Sofistik Celicni Ram

Portal Frame — SOFiSTiK TUTORiALS https://www.soﬁstik.com/documentation/2016/e...
PORTAL FRAME
Introduction
This tutorial deals with a simple single-span portal frame design according to EN
1993-1-1. This example has already been illustrated in the Steel Construction
Institute Publication: SCI P397 and is named as “ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-
SPAN STEEL PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS TO EUROCODE 3”. We will base our
assumptions on this guide, but some own assumptions are taken as well as for
example UB profiles are replaced with IPE profiles etc.
The tutorial suggests guidance for:
Second order effects and imperfections,

Elastic and plastic global analysis,
Resistance of cross-sections,
Buckling resistance of members.
Note: A basic SOFiSTiK knowledge is required for this tutorial.
Objectives
Start a new project

Define materials
Define cross-sections
Define cross-sections inside Cross Section Editor
1 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Generate system inside SOFiPLUS

Generate loads inside SOFiPLUS
Generate load combinations
Run analysis
Run design
Design results
Project Description
This project is fully done using Graphical User Interface (GUI). However it could be
completely reproduced via text input - CADINP language. The intention of this
tutorial is to guide you through a simple single-span portal frame project and
introduce the general work-flow showing the necessary program tools and
functions. Some theoretical background is given as well.
Geometry
The proposed frame is defined as shown below. The haunch length is assumed to
be 10% of the span. The portal frames are spaced at 8 m centres. The cladding of
the roof and walls is supported by purlins and side rails. The spacing of the girts
and purlins, and the location of restraints to the inside flanges, will be defined at
the design stage.
(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN

STEEL PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS TO EUROCODE 3)
2 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Design code
This tutorial is based on EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-1-5.
Materials
Number Grade Notes
1 S 355 (EN 1993) tf > 16 mm, thus fy = 345 MPa
Cross-sections
Number Title Notes
1 HEB 600 Column
2 IPE 500 Rafter
3 Haunch - 463 mm IPE 500 + cutting of IPE 500 (average cutting

depth 463 mm)

depth 340 mm)

depth 204 mm)

depth 68 mm)
Loads
Number Title Action Load Value
3 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Number Title Action Load Value
1 Self-weight G Automatically generated

(Permanent)
2 Roof G 4,4 kN/m

(Permanent)
3 Snow S (Variable) 3,2 kN/m
4 Imposed Q (Variable) 4,8 kN/m
5 Wind W (Variable) See figure below
7 Imperfection IMP Sway 19 mm (1/689), bow 1/300

(Imperfection) (stress-free)
Loadcase 2 - Roof

Loadcase 3 - Snow

4 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Loadcase 4 - Imposed

Loadcase 5 - Wind
(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN STEEL
PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS TO EUROCODE 3)
5 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Note: SOFiSTiK has a tool for an Automatic Wind Load Generation. A tutorial
with this topic will be available soon.
See also: A detailed description regarding the topic Imperfections you will find
in the tutorial Imperfection Concept.
Load combinations
Leading Accompanying
Number Title Permanent Variable Variable
1001 1.35G+1.35G+1.5Q+IMP 1.35 Imposed

1.5
1002 1.35G+1.35G+1.5S+0.75W+IMP 1.35 Snow Wind 1.5 * 0.5

1.5
1003 1.35G+1.35G+0.75S+1.5W+IMP 1.35 Wind Snow 1.5 * 0.5

1.5
1004 G+G+1.5W+IMP 1.0 Wind

1.5
Download Project Files
You will find the ⇗ data files on our ftp-server.
Note: You need the current SONAR login and password to get access to the
files.
6 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Theoretical Background
Second order effects
The strength checks for any structure are valid only if the global analysis gives a
good representation of the behaviour of the actual structure.
The internal forces and moments are usually determined using either:
First-order analysis, considering initial geometry of a structure or,

Second-order analysis, considering the deformed structure.
Effects of the deformed geometry are second-order effects which should be

considered in case they increase the action effects significantly. Even more, they
can significantly modify the behaviour of a structure. Both imperfections and
second-order effects have to be considered in order to take the influence of the
deformation into account for the verification of stability.
Effects of deflections within the length of members are usually called P-δ (P-little
delta) effects. The P-Δ (P-big delta) effect is a destabilizing moment equal to the
force of gravity multiplied by the horizontal displacement a structure undergoes
when loaded laterally.
Asymmetric or sway mode deflection is shown in the figure below:

