Tapered Column Design

ADVANCED DESIGN OF STEEL AND COMPOSITE
STRUCTURES
Luís Simões da Silva

Lecture 1: 20/2/2014
European Erasmus Mundus Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards and Catastrophic Events
520121-1-2011-1-CZ-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC
European Erasmus Mundus
CONTENTS
Master Course
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Module A – Design of non-uniform members
1 – Introduction
2 – Non-uniform members – approaches and problems
3 – Tapered columns
3.1 – Differential equation
3.2 – Elastic critical load
3.3 – Ayrton-Perry formulation
4 – Design resistance of tapered columns and beams
4.1 – Derivation
4.2 – Tapered columns
4.2.1 – Design methodology
4.2.2 – Example
4.3 – Tapered beams
4.3.1 – Elastic critical moment
4.3.2 – Design methodology
4.3.3 – Example
5 – Beam-columns
Introduction
Introduction
Master Course
q  Tapered steel members are used in steel structures

q  Structural efficiency à optimization of cross section capacity à
saving of material
q  Aesthetical appearance
Multi-sport complex – Coimbra, Portugal Construction site in front of the Central Station,
Europaplatz, Graz, Austrial

Introduction
Master Course
q  Tapered members are commonly used in steel frames:

q  industrial halls, warehouses, exhibition centers, etc.
q  Adequate verification procedures are then required for these

types of structures!

Master Course
Introduction
q  However, there are several difficulties in performing the stability

verification of structures composed of non-uniform members;
q  Guidelines are inexistent or not clear for the designer
q  Due to this reason simplifications that are not mechanically

consistent are adopted
q  These may be either too conservative or even

q  Unconservative!

Non-uniform members
Approaches
and
Problems
Master Course
Non-uniform members – approaches
and Catastrophic Events and problems
q  Prismatic members – Clauses 6.3.1 to 6.3.3
q  Developed for prismatic members ⎛ πx ⎞
δ 0 ( x ) = e 0 sin ⎜ ⎟
q  Sinusoidal imperfections ⎝ L ⎠
1.2
Column δcr
1
0.8 δ'cr
0.6 δ''cr
0.4
0.2
0
⎛ πx ⎞
-‐0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
M II ( x ) = EIδ′′ ∝ sin ⎜ ⎟
-‐0.4
L(x) ⎝ L ⎠
Constant Sinusoidal
q  Ayrton-Perry type equation:
II
Is maximum at mid span: ε( x ) = N M (x)
+ OK!
N Rk M y ,Rk

Master Course
q  Non-uniform members – Clauses 6.3.1 to 6.3.3 apply ???
NEd
q  Cross section utilization due to applied (first order) forces is not
constant anymore.
Not Constant
N
N Rk

Master Course
1.2
Column ⎛ πx ⎞
1 δcr δ 0 ( x ) = e 0 sin ⎜ ⎟
0.8 δ'cr ⎝ L ⎠
0.6 δ''cr
0.4
0.2
⎛ πx ⎞
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-‐0.2
-‐0.4
L(x) M II ( x ) = EIδ′′ ∝ sin ⎜ ⎟
⎝ L ⎠
q  Ayrton-Perry type equation:
Is it maximum at mid span ???
N M II ( x )
ε( x ) = + KO!
N Rk M y ,Rk

Master Course
q  Position of the critical cross-section – not at mid span

q  Account for 2nd order effects; iterative procedure, not
practical;
q  1st order critical cross section is considered!

Master Course
q  Variation of cross section class

Class 3
Class 2 Class 1
My,Ed q  Definition of an equivalent class for

the member
NEd <<< Af y

Master Course
q  Non-uniform members – 2nd order analysis with imperfections
q  Definition of local imperfections:

q  Same problem: e0/L calibrated for prismatic members with
sinusoidal imperfections
Buckling curve acc. Elastic analysis Plastic analysis

to EC3-1-1, Table 6.1
e0/L e0/L
a0 1/350 1/300
a 1/300 1/250
b 1/250 1/200
c 1/200 1/150
d 1/150 1/100

Master Course
q  Non-uniform members – 2nd order analysis with imperfections
q  Definition of local imperfections?
Barajas Airport, Madrid, Spain
Auvent de la Gare Routière – Ermont
Italy pavilion, World Expo 2010 – Shanghai

Master Course
q  Non-uniform members – GENERAL METHOD (clause 6.3.4)
Out-of-plane
In-plane resistance
elastic critical load
In-Plane GMNIA
1 calculations LEA calculations
αult,k αcr,op
λ op = αult,k / αcr ,op
2 Buckling curve
χ χLT
χop = χop =
3 Minimum (χ, χLT) Interpolated (χ, χLT)
χ opα ult ,k / γ M 1 ≥ 1

Master Course
1 q  αult,k should account for local second order effects?
q  If so: again à problem with definition of imperfections

q  Prismatic column – 6.3.4 vs. 6.3.1
105 IPE 360
IPE 200
q  Higher in-plane second order effects
100 HE 550 B lead to a decrease in the out-of-
plane reduction factor
% 6.3.4 / 6.3.1
HE 500 A
95
HE 450 B
HE 400 B
90
HE 360 B
85 Φ=∞
HE 340 B q  Even for the case of beam-columns
Rolled HE 300 B
HE 200 A
this effect is not as restrictive.
80
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
λ_z

Master Course
2 q  Definition of a proper buckling curve

Curve a
Curve d
Curve b
Curve c
Cu
q  For some cases existing buckling curves may even be

unconservative!

Master Course
3 q  Reduction factor – minimum or interpolation

q  Minimum
q  May be too conservative
q  Does not follow buckling mode correctly
q  Interpolation
q  Provides a transition between FB (My=0) and LTB (N=0)
q  What type of function for a correct mode transition?

