Project Report:

Residual Capacity of Dented Short Steel

Tubular Columns
Aayush
B’tech 3rd year

1
 Motivation
Impact

• Thin-walled tubular sections are often subjected to accidental loading:->Collision

->Heavy object impact
->Improper handling
Accidental Loading Geometric defects Capacity Reduction
• Square steel tubular sections are extensively used (compared to circular), due to construction ease.
• Extensive research has been carried out for circular columns but not much work has been done for square
columns.
• This study aims to estimate the residual capacity of damaged square tubular specimens in axial
compression, using some empirically derived equations. 2
 Parametric study-Axial load of dented short columns
Studying residual capacity of dented short columns using Abaqus.

2 step analysis Denting

Compression
Indenter
Diameter

Tube Tube
Size Thickness

Parameters
Side Sphere
Indent Indenter
Location Shape
Corner Cylinder
Residual Dent
3
Depth
 Preliminary Findings
Capacity Factor=Dented capacity/Original
1
Capacity
1
0.9
0.9
0.8

Capacity Factor
0.8
0.7
Capacity Factor

0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0
0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Size of indenter (mm)
Size of indenter (mm)
Corner dent Side dent Spherical Indenter Cylindrical Indenter
Reduction in capacity : Corner dent < Side dent Reduction in capacity : Cylindrical Indenter > Spherical Indenter

The critical case is side denting with cylindrical indenter

Therefore adopting Side denting with Cylindrical
indenter for our study. 4
 Specimen ID
S300-thick14-C40-Dent17.5
Size of tube=300 mm Diameter of cylinder = 40 mm
Thickness of tube=14 mm Residual dent = 17.5 mm

Cross-Section of Tube

5
300 mm
Additional information
• Mesh size adopted for tube is 7 mm , using mesh convergence study.
• Mesh size adopted for cylinder is 6 mm
• Mesh size adopted for plates is 20 mm
• Residual dent/thickness(δ/t) has been maintained const.-> 1.25,2.5,3.75,5
• Length of tube/size of tube -> constant~ 1.95
• Peak Reaction Force obtained is taken as axial capacity of column.
1200000

1100000
Axial load(N)

1000000

900000

800000

700000
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Mesh size (mm)
6
 Mesh convergence
• Performed for anticipated worst case scenario.
• Worst case -> Minimum tube thickness , smallest diameter of indenter
• 10 mm residual dent
• S150 mm tube – 5 mm thick- C10
• Axial load capacity obtained was observed for mesh convergence.
1200000

1100000

Axial load(N)
1000000
Adopted mesh size is 7 mm , taking trade off between
Accuracy and computation time. 900000

800000

700000
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Mesh size (mm) 7
 Parametric Study
• From the tests conducted by Sangani and Agarwal(2024) ,the FE model
created was verified .
• Various parameters were then identified and parametric study was
conducted by varying the parameters one at a time , keeping the rest
constant .
• Python scripting was used to assist in finding out the required displacement
given to indenter for a particular residual indent.

Boundary
Model Materials Denting Compression
conditions

Ref :Prithvi Sangani, Anil Agarwal, A comprehensive methodology for residual capacity evaluation of damaged steel tubular columns
, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 216, 2024, 108625, ISSN 0143-974X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2024.108625. 8
Test matrix
Indenter diameter(mm) Tube thickness(mm) Tube size(mm) Residual dent depth(mm)
10 150 1.25* thickness
40 Tube size dependent 220 2.5* thickness
80 300 3.75* thickness
120 450 5*thickness
Your text here

Residual dent depth (mm)

C10 Thickness 5 mm 6.25 12.5 18.75 25

C40
S150 Thickness 8 mm 10 20 30 40
C80

Thickness 10 mm 12.5 25 37.5 50

C120

9
 S150
Capacity factor vs indentation plotted for Constant tube size 150mm and thickness 5,8,10 mm

Thickness 5 Thickness 8 Thickness 10

0.9
0.8 0.9
0.8
0.7 0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6

Capacity Factor
0.6
Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor
0.5
0.5 C10
0.5
0.4 C40
0.4 C80
0.4
0.3 0.3
C120
0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Indentation (mm) Indentation(mm) Indentation (mm) 10

Observations:
• Cylinder dimensions marginally effect the load capacity.
: This means that for a constant indentation the lever arm of the load
P
gets fixed and dimensions don’t matter.
P* δ gets fixed and
δ Therefore the moment gets fixed

• The rate of capacity reduction is becoming less with increasing

indentation.
• More confidence about these facts can be obtained by observing
11
plots for other tubes
 S220
Capacity factor vs indentation plotted for Constant tube size 220mm and thickness 5,8,10 mm

Thickness 5 Thickness 8 Thickness 10

0.9 0.8
0.9
0.8 0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6 0.7
0.6
Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor
0.5 0.6
0.5 C10
0.5
0.4 C40
0.4
0.4 C80
0.3 0.3 C120
0.3
0.2 0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Indentation(mm) Indentation (mm) Indentation (mm)

12
 Thickness 6 Thickness 10
0.9
0.8 0.8
Capacity Factor

0.7 0.7

Capacity Factor
0.6 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
C10
C40 S300
0.3 0.3 C80
0.2 0.2 C120
0.1 0.1
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Indentation (mm) Indentation (mm)

0.9 Thickness 8 Thickness 12 0.8 Thickness 16
0.8
0.8 0.7 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.6 C10
Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor
0.6
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.4 0.4 C40
0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
S450
0.2 0.2 0.2 C80
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0 C120
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Indentation(mm) Indentation(mm) Indentation(mm) 13
 Conclusions
• Diameter of the indenter has minimal effect on Capacity Factor
• As the depth of indentation increases, Capacity Factor decreases
• For same indentation depth and size of the tube, higher the
thickness, higher the Capacity Factor

14
 Normalized plots (indent/thickness)(δ/t)
• S150 •0.9S220
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7

0.6 0.6

Capacity Factor
Capacity Factor

C10
0.5 0.5
C40
C10 C40
0.4 0.4 C80
C80 C120 C120
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
δ/t δ/t 15
 Normalized plot (indent*tube size/thickness)
0.9

0.8

0.7
f(x) = − 0.000107909489587828 x + 0.725902534890612
0.6 R² = 0.495901390987341
Capacity Factor

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Sδ/t

Proposed Equation : Capacity Factor=-0.0001*(Sδ/t)+0.7259 (Still better equation is being tried out)
C80 has been chosen as the representative indenter for the plot. 16
 Our analysis Published Paper
Our analysis Published Paper
0.9 700
0.8 600
0.7 f(x) = − 0.000107909489587828 x + 0.725902534890612 f(x) = − 0.108241996775713 x + 549.940171750138
R² = 0.495901390987341 500 R² = 0.562115409078578
Capacity Factor

0.6

Load(kN)
400
0.5
0.4 300

0.3 200
0.2 100
0.1
0
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Sδ/t
Sδ/t

Ref: T. Ghanbari Ghazijahani, H. Jiao, D. Holloway Experimental study on damaged cylindrical shells under compression
17
Thin-Walled Struct., 80 (2014), pp. 13-21, 10.1016/j.tws.2014.02.029
Further work to be done
• Fitting a better equation to find capacity factor in terms of
independent variables.
• Extending this study to long/slender columns.
• Doing the similar work for combination of axial load and moment.

18
 Final Conclusions
• Side dent has more influence compared to corner dent
• Cylindrical dent has more influence compared to spherical dent
• Diameter of cylindrical indenter has marginal influence
• As the indent depth increases, the CF decreases
• Proposed an equation for estimating the residual capacity of dented
square tubes (Capacity Factor=-0.0001*(Sδ/t)+0.7259)

19
20