,0,-30.025,1544 5049,19003,14
19109,0,15.0125,1544 5050,19003,15
19110,0,30.025,1544 5051,19002,15
*NGEN,NSET=LWEB 5052,19002,16
1,17 5053,19002,17
*NGEN,NSET=LFLANGE1 5054,19001,17
17,25 5055,19002,17
*NGEN,NSET=LFLANGE2 5056,19002,18

149
5057,19002,19 5144,19104,9010
5058,19007,19 5145,19104,9011
5059,19007,20 5146,19103,9011
5060,19007,21 5147,19103,9012
5061,19007,22 5148,19103,9013
5062,19007,23 5149,19103,9014
5063,19008,23 5150,19103,9015
5064,19008,24 5151,19102,9015
5065,19008,25 5152,19102,9016
5066,19002,17 5153,19102,9017
5067,19002,26 5154,19101,9017
5068,19002,35 5155,19102,9017
5069,19009,35 5156,19102,9018
5070,19009,44 5157,19102,9019
5071,19009,53 5158,19107,9019
5072,19009,62 5159,19107,9020
5073,19009,71 5160,19107,9021
5074,19010,71 5161,19107,9022
5075,19010,80 5162,19107,9023
5076,19010,89 5163,19108,9023
5077,19006,19005 5164,19108,9024
5078,19005,19004 5165,19108,9025
5079,19004,19003 5166,19102,9017
5080,19003,19002 5167,19102,9026
5081,19002,19001 5168,19102,9035
5082,19002,19007 5169,19109,9035
5083,19007,19008 5170,19109,9044
5084,19002,19009 5171,19109,9053
5085,19009,19010 5172,19109,9062
5086,1,25 5173,19109,9071
5087,1,89 5174,19110,9071
5088,19006,19008 5175,19110,9080
5089,19006,19010 5176,19110,9089
5090,1,19008 5177,19106,19105
5091,1,19010 5178,19105,19104
5092,19001,25 5179,19104,19103
5093,19001,89 5180,19103,19102
5094,19001,19008 5181,19102,19101
5095,19001,19010 5182,19102,19107
*ELGEN 5183,19107,19108
5001,16,1,1,1,1,1,1 5184,19102,19109
5017, 8,1,1,1,1,1,1 5185,19109,19110
5025, 8,9,1,1,1,1,1 5186,9001,9025
*ELSET,ELSET=RIGIDLFT,GENERATE 5187,9001,9089
5001,5095,1 5188,19106,19108
*ELEMENT,TYPE=RB3D2 5189,19106,19110
5101,9001,9002 5190,9001,19108
5117,9017,9018 5191,9001,19110
5125,9017,9026 5192,19101,9025
5133,19106,9001 5193,19101,9089
5134,19106,9002 5194,19101,19108
5135,19106,9003 5195,19101,19110
5136,19105,9003 *ELGEN
5137,19105,9004 5101,16,1,1,1,1,1,1
5138,19105,9005 5117, 8,1,1,1,1,1,1
5139,19105,9006 5125, 8,9,1,1,1,1,1
5140,19105,9007 *ELSET,ELSET=RIGIDRGT,GENERATE
5141,19104,9007 5101,5195,1
5142,19104,9008 *RIGID BODY,ELSET=RIGIDLFT,
5143,19104,9009 REF NODE=19001