Master Course
q  Non-uniform members – FEM numerical analysis
q  Problem with definition of imperfections

q  Requires a high experience in FEM modeling from the user in
order to achieve reliable results
q  Limited guidelines
q  For the most simple cases it is preferable to provide simple rules
which include as much as possible the real behavior of the member

Tapered columns
Master Course
Tapered columns
and Catastrophic Events Differential equation
q  Equilibrium
Nconc
dδ
dM
M+ dx
dx dδ
dN
dQ N+ dx
Q+ dx dx
dx B
B
ξ δ
n(x) δ η
dx
dx
n(x) n(x)
x Q
N A A
x M
L
∫
N ( x) = N conc + n(ξ )dξ
x

Master Course
Tapered columns
dδ
q  Equilibrium M+
dM
dx
dx
L dN
+ neglect 2nd order dQ N+ dx
∫
N ( x) = N conc + n(ξ )dξ
terms
Q+
dx
dx dx
x
B
q  Eq. Moments in B δ

dx
n(x)
⎛ dM ⎞ dx
N ( x).dy + Qdx − ⎜ M + dx ⎟ + M − ∫ n(ξ )ηdξ = 0 x Q
⎝ dx ⎠ $0 !#! "
≈0 N A
dM dy
→Q = − N ( x) M
dx dx
q  Eq. Horizontal

dQ d 2M d ⎛ dδ ⎞
dQ dQ =0= − ⎜ N ( x ) ⎟
Q =Q+ dx → =0 dx dx 2 dx ⎝ dx ⎠
dx dx

Master Course
Tapered columns
dδ
q  Equilibrium M+
dM
dx
dx
d 2δ d 2M d ⎛ dδ ⎞ dQ N+
dN
dx
M ( x) = − EI ( x) + 0= − ⎜ N ( x ) ⎟ Q+ dx dx
dx 2 dx 2 dx ⎝ dx ⎠ dx
B
d 2 ⎛⎜ d 2δ ⎞ d ⎛
⎟+ dδ ⎞ δ
E 2 I ( x) 2 ⎜ N ( x) ⎟=0 dx
dx ⎜⎝ dx ⎟ dx ⎝
⎠ dx ⎠ n(x)
x Q
N A
⎧ N ( x) = α cr N Ed ( x)
E (I ( x) ⋅ δ ′′)″ + (N ( x) ⋅ δ ′)′ = 0
⎪
⎨n( x) = α cr n Ed ( x) M
⎪δ ( x) = δ ( x)
⎩ cr

Master Course
Tapered columns
and Catastrophic Events Elastic critical load
q  Differential equation
E (I ( x) ⋅ δ ′′)″ + (N ( x) ⋅ δ ′)′ = 0
q  Proposal for determination of major axis critical load of tapered I

columns (Marques et al, 2014)
N cr ,Tap = A ⋅ N cr ,min → A = γ I
0.56
(1 − 0.04 ⋅ tan (γ
−1
I )
− 1)
γ I = I y .max I y .min

Master Course
Tapered columns
and Catastrophic Events Ayrton-Perry formulation
q  Equilibrium ⎧ N ( x) = α cr N Ed ( x)
″ ′ ⎪
E (I ( x) ⋅ δ ′′) + (N ( x) ⋅ δ ′) = 0 ⎨n( x) = 0
⎪δ ( x) = δ ( x)
⎩ cr
⎧ N ( x) = α b N Ed ( x)
″ ′ ⎪
(EI ( x) δ ′′) + (N ( x) δ ′ + N ( x) δ 0′ ) = 0 ⎨δ ( x) = α b δ 0 ( x)
⎪ α cr − α b
⎩
⎡ αb ⎤
M ( x) = − EI ( x) δ ′′( x) = − EI ( x) ⎢ δ 0′′( x)⎥
⎣α cr − α b ⎦
q  First yield criterion

⎡ αb ⎤
EI ( x) ⎢ (−δ 0′′( x))⎥
α N ( x) M ( x) α b N Ed ( x)
ε ( x) = b Ed + = + ⎣α cr − α b ⎦
N R ( x) M R ( x) N R ( x) M R ( x)

Master Course
Tapered columns
and Catastrophic Events Ayrton-Perry formulation
q  Assumption for imperfection δ 0 ( x) = δ cr ( x)e0
⎡ −δ 0′′
α $ !!#!! "⎤
EI ( x) ⎢ b
⋅ (−1)(δ cr′′ ( x)e0 )⎥
⎢α − α ⎥
α N ( x) M ( x) α b N Ed ( x) ⎢⎣ cr b
⎥⎦
ε ( x) = b Ed + = +
N R ( x) M R ( x) N R ( x) M R ( x)
q  Introducing slenderness and reduction factor definitions

N R ( x) / N Ed ( x) αb
λ ( x) = χ ( x) =
α cr N R ( x) / N Ed ( x)
1 ⎡ N R ( xc ) ⎤ ⎡ EI ( x)(− δ cr′′ ( x) )⎤ ⎡ N R ( x) M R ( xc ) ⎤
ε ( x) = χ ( x) + χ ( x) ⋅ e
α b ⎢⎣ 0 M R ( xc ) ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ N Ed ( x)α cr ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ N R ( xc ) M R ( x) ⎥⎦
1−
α cr
q  At the critical location ε(xcII)=1

⎡ N R ( xcII ) ⎤ ⎡ EI ( xcII ).(−δ cr′′ ( xcII )) ⎤
χ ( xcII )
1 = χ (x ) + II
⎢e0 II ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
1 − λ ( xc ) χ ( xc ) ⎣ M R ( xc ) ⎦ ⎣ α cr .N Ed ( xc ) ⎦
c2 II
II II

(
α EC 3 λ ( xcII ) − 0.2 )
Design resistance of tapered
columns and beams
Master Course
columns and beams

q  Boundary conditions:

q  Material: Fork supports

Perfect elastic-plastic End cross sections remain straight
fy
q  Member imperfections:

E= 210 GPa
f y= 236 MPa With amplitude e0=L/1000
Same shape as the buckling mode
εy ε
L/1000
q  Material imperfections:

0.3 f y 0.5 f y
fy
q  Calculations:
0.25f y fy
0.3 0.5 f y
0.2b
LBA
0.5 f y
0.3 f y
GMNIA
0.8h

