2, PLASTIC CAPACITY OF BEAMS AND FRAMESi CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Li 13 PRINCIPLES OF ULTIMATE LOAD DESIGN .. 1.1.1 General Design Procedure .. 1d a sve 42 1.1.2. Design Loads and Strengths in the Ultimate Limit State... 1.3 1.1.3 Sub-Division and Use of Partial Factors. 16 1.1.4 Load Effects pated _ 17 1.1.5. Combination of Loads 19 FABRICATION FACTORS AFFECTING STRENGTH ..... Ld 1:21 Mechanical Properties of Ste€l accesso. LAL 1.2.2 Residual Stresses .. pee ae 1.2.3 Variation in Yield Stress over Cross Seotion 1.2.4 Geometric Imperfections . - LIS BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS IN ‘THE ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE ...... 1.37 1.3.1 Members under Axial Loads 1.38 1.3.2 Flexural Members a 1.42 2. PLASTIC CAPACITY OF BEAMS AND FRAMES 21 2.3 BEAMS UNDER TRANSVERSE LOADING 24.1 Introduction ....... 2.1.2 Simple Plastic Theory .... 2A ate 2.24% 2.1.3, Moment Capacity .. «24 se 2.1.4 The Mechanism Method for Beams . 21S 0% 2.1.5 The Bound Theorems. 2.25% 2.1.6 Examples of Application of the Bound Theorsans 23 hey PLASTIC HINGE THEORY FOR FRAMES | 2.2.1 The Mechanism Method Applied on Frames, Illustration by a Portal Frame set eeenseans J 2.2.2 General Procedure for Plastic Hinge Analysis of Frames PLASTIC CROSS-SECTIONAL CAPACITIES FOR AXIAL LOAD, xx SHEAR AND TORSION .. a 2.3.1 Plastic Axial Load 2.3.2 Shear Capacity .. 2.3.3 Torsional Capacityvin 2.4 PLASTIC CAPACITIES UNDER COMBINED LOADING w.ssoon 2.54 4.1 Bending and Axial Load 3. PLATES UNDER LATERAL LOADS 3.1 PLASTIC COLLAPSE OF HORIZONTALLY FREE PLATE ELEMENTS: : 3. 3.1. Simply Supported Plate. 32 3.1.2 Clamped Plate 3.5 3.2, INFLUENCE OF MEMBRANE FORCES ON THE PLASTIC CAPACITY OF PLATES... ve 36 Simply Supported Plete-Stip with Horizontally Fixed Ends 3.6 2. Use of the Principle of Virtual Work on a Sin Plate-Strip under Concentrated Load 3. Simply Supported Plate-Strip under Distributed Load .~ 4 Clamped Plate-Strip. Horizontally Fixed 5 Load-Deflection Relation for PateStip with Partial End Fixity ..... ‘| 3.16 ly Supported 3.2.6 Nonlinear Analysis of a Ro/ro Deck 18 4. APPLICATION OF PLASTIC METHODS IN THE STUDY OF COLLISION PROBLEMS 4.1 INTRODUCTION cone . Al 4.2. FUNDAMENTALS OF IMPACT ANALYSIS Heed 4.2.1 Impact Geometry. 43 4.2.2. Energy Absorption 45 4.2.3 Simplified Impact Model 46 4.2.4. Estimation of Impact Duration 49 4.3, IMPACT CAPACITIES OF STEEL JACKETS ws we 412 43.1 Type of Damage Sere rece etal 4.3.2 Local Damage of Bracing/Lee 44 43.21 Ring Models - 4.15 43.2.2 Indentation Models... we 419 Global Deformation of Bracing/Leg ADA Capacities of Tubular Joints 4.30 4.3.4.1. Ultimate Strength of T-Joins in Compression 4.33 43.4.2. Ultimate Strength of T-Joints in Tension 4.35 4.3.4.3 Ultimate Strength of Y-Joints 4.37 4344 Ubimete Strength of In-Plane K-Joints me 4.39 43.4.5 Uttimate Strength of XJoInts rane 441wv In the conven! nal elastic linear model of design "£irgt vieja” is used as criterion for the load-carrying capacity of fiexaral members, However, it is well known that even in the service- ability state most steel structures undergo local yielding due to the presence of zesidual stresses. the ductility of steel makes a yedistribution of stresses possible to take place even vnder normal use. The idea behind the ultimate limit state design is to make the criteria for maximum load more realistic in the sense that they simulate better the real behaviour of structures during collapse. instead of operating with "allowable stresses" as in elastic linear design, the safety pequirements are incorporated in the desicn loads so that the structural resistance that comes out of | # design analysis equals (with some inaccuracy) the real collapse toad. Thus, for bending problems, mechanism models must be studied allowing for the xedistriburion of stresses that takes place duzing formation of plastic hinges in the real structure. Fig. 2.1 Formation of plastic hinges + Elastic bending Fiat yield Fell plastficotion of eres section 1. Plastic mechanisen Moment distbution a eallapeFig. 2.1 is an illustration of the growth of plastic zones in an statically indeterminate beam. At stage a) the beam is elastic and the moment distriburion @beys the elastic linear theory. The "first yiela" level at b) is corresponds to the configuration at which yielding occurs in the outer fibres of the section with largest value of bending moment. From this stage on, a redistri- bution of moments alang the beam takes place in the sense that the yielded section carries a relatively smaller amount of moment and more of the load is transmitted to the central support B. Full plastification uader the point load is obtained in configur- ation c). THe vertical reaction at point A is given by Ry= 2M,/2 where M, denotes the plastic moment capacity of the cross section. ; A plastic mechanism im- By further loading R, remains constai plying structural collapse is obtained in configuration 4d when full plastification occurs in cross section B. The ultimate load is found from Pig. 2.1 e to be 6M, po -«—P (2.1) Simple Plastic Theory. In the subsequent derivations the material is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic as indicated in Fig.2.2. oA Oy pp A : fh Unloading E I tee Fig. 2.2. Elastic-perfectly plastic material behaviour. Residual stresses are not considered since they have po influenge nthe plastic capacity in one-dimensional, problems, Fig. 2.3 proves this conclusion.a, Stress ~ free b. Equilibrium Rotation @it © op _ Z @+t it ° Tes ; ity Pmt icici end + @ - 5 Tension Max. mom, ~No residual ae a Residual stresses included d. Stress versus rotation e. Moment versus rotation Fig. 2.3 Effect of residual stresses on moment capacity. Pig. 2.3 a is a model of a "cross section" consisting of four "fibres". Case a) is a stress-free state. Residual stresses are accounted for by making the two inner bars shorter. When en- forcing strain compatibility the equilibrium model of case b) comes up with tensile residual stresses in the inner bars and compressive stresses in the outer bars. In case c) a moment M is applied to the section. the corresponding rotation is denoted ©. the purpose of this consideration is now to study the effect of residual stresses on the moment capacity of the section. the separate bars are supposed to obey the elastic~ perfectly plastic material behaviour. In diagram d. the stresses in the four bars are plotted against rotation (curvature).Hlaf of the yield stress is given as residual stresses. The difference in slope of the elastic part of the curves relates to the difference in distance from neutral axis.mark © along horisontal axis instead of strain ¢ + Prom the material curves in case d) the moment/rotation (M/0) diagram with solid line in Fig. 2.3 @ is developed. The M/@ ~ diagram is also plotted for the ideal case with no residual stresses. The conclusion from this mechanical odel consideration is that residual stresses have influence on the moment/curvature_xelation- ehinorior to collapse, However, the capacity of the cross section in the ultimate limit state is not affected. This is of importance in the further study of plastic hinge theory. Consider the simply supported beam under a concentrated load in Fig. 2.4. yr iH eee I Esto pene ceaion wee ee, —— Elastic b. Cunoture Plostie 1 Floste shape Plottic shape €. Deflection Prioe to fist viele At ful plastificatien Fig. 2.4. Elasto-plastic bending of b2am. APthis is a statically determinate system and the moment curve is given by the triangulated form in Pig. 2.4a also after plastifi-~ cation has occured. In Fig. 2.4b the corvature along the beam is indicated. While the beam is purely elastic the curvature in any cross section of the beam is given by the ratio hve (2.2) BF where EI now denotes the elastic cross-sectional stiffness (elasticity modulus multiplied by moment of inertia, unit Nan). However, after