Resistance of Members To Flexural Buckling
Resistance of Members To Flexural Buckling
Resistance of Members To Flexural Buckling
RESISTANCE OF MEMBERS TO
FLEXURAL BUCKLING
ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 3
- FOCUS ON IMPERFECTIONS
Abstract
This work focuses mainly on the resistance of members to flexural buckling
according to Eurocode 3. The work provides the mathematical backgrounds to the
equations and buckling curves presented in Eurocode 3. The work also, attempts to
reveal how different imperfections influence the flexural buckling resistance which is
demonstrated through Finite Element (FE) simulations.
The work presents modeling and analysis on a steel column in ABAQUS 6.14.
Linear and non-linear buckling analyses of the steel column, with the influence of
imperfections, are implemented in this work. Specifically, the imperfections
considered in this study are material plasticity, initial bow and residual stress.
The influence of initial bow imperfection of 0.1% of the length of the column
considering flexural buckling was found to be 45.28% of the Euler buckling load.
The influence of residual stresses, with a magnitude of maximum about 13% in the
flange and 35% in the web, of the yielding strength, on flexural buckling is about
31.9% of the design Euler buckling load. The combined effect of residual stress and
initial bow imperfection on flexural buckling is about 45.34% of the design Euler
buckling load.
III
Acknowledgement
This research work was in collaboration between Linnaeus University and Alstom, in
Vxj, Sweden.
We thank Min Hu, who provided insights and expertise that helped greatly in this
work and for being available any time for questions and to clear some of the doubts
that arose along the way.
We also thank Marie Johansson, who provided us with some materials to get started
with the work and for the lecture on Eurocodes which formed the basis of what was
done in this work.
We would also like to show our gratitude to Sara Rydstrm, from Alstom, whose
calmness and detailed explanation of what was to be done was valuable.
For me, Henry, this work has been produced during my scholarship period at
Linnaeus University, thanks to a Swedish Institute scholarship.
IV
Table of contents
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND NOTATIONS .................................................................................................................. VI
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 AIM AND PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 METHOD, MATERIAL AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ON BUCKLING .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 EULER BUCKLING THEORY ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 FLEXURAL BUCKLING ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 3 ................................................................................................ 10
2.3.1 Buckling resistance of members in compression .......................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Buckling curves ............................................................................................................................................ 11
3. BACKGROUND TO FLEXURAL BUCKLING IN EUROCODE 3. ................................................................... 16
3.1 DERIVATION OF THE SECOND ORDER MOMENT ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2 REDUCTION FACTOR ............................................................................................................................................... 19
4. CASE STUDY-INVESTIGATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF IMPERFECTIONS. ......................................... 25
4.1 FLEXURAL BUCKLING RESISTANCE ACCORDING TO EUROCODE 3 ............................................................................. 26
4.1.1 Cross section classification .......................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Euler buckling load and non-dimensional slenderness ................................................................................ 28
4.1.3 Determination of buckling curve and imperfection factor ............................................................................ 28
4.1.4 Calculation of the reduction factor .............................................................................................................. 30
4.1.5 Buckling resistance ...................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.6 Buckling effects ............................................................................................................................................ 31
4.1.7 Initial local bow imperfection, 0 ................................................................................................................ 31
4.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING ................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Boundary conditions .................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Material modeling ........................................................................................................................................ 33
4.2.3 True stress and true strain............................................................................................................................ 33
4.2.4 Mesh and element ......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.5 Linear buckling analysis .............................................................................................................................. 36
4.2.6 Non-linear buckling analysis ........................................................................................................................ 36
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1 LINEAR BUCKLING ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................. 39
5.2 CONVERGENCE STUDY ON THE LINEAR BUCKLING ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 39
5.3 NON-LINEAR BUCKLING ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 40
5.3.1Initial bow imperfections ............................................................................................................................... 40
5.3.2 Residual stresses .......................................................................................................................................... 43
5.3.3 Combined residual stresses and initial bow imperfections ........................................................................... 44
6. COMPARISON OF BUCKLING CURVE C IN EUROCODE 3 AND ESTABLISHED FROM
SIMULATION. .............................................................................................................................................................. 45
6.1 MODEL WITH NON-DIMENSIONAL SLENDERNESS VALUE OF 1.2 ................................................................................ 45
6.2 MODEL WITH NON-DIMENSIONAL SLENDERNESS VALUE OF 2 ...............................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
7. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 45
8. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
REFERENCES ............................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Modulus of elasticity
Yielding strength
Maximum of axial compressive force applied on a steel column
Height of a cross-section
Radius of gyration of a cross section
Radius of gyration along major axis
Radius of gyration along minor axis
Length of a column
Bending moment at
External moment
Internal moment
VI
Imperfection factor
True strain
Intermediate factor
True stress
Non-dimensional slenderness
VII
1. Introduction
This project was in collaboration between Linnaeus University and Alstom.
