You are on page 1of 12

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223279380

Slope-deflection equations for stability and


second-order analysis of Timoshenho beam
column structures with...
Article in Engineering Structures November 2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

CITATIONS

READS

31

914

1 author:
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa
National University of Colombia
145 PUBLICATIONS 1,231 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa on 08 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Engineering Structures (

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of


Timoshenho beamcolumn structures with semi-rigid connections
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa
School of Mines, National University, A.A. 75267, Medellin, Colombia
Received 24 December 2007; received in revised form 28 January 2008; accepted 12 February 2008

Abstract
A new set of slope-deflection equations for Timoshenko beamcolumns of symmetrical cross section with semi-rigid connections that include
the combined effects of shear and bending deformations, and second-order axial load effects are developed in a classical manner. The proposed
method that also includes the effects of the shear component of the applied axial force as the member deflects laterally (Haringx Model) has the
following advantages: (1) it can be utilized in the stability and second-order analyses of framed structures made up of Timoshenko beamcolumns
with rigid, semi-rigid, and simple end connections; (2) the effects of semi-rigid connections are condensed into the slope-deflection equations for
tension or compression axial loads without introducing additional degrees of freedom and equations; (3) it is more accurate than any other method
available and capable of capturing the phenomena of buckling under axial tension forces; and (4) it is powerful, practical, versatile and easy to
teach. Analytical studies indicate that shear deformations increase the lateral deflections and reduce the critical axial loads of framed structures
made of members with low shear stiffness. The effects of shear deformations must be considered in the analysis of beamcolumns with relatively
low effective shear areas (like laced columns, columns with batten plates or with perforated cover plates, and columns with open webs) or with
low shear stiffness (like elastomeric bearing and short columns made of laminated composites with low shear modulus G when compared to their
elastic modulus E) making the shear stiffness GAs of the same order of magnitude as EI/L 2 . The shear effects are also of great importance in the
static, stability and dynamic behavior of laminated elastomeric bearings used for seismic isolation of buildings. Four comprehensive examples are
included that show the effectiveness of the proposed method and equations.
c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beams; Beamcolumns; Large deflections; Nonlinear analysis; Semi-rigid connections; Second-order analysis; Stability; Structural analysis; Timoshenko
beam

1. Introduction
The slope-deflection method represents a turning point in
the evolution and development of the matrix stiffness method
as it is known today (Samuelsson and Zienkiewicz [1]). It was
presented in 1915 by Wilson and Maney [2] in a Bulletin from
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as a general
method to be used in the analysis of beam structures with rigidjoints subjected to transverse loads.
The slope-deflection method may be used to analyze all
types of statically indeterminate beams and frames. The
classic slope-deflection equations are derived by means of
the momentarea theorems considering deformation caused by
Tel.: +57 42686218; fax: +57 44255152.

E-mail address: jdaristi2@yahoo.com.

bending moment only and neglecting those caused by shear


and axial forces. Basically, a number of simultaneous equations
are formed with the unknowns taken as the angular rotations
and displacements of each joint. Once these equations have
been solved, the moments at all joints may be determined.
The method is simple to explain and apply since it is
based on the equilibrium of the joints and members. The
classic slope-deflection method is generally taught in the
introductory structural analysis courses (Norris and Wilbur [3],
Kassimili [4]) and used in the structural design (Salmon and
Johnson [5]) because it provides a clear perspective and a
complete understanding of how the internal moments and the
corresponding deformations are interrelated, both of which are
essential in structural engineering.
However, advances in composite materials of high resilience
capacities and low shear stiffness as well as the need for lighter

c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007
Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2

J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

Nomenclature
Effective shear area of the beamcolumn cross
section;
E
Youngs modulus of the material;
G
Shear modulus of the material;
L
Length of the beamcolumn AB;
I
Principal moment of inertia of the beamcolumn
about its axis of bending;
Ma and Mb Bending moments (clockwise +) at ends A
and B, respectively;
P
Applied axial load at ends A and B (+
compression, tension);
Pcr
Critical axial load;
Pe
2 EI/L 2 = Euler load;
Ra and Rb Stiffness indexes of the flexural connection at
A and B, respectively;
u(x)
Lateral deflection of the beamcolumn center
line;
1
= 1+P/(G
As ) Shear reduction factor;

Sway of end B with respect to end A;


a and b Flexural stiffness of the end connections at A
and B, respectively;
a and b Fixity factors at A and B of column AB,
respectively;
(x)
Rotation of the cross section due to bending alone
as shown by Fig. 1c;
a 0 and b0 Bending rotations of cross sections at ends A0
0
respect to cord A0 B0 , respectively;
q and B with 
= P/ E I /L 2 Stability function in the plane of
As

bending;
a and b Rotations of ends A and B due to bending with
respect to the vertical axis, respectively [a =
Mb
a
0
a 0 + M
a and b = b + b ];
=

12(E I /L 2 )
G As

Bending to shear coefficient.

and stronger beams and columns have created a great interest in


the shear effects and second-order analysis of framed structures.
For instance, elastomeric seismic isolators and members
made of light polymer materials may undergo extremely
large deflections under combined axial and transverse loads
without exceeding their elastic limit. The slope-deflection
equations for Timoshenko beams including the effects of shear
deformations and transverse loads were developed by Bryan
and Baile [6]. Previously, Lin, Glauser and Johnson [7] had
developed the slope-deflection equations for laced and battened
beamcolumns including the effects of shear deformations,
axial load and end rigid stay plates. On the other hand, the
stability and second-order analysis of slender beamcolumns
and of framed structures with semi-rigid connections has been
investigated by Aristizabal-Ochoa [8,9] using the classical
stability functions. However, the stability of framed structures
using the classic slope-deflection method including the
combined effects of shear and bending deformations, second-

Fig. 1. Beamcolumn under end moments with semi-rigid bending connections


at ends A and B: (a) Structural model; (b) Degrees of freedom, forces and
moments in the plane of bending; (c) Rotations at a cross section and at ends A
and B.

order P effects, and semi-rigid end connections is not


known yet.
The main objective of this publication is to present a new
set of slope-deflection equations for the stability and secondorder analysis of framed structures made of Timoshenko
beamcolumns of symmetrical cross section with semi-rigid
connections under end loads including the combined effects
of: (1) bending and shear deformations; and (2) the shear
component of the applied axial forces (Haringxs Model).
The proposed method which is based on the modified
stability functions for Timoshenko beamcolumns with semirigid connections (Aristizabal-Ochoa [10,11]) has the following
advantages: (1) the effects of semi-rigid connections are
condensed into the slope-deflection equations for tension or
compression axial loads without introducing additional degrees
of freedom and equations; (2) it is more accurate than any
other method available and capable of capturing the phenomena
of buckling under axial tension forces of short columns like
laminated elastomeric bearings commonly used for seismic
isolation of buildings; and (3) the method is powerful, practical,
versatile and easy to teach. Four comprehensive examples are
included that show the effectiveness of the proposed method
and corresponding equations.
2. Structural model
Assumptions. Consider a 2-D prismatic beamcolumn that
connects points A and B as shown in Fig. 1a. The element
is made up of the beamcolumn itself A0 B0 , and the flexural
connections AA0 and BB0 with bending stiffness a and b at
ends A and B, respectively. It is assumed that the beamcolumn
A0 B0 of span L bends about the principal axis of its cross section
with a moment of inertia I , effective shear area As and: (1) is
made of a homogeneous linear elastic material with Young and
shear moduli E and G, respectively; (2) its centroidal axis is
a straight line; and (3) is loaded at extremes A and B with P
(compressive axial load is +) along its centroidal axis.
The flexural connections have stiffnesses a and b (whose
units are in forcedistance/radian) in the plane of bending of

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

the beamcolumn. The ratios Ra = a /(EI/L) and Rb =


b /(EI/L) are denoted as the stiffness indices of the flexural
connections. These indices vary from zero (i.e., Ra = Rb = 0)
for simple connections (i.e., pinned) to infinity (i.e., Ra = Rb =
) for fully restrained connections (i.e., rigid). Notice that the
proposed algorithm can be utilized in the inelastic analysis of
beamcolumns when the inelastic behavior is concentrated at
the connections. This can be carried out by updating the flexural
stiffness of the connections a and b for each load increment
in a linear-incremental fashion.
For convenience the following two parameters are introduced:
a =

1
1+

3
Ra

(1a)

and
b =

1
1+

3
Rb

(1b)

where a and b are called the fixity factors. For hinged


connections, both the fixity factor and the rigidity index R
are zero; but for rigid connections, the fixity factor is 1 and the
rigidity index is infinity. Since the fixity factor can only vary
from 0 to 1 for elastic connections (while the rigidity index R
may vary form 0 to ), it is more convenient to use in the
elastic analysis of structures with semi-rigid connections.
3. Proposed slope-deflection equations
In order to investigate the lateral stability and second-order
analysis of framed structures with semi-rigid connections, it is
first necessary to establish the relationships between the end
bending moments and the corresponding rotations for each
frame member and then apply the conditions of compatibility
of deformations at each joint. The application of classic slopedeflection method in the stability of plane frames (with rigid
connections and without transverse loads and shear deflection
effects) is well explained by Salmon and Johnson ([5], pp.
835843). The proposed slope-deflection equations for plane
frames with semi-rigid connections including shear deflection
effects and without transverse loads along each member are as
follows:





EI

EI
a
+ Sab
b
(2a)
Ma = Saa
L
L
L
L




EI

EI

Mb = Sba
a
+ Sbb
b
(2b)
L
L
L
L
where a and b values are the rotations of ends A and B
measured with respect to the initial axis of the member, and
/L the angle of rotation of the cord of the member AB. Both
rotations and end moments (Ma and Mb ) are positive clockwise
as shown in Fig. 1. Saa , Sab , Sba and Sbb are denoted as the
stiffness coefficients of the Timoshenko beamcolumn AB with
semi-rigid connections at both ends A and B. These coefficients
are listed below for easy reference.

First-order stiffness coefficients. For P = 0


3a (4 + b )
(4 a b ) + (a + b + a b )
3a b (2 )
= Sba =
(4 a b ) + (a + b + a b )
3b (4 + a )
=
.
(4 a b ) + (a + b + a b )

Saa =

(3)

Sab

(4)

Sbb

(5)

Second-order stiffness coefficients.


