J O U R N A L O F O P T I M I Z A T I O N T H E O R Y A N D A P P L I C A T I O N S : Vol. 15, No.

1, I975

Overcomplete Mechanisms of Plastic Collapse

J. HEYMAN t Dedicated to Professor W. Prager

Abstract. The analysis of regular mechanisms of plastic collapse for plane frames may be done by simple statics. By contrast, the solutions of analogous problems for space frames require the use of deformation equations; the mere formation of a collapse mechanism does not make the collapsing portion of a frame soluble by statics alone. Further, the number of plastic hinges for regular collapse of a plane frame is determinable, but no rule can be constructed for the number of hinges in a space frame; indeed, space frames can collapse by mechanisms which appear to have more degrees of freedom than are necessary, and are in this sense overcomplete. Key Words. Plastic design, structural design, space frames, collapse mechanisms.

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The optimization of structural frames by means of simple plastic theory has led to standard procedures of calculation. These procedures are the subject of the present paper, and it should be noted that only three types of equation can be written. The equations are concerned with (i) equilibrium, external and internal; (ii) deformation (often referred to as compatibility) in which deformations of the members are related to overaI1 displacements of the structure, and in which certain boundary conditions may be prescribed; and (iii) some stress/strain (or load/extension, or moment/curvature, etc.) relation for internal forces and corresponding deformations, which need not be linear. Structures in which the primary forces (for example, bending moments in a plane frame) can be found by the use of the first type of
1 Professor of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

27
1975 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 ~vVest t7th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmltted~ in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microKhning, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher,

28

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. I, JANUARY 1975

equation, equilibrium, alone, are called statically determinate. By contrast, the elastic analysis of some frames may require the use not only of the equilibrium, but also of the deformation and of the stress/ strain relations in order to determine the primary forces; in this case, the structures are called hyperstatic or statically indeterminate. In the development of simple plastic theory for plane frames, it was found that the solution to a problem, i.e., the determination of the collapse load, could be found from the statical equations of equilibrium together with a knowledge of the limiting value of bending moment (the full plastic moment) at each cross section. The problems are in this sense statically determinate; most importantly, equations expressing compatibility of deformation do not enter into the analysis. Thus, in Fig. l(a), if the fixed-base portal frame has uniform cross section with full plastic moment 3 I o , then it is a matter of simple statics to deduce that the collapse equation corresponding to the mechanism shown in Fig. l(b) is
Wl + ~Wh -~ 6Mo .

(1)

Such equations are often most conveniently written by examining the equilibrium collapse state with the equation of virtual work. By contrast, it is known (Ref. 1) that the solutions for simple space frames are not statically determinate in this sense. In Fig. 2, for example, a simple right-angled bent of uniform section lies in a horizontal plane, and is loaded by a single verticaI load W. If plastic hinges can form in the members of the bent under combined bending and torsion, then it is clear that collapse witl occur when such hinges form at the ends as shown in Fig. 2(b). A single relationship can be found by statics:
M ~- T = WI,

(2)

where M and T are the bending moment and torque acting at each
lw o~w

(a) Fig. 1. Plane portal frame,

(b)

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, JANUARY 1975

29

lw ib)
Fig. 2. Simple space frame.

hinge. A second equation can be written from the (presumed known) yield condition
Z(M, T) = f(2~Io , 0) = const,

(3)

but Eqs. (2) and (3) are only two in number for the determination of the three unknowns M, T, and the collapse load W. The problem is thus statically indeterminate; as will be noted below, it is necessary to establish a flow rule relating forces and deformations at a plastic hinge in order to solve the problem of Fig. 2.

2. P l a n e F r a m e 2.1. S i m p l e s t A p p r o a c h . Suppose that a plane frame has a number R redundancies (the frame of Fig. I has R = 3). In terms of equilibrium, the statement that a frame has R redundancies implies that a number R frictiontess pins could be inserted in the frame (there are in fact some restrictions on the locations of these pins) without destroying the frame as a load-carrying structure. Thus, the three-pin arch of Fig. 3 can certainly carry, in principIe, the loads shown in

Fig. 3. Statically-determinate plane frame.

30

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, JANUARY 1975

Fig. l(a). The insertion of one more pin, however, will destroy the frame; the four hinges of Fig. l(b) correspond to a mechanism of one degree of freedom. Thus the notion of a regular collapse mechanism has been derived, in which the number H of hinges is related to the number R of redundancies by the equation
H=R

+ 1.

