Report on

Full-Scale Load Testing of Steel Strutting System

For
Yongnam Holding Limited

Prepared by

Dr Richard Liew
PhD, MIStrutE, CEng, PE(Spore)
Department of Civil Engineering
National University of Singapore

08 December 2006
(This Report Contains 48 Pages)

CONTENTS
Page
1

Modular Strutting System

Test Objectives

Test setup

Instrumentation

4.1

Displacement measurements

4.2

Stress measurements

Test Procedure

Mechanical Properties of Used Steel

Test Results

7.1

Axial load-displacement relationship

7.2 Applied load- vertical displacement relationship

7.3

Applied load- lateral displacement relationship

7.4

Stresses in the main struts

10

7.5

Force distribution in the ties and lacing members

10

7.6

Test Observations and failure modes

10

Comparison with Codes Design Capacity

11

Conclusions

12

References

13

Table 1: Loading intervals and observation

14

Table 2: Table 2: Initial out-of-straightness deflection (downwards deflection) of

14

struts before loading

Table 3: Locations, alignment and direction of sensors

15

Table 4: Axial load capacity of laced strut -comparison of predicted results with test

17

result
Figure 1: Test and instrument layout

18

Figure 2: Load application using hydraulic actuators and high-strength strands

19

Figure 3: S Strut with the loading tendons in position

20

Figure 4: Base support allowing horizontal movement

21

Figure 5: Base support preventing lateral translations.

21

Figure 6: Transducer D3 measuring axial displacement at the real end of the strut.

22

Figure 7: Vertical displacement transducers D5 and D6 at the splice joint of strut.

23

Figure 8: Details of coupon specimens and extracted location

24

Figure 9: Applied load versus axial displacements

25

Figure 10: Applied load versus vertical deflection

26

Figure 11: Vertical deflection profile of the strut

27

Figure12: Load versus lateral displacement at mid-length

27

Figure 13: Stresses on top and bottom flanges of the strut sections at mid-length

28

Figure 14: Axial forces in the Channel Sections

28

Figure 15: Applied load versus axial forces in the lacing members

29

Figure 16: Buckling of the main struts and lacing members after collapse

30

Figure 17: Buckling of the mid-length strut section

31

Figure 18: Another view showing the buckling of the laced strut

32

Figure 19: Applied force versus lacing forces comparison with EC3 approach

33

Appendix A:

34

Certificate of Calibration for Digital Pressure Gauge

Appendix B: Coupon Test Results

35

Appendix C:

37

Design Approaches for Calculating Buckling Resistance of Build-up

Members

C.1

BS5950:Part1:2000 Approach

C.2

BS EN1993-1-1:2005 Approach

37
40

C.3 EC 3 approach to evaluate the shear force of the axially loaded

46

laced struts
C.4

Example

47

Full-Scale Load Testing of Steel Strutting System

Modular Strutting System

Yongnam has developed a proprietary Modular System of components that may be assembled to
provide a structural strutting system appropriate for the majority of excavation support requirements.

The system comprises of:

Laced universal beams of various cross-sections in modular lengths.

Single and double waler beams in various lengths, intermediate supporting beams, king
posts, bracing and waler support brackets.

Various strut to waler joints have been produced to suit to suit the site conditions as
required.

The Yongnam strutting system has been used in many basement construction and civil engineering
excavation works including high-rise and mass rapid transit projects in Singapore, Hong Kong and
the Middle East.

There are, however, a number of questions asked with regard to the performance of the modular
strutting system, such as the performance of the splice joint, strength of the reusable materials, force
distributions in the lacings and channels between the main struts. In response to these questions, a
full scale load test of used modular strutting system spanning about 20m was carried out in the
premise of Yongnam Holdings Limited, located at 51 Tuas South Street 5, Singapore 637644, on 8
November 2006.

This report provides the test results and their interpretation with regard to the

performance of the strutting system in comparison with the codes predicted results.

Test Objectives

The objectives of carrying out full scale test on the laced strut system are:

To determine the maximum load capacity of the strut system and compare against the
design capacity

To investigate the performance and to identify the possible failure mode of the strut system

To ascertain the maximum induced forces on lacing members and compare them with
results predicted by the design equations given in BS5950:2000:Part 1 and Eurocode 3

To investigate the force distributions on the lacing members along the length of the strut

To study the load-displacement behaviour of the strut system

To determine the strength of re-usable strut materials and their implication to structural
safety.

To accomplish the objectives, the strutting system was load tested to failure to establish its buckling
capacity and failure mode. The failure load is compared with the codes predicted load to gain
insight to its ultimate strength behaviour.

The load-displacement relationship and internal force

distribution in the main struts and lacing members were monitored on-line during the test.

Test Setup

The test specimen consists of two universal beams, UB 610x324x195 kg/m, inter-connected by
diagonal laces of equal angle section 80x80x9.66kg/m, and ties of channel sections C254x76 and
C254x90 as shown in Figure 1. The length of the strut is 19.6m consisting of three modular
segments of lengths 3.8m, 12m and 3.8m.

The three strut segments were connected by using 8

number of M24 Grade 8.8 bolts via flush end plate connections. The two end-strut 3.8m segments
was about 4 years old and they were used in KPE strutting works for project C-421 and circle line
MRT project C-853.

The central strut segment of 12m length was more than 6 years old and had

been used in Hong Kong MRT project and subsequently deployed to LTA projects C-421 and C-851
(Note: This information was provided by Yongnam Holdings on requested by the author).

The laced strut specimen was arranged in a horizontal position and connected to waler beams at both
ends.

Loads were applied horizontally from the ends of the struts through the waler beams using

three hydraulic jacks of maximum capacity of 800 tons each (Figure 2).

The loading system

utilizes high tensile strands running along the sides of the strut and mounted onto the walers at the
ends applying a compressive loading on the struts (see Figure 3).

A third party contractor, VSL

Singapore Pte Ltd, was engaged to supply and operate the hydraulic jacks.

The jacks are linked to

share equal hydraulic pressure during load application using a hydraulic pump. Each hydraulic
jack was connected to 31 numbers of 0.6" diameter super low relaxation strands
properties:

Nominal Diameter of the strand: 15.7mm

Nominal Area: 150mm

Yield Strength: 1500 MPa

Min. Breaking Load: 265 kN

with the following

The load was controlled by using a digital pressure gauge which was calibrated to ISO 17025.
certificate of calibration is attached in Appendix A.

The

Total applied load was manually

communicated to the data acquisition system at predetermined loading intervals listed in Table 1.

