21 views

Uploaded by sinu21

save

- Bridge 3example
- Calculation a- Frame
- CE2252 Strenth of Materials Question Bank-xams9
- galambos2001Q2
- Hints to Selective Problems
- LT Buckling Beam Design - Simple Method - 2up
- 2010 Aisc Steel Tools
- Platform- Bracing Support
- SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf
- Class Lectures 4- Flexural Members
- Vigas Continuas Compuestas Barth Nsba Wsbs LRFD
- volume04.pdf
- Civil Engg MCQ
- Pad Footing Design
- Weld Stress Calculations
- Modeling and Analysis of Knuckle Joint used in Tractor
- FEWeld Info
- Mathcad - aibox_cb.pdf
- Collapse Mechanisms of Sandwich Beams With Composite Faces
- Bcon Report
- mechanical (stress analysis)
- Assessment of Effective Slab Widths in Composite Beams
- 2._2014-Stress_Analysis.pdf
- diagrid.pdf
- Ce2252 Strength of Materials Qb
- Clear Cover
- P-752_Unit5
- Column Shortening
- LTS 5 TableOfContents
- 09thick Beams
- General Description 1.6.1 Plate and Shell Element
- 2010(2)
- Bentley Sacs Brochure
- Prayers
- bplt
- Generic Job Description Naval Architect-Structural Engineer V1
- File
- Forwind Annual Report 2007
- Tata

You are on page 1of 42

l

) Under the

Wind Pressure

By

Atorod Azizinamini, Ph.D.,P.E.

1- Introduction and Objectives

The purpose of preparing this document is to evaluate the application of

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (Third edition) to calculate

flange lateral bending stress, fl, for a specific design example and

compare the results to detail finite element analysis. Specific objectives

are as follows:

a) calculate the flange lateral bending stress using two and three

dimensional finite element analyses

b) calculate the flange lateral bending stress using code

recommendations

c) calculate the magnification factor using detail finite element

analysis approach and that recommended by the code

d) Incorporate flange lateral bending stress term in constructability

limit state check for a three span continuous bridge designed

using High performance steel

e) Provide preliminary conclusions with respect to advantage and

shortcomings of the procedures suggested by AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specification to calculate flange lateral bending

stress

2- Brief Summary of the Bridge Configuration

Bridge Considered is a three span continuous steel plate girders. Following is

brief summary of the specific design information:

No. of Spans = 3

Length Span No. (ft)

_________________________________________________________________

1 135

2 175

3 135

No. of Lanes = 3

No. of Girders = 4

Skew Angle = 0

Dist. Curbline To Exterior Girder = 3

DECK DATA AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES

_________________________________

Slab Thickness = 8.5 in

Haunch Thickness = 3 in

Sacrificial Wearing Surface = 0.5 in

Concrete Compressive Strength (f'c) = 3000 psi

COMPOSITE TYPE FOR ANALYSIS:

Deck is Considered Composite Throughout

LOADING

_______

The Live Load Vehicle is the AASHTO HL-93 Loading

ADDITIONAL DEAD LOADS

_____________________

Superimposed Dead Load = 175 plf

Future Wearing Surface = 20 psf

Additional Girder Dead Weight = 10 % of Girder Dead Load

3- Wind Load Analysis

a- Elastic Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis-

Complete Bridge Model

Three dimensional model of the bridge was developed using both

SAP2000 and ANSYS5.7. The purpose of this exercise was to ensure

the accuracy of the three dimensional modeling. The modeling

techniques used in developing three dimensional model of the bridge

is based on the past experiences gained from full scale testing and

modeling of the steel bridges in both laboratory and field. Both model

were subjected to same loading and produced approximately same

results. ANSYS5.7 model was selected to carryout all three

dimensional analysis as one of the objective of the work was to

conduct geometrical non-linear analysis.

The code specified lateral load (non-factored) due to wind is 0.3 kips per

linear foot. The depth of the girder used is 54 inches. In the three

dimensional finite element analysis a pressure loading of 65 lb/ft

2

was

applied to outside girder (perpendicular to the web face), which is

approximately equivalent to 0.3 kips per linear ft wind load.

The stress contours and deflected shape of the bridge under the applied

wind pressure is shown in Figure 1. The close up of the model for the

first span is shown in figure 2.

Deflected shape (plan view) Stress in x-direction

Figure 1 the deflection and stress of the bridge under the wind pressure

Figure 2 Flange stress under the wind pressure, a closer view- First Span

The maximum lateral deflection of the girder is approximately 10 inches

(due to unfactored wind load of 65 lb/ft2).