(a) For P > 0 (compression) or [1 + P/ (G As )] P > 0. See
Box I.
(b) For P < 0 (tension) and [1 + P/ (G As )] P < 0. See
Box II.
q

I /L 2 )
P/ E I /L 2 ;
In Boxes I and II = 12(E
;

=
G As
1
and = 1+P/(G
As ) .
Notice that the proposed method and corresponding
equations listed above are valid for beamcolumns subjected to
tension and compression axial forces. When 2 is negative (i.e.,
[1 + P/ (G As )] P < 0), the following three exchanges were
made in the equations in Box I to obtain those in Box II: (1)
sin for i sinh ; (2) tan for i tanh ; and (3) for i (where:
i = 1). Eqs. (2a) and (2b) are derived in Appendix for quick
reference.
To verify the coefficients given by Eqs. (3)(5), the
numerators and denominators of expressions in Box I must be
differentiated four times in accordance with LHospitals rule
and then apply the P = 0 limit. However, since to carry out
this process is really tedious and cumbersome, the derivations
of Eqs. (3)(5) are presented in the last part of the Appendix.
Four examples that follow show the effectiveness, simplicity
and accuracy of the proposed slope-deflection equations listed
above. Examples 1 and 2 are on the stability analysis of
beamcolumn structures subjected to concentrated forces at
the joints causing tension and/or compression in the members.
Examples 3 and 4 show the application of the proposed method
to plane frames subjected to axial loads (compression and/or
tension).

4. Verification and comprehensive examples


Example 1. Second-order analysis of a cantilever column
under several loads at the top.
Determine the second-order load-deflection equation of the
cantilever column shown in Fig. 2. Compare the resulting
expressions with those derived by Timoshenko and Gere ([12],
pp. 5 and 13) for a perfectly clamped BernoulliEuler cantilever
column (i.e., = = 1).
Solution: From equilibrium (Fig. 2b):
M21 = M
M12 + M + P + Q L = 0.
Now using Eqs. (2a) and (2b)




EI

EI

M12 = S11
1
+ S12
2
L
L
L
L

(6)
(7)

(8)

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4

J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

Saa

Sab

Sbb




3a (1 b ) 2 + 9a b 1 tan





=

(1 a )(1 b ) 2 + 3(a + b 2a b ) 1 tan + 9a b tan(/2)


/2



1
9a b sin





= Sba =
tan(/2)

2
+
9

(1 a )(1 b ) + 3(a + b 2a b ) 1 tan

a
b

/2



3b (1 a ) 2 + 9a b 1 tan




=
tan(/2)

+
9

(1 a )(1 b ) 2 + 3(a + b 2a b ) 1 tan


a
b

/2
Box I.

Saa

Sab

Sbb




3a (1 b ) 2 + 9a b 1 tanh





=
tanh(/2)

+
9

(1 a )(1 b ) 2 + 3(a + b 2a b ) 1 tanh


a
b

/2



9a b sinh 1




= Sba =
tanh(/2)

(1 a )(1 b ) 2 + 3(a + b 2a b ) 1 tanh

+ 9a b
/2



3b (1 a ) 2 + 9a b 1 tanh





=

(1 a )(1 b ) + 3(a + b 2a b ) 1 tanh + 9a b tanh(/2)


/2
Box II.

S12

S22

sin


1




= S21 =
tan(/2)

(1 ) 1 tan
+ 3
/2



(1 ) 2 + 3 1 tan




.
=
tan(/2)

(1 ) 1 tan
+
3

/2
3

(11)

(12)

Knowing that 1 = 0 and using Eqs. (8) and (9) the following
matrix equation can be obtained from Eqs. (6) and (7):

S22

EI
L

EI
(S21 + S22 ) 2
L
   
2
M

.
=

Q
Fig. 2. Example 1: Second-order analysis of a cantilever column with semirigid connections at the support subjected to top end loads: (a) Structural model;
and (b) Deflected shape and end actions.

M21 = S21

EI
L


+ S22

EI
L

.
L

EI

L2

EI
(S11 + 2S12 + S22 ) 3 P/L
L
(S12 + S22 )

(13)

From Eq. (13) the following expressions can be obtained


directly for a cantilever column subjected simultaneously to P,
Q and M at the top end:

(9)

In this example a = and b = 1; then for P > 0


(compression) and using the equations in Box I:



3 1 tan





S11 =
(10)

(1 ) 1 tan + 3 tan(/2)
/2

2 =


1+

S21
S22

M
+
L
S22

L
EI

(14a)

and
=

Q L + M(1 + S12 /S22 )


L.
2 /S ) P L
E I /L(S11 S12
22

(14b)

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

Fig. 3. Example 2: Stability analysis of a two span beamcolumn with an intermediate elastic support: (a) Structural model and deflected shape; and (b) End forces
and moments on elements 1 and 2.



3
Expression (14b) can be reduced to = EQIL 2 tan 1 +


M L 2 1cos
which is identical to the superposition of Eqs.
2
EI
cos
(g) and (1-33) presented by Timoshenko and Gere ([12],
pp. 5 and 14) for the particular case of a perfectly clamped
BernoulliEuler cantilever column (i.e., = = 1) subjected
to lateral load Q and overturning moment M, respectively. The
large deflection and post-buckling behavior of a Timoshenko
cantilever column subjected to loadings at the top end is fully
discussed by Aristizabal-Ochoa [11].
Example 2. Stability of a two-span beamcolumn with an
intermediate elastic support.
Determine the buckling load of the two-span continuous
beamcolumn shown in Fig. 3a. Assume that members 1 and
2 are initially horizontal with properties (GAs )1 , (EI)1 , l1 and
(GAs )2 , (EI)2 , l2 , respectively. Also assume that the applied
loads P and P remain always horizontal and are applied at
nodes 2 and 3, respectively. Include the effects of the transverse
stiffness S of the intermediate support 2. Compare the results
with those presented by Timoshenko and Gere ([12], pp. 70
and 99) when the member is made of two EulerBernoulli
beamcolumns.
Solution: From moment equilibrium of beam segments 1 and
2 (Fig. 3b) the following two equations are obtained:
M21 + (P + P) V1l1 = 0

(15)

M23 P + V2l2 = 0.

