Simplifiedmodel (Equivalent Beam For Truss)

Simplified models Chapter 12
Handbook of Structural Analysis 1 22/10/01

12 SIMPLIFIED MODELS
Contents
12.1 Bending Action...........................................................................................1
12.2 Truss Action ...............................................................................................3
12.2.1 Forces in Truss Members.........................................................................4
12.2.2 Solving Statically Determinate Pin-jointed Frameworks ...........................4
12.2.3 Treating a Parallel Chord Trusses as a Beam............................................4
12.3 Arch Action ................................................................................................7
12.4 Dome Action...............................................................................................8
12.5 Vierendeel Frames.......................................................................................9
12.5.1 Lateral load on vierendeel frame ..............................................................9
12.6 Distribution of lateral load in buildings ......................................................12
12.6.1 Rigid Plate on Springs Model ................................................................12
12.7 Checking Models for Plate Bending...........................................................15
12.7.1 Formal Solutions ...................................................................................15
12.7.2 Uniaxial Bending Models ......................................................................16
This chapter describes some models that can be solved with a minimum of calculation.
They can be used:
In preliminary analysis.
For checking models - see Section 2.
For design provided they are judged to be valid - see Section 2.
12.1 Bending Action
Bending theory is one of the most widely used models in structural mechanics and can
be most useful for checking purposes. The constitutive relationship for bending is
discussed in Section 4.4 and the implementation of this in frame elements is discussed
in Section 5.3
For a checking model, the basic strategy is to treat the system or part of a system as a
beam in bending. Table 12.1 gives a selection of formulae for bending moment and
shear in single span beams. For other sources see Roark and Young ( )
Where the structure (or part of the structure) has a relatively low length-to-depth ratio
shear deformation needs to be taken into account as illustrated in Case Study 12.1.
Case study 12.1 - Cantilever Bracket
Figure 12.1(a) shows a steel cantilever bracket fixed to a column. Figure 12.1(b) shows
a finite element model. The web is treated as plane stress elements and the flanges as
beam elements. The results give deflections under the load points of 0.5301 and
0.6365mm. The axial stress in the beam element at A is 76.2N/mm
2
. To check these
values, the system is treated as a cantilever with tip load 200kN, length 530mm.
Estimate deflection at centre of load
Bending deflection =
8
3 3
10 93 . 2 200 3
530 200
3 x x x
x
EI
WL
= 0.169 mm
Shear deflection =
77 6 . 453 5 . 8
530 200
x x
x
G A
WL
= 0.357 mm
Total = 0.526 mm
Average value for load points from finite element model = 0.853mm
Note that shear deformation dominates the deflection.
Estimate bending stress at A
Using the simplified model:
2
3
/ 9 . 81
10 1293
530 200
mm N
x
x
Z
WL
A

From the plane stress element model
A
= 76.2 N/mm
2
The beam checking model gives a difference in tip deflection as compared with the FE
model of -24% and difference in maximum stress of +7%. This is adequate accuracy
for a checking model.
(b) PLANE STRESS MODEL
Figure 12.1 Plane stress model of a steel bracket
Table 12.1 Formulae for single span beams

