J. Construct.

Steel Research34 (1995) 285-306

© 1995 ElsevierScience Limited
Printed in Malta. All rights reserved
0143-974X(94)00029-8 0143-974X/95/$9-50
ELSEVIER

Non-linear Analysis of Structural Steel Frames

T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburg & G. M. du Plessis

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

ABSTRACT

Material, geometrical and connection non-linearities could have a significant

influence on the forces and moments in a steel structure, especially in sway frames
at ultimate load levels.
Some structural steel design codes (such as CAN3-S16"l-M89) require that a
designer consider second-order moments (i.e. the geometric non-linearities). I f the
steel members are able to redistribute moments through plastic hinge formation, it
makes economic sense to do a plastic design. Certain so-called 'hinge'-connections
do in fact transfer significant moments. It would thus also make the structure more
economical if one can take this moment transfer into account.
All the above effects could be built into a steel frame analysis program. In this
paper, ways of including geometrical, material and connection non-linearities into
the matrix stiffness method in a relatively uncomplicated manner will be discussed.
A computer program developed by the authors, for design-office use, where the
matrix ,~:tiffness method has been adjusted to incorporate all these non-linearities is
described. The use of the computer program is illustrated by means of an example.

NOTATION

A Cross-sectional area
d Member end displacement
d, ~A, deB Vectors of member end displacements
daug Vector of member end displacements for augmented beam
element
dbyb Vector of member end displacements for semi-rigidly connec-
ted members
dlnt Vector of member end displacements for intermediate beam
element
E Modulus of elasticity

285
286 T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

I Second m o m e n t of area
k Member stiffness matrix
KcA Connection stiffness of semi-rigid connection at end 1 of member
Kce Connection stiffness of semi-rigid connection at end 2 of
member
knng Member stiffness matrix for augmented beam element
khyb Member stiffness matrix for semi-rigidly connected members
klnt Modified member stiffness matrix for intermediate beam el-
ement
kso Modified member stiffness matrix to incorporate second-order
effects
L Length of member
m Member end moment
M Moment
P Member end forces
P, PeA, P~e Vectors of member end forces
Pang Vector of member end forces for augmented beam element
Pf Vector of member fixed end forces
Pf, ug Vector of member fixed end forces for augmented beam
element
Pfhyb Vector of member fixed end forces for semi-rigidly connected
members
Pnnt Vector of member fixed end forces for intermediate beam
element
Phyb Vector of member end forces for semi-rigidly connected mem-
bers
Pint Vector of member end forces for intermediate beam element

~0i Stability functions

Or Relative connection rotation
0 Member end rotation

INTRODUCTION

The design of structural steel frames is normally based on the assumptions

of linear-elasticity and that all connections between members are either
fully-fixed (moment connections) or hinged (pinned connections).
These assumptions represent the ideal structural member. However,
these assumptions are not always true and the actual behaviour of
structural members may differ from the ideal model in one or more of the
following ways:
• Some members will have an initial curvature due to manufacturing
processes.
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 287

• Axial loads are applied eccentrically, causing additional curvature of

the member.
• The stress-strain relationship of the material is non-linear. The
material may therefore be considered to be inelastic.
• Connections are neither fully-fixed nor perfectly-hinged. Fully-fixed
connections will undergo some rotation and hinged connections will
transfer some moment.

Analysis methods where linear-elasticity is assumed, are known as

first-order elastic analyses. This implies a linear relationship between
forces and displacements and that the stress-strain relationship of the
material Jis linear.
With tlhe introduction of design codes that require second-order ana-
lyses, the emphasis on analysis methods will definitely shift to second-
order ela,;tic-plastic analyses. The incorporation of semi-rigid connections
is also advisable, as this is a further step in the modelling of the real
behaviour of structural plane steel frames.
Gerstle and Ackroyd I have pointed out that the neglect of real connec-
tion behaviour can lead to unrealistic predictions of the response and
strength of steel structures and less than optimal design of steel structures.
This paper deals with ways of incorporating geometrical, material and
connection non-linearities in structural analysis. All procedures are based
on the matrix stiffness method and will be restricted to two-dimensional
(plane) frames.

NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS

Geometrical non-linearity

Structural analyses that include geometrical non-linearities are commonly

termed second-order analyses. The material can either behave elastically
or non-elastically under loading. Geometrical non-linearities occur when
members bend and the structure sways under loading. Second-order
moments result when the applied loads are multiplied by the appropriate
displacements.
The basic relationship between forces and displacements as derived for
the matrix stiffness method, p = k d +pf, is also used in the second-order
analysis, with some modifications to the member stiffness matrix k and the
member end forces pt. The new relationship is expressed as (Coates et al. 2):

p=k,od+pf (1)
288 T. S. Kruger, B. I4". J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

Taking the effects of geometrical non-linearities into account, the new

member stiffness matrix k~o is given by eqn (2) and applies to a member of
which both ends are considered to be fully-fixed. For other combinations
of fully-fixed and pinned connections refer to Coates et al. 2

k,o=E A/L 0 0 -A/L 0 0

0 I¢I/L 3 I~2/L 2 0 -I¢I/L 3 I~2/L 2
0 I¢2/L 2 I¢4/L 0 -I~2/L 2 I~3/L
(2)
-A/L 0 0 A/L 0 0
0 -Itpl/L 3 --Iq92/L 2 0 Iqh/L 3 -Itp2/L 2
0 Itp2/L 2 I~03/L 0 -- Itp2/L 2 Itp4/L

The tpi-terms in eqn (2) are known as the stability functions of the member.
With a first-order analysis where P.A-effects are neglected, k,o is equal to k
and tpl = 12, tp2=6, ¢p3=2, ~p4=4.
In second-order analyses, the stability functions are functions of the
axial force in the member; the length, second moment of area, and the
modulus of elasticity. The stability functions are dealt with in great detail
in various text books (Coates et al.2). It is, however, important to note that
the stability functions are different for compressive and tensile forces. It
must also be noted that the trigonometrical functions for tpi are undefined
for zero or very small axial forces. It is known that for zero and small axial
forces cpl = 12, ~p2=6, ~p3=2 and ~p4=4, as for the first-order analysis.
Goto and Chen 3 derived a series expansion to describe the stability
functions. By doing this he obtained one set of equations that can be used
for the stability functions, regardless of whether an axial compressive force
or an axial tensile force is considered. For most situations Goto's express-
ions result in values almost equal to the mathematically correct values of
tpl and their use is recommended.

MATERIAL NON-LINEARITY

For structural analysis the stress-strain relationship can be idealized by

any one of the following simple models: elastic, rigid-plastic and elastic-
plastic. For an elastic analysis, the stress-strain relationship is linear and
the material never reaches its yield point. For the rigid-plastic model it is
assumed that no deformation of the material takes place until the yield
stress of the material has been reached. Thereafter the stress is equal to
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 289

the yield stress of the material and with an increase in strain the stress
remains constant. In the elastic-plastic model the material initially de-
forms elastically under increasing load and the stress-strain relationship
is linear. When the yield stress of the material is reached, the material
becomes plastic. With further increase in strain the stress remains con-
stant.
For analysis purposes in the rigid-plastic and elastic-plastic models,
yielding is modelled through the formation of so-called plastic hinges. As
long as tl~e induced stress, at any position in the member, is kept below the
yield stress, that position may be seen as rigid. When the yield stress is
reached the material becomes plastic and a further increase in stress will
result in relative rotation at that position. This behaviour is similar to the
behaviour of a pinned connection but with equal and opposite couples
(equal to the plastic moment of resistance of the section) on either side of
the hinge. In this model it is assumed that the material inelasticity is
concentrated at specific points. This approach restricts the formation of
plastic hinges to definite points in the structure.

CONNECTION NON-LINEARITY

Members with semi-rigid connections at both ends

A connection is a medium through which forces and moments are

transferred from one member to another, such as from a beam to a
column. For a beam-to-column connection in a plane frame, the primary
forces transferred from the beam to the column include axial force, shear
force and bending moment. For most connections the axial and shear
deformations are relatively small compared with rotational deformation.
The rotational deformation is expressed as a function of the moment in
the connection. When a moment, M, is applied to a connection, a relative
rotation,, 0r, occurs between the beam and the column. This rotation
represents the change in angle between the beam and the column.
When presented on a graph of moment (M) against relative rotation (0r)
(Fig. 1) the behaviour of a simple connection is represented by the 0r-axis.
The behaviour of the fully-rigid connection is represented by the M-axis
with 0r--=0. All semi-rigid connections are represented by curves lying
between these two extremes, allowing some moment to be transferred and
some rotation to occur in a connection. For example, a typical single web
angle connection will represent a very flexible connection, while a T-stub
connection will represent a rather rigid connection.
290 T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Piessis

~ a s'tiffc°~ecti°n
e

stiffness

Flexiblecormeotion
|
Rotation
(0,)
Fig. 1. M - O r relationships.
A few important behavioural characteristics of connections are that:

• All connections have a moment-rotation relationship that lies

between the two extremes.
• For a specific rotation the more flexible connection transmits a
smaller moment.
• The moment-rotation relationship for semi-rigid connections is
non-linear for all connections over almost the entire range of
loadings.
• The stiffness of a semi-rigid connection is given by the slope of the
moment-rotation curve.