Master Course
columns and beams

q  Columns
ε ( x) = χ ( x) + χ ( x) ⋅ e
1− M II − EIδ′′
α cr =
M Rk M Rk
N
N Rk
q  Beams
⎡ N cr ,z ,Tap h ( x ) ⎤
⎢1 + M
A( x cII ) ⎤ ⎡ λ ( x cII ) ⎤ ξ (− δ′cr′ ,h min ( x ) )EI z ( x ) ⎢ 2 ⎥⎥ ⎡ A( x ) Wz ( x cII ) ⎤ ⎡ λ LT ( x ) λ z ( x cII ) ⎤
2 2 2
χ LT ( x ) ⎡ LT cr ,Tap
ε( x ) = χ LT ( x ) + ⎢e 0 II ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥× × ⎢ ⎥
2
1 − λ LT ( x )χ LT ( x ) ⎣ Wz ( x c ) ⎦ ⎢⎣ λ z ( x cII ) ⎥⎦ N cr ,z ,Tap ⎢ M cr ,Tap h min ⎥ ⎢⎣ Wz ( x ) A( x cII ) ⎥⎦ ⎢ λ 2z ( x ) λ 2LT ( x II ) ⎥
⎢1+ N ⎥ ⎣ c ⎦
⎣ cr , z , Tap 2 ⎦
My M IIz − EI z v′′
=
M y , Rk M z ,Rk M z ,Rk
M ϖII − EI ωφ′′
=
M ϖ ,Rk M ϖ ,Rk

Master Course
columns and beams

q  Columns (
α EC3 λ(x cII ) − 0.2 )
ε ( x) = χ ( x) + χ ( x) ⋅ e
1−
α cr
ηuniform ( xcII )
η non −uniform ( xcII )
q  Beams
⎡ N cr ,z ,Tap h ( x ) ⎤
⎢1 + M
2 2 2
ε( x ) = χ LT ( x ) + ⎢e 0 II ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥× × ⎢ ⎥
2
⎢1+ N ⎥ ⎣ c ⎦
⎣ cr , z , Tap 2 ⎦
(
α LT λ z (x cII ) − 0.2 )

Master Course
columns and beams

q  Columns
ε ( x) = χ ( x) + χ ( x) ⋅ e
1−
α cr
1 = χ( x cII ) + χ( x cII ) 2
1
( )
α EC3 ( x cII ) λ ( x cII ) − 0.2 × β( x cII )
1 − λ ( x )χ ( x )
II
c
II
c
q  Beams
⎡ N cr ,z ,Tap h ( x ) ⎤
⎢1 + M
2 2 2
ε( x ) = χ LT ( x ) + ⎢e 0 II ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥× × ⎢ ⎥
2
⎢1+ N ⎥ ⎣ c ⎦
⎣ cr , z ,Tap 2 ⎦
⎡ λ 2LT ( x II ) ⎤
ε( x c ) = 1 → 1 = χ LT ( x ) + II
c 2
χ LT ( x cII )
( (
× α LT ))
λ z ( x ) − 0.2 ⎢ 2 c ⎥ × β( x cII )
II
c
1 − λ ( x )χ LT ( x )
LT
II
c
II
c
⎢⎣ λ z ( x cII ) ⎥⎦

Master Course
columns and beams

q  Interpretation of xcII and β – example (column)

0.5
0.45
N N
γh=
0.4 1.00
0.35 1.17
1
0.3 1.33
xc II/L 0.9
0.25 1.50
0.8
0.2 2.00
0.7
0.15 γh=
3.00
0.6 1.00
0.1
β(xcII) 5.00
0.5 1.50
0.05
0.4 2.00
0
2.50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.3 3.5
λy(xcI) 3.00
0.2
4.00
0.1
5.00
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
λy(xc II)
xc

Master Course
columns and beams

1 q  Simplification of the analytical models

β ; xcII β lim ; xcII,lim χ
λ
β = 0; xcI
λ
q  Columns
1 = χ( x cII,lim ) + χ( x cII,lim ) 2
1
( )
α λ( x cII,lim ) − 0.2 × !
1
1 − λ (x II
c ,lim )χ( x II
c ,lim ) βlim
q  Beams
⎡ λ 2LT ( x II ) ⎤
1 = χ LT ( x cII,lim ) +
χ LT ( x cII,lim )
( (
× α LT ))
λ z ( x cII,lim ) − 0.2 ⎢ 2 c ,lim ⎥ × 1
⎢ λ z ( x cII,lim ) ⎥ #"!
2
1 − λ ( x )χ LT ( x )
LT
II
c
II
c ⎣ ⎦ βlim

Master Course
columns and beams

1 q  Simplification of the analytical models

β ; xcII β lim ; xcII,lim χ
λ
β = 0; xcI
λ
q  Columns
1 = χ( x cII,lim ) + χ( x cII,lim ) 2
1
( )
α λ( x cII,lim ) − 0.2 × !
1
1 − λ (x II
c ,lim )χ( x II
c ,lim ) βlim
q  Beams
⎡ λ 2LT ( x II ) ⎤
1 = χ LT ( x cII,lim ) +
χ LT ( x cII,lim )
( (
× α LT ))
λ z ( x cII,lim ) − 0.2 ⎢ 2 c ,lim ⎥ × 1
⎢ λ z ( x cII,lim ) ⎥ #"!
2
1 − λ ( x )χ LT ( x )
LT
II
c
II
c ⎣ ⎦ βlim
2 q  Transformation of variables

α ult,k ( x cII,lim )
ϕ= λ ( x cII,lim ) = ϕ × λ( x cI ) χ(x cII,lim ) = χ (x cI ) / ϕ
α ult,k ( x cI )

Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS – DESIGN METHODOLOGY

1.  Required data
Calculate utilization ε=NEd/NRk based on

Semi-Comp approach
Calculate ϕ
Calculate αcr
xIc (…)
N Rk ( x cI )
α ilt ,k ( x ) =
I
c
N Ed ( x cI )

Master Course
columns and beams


2.  Application of the method
3.  Verification
χ(x cI ) × α ult,k (x cI ) = α b ≥ 1
(
η = α × ϕ × λ(x cI ) − 0.2 ) λ ( x cI ) = α ult,k ( x cI ) α cr
( 2
φ = 0.5 × 1 + ϕ × η × λ ( x cI ) + ϕ × λ (x cI )
2
) αb x NEd
NEd
ϕ
χ (x cI ) = ≤1
2 2
φ + φ − ϕ × λ (x ) I
c

