0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 011 стр.paper

Jan 12, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

paper

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 0

paper

© All Rights Reserved

- Iterative Methods for Solving Stability Problems
- Chapter 5 - Design and Detailing Rules for Concrete Buildings
- [Ekström, C.-M.] Lateral-torsional Buckling of Steel Channel Beams.pdf
- Wagners beam cycle
- The Use of Steel
- A Comparative Study LTB Using AISC EC and Sp
- VTT-R-01157-10
- Chapter 11
- SFD-EC-3-2005
- Bulldozer Garage
- 20.2 Bulldozer Garage.PDF
- Steel Design Example - Nsba
- LT Buckling Beam Design - Simple Method - 2up
- What is Shear Center
- Steel Structures 3 - Composite Structures - Lecture Notes Chapter 10.7
- Apollo-1.5m X-Beam-to Eurocode.pdf
- Doc 1
- Design of Steel Elements as Per is 800
- Design of Composite Girder
- Design of Steel Building

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

symmetric I-sections

Shao-Bo Kang a,b, Bo Yang a,b, Yue Zhang a,b, Mohamed Elchalakani c, Gang Xiong a,b,⁎

a

Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area, Chongqing University, Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400045, China

b

School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China

c

School of Civil, Environmental & Mining Engineering, University of Western Australia, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the global stability of welded singly symmetric I-shaped beams fabricated from Q460GJ

Received 31 July 2017 steel, a typical high-performance structural steel. Experimental tests and numerical simulations were carried

Received in revised form 27 December 2017 out on a total of eight laterally unrestrained steel beams under a concentrated point load. A special loading sys-

Accepted 4 March 2018

tem was designed through which the beam could develop lateral deﬂections at the mid-span. Load-displacement

Available online xxxx

curves and strains of beams were measured during testing. In the ﬁnite element model, initial geometric imper-

Keywords:

fections and residual stresses were considered. The model was veriﬁed through comparisons with experimental

Q460GJ structural steel results, and parametric studies were conducted to investigate the effects of non-dimensional slenderness and

Singly symmetric I-section height-to-width ratio. Meanwhile, design curves for lateral-torsional buckling of welded singly symmetric

Lateral-torsional buckling beams were calculated from GB50017-2003, GB50017-201X, Eurocode 3 and ANSI/AISC360-10. Comparisons

Experimental test between numerical results and design curves suggested that the design methods in GB50017-2003 and ANSI/

Numerical simulation AISC360-10 were unsafe for Q460GJ steel beams while GB50017-201X and Eurocode 3 could provide reasonably

conservative results for global buckling design of singly symmetric Q460GJ steel beams.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction proposed based on the test data of conventional mild steel and revisions

are needed when used for high-performance steel members.

GJ steel, a typical high-performance steel, has been widely used in In practice, singly-symmetric I-sections with thicker compressive

many construction projects in China as a result of its higher strength, ﬂange are often used to avoid local buckling. In the past few years, a

better weldability and ductility as compared to conventional structural large number of theoretical investigations were conducted on lateral-

steel. GJ steel has lower contents of sulphur, phosphorus and carbon. torsional buckling of single symmetric I-beams. El-Mahdy and El-

For instance, the sulphur content must be less than 0.015%, and the Saadawy [3] numerically studied the effect of ﬂange ratio on lateral-

phosphorus content less than 0.020–0.025%. Moreover, the yield-to- torsional buckling resistances and recommended an approximate

ultimate strength ratio of Q460GJ steel is not more than 0.85. In terms formula for the ultimate load of beams. Surla et al. [4] conducted numer-

of mechanical properties, the effect of plate thickness on the yield ical simulations to investigate the load-carrying capacity of singly

strength of GJ steel is not as signiﬁcant as conventional steel. The lamel- symmetric stepped I-beams under uniform bending. They suggested a

lar tearing resistance of GJ steel heavy plates is also superior. To assess correction factor for stepped beams to account for the increase in

its inﬂuence on global buckling behaviour of columns, experimental the load capacity of beams with steps at both ends. Andrade et al. [5]

and numerical investigations have been carried out on Q460GJ columns investigated the elastic lateral-torsional buckling behaviour of singly

subject to compression [1]. As for steel beams, doubly symmetric symmetric tapered thin-walled open beams. Camotim et al. [6]

Q345GJ I-sections with lateral restraints have been studied under a concluded that a uniform bending moment might not be the most

concentrated point load [2]. Comparisons were made between design critical loading condition for I-section beams with unequal ﬂanges

curves and test results to evaluate the accuracy of different national (mono-symmetric sections). Singly symmetric Q460GJ I-beams with a

codes in predicting the global buckling resistance of GJ steel columns lateral restraint at the mid-span were tested by Yang et al. [7]. It was

and beams. It was concluded that design methods are primarily reported that due to the presence of lateral restraint, initial geometric

imperfections did not signiﬁcantly affect the global buckling resistance

of the beams. Nonetheless, few experimental results are available

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University,

when the lateral restraint is absent. Current design codes only adopt a

Chongqing 400045, China. reduction factor for the design of singly symmetric I-beams, as the

E-mail address: 195704148@qq.com (G. Xiong). non-symmetric theory has not been fully resolved [8]. Therefore, it is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.005

0143-974X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

342 S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351

Table 1

Nominal dimensions of steel beams.

Steel beam Height of section Thickness of web Width of top ﬂange Thickness of top ﬂange Width of bottom ﬂange Thickness of bottom ﬂange Beam span

B-270-3.5 270 8 180 16 180 8 3500

B-270-4.0 270 8 180 16 180 8 4000

B-270-4.5 270 8 180 16 180 8 4500

B-360-3.0 360 8 180 16 180 8 3000

B-360-3.5 360 8 180 16 180 8 3500

B-360-4.0 360 8 180 16 180 8 4000

B-360-4.5 360 8 180 16 180 8 4500

necessary to verify the design methods for singly symmetric I-beams were selected for steel beams. As for specimens B-270-3.0 to B-270-4.5,

through experimental tests, in particular for high-performance steel the height and width of steel beams were 270 and 180 mm, respectively,

beams. and the corresponding height-to-width ratio was 1.5. In specimens B-

In this paper, a series of experimental tests was conducted to inves- 360-3.0 to B-360-4.5, the beam height was increased to 360 mm,

tigate the global buckling behaviour of singly symmetric I-shaped and associated height-to-width ratio became 2.0. The nominal thickness

beams fabricated from Q460GJ steel. Eight specimens with two types of beam top ﬂanges was kept at 16 mm and the web thickness was

of cross section and varied spans were tested in total. The beams were 8 mm so that the width-to-thickness ratio of beam ﬂanges and the

tested under a concentrated point load at the mid-span and a unique height-to-thickness ratio of beam webs were smaller than the values

test rig was designed to minimise the friction in the loading device. incorporated in GB50017-2003 [9] and local buckling could be prevented.

Finite element models were developed for steel beams, in which initial The nominal thickness of tension ﬂanges was taken as 8 mm. Meanwhile,

geometric imperfections and residual stresses were incorporated. all beam sections were classiﬁed as those with compact ﬂanges and webs

The model was validated against test results and further used for according to ANSI/AISC360-10 [12] and class 1 per Eurocode 3 [11], indi-

parametric studies on a wide range of height-to-width ratio and non- cating that local buckling would not occur before the specimens attained

dimensional slenderness. Finally, numerical results are compared with the plastic moment capacities. Transverse stiffeners were designed at the

GB50017-2003 [9], GB50017-201X [10], Eurocode 3 [11] and ANSI/ loading point and the supports to prevent local yielding of webs subject

AISC360-10 [12], and recommendations were provided for global buck- to concentrated point forces.

ling design of singly symmetric Q460GJ steel beams without lateral

restraints. 2.2. Test setup

2. Experimental Programme on global buckling of I-beams Fig. 1(a) shows the test setup for steel beams. At the mid-span, a

vertical load was applied through a special loading system comprised

2.1. Specimen design of a rigid rectangular loading frame, a hydraulic jack, a steel triangle

connected to two steel brackets (see Fig. 1(b)). During testing, the

In the experimental programme, a total of eight beams with singly applied load was measured by a load cell. Note that a special hemispher-

symmetric I-shaped cross-sections were designed and fabricated from ical hinge with a series of roller bearings was placed between the beam

Q460GJ structural steel with a nominal yield stress of 460 MPa. and the load cell so that the load could remain vertical after lateral-

Tables 1 and 2 summarise the nominal and the measured dimensions torsional buckling of the beam occurred and friction could be

of the specimens, respectively. The initial geometric imperfections minimised. Simple supports were designed at both ends of the steel

were measured prior to testing, as listed in Table 2. It is noteworthy beam, as shown in Fig. 1(c). Cylindrical rollers were placed beneath

that specimen B-360-4.0 was only used to validate the efﬁciency of the steel beam to ensure in-plane rotation at the end supports, whereas

the test setup, of which the initial deformations were not measured. longitudinal displacements of the beam were released. Lateral restraints

In accordance with Chinese design codes for steel structures [9,10] with steel rollers were provided at the top and bottom ﬂanges to pre-

and Eurocode 3 [11], different buckling curves are deﬁned based on vent out-of-plane rotation of the beam at the end support. The loading

the height-to-width ratio of cross sections. To investigate the effects of system was adopted for all steel beams except B-360-4.0. As for B-

height-to-width ratio on global stability of steel beams, two sets of 360-4.0, a conventional hemispherical hinge without roller bearings

height-to-width ratio were adopted in the experimental programme was used between the steel beam and the rectangular loading frame.

and cross sections H270 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) and H360 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) Due to the presence of signiﬁcant friction in the hinge, the steel triangle

Table 2

Measured dimensions of steel beams.

Steel beam Height of Thickness of Width of Thickness of Width of Thickness of Initial geometric

section web top ﬂange top ﬂange bottom ﬂange bottom ﬂange imperfection

B-270-3.5 270.8 8.3 179.36 16.64 178.16 8.34 0.84

B-270-4.0 271.94 8.24 180.31 16.73 177.7 8.09 1.76

B-270-4.5 272.14 8.22 178.93 16.44 180.23 7.99 0.41

B-360-3.0 362.74 8.68 180.28 16.65 178.67 8.67 2.16

B-360-3.5 362.68 8.69 180.98 16.71 179.04 8.66 1.57

B-360-4.0 361.23 8.88 179.81 16.7 180.57 8.71 –

B-360-4.5 360.97 8.76 180.7 16.62 180.42 8.68 1.27

S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351 343

Loading system

End support

Steel beam

Rectangular

steel frame

Steel roller

Hydraulic jack

Cylindrical roller

Steel bracket

Steel triangle

could not move downwards simultaneously with the beam, which was the top and bottom ﬂanges, respectively. Five strain gauges were used

likely to enhance the load capacity of the beam. for the web of steel beams B-360-3.0 to B-360-4.5.

During testing, the out-of-plane rotation of beams at the mid-span Steel coupons with thicknesses of 8 and 16 mm were extracted from

was measured by using an inclinometer, attached on the web. The ver- steel plates and tension tests were conducted according to Chinese stan-

tical and horizontal displacements were captured through a series of dard GB/T228.1-2010 [13] prior to beam tests. For each steel plate, three

linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs), as shown in Fig. 2. coupons were tested in tension, and the gauge length of steel coupons

In order to obtain the strain distribution, strain gauges were mounted was 150 mm. Fig. 4 shows the stress-strain curve of steel plates.

at the mid-span of steel beams. Fig. 3 shows the layout of strain gauges Table 3 summarises the average tensile properties of steel coupons.

on the web and ﬂanges of the beams. For steel beams B-270-3.0 to B- The yield strengths of 8 and 16 mm thick steel coupons were 481 and

270-4.5 with a height of 270 mm, three strain gauges were attached to 541 MPa, respectively, satisfying the requirements on yield strength

one side of the beam web, and two and three strain gauges were on for this type of high-performance steel.

344 S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351

16 mm

8 mm

600

Stress (MPa)

450

LT-3 LT-4

300

150

LT-5 LT-6 0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Strain (%)

Fig. 2. Layout of linear variable displacement transducers.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves of steel.

Table 3

3.1. Behaviour of I-beams Mechanical properties of steel plates.

When subject to three-point bending, all steel beams failed by steel plate strength stress strain modulus

lateral-torsional buckling. Fig. 5 shows the applied load-vertical dis- t (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) εu (%) E (GPa)

placement curve of the beams. At the initial stage, the applied load of 16 481 627 11.1 203.9

B-270-3.0 increased almost linearly with mid-span displacement, as 8 541 669 9.7 204.7

shown in Fig. 5(a). After attaining the load capacity of 382.4 kN, the

beam developed lateral-torsional buckling, leading to a gradual reduc-

tion in the vertical load with increasing displacement. By increasing Fig. 7 shows the load-rotation curve of steel beams. The out-of-plane

the beam span from 3.0 m to 4.5 m, both the initial stiffness and the rotation was measured by an inclinometer placed on the top ﬂange. It is

load capacity of steel beams of 270 mm in depth decreased substantially obvious that the rotation was rather limited at the initial stage, as shown

(see Fig. 5(a)). Compared to B-270-3.0, the load capacity reduced to in Fig. 7(a). Nonetheless, the rotation started increasing rapidly once the

208.5 kN by around 45.5%. Similar behaviour was observed when the vertical load exceeded half of the load capacity. At the descending stage

beam height was increased to 360 mm, as shown in Fig. 5(b). However, of vertical load, the out-of-plane rotation developed rapidly when the

it is worth noting that B-360-4.0 could sustain a greater load capacity beam span was relatively long. It should be pointed out that an almost

than B-360-3.5, even though the clear span of the former was signiﬁ- linear load-rotation relationship was obtained for B-360-4.0 as a result

cantly longer than the latter. It resulted from the application of conven- of the use of conventional hemispherical hinge to apply vertical load,

tional hemispherical hinge to impose vertical load. The presence of and yet its load capacity was greater than that of B-360-3.5 due to the

friction between the two parts of the hinge led to the enhanced load presence of friction in the hinge.

capacity. Fig. 6 shows the failure mode of steel beams subject to a con- Fig. 8 shows the strain proﬁle of B-360-4.5 at various stages. Note

centrated point load at the mid-span. Apparent lateral deﬂections that the maximum compressive strain represents the average value

were observed after lateral-torsional buckling of steel beams, in partic- measured by SG-1 and SG-2, and the peak tensile strain denotes the

ular in B-360-3.0. average value of SG-8 and SG-10 (see Fig. 3). When a vertical load of

SG-1 SG-2

SG-3

SG-1 SG-2

SG-3 SG-4

SG-6

SG-7

SG-10 SG-8

SG-7

SG-9 SG-10 SG-8

SG-9

(a) Beams B-270-3.0 to B-270-4.5

(b) Beams B-360-3.0 to B-360-4.5

S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351 345

500 750

B-270-3.0 B-360-3.0

B-270-3.5 B-360-3.5

400 600

B-270-4.0 B-360-4.0

B-270-4.5 B-360-4.5

300 450

200 300

100 150

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical displacement (mm) Vertical displacement (mm)

