EN 1993-1-1 Shear Buckling for web requirement

I don't know the context, but we may have something similar in the Canadian Code CSA S16. Something like:



and accommodated in programs as:



Not for clip angles... here clip angles require
[ul]
[li]Check beam web for gross shear area[/li]
[li]Check beam web for net shear area[/li]
[li]Check clip angles for gross shear area[/li]
[li]Check clip angles for net shear area[/li]
[li]Check clip angles for block shear[/li]
[li]Check bolts for shear[/li]
[li]Check bolts for bearing[/li]
[li]Check welds[/li]
[/ul]

another issue is that I often don't go by this... If the load is 'high, or maybe not so high' I put stiffeners in, anyway (often half height). There is also an AISC requirement that the stiffener thickness should be at least half the thickness of the supporting beam flange. This is totally different from web crippling.



-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I am really sorry if disappoints you but i do not think so. IMO , the code is clear if eq 6.22 is valid means the web susceptible to shear buckling ( hw/tw >72 ε/η ) then shear buckling resistance for webs without intermediate stiffeners should be according to section 5 of EN 1993-1-5.

Your question implies , probably you are not clear for shear buckling concept. İt is different from web crippling.

The following pic. depicts the shear buckling concept .( from STEEL DESIGNERS’ MANUAL by Buick Davison )





Use it up, wear it out;
Make it do, or do without.

NEW ENGLAND MAXIM

For the Canadian code, it's a matter of treating the web and stiffener like a small 'column', making sure the small column can accommodate the high point load. It's different than web crippling and shear buckling.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I agree with HTURKAK. While I don't practice EN code, I think the clause is pretty clear. And the clause seems to be irrelevant of a connection or a point load.

AKA; it doesn't matter if it is a clip angle, a post or no connection at all and be simply a point mid beam. If the 6.22 inequality isn't satisfied then you need to perform additional checks as per 1993-1-5.

thanks guys for your answers
the reason I thought it was only related to rested beams is that when I referred to 1993-1-1 I found the following diagrams all showing that arrow coming upwards as shown at the support and also the table only mentions cases of rigid end post and non rigid end post
I don't know which case to use when calculating Xw for case of clip angle shear connection for example