Improved Design Assessment LTB I-Section Members Modern Computational Methods

Improved Design Assessment of LTB 4/20/2016
of I-Section Members
via Modern Computational Methods
IMPROVED DESIGN ASSESSMENT OF LTB

OF I-SECTION MEMBERS
VIA MODERN COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
Improved Design Assessment of LTB
of I‐Section Members
Donald W. White (with credits to Dr. Woo Yong Jeong & Mr. Oguzhan Toğay)
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA USA
2016 NASCC The STEEL Conference
2
2016 NASCC
D. White, Georgia Tech 1
IMPETUS FOR THIS WORK
• Efficient, more rigorous assessment of
Web‐tapered members with
 Multiple taper
 Steps in the cross‐section (CS) geometry
 Doubly‐ & singly‐symmetric CS geometry
Ordinary frame members
including
• Impact of general lateral & torsional bracing
• Benefits of end restraint & member continuity across braced points
• Influence of general moment gradient
and other load & displacement boundary condition effects 3
IMPETUS FOR THIS WORK
• Lack of sufficient rigor of Direct Analysis (DM) type approaches
for assessment of 3D member limit states & stability bracing
requirements
• Lack of sufficient computational efficiency of advanced
(plastic zone) analysis methods
• Difficulty of correlation between advanced analysis results and
Specification resistances
• Desire for improvement upon traditional K & Cb factor
approximations
• Desire for improvement upon traditional strength interaction eqs. 4
2016 NASCC
INTRODUCTION
• Column inelastic effective length factors have been used
extensively in the past to achieve improved accuracy and
economy in the design of steel frames
• Using a buckling analysis with inelastic stiffness reduction
factors, , the following effects can be captured quite rigorously
& efficiently for columns, beams & beam‐columns:
Loss of member rigidity due to the spread of plasticity
Various end restraints
Various bracing constraints and other load & displacement boundary
conditions
Continuity across braced points 5
AISC a FOR COLUMNS W/ NONSLENDER ELEMENTS
c Pn  0.9 (0.877) Pe  0.9 (0.877) a Pe Pe  a Pe

a Py
c Pn Pe 4  c Pn  Pn
 0.658 Pe for    0.390  Pe 

c Py Py 9   c Py  0.877
0.877 a Py
c Pn  P   0.877 a Py

 0.658 Pn
ln c n   ln 0.658 Pn 
c Py    
 c Py   
 P  P
ln  c n   0.877a c y ln  0.658  Pu  Pu 
 P  c Pn  P 
 c y for  u  0.390  a  2.724 ln  
 P
 c y

 c Py  c Py 
 P 
for  u  0.390  a  1
 P 
 c y 
2016 NASCC
ANALYSIS STEPS
• Build a model of the structure
• Apply the desired LFRD factored loads. These loads produce the
internal axial forces Pu
• Reduce EIx, EIy, ECw and GJ by SRF = 0.9 x 0.877x a
• Solve for the inelastic buckling load
 Vary the applied loads by the scale factor 
 Calculate τa at the current load level
 Iterate until the  assumed in the calculation of a is the same as that determined
from the buckling analysis
The resulting Pu is a rigorous calculation of cPn accounting for

all member continuity, bracing and/or end restraint effects 7
EXAMPLE COLUMN INELASTIC BUCKLING ANALYSIS
• SABRE2 (using the inelastic reduction
factor a) gives
cPn = 1153 kip
• This result matches with a traditional
iterative calculation (Yura 1971) using an
inelastic K = 0.861, based on a = 0.633
2016 NASCC
COLUMN STIFFNESS REDUCTION FACTORS (SRFs)
Net SRF
Pu / Py
Pu  Pu   P    Pu 

a  2.724 ln   b  4  u  1    
c Py  c Py 
 P
 y    Py   9
BEAM ltb MODEL, COMPACT & NONCOMPACT WEB MEMBERS
FL Mu
bMn  bMe  0.9ltbMe For m  where m  ltb  1
Fyc bMyc
FL M Y 4X2
For  m  b max .LTB ltb 
Fyc bMyc  2  Fyc 
2

6.76 X   m2  2Y 2 
  E  
where:
  m  Sxc ho
  1    X2 
  Rpc   Lr Lp  Lp   Fyc  1  J
Y  m      
 F   rt rt  rt   E   1.95 
1  L
  Mmax .LTB  Rpc Myc
  Rpc Fyc  
 
10
2016 NASCC
COLUMN VS. BEAM  FACTORS FOR A W21X44
1.2
1.0
0.8
 0.6
Beam LTB Tau
0.4 Factor
Column Tau 0.223
0.2 Factor
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Pu Mu
,
c Pye bMmax 11
REQUIREMENTS FOR INELASTIC LTB ANALYSIS
• The software must rigorously include ECw in addition to EIx, EIy &

