Experiments On Castellated Steel Beams
Experiments On Castellated Steel Beams
Experiments On Castellated Steel Beams
Sponsored by the American Welding Society and the Welding Research Council
^ _ ^
l'R^J
The elastic behavior of the specimen was consistent with the results
p r e d i c t e d by the f i n i t e e l e m e n t
method.
Introduction
Scope
Castellated steel beams have been
the subject of considerable research
during the past decade. Most of the
investigations, however, were basical-
RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT!
329-s
d =,25
1 1
I
<
'
\-AA-
SPECIMEN
n,
in.
6.5
B-l
B-2
5.0
B-3
A-t.
j
m, in.
0.269"
w = C .23"
? de = 15" * *
A-l
A-2
M>
< m
SERIES
-r-
0
degrees
(approx)
SPAN
L, in.
23.0
45
138.0
23.0
45
69.0
63.0
15.75
60
15.75
60
63.0
15.75
60
94.5
G-l
1.75
15.0
41 O'
120.0
G-2
1.375
10.0
54 3'
120.0
G-3
1.125
7.5
62 18'
120.0
4.0
18.0
45
54.00
3.5
12.75
60
51 . 0 0
2.687
15.375
45
307.50
2 00
9.75
60
273.00
330-s I A U G U S T 1 9 7 3
HYDRAULIC
RAM
2 NOS STANDARD
CHANNELS
TEFLON BLOCK
STAINLESS STEEL
PLATE
STEEL
HOLDER
- TEST SPECIMEN
SUPPORT
ROLLER
TIE BAR
isS&S^S^^Sv
Fig. 2 -
Length
Beam
No.
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
A-2
B-1
B-2
B-3
A-1
G-1
G-2
G-3
Objectives
Yield stress,
F , ksi
Flange
Web
Ultimate stress,
Fu ksi
Web
Flange
Avg stress,
ksi
F
F
48.59
64.79
48.59
64.79
62.25
64.80
80.82
80.95
63.52
80.88
44.26
60.89
46.36
57.25
68.36
79.75
69.37
77.28
45.56
59.07
68.86
78.51
W E L D I N G R E S E A R C H S U P P L E M E N T ! 331-s
1 973
LOCAL
BUCKLING
Material Properties
Table 2 summarizes the material
properties obtained from laboratory
tension tests on flat tensile specimens conforming to ASTM specification A370-69 (Ref. 19). Two coupons
each were cut from the top flange, the
bottom flange and the web for each
length. For length 1, however, all six
coupons were cut, inadvertently, from
the web.
END
ROTATION,
6,
DEGREES
Results a n d Discussions
Structural Behavior
The structural behavior of the specimens is discussed on the basis of the
following observed modes of failure.
1. Failure by Vierendeel mechanism
2. Flexural failure
3. Failure due to instability
Failure by Vierendeel
Mechanism.
Three specimens ( A - 1 , A-2 and B-3)
exhibited this type of failure. These
specimens failed by the formation of
four plastic hinges at the re-entrant
corners of the panel adjacent to the
load point and in the part of the beam
where both shear and moment are
present. A typical mode of failure is
shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 4 shows the sequence of
yielding in specimen A - 1 . The loadend rotation relationship for the same
beam is presented in Fig. 5. When the
total load was about 32 kips first sign
of yielding was observed along the
line marked (1) in Fig. 4. As the load
was being raised to 34 kips, yielding
started first at the re-entrant corners
marked (2) and then along lines (3).
Yielding at these locations became
prominent as the load was gradually
increased and a well-defined Vierendeel m e c h a n i s m had o c c u r r e d
when the maximum load of 40.2 kips
was recorded.
The beam sustained the m a x i m u m
load only briefly. Web buckling occurred in the first panel on the right
hand side of the load and the beam
started to unload shortly thereafter.
L a r g e p l a s t i c d e f o r m a t i o n s , as
recorded by the end rotations, were
observed and at an end rotation of 2
deg 57 min the beam could support
only 26 kips. At that point the applied
load was released in three installments. A total elastic recovery of 31
min was noted, with a final permanent end rotation of 2 deg 26 min.
The behavior of specimens A-2 and
B-3 was similar to that of A-1 up to the
attainment of the m a x i m u m load.
However, in these specimens unloading was not accompanied by web
333-s
Pu=
52
"(limit) =
where Z t
Fy
n
0 4
0.2
DEFLECTION, $ INCHES
Fig. 7 Load-deflection curves: Specimens A-2, B-1 and B-3
SYMETRICAL
ABOUT
Plastic
Centroid
fy
(b)
Specimen
A-1
A-2"
B-1
B-3
Span, L,
in.