EN 1993-1-1 allows several ways to account for the second-order effects and
imperfections. § 5.2.2 (3) states:
7 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
According to the type of a frame and the global analysis, second order effects and
imperfections may be accounted for by one of the following methods:
a. both totally by the global analysis,

b. partially by the global analysis and partially through individual stability checks
of members according to 6.3,
c. for basic cases by individual stability checks of equivalent members
according to 6.3 using appropriate buckling lengths according to the global
buckling mode of the structure.
Imperfections
The following imperfections should be taken into account:
a. global imperfections for frames,

b. local imperfections for individual members.
Sometimes it is rather complicated to guess the shape of global imperfections.

According to EN 1993-1-1 § 5.3.2 (1):
The assumed shape of global imperfections and local imperfections may be

derived from the elastic buckling mode of a structure in the plane of buckling
considered.
Generally, frame imperfections are to be modelled. The initial imperfection

according to eq. (5.5) is given as:
Relative initial local bow imperfections for flexural buckling is expressed with eq.
(5.6):
\[e_0/l\]
where l is the member length.
The value of an imperfection depends on a buckling curve of a cross-section and is

given in the Table 5.1 of EN 1993-1-1.
8 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Elastic and plastic global analysis
The internal forces and moments may be determined using either:
elastic global analysis or,

plastic global analysis.
The most common method of analysis in general is elastic analysis, though it

results in less economical design. The assumption is made that the stress-strain
behaviour of the material is linear independent from stress level. Global analysis
and the resistance of a cross-section could be based on different assumptions, e.g.
global elastic analysis, but plastic resistance of a cross-section. Even if the
resistance of a cross-section is limited by local buckling, an elastic global analysis
may be used.
Plastic analysis generally results in more economical structures because plastic

redistribution allows smaller members to carry the same loads. EN 1993-1-1 §
5.4.3 (1) explains when and how the plastic global analysis may be used:
Plastic global analysis allows for the effects of material non-linearity in calculating
the action effects of a structural system. The behaviour should be modelled by one
of the following methods:
by elastic-plastic analysis with plastified sections and/or joints as plastic

hinges,
by non-linear plastic analysis considering the partial plastification of members
in plastic zones,
by rigid plastic analysis neglecting the elastic behaviour between hinges.
Of course, it should be determined if the members are capable of sufficient rotation

capacity to enable the required redistributions of bending moments. EN 1993-1-1 §
5.5 and 5.6 deal with the mentioned problems.
For the grades of structural steel specified in section 3 of EN 1993-1-1 the bi-linear
stress-strain relationship may be considered:
Resistance of cross-sections
The latest design codes for structural steel are based on an elastic−plastic or
plastic−plastic resistance. To achieve this, the sections are subdivided into four
9 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
classes as follows:
Sections of class 1 are suitable for plastic hinges and a non−linear analysis
with distributed yield areas and a detailed interaction of shear and normal
stress,
Sections of class 2 have limited deformation capacities. The analysis may be
done according to linear theory but the design may be used up to ultimate
plastic limits,
Sections of class 3 can reach the yield strength with an elastic distribution of
stresses, but local buckling prevent the formation of the full plastic moment
resistance. Thus analysis and design are according linear theory,
Sections of class 4 have no allowance for yielding, i.e. the linear stresses are
limited due to buckling of the plates and some parts of the section have to be
treated as not effective for normal stress, which has to be accounted for
either during the definition of the section or will be taken into account
automatically within a nonlinear analysis.
The separation between the classes is a rule of a width−to−thickness ratio c/t,

defined in tables of the design codes. As the section class is not only depending on
the stresses but also on the material strength, it makes no sense to limit a section
to a specific class without bringing material strength into account as well. This
allows also to use slender elements within a plastic design or non-linear analysis, if
the stresses at these elements are sufficiently small.
It is important to note that the classification depends on both the geometry of the
cross-section and the ratio of the moments and axial force at the cross-section. For
example, a typical I-beam might be Class 1 under pure moment but Class 2 or 3
under pure axial loading; under combined loading it might then be Class 1, 2, or 3,
depending on the proportions of axial force and bending moment at the cross-
section under consideration.
The detailed procedure of the cross-section resistance verification is explained in

EN 1993-1-1 § 6.2.
Buckling resistance of members
EN 1993-1-1 § 5.2.2 (7) and (8) describes the stability verification for members:
In accordance with (3) the stability of individual members should be checked

according to the following:
a. If second order effects in individual members and relevant member

imperfections (see 5.3.4) are totally accounted for in the global analysis of
the structure, no individual stability check for the members according to 6.3 is
necessary,
b. If second order effects in individual members or certain individual member
10 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
imperfections (e.g. member imperfections for flexural and/or lateral torsional

buckling, see 5.3.4) are not totally accounted for in the global analysis, the
individual stability of members should be checked according to the relevant
criteria in 6.3 for the effects not included in the global analysis. This
verification should take account of end moments and forces from the global
analysis of the structure, including global second order effects and global
imperfections (see 5.3.2) when relevant and may be based on a buckling
length equal to the system length.
Where the stability of a frame is assessed by a check with the equivalent column
method according to 6.3 the buckling length values should be based on a global
buckling mode of the frame accounting for the stiffness behaviour of members and
joints, the presence of plastic hinges and the distribution of compressive forces
under the design loads. In this case internal forces to be used in resistance checks
are calculated according to first order theory without considering imperfections.
The difficulties considering the buckling length lead to conclusion, that it makes
sense to use some other methods as for example methods explained in EN
1993-1-1 § 5.2.2 (7). As it was already mentioned in the chapter 2.1 of this tutorial
we will focus on the methods based on the second order analysis and not requiring
the buckling lengths.
See also: An extensive theoretical background description for stability analysis

can be found in the tutorial Imperfection Concept.
Step-by-Step
Start a new project
Please refer to the chapter Start New SSD Project of General Workflow
description.
Define materials
11 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Define cross-sections
We have 2 standard profiles HEB 600 and IPE 500. These profiles are defined as
“New Standard Sections”:
Define cross-sections inside Cross Section Editor
The haunch has the following geometry:
12 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
In the analytical model we make some changes and assumptions. Firstly we use
IPE profiles and secondly we have a special case at section 5-5. The cutting depth
is not equal to 0.0, but is 40.0 mm depth. This is necessary because it is not
possible to interpolate between cross-sections with different shapes, i.e. it is not
possible to interpolate between the haunched section with 3 flanges to the
standard section with 2 flanges.

13 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
These non-standard profiles are created inside the Cross Section Editor. This tool
is developed to allow for arbitrary cross-sections in GUI.
Steps to reproduce an input of a haunch cross-section:
Click right mouse button within Cross Sections => select New Solid Section
=> select Composite or Steel:
14 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Give a name and appropriate material:
Under Analytical Parameters we recommend to activate the check-box

‘Determination of the plastic shear capacity based on shear deformation
areas’. It is recommended to avoid different methods for the calculation of
15 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Cross Section Properties within the same project. The activation of this
check-box means, that the same methods will be applied for the calculation
of shear parameters in the standard sections and the user defined sections.
Click on Rolled Steel Shapes and select an appropriate cross-section:
16 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Click OK and simply insert this cross-section by clicking on the screen. Now
click the button Explode - it explodes a standard rolled steel profile. After an
explosion this section may be freely edited:
17 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Click on Rolled Steel Shapes and select an appropriate cross-section again.

This time we need a half of a section. Afterwards repeat the Explode
function:
Now move the cutting to the desired position, adapt the depth of it, “Remove
18 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
vertex” while they are not essential, and define an additional “Stress Point”
for a c/t check of the cutting web:
Note: Two Stress Points of the same name are necessary for c/t check, which
later will be done at the chapter Resistance of cross-sections.
We have defined a haunch cross-section. Now we have to reference it. We

model the haunch as an eccentric beam, so that the reference point of the
cross-section remains at the centre of the top IPE 500 profile of the rafter:

19 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
First haunch cross-section is completed. Now we may use the same

procedure to create 2 additional cross-sections - one we need for section at
the sharp end of the haunch and the second for the part where rafter
overlaps the column. The depth of the cuttings are simply modified with
stretch command:
Generate system inside SOFiPLUS
Firstly, let’s take a look at a frame geometry. We have torsional restraints at points
1-5, as well we have purlins at points 6-12. Before starting to model a frame, all
this should be taken into account, thus we draw not only one Structural Line for a
column and one for a rafter, but rather shorter discreet Structural Lines between
restraint points, which later will be selected during a buckling resistance check of
members. All this we have to do, since it is not possible to define additional lateral
supports inside the module for buckling resistance check (BDK).
20 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Once all the Structural Lines have been created, we may take a look at WinGRAF:
All Structural Lines are modelled as “Centric Beam” except the haunch member.
As already discussed in chapter “Define cross-sections inside Cross Section
Editor”, it is modelled as an “Eccentric Beam” to consider the relevant eccentricity
of it. The “Max. Edge Length” is set to 0,750 m for all Structural Lines to limit the
length of the beam elements created.
21 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Next the Structural Points will be defined:
Structural Point 1 has the following “Support Conditions”:
Structural Points 2-4 have the following “Support Conditions”:
Structural Points 6-13 have the following “Support Conditions”:
22 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Structural Point 5 has the following “Support Conditions”:
Tip: You may model so called “dummy” Structural Lines without a cross-section.
They are helpful, for example, when you have several short Structural Lines in a
sequence, but you need to assign an imperfection for a whole sequence as for a
single element - in that case you draw a “dummy” Structural Line over all existing
Structural Lines and then you may assign an imperfection for that “dummy” Structural
Line. It is helpful as well during the design, when you select the elements to be
designed - in that case you may select a whole Structural Line in one click.
Now the geometry of the frame is finished. We may export the model to SSD and
take a look:
23 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Generate loads inside SOFiPLUS
Firstly we create necessary actions and loadcases inside the Loadcase Manager:
The definition of the loads for this example is a common standard procedure and
will not be described in detail. Special consideration should be given to
imperfection loads, but as already mentioned in chapter “Loads”, a detailed
description on Imperfections can be found in the tutorial Imperfection Concept.
Loadcase 2 - Roof
Loadcase 3 - Snow
24 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Loadcase 4 - Imposed
Loadcase 5 - Wind
25 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Loadcase 7 - Imperfection
Generate load combinations
As already mentioned in chapter “Load combinations”, we create 4 load

combinations:
26 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
1001 1.35G+1.35G+1.5Q+IMP 1.35 Imposed

1.5
1002 1.35G+1.35G+1.5S+0.75W+IMP 1.35 Snow Wind 1.5 * 0.5

1.5
1003 1.35G+1.35G+0.75S+1.5W+IMP 1.35 Wind Snow 1.5 * 0.5

1.5
1004 G+G+1.5W+IMP 1.0 Wind

1.5
As we are going to run a 2nd Order Analysis, we need to calculate every load
combination separately, i.e. superposition principle is not valid any more. Thus, we
create load combinations using the task “Loadcase Combination Manager” in SSD.
Note: According to the reference paper, a 2nd Order Analysis should be done,
because the analyzed frame is sensitive to 2nd order effects. The principle of an
imperfection is, that this phenomenon should not create itself any additional
stresses, i.e. the imperfection is stress-free. Additional stresses are created only
due to the fact that other loads are acting on an imperfect structure. Thus, the
commonly used Equivalent Horizontal Force (EHF) method is generally
incorrect. We use a stress-free imperfection, which is the more appropriate and
correct method of analysis.
See also: Detailed description of automatic generation of load combinations

using the task “Loadcase Combination Manager” which can be found in the
tutorial Imperfection Concept.
27 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Run analysis
As already mentioned, we perform the 2nd Order Analysis. To run an analysis we

