For topside structures ISO 19901-3 rely on national or regional building codes to derive the resistance of structural components. It is, however, required that the design resistance(s) of the building code is matched to the design resistance(s) of ISO 19902 through the use of a building code correspondence factor Kc. Recently, Kc was proposed in the literature to be taken as 0.95 for the European code for steel structures, Eurocode 3 (EN 1993). The present study does not support this value. Instead a value of 0.86 is derived. This lower value is based on the investigation of a topside project in the North Sea, and intends to cover for the stricter requirements to component resistance in ISO 19902 compared to Eurocode 3 for plastic and compact cross-sections.

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

  • Paul Frieze Paul Frieze

The background and basis of the ISO 19902 tubular member strength formulations is described. Many of the simpler provisions were initially based on the then existing API RP 2A LRFD formulations whilst others reflected changes already in the API system at the time but which had not yet been formally published. Some of the simpler provisions had been modified to reflect the requirements for international harmonization and some to improve correspondence with carefully screened test data. The new formulations, particularly those relating to pressure in combination with other actions/loads, were subject to final adjustment again through use of the screened database. In addition to strength requirements for typical intact structures, ISO 19902 saw the introduction of provisions for grouted and damaged members. Again the final forms of the equations were determined using the screened database. The criteria for screening the test results are discussed, to ensure consistency and relevance of the selected data. The process of selection of the equations for the characteristic values of the formulations, for both single acting and interacting forces, is described. Through comparison with the screened data, each of the formulations can be statistically quantified: the resulting characteristics are reported. At that time, improvements in tubular member effective length determinations had been realized. These were incorporated into the proposed recommendations. Their basis is explained.

  • Cem Topkaya
  • Serkan Sahin Serkan Sahin

A study has been undertaken to evaluate the similarities and differences between the steel building design specifications used in the United States and Europe. Expressions for nominal strength presented in the AISC-360 Specification and the Eurocode 3 Specification were compared for fundamental limit states. In particular, rules for cross-section classification, tension members, compression members, I-shaped members subjected to flexure, I-shaped members subjected to shear, and fasteners were studied. Results of the investigation revealed that, in general, both specifications provide nominal capacities that are close to each other. Significant differences were reported for some limit states such as flexure in I-shaped members with non-compact flanges, shear and lateral torsional buckling in I-shaped members, and bearing strength at bolt holes. In this paper, the details of the comparative study are presented along with observations that are useful for practicing engineers. Keywordssteel–specification–strength–limit state–building

This paper and its companion present a detailed comparison of the approaches for design of beam-columns in steel frameworks specified in the present American, Canadian, European, and Australian limit states design standards. The papers also describe and evaluate a simple modification to the current AISC LRFD Specification approach that avoids the need to calculate column effective length factors. This paper concentrates on several elucidatory examples that highlight distinct advantages and limitations in each of the design approaches. The factored design strengths predicted by each of the approaches are compared to one another, and to the results from rigorous plastic zone analyses using these benchmark problems. The paper concludes by suggesting possible changes that can lead to improvements in the accuracy and/or simplicity of the design procedures.

This paper and its companion present a detailed comparison of the approaches for design of beam-columns in steel frameworks specified in the present American, Canadian, European, and Australian limit states design standards. The papers also describe and evaluate a simple modification to the current AISC LRFD Specification approach that avoids the need to calculate column effective length factors. This paper discusses the various philosophies and procedures for beam-column design and summarizes the key similarities and differences among the current approaches. To ease the comparison of the approaches, the equations for checking of beam-column strengths are expressed using a unified notation.

  • R. Greiner
  • J. Lindner

The final version of EN1993-1-1, EUROCODE 3 [EN1993-1-1. Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures, general rules and rules for buildings. 2005] for Steel Structures provides two alternatives for the buckling check of members subjected to axial compression and bending by interaction formulae, which are called there Method 1 and Method 2. This paper presents the characteristics, the background and the use of Method 2. The analogous presentation of Method 1 has already been given in [Boissonnade N, Jaspart J-P, Muzeau J-P, Villette M. New Interaction formulae for beam-columns in Eurocode 3. The French-Belgian approach. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60;421–31].The Method 2 formulae have been derived on the basis of the general format of the interaction concept of existing codes, e.g. the ENV-rules; however with advanced numerical background and consistent classification of the buckling modes. In this respect new improved interaction factors were developed from a wide scope of numerical simulations and the concept of the formulae was focussed distinctly on describing the modes of in-plane and out-of-plane buckling for members susceptible to fail either in flexural buckling or in lateral–torsional buckling. As result two sets of formulae are provided, which each cover a clear scope of physical member behaviour. Hereby, the specific effects of intermediate lateral restraints—as often found in steel structures—have also been included.The Method 2 formulae aim at providing buckling rules with compact simplified interaction factors and transparent application for standard cases.

Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures -Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

EN 1993-1-1:2005, "Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures -Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings", Incorporating Corrigenda February 2006 and March 2009, CEN, Brussels, 2005.

A Comparative Study of AISC-LRFD and EC3 Approaches to Beam-Column Buckling Resistance

  • D J Young
  • A López
  • M A Serna

Young DJ, López A, Serna MA, "A Comparative Study of AISC-LRFD and EC3 Approaches to Beam-Column Buckling Resistance", Proc. Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures (SDSS2006), Lisbon, 2006.

Comparison of API, ISO, and NORSOK Offshore Structural Standards

  • A Ghoneim
  • I Lotsberg
  • G Solland
  • L Yang
  • M Moczulski
  • K Arnesen

Ghoneim A, Lotsberg I, Solland G, Yang L, Moczulski M, Arnesen K, "Comparison of API, ISO, and NORSOK Offshore Structural Standards", Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) TA&R no. 677, Det Norske Veritas, Texas, 2012.

Design of Steel Structures, 1 st Edition, ECCS -European Convention for Constructional Steelwork

  • L Simões Da Silva
  • R Simões
  • H Gervásio

Simões da Silva L, Simões R, Gervásio H, Design of Steel Structures, 1 st Edition, ECCS -European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Brussels, 2010.

Integrity of offshore structures

NORSOK N-001, "Integrity of offshore structures", Rev. 7, Standards Norway, Lysaker, 2010.

SEMI-COMP: Plastic member capacity of semi-compact steel sections -a more economic design

  • R Greiner
  • M Kettler
  • A Lechner
  • B Freytag
  • J Linder
  • J P Jaspart
  • N Boissonnade
  • E Bortolotti
  • K Weynand
  • C Ziller
  • R Oerder

Greiner R, Kettler M, Lechner A, Freytag B, Linder J, Jaspart JP, Boissonnade N, Bortolotti E, Weynand K, Ziller C, Oerder R, "SEMI-COMP: Plastic member capacity of semi-compact steel sections -a more economic design", RFCR-CT-2004-00044, Final Report, European Communities, Luxemburg, 2009.

Background information to design guidelines for cross-section and member design according to Eurocode 3 with particular focus on semi-compact sections

  • R Greiner
  • A Lechner
  • M Kettler
  • J P Jaspart
  • K Weynand
  • C Ziller
  • R Oerder
  • M Herbrand
  • Simões Da Silva
  • L Dehan

Greiner R, Lechner A, Kettler M, Jaspart JP, Weynand K, Ziller C, Oerder R, Herbrand M, Simões da Silva L, Dehan V, "Background information to design guidelines for cross-section and member design according to Eurocode 3 with particular focus on semi-compact sections", RFS2-CT-2010-00023, Graz University of Technology, Graz, 2012.