Design Charts for Flexural and Lateral

Torsional Buckling according to

DIN 18800 or Eurocode 3

Dr. G. Salzgeber
Institute for Steel, Timber & Shell Structures
TU Graz, Austria

1 Introduction
The new design checks for member stability in accordance to the EC 3 as well as DIN 18800
are more general and more complicated than former formulae. So it seems to be necessary to
make them more userfriendly in their use. Therefore a series of design charts were developed
to give a better understanding how the design formulae are working. Some charts are a
graphical representation of the given code checking formulae i.e. for the flexural buckling,
others e.g. for lateral torsional buckling are approximations due to simplifications. Furtheron
different constants – needed in the lateral torsional buckling check for more general loading
conditions – had been established by performing eigenvalue calculations with the program
ABAQUS. The given charts should simplify the member checks performed by hand–
calculation.
In the following the stability checks – flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling – are
presented in principle in their code format. Afterwards the developed design charts are
discussed. Finally the design process performed with the charts is presented in comparison to
the code procedure.
The list of contents includes
• Flexural buckling according to DIN 18800 / EC 3
• Design charts for flexural buckling
• Lateral torsional buckling according to DIN 18800 / EC 3
• Design charts for lateral torsional buckling
• Examples

1
 flexural
buckling

lateral
torsional
buckling

2 Flexural Buckling according to DIN 18800 / EC 3

2.1 Design concept in the codes
The design formula for flexural buckling (Fig. 1) is written as an interaction between axial part
and both bending parts. Each of them is related to the plastic resistance and the moments are
calibrated with an interaction factor k. In an elastic design the plastic section resistances have
to be replaced by the elastic section resistances.
The axial part is representing the flexural buckling due to pure axial force amplified by the
reduction factor κ corresponding to the relevant buckling mode (e.g. minor axis). The
reduction factor in the code has been carried out by tests and nonlinear studies including
geometrical imperfections and initial stress conditions. The bending parts (stresses) are
amplified by a corresponding interaction factor k. This factor determines the shape of the
interaction curves (N–M).
In the present codes the interaction factor k is a function of the
• actual axial force in respect to reduced section resistance for the buckling mode in
correspondence to the bending direction.
• non-dimensional slenderness λ,
• moment distribution along the member axis and
• in the plastic case the difference of (overhang) plastic section modulus to the
elastic section modulus.

2
The parameters of the reduction factor κ are the
• non-dimensional slenderness λ and
• an imperfection (curve) parameter α - expressing the sensitivity against buckling
and the existing initial stress conditions of the chosen section type.
In the DIN 18800 the flexural buckling check for uni-axial bending is splitted up into two
parts. In in-plane buckling using the reduction factor κ related for the buckling mode in the
bending direction. In the buckling check out–of–plane (perpendicular direction) buckling only
the axial force is considered in the check. In comparison the EC 3 is using the minimum value
of the possible buckling modes as a conservative approach.
The design formula can be written in a different format which is very close to that we had in
former german code (DIN 4114) and in austria (B4600) up to now. For the case of uni-axial
bending the former design formulae are given in the presentation (Fig. 1). Instead of the
reduction factor κ reduced allowable stresses or an amplification factor ω has been used. The
interaction factor k is given by a fixed value by 0.9 which is widely on the unconservative side
in respect to the actual standards. This factor k is rising up to 1.5.
For each material one design chart is necessary to perform the flexural buckling check in
practical cases. For general loading conditions (moment distributions) a further diagram is
useful to determine the uniform moment factor βM. The design chart for flexural buckling will
be discussed using the steel grade 37 in accordance to the DIN 18800. Afterwards a chart
presents the uniformed moment factor is presented.

2.2 Design chart – Flexural Buckling according to DIN 18800 (ST 37)
Representative for the flexural buckling a design chart (Fig. 2) valid for the steel grade 37 with
a yield strength of 240 MPa (corresponding to the classification S235 in the EN 10025) will be
discussed in more detail. Identical charts are given for the steel grade 52 (S355) in accordance
to DIN 18800 (Fig. 3) as well as in accordance to EC 3 (Fig. 4, 5) using the specific material
definition. The charts can be used in uni-axial case as well as in the bi-axial case.
For the uni-axial bending case this formula is given in a slightly modified written format - so
the limit is given by the design value of yield stress fyd (related to the material safety factor γM).
• the reduction factor κ is given as a function of the slenderness and the imperfection
factor α (curve). For practitioner the slenderness is more common than the non–
dimensional slenderness. Therefore a different table (on the left hand side) with the
reduction values for each material is necessary.
• For simple moment cases the equivalent uniform moment factor βM is given on the
right side of the chart.
• For typical rolled cross sections the assign to the relevant buckling curve for in-
plane and out-of-plane buckling is given in the table.
• The formulae in the code determine the interaction factor k are straight lines. In
order to get the value the slenderness and a parameter p are needed. The parameter
is a function of the actual stress caused by axial force amplified by the reduction
factor and equivalent uniformed moment factor βM. For βM greater than 2.0 the
moment part will be reduced, otherwise (in most cases) increased. In plastic design
the interaction factor can be reduced by a factor including the plasticity of the
section (simplified about the strong axis by 14%). The interaction parameter ky is
limited on the lower side by an amount corresponding to the existing of the axial
force and on upper side by 1.5.

3
2.3 Equivalent uniform moment factor βM
In general cases of moment distributions the equivalent moment factor βM (Fig. 6) can be
determined in a simple way. Input parameters are the ratio between both hogging moments (ψ)
and the (sagging) moment due to lateral load only (simple beam). With these parameters the
βM–value can be established with the chart.
Single load and distributed load are covered.

3 Lateral Torsional Buckling acc. to DIN 18800 / EC 3

3.1 Design concept in the codes
The check for lateral torsional buckling is in principal similar to flexural buckling check as
shown in the formulae in Fig. 7. The buckling about the weak axis is relevant for the axial force
only. Moments about the major axis are multiplied by an interaction factor kLT. Furthermore
the moment part is amplified by a reduction factor κLT for lateral torsional buckling due to pure
bending. In EC 3 for hot rolled sections the buckling curve a has to be used. In DIN 18800
additional more economic curves are specified.
In order to calculate the non-dimensional slenderness the critical moment is needed, wherein a
series of section parameters are necessary. Furthermore, for double symmetric sections two
constants – C1 and C2 – dependant on the loading and support conditions are needed. These
constants are functions of moment distribution along the axis of the member. C2 additionally
includes the load acting on the cross section e.g. on the upper flange. In simple cases these
values are given in the codes.
The formula for the critical moment allows to split up the calculation in three parts.
• Flexural buckling of the member about minor axis (similar to buckling of flange in
compression)
• in a factor dependent on the profile – including the effect of load action, torsion
and warping in respect to the beam slenderness
• and the effect of moment distribution along the member (C1–factor).
As a further simplification the slenderness in lateral torsional buckling case can calculated
directly instead of the critical moment. To do the check correct it is important that a fork
bearing must fix the member in lateral and torsional direction.

In Austria a very simple check for lateral torsional buckling was used by checking the flexural
buckling of the flange in compression. So the effect of torsion was neglected in general. The
new design format is quite different than the engineers are accustomed to. In order to give a
better understanding to the engineer and to cover a wider field of applications a set of design
charts were developed useable for the widely used double symmetric I–section.

3.2 Design chart (1) – Lateral Torsional Buckling acc. to DIN 18800 / EC 3
In uni-axial bending case the design formula is given on the top of Fig. 8. Bending about weak
axis can be added as in case of flexural buckling check. As a simplification the calculation in
two steps, first the critical moment and in the second step the corresponding nondimensional
slenderness has been brought together. The slenderness for lateral torsional buckling can be
determined as a modified slenderness for flexural buckling about the minor axis by a factor for
the torsional rigidity (kp–factor) and a factor depending on the moment distribution (kc–
factor).