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Necessary parameters
q  Critical load multiplier – αcr

q  May be numerical
q  From the literature Diff (%) 100x10 H&C
HEB300 H&C
q  For in-plane loading, a formula 20 IPE200 H&C
100x10 EQU
was developed considering 15 HEB300 EQU
IPE200 EQU
Rayleigh-Ritz Method : 10 100x10 L&al.
HEB300 L&al.
5 IPE200 L&al.
γI
0
N cr ,Tap = A ⋅ N cr ,min → A = γ I
0.56
(1 − 0.04 ⋅ tan (γ
−1
I )
− 1) -5
0 10 20 30 40
γ I = I y. max I y. min -10

-15

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Imperfection factor αy or αz
FB out-of-plane FB in-plane
Hot-rolled: Welded: Hot-rolled: Welded: 1
α 0.49 0.64 0.34 0.45 0.9
η - ≤0.34 - ≤0.27 0.8
0.7
χy
0.6
0.5 α=0.34 (EC3)

α=0.45 (Best fit)
0.4 α=0.45 + η≤0.27
Euler
0.3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
λ̅y

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Overstrength factor φy or φz
FB out-of-plane FB in-plane
ht w ⎡ (1 + 4γ h )(γ h − 1) ⎤ hmin t w γ h − 1
1+ ⎢ ⎥ 1+
Amin ⎣ 10γ h ⎦ Amin γ h + 1

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Results
q  Out-of-plane q  In-plane
(γh=hmax/hmin=1.8) (γh=hmax/hmin=6)
αb αb
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 EC3-c 0.4 EC3-b

Euler Euler
0.2 GMNIA 0.2 GMNIA
Proposal Proposal
0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
λz(xcI) λy(xcI)

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Possible problems
q  Web buckling – critical location varies
q  φ was calibrated considering critical location without local

buckling effects!
q  May lead to unsafe results!
Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
L=5m hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
α=2.519º
NEd tf = 25 mm
tw = 15 mm
S235
<42ε NEd = 1100 kN
<38εà
cw/tw<33εàClass1 àClass4 L=5m
Class2
x=3.65m x=4.55m
Flange class: cf/tf=(206/2-15/2)/25=3.82 <9ε à Class1
q  Flange thickness in vertical plan

hmin = 220.05 mm
t f ' = t f / cos(α ) = 25.02mm γh= 660.05/220.05=3
hmax = 660.05 mm

Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
q  Minor axis verification hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
q  Calculation of slenderness at x=xcI tf = 25 mm
N Rk ( xcI ) / N Ed N Rk ( xcI ) / N Ed 3022.1 / 1100 tw = 15 mm
λ(x ) =
I
≈ = =1
α cr S235
c
N cr ,h min / N Ed 3022.1 / 1100
π 2 EI h min NEd = 1100 kN
N cr ,h min =
L2 L=5m
q  Overstrength-factor, φ
hmin t w ⎡ (1 + 4γ h )(γ h − 1) ⎤ 220.05 × 15 ⎡ (1 + 4 × 3)(3 − 1) ⎤
ϕz = 1+ ⎢ ⎥ = 1+ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ = 1.222
Amin ⎣ 10γ h ⎦ 12850 10 × 3
q  Determination of imperfection, η

( ) ( )
η = α ϕ λ ( xcI ) − 0.2 = 0.64 1.222 ×1 − 0.2 = 0.580 > 0.34 → η = 0.34

Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
q  Minor axis verification hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
q  Reduction factor tf = 25 mm
tw = 15 mm
( )
φ = 0.5 1 +η + ϕ λ ( xcI ) = 0.5(1 + 0.34 + 1.222 ×12 ) = 1.281
2
S235
NEd = 1100 kN
ϕ 1.222 L=5m
χ ( xcI ) = = = 0.634 ≤ 1
2
φ + φ −ϕ × λ (x )
2 I 1.281 + 1.281 − 1.222 ×1
2 2
c
q  Verification
N b , z , Rd = χ ( xcI ) N Pl ( xcI ) = 0.634 × 3022.1 = 1915.9 kN > 1100 kN
q  Numerical analysis, GMNIA N b , z , Rd = 1904.68 kN → 0.5% diff

Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
q  Major axis verification hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
q  Critical load, Ncr,y,Tap tf = 25 mm
tw = 15 mm
I h max 132365cm 2 S235
γI = = = 12.64
I h min 10471cm 2 NEd = 1100 kN
A=γI
0.56
(1 − 0.04 ⋅ tan (γ
−1
I )
− 1) = 3.894 L=5m
N cr , y ,Tap = A ⋅ N cr ,min = 3.894 × 8681 kN = 33804.56 kN
q  Numerical buckling analysis, LBA:
N cr , y ,Tap = 32516 kN à diff. 3.9%

Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
q  Calculation of slenderness at x=xcI tf = 25 mm
N Rk ( xcI ) / N Ed N Rk ( xcI ) / N Ed 3022.1 / 1100 tw = 15 mm
λ(x ) =
I
≈ = = 0.299
α cr
c
N cr , y ,Tap / N Ed 33804.56 / 1100 S235
NEd = 1100 kN
L=5m
q  Overstrength-factor, φ
hmin t w γ h − 1 220.05mm × 15mm 3 − 1
ϕy = 1+ = 1+ = 1.128
Amin γ h + 1 12850mm 2 3 +1

( ) ( )
η = α ϕ λ ( xcI ) − 0.2 = 0.45 1.128 × 0.299 − 0.2 = 0.053 < 0.27 → η = 0.053

Master Course
columns and beams

COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
q  Reduction factor tf = 25 mm
tw = 15 mm
( )
φ = 0.5 1 + η + ϕ λ ( xcI ) = 0.5(1 + 0.053 + 1.128 × 0.299 2 ) = 0.577
2
S235
NEd = 1100 kN
ϕ 1.128 L=5m
χ ( xcI ) = = = 1.07 > 1 χ ( xcI ) = 1
2
φ + φ 2 − ϕ × λ ( xcI ) 0.577 + 0.577 − 1.128 × 0.299
2 2
N b , y , Rd = χ ( xcI ) N Pl ( xcI ) = 1× 3022.1 = 3022.1 kN > 1100 kN
q  Numerical analysis, GMNIA N b , z , Rd = 3022.1 kN → 0% diff

Master Course
columns and beams

BEAMS – DESIGN METHODOLOGY

1.  Necessary data
Calculate utilization ε=MEd/MRk based on Calculate ϕ

Semi-Comp approach
(…)
Calculate αcr
xIc
Calculate xc,limII
(…)
M Rk ( xcI )
α ilt ,k ( xcI ) =
M Ed ( xcI )

Master Course
columns and beams


2.  Application of the method
W y ,el ( xcII ) π 2 EI z ( xcII ) N ( x II ) 3.  Verification
N cr ≈ Rk c
Wz ,el ( xcII ) 2
L
χ LT ( xcI ) × α ult,k ( xcI ) = α b ≥ 1
α LT (Taras) λ z ( xcII )
(
η = α LT × λ z ( xcI ) − 0.2 ) λ LT ( xcI ) = α ult,k ( xcI ) α cr αb x MEd
MEd
⎛ λ
2 I
LT ( xc )
⎞
φLT ⎜
= 0.5 × 1 + ϕ ×η × 2
2 I ⎟
+ ϕ × λ LT ( xc )
⎜ λ z ( xc )
II ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Ψ MEd
ϕ
χ LT ( xcI ) = ≤1
2 2
φLT + φLT − ϕ × λ LT ( xcI )

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Critical load multiplier – αcr

q  May be numerical
q  From the literature
q  Imperfection factor αLT

q  Model consistent with recently developed proposals for
prismatic beams Hot-rolled: Welded:
II II
W y ,el ( x c ,lim ) W y ,el ( x c ,lim )
α 0.16 II
≤ 0.49 0.21 II
≤ 0.64
W z ,el ( x c ,lim ) W z ,el ( x c ,lim )
Wy ,el ( x cII,lim )
η - ≤ II
(0.12ψ 2
− 0.23ψ + 0.35 )
Wz ,el ( x c , lim )

Master Course
columns and beams


1
xc,limII/L
0.9
0.8
q  xc,limII 0.7
0.6
0.5 γh=1
0.4 γh=1.5
γh=2
0.3
γh=2.6
0.2 γh=3.1
0.1 γh=3.6
γh=4
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
ψ
For ψ (0.75 − 0.18ψ − 0.07ψ )+ (0.025ψ

2 2
)
− 0.006ψ − 0.06 (γ h − 1) ≥ 0
If ψ < 0 and ψ γ w ≥ 1 + 1.214(γ h − 1), x cII,lim / L = 0.12 − 0.03(γ h − 1)
For UDL 0.5 + 0.0035(γ h − 1) − 0.03(γ h − 1) ≤ 0.5
2 2

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Overstrength factor φLT
2.3
φ γw= 1 1.2
2.1 |ψlim|
γw= 1.5 1
1.9 γw= 2
γw= 2.5 0.8
1.7
γw= 3 0.6
1.5 γw= 3.5
0.4
1.3 γw= 4 |ψlim|
γw= 4.5 0.2
1.1 γw= 5
0
0.9 γw= 5.5 0 2 4 6
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 γw= 6 γw-1
ψ γw= 6.5

Master Course
columns and beams


2
UDL: − 0.0025aγ + 0.015aγ + 1.05
q  Overstrength factor φLT
Ψ: A ⋅ψ + B ⋅ψ + C ≥ 1
2
− 0.0005 ⋅ (γ w − 1) + 0.009 ⋅ (γ w − 1) − 0.077 ⋅ (γ w − 1) + 0.78 ⋅ (γ w − 1)

4 3 2
aγ
2 3 2 3
ψlim 1 + 120 ⋅ aγ + 600 ⋅ aγ − 210 ⋅ aγ 1 + 123 ⋅ aγ + 1140 ⋅ aγ + 330 ⋅ aγ
φLT ψ < −ψ lim −ψ lim ≤ ψ ≤ ψ lim ψ > ψ lim
6 5 4
− 0.0665 ⋅ a γ + 0.718 ⋅ a γ − 2.973 ⋅ a γ −11.37 +12090 ⋅aγ −8050 ⋅aγ 2 +1400 ⋅aγ 3 2
A 2 3
+11.22 0.008 ⋅ a γ − 0.08 ⋅ a γ − 0.157
1−1058 ⋅aγ + 705⋅aγ −120⋅aγ
+ 5.36⋅aγ 3 − 2.9⋅aγ 2 − 2.1⋅aγ −1.09
6 5 4 6 5 4 3 2
− 0.1244 ⋅ a γ + 1.3185 ⋅ a γ − 5.287 ⋅ a γ + 0.02 ⋅ a γ − 0.133 ⋅ a γ + 0.425 ⋅ a γ − 0.033 ⋅ a γ + 0.04 ⋅ a γ
B
+ 9.27⋅aγ 3 −5.24⋅aγ 2 − 2.18⋅aγ − 2 −0.932⋅aγ 3 +1.05⋅aγ 2 − 0.5⋅aγ − 0.1 + 0.48⋅aγ + 0.37
6 5 4 3 2
− 0.0579 ⋅ a γ + 0.6003 ⋅ a γ − 2.314 ⋅ a γ 2 0.032 ⋅ a γ − 0.092 ⋅ a γ
C 0.02 ⋅ a γ − 0.14 ⋅ a γ + 1.25
+3.911⋅aγ 3 − 2.355⋅aγ 2 + 0.02⋅aγ + 0.3 + 0.06⋅aγ + 0.8

Master Course
columns and beams


q  Results
χLT (xcI) ψ= -1 γh= 3

1
0.8 q  Influence of shear!
0.6
χLT (xcI) UDL γh= 2.5
0.4 Euler
1
0.2 Model φ= 1.352
GMNIA 0.8
0
0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8 0.6
λ̄LT (xcI) Shear interaction
0.4
Euler
0.2 Model φ= 1.067
GMNIA
0
q  Possible problems: 0.2 0.6 1 1.4 1.8
λ̄LT (xcI)
q  Web buckling

Master Course
columns and beams

BEAMS - EXAMPLE
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
α=2.519º
My,Ed tf = 25 mm
tw = 15 mm
S235
My,Ed = 300 kNm
cw/tw<124εàClass1 L=5m
Flange class: cf/tf=(206/2-15/2)/25=3.82 <9ε à Class1
q  Flange thickness in vertical plan

hmin = 220.05 mm
t f ' = t f / cos(α ) = 25.02mm γh= 660.05/220.05=3
hmax = 660.05 mm
q  VEd=300/5 kN = 60 kN Vpl,Rd,min=170x15x10-6 fy=599.25 kN > 2VEd

hw,max/tw=610/15=41<72ε
Master Course
columns and beams

BEAMS - EXAMPLE
q  Elastic critical moment, numerical analysis hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
M cr ,Tap = 2044.85 kNm
M y , Ed ( x) tf = 25 mm
ε M ( x) = tw = 15 mm
M y , Rd ( x)
q  x=xcI=5m S235
My,Ed = 300 kNm
0.3
L=5m
0.25
0.2
0.15
Série1
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
ε M ( L) = 0.238
Master Course
columns and beams

BEAMS - EXAMPLE
q  Calculation of slenderness at x=xcI hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
α ult ,k ( xcI ) b = 206 mm
1097.19 / 300
λ(x ) = I
= = 0.733 tf = 25 mm
α cr
c
2044.85 / 300
tw = 15 mm
q  Second order failure location, x=xc,limII S235
My,Ed = 300 kNm
W y ,el ,max 4010.7 mm 3 L=5m
γw = = = 4.214
W y ,el ,min 951.7 mm 3
γ h = ... = 3
ψ =0
( ) ( )
xcII,lim / L = 0.75 − 0.18ψ − 0.07ψ 2 + 0.025ψ 2 − 0.006ψ − 0.06 (γ h − 1) = 0.63 ≥ 0

Master Course
columns and beams

BEAMS - EXAMPLE
q  Over-strength factor, φ hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
W y ,el ,max 4010.7 mm 3
γw = = = 4.214 b = 206 mm
W y ,el ,min 951.7 mm 3
tf = 25 mm
γ h = ... = 3
tw = 15 mm
ψ =0
S235
aγ = −0.0005 ⋅ (γ w − 1) + 0.009 ⋅ (γ w − 1) − 0.077 ⋅ (γ w − 1) + 0.78 ⋅ (γ w − 1) = 1.957
4 3 2
My,Ed = 300 kNm
⎧ A = ... = −1.097 L=5m
⎪
ψ = 0 ≤ ψ lim ∀ψ lim → ⎨ B = ... = −0.503
⎪C = ... = 1.053
⎩ ϕ = A ⋅ψ 2 + B ⋅ψ + C = 1.053 ≥ 1
(
η LT = α LT λ LT ( x ) − 0.2 ≤
II
c ) W y ,el ( xcII,lim )
Wz ,el ( x II
)
(0.12ψ 2
− 0.23ψ + 0.35 ) α LT = 0.587
c ,lim
II A( xcII ) ⋅ f y
W y ,el ( x ) λ LT ( x ) =
II
= 1.150
α LT = 0.21 c ,lim
II
≤ 0.64 c
π 2 EI ( xcII ) L2
Wz ,el ( x c ,lim )
Module A – Design of non-uniform members η LT = 0.557 < 0.978
Master Course
columns and beams

BEAMS - EXAMPLE
q  Reduction factor hw,min = 170 mm
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
⎛ 2
λ LT ( xcI ) ⎞
φLT ⎜
= 0.5 × 1 + ϕ ×η × 2 + ϕ × λ LT ( xcI ) ⎟ = 0.901
2
tf = 25 mm
⎜ λ z ( xcII,lim ) ⎟
⎝ ⎠ tw = 15 mm
ϕ S235
χ LT ( xcI ) = = 0.752 ≤ 1
φLT + φLT − ϕ × λ LT ( x )
2 2 I
c My,Ed = 300 kNm
L=5m
M b , Rd = χ ( xcI ) M y , Rd ( xcI ) = 0.751×1097.19 = 825.45 kN > M y , Ed ( xcI ) = 300 kNm
q  Numerical analysis, GMNIA M b , Rd = 853.95 kN → 3.3% diff

Beam-columns
Master Course
Beam-columns
VEd
q  How to solve the problem HEd
2nd order effects P-‐Δ 2nd order effects P-‐δ

+ +
Material nonlinearity Check Buckling length
Global imperfections Local imperfections
φ e0,y e0,z
0 YES YES YES YES Max. Load factor (≡ GMMIA) -‐
1 YES YES YES NO Cross s ection -‐
2a YES YES NO NO Out-‐of-‐plane Member s tability procedures L
2b YES NO NO NO Member s tability procedures Global Lcr,z
3 NO NO NO NO Member s tability procedures Global Lcr,z Lcr,y

Master Course
Beam-columns
q  Difficulties for each approach

+ +
φ e0,y e0,z
2b YES NO NO NO Member s tability procedures L
? ? ?
Buckling curve acc. Elastic Plastic
to EC3-1-1, Table analysis analysis
6.1 e0/L e0/L
a0 1/350 1/300
a 1/300 1/250 Need to calibrate e0/L acc. to
b 1/250 1/200 new imperfection factors for
c 1/200 1/150
d 1/150 1/100
welded members!

Master Course
Beam-columns

+ +
φ e0,y e0,z
Calibrate e0/L for new

Need to develop
imperfection factors
àIn-plane
àOut-of-plane
Approaches:
àInteraction
àGeneralized
slenderness
Master Course
Beam-columns

+ +
φ e0,y e0,z
q Focus on approach 2a:

àDevelop out-of-plane verification procedure;
à To account for LTB in the in-plane stability

reduce Mpl by χLT in the cross section check

Master Course
Beam-columns
q  Adaptation of the Interaction formula
N Ed ( xcI, N ) M y , Ed ( xcI, M )
+ k zy ≤ 1.0
χ z ( xcI, N ) N Rk ( xcI, N ) γ M 1 χ LT ( xcI, M )M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) γ M 1
q  kzy factor determined from Method 2 (Annex B)

q  Because yy and zz modes are clearly separated
1
q  Cmy factors determined with εM
ψε.ε(Mh)=0.435
MEMBER UTILIZATON 0.5 ε(Ms)=0.197
(My/My,Rk) 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-0.5 α s = −0.917 ψ ε = −0.435

Cmi = 0.1(1 −ψ ε ) − 0.8α s = 0.3
ε(Mh)=-1 Cmi < 0.4 → Cmi = 0.4
-1
x/L

Master Course
Beam-columns

q  Results
My,Ed [kNm]
70 Interaction χovMethod
60 GMNIA
1 Interaction
50
40
30 0.8
20
10
0.6
0
0 100 200 300 400
NM [kN]
Edy,Ed [kNm] 0.4
120
Low slenderness: 100
0.2
80
60
Interaction 0
40
GMNIA 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
20
cross section χovGMNIA
0
0 100 200 300
NEd [kN]

Master Course
Beam-columns
χMethod
1
q  Adaptation of the Interaction formula 6.61
+15%
q  In-plane failure mode 0.8 -5%
My,Ed [kNm] Csection 0.6

120 GMNIA λy (xc,I)=0.18
GMNIA λy (xc,I)=0.62
100 GMNIA λy (xc,I)=092 0.4
6.61
80
0.2
60
My,Ed [kNm] cross section
40
800 GMNIA λy 0(xc,I)=0.28
20 0
GMNIA λy (xc,I)=0.7 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
700 GMNIA λy (xc,I)=1.39
6.61
χGMNIA
0 600
0 200 400 600 500800
NEd [kN] 400
300 Also up to
200 20%
100
0
conservative
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
NEd [kN]

Master Course
Beam-columns
χMethod
1 6.61 or 6.62
q  In-plane and out-of-plane failure +20%
mode 0.8 -6%
Ly ≡ L 0.6
Ly / 1000 0.4
0.2
Lz ≡ L/2
0
Lz / 1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
χGMNIA
Also up to
20%
conservative
Master Course
Beam-columns
BEAM-COLUMNS - EXAMPLE
hw,max = 610 mm
b = 206 mm
α=2.519º
My,Ed tf = 25 mm
tw = 15 mm
NEd S235
NEd = 1100 kN
q  Member class
My,Ed = 300 kNm
0.6 L=5m
0.5
0.4
ε Class 1
0.3 Class 2
Class 3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L
Master Course
Beam-columns
q  Interaction formulae
+ k yy ≤ 1.0
χ y ( xcI, N ) N Rk ( xcI, N ) γ M 1 χ LT ( xcI, M )M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) γ M 1
+ k zy ≤ 1.0
χ z ( xcI, N ) N Rk ( xcI, N ) γ M 1 χ LT ( xcI, M )M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) γ M 1
q  Data: N Ed ( xcI, N ) = 1100 kN χ z ( xcI, N ) = χ z (0) = 0.634

M y , Ed ( xcI, M ) = 300 kNm χ y ( xcI, N ) = χ y (0) = 1
χ LT ( xcI, M ) = χ y (5) = 0.752
N Rk ( xcI, N ) = N Rk (0) = 3022.1 kN
M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) = M y ,el (5) = 942.53 kNm k yy = ?
k zy = ?
γ M1 = 1
Master Course
Beam-columns
q  Cmy, CmLT
0.3
0.25
ψ el = 0
0.277
0.2 0.236 α s = ε el ( M s ) / ε el ( M h ) = 0.236 / 0.277 = 0.8507
0.15 ⇒ Cmy = CmLT = 0.2 + 0.8 × α s = 0.881
0.1
0.05
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ 1100 ⎞⎟
( ) ( )
I
⎜ N ( x ) ⎟ ⎜
k yy = Cmy × ⎜1 + 0.6 ϕ y λ y ( xc , N )
I Ed c , N
⎟ = 0.881× ⎜1 + $
0.6 × 1.128 × 0.299 = 0.942
⎜ $ ! ! # ! ! " χ ( x
I
) N ( x
I
) γ M1 ⎟
! !! # ! ! !" 3022.1 ⎟
⎝ ≤0.6
y c, N Rk c , N
⎠ ⎝ ≤0.6 ⎠
≤#
$!!0.05
!!" ≤0.05
I
$!# !"
0.05 ϕ λ z ( xc , N ) 1
N Ed ( xc , N ) 0.05 1.222 × 1 1100
z
k = 1− 1 1
= 1− = 0.955
zy C m , LT − 0.25 χ z ( xc , N ) N Rk ( xc , N ) γ M 1 0.881 − 0.25 0.634 × 3022.1

Master Course
Beam-columns
q  Verification N Ed ( xcI, N ) M y , Ed ( xcI, M )
N Ed ( xc , N ) = 1100 kN
I
+ k yy ≤ 1.0
χ y ( xcI, N ) N Rk ( xcI, N ) γ M 1 χ LT ( xcI, M ) M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) γ M 1
M y , Ed ( xcI, M ) = 300 kNm
0.701 ≤ 1.0
χ z ( x ) = χ z (0) = 0.634
I
c, N
χ y ( x ) = χ y ( 0) = 1
I
+ k zy ≤ 1.0
c, N
χ z ( xcI, N ) N Rk ( xcI, N ) γ M 1 χ LT ( xcI, M ) M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) γ M 1
χ LT ( xcI, M ) = χ y (5) = 0.752
0.905 ≤ 1.0 LF ≈ 1/0.905=1.105

N Rk ( x I
c, N ) = N Rk (0) = 3022.1 kN
M y , Rk ( xcI, M ) = M y ,el (5) = 942.53 kNm
q  Numerical analysis,
GMNIA
γ M1 = 1
NEd,max=1337.75 kN
LF = 1.216
My,Ed,max= 364.84 kNm
k yy = 0.942
k zy = 0.955
Module A – Design of non-uniform members → 9.1% diff
Research challenges
Master Course
Research challenges
q  Generalization of the over-strength factors to any shape of cross-

section / loading
q  Utilization of the compressed flange
q  Calibrate equivalent imperfections e0/L for new imperfection factors

and also for other types of cross section:
q  Properly account for local buckling due to shear / bending

q  Development of direct reduction factor approach for beam-columns
q  Other boundary conditions
q  Partial restraints
q  …

Master Course
REFERENCES
Simões da Silva, L, Rimões, R and Gervásio, H -

“Design of Steel Structures”, Ernst & Sohn and ECCS
Press, Brussels, 2010.
•  Marques, L., Taras, A., Simões da Silva, L., Greiner, R. and

Rebelo, C., “Development of a consistent design procedure for
tapered columns", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 72,
pp. 61–74 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.008
•  Marques, L., Simões da Silva, L., Greiner, R., Rebelo, C. and
Taras, A., “Development of a consistent design procedure for
lateral-torsional buckling of tapered beams”, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 89, pp. 213-235 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.07.009

Master Course
REFERENCES
•  Marques, L., Simões da Silva, L. and Rebelo, C., “Rayleigh-Ritz

procedure for determination of the critical loads of tapered
columns”, Steel and Composite Structures, 16(1), pp. 47-60
(2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/scs.2014.16.1.047
•  Marques, L., Simões da Silva, L., Rebelo, C. and Santiago, A.,

“Extension of the interaction formulae in EC3-1-1 for the stability
verification of tapered beam-columns”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, (2014, in print).
•  Simões da Silva, L., Marques, L. and Rebelo, C., (2010)
“Numerical validation of the general method in EC3-1-1: lateral,
lateral-torsional and bending and axial force interaction of
uniform members”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66,
pp. 575-590 (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.11.003

Master Course
SOFTWARE
LTBeamN - “Elastic Lateral Torsional Buckling of

Beams”, v1.0.1, CTICM, 2013.
http://www.steelbizfrance.com/telechargement/
desclog.aspx?idrub=1&lng=2
SemiComp Member Design – Design resistance of
prismatic beam-columns”, Greiner et al, RFCS, 2011.
http://www.steelconstruct.com
ECCS Steel Member Calculator – Design of

columns, beams and beam-columns to EC3-1-1”, Silva
et al, ECCS, 2011. http://www.steelconstruct.com
www.cmm.pt www.steelconstruct.com

Master Course
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
•  This lecture was prepared for the Edition 2 of SUSCOS (2013/15) by

LUÍS SIMÕES DA SILVA and LILIANA MARQUES (UC).
The SUSCOS powerpoints are covered by copyright and are for the exclusive use by the
SUSCOS teachers in the framework of this Erasmus Mundus Master. They may be
improved by the various teachers throughout the different editions.
luisss@dec.uc.pt
Gab. SF 5.11
http://steel.fsv.cvut.cz/suscos

Tapered Column Design

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tapered Column Design

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ADVANCED DESIGN OF STEEL AND COMPOSITE

Luís Simões da Silva

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Tapered steel members are used in steel structures

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Tapered members are commonly used in steel frames:

q Adequate verification procedures are then required for these

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q However, there are several difficulties in performing the stability

q Guidelines are inexistent or not clear for the designer

q Due to this reason simplifications that are not mechanically

q These may be either too conservative or even

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Position of the critical cross-section – not at mid span

q 1st order critical cross section is considered!

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Variation of cross section class

My,Ed q Definition of an equivalent class for

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Definition of local imperfections:

Buckling curve acc. Elastic analysis Plastic analysis

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Definition of local imperfections?

Barajas Airport, Madrid, Spain

Auvent de la Gare Routière – Ermont

Italy pavilion, World Expo 2010 – Shanghai

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

λ op = αult,k / αcr ,op

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

1 q αult,k should account for local second order effects?

q If so: again à problem with definition of imperfections

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

2 q Definition of a proper buckling curve

q For some cases existing buckling curves may even be

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Non-uniform members – GENERAL METHOD (clause 6.3.4)

3 q Reduction factor – minimum or interpolation

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Problem with definition of imperfections

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Eq. Moments in B δ

q Eq. Horizontal

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Proposal for determination of major axis critical load of tapered I

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q First yield criterion

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q Introducing slenderness and reduction factor definitions

q At the critical location ε(xcII)=1

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

columns and beams

q Boundary conditions:

q Member imperfections:

q Material imperfections:

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

columns and beams

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

columns and beams

Module A – Design of non-uniform members

q  Tapered steel members are used in steel structures

q  Tapered members are commonly used in steel frames:

q  Adequate verification procedures are then required for these

q  However, there are several difficulties in performing the stability

q  Guidelines are inexistent or not clear for the designer

q  Due to this reason simplifications that are not mechanically

q  These may be either too conservative or even

q  Position of the critical cross-section – not at mid span

q  1st order critical cross section is considered!

q  Variation of cross section class

My,Ed q  Definition of an equivalent class for

q  Definition of local imperfections:

q  Definition of local imperfections?

1 q  αult,k should account for local second order effects?

q  If so: again à problem with definition of imperfections

2 q  Definition of a proper buckling curve

q  For some cases existing buckling curves may even be

q  Non-uniform members – GENERAL METHOD (clause 6.3.4)

3 q  Reduction factor – minimum or interpolation

q  Problem with definition of imperfections

q  Eq. Moments in B δ

q  Eq. Horizontal

q  Proposal for determination of major axis critical load of tapered I

q  First yield criterion

q  Introducing slenderness and reduction factor definitions

q  At the critical location ε(xcII)=1

q  Boundary conditions:

q  Member imperfections:

q  Material imperfections:

q  Interpretation of xcII and β – example (column)

1 q  Simplification of the analytical models

1 q  Simplification of the analytical models

2 q  Transformation of variables

q  Critical load multiplier – αcr

q  Imperfection factor αy or αz

q  Overstrength factor φy or φz

q  φ was calibrated considering critical location without local

q  Flange thickness in vertical plan

q  Determination of imperfection, η

q  Numerical analysis, GMNIA N b , z , Rd = 1904.68 kN → 0.5% diff

q  Numerical buckling analysis, LBA:

q  Determination of imperfection, η

q  Numerical analysis, GMNIA N b , z , Rd = 3022.1 kN → 0% diff

q  Critical load multiplier – αcr

q  Imperfection factor αLT