Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FRITZ EJ\JGfNEERING
ORAl'ORY L'BRA~'~V
by
Sakda Santathadaporn
Wai F. Chen
by
Sakda Santathadaporn
Wai F. Chen
This work has been carried out as a part of an investigation sponsored jointly by the Welding Research Council and the Department of the Navy with funds furnished
by the following:
American Iron and Steel Institute
Naval Ship Systems Command
Naval "Facilities Engineering Command
August 1968
331.3
SYNOPSIS
Limit analysis is applied to obtain. interaction equations for rectangular and wide-flange sections under combined biaxial bending and
axial force.
curves and comparisons are made for various weights and sizes of common-
331.1
ii
SYNOPSIS
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
2.2
4-.
11
5.
CONCLUSION
17
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
18
NOMENCLATURE
19
8.
APPENDIX
21
22
10
REFERENCES
45
331.3
-1
1.
INTRODUCTION
usually exist
~n
a space structure"
1*
labor in
On the other
Neverthe-
less, the resulting theory will certainly be an improvement on the present theory ~or planar structures which c~mpleteiy neglects the additional
bending moment resulting from space action of the entire framing system.
Studies of the interaction relations under-biaxial loading
hav~
action curves for the commonly used wide-flange sections has been presented.
b~sed
-2
331.3
The rectangular section and the wide-flange section will be considered in what follows.
main and the minimum collapse domain will be obtained by use of the
co~parison
The influence
clearer.
-3
331.3
2.
analys~s
2.1
The lower bound theorem of limit analysis states that the load
computed on the basis of an assumed
equilibr~um stat~
condit~on
of stress distri-
condition
This has
tive when the axial force causes tension and the bending moments produce
tensile stress in the first quadrant of the coordi'nate system shown.
The
f2
-2
cr
f(x) dx
( 1)
331.3
-4
~
2
M
x
l~cry
M
y
2
f(x) ]
[4
dx
(2)
+-
-);2 ~
b
-Z
x f(x) dx
(3)
So
Given a value of P
f(x)] - Ai
[2 cry
x f(x)] - A2
[2 cry
f(x)]
(4)
1
rather than d i ff erentia.
.Q!L.
of (x)
h t he
W~t
d
equat~on
oR
dx [of'(x) ]
10
(5)
it follows that
f(x)
(6)
( 7)
(8)
-5
331.3
(9)
M
Y
Eliminating'
~l
~2
and
(10)
m
x
(11)
M
px
M
=J..
(12)
py
where
p ,
y
px
M
py
cr bd
-cr bd
4 y
'(13)
1
4
-0'
d,b
(14)
(15)
m
x
+ -4
m
y
(16)
valid for
< mx
Equatio~
passing through the two vertical sides of the rectangle (Fig. 2a).
There
are also two other possible locations of the neutral axis (Figs. ,2b
and 2c) depending upon the relative magnitude of p, m
andm.
,y
Their
-6
331.3
nique has been used by Hodge for the interaction curves for shear and bending
of p1ast1c' beams.
2.2
11 12
'
of the external and internal rate of ,work for such a field will give an
upper bound solution for the collapse or limit load.
In Fig. 4,
eo
which are associated with these strain.and curvature rates are axial force
P, and the bending moment M which can be resolved into two components
of moment M and M about the principal axes.
x
y
specified completely by e
and K.
0
with this pattern of deformation is exactly the same as the lower bound
stress distribution.
331.3
-7
axis y
The neutral
The
-- +t
-J2: cry
0(Y) dy
. --t
w.
-2:
J22 cry
y (li(y) dy
d'
-f~
[(2 - t)
2
- f(x)] dx .
(18)
-2
-2"
d
--+t
} cry'2[(2')
b 2 2
b 2
- 0(Y) ] dy +} :y2[(2)
--t
2
_
(17)
.f(x) dx
--+t
--t
2
-J22' cry
-J2:cry 0(Y) dy
-2
M =
x
-Z
w
2
b(y)] dy
-J22'cry x f(x) dx
(19)
w
2
The first two integrals of Eqs. 17, 18 and 19 are the cdntribution
due to the top and bottom flanges, and the last integral is due to the web.
In order to derive a lower bound on the interaction curve, an ar-
bitrary function of f(x) is assumed and substituted into Eqs. 17, 18 and
19.
chosen as follows
(20)
(21)
331.3
-8
(22)
(23)
(24)
Y
where
(25)
aA
cr
Mpx =aZ
y x
[2bt + w (d - 2t)J
d
py.
