Abstract

Thirty‐six years after its publication, Turkish Building Code for Steel Structures was replaced with a more rational specification, Specification of Design and Construction of Steel Structures (SDCSS), which was prepared almost entirely based on the current American steel design specification (AISC 360‐16). European steel design specification (EC3) is also widely used in Turkey for the design of steel structures constructed with the collaboration of Turkish and European companies. It is essential for a steel designer using both SDCSS and EC3 to comprehend the basic differences between these specifications. This study aims to compare the design guidelines defined in AISC 360‐16 (so in SDCSS) and EC3 for rolled I‐shaped steel members subjected to axial compression thoroughly. For various steel grades, member lengths, and 153 different European I/H sections, design buckling resistances and design compressive strengths are computed and compared. It is shown that there are at most 3% difference between the effective areas computed using both specifications. It is highly recommended that the change of cross section class be allowed while calculating design buckling resistances. For the studied sections and steel grades, the resistance‐to‐strength ratios are found to be as high as 1.24 but not smaller than 0.907.

Highlights

  • In Turkey, the Building Code for Steel Structures (BCSS) [1], which was based on the allowable stress method, was used for more than three decades in the design of steel structures

  • Since many steel structures constructed in Turkey and in different countries of Europe have been designed with the collaboration of Turkish and European design companies, European steel design specification, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures [4], has been widely used in Turkey, especially before the publication of SDCSS. e use of EC3 in Turkey is known to continue in the design of special steel structures

  • One of the differences in the design principles for rolled I-shaped compression members given in AISC 360-16 and EC3 is that the design compressive strength of a member calculated using AISC 360-16 is equal to 90% of its nominal strength (Pn) whereas the design resistance (Nb,Rd or Nc,Rd) of the same member calculated using EC3 is equal to its nominal resistance if the recommended values are used for partial factors cM0 and cM1

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In Turkey, the Building Code for Steel Structures (BCSS) [1], which was based on the allowable stress method, was used for more than three decades in the design of steel structures. Comparison of the design rules given for rolled I-shaped compression members for a wide range and large number of European sections including jumbo sections which have reduced yield strengths and may have different buckling curves, assessment of the differences between the currently revised guidelines in AISC 360-16 for the design of members with slender-element sections and the guidelines in EC3 for members with Class 4 sections, computation of capacity ratios for all studied sections, steel grades, and member lengths, evaluation of the Clause 5.5.2(10) in EC3 for members with Class 4 sections, and computation of the critical buckling lengths at which the local buckling effects can be ignored in member capacity calculations are believed to be the main contributions of this study to the current state of the research on the examined subject. For all members with Class 4 sections, these critical lengths are determined and listed

Materials and Methods
Section number
Fy Fe
Results and Discussion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call