Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames Final

© All Rights Reserved

233 tayangan

Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames Final

© All Rights Reserved

- Plastic Analysis Beams Frames
- Plastic Analysis Beams Frames
- Plastic Analysis
- Structures Plastic collapse of a portal frame
- Concrete Box Girder Bridges J. Schlaich
- Link 180
- Plastic Analysis
- Plastic Analysis 1011
- Von Mises Yield Criterion
- A15-Effect of Strain Ratio and Strain Rate on Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of AZ31 Wrought Magnesium Alloy
- Plastic analysis report
- Plastic Analysis Full Report
- Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Robert Park and William L.gamble 2000
- ABAQUS Tutorial 2
- SPE-99074-MS.pdf
- Course Work Syllabus
- Bound Theorems
- Deformation
- is.sp.6.5.1980
- Design of a Scissor Car Jack

Anda di halaman 1dari 26

of Beams and

Frames

CIVL454 Structures 2 Laboratory Report

Table of Contents

1.

Introduction..................................................................................................... 2

2.

2.1.

3.

4.

Discussion................................................................................................. 3

3.1.

Aim............................................................................................................ 3

3.2.

3.3.

Test Results............................................................................................... 5

3.4.

Analytical Results...................................................................................... 6

3.5.

4.1.

Aim............................................................................................................ 9

4.2.

4.3.

Test Results............................................................................................. 11

4.4.

Analytical Results.................................................................................... 13

4.5.

Discussion............................................................................................... 17

5.

Conclusion..................................................................................................... 17

6.

References..................................................................................................... 17

1. Introduction

This purpose of this report is to examine the Plastic Behaviour of continuous

steel beams and rigid portal steel frames. Referring to the analysis of a

structures behaviour after the point at which a plastic hinge has formed, plastic

analysis looks at steel that has reached its initial yield stress and continuous to

deform plastically. Experimental analysis will be undertaken by using various

load ratios on a continuous beam and portal frame respectively. By comparing

the results of each load ratio as well as with respect to theoretical predictions, a

deeper understanding of the plastic behaviour of structure will be gained.

In order to determine the yield stress y and plastic moment capacity Mp of the

metal rod used in Test 1.2 and Test 1.3, a simple tension coupon test was carried

out. This involves loading a portion of the rod in tension with a low loading rate

and was conducted prior to the laboratory by a lab staff member. The rod tested

was found to have a yield stress of 245MPa and a diameter of 3.2mm. The

following calculations outline how to determine the corresponding yield load P y

and plastic moment capacity Mp from this experimental information.

Yield Load

F

A

F=A

Where:

F

Force (N)

Area (mm2)

Stress (N/mm2)

In this case the force on the rod is the tensile force equal to the yield load Py, the

area is the cross-sectional area of the rod (circle) and the stress is the yield

stress y.

2

=

r

A

3.2

=

=8.04 mm2

2

A

( )

=245

MPa 8.04 mm2=1969.8 N=1.97 kN

P y = y A

M p= y S

Where:

S

The plastic section modulus for a circle can be determined using the equation:

3

S=

d

6

S=

3.2

=5.46 mm3

6

2.1.

Discussion

This value for plastic moment capacity of the steel beam represents the point at

which the material reaches a fully plastic state and therefore is the maximum

bending moment it can resist. When the number of plastic hinges in the structure

is one greater than its redundancy, in general the structure will be observed to

collapse. This is demonstrated further in tests 1.2 and 1.3.

3.1.

Aim

The aim of this test is to determine the plastic collapse load of the metal road

examined in Test 1.1, in a two-span continuous beam setup. Observations of the

plastic collapse mechanism that develops under the rods failure is also to be

recorded.

3.2.

Figure 3-1. Each span measures 300mm in length and supports a point load in

the middle of its span. These point loads are developed by hanging a spreader

bar from the two mid-point locations and then hanging a bucket from the bar

which was incrementally filled with pellets until plastic collapse occurred.

The experiment was carried out by different groups, only making adjustments to

the ratio of loading on the continuous beam by means of adjusting the position of

the bucket hanging from the spreader bar. Figure 3-2 shows the loading

components of the experimental setup, including the spreader bar, bucket,

pellets and the hangers. The reaction forces on the Hanger at A and Hanger at C

are equal in magnitude to the mid-span loadings on the continuous beam and

thus are used in determining the buckets positing for the different loading ratios.

*The mass of the hangers and spreader bar were also weighed experimentally to

a have a contribution to the collapse load and thus are added to this force. In

reality the resultant weight of the spreader bar would be central however for

ease of calculating the ratio of loads is assumed to be at the location of the

bucket.

The ratio of loads on the continuous beam for Group 9 was equal to 2.5. The

following calculations are used to determine distances a and b as per this ratio:

2.5=

300mm

a+b

a+b =

300mm

(300 b)mm

Rc

R A , therefore

RC =2.5 R A .

M B =0

-RAa + Rcb

Substituting

RC =2.5 R A .

-RAa + 2.5RAb

0.4a

0.4 (300 b)

120 0.4b

85.71mm = 86 mm

300 86 = 214 mm

As such, the bucket was positioned so that it was 214 mm from the left hanger

and 86 mm from the right hanger on the spreader bar. These distances would

vary for each group requiring an alternate load ratio however the procedure

would be the exact same.

3.3.

Test Results

The bucket was slowly loaded until a point that the beam section E-F collapsed

with the formation of a plastic hinge at the mid-span and support at E. Table 3-1

below shows the experimental test results for groups 7-12 conducting Test 1.2

with various load ratios.

Table 3-1: Test 1.2 Results

Group

Load Ratio

Distance from

bucket to hanger

(mm)

Total Load (g)

7

1.5

120

8

2.0

90

9

2.5

86

10

3.0

75

11

3.5

67

12

4.0

60

4711

4100

3557

3820

3806

3373

Utilising the total load information from Table 3-1 the total force on the

continuous beam can be calculated and further the beams collapse loads.

W

3.557 x 9.81

34.9N

F y =0(spreader FBD)

L1 + L 2 - w

L1 + 2.5 L1 - w

3.5 L1 =

L1

at point A)

L2

0

=

34.9

9.97N

9.97 x 2.5

24.9N

(Collapse Load

(Collapse Load

at point B)

Extrapolating this method across the remaining groups load information, the

calculated results are shown below in Table 3-2. Note that the collapse load of

the beam is taken to be the Point B collapse load whereas the load calculated at

point A is merely the load carried here when collapse occurred at point B.

Table 3-2: Test 1.2 Collapse Loads

Grou

p

Load

Ratio

Load (kg)

Force (N)

7

8

9

10

11

12

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.711

4.100

3.557

3.820

3.806

3.373

46.2

40.2

34.9

37.5

73.3

33.1

3.4.

Point A @

Collapse load

(N)

18.49

13.41

9.97

9.37

8.30

6.62

Point B

Collapse load

(N)

27.73

26.81

24.92

28.11

29.04

26.47

Analytical Results

beam scenario outlined above, the principle of virtual work will be used. As two

plastic hinges formed during the experiment, at supports E and F, this

component of the continuous beam will be analysed as shown in Figure 3-1.

The virtual work method of analysis is simple method that can be used in the

plastic analysis of beams. The fundamental principle is that the work done

internally by the displacement of the loads must balance with the internal work

absorbed by rotation under fully plastic moments at plastic hinges. This can be

expressed by the equation:

(W )= ( M p )

Where:

L1 =2 M p + M p

Lc =2 M p + M p =3 M p

Additionally as the tan of a small angles is considered to equal to the angle itself:

=/ 0.15

=0.15

Substituting this into the previous equation gives:

0.15 Lc =3 M p

Lc =20 M p

Substituting the value for Mp calculated for Test 1.1:

Lc =20 1.34=26.8 N

Collapse Load for beam=26.8 N

3.5.

Comparisons between observations and theoretical

predictions

Figure 3-5 shows the collapse load values determined by each group against the

theoretical prediction for the continuous beams collapse load. From this graph we

can see clearly that the experimental collapse loads calculated by each groups

various arrangement are relatively close to the predicted collapse load for the

beam (maximum 7% difference). It should be noted however that the

experimental results found collapse loads both higher and lower than that

predicted for the beam. There are many reasons that could result in such

differences between the experimental and theoretical result, the key factors

being:

Error in measurement of load positon e.g. moving the bucket closer than

required to the right hand side for a given ratio would result in an actual

higher load ratio, causing it to fail at a lower total load than expected.

Inability to correctly detect when failure is occurring and thus continuing

to load the beam once failure has begun resulting an overly large value for

the load reading.

The moment contribution of the bars weight is not considered in the

loading ratio causing an incorrect actual loading ratio effecting collapse

load calculations.

30.00

28.00

Collapse Load (N) 26.00

24.00

Experimental Collapse

Load

Theoretical Collapse

Load

22.00

7 8 9 101112

Group Number

4.1.

Aim

The aim of this test is to determine the plastic collapse load of a rigid portal

frame made of the steel rod examined in Test 1.1. Observations of the plastic

collapse mechanism that develops under the frames failure is also to be

recorded.

4.2.

The rigid portal frame experimental arrangement is seen below in Figure 4-6.

Each member of the frame measures 300mm in length and the top horizontal

member supports a vertical point load in the middle of its span while a horizontal

load is also applied at the top right hand corner of the frame. These point loads

are developed by hanging a spreader bar from the mid-point span of the vertical

point load and the horizontal point load translated into a vertical force by a

pulley system. Then a hanging a bucket was attached to the bar which was

incrementally filled with pellets until plastic collapse occurred.

The experiment was carried out by different groups, only making adjustments to

the ratio of loading (Vertical/Horizontal) on the rigid portal frame by means of

adjusting the position of the bucket hanging from the spreader bar. Figure 4-7

shows the loading components of the experimental setup, including the spreader

bar, bucket, pellets and hangers. The reaction forces on the Hanger at A and

Hanger at C are equal in magnitude to the mid-span loading and the horizontal

loading respectively and thus are used in determining the buckets positing for

the different loading ratios.

*The mass of the hangers and spreader bar were also weighed experimentally to

a have a contribution to the collapse load and thus are added to this force. In

reality the resultant weight of the spreader bar would be central however for

ease of calculating the ratio of loads is assumed to be at the location of the

bucket.

The ratio of vertical to horizontal load on the rigid portal frame for Group 9 was

equal to 2.5. The following calculations are used to determine distances a and b

as per this ratio:

L

490mm

a+b

a+b =

90mm

(490 b)mm

2.5=

V RA

=

H RC

R A =2.5 RC .

M B =0

-RAa + Rcb

Substituting

RC =2.5 R A .

-2.5Rca + Rcb

b

=

2.5a

, therefore

2.5 (490 b)

1225 2.5b

350mm

As such, the bucket was positioned so that it was 140 mm from the left hanger

and 350 mm from the right hanger on the spreader bar. These distances would

vary for each group requiring an alternate load ratio however the procedure

would be the exact same.

4.3.

Test Results

The bucket was slowly loaded until a point that the portal frame was observed to

fail with the formation of plastic hinges. Table 3 1 below shows the experimental

test results for groups 7-12 conducting Test 1.23 with various vertical to

horizontal load ratios.

Group

V/H

Load (g)

Distance

between

hangers

(mm)

Distance

between

bucket to

hanger A

(mm)

7

1.5

3499

460

8

2.0

3400

495

9

2.5

3776

490

10

3.0

3687

563

11

3.5

3818

480

12

4.0

3592

530

184

165

140

125

106

106

Utilising the total load information from Table 4.1 the total forces on the portal

frame can be

calculated

3.776 x 9.81

37.0N

F y =0(spreadre FBD)

V+H-w

2.5H + H - w =

3.5 H =

H

=

Collapse Load)

V

=

Collapse Load)

37.0

10.6 N

(Horizontal

10.6 x 2.5

26.5 N

(Vertical

Group

7

8

9

10

11

12

4.4.

Load

Ratio

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Load (kg)

3.499

3.400

3.776

3.687

3.818

3.592

Force

(N)

34.33

33.35

37.04

36.17

37.45

35.24

H(N)

13.73

11.12

10.58

9.04

8.32

7.05

V(N)

20.60

22.24

26.46

28.13

29.13

28.19

Analytical Results

beam scenario outlined above, the principle of virtual work will be used,

combining the beam collapse mechanism with the sway collapse mechanism to

give a total collapse resultant. Figure 4-8: Test 1.3 - Beam Collapse Mechanism

below shows the beam collapse mechanism component of the rigid portal frame.

(W )= ( M p )

V c =4 M p

V c 0.15 4 M p

V c=

4Mp

0.15

V c=

4 1.34

=35.7 N (Equation 1)

0.15

Figure 4-9 below shows the sway collapse mechanism component of the rigid

portal frame.

(W )= ( M p )

H c =4 M p

=/ 0.3

=0.3

H c 0.3 4 M p

H c=

4Mp

0.3

H c=

4 1.34

=17.9 N (Equation 2)

0.3

Figure 4-11 below shows the combined collapse mechanism of the rigid portal

frame.

The combined collapse virtual work equation is simply the sum of external work

of the beam and sway mechanisms equated to the sum of internal work of the

beam and sway mechanisms minus the internal work of the hinge at the top left

hinge of the frame. As seen in Figure 4-11, the combined collapse mechanism

does not have a plastic hinge located at the top left hand corner of the frame so

both the internal work from the beam and sway are to be subtracted from

calculations.

(W )= ( M p )

V c 0.15 + H c 0.3=4 M p + 4 M p 2 M p

V c 0.15 + H c 0.3=6 M p

Substituting Mp=1.34Nm.

V c 0.15 + H c 0.3=6 M p

V c + 2 H c =53.6 ( Equation3)

Equations 1, 2 and 3 can now be used to draw the interaction diagram for

combined collapse mechanism as seen below in Figure 4-12.

Permissible Region

The results for each groups vertical and horizontal loading points (H, V) are then

plotted onto this Interaction diagram (Figure 4-13) to determine how close these

experimental points were to the theoretical solution and failure mechanism. The

V/H ratios used were also plotted to show its intersection with the theoretical

collapse mechanisms.

Vertical Beam Collapse Load

Horizontal Sway Collapse Load

Exp. data

on Theoretical Load Interaction

Diagram

Combined Collapse

Load Mechanism

40

Group 8

Group 7

35

Group 9

30

Group 10

25

Group 12

20

Group 11

15

Group 7 line

10

Group 8 Line

5

Group 9 line

Group 10 Line0

0

Group 12 line

Group 11 Line

10

12

14

16

18

From this figure it is clear that all vertical and horizontal combined loadings were

within the theoretical permissible region of the load interaction diagram. By

calculating where the various V/H ratios should intersect with the theoretical

combined collapse load mechanism, a comparison can be made between the

below in table

H

experime

ntal

13.73

11.12

10.58

0.00

8.04

7.05

4.5.

H theory

% error

15.31

13.40

11.91

10.71

9.75

8.93

10.34

17.03

11.14

100.00

17.56

21.08

H

experime

ntal

20.60

22.24

26.46

0.00

28.13

28.19

H theory

% error

22.97

26.80

29.78

32.16

34.11

35.73

10.34

17.03

11.15

100.00

17.53

21.10

Discussion

From this Figure 12 and Table 4.3 we can see clearly that the experimental

collapse loads calculated by each groups various arrangement are all lower than

the predicted collapse loads with percentage errors ranging from approximately

10-20%. This shows that the loads under which the frame collapsed should have

been permissible in theory. This is concerning in terms of designing a structure

which in reality has a small but reasonably lower load capacity. There are many

reasons that could result in such differences between the experimental and

theoretical result, the key factors being:

Error in measurement of load positon e.g. moving the bucket closer than

required to the left hand side for a given ratio would result in an actual

higher load ratio, causing it to fail at a lower total load than expected.

Inability to correctly detect when failure is occurring and thus continuing

to load the beam once failure has begun resulting an overly large value for

the load reading.

The moment contribution of the bars weight is not considered in the

loading ratio causing an incorrect actual loading ratio effecting collapse

load calculations.

5. Conclusion

This report examined the Plastic Behaviour of continuous steel beams and rigid

portal steel frames. Experimental analysis was undertaken by using various load

ratios on a continuous beam and portal frame respectively with results relatively

close to the theoretical values obtained for the continuous beam, less so for the

portal frame.