12.2 Truss Action
The simplest assumption that one can make about structural behaviour is that the stress
or the strain is constant and unidirectional over a region. This is commonly done in
reinforced concrete for shear reinforcement, for the bracing action in infilled frames and
for the stiffening effect of cladding of buildings. The unidirectional parts may then be
treated as a members of a truss. The converse concept of treating a truss system as a
beam can also be useful.
12.2.1 Forces in Truss Members
Trusses can often be treated as statically determinate by ignoring moment continuity at
the connections and by neglecting the effect of compression diagonals in cross braced
systems. Selected member forces can then be estimated on the basis of equilibrium.
Ignoring the compression diagonals will cause an overestimate of forces in the other
truss members and in deflection.
12.2.2 Solving Statically Determinate Pin-jointed Frameworks
Basic Process
1. Draw a free body diagram of the truss
2. Calculate the external reactions on the system
3. Select a joint which has 2 or fewer unknowns
4. Solve for unknowns at this joint
5. Mark the values and directions of the joint forces in a composite joint force
diagram.
6. Mark the equal and opposite joint forces at the joints at opposite ends of the
members for which forces have been calculated.
7. Follow round the joints to find all internal forces - always choose a joint which
has 2 or fewer unknowns
Strategies
Look for joints with only one unknown, they are easier to calculate
Look for a symmetrical structure with symmetrical loading, in which case only half of
the structure need be analysed
Look for members with zero force. This occurs, for example, at a node in a in pin-
jointed truss which has no applied load and where there are three members, two of
which are in line - Figure 12. 2
12.2.3 Treating a Parallel Chord Trusses as a Beam
A parallel chord truss has a structural action analogous to that of a beam. The top and
bottom chords are equivalent to the flanges while the posts and diagonals are equivalent
to the web. Figure 12.3(a) shows a parallel chord bridge truss and Figure 12.3(b) is a
beam equivalent. The properties of the beam are:
Equivalent Bending Stiffness
2 /
2
b EA EI
c e
(12.1)
where :
Figure 12.2 Truss member with zero force
This member can take no force
A
c
is the area of a chord member assumed to be equal top and bottom. If they are
not equal, I
e
can be calculated as the second moment of the chord areas about the
centroid of the chord areas. That is, a 'neutral axis' within the depth of the truss
needs to be established about which the second moments of area are based
b is the depth of the truss
E is the E value of the truss material
Equivalent Shear Stiffness
(A
s
G)
e
(equivalent shear stiffness)
2
1
sin cos f EA
d
(12.2)
where A
d
is the area of a diagonal member,
is the angle of a diagonal member to the horizontal,
f
1
= 1.0 for single bracing = 2.0 for cross bracing (where the diagonals can sustain
compressive load) = 0.5 for a K-braced truss.

A
d
A
c
b
(a) Truss
(b) Equivalent beam
E, A , I , (AG)
e e
e
Figure 12.3 Treatment of a parallel chord truss as a beam
Use of equations (12.1) and (12.2) together with the deflection formulae of Table 12.1
often give estimates of truss deflection to a useful degree of accuracy.
Derivation of equation (12.2)
Figure 12.4 Truss bent
Equation (12.2) is derived as follows:
Consider the bent of a truss shown in Figure 12.4.
The deflection in the line of the shear force S is:
p d
d
EA
Sb
EA
SL
+
2
sin
(12.3)
where A
d
and A
p
are the areas of the diagonal and post members respectively, a, b, L
d
are the dimensions as shown in Figure 12.4,
a
is the slope of the lateral displacement

of a truss.
Treating the truss as being in the xy plane as shown in Figure 12.4, this slope can be
defined as:

dx
d
a

Substituting this into equation (12.3) and rearranging gives:

dx
d
EA
b
sin EA
L
a
S
p
2
d
d
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
,
_
(12.4)
The factor in square brackets in equation (12.4) can be defined as an equivalent shear
stiffness. For checking calculations the post flexibility can be ignored and the
bracketed term reduces to the equivalent shear stiffness quoted in equation (12.2).
Estimation of Member Forces in Parallel Chord Trusses
A quick check on the axial member forces in a parallel chord truss can be carried out as
follows:
1. Axial force in chords = M
max
/d where:
M
max
is the maximum moment in the truss (analysed as a beam)
d is the depth of the truss
2. Axial force in diagonal at support = V/(sin) where:
V is the support reaction
is the angle between the chord and the diagonal at the support
Bracing trusses in buildings
The same technique can be used for bracing trusses in buildings. For a multibay truss
of this type - Figure 12.5 - the equivalent bending stiffness is based on all the column
areas and the equivalent shear stiffness is the sum of the values given by equation (12.2)
for each braced bay. In a K-braced truss the diagonals contribute to the bending mode
behaviour. This effect can be modelled by adding an area A
d
cos
3
to the column
areas.
Figure 12.5 K Braced Truss
Equivalent beam element
A parallel chord lattice truss in a structural system can be treated as an equivalent beam
element using equations (12.1) and (12.2).The cross-sectional area of the equivalent
beam can be taken as the sum of the areas of the chord members.
12.3 Arch Action
Figure 12.6(a) shows the force actions in an arch. The main arch force is assumed to be
Compressive, giving rise to horizontal and vertical reaction components at each end.
The function of an arch is the same as a beam in that it concentrates load to its supports
i.e. it redistributes vertical load laterally. A main difference is that it requires a
horizontal thrust at the supports. This is either compressive from outside the arch or
from a tie across the bottom of the arch.
Another arch situation is in shear walls which are supported on columns. In such a
case the arch forces can be roughly estimated by considering equilibrium of a free body
diagram of half of the arch taking the height to the centre-line of the arch as half the
span as shown in Figure 12.6(b) (Green 1972).
Arch action occurs in lintel beams above openings in walls. The lintel acts more as a
tie to the arch than as a bending element - Figure 12.6(c).
The ends of a simply supported beam has arch type action where the compression
zone slants downward to the reaction area - Figure 12.6(d)
Figure 12.6 Arch Action
12.4 Dome Action
Figure 12.7 Dome Action
Dome action is a three dimensional form of arch action. Figure 12.7 is a vertical
section through a dome. The thrust from the compressive forces in the shell of the
dome are transferred into a lower ring beam in tension and an upper compressive ring
beam (if present). The hoop forces will therefore vary from being tensile at the top
through to compressive at the base. A pyramid shape will exhibit the same type of
behaviour.
12.5 Vierendeel Frames
A vierendeel frame has rectangular panels with no cross bracing. It is not an efficient
means of transmitting transverse load but it is sometimes used to resist lateral load in
buildings and for architectural reasons when cross bracing is undesirable.
12.5.1 Lateral load on vierendeel frame
Figure 12.8(a) shows a typical unbraced rigid jointed building frame of this type. For a
simplified lateral load analysis of such a frame the first step is to reduce the frame to a
single bay equivalent - see Figure 12.8(b).
The properties of the single bay equivalent frame are:
I
ce
= I
ci
/2 (12.5)
where I
ce
is the second moment of area of a column of the equivalent frame
I
ci
is the second moment of column i of the actual frame
The summation is over the columns of the frame at the base or at each level at
which the properties are different
,
_

