Comparison of analysis with tests of cold-formed RHS portal frames

T. Wilkinson & G. J. Hancock

Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, The Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

The Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Proceedings, 16th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Sydney, Australia, December 1999, (Balkema, publ.) (Bradford, Bridge and Foster editors), pp 245-250. Note: Page layout and formatting in this pdf version may have changed from the original document.

ABSTRACT: Different types of structural analyses, first order elastic, second order elastic, first order plastic, and plastic zone analysis, were used to simulate the behaviour of 3 portal frames constructed from cold-formed rectangular hollow sections. All analyses underestimated the magnitude of the deflections of the frame mainly due to the non-inclusion of flexible joint behaviour. A second order inelastic analysis, which included gradual yielding, multi-linear stress-strain curves, and member imperfections underestimated the deflections and the hence the second order effects, and therefore slightly overestimated the strength of the frame. A second order inelastic analysis that did not account for member imperfections provided the best estimates of the frame strengths, as it omitted the beneficial effects of the unsympathetic imperfections while underestimating the magnitude of the second order effects. 1 PORTAL FRAME TESTS As part of a project to investigate the suitability of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections RHS for plastic design (Wilkinson and Hancock 1997, 1998, 1999), three portal frames were tested under simulated gravity and transverse wind load. The general layout of the frames is shown in Figure 1. Each frame spanned 7 metres, with an eaves height of 3 metres, and a total height of 4 metres, constructed from 150 50 4.0 RHS in either Grade C350 or Grade C450 (DuraGal) steel to AS 1163 (Standards Australia 1991). There was a collar tie which joined the midpoint of each rafter. Each frame was pin based. There was a welded internal sleeve connection between the column and rafter as shown in Figure 3. The apex joint is shown in Figure 4. Full details of the connections are in Wilkinson and Hancock (1999). The frame was laterally braced at several critical locations. A downwards vertical load was provided via an MTS actuator connected to a gravity load simulator (which ensured the load remained vertical as the frame swayed). A horizontal point load acted on the north column, via steel cables hung over an auxiliary frame connected to lead weights. Table 1 briefly summarises the results of the portal frame tests. The value of yield stress presented in Table 1 is from a coupon cut from one web of each specimen. There was variability of yield stress around the section, and considerable strain hardening. Full details on stress-strain curves can be found in Wilkinson and Hancock (1999). Figure 2 indicates where local buckles formed in the frames. Figures 5 and 6 show the load-deflection curves.

Table 1: Summary of Portal Frame Tests Frame Made from section

fy (MPa) 411 438 438

Ratio of vertical to horizontal load V/H 40 40 3.3

Ultimate load (kN) Vertical 68.2 71.5 45.7 Horizontal 1.75 1.87 13.8

Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3

150 50 4.0 C350 150 50 4.0 C450 150 50 4.0 C450

SOUTH

NORTH

Points of lateral restraint Bolted end plate

Internal sleeve knee joint Roller bearing supported by auxiliary frame

1000 1000

Position 9 Local buckle 2 (Frame 2) Local buckle 1 (Frame 3)

Position 4 Local buckle 1 (Frames 1 & 2)

(Restraint for Frame 2 & Frame 3 only) Pinned base

Collar tie (channel)

MTS actuator

2000

Gravity load simulator Strong floor 7000

Horizontal load cradle

Figure 1: Layout of Portal Frame

B 300 B Internal sleeve 300 C C Full penetration Butt weld RHS wall Sleeve Knee joint Section B-B Fillet weld RHS Sleeve

Figure 2: Buckle/Hinge Locations for Portal Frame Tests

Fully tensioned high Strength M16 bolts (only 2 of 8 shown) B 30 60 RHS RHS Full penetration butt weld 30 18 mm holes for M16 bolts 52.5 125

Groove cut for RHS seam weld Section C-C Detail A

52.5 74 B Section B-B 10 mm plate 290 x 180 mm

Figure 3: Knee Joint

Figure 4: Apex Joint

Vertical Load (kN)

60 40 20 Frame 1 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Frame 2 Frame 3

Vertical Load (kN)

80

80 60 40 20 Frame 1 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Frame 2 Frame 3

Vertical Displacmement at Apex (mm)

Horizontal Disp. at North Knee (mm)

