PDF Theoretical Backround-Member

IDEA StatiCa Theoretical background 0
IDEA StatiCa Member

Theoretical background
September 2019
1 TOC
IDEA StatiCa MemberTheoretical background 0
IDEA StatiCa Member – Theoretical background 3
1 Introduction 4
2 Model description 8
2.1 Analyzed member 9
2.2 Related members 9
2.3 Connections 10
2.4 Supports 10
2.5 Loads 11
2.5.1 Line loads 11
2.5.2 End forces 12
2.6 Practical example 12
3 Analysis 16
3.1 Materially nonlinear analysis (MNA) 16
3.2 Linear Buckling Analysis (LBA) 17
3.3 Geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections (GMNIA) 18
3.3.1 Interpretation of results 18
Serviceability limit state 18
Ultimate limit state 18
4 Imperfections 20
4.1 Global imperfections 20
4.2 Local imperfections of members 21
Column 21
Beam 22
4.3 Local imperfections of slender member plates 22
4.4 Applying imperfections in IDEA Member 23
4.5 AISC 360-16 24
Summary: 25
IDEA StatiCa Member – Theoretical background

1 Introduction
IDEA StatiCa Member is a software for design of single or at maximum several steel mem-
bers including their joints and necessary surrounding members.
Typical examples of not common steel members
There are many great tools for the design of 3D steel frames – SAP2000, Robot, SCIA

Engineer... They cover almost all requirements of structural steel designers. But still there
are issues with many question marks. Mainly in:
1. Connections, details, nodes
2. Stability and buckling issues
IDEA StatiCa is focused on more complex parts of steel structures and offers:
1. IDEA StatiCa Steel Connection for checking of nodes and connections of any topo-
logy
2. IDEA StatiCa Steel Member for resolving of all unclear topics of stability and buckling
Every structural engineer calculates steel structure in his 3D FEA software. Then takes

steel members one by one and does 2 main checks for steel member:
l Section check
l Stability check
He uses calculated internal forces and applies analysis formulas mostly defined in national
design code.
The same approach is applied in Steel Member.
Structural engineer calculates steel structure (frame) in his 3D FEA software. Analyzed

member and all members related to it are separated from the modeled 3D structure and are
resolved using CBFEM.
l Global analysis of steel frame is done in 3D FEA software.
l All analyzed members are modeled by CBFEM.
l Simpler model is used for all related members (connected in nodes). Related mem-
bers can be supported at the ends.
l Nodes and connections are designed in IDEA Connection UI.
l Specific manufacturing operations can be applied on member – transversal or lon-
gitudinal stiffeners, openings, cuts...
l Loads can be applied on members and at the ends of related members (equilibrium
principle like in Connection).
l Analyzed member is loaded by standard loads derived from calculated internal
forces (during the import of the model and load cases). User can select position
of the load, e.g. at upper flange of the beam.
l Related members are loaded by standard loads and end internal forces.
CBFEM model of column. One analyzed column, four related members and precise model of anchoring
CBFEM model of castellated beam between two columns
Analysis model of Steel Member is created by CBFEM. Steel Member provides 3 types of
analysis:
l MNA – Materially Non-linear Analysis.
l LBA – Linear Buckling Analysis (stability)
l GMNIA – Geometrically and Materially Non-linear Analysis with Imperfections
Structural engineer can do – on much higher level – in Member the same check as in stand-
ard workflows:
l Section check. MNA is used. Strain check of 5 % is applied.
l Stability check. LBA tells the shape of stability collapse and advise how imperfection
should be defined. GMNIA is used. Strain check of 5 % is applied or attainment of
maximum load (end of convergence).
The same model as in IDEA StatiCa Connection – Component Based Finite Element
Method – is used:
IDEA StatiCa Connection Theoretical Background
2 Model description
Application Steel Member works with a multi-level model of structure with combined loads.
The goal is a proper investigation and check of selected members of a structure. They are
called “analyzed” members.
Other parts of a model are:
l Related member(s) – all members which are connected to the analyzed members
l Connection(s) – CBFEM connection of analyzed and related members
l End supports on related members
l Loads on analyzed member
l Loads on related members
l End forces on related members
CBFEM model of member as a part of seismic bracing system
Analyzed member is “cut-off” of the structure and is investigated separately. All loads on
analyzed member and related members has to be applied as in 3D model of the whole
structure. In the places of “cut”, which is done at the ends of related members, the internal
forces are applied as actions on members. The cut-off structure loaded in such way is in
equilibrium. It means that theoretically no supports are needed for the analytical model.
CBFEM model is more precise than a standard member model. It is a benefit but it also
causes the partial infraction of equilibrium. Therefore, it is useful to apply supports at the
ends of related beams. Supports should be defined to allow the same behavior of cut-off
structure as it is in the whole structure. Program lets it on a judgement of a structural engin-
eer.
2.1 Analyzed member

Analyzed member is an investigated member upon which loads are directly applied. The
loads on analyzed member can be applied to the member centreline or directly to the indi-
vidual plates of the member with the real area of loading. Analyzed members are modeled
fully with shell elements.
Model of analyzed member
2.2 Related members

Related members are divided into stub part and simplified part. Stub is modeled by shell
elements (full CBFEM model) and simplified parts modeled by simple 1D beam elements
with six degrees of freedom. Only the necessary part close to the joint with analyzed mem-
ber is modeled by shell elements to speed up the calculation. The ends of related members
are supported by user defined restriction of translation or rotation in arbitrary direction in
local coordinates of the related member.
Model of related beams
2.3 Connections
Connection between analyzed and related members are properly defined in the way they
are modeled in IDEA StatiCa Connection. They are not checked in IDEA StatiCa Member,
because this application work with loads critical for the member, not for connections. The
proper check of connections shall be done in IDEA StatiCa Connection.
2.4 Supports
IDEA StatiCa Member adds the second level of FEA analysis of the selected member(s).
The first level is done in the standard 3D FEA program. The second level uses internal
forces calculated in the first level. The structure loaded in such way is in equilibrium.
More precise model (e.g. local eccentricities of members, real lengths of members...) and
especially imposed imperfections for the GMNIA analysis cause that the equilibrium is not
kept. Reasonable supporting based on structural engineer judgement is recommended.
Standard supports can be defined at the ends of related members. All 3 translation and 3
rotations can be eliminated by support. Supports are defined in the local coordinate system
of the member.
End support on related member – purlin. X direction and all 3 rotations are supported
2.5 Loads
The analyzed member (or piece of a structure) must be loaded like it is loaded in the whole
structure. Self-weight is not applied automatically; only the set loads are considered. Fol-
lowing loads are applied:
l Line loads on analyzed and related members
l Internal forces in end sections of related members
2.5.1 Line loads
Structural engineer knows very well line loads and point loads from 3D FEA software. Such
loads are idealized for the purpose of 1D members. They do not exist in a real life. The real
loads are usually planar or surface loads or members are loaded through the connections
of other members.
User can apply line loads on analyzed members, but he must add more info – on which
flange or web is the load applied, the width of loaded area etc. Also point loads are better to
input as planar loads of specific length and width.
Line loads on related members are applied in the standard way as in 3D FEA software.
Point load is input as line load with a specific width
2.5.2 End forces
Internal forces at the end sections of related members. They are applied as actions on
related members. It is very similar to loading of members in models of connections in IDEA
StatiCa Connection.
Internal forces as load actions at the end of related member
2.6 Practical example

Assembly of CBFEM model is shown on the following example.
Designer needs to check lateral-torsional buckling resistance of a girder in a frame. If stand-
ard approach is used, the whole frame is calculated in 3D FEA software. Then the girder is
checked separately. Boundary conditions are decided; codes usually use assumption of
rigid or pinned supports. Generally, even a spring of semi-rigid joint may be selected. The
decision is a key factor in the assessment of lateral-torsional buckling resistance and is
fully dependent on the designer's estimation. The calculated internal forces are compared
to the resistance of lateral-torsional buckling determined by analytical formulas.
Application Member uses completely the same principles. Analyzed member is cut from the
full model of the structure. The boundary conditions are not estimated but all the connecting
parts are exactly modeled. The problem of boundary conditions is not completely solved
due to the need to support the ends of related members. Supports of related members
depends on designer's decision but their influence on the load resistance of the analyzed
member is smaller by several magnitudes than compared to the standard approach.
Example of the model of girder with joints, related members, and loads
The analyzed member AM1 – girder – is loaded by continuous load acting on the upper
flange. The joints are modeled and checked in IDEA StatiCa Connection.
Columns are related members. They are fixed at the bottom. At the top, they are supported
only in transverse direction (y, z). That allows loading the columns by the weight of the rest
of the structure – in this example by normal force and bending moment. Their magnitudes
correspond to the internal forces solved on 3D model in FEA software. There is no other
load acting on the columns.
Other related members are the secondary beams. They are simply supported and the real
loads are applied to them along their full length. At their ends, simple supports are applied
with added restriction of rotation around longitudinal axis x.
Of course, CBFEM model is simplified. Nevertheless, it describes the behavior of analyzed
member more precisely than the standard approach based on analytical formulas and estim-
ation of boundary conditions and course of bending moment.
Following figures show the expected behavior of the girder.
Deformation of the girder determined by MNA
Buckling mode shape determined by LBA
3 Analysis
IDEA StatiCa Member is able to perform three types of analysis:
1. Materially nonlinear analysis
2. Linear Buckling Analysis
3. Geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections
The first two analyzes can be used for code checks of members, e.g. using General method
(EN 1993-1-1, Cl. 6.3.4), but mostly they are used for the preparation of the third, most pre-
cise, analysis.
3.1 Materially nonlinear analysis (MNA)

Materially nonlinear and geometrically linear static analysis is sufficient for stocky members
without any buckling issues. The aim of application IDEA StatiCa Member is solving com-
plicated members so this analysis is usually not sufficient for complete assessment. This
analysis is required to perform other analysis types.
Material diagrams of steel in numerical models
3.2 Linear Buckling Analysis (LBA)

The structure is considered perfect without any geometrical or material imperfections and
material is elastic in this analysis type. Linear buckling analysis provides factor α cr – min-
imum amplifier for design loads to reach the elastic critical resistance of the structural com-
ponent. The factor determines the load when Euler's critical buckling load is reached. The
real buckling load of a real, imperfect structure may be much lower and therefore high
safety margin is recommended:
l αcr > 15 – use MNA
l αcr < 15 – use GMNIA
Another result of LBA with the same importance is the buckling mode shape. It provides
information which part of the modeled structure loses stability. User should check all the
buckling modes and select the important ones for application of imperfections. The import-
ant buckling mode shapes are usually causing sinusoidal bow deflection of the analyzed
member with the half-wave or buckling of slender plates.
Buckling mode shapes
The buckling mode shape also provides us with the information whether the member fails
in flexural buckling around weaker or stronger axis, torsional (axially loaded columns) or lat-
eral-torsional (bended beams) buckling or local buckling (members with slender plates).
Note that for complicated structures, buckling mode shapes may combine buckling of sev-
eral members with various shapes. Also, if a whole frame is modeled, the frame will buckle
as a whole and not columns and the girder separately.
Flexural, torsional, lateral-torsional buckling
Buckling mode shapes are directly used for application of imperfections in the most soph-
isticated analysis type – GMNIA.
3.3 Geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections

(GMNIA)
Geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections is the most soph-
isticated analysis type for static loading. All the imperfections (varying thickness of plates,
out-of-straightness, residual stresses, non-homogeneities in material, misalignment of sup-
ports...) are substituted by equivalent geometrical imperfections and can be set using buck-
ling mode shapes calculated by LBA. User selects the maximum amplitude of buckling
mode shape used for imperfection. The description of imperfections is in the next chapter.
3.3.1 Interpretation of results
Most design codes recognize two limit states – serviceability and ultimate.
Serviceability limit state
Design codes provide limits of deflection of members. These can be checked by comparing
the deflection of analyzed member to the limits.
Ultimate limit state
Ultimate limit state may be reached by attainment of a limiting value of the principal mem-
brane strain – recommended as 5 % or attainment of the maximum load for members sus-
ceptible to buckling. Maximum load is reached when the solver stops converging because
the model is loaded by forces. End of convergence means that no load increment may be
applied to the model.
End of convergence in GMNIA
4 Imperfections
The imperfections are inaccuracies in supports, residual stresses in members, variable