(16)

From moment equilibrium of joint 2:


M21 + M23 = 0.

(17)

Knowing that V1 + V2 = S and using Eq. (17), then from Eqs.


(15) and (16) the following equation is obtained:

 


l1
l1
M21 1 +
+ 1 + + P Sl1 = 0.
(18)
l2
l2
In this example a = 0 and b = 1 for element 1, and a = 1
and b = 0 for element 2. Then calling the bending rotation

of node 2 with respect to the horizontal axis and using Eq. (2):


EI

M21 = (Sbb )1

l1
l1
and
M23

EI
= (Saa )2
l2

+
l2

where for P > 0 and P(1 + ) > 0 and using the equations in
Box I: (Sbb )1 =

1 12

1 tan1 1

and (Saa )2 =

2 22

1 tan2 2

Now, Eqs. (17), (18) can be presented in matrix form as in


Box III.
By making the determinant of the 2 2 matrix of equation
given in Box III the characteristic equation can be determined
and the buckling loads can be calculated. For instance for the
particular case of EI 1 = EI 2 and l1 = l2 = L/2 and S = 0, the
characteristic equation in Box III is reduced to:
!


2 22
1 1
1+
1
tan 1
1 12
!


1 12
2 2
+ 1
1+
= 4.
(19)
tan 2
2 22
Eq. (19) yields identical results to those obtained by
Timoshenko and Gere ([12], p. 99, Eqs. 242) when
the member is a simply supported member made of an
EulerBernoulli beamcolumn (i.e., 1 = 2 = 1) with
compressive loads at mid span (node 2) and at end 3.
Another interesting case is when the value of S becomes
very large making 0, and then the characteristic equation
is reduced to the first term of the equation given in Box III as
follows:
(Sbb )1

E I1
E I2
+ (Saa )2
=0
l1
l2

or
2 22 tan 2
1 12 tan 1

tan 1 1 1
tan 2 2 2


=

l 2 E I1
.
l 1 E I2

(20)

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6

J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

E I2
E I1
+ (Saa )2
l1
l2
E I1 L
(Sbb )1
l1 l2

(Sbb )1

E I1
E I2
 
+
(S
)
aa
2

l12
l22

=0
E I1 L
E I1
E I2 l 1
(Sbb )1 2
+ 1 12 2 + 2 22 2
+ Sl1
l1 l2
l1
l2 l2
(Sbb )1

Box III.

Fig. 4. Interaction diagrams P/(EI/L 2 ) versus P/(EI/L 2 ) for the two-span


beamcolumn of Example 2 (for the particular case of l1 = l2 = L/2,
G 1 As1 = G 2 As2 = and E 1 I1 = E 2 I2 = EI) with an intermediate elastic
support with S/(EI/L 3 ) = , 100, and 0.

Fig. 6. Example 3: Stability analysis of a double symmetrical frame with beamto-column connection of stiffness . (After Timoshenko & Gere [12], p. 34.)

(2) buckling load capacity of the beamcolumn is affected


significantly not only by the location and stiffness of the midsupport but also by the magnitude of the shear stiffness of
the members as shown by the curves in Fig. 5; and (3) the
curve corresponding to GAs /Pe = in Fig. 5 shows that the
compressive critical load increases in approximately the same
proportion as S. This curve is identical to that presented by
Timoshenko and Gere ([12], pp. 73).
Example 3. Stability analysis of a double symmetrical frame
with semi-rigid connections.
Fig. 5. Variations of the critical Loads of a simple supported beamcolumn
with the stiffness of the intermediate elastic support S (where Pe = 2 EI/L 2 ).

Eq. (20) yields identical results to those obtained by


Timoshenko and Gere ([12], p. 67, Eq. (b)) for a two-span
EulerBernoulli beamcolumn (i.e., 1 = 2 = 1) with
compressive loads located at nodes 1 and 3.
Fig. 4 shows a series of interaction diagrams of P/(EI/L 2 )
versus P/(EI/L 2 ) for different values of S/(EI/L 3 ) all
obtained using the equation given in Box III for the particular
case of l1 = l2 = L/2, (GAs )1 = (GAs )2 = and
(EI)1 = (EI)2 = EI. Fig. 5 shows the variations of the buckling
load Pcr of a simply supported beam with the stiffness of the
intermediate elastic support S located at midspan for different
values of GAs /Pe (notice that Pcr and S are normalized with
respect to Pe = 2 EI/L 2 ).
Notice that: (1) the values indicated in Fig. 5 corresponding
to curve with S = 0 are identical to those presented by
Timoshenko and Gere ([12], p. 100, Tables 26 for n = 1);

Determine the buckling load of the double symmetrical


frame with semi-rigid beam-to-column connections shown
in Fig. 6. The horizontal members are connected to the
vertical columns at both ends with semi-rigid connections
of stiffness (or fixity factor ). Assume that the vertical
and horizontal members are initially straight each with
the following set of properties (G 1 , E 1 , A1 , As1 , I1 , h) and
(G 2 , E 2 , A2 , As2 , I2 , b), respectively. Also assume that the
applied loads P and Q are always vertical and horizontal,
respectively. Include the effects of the end connections.
Compare the results with those presented by Timoshenko and
Gere ([12], p. 62) when the beam-to-column connections are
rigid (i.e. = 1). Study the stability of the frame under tension
and compression forces.
Solution: In this particular frame a = b = 1 for both the
columns, and a = b = for both the beams. Now, from
moment equilibrium of joint 1:
(M12 )col. + (M14 )beam = 0.

(21)

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

Due to symmetry in the buckling mode, (i.e., 2 = 4 =


1 and consequently a single unknown rotation and no sway
between the ends of the members), then using Eqs. (2a) and
(2b):
(M12 )col. =

E 1 I1
1 [(Saa )1 (Sab )1 ]
h

(22)

and
(M14 )beam =

E 2 I2
1 [(Saa )2 (Sab )2 ]
b

where: (Saa )1 =


1
tan(1 /2)
1 /2
1

1 tan1 1

; (Sab )1 =

(23)

1 1
sin 1 1
tan(1 /2)
1 /2
1




3(1 )2 22 + 9 2 1 tan2 2
2



;
(Saa )2 =

tan(2 /2)
(1 )2 2 22 + 6(1 ) 1 tan2 2 + 9 2
2 /2 2
2

and



9 2 sin2 2 1
2



.
(Sab )2 =
tan(2 /2)

(1 )2 2 22 + 6(1 ) 1 tan2 2 + 9 2
/2 2
2

Substituting expressions (22) and (23) into the moment


equilibrium equation (21), Eq. (210 ) is obtained:


E 1 I1 b
{(Saa )1 (Sab )1 } + (Saa )2 (Sab )2 1 = 0. (210 )
E 2 I2 h
By making the left-hand term of Eq. (210 ) equal to zero and
substituting the four expressions for Saa and Sab listed above,
the following characteristic equation is finally obtained:

1 1
E 1 I1 b sin 1 (1 + cos 1 ) 2
tan(1 /2)
E 2 I2 h
1 /2
1






(1 )2 22 + 9 2 1 tan2 2 9 2 sin2 2 1
2
2



 = 0.
+
tan(2 /2)

(1 )2 2 22 + 6(1 ) 1 tan2 2 + 9 2
/2 2
2

(24)
The characteristic equation (24) can be reduced further to
2 /2
= hb EE 12 II12 tan2/2
for a frame with BernoulliEuler
columns and beams with = 1 which is identical to Eqs. (2)
(25) presented by Timoshenko and Gere ([12], p. 63).
Fig. 7ac show a series of interaction diagrams of
P/(EI/L 2 ) versus Q/(EI/L 2 ) for different values and
GAs /(EI/L 2 ) all obtained using Eq. (24) for the particular case
of h = b = L, G 1 As1 = G 2 As2 = GAs and E 1 I1 = E 2 I2 =
EI. Notice that: (1) buckling load capacities are affected
significantly not only by the stiffness of beam-to-column
connections but also by the magnitude of the shear stiffness
of the members; and (2) buckling under axial tension forces
is a mirror image of buckling under axial compression forces
for short members with low shear stiffness like multilayer
elastomeric bearings as claimed by Kelly [13]. Further details
of buckling of beamcolumns under axial tension are given by
Aristizabal-Ochoa [10,11,14] and Kelly [13].
tan(1 /2)
1 /2

Fig. 7. Interaction diagrams P/(EI/L 2 )-versus Q/(EI/L 2 ) for a double


symmetrical frame of Example 3 with different values of GAs /(EI/L 2 ) and
beam-to-column fixity factor := (a) 1; (b) 0.6; and (c) 0.2.

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8

J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

Fig. 8. Example 4: Stability analysis of an unsymmetrical frame with lateral sway partially inhibited: (a) Structural model and loads; and (b) Forces on each
deflected member.

Example 4. Stability analysis of an unsymmetrical plane frame


under axial loads with lateral sway partially inhibited.

Now using Eqs. (2a) and (2b):

Determine the buckling loads of the plane frame with


lateral sway partially inhibited as shown in Fig. 8a.
The flexural stiffness of beam-to-column and those
of the column-to-foundation semi-rigid connections are
indicated in Fig. 8a. Assume that the vertical and horizontal
members are initially straight each with the following
set of properties [(EI)1 , (GAs )1 , h 1 ], [(EI)2 , (GAs )2 , h 2 ] and
[(EI)3 , (GAs )3 , L], respectively. Also assume that the mode of
buckling is as shown in Fig. 8a and that the applied loads P and
P are always vertical. Include the effects of the stiffness S of
the lateral bracing at node 2. Compare the results with those
presented by Salmon and Johnson [5] for a symmetrical frame
made of EulerBernoulli members when the beam-to-column
connections are rigid (i.e., 1 = 2 = 1) and the bases of the
columns are perfectly hinged (i.e., 3 = 4 = 0) and = 1.
Discuss also the stability of the frame under tension forces.
Solution: In this particular frame there are three unknowns
1 , 2 and as shown in Fig. 8a. Now, from moment
equilibrium of joints 1 and 2:

M31 =

E I1
E I1
1 (Sab )1 2 [(Saa )1 + (Sab )1 ]
h1
h1

(28)

M13 =

E I1
E I1
1 (Sbb )1 2 [(Sbb )1 + (Sab )1 ]
h1
h1

(29)

M42 =

E I2
E I2
2 (Sab )2 2 [(Saa )2 + (Sab )2 ]
h2
h2

(30)

M24 =

E I2
E I2
2 (Sbb )2 2 [(Sbb )2 + (Sab )2 ]
h2
h2

(31)

M13 + M12 = 0
M24 + M21 = 0.

