Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos,

Canales y Puertos de Barcelona

ANALISIS NO LINEAL DE ESTRUCTURAS

DE ACERO

Professors Esther Real Saladrigas Work made by

Enrique Mirambell Arrizabalaga Andrea Giavoni
AS 8490409

Assignment 4

MATERIAL NON-LINEARITY
1.#General#approach#for#the#global#analysis#
In general, any structural analysis must satisfy the equilibrium and compatibility conditions, taking
into account the laws that affect the performance of the materials. As explained in the Section 19
of the EAE code (Instruccion de Acero Estructural), the methods for the global analysis of a
structure are classified as follows:

a)! linear analyses, based one the linear-elastic performance hypothesis for the matrials,
considering the equilibrium of the structure without deformation (i.e. first-order analysis);
b)! non-linear analysis, which take into account mechanical non-linearity, i.e. the non-linear
performance of materials, and the geometric non-linearity, i.e. considering the equilibrium
conditions on the deformed structure (i.e. second-order analysis);
c)! non-linear analyses in turn may study one or more of the non-linear causes aforementioned.

Non-linear behaviour implies the invalidity of the superposition principle.

Depending on the way in which the effects of material non-linearity are considered, the methods
for global analysis of the structure are classified as follows:

a)! elastic global analysis;

b)! plastic global analysis;
c)! elastic-plastic global analysis.

Specifically, the elastic-plastic global analysis may always be used to test the Ultimate Limit States.
The plastic global analysis cannot be used for bridges or structures subjected to mobile or iterative
significant overloads.

The plastic analysis will be deepened in this document.

1.1#Plastic#global#analysis#

Methods based on the plastic global analysis of steel structures may only be applied to the checking
of ULSs of conventional building structures, or, alternatively, structures subjected to
predominantly static loads.

Plastic methods are approached in accordance with the theory of plastic hinges and allow for full
redistribution of stresses on the structure, provided that the plastic resistance moment obtained by
successive plastic hinges remains unchanged until the last plastic hinge is formed: at this point the
structure is actually converted into a mechanism. Plastic methods may be based on any of the basic
plasticity theorems: the static theorem, which provides a lower limit, and the kinematic theorem,
which provides an upper limit. These methods do not allow to consider the loading sequences and
phases for developing structures, nor thermal actions, imposed deformations or any self-balancing
system of actions: in fact, a steady growth of the amplification factors of actions is assumed, until
the collapse mechanism is achieved. It should be highlighted that the superposition principle
cannot be applied.

A plastic global analysis is only permitted where the different members of the structure have
sufficient ductility to ensure redistribution of forces required by the plastic collapse mechanisms
that are considered. Specifically, this point is largely explained at section 20.5 of EAE, regarding
the cross-section requirements for plastic global analysis: in such a case, an adequate rotation
capacity must be ensured at the plastic hinge location.

The rotation requirements for the plastic design of a structure may be assumed if the conditions
set out below are met for all members where plastic hinges form, or are likely to form. In a uniform
member, the following two requirements have to be satisfied:

a)! the cross-section at the plastic hinge location shall belong to class 1;
b)! in hinges located on supports or under the action of local transversal forces that exceed
10% of the plastic shear resistance of the cross-section, some transversal web stiffeners shall
be provided within a distance from the hinge location not exceeding half of the cross-section
depth.

Moreover, the geometry of the steel members and their connections must ensure resistance to
lateral buckling. They shall also ensure lateral restraint on compression flanges in the plastic hinges
sections.

As pointed out at subsection 19.4 of EAE, plastic analyses must not usually be used where the
second-order effects due to deformations cannot be disregarded, since in such cases the collapse
of the structure may be achieved before all the plastic hinges of the the first-order plastic failure
mechanism are developed.
2.#Plastic#Analysis#of#a#frame#

2.1#Manual#Analysis#

Hereafter the following frame will be considered.

This two-span-frame is made up of three clamped-in pillars, having a plastic bending moment
resistance equal to Mp, and two lintels connecting the top ends of the pillars, having a double
bending moment resistance, i.e. 2Mp. A concentrated load P acts on the mid-span of the left beam,
while a uniformly distributed load q insist on the right beam. In addition, a lateral load is
concentrated on the external left corner of the frame and has the same intensity P as the other
concentrated vertical load. The frame is supposed to be braced in the orthogonal plane, so that the
problem can be solved as a planar one, i.e. no out-of-plane movements are allowed.

All the conditions set out in the previous chapter are assumed to be satisfied, therefore a plastic
limit analysis can be performed. In this paragraph, such type of analysis is carried out manually.
Specifically, the collapse load will be evaluated through the definition of the load factor . Then
the associated collapse mechanism will be illustrated along with the relevant bending moment
distribution. Such values will be obtained by means of the kinematic theorem of limit analysis,
exploiting the principle of virtual power: the collapse mechanism is, in fact, the one associated to
the minimum value of the load factor. It is a well-known fact that the application of the kinematic
theorem provides an upper limit of the ultimate load, however it must satisfy also plasticity and
equilibrium conditions.

