ERSS-Lecture 1 (ChiewSP 5mar20)
ERSS-Lecture 1 (ChiewSP 5mar20)
ERSS-Lecture 1 (ChiewSP 5mar20)
5 – 6 March 2020
[email protected]
Structural Eurocodes and Structural Analysis
3
Overview and Scope
Overview of Eurocodes
• Introduction to EN 1990
Basis of design
Limit state design
Combination of actions
• Introduction to EN 1991
• Introduction to EN 1993
Scope of Eurocodes
• A total of 10 codes comprising 58 parts
The first 2 codes are material-independent:
5
EN1990 Basis of Design
• Structural resistance
• Serviceability
• Durability
• Fire resistance
• Robustness
6
Eurocodes Subscripts
7
Actions, Effects and Resistances
Actions (F):
• Direct actions - applied loads.
• Indirect actions - temperature changes, vibrations.
• Both essentially produce same effect.
Effects of action(E):
• On structural members and whole structure.
• For example bending moments, shear forces, deflections.
Resistance (R):
• Capacity of a structural element to resist bending moment, axial force, shear, etc.
8
Types of Actions (EN 1991)
• Permanent actions (G): are those that essentially do not vary with time such as self-
weight of structure, fixed equipment.
• Variable actions (Q): leading and non-leading actions, and those that can vary with
time such as imposed loads, wind loads and snow loads.
• Accidental actions (A): are usually of short duration, but high magnitude such as
explosion, impact load, loss of a strut, etc.
9
Eurocodes Design Approach
10
Limit State Design
• Limit States:
states beyond which the structure can no longer meets its original design intention
11
Limit State Design Principles
12
Characteristic and Design Values
13
Partial Factors
• Partial safety factors γ are applied to characteristic values for both actions
material to account for variability.
• The value of γ depends on:
o The limit state under consideration.
o The variable to which it is applied.
o The context – e.g. is an action beneficial in relation to the considered
effect.
• γF for actions (loading).
14
Partial Factors
16
Ultimate Limit States
EQU STR
GEO FAT
17
Combination of Actions for ULS (EQU) – Set A
18
Combination of Actions for ULS (STR/GEO) – Set B
19
Combination of Actions for ULS (STR/GEO) – Set C
20
Combination of Actions for ULS (Eq. 6.10)
Static equilibrium (EQU) for building structures should be verified using the design
values of actions in Table A1.2(A).
Design of structural members (STR) not involving geotechnical actions should be
verified using the design values of actions from Table A1.2(B).
Design of structural members (footings, piles, basement walls, etc.) (STR) involving
geotechnical actions and the resistance of the ground (GEO) should also be
verified using the design values of actions from Table A1.2(B) or Table A1.2(C).
By inspection of the 3 Tables, it can be seen that Eq. 6.10 can satisfy EQU, STR
and GEO ULS.
For simplicity, it is recommended that Eq. 6.10 be used to calculate combination of
actions for ULS. Eq.6.10 is slightly more conservative than Eq. 6.10a or Eq. 6.10b.
21
Combination of Actions for ULS
Seismic 6.12 ∑G
j ≥1
k, j + P + AEd + ∑ψ 2,i Qk ,i
i ≥1
22
Combination of Actions for ULS
1.25Gk
23
Combination of Actions for ULS
∑γ
j >=1
G, j Gk , j + γ Q ,1Qk,1 + ∑ γ Q ,iψ 0,i Qk ,i
i >1 (6.10)
Load factors 1.35 and 1.5 are applied when actions are ‘unfavorable’
24
Combination of Actions for ULS
the common actions from Eurocodes: Identify leading variable action Qk,1
Gk = Dead load (permanent action); • The leading variable action is the one that
Qk = imposed load; leads to the most unfavourable effect (i.e. the
Wk = wind load critical combination)
Load combination Design load
• To generate the various load combinations,
each variable action should be considered in
Dead load & imposed load 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk
turn as the leading one.
