Final Structure Coursework Handin

THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH
School of engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
STRUCTURE III
CIVI 1015 & CIVI 1009
PLASTIC ANALYSIS OF A PITCHED ROOF PORTAL FRAME

LABORATORY TESTING OF A REINFORCED CONCERTE SLAB AND YIELD
LINE THEORY
LABORATORY TESTING OF STEEL PORTAL FRAME
BEng (Hons)
Tutor: Dr Ouahid Harireche
Laboratory Technician: Tony Stevens
Group 5
STUDENTS:
Xudong Niu,
Fode Cisse
2011 2012
Contents
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................2
I Plastic Analysis of a Pitchedroof Portal Frame...........................................................................3
1.1 Aim........................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Objective...............................................................................................................................3
1.3 Description of the Model......................................................................................................3
1.4 Methodology of the Analysis................................................................................................4
1.5 Result & findings..................................................................................................................5
1.5.1 Using SAND programme...........................................................................................5
1.5.2 Manual Plastic Analysis...........................................................................................23
1.5.3 Draw Plastic Bending Diagram...............................................................................27
II Laboratory Testing of a Reinforced Concrete Slab and Yield Line Theory.........................30
Structures III
2.1 Aim......................................................................................................................................30
2.2 Objective.............................................................................................................................30
2.3 Description of the Experiment............................................................................................30
2.4 Procedure for Experiment...................................................................................................31
2.5 Experiment Data & Observations.......................................................................................33
...................................................................................................................................................36
2.6 Calculations.........................................................................................................................37
2.6.1 Empirical Method....................................................................................................37
2.6.2 Theoretical Method of Calculation (Yield line Method).........................................40
III Laboratory Testing of Steel Portal Frame.................................................................................42
3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................42
3.2 Aim......................................................................................................................................42
3.3 Objective.............................................................................................................................42
3.4 Description of Experiment..................................................................................................43
3.5 Procedure for Experiment...................................................................................................45
3.6 Results & Findings..............................................................................................................47
3.6.1 Analysis Experimental Results................................................................................47
3.6.2 Manual Theoretical Calculation..............................................................................51
3.6.3 Interaction Diagram (ID).........................................................................................55
3.7 Discussion &Conclusions...................................................................................................57
4 General Conclusion........................................................................................................................58
5 References......................................................................................................................................59
Introduction
The elastic design method, also termed as allowable stress method (or Working stress
method), is a conventional method of design based on the elastic properties of steel.
This method of design limits the structural usefulness of the material up to a certain
allowable stress, which is well below the elastic limit. The stresses due to working
loads do not exceed the specified allowable stresses, which are obtained by applying
an adequate factor of safety to the yield stress of steel. The elastic design does not
take into account the strength of the material beyond the elastic stress. Therefore the
structure designed according to this method will be heavier than that designed by
plastic methods, but in many cases, elastic design will also require less stability
bracing.
In the method of plastic design of a structure, the ultimate load rather than the yield
stress is regarded as the design criterion. The term plastic has occurred due to the fact
that the ultimate load is found from the strength of steel in the plastic range. This
School of Engineering
Page 1
Structures III
method is also known as method of load factor design or ultimate load design. The
strength of steel beyond the yield stress is fully utilized in this method. This method is
rapid and provides a rational approach for the analysis of the structure. This method
also provides striking economy as regards the weight of steel since the sections
designed by this method are smaller in size than those designed by the method of
elastic design. Plastic design method has its main application in the analysis and
design of statically indeterminate framed structures.
I Plastic Analysis of a Pitchedroof Portal Frame
1.1 Aim
In this part of the report, our aim is to investigate the plastic collapse of a pitched roof
portal frame.
1.2 Objective
1. We would perform an incremental collapse analysis of a pitched-roof portal
frame structure through using an elastic structural analysis of the SAND
software programme;
2. We would interpret output data from the SAND programme;
3. With the calculation process with software programme, we could understand
the theory of incremental collapse method.
Page 2
Structures III
1.3 Description of the Model
Figure 1.1 Model of Pitched-roof Portal Frame
The frame: Span = 20 m

Height to eaves = 10 m
Height to ridge = 15 m
Loading:
Horizontal load eaves = 8 kN
Vertical load at mid-points of rafters = 24 kN and 16kN

Section Property: Steel with uniform plastic moment of resistance = 60 kNm.
1.4 Methodology of the Analysis

1. Incremental Elastic Analysis using SAND;
Trace the structural response at all stages of plastic hinge formation
Identify the collapse mechanism and the collapse loads
2. Perform a manual plastic analysis of the structure considering all possible collapse
mechanisms and using the theorem of virtual work to calculate the collapse loads;
3. Compare the calculation results with the computer output obtained;
Page 3
Structures III
4. Draw the plastic bending moment diagram.
1.5 Result & findings