Summary of the flange lateral bending stresses obtained from three

dimensional finite element analysis of the entire bridge is shown in Table

1 (see column no. 7) for three different locations along outside girder.

Section 1 in table 1 is located in the first span. As indicated in table 1,

location of maximum flange lateral bending stresses is different for

various analyses types. Section 2 in table 1 is located over the pier and

section 3 is located at mid-span of middle span.

Table 1 Bottom flange stress under wind pressure from a 3-span bridge

Sec.

S

y

(in

3

)

M (kips-in)

Maximum Flange Lateral Bending

Stresses,

(ksi)

Sec.

Mod.

2D† Sap,

Constant

properties

2D† Sap,

specified

Properties

2D† Sap,

Specified

Properties

3D† Ansys, One

Girder Model

3D†† Ansys,

Entire Bridge

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1 53

1092

(x=49.5ft)

832.5

15.7

(x=66.3 ft)

12.1

(x=43.5ft)

9.4

(x=45.1ft)

2 232 2213(x=135ft) 2941

12.7

(x=135ft)

8.4 (x=135ft) 8.4 (x=135ft)

3

49

1232 (x=222.5

ft)

535

10.9

(x=222.5ft)

9.5

(x=222.5ft)

8.2

(x=222.5ft)

† 0.3 k/ft applied to one girder and resulting stress divided by number of girders

†† 65 lb/ft2 which is equivalent of 0.3 k/ft applied to outside girder only. Analysis takes

care of number of girders

The maximum and minimum flange lateral bending stresses shown in

figure 1 and 2 are for first span and are approximately 9.4 ksi. The

maximum and minimum flange lateral bending stresses over the pier is

8.4 ksi. The maximum and minimum flange lateral bending stresses in

middle of the second span is 8.2 ksi.

b- Elastic Three Dimensional Finite Element Analysis- One Girder

Model

A three dimensional model of one outside girder was also constructed

using Ansys 5.7. In this model the shell elements were used to model

both the web and flanges using the actual web and flange dimensions.

The applied load was in the form of pressure and was specified at the 65

pounds per square ft, which is equivalent to 0.3 kips per linear ft. From

this three dimensional model the maximum flange lateral bending

stresses at the same locations as that reported for complete model of

the bridge were extracted and are shown in column 6 of table 1. It

should be noted that the stresses obtained from this three dimensional

analysis were divided by four (number of girders in the cross section).

c- Two Dimensional Analysis

One of the objectives of the work reported here was to determine the

best approach to calculate the flange lateral bending stresses. As a

result, series of two dimensional analyses were carried out.

Two different two dimensional analyses were carried out using Sap2000.

In each analysis one outside girder was modeled using two dimensional

beam elements. One of the analysis used constant section properties

(section sizes at the middle of the first span) over the entire length of

the bridge. The other analysis used actual section properties along the

girder. Results of the Sap2000 in terms of moment for uniform cross

section are shown in figure 3. Section 2 is over the pier and section 3 is

at middle of the middle span.

Figure 3 the moment diagram from the 2-D analysis with uniform section

properties along the girder

The moment obtained from two dimensional analyses were converted to

flange lateral bending stresses using equation (1) shown below.

y

f

S

M

· σ

(1)

Where, S

y

is the section modulus about the minor axis of one flange and

M is the wind induced moment per each girder (the moment shown in

Figure 3 is for one girder. It is assumed that total wind load is resisted by

all four girders, which is in accordance with results obtained from three

dimensional finite element analyses).

Table 1 shows summary of the results obtained from two dimensional

analyses in terms of moment and stresses at three locations along one

girder.

d- Calculating the Flange Lateral Bending Stresses using

AASHTO Recommendation

Section 4.6.2.7 of AASHTO LRFD in its commentary provides a

recommendation on how to calculate the resulting moments in the

girders due to wind pressure. The recommendation are as follows:

b

b

w

N

WL WL

M

8 10

2 2

+ ·

(2)

Using equation (2), the maximum moment for first span could be

calculated as follows:

f k

ft klf ft klf

M

w

− · + · 3 . 187

) 4 ( 8

) 135 )( 3 . 0 (

10

) 4 . 23 )( 3 . 0 (

2 2

(3)

Using equation (2) the maximum moment for middle span could be

calculated as follows:

f k

ft klf ft klf

M

w

− · + · 1 . 303

) 4 ( 8

) 175 )( 3 . 0 (

10

) 1 . 23 )( 3 . 0 (

2 2

(4)

The flange lateral bending stresses could then be obtained by dividing

the resulting moments by section modules. Table 2 provides summary of

flange lateral bending stresses using the AASHTO LRFD

recommendation.

Table 2 Lateral flange bending stress under the wind pressure based on the

AASHTO recommendations

Se

c.

S

y

(in

3

) M (kips-in)

Flange Lateral Bending Stresses,

(ksi)

Section

Modules

AASHTO LRFD

Recommendation

AASHTO LRFD Recommendation

1 53 2247.6 42.4

2 232 N.A. N.A.

3 49 3637.4 74.2

As noted from table 2 the flange lateral bending stresses, using AASHTO

LRFD recommendations, are not calculated for section near pier. It is

believed that the AASHTO LRFD recommendations are only applicable

for middle of each span.

4- Magnification Factor

It is assumed that the compression flange, when subjected to lateral

loads, acts as a beam column. The lateral load causes the flange to

displace in lateral direction. As a result the maximum moment in the

compression flange will increase due to secondary effects. AASHTO

LRFD treats this magnification in a similar way that AISC building code

treats design of beam columns. Appendix A provides derivation of the

moment magnification factor as used in AISC building code.

As indicated in appendix A the general from of the magnification factor

is as follows:

ek

m

P

P

C

− 1

Where P is the applied axial load to the beam column and P

ek

is the

critical column buckling load. Cm is a factor that accounts for different

loading cases. Appendix A provides more detail discussion of this

magnification factor.

As noted from Appendix A the derivation of the moment magnification

factor is based on assuming a beam column being supported at both

ends and subjected to end axial load and some type of lateral load.

The magnification factor used in Equation 6.10.1.6-4 of the AASHTO

LRFD is similar to that shown above and is as follows:

cr

bm

F

f

− 1

85 . 0

According to AASHTO LRFD code the lateral flange bending stress should

be magnified only if the unbraced length between the cross frames

exceeds that shown below:

yc

bm

b b

p b

F

f

R C

L L 2 . 1 ≤

(5)

Where

yc

t P

F

E

r L ·

(6)

For the design example under consideration the Lp is as follows:

ft in L

P

6 . 6

50

29000

3 . 3 · · (7)

Equation (5) is function of the compressive stress in the flange due to

gravity load as indicated in fbm term.

The Strength Limit State III is where wind load on structure WS

influences the loading combination. The Strength Limit State III could be

written as follows:

1.25 f

DC1

+ 1.4 f

WS

During the construction phase the f

bm

in equation (5) could be due to

dead weight of the steel girders or weight of the steel girders plus the

wet concrete.

For the sake of discussion, the calculation of magnification factor is

shown for middle span.

a) magnification factor using self weight of concrete

This is a very unlikely event where concrete is placed and high wind

loads are applied to the girders before concrete has had a chance to

harden. Therefore this scenario is a safe guard for approximately 24

hour time period where concrete is cast but is not hardened yet. For this

scenario, for the middle span the maximum factored compressive stress,

f

bm

due to gravity load only is 25.8 ksi. This includes the weight of the

girder plus the concrete. The limiting unbraced length between cross

frames would then become:

ft ft L

b

0 . 11

50

8 . 25

) 0 . 1 ( 0 . 1

) 6 . 6 ( 2 . 1 1 . 23 · > ·

(8)

Since actual unbraced length between the cross frames is 23.1 ft and

the limiting value is 11.0 ft, we must then magnify the fl term.

Substituting the numerical values, magnification factor becomes:

29 . 2

41

8 . 25

1

85 . 0

·

−

· MF

(10)

b) Magnification factor using only the weight of the girder

If concrete is not cast during severe wind condition, the f

bm

can be

computed based on the self weight of the steel girders. The moment

induced in mid-span of the middle span, due to weight of the girder only

is 2021 ft-kips. The resulting compressive stress in the compression

flange could then be obtained as follows:

ksi

S

M

f

x

bm

0 . 3

833

) 2021 ( 25 . 1

· · ·

(11)

The limiting value for the unbraced length is calculated using Equation

(5).

ft ft L

b

3 . 32

50

0 . 3

) 0 . 1 ( 0 . 1

) 6 . 6 ( 2 . 1 1 . 23 · < ·

(12)

Therefore, for this scenario, there is no need to magnify the flange lateral bending stress

due to wind loads.

c- Magnification factor using Nonlinear Geometric Analysis

Nonlinear finite element analyses were carried out to account for second

order effect directly. ANSYS5.7 was used. Complete three dimensional

model of the bridge was used in the analysis.

Several scenarios were simulated in the nonlinear geometrical finite

element analysis using the full three dimensional model of the bridge. A)

scenario where the dead weight consisted of the weight of the girders

only, b) scenario where dead weight consisted of weight of the girders

plus the weight of the wet concrete before it is hardened and c) scenario

where dead weight consisted of weight of the girder plus weight of the

concrete after concrete is hardened.

For the three cases described above, Table 3 gives the magnification

factors to be used in conjunction with flange lateral bending stresses at

mid-span of the middle span (section 3 in table 2). The magnification

factors reported in Table 3 is simply the ratios between flange lateral

stresses obtained from nonlinear finite element analysis divided by the

corresponding value from linear finite element analysis.

Table 3 Maginification factor for mid-span of middle span

Dead Load Considered f

bm

, ksi Magnification Factor

2D

Analysis

AASHTO Ansys, 3D

nonlinear

Self weight of Girders

only

3.0 1.0 1.01

Wet concrete & Girder

weight

25.8 2.29 1.31

Composite girder 1.0 1.03

Figures 4 through 5, gives maximum flange lateral stresses any where

along the bridge as obtained from nonlinear and corresponding linear

finite element analysis for the three construction scenarios described

above. The magnification factors reported in Table 4 is the maximum

flange lateral bending stresses anywhere along the flanges obtained

from nonlinear finite element analysis divided by maximum flange

lateral bending stress anywhere along the bridge obtained from linear

finite element analysis.

Linear Analysis

Nonlinear Analysis

Figure 4 The longitudinal stress contours in x-direction under wind and steel girder weight

Linear Analysis

Nonlinear Analysis

Figure 5 The longitudinal stress contours in x-direction under wind, steel girder weight and slab weight

Linear Analysis

Nonlinear Analysis

Figure 6 The longitudinal stress contours in x-direction under wind, steel girder weight and slab weight

in composite condition

Table 4 Maginification factor for various construction scenarios

Dead Load Considered Magnification Factor

AASHTO Ansys, 3D

nonlinear

Self weight of Girders

only

1.0 1.06

Wet concrete & Girder

weight

2.29 1.24

Composite girder 1.0 1.03

5- Summary

Previous sections provided different approaches for calculating the

flange lateral bending stresses. Methods used included

a) Three dimensional model of the entire bridge

b) Three dimensional model of one girder

c) Two dimensional model of girder using uniform sectional

properties

d) Two dimensional model of the girder using specified section

properties

e) AASHTO LRFD code recommendations

Table 5 provides summary of the flange lateral bending stresses for mid-

span of the middle span

Table 5- Unfactored flange lateral bending stresses due to 0.3

k/ft. wind load

Method Used Flange Lateral Bending

Stresses, ksi

3-D Entire bridge 8.2

3-D One girder 9.5

2-D Uniform Section Properties 25.1

2-D Specified Section Properties 10.9

AASHTO Recommendations 74.2

Further, the magnification factors to be used in conjunction with flange

lateral bending stresses due to wind loads were calculated using

different approaches. Methods used included:

a) magnification factors calculated using dead weight of the girder

only

b) magnification factor calculated using dead weight of wet concrete

and steel girder

c) magnification factor calculated using weight of hardened concrete

and steel girder

Table 6 provides summary of the magnification factor for flange lateral

bending stresses for mid-span of the middle span

Table 6 Maginification factor for mid-span of middle span

Dead Load

Considered

f

bm

, ksi Magnification Factor

2D AASHTO Nonlinear

Analysis Requirement Analysis

Self weight of

Girders only

3.0 1.0 1.01

Wet concrete &

Girder weight

25.8 2.29 1.31

1.0 1.03

6- Constructibility Flexural Checks (AASHTO 6.10.3.2)

The Strength Limit State III is where wind load on structure appear. This

load combination is as follows:

1.25 f

DC1

+ 1.4 f

WS

For the sake of discussion the calculations are shown for mid-span of

middle span.

For this example, during construction, the maximum compressive stress

in the compression flange, f

bu

, due to factored (1.25 factor) gravity load

is given by table 7

Table 7 Factored Stress in Compression Flange Due to Gravity Load

Dead Load Considered f

bu

, ksi

2D Analysis

Self weight of Girders

only

3.0

Wet concrete & Girder

weight

25.8

According to AASHTO equation 6.10.1.6-1 the flange lateral bending

stress should be less than 0.6Fyc.

