Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
of Beams and
Frames
CIVL454 Structures 2 Laboratory Report
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction..................................................................................................... 2
2.
3.
4.
Discussion................................................................................................. 3
Aim............................................................................................................ 3
3.2.
3.3.
Test Results............................................................................................... 5
3.4.
Analytical Results...................................................................................... 6
3.5.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Experimental Collapse
Load
Theoretical Collapse
Load
22.00
7 8 9 101112
Group Number
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
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
(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
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
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:
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