Plastic Analysis Beams Frames

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State
Analysis and Design

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
Analysis and Design for Robustness of Offshore Structures
NUS Keppel Short Course
1
Outline
Introduction Introduction
Plastic hinge concept
Pl ti th d f b d l t Plastic methods for beams and plates
Brief on mechanism analysis
Stiffness of beams including geometry
effect
Tensile fracture
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
2
Introduction
wave,
current
wind,
loads oads
Bracing
configuration
piles,
f d ti
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
3
foundation
Ch t i ti l b l l d Characteristic response - global load versus
global displacement for an offshore structure
load level member fracture ? load level
limit load
member fracture ?
wave,
current
wind,
loads
member instability
first plastic hinge
global post-collapse
load redistribution
first yield
Connections Members
piles,
foundation
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
4
deck displacement
Can reserve systems effects be
utilized?
For ULS design ductility For ULS design - ductility
requirements must be complied
with :
fracture, local buckling, cyclic
effects etc.
A id l i Accidental actions - systems
effects must be considered
Ship collision Explosions Fires Ship collision, Explosions, Fires,
Dropped objects, Specified
damages..
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
5
Definitions of ultimate resistance in Definitions of ultimate resistance in
intact and damaged conditions
capacity,intact structure
global load
reserve
strength
response,damaged
100-year
load level
residual strength
reserve
strength
global displacement
structure
residual strength
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
6
Nonlinear analysis of offshore structures Nonlinear analysis of offshore structures
challenges
Effects:
Nonlinear material, geometry, load,
Local and global failure modes:
Yielding, buckling,fracture,
Modeling
Beam columns, shell, solids, springs
St t i t ti t Stress-strain representations, stress-
resultant approach
Load control procedures
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
7
Design against accidental actions Design against accidental actions
according to e.g. NORSOK
Step1
Damage due to accidental
Plastic Plastic
Damage due to accidental
actions
Step 2
Elastic
Plastic
Elastic
Plastic
Step 2
Resistance of damaged
structure to design
Plastic Plastic
structure to design
environmental loads
Partial safety factors = 1,0
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
8
f y f
Material modelling for plastic
analysis
stress strain relationship stress strain relationship
o
o
y
Rigid-perfectly
plastic
y
Elastic-perfectly
plastic
c
y
~0.001 c
p
~20 c
p
c
u
~ 100 c
p
c
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
9
y p p u p
Plastic hinge concept Plastic hinge concept
Plastic hinge
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
10
Plastic hinge
Elastic
Elastic-plastic
Fully plastic
Note distribution of plasticity
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
11
Note distribution of plasticity
Plastic moment rectangular cross-section g
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
12
Plastic moment circular cross-section
2
M f d
2
p y
M f d t =
Thin-walled tube: d >>t
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
13
Pl ti hi t Plastic hinge concept
Normalised
moment
Plastic
Elastic
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
14
Normalised max. strain
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
15
Plastic collapse resistance Plastic collapse resistance
Kinematic analysis
P
c
q q
w
2
q
e c
W P w o o =
2
e p
W M o ou =
External virtual work Internal virtual work
Kinematics
2
w o u
o
=

Kinematics
4
p
M
P =
Plastic collapse load
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
16
c
P
L
=
Plastic collapse load
Elastic-plastic collapse analysis of clamped beam
Total resistance

q
2
1
Beam end:
12
p
q L
M =
l
M M =
q
1
l
2
2 2
1 2
2 2
2 1
12
In the middle:
24 8
1
p
q L q L
M
q L q L
= +
M =M
p
=
1
12
M =
q
1
l
2
24
+
2 1
2 1
1
8 24 3
q L q L
q q = =
Total resistance
M =
q
2
l
2
8
+
=
2
1 2 1
16
4
M
q q q q
p
c
= = + =
ota es sta ce
M =M
p
M M
2
1 2 1
3 L
q q q q
c
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
17
M =M
p
Comparison with usfos Comparison with usfos
Fy 330
D 0.5
t 0.02
Wp 0.004608 calculated mean diameter
Wp 0.004611 usfos p
Area 0.030159 calcuated mean diameter
Area 0.03016 usfos
I 0.000869 calculated mean diameter
I 8.70E-04 usfos
L 10
qc 0.243461 calculated
qc 240000 usfos referencew load 0.1E+6
disp 1 yield 2.60E-02 first yeild hinge calculated
disp2 6.94E-02 3 hinges calculated
plastic rotation 1.39E-02 calcuated
Plastic rotation
vs
displacement
Load factor vs
displacement
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
18
Load versus mid span deformation
q
1
q
L M
L q
w
p
1
1
2
4
1
= =
q
2
q
L M
L q
p
5 5
2
2
4
2
q
1
w
1
EI L M
w
q
q
q EI EI
w
p c
c
24 /
24 384
2
1
1
=
= =
w
2 EI L M
w
q
q
q
q
EI EI
q
w
p c
c
p
24 /
24 384
2
1
2 2
2
=
= =
Deformation in step 1
Deformation in step 2.
Deformation in step 1.
q / q
c
1
k =1
k =0.2
Hi t id
0.75
Hinge at mid span
Hinges at ends
0
2
w
M
p
l 2/ 24 EI
0 0.75 1
Load mid span deformation
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
19
Load - mid span deformation
Plastic rotation analysis
M
M
0
M
1 1/2M
p
0
1
Plastic rotation at ends