GJ in the context of doubly‐symmetric I‐section members
• For singly‐symmetric members, the behavior associated with the
monosymmetry factor, βx, also must be included
• The 0.9 x ltb factor should be applied equally to the member
elastic stiffness contributions EIy, ECw and GJ for the execution of
the buckling analysis
• Required number of elements:
At least 4 elements per unbraced length are required to capture the
behavior for frame elements based on cubic Hermitian interpolation of
the transverse displacements and twists along the element length 12
2016 NASCC
GENERAL PURPOSE THIN‐WALLED OPEN‐SECTION FRAME ELEMENT
Implemented in SABRE2 (available at white.ce.gatech.edu/sabre)
13
ELASTIC LTB BENCHMARK
14
2016 NASCC
ELASTIC LTB BENCHMARK
Typ.14 dof prismatic element (10 elem)

stepped using avg. depth in ea. elem.
Typ.14 dof prismatic element (10 elem)
stepped using smallest depth in ea. elem.
15
BASIC BEAM‐COLUMN EXAMPLE USING SABRE2
From AISC/MBMA Design Guide 25
Point Brace, i = 0.825 k/in
11.3 kips
1800 kip-in
90 in
144 in
Dimensions:
Fy = 55 ksi
At left end: At right end:
Simply-supported
bft = 6 in bft = 6 in end conditions
tft = 0.2188 in tft = 0.2188 in
bfc = 6 in bfc = 6 in
tfc = 0.3125 in tfc = 0.3125 in
SABRE2 available at:
h = 12 in h = 24 in white.ce.gatech.edu/sabre
tw = 0.125 in tw = 0.125 in 16
2016 NASCC
SRF DIAGRAM
17
SABRE2 VS DG25
vs
1.173 DG25 Solution A
1.138 DG25 Solution C
18
2016 NASCC
BEAM ltb MODEL – RESULTS (W21X44 BEAMS)
1.2
Uniform Moment
1.0
0.8
Moment Gradient
Mn /Mp
(Cb = 1.75)
0.6 AISC Specification
Chapter F
0.4
0.2 Moment Gradient,
Inelastic Buckling
Analysis (SABRE2)
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Lb /Lp
19
BEAM ltb MODEL – RESULTS (W21X44 BEAMS)
1.2
Uniform Moment
1.0
0.8
Moment Gradient
Mn /Mp
(Cb = 1.75)
0.6 AISC Specification
Chapter F
0.4
0.2 Moment Gradient,
Inelastic Buckling
Analysis (SABRE2)
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Lb /Lp
20
2016 NASCC
W21X44 BEAM LTB RESISTANCE VS. POINT BRACING STIFFNESS
(Flexurally & torsionally simply-supported end conditions, Uniform Moment,

One intermediate point brace at compression flange, Lbr1 = 8.1 ft, Lbr2 = 4.9 ft )
Inelastic Buckling Analysis
AISC 2016 Commentary
Provisions including “Lq”
21

22
2016 NASCC

23
TRANSFER GIRDER ASSESSMENT
Mp D 2Dc 2Dcp Dc D
 1.40,  160,  109,  32,  3.413,  1.465
My tw tw tw Dcp 2Dc
Lateral brace (TYP) P 0.5P
xx
xx
xx
xx
3 at Lb = 45 ft = 135 ft
Critical Middle Unbraced Length:

Cb = 1.10 K = 0.848
Girder Factored Load Capacity: Pmax = 361 kip … from manual calcs.
24
2016 NASCC
INELASTIC BUCKLING MODE
Pmax = 376 kip
25
MOMENT & SRF DIAGRAMS
MOMENT
SRF
26
2016 NASCC
CROSS‐SECTION UNITY CHECK
27
BEAM‐COLUMN SRF
• Calculate the UC value with respect to the cross‐section strength from
Eqs. H1‐1
UC = Pu /c Pye + 8/9 Mu /b Mmax for Pu /cPye > 0.2
UC = Pu /2c Pye + Mu/b Mmax for Pu /cPye < 0.2
• Use the UC value in the a & ltb eqs. instead of Pu /c Pye & Mu /bMmax
 P / P 
• Determine the angle   a tan  u c ye 
 Mu / bMmax 
• Calculate the net SRF applied to ECw , EIy & GJ as
   A   
SRF   o  0.9 x 0.877 x a e   1  o  0.9Rb ltb
 90  Ag  90  28
2016 NASCC
BEAM‐COLUMN ltb MODEL – W21X44 RESULTS
Simply‐supported members, moment gradient loading
1.0
Fully‐Effective Cross‐
0.9
Section Plastic Strength
0.8
0.7 L = 7.5 ft
0.6
cPn /cPy
0.5
0.4 L = 10 ft
0.3
0.2
L = 15 ft
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
bcM cbM
Mnn // Mpp 29
ROOF GIRDER EXAMPLE (ADAPTED FROM AISC 2002)
2 in
(G' = 1 kip/in)
30
2016 NASCC
ROOF GIRDER EXAMPLE
 = 0.921
b Mn = 230 kip‐ft
c Pn = 18.4 kips
31
SRF, GRAVITY LOAD CASE AT BUCKLING LOAD
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Net SRF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Position along girder length (ft)
32
2016 NASCC
CLEAR‐SPAN FRAME EXAMPLE
SYM
33
BUCKLING MODE & CONTROLLING LIMIT STATE INFORMATION
1.2 (Dead + Collateral + Self-Weight)

