Stahlbau - Design Rules for Lateral Torsional Buckling of Channel Sections

© All Rights Reserved

65 views

Stahlbau - Design Rules for Lateral Torsional Buckling of Channel Sections

© All Rights Reserved

- CSA S16-01 Example 001
- European Recommendations for the Design of Simple Joints in Steel Structures - 1st Draft 2003 - Jaspart
- AISC Design Guide 33 Curved Member Design 2018
- Bridge Bearing & Expamnsion Joints.pdf
- Steel Beam Calc
- Buckling of Structs
- CASTELLATED BEAMS
- PhDThesis_Hassan.pdf
- Design of Steel Structure Due to Bending-Beam Steel Structure
- AISC 360-10 Example 001
- AISC 360-05 Example 001
- Plate Girder 2
- Basics Steel SSEDTA Portal Frame 1-103
- Som Prob Set
- THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL DESIGN OPTIMIZATION METHOD OF AN AIRCRAFT WING-RIB.pdf
- SteelFrameDesignManualCsaS1614vt-1
- MSI04 Buckling of Struts[1]
- ATN2011_4
- LinkLookup (26)
- Crane Bracket

You are on page 1of 10

Fachthemen

J. C. D. (Hans) Hoenderkamp

M. C. M. (Monique) Bakker

H. M. G. M. (Henri) Steenbergen

C. H. M. (Karin) de Louw

channel sections subject to web loading

Herrn em. Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Joachim Lindner zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres gewidmet

Channel sections are widely used in practice as beams. However, used for the design of centrically loaded channel sections.

design rules for eccentrically loaded (not through shear centre) In a 1st order analysis, the cross-section does not rotate. In

beams with channel cross-sections are not available in Euro- a 2nd order analysis, the cross-section will rotate due to

code 3. In this paper five proposed design rules are summarised, compression in one of the flanges which causes that

explained and their validity is checked by Finite Element analy- flange to buckle sideways.

ses. The design rules yield ultimate loads that are compared to

ultimate loads from geometrical and material nonlinear analyses

of imperfect (GMNIA) beams with channel cross-sections. A para-

meter study is performed by varying the dimensions of the cross-

section, the span length to section height ratio of the beams, the

type of loading and the point of load application but is limited to

load application through the web of the channels. Based on one

of the proposed design rules, this study has led to a new design

rule which conforms to Eurocode 3.

ten unter Belastung in Stegebene. In der Praxis kommen häufig Fig. 1. Cross-sections: (a) solid, (b) double symmetric, (c)

U-Querschnitte zum Einsatz. Eurocode 3 enthält jedoch keine mono symmetric centrically loaded and (d) mono symmetric

Bemessungsregeln für exzentrisch, d. h. nicht im Schubmittel- eccentrically loaded

Bild 1. Querschnittsarten: (a) voll, (b) doppelt-symmterisch,

punkt, belastete Träger mit U-Querschnitt. In diesem Beitrag

(c) einfach symmetrisch, zentrisch belastet, (d) einfach

werden fünf Bemessungsvorschläge vorgestellt, erläutert und

symmetrisch, exzentrisch belastet

ihre Anwendbarkeit mit Hilfe von Finite-Element-Berechnungen

überprüft. Die berechneten Tragfähigkeiten der Bemessungsmo-

delle werden mit Traglasten verglichen, die auf Grundlage von

geometrisch und materiell nichtlinearen Berechnungen an Trä- When the applied load does not go through the shear

gern mit Imperfektionen (GMNIA) ermittelt wurden. In der nume- centre (figure 1d), the load is called ‘eccentric’ and in ad-

rischen Parameterstudie werden die Querschnittsabmessungen, dition to bending, 1st order torsion and rotation of the

das Verhältnis von Spannweite zur Trägerhöhe, der Lasttyp und cross-section will occur. In a 2nd order analysis, the cross-

der Lastangriffspunkt variiert. Die Belastung wirkt jedoch ledig- sectional rotation is enhanced by sideways buckling of the

lich in Stegebene. Basierend auf einem der bisherigen Bemes- compressed flange.

sungsvorschläge wird im Rahmen dieser Untersuchung ein neuer In practice channel sections are most frequently ec-

Bemessungsvorschlag formuliert, der die Regelungen des Euro- centrically loaded. However, no specific design rules are

code 3 widerspruchsfrei ergänzt. available in Eurocode 3 [2] for lateral torsional buckling

of eccentrically loaded channel sections used as beams. In

the literature the authors have found five proposed design

1 Introduction methods for lateral torsional buckling of channel sections.

Ultimate loads from these design rules have been compar-

Steel channel sections are often used in the building prac- ed to the ultimate loads obtained from geometrical and

tice. The structural behaviour of mono-symmetric channel material nonlinear analyses of beams with imperfections

sections is different from that of double symmetric cross- (GMNIA) [3]. On the basis of a parameter study, a new

sections, such as solid or I-shaped cross-sections as shown design rule is proposed, which is in line with design rules

in figure 1. This difference exists because the shear centre in Eurocode 3.

