Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Structural Modeling of Cold-Formed Steel Portal Frames by Zhang and Rasmussen 2015
Structural Modeling of Cold-Formed Steel Portal Frames by Zhang and Rasmussen 2015
Structures
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The paper describes the modeling of pitched roof cold-formed steel portal frames with slender cross-sections.
Received 15 July 2015 Two types of finite element models are introduced: a shell finite element model and a modified beam finite
Received in revised form 19 October 2015 element model. The shell element model involves explicit modeling of each structural member and accounts
Accepted 19 October 2015
for the semi-rigid behavior of apex and eave joints by incorporating spring-like elements. The beam element
Available online 26 October 2015
model utilizes a reduced tangent rigidity method to account for cross-sectional instability. Both models are com-
Keywords:
pared with results of experimentally tested portal frames, and good agreement is demonstrated.
Steel portal frames © 2015 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shell and beam element models
Local and distortional buckling
Semi-rigid joints
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.10.010
2352-0124/© 2015 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zhang et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 58–68 59
t = 1.2 t = 1.9 Based on the theory presented in [10], the stiffness matrix (Kl) and
20 internal force vector (p) in the local system are defined as,
30
Z Z
Kl ¼ NTδd2 GNδd2 dx þ NTδd2 NTδd1 St Nδd1 Nδd2 dx ð1Þ
220 220 L0 L0
Z
p¼ NTδd2 NTδd1 D dx: ð2Þ
L0
80 76
The matrix St, which accounts for the reduction of tangent rigidities
(a) Nominal dimensions of (b) Nominal dimensions of during the analysis, is termed as the tangential rigidity matrix and is
column section rafter section defined as,
(Dimensions in mm) 2 3
ðEAÞt ðESz Þt ES EI ðESw Þt 0
6 ðES Þ y t p t
6 z t ðEI Þ EIyz t EIpz t ðEIzw Þt 0 7 7
Fig. 1. Column and rafter cross-sections. 6 z t 7
6 ES EI EI EI EI 0 7
St ¼ 6 y t yz t y t py t yw t 7 ð3Þ
6 EI p t EI pz t EI EI EIpw t 0 7
6 py t pp t 7
and 65 mm for the eave joints. Grade 8.8 M16 and Grade 8.8 M8 bolts 4 ðESw Þ ðEIzw Þt EIyw t EIpw t ðEIw Þt 0 5
t
were used for the webs and flanges, respectively. Figs. 2 and 3 show 0 0 0 0 0 ðGJ Þt
the details of the apex and eave joints respectively.
Fig. 4 shows a general layout of the test frames. Each frame had a where the tangent rigidity terms ((EA)t, (EIz)t, (EIy)t, etc.) are reduced
span of 8 m and a total height of 5 m from the base plate to the centre when local and/or distortional buckling develops. Therefore, the funda-
of the apex joint. The height from the base plate to the centre of the mental approach of this method is to find the appropriate reduction
eave joints was 4 m, and the frame had a 14° pitch. A pinned base was factors (τg) for each tangent rigidity term, so that
used and point loads were applied in the tests. Further details of the 2 3
tests can be found in [6]. τ g EA EA τg ESz τg ESy τg EI p τg ESw 0
6 ESz ESy EIp ESw 7
6 τ g ESz ESz τ g EIz EI z τ g EIyz EI yz τ g EIpz EI pz τ g EIzw EI zw 0 7
6 7
6 τg ESy τg EI yz τg EI y τg EI py τg EI yw 0 7
3. Beam element modeling of frames subject to local/distortional 6
St ¼ 6 ESy EIyz EIy EIpy EIyw 7
7
buckling 6 τ g EIp EI p τ g EIpz EI pz τ g EIpy EI py τ g EIpp EI pp τ g EIpw EI pw 0 7
6 7
6 τ τ g EIzw EI zw τ g EIyw EI yw τ g EIpw EI pw τ g EIw EI w 7
4 g ESw ESw 0
5
The basic approach of the beam-element-based method involves 0 0 0 0 0 τ g GJ GJ
considering the primary effect of local/distortional buckling as the ð4Þ
reduction of member stiffness against overall compression, bending
and torsion. Consequently, the overall behavior of the structure was where the unreduced rigidities (EA, EIz, EIy, etc.) can be calculated based
achieved by using the stiffness of the locally/distortionally buckled on the geometry of the undistorted cross-section. The calculation of the
cross-section rather than the stiffness of the undistorted cross-section. reduction factors (τg) is described in [11].