(a) Steel beams of 270 mm depth (b) Steel beams of 360 mm depth

70.9 kN was applied to the beam, corresponding strain proﬁle remained compression ﬂange. At the load capacity, the maximum compressive

linear, with zero at the neutral axis and maximum values at the extreme strain was around 2800 με, 1.56 times as much as the peak tensile strain

ﬁbres of the top and bottom ﬂanges. Before its load capacity of 262.4 kN at the bottom ﬂange. Fig. 9 shows the relationship of vertical load and

was reached, nonlinear strains were measured at the compression measured strain. When the load was less than 30% of the ultimate

ﬂange, whereas the strain was fairly linear elastic away from the load, a linear relationship was observed between the applied load and

500 750

B-270-3.0 B-360-3.0

B-270-3.5 B-360-3.5

400 600

B-270-4.0 B-360-4.0

Vertical load (kN)

B-270-4.5 B-360-4.5

300 450

200 300

100 150

0 0

0 3 6 9 12 15 0 2 4 6 8 10

Out-of-plane rotation (degree) Out-of-plane rotation (degree)

(a) Steel beams of 270 mm in depth (b) Steel beams of 360 mm in depth

346 S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351

200 the load capacity of steel beam B-360-4.0 was signiﬁcantly affected by

70.9 kN the conventional hemispherical hinge used to apply vertical load, it is

Distance from neutral axis (mm)

100

212.7 kN [9] overestimates the load capacity of Q460GJ steel beams and the

262.4 kN average ratio of experimental to calculated results is 0.947. ANSI/

0 AISC360-10 [12] provides a reasonably good estimation of the load

capacity, with an average load ratio of 0.992. Nonetheless, GB50017-

-100 201X [10] and Eurocode 3 [11] yield rather conservative estimations

of the load capacity, with average load ratios of 1.160 and 1.214,

respectively. Comparisons were also made between experimental

-200 results and buckling curves in design codes, as shown in Fig. 10. In the

ﬁgures, non-dimensional slenderness λ and buckling factor φ are

-300 deﬁned in Eqs. (1) to (4), respectively. Note that reduction factor χ in

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 Eurocode 3 [11] is equivalent to buckling factor φ. Similar results to

Strain of B-360-4.5 (με) those in Table 4 were obtained. It is noteworthy that according to

Eurocode 3 [11], all beam sections could be categorised into class 1,

Fig. 8. Strain proﬁles of B-360-4.5 at different stages. and thus Mp was used to calculate the reduction factor and non-

dimensional slenderness. For the singly-symmetric sections in this

study, the plastic moment capacity Mp was smaller than the yield

300 moment My. As a result, the reduction factors determined from

Eurocode 3 are signiﬁcantly greater than those from GB50017-2003

250 [9]. Moreover, the design curve in Eurocode 3 [11] is well below that

in GB50017-2003 [9]. Therefore, the test data matched the design

curve in Eurocode 3 [11] more closely than that in GB50017-2003 [9].

Vertical load (kN)

200

However, the non-dimensional slenderness of steel beams in the exper-

imental programme fell in the range of 0.9 and 1.4. More data beyond

150

this range are necessary to comprehensively evaluate the performance

of unrestrained Q460GJ steel beams.

100 SG-1

SG-2 sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

50 SG-8 My MEXP

SG-10 λ¼ ;φ ¼ ðGB50017‐2003Þ ð1Þ

Mcr My

0

-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Strain of B-360-4.5 (με) 1:1M y M EXP

λ¼ ;φ ¼ ðGB50017‐201XÞ ð2Þ

Mcr 1:1My

Fig. 9. Variation of strains of steel beam B-360-4.5.

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

the tensile stresses measured by SG-8 and SG-10 on the bottom ﬂange. Mp M EXP

λ¼ ;χ ¼ ðEurocode 3Þ ð3Þ

Nonetheless, the strains of SG-1 and SG-2 deviated from each other, as Mcr Mp

the load approached its capacity. After global buckling occurred,

the strain of SG-2 kept increasing, whereas that of SG-1 was shifted to sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

tensile, due to lateral bending and torsional deformations. MnðL¼0Þ M EXP

λ¼ ;φ ¼ ðANSI=AISC360‐10Þ ð4Þ

Mcr M nðL¼0Þ

3.2. Discussions

where My is the yield moment of beam sections, Mcr is the theoretical

In order to evaluate the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of elastic lateral-torsional buckling moment, Mn(L=0) is the cross-section

Q460GJ steel beams, design values were calculated in accordance with moment resistance corresponding to a theoretical “zero-length”

different design codes for steel structures and comparisons were made member, MEXP is ultimate moment capacity obtained in the test and

between design and calculated results, as summarised in Table 4. As Mp is the plastic moment capacity of beams.

Table 4

Comparisons of test results with design values from different design codes.

Steel beam Test results GB50017-2003 [9] GB50017-201X [10] Eurocode 3 [11] ANSI/AISC360-10 [12]

B-270-3.0 382.4 417.9 0.915 361.5 1.058 341.5 1.120 365.5 1.046

B-270-3.5 302.6 330.8 0.915 275.6 1.098 264.4 1.144 299.9 1.009

B-270-4.0 259.0 269.4 0.961 219.5 1.180 211.4 1.225 250.3 1.035

B-270-4.5 208.5 211.7 0.985 170.7 1.221 167.3 1.246 211.5 0.986

B-360-3.0 571.8 575.4 0.994 465.8 1.228 421.1 1.358 539.8 1.059

B-360-3.5 415.0 447.1 0.928 350.6 1.184 316.5 1.311 442.9 0.937

B-360-4.5 262.4 260.6 1.007 210.3 1.248 218.5 1.201 275.1 0.954

Mean value 0.958 1.174 1.229 1.004

Coefﬁcient of variation 4.0% 6.0% 6.9% 4.7%

S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351 347

1.2 1.2

GB50017-2003 h/b=1.43

Euler curve h/b=1.93

1.0 1.0

H270×180×8×16(8) Euler curve

H360×180×8×16(8) H270×180×8×16(8)

0.8 0.8 H360×180×8×16(8)

Buckling factor

Buckling factor

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Non-dimensional slenderness Non-dimensional slenderness

1.2 1.2

Welded or rolled section c ANSI/AISC360-10

Euler curve Euler curve

1.0 1.0

H270×180×8×16(8) H270×180×8×16(8)

H360×180×8×16(8) H360×180×8×16(8)

0.8 0.8

Reduction factor

Buckling factor

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Non-dimensional slenderness Non-dimensional slenderness

4. Numerical models for steel beams eigenvalue analysis. Residual stresses were applied to the beams

through the *INITIAL CONDITION command in ABAQUS. Figs. 12(a and

4.1. Development of numerical models b) show the distribution of longitudinal residual stress, measured on

steel beams of the same cross sections by using sectioning method.

To extend the range of non-dimensional slenderness in the study, Besides, one more beam section H450450 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) was sec-

ﬁnite element models were developed by using ABAQUS [14] for tioned to obtain the residual stress distribution, as shown in Fig. 12(c).

Q460GJ steel beams under three-point bending. Fig. 11 shows the

model with steel mesh in ABAQUS. The measured dimensions were

utilised in the model and steel stiffeners were also taken into consider-

ation at the loading point and end supports. Four-node shell elements

with reduced integration S4R were used for the beam. For each cross

section, the sizes of steel mesh in the ﬂange and web were 8 mm

and 10 mm, respectively. The mesh size along the beam length was

25 mm. A piecewise linear stress-strain relationship was deﬁned for

each steel, including the elastic stage, yield plateau and hardening

stage. The stresses and corresponding strains listed in Table 3 were

incorporated into the stress-strain curve. Note that the onset of the

hardening stage was determined from Fig. 4. The stress-strain curve

was converted to the true stress-strain curve and used in numerical

simulations.

Initial imperfections play a critical role in the lateral-torsional

buckling behaviour of steel beams subject to a concentrated point load

at the mid-span. In the model, initial geometric imperfections were

considered by using the *IMPERFECTION command. The measured

initial geometric imperfection was introduced to the model based on Fig. 11. Finite element model for steel beam B-360-4.5.

348 S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351

(MPa)

-100

-200

400

200

300

100

0

(MPa)

-100

-200

400

200

300

100

200

0

100

(MPa)

300

-100

-200

0

400

200

300

100

200

-100

0

100

300 0 -200

200 -100 (MPa)

100 -200

0 (MPa)

-100

-200

(MPa)

200

100

0

-100 200

-200 100

-300 0

(MPa) -100 200

-200 100

-300 0

(a) H270×180×8×16(8) (MPa) -100

-200

(b) H360×180×8×16(8) (MPa)

(c) H450×180×8×16(8)

Details of the residual stress measurement can be found in a companion of steel beams. Fig. 13 shows the failure mode of beam B-360-4.5. Signif-

paper [15]. icant lateral deﬂections could be observed near the mid-span, indicating

All beams were simulated under simply-supported boundary condi- lateral-torsional buckling of the beam. Fig. 14 shows the comparison

tions. Both ends of the beams were restrained against vertical displace- between experimental and numerical load-displacement curves. The

ments, out-of-plane displacements and twists. A roller support was numerical results are in good agreement with the test results. However,

designed for one end of the beams so that longitudinal displacements there are some signiﬁcant discrepancies between experimental and

could be released. A steel plate was modelled on the beam top ﬂange numerical curves in Figs. 14(b and e), possibly induced by the different

to take account of the effect of loading plates on preventing local buckling initial geometric imperfections in the tests and simulations. Table 5

of the ﬂange. A concentrated point load was applied to the steel plate. summarises the comparison between load capacities obtained from

experimental tests and numerical simulations. When the measured ini-

4.2. Validation of numerical models tial geometric imperfection was adopted, the average ratio of numerical

to test results is 1.039, with a coefﬁcient of variation of 9.0%. It indicates

The modiﬁed Riks (arc-length) method was employed in the ﬁnite that the numerical model predicts the load capacity with reasonably

element analysis to simulate the lateral-torsional buckling behaviour good accuracy. It is noteworthy that as for B-270-3.5, the deviation

S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351 349

500 500

Experimental result Experimental result

Numerical result Numerical result

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical displacement (mm) Vertical displacement (mm)

350 300

Experimental result Experimental result

Numerical result Numerical result

280 240

Vertical load (kN)

210 180

140 120

70 60

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical displacement (mm) Vertical displacement (mm)

(c) B-270-4.0 (d) B-270-4.5

750 500

Experimental result Experimental result

Numerical result Numerical result

600 400

Vertical load (kN)

450 300

300 200

150 100

0 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical displacement (mm) Vertical displacement (mm)

(e) B-360-3.0 (f) B-360-3.5

350

Experimental result

Numerical result

280

Vertical load (kN)

210

140

70

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical displacement (mm)

(g) B-360-4.5

Fig. 14. Vertical load-displacement curves of steel beams.