150
*RIGID BODY,ELSET=RIGIDRGT, 1194,1260,1
REF NODE=19101 1261,1280,1
*NFILL,NSET=WEB1 1284,1350,1
LWEB,LWWEB,20,100 1351,1370,1
*NFILL,NSET=WEB2 1374,1440,1
LWWEB,RWWEB,3,100 *ELSET,ELSET=GRUNDF,GENERATE
*NFILL,NSET=WEB3 1441,1460,1
RWWEB,RWEB,67,100 1464,1530,1
*NFILL,NSET=FLANGE11 1531,1550,1
LFLANGE1,LWFLANS1,20,100 1554,1620,1
*NFILL,NSET=FLANGE12 1621,1640,1
LWFLANS1,RWFLANS1,3,100 1644,1710,1
*NFILL,NSET=FLANGE13 1711,1730,1
RWFLANS1,RFLANGE1,67,100 1734,1800,1
*NFILL,NSET=FLANGE21 1801,1820,1
LFLANGE2,LWFLANS2,20,100 1824,1890,1
*NFILL,NSET=FLANGE22 1891,1910,1
LWFLANS2,RWFLANS2,3,100 1914,1980,1
*NFILL,NSET=FLANGE23 1981,2000,1
RWFLANS2,RFLANGE2,67,100 2004,2070,1
*ELEMENT,TYPE=S4R 2071,2090,1
1,1,101,102,2 2094,2160,1
*ELGEN 2161,2180,1
1,90,100,1,16,1,90 2184,2250,1
*ELEMENT,TYPE=S4R 2251,2270,1
1441,17,117,118,18 2274,2340,1
*ELGEN 2341,2360,1
1441,90,100,1,8,1,90 2364,2430,1
*ELEMENT,TYPE=S4R 2431,2450,1
2161,17,117,126,26 2454,2520,1
*ELGEN 2521,2540,1
2161,90,100,1,8,9,90 2544,2610,1
*ELSET,ELSET=GRUNDW,GENERATE 2611,2630,1
1,20,1 2634,2700,1
24,90,1 2701,2720,1
91,110,1 2724,2790,1
114,180,1 2791,2810,1
181,200,1 2814,2880,1
204,270,1 *ELSET,ELSET=WELDW,GENERATE
271,290,1 21,23,1
294,360,1 111,113,1
361,380,1 201,203,1
384,450,1 291,293,1
451,470,1 381,383,1
474,540,1 471,473,1
541,560,1 561,563,1
564,630,1 651,653,1
631,650,1 741,743,1
654,720,1 831,833,1
721,740,1 921,923,1
744,810,1 1011,1013,1
811,830,1 1101,1103,1
834,900,1 1191,1193,1
901,920,1 1281,1283,1
924,990,1 1371,1373,1
991,1010,1 *ELSET,ELSET=WELDF,GENERATE
1014,1080,1 1461,1463,1
1081,1100,1 1551,1553,1
1104,1170,1 1641,1643,1
1171,1190,1 1731,1733,1

151
1821,1823,1 184.316, 0.0573695
1911,1913,1 195.216, 0.0763269
2001,2003,1 202.069, 0.0951547
2091,2093,1 212.475, 0.156944
2181,2183,1 *BOUNDARY
2271,2273,1 19101,1,3
2361,2363,1 19101,6
2451,2453,1 19001,1,2
2541,2543,1 19001,6
2631,2633,1 *NSET,NSET=NPRINT
2721,2723,1 19001,19101,4517
2811,2813,1 *ELSET,ELSET=EPRINT
*SHELL SECTION,ELSET=GRUNDW, 45,46
MATERIAL=ALUMIN *RESTART,WRITE,FREQUENCY=1
6.11 ***************************
*SHELL SECTION,ELSET=GRUNDF, ***************************
MAT ERIAL=ALUMIN **
6.18 **This part was used when the
*SHELL SECTION,ELSET=WELDW, **imperfections were calculated
MATERIAL=SVETS **
6.11 *STEP
*SHELL SECTION,ELSET=WELDF, *BUCKLE
MATERIAL=SVETS 1
6.18 *CLOAD
*MATERIAL,NAME=ALUMIN 19001,3,100.
*ELASTIC *EL PRINT,ELSET=EPRINT
69343.5, 0.3 S,E
*PLASTIC *NODE PRINT,NSET=NPRINT
167.284, 0.0 U
210.598, 2.7873e-005 RF
258.65, 0.000144117 *NODE FILE,GLOBAL=YES,MODE=1
267.677, 0.000263839 U
274.804, 0.000498352 *END STEP
280.236, 0.000919319 ***************************
283.938, 0.00165304 ***************************
286.243, 0.00272998 **
289.273, 0.00565603 **This part was used when the
300.376, 0.0188048 **load carrying capacity was calculated
313.431, 0.0347786 **
323.691, 0.0512451 *IMPERFECTION,FILE=pb3550a,STEP=1
327.005, 0.0577758 1,1.0
*MATERIAL,NAME=SVETS *STEP,NLGEOM,INC=25
*ELASTIC *STATIC,RIKS
69521, 0.3 0.07,1.0,0.0,1.0,1000.,19001,3,20.
*PLASTIC *BOUNDARY,TYPE=DISPLACEMENT
67.8916, 0.0 19001,3,3,1.0
84.9616, 0.000195629 *EL PRINT,ELSET=EPRINT
90.7608, 0.000600164 S,E
96.2182, 0.0013416 *NODE PRINT,NSET =NPRINT
101.343, 0.00232524 U
105.904, 0.00348518 RF
110.264, 0.00476165 *END STEP
116.551, 0.00681665
121.429, 0.0088515 *************************************
130.342, 0.0126703 *************************************
138.263, 0.0166692 *************************************
145.496, 0.0208451
152.021, 0.0250975
157.896, 0.0294807
168.315, 0.038412

