T9 Report: Experimental research

Lateral torsional buckling of channel shaped sections

TUE BCO 99.06 Dagowin la Poutr April 1999

Reprinted October 2000

Supervisors:

Prof. ir H.H. Snijder Dr. ir. J.C.D. Hoenderkamp

Preface
This project originated as a result of unanswered questions during my graduation project. The experiments fill some gaps in the understanding of the structural behaviour of channel sections. Since the first proposal for this project many people have reacted enthusiastically. I am very indebted to all those people and institutions that have supported me to make it a success. Special thanks go to Salzgitter AG for donating channel sections and to Delta Staal BV for delivering them free of charge. Many thanks to Prof. If. H.H. Snijder and Dr. if. J.C.D. Hoenderkamp for supervising this project. I wish to record my appreciation of TNO Building and Construction Research for its financial support for this research project. Thanks are due ir. H.M.G.M. Steenbergen and ir. F.S.K. Bijlaard for the useful remarks. Thanks to the people of the laboratory for helping me executing the experiments. In particular I wish to express my gratitude to Martin Ceelen for setting up the measurement system and patiently explaining how it works. Dagowin la Poutr April 1999 Note with reprinted version: This report has been reprinted to meet demands and to be able to publish it in the online electronic library of the Eindhoven University of Technology (http://www.tue.nl/bib/). For this version some minor errors in typing have been corrected as well as some incorrect numbers. Specifically, the row starting with kip in table 3 has been corrected. These numbers were typed incorrectly and do not effect the rest of the table. Non of these changes effect either the experimental results or the conclusions. Dagowin la Poutr October 2000

ii

Summary
In literature very little data on the structural behaviour of channel sections is found. To obtain data on the structural behaviour of channel sections a serie of experiments have been set-up. Channel sections with a span of 2.8 meters are loaded by two concentrated loads acting at a quarter span from each support, see figure A.

s.c.
y e

+
z 2.8 m

c.g.
x

figure A: section for testing

To test the effect of the point of load application load has been applied at the shear centre, at the top flange, in the middle of the web and at the bottom flange. If the load is applied at the shear centre the section buckles suddenly when the ultimate load is reached. The failure load is also highest when the load is applied at the shear centre. Sudden buckling does not occur when the load is applied onto the web. Furthermore the failure load is lower than if the load is applied at the shear centre, see figure B.
Experiments 2XX
50

average load F [kN]

Fu;2A = 37.5 = 75.8% Fu;1B

40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 w 1 [m m ] Vertical deflection at m idspan

1B3 2A1 2B2 2C1 1 st order

Fu;1B= 49.4 [kN]

Fu;2B = 43.7 = 88% Fu;1B

Fu;2C = 47.3 = 96% Fu;1B

figure B: failure load in relation to load at shear centre and load-displacement graphs of experiments

The failure loads have been predicted using the Merchant-Rankine postulate. The predictions were quite conservative and need further improvement.

iii

iv

Table of contents
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................3 OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................4 RESTRICTIONS ...................................................................................................................................4 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS .........................................................................................................................4 1 CHOICE OF EXPERIMENT ....................................................................................................5 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 3 SELECTED SECTION................................................................................................................5 LOAD CASES ..........................................................................................................................6 TYPE OF LOADS......................................................................................................................8 POINT OF LOAD APPLICATION ................................................................................................9 NUMBERING OF EXPERIMENTS ............................................................................................10

MATERIAL PROPERTIES ....................................................................................................11 ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS .........................................................................................13 3.1 3.2 EXPERIMENT 1.....................................................................................................................13 EXPERIMENT 2.....................................................................................................................15 INFLUENCE OF PINNED-END JACK ........................................................................................18 INFLUENCE OF PRESSURE AND TENSION JACKS ...................................................................18 APPLYING LOAD ONTO THE SECTION ...................................................................................19 INFLUENCE OF SUPPORTS.....................................................................................................20 OFFSET.................................................................................................................................29 DEFLECTION IN Z .................................................................................................................30 DEFLECTION IN Y .................................................................................................................32 ROTATION ABOUT X .............................................................................................................33 STRAIN MEASUREMENTS .....................................................................................................34 EXPERIMENT 1.....................................................................................................................36 EXPERIMENT 2.....................................................................................................................38 EXPERIMENT 1.....................................................................................................................42 EXPERIMENT 2.....................................................................................................................44 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................46 EXPERIMENT 1.....................................................................................................................47 EXPERIMENT 2.....................................................................................................................47

TEST RIG ..................................................................................................................................17 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

MEASUREMENTS...................................................................................................................29 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

RESULTS...................................................................................................................................36 6.1 6.2

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................42 7.1 7.2 7.3

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................47 8.1 8.2

RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................48

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................50 APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................................1 A. SECTIONS...............................................................................................................................3 UNP SECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................6

UPE SECTIONS ...................................................................................................................................7 UAP SECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................8 PFC SECTIONS ...................................................................................................................................9 B. TENSILE TESTS ..................................................................................................................11 SPEED OF INCREMENTS ....................................................................................................................12 YIELD RANGE...................................................................................................................................13 ELASTIC RANGE (STRAIN MEASUREMENTS) ....................................................................................15 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................................15 C. LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING..............................................................................16 THEORETICAL ELASTIC LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING LOAD ......................................................16 ULTIMATE ELASTIC-PLASTIC LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING LOAD .............................................16 D. BENDING AND TORSION .................................................................................................18 BENDING ..........................................................................................................................................18 TORSION DUE TO SHEAR FORCE .......................................................................................................22 E. F. INTRODUCING LOAD ON SECTION .............................................................................29 TEST RIG ..................................................................................................................................32 PLANS ..............................................................................................................................................32 PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................................................................36 LOAD BEARING YOKES ....................................................................................................................38 DETAILS ...........................................................................................................................................40 FITTINGS TO SECTIONS ....................................................................................................................43 G. H. I. SUPPORTS............................................................................................................................47 CALIBRATION ....................................................................................................................49 DIMENSIONS ...........................................................................................................................58 RESTRICTIONS ON DIMENSIONS .......................................................................................................58

USED EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................................................49

Introduction
This project is part of the curriculum of the study of building and construction of the Eindhoven University of Technology. At the ninth trimester students have to perform an exercise in either designing and calculating a building, doing numerical research or experimental research. This project is mainly comprised of experiments, however analytical and numerical calculations were to be carried out as well for the execution of the experiments. Chosen is to perform experiments on channel sections because they have quite a different structural behaviour from other beam elements, especially where stability is concerned. Since very little has been published about this subject the experiments are performed to obtain a better understanding of the structural behaviour. The experimental data can also be used for comparison with finite element analyses. To predict the load at which failure occurs it is proposed to use the Merchant Rankine postulate. This postulate is used to predict the failure of frames by determining the theoretical buckling load and the plastic capacity of the frame. For channel sections it is possible to determine both the plastic section capacity and the theoretical buckling load. With these two dimensions the critical load, at which failure would occur, is predicted. In figure 1 it is shown how the failure load is predicted for a channel section. In the same picture it is shown how failure is simulated by finite element method (FEM) simulation. The experimental data will prove if this is a productive approach. More on the Merchant Rankine postulate can be found in Over Spannend Staal [7] and other literature.
Load -deflection 40 35 30 load F [kN] 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 deflection [mm] failure 1st order FEM F-plastic F-buckling

F-critical

figure 1: Merchant Rankine postulate

This report follows largely the chronology of the project, which is illustrated in figure 2. This time frame depicts the progress as it took place, not as it was planned out.
proposal for the project ordering sections June July August commencement
figure 2: time frame

delivery sections tensile tests, design test rig September

changes in design test rig experiments October November

writing of report

December January 1998 1999

February conclusion

Objectives
Studying the structural behaviour of channel sections, specifically stability In literature very little data on the structural behaviour of channel sections is found. The experiments will yield load displacement curves revealing the specific structural behaviour of channel sections. Gathering data concerning strength, stiffness and stability

With analytical models first order approximations can be made to the structural behaviour of channel sections. With finite element analyses the geometrically and physically non linear behaviour can be simulated. Both methods need to be validated by experimental data. Repetitive testing of each kind of experiment to obtain mean and variation on failure load

Performing one test of each kind of experiment would yield data on structural behaviour but would leave out certainty about the failure load, i.e. the one experiment might be, due to many reasons, an exception to normal behaviour. To check the proposed verification method

It is proposed to use the Merchant Rankine postulate to predict failure loads. These experiments will either confirm or exclude the possibility of using this verification method.

Restrictions
Members subjected to shear force, bending and torsion The effect of a lateral load, causing bending and torsion, is analysed only. No axial load is applied. Load must be applied in such manner that no lateral support is given or failure is precipitated

The stability of the member is studied. On one had the member must be free to rotate and deflect laterally otherwise it may be fail at a higher load. On the other hand the line of work of the load must remain vertical as not the precipitate failure. The section must retain its shape Local buckling, such as web or flange buckling, may not occur.

In beam theory sectional properties do not alter under loading. This theory is used to analyse the behaviour of the sections and therefor the sections must retain it shape and no local buckling may occur.

Basic assumptions
The span will be chosen in the range of ten to thirty times the height of the section

It is common engineering practise to use spans in this range.

Choice of experiment

1.1 Selected section

There are two types of channel sections: hot-rolled sections and cold-formed sections. Hot-rolled sections can almost always be assigned to class 1 or class 2 cross sections according to NEN 6770 [1]. Cold-formed sections usually have thinner webs and flanges than hot-rolled sections and therefore belong to class 3 or 4. The restrictions of this project mention that the sections must retain their shape and local buckling may not occur to be able to use beam theory. This means that a section of class 1 or 2 must be chosen. Thus hot-rolled sections are chosen for the experiments.

figure 3: connecting UNP sections (obtained from [8])

Hot-rolled sections are available in different series: with parallel flanges (UPE-, UAP- and PFCseries) and with tapered flanges (UNP- serie). The UNP sections have a disadvantage in making connections, such as gables, due to the tapered flanges, see figure 3. However they are widely available. UPE, UAP and PFC sections can make connections easier due to the parallel flanges, see figure 5. They are more expensive than UNP sections and are usually not in stock.

figure 5: connecting a parallel flange channel (from [8])

figure 4: comparison between UPE and IPE sections (from [8])

These four series of channel sections are compared in figure 6 for sections having a height of 100 millimetres and it can be noticed that the difference is very little except for the UNP section. In table 1 the programmes of available heights are shown: they are different for all series. The UPEprogramme has heights that correspond to IPE-sections, see figure 4.

table 1: heights of hot-rolled channel sections (heights with a * are available in two widths)
UNP UPE PFC UAP height [mm] 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 350 350 380 400 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 270 300 330 360 400 100 125 150* 180* 200* 230* 260* 300* 380* 430 80 100 130 150 175 200 220 250 300

The UPE section is chosen because its dimensions are associated with the widely used IPE-sections and because sections with parallel flanges will probably be used more often in the future.

PFC

UAP

UPE

UNP

figure 6: comparison of the different series of hot-rolled channel sections

1.2 Load cases

In structural engineering two types of loading dominate: concentrated loads and distributed loads. Concentrated loads are usually the reaction force of other structural elements such as roof purlins or columns, see figure 7. Distributed loads are reaction forces of other structural elements such as sheeting or walls, see figure 8.
A B C

A section A-A

B section B-B

C section C-C

figure 7: the origin of concentrated loads

sheeting

wall

A section A-A

figure 8: the origin of distributed loads

The objective of the experiments is to test the stability of channel sections. Thus the way in which load is applied may not facilitate lateral support. In the laboratory it is virtually impossible to generate a distributed load that can move freely with the deformations of the section. Therefore concentrated loads must be used. 6

In order to determine the number of concentrated loads the mechanical consequences should be considered. The more loads the more complicated this will be and therefore only one and two concentrated load configurations will be considered. Single load: The maximum bending moment coincides with the maximum shear force. If torsion is present in the member the sum of warping restraint torsion and Saint Venant-torsion has a distribution which is identical to the shear force distribution. However, warping restraint torsion dominates at midspan whereas Saint Venant-torsion is largest at the supports, see figure 9.

Mx
F X [mm]
0,5 L 0,5 L

warping free to occur, axial rotation prevented

2 Saint Venant-torsion

shear force distribution

0 Mx [kNm]

warping restraint-torsion summation of torsion

moment distribution

-2 0 700 1400 2100 2800

figure 9: distribution of forces through member with single concentrated load

Double loads: The maximum bending moment coincides with the maximum shear force at the points of load application but between those point shear force is absent. If torsion is present the distribution is similar to that of the shear force distribution, which means that no torsion is present between the points of load application. However, the graph shows that the Saint Venant-torsion and warping torsion are not equal to zero. They are equal but opposite in sign and thus they do not resist the externally applied torsion, see figure 10.

Mx
F F X [mm]
0,5 L 0,25 L

Mx

2 Saint Venant-torsion

shear force distribution

Mx [kNm]
moment distribution

warping restraint-torsion summation of torsion

-2 0 700 1400 2100 2800

figure 10: distribution of forces through member with two concentrated loads

From these two load configurations the second one is selected. The constant value of the bending moment between the points of load application makes it best suitable for testing the stability phenomena. An extreme value might cause large deformations due to yielding before the section buckles.

1.3 Type of loads

The load can be applied in two ways: one using dead weight and the other using jacks. These two methods shall be discussed briefly. Dead weight: By using dead weight one can be certain that the direction of the load doesnt change, see figure 11. However, applying loads gently and balancing them evenly over the two points of application might be difficult. Another difficulty is the volume of weights needed to apply relatively large loads. Figure 12 shows the design of a test rig for experiments using dead weight. The load bearing yokes can move freely with de deformation of the section, hinging about the point of load application. The load is comprised of concrete blocks that are laid down on the two yokes. A possible imbalance between the two yokes will be registered by the load cells. Using jacks the problem emerges that one side of the jack is pinned. When lateral displacements occurs the direction of the load changes, see figure 11. A distinction can be made in tension and pressure jacks; tension jacks pull the section back by a horizontal force and thus supporting the section against buckling, whereas pressure jacks pushes the section outwards and thus precipitating buckling. The magnitude of this effect depends on the length of the rod that connects the jack with the section as well as the amount of lateral deflections. The advantage of jacks is that loads can be applied smoothly, balancing can be done quit accurately and relatively large loads can be generated easily.
jack F F F Fhorz pinned end

Jacks:

Fvert

F Fhorz

Fvert 1 = commencement of loading 2 2 = deformed state

dead weight

pressure jack

tension jack

figure 11: different ways of applying load

The initial choice was to use dead weight due to the apparent advantages over jacks. The maximum amount of load that could be applied was about 6 tons. In order to obtain failure of the section three criteria had to be met: the span couldnt be too short, the rigidity of the section must not be too large and the yield stress low. In the proposal for this project UPE sections with a height between 100 and 200 mm and a span between 10 and 30 times their heights have been considered for use. From these considerations the section with a height of 160 millimetres was chosen. Beforehand, uncertainty remains about one parameter, the yield stress. The quality indication, such as S235JR for example, given by the manufacturer of the product is a guaranteed lowest estimated value. The actual value is usually much higher. To by-pass this uncertainty members of 12 meters length were ordered and were not cut until the yield stress had been determined and a decision was made about the span of each experiment. The tensile tests to determine the yield stress will be discussed later on in this report.

line of work

supports are still eligible for change

load cells
load bearing yoke

concrete weight

front view
figure 12: test rig for experiments using dead weight

side view

Designing of the test rig, figure 12, and a number of special fittings to apply load onto the section had commenced. However during this process objections were raised against using dead weight and it was decided to go-ahead with jacks instead. An entirely different rig had to be designed and a wellfounded decision to use either pressure or tension jacks had to be made. This is reported in chapter 4 Test rig.

1.4 Point of load application

To decide on the point of load application one must consider the specific properties of channel sections. The sections are symmetric about the y-axis and asymmetric about the z-axis. This causes a shift in the location of the shear centre and centre of gravity. The shear centre remains on the y-axis, due to symmetry, but is removed from the centre of gravity to the other side of the web. If the section is loaded at the centre of gravity then this is considered an eccentric load, causing bending as well as torsion. If the load is applied outside of the section at the shear centre then this is considered centric loading and yields bending only, see figure 13.

y S

F C

F S C

S = shear centre C = centre of gravity w = bending deformation = angle of twist

z eccentric loading centric loading

figure 13: deflection configuration

In figure 7 it can be seen that nearly all connections with channel sections are eccentric. It makes a difference whether the load is applied at the top flange, y-axis or bottom flange, which will be discussed later. It has been decided to apply loads at all three points of the cross section.

Even though centric loading is uncommon in practice, in an experiment it yields valuable information about the stability phenomena. When the section is loaded at the shear centre it will bent and at a certain load it suddenly buckles by torsion and lateral flexure. The point at which this happens is called the bifurcation point. At this point an unstable equilibrium path of continued in plane bending (bending about the y-axis, without torsion or lateral deflection) is also possible, see figure 14.

figure 14: bifurcation point

If the section is loaded eccentrically the bifurcation point will not appear in the load-deformation graph. Therefore it was decided to include an experiment with centric loading to compare the structural behaviour and failure loads to those of an eccentrically loaded section.