The two ends of the strutting system were bolted to waler beams which were supported by short
columns.

The column bases were welded to end-plates.

One end of the column base was seated

on a smooth concrete pad allowing free translation in the longitudinal direction of the strut as shown
in Figure 4. The other end of the column base (where the hydraulic jacks were mounted) was bolted
down to the concrete pad preventing any lateral movement (see Figure 5). The bolt connection to
the concrete pad offered very little resisting against overturning moment. The two end boundary
conditions of the strutting system simulate a pinned support and a roller support condition.

Before loading, the initial vertical deflection of the struts was measured and the results are shown in
Table 2.

The strut has initial out-of-straightness with maximum vertical deflection of about 19 mm

at the spliced joint.

This is slightly less than the maximum out-of-straightness tolerance of span

length/1000 (or 19.6mm) for column design as in BS5950:Part1:2000 [Ref. 1].

out-of-straightness in the lateral direction of the strut was found to be very small.

The initial

This was due to

the present of lateral bracing members which controlled the straightness of the two struts in the
lateral direction.

Instrumentation

The test specimen was instrumented with strain gauges and displacement transducers to determine
the stresses in the strut and the lacing members and the lateral and vertical displacements.

The

instrumentation layout plan is shown in Figure 1. A summary of the sensor locations and their
sensing direction is given in Table 3.

4.1

Displacement measurements

Displacements were measured using spring mounted strain gauge based displacement transducers.
The transducers have the following maximum travel distances (see Figure 1):

Displacement Transducers

Maximum Travel Distance

D1 and D2

50 mm

D3, D4, D5 and D6

200 mm

D7 and D8

100 mm

The measurement accuracy of the displacement transducers is 0.02mm.

The instruments were

connected electrically to a data logger of resolution 1 micro-strain and with measurement accuracy
of 0.05% of reading.

The axial displacement was measured by taking the average readings from the displacement
transducers mounted at mid-height of the strut at positions D1, D2, D3, and D4 (see Figure 6). The
vertical deflections at the mid-span of the strut were measured using strain gauge based
displacement transducers mounted at positions D7, and D8.

Additional vertical deflections were

measured at the splice joints of the laced strut at 3.8m from both ends of the test specimen as shown
in Fig. 7.

Lateral displacements were measured at the mid-length of the strut.

The transducers were mounted

at positions D11, D12, D13, and D14 in Figure 1 measuring the lateral displacements of the top and
bottom flanges of the struts at mid-length.

4.2 Stress measurements

Strain gauges were attached at the mid-length section of the lacing members along one-half of
the strut. They are indicated as L1 to L16, comprising 8 top and 8 bottom laces.

Each lace

was instrumented with two strain gauges mounted longitudinally on each leg of the angle lace.
The first 4 laces nearest to the end were instrumented with 4 strain gauges with two gauges at
each leg, labelled as -1 to -4, to monitor their bending stresses.
Strain gauges were attached to the mid-length of the strut to measure the compressive and
bending stresses at the top and bottom flanges of the strut.

These comprise two strain gauges

mounted on the top and bottom flanges at the mid-length section of each strut member, labelled
as S1 to S4.
Strains gauges were attached to the channel tie sections located at the front end of the strut and at
the splice joints location, indicated as C1 to C6.

Each channel section was instrumented with

three strain gauges to measure the average stresses acting on the channel section.

Data collection was triggered manually when the applied load reached the predetermined values.
The scanning rate of the data logger is approximately 0.08 second per channels.

Test Procedure

The load procedure was divided in 3 stages:

1

Preload cycling from 0 to 500 tons

Repeated loading up to 500 tons and unloading without recording data.

The bolts at the

splice joints were tighten at preload of 500 tons. This was necessary to remove any lack of fit
in the test specimen.

Load up to service load of 700 tons

The service load of the test specimen is about 700 tons (design load capacity is about 1000
tons with factor of safety of 1.4).

The service load indicated in Yongnam technical brochure

for this laced strut is about 750 tons.

of 100 tons up to 700 tons.

A quasi-static load was applied at an incremental load

At every load intervals, deflection and strain gauge readings were

taken.

Loading from 700 tons to failure

Without unloading, the load was monotonically increased at intervals of 100 tons up to 1000
tons and thereafter at 50 tons increment till failure.

At each load increment, deflection and

strain gauge readings were taken. Observations were made of the strut behaviour and failure
mode.

Mechanical Properties of Used Steel

Mechanical properties of the steel strut components were determined from coupon specimens
extracted from the used steel similar those in the test specimens.

Details of the coupons and

sampling location are shown in Figure 8. Coupons were cut longitudinal to the axis of the member
and machined to dimensions.

In total, 8 coupons were extracted from the twin struts, 4 coupons

from the angle laces and 2 coupons from the channel tie sections.

The coupons were axially loaded in tension using universal testing machine with load cell
measurement accuracy of 1%.
measurement accuracy 1%.

Strains in the coupon were measured using extensometer of

Coupon test results are shown in Appendix B, Table B.1.

The yield

strengths of the steel components are summarised in the table shown below:

Strut Section

12m strut segment

3.8m strut segment

(6-year old)

(4-year old)

UB 610x324x195 kg
Min. yield strength from tests

397 N/mm2
345 N/mm2

Design strength for S355 steel

in BS5950
Lacing Members

Min. yield strength from tests

Angle

Min. yield strength from tests

Design strength for S275 steel
in BS5950

80x80x9.66kg/m

312 N/mm2

341 N/mm2
275N/mm2

Design strength for S275 steel

in BS5950
Channel tie members

389 N/mm2

250x90x25.5kg/m

254x76x28.29 kg/m

341 N/mm2

358 N/mm2
275N/mm2

The yield strengths of the steel components are not affected by the age, and their actual yield
strengths are higher than the nominal strength specified in the BS standards.

The dimensions of the

structural sections were measured and compared with the nominal values specified in the section
table as reported in Table B2 in Appendix B.

There is no evidence to suggest that the cross-section

areas of the re-used sections were reduced due to repeated use of the steel strutting system.

Test Results

7.1

Axial load-displacement relationship

The axial load displacement relationship obtained from the test data is almost linear up to about
1000 tons as shown in Figure 9.
mm.

The axial load displacement at service load of 700 tons is about 13

Thereafter, axial displacement of the left strut increased faster than the right strut with an

average axial displacement of about 35mm at 1400 tons.

Thereafter, axial deflection increased

rapidly and the strut failed at 1438 tons. Failure was characterised by the buckling of the main strut
members bending about their major axis (x-x axis) causing large deflection in the downward
direction.

7.2 Applied load- vertical displacement relationship

Figure 10 shows the applied load versus the vertical displacement curves taken at the mid-length
section and at the splice joint positions of the strut.
14mm at the service load of 700 tons.

The mid-length vertical deflection is about

When the applied load exceeded 1000 tons, the lateral

deflection increased in a nonlinear manner; the maximum measured vertical deflection is about 78
mm at applied load of 1400 tons occurred at the mid-length of the strut.

The vertical deflection

increased rapidly when the load approached the maximum capacity of 1438 tons.

The strut buckled

in the downward direction until the mid-length sections of the strut touched the ground. The
deflection profile of the strut was measured at various load stages and the deflected curves are
plotted in Figure 11.
strut length.

7.3

There is no slope discontinuity due to the present of splice joints along the

No opening up of splice joints was observed up to the load of 1400 tons.

Applied load- lateral displacement relationship

Figure 12 shows the applied load versus the lateral displacements measured at the mid-length section
of the strut. The lateral deflection of the strut was very small at the service load level (less than
2mm).

This increases to about 8.4 mm just before failure at 1400 tons applied load.

The bottom

flange of the Universal beam section defected more than the top flange under the increased load.
The maximum difference in lateral deflection is about 4mm at 1400 tons of applied.

The lateral

deflection is considered to be very small as compared to the vertical displacement, indicating that the
lacing members were effective in preventing buckling in the lateral direction (i.e, y-y axis).

10

7.4

Stresses in the main struts

Figure 13 shows the applied load versus the average stresses taken at the top and bottom flanges of
the main strut sections at the mid-length.

The compressive stresses at the top flanges are higher

than those at the bottom flanges because of the combined axial and bending stresses at the
mid-length of the strut.

It is noted that at 1400 tons of applied load, the strut sections at the mid

length are fully in compression, indicating that the moment was not large enough to induce tensile
stress in the strut. In other words, the strut remained in compression up to 1400 tons of applied
load.

Slight yielding was observed at the top flange fibres at 1400 tons of applied load.

Significant yielding is expected beyond 1400 tons and up to failure load of 1438 tons since large
displacement occurred suddenly and cross section distortion occurred as shown in Figs. 17 and 18.

7.5

Force distribution in the ties and lacing members

The horizontal ties (channel members) experienced very small axial force of about 5 tons at the
applied load of 1400 tons as shown in Figure 14. Larger axial force was observed at the top
channel member near the supported end of the strut than those at the splice joints.

Figure 15 shows the axial force distribution in the lacing members along the half length of the laced
strut.

Again the axial forces in the lacing members are very small.

When the applied load is 700

tons (service load), the maximum lacing force is 4.4 tons which is about 0.63% the applied strut load.
When the applied load is 1400 tons, the maximum lacing force is about 7.5 tons, which is about 0.54
% the applied strut load.

The axial forces in the ties and lacing members are considered to be small as compared to the
requirement in BS5950:Part1:2000 of 2.5% of the axial force in the member, divided amongst the
transverse lacing systems in parallel planes.

Detailed comparison with codes requirement is

discussed in Section 8.

7.6

Test Observations and failure modes

Figures 16 to 18 show the deformed modes of the laced strut after collapse.
capacity of the laced strut is 1438 tons.

The maximum load

The failure is due to the buckling of the two main struts

buckled about their major axis (x-x direction). The large deflection caused yielding and distortion
of the universal beam section nears the mid-length of the strut as shown in Figures 16-18. All the

11

bolted connections (in the splice joints, the ties and the laces) remained intact without any sign of
failure.

The lacing members and their connections were adequate and effective in preventing

lateral buckling of the struts (i.e, y-y axis direction).

Comparison with Codes Design Capacity

The design of axially loaded laced struts, compared against that of conventional axially loaded struts
with web plates, should includes strength, stiffness and overall stability verifications, and
furthermore, the verification of local stability of single component should also be carried out and the
design check for all bracings (lacings) is necessary.

The design of laced strut is provided in

BS5950:Part1:2000 Clause 4.7.8 [Ref. 1] and in Eurocode 3-1-1:2005 Clause 6.4 for built up
compression member [Ref. 2].

The capacity of the laced strut is controlled by (1) global buckling

of the two main struts about the major axis bending (X-X global), (2) global buckling about the y-y
axis of the compound strut (Y-Y global), and (3) local overall buckling of I-beam between the two
laced points, and (4) buckling of lacing or failure of connection.

The comparison of axial capacity

based on codes predicted values and test result are shown in Table 4.

Detailed calculations of

buckling capacity of laced strut using BS5950:Part1:2000 and EC3 (2005) are given in Appendix C.

The maximum load predicted by EC3-1-1:2005 is 984 tons, 1147 tons and 1314 tons assuming
effective length of 1.0L, 0.85L and 0.7L, respectively.
buckling about the X-X axis.

The capacity is controlled by global

This is consistent with the predicted failure mode and the predicted

buckling capacity is conservative compared to the test failure load of 1438 tons.

The maximum load predicted by BS5950:Part1:2000 is 995 tons, 1168 tons and 1320 tons assuming
effective length of 1.0L, 0.85L and 0.7L, respectively.

If a shear force of 2.5% axial load is

assumed, the capacity of the strut is limited by the buckling capacity of lacing member which gives a
value of 1131 tons.

However, failure of lacing member was not observed in the test before

buckling of the main struts.

The BS5950:Part1:2000 approach is conservative as compared to the

actual failure load of the strutting system.

Clause 4.7.8 (i) of BS5950 Part 1:2000 states that The lacings and their connections should be
designed to carry the forces induced by a transverse shear at any point in the length of the member
equal to 2.5% of the axial force in the member, divided equally amongst all the transverse lacing
systems in parallel planes.
tons of shear force.

At the applied load of 1400 tons, 2.5% of this load would indicate 18

However, the measured maximum axial forces in the channel and angle section

12

are only 5 and 7.5 tons, respectively. Therefore BS5950 recommendation is found to be too
conservative when compared to the measured forces in the lacing members in the test.
Eurocode 3-1-1:2005, on the other hand, provides a more reasonable interpretation of the transverse
shear force acting on the lacing members.

