4.7 Article

Numerical modelling and fire design of stainless steel hollow section columns

Journal

THIN-WALLED STRUCTURES
Volume 144, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2019.106243

Keywords

Column buckling; Fire design; Numerical modelling; Reliability analysis; Stainless steel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, the elevated temperature buckling performance and design of cold-formed square, rectangular and circular hollow section columns made of stainless steel is studied through a numerical modelling investigation. The finite element analysis software Abaqus was employed to perform the simulations, where the validity of the models was established by replicating the results of flexural buckling tests at both elevated and room temperatures from literature test programmes. In total, twelve square (SHS) and rectangular (RHS) hollow section columns tested at elevated temperature and eleven circular (CHS) hollow section columns tested at room temperature were simulated. Following this, a comprehensive numerical parametric investigation was performed to systematically assess the effect of variation of the governing parameters including the grade of stainless steel (austenitic, duplex and ferritic) and the elevated temperature member slenderness ((lambda) over bar (theta) = 0.1-2.0) for all considered cross-section shapes with the addition of the aspect ratio of the cross-section (h/b = 1.0 and 1.5) and the column axis of buckling (major and minor) for the SHS and RHS. The applicability and accuracy of the design methods recommended in EN 1993-1-2 and the Design Manual for Stainless Steel Structures were carefully assessed on the basis of the numerical flexural buckling performance results. New buckling formulations for the fire design of cold-formed stainless steel SHS/RHS and CHS columns were proposed, and their suitability was confirmed by means of reliability analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available