use the task “Analysis of Combined Loadcases” in SSD.
Graphical results may be represented in WinGraf.
Bending moments My - load combination 1001:
Normal forces Nx - load combination 1001:
28 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Shear forces Vz - load combination 1001:
Support reactions in global Z and X - load combination 1001:
29 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Run design
Firstly, a resistance of cross-sections will be checked. For this purpose we use the
task “Steel - Resistance of Cross Sections” in SSD.
Select the elements to be designed. Framed in red below are the already
mentioned “dummy” Structural Lines. As you see, there is no need to select
many shorter elements, as you can select the pre-defined “dummy” Structural
Lines. This is done for demonstration purposes:
30 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Choose a Design Method. As there exist several methods allowed, user may
decide which Design Method should be decisive for a particular check:
Von Mises Yield Criterion
31 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
This is the most general method and may be applied as a general cross-section
check procedure. Even if some particular steel design code is not implemented in
SOFiSTiK, you may use this general method. Stresses will be calculated and a
stress-dependent cross-section class will be determined. Cross-sections of class
1-3 will be checked against Von Mises Yield Criterion while cross-sections of class
4 will be identified and marked in “red” only. An appropriate check will not be
processed for class 4 cross-sections as this method is not suitable for this, i.e. only
elastic resistance of cross-section will be considered.
Linear Summation of Forces and Moments
This is a EN 1993-1-1 based cross-section check method. Same as during Von

Mises Yield Criterion method, stresses will be calculated firstly, because they are
needed to determine a stress-dependent cross-section class. Secondly, an
automatic procedure will be applied - cross-sections of class 1-2 will be checked
according to EN 1993-1-1, 6.2.1 (7) & Eq. 6.2; cross-sections of class 3 will be
checked against Von Mises Yield Criterion and cross-sections of class 4 will be
identified and marked in “red” only. Again, an appropriate check will not be
processed for class 4 cross-sections as this method is not suitable for this.
Therefore, cross-sections of class 1-2 will be checked plastically, cross-sections of
class 3 elastically and no check will be performed for cross-sections of class 4.
Total Interaction of Forces and Moments
This is also a EN 1993-1-1 based cross-section check method. The only difference
to Linear Summation of Forces and Moments is that for the cross-sections of class
1-2 complex interaction formulas according to EN 1993-1-1, 6.2.8-10 will be
applied. This allows for more economic design.
Note: Although only one of the methods Linear Summation of Forces and
Moments or Total Interaction of Forces and Moments is chosen, the results will
be printed for all 3 methods - this is useful, because you get an overview of all
methods in one place and you may decide if the method you have chosen
meets your expectations. The decisive value is marked in blue (if utilisation level
< 1.000) or in red (if utilisation level > 1.000). The decisive value depends on
the method which has been chosen.
Result table when design method Linear Summation of Forces and Moments is
chosen (Tot-lin = Linear Summation of Forces and Moments):
Result table when design method Total Interaction of Forces and Moments is
chosen (Tot-int = Total Interaction of Forces and Moments):
32 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
The above mentioned methods are standard methods to be used for common
cases. The last method Nonlinear Stresses with Strain Hardening is a specialised
method which should only be used by experienced users.
Nonlinear Stresses with Strain Hardening
This is also a EN 1993-1-1 based cross-section check method. This method is

mostly intended to solve the cross-sections of class 4, when calculation of non-
effective parts of cross-sections is required. This is made by applying an iterative
solution. A true stress-strain curve of a material is used. It will be checked if the
forces can be resisted by calculating internal forces with non-linear stress-strain
curve.
Only a warning, without an utilisation level, will be printed, if the resistance is not
sufficient:
For the analysis of non-linear stresses, maximum steel stresses are limited to the
ultimate steel strength fu. In case the yield strength or any other stress value
should be checked, please activate the check box “Check stress”. When material
partial safety factor should be considered, please activate a respective check box:
Warning: Although the check box “Check stress” is activated, the maximum
steel stresses still remain limited to the ultimate steel strength fu, i.e. the
iterative calculation will not stop until the ultimate steel strength fu has been
reached. “Check stress” means only, that it could be manually controlled by
33 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
user, if the stresses have exceed the desired limit or not. Please refer to the
table “Maximum Stresses and Checked Limits”.
In our example we use the method Total Interaction of Forces and Moments.

