Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
NOTATION
A Cross-sectional area
d Member end displacement
d, ~A, deB Vectors of member end displacements
daug Vector of member end displacements for augmented beam
element
dbyb Vector of member end displacements for semi-rigidly connec-
ted members
dlnt Vector of member end displacements for intermediate beam
element
E Modulus of elasticity
285
286 T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis
I Second m o m e n t of area
k Member stiffness matrix
KcA Connection stiffness of semi-rigid connection at end 1 of member
Kce Connection stiffness of semi-rigid connection at end 2 of
member
knng Member stiffness matrix for augmented beam element
khyb Member stiffness matrix for semi-rigidly connected members
klnt Modified member stiffness matrix for intermediate beam el-
ement
kso Modified member stiffness matrix to incorporate second-order
effects
L Length of member
m Member end moment
M Moment
P Member end forces
P, PeA, P~e Vectors of member end forces
Pang Vector of member end forces for augmented beam element
Pf Vector of member fixed end forces
Pf, ug Vector of member fixed end forces for augmented beam
element
Pfhyb Vector of member fixed end forces for semi-rigidly connected
members
Pnnt Vector of member fixed end forces for intermediate beam
element
Phyb Vector of member end forces for semi-rigidly connected mem-
bers
Pint Vector of member end forces for intermediate beam element
INTRODUCTION
NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
Geometrical non-linearity
p=k,od+pf (1)
288 T. S. Kruger, B. I4". J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis
The tpi-terms in eqn (2) are known as the stability functions of the member.
With a first-order analysis where P.A-effects are neglected, k,o is equal to k
and tpl = 12, tp2=6, ¢p3=2, ~p4=4.
In second-order analyses, the stability functions are functions of the
axial force in the member; the length, second moment of area, and the
modulus of elasticity. The stability functions are dealt with in great detail
in various text books (Coates et al.2). It is, however, important to note that
the stability functions are different for compressive and tensile forces. It
must also be noted that the trigonometrical functions for tpi are undefined
for zero or very small axial forces. It is known that for zero and small axial
forces cpl = 12, ~p2=6, ~p3=2 and ~p4=4, as for the first-order analysis.
Goto and Chen 3 derived a series expansion to describe the stability
functions. By doing this he obtained one set of equations that can be used
for the stability functions, regardless of whether an axial compressive force
or an axial tensile force is considered. For most situations Goto's express-
ions result in values almost equal to the mathematically correct values of
tpl and their use is recommended.
MATERIAL NON-LINEARITY
the yield stress of the material and with an increase in strain the stress
remains constant. In the elastic-plastic model the material initially de-
forms elastically under increasing load and the stress-strain relationship
is linear. When the yield stress of the material is reached, the material
becomes plastic. With further increase in strain the stress remains con-
stant.
For analysis purposes in the rigid-plastic and elastic-plastic models,
yielding is modelled through the formation of so-called plastic hinges. As
long as tl~e induced stress, at any position in the member, is kept below the
yield stress, that position may be seen as rigid. When the yield stress is
reached the material becomes plastic and a further increase in stress will
result in relative rotation at that position. This behaviour is similar to the
behaviour of a pinned connection but with equal and opposite couples
(equal to the plastic moment of resistance of the section) on either side of
the hinge. In this model it is assumed that the material inelasticity is
concentrated at specific points. This approach restricts the formation of
plastic hinges to definite points in the structure.
CONNECTION NON-LINEARITY
~ a s'tiffc°~ecti°n
e
stiffness
Flexiblecormeotion
|
Rotation
(0,)
Fig. 1. M - O r relationships.
A few important behavioural characteristics of connections are that:
Lui and Chen 5 developed a procedure where the matrix stiffness method
was adapted to incorporate connection flexibility. Firstly, a new force-
displacement relationship is determined for an augmented beam element.
In the augmented beam element three elements are identified--two springs
representing the semi-rigid connections a t b o t h member ends and a
normal beam element between the two connections. In Fig. 2 this model is
shown, indicating all member end forces for each element. The vectors of
member end displacements are also given. Equation (3) gives the force-
displacement relationship for the augmented beam element.
p . g = k . , - d..g
0 0 k,o 0 0 d
mAi real
po. = [re,u, m,~] 'r P = [P,l. PTI, ml, pu. Py2, m~] T P,n = [ram, n~2] T
P,I ~t
p.2~,,
ITII2int
<::: ,- )
p~., = [p., ~ , py, ~. m, u.. P,2*t • Py2~ . m2 ~.. mn~.t .rex, ~.t ]T
Pint = T T [Pnng-'[-Pfaug]
= T T [Kn.g.ding + pfnag]
= T T. Knag. T" dint + T T. Pfnug
= kiat" di.t + Print (6)
with T = 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
(7)
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 293
0 0 (8)
l~o2/L 2 Iq92/L 2
- KcA/E 0
0 0
- ltp2/L 2 - Icp2/L 2
0 - Kca/E
(9)
Pint b kint ba kint bb dint b Print b
By statically condensing out the degrees of freedom related to m12 and m21
it follows that:
and therefore
-1
dint b = -- kint bb (kint ba" dint a + Print b) (11)
294 T. S. Kru#er, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Piessis
p~,, ,, = (k,,, ,, - ks.., .b" k~ ~,bb" kin, ha) d~..t, + (Pn,, • - k~,,,,b" k~bb "Pn,, b)
= khyb "dhyb -1- Pfhyb
:Phyb (12)
The hybrid beam element (member with semi-rigid connections at both
ends) of which the force-displacement relationship is given by eqn (12) is
shown in Fig. 4. This relationship derived by Lui and Chen 5 has been
expanded by Kruger 6'9 to include axial deformation.