i
bi
e
be
I I
l l
(12.6)
where I
be
is the second moment of area of a beam of the equivalent frame
e
l is the span of a beam of the equivalent frame. This can be given an arbitrary
value typically the longest span of the beams of the actual frame
I
bi
is the second moment of area of a beam of the actual frame
i
l is the span of a beam of the actual frame.
The summation is over the beams of the frame at the first storey level or at each
level at which the properties are different.
Having analysed the equivalent one storey frame either by a computer solution or using
the Portal Method (described later in this section) the shears and moments and moments
in members of the frame can be calculated using:
ce
ci
ce ci
I 2
I
M M (12.7)
where M
ci
is the moment in column i of the actual frame
M
ce
is the moment in a column of the equivalent frame
e be
i bi
bi
/ I
/ I
M
l
l
(12.8)
where M
bi
is the moment in beam i of the actual frame
ce
ci
ci
I
I
S S (12.9)
where S
ci
in column i at level j in the frame
S is the applied shear at level j of the frame
S
bi
= M
bi
/
i
l (12.10)
where S
bi
is the shear in beam i at level j of the frame
The Portal Method
The portal method assumes that there are points of contraflexure at mid-height of
columns and mid-span of beams of such a frame. The applied shear is distributed
equally to the columns and hence a statically determinate equivalent frame is produced
as shown in Figure 12.7(c). Figure 12.7(d) shows a bent from this frame which
illustrates how the internal actions can be calculated. S is the total shear applied to the
frame above the beam level being considered.

Figure 12.8 Vierendeel Frame Models
Validation information
The mid-span assumption for points of contraflexure in the beam is not accurate unless
the frame is 'proportioned'. A proportioned frame can be divided into a set of
equivalent single bay frames each of which has the same column to beam stiffness ratio
(). Real frames probably
seldom conform to this condition but this does not invalidate the use of the portal
method for checking.
The validity of the mid height position for the column points of contraflexure
depends on the value of the ratio:

e b
ce
/ e I
h / I
l
(12.11)
where h is the storey height
When is small i.e. significantly less than 1.0, then the joint rotation is low and the
column points of contraflexure will be close to mid-height (sometimes called a shear
beam frame). When is high, i.e. greater than 5.0, the degree to which the beams
transfer vertical shear becomes less significant and the column points of contraflexure
will not be close to mid-height. Thus below =5, the assumption tends to give an order
of magnitude estimate of column moment improving as decreases. The error is most
noticeable at the base of the columns where, unfortunately, it is most important.
Deflection of a vierendeel frame
1
(a) Shear Mode Deformation
(b) Bending Mode Deformation
Figure 12.9 Deformation modes for vierendeel frame in a building
The deflection of a vierendeel frame is likely to be dominated by a shear mode type of
deformation due to bending of the beams and columns - Figure 12.9(a). There will also
be a bending mode deformation due to the axial deformation of the columns - Figure
12.9(b). This latter type of deformation will tend to be prominent only in tall frames.
The equivalent single storey frame (Figure 12.8) can therefore normally be treated as an
equivalent beam with only shear deformation. The equivalent shear area is develop as
follows:
The deflection of the bent of Figure 12.8(d) is given by:
[ ] +
2 1
I E 12
Sh
ci
3
(12.12)
where I
ci
= sum of the I values for all columns of the frame.
/h is the slope of the lateral displacement of the frame. Treating the frame as being
in the xy plane as shown in Figure 12.8(c), this slope can be defined as:
dy
du
h

