ITEM VIEW

A comparison of technical and practical aspects of Eurocode 3-1-1 and SANS 10162-1 hot-rolled steelwork design codes

dc.contributor.authorWalls, R. S.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorViljoen, C.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-13T05:48:14Z
dc.date.available2017-07-13T05:48:14Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationWalls, R. S. & Viljoen, C. 2016. A comparison of technical and practical aspects of Eurocode 3-1-1 and SANS 10162-1 hot-rolled steelwork design codes. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 58(1):16-25, doi:10.17159/2309-8775/2016/v58n1a2.
dc.identifier.issn2309-8775 (online)
dc.identifier.issn1021-2019 (print)
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.17159/2309-8775/2016/v58n1a2
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/101963
dc.descriptionCITATION: Walls, R. S. & Viljoen, C. 2016. A comparison of technical and practical aspects of Eurocode 3-1-1 and SANS 10162-1 hot-rolled steelwork design codes. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 58(1):16-25, doi:10.17159/2309-8775/2016/v58n1a2.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at http://www.scielo.org.za
dc.description.abstractIn South Africa engineers are starting to use the Eurocode guidelines for steelwork design, and it is important to understand the implications and differences in results that are obtained when applying the different codes. This paper presents a comparison between the Eurocode 1993-1-1:2005 and SANS 10162-1:2005 hot-rolled steelwork design codes. Numerical comparisons of predicted member design strengths for the important modes of failure and the complexity of calculations are presented, along with considerations regarding the parameters used in design. The following are explicitly shown for both codes: (a) differences in the classification of commonly used H, I, PFC and equal L sections, (b) differences in tension resistance calculations, (c) comparisons of all axial buckling curves, (d) calculations for a selection of members in flexural buckling which have different classifications, and (e) a summary of the shear resistances of commonly used H and I sections. It is shown that, on average, Eurocode 3 predicts higher member design strengths than the SANS 10162 code for most failure modes, primarily because of material partial safety factors closer to unity, less conservative buckling curves and the consideration of plastic resistance of sections. These EC3 design capacities can be higher by up to 11% for tension, 35% in compression, 31% in bending and 51% in shear, although there are cases where strengths of up to 33% lower were calculated, such as for an IPEAA-200 in shear. Results are influenced by design geometric tolerances, which are based on section classifications. The Eurocode's equations and design methodologies are more complex and computationally demanding. Since South Africa has started moving in the direction of adapting or adopting Eurocodes with the SANS 10160 Loading Code (from EN 1) and SANS 10100 Structural Concrete Code (from EN 2), it should be considered whether or not the steelwork code should be adopted or adapted in a similar fashion in the future.en_ZA
dc.format.extent10 pages
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherSouth African Institution of Civil Engineering
dc.subjectBuilding, Iron and steel -- Standardsen_ZA
dc.subjectSteel -- Standardsen_ZA
dc.titleA comparison of technical and practical aspects of Eurocode 3-1-1 and SANS 10162-1 hot-rolled steelwork design codesen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyright


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW