You are on page 1of 20

SAS 2662 No. of Pages 20, DTD = 4.3.

1
18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS, Chennai

International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsolstr

F
2 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analysis accounting

OO
3 for lateral torsional buckling
4 Seung-Eock Kim a,*, Jaehong Lee b, Joo-Soo Park a
a
5 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering/Construction Tech., Research Institute, Sejong University, 98 Koonja-dong

PR
6 Kwangjin-ku, Seoul 143-747, South Korea
b
7 Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Koonja-dong Kwangjin-ku, Seoul 143-747, South Korea
8 Received 24 July 2001; received in revised form 26 December 2001

9 Abstract
10
11
ED
In this paper, 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analysis accounting for lateral torsional buckling is developed. This
analysis accounts for material and geometric nonlinearities of the structural system and its component members.
12 Moreover, the problem associated with conventional second-order plastic-hinge analyses, which do not consider the
13 degradation of the flexural strength caused by lateral torsional buckling, is overcome. Efficient ways of assessing steel
14
CT
frame behavior including gradual yielding associated with residual stresses and flexure, second-order effect, and geo-
15 metric imperfections are presented. In this study, a model consisting of the unbraced length and cross-section shape is
16 used to account for lateral torsional buckling. The proposed analysis is verified by the comparison of the other analyses
17 and load and resistance factor design results. A case study shows that lateral torsional buckling is a very crucial element
18 to be considered in second-order plastic-hinge analysis. The proposed analysis is shown to be an efficient, reliable tool
E

19 ready to be implemented into design practice. Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

20 Keywords: Plastic-hinge; Second-order analysis; Lateral torsional buckling; Steel frame; Load and resistance factor design
RR

21 1. Introduction
CO

22 In the current engineering practice, the interaction between the structural system and its component
23 members is represented by the effective length factor. The effective length method generally provides a good
24 design of framed structures. However, despite its popular use in the past and present as a basis for design,
25 the approach has its major limitations. The first of these is that it does not give an accurate indication of the
26 factor against failure, because it does not consider the interaction of strength and stability between the
UN

27 member and structural system in a direct manner. It is well-recognized fact that the actual failure mode of
28 the structural system often does not have any resemblance whatsoever to the elastic buckling mode of the
29 structural system that is the basis for the determination of the effective length factor K. The second and
30 perhaps the most serious limitation is probably the rationale of the current two-stage process in design:

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-3408-3391; fax: +82-2-3408-3332.
E-mail address: sekim@sejong.ac.kr (S.-E. Kim).

0020-7683/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 6 8 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 2 - 3

SAS 2662 No. of Pages 20, DTD = 4.3.1
18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS, Chennai

2 S.-E. Kim et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx

Nomenclature

A, L area and length of beam-column element
Cb equivalent moment factor
Cw warping constant

F
E modulus of elasticity
Et CRC (column research council) tangent modulus

OO
Fr compressive residual stress
Fyw yield stress of web
Fyf yield stress of flange
G shear modulus of elasticity of steel
Iy , Iz moment of inertia with respect to y- and z-axes
J torsional constant

PR
kc , ks coefficients accounting for situation where a large number of columns in a story and stories in a
frame would reduce the total magnitude of geometric imperfections
kiiy , kijy , kjjy stiffness accounting for gA , gB with respect to y-axis
kiiz , kijz , kjjz stiffness accounting for gA , gB with respect to z-axis
Lb unbraced length of the member in the out-of-plane bending
ED
Lc length of column accounting for geometric imperfection
Lp limiting unbraced length for full plastic bending capacity
Lr limiting unbraced length of inelastic lateral torsional buckling
MA absolute value of moment at quarter point of the unbraced segment, sum of moments in sway
and non-sway cases
CT
MB absolute value of moment at centerline of the unbraced segment, sum of moments in sway and
non-sway cases
MC absolute value of moment at three quarter point of the unbraced segment, sum of moments in
sway and non-sway cases
Mmax absolute value of maximum moment in the unbraced segment, sum of moments in sway and
E

non-sway cases
Mn lateral torsional buckling strength
RR

Mr FL Sx , where FL is smaller of (Fyf  Fr ) or Fyw
My , Mz second-order bending moment with respect to y- and z-axes
Myp , Mzp plastic moment capacity with respect to y- and z-axes
Mp plastic moment capacity
MyA , MyB , MzA , MzB end moments with respect to y- and z-axes
CO

P second-order axial force or axial force
Py squash load
Pp axially ultimate load
r1 , r2 factors which account for the length and number of columns
UN

ry radius of gyration about y-axis
Sx section modulus about x-axis
S1 , S2 , S3 , S4 stability functions with respect to y- and z-axes
T torsional force
a force-state parameter
d axial shortening

or (2) plastic hinge based on the degree of refinements used to represent yielding. The plastic- 42 zone method uses the highest refinements while the elastic–plastic hinge method allows for significant 43 simplifications. As a result. Chennai S. White. . it is feasible to employ second-order plastic-hinge analysis techniques for 40 direct frame design. Most of second-order plastic analyses can be categorized into one of two types: (1) 41 plastic zone. hzA . One of the ED 44 second-order plastic-hinge analyses called the plastic-zone method discretizes frame members into several 45 finite elements.. 55 These conventional 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analyses assume lateral torsional buckling to be RR 56 prevented by adequate lateral bracing. Kim et al. 50 A more simple and efficient way to represent inelasticity in frames is the second-order plastic-hinge 51 method. and Kim et al. second-order plastic-hinge analysis 38 should be directly performed. there is no explicit guarantee that all members will sustain their design loads under the 36 geometric configuration imposed by the framework.-E. hzB the joint rotations / the angle of twist 31 elastic analysis is used to determine the forces acting on each member of a structural system. (1992). The applicability of the method is limited by its complexity 48 requiring intensive computational time and cost. respectively hyA . The typical load–displacements of the plastic analyses are illustrated in Fig. 47 it is yet to be used for practical design purposes. Prakash and Powell (1993). Clarke et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 3 g. DTD = 4.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. Until now. 46 1985. 1. 1985. Liew and Tang (1998). gB stiffness degradation function at element end A and B. There is OO 33 no verification of the compatibility between the isolated member and the member as part of a frame. The real challenge in our endeavor is to make this type of CT 49 analysis competitive in present construction engineering practices. 37 In order to overcome the difficulties of the conventional approach.3. The 34 individual member strength equations as specified in specifications are unconcerned with system compat- 35 ibility. (2001). gA . whereas F 32 inelastic analysis is used to determine the strength of each member treated as an isolated member. The benefit 53 of the second-order plastic-hinge analyses is that they are efficient and sufficiently accurate for the as- E 54 sessment of strength and stability of structural systems and their component members. several second-order plastic-hinge analyses for space structures were developed by 52 Ziemian et al. With the current available computing technology with advancement in PR 39 computer hardware and software. SAS 2662 No. Also the cross-section of each finite element is further subdivided into many fibers (Vogel. Load–displacement of plastic analyses. hyB . Although the plastic-zone solution is known as an ‘‘exact solution’’. 1. 1992). of Pages 20. and do not account for the degradation of the flexural strength CO UN Fig.

G.and z-axes. 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analysis OO 64 2. the 72 torsional force. The force– 68 displacement equation using the stability functions may be extended for three-dimensional beam-column 69 element as 8 9 2 EA 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 9 > P > L > d > > > > > 6 7 > > > > > > MyA >> 6 0 S1 EILy S2 EILy 0 0 0 7> > hyA > > > > > > 6 7 > > ED > > <M > > = 6 EIy EIy 7><h > = yB 6 0 S2 L S1 L 0 0 07 yB ¼6 7 ð1Þ > > 6 0 S3 EILz S4 EILz 0 7 > hzA > > MzA > > > > 6 > 0 0 7>> > > > > > > MzB >> 6 7> h > > > > > 4 0 0 0 S4 EILz S3 EILz 0 5> > > zB > > > : . the area and length of beam-column element.and z-axes. E. /. MyB . Stability functions accounting for second-order effect 65 To capture second-order (large displacement) effects. stability functions are used to minimize modeling 66 and solution time. Kim et al. S3 . the torsional constant. When the 59 conventional 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analyses account for lateral torsional buckling. J . hzA . hyA . the joint rotations. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 57 caused by lateral torsional buckling. it must be a 60 considerable contribution in present engineering practices. hzB . the end moments with respect to y.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. The simplified stability PR 67 functions for the two-dimensional beam-column element were reported by Chen and Lui (1992). in capturing the effect of lateral 62 torsional buckling. L.-E. SAS 2662 No. d. A. Since the sections of the structures are not always provided with a 58 sufficient lateral support. MyA . the shear modulus E 75 of elasticity. T 0 0 0 0 0 GJ / CT L 71 where P is the axial force. : . MzB .3. T. 74 Iy . MzA . S1 . the axial shortening. Generally only one or two elements are needed per a member. 76 The stability functions given by Eq.1. S2 . The objective of this paper is to achieve the 61 accuracy of a plastic-zone solution with the ease of the plastic-hinge model. Chennai 4 S. the moment of inertia with respect to y. DTD = 4. the angle of twist. the stability functions with respect to y. Iz .and z-axes. hyB . the analysis should be improved to consider lateral torsional buckling. the modulus of elasticity. F 63 2. of Pages 20. 73 S4 . (1) may be written as RR 8 pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi > > p qy sinðp qy Þ  p2 qy cosðp qy Þ > > pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi if P < 0 < 2  2 cosðp qy Þ  p qy sinðp qy Þ S1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi ð2aÞ > > p2 qy coshðp qy Þ  p qy sinhðp qy Þ > > if P > 0 : 2  2 coshðppffiffiffiffi ffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi CO qy Þ þ p qy sinhðp qy Þ 8 pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi > p2 qy  p qy sinðp qy Þ > > pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi if P < 0 <2  2 cosðp qy Þ  p qy sinðp qy Þ S2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi ð2bÞ > p qy sinhðp qy Þ  p2 qy UN > > : pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi if P > 0 2  2 coshðp qy Þ þ p qy sinðp qy Þ 8 pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi > > p qz sinðp qz Þ  p2 qz cosðp qz Þ > p ffiffiffiffi ffi < 2  2 cosðp q Þ  p q sinðppffiffiffiffi p ffiffiffiffi ffi ffi if P < 0 z z qz Þ S3 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi ð2cÞ > > p2 q coshðp qz Þ  p qz sinhðp qz Þ > : pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi if P > 0 2  2 coshðp qz Þ þ p qz sinhðp qz Þ .

My . Lui and Chen (1986) have proposed a set of expressions that make use of power-series 85 expansions to approximate the stability functions. for q other than the range of 2:0 6 q 6 2:0.and z-axes. all members are assumed to be adequately braced to prevent out-of-plane 99 buckling.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. Mzp . the plastic moment capacity with respect to y. the following simplified expressions may be 88 used to closely approximate the stability functions: PR 2p2 qy ð0:01qy þ 0:543Þq2y ð0:004qy þ 0:285Þq2y S1 ¼ 4 þ   ð3aÞ 15 4 þ qy 8:183 þ qy p2 qy ð0:01qy þ 0:543Þq2y ð0:004qy þ 0:285Þq2y S2 ¼ 2  þ  ð3bÞ 30 4 þ qy 8:183 þ qy 2p2 qz ð0:01qz þ 0:543Þq2z ð0:004qz þ 0:285Þq2z ED S3 ¼ 4 þ   ð3cÞ 15 4 þ qz 8:183 þ qz p2 qz ð0:01qz þ 0:543Þq2z ð0:004qz þ 0:285Þq2z CT S4 ¼ 2  þ  ð3dÞ 30 4 þ qz 8:183 þ qz 93 Eqs. The stability function approach uses only one element per member and main- 97 tains accuracy in the element stiffness terms and in the recovery of element end forces for all ranges of axial RR 98 loads. The power-series expressions have been shown to 86 converge to a high degree of accuracy within the first 10 terms of the series expansions. S2 . That is. they are assumed to move on the plastic surface at the following loading step. Chennai S. the second-order bending 106 moment with respect to y. the axially ultimate load. a cross- 102 section’s plastic strength can be taken as (AISC. and their cross-sections are compact. 107 The strain is not involved in this analysis. (4a) and (4b). qz ¼ P =ðp2 EIz =L2 Þ. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 5 8 pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi > > p2 qz  p qz sinðp qz Þ > < pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi if P < 0 2  2 cosðp qz Þ  p qz sinðp qz Þ S4 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi ð2dÞ > > p qz sinhðp qz Þ  p2 qz > : pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi if P > 0 2  2 coshðp qz Þ þ p qz sinðp qz Þ 81 where qy ¼ P =ðp2 EIy =L2 Þ. To 83 circumvent this problem and to avoid the use of different expressions for S1 . (2a)–(2d) are indeterminate when the axial force is zero. Pp . Plastic strength of cross-section CO 101 Based on the AISC-load and resistance factor design (LRFD) bilinear interaction equations. Mz . Eqs.2.-E. F 82 The numerical solutions obtained from Eqs. DTD = 4. the conventional stability functions (Eqs. if the 87 axial force in the member falls within the range 2:0 6 q 6 2:0. .and z-axes. and S4 for a different sign OO 84 of axial forces. 95 (2a)–(2d). SAS 2662 No.3. Kim et al. Once the member forces get to the full plastic surface given by 108 Eqs. For most 94 practical applications. In this formulation. (3a)–(3d) give an excellent correlation to the exact expressions given by Eqs. 100 2. (3a)–(3d) are applicable for members in tension (positive P ) and compression (negative P ). of Pages 20. However. E 96 (2a)–(2d)) should be used. and P is positive in tension. S3 . 1993)        P  8  My  8  Mz  P  þ  þ    P  9  M  9  M  ¼ 1:0 for P P 0:2 ð4aÞ UN p yp zp p        P   My   Mz  P  þ þ  ¼ 1:0 for 6 0:2 ð4bÞ  2P  M  M  Pp p yp zp 105 where P is the second-order axial force. Alternatively. Myp .

1992).3. 1996a. 1956). 1997. This simplification makes the present CT 130 methods practical. 112 2. the method predicts the 119 system strength with a reasonable accuracy as shown in the verification study. Although it is really the elastic portion of the cross- 126 section (thus I) that is being reduced. SAS 2662 No. The elastic modulus E. The approach is widely used in the commercial softwares including ABAQUS.3. Chennai 6 S. Kim et al. Orbison 1982). / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 109 once the axial force of a member increases at the following loading step. 1997). the member forces do not violate the yield surface. DTD = 4. of Pages 20. but not adequate for 134 cases of both axial force and bending moment.2. Chen and Kim.. 122 2. Clarke et al. is hereby reduced. T 0 0 0 0 0 gA gB L / 138 where   S2 Et I y kiiy ¼ gA S1  2 ð1  gB Þ ð7aÞ S1 L . GJ : .3. Kim and Chen. Since the purpose of this paper 116 is to develop a practical tool for at design use.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. From Chen and Lui (1992). the plasticity is approximated by using the column research 117 council (CRC) and the parabolic function whose values are determined by member forces rather than by 118 stress and strain relationship of each mesh..b. 1992. Kim and Chen. 1998. The rate of reduction in stiffness is different in the weak and strong directions. Thus. ED 125 instead of moment of inertia I.b. Liew et al. Column research council tangent modulus model associated with residual stresses 123 The CRC tangent modulus concept is used to account for gradual yielding (due to residual stresses) along 124 the length of axially loaded members between plastic hinges (Chen and Lui.-E. the CRC Et is written as Et ¼ 1:0E for P 6 0:5Py ð5aÞ   P P Et ¼ 4 E 1 for P > 0:5Py ð5bÞ Py Py E RR 132 2. This approach has been used by 111 several researchers (Chen and Kim.3. 1993). Those softwares are good at research purpose but not at design use. the bending moment is adjusted to 110 be reduced. 121 1996a. changing the elastic modulus is easier than changing the moment of 127 inertia for different sections. Parabolic function for gradual yielding due to flexure 133 The tangent modulus model is suitable for the member subjected to axial force. Model for gradual yielding F 113 A lot of meshes are necessary in order to trace the inelastic stress–strain relationship of each fine element 114 (Ilyushin. the force–deflection equation may be expressed as CO 8 9 2 Et A 38 9 > > P >> L 0 0 0 0 0 > > d > > > > > 6 > > > > MyA > > > 0 kiiy kijy 0 0 0 7 > 7> > hyA >> > < = 6 6 7< = MyB 0 k k 0 0 0 h ¼66 ijy jjy 7 yB ð6Þ > MzA > > > 6 0 0 0 kiiz kijz 0 7 > hzA > 7> > > > > > 4 0 > > 0 5> > UN > MzB > > > 0 0 kijz kjjz > hzB > > > : . 1997. When softening plastic hinges 136 are active at both ends of an element. This approach has been PR 120 developed and used by many researchers (Liew and Tang. Although this approximation is used. 128 but this is not considered since the dramatic degradation of weak-axis stiffness is compensated for by the 129 substantial weak-axis’ plastic strength (Chen and Kim.1. ANSYS. OO 115 and etc. A gradual stiffness degradation model for a plastic hinge is 135 required to represent the partial plastification effects associated with bending.

CT P 8 My 8 Mz P 2 My 2 Mz a¼ þ þ for P þ ð9aÞ Pp 9 Myp 9 Mzp Pp 9 Myp 9 Mzp P My Mz P 2 My 2 Mz a¼ þ þ for < þ ð9bÞ 2Pp Myp Mzp Pp 9 Myp 9 Mzp E 153 Initial yielding is assumed to occur based on a yield surface that has the same shape as the full plas- 154 tification surface and with the force-state parameter denoted as a0 ¼ 0:5. the element is assumed to remain fully elastic with no 156 stiffness reduction.-E. 158 The element force–displacement relationship from Eq. If the force point moves beyond the initial yield surface.3. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 7 Et I y kijy ¼ gA gB S2 ð7bÞ L   S22 Et I y kjjy ¼ gB S1  ð1  gA Þ ð7cÞ S1 L   S42 Et I z F kiiz ¼ gA S3  ð1  gB Þ ð7dÞ S3 L OO Et Iz kijz ¼ gA gB S4 ð7eÞ L   S42 Et Iz kjjz ¼ gB S3  ð1  gA Þ ð7fÞ S3 L PR 145 The terms gA and gB are scalar parameters that allow for gradual inelastic stiffness reduction of the element 146 associated with plastification at end A and B. and zero 147 when a plastic hinge is formed. DTD = 4. The parameter g is assumed to vary according to the parabolic function: g ¼ 1:0 for a 6 0:5 ED ð8aÞ g ¼ 4að1  aÞ for a > 0:5 ð8bÞ 149 where a is a force-state parameter that measures the magnitude of axial force and bending moment at the 150 element end. a is the function of the AISC-LRFD interaction equations written in Eqs.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. (6) may be symbolically written as CO ffe g ¼ ½Ke fde g ð10Þ 160 in which ffe g and fde g are the element end force and displacement arrays. and ½Ke is the element tangent 161 stiffness matrix.0 when the element is elastic. Chennai S. the stiffness matrix may 163 be modified as UN 8 9 2 Et A 38 9 > > P >> L 0 0 0 0 0 > > d > > > > > 6 > hyA > > > > MyA >> > 0 Ciiy Cijy 0 0 0 7 7>> > > > < = 6 6 7 < = MyB 0 C C 0 0 0 h ¼66 ijy jjy 7 yB ð11Þ > MzA > > > 6 0 0 0 Ciiz Cijz 0 7 7>> hzA >> > > > > 4 0 > > > MzB > > > 0 0 Cijz Cjjz 0 5> > hzB > > > > : . T 0 0 0 0 0 gA gB L / . SAS 2662 No. GJ : . of Pages 20. Kim et al. Herein. the element stiffness is reduced 157 to account for the effect of plastification at the element end. (9a) and 151 (9b). This term is equal to 1. If the forces change so the force RR 155 point moves inside or along the initial yield surface. 162 To account for transverse shear deformation effects in a beam-column element.

Stability analysis of structural system CT 173 The end forces and end displacements used in Eq. The sign convention for the 174 positive directions of element end forces and end displacements of a frame member is shown in Fig. 2(b). Kim et al. 2(a). DTD = 4. SAS 2662 No. Chennai 8 S. By 175 comparing the two figures. we can express the equilibrium and kinematic relationships in symbolic form as E RR CO UN Fig. of Pages 20.3. . Element end forces and displacements notation. (10) are shown in Fig.4. 2.-E. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 165 where 2 kiiy kjjy  kijy þ kiiy Asz GL Ciiy ¼ ð12aÞ kiiy þ kjjy þ 2kijy þ Asz GL 2 kiiy kjjy þ kijy þ kijy Asz GL Cijy ¼ ð12bÞ F kiiy þ kjjy þ 2kijy þ Asz GL OO 2 kiiy kjjy  kijy þ kjjy Asz GL Cjjy ¼ ð12cÞ kiiy þ kjjy þ 2kijy þ Asz GL 2 kiiz kjjz  kijz þ kiiz Asy GL Ciiz ¼ ð12dÞ kiiz þ kjjz þ 2kijz þ Asy GL PR 2 kiiz kjjz þ kijz þ kijz Asy GL Cijz ¼ ð12eÞ kiiz þ kjjz þ 2kijz þ Asy GL 2 kiiz kjjz  kijz þ kjjz Asy GL Cjjz ¼ ð12fÞ kiiz þ kjjz þ 2kijz þ Asy GL ED 172 2.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS.

(10). SAS 2662 No.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS.-E. Chennai S. DTD = 4.3. (17) can be subgrouped as   ½Kn 1 ½Kn 2 ½Kn 12 12 ¼ T ð18Þ ½Kn 2 ½Kn 3 E 191 where 2 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 RR 60 b 0 0 0 c7 6 7 60 0 d 0 e 07 ½Kn 1 ¼ 6 60 7 ð19aÞ 6 0 0 f 0 077 40 0 e 0 g 05 0 c 0 0 0 h CO 2 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 b 0 0 0 c7 6 7 6 0 0 d 0 e 07 ½Kn 2 ¼ 6 6 0 7 ð19bÞ 0 0 f 0 07 UN 6 7 4 0 0 e 0 i 05 0 c 0 0 0 j . of Pages 20. ½T 6 12 is a transformation matrix 182 written as 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 07 6 L L 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07 PR 6 ½T 6 12 ¼ 6 L L 7 ð15Þ 6 0 L1 1 0 0 0 1 0  L1 0 0 0 077 4 0 0 0 0 0 0  L1 0 0 0 15 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 184 Using the transformation matrix by equilibrium and kinematic relations. the force–displacement rela- 185 tionship of a frame member may be written as ffn g ¼ ½Kn fdL g ED ð16Þ 187 ½Kn is the element stiffness matrix expressed as ½Kn 12 12 ¼ ½T T6 12 ½Ke 6 6 ½T 6 12 ð17Þ CT 189 Eq. Kim et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 9 T ffn g ¼ ½T 6 12 ffe g ð13aÞ fde g ¼ ½T 6 12 fdL g ð13bÞ 178 ffn g and fdL g are the end force and displacement vectors of a frame member expressed as ffn gT ¼ f rn1 rn2 rn3 rn4 rn5 rn6 rn7 rn8 rn9 rn10 rn11 rn12 g ð14aÞ F fdL gT ¼ f d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 g ð14bÞ OO 181 ffe g and fde g are the end force and displacement vectors in Eq.

Kim et al. we obtain the general beam-column element force–displacement re- 211 lationship as UN ffL g ¼ ½ K local fdL g ð25Þ 213 where ffL g ¼ ffn g þ ffs g ð26Þ ½ K local ¼ ½Kn þ ½Ks ð27Þ .1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS.3. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 2 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 60 b 0 0 0 c 7 6 7 60 0 d 0 e 0 7 ½Kn 3 ¼ 6 60 7 ð19cÞ 6 0 0 f 0 0 77 40 0 e 0 m 0 5 0 c 0 0 0 n F 195 where OO Et A Ciiz þ 2Cijz þ Cjjz Ciiz þ Cijz Ciiy þ 2Cijy þ Cjjy Ciiy þ Cijy a¼ b¼ 2 c¼ d¼ 2 e¼ L L L L L GJ f ¼ g ¼ Ciiy h ¼ Ciiz i ¼ Cijy j ¼ Cijz m ¼ Cjjy n ¼ Cjjz ð20Þ L 197 Eq. b¼ 2 . of Pages 20. fdL g. DTD = 4. Chennai 10 S. (18) is used to enforce no sidesway in the member.-E. If the member is permitted to sway. (16) and (21). 202 They may be written as ED T ffs g ¼ f rs1 rs2 rs3 rs4 rs5 rs6 rs7 rs8 rs9 rs10 rs11 rs12 g ð22aÞ T fdL g ¼ f d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 g ð22bÞ   CT ½Ks ½Ks ½Ks 12 12 ¼ T ð22cÞ ½Ks ½Ks 206 where 2 3 0 a b 0 0 0 E 6 a c 0 0 0 07 6 7 6 b 0 c 0 0 07 ½K s ¼ 6 7 ð23Þ RR 6 0 0 0 0 0 07 6 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 and CO MzA þ MzB MyA þ MyB P a¼ 2 . We can relate this additional axial and shear forces 199 due to a member sway to the member end displacements as ffs g ¼ ½Ks fdL g ð21Þ 201 where ffs g. SAS 2662 No. c¼ ð24Þ L L L 210 By combining Eqs. and ½Ks are end force vector. an additional PR 198 axial and shear forces will be induced in the member. and the element stiffness matrix. end displacement vector.

In this study. DTD = 4. proposed analysis may be regarded as equivalent to the plastic-zone analysis.5.1. . They do not. two elements with a maximum RR 238 initial deflection at the mid-height of a member are found adequate for capturing the imperfection. a geometric imperfection of Lc =1000 is adopted. many elements are needed to model the sinusoidal out-of- 237 straightness of a beam-column member. Geometric imperfection modeling 225 2.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. For braced frames. T ½ K global ¼ ½b ½ K local ½b ð28Þ F 220 The elements of ½b matrix were the direction cosines of the force and displacement vectors. AS (1990). To this end. and CSA (1989. 234 The ECCS. but it is not practical. This value is CO UN Fig. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 11 216 We need to transform the elemental stiffness matrix with respect to the elemental coordinate system to 217 the global coordinate system before combining the stiffnesses to create the structural stiffness matrix. Explicit imperfection modeling of braced member. For the force 221 and displacement vectors. and CSA specifications recommend the out-of-straightness varying sinusoidally with a 235 maximum in-plane deflection at the mid-height. (28). Braced frame ED 226 The proposed analysis implicitly accounts for the effects of both residual stresses and spread of yielded 227 zones. Kim et al. This 230 is because the P –D effect due to the frame out-of-plumbness is diminished by braces. 3. In this study. needs to be used for geometric imperfections. 224 2. 1994) specifications recommend an initial crookedness of column equal 232 to 1/1000 times the column length. Ideally. describe how the sinusoidal im- E 236 perfection should be modeled in analysis. It may be observed that the 240 out-of-plumbness is equal to 1/500 when the half segment of the member is considered. AS. As a 228 result. 3 239 shows the out-of-straightness modeling for a braced beam-column member.3. Chennai S. member 229 out-of-straightness. The AISC code recommends the same maximum fabrication tolerance 233 of Lc =1000 for member out-of-straightness. SAS 2662 No.5.-E. Fig. The 218 basic form of this transformation is shown in Eq. however. geometric imperfections are necessary only to consider fabrication error. of Pages 20. For the three-dimensional frame element the ½b matrix expands to OO 2 3 ½ L 0 0 0 6 0 ½ L 0 0 7 ½b ¼ 6 4 0 7 ð29Þ 0 ½ L 0 5 0 0 0 ½ L PR 223 where each ½L matrix is the 3 3 matrix of direction cosines. CT 231 1991). The ECCS (1984. rather than frame out-of-plumbness.

so that the same ultimate strength can be predicted for mathematically identical braced and 265 unbraced members. DTD = 4. 1991). 243 2.5 in. Unbraced frame 244 Referring to the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS. of Pages 20. The conventional 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analyses.-E.3. it may be 262 considered equivalent to the plastic-zone analysis. respectively. The out-of-plane motion results in the degradation of the flexural 281 strength and stiffness about its major axis.6. 1991). According to the ECCS (1984. since the plastic-zone analysis already includes residual stresses and spread of yielding in its formulation. the magnitude of the imperfection is not PR 253 specified in the ECCS (1984. the member initial out-of- 250 straightness pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi should be modeled at the same time with the initial out-of-plumbness if the column parameter 251 L Pu =EI is larger than 1. 1984. it may be 242 stated that the imperfection values are essentially identical for both sway and braced frames. an out-of- 245 plumbness of a column equal to 1/200 times the column height is recommended for the elastic plastic-hinge F 246 analysis. Kim et al. Thus. toward the exterior of buildings and 2 in. 4. The coefficients. The explicit geometric 277 imperfection modeling for an unbraced frame is illustrated in Fig. The Canadian Standard (1989. toward the interior of buildings less than 269 20 stories. 274 In this study. 282 however. For multi-story and multi-bay frames. the geometric imperfections may be reduced to 1/200kc ks 247 since all columns in buildings may not lean in the same direction. The ECCS recommends the out-of- 256 plumbness of columns equal to 1/300r1 r2 times the column height where r1 and r2 are factors which account 257 for the length and number of columns. kc and ks account for the OO 248 situation where a large number of columns in a story and stories in a frame would reduce the total mag- 249 nitude of geometric imperfections. 1994) and the AISC Code of Standard Practice 267 (AISC. out-of-plane motion consisting of bending and twisting will 280 occur as the applied load increases. Thus. This simplification enables us to use the proposed methods easily with consistent 266 imperfection modeling. do not consider the degradation of the flexural strength caused by the lateral torsional buckling. UN 278 3. the RR 270 geometric imperfection of Lc =500 can be used for buildings up to six stories with each story approximately 271 10 feet high. Considering the maximum permitted average lean of 1. This may be necessary to consider residual stresses and possible member in- 252 stability effects for highly compressed slender columns. in the same direction of a story.2. only geometric 255 imperfections for erection tolerances need be included in the analysis. For the plastic-zone analysis. the ECCS does not 258 specify the requirement of the initial out-of-straightness to be modeled in addition to the out-of-plumbness pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 259 260 ED when the column parameter L Pu =EI is larger than 1. regardless of the value of the column 264 parameter. The maximum erection tolerances in the E 268 AISC are limited to 1 in. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 241 identical to that of sway frames as discussed in recent papers by Kim and Chen (1996a.b). SAS 2662 No.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. Chennai 12 S. however.5. 1991). 254 Since plastic-zone analysis accounts for both residual stresses and the spread of yielding. we shall use Lc =500 for the out-of-plumbness without any modification because the system CO 275 strength is often governed by a weak story which has an out-of-plumbness equal to Lc =500 (Maleck et al. For taller buildings. this imperfection value of Lc =500 is conservative since the accumulated 272 geometric imperfection calculated by 1/500 times building height is greater than the maximum permitted 273 erection tolerance. modeling the out-of-plumbness for erection tol- CT 263 erances is used here without the out-of-straightness for the column. The analysis should be .6. 1994) set the limit of erection out-of-plumbness Lc =500. Model to account for lateral torsional buckling 279 When a member is bent about its major axis. 276 1995) and a constant imperfection has the benefit of simplicity in practical design. 283 assuming the lateral torsional motion to be prevented by adequate lateral bracing. 261 Since proposed analysis implicitly accounts for both residual stresses and the spread of yielding..

