ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Plastic interaction relations for semi-elliptical hollow sections

Farhood Nowzartash , Magdi Mohareb
University of Ottawa, Department of Civil Engineering, 161 Louis Pasteur, Room A106, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N-6N5

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: General plastic interaction relationships are developed for semi-elliptical hollow structural sections
Received 4 March 2009 subjected to general combinations of normal force, twisting moments and biaxial bending moments.
Received in revised form The lower bound theorem of plasticity is employed to obtain the fully plastic resistance of the section in
16 June 2009
conjunction with the maximum distortional energy density criterion.
Accepted 20 July 2009
Available online 26 August 2009
The developments are expressed as universal, non-dimensional relationships suitable for limit state
design. An iterative scheme to solve the parametric form of the interaction relations is developed and a
Keywords: grid of admissible stress resultant combination is generated. A series of trial functions are fitted to the
Steel grid of internal force combinations and two simplified and conservative interaction equations are
Semi-Elliptical Hollow Section
proposed. The interaction relations relate axial force, biaxial bending and twisting moment
Plasticity
combinations for semi-elliptical hollow sections of common geometries. The applicability of the newly
Yield Surface
proposed interaction equations for conducting the cross-sectional interaction check is illustrated
through practical examples.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and scope relations are applicable to sections able to attain their plastic
resistance prior undergoing local buckling.
The family of structural hollow sections has substantially
grown since it started with circular, square and rectangular hollow
sections. Recently, elliptical hollow sections (EHS) were intro- 2. Literature review
duced. The newest member of this family, the semi-elliptical
hollow sections (SEHS) is depicted in Fig. 1. Semi-elliptical
Early work on the development of interaction relations for
sections are aesthetically pleasing and are gaining popularity
pipes was provided in a summary by Gerald and Becker [1] who
among architects in exposed steel works. From a structural
focused on thin-walled pipes which undergo the local buckling
viewpoint, SEHS sections offer the structural advantages of
prior attaining their plastic resistance. Chen and Atsuta [2]
closed sections (i.e., high resistance to torsion and lateral
formulated lower and upper bound plastic interaction relation-
torsional buckling). Their rather close major and minor elastic
ships for tubular sections under biaxial bending moments and
and plastic modulii provide an efficient use of material when the
axial force. Chen and Atsuta [2] and Hodge [3] provide the
bending moments about the major and minor axes have
principles for developing lower and upper bound plastic interac-
comparable magnitudes. As compression members, the SEHS are
tion relations. As recognized in structural steel codes [e.g., 4] and
economically comparable to square hollow sections for members
steel pipeline standards [5], stockier pipes are known to attain
with nearly equal effective lengths about both principal axes.
their fully plastic resistance prior the occurrence of local buckling.
Despite the recent interest in adopting SEHS in structural designs,
Such plastic interaction relations were developed [e.g., 6–9] and
the lack of design procedures specifically geared towards SEHS
experimentally verified [10,11]. The interaction relations formu-
design forces engineers either to: (a) conduct their design in an
lated in [9] were utilized in developing a pipe finite element
overly conservative manner or (b) resort complex and time
which efficiently modelled the elasto-plastic behaviour of pipe-
consuming finite element solutions. Within this context, the
lines [12].
present paper aims at developing interaction relations specific to
Gaydon and Nuttall [13] developed an upper bound interaction
SEHS subject to general loading combinations involving axial
relation for rectangular hollow structural sections subjected to
force, biaxial bending and twisting moments. The interaction
twisting and uniaxial bending moments. Lower bound plastic
interaction relations subjected to combinations of biaxial bending,
 Corresponding author. torsion and axial force were established by Morris and Fenves
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] [14]. Pillai and Ellis [15] conducted an experimental study on
(F. Nowzartash), [email protected] (M. Mohareb). rectangular hollow structural sections subjected to combined

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2009.07.012
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54 43

Notations: N: axial force

Np: plastic capacity of section for axial force
A: cross-sectional area Nr: axial force ratio
a: SEHS center-line height T: twisting moments
b: half of SEHS center-line base Tp: plastic capacity for twisting moments
E: modulus of elasticity Tr: torsional ratio
Fy: yield strength t: thickness
Mx: bending moments about x-axis b: ellipse parameter [i.e., x ¼ b cos(b), y ¼ a sin(b)]
Mxp: plastic capacity of section for bending moments about s: longitudinal stress
x-axis s*: maximum longitudinal stress in the presence of shear stress
Mrx: bending moment ratio about x-axis t
My: bending moments about y-axis t: shear stress
Myp: plastic capacity of section for bending moments about x: dimensionless parameter locating the intersection of PNA
y-axis and the base
Mry: bending moment ratio about y-axis

axial force and uniaxial bending moments and proposed a be attained. The fully plastic resistance is based on the maximum
simplified interaction relationship based on their work. Interac- resistance that can be attained under an idealized bilinear elastic-
tion relationships for square hollow structural beam columns perfectly plastic stress–strain curve and is commonly referred to
subjected to biaxial moments and axial forces were proposed by as the cross-sectional capacity in steel design codes. The
Pillai [16] and later verified by an experimental investigation [17]. formulation is based on the lower bound theorem of plasticity
The effects of biaxial shear and torsion were incorporated into the [e.g., 3] in which stress distributions consistent with the material
interaction relations by Mohareb and Ozkan [18]. constitutive law are postulated and lower bound interaction
Recently, Chan and Gardner [19,20] developed analytical relations are recovered. Such a lower bound solution under-
expressions for the yield compressive strength and plastic estimates the capacity of the cross-section and thus is suitable for
bending resistances of hot-rolled EHS and verified them against cross-sectional checks conducted as part of the design process.
experimental results. The plastic interaction relations for EHS A steel semi-elliptical hollow section subject to axial force
under combined loading of axial force, biaxial bending moments N (positive when tensile), bending moments Mx, My acting about
and torsion were developed by Nowzartash and Mohareb [21]. It is x and y axes respectively and twisting moment T is considered
observed that all interaction relations reviewed focused on doubly (Fig. 2). The figure also shows the positive directions of Mx, My and
symmetric sections. In contrast, the study reported here aims at T. It is required to determine whether the semi-elliptical section is
developing plastic interaction relations for a mono-symmetric able to withstand the action of the internal forces while assuming
section. the fully plastic resistance of the section is reached. For this
purpose, it is required to derive a series of piecewise n interaction
relationships of the form fi(N, Mx, My, T) ¼ 0; (i ¼ 1, y, n) such that
3. Statement of problem the conditions fio0 for all i ¼ 1, y, n are met for any physically
possible combination of internal forces. The condition fir0, in
Plastic interaction relations for SEHS subject to the combined which the equality holds true for at least one of the relations
action of biaxial bending, torsion and axial force are sought. It is i ¼ 1, y, n, corresponds to a fully plastic state of the cross-section.
assumed that the fully plastic resistance of the cross-section will The condition of fi40 for any i corresponds to a loading
combination that is unattainable under the assumptions of the
formulation.