1.5.1 Using SAND programme
In order to trace the structural response at all stages of plastic hinge formation, we use
the SAND programme with elastic analysis method and then hand calculation which
to locate plastic hinge in the structure model. The structure model is shown in figure
1.1; due to the data of load which horizontal and vertical loads contain
H 1 is 8kN
at joint No.2, one of vertical load is 24kN at joint No.3 and the other one is 16kN at
joint No.5, therefore, the whole values divided by 8 should get
3.0,
V 5 = 2.0. So we can carry loads , 3 , 2
behaviour of the frame, as
Stage 1
Whole structure elastic until first plastic forms at Joint No.7:
2
4
3
V3 =
in the figure 1.2. The
is increased, the whole process contains four stages
shown below:
H 2 = 1.0,
Page 4
Structures III
7
Figure 1.2 Stage1 the whole elastic structure with no hinge
The Bending Moment Diagram from elastic analysis of the SAND programme:
T HE C OU R SE WO R K OF ST RU CT U RE S I II
E LA ST IC ST RU C TU RA L A NA LY S IS
X UD ON G N IU , F OD E C IS SE
S TR U C T U R E S C A L E 1 C M = 1 . 5 0 0
M OM E N T Z
P AG E:
M AD E B Y:
D AT E:
RE F N O:
X UD ON G N
1 0/ 02 / 12
= S U PP O R TS
SC A L E 1 C M = 5. 0 0
LO A D I N G K E Y
0.20 0.20
4
3.67
1.69
3
5.76
6.81
3.67
6.81
2
0.45
7.32
FigureY 1.3 The bending moment diagram with no hinge through SAND programme
1
In the bending moment diagram from SAND programme, the bending moment value
(kNm) of each major joint is shown above. This situation is a whole structure elastic
without any plastic hinge. The value of maximum bending moment is 7.32 kNm at
joint No.7, so we need to put the uniform plastic moment of resistance value of 60
kNm on joint No.7 which a plastic hinge location, and then we would calculate the
value of load factor using the plastic bending moment diagram programme.
Page 5
Structures III
Page 6
Structures III
Page 7
Structures III
4
3
1.64 1.64
30.08
55.82
30.08 2
47.21
13.85
6
55.82
1 3.69
60
Figure 1.4 Stage 1
Load factor
= 60/7.32 = 8.197
The figure 1.4 is shown that the stage 1 of the plastic bending moment (kNm) diagram
process by SAND and then calculation. Initially the frame structure is elastic
everywhere, and elastic analysis using SAND programme. When
= 8.197 the
largest bending moment, at Joint No.7 becomes structure apart form joint No.7 is still
elastic and remains so when is increased above 8.197. When is increased,
Joint No.7 behaves i.e. a hinge in that it can rotate freely, but the bending moment
must remain equal to 60 kNm of the plastic moment.
The value of 8.197 times bending moments from figure 1.3, getting the bending
moments in the stage 1 of the plastic bending moment diagram is shown in figure 1.4.
E LA ST IC ST RU C TU RA L A NA LY S IS
S TR U C T UR E SC A L E 1 C M = 1. 5 0 0
M OM E N T Z
P AG E:
M AD E B Y:
D AT E:
RE F N O:
X UD ON G N
1 0/ 02 / 12
= S U PP O R TS
SC A L E 1 C M = 8. 0 0
LO A D IN G KE Y
1
4
Stage 2
3
Effective structure contains a frictionless hinge at joint No.7; second plastic hinge
forms at Joint2 No.6:
Page 8
Y
1
Structures III
2.19 2.19
1.58
2.55
2.55
7.32
9.03
9.03
3.52
0.00
Figure 1.5 the bending moment diagram with hinge at joint No.7
(kNm) of each major joint is shown in figure 1.5. This situation is effective structure
contains a frictionless hinge at joint No.7. The value of maximum bending moment is
55.82 kNm at joint No.6 in figure 1.4, so we need to put the uniform plastic moment
of resistance value of 60 kNm on joint No.6 which a plastic hinge location, and then
we would calculate the value of load factor using the plastic bending moment diagram
programme.
Page 9
Structures III
Page 10
Structures III
4
2.65
2.65
5
60
31.25
14.58
50.58
31.25 2
2.07
1
60
60
Figure 1.6 stage 2
Load factor = 8.197 + 0.46 = 8.657

The figure 1.6 is shown that the stage 2 of the plastic bending moment diagram
process by SAND programme and then calculation. The effective structure model
which resists the loads when
is greater than 8.197, it is simply the original frame
structure with frictionless hinge at Joint No.7. This frame structure is analysed by the
same elastic method of the SAND programme in stage 1. The result of the analysis is
the change in bending moment diagram in figure 1.5. To get the total moments it is
necessary to add the change in bending moment to the bending moments when =
8.197. The notice: the frictionless hinge at joint No.7 ensures that the change in
bending moment at Joint No.7 is zero so that the total moment remains equal to the
plastic moment.
The maximum moment is the bending moment of 55.82 kNm at joint No.6 shown in
figure 1.4.
M
T H E C O U R S E W O R K O F S T R U C T U R E S I I I6
E L A S T I C S T' R U C T U R A L A N A L Y S I S
XWhere
U D O N G N IU , FisO Dchange
E C I S S Ein and
= 55.82 + 9.03 '

M 6 equals the
P AG E:
M AD E B Y: X UD ON G N
D A T E : 1(60kNm),
0/ 02 / 12
plastic moment
RE F N O:
9.03 is
= S U P P O R Tat
S joint No.6 in bending moment diagram by
the value of the bending moment (kNm)
S TR U C T U R E SC A L E 1 C M = 1. 5 0 0
M OM E N T Z
SC A L E 1 C M = 10 . 0 0
L O A DI N G K E Y
SAND elastic analysis in figure 1.5.

