257 views

Uploaded by Marlon

© All Rights Reserved

- Analysis of Rates( BuildingWorks )
- High Rise Building Surveying
- Wall Thichness report rev 1
- Print Axial Capacity of Circular Concrete-filled Tube Columns
- Mathcad - Mathcad(DNV-OS-F101)
- AS3600-2009 Wall Design
- Structural Steel Design Bowles
- Stress Calculation for Aluminium Plate
- as_nzs-4600-2005-amdt
- 80557563 Structural Review
- Steel Deck Design Manual Third Edition
- An Experimental Behaviour of Concrete-filled Steel
- Eurocode - Member Design Handbook
- Reinforced Concrete Structures R. Park T.paulay
- Global Buckling and Postbuckling Analysis of Stiffened Panels
- Application of Steel Channels as Stiffeners
- CompositeMegaColumns Full Report
- STEEL BASIC 2.pdf
- Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures
- Cn31-3

You are on page 1of 49

For

Yongnam Holding Limited

Prepared by

Dr Richard Liew

PhD, MIStrutE, CEng, PE(Spore)

Department of Civil Engineering

National University of Singapore

08 December 2006

(This Report Contains 48 Pages)

CONTENTS

Page

1

Test Objectives

Test setup

Instrumentation

4.1

Displacement measurements

4.2

Stress measurements

Test Procedure

Test Results

7.1

7.3

7.4

10

7.5

10

7.6

10

11

Conclusions

12

References

13

14

14

15

Table 4: Axial load capacity of laced strut -comparison of predicted results with test

17

result

Figure 1: Test and instrument layout

18

19

20

21

21

Figure 6: Transducer D3 measuring axial displacement at the real end of the strut.

22

23

24

25

26

27

27

Figure 13: Stresses on top and bottom flanges of the strut sections at mid-length

28

28

Figure 15: Applied load versus axial forces in the lacing members

29

Figure 16: Buckling of the main struts and lacing members after collapse

30

31

Figure 18: Another view showing the buckling of the laced strut

32

Figure 19: Applied force versus lacing forces comparison with EC3 approach

33

Appendix A:

34

35

Appendix C:

37

Members

C.1

BS5950:Part1:2000 Approach

C.2

BS EN1993-1-1:2005 Approach

37

40

46

laced struts

C.4

Example

47

Yongnam has developed a proprietary Modular System of components that may be assembled to

provide a structural strutting system appropriate for the majority of excavation support requirements.

Single and double waler beams in various lengths, intermediate supporting beams, king

posts, bracing and waler support brackets.

Various strut to waler joints have been produced to suit to suit the site conditions as

required.

The Yongnam strutting system has been used in many basement construction and civil engineering

excavation works including high-rise and mass rapid transit projects in Singapore, Hong Kong and

the Middle East.

There are, however, a number of questions asked with regard to the performance of the modular

strutting system, such as the performance of the splice joint, strength of the reusable materials, force

distributions in the lacings and channels between the main struts. In response to these questions, a

full scale load test of used modular strutting system spanning about 20m was carried out in the

premise of Yongnam Holdings Limited, located at 51 Tuas South Street 5, Singapore 637644, on 8

November 2006.

This report provides the test results and their interpretation with regard to the

performance of the strutting system in comparison with the codes predicted results.

Test Objectives

The objectives of carrying out full scale test on the laced strut system are:

To determine the maximum load capacity of the strut system and compare against the

design capacity

To investigate the performance and to identify the possible failure mode of the strut system

To ascertain the maximum induced forces on lacing members and compare them with

results predicted by the design equations given in BS5950:2000:Part 1 and Eurocode 3

To investigate the force distributions on the lacing members along the length of the strut

To determine the strength of re-usable strut materials and their implication to structural

safety.

To accomplish the objectives, the strutting system was load tested to failure to establish its buckling

capacity and failure mode. The failure load is compared with the codes predicted load to gain

insight to its ultimate strength behaviour.

distribution in the main struts and lacing members were monitored on-line during the test.

Test Setup

The test specimen consists of two universal beams, UB 610x324x195 kg/m, inter-connected by

diagonal laces of equal angle section 80x80x9.66kg/m, and ties of channel sections C254x76 and

C254x90 as shown in Figure 1. The length of the strut is 19.6m consisting of three modular

segments of lengths 3.8m, 12m and 3.8m.

number of M24 Grade 8.8 bolts via flush end plate connections. The two end-strut 3.8m segments

was about 4 years old and they were used in KPE strutting works for project C-421 and circle line

MRT project C-853.

The central strut segment of 12m length was more than 6 years old and had

been used in Hong Kong MRT project and subsequently deployed to LTA projects C-421 and C-851

(Note: This information was provided by Yongnam Holdings on requested by the author).

The laced strut specimen was arranged in a horizontal position and connected to waler beams at both

ends.

Loads were applied horizontally from the ends of the struts through the waler beams using

three hydraulic jacks of maximum capacity of 800 tons each (Figure 2).

utilizes high tensile strands running along the sides of the strut and mounted onto the walers at the

ends applying a compressive loading on the struts (see Figure 3).

Singapore Pte Ltd, was engaged to supply and operate the hydraulic jacks.

share equal hydraulic pressure during load application using a hydraulic pump. Each hydraulic

jack was connected to 31 numbers of 0.6" diameter super low relaxation strands

properties:

The load was controlled by using a digital pressure gauge which was calibrated to ISO 17025.

certificate of calibration is attached in Appendix A.

The

communicated to the data acquisition system at predetermined loading intervals listed in Table 1.

The two ends of the strutting system were bolted to waler beams which were supported by short

columns.

on a smooth concrete pad allowing free translation in the longitudinal direction of the strut as shown

in Figure 4. The other end of the column base (where the hydraulic jacks were mounted) was bolted

down to the concrete pad preventing any lateral movement (see Figure 5). The bolt connection to

the concrete pad offered very little resisting against overturning moment. The two end boundary

conditions of the strutting system simulate a pinned support and a roller support condition.

Before loading, the initial vertical deflection of the struts was measured and the results are shown in

Table 2.

The strut has initial out-of-straightness with maximum vertical deflection of about 19 mm

out-of-straightness in the lateral direction of the strut was found to be very small.

The initial

the present of lateral bracing members which controlled the straightness of the two struts in the

lateral direction.

Instrumentation

The test specimen was instrumented with strain gauges and displacement transducers to determine

the stresses in the strut and the lacing members and the lateral and vertical displacements.

The

instrumentation layout plan is shown in Figure 1. A summary of the sensor locations and their

sensing direction is given in Table 3.

4.1

Displacement measurements

Displacements were measured using spring mounted strain gauge based displacement transducers.

The transducers have the following maximum travel distances (see Figure 1):

Displacement Transducers

D1 and D2

50 mm

200 mm

D7 and D8

100 mm

connected electrically to a data logger of resolution 1 micro-strain and with measurement accuracy

of 0.05% of reading.

The axial displacement was measured by taking the average readings from the displacement

transducers mounted at mid-height of the strut at positions D1, D2, D3, and D4 (see Figure 6). The

vertical deflections at the mid-span of the strut were measured using strain gauge based

displacement transducers mounted at positions D7, and D8.

measured at the splice joints of the laced strut at 3.8m from both ends of the test specimen as shown

in Fig. 7.

at positions D11, D12, D13, and D14 in Figure 1 measuring the lateral displacements of the top and

bottom flanges of the struts at mid-length.

Strain gauges were attached at the mid-length section of the lacing members along one-half of

the strut. They are indicated as L1 to L16, comprising 8 top and 8 bottom laces.

Each lace

was instrumented with two strain gauges mounted longitudinally on each leg of the angle lace.

The first 4 laces nearest to the end were instrumented with 4 strain gauges with two gauges at

each leg, labelled as -1 to -4, to monitor their bending stresses.

Strain gauges were attached to the mid-length of the strut to measure the compressive and

bending stresses at the top and bottom flanges of the strut.

mounted on the top and bottom flanges at the mid-length section of each strut member, labelled

as S1 to S4.

Strains gauges were attached to the channel tie sections located at the front end of the strut and at

the splice joints location, indicated as C1 to C6.

three strain gauges to measure the average stresses acting on the channel section.

Data collection was triggered manually when the applied load reached the predetermined values.

The scanning rate of the data logger is approximately 0.08 second per channels.

Test Procedure

1

splice joints were tighten at preload of 500 tons. This was necessary to remove any lack of fit

in the test specimen.

The service load of the test specimen is about 700 tons (design load capacity is about 1000

tons with factor of safety of 1.4).

of 100 tons up to 700 tons.

taken.

Without unloading, the load was monotonically increased at intervals of 100 tons up to 1000

tons and thereafter at 50 tons increment till failure.

strain gauge readings were taken. Observations were made of the strut behaviour and failure

mode.

Mechanical properties of the steel strut components were determined from coupon specimens

extracted from the used steel similar those in the test specimens.

sampling location are shown in Figure 8. Coupons were cut longitudinal to the axis of the member

and machined to dimensions.

from the angle laces and 2 coupons from the channel tie sections.

The coupons were axially loaded in tension using universal testing machine with load cell

measurement accuracy of 1%.

measurement accuracy 1%.

The yield

strengths of the steel components are summarised in the table shown below:

Strut Section

(6-year old)

(4-year old)

UB 610x324x195 kg

Min. yield strength from tests

397 N/mm2

345 N/mm2

in BS5950

Lacing Members

Angle

Design strength for S275 steel

in BS5950

80x80x9.66kg/m

312 N/mm2

341 N/mm2

275N/mm2

in BS5950

Channel tie members

389 N/mm2

250x90x25.5kg/m

254x76x28.29 kg/m

341 N/mm2

358 N/mm2

275N/mm2

The yield strengths of the steel components are not affected by the age, and their actual yield

strengths are higher than the nominal strength specified in the BS standards.

structural sections were measured and compared with the nominal values specified in the section

table as reported in Table B2 in Appendix B.

areas of the re-used sections were reduced due to repeated use of the steel strutting system.

Test Results

7.1

The axial load displacement relationship obtained from the test data is almost linear up to about

1000 tons as shown in Figure 9.

mm.

Thereafter, axial displacement of the left strut increased faster than the right strut with an

rapidly and the strut failed at 1438 tons. Failure was characterised by the buckling of the main strut

members bending about their major axis (x-x axis) causing large deflection in the downward

direction.

Figure 10 shows the applied load versus the vertical displacement curves taken at the mid-length

section and at the splice joint positions of the strut.

14mm at the service load of 700 tons.

deflection increased in a nonlinear manner; the maximum measured vertical deflection is about 78

mm at applied load of 1400 tons occurred at the mid-length of the strut.

increased rapidly when the load approached the maximum capacity of 1438 tons.

in the downward direction until the mid-length sections of the strut touched the ground. The

deflection profile of the strut was measured at various load stages and the deflected curves are

plotted in Figure 11.

strut length.

7.3

There is no slope discontinuity due to the present of splice joints along the

Figure 12 shows the applied load versus the lateral displacements measured at the mid-length section

of the strut. The lateral deflection of the strut was very small at the service load level (less than

2mm).

This increases to about 8.4 mm just before failure at 1400 tons applied load.

The bottom

flange of the Universal beam section defected more than the top flange under the increased load.

The maximum difference in lateral deflection is about 4mm at 1400 tons of applied.

The lateral

deflection is considered to be very small as compared to the vertical displacement, indicating that the

lacing members were effective in preventing buckling in the lateral direction (i.e, y-y axis).

10

7.4

Figure 13 shows the applied load versus the average stresses taken at the top and bottom flanges of

the main strut sections at the mid-length.

than those at the bottom flanges because of the combined axial and bending stresses at the

mid-length of the strut.

It is noted that at 1400 tons of applied load, the strut sections at the mid

length are fully in compression, indicating that the moment was not large enough to induce tensile

stress in the strut. In other words, the strut remained in compression up to 1400 tons of applied

load.

Slight yielding was observed at the top flange fibres at 1400 tons of applied load.

Significant yielding is expected beyond 1400 tons and up to failure load of 1438 tons since large

displacement occurred suddenly and cross section distortion occurred as shown in Figs. 17 and 18.

7.5

The horizontal ties (channel members) experienced very small axial force of about 5 tons at the

applied load of 1400 tons as shown in Figure 14. Larger axial force was observed at the top

channel member near the supported end of the strut than those at the splice joints.

Figure 15 shows the axial force distribution in the lacing members along the half length of the laced

strut.

Again the axial forces in the lacing members are very small.

tons (service load), the maximum lacing force is 4.4 tons which is about 0.63% the applied strut load.

When the applied load is 1400 tons, the maximum lacing force is about 7.5 tons, which is about 0.54

% the applied strut load.

The axial forces in the ties and lacing members are considered to be small as compared to the

requirement in BS5950:Part1:2000 of 2.5% of the axial force in the member, divided amongst the

transverse lacing systems in parallel planes.

discussed in Section 8.

7.6

Figures 16 to 18 show the deformed modes of the laced strut after collapse.

capacity of the laced strut is 1438 tons.

buckled about their major axis (x-x direction). The large deflection caused yielding and distortion

of the universal beam section nears the mid-length of the strut as shown in Figures 16-18. All the

11

bolted connections (in the splice joints, the ties and the laces) remained intact without any sign of

failure.

The lacing members and their connections were adequate and effective in preventing

The design of axially loaded laced struts, compared against that of conventional axially loaded struts

with web plates, should includes strength, stiffness and overall stability verifications, and

furthermore, the verification of local stability of single component should also be carried out and the

design check for all bracings (lacings) is necessary.

BS5950:Part1:2000 Clause 4.7.8 [Ref. 1] and in Eurocode 3-1-1:2005 Clause 6.4 for built up

compression member [Ref. 2].

of the two main struts about the major axis bending (X-X global), (2) global buckling about the y-y

axis of the compound strut (Y-Y global), and (3) local overall buckling of I-beam between the two

laced points, and (4) buckling of lacing or failure of connection.

based on codes predicted values and test result are shown in Table 4.

Detailed calculations of

buckling capacity of laced strut using BS5950:Part1:2000 and EC3 (2005) are given in Appendix C.

The maximum load predicted by EC3-1-1:2005 is 984 tons, 1147 tons and 1314 tons assuming

effective length of 1.0L, 0.85L and 0.7L, respectively.

buckling about the X-X axis.

This is consistent with the predicted failure mode and the predicted

buckling capacity is conservative compared to the test failure load of 1438 tons.

The maximum load predicted by BS5950:Part1:2000 is 995 tons, 1168 tons and 1320 tons assuming

effective length of 1.0L, 0.85L and 0.7L, respectively.

assumed, the capacity of the strut is limited by the buckling capacity of lacing member which gives a

value of 1131 tons.

However, failure of lacing member was not observed in the test before

Clause 4.7.8 (i) of BS5950 Part 1:2000 states that The lacings and their connections should be

designed to carry the forces induced by a transverse shear at any point in the length of the member

equal to 2.5% of the axial force in the member, divided equally amongst all the transverse lacing

systems in parallel planes.

tons of shear force.

At the applied load of 1400 tons, 2.5% of this load would indicate 18

However, the measured maximum axial forces in the channel and angle section

12

are only 5 and 7.5 tons, respectively. Therefore BS5950 recommendation is found to be too

conservative when compared to the measured forces in the lacing members in the test.

Eurocode 3-1-1:2005, on the other hand, provides a more reasonable interpretation of the transverse

shear force acting on the lacing members.

moment (i.e, axial force and lateral deflection) at the mid-length and the length of the strut.

Appendix C.3 provides the derivation of the design shear force formula in Eurocode 3-1-1:2005

based on second-order analysis of built-up compression. The predicted test result is compared with

those obtained from tests in Figure 19.

lacing member as 8.5 tons compared to the test result of 7.5 tons. The comparison is found to be

reasonable.

In summary, the strut capacity predicted by EC3-1-1 and BS5950:Part1 are conservative compared

to the test result because:

(1) Boundary conditions may be partial restrained against rotation rather than pin-ended as

assumed in the design calculation. However, it should be noted that the bolts connecting to

the column base to the concrete pad offered very little resistance against overturning

moment.

(2) The actual measured yield strength of grade S355 steel strut section is about 400 MPa which

is greater than the nominal yield strength of 345MPa in BS5950 (16mm<t<40mm) and

355MPa in EC3 (t<40mm);

(3) The lacing members are assumed to resist the total shear force in design (bending about Y-Y

axis). Actually, part of shear force was resisted by the I-beam sections. Therefore, the lacing

force is much smaller than that predicted by the codes.

strut was very small and therefore the induced second-order moment and the corresponding

shear forces are smaller than those predicted by the codes.

Conclusions

The following conclusions may be derived from the full-scale testing of the laced strut system:

1) The predicted failure load of the strut based on BS5950:Part1:2000 is 995 tons.

Based on

the design safety factor of 1.4, the working load is 710 tons. The actual collapse load of the

test specimen is 1438 tons.

2.0.

The load capacity predicted by the codes is found to be on the conservative side.

2) The ultimate load was not affected by the age of the strutting modules. Coupon tests show

that old and reused struts do not diminish in strength over the years (it means old struts can

13

continue to be reused, if their thicknesses are not eroded due to sand blasting and

re-painting).

3) All the connections were robust and adequate as the failure was due to the overall buckling

of the main strut about the major axis (X-X axis) with plastic hinge formed at the mid-length

of the members.

modular strutting system was not affected by the splice joint details.

4) Maximum axial force in the lacing members was approximately 0.54% of the applied strut

load.

The shear force of 2.5% of axial force assumed in BS5950:Part1:2000 is too high.

Eurocode 3 provides a better estimation of the shear forces for designing the lacing members.

The laced members and their connections to the main struts were found to be adequate.

Failure was due to the buckling of the main struts and was not governed by the buckling of

the lacing member.

References

1. BS5950:Part 1 (2000), Structural use of steelwork in building, Part1: Code of practice for

design rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institute.

2. Eurocode 3 Part 1-1 (2005), Design of steel structures: Part 1-1 General rules and rules for

building, British Standards Institute.

14

Total Applied Loads (ton)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1438

Observations

Design load of struts (750ton), no major deformation

noted

stroke

observed reduction in strains and displacements

Distance from the front end

Top flange deflection

Average deflection

3.8 m

9.8 m

15.8 m

2 mm

9 mm

21 mm

4 mm

8 mm

16 mm

3 mm

8.5 mm

19 mm

15

Measuring

Element

Location

Position

Direction

Axial

Front Waler

//

Rear Waler

//

Strut Right

Right of strut

Left of strut

Right of strut

Left of strut

Joint nearer

Front

//

Mid-span

//

Joint nearer

Rear

//

Mid-span

//

Mid-span

//

Mid-span

//

//

//

Mid-span

//

//

//

Mid section

//

//

Mid section

//

//

Mid section

//

//

Mid section

//

//

Mid section

//

//

Mid section

//

//

Centre line of load pts

Centre line of load pts

Centre line of load pts

Top channel of side strut

Vertical

Strut Left

Strut Right

Strut Left

Strut Right

Lateral

Strain

Strain

Strut Left

Strut Right

//

Strut Left

//

Strut Right

//

//

//

Strut Left

//

//

//

Channel #1

//

//

Channel #2

//

//

Channel #3

//

//

Channel #4

//

//

Channel #5

//

//

Channel #6

//

//

Outwards, +ve=Comp strut

Outwards, +ve=Comp strut

Outwards, +ve=Comp strut

Downward, +ve=Defl down

Ref in

Fig.

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

Ref in

Data file

0

1

2

3

4

Top flange of main strut

Top flange of main strut

Top channel of side strut

Downward, +ve=Defl down

Downward, +ve=Defl down

Downward, +ve=Defl down

D6

D7

D8

D9

5

6

7

8

Top Flange, 100mm ext

Bottom Flange, 100mm ext

Top Flange, 100mm ext

Bottom Flange, 100mm ext

Top Flange, top surface

Top Flange, top surface

Bottom Flange, bottom surface

Bottom Flange, bottom surface

Top Flange, top surface

Top Flange, top surface

Bottom Flange, bottom surface

Bottom Flange, bottom surface

Flange nearer front

Middle of web

Flange nearer rear

Flange nearer front

Middle of web

Flange nearer rear

Flange nearer front

Middle of web

Flange nearer rear

Flange nearer front

Middle of web

Flange nearer rear

Flange nearer front

Middle of web

Flange nearer rear

Flange nearer front

Middle of web

Flange nearer rear

Towards left, +ve=Sway left

Towards left, +ve=Sway left

Towards right, +ve=Sway right

Towards right, +ve=Sway right

Middle of right outstand

Middle of left outstand

Middle of right outstand

Middle of left outstand

Middle of right outstand

Middle of left outstand

Middle of right outstand

Middle of left outstand

Top channel

//

//

Bottom channel

//

//

Top channel

//

//

Bottom channel

//

//

Top channel

//

//

Bottom channel

//

//

D10

D11

D12

D13

D14

S1-1

S1-2

S2-1

S2-2

S3-1

S3-2

S4-1

S4-2

C1-1

C1-2

C1-3

C2-1

C2-2

C2-3

C3-1

C3-2

C3-3

C4-1

C4-2

C4-3

C5-1

C5-2

C5-3

C6-1

C6-2

C6-3

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

16

Measuring

Element

Location

Position

Direction

Strain

Lacing #1

//

//

//

Lacing #2

//

//

//

Lacing #3

//

Lacing #3

//

Lacing #4

//

//

//

Lacing #5

//

Lacing #6

//

Lacing #7

//

Lacing #8

//

Lacing #9

//

Lacing #10

//

Lacing #11

//

Lacing #12

//

Lacing #13

//

Lacing #14

//

Lacing #15

//

Lacing #16

//

Bolted flange

//

Vertical flange

//

Bolted flange

//

Vertical flange

//

Bolted flange

//

Vertical flange

//

Bolted flange

//

Vertical flange

//

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

Bolted flange

Vertical flange

12mm from other flange

12mm from other flange

12mm from edge

12mm from edge

12mm from other flange

12mm from other flange

12mm from edge

12mm from edge

12mm from other flange

12mm from other flange

12mm from edge

12mm from edge

12mm from other flange

12mm from other flange

12mm from edge

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Middle of flange

//

Top lacing

//

//

//

Bottom lacing

//

//

//

Top lacing

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

//

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

Top lacing

//

Bottom lacing

//

Strain

Sign convention:

Displacement transducers (D1 to D14) + is extension, -ve is retraction

Strain Gauges (S1 to S4, C1 to C6, L1 to L16) +ve is tension, -ve is compression

Note:

Strain gauges on channels and lacing installed on inner surface, as shown in figure

Ref in

Fig.

L1-1

L1-2

L1-3

L1-4

L2-1

L2-2

L2-3

L2-4

L3-1

L3-2

L3-3

L3-4

L4-1

L4-2

L4-3

L4-4

L5-1

L5-2

L6-1

L6-2

L7-1

L7-2

L8-1

L8-2

L9-1

L9-2

L10-1

L10-2

L11-1

L11-2

L12-1

L12-2

L13-1

L13-2

L14-1

L14-2

L15-1

L15-2

L16-1

L16-2

Ref in

Data file

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

17

Table 4:

Axial load capacity of laced strut -comparison of predicted results with test result

Failure

A

fy

L

2

mode (mm ) (MPa) (mm)

I

(mm4)

EC3

BS 5950

984 / 1147 /

995 / 1168 /

19600 3.346E+09

1314 *

1320 *

1506 /1582

1498 /1569

19600 1.245E+10

/1656*

/1685*

S355

Y-Y Global

49800

S355

x-x/y-y

Lacing

u-u

v-v

24900

1230

1230

1230

S355 1414.2 7.24E+05

S355 1414.2 1.15E+06

S355 1414.2 3.00E+05

Laced

Struts

Test

1438

1533**

1726**

2467

1131

Notes: * Different values with different effective lengths assumed LEX=1.0L/0.85L/ 0.70L;

**

18

6m

3.8 m

19

20

21

22

Figure 6: Transducer D3 measuring axial displacement at the real end of the strut.

23

24

25

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

Axial displacement at

Right Strut

Left Strut

200

0

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

26

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

Vertical deflection at

1st splice joint from front end

mid-length

1st splice joint from rear end

200

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

27

0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

700 tons

1000 tons

1200 tons

1400 tons

80

90

100

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

Lateral deflection at

400

Bottom flange Right strut

Top flange Left strut

Bottom flange Left strut

200

0

0

10

28

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

Stresses measured at

Top flange Right strut

Bottom flange Right strut

Top flange Left strut

Bottom flange Left strut

400

200

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Figure 13: Stresses on top and bottom flanges of the strut sections at mid-length

1600

1400

1200

Forces measured at

Channel #1

Channel #2

Channel #3

1000

800

600

400

Channel #4

Channel #5

200

Channel #6

+ve indicating compressive forces

0

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

10

12

14

16

29

1600

Forces measured at

Lacing #1

Lacing #2

Lacing #3

Lacing #4

Lacing #5

Lacing #6

Lacing #7

Lacing #8

Lacing #9

Lacing #10

Lacing #11

Lacing #12

Lacing #13

Lacing #14

Lacing #15

Lacing #16

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

10

Figure 15: Applied load versus axial forces in the lacing members

12

14

16

30

Figure 16: Buckling of the main struts and lacing members after collapse

31

32

Figure 18: Another view showing the bucking of the laced strut

33

1600

Predicted by EC3

Lacing #1

1400

Lacing #2

Lacing #3

1200

Lacing #4

Lacing #5

1000

Lacing #6

Lacing #7

Lacing #8

800

Lacing #9

Lacing #10

600

Lacing #11

Lacing #12

400

Lacing #13

Lacing #14

200

Lacing #15

Lacing #16

0

-6

-4

-2

10

Figure 19 Applied force versus lacing forces comparison with EC3 approach

34

Appendix A:

35

Appendix B

12m strut segment (4 year-old)

3.8m strut segment (6 year-old)

Strut Section

UB 610x324x195 kg

Flange

Web

Flange

Web

Coupon

Sample

Reference

5F1

5F2

5W3

5W4

10F1

10F2 10W3 10W4

Measured Width (mm)

12.60

12.61

12.72 12.67 12.55 12.72 12.57 12.65

Measured

Thickness

(mm)

23.32

23.24

14.69 14.68 23.06 22.93

15.11

14.78

Cross-sectional

Area

(mm2)

293.83 293.06 186.86 186.00 289.40 291.67 189.93 186.97

Yield Load (kN)

116.5

132.6

76.7

76.5

115.7

113.5

78.3

79.6

Yield Strength (N/mm2)

397

453

411

411

400

389

412

426

Maximum Load (kN)

168.8

164.1

108.1 107.2 146.9 144.2

98.4

97.0

Max. Tensile Strength

(N/mm2)

575

560

579

576

508

494

518

519

Elastic

Modulus

(kN/mm2)

209.0

211.5

199.8 197.0 214.6 202.9 199.1 202.0

Lacing

Angle 80x80x8

Coupon

Sample

Reference

Measured Width (mm)

Measured

Thickness

(mm)

Cross-sectional

Area

(mm2)

Yield Load (kN)

Yield Strength (N/mm2)

Maximum Load (kN)

Max. Tensile Strength

(N/mm2)

Elastic

Modulus

(kN/mm2)

Channels

5L1

12.79

5L2

12.50

10L1

13.03

10L2

12.63

9.60

9.53

8.20

7.70

122.78

38.4

313

55.1

119.13

37.2

312

54.7

106.85

36.4

341

55.1

97.25

37.8

389

57.0

449

459

516

586

190.7

193.3

168.0**

182.7

254x76x28.29 kg/m

Coupon

Sample

Reference

Measured Width (mm)

