www.springer.com/journal/13296
Abstract
A study has been undertaken to evaluate the similarities and differences between the steel building design specifications used
in the United States and Europe. Expressions for nominal strength presented in the AISC-360 Specification and the Eurocode
3 Specification were compared for fundamental limit states. In particular, rules for cross-section classification, tension members,
compression members, I-shaped members subjected to flexure, I-shaped members subjected to shear, and fasteners were
studied. Results of the investigation revealed that, in general, both specifications provide nominal capacities that are close to
each other. Significant differences were reported for some limit states such as flexure in I-shaped members with non-compact
flanges, shear and lateral torsional buckling in I-shaped members, and bearing strength at bolt holes. In this paper, the details
of the comparative study are presented along with observations that are useful for practicing engineers.
Keywords: steel, specification, strength, limit state, building
1. Introduction
Nowadays design, fabrication, and erection of steel
structures may take place at different locations as a result
of rapid globalization. Owners may require the use of
widely accepted steel design codes regardless of the
location where the structure is going to be built.
Engineers are now faced with the challenge of being
competent with several design specifications for a
particular material type. Two of the widely used steel
design specifications for buildings are the American and
the European ones.
In the United States, Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings (2005) was developed by the American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). This specification,
hereafter referred to as the AISC-360 Specification,
utilizes both Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
and Allowable Strength Design (ASD) formats. In
general, limit states that govern the design under a
particular loading are given by the AISC-360 Specification
and the nominal strength based on these limit states is
either used in the LRFD or the ASD format. In the LRFD
Note.-Discussion open until August 1, 2011. This manuscript for this
paper was submitted for review and possible publication on March
25, 2010; approved on November 16, 2010.
KSSC and Springer 2011
*Corresponding author
Tel: +90-312-210 5462; Fax: +90-312-210 7991
E-mail: ctopkaya@metu.edu.tr
14
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
3. Materials
4. Classification of Cross-sections
Both specifications provide cross section classifications
for local buckling. In the AISC-360 Specification crosssections are classified as compact, non-compact, and slender.
In addition to the AISC-360 Specification requirements,
the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
(2005) (AISC-341) has an additional classification named
as seismically compact. On the other hand, in the EC3
Specification sections are classified as Class 1 through
Class 4.
(1)
15
16
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
(2)
AgFy KL Fy
FB = ---------- = ------- ----Pcr r E
(3)
= 0.658
FB
0.877
- FB > 1.5
FB 1.5 = -----------2
FB
(AISC-360)
(4)
1
2
= ------------------------------- = 0.5[ 1 + (FB 0.2) + FB]
2
2
+ FB
(EC3)
compression.
(5)
(6)
17
M M
pw
M
Mn = ------p- ------p- 1 ------------------
My My
rw pw y
where My=SxFy (AISC-360)
Mn=SxFy (EC3)
(7)
aw
h
E- 1.0
----- 5.7 ---where Rpg= 1 -----------------------------
F y
1200 + 300aw tw
ht
aw = ------wbf tf
(8)
p 0.055(3 + )
- for p > 0.673
= ------------------------------------2
p
18
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
h tw
235
- = -------------------------p = --------------------F
(
in
MPa)
28.4 k
y
=1 and k=23.9 for doubly symmetric sections under
pure bending
(9)
According to the effective cross section shown in Fig.
3b, 40 percent of the effective compression area is
adjacent to the compression flange, and the remaining 60
percent is adjacent to the elastic neutral axis of the cross
section. Calculation of the effective section properties
requires finding the location of the elastic neutral axis.