(S) and centre of gravity (C) do not coincide. If the ap-

plied load goes through the shear centre of a channel sec- 2 Design rules

tion (figure 1c), the load is called ‘centric’. It has been

shown [1] that standard code requirements for lateral tor- At Eindhoven University of Technology earlier studies on

sional buckling of double symmetric cross-sections can be lateral torsional buckling of channel sections focussed on

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Stahlbau 77 (2008), Heft 4 247

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 248

B. Snijder/H. Hoenderkamp/M. Bakker/H. Steenbergen/K. de Louw · Design rules for lateral torsional buckling of channel sections subject to web loading

experiments [4] and Finite Element simulations [5]. This Mpl is the plastic moment capacity of the cross-section

has led to a proposal for a design rule [1] based on the κM is the reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling

Merchant-Rankine formula. given by:

In a joint project by several German universities re-

( )

−0.4

search was carried out on the „Influence of torsion on the κ M = 1 + λ5M (3)

ultimate resistance of cross-sections and structural ele-

ments – Investigations into the influence of torsion effects This design rule is analogous to the procedure given in

on the plastic cross-sectional resistance and the ultimate Eurocode 3 [2] except for the lateral torsional buckling

resistance of steel profiles” [6-15] („Einfluss der Torsion curve as_ represented by equation (3). The relative slen-

auf die Grenztragfähigkeit von Querschnitten und Bau- derness λM, which is required to obtain the reduction fac-

teile – Untersuchungen zum Einfluss der Torsionseffekte tor κM, must be computed first:

auf die plastische Querschnittstragfähigkeit und die Bau-

tragfähigkeit von Stahlprofilen”). This yielded three pro- M pl

posals for the design of beams of hot-rolled steel channel λM = (4)

M cr

sections.

In Eurocode 3 [2] the so called ‘General Method’ can where

also be used for the design of beams of channel sections. Mcr is the elastic critical moment.

2.1 Modified Merchant-Rankine method For channel sections the reduction factor κM should not

be determined

_ as presented above. The relative slender-

The method of design [1] is based on the Merchant-Ran- ness λM must first be adjusted to account _ for _torsion. This

kine formula which is modified to yield the ultimate load has been achieved [6] by adding a term λT to λM which re-

for eccentrically loaded channel beams: sults in a relative

_ slenderness that includes the influence

of torsion λMT_ . This is relevant only in case of a relative

1 slenderness λM greater than 0.5 because the influence of

FMR = + μ ⋅ Fpl (1)

1 1 second order effects is limited in case of compact beams.

+

Fcr Fpl This method results in a modified reduction factor which

can be obtained as follows:

where

( )

−0.4

Fpl is the first order plastic limit load of the beam shown κ MT = 1 + λ5MT (5)

in table 1

Fcr is the elastic critical load of the beam shown in table 1 Where the relative slenderness including the influence of

μ is a correction factor given in table 1. torsion is defined as:

λ MT = λ M + λ T (6)

Table 1. Correction factors of the Modified Merchant-Ran-

kine Method _

The torsion term λT depends on the relative slenderness as

Tabelle 1. Korrekturfaktoren für das modifizierte Merchant-

Rankine-Verfahren follows:

λ T = 0.69 − 0.44 λ M if 0.75 ≤ λ M < 1.14 (7)

λ T = 0.19 if λ M ≥ 1.14

reduction factor κMT given by equation (5). This design

rule is valid for channel sections subjected to a uniformly

distributed load on the web.

_ (5) to obtain the reduction fac-

tor according to DIN, λMT could also be used in combina-

The design rule for lateral torsional buckling of beams in tion with the lateral torsional buckling curves of Euro-

bending, as given in DIN 18800 [16] is as follows: code 3 to obtain a reduction factor χLT:

M 1

≤ 1.0 (2) χLT = (8)

κ M ⋅ M pl ΦLT + ΦLT

2 − λ2

MT

where with

M is the design bending moment due to the applied

loading [

ΦLT = 0.5 1 + α LT ( λ MT − 0.2) + λ2MT ] (9)

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 249

B. Snijder/H. Hoenderkamp/M. Bakker/H. Steenbergen/K. de Louw · Design rules for lateral torsional buckling of channel sections subject to web loading

where

_ ject to eccentric loading. Summarised, the General Me-

λMT is the modified relative slenderness according to thod requires the following check:

equation (6)

αLT is the imperfection factor corresponding to the rele- χ op ⋅ α ult, k (14)

≥ 1.0

vant buckling curve. γ M1

determine the ultimate load. Then, the design rule becomes: γM1 is a partial factor for element instability: γM1 = 1

χop is the lower value of the reduction factors for lateral

M buckling χ and lateral torsional buckling χLT, based

≤ 1.0 (10) _

χLT ⋅ M pl on the relative slenderness λop:

code 3 design rule. This will be called the Modified χLT- λ op = (15)

method. α cr, op

αult,k is the resistance based on in-plane behaviour

In this proposed design method [7], second order theory is without lateral or lateral torsional buckling but

employed to calculate internal forces for the situation including the effects of in-plane geometrical de-

shown in figure 1d where a beam is eccentrically loaded formations and imperfections

on the web. This introduces a torsional moment. The in- αcr,op is the elastic critical resistance with respect to

ternal forces are checked on the basis of their resulting out-of-plane instability.