After the resistance of cross-sections is checked, we need to check the buckling
resistance. For that purpose we use the task “Steel - Buckling Resistance of
Members” in SSD.
Note: The module BDK is used in the background for buckling checks.
Select the elements to be designed. You may select single Structural Lines
and/or Sequences of Structural Lines:
34 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Firstly the buckling resistance between torsional restraints of a column will be

checked:

Note: The main reason for different bending moment values to the reference
example is because we made an exact second order analysis including
imperfections, while in the reference example a simplified and conservative
equivalent horizontal force method (EHF) has been used.
The corresponding Structural Lines are selected:
35 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Lets take a look at some settings of the task “Steel - Buckling Resistance of
Members”.
Under “Stability Check”, the user may select which check should be done:
1. Lateral Torsional Buckling (6.3.3) - all checks according to EN

1993-1-1, Ch. 6.3.1-6.3.3 and Eq. 6.46, 6.54, 6.61, 6.62 will be
done. Interaction factors will be calculated according to Method1,
Annex A, Table A.1.
2. Flexural Buckling/Torsional Buckling (6.3.1) - only a check
according to EN 1993-1-1, Ch. 6.3.1 and Eq. 6.46 will be done.
The elastic torsional buckling force Ncr,T and Ch. 6.3.1.4 will be
considered as well.
3. Lateral Buckling (6.3.2) - only a check according to EN 1993-1-1,
Ch. 6.3.2 and Eq. 6.54 will be done.
Under “Design Values”, the user may create his own design values. As many new
design values as is needed is possible. Different design values can be applied to
different Structural Lines. Multi selection and change of combo boxes is as well
possible, that makes the work fast and flexible:
36 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Warning: Please be sure, that you save your check results under different
Design Case numbers in case you check both Structural Lines and Sequence
of Structural Lines at once. Otherwise, only the results for Sequence of
Structural Lines will be available in WinGRAF and Result Viewer, as the last
command overwrites the results
Under “Support Conditions”, the user may assign corresponding start/end or

continuous supports for subsystems. These support conditions will be used during
the eigenvalues analysis, so it is important to define correct support conditions,
because it will influence the calculation of Ncr, Ncr,T and Mcr. BDK will not calculate
automatically the support conditions from a global model - this feature is not yet
provided. BDK will calculate eigenvalues of a selected element, which is isolated
from a global system and which has manually defined support conditions. From the
eigenvalues BDK will calculate the buckling length of that subsystem and will print
it as L-cr:
37 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Under “β(y-y) and β(z-z)” the user may explicitly define the buckling length
coefficients. With input here, Ncr will be calculated according to the approximate
analytical formula i.e. Euler formula (see BDK manual Eq. 2.10) while Mcr will be
calculated according to the formula as described in ECCS TC 8 - No. 119 (see
BDK manual Eq. 2.11):
\[N_{cr}=\dfrac{\pi^2~EI}{\left(sk_i ~ L\right)^2}\]
\[M_{cr}=C_1\dfrac{\pi^2~EI}{L^2} \sqrt{ \dfrac{ L^2 ~ G I_t }{ \pi^2~EI} + \dfrac{ I_{\omega}
}{ I} }\]
Warning: As it could be seen, the buckling length coefficients are applied for
the calculation of Ncr only, but not for Mcr - for Mcr a system length is taken.
Note: There is no need to check the in-plane buckling resistance of a column,

because the stability verification has already been included in the cross-section
check which take into account the second order effects and relevant member
imperfections from the global second order analysis of the frame.
After the buckling resistance check of a column is done, the buckling

resistance of a rafter will be checked. Each segment between the torsional
restraints must be checked under each loading combination. In this example
38 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
we demonstrate a full check under load combination 1001. The bending

moment diagram looks like in the picture below. In practice, however, all
other load combinations including uplift must be carefully considered, as the
zero-moment location and thus the sagging region could shift or even
completely removed:

So firstly we select all the Structural Lines between purlins in Zone C. The bottom
flange of the rafter is in tension in this region, thus no additional restraints are
needed. The compressed top flange is restraint by purlins:

Secondly we select the Structural Lines between the torsional restraint at the sharp
end of the haunch and the point of contraflexure in Zone B. As it is not so easy to
select the exact position of the point of contraflexure, we take the next purlin past
the point of contraflexure (the first restraint to the compressive flange):

39 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
There is no specific guidance for a buckling resistance check of a haunched

segment in EN 1993-1-1. The formulas of chapters 6.3.1 - 6.3.3 are valid only for
uniform members. Some alternative approaches are to be found in literature
however. In the book ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN STEEL PORTAL
FRAME BUILDINGS TO EUROCODE 3 two alternative methods can be found as
well, but these checks must be done by hand.