a rigorous model using volume elements to account for lateral 293 torsional effect is not applicable to this analysis. Since the 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analysis uses 292 only a line model to represent an element. and the material property are the important factors CT 291 influencing the lateral torsional buckling strength. G. Fr . where FL is smaller 301 of (Fyf  Fr ) or Fyw . and AISC (1994) is used to determine the lateral torsional buckling E 295 strength. the practical LRFD equation among Rondal 294 and Maquoi (1979). the warping constant. 16. the cross-sectional shape. Chennai S. Iy . J . Fyf .-E. 10 ksi for rolled shape. since the real structures are not always provided with a 285 sufficient lateral support. the unbraced length of the member in 303 the out-of-plane bending. the yield stress of flange. 1974). 4. of Pages 20. the limiting unbraced length for full plastic bending capacity. Kim et al. the compressive residual 302 stress in flange.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. (1995). the FL Sx . SAS 2662 No. Explicit imperfection modeling of unbraced frame. DTD = 4. Mn is determined by: RR Mn ¼ Mp for Lb 6 Lp ð30aÞ   ðLb  Lp Þ Mn ¼ Cb Mp  ðMp  Mr Þ 6 Mp for Lp 6 Lb 6 Lr ð30bÞ ðLr  Lp Þ CO sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  2 ffi p pE Mn ¼ Cb EIy GJ þ Iy Cw 6 Mp for Lb > Lr ð30cÞ Lb Lb UN 300 where Mp is the plastic moment ¼ Fy Z. 290 The unbraced length.3. Lr . Lp . and Sawer (1961) among many others. The inelastic lateral torsional buckling of steel I-beams under 288 moment gradient was studied theoretically (Kitipornchai and Trahair. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 13 F OO PR Fig. In this study. 306 The limiting unbraced plastic and elastic lengths (Lp and Lr ) shall be determined respectively as follows: . the torsional constant. 1975). Cw . 296 For I-shaped members subjected to bending about the strong-axis.200 ksi). the 305 shear modulus of elasticity of steel (11. Fyw .5 ksi for welded shape. the moment of inertia about weak axis. Mr . the yield stress of web. A number of full-scale tests 289 on steel I-beams were made by Hechtman et al. 286 287 ED A theoretical model was developed for the inelastic lateral torsional buckling of beams under uniform moment (Kitipornchai and Trahair. 284 improved to consider lateral torsional buckling. the limiting 304 unbraced length of inelastic lateral torsional buckling. Lb . ECCS (1991). White (1960). where Z is plastic section modulus.

316 Cb is a modification for non-uniform moment diagrams. sum of moments in sway and non-sway cases. (30a)– 328 (30c).-E. DTD = 4. MC . Kim et al. When Lp < Lb 6 Lr . Eqs. Mr . elastic lateral buckling may occur. 1993) 12:5Mmax ED Cb ¼ ð33Þ 2:5Mmax þ 3MA þ 4MB þ 3MC CT 320 where Mmax is the absolute value of maximum moment in the unbraced segment. the full plastic moment will be developed in the section. The term Mp . Chennai 14 S. The proposed analysis allows the inelastic moment redistribution in 333 the structural system. inelastic 326 lateral buckling may occur. Thus. (4a) and (4b) is replaced with the lateral torsional buckling strength Mn determined by Eqs. SAS 2662 No. the absolute value of moment at quarter point of the unbraced segment. (34a) and (34b) in the 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analysis program. sum of 322 moments in sway and non-sway cases. since the proposed 338 analysis aims to determine only the ultimate strength of the whole structural system rather than to examine 339 the lateral torsional buckling behavior of a component member. the absolute value of moment at centerline of the unbraced 323 segment. square or circular shapes. . MA . An 318 empirical formula for Cb is expressed as (AISC. MB .1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 300ry Lp ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð31Þ Fyf rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r y X1 Lr ¼ 1þ 1 þ X2 FL2 ð32Þ FL F 309 where rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p EGJA OO X1 ¼ Sx 2  2 Cw Sx X2 ¼ 4 Iy GJ PR 312 Sx is the section modulus about major axis. the effect of lateral UN 332 torsional buckling can be considered. sum of moments in sway and non-sway cases. E 325 When Lb 6 Lp . of Pages 20. the absolute value of moment at three quarter 324 point of the unbraced segment. When Lb > Lr . and Lr may be found with 315 the aid of beam design table in the AISC-LRFD specification without using Eqs.3. (4a) and (4b) are revised as        P  8  My  8  Mz  P  þ  þ    P  9  M  9  M  ¼ 1:0 for P P 0:2 ð34aÞ p yp n p CO        P   My   Mz  P  þ þ   2P  M   M  ¼ 1:0 for Pp 6 0:2 ð34bÞ p yp n 331 Using Eqs. 313 It is noted that the lateral torsional buckling limit state is applicable to members subject to strong-axis 314 bending not weak-axis bending. This is achieved when members are 334 adequately braced and their cross-sections are compact. The physical meaning of Cb is that it represents the 317 amount of an increase in load-carrying capacity when compared with the critical uniform loading case. adequate rotational capacity is required. This approximation is deemed appropriate for 337 tracing the nonlinear behavior of the frame including lateral torsional buckling effect. the moment of inertia of the member is assumed to be zero so that the inelastic 336 moment redistribution is not allowed for the member. (9a)–(11) described above. Lp . The plastic moment Mp of RR 327 Eqs. sum of moments in sway 321 and non-sway cases. When a member without adequate braces fails by 335 lateral torsional buckling.