Substituting this into equation (12.12) and rearranging gives:

[ ] dx
du
h
I E
S
c
2 1
12
2
+
(12.13)
Equation (12.13) has the same form as for shear deformation of a beam where
S = A
s
G dv/dx
Therefore the equivalent shear stiffness for the equivalent beam for a vierendeel frame
is:
[ ] +
2 1 h
I E 12
) G A (
2
c
e s
(12.14)
Thus the deflection of a vierendeel frame can be estimated using the beam deflection
formulae given in Table 12.1 using the equivalent shear stiffness of equation (12.14).
The finite sizes of the beams and of the columns can be considered in the shear
stiffness. The relevant bent is shown in Figure 12.8(e).
The corresponding shear stiffness is:
[ ]
3 3 2
) 1 ( 2 ) 1 (
12
) (
C D
e
e
h
I E
G A
+
(12.15)
where
D
= D/h,
C
= C/l, D = beam depth, C = column width.
12.6 Distribution of lateral load in buildings
12.6.1 Rigid Plate on Springs Model
For this model the building is treated in plan as a rigid plate supported by springs in its
own plane - Figure 12.10. A set of bracing elements is defined. A bracing element
is a frame, wall or core which is deemed to deemed to provide lateral support to the
system.
Each bracing element is defined by a single spring stiffness which is the lateral load to
cause unit top deflection of the bracing element.
Basic Assumptions
The stiffness of each bracing element can be modelled as a single spring
Normal linear material and geometric assumptions.
The floors are assumed to be fully rigid in their own planes.
The effect of differences in mode of deformation is neglected, i.e. the non-uniform
interaction between walls and moment resisting frames is not considered.
(b) Rigid beam on springs model
Figure 12.10 Rigid beam on springs model
Basic Procedure
1. Identify the bracing elements i.e. those parts of the structure which are assumed to
resist lateral load.
2. Establish the position and magnitude of the total lateral load on the building -W.
3. Calculate the top stiffness k
i
for each bracing element. Apply The lateral load W to
the model of the bracing element (the magnitude of this load is not important at this
stage). Extract or calculate the top lateral deflection
top
of the bracing element. The
stiffness of the bracing element is then k
i
= W/
top
4. Treat the system as a rigid beam and springs subject to loading W
5. Solve the beam on springs problem to get the spring forces - p
i
.

These are assumed
to be the loads on the bracing elements (having the same distribution with height as
W).
6. Analyse each bracing element under the loading p
i
(e.g. multiply the results of the
analysis used to get k
i
by the factor p
i
/W).
(a) Plan of 4 storey building
No torsion (one degree of freedom system)
Figure 12.11 shows a system with springs only in the y direction and the model is
therefore a rigid beam on springs.
If torsion is neglected the system moves without rotating. The distribution of load to
the supports is then in direct proportion to their top stiffnesses k
i
.
The equilibrium condition is: W = p
i
(12.16)
where p
i
is the load in spring i
The compatibility condition is
i
= (12.17)
where
i
is the deflection of spring i and is the deflection of the system
The force-deformation relationships are p
i
= k
i

i
(12.18)
where k
i
is the stiffness of spring i
Combining (12.16), (12.17) and (12.18) gives the system stiffness relationship:

i
k W (12.19)
from which can be calculated using:
i
k
W
(12.20)
and the load on a support frame is:
W
k
k
k p
i
i
i i
(12.21)
The distribution of load to the supports is thus in direct proportion to their top
stiffnesses k
i
.
With torsion (two degrees of freedom system)
If torsion is considered then an extra freedom (corresponding to a rotation) needs to be
added to the rigid beam on springs - Figure 12.11. The system deformations are
and .
The equilibrium equations are then
i
i
p
x
1
M
W
1
]
1
'
(12.22)
where M is the moment of the applied loads about the origin. (M = Wa for the system
of Figure 12.13)
x
i
is the distance from the origin to the position of spring i
The compatibility condition is:
[ ]
'

