버클링1

버클ë&a...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: School of Civil Engineering Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/ Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames Research Report No R891 N S Trahair BSc BE MEngSc PhD DEng June 2008 ISSN 1833-2781 School of Civil Engineering Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/ Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames Research Report No R891 N S Trahair BSc BE MEngSc PhD DEng June 2008 Abstract: Steel design codes do not provide sufficient information for the efficient design of steel structures against out-of-plane failure, and what is provided is often overly conservative. The method of design by buckling analysis corrects this situation for beams, but the extension of this method to columns is only suggested, while there is no guidance on how to apply this method to the design of beam-columns and frames. Beam design by buckling analysis uses the design code formulation for the member nominal design strengths in terms of the section moment capacities and the maximum moments at elastic buckling, accurate predictions of which may be determined by available computer programs. Column design by buckling analysis is similar to beam design, in that it uses the design code formulation for the column nominal design strengths in terms of the section compression capacities and accurate predictions of the elastic buckling loads which may also be obtained from computer programs. However, design codes do not provide formulations for the direct buckling design of beam-columns, but instead use the separate results of beam design and column design in interaction equations. The further extension to frames is not directly possible, because frames are not designed as a whole (except through the rarely used methods of advanced analysis), but as a series of individual members. This paper shows how the method of design by buckling analysis can be used to design beam-columns and frames as well as beams and columns. Two example frames are designed and very significant economies are demonstrated when the method of design by buckling analysis is used. Keywords: beams, beam-columns, bending, buckling, columns, compression, design, frames, member strength, moments, steel. Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 Copyright Notice Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames © 2008 N.S.Trahair N.Trahair@civil.usyd.edu.au This publication may be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original form without the consent of the copyright owner. Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must be appropriately referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the author. Published by: School of Civil Engineering The University of Sydney Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA June 2008 http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 2 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames 1 June 2008 INTRODUCTION Steel beam design by out-of-plane (flexural-torsional) buckling analysis allows greater efficiency than when the buckling approximations embedded in some design codes such as AS4100 [1] or BS5950 [2] are used. Design by buckling analysis is allowed in AS4100 and implied in EC3 [3]. Steel column design by buckling analysis is suggested in the Commentary to AS4100 [4] and implied in EC3. However, no methods are given or suggested for designing beam-columns or frames against out-of-plane failure. Beam design by buckling analysis uses the design code formulation for the member nominal design strength Mbx in terms of the section capacity Msx and the elastic buckling moment Moo of the basic simply supported beam in uniform bending. Column design by buckling analysis is similar to beam design, in that it uses the design code formulation for the column nominal design strength Ncy in terms of the section capacity Ns and the elastic buckling load Noc of the basic simply supported column. For other than the basic cases, the elastic out-of-plane buckling moment or load needs to be determined. Elastic out-of plane buckling of beams and columns [5] depends on: (a) the elastic moduli, the section properties, and the length, (b) the distribution of the moments and compressions and the load heights, (c) the restraints, (d) any non-uniformity of the section, and (e) interactions between these. The effects of the elastic moduli, the section properties, and the length are allowed for in the basic cases, and formulations are given in most [1, 2, 6] but not all [3] codes. The effect of the distribution of moments is allowed for approximately in most codes [1, 2, 3, 6]. The effect of load height is partially allowed for in some codes [1, 2], using fairly inaccurate approximations. Restraints may be concentrated