+ 1.6 Uniform Snow
34
2016 NASCC
AXIAL FORCES AT STRENGTH LIMIT
35
MOMENTS AT STRENGTH LIMIT
36
2016 NASCC
SRF VALUES AT STRENGTH LIMIT
37
bMmax VALUES AT STRENGTH LIMIT
38
2016 NASCC
cPye VALUES AT STRENGTH LIMIT
39
CROSS‐SECTION UNITY CHECKS AT STRENGTH LIMIT
40
2016 NASCC
ADVANTAGES OF BUCKLING ANALYSIS APPROACH
• More general and more rigorous handling of all types of bracing,
end restraint & continuity effects
• Substantially cleaner, more streamlined & less error prone
member strength calculations
• Consistent bracing stiffness & member strength assessments
• More accurate capture of
Moment gradient and other load & displacement b.c. effects
Tapered & stepped member geometry effects
via a continuous representation of the corresponding SRF
values along the member lengths 41
COMPLEMENTARY RESEARCH
• Trahair, N.S. and Hancock, G.J. (2004). “Steel member strength by inelastic lateral buckling,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(1), 64–69.
• Trahair, N.S. (2009). “Buckling analysis design of steel frames,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
65(7), 1459-63.
• Trahair, N.S. (2010). “Steel cantilever strength by inelastic lateral buckling,” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 66(8-9), pp 993-9.
• Kucukler, M., Gardner, L., Macorini, L. (2014). “A stiffness reduction method for the in-plane design of
structural steel elements”, Engineering Structures, 73, 72–84.
• Kucukler, M., Gardner, L., Macorini, L. (2015a). “Lateral–torsional buckling assessment of steel beams
through a stiffness reduction method”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 109, 87–100.
• Kucukler, M., Gardner, L., and Macorini, L. (2015b). “Flexural-torsional buckling assessment of steel
beam-columns through a stiffness reduction method”. Engineering Structures, 101, 662-676.
• Kucukler, M., Gardner, L., and Macorini, L. (2015c). “In-plane design of steel frames through a stiffness
reduction method”. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. in press.
• Gardner, L. (2015). “Design of Steel Structures to Eurocode 3 and Alternative Approaches”. Proceedings,
International Symposium on Advances in Steel and Composite Structures, Hong Kong, 39-51.
42
2016 NASCC
DESIGN METHOD REQUIREMENTS
• Traditional Methods
 Effective Length Method (ELM)  Direct Analysis Method (DM)
} }
 ∅ , , INELASTIC  ∅ , , INELASTIC
BUCKLING BUCKLING
 ∅ , ,  ∅ , ,
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
 2nd‐Order Elastic Analysis  2nd‐Order Elastic Analysis
– Joint out‐of‐alignment ∆ – Stiffness reductions 0.8 & 0.8
(gravity only load cases) – Joint out‐of‐alignment ∆
• Advanced Methods
 AISC (2016) App. 1.2 (Elastic Analysis)  AISC (2016) App. 1.3 (Inelastic Analysis)
}
 ∅ ∅ INELASTIC  2nd‐Order Inelastic Analysis
 ∅ , , BUCKLING – 0.9 & 0.9
ANALYSIS
 2nd‐Order Elastic Analysis – Spread of yielding including residual
– Stiffness reductions 0.8 & 0.8 stress effects
– Joint out‐of‐alignment ∆ – Joint out‐of‐alignment ∆
– Member out‐of‐straightness – Member out‐of‐straightness
43
– For TWOS members, – For TWOS members,
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
I will be happy to address
any questions
SABRE2 available at:

white.ce.gatech.edu/sabre
44
2016 NASCC

Improved Design Assessment LTB I-Section Members Modern Computational Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Improved Design Assessment LTB I-Section Members Modern Computational Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improved Design Assessment of LTB 4/20/2016

IMPROVED DESIGN ASSESSMENT OF LTB

c Pn  0.9 (0.877) Pe  0.9 (0.877) a Pe Pe  a Pe

The resulting Pu is a rigorous calculation of cPn accounting for

Pu  Pu   P    Pu 

• The software must rigorously include ECw in addition to EIx, EIy &

Implemented in SABRE2 (available at white.ce.gatech.edu/sabre)

Typ.14 dof prismatic element (10 elem)

1.173 DG25 Solution A

1.138 DG25 Solution C

BEAM ltb MODEL – RESULTS (W21X44 BEAMS)

BEAM ltb MODEL – RESULTS (W21X44 BEAMS)

(Flexurally & torsionally simply-supported end conditions, Uniform Moment,

(Flexurally & torsionally simply-supported end conditions, Uniform Moment,

(Flexurally & torsionally simply-supported end conditions, Uniform Moment,

Critical Middle Unbraced Length:

Pmax = 376 kip

BEAM‐COLUMN ltb MODEL – W21X44 RESULTS

1.2 (Dead + Collateral + Self-Weight)

SABRE2 available at:

You might also like