'
So,
Stage 3
= (60 55.82)/9.03 = 0.46
Effective structure has frictionless hinges at joint No.6 and 7; third plastic hinge forms
2
at Joint No.3:
Page 11
Y
1
Structures III
10.83
10.83
10.41
3.34
3.34
11.24
0.00
13.34
0.00
Figure 1.7 the bending moment diagram with hinge at joint No.6 and 7
contains frictionless hinges at joint No.6 and 7. The value of maximum bending
moment is 50.58 kNm at joint No.3 in figure 1.6, so we need to put the uniform
plastic moment of resistance value of 60 kNm on joint No.3 which a plastic hinge
location, and then we would calculate the value of load factor using the plastic
bending moment diagram programme.
Page 12
Structures III
Page 13
Structures III
11.72 4 11.72
3
5
23.30
34.05
34.05 2
60
60
60
7
60
Figure 1.8 stage 3
9.11
Load factor
= 8.657 + 0.838 = 9.495
The figure 1.8 is shown that the stage 3 of the plastic bending moment diagram
process by SAND elastic analysis and calculation. The effective which resists the
loads when
is greater than 8.657. It is simply the original frame structure with
two frictionless hinges at joint 6 and 7. Elastic analysis method is the same to the
stage 2 analysis using SAND programme. The result of the analysis is the change in
bending moments. In order to get the total moments, we should add the change in
bending moments to bending moments when
is 8.657. The same condition with
stage 2, which changing bending moment at joint No.6 is zero so that the total
moment should equal to the plastic moment. So from now there are two hinges in the
effective frame structure. The maximum moment of 50.58kNm is under the vertical
load, joint 3 in figure 1.6.
E LA ST IC ST RU C TU RA L A NA LY S IS M3 =
''
Where
is change in
S TR U C T UR E SC A L E 1 C M = 1. 5 0 0
and
P AG E:
M AD E B Y:
D AT E:
RE F N O:
50.58 + 11.24 ' '

M
X UD ON G N
1 0/ 02 / 12
equals the plastic moment (60kNm). 11.24
3 O R TS
= S U PP
M OM the
E N T Z value
SC A L E of
1 C Mthe
= 20bending
.00
L O A DI(kNm)
N G K E Y at joint
1
is
moment
No.3 in bending moment diagram
by SAND elastic analysis in figure 1.7.

So,
' '
= (60 50.58)/11.24 = 0.838
Stage 4
Frictionless hinges at joint No.3, 6 and 7; fourth plastic hinge forms at Joint No.2;
frame structure fails:
Page 14
Y
1
Structures III
3.33 3.33
6.67
18.33
18.33
0.00
0.00
28.33
0.00
Figure 1.9 the bending moment diagram with hinge at joint No.3, 6 and 7
contains frictionless hinges at joint No.3, 6 and 7. The value of maximum bending
moment is 34.05 kNm at joint No.2 in figure 1.8, so we need to put the uniform
plastic moment of resistance value of 60 kNm on joint No.2 which a plastic hinge
location, and then we would calculate the value of load factor using the plastic
bending moment diagram programme.
Page 15
Structures III
Page 16
Structures III
16.44 4 16.44
60
60
32.74
2
49.22
60
6
60
60
60
Figure 1.10 stage 4
Load Factor
= 9.495 + 1.416 = 10.91
It is shown that the stage 4 of the plastic bending moment diagram process by SAND
elastic analysis and calculation. The process can be continued as in stage 4 with three
is 10.91 a fourth plastic hinge forms.
frictionless hinges, until at
The maximum moment of 34.05 kNm is under the horizontal load, joint 2 in figure
1.8.
M 2 = 34.05 + 18.33 ' ' '
Where
'''
is change in
and
M 2 equals the plastic moment (60kNm). 18.33
is the value of the bending moment (kNm) at joint No.2 in bending moment diagram
by SAND elastic analysis in figure 1.9.
So,
'''
= (60 34.05)/18.33= 1.416
The value of 1.416 times bending moments from figure 1.9; plus the bending
moments in figure 1.8 (the process exclude hinge locations), getting the bending
moments in the final plastic bending moment diagram is shown in figure 1.10.
Any attempt to continue the process using an effective structure with fourth
frictionless hinges is impossible; the equations become singular and cannot be solved.
In fact, the structure becomes a mechanism and is on the joint of collapse when the
fourth hinge forms.
Page 17
Structures III
So, the collapse loads:

H 2 = 10.91 kN
V 3 = 32.73 kN
V 5 = 21.82 kN
1.5.2 Manual Plastic Analysis

In this part, we would perform manual plastic analysis of the structure in order to
consider all possible collapse mechanisms and calculate the collapse loads using the
theorem of virtual work. Finally, compare the manual plastic analysis result with the
computer output obtained.
Page 18
Structures III
3
D
C
5m
15m
10m
5m 5m 5m 5m
20m
Steel with uniform plastic moment of resistance,
M p = 60 kNm.
Structure:
Redundancy, R = 3
Critical Section (the number of possible plastic hinge locations), N = 7
Mechanism, M = N R = 7 3 = 4
Number of plastic hinges, R+1 = 3+1= 4
3
C
B
Beam mechanism BCD:
C'
3 5
M p2 +
the virtual work equation is
M p
M p
15 = 4 M p
M1
2
C
2
M p2 +
4Mp
15
4 60
15
= 16
Beam mechanism DEF

'
2 5
M p
M p
10 = 4 M p
=
24
A
M2
G
Page 19
4Mp
10
4 60
10
Structures III
Sway mechanism
E
D
C
D
B'
'
'
C'
F'
10
+ M p + M p
10 = 4 M p
tan
G
M3
5
10
10
IG
IF
IG

DI
FF'