(25)
(26)

The third equation is obtained by applying equilibrium to


each member (see Fig. 8b):
Column 1: M31 + M13 + PV1 h 1 = 0
Column 2: M42 + M24 + PV1 h 1 = 0
Beam: V1+ V2 S = 0.
From these three conditions of equilibrium and Eqs. (25) and
(26), Eq. (27) is obtained:
M31 + M13
M42 + M24
+
h1
h2



1

+
+
P S = 0.
h1
h2

(27)

E I3
1 (Saa )3 +
L
E I3
=
1 (Sab )3 +
L

M12 =
M21

E I3
2 (Sab )3
L
E I3
2 (Sbb )3 .
L

(32)
(33)

Substituting (28)(33) into Eqs. (25)(27) the 3 3


homogeneous system given in Box IV is obtained:
In Box IV:
(Saa )1 =

(Sab )1 =

(Sbb )1 =

(Saa )2 =

1 1
tan 1


1



;
tan(1 /2)
1 1
+
3

(1 3 ) 1 tan
3
1
1
1 /2


1 1
33 sin 1 1



;
tan(1 /2)
1 1
(1 3 ) 1 tan
+
3

3
1
1
1 /2


1 1
2
(1 3 )1 1 + 33 1 tan
1



;
tan(1 /2)
1 1
(1 3 ) 1 tan
+
3

3
1
1
1 /2


2 2
34 tan 2 1


;

tan(2 /2)
2 2
(1 4 ) 1 tan
2 + 34
2 /2 2
33

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

EI
EI
(Sbb )1 1 + (Saa )3 3
h1
L

E I3

(Sab )3

 E I1

(Sab )1 + (Sbb )1
h 21

(Sab )3
(Sbb )2

E I3
L

E I2
EI
+ (Sbb )3 3
h2
L


 E I2
(Sab )2 + (Sbb )2
h 22

 E I1

(Sab )1 + (Sbb )1
2
h1



 E I2

(Sab )2 + (Sbb )2
1
2

h
=0
2




 E I1 2
1

S
+
P + (Sab )1 + 2(Sab )1 + (Sbb )1
+
h1
h2
h1


 E I2
(Sab )2 + 2(Sab )2 + (Sbb )2
h2
Box IV.

2 2
sin 2

1

;
tan(2 /2)
2 2
(1 4 ) 1 tan
+
3

3
2
2
2 /2


2 2
2
(1 4 )2 2 + 34 1 tan
2

;


(Sbb )2 =
tan(2 /2)
2 2
(1 4 ) 1 tan
2 + 34
2 /2 2
(Sab )2 =

34

31 (4 + 2 )
;
(4 1 2 ) + (1 + 2 + 1 2 )
31 2 (2 )
;
(Sab )3 =
(4 1 2 ) + (1 + 2 + 1 2 )
32 (4 + 1 )
(Sbb )3 =
.
(4 1 2 ) + (1 + 2 + 1 2 )

(Saa )3 =

and

By making the determinant of the 3 3 matrix of equation in


Box IV equal to zero the characteristic equation is determined
and then the buckling loads can be calculated.
For the particular case of a symmetrical unbraced frame
with BernoulliEuler columns and beam with EI 1 = EI 2 ,
1 = 2 = 3 = 1, h 1 = h 2 = h, = 1, 1 = 2 = 1,
3 = 4 = 0, S = = 0, and assuming that 1 = 2 the
characteristic equation in Box IV can be reduced to:
1 tan 1 = 6

E I3 /L
.
E I1 / h

(34)

Another interesting case is when the value of S becomes very


large making 0 (i.e. for a frame with sidesway inhibited),
then the characteristic equation is reduced to the first two rows
and columns of equation in Box IV:


E I1
E I3
E I3


(Sbb )1

+ (Saa )3
(Sab )3


h1
L
L

E I3
E I2
E I3 = 0.

