Choe Lisa, Zhang Chao, Luecke William E, Gross John L, Varma Amit H
Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA, Tel: +1-301-975-5644.
Guest Researcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
Fire Technol. 2017 Jan;53(1):375-400. doi: 10.1007/s10694-016-0568-4. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
Finite-element (FE) analysis was used to compare the high-temperature responses of steel columns with two different stress-strain models: the Eurocode 3 model and the model proposed by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The comparisons were made in three different phases. The first phase compared the critical buckling temperatures predicted using forty seven column data from five different laboratories. The slenderness ratios varied from 34 to 137, and the applied axial load was 20-60 % of the room-temperature capacity. The results showed that the NIST model predicted the buckling temperature as or more accurately than the Eurocode 3 model for four of the five data sets. In the second phase, thirty unique FE models were developed to analyze the W8×35 and W14×53 column specimens with the slenderness ratio about 70. The column specimens were tested under steady-heating conditions with a target temperature in the range of 300-600 °C. The models were developed by combining the material model, temperature distributions in the specimens, and numerical scheme for non-linear analyses. Overall, the models with the NIST material properties and the measured temperature variations showed the results comparable to the test data. The deviations in the results from two different numerical approaches (modified Newton Raphson vs. arc-length) were negligible. The Eurocode 3 model made conservative predictions on the behavior of the column specimens since its retained elastic moduli are smaller than those of the NIST model at elevated temperatures. In the third phase, the column curves calibrated using the NIST model was compared with those prescribed in the ANSI/AISC-360 Appendix 4. The calibrated curve significantly deviated from the current design equation with increasing temperature, especially for the slenderness ratio from 50 to 100.
采用有限元(FE)分析方法,对比了钢柱在两种不同应力-应变模型下的高温响应:欧洲规范3模型和美国国家标准与技术研究院(NIST)提出的模型。对比分三个不同阶段进行。第一阶段,使用来自五个不同实验室的47个柱体数据,对比预测的临界屈曲温度。长细比在34至137之间变化,施加的轴向荷载为室温承载力的20%-60%。结果表明,对于五个数据集中的四个,NIST模型预测的屈曲温度与欧洲规范3模型一样准确或更准确。在第二阶段,开发了30个独特的有限元模型,以分析长细比约为70的W8×35和W14×53柱体试件。柱体试件在稳态加热条件下进行测试,目标温度范围为300-600°C。通过结合材料模型、试件中的温度分布以及非线性分析的数值方案来开发模型。总体而言,具有NIST材料特性和实测温度变化的模型显示的结果与试验数据相当。两种不同数值方法(修正牛顿拉夫森法与弧长法)结果的偏差可忽略不计。欧洲规范3模型对柱体试件的性能做出了保守预测,因为其在高温下保留的弹性模量小于NIST模型。在第三阶段,将使用NIST模型校准的柱体曲线与ANSI/AISC-360附录4中规定的曲线进行了比较。随着温度升高,校准曲线与当前设计方程有显著偏差,特别是对于长细比在50至100之间的情况。