Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Columns: From Theory To Practice: Brief Historical Notes
Columns: From Theory To Practice: Brief Historical Notes
Columns: From Theory To Practice: Brief Historical Notes
REIDAR BJORHOVDE
T h e past several decades have seen significant advances in This paper addresses a number of the issues outlined
all areas of science and engineering, both as a result of above. In particular, the criteria for the transfer of knowl-
developments with respect to testing and computational edge from research to design are examined, including
equipment and those attributed to improvements in the some recent findings that may point the way to potential
knowledge of physical processes and relationships. Con- modifications and further improvements in how practical
sidering the field of structural engineering, major im- design is carried out.
provements have been attained in the understanding of
materials and their behavior, structural elements, joining BRIEF HISTORICAL NOTES
techniques and design, structural systems, analytical solu-
tions and techniques, and loads and load computations, to Although theories for the behavior of slender compression
mention some of the central areas of interest to the profes- members had been formulated prior to Euler's 1744 study,
sion. In brief, an engineer is now in a position where prob- his was the first to recognize the strength of such members
lems can be solved which previously could not even be was as much a matter of overall stabihty as a problem of
attempted, because of the improved knowledge of materi- crushing. Considering a perfectly straight column of an
als and structures and how they work as a unit under ac- elastic material, fixed at one end and free at the other,
tual conditions. What is more, many of the improvements Euler used the recently developed differential and integral
have found their way into structural design specifications, calculus to find the equation for the shape of the buckled
so that today the forefront researcher is able to draw upon member, as well as the load associated with this configura-
advances made. Also, a number of the developments are tion.
now being used in the actual design of a variety of struc- Having observed the nonlinear properties of many ma-
tures. terials and the results of tests that gave column strengths
The studies of stability in general and of columns in par- well below those predicted by the Euler formula, Engesser
ticular are long standing, and the results of the early col- pubhshed his tangent modulus theory in 1889.^ The col-
umn work^ are probably among the best known of struc- umn was still considered to be perfectly straight, but the
tural engineering research findings. However, despite the nonlinearity of the material response in effect recognized
fact that Euler's classical work on the stabihty of the the inelastic characteristic of the member. However, not
elastic column was completed in 1744, much discussion until much later were the full imphcations of this discovery
continues to focus on a multitude of problems associated realized, specifically through the work of Shanley, Yang
with this structural member. Since all of the primary pa- and Johnston and others.^
rameters that control the strength and behavior of the col- Considered questioned some of the assumptions of the
umn are known now, with the recent addition of the char- tangent modulus theory, especially that which applied a
acteristics of the end-restrained column^'-^ the arguments reduced value of E, the tangent modulus of elasticity, to
have been addressed mostly at the philosophies of design, the full cross section of the member at the instant of buck-
the basic column strength models and, above all, how to Ung. The reduced or double modulus theory subsequently
incorporate the information into the design codes. published, also by Engesser, treated the material in the
cross section as if it were of two kinds: Upon column buck-
Hng, the parts of the cross section that would continue to
load would have an E-value equal to the tangent modulus,
and the unloading fibers would behave elastically.
Reidar Bjorhovde is Professor and Chairman, Department of As eventually demonstrated by Shanley,"^ the two theor-
Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgfi, Pittsburgh!, Penn-
sylvania. 1987 T. R. Higgins Award Lecture. ies reflected effectively two bounds for the capacity of the
perfectly straight column with nonlinear, cross-sectional
FIRST QUARTER/1988 23
the strength of heavy columns, considering the effects of same shapes, but in other steel grades. Thus, most tests
steel grade, method of manufacture, weld metal and flame had been run with 36 ksi steel; the 50 ksi grade material
cutting usage, among others.^^ To the author's knowledge, was added.
this is the first time heavy column strength has been inves- The maximum strength computation technique used in
tigated systematically and with a view to the response of the study followed accepted procedures, as developed in
small and medium size shapes, as well as to current and fu- earher studies.^ Thus, using a member with a given level of
ture design practices. As will be shown, the database was initial out-of-straightness, and determining the axial load
limited to shapes for which the residual stress distributions that was required for equilibrium at every increment of
were known. This was done to make the findings compati- lateral deflection of the column, the technique permitted
ble with those obtained for smaller sections. A necessary evaluation of the spread of yielding in the cross section as
limitation, the results obtained are nevertheless a rational the load level increased and for the solution of the maxi-
extension of current knowledge and point the way to prac- mum strength of the column. To determine whether dif-
tical applications. ferent levels of initial crookedness would have different in-
fluences on the maximum strength of the columns, several
such values were used as the starting points for the
calculations. Thus, column strength data were developed
Heavy Column Shapes and Materials
for all of the above shapes for e-values of 1/500, 1/1,000,
The heavy shapes incorporated into the analysis are given 1/1,500 and 1/2,000. Finally, the computations were car-
in Tables 1 and 2 for hot-rolled and welded built-up wide- ried out for a range of slenderness ratios, to permit devel-
flange shapes, respectively. Two of the rolled shapes were opment of complete column curves for each of the
of European manufacture, as noted. The residual stress cases.
data for the shapes were obtained from research reports It is readily understood that with the examination pa-
and published papers,^'^^'^^'^'*'^^'^^'^^ as were the material rameters developed as described in the preceding, the
properties also given in the tables. Further, the tables total data set produced included a large number of col-
show the largest component plate thickness for each sec- umn curves for heavy shapes.
tion. This was used as part of the overall identification To determine the geometric term which would be most
evaluation of the data to determine the primary geometric representative for the heavy-column cross section, the
parameter for the heavy columns. The research paper that computation results were analyzed with respect to the re-
describes the study in detail includes the additional factors lationship to factors such as the flange and web thick-
examined.^^ It is shown the two European shapes are di- nesses, the overaU dimensions, as given in Col. 3 of Tables
rectly comparable to American ones, in particular the 1 and 2, the term bt/dw and several others.^^ It was found
shapes W14x426 and HD400x685 are virtually identical. the flange thickness by itself was the most useful term, as
wefl as the one easiest to interpret. This finding also ties in
Table 1: Heavy-rolled Wide-flange Shapes with earlier work,^'^^ which separated light and heavy at a
Max. t (in.)
flange thickness of one inch. A collection of the results is
Shape Yield Stress (ksi) Overall Dia. (in.)
in Figs. 1 and 2, where the average curves for the relation-
W12X120 36 and 50 13.12 X 12.32 1.11 ships between the relative maximum strength and the
HD260X274* 28 12.83 X 10.87 1.97 flange thickness are given for three typical slenderness
W14X426 36 and 50 18.67 X 16.70 3.04 terms. The figures give the data for columns with initial
HD400X685* 25 18.94 X 16.97 3.15
crookedness values of 1/1,500, the one which formed the
W14X730 36 and 50 21.75 X 18.00 5.00
basis for the AISC LRFD column curve.^
* European rolled shapes (Arbed, S.A., Luxembourg). The figures demonstrate some very important results
for hot-roUed shapes. First, it appears column buckUng
Table 2: Heavy-welded, Built-up Wide-flange Shapes about both principal axes is affected equaUy by the thick-
Max. t (in.)
ness variation. Secondly, short column strength is virtu-
Shape Yield Stress (ksi) Overall Dia. (in.)
ally not influenced at aU (the figures indicate the curves for
H12X210 36 and 50 13.0 X 12.0 2.0 X-value of 0.4, which corresponds to a slenderness ratio
H20X354 36 and 50 24.0 X 20.0 2.0 KL/r of around 36, for 36 ksi steel), and the very long col-
H24X428 36 and 50 24.0 X 24.0 2.0 umns do not experience a significant drop in strength ei-
H 14x15 36 and 50 14.55 X 13.8 2.36
ther. The latter is shown by the lower curves, whose
H24X1122 36 and 50 24.0 X 24.0 6.0
X-value corresponds to a slenderness ratio of approxi-
mately 108 for A36 steel.
Note the residual stress data were available for each The important information is given by the middle
shape in a single steel grade only. However, because the curves of Figs. 1 and 2. For minor axis buckling in particu-
stress magnitudes are independent of the yield stress of lar, the drop in column strength that occurs as the flange
the steel, it was decided to augment the column strength thickness increases from 1 to approximately 3 inches
population by using the same residual stress data for the amounts to roughly 15%. In addition, the slenderness of
.8-
^ . - ^ X=0.8
.6-
.^^ X=l.2
.4-
>
1 •• ••• •'
1 1 1 1 • • 1
C 2 3 4
) 1
5 6
t(in)
e=L/l500
14
X»0.4
•8 +
•X»0.8
.6
•X=l.2
.4 +
-) Oi
t(in)
FIRST QUARTER/1988 25
0.8 that applies to the middle curves reflects a KL/r-value no more than 1/500. Actual values have been measured, to
of 72, which is in the middle of the very common and im- some extent, although the generally available data are
portant structural slenderness range. It is understood this sparse. However, it has been found an average of approxi-
reflects the influence of the flange thickness only. All of mately 1/1,500 prevails for the wide-flange shapes used in
the other column strength parameters have been kept con- North America, with a coefficient of variation of around
stant. It is also important to note that following the dip in 10%.^ Tubes are fabricated so actual e-values tend to be
capacity, the strength then increases as the thickness goes significantly smaller than the maximum aflowable. Thus,
beyond 3 to 3.5 inches towards 5 inches and larger. The the average e for tubes is on the order of 1/6,000.^^
reason for this is simply that shapes with such large thick-
nesses generally have a large cross-sectional area and this Initial Out-of-straightness for Design Use
makes up for the decrease caused by the thickness ef- In the development of maximum strength formulas for
fect. LRFD-type specifications the question arose early on
The data in Figs. 1 and 2 represent rolled shapes only. what the most suitable value of e would be. It was found
For welded shapes, the effects are not clear at this time.^^ the maximum permissible out-of-straightness generaUy
The thickness influence is certainly a great deal less im- was around 1/1,000, independent of country or other de-
portant for such shapes. However, further research needs sign jurisdiction. To adhere to what was regarded as con-
to address this subject in detail. servative practice, it was decided to utilize the maximum
The question now is, what can or should one do with re- value as the basic one for the development of the column
sults of this kind? It would appear important to be able to design equations. Research on column strength curves
incorporate the thickness effect in some form in the col- was conducted using this as one of the central values.'^'^^
umn design criteria, although it would not be realistic to In the U.S. this led to formulation of what is now known
expect the column formula itself could cover it. The most as the SSRC (Structural Stability Research Council)
likely outcome may be to deal with this problem through Curves.^'^ Numerous design standards were prepared on
a modification of the resistance factor, when large shapes this basis. For example, the Canadian limit-states code,^
are to be used. In past usage, this variation from nominal the European recommendations^^ and others aU used the
capacity would be covered by the factor of safety. 1/1,000 magnitude.
However, in more advanced evaluations of LRFD cri-
INITIAL OUT-OF-STRAIGHTNESS EFFECTS teria, which made use of first-order, second-moment prin-
It has been mentioned the AISC allowable stress design ciples of rehability theory,^^ it was observed that since
(ASD) specification^^ uses a column strength formula means and standard deviations formed the bases for the
based on the tangent modulus concept. Hence, the col- development of the strength requirements, it would be ra-
umn is assumed to be perfectly straight, although the ef- tional and reasonable to use the mean out-of-straightness,
fects of residual stresses are accounted for. along with its variability, to form the basic input value in
In the original development of the ASD formula, it was the column strength computations. As a result, it was de-
recognized real columns are normally initially crooked; cided the mean of 1/1,500 should be the focal value for e,
and also the crookedness could have a significant effect on and design curves were developed on this basis.^'^'^
load-carrying capacity. To account for this influence, it Comparison of the sets of curves developed under the
was decided to introduce a factor of safety which in- auspices of the SSRC is provided by Fig. 3, which shows
creased in value as the column length became larger, up to the original SSRC Curves (e = 1/1,000) and the set re-
a certain maximum. It was also felt this would be a conve- ferred to as the SSRC-P Curves (e = 1/1,470).^ SSRC
nient way to take into account the effects of phenomena Curves 1 and 2 are used by the Canadian Hmit-states de-
such as eccentricity of load, etc. The decision conse- sign standard;^ SSRC Curve 2P is identical to the AISC
quently was made to use a factor of safety that increased LRFD curve given in Sect. E of the specification.^ How-
from 1.67 at a slenderness ratio of zero, to a value of 1.92 ever, the mathematical equation developed for SSRC 2P is
for slenderness ratios equal to or greater than the value not the same as the LRFD version; the latter uses only
separating elastic and inelastic buckling Q . This was done two segments to describe the complete curve.
