Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.11
3.12
EXAMPLES .........................................................................................114
3.13
REFERENCES .....................................................................................129
77
3.1
Linear Analysis
Ouput of Member
Forces and Moments
3.1.1
Compression Resistance
where
5.
6.
In effective length method, the critical problem for assessing the buckling
strength will be the assumption of effective length. Below are the typical
values for effective length factor.
Rotation Fixed
Translation Fixed
Rotation Free
Translation Fixed
79
Rotation Fixed
Translation Free
Rotation Free
Translation Free
80
81
cr is defined as the factor multiplied to the design load causing the frame to
buckle elastically.
Notional force is (1) to simulate lack of verticality of frames and taken as
0.5% of the factored dead and imposed loads applied horizontally to the
structure and (2) to calculate the elastic critical load factor cr . This
percentage of notional force may vary for other types of structures like
scaffolding where imperfections are expected to be more serious. In Hong
Kong Code, is calculated as, = FN H
FN
3.1.3.1
Non-sway frame
When cr 10 for 2000 version it is a non-sway frame. P- effect can be
ignored here and only P- effect is needed. The effective length of
members in frames can be designed by chart in Figures E.1, E.2 and E.3
in BS5950(2000) or by E.6 and cr directly.
82
Determine k1 and k2 as k =
Kc + Ku
( K c + K u + KTL + KTR )
k2 =
KC + K L
( Kc + K L + K L + K R )
Le
)
L
83
3.1.3.2
Sway-sensitive frames
When 4 < cr < 10, it is a sway sensitive frame.
A structure should have sufficient stiffness so that the second-order moment
due to vertical load and lateral deflection will not be so great as to affect the
structural safety. P- effect is to account for the effect of global sway of a
frame and it is particularly important in sway-sensitive frames. For a frame
with large sway or weak in lateral sway stiffness, we must consider the
additional moment or instability effect due to sway. When a structure is
under vertical loads, the member and complete global stiffness are reduced
and therefore their sway stiffness is weakened. This leads to the importance
of considering the P- effect in some structures.
Moment amplification method
Application of an amplification factor kamp below to enlarge the moments
and forces obtained from a linear analysis.
84
k amp =
cr
1.0
1.15 cr 1.5
cr
cr 1
been considered.
The above considers the P- effect such that the effective length of the
column is then taken as its true length (see portal frame example later).
Elastic Critical Load Method by E.6
LE =
3.1.3.3
2 EI
cr Fc
(3)
Using the method of sway index, the elastic buckling load factor, cr , is
calculated in case 1 as follows.
Storey
1
2
3
4
i i 1
h
2 EI
2 x 205,000 x 2047 x104
=
= 6.25m
2.12 x500,000
cr Fc
86
However, since cr is less than 4.0 here, the effective length method can no
longer be used in the Euro-code 3, the BS5950(2000) or the Hong Kong
Steel Code 2004. There are two options to solve this problem. The first is to
use the major principal axis of members to resist loads, which is considered
as case 2. The other option is to add bracings members which is designated
as case 3.
Case2 Unbraced case by Annex E, Equation 20 in this note.
Referring to Table 1, the selected s is 0.00085 and the cr is =
1/200/0.00085 = 5.9 > 4 and < 10, sway sensitive frame.
Using computer, cr is 6.3
The effective length =
2 EI
2 x 205,000 x6103x10 4
LE =
=
= 6.47 m
5.9 x500,000
cr Fc
87
When the structure is under a set of more realistic loads due to beam
reactions and distributed evenly at the four levels, how to check the column
strength with variable axial force along its length ?
Using the maximum portion, of course. But it is a waste of material. Secondorder analysis does not have this problem.
89
3.2
Design of beam-Columns
(4)
F = axial load
A g = gross cross-sectional area
M x , M y = applied moment about xx and yy axes
M cx , M cy = moment capacity about xx and yy axes in the absence of axial
load
mMy
F
mM
+ lt x +
1
Ag pc
Mb
py Z y
mLT
90
Taking into
2 EA
Le
r
(6)
91
Le
is the slenderness ratio, Le is the
r
in which
(7)
2E
L
r
y
(analytical)
2
r
a( 0 )
0 (empirical from BS5950)
1000
2E
py
Load
Elastic Buckling Load
Pe
Conventional linear
Analysis
Second-order Elastic
Analysis
Limit Point
Pc
2x0.5%P
Py
Elasto-plastic Buckling Analysis
Figure 1
Deflection
93
Sway frame
4<<10
94
The effective length can be determined by the method of using the elastic
critical load as LE =
2 EI
. But when a less critical or non-critical member
cr Fc
under smaller axial is designed, the effective length is very long since Fc is
very small. Is it reasonable ?
About the amplification method, the amplification cannot be used for nonsway frames and, more importantly, it is inconvenient to use for all
members, especially the inclined members, in a large frame.
