You are on page 1of 20

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Steel angles are one of the most important structural compression members. In the majority of structural applications single angles are usually loaded in such a manner that the applied load is eccentric. Eccentrically loaded single-angle struts are among the most difficult structural members to analyze and design. Single-angles are used extensively in towers, particularly in transmission towers. They are some times used in small roof trusses. They can also be used as structural frame elements.

Electrical Transmission Towers:


Electrical transmission lines are supported by a variety of structural configurations including single poles, H-frame structures, guyed structures and lattice structures. Of these structures, the most common is the lattice which is composed of single hot-rolled steel angles. The lattice tower is analyzed and designed assuming that each member is a two force member or truss. These members resist load by tension and/or compression. Although an angle would normally be a poor choice for a column, it is the member of choice in a lattice structure, because its shape makes it easy to connect one to the other. The performance of steel angle is of great interest to the field of electrical transmission tower design (Figure 2.1).

Roof Trusses:
Trussing, or triangulated framing, is a means for developing stability with a light frame. It is also a means for producing very light two dimensional or three dimensional structural elements for spanning systems or structures in general. The double angle member is widely used in roof trusses (Figure 2.2).

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Figure 2.1: Four-legged electrical transmission tower (pylon) with single steel angle

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

It may be used for both web and chord members of riveted or bolted trusses with
connections made to gusset plates between the vertical legs.

(a) Bowstring roof truss

(b) Multi piece roof truss

(c) Double-inverted roof truss Figure 2.2: Typical images of roof trusses

Other Uses:

Single angles are also used as bracing members in plate girder bridges and as
bracings in large build-up columns.Double angle section are also used in wind bracing in plate girder bridges.

In the case of larger compression members or when suitable channel sections


are not available, the built-up sections using angles can conveniently be used.

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

2.2 STEEL ANGLES 2.2.1 Types of Steel Angles (available)


According to arrangement: I. Single angle (Used in towers, lintels, etc.) They are available in two types of shapes (according to size of their individual legs): -Single equal leg angles: The two legs of these angles are of same size (Figure 2.3). -Single unequal leg angles: The two legs of these angles are of different sizes. (Figure 2.4). II. Double angles (Used as members of light steel trusses)

2.2.2 Designation of the Steel Angles


Structural angles are rolled section in the shape of the letter L. Both legs of an angle have same thickness. Angles are designated by the alphabetical symbol L, followed by dimensions of the legs and their thickness.

Figure 2.3: Image of single equal leg angle members

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Figure 2.4: Image of single unequal leg members

Figure 2.5: A single steel angle cross section of designation L A x B x C

Thus the designation L 4 x 4 x indicates an equal leg angle with 4-inch legs and -inch thickness. Similarly, the designation L 5 x 3 x indicates an unequal leg angle with

one 5-inch and one 3 inch leg, both of -inch thickness.

2.2.3 Materials Used for Producing Steel Angles


Steel that meets the requirements of the (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)) Specification, A36 is the grade of structural steel commonly used to produce rolled single angles.

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Properties of A36 steel: In order to understand the variation in the mechanical properties of the structural steel available that may be grouped by strength grade for ease of discussion. The structural carbon steel is one of them. These steels depend upon the amount of the carbon used to develop their steel through the way the range of thickness. A36 steel is a low carbon steel. According to ASTM Code, for thickness up to 8 inch, Minimum Yield point=36,000psi Tensile strength=58,000-80,000psi

2.3 END PLATES


End plates are often used with single steel angles. In such cases, they are either welded to the steel angle or connected to the steel angle by bolts. 2.4 ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS It may be defined as the load carrying capacity of the structural steel members at which it fails by buckling.

For long members:


Failure: Elastic Fails by buckling No yielding.

For short members:


Failure: Inelastic Fails by yielding

- No buckling.

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

For many years, theoretical determinations of Ultimate load did not agree with test results. Test results included Effects of initial crookedness of the member Accidental eccentricity of load End restraint Local or lateral buckling and residual stress

2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF COLUMN BUCKLING THEORY


The behavior of single steel angles subjected to buckling is almost similar to that of columns .So, it is desired to have a clear and concise idea about the buckling phenomenon of columns prior to any study and analysis regarding steel angles. Development of column buckling theory is a gradual process, which is briefly illustrated in this article.

2.5.1 Elastic Buckling


I. Euler Formula Column buckling theory originated with Leonhard Euler in 1757. He considered a column with both end pinned as shown (Figure 2.6). The underlying assumptions were: 1) Perfectly straight column 2) No eccentric axial load 3) Plane remains plane after deformation 4) Bending deflection only (no shear deformation) 5) Hook's law 6) Small deflection

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

10

Figure 2.6: An ideally pinned column The critical or Euler load, Pcr for such a column is,

Pcr
Where, E I

2 EI 2 Le

(2.1)

= Youngs modulus of elasticity of the material of column = The least moment of inertia of the constant cross-sectional area of a column

Le

= The effective length (usually the unbraced length) of the column (in this case, it is the whole length of column, but for the other cases it has different values, L being he whole length of the column) For a free standing column, Le=2.0L For a column fixed at both ends, Le=0.5L For a column having one end fixed and the other end pinned, Le=0.7L Euler formula is applicable while the material behavior remains linearly

elastic. Eulers Approach was generally ignored for design, because test results did

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

11

not agree with it; columns of ordinary length used in design were not as strong as determined from Euler formula. II."Johnson Parabola" Approach Many empirical and semi-empirical methods have been proposed for matching the experimental data. The Johnson Parabola is one of these curve fitting methods, and has been used commonly in structural engineering. It is an inverted parabola, symmetric about the point (0,sy) tangent to the Euler curve. The equation of Johnsons parabola is given by:
Pcr y A[1 ( Le / r ) y ] 4 2 E

(2.2)

Where, Pcr sy A r Le E = Critical buckling load for the column = Yield stress of the column = Cross-sectional area of the column = Least radius of gyration of column cross-section = Effective length of the column = Youngs modulus of elasticity of the material of column

Figure 2.7: Column stress as function of slenderness

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

12

2.5.2 Inelastic Buckling


It was then consciously recognized that infact ordinary length columns fail by inelastic buckling rather than by elastic buckling. I. Basic Tangent Modulus Theory Considere and Engesser in 1889 independently realized that for columns those fail subsequent to the onset of inelastic behavior, the constant of proportionality must be used rather than the modulus of elasticity (E) (Engesser formula, as described by Bleich (1952)). The constant of proportionality (Et) is the slope of the stress-strain diagram beyond the proportional limit, termed the tangent modulus, where, within the linearly elastic range, E = Et. Thus, Engesser modified Eulers equation to become formula,

Pcr
Where, Pcr Pt Et I Le

2 Et I =Pt 2 Le

(2.3)

= Critical buckling load for the column = The tangent modulus load = Tangent modulus of elasticity = Moment of inertia (usually the minimum) of the column cross-section = Effective length of the column This theory, however, still did not agree with test results, giving computed

loads lower than measured ultimate capacity. The principal assumption which caused the tangent modulus theory to be erroneous is that as the member changes from a straight to bent form, no strain reversal takes place.

The relationships between E and Et are shown in the following figure:

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

13

Figure 2.8: Enjessers Basic Tangent-Modulus Theory (in terms of a typical stress vs. strain curve) In this figure, su st spl = Ultimate stress of the column = Tangent modulus stress = Proportional limit

II. Double Modulus Theory In 1895, Engesser changed his theory, reasoning that during bending some fibers are under going increased strain (lowered tangent modulus) and some fibers are being unloaded (higher modulus at the reduce strain): therefore, a combined value should be used for the modulus. This is referred to as either Double Modulus Theory or the Reduced Modulus Theory, described by Salmon and Johnson (1971). For the same column slenderness ratio, this theory always gives a slightly higher column buckling capacity than the tangent modulus theory. The discrepancy between the two solutions is not very large. The reason for this discrepancy was explained by F. R.Shanley.

III. Shanley Concept True column behavior Both the Tangent-Modulus Theory and Reduced-Modulus Theory were accepted theories of inelastic buckling until F. R. Shanley published his logically

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

14

correct paper in 1946.According to Shanleys concept, as described by Bleich(1952) buckling proceeds simultaneously with the increasing axial load. Shanley reasoned that the tangent modulus theory is valid when buckling is accompanied by a simultaneous increase in the applied load of sufficient magnitude to prevent strain reversal in the member. The applied load given by the tangent modulus theory increases asymptotically to that given by the double modulus theory.

Figure 2.9: Shanleys Theory of Inelastic Buckling In this figure, Foc Fr


Ft Fm

= =

Elastic critical stress Reduced modulus stress

= Tangent modulus stress = Maximum stress, which defines the ultimate strength of the member

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

15

Figure 2.10: Critical buckling load vs. transverse deflection (w) The above figure shows buckling loads according to different theories. Further Observations The maximum load lying between the tangent modulus load and the double modulus load for any time-independent elastic-plastic material and cross-section was accurately determined by Lin (1950). Duberg and Wilder (1950) have further concluded that for materials whose stress -strain curves change gradually in the inelastic range, the maximum column load can be appreciably above the tangent modulus load. If, however, the material in the inelastic range tends rapidly to exhibit plastic behavior the maximum load is only slightly higher than the tangent modulus load.

2.6

ECCENTRICALLY LOADED COLUMN THEORYHISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT


In a brief account of the development of the theory of eccentrically loaded

columns, Ostenfeld (1898) must be mentioned, who, half a century ago, made an attempt to derive design formulas for centrally and eccentrically loaded columns. His method was based upon the concept that the critical column load is defined as the loading which first produces external fiber stresses equal to the yield strength.

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

16

The first to consider the determination of the buckling load of eccentrically loaded columns as a stability problem was Karman (1940) who gave, in connection with his investigations on centrally loaded columns, a complete and exact analysis of this rather involved problem. He called attention to the sensitiveness of short and medium-length columns to even very slight eccentrically of the imposed load, which reduce the carrying capacity of straight columns considerably.

Ros and Brunner (1928) established a simplified stability theory of eccentrically loaded columns and proved the theoretical results by a number of tests. They assumed that the deflected center line of the column can be represented by the half wave of a sine curve but based the computation of the critical load upon the actual stress-strain diagram.

Westergaard and Osgood (1928) presented a paper in which the behavior of eccentrically loaded columns and initially curved columns were discussed analytically. The method is based upon the same equations as were used by Karma but assumes the deflected center line of eccentrically loaded compression members to be part of a cosine curve, thereby simplifying Karmans method without impairing the practical accuracy of the results.

Starting from Karmans exact concept, Chwalla (1928) in a series of papers between 1928 and 1937 investigated in a very elaborate manner the stability of eccentrically loaded columns and presented the results of his studies for various shapes of column cross section in tables and diagrams. Chwalla based all his computations on one and the same stress-strain diagram adopted as typical for structural steel. The significance of his laborious work is that the numerous tables and diagrams brought insight into the behavior of eccentrically loaded columns as influenced by shape of the column cross section, slenderness ratio, and eccentrically and that his exact results can serve as a measure for the accuracy of approximate methods.

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

17

A very valuable contribution to the solution of the problem was offered by Jezek (1934), who gave an analytical solution for steel columns based upon a simplified stress-strain curve consisting of two straight lines and showed that the results agree rather well with the values obtained from the real stress-strain relation. The underlying concept of Jezeks theory proves useful in devising analytical expressions from which, in a rather simple manner, diagrams, tables, or design formulas for all kinds of material having sharply defined yield strength can be derived.

Figure 2.11: Two possible stress distributions for columns according to Jezeks Approach

For stress distribution, case (a),

P 2E [1 A (L / r) 2

3(

yA
P

]3 1)

(2.4)

L 2 E 3 valid for, ( ) 2 >0 r 9 y (3 )

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

18

For stress distribution, case (b),


P [ A (L / r) 4 y ] yA P 2 3 4 2 E ( ) P yA 3
3

(2.5)

L 2 E 3 valid for, ( ) 2 0 r 9 y (3 )
Where, P A L r sy E L/r k Where, e s = Equivalent eccentricity and = Core radius (for rectangular section, s=h/6, h being the depth of the rectangular section) = Axially applied ultimate column load = Cross-sectional area of the column = Actual length of the column = Minimum radius of gyration of column cross-section = Yield stress of the column = Youngs modulus of elasticity for column material = Slenderness ratio of column = Eccentricity ratio=e/s;

A different approach to the complex problem of eccentrically loaded columns, starting from the secant formula, was made by Young (1936). He considers, as Ostenfeld and others did, the failure load as the load which produces the beginning of yielding in the highest stressed fiber. For structural steel having 36 kips/in.2 yield strength, he develops column curves for various values of the eccentrically, and he treated initially curved columns by the same method.

The following formula was given by Young for calculation of critical load:

max

P ec L P (1 2 sec ) A r 4 EA r

(2.6)

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

19

Where, smax P e A L r E c ec/r2 = = = = = = = = = Maximum stress for the column not exceeds the elastic limit Eccentrically applied ultimate column force eccentricity of the applied ultimate force, P Cross-sectional area of the column Actual length of the column Minimum radius of gyration of column cross-section Youngs modulus of elasticity for column material Distance of centridal axis to most stressed fibers in compression Eccentricity ratio

2.7 CONVENTIONAL FORMULAS TO DETERMINE ULTIMATE LOAD CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL STEEL ANGLES I. Column Council Curve (CRC) Formula
The basic column-strength curve adopted by the column research council is based on the parabolic equation proposed by Bleich.

The curve proposed by Bleich is,

cr y
Where, scr sy sp E Le r = = = = = =

p E
2

( y p )(

Le 2 ) r

(2.7)

Critical stress for the column Yield stress of the column Stress of the column at proportional limit Youngs modulus of elasticity for the material of column Effective length of the column Least radius of gyration of the column

From which, finally the equation of CRC curve is obtained as,

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

20

cr y [1

Le 2 ) ] 4 E r
2

(2.8)

II. AISC Formula


AISC specification gives the following requirement for using the design of compression members. The allowable unit stresses shall not exceed the following values: On the gross section of axially loaded compression members, when Le/r, the largest effective slenderness ratio of any unbraced segment is less than Cc, [1 ( Le / r ) 2 / 2C c ] y FS
2

(2.9)

- On the gross section of axially loaded compression members, when Le/r exceeds Cc, 12 2 E 23( Le / r ) 2

(2.10)

In these formulas, sa = Le = r = Axial compression stress permitted in the absence of bending stress. Effective length of the column Governing radius of gyration (usually the least)

Cc =

2 2 E ; for A36 steel, Cc = 126.1. y


= 36000) Minimum yield point of the steel being used (for A36 steel,

y
y =
FS = E =`

5 3( Le / r ) ( Le / r ) 2 = the factor of safety 3 3 8C c 8C c


Youngs modulus of elasticity of structural steel, 29000 ksi.

2.8 PREVIOUS RESEARCH


The performance of steel angles is of great interest to the field of electrical transmission tower design. In a lattice structure, the most common type of member used is the single angle. In such an application, the angles are subjected to both

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

21

tension and compression. The ultimate compressive load capacity of single steel angles subjected to eccentrically applied axial load was investigated by Bathon, et al (1993), which was a part of an ongoing research program. In this paper, they tested both the single angle equal leg and unequal leg compression members, that were selected in order to add missing information to previous research projects (Callaway 1984; Mueller and Erzurumlu 1981; Mueller and Wagner 1985; Mueller, Prickett and Kempner 1988; Prickett and Meller 1983).The results of these research projects had been collected in a data base, which consisted of the performance of single angle members in the elastic, inelastic and post buckling region. This data base, combined with a computer model, provided a tool to perform non-linear analysis of three dimensional trusses. The analysis included the effects of unloading or post buckling member performance (Muller and Kempner, 1991). The investigation by Bathon et al (1993), documented the compression load carrying capacity of a steel angle with its ends unrestrained against rotation and with eccentricities within the limits

Figure 2.12: Details of end connections (a) Two bolt configuration (b) Three-bolt configuration (c) Five-bolt configuration specified in the ASCE Manual 52 (1988). These conditions defined the design equations that were used in that investigation. A comparison of test results versus calculated capacity using the procedure of ASCE Manual 52 (1988) was made. The purpose was to compare the results of an ideal test to the design requirements and to make observations and recommendations. Thirty-one Single angle equal leg and forty four single angle unequal leg A36 Specimens were tested with eccentrically

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

22

applied loads. Each specimen was connected to the end plate by bolts. The end plates were supported using a ball joint in an attempt to model end conditions that were unrestrained against rotation. In case of each angle, load was applied through the center of gravity of the bolt pattern. Figure 2.12 shows the end connection details used in the research by Bathon et al (1993).

You might also like