Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending

Tim Wilkinson & Gregory J. Hancock


Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, The Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Tubular Structures VIII, Proceedings, 8th International Symposium on Tubular Structures, Singapore, August 1998, (Balkema, publ.), (Choo, Van der Vegte editors), pp 409-416. Note: The formatting and page layout in this pdf version may be different to the original publication

ABSTRACT: This paper describes a series of bending tests to examine the influence of web slenderness on the rotation capacity of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections (RHS) for use in plastic design. Some sections, which are classified as Class 1 or Compact by current steel specifications, do not demonstrate rotation capacity suitable for plastic design. There is considerable interaction between the webs and flange which influences the rotation capacity which is shown by approximate iso-rotation curves. A proposal for a linear interaction formula between the web and flange slenderness for the Compact limits of RHS is given. KEYWORDS: cold-formed steel, hollow sections, plastic design, slenderness ratio, bending, rotation capacity, beams 1 INTRODUCTION local buckling before flange buckling is increased. Zhao and Hancock ((1991a) and (1992)) observed inelastic web local buckling in some RHS and provided the impetus for this test series. 2 CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS

Local buckling may affect the bending behaviour of steel sections. Steel design specifications define different classes of cross sections, depending on the point at which local buckling occurs during bending. Sections can be classified as Compact, Non-Compact or Slender, or Class 1, 2, 3, or 4. A Compact or Class 1 section is deemed suitable for plastic design. Figure 1 illustrates various types of behaviour of steel beams mentioned above. The curvature () is non-dimensionalised with respect to p, where  p = Mp/EI, Mp is the plastic moment and EI is the elastic rigidity. The rotation capacity (R) is a measure of rotation between reaching Mp and the point where the moment falls below Mp. R is defined as /p - 1, where /p is the dimensionless curvature at which the moment drops below Mp. The decrease in moment is usually associated with an inelastic local buckle. Width - thickness (b/t) or slenderness limits are normally given to classify the effect of local buckling of sections and to determine suitability for plastic design. There has been research on the flange slenderness limit for rectangular hollow sections (RHS) and square hollow sections (SHS) (Dwyer and Galambos (1965); Korol and Hudoba (1972); Hasan and Hancock (1988); and Zhao and Hancock (1991)). More recently, RHS have been produced with higher aspect ratios (depth/width), such as 3.0 (Tubemakers (1994)). The webs of these sections are considerably more slender than the flange, and the possibility of web
8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

Steel design codes from Europe, America and Australia are considered in this paper: the American Institute of Steel Construction Metric Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC (1994)) (henceforth referred to as AISC LRFD), Eurocode 3 Part 1.1: Design of Steel Structures (European Committee for Standardisation (1992)) (Eurocode 3), and Australian Standard AS 4100 Steel Structures (Standards Australia (1990)) (AS 4100). The web and flange slenderness limits for coldformed RHS bending about the major principal axis are listed in Table 1 for each standard for the RHS shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 defines the dimensions d, b, and t (depth, width and thickness) of the section. The web and flange slenderness limits in Table 1 are independent of each other since no interaction between the webs and flange is considered. Table 1 indicates that the AISC LRFD web slenderness limits are significantly higher than AS 4100 and Eurocode 3 web slenderness limits. The flange slenderness limits in the three standards are very similar.

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 1/8

1.4

Non Dimensional Moment ( M / M p)

1.2

N o n-C o m pact (C lass 2) B eh aviou r: M m ax > M p , R < 4 C o m p act (C lass 1) B eh aviou r: M m ax > M p , R > 4

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

S len der (C lass 4) B ehavio ur: M m ax < M y


(n o t o b se rve d in th is tes t s eries )

N o n-C o m pact (C lass 3) B eh aviou r: M y < M m ax < M p

R =  / p - 1

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

N o n D im ension al C u rvature (  /  p )

Figure 1: Classes of behaviour for cold-formed RHS beams Table 1: Summary of RHS Slenderness Limits Standard Web Flange slenderness slenderness ( f) ( w)

Web / Flange slenderness limits Class 1 Compact


w f

Class 2
w f

Class 3
w f

NonCompact
w f

AS 4100

d 2t t d 2re t

fy 250 fy E fy 235

b 2t t b 2r e t b 3t t

fy 250 fy E fy 235

82

30

115

40

AISC LRFD

3.76 106*

1.12 31.7*

5.7 161*

1.4 39.6*

Eurocode 3 Notes:

d 3t t

72

33

83

38

124

42

Sections exceeding the Class 3 or Non-Compact limit are Class 4 or Slender respectively. * Applies to fy = 250 MPa for direct comparison with the AS 4100 limits. Values in italics refer to flange limits, values in plain text refer to web limits.

