A numerical study of prestressed high strength steel tubular members

doi:10.1007/s11709-019-0547-1

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2020, Vol. 14

Issue (1) : 10-22 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0547-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A numerical study of prestressed high strength steel tubular members

Michaela GKANTOU¹(

), Marios THEOFANOUS²(

), Charalampos BANIOTOPOULOS²(

)

¹. Department of Civil Engineering, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
². Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

Download: PDF(1066 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

The structural behavior of prestressed high strength steel (HSS) tubular members is investigated through the execution of advanced finite element modeling. Numerical models are developed and validated against published experimental data on HSS tubular members subjected to different levels of initial prestress and loaded either in tension or compression. The effect of the presence or absence of grouting on the strength and ductility of the members is also considered. To numerically replicate the structural response recorded in the tests, some key modeling features including the employed numerical solver, the adopted material models and the element types warrant careful consideration. Upon developing of the finite element models, the numerically generated ultimate loads, the corresponding failure modes and the full load-deformation curves are compared to the experimental ones, indicating a successful validation. As anticipated, prestressing enhances the load-bearing capacity for the tensile members, whereas it is detrimental for the compressive ones. A series of parametric studies is performed to assess the influence of key factors on the structural response of prestressed HSS members and the obtained results are discussed. Design guidance for tensile and compressive prestressed tubular members is also provided.

Keywords finite element prestressing tubular members grout high strength steel

Corresponding Author(s): Michaela GKANTOU,Marios THEOFANOUS,Charalampos BANIOTOPOULOS

Online First Date: 24 July 2019 Issue Date: 21 February 2020

Cite this article:

Michaela GKANTOU,Marios THEOFANOUS,Charalampos BANIOTOPOULOS. A numerical study of prestressed high strength steel tubular members[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 10-22.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-019-0547-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2020/V14/I1/10

specimen	prestress level
tensile members (T)	no cable (NG)
	a cable with $P nom$ prestress (NG0)
	a cable with 0.5 $P opt$ prestress (NG1)
	a cable with $P opt$ prestress (NG2)
tensile grouted members (TG)	0.5 $P opt$ (G1)
	$P opt$ (G2)
compressive members (C)	no cable (NG)
	a cable with $P opt$ prestress (NG2)
compressive grouted members (CG)	$P nom$ (G0)
	0.5 $P opt$ (G1)
	$P opt$ (G2)

Tab.1 Summary of the developed numerical models

Fig.1 Material properties. (a) Tube; (b) cable; (c) grouting.

Fig.2 Typical FE models. (a) Tensile non-grouted member; (b) compressive grouted member.

specimen	$N u,FE / N u,Exp$
T460NG	1.02
T460NG0	1.06
T460NG1	0.98
T460NG2	1.04
T460G1	0.98
T460G2	0.95
T690NG	0.94
T690NG0	0.98
T690NG1	0.94
T690NG2	0.97
T690G1	0.93
T690G2	0.94
mean	0.98
COV	0.04

Tab.2 Tensile specimens—comparison of numerical and experimental [¹⁴] ultimate loads

Fig.3 Tensile specimens—comparison of numerical and experimental [¹⁴] load-deformation responses. (a) T460NG; (b) T460G2; (c) T690NG0; (d) T690G2.

specimen	$N u,FE / N u,Exp$ (imperfection magnitude)
specimen	measured	L/3000	L/2000	L/1500	L/1000	L/750
C460NG0	1.02	1.08	1.06	1.05	1.00	0.96
C460NG2	0.90	1.12	1.01	1.01	0.95	0.91
C460G0	1.10	1.16	1.14	1.11	1.04	1.00
C460G1	1.17	1.33	1.28	1.25	1.19	1.15
C460G2	1.17	1.30	1.17	1.17	1.14	1.06
C690NG0	0.95	0.96	0.95	0.94	0.92	0.91
C690NG2	0.88	0.91	0.89	0.88	0.86	0.83
C690G0	0.91	0.91	0.90	0.88	0.86	0.84
C690G1	0.93	1.02	1.00	0.99	0.96	0.94
C690G2	0.88	0.83	0.80	0.80	0.78	0.76
mean	0.99	1.06	1.02	1.01	0.97	0.93
COV	0.12	0.16	0.14	0.14	0.13	0.12

Tab.3 Compressive specimens—comparison of numerical and experimental [¹⁴] ultimate loads

Fig.4 Compressive specimens—comparison of numerical and experimental [¹⁴] load-deformation responses. (a) C460NG0; (b) C460G0; (c) C690NG0; (d) C690G1.

