Space Frames with Biaxial Loading in Columns
INTERACTION CURVES FOR
SECTIONS UNDER
COMBINED BIAXIAL BENDING
AND AXIAL FORCE
FRITZ EJ\JGfNEERING
ORAl'ORY L'BRA~'~V
by
Sakda Santathadaporn
Wai F. Chen
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 331.3
Space Frames with Biaxial Loading in Columns
INTERACTION CURVES FOR SECTIONS UNDER
COMBINED BIAXIAL B.ENDING AND AXIAL FORCE
by
Sakda Santathadaporn
Wai F. Chen
This work has been carried out as a part of an investigation sponsored jointly by the Welding Research Council and the Department of the Navy with funds furnished
by the following:
American Iron and Steel Institute
Naval Ship Systems Command
Naval "Facilities Engineering Command
Reproduction of this report in whole or in part is
permitted for any purpose of the United States Government.
Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
August 1968
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 331.3
331.3
SYNOPSIS
Limit analysis is applied to obtain. interaction equations for rectangular and wideflange sections under combined biaxial bending and
axial force.
Some of the results are presented in terms of interaction
curves and comparisons are made for various weights and sizes of common
ly used wideflange sections.
331.1
ii
TABLE O'F CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS
1.
INTRODUCTION
INTERACTION EQUATION OF RECTANGULAR SECTION
2.1
Lower Bound Solution
2.2
Upper Bound Solution
LOWER BOUND SOLUTION OF WIDEFLANGE SECTION
4.
UPPER BOUND SOLUTION OF WIDEFLANGE SECTION
11
5.
CONCLUSION
17
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
18
NOMENCLATURE
19
8.
APPENDIX
21
FIGURES AND TABLES
22
10
REFERENCES
45
331.3
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
In'a recent review paper on the theory of biaxially loaded columns
which
usually exist
~n
a space structure"
1*
it has been pointed out that
even a reasonable approximate solution involves considerable
numerical calculations and hence limits its practical use.
labor in
On the other
hand, the present pl&stic analysis and design.procedures take no account
of biaxial loading,2 and hence have an unknown amount of inaccuracy when
applied to space frame analysis and design.
A compromise between these two approaches is to consider the concept of the interaction curve or surface relating the axial force and two
bending moments under the condition that the entire section will be fully
plastic.
However, as noted by Drucker, interaction curves are not unique
and the manner of loading of the entire member is important.
Neverthe
less, the resulting theory will certainly be an improvement on the present theory ~or planar structures which c~mpleteiy neglects the additional
bending moment resulting from space action of the entire framing system.
Studies of the interaction relations underbiaxial loading
hav~
been made by Ringo,4 by Sharma,S by Bruinette,6 by Pfrang and Toland,?
and by Morris and Fenves.
But not much information in terms of inter
action curves for the commonly used wideflange sections has been presented.
All these results are
b~sed
on an equilibrium approach (stress
solution) and therefore yield.a lower bound solution to the, problem.
*Superscript is used to denote reference number
2
331.3
The rectangular section and the wideflange section will be considered in what follows.
These will be approached from the viewpoint of
lower and upper bound theorems of limit analysis.
The maximum safe do
main and the minimum collapse domain will be obtained by use of the
variational calculus and the minimum procedure respectively .. The upper
bound results will be presented as integrals for wideflange sections
including warping moment and will be evaluated explicitly for the particular case of biaxial loading and
co~parison
made with the lower bound
for various weights and sizes of commonly u'sed sections.
The influence
of the flange thickness on the interaction curves should then become
clearer.
The final section will summarize the conclusions of the paper.
3
331.3
2.
INTERACTION EQUATION OF RECTANGULAR SECTION
In this section, lower and upper bound theorems of limit
analys~s
are applied to obtain .interaction relationships relating normal force P
and bending .moments Mx and My acting in two perpendicular direction on
a rectangular section under the condition that the e"ntire section will
be fully plastic.
The technique will then be 'extended to obtain the in
teraction relationships for wideflange sections.
2.1
Lower Bound Solution
The lower bound theorem of limit analysis states that the load
computed on the basis of an assumed
equilibr~um stat~
bution which does not violate the yield
condit~on
of stress distri
will be less than or
at best equal to the true limit or ultimate load!9
A system of stress distribution satisfying the yield
condition
and equilibrium for a rectangular section is shown in Fig. 1.
~imple
This has
tension above and simple compression below the neutral plane
posiy = f(x). The axial force P and the bending moments
. Mx and Mare
y
tive when the axial force causes tension and the bending moments produce
tensile stress in the first quadrant of the coordi'nate system shown.
The
equilibrium consideration then gives
f2
2
cr
f(x) dx
( 1)
331.3
4
~
2
M
x
l~cry
M
y
2
f(x) ]
[4
dx
(2)
+
);2 ~
b
Z
x f(x) dx
(3)
where f(x) is as yet an unknown function.
The pro.b lern of finding the
interaction curve may now be stated as follows:
and M , determine a function f(x)
as to maximize M subjected to.
x
So
the constraint conditions P and M.
Given a value of P
With Lagrange's multiplier de
noted by Al and AZ' one can write
2
f(x)]  Ai
[2 cry
x f(x)]  A2
Since all integrands in P, M
[2 cry
f(x)]
(4)
and M involve only f(x) "and none
of its derivatives, the Euler differential equation will be finite
1
rather than d i ff erentia.
.Q!L.
of (x)
h t he
W~t
d
equat~on
oR
dx [of'(x) ]
10
(5)
it follows that
f(x)
The neutral axis therefore must be
(6)
a straight line and the 1n
tegrals for P, M and M can be evaluated
x
( 7)
(8)
5
331.3
(9)
M
Y
Eliminating'
~l
~2
and
and introducing the dimensionless quantities
p
(10)
m
x
(11)
M
px
M
=J..
(12)
py
where
p ,
y
px
M
py
cr bd
cr bd
4 y
'(13)
1
4
0'
d,b
(14)
(15)
leads to the particularly simple inters'ctian equation,
m
x
+ 4
m
y
(16)
valid for
< mx
Equatio~
16 is derived for the particular case the neutral axis
passing through the two vertical sides of the rectangle (Fig. 2a).
There
are also two other possible locations of the neutral axis (Figs. ,2b
and 2c) depending upon the relative magnitude of p, m
interaction equations are summarized in Table 1.
corresponding to Table 1 are s'hown in Fig. 3.
andm.
,y
Their
The interaction curves
A somewhat similar tech
6
331.3
nique has been used by Hodge for the interaction curves for shear and bending
of p1ast1c' beams.
2.2
11 12
'
Upper Bound Solution
The upper bound theorem of limit analysis states that the load
computed on the basis of an assumed fully plastic velocity field by equating
of the external and internal rate of ,work for such a field will give an
upper bound solution for the collapse or limit load.
In Fig. 4,
eo
is the assumed strain rate at the centroid of the
section and K is the assumed curvature rate.
o
The generalized stresses
which are associated with these strain.and curvature rates are axial force
P, and the bending moment M which can be resolved into two components
of moment M and M about the principal axes.
x
y
Here, it is assumed that
the deformation pattern (velocity field) is a pure bending and hence
specified completely by e
and K.
0
The stress distribution associated
with this pattern of deformation is exactly the same as the lower bound
stress distribution.
Therefore, the lower bound solution must, in fact,
be the correct one to within the limits of the proposed theory.
331.3
7
LOWER BOUND SOLlITION OF WIDEFLANGE SECTION
Figure 5 shows a fully plastified wideflange section.
= f(x) or x = ~(y)
axis y
The neutral
divides tensile from compressiye stress.
The
equilibrium equations are
 +t
J2: cry
0(Y) dy
. t
w.
2:
J22 cry
y (li(y) dy
d'
f~
cry y 0(Y) dy +Jcr;
[(2  t)
2
 f(x)] dx .
(18)
2
2"
d
+t
} cry'2[(2')
b 2 2
b 2
 0(Y) ] dy +} :y2[(2)
t
2
_
(17)
.f(x) dx
+t
t
2
J22' cry
J2:cry 0(Y) dy
2
M =
x
Z
w
2
b(y)] dy
J22'cry x f(x) dx
(19)
w
2
The first two integrals of Eqs. 17, 18 and 19 are the cdntribution
due to the top and bottom flanges, and the last integral is due to the web.
In order to derive a lower bound on the interaction curve, an ar
bitrary function of f(x) is assumed and substituted into Eqs. 17, 18 and
19.
Guided by the results for a rectangular" sectio~, f(x) or ~(y) is
chosen as follows
(20)
(21)
331.3
8
With the simplification of the stress distribution in the web as
shown in Fig. 6, the following interaction equations are obtained
(22)
(23)
(24)
Y
where
(25)
If dimensionless quantities are defined by Eqs. 10, 11 and 12,
with
p
aA
cr
Mpx =aZ
y x
[2bt + w (d  2t)J
d
py.
(J
YY
cry
[bt (dt) + w (2 t) J
cry
[t~ +
(26)
(27)
f w2 (d2t)J
(28)
the interaction equations may finally be written in the form
(29)
~ (~)
1
[
3 _
m = {
2
x
Zx 3
m
y
(~2
_ t) 3 ] Ie
w [(
~2
_ t) 2 _ Y 2
1
J} .
(30)
(31)
9
331.3
valid for
o
w
"2
Once the values of p and m are given, the values of X and Y1
3
x
which define the location of the neutral axis can be determined by Eqs.'
29 and 30.
The value of m is then computed from Eq. 31.
y
valid for the case in which the neutral axis
the web. and the bottom flange (Fig. 6).
pa~ses
The solution is
through the top
~lange,
Different locations of neutral
axis are shown in Fig. 7.and their corresponding interaction equations
are summarized in Table 2.
The interaction curves corresponding to Eqs.
29, 30 and 31 are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 for l2W31 and 14~426 respectively.
Comparison between these two sectionsis given'in Fig. 10.
of various weights of 12W section with the ratio
to '0.975 is given in Fig.' 11.
b/~
Comparison
varying from 0.540
It was found that, in general, the lighter
the section, the stronger the momentcarrying capacity m and m
.
x
y.
Pfrang and Toland, using a somewhat similar approacp, obtai'ned the
interaction curves for a few particular Wideflange sections.]
the analytical expressions are not avai lab Ie in their paper.
However,
Compa~ison
between their results and the present solution is given in Fig. 12 and
close agreement is observed from this figure.
The same problem wa"s also considered by Ringo, Sharma, Bruinette,
4 5 6 8
Morris and Fenves. ' , , Although the interaction ".equations are avai lab le,
no such interaction curves are given.
Most of the solutions considered
10
331.3
the effective depth of the web measured from the center of the top flange
to the center of the bottom flange as was
uniaxial bending.
usua~ly
done in the case of
This approximation was fo'und to be in considerable
error compared with the present solution, especially for large flange
thickness and large axial force.
331.3
11
4.
UPPER BOUND ,SOLUTION OF WIDEFLANGE SECTION
According to the theorems of limit analysis, the consideration of
the problem from the .viewpoint of the lower bound theorem alone is not
sufficient to guarantee that the solution so obtained is correct unless
the result is confirmed from the viewpoint of the upper bound theorem.
, It is assumed that the deformation pattern is a pure bending for
each"of the threethinwall flat plates, that is, the plane cross sections
remain plane after deformation for the two flanges as well as for the web
(Fig. 13).
They are assumed to behave independently and exert no restraint'
upon one another except the compatibility
tween the flange and the web.
Then if
cond~tions
.
K is
at the junction be
the rate of curvature and
the strain rate at the centr9id for each of the three thinwall plates
and if the subscripts t, band w denote the top flange, bottom flange
and web
respect~ve1y,
the assumed deformation field can be specified com
p1etely by six variables with an and a K for
~ach
of the three plates.
The six variables are not completely.independent and must satisfy the compatibility conditions (Fig. 14)
=
ew +
h
2
K
w
where h is the distance from center of the top flange to the center of
the bottom flange.
(32)
(33)
331.3
12
The rate of energy dissipation across the section is
Wi
J
0
I E: I
(34)
dA
where is the rate of strain at any point.
first~
Considering the web
e ::::
Cy
the strain rate
is given by
K
w
(35)
where
ew
K
which is the distance from the
web .(See
~ig.
(36)
of zero strain to the center of the
poi~t
14).
Thus, the rate of dissipation of energy in the web is
2
IT
. Kw
e
~J
(37)
Simi1arily, the rate of energy dissipation for the top and the
bottom flanges are
2
b
(J t [K +
t
y
4
(~+ ~)2 ~J
w
'
(J
~)2
(38)
w J
l<b
(39)
The rates'of external work for the web and the flanges are
P
w w
M K
w w
PtCw +~K)+MK
2 w
t t
(40)
(41)
13
331.3
(42)
K )
w
The upper bound solution is obtained by equating the total rate
of work done by the external forces to the total rate of dissipation.
W
e
w.1
(43)
or
2
[~ iz +
cr t
y
+ cr t
y
[~ ~
+cryw [(ht)
4
K 2
~~+ ~W)2 ~J
K
w
+ (~
2
~)2 ~]
~
'E: w
+ ]
(44)
where
p
(45)
h
2
(46)
(47)
M
Y
In order to derive an upper bound solution on the interaction
curve, arbitrary values of strain rate and curvature rate can be assumed.
However, each different deformation pattern assumed may result in a'different set of stress resultants over the wideflange section and hence
will correspond to a different stress boundary value problem solved.
example, if the entire wideflange section is assumed to remain plane
For
14
331.3
(Fig. 15), the associated stress field corresponding to the deformation
pattern is the one used for the lower bound calculations.
stress resultants are P, M and M.
x
y
Hence the
On the other hand, if the more
general deformation pattern of Fig. 13 is used, additional warping moments
acting in the planes of each of the two flanges, equal in magnitude but
opposite in sense, will result from the associated stress field.
There
fore, a different stress boundary value problem is solved.
The lower bound interaction curve relating P, M and M is the
x
y
true curve which is the main concern of the present paper.
Since the
associated stress field corresponditl:g to the particular deformation pattern of Fig. 15 is the same as for the lower bound calculations, it is
thought that the upper bound formulation for the wideflange section is
the more interesting.
This is true not only because it will provide some
physical insight into the problem but also because it will be more convenient to obtain for the interaction curve including warping moments
over the section which is of more fundamental concern to space frame
analysis.
simpl~city,
Here, we consider, for
only the particular de
formation pattern of Fig. 15 as an illustrative example of evaluating
these integrals.
With
Eq. 44 reduces to
x w +M
+M
'y
.
K
0"
[4"
2
K
2
h
K +4
f
+ cr yw
[(ht)
. ]
f
.2
+ ~J
K
w
(48)
15
331.3
According to the upper bound theorem of limit analysis, the best
choice of the deformation pattern corresponds to the minimum value of the
loads P, M
and M.
y
can be shown that these conditions are (See
It
Appendix for the details)
(49)
ow.
(50)
~
w
ow.
(51)
OKf
which gives us the interaction equation in term of the parameters Y1
and A3 (=
Kw/Kf )
2
..