From equilibrium of stress resultants, the following
equation was derived to find the depth of the web under
compression (bc):
2
[0.4tw+0.12tw0.5tw] bc +[2Af+htw]bc[Afh+0.5h2tw]=0
(10)
Depending on the geometrical properties, the second
order equation can be solved for bc. After determining the
value of bc the effective inertia (Ieff) and the effective
section modulus (Seff=Ieff/bc) can be found. The nominal
moment capacity is calculated as follows:
Mn=SeffFy (EC3)
(11)
pf
Mn = Mp (Mp 0.7FySx) --------------rf pf
(AISC-360)
Mn=SxFy (EC3)
(12)
0.9EkcSx
4
Mn = -------------------where kc = ------------- and 0.35 kc 0.76
2
h tw
(13)
In the EC3 Specification, the post-buckling reserve
strength approach is utilized. An effective cross-section
shown in Fig. 3c is considered for this purpose. In this
effective cross section, the outstanding portions of the
compression flange are assumed to be ineffective. The
nominal moment capacity for sections with Class 4
flanges is determined using the elastic section modulus
(Seff) of the effective cross section shown in Fig. 3c. The
effective area of the compression flange and the nominal
moment capacity are determined as follows:
Ac,eff=befftf=bftf
=1.0 for p 0.748
p 0.188
= ---------------------for p > 0.748
2
p
bf t f
235 - = -------------------------p = --------------------F
(
in
MPa)
28.4 k
y
k=0.43 for flanges under uniform compression
Mn=SeffFy
(14)
19
Lb Lp
Mp
Mn = Cb Mp (Mp 0.7SxFy)-------------Lr Lp
when Lp < Lb Lr
2
Lb 2
Cb E
J - ---- 1 + 0.078--------Mn = Mcr = Sx-------------2
Sxho rts
L
----b-
rts
20
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
when Lb > Lr
E
Lp = 1.76ry ----Fy
0.7Fy Sxho 2
E - --------J - 1 + 1 + 6.76 -----------Lr = 1.95rts----------- E ---------0.7Fy Sxho
J
Iy Cw
2
rts = ------------Sx
Mn = LTMp = LTZFy
The reduction factor (LT) is defined as:
(15)
1
1LT = ------------------------------------------ but LT 1.0 LT ------2
2
2
LT
LT + LT LT
(16)
21
(17)
22
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
h F
= ---- -------ytw kv E
(18)
Fy Aw Cv
- (EC3)
Vn = ----------------3
(19)
h F
For ---- -------y- 1.10 Cv=1 (AISC-360 and EC3)
tw kv E
1.10
h F
For 1.10 < ---- -------y- 1.37 Cv = ---------------- (AISC-360 and EC3)
tw kv E
h F
---- -------ytw kv E
1.51
h F
For ---- -------y- > 1.37 Cv = -----------------------2 (AISC-360)
tw kv E
h Fy
--- ------- tw kvE
1.10
Cv = ---------------- (EC3-NREP)
h F
---- -------ytw k v E
1.37
Cv = -------------------------------------------- (EC3-REP)
Fy
h ------0.7 + 0.78--tw kvE
(20)
Note that Cv factor is dependent on the plate buckling
coefficient, kv, which is calculated as follows:
5.0
kv = 5.0 + -------------2- (AISC-360)
(a h)
2
(21)
1 Cv
Vn = 0.6FyAwCv + ----------------------------------
2
1.15 1 + (a h)
23
Rn = 0.6FEXXte (AISC-360)
(22)
Fu
-te (EC3)
Rn = -----------3w
(23)
24
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
MPa (70 ksi), Fu=600 MPa (87 ksi)), 8.8 (Fy=640 MPa
(93 ksi), Fu=800 MPa (116 ksi)), and 10.9 (Fy=900 MPa
(131 ksi), Fu=1000 MPa (145 ksi)). It is apparent that the
high-strength bolts A325 and 8.8 have identical strength
properties while A490 and 10.9 possess the same
strengths.
According to the AISC-360 Specification provisions
the center-to-center distance between the bolt holes
should be 2.7do (3do preferred) where do is the diameter
of the bolt. A value of 2.2do and 2.4do is recommended in
the EC3 Specification for the distance between bolts that
are parallel and perpendicular to the application of the
load, respectively. The minimum edge distance is determined
based on the manufacturing process in the AISC-360
Specification. This distance should be at least 1.75do and
1.25do for plates with sheared and rolled edges,
respectively. In the EC3 Specification a minimum edge
distance of 1.2do is recommended irrespective of the
manufacturing process.
