Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Department of Structural Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111-Hungary, Budapest, Bertalan L. utca 2, Hungary
article
info
Article history:
Received 18 May 2009
Accepted 18 December 2009
Keywords:
AyrtonPerry formula
Column buckling
Lateral-torsional buckling
Buckling curve
Imperfection factor
Amplification relationship
abstract
The AyrtonPerry type formulae are very popular models for the standard definition of the buckling
resistance of steel members. These standards benefit from the simplicity and flexibility, but most of all
from the clear mechanical background of this model, which apparently defines the appropriate meaning
of the model parameters. While this mechanical background has been properly clarified for column
buckling, however, for the case of the lateraltorsional buckling problem despite the various numerical
verifications of the standard models the exact derivation is still an unresolved question. This paper
introduces a possible way for the rigorous generalization of the AyrtonPerry formula, so it can be applied
to the description of lateraltorsional buckling problems. It is demonstrated that the shape of the initial
geometric imperfection has a key role in the solution; an appropriate choice can simplify the problems
considerably through a convenient form of the amplification relationship. The equations obtained have
various consequences regarding the form of the generalized and equivalent imperfection factors and the
multiple curves for lateraltorsional buckling resistance.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This paper deals with the theoretical background of design
curves for member buckling problems included in many modern standards as a basis for the stability design of steel structures. In the Eurocode 3 Chapter 1-1 (EC3) [1] member buckling
curves are used for two basic cases: flexural buckling of columns
and lateraltorsional buckling (LTB) of beams (pure bending) and
beamcolumns (compression and bending). These two buckling
curves are highly significant and are necessary for the standard
design of general member stability. The accurate theoretical and
experimental verification of these is therefore very important.
Column buckling has been thoroughly researched for many years
as the simplest and most basic case of stability problems. This
research has included a huge number of experimental tests, complete theoretical investigations using both analytical and numerical models, and advanced probabilistic examinations [24]. As a
result, the multiple column curves concept has been developed and
the AyrtonPerry formula (APF) has been adopted [57] as the basic design model. This formula has the following main advantages:
a clear mechanical background, simplicity and flexibility. It is important to note, however, that it is connected directly with flexural buckling phenomena. LTB is far more complicated to deal with;
Corresponding author. Tel.: +36 1 4766 574; fax: +36 1 4766 593.
E-mail address: szalaija@gmail.com (J. Szalai).
0143-974X/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.12.013
The structure of the paper is as follows: first of all the problem is described in detail through the analysis of the original
AyrtonPerry formula. The main points and the targeted generalization are introduced. The solutions for lateraltorsional buckling
of beams and beamcolumns are presented in the next two sections, then some particular features of the new formulae are analyzed in connection with the new form of imperfection factors, the
effect of torsional rigidity and the suitable section type division for
the multiple buckling curves.
671
V0
2 v(x)
+ N (v(x) + v0 (x)) = 0
x2
(1)
where EIz is the appropriate lateral stiffness, v and v0 are the lateral displacement and imperfection, respectively, depending on
the axial coordinate x of the column, and N is the compressive force
(Fig. 1). Assuming sinusoidal imperfection, the maximum total second order lateral displacement of such a simply supported prismatic column writes:
vTot =
1
1 N /Ncr ,z
v0
(2)
where v0 is the midspan amplitude of the half-sine wave imperfection and Ncr .z is the elastic critical buckling load about the minor
axis. This equation has key significance in the generalization of the
APF so it is referred to as amplification relationship in this paper. At
the midspan cross-section, the most compressed fiber should reach
the yield stress (first yield criterion):
N
A
N vTot
Wz
= fy
(3)
where A is the cross-sectional area, Wz is the elastic sectional modulus and fy is the yield stress. If substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (3), the
original form of the APF can be written:
(cr .z b )(fy b ) = b cr .z z
(4)
z2 + z 1
2z
2z
z +
2z
=0
N
Afy
(5)
Afy
Ncr .z
), z is the
672
2 v(x)
+ My (x) = 0
x2
3 (x)
(x)
v(x)
EIw
GIt
+ My
=0
x3
x
x
EIz
(6)
(7)
2 (x)
= v(x) = 0
(8)
x2
at both ends; i.e., at x = 0 and x = L. In Eqs. (6)(7) E and G are the
(x) =
Fig. 2. The descriptive geometry of the LTB problem.
v(x) = vA sin
(x) = A sin
(9)
x
L
(10)
vA
Mcr
=
= r0
A
Ncr ,z
Ncr ,x
(11)
Ncr ,z
where the right-hand side terms are the polar radius of gyration
(r0 ), the elastic critical axial force associated with the pure lateral
(Ncr ,z ) and pure torsional buckling (Ncr ,x ) and the elastic critical
bending moment (Mcr ):
Ncr ,z =
Ncr ,x =
EIz 2
(12)
L2
1
r02
Mcr = r0
EIw 2
L2
+ GIt
Ncr ,z Ncr ,x .