152°
Bolt-group size 540 540
360x120 A
226
936
A
63 M8 bolt
30 Bracket (6mm)
M16 bolt 60
60
Channel section
Section A-A
700
0
82
A A
M16 bolt 60
Bolt-group size 60
400x120
Channel section
Section A-A
In the analysis, the geometry, boundary conditions, and material adopted from the tests on these joints, as shown in Table 1 where the
properties of the models were the same as those used in the experi- parameters are defined in Fig. 5.
ments. Local and distortional buckling imperfections were incorporated The effect of material yielding was considered while calculating
in the analysis by implementing an imperfection in the shape of the first reduced tangent rigidities (EI)t and stress resultants in the a priori
buckling mode in the a priori post-buckling analysis used to determine post-local/distortional buckling analysis. In this material modeling,
the reduction factors (τg), see [10] for details. However, an amplitude predefined combinations of axial strain and major axis curvature were
of 0.01 t (0.012 mm for the columns) was considered in the post- assumed. Specifically, a range of pre-set axial strain to major axis curva-
buckling analysis which was smaller than the measured imperfections ture ratios was selected, and for each ratio, the applied strain was
[6]. gradually increased and the tangent rigidities were determined at
In modeling the apex and eave joints, the semi-rigid behavior was each increment of strain. Thus the axial strain and major axis curvature
considered by inserting rotational spring elements at the centre of the were assumed to increase proportionally in calculating the tangent
joints. Each rotational spring was of zero length and connected to two rigidities. Since the sequence of assumed combinations of axial strain
coincident nodes, with one node belonging to each member. The rota- and major axis curvature was likely to differ from the actual sequence
tional stiffness of the springs in the apex and the eave joints was experienced in the experiments, and since the tangent rigidities are
North South
Apex joint
800 Eave joint Horizontal load
1000 (only for Frame 3)
Lateral
restraint
Load bracket Pin connection
Main horizontal
loading beam
Strong
4000 Gravity load column
simulator
Bolt-group
size 200x120 Pin end Dead
bearing weight
Strong floor
150
75 8000
Dimensions in mm
45
40
35
30
Moment (kNm) 25 K3
20
K2
15
10
5 K1
ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation (rad)
dependent on the strain history, it was implicitly assumed that the 4.2. Restraints, loading and boundary conditions
tangent rigidities were not strongly strain path dependent. The tangent
rigidity values (EI)t and stress resultants were read from file and stored In the tests, end plates and stiffeners were used at column bases and
as multi-dimensional arrays in the nonlinear beam-element analysis. loading points to spread the reaction forces and jack loads. These plates
Previous mesh convergence analyses have shown that a number of six were not explicitly modeled in the shell element model. Instead, “Rigid
elements per member were sufficient to produce accurate results Body” constraints were used to limit the motion of a group of nodes to
while also achieving computational efficiency. Therefore a mesh of six the rigid body motion defined by a reference node, and to restrict all
elements per column and six elements per rafter was selected, resulting the other degrees of freedom of the nodes. By using this approach,
in a total of 24 elements. boundary conditions were applied to the reference nodes at the centre
of the column bases to simulate pinned ends and all other nodes at
the ends of the columns were constrained by the reference nodes. Sim-
4. Shell element modeling ilarly, vertical loads were applied concentrically to reference nodes,
where the reference nodes were located at the centre of pins to repre-
4.1. Contact of back-to-back channels sent loads from the jack and all the nodes located within 100 mm
from the reference nodes were rigidly constrained. The multi-point con-
The commercial software Abaqus [12] was used to create shell ele- straints used at the column bases and load point areas are shown in
ment models and perform geometric and material nonlinear shell finite Fig. 7.
