Scribd
Upload
22 views

KBC 2016 Example 002

The document summarizes the analysis of a built-up wide flange column under axial compression using ETABS software. The column geometry, material properties, and loads are defined. ETABS is used to check for section compactness, calculate the warping constant, and determine the member compression capacity considering slenderness reduction. The ETABS results are then compared to independent hand calculations, showing exact agreement between the two methods.

Uploaded by

C Y Lee (Keith)
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

KBC 2016 Example 002

The document summarizes the analysis of a built-up wide flange column under axial compression using ETABS software. The column geometry, material properties, and loads are defined. ETABS is used to check for section compactness, calculate the warping constant, and determine the member compression capacity considering slenderness reduction. The ETABS results are then compared to independent hand calculations, showing exact agreement between the two methods.

Uploaded by

C Y Lee (Keith)
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS


REVISION NO.: 0

KBC 2016 Example 002

BUILT UP WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,
column shown below. An axial load of 300 kips (D) and 900 kips (L) is applied to
a simply supported column with a height of 5m.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED


 Section compactness check (compression)
 Warping constant calculation, Cw
 Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

KBC 2016 Example 002 - 1


Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from
ETABS.

Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Compactness Slender Slender 0.00%

cPn (kN) 2056.7 2056.7 0.00 %

COMPUTER FILE: KBC 2016 EX002

CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

KBC 2016 Example 002 - 2


Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:
Material:
E = 205,000 MPa, Fy =345 MPa

Section: Built-Up Wide Flange


d = 432 mm, bf = 203 mm, tf = 25 mm, h = 382 mm, tw = 7 in.
Ignoring fillet welds:

A = 2(203)(25) + (382)(7) = 128.24 cm2


2(25)(203)3 (382)(7)3
Iy    34.867 E 06 mm3
12 12
Iy 34.867 E 06
ry    52.1 mm.
A 12824
I x   Ad 2   I x

Cw  1443463.1 cm6
bt 3
J   216.1 cm4
3
Member:
K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition
L=5m

Loadings:

Pu = 1.2(300) + 1.6(700) = 1800 kN

Section Compactness:
Check for slender elements using Specification KBC 2016:

-3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Localized Buckling for Flange:


b 101.5
   4.06
t 25
E 205, 000
 p  0.38  0.38  9.263
Fy 345
   p , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:


h 382
   54.57 ,
t 7
E 205, 000
r  1.49  1.49  36.32
Fy 345
  r , Localized web buckling
Web is Slender.
Section is Slender

Member Compression Capacity:


Elastic Flexural Buckling Stress
Since the unbraced length is the same for both axes, the y-y axis will govern by
inspection.

KLy 1.0  5000


  95.97
ry 52.1
 2E  2  205, 000
Fe   = 219.68 MPa
 95.97 
2 2
 KL 
 
 r 

Elastic Critical Torsional Buckling Stress


Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included
here to illustrate the calculation.

-4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

  2 EC w  1
Fe    GJ 
 K z L   Ix  Iy
2

  2  205, 000 1443463.1E 06  1


Fe    78846.15  216.1E 04 
 5000    45338  3486.7  E 04
2

= 588 MPa > 288.84 MPa

Therefore, the flexural buckling limit state controls.

Fe = 220 MPa

Section Reduction Factors

Since the flange is not slender,


Qs = 1.0

Since the web is slender,


Take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0

E 205, 000 KLy


4.71  4.71  114.8   95.97
QFy 1.0  345  ry

So
 QFy
  1.0 345

f  Fcr  Q 0.658  Fy  1.0 0.658 220   345  178.98MPa
Fe

   

E  0.34 E 
be  1.92t 1    b, where b  h
f  b t  f 
205, 000  0.34 205, 000 
be  1.92  7  1    359.12 mm
178.98   382 7  178.98 
be  359.12 mm  382 mm

therefore compute Aeff with reduced effective web width.


Aeff  betw  2b f t f   359.12  7   2  203 25   12663.84 mm 2
where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.

-5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Aeff 12663.84
Qa    0.9875
A 12824
Q  Qs Qa  1.00  0.9875   0.9875

Critical Buckling Stress


Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies

E 205, 000 KLy


4.71  4.71  138.47   95.97
QFy 0.9875  345  ry

Therefore, Specification Equation E7-2 applies.

E KL
When 4.71 
QFy r
 QFy
  0.9875 345 

Fcr  Q 0.658  Fy  0.9875 0.658 220   345  178.2 MPa
Fe

   

Nominal Compressive Strength

Pn  Fcr Ag  12824 178.2  2285236.8 N


c  0.90
c Pn  Fcr Ag  0.90  2285.24   2056.7 kN > 1800 kN

-6

You might also like