For rectangular cross-section
0 1
1 2
1 2 1 1
1
2 3 2 6
p
p p
M
M M
dx M
EI EI EI
u u u
| |
= = = = =
|
\ .
}
Plastic rotation at ends

For rectangular cross section
2
3
/ 4
6 /12 2
y
p
fy h
E h h
c
u

= =

A il bl f li l ti f tl l ti t i l Available for linear elastic-perfectly plastic material

/ 2
0.75
4 / 2/ 3
p y
ep y
h
h
u c
u c
= =
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006

20
Strains in elasto-plastic region p g
Cantilever beam
2
2
2
0
0 0
4 1
2 1 1
3 3
h
y
y p p
y
M dy M M
h
c
o
c

(
(
= = =
` `
(
(

)
)
}
1
1
p
x
M M
| |
=
|
\ .
0
1 c
0
3
1
y
x
c
=
1/ 3 1/ 3
0
2 41
2 1
1
y y y
d d
c c c
c
u
(
(
} }
0
max 1 1
1
1
3
3
1
y y y
dx dx
h h h
x
c
u
c
A A
(
= = =
(

} }
41
y
ep
c
u
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
21
3
ep
h
u
Compactness requirements for various
cross-sections cross sections
b
Flytning
ytterste fiber
TVERRSNITT
ELLER
TVERR-
SNITTSDEL
TRYKKKRAFT
OG / ELLER
MOMENT
TVERRSNITTSKLASSE
Full
plastisk
Siste
flyteledd
Lokal
knekning
b
t
1.0
E
f
b
t
1.2
E
f
b
t
1.3
E
f
TVERRSNITT
LIVPLATE
TRYKKKRAFT
OG
TVERRSNITTSKLASSE
F ll Si t Fl t i L k l
t
t
b
t
a b
TRYKK
MOMENT
t
1.0
f
y
t
1.2
f
y
t
1.3
f
y
b
t
2.0
E
f
y
b
t
2.6
E
f
y
b
t
3.3
E
f
y
K
T

5
.
6
b
E
1 b
E
1 2 b
E
1 3
MOMENT
LIVPLATE
OG
MOMENT
Full
plastisk
Siste
flyteledd
Flytning
ytterste fiber
Lokal
knekning
d
t
2.5
E
f
y
d
t
3.8
E
f
y
d
t
4.2
E
f
y
d t
1/2d
b
t
b
t
MOMENT OG
TRYKKRAFT
TRYKK
E
T
E
N

K
A
N

B
E
S
T
E
M
M
E
S

E
T
T
E
R

P
K b
t
E
f
y

1
a
b
t
E
f
y

1.2
a
b
t
E
f
y
1.3
a
b
t
0.30
E
f
y
b
E 0 3
b
t
0.33
E
f
y
b
t
0.43
E
f
y
b
E 0 33 b
E 0 43
E
T
T
E
R

P
K
T

5
.
6

0
.
1
5
,

N
p

=

f
d

1
.
0
N
N
p

0
.
1
0
,

N

=

s

0
.
1
0
,

N

=

s
t
d
1
d
2
t
t
b
b
t
a b
MOMENT OG
TRYKKRAFT
K
A
P
A
S
I
T b
t
E
f
y

0.3
a
b
t
E
f
y

0.33
a
b
t
E
f
y

0.43
a
b
t
1.1
E
f
y
b
t
1.25
E
f
y
b
t
1.5
E
f
y
P
A
S
I
T
E
T
E
N

K
A
N

B
E
S
T
E
M
M
E
S

E
3

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
0

N
N
p
0
.
1
5

0

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
5

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
0

N
N
p
9

)
N
N
p
Ef
y
0

N
N
p
TVERRSNITTS-
KLASSE 1 OG 2
d
t
b
t
1
t
1
t
1
d
t
0.056
E
f
y
d
t
0.078
E
f
y
d
t
0.112
E
f
y
b
E
K
A
d
t

2
.
5
0
(
1

-

0
.
9
3
d
t

2
.
2
0
(
1

-

0
.
2
d
t

3
.
8
0
(
1

-

0
.
5
5
d
t

4
.
2
0
(
1

-

0
.
5
9
TVERRSNITTS-
KLASSE 3
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
22
b
2
b
1
t
1
t
1
b
t
0.4
E
f
y
Bending moment axialforce Bending moment axial force
interaction
Mechanism analysis works well for
beam and frames where the resistance is
d b b di governed by bending
In many structures the resistance
contribution from axial force important contribution from axial force important,
either initially (truss-works) or during
force redistribution (beams under finite
deformations)
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
23
Pl ti hi t Plastic hinge concept
Bending moment- axial force interaction
Generalised yield criteria
2 M N
| |
Tube
1
2
sin 1 0
p p
M N
F
M N t

| |
= + =
|
|
\ .
Tube
Tube
2
1 0
p p
M N
F
M N
| |
= + =
|
|
\ .
Compression
p p
\ .
Rectangular cross.
Bending
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
24
Plastic resistance for beam with concentrated
l d t id (1) load at midspan (1)
P

w
D,t
Pipe section

E q u i l i b r i u m

8 2
M w
R N
N
Pipe section

8 2
/ 2
R = N +

B e n d i n g m o m e n t a x i a l f o r c e i n t e r a c t i o n

p
N
N

cos 0
2
p p
M N
F
M N
| |
H
= =
|
|
\ .

( ) ? N N w =
U n k n o w n
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
25
U n k n o w n
p
M
M
Plastic resistance for beam with
concentrated load at midspan (2) concentrated load at midspan (2)
P

w

Kinematics

Plastic elongation in each hinge Plastic elongation in each hinge

2
2
2
1 1
~
2 2 2 2
w
u w

| |
= +
`
|
\ .

)

w
u w =

Plastic rotation in each hinge

/ 2
w
u =

/ 2
w
u =

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
26

concentrated load at midspan (2) concentrated load at midspan (2)
P

w

Kinematics

Plastic elongation in each hinge
2
2
1 1 N w N

| |

2
1 1
~
2 2 2 2 2 2
N w N
u w
k k
| |
= +
`
|
\ .

)

u =
Plastic rotation in each hinge

w
w

/ 2
w
u =

/ 2
w
u =

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
27
concentrated load at midspan (3)
P
w
Plastic flow - normality
criterion

F
M
u

c
(
(
(
c
(
(
v
criterion
p
N
N
p
N
N
1
p
F
u
N
= =
(
(
c
(
(
c
(
v
M
p
v
M
1
2
1
i
p
w
M
w
N
t t
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
| |
(
(
|
0
M N
F
t
| |
|
p
M
p
M
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
28
1
sin
2 2
p p
N
w
N N
t t
(
(
|
(
|

(
\ .

cos 0
2
p p
N
F
M N
t
= =
|
|
\ .
Plastic resistance for beam with concentrated
l d id (4) load at midspan (4)
P

w

Results of analysis

w N w t

1
2
p
w N w
D N D
t
= s

Wh /D > 1 When w/D > 1

0 1
p
w
N N M
D
= = s
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
29

D

Plastic resistance curve for beamwith Plastic resistance curve for beam with
w
P

w
Collapse model for beam with fixed ends

w w w w
R
1 <
D
w

D
w

D
w
+ )
D
w
( - 1 =
R
R 2
o
u
arcsin

1 >
w w
=
Ru
t
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
30
1 >
D

D 2
Ro
Plastic resistance curve for beamwith Plastic resistance curve for beam with
P
w
P
8
6
8
Transition from bending &
mebrane to pure tension at
The displacment at this
transition is denoted
2
4

R
/
R
0w/D =1 R/R
0
=t/2
transition is denoted
characteristic displacment w
c
0
2
0 1 2 3 4
Bending only
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
31
0 1 2 3 4
Deformation w/D
Plastic resistance curve for beam with
d l d id (7) concentrated load at midspan (7)
P
K K

Kinematics- Plastic elongation in each hinge
2
2
2
1 1
~
N w N
u w

| |
= +
`
|
w N
u w =

In real structures beam ends ends are not fully fixed. The axial flexibility of

2 2 2 2 2 2
u w
k K
+
`
|
\ .

)

2
u w
K
=

the adjacent structure may be represented by a linear spring with stiffness K.
This affects the kinematic relationship for plastic axial elongation. Closed
form solution is no longer possible, but simple incremental equation may be
l d i ll
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
32
solved numerically
Elastic-plastic resistance curve for tubular p
beam with conc. Load at midspan
Factor c includes the effect of elastic flexibility at ends
Bending & membrane
5,5
6
6,5
Rigid plastic
Bending & membrane
Membrane only
k
k
w
F - R
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
0
0.1
0.2
0,3
0 5
Rigid-plastic
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
R/
1
0.5
0.05
c=
Kw 4c
c
2
c 1
=
0
0,5
1
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation
w
A f
c
y
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
33
Tensile Fracture
According to plastic theory no limitation to
resistance and energy dissipation in beams gy p
with axial restraint
Ultimately the member will undergo Ultimately the member will undergo
fracture due to excessive straining
In order to predict fracture a strain model In order to predict fracture a strain model
for the plastic hinges must be developed
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
34
Strain hardening paradox
In plastic analysis the stress-strain curve is
assumed rigid-plastic or linear-elastic perfectly
plastic
If the material behavior is really like this, the
b b h b i l i l b l d member behaves brittle in a global sense and
plastic theory cannot be applied
St i h d i i i l i di t ib ti l ti Strain hardening is crucial in distributing plastic
strains axially in the member, so that significant
energy dissipation can be achieved
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
35
energy dissipation can be achieved
M
c
Y
c
max o
h
o
Y
o
h
o
Y
M
Strain
Stress
distribution
Approximate stress
distribution
S d b b l l
40
45
50
Stress-strain distribution - bilinear material
c
25
30
35
40
S
t
r
a
i
n

c
Hardening parameter H =0.005
Maximum strain
c
cr
/c
Y

=50
40
P
x
k
5
10
15
20
S
=40
=20
No hardening
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
x/
Axial variation of maximumstrain for a cantilever beam
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
36
Axial variation of maximum strain for a cantilever beam
with circular cross-section
Assumption: Bilinear stress-strain relationship
Tensile Fract re Tensile Fracture
The critical strain in parent material depends The critical strain in parent material depends
upon:
- stress gradients
- dimensions of the cross section
- presence of strain concentrations
- material yield to tensile strength ratio material yield to tensile strength ratio
- material ductility
Critical strain (NLFEM or plastic analysis)
zone plastic of length : 5 ,
t
65 . 0 0.02 t
cr
> + = c
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
37
p g ,
cr
Critical deformation for tensile fracture in yield hinges

( ) 1 / c 4c 1
2c
c
d
w
1 cr f w
f
1
c
+ = c
2
| |
displacement factor
2
cr cr P
lp lp
1
w
d
W
W
1 4 c
3
2
1 c
c
1
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
=

Y
l i l h f
H
W
W
1
P
cr
|
|
.
|
\
|
plastic zone length factor

1 H
W
W
1
W
c
P y
cr
P y
lp
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
. \
=
axial flexibility factor
2
c
c
|
|
|
|
= axial flexibility factor
f
c 1
c
|
|
.
\
+
=
non-dim. plastic stiffness
|
|
.
|
\
|
= =
y cr
y cr p

f f
E
1
E
E
H
c
1
= 2 for clamped ends
= 1 for pinned ends
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness
kl s 0.5l the smaller distance from location of collision load
c
cr
= critical strain for rupture
E
f
y
y
= yield strain
f
y
= yield strength
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
38
to adjacent joint
W = elastic section modulus
W
P
= plastic section modulus
f
cr
= strength corresponding to c
cr
d
c
= D diameter of tubular beams
= 2h
w
twice the web height for stiffened plates
= h height of cross-section for symmetric I-profiles
Deformation at rupture for a fully clamped beam Deformation at rupture for a fully clamped beam
as a function of the axial flexibility factor c
5
3 5
4
4.5
2.5
3
3.5
w
/
D
/D = 30
c= 0
/D = 20
c = 0
1
1.5
2
= 0.05
= 0.5
= 1000
= 0.05
= 0.5
= 1000
0
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
39
c
cr
/c
y
Tensile fracture in yield hinges
D t i ti f H Determination of H
f
f
A
2
A
2
A
1
=A
2
E
H E
f
cr
E
H E
f
cr
A
1
A
1
A
2
c
cr

c
cr
Determination of plastic stiffness
H E
f
Even if the stress strain curve lies
below the true relationship such that
the energy dissipation for the fiber is
smaller, the hardening exaggeration
Use true yield
c
, g gg
may give too large energy dissipation
in the member as a whole
y
stress
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
40
Erroneous determination of plastic stiffness
Tensile fracture in yield hinges
Recommended values for c
cr
and H for
different steel grades g
Steel grade c
cr
H
S 235 20 % 0 0022 S 235 20 % 0.0022
S 355 15 % 0.0034
S 460 10 % 0.0034
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
41
Bending moment axial force history
M,P
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
42
Stiffness matrix for beam with
axial force
w
u
B

N
Q
A
M
A
Q
B
M
B
u
N
w(x)
w
A
w
B
X
X = x
( )
0 EIw X N w Q
w M
+ =
Differential equilibrium equation
( )
, 0
A A
xx A
EIw X N w Q
w M
+ =
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
43
axial force
A 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2
A
Q
12EI

6EI

12EI

6EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| | | |

1

|
|
|
=
tan
1
|
|
|
=

`
)
tanh
A
3 2 2 4
A
M
Q
=
4EI 6EI 2EI
12EI 6EI

w
(
(
(
(
(
(

| | |
| |
u
`
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
B
B
3 5 2 2
3
B
B
Q
M
4EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| |
| u
)
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
symmetry

E
N
2
N
t
| =
2
E
2
EI
N
l
t
=
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
44
E N
l
axial force
5
2
3
4
|4
N t
-1
0
1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-
v
a
l
u
e
|2
|3
E
N
2
N
t
| =
-4
-3
-2
|3
|5
-6
-5
Axial force = N/N E
|1
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
45
Buckling of column E l 1 Buckling of column Example 1
N N
A B
l
K =

(
2EI
2
2
3 4
4 3
| |
| |
K = = = 0 0
1
2
3 4
, ; 4
3
2
4
2
| |
| |
N N
E
=
Critical force
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
46
Buckling of column Example 2
N
A B
l
K
4EI
|
0 2 N N = = K
K =
3
|
0 2
E
N N = = K
1
Buckling length k
= =
1
2
07 .
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
47
Buckling of column Example 3

N
A B
l
K =

(
2EI
6 3
- 3 2
3
5 2
2
2
3

| |
| |
2 2 2
3 5 2
0 12 9 0 l l | | | = = K
Critical force
2
3 5 2
12 9 0.25
E
N N | | | = =
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
48
The stiffness matrix for beam with axial force contains
ll i f i d d di h b kli all information needed to predict the exact buckling
load for beams subjected to end forces
A 3 5 2 2 3 5 2 2
A
Q
12EI

6EI

12EI

6EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| | | |

1

|
|
|
=
tan
1
|
|
|
=

`
)
tanh
A
3 2 2 4
A
M
Q
=
4EI 6EI 2EI
12EI 6EI

w
(
(
(
(
(
(

| | |
| |
u
`
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
( )
2
2
1
3 1 2
1
3
1
4
3
4
|
|
|
| | |
=
= +
1
B
B
3 5 2 2
3
B
B
Q
M
4EI
w
(
(
(
(
(

| |
| u
)
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
4 1 2
5 1 2
4 4
1
2
3
2
| | |
| | |
= +
=
symmetry

E
N
2
N
t
| =
2
E
2
EI
N
l
t
=
NUS J uly 10-12, 2006
49
E N
l

Plastic Analysis Beams Frames

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Plastic Analysis Beams Frames

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ultimate/Accidental Limit State

Analysis and Design

Plastic rotation at ends

Plastic rotation at ends

A il bl f li l ti f tl l ti t i l Available for linear elastic-perfectly plastic material

NUS J uly 10-12, 2006

Plastic rotation in each hinge

Critical deformation for tensile fracture in yield hinges

plastic zone length factor

S-ar putea să vă placă și