stresses. The calculation procedure for this method is

quite long and omitted here. 3 Finite Element Model

2.5 Simplified design rule The ultimate loads from the proposed design rules are

compared to ultimate loads obtained from the Finite Ele-

In Germany, a large investigation consisting of experimen- ment Method (FEM). The FEM-program used is Ansys

tal testing and simulations with several Finite Element release 10.0.

programs was carried out. This investigation [13] has led

to a simplified design rule for lateral torsional buckling of 3.1 Elements

beams with channel cross-sections. The original formulae

were presented for double bending and are simplified here The thickness of the flanges and the web are relatively

for single bending: small compared to the other dimensions. Therefore, shell

elements are used: four node three dimensional shell

(SHELL181) elements with 7 integration points over the

M Mω

+ kw ⋅ α ⋅ ≤ 1.0 (11) thickness of the shell-element, based on Mindlin shell

χLT ⋅ M pl M pl, ω theory.

k w = 0.7 − 0.2

M pl, ω

In this particular investigation, the cross-section (figure 2a)

is divided into several elements, 12 elements in the web

1

α = (13) and 8 elements in a flange. For beam spans shorter than

M

1− 2.8 meter, the number of elements over the length is 28 in

M cr order to avoid an increase of the discretisation error, see

figure 2b. If the span exceeds 2.8 meter, the length of an

where element is kept to 100 mm to retain the same depth-to-

α is the amplification factor length ratio. It was decided to neglect the fillets at the in-

Mω is the applied bi-moment tersection of web and flanges. This requires that all cross-

Mpl,ω is the plastic bi-moment capacity sectional properties in the previously introduced design

kw is a factor representing the influence of the torsio- rules must be determined for this adjusted cross-section.

nal moment. The end supports of the beam are also shown in fi-

gure 2b. At mid height of the web the displacements in the

This design rule is applicable to all load cases, all points of x-, y- and z-directions are zero at one end of the beam

load application and all magnitudes of eccentricity. (hinged support) and at the other end only the displace-

ments in the y- and z-direction are zero (roller support).

2.6 General Method In the corners of the cross-section the displacements in

the y-direction are zero.

In Eurocode 3 [2], the General Method may also be used Additional beam elements with large flexural stiffness

for the design of beams with a channel cross-section sub- in both directions are introduced along the edges of the

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 250

B. Snijder/H. Hoenderkamp/M. Bakker/H. Steenbergen/K. de Louw · Design rules for lateral torsional buckling of channel sections subject to web loading

3.4 Material

strength of 235 N/mm2. A bilinear stress-strain curve is used

with a Young’s modulus of elasticity of 210 kN/mm2.

The Von-Mises yield criterion is applied.

4 Example calculations

loads from the proposed design rules and the results from

the FEM are given for the channel section beam shown in

Fig. 2. FE Model: (a) cross-section, (b) length direction and figure 4. The cross-sectional dimensions represent an ad-

boundary conditions justed UPE 160, i. e. without fillets. The beam spans

Bild 2. FE Modell: (a) Querschnitt, (b) Längsrichtung und 2800 mm and is subjected to a uniformly distributed load

Lagerung on the top flange.

section at the supports and allow the ends free to warp but

not twist. These stiff beam elements are given a very small

sectional area to enable Poisson’s contraction. Assigning

very small torsional stiffness to these elements disables the

channel section beam to indirectly acquire extra torsional

stiffness from these beam elements.

3.3 Imperfections

(GMNIA) beams are performed to obtain the ultimate

loads. The imperfections to be included in these analyses

consist of geometrical imperfections and residual stresses. Fig. 4. Cross-sectional dimensions

The imperfection mode is taken to be equal to the lateral Bild 4. Querschnittsabmessungen

torsional buckling mode, which is in line with Eurocode 3.

The maximum imperfection is assumed to be L/1000,

which is a commonly used value for the situation where 4.1 Design calculations

residual stresses are explicitly taken into account [17]. The 4.1.1 Modified Merchant-Rankine method

direction of the imperfection is chosen unfavourably in

the direction of the eccentricity. This method was originally developed for a beam with two

Measurements of residual stresses in channel sections point loads (see table 1). As the bending moment distribu-

are not available in literature. For more common IPE-sec- tion from two point loads is inherently different from that

tions, the residual stresses are known and shown in of a uniformly distributed load, the design method given

figure 3a. Applying the same magnitude of stresses to a by equation (1) for point loads must be adjusted to make it

channel section would yield the residual stresses shown in suitable for a uniformly distributed load, i. e.

figure 3b. Since a channel section is not double symme-

tric, the stresses in figure 3b are not in equilibrium. There- 1

qMR = + μ ⋅ q pl

fore, the theoretically obtained residual stresses [13] as 1 1 (16)

+

shown in figure 3c are used. q cr q pl

where

qMR is the Merchant-Rankine based ultimate uniformly

distributed load

qpl is the plastic uniformly distributed load

qcr is the elastic critical uniformly distributed load

μ is a correction factor given in table 1: for this case

μ = 0.06.

Fig. 3. Residual stresses: (a) IPE-section, (b) Channel with- merically. For a uniformly distributed load applied on

out equilibrium (c) Channel in equilibrium the top flange this yields Mcr = 35.56 kNm and thus

Bild 3. Eigenspannungsverteilungen: (a) IPE-Querschnitt, qcr = 36.29 N/mm.

(b) U-Querschnitt ohne Gleichgewicht, (c) U-Querschnitt The plastic moment capacity is also determined nu-

mit Gleichgewicht merically: Mpl = 32.03 kNm. This results in a plastic uni-

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 251

formly distributed load of qpl = 32.68 N/mm. The ultimate M u, Mod − χ = χ LT ⋅ M pl = 0.52 ⋅ 32.03 = 16.66 kNm

uniformly distributed load according to this design rule

then becomes: This results in:

1 8 ⋅ M u,Mod − χ 8 ⋅ 16.66 ⋅ 10 6

q MR = + 0.06 ⋅ 32.68 = 19.16 N/ mm qMod, χ = =

1 1

+ L2 2800 2

36.29 32.68

= 17.00 N/mm

4.1.4 Second order theory, the αϑ-method

Using equation (4), the relative slenderness for buckling

becomes: The design rule of the αϑ-method is complex to use. The

ultimate load according to this method was obtained by a

M pl 32.03 trial and error process [3] and yields an ultimate uniformly

λM = = = 0.95 distributed load q2nd = 15.25 N/mm based on Terrington’s

Mcr 35.56

Bi-moment [18].

The influence of torsion is given by equation (7): 4.1.5 Simplified design rule

λ T = 0.69 − 0.44 λ M = 0.69 − 0.44 ⋅ 0.95 = 0.27 The design rule of this proposal is laborious as well and

the ultimate load must also be obtained by an iterative

The relative slenderness including the effect of torsion procedure. Earlier calculations [3] yielded an ultimate

from equation (6) is: uniformly distributed load qSimple = 14.50 N/mm.

Then, the reduction factor is obtained from equation (5): The relative slenderness is obtained from equation (15):

( ) ( )

−0, 4 −0, 4

κ MT = 1 + λ5MT = 1 + 1.22 5 = 0.59 α ult, k M pl 32.03

λ op = = = = 0.95

α cr, op M cr 35.56

can then be expressed as follows: With buckling curve ‘d’ for channel sections, this results in

a reduction factor:

M u, Mod − κ = κ MT ⋅ M pl = 0.59 ⋅ 32.03 = 18.90 kNm

[ ( )

ΦLT = 0.5 1 + 0.76 0.95 − 0.2 + 0.952 = 1.24 ]

1

χ op = χLT = = 0.49

8 ⋅ M u,Mod − κ 8 ⋅ 18.90 ⋅ 10 6 1.24 + 1.24 2 − 0.952

qMod, κ = =

L2 2800 2

= 19.29 N/ mm Using equation (14) and taking γM1 = 1, the ultimate bend-

ing moment MGM can be calculated as follows:

α ult, k = =

χ op MGM

Alternatively,

_ the Modified χLT-method can be used,

where λMT is used in combination with buckling curve ‘a’ and so:

of Eurocode 3 [2]. The reduction factor χLT can be obtain-

ed using equations (9) and (8) respectively: MGM = χ op ⋅ M pl = 0.49 ⋅ 32.03 = 15.69 kNm

⎡

( 2 ⎤

ΦLT = 0.5 ⎢1 + α LT λ MT − 0.2 + λ MT ⎥

⎣ ⎦

) This results in:

8 ⋅ MGM 8 ⋅ 15.69 ⋅ 10 6

[ (

= 0.5 1 + 0.21 1.22 − 0.2 + 1.22 2 = 1.35) ] qGM =

L2

=

2800 2

= 16.01 N/ mm

1

χLT =

2 4.2 Finite Element results

ΦLT + 2 − λ

ΦLT MT

= = 0.52

1.35 + 1.352 − 1.22 2 buted load is qFEM = 21.39 N/mm. This is for the situation

where residual stresses are explicitly taken into account

The ultimate bending moment Mu,Mod–χ then becomes and geometrical imperfections are introduced according

with equation (10): to the buckling mode with an amplitude of L/1000. For

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 252

comparison, an additional GMNIA calculation was car- Since the ultimate loads from the „αϑ-method” and

ried out without taking residual stresses into account di- the „Simplified design rule” show differences of ± 30 %

rectly but with a larger amplitude of the geometrical im- when compared to the ultimate loads from GMNIA, they

perfection of L/150, as given by Eurocode 3. In that case will be left out of the parameter study.

the ultimate load is qFEM,150 = 19.40 N/mm

4.4 Summary of remaining design rules

4.3 Comparison of results

The remaining design rules can be expressed in terms of

Figure 5 shows a comparison of results for the adjusted buckling curves which relate

_ a reduction factor χLT to

UPE160 section with a span of 2800 mm subjected to a the relative slenderness λLT. The results are shown in

uniformly distributed load applied on the top flange. The figure 6.

load-displacement diagram includes both curves for an

imperfection of L/1000 with residual stresses and L/150

without residual stresses.