Design results
Results of cross-section resistance check may be viewed with three different tools
- Report Browser, WinGRAF and Result Viewer:
Report Browser
Here, detailed results in tabular format are presented. Special design code checks
include chapter and even equation information. Results are clearly structured and
may be, for example, used as documentation for a checking engineer.
Table “Maximum Stresses and Checked Limits” gives an overview of
40 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
maximum stresses in the system and their respective limits. The user may
get a good understanding of the level of stresses and the location of the
critical sections:
Table “Plate Slenderness c/t” includes detailed information about the

calculation of c/t ratio and corresponding cross-section class. Auxiliary terms
will help user to follow the calculation procedure:
Table “Utilisation Level” contains detailed results of cross-section checks.

Numerous checks with corresponding explanation in legend below for every
beam (start and end) is presented. Special marking helps the user to filter out
the over-utilised sections (number becomes RED) and decisive utilisation
level (number is always in BLUE):
Table “Maximum Utilisation Level” is a summary of utilisation level of cross-

sections. Maximum utilisation for every cross-section is given. Special
marking helps the user to filter out the over-utilised sections (number
becomes RED):
41 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
WinGRAF
WinGRAF allows the user to present design results graphically.
Cross-section class. Cross-section class is determined in SOFiSTiK

considering the stress level and is thus more precise in comparison with
common and simplified hand calculations or other software:
Warning: As it can easily be seen, there are some sections of cross-section

class 4. In Report Browser a detailed printout shows, that these sections due to
small stresses are allowed to be treated as class 3 according to EN 1993-1-1
5.5.2 (9). This special rule is always applied if possible in AQB. However, this
rule is not applicable for buckling resistance of members check, so the user
should be careful.
42 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Note: The program BDK generally neglects to check the members with the
special rule according to EN 1993-1-1 5.5.2 (9) by giving an error indicating that
cross-section class 4 check is not implemented. The same message is printed,
if there are sections with a “real” cross-section class 4. However, BDK searches
always for a max My along the member and overwrites automatically the cross-
section class, which belongs to that section. So if at max My a cross-section
class 1 exists, the check will be done and no messages are printed. In this
particular case we see, that the buckling resistance of the red framed member is
done. Max My is at a very top of this member and has a cross-section class 2.
An engineer should decide, if this satisfies him.
Tip: If the user decides, that this does not meet his expectations, then there are
several solutions. The user may modify this cross-section in such a way, that the
cross-section is no longer a class 4 section - it could be done by introducing non-
effective parts of the cross-sections or by introducing a longitudinal stiffeners. Both
modifications may be done within Cross Section Editor.
43 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
44 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Note: We haven’t made any changes of cross-sections in our example.
Utilisation level of cross-sections. The user may present either utilisation

level of single checks or decisive checks:
45 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Result Viewer
Result Viewer allows the user to flexibly present design results in tables format.
The user may select which exact results should be included in a table, apply filters
etc.:
As it has been demonstrated, the cross-sectional resistance of the frame is

sufficient.

Results of buckling resistance check may be found as well in Report Browser,
WinGRAF and Result Viewer:
46 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Report Browser
Here, detailed results in tabular format are represented. Special design code
checks include chapter and even equation information. Results are clearly
structured and may be, for example, used as documentation for a checking
engineer.
Table “Design Values” gives an overview of the most important values for a
design:
Table “Flexural Buckling/Torsional Buckling (EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.1)” gives

detailed results with auxiliary terms for the calculation of the design buckling
resistance of a compression member:
Table “Lateral Buckling (EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.2)” gives detailed results with
auxiliary terms for the calculation of the design buckling resistance moment:
Tables “Interaction Factors (EN 1993-1-1, Annex A, Method 1, Table A.1)”

