0 Suka0 Tidak suka

30 tayangan11 halamanInelastic Large

Nov 12, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

Inelastic Large

© All Rights Reserved

30 tayangan

Inelastic Large

© All Rights Reserved

- A Fresh Look at Bolted End Plate Behaviour and Design
- Glass Specifications
- Plastic Analysis Beams Frames
- A Load Control System for Mobile
- ytuy
- Fibre Reinforced Concrete
- Saint Vernant
- 82750167 Report on Non Circular Pressure Vessels
- H 406 7 AfterFailure Shortfibers
- lrfd Ex1-Bridge-3span Continuous Straight Composite I Girder
- mmsm1-blatt3
- Huang_2018_IOP_Conf._Ser.__Mater._Sci._Eng._392_062083
- gl_v-1-4_e
- static analysis in ansys
- 2
- Strength of Materials 2 Marks All 5 Units
- Retrieve File
- 2 Marks SOM Rejinpaul
- Design Example 02
- Comparative Analysis Between Prediction Models in Codes and Test Data for Shear Strength

Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

H-shaped cross sectional members

Ahmed H. Zubydan

Faculty of Engineering, Port-Said University, Port-Said, Egypt

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 11 April 2012

Revised 15 August 2012

Accepted 21 September 2012

Available online 24 November 2012

Keywords:

Inelastic

Large deection

Space frame

Nonlinear analysis

Residual stresses

Beamcolumn

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents an efcient inelastic and large deection analysis of space frames using spread of

plasticity method. New accurate formulae are proposed to describe the plastic strength surface for steel

wide-ange cross sections under axial force and biaxial bending moments. Moreover, empirical formulae

are developed to predict the tangent modulus for cross sections under the combined forces. The tangent

modulus formulae are extended to evaluate the secant stiffness that is used for internal force recovering.

The formulae are derived for steel sections considering the residual stresses as recommended by European Convention for Construction Steelwork (ECCS). A nite element program based on stiffness matrix

method is prepared to predict the inelastic large deection behavior of space frames using the derived

formulae. The nite element model exhibits good correlations when compared with the ber model

results as well as previous accurate models. The analysis results indicate that the new model is accurate

and computational efcient.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there were numerous researches on the simulation of the nonlinear behavior of beamcolumns in space steel

frames [16]. In general, the nonlinear behavior of steel frame

can be predicted by using nite element method in which frame

members are modeled by using solid, plate or shell elements

[7,8]. This method could successfully capture the nonlinear behavior of the structure but it is too time-consuming because of the

great number of elements required for this type of analysis. Moreover, the model processing of this analysis type is not easy at all. In

the other direction of nonlinear analysis of steel frames, a line elements approach is widely used. These studies may be categorized

into two main types: plastic hinge analysis and spread of plasticity

analysis. The plastic hinge formulation is the most direct approach

for representing inelasticity in a beamcolumn element [912]. In

plastic hinge approach, the effect of material yielding is lumped

into a dimensionless plastic hinge. Generally, this type of analysis

is limited by its ability to provide the correct strength assessment

of beamcolumns that fail by inelastic buckling. This is because the

plastic hinge analysis assumes that the cross-section behaves as

either elastic or fully plastic, and the element is fully elastic between the member ends [1315]. In this model, the effect of residual stresses between hinges is not accounted for either. The

advantages of this method are its simplicity in formulation as well

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.024

modeling. The stability functions may be introduced to consider

geometric nonlinearities using only one beamcolumn element

to dene the second-order effect of an individual member so it is

an economical method for frame analysis [16,17]. This method accounts for inelasticity but not the spread of yielding through the

section or between the plastic hinges. For slender members in

which failure mode is dominated by elastic instability, the plastic

hinge method compares well with spread of plasticity solutions.

However, for stocky members that suffer signicant yielding, it

overestimates the capacity of members due to neglect of gradual

reduction of stiffness as yielding progresses through and along

the member. The so-called rened plastic-hinge analysis, based

on simple renements of the plastic hinge model, was proposed

for frames analysis in order to overcome disadvantages of the elasticplastic hinge method [1820].

On the other hand, the spread of plasticity method uses the

highest renement for predicting the inelastic behavior of framed

structures. In the spread of plasticity method, the gradual spread

of yielding is allowed through the volume of the members. In this

method, a frame member is divided into subelements, and the

cross-section of each element is subdivided into many bers

[2125]. The internal forces are calculated by integrating the cross

sectional subelement forces. In such case, residual stress in each ber can be explicitly considered, so, the gradual spread of yielding

can be traced [2631]. Because of considering the spread of plasticity and residual stresses in a direct way, a spread of plasticity

solution is considered an exact method. Although the spread of

156

computationally intensive and too costly. Among these two types

of analysis the co-called ber hinge method was developed in an

attempt to take the advantages of the two methods [32]. In which,

the element is divided into three segments, two end-ber hinge

segments and an interior elastic segment, to simulate the inelastic

behavior of the material according to the concentrated inelastic

approximation. The mid-length of end hinge segment is divided

into bers so that the uniaxial stressstrain relationships of the bers can be monitored during the analysis process.