In addition the girder section must satisfy Equations 1 to 3 in Article

6.10.3.2.1 for the compression flange and Equation 6.10.3.2.2 for the

tension flange. In the current example the web is non-compact

according to the AASHTO Article 6.10.6.2.2.3, thus the following

equations should be checked.

yc h f l bu

F R f f φ ≤ +

(13)

nc f l bu

F f f φ ≤ +

3

1

(14)

a) Calculations based on values obtained from code

provisions

The flange lateral bending stress is fl is 74.2 ksi which exceeds the Fy

and therefore code requirement is violated regardless of which dead

loads are considered in the calculations

f

l

= 74.6 ksi x 1.4 = 104.4 ksi

f

bu

= 3 ksi or 25.8 ksi

b) Calculations based on values obtained from 2-D Analysis

and magnification factor from AASHTO – Dead Weight of

Wet Concrete and Steel Girder only

f

l

= 10.9 ksi x 1.4 = 15.3 ksi ( Using specified section properties)

f

bu

= 25.8 ksi

Magnification factor = 2.29

F

nc

= 36.2 ksi Compressive capacity of compression flange

yc h f l bu

F R f f φ ≤ +

25.8+ 15.3 (2.29) = 60.9 > 50 ksi N.G.

nc f l bu

F f f φ ≤ +

3

1

25.8+ (1/3) 15.3 x 2.29 = 37.4 > 36.2 ksi N.G.

c) Calculations based on values obtained from 2-D Analysis

and magnification factor from AASHTO – Dead Weight of

Steel Girder only

f

l

= 10.9 ksi x 1.4 = 15.3 ksi ( Using specified section properties)

f

bu

= 3 ksi

Magnification factor = 1.0

F

nc

= 36.2 ksi Compressive capacity of compression flange

yc h f l bu

F R f f φ ≤ +

3 + 15.3 = 18.3 < 50 ksi O.K.

nc f l bu

F f f φ ≤ +

3

1

3+ (1/3) 15.3 = 8.1 <36.2 ksi O.K.

Appendix A

Derivation of the Moment Magnification

factor Used in AISC Building Code

BEAM-COLUMNS

A beam-column is a member that is subjected to both axial force and

bending moment.

To begin our discussion, let us consider a simply supported beam-column

subjected to an axial force P and uniformly distributed lateral load.

0

0

· ∑M

0

2 2

2

· − − + x

wl

Py

wx

M

w (intensity)

P

x

y

EI = constant

P

P

w

V

2

wl

x

y

M

o

x

wl wx

Py M

2 2

2

+ − ·

But,

' '

EIy M − ·

→

x

wl wx

Py EIy

2 2

2

' '

+ − · −

x

wl wx

Py EIy

2 2

2

"

− · +

Letting

EI

P

k ·

2

x

EI

wl

x

EI

w

y k y

2 2

"

2 2

− · + →

p h

y y y + ·

x K kx A y

x x h

cos sin β + ·

To find y

p

assume the following formula:

C x C x C y

p

+ + ·

2

2

1

This results in:

4 2

2

2

2 2 Elk

w

x

EIk

wl

x

Elk

w

y

p

− − ·

Thus, the general solution is:

y=A sin Kx +Bcos Kx +K

4 2

2

2

2 2 EIk

w

x

EIk

wl

x

EIk

w

− −

The constant A and B are obtained using the following B.C’s.

4

0 ) 0 (

EIk

w

B y · ⇒ ·

A

l

y ⇒ · 0 )

2

(

'

2

tan

4

hl

EIk

w

·

Introducing the notation

2

kl

u ·

the general solution could be written as follows:

) (

8

1

2

cos

2

sin tan

16

2

2

4

4

x l x

EIu

wl

l

ux

l

ux

u

EIu

wl

y − −

1

]

1

¸

− + ·

from which the moment distribution along the length of the member is:

,

_

¸

¸

− + · − · 1

1

2

cos

1

2

sin tan

4

2

2

2

ux ux

u

u

wl

EIy M

For this problem, the maximum deflection occurs at the midspan.

y

max

=

,

_

¸

¸

2

l

y

y

max

=

2

4

4

4

32 cos

cos 1

16 EIu

wl

u

u

EIu

wl

−

1

]

1

¸

−

Y

max

can be written as:

Y

max

=

1

]

1

¸

− −

4

2 4

5

) 2 sec 2 ( 12

384

5

u

u u

EI

wl

=

1

]

1

¸

− −

4

2

5

) 2 sec 2 ( 12

u

u u

y

o

where

EI

wl

y

o

384

5

4

· is the deflection if only uniform lateral load had existed.

Several observations could be made from this equation.

