Objective:

The student will be introduced to the use of simple and more sophisticated
analytical tools in the design of structures.
Module 3.5: Design guidance documents, codes and
standards
1
Scope: Dimensioning, Partial safety factors, Design load, Design strength, Limit
state design / allowable stress design

Expected result:
Understand the procedures recommended in one design guidance document for fabricated
structures.
Compute design strength of a simple structural component using procedures outlined in
one design guidance document.
Compute the needed design load for a structure considering both static and variable loads.
Identify from the design guidance document other related codes and standards related to
materials, manufacturing, and calculation methods, etc.
Explain the basic features of the design guidance document being used.
Explain possible sources of exceptional / accidental loads on the structure being
considered.
Understand the relationship between design strength and design load for a structure and
failure probability.
IWSD M3.5
2
IWSD M3.5
So what is .
Design codes, Standards, Design Recommendations ?

Do they mean the same thing ?

Do they give the same results ?

What are the major differences ?
3
IWSD M3.4
Design standards and codes
BS 7608: 1993 ( British standard for steel structures)
SS-EN 1990 1999 (Eurocodes)
SS-EN 13445-3 (Pressure vessles)
SS-EN 13480-3 (Pipes)
SS-EN 13001(Crane standard)
DNV Offshore Standards/Practice (Offshore structures)
ASME (Pressure vessles, nuclear)
4
IWSD M3.5
Eurocodes
European standard within infra structure engineering
Is valid since 2007 as the swedish standards within the building and
infra-structure industry
Common work within EU since 1980. The purpose is to harmonize
partner countries building codes.
Advantages: Easier to wirk within Europe
Disadvantages: Many conditions give unprecise standard. Difficult
to grasp. Expensive.
Pretty complex and extensive
No history
5
IWSD M3.5
SS-EN 13445-3
Pressure vessles (not exposed to fire)
Part 3: Design
Also: Part 1: General
Part 2: Material
Part 3: Manufacturing
Part 5: Inspection and NDT
Part 6: Design and manufacturing requirements for pressure
vessles in ductile iron
The standard is intended for pressure vessels and structures
subjected to high / low operating temperatures
Lots of proposed design solutions for pressure parts
Works with "allowable stresses" and not partial safety factors
6
IWSD M3.5
SS-EN 13480-3
Metallic industrial piping materials
Part 3: Design
Also: Part 1: General
Part 2: Material
Part 4: Manufacturing
Part 5: Inspection and NDT
Part 6: Additional requirements buried pipes
The standard is intended for pipes subjected to high / low operating
temperatures / pressure
7
IWSD M3.5
SS-EN 13001
Standard for cranes, hoists, elevators, lifting equipment, etc.
Crane standard
Replaces old IKH 4.30.01-03, which does not apply anymore
Partial safety factors are applied
Limit state design similar to Eurocode is applied
SS-EN 13001-01: General principals and requirements
SS-EN 13001-02: Load estimations
SS-EN 13001-03: Allowed values for steel structures, respectively.
continuous lines
One can find examples of dynamic magnification factors for different
elevator / travels
Basis for wind loads on lattice structures, etc...
8
IWSD M3.5
DNV Offshore standards
Standard for the offshore industry
Issued by the Det Norske Veritas
Looks like the structure of Eurocodes
Partial safety factors is applied
Limit state design similar as in Eurocode

9
IWSD M3.5
ASME
American standard
Issued by American Society of Mechanical Engineering
Primarily for the nuclear power industry, but also applied in the
pressure vessel industry
Very extensive
ASME 1
ASME 2
ASME 3

10
IWSD M3.5
IIW recommendations
Recommendations for fatigue design of welded
structures and components
Considers fatigue of welded structures
Independent of branch / industry
Includes recommendations for both Steel and
Aluminum
Note! Not a standard, only recommendations for
design
IIW Doc. XIII-2151-07
11
IWSD M3.5
Eurocodes
EN 1990 - Basis of Structural Design
EN 1991 (EC1) Actions on structures
EN 1992 (EC2) Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 (EC3) Design of steel structures
EN 1994 (EC4) - Design of composite steel and concrete structures
EN 1995 (EC5) Design of timber structures
EN 1996 (EC6) Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 (EC7) Geotechnical Design
EN 1998 (EC8) - Design of structures for earthquake resistance
EN 1999 (EC9) - Design of aluminium structures
12
IWSD M3.5
Eurocodes the principal
Within each code up to 12 sub-codes, national annex Each EC about
500 pages!
13
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Basis of Structural Design
Classification of loads