Figure 5: Load - Vertical Displacement

Figure 6: Load - Horizontal Displacement

2 TYPES OF ANALYSIS The knee and apex joints were modelled as rigid connections. The extra stiffness caused by the internal sleeve was modelled by defining different member properties in the region of the sleeve. The second moment of inertia (I) for the sleeve zone was calculated using the combined thickness of the RHS and the sleeve (14 mm) and assumed prismatic action of the combined RHS/sleeve unit. The connections at the base and at the end points of the collar tie were pin connections. First order elastic analysis, using PRFSA (CASE 1997), was performed. The curvature distribution predicted by a first order analysis was compared with the experimental curvature obtained from strain gauges. The general shape of the experimental distribution of curvature matched the curvature distribution predicted by a first order elastic analysis, but the experimental curvature values, and hence the experimental bending moments, were slightly lower than the analysis values at the connections. One reason for lower moments was that the connections were not perfectly rigid, as assumed by the analysis. Full details are in Wilkinson and Hancock (1999). Simple plastic analysis was carried out using PRFSA (CASE 1997). The analysis assumed no reduction of the plastic moment in the presence of axial force, and simple elastic - plastic material properties were considered. Second order effects were not included. Second order plastic zone analyses, using the computer program NIFA (Clarke and Zablotskii 1995), were performed. Yielding (or plasticity) is accounted for by a plastic zone approach, rather than assuming infinitely small plastic hinges. Several different types of analysis were performed using NIFA:  Second order elastic,  First order plastic zone using simple elastic-plastic material properties,  Second order plastic zone using simple elastic-plastic material properties,  Second order plastic zone using different multi-linear material properties (based on the tensile coupon tests) for the flange, web and corners, and  Second order plastic zone using different multi-linear material properties, and including the geometric imperfections of the structure. 3 COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION Figures 7, 8 and 9 plot typical load deflection graphs for two of the frames, and include both the experimental and analytical responses. Other load - deflection curves are in Wilkinson and Hancock (1999). Table 2 summarises the ultimate loads and compares them with the experimental ultimate load.

80 70 60 Vertical Load (kN) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 Displacement (mm) 100 120 140 160 Frame 1 Experimental NIFA second order elastic PRFSA 1st order plastic nominal PRFSA 1st order plastic measured NIFA 1st order elastic plastic nominal NIFA 1st order elastic plastic measured NIFA 2nd order elastic plastic measured NIFA 2nd order MUL measured NIFA 2nd order MUL measured imperfection

Figure 7: Portal Frame 1: Vertical Deflections at Apex

60 50 Vertical Load (kN) 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 Displacement (mm) 100 120 140 160 Frame 3 Experimental NIFA second order elastic PRFSA 1st order plastic nominal PRFSA 1st order plastic measured NIFA 1st order elastic plastic nominal NIFA 1st order elastic plastic measured NIFA 2nd order elastic plastic measured NIFA 2nd order MUL measured NIFA 2nd order MUL measured imperfection

Figure 8: Portal Frame 3: Vertical Deflections at Apex

60 50 Vertical Load (kN) 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 Frame 3 Experimental NIFA second order elastic PRFSA 1st order plastic nominal PRFSA 1st order plastic measured NIFA 1st order elastic plastic nominal NIFA 1st order elastic plastic measured NIFA 2nd order elastic plastic measured NIFA 2nd order MUL measured NIFA 2nd order MUL measured imperfection 250 300 350 400 450 500

Displacement (mm)

Figure 9: Portal Frame 3: Horizontal Deflections at North Knee The simple plastic analysis using the measured yield stress gave a reasonable estimate of the ultimate load, despite all the deficiencies of such an analysis. The absence of second order effects and moment - axial force interaction would tend to give a higher ultimate load, but the lack of strain hardening in the material properties produced a lower load than the experimental values. The two aforementioned effects tended to counteract each other. For Frames 1 and 2, the simple plastic analysis predicted the frame strength to within 2 %. However, in Frame 3, where the second order effects were greatest, the plastic analysis overestimated the strength by nearly 10 %.

Table 2: Summary of Analysis Results Program Type1 Props2 Mat3 Experimental 1 plast nom 1st plast meas 1st pz nom 1st pz meas 2nd pz meas nd 2 pz meas 2nd pz meas
st

Imp4

PRFSA PRFSA NIFA NIFA NIFA NIFA NIFA

Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

e-p e-p e-p e-p e-p mul mul

n n n n n n y

Frame 1 Vert5 Ratio6 68.2 57.64 0.85 68.41 1.00 57.18 0.84 66.89 0.98 61.49 0.90 67.16 0.98 68.84 1.01

Frame 2 Vert5 Ratio6 71.5 74.03 1.04 72.76 1.02 73.51 1.03 70.85 0.99 64.79 0.91 73.14 1.02 77.05 1.08

Frame 3 Vert5 Ratio6 45.7 50.82 1.11 49.96 1.09 48.94 1.07 47.12 1.03 40.12 0.88 45.71 1.00 46.63 1.02

Type of analysis is either 1st order simple plastic, 1st order plastic zone, or 2nd order plastic zone. Dimensions and yield stress are based on either nominal or measured properties. Material properties are either elastic-plastic with the properties of the webs used for the entire cross section, or multi-linear approximation to the measured properties with separate properties for the webs, flanges and corners. The frame imperfections are either included or excluded. Ultimate vertical load (kN). Ratio of the analysis load to the experimental load.

The comparison between the first order simple plastic analysis (PRFSA) and the first order plastic zone analysis (NIFA) highlights the effect of interaction of bending moment with axial force. The simple plastic analysis did not account for the reduction of plastic moment in the presence with axial force, while the plastic zone did consider interaction. In addition, the NIFA analysis models the spread of plasticity in the members, while the PRFSA plastic analysis merely considered plastic hinges at distinct points. Since the levels of axial force were relatively low, there was only a small reduction in the bending capacity of the members. Hence an analysis including interaction gave only a slightly lower value. The deflections from the NIFA first order plastic zone analysis asymptotically approached a value just below the simple plastic predictions of PRFSA. The importance of second order effects was identified by comparing the first and second order NIFA analyses. For Frames 1 and 2, the ultimate load dropped approximately 8 % when second order effects were included. In Frame 3, the horizontal force, and hence the horizontal deflections and second order effects, were greater than in Frames 1 and 2. For Frame 3, the ultimate load was reduced by about 15 % when second order effects were considered. The shape of the experimental load-deflection curves followed the general trend of the analysis predictions. The experimental vertical deflections in Frame 2 and Frame 3 diverge from the predictions at a very low load - most likely caused by take up of fit in the connections. The maximum load occurs at much larger deflections than those predicted by the various analyses. Each analysis assumes that the joints are perfectly rigid, and any additional non-linearity in the joint behaviour (perhaps caused by slippage, bolts, yielding etc) is not accounted for in the analysis. Wilkinson and Hancock (1998) described tests on the connections used in the portal frame behaviour. The connections exhibited non-linear behaviour, with slight loss of rigidity compared to a plain member (though the observed behaviour would not be described as semi-rigid). It was also unknown whether the RHS and sleeve acted prismatically or non-prismatically. (Prismatic action is defined as the two objects acting as a unit with the stiffness of the combined unit, while non-prismatic action occurs when the two elements act independently and slip occurs between the two). The analysis assumed that there was prismatic action, whereas the true behaviour was probably a mixture of prismatic and non-prismatic action. Assuming prismatic action would give smaller deflections. Generally modern structural analysis software is capable of including flexible joint behaviour, but the lack of information of the moment-curvature behaviour of various connections prevents its widespread inclusion.

When the imperfections were included in the analysis, the ultimate load increased, by 3 % for Frame 1, 6 % for Frame 2, and 2 % for Frame 3. Typically, if an imperfection is in the same direction as the deflections of a structure it will tend to reduce the ultimate load. Such an imperfection is sometimes referred to as a sympathetic imperfection. An unsympathetic imperfection results in an increase in ultimate load. The measured imperfections were found to be unsympathetic (values and shapes of the imperfections are in Wilkinson and Hancock 1999). In all cases, the 2nd order plastic zone analysis including the imperfections, overestimated the ultimate load, and provided a less accurate prediction of the ultimate load than the same analysis without the imperfections. The major reason for the less accurate prediction was that the analysis underestimated the deflections (due mainly to the non-inclusion of flexible joint behaviour), so that the second order effects in the analysis are less than those in the experimental frames. Hence the predicted results are higher than the experimental loads. Excluding the imperfections gave a more accurate result because the effect of underestimating the deflections counteracted the effect of omitting the imperfections. If an advanced analysis is to provide a highly accurate prediction of the frame behaviour, the flexible or semi-rigid behaviour of the connections ought to be considered. However, significant information on the semi-rigid joint behaviour needs to be gathered before it can be included in the analysis. 4 CONCLUSION This paper has compared the results of tests on cold-formed RHS portal frames, with the predictions of various forms of structural analysis. A simple, plastic analysis provided a reasonable estimate of the frame strength since the effects that were omitted from the analysis tended to counteract each other, especially for frames with small horizontal load. A second-order inelastic analysis, which included material non-linearity and member imperfections slightly over predicted the frame strength, since the analysis did not consider the small loss of connection rigidity, which resulted in underestimating the sway deflections and second-order moments within the frame. A second order inelastic analysis which did not account for member imperfections provided the best estimate of the frame strength, but also under-predicted the deflections. 5 REFERENCES
CASE, (1997), PRFSA: Plane Rigid Frame Structural Analysis, Users Manual, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Clarke, M. J. and Zablotskii S. V., (1995), NIFA: Non-Linear Inelastic Frame Analysis, Users Manual, Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Standards Australia, (1991), Australian Standard AS 1163 Structural Steel Hollow Sections, Standards Australia, Sydney. Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1997), Tests for the Compact Web Slenderness of Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Sections, Research Report, No. R744, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1998), Tests of Knee Joints on Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Sections, Research Report, No. R779, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Wilkinson T. and Hancock G. J., (1999), Tests of Cold-Formed Rectangular Hollow Section Portal Frames, Research Report, No. R783, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

6 NOTATION
fy H I V Yield stress Horizontal load Second moment of inertia Vertical load