The shear force is depending on the maximum bending

moment (i.e, axial force and lateral deflection) at the mid-length and the length of the strut.
Appendix C.3 provides the derivation of the design shear force formula in Eurocode 3-1-1:2005
based on second-order analysis of built-up compression. The predicted test result is compared with
those obtained from tests in Figure 19.

EC3:2005 approach predicts a maximum axial force in the

lacing member as 8.5 tons compared to the test result of 7.5 tons. The comparison is found to be
reasonable.
In summary, the strut capacity predicted by EC3-1-1 and BS5950:Part1 are conservative compared
to the test result because:
(1) Boundary conditions may be partial restrained against rotation rather than pin-ended as
assumed in the design calculation. However, it should be noted that the bolts connecting to
the column base to the concrete pad offered very little resistance against overturning
moment.

It is therefore reasonable to assume pin-ended boundary condition.

(2) The actual measured yield strength of grade S355 steel strut section is about 400 MPa which
is greater than the nominal yield strength of 345MPa in BS5950 (16mm<t<40mm) and
355MPa in EC3 (t<40mm);
(3) The lacing members are assumed to resist the total shear force in design (bending about Y-Y
axis). Actually, part of shear force was resisted by the I-beam sections. Therefore, the lacing
force is much smaller than that predicted by the codes.

The actual lateral deflection of the

strut was very small and therefore the induced second-order moment and the corresponding
shear forces are smaller than those predicted by the codes.

Conclusions

The following conclusions may be derived from the full-scale testing of the laced strut system:
1) The predicted failure load of the strut based on BS5950:Part1:2000 is 995 tons.

Based on

the design safety factor of 1.4, the working load is 710 tons. The actual collapse load of the
test specimen is 1438 tons.
2.0.

The factor of safety against the design working load is about

The load capacity predicted by the codes is found to be on the conservative side.

2) The ultimate load was not affected by the age of the strutting modules. Coupon tests show
that old and reused struts do not diminish in strength over the years (it means old struts can

13

continue to be reused, if their thicknesses are not eroded due to sand blasting and
re-painting).
3) All the connections were robust and adequate as the failure was due to the overall buckling
of the main strut about the major axis (X-X axis) with plastic hinge formed at the mid-length
of the members.

The load-carrying capacity and the load-displacement relationship of the

modular strutting system was not affected by the splice joint details.
4) Maximum axial force in the lacing members was approximately 0.54% of the applied strut
load.

The shear force of 2.5% of axial force assumed in BS5950:Part1:2000 is too high.

Eurocode 3 provides a better estimation of the shear forces for designing the lacing members.
The laced members and their connections to the main struts were found to be adequate.
Failure was due to the buckling of the main struts and was not governed by the buckling of
the lacing member.

References
1. BS5950:Part 1 (2000), Structural use of steelwork in building, Part1: Code of practice for
design rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institute.
2. Eurocode 3 Part 1-1 (2005), Design of steel structures: Part 1-1 General rules and rules for
building, British Standards Institute.

14

Table 1: Loading intervals and observations

Total Applied Loads (ton)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1438

Observations

Maximum loading for preloading cycles

Design load of struts (750ton), no major deformation
noted

Visible deflection at mid-span

Adjustment of hydraulic actuators, unitisation of actuator

stroke
observed reduction in strains and displacements

Sudden buckling and collapse of strut, end of test

Table 2: Initial out-of-straightness deflection (downwards deflection) of struts before loading

Distance from the front end
Top flange deflection

Bottom flange deflection

Average deflection

3.8 m

9.8 m

15.8 m

2 mm

9 mm

21 mm

4 mm

8 mm

16 mm

3 mm

8.5 mm

19 mm

15

Table 3: Locations, alignment and direction of sensors

Measuring

Element

Location

Position

Direction

Axial

Front Waler
//
Rear Waler
//
Strut Right

Right of strut
Left of strut
Right of strut
Left of strut
Joint nearer
Front
//
Mid-span
//
Joint nearer
Rear
//
Mid-span
//
Mid-span
//
Mid-span
//
//
//
Mid-span
//
//
//
Mid section
//
//
Mid section
//
//
Mid section
//
//
Mid section
//
//
Mid section
//
//
Mid section
//
//

Centre line of load pts

Centre line of load pts
Centre line of load pts
Centre line of load pts
Top channel of side strut

Vertical

Strut Left
Strut Right
Strut Left
Strut Right

Lateral

Strain

Strain

Strut Left
Strut Right
//
Strut Left
//
Strut Right
//
//
//
Strut Left
//
//
//
Channel #1
//
//
Channel #2
//
//
Channel #3
//
//
Channel #4
//
//
Channel #5
//
//
Channel #6
//
//

Outwards, +ve=Comp strut

Outwards, +ve=Comp strut
Outwards, +ve=Comp strut
Outwards, +ve=Comp strut
Downward, +ve=Defl down

Ref in
Fig.
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5

Ref in
Data file
0
1
2
3
4

Top channel of side strut

Top flange of main strut
Top flange of main strut
Top channel of side strut

Downward, +ve=Defl down

Downward, +ve=Defl down
Downward, +ve=Defl down
Downward, +ve=Defl down

D6
D7
D8
D9

5
6
7
8

Top channel of side strut

Top Flange, 100mm ext
Bottom Flange, 100mm ext
Top Flange, 100mm ext
Bottom Flange, 100mm ext
Top Flange, top surface
Top Flange, top surface
Bottom Flange, bottom surface
Bottom Flange, bottom surface
Top Flange, top surface
Top Flange, top surface
Bottom Flange, bottom surface
Bottom Flange, bottom surface
Flange nearer front
Middle of web
Flange nearer rear
Flange nearer front
Middle of web
Flange nearer rear
Flange nearer front
Middle of web
Flange nearer rear
Flange nearer front
Middle of web
Flange nearer rear
Flange nearer front
Middle of web
Flange nearer rear
Flange nearer front
Middle of web
Flange nearer rear

Downward, +ve=Defl down

Towards left, +ve=Sway left
Towards left, +ve=Sway left
Towards right, +ve=Sway right
Towards right, +ve=Sway right
Middle of right outstand
Middle of left outstand
Middle of right outstand
Middle of left outstand
Middle of right outstand
Middle of left outstand
Middle of right outstand
Middle of left outstand
Top channel
//
//
Bottom channel
//
//
Top channel
//
//
Bottom channel
//
//
Top channel
//
//
Bottom channel
//
//

D10
D11
D12
D13
D14
S1-1
S1-2
S2-1
S2-2
S3-1
S3-2
S4-1
S4-2
C1-1
C1-2
C1-3
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
C3-1
C3-2
C3-3
C4-1
C4-2
C4-3
C5-1
C5-2
C5-3
C6-1
C6-2
C6-3

