Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Group for Research in Structural Engineering, Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, cole Polytechnique de Montral, Montral, QC, Canada
article
info
Article history:
Received 30 April 2010
Accepted 25 October 2010
Keywords:
Buckling
Column
Earthquakes
Initial imperfections
Local buckling
Residual stresses
Strain rate
Yielding
abstract
Compression buckling tests were performed on four full-scale W-shaped column specimens to investigate
the buckling response of columns in multi-storey braced steel frame structures subjected to seismic
strong ground motions. The test protocols included monotonically and cyclically applied concentric and
eccentric axial loading. One test was conducted under dynamic cyclic loading. End moments were applied
on one cyclic test. The columns were W310 129 compact (class 1) sections made with ASTM A992 steel.
Weak axis buckling was studied and the column had an effective slenderness ratio of 48. The response
of the test columns was also examined using numerical simulations based on fibre discretization of
the member cross-section. Column residual stresses and strain rate effects on the material properties
were both characterized and accounted for in the numerical models. The study showed that steel
columns can sustain several cycles of inelastic buckling under seismic induced loading while maintaining
sufficient compressive resistance to support the applied gravity loads. Residual stresses affected the
column response only at the first buckling occurrence with a gradual reduction of the columns tangent
stiffness prior to buckling as well as a reduction of the columns compressive resistance. High strain
rates anticipated during strong earthquakes increased the column buckling and post-buckling strengths.
The cyclic buckling response of steel columns can be predicted adequately when using nonlinear
beamcolumn elements and cross-section fibre discretization provided that residual stresses and strain
rate effects are included in the modelling.
2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd
1. Introduction
Large axial compression loads are expected to develop in
columns of concentrically braced steel frames as a result of
bracing members developing their probable compressive and
tensile resistances when the structure is subjected to seismic
strong ground motions [1]. Similarly, the yielding of link beams
in eccentrically braced steel frames also induces high compression
axial forces in columns. Capacity design requirements have been
introduced in code seismic provisions to ascertain that the columns
are provided with sufficient strength to support their tributary
gravity loads together with the axial loads from the yielding
components of the system [24]. In multi-storey buildings, the
column design axial load at a given level is obtained by summing up
the contribution of all yielding braces or links above the level under
consideration, leading to very high axial loads in the columns that
may considerably affect the overall cost of structures.
In reality, such large seismic axial load peak demands are
expected to occur only a few times and to last for very short
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 819 821 7704; fax: +1 819 821 7974.
E-mail address: charles-philippe.lamarche@usherbrooke.ca (C.-P. Lamarche).
1402
Table 1
Buckling test program.
Test
Type
Loading rate
Loading
1
2
3
4
Monotonic
Cyclic
Cyclic
Cyclic
Quasi-static
Quasi-static
Dynamic
Quasi-static
Central
Central
Central
Eccentric
methodology requires a good understanding of the buckling response of columns under constant gravity loads and repeated additional compression due to seismic effects, together with robust
numerical models that can reliably reproduce this behaviour. The
nonlinear beamcolumn element with cross-section fibre discretization available in the OpenSees framework [9,10] has been
used successfully to reproduce the cyclic buckling and tension
yielding response of steel bracing members [1113]. That model
does not include residual stress effects. While residual stresses
have limited effects on brace inelastic cyclic response and can be
neglected if properly dealt with at the macroscopic level, they can
lead to reductions of up to 30% of the compressive strength of structural steel columns made of shapes or built-up steel members [14],
sufficient to make the difference as to whether or not a column
will buckle under seismic loading. Lamarche and Tremblay [6,7]
implemented residual stress effects in the OpenSees model and
validated the implementation based on past compression tests on
steel columns subjected to monotonic loading. Validation was still
needed however for columns subjected to a cyclic buckling demand, including dynamic effects, as expected under seismic loading conditions.
This paper presents a test program that was carried out on
four full-scale W-shaped steel columns that were subjected to
four different displacement protocols producing inelastic buckling.
Ancillary tests were conducted to obtain material properties
under static and dynamic loading. The residual stresses were
also measured using the sectioning method. The response of
the column specimens was reproduced using the OpenSees
nonlinear beam column including residual stresses. The axial
loaddeformation response, member end rotations and strain
demand at critical locations are compared. The strain rate effects
were evaluated using a fibre cross-section analysis program. The
prediction of residual stress effects on column buckling strength
with the OpenSees model are also validated against data from past
tests on I-shaped built-up steel columns.
2. Test program
2.1. Objective and scope
In order to investigate the effects of residual stress and high
strain rates on the pre- and post-buckling compressive cyclic behaviour of steel columns, full-scale centrally and eccentrically
loaded column tests were performed. Four identical class 1 (compact) W310 129 columns made of ASTM A992 steel (Fy =
345 MPa) and 3725 mm tall were tested. The section and height
of the specimens corresponded to typical storey heights encountered in braced steel framed buildings. The four buckling tests
performed are summarized in Table 1. The experimental program
included one monotonic quasi-static centrally loaded buckling test,
one cyclic quasi-static centrally loaded buckling test, one cyclic dynamic centrally loaded buckling test, and, finally, one cyclic quasistatic eccentrically loaded buckling test.
