International Journal of Steel Structures

March 2011, Vol 11, No 1, 13-27

DOI 10.1007/S13296-011-1002-x

www.springer.com/journal/13296

A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States

Cem Topkaya1,* and Serkan Şahin2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University,06531, Ankara, Turkey
2
MITENG, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

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.

Keywords: steel, specification, strength, limit state, building

1. Introduction format, the nominal strength is multiplied by a resistance

factor (φ). The purpose of the resistance factor is to
Nowadays design, fabrication, and erection of steel include the uncertainties in the material and geometric
structures may take place at different locations as a result properties as well as the ones in modeling. Resistance
of rapid globalization. Owners may require the use of factors of 0.75 and 0.9 are used for fracture and yielding/
widely accepted steel design codes regardless of the instability limit states, respectively.
location where the structure is going to be built. In Europe, “Design of Steel Structures, EN 1993
Engineers are now faced with the challenge of being (2003)” was developed by the European Committee for
competent with several design specifications for a Standardization. This specification, hereafter referred to
particular material type. Two of the widely used steel as the EC3 Specification, is based on limit state principles
design specifications for buildings are the American and using partial safety factors (γM). In general, the characteristic
the European ones. resistance is divided by a partial safety factor and then
In the United States, “Specification for Structural Steel compared with the factored loads. The partial safety
Buildings (2005)” was developed by the American factors are used to account for the same types of
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). This specification, uncertainties that were explained for the resistance factors
hereafter referred to as the AISC-360 Specification, (φ) in the AISC-360 Specification. In other words, partial
utilizes both Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) safety factors (γM) can be thought of as the inverse of
and Allowable Strength Design (ASD) formats. In resistance factors (φ). The recommended γM values are
general, limit states that govern the design under a 1.0 for yielding, 1.0 for buckling, and 1.25 for fracture
particular loading are given by the AISC-360 Specification limit states. Because Eurocodes are used in a number of
and the nominal strength based on these limit states is different countries, each member state has the right to
either used in the LRFD or the ASD format. In the LRFD choose its own partial safety factors and publish these in
a National Annex. The EC3 Specification refers to Annex
Note.-Discussion open until August 1, 2011. This manuscript for this D of EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design (2001) for
paper was submitted for review and possible publication on March determining the characteristic resistances. In addition,
25, 2010; approved on November 16, 2010. nominal values of material and geometric properties are
© KSSC and Springer 2011 adopted as characteristic values in design calculations.
*Corresponding author
Because the characteristic values are replaced with the
Tel: +90-312-210 5462; Fax: +90-312-210 7991 nominal ones, the characteristic resistance provided in the
E-mail: [email protected] EC3 Specification is identical to the nominal resistance
14 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

given in the AISC-360 Specification. The definitions for cross-sections in both specifications
Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that both have similarities. Class 4 or slender cross-sections are
the AISC-360 and the EC3 specifications utilize limit those in which local buckling of the plate element(s) will
state principles with differing factors to account for occur before the attainment of yield stress. Class 3 or
uncertainties. A study has been undertaken with the non-compact cross sections are those in which the stress
following objectives; (i) put together the nominal strength in the extreme compression fiber can reach to the yield
expressions presented in both codes in a single document, strength, but local buckling is liable to prevent the
(ii) to identify the similarities and the differences in development of the plastic moment capacity. Class 2 or
calculated strengths, (iii) to facilitate rapid learning of compact sections are those which can develop their
either of the specifications with prior knowledge of the plastic moment capacity, but have limited rotation capacity
other. Because of the wide scope of specifications, only because of local buckling. Finally, Class 1 or seismically
fundamental failure modes are considered in this paper. compact sections are those which can develop their
Resistance equations are directly compared with each plastic moment capacity and provide significant amount
other wherever possible. For cases where the treatment of of rotation capacity.
specifications is entirely different, representative members Limiting width-thickness ratios of stiffened and
were considered for comparison purposes. unstiffened elements for typical cases are summarized in
Fig. 1 together with the ratio of the limits provided by the
2. Layout of the Specifications two specifications. According to this figure, the limits set
by the two specifications are generally close to each
The AISC-360 Specification is an integral document other. Major differences arise for HSS members. In
whereas the EC3 Specification consists of parts and addition, the Class 3 or non-compact limits for flexure in
subparts. In general, each part is focused on a particular flanges of rolled or built-up I-shapes differ significantly.
structure type such as buildings, bridges, towers, silos, It should also be emphasized that minor differences in
and etc. General rules and rules for buildings are the width-thickness ratio definitions are also present. For
specified in Part 1 of the EC3 Specification. This part is example, in the AISC-360 Specification, half of the flange
divided into 11 subparts. Among these, subparts 1.1 width is used in determining the flange slenderness. In the
(General rules and rules for buildings (2003)), 1.5 (Plated EC3 Specification, however, only the outstanding portion
structural elements (2004)), and 1.8 (Design of joints of the flange that is measured from the toe of the fillet is
(2003)) are utilized in this paper. used in calculations.

3. Materials 5. Design of Members for Tension

In the United States, structural steel material should Both specifications consider tensile yielding in the
conform to the standards set forth by the American gross section and tensile rupture in the net section as the
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Widely used two primary limit states for tension members. The
structural steels are A36 (Fy=248 MPa (36 ksi), Fu=400 nominal resistance of members to these limit states are
MPa (58 ksi)), and A572 Gr50 or A992 (Fy=345 MPa (50 calculated as follows:
ksi), Fu=448 MPa (65 ksi)).
Pn=AgFy (yielding) (AISC-360 and EC3)
In Europe, structural steel material properties are
Pn=UAnFu (fracture) (AISC-360) (1)
documented in Euronorm EN 10025 (1994). Widely used
Pn=0.9AnFu (fracture) (EC3)
structural steels are S235 (Fy=235 MPa (34 ksi), Fu=360
MPa (52 ksi)), S275 (Fy=275 MPa (40 ksi), Fu=430 MPa The fundamental difference between the two specifications
(62 ksi)), and S355 (Fy=355 MPa (51 ksi), Fu=510 MPa comes from the way that the shear lag factor U is
(74 ksi)). calculated. In the AISC-360 Specification, a shear lag
factor of 1.0 is used if the tension load is transmitted
4. Classification of Cross-sections directly to each of the cross sectional elements. An elaborate
treatment is tabulated in the AISC-360 Specification for
Both specifications provide cross section classifications other types of connections. Separate rules are presented
for local buckling. In the AISC-360 Specification cross- for I-section, L-shaped, and HSS members. Usually shear
sections are classified as compact, non-compact, and slender. lag factors that range between 0.6 and 0.9 are found
In addition to the AISC-360 Specification requirements, based on the recommended procedure. On the other hand,
the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings a less elaborate treatment for shear lag is given in the
(2005) (AISC-341) has an additional classification named EC3 Specification. In general, a 10 percent reduction in
as seismically compact. On the other hand, in the EC3 tensile fracture capacity is considered even if all cross
Specification sections are classified as Class 1 through sectional elements are connected. Some specific rules for
Class 4. single angles connected by one leg and other unsym-
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 15