on the express premise the most significant influence of the
END-RESTRAINED COLUMNS
crookedness was found in the intermediate slenderness
ratio range; for very short and for very long columns other Much has been published over the past few years about
strength factors would override the effects of the initial the strength and behavior of end-restrained columns, and
curvature. the problem appears to have been solved, for all intents
The materials delivery standards^^ and other documents and purposes. Thus, design criteria and procedures have
specify the maximum level of out-of-straightness that can been developed^-^'^^ and the problem is well understood.
be tolerated, from a product quaUty standpoint only. For Briefly, the primary parameters of influence are
example, rolled wide-flange shapes are allowed a crooked- 1. Type of beam-to-column connection
ness no larger than 1/1,000, and tubular shapes are allowed 2. Length of the column
Curve 2P
Curve 3P
max 0.5
— Probabilistic Multiple
Column Curves ( ^ / L ^ ' / K T O )
— Deterministic Multiple
Column Curves (®/L= ' / | 0 0 0 )
-Ji t I I I I I i_
0.5 1.0 1.5
TT V E r
Fig. 3. Maximum strength column curve sets with initial
crookedness values of 1/1000 and 111470^
3. Magnitude and distribution of residual stress to use the elementary pinned-end column as the anchor
4. Initial out-of-straightness member, and rather reflect the restraint in the method by
For example, the stiffer the beam-to-column connection, which the column is designed as part of the structural
the larger the corresponding increase in the column frame.
strength. In fact, even the connections generally regarded
as shear types only (no moment capacity) provide for
some rotation resistance and thus contribute to raising the COLUMN STRENGTH VARIABILITY
column load-carrying capacity.^ Similarly, the longer the Numerous studies have demonstrated the variability of
column, the more significant the effect of a given end con- material and structural member properties, and the col-
nection. Finally, the presence of residual stresses and ini- umn is equally susceptible to variations in strength. Be-
tial crookedness reduces the stiffening effect of the end re- cause of the many factors influencing maximum strength,
straint. its variability over the range of slenderness ratios will be
Practical implementation of end-restrained column de- substantial.^ Examples are shown in Figs. 4, 5 and 6,
sign is still debated, although some data on the rotation where the strength data for a large number of different
response of various connections are currently available types of column shapes, materials and manufacturing
in the form needed. However, significant data collection methods are represented. Figure 5 also indicates the de-
must still be done before the method can gain full use. The gree of variabiHty found when initial crookedness varies.