Description of limit state design

Descrition of partial saftey factors

Design by testing Dimensionering genom provning

National annex






14
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Combination values for variable load
Combination value,
0
Q
k
, applied for verifying ultimate limit state design
which includes accident loads and reversible serviceability limit state design

Frequent value,
1
Q
k
, applied for verifying ultimate limit state design which
includes accident loads and reversible serviceability limit state design

Quasi permanent value,
2
Q
k
, applied for verifying ultimate limit state design
which includes accident loads and reversible serviceability limit state design, also for
long time loads





15
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Combination values for variable load
16
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Combination values for variable load
Example of recommended values
17
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Combination values for variable load
Permanenta load are applied laster pfrs

One studies a variable load, full load impact, at a time

The other variable load multiplied with
0
,
1
or
2
, depending on
which limit state design is studied


18
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Safety classes for buildings
Safety class 1 (low)
d
= 0,83
Small risk for serious personal damage

Safety class 2 (normal)
d
= 0,91
Some risk for serious personal damage

Safety class 3 (high)
d
= 1,0
Large risk for personal damage

19
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Several loads at the same time
Design values against loss of equilibrium of the structure (EQU)
Permanent loads
Unfavourable: Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,1*G
k,sup
E
d
= 0,9*G
k,inf
One variable Main load
Unfavourable: Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,5*Q
k,1
0

Other variable laods
Unfavourable : Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,5*
0,i
*Q
k,i
0
20
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Several loads at the same time
Design values of structure strength (STR)
Permanent loads
Unfavourable: Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,2*G
k,sup
E
d
= 1,0*G
k,inf
Main load
Unfavourable: Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,5*Q
k,1
0

Other variable loads
Unfavourable : Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,5*
0,i
*Q
k,i
0
One variable load
21
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Several loads at the same time
Design values of structure strength (STR)
Permanent loads
Unfavourable: Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,35*G
k,sup
E
d
= 1,0*G
k,inf
All interacting variable loads
Unfavourable : Favourable:
E
d
=
d
*1,5* Q
k,i
0
Interacting variable loads
22
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 1: SS-EN 1990
Design criteria according to Euro code 3
Designing load effect E
d
is determined
Requirement E
d
< R
d
Resistance R
d
= f
k
/
M
Resistance in a cross section
M
=
M0
= 1,0
Resistance in a cross section when instability
M
=
M1
= 1,0
Resistance in pure tension load
M
=
M2
= 1,25 (A
net
, f
uk
)
Resistance in joints
M
=
M2
= 1,25 (f
uk
)
23
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures
EC3 is divided as follows :
1993-1-(1-12) General
1993-2:2006 (Bridges)
1993-3-1:2006 (Towers and masts)
1993-3-2:2006 (Chimneys)
1993-4-1:2007 (Silos)
1993-4-2:2007 (Reservoirs)
1993-4-3:2007 (Pipelines)
1993-5:2007 (Piling)
1993-6:2007 (Crane Courses/tracks)
24
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures
Content of SS EN 1993 -1:
1993-1-1:2006 General rules
1993-1-2:2006 Fire safety design
1993-1-3:2006 Cold formed profiles
1993-1-4:2006 Stainless steel
1993-1-5:2006 Plate beams
1993-1-6:2007 Shells
1993-1-7:2007 Plane plate structures with transversal loads
1993-1-8:2005 Connections and joints
1993-1-9:2005 Fatigue
1993-1-10:2005 Toughness
1993-1-11:2006 Tensile loaded members
1993-1-12:2007 High strength materials
25
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures, fatigue
26
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures, fatigue
27
IWSD M3.5
Example: EC3 vs IIW recommendations
Eurocode 3
Detail category 125
Fatigue strength = 125 MPa
IIW recommendatios
Structural detail 321
Fatigue strength = 125 MPa
@ 2 million cycles
28
IWSD M3.5
Example: EC3 vs IIW recommendations
Eurocode 3
IIW recommendatios
29
IWSD M3.5
Example: EC3 vs IIW recommendations
Eurocode 3
IIW
(Fatigue strength 125 MPa)
m = 3
m = 5
m = 5
FAT160
m = 3
Dilemma or a design
oppertunity??
30
IWSD M3.5
BS 7608 : 1993 overview
Similar to EC3 and IIW, but the detail category is given by a letter.
Description according to table.
For example:

Class S = welded bolts for transfering of shear forces
Class T = welds in steel pipes where the stress range is calculated with
hot spot stress method
Class W = crack trough the weld
31
IWSD M3.5
BS 7608 : 1993 overview
For the slope of the SN-curves
At constant amplitude, fatigue limit
is at 10
7
cycles

At variable amplitude, slope is
changed after 10
7
cycles with
m=m+2

No fatigue limit for variable
amplitude
32
IWSD M3.5
Eurocode 3 overview
EC3 defines detail category the same the IIW FAT-class is defined

The same way as IIW defines special SN-curves for shear stresses (FAT
80 and 100)

Some additional joint types are find in EC3. If the specific joint type you
are analysing is not found in IIW, DNV, BS then check EC3

Special detail categories for hot spot stresses

Weld root failure is designed against normal stresses perpendicular to
the weld,
w
, and shear stresses parallell to the weld,
w





EC3 do not consider parallell normal stress in the evaluation
33
IWSD M3.5
DNV-RP-C203 overview
The FAT values is represented with a detail category of class with a letter
For example:
Class B = Base material
Class T = welds in steel pipes where the stress range is
calculated with hot spot stress method
Class W = crack trough the weld
34
IWSD M3.5
DNV-RP-C203 overview
The SN slopes
For costant amplitude loading, fatigue limit at 10
7
cycles
For variable amplitude loading, m
2
= 5 after 10
7
cycles
No fatigue limit for variable amplitude loading
35
IWSD M3.5
DNV-RP-C203 overview
Calculation of fatigue crack through the throat thickness of fillet weld
Should be based on the following expression





||
is not included in the calculations

Stresses

and

in a double sided fillet weld is calculated according

Where
pl
is the stress in the main plate and t is the thickness

36
IWSD M3.5
DNV-RP-C203 overview
Cumulative damage calculations according to Palmgren-Minor
Requirement D 1
Safety against failure is regulated with Design Fatigue Factor, DFF
DFF = 1 2.3 % failure probability
DFF is connected to the cumulative damge by: D 1 / DFF


37
IWSD M3.5
Summary fatigue design codes (IIW, EC, DNV, BS)
Most design codes have chosen to define the S-N curve slope with m = 3. All
the codes give a change in the slope (m = 3.5 - 5) for the un welded base
material. Except BSK07.

Characteristic fatigue strength could vary considerably for the same structural
detail. Especially for high FAT-values, e.g. base material

DNV and BS assumes no fatigue limit if the loading is variable amplitude (load
spectrum)

IIW give generally one step higher fatigue class than BSK07, although the
same failure probability. However, difference in considering the thickness
factor.

Only BSK07 make difference / consider the weld quality according to ISO5817


38
IWSD M3.5
Summary fatigue design codes (IIW, EC3, DNV, BS)
IIW and EC3 gives specific SN-curves for shear stresses

Only BSK consider
||
in the calculation through the throat thickness (a-mtt)

Most of the codes use the maximum principal stress at the weld toe for stress
evaluation. However, not BSK07, where the stress components are evaluated
in relation to the welds direction

Multiaxial stress state is evaluated in a very different ways in the codes




39
IWSD M3.5
Multiaxial stress state
Effective stresses are not suitable for evaulation of welded joint. Welds are
notch sensitive in the direction of loading. However, effective stresses are
used frequently due to lack of other parameters

Principal stress ranges in multiaxial stress state

Some codes uses interaction formulas for stress components or damage

In some FAT values multiaxiality is considered

40
IWSD M3.5
Multiaxial stress state

Proportional loading: Stresses are varied simultaneously and in phase

Non-proportional loading: Stresses are varied out of phase and independent
of each other. Principal stress directions are varying during the load cycle

IIW, EC3 considers both variants. Is also considered in DNV by summation of
the damages in the different directions

BS No specific consideration (Requirement that the direction of the principal
stress should not differ more than 45)

41
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.1 Design standards and codes comparision
Butt weld in a X-groove

How many load cycle can the weld resist before failure of the joint
a)

= 200 MPa
b)

= 100 MPa

Weld quality corresponds to WB according to BSK07, failure
probability 2.3 %.

42
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.1 Design standards and codes comparision
Summary

43
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
Load carrying fillet weld

The lifting ear lug ( 300 mm long) is loaded with a load range of F
r
=
200 kN. The weld throat thickness is 6 mm. How many load cycles can
the weld take ? Failure probability 2.3 %

44
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
First a general comparision, IIW, BS, EC3, DNV

For a four sided fillet weld, cruciform joint
45
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
IIW Structural detail nr 414 gives FAT = 45
Number of cycles to failure is calculated according
where
Number of cycles to failure
46
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
BS7608:1993 Type number 8.5
We gets class W with the following properties
Since we only have the stresses perpendicular to the weld
If S
r
is substituted by S
P

47
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
EC3 Detail category 36
Number of cycles to failure according to EC3:
48
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
DNV-RP-C203 Welded joint accoding to table A.8.2
We get class W3 with the following properties:
Since we only have the normal stresses perpendicular to the weld:

49
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.2 Design standards and codes comparision
Summary
The different codes consider continues fillet welds
Why is there a difference ??
50
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
I beam bent in its stiff direction

The beam is loaded with a bending moment in one of the track beam
legs

Weld quality B according ISO5817 is required from customer

F
min
= 10 kN
F
max
= 60 kN
+
-
51
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
The longitudinal weld to the flange is exposed to a multiaxial stress
state









In the example the fatigue lifes are compared according to IIW, BS and
DNV
The calculated lifes are compared with fatigue testing results of the
beam, e.g. 50 % failure probability
52
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
The stresses are calculated with Finite element analysis
Four critical points:
- two in the middle of the beam
- two, 120 mm from the middle
[MPa] Mid point 120 mm from mid point

r

r

r

r

r

r

WEB
83 73 0 78 73 -
FLANGE
117 123 0 118 131 4
53
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to IIW
FAT

= 90

FAT

= 80
Shear stress range is below 15% of normal stress range shear stress neglected
In phase loading; no interaction
54
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to IIW
Fatigue life for the different critical locations
Mid points (flange)

r
= 117 MPa N = 2 000 000 cycles

r
= 123 MPa N = 1 209 000 cycles

120 mm from mid points (flange)

r
= 118 MPa N = 1 950 000 cycles

r
= 131 MPa N = 1 001 000 cycles (failure!)
= 1.3 ( 50 % failure probability)
FAT

= 90

FAT

= 80
55
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to British Standard
Weld class parallel D
Weld class perpendicular F
56
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to British Standard

Shear stress range is below 15% of normal stress range shear stress
neglected

The stress components are considered separetly. Principal stress
ranges are valid for weld toe failure. Here, the principal stresses (1
and 2) are in the direction of the parallel and perpendicular stresses

Fatigue life is calculated according:





Mid points (flange)
N = 2 490 000 cycles
N = 928 000 cycles
120 mm from mid points (flange)
N = 2 427 000 cycles
N = 768 000 cycles (failure!)
57
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to DNV RP-C203



Detail category parallel C2
Detail category perpendicular E


t < 25 mm detail category E


58
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to DNV RP-C203

The stress components are considered separetly. Principal stress
ranges are valid for weld toe failure. Here, the principal stresses (1
and 2) are in the direction of the parallel and perpendicular stresses

The fatigue life is calculate according:



The characteristic fatigue strength is divided by 1.3 to get the 50 %
failure probability

If fatigue without corrosion;


Detail category
Detail category
59
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
According to DNV RP-C203


Mid points (flange)
N = 2 740 000 cycles
N = 1 210 000 cycles
120 mm from mid points (flange)
N = 2 670 000 cycles
N = 1 000 000 cycles (failure!)
60
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
Fatigue testing 2 beams where tested


61
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
Fatigue testing

1
st
test 2
nd
test
N
f
= 1 920 000 cycles
Crack started in mid section;
crack growed perpendicular to
weld
web
flange
N
f
= 1 193 000 cycles
Crack started close to mid
section, in the weld to and
propagated parallell to the weld
Mean value from testing:
N = 1 556 500 cycles
62
IWSD M3.5
Example 3.5.3 Design standards and codes comparision
Summary








The welds did not fulfill the requirement of weld quality B according
to ISO 5817 in the inspection after testing

63
IWSD M3.5
Design standards and codes - comparision
Further reading....

Comparsion of BSK 99, EC3, IIW, BS, etc...

Weld Evaluation using FEM, chapter 10, sa Eriksson mfl,
Industrilitteratur, ISBN 91-7548-665-2

Have been distributed to you in advance !