1.5 Numbering of experiments

The load can be applied at different locations in the cross section, see figure 16. The number stands for the location with regard to the y-axis; if the force is applied at the location of the shear centre (at y = ys) then it is referred to as 1, if it is applied at the centre line of the web (y = yc) than it is referred to as 2. The character stands for the location with regard to the z-axis; if the load is applied at the top flange (z = -h/2) then it is referred to as A, if it is applied at the line of symmetry (z = 0) than it is referred to as B and if it is applied at the bottom flange (z = h/2) it is referred to as C. All tests will be done twice or more and to indicate the individual specimen for each test a number is added after the character. In figure 15 it is shown how the specimen are cut from the three original members and how they are numbered.
1A 2A

member 1: member 2:

tensile test

2B1

2B2

2B3

shear centre

1B

2B

centre of gravity y-axis

1B1

1B2

1B3

1B4

1C

2C

member 3:

2A1 3 [m]

2A2 12 [m]

2C1

2C2

z-axis

figure 16: points of load application

figure 15: order in which specimens were cut from the members

10

Material properties

The value of the yield stress is needed in the analytical calculations and must be determined first. The material is of quality S235JR as described by NEN-EN 10025 [4]. To determine the yield stress specimens must be taken from the channel sections. The proportions of the dimensions of the specimens are obtained from EN 10 002-1 [3] and are applied on the UPE 160 section, resulting in the dimensions given in figure 17.
Tolerance +/- 0.33 [mm] markings b/3 = 22.3 44 Lo = 79.9 +/- 0.8 R12 20 b= 2/3 b = 47.3 70

50

12

Lc = 110 Lt = 234

12

50

Top view flange

figure 17: dimensions of specimen for tensile test

Cross section

Four tests were carried out from which the average yield stress was determined. In figure 18 (a) a plot of the second test is shown. The yield range is enlarged to make the fluctuations better visible.
Tensile test 2
500 Stress [N/mm ^2] 400 300
enl arged area

Tensile test 2, Yield range

Stress [N/mm ^2] 305 Max = 305,9 ReH = 302,4 300 Min. = 295,9 0 0.008 strain [%] ReL = 298.5

max = 446.9

200 100 0 0 0.1 strain [%] 0.2

295

0.016

(a) figure 18: tensile test and yield range

(b)

Code EN 10 002-1 makes a distinction between the upper yield stress, ReH, and the lower yield stress, ReL. The upper yield stress is described as the stress at which the first clear descent of stress is observed and the lower yield stress is the lowest stress that occurs in the yield range, disregarding brief irregularities. The upper yield stress can be determined in a straight forward manner but the lower yield stress is a bit more ambiguous to determine. The crosses in the graph of figure 18 (b) resemble points that have been measured by an evenly spaced time interval. Thus the number of crosses per equal sized line segment gives the speed of yielding, and from the density of crosses the speed can be read. In this test the lower yield stress is fitted as shown but could have been fitted through the two lowest curves since they do have a reasonable number of crosses in comparison.

11

table 2: results tensile tests

Test 1 2 3 4 average deviation

fy;max 298.2 305.9 310.1 301.6 304 5.17

fy;min 290.8 295.9 300.5 291 294.5 4.63

ReH 298.2 302.4 310.1 298.2 302.2 5.62

ReL 290.8 298.5 302.6 291.1 295.7 5.8

Rm 443.8 446.9 452.6 447.1 447.6 3.65

The results of all four tests are given in table 2 and it is noted that there is only a small difference between the lower yield stress ReL and the lowest yield stress fy;min. The lower yield stress ReL will be used in the calculations in the next chapter. Problems occurred by measuring strain and therefore the values of strain should be disregarded.

12

Analytical calculations

3.1 Experiment 1
The objective of this experiment is to determine the lateral torsional buckling moment. In order to do so at least three tests must be carried out to determine a mean value and deviation. If experiments 1A, 1B and 1C are performed, nine tests have to be carried out, which is too many. Therefore only experiment 1B, with the load applied at the shear centre, will be carried out. This is the purest instability problem and therefore most valuable. The experimental value on the lateral torsional buckling moment will be compared to the value obtained from formula 12.2-3 of NEN 6771 [2]. The concentrated loads F1 and F2 should be equal. During loading some differences may occur due to imbalance of the load. To be able to make a distinction between the two, different notations are used, see figure 19. In order to apply the load in the shear centre, plates are welded perpendicular onto the web.
F1 S y
L/4 L/2 y-axis

1B F2

C x
L/4

plate weld
(a)
z-axis

(b)

figure 19: loading scheme of experiment 1

3.1.1 Lateral torsional buckling load and section capacity Since the load acts in the shear centre the theoretical lateral torsional moment can be determined analogous to an I-section. This is shown in Appendix C, Theoretical elastic lateral torsional buckling load. However, this bending moment is a theoretical value only and Mke buckling will occur at a smaller bending moment. Therefore theoretical buckling the value of this moment needs to be reduced, see figure 20. Mpl Again, for I-sections a reduction method exists. This method actual buckling is applied on channel sections but the validity is uncertain. M In this method the plastic section capacity must be known and this is determined in Appendix D, Plastic section capacity. For short spans the elastic section capacity is reached before 1 0 buckling occurs. In order to investigate at which length the M pl rel = M ke buckling moment governs the elastic section capacity must be determined. figure 20: difference between actual and This is determined in Appendix D, Elastic section capacity, theoretical buckling by using the Von Mises criterion. 3.1.2 Proposed verification method Another approach to predict the ultimate elastic-plastic load carrying capacity is using the method of Merchant-Rankine. This method is given by the postulate of equation 1.

13

1 1 1 = + Fc Fpl Fke In which: Fc = ultimate elastic-plastic load carrying capacity Fpl = plastic load carrying capacity Fke = theoretical elastic lateral torsional buckling load

Eq. 1

3.1.3 Results The results of calculations of Appendix C and Appendix D, Bending are given in table 3 for spans from 2.8 up to 4.8 meters. The elastic-plastic lateral torsional buckling load, Fmax;s;d from NEN 6771, is considered to be the most accurate prediction for the failure load. The critical load Fc, as has been determined by using the Merchant Rankine method, is lower and is assumed to be less accurate as prediction of the failure load for this load case. At an early stage the load was restricted to 25 kN and thus the span had to be 4 meters or over. However the idea of using dead weight was abandoned and any span could be used. Now the choice was to select a span in the range where the relative slenderness rel was smaller or equal to one because the failure load is furthest removed from the theoretical failure load, see figure 20. Thus the selection was narrowed down to a span of 3.2 meters or shorter. Since the three available sections were 12 meters each, they could be cut in four parts of three meters. Taking into account some length for the supports the actual span came down to 2.8 meters. The predicted failure load at that span is 41.7 kN. Experiment 1B will be performed four times to determine the mean and standard variation of the actual failure load.
table 3: results of calculations from Appendix D, Bending

Span Fke F el F pl rel kip Fmax;s;d Fc

17.5 h 2.8 [m] 69.2 [kN] 50.6 57.3 0.91 [] 0.727 [] 41.7 31.3

20 h 3.2 51.3 44.34 50.6 0.993 0.67 33.9 25.5

22.5 h 3.6 39.6 39.46 45.3 1.069 0.617 27.9 21.1

25 h 4.0 31.5 35.54 40.9 1.14 0.569 23.3 17.8

27.5 h 4.4 25.7 32.33 37.3 1.205 0.527 19.7 15.2

30 h 4.8 21.4 29.65 34.3 1.267 0.489 16.8 13.2

Experiment 1B
70 60 50 Force [kN] 40 30 20 10 0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 Span L [m ] 4.4 4.8 F-ke F-el F-pl F-max;s;d - [2] F-c - M.R.

figure 21: results of table 3 in graph

14

3.2 Experiment 2
At this experiment bifurcational buckling does not occur due to torsion in the member. Therefore the first yield stress is taken as an indication for failure. The objective of experiments 2A, 2B and 2C is to determine the structural behaviour and failure load in comparison to experiment 1B.
2A

F1 s.c.
y e

F2
e

2B
y-axis e

+
z

F1

F2

c.g.
x

2C
(a)
z-axiz

experiment 2
(b) figure 22: scheme of experiment 2

To analyse this load case bending and torsion are separated. To analyse the bending effects the load is shifted to the shear centre and the same analysis as for experiment 1 is used. However, due to the eccentricity of the load a torsional moment is present in the member. The effects of this torsional moment is analysed in Appendix D, Torsion due to shear force. The elastic section capacity is determined using the Von Mises criterion. However, determining the plastic section capacity for this load case is much more difficult than for experiment 1. To approximate the plastic section capacity the elastic section capacity is multiplied by the section shape factor. 3.2.1 Proposed verification method To determine the ultimate load the Merchant Rankine postulate is 2A >e used. The analysis in Appendix D only considers equilibrium from the undeformed state. Whether the load acts at the top flange, the web or bottom flanges makes no difference for the torsional moment. - In figure 23 it can be seen that once the section is twisted the y S C eccentricity of the load at the top flanges will increase and that of the + load at the bottom flange decrease. The load at the top flanges has a <e 2C negative influence on the ultimate load and the one at the bottom flange z a positive one. To incorporate this effect in the prediction for the ultimate load the load, Fke is determined z-axis for a load applied at the top flange in experiment 2A, a load in at the shear centre in experiment 2B and a load applied at the bottom flange in 23: influence of load point experiment 2C. Thus the ultimate loads decrease from experiment 2C up figure location to 2A. 3.2.2 Results For these experiments the same span is chosen as for experiment 1 to be able to compare the failure loads to experiment 1. In experiment 1 the elastic-plastic lateral torsional buckling load Fmax;s;d was considered to be the failure load. For the eccentrically loaded experiments such a failure load can not be obtained and thus the critical load obtained form the Merchant Rankine postulate is considered to be the failure load. table 4 through table 6 give the results of the analysis of Appendix D, Torsion due to shear force. These results are shown graphically in figure 24 through figure 26.

15

table 4: experiment 2A

Span Fke;top F el;torsion Fpl;torsion Fc;top

60 50 Force [kN 40 30 20 10 0 2.8

2.8 [m] 55.8 [kN] 30.1 35.3 21.6

3.2 42.2 27.9 32.6 18.4

3.6 33.1 25.9 30.4 15.8

4.0 26.8 24.3 28.4 13.8

F-ke F-el F-pl F-c - M.R.

4.4 22.1 22.8 26.7 12.1

4.8 18.6 21.6 25.2 10.7

Experiment 2A

3.2

3.6 4 Span L [m]

4.4

4.8

figure 24: results for experiment 2A in graph table 5: experiment 2B

Span Fke;S Fc;S

70 60 Force [kN] 50 40 30 20 10 0 2.8

2.8 [m] 69.2 [kN] 23.4

3.2 51.3 19.9

3.6 39.6 17.2

4.0 31.5 14.9

F-ke F-el F-pl F-c - M.R.

4.4 25.7 13.1

4.8 21.4 11.6

Experiment 2B

3.2

3.6 4 Span L [m ]

4.4

4.8

figure 25: results for experiment 2B table 6: experiment 2C

Span Fke;bottom Fc;bottom

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2.8

2.8 [m] 85.8 [kN] 25

3.2 62.3 21.4

3.6 47.3 18.5

4.0 37.1 16.1

F-ke F-el F-pl F-c - M.R.

4.4 29.9 14.1

4.8 24.6 12.4

Experiment 2C

Force [kN]

3.2

3.6 4 Span L [m]

4.4

4.8

figure 26: results for experiment 2C

16

Test rig

A decision was made to use jacks to apply the load onto the sections. To minimise the effect of the pinned end of the jacks, the jacks had to be placed as high above the section as possible. The available height to build a test rig was restricted to 5.1 meters. For these experiments the available test rig was originally build to test heavy concrete members. This test rig was composed of a lot more beams than strictly would be needed for these experiments, resulting in a tight space for manoeuvring the sections in and out of the rig. However, with a few adjustments this test rig could be used for the experiments. In figure 27 two sections of the test rig are depicted, showing how the load is applied and how the jacks are connected to the load bearing yokes. In Appendix F more plans as well as photographs of the test rig are given. In figure 28 the mechanical working of the test rig is shown.

3a Section A-A'

2a Section C-C'
scale
0 300 600 900

hinge jack jack

hinge anker

prestressing cable anker load cell load bearing yoke hinge z - axis

z - axis

x - axis

support

section

y - axis

figure 27: test rig, in two sections

pinned-end jack h Fvert Fhorz support F F v = lateral displacement pressure of both jacks is coupled

(a) cross section

(b) front view

figure 28: loading scheme

17

4.1 Influence of pinned-end jack

In 1.3 Type of loads the advantages and disadvantages have been discussed. In this paragraph the influence of the pinned end of the jacks is investigated. The influence of a point fixed in location depends on the length of the connecting rod and the lateral displacement. The effect of these two parameters on the horizontal load in relation to the absolute load is given by equation 2. Fhorz has been plotted for 2 < h < 4 metre and v < 30 millimetre in figure 29.
v Fhorz (v, h ) = sin arctan h F

Eq. 2

It is clear that when the length of the connecting rod increases the horizontal load decreases. However this length is bound to a maximum due to the available height in the laboratory. Within the available height the test rig is designed such that the maximum possible length for the connecting rod can be used. In case of experiment 2A this is about 4.3 meters, see figure 27, thus the influence is as small as possible.

figure 29: relation between length of connecting rod and lateral load

4.2 Influence of pressure and tension jacks

To investigate the difference in using tension or pressure jacks, a simulation has been carried out using a finite element method (FEM) analysis. The cross section of the channel section (UPE 160) has been modelled by twelve elements, as is shown in figure 30 (b) The elements are 100 millimetres long, thus making a total of 336 elements. This model of the section omits the contribution of the root radii to the torsional and bending stiffnesses. The results are therefore taken only as an indication for the difference in failure load, not as an attempt to closely simulate the experiments. The simulated load case is the one of experiment 2A. The load has been applied at the end of a connection element, having the same length as the connecting rod from figure 27. Thus, as the section moves laterally, the load will make an angle with the original direction thereby pushing the section outward or pulling it back.
F1
v,u = 0 connecting element h = 4260 mm load acts at corner of flange and web

F2 F

tf = 10

v,w = 0

tw = 6.5

y,v

h0 = 150

v=0

z,w (a)

u,v,w = 0

x,u
v=0

(b)

b0 = 66.75

figure 30: finite element model

18

The simulation has been carried out for both a pressure and a tension load and the effect on the load and displacement at failure are compared. The results are given in figure 31, the dots resemble the steps that are taken in the calculation. The load deflection curves are almost identical. A closer look at the numbers shows that the failure load for tension is 1.2 % larger than for pressure whereas the lateral displacement at failure is 0.8 % smaller.
Finite Element Method simulation
40000

tension jack
30000 Load [N]

pressure Jack
20000 10000 0 0 10 20 Lateral displacem ent [mm ] 30

figure 31: finite element simulation of the difference between tension- and pressure jacks

Since the difference in the effect of using tension or pressure is very small it has been decided to use tension jacks. They make the experiments easier, i.e. all points at which the connection rod can hinge, see figure 27, will align when using tension.

4.3 Applying load onto the section

To apply load at the determined points in the cross section special fittings had to be designed. For experiment 2A it was not possible to apply load exactly on the top flange and for 2C exactly on the bottom flange. In NEN 6771 [2] art. 12.2.1 b) it is stated that a load may act at a maximum of one tenth the height of a section above the top flange to analysing lateral torsional buckling with the given method. For experiments 2A and 2C a similar restriction is imposed: the load must act at a maximum of one tenth of the height of the section above or below it. It is shown in figure 32 that the fittings comply with this restriction.
< h /10 = 16

F F

h /2 =

1B

2A

2B

< h /10

h=

2C

figure 32: solutions for applying load at the different points in the cross section

One of the demands for the design of the fittings was that the section must be able to rotate freely about a longitudinal axis so that twisting is not restrained. Because the section bends as well, the fittings must also allow a small angle of rotation about the y-axis of the section (perpendicular to the longitudinal axis). In Appendix F plans and photographs of the specially designed fittings are given.

19

1B: 2A: 2B:

2C:

In the fitting of experiment 1B a bolt is used to carry the load across from the fitting to the weld-on plate of the section. This bolt fits exact into the fitting, but to allow rotation about the y-axis it has been notched at where it sticks through the plate. For experiment 2A a ball and socket joint is used, ensuring free rotation about all axes. In experiment 2B a solid pin is used to apply the load onto the web at the line of symmetry. In this pin a straight groove has been cut to allow the section to rotate about the longitudinal axis, see figure F11. Because the groove is straight it does not allow rotation about the y-axis, but it is assumed that the section will come to rest on one side of it and thus rotation is not prevented. For experiment 2C a shackle is used to apply the load to the section. On the section a plate is welded in which the shackle is hooked. In this plate a rounded notch, see figure F18, makes sure it stays in position, while it can rotate freely about the longitudinal- and y-axis.

4.4 Influence of supports

At the supports ball and socket joints are used to allow free rotation about the y- and z-axis. Two metal rods prevent the section from rotation about its longitudinal axis, while not preventing the section to warp, see Appendix G, figures G1 and G2. The above description of the performance of the supports is only theoretical, in practice friction and a lack of a perfect geometry will influence the performance. These influences are discussed point by point hereafter. 4.4.1 Friction (rotation about z) The ball has a surface of hardened chrome and the socket is covered with woven PTFE, which ensures low friction. In figure G3, tabel 8, maximum and minimum values of the friction coefficients are given and it is shown how the frictional moment can be calculated. The frictional moment arises due to the normal force in the joint and can thus be written as a function of the applied load. The frictional-moment is bound between a maximum and minimum value and expressions for maximum and minimum values can be obtained from the equation in Appendix G. Here they are given by equations 3 and 4. In these equations dk is the size of the diameter of the joint and is in this case equal to 114 millimetres.
M friction ;max (F ) = F max d k 0.0005 = F 0.15 114 0.0005 M friction ;min (F ) = F min d k 0.0005 = F 0.03 114 0.0005
L = 700 [mm] top view of section: z-axis pointing upwards Mfriction x ball and socket joint web point of vertical load application Ffriction = Mfriction / L

Eq. 3 Eq. 4

y-axis

figure 33: effect of friction in joint

If the section deflects laterally it will have to overcome the friction in the joint; the friction moment is not an active force acting on the section. To get an idea of the amount of support it is assumed that a horizontal load, Ffriction, works on the section at the position where the vertical load is applied, see figure 33. In experiment 1B no lateral deflection will occur until buckling occurs. This means that the friction might support the section in an unstable path of equilibrium, see figure 14, and buckling could occur at a higher level of loading then would be the case if the joint was without friction.

20

In case of experiments 2A, B and C the section deflects from commencement of loading on, so friction must be overcome during the whole process. Since pinned-end jacks are used a horizontal component of the applied load will arise, as has been discussed in 4.1. The effect of this component will be countered by the friction in the joint. In figure 34 (a) the maximum and minimum force due to friction (equations 3 and 4) are plotted as well as the horizontal component of the vertical load. To plot the horizontal component as a function of the applied load and lateral displacement, equation 2 has been rewritten, in which the relation between v and Fvert from figure 34 (b) is used. Eq. 5

v v Fhorz (v, F ) = sin arctan h F = sin arctan 4000 F Influence of suport and jack
0.6 Ffriction;min horizontal 0.4 force [kN] 0.2 Ffriction;max Fhorz

Fvert [kN] 50

actual relation

area in which Ffriction must be

assumed relation

0 (a)

12.5

25

37.5

50

v [mm] (b) 30

applied load [kN]

figure 34: influence of supports and jacks

The horizontal component of the applied load, Fhorz , is largely within the upper and lower bounds of the friction load, see the shaded area of figure 34 (a). Therefore it can be concluded that for experiments 2A, B and C much of the effect of friction is cancelled out by the fact that pinned-end jacks are used. For experiment 1B the effect can not be specified in the same way as for experiment 2 and thus uncertainty remains. 4.4.2 Centre point of rotation (rotation about y) At the supports rotation should be free about the y- and z-axes and the centre point of rotation should be at the centre of gravity of the section. Figure G1, from Appendix G, shows that for rotation about the z-axis this is nearly so, and the effects coming from it will be disregarded. However, for rotation about the y-axis this is explicitly not the case and has been investigated further 4.4.2.1 Support fixed in location First it will be assumed that the joint is solidly fixed in location and that no slip between the section, the support-member and the joint can occur.

21

z-axis socket ball point of rotation of joint x-axis

+
neutral axis

figure 35: position of joint and point of rotation

First order effects: If the socket is fixed in place the section is forced to rotate about the centre point of the ball. At the neutral axis a displacement u will occur, which is related to the angle of rotation . his is illustrated by figure 35. The relation between u and is given by equation 6, in which is the first derivative of equation D3, multiplied by minus one and with x = 0 entered in.
2 2 2 2 1 dw (x = 0 ) = 56 sin F L L (L ) F L L (L ) u = 56 sin ( ) = 56 sin EI y dx 6 EI y L 6 EI y L 56 F 2 2 u L L2 (L ) L L2 (L ) 6 EI y L

))

Eq. 6

A displacement u of the neutral axis must be due to a normal force in the member. The normal force is the horizontal reaction force from the joint and acts at the top flange, thus adding a bending moment to the section as well, see figure 36.
z-axis Freact h/2 x-axis reactie force from joint Mreact = Freacth/2 Mreact u

Freact

56 + equivalente forces deformation

figure 36: reaction force from fixed joint

To determine the reaction force the displacement at the centre point of rotation of the joint must be equal to the displacement from equation 6. An expression is derived for this displacement due to the reaction force:
u= F h L Freact L + 56 sin react 4 EI y 2 EA

Eq. 7

Equation 7 cannot be solved for Freact. Since the angle of rotation at the support is very small (about 1) the argument is nearly equal to the sine of the argument and thus equation 7 can be approximated by just the argument. The reaction force Freact can now be factored from it:
Freact = u L 56 h L + 2 EA 4 EI y

Eq. 8

22

Entering equation 6 for u in equation 8 yields an expression for the reaction force. The reaction force can be written as function of the applied load, see figure 39.
56 F 2 2 L L2 (L ) L L2 (L ) 6 EI y L L 56 h L + 2 EA 4 EI y

Freact (F ) =

[ (

)]

Eq. 9

Second order effects: The used ball and socket joints do not allow horizontal displacements. Due to second order effects of the deflection, the supports want to come closer to each other, see figure 37. Because this displacement is restraint horizontal reaction forces are induced at the supports.
z-axis deflection w(x) x=0 x=L x-axis Freact;2nd Freact;2nd

supports move closer to each other

resulting in horizontal reaction forces

figure 37: second order effect of deflection

The displacement of both supports can be found by solving equation 10 for the value of t and then subtracting it from L. The integral in equation 10 is the definition of the length of a function. The function is the bending displacement of the member, which is given by equations D3 through D5 in Appendix D..

dw ( x ) 1+ dx = L dx

Eq. 10

Since the deflection in the experiments is small compared to the overall length of the member, the displacement of the supports can be approximated by equation 11.
2u =

dw ( x ) 1+ dx L dx

Eq. 11

The supports do not allow the horizontal displacement u and so the second order reaction force is induced. This force can only be introduced at the top flange where the joint is resting on the section. Thus not only a normal force is induced but a bending moment as well, see figure 38.
z-axis Freact;2nd h/2 x-axis second order reactie force from joint Mreact;2nd = Freact;2ndh/2 Freact;2nd Mreact;2nd equivalente forces u

deformation

figure 38: effect of supports moving closer

23

The reaction force due to second order effects is equal to the force that is necessary to resist the displacement u from figure 38. An expression for this load has been derived in equation 12, in which the first part of the denominator describes the effect of the supports moving closer and the second part the effect of the rotation of the section.
Freact;2 nd (F) = u (F) L h 2L + 2 EA 8 EI y

Eq. 12

This reaction force works in opposite direction of the first order reaction force (equation 9) and can therefore be subtracted from it. Plotting equation 9 gives the graph of figure 39.
Horizontal reaction force
5 1.8 10

first order reaction force reaction force [N]

5 1.2 10

reaction force with second order effects

4 6 10

0 0

4 1.25 10

4 2.5 10

4 3.75 10

4 5 10

applied load [N]

figure 39: horizontal reaction force at one support

The reaction force, as calculated for supports solidly fixed in place, is nearly four times as great as the applied load, as is illustrated by figure 39. The second order effects lowers the reaction force only slightly and will therefore be disregarded. It is obvious that such a force would causes deformations is the supports. If the supports deform the reaction force declines. Therefore the stiffness of the support-member will be investigated.

24

4.4.2.2 No slip at support The ball and socket joint is placed between the support-member and the section. The joint can slide over both surfaces, but will be held in place by the normal force acting at the support.

support-member section for testing cross section at support

cross section at test rig

figure 40: top view of test rig

z-axis part of the support member that carries the reaction force clamped smooth surfaces Freact x-axis Freact rough surface gap while loading

support members joint

(a) cross section at support

(b) conveyance of reaction force

(c) cross section at test rig

figure 41: attachment of support to test rig

If it is assumed that the joint can not slip, then the support-member carries the full reaction force. The bottom flange of the support member is clamped onto the test rig, see figure 41 (c). This connection is modelled as a hinge, see figure 42 (b), but probably can slide as well due to the gap that emerges during loading, see figure 41 (c). Further more it will be assumed that only the bottom flange will carry the horizontal reaction force.

25

150 x z-axis k
F L3 w = react 48 EI z

test rig 0.9 m

bottom flange of support - member moment of inertia:

Iz = 8 1503 = 2.3 106 mm 4 12

Freact 0.9 m

stiffness of support-member:
k= k= L3 = 48 EI z 18003 mm = 2.6 10 4 48 2.1 105 2.3 106 N

x-axis test rig (a) support-member works as a spring

(b) stiffness of support-member

figure 42: stiffness of support-member

The stiffness of the support-member is determined in figure 42 (b) and expressed as coefficient k. In 4.4.2.1 the displacement u of the support has been determined. If the sections is loaded, the support-member will be pressed sideways, resulting in a reaction force. This force is equal to the imposed displacement divided by the stiffness of the support-member, or Freact = u / k.
4000

Horizontal reaction force

Horizontal displacement
1

Reaction force [N]

3000

displacement u [mm]

0.75

2000

0.5

1000

0.25

0 0

4 1 10

4 4 2 10 3 10 applied load [N]

4 10

5 10

0 0 1 10

4 4 2 10 3 10 applied load [N]

4 4 10

4 5 10

figure 44: reaction force from support-member

figure 43: calculated displacement at support (Eq. 6)

In figure 44 it is shown that the reaction force that the support-member is able to give is much lower than the reaction force determined in case of a solidly fixed joint, see figure 39. 4.4.2.3 Measurements In the previous paragraphs it was assumed that the joint could not slide over both the section and the support member. In figure 41 (b) it is pointed out that the joint has smooth steel surfaces resting on other steel surfaces. In figure 49 (a) it is shown that to obtain such a surface on the section the rolling skin has been removed. The smooth surface ensures low friction so that the displacement u can also be facilitated by sliding of the joint, besides bending of the support-member. It is difficult to specify the amount of friction and therefore difficult to determine how much of the displacement happens due to slip. To learn what actually happens at the joint, both the sliding displacement of the ball in relation to the channel section and the bending displacement of the support-member, see figure 45, have been measured in four tests.

26

z-axis 8 9 fixed to section 7 6

fixed to floor

socket

channel 6

x-axis

ball

section

figure 45: measurements of displacements of supports

Experim ent 2C2 Experim ent 2C2

50 40
load F [kN] load F [kN]

50 40 30
channel 6

30 20 10 0 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75

channel 8 channel 7

20 10 0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1

channel 9

0.15

displacem ent of joint [m m ]

slip of joint over section [m m ]

(a) figure 46: measured displacement of joint

(b)

In figure 46 the measured displacements are given; the sign of the displacements corresponds with the sign of the axes, as they are given in figure 45. The total displacement at the supports is the sum of the absolute values of the displacements from figure 46 (a) and (b). For example: at F = 40 kN the measured displacement is 0.5 millimetre (in figure 46 a) plus 0.075(in figure 46 b) is together approximately 0.6 millimetre, whereas the calculated displacement is about 0.8 millimetre, see figure 43. The discrepancy between these two values may be due to erroneous assumptions in the above presented analysis. 4.4.2.4 conclusion If the calculated reaction force is taken from figure 44 one can see that at a load of 50 kN the reaction force is 4 kN. In figure 47 the effect of the reaction force on the bending moment distribution is analysed, causing a reduction of the bending moment of 0.32/35 100 = 0.64%. From this it can be concluded that the shift of the point of rotation at the ball and socket joint has an effect on the overall experiment that can be neglected.
Freact Freact = 4 [kN] h/2 L/ F section for testing F = 50 [kN] Msupport = Freacth/2 = 0.32 [kNm] moment distribution M= FL -Msupport = 35 0.32 M 35 [kNm]

figure 47: effect of reaction force on the bending moment distribution

This conclusion is further supported by experiment 1B1. In figure 48 the load displacement graph as it has been measured is displayed. It is clearly visible that at about 50 kN the trend of the graph changes, which indicates yielding of the section. In table 3 the load at which first yield occurs, Fel, is presented to be 50.6 [kN]. This is in good agreement with the measured value. If the supports would have caused a change in the moment distribution the measured point of yielding would be different from the calculated value.

27

Experim ent 1B1 60

50

average load [kN]

40

30

20

10

0 0 10 20 30 vertical displacem ent [m m ]

figure 48: load displacement of experiment 1B1

4.4.3 Torsional restraint (rotation about x) The support must prevent rotation about the longitudinal axis while leaving the section free to warp. This has been achieved by placing two rod on both sides of the section, preventing it from twisting. In appendix G the support is depicted in figures G1 and G2. Because the section bends, about the y- and z-axes friction might arise between the section and the rods. Therefore a double layer of Teflon foil has placed between them. If one looks closely at figure G1, section A-A, it can be seen that the tip of the top flange just sticks out above the rod. Due to the direction of loading this flanges is pressed against the rod and after testing an imprint is visible. In figure 49 (a) it is shown how the supportive rod leaves marks on the tip of the flanges and in the enlarged area of the top flange, shown in figure 49 (b), the imprint is clearly visible.
enlarged contact with supportive rod

area stripped of rolling skin

(a) figure 49: end of section with imprint (b)

This notch might have caused the section to hook on to the support and thus impede free rotation about y- and z-axes as well as warping. This effect is difficult to quantify thus we stick to simple reasoning: if the section was to hook on to the support a reaction force in x-direction will occur. Since the support-member is very slack in bending about z, which is discussed extensively in 4.4.2.2, this reaction force will be small and thus the influence on the overall experiment, similar to the cases discussed in 4.4.2.4, will be small.

28

Measurements

In construction most loads are gravity induced and cause downwards deflections. The co-ordinate axes are chosen such that these deflections are considered to be positive, see figure 19 and figure 22. Due to practical reasons the sections are loaded upwards. By choosing the z-axis upwards the deflections are positive. In figure 27 it is shown how the co-ordinate system is placed. The measurements consists of displacements in y- and z-directions, rotation about the x-axis, the applied load and in experiments 1B4, 2A2, 2B3 and 2C2 of strain. In Appendix H all used equipment is listed and the calibration of the equipment is reproduced. As for the load cells: they registered different loads whereas they should have been identical. This could not have been a mechanical phenomena since the two jacks were interconnected and thus the load on both jacks must be equal. After all experiments had been carried out the load cell were calibrated once more and it turned out that the calibration factor of load cell 91 had changed considerably. After long deliberation it has been decided to use the latest calibration factors as well as the average of both registered loads in the load displacement curves. Most measured values could not be used right away because they must first be corrected, for example, for rigid body displacements. To make a difference between the actual measured quantity and the corrected quantity the following convention is used: wm;2 = deflection measured by channel 2 in z-direction w2 = corrected displacement at the location of channel 2

5.1 Offset
At commencement of loading the section rests on blocks and the load bearing yokes rest on the section. The registration of data is started and the first number acquired is taken as zero load. Once the jacks start to go up the load bearing yoke will start to carry the section and the load cells register an increases in load. Before contact with the supports the section moves up, but no load increase is registered. This is visible from the horizontal part of the graph in figure 50 (b). Once the section is pressed up against the supports the load will start to increase again. At that point the curve has a clearly visible change in direction. The value at that point is set back to zero and is subtracted from all registered values thereafter.
Experiment 1B3 2.5 2
40

Experiment 1B3

Experiment 1B3

value set to zero

Load [kN]

40

Load [kN]

Load [kN]

1.5 1
Wm;1 vs lc91

20

Wm;1 vs lc91 Wm;2 vs lc90

20

Wm;1 vs lc91 Wm;2 vs lc90

enlarged area
0 0

0.5 0

Wm;2 vs lc90

(a)

10 20 30 vertical displacement [mm]

40

(b)

1 2 3 4 vertical displacement [mm]

(c)

10 20 30 vertical displacement [mm]

40

figure 50: removing offset

In figure 50 the deflection near one load point, wm;2, and at midspan, wm;1, are plotted against the two load cells, lc90 and lc91. The two load cells clearly give different values in figure 50 (b) while they should be equal. This might be due to the fact that the cells are not completely free of any load at commencement. The load bearing yoke, the fitting, one half of the section and one support together weigh 134 kg which is equal to a load of 1.3 kN. If we look at the graph we see that the horizontal line is at about 1.3 kN. Thus it is quite certain the right offset is subtracted from the graph of figure 50 (a), resulting in graph (c).

29

5.2 Deflection in z
The displacements near the points of load application and at mid span are measured at the shear centre so no corrections need to be made for rotation of the section. Figure F10 in Appendix F shows that the wires for measuring displacements (both horizontal and vertical) are hooked onto a bolt that sticks out from the web to the location of the shear centre. In the same figure it can also be seen that it is not physically possible to measure right at the point of load application. Therefore the displacements are measured 150 millimetres removed from it, towards midspan at x = 850 and x = 1950, see figure 51.
support 100 point of load application 700 lc90 x-axis 150 mid span, x = 1400 550 x = 850 150 lc91 y-axis shear centre 700 w z-axis 100

x = 1950 550

wm;71

wm;0

wm;1

wm;2

wm;72

front view

cross section

figure 51: points at which the deflection in z-direction is measured

deformed shape

deflection

rigid body displacement

wm;71 position and shape of member at commencement of loading

figure 52: rigid body displacement and bending deformation

wm;72

At the span displacements are measured from a fixed point so no distinction can be made between the rigid body displacement of the section and the deflection of the section, see figure 52. To obtain the sole bending displacement the rigid body displacements at the supports must be subtracted.
Experiment 2B1
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 vertical displacem ent [mm]

Experiment 2B1
45 40 Load F [kN] 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 40 0 1 2 3 4 5 vertical displacement at supports [mm] Wm; 71 vs lc90 Wm;72 vs lc91

Load F [kN]

Wm;0 Wm;1 Wm;2

figure 54: measured displacements at span

figure 53: vertical displacements at supports

At the supports displacements up to about 3 to 5 millimetres are measured. The difference between the displacements at both supports is at most one millimetre, so the section will rotate slightly.

30

Therefore the displacements measured at the load points could be corrected as is shown in equations 13 and 14.
850 (w m;72 w m;71 ) w 0 = w m;0 w m;71 + 2800 1950 (w m;72 w m;71 ) w 2 = w m; 2 w m;71 + 2800

Eq. 13

Eq. 14

At mid span the measured displacement is corrected by the average displacements of the supports, see equation 15
w m;71 + w m;72 w 1 = w m;1 2

Eq. 15

Now, if we look at the numbers of figure 53 we see that if the applied load is 40 [kN] the displacements wm;71 2.5 and wm;72 3.5 millimetres. By entering these values in equations 13 and 14 we find:
850 w 0 = w m;0 w m;71 + = w m ; 0 2 .8 2800

and

1950 w 2 = w m; 2 w m;71 + = w m;2 3.2 2800

The average displacement of the supports is 3 millimetres. If we look at the measured displacement of channel 0 and 2 (these are the displacements that have been measured near the points of load application) in figure 54 we see that at a load of 40 kN these are approximately 16 millimetres. Now to compare the method of correcting the measured displacements of equations 13 and 14 with correcting the displacements with just the average displacements of the supports we find the following error at channel 0:
2.8 3 3 .2 3 100 = 1.25 % and at channel 2: 100 = 1.25 % . These 16 16

errors are quite small and it has been decided to correct the vertical displacements with just the average displacements of the supports.