Namely:

! plasticity condition requires that bending moment at any section do not exceed the plastic
bending moment resistance:

"# $ " $ "# $ &&$

! the system has to be statically admissible, i.e. the relevant bending moment distribution has
to respect equilibrium conditions:
 "(( ) = + - $ & + &static&boundary&conditions

Before starting with the computations, some important considerations should be done:

! amount of critical sections where plastic hinges may form: p=9 (or section D, either section
G have to be considered);

! hyperstatic degree: r=6;

! amount of plastic hinges to cause global collapse mechanism: n=r+1=6+1=7;

! amount of elementary independent mechanisms: m=p-r=9-6=3.

It should be noted that plastic hinges placed at corners of the frame actually occur on the relevant
columns, since the columns plastic moment is smaller than the one of the beams.

In the following, the current load P is expressed as the basic load P0 amplified by the load factor
.

Namely:
; = + ;<

"<
;< =
=
where "< = "# hereafter.

Lastly, the main hypotheses of the Limit Analysis should be recalled:

! small displacements and small rotations;

! perfect or ideal plasticity.

Here below the computations are developed.

Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
2.2#Software#Analysis##

The aim pursued in this paragraph is to apply the previous theoretical case to a real one. The same
frame is considered: the pillars are HEB 200 profiles, while the lintels are HEB 260. The steel used
is S235. The concentrated loads P have an intensity equal to 100 kN. The span length L is 5 metres,
therefore the distributed load q has an intensity equal to 20 kN/m , as it has been defined as P/L.
The case under consideration and the following plastic analysis is carried out by means of the
ConSteel software. Here below the structural scheme and the relevant loads are illustrated.
It should be noted that the frame is provided by a line support preventing out-of-plane movements
and rotations about x axis. Such constraint condition allows to study this structural problem as a
planar one.

In the following tables the geometric and mechanical properties of the frame structural elemets are
resumed.

Lintels

HEB 260
h 260 mm
b 260 mm
tw 10 mm
tf 17,5 mm
A 11840 mm2
hi 225 mm
d 177 mm
Iy 149200000 mm4
Wel,y 1148000 mm3
Wpl,y 1283000 mm3
iy 112,2 mm
Iz 51350000 mm4
Wel,z 395000 mm3
Wpl,z 602200 mm3
iz 65,8 mm
It 1238000 mm4
Iw 7,537E+11 mm6
 HEB 260
Steel S 235
class
bending 1
compression 1

fy 235 N/mm2
E 210000 N/mm2
0 1 [-]
1 1 [-]
L 10000 mm

Moreover, as the cross-section belongs to class 1, the following design resistance for uniform
compression can be computed:

'()*
!",$% = = 2782,4(2!
+,-

as well as its design resistance for bending about y-principal axis:

645,* ()*
3",*,$% = 345,*,$% = = 301,505(2!;
+,-
Columns

HEB 200
h 200 mm
b 200 mm
tw 9 mm
tf 15 mm
A 7808 mm2
hi 170 mm
d 134 mm
Iy 56960000 mm4
Wel,y 569600 mm3
Wpl,y 642500 mm3
iy 85,4 mm
Iz 20030000 mm4
Wel,z 200300 mm3
Wpl,z 305800 mm3
iz 50,7 mm
It 592800 mm4
Iw 1,711E+11 mm6

HEB 200
Steel S 235
class
bending 1
compression 1

fy 235 N/mm2
E 210000 N/mm2
0 1 [-]
1 1 [-]
L 5000 mm
Moreover, as the cross-section belongs to class 1, the following design resistance for uniform
compression can be computed:

'()*
!",$% = = 1834,88(2!
+,-

as well as its design resistance for bending about y-principal axis:

645,< ()*
3",<,$% = 345,<,$% = = 150,9875(2!;
+,-

According to what is demanded by the EAE, all the members cross-sections belong to class 1,
therefore the plastic analysis can be performed.

This real case tries to simulate the previous theoretical case. In fact, if the following equalities are
enforced

">5?@A
345,$% = 34 = 3- = 151(2!;

therefore, the following relations hold:

5BACD5 ">5?@A
345,$% = 301,505(2!; 2345,$% = 234 = 23-

First of all, it should be checked if the second-order effects are effectively negligible. Here below
the deformations diagrams and the internal axial forces diagrams are represented after having run
a first-order and, then, a second-order analysis.
First-order analysis

Deformations

Axial forces
Second-order analysis

Deformations

Axial forces

It is evident that the differences between the first-order and the second-order analysis are not
relevant. The same thing could be verified with respect to the other internal forces. Moreover,
according to the simplified criterion described in subsection 23.2.1 of EAE, a value of about 45
can be calculated for cr : this confirms the non-translational nature of the frame under
consideration.

The axial force is a little more important because it is the main cause for buckling. According to
the previous diagrams, the maximum axial force occurs in the central column after running a
second-order analysis, therefore the following design condition can be set:

!F%,@GH = 174,56(2!

Now, in order to evaluate the buckling resistance of the column, the most unfavourable case can
be considered in order to define the buckling length: such case corresponds to the simple cantilever
axially loaded on the top edge, where it is completely free to move. In such situation, the buckling
length of the column turns out to be twice the length of the column itself. In the following table
the computations to get the design buckling resistance of the column are resumed, in accordance
to what is prescribed in section 35 of EAE. Moreover, according to the geometric and mechanical
properties of the cross-section, the relevant buckling curve to consider is the b one (see Table
35.1.2.b. of EAE).

k 2 [-]
Lcr 10000 mm
iy 85,4 mm
_ 1,246856692 [-]
1 93,91297294 [-]
0,34 [-]
1,455291442 [-]
0,453355944 [-]
Nb,Rd 831,8537547 kN

Therefore, the following ratio holds:

!F% 174,56(2!
= 0,21 = 21%
!J,$% 831,85(2!

This means that the most axially loaded column only works at 21% of its buckling bearing
resistance. It is clear that in the frame under this loading condition buckling does not represent a
problem.

According to how the software used has been set, if the normal force is negligible, then no buckling
analysis can be run. This is confirmed by the fact that, when trying to run the buckling analysis on
ConSteel, the software output is the following: There is no relevant buckling result, because all
the eigenvalues are higher than the given limit.

Once checked all the conditions to apply the plastic analysis, according to what has been obtained
theoretically, the collapse load should result close to what follows:

11 3- 150,9875(2!;
LM = = 5,5 = 166,08625(2!
2 N 5;

and, therefore, the theoretical collapse load factor is the following:

LM 166,08625(2!
PM = = 1,661
L 100(2!

Under the current loading condition, the following bending moments diagram can be calculated
after running a first-order analysis.
 1st order bending moments

Then, if the loads are constantly increased, this is the sequence of the plastic hinges appearing on
the frame. The relevant load factors values are resumed in the next table.

1st stage

2nd stage
3rd stage

4th stage

5th stage
 6th stage

7th stage

Stage Load Factor

1 1 1,096
2 2 1,302
3 3 1,308
4 4 1,428
5 5 1,542
6 6 1,648
7 7 1,659

Therefore, the collapse load factor producing the last plastic hinge and, as a result, converting the
structure into a mechanism is the following:

PQ = PM = 1,659

This value is indeed very close to what has been obtained theoretically: the relative error between
these values is:
 1,661 1,659
R% = 100 = 0,12%
1,659

This is the proof of how the simple and manual plastic analysis can be correct if all the adequate
conditions are satisfied.

Actually the plastic moment of the lintels is a bit lower than twice the plastic moment of the
columns:

5BACD5 ">5?@A
345,$% = 301,505(2!;( < 2345,$% = 23- = 301,975(2!;

Therefore, in the previous manual plastic analysis, a bit larger ultimate bending moment resistance
is given to the beams: accordingly, a slightly larger load factor has been obtained, since the frame
could sustain a little further increase of load.

By the way the previous analysis turns out to be correct.

If the second-order effects have to be taken into account, a second-order plastic analysis may be
performed through ConSteel. In the following figure the second-order bending moments diagram
is represented. As pointed out before, there is no large differences with respect to what has been
obtained in the first-order analysis.

2nd order bending moments

Here below the relevant plastic hinges history is represented. The corresponding load factors are
resumed in the next table.
1st stage

2nd stage

3rd stage
4th stage

5th stage

6th stage
 7th stage

Stage Load Factor

1 1 1,081
2 2 1,280
3 3 1,284
4 4 1,391
5 5 1,489
6 6 1,574
7 7 1,581

It should be noted that the collapse load factor is not so far from what has been predicted by the
first-order plastic analysis. The main difference is not the load factor, but the plastic hinges history:
according to the second-order analysis, the formation order of plastic hinges 2-3 and 6-7 are
reversed with respect to the results of the first-order analysis. Specifically, this means that the plastic
hinges occur before in the columns and after in the beams.

In these specific cases, the load factors at consecutive stages are very close each other: therefore,
taking into account the slight second-order effects, the second-order analysis states that the plastic
hinges that occur before in the beams and after in the columns according to the 1st order analysis,
actually occurs before in the columns and after in the beams.

This is quite reasonable if one thinks that the beams of this frame have a double plastic moment
strength: if the load factors are very close each other, one should always state that the relevant
plastic hinge occurring earlier is the one related to the weaker element.