element analyses. The brackets used for the apex and eave joints were modeled on
When modeling back-to-back channels, the connection between the their nominal dimensions. The bolt holes and bolts, however, were not
webs needs to be considered, as otherwise one channel may protrude modeled explicitly. Instead, the semi-rigid behavior of the joints was
into the other and the two webs would slide independently of each considered by incorporating rotational springs located at the intersec-
other which was contrary to the experimental tests, in which the tion of the column and rafter centrelines. The bracket was divided into
webs were connected intermittently using screws or bolts. In the shell
element model, discrete fasteners were not explicitly modeled. Rather,
surface-to-surface contact was defined between the outside surfaces
of the two webs. The normal behavior of the contact was defined as
“hard”, which allowed no penetration between two surfaces, and tan-
gential behavior was defined as “rough” to indicate that the friction be- Bracket Tie
tween two surfaces was infinitely large, i.e. friction was used to model
the effect of fasteners. Because longitudinal slip was prevented, full
composite action of the two channels was assumed over the contact Connector element
region. Channel section
The surface-to-surface contact was only applied in regions where
there was no gap between the webs. In the joint regions, brackets
inserted between the webs and fasteners were modeled as shell ele-
ments, where “tie” constraints were applied between each surface
Surface-to-surface
of the brackets and the webs. For regions with less than 6 mm gap, contact
point-to-point connector elements were used to connect corresponding
nodes of the two webs at fastener points. The connection method thus
described is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6. Method of connecting back-to-back C-sections.
62 X. Zhang et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 58–68
Reference node
Reference node
Table 1
Simplified moment–rotation relationship for apex and eave joints.
two parts, and each was coupled with a reference node using multi- analyses were factored so that the maximum amplitudes were equal
point restraints. The two coincident reference nodes were then connect- to the average measured imperfections at mid-span as per [6]. The
ed by spring-like connector elements, which allowed equal in-plane member imperfection was not measured for reasons explained in [6].
translation degrees of freedom of the two points to occur freely but The measured global, local and distortional imperfections of the two
added springs to the in-plane rotational degree of freedom. The spring columns of each frame (referred to as “North” and “South”) for all tests
characteristics were based on the moment–rotation curves obtained are listed in Table 2. The out-of-plumb (global) imperfection refers to
from tests of apex and eave joints, as shown in Table 1. Details of the the top of the column at the intersection between the centrelines of
apex and eave joint models are shown in Fig. 8. the column and rafter. All three frames were initially leaning in the
southern direction and failed in this direction when the most highly
4.3. Initial geometric imperfections loaded southern column reached its ultimate capacity under combined
bending and compression.
Recognizing that geometric imperfections in the shape of the critical In order to produce clear local, distortional, and global buckling
elastic buckling modes usually have the most detrimental effect on the modes for incorporating imperfections, and to avoid any coupled eigen-
ultimate strength, a common procedure for including imperfections is modes, buckling analyses were performed on frames with different col-
to superimpose factored buckling modes onto the perfect geometry. umn section thickness. In the first step, a large shell element thickness
Three types of imperfections dominant in the tested frames were mea- (typically 10 mm) was chosen to ensure that global sway buckling
sured: the out-of-plumb (global) imperfections of the frame as well as was the first buckling eigenmode without the influence of local or
the local and distortional buckling imperfections of the column section. distortional modes. In the second step, the shell thickness was reduced
Out-of-plumb imperfections were determined according to the mea- to a medium value (such as 5 mm) so that distortional buckling was the
sured geometry of the test frames as described in [13]. The local and first buckling eigenmode. The thickness was further reduced to 1.2 mm
distortional buckling imperfections varied along the length of the in the third step to ensure that local buckling was the first buckling ei-
member, and were generally largest at mid-span. Hence, the critical genmode. The buckling displacements of each of the three analyses
local and distortional buckling modes obtained from eigenvalue were then scaled using the scaling factors shown in Table 2 and
Table 2 between the channel sections at the connection points. The entire
Imperfection magnitudes of global, local and distortional buckling modes. model consisted of 31,474 elements.
Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3
Spatial plastic
mechanism
Local buckling
Distortional buckling
observed between the tests and shell element analyses for Frames 1 and analysis. Frequently, convergence failure occurred when large localized
3 for all imperfection cases, and for Frame 2 for imperfection Cases 1 and deformations developed, signaling the formation of a spatial plastic
2. For Frame 2 the discrepancy increases to 11% for imperfection Case 3 mechanism. At this point, the section capacity was reached and the
because of the large distortional imperfection present in the critical values of many tangent rigidities dropped to close to zero. Accordingly,
column of this frame, which was not modeled in imperfection Case 3. the beam element analysis could predict the pre-ultimate behavior and
Thus, ignoring the initial local and distortional buckling imperfections the ultimate capacity of the member but only a small part of the post-
causes an overestimation of the ultimate load for Case 3 for Frame 2. ultimate behavior. It follows that the load–displacement curves for the
The ultimate loads predicted by the beam element analysis were consis- beam element analysis shown in Figs. 11–16 do reach the ultimate
tently higher than the test strengths and shell element strengths. The capacity although this may not be apparent from the curves which
difference relative to the total strength was 2%, 16% and 5% for Frames appear to be increasing at the ultimate load.
1, 2 and 3 respectively. These differences are attributed to the smaller The experimental load versus horizontal displacement curves for
magnitude (0.012 mm) of distortional buckling imperfection assumed Frames 1 and 2 exhibits a rapid growth in sway deflection after distor-
in the a priori shell element analysis used to determine tangent rigidities tional buckling occurred, whereas a more moderate growth is observed
((EA)t, (EIz)t, (EIy)t, (EIw)t) compared to the measured values of imper- in the analyses.
fection (Table 2). This applies particularly to Frame 2. Figs. 11 and 13 indicate a significant difference in horizontal stiffness
The applied load versus apex horizontal and vertical deflections for between the analysis and experimental results for Frames 1 and 2. This
the shell and beam element analyses are compared with the test results can be explained by the difference in stiffness of the two eave joints in
in Figs. 11–16. Among the shell element results, the horizontal and ver- the tests. As per Section 5.2, in the tests, the effects of out-of-plumb
tical responses are almost identical between Case 1 and Case 2. Results and different eave joint stiffness were to cause overall displacements
from Case 3 show good agreement with Cases 1 and 2 for Frames 1 of the apex to occur in opposite directions and thus lead to a nearly
and 3, whereas for Frame 2, small discrepancies in the horizontal re- vertical slope of the horizontal displacement curve. However, in the
sponse are observed at loads close to the ultimate load. On the basis of analyses, the stiffness of the two eave joints was assumed to be equal.
these results, it is concluded that the impact of initial distortional buck- Since no horizontal load was applied to Frames 1 and 2, a difference in
ling imperfections on the results of the analysis is not significant when joint stiffness may have caused obvious deviations between the experi-
the imperfections are small, but can potentially not be ignored when mental and numerical results.