152
Second example, unique parts of the input files of a Cross-section and material data for the truss
clamped beam. The parts are taken from PB-37 with elements.
50 mm heat-affected zone.
*SOLID SECTION,ELSET=LINK,
Extra nodes used by the rigid connections at the MATERIAL=FEJK
beam-ends. 100.0
*MATERIAL,NAME=FEJK
*ELASTIC
*NODE 7.E7, 0.3
17017,0,0,1538.1 *NO TENSION
17025,0,-30,1538.1
17089,0,30,1538.1 Constraints between the end nodes of the truss
18017,0,0,-0.1 elements. Only the equations for one truss element
18025,0,-30,-0.1 are shown. Totally there were 32 truss elements.
18089,0,30,-0.1
*NGEN *EQUATION
17017,17025 2
17017,17089,9 10018,1,1.0,19103,1,-1.0
18017,18025 2
18017,18089,9 10018,2,1.0,19103,2,-1.0
2
Truss elements between the beam flanges and the 10018,5,1.0,19103,5,-1.0
rigid connections at the beam-ends. 2
10018,6,1.0,19103,6,-1.0
*ELEMENT,TYPE=T3D2,ELSET=LINK
6001,10018,17018 Boundary conditions for the rigid connections at the
6002,10019,17019 beam -ends.
6003,10020,17020
6004,10021,17021 *BOUNDARY
6005,10022,17022 19103,1,6
6006,10023,17023 19003,1,2
6007,10024,17024 19003,4,6
6008,10025,17025
6009,10026,17026 *************************************
6010,10035,17035 *************************************
6011,10044,17044 *************************************
6012,10053,17053
6013,10062,17062
6014,10071,17071
6015,10080,17080
6016,10089,17089
6017,18,18018
6018,19,18019
6019,20,18020
6020,21,18021
6021,22,18022
6022,23,18023
6023,24,18024
6024,25,18025
6025,26,18026
6026,35,18035
6027,44,18044
6028,53,18053
6029,62,18062
6030,71,18071
6031,80,18080
6032,89,18089

153
Third example, parts used when the bending
moment capacity was calculated.

**T his part was used when the

**imperfections were calculated
**
*STEP
*BUCKLE
1,1,5,50
*CLOAD
19003,5,-100.
19103,5,100.
*EL PRINT,ELSET=EPRINT
S,E
*NODE PRINT,NSET=NPRINT
U
RF
*NODE FILE,GLOBAL=YES,MODE=1
U
*END STEP
***************************
***************************
**
**This part was used when the
**bending moment capacity was calculated
**
*AMPLITUDE,NAME=KURVA
1,0.005, 2,0.01, 3,0.015, 4,0.02
5,0.025, 6,0.03, 7,0.035, 8,0.04
9,0.045, 10,0.05, 11,0.055, 12,0.06
13,0.065, 14,0.07, 15,0.075, 16,0.08
17,0.085, 18,0.09, 19,0.095, 20,0.1
21,0.11, 22,0.12, 23,0.13, 24,0.14
25,0.15, 26,0.16, 27,0.17, 28,0.18
29,0.19, 30,0.20, 31,0.21, 32,0.22
*IMPERFECTION,FILE=pb5a,STEP=1
1,0.1
*STEP,NLGEOM,INC=32
*STATIC
1.0,32.0,32.E-4,1.0
*BOUNDARY,AMPLITUDE=KURVA
19003,5,5,-1.0
19103,5,5,1.0
*EL PRINT,ELSET=EPRINT
S,E
*NODE PRINT,NSET=NPRINT
U
RF
*END STEP

154
List of Bulletins from the Department of Structural Engineering, The Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm
TRITA-BKN. Bulletin

Pacoste, C., On the Application of Catastrophe Theory to Stability Analyses of Elastic Structures.
Doctoral Thesis, 1993. Bulletin 1.