Recently, a new simplied model was proposed by the Author

based on the spread of plasticity method in an attempt to eliminate the need of cross section discretization [33,34]. In this model,

closed form formulae were derived to predict the tangent modulus

of steel cross sections subjected to combined axial force and

uniaxial bending moment about major or minor axis considering

the residual stresses. Due to eliminating the integration of internal

forces on the cross section level, a lot of consumed computational

time could be saved. In the present paper tangent modulus of

wide-ange steel cross sections subjected to axial compression

force and biaxial bending is derived. New formulae are derived

by simulation of the results obtained from the ber model. Prior

to the derivation of tangent modulus, new plastic strength surfaces

for H-shaped cross sections subjected to axial force and biaxial

bending moment are proposed. The model achieves the accuracy

of the spread of plasticity method but in an easy and a direct

way. The research aims to eliminate complex calculations and so

minimizing the consumed running time and the cost. The

updated-Lagrangian method is applied in the formulation of the

incremental matrix equilibrium equations of the proposed

beamelement model [35,36]. The minimum residual displacement combined with NewtonRaphson method is used to

satisfy the convergence when solving the nonlinear equilibrium

equations.

2. Numerical model

2.1. Basic assumptions

The following assumptions are made in the formulation of the

beamcolumn element:

(1) A plane cross section remains plane after deformation.

(2) Local buckling and lateral torsional buckling are not

considered.

(3) Small strains but large displacements and rotations are

considered.

(4) Only H-shaped sections are considered.

(5) Strain hardening is not considered.

(6) The effects of shear forces and torsional moment are not

considered when deriving the cross sectional plastic surface

as well as the tangent modulus.

z (minor axis)

y (major axis)

while the AISCLRFD plastic surface formula is given as [39]

1

2

2

p mrz mry a for pr 6 mrz mry

2 r

9

9

2:a

8

8

2

2

pr mrz mry a for pr > mrz mry

9

9

9

9

2:b

the ratio of the applied normal force P to the yield value Py at the

plastic strength envelope (pr = P/Py), and mrz and mry are the ratios

of the applied bending moments Mz (about minor axis) and My

(about major axis) to the corresponding plastic moments Mpz and

Mpy, respectively, at the plastic strength envelope.

In the present paper, a new formula is derived to describe the

wide ange cross section plastic strength surface based on the results obtained from the analysis of many cross sections. The cross

sections are analyzed using the ber model in which the cross section is discretized into small bers as shown in Fig. 1. The analyzed

cross sections are selected to cover all popular universal column

cross sections. Twenty universal column sections (H-shaped

section) are analyzed in which the ratios B/T = 5.522.4, D/t = 10

34.2 and D/B = 0.971.13, where D, B are the cross section depth

and the anges breadth, respectively, and t and T are the thicknesses of cross section web and anges, respectively.

The cross sections are analyzed using linear strain distribution

along their axes. For each cross section, curvatures with different

ratios are gradually increased until reaching the maximum possible bending moments at a xed value of axial force. The internal

forces (P, My and Mz) are evaluated by accumulation of uniaxial

stresses for all cross section discrete as follows:

mrz

pr1

mrz*

The determination of cross-section plastic strength surface is

very essential in order to predict the nonlinear behavior of structural members. The most common formulae that describe the full

plastication surface for cross sections are those proposed by

AISCLRFD and Orbison. Recently, analytical plastic interaction criteria for steel I-sections under biaxial moment and axial force were

developed by Baptista [37]. Although the method requires many

calculations, it is considered as an exact method.

For cross sections subjected to axial force and biaxial bending

moments about both axes, Orbisons formula is given as [38]

(mryL, mrzL )

pr2

limiting

points

mry*

mry

(0,0)

1.0

n

X

ai fi

157

3:a

i1

My

Mz

n

X

ai fi zi

i1

n

X

ai fi yi

3:b

3:c

i1

where ai is the steel ber area, yi and zi are coordinates of each ber,

fi is the uniaxial stress at the steel ber and n is the number of steel

bers. It is observed that, the plastic strength surface is not affected

by the presence of residual stresses. The proposed formula is graphically illustrated in Fig. 2 for two different values of Pr. As shown in

the gure the formula consists of two groups of curves that intersect at limiting points of coordinates (mryL, mrzL). The proposed plastic strength surface formula for a cross section can be given as

follow:

R

mrz mrzL

mry 1

mrz mrzL

mryL

!

R2

mry mryL

mrz

1 for M rz y < mrzL =mryL

mry mryL

mrzL

4:a

4:b

where Mrz_y = Mrz/Mry, Mrz = Mz/Mpz, Mry = My/Mpy and R1 and R2 are

factors that depend on the axial force ratio (Pr) and they are given as

5:a

5:b

R2 3:25P2r 3:24Pr 1

5:c

mryL and mrzL are coordinates of a limiting point that can be given as

6:a

6:b

The values mrz and mry are the bending moment capacity ratios

about z- and y-axis, respectively, for cross sections subjected to axial force and uniaxial bending moment. These values are used as

proposed by Zubydan for cross sections subjected to a bending moment about major or minor axis in addition to an axial force [33,34].

For a cross section subjected to bending moment about major axis,

mry is evaluated using the following formulae:

Fig. 4. Plastic strength for HD 400 1086 steel section.

7:a

7

pr mry 1 for pr > 0:2

8

7:b

158

moment about minor axis, mrz is evaluated from the following

relationships:

1

p mrz 1 for pr 6 0:05C 2H 0:43C H 0:37

8:55 r

pCr H 0:95mrz 1 for pr > 0:05C 2H 0:43C H 0:37

8:a

8:b

The correlation of the proposed plastic surface formulae in Eq.

(4) with the ber model results are represented in Fig. 3. Since

AISCLRFD plastic formula is very conservative especially for sections subjected to bending moment about minor axis, only Orbisons formula is compared to the derived one. As shown in Fig. 3,

it is observed that the proposed formula correlates very well with

the ber model results. On the other hand, the Orbisons formula

may deviate from the ber model results at various axial force ratios. The proposed formula for plastic strength is also compared to

the results obtained from Baptistas method [37] for HD

400 1086 steel section as shown in Fig. 4. It is clearly observed

that the proposed formula gives an excellent correlation with the

results obtained from Baptisas method. It should be mentioned

that the proposed formula is simpler and more direct than Baptistas method.

2.3. Tangent modulus for cross sections

It is known that the cross sectional tangent modulus exhibits a

premature degradation when it is subjected to forces due to the

presence of residual stresses. In order to account for the effect of

residual stresses, researchers [4042] use an empirical tangential

modulus ratio depending on the formula proposed in AISCLRFD

[39] to describe the tangent modulus of columns under axial force.

This formula is given as follows:

9:a

9:b

where Etr is the tangent modulus ratio (Etr = Etang/E), E is the elastic

modulus and a is a force-state parameter that measures the magnitude of axial force and bending moments which may be calculated

from Eq. (1) or Eq. (2).

In the present paper, a new tangent modulus is determined for

H-shaped sections considering the effect the residual stresses.

The residual stresses adopted in the present paper are based on

Steelwork (ECCS) [43]. The magnitude of residual stress (rr) is assumed to be dependent on depth/breadth ratio as shown in Fig. 5.

For cross sections subjected to axial compression force and biaxial

bending moments, the exural tangent modulus is evaluated by

applying the concepts of ber model. The selected cross sections

are analyzed using the ber model in which the bending moments

with different ratios are incrementally applied to the cross section

at constant values of axial compression forces. Through each load

increment, the exural tangent modulus ratio for each direction

is calculated as follows:

dM y =duy

EIy

dM z =duz

EIz

Etry

10:a

Etrz

10:b

where EIy and EIz are the cross sectional elastic rigidities about yand z-axis, respectively, and uy and uz are the curvatures about

the same axes. By plotting the relationships of the tangent modulus

ratios Etry and Etrz versus the moment ratios Mry and Mrz, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6, two possible multilinear paths may be obtained for each moment direction. When the value of axial

compression force ratio Pr is less than Pr0, (Pr0 = 1 rr/ry [33,34])

, the relationships follow the path abcde for Etry and abcdef for Etrz.

For such case, the tangent modulus ratios remain constant and

equal to the elastic values until reaching Mry0,rz0 (point b) after they

decrease linearly with the shown slopes until they vanish when

reaching the plastic surface. On the other hand, when the axial compression force exceeds Pr0 the values Etry and Etrz follow the paths

a0 b0 c0 d0 e0 and a0 b0 c0 d0 e0 f0 , respectively. In such case, the tangent modulus ratios start with Etry1 and Etrz1 that are less than unity due to

the effect of high axial force. The tangent modulus ratios decrease

again with the increase of bending moments until reaching the

plastic surface.

The values Mry0 and Mrz0 are found to be related to each other by

the following relationship:

Mrz0 M ry0

1:0

Mrz0 M ry0

11

where M ry0 Pr0 Pr Z y =Sy ; Mrz0 Pr0 P r Z z =Sz [33,34], Zy,z and

Sy,z are elastic and plastic modulus of cross section about y- and

z-axis, respectively.

The slopes Sy1,z1, Sy2,z2 and Sy3,z3 and the values Ety0,tz0, Ety1,tz1,

Etz2, Etz3 and Mry2,rz2 depend on the biaxial moment ratio Mrz_y

Fig. 6. Inelastic tangent modulus ratios for cross section under biaxial bending moment and axial compression force.

159

Fig. 7. Inelastic exural modulus ratios for cross sections about major axis.

Fiber model;

present model.

Fig. 8. Inelastic exural modulus ratios for cross sections about minor axis.

Fiber model;

present model.

the Appendix A.

The proposed tangent modulus ratios are compared to those obtained from the ber model as shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for biaxial

moment ratios (Mrz_y = 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2). Fig. 7 illustrates Etry versus Mry while Etrz versus Mrz are illustrated in Fig. 8. For each biaxial

moment ratio, the axial force ratio varies from 0.2 to 0.8. It is

clearly observed that the proposed formulae give very good correlations with the ber model results for various values of Pr and

Mrz_y. It should be mentioned that the proposed model is valid

for all values of Pr.