(Sab )3
(Sbb )2
+ (Saa )3


L
h2
L
(35)
For the particular case of a braced symmetrical frame with
BernoulliEuler columns and beam with EI 1 = EI 2 , 1 = 2 =
3 = 1, h 1 = h 2 = h, = 1, 1 = 2 = 1, 3 = 4 = 0,
= 0 and assuming that 1 = 2 the characteristic equation
(35) can be further reduced to:
12 sin 1
E I3 /L
= 2
.
sin 1 1 cos 1
E I1 / h

(36)

Eqs. (34) and (36) are identical to Eqs. (14-2-30) and (14-218) presented by Salmon and Johnson ([5], pp. 900912) for
unbraced and braced symmetrical frames, respectively. It must

Fig. 9. Comparison of results for a symmetrical frame with lateral sway


inhibited using the proposed method and a simplified formula after Salmon
and Johnson [5].

be emphasized that Eq. (34) is only capable of capturing the


anti-symmetric modes of buckling of this unbraced symmetric
frame (since it was assumed that 1 = 2 ). Likewise, Eq. (36)
is only capable of capturing the symmetric modes of buckling
of this braced symmetric frame (since it was assumed that
1 = 2 ). Fig. 9 shows the first three eigen-values obtained
using the characteristic equation in Box IV and the first two
obtained using Eq. (34). Therefore, the proposed method is
more powerful, since it is capable of capturing all modes of
buckling including those under axial tension forces (as it was
shown in Example 3).
5. Summary and conclusions
A new set of slope-deflections equations that include the
effects of shear deformations and the shear component of the
applied axial forces (Haringx Model) are derived and then
utilized in the stability and second-order analysis of framed
structures made of Timoshenko beamcolumns with rigid,
semi-rigid, and simple connections. The proposed method is
based on the modified stability functions for beamcolumns
with semi-rigid connections (Aristizabal-Ochoa [10,11]). The
validity and effectiveness of the proposed equations are verified
against four well-documented solutions on elastic stability and
second-order analyses of beamcolumns and plane frames.
The advantages of the proposed method are: (1) the effects
of semi-rigid connections are condensed into two nonlinear

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
10

J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

equations with three unknowns (the end flexural rotations and


the lateral sway between the ends of the member) for tension or
compression axial loads without introducing additional degrees
of freedom and equations; (2) more accurate than any other
method available and capable of capturing the phenomena
of buckling under axial tension forces. This is particularly
important in short columns like laminated elastomeric bearings
commonly used for seismic isolation of buildings; and (3) the
method is powerful, practical, versatile, and easy to teach.
Analytical studies indicate that shear deformations increase
the lateral deflections of framed structures, and reduce their
critical axial loads. The effects of shear deformations and
second-order P effects must be considered in the analysis
of beamcolumns with relatively low effective shear areas
(like short laced columns, columns with batten plates or with
perforated cover plates, and columns with open webs) or low
shear modulus G (like elastomeric bearing and short columns
made of laminated composites) resulting in members with shear
stiffness GAs of the same order of magnitude as EI/L 2 . The
shear effects are also of great importance in the static, stability
and dynamic behavior of laminated elastomeric bearings used
for seismic isolation of buildings.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was carried out at
the National University of Colombia, School of Mines at
Medellin. The author wants to express his appreciation to the
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Mines (DIME)
for the financial support and encouragement, and also to Jhon
Monsalve-Cano, Jaime Hernandez-Urrea, Camilo Builes-Mejia
and David Padilla-Llano members of the Structural Stability
Group of the National University of Colombia, for preparing
the figures of all four examples.
Appendix. Derivation of proposed slope-deflection equation (2a) and (2b)
The stability analysis of a prismatic column including
bending and shear deformations (Fig. 1ac) is formulated using
the modified approach proposed by Haringx and discussed by
Timoshenko and Gere ([12], page 134). This approach has been
utilized by Kelly [13] in the analysis of Elastomeric Isolation
Bearings and by Aristizabal-Ochoa [10,11,14] in the stability
analysis of columns, multicolumn systems and frames.
Knowing that the governing equation of bending for the
beamcolumn shown in Fig. 1b is:

x
and using Haringxs approach:
M = E I

V = G As P
u
.
=
x

(37)

transverse shear force of the beamcolumn shown in Fig. 1b


[for which M = Ma (Ma + Mb + P) Lx Pu and V =
P + (Ma + Mb + P)/L] become:
2u
x
+ Pu = Ma + (Ma + Mb + P)
2
L
x
2
Ma + Mb + P
E I 2 + P =
L
x
EI

(39)

On using expression (39) suggested by Haringx, the


governing Eqs. (37) and (38) for bending moment and

(41)

where: u = Lateral deflection along the beamcolumn center


line; and
= Rotation of the cross section along the beamcolumn
due to bending alone as shown in Fig. 1c.
= Shear deformation of the cross section along the
beamcolumn as shown in Fig. 1c.
The solutions to the second-order linear differential
equations (40) and (41) are as follows:
x 

u(x) = A cos
L


x  x Ma + Mb + P
Ma
+ B sin

(42)

L
L
P
P
x 
x 
. (x. ) = C cos
+ D sin

L
 L
1 Ma + Mb + P
+
.
(43)
L
P
The unknown coefficients A, B, C, and D can be obtained from
the following boundary conditions:
At A0 (x = 0): u = 0, = a 0
At B0 (x = h) : u = and = b0 where: a 0 and
b0 = rotations of cross sections at ends A0 and B0 with respect
to the vertical axis due to bending, respectively;
+Mb
Therefore: A = MPa ; B = MPa tan(/2) MPasin
;C =


Ma +Mb
1
+ ; and
a 0 L
P
a 0 b0 cos
D=

sin


Ma + M b
+ tan(/2).
P

Since u 0 = + V /(As G) and V = P Ma +MLb +P , the


following expressions for a 0 and b0 can be obtained:
sin cos Ma
sin Mb

+
+
E I /L
L
2 sin
2 sin E I /L
(44a)
sin cos Mb

sin Ma
b 0 =
+
+ .
E I /L
L
2 sin E I /L
2 sin
(44b)
a 0 =

However, the rotations at ends A and B are a = a 0 +


(38)

(40)

Mb
b ,

b = b 0 +
Therefore:
a

Ma
a

and

respectively.

sin cos Ma

=
L
E I /L
2 sin
sin Mb
Ma
+
+
2
E
I
/L
a
sin

(45a)

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa / Engineering Structures (

Ma sin

=
L
E I /L 2 sin
Mb sin cos
Mb
+
+
2
E I /L
b
sin

11

As explained above, the rotations at ends A and B are:


Mb
a
0
a = a 0 + M
a and b = b + b , respectively. Therefore:
(45b)


1
E I / h2
Ma
+
3
G As
E I/h


1
E I / h2
Mb
Ma
+ +
+
6
G As
E I/h
a


1
E I / h2
Ma

= +
a
h
6
G As
E I/h


1
E I / h2
Mb
Mb
+
+
+
.
3
G As
E I/h
b

where: = relative sidesway of end B with respect to end A;


and
a and b = rotations of ends A and B due to bending with
respect to the vertical axis, respectively.
Notice that Eqs. (44a) and (44b) are identical to
those derived by Salmon and Johnson ([6], p. 902) for
BernoulliEuler columns (i.e. when = 1). Now, expressing
(45a) and (45b) in matrix form, then by inverting the matrix
of coefficients and using expressions (1a) and (1b) [or Ra =
3a /(1 a ) and Rb = 3b /(1 b )], Eqs. (2a) and (2b) can
be obtained.
A.1. Derivations of Eqs. (3)(5)
The governing Eqs. (40) and (41) when P = 0 are reduced

=
h

(49a)

(49b)

Expressing (49a) and (49b) in the matrix form, then by inverting


the matrix of coefficients and using Ra = 3a /(1 a )
and Rb = 3b /(1 b ), Eqs. (2a)(2b) and (3)(4) can be
obtained.
References

to:
2u
x
= Ma + (Ma + Mb )
L
x2
2
Ma + M b
EI 2 =
.
L
x
EI

(46a)
(46b)

Eqs. (46a) and (46b) are now much simpler to solve. After
applying the boundary conditions [i.e., u = 0, = a 0 at
A0 (x = 0); and u = and = b0 at B0 (x = L)], their
solutions are:
L
Ma 2

x+
x
(2Ma Mb ) x
L
6E I
2E I
1
+
(Ma + Mb ) x 3
6E I L
1

L
(x) =
+ (Ma + Mb )
+
(2Ma Mb )
L
G As
6E I
1
Ma
x+

(Ma + Mb ) x 2 .
EI
2E I L
u(x) =

(47a)

(47b)

Knowing that (x) = u 0 (x) V /(G As ) and V = (Ma +


Mb )/L, the following expressions for a 0 and b0 can be
obtained from Eq. (47b):


1
E I /L 2
Ma
a 0 =
+
3
G As
E I /L


Mb
1
E I /L 2

+ +
+
(48a)
6
G As
E I /L
L


1
E I /L 2
Ma
b 0 = +
6
G As
E I /L


1
E I /L 2
Mb

+
+
+ .
(48b)
3
G As
E I /L
L

[1] Samuelsson A, Zienkiewicz OC. History of the stiffness method.


International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2006;67:
14957.
[2] Wilson WM, Maney GA. Slope-deflection method. University of Illinois
Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin 80, 1915.
[3] Norris CH, Wilbur JB. Elementary structural analysis. 2nd ed. McGrawHill Book Co; 1960.
[4] Kassimali A. Structural analysis. 2nd ed. Thomson-Engineering; 1998.
[5] Salmon CG, Johnson JE. Steel structures: Design and behavior. 4th ed.
Harper Collins College Publishers; 1996 [Chapter 14].
[6] Bryant RH, Baile OC. Slope deflection analysis including transverse
shear. Journal of the Structural Division 1977;103(2):4436.
[7] Lin FJ, Glauser EC, Johnston BJ. Behavior of laced and battened
structural members. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1960;
123(5):1377401.
[8] Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. First- and second-order stiffness matrices and
load vector of beamcolumns with semirigid connections. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(5):66978.
[9] Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Story stability of braced, partially braced, and
unbraced frames: Classical approach. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 1997;123(6):799807.
[10] Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Column stability and minimum lateral bracing:
effects of shear deformations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2004;
130(10):122332.
[11] Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Large deflection and postbuckling behavior of
Timoshenko beamcolumns with semirigid connections including shear
and axial effects. Journal of Engineering Structures 2007;29(6):9911003.
[12] Timoshenko S, Gere J. Theory of elastic stability. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill;
1961 [Chapter 2].
[13] Kelly JM. Tension buckling in multilayer elastomeric bearings. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics 2003;129(12):13638. Discussion by Dario
Aristizabal-Ochoa J. 2005; 131 (1): 106108.
[14] Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Tension and compression stability and secondorder analyses of three-dimensional multicolumn systems: Effects of
shear deformations. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2007;
133(1):10616.

Please cite this article in press as: Dario Aristizabal-Ochoa J. Slope-deflection equations for stability and second-order analysis of Timoshenho beamcolumn
structures with semi-rigid connections. Engineering Structures (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.007