Yl ]
A [2t A3 Y1 +
m
x
1 { 2
Z
th
[(h t) 2
m
y
2
Z
. y
A3 +w
2
b
t [4
h
4
(52)
.2
""3
A~
Y/]}
2
Y1 ]
(53.)
(54)
valid for
o < ~l
d
< 2
. and
w
The results of upper bound solutions for other cases corresponding
to the lower bound solutions are also given in Table 2.
As can be seen
331.3
16
the difference between the lower and the upper bound solutions is the
value of n
which differs byt 3 /4 only.
If the thickness of the flange
is small, this value is negligible .
. Tables 3 and 4 are the comparison of the numerical results obtained
from the lower and the upper bound solution.s for 12W31 and 14W426. Small
difference is observed from
14~426.
It can be noticed that the values of
the lower bound solution are slightly higher'than those
bound solution.
solution that
This is due to the assumption made
t~e
in
of the upper
the upper bound
section is thin and the strain rate was computed by
the average value at the middle plane of the thickness.
Equations 52,
53 and 54 may also be derived directly from lower bound approach by
assuming the stress distribution shown in Fig. 16.
33l~3
17
5.
CONCLUSION
The application of upper and lower bound theorems of limit analysis
to obtain the interaction curves for sections under combined biaxial bending
and axial force, and the general formulation of the upper bound solution
including the warping moment, should prove both interesting and useful.
It should be kept in mind, however, that results are correct only for compression members of zero length or for members with sufficient lateral
bracing.
,They may have no relevance for the plastic analysis of space
frames in which column length is relatively long and the effect of the
geometriGal change of the column on the ultimate strength of the column
becomes .appreciable.
For such a problem it
woul~
appear necessary to con
sider the instability effect and engage in a complete elasticplastic
stability analysis.
Thus the present theory should be considered as a
first step in extending planar structural analysis 'and design to a more
realistic space frame
an~lysis
and design.
331.1
18
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described herein Was first suggested by Professor L. W.
Lu, Dire,ctor of the project  "S pa.c .e Frame with Biaxia 1 Loading in Co lumng" ,
currently being carried out at Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh
University.
Professor L. S. Beedle is Director of the Laboratory and
Professor D. A. VanHorn is Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department.
This investigation is sponsored jointly by the Welding Research Council
and the Department of the Navy, with
~unds
furnished by the American
Iron and Steel Institute, Naval Ship Systems Command, and Naval
Facilities Engineering Command.
Technical guidance for the. project is
~rovided
by the
~ehigh
Project Subcommittee of the Structural Steel Committee of the Welding
Research Council.
Subcommittee.
Dr. T. R. Higgins is 'Chairman of the Lehigh Project
This study is also guided by the
spe~ial
in the Subcommittee consisting of Professor Charles
Task Group
Birnstiel (New
York University), Professor E. H. Gaylord (University of Illinois)"
Dr. T. R. Higgins (AISC), Professor B. G. Johnston (University of
Mi~higan), and Dr.
N. Perrone (Office'of Naval Research).
The authors would like to thank Professors G. C. Driscoll, Jr.
and L. W. Lu for their review of the manuscript.
Thanks are also extended
to Miss K. Philbin for typing the manuscript; to Mr. J. Cera for the
drafting.
331.3
19
7.
total cross sectional area
width
depth
distance from center of flange to center of flange
~, K t , Kw
rate of curvature of bottom
respectively
Kf
rate of curvature of flange
la~ge,
top flange and web
.:::
iate of curvature of rectangular section
bending moment
~, Mt , Mw
moment acting on bottom flange, top flange and web
respectively
NOMENCLATURE
moment about the xaxis
moment about the yaxis
x
y
px
fully plastic moment about the xaxis when no axial
load or moment about the yaxis is acting
M
py
fully plastic moment about the yaxis when no axial
M 1M
x
px
m
y
M 1M
y py
axial load
P
P , P
b
t' w
axial force acting on bottom flange, top flange and web
respectively
yield load when no moment is acting
load or moment about the xaxis is acting
piP
thickness of flange
total rate of external work
20
331.3
w.1.
