Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

36

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, modeling of the steel angle with end plates has been discussed in details. In the ongoing chapter, we shall analyze a few angle sections under axially applied eccentric compression load by means of theoretical approach (Jezeks formula and Youngs secant formula) and non-linear buckling analysis in finite element method. The results obtained from both the analysis have been compared with results obtained from the test of Bathon et al (1993) and ASCE formula (obtained from ASCE Manual 52 for the Design of Steel Transmission towers (1988)).

The results are presented in tables and supporting graphs are also provided for convenience to justify the results from various aspects and for making comments and suggestions and for further recommendations.

4.2 TEST OF BATHON et al (1993)

Bathon et al (1993) tested a total number of seventy five single steel angles (thirty one single-angle equal leg and forty four single angle unequal leg member), for determining ultimate compression load carrying capacity considering the effect of eccentricity of the applied axial load.

For giving emphasize of eccentricity effect of applied load, the load was applied through the center of gravity of the bolt pattern(which is, according to ASCE Manual 52(1988)),located between the centroid of the angle and the center line of the connected leg. Figure 4.1 shows the portion g that determines the eccentricity of the applied load.

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

37

Figure 4.1:Cross-section dimensions for test performed by Bathon et al (1993) The results of this research project consisted of the performance of single angle members in the elastic, inelastic and postbuckling regions. All of the test specimens failed due to overall member buckling. Experimental test results for a 102x102x6 angle obtained from test of Bathon et al (1993) are shown below ( Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Experimental results (buckling curve) for 102x102x6 angle

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

38

Table 4.1: Typical representative test results for various single equal-leg angles. Test number (1) 14 12 11 13 10 9 67 46 51 7 4 5 44x44x3 44x44x3 44x44x3 51x51x3 51x51x3 51x51x3 89x89x6 89x89x6 89x89x6 102x102x6 102x102x6 102x102x6 Angle size (2) Area (sq.mm) (3) 272 272 272 312 312 312 1089 1089 1089 1250 1250 1250 60 90 120 60 90 120 60 90 120 60 90 120 l/r (4) Actual Predicted capacity capacity (MPa) (5) test Fy=actual (MPa) (6) (MPa) (7) 378.3 57.9 97.1 378.3 378.3 403.1 403.1 403.1 334.9 339.0 339.0 325.9 325.9 325.9 59.9 53.1 89.6 82.7 57.2 268.7 207.4 144.7 304.5 226.7 164.0 75.4 57.7 108.6 86.6 66.3 370.5 300.8 231.0 394.8 334.3 265.1 Actual Fy

Where, Fy is the yield stress of the angle.

4.3 MAJOR FEATURES OF PRESENT ANALYSIS

The present study will compare the findings of similar study carried out by Bathon et al (1993).In this study, the ultimate compression load carrying capacity has been analyzed by means of analytical approach (Jezeks formula and Youngs secant formula) and non-linear buckling analysis in finite element method. In the analytical approach, Jezeks formula has been used for cases, l/r<Cc and secant formula has been used for cases l/r >Cc. A total number of four single equal leg angles have been studied under present investigation. For each angle, critical stress is determined for slenderness ratios: 12, 20,40,60,90,120,150,180,210 and 240 respectively. The position of applied load has fixed eccentricity for separate angles,

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

39

these values were used both in non-linear finite element buckling analysis and in analytical formulas as listed below:

Table 4.2:The position of applied load g for the angle sections used in present analysis

Angle size 44x44x3 44x44x3 44x44x3 51x51x3 51x51x3 51x51x3 89x89x6 89x89x6 89x89x6 102x102x6 102x102x6 102x102x6

l/r 60 90 120 60 90 120 60 90 120 60 90 120

g (mm) 25 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35 38 37 38

4.4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

In this article, the result of the present investigation will be presented and compared with previous similar research investigations simultaneously in following tables and figures in the next pages:

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

40

Table 4.3: Critical stress for different l/r ratio for angle: 44 x 44 x 3 l/r ratio Theoretical approach (Jezeks formula or Youngs secant formula) 331.9 330.1 319.5 292.8 204.6 137 88 60 44 30 Critical stress, MPa Present analysis Test of Bathon et al (1993) ASCE formula