Figure 1. Comparison of cross-section classifications.

metrically connected members are given in Part 1.8 6. Design of Members for Compression
Section 3.10.3 of the EC3 Specification. According to
these rules, the 0.9 coefficient is replaced with a reduction A single column strength curve is given in the AISC-
factor that varies between 0.4 and 0.7. 360 Specification whereas five separate curves are
Both specifications favor the use of s2/4g rule in presented in the EC3 Specification. In general, both
determining the net area in staggered connections. In the specifications use a non-dimensional slenderness for
AISC-360 Specification, the width of a bolt hole is taken flexural buckling (λFB) to define the reduction in capacity.
2 mm (1/16 in) greater than the nominal dimensions of In Eurocode a unified approach has been adopted for
the hole to account for damage in hole making process. various forms of member buckling. In other words,
No such damage allowance is recommended in the EC3 flexural buckling, torsional buckling, flexural-torsional
Specification. buckling, and lateral torsional buckling are treated using
16 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

a unified set of reduction factors. The nominal axial

strength for flexural buckling is computed as follows:
Pn=χFyAg (AISC-360 and EC3) (2)
The non-dimensional slenderness for flexural buckling,
λFB, can be expressed as follows:

AgFy KL Fy
λFB = ----------
- = ------- ----- (3)
Pcr πr E

The reduction factor (χ) has the following forms

depending on the specification:
2
λFB 0.877 Figure 2. Comparison of column strength curves.
χ = 0.658 λFB ≤ 1.5 χ = ------------
2
- λFB > 1.5
λFB
compression.
(AISC-360) (4)

1 2
7. Design of Members for Flexure
χ = ------------------------------- Φ = 0.5[ 1 + α(λFB – 0.2) + λFB]
2 2
Φ + Φ – λFB According to both specifications, yielding, local buckling
and lateral torsional buckling are the three limit states for
(EC3) (5)
flexural members. Yielding/local buckling and lateral
An imperfection coefficient (α) to distinguish between torsional buckling are treated separately herein for clarity
different column strength curves is utilized in the EC3 of comparisons.
Specification. For flexural buckling, five cases termed as
ao, a, b, c, d are given for which the α values are 0.13, 7.1. Limit states of yielding and local buckling-
0.21, 0.34, 0.49, and 0.76, respectively. The choice as to laterally supported beams
which buckling curve to adopt is dependent upon the The nominal moment capacity (Mn) of a cross-section
geometry and material properties of the cross section and is influenced by the slenderness of its elements. In the
upon the axis of buckling. The rules for selecting the AISC-360 Specification separate expressions are provided
appropriate column strength curve are tabulated in the for the nominal moment capacity depending on the web
EC3 Specification. In general, curve “ao” is used for classification of the member. A similar yet different
rolled I-shapes made up of high strength material (Fy=460 approach is adopted in the EC3 Specification. In this
MPa (67 ksi)). For steels with a yield strength in the section, members having compact flanges (Class 1 or 2
range 235 MPa (34 ksi) to 420 MPa (61 ksi) curve “a” is flange) are studied first by considering different web
used for major axis buckling of rolled I-shapes (tf<40 mm slenderness. Later, members having compact webs (Class
(1.57 in)) and hot rolled HSS. Curve “b” is used for 1 or 2) are studied by considering different flange
minor axis buckling of I-shaped members (tf<40 mm slenderness. Because of the wide range of application of
(1.57 in)) and buckling of angles. Curve “c” is used for the flexure strength expressions, only doubly symmetric
minor axis buckling of built-up I-shapes and cold formed I-shaped members bent about their major axis were
HSS. Curve “d” is used for major and minor axis considered.
buckling of rolled I-shapes with tf>100 mm (3.94 in) and
etc. Readers should refer to the EC3 Specification for 7.1.1. Members with compact flanges (Class 1 or 2)
detailed descriptions. Both specifications allow the member to reach its
A comparison of reduction factors are presented in Fig. plastic moment capacity if the web is compact (Class 1 or
2. According to this figure, buckling curve “a” is very 2). The nominal moment capacity for these types of
similar to the one of the AISC-360 Specification. sections is determined as follows:
Buckling curve “ao” tends to give higher capacities but
Mn=Mp=ZFy (AISC-360 and EC3) (6)
the use of this curve is quite limited. All other strength
curves (b,c,d) give lower capacity values as compared The treatment for non-compact (Class 3) web members
with the capacities calculated using the AISC-360 is different in the two specifications. According to the
Specification. AISC-360 specification, the nominal moment capacity
Strictly speaking the comparisons presented in this reduces linearly with an increase in the web slenderness
section are for members having no slender elements. Both and varies between the plastic moment capacity (Mp) and
specifications have special rules for the treatment of the yield moment (My). On the contrary, the nominal
slender element or Class 4 sections under pure axial moment capacity is directly equal to the yield moment in
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 17

Figure 3. Effective cross-sections defined in EC3.