Alstom is a global player in the field of energy and transport infrastructure.
In Vxj, Sweden, Alstom works with plants and system for cleaning of
process gases to remove environmentally harmful substances such as
nitrogen oxide, Sulphur dioxide and dust. Alstom has set the benchmark for
innovative and environmentally conscious technologies.
1.1 Background
The design of steel structures has received massive research interests over
the years. One of the main interests when designing steel structures is the
member resistance to flexural buckling. The member slenderness and the
imperfections are influential and play critical roles in the design process.
Eurocode 3, which is a standard for steel structures for European Union
(EU) member states, presents a couple of equations and buckling curves to
help in the design process. However, there is no or little background to the
equations and buckling curves presented on buckling resistance. For the
inexperienced, the code easily becomes a cookbook that can be used without
understanding the underlying problem. Moreover, more need to be done
about the influence of imperfections on the resistance of members to flexural
buckling according to Eurocode 3.
1
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
2
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
3
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
related. The researchers [6] concluded that the maximum residual stress
levels in steel angles are below 25% of the yielding strength.
The Euler buckling load equation does not consider imperfections. In reality,
imperfections are always present. Two main types of imperfections are
geometrical and material (mechanical) imperfections. Recently, Lopes and
Real [7] analyzed the influences of initial geometrical and material
imperfections on the determination of ultimate load of steel class 4 cross
section elements at high temperatures. However, a lot still remains to be
done on the influence of imperfection on flexural buckling on elements that
are not subjected to fire or high temperatures. The researchers [7] argued
that the imperfections must be considered according to the expected collapse
mode. Studying the influence of imperfections on flexural buckling [2], the
researchers concluded that residual stresses influence buckling behavior.
However, the influence is small compared to the geometric imperfection. In
their analysis, they discovered that for the specimen used the flexural
buckling failure was a consistent one of the single half wave. Feng et al. [8]
evaluated the sensitivity of column failure strength with regard to initial
imperfections. Initial imperfection plays a critical role in the structural
behavior prediction. The researchers [8] showed that the ultimate strength of
short columns where the local buckling failure is predominant is influenced
significantly by the magnitude of imperfections.
Finite Element Analysis, FEA, has been widely utilized to investigate the
buckling behavior of steel columns, beams and frames. The major theme has
always been that stainless steel columns which have been used in building
massive and strong structures for a long time are subjected, in many ways, to
buckling. Shu et al. investigated a design method for stainless steel column
subjected to flexural buckling using FEA [9]. Their predictions of the finite
element model correlated with the measured imperfection. The
imperfections have a remarkable impact on the behavior and load-carrying
capacity of columns in compression [3]. Additionally, the researchers [9]
developed a finite element model that established the strength curves of
columns failing in flexural buckling. However, no discussion involving
columns with small slenderness, which may have a higher flexural buckling
resistance, was done.