(13)
(14)
2 v(x)
+ My (x) = My 0 (x)
x2
3 (x)
(x)
v(x)
v0 (x)
EIw
GIt
+ My
= My
x3
x
x
x
EIz
(15)
(16)
where the imperfections are of the same form as Eqs. (9) and (10)
as discussed earlier:
x
L
x
L
(17)
(18)
Ncr ,z
My
My
0
vA
=
My
A
r02 Ncr ,x
My
0
v0A
.
0A
(19)
Hereinafter all the equations are expressed in terms of these amplitudes only, so the A subscript is omitted for the sake of simplicity.
From Eq. (19) it is now possible to write the general relationship
between the total second order displacements and the initial imperfections; i.e., the amplification relationship:
vTot
Tot
v
v
=
+ 0
0
1 My /Mcr
My
1
2
My
Ncr ,z
v0
0 .
r02 Ncr ,x
(20)
lim
My Mcr
v0 + Ncry,z 0
vTot
= lim
=
My
My Mcr
Tot
v0 + 0
2
r0 Ncr ,x
v0
0
Mcr
Ncr ,z
Ncr ,z v0
Mcr 0
+1
Mcr
Ncr ,z
. (21)
The result is identical to the first buckling mode of Eq. (11), so the
first statement is proven. Now let us apply this first buckling mode
for the shape of imperfection and express the same ratio but for
external bending moment of arbitrary amplitude:
vTot
=
Tot
v0
0
My
Ncr ,z
v0
r02 Ncr ,x 0
My
+1
Mcr
Ncr ,z
My
1+
Mcr
r02 Ncr ,x Ncr ,z
My
Mcr
+1
Mcr
Ncr ,z
(22)
This result verifies the second statement, so the shape of displacement is constant and equal to the first buckling mode throughout
the whole loading history. It is clear now that the first buckling
mode has particular meaning among the possible shapes for imperfection. The proof of the third and most important statement
requires the solution for the following equation for the (v0 /0 )
ratio:
My
1
1
v0
vTot
Ncr ,z
=
2 My
0
Tot
1 My /Mcr
1
r02 Ncr ,x
v0
=
.
0
1 My /Mcr
1
(23)
The left-hand side of the equation expresses the general amplification relationship of Eq. (20), and the right-hand side is the aimed
linear and consistent amplification relationship. The equality requires the following shape for the imperfection components:
v0
Mcr
=
0
Ncr ,z
(24)
which is again the first buckling mode. Accordingly, with this special requirement for the imperfection, the system is applicable for
the construction of the APF for LTB of beams.
673
MzII
Wz
BII
= fy
Ww
(25)
(26)
1 My /Mcr
My
for
Wy f y
Wy f y
Mcr
(27)
and reduction
obtained:
+ LT 1
2
LT
2
LT
2
LT
LT
+
2LT
=0
(28)
LT = v0
Wy
W
+ 0
Wy
Wz
GIt Wy
Mcr W
(29)
Eq. (28) has exactly the same form as Eq. (5) for the column
buckling case that verifies the correctness of the application of
APF for LTB, considering, however, the new meaning and effects
of the generalized imperfection factor of Eq. (29); we discuss this
problem in Section 5. Using these expressions the buckling curve
for LTB can be written as the solution of Eq. (28) in the well-known
form of the EC3 [1]:
1
LT =
LT
(30)
2
LT + LT
2LT
= 0.5 1 + LT + 2LT .
(31)
This is the fundamental solution for the APF based LTB curve
belonging to the first yield criterion of Eqs. (25)(27) and the
specially shaped initial geometric imperfection defined by Eq. (24).
4. Solution for lateraltorsional buckling of beamcolumns
4.1. Analysis of lateraltorsional buckling of columns
Before examining the beam-column problem for the interaction
of major axis bending moment and compression, it is useful to
review the LTB problem of columns; i.e., when a member subjected
only to axial compression has initial lateral deflection and twist
simultaneously as geometric imperfection. The most important
point is the form of the amplification relationship, which can be
expressed as follows [16]:
vTot
= 1 N /Ncr ,z
Tot
0
1
1 N /Ncr ,x
v0
.
0
(32)
674
MzII
Wz
BII
Ww
= fy
(33)
= N vTot = N v0
(34)
1 N /Ncr ,z
(35)
Substituting Eqs. (34)(35) into Eq. (33) yields the basic equation,
which should be solved in order to obtain the reduction factor:
N
N v0
Wz 1 N /Ncr ,z
GIt 0
Ww 1 N /Ncr ,x
1 = fy .
(36)
Ncr ,z N
My
r02
N
v
=
My
My
Ncr ,x N
(42)
My
r02 N
v0
.
0
(43)
1
vTot
=
2
Tot
1 My /McrN
(41)
1 N /Ncr ,x
Ww
r02 N 0
2 v(x)
+ My (x) + N v(x) = My 0 (x) N v0 (x)
x2
3 (x)
(x)
v(x)
(x)
EIw
GIt
+ My
+ Nr02
x3
x
x
x
v0 (x)
0 (x)
= My
Nr02
x
x
EIz
My
1 N /Ncr ,z
My
1
Ncr ,z N 1 N /Ncr ,x
1 N /Ncr ,x
v
0 .
0
(44)
The LTB of a perfectly straight beam-column subjected to uniform strong axis bending moment and axial compression can be
analyzed by the following linear, homogeneous system of differential equations with two governing displacement components [9]:
2 v(x)
+ My (x) + N v(x) = 0
x2
3 (x)
(x)
v(x)
(x)
EIw
GIt
+ My
+ Nr02
=0
x3
x
x
x
EIz
(37)
(38)
v
= r0
Ncr ,x N
Ncr ,z N
McrN
Ncr ,z 1 N /Ncr ,z
(39)
where the one new term is the elastic critical bending moment
including the compression effect:
McrN = r0
Ncr ,z N
Ncr ,x N .
(40)
Since it has been shown in Section 4.1 that a system with governing
axial force cannot be solved appropriately with more displacement
and imperfection components, the second and third options are
inadequate for the system described in Section 4.3, and susceptible
for lateral deflection and twist. Accordingly, the derivation of APF
for the beam-column problem is only possible assuming the first
loading option; therefore all the following equations are expressed
for governing external bending moment considering a certain
constant compression level (N ).
First, the displacement ratio is examined again as the external
bending moment is approaching the elastic critical value:
lim
My McrN
vTot
=
Tot
v0
McrN
1
1
1N /Ncr ,z 0
Ncr ,z N 1N /Ncr ,x
McrN
v0
1
1
1N /Ncr ,x
r 2 Ncr ,x N 1N /Ncr ,z 0
v0
0
1 N /Ncr ,x
1 N /Ncr ,z
McrN
Ncr ,z
McrN
Ncr ,z 1 N /Ncr ,z
McrN
1
Ncr ,z 1N /Ncr ,x
1 N /Ncr ,x 0 + 1
0
(45)
v0 = v0
0 = 0
(46)
1 N /Ncr ,z
1
(47)
1 N /Ncr ,x
N cr ,z = Ncr ,z N
(48)
N cr ,x = Ncr ,x N
(49)
M cr = McrN = r0
Ncr ,z N
Ncr ,x N .
(50)
v0
M cr
1
McrN
=
=
0
Ncr ,z 1 N /Ncr ,z
N cr ,z
v0
v0 1 N /Ncr ,z
McrN
1
=
=
.
0
0 1 N /Ncr ,x
Ncr ,z 1 N /Ncr ,x
(51)
Applying this new formula for the imperfection, the second statement can be proved again:
vTot
=
Tot
My
McrN
1
1
1
1N /Ncr ,z Ncr ,z 1N /Ncr ,x
Ncr ,z N 1N /Ncr ,x
My
McrN
1
1
1
1N /Ncr ,x
r 2 Ncr ,x N 1N /Ncr ,z Ncr ,z 1N /Ncr ,x
0
1
1 My /McrN
1
1 N /Ncr ,z
McrN
Ncr ,z
My
McrN
My
Ncr ,z
+1
1
vTot
=
2
Tot
1 My /McrN
1 N /Ncr ,z
My
1
r02 Ncr ,x N 1 N /Ncr ,z
1 N /Ncr ,z
.
1
(53)
1 N /Ncr ,x
N
A
MzII
Wz
BII
Ww
= fy
(54)
(55)
(56)
s
BC =
Wy fy
McrN
(57)
My
(58)
W y fy
McrN
Ncr ,z 1 N /Ncr ,z
(52)
1
1
1
2
BC
+ BC N 2 2 BC + 2 N = 0
BC
BC
BC
My
Ncr ,z N 1 N /Ncr ,x
1 N /Ncr ,x
(59)
BC = v0
Wy
+ 0
Wy
1 N /Ncr ,z W
1 N /Ncr ,x Wz
GIt Wy
1
1 N /Ncr ,x Mcr W
(60)
N v0
1
r 2 N 0
1
+
+ 0
Afy Wz fy 1 N /Ncr
W
f
1
N
/Ncr ,x
,z
w y
GIt 0
1
1
.
