4.5 Article

Bending strength of hot-rolled elliptical hollow sections

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 9, 页码 971-986

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.11.001

关键词

bending; cross-section classification; elliptical hollow sections; flexure; laboratory testing; numerical modelling; oval hollow sections; slenderness limits; steel structures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent emergence of hot-rolled elliptical hollow sections (EHS) within the construction industry has attracted considerable interest from structural engineers and architects. Comprehensive structural design rules are now required to facilitate their wider application. This paper focuses on the bending strength of hot-rolled elliptical hollow sections; the results of detailed experimental and numerical studies are presented and structural design rules for EHS in bending about the major and minor axes are proposed. A total of 18 in-plane bending tests in three-point and four-point configurations have been performed. All tested specimens had an aspect ratio of two. Full moment-rotation and moment-curvature histories were derived, including into the post-ultimate range. The experimental results were replicated by means of non-linear numerical modelling. Following careful validation of the models, parametric studies were performed to assess the structural response of EHS over a wider range of aspect ratios (between one (CHS) and three) and cross-section slendernesses. For design, cross-section slenderness parameters have been proposed and a set of classification limits in harmony with those given in Eurocode 3 for circular hollow sections (CHS) has been derived. A new Class 3 limit has also been proposed for both EHS and CHS. An interim effective section modulus formula for Class 4 (slender) elliptical hollow sections based on BS 5950-1 has also been developed. Further investigation into effective section modulus formulations is currently underway. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据