or distributed, and may be elastic or rigid. Restraints may be translational, rotational (out-of-plane), torsional, or warping. The effects of translational and rotational restraints depend on their height. No codes allow for the full range of restraint effects. Some [1, 2] allow approximately for partial torsional end restraints, and some [1, 2, 6] allow for rotational elastic end restraints acting at the centroid. Some design codes [1, 2, 6] provide limited approximations for the effect of nonuniformity of the section. Design codes assume that these effects are largely independent so that they can be treated separately, but this is not the case [7]. Thus there is a lack of precision in the often conservative approximations used in codes to determine the elastic buckling moments and loads. This can be overcome to a certain extent by using some of the wealth of published research information [7] but this is difficult to access. However, for some time now computer programs [8, 9] have been available, and some of these such as ABAQUS [10] are often used by designers. The use of these programs now provides a viable method of carrying out the efficient and economical design of beams and columns by buckling analysis. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 3 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 However, the extension of design by buckling analysis to beam-columns cannot be carried out in the same way, even though accurate predictions of the elastic buckling loads can be obtained. The reason for this is that design codes do not provide formulations for the buckling design of beam-columns, but instead use the separate results of beam design and column design in interaction equations. The further extension to frames is also not possible, because frames are not designed as a whole (except through the rarely used methods of advanced analysis [11]) but as a series of individual members. The purposes of this paper are to show how the methods of design of beams and columns by buckling analysis can be used to design beam-columns and frames. 2 DESIGN BY BUCKLING ANALYSIS 2.1 Beams The basic design code case for beams is the simply supported doubly symmetric beam in uniform bending, for which the moment which causes elastic flexural-torsional buckling [7] is M oo = π 2 EI y ⎛ ⎜ GJ + ⎜ ⎝ L2 π 2 EI w ⎞ L2 ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ (1) in which E and G are the Young’s and shear moduli of elasticity, Iy, J and Iw are the minor axis second moment of area, torsion and warping section constants, and L is the length. Most design codes provide approximations which allow for the effect of non-uniform bending in simply supported beams loaded through the shear centre through formulations of the type M os = α m M oo (2) in which the moment modification factor αm is approximated by [1] αm = 1.7 M m 2 2 ( M 2 + M 32 + M 4 ) ≤ 2.5 (3) in which Mm is the maximum moment and M2, M3, and M4 are the moments at the quarter-, mid-, and three-quarter points, or by similar expressions [2, 6]. Alternatively, αm may be determined from Equation 2 by using the value of Mos determined by an elastic buckling analysis. The effects of load height and end restraints are allowed for approximately in some codes [1, 2] by replacing the beam length L in Equation 1 with an effective length Le. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 4 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 The method of design by buckling analysis of the Australian code AS4100 [1] allows the direct use of the results of elastic buckling analyses. For this, the maximum moment Mob at elastic buckling is used in the equation ⎧ M bx ⎪ = 0.6α m ⎨ M sx ⎪ ⎩ ⎡⎛ α M ⎢⎜ m sx ⎜ ⎢⎝ M ob ⎣ 2 ⎤ ⎛α M ⎞ ⎟ + 3⎥ − ⎜ m sx ⎟ ⎜ ⎥ ⎝ M ob ⎠ ⎦ ⎫ ⎞⎪ ⎟⎬ ≤ 1 ⎟ ⎠⎪ ⎭ (4) to determine the nominal major axis moment strength Mbx, in which Msx is the nominal major axis section capacity (reduced below the full plastic moment Mpx if necessary to allow for local buckling effects). The variations of the dimensionless nominal strength Mbx / Msx with the modified beam slenderness λb = √(Msx / Mob) and the moment modification factor αm are shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen that as the value of αm increases, the nominal design strengths Mbx approach the elastic buckling moments Mob, reflecting the additional influence of non-uniform bending on inelastic buckling [5, 7, 12]. 