In a more detailed manner, the numerical modeling of flexural buckling of
elliptical hollow section was investigated using ABAQUS [4]. The
researchers chose the four-noded, reduced integration shell elements for
their Finite Element (FE) models. In addition, a mesh convergence study
was performed to choose a uniform mesh density. The sensitivity to
imperfection as was anticipated was confirmed in the numerical results.
A literature study of the previous researches reveals that there is not much of
information about the effects of imperfections on pure flexural buckling.
4
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
With reference to the lateral deformation of the column, the column will
remain straight until the axial load reaches the critical buckling value,
, then the column will buckle.
Now, assuming the buckling deformation at a section having a distance
from to be as indicated in Figure 1, then the bending moment,
is
expressed as:
5
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(1)
where:
(2)
Combining equations (1) and (2), the differential equation governing the
deformations, is then expressed as:
(3)
(4)
Let,
(6)
(7)
0;
So,
0
6
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(8)
where
, ,
is:
(9)
where:
is critical stress.
7
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(13)
where:
Figure 2: Relationship described by the Euler formula between buckling stress and column
slenderness [1]
(15)
Thus, for a steel column, the stress at buckling cannot exceed the value of
the yield strength. The relationship of yielding strength and strain for ideal
plastic is shown in Figure 3.
8
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
, called the
Figure 4: Relationship described by the Euler formula between buckling stress and column
slenderness after ideal-plasticity is introduced [1]
( 16 )
which gives:
( 17 )
9
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
, is
( 18 )
The failure mode change from plastic yield to elastic buckling failure occurs
when
i.e. when
1.
1.0
10
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
( 19 )
Where,
is the design value of the compressive force, and
design buckling resistance of the compression member.
is the
Since there are about four different classes of cross-sections, it follows that
the design buckling resistance of the compression member should be taken
according to which cross-section class is under consideration. For crosssections class 1, 2 and 3, the design buckling resistance is given as:
( 20 )
( 21 )
where
1.0
but
( 22 )
where:
= 0.5 1
0,2
( 23 )
11
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
( 24 )
( 25 )
As mentioned,
is the elastic critical force for the relevant buckling
mode based on the gross cross sectional properties, which is the well-known
Euler buckling load. It is a critical load without considering imperfections.
The imperfection factor that appears in equation (23) depends on [12]:
1. The cross-section shape of the column under consideration
2. The process of fabrication used
3. The direction in which buckling occurs i.e. the weak or strong
axis plane of buckling
4. The yielding strength.
The imperfection factor
12
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Table 2
Table 1: Imperfection factor for buckling curves [12].
Buckling curve
Imperfection factor
0.13
0.21
0.34
0.49
0.76
Once has been carefully selected, its easier to get the reduction factor
represented by equation (22).
13
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
When using Eurocode 3, the column design procedures for flexural buckling
may usually consist of six main steps [11]:
1. Trial section selection. This means that the cross-section class
to be considered must be chosen.
2. Determining the buckling length of the column
14
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
, , , ,
) and the
The difference between the curves in Figure 5 reflects the influence of the
below factors on the buckling of the column:
1. Manufacturing processes,
2. The cross-sectional dimensions, and,
3. Weak axis about which the buckling occurs.
15
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
a)
b)
Figure 6: Simply supported member loaded with a normal force N and initial bow imperfection
[13]
16
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(26)
where is the additional deflection in the mid section caused by the axial force on
the initially bowed column.
According to equation (26), the increase in deflection caused due to the
load would cause an increase in external moment . This increase in
moment would eventually cause a further increase in deflection .
When the deflection is increasing, the column resists this through an internal
resistance against bending deformations. This internal moment can be
expressed with the static beam theory as:
(27)
Where:
is the moment caused by the resistance of the column to an external
force.
is the modulus of elasticity
is the moment of inertia
is the deflection
is the coordinate in the length direction of the column
17
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(28)
(29)
can be
( 30 )
Therefore, the internal moment in the mid-section of the column can then be
described as:
( 31 )
is:
(32)
where
This will mean that for a normal force lower than the critical buckling load,
it is possible to find equilibrium. This equilibrium will occur at a
deformation
where the internal moment is equal to the external
moment.
