27
Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames CIVL454 Structures 2 Laboratory Report Tom Wilkinson 4264009 8/9/2015

Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames Final

Citation preview

Page 1: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

CIVL454 Structures 2 Laboratory Report

Tom Wilkinson 42640098/9/2015

Page 2: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Table of Contents1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................2

2. Test 1.1 – Tension Coupon Test.....................................................................................................2

2.1. Discussion..............................................................................................................................3

3. Test 1.2 – Two-Span Continuous Beam.........................................................................................3

3.1. Aim........................................................................................................................................3

3.2. Laboratory Test Set-Up..........................................................................................................3

3.3. Test Results............................................................................................................................5

3.4. Analytical Results...................................................................................................................6

3.5. Comparisons between observations and theoretical predictions..........................................8

4. Test 1.3 – Rigid Portal Frame.........................................................................................................9

4.1. Aim........................................................................................................................................9

4.2. Laboratory Test Set-Up..........................................................................................................9

4.3. Test Results..........................................................................................................................11

4.4. Analytical Results.................................................................................................................13

4.5. Discussion............................................................................................................................17

5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................17

6. References...................................................................................................................................17

Page 3: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

1. IntroductionThis purpose of this report is to examine the Plastic Behaviour of continuous steel beams and rigid portal steel frames. Referring to the analysis of a structures behaviour after the point at which a plastic hinge has formed, plastic analysis looks at steel that has reached its initial yield stress and continuous to deform plastically. Experimental analysis will be undertaken by using various load ratios on a continuous beam and portal frame respectively. By comparing the results of each load ratio as well as with respect to theoretical predictions, a deeper understanding of the plastic behaviour of structure will be gained.

2. Test 1.1 – Tension Coupon TestIn order to determine the yield stress y and plastic moment capacity Mp of the metal rod used in Test 1.2 and Test 1.3, a simple tension coupon test was carried out. This involves loading a portion of the rod in tension with a low loading rate and was conducted prior to the laboratory by a lab staff member. The rod tested was found to have a yield stress of 245MPa and a diameter of 3.2mm. The following calculations outline how to determine the corresponding yield load Py and plastic moment capacity Mp from this experimental information.

Yield Load

σ= FA

F=σA

Where:

F = Force (N)

A = Area (mm2)

σ = Stress (N/mm2)

In this case the force on the rod is the tensile force equal to the yield load Py, the area is the cross-sectional area of the rod (circle) and the stress is the yield stress y.

A¿̊=π r2¿

A¿̊=π ( 3.2

2 )2

=8.04mm2¿

P y=❑y A ¿̊=245MPa×8.04mm2=1969.8N=1.97 kN ¿

Page 4: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Plastic Moment Capacity

M p=σ y×S

Where:

S = Plastic section modulus (mm3)

The plastic section modulus for a circle can be determined using the equation:

S=d3

6

S=3.23

6=5.46mm3

M p=245MPa×5 .46mm3=1337.7Nmm=1.34Nm

2.1.DiscussionThis value for plastic moment capacity of the steel beam represents the point at which the material reaches a fully plastic state and therefore is the maximum bending moment it can resist. When the number of plastic hinges in the structure is one greater than its redundancy, in general the structure will be observed to collapse. This is demonstrated further in tests 1.2 and 1.3.

3. Test 1.2 – Two-Span Continuous Beam

3.1.AimThe aim of this test is to determine the plastic collapse load of the metal road examined in Test 1.1, in a two-span continuous beam setup. Observations of the plastic collapse mechanism that develops under the rods failure is also to be recorded.

3.2.Laboratory Test Set-UpThe two-span continuous beam experimental arrangement is seen below in Figure 3-1. Each span measures 300mm in length and supports a point load in the middle of its span. These point loads are developed by hanging a spreader bar from the two mid-point locations and then hanging a bucket from the bar which was incrementally filled with pellets until plastic collapse occurred.

Page 5: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 3-1: Test 1.2 Experimental Set-up

The experiment was carried out by different groups, only making adjustments to the ratio of loading on the continuous beam by means of adjusting the position of the bucket hanging from the spreader bar. Figure 3-2 shows the loading components of the experimental setup, including the spreader bar, bucket, pellets and the hangers. The reaction forces on the Hanger at A and Hanger at C are equal in magnitude to the mid-span loadings on the continuous beam and thus are used in determining the buckets positing for the different loading ratios.

Figure 3-2: Test 1.2 Loading Arrangements

*The mass of the hangers and spreader bar were also weighed experimentally to a have a contribution to the collapse load and thus are added to this force. In reality the resultant weight of the spreader bar would be central however for ease of calculating the ratio of loads is assumed to be at the location of the bucket.

Page 6: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

The ratio of loads on the continuous beam for Group 9 was equal to 2.5. The following calculations are used to determine distances a and b as per this ratio:

L = 300mm

L = a + b

a + b = 300mm

a = (300 – b)mm

As the load ratio is 2.5=Rc

RA

, therefore RC=2.5× RA.

∑M B=0

-RAa + Rcb = 0

Substituting RC=2.5× RA.

-RAa + 2.5RAb = 0

b = 0.4a

b = 0.4 (300 – b)

b = 120 – 0.4b

b = 85.71mm = 86 mm

a = 300 – 86 = 214 mm

As such, the bucket was positioned so that it was 214 mm from the left hanger and 86 mm from the right hanger on the spreader bar. These distances would vary for each group requiring an alternate load ratio however the procedure would be the exact same.

3.3.Test ResultsThe bucket was slowly loaded until a point that the beam section E-F collapsed with the formation of a plastic hinge at the mid-span and support at E. Table 3-1 below shows the experimental test results for groups 7-12 conducting Test 1.2 with various load ratios.

Table 3-1: Test 1.2 Results

Group 7 8 9 10 11 12Load Ratio 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Distance from bucket to hanger (mm)

120 90 86 75 67 60

Total Load (g) 4711 4100 3557 3820 3806 3373

Page 7: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Group 9 calculations for collapse loads

Utilising the total load information from Table 3-1 the total force on the continuous beam can be calculated and further the beams collapse loads.

W = Load (kg) x 9.81 m/s2

= 3.557 x 9.81

= 34.9N

∑ F y=0(spreader ¯FBD)

L1 + L2 - w = 0

L1 + 2.5 L1 - w = 0

3.5 L1 = 34.9

L1 = 9.97N (Collapse Load at point A)

L2 = 9.97 x 2.5

= 24.9N (Collapse Load at point B)

Extrapolating this method across the remaining groups load information, the calculated results are shown below in Table 3-2. Note that the collapse load of the beam is taken to be the Point B collapse load whereas the load calculated at point A is merely the load carried here when collapse occurred at point B.

Table 3-2: Test 1.2 Collapse Loads

Group Load Ratio Load (kg) Force (N) Point A @ Collapse load (N)

Point B Collapse load (N)

7 1.5 4.711 46.2 18.49 27.738 2.0 4.100 40.2 13.41 26.819 2.5 3.557 34.9 9.97 24.92

10 3.0 3.820 37.5 9.37 28.1111 3.5 3.806 73.3 8.30 29.0412 4.0 3.373 33.1 6.62 26.47

3.4.Analytical ResultsIn order to make a theoretical prediction of the collapse load of the continuous beam scenario outlined above, the principle of virtual work will be used. As two plastic hinges formed during the experiment, at supports E and F, this component of the continuous beam will be analysed as shown in Figure 3-1.

Page 8: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 3-3:Test 1.2 Virtual Work Diagram

Virtual Work Method

The virtual work method of analysis is simple method that can be used in the plastic analysis of beams. The fundamental principle is that the work done internally by the displacement of the loads must balance with the internal work absorbed by rotation under fully plastic moments at plastic hinges. This can be expressed by the equation:

∑ (W ×δ)=∑ (M p×θ)

Where:

δ = the vertical displacement of the load

Mp = plastic moment capacity

θ = the rotation of the hinge

Substituting experimental specific variables:

L1δ=2M pθ+M p∅

Page 9: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 3-4: Angles for virtual work method of Test 1.2

From Figure 3-4, it can be seen that by symmetry = and thus:

Lc δ=2M pθ+M pθ=3M pθ

Additionally as the tan of a small angles is considered to equal to the angle itself:

θ=δ /0.15

δ=0.15θ

Substituting this into the previous equation gives:

0.15 Lcθ=3M pθ

Lc=20M p

Substituting the value for Mp calculated for Test 1.1:

Lc=20×1.34=26.8N

∴Collapse Load for beam=26.8N

3.5.Comparisons between observations and theoretical predictionsFigure 3-5 shows the collapse load values determined by each group against the theoretical prediction for the continuous beams collapse load. From this graph we can see clearly that the experimental collapse loads calculated by each groups various arrangement are relatively close to the predicted collapse load for the beam (maximum 7% difference). It should be noted however that the experimental results found collapse loads both higher and lower than that predicted for the beam. There are many reasons that could result in such differences between the experimental and theoretical result, the key factors being:

Error in measurement of load positon e.g. moving the bucket closer than required to the right hand side for a given ratio would result in an actual higher load ratio, causing it to fail at a lower total load than expected.

Inability to correctly detect when failure is occurring and thus continuing to load the beam once failure has begun resulting an overly large value for the load reading.

The moment contribution of the bars weight is not considered in the loading ratio causing an incorrect actual loading ratio effecting collapse load calculations.

Page 10: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

7 8 9 10 11 1222.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

Collapse Load - Experimental Vs Theoretical

Experimental Collapse LoadTheoretical Collapse Load

Group Number

Colla

pse

Load

(N)

Figure 3-5: Collapse Load - Experimental Vs Theoretical

4. Test 1.3 – Rigid Portal Frame

4.1.AimThe aim of this test is to determine the plastic collapse load of a rigid portal frame made of the steel rod examined in Test 1.1. Observations of the plastic collapse mechanism that develops under the frames failure is also to be recorded.

4.2.Laboratory Test Set-UpThe rigid portal frame experimental arrangement is seen below in Figure 4-6. Each member of the frame measures 300mm in length and the top horizontal member supports a vertical point load in the middle of its span while a horizontal load is also applied at the top right hand corner of the frame. These point loads are developed by hanging a spreader bar from the mid-point span of the vertical point load and the horizontal point load translated into a vertical force by a pulley system. Then a hanging a bucket was attached to the bar which was incrementally filled with pellets until plastic collapse occurred.

Page 11: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 4-6: Test 1.3 Experimental Set-up

The experiment was carried out by different groups, only making adjustments to the ratio of loading (Vertical/Horizontal) on the rigid portal frame by means of adjusting the position of the bucket hanging from the spreader bar. Figure 4-7 shows the loading components of the experimental setup, including the spreader bar, bucket, pellets and hangers. The reaction forces on the Hanger at A and Hanger at C are equal in magnitude to the mid-span loading and the horizontal loading respectively and thus are used in determining the buckets positing for the different loading ratios.

Figure 4-7: Test 1.3 Loading Arrangements

*The mass of the hangers and spreader bar were also weighed experimentally to a have a contribution to the collapse load and thus are added to this force. In reality the resultant weight of the spreader bar would be central however for ease of calculating the ratio of loads is assumed to be at the location of the bucket.

Page 12: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

The ratio of vertical to horizontal load on the rigid portal frame for Group 9 was equal to 2.5. The following calculations are used to determine distances a and b as per this ratio:

L = 490mm

L = a + b

a + b = 90mm

a = (490 – b)mm

As the vertical load to horizontal load ratio is 2 .5= VH

=R A

RC

, therefore RA=2.5×RC .

∑M B=0

-RAa + Rcb = 0

Substituting RC=2.5× RA.

-2.5Rca + Rcb = 0

b = 2.5a

b = 2.5 (490 – b)

b = 1225 – 2.5b

b = 350mm

a = 490 – 350 = 140 mm

As such, the bucket was positioned so that it was 140 mm from the left hanger and 350 mm from the right hanger on the spreader bar. These distances would vary for each group requiring an alternate load ratio however the procedure would be the exact same.

4.3.Test ResultsThe bucket was slowly loaded until a point that the portal frame was observed to fail with the formation of plastic hinges. Table 3 1 below shows the experimental test results for groups 7-12 conducting Test 1.23 with various vertical to horizontal load ratios.

Page 13: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Table 4.1: Test 1.3 Loading Arrangements

Group 7 8 9 10 11 12V/H 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Load (g) 3499 3400 3776 3687 3818 3592Distance between hangers (mm)

460 495 490 563 480 530

Distance between bucket to hanger A (mm)

184 165 140 125 106 106

Group 9 calculations for collapse loads

Utilising the total load information from Table 4.1 the total forces on the portal frame can be

calculated

W = Load (kg) x 9.81 m/s2

= 3.776 x 9.81

= 37.0N

∑ F y=0(spreadre ¯FBD)

V + H - w = 0

2.5H + H - w = 0

3.5 H = 37.0

H = 10.6 N (Horizontal Collapse Load)

V = 10.6 x 2.5

= 26.5 N (Vertical Collapse Load)

Table 4.2: Test 1.3 Loading Arrangements

Group Load Ratio Load (kg) Force (N) H(N) V(N)7 1.5 3.499 34.33 13.73 20.608 2.0 3.400 33.35 11.12 22.249 2.5 3.776 37.04 10.58 26.46

10 3.0 3.687 36.17 9.04 28.1311 3.5 3.818 37.45 8.32 29.1312 4.0 3.592 35.24 7.05 28.19

Page 14: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

4.4.Analytical ResultsIn order to make theoretical predictions of the collapse load of the continuous beam scenario outlined above, the principle of virtual work will be used, combining the beam collapse mechanism with the sway collapse mechanism to give a total collapse resultant. Figure 4-8: Test 1.3 - Beam Collapse Mechanism below shows the beam collapse mechanism component of the rigid portal frame.

Figure 4-8: Test 1.3 - Beam Collapse Mechanism

∑ (W ×δ)=∑ (M p×θ)

V c δ=4M pθ

V c 0.15θ ¿4M pθ

V c=4 M p

0.15

Substituting the value for Mp calculated for Test 1.1:

V c=4×1.34

0.15=35.7N (Equation1)

Figure 4-9 below shows the sway collapse mechanism component of the rigid portal frame.

Page 15: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 4-9: Test 1.3 - Sway Collapse Mechanism

∑ (W ×δ)=∑ (M p×θ)

H c δ=4M pθ

Figure 4-10:Angles for virtual work method of Test 1.3

The tan of a small angles is considered to equal to the angle itself:

θ=δ /0.3

δ=0.3θ

H c 0.3θ ¿ 4M pθ

H c=4M p

0.3

Substituting the value for Mp calculated for Test 1.1:

H c=4×1.34

0.3=17.9N (Equation2)

Page 16: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 4-11 below shows the combined collapse mechanism of the rigid portal frame.

Figure 4-11: Combined Collapse mechanism Test1.3

The combined collapse virtual work equation is simply the sum of external work of the beam and sway mechanisms equated to the sum of internal work of the beam and sway mechanisms minus the internal work of the hinge at the top left hinge of the frame. As seen in Figure 4-11, the combined collapse mechanism does not have a plastic hinge located at the top left hand corner of the frame so both the internal work from the beam and sway are to be subtracted from calculations.

∑ (W ×δ)=∑ (M p×θ)

V c 0.15θ+H c0.3θ=4M pθ+4 M pθ−2M pθ

V c 0.15+H c0.3=6M p

Substituting Mp=1.34Nm.V c 0.15+H c0.3=6M p

V c+2H c=53.6(Equation3)

Equations 1, 2 and 3 can now be used to draw the interaction diagram for combined collapse mechanism as seen below in Figure 4-12.

Page 17: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Figure 4-12: Theoretical Load Interaction Diagram

The results for each groups vertical and horizontal loading points (H, V) are then plotted onto this Interaction diagram (Figure 4-13) to determine how close these experimental points were to the theoretical solution and failure mechanism. The V/H ratios used were also plotted to show its intersection with the theoretical collapse mechanisms.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Exp. data on Theoretical Load Interaction Diagram

Vertical Beam Collapse Load

Horizontal Sway Collapse Load

Combined Collapse Load Mech-anism

Group 7

Group 8

Group 9

Group 10

Group 11

Group 12Horizontal Load (N)

Verti

cal L

oad

(N)

Figure 4-13: Experimental data on Theoretical Load Interaction Diagram

From this figure it is clear that all vertical and horizontal combined loadings were within the theoretical permissible region of the load interaction diagram. By calculating where the various V/H ratios should intersect with the theoretical combined collapse load mechanism, a comparison can be made between the theoretical and experimental horizontal and vertical values determined as seen below in table

Permissible Region

Page 18: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Table 4.3: Test 1.3 Loading Arrangements

H experimental

H theory % error H experimental

H theory % error

13.73 15.31 10.34 20.60 22.97 10.34

11.12 13.40 17.03 22.24 26.80 17.03

10.58 11.91 11.14 26.46 29.78 11.15

0.00 10.71 100.00 0.00 32.16 100.00

8.04 9.75 17.56 28.13 34.11 17.53

7.05 8.93 21.08 28.19 35.73 21.10

4.5.Discussion From this Figure 12 and Table 4.3 we can see clearly that the experimental collapse loads calculated by each groups various arrangement are all lower than the predicted collapse loads with percentage errors ranging from approximately 10-20%. This shows that the loads under which the frame collapsed should have been permissible in theory. This is concerning in terms of designing a structure which in reality has a small but reasonably lower load capacity. There are many reasons that could result in such differences between the experimental and theoretical result, the key factors being:

Potential incorrect determination of moment capacity of steel. Error in measurement of load positon e.g. moving the bucket closer than required to the left

hand side for a given ratio would result in an actual higher load ratio, causing it to fail at a lower total load than expected.

Inability to correctly detect when failure is occurring and thus continuing to load the beam once failure has begun resulting an overly large value for the load reading.

The moment contribution of the bars weight is not considered in the loading ratio causing an incorrect actual loading ratio effecting collapse load calculations.

5. ConclusionThis report examined the Plastic Behaviour of continuous steel beams and rigid portal steel frames. Experimental analysis was undertaken by using various load ratios on a continuous beam and portal frame respectively with results relatively close to the theoretical values obtained for the continuous beam, less so for the portal frame.

6. References Dr Lip Teh (2015), Laboratory Instructions, University of Wollongong

Dr Lip Teh (2015), CIVL454 Structures, Tutorial worked solutions week 4, University of Wollongong

Page 19: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Dr Lip Teh (2015), CIVL454 Structures, Lecture Notes week 4, University of Wollongong

Page 20: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

300mm

300mm 300mm

RA = Reaction force on

Hanger at ASpreader Bar

W= Weight of bucket and

pellets*A B C

a mm b mm

L mm

RC = Reaction force on

Hanger at C

L1=RA = Loading at mid-span

L2=RC =2.5 X RA

Loading at mid-span

A CD E F

RD RE RF

E C C

F C

L2

RFRE

Mp

Mp Mp

150mm 150mm

Page 21: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

300mm 150mm

V= RA

Page 22: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

150mm150mm

490mm

H = RC

300mmRigid portal

frame

Pulley

Wire

Page 23: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

V= RA

Beam Collapse

H = RC

Page 24: Plastic Behaviour of Beams and Frames

Beam load = 3.557kg total 

X = 86mm

 

Frame load = 3.776kg total

X = 140mm

Combined Collapse