138.0
69.0
63.0
94.5
Loading
la)
P at L/2
P/2 at L/3
P/2 at L/4
P at L/2
37.5
41.4
48.5
41.8
Ult. load,
Pu,kips,
experimental
40.2
45.0
52.0
44.0
(a) All beams were simply supported. Concentrated loads (P= single load, P/2 =two equal loads) were located at points
measured from each end of the span.
334-s | A U G U S T
1 973
(8Z
Fy)/n
(1)
= plastic modulus of
the tee section
= yield stress of steel
= width of the
welded joint
N p = Fy (area
Specimen
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-3
Limit load
P , kips
37.5
41.4
48.5
41.9
Tee-section)
kips
y = 0.55F y
ksi
34.94
26.72
26.72
26.72
77.42
17.09
13.71
59.23
100.94
77.20
77.20
77.20
T /ry
N7N,
0.169
0.244
0.286
0.247
0.767
0.221
0.178
0.766
Specimens
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-3
40.2
45.0
52.0
44.0
Specimen
Web weld
length,
n, in.
KL/rfor
assumed
column
Allowable
compressive
stress, Fa ,
ksi
Allowable
transverse
load, P ,a >,
kips
Observed
maximum
transverse
load, Pu ,
kips
B-2
C
D
5.0
4.0
3.5
150.61
150.61
150.61
6.56
6.56
6.56
15.09
12.07
10.56
42.0
20.0
20.0
FOS (b >
with
respect
to
observed
Pu
2.78
1.66
1.89
(a) P = 2nwF a
(b) FOS = factor of safety
W E L D I N G R E S E A R C H S U P P L E M E N T ! 335-s
WEB
END
BUCKLING
R O T A T I O N , 6 , DEGREES
Specimens
Properties
A-1
$
w
n
h
m
=
=
=
=
=
45deg \
0.23 in.I
6.5 in.
5 in.
j
23 in. )
G-1
$
w
n
h
m
=
=
=
=
=
3 8 d e g , 3 min\
0.23 in.
1.75 in.
5 in.
15 in.
Allowable
compressive
bending stress
Fa , ksi
Allowable
shear force
along webweld,
F(all.), kips
Allowable
mid point
load,
P(all.), kips
Observed
maximum
load
Pu . kips
16.40
20.14
24.39
40.2
5.59
10.38
16.40
(a) For the equations used in these calculations and for an evaluation of the results, see text discussion of Table '
(bl FOS = factor of safety.
336-s i A U G U S T
1 973
38.5
FOS (b|
1.65
3.71
f.
=2 x n x w
(2)
END
Fig. 11
ROTATION,
(3)
END
ROTATION,
DEGREES
Euler's
(KL/r) 2
Table 8 Factor of Safety for Elastic Design: Series 1
and is based on a FOS of 1.92.
Moreover, in the present case the
nonprismatic solid web was assumed
to be pin-ended and the value of K in
Eq. (3) was taken as 1. In his presentation Blodgett (Ref. 20) did not specify any value for K. If one assumes that
the web is semi-hinged or fixed the
calculated FOS will be greatly reduced.
(b) Web Buckling due to Shear
Force.
Elastic
design
P(all.) for
Specimen
A-1
A-2
B-1
B-3
o ;-6F
Experimental
kips
8.90
9.44
12.43
9.80
FOS with
respect to
experimental
31.0
36.0
42.0
36.0
3.48
3.81
3.38
3.67
337-s
<4>
3 Ftan 6
4 w X n (f?2)
Blodgett recommended that the maximum bending stress must not exceed the allowable stress, Fa , given
by Eq. (5).
(5)
1.0 -
where C r ={
4 3 4
2rr2E
( - \
0.6 F
and
w = web thickness,
Fy= nominal yield stress
loading had already taken place because of local buckling of the plastified compression flange. Therefore,
web buckling due to web shear may
not be regarded as causing premature failure as far as ultimate load is
concerned. However, it does prematurely terminate the rotation capacity of the beam and, therefore, is important for plastically designed m e m bers.
An exact solution of the web buckling problem is not available at pressent. However, Blodgett (Ref. 20) has
presented an approximate elastic
m e t h o d of a n a l y s i s b a s e d o n
Olander's Wedge method (Ref. 22).
Referring to Fig. 16, the maximum
SYMMETRICAL
4 F(all.) 6.93
m
ABOUT
COMPRESSION
TENSION
EDGE
EDGE
COMPRESSION
TENSION
EDGE
EDGE
Strain Distribution
The observed elastic flexural strain
distributions across the tee section at
the midlength of the throat confirm
the findings of Cheng et al (Ref. 7).
The strain distribution is uniform (Ref.
8) across the tee section for beams
with long throat length (Specimens A1 and A-2). For beams with relatively
narrow throat length (Series 4 specimens), the stress distribution is proportional to the distance from the
neutral axis as suggested by Boyer
(Ref. 10).
The average extreme fiber elastic
strain in the solid web section can be
predicted approximately ( 8% error)
by the relation = M c / E I . However,
the bending strain distribution across
the solid web section is not linear but
follows a pattern similar to that o b tained by Kolosowski (Ref. 2), Mandel
et al (Ref. 12) and Cheng et al (Ref. 7),
and is shown in Fig. 17(b & c). When
the intensity of loading is low, the
strain along the neutral axis appears
to be zero. However, at higher loads,
some strain seems to be present
along the centroidal axis of the beam.
An explanation for this behavior is
s u g g e s t e d in the f o l l o w i n g p a r a graph:
Referring to Fig. 17(a), the strain
distribution along section A-A should
be similar to that of two haunched
cantilever beams, as shown in Fig.
17(d). Along section B-B, the strain
distribution should be like that of an Isection as indicated in Fig. 17(e). The
length n/2 is the transition distance
within which the strain distribution
changes from the pattern shown in
Fig. 17(d) to that of Fig. 17(e). If n/2 is
sufficiently long the strain distribution pattern along section B-B would
approach that of an l-section. However, with the values of n/2 normally
339-s
R =
SPECIMEN
SPAN 3 0 7 5 in.
SINGLE
0.8BD
+ 0.94
L (1 in.)
MID-POINT
LOAD
ALTFILLISCH
</
AA'
A*\
OBSERVED
AA
ALTFILLISCH
SPECIMEN
SPAN : 2 7 3
SINGLE
in
MID - POINT
LOAD
1
DEFLECTIONS (inch ) at
Fig. w
MID - POINT
ALTFILLISCH
OBSERVED
STIFFNESS
METHOD
Specimen B - 2
_nr^
0~TQ
4 <?I5.75 = 63
80
40
80
120
DEFLECTION IN 0.0OI inch
340-s I A U G U S T
1 973
IG0
200
I20
DEFLECTION
IN
I60
OOI INCH
200
240
1 POINT
LOADING
LOADING
POINT
S u m m a r y and C o n c l u s i o n s
If local and lateral buckling are prevented in a castellated beam, failure
will probably be initiated either by the
formation of a panel mechanism or by
the yielding and fracture of the web
weld (Ref. 17) due to excessive shear
stress. Reduction in the length of the
throat, which makes the design less
susceptible to secondary bending
effects, reduces the possibility of
failure due to a panel mechanism but
increases the chance of failure due to
rupture of the web weld. The logical
design approach should therefore be
based on a minimum allowable web
weld length.
Table 8 lists the allowable loads for
flexural and the corresponding actual
factors of safety, with respect to experimentally determined yield loads
for the four specimens that exhibited
Vierendeel failure mechanism. These
calculations were based on an allowable stress of 0.6 Fy for flexure where
F y is the specified m i n i m u m yield
stress. The results indicate that the
actual factor of safety in elastic design
is very high and that a better use of
the reserve strength may be a c c o m plished by adopting the plastic d e sign method.
The test results also indicated that
in calculating the limit loads for
beams which fail by Vierendeel mechanisms, the effect of axial force on the
plastic moment of the throat section
m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d . H a l l e u x ' s
method (Ref. 13) which ignores this
effect, can therefore be used only in
cases where such effect is nominal.
However, as a basis for design, Eq. (1)
can also be used as first approximation to obtain the value of the normal
force, N', for use in a more rigorous
formula.
The interaction method (Ref. 16),
which takes into account the effect of
axial force on the plastic moment of
the tee section, makes valid predictions of the ultimate load.
.J_
15
20
SPAN/DEPTH, ( L / D )
25
RATIO
341-s
Plate
WRC
Bulletin
No. 180
Jan. 1973
Correction:
The article, "Electroslag Welding of Boiler Drums in India" (March, 1973, pp 125-s to 134-s) should
be corrected to read as follows:
Table 5, p. 128-s: The manganese content for 60mm plate should be 1.31 rather than 11.31. For
70mm plate, the wire-flux combination should be Union S.3 + Z 4 1 , rather than "Union."
Table 8, p. 133-s: The silicon content for 103mm plate should be 0.28 rather than 0.08.
342-s | A U G U S T 1 9 7 3