Ultimate response of stainless steel continuous beams

Theofanous, Marios; Saliba, Najib; Zhao, Ou; Gardner, Leroy

doi:10.1016/j.tws.2014.01.019

Cited by 47 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the basis of the findings, revised slenderness limits for cross-section classification [24] and new effective width formulae for slender sections [15] have been proposed. Theofanous et al [25] conducted two-span continuous beam tests on austenitic and duplex stainless steel sections to enable the influence of moment redistribution within statically indeterminate beams to be examined. As highlighted by previous researchers, the general codified approach of limiting the design stress to the 0.2% proof stress, and ignoring the pronounced strain hardening exhibited by stainless steels can lead to greatly underestimated cross-sectional resistances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour of structural stainless steel cross-sections under combined loading – Part I: Experimental study

Zhao

Rossi

Gardner

et al. 2015

Engineering Structures

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stainless steel has been gaining increasing use in a variety of engineering applications due to its unique combination of mechanical properties, durability and aesthetics. Significant progress in the development of structural design guidance has been made in recent years, underpinned by sound research. However, an area that has remained relatively unexplored is that of combined loading. Testing and analysis of stainless steel cross-sections under combined axial load and bending is therefore the subject of the present paper and the companion paper [1]. The experimental programme covers both austenitic and duplex stainless steels, and five cross-section sizes including three square hollow sections (SHS) and two rectangular hollow sections (RHS). In total, five stub column tests, five four-point bending tests, 20 uniaxial bending plus compression tests and four biaxial bending plus compression tests were carried out to investigate the cross-sectional behaviour of stainless steel tubular sections under combined loading. The initial loading eccentricities for the Zhao, O., Rossi, B., Gardner, L., & Young, B. (2015). Behaviour of structural stainless steel cross-sections under combined loading -Part I: Experimental study. Engineering Structures, 89, 236-246. Improved design rules for stainless steel cross-sections under combined loading are also sought through extension of the deformation-based Continuous Strength Method (CSM).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour of structural stainless steel cross-sections under combined loading – Part I: Experimental study

Zhao

Rossi

Gardner

et al. 2015

Engineering Structures

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, when more ductile stainless steel families, such as austenitic and lean duplex, are considered, accurate ultimate capacity estimations are obtained through plastic design methods, and CSM for indeterminate structures provides the best predictions of the collapse loads, as demonstrated in [4] and [7]. Therefore, some additional tests and parametric studies on stockier cross-sections are crucial for extending this study to ferritic stainless steel grades.…”

Section: Assessment Of Design Methods and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to predict accurately the collapse loads of stocky stainless steel continuous elements, considering moment redistribution and strain hardening, Theofanous et al [4] assessed the applicability of the new design method developed by Gardner et al [7], the CSM for indeterminate structures. The method assigns the full CSM cross-sectional resistance to the critical plastic hinge and allows a degree of strain hardening for the rest of the hinges.…”

Section: New Design Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For sections S1, S4-Mj and S5-Mi, the ultimate bending capacities were between the elastic and plastic bending capacities, so they can be classified as class 3. A minimum rotation capacity R > 3 is adopted for guaranteeing moment redistribution in carbon steel cross-sections, and the same limit is usually required for stainless steels since no specific limit is provided, as noted in Theofanous et al [4]. Therefore, the remaining cross-sections might be considered class 2 as they reach the plastic moment capacities, but their rotation capacity is < 3.…”

Section: Simply Supported Beam Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tests on ferritic stainless steel simply supported and continuous SHS and RHS beams

Arrayago¹,

Saladrigas²,

Arrizabalaga³

2015

Tubular Structures XV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYDevelopment of efficient design guidance for stainless steel structures (considering nonlinear behaviour, strain hardening and allowing for moment redistribution in indeterminate structures) is crucial for the widespread use of this corrosion-resistant material. This paper presents an experimental programme involving ferritic stainless steel simply supported and continuous beams (RHS and SHS) and the assessment of existing cross-sectional classifications and different plastic design methods available in the literature for indeterminate stainless steel structures, not currently allowed in stainless steel standards. The analysis indicated that some cross-sectional classification limits seem to be too optimistic for ferritic stainless steels and further research is needed in order to extend plastic design to these grades.

show abstract

“…Hence, the importance of moment redistribution in indeterminate aluminium alloy structures is considered herein through the study of two-span continuous beams. Theofanous et al [14] reported that when considering moment redistribution in stainless steel continuous beams, the design capacities were found to be improved by around 10% and offer more accurate prediction of the test response. However, although structural design guidance is widely available for aluminium alloys, global plastic design is generally not permitted in international specifications such as the Aluminium Design Manual [15] and Australian/New Zealand Standards [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexural response of aluminium alloy SHS and RHS with internal stiffeners

Young²,

Gardner

2016

Engineering Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tubular profiles, such as square and rectangular hollow sections (SHS and RHS) are widely used in a range of structural engineering applications. Their thin-walled nature means that local buckling is a key design concern, which is usually addressed by adhering to specified slenderness limits. An alternative approach is to employ local plate stiffeners, which can be practically achieved in extruded aluminium alloy sections through the introduction of internal cross stiffeners. The flexural behaviour and design of aluminium alloy SHS and RHS with internal stiffeners is the subject of investigation of the present paper. The primary aims of the study are to generate experimental and numerical data for these new types of cross-section in bending, as well as to assess the applicability of different approaches to their design at cross-sectional and system levels. First, an experimental investigation was performed on aluminium alloy SHS and RHS beams with internal stiffeners subjected to three-point bending, four-point bending and five-point bending (i.e. continuous beams over three supports) of three different configurations. Finite element (FE) models were also developed and validated against the presented test data. Once validated, the models were employed to generate additional data through numerical parametric studies. Comparisons are then made between the experimental/numerical capacities and the Su, M., Young, B. and Gardner, L. (2016), "Flexural resistance of aluminium alloy SHS/RHS with internal stiffeners", Engineering Structures, design capacities predicted using international design specifications for aluminium alloy structures, as well as the continuous strength method (CSM). The design strengths predicted by the American and Australian/New Zealand specifications were found to be conservative, while improved predictions were achieved by Eurocode 9. The most accurate and consistent predictions were obtained using the CSM, which was able to capture the significant observed strain hardening at the cross-sectional level and moment redistribution at the global system level.

show abstract

Ultimate response of stainless steel continuous beams

Cited by 47 publications

References 21 publications

Behaviour of structural stainless steel cross-sections under combined loading – Part I: Experimental study

Behaviour of structural stainless steel cross-sections under combined loading – Part I: Experimental study

Tests on ferritic stainless steel simply supported and continuous SHS and RHS beams

Flexural response of aluminium alloy SHS and RHS with internal stiffeners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About