thicknesses of plates, out-of-straightness of members etc. All these imperfections are sim-
ulated by equivalent geometrical imperfection. Three geometrical imperfection types may
be considered:
1. Global imperfections of the structure
2. Local imperfections of members
3. Local imperfections of slender member plates
There are guidelines in e.g. EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-1-5 for each imperfection type.
4.1 Global imperfections

Global imperfections of the structure are described in EN 1993-1-1, Cl. 5.3.2 (3). The struc-
ture should be inclined in the form of equivalent sway imperfection according to the fol-
lowing figure.
Equivalent sway imperfection (from EN 1993-1-1 – Figure 5.2)
The angle of imperfection is:
where:
l ϕ0 = 1/200 – basic value of imperfection
l – reduction factor for height h applicable to columns
l h – height of the structure in meters
l – reduction factor for the number of columns in a row
l m – number of columns in a row including only those columns which carry a vertical
load NEd not less than 50 % of the average value of the column in the vertical plane
considered
The global imperfections should be applied to the structure in the global analysis model to
obtain correct loads. The global imperfections need not be applied also to the model in
application IDEA Member if e.g. only one beam is analyzed.
4.2 Local imperfections of members

Local imperfections of members are described in EN 1993-1-1, Cl. 5.3.2 (3). The imper-
fections are considered in the shape of local bow imperfection with the amplitude e 0 /L,
where L is the member theoretical length (node-to-node distance).
Design values of initial local bow imperfections (from EN 1993-1-1 – Table 5.1)
The plastic analysis is used so the right column of the table should be used. The amplitude
e 0 should be chosen according to the table above for predominantly compressed member
where flexural, torsional or torsional-flexural buckling is expected. If the member is pre-
dominantly bended and main failure mode is lateral-torsional buckling, the amplitude e 0
may be decreased by factor k = 0.5 according to EN 1993-1-1, Cl. 5.3.4 (3).
Two examples are shown:
Column
Column with the length 4 m is loaded by axial force and has αcr = 1.4 for buckling around
stronger axis and αcr = 1.5 around weaker axis. Other values are significantly higher. Two
cases should be checked:
1. Buckling around stronger axis: According to Table 6.2, buckling curve a is selected
which corresponds to amplitude of imperfection e0 / L = 1 / 250 for plastic analysis.
Therefore, amplitude 4000 / 250 = 16 mm is applied to the first buckling mode shape.
GMNIA is run and the limit states are evaluated.
2. Buckling around weaker axis: According to Table 6.2, buckling curve b is selected
which corresponds to amplitude of imperfection e0 / L = 1 / 200 for plastic analysis.
Therefore, amplitude 4000 / 200 = 20 mm is applied to the second buckling mode
shape. GMNIA is run and the limit states are evaluated.
Minimal load resistance should be used. Alternatively, both buckling modes may be used at
the same time, which leads to safer result and faster calculation time.
Beam
Beam with the theoretical span (node to node distance) 6 m is loaded by transverse load.
LBA shows that the first buckling mode shape is lateral-torsional buckling with α cr = 1.9.
Other buckling mode shapes are with significantly higher values of α cr . According to
Table 6.4, buckling curve a is selected which corresponds to amplitude e 0 / L = 1 / 250.
Because lateral-torsional buckling is investigated, factor k 0 = 0.5 may be used. Amplitude
0.5 • 6000 / 250 = 12 mm is applied to the first buckling mode. GMNIA is run and the limit
states are evaluated
4.3 Local imperfections of slender member plates

If members are class 4, local imperfections of plates should be also applied. The panel
imperfection amplitude should be a / 200 where a is the shorter panel span according to
EN 1993-1-5, Cl. C.5.
Local buckling of slender plates
While GMNIA should be a suitable analysis for the assessment of slender members, cur-
rently, not enough verifications and validations were made to confirm that the model is safe.
Therefore, it is not recommended to use IDEA StatiCa Member for slender members
(class 4) for now.
Influence of imperfections on the numerical analysis of slender plates
4.4 Applying imperfections in IDEA Member