b Figure 2: Typical RHS

Steel design specifications have varying rotation capacity requirements for plastic design. The wide variety of loading patterns and structural frame shapes results in a large range of required plastic rotations. However it is appropriate to adopt a representative value of rotation capacity which is satisfactory for most practical situations. Korol and Hudoba (1972) put forward a recommendation of R = 4. Eurocode 3 Class 1 and AISC LRFD Compact limits are based on a rotation capacity of R = 3. However AISC LRFD states that greater rotation capacity may be required in seismic regions. A value of R = 4 was adopted in the determination of the RHS flange slenderness limit in AS 4100 (Hasan and Hancock (1988), Zhao and Hancock (1991b)) as appropriate for plastic design and is deemed suitable in this paper.

8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 2/8

L1 L2

Figure 3: Test rig for plastic bending tests

TEST SPECIMENS

5 5.1

PLASTIC BENDING TESTS Procedure

The RHS in this test series were manufactured by BHP Structural and Pipeline Products. Two strength grades were selected, Grade C350L0 and C450L0 (nominal yield stress of 350 MPa and 450 MPa respectively), manufactured to Australian Standard AS 1163 (Standards Australia (1991)). The Grade C450 specimens are known as DuraGal sections, produced using a unique cold-forming and in-line galvanising process. In-line galvanising provides extra strength enhancement compared to cold-forming alone. 4 TENSILE COUPON TESTS

Three coupons were taken from the centre of the flats of each tube. One was cut from the face opposite the weld, and one from each of the sides adjacent to the weld (refer to Figure 2). Corner coupons were cut from selected RHS. The coupons were prepared and tested in accordance with AS 1391 (Standards Australia (1991)) in a 250 kN capacity INSTRON Universal Testing Machine. Since the steel was cold-formed, the yielding was gradual, so that the yield stress used was the 0.2% static proof stress. The average of the yield stress from both of the adjacent faces was used in the determination of plastic moment and slenderness values. The average of the Youngs modulus of elasticity from both of the adjacent faces was used in stiffness calculations. The yield stress of the opposite face was on average 10% higher than that of the adjacent faces. This was a result of the cold-forming process and has been identified previously (CASE (1990)). The yield stress obtained from the corner coupons was on average 10% higher than that of the opposite face. Full details on the tensile coupon tests are given in Wilkinson and Hancock (1997).

The bending tests were performed in a 2000 kN capacity DARTEC testing machine, using a servocontrolled hydraulic ram. A diagram of the test set-up is shown in Figure 3. The four point bending arrangement provided a central region of uniform bending moment and zero shear force. Specimens were supported on half rounds resting on greased Teflon pads. The members were loaded symmetrically at two points via a centrally loaded spreader beam. The initial loading method (parallel plate method) adopted is one that has been used previously (Hasan and Hancock (1988), Zhao and Hancock (1991b)) and involved welding plates parallel to the webs of the RHS beam as shown in Figure 3. A greased teflon pad was placed between the bottom of the spreader beam and the half round, to allow for axial shortening of the beam caused by curvature. The half round ensured that the applied loads were vertical. The half round bore upon a thick load transfer plate, which transmitted the force to the loading plates. The lengths of the specimens were chosen to avoid lateral buckling (Zhao, Hancock and Trahair (1995)), and shear failure in the end spans. For RHS with depth d  100 mm, the length between the loading points (L1) was 800 mm, and the distance between the supports (L2) was 1700 mm. For sections with d  75 mm, L1 was 500 mm, and L2 was 1300 mm. Two other loading methods (perpendicular plate and pin loading) were used in some tests. It was found that the loading method did not have a significant effect on the rotation capacity (Wilkinson and Hancock (1997)). 5.2 Results

The results of the plastic bending tests are presented in Table 2. This table lists the section size, the ratio Mmax/Mp, and R. Mmax is the maximum static moment reached during the test and Mp is the plastic moment of

8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 3/8

Table 2: Summary of Results of Plastic Bending Tests


Specimen Section Loading method Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Pin Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Perp. Pin Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Perp. Pin Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Perp. Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Perp. Pin Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel Perp. Pin Parallel Pin Perp. Parallel Parallel Mmax Mp 1.23 1.17 1.27 1.19 1.24 1.17 1.15 1.16 1.13 1.02 1.00 1.10 1.11 0.98 1.01 0.98 1.07 1.01 1.07 1.08 1.04 1.02 1.11 1.13 1.08 1.13 1.09 1.03 1.00 1.21 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.06 1.02 0.95 1.03 1.28 1.19 >13.0 >9.0 6.6 7.7 7.2 9.5 2.7 2.3 2.9 1.4 1.2 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.9 5.7 n/a 2.2 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.6 4.1 3.6 3.2 3.6 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.9 12.9 10.7 R