The accurate modelling of connection behaviour is complex and calls for

very accurate definition of the parameters used in the equations to
describe connection behaviour. However, according to Cunningham 4 this
accurate representation is unnecessary and all that is required is a
reasonable approximation of the actual connection behaviour. This im-
plies that a simple bi-linear (elastic-plastic) or tri-linear representation of
the moment-rotation relationship will be adequate when modelling con-
nection behaviour.
Gerstle and Ackroyd 1 have done many sophisticated evaluation studies
and concluded that overall frame strength is relatively insensitive to
variations in the values of connection stiffness and justified the approxi-
mation of non-linear moment-rotation curves by bi-linear (elastic-plastic)
models for connections.
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 291

Lui and Chen 5 developed a procedure where the matrix stiffness method
was adapted to incorporate connection flexibility. Firstly, a new force-
displacement relationship is determined for an augmented beam element.
In the augmented beam element three elements are identified--two springs
representing the semi-rigid connections a t b o t h member ends and a
normal beam element between the two connections. In Fig. 2 this model is
shown, indicating all member end forces for each element. The vectors of
member end displacements are also given. Equation (3) gives the force-
displacement relationship for the augmented beam element.

p . g = k . , - d..g

KcA -- KcA 0 0 0 0A1 (3)

--KcA KcA 0 0 0 0A2

0 0 k,o 0 0 d

0 0 0 K,B -- K,a 0B1

0 0 0 - K~B K~B 0B2

Secondly, an intermediate beam element is considered where the above-

mentioned three elements are combined into a single element. The member
end forces acting on this element are shown in Fig. 3. The appropriate
member ,end displacements are also given.

ConnectionA Beam ConnectionB

Pxt Pz2

(~m~2 ~PI' 1 [ m2 tuba

mAi real

po. = [re,u, m,~] 'r P = [P,l. PTI, ml, pu. Py2, m~] T P,n = [ram, n~2] T

,~ = 10^,, o,~] ~ d = [,L,, cL,,, o,, ~, ~, ed" d,, = [e~,, OB~I"

p~ ffi{mA,.mA2,p~. p.. m,, p~. Pr2,m2, rant,ms2]r

Fig. 2. Augmented beam element.
292 T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

P,I ~t
p.2~,,
ITII2int

<::: ,- )
p~., = [p., ~ , py, ~. m, u.. P,2*t • Py2~ . m2 ~.. mn~.t .rex, ~.t ]T

Fig. 3. Intermediate beam element.

The relationship between the member end displacements of the

augmented beam element and the intermediate beam element is given by
eqn (4).

daeg- T" dint (4)

eqn (4) may also be written as:

dint ---- T T" dang (5)

from which it follows that:

Pint = T T [Pnng-'[-Pfaug]
= T T [Kn.g.ding + pfnag]
= T T. Knag. T" dint + T T. Pfnug
= kiat" di.t + Print (6)

with T = 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
(7)
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 293

a n d kin t = E AlL 0 0 -AlL 0 0

0 Itp I / L 3 0 0 - I~o1/L 3 0
0 0 K¢A/E 0 0 0
-AlL 0 0 AlL 0 0
0 --I~ol/L 3 0 0 Itpl/L 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 KcB/E

0 I~p2/L 2 -- KcA/E 0 -- Iq~2/L 2 0

0 I~2/L 2 0 0 -- I(o2/L 2 - KcB/E

0 0 (8)
l~o2/L 2 Iq92/L 2
- KcA/E 0
0 0
- ltp2/L 2 - Icp2/L 2
0 - Kca/E

Iq94/L ÷ KcA/E Iq93/L

ltpa/L I~oJL + KcB/E

In matrix form eqn (6) is expressed as:

Pint = Pint a = klnt aa kint ab dint a + Print a

(9)
Pint b kint ba kint bb dint b Print b

By statically condensing out the degrees of freedom related to m12 and m21
it follows that:

Pint b = kint ha" dint a + kint bb" dim b + Pfint b = 0 (10)

and therefore

-1
dint b = -- kint bb (kint ba" dint a + Print b) (11)
294 T. S. Kru#er, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Piessis

Substitution of eqn (11) in eqn (9) gives:

p~,, ,, = (k,,, ,, - ks.., .b" k~ ~,bb" kin, ha) d~..t, + (Pn,, • - k~,,,,b" k~bb "Pn,, b)
= khyb "dhyb -1- Pfhyb
:Phyb (12)
The hybrid beam element (member with semi-rigid connections at both
ends) of which the force-displacement relationship is given by eqn (12) is
shown in Fig. 4. This relationship derived by Lui and Chen 5 has been
expanded by Kruger 6'9 to include axial deformation.