they are of a certain magnitude, say greater than the thickness of the Fig. 12 indicates good agreement between the numerically predicted
profile. The initial local buckling imperfections can be ignored as the and experimental load versus vertical apex displacement curves for
effect of such is negligible. Frame 1 until the load reaches its ultimate value. The FE models exhibit
The slopes of the horizontal and vertical deflection curves are similar slightly lower stiffness at the initiation of loading but slightly higher
between the results of the beam element and shell element analyses, stiffness near the ultimate load compared to the test, while the
which indicates that the determination of tangent rigidities in the
beam element analysis models was accurate. The ultimate loads of 100
the beam element analyses, however, are slightly higher than those of
the shell element analyses. Load–deflection curves extending well into 80
the post-ultimate range were not achieved for the beam element analy-
Applied load (kN)
Test 87 76 76
Shell element–case 1 83 (0.95) 78 (1.03) 76 (1.00) 0
Shell element–case 2 83 (0.95) 78 (1.03) 76 (1.00) 0 5 10 15 20
Shell element–case 3 83 (0.95) 84 (1.11) 77 (1.01) Displacement (mm)
Beam element 89 (1.02) 88 (1.16) 80 (1.05)
(*) represents ultimate capacity relative to test strength. Fig. 11. Load vs apex horizontal deflection curves for Frame 1.
X. Zhang et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 58–68 65
100 100
80 80
40 Test 40
Shell element - Case 1
Test
Shell element - Case 2
Shell element - Case 1
Shell element - Case 3
Shell element - Case 2 Beam element
Shell element - Case 3 20 20
Beam element
0 0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Fig. 12. Load vs apex vertical deflection curves for Frame 1. Fig. 14. Load vs apex vertical deflection curves for Frame 2.
experimental and numerical vertical displacements near the ultimate Fig. 17a shows the linear deformations of a portal frame for which
load are similar. Fig. 14 also shows good agreement between the vertical the stiffness of the south eave joint is larger than that of the north
displacements before reaching the ultimate load for Frame 2. Again the joint (KS N KN), as in the case of the test frames. The figure assumes
FE model displayed more significant nonlinearity compared to the test the out-of-plumb is zero. It follows that the apex displaces in the north-
frame. ern direction. Fig. 17b shows the linear deformations of a portal frame
Good agreement is observed between test and analyses for the load with an out-of-plumb in the southern direction, as in the case of the
versus horizontal and load versus vertical apex displacement curves for test frames. In this figure, the joint stiffness of the northern and south-
Frame 3, as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. The initial horizontal stiffness of ern eaves is assumed to be equal. As shown in Fig. 17b, the out-of-
the experiment is higher but the horizontal deflection then increases, plumb causes the apex to displace in the southern direction. Fig. 17c
and is close to that of the FE models when the applied load is more shows the linear deformations of a frame with unequal eave stiffness
than 20 kN. The ultimate loads of the shell element models and the and out-of-plumb, i.e. a superposition of the deformations shown in
test frame are essentially equal, and good agreement in horizontal stiff- Fig. 15a and b, from which it follows that the horizontal apex displace-
ness is also achieved in the post-ultimate range. The ultimate load of the ment is negligible initially.
beam element model, however, is 5% larger than that of the test frame. In an attempt to determine the real stiffness of the south eave joint of
the test frames (all constructed using the second bracket), the stiffness
5.2. Effect of unequal eave joint stiffness of this joint was increased by increasing the stiffness K1 (indicated in
Fig. 5) of the corresponding joint. The stiffnesses K2 and K3 did not
In the portal frame tests, the stiffness of the two eave joints was not need to be changed because it was verified in the portal frame analyses
identical because the brackets connecting the joints had slightly differ- that the joint always fell within the load range of the first (elastic) slope
ent dimensions, as explained in [6]. Of the two eave joints, one was of the moment–rotation curve. It was therefore decided to systematical-
the same as that used in the experiments conducted to determine the ly increase the stiffness K1 of the south eave joint for all frames and
joint stiffness, while the second was manufactured afterwards, and no compare the results with the tests to find the most appropriate K1
experiment was conducted to determine the stiffness of this joint. Dur- value. Table 5 shows the final moment–rotation relationship of the
ing the assembly of the test frames it was observed that the fit between south eave joint thus obtained, where the stiffness K1 of the south
the second bracket and the adjoining members was substantially tighter eave joint was increased by 34%, while K2 and K3 remained constant.