Fig.5 Numerically obtained failure modes. (a) T690NG; (b) C690NG2; (c) comparison of experimental [¹⁴] and numerical failure mode.

Fig.6 Effect of the prestress level. (a) Tensile members; (b) compressive members.

Fig.7 Grouting’s effect. (a) Tensile members; (b) compressive members.

Fig.8 Effect of the grouting’s grade in compressive specimens. (a) Stress vs strain of groutings; (b) load vs midspan displacement.

Fig.9 Effect of the tube’s steel grade. (a) Tensile members; (b) compressive members.

Fig.10 Effect of

A c / A t

in tensile specimens. (a) Load vs axial displacement; (b) increase of system’s load vs

A c / A t

1	G Magnel. Prestressed steel structures. Structural Engineer, 1950, 28(11): 285–295
2	E I Belenya. Prestressed Load-Bearing Metal Structures. Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1977
3	P E Ellen. US Patent, 4,676,045, 1987
4	M J Clarke, G J Hancock. Simple design procedure for the cold-formed tubular top chord of stressed-arch frames. Engineering Structures, 1994, 16(5): 377–385 https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(94)90031-0
5	M J Clarke, G J Hancock. Tests and nonlinear analyses of small-scale stressed-arch frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1995, 121(2): 187–200 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:2(187)
6	F Madrazo-Aguirre, A M Ruiz-Teran, M Ahmer Wadee. Dynamic behaviour of steel-concrete composite under-deck cable-stayed bridges under the action of moving loads. Engineering Structures, 2015, 103: 260–274 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.09.014
7	B Belletti, A Gasperi. Behavior of prestressed steel beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2010, 136(9): 1131–1139 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000208
8	M A Wadee, L Gardner, A I Osofero. Design of prestressed stayed columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 80: 287–298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.09.021
9	K B Han, S K Park. Parametric study of truss bridges by the post-tensioning method. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2005, 32(2): 420–429 https://doi.org/10.1139/l04-096
10	K Lee, Z Huque, S Han. Analysis of stabilizing process for stress-erection of Strarch frame. Engineering Structures, 2014, 59: 49–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.09.043
11	M E Ellen, J Gosaye, L Gardner, M A Wadee. Design and construction of long-span post-tensioned tubular steel structures. Tubular structures XIV, 2012, 687–693
12	J Gosaye, L Gardner, M A Wadee, M E Ellen. Compressive behaviour and design of prestressed steel elements. Structures, 2016, 5: 76–87 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.09.001
13	J Gosaye, L Gardner, M Ahmer Wadee, M E Ellen. Tensile performance of prestressed steel elements. Engineering Structures, 2014, 79: 234–243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.009
14	J Wang, S Afshan, L Gardner. Axial behaviour of prestressed high strength steel tubular members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2017, 133: 547–563 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.03.002
15	Pt-technology. Creators of Super Powerful Structures, 2019
16	F Zhou, L Tong, Y Chen. Experimental and numerical investigations of high strength steel welded H-section columns. International Journal of Steel Structures, 2013, 13(2): 209–218 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-013-2001-x
17	H Ban, G Shi, Y Shi, M A Bradford. Experimental investigation of the overall buckling behaviour of 960 MPa high strength steel columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 88: 256–266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.05.015
18	Y B Wang, G Q Li, S W Chen, F F Sun. Experimental and numerical study on the behavior of axially compressed high strength steel box-columns. Engineering Structures, 2014, 58: 79–91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.10.013
19	D K Kim, C H Lee, K H Han, J H Kim, S E Lee, H B Sim. Strength and residual stress evaluation of stub columns fabricated from 800MPa high-strength steel. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 102: 111–120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.07.007
20	J Wang, S Afshan, N Schillo, M Theofanous, M Feldmann, L Gardner. Material properties and compressive local buckling response of high strength steel square and rectangular hollow sections. Engineering Structures, 2017, 130: 297–315 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.023
21	M Gkantou, M Theofanous, N Antoniou, C Baniotopoulos. Compressive behaviour of high strength steel cross-sections. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Structures and Buildings, 2017, 170(11): 813–824 https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.16.00101
22	J Wang, S Afshan, M Gkantou, M Theofanous, C Baniotopoulos, L Gardner. Flexural behaviour of hot-finished high strength steel square and rectangular hollow sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016, 121: 97–109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.01.017
23	M Gkantou, M Theofanous, J Wang, C Baniotopoulos, L Gardner. Behaviour and design of high strength steel cross-sections under combined loading. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Structures and Buildings, 2017, 170(11): 841–854 https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.16.00114
24	M Gkantou, M Theofanous, C Baniotopoulos. On the structural response of high strength steel prestressed trusses. A numerical approach. In: the Proceedings of the 11th HSTAM International Congress on Mechanics. Athens, Greece, 2016, 27–30
25	Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. ABAQUS, ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, 2010
26	L Gardner, D A Nethercot. Experiments on stainless steel hollow sections- Part 1: Material and cross-sectional behaviour. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2004, 60(9): 1291–1318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2003.11.006
27	G C Manos, M Theofanous, K Katakalos. Numerical simulation of the shear behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular beam specimens with or without FRP-strip shear reinforcement. Advances in Engineering Software, 2014, 67: 47–56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.08.001
28	ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318–99). Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute, 1999
29	A B M Abdullah, J A Rice, H R Hamilton, G R Consolazio. An investigation on stressing and breakage response of a prestressing strand using an efficient finite element model. Engineering Structures, 2016, 123: 213–224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.05.030
30	S Okazawa, T Usami, H Noguchi, F Fujii. Three-dimensional necking bifurcation in tensile steel specimens. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2002, 128(4): 479–486 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:4(479)
31	British Standard. EN 1993-1-1. BS EN 1993-1-1: 2005+A1:2014, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London: BSI, 2014
32	European Standard. EN 1994-1-1. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: CEN, 2004

[1]	Alireza GHAVIDEL, Mohsen RASHKI, Hamed GHOHANI ARAB, Mehdi AZHDARY MOGHADDAM. Reliability mesh convergence analysis by introducing expanded control variates[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 1012-1023.
[2]	Iman FATTAHI, Hamid Reza MIRDAMADI, Hamid ABDOLLAHI. Application of consistent geometric decomposition theorem to dynamic finite element of 3D composite beam based on experimental and numerical analyses[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 675-689.
[3]	Rwayda Kh. S. AL-HAMD, Martin GILLIE, Safaa Adnan MOHAMAD, Lee S. CUNNINGHAM. Influence of loading ratio on flat slab connections at elevated temperature: A numerical study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 664-674.
[4]	Guoqiang LI, Yifan LYU, Yanbo WANG. State-of-the-art on resistance of bearing-type bolted connections in high strength steel[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 569-585.
[5]	Yi RUI, Mei YIN. Finite element modeling of thermo-active diaphragm walls[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 646-663.
[6]	Mohammad Abubakar NAVEED, Zulfiqar ALI, Abdul QADIR, Umar Naveed LATIF, Saad HAMID, Umar SARWAR. Geotechnical forensic investigation of a slope failure on silty clay soil—A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 501-517.
[7]	Farhoud KALATEH, Farideh HOSSEINEJAD. Uncertainty assessment in hydro-mechanical-coupled analysis of saturated porous medium applying fuzzy finite element method[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 387-410.
[8]	Lingyun YOU, Kezhen YAN, Nengyuan LIU. Assessing artificial neural network performance for predicting interlayer conditions and layer modulus of multi-layered flexible pavement[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 487-500.
[9]	Weihua FANG, Jiangfei WU, Tiantang YU, Thanh-Tung NGUYEN, Tinh Quoc BUI. Simulation of cohesive crack growth by a variable-node XFEM[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 215-228.
[10]	Jordan CARTER, Aikaterini S. GENIKOMSOU. Investigation on modeling parameters of concrete beams reinforced with basalt FRP bars[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1520-1530.
[11]	Fei GAO, Zhiqiang TANG, Biao HU, Junbo CHEN, Hongping ZHU, Jian MA. Investigation of the interior RC beam-column joints under monotonic antisymmetrical load[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1474-1494.
[12]	Yonghui WANG, Ximei ZHAI. Development of dimensionless P-I diagram for curved SCS sandwich shell subjected to uniformly distributed blast pressure[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1432-1445.
[13]	Xiao YAN, Zizheng SUN, Shucai LI, Rentai LIU, Qingsong ZHANG, Yiming ZHANG. Quantitatively assessing the pre-grouting effect on the stability of tunnels excavated in fault zones with discontinuity layout optimization: A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1393-1404.
[14]	Vahid ALIZADEH. Finite element analysis of controlled low strength materials[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1243-1250.
[15]	Alireza FARZAMPOUR, Matthew Roy EATHERTON. Parametric computational study on butterfly-shaped hysteretic dampers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1214-1226.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed