Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
WP2
Prof. Klaus Berner : Ing ‐ David Izabel ‐
22 Septembre 2011 1
Work Package 2« End user focussed design strategies »
– ComparisonDesign by calculation/ Design by testing –
Roma congres
2
WP2 ‐Work package programme ‐
22/09/2011 2
- Task 2.1 State of the art (SNPPA)
- Task 2.2 Experimental programme (UKA)
- Task 2.3 Validation+ calculation EN 14509 (IS Mainz)
- Task 2.4 Design by testing guideline (SNPPA)
- Task 2.5 Development of an Excel software (SNPPA)
- Task 2.6 Dissemination of new design method (PI)
3
WP2 – Deliverables:The background of the Design By Testing ‐
22/09/2011 3
- D 2.1 Thermal test methods
- D 2.2 Parametric study to compare DBT and DBC
- D 2.3 Theoretical guidelines
- D 2.4 Examples
- D 2.5 Excel softwares
- D 2.6 Principles for an annex DBT at the EN 14509
4
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Aim
22/09/2011
Same Aim :The design of
Cladding, roofing, ceiling, partition made
of sandwich panels based on the ULS and SLS
limit states
Source K Berner
5
WP2 – Comparison DBT /DBC : The principles
22/09/2011
The same principle for Design By Testing and Design By Calculation
A differenceDBT : Works in efforts (M, V…)DBC : Works in stresses (σw; τ)
Source K Berner
6
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Rd
22/09/2011
Design of the value resistance: Rd
7
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : The tests
22/09/2011
Panel on 2 supports
No difference
Same loading
Conditionof supportdifferent
822/09/2011
WP2 – Comparison DBT /DBC : The tests
Panel on 3 supports
Test different
Test different
9
WP2 – Comparison DBT /DBC : The tests
22/09/2011
Supports
Assembly
10
WP2 – Comparison DBT /DBC : The tests
Thermal aspects
22/09/2011
Equivalent
11
WP2 – Comparison DBT /DBC : The tests
Thermal aspects
22/09/2011
newtest
different
More for research than for industrial application
12
WP2 – Comparison DBT /DBC : The tests
Thermal aspects
22/09/2011
newtest
different
13
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT /DBC : Strength capacities
22/09/2011
Interpretationof the
tests resultsequivalent
14
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Strength capacities
22/09/2011
15
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Formula
Strength of Formula used to find the loads (Bending moment Shear, and stresses)
22/09/2011
(To see more see Deliverable 2.3 Theoretical guidelines)
16
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Formula Flat panel
Design By Testing and Design By Calculation
22/09/2011
1 span
No difference
17
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Formula Flat panel
Design By testing Design By Calculation
22/09/2011
2 spans
Not the sametest
18
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Formula Flat panel
Design By testing Design By Calculation
22/09/2011
2 spans
Not the sametestNo difference
19
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Formula Rib panel
Design By Testing Design By Calculation
22/09/2011
2 spans
20
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Sd
22/09/2011
Design of the value resistance: Sd
21
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Mechanical
22/09/2011
No difference
Difference on theresidual
bending momenton the central
support
Source K Berner
22
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Combinations
22/09/2011
Combinations consideredDBT and DBC
A differenceDBT : combination of efforts (M, V…)DBC : combination of stresses (σw; τ)
Load combinations
Source K Berner
23
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Thermal Aspects
Several load cases to be considered
22/09/2011
Source K Berner
24
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Synthesis
22/09/2011
Synthesis
25
WP2 ‐ Comparison DBT/DBC : Summary
Tests Bending shearrigidities
Strength Capacities (ULS)
Strength Capacities (SLS)
Load tables(Combinations)
To see more see 31 examples in Deliverable 2.4
26
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Results
22/09/2011
Results
After application via EASIE
on
PU Roof panel
PU and MW cladding panels(To see more see Deliverable 2.2 Parametric study )
27
WP2 ‐ Comparaison DBT/DBC : Results
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00
Load
(daN
/m²)
span (m)
Panel 1001Ts on 2 supports in pression - thickness 60 mm -k = 0,85 - Calculated rigidities
Dbt
Polska
French
EN14509
22/09/2011
PU Roof panel on 2 supports in pression without thermal gradient (Informative)
28
WP2 ‐ Comparaison DBT/DBC : Results
PU Roof panel on 2 supports in pression without thermal gradient (informative)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00
Load
(daN
/m²)
Span (m)
Panel 1001TS on 2 supports - Thickness 100 mm -k = 0,85 - Calculated rigidities
Dbt
Polska
French
EN14509
22/09/2011
29
PU Roof panel on 3 supports in pression without thermal gradient (Informative)
WP2 ‐ Comparaison DBT/DBC : Results
22/09/2011
DBT
DBC
French
Polska
30
WP2 ‐ Comparaison DBT/DBC : Results
22/09/2011
PU roof panel on 2 supports in pression - Thickness 100 mm- with thermal gradient 40°C - k = 0,95 -
050
100150
200250
0 1 2 3 4 5
Span (m)
Load
(daN
/m²)
DBTDBC (DI)
DBC (ISM)
PU Roof panel on 2 supports in pression with thermal gradient
For details of calculation see Deliverable 2.4
31
WP2 ‐ Comparaison DBT/DBC : Results
22/09/2011
PU Roof panel on 3 supports in pression with thermal gradient (55°C in Winter and 40°C Summer) creep coefficient 7
For details of calculation see Deliverable 2.4
PU roof Panel in 3 supports (snow) - Thickness 100 mm - with thermal gradient (55 S and 40 W) creep 7 - K =0,9 -
0
50
100
150
200
0 1 2 3 4 5
Span (m)
Load
(daN
/m²)
DBT
DBC (Ismainz)
32
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Software
22/09/2011
Results
Practical way
Excel software's for both design by calculation and design by
testing(To see more see Deliverable 2.5 Excel software )
33
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Software
22/09/2011
34
Conclusions:
• => DBT based on a solid background with EASIE project
• => DBT / DBC based on the same principles
• => DBT /DBC same level of safety
• => 2 complementary approaches
• => DBT/DBC Results identical for the panel on 2 supports
• =>Some benefits with the design by testing when residual moment occur (panel on 3 supports)
• => Next stage discussions in TC128 SC11 WG5 and WG1 to include the DBT in the EN 14509
WP2 – Comparison DBT/DBC : Conclusions
22/09/2011