yielding in the central region of the beam, the moment/eurvature relationship ig no longer linear in this part as indicated by the solid line in Fig. 2.4b. As full plastification is obtained under the concentrated load P, the curvature in this cross section tends towards infinity. he concentration of curvature in the central yielded region is also indicated by the deflection curve in Fig. 2.4c (solid line). It is seen that as full plastification a mechanism with a plastic hinge in t A detailed description of the growth of yielding under the concen- trated load P is given in Ffg. 2.5. Case a) is the level of loading at which first yield occurs in the outer fibres. the stress develops the beam turns into centre. distribution over the height is linear elastic. Im case b) the cross section is partly yielded. The axial stress is constant over the plastic fibres and linear over the remaining elastic zone. Sase_c) indicates full plastification in the central cross section. At this stage a plastic hinge is formed under the load P and the beam turns into a mechanism. No extra Joad res ve_can be gained So that this situation represents the _xeal physical the structure. In the following the plastic moment capacity will be calculated for the most actual type of profiles. va, M % Tue ratio between plastic and elastic Section modulus is termed Ahawe factor, and denoted a. From Eqs. (2.4, 2-5) a for a rectangu~ lar section becomes a = 1.50. Tis shape factor a is also equal to the ratio between the plastic moment capacity Mand the nonentat first wield Mu, MN, ae. (2.6) yep Consider next the square tube section of Fig. 2.7 with uniform say wall thickness. + t< (2.41) Compatibility: wy = 2a8) (2.42) Combination of Eqs. (2.40, 2.42) and equating external work to internal work result in a collapse load for machanism I of magni- tude25P (2.43) , Loading b. Mechanism 1 cc. Mechanism I Fig. 2.18 Expected mechanisms for beam under concentrated loads. For mechanism IT the same expressions read External work : Wy = (2.44) Internal Work : Wy = (2.45) Compatibility : wo = juste (2-46) The predicted collapse load from mechanism II becomes ett eu (mechanism IZ) (2.47) c Fr a i 7 The lowest value comes ot of mechanism II and it is likely to assume this to be the actual collapse load. But no argument for choosing the lowest value among the kinematically calculated results has yet been stated.co. Loading b, Loading moment for mechanism | D (128, eitatdhagi abd 1.125 M P Meet c. Bending moment for mechanism Il Fig.2.19 Bending moment diagrams. An interesting aspect arises when tracing the bending moment deagrams for the two mechanisms. Fig. 2.19b gives the moment variation along the beam according to the assumptions in mecha~ nism I. The moment equals M, at the plastic hinges A and c. However, it is seen that the value at point C exceeds the plastic section capacity M,. Therefore, mechanism I represents an inad- missible state. For mechanism II the bending moment is shown in Fig. 2.19c with seen to lie within Kk value M, at hinges A and C. ie diagram the cross-sectional capacity. Thus, mechanism II is both a ically and a _kinemticatty adinis seidte collapse mechanism ana it must therefore be the actual collapse mechanism for the beam considered. ate The last example together with Table 2.2 demonstrate that the incorrect mechanisms give a load greater that the true plastic collapse load. It can be proved that this is always true. Thus, the first theorem, related to the various kinematically admissible mechanisms of a structure reads| Aide’ bres z ‘ | Uppex - Bound Theorem: Consider a beam subject to a given | set of loads. Of all the kinematically admissible | mechamisms that can be formed, all but the correct |) Mechanism of collapse give loads greater than the true || coltapse oad. ¥ @ importance og this theorem is ecident. It states that if all possible collapse mechanisms of a structure have been analysed, the actual collapse load is the lowest of all the calculated values. Lb bs The second theoren is related to the requirement of statical equilibrium. Generally, several distributions of bending moment along a beam exist that satisfy the equilibrium equations (note that the kinematical boundary conditions are not considered). SS SS Se Rountary conditions are not cons idere: This will now be demonstrated for the beam in Fig. 2.18. /e¢éer yer \" Loading € D rea Fig. 2.20 Statically admissible moment diagrams. PConsidering Fig. 2.20 the assumed variation of the bending moment diagram is given in Fig. 2.205. The equilibrium equations for the beam read 7 “) vertical equilibrium: MytigtMy = 2,5 Pa (2.48) Moment equilibrium: — M,+3%) = 2,5 Pa (2.49) om, she Combination of Eqs. (2.48, 2.49) results in fpr Lll, 35h My = 3,5 Pa ~ 3M (2.50) Mg = -Pa + 2M) Mp: 092g Me O8Pa 4 (2.51) My = 08 Pe, Figs. 2.20 ¢,d,e show the moment distributions alfhg the beam for My = Pa, 0,9Pa and 0,8 Pa, respectively. It must be required that the maximum moment for each case does not exceed the plastic mom- ent capacity H,. This leads to collapse loads P, = M,/a, 1,11 Mo/a and 0,91 M,/a for case c, d and e in Fig. 2.20. Tt is seen that” all these values are helow the actual collapse load of P. = 1,14 M,/a as given in Bg. (2.47). The present consideration states el . seconditheseons Ab alk Hate Medel onernierfeshe a View? Ap Mdel 22, Zilte) ae atte Lower - Bound Theorem: Consider a'beam subjected to a ae set Of loads. Of all the statically admissible moment distribu- tions for which the moment nowhere exceeds M,, all but the correct moment distribution give loads less than the true collapse load. Unveutif di. pelche. anener eh hy Me 7 vo Oia. Geaé ~ Darren. hetaldale The two theorems can now be combined to ‘form a uniqueness theorem for selecting the true collapse load: BE 4.6, Mig fo her ggnedy Uniqueness Theonen Ws ho , Headend’ Ged aS Herat: nsider a bean subjected toa given s8t of loads. If a kinematically admissible mechanism is found, and the corresponding statical admissible moment distri- bution nowhere exoceds the plastic capacity N,, the calculate pa is one. true ee ae i 4 ge yl f ba fount fos These Eheorene in Refs. [2.1, 2.2, 2.31. o: okThe present section demonstrates som applications of the theorems on typical beam problems. wo-Span Beam with Variable Cross Section. \r Jose Leading Machenism 1 Mechenisrn tt | Mechentien Il Fig. 2.21 Two-Span beam with variable cross section under concen~ trated loads. The first example concerns a two-span beam with different plastic moment capacity for the two spans, given by N, and 0,5 M,, respectively. The loading consists of a concentrated load centrally in each span as shown in Fig. 2.2la. When considering the actual beam the mechanisms seem to be rele- vant. These are given in Figs. 2.21 b, c, d. The calculation of plastic collapse loads implies the lowing equations: Mes I External wor! Wy = Pad (2.52)Internal work: W, M,°2640,5M,-6 ip 20+0-SM, Wy = 2,5M,°6 (2.53) i 4 ", implies: pT = 2,5 22 (2.54) Mechanism II External work: We = 0,6 Pad (2.55) Internal work: W. 0,5 M (9428 ip (9#28) 1,5 M8 (2-56) We = Wy = 2,5 (2.57) External work: We = Paé - 0,6 Pad Wee 0,4 Paé (2.58) +20 4+ 0,5 M-2 Internal My 8 3 M9 (2.59) eee TIT My os Wy implies: PMT. 7,5 2 (2.60) It is seen that mechanism I and II give the same collapse load. Mechanism III gives the highest value, namely P, = 7.5 M/a versus 2.5 M,/a for mechanism I and II. According to the upper~ bound theorem mechanism III is excluded as the actual collapse mechanism. The distributions of bending moment along the beam are shown in Fig. 2.22. The variation of moment for mechanism I and II lies within the cross-sectional capacity. In accordance with the uniqueness theorem it may be concluded that the load P, = 2.5 M,/a obtained by mechanism T and mechanism II is the true collapse load of the beam.Pp a. Moment distribution for mechanism I and I] b. Moment distribution for