Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

CEE 6554

Structural Stability
II. Column Strength

Double Modulus Theory

Key assumption: axial force remains constant at buckling

Double Modulus Theory

Key assumption: axial force remains constant at buckling

P =Pr

Mint

Py Mint = 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

24

12

25

26

13

27

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

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

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

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

CEE 6554, Column Strength

32

16

Example Beam-Columns

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.

34

17

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

Effective Length
cPn(KLi)

Direct Analysis

14'-8"

(a)

(b)

37

38

19