6. References

Dr Lip Teh (2015), Laboratory Instructions, University of Wollongong

Dr Lip Teh (2015), CIVL454 Structures, Tutorial worked solutions week 4,

University of Wollongong

Dr Lip Teh (2015), CIVL454 Structures, Lecture Notes week 4, University of

Wollongong

RA =

Reaction

force on

Hanger at A

W= Weight

of bucket and

pellets*

B

RC =

Reaction

force on

Hanger at C

Spreader

Bar

a mm

b mm

L mm

300m

m

L1=RA =

Loading at

mid-span

RD

L2=RC =2.5 X RA

Loading at midspan

RE

D

300m

m

RF

L2

300m

m

RE

RF

E

150m

m

150m

m

Mp

Mp

Mp

300m

m

150m

m

V= RA

Pulley

300m

m

Wire

Rigid

portal

frame

H = RC

150m

m

150m

m

490m

m

V= RA

H = RC

Beam Collapse

Combined

Collapse

X = 86mm

X = 140mm

- Plastic Analysis Beams FramesDiunggah olehPramod Singh
- Plastic Analysis Beams FramesDiunggah olehhbsheen
- Plastic AnalysisDiunggah olehBishanjit Singh Grewal
- Structures Plastic collapse of a portal frameDiunggah olehKelvin Chew
- Concrete Box Girder Bridges J. SchlaichDiunggah olehbombaikos
- Link 180Diunggah olehOmar Najm
- Plastic AnalysisDiunggah olehgaiagmr
- Plastic Analysis 1011Diunggah olehF Azam Khan Ayon
- Von Mises Yield CriterionDiunggah oleh03sri03
- A15-Effect of Strain Ratio and Strain Rate on Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of AZ31 Wrought Magnesium AlloyDiunggah olehxxleonard
- Plastic analysis reportDiunggah olehAh Chia
- Plastic Analysis Full ReportDiunggah olehMohd Riezhuan RabaNi
- Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Robert Park and William L.gamble 2000Diunggah olehAbera Mamo
- ABAQUS Tutorial 2Diunggah olehmorad_cry
- SPE-99074-MS.pdfDiunggah olehMarcelo Veronez
- Course Work SyllabusDiunggah olehTeju Ashu
- Bound TheoremsDiunggah olehcizozenato
- DeformationDiunggah olehSyed Haseeb Ali
- is.sp.6.5.1980Diunggah olehRajendra Kamble
- Design of a Scissor Car JackDiunggah olehAnonymous tj7hAlI
- Report-25Diunggah olehRicardo Horacio Lorefice
- Me2 Learning AnsysDiunggah olehfnahas_bh
- Forging Stamping Plastic Deformation AnalysisDiunggah olehvenkatkrishna
- 27Diunggah olehvanea
- Dynamic Properties of Fine-grained Soils in Pre-sheared Sliding SurfacesDiunggah olehwanjailani
- Torsion PaperDiunggah olehJoseAngelFernandezOrtega
- 1-s2.0-S2211812815001534-mainDiunggah olehV.v. Taguis
- 00089518Diunggah olehmsmsoft

- Rein RoundRobinModelling FSJ09Diunggah olehNoah Ryder
- Directional couplerDiunggah olehShrutiAwasthi
- Design of Flexible PavementDiunggah olehyashirup
- Handbook on Maintenance of Switch Expansion Joint(3)Diunggah olehfiemsabyasachi
- 5 SENTENCES Using Adverbs and Ajectives ExamplesDiunggah olehAnonymous pwOxQu
- asm1-1220345581297677-8Diunggah olehIke Mag-away Gaamil
- werweDiunggah olehBharath Nadimpalli
- Start Learn AutomationDiunggah olehNT
- 01. Creep & FatigueDiunggah olehgaspardo123
- ASTM D 4138 - 94Diunggah olehCyril Angki
- Reflection and RefractionDiunggah olehGokulSubramanian
- SAQ_ans_10Diunggah olehharshanauoc
- Class A1A6Diunggah olehSalim
- Lsf7 Release NotesDiunggah olehKarol Korytkowski
- diagrama de Genius Sp Hf1800aDiunggah olehPatrick Gonzalez
- Why I Am Not an Austriac Economist - Bryan CaplanDiunggah olehmikemelo
- Example Sheet of EconometricsDiunggah olehdinhthihuyen
- Bull 2142Diunggah olehFahmi Bajry
- 2015 Wireline Services Catalog(Full Permission)Diunggah olehSanPer86
- 19 JavaDiunggah olehNeha Chack
- LabVIEW Based ProjectsDiunggah olehgopikrishnarao
- Data Sheet - SRX 1400.pdfDiunggah olehPankaj
- Euro CodeDiunggah olehmicael_89
- PaperDiunggah olehJason Andrew
- Lloyd s Register Sec VIII Div 1 Edition 2015 Key ChangesDiunggah olehmvjayaram007
- Questions and AnswersDiunggah olehRamesh
- World Grain Article- Grain Packing Factors- Bhadra, R.Diunggah olehRumela Bhadra
- AC Stark Shift - IOP ScienceDiunggah olehKapila Wijayaratne
- Linearity and Analog Performance Analysis of Double Gate Tunnel FET: Effect of Temperature and Gate StackDiunggah olehAnonymous e4UpOQEP
- Application Of IntegralsDiunggah olehsudersanaviswanathan