mechanism If Fig. 2.22 Bending moment distributions. Prom Fig. 2.22 it is also clear that the bending moment for mechanism III for exceeds the plastic capacity and that mechanism ITI therefore represents an unreal type of collapse. Example 2.2: wo-Spam Beam under Opposite Loads py -~yprameretanunenraneer “voreemseren. ttectar feat 7 t 2° ° e172 5 b. Mechanism T zo hj Mechanism TLConsider the two-span beam in Fig. 2.23a. The loading consists ef opposite concentrated loads at each midspan of magnitude P and 2P, respectively. The cross section of the beam is supposed to be constant. The three possible mechanisms of collapse are indicated in Pigs. 2.23 byc,d. The expressions for external and internal work per- formed during plastic deformation read Nechanism 7 External work: W, = Pao (2.61) Internal work: Wy = 34,0 (2.62) ‘ rept W, = Wy implies: P, (2.63) Mechanism IZ External work: W, = 2P-30 = (2.64) Internal work: Wy = 4M.6 (2.65) ie 7 Wy implies: PLT 452 (2.66) Mechanism III External work: WN, = P-ac+2P$o W, = 2P,6 (2.67) Internal work: Wj = 54,0 (2.68) (om i rir £4 sip) Wy = W, implies: P, 2,52 } (2.69) Mechanism IIT comes out with the lowest predicted collapse load. However, to be sure that this is the actual collapse load the bending moment diagram must be traced. According to the uniqueness theorem the bending moment should no’ exe exceed M,. From Fig. 2.24 it is seen that this requirement is satisfied. The true collapse load for the beam considered is thereZore P, = 2,5 Masa Se° Collops? load Bending mernent diograra Fig. 2.24 Bending moniént diagram. 2.2 PLASTIC HINGE THEORY FOR FRAMES Extension of the procedure discussed in Sections 2.1.4 - 2.1.6 to frames is straight forward. Vv 4 | P P ae With WTA LL _£ 1 4 Fig. 2.25 Loading and dimensions of portal frame. The collapse behaviour of frames is illustrated by the simple Portal frame in Fig. 2.25. The frame is supposed to be of uniform cross section and material, with a plastic moment capa- city equal to H,. The loading consists of a horizontal force and a vertical force, each of magnitude P.je» a . 8 2. Bean mechanism 20 ee L | oe See . Stdesway mechanism o g ° 6 8 — £ Combined mechonism @ 24 5 0 ; Fig. 2.26 Possible collapse mechanisms for portal frame. The possible collapse mechanisms of the portal frame are shown in Fig. 2.26. Case a) represents plastic collapse of the transverse girder, and is termed a gan mechanism. The second class of mechanism, denoted b) in Fig. 2.26, is a gidesway mechanism in the sense that it implies a sidesway deformation of the frame. Fig. 2.26 c) is a combination of the two former mechanisms, and it is accordingly classified as a combined wechanism. The calculation of plastic collapse load for the frame follows the same procedure as for beams. B echanism_ External work: W, (2.70) Internal work: Wy (2.71) Wy = Wy implies: Py (2.72)Sideswey_mechanism External work: W, = P£@ (2.73) Internal work: W, = 44,0 (2.74) “e W, = MW, implies: PL = 47 (2.75) External work: W, = 2P20 (2.76) Internal work: W, = 6M,0 (2.77) M W, = W, implies: P, = 352 (2.78) The combined mechanism comes out to be the most probable collapse mechanism among the three studied. However, to be sure that this is the real collapse mechanism the bending moment diagram has to be studied. According to the uniqueness theorem it must be proved that the bending moment nownere exceeds the cross~ ~sectional plastic capacity M,. M, 85 Fig. 2.27 Bending moment diagram for the combined collapse mechanism. Pig. 2.27 shows the bending moment diagram obtained from the combined mechanism. It is seen that the uniqueness theorem is fulfilled in the sense that M 2M 1.5M Pp P £ M M. MS P P 7 oe hs 5h Fig. 2.33. Two-bay rectangular framethe technique of combining mechanisns will now be demonstrated Fig. 2.33. Each of the three stanchions has a plastic moment capacity M,. ‘The two beans on the two-bay portal frame have plastic moments 2M, and 1.5 respectively. The first step in the analysis is to determine the independent elementary mechanisms. Accounting for moment equilibrium of joints in advance the number of unknown beam end moments comes out to be nine. These are indicated in Fig. 2.34. O | im Fig. 2.34. Possible locations of plastic hinges The frame has six redundants. Thus, the number of independent elementary mechanisms is three, see Fig. 2.35. ' \ ~ ——— ; Beam mechanism T Beem mechanism IL Sidesway mechanism tr VI Fig. 2.35. Independent elementary mechanismsThe work equations for the elementary mechanism read Beam mechanism I External work: Wy 0.75 Pre Lwork: W,; M8 + 2M,+20 + 2M6 Internal wor! A P p28 Ip WF WF implies: 9.33 Ma/t (2.94) Beam mechanism IT External work: W, = 0.50 P26 Internal work: W, = 1.5M0 + 1.5 M,-26 + Me Wp = 5.5 Me Woot implies: Pp. LL MA/2 (2.95) oe eee esway_mechanism External work: W, 0.50 Pee Internal work: W, = 6 Me i P WeooF implies: 3 12 Mose (2.96) Pe eto It is seen that among the glementary mechanisms, the beam Eechanism I comes out to be the most actual collapse model. However, it still remains to study combined mechanisms. The combined mechanisms to be considered are shown in Fig. 2.36. The associated work equations are = P-0.7580 + 0.5 Pag Wy = 1.25 Pse Internal work: W, = 2M,-20 + 2Mi9 + 5u,8 Weo= liye Wo = Wy implies: Pp. 8.8 M/s (2.97) EERE Heelies (6S h Ig it cl @ c2 conte He Wyo o Fig. 2.36. Combined mechanisms Combined mechanism ¢2 External work: W, We Internal work: W, aaa Wo = Wy implies: P-0.7529 + 0.5+P20 + P-0.528 1.75 PLa 2M,-26 + 2M\-26 + 1.5M tb 172 fy 28 + M,-20 + 3m,9 6 1eM,, (2.98)External work: W, = 0.5 P20 + P-0.75-£0 Wo = 1.25 Pte le z Cd 4°20 + 1.5 M0 + M26 +m 8 Internal work We 2M iL 5 | My + M9 + M8 + 9 : Sininie ada we hye Wy = 11.5 M! . Wo = W, implies: 9.2 Mise (2.99) 4 From these calculations the combined mechanism Cl comes out to be the most actual collapse mechanism. However, it still remains to trace the bending moment diagram for mechanism Cl to check whether the uniqueness theorem is satisfied. ) aay o ag : ie es a4 “4 | ny ~ 0.6 Multiplier M, E o— 2 Fig. 2.37. Bending moment diagram for collapse mechanism Cl Pig. 2.37 shows that the bending moment diagram nowhere exceeds the cross-sectional capacities. Therefore, it can be concluded that the yield hinge model for the system given in Fig. 2.33 is the combined mechanism Cl of Fig. 2.36 with collapse load Py, = 8.8 M/t. oe2.3 PLASTIC CROSS-SECTIONAL CAPACIT AND TORSION FOR AXIAL LOAD, SHEAR The present chapter deals with ultimate loads under axial force, shear and torsion. The members under consideration are supposed to behave fully plastic with slenderness ratios so small that no buckling effects occur. 2.3.1 Plastic Axial Load For all types of cross-sections the plastic capacity for axial load reads N, Acy (2.100) where A denotes the cross-sectional area and oy the yield stress. Eg. (2.100) is valid for tension as well as for com pression as long as buckling phenomena are permitted. 2.3.2 Shear Capacity When calculating the shear capacity, the part of the cross- section oriented in the direction of the shear force has to be included. This is illustrated by Fig. 2.38 for an I-type cross- section. roa ly : = Fig. 2.38. Shear capacities ofIn Fig. 2.38a the web is orlented along the direction of 5 load v while the flanges carries the load in case b. 2.33 Torsional Capacity in the present section the plastic torsional capacity of open and closed thin-walled sections is considered. Open Section Consider first the rectangle in Fig. 2.39. Fig. 2.39. Plastic torsion of narrow rectangle In the plastic range, the shear stress gets the yield value The shear force in each direction becomes s = bet (2.101) and the torsional moment 1, balanced by the shear stresses reads 7 (2.102) Introducing the von Mises yield criterion the torsional capacity comes out to be bt? = (2.103)For an I-type profile as given in Fig. 2.38a the total torsional capacity is found as the sum of the capacities for the individual rectangles. In case of symmetrical profile the expression for T, reads Pp 6 6 1, tipez % = foes (n-2t)s? | (2.104) P ia tig ay3t } Eq. (2.104) is based on the assumption that the yield stress is constant throughout the cross-section. = Fig. 2.40. Plastic torsion of tubular section Fig. 2.40 illustrates the problem for a tubular section. In the plastic range of deformation the shear stress takes the value ty throughout the wall thickness. The torsional capacity be-~ ¥ comes ante = (gatr,)4 T a2 7 = (wdtry)5 Fatty (2.105) or = 2atty (2.106) where A is the area closed by the ring. Introducing von Mises yield criterion gives (2.107)Eq. (2.107) is generally valid for a single-cell thin-walled closed section of any form. Based on the above considerations and the moment capacities derived in Section 2.1.3, Table 2.3 gives the plastic capacities for some typical profiles. Profile N P h [bt (h-t)+ bso, | Ae reve s(Z -tV ley ¥ TA d Aoy 5 =Adtoy a ie sotions (ECCS) 0.2 HEA, HEB, HEM - sections - (ECCS ) 0 OM 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 My Fig. 2.45. Plastic moment/axial force interaction curves for I-sections The European Recommendations for Steel Construction [2.4] gives two formulae for the moment/axial force interaction about the strong axis of I-sections. Distinction is made between sections of types HEA, HEB and HEM on one side and IPE-sections on the other. IPE-sections have larger ratio A,/A than the HEA, HEB and HEM-sections. In accordance with Fig. 2.45 the reduction in plastic moment due to axial force is less for IPE-type of profiles. Table 2.4 gives the ECCS [2.4] recommendations both for strong axis bending and weak axis bending. The influence of the axial force on the plastic bending moment may be neglected if the axial force is less than or equal to a limit value given in the table BENDING ABOUT THE BENDING ABOUT THE STRONG AXIS WEAK AXIS wo ti aN a2 Ny Hea eB 02 12 esa 100 , : ee { [ iy Reduction | Mag TTT =) | MM ft =f HEM 600 | formula oa pl pl ve pr im “18N 0.266) 1 hake oe Nt pt 2 sections aa Cee} : Ay | Reteciton | Mag 122M, (1-NYN,) | May = MY wae Table 2.4, Moment/axial force interaction due to ECCS [2.4]~ 2.55 - Square Tube Bendin, d 9 7 , d oxis 2r Fig. 2.46. Transformation of square tube into an equivalent I-shape The problem of moment/axial force interaction for a square tube is easily solved by using the interaction formula for the equi- valent I-section, see Fig. 2.46. It should be emphasized that no local buckling of tube walls is supposed to occur. it «| es tse & =--|)+ 85 mM : oy 4 Combined Bending » — Anial Fig. 2.47. Moment/axial rorce on thin-walled circular tube. Considering Fig. 2.47 the following expressions for bending moment and axial force emerge fo = a0 [a a Eee eea M = doy) $-ay-t-Goos ¢ = oat sin o5 (2.122) i 0~hS6- nee 3 zrdget = Zayed ts ‘g) (2.123) Z " a “ SNe 2. 0 In accordance with Eq. (2.9) the maximum moment capacity reads Mi = toy = de 2.12 = toy = ata, (2.124) Bq. (2.100) gives the axial force capacity to be Avy = ndtoy (2.125) RR 46 ay ae ° at 0 62 04 a6 0g lo Mp Fig. 2.48 Bending moment/axial force interaction for thin-walled circular tube. The interaction takes the following mathematical form [2.5] (2-126) \ |REFERENCES 2.1 Greeberg, H.J. and Prager, W.: “On Limit Design of Beams and Frames", Txans, Amex, Soe. Civ. Engrs., 1952. Horne, M.R.: “Fundamental Propositions in the Plastic Theory of Structures", Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineens., Vol. 34, p. 174, 1950. Neal, B.G.: The Plastic Methods of Stauctural Analysis, Second edition, Chapman and Hall Ltd., 1970. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork: European Recommendations for Steel Constauction, Report No. ECCS-EG 77-2E, Maxch 1978. Wilhoit, J.C. and Mervin, J.E.: "The Effect of Axial Tension on Moment Carrying Capacity of Line Pipe Stressed Beyond the Elastic Limit", OTC 1355, 1971, pp. I - 293 - 296.