Stenmark, A-K., Dämpning av 13 m lång stålbalk − "Ullevibalken". Utprovning av dämpmassor och

fastsättning av motbalk samt experimentell bestämning av modformer och förlustfaktorer. Vibration tests of
full-scale steel girder to determine optimu m passive control. Licentiatavhandling, 1993. Bulletin 2.

Silfwerbrand, J., Renovering av asfaltgolv med cementbundna plastmodifierade avjämningsmassor. 1993.

Bulletin 3.

Norlin, B., Two-Layered Composite Beams with Nonlinear Connectors and Geometry − Tests and Theory.
Doctoral Thesis, 1993. Bulletin 4.

Habtezion, T., On the Behaviour of Equilibrium Near Critical States. Licentiate Thesis, 1993. Bulletin 5.

Krus, J., Hållfasthet hos frostnedbruten betong. Licentiatavhandling, 1993. Bulletin 6.

Wiberg, U., Material Characterization and Defect Detection by Quantitative Ultrasonics. Doctoral Thesis,
1993. Bulletin 7.

Lidström, T., Finite Element Modelling Supported by Object Oriented Methods. Licentiate Thesis, 1993.
Bulletin 8.

Hallgren, M., Flexural and Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams without Stirrups.
Licentiate Thesis, 1994. Bulletin 9.

Krus, J., Betongbalkars lastkapacitet efter miljöbelastning. 1994. Bulletin 10.

Sandahl, P., Analysis Sensitivity for Wind-related Fatigue in Lattice Structures. Licentiate Thesis, 1994.
Bulletin 11.

Sanne, L., Information Transfer Analysis and Modelling of the Structural Steel Construction Process.
Licentiate Thesis, 1994. Bulletin 12.

Zhitao, H., Influence of Web Buckling on Fatigue Life of Thin -Walled Columns. Doctoral Thesis, 1994.
Bulletin 13.

Kjörling, M., Dynamic response of railway track components. Measurements during train passage and
dynamic laboratory loading. Licentiate Thesis, 1995. Bulletin 14.

Yang, L., On Analysis Methods for Reinforced Concrete Structures. Doctoral Thesis, 1995. Bulletin 15.

Petersson, Ö., Svensk metod för dimensionering av betongvägar. Licentiatavhandling, 1996. Bulletin 16.

Lidström, T., Computational Methods for Finite Element Instability Analyses. Do ctoral Thesis, 1996.
Bulletin 17.

Krus, J., Environment- and Function-induced Degradation of Concrete Structures. Doctoral Thesis, 1996.
Bulletin 18.

Editor, Silfwerbrand, J., Structural Loadings in the 21st Century. Sven Sahlin Workshop, June 1996.
Proceedings. Bulletin 19.

155
Ansell, A., Frequency Dependent Matrices for Dynamic Analysis of Frame Type Structures. Licentiate
Thesis, 1996. Bulletin 20.

Troive, S., Optimering av åtgärder för ökad livslängd hos infrastrukturkonstruktioner. Licentiatavhandlin g,
1996. Bulletin 21.

Karoumi, R., Dynamic Response of Cable-Stayed Bridges Subjected to Moving Vehicles. Licentiate Thesis,
1996. Bulletin 22.

Hallgren, M., Punching Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Slabs. Doctoral Thesis, 1996.
Bulletin 23.

Hellgren, M., Strength of Bolt-Channel and Screw-Groove Joints in Aluminium Extrusions. Licentiate
Thesis, 1996. Bulletin 24.

Yagi, T., Wind-induced Instabilities of Structures. Doctoral Thesis, 1997.

Bulletin 25.

Eriksson, A., and Sandberg, G., (editors), Engineering Structures and Extreme Events − proceedings from a
symposium, May 1997. Bulletin 26.

Paulsson, J., Effects of Repairs on the Remaining Life of Concrete Bridge Decks. Licentiate Thesis, 1997.
Bulletin 27.