Bild 6. Vergleich der untersuchten Biegedrillknickspannungs-

Fig. 5. Load-displacement diagram with maximum uni- linien

formly distributed loads

Bild 5. Last-Verfomungs-Diagramm mit Tragfähigkeiten

5 Parameter Study

The results are also compared in table 2. It is clearly

shown that all ultimate loads from the proposed design For a thorough evaluation and comparison of the remain-

rules underestimate the loads obtained with GMNIA, ing design rule proposals, an extensive parameter study

even for an imperfection magnitude of L/150. The Modi- has been performed.

fied Merchant-Rankine method and the Modified κM-me-

thod yield the smallest underestimation. 5.1 Cross-sections

Table 2. Comparison of ultimate loads (UPE 160, span used with the dimensions of nominal UPE-sections.

2800 mm, uniformly distributed load on the top flange)

UPE-sections are available with a height of 80, 100, 120,

Tabelle 2. Vergleich der Tragfähigkeiten (UPE 160, Länge

2800 mm, Gleichstreckenlast am Druckflansch)

140, 160, 180, 200, 240, 270, 300, 330, 360 and 400 mm.

Not every cross-section will be investigated. Table 3

Maximum Error shows which cross-sections are included in the parame-

load ter study.

⎡ qFEM − q ⎤

⎢ q ∗ 100⎥

⎣ FEM ⎦ 5.2 Span lengths

GMNIA Imperfection L/1000

with residual stresses qFEM 21.39 N/mm 0.00 % A restriction to the span length to section height ratio of

GMNIA Imperfection L/150 15 ≤ L/h ≤ 40 is taken as range of application. This results

without residual stresses 19.40 N/mm 9.30 % in a number of spans per cross-section as shown in table 3.

1 – Modified Merchant- For all span lengths, the number of elements used over the

Rankine method 19.16 N/mm 10.42 % length is presented in brackets.

2 – Modified κM-method 19.29 N/mm 9.82 % For cross-sections with a height of 80, 120 and

3 – Modified χLT -method 17.00 N/mm 20.52 % 160 mm, the span increases with steps of 400 mm. For

4 – Second order theory, cross-sections with a height of 200, 270, 330 and 400 mm,

the αϑ-method 13.18 N/mm 38.38 %

the span increases with steps of 1000 mm. This results in a

5 – Simplified design rule 14.50 N/mm 32.21 %

minimum of 6 and a maximum of 11 spans per cross-sec-

6 – General method 16.01 N/mm 25.15 %

tion.

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 253

Tabelle 3. Untersuchte UPE-Querschnitte und Spannweiten

UPE Span (*) UPE Span (*) UPE Span (*) UPE Span (*) UPE Span (*)

[m] [m] [m] [m] [m]

80 1.2 (28) 160 2.4 (28) 200 3 (30) 330 5 (50) 400 6 (60)

1.6 (28) 2.8 (28) 4 (40) 6 (60) 7 (70)

2 (28) 3.2 (32) 5 (50) 7 (70) 8 (80)

2.4 (28) 3.6 (36) 6 (60) 8 (80) 9 (90)

2.8 (28) 4 (40) 7 (70) 9 (90) 10 (100)

3.2 (32) 4.4 (44) 8 (80) 10 (100) 11 (110)

120 2 (28) 4.8 (48) 270 4 (40) 11 (110) 12 (120)

2.4 (28) 5.2 (52) 5 (50) 12 (120) 13 (130)

2.8 (28) 5.6 (56) 6 (60) 13 (130) 14 (140)

3.2 (32) 6 (60) 7 (70) 15 (150)

3.6 (36) 6.4 (64) 8 (80) 16 (160)

4 (40) 9 (90)

4.4 (44) 10 (100)

4.8 (48) 11 (110)

(*) Number of elements over the length

The loads are eccentrically applied at the centre line of It can be seen in figures 8 to 13 that the ultimate loads

the web. Two types of loading are considered: a uni- from the Modified Merchant-Rankine method, are not al-

formly distributed load over the full length of the beam ways on the safe side when compared to the GMNIA ulti-

and a point load at mid span. For each type of load,

three points of load application are investigated. Load

application points A, B and C are positioned respec-

tively at the centre line of the upper flange, in the

middle of the web and at the centre line of the lower

flange (see figure 7).

Bild 8. Ergebnisse bei Belastung des Druckflansches durch

eine Gleichstreckenlast

Fig. 7. Points of load application

Bild 7. Lastangriffspunkte

5.4 Results

obtained from the proposed design rules in terms of ulti-

mate loads in a buckling curve presentation similar to

figure 6. In the figures 8 to 10 the results are shown for a

uniformly distributed load applied at the top flange, at

web mid height and at the lower flange respectively. In the

figures 11 to 13 the results are shown for a point load ap-

plied at the top flange, at web mid height and at the lower

flange respectively. All results for one type of loading ap- Fig. 9. Results for uniformly distributed load at web mid height

plied at one location are plotted in one graph for all sec- Bild 9. Ergebnisse bei Belastung im Stegschwerpunkt durch

tions included in the study. eine Gleichstreckenlast

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 254

Fig. 10. Results for uniformly distributed load at the lower

Bild 12. Ergebnisse bei Belastung im Stegschwerpunkt

flange

durch eine Einzellast

Bild 10. Ergebnisse bei Belastung des Zugflansches durch

eine Gleichstreckenlast

Fig. 11. Results for point load at the top flange Fig. 13. Results for point load at the lower flange

Bild 11. Ergebnisse bei Belastung des Druckflansches durch Bild 13. Ergebnisse bei Belastung des Zugflansches durch

eine Einzellast eine Einzellast

mate loads. However, the ultimate loads from the Modi- the DIN lateral torsional buckling curves and its results

fied κM-method are always on the safe side. In many cases can be improved. In order to incorporate the Eurocode 3

they are excessively so. The Modified χLT-method is even buckling curves into the design of eccentrically loaded

more conservative. For all cases the General Method channel section beams, it is suggested to use the Modified

yields the safest results. χLT-method as a basis for a new design rule.

