Tampere University of Technology, Finland Research...

TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Faculty of built environment, Department of structural engineering

Research Centre of Metal Structures, Seinäjoki, Hämeenlinna, Finland

17.04.2012 STIFF, London, Markku Heinisuo 1

Tampere University of Technology, Finland Research Centre of Metal Structures

Hämeenlinna

Tampere

Seinäjoki




3D applications of component method for end plate joints Markku Heinisuo, Henri Perttola, Hilkka Ronni

Idea: Very generic method of Eurocode 3 to design of joints, component method, extended to design of joints in 3D loads.

Papers: Heinisuo M., Laine V., Lehtimäki E., Enlargement of the component method into 3D. Proceedings of Nordic Steel

Construction Conference, Luleå Unversity of Technology, SBI, Publication 181, Malmö, Sweden, September 2-4, 2009, pp. 430-437.

Perttola H., Heinisuo M.: 3D component method for base bolt joint. in: Yardimci N., Aydöner A., Gures H., Yorgun C. (Eds.), Steel Structures: Culture & Sustainability, Turkish Constructional Steelwork Association (TUSCA), Istanbul, 2010, pp. 361-368.

Perttola H., Ronni H., Heinisuo M., 3D component method for steel joint design, XII International Conference on „Metal Structures” Wroclaw, Poland, 15th‐17th June 2011.

Heinisuo M., Ronni H., Perttola H., Experimental study of end plate joints of tubular structures in biaxial bending and component method applications, Eurosteel conference, Budabest, 1-2 September, 2011.

Heinisuo M., Laasonen M., Ronni H., Anttila T.: Integration of joint design of steel structures using product model. In: Walid T., (Ed.), Proceedings of The International Conference: Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, 2010, pp. 323-324.

Heinisuo M., Laasonen M., Haapio J., BIM based manufacturing cost estimation of building products, In: Menzel K., Scherer R. (Eds.), eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, ECPPM, CRC Press/Balkema, London, 2010, pp. 53-59.

Test reports see: www.metallirakentaminen.fi




3D applications of component method for end plate joints

We try to manage with the components of Eurocodes as far as possible. Propose more components, if needed. Compression, corner bolts, so far.





Verification: Tests (own and others) and continuum FEM (ABAQUS)

Example 1: Base bolt joint. Strategy of the solution: Test results for strong axis bending are available, Laplume et al. 2000. HEA200 column with four base bolts. FEM model constructed so that corresponds to tests well. The same FEM model used for other axis bending. Results compared to rake model results.





Example 1: How to calculate displacements from the continuum FEM? Strategy: Our component model is located at the top surface of the base plate. At the shear

center of the joined member. Calculate axial displacement distribution u(s) by FEM. We want to fit these to the member end displacements (*), which are calculated

using Vlasov’s theory.





Example 1: How to calculate displacements from the continuum FEM? Strategy continues: We use L2-norm as Gunnlaughsson and Pedersen, 1982. We end up to the generalized joint displacements. Integration over the cross-section of the member end.

( ) ( )[ ]∫ =−A

* mindAsusu 2





Example 1: Results





Example 1: Base bolt joint, number of potential compression components => 3 is enough





Example 2: Beam to column end plate joint. Strategies as before Test results for strong axis bending in fire are available, Al-Jabri, 1999.





Example 2: Beam to column end plate joint. FEM Test of Al Jabri





Example 2: Active components in weak axis bending





Example 2: Weak axis bending in ambient conditions





Example 3: Splice joint of tubular members in bi-axial bending





Example 3: Corner bolt mechanisms not available in Eurocodes. We used the following.

30°

Wald et al, 2000without prying

Laine, 2008without prying without prying

Mechanism 9Mechanism 8 Mechanism 10

Mechanism 10

with pryingWheleer et al, 1997

Mechanism 8

with prying

30°

with prying

Mechanism 9

x

=

= =

= =

=

.

e

e

m

m

b

B

p r

12

75°





Example 3: Test from Australia and own tests. Own tests: 21 for steel and 8 for aluminum in ambient and 2 for steel in fire. Ambient Fire





Example 3: Own tests.




-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Splice A

TE1

TE7

My [kNm]

Mx [kNm]

Method 1 Method 2

M35°

M0°

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Splice B

TE2

Method 1Method 2

Method 1

M35°

My [kNm]

Mx [kNm]

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Splice C

TE3

TE8

My [kNm]

Mx [kNm]

M35°

M0°


Example 3: Tests versus rake model in ambient conditions.





Example 3: Tests versus rake model in fire.





Example 3: Stiffness model for corner bolts needed!





Conclusions Locigal extension of the component model to 3D works well especially for resistances. Stiffness of corner bolts needs special attention. Compression/tension only springs => non-linear global analysis (as in 2D). Grouping of tension bolts may require extra iterations. Can be implemented into BIM using open API available in BIM programs => stiffness of joints is automatically taken into account in the global frame analysis. After that resistance checks can be automatized, too. More research needed for different members and joint layouts.

Tampere University of Technology, Finland Research...

Documents

Transcript of Tampere University of Technology, Finland Research...