Test 1 was performed according to Technical Memorandum #4
of the Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures [15].
It aimed at obtaining the monotonic buckling curve of the W310
129 profile. Test 2 aimed at comparing the cyclic inelastic buckling
curve to the buckling envelope obtained in Test 1. In Test 3, the
same cyclic displacement protocol as in Test 2 was applied but at
Fig. 1. Test set-up: (a) testing apparatus, (b) strain gauges pattern at quarterheight and mid-height, (c) instrumentation. Two rows of potentiometers (four
in total).
1403
Table 2
Tensile coupon test results.
Test
h (%)
n (%)
max (%)
Fy (MPa)
Fu (MPa)
f1
f2
Average
1.7
1.9
1.8
22
20
21
30
27
29
370
372
371
516
504
510
w1
w2
Average
2.7
2.3
2.5
21
21
21
27
27
27
349
351
350
454
452
453
Fy
Fy
= 1 + m log
| |
0
(d)
(1)
a
b
Fig. 2. (a) Measured residual stress values; (b) initial out-of-straightness (weak axis).
1404
b
b
Fig. 3. Effect of the strain rate on the magnitude of Fy : (a) linear scale; (b) log10
scale.
Fy
Fy
= 1 + Ae(B/Fy )
(2)
where
A = a1 + b1 log( ) + c1 log2 ( )
(3)
B = a2 + b2 log( ) + c2 log ( ).
(4)
Fig. 4. Residual stress pattern used for the analyses; (b) coupon test result used to
calibrate hysteretic parameters [24].
Fig. 5. Test 1: (a) Axial load vs. axial displacement; (b) Axial load vs. out-of-plane
displacement at column mid-height.
1405
Fig. 6. Strains at the flange tips at the column mid-height (Test 1).
Fig. 7. Axial load vs. average strain at h/2 on: (a) the compression side and (b) the tension side. Influence of the strain-hardening parameter b on the axial load vs. average
strain response at h/2 on: (c) the compression side and (d) the tension side.
1406
and (b) show the strains at mid-height. The results from the
numerical model begin to diverge from the measured response
at a load of 4300 kN in the post-peak region. This coincides
with initiation of yielding on the convex side and, thereby, the
beginning of plastic rotation in the plastic hinge at the column
mid-height. The differences can be partly explained by the fact
that no imperfections other than initial out-of-straightness in the
plane of buckling were included in the finite element model. More
importantly, strain-hardening plays a key role in the amplitude
of strains in plastic hinge regions, as well as on the length of the
plastic hinge. Therefore, the properties assumed in the numerical
model may also have contributed to the divergence of the strain
results at the column mid height. To illustrate the sensitivity
of the strain prediction to assumptions made for the strainhardening parameter, additional simulations were performed
using parameter b = 0 (no kinematic strain-hardening) and b =
0.01 (higher kinematic strain-hardening). The simulation results
are presented in Fig. 7(b) and (c), where it is clear that strainhardening plays a key role on the amplitude and distribution of the
inelastic demand in the plastic hinge region: a higher kinematic
hardening ratio reducing the peak demand at the column midheight to the level observed by spreading the inelastic demand over
a longer column segment (longer plastic hinge region).
Fig. 8. Test 2 at the end of test: (a) Overall buckled shape, (b) Flange local buckling
at column mid-height.
Fig. 9. Test 2: (a) Axial load vs. axial displacement, (b) Axial load vs. out-of-plane
displacement at h/2, and (c) Strains measured on the interior and exterior sides of
the flange tips at h/2.
This occurred after the 2nd (gauges #7 and 8) and 3rd (gauges #5
and 6) loading cycles, at strains of 0.019 and 0.024, respectively,
which approximately corresponds to 1013 times the actual flange
steel yield strain (= 371 MPa/200 000 MPa = 0.00186). Such a
good local buckling response
was expected as the column flange
1407
c
Fig. 10. Comparison between Test 1 and Test 2 (a): Axial-load vs. applied
displacement; (b) Axial load vs. average strain on compression and tension sides
at h/2.
Fig. 11. (a) Axial load vs. applied displacement in Tests 2 and 3; Strain rates
measured at column mid-height in: (b) Test 3 and (c) Test 2.
Fig. 12. Axial load vs. average strain on the compression and tension sides at
column mid-height in Tests 2 and 3.
away from the centre of the column. In Fig. 12, the compression
strain demand at the column mid-height is also significantly
reduced when higher strain rates are applied. This trend does not
seem to exist on the tension side but one strain gauge on this side
started malfunctioning after the third cycle, at 7500 (11 mm
axial displacement), and formal conclusions cannot be drawn on
this aspect.
As an attempt to model the effect of strain rates at the material
level on the column strength, the Steel02 base code was modified
to account for the shift in the yield envelope at each time step
of the analysis as a function of the measured stain-rate history.
