Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. INTRODUCTION
In this lecture the methods of structural analysis are discussed. Structural analysis provides the internal forces to be used in safety checks. In the choice of the structural analysis method, different levels characterized by different degrees of accuracy can be obtained. A very refined degree of analysis, and hence very accurate methods of analysis, are useless in most of the actual cases in which the common simplified assumptions still hold. It is for this reason that most codes do not refer explicitly to the refined methods and instead only advise simple methods of elastic analysis. Most recent codes, e.g. Eurocode 3 [1], allow the use of all the well established methods of analysis. They therefore allow the analysis of practically all types of structures using different methods of analysis, depending on the available calculation tools. The approach adopted by the Eurocode 3 [1] is followed in this lecture.
For the classification of frames, see Lecture 14.8. This Lecture 14.14 deals with imperfections, the different methods of analysis and the calculation of internal forces and moments. The global buckling check can be performed by means of exact or approximate methods. For member checks, see Lectures 7.
methods known as the Sway Mode Buckling Length Method or Amplified Sway Moment Method. The procedures for applying the latter method is summarized in Figure 3. See also Section 3.4.4.
2.3 Imperfections
2.3.1 Common practice In common practice global frame imperfections are not included in the analysis of rigid jointed framed systems. In particular the geometrical imperfections of the frame are not usually taken into account. Other imperfections, i.e. cross-section and geometrical member imperfections and mechanical imperfections, can be considered part of the knowledge of the steel designer following the extensive research carried out in the 1960's. Therefore, whilst columns are immediately characterized by initial camber and out-of-straightness and cross-sections are affected by residual stress patterns, it is not yet usually assumed that also the frame is affected by initial out-of-plumb, there is misalignment of the columns and girders and so on, due to erection procedures and fabrication processes. In common practice the effects of all these imperfections on the frame behaviour are assumed not to be significant and the safety coefficient takes into account the approximations of the analysis which assumes an ideal frame. 2.3.2 Definitions and Eurocode 3 provisions As already indicated, it is not common practice to assume global frame imperfections in the analysis. This approach is due partly to the fact that no extensive research has been carried out in this field. Some indications of frame imperfections can be found in the ECCS Recommendations [2], and in [3]. The concept of frame imperfections was introduced in Eurocode 3. A distinction has to be made between the allowable tolerances which can be accepted for erection purposes and the values which might be included in the analysis of the effects on internal forces and moments. For frame imperfections, see Figure 4, the Eurocode [1] provides in 5.2.4.2 the method of application at (1) and (2):
"Imperfections shall be allowed for in the analysis by including appropriate additional quantities, comprising frame imperfections, member imperfections and imperfections for analysis of bracing systems. The effects of the frame imperfections given in 5.2.4.3 shall be included in the global analysis of the structure. The resulting forces and moments shall be used for member design". Clearly frame imperfections cannot be neglected. The engineer now needs to know their values and how to include them into design. Eurocode 3, at 5.2.4.3: Frame imperfections, provides the following indications on the values to be used: "The effects of imperfections shall be allowed for in frame analysis by means of an equivalent geometric imperfection in the form of an initial sway imperfection f determined from: f = kc ks f 0 where f 0 = 1/200 kc = ks = but kc 1,0 but ks 1,0
nc is the number of columns per plane ns is the number of storeys". Figure 5 shows the initial sway imperfection f for the case nc = 2, i.e. for a one-bay multi-storey frame, together with a curve representing the erection tolerances [3] for the same frame.