principles of the applications in the design of frames are In allowable stress design, the strength variation is as-
known^'^"* and the method of analysis has been verified sumed to be covered by the factor of safety, and the one
through full-scale tests.^^ column curve used is thought to reflect adequate safety
At one point it was suggested the basic column formula provisions. However, detailed studies have demonstrated
should be modified to take into account the presence of that in comparing the actual and the assumed column axial
end restraint. In all likelihood this will not happen, at least load capacities, the factor of safety can vary significantly
for some time, because of the great variability in connec- from its theoretical level. For example, magnitudes of the
tion response characteristics. It is preferable to continue FS of 1.67 to 1.92 are built into the ASD specification; ac-
FIRST QUARTER/1988 27
tual data exhibit factors as low as 1.4 and as high as 2.5.^^
In LRFD, the strength variation is covered by the value
of the resistance factor, which has been specifically deter-
I.oh mined to give an adequate level of rehability when the
1*
strength as well as the load variations occur. This is a dis-
1° tinct improvement over the ASD approach, but some
J
"^cr o V - ^ ® o^Vt VV A form of simplification has still been used. Thus, it is
known column strength varies differently at different slen-
derness ratios.^ As an illustration, Fig. 7 shows the influ-
ence of the slenderness ratio on the coefficient of variation
of the maximum strength for three different initial out-of-
straightnesses.^ Note the COV reaches a maximum for
slendernesses around 1.0, which is also the region where
residual stresses and initial crookedness combine to
produce the most severe influence on the axial load
1.0
capacity.
The value of the resistance factor used in the LRFD
specification of AISC is 0.85, a reasonable value. On the
x= IT * E r other hand, would it be possible to increase the value, if a
modified form of the column formula or an alternate
F/g. 4. Column strength variation in tests
method of design were devised? The potential economies
could be substantial, but the form of the new requirements
2000
Lower Envelope
Curves
Pmox
0.5
.= ' 2 0 0 0
\ = ^500
J i_
0.5 1.0 1.5
x= j_IT V^ / ^
E
\^
r
ig.5. Bands of maximum column strength curves
\ ' ^ ^ / I
-^ JL
E r
Fig. 7. Coefficients of variation of maximum column
strength as influenced by slenderness ratio
4.0 r
3.5-
3.0
LRFD
Z5
Z.0
v-^ as 2.0
FIRST QUARTER/1988 31
sible to cover the large strength variation (Figs. 4-6) via state-of-the-art tabulation. It is a potential solution to the
the use of a single curve, and some form of recognition of multiple column curve problems of choice.
this fact may have to be made. This may either take the
form of several curves, for example the three SSRC or
SSRC-P curves in Fig. 9, or it may be a single equation
that can represent multiple curves, depending on certain SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
parameters. This was done by Rondal and Maquoi in an The paper has presented a state-of-the-art discussion
evaluation of the SSRC curves.^^ It is also possible to use of the behavior, strength and design of steel columns.
additional column strength curves for specific types of Demonstrating the progressive improvements which have
cross sections or methods of manufacture. This was the taken place with respect to understanding the various pa-
case for tubular shapes in an early German (DIN) code, rameters influencing the strength of columns, current pro-
and is now in use in Canada for heat-treated tubes.^ In any cedures can take into account all major effects and pro-
case, through an improved specification organization and vide for very good correlation with test results. Some new
computation algorithms, it is feasible to introduce these data are discussed regarding the strength of very heavy
kinds of changes, so long as the resulting structure re- columns, with potential implications for their use in struc-
mains safe and economical. tures.
One possible way of aiding the designer, in case any It is shown the developments of Hmit-states design crite-
form of multiple column curves come into being in the ria, which have prompted careful examinations of the vari-
codes, is the use of a Column Curve Selection Table, as in ability of the strength and the various parameters that play
Table 3. Based on the work of Bjorhovde,^'^^ and subse- a role, have led to significant improvements in the reUabil-
quently modified to take into account changes in fabrica- ity of members and the overall structures.
tion and manufacturing practices, the table aims at facil- Future developments are discussed briefly. The con-
itating the work of the designer in determining the cepts of end-restrained column design as parts of frames
appropriate column curve to use. The data in Table 3 are represent one such potential improvement. Another is the
based on numerous evaluations of residual stress data and use of several curves to improve the assessment of the in-
column strength computations and tests, and represent a dividual member capacity.
to ' ""QS^^oSL^^^^-^I^i..^ A
P ^^;;^^.^^^:c -.....^.^^^^ \ ^ SSRC I - P
r" ^^^^.