Fig. 1. Actual shape of SEHS (Courtesy from Ancofer). Fig. 2. Idealized SEHS and internal forces.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
44 F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

4. Assumptions where saa, sbb, sgg, sab, sag and sbg are stress tensor components
at the point considered and Fy the yield strength of the SEHS
4.1. Cross-sectional distortion material.
For an infinitesimal element of volume, the relevant stress
The cross-section is assumed to remain undistorted under the components are the normal stress s ¼ saa and the tangential
action of internal forces induced. This assumption is justifiable for shearing stress t ¼ sab. Longitudinal stress s is induced by the
stockier SEHS, where the cross-sectional ovalization/distortion is axial forces and/or bending moments. Shearing stress t is caused
negligible. Consequently, the fully plastic resistance can normally by the St. Venant torsion twisting moments. Normal stresses due
be attained, or nearly attained, before the occurrence of local to warping are neglected in the present formulation. This
buckling. Such sections are identified as Class 2 in the Eurocode 3 assumption is accurate where the section is free to warp and is
[22] and the Canadian standards [4]. Currently, no criteria are expected to lead to a conservative lower bound interaction
available to specifically classify SEHS based on their cross- relation when section warping is restrained. As a simplification,
sectional dimensions. In the absence of such criteria, the designer through thickness shear stresses sag and sbg are assumed
may refer to the classification rules for elliptical hollow sections negligible. Also, the stress normal to the mid-surface sgg and
(EHS) [23] which account for the local buckling of the curved the circumferential stress sbb are assumed negligible. Based on
portion of SEHS and those reported in steel design codes [4,22,24] these simplifications, the maximum distortional energy density
which account for the local buckling of the flat portion of SEHS. A yield criterion simplifies to s2+3t2 ¼ Fy2 or
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
through study for classification of SEHS is of practical interest but s ¼ 7s ¼ 7 Fy2  3t2 ð2Þ
is outside the scope of the present work.
where s* is the maximum longitudinal stress that can be attained
4.2. Idealized stress–strain relationship in the presence of a shear stress t.

In this study, a bilinear elastic-perfectly plastic stress versus 4.4. Other assumptions
strain representation is adopted. The first line, representing the
linear range of deformation, passes through the origin and has a No distinction is made between the true stress, based of the
slope identical to the initial slope of a tension coupon tests. The deformed infinitesimal element of area, and the engineering
second line is assumed to have zero slope and aligned with the stress, based on the un-deformed infinitesimal element of area.
yield plateau of the stress–strain relationship for a tension coupon Also, the logarithmic strain is assumed to be nearly equal to the
test. The additional capacity of the steel material due to strain engineering strain as the formulation is restricted to small strains.
hardening is neglected, leading to a lower bound approximation Residual stresses are not incorporated into the present study. The
for the section plastic resistance. formulation does not include global buckling effects and thus is
not intended to predict the resistance of slender members
4.3. Yield criterion governed by the overall buckling mode of failure.

Semi-elliptical hollow section steel is assumed to yield in

accordance with the maximum distortional energy density yield 5. Formulation
criterion [e.g., 25], i.e., a given point on an EHS (Fig. 3) will attain
yielding when the following condition is met Consider an SEHS with a mid-surface height a, mid-surface
1h i base length 2b and thickness t (Fig. 2). For a thin-walled closed
ðsaa  sbb Þ2 þ ðsbb  sgg Þ2 þ ðsaa  sgg Þ2 þ 6ðs2ab þ s2ag þ s2bg Þ section, the shearing stress t can be assumed constant through
2
the wall thickness t [25], and is related to the torsion T through
¼ Fy2
T ¼ 2AStt, in which AS is the area enclosed by the section mid-
ð1Þ surface. In the case of SEHS, AS ¼ pab/2. Thus the relationship
between shearing stress t and the applied twisting moment T, is

T ¼ pabt t ð3Þ

For a section to fully plastify under bending moments, a

portion of the cross-section (A+) has to attain the maximum
tensile stress s* while the remaining portion of the cross-section
(A) has to attain the maximum compressive stress s*. This may
happen in six different ways (i.e., cases I-1, I-2, II-1, II-2, III-1 and
III-3) as depicted in Fig. 4. In the figure, the dotted lines along the
mid-surface denote tensile stress s* and the solid line denote
compression stress s*.
In the following, we focus on the fundamental cases I-1, II-2
and III-3, i.e.,
I-1: The plastic neutral axis (PNA) intercepts the curved
portion of the section twice.
II-1: The PNA intercepts the curved portion and the flat
portion.
III-1: The PNA intercepts the section flat portion twice.
Once the interaction relations have been developed for the
above cases, those for the secondary cases I-2, II-2 and III-2 can be
Fig. 3. Stress components acting on a SEHS element. easily deducted by changing the signs of the stresses. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54 45

idealized locations of PNA on the section corresponding to the cases III-1 and III-2 yield very good approximation of the
above cases are shown in Fig. 5. In the figure, the dashed line interaction surface. This approximation reduces the number of
along the mid-surface denotes the tensile region and the solid interaction equations associated with the different scenarios for the
line denotes the compressive region. The origin of the coordinate PNA location illustrated in Fig. 6 while preserving the continuity of
system is located at the section centroid. the interaction relations at the borderline of different cases.
Cases III-1 and III-2, provide an approximate solution for the A similar approach was successfully adopted in Mohareb and
various possible PNA locations depicted in Fig. 6. Since the Ozkan [18] for square hollow structural sections and yielded a close
formulation sought here is dealing with relatively thin sections, approximation of the ‘‘exact’’ interaction equations.

Fig. 4. Possible stress patterns in the idealized section. Fig. 6. Actual (a) and approximate (b) locations of plastic neutral axis in Case III-1.

Fig. 5. Stress distributions.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
46 F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

5.1. Case I-1: PNA intercepts the curved portion twice 5.2. Case II-1: PNA intercepts the curved and flat portions

For a section under the combined action of axial force N For case II-1, the axial force N is
(tension is positive), biaxial bending moments Mx, My and twisting Z Z Z Z Z
moments T, one has N¼ sdA ¼ sþ dA þ s dA ¼ 2s dA  s dA
A Aþ A Aþ A
Z Z Z " Z qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N¼ sdA ¼ sþ dA þ s dA p
A Aþ A ¼ s t 2 b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b þ 2ðb þ xbÞ
Z Z Z Z b
¼ s dA  s dA ¼ 2s dA  s dA Z p qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
Aþ AAþ Aþ A
" Z  b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b  2b ð8Þ
b2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0
 2
¼s t 2 b2 sin b þ a2 cos2 bdb
b1
Z p qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
 b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b  2b ð4Þ The bending moment about major axis, Mx, is
0
Z Z Z Z
Mx ¼ sydA ¼ sþ ydA þ s ydA ¼ 2s ydA
A Aþ A Aþ
"Z qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
p
where the angles b1 and b2 (subtending an arc of the circumfer- ¼ 2s t  2 2 2
ða sin b þ cÞ b sin b þ a cos b d b þ cðb þ xbÞ 2
ential circle of radius a) are illustrated in Fig. 5. They are related to b
f1 and f2 (subtending an arc of the semi-elliptical contour) ð9Þ
through the relation tan b1,2 ¼ (b/a)tan f1,2 (Fig. 7).
and the bending moment about minor axis, My, is
The bending moment about major axis Mx is obtained by Z Z Z Z
Z
My ¼  sxdA ¼  sþ xdA  s xdA ¼ 2s xdA
Mx ¼ sydA A Aþ A Aþ
Z
A
Z Z Z " Z p qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
¼ sþ ydA þ s ydA ¼ 2s ydA  s ydA ¼ 2s t  ðb cos bÞ b2 sin b þ a2 cos2 bd b
Aþ A Aþ A b
Z b2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
¼ 2s t ða sin b þ cÞ b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b ð5Þ þ0:5ðb þ xbÞðb  xbÞ ð10Þ
b1

In Eqs. (8)–(10), angle b and parameter x are respectively

in which c (Fig. 2) is the distance between the base mid-surface bound by 0rbrp and 1rxr1.
and the section centroid and is given as
Rp qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a 0 sin b b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b 5.3. Case III-1: PNA intercepts the flat portion twice
c ¼  R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
p
0 b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b þ 2b For Case III-1, the axial force N is
Z
R N¼ sdA
A
In Eq. (5), the identity AydA ¼ 0 was used. In a similar manner, "Z
Z Z p qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the bending moment about minor axis, My is given as
! ¼s 
dA  s dA ¼ s t b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b
Z Z Z 2Aþ A 0
My ¼  sxdA ¼  sþ xdA þ s xdA #
A Aþ A
Z Z þ2bð1 þ x1  x2 Þ ð11Þ
¼ 2s xdA þ s xdA
Aþ A
Z b2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The bending moment about major axis, Mx, is
Z Z Z Z
¼ 2s t ðb cos bÞ b2 sin2 b þ a2 cos2 b d b ð7Þ
b1 Mx ¼ sydA ¼ sþ ydA þ s ydA ¼ 2s ydA
A Aþ A A

¼ 2s tðx2 b  x1 bÞc ð12Þ

R
In Eq. (7), the identity AxdA ¼ 0 was used. In Eqs. (4), (5) and
(7), angles b1 and b2 are bound by the relation 0rb1rb2rp.
and the bending moment about minor axis, My is
Z Z Z Z
My ¼  sxdA ¼  sþ xdA  s xdA ¼ 2s xdA
A Aþ A A

¼ s tðx2 b  x1 bÞðx2 b þ x1 bÞ ð13Þ

In Eqs. (11)–(13) parameters x1 and x2 are bounded by
1rx1rx2r1.

5.4. Expressions for plastic resistances

It is desirable to normalize the interaction relations sought to

make them universally applicable to any EHS geometry. Towards
this goal, the limiting resistance value for each of the internal
Fig. 7. Relation between f and b in SEHS. forces in the absence of all other internal forces is formulated.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54 47

These limiting resistances are special cases of Eqs. (3), (4), (7) and My
(9). From Eq. (3), knowing that the maximum shear stress occurs Mry ¼
Myp
when the longitudinal stress vanishes, one can express the plastic Rb qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
torsional capacity of the cross-section, Tp as qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  b2 cos b ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b
¼ 1  t2r R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1

p=2 2
Fy cos b ðb=aÞ2 sin b þ cos2 b d b þ 0:5ðb=aÞ
Tp ¼ p abt pffiffiffi ð14Þ 0
3 ð23Þ
The limiting tensile axial force, Ny is attained when the In Eqs. (20)–(23), Tr, Nr, Mrx and Mry respectively are the ratios
twisting moments vanishes (i.e., t ¼ 0 and s* ¼ Fy) and when no of torsion, axial force, bending moment about x-axis and bending
bending moments are acting on the cross-section. This is possibly moment about y-axis relative to their respective plastic resis-
obtained by setting x1 ¼ 0 and x2 ¼ 0 in Eq. (11), yielding tances (in the absence of other internal forces). They constitute
"Z qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi # the parametric equations of the interaction relation sought for
p=2
Ny ¼ 2Fy ta ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b þ ðb=aÞ ð15Þ Case I-1.
0
For Cases II-1 and III-1, Eq. (20) remains valid. Eqs. (8)–(10) are
respectively divided by Eqs. (15), (18) and (19) resulting in the
The plastic resisting moment about the major axis, Mxp, occurs
following set of non-dimensional relations
in the absence of torsion, minor axis bending and axial force.
Under this scenario, the plastic neutral axis is the horizontal line N
which subdivides the cross-section into two equal parts, i.e., Nr ¼
Ny
Z pbP qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
a2 sin2 b þ b2 cos2 b td b qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi R p ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b þ ð1 þ xÞðb=aÞ
B b C
bP ¼ 1  tr @ R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2  1A
Z p qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! p=2 2 2 2
1 0 ðb=aÞ sin b þ cos b d b þ ðb=aÞ
2 2 2 2
¼ a sin b þ b cos b td b þ 2bt ð16Þ
2 0 ð24Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Using the symmetry of the section with respect to the y-axis, Mx
Mrx ¼ ¼ 1  t2r
Eq. (16) may be simplified as Mxp
Z bP qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rp 2
2 ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b b ðsin b þ c=aÞ ðb=aÞ2 sin b þ cos2 b d b þ ð1 þ xÞðb=aÞðc=aÞ
0  R pbP q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Z p=2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðsin b þ c=aÞ ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b
b
 ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b þ ðb=aÞ P

0 ð25Þ
¼0 ð17Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
My
Eq. (17) is solved for bP and substituted into Eq. (5) yielding the Mry ¼ ¼ 1  t2r
Myp
plastic resistance moment qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Z pbP qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Rp 2
 b cos b ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b þ 0:5ð1  x Þðb=aÞ
Mxp ¼ 2Fy ta2 ðsin b þ c=aÞ ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b ð18Þ  R p=2 q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð26Þ
bP 2 2 2
0 cos b ðb=aÞ sin b þ cos b d b þ 0:5ðb=aÞ
For the plastic resisting moment about the minor axis Myp,
b ¼ p/2 and x ¼ 0 are substituted into (10) to yield
"Z qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
p=2
Myp ¼ 2Fy ta2 ðb=aÞ cos b ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b þ 0:5ðb=aÞ ð19Þ Also, Eqs. (11)–(13) are respectively divided by Eqs. (15), (18)
0 and (19) yielding
For Case I-1, Eqs. (3)–(5) and (7) can be respectively divided by
N
Eqs. (14), (15), (18) and (19) resulting in a set of non-dimensional Nr ¼
equations. The equations recovered are valid for all semi-elliptical Ny
0 1
sections irrespective of their geometry. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
B ðb=aÞðx2  x1 Þ C
pffiffiffi ¼ 1  t2r @1  R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi A ð27Þ
T 3t p=2 2 2 2 b d b þ ðb=aÞ
Tr ¼ ¼ ¼ tr ð20Þ 0 ðb=aÞ sin b þ cos
Tp Fy

Mx
in which
pffiffiffi tr is the ratio of shear stress t to the yield shear stress Mrx ¼
Mxp
Fy = 3.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N ðb=aÞðc=aÞðx1  x2 Þ
Nr ¼ ¼ 1  t2r R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð28Þ
pbP
Ny
bP ðsin b þ c=aÞ ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b
0 1
R b2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b
B b1 C My
¼ 1  t2r @R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A ð21Þ
p=2 2 2 2 Mry ¼
0 ðb=aÞ sin b þ cos b d b þ ðb=aÞ  1 Myp
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 2
0:5ðx1  x2 Þðb=aÞ
¼ 1  t2r R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð29Þ
Mx p 2 2 2
Mrx ¼ 0 cos b ðb=aÞ sin b þ cos b d b þ ðb=aÞ
Mxp
R b2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2
ðb=aÞ2 sin b þ cos2 b d b
b1 ðsin b þ c=aÞ
¼ 1  t2r R qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð22Þ Conceptually, in order to recover an explicit form of the
pbP
b ðsin b þ c=aÞ ðb=aÞ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b interaction relation, one needs to eliminate constants tr, b1 and
P
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
48 F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

b2 from Eqs. (20)–(23); constants tr, b and x from Eqs. (20), roots would correspond to the fundamental case (such as Case I-1) and
(24)–(26) or constants tr, x1 and x2 from Eqs. (20), (27)–(29). It is the other one corresponds to the secondary case (such as Case I-2).
noted however, that the integrals for Cases I-1 and II-1 cannot be For a given internal force combination (Nr, Mrx, Mry, Tr), the
explicitly evaluated. Thus, an exact close form expression for the location of the PNA axis is not known a-priori. Thus, one has no
sought interaction relation is unattainable. For a given section, means of determining which set of interaction equations will yield
knowing any three of the four internal forces applied N, Mx the smallest scaling factor ai. Thus, one must solve all
and My, and T, the relevant four relations in Eqs. (20)–(29) will three interaction relations f1 ¼ 0, f2 ¼ 0 and f3 ¼ 0 for the scaling
provide (tr, b1, b2), (tr, b, x) or (tr, x1, x2) as well as the internal force factors a1, a2 and a3. The scaling factor with the smallest absolute
sought. value is the governing one (i.e., |a1| ¼ min(|a1|, |a2|, |a3|) and will
correspond to the relevant case. i.e., will determine whether the PNA
location is according to Cases I-1, II-1, or III-1 if a is positive, or
whether PNA location is according to Cases I-2, II-2, or III-2 if a is
6. Admissible internal force combinations negative.

In order to determine whether a given internal force combina-

tion (N, Mx, My, T) is admissible, one could multiply the load 7. Yield surface for SEHS of common geometries
combination (Nr, Mrx, Mry, Tr) by an unknown scalar ai and solve
the parametric form of the interaction relation fi(aiNr, aiMrx, aiMry, Currently manufactured semi-elliptical hollow sections [26,27]
aiTr) ¼ 0, i ¼ 1,2,3 for constant a1. It is noted here that, have a height H to width B ratio of about 0.90. The height and width
conceptually, f1 ¼ 0 denotes the interaction equation based on are measured from outer surface of the cross-section. The smallest
the parametric Eqs. (20)–(23) which are valid for Case I. Also, available section is SEHS-203  223  5 and the largest one is SEHS-
f2 ¼ 0 denotes the interaction equation based on the parametric 324  375  14.2, where the first two numbers indicate the height
Eqs. (20), (24)–(26) which are valid for Case II and f3 ¼ 0 denotes H and width B respectively and the third number is the thickness t,
the interaction equation based on the parametric Eqs. (20), all in millimetres. For the range of available profiles, the value b/
(27)–(29) which are valid for Case III. We recall that no close a ¼ 0.5(Bt)/(Ht) varies from 0.55 to 0.58. In order to err on the
form expressions for functions fi are attainable and thus the conservative side, the results reported in the subsequent develop-
parametric form of equations fi(aiNr, aiMrx, aiMry, aiTr) ¼ 0, ments are based on b/a ¼ 0.55. By setting b/a ¼ 0.55 in Eqs. (15),
i ¼ 1,2,3 (Eqs. (20)–(29)) must be iteratively solved. (18) and (19), and using Simpson’s rule for numeric integration, one
The value of ai is an indicator of the proximity of the internal force recovers the following equations:
combination (Nr, Mrx, Mry, Tr) from the piecewise definition fi of the
interaction surface. When the condition |ai| ¼ 1 is met, the load "Z #
p=2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
combination is known to lie on the segment of interaction surface Ny ¼ 2Fy ta ð0:55Þ sin b þ cos2 b d b þ 0:55
0
described by fi ¼ 0. When |ai|o1 for any i, the combination needs to
be scaled down in order to lie on the segment of interaction surface ¼ 1:7932ð2Fy taÞ ð30Þ
described by fi ¼ 0., i.e., the given load combination is unattainable.
Conversely, when |ai|41, the load combination needs to be magnified
Z pbP qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
in order to lie on the piecewise definition of the interaction surface.
Only when the condition fip0 is met for all i ¼ 1,2,3, the load Mxp ¼ 2Fy ta2 ðsin b  c=aÞ ð0:55Þ2 sin2 b þ cos2 b d b
bP
combination is admissible. It is noted that when solving fi ¼ 0, one
obtains a positive root and another negative root for ai. One of the ¼ 0:5984ð2Fy ta2 Þ ð31Þ

Table 1
Exact interaction surface for SEHS with b/a ¼ 0.55 (M*rxZ0, M*ryZ0 and N*rZ0)a.