Dead load & wind load 1.35Gk + 1.5Wk
Other non-leading or accompanying variable
Dead load, imposed and wind 1.35Gk + 1.50Wk + 1.05Qk actions reduced by a combination factor ψ0
load or
1.35Gk + 1.50Qk + 0.75Wk Accounts for probability of simultaneous
occurrence of multiple variable loads
*1.05 = 0.7 × 1.50
0.75 = 0.5 × 1.50 • Imposed load ψ0 = 0.7
Leading variable action
• Wind load ψ0 = 0.6 (SS NA = 0.5)
25
Combination of Actions for SLS
Frequent combination ∑G
j ≥1
k, j + P +ψ 1,1Qk ,1 + ∑ψ 2,i Qk ,i
i ≥1
(reversible SLS)
Quasi-permanent combination
∑G
j ≥1
k, j + P + ∑ψ 2,i Qk ,i
i ≥1 ψ0⋅ - combination value
(typically long term effects of the structure) ψ1⋅- frequent value.
ψ2⋅- quasi-permanent26 value.
Combination Factors in SS NA 1990
27
Overview of EN 1993 (Eurocode 3)
• EN 1993-1: Buildings
• EN 1993-2: Bridges
• EN 1993-5: Piling
28
Sub-Parts of EN 1993-1
Eurocode 3 Part 1 has 12 sub-parts:
• EN 1993-1-1: General rules
• EN 1993-1-2: Fire
• EN 1993-1-3: Cold-formed thin gauge
• EN 1993-1-4: Stainless steel
• EN 1993-1-5: Plated elements
• EN 1993-1-6: Shells
• EN 1993-1-7: Plates transversely loaded
• EN 1993-1-8: Joints
• EN 1993-1-9: Fatigue
• EN 1993-1-10: Fracture toughness
• EN 1993-1-11: Cables
• EN 1993-1-12: High strength steels 29
National Standard & National Annex (NA)
• The National Annex may only include information on those parameters within
clauses that have been left open for national choice (e.g. NA to SS EN 1993-
1-1: 2010).
30
Eurocode 3 Conventions
31
Material Properties
Nominal values of yield strength fy and ultimate tensile strength fu for hot-rolled structural steel
are given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1
However, National Annex (NA) to SS EN1993-1-1 stipulates these values of yield strength fy
and ultimate tensile strength fu should be obtained from Product Standard EN10025
EN 10025-2
400 to
S275JR 275 265 255 245 235 225 215 205 410 to 560 380 to 540
540
EN10025-2
S355JR 355 345 335 325 315 295 285 275 470 to 630 450 to 600
S275N 275 265 255 245 235 225 215 205 370 to 510 350 to 480
EN10025-3 S355N 355 345 335 325 315 295 285 275 470 to 630 450 to 600
S460N 460 440 430 410 400 380 370 - 540 to 720 530 to 710 -
34
Other Material Properties
35
Imperfection and Structural Analysis
36
Material Imperfections
±∆
• Deviations in cross-sectional dimensions and variations in
material properties are taken into account in material
safety factors and should not be included in structural
analysis. ε
37
Geometrical Imperfections
N 𝑁𝑁
L
𝐿𝐿
eo,d
𝑒𝑒0,𝑑𝑑
Φ Φ
39
Concept of Equivalent Horizontal Force (EHF)
φ = φ0α hα m
where, Φ0 is the basic value, usually taken as 1/200.
• The effects of local member bow imperfection can be replaced by an equivalent closed system of
horizontal forces, introduced for each member.
𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
4𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2
𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞2
= 𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 . 𝑒𝑒0,𝑑𝑑
𝑒𝑒0,𝑑𝑑 8
𝐿𝐿 8𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2 8𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0,𝑑𝑑
𝑞𝑞 =
𝐿𝐿2
4𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2
𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
41
Real Structural Behavior
linear analysis
F
geometrically non-linear
δ
e
imperfections
P
∆
43
• Member P- δ effect:
– due to beam-column deflection
– 1st order member stiffness modified
P P
δ
δp
1 π 2 EI
δp =δ Fcr = 2
1− F F L
cr
amplification factor
Note: Member P-δ effect ≠ Member imperfection
44
Structural Analysis - Terminology
• First-order analysis
Equilibrium equations are written in terms of the
geometry of the undeformed structure, geometrical
non-linearity not considered.
• Second-order analysis
Take into account the influence of the deformation of
the structure, e.g. both the sway effect (P-∆ effect)
and member deflection effect (P-δ effect).
45
What EC3 requires us to do?
• In general, both 1st order and 2nd order analyses are acceptable (EC3, 1-1, 5.2.1(1)).
• However, structural engineer must resolve to 2nd order analysis if the deformed geometry
increases the action effects or modify the structural behaviors significantly (EC3, 1-1, 5.2.1 (2)).
Lowest elastic
buckling load, Fcr
Lowest elastic
buckling load, Fcr
Nonlinear response
of structure
Nonlinear response of Case when 2nd order
Case when 1st order
analysis is sufficient P P structure analysis is needed
Design actions FEd
u u
46
Elastic Structural Analysis
F
LBA
Fcr
GNIA
Simplified scheme of elastic analyses:
e δ
47
How to choose between 1st or 2nd Order Analysis?
• Generally, the 2nd order effects should be considered if they increase the
action effects or modify the structural behaviour significantly.
• According to EC3, 1st order analysis may be used if:
Fcr
For elastic analysis: α cr = ≥ 10 (5.1)
FEd
• If 3 ≤ α cr < 10 , EC3 allows member design using amplified 1st order elastic
analysis.
1
• All the horizontal forces should be amplified by: but αcr ≥ 3.0
1− 1
α cr
48
How to determine 𝜶𝜶𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 ?
H Ed h
α cr = (5.2)
VEd δ H,Ed
To put it simply, 2nd order effects should be taken into consideration when:
• Large horizontal actions
• Low frame stiffness
• High demand/capacity ratio of members
49
Application of 2nd Order Analysis
51
Roof buckling Wall buckling
Other Application – Single Layer Roofs
52
Buckled Mode Shapes
Other Application – 100m Steel Dome
53
Buckled mode shapes
54
Gardens by the Bay
The Cloud Forest and The Flower Dome
+ 55
Demonstration of 2nd Order Analysis using STAAD.Pro
Imperfection
EN 1993-1-1, clause 5.3.2 (7)
The effects of initial sway imperfection and local bow imperfections may be replaced by systems of
equivalent horizontal forces, introduced for each column.
𝑒𝑒0,𝑑𝑑
𝐿𝐿 8𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2
4𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2
𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
In case of the linearly elastic structure, relation between displacement and external
force is proportional.
0.125 kN 23.8 mm
0.125 kN
Height, L=10000 mm
E=210000 N/mm2
Cross-section: 0.1x0.1 m2
Vertical load: 25 kN
= + Horizontal Load: 0.125 kN
58
Structural Analysis - Terminology
• First-order analysis
Equilibrium equations are written in terms of the
geometry of the undeformed structure, geometrical
non-linearity not considered.
• Second-order analysis
Take into account the influence of the deformation of
the structure, e.g. both the sway effect (P-∆ effect)
and member deflection effect (P-δ effect).
59
2nd Order Analysis in Design Software
A second order analysis is induced by the geometric non-linearity which accounts for both
the P-Large delta ( P-∆ ) and P-small delta (P- 𝛿𝛿 ) effect.
P-∆ Effect
• Iterative Method ∆0 ∆1
A step-by-step incremental manner, using the deformed geometry of
the structure obtained from an iterative cycles of the calculation
• Stiffness Matrix Method
The change in the GEOMETRIC STIFFNESS can be captured by
invoking the KG option intended to modify the Stiffness Matrix [K] to [K
+ KG].
• Amplification Method
simple and approximate way to determine the result of second order
effect is to simply magnify the result reported from the first order
analysis by the amplification factor 1/(1-N/Ncr)
P-∆ effect
P- 𝜹𝜹 Effect
*Equivalent force acting on the element 60
2nd Order Analysis in STAAD.Pro
61
Material Imperfections
62
P-∆ Analysis - Hand Calculation
… …
30.0
∆1
15.0
10.0 ∆0
5.0
𝑀𝑀0 = HL
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 64
Total Moment (kNm)
P-∆ Analysis - Spreadsheet
b (mm) h (mm) L (mm) KL (mm) fy (N/mm2)
100 100 10000 20000 355
H (kN) P (kN) E (N/mm2) I (mm4) Pai
0.125 25 210000 8.33E+06 3.14159
Nc,Rd (kN) Pcr (kN) L2/3EI Disp. Total (mm) Incrase from 1st order
3550 43.18 1.90476E-05 45.5 91%
Iteration Delta M (kNm) Total M (kNm) Disp. Inc (mm) Disp. Total (mmIncrement
Result of HL 0 1.25 1.25 23.8 23.8
1 0.6 1.8452 11.3 35.1 48%
2 0.3 2.1287 5.4 40.5 15%
3 0.1 2.2637 2.6 43.1 6%
4 0.1 2.3279 1.2 44.3 3%
5 0.0 2.3585 0.6 44.9 1% Considered as converged
6 0.0 2.3731 0.3 45.2 1%
7 0.0 2.3801 0.1 45.3 0%
8 0.0 2.3834 0.1 45.4 0%
9 0.0 2.3849 0.0 45.4 0%
Result of P-∆ 10 0.0 2.3857 0.0 45.4 0%
11 0.0 2.3860 0.0 45.4 0%
12 0.0 2.3862 0.0 45.5 0%
13 0.0 2.3863 0.0 45.5 0%
14 0.0 2.3863 0.0 45.5 0%
15 0.0 2.3863 0.0 45.5 0%
16 0.0 2.3864 0.0 45.5 0%
17 0.0 2.3864 0.0 45.5 0%
18 0.0 2.3864 0.0 45.5 0%
19 0.0 2.3864 0.0 45.5 0% 65
20 0.0 2.3864 0.0 45.5 0%
P-∆ Analysis – STAAD.Pro
66
Case Study: Linear Elastic Analysis
𝑃𝑃 - increasing
50 𝜋𝜋2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Euler’s Critical Load 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 =
45 (𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾)2
𝜙𝜙𝑃𝑃 40
35
30
Axial Load (kN) Linear elastic analysis
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Lateral displacment (mm)
67
Searching for the Critical Load
H 0.2 P (kN) 40 153.9 0.225 P (kN) 45 278.2 0.25 P (kN) 50 779.6 0.255 P (kN) 51 1693.5
Iteration M (kNm) Disp. Inc ( Disp. Tota % M (kNm) Disp. Inc ( Disp. Tota % M (kNm) Disp. Inc (mDisp. Tota % M (kNm) Disp. Inc (mDisp. Tota %
0 2 38.1 38.1 2.25 42.9 42.9 2.5 47.6 47.6 2.55 48.6 48.6
1 1.5 29.0 67.1 76% 1.9 36.7 79.6 86% 2.4 45.4 93.0 95% 2.5 47.2 95.8 97%
2 1.2 22.1 89.2 33% 1.7 31.5 111.1 40% 2.3 43.2 136.2 46% 2.4 45.8 141.6 48%
3 0.9 16.8 106.1 19% 1.4 27.0 138.1 24% 2.2 41.1 177.3 30% 2.3 44.5 186.1 31%
4 0.7 12.8 118.9 12% 1.2 23.1 161.2 17% 2.1 39.2 216.5 22% 2.3 43.3 229.4 23%
5 0.5 9.8 128.7 8% 1.0 19.8 181.0 12% 2.0 37.3 253.8 17% 2.2 42.0 271.4 18%
6 0.4 7.5 136.2 6% 0.9 17.0 198.0 9% 1.9 35.5 289.3 14% 2.1 40.8 312.2 15%
7 0.3 5.7 141.8 4% 0.8 14.6 212.6 7% 1.8 33.8 323.2 12% 2.1 39.7 351.9 13%
8 0.2 4.3 146.2 3% 0.7 12.5 225.1 6% 1.7 32.2 355.4 10% 2.0 38.5 390.4 11%
