Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Illustrative examples
• Introduction
• Example 1 – Column
• Example 2 – Beam
• Example 3 – Beam-column
• Example 4 – Planar frame
• Example 5 – Spatial frame
• Example 6 – Short class 4 column
• Example 7 – Long class 4 column
• Conclusion
2
Introduction
Scope:
• SAP2000 provides tools to both (i) check the safety of steel frame
structures according to Eurocode 3 and (ii) optimise their design
• In order to fully exploit the potential of SAP2000 tools, it is necessary
to know how to apply different EC 3 design methods in SAP2000
Objective:
• Present illustrative examples concerning the safety check and design
of steel members and structures using (i) EC 3 design formula
and (ii) different SAP2000 design tools (based on frame or shell FE)
3
Example 1 – Column (1/3)
• Spatial column (flexural buckling):
IPE 200
4
Example 1 – Column (2/3)
• Column design according to EC 3 formulae and thin-walled rectangular shell FE models:
Method: • Ayrton-Perry formula • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM
• imperf. factor from • equiv. lateral forces • equiv. lateral forces • geometric imperf.
buckling curves with imperf. according with imperf. equiv. to equiv. to buckling
to Table 5.1 (EC 3) buckling curves curves
N Rk Af y 2.850 235 669 .75 kN
Ncr. z 2 EIz L2 2 210 1.420 3.52
240.25 kN
z N Rk N cr. z 669.75 240.25
1.670
• Shell models don’t consider the exact cross-section but a reduced one (conservative)
• Shell models considers shear flexibility (more accurate)
• Model 1 is too conserv. due to high imperf. values of Table 5.1 (EC3)
• Shell models 2 and 3 are accurate when compared to EC 3 formulae
• Differences in buckling resistance are usually lower than
differences in stresses Longitudinal normal
stress (Model 3)
6
Example 2 – Beam (1/3)
• Spatial beam (lateral torsional buckling):
pEd L2
M y.Ed . m ax 30 .62 kNm
8
IPE 200
PEd pEd L 70 kN
7
Example 2 – Beam (2/3)
EC 3 SAP2000 Model A Model B
formulae frame design (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell)
M b. Rd LT M Rd 31 .32 kNm M b. Rd 33 .26 kNm M b. Rd 31 .11 kNm M b. Rd 28 .01 kNm M b. Rd 29 .86 kNm
Mcr
[kN]
48.44 48.44 0% 43.26 -10.7% 43.03 -11.2% 43.03 -11.2%
x.max
[MPa]
229.7 - - - - 279.5 +21.7% 246.3 +7.2%
Mb.Rd
[kN]
31.32 33.26 +6.2% 31.11 -6.5% 28.01 -10.6% 29.86 -4.7%
10
Example 3 – Beam-column (2/5)
Buckling loads
2 EI z I w L2GI t
N cr. z EI z L 3157 kN
2 2 M cr.0 900.4 kNm
L2 I z 2 EI z
Ncr. y 2 EI y L2 71040kN M cr C1M cr.0 1.2 900 .4 1080 .5 kNm
• EC3 design formulae and SAP2000 frame design considers exact web-flange joint geometry
and neglects shear deformability, resulting in higher buckling loads when compared to the
shell model
• C1 factor from tables is unconservative when compared with numerical results (1.2 vs 1.06)
11
Example 3 – Beam-column (3/5)
Flexural buckling resistance
z , z 0.642 y 1 z 0.642 y 1
LT M el. y.Rd M cr 453.1 1080.5 0.648 LT M pl. y.Rd M cr 515.6 1080.5 0.691 LT 0.757
+ 11%
M b.Rd LT M Rd 368 .1 kNm M b. Rd LT M Rd 406 .8 kNm M b. Rd 387 .1 kNm
12
Example 3 – Beam-column (4/5)
Beam-column resistance (Method 2)
C my 0.925 C my 0.924
k yy Cmy 1 0.6 y
N Ed 0.9251 0.6 0.2 500 0.945 k yy 0.924
N b. y.Rd 2726
k zz Cmz 1 2z 0.6 Ed 0.61 2 0.929 0.6
N 500 k zz 0.816
0.816
N b. z.Rd 1751
Failure
1.013 1.028 +1.5% 1.169 +15.4%
parameter
• EC3 design formulae and SAP2000 frame design yield very similar results
3D
deformation
(shell model)
14
Example 4 – Frame (1/7)
• Planar frame:
1
• Laterally braced at joints
HEA 180
HEA 180
6
• Pinned to the ground
• Lateral and lateral torsional
buckling not prevented!
• S 355 steel [m]
12
15
Example 4 – Frame (2/7)
• Buckling analysis:
Height:
2 2
h 6m h 0.8165
h 6
Nr columns:
1 1
m2 m 0.51 0.51 0.8660
m 2
Global imperf. as equiv.
lateral forces
Imperfection angle: (live load comb.)