18
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(34)
(36)
19
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
The classical buckling equilibrium equation for this case then is:
0
(40)
Inserting equations (38) and (39) into equation (40) and evaluating:
(41)
where:
where:
(44)
Let,
(45)
where:
where:
, is expressed as:
(46)
20
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(47)
The bending moment is the product of the yield force and elastic modulus,
, and is expressed as:
Where:
(48)
At buckling, the maximum applied axial force reaches the actual buckling
resistance, thus:
(49)
Inserting equations (45), (46), (47), (48) and (49) into equation (44), then:
Solving for
(50)
in equation (50)
Let,
(51)
Thus,
(52)
Solving the quadratic equation (52) will give out two solutions. The lower
value is taken to be the reduction factor, therefore:
1
21
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
(53)
Let,
0.5 1
Therefore:
(54)
, thus:
(55)
22
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
According to Figure 9, the columns are classified into three major categories
as follows:
a) Columns with large slenderness
These are columns that lie towards the right of the point of inflexion. The
buckling loads for these columns are similar to the Euler buckling load ( ).
Imperfections do not play much of a role in the buckling of these columns as
the buckling of these columns occur in the elastic range.
23
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
24
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
25
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Material
Density,
[kg/ ]
Modulus of
Elasticity,
[MPa]
Poissons
ratio,
Ultimate Strength
[MPa]
S355J2
7850
210000
0.30
355 (
470 (
16mm)
345 16
40
16mm)
470 16
Supp. points
D1, D2
364
38
378
J1, J2
375
63
624
K1, K2
239
38
312
being the yield strength. It should be noted here that, in Eurocode 3, the
. This is because
definition of employs the base value of 235 /
26
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
40
grade S235 steel is highly regarded as the normal grade throughout Europe
0.8136.
[17]. Thus,
To get the class of the cross section, the class of the flange and of the web
must be determined independently because they have different thicknesses.
Figure 11 shows the cross-sectional dimensions for HEA 300 columns.
Figure 11: Cross-section dimensions of a HEA 300 column. All dimensions in mm [18]
where,
( 57 )
300
8.5
27
118.75
2
118.75
14
8.4821
290
( 58 )
14
27
208
27
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
208
8.5
24.4706
10
4.597
0.0112
.
.
0.6453
0.8033
1.5
( 59 )
1.05
where 1.35, 1.5 and 1.05 in equation (59) are recommended set of partial
safety factors provided by Eurocode for transient design situations where
there is a risk of loss of static equilibrium [19].
for columns
1098.3
1.35
364
1.5
378
1.05
38
for columns
1508.4
1.35
375
1.5
624
1.05
63
28
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
for columns
830.55
1.35
239
1.5
312
1.05
38
To help in selecting the buckling curve to be used, the detailed data of the
cross-section as given in Table 5 [20] can be used.
0.9667
Radius of gyration [
Moment of inertia [
127.4
18265
74.9
6310
10
10
From Figure 11
1.2, and since flexural buckling is about the weak axis,
and from the moment of inertia above, Z-axis is the weak axis, and
100
, the buckling curve c is considered, see
29
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
0.49, from
0.5 1
0.5 1
0.2
0.49 0.8033
0.2
0.6453
0.9705
and the reduction factor is:
0.66
and the buckling resistance is:
. .
where:
2.6359
10
1.0
The column experiencing the highest load must be checked against this
criterion. Columns , have the highest load, thus:
.
,
0.5722
Hence, the criterion is fulfilled. This means that the other columns
experiencing the lowest load than columns , will also fulfill the criteria.
30
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
i.
0.2
ii.