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

16

Table 3 (continue): Locations, alignment and direction of sensors

Measuring

Element

Location

Position

Direction

Strain

Lacing #1
//
//
//
Lacing #2
//
//
//
Lacing #3
//
Lacing #3
//
Lacing #4
//
//
//
Lacing #5
//
Lacing #6
//
Lacing #7
//
Lacing #8
//
Lacing #9
//
Lacing #10
//
Lacing #11
//
Lacing #12
//
Lacing #13
//
Lacing #14
//
Lacing #15
//
Lacing #16
//

Bolted flange
//
Vertical flange
//
Bolted flange
//
Vertical flange
//
Bolted flange
//
Vertical flange
//
Bolted flange
//
Vertical flange
//
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange
Bolted flange
Vertical flange

12mm from edge

12mm from other flange
12mm from other flange
12mm from edge
12mm from edge
12mm from other flange
12mm from other flange
12mm from edge
12mm from edge
12mm from other flange
12mm from other flange
12mm from edge
12mm from edge
12mm from other flange
12mm from other flange
12mm from edge
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//
Middle of flange
//

Top lacing
//
//
//
Bottom lacing
//
//
//
Top lacing
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//
//
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//
Top lacing
//
Bottom lacing
//

Strain

Sign convention:
Displacement transducers (D1 to D14) + is extension, -ve is retraction
Strain Gauges (S1 to S4, C1 to C6, L1 to L16) +ve is tension, -ve is compression
Note:
Strain gauges on channels and lacing installed on inner surface, as shown in figure

Ref in
Fig.
L1-1
L1-2
L1-3
L1-4
L2-1
L2-2
L2-3
L2-4
L3-1
L3-2
L3-3
L3-4
L4-1
L4-2
L4-3
L4-4
L5-1
L5-2
L6-1
L6-2
L7-1
L7-2
L8-1
L8-2
L9-1
L9-2
L10-1
L10-2
L11-1
L11-2
L12-1
L12-2
L13-1
L13-2
L14-1
L14-2
L15-1
L15-2
L16-1
L16-2

Ref in
Data file
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79

17

Table 4:

Axial load capacity of laced strut -comparison of predicted results with test result
Failure
A
fy
L
2
mode (mm ) (MPa) (mm)

I
(mm4)

Max. Load (tons)

EC3
BS 5950
984 / 1147 /
995 / 1168 /
19600 3.346E+09
1314 *
1320 *
1506 /1582
1498 /1569
19600 1.245E+10
/1656*
/1685*

X-X Global 49800

S355

Y-Y Global

49800

S355

I-beam y-y Local

x-x/y-y
Lacing
u-u
v-v

24900
1230
1230
1230

S355 2000 1.416E+08

S355 1414.2 7.24E+05
S355 1414.2 1.15E+06
S355 1414.2 3.00E+05

Laced
Struts

Test

1438
1533**

1726**

2467

1131

Notes: * Different values with different effective lengths assumed LEX=1.0L/0.85L/ 0.70L;
**

Value obtained based on effective length LEY =1.0L.

18

6m

3.8 m

19.6m total length consisting of 3.8m + 12m + 3.8m segments

Figure 1: Test and instrument layout

19

Figure 2 Load application using hydraulic jacks and high-strength strands

20

Figure 3: Strut with the loading strands in position

21

Figure 4 Base support allowing horizontal movement

22

Figure 5 Base support preventing lateral translations.

Figure 6: Transducer D3 measuring axial displacement at the real end of the strut.

23

Figure 7: Vertical displacement transducers D5 and D6 at the splice joint of strut.

24

Figure 8: Details of coupon specimens and extracted location

25

1600

1400

Total Applied Axial Load (tons)

1200

1000

800

600

400

Axial displacement at
Right Strut
Left Strut

200

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Axial Displacement (mm)

Figure 9: Applied load versus axial displacements

40

45

50

26

1600

1400

Total Applied Axial Load (tons)

1200

1000

800

600

400

Vertical deflection at
1st splice joint from front end
mid-length
1st splice joint from rear end

200

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Figure 10: Applied load versus vertical deflection

80

90

100

27

Distance from Front to Rear (m)

0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10

20

Vertical Deflection (mm)

30

40

50

60

70

Total applied axial load

700 tons
1000 tons
1200 tons
1400 tons

80

90

100

Figure 11: Vertical deflection profile of the strut

1600

1400

Total Applied Axial Load (tons)

1200

1000

800

600

Lateral deflection at

400

Top flange Right strut

Bottom flange Right strut
Top flange Left strut
Bottom flange Left strut

200

0
0

Lateral Displacement (mm)

Figure12: Load versus lateral displacement at mid-length

10

28
1600

1400

Total Applied Axial Load (tons)

1200

1000

800

600

Stresses measured at
Top flange Right strut
Bottom flange Right strut
Top flange Left strut
Bottom flange Left strut

400

200

+ve indicating compressive stresses

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Stress at mid-length section of Struts (N/mm2)

Figure 13: Stresses on top and bottom flanges of the strut sections at mid-length
1600

1400

Total Applied Axial Load (ton)

1200

Forces measured at
Channel #1
Channel #2
Channel #3

1000

800

600

400

Channel #4
Channel #5

200

Channel #6
+ve indicating compressive forces

0
-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

Axial Force on Channels (ton)

Figure 14: Axial forces in the Channel Sections

10

12

14

16

29

1600

Forces measured at
Lacing #1
Lacing #2
Lacing #3
Lacing #4
Lacing #5
Lacing #6
Lacing #7
Lacing #8
Lacing #9
Lacing #10
Lacing #11
Lacing #12
Lacing #13
Lacing #14
Lacing #15
Lacing #16

1400

Total Applied Axial Load (ton)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

+ve indicating compressive forces

0
-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

10

Axial Force on Lacings (ton)

Figure 15: Applied load versus axial forces in the lacing members

12

14

16

30

Figure 16: Buckling of the main struts and lacing members after collapse

31

Figure 17: Buckling of the mid-length strut section

32

Figure 18: Another view showing the bucking of the laced strut

33

1600
Predicted by EC3
Lacing #1
1400

Lacing #2
Lacing #3

1200

Lacing #4
Lacing #5

1000

Lacing #6
Lacing #7
Lacing #8

800

Lacing #9
Lacing #10

600

Lacing #11
Lacing #12
400

Lacing #13
Lacing #14

200

Lacing #15
Lacing #16

0
-6

-4

-2

10

Figure 19 Applied force versus lacing forces comparison with EC3 approach

34

Appendix A:

Certificate of Calibration for Digital Pressure Gauge

35

Appendix B

Coupon Test Results

Table B.1 Mechanical properties of steel sections from coupon tests

12m strut segment (4 year-old)
3.8m strut segment (6 year-old)
Strut Section
UB 610x324x195 kg
Flange
Web
Flange
Web
Coupon
Sample
Reference
5F1
5F2
5W3
5W4
10F1
10F2 10W3 10W4
Measured Width (mm)
12.60
12.61
12.72 12.67 12.55 12.72 12.57 12.65
Measured
Thickness
(mm)
23.32
23.24
14.69 14.68 23.06 22.93
15.11
14.78
Cross-sectional
Area
(mm2)
293.83 293.06 186.86 186.00 289.40 291.67 189.93 186.97
Yield Load (kN)
116.5
132.6
76.7
76.5
115.7
113.5
78.3
79.6
Yield Strength (N/mm2)
397
453
411
411
400
389
412
426
Maximum Load (kN)
168.8
164.1
108.1 107.2 146.9 144.2
98.4
97.0
Max. Tensile Strength
(N/mm2)
575
560
579
576
508
494
518
519
Elastic
Modulus
(kN/mm2)
209.0
211.5
199.8 197.0 214.6 202.9 199.1 202.0

Lacing
Angle 80x80x8
Coupon
Sample
Reference
Measured Width (mm)
Measured
Thickness
(mm)
Cross-sectional
Area
(mm2)
Yield Load (kN)
Yield Strength (N/mm2)
Maximum Load (kN)
Max. Tensile Strength
(N/mm2)
Elastic
Modulus
(kN/mm2)

Channels

5L1
12.79

5L2
12.50

10L1
13.03

10L2
12.63

9.60

9.53

8.20

7.70

122.78
38.4
313
55.1

119.13
37.2
312
54.7

106.85
36.4
341
55.1

97.25
37.8
389
57.0

449

459

516

586

190.7

193.3

168.0**

182.7

254x76x28.29 kg/m

Coupon
Sample
Reference
Measured Width (mm)
Measured
Thickness
(mm)
Cross-sectional
Area
(mm2)
Yield Load (kN)
Yield Stress (N/mm2)
Maximum Load (kN)
Tensile
Strength
(N/mm2)
Elastic
Modulus
(kN/mm2)
Note: ** Low value, this result is ignored
Table B.2

250x90x25.5kg/m

5C
12.66

10C
12.68

8.91

6.68

112.80
38.5
341
56.4

84.70
30.4
358
42.3

500

499

201.4

195.3

Section Dimensions of Lacing members and Channels

D (mm)
B (mm)

t (mm)

T (mm)

Area
(cm2)

36

Lacing members
Measured dimensions
From section table
80x80x9.66kg/m

Channels
Measured dimensions for
channel at 3.8m strut
segment
From
section
table
254x76x28.29kg/m
Measured dimensions for
channel at 12m strut
segment
From section table 250x90x25.5kg/m

81.0
80.0

81.0
80.0

8.1
8.0

8.1
8.0

12.50
12.30

262.0

76.5

7.9

13.1

38.78

254.0

76.2

8.1

10.9

36.03

251.0

90.2

8.9

14.3

45.67

250.0

90.0

8.0

15.0

45.20

37

Appendix C: Design Approaches for Calculating Buckling Resistance of Build-up

members
C.1

BS5950:Part1:2000 Approach

The cross-section UB610324195 ( ix = 1.673 10 mm , i y = 1.416 10 mm , rx = 259mm, ry = 75.5mm ,

9

Ach = 249cm 2 ) is used for chords and section L80808 ( ix = i y = 7.24 105 mm 4 , rx = ry = 24.3mm ,
iu = 1.15 106 mm 4 , iv = 3.0 105 mm 4 , ru = 30.6mm, rv = 15.6mm , Ad = 12.3cm 2 ) for lacing members;
h0 = 1000mm, a = 2000mm, d = 1000 2mm ;
L80808

NEd/2

NEd/2

UB610324195

2.

d
a

Ad
A ch

y
1000

h0
NEd

NEd

L=19600mm
Fig. C1 Dimension of laced strut
3. Structural steel grade: S355;
4. Calculation of the overall buckling resistance based on BS 5950-1:2000:
(1) Check overall buckling resistance of struts about X-X axis
a) LE=1.0L

X = LE / RX = L / rx = 19600 / 259 = 76

(1)

pc = 196( N / mm 2 ) (rolled I section, buckling curve c)

(2)

N b , Rd , X = 24900 2 196 = 9760.8(kN ) =

9760.8
(ton) = 995(ton)
9.81

(3)

b) LE=0.85L

X = LE / RX = 0.85 L / rx = 0.85 19600 / 259 = 64

(4)

pc = 230( N / mm 2 ) (rolled I section, buckling curve c)

(5)

38

N b , Rd , X = 24900 2 230 = 11454(kN ) =

11454
(ton) = 1168(ton)
9.81

(6)

c) LE=0.70L

X = LE / RX = 0.70 L / rx = 0.70 19600 / 259 = 53

(7)

pc = 260( N / mm 2 ) (rolled I section, buckling curve c)

(8)

N b , Rd , X = 24900 2 260 = 12948(kN ) =

12948
(ton) = 1320(ton)
9.81

(9)

(2) Check buckling resistance about Y-Y axis

i) Global (check struts member)
a) LE = 1.0 L = 19600mm

IY = 2i y + 2 Ach (

h0 2
1000 2
) = 2 1.416 108 + 2 24900 (
) = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 )
2
2

(10)

RY = IY / 2 Ach = 505(mm)

(11)

Y = LE / RY = 19600 / 505 = 39

(12)

pc = 295( N / mm 2 ) (rolled I section, buckling curve c)

(13)

N b , Rd ,Y ( global ) = 24900 2 295 = 14691(kN ) = 1498(ton)

(14)

b) LE = 0.85 L

IY = 2i y + 2 Ach (

h0 2
1000 2
) = 2 1.416 108 + 2 24900 (
) = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 )
2
2

(15)

RY = IY / 2 Ach = 505(mm)

(16)

Y = LE / RY = 0.85 19600 / 505 = 33

(17)

pc = 309( N / mm 2 ) (rolled I section, buckling curve c)