95
Question
Force
Compression Member
Tension Member
96
97
3.6
98
3.7
99
(8)
where
P = axial force in member
py = design strength
Zy, Zz = effective modulus about principal axes
My, Mz = moment about principal axes
100
(9)
101
(10)
(11)
103
3.8
Applied Load, F
Displacement, u
104
Divergence Load
Load, F
F0
Equilibrium Path
F1
T
u0 u
1
KT
Displacement, u
Iteration Method by 2 load increments to reach the design load
105
3.9
The major differences between limit state code BS5950 and allowable stress
code BS449 regarding column buckling are :
1. BS5950 includes section shape variation (i.e. the use of four compressive
strength tables)
2. BS5950 allows for locked-in stresses (i.e. residual stresses) and
3. It also allows for stocky column effect
The buckling strength or the load capacity of a column is dependent
on its length, boundary conditions, second-moment of area from cross
sectional geometry, section shape variation (I, Channel, box etc.), residual
stress and imperfections.
The formula for the buckling strength curves is given by,
( p y pc )( pE pc ) = pE pc
in which
2E
L
r
y
(analytical)
2
r
=
in which 0= 0.2
a( 0 )
0 (empirical from BS5950)
1000
2E
py
106
0 y
= 0.001a ( 0 ) 0.001a
L r
From above, it can be seen that the 0/L value depends on the section type,
axis of bending and the geometry of the section. In other words, for the same
type of section and axis of bending, the value of 0/L is maximum if the
section has the minimum value of y/r. Therefore, in order to obtain the lower
bound solution of 0/L for each section type and axis of bending, a section
having the smallest value of y/r (the critical section) is used. Table 1
107
summarizes the critical section for each section type and axis of bending and
its corresponding value of 0/L calculated according to Equation above.
TABLE 1
0/L FOR CRITICAL SECTIONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF SECTION
AND AXIS OF BENDING
Axis of Bending
Type of
Section
x-x
y-y
Section
0/L1000
Section
0/L1000
UB
305x165x40
1.697
127x76x13
1.685
UC
356x368x129
3.000
356x406x634
2.860
CHS
508.0x10.0
1.389
SHS
300x300x6.3
1.598
RHS
300x200x6.3
1.513
500x200x8.0
1.732
152x89
4.474
Channel
Any axis:
With the above information, the buckling design curves of various critical
sections are plotted using Nida. Figure shows an example of buckling design
curve of a section against the BS5950(2000) curve a. Similar good results
can be obtained for other buckling curves or in fact buckling curves in other
national codes by adjusting the 0.
300.0
UB (x-x)
CHS
SHS
RHS
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Slenderness
NAF-NIDA
BS5950
Euler
109
350
P- effect
2
2
with = FN H
1
Fv
with
EI
2
L2Fc
not explicitly
110
P- imperfection
111
3.11
112
Disadvantages
Super-imposition cannot be applied. It becomes more complicated for
many load cases.
It is a new method which requires us to learn and be familiar with.
However, with the changing technology and globalisation, it appears that
we cannot avoid using better and new methods else we cannot compete
with our counterparts.
113
3.12
Examples
1199
1200
1201
y
978
Applied Load
unit in mm
114
A point load at the mid-span bottom of the truss was applied to the truss
until buckling, which was indicated by an excessive deflection of the top
chord. Deflections at several nodal locations were measured against the load.
This loading arrangement made the top chord in compression and buckled
laterally.
In the design of the truss, a simple question will be raised. What is the
effective length of the top chord against buckling in out-of-plane direction ?
A simple widely used assumption for this effective length determination is
the distance between chord for in-plane buckling and the distance between
support for buckling out-of-plane.
When using this conventional approach of assuming the
distance between supports as effective length, it is then taken as 4.798m and
the slenderness ration (Le/r) for the tubular sections of 48.3x3.2 CHS of
grade 43 steel is 299.9. From BS5950, the permissible stress is 21 N/mm2
and the permissible load in top chord is equal to pyA or 9.513 kN. The
applied load generating this compressive load is then calculated as 7.8 kN.
In the experiment, the tested buckling load of about 34
kN is much higher than the design load calculated from the conventional
method of 7.8 kN by 4.4 times. This shows the uneconomical output by the
conventional design method following strictly to the design code.
115
40
Load, P (kN)
Experiment
35
30
Buckled Shape
25
20
10
Undeformed Shape
Buckled shape
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
116
we can obtain the same result as our buckling analysis if the effective length
is assumed as 2.311 m or the effective length factor is taken as 0.482. In this
case, the buckling stress from BS5950 is then equal to 86 N/mm2 and the
permissible buckling load is then 39 kN, which can be produced by an
applied point load of 32 kN.
118
915kN
1,000
885kN
2x0.5% P
4@4m=16m
722kN
500
Design strength by conventional method
Design strength by NIDA
Elasto-plastic buckling strength
by method in Chan and Chui (2000)
4m
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
119
2 EI
2 x 205,000 x6103x10 4
LE =
=
= 6.47 m
5.9 x500,000
cr Fc
L/r = 6.47/89.6 = 72.2,
From Table 24b, BS5950, permissible axial force = 197.6x7600 = 1,520 kN
Design load factor = 1657/500 = 3.0
Design Load Factor by NIDA = 3.2
Case 3 Fully braced case by Annex E and chart
Obviously the frame is non-sway and the beam is bent under single
curvature.