0.04
The columns are HEA300 and the slenderness is 0.8033. Since 0.8033
0.2, it means that the effect of buckling cannot be ignored. However, this
check is not enough because the columns are subjected to different values of
the design compression load,
. The column experiencing the lowest load
must be checked against the second equation above. Therefore, for columns
, ,
.
.
0.1342
Since 0.1342 0.04, the buckling effects cannot be ignored. This means
that the columns with the higher loads than columns , , the buckling
effects cannot be ignored either.
Buckling curves
[10]
Elastic analysis
Plastic analysis
1
1
1
1
350
300
250
200
150
1
1
1
1
300
250
200
150
100
From Table 6, the column in study for which buckling curve c is chosen,
plastic analysis is considered,
31
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
thus,
4597 150
30.647
32
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Before the application of the load, both the end faces of the columns were
made rigid to prevent an indent caused by a concentrated point load on the
faces. In order to achieve this, two reference points were created at the
center of the cross-sections at both ends. Both surfaces were kinematically
coupled to the reference points in all six degrees-of-freedom.
33
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
In ABAQUS, when plasticity of the material data is defined, true stress and
true strain should be used. These are the values that ABAQUS need to
correctly interpret the data. The nominal stress and strain values are often
supplied by the material test data. However, the material plasticity data must
be converted from the nominal stress and nominal strain values to the true
stress and true strain values respectively [24] [25].
The plastic properties are computed using the following relationships [25]:
where
( 60 )
( 61 )
is nominal strain
is nominal stress
true is the true stress
true is the true strain
Figure 13 shows the nominal stress strain curves, for an elastic material and
for the elastic plastic material, which were utilized to calculate the values of
the true stresses and true strains
a)
b)
Figure 13: Nominal stress-strain curves, where a) is for purely elastic material and b) is for elasticplastic material [25]
To calculate the strain the values of the yield strength and ultimate strength
from Table 3 are used, thus:
From Figure 13a, since the slope is
355
Therefore:
10
0.0016
34
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
For the plastic region, the slope is 100. See Figure 13b. Thus,
470
10
355
Therefore:
100
10
0.0016
0.0565
Utilizing equation (59) and (60), the true yield strength is:
355
10 1
0.0016
355.6001
470
10 1
0.0565
496.5644
Nominal Strain
Engineering
Stress [Mpa]
True Strain
True Stress
[Mpa]
Strain for
non linear
analysis
0.0016
355
0.0016
355.6001
0.0564
470
0.0549
496.5644
0.0525
The values in the last column of Table 7 were used for the non-linear
analysis in this thesis.
35
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
36
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
In this analysis, the mode shape of the elastic flexural buckling shape (i.e.
the third mode from linear buckling analysis) was entered into the model as
the initial bow imperfections by utilizing the edit Keywords of the model.
Four different magnitudes of initial bow imperfections were studied. Two of
the initial bow imperfections studied was 1000 and 1500 which
provide the maximum and minimum tolerance values according to [26]. The
other initial bow imperfection studied was arbitrarily chosen as 1200.
While, the equivalent initial bow imperfection of 150 provided by
Eurocode 3 for curve c was studied as well to verify how well the modified
initial bow represents all kinds of initial imperfections found in real
columns.
Besides, an initial bow imperfection of 1.5 1000 observed to be the
maximum value, allowed by this manufacturer of steel in Sweden, Broderna
Edstrand AB [27] was also considered. This initial bow imperfection would
represent the worst case scenario.
4.2.6.1 Initial bow imperfection
The initial bow imperfection can be incorporated in the model either
manually through ABAQUS script or automatically by defining a linear
combination of buckling mode shapes by editing the Keywords of the model
[23]. These mode shapes are from the preliminary linear buckling analysis.
In this work, the initial bow imperfections were included by editing the
Keywords. Mode 3 was the critical buckling shape because this is the mode
at which the column first experiences flexural buckling and has the most
significant influence on the buckling load.