2.4. Cross section incremental secant modulus

For nonlinear analysis, the accuracy of results essentially depends on the accuracy of the internal forces calculation. The use

of tangent stiffness for calculating the internal forces may slightly

overestimate the structure strength, so the incremental secant

stiffness is required in order to evaluate accurate values of internal

forces. The same sequence followed by the Author [33] is used in

the present research to evaluate the secant stiffness for a load

increment. For a load increment from steps j to j + 1, the curvature

to M 0j1 when the initial tangent modulus is followed as shown in

Fig. 9. The value of M 0j1 can be calculated as

160

M 0j1 Mj duEtr j EI

12

step j to step j + 1 and EI is the elastic exural rigidity of the cross

section. Etr j is the tangent modulus ratio at step j which can be calculated from Fig. 6 using the forces values at point j. As Etr changes

linearly with Mr from point jj + 1, i.e. the following relationship can

be deduced:

Etr c1 M r c2

where c1

13

E0tr j1 Etr j

M 0r j1 M r j

point j0 + 1 which is very close to point j + 1.

Based on Eq. (12), the value of bending moment at j + 1(Mj+1)

and the incremental secant modulus ratio (Esr) can be derived

and given as follow [33]:

1

Mp ek c2

c1

1 M j1 M j

Esr

EI uj1 uj

M j1

where

Mp

k c1

uj1 uj

uy

is

14

15

the

cross

section

plastic

moment

and

ing moments about y- and z-axis to evaluate the corresponding secant modulus Esry and Esrz, respectively.

2.5. Finite element model

A stiffness method for the analysis of space frames is developed

considering both geometric and material nonlinearities. The equation of equilibrium in terms of geometry of the deformed system is

given as follows [44]:

K Kg fDDg fDFg

16

where {DF} and {DD} are the incremental force and displacement

vectors, respectively. [K] is the stiffness matrix of the structure considering material nonlinearity and [Kg] is the geometric stiffness

matrix which represents the change in the stiffness that results

from deformation effects. Consider a prismatic element of a symmetric cross section about y and z axes. This element is subjected

to axial force N, torsional moment Mx and bending moments My

and Mz while the corresponding displacements are u,hx,hy and hz,

respectively as shown in Fig. 10. The shape functions for the axial

displacement (u), the axial rotation (hx), the displacement in x y

plan (w) and the displacement in x z plan (v) are introduced considering the shear effect as follow:

u 1 nu1 nu2

17:a

hx 1 nhx1 nhx2

17:b

w1 Uy =2 1 Uy Uy n 3n2 2n3 w1 1 Uy =2

2 Uy =2n n2 xhz1 Uy n 3n2 2n3 w2

Uy =2 1 Uy =2n n2 xhz2

v 1 Uz =2 1 Uz Uz n 3n2 2n3 v 1 1 Uz =2

2 Uz =2n n2 xhy1 Uz n 3n2 2n3 v 2

Uz =2 1 Uz =2n n2 xhy2

17:d

In which n = x/L and L is the member length, Uy = 12EIz/GAQyL2,Uz = 12EIy/GAQzL2, G is the shear modulus and AQy and AQz are the

shear areas corresponding to y- and z-axis, respectively. Since the

matrices [K] and [Kg] are displacement dependent, Eq. (16) cannot

be directly solved. Various procedures can be used to solve the equilibrium equations. Generally, members are subdivided into subelements to produce satisfactory results. The modulus ratios Etry,trz or

Esry,srz are evaluated at each member ends and then average values

at each direction are applied for each modulus ratio in the stiffness

matrix [k].

2.6. Internal force recovery

The employing of equilibrium equation in conjunction with the

incremental analysis requires that the structural geometry includes all accumulated deformations. For the current analysis,

the node coordinates are updated after each iteration. That is, the

coordinates of each node are modied or updated to include the

translational displacement components that occur during iterations. In updating the coordinates of nodes or element ends, the

deformed geometry of the structure is achieved by changing the

position and hence the orientation of each element with respect

to the global coordinates system. For all the elements of a structure, the element stiffness equation, as given in Eq. (16), can be

assembled to yield the stiffness equation of the structure for an

incremental step. For an incrementaliterative nonlinear analysis,

the element incremental displacement vector {Dd} is used to calculate the incremental axial strain de, torsional strain dv and exural strains duy and duz based on the assumed shape functions and

so the secant modulus at element ends can be evaluated as illustrated in Section 2.4. The material stiffness matrix [k] for each element is reformulated using the average secant exural modulus

ratios Esry and Esrz instead of the tangent modulus. The secant modulus for axial force and torsional moment can be modied by using

the average of Esry and Esrz. On the other hand, the geometric stiffness matrix [kg] is also formulated again using a new axial force P

which is calculated by adding the incremental axial force to the total previous value as follows:

18

calculated as

fDfint g k kg fDdg

19

By summing the element forces at the structural nodes and comparing them with the applied loads, the unbalanced forces for the

structure can be obtained. Finally, by treating the unbalanced forces

as applied loads, other iterations can be repeated.