Olsson, A., Object-oriented finite element algorithms. Licentiate Thesis, 1997. Bulletin 28.

Yunhua, L., On Shear Locking in Finite Elements. Licentiate Thesis, 1997. Bulletin 29.

Ekman, M., Sprickor i betongkonstruktioner och dess inverkan på beständigheten. Licentiate Thesis, 1997.
Bulletin 30.

Karawajczyk, E., Finite Element Approach to the Mechanics of Track-Deck Systems. Licentiate Thesis,
1997. Bulletin 31.

Fransson, H., Rotation Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams. Licentiate Thesis, 1997.
Bulletin 32.

Edlund, S., Arbitrary Thin -Walled Cross Sections. Theory and Computer Implementation. Licentiate
Thesis, 1997. Bulletin 33.

Forsell, K., Dynamic analyses of static instability phenomena. Licentiate Thesis, 1997. Bulletin 34.

Ikäheimonen, J., Construction Loads on Shores and Stability of Horizontal Formworks. Doctoral Thesis,
1997. Bulletin 35.

Racutanu, G., Konstbyggnaders reella livslängd. Licentiatavhandling, 1997. Bulletin 36.

Appelqvist, I., Sammanbyggnad. Datastrukturer och utveckling av ett IT-stöd för byggprocessen.
Licentiatavhandling, 1997. Bulletin 37.

Alavizadeh-Farhang, A., Plain and Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined
Mechanical and Thermal Loading. Licentiate Thesis, 1998. Bulletin 38.

Eriksson, A. and Pacoste, C., (editors), Proceedings of the NSCM-11: Nordic Seminar on Computational
Mechanics, October 1998. Bulletin 39.

Luo, Y., On some Finite Element Formulations in Structural Mechanics. Doctoral Thesis, 1998.
Bulletin 40.

Troive, S., Structural LCC Design of Concrete Bridges. Doctoral Thesis, 1998. Bulletin 41.

156
Tärno, I., Effects of Contour Ellipticity upon Structural Behaviour of Hyparform Suspended Roofs.
Licentiate Thesis, 1998. Bulletin 42.

Hassanzadeh, G., Betongplattor på pelare. Förstärkningsmetoder och dimensioneringsmetoder för plattor

med icke vidhäftande spännarmering. Licentiatavhandling, 1998. Bulletin 43.

Karoumi, R., Response of Cable -Stayed and Suspension Bridges to Moving Vehicles. Analysis methods
and practical modeling techniques. Doctoral Thesis, 1998. Bulletin 44.

Johnson, R., Progression of the Dynamic Properties of Large Suspension Bridges during Construction
− A Case Study of the Höga Kusten Bridge. Licentiate Thesis, 1999. Bulletin 45.

Tibert, G., Numerical Analyses of Cable Roof Structures. Licentiate Thesis, 1999. Bulletin 46.

Ahlenius, E., Explosionslaster och infrastrukturkonstruktioner - Risker, värderingar och kostnader.

Licentiatavhandling, 1999. Bulletin 47.

Battini, J-M., Plastic instability of plane frames using a co-rotational approach. Licentiate Thesis, 1999.
Bulletin 48.

Ay, L., Using Steel Fiber Reinforced High Performance Concrete in the Industrialization of Bridge
Structures. Licentiate Thesis, 1999. Bulletin 49.

Paulsson-Tralla, J., Service Life of Repaired Concrete Bridge Decks. Doctoral Thesis, 1999. Bulletin 50.

Billberg, P., Some rheology aspects on fine mortar part of concrete. Licentiate Thesis, 1999. Bulletin 51.

Ansell, A., Dynamically Loaded Rock Reinforcement. Doctoral Thesis, 1999. Bulletin 52.

Forsell, K., Instability analyses of structures under dynamic loads. Doctoral Thesis, 2000. Bulletin 53.

Edlund, S., Buckling of T-Section Beam-Columns in Aluminium with or without Transverse Welds.
Doctoral Thesis, 2000. Bulletin 54.

The bulletins enumerated above, with the exception for those which are out of print, may be purchased
from the Department of Structural Engineering, The Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm,
Sweden.

The department also publishes other series. For full information see our homepage
http://www.struct.kth.se

157
158