the EC3 Specification for Class 3 cross-sections. stresses. Treatments for these types of members are
The nominal moment capacity for members with non- different in two specifications. The AISC-360 Specification
compact webs is determined as follows: has a more direct approach for calculating the nominal
moment capacity. Basically, a bending strength reduction
M M λ – λpw ⎞
Mn = ------p- – ⎛------p- – 1⎞ ⎛⎝ -------------------
factor (Rpg) is calculated to account for the loss of
M
My My ⎝ ⎠ λrw – λpw⎠ y strength due to the buckling of the web plate. The
nominal moment capacity is calculated as follows in the
where My=SxFy (AISC-360)
AISC-360 Specification:
Mn=SxFy (EC3) (7)
Mn=RpgFySx
While Eq. 7 is applicable to all Class 3 sections (i.e.
aw
-⎛---- – 5.7 ----
E-⎞ ≤ 1.0
h
flange or web being Class 3) there is a special treatment where Rpg= 1 – ------------------------------
1200 + 300aw tw ⎝ F y⎠
in the EC3 Specification for sections with Class 3 webs
and Class 1 or 2 flanges. These sections can be treated as ht
effective Class 2 cross-sections. In the effective section aw = ------w- (8)
bf tf
shown in Fig. 3a, the proportion of the web in
compression is replaced by a part of 20εtw (where ε=(235/
In the EC3 Specification the slender web members are
Fy)0.5, Fy in MPa) adjacent to the compression flange, and
treated using the effective cross section shown in Fig. 3b.
with another part of 20εtw adjacent to the plastic neutral
A certain portion of the web is assumed to be ineffective.
axis of the effective cross-section. The dark portion
The amount of reduction in area of the cross-section
shown in Fig. 3a is neglected.
under compression is a function of the web slenderness
For slender web members, elastic buckling of the web
(h/tw). The effective area under compression for the web
occurs before any of the fibers reach to the yield stress.
plate is determined as follows:
According to the theoretical plate buckling solutions, the
moment carrying capacity decreases drastically with an Ac,eff=befftw=ρAc=ρbctw
increase in the web slenderness. However, restrained thin
ρ=1.0 for λp ≤ 0.673
plates have significant post-buckling capacity. Both
specifications favor the use of post-buckling strength λp – 0.055(3 + ψ )
ρ = -------------------------------------
2
- for λp > 0.673
possessed by the slender web plates under bending λp
18 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

h ⁄ tw 235
λp = ---------------------
- ε = --------------------------
-
28.4ε kσ F y ( in MPa)

ψ=−1 and kσ=23.9 for doubly symmetric sections under

pure bending (9)
According to the effective cross section shown in Fig.
3b, 40 percent of the effective compression area is
adjacent to the compression flange, and the remaining 60
percent is adjacent to the elastic neutral axis of the cross
section. Calculation of the effective section properties
requires finding the location of the elastic neutral axis.
From equilibrium of stress resultants, the following
equation was derived to find the depth of the web under
compression (bc):
2
[0.4ρtw+0.1ρ2tw−0.5tw] bc +[2Af+htw]bc−[Afh+0.5h2tw]=0
(10)
Depending on the geometrical properties, the second
order equation can be solved for bc. After determining the
value of bc the effective inertia (Ieff) and the effective
section modulus (Seff=Ieff/bc) can be found. The nominal
moment capacity is calculated as follows:
Mn=SeffFy (EC3) (11)
The nominal moment capacities from both specifications
were compared by considering doubly symmetric I- Figure 4. Comparison of nominal moment capacities for
shaped members with different web dimensions. For all compact flange members.
cases, 300 mm (11.81 in) by 20 mm (0.79 in) flanges
were considered. The web height was varied between 500
mm (19.69 in) and 2000 mm (78.74 in) and the web flanges of built-up members are designed to be compact
thickness was varied between 5 mm (0.20 in) and 20 mm (Class 1 or Class 2). Non-compact or slender flanges may
(0.79 in). A total of 89 sections were considered which be used in some cases to reduce cost of steel framing.
had an average, maximum, and minimum shape factor of Each specification has a different treatment for the flange
1.16, 1.28, and 1.07, respectively. Nominal moment buckling problem. In the AISC-360 Specification, the
capacities of these sections were calculated according to limiting slenderness ratio for slender flanges is dependent
both specifications. The capacities were normalized by on the web dimensions. In other words, the rotational
the plastic moment capacity (Mp) and are presented in restraint that is provided by the web to the flange is
Fig. 4 for two different yield strength values. In addition, explicitly taken into account using a kc factor. In the EC3
the ratio (EC3/AISC-360) of the capacities calculated Specification, however, the limiting flange slenderness
using both specifications is also given in this figure. ratios are not given as a function of the web slenderness.
Analysis results reveal that the nominal moment capacity In order to make a fair comparison of the capacities given
calculated using the EC3 Specification is lower than the by both specifications, members with different flange and
ones calculated using the AISC-360 Specification for the web slenderness ratios were considered herein.
web slenderness range between 70 and 250. The opposite According to both specifications, a member can reach
is true for web slenderness values in excess of 250. The to its plastic moment capacity if the flanges are compact
differences are more pronounced for non-compact (Class (Class 1 or Class 2). Therefore, Eq. 6 is valid for
3) web members. Capacity estimates are the same for determining the nominal moment capacity of such
web slenderness less than 70. The average, standard members.
deviation, maximum, and minimum of the ratios for the Treatment of non-compact flanges is similar to the
89 sections are 0.96, 0.05, 1.08, and 0.83, respectively treatment on non-compact webs in both specifications.
when data points for both yield strengths are combined. According to the AISC-360 Specification, the nominal
moment capacity reduces linearly with an increase in the
7.1.2. Members with compact webs (Class 1 or Class 2) flange slenderness and varies between the plastic moment
The effects of flange slenderness were studied by capacity (Mp) and the yielding moment considering
considering compact web I-shaped members. Usually the residual stresses (0.7My). On the other hand, the nominal
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 19