than the fit of the first bracket. This suggested that the rigidity of the Figs. 18–20 compare the horizontal deflections predicted by shell
eave joint assembled with the second bracket was larger than that element models with the experiments. It is obvious that overall, com-
measured in the eave joint tests. pared to the shell element models with equal eave joint stiffness, the
100 100
80 80
Applied load (kN)
60 60
Test
Test Shell element - Case 1
40 Shell element - Case 1 40 Shell element - Case 2
Shell element - Case 2 Shell element - Case 3
Shell element - Case 3 Beam element
Beam element
20 20
0 0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Fig. 13. Load vs apex horizontal deflection curves for Frame 2. Fig. 15. Load vs apex horizontal deflection curves for Frame 3.
66 X. Zhang et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 58–68
100 Table 5
Moment–rotation relations of eave joints.
80 K1 K2 K3 φ1 φ2 φ3
(kN.m/rad) (kN.m/rad) (kN.m/rad) (rad) (rad) (rad)
0
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Displacement (mm)
Δ Δ
KN KS KN KS
N S N S
KN KS
N S
100
80
40
Test
ABAQUS - equal-stiffness-Case 1
ABAQUS - unequal-stiffness-Case 1 20
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 19. Load vs apex horizontal deflection curves for Frame 2 with different eave stiffness. Fig. 22. Load vs apex vertical deflection curves for Frame 2 with different eave stiffness.
100 100
80 80
Vertical load (kN)
60 60
40 40
Test Test
ABAQUS - equal-stiffness-Case 1 ABAQUS - equal-stiffness-Case 1
ABAQUS - unequal-stiffness-Case 1 20 20
ABAQUS - unequal-stiffness-Case 1
0 0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Fig. 21. Load vs apex vertical deflection curves for Frame 1 with different eave stiffnesses. Fig. 23. Load vs apex vertical deflection curves for Frame 3 with different eave stiffness.
68 X. Zhang et al. / Structures 4 (2015) 58–68
References [8] Lim JBP, Nethercot DA. Ultimate strength of bolted moment-connections between
cold-formed steel members. Thin-Walled Struct 2003;41(11):1019–39.
[1] Schardt R. Verallgemeinerte technische biegetheorie. Berlin, (in German): Springer- [9] Chung KF, Lau L. Experimental investigation on bolted moment connections among
Verlag; 1989. cold formed steel members. Eng Struct 1999;21(10):898–911.
[2] Davies JM, Leach P, Heinz D. Second-order generalised beam theory. J Constr Steel [10] Zhang X, Rasmussen KJR, Zhang H. Beam-element-based analysis of locally and
Res 1994;31(2–3):221–41. distortionally buckled members: theory. [submitted for publication] Thin-Walled
[3] Basaglia C, Camotim D, Silvestre N. Global buckling analysis of plane and space thin- Struct 2015.
walled frames in the context of GBT. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(1):79–101. [11] Zhang X, Rasmussen KJR. Analysis of locally/distortionally buckled beams. SSRC
[4] Basaglia C, Camotim DD, Silvestre NN. Post-buckling analysis of thin-walled steel Annual Stability Conference. St. Louis, MO; 2013.
frames using generalised beam theory (GBT). Thin-Walled Struct 2013;62:229–42. [12] ABAQUS, Inc. ABAQUS. Ver. 6.8. analysis user's manual; 2009.
[5] Rasmussen KJR. Bifurcation of locally buckled members. Thin-Walled Struct 1997; [13] Zhang X, Rasmussen KJR, Zhang H. Experimental investigation of locally and
28(2):117–54. distortionally buckled portal frames. [submitted for publication] J Constr Steel Res
[6] Zhang X. Steel Portal Frames with Locally Unstable Members. the University of 2015.
Sydney; 2014[PhD thesis].
[7] AS/NZS4600. Cold-formed Steel Structures, AS/NZS 4600. Sydney: Standards
Australia; 2005.