i i
x l (12.23)
The force-deformation relationship of a spring is
p
i
= k
i

i
i.e p
i
= k
i
( + x
i
) (12.24)
Figure 12.11 Rigid beam on springs model
Combining equations (12.22), (12.23) and (12.24) gives:
'
1
]
1
'
2
i i i i
i i i
x k x k
x k k
M
W
(12.25)
Equation (12.25) can be solved to get the system deformations and from which the
spring forces are obtained using (12.24). The solution in this case can be conveniently
programmed using a spreadsheet.
It is helpful to use the 'centre of stiffness' of the spring system as the origin. If this is
done, then the off-diagonal terms of the matrix of equation (12.25) are zero and the
solution of the equations is simplified. The centre of stiffness is found by taking first
moments of spring stiffness about any point to find the position of the resultant of the
spring stiffnesses.
12.7 Checking Models for Plate Bending
For checking, the plate bending problem being considered can be amended to a form for
which a solution is available. This can be achieved by altering the boundary conditions
and/or the loading. One should make an estimate of whether the checking model will
be stiffer or more flexible than the finite element model. Corresponding results from
the two models are then compared with some expectation of the sign of the difference
between them.
A worthwhile approach is to use two checking models one of which tends to be
stiffer than the finite element model and the other tending to be more flexible. These
should give results on either side of those being checked.
12.7.1 Formal Solutions
The model can be converted to a form for which a formal solution is available - see for
example Timoshenko & Woinowsky Krieger (1959), Roark (1965).

Figure 12.12 Checking model for a simply supported rectangular plate
12.7.2 Uniaxial Bending Models
It can be useful to take a strip of a plate in biaxial bending and treat is as being one-way
spanning. This will tend to overestimate deformations and stresses. This is particularly
useful if the plate has a dominant span direction. For example, for the simply supported
plate with side ratio of 2:1 and uniformly distributed load shown in Figure 12.12(a), one
can take a unit width strip as shown in Figure 12.12(b) and treat it as a simply supported
one-way span.
The maximum deflection and maximum moment for the strip can be calculated
using:
8 384
5
2
max
4
max
qa
M and
EI
qa

where a is the span of the strip.
The coefficients in the above expressions are quoted in Table12.2 in which the
corresponding coefficient for Timoshenko & Woinowsky-Krieger (1959) are also
given.
6.7.3 Grillage Models
Results for the simple grillage model shown in Figure 12.13(c) are also shown in Table
12.2. For the grillage one quarter of the total load is applied as a point load at the
centre. Member loads could also be used but it is easier to solve the point load case (the
grillage of Figure 12.13(c) can be solved by treating it as being singly statically
indeterminate). The grillage gives a slightly better estimate of deflection but further
overestimates the moments as compared with the one-way strip.
Figure 12.13(a) shows a square simply supported uniformly distributed plate. Figure
12.13(b) shows a simple grillage model. Again, one quarter of the total load is applied
at the centre. Comparison of the maximum deflection and maximum moment values
are quoted in Table 12.2. The checking model results quoted in Table 12.2 do not
give close correlation but do establish the likely orders of magnitude. Such information
is valuable in checking.
Figure 12.16 Grillage checking model for a plate
Table 12.2 Checking models for uniformly loaded simply supported plates
Problem Model Coefficient Coefficient
for
max
for M
max
2a
a One-way strip
384
5
01302 . 0
8
1
125 . 0
grillage 0.01225 0.1366
Timoshenko 0.00922 0.1017
a
a Grillage
192
1
00251 . 0
16
1
0625 . 0
Timoshenko 0.00406 0.0479
2
max
4
max
qa x t coefficien M
EI
qa
x t coefficien

Simplifiedmodel (Equivalent Beam For Truss)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Simplifiedmodel (Equivalent Beam For Truss)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Simplified models Chapter 12

Handbook of Structural Analysis 1 22/10/01

is the slope of the lateral displacement

Substituting this into equation (12.3) and rearranging gives:

Substituting this into equation (12.12) and rearranging gives:

Potrebbero piacerti anche