(4)

A partial collapse mechanism may form in a frame, for which the number H of hinges is fewer than R + 1. Thus, in Fig. 4, the beam only of the portal frame is collapsing, but the value of the collapse load is still determinable by the use of statics alone. One redundancy (in the columns) remains in Fig. 4 for this partial collapse mode. 2.2. Statical E q u a t i o n s f o r the P l a n e F r a m e . A slightly more sophisticated count may be made for the plane frame, which leads again to Eq. (4). Suppose, as before, that a frame with R redundancies collapses with H hinges. There will then be (H + 1) u n k n o w n forces W , M i ,
i = 1,..., 1t,

where M i are the values of the bending moments at the hinge positions. The information available for the solution comes from (H -- R) equilibrium equations connecting W, Mi, (H) yield condition equations M i = M o . If the information available is in fact to solve the problem, then (H -- R) -t- (H) = (H + 1), which leads at once to Eq. (4). 2.3. C o m p l e t e C o u n t on the P l a n e F r a m e . The count in Section 2.2 above leads to no information about deformations, nor indeed is this information necessary for the determination of the collapse load. However, a knowledge of hinge rotations may be desired for other

Fig. 4.

Incomplete collapse.

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, JANUARY 1975

31

purposes, and will be needed for the solution of the space frame. Thus, the count of Section 2.2 may be expanded to include the values of the hinge rotations fii There are ( g + 1) unknown forces W, 3J)l, (H -- 1) unknown hinge rotations fii. Only ( H - - 1) unknown rotations appear since, at collapse, the frame must be allowed one arbitrary degree of freedom. Now, there exist exactly R equations relating the hinge rotations/9 i (thus, the four hinge rotations of Fig. l(b) can all be expressed in terms of one of their number), and the total information available is given by (H -- R) equilibrium equations connecting W, M i , (H) yield condition equations 1~/i = 310, (R) compatibility conditions connecting fli. A total of 2H equations is available, and there are precisely 2H unknown forces and hinge rotations.

3. Simple Space Frame

Discussion will be restricted to the special kind of frame of which an example is given in Fig. 2; all members of such frames lie in a plane, and loads act transversely. Plastic hinges form under combined bending moment M and twisting moment T according to the yield condition of Eq. (3). As was noted in Section 1, the flow rule deriving from the normality condition of plasticity theory is needed to find the collapse loads of space frames. If the bending rotation at a hinge is fi, and the twisting rotation is O, then the normality condition corresponding to Eq. (3)is

fi/O = (3Z/OM)/(Of /OT).

(5)

For the collapse mechanism of Fig. 2, for example, compatibility conditions require that 0 = fl at each hinge point; Eq. (5) then indicates that 8 f / g M = Of~ST at each hinge, and this is the necessary third equation for the solution of the problem. Thus if the yield condition is the circular criterion M 2 - k T 2 = Mo ~, Eq. (5) provides the relation fi/O = M / T at a hinge. For the problem of Fig. 2, M = T = (1/~/2)Mo at each hinge, and Eq. (2) finally gives the value of the collapse load.

32

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, JANUARY 1975

3.1. Statical E q u a t i o n s for the S p a c e F r a m e . For the space frame of the kind considered, there are two unknown forces at each hinge, namely the torque and the bending moment; the values of the two unknowns are of course related by the yield condition. Following the enumeration of Section 2.2, there will be (2H + 1) unknown forces W, M~, Ti, and the information available for the solution comes from (2H -- R) equilibrium equations connecting W, ?vii, (H) yield condition equations

T~,

f(Mi, T;) = f(Mo, 0).

Exactly as for the plane frame, if there is enough information to solve the problem, then (2H--R)+(H)=(2H+I), or H = R + I .

However, this contradicts the conclusion which results from the simplest approach to the problem. Each hinge has two degrees of freedom, and geometrical arguments show that collapse will occur if 2 H = R + 1. Thus, in Fig. 5 if twisting pins are inserted at A and D so that TA -'= TD = 0, and a bending pin is inserted at D, so that M D = 0, the resulting structure will be statically determinate. A final bending pin at A will cause collapse by the two-hinge mechanism of Fig. 2(b). It must be concluded that, except for the trivial case H = 0 and R = --1, when the structure is already a mechanism of one degree of freedom, the statical equations alone do not enable the calculation of the collapse load of a space frame. 3.2. C o m p l e t e C o u n t on t h e S p a c e F r a m e . A complete count confirms that the flow rule will provide enough information for the calcuIation of the collapse loads of space frames. Following the arguments for the plane frame, there are (2H -t- 1) unknown forces W, Mi, T~, (2H -- 1) unknown hinge rotations fi~, 04,

Fig. 5.

Example of space frame.

