Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 April 2012
Revised 15 August 2012
Accepted 21 September 2012
Available online 24 November 2012
Keywords:
Inelastic
Large deection
Space frame
Nonlinear analysis
Residual stresses
Beamcolumn
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents an efcient inelastic and large deection analysis of space frames using spread of
plasticity method. New accurate formulae are proposed to describe the plastic strength surface for steel
wide-ange cross sections under axial force and biaxial bending moments. Moreover, empirical formulae
are developed to predict the tangent modulus for cross sections under the combined forces. The tangent
modulus formulae are extended to evaluate the secant stiffness that is used for internal force recovering.
The formulae are derived for steel sections considering the residual stresses as recommended by European Convention for Construction Steelwork (ECCS). A nite element program based on stiffness matrix
method is prepared to predict the inelastic large deection behavior of space frames using the derived
formulae. The nite element model exhibits good correlations when compared with the ber model
results as well as previous accurate models. The analysis results indicate that the new model is accurate
and computational efcient.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent years, there were numerous researches on the simulation of the nonlinear behavior of beamcolumns in space steel
frames [16]. In general, the nonlinear behavior of steel frame
can be predicted by using nite element method in which frame
members are modeled by using solid, plate or shell elements
[7,8]. This method could successfully capture the nonlinear behavior of the structure but it is too time-consuming because of the
great number of elements required for this type of analysis. Moreover, the model processing of this analysis type is not easy at all. In
the other direction of nonlinear analysis of steel frames, a line elements approach is widely used. These studies may be categorized
into two main types: plastic hinge analysis and spread of plasticity
analysis. The plastic hinge formulation is the most direct approach
for representing inelasticity in a beamcolumn element [912]. In
plastic hinge approach, the effect of material yielding is lumped
into a dimensionless plastic hinge. Generally, this type of analysis
is limited by its ability to provide the correct strength assessment
of beamcolumns that fail by inelastic buckling. This is because the
plastic hinge analysis assumes that the cross-section behaves as
either elastic or fully plastic, and the element is fully elastic between the member ends [1315]. In this model, the effect of residual stresses between hinges is not accounted for either. The
advantages of this method are its simplicity in formulation as well
156
z (minor axis)
y (major axis)
1
2
2
p mrz mry a for pr 6 mrz mry
2 r
9
9
2:a
8
8
2
2
pr mrz mry a for pr > mrz mry
9
9
9
9
2:b
mrz
pr1
mrz*
(mryL, mrzL )
pr2
limiting
points
mry*
mry
(0,0)
1.0
n
X
ai fi
157
3:a
i1
My
Mz
n
X
ai fi zi
i1
n
X
ai fi yi
3:b
3:c
i1
where ai is the steel ber area, yi and zi are coordinates of each ber,
fi is the uniaxial stress at the steel ber and n is the number of steel
bers. It is observed that, the plastic strength surface is not affected
by the presence of residual stresses. The proposed formula is graphically illustrated in Fig. 2 for two different values of Pr. As shown in
the gure the formula consists of two groups of curves that intersect at limiting points of coordinates (mryL, mrzL). The proposed plastic strength surface formula for a cross section can be given as
follow:
R
mrz mrzL
mry 1
mry mryL
mrzL
4:a
4:b
where Mrz_y = Mrz/Mry, Mrz = Mz/Mpz, Mry = My/Mpy and R1 and R2 are
factors that depend on the axial force ratio (Pr) and they are given as
5:a
5:b
R2 3:25P2r 3:24Pr 1
5:c
mryL and mrzL are coordinates of a limiting point that can be given as
6:a
6:b
The values mrz and mry are the bending moment capacity ratios
about z- and y-axis, respectively, for cross sections subjected to axial force and uniaxial bending moment. These values are used as
proposed by Zubydan for cross sections subjected to a bending moment about major or minor axis in addition to an axial force [33,34].
For a cross section subjected to bending moment about major axis,
mry is evaluated using the following formulae:
Fig. 4. Plastic strength for HD 400 1086 steel section.
7:a
7
pr mry 1 for pr > 0:2
8
7:b
158
1
p mrz 1 for pr 6 0:05C 2H 0:43C H 0:37
8:55 r
pCr H 0:95mrz 1 for pr > 0:05C 2H 0:43C H 0:37
8:a
8:b
9:a
9:b
where Etr is the tangent modulus ratio (Etr = Etang/E), E is the elastic
modulus and a is a force-state parameter that measures the magnitude of axial force and bending moments which may be calculated
from Eq. (1) or Eq. (2).
In the present paper, a new tangent modulus is determined for
H-shaped sections considering the effect the residual stresses.
The residual stresses adopted in the present paper are based on
dM y =duy
EIy
dM z =duz
EIz
Etry
10:a
Etrz
10:b
where EIy and EIz are the cross sectional elastic rigidities about yand z-axis, respectively, and uy and uz are the curvatures about
the same axes. By plotting the relationships of the tangent modulus
ratios Etry and Etrz versus the moment ratios Mry and Mrz, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6, two possible multilinear paths may be obtained for each moment direction. When the value of axial
compression force ratio Pr is less than Pr0, (Pr0 = 1 rr/ry [33,34])
, the relationships follow the path abcde for Etry and abcdef for Etrz.
For such case, the tangent modulus ratios remain constant and
equal to the elastic values until reaching Mry0,rz0 (point b) after they
decrease linearly with the shown slopes until they vanish when
reaching the plastic surface. On the other hand, when the axial compression force exceeds Pr0 the values Etry and Etrz follow the paths
a0 b0 c0 d0 e0 and a0 b0 c0 d0 e0 f0 , respectively. In such case, the tangent modulus ratios start with Etry1 and Etrz1 that are less than unity due to
the effect of high axial force. The tangent modulus ratios decrease
again with the increase of bending moments until reaching the
plastic surface.
The values Mry0 and Mrz0 are found to be related to each other by
the following relationship:
Mrz0 M ry0
1:0
Mrz0 M ry0
11
where M ry0 Pr0 Pr Z y =Sy ; Mrz0 Pr0 P r Z z =Sz [33,34], Zy,z and
Sy,z are elastic and plastic modulus of cross section about y- and
z-axis, respectively.
The slopes Sy1,z1, Sy2,z2 and Sy3,z3 and the values Ety0,tz0, Ety1,tz1,
Etz2, Etz3 and Mry2,rz2 depend on the biaxial moment ratio Mrz_y
Fig. 6. Inelastic tangent modulus ratios for cross section under biaxial bending moment and axial compression force.
159
Fig. 7. Inelastic exural modulus ratios for cross sections about major axis.
Fiber model;
present model.
Fig. 8. Inelastic exural modulus ratios for cross sections about minor axis.
Fiber model;
present model.
160
M 0j1 Mj duEtr j EI
12
Etr c1 M r c2
where c1
13
E0tr j1 Etr j
M 0r j1 M r j
1
Mp ek c2
c1
1 M j1 M j
Esr
EI uj1 uj
M j1
where
Mp
k c1
uj1 uj
uy
is
14
15
the
cross
section
plastic
moment
and
ing moments about y- and z-axis to evaluate the corresponding secant modulus Esry and Esrz, respectively.
2.5. Finite element model
A stiffness method for the analysis of space frames is developed
considering both geometric and material nonlinearities. The equation of equilibrium in terms of geometry of the deformed system is
given as follows [44]:
K Kg fDDg fDFg
16
where {DF} and {DD} are the incremental force and displacement
vectors, respectively. [K] is the stiffness matrix of the structure considering material nonlinearity and [Kg] is the geometric stiffness
matrix which represents the change in the stiffness that results
from deformation effects. Consider a prismatic element of a symmetric cross section about y and z axes. This element is subjected
to axial force N, torsional moment Mx and bending moments My
and Mz while the corresponding displacements are u,hx,hy and hz,
respectively as shown in Fig. 10. The shape functions for the axial
displacement (u), the axial rotation (hx), the displacement in x y
plan (w) and the displacement in x z plan (v) are introduced considering the shear effect as follow:
u 1 nu1 nu2
17:a
hx 1 nhx1 nhx2
17:b
w1 Uy =2 1 Uy Uy n 3n2 2n3 w1 1 Uy =2
2 Uy =2n n2 xhz1 Uy n 3n2 2n3 w2
Uy =2 1 Uy =2n n2 xhz2
v 1 Uz =2 1 Uz Uz n 3n2 2n3 v 1 1 Uz =2
2 Uz =2n n2 xhy1 Uz n 3n2 2n3 v 2
Uz =2 1 Uz =2n n2 xhy2
17:d
In which n = x/L and L is the member length, Uy = 12EIz/GAQyL2,Uz = 12EIy/GAQzL2, G is the shear modulus and AQy and AQz are the
shear areas corresponding to y- and z-axis, respectively. Since the
matrices [K] and [Kg] are displacement dependent, Eq. (16) cannot
be directly solved. Various procedures can be used to solve the equilibrium equations. Generally, members are subdivided into subelements to produce satisfactory results. The modulus ratios Etry,trz or
Esry,srz are evaluated at each member ends and then average values
at each direction are applied for each modulus ratio in the stiffness
matrix [k].
2.6. Internal force recovery
The employing of equilibrium equation in conjunction with the
incremental analysis requires that the structural geometry includes all accumulated deformations. For the current analysis,
the node coordinates are updated after each iteration. That is, the
coordinates of each node are modied or updated to include the
translational displacement components that occur during iterations. In updating the coordinates of nodes or element ends, the
deformed geometry of the structure is achieved by changing the
position and hence the orientation of each element with respect
to the global coordinates system. For all the elements of a structure, the element stiffness equation, as given in Eq. (16), can be
assembled to yield the stiffness equation of the structure for an
incremental step. For an incrementaliterative nonlinear analysis,
the element incremental displacement vector {Dd} is used to calculate the incremental axial strain de, torsional strain dv and exural strains duy and duz based on the assumed shape functions and
so the secant modulus at element ends can be evaluated as illustrated in Section 2.4. The material stiffness matrix [k] for each element is reformulated using the average secant exural modulus
ratios Esry and Esrz instead of the tangent modulus. The secant modulus for axial force and torsional moment can be modied by using
the average of Esry and Esrz. On the other hand, the geometric stiffness matrix [kg] is also formulated again using a new axial force P
which is calculated by adding the incremental axial force to the total previous value as follows:
18
fDfint g k kg fDdg
19
By summing the element forces at the structural nodes and comparing them with the applied loads, the unbalanced forces for the
structure can be obtained. Finally, by treating the unbalanced forces
as applied loads, other iterations can be repeated.
17:c
3. Numerical solution
161
Table 1
Out-of-plumbness imperfection of two-storey space frame.
Level
Roof
Second
oor
Base
Imperfection (mm)
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
4.51
1.39
11.08
6.88
5.49
0.68
11.41
6.77
8.17
5.11
6.58
2.11
4.31
3.96
12.04
6.19
Fig. 12. Load-displacement relationships for the two storey frame (r = 0).
Fig. 13. Load-displacement relationships for the two storey frame (r = 0.25, 0.5 and
1.0).
The six-story space steel frame shown in Fig. 14 was rst analyzed by Orbison et al. [38] and later by many researchers
162
Fig. 15. It is clearly observed that the present model results with
shear effect correlate very well the Jiang results. On the other hand,
when the shear effect is neglected, the model slightly overestimates the frame capacity.
163
Table 2
Normalized ultimate loads for single storey space frame.
Pr = 0.2
Pr = 0.4
Pr = 0.6
r = 0.25
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)
0.9977
1.0823
0.9917
1.0198
1.0523
1.1377
r = 0.5
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)
0.9958
1.1233
1.02160
1.1904
0.9950
1.5412
r = 1.0
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)
0.9976
1.1708
0.9902
1.2822
1.0264
1.9594
r = 2.0
Present model
Eqs. (9) & (1)
0.9884
1.1088
1.0223
1.1088
1.0638
2.1503
ratios Pr = 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 are used. Fig. 17 shows comparisons between the results obtained from different models. The gure illustrates the relationships between the lateral load H and the lateral
resultant displacement at A. It is clearly observed that the proposed
model gives excellent correlations with the ber model for all values of r and Pr. On the other hand, the previously used formula in
Eq. (9) mostly overestimates the stiffness and the capacity of the
frame compared to the ber model. Table 2 shows the normalized
capacities of the frame using the proposed model and that from
Eqs. (9) and (1) with respect to the ber model results. As shown
in Table 2, the diversion of the analysis results obtained from
Eqs. (9) and (1) from the ber model increases with the increase
of r and Pr. The overall capacity of the frame obtained from the previous model more (Eqs. (9) and (1)) may be than twice the capacity
obtained from the ber model.
5. Conclusions
A new simplied model was developed to predict the large
deection inelastic behavior of space steel frames. New plastic
strength surfaces for H-shaped cross sections under axial forces
and biaxial bending moment were derived. Moreover, the tangent
modulus of cross sections subjected to the combined forces was
predicted. The residual stress distributions were considered as recommended by European Convention for Construction Steelwork
(ECCS). The internal forces were recovered by using derived incremental secant stiffness. The derived cross sectional model was
implemented into a nite element program based on stiffness
method to predict the full nonlinear behavior of steel space frames.
The simplied model correlated very well the ber model without
the need of cross section discretization. The proposed model could
successfully simplify the plastic zone analysis and save a lot of
computational time and data storage by the elimination of
164
for M rz
for Mrz
6 1:0
> 1:0
7:81P 2r
Sy2
A:1b
A:1a
A:2a
A:2c
A:2d
A:3
M ry1
f2
1 M rz
A:4
A:5
6 mry
A:6
for M ry z 6 1:0
A:7a
A:7b
where
Sy1 P 0:9; Mry z M ry =Mrz ; f3 4:65P 3r 1:87P2r
1:03Pr 0:19; f4 0 for Pr 6 0.5 and f4 = (10.74Pr 5.4)Mry_z for
Pr > 0.5.
A:8a
A:8b
A:9
A:10
A:11
For Pr 6 0.5:
A:12a
A:12b
A:12c
A:13a
for M ry z 6 3:0
A:13b
M rz1
f6
6 mrz
1 M ry z
A:14
References
[1] Ekhande SG, Selvappalam M, Madugula MKS. Stability functions for three
dimensional beam columns. J Struct Eng 1989;115(2):46779.
[2] Najjar SR, Burgess IW. A nonlinear analysis for three dimensional steel frames
in re conditions. Eng Struct 1996;18(1):7789.
[3] Meek JL, Xue Q. A study on the instability problem for 3D frames. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 1998;158(34):23554.
[4] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE, Oh JR. Nonlinear analysis of space steel frames using ber
plastic hinge concept. Eng Struct 2007;29(4):64957.
[5] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis of space steel frames using
ber hinge method. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(4):42130.
[6] Thai HT, Kim SE. Nonlinear inelastic analysis of space frames. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67:58592.
[7] Kim SE, Lee DH. Second-order distributed plasticity analysis of space steel
frames. Eng Struct 2002;24:73544.
[8] Kim SE, Kang KW, Lee DH. Full-scale testing of space steel frame subjected to
proportional loads. Eng Struct 2003;25:6979.
[9] Ziemian RD. Advanced method of inelastic analysis in the limit states of steel
structures, PhD dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University; 1990.
[10] Chan SL, Chui PT. A generalized design-based elastoplastic analysis of steel
frames by section assemblage concept. Eng Struct 1997;19(8):62836.
[11] Liew JYR, Chen H, Shanmugam NE, Chen WF. Improved nonlinear plastic hinge
analysis of space frame structures. Eng Struct 2000;22:132438.
[12] Thai HT, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis software for nonlinear inelastic
analysis of space steel structures. Adv Eng Software 2009;40(9):78697.
[13] Chen WF, Chan SL. Second-order inelastic analysis of steel frames using
element with midspan and end springs. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1995;21(3):53041.
[14] White DW. Advanced analysis/design of typical moment frame. In: Proc 10th
struct cingr compact papers. New York, NY: ASCE; 1998. p. 33033.
[15] Challa MV. Nonlinear seismic behavior of steel planar moment resistance
frames. Rep. No. EERL 82-01, Earthquake Engrg Res Lab, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, Calif; 1992.
[16] Liew JYR, Chen WF. Chapter 1: trends toward advanced analysis of steel
frames. In: Chen WF, Toma, editors. Advanced analysis of steel frames: theory,
software, and applications. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1994. p. 143.
[17] Liew JY, White DW, Chen WF. Second order rened plastic hinge analysis of
frames design: Part I. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(11):3196216.
[18] King WS. A modied stiffness method for plastic analysis of steel frames. Eng
Struct 1994;16:16270.
[19] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for braced steel frame design. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):126674.
[20] Kim SE, Chen WF. Practical advanced analysis for unbraced steel design. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 1996;122(11):125965.
[21] Del Coz Diaz J, Nieto P, Fresno D, Fernandez E. Nonlinear analysis of cable
networks by FEM and experimental validation. Int J Comput Math
2009;86(2):30113.
[22] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Vilan Vilan J, Suarez Sierra J. Nonlinear buckling
analysis of a self-weighted metallic roof by FEM. Math Comput Modell
2010;51(34):21628.
[23] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Vilan Vilan J, Martin Rodriguez A, Prado Tamargo
J, Lozano M. Non-linear analysis and warping of tubular pipe conveyors by the
nite element method. Math Comput Modell 2007;46(12):95108.
[24] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Fernandez Rico M, Suarez Sierra J. Nonlinear
analysis of the tubular heart joint by FEM and experimental validation. J
Constr Steel Res 2007;63(8):107790.
[25] Del Coz Diaz J, Garcia Nieto P, Betegon Biempica C, Fernandez Rougeot G.
Nonlinear analysis of unbolted base plates by the FEM and experimental
validation. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44(5):52941.
[26] Chen WF, Kim SE. LRFD steel design using advanced analysis. Boca Raton
FL: CRC Press; 1997.
[27] El-Zanaty M, Murrary D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of multistory steel
frames. In: Structural engineering Report Mo. 83. Alberta, Canada, University
of Alberta; 1980.
[28] White DW. Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behavior
in steel frames using iterative computer graphics, MS thesis. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University; 1985. 281P.
[29] Vogel U. Calibrating frames. Stahlbau 1985;10:17.
[30] Clarke MJ. Bridge RQ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Design using advanced analysis.
In: SSRC annual tech session proc. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh Univ.; 1991. p. 27
40.
[31] Jiang XM, Chen H, Liew JYR. Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-dimensional
steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58:193212.
[32] Ngo-Huu C, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis of space steel frames using
ber hinge method. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:42130.
[33] Zubydan AH. A simplied model for inelastic second order analysis of planar
frames. Eng Struct 2010;32:325868.
[34] Zubydan AH. Inelastic second order analysis of steel frame elements exed
about minor axis. Eng Struct 2011;33:124050.
[35] Nanakorn P, Vu LN. A 2D eld-consistent beam element for large displacement
using the total Lagrangian formulation. Finite Elem Anal Des 2006;42:12407.
165
[43] ECCS, Essentials of Eurocode 3 design manual for steel structures in building.
ECCS-advisory committee, vol. 5(65). 1991. p. 60.
[44] McGuire W, Gallagher R, Ziemian R. Matrix structural analysis. Wiley; 2000.
[45] Torkmani MA, Sonmez M. Inelastic large deection modeling of beam
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(8):87686.
[46] Chan SL. Geometric and material non-linear analysis of beamcolumns and
frames using the minimum residual displacement method. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 1988;26:265769.
[47] HKS (Hibbitt, Karlsson, Sorensen, Inc.) ABAQUS/standard users manual, vol. II.
HKS; 2000.
[48] Kim SE, Kim Y, Choi SH. Nonlinear analysis of 3-D steel frames. Thin Wall
Struct 2001;39:44561.
[49] Chiorean CG, Barsan GM. Large deection distributed plasticity analysis of 3D
steel frameworks. Comput Struct 2005;83:155571.