N o n f i n e a r analysis o f h o l l o w - s e c t i o n e d structures." S. K i t i p o r n c h a i et al.

I.O , , 1.0 i I I I l I I l ~p I
I I I I
2 0 5 x 2 0 5 x 6.3 SHS
L/r = 65.7 b/t= 3 0 . 3
20 -L.
6
0.8
-T
~ No residual
stresses

I
08

0.6
,~,~

o/
~ 1203_1

L/,- ~65.7 ._J

04

06t
cL~
\
With
residual
stresses
Local
I buckling
! in tests
--

0.2
/~ Conc.loaded
loaded
_
Eecen

e/L = O.OOI
-- - This paper
L/r = 95.7

1
Q" I zx D/ zx o Tests, Key and Hancock 6

0.4 I I I I I I I I I
0 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 I O x l O -2
I o Leteral deflection, 6/L

Figure 9 Comparison of theoretical and experimental axial load-

lateral deflection curves for 203 x 203 x 6.3 SHS cold-formed
o2F =0 e,L
=0.001 columns with L/r = 65.7 and 95.7
This paper
Tests 6 to trace out the column load~leflection curves. Theoreti-
cal and experimental maximum loads are compared in
ol / I I I I I I I Table 1 for both the concentric and the eccentric load
0 4 8 12 16
cases. In the computation, the idealized bending residual
Axial shortening, A (mm) stress distribution shown in Figure lb and the measured
Figure 7 Comparison of theoretical and experimental axial load- average yield stress for each particular section 6 were used.
shortening curves for 203 x 203 x 6.3 SHS cold-formed columns It can be seen that agreement between present theory and
with L/r = 65.7
experiments for most cases is very good, and only in two
cases did the differences between theory and experiment
exceed 10 %.
Maximum loads for all the tested columns are com-
pared with theoretical maximum load curves and SSRC
column design curves 1, 2 and 311 in Figure 10. The results
are non-dimensionalized with respect to the theoretical
1.0 I I I I I I I I stub column load, Q/Pry. Here, Qs is the Q-factor as
recommended by the AIS~ Specification 38 and based on
I
--
203 x 2 0 3 x 6.5 SHS
L/c = 95.7
the average face yield stress, ~rr/, and Pyl is the yield load
based on the gross cross-sectional area A and the average
e/L e/L face yield stress arI" It can be seen that theoretical and
0.8 =O =0.OOI
experimental maximum strengths of all columns lie above
This poper
SSRC curve 2. However, for stocky columns (~QsPr~/PE
A O Tests 6 less than about 0.7), the results are even above SSRC
curve 1. The results support Key and Hancock's recom-
mendations 6 of adopting a mean curve between 1 and 2,
0.61 ~P ~A . No residual -- using a value of 'c' of - 0 . 5 in the Rotter's column curve
formula. 13

Nonlinear behaviour of parabolic fixed end arches

0.4 -
I Geometric and material nonlinear behaviour of parabolic
With fixed end arches made of fabricated thin-walled rectangu-
residual lar hollow sections has been studied by Yabuki et al. 39
stresses
using the finite element technique. Basic assumptions used
0.2 are similar to those outlined in this paper, including the
effects of finite deformations, strain-unloading and resid-
ual stresses due to welding. The parabolic arch analysed
by Yabuki et al. is shown in Figure 11. The arch is
oK i i i i i i i subjected to unsymmetrical distributed loads, q and aq
0 4 8 12 16 (0 ~<a ~< 1.0). The elastic and the inelastic load versus
Axial shortening, A (mm) vertical deflection curves at the quarter point (point A)
Figure 8 Comparison of theoretical and experimental axial load-
under varying load intensity ratios, a, have been obtained
shortening curves for 203 x 203 x 6.3 SHS cold-formed columns using 20 straight elements to model the arch. Unfortun-
with L/r = 95.7 ately, the results presented in Figure 2 of Reference 39

Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, January 19