It can be observed in figures 8 to 13 that the design Figure 14 shows all GMNIA results from the para-

curves for the Modified κM-method and the Modified χLT- meter study and the design curve from the Modified χLT-

method show a levelling off of the reduction factors for re- method. There are two basic ways for the Eurocode 3

lative slenderness values smaller than 0.8. The same can buckling curves to yield larger reduction factors for

be observed when studying the GMNIA results in detail. eccentrically loaded channel sections. The first way is to

This is caused by the influence of warping restrained tor- algebraically redefine the buckling curve, e. g. by adding a

sion on the plastic section strength under combined bend- constant value to the equation for the reduction factor as

ing, shear and torsion. The strength requirement is govern- presented in Eurocode 3. This would introduce a new

ing the behaviour of the beams in this slenderness region. curve. To avoid this introduction,

_ it is suggested to reduce

The wide investigation into the design of eccentri- the relative slenderness λMT for lateral torsional buckling

_

cally loaded channel section beams allows a proposal for a as given in equation (6) by adjusting the torsion term λT

new design rule. in this equation.

The complete newly proposed design rule is then as

6 New design rule follows:

M

Among the studied proposals, the best design rule appears ≤ 1.0 (17)

to be the Modified κM-method. However, this method uses χLT ⋅ M pl

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 255

– For intermediate

_ values of the relative slenderness, i. e.

0.80 ≤ λM < 1.5, the value of the torsion term is adjusted

such that a gradual transition is obtained.

The effect of adjusting the torsion term is shown in

figure 14.

channel section beams subject to eccentric loading have

been compared to ultimate loads obtained from geome-

trical and material nonlinear analyses of imperfect

(GMNIA) beams. From an extensive study it appears

that:

– The Modified Merchant-Rankine method [1] does not

Fig. 14. Proposal for new design rule against all GMNIA always lead to safe results.

results – The Modified κM-method [6] yields acceptable results

Bild 14. Neu vorgeschlagene Bemessungsgleichung ver-

but is based on DIN buckling curves.

glichen mit gesamten GMNIA Ergebnissen

– A design method using second order theory, the αϑ-me-

thod [7] and a Simplified design rule [13] give rather con-

servative ultimate loads and require trial and error calcu-

The relative slenderness neglecting the effect of torsion is lation procedures.

– The General Method presented in Eurocode 3 gives

M pl very conservative results.

λM = (18) On the basis of a thorough numerical parameter

Mcr

study a new design rule is proposed for lateral torsional

buckling of channel cross-section beams with a span

The adjusted torsion term reads: length to section height ratio between 15 and 40. The

newly proposed design rule is based on the Modified κM-

λ T = 1.0 − λ M if 0.5 ≤ λ M < 0.80 method [6] and is adjusted to conform to Eurocode 3. The

λ T = 0.43 − 0.29λ M if 0.80 ≤ λ M < 1.5 (19) new design rule is derived for eccentric load application

along a line through the centre of the web.

λT = 0 if λ M ≥ 1.5 It is suggested by the authors that the new design rule

can be safely applied for all vertical load application lines

The expression for the relative slenderness including the between the shear centre and the centre of the web.

effect of torsion still is: It is recommended to investigate more eccentricities

than the one corresponding to load application along a

λ MT = λ M + λ T (20) line through the centre of the web. Also, it is recommend-

ed to investigate the plastic strength of a channel section

The remaining procedure for obtaining the reduction fac- under combined bending, shear and torsion.

tor follows Eurocode 3. The reduction factor for lateral

torsional buckling including the effect of torsion becomes:

Bibliography

1

χ LT = (21)

Φ LT + Φ LT

2 − λ2

MT

[1] Poutré, D. B. la, Snijder, H. H., Hoenderkamp, J. C. D.:

Design method for lateral torsional buckling of channel shap-

ed beams. SSRC Annual Stability Conference Proceedings

where

2002, Gainesville (Florida): SSRC 2002, pp. 311–326.

[ (

ΦLT = 0.5 1 + α LT λ MT − 0.2 + λ2MT ) ] (22)

[2] EN1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part

1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, January 2006.

[3] Louw, C. H. M. de: Design rule for lateral torsional buck-

with αLT = 0.21 for buckling curve ‘a’. ling of channel section. MSc Thesis Nr. O-2007.21, Depart-

This adaptation of the torsion term is based on the follow- ment of Architecture Building and Planning, Eindhoven Uni-

ing observations. _ versity of Technology, The Netherlands 2007.

– For relative slenderness values λM larger than 1.5, buckl- [4] Poutré, D. B. la, Snijder, H. H., Hoenderkamp, J. C. D.:

ing curve ‘a’ yields reasonably good results. This allows the Lateral Torsional Buckling of Channel Shaped Beams–

torsion term_to be ignored in this region of the diagram, i. Experimental Research, Proceedings of the Third Internatio-

_

e. λT = 0 for λM ≥ 1.5. nal Conference on Coupled Instabilities in Metal Structures

held in Lisbon (Portugal), Eds. D. Camotim, D. Dubina and J.

– The Modified κM-method gives a maximum value for the

Rondal, London: Imperial College Press 2000, pp. 265–272.

reduction factor of 0.67. Buckling

_ curve ‘a’ yields a reduc-

[5] Snijder, H. H., Bijlaard, F. S. K., Steenbergen, H. G. M.:

tion factor _χLT = 0.67_for λLT = 1.0.

_ By taking the torsion FEM Simulations of Lateral Torsional Buckling Experiments

term to be λT = 1.0 – λM for 0.5 ≤ λM < 0.80, the maximum on Channel Sections Loaded in Bending. Proceedings of the

value for the reduction factor will also be 0.67. 3rd European Conference on Steel Structures, Coimbra, Por-

247-256_Snijder(1121) 31.03.2008 13:04 Uhr Seite 256

tugal 19-20 September 2002, eds. A. Lamas and L.S. da Silva, [16] DIN 18800 Teil 1: Stahlbauten, Bemessung und Konstruk-

Eurosteel 2002, pp. 201–210. tion, Ausgabe 11/1990.

[6] Kindmann, R., Frickel, J.: Tragfähigkeit von U-Profilen bei [17] Lechner, A., Greiner, R.: Application of the equivalent

Biegung und Torsion. Rubstahl-Bericht 1, 2002. column method for flexural buckling according to new

[7] Frickel, J.: Bemessung von Trägern unter Biegung und Tor- EC3-rules. Eurosteel 2005 – 4th European Conference on

sion nach Th. II. Ordnung. Rubstahl-Bericht 2, 2002. Steel and Composite Structures, Research – Eurocodes –

[8] Kraus, M.: Genaue Torsionskenngrössen von UPE- und Practice, Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 8–10, 2005, Pro-

UAP-Profilen auf Grundlage der FE-Methode. Rubstahl-Be- ceedings Volume A, Eds. B. Hoffmeister and O. Hechler,

richt 3, 2005. ISBN 3-86130-812-6, Aachen: Druck und Verlagshaus Mainz

[9] Kraus, M.: Zur Berechnung maximaler Wölbordinaten der GmbH 2005, pp. 1.4-17–1.4-24.

Torsion. Rubstahl-Bericht 1, 2006. [18] Terrington, J.S.: Combined bending and torsion of beams

[10] Kindmann, R., Muszkiewicz, R.: Biegedrillknickmomente and girders (Part I & II) London: Crosby Lockwood & Son

und Eigenformen von Biegeträgern unter Berücksichtigung Ltd. 1967.

der Drehbettung. Stahlbau 73 (2004), pp. 98–106.

[11] Vayas, I.: Biegedrillknicken von Trägern mit einfach-sym-

metrischen Profilen. Stahlbau 73 (2004), pp. 107–115. Autoren dieses Beitrages:

[12] Kindmann, R., Wolf, C.: Ausgewählte Versuchsergebnisse prof. ir. H. H. (Bert) Snijder, dr. ir. J. C. D. (Hans) Hoenderkamp,

und Erkenntnisse zum Tragverhalten von Stäben aus I- und dr. ir. M. C. M. (Monique) Bakker,

U-Profilen. Stahlbau 73 (2004), pp. 683–692. Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Architecture Building

[13] Lindner, J., Glitsch, T.: Vereinfachter Nachweis für I- und and Planning, Structural Design Group, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven,

U-Träger beansprucht durch doppelte Biegung und Torsion. The Netherlands; E-Mail corresponding author: h.h.snijder@bwk.tue.nl

Stahlbau 73 (2004), pp. 704–715. ir. H. M. G. M. (Henri) Steenbergen,

[14] Rubin, H.: Zur plastischen Tragfähigkeit von 3-Blech- TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Delft, The Netherlands

Querschnitten unter Normalkraft, doppelter Biegung und ir. C. H. M. (Karin) de Louw

Wölbkrafttorsion. Stahlbau 74 (2005), pp. 47–61. Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Architecture Building

[15] Kindmann, R.: Neue Berechnungsformel für das IT von and Planning, Structural Design Group, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven,

Walzprofilen und Berechnung der Schubspannungen. Stahl- The Netherlands;

bau 75 (2006), pp. 371–374. Aveco de Bondt, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

