EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

PRESTRESSED STAYED COLUMNS

Compressive Strength and Behaviour

Miguel Serraa, Lus S. da Silvaa, Liliana Marquesa and Lus Alvesa

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, Portugal
miguelserra@dec.uc.pt, luisss@dec.uc.pt, lmarques@dec.uc.pt

INTRODUCTION
The design of slender columns is very often governed by the resistance to buckling, and many times
it is lower than the resistance of the columns cross-section. The buckling strength of a column highly
depends on its length and bending stiffness. Changing the steel grade of the cross-section will bring
little or no benefit to the buckling strength. This is a big limitation when designing structures made
of steel grades of enhanced mechanical properties (focusing on the elastic limit), commonly
denominated by High Strength Steels (HSS).
There are designers who have shown that HSS will bring economy to structural solutions, especially
in long span structures where deadweight is critical. Decreasing selfweight leads to structures which
are cheaper to fabricate, easier to transport, and faster to erect. However, the use of HSS is restricted
to members subjected mainly to tension forces, making clear that solutions for lack of bending
stiffness must be addressed.
A Prestressed Stayed Column (PSSC) consists on a slender column (core) reinforced by pretensioned
stays, connected by cross-arms, providing restrictions to lateral deformations of the system (see Fig.
2a). PSSC are a common approach on using prestress to reach higher compressive strengths.
Experimental work on scale models have shown that PSSC can have a compressive resistance many
times greater than the resistance of the core by itself [1]. On this observation, many researchers
[1,2,3,4,5] have tried to provide a concise design methodology for practicing engineers, however with
limited success. The main objective of this work is to test and analyse a group of full-scale PSSC
under different levels of prestress. Results are compared to calibrated numerical models.

1 LITERATURE REVIEW
For more than 50 years, several experimental tests were conducted on PSSC in a search to increase
the compressive strength of slender elements. Tests on triple-stayed PSSC conducted in the Royal
Military College of Australia showed increases in buckling strength up to 40 times the critical load
of the unstayed column [1]. The lack of knowledge on the behaviour of PSSC lead researchers to
work for analytical solution which could provide accurate estimations on the critical load. Smith [1]
and Hafez [2] focused their research on the simplest configuration of a PSSC, single cross-arm
columns. They have provided methodologies based on the assumption that the buckling would occur
when stays lose their initial pretension, from the shortening of the column under axial loading, and
accounting for the influence of initial pretension of the stays in the compression of the column. The
methodologies have many resemblances but focus the application on different aspects: Hafez focus
on defining the behaviour of the column based on the initial pretension on stays, basically setting
thresholds for the effectiveness of prestressing in a given PSSC; Smith provided formulation to
estimate the optimum level of pretension for symmetrical and antisymmetrical buckling modes of a
PSSC. Although satisfactory results were obtained on the estimation of the critical load, it was later
shown that the post-buckling of PSSC could, in some cases, be stable and reach levels of ultimate
compressive strength much higher than the predicted critical load [3]. Osofero & Wadee [6]
conducted an experimental campaign where 3m long 3D-PSSC where tested up to failure and
compared it against numerical models. Initial pretension of stays and length of cross-arms were varied
to capture different buckling modes. On this basis, Wadee [5] proposed a general design procedure
for single cross-arm stayed columns, accounting for the post-buckling behaviour, and for different
levels of initial imperfection. This design procedure derives from [1] and assumes an elastic behaviour
of the PSSC up to failure. Results were validated against experimental and numerical data.

2 EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN
2.1 Specimen geometries
A total of 22 tests were conducted for this study. Columns, pinned at both ends, were tested under
pure compression. Of the 22 tests, 2 correspond to unstayed columns and 20 to PSSC, for which the
core material, cross-section, cable stiffness and the level of initial pretension were varied. The length
of core and cross-arms fixed at 12.0m (between pins) and 0.6m, respectively, as well as the cross-
arms cross-section (CHS 101.88.0), for all cases. The specimens were designed to buckle in the
symmetrical mode (Mode 1) and at a load not exceeding 250kN, which is the value that the reaction
system (see Fig. 1) may endure without compromising safety. The varied parameters and levels of
initial pretension are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Varied parameters in column geometry and initial pretention in stays
core stay nominal initial pretension
material
cross-section area in stays
2.0kN
47mm2 9.0kN
CHS 101.88.0 S690 4.0kN
89mm2 10.5kN
7.5kN
2.0kN
47mm2 10.5kN
CHS 139.76.3 S690 4.0kN
89mm2 14.0kN
7.5kN

