Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prediction of Buckling Load of Steel Racking Frame Using Non Destructive Method
Prediction of Buckling Load of Steel Racking Frame Using Non Destructive Method
Bracing channel
LITERATUREREVIEW
LURIE,1952 Investigated the relation of instability to structural stiffness (experimental and analytical work). t t l tiff ( i t l d l ti l k) BOKIAN,1988 Studied the natural frequency of the beams subjected to compressive axial load. LEE,1965 Developed a linear relationship
P fL + f =1 Pcr o
2
Ideal Equation
METHODOLOGY
Numerical Analysis
Theoretical
Experimental
Three Specimens
RESULT&DISCUSSION
ONE DIMENSIONAL
Specimen 1 Description 1 Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) 25.34 1.56 457.7 2 25.34 1.59 3 25.38 1.59 Specimen 2 Description 1 Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) L th ( ) 25.24 1.98 508.2 508 2 2 25.20 1.97 3 25.20 1.98 Specimen 3 Location Description 1 Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) 25.41 3.19 711.0 2 25.38 3.19 3 25.36 3.20 4 25.37 3.21 5 25.36 3.22 25.38 3.20 711.0 Average 4 25.18 1.96 5 25.24 1.94 25.21 1.97 508.2 508 2 Location Average 4 25.33 1.58 5 25.36 1.59 25.35 1.58 457.7 Location Average
ONE DIMENSIONAL
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
ONE DIMENSIONAL
Buckling Load 1 2 3 [3-2]/2% [3 2]/2% 1 Natural Frequency 2 3 [3-2]/2% [3 2]/2%
Theoretical (N)
Theoretical (N)
90 140 238.75
0.28 0 28 0.34
LU USAS (N)
LU USAS (N)
ONE DIMENSIONAL
Buckling Load 1 2 [1-2]/1% 1 Natural Frequency 2 [3-2]/2%
Theoretical (N N)
Theoretical (N N)
Differ rential (% %)
Simply supported column Cantilever column One pin ended and other fixed ended
0.011 0 0.005
Table 2 : Buckling load and Natural Frequency for columns with various end conditions
Differ rential (% %)
LUS SAS (N N)
LUS SAS (N N)
ONE DIMENSIONAL
Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for columns
200
Simply supported column
180
Cantilever column One pin ended and other fixed ended column
P
160
140
Axial Load ( N )
120
P
100
80
60
P
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Squared-frequency ( Hz2)
Figure 1 : Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency determined using LUSAS for columns with various support conditions
ONE DIMENSIONAL
Dimensionless plot of axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for columns
1.00
0.70 0.60
y = -0.9971x + 0.9972 2 R =1
0.50 0.40
y = -0.9948x + 0.9997 2 R =1
0.30 0.20
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
Figure 2 : Relationships between non-dimensional load versus squared frequency for different support conditions
EI1=20.44GNmm2 H=Hs=1.5m
Lb=2.7m
Figure 3 : Details of the Single steel racking 2D frame used for study
SHS (mm)
Area ( m2 ) 4.34x10-4
40x40x3.0
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Squared-frequency ( Hz2)
Figure 4 : Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency determined using LUSAS for a simple steel racking 2D frame
Ideal Equation
y = -1.3849x + 1.3174 2 R = 0.9657
0.10 0 10
0.20 0 20
0.30 0 30
0.40 0 40
0.50 0 50
0.60 0 60
0.70 0 70
2
0.80 0 80
0.90 0 90
1.00 1 00
Figure 5 : Comparison non-dimensional versus squared frequency determined using LUSAS and the ideal equation
Theoretical (N)
LUSAS (N)
Differential (%)
Theoretical (N)
LUSAS (N)
Differential (%)
42.17
39.99
5.17
13.77
13.44
2.4
Table 4 :Comparison of buckling and natural frequency using different methods for a Simple racking frame
12
H=3Hs H=3Hs
10
2 1
Lb
Lb 4Lb
Lb
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Squared-frequency ( Hz2)
Figure 6 : Axial load versus the calculated squared-frequency determined using LUSAS for 3D steel racking frame
0.7 y = -1.0111x + 1.0147 2 R = 0.9999 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2
y = -1.0069x + 1.0088 2 R =1
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 7 : Comparison non-dimensional versus squared frequency determined using LUSAS and the ideal equation for 3D steel racking frame
CONCLUSION
A strut regardless of the type of end support condition satisfied th id l equation diti ti fi d the ideal ti The simple 2D frame provides a linear relationship between axial load and squared frequency which are not in good agreement with the ideal equation The 3D frame agreed closely with the ideal equation