-E. DTD = 4. 5 shows Orbison’s six-story space frame (Orbison. The yield strength of all members is 250 358 MPa (36 ksi) and Young’s modulus is 206. of Pages 20. Six-story space frame. Verification study 352 Verifications are performed for the following two cases: (1) Orbison’s six-story frame ignoring lateral 353 torsional buckling.3. Uniform floor pressure of 4. Then. the applied load increment is automatically reduced to minimize the error when 343 the change in the element stiffness parameter (Dg) exceeds a defined tolerance. . equilibrium may be violated and the external force may not always balance the 346 internal force. Kim et al. 356 5. Orbison’s six-story space frame ignoring lateral torsional buckling CT 357 Fig. SAS 2662 No. Wind loads are simulated by 360 point loads of 26. the determinant of stiffness matrix becomes to either 350 zero or negative value and the program writes ‘‘structure unstable’’. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 15 340 4.8 kN/m2 (100 359 psf) is converted into equivalent concentrated loads on the top of the columns. Because of F 345 the linearization process.7 kN (6 kips) in the Y -direction at every beam-column joints. The first is to verify how 354 the proposed analysis predicts well geometric and material nonlinear behavior of frames. This unbalance force must be reapplied to the structure. E RR CO UN Fig. the structure is assumed to behavior linearly at a particular cycle of calculation. the applied load increment is auto- 349 matically reduced.000 ksi). 348 convergence of the solution may be slow. Chennai S. The second is to 355 ED show how the proposed analysis captures lateral torsional buckling strength accurately. As the stability limit point is approached in the analysis. If the structure system is unstable. 5. 1982).1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. Numerical implementation 341 Both the simple incremental and the incremental–iteration method are available in the analysis. PR 351 5. To facilitate convergence. In the 342 simple incremental method. (2) a single-story frame comprising lateral torsional buckling. the solution is obtained by OO 347 iteration process until equilibrium is satisfied.850 MPa (30. In the incremental–iteration 344 load approach.1.

062 and 2. Chennai 16 S.059 calculated by Liew 365 and Tang and Orbison. 7 shows a single-bay single-story space frame.000 MPa (29.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. .062 Displacement at A in Y -direction 208 mm 219 mm 250 mm F Table 2 OO Result of analysis ignoring shear deformation Method Proposed Orbison’s Plastic strength surface LRFD Orbison Orbison Ultimate load factor 1.997 2. These values are nearly equivalent to 2. The ratios of load carrying capacities (calculated from the proposed analysis) over the 364 applied loads are 2. 369 W21 44 section is used. of Pages 20. Comparison of load–displacement of six-story space frame.057 2. ED 366 5. respectively. 6).066 2.000 ksi) elastic modulus. The stress–strain relationship is assumed to be elastic– 368 perfectly plastic with 250 MPa (36 ksi) yield stress and a 200.057 and 2. 6. DTD = 4. Kim et al. The vertical and horizontal loads are applied simultaneously. Single-story frame comprising lateral torsional buckling CT 367 Fig.2. E RR CO UN Fig.059 Displacement at A in Y -direction 199 mm 208 mm 247 mm PR 361 The load–displacement results calculated by the proposed analysis compare well with those of Liew and 362 Tang’s (considering shear deformations) and Orbison’s (ignoring shear deformations) results (Tables 1 and 363 2. SAS 2662 No.066.3.-E.990 2. and Fig. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx Table 1 Result of analysis considering shear deformation Method Proposed Liew’s Plastic strength surface LRFD Orbison Orbison Ultimate load factor 1.

8 shows a sidesway 381 uninhibited frame subjected to combined lateral and vertical loads. 370 The proposed analysis is carried out. single-bay. k). of Pages 20.70 377 kips) are carried by the structural system after lateral torsional buckling occurs at element (1). and Mz ¼ 94:82 KN m (839. one-bay. single-story frame.00048. 3-D. Additional loads of 16. k). It is the CT 378 benefit of the proposed second-order plastic-hinge analysis allowing inelastic force redistribution. 375 The additional loads can be sustained until the whole structural system encounters a limit state.21 KN (9. 8. At that moment. The unit value calculated by 373 374 ED using Eqs. When the applied load reaches 36.88 KN (8. DTD = 4. two-story frame was selected for the case study. two-story frame. 7. Thus.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. The stress–strain relationship was as- RR CO UN Fig. the member forces of element (1) are P ¼ 23:77 KN 372 (5.34 kips). (13a) and (13b) is 1. Kim et al. one-bay.7 in. Chennai S. it is verified the proposed analysis can capture lateral torsional buckling strength accurately. element (1) 371 fails by lateral torsional buckling. .-E. 379 6.04 kips). The 376 frame collapses when the applied load P get to 40. SAS 2662 No. 3-D.29 kips). My ¼ 12:17 KN m (107. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 17 F OO PR Fig.3.2 in. Case study E 380 A three-dimensional. Fig.44 KN (3.

3. As a result. As a result. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx F OO PR Fig. Chennai 18 S. 382 383 ED sumed to be elastic–perfectly plastic with a 250 Mpa (36 ksi) yield stress and a 200. W21 44 was used for all the members.18 kips). SAS 2662 No. The proposed method appropriately traces the inelastic nonlinear behavior including lateral torsional 404 buckling effect. . while the current LRFD and ASD method evaluate the strength of the individual 399 member only. the 390 conventional analysis overpredict the load-carrying capacity of the frame by 1. 400 7.57 KN (15. The 389 load-carrying capacity Pu of the structural system was calculated to be 83. RR 393 The proposed analysis predicts reasonably well the degradation of flexural strength caused by lateral 394 torsional buckling.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. Out-of-plumbness of H/500 was explicitly 384 modeled.000 ksi) elastic modulus. The 397 proposed analysis captures the limit state strength and stability of the structural system including its in- CO 398 dividual members.7 kips).000 Mpa (29. 9. the frame failed by flexural buckling. 392 9. If lateral torsional buckling was ignored. The vertical load– E 391 displacements of the proposed and conventional analysis regarding at nodal point A are compared in Fig.2 times. Two analyses are compared in this case study: the proposed and the conventional 3-D second- 385 order plastic-hinge analysis.36 KN (18. The load-carrying capacity determined by the proposed in the case study is directly 395 evaluated through the analysis. two-story frame. the structure collapsed by the lateral torsional buckling of elements (1)–(4b) in CT 387 sequence.-E. of Pages 20. 386 In the proposed analysis. The load-carrying capacity Pu in term of applied load of the structural system was evaluated to be 388 67. Load–displacements of 3-D one-bay. Conclusions UN 401 Second-order plastic-hinge analysis accounting for the effect of lateral torsional buckling has been de- 402 veloped. Kim et al. DTD = 4. so separated member capacity checks encompassed by the specification 396 equations are not required. the proposed method can capture factor of safety for the whole structure system. the proposed method is time effective in design process. As a result. The conclusions of this study are as follows: 403 1.

ASCE 113. 60.. Eyrolles.F. J. S. Chen. Lehigh University. 1975. Technical Committee 8. 1993. Engineering structure 8.F. UN 441 Kitipornchai. In: White. 33.J. University of Sydney. ASCE. 1995. Chen.H. Australia. White. Lateral buckling of rolled steel I-beams. 412 5. 430 ECCS.. W.J. Practical advanced analysis for braced steel frame design. Hancock. the proposed method provides more information on structural behavior F 411 through a direct second-order plastic-hinge analysis of the entire system.-E. 1994. PA. Boca Raton.. N. J. CRC Press. 437 Kim. 425 Clarke. vol.F. Chicago. Second-order refined plastic hinge analysis of frame design: Part I and II. 1259–1265. American Institute of Steel Construction. Journal of 446 Structural Engineering. When lateral torsional buckling effect is ignored for the case study.. American Institute of Steel Construction. 1266–1274. 433 Hechtman. Choi. 2000-N-NL-01-C-162) from Ministry of Science and Technology in Korea.. 1993. CAN/CAS-S16. N. L.. Direct design of three-dimensional frames using practical advanced analysis. S. D. The error of the proposed analysis are less than 1% when compared with the other analyses and LRFD 406 results. Trahair.. 65. Paris. S. Park. Journal of Structural Engineering 438 122 (11).. Author wishes to 419 appreciate the financial support.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. 428 CSA. 432 ECCS. Tang. Research Report No.M. National University of Singapore. Journal of Structural Engineering 444 101 (ST5). 721–739. Paper11295..E.. Chicago. The proposed analysis can capture factor of safety for the structural system. Thus. lateral torsional buckling is a very crucial element to be consid- 409 ered in 3-D second-order plastic-hinge analysis.. Department of 442 Civil Engineering.F.. W. FL. S. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Steel Buildings. and it can be a powerful tool for 415 use in daily design. 410 4. 423 Chen. (Eds.W. 445 Liew. R. 1984. Limit States Design of Steel Structures. S. 1989. LRFD Steel Design Using Advanced Analysis. ASCE. 1956.A.3. Buckling of inelastic I-beams under moment gradient. SSRC.. 1998. Plasticit_e-Deformations Elasto-Plastiques.A. 448 Department of Civil Engineering. CRC Press. p. CE027/98.. 1994. S. PR 416 Acknowledgements 417 This work presented in this paper was supported by funds of National Research Laboratory Program 418 (grant no.. Kim. Analysis and behavior of flexibly jointed frames. E. W. The proposed analysis can be used in lieu of costly plastic-zone analysis. Chen. W. A.. Chen. Bridge.. N.Y. FL. 449 Lui. 434 Ilyushin. 20.Q. Structural Stability Technical 431 Working Group 8.. of Pages 20.S.1-M89. second ed. Bethlehem.S. Kim et al. 2001. Compared to LRFD and ASD.E. 1992.... 1986. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification. 439 Kim.2 times. 991–1004. Proc. Lui. et al.E. Proceedings ASCE 81 (797). 1992. Trahair.F.E. Stability Design of Steel Frames. G. 424 Chen.K. 1997.. Engineering 440 Structures 23 (11).). W. M. Sydney. ASCE. M. Research Report R239.W.. 414 6. 407 3. W. Essentials of Eurocode 3 Design Manual for Steel Structures in Buildings. Chennai S. 1974. Elastic behavior of tapered monosymmetric I-beams. 107–118. Trahair.F.Y. 1996b. p.M. W. Ultimate limit state calculation of sway frames with rigid joints. ED 420 References CT 421 AISC. R. Boca Raton. It is more advanced than the OO 413 current LRFD and ASD evaluating the strength of the individual members only.. CAN/CAS-S16.F. . RR 429 CSA.2. 1991. Chen. 422 AISC. Canadian Standards Association. DTD = 4.S. 797-1–797-33. Canadian Standards Association.. 1491–1501.. CO 435 Kim. 443 Kitipornchai. System publication No. Singapore. E. Journal of Structural Engineering 122 436 (11). ECCS-Advisory Committee 5. Benchmarking and verification of second-order elastic and inelastic 426 E frame analysis programs in SSRC TG 29 workshop and monograph on plastic hinge based methods for advanced analysis and 427 design of steel frames. Practical advanced analysis for unbraced steel frame design. 447 Liew.. S. Nonlinear refined plastic hinge analysis of space frame structures. Limit States Design of Steel Structures. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 19 405 2.. the analysis overestimates the 408 strength by more than 1. D.1-M94.H.. 1996a. SAS 2662 No.

pp. 2550–2568. 1961.. Thesis.F.. Nonlinear static analysis of three-dimensional steel frames. 119–126. A computer program distributed by NISEE/ 455 computer applications. D. R. Department of Civil Engineering. DRAIN-3DX: Base program user guide. 281. Kim et al. Sydney. 465 Ziemian. University of California. G. Berkeley. J. Powell. Department of Structural 453 Engineering. F 457 247–250. Bethlehem. V. 1–7.. R. 1982.H. McGuire. Ithaca. Lehigh University. 1990. ASCE 105 (STI). Post-elastic behavior of wide flange steel beams. Journal of the structural Division. Ithaca.W.. 458 Sawer. Steel Structure. W.D. Proceedings ASCE 87 (ST8). Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behavior in steel frames using iterative computer 464 graphics. ED E CT RR CO UN . A. D. G.A. Inelastic limit states design. OO 460 Vogel. Proceeding the 4th Pacific 451 Structural Steel Conference... 452 Orbison. 454 Prakash. 1960. 1995. NY. SAS 2662 No. M. 456 Rondal.S.. Steel Structures.. D. Maquoi. Chennai 20 S. 43–71. 1985. Thesis. 1992... Chen. Cornell University. 463 White.E. vol. Part II: three-dimensional frame study. AS4100-1990.G. Single equation for SSRS column strength curves. J.-E. / International Journal of Solids and Structures xxx (2002) xxx–xxx 450 Maleck. Practical application of advanced analysis in steel design. version 1. Australia. New York..10. Ph. 82-6. Dierlein.1 18 February 2002 Disk used ARTICLE IN PRESS SPS. DTD = 4. Inelastic lateral instability of beams and their bracing requirements. 461 White. of Pages 20. Stahlbau 10. ASCE PR 466 Structure Engineering 118 (9).. 1. Calibrating frames..W. 1979. U. Report No. 462 PA..G. W. Cornell University. 459 Standards Australia.. 1993. H.W.D. 1985. White. p.3.

þ .