1. The term in the brackets could be viewed as amplification factor due

to axial load.

2. As axial load increases, the amplification factor increases as shown in

figure below.

When P=0 A.F. (amplification factor), reduced to 1. When u = 2 / π

). (

2

2

l

EI

P

π

· , the value of A.F. approaches infinity. In other words, as

P approaches the Euler load, the lateral deflection of the member

increases without bound.

3. If P remains constant, y

max

is linear function of w. Thus for several

beam with constant axial load and varying lateral load, the law of

superposition is held. However, if axial load is varied superposition

does not hold.

For the design purpose, the term in the brackets (A.F.) could be

simplified.

Expanding sec u in a power series:

....

8064

277

720

61

24

5

2

1

1 sec

8 6 4 2

+ + + + + · u u u u u

Substituting this in the expression for y

max

yields:

[ ] .... 1649 . 4067 . 0 1

4 2

+ + + · u o u y y

o mzx

Noting that:

e

P

P

EI

P l kl

u

2 2 2

π

· · ·

,

_

¸

¸

·

2

2

l

EI

P

e

π

y

max

= 1

]

1

¸

+ + + ... ) ( 004 . 1 ) ( 003 . 1 1

2

e e

o

P

P

P

P

y

Or approximately

y

max

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ + ≈ ... 1

2

e e

o

P

P

P

P

y

Also from a power series (Maclaurin Series):

... 1

1

1

2

0

+ + + · ·

−

∑

·

x x x

x

oo

m

m

Therefore:

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

≈

e

P

P

y y

1

1

0 max

The maximum moment also occurs at midspan.

) 1 (sec

4

)

2

(

2

2

max

− · · u

u

wl L

M M

(from expression on page __)

or

1

]

1

¸

−

·

2

2

max

) 1 (sec 2

8 u

u wl

M

1

]

1

¸

−

·

2

0 max

) 1 (sec 2

u

u

M M

M

0

is the moment, that would exist if only lateral load had been

applied. Therefore, the term in brackets represents amplification

factor due to axial load.

Again using the power series, expansion for sec u, ,the expression for

M

max

could be simplified as follows:

[ ] ... 0687 . 0 1694 . 0 4167 . 0 1

6 4 2

0 max

+ + + + · u u u M M

Using the expression for u

2 2

l

EI

P kl

u · ·

e

P

P

u

2

π

·

,

_

¸

¸

·

2

2

l

EI

P

e

π

,

_

¸

¸

·

2

2

π

l P

EI

e

M

max=

M

0

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ ... 032 . 1 031 . 1 028 . 1 1

3 2

e e e

P

P

P

P

P

P

or

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

1

]

1

¸

,

_

¸

¸

+ · ... 004 . 1 003 . 1 1 028 . 1 1

2

0 max

e e e

P

P

P

P

P

P

M M

or approximately,

M

max =

M

o

¹

¹

¹

;

¹

¹

¹

¹

'

¹

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

1

]

1

¸

,

_

¸

¸

+ ... 1 028 . 1 1

2

Pe

P

P

P

P

P

e e

¹

¹

¹

¹

¹

;

¹

¹

¹

¹

¹

¹

'

¹

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

1

]

1

¸

,

_

¸

¸

+ ·

e

e

P

P

P

P

M M

1

1

028 . 1 1

0 max

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

+

·

e

e

P

P

P

P

M

1

028 . 0 1

0

or

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

≈

e

P

P

M M

1

1

0 max

Where the term in brackets is the design moment amplification factor.

BEAM COLUMN WITH A

CONCENTRATED LATERAL LOAD

For this case the governing D.E.’s are:

Py x

l

a l Q

EIy +

−

· −

) (

"

for

a x ≤ ≤ 0

Py

l

x l

Qa EIy +

,

_

¸

¸ −

· −

"

for

l x a ≤ ≤

For the case of

2

l

a ·

it can be shown that:

P x

y

EI = constant

P

Q

L

a

P

P

( )

L

a L Q −

x

y

M

1

]

1

¸

·

u

u

M M

o

tan

max (H.W.)

Where

4

Ql

M

o

·

(Moment if only concentrated load had

existed)

and

2

kl

u ·

To simplify the expression for maximum moment, we will use the power

series expansion for tan u.

....

315

17

15

2

3

1

tan

7 5 3

+ + + + · u u u u u

1

]

1

¸

+ + + + · ...