Measured

Thickness

(mm)

Cross-sectional

Area

(mm2)

Yield Load (kN)

Yield Stress (N/mm2)

Maximum Load (kN)

Tensile

Strength

(N/mm2)

Elastic

Modulus

(kN/mm2)

Note: ** Low value, this result is ignored

Table B.2

250x90x25.5kg/m

5C

12.66

10C

12.68

8.91

6.68

112.80

38.5

341

56.4

84.70

30.4

358

42.3

500

499

201.4

195.3

D (mm)

B (mm)

t (mm)

T (mm)

Area

(cm2)

36

Lacing members

Measured dimensions

From section table

80x80x9.66kg/m

Channels

Measured dimensions for

channel at 3.8m strut

segment

From

section

table

254x76x28.29kg/m

Measured dimensions for

channel at 12m strut

segment

From section table 250x90x25.5kg/m

81.0

80.0

81.0

80.0

8.1

8.0

8.1

8.0

12.50

12.30

262.0

76.5

7.9

13.1

38.78

254.0

76.2

8.1

10.9

36.03

251.0

90.2

8.9

14.3

45.67

250.0

90.0

8.0

15.0

45.20

37

members

C.1

BS5950:Part1:2000 Approach

9

Ach = 249cm 2 ) is used for chords and section L80808 ( ix = i y = 7.24 105 mm 4 , rx = ry = 24.3mm ,

iu = 1.15 106 mm 4 , iv = 3.0 105 mm 4 , ru = 30.6mm, rv = 15.6mm , Ad = 12.3cm 2 ) for lacing members;

h0 = 1000mm, a = 2000mm, d = 1000 2mm ;

L80808

NEd/2

NEd/2

UB610324195

2.

d

a

Ad

A ch

y

1000

h0

NEd

NEd

L=19600mm

Fig. C1 Dimension of laced strut

3. Structural steel grade: S355;

4. Calculation of the overall buckling resistance based on BS 5950-1:2000:

(1) Check overall buckling resistance of struts about X-X axis

a) LE=1.0L

X = LE / RX = L / rx = 19600 / 259 = 76

(1)

(2)

9760.8

(ton) = 995(ton)

9.81

(3)

b) LE=0.85L

(4)

(5)

38

11454

(ton) = 1168(ton)

9.81

(6)

c) LE=0.70L

(7)

(8)

12948

(ton) = 1320(ton)

9.81

(9)

i) Global (check struts member)

a) LE = 1.0 L = 19600mm

IY = 2i y + 2 Ach (

h0 2

1000 2

) = 2 1.416 108 + 2 24900 (

) = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 )

2

2

(10)

RY = IY / 2 Ach = 505(mm)

(11)

Y = LE / RY = 19600 / 505 = 39

(12)

(13)

(14)

b) LE = 0.85 L

IY = 2i y + 2 Ach (

h0 2

1000 2

) = 2 1.416 108 + 2 24900 (

) = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 )

2

2

(15)

RY = IY / 2 Ach = 505(mm)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

c) LE = 0.70 L

IY = 2i y + 2 Ach (

h0 2

1000 2

) = 2 1.416 108 + 2 24900 (

) = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 )

2

2

(20)

RY = IY / 2 Ach = 505(mm)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

39

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

x = y = d / rx = 58 , u = d / ru = 46 , v = d / rv = 91

(29)

pc , x = pc , y = 252 N / mm 2

2

( rolled angle, buckling curve c )

pc ,u = 286 N / mm

p = 160 N / mm 2

c ,v

(30)

N

b, Rd ,v ( lacing ) = pc ,v Ad = 197(kN ) = 20(ton )

(31)

N Ed =

2 N b,Rd ,v ( lacing ) / 2

VEd

= 1131(ton )

2.5%

2.5%

(32)

40

C.2

BS EN1993-1-1:2005 Approach

(1) Check overall buckling resistance of struts about X-X axis

a) LE = 1.0 L = 19600mm

The plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression:

(33)

N cr , X =

2 EI

L2E

196002

= 18052(kN )

(34)

X = N pl , Rk / N cr , X = 0.990

(35)

2

X =

1

2

X + X2 X

= 0.5460

(36)

(37)

N b , Rd , X = X N pl , Rd = 9653(kN ) =

9653

(ton) = 984(ton)

9.81

(38)

b) LE = 0.85 L

N cr , X =

2 EI

L2E

(0.85 19600) 2

= 24986(kN )

X = N pl , Rk / N cr , X = 0.841

(40)

X =

X +

2

X

2

X

(39)

= 0.6363

(41)

(42)

N b, Rd , X = X N pl , Rd = 11250(kN ) = 1147(ton)

(43)

c) LE = 0.70 L

N cr , X =

2 EI

L2E

(0.7 19600) 2

= 36841(kN )

X = N pl , Rk / N cr , X = 0.693

2

(44)

(45)

(46)

41

X =

X +

2

X

2

X

= 0.7292

(47)

N b, Rd , X = X N pl , Rd = 12891(kN ) = 1314(ton)

(48)

i) Global

a) LE = 1.0 L = 19600mm

The Euler buckling load:

(49)

(Note: EC3 uses above conservative formula; more accurate formula should be

I eff = 0.5h02 Ach + 2i y = 0.5 10002 24900 + 2 1.416 108 = 1.273 1010 ( mm 4 ) )

N cr ,Y =

2 EI eff

L2E

196002

= 67170(kN )

(50)

Y = N pl , Rk / N cr ,Y = 0.513

(51)

2

Y =

Y +

2

Y

2

Y

= 0.8357

(52)