According to the AISC-360 Specification all A325 and
A490 bolts should be pre-tensioned unless the bolts are
installed to the snug-tight condition which is permitted
for the bearing-type connections and for some applications
where loosening or fatigue due to vibration or load
fluctuations are not design considerations. The slip critical
connections can be designed based on a different criterion.
These connections are designed to prevent slip either as a
serviceability limit state or at the required strength limit
state. Similarly the EC3 Specification presents design
categories for the bolted connections. Design category
A is for bearing-type connections under shear where
the aforementioned bolt types can be utilized without pretension. Design categories B and C are for slip
critical connections under shear, utilizing 8.8 or 10.9
bolts, and are designed for serviceability and strength
limit state, respectively. Design categories D and E
are for bolts under tension designed using no-pretension
and with pre-tension, respectively.
(24)
Lj 15do
- 0.75 LF 1
LF = 1 -----------------200do
(25)
Tu V u
-------------------+ ------------- 1 (EC3)
1.4Tn M Vn M
R b = k 1 d Fu d o t
(26)
(27)
25
(28)
p1 1
e1
- --- 1
- 1 for inner bolts d = ------for end bolts d = ------3do 4
3do
in the direction perpendicular to load transfer
e
for edge bolts k1 = 2.8----2- 1.7 2.5
do
p
for inner bolts k1 = 1.4----2- 1.7 2.5
do
(29)
26
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
References
AISC 360-05 (2005). Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
AISC 341-05 (2005). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
AWS D1.1/D1.1M (2004). Structural Welding Code-Steel.
American Welding Society.
ECCS (1986). Behavior and Design of Steel Plated
Structures. European Convention for Constructional
Steelwork, Publication No. 44, Brussels.
ECCS (2006). Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1:
Background Documentation and Design Guidelines.
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork,
Publication No. 119, Brussels.
ECCS (2007). Commentary and Worked Examples to EN
1993-1-5 - Plated Structural Elements. European
Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Publication
No. 200, Brussels.
EN 1990 (2001). Eurocode-Basis of Structural Design.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
EN 1993-1-1 (2003). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures
- Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
EN 1993-1-5 (2004). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures
- Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements. European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
EN 1993-1-8 (2003). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures
- Part 1-8: Design of Joints. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels.
EN 10025 (1994). Hot Rolled Products of Non-alloy
Structural Steel. European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
Galambos, T.V. (1988). Guide to Stability Design Criteria
for Metal Structures, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
USA.
Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. A. (2005) Designers Guide to
EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures.
Thomas Telford Publishing, London, UK.
ISO 898-1 (1999). Mechanical Properties of Fasteners
Made of Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel Part 1: Bolts,
screws and studs. International Standardization
Organization.
RCSC (2004). Specification for Structural Joints Using
ASTM A325 and A490 Bolts. Research Council on
Structural Connections, Chicago, IL.
List of Symbols
Ab: nominal unthreaded body area of bolt
Ac: area in compression
Ac,eff: effective cross sectional area
Af: area of flange
Ag: gross area of member
An: net area of member
As:
Aw:
Cb:
Cv:
Cw:
Du:
tf:
tw:
:
LT:
:
LF:
w:
:
FB:
LT:
LT,0:
pf:
pw:
rf:
rw:
:
LT:
:
:
M:
:
27
thickness of flange
thickness of the web
imperfection factor
imperfection factor for lateral torsional buckling
a constant used for lateral torsional buckling
a reduction factor for bolted long connections
a constant used for fillet welds
slenderness parameter
non-dimensional slenderness for flexural buckling
non-dimensional slenderness for lateral torsional
buckling
non-dimensional constant for lateral torsional
buckling
limiting slenderness parameter for compact flange
limiting slenderness parameter for compact web
limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact
flange
limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact
web
reduction factor for relevant buckling mode
reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling
reduction factor for effective area
resistance factor
partial safety factor
mean slip coefficient