Steel Design by Advanced Analysis: Material Modeling and Strain Limits

Gardner, Leroy; Yun, Xiang; Fieber, Andreas; Macorini, Lorenzo

doi:10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.026

Cited by 71 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only cross-section capacity checks will typically be required when the structure is simulated using beam elements, and a geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis with imperfections (GMNIA) is employed. An alternative to carrying out cross-section checks is to limit the maximum strain that arises in the structure based on the local slenderness of the adopted cross-sections [34,90]; the maximum strain can be determined from the CSM base curve [31,32].…”

Section: Design By Advanced Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and design of stainless steel structures – Review and outlook

Gardner

2019

Thin-Walled Structures

Self Cite

257

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Design By Advanced Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and design of stainless steel structures – Review and outlook

Gardner

2019

Thin-Walled Structures

Self Cite

257

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recently, a more consistent design approach based on geometrically and materially nonlinear structural analysis, also referred to as advanced inelastic analysis, using beam finite elements together with strain limits has been proposed [2]. The strain limits are determined from the continuous strength method [3] and are used to mimic the effects of local buckling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of this design approach is assessed herein against benchmark shell finite element models and conventional design according to EN 1993-1-1 [1] for structural steel members subjected to bending, compression and combined loading. While individual members are the focus of the present paper, application of the proposed method to indeterminate systems and frames is described in [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A novel approach for structural steel design based on geometrically and materially nonlinear analysis including imperfections, also referred to as GMNIA or advanced inelastic analysis, with strain limits has recently been proposed [2] and is developed further herein. In the proposed approach, the continuous strength method (CSM) [3] strain limits are used to mimic local buckling in beam finite elements and hence, structures with cross-sections of all classes can be designed using advanced analysis; previously this has only been possible with more sophisticated shell FE models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, while for slender cross-sections withλ p > 0.68, local buckling occurs prior to yielding and the CSM strain limit is given by Eq (2)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Design of structural steel members by advanced inelastic analysis with strain limits

Fieber

Gardner

Macorini

2019

Engineering Structures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural steel design is traditionally a two step process: first, the internal forces and moments in the structure are determined from a structural analysis. Then, a series of design checks are carried out to assess the strength and stability of individual members. The structural analysis is typically performed using beam finite elements, which are usually not able to capture local buckling explicitly. Instead, the assessment of local buckling and rotation capacity is made through the concept of cross-section classification, which places class-specific restrictions on the analysis type (i.e. plastic or elastic) and defines the cross-section resistance based on idealised stress distributions (e.g. the plastic, elastic or effective moment capacity in bending). This approach is however considered to be overly simplistic and creates artificial 'steps' in the capacity predictions of structural members. A more consistent approach is proposed herein, whereby a second-order inelastic analysis of the structure or structural component is performed using beam finite elements, and strain limits are employed to mimic the effects of local buckling, control the spread of plasticity and ultimately define the structural resistance. The strain limits are obtained from the continuous strength method. It is shown that not only can local buckling be accurately represented in members experiencing uniform cross-sectional deformations along the length, but, by applying the strain limits to strains that are averaged over a defined characteristic length, the beneficial effects of local moment gradients can also be exploited. The proposed method is assessed against benchmark shell finite element results on isolated members subjected to bending, compression and combined loading. Compared to conventional steel design provisions and even to existing advanced design approaches utilising second-order elastic analysis, the proposed design approach provides consistently more accurate capacity predictions.

show abstract

Equivalent bow imperfections for design by second order inelastic analysis

Walport¹,

Gardner²,

Nethercot³

2021

ce papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stability of compression members is typically assessed through buckling curves, which include the influence of initial geometric imperfections and residual stresses. Alternatively, the capacity can be obtained more directly by carrying out a second order analysis using equivalent bow imperfections that account for both geometric imperfections and residual stresses. For design by second order elastic analysis, following EN 1993‐1‐1 recommendations, the magnitudes of the equivalent bow imperfections can either be back‐calculated for a given member to provide the same result as would be obtained from the member buckling curves or taken more simply as a fixed proportion of the member length. In both cases, a subsequent linear axial + bending cross‐section check is required. For design by second order inelastic analysis, there are currently no suitable recommendations for the magnitudes of equivalent bow imperfections and, as demonstrated herein, it is not generally appropriate to use equivalent bow imperfections developed on the basis of elastic analysis. Equivalent bow imperfections suitable for use in design by second order inelastic analysis are therefore established in the present paper and shown to yield reliable results when compared to benchmark results and current design guidance.

show abstract

Steel Design by Advanced Analysis: Material Modeling and Strain Limits

Cited by 71 publications

References 19 publications

Stability and design of stainless steel structures – Review and outlook

Stability and design of stainless steel structures – Review and outlook

Design of structural steel members by advanced inelastic analysis with strain limits

Equivalent bow imperfections for design by second order inelastic analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About