DEFLECTIONS IN PINNED-BASE HAUNCHED GABLE FRAMES by S Parsanejad Senior Lecturer School of Civil Engineering University of Technology, Sydney 1. INTRODUCTION Steel pinned-base haunched gable frames are exten- sively used in light to moderately heavy industria struc- tures. In practice these frames are normally designed elastically. The need for a separate deflection calcula- tion under service loads has inhibited plastic design of such structures. With the advent of the Limit States De- sign codes, plastic design is expected to become more popular amongst structural engineers, especially if they are provided with simple design aids amenable to hand calculations. In the past, researchers have tried to devise various methods for calculating deflections in plastically de signed structures by using the resulting bending mo- ments at failure. These methods can be categorised into two groups, the approximate and the accurate, The approximate methods such as the last hinge method of Neale [1] and the Heyman’s approach (2] (in which the “bending moment diagram at failure” is re- duced by the load factor andis then treated as the work ing moment diagram), besides being tedious, could lead to errors (relative to elastic analysis) in the range of 100% and 50% respectively. The accurate methods such as the correction approach [3] and the direct method [4] of Melchers (in which the statically ad- missible but elastically non-compatible bending mo- ment diagram at failure is used in conjunction with a statically admissible and elastically compatible bending moment diagram corresponding to a unit dummy load) would require elastic analysis of the structure. This means that a plastically analysed frame needs to be elastically analysed again for unit loads. ‘To save the practising engineer from such two-fold ana: lysis, non-dimensionalised expressions for the deflec- tion of unhaunched gable frames subject to various loads were developed and reported [5, 6]. They are summarised in Tables A1a and Atb (see Appendix 1). They were also presented as plots of non-dimension- STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3 alised detlection versus stiffness ratio, k= a /i(s&), and parameter bya. and /, are the second moments of area of the rafter and column respectively and a, band s are as defined in Figure 1. The plots are given in Appendix 2 To account for the effect of haunches on deflections of portal frames, a comprehensive parametric study has been conducted. Expressions for corrective multipliers to the expressions of Table Ata and Aib have been de- veloped using regression analysis. The derivation of the corrective multipliers are presented here. Fourteen cor- rective expressions corresponding to the fourteen cases of Tables Ata and Atb are given. The accuracy of the expressions compared to small deflection elastic analysis is discussed. 2. PARAMETRIC STUDY ‘The corrective multiplier is defined as the Deflection Ratio (D.R.) which is the ratio of a deflection in a haun- cched frame to the corresponding deflection in the same frame without haunches. This ratio for the portal frame of Figure 1 is a function of the non-dimensional parame- ters ba, ¢, aki(sl,) and the relative stitfness of the haunch.‘The parameter b/a is varied from 0.0 to 1.0 in incre- ments of 0.2. The haunch factor cis taken as 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15, The stiffness ratio a //(s k) was taken as 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0. These ranges of parameters cover most of the values encountered in practice. The haunches are normally cut from the steel profile used for rafters (referred to as standard haunch herein- after). In some cases they may be cut from a heavier parent profile. The sensitivity of the deflections to the crease in stiffness of haunches beyond the stiffness of the standard haunch is studied. A series of frames with different geometry and loading configurations were se- lected. Each frame was analysed for different values of the ratio h//, where h is the second moment of area of the parent profile for haunches. To magnity the effect, the haunch length factor cis selected at the upper limit of 0.15. Some typical results are plotted in Figures 2 and 3 as the variation of the deflection ratio versus the ‘second moment of area ratio hy/. AS can be seen, with- in the practical range of this ratio, the variation in deflec- tion ratio is very small. In this study, it is assumed that the stiness of haunches is equal to the stifiness of 2 standard haunch. The effect of the increase in stiffness of haunches beyond the stiffmess of the standard haunch is ignored. 3. DERIVATION OF THE EXPRESSION ‘The results of the analyses performed for loading case 4 of Tables Ata and 1b are assembled as the plots of Deflection Ratio versus b/a versus af/(st) for the haunch length factors of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.18. They are given in Figure 4. Quadratic curves are fitted through the calculated points. The analytical representation of the fitted curves are also given as quadratic express- ions for D. Fig. 4 a) for c= 0.05 Fig. 2 Deflection Ratio versus Haunch Stittness. for Case 8 of Appendix 1 OF ae Fig. 4b) for c= 0.10 Fig. 3 Deflection Ratio versus Haunch Stiffness for Case 1 of Appendix 1 Fig. 4c) for c= 0.15 Fig. 4 Deflection Ratios versus Parameters k and b/a ION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3‘These expressions may be used to calculate the De- flection Ratios for frames with given properties and loading. However, an attempt is made to condense the information given in Figure 4 into a single expression which would estimate the deflections of pinned-base gable frames with a satistactory degree of accuracy. D=0.65 + 0.48 (24)-02 (24) ay 3 k Equation (1) is the expression for the Deflection Ratio ‘of frames with a haunch factor ¢™= 0.10 and the par- ameter b/a = 0.4, Itis taken as the datum expression ‘The deviations of the Deflection Ratio of frames with bya = 0.4 and haunch factors of c= 0.05 and c= 0.15 from those given by Equation (1) are calculated for stiffness ratios a l/(s k) = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8. They are plotted in Figure 5. The equation of the line fitted through the calculated points is taken as the adjustment to Equation (1) to account for variation in the haunch factor c. A= -0.12+1.09¢ (2) : & Le wf ot ensign Fig. 5 Adjustment to Equation (1) for Variation in Parameter ¢ Subtraction of Equation (2) from Equation (1) leads to 0-07 +040 (2t) -o2a(24)*-1 09 (3) Equation (3) now needs to be modified to incorporate the effects of changing b/a on the Deflection Ratio. Hence the deviations between the Deflection Ratios of frames with b/a = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 and the Deflection Ratios of frames with b/a= 0.4 are calculated for the extreme haunch factor values of c= 0.05 and 0.15. The stiffness values of a li(s 4) = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 were again used. The calculated values are plotted in Figure 6. The equation of the line fitted through the calculated points, Equation (4), is taken as the adjust- ment to Equation (3) to account for the variation in par- ameter b/a. ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3 econ Fig. 6 Adjustment to Equation (1) for Variation in Parameter b/a : ee) Subtraction of Equation (4) from Equation (3) leads to an expression for estimating the Deflection Ratio of pinned-base haunched gable frames. ak ak)e or.=0.79+0.48 (=) -o23 (= Ske Sh =1.09-0.05 () 6) The aforementioned approach is used to derive ex- pressions for all fourteen load cases of Tables Ata and tb. They are summarised in Table A2. The detalled derivation of all cases and a comprehensive collection of the results are given in Reference [7]. it should be noted that in most practical frames, the ratio (a hs k) is, much smaller than 1. In such a case the second order terms of the Deflection Ratios in Table A2 can be ig- nored without much loss of accuracy. With loading case 5 on frames with shorter haunch lengths and steeper roof slopes, the haunches had in- creasing effect on windward eave deflection. This is at- tributed fo the redistribution of curvatures within the frames. comprehensive comparison of Deflection Ratios cal- culated based on Equation (5) and those obtained using linear elastic analysis is also performed, The following ‘observations were made: 1. The accuracy of Equation (5) for loading cases 1,2, 3, 5 and 12 on frames with small stifness ra- tios, a h/(s f) = 0.1 and 0.2, is within 11 percent. 2, The accuracy of Equation (5) for loading case 5 on frames with ¢ = 0.15 and ai(s) = 0.6, ¢= 0.05 and a hi(s) = 0.8, and c= 0.10 and ali(si) =0.8 is within 12 percent. 3. The error in estimates obtained from Equation (5) for loading case 5 on frames with a j/(s f) = 1.0 andframes with c= 0.15 and a hi(s /.) = 0.8is large and can be up to hundreds of a percent. This is found to be due to the very small value (near zero) of the de- flection and its sensitivity to the change in b/a for values larger than 0.6 when the stifiness ratio is larger than 0.6. In these cases, the absolute value of the error is small and bears no practical signific- ance. 4. In all other cases the accuracy obtained by Equa- tion (5) is within 5 percent. 4, EXAMPLE The portal frame of Fig 7 is pinned-base and subject to a roof dead load of 1 kN/m. The windward and leeward columns are subject to 6 kKN/m wind pressure and 3 kNim wind suction respectively. The windward and lee- ward rafters are subject to 7 kNim and 2 kN/m average suction respectively. The columns are 610 UB 101 and the rafters are 460 UB 67.1. The span L = 30m, the col- umn height al. = 8 m, the roof rise bl. = 0.8 mand the haunch length cl = 3m. Calculate the vertical deflection of the apex and the horizontal displacement of the lee- ward eave. (h Fig 7 Example Frame and Loading Solution The roof suctions are replaced with their vertical and horizontal components. Itshould be noted that since the components are expressed in terms of the load per pro- jected unit length, the values of the component inten: sities remains the same as the value of the corresponding suction intensity. Vertical Deflection of the Apex This deflection is obtained by superposition of Cases 3, 6 and 9 of Tables Ata and Atb, each corrected by its corresponding Deflection Ratio (D.R.) of Table A2. For ease of calculation, advantage is taken of the plots of Appendix 2. a = 39 7 0267 os b = SF = 0027 3 c =a 704 08 2.8 201 s = Vist +08") = 139? - 0.501 say os 30 ak 0.267 (294x 10°) - ee = 210 5 Sk 0.5 (757 x 10%) From Figure A3: ELBy Sut x10? = 295 which with the elastic modulus E = 200 x 10° MPa and w= 1-7 = —6 kNim leads to 6y = 122 mm upward. The deflection due to the vertical component of the lee- ward suction and dead load (w = 1-2 =—1 kNim) can now be calculated by linear scaling B= 122 @) = 20mm upward 6 From Figure AG: E13, za KAP = 021 #swl* which leads to 8 = 6 mm upward and 5, = 3 mm downward for windward column pressure of w=6kN/m and leeward column suction of w = -3 kNim, re- spectively. From Figure A9: EL 8 Fewe ~ 0017 w which for horizontal component of roof load w= 2-7 =—5kNim gives 6, = 0.3 mm downward. ‘The above values are summarised in the Table 1 and corrected for the effect of the haunches. ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3Table 1. Apex Deflection Calculations Coxe Upward Deftection DR. Corrected Deflection mm (Table A2) mm 3 122420 = 142 0.766 109 6 6-3 0.870 3 9 03 0.836 0 Total vertical apex deflection Table 2. Leeward Eave Deflection Calculations cae Eave Displacement DR. Corrected Displacement ™—> (Table A2) > 4 (Figure a4) 64 0.884 -87 5 (Figure AS) 9 0.885 8 7 (Figure 47) 86 772 66 8 (Figure A8) 40 0773 31 10 (Figure At0) -19 0.767 15 1 (Figure A11) 8 0.756 4 Total horizontal displacement of eave D = 37 mm It should be noted that since the slope of the root is small, the contribution of Case 9 was expected to be relatively small and could have been ignored. The first order linear elastic computer analysis of this frame has resulted in an apex upward displacement of 111.8 mm. Horizontal Displacement of the Leeward Eave In a similar manner to the approach followed for calcu- lating the apex vertical deflection, the horizontal dis- STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3 placement of the Leeward eave can also be calculated, Gases 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 need to be superimposed, The results are summarised in Table 2. ‘Again, because of the small roof slope, one may make an engineering judgment and combine Case 7 with Case 8 and Case 10 with Case 11. The first order linear elastic computer analysis of this frame has resulted in an eave displacement of 35.4 mm to the right.5. CONCLUSION Expressions have been derived for estimating the ratio of the deflections in haunched gable frames to the corresponding deflections in unhaunched frames for fourteen different cases of loading. Multiplication of these ratios by the corresponding deflections of un- haunched frames from Tables Ata or A1b (or Figures ‘Al to A14) results in accurate estimates of deflections inhaunched frames. In most cases, which include those normally used in practice, the accuracy is within 5 per- cent, The use of Tables Ata and Abin conjunction with Table A2 allows calculation of desired deflections in pinned-base haunched gable frames subject o a set of loads by superposition of calculated deflections for indi- vidual loads. This eliminates the need for a separate elastic analysis of plastically designed frames for serv- iceability checks REFERENCES [1] Neal, B G, The Plastic Method of Structural Analysis, 37d Ed., Chapman and Hall, 1971, London. [2] Heyman, J, Plastic Design and Limit State Design, Structural Engineer, 51, No. 4, April, 1973, (pp. 127-131). [8] Melchers R_E, and G J, Clark, Deflection Calculation in the Plastic Design of Structures, Research Report No. 2, 1979, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Australia. [4] Melchers, RE, Service Load Deflections in Plastic Structural Design, |.C.E. Proceedings, Part 2, Vol. 69, March 1980, (pp. 157-174) [5.] Parsanejad, S, Plastic Analysis of Pinned-Base Haynched Gable Frames, Engineering Journal of AISC, Vol. 23, No. 3, 3rd Quarter, 1986, (pp. 89-95). [6] Parsanejad, S, Charts for Calculating Deflections in Single Span Pinned-Base Gable Frames, Civil Engineering Report No. 011.04, 1986, University of Newcastle, Australia. [7.] Simpson, G, Effect of Haunches on Deflection of Pin-Based Gable Frames, Final Year Project, School of Civil Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney, 1989. ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3APPENDIX 1 Table Ata Summary of Expressions for Deflections CASE LOADING EXPRESSION fl _ 1 yg. G+5m) (1 +2m) Q8, = Foy IS - nT ] 2 5 _ 1 pg G+ 5m) (1 + 2m) Q5, 39g 5-7 _k G+sm) 1 b 4 3 aon + Toy +193 - 245m 3 42b +mG+4 Dp Q5, _ k G+5m) 345m 2 5 a= Spy Tog ORD +28 +m@+4by -7-104} a 2B +C)+k 6 joy U2 - EAP 2 4m) Fs eee ek wy B- yt 7 1 b_ 2W+Ork b b Fg (16+ 128 - AOS tm344dy 434250) Qs, k PB+Orky a 2B +O +k 5 mG 2 | 24 N as f 8 +4 by 134244 8-122} ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3Table Aib Summary of Expressions for Deflections CASE LOADING EXPRESSION Qi 1 C+m 9 > Teg (GM Lom +8) - 241 Qa, 1 by? _ 3b ae +4) +99 4-3 Gy 10 C+m b by?) by? b. Sem mob + 4427432 Qa, k bC+m) 4 b ae ae SR + ay B+ 6H) u 2 2 +58 - Sem ima dy + 3b)42@7 4h) LB _ B+O@m+1) B N Qk Gy Be) 1 b “z= fa- TN) +g 4438 13 Bsc b b - BAC mo +4by43425y Q5, _k Bec, 1 (Bsc 3° Nt 6 Cay G4 14 +3+2b)-2- 32) k= aly (S/.), m= 1 + b/a, w= intensity of the uniformly distributed load, 8, = apex vertical deflection, 5, = eave horizontal deflection modulus = 200 x 10° MPa, N=B+mC, B=2(k+1) +m, C=1 +2m, E= elastic EW (sw) STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3Table A2 Summary of Detlection Ratios CASE EXPRESSION 1 DR. = 0.79 + 0.48 a - 023 Ae? = 1.096 - 0.05 (®) 2 DR. = 078 + = 1.08 - 0.05 (2) 3 DR. = 0.78 + = 1.01e - 0.05 2) 4 DR. = 1.01 + = 1.38e - 0.04 5 DR. = 1.09 - 197 - 0.21) 6 DR. = 084 0.23 GE? - 0.49¢ - 0.108) 7 - alr? | - 0.01 2) DR. = 088 010 C7 ~ 1.55¢ - 001 8 DR. = 0.87 0.11 eh? - 1.48¢ - 0.01 (&) 9 DR. = 0.91 0.08 ey = 1.126 - 0.03 (b 10 DR. = 089 + 0.21 24 - 0.08 245? - 1.63¢ - 0.01 2) ‘Re = 04 At eT)” 98 GT a u DR. = 087 + 0.2424 - 0.09 24? - 1.560 - 0.04 ¢&) ehrs si) 7 eG 12 DR. = 085 + 0334) . 014 by - Lite - 0.03%) sl, sl, a 13 DR. = 0.89 0.08 AL? - 1.64 sl, 14 DR. = 0.88 - L6le ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3APPENDIX 2 [ teas TTF or 3 oo a (EIp6y/swl'x 10° 1 = 01 0.2 0.3 04 05 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 er )) alr/sle Fig. A1: Apex Vertical Di ent Due to a Uniformly Distributed Vertical Load Over Full Span a y (E1p5p /aswl')x 10° alp/sIc Fig. A2: Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed ¢ Vertical Load Over Full Span 20 ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3 (Elp6y /swl*) x 10? 04 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 07 0.8 09 1.0 alp/sIc Fig. A3: Apex Vertical Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Vertical Load Over Half Span 1"— : + — > x a = a 3 = 3 a fs | | 0 5 i i i i 01 02 03 0.4 05 0.6 0.7 08 09 10 alr/sl¢ Fig. A4: Leeward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Vertical Load Over Windward Half Span6 T bla=0 "> zi # - 0.1 6 a +02 a = 0.34 Ss [108 | Fa ae ae = eT a 1 lL iP os tse WL) OG (Oy 08 09 0@ alp/slc Fig. AS: Windard Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Vertical Load Over Windward Half Span -0.5) (E1p 5y fo? swL')x 10 -15) a . of 402 03 04 05 O06 O07 O08 09 10 alr/ sIc Fig. AG: Apex Vertical Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed ¢ Horizontal Load on Column 2 ‘STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3Elp5h Io2 sw Elp6h /a®swL’ STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3 2 a 2 S aly/sIc Fig, A7: Leeward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Horizontal Load on Windward Column 4. 1. 1 1 ‘ ono? B10 aly /sIc Fig, AB: Windward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Horizontal Load on Windward Column0.3 04 0S 0.6 07 08 09 10@ alp/sl¢ Fig. A9: Apex Vertical Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Horizontal Load on Half Span 0.35 © EIp6h/0? bswl* 1 pt 01 02 03 04 05 06 0.7 08 09 10 alp/sIc Fig. A10: Leeward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Horizontal Load on Windward Rafter 24 STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3EIp6h/a? bswl* @ 01 0.2 03 04 05 06 07 0.8 0.9 1.0 Fig. A11: Windward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Uniformly Distributed Horizontal Load on Windward Rafter ° 0 T 7 T | | a7 => ——> bla= 0.17} -0.005| 7 asl i 03 @: -0.010) — a | roe L C — 05 ~ p if bt 0.5 | 4 oop ge YB ~21 He ft 8 L a E ju 70 -0.020! = L L 1 L fon 01 «02 03 04 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 09 610 alr/sl¢ Fig. A12: Apex Vertical Displacement Due to a Horizontal Load At Eave STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3(EIp5p /a2sPL?) x 10 (EIp6p, /a?sPL?) x10 $s —_ 4 02 #03 O04 O05 06 O07 O08 09 alp/sI¢ Fig. A13: Leeward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Horizontal Load at Windward Eave 0@ N wn 0h 05 alr/sIc Fig. A14: Windward Eave Horizontal Displacement Due to a Horizontal Load at Windward Eave STEEL CONSTRUCTION VOLUME 27 NUMBER 3