Sunteți pe pagina 1din 28

# Metwally Abu-Hamd Cairo University, Egypt

Cairo University 1

Outline
1- Introduction 2- FEM Model 3- Comparison with Test Results 4- Parametric Study

5- Conclusions

Common Applications

Door Framing
3

Bracings

Failure Modes

Local Buckling
4

Global Buckling

Design Provisions
AISI Section C4

## Pn = smaller of (Pne , Pnd)

Pne = Nominal strength for yielding, flexural, flexural-torsional, and torsional buckling according to section C4.1, Pnd = Nominal distortional buckling strength according to section C4.2.

Design Provisions
AISI Appendix 1 (DSM) Pn = minimum of (Pne , Pnl, Pnd ) Pne = Nominal strength for yielding, flexural, flexural-torsional, and torsional buckling according to section 1.2.1.1, Pnl = Nominal local buckling strength according to section 1.2.1.2. Pnd = Nominal distortional buckling strength according to section 1.2.1.3.
Currently, DSM has no provisions for structural assemblies
6

## Provisions for Built-up Members

Section D1.2 Modified Slenderness:
=

## (KL/r)o : overall (unmodified) slenderness ratio

a : longitudinal spacing between intermediate fasteners ri : minimum radius of gyration of the full unreduced cross-section of the individual component (a/ri) is not to exceed 0.5*(KL/r)o
7

Previous Work
Brueggen and Ramseyer (2003)

## Stone and LaBoubes (2005)

Whittle (2007) and Biggs (2008) Piyawat (2011): Distortional Buckling

## Objective of Present Work

Develop a numerical model that can be used to calculate the axial capacity of cold-formed built-up I-sections.
8

Numerical Model
FEM Analysis
1- Eigenvalue analysis: Buckling modes and buckling

frequencies are the solutions to an eigenvalue problem. Elastic material behavior and perfect member geometry are assumed. 2- Nonlinear loaddisplacement analysis of the real member under the action of applied loads in the presence of initial geometrical imperfections, residual stresses and material nonlinearity.
9

Numerical Model

4-node finite strain shell element of ANSYS mesh size: 25 mm10 mm at flat portions finer mesh was used at the corners
material behavior elastic-plastic. slope of plastic part assumed at 5 %. Von-Mises yield criteria with isotropic hardening.
10

Geometric Imperfections
Modeled as a linear combination of the first local and global buckling modes using a suitable magnitude for each mode

11

## Residual Stresses due to Manufacturing Processes

Idealized as a summation of two types: Membrane and Flexural: 1- Membrane Stresses about 8 % Fy at corners about 4% Fy for flat parts Opposing this effect, yield stress is increased at corner regions by about 15 % due to cold work of forming Effect on axial buckling strength < 1 %
12

## Residual Stresses 2- Flexural residual stresses

Show a large degree of variation
Considering these stresses in the FE model complicates the analysis considerably as it requires defining the through thickness stresses for each layer. As the main interest in this paper is to find the ultimate axial load capacity, the present analysis neglects the effect of flexural residual stresses. This assumption would not be correct when considering the deformation behavior and stress distribution across the section.
13

Boundary Conditions
Both column ends modeled as hinged ends except for the displacement at the loaded end in the direction of the applied load. Nodes other than the two ends were free to translate and rotate in any directions. Displacements of the two components coupled at the locations of the connecting screws. The load was applied as an axial concentrated load at the section centeroid at the loaded end.
14

## Comparison with Test Results

Axial load capacity of 32 cold-formed columns tested by Stone and Laboube (2005): 12 Sections 152.4x1.372

6 Sections 92.1x1.155
8 Sections 92.1x0.88 6 Sections 152.4x0.841
15

12 Sections 152.4x1.372
0.40

0.30

0.20

TEST

0.10
AISI FE

0.00 1.75

1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

2.00

2.05

2.10

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

16

6 Sections 92.1x1.155
0.60

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20
TEST

0.10

AISI

FE

0.00 1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

Slenderness Parameter : c
17

8 Sections 92.1x0.88
0.70

0.60

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.50

0.40

0.30
TEST

0.20
AISI

0.10
FE

0.00 1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

Slenderness Parameter : c
18

6 Sections 15.42x0.841
0.50

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.40

0.30

0.20
TEST

0.10

AISI

FE

0.00 1.50

1.52

1.54

1.56

1.58

1.60

1.62

1.64

1.66

1.68

1.70

Slenderness Parameter : c
19

Parmetric Study
Variations in Design Parameters: 0.5 < c < 2.5 Presented Results for Six typical SSMA cross sections: 400S137-33, 400S137-68, 600S162-33, 600S162-97, 800S200-33, 800S200-97 Amplitude of geometric imperfections at 25% and 75 %.
20

Section 400S137-33
1.00

400S137-33
0.90

## AISI ANSYS 75% ANSYS 25%

0.30
0.20 0.10 0.00 0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

Slenderness Parameter : c
21

Section 400S137-68
1.00

400S137-68
0.90

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.50

## AISI ANSYS 25% ANSYS 75%

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

Slenderness Parameter : c
22

Section 600S162-33
1.00 0.90

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.50

## AISI ANSYS 75% ANSYS 25%

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

Slenderness Parameter : c

23

Section 600S162-97

1.00 0.90

600S162-97
AISI ANSYS 25%

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.80

0.70
0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.50

ANSYS 75%

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Slenderness Parameter : c
24

Section 800S200-33
1.00

800S200-33
0.90

## Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy

0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.50

## AISI ANSYS 75% ANSYS 25%

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

Slenderness Parameter : c
25

Section 800S200-97
1.00 0.90 0.80 Nominal Axial Strength Fn/Fy
800S200-97
AISI ANSYS 25% ANSYS 75%

0.70
0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

0.00
0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90 2.10 2.30 2.50

Slenderness Parameter : c
26

Conclusions
This paper presents a finite element procedure for calculating the axial buckling strength of coldformed built up I-sections. The initial local and overall geometric imperfections, nonlinear material properties have been included in the model. A parametric study of 60 columns was performed to investigate the effect of major design parameters on the behavior. AISI design rules are generally conservative for medium and long members but may overestimate the capacity for short members.
27

Cairo University 28