(61)
Ww fy 1 N /Ncr ,x
The compression effect term N apparently expresses the same
N = 1
v0
Both equalities can be satisfied only if Eq. (51) is valid for the imperfection components, so considering this special requirement for
the imperfection, the system is applicable for the construction of
the APF for LTB of beamcolumns.
BC =
675
v
0
0
676
N
q
2
BC + BC
N 2BC
= 0.5 1 + BC + N 2BC .
BC =
(62)
BC
(63)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
This is the fundamental solution for the APF based LTB curve for
beam-column problem belonging to the first yield criterion of Eqs.
(54)(56) and the specially shaped initial geometric imperfection
defined by Eq. (51).
5000
10000
15000
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
n
1.0
2.0
677
0.035
0.030
0.030
0.025
0.025
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
Fig. 5. The initial twist of a member with different cross sections at the same
amplitude for initial out-of straightness.
5000
10000
15000
20000
Fig. 6. The shape and structure of the LTB imperfection factors for stocky and
slender cross sections.
y = w0
z = v0
(64)
(65)
Wy
A
Wz
678
1.0
0.20
0.8
0.6
0.15
0.4
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
Fig. 9. The LTB imperfection factors of various cross sections against h/b ratio.
Fig. 7. LTB reduction factors for stocky and slender cross sections for pure bending.
1.0
0.20
0.8
0.6
0.15
0.4
15
20
25
30
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Fig. 8. LTB reduction factors for stocky and slender cross sections for interactive
compression and bending (n = 0.3).
lines (300 profiles), although these sections have similar h/b ratios.
In order to study this peculiarity from the point of view of reduction
factors for multiple buckling curves, in Fig. 9 we have plotted the
LTB imperfection factors at v0 = L/1000 amplitude for all IPE,
HEA and HEB type profiles against the h/b ratio (small circle
IPE, medium circle HEA, large circle HEB). The EC3 separates
the cross sections by the h/b = 2 value, for profiles under this
limit, the use of a more favourable buckling curve is allowed.
Observing Fig. 9, an increasing tendency can actually be seen
towards higher h/b ratios, but there are also significant differences
between profiles on the same side of the limit, especially for HEA
and HEB sections where the h/b ratio is around 1, and IPE sections
where the h/b ratio is under 2. This is apparently the consequence
of the different torsional rigidity of cross sections with similar
h/b ratio, as described in the previous section. Although the h/b
ratio is an important geometrical measurement, the St. Venant
torsional rigidity of I profiles is highly influenced by the b/tf
ratio, so the product of these two measurements should be more
appropriate. Accordingly, in Fig. 10 the same imperfection factors
are plotted against the h/b b/tf = h/tf ratio. From this figure, it
can be concluded unambiguously that the h/tf ratio describes the
imperfection sensitivity of the profiles significantly better, and is
a more adequate basis for the multiple buckling curves in the case
of LTB.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a theoretical model is presented for the possible generalization of the APF, which is widely used for the stability design of members in modern structural standards. The direct
Fig. 10. The LTB imperfection factors of various cross sections against h/tf ratio.
to be considered in the correct definition of the generalized imperfection factor and multiple buckling curves.
References
[1] European Standard, EuroCode 3. Design of Steel Structures Part1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings, EN 1993-1-1, 2005.
[2] Galambos TV. Guide to stability design of metal structures. Wiley; 1995.
[3] Strating J, Vos H. Computer simulation of the E.C.C.S. buckling curves using a
Monte-Carlo method. HERON 1973;19(2).
[4] Bjorhovde R. Deterministic and probabilistic approaches to the strength of
steel columns. Ph.D. dissertation. Bethlehem: Lehigh University; 1972.
[5] Ayrton WE, Perry J. On struts. The engineer; 1886.
[6] Beer H, Schultz G. Theoretical basis for the European column curves. Construction Mtalique 1970;3.
[7] Maquoi R, Rondal J. Mise en Equation des Nouvelles Courbes Europennes de
Flambement. Revue Construction Mtalique 1978;1.
[8] Janns J, Sedlacek G, Maquoi R, Ungermann D, Kuck J. Evaluation of test results
on columns, beams and beamcolumns with cross-sectional classes 1-3 in
order to obtain strength functions and suitable model factors. Background
report to Eurocode 3 Common unified rules for steel structures 1992.
679