315

17

15

2

3

1

1

6 4 2

max

u u u M M

o

e

P

P kl

u

2 2

π

· ·

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ · ... 811 . 0 812 . 0 823 . 0 1

3 2

max

e e e

o

P

P

P

P

P

P

M M

¹

¹

¹

;

¹

¹

¹

¹

'

¹

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ · ... 985 . 0 987 . 0 1 823 . 0 1

2

0

e e e

P

P

P

P

P

P

M

¹

¹

¹

;

¹

¹

¹

¹

'

¹

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ ≈ ... 1 823 . 0 1

2

e e e

o

P

P

P

P

P

P

M

¹

¹

¹

¹

¹

;

¹

¹

¹

¹

¹

¹

'

¹

−

,

_

¸

¸

+ ≈

e

e

o

P

P

P

P

M

1

1

823 . 0 1

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

+ −

≈

e

e e

o

P

P

P

P

P

P

M M

1

823 . 0 1

max

[ ]

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

−

≈

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

−

≈

e

e

o

e

e

o

P

P

P

P

M

P

P

P

P

M M

1

2 . 0 1

1

18 . 0 1

max

For convenience, let’s write this expression in the following form:

1

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

,

_

¸

¸

+

·

e

e

P

P

P

P

M M

1

1

0 max

ψ

Where

and

QL

M

4

0

·

ψ =0.2

Notice that for the previous case, max

M

has the same form except that ψ =0.

So in summary:

Note that in each case, the amplification factor =

ek

m

P

P

C

− 1

Table below gives the summary of m

C

for different loading cases.

P

P

P

P

P

P

M

B

M

A

2

l

2

l

1 ·

m

C

2 . 0 where

1

− ·

+ ·

ψ

ψ

ek

m

P

P

C

Form) d (Simplifie

4 . 0 4 . 0 6 . 0 ≥

,

_

¸

¸

− ·

B

A

m

M

M

C

BEAM-COLUMN WITH UNEQUAL END MOMENTS

A B

M M >

Assume

A B

M M ≥

The D.E. for this case is as follows:

A

B A

M x

l

M M

Py EIy −

+

· +

"

it can be shown that the solution to this D.E. is as follows:

( )

2 2 2 2

cos

sin

cos

EIk

M

lEIk

M M

kx

EIk

M

kl EIk

M kl M

y

A B A A B A

−

+

+ +

+

− ·

,

_

¸

¸

·

EI

P

k

2

M

A

M

B

P P x

y

l

EI = Constant

P

P

l

M M

B A

+

x

y

M

M

A

In the previous cases, we knew the location of the maximum moment.

However, in this case, the location is not too obvious. Remember that

" EIy M − ·

and max

M

is found by evaluating

" y

at maximum location and substituting it in

"

EIy M − ·

.

The moment is the maximum where shear is zero, therefore to calculate the

location where the moment is maximum, we could equate:

' "

EIy

dx

dm

V − · ·

to zero.

For this problem, it can be shown that:

( )

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

+ +

− ·

kl

kl

M

M

M M

M M

B

A

B A

B

2

2

max

sin

1 cos ) ( 2 /

If the member had been bent in a single curvature, max

M

could be simply

found by

B B

M M − ·

or

( ) ( )

1

1

]

1

¸

+ −

·

kl

kl M M M M

M M

B A B A

B

2

2

max

sin

1 cos / 2 /

for the case:

M M M

B A

· − ·

( )

kl

kl

M M

2

max

sin

cos 1 2 −

·

And its location is at midspan as shown below:

When a beam is subjected to axial load and unequal end moment, calculation

of max

M

could be simplified using the concept of equivalent moment.

The figure below shows schematically the concept of equivalent moment.

M M

P P

l

M M

+

=

2

l

2

l

M

max

Primary

Moment

Secondary

Moment

Total

Moment

eq

M

could be found by equating the expressions for max

M

for two cases

derived:

( ) ( ) ( )

kl

kl

M

kl

kl M M M M

M

eq

B A B A

B

2 2

2

sin

cos 1 2

sin

1 cos / 2 / −

·

1

1

]

1

¸

+ −

or

( ) ( )

( ) kl

kl M M M M

M

B A B A

eq

cos 1 2

1 cos / 2 /

2

−

+ −

· (

B

M

)

or

( )

B m eq

M C M ·

where

( ) ( )

( ) Coskl

kl M M M MA

C

B A B

m

−

+ −

·

1 2

1 cos / 2 /

2

α

Austin has shown that an expression approximating m

C

is as follows:

M

A

M

B

M

eq

M

eq

P P P P

M

B

>M

A

M

A

M

B

M

eq

M

eq

M

max

M

max

( ) 4 . 0 / 4 . 0 6 . 0 ≥ − ·

B A m

M M C

This expression has been adopted by both AISC/ASD and LRFD.