(18)

N b, Rd ,Y ( global ) = 24900 2 309 = 15388(kN ) = 1569(ton)

(19)

c) LE = 0.70 L

IY = 2i y + 2 Ach (

h0 2
1000 2
) = 2 1.416 108 + 2 24900 (
) = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 )
2
2

(20)

RY = IY / 2 Ach = 505(mm)

(21)

Y = LE / RY = 0.70 19600 / 505 = 27

(22)

pc = 332( N / mm 2 ) (rolled I section, buckling curve c)

(23)

N b , Rd ,Y ( global ) = 24900 2 332 = 16534(kN ) = 1685(ton)

(24)

39

ii) Local ( Lch = 2000mm, check single chord ):

ch = L / ry = 2000 / 75.5 = 26.5

(25)

pc = 340( N / mm 2 ) ( rolled I section, buckling curve b)

(26)

N b,Rd ,ch = 24900 340 = 8466( kN ) = 863(ton )

(27)

N Ed 2 N b,Rd ,ch = 1692( kN ) = 1726(ton )

(28)

(3) Check lacing member

x = y = d / rx = 58 , u = d / ru = 46 , v = d / rv = 91

(29)

pc , x = pc , y = 252 N / mm 2

2
( rolled angle, buckling curve c )
pc ,u = 286 N / mm
p = 160 N / mm 2
c ,v

(30)

N b,Rd , x ( lacing ) = N b,Rd , y ( lacing ) = pc , x Ad = 310(kN ) = 32(ton )

N b,Rd ,u ( lacing ) = pc ,u Ad = 352( kN ) = 36(ton )

N
b, Rd ,v ( lacing ) = pc ,v Ad = 197(kN ) = 20(ton )

(31)

N Ed =

2 N b,Rd ,v ( lacing ) / 2
VEd

= 1131(ton )
2.5%
2.5%

(32)

40
C.2

BS EN1993-1-1:2005 Approach

5. Calculation of the overall buckling resistance based on BS EN1993-1-1:2005:

(1) Check overall buckling resistance of struts about X-X axis
a) LE = 1.0 L = 19600mm
The plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression:

N pl ,Rk = Af y = 24900 355 2 = 17679( kN )

(33)

The Euler buckling load:

N cr , X =

2 EI
L2E

2 2.1105 2 1.673 109

196002

= 18052(kN )

(34)

The relative slenderness:

X = N pl , Rk / N cr , X = 0.990

(35)

The slenderness reduction factor:

2

X = 0.5[1 + ( X 0.2) + X ] = 1.183 (buckling curve c)

X =

1
2

X + X2 X

= 0.5460

(36)
(37)

The overall buckling resistance of the struts about X-X axis:

N b , Rd , X = X N pl , Rd = 9653(kN ) =

9653
(ton) = 984(ton)
9.81

(38)

b) LE = 0.85 L

N cr , X =

2 EI
L2E

2 2.1 105 2 1.673 109

(0.85 19600) 2

= 24986(kN )

X = N pl , Rk / N cr , X = 0.841

(40)

X = 0.5[1 + ( X 0.2) + X ] = 1.011 (buckling curve c)

X =

X +
2
X

2
X

(39)

= 0.6363

(41)
(42)

N b, Rd , X = X N pl , Rd = 11250(kN ) = 1147(ton)

(43)

c) LE = 0.70 L

N cr , X =

2 EI
L2E

2 2.1105 2 1.673 109

(0.7 19600) 2

= 36841(kN )

X = N pl , Rk / N cr , X = 0.693
2

X = 0.5[1 + ( X 0.2) + X ] = 0.861 (buckling curve c)

(44)
(45)
(46)

41

X =

X +
2
X

2
X

= 0.7292

(47)

N b, Rd , X = X N pl , Rd = 12891(kN ) = 1314(ton)

(48)

(2) Check buckling resistance about Y-Y axis

i) Global
a) LE = 1.0 L = 19600mm
The Euler buckling load:

I eff = 0.5h02 Ach = 0.5 10002 24900 = 1.245 1010 ( mm 4 )

(49)

(Note: EC3 uses above conservative formula; more accurate formula should be

I eff = 0.5h02 Ach + 2i y = 0.5 10002 24900 + 2 1.416 108 = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 ) )

N cr ,Y =

2 EI eff
L2E

2 2.1105 1.245 1010

196002

= 67170(kN )

(50)

The relative slenderness:

Y = N pl , Rk / N cr ,Y = 0.513

(51)

The slenderness reduction factor:

2

Y = 0.5[1 + ( Y 0.2) + Y ] = 0.708 (buckling curve c)

Y =

Y +
2
Y

2
Y

= 0.8357

(52)
(53)

The overall buckling resistance of the struts:

N b, Rd ,Y ( global ) = Y N pl , Rd = 14774kN = 1506(ton)

(54)

b) LE = 0.85 L

N cr ,Y =

2 EI eff
L2E

2 2.1105 1.245 1010

(0.85 19600) 2

= 92969(kN )

Y = N pl , Rk / N cr ,Y = 0.436
2

Y = 0.5[1 + ( Y 0.2) + Y ] = 0.653 (buckling curve c)

Y =

Y +
2
Y

2
Y

= 0.8781

N b , Rd ,Y ( global ) = Y N pl , Rd = 15523kN = 1582(ton)

c) LE = 0.70 L

(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)

(59)

42

2 EI eff

N cr ,Y =

L2E

2 2.1 105 1.245 1010

(0.70 19600) 2

= 137082(kN )

Y = N pl , Rk / N cr ,Y = 0.359

(61)

Y = 0.5[1 + ( Y 0.2) + Y ] = 0.603 (buckling curve c)

1

Y =

Y +
2
Y

2
Y

(60)

= 0.9187

(62)
(63)

N b , Rd ,Y ( global ) = Y N pl , Rd = 16242kN = 1656(ton)

(64)

ii) Local ( Lch = 2000mm, check single chord ):

The plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression:

N pl ,Rk ,ch = Ach f y = 24900 355 = 8839500 N = 8839.5kN

(65)

The Euler buckling load:

2 EI

N cr ,ch =

L2ch

2 2.1 105 1.416 108

20002

= 73371( kN )

(66)

The relative slenderness:

N pl , Rk ,ch

ch =

N cr ,ch

= 0.347

(67)

The slenderness reduction factor:

2

ch = 0.5[1 + ( ch 0.2) + ch ] = 0.585 (buckling curve b)

ch =

1
2

ch + ch2 ch

= 0.9466

(68)
(69)

The local buckling resistance of single chord:

N b,Rd ,ch = N pl ,Rd ,ch = 8367kN = 853(ton )

(70)

The shear stiffness of the lacings:

Sv =

nEAd ah02 2 2.1 105 1230 2000 10002

=
= 182646( kN )
2d 3
2 (1000 2)3

(71)

The design value of the maximum moment in the middle of the struts considering second order effects
I

(M Ed=0):

M Ed

I
N Ed e0 + M Ed
=
N
N
1 Ed Ed
N cr ,Y
Sv

(72)

The design force at the mid-height of single chord should fulfill

N ch ,Ed =

N Ed M Ed h0 Ach
+
N b,Rd ,ch = 853(ton )
2
2 I eff

Then the design axial force NEd should fulfill

(73)

43

N Ed 15035( kN ) = 1533(ton )

(74)

(3) Check lacing member

Similarly, the buckling resistance of lacing member is calculated:

N b,Rd ( x x / y y ) = 326( kN ) = 33(ton )

N b,Rd ( u u ) = 364(kN ) = 37(ton )

N
b,Rd ( v v ) = 212( kN ) = 22(ton )

(75)

The design force NEd should fulfill

VEd 2 N b, Rd ( v v ) / 2 = 300( kN )

M
N Ed e0 + M Ed
VEd = Ed =
L
L 1 N Ed N Ed

N cr ,Y
Sv
N Ed 24200(kN ) = 2467(ton)

(76)

(77)

44

Table C1: Summary on the buckling resistance of laced strut system

A
(mm2)

Failure mode

fy
(MPa)

L
(mm)

I
(mm4)

Max. Load NEd (ton)

EC3
BS 5950

X-X
49800
S355
19600
3.346E+09 984 /1147/1314*
Global
Y-Y
Global
49800
S355
19600
1.245E+10 1506 /1582 /1656
y-y
I-beam
24900
S355
2000
1.416E+08 1533**
Local
x-x/y-y
1230
S355
1414.2 7.24E+05
Lacing
2467**
u-u
1230
S355
1414.2 1.15E+06
v-v
1230
S355
1414.2 3.00E+05
Notes: * Different values under different effective lengths LE=1.0L, 0.85L or 0.70L;
Laced
Struts

**

995 / 1168 / 1320*

1498 / 1569 / 1685
1726
1131

Value under effective length LE=1.0L.

If the built-up member is bent about Y-Y plane, the relationship between the shear force VEd and the design
compression force NEd to the built-up member is shown in following Fig. C2 by assuming is the initial bow
imperfection e0 as L/500.

0.01

e0=L/500
0.009

VEd/NEd

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005
1000

3000

5000

7000
NEd (kN)

9000

11000

13000

15000

Fig. C2 The relationship between shear force VEd and compression force NEd

Design chart for laced struts showing the relationship between the design capacity and the effective length is shown in
Fig. C3.

If BS5950:Part1:2000 approach is adopted the design capacity is limited by the buckling capacity of the

lacing member assuming a maximum shear force of 2.5% axial force.

govern the design when the strut length id less than 17 m.
BSEN1993:EC3:2005 approach is adopted.

The capacity of the lacing member will

However, such limitation does not exist if

This is explained in the following sections.

45

16
14

Strut resistance (103 kN)

12
10
8
6

EN 1993
BS 5950
Shear resistance control line

4
2
0
10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Effective length, Lex (m)

Fig. C3 Design chart for laced struts using 2UB610324195 Grade S355 section

46

C.3

EC 3 approach to evaluate the shear force of the axially loaded laced struts

An axially loaded column, pinned at the two ends, is showed in Fig C42.

Fig. C4 The shear force of axially loaded column

Assuming the deflection curve is

y = v sin

x
l
(1)

Then the moment is

M = Ny = Nv sin

(2)

The shear force is

V=

dM N v
x
=
cos
dx
l
l

(3)

Therefore, the maximum shear force at the two ends is

Vmax =

N v
l

(4)

The maximum moment is (at middle height)

M max = Nv

(5)

Thus, Equation (4) can be expressed as

Vmax =

M max
l

Equation (6) is the formula adopted in BSEN1993:EC3:2005

depending on the lateral deflection,

(6)
The maximum shear force in the laced strut is

the applied axial force (i.e, Mmax)

and the strut length.

47

C.4

Example

The cross-section UB610324195 ( ix = 1.673 10 mm , i y = 1.416 10 mm , rx = 259mm, ry = 75.5mm ,

9

Ach = 249cm 2 ) is used for chords and section L80808 ( ix = i y = 7.24 105 mm 4 , rx = ry = 24.3mm ,
iu = 1.15 106 mm 4 , iv = 3.0 105 mm 4 , ru = 30.6mm, rv = 15.6mm , Ad = 12.3cm 2 ) for lacing members;
h0 = 1000mm, a = 2000mm, d = 1000 2mm ;
L80808

d
a

Ad

UB610324195

NEd/2

NEd/2

A ch

y
1000

h0
NEd

NEd

L=19600mm
Fig. C5 Dimension
Structural steel grade: S355;
Calculation of lacing force according to EC3 (Y-Y axis):

The maximum shear force in struts is

VEd =

M Ed
LE

(1)

where LE is the effective length and MEd is maximum moment in the middle of the struts considering second order
effects

M Ed =

N Ed e0
N
N
1 Ed Ed
N cr ,Y
Sv

where Sv is the shear stiffness of the lacings

(2)

48

nEAd ah02 2 2.1105 1230 2000 10002

=
Sv =
2d 3
2 (1000 2)3

(3)

= 182646(kN ) = 18618(tons )
and Ncr,Y is the effective critical force about Y-Y axis of the struts

N cr ,Y =

2 EI eff
L2E

= 67170(kN ) = 6847(tons ) ( LE = 1.00 L)

(4)

Therefore, the maximum axial force in one lacing member is

N lacing =

N Ed e0
2
2
VEd =
2
2 LE 1 N Ed N Ed
N cr ,Y
Sv

(5)

Taking e0=LE/500 according to EC3, it obtains

N lacing =

N Ed
2
1000 1 N Ed N Ed
N cr ,Y
Sv

(6)

It can be observed that the maximum axial force in the lacing member is depending on the applied axial load, NEd, the
shear stiffness, Sv, and the elastic critical load of the laced strut bending about the y-y direction, Ncr,y.