BS01B BS01C BS02B BS02C BS02A BF02 BS03A BS03B BS03C BS04B BS04C BS04A BS16A BS05A BS05B BS05C BS06B BS06C BS06A BS17A BS07B BS07C BS08B BS08C BS09B BS09C BS09A BS10B BS10C BS11B BS11C BS20A BS20B BS12B BS12C BS13B BS13C BS13A BS21A BS19A BS19B BS19C BJ07 BF01

150505.0 C450 150504.0 C450

150503.0 C450

150502.5 C450

150502.3 C450

100502.0 C450

75502.0 C450 75252.0 C450 75251.6 C450

always formed adjacent to one of the loading plates. BS01B and BS01C exhibited large deflections and inelastic lateral deformation was observed at high curvatures (/p) greater than 6. There was no sudden unloading associated with the lateral deflection. BS19A, BS19B and BS19C were SHS and, as expected, failed by flange buckling. Specimen BS08C was not loaded to failure. No specimen failed due to insufficient material ductility. Four typical non-dimensional momentcurvature curves are shown in Figure 1, and are representative of the performance of the test specimens. Compact and Non-Compact behaviour, as shown in Figure 1, was observed. No specimen behaved as a Slender section, but a typical slender members behaviour is shown in Figure 1 for completeness. The web slenderness is calculated slightly differently in AS 4100, Eurocode 3, and AISC LRFD (refer to Table 1). The results calculated according to Eurocode 3 are shown in Figure 4, which also compares the results of the different steel grades. Figures 5 displays the rotation capacity versus web slenderness for AISC LRFD and differentiates between the different aspect ratios. In each figure, the slenderness is calculated with the measured dimensions and yield stress. 6 DISCUSSION

75251.6 C350 150503.0 C350

100502.0 C350 125753.0 C350

125752.5 C350 1001003.0 C450

150504.0 C350

the section based on the measured dimensions and the measured yield stress. The static moment is obtained when the test machine is halted for approximately one minute in the vicinity of the ultimate load. Measured dimensions are tabulated in Wilkinson and Hancock (1997). All specimens except the two 150 50 5.0 C450 (BS01B and BS01C) specimens and the 100 100 3.0 C450 (BS19A, BS19B and BS19C) samples experienced web local buckling, which produced a rapid shedding of load with increased deflection. Each web buckled and compatibility of rotation at the corner caused deformation of the flange. The local buckle
8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

The results in Figures 4 and 5 clearly indicate that the current web slenderness limits for Compact or Class 1 sections are non-conservative. There is a large number of sections which are currently classified as Compact or Class 1 which demonstrate insufficient rotation capacity for plastic design. The Compact limit for the AISC LRFD specification is the most unconservative. The trend in Figure 5 suggests it may be possible that sections defined as Compact by AISC LRFD may not even be able to reach the plastic moment Mp let alone maintain the plastic moment for significant rotations. Many of the sections classified by Eurocode 3 as Compact or Class 1 failed to reach the required rotations of R = 3 or R = 4 as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 also compares the different steel grades. Separate linear regression lines for the Grade C350 and Grade C450 are plotted in Figure 4. It can be seen that to achieve a rotation capacity of approximately R = 4, a similar web slenderness is required from both Grade C350 and Grade C450 RHS. At higher web slenderness, less rotation capacity is generally available for the Grade C450 RHS compared to the Grade C350.

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 4/8

14 Linea r R egres sion G rad e C 350

12

Rotation Capacity R

10 E uroc ode 3 C las s 1 Lim it 8

6 Linea r R egres sion G rad e C 450 4

2 G rad e C 450 G rad e C 350 0 30 40 50 60 70


w

80

90

W eb S len d erne ss (E u ro co d e 3 )

Figure 4: Web Slenderness - Rotation Capacity Curve (Eurocode 3) with respect to Steel Grade

14

12

Rotation Capacity R

10 AIS C LR FD C om pac t Lim it

6 d/b d/b d/b d/b = = = = 3 2 1 .66 1 .5

0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
w

3.5

W eb S len d erne ss (AIS C L R F D )

