PLASTIC COLLAPSE OF A PORTAL FRAME

AIM The purpose of this experiment is to find out how a portal frame deflects when horizontal and vertical external loads are applied to it. This experiment will then help in the comparison between what is theoretically expected to happen to the portal frame and what is actually recorded to happen during the experiment. The portal frame in this experiment is part of a statically indeterminate structure.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION For any material, there is initially a positive linear increase between stress and strain as a linear varying load is applied to it (this happens as the material stretches initially). This relationship is linear until the magnitude of the stress reaches the yield value of the material. At this value, elongation increases rapidly with the external load rapidly decreasing to zero. If the deformed material is taken and external load is applied to it increasing from zero magnitude, the same effect happens. Bending There is also the concept of bending which is inevitable in the portal frame, (due to a downward load acting against upward reactions.) For any section in the structure, there will be compression at the 'head' of the bending moment arrow and tension at the tail of the arrow. The top horizontal part of the portal frame will be sagging due to the downward applied load. There will be compression at the top and tension at the bottom of the top (middle) horizontal part of the portal frame.

Apparatus The apparatus involved a mild steel portal frame, which had been clamped into a loading rig such that it was vertical from the side view. The loading rig connected to the portal frame such that there was vertical load at the centre of the beam and horizontal load at the top of a column. There were two gauges, one to measure the vertical deflection and the other, the horizontal deflection. A set square was also used in the experiment.

PROCEDURE The loading rig was inspected for any physical defects. All cables were checked for damages. All gauge readings were set to zero while the frame was unloaded. The portal frame had uniform cross-sectional area. Horizontal load was applied to the frame by turning the knob on the vertical load cell. The frame was initially loaded with 10N horizontal load. The vertical loading cell was immediately switched to and 10N vertical load was applied to the frame by turning the knob on the cell. This cycle was repeated with increments of 10N for both vertical and horizontal loads at each time. It was ensured that the vertical loading cable was vertical at all times. The repetition was done until there was a plastic failure in the frame, making sure after each cycle that the vertical and horizontal loads were equal. After each increment of 10N the vertical gauge was gently tapped so that it was touching the frame. This ensured accurate results for central vertical deflection. The frame was carefully observed as the load on it was increased. It was realised at the collapse load, how displacement increased rapidly without the addition of extra load. By the end of the experiment, plastic hinges had been formed on the portal frame. The positions of plastic hinges were recorded. The portal frame was unloaded after the collapse and the removed from the loading rig. A set square was used to check for permanent rotation at any of the corners.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Graph of load against Horizontal and vertical displacements (without collapse readings)

From the graph, the horizontal deflection is more rapid than the vertical deflection. This is due to the fact that plastic hinges form at the fixed ends of the portal frame, making horizontal displacement easier than it would be without the plastic hinges. The plastic hinges also caused the vertical load to result in further horizontal displacement. With the same amount of load horizontally and vertically (148N), just before the portal frame was unloaded, there is over twice as much displacement horizontally(31mm) as there is vertically(14mm). This is due to the horizontally weakening effect of the plastic hinges at the fixed ends. After totally unloading the portal frame, it can be seen from the graph there is a deformity in the structure, hence collapse. Horizontally, the portal frame deformed by about 5mm, and 15mm vertically. A vertical collapse of 5mm means that a plastic hinge was formed at the middle of the beam, since this was the only point of contact for the vertical load.

CONCLUSION The theoretical collapse load (497N) was much larger than the practical collapse load (148N). This was due to the following facts: The first hinge formed in the middle of the beam member of the portal frame. The remaining two hinges formed on the fixed ends of the portal frame. (these were on welded parts of the portal frame. The welds must have been weaker than mild steel, which the portal frame was made of)

Of course the theoretical calculations did not take this into account. Calculations were solely based on the portal frame being made of solid mild steel without welds.

EVALUATION The huge difference between the practical and theoretical collapse loads was mostly caused by the presence and absence of welds respectively. However, other factors of error may have contributed to this.

Human error The incorrect reading of results may have lead to anomalies.

Equipment related error The frame being made from mild steel may cause it to have impurities; these impurities could raise the materials yield stress. Inaccuracies in the dimensions of the frame may have caused a higher collapse load than that calculated. Gauges used to measure deflection may have been slightly inaccurate, a jam within the gauge would have caused a lower deflection value to be recorded than the actual deflection happening. Even if the gauge was accurate, there could also be the possibility of parallax error, which occurs unless the observer reads the gauge at perpendicular eye level.

References: Understanding Structural Analysis by David Brohn Structures (theory and analysis) by M.S Williams & J.D Todd Dr M.K Wadees lecture notes