350 S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351

Comparisons of test with numerical results. simulations were also carried out by using an initial geometric imper-

Steel beam Pt (kN) PN1 (kN) PN1/Pt PN2 (kN) PN2/Pt fection of 1/1000 of the beam span. Correspondingly, the average ratio

B-270-3.0 382.4 411.1 1.075 388.0 1.015

becomes 0.935, with a coefﬁcient of variation of 7.0%. Thus, it is

B-270-3.5 302.6 350.6 1.159 307.8 1.017 relatively conservative to adopt a geometric imperfection of 1/1000 of

B-270-4.0 259.0 260.8 1.007 236.7 0.924 the beam span, as used in most design codes. This value was also used

B-270-4.5 208.5 233.0 1.118 194.1 0.931 in the parametric study.

B-360-3.0 571.8 498.4 0.872 479.4 0.838

B-360-3.5 415.0 429.6 1.035 389.1 0.938

B-360-4.5 262.4 263.8 1.005 231.6 0.883

Mean value 1.039 0.935 5. Parametric study

Coefﬁcient of variation 9.0% 7.0%

Note: PN1 is the numerical result by using the measured geometric imperfection, and PN2 is A series of parametric studies was conducted based on the veriﬁed

the result by using an initial geometric imperfection equal to 1/1000 of the beam span, as numerical model, in which the effects of non-dimensional slenderness

speciﬁed by GB50075 [16]. and height-to-width ratio were investigated. In the study, the non-

Table 6

Dimensions of steel beams in parametric study.

Cross section Height-to- Height of Thickness Width of Thickness of Width of Thickness of Beam

width cross section of web top ﬂange top ﬂange bottom ﬂange bottom ﬂange span

ratio

H (mm) tw (mm) b1 (mm) t1 (mm) b2 (mm) t2 (mm) L (m)

H360 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) 2.0 360 8 180 16 180 8 1.6–7.9

H450 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) 2.5 450 8 180 16 180 8 1.6–6.8

1.2 1.2

GB50017-2003 h/b=1.43

Euler curve h/b=1.93

1.0 1.0

H270×180×8×16(8) h/b=2.43

H360×180×8×16(8) Euler curve

0.8 H450×180×8×16(8) 0.8 H270×180×8×16(8)

Buckling factor

Buckling factor

H360×180×8×16(8)

0.6 0.6 H450×180×8×16(8)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Non-dimensional slenderness Non-dimensional slenderness

1.2 1.2

Rolled or welded sections c ANSI/AISC360-10

Rolled or welded sections d Euler curve

1.0 Euler curve 1.0

H270×180×8×16(8)

H270×180×8×16(8)

H360×180×8×16(8)

H360×180×8×16(8)

0.8 0.8 H450×180×8×16(8)

Reduction factor

H450×180×8×16(8)

Buckling factor

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Non-dimensional slenderness Non-dimensional slenderness

S.-B. Kang et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 341–351 351

dimensional slenderness ratio ranged from 0.6 to 2.0, and the height-to- (2) By increasing the beam span, corresponding ultimate load sub-

width ratio was 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 for cross sections H270 × 180 × 8 × 16(8), stantially decreased. The height-to-width ratio of steel beams

H360 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) and H450 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) corresponding to had limited effect on the global buckling resistance.

curves c and d in Eurocode 3 [11]. A total of 45 beams were simulated, (3) The design curves in GB50017-2003 [9] and ANSI/AISC360-10

as included in Table 6. [12] overestimate the load capacity of steel beams when the

Fig. 15(a) shows the comparison between numerical results and the non-dimensional slenderness is relatively small. The curves in

design curve in GB50017-2003 [9]. It can be observed that when the GB50017-201X [10] and curve d for rolled or welded sections

non-dimensional slenderness is relatively small (less than 1.50), the in Eurocode 3 [11] are conservative for Q460GJ steel beams

numerical results fall below the design curve, indicating that the design with singly symmetric I-sections. Therefore, they can be used

code overestimates the lateral-torsional buckling resistance of Q460GJ for global buckling design of Q460 beams with reasonable

steel beams with singly-symmetric I-shaped cross sections. Once the conservatism.

non-dimensional slenderness exceeds 1.50, the design curve slightly

underestimates the load resistance. It is noteworthy that the inﬂuence Acknowledgments

of the height-to-width ratio of cross sections is limited. In GB50017-

201X [10], the effects of the height-to-width ratio are considered and The authors gratefully acknowledge the ﬁnancial support provided

different curves are deﬁned, as shown in Fig. 15(b). Comparisons by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.

between numerical results and design curves suggest that the curves 106112017CDJQJ208849 and No. 106112017CDJXY200005) and the

underestimate the load resistance of steel beams. In Eurocode 3 [11], National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51578089).

buckling curve c should be used if the height-to-width ratio of welded

I-sections is less than or equal to 2.0; otherwise, curve d should be References

adopted. Cross sections H270 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) and H360 × 180 × 8 ×

[1] S.-D. Nie, S.-B. Kang, L. Shen, B. Yang, Experimental and numerical study on global

16(8) correspond to curve c, and H450 × 180 × 8 × 16(8) is for curve

buckling of Q460GJ steel box columns under eccentric compression, Eng. Struct.

d. Numerical results of all the three sections are well above curves c 142 (2017) 211–222.

and d, as shown in Fig. 15(c). Thus, the buckling curves speciﬁed [2] B. Yang, G. Xiong, K. Ding, S.D. Nie, W. Zhang, Y. Hu, G.X. Dai, Experimental and nu-

by Eurocode 3 [11] yield fairly conservative estimations of the global merical studies on lateral-torsional buckling of GJ structural steel beams under a

concentrated loading condition, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 16 (1) (2016) 1640004.

buckling resistance of Q460GJ steel beams. Nevertheless, the design [3] G.M. El-Mahdy, M.M. El-Saadawy, Ultimate strength of singly symmetric I-section

curve in ANSI/AISC360-10 [12] considerably overestimates the lateral- steel beams with variable ﬂange ratio, Thin-Walled Struct. 87 (2015) 149–157.

torsional buckling resistance of the beams (see Fig. 15(d)) when the [4] A.S. Surla, S.Y. Kang, J.S. Park, Inelastic buckling assessment of monosymmetric I-

beams having stepped and non-compact ﬂange sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 114

non-dimensional slenderness is between 1.0 and 1.5, and thus it is not (2015) 325–337.

conservative to use this curve for the global buckling design of Q460GJ [5] A. Andrade, D. Camotim, P.B. Dinis, Lateral-torsional buckling of singly symmetric

steel beams. web-tapered thin-walled I-beams: 1D model vs. shell FEA, Comput. Struct. 85

(17–18) (2007) 1343–1359.

[6] D. Camotim, A. Andrade, C. Basaglia, Some thoughts on surprising result concerning

6. Conclusions the lateral-torsional buckling of monosymmetric I-section beams, Thin-Walled

Struct. 60 (2012) 216–221.

[7] B. Yang, S.B. Kang, G. Xiong, S. Nie, Y. Hu, S. Wang, J. Bai, G. Dai, Experimental and

This paper presents the experimental and numerical results of singly

numerical study on lateral-torsional buckling of singly symmetric Q460GJ steel I-

symmetric I-beams fabricated from high-performance Q460GJ struc- shaped beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 113 (2017) 205–216.

tural steel. The beams were tested under a concentrated point load at [8] R.D. Ziemian, Guide to Stability Criteria for Metal Structures, sixth ed. John Wiley &

Sons Inc., Hoboken, New York, 2010.

the mid-span and expected to fail in a range between elastic and inelas-

[9] Ministry of Construction, Code for Design of Steel Structures, GB50017-2003, China

tic lateral-torsional buckling. Finite element models were developed to Planning Press, Beijing, 2003.

simulate the global buckling behaviour of the beams. The model was [10] Management Committee for National Standards, Code for Design of Steel Structures

validated against test results and used for parametric studies on the (Draft Version), GB50017-201X, Beijing, 2012.

[11] BSI, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for

effects of non-dimensional slenderness and height-to-width ratio. Com- Buildings, BS EN 1993-1-1:2005, British Standards Institution, London, 2005.

parisons were made with design curves in GB50017-2003 [9], GB50017- [12] American Institute of Steel Construction, Speciﬁcation for Structural Steel Buildings,

201X [10], Eurocode 3 [11] and ANSI/AISC360-10 [12]. The following ANSI/AISC360-10, Chicago, Illinois, 2010.

[13] Standardization Administration of China, Tensile Testing—Part 1: Method of Test at

conclusions could be drawn from the study. Room Temperature, GB/T228.1-2010, Standards Press of China, Beijing, 2010.

[14] ABAQUS, Analysis user's Manual Version 6.13, ABAQUS Inc, 2013.

(1) All steel beams failed in lateral-torsional buckling except B-360- [15] B. Yang, S.D. Nie, G. Xiong, Y. Hu, J. Bai, W. Zhang, G.X. Dai, Residual stresses in

4.0 which developed a rather high load resistance due to the welded I-shaped sections fabricated from Q460GJ structural steel plates, J. Constr.

presence of friction in the loading device. Yielding of the tension Steel Res. 122 (2016) 261–273.

[16] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Code for Construction of Steel

ﬂange was not observed prior to failure, and local buckling did Structures, GB 50755-2012, China Building Industry Press, Beijing, 2012.

not occur in the compression ﬂange.

