Consteel recommends to use the General Method from EN 1993-1-1 for the evaluation of out-of-plane strength of members and sturctures. In addition, the scaled imperfection based 2nd order approach is available.

Did you know, that when linear buckling eigenform affine imperfections are used, Consteel can scale automatically the selected eigenmodes to perform a Eurocode compatible design? And you can even combine several imperfections?

Download the example model and try it!

Bending:

Copmression:

If you haven’t tried Consteel yet, request a trial for free!

Part 2 – Imperfection factors

The Eurocode EN 1993-1-1 offers basically two methods for the buckling verification of members:

(1) based on buckling reduction factors (buckling curves) and

(2) based on equivalent geometrical imperfections.

In the first part of this article, we reviewed the utilization difference and showed the relationship between the two methods. It was concluded that the method of chapters 6.3.1 (reduction factor) and 5.3.2 (11) (buckling mode based equivalent imperfection) are consistent at the load level equal to the buckling resistance of the member, so when the member utilization is 100%. The basic result of the procedure in 5.3.2 (11) is the amplitude (largest deflection value) of the equivalent geometrical imperfection. However, the Eurocode gives another simpler alternative for the calculation of this amplitude for compressed members in section 5.3.2(3) b) in Table 5.1, where the amplitude of an initial bow is defined as a portion of the member length for each buckling curves (Fig. 1.). We use the first column (“elastic analysis”) including smaller amplitude values.

It is an obvious expectation that these two standard procedures should yield at least similar results for the same problem. However, this is by far not the case in general.

In order to show the significance of the imperfection amplitudes this part is dealing with these two calculation methods, the variation of their values and the effect on the buckling utilization.

Let’s see again the simple example of Part 1: a simply supported, compressed column with a Class 2 cross-section (plastic resistance calculation allowed). The column is 6 meters high and has an IPE300 cross-section made of S235 steel. The two methods are implemented into Consteel and on Figure 2. it can be seen, that the two values for the amplitude of the geometrical imperfection is very different – e₀ = 24 mm by the 5.3.2(3) b) Table 5.1 (L/250) and e₀ = 13,4 mm by the 5.3.2 (11) (same as in Part 1).

Click the button bellow to download and read the full article at page 187-195.

In this paper a numerical study is presented which examines a steel frame with two different finite element programs. Stability failure is more frequent in a lot of cases than strength failure hence it is important to focus on these failure modes: global, in-plane-, out-of-plane -, lateral-torsional- and local buckling. Three models were used with different elements such as shell elements and 7 DOF beam elements. 7 DOF beam elements were used in the first model, shell elements were used in the other two. The first of the shell models gave too much local buckling shapes therefore it was improved with local constraints and that is the third model where global buckling shapes can be examined. There are three different procedures to calculate the resistance: (i) the general method, (ii) the method of the reduction factors, and (iii) the simulation. The analysis results of the different programs and design methods were compared to each other and to the manual calculation based on the Eurocode 3 standards.