total rate of internal energy dissipation
thickness of web
x, y
coordinate axes
distance from the point of zero strain to the center of the web
Y1
Z
Z
x
Y
b'
t'
plastic section modulus about the xaxis
plastic section modulus about the yaxis
ew
strain rate at tht center of bottom flange, top flange
and web respectively
strain rate at the centroid of rectangular section
tangent of the angle between the yaxis and the neutral
axis
""3
cr
yield stress
331.3
21
8.
APPENDIX
The best upper bound for the loads P, M , and M in Eq. 48 is
.
x
y
ew ,:,' Kw
found by minimizing the.m with respect to the variab les
respectively.
and
Kf
For example, the axial load P can be written in the fonm.
=rw1
[w. ~
(55)
M K .} My K ]
x w
the function P has a minimum value with ,respect to
when oP/Ow = 0,
that is
[w.
1.
M K
x
(49)
It can also be shown that the conditions oP/oK
oP/oK
= 0 and
= 0 are equivalent to
M
oW.
oKw
~
(50)
oW.
M
(51)
Similarly, it can be proved 'that Eqs. 49, 50 and 51 are also the
required conditions for the smallest upper bound values of M and M .
x
y
331.3
22
9.
FIGURES AND TABLES
23
331.3
y
0;
~Y
=f(x)
IIl~'"""""""""~"""''X
Fig. 1
Rectangular Section subjected to
Two Bending Moments and An Axial Force
24
331.3
N.A.
(0)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2
. N.A.
N.A.
Three Possible Locations of Neutral Axis
331.3
25
x
~+.........
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2~__
0.2
Fig. 3
0.4
0.6
0.8
Interaction Curve for Biaxial Bending
(Rectangular or Square 'Section)
1.0
331~3
26
N.A.
C.A.
Fig. 4
Strain Distribution
27
331.3
0:
....11II......1 X
y :: f (X)
b
Fig. 5
or x 8: 4>
A FullyP1astified WideFlange Section
(y)
331.3
28
N.A.
x! = ton 8
b
Fig. 6
Simplified Stress Distribution
29
331.3
Case
Cale 2
I
Case 3
'Case, 4
'.
Case 5
Fig. 7
Possible Locations of Neutral Axis
Case 6
30
0.8
12W=31
0.6
my
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.2
Fig. 8
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.8
Interaction Curves for Biaxial Bending
1.0
31
331.3
I.O.._~
0.8
14YF426
0.6~
my
0.4
0.2
0.2
'0
Fig. 9
0.4
0.6
0.8
Interaction Curves for Biaxial Bending
1.0
331.3
32
12 'IF 31
 14 'IF 426
0.8
0.6
0.4
,,
0.2
0.31
0.2
0.4
0.6
mx
Fig. 10
Comparison of Interaction Curves
Between Heavy and Light Sections
0.8
1.0
33
331.3


..! =0.540
12 'IF 31
12YF45
12 'IF 53
'2 YF 79
d =0.667
=0.830
=0.975
1.0r~
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4"
Fig. 11
0.6
0.8
Comparison of Interaction Curves of
b
Biaxial Bending fbr Various Ratios of ~
1.0
331.3
34
Present Solution
Solution From Ref. No. 7
1+01
0.8
14 VF426
0.6
my
0.4
0.2
......
I
I
,,
I
I
I
0.61
0.9
I
I
0.2
Fig. 12
0.4
0.6
0.8
mx
Comparison with Results from Reference No.7
1.0
35
331.3
Fig. 13
A Failure Mechanism with A Warped Section
331.3
36
y
r,
Fig. 14
Strain Distribution
331.3
37
N.A~
Plane Section
Fig. 15
A Failure Mechanism with A Plane Section
331.3
38
Fig. 16
An Assumed Stress Distribution
39
331 3
0
TABLE 1
INTERACTION EQUATIONS FOR RECTANGULAR SECTION
Case
Location of N.A.