2.2 Columns The basic design code case for columns is the simply supported column in uniform compression, for which the load which causes elastic flexural buckling is N oc = π 2 EI y L2 (5) Many design codes [1, 2, 6] provide approximations which allow for the effect of flexural end restraints on simply supported columns by replacing the column length L with an effective length Le. Some codes for hot-rolled steel structures do not allow for column failure by flexural-torsional buckling [7, 13]. The method of design by buckling analysis of the Australian code AS4100 [1, 4] allows the direct use of the results of elastic buckling analyses. For this paper, the AS4100 nominal design strength Ncy can be approximated by using N cy / N s = 1.003 + 0.095λc − 0.832λ2 + 0.409λ3 − 0.058λ4 ≤ 1 c c c (6) in which Ns is the nominal section capacity (reduced below the full plastic load Afy if necessary to allow for local buckling effects), λc = √(Ns / Nom) is the modified column slenderness and Nom is the elastic buckling load, although a more complicated general formulation is given in the code. The variations of this dimensionless nominal strength Ncy / Ns with the modified slenderness λc are shown in Fig. 2. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 5 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames 2.3 June 2008 Beam-Columns and Frames Design codes do not explicitly allow the use of a method of design by buckling analysis for the out-of-plane design of beam-columns and frames. Instead, each member of a frame is considered as a beam-column and designed independently by using out-ofplane interaction equations of the type N max M max + =1 N cy M bx (7 ) in which Nmax and Mmax are the maximum nominal design actions (which are often reduced by using capacity (or resistance) factors). Thus each beam-column is considered first as a beam to determine Mbx and second as a column to determine Ncy, before these are used in Equation 7. When buckling analyses are used in the determination of Mbx and Ncy, then this becomes the method of design by buckling analysis. This method is demonstrated in the following sections for the two example frames shown in Figs 3 and 4, and compared with the use of the normal code method of design without buckling analysis. For these demonstrations and comparisons, the Australian design code AS4100 [1] is used, but they could equally well be done by using other codes [2, 3, 6]. 3 EXAMPLE FRAME 1 The members of the pin-based portal frame shown in Fig. 3a have the properties shown in Fig. 5. The horizontal member has two equal transverse loads (initially equal to 1) acting at the bottom flange. Warping is prevented at both ends and there are elastic translational restraints of stiffness αt = 10 N/mm acting at the load points at the bottom flange. The in-plane reactions and moment distribution are shown in Fig. 3b. For this frame, the design is controlled by the horizontal member. For this, this member is first treated as the beam shown in Fig. 3c, and then as the column shown in Fig. 3d. The results of these are then used in Equation 7. The results (No DBA) of using the Australian code AS4100 [1] alone are summarized in Table 1. AS4100 does not provide any guidance on warping restraint [7, 14, 15], while the bottom flange loads and elastic translational restraints cannot be accounted for. Because of this, the values determined for the maximum nominal design actions Nmax and Mmax are quite conservative. Also summarized in Table 1 are the results (DBA) of using the method of design by buckling analysis. For this the elastic buckling moments Moo, Mos, Mob were determined using the computer program PRFELB [8, 9] which is able to account for the warping and translational restraints and the bottom flange loading. It can be seen that the values determined for the maximum nominal design actions Nmax and Mmax are significantly higher than those determined without using design by buckling analysis. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 6 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames Quantity Mob Mos Moo αm Mob/αm Msx αs Mbx N/M Ns Nom Ncy Mmax Nmax June 2008 Table 1 Elastic Buckling and Design Frame 1 Frame 2 Units DBA No DBA DBA No DBA kNm 61.38 107.12 − − kNm 45.79 72.12 − − kNm 25.78 25.78 40.00 40.00 1.776 1.719 1.803 1.817 − kNm 34.56 25.78 59.42 40.00 kNm 155.52 155.52 155.52 155.52 0.1931 0.1463 0.3127 0.2210 − kNm 53.34 39.10 87.68 62.45 0.2000 0.2000 1.867 1.867 − kN 1520 1520 1520 1520 kN 93.32 49.66 270.63 111.72 kN 89.03 48.34 243.59 105.82 kNm 42.87 30.29 47.20 26.74 kN 8.57 6.06 88.11 49.92 The program PRFELB is able to determine the elastic buckling load factors λo (i.e. the ratios of values of the actions at elastic buckling to the initial values) of beam-columns and frames, as well as those of beams and columns. While these are not required for design by buckling analysis, they are shown in Table 2. The value of λo = 20940 for the beam-column having the combination of the actions shown in Fig. 3c and d is slightly different to that of λo = 20990 for the frame. This is because the beam-column is assumed to be prevented from twisting but free to rotate horizontally at both ends, although