(J
YY
cry
cry
[t~ +
(26)
(27)
f w2 (d-2t)J
(28)
(29)
~ (~)
1
[
3 _
m =- {
2
x
Zx 3
m
y
(~2
_ t) 3 ] Ie
w [(
~2
_ t) 2 _ Y 2
1
J} .
(30)
(31)
-9
331.3
valid for
o
w
"2
pa~ses
The solution is
~lange,
29, 30 and 31 are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 for l2W31 and 14~426 respectively.
Comparison between these two sectionsis given'in Fig. 10.
of various weights of 12W section with the ratio
to '0.975 is given in Fig.' 11.
b/~
Comparison
However,
Compa~ison
between their results and the present solution is given in Fig. 12 and
close agreement is observed from this figure.
-10
331.3
the effective depth of the web measured from the center of the top flange
to the center of the bottom flange as was
uniaxial bending.
usua~ly
error compared with the present solution, especially for large flange
thickness and large axial force.
331.3
-11
4.
Then if
cond~tions
.
K is
the strain rate at the centr9id for each of the three thin-wall plates
and if the subscripts t, band w denote the top flange, bottom flange
and web
respect~ve1y,
~ach
The six variables are not completely.independent and must satisfy the compatibility conditions (Fig. 14)
=
ew +
h
2
K
w
where h is the distance from center of the top flange to the center of
the bottom flange.
(32)
(33)
331.3
-12
The rate of energy dissipation across the section is
Wi
J
0
I E: I
(34)
dA
e ::::
Cy
is given by
K
w
(35)
where
ew
K
~ig.
(36)
poi~t
14).
IT
. Kw
e
~J
(37)
Simi1arily, the rate of energy dissipation for the top and the
bottom flanges are
2
b
(J t [K +
t
y
4
(~+ ~)2 ~J
w
'
(J
~)2
(38)
--w J
l<b
(39)
The rates'of external work for the web and the flanges are
P
w w
M K
w w
PtC-w +~K)+MK
2 w
t t
(40)
(41)
-13
331.3
(42)
K )
w
w.1
(43)
or
2
[~ iz +
cr t
y
+ cr t
y
[~ ~
+cryw [(h-t)
4
K 2
~~+ ~W)2 ~J
K
w
+ (~
2
~)2 ~]
~
'E: w
+- ]
(44)
where
p
(45)
h
2
(46)
(47)
M
Y
For
-14
331.3
Hence the
There-
Since the
associated stress field corresponditl:g to the particular deformation pattern of Fig. 15 is the same as for the lower bound calculations, it is
thought that the upper bound formulation for the wide-flange section is
the more interesting.
physical insight into the problem but also because it will be more convenient to obtain for the interaction curve including warping moments
over the section which is of more fundamental concern to space frame
analysis.
simpl~city,
With
Eq. 44 reduces to
x w +M
+M
'y
.
K
0"
[4"
2
K
2
h
K +4
f
+ cr yw
[(h-t)
-. ]
f
.2
+ ~J
K
w
(48)
-15
331.3
and M.
y
It
(49)
ow.
(50)
~
w
ow.
(51)
OKf
Kw/Kf )
2
..
Yl ]
A [2t A3 Y1 +
m
x
1 { 2
Z
th
[(h t) 2
m
y
2
Z
. y
A3 +w
2
b
t [4
h
4
(52)
.2
""3
A~
Y/]}
2
Y1 ]
(53.)
(54)
valid for
o < ~l
d
<- 2
. and
w
As can be seen
331.3
-16
the difference between the lower and the upper bound solutions is the
value of n
14~426.
t~e
in
of the upper
the upper bound
Equations 52,
33l~3
-17
5.
CONCLUSION
frames in which column length is relatively long and the effect of the
geometriGal change of the column on the ultimate strength of the column
becomes .appreciable.
woul~
an~lysis
and design.
331.1
-18
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
~unds
Iron and Steel Institute, Naval Ship Systems Command, and Naval
Facilities Engineering Command.
Technical guidance for the. project is
~rovided
by the
~ehigh
Subcommittee.
spe~ial
Task Group
Birnstiel (New
to Miss K. Philbin for typing the manuscript; to Mr. J. Cera for the
drafting.