IDEA Member allows applying imperfections in the buckling mode shapes with maximal
amplitude chosen by user in absolute value. Usually, the first buckling mode shape with the
maximum amplitude according to Table 5.1 in EN 1993-1-1 are enough. For members with
cross- section class 4, more buckling mode shapes must be selected and use a com-
bination of at least two buckling modes. Especially for model with more analyzed members,
several buckling mode shapes has to be selected.
4.5 AISC 360-16

AISC 360-16 does not directly refer to the design of members by a finite element analysis
using shell elements so it is recommended to use much more detailed guide in EN 1993-1-
5. Comm. 1.3.3b refers to ECCS: Ultimate Limit State Calculation of Sway Frames with
Rigid Joints (1984) where the concept of equivalent geometrical imperfection is used. The
design by inelastic analysis is covered in Appendix 1.3. The inelastic analysis shall take
into account:
l flexural, shear, axial and torsional member deformations, and all other component
and connection deformations that contribute to the displacements of the structure –
covered by use of GMNIA and member consisting of shell elements
l second-order effects (including P-Δ, P-δ, and twisting effects) – covered by use of
GMNIA
l geometric imperfections – set by user by using buckling mode shape from LBA ana-
lysis
l stiffness reductions due to inelasticity, including partial yielding of the cross section
that may be accentuated by the presence of residual stresses – It is not possible to set
residual stress in the member. However, using Appendix 1.3.3c, residual stress mod-
eling may be replaced by reduction of the elastic modulus, E, and modulus in shear,
G, by 0.8.
l uncertainty in system, member, and connection strength and stiffness – covered by
use of geometrical imperfections and stiffness reduction
Appendix 1.3.3b states: "In all cases, the analysis shall directly model the effects of initial
imperfections due to both points of intersection of members displaced from their nominal loc-
ations (system imperfections), and initial out-of-straightness or offsets of members along
their length (member imperfections). The magnitude of the initial displacements shall be the
maximum amount considered in the design; the pattern of initial displacements shall be
such that it provides the greatest destabilizing effect."
Geometric imperfections are described in Comm. C2.2: "Initial geometric imperfections are
conservatively assumed equal to the maximum material, fabrication and erection tolerances
permitted in the AISC Code of Standard Practice (AISC, 2016a): a member out-of-straight-
ness equal to L / 1000, where L is the member length between brace or framing points, and
a frame out-of-plumbness equal to H / 500, where H is the story height."
It is recommended to apply out-of-plumbness in the 3D FEA software and out-of-straight-
ness in IDEA Member application.
Summary:
If it is decided to use AISC approach, apply out-of-plumbness H / 500 in 3D FEA software,
out-of-straightness L / 1000 in Member and reduce the modulus of elasticity in tension / com-
pression and shear by factor 0.8. Note that this procedure does not cover complicated
issues with several buckling mode factors close to each other.

PDF Theoretical Backround-Member

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Theoretical Backround-Member

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IDEA StatiCa Theoretical background 0

IDEA StatiCa Member

IDEA StatiCa MemberTheoretical background 0

IDEA StatiCa Member – Theoretical background 3

IDEA StatiCa Member – Theoretical background

There are many great tools for the design of 3D steel frames – SAP2000, Robot, SCIA

Every structural engineer calculates steel structure in his 3D FEA software. Then takes

Structural engineer calculates steel structure (frame) in his 3D FEA software. Analyzed

2.1 Analyzed member

2.2 Related members

2.6 Practical example

3.1 Materially nonlinear analysis (MNA)

3.2 Linear Buckling Analysis (LBA)

3.3 Geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections

Serviceability limit state

Ultimate limit state

The imperfections are inaccuracies in supports, residual stresses in members, variable

4.1 Global imperfections

4.2 Local imperfections of members

4.3 Local imperfections of slender member plates

4.4 Applying imperfections in IDEA Member

4.5 AISC 360-16

You might also like