Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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).
Figure 2.1: Four-legged electrical transmission tower (pylon) with single steel angle
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.
(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.
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
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
- No buckling.
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
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
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
12
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.
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
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.
= =
= Tangent modulus stress = Maximum stress, which defines the ultimate strength of the member
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
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.
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.
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
P 2E [1 A (L / r) 2
3(
yA
P
]3 1)
(2.4)
18
(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)
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.
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
20
cr y [1
Le 2 ) ] 4 E r
2
(2.8)
(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 =
y
y =
FS = E =`
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
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).