N
Deformed config. [kN]
[m]
My Vz
[kN.m] [kN.m]
17
Example 4 – Frame (4/7)
• EC3 design check (life load combination):
18
Example 4 – Frame (5/7)
• 1st order analysis (wind load combination):
N
Deformed config. [kN]
[m]
My Vz
[kN.m] [kN.m]
19
Example 4 – Frame (6/7)
• EC3 design check (wind load combination):
20
Example 4 – Frame (7/7)
• EC3 automatic design (wind and live load combinations):
Not safe ! Safe
Run analyses
Initial sections (all load comb.)
estimate
Modified
Columns: HEA160 sections
Beams: IPE 200 (automatic)
Sections to be
modified by user
due to symmetry
Final sections
Safe
Columns: HEA180
Beams: IPE 220
21
Example 5 – Frame (1/4)
• Spatial frame:
• Longitudinally braced
• Pinned to the ground
• S 355 steel
• HEA 180 (columns), IPE 220 (transv. beams),
IPE 100 (long. beams), 4 mm cable (bracing)
1
[m]
• Note:
• Two cross • Load combination:
cables may be
substituted by one • ‘Dead + Live’ (1.35Gk + 1.5Qk)
rod with the same
diameter that resists • Load values and configuration
tension and compression equal to example 4
22
Example 5 – Frame (2/4)
• Buckling analysis:
23
Example 5 – Frame (3/4)
Option 1
• 4 mm cable
Buckling Transversal sway Torsion Longitudinal sway
analysis
• 10 mm cable b.1 5.37 10 b.6 13 .58 10 b.31 17 .16 10
Option 2
• Global imperfection:
Height: Imperfection angle:
2 2
h 6m h 0.8165
h 6 0 h m 1 0.8165 0.7638 0.003118 rad
200
24
Example 5 – Frame (4/4)
Option 2 (cont.)
Torsion Longitudinal sway
Imperfection:
Members
resistance: OK OK
25
Example 6 – Short class 4 column (1/4)
• Square hollow section short column:
SHS 300
6
300
[mm]
300
• Objective: determine the column buckling resistance
26
Example 6 – Short class 4 column (2/4)
• Effective cross-section:
Method: • Ayrton-Perry formula • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM
• imperf. factor from buckling curves • no global imperf. • no global imperf.
• local geometric • local geometric
N pl . Rk Af y 7.056 355 2505 kN N pl . Rk 2505 kN imperf. equiv. to imperf. according to
N eff . Rk Aeff f y 5.616 355 1994 kN local buckling Table 3.1 (EC 3-1-5)
N cr 17205 kN
curves
Ncr. z 2 EIz L2 2 210 101.7 3.52
17207 kN
z N eff .Rk N cr. z 1994 17207 z 0.337 12 longitudinal
0.3404 half-waves
• Shell models lower and upper bounds correspond to first yielding due to plate bending and
corner yielding due to membrane normal stress resultant (the real resistance is between the two)
• SAP2000 design is very accurate when compared to EC 3 formulae
• Shell models 1 and 2 are reasonably accurate when compared to EC 3 formulae
SHS 300
6
300
[mm]
300
• Objective: determine the column buckling resistance
30
Example 7 – Long class 4 column (2/5)
• Column design according to EC 3 formulae and thin-walled rectangular shell FE models:
Method: • Ayrton-Perry formula • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM
• imperf. factor from buckling curves • global imperf. from • global imperf. from
buckling curves Table 5.1 (EC 3-1-1)
N pl . Rk Af y 7.056 355 2505 kN N pl . Rk 2505 kN
N Ed M Ed 1584 M Ed
1 1 M Ed 62 .43 kNm
N pl . Rd f yWel.d 2505 355 0.4783
N Ed 1584 M Ed 62 .43
mean 224.5 MPa D 130 .5 MPa
A 7.056 Wd . Rd 0.4783
m ax mean D 355 .0 MPa m in mean D 94 .0 MPa
224.5 8 .2
Walls AB & BD: 0.632 K 4.88
355 1.05
b t 288 6 p 0.0553
p 0.945 0.835
28.4 k 28.4 0.81 4.88 p2
8.2 b t 288 6
Walls AC & CD:
94.0
0.419 K 5.58 p 0.883
224.5 1.05 28.4 k 28.4 0.81 5.58
Imperf.:
N eff . Rk Aeff f y 6.480 355 2300 kN
Buckling curve b
z N eff .Rk N cr. z 2300 4302 0.34
0.7312 z , z 0.7658 1
N b. Rd z N eff . Rd
0.7658 2300
1761kN
33
Example 7 – Long class 4 column (5/5)
• Column resistance results:
• Shell models lower and upper bounds correspond to first yielding due to plate bending and
corner yielding due to membrane normal stress resultant (the real resistance is between the two)
• SAP2000 design is slightly conservative when compared to EC 3 procedure because it does not
iterate to find effective cross-section (considers the unfavourable case of pure compression)
34
Conclusion
• SAP2000 design tools for steel frame structures are practical, fast and
on the safe side. It is possible not only to (i) check if the members satisfy
the EC3 resistance requirements, but also (ii) optimise their sections
35
References
36