4
First the slenderness about the weak axis determined due to fork bearings (flange buckling) has
to be calculated. Further the effect of warping and torsion can be included in a simplified form
for I sections by the factor kp. This can be done in a good accuracy by the ratio of beam height
over flange thickness. In respect to slenderness and effect of load application point the factor kp
can be determined due to the graphic which is a generalization based on the formulae in the
annex F in EC 3. The value kp is given for plastic design of rolled sections. The value fits with
good accuracy compared with exact formulae. In case of elastic design it is possible to reduce
it by 5%. For welded sections an increase by 5% in respect to the rolled sections is necessary in
order to be not unsafe.
The slenderness can be reduced by a factor kc, which includes moment distribution. (kc is the
inverse of the square root of the constant C1 in EC 3). For simple cases the factor is given in the
table. General moment cases the constants kc and C2 are shown afterwards in Fig. 10 and
Fig. 11.

3.3 Design chart (2) – Lateral Torsional Buckling acc. to DIN 18800 / EC 3
In order to complete the design check the reduction factor κLT for lateral torsional buckling is
needed. In the table in Fig. 9 values according to DIN 18800 are listed. Rolled sections can be
calculated with the parameter n = 2.5. In cases of nearly uniformed moments n has to be
reduced by 20%. In EC 3 the curve a for rolled sections and curve c for welded sections has to
be taken.
The interaction parameter kM is given in a simplified form in this chart. The maximum is given
with 1.0. In some cases the factor can decrease down to 15%, what means, that axial force and
bending moment have less interaction. There are small deviations to the code formula. As
parameter in the diagram an amplified (increased) stress due to axial force multiplied by the
equivalent uniform moment distribution factor βM (see Fig. 6) is used.
The design check in simple cases can be performed. For more complex cases of loading and
support conditions further charts are necessary.

3.4 Moment distribution along the member: kc–values for I–sections

The charts in Fig. 10 are carried out by a series of eigenvalue calculations done by ABAQUS.
Charts for different ratios between both values of hogging bending with varying moment
distributions along the axis are worked out (ψ = 1.0, 0.0, –1.0).
As additional parameter α the sagging moment in respect to hogging moment or inverse of the
ratio is necessary. Some of the curves using the sagging moment in the half of the beam, others
are worked out with the maximum value were the maximum value is used in the check.
In case of restrained upper flange a conservative approach neglecting additional reductions due
to torsional rigidity is given in relevant cases. The amount of the decrease of the buckling
slenderness for simply supported beams depends directly from the compressed zones and
therefore on the buckling shape. The explanation of the diagrams are indicated for beams
principally loaded on the upper side, whenever the distribution is relevant only. By small icons
the shape of acting moments are given in the charts.
• Less (Small) reduction results if the upper flange is in pure compression and
therefore it is relevant in failure mode (e.g. curves 1 and 2).
• In the right lower area (e.g. curves 3 and 4) the lower flange is under compression
wherein larger reductions occur, because in the middle lower compression stresses
are given than at the supports.

5
 • In the left lower area a mixed failure mode of upper and lower flange is given. The
failure mode is influenced by the upper flange (compression in the middle of the
beam) so the reduction of the slenderness is moderate. If the upper flange is
laterally restraint high reductions of the buckling slenderness occur.

3.5 Effect of load application – C2-values for I–sections

Similar to the foregoing diagrams the constant C2 (Fig. 11) – including the effect of load
eccentricity in vertical direction – has been worked out performed by eigenvalue calculations.
The same shape parameter are used as above in Fig. 10.
In some areas different values for C2 result, depending on whether the loads applied on the
upper flange or applied on lower flange, which is indicated by u (upper flange) and l (lower
flange) in the diagrams. A high value of C2 means a high influence of loads on the critical
buckling moment as well as on the buckling length. In case of upper flange action a reduction
of the critical moment and which means an increase of the slenderness in buckling case is
caused. The values given in EC 3 are pointed out in the diagrams. In one case, i.e. concentrated
load on a beam with built in support conditions, is a serious difference.

3.6 Torsional Buckling due to axial force

In a structure with laterally restrained member axis instead of flexural buckling about minor
axis torsional buckling due to axial force is relevant. On the basis of the theoretical formulae
(Fig. 12) a chart needing the most important section parameter had been established. In
principal a series of parameters are important in this case, so a rough approximation is possible
only. Beside of the parameter slenderness related to the height over flange thickness as an
additional parameter the ratio of the breadth over height of the section is necessary. Differences
up to 15% on the conservative side are given in some cases. If the restrained axis is located in
the centre of gravity or as second case the restraint is located at the flange the reduction of the
torsional buckling in respect to the flexural buckling is given.
For welded sections the factor kD has to be increased by an amount of 5%.
Below the theoretical formulae are given for the torsional buckling case.

6
4 Examples
By the following design examples the usage and the accuracy of the present design charts is
worked out.

4.1 Continuous Beam

The first example is a continuous beam with two spans. Loading and relevant cross section data
are given. As material the steel grade 37 is used. In this example due to the grillage structure
the effect of load applied on upper flange will be neglected.
Two loadcases have to be taken under consideration. Loadcase 1 is full loading on both spans
and loadcase 2 the variable load is acting in the left span only.
Performing the design check for lateral torsional buckling first the slenderness about the minor
axis (ratio length over radius of gyration) has to be determined. By the ratio of height over
flange thickness in the chart the reduction of the slenderness for lateral torsional buckling can
be carried out as it is shown on the following pages.
⇒ At the intersection point of the given value (λz/(b/t) = 8,0) with the curve 0 (load acting
in shear centre) the reduction factor due to torsional rigidity can be determined by 0.63.
⇒ The reduction (kc) due to moment distribution given in loadcase 1 getting out using
curve 8. Therefore the ratio of the sagging moment in half of the span to the hogging
moment is needed. There is no lateral restrain at the upper flange so the reduction is
given about 2/3.
⇒ With these factors the slenderness about lateral torsional buckling under pure bending
can be calculated. With n = 2.5 a reduction occurs from Fig. 9 by linear interpolation
with 0.92. The design check for loadcase 1 gives an utilization factor of 0.96.
For loadcase 2 the procedure is in principle the same. A separate check for each span has to be
done.
If the check has to be done on the basis of DIN 18800 as well as EC 3 the difficulty arises, that
no value C1 is given in the code for present moment cases. Further literature is necessary. For
instance in Petersen the critical moment can be established by an interpolation between
different charts. There are slight differences resulting in the reduction factor κ in respect to the
present charts.
If the kc-factor of the chart (Fig. 10) is used to determine the constant C1 with the square of the
inverse the critical moment can be calculated. Nearly the same reduction factor κM is resulting.
Neglecting the positive effect due to the moment distribution (because of the lack of
information in the codes) and setting C1 = 1.0 on the conservative side the reduction factor κM
reach only 2/3 of the correct factor.
In present example the simplified check by the design charts fits well to the check using the full
code formulae.

4.2 Column of a Frame

The second example deals with the different buckling checks for a column of a plane frame.
For in–plane bending the columns act as cantilevers. Out of plane buckling is prevented by
restraints on the outer flange of the IPE section due to existing claddings. The internal forces
and moments cross section data are given in the figure.
First the design check for flexural buckling with the design charts is performed. For flexural
buckling about the major axis the moment will be approximated by a linearized shape. The

7
slenderness occurs from Euler case I with a relevant buckling length of 10[m].
⇒ For this section flexural buckling about major axis curve a has to be taken for IPE
sections and results in a reduction factor of 80%. The amplified stress gets nearly 5.0.
With βM = 1.4 for a triangle moment distribution of the ‘doubled simple beam’ a
parameter p = –3.0 is leading. So the interaction factor ky gets a value of 1.22 in the
elastic case. Using the plastic design check the interaction factor decreases by 3%.
The flexural buckling design check about the major axis leads to an utilization factor of 78%.
In comparison the design check according to DIN 18800 is worked out below. With the non–
dimensional slenderness λ and an imperfection parameter corresponding to curve a the
reduction factor κy can be determined. The same value is leading as above. Including the
plastic section parameter a slight different interaction factor is resulting due to the fact that the
plastic section modulus is 13% higher than the elastic one and in the design charts generally an
amount 14% has been assumed. The utilization factors in the buckling checks are the same in
both cases.
The design check for lateral torsional buckling is done first neglecting the lateral restraint on
the outer flange.
⇒ With the buckling slenderness about minor axis – determined due to the fork bearings –
the resulting reduction factor is about κz = 1/3. With the ratio of height over flange
thickness a profile factor (torsional rigidity) is resulting by kp = 0.74.
⇒ A further reduction due to the moment distribution is possible. With ψ = 0 a moment
factor βM = 1.74 is leading. Therefore an additional reduction by kc = 0.69 is given. With
a buckling slenderness for lateral torsional buckling with 72 the reduction factor κΜ
results to 90%.
⇒ The interaction factor between axial force and bending moment can be determined by the
chart to kM = 0.86. This leads to an utilization factor of about 99%

Nearly the same values are given using the code formulae. Small differences in the check by
the formulae in DIN 18800 were leading due to an approximation of moment distribution
(C1=1.77).
Including the restraining effect due to the claddings the axial part a reduction of the flexural
slenderness results in a buckling length of 109. Performing the lateral torsional buckling check
an utilization factor of 0.87 is carried out.
Doing the check by the formulae shows that the correct torsional buckling length given by the
formulae is 103 therefore slight differences in the design check occur.