As an alternative to an analysis in which initial sway imperfections are explicitly taken into account, it is allowed to replace these imperfections by equivalent horizontal forces on each floor, see Figure 6.
behaviour of the structure, e.g. elasto-plastic analysis. The definitions, given below are extracted from the Eurocode 3 [1]. The first important division between the methods of analysis is the one which separates elastic and plastic methods. Whilst elastic methods can be used in all cases, the plastic methods may be used only in the case in which the material and the cross-sections satisfy specific requirements. The different types of plastic analysis are used depending on the assumptions made concerning the material and cross-section behaviour and the specific analytical procedure adopted for simulating the structure behaviour. In particular the most used types of analysis are Rigid-Plastic, Elastic-Perfectly Plastic and Elasto-Plastic methods. Another important distinction in the methods is between those which make allowance for the effects of deformations and those which neglect these effects. In common practice these methods are also referred to as first order and second order methods (Figure 7). It is clear that second order methods can be adopted in all cases since they do not make any simplification. Therefore they lead to a more accurate evaluation of the internal forces and moments than first order methods. First order methods in comparison have to be used with simplifying assumptions which guarantee that the actions in the structure as derived by the deformed configuration are negligible when compared to the ones computed on the undeformed structure.
Since it is a first order elastic method, the solution is a one step process without any need for iteration of the external loads or updating of the matrices.
Local second order effects arise in each element subjected to axial load (columns) due to the midspan deflection, whilst global second order effects arise in the frame due to relative displacements between the floors (drifts). 3.3.1 Local second order effects (P-delta) To take into account the local deformation of each element, it is necessary to rewrite the terms of the stiffness matrix of the single element. This is easily obtained if the flexibility coefficients of a simply supported beam under axial loads, where the effects of deformations of the beam itself are taken into account, are known.
To derive the flexibility coefficients, the differential equation of the simply supported beam of Figure 8 is written (see standard text books on applied mechanics:
-EIw" =
(2)
This equation shows that the bending moment includes also the effects of the axial load. By imposing the boundary conditions, the values of the flexibility coefficients are:
a= where:
;b =
(3)
kL = L
(4)
kL represents the ratio between the design axial loads in the column and the Euler buckling load obtained assuming no interstorey drift. f and y are found in standard text books. By adopting these modified flexibility coefficients, usual procedures for constructing the new beam stiffness matrix Ko can be followed. It is worth noting that, for values of kL less than 0,5, all the coefficients are approximately equal to 1 and therefore there is no need to modify the beam stiffness matrix. For kL = 0 the first order situation appears with the exact values f = y = 1. 3.3.2 Global second order effects (P-Delta) To determine how the global frame stiffness matrix is affected by the effects of interstorey drifts in the case of rectangular frames, only some of the stiffness coefficients of the single element have to be reviewed. From Figure 9 it appears that a relative displacement u1 = 1 between the ends of the beam element leads to a modification of the end shears:
DV1 = l
and DV2 = l
and, thus, to a modification of the matrix of the single element: ki = k0i (l) - lk1i (5) where k0i is the stiffness matrix which takes into account the local deformation of the element, which is relevant also for non-sway frames k1i is the matrix which takes into account global displacements of nodes. The global stiffness matrix of the frame, which can be derived by assembling the single stiffness matrices with the usual procedure, has a form similar to matrix (5): k = K0 (l) - lK1 (6) To compute the elastic critical load in the exact manner, the determinant of the matrix (6) where Ko is the stiffness matrix of the structure including the P-delta effects and K1, takes into account the P-Delta effects has to be zero. The eigenvalue problem to be solved is: |K0 (l ) - l K1| = 0 (7) The different solutions of this equation represent the eigenvalues l and the smaller one represents the elastic critical load of the structure. Several numerical procedures are available in existing computer packages for finding these zeros. 3.3.3 Approximate evaluation of second order effects
As mentioned earlier in Section 2.3, second order effects can be taken into account approximately by making use of equivalent horizontal forces applied at each storey. The procedure of second order analysis is an iterative one and makes use, in each step, of an elastic analysis. Equivalent horizontal forces can be applied as suggested by the Eurocode 3 [1] in lieu of the initial sway imperfections, see Figure 6.