31

5.3 Deflection in y
The lateral deflection at the span is measured at the same points as the vertical deflection is measured. At the supports there is no room to measure so the readings of the displacements are taken right besides the supports, see figure 55 and figure 58.
support 100 90 x-axis lc90 shear centre vm;60 vm;61 lc91 vm;62 vm;64 vm;63 point of load application 610 150 550 mid span 550 150 610 support 90 100 z-axis y-axis v

vm;73 vm;70

top view of section

figure 55: points at which the deflection in y-direction is measured

At the top flange the measured displacement is less than at the bottom flange, due to the difference in stiffness of the support, see figure 56. The lateral displacement of the shear centre at the supports is considered to be the average of the two measured displacements. At both supports the displacements are about the same size therefore the average displacement of the two supports, see equation 16, is subtracted from the deflection measured at the span (vm;60, vm;61 and vm;62).
-6

Experiment 2B1
45 40 Load F [kN] 35 30 Vm;73 Vm;70 25 20 15 10 5 0 -4 -2 0 2 Lateral displacem ent at support [m m]

vm;70 + vm;73 vm;63 + vm;64 + 2 2 vaverage= 2

Eq. 16

figure 56: measured displacements at support

top flange vm;73

average displacement

reading of horizontal displacements reading of vertical displacement

d
vm;70

number of channel
figure 57: determining average lateral displacement at support

figure 58: measuring of displacements at support

32

5.4 Rotation about x

The rotation is measured near the points of load application and at midspan by special rotation recorders. In figure 61 a recorder is depicted. A metal bar is suspended from a turning point, thus remaining upright. The angle that the bar makes with the recorder housing is registered. The housing has been clamped to the top flange but is able to hinge about the y-axis. Due to the stiffness of the supports small rotations can occur and thus the rotations at the span need to be corrected. Since the rotation at both supports is about the same size the average rotation of both supports is subtracted from the rotation measured at the span.
support 100 90 x-axis lc90 m;5 m;4 m;3 lc91 vm;64 vm;63 top view point of load application 610 150 550 mid span 550 150 610 90 100 z-axis y-axis v

vm;73 vm;70

figure 59: points at which rotation of the member is measured

In figure 60 and in equation 17 it is shown how the rotation at the supports can be determined from the lateral displacement.
support = vm;70 vm;73 d

[rad]

Eq. 17

hinge turning point

vm;73 vm;73

d vm;70 vm;73

weight
figure 61: measuring of rotation

vm;70 - vm;73

figure 60: determining rotation at supports

33

5.5 Strain measurements

Only in one test of the different series of experiments (1B, 2A, 2B and 2C) strain measurements have been performed. In experiment 1B the sections bends only until lateral torsional buckling occurs. In the other experiments the sections are subjected to torsion as well and the interpretation of the results is slightly different. 5.5.1 Experiment 1 In this experiment strain has been measured at two positions along the member, at midspan and at x = 850 millimetres, see figure 63. At these points displacements are measured as well. At these positions two strain gauges were placed on the top flange, see figure 62, and two on the bottom flange, symmetrically to the ones on top. The measured strain should be equal in both strain gauges on top and equal but opposite in sign to the ones on bottom. If not it indicates that torsion and/or lateral bending is present as well. Furthermore equation D22 shows how stress can be calculated at the extreme fibres if the bending moment is known. By measuring the strain and using the relation = E the bending moment can be determined as a check, see equation 18.
My = E = My Iy z My = EI y z

strain gauge

strain distribution

Eq. 18

figure 62: position of strain gauges on section

24 25

26 27 20 21 midspan 22

(a)

23

x = 850

(b)

figure 63: numbering of stain gauges and position along the member

34

5.5.2 Experiments 2 In these experiments the strain is measured identically to experiment 1B with the exception that at x = 850 [mm] a rosette is added between the two strain gauges on the top flange. Axial strain: This rosette is placed such that the axial strain is measured at the point where the warping function is equal to zero on the top surface. Due to a miscalculation they are all placed just next to that point (30 millimetres from the web instead of 33), see figure 64. By measuring the strain at this point a distinction can be made between strain due to bending and strain due to the bi-moment. If the strain measured by the axial component of the rosette is entered in equation 18 the contribution of bending is found. By subtracting the strain measured in the rosette from the strain measured in the two strain gauges and then using equation 19 (derived from equation D23) the bi-moment can be determined.
Bx = E = EI B x (s ) Bx = w Iw (s )

rosette = -1622 strain gauge = 1900 = -213

warping function equal to zero on top surface

Eq. 19

figure 64: position of strain gauges and rosette on section

Shear strain: Between the points of load application no shear stress is present due to bending. However, due to Saint-Venant torsion and warping restraint torsion there are shear stresses, but these are opposite in sign and should cancel each other out, which is shown in figure 10. By measuring the shear strain at x = 850 this can be checked.
26 43 45 27 top view 26 27 20 21 midspan 22 23 x = 850 44 24 25

(a)

(b)

figure 65: numbering of strain gauges and rosette, and position along the member

35

Results

The corrections on the measured quantities are implemented on the recorded data. This has resulted in a veriety of load-displacement curves, which are reproduced hereafter.

6.1 Experiment 1
In figure 66 the corrected displacements and rotation of the section are given at three points along the longitudinal axis: x = 850, midspan and x = 1950. In table 7 the failure loads are given.
table 7: failure loads

Experiment Failure load Fu [kN] 1B1 55.64 1B2 49.8 49.8 1B3 50.02 50.02 1B4 48.37 48.37 average 50.96 49.4 standard deviation 3.204 0.895
Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

omission of this value will be discussed in 7.1.1

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

60 50 avera ge loa d F [kN] avera ge loa d F [kN] 40 30

1B1

60 50 avera ge loa d F [kN] 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20

w 2 [m m ] V e rtic a l de fle c tion a t x = 8 5 0
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0
fi 5 [ ] r ota tion a t x = 8 5 0
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

20 10 0 30

1B2 1B3 1B4

40

-15

-10

-5

10

v 6 2 [m m ] la te r a l de fle c tion a t x = 8 5 0

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

60 50 avera ge loa d F [kN] avera ge loa d F [kN] 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20

w 1 [m m ] V e rtic a l de fle c tion a t m ids pa n
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 30 40 -15 -10 -5 0
v 6 1 [m m ] la te r a l de fle c tion a t m ids pa n
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

60 50 avera ge loa d F [kN] 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0

fi 4 [ ] r ota tion a t m ids pa n
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

10

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

Exp e r im e n ts 1 BX

60 50 avera ge loa d F [kN] avera ge loa d F [kN] 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20

w 0 [m m ] V e rtic a l de fle c tion a t x = 1 9 5 0
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 30 40 -15 -10 -5 0
v 6 0 [m m ] la te r a l de fle c tion a t x = 1 9 5 0
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

60 50 avera ge loa d F [kN] 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0

fi 3 [ ] r ota tion a t x = 1 9 5 0
1B1 1B2 1B3 1B4

10

figure 66: load-displacement graphs of experiments 1BX

36

Strain measurements
Ex p e rim e n t 1B 4 stra in a t m idsp a n Ex p e rim e n t 1B 4 stra in a t x = 850

50 40
a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

50

40
a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

30 20 10 0 -2 -1 0
stra in []
s train gauge 20 s train gauge 21 s train gauge 24 s train gauge 25

30

20

s train gauge 22 s train gauge 23 s train gauge 26

10

s train gauge 27

-2

-1

0
stra in []

figure 67: strain measured in experiment 1B4

table 8: bending moment at failure obtained from strain

at x = 850 strain My gauge [kNm] 26 40.41 27 34.53 22 35.49 23 36.27 average 36.67

at midspan strain My gauge [kNm] 24 35.33 25 32.48 20 34.98 21 36.77 average 34.89

The applied bending moment at failure is: My = Fu;1B4 L/4 = 48.37 0.7 = 33.86 [kNm]

37

6.2 Experiment 2
Table 9 : failure loads of experiments 2xx Experiment 2A1 2A2 average standard deviation Failure load [kN] 37.68 37.22 37.45 0.323 Experiment 2B1 2B2 2B3 average standard deviation Failure load [kN] 43.13 43.84 44.17 43.71 0.529 Experiment 2C1 2C2 average standard deviation Failure load [kN] 48.01 46.67 47.34 0.946

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

50

50

50

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

40
2A 1 2A 1 2A 2 2B1 2B2 2B3 2C1 2C2

40

30

2A 2 2B1

30

2A 1 2A 2 2B1 2B2 2B3 2C1 2C2

30

20

2B2 2B3

20

20

10

2C1 2C2

10

10

0 0 10 w 2 [m m ] 20 30
-3 0 -2 0
v 6 2 [m m ]

0 -1 0 0

0 -15 -10 fi 5 [ ] -5 0

V e rtica l de fle ction a t x = 850

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

la te r a l de fle c tio n a t x = 8 5 0

rota tion a t x = 850

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

50

50

50

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

40

30

2A 1 2A 2

2A 1 2A 2 2B1 2B2 2B3 2C1 2C2

30

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

2A 1 2A 2 2B1 2B2 2B3 2C1 2C2

30

20

2B1 2B2

20

20

10

2B3 2C1 2C2

10

10

0 0 20 w 1 [m m ] V e rtica l de fle ction a t m idspa n

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

0 10 30 -30 -20 v 61 [m m ] -10 0 -15 -5 fi 4 [ ] rota tion a t m idspa n

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

0 -10 0

la te ra l de fle ction a t m idspa n

Exp e r im e n ts 2XX

50

50

50

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

30

2A 1 2A 2

2A 1 2A 2 2B1 2B2 2B3 2C1 2C2

30

2A 1 2A 2 2B1 2B2 2B3 2C1 2C2

30

20

2B1 2B2 2B3

20

20

10

2C1 2C2

10

10

0 0 10 w 0 [m m ] V e rtica l de fle ction a t x = 1950 20 30 -30 -20 v 60 [m m ] la te ra l de fle ction a t x = 1950 -10 0

0 -15 -10 fi 3 [ ] rota tion a t x = 1950 -5 0

figure 68 : load-displacement graphs of experiments 2xx

38

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

40

40

40

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

40

40

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

40
avera ge load F [kN]

Strain measurements:
Ex p e rim e n t 2A 2 stra in a t m idsp a n Ex p e rim e n t 2A 2 stra in a t x = 850

40 35 av e rage load F [kN] 30 25 20 15

s train gauge 21 s train gauge 20 s train gauge 24 s train gauge 25

40 35 average load F [kN ] 30 25 20

s train gauge 22 s train gauge 23 s train gauge 26

15 10 5 0

10 5 0

s train gauge 27

-3

-2

-1

-3

-2

-1

S train [ ]
Ex p e rim e n t 2A 2 stra in in ro se tte

S train [ ]
Ex p e rim e n t 2A 2 stra in a t top fla ng e a t x = 850

40 35 av e rage load F [kN] av e rage load F [kN] 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

S train [ ]
s train gauge 43 s train gauge 44 s train gauge 45

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 1
S train [ ]
s train gauge 26 s train gauge 27 s train gauge 43

1.5

figure 69: strain measured in experiment 2A2

Bending moment at failure: - determined from strain gauge 43: My = 40.2 [kNm] - determined from failure load: My = Fu;2A2 L/4 = 37.22 0.7 = 26.1 [kNm] Bi-moment at failure: - determined from strain gauges 26: Bx = -0.17 [kNm2] - determined from strain gauges 27: Bx = -0.07 [kNm2] - determined from failure load: Bx = -0.145 [kNm2]

39

Ex p e rim e n t 2B 3 stra in a t m idsp a n

Ex p e rim e n t 2B 3 stra in a t x = 850

45 40

45 40

average load F [kN ]

30 25 20
s train gauge 21 s train gauge 20 s train gauge 24 s train gauge 25

av e rage load F [kN]

35

35 30 25 20
s train gauge 22 s train gauge 23 s train gauge 26 s train gauge 27

15 10 5 0

15 10 5 0

-3

-2

-1

-3

-2

-1

S train [ ]
Ex p e rim e n t 2B 3

S train [ ]
Ex p e rim e n t 2B 3
45 40 35 ave r ag e lo ad F [k N] 30 25 20 15 s train gauge 26 10 5 0 0 0.5 1
Str a in [ ]

45 40 Force (channe l 90) [kN] 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.5 0

stra in in ro se tte

stra in a t top fla ng e a t x = 850

s train gauge 44 s train gauge 43 s train gauge 45

s train gauge 27 s train gauge 43

0.5

1.5

1.5

S train [ ]

figure 70: strain measured in experiment 2B3

Bending moment at failure: - determined from strain gauge 43: My = 37.64 [kNm] - determined from failure load: My = Fu;2B3 L/4 = 44.17 0.7 = 30.9 [kNm] Bi-moment at failure: - determined from strain gauges 26: Bx = -0.07 [kNm2] - determined from strain gauges 27: Bx = -0.08 [kNm2] - determined from failure load: Bx = -0.172 [kNm2]

40

Ex p e rim e n t 2C2 stra in a t m id sp a n

Ex p e rim e n t 2C2 stra in a t x = 850

50 45 40 ave r ag e lo ad F [k N] 35 30 25 20 s train gauge 22 s train gauge 23 s train gauge 26 s train gauge 27 -3 -2 -1
Str a in [ ]

50 45 average load F [kN ] 40 35 30 25 20

s train gauge 20 s train gauge 21 s train gauge 24 s train gauge 25

15 10 5 0 -1 0 1 2

15 10 5 0 0 1 2

-3

-2

S train [ ]
Ex p e rim e n t 2C1

Ex p e rim e n t 2C1 a n d 2C2 stra in a t to p fla n ge a t x = 850

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 s train gauge 43 (2C1) s train gauge 26 s train gauge 27

50 45 40 av e rage load F [kN]

stra in in ro se tte

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.5 0 0.5
S train [ ]
s train gauge 43 s train gauge 44 s train gauge 45

ave r ag e lo ad F [k N]

35

1.5

0.5

1
Str a in [ ]

1.5

figure 71: strain measured in experiment 2C2 (measurements with rosette are from experiment 2C1)

Bending moment at failure: - determined from strain gauge 43: My = 35.68 [kNm] - determined from failure load: My = Fu;2C1 L/4 = 48 0.7 = 33.6 [kNm]

41

Discussion

In general it can be said that the objectives of this study have been achieved and that the experiments have been performed according to the restrictions. A few points are articulated: The wanted experimental data on strength, stiffness and stability has been acquired This data can be compared to analytical models and numerical calculations, as will be hereafter. By repetitive testing mean and variation on failure loads have been determined. The variation turned out to be very low, indicating conscientious execution of the experiments. The Merchant Rankine postulate has been checked against the experimental data. The results are not satisfying yet but leave room for improvement. According to the restrictions the sections must be loaded such that no support is given or failure is precipitated. In chapter 4 a long investigation has been carried out to quantify the effects of the test rig on the course of the experiments. It can be concluded that most effects are minimal. Only the effect on the lateral torsional buckling load was not possible to quantify.

7.1 Experiment 1
7.1.1 Failure The objective of experiment 1 is to determine the lateral torsional buckling load. In figure 14 theoretical paths of displacements and rotation are shown. The results, as presented in figure 66, show that the experiments follow the theoretical path closely, i.e. the section hardly rotates nor deflects laterally until failure. Thus the highest registered value of the applied load is taken as the lateral torsional buckling load. The fact that the sections did not rotate until failure is remarkable since there is a small eccentricity in applying load, due to the welding on of the perpendicular plates. This eccentricity ranges form 2 to 4 millimetres, see Appendix I. Experiment 1B1 has a failure load that is about 10 % higher than that of the other experiments. The section also buckled in the other direction. At this experiment no teflon was used at the supports. Whether or not this has contributed to the higher failure load is unclear. Nevertheless, this experiment will be disregarded in determining the mean and standard deviation of the lateral torsional buckling load. In table 7 the final results of the failure loads are shown. The average failure load of the experiments Fu = 49.4 is quite a bit larger than the predicted failure load of Fmax;s;d = 41.7 [kN] (see table 3), i.e. Fmax;s;d = 84 % Fu. This might be a reason to reconsider using the approach of code NEN 6771 [2], using the reduction curves, to predict lateral torsional buckling failure of channel sections. Perhaps a special reduction curve can be obtained for channel sections. In figure 72 it is shown how the theoretical lateral torsional buckling moment Mke is reduced with the a-curve of NEN 6771 [2]. At rel = 0.91 (slenderness of experiment 1B, see table 3) Mke is reduced with kip = 0.727. If we look at the actual buckling moment Mu the reduction would be Mu / Mke = 34.6 / 48.4 = 0.7. By performing experiments on sections with other spans a new reduction curve can be constructed. It might be possible to construct a reduction curve based on finite element analyses as well. A simulation of this experiment using the finite element method will show whether or not the results are in good agreement with the experimental data.

42

M [kNm] Mke = 48.4 Mpl = 40 Mmax;s;d = 29.2 (kip = 0.727) actual buckling at Mu = 34.6 reduction = 0.86 reduction of Mke with a-curve [2]

0.91 1

rel =

M pl M ke

figure 72: predicted load for lateral torsional buckling and actual load

The predicted failure load Fmax;s;d is plotted in figure 73 to compare with the actual failure loads of experiments 1B2, 1B3 and 1B4. 7.1.2 Stiffness In Appendix D it is shown how bending and torsion can be analysed. In this experiment only bending occurs and thus the first order displacements at any point along the longitudinal axis can be found by using equations D3 through D5. With equation 15, obtained form equations D4, the bending displacement at midspan (x = 1400) can be analysed.
w( F ) F. a. ( L 1400) . 2 L 6. E. Iy . L a
2

(L

1400)

F. a. 1400. 2 L 6. E. Iy . L

1400

Eq. 20

Experiments 1BX

50 average load F [kN] 40 30

1B2

20 10 0 0 5

1B3 1B3 [ Eq.20] N EN 6771

15 20 25 w2 [mm] Vertical deflection at x = 850

10

30

figure 73: bending displacement at midspan

The results of the experiments and of equation 15 are plotted in figure 73 and it is clear that there is a difference in stiffness. This is remarkable because one would expect an exact fit since only bending is present in the member. However equation 15 does neglect shear deformations. For the members of this experiment, with a slenderness of L/h = 17.5, this is expected to be very little. 7.1.3 strain In experiment 1B4 strain has been measured. In figure 67 it is shown that the strain at midspan is nearly the same as at x = 850. This is expected since the bending moment is of constant value between the points of load application. Strain gauges 20 and 21 show a small difference, indicating a small bending moment in the bottom flange. To determine the bending moment from the strain seems inaccurate: a small deviation in strain means a large deviation in bending moment. However, the values are in the order of the bending moment determined from the applied load, see table 8. 43

7.2 Experiment 2
7.2.1 Failure The difference between experiments 1B and 2B is that the load is applied eccentrically to the shear centre, causing torsion. In failure load this difference becomes apparent: Fu;1B = 49.4 versus Fu;2B = 43.7 [kN], or Fu;2B = 88 % Fu;1B. If the load is applied at the top or bottom of the section then this further influences the failure load. In figure 74 (a) the failure loads of experiment 2 are compared to the one of experiment 1. In figure 74 (b) the failure loads of experiments 2 are compared amongst themselves.
Fu;2A = 37.5 = 75.8% Fu;1B 79% Fu;2C

Fu;1B= 49.4 [kN]

Fu;2B = 43.7 = 88% Fu;1B

92% Fu;2B

Fu;2C = 47.3 = 96% Fu;1B Fu;2C = 47.3 [kN]

(a)

failure in relation to load at shear centre

(b) failure in relation to load at bottom flange

figure 74 : influence of load point location on failure load determined by experiments Fc;2A = 21.6 =52% Fmax;s;d 86% Fc;2C

Fmax;s;d = 41.7 [kN]

Fc;2B = 23.4 = 56% Fmax;s;d 93.6% Fc;2C

e

Fc;2C = 25 = 60% Fmax;s;d

Fc;2C = 25 [kN]

prediction relative to load at shear centre

prediction relative to load at bottom flange

figure 75: predicted failure loads and influence of load point location on failure

The predicted failure loads, from table 4, table 5 and table 6, are shown in figure 75 (a) in a similar fashion as the experimental failure loads. It can be concluded that they are far off from the actual failure loads, leaving all but one conclusion: the Merchant-Rankine postulate can not accurately predict the failure load. The Merchant-Rankine postulate could possibly be adapted such that it can more accurately predict failure loads. Some considerations: In the expression for the Merchant Rankine postulate (equation 1) the plastic section capacity Fpl needs to be entered. In case of experiment 2 this capacity had been approximated at Fpl = 35 [kN]. If we look at the failure loads of experiments 2 we see that these are all higher, i.e. the plastic section capacity is greater than the approximated value. If the value of Fpl is increased in equation 1, the value of the critical load Fc will increase as well. Thus, by further studying how to determine the plastic section capacity the critical load might be predicted more accurately.

44

In figure 75 (b) the predicted failure loads are given relative to the load applied at the bottom flange. If this figure is compared to figure 74 (b) we see that the relative prediction is in good agreement with the failure loads in relation to the load applied at the bottom flange.

7.2.2 Stiffness Similar to 7.1.2 the first order deformations of the member can be analysed. In this case torsion is present in the member and the first order rotation at midspan can be analysed by using equation D18 and entering x = 1400 millimetres in it (which is midspan).
sinh( . . L) tanh ( . L) sinh( 1400. ) cosh ( . . L) . .L sinh( . . L) . sinh( 1400. ) tanh ( . L) sinh( . L. ) . cosh ( 1400. ) F. e . L . G. It

( F)

.L

Eq. 16

Experiments 2XX
50

Experiments 2XX 50 average load F [kN] 40

2A 1 2B2

40 average load F [kN]

2A 1 2B2 2C1 1s tor der r ot at i on

30

30 20 10 0

20

2C1 1s t or der di s pl acem ent

10

0 0 10 20 30

-15

-10

-5

w 1 [m m ] Vertical deflection at m idspan

fi 4 [ ] rotation at midspan

(a)

(b)

figure 76: bending displacement and rotation of section at midspan

Contrary to the bending displacement the first order rotation overestimates the actual twist of the section, see figure 76 (b). The cause of this is not clear. 7.2.3 Strain In figure 69, figure 70 and figure 72 the results of strain measurements of experiment 2 is given. Due to bending and bi-moment one would expect antimetric graphs. However, strain gauges 21 and 23, which are placed on the tip of the bottom flange (in compression), switch near failure from compression to tension. Strain gauges 25 and 27, placed on the tip of the top flange (under tension) do not shown this behaviour. This is due to the fact that, besides the bending moment and the bimoment, the sections also bents about the minor axis. In 5.5.2 it has been expected that the flanges would be free of shear strain. The shear strain is measured by the rosette, more particularly by strain gauge 44. From the results of the measurements with the rosette it appears that this expectation holds true only for experiment 2B3. Determining the bending moment and bi-moment from the measured strain turns out to be very inaccurate. It can be concluded that, in order to get an accurate view on the strain distribution more strain gauges need to be used in one cross section. Besides gauges on the flanges, there should also be gauges on the web and on the inside of the section.

45

7.3 General considerations

It can be stated that it is difficult to estimate the lateral torsional buckling load of channel sections as well as to determine the bending deflections. However, this load case is quite rare in engineering practice because one would have to adjust the Experiments 2XX section to apply load at the shear centre. In common practice if load is applied directly onto the section, as is illustrated in figure 7, it is even more difficult to predict the failure load.
50 40 30

average load F [kN]

1B3 2A1 2B2 2C1 1 st order

20 As for bending deformations, both centric and eccentric loading have about the same stiffness 10 in these experiments, as is shown in figure 77. If the span is increased, it will be expected that 0 the bending stiffness of eccentric loading in 0 10 20 comparison to centric loading will decrease w 1 [m m ] Vertical deflection at m idspan due to the twisting of the section, i.e. the section will bent about both the major and figure 77: bending stiffness minor axes.

30

Ex p e r im e n ts 2A

Ex p e r im e n ts 2A

Ex p e r im e n ts 2A

40

40

40

a ve ra ge loa d F [kN]

ave r ag e lo ad F [k N]

20

2A 1 2A 2 1 s t order FEM

2A 1 2A 2 FEM 10 20

2A 1 2A 2 1s t order FEM 10 20

10

0 0 10 20 30
-30 -20 -10 0
v 61 [ m m ] late r al d e f le c tio n at m id s p an

0 -20 -15 -10

fi 4 [ ] r o tatio n at m id s p a n

0 -5 0

w 1 [m m ] V e rti ca l d e fle cti o n a t m i d sp a n

figure 78: comparison of experimental data to analytical and numerical data

In 4.2 Influence of pressure and tension jacks, experiment 2A has been simulated. The model still needs further fine tuning to completely comply with the properties of the actual section. Nevertheless, the results are compared to the test results. The failure load is very close to the test results: Fu;FEM = 36.7 versus Fu;2A = 37.5 [kN]. The displacements at failure is much larger indicating that the stiffness of the FEM model is less than that of the actual section, see figure 78. Further analysis using the FEM will yield accurate data on failure loads. By varying the span and the height of the section tables can be constructed on the stability of channel sections.

46

ave r ag e lo ad F [k N]

30

30

30

Conclusions

8.1 Experiment 1
In experiment 1 the lateral torsional buckling load has been determined, by applying the load in the shear centre. In three test the section buckled in the same direction. For these tests the average failure load has been determined at Fu;1B = 49.4 [kN] with a standard deviation of 0.895 [kN]. In one test the section buckled in the other direction. The failure load appeared to be 10 % higher than those of the other three experiments and was recorded at Fu;1B1 = 55.6 [kN]. For all test hardly any rotation nor lateral bending occurred until buckling. When the ultimate load was reached the section buckled suddenly. This is what is expected in theory. To predict the failure load using the method of NEN 6771 [2] yields conservative values. The bending stiffness of the section appeared to be less than calculated by first order theory, see figure 73.

8.2 Experiment 2
In experiment 2 load has been applied onto the section at the top flange, the web and the bottom flange. The failure loads decreases when the point of load application is moved from the bottom flange towards the top flange, see figure 74 (b). This is in agreement with the predicted failure loads, see figure 75(b). However, the experimental failure loads were much higher than the predicted ones. The bending stiffness of the section appeared to be less than calculated whereas the rotational stiffness was higher than calculated by first order theory, see figure 76.

47

Recommendations

In 5.3 Deflection if y and in 5.4 Rotation about x, it is shown that one has to go through a great deal of trouble to correct the measured lateral displacement and rotation of the section due to the lack of stiffness of the support. In follow-up experiments the supports might be designed as suggested in figure 79 to increase stiffness. Than the displacements at the supports must be measured at the first test. If they are small enough they can be omitted in the following test, simplifying processing the acquired data.
current situation support-members

test rig support of bottom flange lacks stiffness

improved situation

section

figure 79: current and improved situation at support

In figure 49 it is shown how torsion at the support causes an imprint at the tip of the flange. What the effect of the imprint is can not be quantified exactly so it is better to avoid this to happen. This can simply be done by placing a metal strip between the section and the joint, see figure 80. The disadvantage of this is that the centre point of rotation, extensively discussed in 4.4.2, is shifted further away from the neutral axis of the section. By placing teflon foil between the metal strip, the section and the joint, most of the negative effect are countered by slip between the strip on one hand and the section and the joint on the other hand.

joint metal strip flange does not stick out above rod

rod

figure 80: adjusting support

48

In 4.4.1 the effect of friction at the supports is investigated. It has been stated that for experiment 1 the influence can not be specified. The joints that were used were quite old and had some damage in the PTFE-covering which might greatly increase the amount of friction. By ordering new joints and retaining them very carefully (one grain of sand will increases the friction) one can be certain that the friction at the supports is as low as possible. Measuring rotation of the section by the special rotation tangent to curve recorders caused some unexplained problems. In 50 figure 81 a load rotation curve is given. The curve should 40 be nearly equal to the tangent, which has been drawn in, 30 but sudden changes in directions of the curve are irregularity 20 encountered. To avoid these problems the lateral displacement of the 10 section can be measured at the top and bottom flange. The 0 rotation can then be obtained from the difference in -6 -4 -2 0 lateral deflection divided by the height of the section. fi 5 [ ] rotation at x = 850 Nota bene: this will not increase the numbers of measuring channels since the channels of the rotation figure 81: problems at measuring rotation recorders become available.
Experim ents 2C2

In Appendix I it has been investigated if the sections was within the tolerance on shape and dimension according to Ontw. NEN EN 10279 [5]. As for determining the deviation on dimensions one could confine to taking random checks. If the results of these checks are satisfying it is useless to systematically check dimensions on all sections, as has been done in these experiments. As for checking the deviation in shape, visual inspections seems to be adequate. If one section seems to be crooked one could still check the shape deviations on a flat table. Just in case of experiment 1, the sections should be checked because the sections will bend due to the welding of the perpendicular plates onto the section.

average load F [kN]

49

References
[1] STAALCONSTRUCTIES TGB 1990, Basiseisen en basisrekenregels voor overwegend statisch belaste constructies NEN 6770, NNI, Delft, 1991, 175 p. STAALCONSTRUCTIES TGB 1990, Stabiliteit NEN 6771, NNI, Delft, 1991, 98 p. Metalen Trekproef Deel 1: Beproevingsmethode (bij omgevingstemperatuur) EN 10 002-1, CEN, Brussel, 1990, 15 p. Warmgewalste produkten van ongelegeerd constructiestaal. Technische leveringsvoorwaarden (bevat wijzigingsblad A1: 1993) NEN-EN 10025, NNI, Delft, 1993, 12 p. Warmgewalste U-profielen van staal. Toleranties op vorm en afmetingen Ontwerp NEN-EN 10279, NNI, Delft, 8 p. Terrington, J.S. COMBINED BENDING AND TORSION OF BEAMS AND GIRDERS (part I & II) London: The British Constructional Steelwork Association ltd. 1968, 103 p. Rolloos, A., et al OVER SPANNEND STAAL, DEEL 3: CONTRUEREN B Rotterdam, Stichting Kennisoverdracht SG, 1996, 542 p. UPE, An intelligent alternitive Peine: Salzgitter AG

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

50

Appendices

Page 2

Appendix

Page 3

A. Sections
In this appendix copies of product information on the different hot-rolled channel sections are given. Each manufacturer uses different notations for dimensions. To avoid confusion the dimensions of the chosen section, a UPE 160 section, are given in the notations of this report below and on the next page.
Table A1: properties of UPE160 section

ys

quantity height width h - tf b - tw/2 thickness of flange thickness of web thickness at root root radius distance from centre of gravity to E distance from c.g. to shear centre Eccentricity of centroid of web E plastic lever arm area moment of inertia about major axis moment of inertia about minor axis torsion moment of inertia warping constant Wy;el Wy;pl

dimension h = 160 b = 70 h0 = 150 b0 = 66.75 tf = 10 tw = 6.5 tr = 16.9 r = 12 yc = 18.9 ys = 44.13 e = 25.23 sz = 118.9 A = 2372 Iy = 9.65 106 Iz = 1.14 106 It = 6.5 104 Iw = 4.54 109 120670 141004

unit [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm2] [mm4] [mm4] [mm4] [mm6] [mm3] [mm3]

e B* B

yc

tf

A*

s.c.
y-axis tw C E r

c.g.

h0

D b0 b z-axis

figure A1: dimensions of UPE160 section

tr

tf
2 t r = r 2 1 + tf + t2 w

r tw
figure A2: thickness at the root of the section

Page 4

Table A2: values of the warping function

position in cross section A* A A** B* B E C C* D D*

zordinate [mm] - 80 - 75 - 70 - 80 - 75 0 75 80 75 80

warping function [mm2] A* = - 2604 A = - 3036 A* = - 3469 B* = 2326 B = 1966 E = 0 C = - B C* = - B* D = - A D* = - A*

B* B

A* A A**

y-axis

x-axis, warping function

centre line

z-axis
figure A3: warping function of a UPE 160 section

Appendix

Page 5

figure A4: specifications of the ordered sections

Page 6

UNP sections Data obtained from: Brid, K.J. Tabellen voor bouw- en waterbouwkunde Leiden: Spruyt, van Mantgem & de Does B.V., 1991

Appendix

Page 7

UPE sections Data obtained from: R. Kindmann Die Neuen UPE, 80-400, Konstruktion und Bemessung Peine Germany: Preussag Stahl AG, 55 p.

Page 8

UAP sections Data obtained from: Sales programme, Structural Shapes Profil Arbed, Luxembourg, 64 p.

Appendix

Page 9

PFC sections Data obtained from: Parallel Flange Channels, Section Properties and Member Capacities Ascot UK: The Steel Construction Institute, 1996, SCI-P-210

Page 10

Appendix

Page 11

B. Tensile Tests
Determining the yield stress has been carried out as closely to codes EN 10 002-1 [3] and NEN-EN 10025 [4]. In this appendix a report is given of all facts concerning the execution of the tensile tests. First the location of the samples had to be determined. Parallel flanged channels are not mentioned in [4] so the designated location of sloped flanged channels was chosen, see figure B1. It is assumed that it will be the same for parallel flanges. The location of the specimen is at one third of the width from the tip of the flange.

figure B1: location of samples [4]

cross section

Tolerance +/- 0.33 [mm]

20

Lo = 79.9 +/- 1 %
2 R1

50

12

Lc = 110 Lt = 234

12

50

figure B2: dimensions of specimen

Index: a = thickness of specimen b = width of specimen So = area of original cross section Lo = original measuring length Lc = length of the parallel section Le = measuring length of the strain gauge, see figure B3 Lt = length of the entire specimen The specimen are called proportional specimen because the original measuring length Lo is related to the original cross section by: L o = k S o with k = 5.65 In figure B2 the tolerance of the width of the specimen is given and in table B1 the area of the original cross section is determined. The width of specimen 3 has been cut too small but is used anyway.

44

Page 12

Table B1: dimensions of cross section

a 9.8 9.75 9.75 9.8 9.75

Test 1 B 20 19.9 19.9 19.95 19.9 So =

A 196 194.03 194.03 195.51 194.03 194.72

a 9.8 9.65 9.7

Test 2 b A 19.9 195 19.9 191.6 19.9 193

a 9.75 9.65 9.7

Test 3 b A 18.85 183.79 18.9 182.39 18.85 182.85

a 9.8 9.7 9.85

Test 4 b 19.85 19.8 19.75

A 194.53 192.06 194.54

So = 193.2

So = 183.01

So = 193.71

clamped on strain gauge

Le = 50 mm
parallel section

figure B3: specimen in testing bench

Speed of increments
stress

3 plastic range

2 yield range 1 elastic range strain

figure B4: different parts of the test

In figure B4 the different parts of the test are indicated For each part a stress or strain increment speed for the parallel section is determined by [3]. 1 elastic range 2 yield range 3 plastic range stress increment strain increment strain increment 6 30 [N/mm2 s-1] 0.00025/ s-1 - 0.0025/ s-1 0.008/ s-1

Appendix

Page 13

1 elastic range: The speed on the testing bench was set to 0.6 [mm/min]. From this the stress incremental speed is
F Lt E L mm calculated as follows: = L = 0 .6 = L = EA min t 210000 0 .6 60 = 19.0 N 110 mm 2 s

Which falls in the allowed range. 2 yield range: During yielding the speed can not be changed, but since the yield stress was unknown before the first test the speed of the test bench has not been changed. To determine the settings for the test bench the given limits can be changed as follows:
0.00025 L t 60 = 1.65 < mm test speed < 0.0025 L t 60 = 16.5 min

The test speed of 0.6 mm/min was too slow. This had not been noticed until the last test, test number 3, at which the speed was erroneously incremented up to 1.2 mm/min which is also too slow. 3 plastic range: In this range no lower value for the strain increment is given, the upper value is considerably higher:
test speed mm < 0.008 L t 60 = 52.8 min

In this range only a maximum is set down and at no time speeds were reached that exceeded this maximum. In table B2 the speed at which individual experiments were carried out are given.

Yield range
The specimen were tested in the 100 kN testing bench and the data was acquired by computer. The time interval of measuring was 1 second. In table B2 the date and duration of the experiment is shown.
table B2: duration of experiments

test 1 2 3 4

date September 7, 1998 September 8, 1998 September 9, 1998 September 8, 1998

duration 73 min 65 34 55

number of observations 4380 3900 2040 3300

elastic0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

speed [mm/min] yield- plastic- range 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2 3.2 0.6 1.9

Page 14
T e n si le T e st 1 Yie ld ra n g e
300 Max . = 298 ReH = 298 305 Max = 305,9

T e n si le te st 2 Yie ld ra n g e

Str e s s [N/m m ^2]

Str e s s [N/m m ^2]

ReH = 302,4

295

300

ReL = 298.5 Min. = 290,8 290 0 0.005 0.01

s tr a in [% ]

ReL = 290,8 295 0.015 0.02 0

Min. = 295,9

0.005

0.01
s tr a in [% ]

0.015

0.02

T e n si le T e st 3 Yie ld ra n g e
312 Max ./ ReH = 310,1 Max . = 301,6 305

T e n si le te st 4 Yie ld ra n g e

Str e s s [N/m m ^2]

308

Str e s s [N/m m ^2]

300 ReH = 298,2

304 ReL = 302,6

295

Min. = 295,5 300 0 0.005 0.01

s tr a in [% ]

Min. = 291 290 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01

s tr a in [% ]

ReL = 291

0.015

0.02

figure B5: yield range of the four tensile tests

Appendix

Page 15

Elastic range (strain measurements) In figure B3 it is shown how strain is measured at the parallel section of the test specimen. The strain plotted against the stress yields figure B4. If we just look at the elastic range we expect to find a straight line with a tangent equal to the elasticity modulus, E = 210,000 [N/mm2]. However, the linear fit shows a tangent of only approximately 140,000 [N/mm2]. It is understood that the enormous discrepancy between the measured value and the theoretical value is due to slip between the clampedon strain gauge and the specimen. Subsequently all values of strain must be disregarded.
Tensile Test 2, elastic range
300 commencement of yielding

250

linear fit:
Stress [N/mm^2] 200 y = 142480x - 1.3284 R2 = 0.9966

150

100

measured data
50

0 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 strain [%]

figure B6: strain measurements at the elastic range

Results The results of the tensile tests are given in table B3. The average value or the lower yield stress, ReL, will be used as value for the yields stress in further calculations. All values of measured strain will be disregarded.
table B3: results of tensile tests

Test 1 2 3 4 average deviation

fy;max 298.2 305.9 310.1 301.6 304 5.17

fy;min 290.8 295.9 300.5 291 294.5 4.63

ReH 298.2 302.4 310.1 298.2 302.2 5.62

ReL 290.8 298.5 302.6 291.1 295.7 5.8

Rm 443.8 446.9 452.6 447.1 447.6 3.65

Page 16

C. Lateral torsional buckling

Theoretical elastic lateral torsional buckling load The theoretical elastic lateral torsional buckling moment, Mke, is determined using formulae from code NEN 6771 [2]. The notations of [2] code are used in this appendix. Table C1 gives the coefficients that apply to the chosen load case.
table C1: load case coefficients according to [2]

Load case 4
0,25 L

Load configuration
F F

C1

C2

1.04
0,5 L 0,25 L

0.42

A few parameters need to be determined to find the coefficient C:

S= h 2 Ed I z GdIt

NEN 6771: (12.2-11)

S = 539.5 [mm] Coefficients C1 and C2 are from table C1; C2 = 0 when the load is applied at the shear centre:
C= C1l g 2S 2 C 2S 1 + 2 C2 1 + + 2 l1 l1 l1

NEN 6771: (12.2-10)

C = 3.5 [-] The coefficient kred is set down for double symmetric sections in [2] but not for channels loaded in the shear centre. It is assumed that this coefficient will be equal to unity. The theoretical elastic lateral torsional buckling moment can now be determined using the coefficients kred and C.
M ke = k red C lg Ed I zGd I t

NEN 6771: (12.2-10)

This moment has a linear relation with the elastic lateral torsional buckling load. From the moment distribution it can be derived that Fke. = Mke / L, with = 0.25 in this case. Ultimate elastic-plastic lateral torsional buckling load The theoretical elastic lateral torsional buckling load has been determined. However, the material is not fully elastic, buckling may occur at a smaller load than has been determined. To determine the ultimate elastic-plastic lateral torsional buckling load, denoted by My;max;s;d, equation 12.2-3 from NEN 6771 is used.

Appendix
M y; max;s;d kip M y; u ; d

Page 17

NEN 6771: (12.2-3)

Thus M y;max;s;d kip M y;u ;d and for class 1 and 2 cross sections the following applies: My;u;d = My;pl;d NEN 6770: (11.2-6)

The plastic section capacity, My;pl , is determined in Appendix D. The relative slenderness, , can be determined from Mke and My;u;d : = M y;u ;d M ke NEN 6771: (12.2-4)

Table 23 of [1] assigns instability curves for different structural shapes. For channel sections curve c is assigned for instability about any axis. However this table seems to apply to buckling due to normal force. Therefore the analogy with lateral torsional buckling of an I-section is used in determining the instability curve. The section is bent about the y-y axis and both demands h/b = 160/70 = 2.1 > 1.2 and tf = 10 < 40 [mm] are met. Thus the a curve is used. Using equation 12.1-14 of NEN 6770 kip can be determined and entered in: M y;max;s;d kip M y;u ;d The ultimate elastic-plastic lateral torsional buckling load, Fmax;s;d , can be determined from the moment distribution.

Page 18

D. Bending and Torsion

Bending The chosen load configuration is one with two concentrated loads at a quarter span of each support. The distribution of forces, moments and deformations is given in figure D1 qualitatively.
F1 L z L Vz = -F Vz = F bending moment My = LF angular rotation about the y-axis displacement in z-direction w
figure D1: distribution of shear force, bending moment and deformations.

F2 x L

= 0.25 = 0.75 shear force V (x ) = dM (x ) dx

Vz My

M(x ) = EI y
(x ) = w(x)

d(x ) dx

dw (x ) dx

In order to find the exact values at each point along the beam axis an expression must be found for the bending displacement w. By differentiating expressions are found subsequently for the angular rotation , the bending moment My and the shear force Vz. For a single load an expression for the bending displacement w can be found. The load F1 is placed at a = L from one support and b = L is the complementary distance from the other support, see figure D2 (a).
a = L F1 b = L a F1 b -a F2 a

L
(a) figure D2: position of concentrated load

L
(b)

The expression is given in two parts: 0 x < a:

w (x ) = Fbx L2 b 2 x 2 6 EI y L

Eq. D1

a < x L:

w (x ) =

F a (L x ) 2 L a 2 (L x )2 6 EI y L

Eq. D2

Appendix

Page 19

If a second load F2 is placed symmetrically from midspan to F1 the expression can be found by simply swapping the parameters a and b in equations D1 and D2. If both loads are applied simultaneously the expression for the bending displacement is found by superposing the expressions for the individual loads, yielding equations D3 through D5. 0 x < a:
w (x ) = Fbx Fa x L2 b 2 x 2 + L2 a 2 x 2 6 EI y L 6 EI y L

( (

Eq. D3

a < x b:

w (x ) =

Fa x F a (L x ) 2 2 L2 a 2 x 2 + L a 2 (L x ) 6 EI y L 6 EI y L

] ]

Eq. D4

b < x L:

w (x ) =

F a (L x ) 2 F b(L x ) 2 L a 2 (L x )2 + L b 2 (L x )2 6 EI y L 6 EI y L

Eq. D5

In figure D3 the bending displacements due to F1 and F2 are given with = 0.25 and subsequently = 0.75. The chosen load is F1 = F2 = 50 [kN] and the span is 2.8 [m]. If the two graphs for the individual loads F1 and F2 are added up the bending displacement for experiment 1 is found. The angular rotation is found by differentiation equations D3 through D5, the moment distribution by differentiating twice and the shear force by differentiating three times. This relation is also shown in figure D1 The moment distribution and the shear force can be found quite easily as is shown in figure D1.
Bending displacement
15

super posed displacement

10 w [mm] 5

displacement due to F1 displacement due to F2

0 x [mm]

700

1400

2100

2800

figure D3: bending displacement due to F1, F2 and superposed displacement

Page 20

Elastic section capacity The load at which first yield occurs is called the elastic section capacity. First yield will occur at the largest combination of axial stress, due to bending, and shear stress, due to the shear force. The axial stress is largest at the top- and bottom flange at z = h/2, see figure D4 c). If the shear stress distribution along the centre lines is considered the largest stress is at point B and C (see figure A1 for the location of point B and C) in the cross section, see figure D4 a). However, at B and C the thickness tr is larger than the thickness tf of just the flange. This is due to the root radius, see figure A1.
B**
s = b0 s s s=0

x,max

h/2 C

h0/2 C

max

C**

a) figure D4: stress distribution

shear stress at centre lines

b)

elastic section modulus Sy

c)

+ axial stress distribution

To investigate at which point the shear stress is largest two points are considered, point B and point B**. The shear stress is given by equation D6, in which Sy(s) is the elastic section modulus which is a function of s and t(s) is the thickness at s.
xs = Vz S y (s ) I y t (s )

Eq. D6 Sy = b0 tf h0/2 = 50062.5 [mm3] Sy = (b-tw-r) tf h0/2 = 38625 [mm3] xs = Vz /Iy Sy /tr = Vz /Iy 50062.5/16.9 = 2962.3 Vz /Iy [N/mm2] xs = Vz /Iy Sy /tf = Vz /Iy 38625/10 = 3862.5 Vz /Iy [N/mm2]

Section modulus at: B B** Shear stress at: B B**

This shows that the largest combination occurs at point B** and C**. The Von Mises criteria is used to determine the elastic section capacity at these points. This criteria is defined by equation D7.
2 2 tot + 3 tot f y

Eq. D7

tot = M y f y

with:

tot = Vz

fy 3

Eq. D8

in which My stands for axial stress due to bending and Vz shear stress due to the shear force. If the expressions for the axial stress and shear stress are entered in equation D7 one finds: M yz VzS y (s) L F h F t f (b t w r ) h20 2 3 3 + = + fy I I t s I I t ( ) y y y y f
2 2 2 2

Eq. D9

Appendix

Page 21

It must be know at which load the elastic section capacity is reached. Writing equation D9 explicit for the load F yields: Fel = fy L (b t w r ) + 3 Iy Iy
h 2 2 h0 2

Eq. D10

With equation D10 the load at which the elastic section capacity is reached, denoted by Fel, can be analysed for any span. Plastic section capacity If the load is increased after the elastic section capacity is reached an increasing area of the section will yield. The plastic capacity is reached when the entire section yields, see figure D6 for the stress distribution. The top part is in compression and the bottom part in tension. Of both halves of the section the centre of gravity is determined and represented by two axes, see figure D6. The distance between the two centres of gravity is called the plastic lever arm and denoted by sz. Wy,pl = 23718 . A sz = 118.9 = 141103 mm 3 2 2
-fy

sz

fy

Eq. D11

figure D5: plastic stress distribution

The plastic section capacity due to bending can be determined by: My;pl = fy Wy,pl = 295.7 141103 = 41.7 [kNm] Eq. D12

However there is also a shear force present and the plastic section capacity must be reduced. This is done by rewriting equation D12 to: My;pl = pl Wy,pl
2 In which pl = f y 3 2

Eq. D13

Expanding equation D13 and factoring for Fpl gives:

2 M y;pl = Fpl L = f y 3 2 w y;pl

Vz S y (s ) Fpl b 0 h 0 2 2 Fpl L = f y 3 w y;pl = f y 3 I y t (s ) 2 Iy

h 1 + 0 w y;pl 4 b0
2

(Fpl L)2
Fpl =

Fpl b 0 h 0 2 2 = fy w2 y; pl 3 w y;pl 2 Iy
2 fy w2 y; pl

h 1 + 0 4 b0

Eq. D14

b0h 0 + 3 w2 y; pl 2 Iy

h 1 + 0 4 b0

Page 22

Torsion due to shear force Torsion is originated if a shear force is applied eccentric to the shear centre. Figure D6 shows that if a channel section is loaded on the web torsion is induced in the member. This figure also shows the assumed positive directions of the axes.
F1 s.c.
y e

F2
e

+
z

F1

F2

c.g.
x

experiment 2
figure D6: origination of torsion
warping free to occur, axial rotation prevented

Mx1= -Fe
L

Mx2= Fe

figure D7: position of torsional loads along the axis

In [6] a solution of the differential equation of torsion is given for a single concentrated torsional load: 0 x < L :
sinh (L ) sinh (x ) x MxL (x ) = tanh (L ) cosh (L ) L + (1 ) L GI t sinh ( L ) sinh (x ) sinh (L )cosh (x ) ( ) tanh L + (L x ) M x L (x ) = L GI t L GI t EI w

Eq. D15

L x < L:

Eq. D16

In which is the section parameter for torsion which is defined by: =

From figure D6 it follows that the angular rotation is negative with regard to the chosen co-ordinate system, therefore the torsional moment is Mx = - F e. The eccentricity e is 25.23 [mm], see Appendix A, and the force for which these figures are made is 50 [kN], thus the torsional moment is Mx = 1.26 [kNm].

Appendix
Angular rotation
superposed angular rotation angular rotation due to Mx;t1
0.07

Page 23

[rad]

angular rotation due to Mx;t2

0.15

700 Span L [mm]

1400

2100

2800

figure D8: angular rotation due to Mx;t1, Mx;t2 and superposed rotation

By superposing equations D15 and D16 for a torsional load at L on the same equations for a load at L the angular rotation for experiment 2 is found. The superposed equation can be given in three parts, equations D17 through D19. 0 x < L :
( x) sinh( . . L ) tanh( . L ) sinh( x. ) cosh( . . L ) . .L sinh( . . L ) tanh( .L ) sinh( x. ) cosh( .. L ) . . L x. L (2 Mx . L ) . G. It

Eq. D17

L x < L :
.) sin ( ..L) cos(..L) . sin ( x tan( .L) .L . .L) . sin ( .) sin ( .L.).cos( x .) sin (x . tan( .L) .Mx L . GIt .L

(x)

Eq. D18

L x < L:
sinh( ..L ) . sinh( x. ) tanh( .L) sinh( .L.) .cosh( x. ) sinh( ..L ) . sinh( x. ) tanh( .L) sinh( .L. ) .cosh( x. )

Eq. D19
x. Mx .L ( ) . L G.It

( x)

.L

.L

By differentiating the expression for the angular rotation expressions for the Saint-Venant torsion, bimoment and warping restraint torsion can be obtained. The relation with the angular rotation is given by equation D20.
Saint - Venant Torsion Bi - moment M x; t = GI t B x = EI w d dx d 2 dx 2 d 3 dx 3

Eq. D20

Warping restraint moment M x;w = EI w

In figure D9 through D11 the distribution of Saint-Venant torsion, bi-moment and warping restraint torsion is given.

Page 24

6 1.1 10 Mx;t [Nmm]

Saint-Venant torsion

6 1.1 10

700

1400 Span [mm]

2100

2800

figure D9: distribution of Saint-Venant torsion

0 Bx [Nmm^2]

Bi-moment

8 2 10

700

1400 Span [mm]

2100

2800

figure D10: distribution of bi-moment

6 1 10 Mx;w [Nmm]

Warping restraint torsion

6 1 10

700

1400 Span [mm]

2100

2800

figure D11: distribution of warping-restraint torsion

axial stress The axial stresses are comprised of stress due to bending and due to the bi-moment. The sum of these two components may not exceed the yield stress, see equation D21
x = M y + Bx f y

Eq. D21

My stands for stress due to bending moment My Bx stands for stress due to the bi-moment Bx. Both My and Bx are largest at x = L and x = L, see figures D1 and D10. with:

Appendix
x = - 256

Page 25

x = - 82 x = -174

x = 105 x = 122

B*

x = -69 x = -30

+
Bx My

y-axis

x-axis

C* z-axis
figure D12 : axial stress due to warping restraint torsion and due to bending. The rightmost section gives the superposed axial stress. The depicted sections are shown in isometric projection, the proportion in x-, y- and z-direction are 1:1:1. The relation between drawing units and stress is one to ten.

In the cross section the combination of these stresses is largest at the corners B* and C*, see figure D12. In table A2 values for the z-ordinate and the warping function are listed. The axial stress at B* due to bending is given by equation D22 and due to the bi-moment by equation D23.
My = M yz Iy = FL h Iy 2

Eq. D22

Bx =

B x (s ) = Iw sinh (L ) F e sinh (L ) sinh (L ) + sinh (L ) B* cosh (L ) cosh (L ) tanh (L ) tanh (L ) IW

Eq. D23

Bx =

The expression for Bx in equation D23 is found by differentiating equation D17 twice, multiplying it by EIw and substituting Fe for Mx. The expressions for the axial stress are now such that factoring for F is quite easy which will come in handy later. The stresses in figure D12 are obtained from equations D22 and D23 in which z and were altered. The depicted cross section is at x = L = 0.7 m. The force for which the stresses have been determined is 30 [kN]. 9.1.1 Shear stress The shear stresses are comprised of stress due to bending, due to Saint Venant torsion and due to the restrained warping. The sum of these components may not exceed the yield shear stress, see equation D24.
xs = Vz + M x ;t + M x ; w fy 3

Eq. D24

with:

vz stands for shear stress due to the shear force Vz

Page 26 Mx;w for shear stress due the Saint Venant torsional moment Mx;t Mx;w stands for shear stress due to the warping restraint torsional moment Mx;w. The shear force is constant from 0 < x < L and L < x < L, see figure D1. The Saint Venanttorsion is largest at the supports, see figure D9, and the warping restraint torsion is largest at x = L and x = L, see figures D11. The largest combination is found at x = L and x = L. In Elastic section capacity the point in the cross section at which the largest combination of axialand shear stresses occurs depends on the shear stress distribution. However, due to the presence of torsion, the point at which the largest combination of stresses will occur depends now on the axial stress since it is a factor larger than the shear stress is. The axial stress is largest at point B* and C*. In figure D13 the distribution of shear stress is given.
max

max Mx Mx;t
Mx;w

shear stress due to warping restraint torsion figure D13: shear stress distribution at centre lines. The arrows give the direction of the shear stress at x= L. The shear stress due to bending causes the torsional moment in the member. The shear stresses due to Saint Venant torsion and warping restraint torsion balance it.

shear stress due to bending

shear stress due to Saint Venant torsion

The components of equation D24 are expanded in equation D25 through D27
Vz = Vz S y (s ) I y t (s ) = Vz b 0 h 0 t f V = 2962.3 z 2 Iyt r Iy

Eq. D25

M x;t =

M x;t It

t (s ) =

Eq. D26

M x;t

sinh (L ) sinh ( L ) F e cosh (L ) + (2 ) tanh (L ) cosh ( L ) cosh ( L ) + tanh (L ) cosh ( L ) tr = It

The expression for Mx;t in equation D26 is found by differentiating equation D17, multiplying it by GIt, substituting Fe for Mx and entering L for x.
M x ; w S (s ) I w t (s )

M x;w =

Eq. D27

M x;w

sinh (L ) sinh (L ) F e tanh (L ) + cosh (L ) cosh (L ) tanh (L ) cosh (L ) cosh (L ) S = Iw tr

The expression for Mx;w in equation D27 is found by differentiating equation D17 three times, multiplying it by EIw, substituting Fe for Mx and entering L for x.

Appendix

Page 27

5000 b0 b0 h0

( s) [mm ]
2

warping function along s

5000

0 A B

141.75 s C

283.5 D

4 4 10 b0 b0 h0

ds
[mm ]
3

4 4 10 4 8 10

141.75 s

283.5

5 4 10 b0 b0 h0

S (s ) = t (s ) ds

elastic section modulus for warping restraint torsion

[mm4]

5 4 10

5 8 10

141.75 s [mm]

283.5

figure D14: warping function along s, integrated warping function and elastic section modulus for warping restraint torsion

From figure D13 it can be seen what sign the respective shear stresses must have and from equations D25 through D27 the respective stresses can be determined. The elastic section modulus for warping restraint torsion S is used in equation D27. This dimension is found by integrating the warping function of figure A3. Thus elastic section modulus for warping restraint torsion is the volume under the warping function. The warping function at the centre lines, which is called contour warping, represents the average warping over the thickness. One can integrate the contour warping as a line function instead of the area of the full warping function. In figure D14 the warping function is given along the centre line (along the ordinate s, see figure D4b), below that the integrated warping function is given. To incorporate the thickness of the section this function is then multiplied by the thickness of respectively the flanges and web. Because of the difference between the thickness of web and flanges a discontinuity occurs in the function of S.at s = b0. The actual function will be fluent because the difference in thickness is bridged by the root. Thus the average of S at the flange and the web is taken in equation D27, which is shown by the dashed line in figure D14.

Page 28

Von Mises criteria The combination of axial stress and shear stress at point B is largest and should not exceed the Von Mises yield criteria, see equation D7. To write the Von Mises criterion with all the above shown equations will not fit on this pages, thus just the numbering of the equations that is referred to is given, see equation D28.

(axial stress )2 + 3 (shear stress )2

( D21 + D23)2 + 3 (. D25 +

D26 + D27 ) f y
2

Eq. D28

Equations D21, D23, D25, D26 and D27 are written such that the load F can be factored easily and an expression for the elastic section capacity for torsion and bending, Fel,torsion, can be obtained. Ultimate load approximated To determine the ultimate load for a combination of bending and torsion is even more complicated then determining the elastic section capacity for torsion and bending. For members subjected to bending only, the ultimate load can be obtained by multiplying the elastic section capacity by the sectional form factor . The form factor for a UPE 160 section is defined by equation D29. = Wy;plastic Wy;elastic = 141004 = 117 . 120670 Eq. D29

To approximate the ultimate load for sections subjected to bending and torsion it is suggested that the same procedure is used. This procedure is just to get an idea of the magnitude of the ultimate load. F pl;torsie = F el;torsie = 1.17 F el;torsie Eq. D30

Appendix

Page 29

E. Introducing load on section Controle van de krachtsinleiding bij de oplegging en puntlast

NEN 6770: 14.2 Krachtsinleiding zonder verstijvingen De krachtsinleiding wordt gecontroleerd ter plaatse van de puntlasten en ter plaatse van de reactiekrachten. De grootste voorspelde kracht is F max;s;d en is gelijk aan 41.7 [kN]. De reactie kracht is in grootte gelijk en richting tegengesteld aan deze belasting. In de toets moet de grootste kracht ten gevolgen van de belasting ingevuld worden en is aangeduid met Fs;d . Fu;d is de kleinste waarde van Fu;1;d , Fu;2;d of Fu;3;d Deze waarden worden bepaald met art. 14.2.1, 14.2.2 en 14.2.3 en zijn bepaald voor de puntlast en de reactiekracht. Toets: Eindoplegging: de kleinste waarde is Fu;2;d = 65.26 [kN]
Fs;d Fu ;d = 41.7 = 0.64 1 voldoet 65.26

Puntlast:
Fs;d 1.5 Fu ;d +

de kleinste waarde is Fu;1;d = 123.3 [kN]

M y;s;d 1.5 M y;u ;d = 41.7 29.2 + = 0.69 1 voldoet 1.5 123.3 1.5 41.7

met:

My;u;d = My;pl = 41.7 [kNm] (zie Eq. D12) My;s;d is de rekenwaarde van het buigend moment om de y-as ten gevolge van de belasting. My;s;d = F max;s;d a L = 41.7 0.25 2.8 = 29.2 [kNm]

Page 30 NEN 6770: 14.2.1 Vloeien van het lijf Fu;1;d = (c+d1) tw fy;d c = tw + tf + 2 r 1
tw

1 2

2 = 6.5 + 10 + 2 12 1

1 2

. 2 = 235

[mm ]
r tf c

Zie figuur E1 voor de bepaling van c. Eindoplegging: bf tw f y;f ;d f y;w ;d f ;d 1 f y;f ;d

2

d1 = t f

figuur E1: krachtsinleiding in de hoek lijf-flens

Het buigend moment is nul bij de oplegging, dus f;d = 0 ; het profiel is uit n materiaal, dus fy;f;d = fy;w;d en d1 wordt: d1 = t f bf 70 = 10 = 32.8 tw 6.5

[mm]

Fu;1;d = (c+d1) tw fy;d = (23.5+32.8) 6.5 295.7 = 108.2 [kN] Puntlast: bf tw f y;f ;d f y;w ;d f ;d 1 f y;f ;d
2

d1 = 2 t f

De gekozen overspanning is 2800 millimeter. De langsspanning f;d in de hoek van het lijf met de flens wordt gegeven door: x = M yz Iy = F L h 40 103 0.25 2800 80 N 2 = = 2321 . 6 2 Iy 9.65 10 mm
2

d1 = 2 10

70 295.7 . 2321 1 = 40.659 295.7 6.5 295.7

Fu;1;d = (c+d1) tw fy;d = (23.5 + 40.659) 6.5 235 = 123.3 [kN]

Appendix NEN 6770: 14.2.2 Lokaal plooien van het lijf Eindoplegging: tf t c Fu ; 2;d = 0125 . t2 + 3 w = 65.26 w E f y;d t f h 2t f tw Puntlast: tf t c Fu ; 2;d = 0.5 t 2 + 3 w = 261 w E f y;d t f h 2t f tw En er moet gelden:
c = 017 . < 0.2 voldoet. h 2t f
h

Page 31

bef = h h x =100

[kN ]

figuur E2: krachts-inleiding in het lijf

[kN]

NEN 6770: 14.2.2 Globaal plooien van het lijf Eindoplegging en puntlast: Het lijf wordt beschouwd als een gedrukte staaf met een breedte bef en een lengte lbuc = h, zie figuur E3. h Voor de effectieve breedte geldt: b ef = + x h 2 Invullen geeft bef = 80 + 100 =180 > 160 dus bef =h Aan de hand van NEN 6770 art. 12.1.1. kan de staaf getoetst worden: I y;lijf = 1 3 b ef t 3 w = 3.6 10 12
F

lbuc= h

bef = h
figuur E3: globaal plooiien van het lijf

[mm ]
4

A lijf = b ef t w = 104 . 10 3 I y;lijf A lijf

[mm ]
2

i y;lijf = y =

= 188 .

[mm ]
[]
c = E f y;d = 83721 .

l buc = 85.27 i y;lijf y c

[]

rel =

= 1019 . knik curve c buc = 0.529

Fu;3;d = buc Alijf fy;d = 0.529 1040 295.7 = 163 [kN]

Page 32

F. Test Rig
Plans

1 Top view

2 Front view
B'

A'

C'

3 Left view

scale
0 300 600 900

C
figure F1: test rig (dimensions are in millimetres on given scale)

Appendix

Page 33

1 Top View

1a Section B-B'

support

point of load application

x - axis

y - axis

scale
0 300 600 900

figure F2: view from the top and section B-B

Page 34

2 Front view

scale
0 300 600 900

2a Section C-C'

jack

hinge z - axis

figure F3: Frontal view and cross section at C-C

x - axis

Appendix

Page 35

3 Left view

3a Section A-A'
hinge

jack

hinge anker

prestressing cable

anker

load cell z - axis

y - axis

scale
0 300 600 900

figure F4: view from the left and section A-A

Page 36

Photographs

figure F5: test rig in laboratory (photograph: Ben Elfrink)

Appendix

Page 37

figure F6: bird eye view of test rig (photograph: Ben Elfrink)

Page 38

Load bearing yokes

section A-A'

A'

figure F7: the three load bearing yokes in frontal view and cross section

frontal view yoke

line of work

Load at shear centre (1B)

Load at top flange (2A)

Load at line of symmetry (2B)

Appendix

Page 39

figure F8: photographs of the three load bearing yokes

Page 40

Details Experiment 1B

figure F9: plans of fitting for applying load at the shear centre

wire for measuring vertical displacement

load applied at shear centre

wire for measuring lateral displacement

displacments measured at shear centre

figure F10: load applied at the shear centre

Appendix

Page 41

Experiment 2B

figure F11: plan of load pin for applying load at the line of symmetry

figure F12: plan of pin holder

Page 42

figure F13: applying load at the line of symmetry

9.1.2

Experiment 2A

(a)

(b)

figure F14: applying load at the top flange (in experiments under)

Appendix

Page 43

Fittings to sections Experiment 1B

figure F15: fittings to section for experiment 1B

Page 44

Experiment 2A

figure F16: fittings to section for experiment 2A

Appendix

Page 45

Experiment 2B

figure F17: fittings to section for experiment 2B

Page 46

Experiment 2C

figure F18: fittings to section for experiment 2C

Appendix

Page 47

G. Supports

centre point of rotation

centre of gravity of section

teflon foil

figure G1: plan of support

joint rod

figure G2: support (photograph: Ben Elfrink)

Page 48

figure G3: parameters for determining friction in ball and socket joint

Figure G3 is obtained from:

Elges, Afmetingenkatalogus, K 234 NL Gewrichtslagers, Stangkoppen INA Naaldalger Mij. B.V., Barneveld, 1995

Appendix

Page 49

H. Calibration
Used equipment
table H1: used recorders and their specification

measured at channel: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 60 61 62 63 64 70 71 72 73 90 91

manufacturer

type of recorder WS10-250-R10KL10-SD4 WS10-250-R10KL10-SD4 WS10-250-R10KL10-SD4

id. 982844732 982844730 982844733

range 0-100 [mm] 0-100 [mm] 0-100 [mm] -20 20 [] -20 20 [] -20 20 [] 0-2 [mm] 0-10 [mm] 0-10 [mm] 0-2 [mm] 0-40 [mm] 0-40 [mm] 0-40 [mm] 0-20 [mm] 0-20 [mm] 0-10 [mm] 0-10 [mm] 0-10 [mm] 0-10 [mm] 0-80 [kN] 0-80 [kN]

deviation of linearity [%]

Solarton Solarton Solarton Solarton HBM HBM HBM HBM HBM HBM HBM HBM HBM TUE TUE

AXR/1/s AXR/5/s AXR/5/s AXR/1/s W 20 K W 20 K W 20 K W 10 K W 10 K W 10 TK W 10 TK W 10 TK W 10 TK Load cell Load cell

M922497 A848-03 M921980 A826-05 M921980 A826-03 M922497 A848-01 4437 3099 3100 14354 13588 14062 14063 (unreadable)

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 1

In table H1 all used recorders are listed. The range in which they were used is given and the deviation of linearity is given. The precision of the load cells is much higher than the listed one, however, they have been calibrated in a testing bench on which the reading has a deviation of 1 % linearity. Thus, the precision of the load cell can not exceed that of the testing bench. On the next pages the calibration of all recorders is given. In case of displacement recorders, the displacement is imposed on the recorder and is therefore the independent variable (the x-value) in the calibration. The current is the output (the y-value). Using the method of least squares a linear relation between displacement and current is found. This displacement is displayed in the graphs, in which the number preceding x is the calibration factor. The value of R2 indicates the precision of the linear line fitted through the observed data. The closer R2 is to the value of 1 the better the fit. The value of R2 is displayed in the graphs as well. In case of the rotation recorders the independent variable is the imposed angle and for the load cell it is the applied load.

Page 50 Calibration of recorders on channels 0, 1 and 2:

serie nr. channel 0 982844732 Displacement Current [mm] [mV] 0 -3615.3 5.0035 -3248.6 *) *) 15.0625 -2526.9 20.013 -2170.9 25.2645 -1791.3 30.028 -1449.4 35.0225 -1088.1 40.051 -729.1 45.068 -370.4 50.0095 -6.4 55.0285 357.1 60.018 716 65.0245 1079.5 70.0245 1437.9 75.0237 1799.4 80.15 2165.9 85.144 2532.9 *) *) 95.053 3236 100.006 3594.3 serie nr. 982844730 Current [mV] -3594.2 -3233.5 -2879.9 -2509.3 -2164.3 -1792.2 -1437.2 -1071.8 -726.8 -367.4 -6.6 354.2 712 1076.8 1432.9 1785.9 2151.1 2513.8 2871.9 3230.3 3509.7 serie nr. 982844733 Current [mV] 3597.6 3240.4 2880.7 2516.7 2157.3 1796 1435.7 1077.2 722.7 359.6 -3.7 -364.9 -722.9 -1084.9 -1447.9 -1806.4 -2171.3 -2531.3 -2884.6 -3245.1 -3604

Channel 1 Displacement [mm] 0 5.0565 10.0155 15.2235 20.0035 25.1235 30.0115 35.1495 40.0185 45.01 50.0195 55.048 60.0155 65.1385 70.1565 75.043 80.055 85.0425 90.053 95.068 100.046

Channel 2 Displacement [mm] 0 5.0135 10.029 15.0335 20.0125 25.0115 30.014 35.0075 40.0125 45.008 50.011 55.03 60.0325 65.011 70.0185 75.021 80.0145 85.0125 90.0275 95.047 100.033

*) data omitted in calibration

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 0
4000 3000 2000 y = 72.112x - 3613.4 R2 = 1

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 1
4000 3000 2000 y = 71.608x - 3591.7 R2 = 0.9999

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 2
4000 meas ured 3000 2000 Linear

C ur r e n t [m V ]

C ur r e n t [m V ]

C ur r e n t [m V ]

1000 0 -1000 -2000 meas ured -3000 -4000 Dis p lace m e n t [m m ] Linear 0 50 100

1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 Dis p lace m e n t [m m ] 0 50 100

1000 0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 Dis p lace m e n t [m m ] y = -72.057x + 3600.3 R2 = 1 0 50 100

meas ured Linear

Appendix Calibration of recorders on channels 3, 4 and 5:

Channel 3 Channel 4 Current Current [mV] [mV] 7714.8 7207.8 7221.6 6627.8 6691.8 6034.8 6092.6 5393.8 5425 4708 4883.8 4161.6 4303.8 3611 3755.8 3098.4 3183.8 2596 Channel 5 Current [mV] 6743.2 6201.2 5664.2 5078.2 4439.6 3939.4 3424.8 2941.4 2470.2

Page 51

Angle [] -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 3
8000 measured Linear 7000 Cur r e nt [m V ] 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 -20 -10 0
A n g le []

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 4
8000 measured Linear 7000 Cur r e nt [m V ] 6000 5000 4000 y = -117.05x + 4826.6 R2 = 0.998 3000 2000 -20 -10 0
A n g le []

y = -115.02x + 5474.8 R2 = 0.9993

10

20

10

20

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 5
7000 measured Linear 6000 Cur r e nt [m V ]

5000

4000 y = -108.3x + 4544.7 R2 = 0.9984

3000

2000 -20 -10 0

A n g le []

10

20

Page 52 Calibration of recorders on channels 6, 7, 8 and 9:

Channel 7 Current [mV] 8799 6790.5 4794.2 2784 783.5 -1211 -3216.6 -5211.2 -7209.5 -9202.9 Channel 8 Current [mV] 8596 6583 4579.6 2563.7 556.5 -1146.2 -3452.8 -5446.4 -7444.2 -9436.8 Channel 6 Channel 9 Current Current [mV] [mV] 9667.1 9330 7656.3 7300.9 5658.2 5303.9 3664.5 3293.6 1666.7 1291.1 -325.7 -706 -2355.4 -2745.2 -4330.9 -4722.1 -6331 -6717.2 -8355.8 -8706 -10277.8 -10666

Displacement [mm] 0 1.001 2 3 4 5 6.003 7.001 8.002 9.001

Displacement [mm] 0 0.201 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.204 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 7
10000 8000 6000 4000 Cur r e nt [m V ] 2000 0 -2000 0 -4000 -6000 -8000 -10000 -12000
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 8
10000 8000 6000 4000 Cur r e nt [m V ] 2000 0 -2000 0 -4000 -6000 -8000 -10000 -12000
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

measured Linear

measured Linear

10

10

y = -1999.9x + 8791.1 R2 = 1

y = -2001.9x + 8605.2 R2 = 0.9998

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 6
15000 10000 5000 0 0 -5000 -10000 -15000
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 9
15000

measured Linear

10000 5000 0 0 -5000 -10000 -15000 0.5 1

measured Linear

Cur r e nt [m V ]

0.5

1.5

Cur r e nt [m V ]

1.5

y = -9988.8x + 9660.2 R2 = 1

y = -10006x + 9306.9 R2 = 1

Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

Appendix Calibration of recorders on channels 60, 61 and 62:

Channel 60 Current [mV] 51.12 43.72 36.16 28.58 20.06 13.02 5.02 -11.02 -27.12 -34.98 -42.72 -50.44 -57.92 -65.48 -72.02 Channel 61 Current [mV] -72.62 -64 -56.78 -48.88 -40.6 -32.76 -24.56 -8.08 8.32 16.42 24.46 32.54 40.46 48.56 56.2 Channel 62 Current [mV] -82.66 -73.78 -64.66 -55.58 -46.36 -36.98 -27.42 -8.06 11.14 20.6 29.96 39.3 48.42 57.68 66.38

Page 53

Displacement [mm] 0 2.5005 5.0035 7.5025 10.006 12.507 15.0055 20.011 25.0105 27.503 30.004 32.551 35.0205 37.5105 40.0085

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 60
60 meas ured 40 20 Linear 80 60 40

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 61

meas ured Linear

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

0 0 -20 -40 y = -3.1202x + 51.5 -60 -80 Dis p lace m e n t [m m ] R = 0.9998

2

20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 Dis p lace m e n t [m m ] y = 3.2325x - 72.77 R2 = 1 0 10 20 30 40

10

20

30

40

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 62
80 60 40 meas ured Linear

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 Dis p lace m e n t [m m ] y = 3.7623x - 83.418 R2 = 0.9999 0 10 20 30 40

Page 54 Calibration of recorders on channels 63 and 64:

Displacement [mm] 0 2.5675 5.2845 7.514 10.0025 12.547 15.0015 17.512 20.0135 22.516 25.006 Channel 63 [mV] -74.6 -69.88 -59.48 -46.16 -29.44 -12.12 4.56 21.08 39 56.04 73.16 Displacement [mm] 0 2.5045 5.0015 7.5025 10.0015 12.5025 15.0045 17.513 20.006 22.502 25.01 Channel 64 [mV] -102.78 -101.94 -96.4 -84.66 -64.36 -49.56 -31.94 -14.34 3.28 20.84 38.46
Ca lib ra tio n o f ch a n n e l 64
60 y = 6.7665x - 96.613 R2 = 0.9998 C ur r e n t [m V ] 40 20 0 -20 5 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120
Dis p la c e m e n t [m m ] Dis p la c e m e n t [m m ]

Ca lib ra tio n o f ch a n n e l 63
80 60 40 C ur r e n t [m V ] 20 0 -20 5 -40 -60 -80 10 15 20 meas ured Linear 25

y = 6.8406x - 133.61 R2 = 0.9989

10

15

20

25

meas ured Linear

Appendix Calibration of recorders on channels 70, 71, 72 and 73:

Channel 70 Current [mV] 0.76 3.8 6.94 10.2 14.24 *) 22.82 27.2 31.5 35.82 40.3 44.68 49.06 53.7 56.62 59.9 63.1 71 72 73 Current Current Current [mV] [mV] [mV] 9.2 -0.68 -5.12 12.38 2.66 -2.5 15.66 6.22 1.32 19.06 9.92 5.4 23.28 14.5 10.48 27.8 19.4 15.06 32.3 24.24 21.14 36.96 29.1 26.54 41.46 33.96 31.7 46 38.78 36.82 50.64 43.78 42 55.18 48.7 47.02 59.68 53.6 51.96 64.4 58.8 57.16 67.22 62.1 60.44 67.22 **) 65.9 64 67.22 **) 69.66 67.56

Page 55

Displacement [mm] 0 0.5015 1.008 1.5405 2.2015 2.9075 3.601 4.318 5.0075 5.703 6.411 7.112 7.8035 8.5415 9.0065 9.5385 10.0635

*) data omitted in calibration **) out or range, data omitted

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 70
70 60 50 40 30 20 meas ured 10 0 0 5
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 71
80

y = 6.2058x + 0.5964 R2 = 1

70 60

y = 6.4679x + 9.1011 R2 = 1

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

50 40 30 20 10 0 meas ured Linear

Linear 10

5
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

10

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 72
80 70 60 y = 6.9872x - 0.8897 R2 = 1 80 70 60

Ca lib ra tio n o f Ch a n n e l 73

y = 7.3481x - 5.6211 R2 = 0.9996

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

Cu r r e nt [m V ]

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

50 40 30 20 10 0 meas ured Linear

meas ured Linear

10

-10

5
Dis p lace m e n t [m m ]

10

Page 56

Calibration of load cell prior to experiments

Load cell 90 Load Current [kN] [mV] 0.03 -0.048 5 0.459 10 0.965 15 1.474 20 1.98 25 2.491 30 2.993 37.5 3.762 40 4.017 47.5 4.775 50 5.03 55 5.542 60 6.055 65 6.564 70 7.08 75 7.591 80 8.108 Load cell 91 Linear fit Residues Load Current [mV] [mV] [kN] [mV] -0.05374 0.005743 0.001 0.102 0.4527 0.0063 5 -0.407 0.9622 0.0028 10 -0.918 1.4717 0.0023 15 -1.426 1.9812 -0.0012 20 -1.938 2.4907 0.0003 25 -2.452 3.0002 -0.0072 30 -2.964 3.76445 -0.00245 35 -3.483 4.0192 -0.0022 40 -3.993 4.78345 -0.00845 45 -4.509 5.0382 -0.0082 50 -5.02 5.5477 -0.0057 55 -5.535 6.0572 -0.0022 60 -6.053 6.5667 -0.0027 65 -6.571 7.0762 0.0038 70 -7.06 7.5857 0.0053 75 -7.606 8.0952 0.0128 80 -8.121 Linear fit Residues [mV] [mV] 0.112497 -0.0105 -0.4009 -0.0061 -0.9144 -0.0036 -1.4279 0.0019 -1.9414 0.0034 -2.4549 0.0029 -2.9684 0.0044 -3.4819 -0.0011 -3.9954 0.0024 -4.5089 -1E-04 -5.0224 0.0024 -5.5359 0.0009 -6.0494 -0.0036 -6.5629 -0.0081 -7.0764 0.0164 -7.5899 -0.0161 -8.1034 -0.0176

Ca lib ta tio n o f ch a n n e l 90
8 7 Cur r e nt [V ] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40
L o ad [k N]

Ca lib ta tio n o f ch a n n e l 91
0 -1 0 Cur r e nt [V ] -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8
L o ad [k N]

y = 0.1019x - 0.0568 R2 = 1

20

40

60

80

y = -0.1027x + 0.1126 R2 = 1

meas ured Linear

meas ured Linear

60

80

Re sid u e s o f ch a n n e l 90
0.015 0.01 Cur r e nt [V ] Cur r e nt [V ] 0.005 0 0 -0.005 -0.01
L o ad [k N]

Re sid u e s o f ch a n n e l 91
0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 -0.005 0 -0.01 -0.015 -0.02
L o ad [k N]

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

Appendix

Page 57

Calibration of load cell after experiments

Load cell 90 Load Current [kN] [mV] 1 0.046 2 0.157 5 0.468 10 0.973 15 1.478 20 1.975 25 2.502 30 3 35 3.539 40 4.034 45 4.53 50 5.059 55 5.57 60 6.09 Linear fit [mV] 0.0489 0.1511 0.4577 0.9687 1.4797 1.9907 2.5017 3.0127 3.5237 4.0347 4.5457 5.0567 5.5677 6.0787 Residues [mV] -0.0029 0.0059 0.0103 0.0043 -0.0017 -0.0157 0.0003 -0.0127 0.0153 -0.0007 -0.0157 0.0023 0.0023 0.0113 Load cell 91 Load Current [kN] [mV] 0.061 0.032 2 -0.188 5 -0.496 10 -1.019 15 -1.504 20 -2 25 -2.5 30 -3.039 35 -3.523 40 -4.041 45 -4.569 50 -5.057 55 -5.589 60 -6.083 Linear fit [mV] 0.01669 -0.1807 -0.4861 -0.9951 -1.5041 -2.0131 -2.5221 -3.0311 -3.5401 -4.0491 -4.5581 -5.0671 -5.5761 -6.0851 Residues [mV] 0.01531 -0.0073 -0.0099 -0.0239 0.0001 0.0131 0.0221 -0.0079 0.0171 0.0081 -0.0109 0.0101 -0.0129 0.0021

Ca lib ra tio n o f ch a n n e l 90
7 6 Cur r e nt [V ] 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20
L o ad [k N]

Ca lib ra tio n o f ch a n n e l 91
0 0 20 40 60

y = 0.1022x - 0.0533 R2 = 1 Cur r e nt [V ]

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 60 -7

y = -0.1018x + 0.0229 R2 = 1

meas ured Linear 40

meas ured Linear

L o ad [k N]

Re sid u e s o f ch a n n e l 90
0.02 0.015 Cur r e nt [V ] 0.01 Cur r e nt [V ] 0.005 0 -0.005 0 -0.01 -0.015 -0.02
L o ad [k N]

Re sid u e s o f ch a n n e l 91
0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03
L o ad [k N]

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Page 58

I. Dimensions
Restrictions on dimensions In draft code NEN EN 10279 [5] restrictions on tolerance and shape deviation are given for hot rolled channel sections, see figure I5. In figure I1 it is shown on which dimensions restrictions are given and in table I1 the tolerance levels for an UPE 160 are given. In table I2 the results of measurements of the width and the thickness of the flanges are given. These results of width and thickness are well within the tolerance levels. The height of the section has not been measured systematically. However, from the observations made it can be said that it is within 0.5 millimetres, well within the prescribed tolerance level of 2 millimetres.
table I1: restrictions on dimensions of an UPE 160 according to [5] property height width thickness of web thickness of flange heel radius out of square straightness mass per unit length standard Length dimension h = 160 b = 70 tw = 6.5 tf = 10 r3 (k + k1) qxx qyy Kg/m18.6 L = 12000 tolerance [mm] + 2.0 -2.0 + 2.0 -2.0 + 0.5 -0.5 Tolerance limited by weight -0.5 0.3 t 2.0 0.2% L = 5.6 0.3% L = 8.4 +/- 4% +100 - 0

table I2: results of measurements on width and thickness of flanges width of flange bottom- topb [mm] b [mm] 69.37 69.6 0.075 0.11 12 12 69.34 69.48 0.137 0.114 16 16 69.54 69.68 0.104 0.177 16 16 thickness of flange bottomtopt [mm] t [mm] 9.93 9.9 0.075 0.069 12 12 9.92 9.89 0.071 0.085 16 16 9.9 9.88 0.064 0.108 16 16

r3

b/2

figure I1: dimensions on which tolerance restrictions are given by [5]

mean member 1 standard deviation number of observ. mean member 2 standard deviation number of observ. mean member 3 standard deviation number of observ.

From visual inspection it can be concluded that the out of squareness of the sections was well within the set limits of table I1. The straightness of the cut sections has been measured. It was clear that the sections were completely straight as far as the straightness qxx was concerned. After a few random checks these measurements were abandoned. The straightness about the other main axis, qyy, has been measured from a flat table, as shown in figure I2. At four positions along the section the distance from the table to the top surface of the section, b* has been measured. The values of b* at the supports, position 0 and 3, are entered in the formula depicted in figure I2. By subtracting the value of the width of the flanges, b, from the value of the expression for y(x) the straightness can be determined, see table I3 and I4.

Appendix
x L/4 b0 L L/2 qyy b0* b3* flat table position: 0 1 2 3 L/4
y(x ) =
* b* 3 b0 x + b* 0 L

Page 59

figure I2: measuring straightness qyy

In table I3 the results for sections of experiment 2 are given and they are plotted in figure I3. From the table and the graphs it can be determined that the sections are almost completely straight.
Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 2A 1
top f l ange bottom fl ange

Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 2B2

top f l ange bottom fl ange

1 offs e t [m m ] offs e t [m m ] 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1

L e n g th [m m ]

1 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1
L e n g th [m m ]

700

1400

2100

2800

700

1400

2100

2800

Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 2C 1

top f l ange bottom fl ange

1 offs e t [m m ] 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1

L e n g th [m m ]

700

1400

2100

2800

figure I3: straightness qyy for specimen 2A1, 2B2 and 2C1 table I3:determining of straightness of specimen 2A1, 2B2 and 2C1 top flange experiment position b [mm] b* [mm] 2A1 (from member 3 ) 2B2 (from member 1) 2C1 (from member 3) 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 69.6 69.5 69.7 69.5 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.7 69.45 69.4 69.5 71 70 70.1 70.25 69.4 69.7 69.8 69.75 69.7 69.6 69.4 70.4 b*-b x = y(x) = qyy 1.4 0 1.4 0 0.5 700 1.238 0.738 0.4 2100 0.913 0.513 0.75 2800 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 700 0.087 -0.212 0.4 2100 0.262 -0.137 0.35 2800 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 700 0.225 0.075 0 2100 0.675 0.675 0.9 2800 0.9 0 69.8 69.5 69.7 69.6 69.5 69.6 69.6 69.7 70 69.8 69.8 69.4 70.55 70.85 70.8 70.1 69.6 70.3 70.25 69.75 70 70.2 69.8 69.7

bottom flange b [mm] b* [mm] b*-b 0.75 1.35 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.65 0.05 0 0.4 0 0.3 x= y(x) = qyy 0 0.75 0 700 0.6875 -0.7 2100 0.5625 -0.5 2800 0.5 0 0 0.1 0 700 0.0875 -0.6 2100 0.0625 -0.6 2800 0.05 0 0 700 2100 2800 0 0.075 0.225 0.3 0 -0.3 0.22 0

Page 60 In table I4 the results for sections of experiment 1 are given and they are plotted in figure I4. All four sections are clearly bent one way, due to the heat brought into the section while welding on the perpendicular plates. The curvature could also be seen quite well. The plates were welded on at the points of load application, which corresponds with position 1 and 2 of figure I2. Most of the curvature was concentrated around the weld. One could argue that the sections is bent about these points and that in between the section is straight.
Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 1B1
top fl ange bot tom fl ange

Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 1B2

top fl ange bot tom fl ange

4 offs e t [m m ] offs e t [m m ] 3 2 1 0 0 700 1400 L e n g th [m m ] 2100 2800

4 3 2 1 0 0 700 1400
L e n g th [m m ]

2100

2800

Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 1B3

top fl ange bot tom fl ange

Str aig h tn e s s q -yy Exp e r im e n t 1B4

top fl ange bot tom fl ange

4 offs e t [m m ] offs e t [m m ] 0 700 1400 2100 L e n g th [m m ] 2800 3 2 1 0

4 3 2 1 0 0 700 1400
L e n g th [m m ]

2100

2800

figure I4: straightness qyy for specimen 1B1, 1B2, 1B3 and 1B4 table I4:determining of straightness of specimen top flange experiment position b [mm] b* [mm] b*-b 1B1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 69.4 69.4 69 69.4 69.4 69.35 69.4 69.4 69.25 69.2 69.3 69.6 69.3 69.2 69.5 69.3 73.6 70 69.6 73 73.8 69.45 69.5 72 72.9 69.25 69.2 72.9 71.95 69.65 69.6 71.6 4.2 0.6 0.6 3.6 4.4 0.1 0.1 2.6 3.65 0.05 -0.1 3.3 2.65 0.45 0.1 2.3 x= 0 700 2100 2800 0 700 2100 2800 0 700 2100 2800 0 700 2100 2800 y(x) = 4.2 4.05 3.75 3.6 4.4 3.95 3.05 2.6 qyy 0 3.45 3.15 0 0 3.85 2.95 0 69.6 69.7 69.4 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.3 69.25 69.35 69.4 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.6 74 70.7 69.15 72 73.5 69.8 69.5 71 73.25 69.4 69.5 72 71.3 69.65 70 72.2 Bottom flange b [mm] b* [mm] b*-b 4.4 1 -0.25 2.5 4 0.3 0 1.5 3.95 0.15 0.15 2.6 1.8 0.15 0.5 2.6 x= 0 700 2100 2800 0 700 2100 2800 y(x) = 4.4 3.925 2.975 2.5 4 3.375 2.125 1.5 qyy 0 2.93 3.23 0 0 3.08 2.13 0 0 3.46 2.79 0 0 1.85 1.9 0

1B2

1B3

3.65 0 3.563 3.513 3.388 3.488 3.3 0 2.65 0 2.563 2.113 2.388 2.288 2.3 0

0 3.95 700 3.6125 2100 2.9375 2800 2.6 0 700 2100 2800 1.8 2 2.4 2.6

1B4

Appendix

Page 61

table I5: measurements of dimensions of member 1

member 1 position 0 1 2 3 0 2B2 1 2 3 0 2B3 1 2 3 number of observations mean standard deviation experiment 2B1 width of flange bottom- topb [mm] b [mm] 69.3 69.5 69.5 69.6 69.4 69.4 69.4 69.5 69.4 69.5 69.4 69.6 69.4 69.6 69.4 69.7 69.2 69.65 69.4 69.7 69.3 69.8 69.35 69.6 12 12 69.37 69.60 0.075 0.110 thickness of flange bottom- topt [mm] t [mm] 9.95 9.9 10 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.9 10 10 9.9 10 9.9 10 10 10 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.85 9.9 9.9 9.95 10 12 12 9.93 9.90 0.075 0.069

table I6: measurements of dimensions fo member 2 and 3

member 2 position 0 1 2 3 0 1B2 1 2 3 0 1B3 1 2 3 0 1B4 1 2 3 number of observations mean standard deviation experiment 1B1 width of flange bottom- topb [mm] b [mm] 69.4 69.6 69.4 69.7 69 69.4 69.4 69.5 69.4 69.5 69.35 69.5 69.4 69.5 69.4 69.5 69.25 69.3 69.2 69.25 69.3 69.35 69.6 69.4 69.3 69.5 69.2 69.5 69.5 69.5 69.3 69.6 16 16 69.34 69.48 0.137 0.114 thickness of flange bottom- topt [mm] t [mm] 9.9 9.9 10 10 10 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.9 9.8 10 9.9 10 10 10 10 9.9 9.9 10 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.85 10 9.9 10 9.9 9.8 16 16 9.92 9.89 0.071 0.085 member 3 position 0 1 2 3 0 2A2 1 2 3 0 2C1 1 2 3 0 2C2 1 2 3 number of observations mean standard deviation experiment 2A1 width of flange Bottom- topb [mm] b [mm] 69.6 69.8 69.5 69.5 69.7 69.7 69.5 69.6 69.6 69.6 69.5 69.9 69.4 69.6 69.7 69.75 69.7 70 69.45 69.8 69.4 69.8 69.5 69.4 69.55 69.6 69.6 69.9 69.4 69.6 69.5 69.4 16 16 69.54 69.68 0.104 0.177 thickness of flange bottom- topt [mm] t [mm] 10 9.9 9.9 10 9.9 9.9 10 10.1 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.9 10 9.8 9.85 9.9 9.7 9.9 9.75 9.9 9.8 9.9 9.75 10 9.9 9.95 9.9 9.8 10 9.9 9.9 16 16 9.90 9.88 0.064 0.108

Page 62

figure I5: tolerances for parallel flange channels, obtained from [5]