Plastic Analysis of Additional loading applied to

Continuous Beams1 the fully plastic structure

would lead to collapse.
Increasing the applied load until
yielding occurs at some locations
Design of structures based on
will result in elastic-plastic defor-
the plastic or limit state
mations that will eventually reach
approach is increasingly used
a fully plastic condition.
and accepted by various codes of
Fully plastic condition is practice, particularly for steel
defined as one at which a construction. Figure 1 shows a
s fficient number
sufficient n mber of plastic t pical stress
typical stress-strain
strain curve
c r e for mild
hinges are formed to transform steel and the idealized stress-
the structure into a mecha- strain response for performing
nism, i.e., the structure is plastic analysis.
geometrically unstable.
1 2
1See pages 142 – 152 in your class notes.

ULTIMATE MOMENT
σ
rupture Consider the beam shown in Fig.
x 2. Increasing the bending
σy
moment results in going from
idealized
elastic cross section behavior
(Fig. 2(a)) to yield of the
outermost fibers (Figs. 2(c) and
(d)) and finally the two yield
ε zones meet (Fig. 2(e)); the
εy
cross section in this state is
Figure 1. Mild Steel Stress- defined to be fully plastic.
Strain Curve

σy = yield stress
εy = yield strain
3 4

Also see pages 142 - 152 in your class notes.

1
 The ultimate moment is
determined in terms of the yield
stress σ y .
Since the axial force is zero in
this beam case, the neutral axis
in the fully plastic condition
divides the section into two
equal areas, and the resultant
tension and compression are
each equal to σ y A/2, forming a
Figure. 2. Stress distribution in a sym- couple equal to the ultimate
metrical cross section subjected to a plastic moment Mp
bending moment of increasing magni-
tude: (a) Cross section, (b) Elastic, (c) M p = 12 σ y A (yc + y t ) (1)
Top fibers plastic, (d) Top and bottom
fibers plastic, and (e) Fully plastic 5 6

The maximum moment which a ct = distance from neutral axis

section can resist without to the extreme tension fiber
exceeding the yield stress
(defined as the yield moment cc = distance from neutral
My) is the smaller of axis to the extreme com-
pression fiber
M y = σ y St (2a) I = moment of inertia
M y = σ y Sc (2b)
α = Mp/My > 1 = shape factor
St = tension section modulus = 1.5 for a rectangular
( ≡ I / ct ) section
Sc = compression section = 1.7 for a solid circular
modulus ( ≡ I / cc ) section
= 1.15 – 1.17 for I- or C-
7 section 8

2
PLASTIC BEHAVIOR OF A P
L
SIMPLE BEAM 2

If a load P at the mid-span of a

L
simple beam (Fig. 3) is
(a) Loaded Beam
increased until the maximum
mid-span moment reaches the Mp
fully plastic moment Mp, a plastic
hinge is formed at this section
and collapse will occur under (b) Plastic BMD
any further load increase. Since
this structure is statically deter
deter- PC
minate, the collapse load PC can
θ θ
easily be calculated to give 2θ Δ
(c) Plastic Mechanism
PC = 4M p / L (3)
9
Figure 3. Simple Beam 10

The collapse load of the beam

can be calculated by equating
the external and internal work
during a virtual movement of
the collapse mechanism (this
approach is equally applicable
to the collapse analysis of sta-
tically indeterminate beams).
Equating the external virtual
work We done by the force PC to
the internal virtual work Wi
done by the moment Mp at the
Plastic Hinge Along the plastic hinge:
Length of the Simple Beam

11 12

3
 ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF
Lθ FIXED-ENDED BEAM
We = Wi ⇒ PC = M p (2θ)
2 Consider a prismatic fixed-ended
⇒ PC = 4M p / L beam subjected to a uniform
load of intensity q (Fig. 4(a)).
which
hich is identical to the res
result
lt
given in (3). Figure 4(b) shows the moment
diagram sequence from the yield
moment My

q y L2
M y = σ y S(≡ ) =
I
c 12
12 M y
⇒ qy =
L2
through the fully plastic condition
13 in the beam. 14

q
(a) The collapse mechanism is
shown in Fig. 4(c) and the col-
L lapse load is calculated by equa-
Mp ting the external and internal
virtual works, i.e.
⎛ q L ⎞ Lθ
(b) 2⎜ C ⎟ = M p (θ+ 2θ+ θ)
⎝ 2 ⎠ 4
My My
16 M p
Mp Mp ⇒ qC =
L2
qC Sequence of Plastic Hinge
(c) Formation:
Δ θ θ
2θ
(1) Fixed-end supports – maxi-
mum moment (negative)
Figure 4. Fixed-Fixed Beam (2) Mid-span – maximum positive
15
moment 16

4
 Mp = constant
ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF P P
L L (a)
A 3 D
CONTINUOUS BEAMS 2
E F
Next consider the three span B C
L L L
continuous beam shown in Fig. 5
with each span having a plastic PC1
moment capacity of Mp. Values
(b)
of the collapse load correspond-
θ θ
ing to all possible mechanisms Δ1
2θ
are determined; the actual
PC2
collapse load is the smallest of ((c))
the possible mechanism Δ2 θ β
collapse loads. θ+β

Figure 5. (a) Continuous Beam

(b) Mechanism 1
17
(c) Mechanism 2 18

For this structure, there are two Figure 5(c) (Δ2 = Lθ/3):
possible collapse mechanisms
are shown in Figs. 5(b) and (c). ⎛ Lθ ⎞
Using the principle of virtual work PC2 ⎜ ⎟ = M p (θ + θ +β)
(We = Wi) for each mechanism
⎝ 3 ⎠
leads to 2Lβ
= Δ 2 = Lθ
3 3
Figure 5(b) (Δ1 = Lθ/2):
⇒ β= θ
2
⎛ Lθ ⎞
PC1 ⎜ ⎟ = M p (θ + 2θ + θ) ⎛ Lθ ⎞ 5M pθ
⎝ 2 ⎠ ∴ PC2 ⎜ ⎟ =
⇒ PC1 = 8M p / L ⎝ 3 ⎠ 2
⇒ PC2 = 15M p / 2L

19 20

5
The smaller of these two values P qL = P
L
is the true collapse load. Thus, 2
q (a)
PC = 7.5Mp/L and the corres- 1
2
2Mp Mp
ponding bending moment
diagram is shown below. L L

PC
When collapse occurs, the (b)
part of the beam between A
and C is still in the elastic θ θ Δ1
range. 2θ

Mp qC (c)
M < Mp

A B C Δ2 θ β
E D θ+β
F
L1
-M > -Mp -Mp Figure 6. (a) Continuous Beam
Collapse BMD 21 (b) Mechanism 1 22
(c) Mechanism 2

Mechanism 1:
P Lθ
The two span continuous beam We = PC Δ1 = C
shown in Fig. 6 exhibits some
2
unique considerations: Wi = 2M pθ+ 2M p (2θ) + M pθ
= 7M pθ
1.the plastic moment capacity of
span 1-2 is different than the 14M p
plastic moment capacity of
We = Wi ⇒ PC = (A)
L
span 2-3; and
2.the location of the p
positive
moment plastic hinge in span M h i
Mechanism 2:
2
2-3 is unknown. Δ Δ
We = q C L1 2 + q C (L − L1) 2
2 2
Δ
23
= qCL 2 24
2

6
 Wi = M pθ+ M p (θ+β) The problem with this solution
for qCL is that the length L1 is
L1θ = Δ 2 = (L − L1) β unknown.
L1 L1 can be obtained by differen-
⇒ β= θ
L − L1 titiating
ti both
b th sides
id off qCL with
ith
respect to L1 and set the result to
⎛ 2L − L1 ⎞ zero, i.e.
∴ Wi = ⎜ ⎟ M pθ
⎝ L − L1 ⎠ d(q CL) −2L1(L − L1)
= M
∴ We = 1 q C LL1θ 2 2 p
2 dL1 (L1) (L − L1)
2(2L − L1) (L − 2L1)
We = Wi − Mp
(L1)2 (L − L1)2
2 ⎛ 2L − L1 ⎞
⇒ qCL = M p (B) = 0
L1 ⎜⎝ L − L1 ⎟⎠ (C)
25 26

Solving (C) for L1: Comparing the result in (A) with

(E) and for qL = P shows that the
2L21 − 8LL1 + 4L2 = 0 failure mechanism for this
beam structure is in span 2-3.
8L ± (8L) 2 − 4(8L2 )
⇒ L1 =
4
= 2L − 2 L M < 2Mp
L1
= 0.5858L (D) Mp

Substituting (D) into (B):

-M > -2Mp -Mp

11.66 M p
qCL =
L BMD for Collapse Load qC
(E)
27 28

7
 Direct Procedure to capacity at end C is Mp2 and the
Calculate Positive Moment plastic positive moment capacity is
Plastic Hinge Location for Mp3.
Unsymmetrical Plastic
Mp1 ≤ Mp3; Mp2 ≤ Mp3
M
Moment t Diagram
Di
Consider any beam span that is Mp3
loaded by a uniform load and the
resulting plastic moment diagram is x
unsymmetric. Just as shown
above the location of the maximum -M
Mp11
positive moment is unknown. For -Mp2
example, assume beam span B – L1
C is subjected to a uniform load L
and the plastic moment capacity at
end B is Mp1, the plastic moment29 30

The location of the positive plastic Solving for a and b from (ii) and
moment can be determined using (iii):
the bending moment equation
−(M p1 + M p3 )
M(x) = ax2 + bx + c a=
L21
and appropriate boundary
conditions. 2(M p1 + M p3 )
b=
(i) x = 0: M = -Mp1 = c L1
(ii) x = L1: M = Mp3 = aL12
+ bL1 + c

⇒ aL12 + bL1 = Mp3 + Mp1

(iii) x = L1: dM/dx = 0 = 2aL1 + b 31 32

8
(iv) x = L: ⎛L⎞
M = -Mp2 = aL2 + bL + c ⎜ ⎟ =1
⎝ L1 ⎠
= -(Mp1+ Mp3)(L/L1)2
4(Mp1 + Mp3)2 − 4(Mp1 − Mp2)(Mp1 + Mp3)
+ 2(Mp1+ Mp3) (L/L1) - Mp1 ±
2(Mp1 + Mp3)

0 = -(Mp1+ Mp3)(L/L1)2 ⎛ Mp1 −Mp2 ⎞

= 1 ± 1− ⎜ ⎟
+ 2(Mp1+ Mp3) (L/L1) ⎝ Mp1+Mp3 ⎠

- Mp1+ Mp2
Solving the quadratic equation: L
∴ L1 =
⎛ M p1 − M p2 ⎞
1+ 1− ⎜ M + M ⎟
⎝ p1 p3 ⎠

33 34

EPILOGUE
The process described in these
notes and in the example pro-
blems uses what is referred to as
an “upper bound” approach;
i e any assumed mechanism can
i.e.,
provide the basis for an analysis.
The resulting collapse load is an
upper bound on the true col-
lapse load. For a number of
trial mechanisms, the lowest
computed
p load is the best
upper bound. A trial mecha-
nism is the correct one if the
corresponding moment
diagram nowhere exceeds the
plastic moment capacity. 35