Case Studies on Analysis of Steel

Structures using
g Eurocode 3

Chiew Sing-Ping
S h l off Ci
School Civil
il and
d Environmental
E i t l Engineering
E i i
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

19 November 2013
 Scope of Presentation

¾ Actions & Combination of Actions

¾ Global & Local Imperfections
¾ Structural Analysis
¾ Examples1 & 2 on Portal Frames
¾ Actual Applications

2
 Re-Cap: Combination of Actions

• Load partial factors for ultimate limit state for various

load combinations are given in Table 2 of BS5950.
• Fundamental combination of actions can be determined
from Eqns. 6.10, 6.10a or 6.10b of EN1990.

∑ γG,k Gk, j + γ p P + γQ,1Qk,1 + ∑ γQ,iψθ,iQk,i (6.10)

j ≥1 i >1
Permanent Action due to Leading variable Non-leading variable
actions prestressing action actions

• From SS NA of EN1990
ψ0 = 0.5 for the wind load;
ψ0 = 0.7 for the imposed load;
γG = 1.35 for unfavorable permanent action;
γQ = 1.50
1 50 ffor lleading
di or non-leading
l di variable
i bl action
ti .
 Combination of Actions
Design Action
Combination
BS5950 EN1990
Dead & imposed 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk
Dead & wind 1.4Gk + 1.4Wk 1.35Gk + 1.5Wk
Dead, imposed & wind 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk+ 1.2Wk 1.35Gk + 1.05Qk+ 1.50Wk or
1.35Gk + 1.50Qk+ 0.75Wk

Gk = permanent action; Qk = imposed variable action; Wk = wind variable action

Example: Gk = 20 kN; Qk = 10 kN; Wk = 8 kN

Design Action
Combination
BS5950 EN1990
Dead & imposed 44.0 kN 42.0 kN
Dead, imposed & wind 45.6 kN 49.5 kN or 48.0 kN
 Combination of Actions
Design Action
Combination
BS5950 EC3
Dead & imposed 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk + NHF 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk + EHF

D d & wind
Dead i d 1.4G 1 4Wk* (no
1 4Gk + 1.4W ( NHF) 1 35Gk + 1.5W
1.35G 1 5Wk + EHF

Dead, imposed & wind 1.2Gk + 1.2Qk+ 1.2Wk* (no NHF) 1.35Gk + 1.05Qk+ 1.50Wk + EHF
or
1.35Gk + 1.50Qk+ 0.75Wk+ EHF

In BS5950, minimum Wk is 1% of factored dead load;

this is to provide a minimum level of robustness but
why no NHF when the wind is blowing?

In our NA to SS EN1991-1-4, minimum wind is now

1 5% of unfactored dead load (they have retained the
1.5%
BS8110/CP65 recommended value).
 How to include Frame Imperfection in
Structural Analysis?
F1
¾ Frame imperfection can Φ F1
be replaced by an
equivalent closed system
of horizontal forces F2

applied at each floor level Φ F2

((including
g foundation h
level). Φ
¾ For buildings, frame
Φ (F1+F2)/2 Φ (F1+F2)/2
imperfection Φ, may be
disregarded
d s ega ded where:
e e:
Equivalent forces
H Ed ≥ 0.15V Ed

6
How to include Member Imperfection in
Structural Analysis?
¾ Th
The effects
ff t off local
l l member
b bow
b imperfection
i f ti can
be replaced by an equivalent closed system of
horizontal forces
forces, introduced for each member.
member

NEd NEd
4 N Ed e0
L

e0 8 N Ed e0
L2

4 N Ed e0
L
NEd NEd

7
 Structural Behaviour

linear analysis

geometrically non-linear

e imperfections δ

™ Non-linear behaviour due to:

• Geometrical influence of the actual deformed shape
(second order effects)
• Joint behaviour
• Material yielding
8
 Second (2nd) Order Effects
¾ Frame P-∆ effect:
– due to floor sway
– 1st order frame stiffness modified
– dominant effect
∆ P
¾ Included by:
– Iterative procedure
(software)
– or amplification of
relevant forces

Note: Frame P-Δ effect ≠ Frame imperfection

p

9
 Second (2nd) Order Effects
¾ Member P-δ effect:
– due
d to
t beam-column
b l deflection
d fl ti
– 1st order member stiffness modified

P P
δ
δp
⎛ ⎞
⎜ 1 ⎟ π 2EI
δp = δ ⎜ ⎟ Pcr = 2
⎜1−P P ⎟ L
⎝ cr ⎠

amplification factor

Note: Member P-δ effect ≠ Member imperfection

10
 Structural Analysis - Terminology
¾ First-order analysis
• Equilibrium equations are written in terms of the geometry of
the undeformed structure, geometrical non-linearity not
considered.
¾ Second-order analysis
• Take into account the influence of the deformation of the
structure, e.g. both the sway effect (P-Δ effect) and member
deflection effect (P-δ effect).

11
 Elastic Global Analysis
Types of elastic global analysis:
LA: Linear analysis
y ((1st);
LBA: Linear bifurcation analysis;
GNA: Geometrical non-linear analysis (2nd);
GNIA: Geometrical non-linear with imperfections analysis (2nd ).

¾ Simplified
Si lifi d scheme
h off the
h 4 elastic
l i analyses
l :

F LBA
Fcr

GNIA

e δ

12
How to choose between 1st or 2nd order
analysis ?
¾ Generally, the 2nd order effects should be considered
if they increase the action effects or modify the
structural behaviour significantly.
g y
¾ According to EC3, 1st order analysis may be used if:
Fcr
• For elastic analysis: α cr = ≥ 10 (5.1)
FEd
¾ If 3 ≤ α cr < 10 , EC3 allows member design using
amplified
lifi d 1st order
d elastic
l ti analysis
l i
¾ All the horizontal forces should be amplified by:
1
but αcr ≥ 3.0
1− 1
α cr
13
 How to determine αcr ?

¾ The parameter αcr can be evaluated by the simplified

expression:

H Ed h
α cr = (5.2)
VEd δ H,Ed

To put it simply, 2nd order effects should be taken into

consideration when:
ƒ Large horizontal actions
ƒ Low frame stiffness
ƒ High demand/capacity ratio of members

14
 Example 1 - Portal Frame

hr=2000
θ
beam: 533×210 UB109
column: 305×305 UC158
h=8000

L=24000 w = 10kN/m

40kN 40kN
imp 1

self-weight, imposed
load and wind load

+3kN/m Load Combination -2kN/m

 Use Equation 5.2
¾ The stiffness of the frame is obtained by dividing the
horizontal displacement with the relevant horizontal
force (δ/F).
¾ Stiffness = δmean/F = 22.01mm/1kN
01mm/1kN = 2 2.01
01
2.01mm 1.97mm

F = 1kN

VEd = 80+24×10 = 320kN

⎛ H Ed ⎞⎛ h ⎞ ⎛ H Ed ⎞⎛ h ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ h ⎞
α cr = ⎜⎜
.
⎟⎟⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜δ ⎟⎜ V
⎝ VEd ⎠⎝ δ H , Ed ⎠ ⎝ H , Ed ⎠⎝ Ed ⎠ ⎝ stiffness ⎠⎝ VEd ⎠

⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ 8000 ⎞
=⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 12.48
⎝ 2.01 ⎠⎝ 320 ⎠
16
 Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Eigenvalue = 11.48 Eigenvalue
g = 61.8 Eigenvalue = 98
98.4
4
 1st Order vs. 2nd Order Analysis

256kN.m 312kN.m 424kN.m 317kN.m

250kN.m 435kN.m

MEd (kNm)
MEd (kNm)

120kN 120kN
106kN 105kN
VEd (kN) VEd (kN)

62kN 65kN 62kN 65kN

NEd (kN) NEd (kN)

155kN 169kN 154kN 170kN
18
 Example 2 - Portal Frame

Dead load: 4kN/m/ ((w/o

/ self weight)
g )
Live load: 5kN/m

Imp

Crane load: 180kN x 4

/m

3kN/m
m
3.5kN/
3

20 m 20 m

Rafter: 533 x 210 UB101

Side column: 610 x 305 UB179,
central column: 305 x 305 UC198
19
 1st Order Analysis
M = 486kN.m
M = 448kN.m

Bending Moment

Internal Force under 1st order

analysis

Axial Force
20
Simplify to
N Ed M y , Ed M
+ k yy + k yyz z , Ed ≤ 1.0
χ y N Rd χ LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
N Ed M y , Ed M
+ k zy + k zz z , Ed ≤ 1.0
χ z N Rd χ LT M y , Rd M z , Rd

kyy, kyz,
kzy, kzz

21
 Member Design Check
Demand /
Capacity Ratio
Critical
Critical
1.0
Safe S f
Safe

0.9

0.7

0.5

00
0.0

22
 Determine αcr using Eq. 5.2
δH,Ed=157.6mm

H Ed h 89.9 13000
α cr = = = 6 .2
VEd δ H, Ed 1198 157.6
2nd order P-Δ-δ
P Δ δ analysis
2nd order effects must be included
Amplified
p 1st order analysis
y

23
 2nd Order Analysis
M=502kN.m

B di
Bending M
Momentt

Axial Force

24
 Shear force

V=72kN

199 5mm
199.5mm

Displacement

25
 N Ed M y , Ed + P(Δ y + δ y ) M + P(Δ z + δ z )
+ k yy + k yz z , Ed ≤ 1.0
χ y N Rd χ LT M y , Rd M z , Rd
N Ed M y , Ed + P(Δ y + δ y ) M z , Ed + P(Δ z + δ z )
+ k zy + k zz ≤ 1.0
χ z N Rd χ LT M y , Rd M z , Rd

26
 Member Design Check
Failed
Failed

Demand
D d
ratio 1.05

27
 Summary of Results
Element 1 Element 2 Element 3
MEd Ned VEd( Ratio Med NEd VEd Rati MEd NEd VEd Rati
(kN.m) (kN) kN) kN.m (kN) (kN) o kN.m (kN) (kN) o

1st order 538 428 41 0 85

0.85 637 31 166 0 95
0.95 598 38 135 0 92
0.92
analysis
2nd order 660 342 42 0.95 659 30 169 0.98 680 34 141 1.05
analysis
Change 0.23 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.06 0.0 0.13
2 2 7 4

No. 2
No. 1 No. 3 Frame
Displacement
(mm)
1st order 147 8
147.8
analysis
2nd order 199.5
analysis
l i
Change 0.35 28
 Amplified 1st Order Analysis
1
¾ The amplified factor: k = = 1.19
1
1−
1−
α cr
¾ The sway effects can be introduced by amplifying all the horizontal
loads by 1.19

g= 4kN/m,
4kN/m q=5kN/m

EV load=6.5kN

Crane load: 180kN X 4

1 19×3 5kN/m
1.19×3.5kN/m 1 19×3kN/m
1.19×3kN/m

20m 20m
29
 M=500kN.m

Failed

197.2mm
69kN

30
 Member Design Check

Failed

31
 Overall Summary of Results
Element 1 Element 2 Element 3
MEd Ned VEd( Ratio Med NEd VEd Rati MEd NEd VEd Rati
(kN )
(kN.m) (kN) kN) kN
kN.m (kN) (kN) o kN
kN.m (kN) (kN) o

1st order 538 428 39 0.85 637 31 166 0.95 598 38 135 0.92
analysis
y
2nd order 660 342 42 0.95 659 30 169 0.98 680 34 141 1.05
analysis
Amplified 480 427 39 1 08
1.08 648 34 168 0 97
0.97 620 39 136 0 96
0.96
method

No. 2
No. 1 No. 3 Frame
Displacement
(mm)
1st order 157 6
157.6
2nd order 199.5
Amplified 197.2

32
Application of 2nd Order Analysis

Model of Glass Box

Member Stress Deflection

33
 Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis

Roof member buckling Vertical member buckling

Roof buckling Wall buckling 34

Other Application - Roof

Buckled Mode Shapes

35
 Conclusions

¾ EC3 highlighted the replacement of member

imperfections by equivalent forces which can be easily
incorporated into global structural analysis.
¾ For conventional frame structures, 1st order or amplified
1st order analysis
y may
y be adequate.
q
¾ For unconventional and complex structures, 2nd order
analysis is often required.
required Engineers should also carry
out eigenvalue buckling analysis to assess the influence
of 2nd order effects.
effects
¾ Choice of softwares is important for buckling and 2nd
order
d analysis;
l i they
th are nott exactly
tl the
th same.

36