N*r M*rx

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

M*ry 0.00 1.000 0.962 0.918 0.877 0.837 0.796 0.755 0.714 0.673 0.632 0.591 0.551 0.510 0.470 0.428 0.385 0.340 0.288 0.226 0.148 –
0.05 0.967 0.950 0.920 0.877 0.837 0.796 0.755 0.714 0.673 0.632 0.591 0.551 0.510 0.469 0.428 0.385 0.338 0.287 0.225 0.144 –
0.10 0.930 0.936 0.918 0.878 0.837 0.796 0.755 0.714 0.673 0.632 0.592 0.551 0.510 0.468 0.426 0.382 0.335 0.282 0.220 0.133 –
0.15 0.894 0.900 0.900 0.878 0.837 0.796 0.755 0.714 0.673 0.632 0.592 0.551 0.509 0.467 0.423 0.377 0.328 0.274 0.209 0.121 –
0.20 0.858 0.865 0.870 0.865 0.835 0.796 0.755 0.714 0.673 0.632 0.591 0.550 0.507 0.464 0.418 0.370 0.320 0.263 0.196 0.094 –
0.25 0.823 0.830 0.835 0.836 0.822 0.792 0.753 0.713 0.672 0.631 0.589 0.547 0.503 0.458 0.411 0.361 0.308 0.246 0.173 0.052 –
0.30 0.787 0.794 0.800 0.803 0.797 0.778 0.745 0.708 0.668 0.627 0.585 0.541 0.497 0.450 0.401 0.349 0.292 0.227 0.143 – –
0.35 0.751 0.758 0.764 0.768 0.767 0.753 0.729 0.696 0.659 0.619 0.577 0.533 0.487 0.439 0.388 0.333 0.271 0.199 0.097 – –
0.40 0.714 0.722 0.728 0.733 0.733 0.724 0.706 0.678 0.644 0.605 0.564 0.520 0.473 0.423 0.370 0.312 0.244 0.162 – – –
0.45 0.677 0.685 0.692 0.696 0.697 0.691 0.677 0.653 0.623 0.586 0.546 0.502 0.455 0.404 0.348 0.286 0.209 0.107 – – –
0.50 0.639 0.648 0.655 0.659 0.661 0.656 0.644 0.624 0.596 0.562 0.523 0.480 0.431 0.378 0.320 0.250 0.157 – – – –
0.55 0.601 0.610 0.617 0.622 0.623 0.618 0.608 0.590 0.565 0.533 0.495 0.451 0.402 0.346 0.283 0.202 0.055 – – – –
0.60 0.563 0.571 0.578 0.583 0.583 0.579 0.569 0.552 0.528 0.498 0.460 0.416 0.366 0.306 0.231 0.083 – – – – –
0.65 0.523 0.531 0.538 0.542 0.542 0.537 0.527 0.511 0.488 0.458 0.420 0.374 0.320 0.252 0.148 – – – – – –
0.70 0.481 0.490 0.496 0.498 0.498 0.492 0.482 0.465 0.442 0.411 0.372 0.323 0.261 0.154 – – – – – – –
0.75 0.437 0.445 0.450 0.452 0.450 0.444 0.432 0.414 0.389 0.356 0.316 0.260 0.163 – – – – – – – –
0.80 0.389 0.396 0.400 0.401 0.398 0.390 0.377 0.356 0.329 0.291 0.234 0.121 – – – – – – – – –
0.85 0.336 0.342 0.345 0.344 0.339 0.329 0.311 0.289 0.251 0.195 – – – – – – – – – – –
0.90 0.274 0.278 0.280 0.277 0.270 0.252 0.228 0.191 0.054 – – – – – – – – – – – –
0.95 0.191 0.196 0.194 0.185 0.166 0.133 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1.00 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

a
May also be used when: M*rxZ0, M*ryr0, N*rZ0; M*rxr0, M*ryZ0, N*rr0; M*rxr0, M*ryr0, N*rr0.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54 49

Table 2
Exact interaction surface for SEHS with b/a ¼ 0.55 (M*rxr0, M*ryZ0 and N*rZ0)a.

N*r M*rx

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

M*ry 0.00 1.000 0.973 0.945 0.917 0.888 0.860 0.831 0.801 0.770 0.738 0.705 0.671 0.635 0.597 0.557 0.513 0.466 0.412 0.349 0.268 –
0.05 0.967 0.952 0.931 0.907 0.881 0.854 0.825 0.796 0.766 0.735 0.702 0.668 0.633 0.595 0.555 0.511 0.463 0.409 0.346 0.267 –
0.10 0.930 0.919 0.903 0.884 0.861 0.837 0.811 0.784 0.755 0.724 0.693 0.659 0.624 0.587 0.547 0.503 0.455 0.401 0.337 0.255 –
0.15 0.894 0.884 0.871 0.854 0.835 0.813 0.790 0.764 0.737 0.708 0.678 0.645 0.611 0.574 0.534 0.491 0.443 0.388 0.322 0.237 –
0.20 0.858 0.849 0.837 0.822 0.804 0.785 0.763 0.740 0.714 0.687 0.658 0.626 0.593 0.556 0.517 0.474 0.425 0.369 0.302 0.171 –
0.25 0.823 0.813 0.802 0.788 0.772 0.754 0.734 0.712 0.688 0.662 0.634 0.603 0.570 0.534 0.495 0.451 0.402 0.344 0.273 0.153 –
0.30 0.787 0.778 0.766 0.753 0.738 0.721 0.702 0.681 0.658 0.633 0.606 0.576 0.544 0.508 0.469 0.425 0.374 0.313 0.236 – –
0.35 0.751 0.741 0.730 0.717 0.703 0.686 0.668 0.648 0.626 0.602 0.575 0.546 0.514 0.478 0.439 0.393 0.340 0.275 0.160 – –
0.40 0.714 0.705 0.694 0.681 0.667 0.651 0.633 0.614 0.592 0.568 0.542 0.513 0.481 0.445 0.404 0.357 0.300 0.226 0.069 – –
0.45 0.677 0.667 0.657 0.644 0.630 0.614 0.597 0.578 0.556 0.533 0.506 0.477 0.445 0.408 0.365 0.315 0.251 0.142 – – –
0.50 0.639 0.630 0.619 0.606 0.592 0.576 0.559 0.540 0.519 0.495 0.468 0.439 0.405 0.366 0.320 0.264 0.188 – – – –
0.55 0.601 0.591 0.580 0.567 0.553 0.537 0.520 0.500 0.479 0.455 0.427 0.396 0.361 0.319 0.269 0.199 0.086 – – – –
0.60 0.563 0.552 0.541 0.528 0.513 0.497 0.479 0.459 0.437 0.412 0.383 0.351 0.312 0.265 0.205 0.104 – – – – –
0.65 0.523 0.513 0.500 0.487 0.472 0.455 0.437 0.416 0.393 0.366 0.335 0.300 0.256 0.200 0.115 – – – – – –
0.70 0.481 0.471 0.459 0.445 0.430 0.412 0.392 0.370 0.345 0.316 0.282 0.241 0.190 0.110 – – – – – – –
0.75 0.437 0.427 0.415 0.401 0.385 0.366 0.346 0.322 0.294 0.262 0.222 0.169 0.084 – – – – – – – –
0.80 0.389 0.380 0.368 0.353 0.336 0.316 0.293 0.266 0.235 0.196 0.144 0.053 – – – – – – – – –
0.85 0.336 0.326 0.314 0.299 0.281 0.259 0.233 0.201 0.160 – – – – – – – – – – – –
0.90 0.274 0.263 0.251 0.234 0.214 0.188 0.155 0.108 0.022 – – – – – – – – – – – –
0.95 0.191 0.183 0.169 0.148 0.118 0.072 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1.00 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

a
May also be used when: M*rxZ0, M*ryr0, N*rr0; M*rxZ0, M*ryZ0, N*rr0; M*rxr0, M*ryr0, N*rZ0.

Myp ¼ 2Fy ta2 ðb=aÞ 2. They are symmetric with respect to the M*rxN*r plane at
"Z qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi # M*ry ¼ 0, i.e.,
p=2
2 2 2
 cos b ð0:55Þ sin b þ cos b d b þ 0:5ð0:55Þ  
0 f ðMrx ; Mry ; Nr Þ ¼ 0 ) f ðMrx
 
; Mry ; Nr Þ ¼ 0

¼ 0:6280ð2Fy ta2 Þ ð32Þ

3. They are independent of the direction of torsion
These characteristics of the interaction relations, imply that
By assuming b/a ¼ 0.55, using Eqs. (20)–(29) in conjunction
the complete interaction surface can be fully described once
with Eqs. (30)–(32) the limiting interaction coefficients for
determined in two octants: (a) (M*rxZ0, M*ryZ0, N*rZ0) and (b)
SEHS can be computed. These are given in Tables 1 and 2 and
(M*rxr0, M*ryZ0, N*rZ0). When the interaction relation is known
are depicted in Figs. 8–10. In the figures and tables, the
in these two octants (Fig. 8), its value for the remaining six octants
normalized internal forces modified for torsion N*r, M*rx and
is determined from properties 1 and 2.
M*ry are defined as
The numeric values in Tables 1 or 2 were used to find a
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi best fit surface for the points. Five candidate functions gj(akj),
Nr ¼ Nr = 1  Tr2 ð33Þ
(j ¼ 1, y, 5) were examined for their ability to fit the numeric
values. These are
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 a1 a1 a13
Mrx ¼ Mrx = 1  Tr2 ð34Þ g1 ða1k Þ ¼ Mrx 1 þ Mry 2 þ Nr 1¼0
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi a21 a22 a23
 g2 ða2k Þ ¼ a25 Mrx þ a26 Mry þ Nr þ ð1  a24 ÞMrx

Mry ¼ Mry = 1  Tr2 ð35Þ
þð1  a25 ÞMry

1¼0

Through the introduction of the normalized internal forces a3 a3 a33
g3 ða3k Þ ¼ a34 Mrx 1 þ a35 Mry 2 þ a36 Nr þ ð1  a34 ÞMrx


defined in Eqs. (33)–(35), the number of parameters in the

interaction relations is reduced from four to three. þð1  a35 ÞMry 
þ ð1  a36 ÞNr  1 ¼ 0
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a4 a4 a4
g4 ða4k Þ ¼ Mrx 1 þ Mry 2 þ Nr 3  1 ¼ 0
8. Approximate interaction relations a5 a5 5 a53
g5 ða5k Þ ¼ ðMrx 1 þ Mry 2 Þa4 þ Nr 1¼0 ð36a2eÞ
The objective now is to find a simple function describing the
interaction between the modified internal forces N*r, M*rx and
M*ry from (33) to (35). It was observed that the interaction where akj are fitting parameters for the candidate function j
relations have three properties of interest. These are which are to be determined from nonlinear regression analysis.
A common feature between the candidate functions is the
fact that regardless of akj values, they all meet the condition
1. They are skew symmetric with respect to the origin, i.e.,
that when one of N*r, M*rx and M*ry has a unity value, the
other two vanish. The form of the proposed functions (36a–e)
 
f ðMrx ; Mry ; Nr Þ ¼ 0 ) f ðMrx
 
; Mry ; Nr Þ ¼ 0 are similar to those attempted in Nowzartash and Mohareb [21]
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
50 F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

Fig. 8. A quarter of the interaction surface of SEHS.

Fig. 9. Half interaction surface of SEHS for M*ryZ0.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54 51

Fig. 10. Half interaction surface of SEHS for N*rZ0.

for fitting the interaction surface for elliptical hollow sections. simpler and allows isolating the effect of torsion after simple
For each candidate function, the sum of the squares of errors manipulations, and was thus adopted in the following steps.
(SSE)
p
8.1. Best fit interaction relations
Xmax

Ej ðajk Þ ¼ ½gj2 ðajk Þp ð37Þ

p¼1 The best fit function for the octant M*rxZ0, M*ryZ0 and N*rZ0
was found to be
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
was minimized in the {akj} space. In Eq. (37), pmax is the number jMrx  j1:9 þ jM  j2:6 þ jN  j1:5  1:0 ¼ 0 ð40Þ
ry r
of data points for the nonlinear regression (i.e., 323 in each
of Tables 1 or 2). The sum of the squares of errors Ej for
each candidate function gj is minimized by enforcing the In Eq. (40), SSE is 0.61 for the points in Table 1. This equation
conditions may be used also for the octants: (a) M*rxZ0, M*ryr0 and N*rZ0,
( ) 8 " # 9 (b) M*rxr0, M*ryZ0 and N*rr0, and (c) M*rxr0, M*ryr0 and
@Ej ðajk Þ <X
pmax j =
j @gj ðak Þ N*rr0.
¼ 2 gj ðak
Þ ¼ f0g ð38Þ
@aj : p¼1 @aj ; The best fit function for the case M*rxr0, M*ryZ0 and N*rZ0 is
l l p

in which, index p denotes a given point on the yield surface and qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jMrx  j2:1 þ jM  j1:55 þ jN  j1:95  1:0 ¼ 0 ð41Þ
the summation is performed for all points pmax. By using Newton’s ry r

method, and given a guess solution vector for the fitting In Eq. (41), SSE is 0.18 for the points in Table 2. This equation
parameters {akj}n based on the nth iteration, an improved solution may be used also for the octants (a) M*rxZ0, M*ryr0 and N*rr0,
vector {akj}n+1 is given by (b) M*rxZ0, M*ryZ0 and N*rr0, and (c) M*rxr0, M*ryr0 and
8 ) 8 ) " !#1 ( ) N*rZ0.
< < j j
j @ j @gj ðak Þ j @gj ðak Þ
ak ¼ ajk  g ða
j k Þ g ða
j k Þ
: : @aj @aj @aj 8.2. Conservative fit interaction relations
nþ1 n l k n k n

ð39Þ
8.2.1. Piecewise surface fit
Whilst Eqs. (40) and (41) provide a very good representation of
In Eq. (39), the terms of matrix [q(gjqgj/qakj)/qalj]n are the yield surface, they lead to slightly un-conservative results half
numerically computed through the central finite difference of the time. In order to obtain a conservative curve fit suitable for
technique and the matrix obtained is then inverted. Eq. (36e) design, a weighted regression analysis based on the same form of
was found to provide the best fit to the numeric value in Tables 1 the function is performed. The error weight for un-conservative
or 2 while Eq. (36d) provides a close second best fit. Eq. (36d) is prediction was taken as 100 time larger than that of the error
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
52 F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

weight for a conservative prediction. The conservative expression 9. Design examples

was found to be
9.1. Example 1
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jMrx  j2:0 þ jM  j1:6 þ jN  j1:8  1:0 ¼ 0 ð42Þ A simply supported beam (Fig. 11a) has a 2.0 m span. The beam
ry r
is made of steel SEHS-225  259  8 section with a yield strength
of 350 MPa. The beam is subjected to axial force and bending
for the region where M*rxZ0, M*ryZ0 and N*rZ0. The SSE for the
moments about x-axis. For the given cross-section a ¼ 217 mm,
points in Table 1 is 3.50, and
b ¼ 126 mm, t ¼ 8 mm and b/a ¼ 0.581. It is required to plot the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi NrMrx interaction relation for the mid-span section of the beam.
jMrx  j1:7 þ jM  j2:0 þ jN  j1:55  1:0 ¼ 0 ð43Þ
ry r
9.1.1. Solution
for the region where M*rxr0, M*ryZ0 and N*rZ0 and three other The problem is solved based on the interaction surfaces
similar regions. The SSE for the points in Table 2 is 0.62. developed in the present study. In addition, a series of elasto-
Eqs. (42) and (43) provide conservative fit for the interaction plastic finite element analyses is conducted for the problem is
surface. However, they are not continuous at the planes M*rx ¼ 0, conducted as a verification of the analytical solutions developed.
M*ry ¼ 0 or N*r ¼ 0. In a design context, when either M*rx ¼ 0,
M*ry ¼ 0 or N*r ¼ 0, this issue can be addressed by applying both 9.1.2. Details of the finite element model
equations and adopting the more conservative result. The finite element analysis program ABAQUS 6-7.1 [28] is used
to model the member. Longitudinally, the member has a uniform
mesh consisting of 100 elements, each having a length of 20 mm.
The model has 28 elements in the semi-elliptical portion of the
8.2.2. Single function fit section, 14 in the flat portion and seven in each of the fillets
In order to obtain a single and continuous interaction relation, between the curved and the flat portions, equal to 56 elements in
one could fit the whole surface by a single equation in the form of total, circumferentially. The S4R element, a four-node shell
Eq. (36d). Evidently, the level of conservatism in this approach is element with reduced integration, is used to model the section
higher. The conservative interaction relation applicable for any wall. Steel material is assumed linearly elastic-perfectly plastic
kind of applied load found to be with a modulus of elasticity E ¼ 200 GPa, a Poisson’s ratio n ¼ 0.3
and a yield strength Fy ¼ 350 MPa. The axial force is applied as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi two longitudinal ring loads at the ends of member. The bending
jMrx  j1:65 þ jM  j1:95 þ jN  j1:5  1:0 ¼ 0 ð44Þ moments are induced by a transverse ring load applied at the
ry r
mid-span of the member. Only the resultants of the loads applied
The SSE for points in both Tables 1 and 2 is 7.51. Eq. (44) can be are depicted in Fig. 11a. In order to eliminate local deformations,
expressed in terms of Mrx, Mry, Nr and Tr by substituting M*rx, M*ry three stiffener plates are embedded into the section at the
and N*r with their definitions provided in Eqs. (33)–(35) as location of loads and reactions. The longitudinal and transverse
!1:65 !1:95 !1:5 !3:0 loads were simultaneously applied to model and the analysis was
jMrx j jMry j jNr j jNr j incrementally progressed until full plastification of the middle
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 ¼ 0 ð45Þ
1  Tr2 1  Tr2 1  Tr2 1  Tr2 cross-section has taken place. The analysis is based on the static
Riks method with the displacement control option. The beam
mid-span deflection is used as the controlling parameter. The
The interaction relation in (45) explicitly describes the effect of plastic resistance moment Mxp for the model is obtained by
torsion ratio. removing the axial force and loading the member until full

Fig. 11. Example 1: (a) FEA model and (b) failure mechanism.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54 53

plastification has occurred in the middle section. The deformed approximation made for the location of the PNA in Cases III-1
configuration of the member and the contour of the von-Mises and III-2 compared to the more exact depiction of the PNA
stresses are illustrated in Fig. 11b. illustrated in Fig. 6.

9.2. Example 2
9.1.3. Comparison of results
The interaction relations based on FEA are plotted on Fig. 12. A 3.0 m span steel SEHS-225  259  8 member (Fig. 13a) has a
The ‘‘exact’’ interaction relations based on the solution of yield stress of 350 MPa. The member is subject to a tensile force N,
Eqs. (20)–(29) are superimposed on the same plot. The simplified two 90 kN loads each acting at the third span points, inducing a
solution (i.e., Tables 1 or 2) is observed to coincide with the major moment bending moment in the middle section of 90 kNm.
‘‘exact’’ solution and thus was removed from the figure. On the Also, it is subject to 90 kN loads acting at the same point inducing a
same plot, are superimposed (a) the conservative piecewise fit minor bending moment of 90 kNm. Two 30 kNm twisting moment
(Eqs. (42) and (43)) and (b) the single function fit (Eq. (44)). The are applied to the member as shown. Under the given torsional
figure illustrates the degree of conservatism induced by both fits. moments the twisting moment in the middle section is 20 kNm. It is
This figure shows an excellent match between the finite element required to determine, based on a cross-sectional resistance limit
analysis results and the solution provided by Eqs. (20)–(29). The state, the magnitude of the tensile force that can be safely applied to
interaction relations developed yield slightly more conservative the member in addition of the above combination of internal forces
predictions for points (Nr, Mrx) of (0.43, 0.68) and (0.43, 0.68) (i.e, Mx ¼ 90 kNm, My ¼ 90 kNm and T ¼ 20 kNm). Other limit states
compared to other points. This is due to the geometric involving possible local buckling induced by compressive stresses
due to bending and the presence of residual stresses are outside the
scope of the present problem.

9.2.1. Solution 1
A finite element model was developed in ABAQUS 6-7.1 [28].
The model consists of one middle and two end segments.
Longitudinally, each segment was modelled by a uniform mesh
consisting of 50 elements. The definition of steel properties,
circumferential division of the members, ring loads, boundary
conditions and element type were identical to Example 1. The
maximum axial load predicted by the model was 1040 kN.
The deformed configuration of the member and the contour of
the von-Mises stresses are illustrated in Fig. 11b.

9.2.2. Solution 2
As discussed, the location of the PNA and thus the governing
case for the combination of the applied loads is not known
a-priori. Thus it is required to solve all possible six cases. From
Eq. (20) one has tr ¼ 0.144. Cases I-1 to III-2 are solved
consecutively and tabulated in Table 3. The only admissible
answer is Case II-1 which is Nr ¼ 0.459, i.e., N ¼ 1028 kN,
representing 98.8% of solution 1. As expected in a lower bound
solution, the predicted axial load capacity is slightly lower than
Fig. 12. Comparison of solutions for NrMrx interaction relation (example 1). solution 1.

Fig. 13. Example 2: (a) FEA model and (b) failure mechanism.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
54 F. Nowzartash, M. Mohareb / Thin-Walled Structures 48 (2010) 42–54

Table 3
Solution 2 of example 2.

Case System of Eqs. Results Substitute into Eq. Result Comments

I–1 (22) and (23) b1 ¼ 0.283, b2 ¼ 1.687 (21) Nr ¼ 0.426 Rejected—not a tensile force.
I–2 (22) and (23) b1 ¼ 1.687, b2 ¼ 6.566 – – Rejected—b2 violates applicability limits (i.e., 0rb1rb2r2p)
II–1 (25) and (26) b ¼ 0.320, x ¼ 0.159 (24) Nr ¼ 0.459 Admissible answer.
II–2 (25) and (26) b ¼ 6.603, x ¼ 1.841 – – Rejected—b and x violate applicability limits (i.e., 0rbr2p and 1rxr1)
III–1 (28) and (29) x1 ¼ 0.057, x2 ¼ 1.431 – – Rejected—x1 violates applicability limits (i.e., 1rx1rx2r1)
III–2 (28) and (29) x1 ¼ 1.431, x2 ¼ 0.057 – – Rejected—x2 violates applicability limits (i.e., 1rx1rx2r1)

9.2.3. Solution 3
The exact aspect ratio b/a of the cross-section section is 0.581. References
This is slightly higher from the value b/aE0.55 adopted in
developing Eqs (30)–(32). The use of the interaction relations [1] Gerald G, Becker H. Hand book of structural stability, part 3-buckling of
developed will introduce a slight approximation on the con- curved plates and shells. National Advisory committee for Aeronautics. 1957.
Tech. Note no. 3783.
servative side. From Eqs. (14), (30)–(32), one can determine the
[2] Chen WF, Atsuta T. Interaction equations for biaxially loaded sections. J Struct
section plastic resistances in the absence of other internal forces. Div 1972;98(5):1035–52.
These are Tp ¼ 139 kNm, Ny ¼ 2179 kN, Mxp ¼ 157 kNm, Myp ¼ 165 [3] Hodge PG. Plastic Analysis of Structures. Malabar, Fla: Krieger; 1981.
kNm. The corresponding dimensionless internal force ratios [4] CAN/CSA-S16. Limit States Design of Steel Structures. Rexdale, ON. 2001.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [5] CAN/CSA-Z662. Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Rexdale, ON. 2007.
are Tr ¼ T/Tp ¼ 20/139 ¼ 0.144, Mrx 
¼ 90=ð157 1  0:1442 Þ ¼ [6] Hu SZ, Prion HGL, Brikemoe PC. Influence of imperfections on the strength of
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi unstiffened, fabricated, tubular beam-columns. J Constr Steel Res
0:579 and Mry
¼ 90=ð165 1  0:1442 Þ ¼ 0:545. A linear interpo- 1993;25(1):43–61.
lation on the grid in Table 1 provides the prediction N*r ¼ 0.432 or [7] Mohareb M, Murray DW. Mobilization of fully plastic moment capacity for
pressurized pipes. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng Trans ASME 1999;121(4):237–41.
N ¼ 941 kN, which is 9.5% less than that of solution 1. [8] Mohareb M. Plastic interaction relations for pipe sections. J Eng Mech ASCE
2002;128(1):112–20.
[9] Mohareb M. Plastic resistance of pipe sections: upper bound solution. J Struct
Eng ASCE 2003;129(1):41–8.
9.2.4. Solution 4 [10] Ozkan IF, Mohareb M. Testing of steel pipes under bending, twist and shear.
J Struct Eng-ASCE 2003;129(10):1350–7.
A last solution is provided by applying the conservative
[11] Ozkan IF, Mohareb M. Testing and analysis of steel pipes under bending,
interaction relations. By substituting M*rx ¼ 0.579 and tension and internal pressure. J Struct Eng-ASCE 2009;135(2):187–97.
M*ry ¼ 0.545 into Eq. (42) and solving for the modified axial [12] Nowzartash F, Mohareb M. An elasto-plastic finite element for steel pipelines.
force, one obtains N*r ¼ 0.371, which correspond to N ¼ 725 kN. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2004;81(12):919–30.
[13] Gaydon FA, Nuttall H. On the combined bending and twisting of beams of
When Eq. (45) is used, the modified axial force ratio predicted various sections. J Mech Phys Solids 1957;6(1):17–26.
is N*r ¼ 0.300 corresponding to an axial force of N ¼ 586 kN. As [14] Morris G, Fenves S. Approximate yield surface equations. J Eng Mech Div
expected, the last solution provides the most conservative 1969;95(4):937–54.
[15] Pillai SU, Ellis JS. Hollow tubular beam-column in biaxial bending. J Struct Div,
prediction. ASCE 1971;97(5):1399–406.
[16] Pillai SU. Beam-column of hollow structural sections. Can J Civ Eng
1974;1(2):194–8.
[17] Pillai SU, Kurian VJ. Tests on hollow structural section beam-column. Can J Civ
Eng 1977;4:257–62.
10. Conclusion [18] Mohareb M, Ozkan IF. Plastic Interaction relationships for square hollow
structural sections: lower bound solution. J Struct Eng ASCE
2004;130(9):1381–91.
Interaction relations for semi-elliptical hollow sections under [19] Chan TM, Gardner L. Bending strength of hot-rolled elliptical hollow sections.
combination of axial force, biaxial bending moments and twisting J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(9):971–86.
moment were developed. The relations provide cross-sectional [20] Chan TM, Gardner L. Compressive resistance of hot-rolled elliptical hollow
sections. Eng Struct 2008;30(2):522–32.
strength design criteria. The relations are based on the fully [21] Nowzartash F, Mohareb M. Plastic interaction relations for elliptical hollow
plastic condition and will govern the design in cases where local sections. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47(6–7):681–91.
buckling does not occur before the fully plastic resistance of the [22] EN.1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules
and Rules for Buildings, CEN. 2005.
section is mobilized, and where members are short enough not to
[23] Gardner L, Chan TM. Cross-section classification of elliptical hollow sections.
be influenced by global buckling considerations. The solution has Steel Compos Struct 2007;7(3):185–200.
been verified by against elasto-plastic finite element analysis. [24] AISC. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. 360-05, ANSI, ed. 2005.
[25] Boresi A, Sidebottom O. Advanced Mechanics of Materials. New York: Wiley;
Tabulated interaction coefficients, simple best fit interaction
1985.
relations, as well as conservative interaction equations were [26] Corus. Celsiuss Structural Hollow Sections. Structural and Conveyance
developed. Upon experimental verification, the conservative Business, Corus Tubes. 2005.
interaction relations developed are suitable for conducting [27] Ancofer S, GMBH. Structural hollow section catalogue. Cited from: /www.ancofer.
de/eng/delivery%20programme/l_hollow_sections_el.shtmlS, Dec/2008. 2008.
cross-sectional checks commonly performed in limit state design [28] SIMULIA. Cited from: /http://www.simulia.com/products/abaqus_fea.htmlS,
in steel design standards. Dec/2008.