From Table E.3, consider column in the second level as the most critical.
I I
+
L L
= 2 / 2.5 = 0.8
k1 =
I I I
0.5 + +
L L L
I I
+
L L
= 2 / 2.5 = 0.8
k2 =
I I I
0.5 + +
L L L
1000kN
30 m
M o m e n t J o in ts
P in n e d J o in ts
T h e P o rta l F121
ra m e
10 m
60kN
122
50kN
80kN
50kN
110kN
50kN
80kN
3m
3m
1.66m
2.4m
1.35m
2.4m
123
124
dimensions of the structure are 134m in length, 57m wide and 28.3 m high.
All member connections are welded and the columns are pinned to the pile
cap foundations. Square hollow sections with width ranging from 150mm to
450mm were used and all steel stress is 250 MPa. The photographed
elevation of structure is shown in Figure 4 and the computer plan and
elevation are depicted in Figures 5 and 6. The structure is modeled by
10,315 members and 3,750 nodes. The total weight of steel is about 1300
tons. In the analysis, the first cycle assumed the members are perfectly
straight and their directions of deflections are determined and recorded. In
the second cycle for actual analysis, the member initial imperfections are
assumed to be in the same direction as these member deflections in the first
cycle. This is conservative, but represents a consistent approach to that
adopted in the design code which always assumes a weakening effect of
imperfection.
The original structure was designed to withstand a 3-second gust wind speed
of 6 month return period. After the ceremony, the Macau Government
considered extending the life of the structure to 50 years. A wind tunnel test
was then carried out in China with pressure determined for re-analysis.
Based on this pressure, the structure was then re-designed and checked by
the present method.
125
126
128
3.13 References
American Institute of Steel Construction (1986), Load and resistance factor design,
specification for structural steel buildings, AISC, Chicago.
AS-4100, Australian Standard for Steel Structures (1990), Sydney.
Bathe, K.J. (1982), Finite element procedures in engineering analysis, Prentice-Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
BS5950, British Standards Institution (2000), Structural use of steel in building, Part
1, U.K.
Brush, D.O. and Almroth, B.O. (1975), Buckling of bars, plates and shells, McGrawHill, Inc.
Chajes, A. (1974), Principle of structural stability theory, Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics Series, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Chan, S.L. (1990), Strength of Cold-formed Box Columns with coupled Local and
Global Buckling, The Structural Engineer, vol. 68, No. 7, April, pp. 125-132.
Chan, S.L. and P.P.T. Chui (2000),"Non-linear Static and Cyclic analysis of semirigid steel frames", Elsevier Science, pp.336.
Chan, S.L. and Zhou, Z.H. (1994), A Pointwise Equilibrating Polynomial (PEP)
Element for Nonlinear Analysis of Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 6, June, pp.1703-1717.
Chan, S.L. and Kitipornchai, S. (1987a), Geometric nonlinear analysis of asymmetric
thin-walled beam-columns, Journal of Engineering Structures, 9, pp.243-254.
Chan, S.L. and Kitipornchai, S. (1987b), Nonlinear finite element analysis of angle
and tee beam-columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113(4), pp.721739.
Chen, W.F. and Chan, S.L. (1994), Second-order inelastic analysis of steel frames by
personal computers, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.21, no.2, pp.99-106.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, 2nd edition, Civil
Engineering Series, McGraw-Hill.
Horne, M.R. (1949), Contribution to The design of steel frames by Baker, J.F.,
Structural Engineer, 27, pp. 421
129
Liew J.Y.R. (1992), Advanced analysis for frame design, Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Merchant, W. (1954), The failure load of rigidly jointed frameworks as influenced by
stability, The Structural Engineer, 32, pp.185-190.
Narayanan, R. (1985), Plated structures - stability and strength, Elsevier Applied
Science, N.Y.
Peng, J.L., Pan, A.D.E. and Chan, S.L., Simplified models for analysis and design
of modular falsework, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol.48, No.2/3,
1998, pp.189-210.
Rankine, W.J.M. (1863), A manual of civil engineering, 2nd edition, Charles Griffin
and Comp. London.
Introduction to Steelwork design to BS5950:Part 1 (1998), The Steel Construction
Institute.
Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. (1961), Theory of elastic stability, 2nd edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Trahair, N.S. (1965), Stability of I-beam with elastic end restraints, Journal of the
Institution of Engineers, Australia, 38, pp.157Trahair, N.S. and Chan, S.L., Out-of-plane Advanced Analysis of Steel
Structures, research report, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering, Sydney University, 2002 (to appear).
Yau, C.Y. And Chan, S.L. (1994), Inelastic and stability analysis of flexibly
connected steel frames by the spring-in-series model, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, pp.2803-2819.
Zienkiewics, O.C. (1977), The Finite Element Procedure, 3rd Edition, McGrawHill.
130