Equation
Valid for
>(lp)
x  3
,,~
~
~ ~~
2
P
+ mx + 4" my
= 1
my ~
3"
(l.,.p)
N.A.
\
2
2
m ~3 (lp)
x
~
~~
232
+4
.
m +m
x
y
1
2
my ~
'3
m ~
x
3"
(lp)
''\ N.A.
\ ..
"3
x
~
'\ N.A.
"9
+ 4"
ffi X
(lp)
[12(1_p) J [ ] = l
m
>"(lp}
y 3
UJ
UJ
Il
INTERACTION EQUATIONS FOR WIDEFIANGE SECTIONS
TABLE 2
UJ
Equation
Case I Location of N.A.
y
1 I
= A [2t
~3 Y1
m
x
1
=zx {4~
03 X3 +
=zy
4 3 A3
=3  Z 
3E
t A3 Y1]
~2
(2: t )]
mx =
(dt)
tb
[~
+r2 u3
"2
d 2
2}
A3  2 1,.3 Y1+ w [(I t ) Y1 J
~ Y1 ~
'2 + Y1
2" 
2
2
n 3 A3+ n 2 A3 Y1 
A3 Y1 J
~ A3
2" 
~
o
y 1+
"2
%r
2'2 +
Y1
Y1
Y1+ d2  t
~.
2
~1 <:~ 1\3d
Yl+z  t
2"  Y1
'2 
~ Y1 ~
2"
Yl+z  t
Bound
'2  :2
~A3~
2 2
A3 Y1 J
Y1+
Y
1
"2
[b t  02 A3 + 2 t ""3 Y1 + 2 w y 1 ]
z'1 {bt
:2
 t
~ ""3 5 d
Y1+z  t
2+ Y1
2
tb
1
2
[~  3 3 A3 Y
2" 
2}
 Y1 J
=Z
4:'  3" n 3 1,.3 
A [2t "') Y1 +
my
[(I t )
Y1 .:::;
a :::;
+ w Y1 J
m
y
(tb
Valid for
'Upper
Lower Bound
<:" 
1..3 d !. + Y
22
1
~ Y1 ~
2 
.
t
2"
2"
~A3~dt
2  2"
22 
y1
+'
C)
l.J.J
l.J.J
t"
TABLE 2 (cant' d)
VJ
Valid for
Case
Equation
Location of N.A.
P =
~Ex
A [bt
bt
[z
m =z
x
;x
"
Ex

Z
= 0
+ 2w (I t )]
3 A3  n 2 A3 Y1 ]
2
tb
1
2
2
2
2]
[~  3 3 A3 + 2 A3 Y1  t A3 Y1
m
y
 2 A3 + 2t A3 Y1
(dt) +
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
t
2"  2"
2" 
~ Y1
2~
Y1
2"
"2
2"
2"
Y1+z  t
~ A3
d t.05 A"3~
Yl  2 + t
Y1+IZ
d
Yl2
Sa
L
A
m  2Z
x
A
[d(lp)  x
2b
2
(lp) ]
w (d2t)
::;p~
5b
r
. rl
~
I I
L.;
m = 0
y
x
2
2
p
A
m =1x
 4wZ
x
~ p ~
w(d2t)
A
.po..
t'
LA,)
TABLE 2 (cant'd)
VJ
t'LA,)
Equation
Location of N.A.