^ ^ S ^
^^^^^^^
«««i^^*''N^^
"^ ^^^^^^
*S^ ^^"^S^^
V^
/ \
>\S. ^<^V^ ^ v^*^^^ / \ ^ - ^^^^ 2"^ (-LRFD Curve)
r
SSRC in —X > ^ N . ^^^^^N^ ^^^^v X ^
X ^s. ^^^'^^w ^ ^^S.-^ X
L / "^^V O N ^ ^ \ >V \ y SSRC 3-P
SSRC //2 -^ y ^ ^ v \ ^ ^ > ^ ^ >v >c
/ \ >v V^C ^ >/ \
p
SSRC //3 - ^ VS^,^ ^^"^^^^^ V S ^ ^ V
0.5 h~ ^^^^^^^^ ^^""^^X.^^^
^^v^^ vT^'^^s^ '^^'^^^S^
^^*'****«»«*^ ^^^^^^ ^^^"^^^^^^
r"
^'>>-::^^ C ' ^ ^ ^ ^
^^^^^^^ ^s^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"^^^^^^^C^^^
^^ ^^^^^^
P
0 -J \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
(.5
t 1 1
0.5 I.O
^- TV YE —
Fig. 9. Multiple column curve sets SSRC and SSRC-P
FIRST QUARTER/1988 33
15. Bjorhovde, Reidar and L. Tall Maximum Column 24. Davison, J. B., P. A. Kirby and D. A. Nethercot
Strength and the Muhiple Column Curve Concept Semi-Rigid Connections in Isolation and in Frames
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No, 337.29, Oc- Connections and the Behavior, Strength and Design of
tober 1971, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa. Steel Structures, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers,
16. McFalls, R. K. and L. Tall A Study of Welded Col- 1988, England.
umns Manufactured from Flame-Cut Plates AWS 25. Kirby, P. A., J. B. Davison and D. A. Nethercot
Welding Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4. Large Scale Tests on Column Subassemblages and
17. Al-Shihri, M. and Reidar Bjorhovde The Strength of Frames Connections and the Behavior, Strength and
Heavy Columns Paper in Preparation, 1987, Univer- Design of Steel Structures, Elsevier Applied Science
sity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. Publishers, 1988, England.
18. Aschendorff, K. K., A. Bernard, O. Bucak, F. Mang 26. Bjorhovde, Reidar The Safety of Steel Columns
and A. Plumier Knickuntersuchungen an Gewalzten ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 104,
Stiitzen mit I-Querschnitt aus St 37 und St 52 mit No. ST3 (pp. 463-477).
Grosser Flanschdicke und aus St E 460 mit 27. Allen, D. E. Limit States Design - A ProbabiHstic
Standardabmessungen Der Bauingenieur, Vol. 58, Study Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 2,
1983 (pp. 261-268). 1975 (pp. 36-49).
19. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM 28. Museau, J.-P. Modele de ITnfluence dTmperfections
Standard A6, 1987, Philadelphia, Pa. sur la Securite des Structures Metalliques en
20. Bjorhovde, Reidar and P. C. Birkemoe Limit States Comportement Non-Lineaire These de Doctorat
Design of HSS Columns Canadian Journal of Civil d'Etat, May 1987, Universite Blaise Pascal, Clermont-
Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2 (pp. 276-291). Ferrand, France.
21. European Economic Community Eurocode 3: Limit 29. Bjorhovde, R., J. Brozzetti and A. Colson (Editors)
States Design of Steel Structures 1986, Brussels, Connections and the Behavior, Strength and Design
Belgium. of Steel Structures International Workshop Proceed-
22. Beer, H. and G. Schultz Bases Theoriques des ings, 1987, Cachan, France (published by Elsevier Ap-
Courbes Europeennes de Flambement Construction plied Science Publishers, 1988, England.
Metallique, No. 3, 1970, Paris, France. 30. Rondal, J. and R. Maquoi Single Equation for SSRC
23. Galambos, T. V. and M. K. Ravindra Load and Re- Column Strength Curves ASCE Journal of the Struc-
sistance Factor Design ASCE Journal of the Struc- tural Division, Vol. 105, No. STl (pp. 247-250).
tural Division, Vol. 104, No. ST9.