331.3
-19
7.
width
depth
~, K t , Kw
Kf
la~ge,
.:::
bending moment
~, Mt , Mw
NOMENCLATURE
x
y
px
M
py
M 1M
x
px
m
y
M 1M
y py
axial load
P
P , P
b
t' w
piP
thickness of flange
-20
331.3
w.1.
thickness of web
x, y
coordinate axes
distance from the point of zero strain to the center of the web
Y1
Z
Z
x
Y
b'
t'
ew
""3
cr
yield stress
331.3
-21
8.
APPENDIX
ew ,:,' Kw
and
Kf
=rw1
[w. ~
(55)
M K .} My K ]
x w
when oP/Ow = 0,
that is
[w.
1.
M K
x
(49)
oP/oK
= 0 and
= 0 are equivalent to
M
oW.
oKw
~
(50)
oW.
M
(51)
Similarly, it can be proved 'that Eqs. 49, 50 and 51 are also the
required conditions for the smallest upper bound values of M and M .
x
y
331.3
-22
9.
-23
331.3
y
-0;
~Y
=f(x)
---IIl~'-"""""""""~"""''-------X
Fig. 1
-24
331.3
N.A.
(0)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2
. N.A.
N.A.
331.3
-25
---x
-~-+-.........
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2~__
0.2
Fig. 3
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
331~3
-26
N.A.
C.A.
Fig. 4
Strain Distribution
-27
331.3
-0:
---....11II-......1---------- X
y :: f (X)
b
Fig. 5
or x 8: 4>
(y)
331.3
-28
N.A.
x! = ton 8
b
Fig. 6
-29
331.3
Case
Cale 2
-I
Case 3
'Case, 4
'.
Case 5
Fig. 7
Case 6
-30
0.8
12W=-31
0.6
my
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.2
Fig. 8
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.0
-31
331.3
I.O..-_~
0.8
14YF426
0.6~
my
0.4
0.2
0.2
'0
Fig. 9
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
331.3
-32
12 'IF 31
0.8
0.6
0.4
,,
0.2
0.31
0.2
0.4
0.6
mx
Fig. 10
0.8
1.0
-33
331.3
-------
----
..! =0.540
12 'IF 31
12YF45
12 'IF 53
'2 YF 79
d =0.667
=0.830
=0.975
1.0r---~
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4"
Fig. 11
0.6
0.8
1.0
331.3
-34
Present Solution
----1+01-----
0.8
14 VF426
0.6
my
0.4
0.2
......
I
I
,,
I
I
I
0.61
0.9
I
I
0.2
Fig. 12
0.4
0.6
0.8
mx
1.0
--35
331.3
Fig. 13
331.3
-36
y
r---,
Fig. 14
Strain Distribution
331.3
-37
N.A~
Plane Section
Fig. 15
331.3
-38
Fig. 16
-39
331 3
0
TABLE 1
Location of N.A.
Equation
Valid for
>-(l-p)
x - 3
,,~
~
~ ~~
2
P
+ mx + 4" my
= 1
my ~
3"
(l.,.p)
N.A.
\
2
2
m ~3 (l-p)
x
~
~~
232
+4
.
m +m
x
y
1
2
my ~
'3
m ~
x
3"
(l-p)
''\ N.A.
\ ..
"3
x
~
'\ N.A.
"9
+ 4"
ffi X
(l-p)
[1-2(1_p) J [ ] = l
m
>"-(l-p}
y -3
UJ
UJ
I---l
TABLE 2
UJ
Equation
1 I
= A [2t
~3 Y1
m
x
1
=zx {4~
03 X3 +
=zy
4 3 A3
=3 - -Z -
3E-
t A3 Y1]
~2
(2:- t )]
mx =
(d-t)
tb
[~-
+r2 u3
"2
d 2
2}
A3 - 2 1,.3 Y1+ w [(I- t )- Y1 J
~ Y1 ~
'2 + Y1
2" -
2
2
n 3 A3+ n 2 A3 Y1 -
A3 Y1 J
~ A3
2" -
~
o
y 1+
"2
%--r-
2-'2 +
Y1
Y1
Y1+ -d2 - t
~.
2
~1 <:-~ 1\3-d
Yl+z - t
2" - Y1
'2 -
~ Y1 ~-
2"
Yl+z - t
Bound
'2 - :2
~A3~
2 2
A3 Y1 J
Y1+
Y
1
"2
[b t - 02 A3 + 2 t ""3 Y1 + 2 w y 1 ]
z'1 {bt
:2
- t
~ ""3 5 d
Y1+z - t
2+ Y1
2
tb
1
2
[~ - 3 3 A3 Y
2" -
2}
- Y1 J
=Z
A [2t "') Y1 +
my
[(I- t )
Y1 .:::;
a :::;
+ w Y1 J
m
y
(tb
Valid for
'Upper
Lower Bound
<:"- -
1..3 -d !. + Y
-22
1
~ Y1 ~
2 -
.
t
2"
2"
~A3~dt
2 - 2"
2-2 -
y1
+'
C)
l.J.J
l.J.J
t--"-
TABLE 2 (cant' d)
VJ
Valid for
Case
Equation
Location of N.A.
P =
~Ex
A [bt
bt
[-z
m =z
x
;x
"
Ex
-
-Z
= 0
+ 2w (I- t )]
3 A3 - n 2 A3 Y1 ]
2
tb
1
2
2
2
2]
[~ - 3 3 A3 + 2 A3 Y1 - t A3 Y1
m
y
- 2 A3 + 2t A3 Y1
(d-t) +
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
t
2" - 2"
2" -
~ Y1
2-~
Y1
2"
"2
2"
2"
Y1+z - t
~ A3
d t.05 A"3~
Yl - 2 + t
Y1+I-Z
d-
Yl-2
Sa
L-
A
m - 2Z
x
A
[d(l-p) - x
2b
2
(l-p) ]
w (d-2t)
::;p~
5b
r
. r--l
~
I I
L.;
m = 0
y
x
2
2
p
A
m =1--x
- 4wZ
x
~ p ~
w(d-2t)
A
.po..
t--'-
LA,)
TABLE 2 (cant'd)
VJ
t----'LA,)
Equation
Case
Valid
for
y
ill
6a
~Ex
wd
A
m
= -2Z
[b (l-p) Y
::;
wd
4t (l-p) }
,
Y
I
Jt
6b
m
x
0
0
m
y
1 - -4d Z
::;
p;-:
Remarks:
-y
A = tan
3
e
,
y
l
A
4
::::1
A
3
-Y1
-A 3 y - A4
= 2bt +
Zx
= bt (d-t) + w (2 -
= - tb
w (d-2t)
d
t)
1 - 2
1 2
+ - w (d-2t)
2
4
d 2
Z = (2")
= t
(d-t)
( 2- t)
Lower Bound
d 3
d
3
n = (-) - (- - t ),
322
3
3
2 t
= 4" t (d-t) + 4"
Upper Bound
2
n
= "43
t (d_t)2
+'
N
-43
331.3
TABLE 3
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
0.2
0.929
0.2
0.836
0.303
0.303
0.2
0.743
0.473
0.472
0.2
0.651
0.617
0.617
0.2
0.558
0.737
0 ..737
0.2
0.465
0.832
0.832
0.2
0.,372
0.903
0.903
0.2
0.279
0.950
0.950
0.2
0.186
0.975
0.975
0.2
0.993
0.993
-44
331.3
TABLE 4
Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Solutions
(14F426)
m
Lower Bound
y
Upper Bound
0.2
0.904
0.2
0.814
0.315
0.313
0.2
0.678
0.530
0.524
0.2
0.588
U.646
0.642
0.2
0.497
0.743
0.741
0.2
0.407
0.823
0.821
0.2
0.316
0.885
0.-884
0.2
0.226
0.930
0.929
0.2
0.136
0.958
0.958
0.2
0.981
0.981
331.3
-45
10 .
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
Drucker, D. C.
THE EFFECT OF SHEAR ON THE PLASTIC BENDING OF BEAMS, Journal
of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 23, Transactions, ASME, Vol. 78,
1956.
4.
Ringo, B. C.
EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH TO THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF A B"IAXIALLY
LOADED BEAM-COLUMN, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of MichIgan
1964, University Mic'rofilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
5.
Sharma, S. S.
ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF STEEL COLUMNS UNDER BIAXIALLY ECCmTRIC
LOAD, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965, University Mi~rofi1ms, Inc., Ann Arbor,. Michigan.
6.
Bruinette, K. E.
A GENERAL FORMULATION OF ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS OF SPACE
FRAMEWORKS, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965,
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
7.
8.
9.
Drucker, D. C.,
10.
Weinstock, R.
CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS, McGraW-Hill, New York, 1952.
331.3
-46
11.
12.