5 References
EC 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1.1; General rules and rules for buildings, 1992
DIN 18800 Teil2, Stahlbauten, Stabilitätsfälle, Knicken von Stäben und Stabwerken, 1990
Petersen Chr., Statik und Stabilität der Baukonstruktionen, 2. Auflage, 1982, Vieweg
Greiner R., Unterweger H., Salzgeber G., Bemessungsbehelfe für Biegeknicken und Bieg-
drillknicken nach DIN 18800 bzw. Eurocode 3, Stahlbau 66 (1997) Heft 9, Seiten 606 – 616
ABAQUS Standard 5.7, Users Manual, Hibitt, Karlson & Sorenson, Inc. 1997

8
Fig. 1: FLEXURAL BUCKLING CHECK
according to DIN 18000 / EC 3
plastic design:
N Sd ky ⋅ M kz ⋅ M
y, Sd z, Sd
-------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------- ≤ 1.0
κ min ⋅ A ⋅ f y ⁄ γ M1 W pl, y ⋅ f y ⁄ γ M1 W pl, z ⋅ f y ⁄ γ M1

µ y ⋅ N Sd
k y = 1 – ----------------------- ≤ 1.5
κy ⋅ A ⋅ fy
W pl, y – W el, y
µ y = λ y ⋅ ( 2β My – 4 ) + ---------------------------------- ≤ 0.80 ( 0.90 )
W el, y
MQ
β M = β M, ψ + --------- ⋅ ( β M, Q – β M, ψ )
∆M
EC 3 λ 1 = 93.9ε
N pl λ λ 24.0
λ = - = ------ = --------------
------- ε = -----------
N cr λ1 92.9ε fy ε =
23.5
-----------
fy

1 curve α
κ = ------------------------------- ≤ 1.0
2 2
φ+ φ –λ a 0.21
2
b 0.34
φ = 0.5 ⋅ [ 1 + α ⋅ ( λ – 0.2 ) + λ ] c 0.49
d 0.76

case of UNIAXIAL BENDING – Comparison to former codes

N Sd N Sd

M Sd , β M
l
ω
zulσ N M
--------------- ⋅ ---- + 0.9 ⋅ ----- ≤ zulσ ..... ÖNorm, (DIN 4114)
zulσ k A W

1 N Sd M Sd
------ ⋅ ----------- + ky ⋅ ----------- ≤ f y, d ..... EC 3, DIN 18800
κy A W

9
 Fig. 2: DESIGN CHARTS – FLEXURAL BUCKLING acc. to DIN 18800

N My
ST 37 -------------- + k y, i ⋅ --------- ≤ 21.8 = f y, d [kN/cm2]
κy ⋅ A W yi




ny p = n y ⋅ ( β My – 2 )

design method E–E: Wyi = Wel kyi = ky

βM–Values
1.10
design method E–P: Wyi = Wpl kyi = ky – ny /170
1.30
Reduction factors κ for ST 37 1.40
λ λ
ψ.M 1.80 – 0.7ψ
a b c a b c

15 1.000 1.000 1.000 135 0.393 0.360 0.330

M
20
25
0.997
0.985
0.995
0.975
0.992
0.965
140
145
0.370
0.348
0.340
0.321
0.312
0.296
2.50
30 0.972 0.956 0.937 150 0.328 0.303 0.280
35 0.959 0.935 0.910 155 0.310 0.287 0.266 Assign of typical cross section to
40 0.945 0.914 0.881 160 0.293 0.272 0.252 the buckling curves
45 0.929 0.891 0.852 165 0.277 0.258 0.240
50 0.912 0.867 0.821 170 0.262 0.245 0.228 HeightHEA HEB HEM IPE
55 0.893 0.841 0.790 175 0.249 0.233 0.217
60 0.872 0.813 0.758 180 0.236 0.222 0.207 80 - - - ab
65 0.848 0.784 0.725 185 0.225 0.211 0.198 100 bc bc bc ab
70 0.821 0.753 0.691 190 0.214 0.201 0.189 bis
75 0.792 0.720 0.658 195 0.204 0.192 0.181 320 bc bc bc ab
80 0.759 0.686 0.624 200 0.195 0.184 0.173 330 - - - ab
85 0.724 0.652 0.591 205 0.186 0.176 0.165 340 bc bc ab ab
90 0.688 0.617 0.558 210 0.178 0.168 0.159 360 bc bc ab ab
95 0.650 0.583 0.527 215 0.170 0.161 0.152 400 ab ab ab ab
100 0.612 0.550 0.497 220 0.163 0.154 0.146 bis
105 0.576 0.518 0.469 225 0.156 0.148 0.140 1000 ab ab ab ab
110 0.540 0.487 0.442 230 0.150 0.142 0.135
115 0.507 0.458 0.416 235 0.144 0.137 0.130
120 0.475 0.431 0.393 240 0.138 0.132 0.125 Buckling about
125 0.446 0.406 0.370 245 0.133 0.127 0.120 z–z axis
130 0.418 0.382 0.350 250 0.128 0.122 0.116 y–y axis

k
y
curve parameter p=(βMy-2).ny
-20-15 -10 -8 -6 -5 -4 -3
1,6 ky,max = 1,5
1,5
-2
1,4
1,3
-1
1,2 ky,min
β < 2,0
1,1 M
0
y=0. 1 ny = 0.
2. 2.
0,9
4. β > 2,0 4.
6. 0,8 M 6.
1
8. 0,7 8.
10. 10.
0,6
12. 12.
14. 0,5 2 14.
16. 0,4 16.
18. 18.
20. 0,3
3 20.
22. 0,2 22.
0,1
4
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5
λy
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

10
 Fig. 3: DESIGN CHARTS – FLEXURAL BUCKLING acc. to DIN 18800

N My
ST 52 -------------- + k y, i ⋅ --------- ≤ 32.7 = f y, d [kN/cm2]
κy ⋅ A W yi




ny p = n y ⋅ ( β My – 2 )

βM–Values
design method E–E: Wyi = Wel kyi = ky
design method E–P: Wyi = Wpl kyi = ky – ny /260 1.10
1.30
Reduction factors κ for ST 52 1.40
λ a b c λ a b c
M ψ.M 1.80 – 0.7ψ
15 1.000 1.000 1.000 135 0.276 0.257 0.239
20 0.986 0.977 0.968 140 0.258 0.241 0.225 2.50
25 0.971 0.953 0.934 145 0.242 0.227 0.212
30 0.954 0.928 0.900 150 0.228 0.214 0.200
35 0.936 0.901 0.864 155 0.214 0.202 0.189 Assign of typical cross section to
40 0.916 0.872 0.828 160 0.202 0.191 0.179 the buckling curves
45 0.893 0.841 0.789 165 0.191 0.180 0.170
50 0.866 0.806 0.750 170 0.180 0.171 0.161 HeightHEA HEB HEM IPE
55 0.836 0.769 0.709 175 0.171 0.162 0.153
60 0.801 0.730 0.668 180 0.162 0.154 0.145 80 - - - ab
65 0.762 0.689 0.627 185 0.154 0.146 0.139 100 bc bc bc ab
70 0.719 0.647 0.586 190 0.146 0.139 0.132 bis
75 0.674 0.604 0.547 195 0.139 0.133 0.126 320 bc bc bc ab
80 0.628 0.563 0.509 200 0.133 0.127 0.120 330 - - - ab
85 0.582 0.523 0.474 205 0.127 0.121 0.115 340 bc bc ab ab
90 0.539 0.486 0.440 210 0.121 0.116 0.110 360 bc bc ab ab
95 0.498 0.451 0.410 215 0.116 0.111 0.106 400 ab ab ab ab
100 0.460 0.418 0.381 220 0.111 0.106 0.101 bis
105 0.426 0.389 0.355 225 0.106 0.102 0.097 1000 ab ab ab ab
110 0.394 0.361 0.331 230 0.102 0.098 0.093
115 0.366 0.337 0.310 235 0.097 0.094 0.090
120 0.340 0.314 0.290 240 0.094 0.090 0.086 Buckling about
125 0.317 0.293 0.271 245 0.090 0.087 0.083 z–z axis
130 0.295 0.274 0.254 250 0.086 0.083 0.080 y–y axis

