Plastic analysis 633

Consider span FG:

In this span only two hinges are required to induce collapse in the beam.

Hinges develop at F (moment=Mp), and between F and G

(moment=1.5Mp)

Span FG is effectively a propped cantilever and consequently the position of the hinge
under the uniformly distributed load must be calculated. (Note: it is different from
Example 8.3 since the plastic moment at each hinge position is not the same).
 Examples in structural analysis 634
Equate the Mp values to determine x:

8.4 Problems: Plastic Analysis—Continuous Beams

A series of continuous beams are indicated in which the relative Mp values and the
applied collapse loadings are given in Problems 8.1 to 8.5. Determine the required value
of Mp to ensure a minimum load factor λ=1.7.

Problem 8.1

Problem 8.2
 Plastic analysis 635

Problem 8.3

Problem 8.4

Problem 8.5

8.5 Solutions: Plastic Analysis—Continuous Beams

Examples in structural analysis 636
Plastic analysis 637
Examples in structural analysis 638
Plastic analysis 639
Examples in structural analysis 640
Plastic analysis 641
Examples in structural analysis 642
Plastic analysis 643
Examples in structural analysis 644
Plastic analysis 645
Examples in structural analysis 646
Plastic analysis 647
Examples in structural analysis 648
Plastic analysis 649
Examples in structural analysis 650
Plastic analysis 651
Examples in structural analysis 652
 Plastic analysis 653

8.6 Rigid-Jointed Frames

In the case of beams identification of the critical spans (i.e. in terms of Mp or λ) can
usually be solved quite readily by using either the static or the kinematic method and
considering simple beam mechanisms. In the case of frames other types of mechanisms,
 Examples in structural analysis 654
such as sway, joint and gable mechanisms are also considered. Whilst both techniques
can be used the static method often proves laborious when applied to rigid frames,
particularly for complex load conditions. It can be easier than the kinematic method in
the case of determinate or singly redundant frames. Both methods are illustrated in this
section and in the solutions to the given problems.

As mentioned previously the kinematic solution gives a lower bound to

the true solution whilst the static solution gives an upper bound.

Two basic types of independent mechanism are shown in Figure 8.13:

Figure 8.13

Each of these collapse mechanisms can occur independently of each other. It is also
possible for a critical collapse mechanism to develop which is a combination of the
independent ones such as indicated in Figure 8.14.

Figure 8.14

It is necessary to consider all possible combinations to identify the critical collapse

mode. The Mp value is determined for each independent mechanism and then combined
mechanisms are evaluated to establish a maximum value of Mp (i.e. minimum λ). The
purpose of combining mechanisms is to eliminate sufficient hinges which exist in the
independent mechanisms, leaving only the minimum number required in the resulting
combination to induce collapse.

It is necessary when carrying out a kinematic solution, to draw the

bending moment diagram to ensure that at no point the Mp value
determined, is exceeded.
 Plastic analysis 655

8.6.1 Example 8.5: Frame 1

An asymmetric uniform, frame is pinned at supports A and G and is subjected to a
system of factored loads as shown in Figure 8.15. Assuming the λvertical.load=1.7 and
λhorizontal loads=1.4 determine the required plastic moment of resistance Mp of the section.

Figure 8.15

Kinematic Method:
Consider each independent mechanism separately.

Mechanism (i): Beam ABC

 Examples in structural analysis 656

Combinations:
Consider the independent mechanisms, their associated work equations and Mp values
as shown in Figure 8.16:
 Plastic analysis 657

Figure 8.16

It is evident from inspection of the collapse mechanisms that the hinges located at C
and E can be eliminated since in some cases the rotation is negative whilst in others it is
positive. The minimum number of hinges to induce total collapse is one more than the
number of redundancies, i.e. (ID+1)=2 and therefore the independent mechanisms should
be combined to try and achieve this and at the same time maximize the associated Mp
value. It is unlikely that mechanism (i) will be included in the failure mechanism since its
associated Mp value is relatively small compared to the others. It is necessary to
investigate several possibilities and confirm the resulting solution by checking that the
bending moments do not exceed the plastic moment of resistance at any section.

Combination 1: Mechanism (v)=[(ii)+(iv)]

When combining these mechanisms the hinge at C will be eliminated and

the resulting Mp value can be determined by adding the work equations. It
is necessary to allow for the removal of the hinge at C in the internal work
done since in each equation an (Mpθ) term has been included, but the
hinge no longer exists. A total of 2Mp must therefore be subtracted from
the resulting internal work, i.e.
 Examples in structural analysis 658

It is possible that this is the true collapse mechanism, however this would have to be
confirmed as indicated above by satisfying conditions (ii) and (iii) in Section 8.1.2.

An alternative solution is also possible where the hinges at C and E are

eliminated, this can be a achieved if mechanism (v) is combined with
mechanism (iii).

In mechanism (v) β=0.5θ (see the sway calculation above) and hence the
total rotation at joint E=−(θ+β)=−1.5θ. If this hinge is to be eliminated
then the combinations of mechanisms (iii) and (v) must be in the
proportions of 1.5:1.0. (Note: when developing mechanism (v) the
proportions were 1:1).

The total value of the internal work for the eliminated

hinge=(2×1.5Mp)=3.0Mp, i.e.

The +ve rotation indicates tension inside the frame at point D and the −ve rotation
indicates tension outside the frame at point F.
 Plastic analysis 659

This is marginally higher than the previous value and since there does not
appear to be any other obvious collapse mechanism, this result should be
checked as follows:

Figure 8.17
 Examples in structural analysis 660

Figure 8.18

The three conditions indicated in Section 8.1.2 have been satisfied: i.e.

Mechanism condition: minimum number of hinges required=(ID+1)=2

hinges,

Equilibrium condition: the internal moments are in equilibrium with the

collapse loads,

Yield condition: the bending moment does not exceed Mp anywhere in the
frame.

Mp kinematic=Mp static=Mp true

It is often convenient to carry-out the calculation of combinations using a table as shown

in Table 8.1; eliminated hinges are indicated by EH in the Table.

Independent and Combined Mechanisms for Example 8.5

Hinge (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)=(ii)+(iv) (vi)=(v)+1.5(iii)

Position
 Plastic analysis 661

B(MP) +2.0θ − − − − −

C(Mp) −θ −θ − +θ EH EH (2.0Mpθ)
(2.0Mpθ)

D (Mp) − +2.0θ − − +2.0θ +2.0θ

E (Mp) − −θ +θ −0.5θ −1.5θ EH (3.0Mpθ)

F (Mp) − − −2.0θ − − −3.0θ

External 31.5θ 136.0θ 63.0θ 63.0θ 199.0θ 293.5θ

Work

Internal 3.0Mpθ 4.0Mpθ 3.0Mpθ 1.5Mpθ 5.5Mpθ 10.0Mpθ

Work

Eliminated − − − − 2.0Mpθ 5.0Mpθ

hinges

Combined − − − − 3.5MPθ 5.0Mpθ

M Pθ

Mp (kNm) 10.5 34.0 21.0 42.0 56.86 58.70

Table 8.1

Static Method:
This frame can also be analysed readily using the static method since it only has one
degree-of-indeterminacy. When using this method the frame can be considered as the
superposition of two frames; one statically determinate and one involving only the
assumed redundant reaction as shown in Figure 8.19. Applying the three equations of
equilibrium to the two force systems results in the support reactions indicated.
 Examples in structural analysis 662

Figure 8.19

Equations can be developed for each of the five possible hinge positions in terms of the
two frames as follows:

Equation
(1)

Equation
(2)

Equation
(3)

Equation
(4)
 Plastic analysis 663

Equation
(5)

As indicated previously, only two hinges are required to induce total collapse. A collapse
mechanism involving two hinge positions can be assumed and the associated equations
will each have two unknown values, i.e. HG and Mp and can be solved simultaneously.

The value of the bending moment at all other hinge positions can then be
checked to ensure that they do not exceed the calculated Mp value. If any
one does exceed the value then the assumed mechanism was incorrect and
others can be checked until the true one is identified.

Assume a mechanism inducing hinges at D and E as in (v) above.

Equation
(6)

Equation
(7)

Add equations (6) and (7):

 Examples in structural analysis 664

Check the value of the moments at all other possible hinge positions.

Since the bending moment at F is greater than Mp this mechanism does not satisfy the
‘yield condition’ and produces an unsafe solution.

The reader should repeat the above calculation assuming hinges develop at
positions D and F and confirm that the true solution is when Mp=58.7
kNm as determined previously using the kinematic method.