Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to propose a simplified approach to the evaluation of the critical buckling load of multi-story frames with semirigid connections. To that effect, analytical expressions and corresponding graphs accounting for the boundary conditions of the column under
investigation are proposed for the calculation of the effective buckling length coefficient for different levels of frame sway ability. In addition, a
complete set of rotational stiffness coefficients is derived, which is then used for the replacement of members converging at the bottom and top
ends of the column in question by equivalent springs. All possible rotational and translational boundary conditions at the far end of these members,
featuring semi-rigid connection at their near end as well as the eventual presence of axial force, are considered. Examples of sway, non-sway and
partially-sway frames with semi-rigid connections are presented, where the proposed approach is found to be in excellent agreement with the
finite element results, while the application of codes such as Eurocode 3 and LRFD leads to significant inaccuracies.
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Buckling; Effective length; Stiffness coefficients; Multi-story sway; Non-sway and partially-sway frames; Semi-rigid connections
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the buckling strength of a member can be
evaluated using engineering software based on linear or also
non-linear (in terms of large displacements and/or material
yielding) procedures with analytical or numerical methods [15].
Nonetheless, the large majority of structural engineers still
prefer analytical techniques such as the effective length and
notional load methods [26]. These two methodologies are
included in most modern structural design codes (for example,
Eurocode 3 [9], LRFD [23]).
The objective of this work is to propose a simplified
approach for the evaluation of critical buckling loads of multistory frames with semi-rigid connections, for different levels
of frame sway ability. To that effect, a model of a column in a
multi-story frame is considered as individual. The contribution
of members converging at the bottom and top ends of the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 9707444; fax: +30 210 9707444.
894
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Notations
A, B, C, D integration constants
E
modulus of elasticity
G
distribution factor at the end nodes of the column,
according to LRFD
I
moment of inertia
K
effective buckling length coefficient
L
span length of adjoining members
M
bending moment
N
axial force of adjoining members
P
compressive load
Fig. 1. (a) Multi-story steel frame; (b) proposed model of column under
investigation.
2 E Ic
(K h)2
(2)
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
895
Fig. 2. Model of column in (a) non-sway frame, (b) sway frame, and (c) partially-sway frame, and (d) the sign convention used.
Pcr
.
=
E Ic
Kh
(3)
(4)
896
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Fig. 3. Effective buckling length factor K for different levels of frame-sway ability.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
+ 16K 2
+ (z t + z b 2z t z b ) 2 cos
K
2
2
= 0 (10)
+ 20K (z t + z b ) + z t z b 24K 2 sin
K
where z b and z t are distribution factors obtained by the nondimensionalization of the end rotational stiffnesses cb and ct
with respect to the columns flexural stiffness cc :
cc
cc
zb =
, zt =
(11)
cc + cb
cc + ct
where:
4E Ic
.
(12)
cc =
h
Eq. (10) can be solved numerically for the effective length
factor K , which is then substituted into Eq. (2) to provide the
critical buckling load. Alternatively, the upper left graph of
Fig. 3, obtained from Eq. (10), can be used.
2.2. Sway frames
The simplified model of a column in a sway frame, shown in
Fig. 2(b), is considered, resulting from the model of Fig. 1(b)
by omitting the translational spring. Three boundary conditions
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
897
(13)
4 [z t (2z b 1) z b ] cos
K
K
2
= 0. (14)
+ zt zb
16 (z t 1) (z b 1) sin
K
K
Alternatively, the bottom right graph of Fig. 3, obtained from
Eq. (14), can be used.
2.3. Partially-sway frames
where:
(15)
cbr h 3
=
.
EI
(17)
2E I
3
2 A + B +
,
M AB =
L
L
2E I
3
MB A =
2 B + A +
.
(18)
L
L
an =
n
,
2
2 n 2f
n =
1 k L cot k L
,
k2 L2
f
2
2 n 2f
kL
1
1 .
f = 2 2
sin k L
k L
af =
(20)
(21)
Using the above equations, the rotational stiffness expressions have been derived for members with all possible boundary
conditions at the far end and a semi-rigid connection at the close
end, with or without axial force, and are shown in Table 1. The
derivation of the rotational stiffness factors is described next for
two characteristic cases: one for a member without and one for
a member with axial force.
3.1. Member with a fixed support at the far end and a semirigid connection at the near end, without axial force
Consider the member AB of Fig. 5(a), with span L i and
flexural stiffness E i Ii , where A refers to the bottom or top
node of the column under investigation, while B is the far
node, attached to a fixed support. The connection at node A
is considered as semi-rigid with a rotational stiffness cn .
The slope-deflection equations are given by (18), with
indices i referring to the specific member. Firstly, the
connection at node A is considered as rigid. The rotational
stiffness cr,i of the member AB with a rigid connection was
evaluated in previous work by the authors [10].
The moment at node A of the member with rigid connections
is given by the equation:
M AB =
2E i Ii
(2 A + B ) .
Li
(22)
(23)
898
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Table 1
Converging members rotational stiffness expressions for different boundary conditions at the far end and for a semi-rigid connection at the near end, with or without
axial force
Rotational boundary conditions of far end
Fixed support
ci = 4c i+cn
n
i
ci = c i+cnn
i
Pinned support
ci = 3c i+cn
n
i
Simple curvature
ci = 2c i+cn
n
i
Double curvature
ci = 6c i+cn
n
i
Roller support
ci = 0c i+cn
n
i
ci =
ci cn c#
(ci +cn )c# +cn
ci =
ci =
ci =
4c c
c c
3c c
2c c
6c c
0c c
4c c (10.33n )
i n
i
ci = c +4
ci 1.32ci n i
n
c c (10.82n )
ci = c i +nc 0.82c in
n
i
i i
3c c (10.66n )
i n
i
ci = c +3
ci 1.98ci n i
n
2c c (10.82n )
i n
i
ci = c +2
ci 1.64ci n i
n
6c c (10.16n )
i n
i
ci = c +6
ci 0.96ci n i
n
c c (00.97n )
ci = c i+0n c 0.97c in
n
i
i i
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
899
3.2. Member with a fixed support at the far end and a semirigid connection at the close end, with axial force
Fig. 5. Model of a member with a fixed support at the far end B and a semirigid connection at the near end A: (a) without axial force, (b) with axial force.
M AB =
4E i Ii
A.
Li
(24)
4E i Ii
=
Li
(25)
(26)
where:
ci =
E i Ii
.
Li
(27)
(28)
Considering that the springs have the same moment, Eq. (29)
is written:
1
1
1
=
+ .
ci
cr,i
cn
(29)
Thus, the rotational stiffness ci of member AB with a semirigid connection is evaluated from Eq. (29):
ci =
cr,i cn
.
cr,i + cn
(30)
4ci cn
.
4ci + cn
(31)
(32)
2E i Ii
n,i A .
Li
(33)
(34)
n i cot n i 1
4E i Ii
cr,i =
ni
(35)
Li
4 n 8 tan 1 n
2
Ni
.
N E,i
6
509 8
3
4
n
n ... .
108 000 i
2328 480 000 i
Keeping the first two terms, Eq. (38) is obtained:
4E i Ii
2
ni
cr,i =
1
Li
30
(36)
(37)
(38)
M AB =
2E i Ii
n,i A + f,i B .
Li
cr,i =
(39)
4ci cn (1 0.33n i )
.
cn + 4ci 1.32ci n i
(40)
900
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
cc
= 0.996
cc + c B B
(44)
where:
cc =
4E Ic
= 36 279.60 kN m.
h
(45)
2 E Ic
4. Examples
Pcr,prop =
4.1. Example 1
4c B B cn (c#B B + 3)
4c B B (c#B B + 3) + cn (c#B B
+ 4)
= 147.02 kN m (41)
E Ibm
= 2428.65 kN m
L
c
=
= 0.206.
c B B
c B B =
(42)
c#B B
(43)
= 8981.01 kN.
(46)
4.2. Example 2
cbm =
6cbm cn
= 148.47 kN
6cbm + cn
(47)
E Ibm
= 2428.65 kN m.