k curve parameter p=(βMy-2).ny

y
-30 -20 -15 -10 -8 -6 -5 -4 -3
1,6 ky,max = 1,5
1,5
1,4 -2
1,3
1,2 -1 ky,min
1,1
β < 2,0
M
ny = 0.
0 ny = 0.
1
4. 0,9 4.
β > 2,0
8. 0,8 M 1 8.
12. 0,7 12.
16. 0,6 2 16.
20. 0,5 20.
24. 0,4 24.
3
28. 0,3 28.
32. 0,2 4 32.

0,1
0
17.5 15 12.5 10 9 8 7 6 5
λy
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
0

11
 Fig. 4: DESIGN CHARTS – FLEXURAL BUCKLING acc. to EC 3

N Sd M Sd f y, d
S 235 -------------- + k y, i ⋅ ----------- ≤ 21.4 = --------- [kN/cm2]
κy ⋅ A Wi γm




n p = n ⋅ ( βM – 2 )

design method E–E: Wi = Wel kyi = ky βM–Values

design method E–P: Wi = Wpl kyi = ky – ∆ky·n /23.5 1.10
1.30
∆k y = 0.125
Reduction factors κ for S 235 1.40
λ a b c λ a b c M ψ.M 1.80 – 0.7ψ
15
20
1.000
0.997
1.000
0.995
1.000
0.993
135
140
0.400
0.376
0.366
0.346
0.336
0.318
2.50
25 0.985 0.976 0.966 145 0.354 0.327 0.301
30 0.973 0.957 0.939 150 0.334 0.309 0.285
35 0.960 0.937 0.912 155 0.316 0.292 0.270 Assign of typical cross section to
40 0.946 0.916 0.884 160 0.298 0.277 0.257 the buckling curves
45 0.931 0.893 0.855 165 0.282 0.263 0.244
50 0.914 0.870 0.825 170 0.267 0.250 0.232 HeigthHEA HEB HEM IPE
55 0.895 0.844 0.794 175 0.254 0.237 0.221
60 0.875 0.817 0.762 180 0.241 0.226 0.211 80 - - - ab
65 0.851 0.788 0.730 185 0.229 0.215 0.201 100 bc bc bc ab
70 0.825 0.757 0.696 190 0.218 0.205 0.192 bis
75 0.796 0.725 0.663 195 0.208 0.196 0.184 320 bc bc bc ab
80 0.765 0.692 0.630 200 0.198 0.187 0.176 330 - - - ab
85 0.731 0.658 0.597 205 0.189 0.179 0.169 340 bc bc ab ab
90 0.695 0.624 0.564 210 0.181 0.171 0.162 360 bc bc ab ab
95 0.658 0.590 0.533 215 0.173 0.164 0.155 400 ab ab ab ab
100 0.620 0.557 0.503 220 0.166 0.157 0.149 bis
105 0.584 0.525 0.475 225 0.159 0.151 0.143 1000 ab ab ab ab
110 0.548 0.494 0.448 230 0.153 0.145 0.137
115 0.515 0.465 0.422 235 0.146 0.139 0.132
120 0.483 0.438 0.398 240 0.141 0.134 0.127 Buckling about
125 0.453 0.412 0.376 245 0.135 0.129 0.123 z–z axis
130 0.426 0.388 0.355 250 0.130 0.124 0.118 y–y axis

ky curve parameter p=(βM-2).n

-20 -15 -10 -8 -6 -5 -4 -3
1,6 ky,max = 1,5
1,5
-2
1,4
1,3
1,2 -1
β < 2,0 ky,min
1,1 M
0
n = 0. 1 n = 0.
n = 2. 0,9 n = 2.
n = 4. β > 2,0 n = 4.
0,8 M
n = 6. 1 n = 6.
n = 8. 0,7 n = 8.
n = 10. 0,6 n = 10.
n = 12.
0,5 2 n = 12.
n = 14. n = 14.
n = 16. 0,4 n = 16.
n = 18. 0,3 3 n = 18.
n = 20. n = 20.
0,2
n = 22. n = 22.
0,1 4
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5
λ
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
0

12
 Fig. 5: DESIGN CHARTS – FLEXURAL BUCKLING acc. to EC 3
N Sd M Sd f y, d
S 355 -------------- + k y, i ⋅ ----------- ≤ 32.3 = --------- [kN/cm2]
κy ⋅ A Wi γm




n p = n ⋅ ( βM – 2 )

design method E–E: Wi = Wel kyi = ky βM–Values

design method E–P: Wi = Wpl kyi = ky – ∆ky·n /35.5
∆k y = 0.125 1.10
1.30
Reduction factors κ for S 355
1.40
λ a b c λ a b c

15 1.000 1.000 1.000 135 0.279 0.260 0.242 M ψ.M 1.80 – 0.7ψ
20 0.986 0.978 0.969 140 0.262 0.244 0.228
25 0.971 0.954 0.935 145 0.245 0.230 0.215 2.50
30 0.955 0.929 0.901 150 0.231 0.217 0.203
35 0.937 0.902 0.866 155 0.217 0.204 0.191 Assign of typical cross section to
40 0.917 0.874 0.830 160 0.205 0.193 0.181 the buckling curves
45 0.894 0.843 0.792 165 0.193 0.183 0.172
50 0.868 0.809 0.753 170 0.183 0.173 0.163 HeigthHEA HEB HEM IPE
55 0.838 0.772 0.712 175 0.173 0.164 0.155
60 0.804 0.734 0.671 180 0.164 0.156 0.147 80 - - - ab
65 0.765 0.693 0.630 185 0.156 0.148 0.140 100 bc bc bc ab
70 0.723 0.651 0.590 190 0.148 0.141 0.134 bis
75 0.678 0.609 0.551 195 0.141 0.134 0.128 320 bc bc bc ab
80 0.633 0.568 0.513 200 0.134 0.128 0.122 330 - - - ab
85 0.588 0.528 0.478 205 0.128 0.123 0.117 340 bc bc ab ab
90 0.544 0.490 0.444 210 0.122 0.117 0.112 360 bc bc ab ab
95 0.503 0.455 0.414 215 0.117 0.112 0.107 400 ab ab ab ab
100 0.465 0.423 0.385 220 0.112 0.107 0.103 bis
105 0.431 0.393 0.359 225 0.107 0.103 0.098 1000 ab ab ab ab
110 0.399 0.365 0.335 230 0.103 0.099 0.095
115 0.370 0.340 0.313 235 0.099 0.095 0.091
120 0.344 0.318 0.293 240 0.095 0.091 0.087 Buckling about
125 0.321 0.297 0.274 245 0.091 0.088 0.084 z–z axis
130 0.299 0.278 0.257 250 0.088 0.084 0.081 y–y axis

k
y curve parameter p=(βM-2).n
-30 -20 -15 -10 -8 -6 -5 -4
1,6 ky,max = 1,5
1,5
1,4 -2
1,3
1,2 -1 ky,min
1,1
β < 2,0
M
0
n = 0. 1 n = 0.
n = 4. 0,9 n = 4.
β > 2,0
n = 8. 0,8 M 1 n = 8.
n = 12. 0,7 n = 12.
0,6 2
n = 16. n = 16.
n = 20. 0,5 n = 20.
3
n = 24. 0,4 n = 24.

n = 28. 0,3 4 n = 28.

n = 32. 0,2 n = 32.
0,1 5
0
17.5 15 12.5 10 9 8 7 6
λ
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
0

13
Fig. 6: EQUIVALENT UNIFORM MOMENT FACTOR βM

2.5

Mq/M
2.25
0.0
0.10
2 0.25

0.50
M Mq ψM
βM

1.75
2.0 1.0

5.0 2.0
1.5 10.0
∞ 5.0
10.0
∞
1.25

1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
ψ

14
Fig. 7: LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING CHECK
according to DIN 18000 / EC 3

N Sd k LT ⋅ M kz ⋅ M
y, Sd z, Sd
-------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------- ≤ 1.0
κ z ⋅ A ⋅ f y ⁄ γ M1 κ LT ⋅ W ⋅ f y ⁄ γ M1 W pl, z ⋅ f y ⁄ γ M1
pl, y

µ LT ⋅ N Sd
k LT = 1 – ------------------------ ≤ 1.0
κz ⋅ A ⋅ fy

µ LT = 0.15 ⋅ λ z ⋅ β M, LT – 0.15 ≤ 0.90 β M, LT ⇔ β My

M pl λM λM elastic case: Mel

λM = - = ------
-------- - = -------------
-
M cr λ1 92.9ε

 1 ⁄ n
EC 3
1
κ LT =  ---------------------
-  ≤ 1.0 curve a: hot rolled sections
 1 + λ M 2n
curve c: welded sections
CRITICAL MOMENT IN DOUBLE SYMMETRIC CASE according to
DIN 18000 / EC 3
2  2 
π EI z   k  2 I ω ( kL ) ⋅ GI T 2 
M cr = C 1 ⋅ --------------- ⋅  ------ ⋅ ----- + ----------------------------- + ( C 2 ⋅ z g ) – C 2 ⋅ z g 
2   I
( kL )  kw z
2
π EI z 
?  




N cr, z
?
UNIAXIAL BENDING – Comparison to former codes
l
N Sd N Sd

M Sd , β M
σ Gurt σN
σM

( σ N + σ M ) ≤ zulσ k, Gurt ..... ÖNorm, (DIN 4114)

σN σM
------- + k LT ⋅ --------- ≤ f y, d ..... EC 3, DIN18800
κz κ LT

15
Fig. 8: DESIGN CHARTS – LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING
according to DIN 18800 / EC 3
2
My 21.8 ( 21.4 ) [ kN ⁄ cm ] ST37
N
-------------- + k M ⋅ ---------------------- ≤ f y, d DIN 18800 (EC3)
κz ⋅ A κ M ⋅ W yi 2
32.7 ( 32.3 ) [ kN ⁄ cm ] ST52



nz

design method E–E: Wyi = Wel 1

k c = -----------
design method E–P: Wyi = Wpl C1

moment distribution kc-values

M ψ.M

L 1
0, 94
0, 86
λM = kc ⋅ kP ⋅ λz 1
M ψ.M ------------------------------------
1, 33 – 0, 33ψ
λz = L ⁄ iz

for I–sections with loading in the symmetry line:

2

1.8 I–sections hot rolled

(elastic design: 5% reduction)
1.6
(I–section welded: 5% increase)
1.4
zp
1.2 C 2 ⋅ ----------
h⁄2
+3
kP

1 +zp
h
+2 tfl
0.8
+1
0.6 0
–1
0.4 –2
–3
0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40
λz / (h/tfl)

16
 Fig. 9: DESIGN CHARTS – LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING
according to DIN 18800 / EC 3

LTB–reduction factors (DIN 18800) κM

for ST 37 for ST 52
λΜ n=1.5 n=2.0 n=2.5 λΜ n=1.5 n=2.0 n=2.5 κM acc. to line n=2.5.kn: hot rolled section
30
35
0.978
0.966
0.995
0.990
0.999
0.997
30
35
0.961
0.939
0.988
0.978
0.996
0.992
acc. to line n=2.0.kn: welded section
40 0.950 0.983 0.994 40 0.913 0.963 0.984
45 0.931 0.974 0.990 45 0.881 0.943 0.972
50 0.908 0.961 0.983 50 0.846 0.917 0.954
55 0.882 0.944 0.972 55 0.806 0.885 0.930 M ψ.M
60 0.853 0.923 0.958 60 0.765 0.848 0.898
65
70
0.822
0.789
0.898
0.870
0.940
0.917
65
70
n
0.722
0.680z
0.806
0.762
0.859
0.815
75 0.755 0.838 0.889 75 0.637 0.715 0.767
80 0.720 0.803 0.857 80 0.596 0.669 0.716
85 0.685 0.767 0.820 85 0.557 0.623 0.666
90
95
0.650
0.616
0.729
0.691
0.782
0.741
90
95
0.520
0.485
0.579
0.538
0.617
0.570
kn = 1,0
100 0.583 0.654 0.700 100 0.452 0.499 0.526
105 0.551 0.617 0.659 105 0.422 0.463 0.486
110 0.521 0.581 0.619 110 0.394 0.430 0.449
115 0.492 0.547 0.580 115 0.368 0.399 0.415
120 0.465 0.514 0.544 120 0.344 0.371 0.385
125 0.439 0.484 0.509 125 0.322 0.346 0.357
130
135
0.415
0.393
0.455
0.428
0.477
0.447
130
135
0.302
0.283
0.322
0.301
0.332
0.309
My ψ ⋅ My
140 0.371 0.403 0.420 140 0.266 0.282 0.288 0, 5 ≤ ψ ≤ 1
145 0.351 0.380 0.394 145 0.250 0.264 0.270
150 0.333 0.358 0.371 150 0.236 0.248 0.253 kn
155 0.316 0.338 0.349 155 0.223 0.233 0.237
160 0.299 0.320 0.329 160 0.210 0.219 0.223 1,0
165 0.284 0.302 0.310 165 0.199 0.207 0.210 0,8
170 0.270 0.286 0.293 170 0.188 0.195 0.198
175 0.257 0.271 0.277 175 0.178 0.185 0.187
ψ
0,5

1,0
0,75
180 0.245 0.258 0.263 180 0.169 0.175 0.177
185 0.233 0.245 0.249 185 0.161 0.166 0.167
190 0.222 0.233 0.237 190 0.153 0.157 0.159
195 0.212 0.221 0.225 195 0.146 0.150 0.151
200 0.203 0.211 0.214 200 0.139 0.142 0.143

EC 3:
κM acc. to line a: hot rolled section
acc. to line c: welded section

Interaction parameter kM between axial and bending effect

5
1 5 1
10
0.9 10 0.9
20
0.8 0.8
0.7 20 30
0.7
0.6 0.6 40
30
0.5 k M 0.5 50
0.4 40 0.4 60
0.3 0.3
50 70
0.2 0.2
nz * β M n z* β M 80
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
λz λz
ST 37 ST 52
17
Fig. 10:kc–VALUES for I–sections
ψ.Mh Mh
loading in shear centre
= =
– hogging bending moment
+ sagging bending moment
Ms,max Ms,half
1
2
0.9

0.8 3
1 Ψ = 1.0
0.7
kc

0.6
4 1
0.5 ang e res
. α = Mh ⁄ Ms
up. fl 2
0.4 ed 3
e re strain α = Ms ⁄ Mh
r flang 4
0.3 uppe

α
0.2
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1

0.9
6
0.8 5
Ψ = 0.0
0.7
7
kc

0.6
5
0.5 8 α = M h ⁄ M s ,max
es. 6
a nge r
up. fl ed
0.4 res train 7
fl ange α = M s ,half ⁄ M h
0.3 u pper 8

α
0.2
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1

0.9 10
0.8 9
Ψ = – 1.0
0.7
12
kc

0.6
11 9
0.5 α = M h ⁄ M s ,max
es. 10
. fl a nge r .
up res
0.4 nge 11
er fl a α = M s ,half ⁄ M h
upp 12
0.3

0.2
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 α
18
Fig. 11:C2–VALUES for I–sections
= =
– hogging bending moment
ψ.Mh Mh + sagging bending moment
Ms,max Ms,half
2.5
u load applied on upper flange
2.25 load applied on lower flange

2
u
1.75
4 Ψ = 1.0
1.5 l l
1
C22

1.25 α = Mh ⁄ Ms
2
1 3
α = Ms ⁄ Mh
4
0.75 3
1
0.5 2

0.25

0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 α
1.5

1.25
u u
1
Ψ = 0.0
l l
C22

0.75
8 5
α = M h ⁄ M s ,ma
0.5 5 6
7
0.25 α = M s ,half ⁄ M
6 8
7

α
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.6
0.5 9 Ψ = – 1.0
0.4 10
C22

9
0.3 α = M h ⁄ M s ,ma
11 10
0.2
11
0.1 α = M s ,half ⁄ M
12
12
α
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

19
Fig. 12:TORSIONAL BUCKLING DUE TO AXIAL FORCE

λZ = L ⁄ iZ
L

1.1

I–section hot rolled

1
(I–section welded: 5% increase)

0.9

0.8
b/h tfl
1.0 h
0.75
0.7
0.50
b
kD = λD / λ Z

0.30
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
h 1.0
tfl 0.75
0.2
0.50
b 0.30
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40

λ / (h/tfl)
z

2 2
ip + d
λ D = λ z ⋅ ------------------
2 2
c +d

ip = ( Iy + Iz ) ⁄ A I ω GI T
c = ----- + --------------
I z N cr, z

d = distance of restrain from centre of gravity

20
EXAMPLE 1: Girder under transversal loading

dis
tan
dead load: g ≈ 0,5 kN/m2 a= ce
5,0 of
gd = 1,35 · (0,5 · 5,0 + 1,3) = 5,1 kN/m gir
m de
rs
variable load: p ≈ 3,0 kN/m 2
pd = 1,50 · (3,0 · 5,0) = 22,5 kN/m

strugrilla
ctu ge girde
r 2,0m
re L=1 2
span

= 1 2,0m HE-A 400 – ST 37

L 1
span h = 390mm tfl = 19mm
Wpl,y = 2562cm3 iz = 7,34cm
Iz = 8560cm4
Iω = 2,942.106cm6 IT = 190cm4
loadcase 1 loadcase 2
p
g

moments My,d - 497

- 294
-55 MLC 1
MLC 2
279 249
361 350

Due to the grillage structure the effect of load applied on the upper flange will be
neglected in this example.

Design check by charts

λ z = 1200 ⁄ 7.34 = 163

pl. design
λ z ⁄ ( h ⁄ t fl ) = 163 ⁄ ( 390 ⁄ 19 ) = 8 ⇒ k p = 0.63
nz = 0 ⇒ k n = 1.00 ⇒ n = 2.5

Loadcase 1:
Ψ = 0 curve 8
α = M s, half ⁄ M h = 249 ⁄ ( – 497 ) = – 0.50 ⇒ k c = 0.67
n = 2.5
λ M = k c ⋅ k p ⋅ λ z = 0.67 ⋅ 0.63 ⋅ 163 = 69 ⇒ κ M = 0.922
 Loadcase 2 – span 1:
Ψ = 0 curve 6
α = M h ⁄ M s, max = – 294 ⁄ 361 = – 0.81 ⇒ k c = 0.92
n = 2.5
λ M = k c ⋅ k p ⋅ λ z = 0.92 ⋅ 0.63 ⋅ 163 = 94 ⇒ κ M = 0.749

Loadcase 2 – span 2:
Ψ = 0 curve 8
α = M s, half ⁄ M h = – 55 ⁄ ( – 294 ) = 0.19 ⇒ k c = 0.60 < 0.92

Lateral torsional buckling:

2
LC 1: M y ⁄ ( W pl, y ⋅ κ M ) = 49700 ⁄ ( 2562 ⋅ 0.922 ) = 21.0 < 21.8 [ kN ⁄ cm ]
UF = 0.96
2
LC 2: M y ⁄ ( W pl, y ⋅ κ M ) = 36100 ⁄ ( 2562 ⋅ 0.749 ) = 18.8 < 21.8 [ kN ⁄ cm ]
UF = 0.86

Design check by DIN 18800 (charts from Petersen)

Loadcase 1: κ M = 0.918 ( 0.922 )

Loadcase 2: κ M = 0.750 ( 0.749 )

Check with DIN 18800 would be possible only with a conservative value C1=1.0 or
by using the value of the charts.

Design check by DIN 18800 – loadcase 1 (C1=1/0.672= 2.23)

6
 k  2 I ω GI T 2.942 ⋅ 10 8100 ⋅ 190
M cr = C 1 ⋅ N cr, z ⋅ ------ ⋅ ---- + ------------- = 2.23 ⋅ 1232 ⋅ ---------------------------- + ---------------------------
 k w I z N cr, z 8560 1232

M cr = 2.23 ⋅ 1232 ⋅ 39.91 = 109650 [ kNcm ]

2
π EI 2
π 21000 ⋅ 8560
N cr, z = --------------2z = ----------------------------------------
2
= 1232 [ kN ]
( kL ) 1200
λM = M pl ⁄ M cr = W pl ⋅ f y ⁄ M cr = 2562 ⋅ 24.0 ⁄ 109650 = 0.749

 1 ⁄ n 1 ⁄ 2.5
=  -------------------------------------------
1 1
κ M =  ----------------------- = 0.919 ( 0.922 )
1 + λ 2n   ( 2 ⋅ 2.5 )
M 1 + 0.749
C 1 = 1.0 ⇒ M cr = 49170 ⇒ λ M = 1.12 ⇒ κ M = 0.666
 2
My 21.8 ( 21.4 ) [ kN ⁄ cm ] ST37
N
-------------- + k M ⋅ ---------------------- ≤ f y, d DIN 18800 (EC3)
κz ⋅ A κ M ⋅ W yi 2
32.7 ( 32.3 ) [ kN ⁄ cm ] ST52



nz

design method E–E: Wyi = Wel 1

k c = -----------
design method E–P: Wyi = Wpl C1

moment distribution kc-values

M ψ.M

L 1
0, 94
0, 86
λM = kc ⋅ kP ⋅ λz 1
M ψ.M ------------------------------------
1, 33 – 0, 33ψ
λz = L ⁄ iz

for I–sections with loading in the symmetry line:

2

1.8 I–sections hot rolled

(elastic design: 5% reduction)
1.6
(I–section welded: 5% increase)
1.4
zp
1.2 C 2 ⋅ ----------
h⁄2
+3
kP

1 +zp
h
+2 tfl
0.8
+1
0.6 0
–1
0.4 –2
–3
0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40
λz / (h/tfl)
kc–values for I–sections

ψ.Mh Mh
loading in centre of gravity
= =
– hogging bending moment
+ sagging bending moment
Ms,max Ms,half
1
2
0.9

0.8 3
1 Ψ = 1.0
0.7
kc

0.6
4 1
0.5 ange r
es. α = Mh ⁄ Ms
up. fl 2
0.4 3
rest raint α = Ms ⁄ Mh
e r fl ange 4
0.3 up p

α
0.2
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1

0.9 6
0.8 5
Ψ = 0.0
0.7
7
kc

0.6
5
0.5 . 8 α = M h ⁄ M s ,max
ng e res 6
up. fla nt
0.4 strai 7
flang
e re α = M s ,half ⁄ M h
r 8
0.3 uppe

0.2
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 α
1

0.9 10
0.8 9
Ψ = – 1.0
0.7
12
kc

0.6
11 9
0.5 α = M h ⁄ M s ,max
res. 10
ange
up. fl es.
0.4
l a n ge r 11
α = M s ,half ⁄ M h
er f 12
0.3 upp

0.2
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 α
 DESIGN CHARTS – LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING
according to DIN 18800 / EC 3

LTB–reduction factors (DIN 18800) κM

for ST 37 for ST 52
λΜ n=1.5 n=2.0 n=2.5 λΜ n=1.5 n=2.0 n=2.5

30 0.978 0.995 0.999 30 0.961 0.988 0.996

35 0.966 0.990 0.997 35 0.939 0.978 0.992
40 0.950 0.983 0.994 40 0.913 0.963 0.984
45 0.931 0.974 0.990 45 0.881 0.943 0.972
50 0.908 0.961 0.983 50 0.846 0.917 0.954
55 0.882 0.944 0.972 55 0.806 0.885 0.930 M ψ.M
60 0.853 0.923 0.958 60 0.765 0.848 0.898
65 0.822 0.898 0.940 65 0.722 0.806 0.859
70 0.789 0.870 0.917 70 0.680 0.762 0.815
75 0.755 0.838 0.889 75 0.637 0.715 0.767
80 0.720 0.803 0.857 80 0.596 0.669 0.716
85 0.685 0.767 0.820 85 0.557 0.623 0.666
90
95
0.650
0.616
0.729
0.691
0.782
0.741
90
95
0.520
0.485
0.579
0.538
0.617
0.570
kn = 1,0
100 0.583 0.654 0.700 100 0.452 0.499 0.526
105 0.551 0.617 0.659 105 0.422 0.463 0.486
110 0.521 0.581 0.619 110 0.394 0.430 0.449
115 0.492 0.547 0.580 115 0.368 0.399 0.415
120 0.465 0.514 0.544 120 0.344 0.371 0.385
125 0.439 0.484 0.509 125 0.322 0.346 0.357
130
135
0.415
0.393
0.455
0.428
0.477
0.447
130
135
0.302
0.283
0.322
0.301
0.332
0.309
My ψ ⋅ My
140 0.371 0.403 0.420 140 0.266 0.282 0.288 0, 5 ≤ ψ ≤ 1
145 0.351 0.380 0.394 145 0.250 0.264 0.270
150 0.333 0.358 0.371 150 0.236 0.248 0.253 kn
155 0.316 0.338 0.349 155 0.223 0.233 0.237
160 0.299 0.320 0.329 160 0.210 0.219 0.223 1,0
165 0.284 0.302 0.310 165 0.199 0.207 0.210 0,8
170 0.270 0.286 0.293 170 0.188 0.195 0.198
175 0.257 0.271 0.277 175 0.178 0.185 0.187
ψ

0,5

1,0
0,75
180 0.245 0.258 0.263 180 0.169 0.175 0.177
185 0.233 0.245 0.249 185 0.161 0.166 0.167
190 0.222 0.233 0.237 190 0.153 0.157 0.159
195 0.212 0.221 0.225 195 0.146 0.150 0.151
200 0.203 0.211 0.214 200 0.139 0.142 0.143

EC 3:
κM acc. to line a: hot rolled section
acc. to line c: welded section

Interaction parameter kM between axial and bending effect

5
1 5 1
10
0.9 10 0.9
20
0.8 0.8
0.7 20 30
0.7
0.6 0.6 40
30
0.5 k M 0.5 50
0.4 40 0.4 60
0.3 0.3
50 70
0.2 0.2
nz * β M n z* β M 80
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
λz λz
ST 37 ST 52
EXAMPLE 2: Column under wind loading and axial compression

system, loading
g+s+p
internal forces buckling about y- Axis
≈2,0
Nd [kN] My,d [kNm]

fork bearing 11
L = 5,0 m 30

±w

Lk = 10,0
approximation
(linear)
250 82
My,d = 82
z section IPE 330 – ST 37
y IPE 330 h = 330mm b = 160mm
tfl = 11,5mm A = 62,6cm2
Wpl,y = 804cm3 Wel,y = 713cm3
braced centre of rotation iy = 13,7cm iz = 3,55cm
Iz = 788cm4
Iω = 199,1.103cm6 IT = 28,3cm4

Design check by charts – flexural buckling

curve a
λ y = 2 ⋅ 500 ⁄ 13.7 = 73 ⇒ κ y = 0.804
n y = N ⁄ ( κ y ⋅ A ) = 250 ⁄ ( 0.804 ⋅ 62.6 ) = 4.97
β My = 1.40 p = 4.97 ⋅ ( 1.40 – 2 ) = – 3.0 ⇒ k y = 1.22
k y, i = 1.22 – 4.97 ⁄ 170 = 1.19
2
n y + k y, i ⋅ M y ⁄ W pl, y = 4.97 + 1.19 ⋅ 8200 ⁄ 804 = 17.1 < 21.8 [ kN ⁄ cm ]
UF = 0.78

Design check by DIN 18800 – flexural buckling

λ y = 2 ⋅ 500 ⁄ ( 13.7 ⋅ 92.9 ) = 0.786

curve a ⇒
2
φ = 0.5 ⋅ [ 1 + 0.21 ⋅ ( 0.786 – 0.2 ) + 0.786 ] = 0.87

κ y = 1 ⁄  φ + φ – λ  = 1 ⁄  0.87 + 0.87 – 0.786  = 0.804

2 2 2 2
   
 α pl, y = W pl, y ⁄ W el, y = 804 ⁄ 713 = 1.13 β My = 1.40
µ y = 0.786 ⋅ ( 2 ⋅ 1.4 – 4 ) + ( 1.13 – 1.0 ) = – 0.813
k y = 1 – 250 ⁄ ( 0.804 ⋅ 1366 ) ⋅ ( – 0.813 ) = 1.185
N pl, d = 62.6 ⋅ 24.0 ⁄ 1.1 = 1366 [ kN ]
M pl, y, d = 804 ⋅ 24.0 ⁄ 1.1 = 17540 [ kNcm ]
N Sd ky ⋅ M
y, Sd 250 1.185 ⋅ 8200
------------------------ + --------------------------- = -------------------------------- + -------------------------------- = 0.78 ( 0.78 )
κ y ⋅ N pl, d M pl, y, d 0.804 ⋅ 1366 17540

Design check by charts – lateral torsional buckling

(restraint is not included)
curve b
λ z = 500 ⁄ 3.55 = 141 ⇒ κ z = 0.336
pl. design
λ z ⁄ ( h ⁄ t fl ) = 141 ⁄ ( 330 ⁄ 11.5 ) = 4.9 ⇒ k p = 0.74
Ψ = 0 M q ⁄ M = 11 ⁄ 82 = 0.13 ⇒ β M = 1.74
curve 8
α = M s, half ⁄ M h = 30 ⁄ 82 = 0.37 ⇒ k c = 0.69
n = 2.5
λ M = k c ⋅ k p ⋅ λ z = 0.69 ⋅ 0.74 ⋅ 141 = 72 ⇒ κ M = 0.906
n z = N ⁄ ( κ z ⋅ A ) = 250 ⁄ ( 0.336 ⋅ 62.6 ) = 11.89
n z ⋅ β M = 11.89 ⋅ 1.74 = 21 ⇒ k M = 0.86
kM ⋅ M
y 0.86 ⋅ 8200 2
n y + --------------------------- = 11.89 + ----------------------------- = 21.6 < 21.8 [ kN ⁄ cm ]
κ M ⋅ W pl, y 0.906 ⋅ 804
UF = 0.99

Design check by DIN 18800 – lateral torsional buckling

λ z = 500 ⁄ ( 3.55 ⋅ 92.9 ) = 1.52

curve b ⇒
2
φ = 0.5 ⋅ [ 1 + 0.34 ⋅ ( 1.52 – 0.2 ) + 1.52 ] = 1.88

κ y = 1 ⁄  φ + φ – λ  = 1 ⁄  1.88 + 1.88 – 1.52  = 0.335

2 2 2 2
   
N pl, d = 1366 [ kN ] M pl, y, d = 17540 [ kNcm ]

Ψ = 0 β M, Ψ = 1.8 β M, Q = 1.3
β M = 1.8 + 11 ⁄ 82 ⋅ ( 1.3 – 1.8 ) = 1.73
µ LT = 0.15 ⋅ 1.52 ⋅ 1.73 – 0.15 = 0.24
k LT = 1 – 250 ⁄ ( 0.335 ⋅ 1366 ) ⋅ 0.24 = 0.869 ( k LT = k M )
 3
 k  2 I ω GI T 199.1 ⋅ 10 8100 ⋅ 28.3
M cr = C 1 ⋅ N cr, z ⋅ ------ ⋅ ---- + ------------- = 1.77 ⋅ 653 ⋅ ---------------------------- + -----------------------------
 k w I z N cr, z 788 653

M cr = 1.77 ⋅ 653 ⋅ 24.57 = 28400 [ kNcm ]

2
π EI z 2
π 21000 ⋅ 788
N cr, z - = 653 [ kN ]
= --------------2 = ------------------------------------
2
( kL ) 500
λM = M pl ⁄ M cr = W pl ⋅ f y ⁄ M cr = 804 ⋅ 24.0 ⁄ 28400 = 0.82

 1 ⁄ n 1 ⁄ 2.5
=  ---------------------------------------
1 1
κM =  ----------------------- = 0.881 ( 0.906 )
 1 + λ 2n  ( 2 ⋅ 2.5 )
M 1 + 0.82 0.915 for the correct distribution

N Sd k LT ⋅ M
y, Sd 250 0.869 ⋅ 8200
------------------------ + -------------------------------- = -------------------------------- + ------------------------------------ = 1.00 ( 0.99 )
κ y ⋅ N pl, d κ M ⋅ M 0.335 ⋅ 1366 0.881 ⋅ 17540
pl, y, d

Design check by charts – lateral torsional buckling

(with restraint axis)
λ z ⁄ ( h ⁄ t fl ) = 141 ⁄ ( 330 ⁄ 11.5 ) = 4.9
b ⁄ h = 160 ⁄ 330 = 0.48 ⇒ k D = 0.77
curve b
λ D = k D ⋅ λ z = 0.77 ⋅ 141 = 109 ⇒ κ z = 0.493
curve 8
α = M s, half ⁄ M h = 30 ⁄ 82 = 0.37 ⇒
k c = 0.69 ⇒ κ M = 0.906
(tension flange restraint)
n z = N ⁄ ( κ z ⋅ A ) = 250 ⁄ ( 0.493 ⋅ 62.6 ) = 8.1
n z ⋅ β M = 8.1 ⋅ 1.74 = 14 ⇒ k M = 0.96
kM ⋅ M
y 0.96 ⋅ 8200 2
n y + --------------------------- = 8.1 + ----------------------------- = 18.9 < 21.8 [ kN ⁄ cm ]
κ M ⋅ W pl, y 0.906 ⋅ 804
UF = 0.87

Design check by DIN 18800 (exact value for κz due to restrain)

2 2 2 2
ip + d 14.2 + 16.0 curve b
λD = λ z ⋅ -----------------
2
-
2
= 141 ⋅ -------------------------------------
2
-
2
= 103 ⇒ κ z = 0.531 ( 0.453 )
c +d 24.57 + 16.0
ip = ( Iy + Iz ) ⁄ A = ( 11770 + 788 ) ⁄ 62.6 = 14.2 k  2 I ω GI T
c =  -----
- ⋅ ---- + ------------- = 24.57
d = ( h – t fl ) ⁄ 2 = ( 33 – 1.1 ) ⁄ 2 = 16.0  k w I z N cr, z

λ z = 103 ⁄ 92.9 = 1.11

µ LT = 0.15 ⋅ 1.11 ⋅ 1.73 – 0.15 = 0.138
k LT = 1 – 250 ⁄ ( 0.531 ⋅ 1366 ) ⋅ 0.138 = 0.95
250 0.95 ⋅ 8200
-------------------------------- + ------------------------------------ = 0.85 < 1.0 ( 0.87 )
0.531 ⋅ 1366 0.881 ⋅ 17540
 DESIGN CHARTS – FLEXURAL BUCKLING according to DIN 18800

N My
ST 37 -------------- + k y, i ⋅ --------- ≤ 21.8 = f y, d [kN/cm2]
κy ⋅ A W yi




ny p = n y ⋅ ( β My – 2 )

design method E–E: Wyi = Wel kyi = ky

βM–Values
1.10
design method E–P: Wyi = Wpl kyi = ky – ny /170
1.30
Reduction factors κ for ST 37 1.40
λ a b c λ a b c
M ψ.M 1.80 – 0.7ψ
15 1.000 1.000 1.000 135 0.393 0.360 0.330
20 0.997 0.995 0.992 140 0.370 0.340 0.312 2.50
25 0.985 0.975 0.965 145 0.348 0.321 0.296
30 0.972 0.956 0.937 150 0.328 0.303 0.280
35 0.959 0.935 0.910 155 0.310 0.287 0.266 Assign of typical cross section to
40 0.945 0.914 0.881 160 0.293 0.272 0.252 the buckling curves
45 0.929 0.891 0.852 165 0.277 0.258 0.240
50 0.912 0.867 0.821 170 0.262 0.245 0.228 HeightHEA HEB HEM IPE
55 0.893 0.841 0.790 175 0.249 0.233 0.217
60 0.872 0.813 0.758 180 0.236 0.222 0.207 80 - - - ab
65 0.848 0.784 0.725 185 0.225 0.211 0.198 100 bc bc bc ab
70 0.821 0.753 0.691 190 0.214 0.201 0.189 bis
75 0.792 0.720 0.658 195 0.204 0.192 0.181 320 bc bc bc ab
80 0.759 0.686 0.624 200 0.195 0.184 0.173 330 - - - ab
85 0.724 0.652 0.591 205 0.186 0.176 0.165 340 bc bc ab ab
90 0.688 0.617 0.558 210 0.178 0.168 0.159 360 bc bc ab ab
95 0.650 0.583 0.527 215 0.170 0.161 0.152 400 ab ab ab ab
100 0.612 0.550 0.497 220 0.163 0.154 0.146 bis
105 0.576 0.518 0.469 225 0.156 0.148 0.140 1000 ab ab ab ab
110 0.540 0.487 0.442 230 0.150 0.142 0.135
115 0.507 0.458 0.416 235 0.144 0.137 0.130
120 0.475 0.431 0.393 240 0.138 0.132 0.125 Buckling about
125 0.446 0.406 0.370 245 0.133 0.127 0.120 z–z axis
130 0.418 0.382 0.350 250 0.128 0.122 0.116 y–y axis

k
y
curve parameter p=(βMy-2).ny
-20-15 -10 -8 -6 -5 -4 -3
1,6 ky,max = 1,5
1,5
-2
1,4
1,3
-1
1,2 ky,min
β < 2,0
1,1 M
0
y=0. 1 ny = 0.
2. 2.
0,9
4. β > 2,0 4.
6. 0,8 M 6.
1
8. 0,7 8.
10. 10.
0,6
12. 12.
14. 0,5 2 14.
16. 0,4 16.
18. 18.
20. 0,3
3 20.
22. 0,2 22.
0,1
4
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5
λy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
EQUIVALENT UNIFORM MOMENT FACTOR βM
2.5

Mq/M
2.25
0.0
0.10
2 0.25

0.50
M Mq ψM
βM

1.75
2.0 1.0

5.0 2.0
1.5 10.0
∞ 5.0
10.0
∞
1.25

1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
ψ
TORSIONAL BUCKLING DUE TO AXIAL FORCE

λZ = L ⁄ iZ

L
1.1

I–section hot rolled

1
(I–section welded: 5% increase)

0.9

0.8
b/h tfl
1.0 h
0.75
0.7
0.50
b
kD = λD / λ Z

0.30
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
h 1.0
tfl 0.75
0.2
0.50
b 0.30
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40

λ / (h/tfl)
z
 2. BERECHNUNGSBEISPIELE -
ANWENDUNG DER BEMESSUNGSBEHELFE

Beispiel 1 : • Unterzug einer Geschoßdecke

1. System und Belastung

Querschnitt: IPE 500
A=116cm2
Wel,y= 1930cm3 Wpl,y= 2194 cm3
3.50 3.50
IT= 89.7 cm3 Iw=1249000 cm6
7.00 Iy=48200 cm4 Iz= 2140 cm4
P=133kN p=5.0kN/m Stahlgüte: St 360
g=3.0kN/m
qSd=1,35·g+1,5·p=11,55kN/m
PSd=1,5·133=200kN

2. Bauteilnachweise Biegedrillknicken
l = 3.50
σN = 0 → ν = 0
M Sd 42000 2
MSd σ M = ----------- = ---------------- = 19, 1 kN ⁄ cm
W pl 2194
42400
βM = 1,8 → α = 0,73

lk = α·l = 0,73·350 = 255 cm

λz = 255 /4,31 = 59 < 75→ f = 1,0

<125 → fplast=1,0

λz = 59 → κz =0,879 (Linie a)

ν = 0 λz = 59 → Clt(0) = 0,94 → Clt(0) = Clt

(σN + σM) · Clt ≤ fy,d · κz
19,1 · 0,94 ≤ 21,4 ·0,879
17,95 ≤ 18,78
17, 95
Ausnutzungsgrad: ---------------- = 0, 96 [nach EC 3 “exakt” 0.98]
18, 78