9 0.2 3.3 149.5 2% 0.6 10.7 235.8 5% 1.6 30.7 386.1 9% 2.0 37.4 427.8 10%
10 0.1 2.5 152.0 2% 0.5 9.2 245.0 4% 1.5 29.2 415.3 8% 1.9 36.3 464.1 8%
11 0.1 1.9 153.9 1% 0.4 7.9 252.8 3% 1.5 27.8 443.2 7% 1.9 35.3 499.5 8%
12 0.4 6.7 259.6 3% 1.4 26.5 469.7 6% 1.8 34.3 533.8 7%
13 0.3 5.8 265.3 2% 1.3 25.3 494.9 5% 1.7 33.3 567.1 6%
14 0.3 5.0 270.3 2% 1.3 24.1 519.0 5% 1.7 32.4 599.4 6%
15 0.2 4.2 274.5 2% 1.2 22.9 541.9 4% 1.7 31.4 630.9 5%
16 0.2 3.6 278.2 1% 1.1 21.8 563.7 4% 1.6 30.5 661.4 5%
17 1.1 20.8 584.5 4% 1.6 29.7 691.1 4%
18 1.0 19.8 604.3 3% 1.5 28.8 719.9 4%
19 1.0 18.8 623.1 3% 1.5 28.0 747.9 4%
20 0.9 17.9 641.1 3% 1.4 27.2 775.1 4%
21 0.9 17.1 658.2 3% 1.4 26.4 801.6 3%
22 0.9 16.3 674.4 2% 1.3 25.7 827.2 3%
23 0.8 15.5 689.9 2% 1.3 24.9 852.2 3%
24 0.8 14.8 704.7 2% 1.3 24.2 876.4 3%
25 0.7 14.1 718.8 2% 1.2 23.5 899.9 3%
26 0.7 13.4 732.2 2% 1.2 22.9 922.8 3%
27 0.7 12.8 744.9 2% 1.2 22.2 945.0 2%
28 0.6 12.1 757.1 2% 1.1 21.6 966.6 2%
29 0.6 11.6 768.6 2% 1.1 21.0 987.5 2% 68
30 0.6 11.0 779.6 1% 1.1 20.4 1007.9 2%
Case Study: P-∆ Analysis
40
35
30
Axial Load (kN)
25 P-∆ analysis
20
15
10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Lateral displacment (mm)
69
Case Study: P-∆ and P- 𝛿𝛿 Analysis
40
35 Design buckling resistance
P-∆ + P- 𝛿𝛿 analysis 𝜒𝜒𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
30 𝑁𝑁𝑏𝑏,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝛾𝛾𝑀𝑀𝑀
Axial Load (kN)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Lateral displacment (mm)
70
Effect of Column Length
• L=10 m • L=0.5 m
𝜋𝜋2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦
• 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = = 43.2 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 • 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = = 3550 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
(𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾)2 𝛾𝛾𝑀𝑀𝑀
50
1st order analysis
4000
Governed by buckling! Governed by yielding!
45
3500
40
3000
35 1st order analysis
30 2500
2nd order analysis
Axial Load (kN)
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600
Lateral displacment (mm) Lateral displacment (mm)
71
Demonstration: 2nd Order Analysis for Buckling of Strut
𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
4𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2
Length: 10m
Pipe Strut: 406.4x16 CHS
𝑒𝑒0,𝑑𝑑 Material: Steel
𝐿𝐿 8𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0
𝐿𝐿2 Support: Pin-Pin
Vertical Load: 6000 kN/m
Initial bow imperfection: L/500
4𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑒𝑒0 EHF: 9.6 kN/m
𝐿𝐿2
𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑁𝑁𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
72
THANK
YOU