Thus the max

M

for a beam subjected to axial load and unequal end moment

could be calculated as follows:

( )

kl

kl

M M

eq

2

max

sin

cos 1 2 −

·

( )

kl

kl

M C M

B m

2

max

sin

cos 1 2 −

· (Assuming

A B

M M ≥

)

The above expression could be simplified noting that

2

sin 2 cos 1

2

kl

kl · −

and

,

_

¸

¸

,

_

¸

¸

·

2

cos

2

sin 4 sin

2 2 2

kl kl

kl

,

_

¸

¸

·

2

sec

max

kl

M C M

B m

Letting

u

kl

·

2

...

720

61

24

5

2

1

1 sec

6 4 2

+ + + + · u u u u

e

P

P kl

u

2 2

π

· ·

... 27 . 1 268 . 1 23 . 1 1 sec

3 2

+

,

_

¸

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ + · →

e e e

P

P

P

P

P

P

u

1

1

]

1

¸

+

,

_

¸

¸

+ + + ≈ ... 1 23 . 1 1

2

e e e

P

P

P

P

P

P

1

1

1

1

]

1

¸

−

+ ≈

e

e

P

P

P

P

1

1

23 . 1 1

e

e e

P

P

P

P

P

P

−

+ −

≈

1

23 . 1 1

e

e

P

P

P

P

−

+

≈

1

23 . 0 1

e

P

P

−

≈

1

1

Therefore:

e

B m

P

P

M C

M

−

·

1

max

Note that

e

m

P

P

C

− 1

is an amplification factor.

In all the cases considered, beams were simply supported. In the event that

end conditions are different than simply supported it could be shown that

2

2

l

EI

P

e

π

· would be replaced by:

( )

2

2

kl

EI

P

k e

π

·

where k is the effective length

factor if only axial load had existed.

Therefore:

B

k e

m

M

P

P

C

M

−

·

1

max

.

- Bridge 3exampleUploaded bytrabajosic
- Calculation a- FrameUploaded byJohn Rom Cabadongga
- CE2252 Strenth of Materials Question Bank-xams9Uploaded byHariharan Elangandhi
- galambos2001Q2Uploaded bybobmarley20161934
- Hints to Selective ProblemsUploaded byRaman Kumar
- LT Buckling Beam Design - Simple Method - 2upUploaded byberto2008
- 2010 Aisc Steel ToolsUploaded bymuh2006
- Platform- Bracing SupportUploaded bypandiangv
- SFD-EC-3-2005.pdfUploaded byCristi Breban
- Class Lectures 4- Flexural MembersUploaded byvrsafe
- Vigas Continuas Compuestas Barth Nsba Wsbs LRFDUploaded byJmartin Flores
- volume04.pdfUploaded bydxzaber
- Civil Engg MCQUploaded bytheguru2929
- Pad Footing DesignUploaded byMalayan Tiger
- Weld Stress CalculationsUploaded byMichał Rybak
- Modeling and Analysis of Knuckle Joint used in TractorUploaded byIRJET Journal
- FEWeld InfoUploaded byebastien2
- Mathcad - aibox_cb.pdfUploaded bysere
- Collapse Mechanisms of Sandwich Beams With Composite FacesUploaded byHeungSoap Choi
- Bcon ReportUploaded byNyzem Nasir
- mechanical (stress analysis)Uploaded byandika
- Assessment of Effective Slab Widths in Composite BeamsUploaded byAkshay Kumar
- 2._2014-Stress_Analysis.pdfUploaded byandika
- diagrid.pdfUploaded byarachman297988
- Ce2252 Strength of Materials QbUploaded byAman Bansal
- Clear CoverUploaded byShoyeeb Ahmed
- P-752_Unit5Uploaded byarijitdey6
- Column ShorteningUploaded byAhmer Ali
- LTS 5 TableOfContentsUploaded byAbdul Hamid Bhatti
- 09thick BeamsUploaded byDeepak Chachra

- General Description 1.6.1 Plate and Shell ElementUploaded bysinu21
- 2010(2)Uploaded bysinu21
- Bentley Sacs BrochureUploaded bysinu21
- PrayersUploaded bysinu21
- bpltUploaded bysinu21
- Generic Job Description Naval Architect-Structural Engineer V1Uploaded bysinu21
- FileUploaded bysinu21
- Forwind Annual Report 2007Uploaded bysinu21
- TataUploaded bysinu21