Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L span M moment Mcr applied elastic critical buckling moment tf flange thickness tw web thickness
1. INTRODUCTION
The basic model used to illustrate the theory of lateral-torsional buckling is shown in Figure 1. It assumes the following: beam is initially straight elastic behaviour uniform equal flanged I-section ends simply supported in the lateral plane (twist and lateral deflection prevented, no rotational restraint in plan) loaded by equal and opposite end moments in the plane of the web.
This problem may be regarded as being analogous to the basic pin-ended Euler strut. The beam is placed in its buckled position, as in Figure 2, and the magnitude of the applied load necessary to hold it there determined by equating the disturbing effect of the end moments, acting through the buckling deformations, to the internal (bending and torsional) resistance of the section.
The derivation and solution to the equations leading to the critical value of applied end moments (Mcr) at which the beam of Figure 1 just becomes unstable is provided in Appendix 1. The physical significance of the solution and its application in cases where the assumptions listed above do not apply are discussed in Sections 2 and 3 that follow.
Mcr =
(17)
The presence of the flexural (EIz) and torsional (GIt and EIw) stiffnesses of the member in the equation is a direct consequence of the lateral and torsional components of the buckling deformations. The relative importance of the two mechanisms for resisting twisting is reflected in the second square root term. Length is also important, entering both directly and indirectly via the p 2EIw/L2GIt term. It is not possible to simplify Equation (17) by omitting terms without imposing limits on the range of application of the resulting approximate solution. Figure 6 shows quantitatively the application of Equation (17) to the different types of beam sections defined in the earlier Lecture 7.8.1. The region of the curves for both I-sections of low length/depth ratios corresponds to the situation in which the value of the second square root term in Equation (17) adopts a value significantly in excess of unity. Since warping effects (see Appendix 1) will be most important for deep sections composed of thin plates, it follows that the p 2EIw/L2GIt term will, in general, tend to be large for short deep girders and small for long shallow beams.
Figure 7 gives some quantitative indication of the effect of shape of cross-section for structural steel I-beams, by comparing values of Mcr for a beam (I) and a column (H) having approximately equal in-plane plastic moment capacities. Clearly, lateral-torsional buckling is a potentially more significant design consideration for the beam section which is much less stiff laterally.
The solution for this example may conveniently be compared with the basic case in terms of the critical moments for each, i.e. maximum moment when the beam is on the point of buckling. Basic case: Mcr = (p/L) (EIxGIt) [1+ (p 2 EIw/L2 GIt)] Central load: Mcr = (4,24/L) (EIxGIt) [1+ (p 2 EIw/L2 GIt)] (17) (21)
The ratio of the two constants p/4,24=0,74 is the reciprocal of the coefficient C1 introduced in Lecture 7.9.1. Its value is a direct measure of the severity of a particular pattern of moments relative to the basic case. Figure 9, which gives C1 factors for various loading patterns, shows how lateral stability generally increases as the moment pattern becomes less uniform.
These show that: 1. Cantilevers under end moment are less stable than similar, simply supported, beams. 2. Concentrating the moment adjacent to the support, as happens when the applied loading changes from pure moment to an end load or to a distributed load, improves lateral stability. 3. The effect of load height is even more significant for cantilevers than for simply supported beams.
For the first case a safe design will result if the most critical segment, treated in isolation, is used as the basis for designing the whole beam. For the second case account should be taken of the actual moment diagram within each span, produced by the continuity, by using the C1 factor. If the top flange can be considered as laterally restrained because of attachment to a concrete slab, particular attention should be paid to the regions in which the lower flange is in compression, e.g. the support regions or regions where uplift loads can occur.
Mcr =
Rearranging this shows that the beam behaves as if its torsional rigidity GIt were increased to (GIt+ Kf L2/p 2), thereby permitting a ready assessment of the effectiveness of the restraint. An important practical example of such a restraint would be that provided by the bending stiffness of profiled steel sheeting (used typically in roof construction) spanning at right angles to the beam.
4. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
The elastic critical moment which causes lateral-torsional buckling of a slender beam may be determined from an analysis which has close similarities to that used to study column buckling. Examination of the expression for the elastic critical moment for the basic problem enables the influence of cross-sectional shape, as it affects the beam's resistance to lateral bending (EIz), torsion (It) and warping (Iw), to be identified; it also demonstrates the importance of unbraced span length. Extensions to the basic theory permit the effects of load pattern, end restraint and level of application of destabilising loads to be quantified. Load patterns which produce non-uniform moment may be compared with the basic, uniform moment case using the coefficient C1; since most of these other cases will be less severe, C1 values greater than 1,0 are the norm.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures": ENV 1993-1-1: Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, CEN, 1992.
6. ADDITIONAL READING
1. Narayanan, R., Editor, "Beams and Beam Columns: Stability and Strength", Applied Science Publishers 1983. Chapters 1 - 3 deal with various aspects of behaviour and design of laterally unrestrained beams. 2. Chen, W. F. and Atsuta, T. "Theory of Beam Columns Volume 2, Space Behaviour and Design", McGraw Hill 1977. Chapter 3 deals with laterally unrestrained beams. 3. Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M., "Theory of Elastic Stability" Second Edition, McGraw Hill 1961. Basic derivations for the elastic critical moment for a variety of beam problems are provided in Chapter 6. 4. Bleich, F., "Buckling Strength of Metal Structures", McGraw Hill 1952. Chapter 4 presents the basic theory of lateral buckling of beams. 5. Galambos, T. V., "Structural Members and Frames", Prentice Hall 1968. Chapter 2 deals with the fundamentals of elastic behaviour, whilst Chapter 3 covers elastic and inelastic behaviour and design of laterally unrestrained beams. 6. Trahair, N. S. and Bradford, M. A., "The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures", Chapman and Hall, Second Edition, 1988. Laterally unrestrained beams are dealt with in Chapter 6.
Bending in the x z and h z planes and twisting about the z axis are governed by:
EIy
(1)
EIz
(2)
GIt
(3)
In Equations (1) and (2) the flexural rigidities and curvatures in the x z and the h z planes have been replaced by the values for the yx and zx planes, on the basis that f is a small angle. Equation (3) includes both mechanisms available in a thin-walled section to resist twist; the first term corresponds to that part of the applied torque which is resisted by the development of shear stresses, whilst the second term allows for the influence of restrained warping. This latter phenomenon arises as a direct result of the type of axial flange deformation, illustrated in Figure 4a, that occurs in an I-section subject to equal and opposite end torques. The two flanges tend to bend in opposite senses about a vertical axis through the web, with the result that originally plane sections do not remain plane. On the other hand, for the cantilever of Figure 4b, it is clear that warping deformations must be at least partly inhibited elsewhere along the span, since they cannot occur at the fixed end. This induces additional axial stresses in the flanges; the pair of couples, or bimoment, due to this additional stress system provides part of the section's resistance to twist. In the case of lateral instability, restraint against warping arises as a result of adjacent cross-sections wanting to warp by different amounts.
For an I-section, the relative magnitudes of the warping constant Iw and the torsion constant It are:
Iw = Iz hf2/4 and It = They will be affected principally by the thickness of the component plates and by the depth of the section. For compact column-type sections the first term in Equation (3) will tend to provide most of the twisting resistance, whilst the second term will tend to become dominant for deeper beam shapes. Consideration of the buckled shape using Figures 2, 3 and 5 enables the components of the applied moment in the x z and h z planes and about the z axis to be obtained as: Mx = Mcosf , Mh = Msinf , Mz = Msina (4)
Since f is small, cosf 1 and sinf f, whilst Figure 5 shows that sina may be approximated by as:
EIy
= M (5)
EIz
= Mf (6)
GIt
(7)
Since Equation (5) contains only the vertical deflection (v), it is independent of the other two; it controls the in-plane response of the beam described in Lecture 7.5.1. Equations (6) and (7) are coupled in u and f , the buckling deformations; their solution gives the value of elastic critical moment (Mcr) at which the beam becomes unstable. Combining them gives:
EIw
(8)
Solution
The solution of Equation (8) is made far simpler if the warping stiffness (Iw) is assumed to be zero. The results obtained are then directly applicable to beams of narrow rectangular cross-section but are conservative for the normal range of I-sections. Equation (8) therefore reduces to:
(9)
Putting m2 =
f = Acos mx = Bsin mx (10) Noting the boundary conditions at both ends gives When x = 0, f = 0; then A = 0 (11) When x = L, f = 0; then Bsin mL = 0 and either B = 0, or (12) sin mL = 0 (13) The first possibility gives the unbuckled position whereas the second gives: mL = 0, p, 2p (14) and the first non-trivial solution is: mL = p (15) which gives: Mcr = (p/L) (EIxGIt) (16)
Since the form of Equation (9) is identical to the form of the basic Euler strut equation all of the same arguments about its solution apply. Returning to the original Equation (8), this may be solved to give: Mcr = (p/L) (EIxGIt) [1+ (p 2 EIw/L2 GIt)] (17) The inclusion of warping effects therefore enhances the value of Mcr by an amount which is dependent on the relative values of EIw and GIt.
Mx =
Mh =
(18)
Mz = Replacing Equations (5) - (7) by their revised forms and eliminating u from the second and third of these gives:
EIw
(19)
(20)
Mcr =
(21)
The alternative means of obtaining elastic critical loads uses the energy method, in which the work done by the applied load during buckling is equated to the additional strain energy stored as a result of the buckling deformations. Considering an element of the longitudinal axis of the beam of length dx located at C, bending in the x z plane causes the end B of the beam to rotate in the x z plane by:
(23) Summing these for all elements between x= 0 and x = L/2 gives the lowering of the load W from which the work is:
(24) The strain energy stored as a result of lateral bending, twisting and warping is:
(26) and equating Equations (24) and (25) enables the critical value of W to be obtained. Use of this technique permits examination of the case in which the load is applied at a level other than the centroidal axis. Assuming W to act at a vertical distance (a) above the centroid, the additional work will be: Wa (1 - cos f o ) = Wa f o 2/2 in which f o is the value of f at the load point. This must be added to Equation (24). Previous | Next | Contents