- CSA S16-01 Example 001Uploaded byBùi Văn Hợp
- European Recommendations for the Design of Simple Joints in Steel Structures - 1st Draft 2003 - JaspartUploaded byZelzozo Zel Zozo
- AISC Design Guide 33 Curved Member Design 2018Uploaded bysaital
- Bridge Bearing & Expamnsion Joints.pdfUploaded bymekkawi6650
- Steel Beam CalcUploaded byAshok Kumar
- Buckling of StructsUploaded byg_jathu
- CASTELLATED BEAMSUploaded bypenglg4430
- PhDThesis_Hassan.pdfUploaded byAndreea Nan
- Design of Steel Structure Due to Bending-Beam Steel StructureUploaded byAizat Alias
- AISC 360-10 Example 001Uploaded byBùi Văn Hợp
- AISC 360-05 Example 001Uploaded byAnitha Hassan Kabeer
- Plate Girder 2Uploaded bySandeep Singh
- Basics Steel SSEDTA Portal Frame 1-103Uploaded byRealmak Aweni
- Som Prob SetUploaded byAnonymous mXicTi8hB
- THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL DESIGN OPTIMIZATION METHOD OF AN AIRCRAFT WING-RIB.pdfUploaded byOSCARDELTA
- SteelFrameDesignManualCsaS1614vt-1Uploaded byjuberdp
- MSI04 Buckling of Struts[1]Uploaded byTikar Mengkuang
- ATN2011_4Uploaded byPasc Oana Jianina
- LinkLookup (26)Uploaded byBobaru Marius
- Crane BracketUploaded bydudoodoo
- i SectionsUploaded byvyasking
- IS800-12EQ_206Uploaded bymanjaripujar5944
- CIVL4111Uploaded byPavan Gowda
- Lecture 5-2-Design of Bending MembersUploaded byHarold Jackson Mtyana
- Udall Jeff 2007Jan MastersUploaded bypad
- S04702124138.pdfUploaded byAmir Sha
- Springolo Khennane Van Erp Pt II[1]Uploaded byDadir Ali
- Bu-bu NS25eccentricity 1Uploaded byozlem ozdemir
- Assignment Som JuLY Dec 2017Uploaded byShivangi Thakker
- Printout Report - PR1Uploaded byYasonsky Captain

- Fema 274Uploaded byRosu Loredana
- 1 4 41-4-4 DesignofconcreteslabelementsUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Chen Duan BracedUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Kim 2013Uploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- G N L StaAn.pdfUploaded byar4ind
- shearUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- SBE_SS4-secure.pdfUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Her 2012Uploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Chpt1-5th-edition weibullUploaded byHannel Tamayo
- Chemical ResistanceUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- analysis notes.pdfUploaded byBandula Prasad
- Marine SuperstructureUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- 06 Matrix BeamUploaded byEdouard Meyer
- Deflection Limits for Pitched Roof Portal FramesUploaded byGoran Mandura
- Soil Stability AnalysisUploaded byUtkarshPraveen
- SC+_Design_Guidelines_EnglishUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Order FormUploaded byIvan Grkajac
- FEMA310cvr ForeUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- FEMA310ch 5 AppUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- FEMA310ch-3.pdfUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- FEMA310ch-1-2Uploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- HHT MethodUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Consistent InelUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis
- Approximate Formulas for Rotational Effects in Earthquake EngineeringUploaded byMyron Oikonomakis

- traffic.pptxUploaded byfarahazura
- Wallace-Slab Column Final V3 Present HandoutUploaded byLuan Truong Van
- Design of structuresUploaded byMichaelJoseph
- 2-Wastewater_Flowrate__WWT.pdfUploaded byAini Zahra
- Chapter 10 Series Pipeline Systems.docxUploaded byNader Alaa
- Peri Komponentu Katalogas Klojiniams 2015 EnUploaded byLuôn Hồ
- Design Calculation for FlocculatorUploaded bygkvmit
- BS5400_P2.PDF.pdfUploaded byFaheem Sadiq
- 350963411 Mathcad Soil Supported Combined FootingUploaded byTarek Ed E
- Stability of slopesUploaded bysunny
- gate syll.docxUploaded byqwertying
- Stability of Well Foundations 2014Uploaded bySanjay Garg
- Ch16 Construction MethodologyUploaded bysunilgowda11
- 2 Bartec Coupler Product Datasheet 13Uploaded byMantripragada Raju
- Centrifugal PumpsUploaded byNimesh Gunasekera
- Performance of Flowing WellsUploaded byhooman_teh
- Earthquake Design Practice for BuildingsUploaded bysmg_b
- StandardUploaded byHạo Nam-Born To Win
- 4. Asphalt ConstructionUploaded byCarlos Enrique Rivas Bustamante
- 1825051-V1-07C012 EOI New Rapid Bay Jetty - Preliminary Design ReportUploaded byGoran Brncic
- Beam Design as Per Is456Uploaded bymystery
- Comparison of Ground Motion Selsction Criteria for Seismic DesignUploaded byanna_318857983
- Brass Fiting CatalogUploaded byLuis R. Salas Soto
- Earthquake Risks and Effective of Earthquake Load and Wind Load on Behavior OfUploaded byIAEME Publication
- GK-mostovi-Akesson - Plate Buckling in Bridges and Other StructuresUploaded byhmhrmhm
- ConcreteUploaded byDebendra Dev Khanal
- LatPileBUploaded bymr.xinbombay
- Civil Engineering LawUploaded byMANDARAW
- Capacity of Sewer PipesUploaded byyarzar17
- BEAMCOL13Uploaded byDwi Hermawan