Members with a combination of semi-rigid and pinned connections

The stiffness of a semi-rigid connection is given by the slope of the

moment-rotation relationship of the connection. A pinned connection
may be considered as a semi-rigid connection with zero rotational stiffness.
All above equations will still be valid whether a member with one end
pinned and the other end semi-rigidly connected or with both ends pinned,
is considered. Depending on which end of the member has a hinged
connection, KeA or Ken needs only to be made zero in these equations. KeA
and K~s are the connection stiffnesses of the semi-rigid connections at
member ends 1 and 2, respectively, of the member under consideration.

Members with a combination of semi-rigid and rigid connections

According to the definition given for the rotational stiffness of a connec-

tion, the stiffness of a rigid connection will be infinite. Infinity is not
defined and cannot be substituted into the above equations to determine
the member stiffness matrix for a member with a semi-rigid connection at
the one end and a rigid connection at the other end. Replacing infinity
with a 'very large number' for the stiffness of a rigid connection leads to
rounding-off errors in the solution of the matrix equations and therefore to

< Py~ hyb

[
. aL
Pxl hyb P,a h~,

A
m?
....
~w, lw Py2 k¢,
m l hyb

P.yb = [Pxl ~ b . Py, hyb, mt h~, P.a ~¢. ,Py2 ~ . mz ~b ]'r

d,,~ ffi [d~.~,~,4. ~,b,0,1 ~,~, d~ b,~,d~,,~, 052h,~ ]~

Fig. 4. H y b r i d b e a m element.
 Non-linear analysis o f structural steel f r a m e s 295

incorrect results. However, an expression can be derived to determine the

member stiffness matrix for such members. 6
When a member with a rigid connection at end 1 and a semi-rigid
connection with rotational stiffness KcB, at end 2 is considered ki,,
becomes:

ki,= E A/L 0 0 - A/L 0 0 0

0 l~ol/L 3 IcP2/L2 0 -l~01/L 3 0 lq~2/L 2
0 l~02/L 2 lq~4/L 0 - l~02/L 2 0 l~03/L
- A/L 0 0 A/L 0 0 0 (13)
0 -l~ol/L 3 -l~o2/L 2 0 l~ol/L 3 0 -lq~z/L 2
0 0 0 0 0 K~B/E -KcB/E

0 I~2/L 2 I~3/L 0 -I~2/L 2 -Kca/E I ~ 4 / L + KcB/E

When a member with a rigid connection at end 2 and a semi-rigid

connection with rotational stiffness KcA, at end 1 is considered k i . t
becomes:

ki, ' = E AlL 0 0 -A/L 0 0 0

C~ I~1/L 3 0 0 -[~t/L 3 I~2/L 2 102/L 2
C~ 0 K A/E 0 0 0 -KcA/E
- A/L 0 0 A/L 0 0 0
0 -I~I/L 3 0 0 [~l/L 3 -I~2/L 2 -I~2/L 2
(14)
0 I~2/L z 0 0 -I~2/L 2 I~4/L I~3/L

0 lcpz/L 2 - KcA/E 0 - lqgz/L 2 lq93/L lq~4/L + KcA/E

The force-displacement relationship for the above-mentioned cases can

again be written as:

Phyb -----k hyb "dhyb '1- Pfhyb (15)

with

khyb • (kint aa -- kint ab" ki-ntt bb" kint ha) (16)

where kin, t is given by either eqns (13) or (14).

This extension of the work of Lui and Chen 5 by Kruger 6'9 to derive
stiffness matrices for the case of a combination of semi-rigid connections
296 T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

and rigid connections is especially important in the plastic analysis of

frames where, for computational reasons, additional rigid nodes need to be
introduced into the structure. Structural members are divided into smaller
elements at nodal points. Nodal points need to be defined at all positions
where loads are applied, at all connections, and at all positions where the
values of axial force, shear force, bending moment and deflection are
required.