moment capacity is equal to the yield moment for Class given in Fig. 5. In this figure, the capacities calculated
3 sections according to the EC3 Specification. using the two specifications are given separately for
The nominal moment capacity for members with non- clarity. In addition, the ratios (EC3/AISC-360) of the
compact flanges is determined as follows: capacities are presented. Analysis results reveal that the
nominal moment capacity based on the EC3 Specification
λ – λpf ⎞
Mn = Mp – (Mp – 0.7FySx)⎛ ---------------
is less than the one based on the AISC-360 Specification
- (AISC-360)
⎝λrf – λpf⎠ for flange slenderness values less than 20. These are
sections that generally qualify as non-compact flange
Mn=SxFy (EC3) (12)
sections. For flange slenderness values greater than or
For slender flange members the AISC-360 Specification equal to 20, significant differences are observed where
utilizes the elastic critical buckling moment approach. the EC3 capacities are much higher than the AISC-360
According to the AISC-360 specification the nominal ones. Contrary to previous analysis on web slenderness,
moment capacity is calculated as follows: the results are dependent on the yield strength. For
Fy=345 MPa (50 ksi) the difference between the EC3 and
0.9EkcSx 4 the AISC-360 capacities are more pronounced. It should
Mn = --------------------
2
where kc = ------------- and 0.35 ≤ kc ≤ 0.76
λ h ⁄ tw be mentioned that the ratios are also dependent on the
web slenderness. For slender web cases where the kc
(13)
value is low, the AISC-360 capacities tend to be lower
In the EC3 Specification, the post-buckling reserve than the EC3 ones. As mentioned before, the primary
strength approach is utilized. An effective cross-section difference between the two specifications arise from the
shown in Fig. 3c is considered for this purpose. In this fact that post-buckling capacity is considered in the EC3
effective cross section, the outstanding portions of the Specification whereas the AISC-360 capacities are based
compression flange are assumed to be ineffective. The on elastic buckling loads.
nominal moment capacity for sections with Class 4
flanges is determined using the elastic section modulus 7.2. Lateral torsional buckling of compact I-shaped
(Seff) of the effective cross section shown in Fig. 3c. The members
effective area of the compression flange and the nominal The two specifications have differences in the treatment
moment capacity are determined as follows: of lateral torsional buckling. The AISC-360 Specification
identifies three regimes of buckling depending on the
Ac,eff=befftf=ρbftf
unbraced length of the member (Lb). For a beam under
ρ=1.0 for λp ≤ 0.748 uniform moment (Cb=1) two threshold values for unbraced
length namely Lp and Lr are defined in the AISC-360
λp – 0.188
ρ = ----------------------
2
for λp > 0.748 Specification. The Lp value provides a dividing line between
λp plastic (no lateral buckling) and inelastic buckling behavior.
bf ⁄ t f Similarly, the Lr value provides a dividing line between
235 -
λp = ---------------------
- ε = -------------------------- inelastic and elastic buckling behavior. According to the
28.4ε kσ F y ( in MPa) AISC-360 Specification, plastic moment capacity of a
compact member can develop if the unbraced length is
kσ=0.43 for flanges under uniform compression
less than Lp. The member’s capacity reduces linearly
Mn=SeffFy (14) between Mp and 0.7My if the unbraced length is between
Lp and Lr. If the unbraced length is greater than Lr, then
A total of 264 cross-sections were analyzed to study the
elastic buckling is expected to occur and the capacity can
differences between the two specifications. The web of
be found using elastic critical buckling moment (Mcr).
the sections was selected to be compact (Class 1 or Class
The following equations summarize the nominal moment
2). The web height varied between 500 mm (19.7 in) and
capacity for lateral torsional buckling as per the AISC-
1000 mm (39.4 in) while the web thickness varied between
360 Specification:
8 mm (0.31 in) to 20 mm (0.79 in). The resulting webs
had a slenderness ratio that changed between 25 and 67. Mn=Mp=ZFy when Lb ≤ Lp
Based on these web slenderness ratios the kc factor
Lb – Lp⎞
changed between 0.49 and 0.76. Flange thickness values Mn = Cb Mp – (Mp – 0.7SxFy)⎛⎝-------------- ≤ Mp
between 10 mm (0.39 in) and 20 mm (0.79 in) and flange Lr – Lp ⎠
width values between 300 mm (11.8 in) and 500 mm when Lp < Lb ≤ Lr
(19.7 in) were considered. The shape factor for these 2
Cb π E Lb⎞ 2
J -⎛ ----
sections varied between 1.07 and 1.28 with an average of Mn = Mcr = Sx--------------
- 1 + 0.078--------- -
⎛L
2 Sxho rts⎠ ⎝
1.15. Two different yield strength values were considered ----b-⎞
and the variations of the nominal capacity for these are ⎝ rts⎠
20 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

Figure 5. Comparison of nominal moment capacities for compact web members.

when Lb > Lr reduction factor approach for all buckling problems is

utilized in the EC3 Specification. The lateral torsional
E
Lp = 1.76ry ----- buckling problem is also treated by developing a reduction
Fy factor (χLT) expression. The nominal moment capacity for
lateral torsional buckling can be found as:
0.7Fy Sxho⎞ 2
J - 1 + 1 + 6.76⎛ ------------
E - ---------
Lr = 1.95rts------------ ⎝ E ----------
-
0.7Fy Sxho J ⎠ Mn = χLTMp = χLTZFy (16)

Iy Cw The reduction factor (χLT) is defined as:

2
rts = -------------
- (15)
⎧
Sx 1 1-
χLT = ------------------------------------------ but ⎨χLT ≤ 1.0 χLT ≤ -------
2
2 2
As mentioned in the compression members section, a ΦLT + ΦLT – βλLT ⎩ λLT
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 21

2
ΦLT = 0.5[ 1 + αLT(λLT – λLT, o) + βλLT]