Case
Valid
for
y
ill
6a
~Ex
wd
A
m
= 2Z
[b (lp) Y
::;
wd
4t (lp) }
,
Y
I
Jt
6b
m
x
0
0
m
y
1  4d Z
::;
p;:
Remarks:
y
A = tan
3
e
,
y
l
A
4
::::1
A
3
Y1
A 3 y  A4
= 2bt +
Zx
= bt (dt) + w (2 
=  tb
w (d2t)
d
t)
1  2
1 2
+  w (d2t)
2
4
d 2
Z = (2")
= t
(dt)
( 2 t)
Lower Bound
d 3
d
3
n = ()  (  t ),
322
3
3
2 t
= 4" t (dt) + 4"
Upper Bound
2
n
= "43
t (d_t)2
+'
N
43
331.3
TABLE 3
Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Solutions
(12W31)
my
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
0.2
0.929
0.2
0.836
0.303
0.303
0.2
0.743
0.473
0.472
0.2
0.651
0.617
0.617
0.2
0.558
0.737
0 ..737
0.2
0.465
0.832
0.832
0.2
0.,372
0.903
0.903
0.2
0.279
0.950
0.950
0.2
0.186
0.975
0.975
0.2
0.993
0.993
44
331.3
TABLE 4
Comparison of Lower and Upper Bound Solutions
(14F426)
m
Lower Bound
y
Upper Bound
0.2
0.904
0.2
0.814
0.315
0.313
0.2
0.678
0.530
0.524
0.2
0.588
U.646
0.642
0.2
0.497
0.743
0.741
0.2
0.407
0.823
0.821
0.2
0.316
0.885
0.884
0.2
0.226
0.930
0.929
0.2
0.136
0.958
0.958
0.2
0.981
0.981
331.3
45
10 .
REFERENCES
1.
Chen, W. F. and Santathadaporn, S.
RECENT DEVELO:EMENTS IN THE STUDY OF COLUMN BEHAVIOR UNDER BIAXIAL
LOADING, Fritz Laboratory Repprt No. 331.1, April, 1968.
2.
Driscoll, G. C., Jr. and others
PLASTIC DESIGN OF MULTISTORY FRAMES, Lecture Notes of the 1965
Summer Conference, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 273.20,
August, 1965.
3.
Drucker, D. C.
THE EFFECT OF SHEAR ON THE PLASTIC BENDING OF BEAMS, Journal
of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 23, Transactions, ASME, Vol. 78,
1956.
4.
Ringo, B. C.
EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH TO THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF A B"IAXIALLY
LOADED BEAMCOLUMN, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of MichIgan
1964, University Mic'rofilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
5.
Sharma, S. S.
ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF STEEL COLUMNS UNDER BIAXIALLY ECCmTRIC
LOAD, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965, University Mi~rofi1ms, Inc., Ann Arbor,. Michigan.
6.
Bruinette, K. E.
A GENERAL FORMULATION OF ELASTICPLASTIC ANALYSIS OF SPACE
FRAMEWORKS, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965,
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
7.
Pfrang, E. O. and To land, R. H.
CAPACITY OF WIDE FLANGE SECTIONS SUBJECTED TO AXIAL AND BIAXIAL
BENDING, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware,
Newark, Delaware, 1966.
8.
Morris, G. A. and Fenves, S. J.
A GEN'ERAL PROCEDURE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ELASTIC AND PLASTIC
FRAMEWORKS, Structural Research Series No. 325, University of
Illinois, 1967.
9.
Drucker, D. C.,
10.
)?rager, W. and Greenberg, H. J.
.
EXTENDED LIMIT DESIGN THEOREMS FOR CONTINUOUS MEDIA, Quarterly
of Applied Mathematic; Vol. 9, p. 381389, January, 1952.
Weinstock, R.
CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS, McGraWHill, New York, 1952.
331.3
46
11.
Hodge, P. G., Jr.
INTERACTION CURVES FOR SHEAR AND BENDING OF PLASTIC BEAMS,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 24, p. 453456, 1957.
12.
Hodge, p. G., Jr~
PLASTIC 'ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES, McGrawHill, New York, 1959.