and “Auxiliary Terms (EN 1993-1-1, Annex A, Method 1, Tables A.1 - A.2)”
are important for user who wants to follow the calculation of the interaction
factors:
47 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
Note: Interaction Factors kyy, kyz, kzy and kzz are always calculated according
to EN 1993-1-1, Annex A, Method 1, Table A.1. Annex B, Method 2, Table B.1 is
not implemented.
Table “Check of Lateral Torsional Buckling (EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.3)” is a

summary of all buckling checks for a single member given:
Table “Summary of the Results” is a summary of all buckling checks for all
members:
48 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41
WinGRAF
WinGRAF allows the user to present design results graphically.
Utilisation level of buckling resistance:
Result Viewer
The same procedure as for cross-section resistance.
So it has been demonstrated, that the buckling resistance of the members is

not sufficient. The maximum utilisation level overall is 1.01.
Utilisation
Check Level Conclusion
Resistance of Cross Sections 0.820 Passed
Buckling Resistance of Members 1.01 Not passed
49 of 49 26/05/2020, 20:41

Sofistik Celicni Ram

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sofistik Celicni Ram

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sofistik Celicni Ram

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portal Frame — SOFiSTiK TUTORiALS https://www.soﬁstik.com/documentation/2016/e...

The tutorial suggests guidance for:

Second order effects and imperfections,

Note: A basic SOFiSTiK knowledge is required for this tutorial.

Start a new project

Generate system inside SOFiPLUS

(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN

This tutorial is based on EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-1-5.

1 S 355 (EN 1993) tf > 16 mm, thus fy = 345 MPa

1 HEB 600 Column

2 IPE 500 Rafter

3 Haunch - 463 mm IPE 500 + cutting of IPE 500 (average cutting

4 Haunch - 340 mm IPE 500 + cutting of IPE 500 (average cutting

5 Haunch - 204 mm IPE 500 + cutting of IPE 500 (average cutting

6 Haunch - 68 mm IPE 500 + cutting of IPE 500 (average cutting

Number Title Action Load Value

1 Self-weight G Automatically generated

2 Roof G 4,4 kN/m

3 Snow S (Variable) 3,2 kN/m

4 Imposed Q (Variable) 4,8 kN/m

5 Wind W (Variable) See figure below

7 Imperfection IMP Sway 19 mm (1/689), bow 1/300

(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN

(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN

(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN

1001 1.35G+1.35G+1.5Q+IMP 1.35 Imposed

1002 1.35G+1.35G+1.5S+0.75W+IMP 1.35 Snow Wind 1.5 * 0.5

1003 1.35G+1.35G+0.75S+1.5W+IMP 1.35 Wind Snow 1.5 * 0.5

1004 G+G+1.5W+IMP 1.0 Wind

Download Project Files

You will find the ⇗ data files on our ftp-server.

Second order effects

First-order analysis, considering initial geometry of a structure or,

Effects of the deformed geometry are second-order effects which should be

Asymmetric or sway mode deflection is shown in the figure below:

(Figure taken from SCI P397: ELASTIC DESIGN OF SINGLE-SPAN

a. both totally by the global analysis,

The following imperfections should be taken into account:

a. global imperfections for frames,

Sometimes it is rather complicated to guess the shape of global imperfections.

The assumed shape of global imperfections and local imperfections may be

Generally, frame imperfections are to be modelled. The initial imperfection

where l is the member length.

The value of an imperfection depends on a buckling curve of a cross-section and is

Elastic and plastic global analysis

The internal forces and moments may be determined using either:

elastic global analysis or,

The most common method of analysis in general is elastic analysis, though it

Plastic analysis generally results in more economical structures because plastic

by elastic-plastic analysis with plastified sections and/or joints as plastic

Of course, it should be determined if the members are capable of sufficient rotation

The separation between the classes is a rule of a width−to−thickness ratio c/t,

The detailed procedure of the cross-section resistance verification is explained in

Buckling resistance of members

In accordance with (3) the stability of individual members should be checked

a. If second order effects in individual members and relevant member

imperfections (e.g. member imperfections for flexural and/or lateral torsional

See also: An extensive theoretical background description for stability analysis

Start a new project