in the frame end twisting and rotation are elastically restrained by the vertical members. Beam Column Beam-Column Frame 4 Table 2 Buckling Load Factors λo Frame 1 22520 171200 20940 20990 Frame 2 200000 270600 128100 128400 EXAMPLE FRAME 2 The members of the pin-based portal frame shown in Fig. 4a have the properties shown in Fig. 5. The horizontal member has a central transverse load (initially equal to 2) acting at the centroid. Warping is prevented at both ends and there are rigid translational and torsional restraints acting at the load point. Each vertical member has an elastic translational restraint of stiffness αt = 100 N/mm acting at the outer flange. The in-plane reactions and moment distribution are shown in Fig. 4b. For this frame, the design is controlled by the vertical members. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 7 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 The results (No DBA) of using the Australian code AS4100 [1] alone are summarized in Table 1. AS4100 does not provide any guidance on warping restraint [7, 14, 15], while the outer flange elastic translational restraints cannot be accounted for. Because of this, the values determined for the maximum nominal design actions Nmax and Mmax are quite conservative. Also summarized in Table 1 are the results (DBA) of using the method of design by buckling analysis. It can be seen that the values determined for the maximum nominal design actions Nmax and Mmax are significantly higher than those determined without using design by buckling analysis. The elastic buckling load factors λo are shown in Table 2. The value of λo = 12810 for the beam-columns having the combination of the actions shown in Fig. 4c and d is slightly different to that of λo = 12840 for the frame. This is because the beam-columns are assumed to be prevented from twisting but free to rotate vertically at the top, although in the frame end twisting and rotation are elastically restrained by the horizontal member. 5. CONCLUSIONS Steel design codes [1, 2, 3, 6] do not provide sufficient information for the efficient design of steel structures against out-of-plane failure, and what is provided is often overly conservative. The method of design by buckling analysis explicitly permitted by the Australian code AS4100 [1] corrects this situation for beams, but the extension of this method to columns is only suggested [1, 4], while there is no guidance on how to apply this method to the design of beam-columns and frames. Beam design by buckling analysis uses the design code formulation for the member nominal design strengths Mbx in terms of the section moment capacities Msx and the maximum moment Mob at elastic buckling, accurate predictions of which may be determined by available computer programs [8, 9, 10]. Column design by buckling analysis is similar to beam design, in that it uses the design code formulation for the column nominal design strengths Ncy in terms of the section compression capacities Ns and accurate predictions of the elastic buckling load Nom which may also be obtained from computer programs. However, design codes do not provide formulations for the direct buckling design of beam-columns, but instead use the separate results of beam design and column design in interaction equations. The further direct extension to frames is also not possible, because frames are not designed as a whole (except through the rarely used methods of advanced analysis [11]) but as a series of individual members. This paper shows how the method of design by buckling analysis can be used to design beam-columns and frames as well as beams and columns. Two example frames are designed and very significant economies are demonstrated when the method of design by buckling analysis is used. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 8 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames APPENDIX 1 [1] June 2008 REFERENCES SA. AS 4100-1998 Steel structures. Sydney: Standards Australia; 1998. [2] BSI. BS5950 Structural Use of Steelwork in Building. Part 1:2000. Code of practice for design in simple and continuous construction: Hot rolled sections. London: British Standards Institution; 2000. [3] BSI. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures: Part 1.1 General rules and rules for buildings, BS EN 1993-1-1. London: British Standards Institution; 2005. [4] SA. AS 4100-1998 Steel structures – Commentary. Sydney: Standards Australia; 1998. [5] Trahair, NS, Bradford, MA, Nethercot, DA, and Gardner, L. The behaviour and design of steel structures to EC3, 4th edition. London: Taylor and Francis; 2008. [6] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction; 2005. [7] Trahair, NS. Flexural-torsional buckling of structures. London: E & FN Spon; 1993. [8] Papangelis, JP, Trahair, NS, and Hancock, GJ. PRFELB – Finite element flexuraltorsional buckling analysis of plane frames, Sydney: Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, University of Sydney; 1997. [9] Papangelis, JP, Trahair, NS, and Hancock, GJ. Elastic flexural-torsional buckling of structures by computer. Computers and Structures, 1998; 68: 125 - 37. [10] HKS. Abaqus user manual. Pawtucket, RI, USA: Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen; 2005 [11] Trahair, NS and Chan, S-L. Out-of-plane advanced analysis of steel structures. Engineering Structures, 2003; 25: 1627-37. [12] Nethercot, DA and Trahair, NS. Inelastic lateral buckling of determinate beams. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 1976; 102 (ST4): 701-17. [13] Trahair, NS and Rasmussen, KJR. Flexural-torsional buckling of columns with oblique eccentric restraints. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2005; 131 (11): 1731-7. [14] Vacharajittiphan P and Trahair NS. Warping and distortion at I-section joints. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 1974; 100 (ST3): 547-64. [15] Pi, Y-L and Trahair, NS. Distortion and warping at beam supports. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2000; 126 (11): 1279-87. School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 9 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames APPENDIX 2 A E fy G Ix, Iy Iw J L Le M Mbx Mm Mmax Mob Moo Mos Mpxm Msx M 2, M 3, M 4 N Ncy Nmax Nom Noy x, y αm αs αt λb λc λo June 2008 NOTATION area of cross-section Young’s modulus of elasticity yield stress shear modulus of elasticity second moments of area about the x, y principal axes warping section constant torsion section constant length effective length bending moment beam moment capacity maximum moment in member maximum nominal design moment maximum moment at elastic buckling Mob for a simply supported beam in uniform bending Mob for a simply supported beam with shear centre loading fully plastic moment about the x axis section moment capacity moments at quarter-, mid-, and three quarter-points axial compression column compression capacity maximum nominal design compression N at elastic buckling Nom for a simply supported column principal axes moment modification factor slenderness reduction factor stiffness of translational restraint modified beam slenderness modified column slenderness buckling load factor School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 10 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 Dimensionless moment resistance Mbx /Msx 1.4 1.2 αm = 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 Mob /Msx 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Dimensionless slenderness λb = √(Msx /Mob) Fig. 1 Beam lateral buckling moment resistances of AS4100 School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 11 2.0 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 Dimensionless compression resistance Ncy/Ns 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Dimensionless slenderness λc = √(Ns/Nom) Fig. 2 Column buckling compression resistance of AS4100 School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 12 2.0 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames 2 x June 2008 3 x 5 4 x 1 x (a) Frame λo = 20990 5000 1 1 x 6 1 1 5000 5000 ( −) 5000 (+) 2 Deflection restrained at bottom flange αt = 10 3 2 x 2726 2274 5 ( −) 4 2726 3 x 1 5 x 4 x 1 1 (c) Beam λo = 22520 2726 1 0.5453 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 0.5453 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 1 1 1 1 0.5453 2726 Fig. 3 Example Frame 1 School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 (b) Moment distribution 6 1 2726 Deflection and warping prevented 0.5453 0.5453 0.5453 x 13 (d) Column λo = 171200 (e) Beam-column λo = 20940 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 2 x 3 x 4 1964 (+) x x 3 5 x 4 x 535.7 5 5000 x 6 x 2 2 6 1 7 5000 0.0536 7 1 0.0536 1 1 2500 2500 (a) Frame λo = 128400 (b) Moment distribution x x Deflection restrained at outer flange αt = 100 x 0.0536 Deflection and warping prevented Deflection and twist rotation prevented x 535.7 3 x 0.0536 1 1 2 0.0536 x 3 x x 2 0.0536 1 1 1 (c) Beam λo = 200000 535.7 2 1 1 (d) Column λo = 270600 (e) Beam-column λo = 128100 Fig. 4 Example Frame 2 School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 x 3 14 Buckling Analysis Design of Steel Frames June 2008 146 mm 10.9 mm (a) Beam and Dimensions 250 UB 37.3 Grade 300 256 mm 6.4 mm (b) Material properties E = 2E5 N/mm2 G = 8E4 N/mm2 fy = 320 N/mm2 (c) Section Properties A = 4750 mm2 Iy = 5.66E6 mm4 Ns = 1520 kN Ix = 55.7E6 mm4 J = 158E3 mm4 Msx = 155.52 kNm Fig. 5 Beam Section and Properties School of Civil Engineering Research Report No R891 15 Iw = 85.2E9 mm6 ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online