FI

FG
DI
BD
FI
FG
4 60
10
= 24
= 20 m
IG
'

DD = BD
4Mp
10
= 20 10 = 10 m
FG
Page 20
M p + M p
Structures III
BD
102+ 52
202+ 102
BI
DI
= BI
= 22.36 m
BD
11.18
11.18
So, =
= 11.18 m
11.18 = 11.18 m
10
10
= 22.36
The virtual work equation is

3 5 + 2 5
)+
Mp ( + ) +
Mp ( +
M p
= ,
3 5
+
M p
+ 2 5
Mp +
M p (2 ) +
Mp
5 5
M p 6
6
M =
2.5 p
6 60
2.5
= 14.4
I
D
C
B
hinge cancelled at D
'
G
M1 + M4
Page 21
M p ( 2 )
Structures III
Combined mechanism
Other combined is not available by trial. If hinge cancelled at D, so the rotation of
, which at D in M1 should be equal to the rotation of 2 , which at D in M4,
i.e. = 2 .
For M4 (hinge cancelled at D)
5 5
2.5 5
Mp +
Mp +
Mp +
M p
=2 )
M p 2
For M1 (hinge cancelled at D)

3 5
M p +
M p 2
5.5 5
M1 + M4
Mp
5.5
60
5.5
M p 5
= 10.91
So, the collapse loads:

H1 =
= 10.91 kN
V 1 = 3 = 3 10.91 = 32.73 kN
V 3 = 2 = 2 10.91 = 21.82 kN
Compare the results with the SAND output obtained; the values are equal (OK).
1.5.3 Draw Plastic Bending Diagram
32.73kN
21.82kN
D
C
10.91kN
M BA
M BC
M CB
M CD
= M FE
60 kNm
Page 22
M FG
M GF
Mp
Structures III
(Because of having plastic hinges at these locations)
At the horizontal direction,
M = 0, so
10.91kN
HB
M AB
M BA
M BA
M AB =
M FG =
D
E
M FG +
M GF =
M GF =
HB
10
M p = 60kNm
H B 10 M p M p + M p = 10.91 10 60 = 49.1 kNm
H B = 10.91kNm
60kNm
H A 10 + 49.1 60 = 0
H A = 1.09 kN
10m
MG = 0
V A 20 V c 15 V E 5 = 0
49.1kNm A
HA
VA =
32.73 15+ 21.82 5

20
= 30 kN
VA
32.73kNm
D
B
M BC =M CB =
Page 23
M CD =
M p = 60 kNm
Structures III
H A =1.09 kN
A
M DC
H A 15 = 1.09 15 = 16.35 kNm
V A =30 kN
M D = 0,
M DE
M DE
M DC
=0
= -16.35kNm
M FE = M p = -60 kNm
M FG = M GF = M p = 60 kNm
HG
HA
HB
= 1.09 + 10.91 =
12kN
H G = 12kN
G
M ED = 49.1
16.35 = 32.75 kNm
MA = 0
V G 20 +V c 5 +V E 1 5 = 0
32.73 5+ 21.82 15
VG =
20
V G =24.5kN
= 24.5
kN
So, depended by the values of the result process, the bending moment (kNm) diagram at
collapse load, which is a plastic bending moment diagram shown following as:
D
16.35 16.35
C
60
60
60
B
32.75
60
60
: Fixed Support
A
49.1
G
60
Page 24
Structures III
II
Laboratory Testing of a Reinforced Concrete Slab and
Yield Line Theory
2.1 Aim
In this part of the report, our aim is to investigate failure modes of reinforced concrete
slabs.
2.2 Objective
1. Experimental data and observations;
2. Data from Cube Testing and Tensile Testing;
3. Observed deflection readings;
4. Calculation of the Ultimate Moment of Resistance;
5. Experimental crack pattern;
6. Analysis of the Yield Line pattern and calculation of the Ultimate Moment of
Resistance.
2.3 Description of the Experiment

Hydraulic pressure load
Slab Model
Digital display
Page 25
Structures III
Point gauge
Hydraulic
pressure pump
Reinforced
Testing System
Concrete Slab
Reinforced Concrete Slab Model

and Point gauge
Hydraulic pressure pump
2.4 Procedure for Experiment
The testing mechanism was set up by laboratory technician Tony. For health and
safety raison and for the good conduct of the experiment, the hydraulics pump system
has to be checked to make sure that not damage to any single part of the system is
been neglected which can affect the result of experiment.
A reinforced concrete slab size of 548 mm x 505 mm with depth of 37 mm is set up in
the test rig. The slab was then loaded by hydraulics pressure pump through loading
point which was the centre of the slab
Page 26
Structures III
As the load increased, the cracks

started to appears at the opposite face
of
where the load was applied to. The
first
one appears just horizontally at centre
of the
slab as shown marked in dark colour
on
the face of the slab.
Cracks started to grow from the centre of the slab opposite face to the loading face
and progress toward the edge in horizontal and vertical directions. The cracks in form
of zigzag become larger at the slab surface as loading increased indicating failure in
concrete at flexure.
Page 27
Structures III
The backThe
sideside
of the
slabload
for load
which
pressure
pressure
2.5
Experiment
Data
&
Observations
Data collected during the experiment are shown in table1.
Table2.1: Record from slab testing.
Loading Increment as follow (100% = 20kN)
%
Load (kN)
Deflection in (mm)
0%
0.0
0.0
3%
0.6
0.9
6%
1.2
1.1
9%
1.8
1.3
12%
2.4
1.4
15%
3.0
1.5
18%
3.6
1.7
21%
4.2
1.8
25%
5.0
2.2
30%
6.0
3.2
35%
7.0
4.3
40%
8.0
9.8
45%
9.0
11.5
Graph2.1:
Page 28
Crack appeared at the side of

the slab.
Reinforcing steel in both
direction, positioned nearer to
one edge (tension side) than the
other edge.
Structures III
Deflection
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Defection (mm)
6.0
Deflection
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Load (kN)
This graph is the interpretation of the direct

relationship between Loading and deflection at the mid span of the slab.
Tensile Testing Result for 1 bar & 3 bars
Page 29
Structures III
12mm
1.1mm
12 mm
Cross-section
Note: Number of steel in 100 mm strip of concrete is 9
0.815 kN
Page 30
Structures III
Graph 2.1 Data from tensile test for 1 bar of reinforcing steel
The reinforcing steel

yielded before splitting
into two parts.
Three reinforcing steels yielded

before breaking into two
2.16 kN
Graph 2.2 Data from tensile test for 3 bars of reinforcing steel
Concrete Cube Test Result
Page 31
Structures III
Sample of concrete cube:
100mm
100mm
Cube (date:
08/09/10) testing in the machine
First sample: 2.105 kg
P = 55.39 MPa
Second sample: 2.115 kg
P = 56.54 MPa
Page 32
Structures III
2.6 Calculations
2.6.1 Empirical Method
The empirical relationships are:

K 1 K 3 =(27+ 0.35 f c )/(22+ f c )
K 2=0.5f c /550
Where, f c = the 150 mm cylinder strength = (approx.) 0.78 f cu
f cu = the 100 mm cube strength.
Where,
b = 505 mm
d = 37 mm (12 mm+1.1/2 mm) = 24.45 mm
Take d = 24.45 mm
From the experiment, the average value of 100 mm cube strength is:
P1 + P ( 55.39+ 56.54)
=
=55.97 N /mm2
2
2
f cu =
2
Therefore, the cylinder strength can be calculated as:
Page 33
Structures III
f c =0.78 f cu=0.78 55.97=43.6 6 N / mm2
K1 K3=
27 +0.35 43.6 6
=0.64
22+43.65
6
=0.42
( 43.6
550 )
K 2=0.5
The compressive force is given by:

The tensile force is given by:
Where,
As
Fc = K 1 K 3 f c b x
Ft =f y A s
is the area of the tensile reinforcement and
fy
is the yield stress of
the bars.
The reinforcing steel cross-section is:

2
As=
d 2 (1.1)
=
=0.95 mm2
4
4
As
is the reinforcing steel cross-section area and the diameter d = 1.1 mm.
The yield stress of one reinforcing steel bars was determinate from yield stress taken
from the plot and the cross-section area of the steel.
3
f y=
P 0.815 10
=
=857.89 N /mm2
A
0.95
Equating the two forces gives the values of x, the depth to the neutral axis.
x=
f y As
K 1 K3 f c b
Page 34
Structures III
x=
857.89 37 0.95
=2.14 mm
0.64 43.66 505
The lever arm of the two forces in then:
z=dK 2 x
z=24.45 ( 0.42 2.14 )=23.6 mm

Take z = 23.6 mm
The ultimate moment of resistance is
M u=F c z=F t z
M u=F t z=f y 37 A s z =857.89 37 0.95 23.6=711654.1 Nmm

Mu = 0.71 KNm
A flexural element will be adequate in bending if its internal moment of resistance is
not less than the externally applied bending moment. Therefore, the design ultimate
resistance moment M of a concrete slab must be greater than or equal to the ultimate
imposed bending moment.
2.6.2 Theoretical Method of Calculation (Yield line Method)

This picture showed at the right hand side can be represented graphically by:
Page 35
Structures III
G
550m
II
Slab positioned between its two

supports:
fixed end at the bottom and
Simply support at the top end
500mm
Calculation of Ultimate Moment of Resistance:
Note : No hinge at support D

For value of displacement in collapse load,
= 11.5mm
The vertical displacement 1 =
11.5
2
= 5.75 mm
The vertical displacement 2 =
11.5
2
= 5.75 mm
The External Work W E = q(0.55 0.25) 0.00575 = 7.90625 104 q

The Internal Work W i
= M 0.55
+ M 0.55 2
0.55
AF
AF
Page 36
0.0115
0.55
= 0.021
=3 M
Structures III
W i = 3 0.55 0.021M =0.035M

From Theorem of Virtual Work:
W E = Wi
7.90625 104 q = 0.035M
M =
7.90625 104
q =
0.035
7.90625
q =
350
0.0226q kNm
For crack load, Q = 9 kN q =
9 kN
0.55 0.50
= 32.73 kN/ m2
M = 0.0226 32.73 =0.74 kNm

As the results from the two methods are very similar, we can understand from there
that the assumption made about support A and D is about correct. The two results
converge into one similar answer and the small difference between them might be
from human and system error.
In this particular case, the likely correct result might be from the second method and
the percentage of error might be estimated by:
%err=
Theoexp 0.740.71
=
100=4.05
Theo
0.74
III Laboratory Testing of Steel Portal Frame
3.1 Introduction
Steel portal frames are commonly used for single-storey construction, particularly for
factory and warehouse buildings. These frames provide support to a steel roof. For
frame collapse load factors research, it has a further influence for health and safety in
practical application. The main collapse load factors contain two direction loads
which horizontal load (i.e. wind load) and vertical load (i.e. self-weight and snow load
Page 37
Structures III
etc.). Therefore, it is quite important experiment research for structural engineering to

understand the result of testing of steel portal frame.
3.2 Aim
In this part of the report, we should explore failure modes for a portal frame by model
experimentation. Through learning this experimental process and related knowledge,
we could understand independent and combined failure modes; learning the method
of drawing and interpret interaction diagrams, in addition to interpret experimental
results as a predictor of failure.
3.3 Objective
1. Collected experimental data and observations;
2. Theoretical calculation of the plastic moment, M p ;
3. Observed deflection readings;
4. Theoretical values of V (beam collapse), H (sway collapse) and V & H (combined
collapse);
5. Draw the Interaction Diagram;
6. Analysis the three modes if failure from the experimental results;
7. Draw up a table showing the comparison of theoretical and experimental results,
for the 3 failure modes.
3.4 Description of Experiment

50mm dial gauge
Page 38
Structures III
Column
fixed
control
Fixed Support
Dead Weight
View of Experimental Model
Apparatus
Dead weight
weight in
in horizontal
vertical
Dead weight in both
direction inin structural
structural
directions at the same
model
time in structural model
Page 39
Structures III
http://www.houserepairtalk.com/f37/tape-measures-6083/
50 mm dial gauge
(Reading the value of the dial shown,
it is the central deflection depth y
(mm); the data is record i.e. smaller
pointer reading + bigger pointer
reading 0.01)
Steel measuring tape

(Measure the length and
width of the beam)
Hand Weights
http://www.starrett.co.uk/shop/precision/micro
meters/standard_outside_micrometer/
There is a range of weights as follows:

200 g, 0.5 kg, 1.0 kg, 2.0 kg, 4.0 kg, 5.0
kg, 8.0 kg
Micrometre
(Measure the depth of the beam)
3.5 Procedure for Experiment

1. Take photographs of the Initial Set Up and the Steel Portal Frame Test, before
experiments in three different conditions are started, and during the experiments;
Page 40
Structures III
2. Take the dial gauge measure data in vertical

direction dead load in the first condition;
3. Zero the dial gauge on the outer dial by
making sure that the pointer is at 0 (if could
not take zero, we can record from an initial
value, and then modified values, which is
reading value
4. This
test
is
initial value);
very
sensitive
to
any
disturbance;
5. Add weight to the load hanger (weight value is depended by ourselves, but we
need control a certain limit) and read the dial gauge (deflection of steel frame);
6. At each increment of load, read the dial gauge
and observe the shape changing in each
increment load.
7. When the structural model is collapse, stop
increase the dead load, which is collapse load in
the vertical direction load and record the
deflection value of dial gauge;
8. Change the dial gauge location to measure
deflection in horizontal direction;
9.
Doing the same way which measured deflection

in vertical direction is to do horizontal direction
condition and record the horizontal collapse
load and a range of deflection;
10.
Add another dial gauge put in vertical direction

to measure combine vertical direction load with
Page 41
Structures III
horizontal direction loads, which to do the

same way and then get the combined collapse
load and deflection reading.
11. Take off all the loads; record all observation in

the experiment process.
Steel Test:
14.0kN
14.1kN
Graph 3.1 The first steel frame test

14.1kN
Graph 3.2 The second steel frame test
3.6 Results & Findings

3.6.1 Analysis Experimental Results
For Beam Collapse:
Table 3.1:
Page 42
Structures III
Beam Collapse
Dead Weight
Load
Deflection
(kg)
(N)
(mm)
0
0.00
0.00
9
88.29
1.26
18
176.58
2.53
27
264.87
3.84
36
353.16
5.37
45
441.45
8.09
50
490.50
10.55
55
539.55
45.00
Beam Collapse Deflection

50.00
40.00
30.00
Deflection (mm)
Beam Collapse Deflection
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
200.00 400.00 600.00

Load (N)
Graph 3.3 The relation between Load and Deflection in Vertical load
In graph 3.1, it is shown that the relation between load and deflection during
experiment process. With load increasing, the deflection is increasing and we are able
to see elastic variation with load values from 0 to 441.45 N and then plastic deflection
in between 441.45 N to 490.50 N, finally, there is quite increasing effectively to
failure which collapse load of 539.55 N. It should be having some errors in the
experiment process system. From experimental observation, the angle of the two
joints, which connect between column and beam, is still 90 degree during the
increment of load. Plastic variation is happened due to elastic deflection. The beam
collapse load is 539.55 N.
For Sway Collapse:
Angle
900
Angle
90
Page 43
Structures III
Graph 3.2:
Sway Collapse
Load (N)
Deflection (mm)
0
8.39
49.05
11.87
98.1
15.74
147.15
20.83
196.2
25.46
245.25
38
255.06
41.5
264.87
52
274.68
56.81
Dead Weight (kg)

0
5
10
15
20
25
26
27
28
Modified Deflection (mm)

0
3.48
7.35
12.44
17.07
29.61
33.11
43.61
48.42
Sway Collapse Deflection

60
50
40
Deflection (mm) 30
20
Sway Collapse Deflection
10
0
0
50
100
150
Load (N)
Page 44
200
250
300
Structures III
Graph 3.4 The relation between Load and Deflection in Horizontal load
From experimental observation, the angle of the two joints, which connect between
column and beam, is still 90 degree during the increment of load when the load values
increasing from 0 to196.2 N. And then angle of the left joint, which close to load
point, is less than 90 degree as the same time as the right joint angle is more than 90
degree. When release the loading at the end processing, the frame go back the
structure with elastic deflection. The sway collapse load is 274.68 N.
For Combined Collapse:
H
7d
P
4d
p 4d
=H
11d
4
p
11
P 7d = V 11d
H=
V=
So,
V
H
4
11
7
4
Table 3.3:
Combined Collapse
Dead Weight
Load (N)
(kg)
Direction
0
0
9
88.29
18
176.58
27
264.87
32
313.92
42
412.02
47
461.07
52
510.12
54
529.74
56
549.36
58
568.98
60
588.6
Deflection (mm)
Horizontal
9.15
11.45
13.85
16.46
18.03
22.21
26.5
32.4
35.1
36.31
36.64
36.86
Page 45
Vertical
24.06
24.81
25.63
26.5
27.06
29.2
35.62
38.82
40
41
41.86
42.72
Modified Deflection (mm)

Horizontal
0
2.3
4.7
7.31
8.88
13.06
17.35
23.25
25.95
27.16
27.49
29.71
Vertical
0
0.75
1.57
2.44
3
5.14
11.56
14.76
15.94
16.94
17.8
18.66
Structures III
Combined Deflection
35
30
25
Deflection (mm)
20
Horizontal Deflection
15
Vectical Deflection
10
5
0
0 100200300400500600700
Load (N)
Graph 3.5 The relation between Load and Deflection in Combined load
In Graph 3.5, we can observe deflection is increasing with a constant ratio by a nearly
straight line at load values, which is from 0 to 412.02, after that point there is a quite
increasing effectively jump. So we need to use 412.02 N as combined collapse load.
The combined collapse load, which is
412.02 (4/11) = 149.8 N in Horizontal load;
412.02 (7/11)
= 262.2 N in Vertical load.
3.6.2 Manual Theoretical Calculation
V
H
6.0 mm
6.0 mm
301 mm
Cross-section
312 mm
156 mm
Calculation of the plastic,
156 mm
Mp
Beam with cross section b = 6.0 mm
d = 6.0 mm
Page 46
Structures III
b d2
4
M p = Zp
The plastic modulus Z p
6 62
4
= 54 mm3
Therefore,
The values of tensile testing of the steel from Graph shown as following:
q1
y =
So,
q
A
M p = Zp
= 14.1 kN, q 2 = 14.0 kN
14+14.1
103
2
6 6
= 390.28 N/ mm2
y = 54 390.28 = 21075 N.mm = 0.021kNm
V
H
Number of Redundancy R = 3
Number of Critical Section N = 5
Number of independent Mechanism M = N
R=5
Number of Plastic hinges R +1 = 3 +1 = 4
M1:
Beam Collapse Mechanism
Page 47
3=2
Structures III
h = 301mm
L/2 = 156 mm L/2 = 156 mm
L = 312 mm
2
The internal virtual work observed by rotation of plastic hinges at B, C and D is:
The external work W E = V = V
WI
=2 M p
+ 2 M p
= 4 M p
Collapse Load V c
From Theorem of Virtual Work
WE = WI
V
L
= 4 M p
2
8M p
L
538.5 N
V = Vc
8 0.021
0.312
= 0.5385 kN =
M2:
Sway Collapse Mechanism
h = 301 mm
L/2 = 156 mm L/2 = 156 mm
L = 312 mm
The External work W E = H
= H h
The Internal work observed by rotation of plastic hinges at A, B, and D is:

Page 48
Structures III
WI
M p
M p
+ M p
From Theorem of Virtual Work
M p
Hc
Collapse Load
WE = WI
4Mp
h
279.1 N
= 4 M p
H h
H=
4 0.021
0.301
= 0.2791 kN =
M1 + M2:
Combined Collapse Mechanism
B
h =301mm
A
Right angle
L/2 = 156 mm L/2 = 156 mm
L = 312 mm
The External work W E = V V

=V
+ H H
L
+ H h
2
=
VL
2
+ Hh)
The Internal work observed by rotation of plastic hinges at A, C, D and E is:

WI
M p
M p
M p
+ 2 M p + M p
= 6 M p
Theorem of Virtual Work

WE = WI
(
VL
2
VL
2
+ Hh) = 6 M p
+ Hh = 6 M p
Page 49
VL
2 Mp
Hh
Mp
=6
Structures III
VL
2
+ Hh = 6 M p
3.6.3 Interaction Diagram (ID)

VL/ M p
Sway Collapse Hh/ M p =4
12
10
Loading Path (s =4)
Beam Collapse VL/ M p = 8
8
Loading Path (s 1)
Loading Path (s =1)

4
Loading Path (s 1 )
Combine Collapse VL/2 M p
0
1
For a given load ratio
+ Hh/ M p = 6
Hh/ M p
V
H
an incremental collapse analysis with load factor
will follow a loading path, which is a line with origin at 0 and slopes.
VL
Mp
Hh
Mp
s=
VL
Mp
= M Hh
p
Hence, s depends on load ratio
s= H
and ratio
L
h
For 1< s < 4 Combined Collapse

For s > 4 Beam Collapse
Using the ID, obtain the collapse loads
=
7
4
L
h
312
301
= 1.75 ( = 1.75)
= 1.04 s = 1.04 = 1.82 1
Hence, combined is the collapse mechanism