4.2.6.2 Residual stresses
Residual stresses exist in structural steel members. These residual stresses
are induced in the steel member during the process of manufacturing,
fabrication or refinement by the non-uniform temperature distribution.
Usually, residual stresses are expressed as a fraction of the yield strength.
However, the two may not be directly related [6]. Nevertheless, the presence
of residual stress may impair significantly the stiffness of the compression
member thus influence the buckling capacity and often shorten fatigue life
of steel members under periodic or dynamic load [28].
In this work, residual stresses were incorporated in the FE model using the
reference values shown in Figure 15.
37
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
The residual stresses were incorporated in the model to study how much
effect they have on buckling and buckling resistance.
Introducing stresses into the ABAQUS model, sets of elements to assign the
residual stresses values were created. Then the values for the residual
stresses were assigned using the 'Predefined Field' option found in the model
tree in ABAQUS. Appendix 1 explains in details this procedure.
38
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Figure 16: The flexural buckling mode shape of the steel column obtained from the linear buckling
analysis
39
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Convergence
Elastic buckling load[MN]
6,1344
6,1342
6,134
6,1338
6,1336
6,1334
6,1332
6,133
6,1328
6,1326
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
From Figure 17, it can be clearly seen that the results are converging.
Though the results from each element size would be similar, the 12.5
element size would be better. However, in this thesis, the 50mm element
size was used due to computational time.
Figure 18 shows the Load Proportionality Factor (LPF) curve which was
obtained for this initial bow imperfection.
40
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
0.5472
3.3566
6.1342
10
10
Similarly, for each and every initial bow presented below, the LPF
graphs were generated and the highest point on the curve was selected
and multiplied with the buckling load to get the buckling resistance.
ii.
For this initial bow imperfection
Buckling resistance,
0.5595
6.1342
3.4321
10
10
iii.
For this initial bow imperfection,
Buckling resistance,
0.5735
6.1342
3.5179
10
10
41
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the model that has been used for the
analysis, the initial bow imperfection ratio of
has been studied:
iv.
For this initial bow imperfection,
Buckling resistance,
0.3681
6.1342
2.2580
10
10
Since the initial bow imperfection of 1.5 1000 represents the worst case
scenario of a column, it's buckling resistance has also been analyzed.
v.
0.5161
6.1342
3.1658
10
10
Figure 19 shows the load-displacement curves for all the five initial bow
imperfections that were studied.
Load-displacement curves
Load [MN]
4
3
L/150
1.5L/1000
L/1000
L/1200
0
0
50
100
150
Displacement [mm]
Figure 19: Load-displacement curves for initial bow imperfections
42
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
L/1500
Figure 20: Input of the residual stress distribution on the flange of the model
Figure 21: Input of the residual stress distribution on the web of the model
The presence of residual stresses will result in early partial yielding in the
cross-section. The partial yielding will decrease the effective area on the
cross section and therefore reduce the buckling resistance of the column.
Considering only residual stress,
Buckling resistance,
0.6810
6.1342
4.1779
10
10
Inferring from the results obtained, the effect of residual stress alone is about
32% of the Euler buckling load.
43
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
0.5466
3.3529
6.13417
10
10
Taking both the initial bow imperfection and residual stress into account, the
buckling resistance of 3.3529 10 from the simulation, as calculated
above, is significantly higher than 2.636 10 that was theoretically
calculated according to Eurocode 3. Thus, the effect of the combined
residual stresses and initial bow imperfection is about 45.3% of the Euler
buckling load.
.
Since
represents the worst-case scenario of any column supplied by
Broderna Edstrand AB, it is also considered to study the combined effect
Therefore, the buckling resistance,
0.5123
6.1342
3.1425
10
10
Thus, it is observed that in the worst case, a column would buckle at 51.2%
of the Euler buckling load considering the effects of the both the initial bow
imperfections and residual stresses.
44
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
0.8020
2.2154
2.76236
10
10
2.2154 10
0.01125 355 10
0.55
0.9148
9.1171
9.96618
10
10
9.1171 10
0.01125 355 10
0.23
45
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Buckling Curves
reduction factor,
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
FESimulations
0,2
Eurocode3
0
0
non-dimensional slenderness,
The buckling curve shown in Figure 22 gives higher reduction factor and shows
almost similar trend in comparison to the buckling curve c in Figure 5 from
Eurocode 3.
46
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
7. Discussion
The boundary conditions of the structure must be well defined. Wrong
boundary conditions will give wrong results and will greatly affect the
analysis. In this work, a pinned-pinned boundary condition was used. This
means the boundary conditions used in this work were close to reality.
Meshing plays a critical role in the finite element modeling. Efforts were
made to pick a mesh that gave equal and uniform elements, see Figure 14.
The value of the buckling load obtained in the linear buckling analysis was
closer to the one calculated according to Eurocode 3. Moreover, the
buckling resistance obtained from the analysis considering the ratio of
150 is close to the value from the calculations according to Eurocode
3.This confirms that the meshing done for this study was accurate enough.
The buckling resistance obtained from the Riks method considering the
residual stress alone was much higher than the one calculated according to
Eurocode 3. The effect of residual stress alone is about 32% of the Euler
buckling load. Hence, it is observed to be higher than the 25% mentioned for
the steel angles as per the literature study. This difference could be due to
the one or a combination of the following reasons concerning this thesis:
The reference value for the residual stresses considered in this study
could be on the higher side.
47
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
8. Conclusions
The linear Eigen-value buckling analysis is used to determine the critical
buckling load. Elastic-plastic behavior and imperfections are not considered
in this analysis. However, imperfections are always present in structures.
Thus, post-buckling analysis, also known as non-linear buckling analysis,
must be performed always. The elastic-plastic material and imperfections are
considered in the non-linear buckling analysis.
From the results obtained in this work, the following conclusions are drawn:
The buckling formulae in Eurocode 3 are based on second order
moment and extensive experimentations on real columns.
Imperfections are well handled by the formulae and buckling curves
in Eurocode 3.
Post-buckling analysis utilizing the Riks method in ABAQUS is an
efficient way to evaluate the effects due to initial imperfections on a
structure.
The influence of residual stresses, with a magnitude of maximum
about 13% in the flange and 35% in the web, of the yielding strength,
on flexural buckling is about 31.90% of the design Euler buckling
load.
The effect of initial bow imperfection with a magnitude of 0.1% of
the column length on flexural buckling is about 45.28% of the Euler
buckling load.
The combined effect of residual stress (magnitude as mentioned
above) and initial bow imperfection (0.1% of the column length) on
flexural buckling is about 45.34% of the design Euler buckling load.
While considering the worst-case scenario, the effect of the initial
bow of 0.15% of the length of the column and the combined effect
were found to be 48.39% and 48.77% of the Euler buckling load
respectively.
Residual stresses influence buckling behavior. However, the
48
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Reference
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
49
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-1 - General rules and rules for
buildings, First Edition, JAN 2012.
[Online]. Available: http://www.fgg.unilj.si/~/pmoze/ESDEP/master/wg07/l0510.htm. [Anvnd 12 May 2015].
L. Gardner och D. A. Nethercot, Designer's Guide to Eurocode 3: Design of
steel structures general rules and rules for buildings, London: Thomas Telfolrd
Publishing, 2005.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.nssmc.com/en/product/stainless/sushshaped_steel_size.html.
[Anvnd 23 April 2015].
EN 1990: Eurocode-Basis of Structural design, Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization (CEN), 2002.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.constructalia.com/repository/Products/BeamsSections/SectionRang
eFR_EN_DE/HE.pdf. [Anvnd 11 May 2015].
S. Kumar och S. A. Kumar. [Online]. Available:
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105106113/2_industrial_building/5_plastic_analysis.p
df. [Anvnd 15 May 2015].
[Online]. Available:
http://homepages.engineering.auckland.ac.nz/~pkel015/SolidMechanicsBooks/
Part_II/08_Plasticity/08_Plasticity_01_Introduction.pdf. [Anvnd 11 June
2015].
B. P. Dinis, D. Camotim och N. Silvestre, FEM-based analysis of the local
plate/distortional mode interaction in cold-formed steel lipped channel
columns, Computers and Structures, vol. 85, nr 19-20, pp. 1461-1474, 2007.
ABAQUS 6.11 online Documentation,
http://orange.engr.ucdavis.edu:2080/v6.11/books/gsa/default.htm?startat=ch10s
02.html.
SS-EN 1993-1-5, Swedish Standards Institute, 2006/AC:2009.
50
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
51
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix
Appendix 1: Modeling procedures
52
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Double click on
Appendix 1: page1
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
click Done Enter the length of the column that we need to extrudeOK.
5. Create radius:
Next using the
option, create a radius in the extruded part. Select the
edges by holding down shift. Done Enter the values according to the
HEA 300 standards. (0.027)press enter.
Appendix 1: page2
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page3
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Done Select and edge or axis that will appear: Horizontal and on the
top select the top edge. In the following sketch window, draw 2 lines
along the centers of the cross-section as shown below:
Click Done.
Repeat the same on the other side of the column. The partition sketches
are made in order generate the required points to help in partitioning the
column into equal cells.
We get the below result on both the ends:
Appendix 1: page4
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page5
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Double click on
Appendix 1: page6
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page7
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
create a reference
point at the center of the cross-section at the top and the bottom using
as shown below:
Under Column in the model tree Double click on Sets Name: Upper
NodesSelect whole surface on the upper cross-section holding down shift
Done.
Repeat the same for the lower nodes, this time giving the Name: Lower
Nodes.
12. Making the top and bottom surfaces rigid:
Under
Appendix 1: page8
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Rigid
select pin(nodes)click on
In the Global Seed window give Approximate Global seed to 0.05 OK.
This will seed that column along the length for element sizes of 50mm.
In toolbar, click on Seed Edges select the outline of the cross-section
line by line.
Appendix 1: page9
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page10
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page11
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page12
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page13
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page14
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page15
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page16
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page17
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Double click on
Appendix 1: page18
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page19
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page20
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page21
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
click
on
and type
*IMPERFECTION,FILE=Linear_Buckling_Analysis, STEP=1(Press
Enter) 1, 0.0306OK
(Make sure to remove the modifications in the keywords created in the
Linear buckling stage before creating the job.)
Appendix 1: page22
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page23
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page24
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Continue doing the same procedure for the stack of elements on the far end
of the flange
This time, Name: Max_Comp_Flange
The selection of the elements are as shown below:
Appendix 1: page25
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Continue creating sets with the following names and in the below shown
pattern:
Name: Max_Comp_Web
Appendix 1: page26
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Observe that for selection of the elements along the web, a stack of 4
elements are selected.
Now continue selecting the stack of elements center-outwards, each time
selecting the stacks along the web and flange separately. Name the sets of
elements on the web center-outwards as Web1, Web2, Web3..etc.
Name: Web1
Appendix 1: page27
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Name: Web2
Appendix 1: page28
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Name: Web3
Similarly, create the sets along the flange. Name them as Flange1, Flange2,
Flange3 ..etc.
Appendix 1: page29
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Name: Flange1
Appendix 1: page30
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Name: Flange2
Appendix 1: page31
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Name: Flange3
Appendix 1: page32
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page33
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page34
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Appendix 1: page35
Henry Mupeta, George John, Aliasgar Hirani
Faculty of Technology
351 95 Vxj, Sweden
Telephone: +46 772-28 80 00, fax +46 470-832 17