Structural steel design using second-order inelastic analysis with strain limits

Fieber, Andreas; Gardner, Leroy; Macorini, Lorenzo

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.105980

Cited by 38 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…knowledge of the level of deformation required to reach the design capacity; this information is usually unknown. A further significant recent development is the implementation of the CSM within an advanced analysis framework [4,5,17].…”

Section: The Continuous Strength Methods For Cross-section Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, the method provides design expressions for calculating cross-sectional resistances under compression, bending and combined loading conditions. These rules can be used in conjunction with second order inelastic analysis with imperfections for the stability design of members [4,5], but design rules suitable for implementation by hand calculation for member buckling require further development. Several studies into the behaviour of stainless steel members subjected to combined loading [6,7] have highlighted the need for providing accurate flexural buckling and bending moment resistance predictions to act as suitable end points for design interaction curves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Continuous Strength Method for the design of stainless steel hollow section columns

Arrayago

Real

Arrizabalaga

et al. 2020

Thin-Walled Structures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Continuous Strength Method (CSM) provides accurate resistance predictions for both stocky and slender stainless steel cross-sections; in the case of the former, allowance is made for the beneficial effects of strain hardening, while for the latter, design is simplified by the avoidance of effective width calculations. Although the CSM strain limits can be used in conjunction with advanced analysis for the stability design of members, for hand calculations, the method is currently limited to the determination of cross-sectional resistance only, i.e. member buckling resistance is not covered. To address this limitation, extension of the CSM to the design of stainless steel tubular section columns is presented herein. The proposed approach is based on the traditional Ayrton-Perry formulation, but features enhanced CSM cross-section resistances and a generalized imperfection parameter that is a function of cross-section slenderness. The value of the imperfection parameter increases as the slenderness of the cross-section reduces to compensate for the detrimental effect of plasticity on member stability that is not directly captured in the elastic/first yield Ayrton-Perry approach. The accuracy of the proposed approach is assessed against numerical results generated in the current study and existing experimental results collected from the literature. The presented comparisons show that the CSM provides consistently more accurate member buckling resistance predictions than the current EN 1993-1-4 design rules for all stainless steel grades. The reliability of the proposed approach is demonstrated through statistical analyses performed in accordance with EN 1990. Finally, the paper presents a framework through which the proposed approach can be developed for other cross-section types and materials.

show abstract

Section: The Continuous Strength Methods For Cross-section Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Continuous Strength Method for the design of stainless steel hollow section columns

Arrayago

Real

Arrizabalaga

et al. 2020

Thin-Walled Structures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finite element (FE) models were developed using the general purpose FE software ABAQUS [23]; the modelling approach has been extensively validated in previous studies [13,[24][25][26].…”

Section: Basic Modelling Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equivalent bow imperfections for use in design by second order inelastic analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stability of compression members is typically assessed through buckling curves, which include the influence of initial geometric imperfections and residual stresses.Alternatively, the capacity may be obtained more directly by carrying out either an elastic or an inelastic second order analysis using equivalent bow imperfections that account for both geometric imperfections and residual stresses. For design by second order elastic analysis, following the recommendations of EN 1993-1-1, the magnitudes of the equivalent bow imperfections can either be back-calculated for a given member to provide the same result as would be obtained from the member buckling curves or can be taken more simply as a fixed proportion of the member length. In both cases, a subsequent M-N (bending + axial) crosssection check is also required, which can be either linear elastic or linear plastic. For design by second order inelastic analysis, also referred to as design by geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections (GMNIA) there are currently no suitable recommendations for the magnitudes of equivalent bow imperfections and, as demonstrated herein, it is not generally appropriate to use equivalent bow imperfections developed on the basis of elastic analysis. Equivalent bow imperfections suitable for use in design by second order inelastic analysis are therefore established in the present paper. The equivalent bow imperfections are calibrated against benchmark FE results, generated using geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with geometric imperfections of L/1000 (L being the member 2 length) and residual stresses. Based on the results obtained, an equivalent bow imperfection amplitude e0 = L/150 ( being the traditional imperfection factor set out in EC3), is proposed for both steel and stainless steel elements and shown to yield accurate results. The reliability of the proposed approach is assessed, using the first order reliability method set out in EN 1990, against the benchmark FE ultimate loads, where it is shown that partial safety factors of 1.0 for steel and 1.1 for stainless steel can be adopted.

show abstract

“…The CSM is employed to simulate local buckling by applying strain limits to all the crosssections within the member or structure, thereby controlling the extent to which plasticity, moment redistribution and strain hardening can be exploited. This method has previously been developed and applied to carbon steel structures [3][4][5] and is extended to stainless steel in this study. An alternative approach is to simulate local buckling by defining an effective stressstrain curve that is a function of the cross-section geometry and loading conditions [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of structural stainless steel members by second order inelastic analysis with CSM strain limits

Walport

Gardner

Nethercot

2021

Thin-Walled Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural steel design using second-order inelastic analysis with strain limits

Cited by 38 publications

References 29 publications

The Continuous Strength Method for the design of stainless steel hollow section columns

The Continuous Strength Method for the design of stainless steel hollow section columns

Equivalent bow imperfections for use in design by second order inelastic analysis

Design of structural stainless steel members by second order inelastic analysis with CSM strain limits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About