Preview

Stability Design of Steel Frames
Stability Design of Steel Frames

W. F. Chen
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
E. M. Lui
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Syracuse University
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is anCRC

imprint Press
of the
Boca Taylor
Raton AnnGroup,
& Francis Arbor Boston
an informa London
business
First published 1991 by CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
Reissued 2018 by CRC Press
© 1991 by CRC Press, Inc.

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity
of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright
holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this
form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we
may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or
utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including pho-
tocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission
from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For or-
ganizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for iden-
tification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Chen, Wai-Fah, 1936-

Stability design of steel frames/
by W. F. Chen, E. M. Lui
p. cm.
Includes index
ISBN 0-8493-8606-3
1. Structural frames-Design and
construction. 2. Building, Iron and steel.
3. Structural stability.
I. Lui, E. M. II. Title.
[TA660.F7C45 1991]
624.1‘773-dc20 91-7742
A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 91007742
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the
original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been
unable to contact.
ISBN 13: 978-1-315-89775-2 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-1-351-07685-2 (ebk)
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the
CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com
New Directions in Civil Engineering
SERIES EDITOR: W. F. CHEN Purdue University
Contents
Preface, vii
Notation, ix
1 Analysis of Beam-Columns,
2 Design of Beam-Columns, 39
3 Second-Order Rigid Frame Analysis, 145
4 Simplified Second-Order Rigid Frame Analysis, 203
5 Behavior and Modeling of Semi-Rigid Connections, 235
6 Analysis of Semi-Rigid Frames, 275
7 Design of Semi-Rigid Frames, 343
Index, 373
v
Preface
Since the publication of the two-volume book on Theory ofBeam-Columns by W.F.

Chen and T. Atsuta in 1976-77 (McGraw-Hill, New York), our understanding of
certain aspects of the behavior and design of steel members and frames has
increased considerably and many extensions and advances during the last 10 years
have been made. In particular, the rapid development in computer hardware and
software has made it possible for engineers and designers to predict structural
behavior quite accurately. The advancement in structural analysis techniques
coupled with the increased understanding of structural behavior has made it
possible for engineers to adopt the limit state design philosophy. A limit state is
defined as a condition at which a structural member or its component ceases to
perform its intended function under normal conditions (serviceability limit) or
failure under severe conditions (ultimate limit state). The recently published Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specification by the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC, 1986) is based on the limit states philosophy and thus
represents a more rational approach to the design of steel structures in general, and
beam-columns in particular.
This book is a concise encapsulation of recent research works on the analysis
and design of steel members and frames. The primary objective is to provide the
reader with a course of reference for current topics of interest in inelastic member
and frame analysis/design and the effect of joint flexibility on frame behavior and
design.
The book is a practical work that will usefully supplement the traditional texts
on the theory and design of structural stability. The systematic layout of selected
topics from structural members to connections to frames makes it possible to lead
the reader to the front of present research without presupposing prior familiarity
with the subject. In fact, much of the material presented in the recent monographs
Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames (1987) and Steel Beam-to-Column Connections
( 1988), edited by W.F. Chen (Elsevier Applied Science, London) is of a fairly recent
origin, and is combined here with the more recent work completed at Purdue,
Syracuse, and elsewhere, to form the basis of the present book. The material
presented here in a unified format may not be found in the standard reference works
of the field.
W.F. Chen
E.M. Lui
1991
vii
Notation
Load and moment

axial load
PIPy = nondimensional axial load
elastic buckling load
n 2 EI/L2 = Euler buckling load
n 2 EII(KLf = elastic buckling load considering column end restraining
conditions
nominal axial strength
ultimate strength of column considering geometric imperfections and
material plasticity
PY AFy = yield strength
M bending moment
m MIMy = nondimensional bending moment
Ml,M2 smaller and larger end moments of beam-column, respectively
Mer elastic buckling moment
Mocr (n/L)../(ElyGJ) ../(1 + W~ = elastic buckling moment under uniform
moment, where W~ = (n 2 /L2 )(£Cw/GJ)
CmM2 = equivalent uniform moment
nominal flexural strength
required flexural strength in member due to lateral frame translation
required flexural strength in member assuming there is no lateral
translation of the frame
ZFy = plastic bending moment
plastic bending moment considering the influence of axial load
ultimate bending moment capacity of beam considering geometric
imperfections and material plasticity
SFY = yield moment
Geometry and dimensions

A cross-sectional area
b compression element width
br flange width
Cw warping constant for a section
e end eccentricity
d overall depth of member
h story height
I Ar2 = moment of inertia
ix
X NOTATION
J uniform torsional (or St. Venant) constant for a section

L length
r ..J(IIA) =radius of gyration
S elastic section modulus
thickness of connected part
u,v displacements in x and y direction, respectively
Z plastic section modulus
 curvature
<l>y MyfEI = yield curvature
rf> <1>/Y = nondimensional curvature
Ab ..J(M/Mcr) =beam slenderness
Ac ..J(P/Pek) = KL/nr ..J(FyiE) =column slenderness parameter
c5 lateral deflection of column
d lateral deflection of frame
d0 first-order lateral translation deflection of the story under consideration
y angle of twist
Material parameters
E modulus of elasticity of steel (29 000 ksi)
G shear modulus of elasticity of steel ( 11 200 ksi)
Fy, ay yield stress
v Poisson's ratio
Stability and LRFD related factors

AF amplification factor
B1 P-o moment amplification factor for beam-columns in LRFD
Cm/[ 1 - (PIPek)] ;;;;. 1.0
B2 P-d moment amplification factor for beam-columns in LRFD
1/[1 - L(PIPek)] or 1/[1 - L(Pd0 /hll)]
Cb Mc/Mocr =equivalent moment factor for beams
em equivalent moment factor for beam-columns
K ..J(Pe/Pek) =effective length factor for prismatic member
k ..J(PIEI)
GA, G8 joint bending stiffness ratio
rf> resistance factor
rPb resistance factor for flexure= 0.90
rf>c resistance factor for compression= 0.85
u kL/2
stability functions
NOTATION Xi
Connection parameters
C, D curve-fitting constants
K standardization parameter
M connection moment
Mu connection ultimate moment capacity
n shape parameter
Rk connection stiffness
Rk R~IEI = nondimensional connection stiffness
Rkb design connection stiffness for calculating M 11

Rkf, Rkp strain-hardening connection stiffness
Rki initial connection stiffness
RkO design connection stiffness for calculating Mnt
er connection rotational deformation
1: Analysis of Beam-Columns
1.1 Introduction, I 1.4.3 General Cross-Sections Under Biaxial

Bending
1.2 General Behavior of Beam-Columns, 3
1.5 Member Analysis by Newmark Method, 18
I. 3 Analysis of Beam-Columns, 5
1.6 Member Analysis by Cranston Method, 22
1.4 Cross-Section Analysis for 1.6.1 Cross-Section Analysis
Moment-Curvature Relation, 6 1.6.2 Membet Analysis
1.4.1 Rectangular Cross-Section Under 1.6.3 Estimation of Assumed Values
Uniaxial Bending 1.6.4 General Remarks
1.4.2 General Cross-Section Under Uniaxial
Bending References, 3 7
1.1 Introduction
Beam-columns are structural members subjected to combined axial forces and
bending moments. The bending moments that are present in a beam-column consist
of two types: primary bending moments which arise from moments applied or
induced at the ends of the member and/or moments from transverse loadings on the
member; secondary bending moments which arise as a result of the axial force acting
through the lateral displacement of the member. The so-called P-r5 moments are
moments caused by the axial force acting through the lateral displacement of the
member relative to its chord (Fig. 1.1 a), whereas the P-Ll moments are moments
caused by the axial force acting through the relative lateral displacement of the two
ends of the member (Fig. 1.1 b).
Secondary moments generally produce detrimental effects to slender compres-
sion members and so they must be accounted for in design. The nature and the
manner in which these secondary moments are incorporated in the analysis and
design of structural members in frames will be addressed in this and the following
chapters.
Beam-columns can be considered as the basic element of a structural frame.
Beams and columns are special cases of beam-columns. In the case of beams, the
p
; ~ -=::::;::;------
--.............::=----__..1=----r- p
Deflected configuration
(a) P - o Effect
Fig. 1.1 Secondary P-delta effects
1
2 CHAPTER 1
Deflected configuration
(b) P - t::, Effect
Fig. 1.1 Continued
effect of axial force on the primary bending moments is negligible, but in the case
of beam-columns this effect may be such as to add significant additional moments
to the primary moments. At the present time, the design methodology for frames is
based essentially on the behavior of individual members that comprise the frame
rather than on the entire frame itself, i.e. the design is performed on a member level.
Thus the usual procedure for a frame design is first to carry out an elastic frame
analysis and to determine the axial force and bending moments on each member.
The design of each member is then carried out one at a time by using an ultimate
strength interaction equation that expresses a safe combination of axial force and
bending moments that the member can sustain. A detailed discussion of these
beam-column design interaction equations is given in Chapter 2. At the present
time, it suffices to say that the design of a structural frame is merely a selection of
members that comprise the frame. Realistically, a frame should be designed based
on an interactive system behavior rather than on a collection of individual
behaviors of beam-columns. Nevertheless, this will require a considerable change in
the concept and philosophy of structural design which is currently not feasible;
however, with the present rapid infusion of computing into structural engineering,
such a challenge may be achieved in the next decade.
Although a structural frame is designed at the member level, the member is by
no means treated as a totally isolated element. It is easily conceivable that an
isolated member behaves rather differently from a framed member because of the
interaction effect that always exists among adjacent members of a frame. To account
for this interaction approximately, the concept of effective length has been widely
ANALYSIS OF BEAM-COLUMNS 3
used in present engineering practice. The determination of the effective length of a

framed member is addressed in Chapter 2.
In addition to member interaction in a frame, it is well known that the behavior
of a member depends on the types of loadings on the member. Different loadings
will produce different moment patterns and the response of the member changes
according to these moment patterns. For the purposes of design, a parameter
referred to as the equivalent moment factor (the em factor) has been introduced in
engineering practice to account for the effect of moment gradient in a member. The
Cm factor is also discussed in Chapter 2.
The study of the behavior and analysis of beam-columns has been the subject
of intense research for decades and quite a voluminous number of publications are
available in the open literature. Interested readers should refer to the book by
Galambos (1968) and the two-volume work by Chen and Atsuta (1976, 1977) for
a detailed discussion. For the present time, only those equations which are pertinent
to the scope of this book will be derived and discussed.
In the next section, the general behavior of beam-columns is discussed. This is
followed by the discussion of two computer-based methods, namely the Newmark
method and the Cranston method, for the analysis of the elasto-plastic behavior of
beam-columns.
1.2 General behavior of beam-columns

The general behavior of a beam-column can best be studied by investigating the
load-deflection relationship of the member. Figure 1.2 shows an !-shaped member
subjected to an axial force P and end moments M 0 . Suppose P is applied first and
then held constant. The moments are subsequently applied and increased mono-
tonically about the major principal axis of the cross-section. The variation of M 0
with end rotation (}0 is then plotted. This M 0 -0 0 curve is shown as a full line in Fig.
1.2. The curve is nonlinear almost from the start because of the P-~ effect. The axial
force acts through the displacement caused by the applied end moments creating an
additional rotation at the ends. The P-~ effect becomes more and more significant
as the applied end moments increase. At point A, the combined effect of the primary
moment M 0 and the secondary P-~ moment causes yielding of the most severely
stressed fibers of the cross-section. This yielding reduces the stiffness of the member.
This is reflected in the further decrease in slope of the M 0 -0 0 curve beyond point
A. As deformation increases, the P-~ moment also increases. This secondary
moment will share a proportionately larger portion of the moment capacity of the
cross-section. Eventually, at point B, the rate of increase of the internal resisting
moment of the cross-section is just equal to the rate of increase of the applied
moment M 0 and the P-~ moment. Beyond point B, any further increase in
deflection must be accompanied by a decrease in applied moment M 0 as the rate of
increase of the P-~ moment becomes much faster than the rate of increase of the
4 CHAPTER I
Inelastic lateral
torsional buckling
Elastic lateral
torsional buckling
Fig. 1.2 Behavior of a beam-column
internal moment of the cross-section. Failure of the member by the formation of

a plastic hinge occurs at point C when the moment-carrying capacity of the
cross-section is finally exhausted.
In the foregoing discussion, it is tacitly assumed that other forms of failure do
not occur before the formation of a plastic hinge. If the member is slender and the
cross-section is torsionally weak, lateral torsional buckling may occur. Lateral
torsional buckling may occur in the elastic range (curve 1) or in the inelastic range
(curve 2) depending on the slenderness of the member. A member with a high
slenderness ratio will experience elastic lateral torsional buckling, whereas a member
with an intermediate slenderness ratio will experience inelastic lateral torsional
buckling. Lateral torsional buckling will not occur if the slenderness ratio of the
member is low or if the member is bent about the minor principal axis of the
cross-section. Lateral torsional buckling will also be absent regardless of the
slenderness ratio in members for which the moments of inertia of the cross-sections
are equal for both principal axes (e.g. a square box section) or for cross-sections with
axisymmetry (e.g. circular sections). Lateral torsional buckling is an important design
criterion for steel members since it is clear from Fig. 1.2 that the occurrence oflateral
torsional buckling reduces the maximum load-carrying capacity of the member.
Another form of failure which may occur in the member is local buckling. Local
buckling is the buckling of component elements of the cross-section. An element
with a high width to thickness ratio is very susceptible to local buckling. Like lateral
torsional buckling, local buckling may occur in the elastic or inelastic range. The
effect of local buckling is to reduce the load-carrying capacity of the cross-section.
Local buckling is accounted for in design by the use of a reduced width for the
buckled element.
The analysis of beam-columns is an inherent complicated problem. To trace a
load-deflection curve, like that shown in Fig. 1.2, one must resort to some type of
approximate or numerical technique. This is because the differential equations
governing the inelastic behavior of a beam-column are highly nonlinear even for the
simplest loading case (Chen and Atsuta, 1976, 1977). Although a number of
methods are available for the analysis of beam-columns, they all involve some form
of simplifying assumptions to make the problem tractable. In Sections 1.5 and 1.6,
two such methods are described. The first method was developed by Newmark
(1943) for the analysis of the in-plane bending response of beam-columns. The
second method was deve1oped by Cranston ( 1983) for the ana1ysis of the biaxia1
bending behavior of beam-columns.
1.3 Analysis of beam-columns