FRAME BEHAVIOUR AND FRAME ANALYSIS

The analysis of plane-framed structures can be accomplished in a number

of different ways, depending on the purpose of the analysis and the
accuracy of the results required. The analysis methods available are:
first-order elastic, second-order elastic, first-order rigid-plastic, second-
order rigid-plastic, first-order elastic-plastic and second-order elastic-
plastic. The various methods are fully described by, for instance, Horne
and Morris. 7
The collapse of steel structures usually occurs only after significant
plasticity has occured in members and connections and after second-order
deformations have led to buckling instability of the members. Frame
analysis incorporating connection flexibility, geometrical non-linearities
and material non-linearities is required when:

• greater certainty about the ultimate load capacity, implying an

accurate determination of the strength of a structure, is required;
• a more economical design is required; or
• a more accurate determination of deflections under serviceability
loads is required.

COMPUTERIZED FRAME ANALYSIS

Van Rensburg 8 investigated the behaviour of plane framed steel structures

with regards to geometrical and material non-linearities and developed a
computer program for this purpose. Kruger 6 took this study further and
also investigated the effects of connection non-linearities in the modelling
of plane-frame behaviour.
Due to the material, geometric and connection non-linearities, the
matrix stiffness method for the analysis of indeterminate structures had to
be adapted to a large extent to incorporate all these effects. The accurate
modelling of frame behaviour calls for the double iterative procedure as
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 297

described by Coates et al. 2 This procedure may, however, be simplified by

making use; of a step-by-step application of the load in small increments.
The smaller the increment, the more accurate the results will be.
The computer program developed gives the user the choice of five
different types of frame analyses. These are:

• first-order elastic analysis;

• first-order elastic-plastic analysis;
• second-order elastic analysis;
• second-order elastic-plastic analysis with no reduction in the plastic
moment;
• second-order elastic-plastic analysis with a reduction in the plastic
moment.

The computer program not only gives the user the choice of analysing
plane frames with rigid and pinned connections, but also of analysing
plane frames with semi-rigid connections. A number of assumptions was
made during development of the program. These are:

• The material is bi-linear elastic-plastic and the effect of strain-

hardening is neglected.
• Residual stresses are neglected.
• Geometrical imperfections can be taken into account.
• Deformations are small and therefore the curvature is given by
d 2v/dx 2.
• Shortening of the members due to beam flexure is neglected.
• Displacement of the frame takes place in one plane only.
• The :formation of plastic hinges is restricted to specific points.
• Plastic yielding is restricted to the formation of plastic hinges, the
shape factor is 1.0 and the relationship between moment and
curwtture is bi-linear.
• The effect of axial force on the plastic moment resistance of an
I-profile can be taken into consideration. An approach similar to
that of Horne and Morris 7 is followed.
• For plastic analysis only point loads and moments can be entered as
external applied loads and nodes must be provided where these
load,; are applied.
• When performing a first-order analysis, uniformly-distributed loads
may be applied between nodal points on members.
• Connections can be either fixed, semi-rigid or pinned.
• The iloads are applied in an incremental step-by-step application. To
improve the accuracy of the calculations the increment must be kept
small.
298 T. S. Kruger, B. IV. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

• Semi-rigid connections are considered to be fully-fixed for the first

iteration.
• The connection stiffness is given by the slope of the m o m e n t -
rotation function.
The basic steps performed by the program are shown in Fig. 5. Notes
1-17, as indicated in Fig. 5, further explain some of the procedures in the
computational process:
Notes on Fig. 5:
1. Screen displays are used for entering data.
2. The user chooses the type of analysis required (as described earlier).
3. The user chooses the m a x i m u m load factor to be applied and the
increments to be used in reaching the m a x i m u m load factor.
4. The usual structural input data are entered but with some additions:
(a) If the reduction in the plastic m o m e n t of resistance of the
section due to axial forces is to be calculated, then the dimen-
sions of the I-section have to be entered.
(b) The user specifies the type of member end connections, i.e. rigid,
hinged or semi-rigid.
(c) A semi-rigid connection can be described in several ways:
polynomials are available to describe the m o m e n t rotation
characteristics for five different types of steel connections. If this
option is exercised the user has to enter the connection details.
A simpler bi-linear relationship is also available and the user
must supply the connection stiffnesses and points of discontinu-
ity in the slope of the M 0r relationship.
5. All the relevant arrays are zeroed initially.
6. The plastic m o m e n t s of resistance of all the members are calculated.
As the axial forces are u n k n o w n at this stage, no reduction in the
plastic m o m e n t of resistance can yet be calculated.
7. The plastic m o m e n t s of resistance are significantly enlarged, in an
elastic analysis, to prevent the formation of any plastic hinges.
8. N u m b e r of plastic hinges connected to a node: The program keeps a
record, as the plastic hinges form, of the number of ordinary or
plastic hinges connected to a node. The m a x i m u m n u m b e r of hinges
at a node should always be one less than the n u m b e r of members
connected to that node. If this limit is not checked the structural
stiffness matrix may become singular.
9. For a second-order analysis the nodal point coordinates are ad-
justed after each iteration.
10. If the m a x i m u m load factor has been reached, an output file is created
from which graphical presentations of the output are generated.
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 299

I Display Analysis Screen 1

2
Choose type of enalyMs to perfolTn

1
Read from t e m n a l :
- M ~ i n ' ~ m load factor
Increments of load factor

L
1
Read and write input data

1
Zero all relevant arrays

Determine the value of the plastic

resistance moment for all members

Enlarge plastic moments

to prevent the formation
of any plastic hinges

Set number of members connected at a

nodal point equal to the number of
members connected at that point initially.

load factor = 0

1
Sat hinge indicators to zero plastic hinges

X - c o - o r = X c o - o r + X-displacement
Y-co-or = Y-co-or + Y-displacement

Fig. 5. Flow diagram.

300 T. S. Kruger, B. W. J. van Rensburo, G. M. du Plessis

load factor = load factor + increment J

Increment - rrul~kllum Ioadfactor

- load factor + increment

i E EII 11
I actor all loads with the incrernental load factor I

1 12
Calculate the structural stiffness wmtrix
incorporating geomettical end
connection non-linearitics

13
Introduce the support conditions

L s . . f o , the °.new° ..p, . . . . . t. __J

[ 13

I Calculate the determinant of the structural stiffness matrix 1

Write "Structure collapse"

15

Add incremental nodal displacements

to total nodal displacements

I calc°~ato me~e, cad fo,cos

1 1,
I Check for the formation
of any plastic hinges

Fig. 5.--Contd.

11. The load factor is incremented and all loads are multiplied by the
increment in load factor.
12. (a) Calculation of the structural stiffness matrix:
Several different types of members are possible and the subrou-
tine to calculate the member stiffness matrix takes this fact into
account. Member types are dependant on member end connec-
tions.
(b) Calculation of the second-order member stiffness matrix:
The ~0i-functions require a value of the axial force. For the first
calculation of kso zero axial forces are assumed. For subsequent
calculations the total axial forces calculated at the end of the
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 301

previous cycle of computations are used. For the qh-functions,

the trigonometrical functions, as described by Coates et al. 2, are
used.
13. The procedures for setting-up the system of simultaneous equations,
introducing boundary conditions, solving for the unknowns (the
incremental displacements) and calculating the determinant, follow
the guidelines set out in Brebbia and Ferrante. ~1
14. A zero determinant of the structural stiffness matrix is an indication
that the structure has become unstable and calculations are termin-
ated.
15. Thte total displacements of the nodes are determined at the end of
the cycle.
16. The member end forces are calculated using the total displacements
and eqn (1).
A reduced plastic moment of resistance for all the members is now
cailculated (if this option was exercised).
17. All the member end moments are checked for exceeding the plastic
moment of resistance. Plastic hinges are inserted in the structure
where applicable: This implies that the member type is changed
(see point 12) (i.e. the definition of the structure is changed) and
track is kept of the formation of plastic hinges at a node (see
point 8).
The new properties (if applicable) of the semi-rigid connections are
now also calculated.

The sections of the program dealing with material and geometrical

non-linearities have been bench-marked by Van Rensburg s and Kruger 6
against other available published results, of, amongst others, Allen
and Bulsen, 1° Moy 12 and Majid. 13 The results have been shown to be
valid.

ILLUSTRATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM

The portal frame shown in Fig. 6 was analysed to illustrate the computer
program. In all cases second-order elastic-plastic analyses with no reduc-
tion in tlae plastic moment were performed and the incremental load factor
was kept constant at 0-01. In Example 1 connection non-linearity is
illustrated, while in Example 2 material non-linearity (plasticity) is illus-
trated. "]('he plastic moment of resistance of the section used is 212 kNm.
The maximum value of the plastic moment of resistance of the haunch is
approximately 425 kNm.
 Nodes
19
t7 lg 20 21

2.7 kN 9 !9

No~s:
0.9 k.,N ~T
It All sections are 305 x 165 x 4 6 kg/m 7,
I - sections.
Haunches a ~ made up of the same
oo
profile ranging from zero depth to
Node 1 300 nun at the eaves. Node 37

20x 1.0=20m '-u

Fig. 6. Portal frame.

 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 303

Example 1
This example illustrates connection non-linearity. Connections at nodes 1,
19 and 37 are assumed to be semi-rigid connections with an initial
rotational stiffness of 32.14 kNm/rad and maximum capacity of 50 k N m
(bi-linear/elastic-plastic model). Load factors of 1.0 and 1.3 were applied. In
Fig. 7 the bending moment diagrams (in kNm) are shown for the two cases.
At a load factor of 1.0 the maximum capacity of 50 k N m of the connections
at nodes 1 and 37 has already been reached, while the moment at
connection 19 is only 36.8 kNm. At load factor 1.3, the maximum capacity
of the connection at node 19 has also been reached. This actually implies
that three hinges have now formed in the structure at nodes 1, 19 and 37.
With a further increase in the load factor the values of the moments at these
nodes will remain unchanged while all other moments will increase. The
bending m o m e n t diagram for the same structure with all connections
assumed fixed at load factor 1.0 is also shown in Fig. 7.
At least four 'hinges' are necessary for the structure to become unstable.
All three semi-rigid connections have reached their capacity of 50 k N m
before the: formation of any plastic hinges, at a value of 212kNm.
Therefore only one more hinge is necessary for the structure to collapse.
Due to the: geometry of the structure and the loading pattern, it is obvious
that the plastic hinge will form in the vicinity of node 29 (the right-hand
eaves connection). The possibility of the plastic hinge forming at node 29 is
unlikely because of the haunch at that position. The plastic hinge will thus
form at either node 27 or 31, with node 31 being more likely.
It is possible to determine the critical failure load factor of the structure
by using the equations of equilibrium and bearing in mind that the
moments at points 1, 19 and 37 are 50 k N m and at node 31 it is 212 kNm.
It was found that the critical failure load factor is 1-91 in this case.

36.8

50.4
132.1 •. 30,3 f ~144,9
175.1

130.2

/ "

\ /J
LEGEND: LF = 1.0

LF ~ 1.3

--i,--~.o~=~d~
50.1 50.3
50.1 50.3

83.6 92,4

Fig. 7. Example 1 (bending moment diagram--kNm).

304 T. S. Kruger, B. 14/. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

The first-order elastic-plastic computer analysis gives a critical failure

load factor of 1.90, while the second-order elastic-plastic computer analy-
sis gives a critical failure load factor of 1"85. In both cases plastic hinges
formed at node 31. The computed value of 1.91 compares favourably with
the value of 1"90 obtained from equilibrium considerations. It is clear that
second-order effects are small in this type of structure.

Example 2
Example 2 illustrates material plasticity, i.e. the formation of plastic
hinges. All connections are assumed to be rigid. Load factors of 1.0, 2.3

30.3

73 2

130.2 noA 134.1

303.4 3137
3445 350.1

//

LEGEND:
LF = 1.0

LF = 2.3

LF = 2.6

83.6 92 4

192.7 212.0
180.9 212.0

Fig. 8. Example 2 (bending moment diagram--kNm).

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

18

16

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6
04

0.2

0
T T r I T r
2O 40 60 80 100 120

A29,~,~,o,,, (ram)
Fig. 9. Load factor (2) vs displacement.
 Non-linear analysis of structural steel frames 305

and 2.6 were applied. The first plastic hinge formed at a load factor of 2.27
at node 217 (right-hand support). The next two plastic hinges formed at
load factors of 2.52 and 2.58 at nodes 31 and 7, respectively. Failure of the
structure is at a load factor of 2.79, when plastic hinges have formed at nodes
17, 18, 20 and 21. In Fig. 8 the bending m o m e n t diagrams are shown for load
factors of 1.0, 2.3 and 2-6. Figure 9 gives a graphical representation of load
factor versus horizontal displacement of node 29 and clearly illustrates the
non-linear behaviour. The formation of all plastic hinges and the reduction
in stiffness are clearly visible in the change of slope in the diagram.

CONCLUSION

This paper illustrates how material, geometrical and connection non-

linearities can be incorporated into a plane frame analysis computer
p r o g r a m in a relatively simple way. The computer program runs on a
personal computer, utilizes the graphical facilities for input and output
and assists the steel designer in a user-friendly way to undertake an elastic
analysis, a plastic analysis or a complete geometric non-linear elastic-
plastic analysis with semi-rigid connections.
The authors are of the opinion that programs similar to this one will
become everyday tools in most design offices, for accurate modelling of
frame behaviour that will lead to more reliable designs.

REFERENCES

1. Gerstle, K. H. & Ackroyd, M. H., Behaviour and design of flexibly-connected

building frames. 1989 National Steel Construction Conf., Nashville, AISC,
June 1989.
2. Coates, R. C., Coutie, M. G. & Kong, F. K., Structural Analysis, 3rd edn. Van
Nostrand-Reinhold, 1988.
3. Goto, Y. & Chen, W. F., On the computer-based design analysis for flexibility
jointed frames. J. Constr. Steel Res., 8 (1987).
4. CunnJingham, R., Some aspects of semi-rigid connections in structural steel-
work, Struct. Engr, 68 (5/6) (March 1990).
5. Lui, E. M. &Chen, W. F., Steel frame analysis with flexible joints. J. Constr.
Steel Res., 8 (1987).
6. Kruger, T. S., The influence of semi-rigid connections on the behaviour of
plane framed structures. MEng Thesis, University of Pretoria. 1991.
7. Horne, M. R. & Morris, L. J., Plastic design of low rise frames. Constrado
Monograph. Granada Publishing, 1981.
8. Van Rensburg, B. W. J., The collapse analysis of unbraced structural frames.
PhD Dissertation, University of Pretoria, 1987 (in Afrikaans).
306 T. S. Kruger, B. IV. J. van Rensburg, G. M. du Plessis

9. Kruger, T. S. & Van Rensburg, B. W. J., The matrix stiffness method as

applied to semi-rigid connections. J. South African Inst. Civil Engrs., 35 (4)
(Fourth Quarter, 1993).
10. Allen, H. G. & Bulsen, P. S., Background to Buckling. McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1980.
11. Brebbia, C. A. & Ferrante, A. J., Computational Methods for the Solution of
Engineering Problems. Pentech Press, 1978.
12. Moy, S. S. J., Plastic Methods for Steel and Concrete Structures. MacMillan,
1981.
13. Majid, K. I., Non-linear Structures. Butterworths, London, 1972.

APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

1. Ackroyd, M., Design of flexibly-connected unbraced steel building frames. J.

Constr. Steel Res., 8 (1987).
2. Azizinamini, A., Bradburn, J. H. & Padziminski, J. B., Initial stiffness of
semi-rigid steel beam-to-column connections. J. Constr. Steel Res., 8 (1987).
3. Frye, J. M. & Morris, G. A., Analysis of flexibly connected ste~l frames, Can.
J. Civil Engng, 2 (1975).
4. Gerstle, K. H., Flexibly connected steel frames. In Steel Framed Structures--
Stability and Strength, ed. R Narayanan, 1989.
5. Ioannides, S. A., Frame analysis including semi-rigid connections and P-Delta
effects, Connections in Steel Structures--Behaviour, Strength and Design, ed. R.
Bjorhovde, J. Brozzetti & Andr+ Colson.
6. Ioannides, S. A. & Tarpy, T. S., Practical applications of semi-rigid beam-
to-column end-plate connectors. Appl. Math. Model., 4 (February 1980).
7. Jones, S. W., Kirby, P. A. & Nethercot, D. A., The analysis of frames with
semi-rigid connections--a state-of-the-art report. J. Constr. Steel Res., 3 (2)
(1983).
8. Lindsey, S. D., Design of frames with PR connections. J. Constr. Steel Res., 8
(1987).
9. Lui, E. M., A practical P-Delta analysis method for type FR and PR frames,
Engng J./Amer. Instit. Steel Constr. (Third quarter, 1988).
10. Morris L. J., A commentary on portal frame design. Struct. Engr., 59A (1981)
394-404; 61A (1981) 181-189.
11. Nethercot, D. A., Davison, J. F. & Kirby, P. A., Connection flexibility and
beam design in non-sway frames. Enong J./Amer. Inst. Steel Constr. (Third
quarter, 1988).
12. Owens, G. W., Structural Steelwork Connections. Butterworths, London, 1989.
13. Springfield, J., Semi-rigid connections in structural steel framing: a practising
engineer's view. J. Constr. Steel Res., 8 (1987).