M
λLT = -------p- (17)
Mcr

First of all, no Mcr expression is recommended in the

EC3 Specification. Any rational analysis to determine Mcr
is acceptable. In this study, the elastic critical moment
expression (Eq. 15) provided in the AISC-360 Specification
was considered to be used in the EC3 Specification
expressions. As shown in Eq. 17, the EC3 Specification
approach requires three parameters namely, αLT, λLT,O,
and β to be used. The αLT factor is dependent on the
imperfections and its value is identical to the α factors
given in the compression members section. The proper
imperfection curve (i.e. type a, b, c, or d) and the values
of λLT,O, and β are dependent on the country of use and
are specified in the National Annex. On the other hand, a
maximum value of 0.4 for λLT,O and a minimum value of
0.75 for β are recommended in the absence of a National
Annex. The appropriate buckling curve as per the EC3
Specification recommendations is based on the depth to
width ratio (d/bf) of the member. For rolled I-sections,
curve “b” is utilized for d/bf<2 and curve “c” for others.
Similarly, for welded I-sections, curve “c” is utilized for
d/bf<2 and curve “d” for others. Figure 6. Comparison of lateral torsional buckling resistances.
Lateral torsional buckling resistances were compared
by making use of 266 compact W shapes. Out of these,
126 sections had d/bf<2 and the rest 140 sections had d/ equation is given in the AISC-360 Specification to
bf>2. Two different yield strengths of Fy=248 MPa (36 determine the value of the Cb factor as a function of the
ksi) and Fy=345 MPa (50 ksi) were considered. Lateral variation of bending moment along the member axis. On
torsional buckling capacities of these sections were the other hand, in the EC3 Specification, both uniform
computed for a range of non-dimensional slenderness and non-uniform bending moment cases are handled by
(λLT) between zero and three. The results are presented in making use of a Mcr expression which needs to be
Fig. 6 for two different d/bf ratios. In each of these plots determined based on a rational analysis. In other words,
the capacities based on two different yield strengths are designers have to resort to theoretical solutions for Mcr
combined. The results revealed that the resistances under the loading case of interest. At this point utilizing
calculated using the EC3 Specification are lower than the Cb factors together with the Mcr expression given in the
ones from the AISC-360 Specification for the range of AISC-360 Specification can be considered as a rational
non-dimensional slenderness (λLT) between 0.4 and 1.25. approach to determine the elastic critical moment.
This range corresponds to the inelastic buckling range Readers can refer to the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-1-
where the unbraced length Lb is between Lp and Lr. The 1 by Gardner and Nethercot (2005) for rational ways of
differences are more pronounced for cases with d/bf>2 calculating lateral buckling resistance of beams under
because a more stringent imperfection factor is introduced non-uniform moment.
in the EC3 Specification for these cases. For the plastic
region (Lb<Lp) and the elastic buckling region (Lb>Lr) the 8. Design of Members for Shear
resistances computed from both specifications are similar.
It should be mentioned that the conclusions derived Two methods for calculating shear strength are presented
herein are for λLT,O, and β values equal to 0.4 and 0.75, in the AISC-360 Specification while only one method is
respectively. These conclusions can change if different presented in the EC3 Specification. In the AISC-360
values of λLT,O, and β are recommended in the National Specification, the designer is given the option to consider
Annex. the post-buckling strength of the member which is
The comparisons provided in this paper are for beams primarily due to the tension field action (TFA). Certain
under uniform bending moment. For the non-uniform requirements have to be satisfied for the use of TFA. For
moment cases, the AISC-360 Specification utilizes a Cb example, TFA is not allowed at the end panels. For
factor to modify the nominal moment capacity. An doubly symmetric I-shape members the governing factor
22 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

for shear resistance is the web slenderness (h/tw). The

behavior is divided into three regimes in the two
specifications according to the following non-dimensional
slenderness.

h F
λ = ---- -------y- (18)
tw kv E

If λ is less than 1.1 then the section is capable of

developing the full plastic shear capacity. If λ is greater
than 1.1 then the capacity is reduced due to the shear
buckling of the web plate. The nominal shear capacity is
calculated as follows:
Vn=0.6FyAwCv (AISC-360)
Fy Aw Cv
Vn = -----------------
- (EC3) (19)
3

According to Eq. 19, both specifications have the same

type of treatment except the factors 0.6 and (1/
30.5=0.577). The web shear coefficient, Cv, is dependent
on the non-dimensional slenderness and is calculated as
follows:
h F
For ---- -------y- ≤ 1.10 Cv=1 (AISC-360 and EC3)
tw kv E

h F 1.10
For 1.10 < ---- -------y- ≤ 1.37 Cv = ---------------- (AISC-360 and EC3)
tw kv E h F
---- -------y- Figure 7. Comparison of shear resistances.
tw kv E
h F 1.51
For ---- -------y- > 1.37 Cv = -----------------------2 (AISC-360) a/h ratio is greater than or less than unity. The EC3
tw kv E h Fy ⎞
⎛--- Specification equations for kv formed the basis of old
- --------
⎝ tw kvE⎠ AISC specifications. Over the years these two equations
were replaced with a single one for simplicity.
1.10
Cv = ---------------- (EC3-NREP) Two conclusions can be derived by examining Eq. 20.
h F The behavior in the two regimes where λ is less than 1.37
---- -------y-
tw k v E is identical according to both specifications. Differences
are observed, however, for the elastic buckling range
1.37
Cv = -------------------------------------------- (EC3-REP) (λ>1.37). It should be noted that for end panels the EC3
Fy ⎞
0.7 + 0.78⎛⎝--- h -------
- - Specification presents two different cases depending on
tw kvE⎠ the boundary conditions. These cases which are shown in
(20) Fig. 7 are termed as rigid end post (REP) and non-rigid
end post (NREP). The rigid end post (REP) is formed by
Note that Cv factor is dependent on the plate buckling
providing a W-shape or two double sided stiffeners at the
coefficient, kv, which is calculated as follows:
end. There are special requirements for the size of the
5.0 stiffening elements. Basically the very end panel in
kv = 5.0 + -------------2- (AISC-360)
(a ⁄ h) between these stiffeners is designed as a short beam
under the membrane forces produced by the web plate.
2
kv = 5.34 + 4.0(h ⁄ a) for a ⁄ h ≥ 1 (EC3) Cases that do not satisfy the REP criteria are designed as
non-rigid end post (NREP).
2
kv = 4.0 + 5.34(h ⁄ a) for a ⁄ h < 1 (EC3) (21) When Eq. 20 is examined, it is evident that the decrease
in capacity (Vn) with the non-dimensional slenderness is
The kv factors presented in the two specifications are quadratic in the AISC-360 Specification whereas it is
similar. In the EC3 Specification a more elaborate linear in the EC3 Specification. A plot of Cv as a function
treatment is presented which is dependent on whether the on the non-dimensional slenderness is given in Fig. 7. As
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 23

expected the capacities based on the EC3 Specification the AISC-360 Specification. Furthermore, more simplified
are significantly higher than the ones for the AISC-360 and conservative rules are presented that are independent
Specification for λ>1.37. In addition, the REP case offers of the loading direction. Similarly, the EC3 Specification
slightly higher capacities as compared to the NREP case. presents two methods namely, the Simplified Method,
For cases with λ>1.1, the AISC-360 Specification and the Directional Method. The simplified methods are
presents the following equation for Vn that takes into compared in this paper. The nominal strength per length
account the tension field action: of a weld segment is calculated as follows:

⎛ 1 – Cv ⎞ Rn = 0.6FEXXte (AISC-360)
Vn = 0.6FyAw⎜Cv + ----------------------------------- ⎟ (22)
⎝ Fu
1.15 1 + (a ⁄ h) ⎠
2
Rn = ------------
-te (EC3) (23)
3βw
In Fig. 7 the two specifications were compared for the
cases where TFA is included in the calculations. The The maximum of the resultant of all forces at every
results are presented for stiffener spacing to web depth point of the weld group is considered for design purposes.
ratio (a/h) of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0. Consideration In the EC3 Specification, the resistance is a function of
of tension field action is not permitted for a member the ultimate tensile strength (Fu) of the weaker part joined
when a/h>3.0. This case and the EC3-NREP case are also (i.e. base metal) whereas the AISC-360 Specification
presented in this figure. Analysis results reveal that the utilizes the electrode strength (FEXX) for this purpose. In
capacity curve for a/h=3.0 coincides with the EC3-NREP addition, it is required to check the base metal separately
curve. It can be concluded that the EC3 Specification in the AISC-360 Specification. The EC3 Specification
provides lower capacities when compared with the capacities utilizes a βw factor which depends on the yield strength of
calculated using TFA in the AISC-360 Specification. The the base metal. Typical values of βw are 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 1.0
opposite is true for the other cases. for S235 (Fy=235 MPa (34 ksi)), S275 (Fy=275 MPa (40
It is worthwhile to note that minor differences are ksi)), S355 (Fy=355 MPa (51 ksi)), S420 (Fy=420 MPa
present between the two specifications for calculating (61 ksi)) steels, respectively.
shear strength. The shear area definitions are different. In The directional method presented in the AISC-360
the AISC-360 Specification, the total depth is multiplied Specification is based on dividing the weld group into
by the web thickness to determine the shear area. On the segments and summing up the strength of each segment
contrary, the area of the web and a small portion of the considering its orientation. For the weld groups loaded in-
flange area is utilized in the EC3 Specification. Furthermore, plane the instantaneous center of rotation method is
the EC3 Specification presents rules for including the utilized. The methodology for welds loaded in-plane is
contribution of the flanges to the shear resistance. In rigorous and takes into account the deformability of the
addition, the plastic shear capacity can be increased by 20 weld. On the contrary, the von Mises yield criterion is
percent according to the EC3 Specification and this applied using the normal and shear stresses on the
increase is determined by the rules of the National Annex. effective throat area in the EC3 Specification directional
method.
9. Design of Welded Connections
9.2. Complete joint penetration groove welds
The American Welding Society (AWS (2004)) provisions The provisions provided in the two specifications for
are adopted in the AISC-360 Specification for the complete joint penetration groove (butt) welds are
selection of matching weld (filler) metal for a particular identical. According to the provisions the limit states for
base (parent) metal. In general, the ultimate strength, the base metal apply for these types of connections.
FEXX, of the weld metal is greater than that of the base
metal. According to the EC3 Specification, any weld 10. Design of Bolted Connections
metal having strength properties equivalent or better than
that specified for the base metal can be utilized. In the United States, two types of bolt grades namely,
A325 (Fy=634 MPa (92 ksi), Fu=830 MPa (120 ksi)) and
9.1. Fillet welds A490 (Fy=940 MPa (130 ksi), Fu=1040 MPa (150 ksi))
Effective area for fillet welds is the effective length are widely used. The AISC-360 Specification adopts the
multiplied by the effective throat thickness (te) according provisions of the Specification for Structural Joints Using
to the two specifications. The primary difference between ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts (2004). The EC3 Specification
the two specifications is on how the direction of loading presents rules for the widely used bolt grades in Europe
is treated. In general, the strength of a weld depends on that are based on International Standardization Organization
the direction of loading. Transversely loaded fillet welds ISO-898 (1999) standard. Typical bolt grades are 4.6
are stronger compared to the longitudinally loaded fillet (Fy=240 MPa (35 ksi), Fu=400 MPa (58 ksi)), 5.6 (Fy=
welds. The direction of loading is taken into account in 300 MPa (44 ksi), Fu=500 MPa (73 ksi)), 6.8 (Fy=480
24 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

MPa (70 ksi), Fu=600 MPa (87 ksi)), 8.8 (Fy=640 MPa tension member provisions.
(93 ksi), Fu=800 MPa (116 ksi)), and 10.9 (Fy=900 MPa
(131 ksi), Fu=1000 MPa (145 ksi)). It is apparent that the 10.2. Bolt strength under shear
high-strength bolts A325 and 8.8 have identical strength Shear rupture along the threaded or unthreaded portion
properties while A490 and 10.9 possess the same is considered as the ultimate limit state for bolts under the
strengths. action of shear forces according to both specifications. In
According to the AISC-360 Specification provisions the AISC-360 Specification, equations were developed
the center-to-center distance between the bolt holes by taking into account the reduction of shear area due to
should be 2.7do (3do preferred) where do is the diameter the threads and the effect of having long connections with
of the bolt. A value of 2.2do and 2.4do is recommended in multiple bolts. In the EC3 Specification the net shear area
the EC3 Specification for the distance between bolts that through the threads needs to be calculated when the
are parallel and perpendicular to the application of the threads are in the shear plane. Furthermore, a reduction
load, respectively. The minimum edge distance is determined factor, βLF, is proposed for long connections. The shear
based on the manufacturing process in the AISC-360 capacity for high strength bolts (A325, A490, 8.8, and
Specification. This distance should be at least 1.75do and 10.9) is calculated as follows:
1.25do for plates with sheared and rolled edges,
Vn=0.5FuAb (AISC-360 threads excluded)
respectively. In the EC3 Specification a minimum edge
(A325 (8.8), A490 (10.9))
distance of 1.2do is recommended irrespective of the
Vn=βLF0.6FuAb (EC-3 threads excluded)
manufacturing process.
(A325 (8.8), A490 (10.9))
According to the AISC-360 Specification all A325 and
Vn=0.4FuAb (AISC-360 threads included)
A490 bolts should be pre-tensioned unless the bolts are
(A325 (8.8), A490 (10.9))
installed to the snug-tight condition which is permitted
Vn=βLF0.6FuAs (EC-3 threads included) (A325 (8.8))
for the bearing-type connections and for some applications
Vn=βLF0.5FuAs (EC-3 threads included) (A490 (10.9))
where loosening or fatigue due to vibration or load
fluctuations are not design considerations. The slip critical Lj – 15do
βLF = 1 – ------------------
- 0.75 ≤ βLF ≤ 1 (25)
connections can be designed based on a different criterion. 200do
These connections are designed to prevent slip either as a
serviceability limit state or at the required strength limit If values of βLF=0.8 and As=0.8Ab are assumed then it
state. Similarly the EC3 Specification presents design is evident that the provisions of the two specifications are
categories for the bolted connections. Design category identical for the threads excluded and the threads
“A” is for bearing-type connections under shear where included (A325 (8.8)) cases. For the threads included
the aforementioned bolt types can be utilized without pre- (A490 (10.9)) case the EC3 Specification provides lower
tension. Design categories “B” and “C” are for slip capacity values. It is evident from Eq. 25 that the EC3
critical connections under shear, utilizing 8.8 or 10.9 specification has a more elaborate treatment that includes
bolts, and are designed for serviceability and strength the connection length as well as the type of bolt material
limit state, respectively. Design categories “D” and “E” used.
are for bolts under tension designed using no-pretension
and with pre-tension, respectively. 10.3. Combined tension and shear in bearing type
connections
10.1. Bolt strength under tension There are interaction equations provided in both
Tensile rupture along the threaded portion is considered specifications to assess the bolt capacity under combined
as the ultimate limit state for bolts under the action of actions. Although the main body of the AISC-360
tensile forces according to both specifications. In the Specification presents a single expression, the commentary
AISC-360 Specification the net area of the threaded to the AISC-360 Specification presents an additional
portion is estimated by considering 75 percent of the expression. In the EC3 Specification, only one equation is
gross area (Ab) of the bolt. In the EC3 Specification, no given for the assessment. In order to make a fair
specific equations or recommendations are presented and comparison, the general form of the expressions with the
designers have to resort to manufacturers’ catalogs to reduction and the partial safety factors are given. The
determine the net area of the bolt (As). The tensile following expressions are utilized for the resistance of
capacity is determined as follows: high strength bolts under combined actions:
Tn=0.75FuAb (AISC-360) Tu ⎞ 2 ⎛ V u ⎞ 2
⎛-------
⎝φTn-⎠ + ⎝--------
- ≤ 1 (AISC-360)
Tn=0.9FuAs (EC3) (24) φVn⎠
According to Eq. 24 the primary difference between the
Tu ⎞ ⎛ Vu ⎞
⎛------- T Vu ⎞
- ≤ 1.3 ⎛⎝-------u-⎞⎠ ≤ 1 ⎛⎝--------
⎝φTn-⎠ + ⎝--------
two specifications is the use of a 0.9 factor in the EC3 - ≤ 1 (AISC-360)
Specification. This is similar to the use of this factor in φVn⎠ φTn φVn⎠
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 25

R b = k 1 α d Fu d o t
Tu ⎞ ⎛ V u ⎞
⎛ -------------------- + ------------- ≤ 1 (EC3) (26)
⎝ 1.4Tn ⁄ γM⎠ ⎝Vn ⁄ γM⎠ in the direction of load transfer
e1 p1 1
- ≤ 1 for inner bolts αd = -------
for end bolts αd = ------- - – --- ≤ 1
It should be noted that the recommended values for φ 3do 3do 4
and γM are 0.75 and 1.25, respectively. The first of the
AISC-360 Specification expressions is an ellipse and the in the direction perpendicular to load transfer
second expression is a simplification of the first one
e
which consists of three straight lines. The EC3 Specification for edge bolts k1 = 2.8----2- – 1.7 ≤ 2.5
also adopts the straight line approach. According to the do
second expression in the AISC-360 Specification the
p
combined actions do not have an effect on each other if for inner bolts k1 = 1.4----2- – 1.7 ≤ 2.5
either Tu<0.3φTn or Vu<0.3φVn. do (29)
In the EC3 Specification expressions, the αd factor is
10.4. High-strength bolts in slip critical connections
used to account for hole tear-out whereas the k1 factor is
The treatment for the limit state of slip is identical in
used to account for excessive hole elongation. It should
both specifications. The following expressions are provided
be noted that the upper bound on the k1 factor is 2.5. The
to calculate the slip resistance:
AISC-360 Specification expressions favor the use of
Rsl = µDuhscTbNs (AISC-360) either 2.4 or 3.0 for this factor. The EC3 Specification
equations are more elaborate and take into account the
Rsl = µhscTbNs (EC3)
reduction in bearing stresses when the bolt holes are close
Tb = 0.7Tn (27) to each other or are close to an edge in a direction
perpendicular to the load application. The k1 factor is
The values presented for each variable can change
equal to 2.5 for cases where the distance between bolt
slightly. The slip coefficients in the AISC-360 Specification
holes (p2) is equal to 3do or the distance between a bolt
vary between 0.35 and 0.5 while the ones in the EC3
hole and an edge is equal to 1.5do. Therefore, if the
Specification vary between 0.2 and 0.5. The hole factor
spacing values recommended by the AISC-360 Specification
(hsc) is equal to unity for standard holes according to both
are used in the EC3 Specification expression, no
specifications. The only difference between the two
reduction in the bearing stress is necessary. The reduction
specifications is the use of a Du factor which is equal to
in bearing stress (k1) in the EC3 Specification is used to
1.13 in the AISC-360 Specification.
forestall tensile failure of the plate in between two bolt
holes or between a bolt hole and an edge.
10.5. Bearing strength at bolt holes
The excessive hole elongation and the hole tear-out are
considered as the two primary limit states due to bearing 11. Conclusions and Recommendations for
at the bolt holes. The two specifications have similar yet Future Work
different approaches for calculating the bearing strength.
A comparison of fundamental limit states given in the
In the AISC-360 Specification separate rules are presented
AISC-360 Specification and the EC3 Specification was
for cases where the deformation at the bolt hole at the
presented. Conclusions related to each limit state were
service load is or is not a design consideration. The
given in the relevant section and are not repeated herein
following equations are given in the AISC-360 Specification:
for brevity. The comparisons show that both codes
Rb = 1.2LctFu ≤ 2.4dotFu generally lead to similar capacities, though some quite
(deformation is a design consideration) substantial differences were found for slender sections
and lateral torsional buckling resistance. Differences in
Rb = 1.5LctFu ≤ 3.0dotFu
capacities can be attributed to ways in which the
(deformation is not a design consideration) (28)
imperfections and post-buckling behavior are handled.
According to Eq. 28 the excessive hole elongation (i.e. Readers can refer to Galambos (1988) for the basis of
upper bound equation) governs for cases where Lc>2do. If codified rules in the United States. Similarly, ECCS
the recommended bolt spacing of 3do is used in design publications No. 44 (1986), No. 119 (2006), and No. 200
then the governing limit state is the excessive hole (2007) provide background information on the European
elongation. For bolts close to the edge the hole tear-out standards for plated elements and member stability.
limit state may govern. In the EC3 Specification a more The authors recognize that the study is limited to a few
elaborate treatment for the bearing strength is given. The fundamental limit states out of a plethora of failure
following equations summarize the EC3 Specification modes. Future research should consider the limit states
rules for bearing strength: that are not studied in this paper. In addition, comparisons
26 Cem Topkaya and Serkan Şahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011

of reduction factors (partial safety factors) and load As: net area of the bolt considering the threads
combinations are required. Aw: web area
Cb: Lateral torsional buckling modification factor
References Cv: web shear coefficient
Cw: warping constant
AISC 360-05 (2005). Specification for Structural Steel Du: multiplier that reflects the ratio of the mean
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., installed bolt pretension to the specified
Chicago, IL. minimum bolt pretension
AISC 341-05 (2005). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel E: modulus of elasticity of steel
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., FEXX: electrode classification number
Chicago, IL. Fy: specified minimum yield stress of the type of
AWS D1.1/D1.1M (2004). Structural Welding Code-Steel.
steel being used
American Welding Society.
Fu: specified minimum tensile strength of the type of
ECCS (1986). Behavior and Design of Steel Plated
Structures. European Convention for Constructional steel being used
Steelwork, Publication No. 44, Brussels. Ieff: effective moment of inertia
ECCS (2006). Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1: Iy: moment of inertia about y-axis
Background Documentation and Design Guidelines. J: torsional constant
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, K: effective length factor
Publication No. 119, Brussels. L: length of the member
ECCS (2007). Commentary and Worked Examples to EN Lb: unbraced length
1993-1-5 - Plated Structural Elements. European Lc: clear distance in the direction of the force,
Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Publication between the edge of the hole and the edge of the
No. 200, Brussels. adjacent hole
EN 1990 (2001). Eurocode-Basis of Structural Design. Lj: length of bolted connection
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels. Lp: limiting laterally unbraced length for the limit
EN 1993-1-1 (2003). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures
state of yielding
- Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
Lr: limiting laterally unbraced length for the limit
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
EN 1993-1-5 (2004). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures state of inelastic lateral torsional buckling
- Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements. European Mcr: elastic critical lateral torsional buckling moment
Committee for Standardization, Brussels. Mn: nominal flexural strength
EN 1993-1-8 (2003). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures My: yield moment about the axis of bending
- Part 1-8: Design of Joints. European Committee for Mp: plastic bending moment
Standardization, Brussels. Ns: number of slip planes
EN 10025 (1994). Hot Rolled Products of Non-alloy Pcr: elastic critical buckling load
Structural Steel. European Committee for Standardization, Pn: nominal axial strength
Brussels. Rb: nominal bearing resistance
Galambos, T.V. (1988). Guide to Stability Design Criteria Rn: nominal strength per length of a fillet weld
for Metal Structures, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Rpg: bending strength reduction factor
USA. Rsl: nominal slip resistance
Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. A. (2005) Designers’ Guide to
Seff: effective section modulus
EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures.
Sx: elastic section modulus
Thomas Telford Publishing, London, UK.
ISO 898-1 (1999). Mechanical Properties of Fasteners Tb: minimum fastener tension
Made of Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel Part 1: Bolts, Tu: required tensile strength
screws and studs. International Standardization Tn: nominal tensile strength
Organization. U: shear lag factor
RCSC (2004). Specification for Structural Joints Using Vn: nominal shear strength
ASTM A325 and A490 Bolts. Research Council on Vu: required shear strength
Structural Connections, Chicago, IL. Z: plastic section modulus about the axis of bending
a: clear distance between transverse stiffeners
List of Symbols aw: ratio of web area to the flange area
Ab: nominal unthreaded body area of bolt bc: depth of web under compression
Ac: area in compression beff: effective plate width
Ac,eff: effective cross sectional area bf: flange width
Af: area of flange d: full nominal depth of the section
Ag: gross area of member do: diameter of the bolt
An: net area of member e1: the end distance from the center of a fastener hole
 A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States 27

to the adjacent end of any part, measured in the tf: thickness of flange
direction of load transfer tw: thickness of the web
e2: the end distance from the center of a fastener hole α: imperfection factor
to the adjacent end of any part, measured at right αLT: imperfection factor for lateral torsional buckling
angles to the direction of load transfer β: a constant used for lateral torsional buckling
g: transverse center-to-center spacing between βLF: a reduction factor for bolted long connections
fastener gage lines βw: a constant used for fillet welds
h: web height λ: slenderness parameter
hcs: hole factor λFB: non-dimensional slenderness for flexural buckling
ho: distance between flange centroids λLT: non-dimensional slenderness for lateral torsional
kc: coefficient for slender unstiffened elements buckling
kv: web plate buckling coefficient λLT,0: non-dimensional constant for lateral torsional
p1: spacing between centers of fasteners in a line in buckling
the direction of load transfer λpf: limiting slenderness parameter for compact flange
p2: spacing measured perpendicular to the load λpw: limiting slenderness parameter for compact web
transfer direction between adjacent lines of λrf: limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact
fasteners flange
r: governing radius of gyration λrw: limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact
rts: effective radius of gyration web
ry: radius of gyration about y-axis (minor axis of an χ: reduction factor for relevant buckling mode
I-shaped member bent about a major axis) χLT: reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling
s: longitudinal center-to-center spacing of any ρ: reduction factor for effective area
consecutive holes φ: resistance factor
t: thickness of the connected material γM: partial safety factor
te: effective throat thickness of a fillet weld µ: mean slip coefficient