(53)

(54)

b) LE = 0.85 L

N cr ,Y =

2 EI eff

L2E

(0.85 19600) 2

= 92969(kN )

Y = N pl , Rk / N cr ,Y = 0.436

2

Y =

Y +

2

Y

2

Y

= 0.8781

c) LE = 0.70 L

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

42

2 EI eff

N cr ,Y =

L2E

(0.70 19600) 2

= 137082(kN )

Y = N pl , Rk / N cr ,Y = 0.359

(61)

1

Y =

Y +

2

Y

2

Y

(60)

= 0.9187

(62)

(63)

(64)

The plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression:

(65)

2 EI

N cr ,ch =

L2ch

20002

= 73371( kN )

(66)

N pl , Rk ,ch

ch =

N cr ,ch

= 0.347

(67)

2

ch =

1

2

ch + ch2 ch

= 0.9466

(68)

(69)

(70)

Sv =

=

= 182646( kN )

2d 3

2 (1000 2)3

(71)

The design value of the maximum moment in the middle of the struts considering second order effects

I

(M Ed=0):

M Ed

I

N Ed e0 + M Ed

=

N

N

1 Ed Ed

N cr ,Y

Sv

(72)

N ch ,Ed =

N Ed M Ed h0 Ach

+

N b,Rd ,ch = 853(ton )

2

2 I eff

(73)

43

N Ed 15035( kN ) = 1533(ton )

(74)

Similarly, the buckling resistance of lacing member is calculated:

N

b,Rd ( v v ) = 212( kN ) = 22(ton )

(75)

VEd 2 N b, Rd ( v v ) / 2 = 300( kN )

M

N Ed e0 + M Ed

VEd = Ed =

L

L 1 N Ed N Ed

N cr ,Y

Sv

N Ed 24200(kN ) = 2467(ton)

(76)

(77)

44

A

(mm2)

Failure mode

fy

(MPa)

L

(mm)

I

(mm4)

EC3

BS 5950

X-X

49800

S355

19600

3.346E+09 984 /1147/1314*

Global

Y-Y

Global

49800

S355

19600

1.245E+10 1506 /1582 /1656

y-y

I-beam

24900

S355

2000

1.416E+08 1533**

Local

x-x/y-y

1230

S355

1414.2 7.24E+05

Lacing

2467**

u-u

1230

S355

1414.2 1.15E+06

v-v

1230

S355

1414.2 3.00E+05

Notes: * Different values under different effective lengths LE=1.0L, 0.85L or 0.70L;

Laced

Struts

**

1498 / 1569 / 1685

1726

1131

If the built-up member is bent about Y-Y plane, the relationship between the shear force VEd and the design

compression force NEd to the built-up member is shown in following Fig. C2 by assuming is the initial bow

imperfection e0 as L/500.

0.01

e0=L/500

0.009

VEd/NEd

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

1000

3000

5000

7000

NEd (kN)

9000

11000

13000

15000

Fig. C2 The relationship between shear force VEd and compression force NEd

Design chart for laced struts showing the relationship between the design capacity and the effective length is shown in

Fig. C3.

If BS5950:Part1:2000 approach is adopted the design capacity is limited by the buckling capacity of the

govern the design when the strut length id less than 17 m.

BSEN1993:EC3:2005 approach is adopted.

45

16

14

12

10

8

6

EN 1993

BS 5950

Shear resistance control line

4

2

0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Fig. C3 Design chart for laced struts using 2UB610324195 Grade S355 section

46

C.3

EC 3 approach to evaluate the shear force of the axially loaded laced struts

An axially loaded column, pinned at the two ends, is showed in Fig C42.

y = v sin

x

l

(1)

M = Ny = Nv sin

(2)

V=

dM N v

x

=

cos

dx

l

l

(3)

Vmax =

N v

l

(4)

M max = Nv

(5)

Vmax =

M max

l

depending on the lateral deflection,

(6)

The maximum shear force in the laced strut is

47

C.4

Example

9

Ach = 249cm 2 ) is used for chords and section L80808 ( ix = i y = 7.24 105 mm 4 , rx = ry = 24.3mm ,

iu = 1.15 106 mm 4 , iv = 3.0 105 mm 4 , ru = 30.6mm, rv = 15.6mm , Ad = 12.3cm 2 ) for lacing members;

h0 = 1000mm, a = 2000mm, d = 1000 2mm ;

L80808

d

a

Ad

UB610324195

NEd/2

NEd/2

A ch

y

1000

h0

NEd

NEd

L=19600mm

Fig. C5 Dimension

Structural steel grade: S355;

Calculation of lacing force according to EC3 (Y-Y axis):

VEd =

M Ed

LE

(1)

where LE is the effective length and MEd is maximum moment in the middle of the struts considering second order

effects

M Ed =

N Ed e0

N

N

1 Ed Ed

N cr ,Y

Sv

(2)

48

=

Sv =

2d 3

2 (1000 2)3

(3)

= 182646(kN ) = 18618(tons )

and Ncr,Y is the effective critical force about Y-Y axis of the struts

N cr ,Y =

2 EI eff

L2E

(4)

N lacing =

N Ed e0

2

2

VEd =

2

2 LE 1 N Ed N Ed

N cr ,Y

Sv

(5)

N lacing =

N Ed

2

1000 1 N Ed N Ed

N cr ,Y

Sv

(6)

It can be observed that the maximum axial force in the lacing member is depending on the applied axial load, NEd, the

shear stiffness, Sv, and the elastic critical load of the laced strut bending about the y-y direction, Ncr,y.

- Analysis of Rates( BuildingWorks )Uploaded byNay Win Shein
- High Rise Building SurveyingUploaded byBoBo Kyaw
- Wall Thichness report rev 1Uploaded byRusli Dain
- Print Axial Capacity of Circular Concrete-filled Tube ColumnsUploaded byMona Mahmoud
- Mathcad - Mathcad(DNV-OS-F101)Uploaded bymicktunx
- AS3600-2009 Wall DesignUploaded byMREFAAT
- Structural Steel Design BowlesUploaded byIonut Narcis Iuga
- Stress Calculation for Aluminium PlateUploaded byJacques Ontal
- as_nzs-4600-2005-amdtUploaded byMuhammad Sultan
- 80557563 Structural ReviewUploaded byIbrahim El Sharr
- Steel Deck Design Manual Third EditionUploaded byFernando Rivera
- An Experimental Behaviour of Concrete-filled SteelUploaded bypaulolubas
- Eurocode - Member Design HandbookUploaded byphuongkq832
- Reinforced Concrete Structures R. Park T.paulayUploaded byMamet Edvant
- Global Buckling and Postbuckling Analysis of Stiffened PanelsUploaded byAdarsh D. Karki
- Application of Steel Channels as StiffenersUploaded bynareshpatil114
- CompositeMegaColumns Full ReportUploaded byGicu
- STEEL BASIC 2.pdfUploaded byMehta & Associates PMC NRDA
- Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal StructuresUploaded byStalin Leandro Mejía
- Cn31-3Uploaded byBruno Avila Paulo
- Glue Laminated Column DesignUploaded byJimmy
- The Cyclic Behaviour of Steel Elements and ConnectionsUploaded byconeyqu
- 2A_1Uploaded byMK V
- Hoardings Design Cal FinalUploaded byJay Senjalia
- Prediction of Ultimate Shear Strength of Moderate Deep Concrete Beam Including Size EffectUploaded byAnonymous CUPykm6DZ
- 5 Chapter 2Uploaded bysju65
- Specific StepsUploaded byAbdul Hamid Bhatti
- r824Uploaded byioan92
- conic p ext.pdfUploaded byMaria Tns
- IJME-V1I6P105Uploaded byArkay Kumar

- Tunnel ConstructionUploaded byMarlon
- 5th Edition Part 2c Supplement to CoCUploaded byMarlon
- ERSS RequirementsUploaded byPcEng
- SMM7 Standard Method of Measurement of Building Works 7th Edition 1998Uploaded byHou-Fung 'Santa' Yuen
- Developing and Managing ContractsUploaded bySidney Musonda
- CIPS KI Contract Management Guidev2Uploaded bymalaynv
- Structural ToleranceUploaded byvrgohil
- Sap TutorUploaded byBambang Purnomo
- Annex oUploaded byMarlon
- Ultimate Limit State Analysis of a segementeed tunnel lining.pdfUploaded byFelipe Pérez Pérez
- T-20-Mehdi Bakhshi-Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings for Serviceability Limit State.pdfUploaded byMarlon
- Grouting TAMUploaded byPinoyini
- 102343358-Guide-LTA-Tunnel-Lining-Design.pdfUploaded byMarlon
- Heinke TSG brochure.pdfUploaded byMarlon
- Rock Formation in SingaporeUploaded byMarlon
- Heinke Tunnel Segment GasketsUploaded byMarlon
- Shield TunnelUploaded byMarlon
- apxaUploaded byLuxmi Karan
- QC-03Uploaded bycdnaveen
- Sheet Piles Installation ManualUploaded byAmmar Rafei

- Structure of Fluoride-containing Bioactive GlassesUploaded byELSENZ
- MM Lab Experiments Cycle 1Uploaded byAbhilash Antony
- Alkanes and Alkenes QuestionsUploaded bycusgakunga
- ACI 207.2R-7Uploaded byOrlando Manriquez L
- Shear Walls of Limited DuctilityUploaded byJorgeLuisSegura
- Epoxy PhenolicUploaded bySivaraman Visvanathan
- Mastertop 200 TDSUploaded bypria prc
- Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics an explanation.pdfUploaded byFarzin Abdolbaghi
- Increasing ECM RatesUploaded bydavid2404
- Fundamentals of Flow MeteringUploaded byadlalbi
- MC0086 Digital Image ProcessingUploaded byGaurav Singh Jantwal
- CH29Uploaded byJohn Paolo Miranda
- First Year Cmestry McqsUploaded bykamilbisma
- Soil Stabilization Using Plastic Strips of Varied Sizes by Enhancing the Bearing CapacityUploaded byJedidiahClement
- POLOXAMER 182Uploaded byAnonymous 9lckaf9st6
- WPBV Specification SheetUploaded byWatts
- 17_Repairing Internal Corrosion Defects in Pipelines - A Case Study.pdfUploaded by김원재
- natalie bodily- speech powerpointUploaded byapi-240283590
- ME 6301 Engineering Thermodynamics QBUploaded byYuvaperiyasamy Mayilsamy
- Jurnal Fotolisis Ribovlavin oleh cahayaUploaded byAnonymous FtBebv
- Safety ContractUploaded byHolly Sullivan
- Multiple Antenna pairs and the Image AntennaUploaded byChiranjivi Kuthumi
- Periodicity Old ExamsUploaded byJhoshna Muniandy
- CarrierUploaded byjasondringmorris
- Mould TheoryUploaded byRanil Fernando
- Green and thriftyFINAL.pdfUploaded byDora_s87
- misumi part1Uploaded byjoe_joe_suriyon6445
- From: Ark Permaculture Project burdau...Uploaded byAnne Doyuk
- Process Control FundamentalsUploaded byAqeel Ahmed Bazmi
- Pump SpecificationUploaded byCretu Dan