Page 50
of frame dimensions.
For s 1 Sway Collapse
V
H
L
h
L
h
Structures III
VL
Hh
+
=6
2Mp
Mp
VL
+ Hh = 6 M p
2
V = 1.35H
1.35 HL
2
+ Hh = 6 M p
6 0.021
1.35 0.312+ 0.301
6Mp
1.35 L+h
= 0.1745 kN = 174.5 N
V = 1.35 174.5 = 235.6 N
H=
Page 51
Structures III
3.7 Discussion &Conclusions

Table 3.4:
Beam Collapse Load (N)
Sway Collapse Load (N)
Combined Collapse Load (N)
Horizontal
Vertical
Experiment Result(N)
539.55
274.68
149.8
262.2
Theoretical Result(N)
538.5
279.1
174.5
235.6
These results from two methods of analysis are almost same or the difference between
them is relatively small from one answer to the other.
The one which is considerably bigger is probably due to the system that was set
during the combined case study and because that the proportion between vertical load
and horizontal load for the hand calculation was V/H = 1.75. The system used for the
experiment give us a proportion of V =7/11 times total load and H= 4/11 times total
load which result as V/H = 7/4 = 1.75.
For combined collapse load
%err=
Theo totalexptotal
412410.1
100=
100=0.46
Theototal
412
It can be seen from the table3.4 that the other results are relatively same which
allowed us to conclude that both methods are converging.
The reasons of error happened in the experiment:
1. When we put the hand weights on the hanger, it is easy to make the hanger shake
slightly, therefore influence the reading from dial gauge by recorder;
2. The measure machine exists systematic error i.e. dial gauge;
3. There have some factors influence the material property of the steel beam leading
to the impact of the deflection i.e. temperature, air humidity and so on;
4. The weight of the hand weight is not quite exact;
5. When making the hanger shake slightly, it exists reactive force in vertical
direction;
6. It has friction force between the parts of the model in experimental system.
Page 52
Structures III
4 General Conclusion
Structural analysis is the study of the behaviour of a structure considered as whole

under a loading condition and also, the behaviour of each element to determine how
structure act as whole to the loading and transmit forces down to the ground.
Before the size of structural element can be determined, the structural Mechanics
should come first to determine forces (shear, bending moment) acting on the element
and also their deformation which can result of the collapse of the structure.
Laboratorial experiments are conducted to simulate practical experiences and also
physical
knowledge
of
materials
used
in
construction.
The
laboratory
experimentations are almost the first practical experience for students specially,
student who did not have the relevant practice knowledge. Therefore, its mythology
and objectives defined to it are very important and should be object of more attention
from the students, tutors and laboratory technicians.
5 References
1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/54422430/Chapter-35
Page 53
Structures III
2. http://elibrary.steel.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=7D299E8E1E4F-17FA-CD94A54DE88DB1C2&siteName=asi&CFID=1170405&CFTOKEN=53187847
3. Ouahid, Structure III Lecture notes, School of Engineering, University of Greenwich,
2011
4. P. Bhatt, Structures, University of Glasgow, pp567 571.
Page 54

Final Structure Coursework Handin

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Final Structure Coursework Handin

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH

PLASTIC ANALYSIS OF A PITCHED ROOF PORTAL FRAME

I Plastic Analysis of a Pitchedroof Portal Frame

1.3 Description of the Model

Figure 1.1 Model of Pitched-roof Portal Frame

The frame: Span = 20 m

Horizontal load eaves = 8 kN

Vertical load at mid-points of rafters = 24 kN and 16kN

1.4 Methodology of the Analysis

4. Draw the plastic bending moment diagram.

1.5 Result & findings

V 5 = 2.0. So we can carry loads , 3 , 2

behaviour of the frame, as

in the figure 1.2. The

is increased, the whole process contains four stages

Figure 1.4 Stage 1

Figure 1.6 stage 2

Load factor = 8.197 + 0.46 = 8.657

which resists the loads when

is greater than 8.197, it is simply the original frame

= 55.82 + 9.03 '

SAND elastic analysis in figure 1.5.

= (60 55.82)/9.03 = 0.46

= 8.657 + 0.838 = 9.495

is greater than 8.657. It is simply the original frame structure with

is 8.657. The same condition with

50.58 + 11.24 ' '

equals the plastic moment (60kNm). 11.24

by SAND elastic analysis in figure 1.7.

= (60 50.58)/11.24 = 0.838

Figure 1.10 stage 4

= 9.495 + 1.416 = 10.91

frictionless hinges, until at

M 2 equals the plastic moment (60kNm). 18.33

= (60 34.05)/18.33= 1.416

So, the collapse loads:

1.5.2 Manual Plastic Analysis

Beam mechanism BCD:

the virtual work equation is

Beam mechanism DEF

The virtual work equation is

For M1 (hinge cancelled at D)

So, the collapse loads:

(Because of having plastic hinges at these locations)

At the horizontal direction,

H B 10 M p M p + M p = 10.91 10 60 = 49.1 kNm

32.73 15+ 21.82 5

H A 15 = 1.09 15 = 16.35 kNm

16.35 = 32.75 kNm

Laboratory Testing of a Reinforced Concrete Slab and

Yield Line Theory

2.3 Description of the Experiment

Reinforced Concrete Slab Model

Hydraulic pressure pump

2.4 Procedure for Experiment

As the load increased, the cracks

where the load was applied to. The

one appears just horizontally at centre

slab as shown marked in dark colour

the face of the slab.

Crack appeared at the side of

This graph is the interpretation of the direct