Eq. (1) with the updated parameters: m = 0.00225 and 0 = 200
106 s1 was used in the numerical simulations. The modified
Steel02 material with residual stress and strain rate capabilities
was introduced in the RD-SAP (Rate Dependent Sectional Analysis
Program) sectional analysis tool that was specifically developed
for this study. RD-SAP is a standalone program coded in the
Matlab language that is independent of the OpenSees software. The
program is based on the EulerBernoulli plane section hypothesis
and uses fibre sections. The axial strain and curvature responses
measured in Test 3 were used as input in RD-SAP to compute the
resisting axial load and bending moment histories. The parameters
used to model the steel material were the same as in the
1408
b
b
Fig. 14. Test 4. (a): Axial load vs. applied displacement; (b) Axial load vs. out-ofplane displacement at h/2.
Fig. 13. Responses obtained from the RD-SAP models: (a) resisting axial load vs.
applied axial displacement history, (b) resisting moment vs. curvature history.
1409
Fig. 16. (a) Residual stress pattern of the 14H202 profile. Model vs. test results [6]: (b) stub column test; (c) centrally loaded column tests: KL/r = 60 and 90.
reached. In Fig. 14, the numerical models overpredicted the column resistance in the post-buckling range. Local buckling effects
are not accounted for in the OpenSees fibre cross-section model.
Further study is needed to investigate if the observed difference
can be attributed to this modelling simplification.
5. Columns made from welded flame-cut steel plates
To further examine the capability to predict the pre- and
post-buckling behaviour of steel columns including initial stress
effects, predictions with the OpenSees model were also validated
against data from tests performed on 14H202 columns at Lehigh
University [27]. The test columns were made of ASTM A572
(grade 50) welded flame-cut steel plates. The experimental study
included residual stress measurements, tensile coupon tests to
determine the base yield stress, stub column tests on short
columns, and pin-ended centrally loaded tests on columns having
slenderness ratios KL/r of 60 and 90. The measured residual
stresses and cross-section dimensions of the 14H202 columns
along with the residual stress pattern used in the finite element
model are presented in Fig. 16(a). The column cross-section was
modelled using 100 fibres, 40 for the flanges and 20 for the
web, and 8 elements were used along the column height, with
4 integration points per element. The end conditions were taken
as pinnedpinned and an initial half-sine wave profile was used
to represent the column out-of-straightness [6]. The simulation
results for the stub column test are presented in Fig. 16(b) for
two cases: with and without residual stresses. The softening effect
upon yielding due to the residual stresses is well predicted by the
model. In Fig. 16(c), the numerical results are compared to the
measurements taken during the two centrally loaded column tests.
Buckling developed about the column weak axis in both tests. The
same failure mode was observed in the simulations and a very good
correlation is achieved between test and numerical results when
including residual stresses in the analyses.
1410
post-buckling behaviour of the columns studied was not influenced by the imposed inelastic cyclic displacements. These results suggest that steel columns with class 1 (compact) I-shaped
sections may be able to accommodate limited yielding excursions and inelastic buckling occurrences during an earthquake
without adverse loss in the load carrying capacity.
The increase of steel yield strength due to high strain rates
could be characterized through dynamic ancillary coupon tests.
Comparison of the quasi-static and dynamic cyclic column tests
showed that high strain rates resulted in an increased column
buckling and post-buckling compressive strength. Numerical
simulations showed that this increase was due to the increased
axial and flexural resistance of the column in the plastic hinge
region that resulted from the strain rate increase in yield
strength in the plastic hinge region.
In the centrally loaded cyclic tests, local flange buckling
developed in the plastic hinge region at large inelastic column
axial displacements corresponding to an axial ductility of 1.7.
When end moments were applied in the test, local flange
buckling occurred before global buckling of the column.
The OpenSees model with residual effects was capable of
reproducing the buckling and post-buckling response of
W-shaped and built-up I-shaped steel columns in monotonic
tests and quasi-static cyclic tests. The numerical model showed
that residual stresses reduce the compressive resistance of
columns, especially at the first buckling. Residual stress effects
tend to gradually diminish in the post-buckling range, which
suggests that they may not be critical for prediction of the
collapse of structures once the column capacity is exceeded. The
comparison between numerical and experimental results also
showed that the kinematic strain-hardening ratio specified in
the numerical model plays a key role on the strain response in
the plastic hinge region of columns.
The fibre cross-section model used in the OpenSees model did
not account for strain rate effects on the yield strength and
local buckling of the column cross-section elements. In the test
program, strain rate effects on the column compressive strength
were found to be significant and the model should be modified
to account for these effects so that more realistic predictions
of the seismic response of braced steel frames could be
obtained when an inelastic response is expected in the bracing
members and columns. Comparison between the numerical
and experimental results indicated that local buckling had
negligible effects on the post-buckling strength of the columns
studied when centrally loaded, but that these effects could be
more pronounced under combined axial and bending moments.
Incorporating local buckling effects in the OpenSees model
would therefore represent a useful implementation.
In future studies, the numerical models should be validated
against experimental data where axially loaded columns are
simultaneously submitted to transverse displacements, as is
the case in actual braced frame structures subjected to strong
seismic events.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada, the Fonds
Qubcois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
(FQRNT) and Canada Foundation for Innovation. The authors wish