A
m?
....
~w, lw Py2 k¢,
m l hyb
Fig. 4. H y b r i d b e a m element.
Non-linear analysis o f structural steel f r a m e s 295
with
The computer program not only gives the user the choice of analysing
plane frames with rigid and pinned connections, but also of analysing
plane frames with semi-rigid connections. A number of assumptions was
made during development of the program. These are:
1
Read from t e m n a l :
- M ~ i n ' ~ m load factor
Increments of load factor
L
1
Read and write input data
1
Zero all relevant arrays
load factor = 0
1
Sat hinge indicators to zero plastic hinges
X - c o - o r = X c o - o r + X-displacement
Y-co-or = Y-co-or + Y-displacement
i E EII 11
I actor all loads with the incrernental load factor I
1 12
Calculate the structural stiffness wmtrix
incorporating geomettical end
connection non-linearitics
13
Introduce the support conditions
15
1 1,
I Check for the formation
of any plastic hinges
Fig. 5.--Contd.
11. The load factor is incremented and all loads are multiplied by the
increment in load factor.
12. (a) Calculation of the structural stiffness matrix:
Several different types of members are possible and the subrou-
tine to calculate the member stiffness matrix takes this fact into
account. Member types are dependant on member end connec-
tions.
(b) Calculation of the second-order member stiffness matrix:
The ~0i-functions require a value of the axial force. For the first
calculation of kso zero axial forces are assumed. For subsequent
calculations the total axial forces calculated at the end of the
Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 301
The portal frame shown in Fig. 6 was analysed to illustrate the computer
program. In all cases second-order elastic-plastic analyses with no reduc-
tion in tlae plastic moment were performed and the incremental load factor
was kept constant at 0-01. In Example 1 connection non-linearity is
illustrated, while in Example 2 material non-linearity (plasticity) is illus-
trated. "]('he plastic moment of resistance of the section used is 212 kNm.
The maximum value of the plastic moment of resistance of the haunch is
approximately 425 kNm.
Nodes
19
t7 lg 20 21
2.7 kN 9 !9
No~s:
0.9 k.,N ~T
It All sections are 305 x 165 x 4 6 kg/m 7,
I - sections.
Haunches a ~ made up of the same
oo
profile ranging from zero depth to
Node 1 300 nun at the eaves. Node 37
Example 1
This example illustrates connection non-linearity. Connections at nodes 1,
19 and 37 are assumed to be semi-rigid connections with an initial
rotational stiffness of 32.14 kNm/rad and maximum capacity of 50 k N m
(bi-linear/elastic-plastic model). Load factors of 1.0 and 1.3 were applied. In
Fig. 7 the bending moment diagrams (in kNm) are shown for the two cases.
At a load factor of 1.0 the maximum capacity of 50 k N m of the connections
at nodes 1 and 37 has already been reached, while the moment at
connection 19 is only 36.8 kNm. At load factor 1.3, the maximum capacity
of the connection at node 19 has also been reached. This actually implies
that three hinges have now formed in the structure at nodes 1, 19 and 37.
With a further increase in the load factor the values of the moments at these
nodes will remain unchanged while all other moments will increase. The
bending m o m e n t diagram for the same structure with all connections
assumed fixed at load factor 1.0 is also shown in Fig. 7.
At least four 'hinges' are necessary for the structure to become unstable.
All three semi-rigid connections have reached their capacity of 50 k N m
before the: formation of any plastic hinges, at a value of 212kNm.
Therefore only one more hinge is necessary for the structure to collapse.
Due to the: geometry of the structure and the loading pattern, it is obvious
that the plastic hinge will form in the vicinity of node 29 (the right-hand
eaves connection). The possibility of the plastic hinge forming at node 29 is
unlikely because of the haunch at that position. The plastic hinge will thus
form at either node 27 or 31, with node 31 being more likely.
It is possible to determine the critical failure load factor of the structure
by using the equations of equilibrium and bearing in mind that the
moments at points 1, 19 and 37 are 50 k N m and at node 31 it is 212 kNm.
It was found that the critical failure load factor is 1-91 in this case.
36.8
50.4
132.1 •. 30,3 f ~144,9
175.1
130.2
/ "
\ /J
LEGEND: LF = 1.0
LF ~ 1.3
--i,--~.o~=~d~
50.1 50.3
50.1 50.3
83.6 92,4
Example 2
Example 2 illustrates material plasticity, i.e. the formation of plastic
hinges. All connections are assumed to be rigid. Load factors of 1.0, 2.3
30.3
73 2
//
LEGEND:
LF = 1.0
LF = 2.3
LF = 2.6
83.6 92 4
192.7 212.0
180.9 212.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
18
16
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
04
0.2
0
T T r I T r
2O 40 60 80 100 120
A29,~,~,o,,, (ram)
Fig. 9. Load factor (2) vs displacement.
Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 305
and 2.6 were applied. The first plastic hinge formed at a load factor of 2.27
at node 217 (right-hand support). The next two plastic hinges formed at
load factors of 2.52 and 2.58 at nodes 31 and 7, respectively. Failure of the
structure is at a load factor of 2.79, when plastic hinges have formed at nodes
17, 18, 20 and 21. In Fig. 8 the bending m o m e n t diagrams are shown for load
factors of 1.0, 2.3 and 2-6. Figure 9 gives a graphical representation of load
factor versus horizontal displacement of node 29 and clearly illustrates the
non-linear behaviour. The formation of all plastic hinges and the reduction
in stiffness are clearly visible in the change of slope in the diagram.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES