Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

CEE 6554

Structural Stability
II. Column Strength

Maximum strengths for various steel column types (Galambos 1998)

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Column Strength: A History

CEE 6554, Column Strength

CEE 6554, Column Strength

CEE 6554, Column Strength

CEE 6554, Column Strength

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Double Modulus Theory


Key assumption: axial force remains constant at buckling

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Double Modulus Theory


Key assumption: axial force remains constant at buckling

P =Pr

Mint

Py Mint = 0

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Double Modulus Theory


Assuming axial force remains constant
Pcompr = Ptensile Pcompr Ptensile = 0
or
z1 z2

0 0

c1

1 dA 0 2 dA = 0 E t 1 dA 0 E 2 dA = 0 E t (z1y) dA 0 E(z 2 y) dA = 0
c2 c1 c2 c2

c2

c1

c1

E t y0 z1 dA Ey0 z 2 dA = 0 E t 0 z1 dA E 0 z 2 dA = 0
CEE 6554, Column Strength
c1 c2

10

Double Modulus Theory


E t 0 z1 dA E 0 z 2 dA = 0
E t Q1 EQ 2 = 0
c1 c2

z1

z2

Locate Neutral Axis

For a rectangular section


2 Q1 = 0 z1 dA = 0 bz1 dz1 = bc 1 / 2 c1 c1

Q 2 = 0 z 2 dA = bc 2 / 2 2

c2

c1 E = c Et 2

For other sections ??

CEE 6554, Column Strength

11

Double Modulus Theory


Mint = 0 1 z1 dA + 0 2 z 2 dA = 0
c1 c1 c2

(E t z1y) z1 dA 0 (Ez 2 y) z 2 dA
c2

2 = y E t 0 z1 dA + E 0 z 2 dA 2

c1

c2

= y ( E t I1 + E I2

)
P =Pr Mint

= y( Er I)

Er =

E t I1 + E I2 I

Py Mint = 0

Py + y (Er I) = 0 Pr = 2ErI Er = Pe L2 E
12

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Tangent Modulus Theory


Same as double modulus theory, except we assume that the compressive strains continue to increase throughout the cross-section at buckling
= E t everywhere

Py + y (E t I) = 0

Pt =

2E tI < Pr L2

Note that Pt is independent of the section geometry

CEE 6554, Column Strength

13

Shanleys Theory
Take P1 & e1 + in tension Take P2 & e 2 + in compr

Deformable Cell

P2 e2

P1 e1

Key decision: No a priori assumption of P = 0 From geometry of deformations


d = L / 2
e1 + e 2 = = d= h (h / 2)

P2

P1

e1 + e 2 2 L (e1 + e 2 ) 4

Eq. (1)
14

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Shanleys Theory
(Mcell )ext = Pd = PL (e1 + e 2 )
4

Deformable Cell

A P1 = E1 e1 2

A P2 = E 2 e 2 2

P2 e2

P1 e1

(Mcell )int = (P1 + P2 ) h

2 hA (E1e1 + E2 e2 ) = 4

(Mcell )ext = (Mcell )int


PL (e1 + e 2 ) = hA (E1e1 + E2 e 2 ) 4 4

P2

P1

Solving for P
P= hA (E1e1 + E 2 e 2 ) (e1 + e2 ) L
15

CEE 6554, Column Strength

Shanleys Theory
Let E2 = Et , E1 = Et Either = 1 or E/Et ...
P= hAE t (e1 + e 2 ) L (e1 + e 2 )

Deformable Cell

P2

P1

e2

e1

Returning to Eq. (1)


d= L (e1 + e 2 ) 4 L

P2

(e1 + e 2 ) = 4d
e 2 = 4d e1 L

P1

Substituting
P=

CEE 6554, Column Strength

4d e1 e1 + hAE t L 4d L e1 e1 + L

16

Shanleys Theory
4d e1 e1 + hAE t L P= 4d L e1 e1 + L

Deformable Cell

P2 e2

P1 e1

P=

AhE t L

L 1 + 4d ( 1)e1

Eq. (2) two unknowns Assume bending starts at P = Pt E1 = E2 = Et


(we will verify this later)

P2

P1

P = Pt =

AhE t L

CEE 6554, Column Strength

17

Shanleys Theory
Is there any P associated with the onset of bending?
P = P2 P1
= E 2 e 2 A A E1 e1 2 2

Deformable Cell

P2 e2

P1 e1

A 4d A = Et e1 E t e1 2 L 2 P = AE t 4d ( + 1)e1 2 L AE t 4d ( + 1)e1 2 L

P2

P1

P = Pt +

2d L P = Pt 1 + ( + 1)e1 h 2h
CEE 6554, Column Strength

18

Shanleys Theory
2d L P = Pt 1 + ( + 1)e1 h 2h

Deformable Cell

P2
e2

P1
e1

Equate this with Eq. (2)


P= AhE t L L 1 + 4d ( 1)e1

& solve for e1


4d 1 e1 = L( 1) h + + 1 2d 1

P2

Eq. (3)

P1

Subst. Eq. (3) into Eq. (2)

CEE 6554, Column Strength

1 P = Pt 1 + h + 1 + 2d 1

19

Shanleys Theory
1 P = Pt 1 + h + 1 + 2d 1

Deformable Cell

P2 e2

P1 e1

Notes: (1) When d = 0, P = Pt (2) If we assume = 1 (no strain reversal) P stays const as the member buckles (3) However, bending at const P causes strain reversal (4) If we assume = E/Et (strain reversal in elem 1) P must increase the result is consistent with the assumption
P2

P1

CEE 6554, Column Strength

20

10

Shanleys Theory
Let L = 10, h = 1, = 50
4d 1 e1 = 10( 49) 1 + 51 2d 49

Deformable Cell

P2 e2

P1 e1

1 P = Pt 1 + 1 51 + 2d 49

P2

P1

CEE 6554, Column Strength

21

Shanleys Theory
1 vs d for L=10, h=1, =50
0.000007 0.000006 0.000005 0.000004 1 0.000003 0.000002 0.000001 0 0
CEE 6554, Column Strength

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01 d

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.02
22

11

Shanleys Theory
P/Pt vs d for L=10, h=1, =50
1.05

1.04

1.03 P/Pt 1.02 1.01 1 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 d 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02

CEE 6554, Column Strength

23

Shanleys Theory
Assuming Et = const Do we reach a limit load at some value of P?
P1 = P2 E1e1 = E 2 e 2
Ee1 = E t e 2

Deformable Cell

P2 e2

P1 e1

e1 =

Et e 2 e 2 = E

4d 1 e1 = e1 L
e1 = 4d 1 L 1+

P2

P1

1 P = Pt 1 + + 1

this is the reduced modulus buckling load


24

CEE 6554, Column Strength

12

Development of AISC Beam-Column Eqs.

CEE 6554, Column Strength

25

Development of AISC Beam-Column Eqs.

CEE 6554, Column Strength

26

13

Development of AISC Beam-Column Eqs

CEE 6554, Column Strength

27

Development of AISC Beam-Column Eqs.

CEE 6554, Column Strength

28

14

Representative first-yield and fully-plastic strength envelopes, compact doubly-symmetric I-sections subjected to major-axis bending
W40x167, fully-plastic resistance
1.0

W40x167, nominal first yield W14x257, fully-plastic resistance W14x257, nominal first yield AISC Eqs. H1-1

Normalized Axial Force, P/Py

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Normalized Moment, M/Mp


CEE 6554, Column Strength

29

Representative first-yield and fully-plastic strength envelopes, compact doubly-symmetric I-sections subjected to minor-axis bending

1.0

Normalized Axial Force, P/Py

W40x167, fully-plastic resistance W40x167, nominal first yield W14x257, fully-plastic resistance W14x257, nominal first yield AISC Eqs. H1-1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Normalized Moment, M/Mp

CEE 6554, Column Strength

30

15

AISC (2005) Provisions for Stability Analysis & Design


Attribute Limits on the Method Analysis Type Notional Load Effective Stiffness Axial Strength Pn Effective Length Method 2/1 < 1.5 Second-order elastic(1) None(2) Nominal Direct Analysis Method None Second-order elastic(1) 0.002 Yi (4) 0.8 x Nominal, except EIeff = 0.8bEI when Pu > 0.5Py (5) Pn based on L (no K)(6)

Pn based on KL(3)

(1) Includes first-order analysis with amplifiers (2) Minimum notional load of 0.002 Yi is required for gravity load only combinations (3) K = 1 allowed if sidesway amplifier B2 = 2/1 < 1.1 (4) Out-of-plumbness o / L = 0.002 may be used in lieu of notional load (5) b = 4 (Pu/Py) (1 Pu/Py) (6) If Pu < 0.01PeL of if a member out-of-straightness of 0.001L or the equivalent notional loading is included, Pn = QPy (LRFD)
CEE 6554, Column Strength

31

Relationship between notional loads and out-of-plumbness

CEE 6554, Column Strength

32

16

Example Beam-Columns

CEE 6554, Column Strength

33

Appropriate nominal attributes for distributed plasticity analysis


A sinusoidal or parabolic out-of-straightness with a maximum amplitude of o = L/1000, where L is the unsupported length in the plane of bending. An out-of-plumbness of o = L/500, the maximum tolerance specified in the AISC (2005) Code of Standard Practice. The Lehigh (Galambos and Ketter 1959) residual stress pattern. An elastic-perfectly plastic material stress-strain response.

CEE 6554, Column Strength

34

17

Lehigh Residual Stress Pattern

CEE 6554, Column Strength

35

Nominal strength curves by distributed plasticity analysis versus AISC (2005) ELM
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 P/Py 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 HL/Mp 0.6 0.8 1 AISC (2005) Effective Length Distributed plasticity analysis, major-axis Distributed plasticity analysis, minor axis

CEE 6554, Column Strength

36

18

Cantilever Example
800

Pr H = 0.01Pr
700 600 500 400

cPy

PeLx = 3151 kips 0.10PeLx = 315 kips

Effective Length
cPn(KLi)

Direct Analysis

14'-8"

W10x60 Fy = 50 ksi L/rx = 40

Distributed Plasticity Analysis

300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 Mr (ft-kips) 200 250 300

(a)

(b)

CEE 6554, Column Strength

37

Ratio of Ie/I at the distributed plasticity limit load

CEE 6554, Column Strength

38

19