3.1. Example of LC-1 Beams
In this example, lip channel LC-1 beams of the dimensions listed in
Table 1 were analyzed. Alternations in values of the critical moment
Mr as a function of the buckling half-wavelength
Lb in a wide variability range 100 ≤
Lb ≤ 10,000 mm are presented in
Figure 2.
The lower curve (denoted as curve 1) corresponds to the lowest values of buckling loads, often referred to as primary buckling loads. The upper curve (marked as curve 2) refers to higher critical values, which can be called secondary buckling loads.
The value of the critical moment Mr (curve 1) for the variability range under consideration attains its maximum at Lb = 100 mm and the minimum at Lb ≈ 350 mm, and then it grows monotonously up to Lb ≈ 1000 mm, where it reaches the local maximum. Within the range 1000 ≤ Lb ≤ 10,000 mm, values of the moment decrease monotonously. The critical values corresponding to curve 2 grow in the range 100 ≤ Lb ≤ 350 mm and attain the maximal value at Lb ≈ 350 mm. Next, in the range 350 ≤ Lb ≤ 1000 mm, they decrease drastically to attain the minimal value for Lb ≈ 1000 mm. Within the range 1000 ≤ Lb ≤ 4000 mm, curve 2 grows slowly, and at Lb > 4000 mm, it is constant in practice. While comparing curves 1 and 2, one can state that for Lb ≈ 350 mm the lower curve attains its minimum, whereas the upper one attains its maximum, and then at Lb ≈ 1000 mm, an opposite relation takes place. At Lb > 4000 mm, the drop gradient of curve 1 is significantly lower than for 1000 ≤ Lb ≤ 4000 mm, whereas the values corresponding to curve 2 are actually constant.
In
Table 2, critical values of the moments
Mr for the LC-1 subject to bending for selected four values of the total length
L are presented. The following index notations are introduced: 1—the lowest value of the buckling moment corresponding to the local buckling mode for
m ≠ 1, 2—the value of the primary global buckling mode for
m = 1 (curve 1 in
Figure 2), 3—the value of the secondary global buckling mode for
m = 1 (curve 2 in
Figure 2). For the local moment
M1, a number of half-waves
m along the longitudinal direction is quoted additionally in the brackets.
For the lengths of LC-1 under consideration, the values of the critical moment M1 do not alter significantly (less than 10%). The values of M3 are at least sixfold higher than M1. At the length L ≈ 2050 mm, the value M1 ≈ M2, whereas, at L = 1500 mm, we have M2/M1 = 1.6, and for L = 500 mm it is M2/M1 = 1.16. At the length L = 250 mm, the lowest critical value was attained for the local mode M1 and for one buckling half-wave (m = 1). Therefore, the critical value M2 corresponding to the global mode was not given. The value M3 is almost 14 times higher than M1 and also occurs for m = 1.
In
Figure 3a–d, for the lengths of LC-1 beams considered in
Table 2, the buckling modes corresponding to the three modes under analysis, except
L = 250 mm, for which only two modes (i.e., mode 1 and mode 3) are considered, are shown.
For the three shortest lengths, the local mode 1 (
r = 1) is the same (
Figure 3a–c). The upper corner connecting the flange under tension with the web and the edge reinforcement does not displace practically. The maximal deflection corresponds to the compressed flange corner with the edge reinforcement. At the length
L = 2050 mm (
Figure 3d), the local mode is different. The maximal deflection occurs for the lower part of the web under compression, and both corners of the compressed flange displace. Local modes correspond to distortional-local buckling modes.
At
L = 500 mm (
Figure 3b), the lowest global mode (at
r = 2) is identical to the local mode. For the lengths
L = 1500 mm and
L = 2050 mm (
Figure 3c,d), the global mode represents distortional-lateral buckling because right angles are not maintained in the corners of cross-sections of the elements under compression. The secondary global mode (
r = 3) is subject to alternations with an increase in the length of LC-1. For
L = 200 mm, the maximal deflection occurs for the web. Only the corner connecting the lower edge reinforcement with the flange under compression displaces (
Figure 3a). For other lengths, the lower corner connecting the flange with the web also displaces and there is a slight displacement of the corner connecting the web with the flange under compression. At
L = 500 mm (
Figure 3b), the maximal displacement corresponds to lower corners, whereas, at
L = 1500 mm and
L = 2050 mm (
Figure 3c,d), the modes differ slightly. The secondary global modes correspond more to the distortional-global modes than the distortional-lateral ones.
