|
|
Comparisons
against experimental and classical results
A
number of comparisons have been made with classical analytical results
and tests. Some of these relate to ambient temperature behaviour,
and although Vulcan
is intended primarily for use in modelling the structural response
to high temperatures, it can also be used at a constant temperature
but under increasing load to analyse conventional conditions for
which classical solutions are available. The
comparisons described below cover the following cases:
Plastic
analysis of an asymmetric beam at ambient temperature

Vulcan
has been used to analyse the load-deflection behaviour of an asymmetric
beam at ambient temperature. Details of the beam and the analytical
results are shown in the figure, compared with the moment capacity
of the section based on a simple plastic analysis. These indicate
that, as the load is increased, the deflection increases, gradually
in the first instance but increasingly rapidly as the moment capacity
is approached. The point at which deflections might be regarded as
running away compares very closely with the idealised plastic moment
capacity, indicating that Vulcan
models collapse behaviour well.
Large
deflection analysis of a cantilever beam at ambient temperature
This
classical example of an elastic cantilever loaded at its free end
was used to check the representation of geometrical non-linearity.
Fig. 2 shows the effect of increasing the applied load (P) up to
a maximum deflection of almost half of the span. The comparisons
with theoretical solutions[1]
for this example are very good, and it is clear that, for large
deflections, the inclusion of geometrical non-linearity is very
important.
Ambient
temperature tests on simply supported composite beams with partial
interaction

The
results of ambient temperature tests on two simply supported composite
beams[2]
with partial interaction are compared with analytical results in
this figure. It is evident that the analytical predictions are
in good agreement with test results. The degree of composite action
is clearly very important for the beams - the maximum load capacity
with no interaction is less than half of that for full-interaction.
Simply
supported composite beams tested using ISO834 standard fire
The
results of two ISO834 standard fire tests on simply supported composite
beams[3] are
compared with analytical results in these figures.
They
show reasonable agreement, particularly in view of the uncertainties
associated with fire testing. For example, there is little data concerning
temperature variation along the length of the beam, simple support
conditions are very difficult to produce in a furnace at high temperatures
and high deflections, and some assumptions have been made concerning
material properties.
The
nominal ambient temperature values of material properties reported
were: compressive strength of concrete 30N/mm2; yield
strength of steel 255 N/mm2; and yield strength of reinforcing
steel 600 N/mm2. The ultimate shear strength of the
studs was assumed as 350 N/mm2.
A
standard fire test was conducted at the Warrington Fire Research
Centre in 1996[4]
on a simply supported composite 280ASB100 asymmetric beam with normal-weight
Grade 30 concrete cast onto deep-deck profiled sheeting with an
A142 mesh. The yield stress of the steel, measured by tensile tests
on coupons, was 402N/mm². The Vulcan
analysis used a composite beam model including the slab, and
the measured material properties and temperature profiles. The
comparisons of mid-span deflections are shown in the figure, and
are in close agreement.
Full
scale fire test on the Slimdek floor system

The
Building Research Establishment (BRE) conducted a full-scale fire
test on a composite Slimdek floor[5]
extending across two bays of 6109mm in both directions. The slab
was supported on a steel structure consisting of 254x254UC73 columns,
280ASB100 asymmetric beams and T-section (191x229x49) beams. The
steel grade throughout was BSEN10025 S355 and C30concrete was used.
The 295mm deep composite slab was cast on top of a SD225 deck. A
single 20mm diameter reinforcing bar (Grade 460) was placed in each
rib, and a uniformly distributed load of 6.88kN/m² was applied. The
analytical results for the two beams are compared with the test results
in the figure, and are in very good agreement.
References |
| 1. |
Gere,
J.M. and Timoshenko, S.P., ‘Mechanics of Materials’,
Third Edition, PWS-Kent Publishing Company, 1984. |
| 2. |
Yam,
L. C. P. & Chapman, J. C., 'The inelastic behaviour of simply
supported composite beams of steel and concrete', J. Inst.
Civ. Engrs., 41(1) (1968) pp651-683. |
| 3. |
Wainman,
D.E. and Kirby, B.R., 'Compendium of UK Standard Fire Test Data
Unprotected Structural Steel-1', British Steel Corporation, Ref.
No. RS/RSC/S10328/1/87/B, Swinden Laboratories, Rotherham. |
| 4. |
Wainman,
D.E. and Martin, D.M., ‘Preliminary Assessment of the Data
Arising from a Standard Fire Resistance Test Performed on a Slimflor
beam at the Warrington Fire research Centre on 14th February,
1996’, Technical Note SL/HED/TN/S2440/4/96/D, British Steel
Swinden Technology Centre, March 1996. |
| 5. |
Lennon, T.,
‘Full Scale Fire Test on a Slimdek Floor System,’
BRE Client Report TCR 30/99, November 1998. |
|