12 20 40 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

194.82 179.60 170.31 160.31 137.80 128.07 96.50 67.01 49.21 37.69

57.9 59.9 53.1 -

97.1 75.4 57.7 -

350

300

Analytical Approach(Jezek's formula or Young's secant formula) Present Analysis

Critical Streses,MPa

250

150

Streses,MPa

200

Test of Bathon et al (1993)

ASCE Formula

100

50

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

l/r ratio

Figure 4.3: Critical Stress vs l /r ratio for 44x44x3 angle

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

41

Table 4.4: Critical stress for different l/r ratio for angle: 51x 51x 3

l/r ratio Theoretical approach (Jezeks formula or Youngs secant formula) 395.1 394.6 391.8 379.1 237 137 87 60 44 30

Critical stress, MPa Present analysis Test of Bathon et al (1993) ASCE formula

12 20 40 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

237.85 218.38 200.90 193.73 189.25 150.77 96.49 67.00 49.23 37.71

89.6 82.7 57.2 -

108.6 86.6 66.3 -

450 400 350

Analytical Approach(Jezek's formula or Young's secant formula) Present Analysis

Critical Stress,MPa

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Stress,MPa

Test of Bathon et al (1993)

ASCE Formula

l/r ratio

Figure 4.4: Critical Stress vs l /r ratio for 51x51x3 angle

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

42

Table 4.5: Critical stress for different l/r ratio for angle: 89x 89x 6

l/r ratio Theoretical approach (Jezeks formula or Youngs secant formula) 275 273.2 263.4 242.2 183.0 137 87 60 44 34

Critical stress, MPa Present analysis Test of Bathon et al (1993) ASCE formula

12 20 40 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

243.41 225 220.54 215.98 197.9 150.77 96.51 67.01 49.23 37.69

268.7 207.4 144.7 -

370.5 300.8 231.0 -

400 350

Analytical Analysis(Jezek's formula or Young's secant formula) Present Analysis

300

Critical Stress,MPa

250

200

Stress,MPa

Test of Bathon et al (1993)

150 100 50

ASCE Formula

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

l/r ratio

Figure 4.5: Critical Stress vs l /r ratio for 89x89x6 angle

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

43

Table 4.6: Critical stress for different l/r ratio for angle: 102x102x6

l/r ratio Theoretical approach (Jezeks formula or Youngs secant formula) 259 257 247 227 171 137 87 60 44 34

Critical stress, MPa Present analysis Test of Bathon et al (1993) ASCE formula

12 20 40 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

236.95 223.23 214.56 204.54 178.19 150.75 96.46 67.02 49.24 37.70

304.5 226.7 164.0 -

394.8 334.3 265.1 -

450 400 350

Analytical Approach(Jezek's formula or Young's secant formula) Present Analysis

Critical Stress,MPa

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Stress,MPa

Test of Bathon et al (1993)

ASCE Formula

l/r ratio

Figure 4.6: Critical Stress vs l /r ratio for 102x102x6 angle

Chapter 4 : Results and Discussions

44

4.5 DISCUSSION ON RESULTS

From the results obtained for different angle sections for various l/r ratios, it has been observed that stress corresponding to critical buckling load decreases with the increase in the l/r ratio for each angle (both in finite element analysis and analytical approach).This follows the usual pattern of a typical buckling curve. For each angle section, the results obtained from analytical approach are higher than results found from finite element analysis for lower l/r ratios. But at the higher l/r ratios, the two curves gradually tend to merge. It has been further observed that with the increase in the dimensions of angle sections, the gap between the curves tend to reduce for lower l/r ratios. The results obtained from the test of Bathon et al (1993) and those obtained from ASCE formula remain always lower than results found using theoretical formula and non-linear finite element analysis for comparatively lower dimensions of angle sections. but for higher dimensions of angles, these results remain higher than results from analytical approach and non-linear finite element analysis. In the test of Bathon et al (1993), the failure mode of each specimen was created by buckling in the positive x-direction about the y-y axis. This general failure mode was expressed as a flexural minor axis buckling. In secant formula, the radius of gyration (r) may not be minimum, since it is obtained from the value of the moment of inertia (I) associated with the axis around which bending occurs. So, the results obtained using this formula, may not be the exact one, which is desired. However, finite element analysis, may overcome these problems, as in this type of analysis, the buckling of the model in the positive y-direction about the x-x axis has also been exhibited. This observation indicates that buckling failure may not always occur in minor axis.