Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Where Pu,Muz and Muy are the axial force and bending moments (allowed for the P
and P- effects ) in the beam-column , and Pn Mnz and Mny and the
curves
represents the interaction of axial load and biaxial bending . It is this interaction
surface that is interest to the designer.
The end points of the curves shown in Fig. 13.16 dependent on the capacities of
the members described for columns (Chapter 9) and beams (Chapter 10). The
shapes of these and the beam-column imperfections (b)the variation of moments
along the beam-column, and (c) the end restraint conditions approximate basis and
various All these variables can only be dealt wit on an approximate basis and hence
various formulae are given in the codes, which attempt to allow for the effects
mentioned earlier.
The basic form of the three-dimensional interaction equations is
In the case slender members under small axial load, there is very little
reduction of moment capacity below Mp, since lateral torsional buckling is
not a problem in weak axis bending .
The moment magnification is larger in the case of the beam-columns
bending about their weak axis.
As the slenderness increases, the failure curves in the P/Pn,y-y axis plane
change from convex to concave, showing increasing dominance of minor
axis buckling.
The failure of / shocky members is rather due to section strength being
reached at the ends (under axial load) or at the section of lateral magnified
moment (under larger axial load).
In this case Muz is the ultimate moment which the beam-column can support when
P=My =0 for the case of equal end moment (=-1) , while Muy is similarly defined.
Under biaxial bending and axial load the interaction equations should give convex
failure surface as shown in Fig. 13.18. It is observed that the increase in the
slenderness radio of the member tends to reduce the strength of the member, except
axial force ranges, further increases in the axial compression tends to decrease the
bending strength about both axes.
Fig. 13.18 Failure surface for slender beam column subject to biaxial moments
Note that there is no Eqn (13.28) for the amplification of the minor axis moment
My by the major axis moment Mz since the term [11-(P/Pcr,y)] only allows for
amplification caused by the axial load P. Several researchers (Chen &Tebedge
1974; Chen & Atsuta 1977; Pi & Trahair 1994) have shown that the linear
interaction equation leads to very conservative results. Chen and Tebedge (1974)
proposed the following non-linear interaction equations which are valid for Ishaped members in braced frames:
Where
In which bf is the flange width (in mm) and d is the member depth (in mm), and
Where Pcr,z and Pcr,y are the Euler buckling loads about the strong and weak axis
respectively,b is the beam resistance factor (=0.90) c = column resistance factor
(=0.85), and Pn Mny are the corresponding axial and bending factor moment
capacities of the member [determined as discussed in Chapter 9 (Section 9.7.1)and
Chapter 10 (Sections 10.7 and 10.8)]
For square box section values greater than unity recognizes the convexity of
the moment interaction as illustrated in Fig. 13.18. [Galambos (1998) provides the
comparison of Eqn (13.28) and (13.29).]
More discussions about the behaviour and design of beam-columns subjected to
biaxial and axial force may br found in Chen and Santathadaporn (1968), Lindner
and Gietzelt (1985), Kennedy et al. (1990), and Lindner and Glitsch (2004).
Where p is the applied axial load, Py is the yield load =Ag fy Mz is applied moment
about the major axis z-z, and Mpz is the moment capacity about the major axis z-z
in the absence of the axial load.
My is the applied moment about the minor axis y-y and Mpy is the moment capacity
about the minor axis y-y in the absence of the axial load.
More accurate interaction equations are available for compact cross sections,
which are based on the convex failure surface discussed in the previous section,
which result in greatest economy in design (see also Section 8.10). Chen and
Atsuta (1977) and Tebedge and Chen (1874) provide the following non-linear
interaction equation for compact I-shaped in which the flange width is not less than
0.5 times the depth of the section.
Where In is the natural logarithum,bf is flange width (in mm), and d is the member
depth (in mm).
A comprehensive assessment of the accuracy of the non-linear interaction
equations in predicting the load carrying capacities of biaxial loaded I-sections has
been made by Pillai (1981), who found that these equations prodict the capacity
reasonably well compared to the experimential results.
Interaction equations for a number of sections, including circular tubes, box
sections, and unsymmetrical sections such as angles are available in Chen and Lui
(1971), Chen Atsuta (1977), and Shanmugam et.al. (1993).
retrained the
generic form if the interaction formula given in Eqn (13.26). In every specification
the moment M is always specified as the second- order (amplified) moment
obtained either form a second order structural analysis, where equilibrium is
formulated in the deformed configuration of the structure, or from an
approximation of using the moment from a first-order elastic analysis, which is
Where My andMz are the factored applied moments about the minor and major axis
of the cross-section ,respectively and M ndy and Mndz are the design reduced flexural
strength under combined axial force and the respective uniaxial moment acting
alone. The value of M ndy and Mndz for plastic and compact section is approximately
given in Table.13.1.
Table 13.1 Approximate value of reduced flexural strength for plastic and compact
sections.
For semi-compact sections, without bolt holes, the code (IS 800:2000) suggests the
following linear equations, when force is low.