17:c

3. Numerical solution

the formulation of the initial stiffness matrix, the solution of the

equilibrium equations for the displacement increments, the determination of the new updated stiffness and member forces using

the cross sectional model, and the check of conversion. Since the

global stiffness matrix of the structure depends on the displacement increments, the solution of the equilibrium equations is

typically accompanied by an iterative method through the convergence check. In the present model, the Newton Raphson method is

used by updating the tangent stiffness matrix at each iteration

161

order to trace the post-peak path [46]. A full nonlinear iterative

solution discussed by Zubydan [33] is followed in the present

paper.

4. Numerical analysis and results

A computer program is developed to predict the nonlinear

behavior of space frames using the derived model. The ber model

as well as the proposed simplied model is rst compared to wellestablished benchmark results. After that the analysis results obtained from the proposed and the previous simplied models are

compared to those obtained from the ber model.

Table 1

Out-of-plumbness imperfection of two-storey space frame.

Level

Roof

Second

oor

Base

Imperfection (mm)

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

4.51

1.39

11.08

6.88

5.49

0.68

11.41

6.77

8.17

5.11

6.58

2.11

4.31

3.96

12.04

6.19

The two storey space steel frame shown in Fig. 11 was previously analyzed by Kim and Lee [7] using nite element package

ABAQUS [47]. For this study the frame was only subjected to the

gravity loads and lateral loads in X-direction (i.e. the value of

r = 0). All frame members are comprised of H150 160

10 6.5mm section. The frame has 2.5 m wide in Y-direction and

3 m long in X-direction. The height of the second oor is 1.76 m

from the column base while the roof elevates 2.2 m from the second oor. The yield stress, Youngs modulus, and shear modulus

of material are 320 MPa, 221 GPa, and 85 GPa, respectively. The

frame columns have out-of-plumbness imperfection as listed in

Table 1. The ABAQUS shell element S4R was employed to model

frame members. The total numbers of shell elements used to model the structure by ABAQUS are 49,840. The shown applied loads

were proportionally increased until failure of the structure. For

such case of loading (r = 0), the frame is reanalyzed using the

present ber model and also using the proposed simplied model.

For the analyzed frame, each frame member is discretized into 10

equal elements. The comparisons of the obtained and the published analysis results are illustrated in Fig. 12. It is observed that

the results obtained from the proposed model correlates well with

the ber model results as well as the results obtained from

ABAQUS.

The frame is also analyzed using the both the simplied and the

ber models with different values of r (r = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0). Comparison of the analysis results are shown in Fig. 13 which illustrates

Fig. 12. Load-displacement relationships for the two storey frame (r = 0).

Fig. 13. Load-displacement relationships for the two storey frame (r = 0.25, 0.5 and

1.0).

observed that the results obtained from simplied model

correlates very well the results obtained from the ber model. It

is observed that the frame capacity is greatly reduced with the increase of lateral loads in Y-direction due to the increase of bending

moments produced about cross sectional minor axes.

4.2. Six storey space frame

The six-story space steel frame shown in Fig. 14 was rst analyzed by Orbison et al. [38] and later by many researchers

162

Youngs modulus E = 206,850 MPa and shear modulus

G = 79,293 MPa. The frame is subjected to proportional gravity

and lateral loads. Uniform oor pressure of 9.6 kN/m2 is converted

into equivalent concentrated loads on the top of columns. Wind

loads are simulated by point loads of 53.376 kN in the Y-direction

at every beamcolumn joints. Jiang et al. analyzed the frame using

ber plastic zone model in which the cross section ange is discredited into bers and the frame member into nine elements

[31]. The frame is reanalyzed using the present model with/without the shear effect. Since most plastic deformation is concentrated

at member edges, each frame member is discretized into three elements with two short edge elements of length = 0.1 L. The tangent

modulus for I-shaped cross sections (as in case of frame girders) is

calculated as proposed by Zubydan [33]. Comparisons of the proposed simplied model with Jiangs analysis results are shown in

Fig. 15. It is clearly observed that the present model results with

shear effect correlate very well the Jiang results. On the other hand,

when the shear effect is neglected, the model slightly overestimates the frame capacity.

yield strength ry = 250 Mpa and elastic modulus E = 200,000 MPa.

The frame is subjected to incremental lateral loads H in X-direction

and rH in Y-direction in addition to constant value of vertical loads

P. The frame is analyzed using the ber model and also by using the

derived model neglecting the shear effect. For all analysis types,

each frame member is divided into 10 elements to accumulate

the plastic deformation through the whole member. The tangent

modulus proposed by researchers (Eq. (9)) accompanied with the

Orbisons plastic surface formula is also used to analyze the frame.

The cross section of the frame members is assumed to be

UC203 203 60 and the frame is analyzed using different values

of r (r = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0). For each value of r, vertical load

163

Table 2

Normalized ultimate loads for single storey space frame.