In the nonlinear analysis of interactive buckling, the signs of complex absolute values of imperfections of each mode were selected in the safest way, i.e., to attain the lowest value of the limit load carrying capacity
Ms [
11,
12,
13,
14] in (A4). For actual LC-section beams, post-buckling equilibrium paths were determined on the assumption in (A4) that
,
,
.
For the lengths
L under consideration,
Table 2 also lists values of the limit load carrying capacity referring to the lowest value of the critical moment
Mmin =
M1, and accounts for
Ms1/
Mmin for a three-mode approach (i.e.,
J = 3 in (A4)) and
Ms2/
Mmin for a two-mode approach (i.e.,
J = 2). At
L = 250 mm, due to the fact that both modes occur for
m = 1, it was assumed on the contrary that
. For this length, interaction between buckling modes (denoted by indices
r = 1 and
r = 3) does not take place within the loading range
M/Mmin under analysis.
In
Figure 4, on the basis of Equation (A6), a plot of
M/Mmin versus the angle
is presented. Curve 1 corresponds to a one-mode analysis, that is to say, when only the mode
J =
r = 1 is considered, whereas curve 2 corresponds to a two-mode analysis for
J = 2 (for
r = 1 and
r = 3).
These curves overlap in the range of variability of
M/Mmin under analysis. At
L = 500 mm (
Table 2 and
Figure 5), when the interaction of the three modes is taken into account, we have the limit value of
Ms1/
Mmin, whereas, for an interaction of two modes (i.e.,
J = 2 for
r = 1 and
r = 2), the theoretical limit load carrying capacity was not obtained.
As shown in
Figure 5, curve 1 corresponds to the interaction of three modes, whereas curve 2 corresponds to the interaction of two modes, respectively. For
L = 1500 mm,
Ms1/
Mmin is approximately 2% lower than for
Ms2/
Mmin. The lowest values of load carrying capacity were attained at
L = 2050 mm and they are practically the same for the two- and three-mode approach.
The strongest interaction of the local mode (r = 1) with the global one (r = 2) occurs for the case when the critical loads are close to each other, i.e., when the relationship 0.8 ≤ M2M1 ≤ 1.2 holds. When M2/M1 ≈ 1, as known from the literature, the load carrying capacity often satisfies the relation 0.6 ≤ MsM1 ≤ 0.7. For L = 2050 mm, M2/M1 = 1.007 and Ms1/M1 ≈ 0.675 occur and, for L = 1500 mm, M2/M1 = 1.60 and Ms1/M1 = 0.773 occur, correspondingly, whereas, for L = 500 mm, M2/M1 = 1.16 and Ms1/M1 ≈ 0.768 occur, respectively. As can be expected, an interaction of three modes yields lower values of the load carrying capacity than an interaction of two modes.
An interaction of buckling modes [
11,
12] takes place via the coefficients of cubic terms
in the expression for total potential energy (A3). Thus, values of the coefficients
for all lengths
L under study were analyzed. For a short beam of
L = 250 mm, the terms including the coefficients
in (A3) are very low and buckling can be treated as uncoupled (i.e., one-mode) for the loads
M/Mmin under consideration. It is also due to very considerable differences in values of critical loads, because
M3/
M1 ≈ 14. At
L = 500 mm, the terms
,
decide the interaction, whereas, for
L = 1500 mm and
L = 2050 mm, these are the terms
,
.
In Reference [
19], local imperfections were taken as in the present work, whereas global imperfections were assumed for selected buckling modes, and their level was close to that assumed here. In Reference [
19], for various global imperfections and at
L = 2050 mm,
Ms/Mmin = 0.864 was attained, and, in this work,
Ms1/
Mmin = 0.675 was attained.
3.2. Example of LC-2 Beams
The geometrical dimensions of the LC-2 beam are listed in
Table 2.
Figure 6 shows a change in the critical bending moment
Mr [MNcm] as a function of the buckling half-wavelength
Lb in the range 100 ≤
Lb ≤ 10,000 mm.
Curve 1 corresponds to the lowest critical values of the bending moment, i.e., the primary buckling moments, whereas curve 2 corresponds to the secondary buckling moments. Curve 1 decreases in the range 100 ≤ Lb ≤ 400 mm, and then it increases up to the maximal value at Lb = 1500 mm. For higher lengths Lb, the critical moment decreases monotonously. On the other hand, curve 2 grows monotonously for 100 ≤ Lb ≤ 500 mm to attain its maximal value at Lb = 500 mm. At 500 ≤ Lb ≤ 1500 mm, it decreases sharply to grow next in the range 1500 ≤ Lb ≤ 4000 mm, and then the critical values remain constant for Lb ≥ 4000 mm in point of fact.
To sum up, curve 1 attains its local minimum at Lb ≈ 400 mm, curve 2 has its maximum at Lb ≈ 500 mm, curve 1 attains its maximum and curve 2 its minimum at Lb ≈ 1500 mm.
In
Table 3 the results for the assumed four total lengths of LC-2 beams are collected. The index notations were the same as in example 3.1 (LC-1). For the assumed lengths, values
M1 are lower and are actually the same except for the shortest beam of the length
L = 250 mm. At
L = 250 mm and
L = 400 mm, the moment
M1 corresponds to the number of half-waves
m = 1. Thus, as for LC-1, the values of
M2 corresponding to the global mode are not given. On the other hand, the values of
M3 for the secondary mode, at which
m = 1, are given. For the assumed lengths
L, we have
M3/
M1 > 6, and, for two longest beams, it is
M2/
M1 ≥ 1.5. Hence, for the lengths under consideration, sensitivity to imperfections decreases in comparison to example 3.1 (LC-1).
In
Figure 7a–d, buckling modes for LC-2 are shown. The local buckling mode (mode 1) for the four assumed lengths is the same.
The deflection maximum lies in the corner of the compressed flange and reinforcement. The secondary global mode (mode 3) for L = 250 mm and L = 400 mm is the same. The maximal deflection takes place in the web. At L = 2000 mm, mode 3 is similar to the local mode. Additionally, only displacements of the corner connecting the web with the flange under compression can be observed. At L = 700 mm and mode 3, the maximal deflection of the web is slightly higher than the displacement of lower corners. For this length, the global mode (curve 2) is identical to the local mode (curve 1), while for L = 2000 mm, mode 2 corresponds to the distortional-lateral buckling mode, as there are no right angles in lower corners. Thus, all buckling modes (curves 1, 2, 3) are distortional modes.
In
Table 3, the values of the ratio of the limit load carrying capacity to the minimal critical value for two- (
J = 2) and three- (
J = 3) mode approaches,
Ms2/
Mmin and
Ms1/
Mmin, respectively, are given. Like in example 3.1, the same values of imperfections were assumed.
For the lengths L = 250 mm and L = 400 mm, limit values were not attained. For these lengths as for LC-1, it was assumed that , as m = 1. For the remaining two lengths, the limit load carrying capacity is lower for the three-mode approach than for the two-mode approach, identically as for LC-1.
In the two next figures (
Figure 8 and
Figure 9), a relationship of
M/Mmin versus the angle
α/αmin is presented according to formula (A6) for the length
L = 250 mm and
L = 400 mm.
Curve 1 corresponds to the case of one-mode buckling (
r =
J = 1), while curve 2 corresponds to two-mode buckling (
J = 2,
r = 1,
r = 3). Both the curves overlap, which proves a lack of an interaction between the modes in the range of loading under consideration. The dependence of
α/αmin on
M/Mmin at
L = 700 mm, for the two- (
J = 2) and three-mode (
J = 3) approach, correspondingly, is presented in
Figure 10. In the case of
J = 3, the limit load carrying capacity is
Ms1/
Mmin = 0.867, whereas, for
J = 2,
Ms2/
Mmin cannot be determined.
In this case, a significant effect of the secondary global mode (r = 3) on the load carrying capacity can be seen. At L = 2000 mm, the quantities Ms1/Mmin and Ms2/Mmin differ slightly, i.e., by less than 2%.
For L = 250 mm and L = 400 mm, the nonlinear coefficients (A3) , responsible for the interaction of modes, are very low and, moreover, M3/M1 > 6; thus, we encounter one-mode buckling for the loads M/Mmin under analysis. At L = 700 mm, the terms including the coefficients , , play an important role, whereas, at L = 2000 mm, the terms are , .
In Reference [
19], for the length
L = 2000 mm, the dimensional load carrying capacity is equal to
Ms/Mmin = 0.919, and, in this work, it is
Ms1/
Mmin = 0.803. One should remember that the values of global imperfections were assumed differently. At
L = 400 mm in Reference [
19], the load carrying capacity was not determined either.
3.3. Example of LC-3 Beams
Like in earlier examples, detailed geometrical dimensions are listed in
Table 2. In
Figure 11, alternations in critical bending moments
Mr as a function of the buckling half-wavelength
Lb are presented.
Curve 1 corresponds to the lowest values of the critical moment, while curve 2 corresponds to higher values for 100 ≤
Lb ≤ 10,000 mm. The plots of both curves are similar to the plots in
Figure 2 (LC-1) and
Figure 6 (LC-2). The minimal local value of the moment for curve 1 was attained at
Lb ≈ 450 mm, the local maximum was attained at
Lb ≈ 1500 mm, whereas curve 2 attains the maximal value of the moment for
Lb ≈ 480 mm and the minimal value for
Lb ≈ 1500 mm, respectively.
As in former examples,
Table 4 lists values of critical loads for 4 selected lengths of beams
L. At
L = 300 mm, the lowest local mode
M1 occurs for
m = 1. Thus, mode 2 was not considered. The value
M3 (for
m = 1) is almost 10-times higher than
M1. At
L = 800 mm, we have
M2/
M1 = 1.4, and for
L = 2500 mm it is
M2/
M1 = 1.3, whereas, at
L = 4500 mm, the global value
M2 is lower than
M1, as
M2/
M1 = 0.5. The secondary value of
M3 for the values of
L under analysis is at least 7-times higher than
M1.
In
Figure 12a–d, buckling modes for selected lengths
L are presented. Local buckling modes (mode 1) are practically the same for all lengths.
At
L = 300 mm and mode 3 (
m = 1), maximal deflections occur in the web. At
L = 800 mm, also the global mode (mode 2) is identical to mode 1 (
Figure 12b). The secondary global mode (mode 3) has the maximal deflection for lower compressed corners of LC-3. Mode 2 (curve 2) for the length
L = 2500 mm and
L = 4500 mm is a “pure” lateral buckling mode in principle. At
L = 2500 mm and mode 3, a slight displacement of the corner connecting the web with the compressed lower flange takes place, whereas, for
L = 4500 mm, displacements of both web corners occur.
Moreover,
Table 4 also shows the dimensionless limit load carrying capacity for two- and three-mode approaches,
Ms2/
Mmin and
Ms1/
Mmin, respectively. At
L = 2500 mm and
L = 4500 mm, differences between both the approaches are inconsiderable.
In
Figure 13, at the length
L = 300 mm, curve
1 for the one-mode approach (
J = 1) overlaps curve 2 for the two-mode approach (
J = 2,
r = 1,
r = 3).
For the range of loadings under consideration, there is no interaction between the modes. For
L = 800 mm, in the case of the three-mode, we have
Ms1/
Mmin = 0.833, whereas, for the two-mode approach, there is no limit load carrying capacity (
Figure 14).
For L = 300 mm, the value of the coefficient at the term is inconsiderable, but at L = 800 mm, the terms , play a significant role. At L = 2500 mm and at L = 4500 mm, the coefficients at the terms , are important.
For the length
L = 4500 mm in Reference [
19], the value of the load carrying capacity was
Ms/Mmin = 0.806, whereas, in the present analysis, it was
Ms1/
Mmin = 0.77.
For all the examples under analysis in Reference [
19], higher values were attained than in the present study. One should note once more that the values of local imperfections in Reference [
19] were assumed in a different way than here.
The plots of variability in critical moments (curves 1 and 2) as a function of the half-wavelength
Lb shown in
Figure 2,
Figure 6 and
Figure 11 as well as an analysis of buckling modes, the load carrying capacity and the effect of nonlinear coefficients at the first-order approximation terms allow one to classify, according to the conclusions expressed in Reference [
13], the following lengths of LC-beams, namely:
- (1)
short beams (LC-1 − 100 ≤ Lb ≤ 350 mm; LC-2 − 100 ≤ Lb ≤ 500 mm; LC-3 − 100 ≤ Lb ≤ 450 mm);
- (2)
medium-long beams (LC-1 − 350 ≤ Lb ≤ 1050 mm; LC-2 − 500 ≤ Lb ≤ 1500 mm; LC-3 − 450 ≤ Lb ≤ 1050 mm);
- (3)
long beams (LC-1 − 1050 ≤ Lb ≤ 3500 mm; LC-2 − 1500 ≤ Lb ≤ 4000 mm; LC-3 − 1050 ≤ Lb ≤ 4000 mm);
- (4)
very long beams (LC-1 − 3500 mm ≤ Lb; LC-2 − 4000 mm ≤ Lb; LC-3 − 4000 mm ≤ Lb).
Compared to Reference [
13], the term of very long beams, for which the secondary global mode
M3 is actually constant and the primary global mode
M2 has a low gradient of the value drop in comparison to long beams, is introduced additionally in the above-mentioned classification.
Particular attention was paid to the influence of secondary global distortional-lateral buckling mode on the load carrying capacity for the LC-beams under bending. As demonstrated in the paper, the most significant influence is for medium-long beams. In this case, disregarding the interaction of three modes, including two global (i.e., primary and secondary) and local ones, may lead to an incorrect assessment of the load carrying capacity of the two-mode approach for medium-long beams.