L
(48)
where:
cbm =
where:
(K h)2
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
901
Table 2
Critical loads according to the proposed and finite element methods for a variety of structural systems with semi-rigid connections of example 1
Frame
Pcr,FEM (kN)
Pcr,prop (kN)
Pcr,prop Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM
8981.58
8981.16
0.005
8979.83
8979.86
0.001
9027.06
9027.30
0.003
10.98
10.97
0.091
8981.02
8981.01
0.0001
902
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Fig. 7. (a) The three-story sway frame of example 2, (b) equivalent model 1a, (c) equivalent model 1b, (d) equivalent model 1c.
Table 3
Critical loads for model 1 and its equivalent models 1a, 1b, 1c of Example 2
cC
D
Model 1
Model 1a
Model 1b
Model 1c
# (1.047n
cC D cn,C D cC
C D + 1.773)n C D
D
# + c# + 1 + c
#
cn,C D 0.591n C D cC
C D cC D (1.047n C D + 1.773)n C D
D
CD
= 70.18 kN m
Pcr (kN)
Pcr Pcr,model1
(%)
Pcr,model1
22.02428
22.01921
22.00429
21.96301
0
0.02
0.09
0.28
(49)
Then, the total rotational stiffness at node B of model 1c is:
where:
E Ic
cC D =
= 9069.90 kN m
h
cbm
cC# D =
= 0.016
cC D
1
NC D = 22.02 kN = 7.34 kN.
3
N E,C D =
(53)
nC D
(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Table 4
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of example 2
FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed
Pcr (kN)
Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM
22.02428
560.60
2702.46
21.9399
0
2 445.37
12 170.40
0.38
903
Table 5
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of example 3
FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed
Pcr (kN)
Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM
11 237.75
9 358.89
11 745.60
11 274.80
0
16.72
4.52
0.33
2 E Ic
(K h)2
= 2702.46 kN.
(59)
2 E Ic
(K h)2
= 21.94 kN.
(61)
Fig. 9. The frames of example 4 with (a) partially-sway, (b) non-sway and (c)
sway behaviour.
904
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
Table 6
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of the partially-sway frame of example 4
FEM
EC3 (lower limit assuming sway behaviour)
EC3 (upper limit assuming non-sway behaviour)
LRFD (lower limit assuming sway behaviour)
LRFD (upper limit assuming non-sway behaviour)
Proposed
Table 7
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of the nonsway frame of example 4
FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed
Pcr (kN)
Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM
8 980.67
9 980.74
11 821.70
8 980.67
0
11.14
31.64
0
Table 8
Critical loads according to different methodologies of column AB of the sway
frame of example 4
FEM
EC3
LRFD
Proposed
Pcr (kN)
Pcr Pcr,FEM
(%)
Pcr,FEM
14.77
898.78
3441.23
14.77
0
5 983.56
23 192.60
0
Pcr (kN)
Pcr Pcr,FEM
Pcr,FEM (%)
5 000.636
898.78
9 980.74
3 441.23
11 821.70
5 000.01
0
82.03
99.59
31.18
136.40
0.01
G.E. Mageirou, C.J. Gantes / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 893905
[12] Jaspart J, Maquoi R. Guidelines for the design of braced frames with semirigid connections. J Constr Steel Res 1990;16:31928.
[13] Kato S, Mutoh I, Shomura M. Collapse of semi-rigidly jointed reticulated
domes with initial geometric imperfections. J Constr Steel Res 1998;48:
14568.
[14] Kishi N, Chen WF, Goto Y. Effective length factor of columns in semirigid and unbraced frames. J Struct Eng 1997;123:31320.
[15] Kounadis A, Simitses G, Giri J. Nonlinear analysis of portal frames. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 1981;17:12332.
[16] Kounadis A. Nonlinear inelastic buckling of rigid-jointed frames under
finite displacements. Acta Mech 1987;67:191207.
[17] Lau S, Kirby P, Davison J. Appraisal of partially restrained steel columns
in non-sway frames. J Struct Eng 1997;123:8719.
[18] Lau SM, Kirby PA, Davison JB. Semi-rigid design of partially restrained
columns in non-sway steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 1997;50:30528.
[19] Li QS. Buckling analysis of non-uniform bars with rotational and
translational springs. Eng Struct 2003;25:128999.
[20] Li G-Q, Mativo J. Approximate estimation of the maximum load of semirigid steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 2000;54:21325.
[21] Liew JYR, Yu CH, Ng YH, Shanmugan NE. Testing of semi-rigid
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
905