sway for a given load case if the following criterion is satisfied. When first order theory is used, the horizontal displacements in each storey due to the design loads (both horizontal and vertical), plus the initial sway imperfection applied in the form of equivalent horizontal forces, should satisfy the criterion:
0,10 where d is the horizontal displacement at the top of the storey, relative to the bottom of the storey h is the storey height H is the total horizontal reaction at the bottom of the storey V is the total vertical reaction at the bottom the storey". The simple interpretation of this criterion is that the second order moment equal to Vd is at least ten times less than the first order moment H h, see Figure 7. 3.4.4 Design methods for the elastic analysis of sway frames (direct or indirect allowances) As already indicated, a rigid jointed frame can be considered as a non-sway frame when the ratio between the design vertical load Vsd and the critical load Vcr is less than 0,10. When this relation is not satisfied, it is necessary to include second order effects in the analysis. For this purpose Eurocode 3 [1] allows the adoption of the following procedures, see Figure 2: Direct methods for second order elastic analysis 1a The first method, the most general, consists of checking the safety of elements in buckling and strength on the basis of the internal forces and moments computed with a second order elastic analysis as described in Section 2.3.2. For this purpose the safety check of single elements is carried out assuming values for effective length corresponding to the case of non-sway frames. 1b Alternatively for building structures, the approximate method known as the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure can be used. This procedure assumes there are no axial deformations in the members and that the second order effects are due only to horizontal displacements. The procedure, which is an iterative one, evaluates the global storey moment, as given by the total axial load times the relative storey drift, and therefore the equivalent lateral forces which then enable a new horizontal displacement to be compared to the previous one. The procedure is stopped when the difference between two subsequent steps is small in terms of additional forces or displacements. For the strength and buckling safety checks the same considerations hold, as given in paragraph 1a above. Design methods which make indirect allowances for second order effects (5.2.6.2 of Eurocode 3) 2a In the elastic analysis of sway frames it is possible, as an alternative to second order analysis carried out by following the procedures above, to carry out a first order elastic analysis by means of two different procedures in the safety check of members. The first one is defined as the Amplified Sway Moment Method which can be adopted when Vsd /Vcr is less than 0,25. The approximate evaluation of the second order effects is then based on the amplification of the bending moments associated with the loading conditions which produce lateral displacements of the frame, see Figure 3. The amplification factor for the moments is given by: C = 1/(1 - Vsd /Vcr ) or, approximately, by: C = 1/(1 - d V/hH) The Amplified Sway Moment Method requires the adoption of an effective length for the member buckling checks, equal to the one computed in the case of non-sway frames. 2b A second procedure, which still allows a first order elastic analysis, makes use of the effective length for the columns as computed for sway frames. This procedure is known as the Sway Mode Buckling Length Method. The well-known alignment charts or the Wood diagrams can be used for this purpose, see e.g. [4]. The calculation of internal forces and moments, amplified to take into account sway effects in the different ways described above, is followed
by the strength and buckling safety checks on the different members as discussed in other lectures.
In Eurocode 3 [1], to apply this method some requirements are made on the cross-section in order to guarantee that the fully plastic moment can be developed and sufficient rotations are developed within the joints in which plastic hinge locations are formed. Class 1 cross-sections have to be used. 4.1.2 Computation of collapse multiplier of loads In order to compute the collapse multiplier of external actions, the classic theorems of plastic analysis are usually adopted. The kinematic and static theorems which allow a set of unconservative (kinematic) and a set of conservative multipliers (static) to be defined which includes the collapse multiplier. These well-known theorems are: Static theorem: If a distribution of bending moments exists throughout a frame which is both safe and statically admissible with a set of loads l, the value of l must be less than or equal to the collapse load factor lc. Kinematic theorem: For a given frame subjected to a set of loads l , the value of l which corresponds to any assumed mechanism must be either greater than or equal to the collapse load factor lc.