- Iterative Methods for Solving Stability ProblemsЗагружено:MihajloDjurdjevic
- Chapter 5 - Design and Detailing Rules for Concrete BuildingsЗагружено:Ernie Ernie
- [Ekström, C.-M.] Lateral-torsional Buckling of Steel Channel Beams.pdfЗагружено:oubi
- Wagners beam cycleЗагружено:Ahmed
- The Use of SteelЗагружено:killer_pro
- A Comparative Study LTB Using AISC EC and SpЗагружено:vodugu123
- VTT-R-01157-10Загружено:thanzawtun1981
- Chapter 11Загружено:sharathr22
- SFD-EC-3-2005Загружено:tanujaayer
- Bulldozer GarageЗагружено:Budi Prayitno
- 20.2 Bulldozer Garage.PDFЗагружено:Budi Prayitno
- Steel Design Example - NsbaЗагружено:Kenneth Phillips
- LT Buckling Beam Design - Simple Method - 2upЗагружено:berto2008
- What is Shear CenterЗагружено:Gidion Turuallo
- Steel Structures 3 - Composite Structures - Lecture Notes Chapter 10.7Загружено:iSoK11
- Apollo-1.5m X-Beam-to Eurocode.pdfЗагружено:apollocradles
- Doc 1Загружено:Ashif Iqubal
- Design of Steel Elements as Per is 800Загружено:Darshit Vejani
- Design of Composite GirderЗагружено:Saran Kumar
- Design of Steel BuildingЗагружено:ruelcf
- ConcreteЗагружено:chongpt
- Best-In-Class Global Bumper Reinforcement BeamЗагружено:ad1ad1ad1
- Uang - Bolted Flange Plate Moment ConnectionsЗагружено:robox514
- Girder Slab.pdfЗагружено:Arbi811
- Structural Response of a Composite Steel Frame StructureЗагружено:Flow Fox
- 3373056.pdfЗагружено:Anonymous bqV7MbFSu
- Beam.xlsЗагружено:amirthraj74
- 2.LITRAЗагружено:Prashant Patil
- Arch Bridge Ultra High ProЗагружено:Dhananjay Kumar
- SFD-SP-16-13330-2011Загружено:Siddharth Sharma

- Frame Buckling NotesЗагружено:Aaditya Pevekar
- Crack StiffnessЗагружено:joe
- Torsional BucklingЗагружено:joe
- Experimental Study on the Static Behavior of Reinforced Warren Circular Hollow Section (CHS)Загружено:joe
- Chapter9_com.pdfЗагружено:Siva Prasad Mamillapalli
- Direct Analysis Method HandoutЗагружено:Armando Farías
- Steelwise Strength and EngagementЗагружено:Giri Dharan
- 2016 Chapter 6 Geotechnical AnalysisЗагружено:sridhar
- FEMA_P-1051.pdfЗагружено:...?
- Modelling of Foundations-Structure SystemЗагружено:nw__ay
- 3B 1 A49 p y Methodology CopyЗагружено:joe
- 3B 1 A49 p y MethodologyЗагружено:Mustafa Uzyardoğan
- Columns- Load Resistance-factor-Design (LRDF) - 28pgЗагружено:tvmehta01
- Use-and-Abuse-of-Springs-to-Model-Foundations.pdfЗагружено:serialamine
- Notes LinearSystemsЗагружено:joe

- -CarburatorЗагружено:andrw1987
- 01-Fiches Atr600 EnЗагружено:luckgill
- plano catЗагружено:Luis Ladino
- Allen Bradley Power Monitor 3000 Manual.PDFЗагружено:Andrewcaesar
- ACCA f1 TrainingЗагружено:Carlene Mohammed-Baliraj
- balance analytical markЗагружено:Rodrigo
- Manual Instalación Fuente AMPSЗагружено:Erick Nacor Arevalo
- Exig_16140_ENЗагружено:leovence
- CHEMICAL LAB.pdfЗагружено:Leonardo Vence Ordoñez
- ConstructionEmissionsMitigationCalculator_v6_2012JanЗагружено:Kaspol Anwar
- Correlation Models for Shadow Fading SimulationЗагружено:Lạc Hồng
- vlsi technology lesson planЗагружено:Mahendra Babu
- valvula para coque.pdfЗагружено:Kerry Dillon
- BAM_USЗагружено:jain.ruchir4281
- 180531 6 Minute English RiskЗагружено:Huy Lê Quang
- Numbers and NavaGrahaЗагружено:abrabis
- Applications for Ideal Gas LawsЗагружено:dreamxtreme16
- LouisaЗагружено:Vivek Chauhan
- 4x4.docxЗагружено:Vani Muthukrishnan
- d2k-tutorialЗагружено:Abhishek Kumar Singh
- Paul Noble ItalianЗагружено:ScribdAddict
- s 035301080113Загружено:International Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- 06-t05-559bЗагружено:Mohammed Abbas
- Sodium SulfateЗагружено:Arun
- 11 Straight LinesЗагружено:austinfru7
- PSPP-Unit-wise Important Questions (1)Загружено:jayanthikrishnan
- Midterm QsЗагружено:Joban Sidhu
- IPC-4554-A1Загружено:Bau2Nine
- Natural OrderЗагружено:Sauvik Chakraverti
- 180154666 Balancing Flow Control Valves PDFЗагружено:Rami Reddy

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.