2.2 Material testing

Tensile tests were conducted to assess columns base material mechanical properties. Three coupons
where extracted from each of the steel profiles composing cores and cross-arms, and machined to
6.26.2mm2 cross-sections according to ISO 6892-1 [7]. The tests were performed on a 20ton
Servosis hydraulic testing machine at and estimated rate of 6 MPa.s-1. Strains were measured by high-
capacity strain gauges and a clip extensometer, whereas the applied force was provided by the testing
machines load cell. Averaged results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of columns and cross-arms base materials (averages)
E sy su
provenience cross-section
[GPa] [MPa] [MPa]
CHS 101.88.0 202.93 809.80 855.78
core
CHS 139.76.3 210.23 819.13 853.04
cross-arm CHS 101.88.0 202.93 809.80 855.78

2.3 Stay testing

The stays applied to the columns were previously tested in elastic range to determine its axial
stiffness, accounting for the anchorages at ends. A stiff hollow profile was used to transfer the load
between the two anchoring points.

Fig. 1. Side view of stay testing set-up

The tensioning force was applied by a hollow 60ton hydraulic jack and the anchors are the same as
used during the test on the columns and force-displacement measured by a pair of the custom made
load cells and a pair linear transducers, one at each end, respectively. The test layout is illustrated in
Fig 1 and results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Mechanical properties of columns and cross-arms base materials (averages)
cross-section minimum Eapparent
cable nominal area breaking (average)
[mm2] load [kN] [GPa]
10mm 47 72 119.0
13mm 89 125 103.3

2.4 Column testing

2.4.1 Set-up overview

Column specimens were tested in the horizontal position (Fig 2a). They are supported by two reaction
frames and intermediate propping stations, adjustable in height (Fig 2b), inducing deflections through
the horizontal plane. Cores strains were measured by 32 strain gauges positioned along the column,
at 5 evenly spaced sections, while cross-arms strains were measured by 4 strain gauges (for each)
located at the cross-arm end connected to the core. From strain information, internal axial force and
bending moment in sections were extrapolated. The deflection of the core was measured by 9 linear
transducers and axial deformation by another two, one at each end.

a) b)
Fig. 2. a) General overview on the set-up (no propping stations showing); b) Propping station

2.4.2 Measuring specimens actual geometry

The actual geometry of specimens were surveyed prior to testing. The parameters not depending on
the contractor such as cross-sections diameter and thicknesses, as well as the core out of straightness,
were verified (lengths were controlled in fabrication, specified with small tolerances). The relevant
measured cross-section geometric properties are summarized in Table 4 and the imperfections profile
illustrated in Fig 3.

Fig. 3. Imperfection profiles of core elements

 Table 4. Cross-section sizes [mm]
core element dimension length length length
Dext [mm] 101.7 101.5 101.5
CHS 101.88.0
t [mm] 8.09 7.84 7.97
Dext [mm] 139.8 140.1 139.9
CHS 139.76.3
t [mm] 6.91 6.75 6.91

2.4.3 Application of prestress

The application of prestress was executed upon resetting the measuring system, with stays
disconnected from the anchorage system so that their selfweight is accounted for. The tension in each
of the eight stays was read by custom made (highly sensitive) 12ton load cells, with a maximum
estimated error of 3%, for an applied load of 10kN, with the goal of exerting the exact same pretension
in all stays. Finally, the external load was applied by a 90ton hydraulic jack, in displacement control,
and measured by a 40ton load cell at the opposite end of the column.

a)

b)
Fig. 4. Anchoring system: a) Hydraulic jack side; b) Load cell side

3 NUMERICAL MODELS
A small numerical study was conducted in order to compare the experimental results. For this
purpose, the numerical model was calibrated from results of PSSC tested in the lab (see section 4),
looking for the smallest error between all cases. Columns were modelled in the finite element
software ABAQUS [8]. Structural members subjected to bending were modelled with beam fibre
elements, which are capable of simulating distributed plasticity, and stays are modelled with no
compression option to mimic slaking. Materials were modelled with an isotropic elastic perfectly
plastic behaviour. PSSC numerical models are supported on pin-ended joints plus a nonlinear
rotational string (friction dependent, static friction coef. of 0.05) acting on the plane of buckling. The
column is also restricted to move in the perpendicular direction. Loading is applied in two steps:
pretensioning of stays (all at the same time); application of external load.

4 RESULTS
Results from experimental tests are summarized in Table 5, where information of unstayed and stayed
columns are grouped. On the left side, the buckling load of the unstayed column is compared to its
theoretical load. On the right side, the information about tested PSSC is presented, starting on the
initial tension in the stays, followed by the verification if zero tension in one of the stays occurred
prior to buckling, the load level at that moment, and maximum load reached during the test. Also, the
observed buckling mode shape is indicated at the last column. Fig 5 and Fig 6 illustratethe results in
terms of the maximum load carrying capacity of the PSSC divided by the unstayed critical load, for
different levels of prestress and including finite element analysis results.
 Fig. 5. Normalized buckling loads as function of initial prestress

Fig. 6. Normalized buckling loads as function of normalized initial prestress

Table 5. Summary of results and observations from experimental tests

unstayed column stayed column
theoretical measured stay T=0kN
core Tini P(T=0kN) Pmax
buckling buckling diameter prior to mode
[kN] [kN] [kN]
load [kN] load [kN] [mm] buckling?
2.00 No 71.63 136.10 symmetric
4.00 No 106.40 128.42 interactive
10 7.50 No 114.26 124.92 interactive
9.00 No 117.06 128.07 interactive
CHS 10.50 No 119.33 129.12 interactive
36.04 59.40
101.8x8.0 2.00 No 117.93 120.20 interactive
4.00 No --- 185.19 symmetric
13 7.50 No 141.52 157.80 interactive
9.00 No 148.16 156.89 interactive
10.50 No 149.56 163.71 interactive
2.00 Yes 124.75 132.09 symmetric
4.00 No 143.97 144.14 symmetric
10 7.50 No 158.74 167.20 symmetric
10.50 No 164.76 177.34 symmetric
CHS 14.00 No 168.60 189.39 symmetric
91.85 90.68
139.7x6.3 2.00 Yes 142.39 158.29 symmetric
4.00 Yes 161.79 164.58 symmetric
13 7.50 No 178.36 189.22 symmetric
10.50 No 187.82 196.56 symmetric
14.00 No 179.26 252.29 symmetric
5 CONCLUSIONS
Results from experimental and numerical data have fair agreement with exception for higher levels
of prestress. This may be due two reasons: 1) the friction found at hinges is an estimation and the
static friction coefficient may change during a test and from test to test; 2) at higher levels of prestress,
and as the prestress is not applied at once (there is an history of loading which is not considered in
the numerical study), the stress state of the several components may change as well as the
imperfection prior to buckling. Experimental tests have also shown the importance of initial
imperfection which is far from the classic sinusoidal half-wave, and this is specially observed in the
unstayed column CHS 101.8x8 regarding the experimental buckling load. When stays are applied and
prestressed, the imperfection profile changes and an interactive mode profile is more evident and
noticed in most tests at the maximum load.
Previous studies have focused on the definition of the buckling load when stays lose their initial
pretension. It was observed that, when the initial pretension is lower than the optimal pretension (see
[5]), the columns bending stiffness starts decreasing. Also, columns prestressed above the optimum
presetress level only exhibit loss of tension after big deformations, as expected. Nevertheless, the
maximum load was reached, in many cases, for values of Tini many times greater than the optimum,
whereas the available design methodologies indicate it would be lower. Further investigation is
needed to point out the exact cause of this dissimilarity.

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Communitys Research
Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) under grant agreement HILONG RFSR-CT-2012-00028.

REFERENCES
[1] Smith R. J., Ellis J. S. and McCaffrey G. T., 1975. Buckling of A Single-Crossarm Stayed Column,
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 101, pp. 249-268.
[2] Hafez H. H., Ellis J. S. and Temple M. C., 1979. Pretensioning of Single-Crossarm Stayed Columns,
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 105, pp. 359-375.
[3] Temple M. C., Prakash M. V. and Ellis J. S., 1984. Failure Criteria for Stayed Columns, Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 110, p. 2677.
[4] Saito D. and Wadee M. A., 2008. Post-buckling behaviour of prestressed steel stayed columns,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 1224-1239.
[5] Wadee M. A., Gardner L. and Osofero A. I., 2013. Design of prestressed stayed columns, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 80, p. 287298.
[6] Osofero A. I., Wadee M. A. and Gardner L., 2012. Experimental study of critical and post-buckling
behavior of prestressed stayed columns, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 79, pp. 226-
241.
[7] International Standard, ISO 6892-1:2009 Metallic materials - Tensile testing - Part 1: Method of test at
room temperature, ISO, Geneva.
[8] Dassault Systmes, SIMULIA Abaqus 6.13-2, 2013.