Figure 5: Web Slenderness - Rotation Capacity Curve (AISC LRFD) with respect to Aspect Ratio

From Figure 5, it can be noted that for sections with the same web slenderness, the RHS with higher aspect ratios (which correspond to a lower flange slenderness) exhibit higher rotation capacities. For example, one may compare the 150503 C450 RHS (d/t = 50, b/t = 17, d/b = 3, R 2.5), with the 100502 C450 RHS (d/t = 50, b/t = 25, d/b = 2, R 1.0). Hence flange - web interaction may affect the rotation capacity of RHS.
8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

An appropriate way to illustrate the interaction between the flange and the web is with iso-rotation curves (contours of equal rotation capacity) plotted with respect to the web and flange slenderness. Figure 6 shows approximate iso-rotation curves for the RHS tested. Since some tests were repeated, the rotation capacity shown in Figure 6 is the average rotation from the two (or three) tests performed on a given RHS size. Only the results of sections tested by

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 5/8

the parallel plate method are shown in Figure 6. To incorporate the effects of flange buckling, the results of Hasan and Hancock (1988) and Zhao and Hancock (1991b) are included. All tests used the parallel plate method of loading. The iso-rotation curves in Figure 6 display a definite interaction between the flange and the web so that the flange and web slenderness values required to reach a given R are related. The sections with higher aspect ratio have a relatively stiffer flange which provides restraint against web buckling. A section with a similar web but having a less stiff flange has less restraint against buckling and hence a lower rotation capacity. The smooth elliptical nature of the rotation contours is not unexpected once it is recognised that the flange and web interact. The current rectangular independent flange and web limits assume no interaction. Figure 6 also distinguishes the two steel grades. It can be seen that near the contour R = 4, there is not much difference between the two steel grades. However, in the higher rotation contour regions, the Grade C350 RHS achieve a higher rotation than the Grade C450 RHS of similar flange and web slenderness. Hence for most stocky sections with high rotation capacities, steel grade does appear to affect the rotation capacity, but in the vicinity of R = 4, the steel grade does not have considerable effect. Figure 6 indicates that the Compact flange limit accurately models the behaviour for RHS and SHS with stocky webs which buckle predominately in the flange. However there is a significant region for members with more slender webs in which the standard is non-conservative. A simple bi-linear interaction formula may be appropriate and is shown in Figure 7
50 0 45 40 1.4 2 2.7 4.2 6.5 9.0 8.0 5.6 9.0 6.0 12 7.4 7.1 13 14 11 11 5.7 5.0 4.3 3.5 1.8 1.5 4.8 1.2 0.8

and Equation 1. Similar proposals would be suitable for Eurocode 3 and the AISC LRFD. Since the proposed limit is based on a rotation capacity of R = 4, then the effect of steel grade (detailed above) has no notable impact on the value of the compact limit. The bi-linear curve has been chosen initially due to its simplicity, while still accounting for the flange web interaction. A multi-linear curve or an elliptical compact limit may also be appropriate, and could be less conservative than the proposed bi-linear limit.
w

 70

5 6

 30

(1)

The cold-formed RHS do not satisfy the material ductility requirements of AS 4100 (Clause 4.5.2) or Eurocode 3 (Clause 3.2.2.2) for plastic design. However local instability (web buckling) was the failure mode of the sections, not material failure. Section BS01B, which did not experience local buckling, exhibited large rotations and strains, indicating that ductility may not present a problem. Hence the limitation on cold-formed RHS for plastic design on reduced material ductility may be incorrectly based.

AS 4100 Compact Limit

Flange Slenderness

35 30 25 20 15 10 5

1.2

0.8 1.3

8.5

3.8 2.3

2.6

R =2

R =1

R =4 R =6

0 20 30 40 50 60
w

This Paper Grade C450 This Paper Grade C350 Zhao & Hancock (1991) Grade C450 Hasan & Hancock (1988) Grade C350 70 80 90

Web Slenderness (AS 4100) Figure 6: Iso-rotation curves


8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 6/8

50 45
f

Flange Slenderness (AS 4100)

40 35 30 25 20

Possible new Compact Limit w < 70 - 5 f /6 f < 30

AS 4100 Compact Limit

R =2
15

R =1 R =4

10 5

R =6
0 20 30 40 50 60
w

70

80

90

Web Slenderness (AS 4100) Figure 7: Proposed compact limits for cold-formed RHS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

The results of the plastic bending tests on a range of cold-formed RHS with different plate slenderness, aspect ratio and yield stress grade have been presented. The major finding of the study is that the Compact (or Class 1) web slenderness limits for RHS, which were based on tests of I-section beams, are non-conservative for RHS. The three methods of loading the RHS did not have a considerable effect on the rotation or moment capacity of the sections. Many Compact or Class 1 sections which satisfy the requirements of the AS 4100, Eurocode 3 and AISC LRFD do not exhibit the rotation capacity suitable for plastic design. There is interaction between the flange and the web in the failure mode so that the flange and web slenderness limits must be correlated. This has been identified in the iso-rotation plot from which a simple bi-linear interaction curve for the Compact limits of RHS has been proposed. The bi-linear interaction curve has been drawn at a rotation capacity of R = 4, where it has been shown that the effect of steel grade is not significant.

AISC, (1994), Metric Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, (AISC LRFD), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Il. Beg D. and Hladnik L., (1996), Slenderness Limit of Class 3 I Cross-sections Made of High Strength Steel, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 38(3), pp 201-217. CASE, (1992), Tests on Rectangular Hollow Sections to Investigate the Effect of Variation of Yield Stress Around a Section, Investigation Report S885, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Daali M.L. and Korol R. M., (1995), Prediction of Local Buckling and Rotation Capacity at Maximum Moment, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 32(1), pp 1-13. Dwyer T. J., and Galambos T.V., (1965), Plastic Behaviour of Tubular Beam-Columns, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 91(4), pp 153-168. European Committee for Standardisation, (1992), Design of Steel Structures: Part 1.1 - General Rules and Rules for Buildings, (known as Eurocode 3), DD ENV. 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3 Editorial Group, Brussels, Belgium. Hasan S. W., and Hancock G. J., (1988), Plastic Bending Tests of Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Sections, Research Report, No. R586, School of Civil and Mining Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 7/8

Korol R. M., and Hudoba J., (1972), Plastic Behaviour of Hollow Structural Sections, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 98(5), pp 1007-1023. Standards Australia (1990a), Steel Structures, AS 4100, Sydney, Australia. Standards Australia, (1990b), Methods for Tensile Testing of Metals, AS 1391, Sydney, Australia. Standards Australia, (1991), Structural Steel Hollow Sections, AS 1163, Sydney, Australia. Sedlacek G. And Feldmann M., (1995), The b/t ratios Controlling the Applicability of Analysis Models in Eurocode 3, Part 1.1, Background Document 5.09 for Chapter 5 of Eurocode 3, Part 1.1, Aachen, Germany. Tubemakers, (1994), Design Capacity Tables for DuraGal Steel Hollow Sections, Tubemakers of Australia Limited, Structural Products Division, Newcastle, Australia. Wilkinson T., and Hancock G. J., (1997), Tests for the Compact Web Slenderness Limits of ColdFormed Rectangular Hollow Sections, Research Report, No. R744, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Zhao X. L. and Hancock G. J., (1991a), T-Joints in Rectangular Hollow Sections Subject to Combined Actions, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 117(8), pp 2258-2277. Zhao X.L. & Hancock G. J. (1991b), Tests to Determine Plate Slenderness Limits for ColdFormed Rectangular Hollow Sections of Grade C450, Steel Construction, Journal of Australian Institute of Steel Construction, 25 (4), pp 2-16. Zhao X. L. and Hancock G. J., (1992), Square and Rectangular Hollow Sections Subject to Combined Actions, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(3), pp 648-668. Zhao X. L., Hancock G. J., and Trahair N. S., (1995), Lateral Buckling Tests of Cold-Formed RHS Beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(11), pp 1565-1573.

9 Ag b d E fy fyn I k L1 L2 Mmax Mp My R t

NOTATION Gross cross section area Width of RHS, or width of plate Depth of RHS Youngs modulus of elasticity Yield stress Nominal yield stress Second moment of area Plate buckling coefficient Length between loading plates Length between supports Maximum bending moment Plastic bending moment Bending moment at first yield Rotation capacity Thickness of RHS, or plate Curvature Plastic curvature (= Mp/EI) Flange slenderness Web slenderness ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 p
f

10

This research project is funded by CIDECT (Comit International pour le Developpement et ltude de la Construction Tubulaire). Tube specimens were provided by BHP Steel Structural and Pipeline Products. The experiments were carried out in the J. W. Roderick Laboratory for Materials and Structures, Department of Civil Engineering, the University of Sydney.

8th ISTS-98 Paper No. 47

Wilkinson & Hancock, Compact or Class 1 Limits for Rectangular Hollow Sections in Bending, p 8/8