Pr = 0.2

Pr = 0.4

Pr = 0.6

r = 0.25

Present model

Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9977

1.0823

0.9917

1.0198

1.0523

1.1377

r = 0.5

Present model

Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9958

1.1233

1.02160

1.1904

0.9950

1.5412

r = 1.0

Present model

Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9976

1.1708

0.9902

1.2822

1.0264

1.9594

r = 2.0

Present model

Eqs. (9) & (1)

0.9884

1.1088

1.0223

1.1088

1.0638

2.1503

ratios Pr = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 are used. Fig. 17 shows comparisons between the results obtained from different models. The gure illustrates the relationships between the lateral load H and the lateral

resultant displacement at A. It is clearly observed that the proposed

model gives excellent correlations with the ber model for all values of r and Pr. On the other hand, the previously used formula in

Eq. (9) mostly overestimates the stiffness and the capacity of the

frame compared to the ber model. Table 2 shows the normalized

capacities of the frame using the proposed model and that from

Eqs. (9) and (1) with respect to the ber model results. As shown

in Table 2, the diversion of the analysis results obtained from

Eqs. (9) and (1) from the ber model increases with the increase

of r and Pr. The overall capacity of the frame obtained from the previous model more (Eqs. (9) and (1)) may be than twice the capacity

obtained from the ber model.

5. Conclusions

A new simplied model was developed to predict the large

deection inelastic behavior of space steel frames. New plastic

strength surfaces for H-shaped cross sections under axial forces

and biaxial bending moment were derived. Moreover, the tangent

modulus of cross sections subjected to the combined forces was

predicted. The residual stress distributions were considered as recommended by European Convention for Construction Steelwork

(ECCS). The internal forces were recovered by using derived incremental secant stiffness. The derived cross sectional model was

implemented into a nite element program based on stiffness

method to predict the full nonlinear behavior of steel space frames.

The simplied model correlated very well the ber model without

the need of cross section discretization. The proposed model could

successfully simplify the plastic zone analysis and save a lot of

computational time and data storage by the elimination of

164

it was found that the average run time of the frame using the ber

model ranged from 8 to 10 times the run time required using the

simplied model. These run times included the formulation and

the solving of nonlinear equilibrium equations and they also included the time consumed to equilibrate the bers on the cross

sectional level which was saved by using the proposed simplied

model.

Appendix A

Values of Sy1, Sy2, Sy3, Ety0, Ety1 and Mry1:

Sy1 0:88Mrz y 0:26 f1

for M rz

For Mrz_y 6 1.5:

for Mrz

6 1:0

> 1:0

7:81P 2r

Sy2

A:1b

11:45M 2rz y

A:1a

A:2a

A:2c

A:2d

Ety0

Ety1

A:3

1:3P2r 0:45Pr 1:1

M ry1

f2

1 M rz

A:4

A:5

6 mry

A:6

Pr 6 0.3 and f2 3:89P 3r 4:44P2r 2:27Pr 1:53 for Pr > 0.3

Values of Sz1, Sz2, Sz3, Etz0, Etz1, Etz2, Etz3 and Mrz1

Sz1 2:38M ry z 0:49 f4 f3

for M ry z 6 1:0

A:7a

A:7b

where

Sy1 P 0:9; Mry z M ry =Mrz ; f3 4:65P 3r 1:87P2r

1:03Pr 0:19; f4 0 for Pr 6 0.5 and f4 = (10.74Pr 5.4)Mry_z for

Pr > 0.5.

A:8a

A:8b

A:9

A:10

A:11

For Pr 6 0.5:

A:12a

A:12b

A:12c

A:13a

for M ry z 6 3:0

A:13b

M rz1

f6

6 mrz

1 M ry z

A:14

1:07 for Pr 6 0.3 and f6 1:86P2r 0:79Pr 1:05 for Pr > 0.3.

References

[1] Ekhande SG, Selvappalam M, Madugula MKS. Stability functions for three

dimensional beam columns. J Struct Eng 1989;115(2):46779.

[2] Najjar SR, Burgess IW. A nonlinear analysis for three dimensional steel frames

in re conditions. Eng Struct 1996;18(1):7789.

[3] Meek JL, Xue Q. A study on the instability problem for 3D frames. Comput

Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998;158(34):23554.

[4] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE, Oh JR. Nonlinear analysis of space steel frames using ber

plastic hinge concept. Eng Struct 2007;29(4):64957.

[5] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis of space steel frames using

ber hinge method. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(4):42130.

[6] Thai HT, Kim SE. Nonlinear inelastic analysis of space frames. J Constr Steel Res

2011;67:58592.

[7] Kim SE, Lee DH. Second-order distributed plasticity analysis of space steel

frames. Eng Struct 2002;24:73544.

[8] Kim SE, Kang KW, Lee DH. Full-scale testing of space steel frame subjected to

proportional loads. Eng Struct 2003;25:6979.

[9] Ziemian RD. Advanced method of inelastic analysis in the limit states of steel

structures, PhD dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University; 1990.

[10] Chan SL, Chui PT. A generalized design-based elastoplastic analysis of steel

frames by section assemblage concept. Eng Struct 1997;19(8):62836.

[11] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE, Chen WF. Improved nonlinear plastic hinge

analysis of space frame structures. Eng Struct 2000;22:132438.

[12] Thai HT, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis software for nonlinear inelastic

analysis of space steel structures. Adv Eng Software 2009;40(9):78697.

[13] Chen WF, Chan SL. Second-order inelastic analysis of steel frames using

element with midspan and end springs. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1995;21(3):53041.

[14] White DW. Advanced analysis/design of typical moment frame. In: Proc 10th

struct cingr compact papers. New York, NY: ASCE; 1998. p. 33033.

[15] Challa MV. Nonlinear seismic behavior of steel planar moment resistance

frames. Rep. No. EERL 82-01, Earthquake Engrg Res Lab, California Institute of

Technology, Pasadena, Calif; 1992.

[16] Liew JYR, Chen WF. Chapter 1: trends toward advanced analysis of steel

frames. In: Chen WF, Toma, editors. Advanced analysis of steel frames: theory,

software, and applications. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1994. p. 143.

[17] Liew JY, White DW, Chen WF. Second order rened plastic hinge analysis of

frames design: Part I. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(11):3196216.

[18] King WS. A modied stiffness method for plastic analysis of steel frames. Eng

Struct 1994;16:16270.

[19] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for braced steel frame design. J

Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):126674.

[20] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for unbraced steel design. J

Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):125965.

[21] Del Coz Diaz J, Nieto P, Fresno D, Fernandez E. Nonlinear analysis of cable

networks by FEM and experimental validation. Int J Comput Math

2009;86(2):30113.

[22] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Vilan Vilan J, Suarez Sierra J. Nonlinear buckling

analysis of a self-weighted metallic roof by FEM. Math Comput Modell

2010;51(34):21628.

[23] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Vilan Vilan J, Martin Rodriguez A, Prado Tamargo

J, Lozano M. Non-linear analysis and warping of tubular pipe conveyors by the

nite element method. Math Comput Modell 2007;46(12):95108.

[24] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Fernandez Rico M, Suarez Sierra J. Nonlinear

analysis of the tubular heart joint by FEM and experimental validation. J

Constr Steel Res 2007;63(8):107790.

[25] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Betegon Biempica C, Fernandez Rougeot G.

Nonlinear analysis of unbolted base plates by the FEM and experimental

validation. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44(5):52941.

[26] Chen WF, Kim SE. LRFD steel design using advanced analysis. Boca Raton

FL: CRC Press; 1997.

[27] El-Zanaty M, Murrary D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of multistory steel

frames. In: Structural engineering Report Mo. 83. Alberta, Canada, University

of Alberta; 1980.

[28] White DW. Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behavior

in steel frames using iterative computer graphics, MS thesis. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University; 1985. 281P.

[29] Vogel U. Calibrating frames. Stahlbau 1985;10:17.

[30] Clarke MJ. Bridge RQ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Design using advanced analysis.

In: SSRC annual tech session proc. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh Univ.; 1991. p. 27

40.

[31] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-dimensional

steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58:193212.

[32] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis of space steel frames using

ber hinge method. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:42130.

[33] Zubydan AH. A simplied model for inelastic second order analysis of planar

frames. Eng Struct 2010;32:325868.

[34] Zubydan AH. Inelastic second order analysis of steel frame elements exed

about minor axis. Eng Struct 2011;33:124050.

[35] Nanakorn P, Vu LN. A 2D eld-consistent beam element for large displacement

using the total Lagrangian formulation. Finite Elem Anal Des 2006;42:12407.

[36] Yang YB, Lin SP, Leu LJ. Solution strategy and rigid element for nonlinear

analysis of elastically structures based on updated Lagrangian formulation.

Eng Struct 2007;29:1189200.

[37] Baptista AM. Resistance of steel I-sections under axial force and biaxial

bending moment. J Constr Steel Res 2012;72:111.

[38] Orbison JG, McGuire W, Abel JF. Yield surface applications in nonlinear steel

frame analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1982;33(1):55773.

[39] Load and resistance factor design specication for structural steel buildings.

In: American institute of steel construction (AISC), 2nd ed. Chicago; 1994.

[40] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional frames using

practical advanced analysis. Eng Struct 2001;23:1491502.

[41] Kim SE, Lee J, Park JS. 3-D second-order plastic hing analysis accounting for

local buckling. Eng Struct 2003;25:8190.

[42] Kim SE, Choi SH. Practical second order inelastic analysis for three dimensional

steel frames subjected to distributed load. Thin-Walled Struct

2005;43:13560.

165

[43] ECCS, Essentials of Eurocode 3 design manual for steel structures in building.

ECCS-advisory committee, vol. 5(65). 1991. p. 60.

[44] McGuire W, Gallagher R, Ziemian R. Matrix structural analysis. Wiley; 2000.

[45] Torkmani MA, Sonmez M. Inelastic large deection modeling of beam

columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(8):87686.

[46] Chan SL. Geometric and material non-linear analysis of beamcolumns and

frames using the minimum residual displacement method. Int J Numer

Methods Eng 1988;26:265769.

[47] HKS (Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc.) ABAQUS/standard users manual, vol. II.

HKS; 2000.

[48] Kim SE, Kim Y, Choi SH. Nonlinear analysis of 3-D steel frames. Thin Wall

Struct 2001;39:44561.

[49] Chiorean CG, Barsan GM. Large deection distributed plasticity analysis of 3D

steel frameworks. Comput Struct 2005;83:155571.

- A Fresh Look at Bolted End Plate Behaviour and DesignDiunggah olehSulaim Al Kautsar
- Glass SpecificationsDiunggah olehHock Xiang Ang
- Plastic Analysis Beams FramesDiunggah olehhbsheen
- A Load Control System for MobileDiunggah olehAndonny Daq Delgado
- ytuyDiunggah olehAnonymous l5X3VhT
- Fibre Reinforced ConcreteDiunggah olehDinesh Babu
- Saint VernantDiunggah olehibrahimugrl
- 82750167 Report on Non Circular Pressure VesselsDiunggah olehrchandra2473
- H 406 7 AfterFailure ShortfibersDiunggah olehHemanthKumar
- lrfd Ex1-Bridge-3span Continuous Straight Composite I GirderDiunggah olehshakirhamid6687
- mmsm1-blatt3Diunggah olehmantra2010
- Huang_2018_IOP_Conf._Ser.__Mater._Sci._Eng._392_062083Diunggah olehMicheline Cousin
- gl_v-1-4_eDiunggah olehMarco Morris
- static analysis in ansysDiunggah olehLik Hit
- 2Diunggah olehJakir Hussain Syed
- Strength of Materials 2 Marks All 5 UnitsDiunggah olehArul JO
- Retrieve FileDiunggah olehjavier
- 2 Marks SOM RejinpaulDiunggah olehl8o8r8d8s8i8v8
- Design Example 02Diunggah olehjpobando
- Comparative Analysis Between Prediction Models in Codes and Test Data for Shear StrengthDiunggah olehsipil123
- CE 382 L11 - Force Method.pdfDiunggah olehSaravanaKumar Sundararajan
- Module1 Beam Bending.pdfDiunggah olehMAGED MOHMMED AHMED QASEM
- Fabiani Marco Physical and Mechanical Properties of Italian Bamboo CulmsDiunggah olehwaynectw
- Hetrick DissertationDiunggah olehSachin Sharma
- BendC6St05Diunggah olehLê Ngọc-Hà
- 1-s2.0-S0020746201000889-mainDiunggah olehdfgkjldahgsgj
- A Fresh Look at Bolted End-Plate Behavior and Design_krishnamurthy1978Q2Diunggah olehmert_atasoy
- F1Diunggah olehMario Sajulga Dela Cuadra
- mid-term-engi2313-winter-2016-ottawaDiunggah olehapi-313424062
- plastic hinges detailingDiunggah olehgrunf.von.grunt

- 7 . Kim , Kang & Lee - Full-scale Testing of Space Steel Frame Subjected to Proportional LoadsDiunggah olehcosminduca
- Arval Acoustic SystemsDiunggah olehcosminduca
- Comparative Study for Rcc,Steel, BuildingDiunggah olehFaraaz Faisal
- Brochure ExpocretehollowcoreDiunggah olehcosminduca
- Analyis of Hollow Slab CoreDiunggah olehhendragt

- Stress and StrainDiunggah olehPaul James Thadhani
- MI-A-1Diunggah olehCamiloVinchira
- Survey of Four Damage Models for ConcreteDiunggah olehmadcow_scribd
- 5-4035-01-2_finalDiunggah oleho
- Autoform-Force.pdfDiunggah olehNhan Le
- #07 08 ETS PMMQDiunggah olehMuhammad Bahtiar
- Static Resistance Bolted Circular Flange JointsDiunggah olehBálint Vaszilievits-Sömjén
- [Edward S. Hoffman, Albert S. Gouwens, David P. (B-ok.org)Diunggah olehsusanto
- Definition of Different Terms of MetallurgyDiunggah olehsatish_trivedi
- Failure Mechanism of High Temperature Components in Power PlantsDiunggah olehtazzorro
- MAIBInvReport13_2017Diunggah olehReda Hmr
- Worked Example 4 Tie BackDiunggah olehEverson BoyDayz Peters
- IPC2012-90504Diunggah olehMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Ansys Ls-dyna Mapdl 14.5 l10 Explicit-To-implicitDiunggah olehpercys99
- D Chiew SP - ConSteel Seminar - 6Aug14.pdfDiunggah olehSimon Lsm
- 8 - kadidDiunggah olehJohn Lemar
- Crastin PBT and Rynite PET Design Info Module IV.pdfDiunggah olehashkansoheyl
- Friction and Wear_GStraffenili.pdfDiunggah olehJuan Colombo
- CV4102 LST Lecture Presentation 1 Xx1Diunggah olehChua Zheng Xian
- PE Pipe FailureDiunggah olehirfandanraihana
- Efe II - ProductoDiunggah olehCarlos Huertas Pérez
- Class 4 Quick Reference for MEP_ Motor and General Er ShashwatDiunggah olehLovy Singh
- Summary Structural GeologyDiunggah olehyonatan
- DRX LMFDiunggah olehSimoes JB
- SolidWorks Simulation Instructor Guide 2010 ENGDiunggah olehAnderson Siqueira
- Extenso MetersDiunggah olehLloyd R. Ponce
- SSRC Guide 2009 Ch 4 Plates Schafer VersionDiunggah olehVishnu Vardhan Komanduri
- lesson09_wbtDiunggah olehmuhanad
- Tensile Test Lab Report(3)Diunggah olehXuan Wang
- 71151530-FatigueFatigueDiunggah olehgu1000

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.