Two types of cross sections were selected with nominal thicknesses of 0.60, 0.80, and 0.95 mm.
Three types of cross sections of annular supports such as circular (type I), horizontal square (type II) and inclined square (type III) are considered.
For the evaluation GMA, a least-squares code developed by Poenitz, was used to fit all types of cross sections (absolute and shape), their ratios, spectrum-averaged cross sections and thermal constants in one full analysis.
Next, eight composite columns having different types of cross sections were analyzed.
Fig. 2 Two types of cross sections shown in this study.
Exact structural analysis is performed, ensuring the attainment of the absolute maximum critical buckling load for any number of segments, type of cross section and type of boundary conditions.
The buckling load analysis in either case is performed via an exact method, which ensures the attainment of the global maximum critical load under the imposed equality mass constraint for any number of segments, type of boundary conditions, type of cross section and type of material of construction.
Five different values for α are given and the choice depends on the type of cross section (whether an I-beam, hollow section, etc)., on the buckling axes, thicknesses and material strengths.
Two types of cross-section channel geometries were used.
Two types of cross-section are considered, one symmetric with respect to the middle plane and the other non-symmetric.
A total of 15 square RC columns, categorised by three different types of cross-section dimensions, were tested using horizontal impact facilities.