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, JANUARY 1975

33

and information for the solution comes from (2H -- R) equilibrium equations connecting W, M~, T i , (H) yield condition equations f ( M i , T~) ........f(5.1 o , 0),
(H) flow equations Bi/0, =

(~f/em)d(Of/eT),,

(R) compatibility conditions connecting fli, 0k. Thus, precisely 4 / / e q u a t i o n s are available to determine 4 H unknowns. However, no rule has emerged which leads to the number of hinges required for the collapse of a space frame; the above count merely confirms that for any number H (greater than -~R) there will be enough information available to solve the problem. Indeed, no rule can be constructed; the addition of one extra hinge to a structure which already has sufficient hinges does not upset the statics of the problem, and automatically entrains the correct amount of extra information. To illustrate this, the example of the right-angled bent may be considered again. Under the given loading, the mechanism of Fig. 2(b) is correct; bending moments and torques may be calculated throughout the structure, and it may be confirmed that the yield condition is satisfied at the two hinge points and is nowhere violated. If the loading of Fig. 5 is investigated, however, then the mechanism of Fig. 2(b) is no longer necessarily correct. For exampIe, if the circular criterion M 2 + T 2 = M0 z is postulated, then the collapse mode involves three hinges as indicated in Fig. 6. T h e number of unknown quantities is 12, namely the 6 bending moments and torques acting at the hinges, together with the value of the collapse load W, and 5 of the 6 hinge rotations fl and 0. It is found (as predicted by the count above) that 3 equations of statical equilibrium may be written, and that there are 3 compatibility equations (e.g., ]~c ~ - f l D - 0A); the remaining 6 equations come from the application of the yield condition and flow rule to each of the 3 hinges. In this example, then, the overcompIete mechanism has three degrees of freedom, two more than the number theoretically required for collapse.

Fig. 6.

Overcomplete collapse mechanism.

8o9115/I-3

34

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, J A N U A R Y 1975

The conclusion about the behavior of the space flame may be generalized for less special types of structure. Hinges could be formed under the action of several forces (for example, bending about both axes, twisting, and axial thrust) all acting simultaneously. A general count confirms that enough information is available, providing the flow rule is used; the problems are not statically determinate, and no rule emerges for the number of hinges in a collapse mechanism.

4. Plane Frame: Bending and Axial Load If a hinge forms in a member of a plane frame under the combined action of bending moment M and thrust P, the yield condition takes the form
f ( M , P) = (M/Mo) d- (P/Po)'~ = 1,

(6)

where the exponent n has value 2 for a rectangular section, and may approach unity for an idealized I-section. In either case, the general form of the yield surface is as sketched in Fig. 7. In the engineering analysis of frames whose members are subjected to combined bending and thrust, it is usual simply to reduce the values of the full plastic moments at the hinge points to allow for the presence of axial load, but otherwise to proceed with the calculations exactly as for the statically-determinate simple case. Thus, the four-hinge mechanism of Fig. l(b) might still be appropriate for this particular frame, and Eq. (1) would be modified by entering appropriate values of M, rather than M 0 , on the right-hand side. Indeed, the count of statical equations for the space frame (Section 3.1 above) confirms that, if H = R -4- 1, then a statically-determinate solution can be obtained. However, a geometrical argument leads once more to the contradictory conclusion that 2H = R -4- 1; it should be possible to find a mechanism of collapse for the simple portal frame of Fig. 1 which has only 2 hinges, each formed under combined bending and thrust. Examination of such mechanisms shows how this anomaly arises. Figure 8,

Mo

Fig. 7.

Yield surface for bending and axial load.

JOTA: VOL. 15, NO. 1, JANUARY 1975

35

Fig. 8. Hypothetical but impossible collapse mechanism.

for example, shows a mechanism with hinges at the sections 3 and 5; each hinge has a rotation 13, and the stretches at the two hinges are E3 = hfl and % = --l/3. Thus, the ratio e/fi at each hinge is of the order of the overall dimensions of the frame. Such ratios are not possible with the yield condition of Eq. (6); the curve sketched in Fig. 7 is very shallow and the ratio e/fl given by the normal vector is much less than a typical dimension of the frame. This is not a matter of a misleading scale in the plot of Fig. 7; it arises directly from the flow rule derived from Eq. (6):
E/fi = (~f /~P)/(~f /~M) = n(P/Po)~-l(Mo/Po).

(7)

The maximum value of ~//3 from Eq. (7) is clearly of order M o / P o for 1 < n < 2, and M o / P o itself is of order d, where d is the depth of the member. Indeed, for a symmetrical cross section, the maximum value of E/t3 from Eq. (7) is precisely ~d as P approaches the value P0 ; the zerostress axis is always confined to lie within the depth of the member [except for the special case P = P0, when the usual f a n of deformation vectors occurs at the vertex (Fig. 7)]. Thus, mechanisms such as that sketched in Fig. 8 can occur for plane frames only if the centers of rotation of the hinges (at I in Fig. 8) lie well outside the depths of the members, whereas the flow condition requires that the centers of rotation lie inside the depths of the members. While the conclusion is general, it is sharpened for the usual case in which the depths of the members are considered to be infinitesimal compared with the leading dimensions of the frame, so that only the center-line geometry is of significance. In this case, no axial movement at all is possible; reduced plastic moments can be calculated in the usual engineering way from Eq. (6), and the flow rule gives no information either to help the analysis or to render it invalid.

Reference
1. HEYMAN, J., Plastic Design of Frames, Vol. 2, Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1971.