The analysis of the inelastic behavior of beam-columns normally proceeds in two
steps.
1 Cross-section analysis.
2 Member analysis.
In a cross-section analysis, the behavior of a cross-section subjected to the
combined action of axial force and bending moments is investigated. The result is
usually expressed in a set of equations relating the moment M and the curvature 
for a certain value of axial force P (the M-<1>-P relationship). If axial deformation
is significant, another set of equations relating the axial force P and axial strain e for
a certain value of moment M (the P-e-M relationship) must also be developed.
However, for most beam-column problems, flexural deformation is usually an order
of magnitude larger than axial deformation and so reasonable results can generally
be obtained by using the moment-curvature-thrust (M-{/}-P) relationship only. Once
the M-<1>-P relationship is established, member analysis can proceed.
In a member analysis, the member is divided into a number of segments
whereby equilibrium and compatibility conditions along the length of the member
at each division point are enforced for a given set of loadings or deflections. The
analysis thus consists of finding successive solutions as the applied load or deflection
of the member is increased in steps. When enough of these analyses have been
performed, the load-deflection relationship of the beam-column can be traced on a
pointwise basis. The maximum load-carrying capacity of the member is obtained as
the peak point of this load-deflection curve. In the following, we first discuss the
6 CHAPTER I
various approaches for obtaining the M-<1>-P relationship of a given cross-section;

the Newmark and Cranston methods of member analysis are then presented.
1.4 Cross-section analysis for moment-curvature relation

We start with the rigorous derivation of the M-<1>-P relationship of a rectangular
cross-section under uniaxial bending to highlight the use of formal mathematics to
obtain closed-form solutions. This is followed by a description of an effective
numerical method of rigorous analysis capable of dealing with a general cross-
section under uniaxial bending. A tangent stiffness formulation based on this
numerical method is then developed to obtain the moment-curvature relationship
of general cross-sections under biaxial bending.
1.4.1 Rectangular cross-section under uniaxial bending

Figure L3a shows a rectangular cross-section subjected to an axial thrust P and a
bending moment M. By assuming that: ( 1) plane sections before bending remain
plane after bending, (2) the cross-section geometry remains unchanged after the
loads are applied, and (3) the stress-strain behavior of the material exhibits an
elastic-perfectly plastic characteristic, the M-<1>-P relationship can be derived
rigorously (Chen and Lui, 1987) by the use of the following formal integrations for
axial force P and bending moment M
P= LazdA (1.4.1)
M = LyazdA (1.4.2)
X ---f---,
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.3 Cross-section behavior of a rectangular cross-section

In the above equations, az is the normal stress and A is the area of the cross-section.
Depending on the yield pattern of the cross-section, three possible stress
distributions can be identified. They are shown in Fig. 1.3b and are referred to as
elastic, primary plastic, and secondary plastic stress distributions. The resulting
nondimensional moment-curvature-thrust relationships that correspond to these
stress distributions are as follows.
For 0 ... t/1 ... (1 - p)
m = t/1 (1.4.3a)
For (1 - p) ... cp ... 11(1 - p)
2(1-p)3/2
m = 3(1 - p)- ·Jt/1 (1.4.3b)
For t/1 ?:: 11( 1 - p)
m = lo - p2) - _1_ (1.4.3c)

2 2cp2
where
m = MlMy, t/1 = <l>l<l>y, p = PI Py (1.4.4)
in which
2
My = bd ay is the moment at first yield (1.4.5)
6
2ay (1.4.6)
<l>y = Ed is the curvature at first yield
Py = bday is the yield load ( 1.4. 7)
Equations (1.4.3a-c) are plotted in Fig. 1.4. Note that the moment capacity of
the section reduces as the magnitude of axial force increases. This is expected
since a larger proportion of the section capacity is consumed by the axial effect.
1.4.2 General cross-section under uniaxial bending

For cross-sections which are not rectangular or for which the material exhibits a
more complicated stress-strain behavior, or if residual stresses are considered,
closed-form solutions for the M-<1>-P relationships are rather difficult, if not
impossible, to obtain. For a general cross-section subjected to a combined axial
thrust and bending moment about one of the principal axes (Fig. 1.5), the M-<1>-P
relationships can be obtained by an effective computer-based numerical procedure
described below.
The development of the procedure follows an approach reported by El-Metwally
and Chen ( 1989) for reinforced concrete section. The basic assumptions used are as
follows.
8 CHAPTER 1
1.6
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
t/> = .!!?.._
"'y
Fig. 1.4 M-ff>-P curves for rectangular cross-sections
1 The strain distribution across the cross-section is linear (i.e. plane sections before
bending remain plane after bending).
2 The axial force acts through the centroid of the cross-section.
3 Shear deformation is neglected.
4 The shape of the cross-section remains unchanged throughout the course of the
loading.
Suppose an initial load vector {P0 , M 0 }T that corresponds to a known initial
deformation vector {e0 , <1> 0 }T is known, a new load vector {P1, MdT that corresponds
to a new deformation vector {e 1 , <l>dT can be written as
>
Fig. 1.5 Arbitrary cross-section subjected to an axial force and a bending moment
and
(1.4.9)
In the above equations, P, M, e and ~ are the axial thrust, bending moment, axial
strain and curvature, respectively.
A relationship between the incremental load vector {M, L\M}T and the
incremental deformation vector {.1e, .1~}T can be formulated as follows. Knowing
dP= aP de+ aP d~
ae ~ (1.4.10)
aM aM (1.4.11)
ae
dM=-de+-d~
~
we have, in matrix form
(1.4.12)
where S is the section incremental stiffness matrix.

Upon replacing the differential changes of the quantities by finite changes we
obtain
(1.4.13)
or
(1.4.14)
The elements of the section incremental stiffness matrix S can be obtained using
finite differences. For example
aP M P2-P1 (1.4.15)
ae~ .1e=~
If central difference is used, then P 1 is evaluated from a strain (e- ~.1e) and P 2 is
evaluated from a strain (e + ~.1e), where e is the current state of strain and .1e is an
assumed axial strain increment. In a numerical implementation, P 1 and P 2 are
1Q CHAPTER 1
obtained by evaluating Eq. {1.4.1) numerically by dividing the cross-section into

small elemental areas. The normal stresses az are assumed to be constant for each
elemental area and are summed for all elements of the cross-section to obtain the
axial force. Note that az can be calculated for each element from the strain by using
the known stress-strain relationship of the material. If residual stresses are present,
they can be incorporated into the analysis readily by adding their contribution to the
stresses produced by the applied forces.
Similarly
(1.4.16)
where M 1 is calculated from a curvature (- ~A) and M 2 is calculated from a

curvature (+ ~A). is the current curvature and A<l> is an assumed curvature
increment. The moments are evaluated numerically using Eq. (1.4.2). However,
before az can be obtained from the stress-strain relationship, the normal strain ez
must be known. The normal strain for each elemental area can be ca!culated from
the curvature by the kinematic relationship
(1.4.17)
where y is the distance measured from the centroidal axis of the cross-section to the
centroid of the elemental area.
A similar approach can be applied to obtain values for the off-diagonal terms
aPia and aM/ae. Once S is obtained, the following procedure can be used to
trace the M-<1>-P relationship of a general cross-section. The complete M-<1>-P
curve is traced in a step-by-step manner. The basic premise is that once an initial
load vector {P0 , M 0 }T that corresponds to an initial deformation vector {e0 , <1> 0}T
is known, a subsequent load vector {P1, MdT for a deformation vector {e 1, <l>dT
can be obtained by following the iterative steps outlined.
1 Assume an incremental load vector {AP, dM} T.
2 Calculate the section incremental stiffness matrix S as described above.
3 Evaluate the incremental deformation vector using Eq. (1.4.14).
4 Calculate the deformation vector {e 1 , 1}T using Eq. (1.4.9).
5 Calculate the load vector {P 1 , M 1}T that corresponds to the deformation vector
calculated in step 4 by numerically integrating Eqs. ( 1.4.1) and ( 1.4.2) in
conjunction with a known stress-strain relationship.
6 Calculate {P1, M 1}T using Eq. (1.4.8).
7 Compare the load vector obtained in step 5 with that obtained in step 6. If the
difference between them is within an acceptable tolerance, the solution is said to have
converged. Otherwise, the difference between these two load vectors {AP, dM}T is
used as the new incremental load vector. Steps 2 through 7 are repeated until
convergence is achieved.
By using the above procedure, M-cf>-P curves can be generated which can
then be utilized in a beam-column analysis. To improve efficiency, it is advan-
tageous to express these curves in the form of mathematical expressions (Chen,
1971) analogous to the analytical expressions for the M-cf>-P relationship of a
rectangular section. Recall that for a rectangular section, three stress distributions
can be identified (Fig. 1.3b) which correspond to three regimes: elastic (when no
fiber has yielded), primary plastic (when the fibers in the compression zone of the
cross-section have yielded), and secondary plastic (when fibers in both the
compression and tension zones of the cross-section have yielded). These regimes
are shown schematically for an M-cf>-P curve in Fig. 1.6. The general mathe-
matical expressions for each regime can be written as follows.
For 0 :o;;:; r/> :o;;:; r/> 1
m=ar/> (1.4.18)
For r/> 1 :o;;:; r/> :o;;:; r/> 2
(1.4.19)
For r/>"" r/> 2
(1.4.20)
mpc --------------------------------
Secondary
plastic
m,
J p = constant j
<1>,
Fig. 1.6 Three regimes of moment-curvature curve for a constant axial force
12 CHAPTER I
In the above equations, a, b, c and fare curve-fitting constants, m and r/> are the
nondimensional moment and curvature as defined in Eq. (1.4.4), and mpc is the
limit moment as shown in Fig. 1.6.
The constants a, b, c and fare determined in terms of m 1 , m 2 , mpco r/> 1 and r/> 2
from the continuity conditions between adjacent regimes of the moment-curvature-
thrust curve. The continuity conditions are as follows.
At the primary yield point
(1.4.21)
At the secondary yield point
( 1.4.22)
The solution of Eqs. ( 1.4.21) and ( 1.4.22) yields the following expressions for a, b,
c and/
m,
a=- (1.4.23)
rP!
m2..Jr/>z- m,.../rjJ, (1.4.24)
b=
.../rf>z- .../rf>t
mz-m, (1.4.25)
c-- 1/...jrjJ, - 11.../r/>2
f = (mpc- m2)r/>l (1.4.26)
According to a study by Chen (1971 ), the values of m" m 2, mpc• r/> 1 and r/> 2 are
practically independent of the size of the section. Therefore, for a given cross-
sectional shape, only one set of expressions is needed to describe its m-rf>-p
relationship. Approximate expressions for m 1 , m 2 , mpc• r/> 1 and r/> 2 for wide flange
cross-sections are summarized in Table 1.1. Similar expressions for square and
circular tubes can be found in the books by Chen and Atsuta (1976) and Chen and
Han (1985). Figures 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 show a comparison of the m-rf>-p curves
obtained analytically or numerically with the curve obtained using Eqs. ( 1.4.18) to
(1.4.20). Good approximations are observed. For fabricated cylindrical tubes
commonly used in offshore structures, additional studies on the cross-section
behavior, including the effects of hydrostatic pressure, cross-sectional imperfections,
residual stresses, local buckling and cyclic loading, have been reported recently by
Chen and Sohal ( 1988).
Table 1.1 Approximate m-<J>-p expressions for wide flange sections (Chen and Atsuta, 1976)
Strong axis bending, no residual stress
For all p
m1 = 1-p
</>1 = 1-p
For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.225 For 0.225 ,;; p ,;; I

2
mpc = 1.11- 2.64p mpc = 1.238- 1.143p- 0.095r
m2 = I +0.778p-4.78p 2
m2 = 1.20(1 - p)
</> 2 = 1/(1 - 3. 7p + 8.4p2) </> 2 = 2.20(1 - p)
Strong axis bending, with residual stress, Urc = 0.3uy

For 0,;; p,;; 0.8 For 0.8,;; p,;; I
m 1 = 0.9-p ml =- 1.1 + 3.1p- 2r
</>1 = 0.9 -p "'I= 3.3- 8p+ 5r
For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.225 For 0.225 ,;; p ,;; I
mpc = 1.11- 2.64r mpc = 1.238- 1.143p- 0.095p2
m2 = 0.9 + !.94p- 9.4p2 m2 = 1.1(1- p)
</> 2 = 11(1.11- 7.35p + 29.2r) <l>z- 1.3- p
Weak axis bending, no residual stress

For all p
ml = 1-p
</>1 = 1-p
For 0,;; p,;; 0.4 For 0.4,;; p,;; I

m2 = I + !.5p- 2.5p2 mz = 0.85 + 2.03p- 2.88p 2
2 2
cfJ 2 = l/(l-1.57p+0.725p ) cfJ 2 = 1/(0.368 + 0.645p- 0.862p )
For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.252 For 0.252 ,;; p ,;; I

2
mpc = 1.51(1- 0.185p ) mpc = 2.58(0.52 + p)(l - p)
Weak axis bending, with residual stress, urc = 0.3uy

For 0,;; p,;; 0.4 For 0.4,;; p,;; I
m 1 =0.9-p m 1 = 0.567 + O.lp- 0.667r
cP!=0.9-p cP! =0.5
mz = 0.9 + p- 2.5r m2 = I + 0.25p- 1.25p2
<Pz = 1/(1.11 - 2.llp + 2.81r) <Pz = 1/(1.3- 2.45p + 2.45r)
For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.252 For 0.252 ,;; p ,;; I

mpc = 1.51 - 0.28r mpc = 2.58(0.52 + p)(l- p)
1.4.3 General cross-sections under biaxial bending

In this section, a tangent stiffness formulation for the M-c'J>-P relationship of a
general cross-section is discussed. Similar to the approach discussed in Section
14 CHAPTER 1
1.2
p=P/P. = 0
y 0.1
0.2
1.0
0.8 0.4
M
m=-
My
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
----Actual
-Approx. -_I-wsx31
0 23 4 5
l/J = cJ>
Cl>y
Fig. 1.7 Comparison of actual and approximate m-¢-p curves (I-section without residual stresses bent
about the strong axis)
1.4.2, this numerical approach requires the discretization of the cross-section into
small elemental areas. The cumulative effect of the entire cross-section is
obtained by summing the effects of all the elements that comprise the cross-
section.
Figure 1.10 shows a cross-section subjected to an axial force P and moments Mx
and My about the x- and y-axis, respectively. By assuming that plane sections
remain plane, the normal strain of element i can be expressed as a linear function
of x andy as
(1.4.27)
where e0 is the strain at the centroid of the cross-section, <l>x is the curvature with
respect to the x-axis, <l>y is the curvature with respect to the y-axis, and er is the
residual strain. Because of the nonlinear nature of the problem, it is convenient to
express the strain in Eq. (1.4.27) in incremental form as
(1.4.28)
1.2
0.2
1.0
0.8 0.4
m=~
My
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
l
0.30y
----Actual
- --W8x31
--Approx.
0 23 4 5
tP=cp
cpy
Fig. 1.8 Comparison of actual and approximate m-rp-p curves (!-section with residual stresses bent about
the strong axis)
Note that L1er = 0 since the residual strain is a constant for a given element. The
corresponding stress increment is
( 1.4.29)
where Eeff(i) is the effective modulus of the i-th element which can be taken as the
slope of the known a-e curve for the case of a uniaxial state of stress or the slope
of the effective stress-strain (Chen and Han, 1988) for the case of a biaxial state of
stress that exists in the element.
The axial force and bending moment increments are related to the stress
increments by
M ~ L L1azdA ~ LAaziAi ( 1.4.30)
llMx ~ LYL1azdA ~ LYiL1aziAi (1.4.31)
(1.4.32)
16 CHAPTER 1
p=P/Py= 0
0.4
0.6
0.8
Actual
Approx.
3 4
Fig. 1.9 Comparison of actual and approximate m-rf>-p curves (tubular section without residual stresses,
MIMP = (1t/4)(MIM,))
In the above equations, the subscript i refers to the i-th element of the cross-section
and the summation is carried out over the entire cross-section. By substitution of
Eq. (1.4.29) into Eqs. (1.4.30) to (1.4.32), we have, after rearrangement
( 1.4.33)
where
sll = IEetf(i)Ai
sl2 = s21 = IEetf(i)Y;A;

Fig. 1.10 General cross-section subjected to an axial force and biaxial bending moments
(1.4.34)
Symbolically, Eq. (1.4.33) can be written as

( 1.4.35)
from which M can be solved from

( 1.4.36)
In the above equation, M' is the incremental generalized stress vector, M is the
incremental generalized strain vector, and S is the section tangent stiffness matrix.
Once S which corresponds to a given state of stress (or strain) is evaluated, it is a
simple matter to find the path of generalized strain X for a given path of generalized
stress F through a step-by-step incremental calculation in conjunction with an
iteration procedure. The procedure is described below.
18 CHAPTER I
1 For given incremental generalized stress vector M, evaluate the section tangent
stiffness matrix S based on the state of stresses at the beginning of the increment.
2 Calculate the incremental generalized strain vector Musing Eq. (1.4.36).
3 Obtain total generalized strains by adding the incremental strains M to the
current state of generalized strains.
4 Calculate the total generalized stresses using the known stress-strain relationship
and the following relationships
(1.4.37)
(1.4.38)
(1.4.39)
5 Alternatively, calculate the total generalized stress vector by adding the incremen-
tal generalized stresses M in step 1 to the current state of generalized stresses.
6 Compare the total generalized stresses calculated in step 4 and step 5. If the
discrepancy is negligible, the solution is said to have converged. Otherwise, their
difference is used as the incremental generalized stress and steps 1 to 6 are repeated
until convergence.
Once the M-4>-P relationship is known, a beam-column analysis can be carried
out. In this chapter, two rather efficient and powerful numerical methods for
beam-column analysis are presented. They are the Newmark method and the
Cranston method.
1.5 Member ana1ysis by Newmark method

The Newmark method (Newmark, 1943) and its variant have been used quite
extensively for the analysis of beam-columns. It is particularly useful for determin-
ing the maximum load-carrying capacity of beam-columns stressed in the elastic or
inelastic range. In its original formulation, the method is applicable for elastic
behavior only. However, by slight modifications, the method can easily be extended
to account for inelasticity. In addition, the Newmark method can be applied to
members with variable EI and/or imperfections.
In the Newmark method, equilibrium and compatibility are enforced at selected
points on the member. These points are referred to as stations. For normal
application, these stations are usually equally spaced. However, this practice is just
a matter of convenience and not a rule. For inelastic analysis of beam-columns, the
moment-curvature-thrust relationship of the cross-section must be known. With a
known moment-curvature-thrust relationship, the steps for analyzing an inelastic
beam-column can be summarized as follows (Fig. 1.11 ).
Ms
~-~~~~-·-··· ..._.;
... _.. ~~p - X
vk
Fig. 1.11 Member discretization in the Newmark method
1 Divide the member into n segments by (n + 1) stations.

2 For a given set of loadings, assume a numerical value for the deflection at each
station. Denote these deflections as vk where k = 0 to n.
3 Compute the bending moment Mk at each station by the equilibrium
consideration
(1.5.1)
where M 1 is the primary moment due to in-span loads, end moments, and reactions.
Pvk is the secondary moment due to the P-t5 effect.
4 Using the known moment-curvature-thrust relationship for the cross-section,
compute the curvature <l>k at each station.
5 Evaluate a new set of deflections at the stations by the conjugate beam method.
This involves the following.
(a) Assume a curvature distribution between the stations. A linear or quadratic
 distribution as shown in Fig. 1.12 can be used as an approximation.
(b) Calculate the equivalent nodal loads using the formulas given in the figure.
The formulas in Figs. 1.12a and 1.12c should be used if one of the stations is
an end station or if there is an abrupt change in curvature due to a sudden
change in M or EI at one of the stations.
(c) Calculate the shear and moment of the conjugate beam (which are
equivalent to the slope and deflection of the real beam) using the calculated
nodal loads as conjugate beam loads.
6 Compare the deflections calculated in step 5 with the assumed deflections in
step 1. If the discrepancy is negligible, a solution is said to have been obtained.
Otherwise, use the calculated deflections as the new set of assumed deflections and
repeat steps 3 to 5 until convergence.
The above procedure must be repeated for every increment of applied load
in order to trace the load-deflection response of the member. The peak point
20 CHAPTER I
R i-1=(t,x/6) (2ri_ 1 +ri)

(a) R i ={t.x/6) (ri_ 1 +2ri)
--~--- ..................
....... .,
I
ri-1 ...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .JI ri+1
... ,.. ~x--.j j . - - ~X----1 ~~1'01 ..- -

.. ~X ---+j
xi-1 xi xi+1
(c) (d)
Fig. 1.12 Equivalent nodal loads
of this load-deflection curve is the maximum load-carrying capacity of the

member.
If the member is geometrically imperfect and has an initial deflection of v0 k> the
set of assumed deflections should be the additional deflections experienced by the
member. The bending moment at station i is evaluated using
(1.5.2)
For members with variable EI, the flexural rigidity of the member evaluated at
the station under consideration should be used in the calculation. If the member has
a sharp change in EI for a certain region of the member, the stations in that region
should be spaced more closely in order to obtain better results in the computation.
In applying the Newmark method for member analysis, it is important to select
a proper set of assumed deflections vk. An intelligent choice for vk can greatly
accelerate the convergence rate. The assumed deflections must satisfy the geometric
boundary conditions of the problem and should conform to the loads which are
applied to the member. In lieu of a more sophisticated approach, a rational choice
for vk would be the first-order deflections of the member.
An illustrative example
Using the Newmark method and the moment-curvature-thrust relationship given
below, determine the deflection at midspan of an initially crooked beam-column
shown in Fig. l.l3a for the following two loading cases: (a) P = 0. 5Py and M = 0.4My
(Fig. l.l3b) and (b)P=0.5Py and M=0.8My (Fig. 1.13c). Assume ay=0.001E.
Solution
For PIPy = 0.5, m = M!My and if>= <1>/<l>y, the moment-curvature-thrust relationship
is given by
if>= m, m,;;; 0.5
M V0 = (0.00 1 L) sin ( nx)/L M
p-E-~--------'-------- l+p
r-- --·· . .-___,
-x
! L
Y Deflected shape
~
Cross section
0}=0.1L
(a) The imperfect beam-column
+ .,_._liii=:::::'=:;~t~/~~~===='
0.4My V0 = (0.001L) sin (nx)/L 0.4My
0.5Py ;:;;;;;:;::::::o-
.jii,..;r.j-- 0.5Py
~4 ., 1,. L/4 ., 1,. L/4 .,~,. L/~

0 1 2 4
(b) Four segments with five division points
0.5Py +0 O.BMy
~--J_--- ~--~
2 3 ------'
O.BMy
4~ 0.5Py
(c) With larger end moments
Fig. 1.13 Analysis of an inelastic beam-column by Newmark method

22 CHAPTER I
0.5,;;; m,;;; 1.0

cf> = 2(1.5- m) 2 '
1
cf> = .j(2.25 -2m) ' 1.0,;;; m < 1.125
The basic quantities needed in the following calculations for the rectangular
beam-column shown in Fig. 1.13a are
Py = Aay = bhay
bh 2 h 0.1L PyL
My =Say =(lay =()PY =-6-Py = 60
 =My= PyL = Lbhay = _1_

Y EI 60EI 60E(bh 3/12) SOL
(~ r<l>y 8~0 =
In the following calculations (Tables 1.2 and 1.3), the assumed additional
deflections vk were taken as the first-order deflections of the member. The
equivalent nodal loads Rk were calculated using the equations in Fig. 1.12c for
stations 0 and 4 with r; _ 1 = - r; + 1 , and using the equation in Fig. 1.12b for
stations 1, 2 and 3.
1.6 Member analysis by Cranston method

The Cranston method (Cranston, 1983) of beam-column analysis is an extension
and refinement of the Newmark ~ethod described in the preceding section. The
method to be described below is 'capable of analyzing a biaxially loaded beam-
column of box and solid sections. The member can possess both geometrical
imperfections in the form of initial crookedness and variations of bending stiffness
El. The method ca'n also account for member end restraint and unloading of fibers
stressed into the inelastic range when subjected to a strain reversal. The general
assumptions used for the analysis are as follows.
1 Plane sections before bending remain plane after bending.
2 The normal stress at any point in the cross-section is dependent only on the
normal strain history of that point.
3 Lateral displacements are small in comparison to the length of the member.
4 The overall shortening of the member along its axis is negligible.
5 Shear and torsional deformations are negligible compared to lateral displace-
ments.
Assumptions 1 and 5 are not generally valid for beam-columns with torsionally
weak open thin-walled cross-sections. For these members, the Cranston method
cannot be applied. A brief description of the general procedure for the analysis is
Table 1.2 Case (a). For P = 0.5P, and M = 0.4JI, with n = 4 (Fig. 1.13b)
Station Common
factor
0 2 3 4
Primary moment
M, 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 My
Initial imperfection
Vok 0 0.0007 0.001 0.0007 0 L
Cycle I calculations
Assumed additional
deflections vk 0 0.00075 0.001 0.00075 0 L
P-J moment
P(vok + vk) 0 0.000725 0.001 0.000725 0 PyL
Change common factor 0 0.0435 0.060 0.0435 0 M,
Total moment
M, + P(v 0k + vk) 0.4 0.4435 0.460 0.4435 0.4 M,
M-cJ>-P relationship
q,k 0.4 0.4435 0.460 0.4435 0.4 cJ>y
Conjugate beam method

Rk 0.241 0.441 0.457 0.441 0.241 (L/4)cJ>y
(Jk 0.670 0.229 -0.229 -0.670 (L/4)cJ>,
vk 0 0.670 0.899 0.670 0 (L/4fcJ>,
Calculated additional
deflections v~) 0 0.00084 0.00112 0.00084 0 L
Cycle 2 calculations
Assumed additional
deflections v k 0 0.00084 0.00112 0.00084 0 L
P-J moment
P(vok + vk) 0 0.00077 0.00106 0.00077 0 PyL
Change common factor 0 0.0462 0.0636 0.0462 0 My
Total moment
M 1 + P(v 0k + vk) 0.4 0.4462 0.4636 0.4462 0 M,
M-cJ>-P relationship
q,k 0.4 0.4462 0.4636 0.4462 0.4 cJ>y
24 CHAPTER I
Table 1.2 (continued)

Station Common
factor
0 2 3 4

Rk 0.241 0.441 0.458 0.441 0.251 (L/4)«l>y
(}k 0.670 0.229 -0.229 -0.670 (L/4)«l>y
vk 0 0.670 0.899 0.670 0 (L/4)2«l>y
deflections v~> 0 0.00084 0.00112 0.00084 0 L
Since vf> = vk at the second cycle, the solution has converged. The total deflection at midspan is
Vm;dspan = Voz + Vz = O.OOIL + 0.00112L = 0.00212£
given first. A more detailed discussion follows. A full description can be found in
the 1983 report by Cranston.
1 Divide the member into n segments by (n + 1) stations. Denote the length of the
k-th segment as lk.
2 Discretize the cross-section into small elemental areas. For the i-th element,
denote its area as A;, normal strain as ez; and normal stress as azi·
3 Define a stress-strain relationship for the material.
4 Assume a set of displacements for the stations. For the end stations, the end
slopes are also assumed.
5 Perform a cross-section analysis (see Section 1.6.1).
6 Adjust the end slopes and applied loads until equilibrium and compatibility are
satisfied at the ends and at a control station.
7 Calculate the deflections at other stations.
8 Compare the calculated deflections with the assumed deflections. If the two sets
of deflections agree within appropriate limits, a valid solution is said to have been
obtained.
Figure 1.14 shows the beam-column under investigation. The beam-column is
held by restraining systems at ends A and B (stations 0 and n). The member is
prevented from sway movement, but is allowed to rotate at the ends. The member
may possess initial deformations u0 k and v0 k (k = 1 to n - 1) in the x and y
directions, respectively. The loadings consist of an axial load AP acting at the
centroid of the cross-section and end moments llixA• AMyA• AMxs and AMyB acting
as shown. A. is an analysis load factor. The lateral displacements of the member
under loads are denoted by uk and vk (k = 1 to n- 1) measured from line AB to the
centroid of the cross-section in the x and y directions, respectively. The end slopes
are denoted by exA• eyA• exB and eyB· All quantities are taken to be positive as shown
in the figure. Curvatures are positive when the slope is decreasing in the direction
Table 1.3 Case (b). For P = 0.5Py and M = 0.8My with n = 4 (Fig. 1.13c)
Station Common
factor
0 2 3 4
Primary moment
Ml 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 My
Initial imperfection
Vok 0 0.0007 0.001 0.0007 0 L
Cycle I calculations
Assumed additional
deflections vk 0 0.0015 0.002 0.0015 0 L
P-6 moment
P(vok + vk) 0 0.0011 0.0015 0.0011 0 PyL
Total moment
M1 + P(v 0k + vk) 0.8 0.866 0.890 0.866 0.8 My
M-<JJ-P relationship
q,k 1.020 1.244 1.344 1.244 1.020 q,y

Rk 0.632 1.223 1.311 1.223 0.632 (L/4)4Jy
ok 1.879 0.656 -0.656 - 1.879 (L/4)4Jy
vk 0 1.879 2.535 1.879 0 (L/4)2(JJY
deflections v~l 0 0.00235 0.00317 0.00235 0 L
Assumed additional
deflections vk 0 0.00235 0.00317 0.00235 0 L
P-6 moment
P(vok + vk) 0 0.00153 0.00209 0.00153 0 PyL
Total moment
M 1 + P(v 0k + v~) 0.8 0.892 0.925 0.892 0.8 My
M-<JJ-P relationship
q,k 1.020 1.353 1.512 1.353 1.020 q,y
26 CHAPTER I
Station Common
factor
0 2 3 4

Rk 0.651 1.324 1.459 1.324 0.651 (L/4)!l>y
ok 2.054 0.730 -0.730 -2.054 (L/4)!l>y
vk 0 2.054 2.784 2.054 0 (L/4jl!l>y
deflections v~l 0 0.00257 0.00348 0.00257 0 L
Assumed additional
deflections vk 0 0.00257 0.00348 0.00257 0 L
P-o moment
P(vok + vk) 0 0.00164 0.00224 0.00164 0 PyL
Total moment
M, + P(v 0k + vk) 0.8 0.898 0.934 0.898 0.8 My
M-!1>-P relationship
!l>k 1.020 1.380 1.561 1.380 1.020 !l>y

Rk 0.655 1.350 1.501 1.350 0.655 (L/4)!l>y
ok 2.101 0.751 -0.751 -2.101 (L/4)!l>y
vk 0 2.101 2.852 2.101 0 (L/4jl!l>y
deflections v~l 0 0.00263 0.00357 0.00263 0 L
Assumed additional
deflections vk 0 0.00263 0.00357 0.00263 0 L
P-o moment
P(vok + vk) 0 0.00167 0.00229 0.00167 0 PyL
Total moment
M1 + P(v 0k + vk) 0.8 0.900 0.937 0.900 0.8 My
M-!1>-P relationship
!l>k 1.020 1.389 1.577 1.389 1.020 !l>y
Station Common
----------------------factor
0 2 3 4
Rk 0.657 1.359 1.514 1.359 0.657 (L/4)ct>y
(Jk 2.116 0.757 -0.757 -2.116 (L/4)ct>y
vk 0 2.116 2.873 2.116 0 (L/4fct>y
deflections v~ 4 ) 0 0.00265 0.00359 0.00265 0 L
Since vi4)"" vk at the fourth cycle, the solution is considered to have converged. The total deflection at
midspan is
Vm;dspan = Vo2 + v2 = 0.001L + 0.00359L = 0.00459L
More cycles are required to obtain a converged solution for the case of M = 0.8My because the
beam-column is stressed into the primary plastic range, whereas for the case of M = 0.4MY the
beam-column is fully elastic.
A to B. Internal moments are positive if they produce positive curvature.

Compressive stress and strain are positive.
At any stage in the analysis, a set of assumed displacements at the stations, end
slopes at the end stations as well as the analysis load factor A. are used. In order to
assure convergence, these assumed quantities must be reasonable. The analysis is
carried out in two stages: a cross-section analysis and a member analysis. These
analyses are described in detail in the following sections.
1.6.1 Cross-section analysis

For a given cross-section, because of the assumption of plane sections remain plane
after bending, the normal strain of element i is given by
(1.6.1)
Equation ( 1.6.1) is identical to Eq. ( 1.4.27) except for the sign of the term <l>yXi· This
is due to the difference in sign convention used. By assuming values for e0 , <l>x and
<l>y, ezi can be calculated, from which azi and the tangent stiffness Eti can be
obtained by using the known stress-strain behavior of the material, allowing for
unloading if necessary (Fig. 1.15). The cross-sectional force and bending moments
at the k-th station can be calculated using the following equations
(1.6.2)
(1.6.3)
28 CHAPTER I
A.P
Fig. 1.14 Beam-column under axial compression and biaxial bending
(1.6.4)
where lxi is the second moment of the element about the element centroidal axis
parallel to the x-axis and ly; is the second moment of the element about the element
centroidal axis parallel to the y-axis. The inclusion of the terms involving I xi and ly;
in calculating the bending moment accounts for the fact that the normal stress azi
is not constant over the element. If the cross-section is fully elastic, Eqs. (1.6.3) and
(1.6.4) will give the exact bending moments. If the cross-section becomes inelastic,
the use of the terms improves the accuracy of the calculation and enables the
Loading
Strain
Fig. 1.15 Stress-strain relationship
number of elements to be reduced. This refinement was proposed by Menegotto and

Pinto (1977). The subscript c in Eqs. (1.6.2) to (1.6.4) indicates that these are
calculated quantities.
On the other hand, cross-sectional force and bending moments at the k-th
station can be calculated from the assumed value of A., end slopes, and displace-
ments of the stations from
Pa=AP (1.6.5)
(Mx)a = MrxA- [(MrxA- Mrxs)IL{~/k) + A.Pvk (1.6.6)
(M,), = M ryA - [(M,,A - M,,s)/L {hi')

+ ll'u, (1.6. 7)
where
MrxA = AMxA-MRxA• MryA = AMyA-MRyA
MrxB = AMxB- MRxB• MryB = AMyB- MRyB
are the resultant moments at the A-th and B-th ends of the member about the x- and
y-axis, respectively. MR is the end restraint moment delivered by the restraining
systems at the ends of the member. They are derived from the MR-e relationships
30 CHAPTER I
of the restraining systems. If no restraining system is present, MR = 0. The subscript

a in Eqs. (1.6.5) to (1.6. 7) indicates that the quantities are evaluated from assumed
values of ). and end slopes.
If the quantities calculated in Eqs. ( 1.6.2) to ( 1.6.4) are close to those obtained
in Eqs. (1.6.5) to (1.6.7), the assumed values for e0 , <l>x and <l>y are taken as correct.
However, P0 (Mx)c and (My)c will normally deviate from Pa, (Mx)a and (My)a in the
first cycle of calculation and so modifications to e0 , <l>x and <l>y must be made. Let
us define the modifications as ~e 0 , ~<l>x and ~<l>Y and realizing that
(1.6.8)
( 1.6.9)
aMy aMy aMy

~Y = (My)c- (My)a = aeo ~eo+ a«l>x ~<l>x + a<l>y ~<l>y (1.6.10)
or, in matrix form
aP aP aP
aeo act> X act>y
{:}· aMx
aeo
aMy
aeo
aMx aMx
a«l>x act>y
aMy aMy
a«l>x a«l>y
r~} ~<l>x
~<l>y
(1.6.11)

M=SI:lX (1.6.12)
from which
M=s-' M (1.6.13)
The elements of matrix S, referred to as the segment incremental stiffness
matrix, are determined by considering the effects of small changes & 0 , O<l>x and O<l>y
in e0 , <l>x and <l>y on P, Mx and My.
& 0 produces a stress change in element i equal to Eti & 0 . The resulting changes
in P, Mx and My are
OP-::::!. LA;Et;&o giving oPI&o ':::!. LA;Eti (1.6.14a)
(1.6.14b)
(1.6.14c)
c5x produces a stress change in element i equal to Y; Eti c5x and a bending
moment change equal to lx; Et; c5x about the x-axis. Thus
oP ':::!.LA; Y; Et;c5x giving oPic5x ': :!. LA;y; Eti (1.6.15a)
(1.6.15b)
OMy-:::=. LA;x;y;Et;c5x giving 0Mylc5x-:::=. LA;x;y;Eti ( 1.6.15c)
Similarly, by considering change in Cl>y one can write
: -:::=.LA;x;Eti ( 1.6.16a)
y
(1.6.16b)
c5<l> -: :=. "L._.A;x;2Et; + L._.ly,Et;

oMy " (1.6.16c)
y
By replacing the variation operator o by the differential operator a in Eqs.

(1.6.14a-c), the terms in S can be calculated. The reader should recognize the
similarities between Eqs. (1.6.14a-c) to Eqs. (1.6.16a-c) and Eq. (1.4.34). Except for
the inclusion of the terms involving lx; and ly; and the sign for some of the terms,
the two are identical.
Once the section incremental stiffness matrix Sis evaluated, Eq. ( 1.6.13) can be
used to solve forM= {de0 , del>x, del>y}T which is to be added to the present values
of e0 , $x and <l>y, and the procedure is repeated until convergence. When
convergence is achieved, the S matrix and the curvature at each station are stored
for subsequent use in the member analysis.
1.6.2 Member analysis

In the Cranston method, member analysis is carried out in two stages. In stage 1 the
assumed end slopes and load factor A. are adjusted until the calculated end slopes
agree with those assumed and the deflection of a control station in the control
direction agrees with that assumed. This control point can be anywhere in the
member. However, the selection of a control point at or near midspan of the
member is advised. When stage 1 is completed, the second stage of convergence to
a solution is simply to replace the assumed deflected shape by that just calculated
as in the Newmark method.
In stage 1, before adjustments can be made to the end slopes and the deflection
of the control station, it is necessary to calculate slopes and deflections from the
32 CHAPTER I
curvatures evaluated during the cross-section analysis. This can be done by

numerically integrating the curvatures, making allowances for any initial deflections
u0 k and v0 k (k = 1 to n - 1) that may be present. Since the procedure is the same for
both axes, the calculations are shown for only one axis. The same procedure is to
be applied to the other axis. Let us consider the rotation about the x-axis and
deflection in they-axis. Under the assumption that the segments are straight if no
loadings are applied, the change in slope at each station can be written as
110xa = vOI/11 (1.6.17a)
110xk = [vo(k+ I)- Vok]lh+ 1- [vok- VO(k-l)]lh fork= 1 ton- 1 (1.6.17b)
110xn = Vo(n- I) I ln (1.6.17c)
The deflections are calculated starting at end A. Intermediate values for slopes
and deflections, denoted by (}' and v' respectively, are calculated by assuming that
the end slope at A equals the assumed value (OxA)a. v8 calculated on this basis will
not equal zero as expected and corrections to the intermediate values for slopes and
deflections are made afterwards.
The intermediate values for slopes and deflections are calculated by assuming
that the curvature varies linearly within each segment as
o;A =( OxA)a + 110xa (1.6.18a)
vA.=O (1.6.18b)
o;k = (}~k-1) + [(<l>x(k-1) + <l>xk)h]12 + f1(}xk fork= 1 ton (1.6.18c)
vk = vk-1 + (}~k-1A + [lk 2(2<1>x(k- I)+ <l>xk)]l6 fork= 1 ton (1.6.18d)
0;B =- 0;n (1.6.18e)
vB = v~ (1.6.18£)
The corrected values for the end slopes and deflections are given by
( OxA}c = ( OxA}a - VB IL ( 1.6.19a)
( Oxa)c = ( Oxa)a + VB IL (1.6.19b)
(1.6.19c)
The above procedure is also applied to calculate the rotation about the y-axis
and deflection in the x-axis.
Normally, the calculated values for the end slopes and the deflection at the
control point do not agree with the assumed values in the first iteration. As a result,
adjustments to the assumed values must be made. This is carried out as follows.
Define
(1.6.20a)
/::;.(JxA ={ (JxA)c- {(JxA)a (1.6.20b)
f1(JxB =( Oxa)c- ( Oxs)a (1.6.20c)
f1(JyA = { OyA)c -{ OyA)a (1.6.20d)
118ya =( Oya)c -( Oya)a (1.6.20e)
where (C)c is the calculated deflection at the control station in the control direction
and (C)a is the assumed deflection at the control station in the control direction. It
should be noted that the control deflection can be chosen in either direction. Also,
both the control station and direction can be changed during the analysis. The
modifications to the assumed quantities are obtained by solving the following
matrix
a(I1C) a(I1C) a(I1C) a(I1C) a(!1C)
a;:;:- iJ((JxA)a CJ( Oxs)a iJ((JyA)a iJ(Oys)a
a(f1(JxA) a(f1(JxA) a(f1(JxA) a(f1(JxA) a(f1(JxA) 11Aa
11C
----ax;- a((JxA)a a(Oxa)a a(OyA)a a(Oya)a (MJxA)a
f1(JxA
a(f18xa) a(f18xa) a(f18xa)a(f18xa) a(f18xa)
(118xa)a
f1(JxB ----ax;- a(OxA)a a(Oxs)a a( OyA)a a( Oya)a
(f1(JyA)a
f1(JyA
a(f18yA) a(f10yA) a(f10yA) CJ(f1(JyA) a(f1(JyA)
f1(JyB (!18ya)a
~ a(OxA)a a( Oxs)a a( OyA)a a( Oya)a
a(f18ya) a(f18ya) a(f18ya) CJ(f18ya) a(f18ya)
~ a(OxA)a a(Oxa)a a( OyA)a a( Oya)a
(1.6.21)
!1U =A 11Ua (1.6.22)
from which
11Ua =A- 1 11U (1.6.23)
The terms in matrix A are obtained by considering the effects of unit changes in each
of the assumed quantities in tum on the calculated deflected shape, assuming the
section incremental stiffness matrix S in Eq. ( 1.6.12) to be constant. This process is
described below.
Effects of unit change in .A..

This produces at cross-section k an axial force and moments
(1.6.24a)
34 CHAPTER 1
(1.6.24b)
(1.6.24c)
From Eq. ( 1.6.13), the change in axial strain and curvatures can be evaluated
(1.6.25)
Equation (1.6.25) is applied to all stations and the curvatures are then
integrated numerically to obtain new slopes and deflections. Using these values and
by differentiating Eq. ( 1.6.20), we obtain
( 1.6.26a)
(1.6.26b)
a(L~.Oxa) -a( Oxa)c - (0 ) I ( 1.6.26c)

dAa - dAa - xB c A, = l
(1.6.26d)
(1.6.26e)
Effects of unit change in ( O,.A)a
This produces at cross-section k

( 1.6.27a)
(1.6.27b)
(1.6.27c)
where oMRxA/oOxAis the slope of the MRxA-OxA relationship of the end restraint
evaluated at OxA = ( OxA>a·
Curvatures are calculated and integrated as for the case of unit change in Aa and
the second column of matrix A is obtained from
a(~C) a(C)c
a(e xA)a = a(e xA)a = (C)c I(llx.>•• I ( 1.6.28a)
(1.6.28b)
( 1.6.28c)
(1.6.28d)
(1.6.28e)
Effects of unit change in ( Oxs) 8 , ( OyA)a and ( Oye)a
The procedure follows that for (OxA)a as described above and will not be repeated
here.
Modification to assumed end slopes and 1.
Once all elements of the A matrix in Eq. (1.6.21) are calculated, Eq. (1.6.23) can be
used to calculate the modifications ~Ua. These modifications are added to the
assumed values to obtain new assumed values and the procedure is repeated until
convergence.
When convergence is achieved in stage 1, stage 2 can commence. In this stage,
the calculated deflections at other stations are compared with the assumed
deflections. If disagreement exists, the assumed deflections are replaced by the
calculated deflections. This procedure is repeated until convergence is achieved.
When a solution satisfying both stages 1 and 2 exists, a valid solution is said to have
been obtained.
1.6.3 Estimation of assumed values

The rate of convergence of the Cranston method is rather sensitive to the accuracy
of the assumed values for the generalized strains, the end slopes, the station
deflections, and the analysis load factor. To expedite the rate of convergence,
Cranston ( 1983) proposed a parabolic extrapolation scheme by which a realistic set
of assumed values for a particular variable can be calculated from the corresponding
values obtained in the last three successive cycles of analysis.
Suppose P; _ 1, P; _ 2 and P; _ 3 are the deflections calculated for the control station
of the member at cycles (i- 1), (i- 2) and (i- 3), respectively, and P; is the control
36 CHAPTER 1
deflection for the current cycle. A realistic set of assumed values qi for a given
variable can be calculated using the following parabolic extrapolation equation
( 1.6.29)
where qi _ I> qi _ 2 and qi _ 3 are the solutions of the variable obtained in cycles (i- 1),
(i- 2) and (i- 3), respectively, and
(1.6.30a)
(1.6.30b)
T = Pi -Pi- 3 +Pi- 1 -Pi- 2 (1.6.30c)

(pi- 1 -Pi- 2) (pi- 1 -Pi- 3)
Figure 1.16 shows schematically the parabolic extrapolation scheme described

above. The use of the scheme generally accelerates the convergence rate and hence
reduces the amount of computations.
1.6.4 General remarks

As mentioned earlier, the Cranston method is an extension of the Newmark method
of beam-column analysis. Upon comparison of the two methods, two advantages of
the Cranston method over the Newmark method can be identified.
1 The Cranston method can be applied for the analysis of biaxially loaded
beam-columns, whereas the Newmark method is limited only for uniaxially loaded
beam-columns.
2 In essence, the Newmark method is a load control method. In the Newmark
method, the equilibrium configuration of the member that corresponds to a given
set of loadings is sought. In a load control method, only the ascending branch of the
load-deflection behavior can be traced. In contrast, the Cranston method treats the
applied loads as variables through the use of an analysis load factor A. Both the loads
and displacements are adjusted throughout the course of the analysis to obtain
solutions. As a result, not only can the ascending branch of the load-deflection curve
be traced, but also the descending branch.
Although the Cranston method is more powerful, it is also more time-
consuming to execute. Unlike the Newmark method, in which the cross-section
M-ct>-P relationship is used in the explicit form, the Cranston method requires that
the cross-section analysis be performed by the computer. Thus, two loops are
needed in the program: an inner loop for cross-section analysis and an outer loop
for member analysis. Nevertheless, with the rapid advancement of the computer,
qi
,...,:
---------------------------------------------------------""
_, '
qi-1
/
~
:'
:
'''
''
'
'''
''
q i-3 ----------
~-2 p
Fig. 1.16 Estimation of assumed values
especially with the development of multiprocessor parallel computers, complex and

laborious computations can now be performed with relative ease and so they should
not pose significant difficulties and hindrance to the analyst.
A biaxially loaded beam-column usually deflects and twists simultaneously
under loads. For beam-columns with thin-walled open sections which are torsionally
weak, this rotational or twisting deformation accompanied by lateral deflections can
be very significant and will have a major influence on the behavior and strength of
these members. The Cranston method cannot be applied to these members and
recourse must be made to other numerical methods to obtain solutions. These
alternative numerical methods can be found in the book by Chen and Atsuta ( 1977).
References
Chen, W.F. ( 1971) Further studies of inelastic beam-column problems, Journal of the Structural
Engineering Division, ASCE, 97, ST2; 529-544.
Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1976) Theory of Beam-Columns, Vol. 1: In-Plane Behavior and Design,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 513 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1977) Theory of Beam-Columns, Vol. 2: Space Behavior and Design,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 732 pp.
38 CHAPTER I
Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J. ( 1985) Tubular Members in Offshore Structures, Pitman, Marshfield, MA,
271 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J. (1988) Plasticity for Structural Engineers, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY,
606 pp.
Chen W.F. and Lui, E.M. (1987) Structural Stability- Theory and Implementation, Elsevier, New York,
NY, 490 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Sohal, I.S. (1988) Cylindrical Members in Offshore Structures, Thin-Walled Structures,
Vol. 6, Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 153-285.
Cranston, W.B. (1983) Analysis of Slender Biaxial/y Loaded Restrained Columns, Research Report,
Cement and Concrete Association, London.
El-Metwally, S.E. and Chen, W.F. (1989) Load-deformation relations for reinforced concrete sections,
ACT Structural Journal, 86, 2; 163-167.
Galambos, T.V. (1968) Structural Members and Frames, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 373 pp.
Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. ( 1977) Slender R.C. compressed members in biaxial bending, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Structural Division, 103, ST3; 587-605.
Newmark, N.M. (1943) Numerical procedure for computing deflections, moments, and buckling loads,
Transactic;ns ofASCE, 108; 1161.
References
Chen, W.F. (1971) Further studies of inelastic beam-column

problems, Journal o f the Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, 97,
ST2; 529-544.
Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1976) Theory o f Beam-Columns, Vol. 1: In
Plane Behavior and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 513 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1977) Theory o f Beam-Columns, Vol. 2:
Space Behavior and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 732 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J. (1985) Tubular Members in Offshore
Structures, Pitman, Marshfield, MA, 271 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J. (1988) Plasticity fo r Structural Engineers,
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 606 pp.
Chen W.F. and Lui, E.M. (1987) Structural Stability — Theory and
Implementation, Elsevier, New York, NY, 490 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Sohal, I.S. (1988) Cylindrical Members in Offshore
Structures, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 6, Elsevier Applied Science,
London, pp. 153-285.
Cranston, W.B. (1983) Analysis o f Slender Biaxially Loaded Restrained
Columns, Research Report, Cement and Concrete Association,
London.
El-Metwally, S.E. and Chen, W.F. (1989) Load-deformation relations for
reinforced concrete sections, A C I Structural Journal, 86, 2; 163-167.
Galambos, T.V. (1968) Structural Members and Frames, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 373 pp.
Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. (1977) Slender R.C. compressed members
in biaxial bending, Proceedings o f the American Society o f Civil
Engineers, Journal o f the Structural Division, 103, ST3; 587-605.
Newmark, N.M. (1943) Numerical procedure for computing deflections,
moments, and buckling loads, Transactions o f ASCE, 108; 1161.
Adeli, H. (1988) Interactive Microcomputer-Aided Structural Steel
Design, Prentice-Hall, Inglewood Cliffs, NJ.
Al-Sayed, S.H. and Bjorhovde, R. (1989a) Experimental study of single
angle columns, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, 12; 83-102.
Al-Sayed, S.H. and Bjorhovde, R. (1989b) Inelastic behavior of single
angle columns, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, 12; 103
118.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1986) Load and Resistance
Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago,
IL.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1989) Allowable Stress Design
Specification fo r Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL.
Anslijn, R. (1983) Tests on Steel I Beam-Columns in M ild Steel Subjected
to Thrust and Biaxial Bending, CRIF Rep. MT 157, Brussels.
Austin, W.J. (1961) Strength and design of metal beam-columns, Journal
o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 87, ST4; 1-32.
Beer, H. and Schultz, G. (1970) Theoretical basis of the European column
curves, Construction Metallique, 3; 58.
Bimstiel, C. (1968) Experiments on H-columns under biaxial
bending, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 94, ST10; 2429
2450.
Bjorhovde, R. (1972) Deterministic and Probabilistic Approaches to the
Strength o f Steel Columns, Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA.
Bjorhovde, R. (1984) Effect of end restraint on column strength —
practical applications, Engineering Journal, AISC, 21, 1; 1-13.
Bleich, F. (1952) Buckling Strength o f Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Bridge, R.Q. and Fraser, D.J. (1987) Improved G-factor method for
evaluating effective lengths of columns, Journal o f Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 113, 6; 1341-1356.
Chapius, J. and Galambos, T.V. (1982) Restrained crooked aluminum
columns, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 108, ST3 ; 511
524.
Chen, W.F. and Atsuta, T. (1972) Interaction equation for biaxially loaded
sections, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 98, ST12; 1035
1052.
Plane Behavior and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chen, W.F. and Lui, E.M. (1985) Columns with end restraint and bending
in load and resistance factor design, Engineering Journal, AISC, 22, 3;
105-132.
Chen, W.F. and Lui, E.M. (1987) Structural Stability - Theory and
Implementation, Elsevier, New York.
Chen, W.F. and McGraw, J. (1977) Analysis and design of HSS-columns
under biaxial bending, Proceedings, Advances in Civil Engineering
Through Engineering Mechanics, Second Annual Engineering
Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, Raleigh, NC, May 23-25,
ASCE, New York, pp. 568-571.
Chen, W.F. and Zhou, S.P. (1987) Cm factor in load and resistance factor
design, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113, 8; 1738-1754.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. (1972) Consideration of secondary effects in frame
design, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 103, ST10; 2005
2019.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. and Downs, T. (1979) New Interaction Equation
fo r Steel Column Design, Report No. C1, Department of Civil and
Mineral Engineering, University of Minnesota, MN.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F., Styrlund, K. and Heppelmann, P. (1979) Design
Formula fo r Steel Columns, Report No. C2, Department of Civil and
Mineral Engineering, University of Minnesota, MN.
Chu, K.-H. and Chow, H.L. (1969) Effective column length in
unsymmetrical frames, Publ., Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng., 29-31.
Chubkin, G.W. (1959) Experimental research on stability of thin plate
steel members with biaxial eccentricity, in Analysis o f Spatial
Structures, Vol. 5, Moscow, Paper 6, GILS.
Clark, J.W., and Hill, H.N. (1960) Lateral buckling of beams, Journal o f
the Structural Division, ASCE, 86, ST7; 175-196. Also,
Transactions, ASCE, 127, Part II, 180-201 (1962).
Cuk, P.E., Bradford, M.A. and Trahair, N.S. (1985) Inelastic Lateral
Buckling o f Steel Beam-Columns, Structural Engineering Report No.
13, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
DeFalco, F. and Marino, F.J. (1966) Column stability in type 2
construction, Engineering Journal, AISC., 3, 2; 67-71.
Disque, R.O. (1973) Inelastic ^-factor in column design, Engineering
Journal, AISC, 10, 2; 33-35.
Driscoll, G.C. (1976) Effective length of columns with semi-rigid
connections, Engineering Journal, AISC., 13, 4; 109-115.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1988a) Effective length factor for columns in
braced frames, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114, 10;
2357-2370.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1988b) Design Interaction Equations fo r Box
Beam-Columns, Structural Engineering Report No. CE-STR-88-27,
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1989a) Effective length factor for columns in
unbraced frames, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115, 1;
149-165.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1989b) Design interaction equation for steel
beam-columns, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115, 5;
1225-1243.
Duan, L., Sohal, I.S. and Chen, W.F. (1989) On beam-column moment
amplification factor, Engineering Journal, AISC., 26, 4; 130-135.
Dwyer, T.J. and Galambos, T.V. (1965) Plastic behavior of tubular beam-
columns, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 91, ST4; 153-168.
Engesser, F. (1895) Zeitschrift fu r Architektur und Ingenieurwesen, 35;
455.
Euler, L. (1744) De Curvis Elasticis, Lausanne and Geneva, pp. 267-268.
(The Euler formula was derived in a later paper: sur le Force de
Colonnes, Mémoires de l ’A cademie Royale des Sciences et Belles
Lettres, 13, Berlin, 1759.) English translation by J.A. van den Broek
(1947) American Journal o f Physics, 15, 309.
Galambos, T.V. (1983) A world view of beam stability research and
practice, Proceedings, SSRC Annual Meeting, Toronto, May, SSRC,
Bethlehem, PA.
Galambos, T.V. (1988) Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal
Structures, 4th edn. Structural Stability Research Council, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Home, M.R. (1954) The flexural-torsional buckling of members of
symmetric I-section under combined thrust and unequal terminal
moments, Quarterly Journal o f Mechanics and Applied
Mathematics, 7, 4; 410-426.
Iwankiw, N. (1984) AISC, Note on beam-column moment amplification
factor, Engineering Journal, AISC, 21, 1; 21-23.
Johnston, B.G. (1960) (Ed.) Guide to Design Criteria fo r Metal
Compression Members, Column Research Council, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Johnston, B.G. (1976) (Ed.) Guide to Stability Design Criteria fo r Metal
Structures, Third Edition, Structural Stability Research Council, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Jones, S.W., Kirby, P.A. and Nethercot, D.A. (1980) Effect of semi-rigid
connections on steel column strength, Journal o f Constructional Steel
Research, 1, 1; 38-46.
Jones, S.W., Kirby, P.A. and Nethercot, D.A. (1982) Columns with semi
rigid joints, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 108, ST2; 361
372.
Julian, O.G. and Lawrence, L.S. (1959) Notes on J and L Nomographs for
Determination o f Effective Lengths, unpublished report.
Kanchanalai, T. (1977) The Design and Behavior o f Beam-Columns in
Unbraced Steel Frames, AISI Project No. 189, Report No. 2, Civil
Engineering/Structures Research Laboratory, University of Texas
Austin, TX.
Kanchanalai, T. and Lu, L.W. (1979) Analysis and design of framed
columns under minor axis bending, Engineering Journal, AISC, 16, 2;
29-41.
Kennedy, J.B. and Madugula, M.K.S. (1982) Buckling of single and
compound angles, in Axially Compressed Structures: Stability and
Strength ( R. Narayanan, Ed.), Elsevier Applied Science Publishers,
Essex, Chap. 6, pp. 181-216,
Kirby, P. A. and Nethercot, D.A. (1979) Design fo r Structural Stability,
Constrado Monographs, Granada Publishing, Suffolk.
Klöppel, K. and Winkelmann, Z. (1962) Experimentale und theoretische
Untersuchungen über die Traglast von Zweiachsig Assussermittig
Gedruckten Stahlstaben, Stahlbau, 31; 33.
Koo, B. (1988) Discussion of “Improved G-Factor Method for Evaluating
Effective Lengths of Columns”, by R.Q. Bridge and D.J.
Fraser, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114, 12; 2828-2830.
Lee, G.C. (1960) A Survey o f the Literature on the Lateral Instability o f
Beams, Welding Research Council, Bulletin No. 63, Philadelphia.
LeMessurier, W.J. (1972) A practical method of second-order analysis.
Part 2 — Rigid frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 14, 2; 48-67.
Lim, L.C. and McNamara, R. (1972) Stability of novel building systems,
in Structural Design o f Tall Steel Buildings, Vol. SB: Stability ( G.
Winter, Ed.), ASCE-IABSE International Conference on the Planning
and Design of Tall Buildings, Chap. 16.
Lindner, J. (1974) Influence of residual stresses on the load-carrying
capacity of I-beams, Stahlbau, 43; 39-45, 86-91.
Lui, E.M. (1989) Behavior of single angles under compression and biaxial
bending, in Steel Structures, Proceedings o f the Sessions Related to
Steel Structures at Structures Congress ‘89 ( Jerome S.B. Iffland, Ed.),
ASCE, New York, pp. 600-609.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1983) Strength of the columns with small end
restraints, The Journal o f the Institution o f Structural Engineers, 61B,
1; 17-26.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1985) Discussion of the paper “Effect of End
Restraint on Column Strength Practical Applications”, by R.
Bjorhovde, Engineering Journal. AISC., 22, 1; 42-45.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1986) Generalized column equation — a
physical approach, in Advances in Tall Buildings ( L.S. Beedle, Ed.),
van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 323-352.
Maquoi R. and Jaspart, J.P. (1989) Contribution to the design of braced
frames with semi-rigid connections, Proceedings, 4th International
Colloquium, Structural Stability Research Council, pp. 209-220.
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Marshall, P.J. and Ellis, J.S. (1970) Ultimate biaxial capacity of box steel
columns, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 96, ST9; 1873
1887.
Massonnet, C. (1947) Buckling of thin-walled bars with open cross
section, in Hommage de la Faculte des Sc. Appl., University o f Liège, à
l ’A .I.Lg. ( G. Thone, Ed.), pp. 135-146, Belgium.
Massonnet, C. (1959) Stability considerations in the design of steel
columns, Journal o f Structural Division, ASCE, 85, 75-111.
Nethercot, D.A. (1983) Elastic lateral buckling of beams, in Beams and
Beam-Columns-Stability and Strength ( R. Narayanan, Ed.), Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, London and New York, Chap. 1, pp. 1
34.
Nethercot, D.A. and Rockey, K.C. (1971) A unified approach to the
elastic lateral buckling of beams, The Structual Engineer, 49, 7; 321
330,
Nethercot, D.A. and Rockey, K.C. (1972) A unified approach to the
elastic lateral buckling of beams, Engineering Journal, AISC, 9, 3; 96
107.
Peck, B.P. and Lui, E.M. (1989) Microcomputer Structural Member and
Frame Design by LRFD, Structural Engineering Report No. CIE-
STR-89-03, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Pillai, S.U. (1974) Beam-columns of hollow sections, Journal o f
Canadian Society o f Civil Engineers, 1.
Pillai, S.U. (1980) Comparison o f Test Results with Design Equations for
Biaxially Loaded Steel Beam-Columns, Royal Military College of
Canada, Department of Civil Engineering Research Report No. 80-2,
Kingston, Canada.
Pillai, S.U. (1981) An assessment of CSA standard equations for beam-
column design, Canadian Journal o f Civil Engineering, 8.
Pillai, S.U. and Ellis, J.S. (1971) Hollow tubular beam-columns in biaxial
bending, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 97, ST5; 1399
1406.
Pillai, S.U. and Kurian, V.J. (1977) Tests on hollow structural section
beam-columns, Canadian Journal o f Civil Engineering, 4, 3; 257-262.
Razzaq, Z. (1983) End restraint effect of steel column strength, Journal o f
the Structural Division, ASCE, 109, ST2; 314-334.
Rosenblueth, E. (1965) Slenderness effects in buildings, Journal o f the
Structural Division, ASCE, 91, ST1; 229-252.
Roufaiel, M.S.L. and Monasa, F.F. (1989) Microcomputer-aided analysis
and design of steel frames, Journal o f Computing in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, 3, 2; 127-142.
Salvadori, M.G. (1955) Lateral buckling of I-beams, Transactions o f the
American Society o f Civil Engineers, 120; 1165-1177.
Sfintesco, D. (1970) Experimental basis of the European column
curves, Construction Metallique, 3; 5.
SOCRATES, Study o f Complementary Research and Teaching in
Engineering Science, U.S. Department of Education and Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education, Cornell University, College
of Engineering, Ithaca, NY.
Stevens, L.K. (1967) Elastic stability of practical multistory
frames, Proceedings o f the Institution o f Civil Engineers, 36.
Sugimoto, H. and Chen, W.F. (1982) Small end restraint effects on
strength of H-columns, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 108,
ST3; 661-681.
Tebedge, N. and Chen, W.F. (1974) Design criteria for steel H-columns
under biaxial loading, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 100,
ST3; 579-598.
Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. (1961) Theory o f Elastic Stability,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Trahair, N.S. (1977) The Behavior and Design o f Steel Structures,
Chapman & Hall, London.
Trahair, N.S. (1983) Inelastic lateral buckling of beams, in Beams and
Beam-Columns — Stability and Strength ( R. Narayanan, Ed.), Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, London and New York, Chap. 2, pp. 35
70.
Trahair, N.S. (1985) Design Strength o f Steel Beam-Columns, Structural
Engineering Report No. 132, Department of Civil Engineering, The
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Vinnakota, S. (1977) Inelastic stability of laterally unsupported
beams, Computers and Structures, 7, 3.
Vinnakota, S. (1982) Planar strength of restrained beam columns, Journal
o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 108, ST11; 2496-2516.
Vlasov, V.Z. (1961) Thin-Walled Elastic Beams, Israel Program for
Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
Wang, C.T. (1953) Applied Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wood, R.H. (1974) Effective lengths of columns in multistory
buildings, Structural Engineers, 52, 7,8,9; 235-244, 295-302, 341
346.
Yura, J.A. (1971) The effective length of columns in unbraced
frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 8, 2; 37-42.
Zhou, S.P. and Chen, W.F. (1985) Design criteria for box columns under
biaxial loading, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 111, 12;
2643-2658.
Ackroyd, M.H. (1979) Nonlinear Inelastic Stability o f Flexibly-Connected
Plane Steel Frame, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil, Environmental
and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
page_201American Institute of Steel Construction (1986) Load and
Resistance Factor Design Specification fo r Structural Steel Buildings,
AISC, Chicago, IL.
Argyris, J.H. (1965) Continua and discontinua, First Conference on
Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, OH, October, pp. 11 -189.
ASCE Manual No. 41 (1971) Plastic Design in Steel - A Guide and
Commentary, ASCE-WRC, 336 pp. ASCE, New York.
Baker, J. and Heyman, J. (1969) Plastic Design o f Frames - Vol. 1:
Fundamentals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 228 pp.
Bathe, K.J. (1982) Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 735 pp.
Bathe, K.J. and Ozdemir, H. (1976) Elastic-plastic large deformation
static and dynamic analysis, Computers and Structures, 6; 81-92.
Batoz, J.L. and Dhatt, G. (1979) Incremental displacement algorithms for
nonlinear problems, International Journal fo r Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 14; 1262-1266.
Beedle, L.S. (1958) Plastic Design o f Steel Frames, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 406 pp.
Bergan, P.G. (1978) Solution techniques for nonlinear finite element
problems, International Journal fo r Numerical Methods in
Chajes, A. and Churchill, J.E. (1987) Nonlinear frame analysis by finite
element methods, Journal o f Structural Engineering, 113, 6; 1221
1235.
Plane Behavior and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 513 pp.
Implementation, Elsevier, New York, 490 pp.
Cook, N.E., Jr. (1983) Strength and Stiffness o f Type 2 Steel Frames,
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Cook, R.D. (1981) Concepts and Applications o f Finite Element Analysis,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 537 pp.
Crisfield, M.A. (1983) An arc-length method including line searches and
accelerations, International Journal fo r Numerical Methods in
Disque, R.O. (1971) Applied Plastic Design in Steel, van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Ekhande, S.G., Selvappalam, M. and Madugula, M.K.S. (1989) Stability
function for three-dimensional beam-columns, Journal o f Structural
Espion, B. (1986) Nonlinear analysis of framed structures with a plasticity
minded beam element, Computers and Structures, 22, 5; 831-839.
Forde, B.W.R. and Stiemer, S.F. (1987) Improved arc length
orthogonality methods for nonlinear finite element
analysis, Computers and Structures, 27, 5; 625-630.
Fung, Y.C. (1965) Foundations o f Solid Mechanics, Prentice-Hall,
Gallagher, R.H. and Padlog, J. (1963) Discrete element approach to
structural instability analysis, AIAA Journal, 1, 6; 1437-1439.
Goto, Y. and Chen, W.F. (1987) Second-order elastic analysis for frame
design, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113, 7; 1501-1519.
Home, M.R. and Morris, L. J. (1981) Plastic Design o f Low-Rise Frames,
Constrado Monographs, Collins, London, 238 pp.
Hughes, T.J.R. (1987) The Finite Element Method, Prentice Hall,
Karamanlidis, D., Honecker, A. and Knothe, K. (1980) Large deflection
finite element analysis for pre- and post-critical response of thin elastic
frames, in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural
Mechanics ( W. Wunderlich et al., Eds.), Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum,
pp. 217-235.
Korn, A. (1981) Effect of bowing on rectangular plane frames, Journal o f
the Structural Division, Proc. ASCE, 107, ST3; 569-574.
Livesley, R.K. (1975) Matrix Methods o f Structural Analysis, Second
Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 277 pp.
Lui, E.M. (1988) A practical P-delta analysis method for type FR and PR
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1987) Steel frame analysis with flexible
joints, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, Special Issue on Joint
Flexibility in Steel Frames, Elsevier Applied Science, London and
New York, pp. 161 -202.
page_202Lui, E.M. and Zhang, C.Y. (1989) Effects o f Geometrical
Imperfections on the Behavior o f Inelastic Frames, Structural
Engineering Report No. CIE-STR-89-05, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Lui, E.M. and Zhang, C.Y. (1990) Nonlinear Frame Analysis by the
Pseudo Load Method, Computers and Structures, 37, 5, 707-716.
Mallett, R.H. and Marcal, P.V. (1968) Finite element analysis of
nonlinear structures, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 94, 9;
2081-2105.
Martin, H.C. (1965) On the derivation of stiffness matrices for the
analysis of large deflection and stability problems, Proceedings,
Conference o f Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, OH, October, pp. 697-716.
Martin, H.C. (1966) Large Deflection and Stability Analysis by the Direct
Stiffness Method, Technical Report No. 32-931, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Pian, T.H.H. and Tong, P. (1970) Variational formulation of finite
displacement analysis, IUTAM Symposium on High Speed Computing
o f Elastic Structures, Liege, Belgium pp. 43-63.
Poggi, C. and Zandonini, R. (1985) Behavior and strength of steel frames
with semi-rigid connections, Proceedings on Connection Flexibility
and the Design o f Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.), ASCE, New York,
pp. 57-76.
Rajasekaran, S. and Murray, D.W. (1973) Incremental finite element
matricses, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 99, ST12; 2423
2438.
Ramm, E. (1980) Strategies for tracing the nonlinear response near limit
point, in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics (
W. Wunderlich et al., Eds.), Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum, pp. 63-89.
Riks, E. (1979) An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and
buckling problems, International Journal o f Solids and Structures, 15;
529-551.
Stricklin, J.A., Haisler, W.E. and von Riesemann, W.A. (1971)
Geometrically nonlinear analysis by stiffness method, Journal o f the
Vogel, U. (1984) Ultimate Limit State Calculation o f Sway Frames with
Rigid Joints, ECCS-Publication No. 33, First Edition, Rotterdam.
Wang, Y.C. and Nethercot, D.A. (1988) Ultimate strength analysis of
three-dimensional column subassemblages with flexible
connections, Journal o f Construction Steel Research, 9; 235-264.
Wempner, G.A. (1971) Discrete approximations related to nonlinear
theories of solids, International Journal o f Solids and Structures, 7;
1581-1599.
Wen, R.K. and Rahimzadeh, J. (1983) Nonlinear elastic frame analysis by
finite element, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 109, 8; 1952
1971.
Yang Y.B. (1984) Linear and Nonlinear Analysis o f Space Frames with
Nonuniform Torsion Using Interactive Computer Graphics, Ph.D.
Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 360 pp.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1971) Incremental displacement in non-linear
analysis, International Journal fo r Numerical Methods in
Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.L. (1989) The Finite Element Method,
Vol. I - Basic Formulation and Linear Problems, Fourth Edition,
McGraw-Hill, London, 648 pp.
Adams, P.F. (1974) The Design o f Steel Beam-Columns, Canadian Steel
Industries Construction Council, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
Al-Mashary, F. and Chen, W.F. (1990a) Elastic second-order analysis for
frame design, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, 15, 302-322.
Al-Mashary, F. and Chen, W.F. (1989) Simplified second-order inelastic
analysis fo r steel frame design, Report CE-STR-89-33, School of
Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Au, T. and Christiano, P. (1987) Structural Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Chajes, M.J., Ramey, M.R. and Romstad, K.M. (1989) A proposed
method which eliminates the effective length factor in the design of
beam-columns, Proceedings o f the 4th International Colloquium,
Structural Stability Research Council 1989 Annual Technical Session
& Meeting, SSRC, New York, pp. 173-184.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. (1976) Multistory frame design using story
stiffness concept, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 102, ST6;
1197-1212.
Cheong-Siat-Moy, F. (1977) Consideration of secondary effects in frame
design, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 103, ST10; 2005
2019.
Duan, L. and Chen, W.F. (1989) Design interaction equation for steel
beam-columns, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115, 5;
1125-1243.
European Convention for Construction Steelwork (1976) Manual on the
Stability o f Steel Structures, 2nd Colloq. Stab. Steel Struct., Introd.
Reb., Liege.
Galambos, T.V. and Ketter, R.L. (1961) Columns under combined
bending and thrust, Transactions o f ASCE, 126, I; 1-25.
Lai, S.-M.A. and MacGregor, J.G. (1983) Geometric nonlinearities in
multi-story frames, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 109,
ST11; 2528-2545.
LeMessurier, W.J. (1977) A practical method of second order analysis.
Part 2 - rigid frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 14, 2; 49-67.
Lui, E.M. (1988) A practical P -delta analysis method for type FR and PR
Lui, E.M. (1990) Nonlinearity stability analysis of frameworks - from
theory to practice, 1990 ASCE Structures Congress, Baltimore, MD,
April 30-May 3, ASCE, New York.
Nixon, D., Beaulieu, D. and Adams, P.F. (1975) Simplified second order
frame analysis, Canadian Journal o f Civil Engineering, 2, 4; 602-605.
Orbison, J.G. (1982) Nonlinear Static Analysis o f Three-Dimensional
Steel Frames, Report No. 82-6, Department of Structural Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 243 pp.
Orbison, J.G., McGuire, W. and Abel, J. (1982) Yield surface applications
in nonlinear steel frame analysis, Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, North-Holland, Amsterdam, No. 33, pp.
557-573.
Rutenberg, A. (1981) A direct P-delta analysis using standard plane
frame computer programs, Computers and Structures, 14, 1-2; 97
102.
Stafford Smith, B. and Gaiotti, R. (1988) Iterative Gravity Load Method
fo r P-Delta Analysis, Structural Engineering Report No. 88-4,
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Vanderpitte, D. (1982) Non-iterative analysis of frames including
the P-delta effect, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, 2, 2; 3
10.
Vogel, U. ( 1984), Ultimate Limit State Calculation o f Sway Frames with
Rigid Joints, ECCS — Publication No. 33, First Edition, Rotterdam, 20
pp.
Vogel, U. (1985) Some Comments on the ECCS Publication No. 33 -
Ultimate Limit State Calculation o f Sway Frames with Rigid Joints,
Construzioni Metalliche H. I. anno XXXVII, pp. 35-39.
Yarimci, E. (1966) Incremental Inelastic Analysis o f Framed Structures
and Some Experimental Verifications, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Altman, W.G., Azizinamini, A., Bradburn, J.H. and Radziminski, J.B.
(1982) Moment-Rotation Characteristics o f Semi-Rigid Steel Beam-to-
Column Connections, The Civil Engineering Department, University
of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1986) Load and Resistance
Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago,
IL, 313 pp.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1989) Allowable Stress Design
and Plastic Design Specifications fo r Structural Steel Buildings,
Chicago, IL, 329 pp.
Ang, K.M. and Morris, G.A. (1984) Analysis of three-dimensional frames
with flexible beam-column connections, Canadian Journal o f Civil
Engineers, 11; 245-254.
Azizinamini, A., Bradburn, J.H. and Radziminski, J.B. (1985) Static and
Cyclic Behavior o f Semi-Rigid Steel Beam-Column Connections,
Structural Research Studies, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Barakat, M. (1989) Simplified Design Analysis o f Frames with Semi-Rigid
Connections, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, 211 pp.
Beaufoy, L.A. and Moharram, (1948) Derived moment-angle curves for
web-cleat connections, Preliminary Publication, Third Congress,
International Association fo r Bridge and Structural Engineering.
Bell, W.G., Chesson, E., Jr. and Munse, W.H. (1958) Static Tests o f
Standard Riveted and Bolted Beam-to-Column Connections,
University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, IL.
Chen, W.F. and Kishi, N. (1989a) Semi-rigid steel beam-to-column
connections: data base and modeling, Journal o f Structural
Chen, W.F. and Kishi, N. (1989b) Moment-rotation relation of top- and
seat-angle connections, Proceedings o f the International Colloquium
on Bolted and Special Connections, May 15-20, Moscow. USSR
National Committee of the International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Moscow.
Chen, W.F. and Lui, E.M. (1986) Recent developments in structural
connections, in Advances in Tall Buildings ( L.S. Beedle, Editor-In-
Chief), Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 353-365.
Colson, A. and Louveau, J.M. (1983) Connections incidence on the
inelastic behavior of steel structures, Euromech Colloquium 174,
October.
Drucker, D.C. (1956) The effect of shear on the plastic bending of
beams, Journal o f Applied Mechanics, ASME, 23, 4; 509-514.
Frye, M.J. and Morris, G.A. (1976) Analysis of flexibly connected steel
frames, Canadian Journal o f Civil Engineers, 2, 3; 280-291.
Gerstle, K.H. and Cook, N.V. (1987) Practical analysis of flexibly
connected building frames, materials and member
behavior, Proceedings o f the Session at Structures Congress 87 related
to Materials and Member Behavior, ASCE, Structural Division,
Orlando, FL, pp. 122-137.
Goverdhan, A.V. (1983) A Collection o f Experimental Moment-Rotation
Curves and Evaluation o f Prediction Equations fo r Semi-Rigid
Connections, Master’s Thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN,
490 pp.
Hechtman, R.A. and Johnston, B.G. (1947) Riveted Semi-Rigid Beam-to-
Column Building Connections, Progress Report No. 1, AISC Research
at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.
Jones, S.W., Kirby, P. A. and Nethercot, D.A. (1982) Columns with semi
rigid joints, Journal o f Structural Division, ASCE, 108, ST2; 361-372.
Kishi, N. and Chen, W.F. (1986) Data Base o f Steel Beam-to-Column
Connections, Structural Engineering Report No. CE-STR-86-26,
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
653 pp.
Kishi, N. and Chen, W.F. (1990) Moment-rotation relations of semi-rigid
connections with angles, Journal o f Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 116, 7; 1813-1834.
Kishi, N., Chen, W.F., Matsuoka, K.G. and Nomachi, S.G. (1988a)
Moment-rotation relation of single/double web-angle
connections, Proceedings o f the Workshop on Connections and the
Behavior, Strength and Design o f Steel Structures, Cachan, France,
M ay 25-27, 1987, Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 135-149.
page_274Kishi, N., Chen, W.F., Matsuoka, K.G. and Nomachi, S.G.
(1988b) Moment-rotation relation of top- and seat-angle with double
web-angle connections, Proceedings o f the Workshop on Connections
and the Behavior, Strength and Design o f Steel Structures, Cachan,
France, M ay 25-27, 1987, Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp.
121-134.
Krishnamurthy, N., Huang, H.T., Jefferey, P.K. and Avery, L.K. (1979)
Analytical M-0 curves for end-plate connections, Journal o f Structural
Division, ASCE, 105, ST1; 133-145.
Lewitt, C.W., Chesson, E. and Munse, W.H. (1966) Restraint
Characteristics o f Flexible Riveted and Bolted Beam-to-Column
Connections, Bulletin No. 500, Engineering Experiment Station,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Lightfoot, E. and LeMessurier, A.P. (1974) Elastic analysis of
frameworks with elastic connections, Journal o f the Structural
Division, ASCE, 100, ST6; 1297-1309.
Lipson, S.L. (1968) Single-angle and single-plate beam framing
connections, Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Toronto,
Canada, pp. 141 -162.
Lui, E.M. (1985) Effects o f Connection Flexibility and Panel Zone
Deformation on the Behavior o f Plane Steel Frames, Ph.D.
Dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, 440 pp.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1983) Strength of H-columns with small end
restraints, Journal o f the Institution o f Structural Engineers, 61B, 1;
17-26.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1986) Analysis and behavior of flexibly-
jointed frames, Engineering Structures, 8; 107-118.
Marley, M.J. and Gerstle, K.H. (1982) Analysis and Tests o f Flexibly-
Connected Steel Frames, Report to AISC under Project 199,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Monforton, A.R. and Wu, T.S. (1963) Matrix analysis of semi-rigidly
connected frames, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 87, ST6;
13-42.
Nethercot, D.A. (1985a) Steel Beam-to-Column Connections - A Review
o f Test Data and its Applicability to the Evaluation o f Joint Behavior
in the Performance o f Steel Frames, CIRIA Project Record, RP 338.
Nethercot, D.A. (1985b) Utilization of experimentally obtained
connection data in assessing the performance of steel frames,
in Connection Flexibility and Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.),
Proceedings of a Session Sponsored by the Structural Division, ASCE,
Detroit, pp. 13-37.
Patel, K.V. and Chen, W.F. (1984) Nonlinear analysis of steel moment
connections, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 110, 8; 1861
1874.
Picard, A., Giroux, Y.-M.. and Brun, P. (1976) Discussion of “Analysis of
Flexibly Connected Steel Frames”, by Frye, M.J. and Morris,
G.A., Canadian Journal o f Civil Engineers, 3, 2; 350-352.
Popov, E.P. (1985) Flexibility of steel seismic moment connections,
in Connection Flexibility and Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.) ASCE
Publication, New York, pp. 101-119.
Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.R. (1943) Description o f Stress-Strain
Curves by Three Parameters, Technical Note No. 902, National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D.C.
Rathbun, J.C. (1936) Elastic properties of riveted
connections, Transactions o f ASCE, 101; 524-563.
Richard, R.M., Gillet, P.E., Kriegh, J.D. and Lewis, B.A. (1980) The
analysis and design of single plate framing connections, AISC,
Engineering Journal, 17; 38-52.
Richard, R.M., Hsia, W. and Chmielowiec, M. (1988) Derived moment
rotation curves for double framing angles, Computers and
Structures, 30, 3; 485-494.
Sommer, W.H. (1969) Behavior o f Welded Header Plate Connections,
Master’s Thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tarpy, T.S. and Cardinal, J.W. (1981) Behavior of semi-rigid beam-to-
column end plate connections, Proceedings Conference, Joints in
Structural Steelwork ( J.H. Howlett, W.M. Jenkins and R. Stainsby,
Eds.), Halsted Press, London pp. 2.3-2.25.
Wu, F.S. (1989) Semi-Rigid Connections in Steel Frames, Ph.D.
Dissertation, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, 212 pp.
Wu, F.S. and Chen, W.F. (1990) A design model for semi-rigid
connections, Engineering Structures, 12, 2; 88-97.
Yee, Y.L. and Melchers, R.E. (1986) Moment-rotation curves for bolted
connections, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 112, 3; 615
635.
Ackroyd, M.H. (1979) Non-Linear Inelastic Stability o f Flexibly-
Connected Plane Steel Frames, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of
Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Ackroyd, M.H. and Gerstle, K.H. (1983) Strength of flexibly-connected
steel frames, Engineering Structures, 5; 31-37.
Ang, K.M. and Morris, G.A. (1984) Analysis of three-dimensional frames
with flexible beam-column connections, Canadian Journal o f Civil
Engineers, 11; 245-254.
Becker, R. (1975) Panel zone effect on the strength and stiffness of steel
rigid frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 12, 1; 19-29.
Bertero, V.V., Popov, E.P. and Krawinkler, H. (1972) Beam-column
subassemblages under repeated loading, Journal o f the Structural
Division, ASCE, 98, ST5; 1137-1159.
Bleich, F. (1952) Buckling Strength o f Metal Structures, Engineering
Societies Monographs, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chajes, A. (1974) Principles o f Structural Stability Theory, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
page_341Chen, W.F. (1987) (Ed.) Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, 290 pp.
Chen, W.F. (1988) (Ed.) Joint Beam-to-Column Building Connections,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, 482 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Han, D.J. (1988) Plasticity fo r Structural Engineers,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 606 pp.
Chen, W.F. and Zhou, S.P. (1987) Inelastic analysis of steel braced
frames with flexible joints, International Journal o f Solids and
Structures, 23, 5; 631-649.
Cook, N.E., Jr. (1983) Strength and Stiffness o f Type 2 Steel
Frames Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil, Environmental and
Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Fielding, D.J. and Chen, W.F. (1973) Steel frame analysis and connection
shear deformation, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 99, ST1;
1-18.
Fielding, D.J. and Huang, J.S. (1971) Shear on beam-to-column
connections, The Welding Journal, 50; 1-14.
Frye, M.J. and Morris, G.A. (1975) Analysis of flexibly connected steel
Gerstle, K.H. (1985) Flexibly-connected steel frames, in Steel Framed
Structures - Stability and Strength ( R. Narayanan, Ed.), Elsevier
Applied Science, London, Chap. 7, pp. 205-239.
Goto, Y. and Chen, W.F. (1987) On the computer-based design analysis
for flexibly jointed frames, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research,
Special Issue on Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.), 8;
203-231.
Goto, Y., Suzuki, S. and Chen, W.F. (1991) Analysis of critical behavior
of semi-rigid frames with or without load history in
connections, International Journal o f Solids and Structures, 27, 4;
467-483.
Haldar, A. and Nee, K.-M. (1989) Elasto-plastic large deformation
analysis of PR steel frames for LRFD, Computers and Structures, 31,
5; 811-823.
Kato, B. (1982) Beam-to-column connection research in Japan, Journal o f
the Structural Division, ASCE, 108, ST2; 343-360.
Kato, B., Chen, W.F. and Nakao, M. (1988) Effects of joint-panel shear
deformation on frames, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, 10;
269-320.
Krawinkler, H. (1978) Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of
steel frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 15, 3; 82-91.
Krawinkler, H. and Mohasseb, S. (1987) Effects of panel zone
deformations on seismic response, Journal o f Constructional Steel
Research, Special Issue on Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames ( W.F.
Chen, Ed.), 8; 233-250.
Deformation on the Behavior o f Plane Steel Frames, Ph.D. Thesis,
Lui, E.M. (1988) A practical P -delta analysis method for Type FR and
PR frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 25, 3; 85-98.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1986a) Analysis and behavior of flexibly-
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1986b) Frame analysis with panel zone
deformation, International Journal o f Solids and Structures, 22, 12;
1599-1627.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1987a) Steel frame analysis with flexible
Flexibility in Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.), 8; 161-202.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1987b) Steel Frame Analysis with Semi-Rigid
Connections, Structural Engineering Report No. CIE-STR-87-03,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Syracuse
University, Syracuse, NY.
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1988) Behavior of braced and unbraced semi
rigid frames, International Journal o f Solids and Structures, 24, 9;
893-913.
Mazzolani, F.M. (1987) Influence of semi-rigid connections on the
overall stability of steel frames, Connection in Steel Structures, Proc.
Workshop on Connections and the Behavior, Strength and Design o f
Steel Structures, Cachan, France, Elsevier Applied Science, London,
pp. 272-275.
page_342Moncarz, P.D. and Gerstle, K.H. (1981) Steel frames with non
linear connections, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 107,
ST8; 1427-1441.
Nakao, M. (1975) Research on the Behavior o f Steel Beam-To-Column
Rigid Connections, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tokyo, Tokyo,
Japan (in Japanese).
Narayanan, R. (1989) (Ed.) Structural Connections - Stability and
Strength, Elsevier, New York, 454 pp.
Nethercot, D.A. (1989) Frame analysis and the link between connection
behavior and frame performance, in Frame and Steel Structures (
G.S.T. Armer and D.B. Moore, Eds.), Butterworths, London pp. 57
74.
Nethercot, D.A., Kirby, P.A. and Rifai, A.M. (1986) Design of columns
in PR construction-analytical studies, ASCE Structures Congress, New
Orleans. ASCE, New York
Oran, C. (1973) Tangent stiffness in plane frames, Journal o f the
Poggi, C. and Zandonini, R. (1985) Behavior and strength of steel frames
with semi-rigid connections, Proceedings in Connection Flexibility
and Steel Frames, ASCE Convention, Detroit, MI, October ( W.F.
Chen, Ed.), pp. 57-76. ASCE, New York
Poggi, C. and Zandonini, R. (1987) A finite element for the analysis of
semi-rigid frames, Connections in Steel Structures, Proc. Workshop on
Connections and the Behavior, Strength and Design o f Steel
Structures, Cachan, France, Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp.
238-247.
Popov, E.P. (1987) Panel zone flexibility in seismic moment
Flexibility in Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.), 8; 91-118.
Powell, G.H. (1969) Theory of nonlinear elastic structures, Journal o f the
Saafan, S.A. (1963), Nonlinear behavior of structural plane
frames, Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 89, ST4; 557-579.
Saafan, S.A. (1965) Closure to “Nonlinear Behavior of Structural
Frames,” Journal o f the Structural Division, ASCE, 91, STl; 279.
Shi, G. and Atluri, S.N. (1989) Static and dynamic analysis of space
frames with nonlinear flexible connections, International Journal fo r
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 28; 2635-2650.
Simitses, G.J. and Giri, J. (1982) Non-linear analysis of unbraced frames
of variable geometry, International Journal o f Non-Linear
Mechanics, 17, 1; 47-61.
Simitses, G.J., Swisshelm, J.D. and Vlahinos, A.S. (1984) Flexibly-
jointed unbraced portal frames, Journal o f Constructional Steel
Research, 4; 27-44.
Simitses, G.J. and Vlahinos, A.S. (1982) Stability analysis of a semi
rigidly connected simple frame, Journal o f Constructional Steel
Research, 2, 3; 19-32.
Sivakumaran, K.S. (1988) Seismic response of multi-story steel buildings
with flexible connections, Engineering Structures, 10; 239-248.
Stelmack, T.W., Marley, M.J. and Gerstle, K.H. (1986) Analysis and tests
of flexibly connected steel frames, Journal o f Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 112; 7; 1573-1588.
Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. (1961) Theory o f Elastic Stability,
Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wang, Y.C. and Nethercot, D.A. (1988) Ultimate strength analysis of
three-dimensional column subassemblages with flexible
connections, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, 9; 235-264.
Yu, C.H. and Shanmugam, N.E. (1986) Stability of frames with semi
rigid joints, Computers and Structures, 23, 5; 639-648.
Ackroyd, M.H. (1985) Design o f Flexibly Connected Steel Frames, Final
Research Report to the American Iron and Steel Institute for Project
No. 333, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Ackroyd, M.H. (1987a) Design of flexibly-connected unbraced steel
building frames, Journal o f Constructional Steel Research, Special
Issue on Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames ( W.F. Chen, Ed.), 8; 261
286.
Ackroyd, M.H. (1987b) Simplified frame design of type PR
construction, Engineering Journal, AISC, 24, 4; 141-146.
Ackroyd, M.H. (1990) Electronic spreadsheet tools for semi-rigid
Ackroyd, M.H. and Gerstle, K.H. (1983) Strength of flexibly-connected
steel frames, Engineering Structures, 5; 31-37.
page_372AISC (1986) Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification
fo r Structural Steel Buildings, First Edition, Chicago, IL.
AISC (1989) Specification fo r Structural Steel Buildings - Allowable
Stress Design and Plastic Design, Ninth Edition, Chicago, IL.
Barakat, M.A. (1988) Simplified Design Analysis o f Frames with Semi
Rigid Connections, Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Barakat, M.A. and Chen, W.F. (1990) Practical analysis of semi-rigid
Chen, W.F. and Kishi, N. (1989) Semi-rigid steel beam-to-column
connections: data base and modeling, Journal o f Structural
Cook, N.E., Jr. and Gerstle, K.H. (1987a) Safety of type 2 steel
frames, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113, 7; 1444-1455.
Cook, N.E., Jr. and Gerstle, K.H. (1987b) Safety of type 2 steel frames
under load cycles, Journal o f Structural Engineering, ASCE, 113, 7;
1456-1467.
Cronembold, J.R. (1986) Evaluation and Design o f Type 2 Steel Building
Frames, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Cronembold, J.R. and Ackroyd, M.H. (1986) Economy and safety of
semi-rigid frame design: case studies, Stability o f Tall Steel Buildings,
Workshop Proceedings, Third International Conference on Tall
Buildings, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Bethlehem,
PA. Chicago, Illinois. pp. 113-171.
Dewkett, K.A. (1984) An Evaluation o f D isque’s Directional Moment
Connections Design Method, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Dhillon, B.S. and Abdel-Majid, S. (1990) Interactive analysis and design
of flexibly connected frames, Computers and Structures, 36, 2; 189
202.
Disque, R.O. (1975) Directional moment connections - a proposed design
method for unbraced steel frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 12, 1;
14-18.
Frye, J.M. and Morris, G.A. (1975) Analysis of flexibly connected steel
Gerstle, K.H. and Ackroyd, M.H. (1990) Behavior and design of flexibly-
connected building frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 27, 1; 22-29.
Goto, Y. and Chen, W.F. (1987) On the computer-based design analysis
for the flexibly jointed frames, Journal o f Constructional Steel
Research, Special Issue on Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames ( W.F.
Chen, Ed.), 8; 203-231.
Kishi, N. and Chen, W.F. (1986) Data Base o f Steel Beam-To-Column
Connections, Structural Engineering Report No. CE-STR-86-26,
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2
volumes, 653 pp.
Kishi, N. and Chen, W.F. (1990) Moment-rotation relations of semirigid
connections with angles, Journal o f Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 116, 7; 1813-1834.
Lindsey, S.D., Ioannides, S. and Goverdhan, A.V. (1985) LRFD analysis
and design of beams with partially restrained connections, Engineering
Journal, AISC. 22, 4; 157-162.
Deformation on the Behavior o f Plane Steel Frames, Ph.D. Thesis,
Lui, E.M. and Chen, W.F. (1986) Analysis and behavior of flexibly-
Nethercot, D.A., Davison, J.B. and Kirby, P.A. (1988) Connection
flexibility and beam design in non-sway frames, Engineering Journal,
AISC. 25, 3; 99-108.
Sivakumaran, K.S. (1988) Seismic response of multi-story steel buildings
with flexible connections, Engineering Structures, 10; 239-248.
Wu, F.H. (1988) Semi-Rigid Connections in Steel Frames, Ph.D. Thesis,
Wu, F.H. and Chen, W.F. (1990) A design model for semi-rigid
connections, Engineering Structures, 12, 2; 88-97.

Preview

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Preview

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Stability Design of Steel Frames

Stability Design of Steel Frames

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is anCRC

Reissued 2018 by CRC Press

© 1991 by CRC Press, Inc.

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Chen, Wai-Fah, 1936-

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 91007742

ISBN 13: 978-1-315-89775-2 (hbk)

Since the publication of the two-volume book on Theory ofBeam-Columns by W.F.

Load and moment

Geometry and dimensions

J uniform torsional (or St. Venant) constant for a section

Stability and LRFD related factors

Rkb design connection stiffness for calculating M 11

1.1 Introduction, I 1.4.3 General Cross-Sections Under Biaxial

Fig. 1.1 Secondary P-delta effects

(b) P - t::, Effect

Fig. 1.1 Continued

used in present engineering practice. The determination of the effective length of a

1.2 General behavior of beam-columns

Fig. 1.2 Behavior of a beam-column

internal moment of the cross-section. Failure of the member by the formation of

1.3 Analysis of beam-columns

various approaches for obtaining the M-<1>-P relationship of a given cross-section;

1.4 Cross-section analysis for moment-curvature relation

1.4.1 Rectangular cross-section under uniaxial bending

Fig. 1.3 Cross-section behavior of a rectangular cross-section

m = lo - p2) - _1_ (1.4.3c)

1.4.2 General cross-section under uniaxial bending

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

we have, in matrix form

where S is the section incremental stiffness matrix.

obtained by evaluating Eq. {1.4.1) numerically by dividing the cross-section into

where M 1 is calculated from a curvature (<I>- ~A<I>) and M 2 is calculated from a

For r/>"" r/> 2

At the secondary yield point

f = (mpc- m2)r/>l (1.4.26)

For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.225 For 0.225 ,;; p ,;; I

Strong axis bending, with residual stress, Urc = 0.3uy

Weak axis bending, no residual stress

For 0,;; p,;; 0.4 For 0.4,;; p,;; I

For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.252 For 0.252 ,;; p ,;; I

Weak axis bending, with residual stress, urc = 0.3uy

For 0 ,;; p ,;; 0.252 For 0.252 ,;; p ,;; I

1.4.3 General cross-sections under biaxial bending

M ~ L L1azdA ~ LAaziAi ( 1.4.30)

llMx ~ LYL1azdA ~ LYiL1aziAi (1.4.31)

sl2 = s21 = IEetf(i)Y;A;

Symbolically, Eq. (1.4.33) can be written as

from which M can be solved from

1.5 Member ana1ysis by Newmark method

Fig. 1.11 Member discretization in the Newmark method

1 Divide the member into n segments by (n + 1) stations.

R i-1=(t,x/6) (2ri_ 1 +ri)

... ,.. ~x--.j j . - - ~X----1 ~~1'01 ..- -

Fig. 1.12 Equivalent nodal loads

of this load-deflection curve is the maximum load-carrying capacity of the

M V0 = (0.00 1 L) sin ( nx)/L M

(a) The imperfect beam-column

~4 ., 1,. L/4 ., 1,. L/4 .,~,. L/~

(c) With larger end moments

Fig. 1.13 Analysis of an inelastic beam-column by Newmark method

0.5,;;; m,;;; 1.0