classical plastic theory and therefore with respect to the rigid-plastic methods. In particular, 5.2.1.5 of Eurocode 3 [1] states: "In Elastic-Perfectly Plastic analysis it is assumed that the cross-section remains fully elastic until the plastic resistance moment is reached and then becomes fully plastic. Plastic deformations are assumed to be concentrated at plastic hinge locations", see Figure 10c. The hypothesis and limitations are therefore practically the same as those already outlined for the rigid-plastic methods except for the introduction of elastic deformations of the cross-sections which allow not only the global collapse load but also the load-displacement history of the frame to be determined. To enable computation of the plastic rotations at all the joints, a further hypothesis is made that the material and the cross-sections are perfectly plastic, i.e. they can undergo indefinite deformations (rotations). In practice an elastic-perfectly plastic analysis is carried out by means of a step by step procedure. This method, even though it leads to the non-linear load-displacement curve of the frame, does not need any type of iteration. In fact it is simply made by the contribution of several linear steps each one characterized at its end by the formation of one or more plastic hinges which define the new structure to which further load is applied. The collapse multiplier obtained using the hypothesis of elastic-perfectly plastic analysis is the same as that obtained under the rigid-plastic hypothesis. This result arises, as indicated earlier, because the value of the multiplier is not affected by elastic redistribution of forces but only by the equilibrium equations. The only reason for adopting a step-by-step analysis to determine the collapse multiplier, is firstly to use a procedure which can easily be introduced in a computer program having a linear package, and secondly that the required rotations in all the sections are given as part of the output. 4.2.1 Cross-section requirements To apply this method some requirements are given in Eurocode 3 [1] for cross-sections in order to guarantee that the fully plastic moment can be developed and sufficient rotations are developed within the joints in which plastic hinge locations are formed. Class 1 cross-sections are required if no computation is made of the required rotation while at least Class 2 cross-sections have to be applied if they can provide the required rotation.
The elasto-plastic analysis is a method which is not likely to be used by engineers in practice but rather by researchers. 4.3.1 Cross-section requirements There are no practical limitations in elastic-plastic analysis since the complete non-linear analysis allows all possible effects to be introduced into the simulation of the behaviour of the structure. To apply this method some requirements are given in Eurocode 3 [1] for the crosssections in order to guarantee that the fully plastic moment can be developed and sufficient rotations are developed within the joints in which plastic hinge locations are formed. Class 1 sections are required if no computation is made of the required rotation while Class 2 crosssections have to be applied if they can provide the required rotation.
5. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
The methods of structural analysis have been reviewed in this lecture. Both the elastic and the plastic methods have been discussed since all are explicitly referred to in Eurocode 3 [1]. The design of rigid jointed steel frames, and in particular, how to use the internal forces derived within these frameworks in safety checks, and how to adopt simplified rules, even when using a simple elastic analysis, have been also discussed.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures": ENV 1993-1-1: Part1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN, 1992. [2] European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, European Recommendations for Steel Construction, Bruxelles, ECCS, (1978) 234. [3] De Luca, A., Faella, C., Mele, E., Advanced In-elastic Analysis: Numerical Results and Design Guidelines for Rigid and Semi-Rigid Sway Frames, SSRCW Shop in "Plastic Hinge Based Methods for Advanced Analysis and Design of Steel Frames" Pittsburgh, April 1992. [4] Ballio, G., Mazzolani, F. M., "Theory and Design of Steel Structures". Chapman and Hall, 1983.
7. ADDITIONAL READING
1. Cosenza, E., DeLuca, A., Faella, C. In-elastic Buckling of Semi-rigid Sway Frames, Structural Connections: Stability and Strength, London, Elsevier Applied Science, 1989. 2. Ballio, G. & Mazzolani, F.M. Theory and Design of Steel Structures, Chapman & Hall, London, 1983. 3. Dowling, P.J., Knowles, P.R., Owens, G.W., Structural Steel Design, Butterworths, London, 1988. 4. Galambos, T.V. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988. 5. Neal, B. G., The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis, Wiley, J. & Sons, 1977. 6. Liverley, R. K., Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1975. 7. Capurso, M., Introduzione al Calcolo Automatico delle Strutture, Ed. Sciendtifiche Cremonese, Roma. 8. Massonnet, C., Save, M., Calcolo Plastico a Rottura delle Costruzioni, Milano, Clup, 1982. Previous | Next | Contents